A Strategic Chess Opening Repertoire for White
Author: John L. Watson
Date: 2012-05-22 05:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Games & Activities; General; Chess
Description: Such has been the acclaim for John Watson's ground-breaking works on modern chess strategy and his insightful opening books, that it is only natural that he now presents a strategic opening repertoire. It is the chess-player's holy grail: a flexible repertoire that gives opponents real problems but doesn't require masses of memorization or continual study of ever-changing grandmaster theory. While this book can't quite promise all of that, Watson offers an intriguing selection of lines that give vast scope for over-the-board creativity and should never lead to a dull draw. The repertoire is ba
Publisher: Gambit Publications

A Strategic Chess

Opening Repertoire

for White

John Watson

First published in the UK by Gambit Publications Ltd 201 2

Copyright© John Watson 20 1 2

The right of John Watson to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted i n accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1 988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photo copying, recording or otherwise), without prior permission of the publisher. In particular, no part of this publication may be scanned, transmitted via the Internet or uploaded to a website without the publisher's permission. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publica tion may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damage.

ISBN- 1 3: 978-1 -906454-30-2

ISBN- 1 0: 1 -906454-30-2

DISTRIBUTION:

Worldwide (except USA): Central Books Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 5LN, England. Tel +44 (0)20 8986 4854 Fax +44 (0)20 8533 582 1 . E-mail: orders@Centralbooks.com

Gambit Publications Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 5LN, England. E-mail: info@gambitbooks.com

Website (regularly updated): www.gambitbooks.com

Edited by Graham Burgess

Typeset by Petra Nunn

Cover image by Wolff Morrow

Printed in Great Britain by the MPG Books Group, Bodmin and King's Lynn

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I

Gambit Publications Ltd

Managing Director: Murray Chandler GM Chess Director: Dr John Nunn GM

Editorial Director: Graham Burgess FM

German Editor: Petra Nunn WFM

Webmaster: Dr Helen Milligan WFM

Contents

Symbols 4

Dedication 4

Introduction 5

1 Queen's Gambit Declined 7

2 Tarrasch Defence 28

3 Unorthodox Queen's Gambit 42

4 Queen's Gambit Accepted 68

5 86 Slav Defence

6 Semi-Slav Defence 100

7 115 Nimzo-Indian Defence

8 148 King's Indian Defence

9 178 Grtinfeld Defence

10 195 Benoni Systems and Benko Gambit

11 224 Dutch Defence

12 235 Assorted Defences

Index of Variations 268

Symbols

X capture

+ check

++ double check

# checkmate

!! brilliant move
good move

! ? interesting move

?! dubious move

? bad move

?? blunder

+- White is winning

± White is much better
t White is slightly better

= the game is equal

Black is slightly better

+ Black is much better

-+ Black is winning
corr. correspondence game

Ch championship
l -0 the game ends in a win for White 1h-1h the game ends in draw

0- 1 the game ends in a win for Black (n) nth match game

(D) see next diagram

Dedication

To my sisters Sarah, Barbara and Anne

And in memory of my mother (who once called me a 'chess bum' in the newspaper)

Introduction

The book before you presents a set of opening systems beginning with the move 1 d4 and, in almost every case, 2 c4. I call it a 'strategic' opening repertoire to indicate that the proposed variations re quire an understanding of the overall contours of the positions that arise, as well as the significance of structural transformations and characteristic manoeuvres, to a greater extent than variations which require more tactical and computational skill. Which is not to say that we'll ignore charac teristic tactics and local skirmishing, which are simply part of chess; merely that the lines under consideration, unlike many of the better-known modern openings, are less demanding in terms of forcing play and immediate crises. They are also more forgiving of errors, which in this case tend to do no more than modestly change a position's assessment, and less rewarding of one-move inspira tions cooked up by either you or your opponent.

Standing back for a moment, let's consider some typical forms that an opening repertoire for White usually takes. First, there is the 'system' repertoire, in which White plays a similar set-up versus as many defensive set-ups as possible. The King's Indian Attack would be an example or, using 1 d4, the Colle or London systems. These don't claim much space, and can be characterized as safe but unambitious. Their primary drawback has less to do with their intrinsic worth than with their narrowness; playing the same moves every game teaches you less about chess as a whole, and often results in dull and uncreative play. In stark contrast, we have the 'Play and Win' attacking rep ertoires, in which you throw everything at the opponent, offering pawns and pieces, hoping to win games based upon your superior knowledge of tactics, tricks and attacking motifs. The difficulty is that these lines are usually too easy to neutralize, risk leaving White with disadvantages, and can easily become boring.

A handful of other books want you to play offbeat or irregular moves, say, 1 f4, 1 b3 or l lDc3 (or, appallingly, 1 g4). These combine a wish to get off the beaten track and the hope for surprise value. Sadly, you eventually discover why such moves don't attract a grandmaster following, although they may be of use as a secondary weapon. Finally, with the very opposite philosophy, some reper toire books instruct their readers to play 'main lines' because, after all, they consist of the 'best' moves. There are several problems with this, the most obvious being that, as any observer of mod ern chess knows, what is 'best' changes constantly, as openings and especially particular variations come in and out of fashion (and it is fashion, isn't it?) as rapidly as you can set the pieces up. More importantly, these main lines tend to be dynamic and tactically-dependent, which requires a lot of memorization and then diligent monitoring of the latest developments, only to arrive at equality anyway. The necessity for this effort especially applies to the more enduring main lines; e.g., the Mar del Plata main line of the King's Indian Defence; the Grtinfeld Exchange Variation with 7 l2Jf3 and 8 .l:tbl or 7 .ic4 and 8 l2Je2; the 4 'i¥c2 Nimzo-Indian Defence, and the 5 .ig5 or Meran Semi Slav. Even the professional probably won't want to carry too many of these systems around as White, and certainly the average player won't.

The repertoire variations I'm proposing are not tactically critical, and are designed to be rela tively safe, but they are also not simple or unchallenging. With the use of2 c4, often followed by e4, they all take a good chunk of central space and in doing so, expose White to counterplay. As a teacher, I feel that learning how to play 1 d4 and 2 c4 is of revolutionary importance for someone
seeking to understand and play chess, just as for a student starting out, 1 e4 e5 is an essential source of knowledge and a way to get a feel for the game. You will notice that in Chapters 1 and 2 on the Queen's Gambit Declined I recommend traditional systems. They expose White to little risk and are ideal for the strategic player. Against most other defences, I have avoided main lines and chosen 6 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

safer but at the same time distinctly unbalanced variations. From the standpoint of the amateur player, many will seem unconventional, but all are well-known to masters and reasonably well established. Most importantly, they are sound. I generally try to avoid high theory (not always pos sible), but you can still study most ofthese systems at as dense a theoretical level as you want to. To that end, I've often gone into considerable technical detail. But even if you've only mastered the basic ideas of a system and learned a few essential variations (which requires some memorization, to be sure), you should be able to handle the resulting positions without getting into too much trou ble, i.e., a surprise move probably won't throw you off balance.

The repertoire as a whole is a self-contained system. By featuring 3 tt::lc3 in the Queen's Gambit, Slav and Nimzo-Indian, it became easier to incorporate ambitious approaches into the rest of the repertoire. However, I don't view this primarily as a set of openings that you will adopt in its en tirety. Rather, most readers will want to pick and choose lines to mix with other systems that they may already play or like. In fact, you may well want to play a few variations that are less complex than these, or even one or two fashionable main lines with massive theory attached to them. In any case, I think that you'll find it easier to fill in the cracks with some of my suggestions.

I've decided not to include a Bibliography because there would simply be a ridiculous number of titles. However, I've always credited analysis and suggestions in the text. If I had to pick out just a few of the many fine authors whose ideas have contributed significantly, they would in clude Richard Palliser, Boris Avrukh, Valeri Bronznik, Viacheslav Eingom, David Vigorito and Viktor Moskalenko, with gratitude to the entire community of writers and theoreticians. I should also cite Stefan Bucker's Kaissiber magazine and Jeroen Bosch's Secrets of Opening Surprises, underappreciated gems in the world of chess theory.

Special thanks to John Hartmann for his assistance with the manuscript. And to Graham Bur gess, who has done his usual yeoman's job of editing, and has improved the book at every stage with his advice.

John Watson

Lincoln, Nebraska

1 Queen's Gambit Declined

The Queen's Gambit Declined is one of the great since we are playing ll:lf3 later anyway, that' s
classical openings that graced the early days of not important. However, after 3 ll:lf3 d5, White
modem chess and still thrives today. Almost ev has to deal with learning many perfectly legiti
ery World Champion has played the Queen's mate sidelines. For example, after 3 ll:lf3 d5 4

Gambit Declined ( 'QGD') extensively, usually ll:lc3, Black can play 4 ... dxc4, when 5 e4 �b4
with both colours, and it is considered essential is the sharp Vienna Variation, while 4 ... �b4
to a serious chess education. This chapter deals can go in unique directions such as 5 cxd5 exd5
with the main lines of the Queen's Gambit De 6 �g5ll:lbd7 7 e3 0-0 8 �d3 c5. 3ll:lc3 saves clined. In a book for the strategic player, the au us this trouble. Furthermore, even the normal
thor has no great problems choosing variations looking sequence 3ll:lf3 d5 4ll:lc3 �e7 doesn't
of the Queen's Gambit Declined because it is ensure that we get to the positions we want to
an essentially strategic opening. play. The gist of what I'm saying is that an
early ll:lf3 isn't desirable. See also the note to

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 (D) White's fourth move.

Unorthodox Queen's Gambit variations such Since we are headed towards an Exchange
as 2 ... �f5 (Baltic), 2 ... e5 (Albin) and 2 ... ll:lc6 Variation, that is, 3 ll:lc3 ll:lf6 4 cxd5 exd5, it's

(Chigorin) are analysed in Chapter 3. worth pointing out that the immediate 3 cxd5
exd5 fails to transpose because, for example,

Black can play 4ll:lc3 c6 5 ll:lf3 (5 �f4 �d6!)

5 ... ll:lf6 (5 ... �f5) 6 �g5 i..d6 (or 6 ... �e7 7 e3
w �f5), neither allowing White what he wants to
do in this system. So you need to play 3 ll:lc3
first. It may not be until you get further into this

chapter that these distinctions make sense, and
they aren't very important until you understand
the opening as a whole.

B

3ll:lc3 (D)

This natural move has more implications than
might at first be evident. By beginning with 3
ll:lc3, our repertoire will be consistent with 1 d4
ll:lf6 2 c4 e6 3ll:lc3 (allowing the Nimzo-lndian
move 3 ... �b4). While many players prefer to
play 3 ll:lf3 at that point, to avoid the Nimzo
lndian, they may then have to play against 3 ... d5 and be stuck with a Queen's Gambit Declined
in which they are committed to an early ll:lf3. Black now chooses between: This has the drawback that White can't play 1.1: 3 ... ll:lf6 8
systems with ll:lge2 should he prefer to. For us, 1.2: 3 ... .te7 22

8 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

3 ... c6 is a form of the Semi-Slav, dealt with of energy, but requires assimilating loads of
in Chapter 5. The Tarrasch Defence, 3 ... c5, is concrete theory. To make life easier, White can
examined in Chapter 2. For 3 ... ..ib4 and other instead play the preventative move 7 nb1 !?

third moves apart from 3 ... lt:lf6 and 3 ... ..ie7, see (D). Chapter 3.

1 . 1 }

B

3 ... lt:lf6 4 cxd5 (D)

With 4 cxd5, we are playing the true Ex
change Variation. 4lt:lf3 (which is the same as 3
lt:lf3 lLlf6 4 lLlc3) can take us away from our in
tended path after 4 ... dxc4 or 4 ... i.b4, as de
scribed in the note to 3 lLlc3. But Black can
also deviate by 4 ... c5 (a standard Semi-Tarrasch
where we can't use the idea offered in the next
note) or 4 ... i.e7 5 cxd5 exd5 6 i.g5 c6, to meet 7
e3 with 7 ... i.f5 (when 8 'ii'b3 'ii'b6 is satisfac-
tory), or 7 'ii'c2 g6 (intending ... ..if5), although
in that case 8 e3 .i.f5 9 'ii'd2 is still worth playing This has the idea of winning the b-file and
for White; see Section 1.2 (3 ... ..ie7). preventing ... i.b4+ after the exchange of pawns
on d4. Here are Black's main options:

a) 7 ... 'ii'a5? ! 8 ..id2 ! 'ii'xa2 9 lLlf3 leaves

Black way behind in development and in cen

B tral influence . ..id3, 0-0, 'ilVe2 and d5 or e5 can
follow. White has more than enough for a
pawn.

b) 7 ... lLlc6?! encourages the advance 8 d5;
e.g., 8 ... exd5 9 exd5 'ilVe7+ I 0 ..ie3 lLle5 I I .i.b5+! .i.d7 1 2 'ii'e2 threatening ..ixc5.

c) 7 ... ..ie7 8 lLlf3 0-0 9 ..ic4 lLlc6 10 0-0 'ilVc7

(D) is a normal-looking set-up. Then White has:

w

4 ... exd5

An important alternative at this point is

4 ... lLlxd5 5 e4 (or 5 tLlf3 c5 6 e4) 5 ... lLlxc3 6
bxc3 c5. Now 7 lLlf3 reaches a main line of a
classic variation called the Semi-Tarrasch. With
this sequence, 5 tLlf3 c5 6 e3 is another Semi

Tarrasch line which is arguably easier for Black
to play against than 5 e4. I mention this because
if you don't like what follows with e4, you can
always play more conservatively with e3 and
still get a highly interesting game, generally
with the battle revolving around the isolated c 1 ) 1 1 'ii'e2 b6 1 2 nd I ! lLla5 1 3 ..id3 (or 1 3 queen's pawn (IQP) structure. At any rate, the i.b5 a6 1 4 i.d3 ..ib7 1 5 d5 c4 1 6 ..ic2 exd5 1 7
main line after 7 lLlf3 is 7 ... cxd4 8 cxd4 ..ib4+ 9 exd5 :fe8 1 8 ..ie3 b5 1 9 a4 ;!;) 1 3 ... ..ib7 1 4 d5 !

..id2 ..ixd2+ I 0 �xd2 0-0; this is certainly full c4 ( l 4 .. . exd5? 1 5 exd5 ..ixd5 1 6 ..ixh7+ 'it>xh7

QUEEN'S GAMBIT DECLINED 9

1 7 .l:txdS with a strong attack) I S �c2 eS ! 1 6 �d3 cxd4 1 0 cxd4ltJc6 I I �b2 'if aS+ 1 2 �fl !

i.e3 (or 1 6 ltJd2 �a6 1 7 ltJfl ltJb 7 1 8 ltJe3) .l:td8 1 3 h4 with an attack. That gives you an

1 6 ... �c8 17 h3 ( 1 7 �a4! .l:td8 1 8 ltJd2 ;!;) other option to look into if you need one. 1 7 ... .l:td8 (Polugaevsky-Petrosian, USSR Ch 5 .tg5 (D) playoff (3), Moscow 1 970) and here White can S �f4 is not a mistake, but Black can equal
activate his worst piece by 1 8 .ta4; for exam ize straightaway by S ... �d6; compare the move
ple, 1 8 ... �d7 1 9 �xd7 ltxd7 20 ltJd2 .l:tad8 2 1 �f4 in positions occurring later in this chapter.

�g4 with more space and the better game.

c2) I I dS ! (D) is the thematic advance, with

the object of tearing open lines for the attack:

B

B

The position after S �gS is the starting point
of the main line of the Queen's Gambit Ex
change Variation. The paradox of this opening
l l ...exdS ( l l ....l:td8 1 2 �e2 exdS 1 3 �xdS ;!;; is that White voluntarily frees Black's problem

I I ...ltJa5 1 2 �d3 c4 1 3 �c2 :d8 l 4ltJd4! exdS bishop on c8. As it turns out, the problem of

I S exdS .l:txdS 1 6 �f3 ±) 1 2 exdS !? (or 1 2 getting that bishop into play becomes one of the
i..xdS ;!;) l 2 ... ltJeS ( l 2 ... .l:td8 1 3 'ifc2 ltJaS 1 4 most important features of the position. White

�d3 .l:txdS I S �xh7+ �h8 1 6 �e4 .l:.d8 1 7 will essentially try to deny it the best squares by
ltJgS ! �xgS 1 8 �xgS f6 1 9 �h4 ±) 1 3 ltJxeS covering fS with a bishop and/or queen, and

'ifxeS 1 4 l:tei ! 'ifxc3 I S �d3 'iff6 1 6 �b2 'ifd6 making sure that there are drawbacks to ... �g4.

1 7 �eS 'ifd8 1 8 d6 �f6 19 'ii'c2 �xeS 20 l:txeS Why go to so much trouble? For one thing, as
g6 2 1 'ifxcS with good prospects. long as White keeps the tension (by avoiding
d) 7 ... cxd4 8 cxd4 ltJc6 9 �bS (or 9 liJf3 exchanging on dS), Black will be able to play

�b4+ 10 �d2) 9 ... a6 (9 ... �d7 10 ltJf3 �b4+ the central counter ... cS in some positions with

I I �d2 �xd2+ 1 2 'ifxd2 0-0 1 3 0-0 l:.c8, good effect. After the exchange on dS, Black's l.Sokolov-Miles, Amsterdam 1 988, and now ... cS can often be answered by dxcS, giving him

White had 14 dS ! exdS IS exdS ltJaS 16 �d3 !) an isolated pawn which happens to be weaker

I 0 �xc6+ bxc6 I I ltJf3 with a nice positional than in many other opening variations. In addi
advantage. In l.Sokolov-J.Costa, San Bernar tion, by playing 4 cxdS, White opens the c-file;
dino 1 988, there followed l l ...cS 1 2 0-0 cxd4 he hopes that it will be more valuable to him

1 3 �b2!? ( l 3ltJeS ! ;!;) 1 3 ... �e7 14ltJxd4 .id7 than the e-file is to Black, in part because it will

IS 'if g4! .tf6 1 6 .l:tfd I 'ifc7 1 7 �a3 ;!;; still be easier to break down Black's queenside po
better was the tactical shot 17 liJfS ! exfS 1 8 sition (usually held up by a pawn on c6) than it
exfS, threatening 'ii'e4+. will be for Black to break down White's sup

Interestingly, although I've played 7 .l:tbl and porting pawn at e3. There are other consider
believe in it, I notice that Lars Schandorff rec ations, of course, but these might be ones to
ommends 7 a3, with the same point of prevent keep in mind as the chapter proceeds. Now I'm
ing ... �b4+, and makes a good case for it, going to split the material into two parts, in or
based upon the sequence 7 ... �e7 8 ltJf3 0-0 9 der to cover some very distinct systems. As you 10 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

can imagine, some of these lines can arise by a and Black lasted only a handful of moves more
number of move-orders. in Barbero-Gerber, Swiss Team Ch 1 995).

1.11: 5 .•. i..e7 10

1.12: 5 .•. c6 1 8

Other moves: w
a) 5 ... lLlbd7 will usually transpose into one
of the main lines; e.g., 6 e3 (don't fall for one
of the best-known traps in chess: 6 lLlxd5??

lLlxd5 ! 7 i..xd8 i..b4+ 8 �d2 'it'xd8 and Black
wins) 6 ... c6 7 i..d3 and now 7 ... i..e7 8 �c2 0-0

9 lLlf3 is Section 1 . 1 1 . Instead, 7 ... �a5 resem
bles the Cambridge Springs, a variation in
which White's knight is committed to f3. But
here after 7 ... �a5, White has the handy move

8 lLle2, neutralizing Black's main point in the

Cambridge Springs, which is to attack c3 by

... lLle4 and force concessions. After 8 lLle2, I'll now give two moves, one direct and the

White can build up smoothly with 0-0, f3 and other a bit messy: e4. c3 1 ) 7 i..xf6 'ii'xf6 8 'ii'b3 'ii'd6 9 a3 i..xc3+
b) One well-known repertoire book suggests 10 'ii'xc3 0-0 1 1 i..d3 i..g4 (Keene-Inkiov, Eu
the idea 5 ... i..f5?!, to get to the position after ropean Team Ch, Skara 1 980) and one way to

5 ... c6 6 e3 i..f5 7 �f3 i..g6 8 i..xf6 �xf6 (Sec retain a positional edge is 1 2 l:tc 1 c6 1 3 h3 i..e6
tion 1 . 1 2) without allowing 6 �c2 (stopping and then 1 4 lLle2 followed by 0-0 and a minor

... i..f5). However, the author doesn't look at the ity attack (b4-b5); the more assertive 14 f4!? is
direct 6 i..xf6!. Then 6 ... gxf6 is a very poor ver also promising after 14 ... l:te8 1 5 lLlf3 f6 1 6 0-0
sion of a doubled-pawn line that we will ana lLld7 1 7 lLlh4, exploiting Black's kingside light
lyse in Section 1 . 1 2, all the more so since in one squares and preparing moves like l:tf3, i..g6
of those lines, White's queen goes to f3 to force and 'ii'd3. the doubled pawns and then back again to d 1 ! c32) 7 i..h4 g5 8 i..g3 lLle4 9 lLle2 is solid.

But 6 ... 'i!Vxf6 7 lLlxd5 costs Black material; White can play f3 and get his central majority

Black has the bishop-pair, but it hardly com moving. Therefore Black sometimes tries to
pensates for a whole pawn. force the pace with 9 ... h5, leading to 1 0 h4
c) 5 ... i..b4 is a playable move which tends lLlxg3 1 1 lLlxg3 gxh4 1 2 lLlxh5 'if g5 1 3 �a4+
to give White only a modest pull, but Black can lLlc6, Calvo-Ghitescu, Havana Olympiad 1 966;
be stuck with passive defence. Then: now 14 lLlf4! gives White a solid positional ad
c 1 ) 6 'i!i'c2 is actually a 4 'ii'c2 Nimzo-Indian vantage and pressure on d5; e.g., 1 4 ... i..d7 1 5 variation ! If you want to save effort and play for 'ii'b5 ! 0-0-0 1 6 lLlfxd5. a small advantage, meet 6 ... h6 with 7 i..xf6

'ii'xf6 8 a3 i..xc3+ 9 'ii'xc3 followed by e3 and 1 . 1 1) lLle2-g3 or ltJf3, as needed.

c2) Another possibility, 6 lLlf3, is a Ragozin 5 ••• i..e7 6 e3 (D) Defence, close enough to equal that I don't rec 6 .•• c6 ommend White go that direction. As you will see, this move is useful in most
c3) The most straightforward line is 6 e3 h6 lines and helps to prepare ... i..f5. The alterna

(D) (6 ... lLlbd7 7 i..d3 c5 8 lLle2 0-0 9 0-0 c4 1 0 tives are instructive: i..c2 i s considered better for White, and his re a) 6 ... i..f5?! 7 i..xf6 i..xf6 8 'ii'b3 ! costs
sults have been excellent with the simple plan Black a pawn. Hence the preparatory ... c6.

of f3 and e4; for example, I O ... �a5 1 1 f3 h6 1 2 b) 6 ... 0-0 7 i..d3 h6 (or 6 ... h6 7 i..h4 0-0) 8
i..h4 l:te8 1 3 �d2 b6 14 a3 i..f8? 1 5 e4 ± dxe4 i..h4 (8 i..f4 is a good retreat, as is usual in the

1 6 fxe4 i..b7 17 l:tf5 �a6 1 8 e5 lLlh7 1 9 l:tafl Exchange Variation; Black might try 8 ... c5 9

QUEEN'S GAMBIT DECLINED 11

You may want to look into all that, but we

don't really need it, since we can also play

8 calmly with 8 ltJf3 (instead of 8 'ii'c2), which
transposes to our main lines after 8 ... 0-0 9 'ii'c2, arid to some extent neutralizes 8 ... ltJh5; e.g., 9

!JJ..xe7 'ii'xe7 1 0 0-0 and there's no ... ltJf4.

What's more, 10 ... 0-0 can be met by 1 1 'ii'bl !

liJdf6 1 2 b4, with a ready-made minority at
tack, as in Kramnik-Timman, Belgrade 1 995.

At the same time, 8 ltJf3 allows 8 ... ltJe4! ?.

Then I like 9 ..i.f4!, but play almost always goes

9 �xe7 'ii'xe7, when 1 0 0-0 0-0 I I 'ii'c2 ltJdf6

12 :abl is one route, or White can try for the
immediate 10 'ii'c2 ltJdf6 1 1 ltJe5 0-0 1 2 0-0,
dxc5 ltJbd7 1 0 ltJf3 ltJxc5, but 1 1 0-0! ltJxd3 having in mind f3. White has a typical edge in

12 'ii'xd3 �e6 1 3 :fd l prevents Black's pieces such positions. from becoming active and should therefore fa 7 �d3 0-0 vour White, who can target the isolated pawn) a) 7 ... �g4!? (D) is an intriguing move, be

8 ... c5 9 dxc5 liJbd7 10 ltJge2! ? ltJxc5 1 1 ..i.c2 cause Black manages to get his light-squared

�e6 1 2 0-0 ltJce4 1 3 'ii'd3 .l:tc8 14 ..i.xf6 ltJxf6 bishop out, which is arguably the most impor

15 :fd I 'ii'b6 1 6 �b3 t Gulko-Lputian, Tash tant issue in the Queen's Gambit Declined.

kent 1 984.

c) 6 ... ltJbd7 7 �d3 c6 offers Black the idea

of meeting 8 'ii'c2 with 8 ... ltJh5 ! ? (D).

w

w

The idea is ... �h5-g6, to exchange White's
key light-squared bishop, and the only problem
is that Black's bishop is rather exposed to at

This is a unique defence by which Black tries tack. Here are two recommendations: to save a move by not castling. After 9 !JJ..xe7 a l ) 8 'ii'c2 and now: 'ii'xe7, 1 0 ltJf3 allows IO ... ltJf4, which is consid al l ) One author analyses 8 ... ltJbd7?!, but
ered awkward for White, although I should say neglects simply 9 h3, when 9 ... �h5? 1 0 f4! will
that 1 1 !iJ..fl 0-0 12 0-0-0 ltJe6 1 3 !iJ..d3 is a rather cost Black at least a pawn, and 9 ... �e6 10 ltJf3
more comfortable version of opposite-side cas is a good-looking version of our main h3 lines.

tling than White often gets, with little risk. Nev a l 2) 8 ... �h5 9 ltJge2 (I like having the
ertheless, 10 ltJge2 is normal, and boatloads of knight on f3 by either 9 ltJf3 ! ? with the idea
theory follow IO ... g6 1 1 0-0-0 (or White can 9 ... �xf3?! 10 gxf3 h6 II !iJ..h4; or 9 h3 i..g6 I 0 play systems with 0-0, generally regarded as !iJ..xg6 hxg6 1 1 ltJf3, which is a bit more com
equal) l l ... ltJb6 and either h3 and g4 or ltJg3 fortable for White, who can tum his attention to
with 'it>b 1 follows. a queenside attack) 9 ... !iJ..g6 1 0 0-0 ltJbd7 1 1 f3 12 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

0-0 1 2 .i.xg6 hxg6 1 3 l:tad 1 l:te8 1 4 .i.h4ll:lb6 to expand in the centre with f3 and e4, either in

1 5 .i.f2 �d7 1 6 h3, 0stenstad-Mastrovasilis, conjunction with 0-0 or 0-0-0. Many great wins

Calvia Olympiad 2004; White is ready for cen have resulted from this strategy, but I'm recom
tral expansion, but in practice that' s double mending a classical approach with ll:lf3, which
edged. is equally interesting and less subject to tactical
a2) The other natural move is 8ll:lge2, asking issues and counterattack. Black what his bishop is doing out there on g4. 8 ••• lt:lbd7 The best line appears to be 8 ... .i.h5 (8 ... .i.xe2 9 This time 8 ... .i.g4 has a different flavour,
ll:lxe2!? gives White the bishop-pair and the in since White can play 9 �3 �6 (9 ... .i.xf3 10
tention of playing ll:lg3; on 9 ... ll:le4, 10 .i.f4!? gxf3 with 0-0-0 and a kingside attack to follow)

1'i'a5+ 1 1 lt>fl 0-0 1 2 f3 ll:ld6 13 �f2 ;!; looks 10 �c2 .i.xf3 (White was threatening ..txh7+,
nice, having in mind an eventual central ad and neither 1 0 ... lt:lbd7 1 1 lt:le5 nor 1 0 ... h6 1 1
vance) 9 0-0 .i.g6 10 ll:lg3 0-0 1 1 ll:lf5 ;!;. .i.h4 :e8 12 lt:le5 is desirable for Black) l l
b) I should mention that 7 ... ll:lbd7 is some gxf3 lt:lbd7 1 2 l:tg1 �h8 1 3 0-0-0 and White
times played with the intention of 8 �c2 ll:lf8, can build up on the g-file with a strong attack,
and then ... ll:le6, ... g6 and ... ll:lg7, to exchange meeting ... g6 with f4-f5 if needed. The lesson
bishops with ... .i.f5 ! I think that White has good here is that Black shouldn't let White have the
ideas against that, but probably the easiest thing bishop-pair and a central pawn-mass without
to do is sidestep it (i.e., save a tempo by forego getting something in return. ing �c2) by 8ll:lf3, when 8 ... ll:lf8 9 0-0 ll:le6 10 9 �c2 (D) .i.h4 g6 1 1 b4!? (this can also be prepared more
slowly) l l ...0-0 ( l l .. . .i.xb4? 1 2 lt:lxd5 ! ±) 1 2

l:tbl puts White well along i n his queenside
strategy of playing b4-b5. B

We now return to 7 ... 0-0 (D):

w

9 ••• l:te8 Black nearly always plays this way; he takes
over the e-file and prepares ... ll:lf8 in order to
protect h7, thus freeing his f6-knight to move.

The knight very often goes to either e6 or g6

8 lt:lf3 later. 9 ... h6 is weakening after 10 .th4, which is

This move distinguishes the variation that the normal retreat. However, White can also

I'm recommending. It can be played at various consider 10 .i.f4!? lt:lh5 1 1 .i.e5 lt:lxeS ( l l ...f6?!

points; for example, with 8 �c2 lt:lbd7 9 lt:lf3. 12 .i.g3 lt:lxg3 1 3 hxg3 opens White's h-file and

In fact, sometimes White plays ll:lf3 on move 4 creates kingside weaknesses which can be ex
or 5 and then heads for this position. Fortu ploited by lt:lh4) 1 2 lt:lxe5 ( 1 2 dxe5 !?) 12 ... .i.d6
nately, 4 cxd5 exd5 5 .i.g5 allows us to avoid 1 3 0-0 �e7 14 f4 with a nice central position.

many difficult lines brought on by too early a 10 0-0 (D) lt:lf3, as explained in the note to 3 lt:lc3 above. 1 0 h3 is another version of the h3 set -up that

8 lt:lge2!? is the other way White develops we will be featuring via 1 1 h3. One idea of ad

(or with 8 �c2 first). Then White's main plan is vancing the h-pawn on this move (rather than

QUEEN'S GAMBIT DECLINED 13

after 10 0-0 ltJf8 1 1 h3) is to keep open options ( 1 2 i..h6!? is interesting, to be followed by a
such as 0-0-0 and g4 (which is too risky in con central break with e4) 1 2 ... 1!i'xe7 1 3 b4 a6 14 a4
junction with 0-0). I wouldn't discourage any ( 1 4 ltJa4!? ltJg 7 1 5 h3 ltJe6 1 6 .:.fc 1 ltJgS 1 7
one from playing this way; it has been rather 11i'e2 ltJxf3+ 1 81!i'xf3 ;!;) 1 4 .. . ltJb6 1 5 .:.fe 1 i.g4 successful and adds a new dimension to the 1 6 ltJd2 l:r.ad8 1 7 aS ltJc8 1 8 f3 i..e6 1 9 ltJb3
play. But in this book I'll be emphasizing a ltJd6 20 ltJcS i..c8 2 1 l:r.bd I f5 ! 22 11i'f2 llf8
calmer, positionally-based strategy, and 0-0-0 (Sunye-Soppe, Sao Bernardo 1 999) and now
not only invites counterattack via ... c5 or ... b5, 23 ltJ3a4 ltJf6 24 ltJb6 ltJd7 25 ltJbxd7 ! i..xd7
but it also makes a minority attack by b4-b5 out 26 1!i'g3 is the sort of position in which White
of the question. To be clear, 1 0 h3 ltJf8 1 1 0-0 can build up patiently. transposes to our main line, and there are nu We now return to I O ... ltJf8 (D): merous lines in which 10 h3 is followed by 0-0
anyway (e.g., after I O ... ltJf8 1 1 i.f4 i.d6 1 2

i.xd6 11i'xd6 1 3 0-0), s o any games that you
may find with 1 0 h3 and 0-0 are worthy of
study.

B

The position after IO ... ltJf8 is fundamental to
the Exchange Variation with ltJf3. By putting his
knight on f3, White has denied himself the plan
of f3 and e4 for the time being (contrast this with ltJge2 systems). But the knight controls e5 and
lO •.• ltJf8 can go there at the right moment, when there can

The main move by far, setting up the position follow either f3 or the ambitious f4. Another
described above. Otherwise it's a little difficult plan involves playing e4, often preceded by a to develop the other pieces; e.g.: rook move to e1 (then White gets a typical iso
a) IO ... h6?! 1 1 i.f4 just encourages White lated-pawn trade-off of superior activity in re
to put his bishop where it would have liked to turn for his weakness on d4). On the queenside,
go in the first place, had Black not had the oppor White's best-known strategy is the minority at
tunity to play ... i..d6 in one jump (from f8). Af tack by b4-b5 (directed against a pawn on c6).

ter I I i..f4, the only way for Black to make sense The point is that after White plays b4-b5, often
of I O ... h6 would be to exchange the bishop by supported by a pawn on a4, he may be able to

1 1 ...ltJh5?, but this allows the tactic 1 2 ltJxd5 !, play bxc6. Then if a pawn recaptures ( ... bxc6), it
since 1 2 ... cxd5? 1 3 i..c7 wins the queen. Be becomes a backward pawn on a half-open file. aware of this trick - you might be surprised how And if a piece recaptures on c6, Black's d-pawn,
often it comes up in other positions! having lost its natural support, becomes isolated.

b) I O . .. g6 has a better idea than I O ... h6, This and related ideas are best learned by exam
namely, to guard h7 so that Black can play ple, because their timing makes all the differ

... ltJhS, and also so that his other knight can go ence between success and failure. to b6 and help defend against a minority attack. 11 h3 (D) White can probably gain an advantage, but it's Karpov brought this modest advance to
not easy; for example, 1 1 llabl ltJhS 1 2 i.xe7 general attention with some nice wins. It is a 14 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

B B

quintessential strategic move, which Yermo llab l b6 1 5 l:lfe l �d6 1 6 �xd61!i'xd6 17 e4
linsky describes as a "useful waiting" move, dxe4 1 8 �xe4 �d7 1 9 c4 ;!;. noting that it covers g4, provides a retreat on h2 a3) 1 2 ... tLlg5 1 3 �xg5 ( 1 3 tL!xg5 �xg5 14
for White's bishop following its common rede �h2 with the idea l:labl and b4 is an option)

ployment to f4, and underlines how "Black' s 1 3 ... �xg5 1 4 b4 �e7 1 5 b5 (a pure minority at

'liberated' c8-bishop suddenly finds itself de tack, as described above) 1 5 ... �d6 ( l 5 ... c5? 16
prived of activity." The point about covering dxc5 �xeS 1 7 l:.fd l ± shows why ... c5 is so of
g4 is particularly important, because not only ten unplayable in the pure Exchange Variation)

does Black no longer have the possibility of 1 6 bxc6 bxc6 1 7 �f5 ! (D). playing ... �g4-h5-g6, but he also doesn't have
the move ... tLlg4, which is a standard response

to White's move tL!e5. On top of all this, White
retains a flexible choice of plans, including the B minority attack, breaking in the centre, and
playing tLle5 followed by f3 or f4. A deep, fas
cinating position. At this point, we' ll examine:

1.111: 11 ••• tLlg6 1 5

1.112: 11 ... �e6 1 7

Since this position i s key to your entire prac
tice and understanding, a study of the alterna
tives is strongly urged:

a) l l ...tLle4 would be a successful simplifi
cation if it weren't for 1 2 �f4! (D).

Remember that this is in some sense where White has two points with this move: he
the bishop 'wants' to be. Now e4 is attacked wants to eliminate a piece from Black's potential
three times, so Black has to react: kingside counterattack, and he wants to trade off
a l ) I.Sokolov-Oll, European Team Ch, Pula a possible defender of the c6-pawn. In the next 1 997 continued 1 2 ... f5 1 3 tLle5 tLlg6 14 tLlxg6 few moves the theme of exploiting that pawn
hxg6 1 5 f3 tLlf6 1 6 11i'f2 tiJh5 17 �e5 �h4 1 8 weakness is illustrated beautifully: 1 7 ... 1!Va5 1 8

1!i'd2 �g3, and here Sokolov suggests 1 9 f4 ;!;. �xc8 l:laxc8 1 9 l:labl tL!e6 ( 1 9 .. . c5 20 tL!xd5 !

After tLle2, White will have the possibility of cxd4 21 11i'f5 ! 1!Va6 22 tLlg5 f6 23 ll'le4 is quite
advancing on either wing after preparation. strong) 20 .:.b7 l:lb8 2 1 l:lfbl l:Ixb7 22 l:lxb7
a2) 1 2 ... tL!xc3 1 3 bxc3 is almost always a llb8 23 .:.xb8+ �xb8 24 ll'la4 1!i'b5 25 ll'lc5 g6
bad trade for Black, if only because, having (after 25 ... ll'lxc5 26 dxc5 g6 27 11i'b3 ! White
strengthened d4, White can attack in the centre forces a highly favourable knight-versus-bishop
with either c4 or e4; for example, 1 3 ... tLlg6 1 4 ending) 26 a4! 1!Vc4 27 1!Vxc4 dxc4 28 tL!xe6

QUEEN'S GAMBIT DECLINED 15

fxe6 29 'iii'fl +- and White won quickly in 2 1 lt:lxc I 'ii'c7 22 lt:lb3 b6 23 lt:lbd4 ;!; with

Djuric-Pfleger, Serbia-Bavaria match 1 984. better minor pieces.

b) 1 1 ...g6 has the idea of ... lt:le6-g7 and d) 1 l...iL.d6 corresponds to the normal plan

... i.f5: 1 2 �ab1 ( 1 2 i.f4 might be worth a look; in several Exchange lines, but here White should
for example, 1 2 ... lt:le6 with the ... lt:lg7/ ... iL.f5 keep the advantage with yet another strategy: 1 2
idea can be countered by 1 3 i.h2 or 1 3 i.e5 ! ? �ae1 ! iL.d7 (the point i s 12 .. . lt:lg6? 1 3 e4! dxe4
lt:lg7 14 �ab1 iL.f5 1 5 b4 iL.xd3 1 6 'ii'xd3 a6 1 7 1 4 lt:lxe4) 1 3 a3 !? ( 1 3 e4! dxe4 14 lt:lxe4 i.e? 1 5

�fc 1 lt:lf5 1 8 lt:la4 ;!;) 1 2 ... lt:le6 ( 1 2 ... a5 1 3 a3 lt:lc5 !) 1 3 ... lt:lg6 1 4 e4 dxe4 1 5 lt:lxe4 iL.e7 1 6
lt:le6 1 4 iL.h6 lt:lg7 1 5 b4 axb4 1 6 axb4 iL.f5 1 7 lt:lc5 iL.c8 (Scherbakov-Polovodin, Tula 1 999)

b5 �a3 1 8 �a1 - Ivanchuk) 1 3 iL.h4 lLlg7 14 b4 1 7 iL.xf6! iL.xf6 1 8 �xeS+ 'it' xeS 1 9 �e1 'i!kd8 20
a6 1 5 a4 lt:lf5 1 6 iL.xf6 ( 1 6 iL.g5 ! ? is also inter iL.c4 and White is extremely active. esting, because Black needs a plan, and 16 ... lt:le4

1 7 iL.xe7 'ii'xe7 1 8 b5 yields a small but typical 1 . 1 1 1 ) edge for White) 1 6 ... 1L.xf6 1 7 b5 axb5 1 8 axb5
lt:ld6 (Gelfand-Lobron, Munich 1 994) and here ll ... lt:lg6 (D) simply 1 9 bxc6 bxc6 20 �a1 iL.b7 2 1 lt:la4 iL.a6 Black logically prevents a bishop retreat and

22 iL.xa6 �xa6 23 lt:lc5 �xa1 24 .fha1 puts covers e5. Black on the defensive; e.g., 24 ... 'ii'c7 25 l:.a4

�c8 26 'ii'a2 !.

c) l l ...lt:lh5 ! ? (Yermolinsky suggests that
this might be Black's best continuation; how w ever, White has an enormous statistical advan
tage after it) 1 2 iL.xe7 'ii'xe7 (D) (this stops b4
for a move).

w

12 iL.xf6 Not necessarily best, but proceeding with a
clear strategic plan. You really should look at
the alternatives:

a) 1 2 �ab1 lt:le4 is the typical freeing move
for Black. Then a unique approach is 1 3 iL.f4!?:

a 1 ) 1 3 ... iL.d6 1 4 lt:lxe4 iL.xf4 1 5 exf4 dxe4
c 1 ) The clever 1 3 �fe1 'ii'f6? ! 14 lt:le5 ! lt:lg6 1 6 iL.xe4 lt:lxf4 1 7 iL.xh7+ 'iii'h8 1 8 iL.e4'ilkf6 1 9 1 5 f4! demonstrates a fairly typical plan. Yermo �fe1 iL.e6 20 a3 g6 21 �e3 and White i s begin
linsky-Hergott, North Bay 1 994 saw 1 5 ... lt:lxe5 ning to consolidate the extra pawn, Dydyshko

(it's hard to find a good alternative) 1 6 fxe5, and Grabarczyk, Lubniewice 2002. White obviously stood better. a2) 1 3 ... lt:lxf4 1 4 exf4 f5 1 5 lt:le5 iL.d6 1 6
c2) 1 3 �abl i.e6 1 4 b4 �ac8 1 5 1:.fc1 g6 1 6 'iii'h2 with the idea f3 yields a small advantage,
b5 ( 1 6 lt:la4 ;!; i s more conservative) 1 6 ... c5 !? as does 16 b4. But White can also play with two

(16 ... cxb5 1 7 iL.xb5 iL.f5 18 iL.d3 i.xd3 1 9 knights versus two bishops by 1 6 iL.xe4! ? fxe4 'ii'xd3 lLlf6 20 'it'd 1 �c7 2 1 lt:lb5 ;!;) 1 7 dxc5 1 7 f3 ! exf3 1 8 �xf3 i.e6! 1 9 'ii'f2'ilkf6 20 �el , �xc5 1 8 'ii'a4 �ec8 1 9 lt:le2 �xc 1 + (Kasim preparing to advance his kingside majority yet
dzhanov-Jonkman, Wijk aan Zee 1 999) and now still reserving the right to play b4. The point is

20 �xc 1 ! is straightforward; e.g., 20 ... 1:.xc 1 + that there are all sorts of creative plans and 16 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

White isn't limited to a simple queenside ad a) 1 4 a4 looks natural, but it uses up a square
vance. for White's knight. 14 ... i.e7 1 5 b5 and then:

b) 1 2 ll:le5 has done very well in this posi a l ) 1 5 ... axb5?! not only opens up a file on
tion, and is probably the most practical move: the queenside, but it also makes ll:la4-c5 possi

12 ... ll:Jd7 (the standard reply) 1 3 i.xe7 "ikxe7 ble; e.g., 1 6 axb5 i.d7 1 7 bxc6 bxc6 and now

14 f4(D). White can play 1 8ll:la4 with the idea ll:lc5, but
he does even better with 1 8 ll:ld2, 1 9 ll:lb3 and

then placing a knight on c5.

a2) 15 ... a5 is a legitimate possibility, when

B White will need extra time to manoeuvre a
knight to c5.

a3) 1 5 ... ..td6 16 bxc6 bxc6 17 i.f5 ! (a key
move which is used time and again to neutralize
a potential attack by Black on the kingside)

1 7 ... a5 ! (to stop ll:la4-c5) 1 8 .l:.ab 1 �f6 1 9
i.xc8 l:!.axc8 20 .l:.b7 with a playable game for

Black, although I'd rather be White.

b) In that example, White allowed Black to
play . .. a5 and delay White's queenside attack. 14ll:la4! (D) is a flexible alternative.

It's hard for Black to defend against direct

attack; e.g., 14 ... ll:lgf8 1 5 .l:.ael ll:lb6 (White al
ready stands considerably better; after 1 5 .. .f6

I 6ll:lf3 ll:lb6, both 17 f5 ! and 1 7 e4 are strong)

1 6 f5 f6 1 7 ll:lf3 i.d7 (after 17 ... �c7, 1 8 e4
dxe4 1 9 �b3+ favours White, or he can play
the interesting attack 1 8 �f2 i.d7 1 9 g4 .l:.ad8

20 g5, as in Maurischat-Wartlick, Wills bach

1 997) 1 8 �b3 ! (threatening e4) 1 8 .. .'ii'f7 1 9
e4 dxe4 20 �xf7+ 'iiixf7 21 ll:lxe4 ± Golod Jonkman, Tel Aviv 200 1 .

1 2 .•. i.xf6 13 b4 (D)

14 ... ..te7 (Black heads to his favourite post
on d6) 1 5 .l:.abl (or 1 5ll:lc5 i.d6 16 i.f5 ! , and
now White intends a4 and b5 without ... a5 hav
ing a preventative effect) 1 5 ... i.d6 1 6 .l:.fc I

�f6?! (but 1 6 ... .l:.b8 1 7 i.f5 ;!; fits in with White's plans) 17 ll:lb6 i.xh3 ! (the point; he
can't let this bishop be exchanged without los
ing all attacking hopes) 1 8ll:lxa8 .l:.xa8 1 9ll:le5 !

i.e6 20 f4! ll:lf8 2 1 a4 �e7 22 b5 cxb5 23 axb5
a5 24 e4 and Black doesn't have enough for the
exchange, Ilincic-Marcetic, Nis 1995.

14 b5 i.d6 15 bxc6 bxc6 (D) 16ll:lbl!

13 ••• i.e7 A pretty idea: White unblocks the c-file while

Two fundamentally different strategies for rendering ... �f6 and ... ..txh3 a harmless idea.

White are illustrated by 13 ... a6: 16 •.• �f6 17 ll:lbd2 h6

QUEEN'S GAMBIT DECLINED 1 7

fastest ways to get moving. But its theoretical

reputation has been perhaps unfairly maligned
w by the idea that the freeing move 1 2 ... lDe4!?

equalizes straightaway after 1 3 i.xe7 .l:.xe7 14
lDxe4 ( 14 b4 should give White a small advan
tage) 14 ... dxe4 1 5 i.xe4 .txa2 1 6 .l:.a 1 i.d5.

Nevertheless, this is a position in which White
can easily cause minor problems; e.g., 1 7 i.xd5

'ii'xd5 ( 1 7 ... cxd5?! 1 8 .l:.fc l lDe6 1 9 'iib3 f6 20

.l:.c3 a5 2 1 lDe 1 with the idea lDd3 is strong) 1 8

.l:.a4 lDe6 1 9 .l:.fa I a6 20 .l:.a5 'ii'd8 2 1 lDe5. This
isn't much, but if Black's queenside majority is
immobilized, then in the long run White's cen
tral majority might well prove useful.

1 7 ... .td7 1 8 .l:.abl h5?! 1 9 .l:.fc l .l:.ad8 20 b) 12 i.f4 is very interesting and also prom
l:tb7 i.b8 2 1 .l:.cbl , Mangione-Insabato, Paler ises a slight edge. Van Wely-Yusupov, Frankfurt
mo 2004. rapid 2000 went 1 2 ... .td6 1 3 i.xd6 ( 1 3 l:lac I af

18 .l:.fcl lDe7 fords good prospects in the case of 1 3 ... .txf4 1 4

Yermolinsky-Gild.Garcia, St Martin 1 993. exf4 h6 1 5 .l:.fe1 and now 1 5 .. . 'ii'd6!? 1 6 lDe5 ;!;

Now 19 .l:.ab1 is the easiest way to demonstrate or 15 ... i.d7 16 .l:.e5 !) 1 3 ... 'ii'xd6 1 4 .l:.abl .l:.e7

White's superiority. ( 1 4 ... a5 ! is normal, with a very slight edge for

White following 1 5 lDe5 lD6d7 16 lLlxd7 i.xd7

1.112) 1 7 lDa4; e.g., 17 ... g6 1 8 .l:.bc 1 f5 1 9 lDc5 i.c8 20
l:tfe I lDd7 21 lDa4) 1 5 b4 .l:.ae8 16 .l:.fc 1 lDg6 17
ll ... .te6 (D) b5 c5 18 dxc5 'ii'xc5 (D).

w w

Probably the most popular move, simply de Scherbakov says: "White should be careful
veloping. about his kingside - such ideas as ... i.xh3 fol

12 lDe5 lowed by ... .l:.xe3 are hovering over the board".

White's strategy is straightforward: put a Typically, however, White's much better mi
knight on e5 and support it with f4! It's an un nor pieces protect him against random attacks
complicated set-up that causes Black problems, and here, for example, 1 9 'ii'a4! establishes a
but also not the only path to a conventional ad plus. And although the idea is not a fundamen
vantage. Here are a few alternatives that clarify tal feature of the position, 1 9 lDe4! is also
some issues: strong: 1 9 ... lDxe4 ( 1 9 ... 1Wxc2 20 lDxf6+ gxf6
a) 12 .l:.ab1 is played with the standard mi 2 1 i.xc2 ;!; and lDd4) 20 i.xe4 (or 20 'ii'xc5 nority attack in mind, and in fact it's one of the lDxc5 2 1 l:.xc5 ;!;) 20 ... 'ii'b6 2 1 i.xg6 hxg6 22 18 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

'ii'c5 followed soon by lZ:ld4 with an indisput Probably the early lZ:le5 and f4 plan isn't the
able advantage. very best, but it's dynamic and promises com
c) Finally, 1 2 .l:tfel is subtle and worth con plex strategic play. These h3 systems are ex
sidering; White plays prophylactically against tremely flexible, so you'll never run out of
future kingside pressure, while also preparing ways to play them. to counter Black's plan to exchange pieces:

l 2 ... lZ:l6d7 1 3 i.f4! lZ:lg6 14 i.h2 lLldf8 1 5 l:1ad1 1.12) ( l 5 lba4!?t) l 5 ... lbh4 1 6 lbxh4 i.xh4 1 7 e4!?

dxe4 18 i.xe4 with the threat of d5 and a defi 5 .•• c6 (D) nite advantage, Yermo Iinsky-Yusupov, Chicago

1 996.

12 •.• lZ:l6d7 13 i...xe7 1Wxe7
l 3 ... 1:he7 is a solid recapture, although White w got the better of the situation in the game

Kramnik-Renet, Clichy 1 995 after 1 4 f4 !? ( 1 4
lLlf3 keeps White's basic ideas intact, with
the initial threat of lZ:lg5) 1 4 ... f6 1 5 lLlf3 lZ:lb6

1 6 .l:tae l ! ? lZ:lc8 1 7 g4 lZ:ld6 1 8 'ii'g2 ( 1 8 f5
i.f7 1 9 'ifh2 ;!; Kramnik) 1 8 ... �h8 1 9 f5 i...f7

20 �h 1 'ifc7? ! (Kramnik gives 20 .. .'i'e8 ! 2 1

'ii'g3 .l:td8, but then 22 g5 ! is effective) 2 1 .l:tg1
g5?! 22 h4 h6 23 'ii'h2 lLle8 24 .l:tg3 ! lZ:lh7 25

�g2 i.g8 26 hxg5 hxg5 27 'ifh6 'ii'b6 28 .l:te2

.l:td8 29 .l:th3 and White had a winning posi
tion. 6 e3

14 f4! f6 15 lLlf3 i..f7 16 .l:tae1 c5 17 'ii'f2 With this move, White makes an important

(D) decision. If you don't like the queenless middle
game we see in our main line below, you can
prevent 6 ... i.f5 with 6 'i'c2; this is probably the

best way to go if you absolutely can't afford a

B draw or want to avoid a long technical struggle.

Then play will often transpose to Section 1 . 1 1 ,
e.g. by 6 ... i.e7 7 e3 0-0 8 i.d3 lZ:lbd7 9 lZ:lf3, but
you have to be aware of two deviations:

a) 6 ... lZ:la6 (intending ... lZ:lb4 and ... i.f5) 7
e3 lZ:lb4 8 'ii'b l !? g6 9 'ii'd I ! i..f5 1 0 .l:tc I and

White is doing well.

b) 6 ... i...e7 7 e3 (7 lZ:lf3 g6!? 8 e3 i.f5 9 i..d3
i..xd3 1 0 'ii'xd3 is roughly equal, but not drawn)

7 ... lZ:lbd7 and now 8 i.d3 lZ:lh5 9 i.xe7 'fi'xe7 1 0
lZ:lf3 allows the bothersome 1 0 .. . lZ:lf4 (see note

'c' to Black's 6th move in Section 1 . 1 1 ). How

This structure seems to favour White so long ever, 8 lZ:lf3! is more accurate, or at any rate
as he has enough control over e4. M.Gurevich much easier, if you play lZ:lf3 in the main lines

Akopian, Barcelona 1 992 continued 1 7 ... lZ:lb6 (which we do). Then 8 ... lZ:lh5 9 i.xe7 'ii'xe7 10

1 8 lZ:lh4 ( 1 8 i...b5 .:.ed8 1 9 e4! works out to a i..e2 t is fine (or even 1 0 0-0-0!?, when I like modest advantage) 1 8 ... cxd4?! 1 9 exd4 'ii'c7 20 White but the position is obviously compli
l:1c l 'ii'd8, and now instead of 2 1 lbb5 lZ:lc4!, cated). On the other hand, 8 ... lLlf8, intending

White could have kept a meaningful advantage ... lZ:le6, ... g6, ... lbg7 and ... i.f5 is then slightly
with several moves, including 2 1 'ii'g3 and 2 1 more effective than it is without 'ii'c2. i..b5 .l:te6 22 lLlf5. 6 ..• i...f5

QUEEN'S GAMBIT DECLINED 19

a) 6 ... lLlbd7 7 i..d3 i..e7 transposes to note b4 and weaken squares like c4 when his bishop

'c' to Black's 6th move in Section 1 . 1 1 , where is gone), but this sort of position is an option
we saw that White could sidestep Black's idea of when you're not interested in testing theory.

meeting 8 'ii'c2 with 8 ... lLlh5 by playing 8 lLlf3. b) 7 lLlge2 with the idea lLlg3 is also play
b) 6 ... 'i!ib6 7 'ii'd2! (D) (for the record, I able and similar to some lines we'll see below.

think that is the only effective move; Black can It, too, is doubtless equal in the abstract, but
hold the balance versus 7 'i!ic2, while 7 i..xf6 there are plenty of pieces on the board, which

'i!ixb2 8 'i!ic l 'i!ixcl+! 9 .l:txc l gxf6 1 0 lLlxd5 means that you can create a game with fully
i..a3 ultimately results in approximate equality). fledged chances.

We now return to 7 "ili'f3 (D):

B

8

7 ... lLle4 8 lLlxe4 dxe4 9 lLle2 i..e6 l 0 lLlc3
i..b4 l l i..e2 'i!ia5 1 2 i..h4 ( 1 2 i..f4 ltJd7 1 3 0-0 7 ... i..g6 ;\;) l 2 ... ltJd7 1 3 0-0 lLlb6 1 4 'i!ic2 (or 14 .l:tfc l , 7 ... i..e6 doesn't control d3, but that isn't di-
when Henrichs gives l 4 ... lLlc4' !' 15 'ii'c2 i..xc3, sastrous; for example, 8 i..xf6 'ii'xf6 9 'i!ixf6
but then follows 1 6 i..xc4! i..xc4 1 7 'i!ixe4+ gxf6 10 i..d3 lLld7 1 1 ltJge2 lLlb6 1 2 lLlg3 i..d6
i..e6 1 8 .l:txc3 ±) l 4 .. .f5 1 5 a3 i..xc3 1 6 bxc3 (or 1 3 0-0-0!? ( 1 3 f3 !) 1 3 ... 0-0-0 14 lLlf5 i..f8

1 6 b4!? ;\;) 1 6 ... i..c4 ( l 6 ... ltJc4 17 l:tfb l ) 17 ( l 4 ... i..xf5 1 5 i..xf5+ would be horribly de .l:tfbl i..xe2 (l7 ... 'i!ia6 1 8 i..xc4! 'i!ixc4 1 9 .l:tb4 pressing for Black, since you'd probably be

'i!ie6 20 c4 ±) 1 8 'i!ixe2 0-0 ( l 8 ... 'i!ixc3? is well looking at another 70 moves of defending, or of
met by 19 "ili'h5+ g6 20 'ili'h6 or 19 �a2) 1 9 c4 course a loss along the way) 15 g4 �c7 1 6 lLle2

"ili'a6 20 .l:tc l .l:tf7 2 1 "ili'c2! c5 22 d5 with a lLlc8 1 7 h3 lLld6 1 8 lLlfg3 ;\; A.Aleksandrov strong passed pawn and a comfortable advan Dokuchaev, Russia Cup, Smolensk 1 997. tage. 8 i..xf6 'ii'xf6

7 �f3 8 ... gxf6 should make White happy. I like 9

This forces an exchanging sequence that is h4 h5 10 lLlge2 best, but the well-known game
usually regarded as the best way to play the po Petrosian-Barcza, Budapest 1 955 went 9 'i!id I
sition, and it makes sense. The idea is that (always given an ' ! ' ; the idea is that otherwise

Black can't be allowed to develop his c8-bishop White would have to answer ... 'i!ib6 with 0-0-0;
and go unpunished. Nevertheless, some players actually, I doubt that 9 ... 'i!ib6 is really a prob
may want to avoid the forthcoming queenless lem, but 'i!idl is a fairly useful move anyway)

middlegame and might prefer: 9 ... 'i!ib6 1 0 'i!id2 lLla6 1 1 lLlf3 0-0-0 1 2 a3 lLlc7
a) 7 i..d3 i..xd3 8 'i!ixd3 is just a chess 1 3 b4 lLle8 14 i..e2 ltJd6 1 5 'i!ia2, and White is
game. White is better developed and able, for supposed to have a clear advantage, which I
example, to support central action and/or, with question; regardless, 8 ... gxf6 is a poor idea.

considerable care, to pursue a minority attack. 9 'ii'xf6 gxf6 (D) Experience shows that Black can get complete An awful lot of words have been expended
equality (White shouldn't be too quick to play over this position, but essentially they come 20 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

w B

down to the same thing: Black has isolated and chances with the ideas .ih3 and l'Lle2-g3, for
doubled f-pawns as well as an isolated h-pawn, example, although I admit that Black needn't
but White, having no open file, has a difficult be overly worried) 2 1 .ig2 l:r.e7 22 l:r.e2 l:r.ae8.

time exploiting these weaknesses. However, All pretty normal-looking so far, and fully
he might be able to occupy the traditionally equal, although White missed some opportu
strong outpost on f5 and do damage in that way; nities to stir things up. The interesting part is
for a good example, see the game Aleksan that he still managed to create problems for
drov-Dokuchaev in the note to 7 ... .ig6 above. Black: 23 l:r.he I a5 (it was probably time for For Black's part, putting a knight on d6 will go 23 ... .ixf4) 24 e4! dxe4 25 fxe4 l:r.d8 26 .if3
a long way towards solving his problems, as l'Lle8 27 l:.d I l:.ed7 28 d5 ! cxd5 29 l:.xd5 l:.xd5 that piece watches over f5 and exerts influence 30 l'Llcxd5. This has the threat of .ixh5, so
on the centre. This position is undoubtedly Black played 30 ... l'Lld6 ! 3 1 e5 fxe5 32 l:r.xe5
drawn with best play, and a leading grandmas a4?! (but 32 ... l:.e8 33 l:.xe8 l'Llxe8 34 .ixh5
ter will draw the black position a large percent gives White an extra pawn and an obvious ad age of the time. On lower levels, however, all vantage, as does 32 ... l:.c8 33 l'Llxh5+ .ixh5 34
the way up to 2500, White has managed to win .ixh5 llc2+ 35 l:.e2) 33 bxa4 l:.c8 and now 34
a reasonable percentage of the time, perhaps .ixh5 was advantageous in V.Milov-Pigusov,

35% on average, and importantly, he almost New York Open 1 998, but 34 l'Llxh5+ and 34
never loses. In practice, this has led to above l'Llxg6 fxg6 35 .l:.e7+ 'iii>f8 36 l:.e6 are even
average performance rating leads for White stronger. (ironically, that is often the result of a 'drawish' b) Van Wely-Short, Wijk aan Zee 2005 went
line in chess). Presumably many players will 1 3 ... a5 1 4 'iii>f2 a4 1 5 l:.c l l'Llc8, and although
still prefer to play 6 'ii'c2 (see above), but this is White ultimately won after 1 6 .ie2 l'Lld6 1 7
a handy position to know something about, and l:.hd 1 , Black had some easy improvements, so

I'll show a few sample lines. I'd suggest that White can cause more trouble

10 h4 with 1 6 l'Llg2 l'Lld6 ( 1 6 ... .id6 1 7 e4 dxe4 1 8

This move is the most likely to generate l'Llxe4 ;!;; with the idea 1 8 ... .ie7 1 9 l'Llc5) 1 7 chances. In a database of modern games, it l'Llf4. For example, 1 7 ... 0-0 1 8 h4 h5 19 .id3
scored 1 8 wins of 44 games, with only 2 losses. .ixd3 ( 1 9 ... 'it>h7 20 .ic2!) 20 l'Llxd3 and White

The other main move is 10 'it>d2, but I'd like to is having all the fun. examine two games with another move that has We now return to 10 h4 (D): been disparaged a bit, i.e., 10 l'Llf3. Then play 10 ... l'Lld7
has gone I O ... l'Lld7 I I l'Llh4 .ie7 1 2 g3 l'Llb6 1 3 The best players appear to avoid IO ... h5, f3 (D) with these ideas: which may be playable but creates another tar
a) 1 3 ... 0-0 14 'iii>f2 l:.fe8 1 5 l:.d l l'Llc8 1 6 get for White on h5. Instead, I O ... h6 II h5 .if5
l'Llg2 l'Lld6 1 7 h4 h5 1 8 l'Llf4 .if8 1 9 l:r.e I .ih6 is similar to our main line, in that Black wants

20 b3 !? 'it>g7 (20 ... .ixf4 2 1 gxf4 gives White to get the bishop back to e6 before it can be

QUEEN'S GAMBIT DECUNED 21

substantial advantage based upon a timely g4 -

22 ... l::tag8 23 g4 fxg4 24 f5 .td7 25 lt:lxg4+, for

B instance.

b) 1 5 ... l::tg8 1 6 lt:lce2 0-0-0 1 7 �f2 lt:lf6 1 8

.:th3 ..td7 1 9 .:tg3 h6 20 llh l l::tde8 2 1 l::txg8

.:txg8 22 lt:lg3 l:.g5 23 lt:lfe2!, intending f4 and
lt:lxf5.

15 ... �e7 16 'it>f2 l:tag8 (D)

exchanged and give White an unchallenged
outpost on f5.

n h5 .trs 12 rJ

1 2 lt:lf3 lt:lb6 1 3 lt:lh4 .i.e6 1 4 .i.d3 0-0-0

"doesn't achieve a great deal for White" (Cox).

I find no games with this position, and grant his
point, but can imagine that in a practical game

White might have some chances; for example,

1 5 b3 �b8 ( 1 5 ... .tb4 1 6 l:.c l �b8 1 7 f3 lt:lc8

1 8 �f2 lt:ld6 1 9 g4) 1 6 f3 l:.e8 1 7 �f2 .th6 1 8 Cox says that it is "already apparent that
l:.ae I lt:lc8 1 9 lt:le2!? lt:ld6 20 lt:lg3 .tf8 2 1 l:.c 1 Black was [is] not at all worse." But I still think
h6 22 lt:lgf5 lt:lxf5 23 .txf5 with just enough of that White has what chances there are. an edge to bother Black. I don't doubt that 17 lt:lf4 lt:lf6 Black can draw such variations with accurate We just saw a line resembling 1 7 ... .txf4?!

play; I'm just not convinced how easy they are. 1 8 exf4 �f6 1 9 lt:ld 1 lt:lb6 20 b3 lt:lc8 2 1 lt:le3

12 ... .te6 13 .td3 f5 14 lt:lge2 .td6 15 h6!? lt:ld6 22 l::th5 .tc8 23 l::te1 l::te8 24 g4! fxg4 25

Trying to set up the move .:th5 to put further fxg4 lt:le4+ 26 'iii>f3 ±. pressure on e5. White has another possibility in 18 lt:lh5 l 5 lt:lf4 (D); e.g.: Here too White might try 1 8 lt:lce2; e.g.,
l 8 ... l::tg5 ( 1 8 ... 'it>d7 1 9 lt:lh5 l::tg6 20 lt:lg7 llg8

21 l::tagl l::tg5 22 g4 ! fxg4 23 f4) 19 b4! ? a6 20

l:.abl .i.d7 2 1 a4 b5 22 .tc2 and Black is still

B alright, but will be defending for quite some
time, having to keep an eye on the f-pawn and
the queenside. He also has a bad bishop, which
is a short-term asset defensively, but a poten
tial problem in the long run.

18 ... lt:lxh5 19 l:.xh5 �f6 20 lt:le2 b6

Now:

a) 2 1 f4 was played in Bacrot-Short, Albert

( 1 ) 2000, which proceeded 2 l ...c5?! (2 l ....l::tg4!

22 g3 c5 = is more accurate), when 22 dxc5 would have secured some advantage; for ex
ample, 22 ... .txc5 (22 ... bxc5 23 lt:lg3 l:.b8 24
a) 1 5 ... .txf4?! 1 6 exf4 lt:lb6 1 7 b3 �d8 1 8 b3 c4 25 .txf5 cxb3 26 axb3 l::txb3 and now 27
lt:ld l ! lt:lc8 1 9 lt:le3 lt:ld6 and now 20 �f2 or 20 .:tc 1 ;\; or 27 .txe6 fxe6 28 l::ta6 ;\;) 23 l:.c I l::tc8 h6 �e7 2 1 l::th5 �f6 22 'it>f2. when White has a 24 .ta6 l:.cd8 25 lt:ld4. Overall. however. I 22 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

prefer White's options in several of the notes similarly equal and has also led to a high per
above. centage of draws among strong players) 6 cxd5
b) 2 1 .i.c2 is more flexible; then another (6 e3 is an Orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined, strategy for White is shown by 2 1 .. .c5 22 l:f.d I not what we're after as White), when 6 ... l'Llxd5

.i.c7 23 .i.b3 l:f.d8 24 f4 l:thg8 25 l'Llgl cxd4 7 .i.xe7 'fixe7 has produced many draws over

(25 ... c4 26 .i.c2 with the idea l'Llf3-h4) 26 l:f.xd4 the years, in part because 8 e4 (very seldom
with an admittedly small positional edge after played; 8 l:.c l and 8 e3 are normal) 8 ... l'Llxc3 9

26 ... b5 !, for example. bxc3 c5 sets up the idea of ... l'Llc6 and an early

To be clear: I'm not suggesting that White . .. l:f.d8 ( ... e5 is a theme as well), so Black has
can get a serious advantage in the main line if full equality. Thus 6 cxd5 was too late for our

Black plays perfectly. But if players of the purposes. highest calibre get opportunities for a mean 4 ... exd5 5 .i.f4 ingful advantage, the implication is that there It's hardly a loss for White to play his bishop
are enough strategic challenges to satisfy most to f4 instead of g5; in fact, .i.f4 is quite a desir
players' needs. able move, but after 3 l'Llc3 l'Llf6 4 cxd5 exd5 5

.i.f4, Black can challenge the bishop forthwith

1.2) by 5 ... .i.d6. In the position after the text-move,
not only is 5 ... .i.d6? a bad move because of 6

3 ... .i.e7 (D) l'Llxd5, but even if Black were able to get ... .i.d6
in, he'd be wasting a valuable tempo in so doing

( ... .te7-d6).

Now I'm going to take some time discussing
w 5 l'Llf3, still attempting to get to our main line
versus 3 ... l'Llf6. There's no compelling reason
you can't take this route. First, Black can pro
ceed normally by 5 ... l'Llf6 6 .i.g5 0-0, and then 7
e3 will indeed reach our desired position, since

7 ... .i.f5?! is strongly met by 8 'iib3 or 8 .i.xf6

.i.xf6 9 'iib3. Therefore Black can cause the
most trouble with 5 ... c6, intending ... .i.f5 (and
meeting 'iib3 with ... 'iib6, usually a satisfac-
tory resource). So White might want to play 6

'i¥c2 (D) preventing ... .i.f5 and still aiming for a standard set-up with e3, .i.d3 and 0-0.

This move is specifically designed to dis
courage the Exchange Variation, indicating that

Black prefers to play classical Orthodox lines

(see the next note). B

4 cxd5

White plays a sort of Exchange Variation
anyway. Black's first point is that after this
pawn trade, White can't play the immediate 5

.i.g5 and consequently won't be able to play the
main lines of the Exchange Variation, at least
those with l'Llge2 instead of l'Llf3. But because
we are playing the Exchange Variation with
l'Llf3, I'm going to discuss the issues involved
when White tries to reach the main line anyway.

To begin with, play can go 4 l'Llf3 l'Llf6 5 .i.g5 (5
cxd5 exd5 6 .i.g5 is the next note) 5 ... 0-0 (inci There are two move-orders which Black can
dentally, 5 ... h6 6 .i.h4 0-0 7 cxd5 l'Llxd5 is use to frustrate this, but if White doesn't mind

QUEEN'S GAMBIT DECLINED 23

getting away from the most-trodden paths and a32) I I 'ii'd2 lt:Jd7 1 2 ..te2 lt:Jf8 1 3 0-0 lt:Je6
just playing chess, he might want to look into 1 4 l:tad1 ( 1 4 .i.c4!?) 14 ... ..te4! 1 5 lt:Je5 ! ..td5
them: 1 6 .i.g4. This is at any rate interesting and
a) 6 ... g6 is a standard remedy, reintroduc promising for White, in view of 1 6 ... ..txa2 1 7
ing the idea of ... ..tf5. Then 7 ..tf4 ..tf5 8 'ii'd2 ..txe6 ..txe6 ( 1 7 ... fxe6 1 8 lt:Jg4 ..td5 1 9 �f4
lt:Jf6 is normal, with equality, but I find the .i.e7 20 ..tg7 with control over e5, a useful e
very rare 7 e4! ? dxe4 8 lt:Jxe4 interesting, with file, and the safer king as compensation for a
pressure based upon better development and pawn) 1 8 l:tfel (threatening lt:Jxf7) 1 8 ... 'ii'd6 1 9

Black's kingside dark squares. For example: 'ii'f4! (intending 'ii'xf6 or lt:Jxg6) 1 9 ... ..te7 20
a l ) 8 ... ..tf5 9 ..td3 ..txe4 1 0 ..txe4 ..tb4+ 1 1 d5 ! 0-0-0! (20 ... .i.xd5? 2 l lt:Jxc6! 'ii'xc6 22 lie I 'iti'fl ! and because of Black's weak dark squares and if the queen moves, 23 'ii'e5 follows) 2 1
and White's various ideas such as ..tg5 and d5, 1i'e3 ! ..txd5 22 lt:Jxf7. White stands better; e.g., l l ...lt:Jf6 ( l l ...lt:Jd7 1 2 b) 6 ... lt:Jf6 and now: d5 !) 1 2 ..th6 lt:Jxe4?! 1 3 �xe4+ �e7 1 4 'ii'd3 ± b l ) 7 ..tg5 gives us a conventional position
planning a3 and l:lel . in which 7 ... g6 is the best way to avoid transpo
a2) 8 ... ..tb4+ 9 lt:Jc3 �e7+ (9 ... lt:Jf6 1 0 ..tc4 sition into main lines. Then 8 e3 ..tf5 9 ..td3

0-0 1 1 0-0 b5 1 2 ..tb3 ..tg4 1 3 ..th6 ;t with the .i.xd3 1 0 'ii'xd3 is well-known; the strategic
idea 1 3 .. J:te8? 1 4 ..txf7+) IO ..te2 .i.f5 1 1 'ii'd l player might not mind the fact that Black is on
lt:Jf6 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 l:lel �c7 1 4 'ii'b3 .i.d6 1 5 the verge of equality as long as he has weak

..th6 l:ld8 1 6 lt:Je5 with a nagging initiative for nesses to work with and definite plans. Here

White. White can play for positions with lt:Je5, for ex
a3) 8 ... lt:Jf6 9 lt:Jxf6+ (9 ..th6!?) 9 ... ..txf6 ample, and/or use a minority attack beginning

(D) is probably the key position. with l:tbl and b4.

b2) Nevertheless, I'd reconunend 7 ..tf4 g6 8
e3 ..tf5 9 ..td3 ..txd3 1 0 �xd3, which is another,

more effective, version of this idea. Again, you
w can't expect too much, but 10 ... ..td6 (or 1 0 ... 0-0

1 1 0-0 lt:Jbd7 1 2 l:tab l ) 1 1 ..th6 lt:Jg4 1 2 ..tg5

..te7 ( 1 2 ... f6 1 3 ..th4) 1 3 ..tf4 isn't problem-free
for Black; e.g., 1 3 ... ..td6 1 4 ..txd6 'ii'xd6 15 e4!.

Well, playing this way is a matter of taste.

You can always choose the staid and true 5 ..tf4

(D), to which we now return:

B

White can play 1 0 .i.h6 ..tf5 ( 1 0 ... 1i'a5+ 1 1

�c3 'ii'xc3+ 1 2 bxc3 i), and then:

a3 1 ) 1 1 ..td3 is fascinating; as often hap
pens, simplification - in this case by ... ..txd3 -
doesn't help the side playing against the iso
lated pawn if it costs too much in terms of get
ting the pieces out. True, White's superiority is
limited if Black avoids the exchange by
l l .. .'�e7+!, but he's still on top: 1 2 'iti'fl ! .i.e6!

1 3 l:tel lt:Jd7 14 ..tc4 lt:Jb6 1 5 ..txe6 fxe6 1 6
l:le4 intending 'ii'e2, g3 and 'iti'g2. Likewise Black has two logical continuations:

1 1 ... 'ii'a5+ 1 2 ..td2 ..txd3 1 3 'ii'xd3 'ii'c7 1 4 1.21: 5 ... c6 24

..th6!, etc., retains an edge for White. 1.22: 5 •.. lt:Jf6 26

24 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

1 .2 1 ) be best) 1 3 e4 b4 ( l 3 ... dxe4 14 fxe4 tt::lb6 1 5
d5) 1 4 tt::la4 dxe4 1 5 fxe4 �a5?! ( 1 5 .. . 0-0) 1 6

5 ... c6 �b l (or 1 6 e5 tt::ld5 1 7 �xc6 0-0 1 8 1fxd7

This is the same idea we just saw: Black l:Hd8 I 9 'ifh3 'ifxa4 20 �b l ) 1 6 ... 0-0 l 7 h4 !?

wants to play an early ... .tf5 and disturb White's l:tfe8 18 e5 tt::ld5? ( 1 8 ... tt::lg4) 19 h5 g5 20 h6! ±
natural build-up with e3 and .td3. Carlsen-Nakamura, Medias 20 1 1 .

6 �c2 (D) b) Moving the bishop a second time by

A calm continuation, frequently played but 6 ... �d6 looks strange, but if White hasn't any
not outrageously theoretical. White simply stops pawn-breaks, Black can get away with this lux

... .tf5 and makes a typical Exchange Variation ury. This is an important line to study and un
move while he's at it. derstand: 7 .txd6 (7 .tg3 is also played, when

The most popular move is 6 e3, when the 7 ... tt::le7 8 e3 .tf5 might follow, and now 9 .td3
main line goes 6 ... .tf5 (as usual, Black plays �xd3 10 �xd3 or 9 'ii'b3) 7 ... �xd6 8 e3 (D)

this when he gets the chance; otherwise 5 ... c6 and Black has three possibilities: wouldn't make much sense, since Black has

forfeited the option of playing ... c5 in one
move) 7 g4! ? (7 tt::lge2 is more conservative)

7 ... .te6 (7 ... .tg6 8 h4 has the trick 8 ... �xh4? 9 B 'ii'b3 b6 10 llxh4! 'ifxh4 I I tt::lxd5 ! +-) 8 h4 (the most fun; 8 h3 used to be the main move)

8 ... tt::ld7 9 h5 tt::lh6! ?. This is a rich position, but
a rather volatile one, and I'm not sure that

White has any advantage when all is said and
done.

B
bl ) 8 .. .'ii'g6 9 �d2 (9 �b3 is a respectable
option, and 9 �xg6 hxg6 1 0 b4! ? a6 I I f3 tt::ld7

1 2 .td3 tt::le 7 1 3 tt::lge2 g5 1 4 �f2 tt::lf6 1 5 g4

WdR 1 6 Wg3 �d7 1 7 a4 clearly favoured White
in the game Nakamura-Ponomariov, Saint Louis

(6) 201 1 ; of course, Black can do much better
than that) 9 ... tt::le7 (after 9 ... tt::lf6, 1 0 tt::lge2 with
the idea tt::lf4 is also a good choice) I 0 tt::lge2 0-0

( l 0 .. .'ii'd6 was met by I I tt::lg3 .tf5 1 2 tt::lxf5
tt::lxf5 1 3 .td3 tt::le7 14 b4!? a6 1 5 tt::la4 ;!; in

6 ... g6 Dreev-Vaganian, Poikovsky 2002, while I I

This prepares ... .tf5 before White can get e3 e4! ? is also promising) I I tt::lg3 �d6 ( l l ...tt::ld7 and .td3 in. There are several alternatives for 1 2 �d3 'ii'h6 1 3 0-0 tt::lf6 14 b4 ;!; Azmai

Black, and theory hasn't yet settled on which is parashvili-Gomez Esteban, Toledo 1 99 1 ) 12
best: �d3 �e6 13 0-0 tt::ld7 14 l:!.ad I f5 !? 1 5 tt::lh5
a) 6 ... .tg4! ? looks to play ... .th5-g6, but .tf7 1 6 tt::lf4 tt::lf6 1 7 f3 g5 1 8 tt::lh3 h6 1 9 .tb I
takes time; e.g., 7 e3 .th5 8 �d3 (8 tt::lf3 tt::ld7 llae8 20 tt::lf2 ;!; Azmaiparashvili-Petrosian, Ere

9 h3 .tg6 l O 'ii'd2 ;!; Salov-Portisch, Linares van 1 989.

1 990) 8 ... .tg6 9 .txg6 (9 tt::lge2 tt::lf6 1 0 0-0 is b2) 8 ... tt::lf6 9 .td3 0-0 10 tt::lf3 (the tt::lge2,
also played) 9 ... hxg6 I 0 0-0-0 ( I 0 tt::lf3 tt::lf6 1 1 f3 and e4 plan would be harder to implement

0-0 ;!;) I O ... tt::lf6 I I f3 tt::lbd7 1 2 tt::lge2 b5 ! ? with ... l:.e8 coming, so White is better served

( 1 2 ... tt::lh5 1 3 .te5; l 2 ... tt::lb6 1 3 e4 tt::lc4 might by preparing a minority attack) 1 0 ... tt::lbd7 I I

QUEEN'S GAMBIT DECLINED 25

0-0 l:te8 1 2 l:tab l ;!;. This is easy to play for

White.

b3) 8 ... l2Je7 prepares ... �f5 again: 9 �d3 g6 w 1 0 t2Jf3 ! (after 1 0 f3, IO ... t2Jd7?! 1 1 l2Jge2
t2Jb6?! 1 2 e4 'fi'f6 1 3 0-0 0-0 14 l:tael gave

White an ideal centre in Onishchuk-Kovacs,

European Clubs Cup, Ohrid 2009, but 1 0 ... 0-0
with the idea ... �e6, ... lt:Jd7 and ... c5 would
have kept Black's disadvantage down) 1 0 ... �f5

(D).

w
c2) 7 h3 !? gives White's bishop an escape
square in response to ... l2Jh5. Then 7 ... g6 8 e3

�f5 9 'fi'd2 (rather than 9 �d3) was chosen by

Carlsen versus Aronian at Wijk aan Zee 20 12.

What is interesting is that after 9 ... h5, White
played 10 �d3 after all. The point is that Black's

'free' move ... h5 is a weakening one. This is the
same thing that happens in our main line.

7 e3

7 f3 !? has been used a lot, but I' 11 stick to this
solid approach.

This has been called equal, but White stands 7 ... �f5 (D) better with the forcing sequence 1 1 �xf5 !

l2Jxf5 1 2 0-0 (even 1 2 e4 dxe4 1 3 l2Jxe4 'fi'b4+

14 'ii'c3 'fi'xc3+ 1 5 bxc3 gives White a minor
edge because of his centralized pieces and w Black's dark-squared weaknesses) 1 2 ... 0-0 1 3
e4! dxe4 1 4 lt:Jxe4 'ii'd8 ! ( 14 ... t2Jxd4 1 5 lt:Jxd4

'ifxd4 1 6 l:tad I 'fi'g7 is obviously dangerous for Black; White can build up a great position
by 1 7 'ii'b3 b6 1 8 'fi'a3, preventing Black's
knight from getting out; e.g., 1 8 ... c5 1 9 l:td6!

.:tc8 20 t2Jf6+ 'iti>h8 2 1 'fi'a4 ! a5 22 l:tel lt:Ja6 23
l:te7 c4 24 g3 +-) 15 'ii'b3 (or 1 5 l:tad l l2Ja6 1 6
l:He l ;!;) 1 5 ... 'fi'b6 1 6 'ili'a3 l2Jd7 1 7 l:tfel l:tad8

1 8 l:tad 1 ;!;; h3 and g4 follows.

c) 6 ... t2Jf6 (D) is the most obvious move. White has some good options: 8 'ili'd2!

c l ) 7 e3 lt:Jh5?! (7 ... 0-0 8 �d3 t2Jbd7 is also White was already ahead in development, so common and leads to positions similar to the he can afford this loss of tempo. The idea is to

3 ... t2Jf6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 �g5 main line if White chase Black's bishop away and seize territory
plays t2Jf3 and h3) 8 �e5 l2Jd7 9 �e2 l2Jxe5 I 0 by f3 and g4 or l2Je2-g3 when appropriate. Of
dxe5 g6 1 1 �xh5 gxh5 12 0-0-0 f6 (Grishchuk course, 8 �d3 �xd3 9 'ii'xd3 t2Jf6 is playable,

Aronian, Candidates rapid, Kazan 201 1 ) and if uninspiring. now 1 3 e4! should lead to some advantage; e.g., 8 ••• t2Jf6

1 3 ... d4 14 exf6 �xf6 15 lt:Jf3 c5 16 l2Jd5 �e6 17 8 ... t2Jd7 9 f3 t2Jb6 1 0 e4 �e6 1 1 e5 ! h5 1 2
t2Jf4 ;t �d3 'ii'd7 1 3 b3 (or 1 3 l2Jge2) 1 3 .. . �h4+ 1 4 26 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

g3 il..e7 1 5 'it>f2!? ! favoured White in Karpov gxf5 1 8 'ii'xf5 with threats. After 1 8 ... lbg4!, 1 9

Kasparov, World Ch (7), London/Leningrad .l:tfl ! il..g5 ( 1 9 ... lbxe5 20 dxe5 ±) 20 il..f4 il..xf4 1 986. 2 1 'ii'xf4 continues the attack.

9 f3 (D) 15 .l:tael

Better is 1 5 lLlf4! with the idea 1 5 ... lbxf4 1 6

exf4! and f5.

15 ••• 0-0 16 g4

8 Given an exclamation point by more than one
annotator, which is probably an incorrect assess
ment. 1 6 lLlf4 is still possible, when Topalov's

16 ... lbxf4 1 7 il..xf4 lbh5 1 8 il..h6 .l:te8 1 9 e4
il..g5 ! might be improved upon by 1 8 il..e5 !, but I'm not sure if White has anything meaningful.

16 ••• hxg3?! Now Black faces some real difficulties. After

1 6 ... lbd7!, Topalov gives 1 7 f4 f6 1 8 'ii'xg6+ ( 1 8
e4 fxe5 1 9 exd5 e4 20 'ii'xe4 lbg7 21 dxc6 is dy
namically equal) 1 8 ... lbg7 1 9 'it>h l , but 1 9 ... 'iVe8
should be alright.

9 .•• h5!? 17 hxg3 lbd7 18 'it>g2 lbxe5

To stop g4, as well as to prevent lbe2-g3 with 1 8 ... .l:te8 can be answered with 1 9 f4! . the move ... h4. Of course, this is somewhat 1 9 dxe5 weakening. Other moves: White intends f4-f5. In the game Topalov
a) 9 ... c5 10 il..h6! ? (White can also play 10 Karpov, Wijk aan Zee 1 998, White's attack tri
lbge2 or 1 0 il..b5+ lbc6 1 1 il..h6) I 0 ... cxd4 1 1 umphed after 1 9 ... 'ii'd7 20 f4 f5 (20 ... lbc5 21
exd4 a6 ( 1 l ... lbc6 1 2 il..b5 ! ± Kasparov) 1 2 g4 'ii'c2 'ii'g4 22 lbd4 followed by .l:th l clearly fa
il..e6 1 3 lbge2 lbbd7 ( 1 3 ... lbc6 1 4 il..g2 il..f8 1 5 vours White, as does 20 ... 'it>g7 21 f5 !) 2 1 g4

O-O il..xh6 1 6 'ii'xh6 'iVb6 1 7 'ii'g7 'it>e7 1 8 .l:tad l .l:tf7?! 22 .l:th 1 il..f8 23 gxf5 lLlc5 24 'ii'd l 'ii'xf5
with the idea 1 8 ... h6?? 1 9 lLlf4) 14 il..g2 lbb6 1 5 25 lbd4 'ii'd7 26 .l:tegl .l:te8. White is winning
b3 .l:tc8 1 6 0-0 .l:tc6 1 7 h 3 with a bind, Kas here. Topalov gives the best move as 27 'it>f2!,
parov-Short, Thessaloniki Olympiad 1 988. with the pretty line 27 ... .l:txe5 28 .l:txg6+ il..g7
b) 9 ... 0-0 is probably best, even if it risks 29 .l:txg7+! 'it>xg7 30 �g1 + 'it>f8 3 1 .l:!.h8+ 'it>e7
walking into h4-h5: 1 0 g4! ? (White gets only 32 'ii'g8 lbd3+ 33 'it>gl .l:txe3 34 lbf5+! and
the slightest of advantages from 10 lbge2 .l:te8 White wins.

1 1 lbg3 il..e6 1 2 l:tc l ) I O ... il..e6 1 1 lbge2 c5?! Obviously White can't count upon a sub

12 h4 h5 1 3 g5 lbe8 14 dxc5 il..xc5 1 5 0-0-0 stantial advantage in this line, but moves like 1 5

'i!Va5 1 6 a3 ± Benjamin-Schroer, Internet 20 10. lbf4 are an indication that Black is the only one

But this line is undoubtedly alright for Black. under any stress.

10 il..d3

10 lbge2 h4 I I g4 is another course. 1.22) 10 ••• il..xd3 11 �xd3 lba6

1 l ...lbbd7 1 2 lbge2 0-0 ( 1 2 ... h4 1 3 h3 0-0 5 ••• lbf6

14 0-0 with e4 to come) 1 3 e4! ? (good, but 1 3 This hasn't been as popular as 5 ... c6 over the

0-0 first is more cautious) 1 3 .. . dxe4 14 fxe4 years, but it's a serious option. White plays sim
lbc5 !? 1 5 'ii'f3 lbe6 1 6 0-0-0! lLlxf4 1 7 lLlxf4 ! ply: M.Gurevich-Geller, Moscow 1987. 6 e3 0-0

12 lLlge2 lLlc7 13 0-0 lbe6 14 il..e5 h4 6 ... il..f5 !? is yet another attempt to get the

1 4 ... 0-0 1 5 f4!? ( ' ! ' Topalov; although 1 5 light-squared bishop out. Then the obvious 7

.l:tae 1 i s a good and perhaps preferable prepara 'ii'b3 is met by the gambit 7 ... lbc6! ?, which af
tory move) 1 5 ... lbg7 1 6 f5 lbxf5 ( 1 6 ... g5 1 7 ter a lot of study I've concluded is satisfactory
il..xf6 il..xf6 1 8 e4 dxe4 1 9 lbxe4 !) 1 7 .l:txf5 ! for Black, and the play is certainly not strategic

QUEEN'S GAMBIT DECLINED 2 7

in nature. So I'll recommend the simpler 7 White's bishop already on the desirable square
lbge2 (D) (naturally 7 lbf3 isn't bad, but you'll f4. want to exchange bishops next by .i.d3, which b) 7 ... b6 8 lbf3 c5 9 lbe5 ..tb7 10 0-0 l2Jc6
is essentially equal), and now: I I 'i!i'f3 cxd4?! 1 2 lDxc6 ..txc6 1 3 exd4 results
in a bad bishop for Black and a standard posi
tional advantage for White, Bocharov-V.Zait

sev, St Petersburg 2005.

B

w

a) 7 ... 0-0 8 l:tc l (8 h3 !? and 8 l2Jg3 have also
been played here) 8 ... c6 9 lbg3 i.e6 (9 ... ..tg6 10
h4 h6 1 1 h5 ..th7 12 ..td3 ;!; favours White; not
only does he have space, but he can exchange 8 l2Jge2 and put a knight on f5, from where it is very dif As usual, White has various ways to set up,
ficult to drive away) 10 i.d3 l:te8 ( 1 0 ... l2Jbd7 1 1 and in fact 8 l2Jf3 may appeal to you more. But

0-0 a6 1 2 l2Jf5 ! ?) 1 1 'ili'b3 'i!i'b6 1 2 'ili'c2 (this is l2Jge2 has the advantage of not allowing ... ..tg4
beginning to look much more like a Queen's without getting in the free and useful move f3.

Gambit again!) 12 ... l2Jbd7 1 3 0-0 ( 1 3 lDf5 ..txf5 8 ••• l2Jc6 9 0-0

14 ..txf5 g6 15 i.h3) 13 ... g6 14 a3 'ili'd8 1 5 h4!? 9 dxc5 .i.xc5 10 0-0 is safe, but it's more am
and White has a little extra space on each side of bitious to maintain the tension. the board to work with. 9 .•. cxd4
b) 7 ... c6 8 l2Jg3 i.e6 9 i.d3 can transpose, 9 ... a6 I 0 dxc5 ! isolates the d-pawn at an op-
but in Istratescu-Z.Vukovic, Bucharest 2000, portune moment: I O ... ..txc5 I I l:tc I (or 1 1 White decided to forego the usual l:tc 1 : 9 ... g6 ..tg5, with the idea l l ... ..te6 12 lDf4 or l l ... h6

(to control f5) 10 'ili'c2 l2Jbd7 1 1 .l:ldl (in order 1 2 ..txf6 't!ixf6 1 3 'i!i'b3 !) l l ...i.e6 ( l l ...d4 12
to discourage ... c5). Then he turned to a strat l2Je4 l2Jxe4 13 i.xe4 i.b6 14 i.xc6 bxc6 1 5
egy of central expansion: I I ...l2Jb6 1 2 f3 0-0 1 3 l2Jxd4 ±; l l ... ..te7 1 2 'i!i'b3 threatens lba4 as

0-0 l:tc8 14 �h i l2Jfd7 1 5 lbge2 (versus ... g5) well as l:tfd l ) 1 2 l2Ja4 i.d6 1 3 i.b l h6 14

1 5 ... f5 1 6 .i.h6 l:te8 1 7 e4! fxe4 1 8 fxe4 i.g5 19 'i!i'b3 !? l:tb8 1 5 l:tfd 1 puts a good deal of pres

..txg5 'i!i'xg5 20 l2Jf4 with a nice advantage. A sure on Black's position. At this point the
wonderful demonstration of strategic insight. positionally desirable 1 5 ... d4 is answered by

7 ..td3 c5!? (D) 1 6 'i!i'd3 ..txf4 1 7 l2Jxf4 with the idea 1 7 ... dxe3

An unusual counterstroke in this line, but 1 8 'i!i'xe3 ±. perhaps more appropriate since the bishop is 10 l2Jxd4 l2Jxd4 11 exd4 ..te6 already on d3 blocking the d-file in case of Now Alatortsev-Stolberg, Kiev 1940 contin
dxc5. ued 1 2 l:tc l l:tc8 1 3 l:tel (or 1 3 'ili'b3 ;!;) 13 ... a6
a) Instead, 7 ... c6 8 �c2 l2Jbd7 9 l2Jf3 l:te8 1 4 'i!i'b3 b5 1 5 a4 ;!;, while 1 2 lDb5 ! looks good

1 0 h3 ! is just like our 3 ... lbf6 main line with because lbc7 and lbxe6 can't be prevented.

2 Tarrasch Defence

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 tt'lc3 c5 (D) but the d-pawn will be a target and it' s hard for

Black to get his pieces into the aggressive posi

tions which normally compensate for his iso
lated pawn. Of course, White can also ignore
w Black's move-order, and play simply 6 g3.

6 g3 (D)

B

This is the Tarrasch Defence to the Queen's

Gambit. Black makes an immediate and radical
challenge to White's centre.

4 cxd5

Faced with the threat of 4 ... cxd4, White de
cides to resolve some of the tension in the centre. White enters the 'Rubinstein Variation' . In

The move 4 e3 introduces a form of Symmetri fact, it's hard to find another move which makes
cal Tarrasch which can also transpose to Semi a serious try for advantage. In bringing his

Tarrasch lines where White has an isolated bishop to g2, White aims at Black's pawn on d5
queen's pawn. This is a perfectly legitimate while indirectly controlling e4 and preparing to
choice, although most players consider it a bit castle. By contrast with 4 e3 or 5 e3, he keeps a
passive and lacking in ambition. diagonal open for the development of his dark

4 ••• exd5 squared bishop.

4 ... cxd4!? is the Hennig-Schara Gambit, 6 ••• tt'lf6 which I've included in Chapter 3. This is the most natural development. Black

5 tt'lf3 tt'lc6 can also try to change the central structure or

Black brings out a piece to bear pressure on force its resolution by more direct means:

d4. 5 ... tt'lf6 has tended to be considered weak a) 6 ... ..tg4 7 i.g2 ..txf3 8 i.xf3 is prema
due to 6 �g5, when Black has to make conces ture for Black: 8 ... cxd4 (8 ... tt'lxd4 9 �xd5) 9
sions to defend his centre, but White's advan tt'lxd5 tt'lge7 1 0 tt'lf4! g6 1 1 0-0 �g7 1 2 tt'ld3
tage in the resulting variations may have been 0-0 1 3 �g5 ± Mikenas. overstated. For example, 6 ... cxd4 (6 ... �e7 7 b) 6 ... cxd4 7 tt'lxd4 'iVb6 8 tt'lxc6 �c5 !? 9
dxc5 �e6 8 e3 and after 8 ... i.xc5 9 i.xf6 'i¥xf6 tt'ld4 i.xd4 1 0 e3 i.xc3+ 1 1 bxc3 tt'le7 12 �a3

I 0 �b5+ tt'lc6 I I 0-0 White threatens tt'lxd5 or, left White significantly better in Hiibner-Pen
upon I l ...l:.d8, can reply 1 2 'iVa4) 7 tt'lxd4 i.e7 rose, Paignton 1 970 because of his powerful

8 e3 (8 g3 0-0 9 i.g2 tt'lc6 I 0 0-0 transposes to bishops, and Black still has to get castled.

Section 2.3) 8 ... 0-0 9 i.e2 tt'lc6 1 0 0-0 h6 I I c) 6 ... c4 is a traditionally important move
i.h4 and White has only a moderate advantage, called the Swedish Variation. It comes close to

TARRASCH DEFENCE 29

equalizing, but after many years, White found a c3) 9 ... dxe4 10 tt:lxe4 (D) gives White the way to break in the centre at the right moment typical active pieces that go with the isolani:

and assert control over the position: 7 .i.g2 .i.b4

8 0-0 tt:lge7 (8 .. .'�Jf6 9 .i.g5 .i.e6 1 0 e4!? dxe4 1 1

tt:lxe4 .i.e? 1 2 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 3 d5 ! .i.xd5 14
tt:lxf6+ gxf6 1 5 �c l ! intends :d 1 and 'ii'h6 or B 'i�Vf4 with a clear advantage) 9 e4! (D) and now:

B

c3 1 ) 10 ... .i.g4 I I a3 .i.a5 12 .i.f4!? (or 12
d5 ! tt:lxd5 13 tt:lc5) 1 2 ... 0-0 1 3 tt:ld6 .i.e? 14
tt:lxb7 �b8 1 5 .i.xc7 ! and now 1 5 ... �xb7 1 6

.i.d6 or 1 5 .. . �xc7 1 6 d5 ! 'i!Vxb7 1 7 dxc6 tt:lxc6

1 8 �a4 ;!;.

c 1 ) 9 ... .i.xc3 1 0 bxc3 dxe4 1 1 tt:ld2. White c32) 10 ... 0-0 I I 'ii'c2 ( 1 1 a3 ..taS 1 2 �a4 wants to post his knight aggressively on e4 or ;!;) l l ....i.g4 ( l l ...'ifd5 ! ? 1 2 .i.e3 ;!;; l l .....tfS
c4 in conjunction with a passed d-pawn. The 1 2 tt:lh4! :c8 1 3 tt:lf6+ ! ± Lautier-O.Rodri
position after l l ...f5 1 2 tt:lxc4 ( 1 2 �h5+ g6 1 3 guez, Barcelona 1 992) 1 2 'iVxc4 ..txf3 1 3

�h6 is rather awkward for Black) 1 2 ... .i.e6 1 3 .i.xf3 �xd4 ( 1 3 .. . tt:lxd4 14 .i.g2 ± ) 14 �b3 ;!;
tt:le3 0-0 1 4 :bl �d7 1 5 .i.a3 ! illustrates the S.Vukovic-Kostic, Yugoslav Ch, Zagreb 1 946;
combination of bishop-pair and centre, since White has an active bishop-pair on a wide

15 ... .i.xa2?! 1 6 :b2 .i.f7 ( 1 6 ... .i.e6 1 7 c4!) 1 7 open board.

f3 ! exf3 1 8 'ii'xf3 gives White an abundance of 7 .i.g2 .i.e7 compensation for a pawn. Over the years, other moves have fallen by
c2) 9 ... 0-0 10 exd5 tt:lxd5 offers White two the wayside: ways to claim an edge: a) 7 ... ..tg4 8 .i.e3 cxd4 (8 ... c4 9 tt:le5) 9
c2 1 ) I I tt:lxd5 �xd5 1 2 .i.e3 �b5 ! (the tt:lxd4 .i.b4 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 :c 1 :e8 (Taimanov best move; after 12 ... .i.f5 1 3 tt:le5 .i.e4 1 4 Baumbach, European Team Ch, Kapfenberg tt:lxc6 �xc6 1 5 .i.xe4 �xe4 1 6 �a4 aS 1 7 a3 1 970) and now a direct path to advantage is 1 2

White wins a pawn - Becerra; 1 2 ... .i.g4 1 3 h3 ..thS 1 3 g4 .i.g6 14 'iib3 ;!;. tt:le5 ! �xg2+ 1 4 �xg2 .i.xd l 1 5 tt:lxc6 bxc6 b) The g3 variation's 'founding game' con

1 6 :fxd 1 and one of the c-pawns falls) 1 3 d5 tinued 7 ... cxd4 8 tt:lxd4 'iib6 9 tt:lxc6! (a stan
tt:le7 14 tt:ld4 'ii'a6 1 5 a3 .i.d6 1 6 :c 1 �d7 1 7 dard resolution of the pawn-centre which works

:el ;!;. when White is ahead in development) 9 ... bxc6
c22) I I .i.g5 1i'a5 ( l l ...f6 12 tt:lxd5 1i'xd5 1 3 1 0 0-0 .i.e? I I tt:la4!? ( I I e4! dxe4 12 .i.e3 ! ;!; is
tt:le5 ! 'ii'b5 1 4 a4! 'ii'a6 1 5 tt:lxc6 bxc6, Tregu best, since 1 2 ... �xb2 1 3 .i.d4 'iVa3 14 tt:lxe4
bov-Moskalenko, Alushta 1 994, and now 1 6 0-0 1 5 tt:lxf6+ ..ixf6 16 .i.xf6 gxf6 1 7 .i.xc6

.i.e3 ! followed by 'ii'c2 and bringing the rooks leaves Black's pawn-structure in poor standing)

to the centre should secure an advantage) 1 2 l l ...�b5 12 .i.e3 0-0 1 3 :c l .i.g4 14 f3 (14
tt:lxd5 �xd5 1 3 a3 !? ( 1 3 :c l ! ;!;) 1 3 ... .i.a5 1 4 :e 1) 14 ... ..ie6 1 5 .i.c5 :fe8 1 6 :f2 tt:ld7 17
tt:le5 �b5 1 5 a4 'ii'a6 1 6 tt:lxc6 bxc6 1 7 'iic2 ;!; .i.xe7 :xe7 1 8 �d4 ;!; Rubinstein-Salwe, Lodz

Timoshchenko-Mi.Tseitlin, Palma de Mallorca 1 908. 1 989. 8 0-0 (D)

30 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

B B

8 .•. 0-0 2. 1 }

a) 8 ... c4? 9 li:le5 0-0 10 ..tf4! with the idea

I O ... ..i.e6 1 1 li:lxc4! dxc4 12 d5 li:lxd5 1 3 li:lxd5 9 ... ..te6 and it's hard for Black to hold on to his pawns White has to play very accurately to gain any
without making concessions; e.g., 1 3 ... ..i.xd5 meaningful advantage against this simple de

14 ..i.xd5 li:la5?! ( 1 4 ... ..i.f6 1 5 .:.c 1 ..i.xb2 1 6 veloping move .

.:.xc4 .:.cs 1 7 e4) 15 e4! ..i.f6 1 6 'ir'e2 ±. 10 dxcS (D)

b) Once again, 8 ... cxd4 is premature due to

9 li:lxd4 0-0 lO li:lb3 ! ..i.e6 I I ..i.g5 (or I I ..i.e3)

l l .. . .:.es 12 .:.c I ;\; (Keilhack).

c) 8 ... ..i.g4 9 li:le5 ! cxd4 I 0 li:lxg4 li:lxg4 B

( I 0 ... dxc3 I I li:lxf6+ ..i.xf6 1 2 bxc3 0-0 1 3 .:.b 1

± Petersons-Abrosimov, Latvian Ch, Riga 1 970)

I I li:lxd5 0-0 1 2 e3 li:lf6 1 3 li:lxe 7 + 'if xe 7 1 4
exd4 .l:!.fd8 15 ..i.e3 'ir'd7 16 'ir'b3 ± Vogt-Baum
bach, East German Ch, Frankfurt Oder 1 977.

d) 8 ... ..i.e6 commits the bishop before Black
has to do so. White can play 9 dxc5, and then:

d I ) 9 ... d4 I 0 li:lb5 ( I 0 li:la4 0-0 1 1 b4!)

IO ... ..txc5 1 1 b4! a6 ( l l .....i.xb4 1 2 li:lfxd4 li:lxd4

1 3 li:lxd4 ± Kasparov) 1 2 li:lc7 + 'ir'xc7 1 3 bxc5

.l:!.d8 14 ..i.f4 'i!Va5 1 5 ..i.d6 ± Zhukhovitsky

Pavlenko, Rostov-na-Donu 1 969. 10 ... ..txc5
d2) 9 ... ..txc5 I 0 li:la4 (after lO ..i.g5, 10 ... 0-0 Black used to play numerous alternatives at
transposes to Section 2. 1 , while IO ... ..i.e7 I I this point, but several lose a pawn and others are
li:ld4 is also undesirable for Black) I O ... ..i.e7 I I positional concessions, so I'll just show three:

..i.e3 0-0 1 2 .:.c I ( 1 2 li:lc5 li:\e4 1 3 li:lxe6 fxe6 14 a) I O ... .l:!.c8 postpones recapture until White
li:ld4 ;\; Alekhine-Muffang, Paris 1923) 12 ... li:le4 commits. The most effective answer is I I .l:!.c 1 !

1 3 li:ld4 li:lxd4 14 ..i.xd4 'ir'd7 15 f3 ! li:lf6 1 6 h6 ( l l .....i.xc5 1 2 ..i.xf6 'ir'xf6 1 3 li:lxd5 ..i.xd5
li:\c5 ..i.xc5 17 .l:!.xc5 ;\;, 1 4 'ir'xd5 ±) 1 2 ..i.xf6 ..i.xf6 1 3 li:le l ( 1 3 'ir'a4

9 ..i.gS (D) b6!?) 1 3 ... 'ir'a5 1 4 li:ld3 ;\;, The key position of the main-line Tarrasch b) 1 o ... h6 1 1 ..te3 li:\g4 12 ..td4 li:lxd4 1 3

Defence. Black has three important moves here, li:lxd4 ..i.xc5 1 4 li:lb3 ..i.d6 1 5 li:lxd5 ..i.e5
leading to very distinct types of positions: (Orlov-Mayka, Chicago 1 994) 1 6 li:\c5 ! .:.b8 1 7

2.1: 9 ... ..te6 30 e4 li:lf6 1 8 'ir'b3 ± (Grivas).

2.2: 9 ... c4 32 c) IO ... d4 I I ..i.xf6 ..i.xf6 1 2 li:le4 ..i.e7 1 3

2.3: 9 ... cxd4 36 .l:!.c 1 ( 1 3 'ir'd2 ..i.f5 1 4 li:le I ! ..i.g6 1 5 li:ld3 gives

TARRASCH DEFENCE 31

White the ideal blockader; in De Jong-Schenke

veld, Hoogeveen 2006, Black got his pawn
back after 1 5 .. .f5 1 6 ti:ld6 .txd6 1 7 cxd6 'ii' xd6 B 1 8 .:!.ac 1 , but at the cost of weaknesses and su
perbly-placed enemy pieces) 1 3 .. .f5 1 4 ti:led2

( 1 4 ti:ld6 .txd6 1 5 cxd6 'ii'xd6 1 6 'ii'a4 ;!;)

14 ... .tf6 1 5 tt:lel a5 1 6 �a4 .tg5 1 7 .:!.dl ±

(Grivas).

l l .txf6!

Beginning a forced sequence which leads to
an enduring positional advantage.

ll ••• 'ii'xf6 12 ti:lxd5 'ii'xb2 13 tt:lc7 :ladS

1 3 ... .:!.ac8?! 14 tt:lxe6 fxe6 15 .:!.bl ! ( 1 5 lt:lg5 !?)

1 5 ... Vi'xa2 1 6 .:!.xb7 is quite strong.

14 Vi'cl! Vi'xc1 15 .:!.axel (D) This rook-lift has become routine: White
covers d4 and b4 versus knight intrusions, and
can transfer the rook to e4 to put pressure on e6.

The move also serves to free the fl -rook to dou

B ble or go to b 1 . Notice that both bishops are un
opposed by a counterpart, so they are more
effective attackers. In this case White's bishop
has targets on c6 and e6: 1 7 ... h6 ( 1 7 ... .:!.f6 1 8
tt:lg5 h6 1 9 tt:le4 .:!.f5 20 .th3 .:!.e5 2 1 e3 ;!;

Banas-Starke, Germany (team event) 1 998/9;

1 7 ... .:td6 1 8 tt:lg5 .:!.f5 19 tt:le4 ;!;) 1 8 .:!.e4 .:!.fe8

1 9 e3 .:!.d6 20 h4 .td8 2 1 .:l.b1 b6 22 .tfl ! ;!;

Lein-Farago, USSR-Hungary match, Moscow

1 97 1 .

d) 1 5 ... b6 1 6 tt:lxe6 fxe6 1 7 e3 !? (this re
stricts Black's bishop and knight; the alterna

This is a fascinating ending that has arisen tive is 17 .th3 .:!.fe8 1 8 .:!.fd I ;!; Grivas) 1 7 ... h6
scores of times over the years. After capturing 1 8 .:!.c4!? .:!.d6 1 9 .:!.e4 (D). on e6, White will exert pressure upon Black's
weak pawns, but whether that translates into a

win depends upon the circumstances. Why

Black wants to suffer in this way is another mat B ter.

15 •.• .te7

The alternatives all have similar positional
problems; for example:

a) 1 5 ... .tb4 1 6 tt:lxe6 fxe6 1 7 .:!.c4 ;!; (Gri
vas).

b) 1 5 ... .ta3 1 6 tt:lxe6 fxe6 1 7 .l:tc4 ( 1 7 .:tc3

.tb4!? 1 8 .:l.b3 a5 1 9 a3 a4, Gregorz-Gabbara,

Chicago 1 995, and White's pieces will out
weigh the rooks following 20 .:!.xb4 tt:lxb4 2 1
axb4) 17 ... .:!.d6. Here Black's pawns are vulner
able; for example, 1 8 tt:lg5 ! ? ( 1 8 .:l.bl !) 1 8 ... h6 Basically, Black is going to be tied to defence

1 9 .txc6 .l:txc6 20 .:!.xc6 bxc6 2 1 tt:lxe6 (2 1 regardless of the specifics, so I'll limit the ma lt:le4!?) 2 I .. . .:!.e8 22 ti:ld4 ;!;. terial: 1 9 ... .:!.f5 ( 1 9 ... .:!.fd8 20 .th3 'it>f7 2 1 'it>g2
c) 1 5 ... .tb6 1 6 tt:lxe6 fxe6 1 7 .:!.c4 (D). g5?! 22 .tg4 'it>f6 23 .:!.h 1 ti:lb4?! 24 h4 .:l.g8 25 32 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

hxg5+ hxg5 26 .l:.h7 and White wins, V.Milov tread more carefully than his opponent. To

Farina, Porto San Giorgio 1 996; 1 9 ... tt:lb4 20 complicate matters, this 9 ... c4 variation has
tt:le5 ! ltJxa2 2 1 .l:.a4 tt:lc3 22 .l:.xa7 ;!; A.Petro become quite theoretical and requires me to
sian-Espig, Erevan 1 982) 20 h4 rtrf7. In the present some dense technical material. That is
game Khuzman-Stripunsky, Simferopol 1990, something I generally try to avoid in this book.

White slowly gained the upper hand: 2 1 .l:.bl ! ? If you simply want to get a feel for the play, I'd

.l:.fd5?! 22 ..tfl ! rtrf6 2 3 rtrg2 lid 1 24 .l:.xd I start out by trolling around for interesting ideas,

.l:.xd l 25 ..tb5 .l:.d6 26 h5 rtre7?! 27 tt:lh4! rtrd8 and then learn as many specifics as seem neces

28 tt:lg6 ±. sary to play comfortably.

16 tt:lxe6 fxe6 17 .l:.c4 10 tt:le5 ..te6 (D)

Once again we have the basic imbalance. It's Pretty much forced, to protect d5. remarkable how often White's minor advan

tages suffice to win.

17 .•• ..tf6

Now 1 8 .l:.bl has been played many times, w while after 1 8 h4, Raetsky-Sedlacek, Schwii
bisch Gmtind 2002 continued 1 8 ... .l:.d5 1 9 .l:.b I

.l:.fd8 20 rtrh2 .l:.8d7 2 1 a4 h6 22 e3 rtrf7 23
rtrh3 g6? ! (this creates weaknesses) 24 .l:.bc I

.l:.a5 25 .l:. l c2 .l:.ad5?! 26 ltJh2 ! .l:.a5 27 ..txc6 !

bxc6 28 tt:lg4 ±. White threatens tt:lxh6+ and

.l:lf4.

2.2}

9 ••• c4 (D)

11 b3

I like this move; still, it leads to forced se
quences in some lines, so you shouldn't be shy
w about looking at slower moves, such as I I e3.

I I tt:lxc6 bxc6 1 2 b3 often transposes, but the
immediate 1 1 b3 bypasses certain branches and

ISSUeS.

l l .. .'it'a5 The alternatives are instructive and will in
troduce you to some key ideas:

a) l l ...cxb3 1 2 tt:lxc6 bxc6 1 3 axb3 (D).

B

This is a respectable move which, however,
has traditionally been of secondary importance.

Over the past decade or so, the standing of

Black's position has steadily improved, and to
day it is arguably as important as the main lines
with 9 ... cxd4 (although you will see it in your
games far less often). Versus good play, White
shouldn't expect more than a modest advan
tage, if indeed any at all, but the positions are
full of content and most of the time Black has to

TARRASCH DEFENCE 33

White aims for simple ideas such as the oc 24 'iti>h 1 with the idea .l:tg 1 + favours White; this
cupation of c5 by a knight supported by a rook may be the best he can do. or queen on the c-file. For example: c) As I was nearing the end of this project, a
a l ) 1 3 ... h6 14 i..xf6 i..xf6 1 5 lt::la4 and now new book by Aagaard and Ntirlis arrived which 1 5 ... 'ii'b8 1 6 lt::lc5 i..e7?! 1 7 'ii'c2 i..g4 1 8 e3 ± promotes 9 ... c4 in the Tarrasch. At this point it

Alburt-Vooremaa, USSR Team Ch, Riga 1 975, recommends 1 1 ... h6, to which it devotes 39
or 15 ... i..f5 16 'ii'd2 'ii'd6 17 lt::lc5 ;!; P.H.Niel small-print pages of analysis! Let me hit upon
sen-Rogers, Turin Olympiad 2006. some of the key issues. Play goes 1 2 lt::lxc6
a2) 1 3 ... i..g4 14 'ii'c2 'ii'b6 1 5 e3 .l:.ab8 1 6 bxc6 1 3 i..xf6 ( 1 3 i..f4 is a sensible alternative;

.l:Ifb 1 .l:Ifc8 17 lt::la4 'ii'd8 1 8 lt::lc5 with a fine without going into too many details, the most
game for White, Vilela-Ricardi, Havana 1 986. interesting line to me is 1 3 ... cxb3 14 axb3 'ii'd7
a3) 1 3 ... a5 ! ? 14 i..xf6!? ( 1 4 lt::la4! is slightly 1 5 lt::la4 l:tfe8 1 6 lt::lb2 i..f5 1 7 lt::ld3 'ii'b7 1 8
better for White) 14 ... i..xf6 1 5 lt::la4 .l:Ib8 !? 1 6 'ii'c2 a5 1 9 .l:tfc 1 .l:ta6 20 'ii'd 1 , which is more or
e3 i..f5 1 7 'ii'c 1 ! i..d3 ( 1 7 ... .l:Ixb3? 1 8 'ii'xc6 ±) less equal, but less forcing) 1 3 ... i..xf6 14 bxc4

18 .l:Id 1 i..b5 ( 1 8 ... .l:Ixb3 1 9 lt::lc5 i..c4 20 lt::lxb3 dxc4 1 5 e3 (D), and now: i.xb3 21 .l:Id3 i..c4 22 .l:Ida3 c5 23 dxc5 i..xal

24 �xal ±) 19 lt::lc5 i..e7 20 'ii'c3 .l:Ia8 21 .l:Ia3

i..xc5 22 'ii'xc5 .l:Ie8 23 .l:Ida1 .l:Ia6 24 'ii'c3 ±

J. Watson-Ghokale, Linares 1 999. B
b) 1 1 .. . .l:Ic8 is perhaps more interesting than
has previously been thought: 1 2 bxc4 dxc4 1 3

.l:Ib1 ( 1 3 lt::lxc6 bxc6 1 4 e3 'ii'a5 1 5 lt::le4! ?)

1 3 ... lt::lxd4! (theory has always cited 1 3 ... 'ii'a5

14 lt::lxc6 bxc6 1 5 lt::le4 'ii'd8 1 6 %:tb7 !, as
played, for instance, in Harika-Halkias, Kavala

2009) 14 .l:Ixb7 .l:Ic5 ! (but computer engines no
tice things like this) 1 5 i..f4 g5 (D) and now:

w c l ) 1 5 ... c5?! is too early due to 1 6 lt::le4
cxd4 1 7 lt::lxf6+ 'ii'xf6 ( 1 7 ... gxf6 1 8 exd4 with a
positional advantage; e.g., 1 8 ... i..d5 1 9 'ii'g4+

'ifi>h8 20 'ii'h5 i..xg2 2 1 'iti>xg2 'ii'xd4 22 .l:tfe 1

%:tae8 23 .l:.ad 1 'ii'b6 24 'ii'xh6+ 'it>g8 25 'ii'f4 !) 1 8 i..xa8 .l:.xa8 1 9 'ii'xd4 'ii'xd4 20 exd4 .l:td8 2 1

.l:.fe1 (21 .:.fd l i..f5 ! and ... i..d3) 2 1 ...l:!.xd4 22

.:tad 1 .l:.xd 1 23 .:.xd 1 c3 24 l:!.c 1 i..xa2 25 .l:.xc3
and the a-pawn falls.

c2) 1 5 ... 'ii'a5 is correct, when even to make
a brief recap, I'll need one more division:

c21 ) 16 'ii'c2 c5 ! (this is the exchange sacri
b l ) 16 i..xg5 .l:Ixe5 1 7 i..f4 lt::lxe2+ ( 1 7 ... %:th5 fice which the authors recognized would save

1 8 i..c7 and the knight on d4 will fall) 1 8 lt::lxe2 Black; the computer actually recommended

'ii'xd l 1 9 .l:Ixdl .l:Ixe2 20 .l:Ixe7 .l:.xa2 2 1 .i.h6 1 6 ... c5 instantly, but it seemed to me, wrongly, lt::lg4! ? (2 1 ...l1c8 22 .l:!.c7 .l:Ib8 23 .l:.c5) 22 i..xf8 that White was going to have a permanent nag

'it>xf8 23 .l:Ic7 lt::lxf2 should be drawn. ging advantage, so I analysed 1 6 ... l:!.ac8?!) 17
b2) 16 i..e3 is probably a better choice. Then i..xa8 cxd4 1 8 lt::ld5 ( 1 8 exd4 i..xd4 1 9 i..e4

16 ... lt::lxe2+ 1 7 'ii'xe2 %:txe5 1 8 f4 gxf4 1 9 gxf4 i..xc3 20 .l:.ab 1 i..f6 2 1 l:!.fd 1 c3 is the key to this
i..g4 20 'ii'f2 .l:th5 isn't very clear, but it appears line, fully equal as long as Black plays accu
as though 2 1 h3! i..f5 22 .l:!.d 1 i..d3 23 i..f3 l:tf5 rately) 1 8 ... i..xd5 1 9 i..xd5 'ii'xd5, and a 34 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

snippet of their analysis is 20 exd4 ..ixd4 2 1 12 'ii'd2 l:.ae l c 3 22 'ii'e4 (22 l:.e7 l:.c8 and ... g6) The books had been rather kind to Black in 22 ... 'ii'c5 23 l:.e2 l:.d8 24 �g2 f5 ! 25 'ilfb7 'ii'c4, this position until recently, when Lars Schan
when in the end White can't make progress. dorff advocated the white side in his Queen's
c22) 16 l:.cl l:.ac8 17 'ii'a4 (while it probably Gambit book. Still, 1 2 ..id2 is a reasonable al
doesn't change the assessment, 1 7 'ili'c2 ..ie7 1 8 ternative; for example, 1 2 ... ..ib4 ( 1 2 ... 'ii'b6 1 3
lLle2 might generate more of an imbalance; then bxc4 'ii'xd4 1 4 cxd5 ;!;) 1 3 lLlxc6 bxc6 1 4 'ii'c2

1 8 ... c5? is poor due to 1 9 d5) l 7 .. .'i¥xa4 1 8 cxb3 1 5 axb3 'ii'b6 1 6 e3 ;!; (Scherbakov). lLlxa4 ..ie7 19 lLlb2 ..ia3 20 l:.c2 ..ixb2 2 1 l:.xb2 12 lLlxc6 bxc6 is also important. Then 1 3
l:tc7 reaches a position to which Aagaard and lLla4 is a main line, when l 3 ... l:.ab8 1 4 'ii'c2

Ntirlis devote seven pages of analysis! I've gone .l:.fc8 is considered equal. And 1 3 'ii'd2 either
over a good deal of it with the help of an analyti transposes into or resembles 1 2 'ii'd2 lines. 1 3
cal engine and I'd say the authors have done a 'ii'c2! (D) is the best follow-up to the knight ex thorough and impartial job of arguing for equal change, and I think produces a small but mean
ity. However, the resulting positions require con ingful advantage. siderable accuracy from Black. He has to make
many good decisions to get to one drawish posi

tion, including two ridiculously subtle moves

(they describe one as "the deepest move in the B book", and it was not even discovered by the au
thors themselves!). The more general difficulties
faced by Black are indicated by the only test I've
seen of this line, a recent game by Aagaard him
self in which Black was slowly outplayed: 22
l:.c l g5 ! ? 23 l:.d2 1ld8 24 h3 (or 24 f4 ;!;)

24 ... �g7 25 g4 h5 26 gxh5 �h6 27 ..if3 f5 28

�h2 f4!? 29 e4! l:.cd7 30 ..ig4 ..ixg4 3 1 hxg4
l:.xd4 32 l:.dc2 ;!; (or 32 l:.xd4 l:.xd4 33 e5 !)

32 ... l:.d2? (32 ... l:.xe4 ;!;) 33 l:.xd2 l:.xd2 34 �g2
l:.d4 35 e5 ± A.Rasmussen-Aagaard, Danish Ch, Elsinore 201 2. That's only one game, but it's There has been a lot of practical experience
safe to say that, regardless of the ultimate theo from this position, and the following non-ex
retical verdict after l l ... h6, you can deviate at haustive excerpts illustrate many of the major
many points with alternate moves which will at themes of this variation: the very least pose practical difficulties and force a) 1 3 ... h6 1 4 ..ixf6 ..ixf6 1 5 e3 l:.ac8 1 6

Black to think on his own. bxc4 dxc4 1 7 11abl !.

We now return to I I ...'ii'a5 (D): b) 1 3 ... .l:.ad8 14 l:.ac l h6 1 5 ..ixf6 ..ixf6 1 6
e3 cxb3 1 7 axb3 l:.b8 1 8 lLla4 !.

c) 1 3 ... l:tab8 1 4 bxc4 dxc4 1 5 lLle4 and

Black's pawn-structure will be further dam
w aged.

d) 1 3 ... l:.ac8 14 bxc4 dxc4 1 5 lLle4 l!i'd8

(Zayats-Kovalevskaya, Russian Women's Ch,

Taganrog 201 1 ) and now 16 ..ixf6 ..ixf6 17 e3
looks like the best way to stop counterplay and
secure the advantage.

e) 1 3 ... l:.fd8 is one of the better choices,
when 1 4 l:l.fd l l:.ac8 1 5 bxc4 dxc4 doesn't
seem to give White much. I'd recommend the
careful 1 4 e3 l:.ac8 1 5 bxc4 dxc4 1 6 lLle4 c5

( 1 6 ... 'ii'f5 1 7 l:.ab 1 has the idea 1 7 ... c5 1 8 l:.b5

TARRASCH DEFENCE 35

with an edge) 1 7 �xf6 gxf6 ( 1 7 ... �xf6 1 8 d5 advantage) l 6 ... dxc4 1 7 e3 c5 1 8 d5 �xc3 1 9

�xd5 I 9 l2Jxf6+ gxf6 20 �xd5 .:txd5 2 1 'ii'xc4 .:txc3 (or 1 9 'ili'xc3 t ) l 9 .. . �xd5 20 �xd5 .:txd5 .l:.cd8 22 .:tab I with a modest advantage based 21 'ii'c2 t Gelfand-Grishchuk, Russian Team upon Black's kingside structure) 1 8 d5 ! �xd5 Ch, Sochi 2004. 19 .:tfd 1 �e6 20 l2Jc3 ! 13 l2Jxc6 is only slightly better, but the position has l 3 bxc4 l2Jxd4! is supposed to be good, al
plenty of content. though 1 4 cxd5 ! 'ili'xc3 ! 1 5 'ili'xc3 l2Jxe2+ 16
f) 1 3 ... �b4 is like the main text, but with no
pin: 14 �d2 !? (or 14 .:tfc l �a3 1 5 l:tcb l ) an interesting enough position with the bishop

14 .. . cxb3 ( 14 ... c5 1 5 a3 cxb3 1 6 'ii'b2 �xc3 17 pair. �xc3 'ii'c7 1 8 dxc5 t) 1 5 axb3 ifb6 1 6 e3 13 ... bxc6 14 .:tfd1 �b4 (D) �xc3 17 �xc3 .:tfc8 (Dorfman-Lputian, Euro The toughest move. l 4 ... ifa6 l 5 l2Ja4 t has pean Clubs Cup, CSK.A-Trud 1 986) and here the nice idea l 5 ... 'ili'b5 16 .:tac l ! cxb3 ( 1 6 ... .:tfe8

1 8 l:.a3 secures a meaningful advantage. 17 l2Jc5) 1 7 axb3 �xb3 1 8 l2Jc5 ! �xeS 19

We now return to 1 2 'ii'd2 (D): l:.xc5 and after Black's pawns are doubled on
f6, White gets distinctly the better game.

B

w

12 ... .:tad8

1 2 ... �b4 1 3 �xf6 gxf6 14 l2Jxc6 bxc6 is an 15 l1dcl important position which top players have tested 1 5 �x f6 gxf6 1 6 .:tdc l �a3 1 7 .:tc2 �f5 1 8
that can also arise via 1 1 l2Jxc6 bxc6 1 2 b3 ifa5 e4 �g6 1 9 bxc4 dxc4 and now 20 'ii'e3 gave

1 3 'ii'd2 �b4 14 �xf6 gxf6. Play can continue White a slim advantage in Loginov-Evseev, St

15 .:tfc l , when Black has: Petersburg 2002, but 20 .:td l ! looks more effec
a) l 5 ... �a3 16 .:tc2 �f5 1 7 e4 with a nice tive; e.g., 20 ... �b4 2 1 'ii'e3 .:tfe8 22 l2Jbl ! f5 23
edge, based upon 1 7 ... dxe4 1 8 �xe4 �xe4 1 9 .:txc4 fxe4 24 l2Jd2 'ili'b5 25 .:tdc I �xd2 26
l2Jxe4 'i!i'xd2 20 l2Jxd2 cxb3 2 1 axb3 �b4 22 'ii'xd2 t, again because of Black's many weak l2Je4 ±. pawns and mediocre bishop.

b) 1 5 ... .:tac8 1 6 bxc4 dxc4 1 7 a3 �e7 (after 15 ... c5

1 7 ... �xc3, both 1 8 'ii'xc3 and 1 8 l:hc3 l:.fd8 Because of what follows, Schandorff thinks

19 e3 !? c5 20 d5 �xd5 2 1 �xd5 .:txd5 22 ifc2, that Black should try l 5 ... �a3, when he contin
as in Kotsur-Namir, Ha Long City 2009, give ues 1 6 .:tc2 �f5 17 e4 (D). White a slight advantage) 1 8 e3, and although He writes, "Black cannot play 17 ... �g6 1 8

Black's position is tough to crack, he does have l2Jxd5 ! ifxd2 1 9 l2Jxf6+ gxf6 20 �xd2 .:txd4
six isolated pawns, four of them doubled, and I 2 1 .i.e3 ±". So it appears that Black must try suspect that the great majority of players would l 7 ... dxe4 1 8 �xf6 gxf6, when there's way too
take White if given the choice! much to look at, but one line is 1 9 'ii'e3 'ii'b6! 20
c) l 5 ... .:tad8 1 6 bxc4 (or 1 6 a3 �xc3 1 7 .i.xe4 �xe4?! (20 ... �g6 2 1 �xg6!? hxg6 22
ifxc3 'i!i'xc3 1 8 .l::l.xc3 with a small but definite l2Je2! .:tfe8 23 iff3 t) 2 1 l2Jxe4 'ii'xd4 22 .:tel !? 36 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

My overall impression is that White can

achieve the better game by a number of routes

B after 1 l ...'ili'a5, although in some cases his ad
vantages are limited. Now you might want to go
back and investigate the 1 1 ... h6 lines! Even if
that achieves theoretical equality, there are var
ious ways to make it a normal game in which
the better player that day may prevail.

2.3)

9 ••• cxd4 10 tt:lxd4 h6 This move is necessary to activate Black's
pieces without constantly having to worry about
cxb3 23 axb3 'i!Vxe3 24 �xe3 �-The endings in .i..xf6. these analyses can easily tum bad for Black if a) For that reason, I O ... �e8 is rarely seen: I I
they come down to knight-versus-bishop, with 'ili'a4 ( 1 1 �c1 ! is natural and correct) 1 l .. . .i..d7
or without rooks, with pawns only on the king 1 2 �ad1 h6 1 3 .i..f4?! ( 1 3 .i..e3 is one of the
side. Tarrasch main lines) 1 3 ... .i..c5 ! 1 4 tt:lxc6 bxc6

16 .i..xf6 gxf6 17 bxc4 (D) 1 5 e4 (Flear-J.Cooper, British Ch, Blackpool

1 988) 1 5 ... �c8 is equal.

b) After 1 O ... .i..e6, 1 1 �c 1 is good, but 1 1

tt:lxe6 fxe6 12 'ili'b3 with the idea .i..h3 also gives

B White some advantage. In general, if Black can
simply defend the e-pawn with a rook on e8, this
type of position has a better chance of working
out for him; otherwise, it will be difficult.

11 .i..e3 (D)

B

17 ••• dxc4

White keeps a slight advantage regardless of
what Black tries; for example, 1 7 ... .i..xc3 1 8

�xc3 dxc4 1 9 d5 ! .i..xd5 20 .i..xd5 �xd5 2 1

�c2 �fd8 22 �xc4, Zhu Chen-Kovalevskaya,

Women's Grand Prix, Nalchik 201 1 . White has
play against Black's weak pawns.

18 dS! .i..xdS 19 .i..xdS .i..xc3 20 'ili'xc3

20 �xc3 transposes to the previous note. l l ... �e8

20 •• J!Vxc3 21 .i..xf7+ �xf7 22 �xc3 This is the main move, but there is at least

This is all based upon excellent analysis by one important alternative, and several other in

Schandorff, who assesses the final position as structive ones: ±. I would adjust that down to a small advan a) l l ...tt:lg4? is met by 1 2 tt:lxd5 tt:lxe3 1 3
tage, but it looks like an ending in which even tt:lxc6 bxc6 1 4 tt:lxe3.

with accurate defence, White is as likely to win b) l l ...tt:le5 1 2 'ili'b3 ! tt:lc4 1 3 .i..f4! ( 1 3
as Black is to draw. tt:lxd5 tt:lxd5 1 4 'ili'xc4 tt:lxe3 1 5 fxe3 .i..f6 �)

TARRASCH DEFENCE 3 7

l 3 .. . tt:Ja5 1 4 'ir'c2 with a meaningful advantage can also play 1 5 'ir'xd5 ;\;) 1 5 .:tfd l lt:Jxd5 and
based upon bringing a rook to d l and/or ti:Jf5. now:

c) l l .. . ..i.e6 is playable, but a little passive: d2 l ) 1 6 'ir'xd5 'ii'c8 has been assessed as un

12 .:te l 'it'd7 ( 1 2 ... ti:Jg4 1 3 ..tf4 g5 1 4 lt:Jxe6 clear. I suspect that White can maintain a de
fxe6 1 5 ..i.d2 lt:Jce5 1 6 e3 ;\; Smejkal-Ljubo cent advantage after 17 'ir'e4, a few sample
jevic, Milan 1 975) 1 3 tt:Jxc6 ( 1 3 tt:Jxe6 fxe6 1 4 ideas being 1 7 ... l1e8 ( 1 7 ... l:txd l + 1 8 .:txd 1 ..tf8

..i.h3 ;\; with the idea ti:Jb5-d4) 1 3 ... bxc6 1 4 1 9 ..i.f4) 1 8 'ili'a4 ( 1 8 ti:Jd5 ;\;) l 8 ... ..tf6 1 9 lt:Je4
lt:Ja4. This i s actually a subvariant of one of the ..te7! (not l 9 ... ..txb2? 20 ti:Jd6) 20 .:td2 'ii'e6
known Tarrasch lines which is considered to (20 ... a6 2 1 'ir'b3 ..i.e6 22 'ilfc3) 2 1 lt:Jc3 with the
be favourable to White because his control idea 2 I .....tf6 22 ti:Jd5. over c5 isn't counteracted by any activity from d22) 1 6 lt:Jxd5 ..i.e6 1 7 lt:Jxe7+ 'ilfxe7 1 8 'ilfe4

Black. llxd l+ ( 1 8 ... b6 1 9 b3) 19 .:txdl .:td8 20 l:tc l ,
d) 1 1 ... ..tg4 is a very important variation Bodiroga-Jovancic, Pancevo 2005. White has a
which is considered equal by some and is a pawn-up ending with opposite-coloured bish
close competitor to 1 l ... .:te8. I think that 1 2 ops; probably not enough to win against accu

'ili'a4 (D) is White's most effective continua rate defence, but nevertheless giving chances in
tion. a real game.

12 l:.c1 ..trs (D)

B

w

Now the play becomes concrete:

d 1 ) 1 2 ... lt:Ja5 1 3 .:tad 1 lt:Jc4 14 .i.e I ti:Jb6 This is the traditional main line of the Tar ( 1 4 .. .'ii'c8 1 5 'ili'b5 ! ti:Jb6 16 ..tf4! .:td8 1 7 :ct rasch Defence, played in thousands of games.

'ili'd7 1 8 'ilfxd7 :xd7 1 9 f3 ..i.e6, Kasparov I'm going to propose two little-played ideas, Palatnik, Moscow 1 98 1 ; White has a significant beginning with: advantage, and one good course was 20 lt:Jxe6 2.31: 13 'ili'b3 37 fxe6 2 1 ..th3 �f7 22 ti:Jb5 with the idea lt:Jc7 or 2.32: 13 a3 39 ti:Jd4) 1 5 'ir'b3 (I think this is slightly better than

1 5 'ir'b5) l 5 ... 'ili'd7 ( 1 5 ... 11c8 1 6 ..tf4 'ili'd7 1 7 2.31) ..i.e5 .:tc5 1 8 ti:Jf3 with the idea ..td4; Black's

pieces are awkwardly placed) 1 6 ..i.e3 ..th3?! 13 'ilfb3 lt:Ja5

(16 ... ..tc5 1 7 lt:Je6! fxe6 18 ..i.xc5 l:.fc8 1 9 ..i.d4 1 3 ... lle5?! defends d5, but it's all held to

;\;; l 6 ... .:tac8? 17 ti:Jdb5) 17 ..i.xh3 'ilfxh3 1 8 ti:Jf3 gether with string. Play can continue 14 .:tfd 1

'ili'e6 1 9 ..txb6 axb6 ( 1 9 ... 'ili'xb6 20 'ir'xb6 axb6 ( 1 4 a3 !? is also interesting, with the idea of

2 1 a3 11fd8 22 .:td3 ±) 20 ti:Jd4 'ir'c8 2 1 e3 ..tc5 14 ... tt:Ja5 1 5 'ilfa2 followed by 11fd 1 - Black

22 ti:Jde2 ±. seems to be at a loss for a plan) 14 ... tt:Ja5 ( 14 ... a6
d2) 1 2 ... 'ili'd7 1 3 ..i.xd5 ! (the best capture, 15 lt:Jc2! lt:Ja5 1 6 'ilfb6 ±) 1 5 'ilfc2. Black has to
for concrete reasons) 1 3 ... tt:Jxd4 1 4 'ir'xd4 .:tfd8 meet the threat of ..tf4, and l 5 ... g5 1 6 ti:Jdb5 !

( l4 ... ti:Jxd5 15 lt:Jxd5 might transpose, and White lt:Jc6 ( 1 6 ... a6? 1 7 ..i.d4 l:te6 1 8 ..i.xf6 llxf6 1 9 38 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

l2Jxd5 axb5 and now 20 l2Jc7 wins, or the more
exotic 20 'ii'c7 !) 1 7 'ii'd2 ! a6 1 8 l2Jd4 l2Jg4

( l 8 ... l2Ja5 1 9 b3 ±) 1 9 lbxc6 bxc6 20 .i.d4 .l:.e8 B 2 1 l2Ja4 .i.b7 22 'ii'c3 .i.d6 23 e4! ; Black's posi-
tion is crumbling.

14 'ii'b5! (D)

This is a very unusual idea which, however,
has scored six wins versus only two draws and a
loss in my database. It's a simple and not too
ambitious idea to keep more direct pressure on
the d-pawn than the normal 1 4 'ii'c2, as well as
staying off the open c-file.

1 9 .i.d4 .l:.d7 20 l2Je3 and the d-pawn soon falls

B for only minor compensation, Knott-Poulton,

British League (4NCL) 2001/2.

16 l2Jxe6!?

This causes Black some problems and wins
the bishop-pair. Tarrasch players are generally
tolerant of this exchange because they acquire a

2- l central majority; here it's not so easy.

Other tries:

a) 1 6 h3 l2Jc4 ( l 6 ... .l:.c8! is roughly equal) 1 7
l2Jxe6! ( 1 7 l2Jxd5? .i.xd5 1 8 .l:.xc4 .i.xc4 1 9

'ii'xc4 'ii'd7! 20 'ifb3 lbe4 + K.Wang-A.Mar shall, Virginia Beach 2008) l 7 .. .fxe6 1 8 .i.d4 ;!;

14 ... a6! with the idea 1 8 ... l2Jxb2 1 9 'ii'f3 e5 20 l2Jxd5

White is attacking d5 three times, which lim exd4 2 1 l2Jxf6+ 'ifxf6 22 'iih3+ �h8 23 'ii'xb2 ;!;.

its Black's choices: b) 1 6 b3 l2Jg4 1 7 i..f4 lbc6 1 8 lba4 l2Jge5 1 9
a) l 4 ... l2Jc4? allows the lengthy forcing se 'ii'd2 ;!;. quence 1 5 l2Jxd5 ! l2Jxe3 ( l 5 ... l2Jxd5 1 6 'ii'xc4 c) 16 i..f4 puts stress upon the black posi
l2Jxe3 1 7 fxe3 'ii'e7 1 8 .l:.c3) 1 6 fxe3 .l:.e5 (or tion, with lba4 and .:tfd I coming: 1 6 ... i..d6
l 6 ... .l:.xe3 1 7 l2Jxe3 'ifxd4 1 8 .l:.c3 a6 1 9 'ii'd3 ( 1 6 ... l2Jc6! is playable although after 1 7 .l:.fdi

'ii'a7 20 .l:.xf6) 1 7 lbxf6+ gxf6 1 8 'ii'b3 .i.c5 or 1 7 lbxe6 fxe6 1 8 .l:.fd I .l:.c8 1 9 'fi g6, White

( l 8 ... 'ii'b6?! 1 9 'ii'xb6 axb6 20 �f2 .i.g4 21 a3 enjoys the better prospects) I 7 i..xd6 'ii'xd6 I 8

±) 1 9 %:.f4! 'fie7 20 .l:.c3 .i.e6 2 1 l2Jxe6 fxe6 22 l2Jxe6 fxe6 1 9 e4 d4 ( 1 9 ... lbc6 20 exd5 .:tad8 2 I

.l:.g4+ �f7 23 .l:.gc4 .i.b6 24 'ii'c2 .l:.xe3 25 .l:.fe 1 ) 20 f4! and White is for choice, particu

.l:.xe3 .i.xe3+ 26 �h I ±. larly in view of 20 ... e5?! 2 1 l2Jd5 !.

b) l 4 ... .i.e6 1 5 b4 l2Jc4 1 6 l2Jxe6 fxe6 1 7 16 ••. fxe6 (D) .i.d4 (with the idea e4) l 7 ... l2Jd6 1 8 'ii'd3 ;!;. White has nothing concrete, but Black has a
c) 14 ... .i.d7 1 5 'ii'd3 .i.g4 1 6 h3 .i.h5 1 7 g4 few long-term worries because of the bishops .

.i.g6 1 8 l2Jf5 l2Jc4 1 9 l2Jxd5 l2Jxd5 20 'ii'xd5 Now:

l2Jxe3 2 1 l2Jxe3 'ii'f6 ;!;. a) I 7 'ii'g6 is possible, although Black stands

15 'ii'd3 (D) solidly enough after I 7 ... l2Jc6 I 8 .l:.fd I l2Je5 I 9

This is the point of 1 4 'ii'b5. Now White has 'fib 1 ;!;. control over f5 and intends straightforward b) I 7 l2Ja4 and then:

moves such as .l:.fd l and lbb3. b 1 ) I 7 ... l:.c8 (probably slightly obliging) I 8

15 .•• .i.e6! .l:.xc8 'ii'xc8 I 9 .l:.c I 'ii'd8 20 l2Jc5 (20 f4 l2Jc4 2 1
l 5 ... b5 1 6 b3 .i.e6 is rather passive: 1 7 .l:.fd I .i.d4 b5 22 b3) 20 ... i..xc5 2 I i..xc5 l2Jc6 22 f4

.l:.c8 1 8 lbc2!? ( 1 8 l2Jxe6! fxe6 1 9 'ii'g6) l 8 ... .l:.e7 ;!;.

TARRASCH DEFENCE 39

Next, it creates an escape-hatch, so that if it

were White's move, he could play 14 'ili'b3 !

w l'Lla5 1 5 'ili'a2 and keep attacking the d-pawn,
answering 1 5 ... i.e6 with 1 6 l'Llcb5, for exam
ple. That's a threat which has to be dealt with,
but more importantly, White strengthens his
grip on the dark squares, which is the issue in so
many of the main lines of the Tarrasch. For ex
ample, in lines with l'Llxc6 bxc6, White can now
play b4 to cement control over the c5-square,
and the move ... 'ili'a5 doesn't attack the a-pawn
as it sometimes does. Even taking those advan
tages into account, 1 3 a3 is hardly an intimidat
ing or aggressive move, so in a sense it's a real
b2) After 1 7 ... l'Llc4!, best play appears to be test of the nature of the Tarrasch Defence. That

1 8 i.d4 e5 1 9 i.c5 e4 20 'ili'd4 b5 2 1 i.xf8 bxa4 is to say: what exactly is Black doing in this

22 i.b4 'ili'd7 23 i.c3 t. opening (or in the main line, anyway)? I think

As a whole, White is only able to put Black you'll find that, like many reputedly active
under a moderate amount of pressure in these defences, it's White's provocation that permits
lines; on the other hand, he gets the nonnal Black's activity. 'white' advantage with no risk. 13 ••• i.g4

Played in over 80% of the games, but natu

2.32) rally there are alternatives:

a) 1 3 ... l'Lle5? allows White to pursue the

13 a3 (D) threat I mentioned: 14 'ili'b3 ! i.e6 1 5 :fd l !

'ili'd7?! 1 6 l'Llxe6 fxe6 1 7 i.d4 and White is al
ready winning; e.g., 1 7 ... l'Llf7 ( l 7 ... i.d6 1 8 e4!)

1 8 i.xf6!? ( 1 8 e4! is even better; e.g., 18 ... e5 19

B l'Llxd5 exd4 20 :c7 'i!Ve6 21 i.h3 ! 'ili'xh3 22
l'Llxf6+ Wh8 23 'ili'xf7) 1 8 ... gxf6 1 9 e4 d4 20
l'Llb5 :ec8 (20 ... :ac8 2 1 :xc8 'ili'xc8 22 l'Llxd4

±) 2 1 l:txc8 .l:l.xc8 22 l'Llxd4 :d8 23 i.f3 l'Llg5

24 i.g4 winning, Niessen-Gambaeck, email

1 997.

b) 1 3 ... l'Lla5 can be countered by 14 'ili'c2
l'Llc4 1 5 i.f4, but 14 'i!Vd3 (D) is a more direct idea.

Karpov seems to have introduced this move B into tournament play. 1 3 a3 has never caught on
at any level, primarily due to a few games be
tween strong players in which Black didn't have
too many problems to cope with. It is one of
those high-class waiting moves that appears to
do little, but makes a few modest improvements
without allowing the opponent anything con
crete to latch onto. First, it prevents ... l'Llb4, a
move which appears in several of the main
lines and is relevant should White play 'ili'c2.

40 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

14 ... a6! ( 1 4 ... tt:'lc4? 1 5 tt:'lxd5 tt:'lxd5 1 6 'it'xc4 15 tt:'lxc6 tt:'lxe3 17 fxe3 is winning for White; 14 ... .i.g4 The most thematic and frequently-played

1 5 h3 .i.h5 1 6 tt:'lf5 .i.g6 1 7 g4 tt:'lc4 1 8 .i.d4 ! move, although I don't think it's quite as good
with the idea 1 8 ... tt:'lxb2? 1 9 'it'b5 ± .i.xf5 20 as the following two continuations: gxf5 .i.xa3 2 1 :c2) 1 5 b4 tt:'lc6 1 6 tt:'lxc6 bxc6 a) 1 5 tt:'lxe6! fxe6 1 6 f4 ;\; restrains Black's

1 7 tt:'la4 (or 1 7 .i.d4 ;\;), and White has excel centre and plans a slow build-up with perhaps
lent queenside pressure; for example, 17 ... a5 .i.f2 and e4 to follow, counting upon the bishop ( 1 7 ... tt:'lg4 1 8 .i.b6 'it'e7 1 9 'it'c3) 1 8 tt:'lb6 .i.a6 pair. Smyslov played this basic idea, but with

1 9 �d2 :b8 ( 1 9 ... .i.xe2! ? 20 :fe I .i.a6 2 1 'it>h 1 and .i.g 1 . tt:'lxa8 'it'xa8 22 .i.c5 ± ) 20 bxa5 tt:'le4 2 1 'iid4 ! b) 1 5 tt:'la4 tt:'le4!? ( 1 5 ... �d7 1 6 'it>h2 :ad8
intending 2 I ....i.xe2 22 :fe 1 .i.a6 23 :xc6 1 7 tt:'lc5 .i.xc5 1 8 :xc5 is mildly in White's fa

.i.xa3 24 :d l , which threatens, among other vour, but very pleasant for him because Black
things, .i.f4 and tt:'lxd5. has nothing to undertake; 1 5 ... tt:'lxd4 16 .i.xd4
c) 1 3 ... .i.e6 is rarely played. It can be ar tt:'le4 is also solid, though White retains a some
gued that without the move h3 in (i.e., the in what favourable IQP position after 17 tt:'lc3
terpolation of ... .i.g4 and h3), there are too �d7 1 8 �h2 f5 1 9 e3 .f:.ec8 20 f3 tt:'ld6 21 l:tf2
many lines in which White can capture the d a6 22 :fc2) 1 6 tt:'lxe6 ( 1 6 .i.xe4 tt:'lxd4! 17 .i.g2
pawn without having to worry about ... .i.xh3. tt:'lf5 1 8 i..c5 ;\;, but this isn't much) 1 6 ... :xe6

In addition, ... 'it'd7 won't come with tempo. Of ( 1 6 ... fxe6? 1 7 .i.xe4 dxe4 1 8 tt:'lc3 ±) 1 7 .i.xe4
course, h3 is also useful in some ways, but dxe4 1 8 tt:'lc3 with the idea �b3 or �c2. This
that's chess for you. One example: 1 4 tt:'lxc6 entire line is certainly playable for Black, but

( 1 4 �a4 �d7 1 5 :fd l is a sound alternative) not yet fully equal.

1 4 ... bxc6 1 5 .i.d4 (this move is a fundamental 15 ••• bxc6 16 .i.d4 (D) idea in the Tarrasch, to prevent ... c5 and ... d4;
still, 1 5 tt:'la4 is perfectly good) 1 5 ... tt:'lh7 (the

popular plan we will see below) 1 6 e4 ! ? ( 1 6
tt:'la4! ;\; is the best continuation; compare the B lines below) 1 6 ... dxe4 1 7 .i.xe4 c5 ! 1 8 .i.e3

:b8 (Genov-Jakovljevic, Herceg Novi 2007)

and now the best way to go into an ending is 1 9

.i.c6 .i.b3 ! 20 �xd8 :exd8 2 1 tt:'le4, which
shouldn't be enough to win, but at least makes

Black work.

14 h3 .i.e6 (D)

Or 1 4 ... .i.d7 1 5 'iib3 ! tt:'la5 1 6 'iia2 .i.c6 1 7
b4 tt:'lc4 1 8 b5 ! tt:'lxe3 1 9 fxe3 .i.d7 20 tt:'lxd5

.i.e7 21 g4 ;\;.

Karpov's idea, which you will sometimes

see in other Tarrasch positions. The point is to
w hold down ... c5.

16 ••. tt:'lh7 This became the quasi-official 'solution' to

1 3 a3 after its use by Grishchuk. Black threat
ens ... c5 and avoids the drawbacks of ... tt:'ld7

(which doesn't protect d5); he also retains the
possibilities of ... tt:'lg5 or ... tt:'lf8-e6. Neverthe
less, White is well-developed and should get his
normal advantage by clamping down on the
dark squares. In fact, there are several plausible
alternatives, among them:

TARRASCH DEFENCE 41

a) 1 6 ... �d7 17 \\Vd3 tt::lh7 1 8 �e3 ( 1 8 f4 ;t 2 1 'ii'xa7 \\ff6 with full compensation for the
covers e5 and discourages ... tt::lg5; e4 will fol pawn, if not more. White needs to solve the line
low) 1 8 ... �d6 ( 1 8 ... tt::lg5 19 h4 tt::le6 20 b4 ;t; with 1 6 ... c5 if he is to demonstrate an advan

18 ... a5 ! is best) 19 .l:tfd I �e6 20 b4! tt::lf8 tage from 1 5 tt::lxc6.

(20 ... \\Vd7 2 1 b5 ±) 2 1 tt::la4 (D). We now return to the position after Black
plays 1 6 ... tt::lh7 (D):

B

w

A pretty picture of queenside domination.

Black has dawdled too much. 2 1 ...tt::lg6 22 \\Vc3 ! 17 tt::la4 �d7 23 tt::lc5 �xc5 24 �xc5 ! .l:txe2 (what else?) 1 7 e4 has been tried a few times, but 1 7 ... dxe4

25 �e3 \\Ve7 26 �fl .l:txe3 27 \\Vxe3 'ii'xe3 28 1 8 tt::lxe4 �d5 1 9 tt::lc3 �xg2 20 'it>xg2 'iVd7
fxe3 .l:te8 29 'it>f2 tt::le5 30 .l:tc5 .l:te 7 3 1 e4! and leaves White with only a nominally better end

White wins, Karpov-Illescas, Leon 1 993. game.

b) 16 ... tt::ld7 17 e4 gives White a structural 17 ... 'ifd7 18 h4! �f5 advantage; e.g., l 7 ... c5 ( 1 7 ... dxe4 1 8 tt::lxe4 ;t; Now:

17 .. .'�a5? 1 8 exd5 cxd5 1 9 tt::lxd5 ! .i.xd5 20 a) After 1 9 .l:tel , Gelfand-Grishchuk, Biel

�c3) 1 8 exd5 .i.f5 ! 1 9 .i.e3 tt::le5 20 tt::le4 c4 21 2001 went 1 9 ... �e4 20 .i.c5 (20 e3 ;t) 20 ... �xg2
tt::ld2 tt::ld3 22 l:.c2 and Black lacks compensa 21 'it>xg2 .l:te4 (White has a smaller edge after
tion. 2l ... �d6 22 �xd6 'ii'xd6 23 tt::lc5 tt::lf6 24 \\Vd4)

c) l 6 ... c5 ! is the move 1 6 .i.d4 was sup 22 e3 'ii'f5?!. Now 23 'ii'c2! would threaten both
posed to discourage, but it can and has been f3 and �xf8, so 23 ... 'ii'c8 24 b4 .l:te6 25 e4!

played: 17 �xf6 \\Vxf6 1 8 tt::lxd5 !? (maybe 1 8 might follow, with significant pressure. �xd5 is a better try: 1 8 ... l:tad8 1 9 'ii'a4 .i.xd5 b) 1 9 e3 ;t is a bit more accurate; that move

20 tt::lxd5 'ii'xb2 2 1 e4 .l:tb8 22 .l:tc3; this is only will probably be played anyway, and it discour
very slightly better for White, but at least the ages 1 9 ... �e4: not only does 20 b4 then estab
contrast in minor-piece activity means there lish a bind, but 20 .i.xe4 .:!.xe4 2 1 tt::lc3 .l:tee8 22
should be a fight to come) 1 8 ... \\Vxb2 1 9 'ii'a4 tt::le2 affords White better prospects. (this position has been assessed as clearly fa 16 ... tt::lh7 isn't the cure-all it's cracked up to
vourable for White, as has the position after 1 9 be, and I think the notes indicate that White has
tt::lc7 .l:tad8 20 \\Ve l .l:te7 2 1 \\Va5, but it's not an instructive plus in these structures, in fact,
true in either case; Black no problems in the more than he gets from the traditional main
second position after 2 1 ...'ifb6!) 1 9 ... .:r.ad8 20 lines of the Tarrasch. But from a theoretical
tt::lf4. Both Seipel-Turicnik, email 2000 and point of view, 1 6 ... c5 looks satisfactory, and

Peto-Blanco, email 1 999 reached this position White's 1 5th-move options are apparently the
and Black played 20 ... c4?! instead of20 ... .i.b3 ! way to secure an advantage.

3 Unorthodox Queen's Gambit

1 d4 d5 2 c4 heads for Grtinfeld territory, but after 5 e4,

In this chapter we examine variations of the Black can't exchange on c3, and 5 ... ltJb6 6 h3!

Queen's Gambit Declined which are out of the { preventing ... ..tg4 } 6 ... ..tg7 7 ltJc3 transposes
mainstream but in some cases quite respect to note 'b' to Black's 5th move at the start of
able: Chapter 9, which is very pleasant for White) 5

3.1: 2 ... ..if5 (Baltic) 42 'ifb3 ! (D). 3.2: 2 ... ltJc6 (Chigorin) 46 3.3: 2 ... e5 (Albin) 54 3.4: 2 ... e6 3 ltJc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4 (Schara) 59 3.5: 2 ... c5 (Austrian) 64 B 3.6: 2 ... e6 3 ltJc3: Irregular Lines 65

The only other plausible 2nd move for Black
is 2 ... ltJf6?!, the Marshall Defence, which is
considered inferior because it surrenders the
centre with tempo after 3 cxd5 (D).

B

Now Black has these options, all insuffi
cient:

c l ) 5 ... ltJc6 6 ltJbd2! ltJb6 7 e4 gives White
a clear advantage.

c2) 5 ... b6 6 ltJbd2 intends e4, and if 6 ... ltJf6,
then 7 e4! anyway, with a fun variation going

7 ... ltJxe4 8 ltJe5 ! e6? 9 ..ib5+ 'it>e7 1 0 ..id7 ! !

and not only does White threaten 'iff3 but

Black can hardly move.

c3) 5 ... ltJb6 6 ltJc3 e6 7 e4 ..ig4 8 ltJe5 with

I'll cover this in some detail, as it occurs rel the centre and initiative: 8 ... ..ih5 9 g4! ..ig6 1 0
atively often in lower-level chess: ..ie3 ltJ8d7? I I 0-0-0! ..id6 1 2 f4 with a win
a) The attempt to switch to a Grtinfeld by ning game for White. 3 ... g6?! runs into the disruptive check 4 'i!Va4+

..id7?! 5 '1Vb3 b6 6 ltJc3 ..ig7 7 e4 ±. 3 .1)

b) 3 ... 'ifxd5?! 4 ltJc3 'ifaS 5 ltJf3 ltJe4 6 ..id2
ltJxd2 7 'ifxd2; Black has the bishop-pair but no 2 ... ..tf5 (D) development, and the centre is all White's. This is called the Baltic Defence. Black gets
c) 3 ... ltJxd5 4 ltJf3 ! (this is the only finesse a piece out and if he can play ... e6 with no draw
that White needs to know; the natural 4 e4?! backs he gets a Queen's Gambit Declined with
gives Black counterplay after 4 ... ltJf6 5 ltJc3 his bishop in front of the pawn-chain. White
e5 ! with the idea 6 d5 ..ic5 ! or 6 dxe5 'ifxd I + 7 can either allow this or immediately change the

'it>xd l ltJg4 hitting f2 and e5) 4 ... ..if5 (4 ... g6 central situation:

UNORTHODOX QUEEN'S GAMBIT 43

counterplay. This is a practical choice without

theoretical pretensions.

w b) A straightforward answer is 5 i.f4 tt:'lf6 6
e3 i.e? 7 cxd5 tt:'lxd5 (7 ... exd5 8 i.b5 :!:; e.g., 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0 i.d6 lO i.g5! i.e6 1 1 i.xc6 bxc6 1 2
tt:'le5 c 5 1 3 f4 with excellent attacking chances)

8 i.g3 0-0 9 i.e2 !? (9 i.d3 :!:) 9 ... i.b4 1 0 ifc I ! ? i.d6 1 1 0-0 i.xg3 1 2 hxg3 'ii'd6 1 3
ll'ld2 ! i.g6 1 4 i.f3 ( 1 4 tt:'lce4 'iiie7 1 5 'iJ/c5 ! ?)

1 4 ... tt:'lce7 15 �d l c6 1 6 tt:'lc4 ifc7 1 7 e4 tt:'lb6

1 8 tt:'le5 l:tac8 1 9 ife3 l:tfd8 20 �ac I ifb8 2 1
i.e2 tt:'ld7 22 f4 :!: with ideas of g4 or tt:'lxg6 and e5 (or 22 tt:'ld3), Kramnik-Short, Horgen 1 995;

White is building up a substantial advantage.

3.11: 3 tt:'lf3 43 5 'ii'b3 'ii'b6 6 c5! (D) 3.12: 3 cxd5 45

3 .11)

B

3 tt:'lf3

The alternative move-order 3 tt:'lc3 e6 4 tt:'lf3
transposes.

3 .•• e6 4 tt:'lc3 c6

4 ... tt:'lc6!? (D), hoping for a ... tt:'lb4 sortie at some point, needs to be considered.

w

Now Black has:

3.1 1 1 : 6 •• .'it'c7 43 3.1 12: 6 ••. 'iiixb3 44

3.111)

6 .•. ifc7 7 i.f4! (D)

Now: B a) 5 i.g5 i.e? 6 cxd5 exd5 7 i.xe7 tt:'lgxe7 8
e3 0-0 gives White a choice. Firstly, 9 i.e2 re
sembles a Queen's Gambit Declined except that

Black's knight on c6 is misplaced. He can also
play 9 i.d3 ! ? i.xd3 l O ifxd3, an idea that is
harmless in the Queen's Gambit Declined main
lines, but also a little irritating for Black with
the knight on c6. White can put some pressure
on the queenside due to his half-open file and
potential minority attack, whereas Black has no 44 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

This is a common time-gaining tactic with 'ii'xf4+ �g6 25 'iig3+ i..g5 26 f4 'iie7 27 fxg5,
this set-up. winning. 2 l ...g6? is met by 22 i..c7 l:.h7 23

7 ... 'ii'c8 i..d7, and 2 l ...l:.xh6? with 22 l:.xh6 gxh6 23

7 ... 'ii'xf4? 8 'ii'xb7 is winning for White, since 'it'h3. HUbner suggests 2 l ...�xb6? 22 i..e5 f6,

Black can't even dream of trapping White's but then 23 l:.c 1 ! wins; best is 2l ...ltJc4 22 i..c7
queen in the comer. ltJxb6 23 i..e5 f6 24 i..b3 ! ±. HUbner credits

8 liJh4 Schachwoche for this analysis.

White prefers taking the bishop-pair to 8 e3
h6 9 ltJe5 ! ? t. 3 .112)

8 ... i..g6

Maybe 8 ... ltJe7 is better, but 9 ltJxf5 ltJxf5 6 ••. 'iixb3 7 axb3 (D)

10 e3 liJd7 I I i..d3 i..e7 1 2 'iic2 g6 1 3 0-0 0-0

14 b4 gave White a very pleasant game in

P.Schlosser-Khalifman, Bundesliga 1 997/8.

9 ltJxg6 hxg6 10 e4! ltJf6 B

IO ... ltJd7 1 1 exd5 exd5 1 2 i..d3 ! ±.

11 exd5

1 1 i..d3 dxe4 1 2 ltJxe4 ltJxe4 1 3 i..xe4 i..e7,
as in Kramnik-Short, Dos Hermanas 1 997, is
optically better for White, but this standard 're
straint structure' is often drawish, and Black
had a fairly easy time splitting the point.

1 1 •.. ltJxd5

Not l l ...exd5? 1 2 0-0-0 and l:.el .

12 ltJxd5 cxd5 13 i..b5+ ltJc6 14 0-0-0 i..e7

15 h4! (D)

White plans b4-b5 to put pressure on Black's
queenside.

7 ... ltJa6

B A nice variation runs 7 ... ltJf6 8 b4 (after 8
i..f4!? ltJbd7 9 b4 ;!; Black can't stop b5) 8 ... ltJa6

9 l:ha6!? bxa6 10 ltJe5 ;!; l:.c8 1 1 e4!, and now
l l ...ltJxe4 1 2 i..xa6 l:.c7 1 3 b5 ltJxc3 1 4 bxc3
cxb5 1 5 i..xb5+ �d8 16 liJc6+ or l l ...i..xe4 1 2
i..xa6 :c7 1 3 f3 ..ic2 1 4 b5 ! ±.

8 ..if4 (D)

8 e4! ? has the idea 8 ... dxe4? 9 i..xa6 bxa6 10
ltJe5 ltJe7 1 1 l:.xa6 ±. Instead 8 ... ltJb4! 9 l:.a4 dxe4! 1 0 :xb4 exf3 1 1 .l:txb7 e5 ! 1 2 d5.! ends in
only a very slight advantage for White.

8 ..• f6!?

This is the simple idea: eventually White 8 ... ltJf6 9 e3 (9 :xa6!? bxa6 10 e3 should
will break through with h5. also be favourable for White; compare the note

15 •.• �f8 16 �b1 a6 17 i..a4 ltJa5 18 'iif3 to Black's 7th move above) 9 ... ltJb4 1 0 l:.a4
b6?! lLld3+!? ( 1 0 . . a5 I I i..c7) 1 1 i..xd3 i..xd3 1 2

HUbner prefers 1 8 .. .'it'g8 t. ltJe5 ..ig6 1 3 l:.b4 begins a lengthy forcing se

19 cxb6 'iib7 quence: 1 3 ... 0-0-0 1 4 0-0 ltJh5 1 5 :at a6 1 6

Here instead of 20 l:.c 1 , as played in the ltJxc6 bxc6 1 7 l:.b8+ �d7 1 8 l:.b7+ �e8 1 9
game Kramnik-Gelfand, Wijk aan Zee 1 998, i..c7 :c8 20 ltJa4 i..d3 2 1 ltJb6 l:.xc7 22 l:.xc7

20 h5 ! g5 21 h6 is very strong. The idea is i..b5 23 lla7 f5 24 ltJa8 ! ±. 2 l ...gxf4? 22 hxg7+ �xg7 23 'iig4+ �f6 24 9 e4!?

UNORTHODOX QUEEN'S GAMBIT 45

time and control the centre. 3 ... lt:lf6?! is also
poor (compare the Marshall Defence, 2 ... lt:lf6?!).

B Among other ideas White can play 4 lt:lc3 ( 4

'ii'a4+!? c6!?) 4 ... lt:lxd5 5 'iVb3 (or 5 f3 lt:lxc3 6
bxc3 e5 !? 7 e4 .ie6 8 :b l !) 5 ... lt:lxc3 6 bxc3

'iVc8 (6 ... b6 7 lt:lf3 e6 8 lt:ld2 .ig6 9 g3 lt:ld7 1 0

.ig2 :b8 I I 'iVa4 Ji.e7 1 2 .ic6) 7 lt:lf3 ! c5 8

.if4 e6 9 lt:ld2! cxd4 1 0 cxd4 .ig6 1 1 e4 with a
fine game.

4 'iVa4+

This is nearly always played. Actually, the
gambit 4 .l:.xbl 'iVxd5 5 e3 'iVxa2 6 .id2 is un
likely-looking (Black has no weaknesses!), but
has really grown on me; e.g., 6 ... e6 7 lt:lf3 lt:lf6

9 e3 lt:lb4 1 0 l:la4 lt:ld3+ I I .ixd3 .ixd3 1 2 8 :c i (or 8 .id3) 8 ... 'iVxb2 (8 ... c6? 9 .ic4

'>t>d2 .ia6 ! ;t 'iVxb2 1 0 l:tb I 'iVa3 I I :xb7 lt:lbd7 1 2 0-0 ±) 9

9 ••• lt:lb4 :bi 'i¥a2 1 0 :xb7 .id6 I I .id3 lt:lbd7 I 2 e4 e5

Not 9 ... dxe4?! 1 0 .ixa6 bxa6 1 1 lt:ld2, or 1 3 lt:lxe5 lt:lxe5 I4 dxe5 .ixe5 1 5 .ib5+ with

9 ... .ixe4 1 0 lt:lxe4 dxe4 1 1 .ixa6 bxa6 1 2 lt:ld2 far more than enough compensation. with a significant advantage. 4 ... c6

10 .:a4 lt:lc2+ 11 'it>d1 dxe4 12 lt:lh4 lt:lxd4 After 4 ... 'iVd7 5 'iVxd7+ lt:lxd7 6 :xbi lt:lgf6

13 .:xd4 .ixc5 14 lt:lxf5 exf5 15 .:d2 Black recovers the pawn, but leaves White with

Black has three pawns for the piece but none the bishop-pair and an ideal centre. of them are passed and White's pieces coordi 5 dxc6!? nate well; e.g., 1 5 ... g5 1 6 .ie3 .ixe3 1 7 fxe3 Rare, but moderately advantageous and ex
lt:lh6! 1 8 .ie2 'it>e7 1 9 h4 g4 20 'it>c2 .:hd8 2 1 tremely safe. 5 .:xb I 'i¥xd5 is normal, when

.:xd8 .l:hd8 22 b4 a6 23 :n with the idea lt:la4. Bronznik makes a strong case that the old line 6
lt:lf3 lt:ld7 7 b4! is best.

3.12) 5 ... lt:lxc6 6 :xb1 (D)

3 cxd5 (D)

An easier line to learn than 3 lt:lf3. I'll give it
as an option, but with few details. B

B

6 ... e5!

Black should be aggressive unless he wants
to struggle with a slightly worse position for a
long time: after 6 ... 'iVxd4 7 'iVxd4 lt:lxd4 White

3 ••• .ixb1 can use his bishops, or exchange one to gain

This exchange is positionally forced, as oth time, as in 8 e3 lt:lc6 9 .ib5 :c8 I 0 .id2 (or I 0
erwise 3 ... 'iVxd5?! 4 lt:lc3 allows White to gain lt:lf3 e6 I I 0-0 a6 I 2 .ixc6+ :xc6 I 3 b4!) 46 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

IO . . e6 I I .l:tc I i.d6 ( l l ...a6 1 2 i.xc6+ .l:txc6 White's better pawn-structure and bishop-pair.

1 3 .l:txc6 bxc6 I 4 l2Jf3 i.d6 1 5 'it>e2 l2Jf6 1 6 .l:tc I Rather than attempt to refute the Chigorin De

;t M.Gomez-Rausis, Bordeaux 1 990) 1 2 i.xc6+ fence, we' ll explore playable lines which are

.l:txc6 1 3 .l:txc6 bxc6 14 l2Jf3 l2Je7 15 'it>e2 ;t 0-0 strategic in nature, cut down on Black's coun

1 6 .l:tc l .l:tb8 1 7 b3 'it>f8 1 8 .l:tc4 h6 1 9 i.c3 ± terplay, and aim for a small but durable advan

Dautov-Jiirgens, Dortmund 1 992. tage. I've chosen two related systems with that

7 i.d2 in mind; in both cases, White gets his queen's

7 a3 has the same idea, and may be more pre bishop outside his pawn-chain before playing
cise. Compare what follows. e3. Then the position resembles a traditional

7 ... 'ili'xd4 Queen's Gambit, but the knight on c6 is not al

7 ... exd4 8 g3 is transparently better for White; ways ideally placed since it prevents Black' s
e.g., 8 ... i.c5 9 i.g2 l2Jge7 1 0 b4 i.b6 1 1 b5 freeing move ... c5. Both lines begin with: l2Je5 1 2 i.xb7. 3 l2Jf3 i.g4

8 'i�Vxd4 This is the move that has sustained the Chi

Now: gorin for well over a century. Other moves are
a) 8 ... exd4?! 9 g3 l2Jf6 1 0 i.g2 ;l;; i.e7 1 1 b4! less frequently played: is no fun for Black. White's score after 9 g3 has a) After 3 ... e5, 4 dxe5 transposes to the
been superb. Albin ( 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e5 - Section 3.3) if Black
b) After 8 ... l2Jxd4, 9 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 I 0 e3 ;t is replies 4 ... d4, but there's also a complicated
fine, but 9 e3 ! is better still for White: 9 ... l2Jc6 theoretical line after 4 ... i.b4+ 5 l2Jbd2 dxc4 6

I 0 i.b5 .l:tc8 ( I 0 ... i.d6 can be met by l l l2Jf3 or 'i�Vc2 i.e6 7 e3, which should be somewhat

1 1 i.xc6+ bxc6 1 2 l2Jf3 ;l;;) l l l2Jf3 i.d6 1 2 i.c3 better for White. It might be easier to play 4
f6 1 3 'it>e2 (or 1 3 l2Jd2 ± Shipov) 1 3 ... l2Jge7 14 l2Jxe5 l2Jxe5 5 dxe5 (D) with these ideas: .l:thd I .l:td8 1 5 l2Jd2! a6 1 6 l2Je4 ± Shipov

Radmacher, Berlin 1 992; upon a bishop retreat,

i.c4 can follow.

B

3 .2)

2 ... l2Jc6 (D)

w

a l ) 5 ... dxc4 6 'i�Vxd8+ 'it>xd8 7 e4! i.e6. This
is given as '=' by NCO and is approved for Black by Dunnington, but that appears to be
wrong, because White has both better develop
ment (Black's king position hurts him) and tar
gets of attack; e.g., 8 f4 (or 8 l2Jc3 i.b4 9 f4 g6

10 i.e3) 8 ... b5 (8 ... g6 9 i.e3; for example,

The Chigorin Defence is a very respectable 9 ... c6 1 0 l2Jc3 i.b4 1 1 0-0-0+ 'it>c7 1 2 f5 ! gxf5
opening which has been played by many strong 1 3 exf5 i.xf5 1 4 ..ixc4 with a clear advantage,
grandmasters and has numerous books devoted and there are other good ways for White to play
to it. It can also be difficult to play against, as in it) 9 a4 c6 1 0 f5 (or 10 i.e3 ±) IO ... i.d7 1 1 i.e3 the main lines, Black is often ahead in develop i.b4+ 1 2 l2Jc3 followed by i.e2 and 0-0 or in
ment and has attacking chances in return for some cases 0-0-0. Black is badly restricted.

UNORTHODOX QUEEN'S GAMBIT 4 7

a2) 5 ... d4 (D) and then: (compare the main line, in which Black at least
has ... ..ig4 in) 6 ... g5 7 ..ig3 h5 8 h3 dxc4 9 e3

'i'd5 (9 ... b5 10 a4) 1 0 t'i:Jd2! ( 10 'ii'c2) 1 O ... ..ixc3

1 1 bxc3 e5 1 2 'i'c2 and Black's weaknesses are
w hurting him.

4 t'i:Jc3 (D)

B

a2 1 ) 6 e4 is the traditional move, a sort of
main line going 6 ... t'i:Je7 (6 ... c6!? 7 ..id3 'ii'a5+

8 t'i:Jd2 'ii'xe5 9 0-0 with the idea f4 or t'i:Jf3 and a
clear advantage) 7 f4 t'i:Jc6 (7 ... t'i:Jg6 8 a3 !) 8 ..id3 'ii'h4+ 9 g3 'ii'h3 10 i.fl 'ii'g4 1 1 t'i:Jd2,
which is a bit better for White, who still has his 4 ... e6 extra pawn, Maksimenko-Barle, Geneva 1 996. Easily the best move. As for the alternatives,
a22) I'm not sure that there's anything wrong the following analysis (from various sources
with 6 e3. There might follow 6 ... i.c5 (this and the author's own input) makes fascinating
seems right; 6 ... ..ib4+ 7 i.d2 dxe3 8 'ii'a4+ reading, but as all of it greatly favours White,

..id7 9 'i'xb4 exd2+ 1 0 t'i:Jxd2 !) 7 li:Ja3 !? (7 you may not want to get too enmeshed in the
exd4 i..xd4 8 li:Jc3 ! ..ixc3+ 9 bxc3 'i'xd l + 1 0 particulars. Still, they're important to docu

�xd 1 i..f5 I I ..ie3 0-0-0+ 1 2 �c l ! is worth a ment: look) 7 ... dxe3 (7 ... t'i:Je7 8 t'i:Jc2 !) 8 'ii'xd8+ a) 4 ... t'i:Jf6?! leads to trouble after 5 cxd5

�xd8 9 ..ixe3 ..ixe3 10 fxe3 c6 1 1 c5 ! �c7 1 2 t'i:Jxd5 6 e4 (D): t'i:Jc4 !; his e-pawns are suspicious-looking, but I don't think there's any doubt that White gets

the nod.

b) 3 ... t'i:Jf6? 4 cxd5 li:Jxd5 (after 4 ... 'i'xd5 5 B t'i:Jc3 White gains time and wins the centre; this
is one of the points of 3 t'i:Jf3 - compare 3 cxd5

'i'xd5 4 t'i:Jf3 e5 !) 5 e4 t'i:Jf6 6 d5 (or simply 6
li:Jc3) 6 ... t'i:Jb8 7 t'i:Jc3 e6 8 i..g5 i.e7 9 i.b5+ c6

1 0 dxc6 t'i:Jxc6 ( 1 0 ... bxc6 1 1 'i'xd8+ ..ixd8 1 2

..ia4 and Black's position is in tatters) 1 1 'i'xd8+
i..xd8 1 2 e5 (or 1 2 t'i:Je5) 1 2 ... t'i:Jd7 1 3 i.xc6
bxc6 1 4 ..ixd8 �xd8 1 5 0-0-0 �c7 1 6 li:Je4 and

White controls the play - Black's dark squares
are terribly weak and his c8-bishop is bad.

c) 3 ... e6 is passive and shuts in the queen's
bishop. An uncomplicated response is 4 li:Jc3 al ) 6 ... t'i:Jb6? 7 d5 li:Je5? (7 ... ..ixf3 8 gxf3

..ib4 (4 ... dxc4?! 5 e4 ..ib4 6 i..xc4 t'i:Jf6 7 'i'd3 li:Je5 9 f4 li:Jed7 10 a4 ±) 8 t'i:Jxe5 ! i..xd I 9

0-0 8 0-0 with an ideal centre and development) ..ib5+ c6 10 dxc6 and White wins. 5 i.g5 (5 e3 also favours White) 5 ... f6 (5 ... li:Jge7 a2) 6 ... ..ixf3 !? 7 gxf3 li:Jxc3 (7 ... t'i:Jb6 8 d5

6 e3 0-0 7 'i'c2 f6 8 ..ih4 t'i:Jf5 9 ..ig3) 6 ..ih4 t'i:Jb8 9 ..if4 ±) 8 bxc3 e5 9 .l:tbl !? (White also 48 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

has the better game after 9 d5) 9 ... 'ii'f6 (9 ... exd4
l O �a4! and the moves .l:.xb7 and .i.b5 or i.h3
will give White a huge advantage) l O lhb7 B exd4 1 1 .i.b5 (or 1 1 'ii'a4) 1 1 ... 0-0-0 1 2 i.a6!

�d7 1 3 cxd4 'iVxd4 ( 1 3 .. .lbxd4 1 4 'ii'a4+) 14

'ii'b3 !, winning.

a3) 6 ... tZ'lxc3 7 bxc3 (D) was a topical line for a while in the 1 980s.

B

1 8 .l:.c 1 lDf5 1 9 .i.b6 1 -0 Tukmakov-Vincent,

Lugano 1 986.

c) 4 ... ..txf3 5 exf3 (5 gxf3 isn't bad either)

5 ... e6 (5 ... dxc4? 6 d5 transposes to line 'b' ;

5 ... tZ'lf6 6 J..g5 ! dxc4 7 d5 tZ'le5 8 'iVd4 tZ'ld3+ 9

.i.xd3 cxd3 l O 0-0-0 c6 I I i.xf6 gxf6 1 2 'ii'xd3
with a big spatial advantage and .l:.hel or 'ii'e4
to come) 6 cxd5 exd5 7 i.b5 (D).

7 ... e5? ! (the only consistent follow-up, but
flawed) 8 d5 tZ'lb8 9 'iVa4+ tZ'ld7 l O lDxe5 'ii'f6

I I .i.e2! (the move that ruined this variation for B Black) l l ...b5 ( l l ...c6 1 2 dxc6 'ii'xe5 1 3 .i.xg4

'ii'xc3+ 1 4 'it>e2 'ifxc6 1 5 'iVxc6 bxc6 1 6 .l:.d I
lDf6 1 7 .i.f3 .l:.c8 1 8 i.e3 ±; I I ... 'iVxe5 1 2

.i.xg4! intending 1 2 .. . 'iVxc3+ 1 3 .i.d2 'ii'xal +

14 �e2, winning) 1 2 'ii'xb5 .l:.b8 ( 1 2 .. . 'ii'xe5 1 3

.i.xg4 'ii'xe4+ 1 4 'ii'e2 'iVxe2+ 1 5 .i.xe2 ± with
an extra pawn and the bishop-pair) 1 3 'iVa4

.i.b4 1 4 cxb4 'ii'xe5 1 5 J..xg4 0-0 1 6 .i.xd7

'ii'c3+ 1 7 .i.d2 'ii'xal + 1 8 'ii'd l ! 'ii'xa2 1 9 0-0

'iVc4 20 'iVf3 1 -0 Raedecker-Wittmann, corr.

1 983.

b) 4 ... dxc4? 5 d5 .i.xf3 (or 5 ... tZ'lb8 6 tZ'le5 This may not look so bad, but White has fast

±) and now 6 exf3 ! (D) is very strong, since development and the pin on c6 is awkward for

White's minor pieces develop rapidly. Black:

6 ... tZ'le5 7 .i.f4 tZ'lg6 (7 ... tZ'ld3+ is also de c I ) 7 ... a6 8 'ii'e2+ (8 i.a4 is a calm re
pressing: 8 .i.xd3 cxd3 9 tZ'lb5 .l:.c8 1 0 lDxa7 sponse, since 8 ... b5 is weakening after 9 i.b3

.l:.a8 I l lDb5 .l:.c8 and simply 1 2 'ii'xd3 with ad J..b4 l O a4) 8 ... �d7 ! ? (8 ... 'ii'e7 9 tZ'lxd5 'iVxe2+
vantage, or 1 2 .l:.c l c6 1 3 0-0!, which gives I 0 �xe2 0-0-0 1 1 i.xc6 bxc6 12 tZ'lc3 lhd4 1 3

White a vicious attack) 8 .i.xc4 ! tZ'lf6 (not i.e3 ;!;) 9 i.xc6+ (9 ..ta4 b5 I 0 i.d I tZ'lxd4 I I 8 ... lDxf4? 9 .i.b5+ c6 lO dxc6 'ifxd I + I I .l:.xd I 'iVd3 c5 1 2 i.e3 ;!;) 9 ... �xc6! ? l O 'ilfc2! ? �b6 with an immediate win) 9 .i.g3 a6 l O 0-0 b5?! 1 1 'ii'b3+ �a7 1 2 tZ'lxd5 ;!;. (but 10 ... 'iVd7 I I 'ii'b3 ! is awful for Black) I I c2) 7 ... tZ'le7 8 0-0 and Black's king has to
tZ'lxb5 ! axb5 1 2 .i.xb5+ tZ'ld7 1 3 .l:.c l .l:.a7 (ver go to the queenside, but will find it uncomfort
sus .l:.xc7) 1 4 'ii'd4 'ii'b8 15 'ifxa7 ! 'i!i'xa7 1 6 able there as well: 8 ... 'ii'd6 9 .:tel 0-0-0 l O

.l:.xc7 'ii'xc7 ( 1 6 .. . 'i!i'a8 1 7 .l:.xd7) 1 7 .i.xc7 tZ'lh4 i.g5 f6 1 1 i.e3 �b8 1 2 .:te l g5?! 1 3 tZ'la4 with

UNORTHODOX QUEEN'S GAMBIT 49

a strong attack, Andersson-Calvo, Palma de effective because Black's knight on c6 pre

Mallorca 1 972. vents ... c5, his most important freeing move.

We now return to the position that arises af White can normally prevent the move ... e5 by
ter 4 ... e6 (D): maintaining pressure on d5, so Black has to do
without his two key liberating ideas. All this
only ensures a small advantage to White in most

lines, but it is the kind of risk-free approach that
w I like to recommend. Perhaps surprisingly,

White can boast of a well-above-average supe
riority in both results and performance rating
when using 5 .tg5. We come to a further split:

3.211: 5 ... f6 49 3.212: 5 ... .te7 5 1

Or:

a) 5 ... �d7 is a bit odd because it loses time.

White can gain the edge by playing the natural

6 cxd5 (or 6 e3) 6 ... exd5 7 e3 h6 8 .tf4 lt:Jf6 9

.tb5 ! ? (9 h3 .txf3 l O �xf3 a6 I I .td3; e.g.,

We consider two related systems: I I ....td6 12 0-0 .txf4 1 3 �xf4 0-0 14 .tf5

3.21: 5 .tg5 49 'ii'd6 1 5 'ii'xd6 cxd6 1 6 ltac l g6 1 7 .tb1 ltac8 3.22: 5 .tf4 52 1 8 a3 ;!; with the idea b4 and in some cases

.ta2) 9 ... .tb4 l O �b3 !? ( 1 0 ltc 1 ) 1 0 ... .txf3 1 1

5 cxd5 exd5 6 .tg5 is also playable, but so as gxf3 lt:Jh5 1 2 .txc6 .txc3+ 1 3 'ifxc3 bxc6 14
not to clutter things up, I'll only talk about the .te5 and White has the better of it due to play
exchange cxd5 and ... exd5 in conjunction with down the c-fi1e. specific lines below, and in the context of 5 b) 5 ... lt:Jge7 is almost never played, perhaps
cxd5 exd5 6 .tf4 in Section 3.22. because 6 e3 limits Black's options. Now 6 ... h6

7 .tf4 lt:Jg6 8 .tg3 doesn't seem to help mat

3.21) ters, nor does 6 .. .f6 7 .tf4; e.g., 7 ... lt:Jg6 8 .tg3

.tb4 9 'ii'b3 .txf3 10 gxf3 .txc3+ 1 1 �xc3 ;!;,

5 .tg5 (D) when 1 1 ...0-0 is best met by 1 2 cxd5 ! exd5 1 3
h4! .

3.21 1 )

B

5 ... f6 (D)

w

This is my main recommendation. White de
velops with a threat. His goal is to achieve the
standard pressure that comes from a d4/c4 struc
ture versus ... d5/ ... e6. This can be particularly 50 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

At the cost of creating a small weakness on b2) 7 tt:'le5 !? (an aggressive move, attacking
e6, Black counters White's threat without los Black's g4-bishop) 7 ... tt:'lxe5 (7 ... .i.h5 8 tt:'lxc6
ing time. bxc6 9 Va4 .i.xc3+ 10 bxc3 tt:'le7 1 1 e3 0-0 1 2

6 cxd5 .i.d3 gives White a small but effortless edge) 8

This is a clear way to proceed, if not necessar dxe5 c6 9 cxd5 (D) and now: ily the best one; in general, it's easier for White
to play the positions that arise after this central

exchange. Another good - but somewhat mess
ier - approach is 6 .i.h4: B
a) A variation that might transpose into other
lines is 6 ... tt:'lge7 7 e3 (or 7 cxd5 with the idea

7 ... tt:'lxd5 8 e4 .i.xf3 9 gxf3 ;l; tt:'lxc3?! 1 0 bxc3 and the bishops will cause further damage)

7 ... tt:'lf5 8 .i.g3 .i.b4 9 'ii'b3 ! tt:'lxg3?! (9 ... 'ifd7

I 0 cxd5 exd5 I I l:tc I is slightly better for

White) 1 0 hxg3. Black has got rid of White's
bishop, but he still has no freeing pawn move in
the centre and the h-file is very nice for White;
for example, I 0 ... 0-0 1 1 .i.d3 h6 and here 1 2
tt:'ld2 and 1 2 0-0 are both safely in White's fa
vour, but I can't resist showing some fantasy b2 1 ) 9 ... exd5 1 0 'ii'd4 (hitting both bishops)

analysis I did in my old book with 1 2 0-0-0!? 1 0 ... Vas 1 1 f3 is strong for White; for example,

.i.xc3 ( 12 ... dxc4 13 'ii'xc4 �xc3 14 'ii'xc3 �xf3 1 1 ... .i.e6 1 2 exf6 tt:'lxf6 I 3 .i.xf6 gxf6 1 4 'iexf6

1 5 gxf3 ;l;) 1 3 'ifxc3 dxc4(?!) 1 4 .i.xc4 'iii>h8?! 'iii>d7 1 5 "ikg7+ .i.e7 1 6 0-0-0 - Onishchuk.

15 d5 ! exd5 1 6 .i.xd5 "ii'd7? I7 tt:'lh4!, when an b22) 9 ... "ika5 1 0 f3 exd5?! 1 1 fxg4 .i.xc3+
attractive line is 1 7 ... .i.xd 1 ? 1 8 tt:'lg6+ 'iii>h7 1 9 1 2 bxc3 'it'xc3+ I 3 'iii>f2 tt:'lh6 14 h3 and in

'ifd3 ! ! f5 20 tt:'lxf8+ l:txf8 2 1 �g8+, winning Onishchuk-Morozevich, Alushta 1 994, White
the queen. was much better according to Onishchuk; he
b) 6 ... .i.b4 (D) and now: went on to win.

b23) 9 ... 'ifxd5 10 exf6 tt:'lxf6 1 1 f3 .i.h5 1 2

e4 and whether or not queens are exchanged,

White's bishop-pair gives him some advantage:

w 1 2 ... 'it'e5 ( 1 2 ... 'ii'xd1 + 1 3 l:txd1 .i.xc3+ 14 bxc3

0-0 1 5 �c4 .i.f7 1 6 .i.g3 ! l:tfd8 1 7 0-0 and

White's bishops are extremely strong) 1 3 'ii'c2

0-0 1 4 �e2 l:tad8 1 5 0-0 'ifd4+ 1 6 .i.f2 "ikd2 17
l:tac 1 �g6 (17 ... .i.xc3 18 bxc3 "ikxc2 1 9 .:.xc2
b6 20 a4! e5 2 1 a5 c5 22 axb6 axb6 23 l:tb1 ±)

1 8 �c4! ± V.lvanov-Ulko, Moscow 1 995.

These examples are all terribly instructive.

6 ... exd5

6 ... fxg5? 7 dxc6 �xf3 (to prevent tt:'le5) 8
exf3 bxc6 9 .i.c4 (other moves are also good)

9 ... "ikd7 1 0 "ikb3 'iii>f7 1 1 tt:'le4 h6 1 2 0-0-0 tt:'lf6
b1) 7 e3 is safe and should yield White a 1 3 tt:'lxf6 gxf6 1 4 l:the 1 l:te8 1 5 l:te2 threatening
small advantage: 7 ... tt:'lge7 8 cxd5 exd5 9 h3 .i.xe6+ and .l:tde l . .i.e6 (Bronznik prefers 9 ... .i.f5, but I'm not sure 7 �f4 (D) if there's a fundamental difference following 1 0 The computer likes 7 .i.d2!?, which is too bi

.i.g3) 1 0 .i.g3 tt:'lf5 1 1 .i.h2 ;l; intending .i.b5 or zarre for words, although admittedly support

.i.d3, as in Kumaran-Miladinovic, World Junior ive of White's queenside endeavours. Ch, Matinhos 1 994. 7 ••• .i.b4

UNORTHODOX QUEEN'S GAMBIT 51

Or 1 4 tiJb5 .ia5 1 5 .ih2 a6 1 6 tlJc3 ;!;,

14 ... h4 15 .ih2 .id6 16 .ixd6 cxd6!?

B Harikrishna-Morozevich, FIDE World Cup,

Hyderabad 2002. At this point, 1 7 �a4! would
prevent 1 7 ... 0-0-0??, a move which happened
in the game, due to 1 8 b4 intending 1 8 .. .'iti>b8 1 9
b5 and White wins. Black should of course play
otherwise, perhaps with 17 ... 0-0, but White has
an edge regardless. Overall, this line looks dif
ficult for Black to handle.

3 .212)

5 ... ..te7 6 .ixe7 tlJgxe7 7 e3 0-0 (D)

7 ... tlJge7 8 e3 g5 9 .ig3 h5 1 0 h3 .ie6 (de

Vita-Miladinovic, Genoa 2004) 1 1 �b3 ! tlJa5

( I I ..Jib8 12 .id3) 1 2 �a4+ ( 1 2 �c2 tiJf5 1 3
i.h2 ;!; .id6?! 1 4 .id3 !) 1 2 ... c6 1 3 tiJd2 (where's w that .id2 when we need it?) 1 3 ... tiJf5 14 ..th2 is
not disastrous for Black, but his position is awk
ward.

8 e3 tlJge7 9 .ie2

Or 9 .id3 with a small advantage, when

9 ... �d7 1 0 0-0 0-0 I I .l:!.c l l1ae8 1 2 a3 .ixc3 1 3

.l:!.xc3 is a typical position. White has queenside
pressure and Black's knight on c6 has no move
for the moment.

9 .•. �d7 10 ..l:!.cl g5

Black has developed naturally but has weak
nesses and few good squares for his pieces. So 8 cxd5 he lashes out, which is also the computer's rec 8 .id3 may also yield the better game: ommendation. a) 8 ... h6 (preventing .ixh7+) 9 h3 .ih5

11 .ig3 h5 12 h3 .ie6 13 tiJd2!? (D) (9 ... i.xf3 1 0 �xf3 tiJb4 1 1 .ibl dxc4 1 2 �xb7

;!; Rogozenko-Bigaliev, Budapest 1 995; this has
been assessed as clearly better for White, but

in fact it's only a modest edge after 1 2 ... tiJbd5

B 1 3 �a6 �b8! 1 4 0-0 with the idea 14 ... �xb2

1 5 tlJa4 �a3 1 6 �xc4) 10 0-0 dxc4 I I .ixc4
tiJd5 1 2 tlJe4!? tlJce7 1 3 .l:!.c l with a small but
definite advantage, Palliser-Keeling, Sheffield

1 999.

b) 8 ... f5 !? is possibly the best move, and a
rather ingenious idea: set up a Stonewall after
your bishop has got out in front of the pawn
chain. On the other hand, the 'bad' bishop be
hind lines is a valuable defender of the Stone
wall pawns. There might follow 9 0-0 'it>h8

(White is for choice after 9 ... ..l:!.f6!? 10 h3 i.h5

This attacks the h-pawn and prepares to swing 1 1 .ie2 �d6 1 2 c5 �d7 1 3 tlJe5 !? tlJxe5 1 4
over to the queenside. .ixh5 tiJf7 1 5 f4, while 9 ... f4? fails to 1 0

13 ... .if7 14 .id3 .ixh7+) 1 0 h3 .ih5 1 1 .ie2 intending tlJg5; 52 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

e.g., l l ...h6 12 cxd5 exd5 1 3 tt::le l i.xe2 1 4 of poison: Kramnik, for example, has used it on 'ii'xe2 :;!; with the idea l 4 .. . f4?! 1 5 tt::ld3. several occasions against the world's top play

8 ••• exd5 ers (Carlsen, Ivanchuk, Morozevich and Short),

8 ... tt::lxd5 9 i.e2 tt::lce7 10 0-0 (or 1 0 .l::.c l :;!;) which indicates that this is a safe and strategic

I O ... tt::lg6 I I 'i¥b3 gave White a persistent queen- variation with good chances of achieving a
side edge in K.Hansen-Grabher, Werfen 1 998. slight edge.

9 i.e2 (D) 5 cxd5 exd5 6 i.f4 is a close variant on this
line which Kramnik has tried as well. Overall,

I'd rather keep the pawn-structure flexible, but
it helps that the d5-pawn becomes vulnerable.

8 A typical continuation is 6 ... i.d6 7 i.g3 tt::lge7

8 e3 'i¥d7 (8 ... 0-0 9 i.d3 h6 1 0 a3 i.xg3 I I
hxg3 'i¥d6 1 2 �c I Vf6 1 3 i.e2 �ad8 I 4 tt::lb5
a6 I 5 tt::lc3 l:.fe8 I 6 tt::la4 tt::lf5 I 7 0-0 a5 1 8 tt::lc5
b6 I 9 tt::ld3 :;!; Bosboom-Lanchava - Botsari,

Greek Team Ch, Ermioni Argolidas 2005; an
example of the unhurried style!) 9 a3 0-0 1 0
i.d3 a6 1 I i.xd6 i.xf3 I 2 'ifxf3 Vxd6 I 3

'i¥g3 �fd8 1 4 b4 :;!; Kramnik-Short, Dresden Olympiad 2008.

We now return to the position that arises af
ter 5 i.f4 (D):

This is a deceptive position. Superficially,

White's advantage seems slight indeed, since
the problem c6-knight can simply move. But
it's worth remembering that without . . . c5, 8 Black will tend to be reduced to a Queen's

Gambit Declined position in which White has
a standard queenside attack. At the same time,
without the availability of ... i.d6, it's going to
be difficult to scare up prospects on the king
side. For example:

a) 9 ... 'ifd6 10 0-0 �ad8 I I �c l tt::lg6 1 2
tt::la4! tt::lce7 1 3 tt::lc5 with annoying pressure on
the queenside, Lingnau-Haag, Germany (team
event) 1 99617.

b) 9 ... tt::lc8 1 0 0-0 tt::lb6 I I �c I �e8 1 2 tt::la4
tt::lxa4 ( 1 2 ... �b8 1 3 tt::lc5) 1 3 Vxa4 'i¥d6 1 4 �c5 Black has many options, but these are most
tt::le7 1 5 �fc l c6 1 6 �c2 tt::lg6 1 7 b4 ( 1 7 h3 logical: i.xf3 I 8 i.xf3 :;!;) 1 7 ... i.xf3 1 8 i.xf3 tt::lf8 1 9 3.221: 5 ... i.xf3 53 'i¥b3 tt::le6 20 �5c2 a6 21 a4 with a classic mi 3.222: 5 ... tt::lf6 54 nority attack that gives White the advantage.

Two of several sensible alternatives, briefly:

3.22) a) 5 ... i.b4 6 tt::le5 ! tt::lxe5 7 i.xe5 i.xc3+

(7 ... tt::lf6?? 8 'ifa4+; 7 ... �f8 8 1i'b3 ±) 8 bxc3

5 i.f4 tt::lf6 was played in Aseev-Morozevich, Russian

I originally wrote this up as a very lengthy Ch, Elista I 995. A good idea for White is then 9
section, but that isn't justified due to its similar Vb3 ! b6 1 0 i.xf6! gxf6 ( I O .. .'ii'xf6 I I 'i¥b5+
ity to 5 i.g5. So I'll provide an outline empha �e7 1 2 cxd5 exd5 1 3 Vxd5 ±) I I cxd5 exd5 1 2
sizing examples and lines with unique themes. f3 i.f5 1 3 e4! dxe4 14 i.b5+ �f8 1 5 i.c6 exf3

Like 5 i.g5, 5 i.f4 contains the proverbial drop 1 6 0-0! with many threats.

UNORTHODOX QUEEN'S GAMBIT 53

b) 5 ... i.d6 6 i.g3 (6 i.xd6 ii'xd6 and now 7 ... i.xc3 followed by either ... t:Da5 or ... t2Jd5)

t:De5 !? or simply 7 e3) 6 ... t:Df6 7 e3 0-0 8 a3 t:De7 9 ... dxc4 (9 ... h6 10 i.h4) 10 i.xc4 'ii'd6!? (or

9 'ii'b3 b6 (Kramnik-Carlsen, London 201 0) and 1 0 ... ii'e7 1 1 i.b5 !) 1 1 i.xf6 t2Ja5 1 2 l:tg l ! g6
now 1 0 cxd5 exd5 1 1 i.h4!? ;!; keeps the game 13 ii'c2 t:Dxc4 14 a3 i.xc3+ 15 'ii'xc3 t:Db6 1 6
interesting. i.e5 'ii'd7 17 e4 f6 1 8 i.f4 with 0-0-0 and

White has a bind.

3.221) 7 i.g3

7 cxd5 exd5 can also be played, and then,

5 ••• i.xf3 6 gxf3 (D) e.g., 8 'ii'd2.

7 ... t2Jge7 8 e3 'ii'd7 8 ... f5 !? can be met in two ways:

a) 9 'iib3 f4 (Breutigam) falls short of equal

B ity after I 0 i.h4, threatening c5 and preparing

0-0-0 and e4.

b) 9 c5 ! i.xg3 1 0 hxg3 should also favour

White, because the only freeing move, I O ... e5,
is dubious in view of I I dxe5 t:Dxe5 12 i.g2
and now l2 ... c6 1 3 'ifd4 or l2 ... t:Df7 1 3 e4!.

9 ii'c2 f5 10 i.xd6 �xd6 11 0-0-0 0-0 12 f4
a6 13 �b1 (D)

B

6 .•. i.d6

Black logically tries to eliminate the bishop
pair, but White also has a space advantage to
count upon. Here is an instructive glimpse of
the alternatives:

a) 6 ... t:Df6 7 e3 t:Dh5 !? 8 cxd5 (8 i.e5 is
promising) 8 ... exd5 9 i.g3 t:Dxg3 (this opens
the h-file; the exchange can wait, but without it

... t:Dh5 doesn't make much sense) 10 hxg3 t:De7

1 1 ii'b3 l:tb8 (Baumbach-Thormann, Weimar

1 968; not 1 l ...b6? 12 i.b5+! c6 1 3 t:Dxd5 !) and
now 1 2 ii'a4+! t:Dc6?! (else White takes on a7) Black's position is in decline. Now: 1 3 i.b5 wins material. a) Breutigam's line 1 3 ... dxc4 1 4 i.xc4 t:Da5
b) 6 ... t:Dge7 7 e3 t2Jg6 8 cxd5 exd5 9 i.g3 is 1 5 i.e2 c5 16 dxc5 favours White, but 16 �a4!

better for White, who has nice moves like ii'b3, ii'c7 17 dxc5 ii'xc5 1 8 'ii'd7 is better still. i.b5 and/or lk 1 at his disposal. b) After 1 3 ... t:Dd8, Kramnik-Morozevich,
c) 6 ... dxc4 7 e3 i.d6 (7 ... t:Da5? comes up Frankfurt rapid 2000 continued 14 .l:.g I c6 15
short after 8 ii'a4+! c6 9 b4 cxb3 l 0 axb3 'iib6 t:De2 (heading for c5 or e5 via c I , although this

1 1 ii'xa5 ii'xa5 1 2 1:lxa5 i.b4 1 3 l:tc5 !) 8 i.g3 was a good time for 15 c5 !) 1 5 ... t:Df7 1 6 t:Dc l
t2Jge7 9 i.xc4 0-0 10 ii'c2! and White would t:Dc8 1 7 .l:.g3 ii'e7 1 8 c5 'ii'c7 1 9 i.e2 �h8 20
like to castle queens ide and advance in the cen l:tdg I .l:.g8 2 1 t2Jd3 t:De 7 22 h4! g6 23 h5 .l:.g 7
tre to take advantage of his bishop-pair. Black's (Black can't free himself: 23 ... gxh5 24 i.xh5
freeing move I O ... e5 !? runs into I I dxe5 t:Dxe5 .l:.xg3 25 .l:.xg3 .l:.f8 26 ii'd I ! t:Dh6 27 t:De5 l:tg8

1 2 i.e2! with 0-0-0 to come. 28 .l:.g5 ! 'ii'c8 29 'ii'h I and the queen penetrates)

d) 6 ... i.b4 7 e3 t:Df6 has several replies. A 24 hxg6 t:Dxg6 25 .l:.h I .l:.ag8 26 .l:.gh3 and
challenging one is 8 �b3 0-0 9 i.g5 ! ? (to pre White was winning but lost the thread and
vent ideas involving ... dxc4 and after i.xc4, eventually had to settle for a draw.

54 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

3.222) moves grant White slight advantages: I I ..id3
and 1 1 cxd5 with the idea l l ...ti:Jxd5 1 2 i..d3.

5 ..• ti:Jf6 6 e3 i..b4 (D) l l ... tt:Je4
a) The worth of the bishops is illustrated af
ter l l ...�a3 1 2 0-0 ti:Je4 1 3 cxd5 ti:Jd2 14 �g3

ti:Jxfl 1 5 �xfl ti:Je7 1 6 dxe6 'ii'xa2 17 exf7+
w �xf7 1 8 i..d3 and White is for choice.

b) l l ...e5 1 2 i..g5 'ii'a3 1 3 0-0 ti:Je4 1 4 cxd5
tt::lxg5 1 5 'ii'f5 ti:Je7 16 'ii'xg5 ti:Jxd5 1 7 �xe5
ti:Jxc3 1 8 i..f3 affords White the better pros
pects.

12 cxd5 exd5 13 0-0

White is a little better. Ness-Gronemann,

Internet 2009 continued 1 3 ... 'ii'a3?! ( 1 3 ... ti:Ja5

1 4 i..d3 c6 1 5 �e2! �fe8 16 �c2 g6 1 7 f3 ti:Jd6

1 8 e4 t) 1 4 c4 tLlb4 1 5 �fel ti:Jd2 1 6 'ii'g4 f5 1 7

�h5 dxc4 1 8 i..xc4+ ti:Jxc4 1 9 �xc4 �ac8 20

�xc7 �xc7 2 1 i..xc7 �xa2 22 i..d6 ti:Jd3 23 �e2

White still hopes for his standard queenside 'ii'b l + 24 'ifi>h2 g6, when the clearest way to a
play, Black for the take-over of central squares convincing advantage was 25 'ii'f3 ! �f7 26 �d5.

and destruction of White's queenside.

7 �c1 3.3)

7 �b3 i..xf3 8 gxf3 appears to give White a
small edge based upon the bishops and central 2 • • • e5 3 dxe5 d4 (D) pawns. In any case, a complex positional game The Albin Countergambit has received a
will result. great deal of attention over the last decade, as

7 ... 0-0 the traditional lines with 4 ti:Jf3 ti:Jc6 5 g3 have

This has been the main move, but 7 ... ti:Je4 offered Black the opportunity for active and
has been played as well. A direct answer is 8 sound play. 5 g3 itself is rather slow, and I want
h3 (or 8 i..d3) 8 ... i..h5 (8 ... i..xf3 9 �xf3 �e7 to recommend a line which rapidly puts pres

I 0 cxd5 exd5 1 1 i..b5 0-0 1 2 �e2 ;l;) 9 i..d3 sure on the advanced d-pawn. 0-0 10 cxd5 �xd5 ( 1 0 ... exd5 I I i..e2! ?) I I

i..xe4 'ii'xe4 1 2 0-0 i..xc3 1 3 �xc3 i..xf3 14

'ii'xf3 �xf3 1 5 gxf3 t. White stands better in
this kind of endgame. w

8 h3 i..xf3 9 �xf3 i..xc3+

9 ... 'ii'e7 10 i..g5 i..xc3+ I I llxc3 �b4 1 2
i..xf6 �xb2 ( 1 2 ... gxf6 1 3 �e2 leads to a slight
advantage for White) 1 3 �b3 �c I + ( l 3 ... �xa2?

14 �g4 g6 1 5 �d l ±) 14 �dl �xdl + 15 'iti>xd l
dxc4 16 �xb7 gxf6 (Kramnik-Ivanchuk, Linares

1 998) and here Dolmatov gives 1 7 'iti>c2! with a
pleasant advantage (look at Black's pawns); 1 7

'iti>d2 might be even better.

10 bxc3 �e7

I O ... tt:Je4 I I i..d3 f5 1 2 'ii'e2 ti:Ja5 1 3 cxd5
exd5 14 c4! ;l; Donchenko-Kahn, Naumburg 4 ti:Jf3 2002. Incidentally, be sure not to fall for the trap af

1 1 i..e2 ter 4 e3? i..b4+ 5 i..d2 dxe3 ! (D). This position has been reached many times 6 i..xb4?? (6 'il'a4+? ti:Jc6 7 i..xb4 doesn't
in the past six or seven years, but two other help at all: 7 ... exf2+ 8 'ifi>xf2 'il'h4+ 9 g3 'il'd4+;

UNORTHODOX QUEEN'S GAMBIT 55

w B

6 fxe3 ! is best, but then White's e-pawns are 3.31: s .•. ..tg4 56 both weak and isolated; e.g., play might go 3.32: s ••• tLlge7 57 6 ... tLlc6 7 tiJf3 tLlge7, intending ... ..i.xd2+ and 3.33: s .•• ..trs 58 ... tLlg6) 6 ... exf2+ 7 �e2 fxgl tiJ+ ! 8 �el (8
l:txg 1 ..i.g4+) 8 ... 'ii'h4+ and Black wins. Not the An assortment of alternatives: sort of thing you want to happen in the first 8 a) 5 ... ..tb4 6 a3 ..i.xd2+ 7 ..i.xd2 (or 7 'ii'xd2!

moves! .i.g4 8 b4) 7 ... .i.g4 8 'ii'b3 !? (8 h3 ..i.xf3 9 gxf3

4 ... tLlc6 tLlxe5 1 0 f4 tLlc6 1 1 ..i.g2 ;!;) 8 ... l:tb8 9 ..i.g5

This is the only move that gains some com tLlge7 1 0 0-0-0 0-0 1 1 e3 l:te8 (Marshall-Sho
pensation for Black's pawn. It develops and at walter, USA Ch (8), Lexington 1 909) and now
tacks the pawn on e5. Otherwise: 1 2 exd4 ..i.xf3 1 3 'ii'xf3 tLlxd4 1 4 'i!kg4 c5 1 5
a) 4 ... ..i.c5?! 5 tiJbd2 tLlc6 6 tLlb3 ..i.b4+ 7 .i.f6 g6 1 6 'ii'g5 ! i s virtually winning. ..i.d2 ..i.e7 8 e3 ! with the idea 8 ... d3? 9 tiJbd4! . b) 5 ... 'ii'e7 6 g3 (6 a3 tLlxe5 7 tLlxe5 'ii'xe5 8
b) 4 .. . c5?! 5 e3 tLlc6 6 exd4 cxd4 7 ..i.d3 ! tiJf3 'ii'a5+ 9 ..i.d2 'ii'b6 1 0 b4 c5 1 1 g3 ;!;)

gets White's pieces out quickly and keeps the 6 ... ..i.g4 7 ..i.g2 0-0-0 8 0-0 ;!; d3?! 9 exd3 l:txd3
pawn: 7 ... ..tg4 (7 ... tLlxe5? 8 'ii'e2 f6 9 ..i.f4 ..i.d6 1 0 'ii'e2 'ii'd8 1 1 tiJb3 ± Szigeti-Balogh, Tatato

10 c5 ! 'ii'a5+ 1 1 tiJbd2 'ii'xc5 1 2 0-0 is over varos 1 935. whelming) 8 0-0 'ii'c7 9 h3 ..i.xf3 1 0 'ii'xf3 c) 5 ... f6 6 exf6 (D) makes it a permanent tLlxe5 I I l:tel ..i.d6 1 2 ..i.f4 (Black has regained gambit: his pawn but is behind in development) 1 2 ... tLle7

1 3 ..i.xe5 (or 1 3 'ii'g3 !) 1 3 ... ..i.xe5 14 tLla3 a6 1 5
c5 ! ..i.f6 1 6 tLlc4 'ii'xc5 1 7 'ii'xb7 0-0 1 8 tLlb6
l:tab8 1 9 'ii'e4 tLlg6 20 tiJd7 is winning for B White, Grtinfeld-Tartakower, Karls bad 1 923.

5 tiJbd2 (D)

Avoiding the main lines (which now extend
into 20 or more moves of theory). Developing
the knight creates its own set of problems for

Black and is generally less risky because Black
can't simply mechanically proceed by ... .i.f5,

... 'ii'd7, ... ..i.h3 and ... h5-h4 without losing his d
pawn to tLlb3. With 5 tiJbd2, White would also
like to expand on the queenside by a3 and b4, or
play g3 later, depending upon what Black is do
ing. Moreover, White will sometimes return the c 1 ) 6 ... 'ili'xf6 has several good answers; e.g.,
pawn for the initiative or other advantages. After 7 g3 (or 7 a3, or 7 tiJb3 ..i.g4 8 a3, threatening

5 tiJbd2, Black has tried just about everything: ..i.g5) 7 ... ..tg4 8 ..i.g2 0-0-0 9 h3 ..tf5 10 0-0 g5 56 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

I I �a4 h5? (Teichmann-Mieses, Berlin 19 10) This is Black's most popular move, develop

1 2 lt:Jb3 threatens ii.xg5, but after 1 2 ... ii.h6 1 3 ing quickly and preparing ... 0-0-0 after ... f!le7
lt:Jc5 ! intending lt:Jxg5 White wins on the queen or ... �d7. side. 6 a3 (D)

c2) 6 ... lt:Jxf6 7 a3 a5 (7 ... ii.e6 8 b4) 8 lt:Jb3
ii.e6 9 'ii'd3 ! (9 e3 ;!;) 9 ... ii.f7 10 lt:Jbxd4 lt:Jxd4

1 1 lt:Jxd4 ii.c5? ! 1 2 lt:Jb3 ( 1 2 'ilt'e3+! ii.e7 1 3
lt:Jf5) 1 2 .. . ii.b6 1 3 ii.e3 0-0 1 4 �xd8 .:.axd8 1 5 B ii.xb6 cxb6 16 e3 and Black had no compensa
tion for the pawns in Burmakin-Halser, Graz

1997.

d) 5 ... ii.e6 (D) and White has:

6 ••• � e7 Or:

a) 6 ... lt:Jge7 7 h3 ii.h5 8 b4! 'ilt'd7 9 ii.b2 ±.

b) 6 ... a5 is a normal move in this variation.

Here White can reply with 7 h3 ii.h5 (7 ... ii.xf3

8 lt:Jxf3 ii.c5 and now 9 g3 ± is one idea, while 9
h4! ?, anticipating ... lt:Jge7-g6, has also been
recommended) 8 'ii'a4 (a typical move once
d l ) 6 a3 l!Vd7 (6 ... lt:Jge7 transposes to note Black's bishop can't get back to defence of the

'a' to White's 6th move in Section 3.32) 7 b4 queenside) 8 ... 'ilt'd7 9 'ilt'b5 ! (threatening 10 e6,
lt:Jge7 8 b5 lt:Ja5 9 l!Va4 b6 I 0 ii.b2 c5 1 1 bxc6 winning the bishop) 9 ... ii.g6 (Duz Khotirnirsky
lt:Jexc6 1 2 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxd4 1 3 'i!Vxd7 + 'it>xd7 14 Marshall, Hamburg 1 91 0) 1 0 lt:Jb3 ! ±.

ii.xd4 lt:Jxc4 1 5 lt:Jxc4 ii.xc4 1 6 e3 ii.xfl 17 7 h3 :xn ± (Raetsky); most of these moves are es 7 b4 0-0-0 8 ii.b2 lt:Jxe5 9 lt:Jxe5 (not 9
sentially forced. lt:Jxd4 ?? lt:Jd3#- you wouldn't be the first to fall
d2) 6 lL'lb3 !? also yields White a slight edge. for this idea!) 9 ... 11¥xe5 10 h3 ( 1 0 lt:Jb3 ;!;)

Skipping a lot of details, a main line is 6 ... ii.xc4 10 ... ii.h5 1 1 g4 ii.g6 12 ii.g2 lt:Jf6 1 3 lt:Jf3 ;!;

(6 ... ii.b4+ 7 ii.d2 "file? 8 lt:Jbxd4 lt:Jxd4 9 lt:Jxd4 Gelfand-Radjabov, Almaty blitz 2008.

0-0-0 1 0 lt:Jf3 ;!; with the idea l!Va4, Isaksson 7 ••• ii.h5 Muir, corr. 1 960) 7 lt:Jbxd4 ii.c5 (7 ... �d7 or After 7 ... ii.xf3 8 lt:Jxf3 0-0-0, White has sev

7 ... �d5 is countered by 8 lt:Jxc6 �xc6 9 ii.d2 !) eral good replies, including 9 ii.g5 (9 g3 lt:Jxe5

8 e3 (8 ii.e3 and 8 l!Va4 are good alternatives) 10 lt:Jxe5 'ii'xe5 I I ii.g2 ;!;) 9 ... f6 1 0 exf6 gxf6

8 ... ii.xfl 9 :xn ! �d7?! (9 ... ii.xd4 ;!;) 1 0 lt:Jxc6 I I ii.d2! ( I I ii.f4 ;!;) i l ...lt:Jh6 1 2 �a4 ( 1 2 "filc2

l!Vxc6 1 1 ii.d2 ii.b6 ( l l ...a5 is better according d3 1 3 'ii'c3 dxe2 1 4 ii.xe2 lt:Jf5 1 5 'it>fl ;!; ap

to Raetsky, but it's not clear why after 1 2 iVc2! pears risky but this sequence helps White's
and 0-0-0) 1 2 :c 1 'iVg6 1 3 �c2 "fi/xg2? 1 4 pieces become active) 1 2 ... 'it>b8 1 3 0-0-0 with a

�a4+ 'it>f8 1 5 l!Ve4 and White won i n Dzevlan nice edge; e.g., 1 3 ... lt:Jf5 1 4 'ii'c2 �e6 1 5 g3

Furhoff, Stockholm 1 992. ii.c5 1 6 lt:Je 1 ! lt:Je5 1 7 lt:Jd3.

8 'ii'a4

3.31) 8 g4 ii.g6 9 ii.g2 0-0-0 1 0 b4 lt:Jxe5 1 1 lt:Jxe5

'ii'xe5 1 2 lt:Jf3 t.

5 ••• ii.g4 8 ••• 0-0-0 (D)

UNORTHODOX QUEEN'S GAMBIT 5 7

3 . 32)

w 5 ... tZ:Ige7 (D)

w

9 b4 �b8

9 ... tZ:Ixe5 10 tZ:Ixe5 'ii'xe5 1 1 g4 (Ftacnik)

1 l ...d3 12 :a2! dxe2 (Cox) 1 3 �xe2! .i.g6 1 4
tLlf3 followed by 'ii'xa7 and Black i s lost.

10 g4 �g6 1 1 �b2 tZ:IxeS This gives White a choice of solid continua

1 1 ... f6 1 2 �g2 leaves Black without a conve tions: nient way to continue since 1 2 .. .fxe5 loses a 6 tZ:Ib3 piece to 1 3 b5 while 1 2 ... d3 1 3 exd3 l:txd3 14 6 a3 is good and worth knowing, but much

0-0-0 leaves White far better developed and still more complicated. Briefly: a pawn ahead. a) 6 ... �e6 7 tZ:Ib3 �xc4 8 tZ:Ibxd4 tZ:Ixd4 of

12 tZ:IxeS 'ii'xe5 (D) fers White a choice between 9 tZ:Ixd4, intending

'ii'a4+, and 9 'ii'xd4 'ii'xd4 1 0 tZ:Ixd4 0-0-0 1 1 e3

�d5 1 2 �d2 ;!;.

b) 6 ... tZ:If5 7 tZ:Ie4!? tZ:Ih4 8 �g5 (or 8 ..if4)

w 8 ... ..ie7 9 ..ixh4 ..ixh4 1 0 'ii'd3 0-0 1 1 g3 ;!;

(Stoica).

c) 6 ... tZ:Ig6 7 tZ:Ib3 tZ:Igxe5 (7 ... ..ie7 8 tZ:Ibxd4
tZ:Icxe5 9 tZ:Ixe5 tZ:Ixe5 I 0 ..if4 ..if6 1 1 e3 ;!; 0-0

1 2 'ii'c2 and Black lacks full compensation) 8
lbxe5 tZ:Ixe5 9 'ii'xd4 ! 'ii'xd4 1 0 tZ:Ixd4 tZ:Ixc4 1 1
e4 tZ:Ie5 1 2 tZ:Ib5 !? ( 1 2 f4) 1 2 ... �d8 1 3 ..ie3 ( 1 3

.i.f4 f6 1 4 .l:.d 1+ .i.d7 1 5 �e2 �c8 1 6 0-0 a6 1 7
tZ:Ic3 ;!;) 1 3 ... c6 1 4 .l:.d 1 + ..id7 1 5 tZ:Ic3 �c7 1 6
f4 tZ:Ig4 1 7 ..id4 with a moderate but definite
advantage.

6 ... tZ:If5

13 tZ:If3! Some people consider this to be Black's best

1 3 �g2 !? isn't bad either: 1 3 ... 'ii'e6 1 4 0-0 chance versus 5 tZ:Ibd2, perhaps correctly; still,
tZ:If6 1 5 :fd 1 .i.d6 1 6 'ii'b5 tZ:Ie4 1 7 c5 �f4 1 8 there are two good replies that keep some ad

�xe4 �xe4 1 9 tZ:Ixe4 'ii'xe4 20 'ii'd3 ;!;. vantage.

13 ••• 'ii'e4 7 e4!

Now in Go1din-Mengarini, New York 1 99 1 , A strange move, allowing doubled isolated

White played 14 �xd4? :xd4 1 5 tZ:Ixd4 and pawns on the e-file, but it appears to be quite

Black missed that 1 5 ... tZ:If6! hits both d4 and h 1 , strong. 7 a3 is the other main line: 7 ... ..ie7 !

so 16 tZ:If3 'ii'xc4 + follows. But White has a (7 ... a5 8 e3 ! dxe3 9 'ii'xd8+ tZ:Ixd8 I 0 fxe3 tZ:Ic6
strong move in 14 �g2 !, having in mind 14 ... d3 1 1 ..id2 a4 1 2 tZ:Ibd4 ;!;) 8 g3 0-0 (8 ... a5 9

1 5 0-0! dxe2 1 6 tZ:Ie5 ! ! exfl 'ii' + 1 7 :xfl +-. .i.h3 !) 9 'ii'd3 a5 1 0 ..ih3 g6 ( I O ... tZ:Ih4 has 58 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

been recommended, but I I gxh4 ! .ixh3 1 2 9 ••• l2Jc6 .l:tg I 'it>h8 1 3 lDbxd4 lDxd4 14 lbxd4 .ixh4 1 5 This is the consistent move, attacking e5 and

.if4 looks good for White) I I .if4 a4! 1 2 g4 clearing the way for ... 0-0-0. lbh4 1 3 lbbxd4 lDxf3+ 14 lbxf3 'ii'xd3 1 5 a) 9 ... lbe7 1 0 .id2 lbec6 1 1 lbbd4 .id7 is exd3 t . White i s two pawns up but it' s not slow; e.g., 1 2 .id3 .ib4 1 3 0-0-0 .ixd2+ 1 4
easy; in the end, he will probably give back .l:txd2 lbb4 1 5 .ibl lbe6 1 6 .l:thd l ± Maksi
one or even both in exchange for a modest ad menko-Antoniewski, Wysowa 2007. vantage. b) 9 ... .ib4+ 1 0 'it>f2 .ie7 1 1 lbbd4 0-0 1 2

7 ••• dxe3 8 1!i'xd8+ l2Jxd8 .id3 lDh4 1 3 .ic2! ? ( 1 3 .id2! keeps bringing

Black's king position after 8 ... 'it>xd8 9 fxe3 the pieces out; e.g., 1 3 ... c5 14 lDb5 lbc6 1 5
makes it difficult to get his rooks coordinated. .ic3 and White i s i n control) 1 3 .. . c 6 ( 1 3 .. . c5 !

One example is 9 ... .ib4+ 1 0 'it>f2 .ie7 I l lDbd4 1 4 lDb5 lbc6 is still good for White, but more

.id7 1 2 .id3 lbh4 1 3 .ie4 lbg6 1 4 lDxc6+ combative) 1 4 .id2 .l:te8 1 5 .ic3 a5 16 a3 ( 1 6

.ixc6 1 5 .idS ± Jojua-Adnani, Manama 2009. .l:tad 1 ! lDxf3 1 7 lbxf3) 1 6 ... a4 ( 1 6 ... lbxf3 ;!;) 1 7

Still, strong players have used 8 ... 'it>xd8, so it .l:tad I g6 1 8 'it>g3 g5 1 9 lDxh4 gxh4+ 20 'it>f2
deserves attention. .ig4 2 1 l:.d2 .ig5 22 h3 .ih5 23 lDf5 ± De

9 fxe3 (D) Jong-Docx, Gent 2006; White has a pawn and
the better position.

10 .id3

1 0 lbbd4 is also good; e.g., 1 O ... .ib4+ 1 1

8 'it>f2 lbfxd4! 1 2 exd4 .ig4 1 3 .ie3 0-0-0 14

.l:tc 1 .ixf3 1 5 gxf3 lbxd4 1 6 .ih3+ 'it>b8 1 7

.l:thdl lbc6 1 8 a3 .ie7 1 9 f4 g5 ! 20 .l:td5 ! t.

10 ••• .ib4+ a) IO ... .ie6?! 1 1 .id2 a5 1 2 .ie4 .ib4 1 3

'it>f2 0-0 1 4 .l:thd l gives White a very comfort
able game.

b) 1 0 ... lDfe7 1 1 lbbd4 .ig4 and now 1 2

.ie4 i s strong, while 1 2 h 3 .ixf3 1 3 lDxf3 lbg6

1 4 .ixg6 hxg6 1 5 'it>e2 yielded a smaller advan
tage in Lehman-Smederevac, Beverwijk 1 965.

11 'it>f2!

Cox recommends 7 e4 leading to this posi From this point, Drozdovsky-C.Bauer, Our
tion in his repertoire book, and Raetsky also has ense blitz 2009 continued l l ... .ie7 !? 1 2 .id2
it as a small advantage for White. I was a bit lDM 1 3 .ic3 lbg6 1 4 .ie4 .id7 1 5 .l:tad 1 ±,
sceptical until I noticed that in my database while 1 1 ...0-0 is met by 1 2 lbbd4! lDfxd4 1 3
games between higher-rated players (on either exd4 f6 1 4 exf6 .l:txf6 1 5 .ig5 .l:tf8 1 6 a3 .id6
or both sides of the board), White has a ridicu 1 7 c5 ..tf4 1 8 .ixf4 .l:txf4 1 9 'it>e3 ±. lously strong record: 1 0 wins and 3 draws be
fore finally running into a loss. Not bad for a 3.33} risk-free variation. There are a few reasons for
this success. White's pawns are exposed, but 5 ... .if5 6 lbb3 (D) the e5-pawn cramps Black's game and the e3- 6 ••• ..tb4+ ! pawn anchors pieces on d4. White is also ahead Considered best. There are some weaker al
in development, and it turns out that his remain ternatives: ing pieces have good squares; e.g., bishops on a) 6 ... a5?! 7 a3 and 8 lDbxd4 follows unless
c3 and d3 or e4, and rooks on the d- and f-files. Black ventures upon 7 ... d3 8 .ie3 dxe2 9 11i'xd8+

Finally, it's a peculiarity of the position that .l:txd8 1 0 .ixe2 ±. Black has a difficult time targeting the e5-pawn, b) 6 ... g6? 7 lbbxd4 lDxd4 8 lbxd4 .ig7 9
whose capture is the most important way to get lDxf5 11i'xd 1 + I 0 'it>xd 1 gxf5 1 1 f4 0-0-0+ 1 2
back into the game. 'it>c2 ± Gaier-Heckmann, Ladenburg 1 992.

UNORTHODOX QUEEN'S GAMBIT 59

a) 7 .. .lbge7? 8 .Jixb4 liJxb4 9 lbbxd4 0-0 l O

a3 liJbc6 I I e 3 gives Black nothing for his

B pawn.

b) 7 ... d3? 8 exd3 ! .Jixd3 9 .Jixb4 liJxb4 l O
liJbd4 .Jixfl I I �a4+! ± .

8 liJbxd4

Or 8 a3 .Jixd2+ 9 'i!fxd2.

8 •.• liJxe5 9 liJxe5 .Jixd2+ 10 �xd2 �xeS 1 1
liJxfS 'ii'xf5 1 2 .l:td1 liJf6 1 3 �e3+ 'iti>f8 1 4 g3

'ii'a5+ 15 �d2 'ii'xa2 16 �b4+ 'iti>gS 17 .Jig2

White has a large advantage.

3 .4)

c) 6 ... f6?! is a recent try for Black, but it 2 ••• e6 3 liJc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4 (D) looks weak: 7 liJbxd4! .Jib4+ 8 .i.d2 liJxd4 9
liJxd4 'ii'xd4 l O 'ii'a4+! (more effective than I 0

.Jixb4? 'i!Vxb2) I O ... c6 1 1 �xb4 0-0-0 1 2 e3 ( 1 2

.i.e3 'i¥xe5 1 3 .i.xa7 !? with two extra pawns) w 1 2 ... �xe5 1 3 .i.c3 and Black has no compensa
tion.

d) 6 ... �d7 is more respectable, but not still
impressive: 7 liJbxd4! 0-0-0 (7 ... .i.b4+ 8 .i.d2
liJxd4 9 liJxd4 �xd4 I 0 'ii'a4+ c6 I I 'ii'xb4 ±) 8
e3 .Jic5 9 .i.e2 .Jixd4 (Astrup-D.Eriksson, Oslo

2003) 10 exd4! liJb4 ( I O ... liJxd4? I I liJxd4

�xd4 1 2 �xd4 .l:txd4 1 3 ..td2 liJe7 1 4 .i.c3
with the bishop-pair and a clear extra pawn) I I

0-0 liJc2 1 2 .l:tbl liJxd4 ( 1 2 ... liJb4 1 3 liJh4! with
the idea 1 3 ... ..txbl l 4 ..tg4) 1 3 liJxd4 'ii'xd4 1 4

�xd4 .l:txd4 1 5 ..te3 .l:te4 1 6 l:.be1 ..te6 (not The Hennig-Schara Gambit (we'll refer to it

16 ... .l:txe5? 1 7 ..td4) 17 b3 liJe7 1 8 ..td2 liJf5 1 9 as simply the 'Schara', for convenience) is one

..tf3 .l:txe I 20 .l:txe I again leaves White a clear of the better gambits around, and isn't subject to
pawn ahead. an easy response, much less a refutation. While

7 ..td2 (D) it is an offshoot of the Tarrasch Defence, it has
little in common strategically with that opening,
which is why we cover it separately in this chap

ter on unorthodox Queen's Gambit lines.

B It's an opening about which reams of theory
have been written (along with an excellent re
cent book by Bronznik). That's alright, but
makes it nearly impossible to play something
calm and unpretentious against it without get
ting the worse of it or having to play other sharp
positions as a consequence. Here I've offered
some lines that can lead to dangerous positions,
but at least they will avoid the craziest of tacti
cal brawls. To begin with, we have two moves

(5 �xd4 and 5 �a4+) which ultimately aim for
the same position (i.e. the one arising after 5

7 .• :ile7 �xd4 liJc6 6 'i!Vd 1 exd5 7 �xd5 ..td7 or 5 60 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

�a4+ .id7 6 �xd4 exd5 7 'ii'xd5 4Jc6 - cov This is Biicker and Winds's new idea. With
ered in Section 3.43). I think it's worth treating out going into a lot of detail, one line they give
them separately because of recent discoveries; is ... this will help you choose which direction you 10 lM1 hxg5 1 1 �xd6 �b6 12 �a3 .ie6 13
want to head in: e3 0-0 14 4Jf3 3.41: 5 �xd4 60 14 .ib5 ! ? preserves a small edge, I think. 3.42: 5 �a4+ 60 14 ••• g4 15 4Jd4 4Jxd4 16 .l:txd4 4Jc6 17 .l:te4 3.43: Schara Main Line 61 aS (D)

3.41)

5 �xd4 w

The direct approach, frowned upon by the
ory as complicating matters (by comparison
with 5 �a4+ ), but in fact simplifying matters in
other ways:

5 •.• 4Jc6 6 �d1 exd5 7 �xd5 (D)

B

Biicker and Winds call this position 'un
clear'. Developing quickly is best: 1 8 .ie2 4Jb4

( 1 8 ... .l:tad8 1 9 0-0 .l:td2 20 .ixg4 .ixg4 21 .l:txg4

�xb2 22 �c5 .l:tfd8 23 h3 .l:t2d3 24 .l:tc4 and

Black's compensation seems insufficient; it's
not clear what his plan is for increasing the
pressure, whereas White has combinations of
a4 and 4Je4 or .l:tbl to consolidate) 1 9 0-0 4Jc2

20 �e7 and again Black has definite compensa

With this move-order, White has sidestepped tion, but I think he falls short of equality after,
the dangerous gambit 5 �a4+ .id7 6 �xd4 say, 20 ... .l:tae8 ! (20 .. .'i!hb2 2 1 .l:txe6 ! fxe6 22
exd5 7 �xd5 4Jf6 !?. The downside is that he �xe6+
has to face ... the forthcoming capture of a second pawn for

7 .•• .id6!? the exchange) 2 1 �g5 �xb2 22 4Jb5 ! 4Jb4

This is far more interesting than the older (22 ... �xa2? 23 4Jc7 .l:tc8 24 4Jxe6 fxe6 25

7 ... .ie6?!, which has been under a cloud for �xg4) 23 4Jd4 ;!; .id7 24 .l:te7 ! .l:txe7 25 �xe7
some time. The main line, in broad brush, is 8 .ic8 26 �c7 ;!; (or 26 .ic4 ;!;). Obviously the

�xd8+ .l:txd8 9 e3 (9 .ig5 ! is also good, ac last word hasn't been said here, but you need to
cording to analysis by Biicker and Winds, and face this kind of thing versus the Schara and
in fact renders irrelevant a few questions about this should help to get you started. the old main line) 9 ... 4Jb4 l O .ib5+
rt;n ! 4Jf6 ( l l ...a6 1 2 .ie2 li:Jf6 1 3 4Jf3 .if5 14 3.42) .id2 ;!;) 12 4Jf3 4Jc2 1 3 .l:tbl .if5 1 4 .id2 ± Smyslov-Estrin, Leningrad 1 95 1 . 5 �a4+ (D)

7 ... .id7 is the standard main line of the This is the other method of picking up the

Schara, which we cover separately in Section pawn, which sidesteps some lines (like 5 �xd4

3.43. 4Jc6 6 �d l exd5 7 'ilfxd5 .id6!?), but also sub

8 .ig5 4Jge7 9 �d2 h6 jects White to another interesting pawn sacrifice.

UNORTHODOX QUEEN'S GAMBIT 61

(8 ... il..c6 9 'iib3 li:Jbd7 also gives some com

pensation, but it is two pawns and I 0 il..f4

B seems like a good idea; the text-move has the
capability of producing more direct threats) 9

'iVb3 (simpler may be 9 il..f4 il..b4, when 1 0 e3
or 1 0 li:Jf3 offers a moderate advantage), and

Bucker and Winds like 9 ... l::tb8 I 0 �d I ir'a5 I I
li:Jf3 .ta3 ! 1 2 bxa3 �xc3+ 1 3 .td2 'ii'xa3. Then
a possible line is 14 e3 li:Je4 1 5 il..e2 0-0 16 0-0
l::tfd8 1 7 'ii'c2 il..f5 ( 1 7 ... lt:Jxd2 1 8 li:Jxd2 ;\;) 1 8 ir'xc6 li:Jxd2 1 9 li:Jxd2 l::txd2 20 il..c4 ;!;. Both
sides have many options, however.

3 .43)

5 ••• .td7

5 ... b5?! 6 �xd4! hasn't ever panned out for 5 'i!Va4+ Black: As explained earlier, 5 �xd4 li:Jc6 6 'i!Vd I
a) 6 ... b4 7 li:Jb5 ! li:Jf6 (7 ... a6 8 dxe6!; 7 ... exd5 exd5 7 'i!Vxd5 il..d7 is a more or less equally

8 �xd5 !) 8 d6 li:Jc6 9 �c4 and White is already valid path to the same position, just offering
winning. different options for Black to deviate.

b) 6 ... a6 7 li:Jf3 b4 8 li:Ja4!, again with an 5 ... il..d7 6 �xd4 exd5 7 1!Vxd5 li:Jc6 8 li:Jf3 enormous advantage. Here the move-order can be crucial. Some
c) 6 ... li:Jc6 7 �d2 exd5 8 �xd5 .td7 9 .tg5 times 8 e3 is played first, when a line such as
li:Jf6 I 0 .txf6 (or 1 0 �d2 il..e7 1 1 e3 a6 1 2 li:Jf3 8 ... li:Jf6 9 �b3 doesn't run into 9 ... il..e6?! (as it
with a slight advantage to White) 1 0 ... �xf6 1 1 would were the knight on f3 and pawn on e2)

e3 ;!; (Bareev), when l l ...b4?! 1 2 l::td l ! l::td8 1 3 because 1 0 �xb7 li:Jb4 fails to 1 1 il..b5+. 'iVe4+ looks good for White. 8 ... li:Jf6 (D)

6 �xd4 exd5 7 �xd5

Now 7 ... li:Jc6 is the standard move, reaching

the main-line position of the Schara, which we
examine in Section 3.43. With this move-order, w White has to cope with a further pawn sacrifice:

7 ... li:Jf6!? (D)

w

Now the path divides depending on where

White puts his queen. 9 �d 1 is the traditional
main line, but we shall focus on two alternative
locations for the queen:

3.431: 9 �b3 62 3.432: 9 'i!Vd3!? 64

Then 8 ir'd 1 is a more-or-less 'normal' ver My main recommendation is 9 �b3, long
sion of the gambit, but White can also take the the main alternative to 9 �d I . 9 'ii'd3 is a little
offered pawn by 8 ir'xb7 (8 �d3 li:Ja6) 8 ... li:Jc6 analysed move which I only noticed recently. 62 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

Both moves avoid the complex theory that has
built up over many years in the lines following

9 'i!i'd l . B

3 .43 1 )

9 'ili'b3

This move is somewhat irregular, although
well-known to Schara advocates.

9 .•• i.c5

Unfortunately, with the pawn on e2 and
knight on f3, 9 ... i.e6 (D) is also possible (com pare my comments above on 8 e3 and regarding

9 �d3 !? in Section 3.432), and that requires
some specifics: c2) 10 ... ltJd7 1 I lLld4! .l:!.c8 ( I I ...ltJxd4 12

'i!i'xd4 ;\;; 1 I ...ltJc5 1 2 lLlxc6 'i!i'b6 1 3 'ili'c2 "iixc6

14 e4 a6 1 5 i.e2 ;\;) 1 2 lLlxe6 fxe6 1 3 g3! ltJc5

14 'ili'c2 ;\;.

w c3) I O ... a6 1 1 ltJg5 ( 1 1 a3 b5 1 2 'ii'c2 .l:!.c8 =)

I I ...i.b4 1 2 lLlxe6 fxe6 1 3 i.g5 0-0 14 e3 'i!i'c7

1 5 i.xf6 ( 1 5 i.f4!?) 1 5 ... .l:!.xf6 1 6 i.e2 ;\; with
the idea 1 6 ... ltJd4 1 7 0-0 i.xc3 1 8 exd4 i.xb2

1 9 .l:!.ab 1 'ii'c3 20 .l:!.fd I .l:!.c8 2 1 i.f3 ;\;.

c4) I O ... i.c5 is again the most popular con
tinuation: 1 1 e3 0-0 ( l l ...'i!i'e7 1 2 ltJe5 0-0 1 3
ltJxc6 bxc6 1 4 i.e2 ;\; Peralta-Airando, Buenos

Aires 1 999; l l ...a6 I 2 lLle5 ! 0-0 1 3 lLlxc6 bxc6

14 i.e2 ;\;) 1 2 i.e2 a6 ( 1 2 ... 'i!i'e7 1 3 0-0 .l:!.fd8 14
a3 is messy, but White's queen should be rela
tively safe on c2 or in some cases h4; 1 2 .. .'iVc7
a) I 0 'ili'xb7?! lLlb4 leads to a draw after I I 1 3 0-0 .l:!.ad8 14 i.d2 ltJg4 1 5 .l:!.fd 1 i.d6 and

�b5+ i.d7 ( l l ...�d7 1 2 ltJd4! ±) 1 2 'i1Ve5+ now 1 6 h3 is strong, but 1 6 g3 'i!i'e 7 1 7 i.e I also
i.e6! ( 1 2 ... i.e7 !? 1 3 lLld4! 0-0 14 a3 lLlc6 1 5 gave Black almost nothing for the pawn in Kar
lLlxc6 i.xc6 1 6 i.f4 ;\;) 1 3 'ili'b5+ i.d7 14 'i1Ve5+ pov-Hector, Haninge 1 990) 1 3 0-0 b5 14 'ili'c2
i.e6 (when White must avoid 15 lLld4 ?? 'ii'xd4 ), ( 1 4 'ii'h4 is also promising: 1 4 ... .l:!.c8 1 5 .Ud l
etc. 'ii'b6, Van der Sterren-Kuijf, Dutch Ch, Hilver
b) 1 0 'ili'c2 seems playable to me (I like pre sum 1 987, and here 1 6 lLlg5 i.f5 1 7 lLlge4 lim
venting ... i.f5), but I can only find two games its Black to inadequate compensation) 14 ... .l:!.c8
in my entire database. Here's one: I O ... a6!? I I ( 1 4 ... lLlb4 1 5 1i'bl h6 ;\; 1 6 i.d2 lLlg4 and now
a3 i.c5 1 2 e3 �e7 1 3 i.e2 g5?! 14 0-0 (Black 1 7 ltJe4! is even stronger than 1 7 .l:td 1 ! ? 'i!i'e 7 1 8
probably doesn't have much after 1 4 lLlxg5 ei a3 lLlc6, when White has untangled and re
ther) 14 ... g4 1 5 lLld4 i.d7 16 b4 i.xd4 17 exd4 mains a pawn ahead, Hort-Dankert, Porz 1 98 1 )

ltJxd4 1 8 'i1Vb2 .l:!.g8 ! ? 1 9 i.f4 ± Nenashev 1 5 lLlg5 ltJb4 1 6 'ili'bl 'i!i'e7. Hort-Cuartas, Dort Truta, Groningen 1 994. Obviously not very rel mund 1 982 now went 17 a3 lLlc6 ( 1 7 ... lLlbd5 ;\;)

evant, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss 10 'ili'c2 1 8 b4 i.d6 1 9 i.b2 and White was consolidat
out of hand. ing, though 17 lLlxe6! 'i!i'xe6 1 8 a4 is more accu
c) 10 'i!i'a4 (D) is the main move. rate.

An overview: We now return to 9 ... i.c5 (D):

c l ) I O ... i.e7 is too slow: I I e4 (or I l ltJe5) 10 i.g5

1 1 ...0-0 12 i.e2 "iic7 1 3 0-0 gives White a Often this piece is best-placed on d2 for slight advantage. defensive purposes, but here the element of

UNORTHODOX QUEEN'S GAMBIT 63

1 3 ... g4 1 4 lt:Jd4 h5 ! J 5 .:ac i �b8 J 6 .:fd l g3 ! !

1 7 hxg3 h4 1 8 gxh4 .:xh4 1 9 �f3 �xd4 20
w exd4 �e6. Here instead of 2 1 �a3, I'd propose

21 'i!kb5 !, and offer the lengthy line 2 I ...lt:Jxd4

22 'i!Ve5+ �a8 23 �g5 lt:Jxf3+ 24 gxf3 _:g8 25
lt:Jb5 lt:Jd7! ? 26 'ifg3 'i!kxg5 27 .:c8+ .:xc8 28

'i!kxg5 .:hh8 29 �g3 ! .:hg8 30 lt:Jc7+ �b8 3 1
lt:Jxe6+ .:xg3+ 32 fxg3 fxe6 33 .:xd7, when

Black has serious problems due to the passed
g-pawn.

There's a lot of analysis in this note, proba
bly flawed in parts, but my overall impression
is that Black hasn't fully adequate compensa
tion for the pawn.

simplification helps White to develop quickly We now return to I 0 �g5 (D): and avoid weaknesses. I 0 e3 has a lengthy his
tory and really should be known, because 1 0

�g5 is not yet worked out. I ' II go straight to the
main line: 10 ... �e7 ( 1 0 ... 0-0 I I a3 �e6 1 2 �c2 B .:c8 1 3 �e2 lt:Ja5 14 b4) I I �e2 (Bronznik likes
the move-order 1 1 �d2 0-0-0 and now 1 2 �e2
or 1 2 .:c I �b8 1 3 �e2, because it renders ... g5
plans less effective) 1 1 ...0-0-0!? (D) ( l l ...g5 !? 12 �d2 g4 1 3 lt:Jh4 ;!;) and now it' s all a matter of
specifics:

w

10 ..• �e6 Or:

a) 1 0 ... 0-0 I I .:d I ( I I e3 �e6 1 2 �a4 has
also been played) I I ...lt:Ja5? ! 1 2 'iWc2 lt:Jg4 1 3
e3 f6 1 4 �b5 ! .:n 1 5 'i!kd3 is winning for White, Valenzuela Fuentealba-Sommerbauer,

Elista Olympiad 1 998.

b) 10 ... h6 I I �xf6 ( I I �h4) I I ...'ii'xf6 and
here 1 2 .:d J ! strikes me as an improvement
upon I 2 lt:Je4 �e7 1 3 tLlxc5 'ii'xc5 14 e3 .l:tc8 !

a) 1 2 �d2 �b8 1 3 .:c 1 �e6 14 �a4 .:hg8 (Bronznik's move).

1 5 0-0 g5 1 6 .:fd l �d7 ( 1 6 ... g4 17 lt:Jd4! ± 1 1 �b5 Bormida-Sasata, corr. 1 997), and here Bron I I 'ii'xb7 !? isn't played for some reason,
znik likes 1 7 'i!kc2! for White, with the idea hopefully not l l ...lt:Jb4? ( J I ....:c8!?) because

1 7 ... g4 I 8 lt:Je l ( 1 8 lt:Jh4!?) 1 8 ... �b6 I 9 lt:Ja4 then 1 2 �b5+ �d7?? 1 3 �xc5 lt:Jc2+ 14 �d2
lt:Jd4 20 exd4 �xa4 2 1 �xa4 'i!Vxe2 22 �e3 tLlxa I 1 5 e3 ( 1 5 lt:Jd4) wins. lt:Jd5 23 .:d2 �a6 24 �xa6 bxa6 25 lt:Jd3 ;!;. ll .. :�Ve1 12 e3 a6 13 �a4 h6 14 �xf6 'ikxf6
b) 1 2 0-0 is the normal move. It exposes (D) White to attack by 1 2 ... g5, when 1 3 �d2 may This position has been reached in several
be best, because captures on d4 are disadvanta games. geous. Bronznik suggests the amazing attack 15 �c4!

64 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

w B

Again with the theme of simplification. 1 5 The queen covers the bl -h7 diagonal and it

�e2 and 1 5 �d3 have been less effective. can't be attacked by ... �e6 as in the 'fkb3 lines.

15 ... �d7 I find this an attractive option.

1 5 ... �b4 1 6 �xe6! �xc3+ 1 7 bxc3 �xc3+ 9 ... ..tc5

1 8 �e2 fxe6 1 9 l:tabl l:td8 20 'il'e4 ± (Ftacnik). The most aggressive reply. Other moves:

16 0-0-0 (D) a) 9 ... �e7 1 0 �f4 ( 1 0 e4!? is possible too;
e.g., 1 0 ... l2Jb4 I I �bi or 10 ... �c7 1 1 �e2 l:td8

1 2 0-0 ;\;) I O ... l2Jb4 I I �bl l2Jbd5 1 2 �e5 ;\;.

b) 9 ... l2Jb4 10 'ii'b 1 �c5 I 1 a3 l2Jc6 12 e3

B ( 1 2 �f4!?) 1 2 .. .'i¥e7 1 3 �e2 l:tc8 1 4 0-0 0-0 1 5
l:td1 l:tfd8 1 6 b4 �d6 1 7 �b2 ;\; Van Beek-Van
der Wijk, Dutch Team Ch 20 1 1 / 1 2.

10 a3

Or I O e3 0-0 I I �e2 'fke7 I 2 0-0 l:tfd8 I 3 a3

�g4 I 4 'fkc2 l2Je5 I S b4 �b6 16 �b2 ;\;.

10 ... 0-0

IO .. .'ii'b6 1 1 e3 0-0-0?! 1 2 b4 �e7 1 3 'fkc2

�b8 1 4 e4!.

11 e3 1 I b4 �b6 1 2 �g5 h6 1 3 �h4 ;\;.

ll ... 'fke7 12 �e2 l:tfd8 13 0-0 l2Je5

Now: Now in M.Helbig-Kuijf, Germany (team
a) Ftacnik proposes 16 ... l:tc8(?), but then 1 7 event) 2007/8 White could have played 14 l2Jxe5
l:txd7 ! �xd7 1 8 l:td l + �e8 1 9 l2Je4 'fke7 20 'fixeS I 5 l:td l 'fkc7 I 6 'fkc2 ;\;. In these positions
l:td5 ! wins. Black still has compensation and chances to
b) 16 ... l2Jd4?! 17 'ii'a5 b6 1 8 l2Je4! ( l 8 l2Jd5 fight for the initiative; I just don't think they're
is also good) 1 8 ... bxa5 1 9 l2Jxf6+ gxf6 20 worth a pawn. If you don't feel comfortable de l2Jxd4 with a clear advantage for White, Babula fending at all, however, it's going to be hard to

Biolek, Olomouc 2004. play for any advantage against the Schara.

c) 1 6 ... �f5 improves, when there could fol
low 1 7 l2Jd5 ( 1 7 �d3 ;\;) 17 ... 'fkd8 18 l2Jf4!? 3.5}

with the idea 18 .. .'�e7? ( l 8 ... �c8 1 9 �d3 ;\;) 1 9
l:td5 ! �d7 20 l:thd 1 . 2 ••• c5 (D)

This symmetrical move is called the Aus

3.432} trian Defence. Although there's no outright ref
utation, White will get the better of things with

9 �d3!? (D) natural moves.

UNORTHODOX QUEEN'S GAMBIT 65

White has aggressive development and a

lasting advantage.

w 8 .•• 'ife7+
a) 8 ... �e7 9 'ifxd8+ �xd8 1 0 �e3 l'Dba6 1 1

�bS+ �d7 1 2 �xd7 + l'Dxd7 1 3 0-0-0 l'DdcS 14

�xeS ! lDxcS l S lthe 1 + (every white piece is in
play) 1 S ... l2Je6 1 6 lDd4 0-0 1 7 l'Dxe6 fxe6 1 8 f3 !

;!; Gleizerov-Berkell, Stockholm 2002. Black
has a weak isolated pawn on a half-open file.

b) White brings his pieces out very rapidly
after 8 .. .'ili'xdS 9 l'DxdS l'De6 10 �e3; e.g.,

10 ... �d6 1 1 0-0-0 l'Dc6 12 �bS �b8 13 lthe I

0-0 14 �xc6 bxc6 l S l'De7+ �h8 1 6 l'Dxc8!

ltxc8 17 ltd7.

3 cxd5 l'Df6 9 �e3
a) 3 ... cxd4 4 'ifxd4 leaves White a pawn Black has problems: ahead: 4 ... e6 S e4 l'Dc6 6 'ifd I exdS 7 exdS l'Db4 a) After 9 ... l2Jc6?, the game Portisch-Bron

8 l'Dc3 l'Df6 9 �bS+ �d7 1 0 'ife2+ 'ife7 1 1 stein, Monte Carlo 1 969 went 10 �bS �d7 I I
i.xd7+ l'Dxd7 1 2 �e3 ±. 0-0 l'De6 1 2 lDeS ( 1 2 ltfel ! is even stronger)

b) 3 ... 'ifxdS 4 l'Df3 intends l'Dc3, and then 1 2 ... l'DxeS 1 3 'ifxeS �xbS 1 4 l'DxbS a6 I S

4 ... cxd4 S l'Dc3 ! 'ii'd8 (S ... 'ifaS 6 l'Dxd4; for ex l:.ad 1 ! ltd8 1 6 �b6! ltxd 1 1 7 ltxd 1 f6 1 8 'iffS
ample, 6 ... eS 7 l'DdbS l'Dc6 8 �d2 'ifd8 9 l'DdS ! g6 1 9 l'Dc7+! �f7 ( 1 9 ... l2Jxc7 20 'ifc8+ �f7 2 1
i.d6, Bilobrk-Novak, Varazdin 2004, and now l:.d7) 20 'ifdS 1 -0. White stands much better after 1 0 e4! with the b) 9 ... a6 10 l'DgS h6 1 1 0-0-0! l2Jbd7 (not
idea 10 ... l'Dge7 I I �gS !) 6 'ifxd4 'ifxd4 7 J l ...hxgS?? 1 2 �xeS) 1 2 �xeS ! 'ifxgS+ 1 3 �e3 .!Llxd4 offers White active development; for 'ifxdS 14 l'DxdS �d6 1 S l'Db6! .!Llxb6 1 6 ltxd6
example, 7 ... eS 8 l'DdbS .!Lla6 9 l'DdS (or 9 ..i.e3 offers White the bishop-pair and the initiative.

b6 10 l'DdS �d8? I I l'Dxa7 !) 9 ... �d8 1 0 ..i.d2
t. 3 .6}

4 e4! (D)

White restores material equality, but with a 2 ..• e6 3 l'Dc3 cramping pawn on dS. 4 dxcS also secures an In this section we'll inquire into some rarely
edge following 4 ... 'i!VxdS S 'ifxdS lDxdS 6 e4 played Queen's Gambit lines . .!Llb4 7 l2Ja3 eS 8 �d2 t. 3 ... �b4

With this move Black is playing a sort of

Ragozin/Nimzo-Indian idea without commit

ting his knight to f6. In the end, this offers White

B the choice of a development that renders Black's
increased flexibility moot. But first, let's look at
a row of other irregular third moves:

a) 3 ... b6?! weakens the light squares, and a
line that shows this up is 4 l'Df3 �b7 S cxdS
exdS. Here many moves have been played, but

6 e4! (D) is very strong:

a1) 6 ... l'Df6 7 eS l'De4 8 �bS+ (8 �d3 ;!; g6?

9 'ifc2 l'Dxc3 10 bxc3 l'Dc6 1 1 0-0 ± E.Cohn

Schlechter, St Petersburg 1 909) 8 ... c6 9 �d3
l2Jxc3 1 0 bxc3 ± (Larsen).

a2) 6 ... l'De7 7 'ii'b3 ! g6 8 exdS i..g7 (not

4 .•• l'Dxe4 5 dxc5 l'Dxc5 6 l'Df3 e6 7 l'Dc3 exd5 8 ... l'DxdS?? 9 �bS+! c6 10 l'DxdS cxbS I I

8 'i!i'xd5 'ifxbS+ �c6 1 2 'ife2+ and White wins due to 66 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

A verbakh-Antoshin, USSR Team Ch, Moscow

1 959.

B c) 3 ... f5 is rather artificial. Now 4 e3 c6
would transpose to Section 6. 1 , but there's no
reason to block in the c 1 -bishop, and 4 .i.f4! is
one of several good moves. 4 ... l2Jf6 5 e3 (D) and now:

B

the idea 1 2 ... .i.e7 1 3 lDf6+ �f8 1 4 .i.h6#) 9

.i.c4 0-0 10 0-0 ±.

a3) 6 ... dxe4 7 l2Je5 .i.d6 8 'ii'g4 �f8 9 .i.c4

.i.xe5 10 dxe5 'ii'd4 ?! 1 1 .i.d5 ! c6 1 2 .i.xe4! ( 1 2

'ii'xe4!? 'ii'xe4+ 1 3 .i.xe4 ± Larsen) 1 2 ... 'ii'xe5?

( l2 ... l2Jd7 1 3 .i.e3 l2Jxe5 14 'ii'xg7+ �xg7 1 5

.i.xd4 f6 1 6 0-0-0 ±) 1 3 .i.f4 lDf6 1 4 'ii'h4 ( 14

'ii'f3 !) 14 ... 'ii'e7? 1 5 0-0-0 l2Je8 1 6 'ii'g3 with a
winning advantage for White, Pillsbury-Swi c l ) 5 ... c6 6 lDf3 .i.d6 (it's illogical to let
derski, Hanover 1 902. White's powerful bishop go unopposed or un
b) 3 ... a6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 l2Jf3 (D). exchanged when Black has weakened so many
dark squares) 7 .i.d3 .i.xf4 8 exf4 0-0 9 0-0.

Ward says it well: "Taking stock of the situa

tion here, White has a handy half-open e-file

B and a juicy outpost on e5. He also possesses
the significantly superior bishop and is boss
on the queenside too." One example is 9 ... l2Je4

1 0 .l:!.e 1 l2Jd7 1 1 .l:!.c 1 �h8 1 2 g3 l2Jdf6 1 3 l2Je5

'ii'b6 1 4 .i.xe4! fxe4 1 5 .l:!.c2 'ii'd8 1 6 f3 exf3 17

'ii'xf3 'ii'd6 1 8 c5 'ii'c7 1 9 g4 l2Jd7 20 l2Jd3 ±

Shishkin-Ruszczycki, Koszalin 2008.

c2) I don't know why, but Black loves the
sequence 5 ... .i.e7 6 lDf3 c6 7 .i.d3 0-0 8 'ii'c2

(now one idea is h3 followed by g4, while even
the immediate 8 h3 is quite good, since it also
provides an escape-square for the bishop on h2;

This is really just a Queen's Gambit Ex Chris Ward suggests this in similar positions).

change Variation with the less-than-optimal By 8 ... l2Je4 Black finally plays this typical
move ... a6: 5 ... c6 (5 ... .i.e7 6 .i.f4 lDf6 7 e3 0-0 8 Stonewall move, but he is far from getting his

.i.d3 t; 5 ... l2Jf6 6 .i.g5) 6 .i.f4 (in view of the pieces out and White proceeds to break open
slow ... a6, I think 6 e4!? should be considered; lines: 9 g4! 'ii'a5 (D) (9 ... �h8 doesn't help e.g., 6 ... dxe4 7 l2Jxe4 .i.b4+ 8 lDc3 lDf6 9 .i.c4 much; in Tan-Hoang Thi Bao, Olongapo City

0-0 10 0-0 c5 !? 1 1 .i.g5 !? jLxc3 1 2 bxc3 t) 20 I 0, White simply pursued the attack by I 0 6 ... jLd6 and now 7 .i.xd6 'ii'xd6 8 e4! is good, .l:!.g I .i.f6 1 1 g5 .i.e 7 1 2 g6!, preparing l2Je5, but
but the strategist will prefer simply 7 jLg3 lLJe7 1 2 ... l2Jd7 1 3 gxh7 opened lines against the

8 e3 .i.f5 9 .i.d3 jLxg3 10 hxg3 'ii'b6 1 1 'ii'c2 king, and 1 3 ... .i.f6 14 h4! 'ii'e8 1 5 cxd5 exd5 16

.i.xd3 1 2 'iY xd3 l2Jd7 1 3 0-0-0 h6 14 e4 ;t 0-0-0 b5 1 7 l2Jg5 ! followed) .

UNORTHODOX QUEEN'S GAMBIT 6 7

w w

There have been a simply amazing number �d6 (Touzane-Godena, Mitropa Cup, Portoroz
of games from this position, including scads 1 998) and now 1 1 l:tfe 1 !? is very interesting
from the past three years. Black may be impro and probably good, waiting to play �xd6 until
vising, because he loses nearly every game! In e4 is fully prepared; e.g., 1 l ... �xf4 1 2 exf4
fact, White wins in both the middlegame and 1i' d6 1 3 g3 ltJd7 14 l:te2 ltJf6 15 l:tae 1 l:tae8 16
endgame. 1 0 �e2! (just about everyone plays ltJe5 ;!;. this, but 1 0 gxf5 exf5 I I �e2! ? ltJxc3+ 1 2 bxc3 6 e3 c5 �e6 1 3 1i'b3, as in Rustemov-Schaffarth, Bad The freeing move. Graf correctly suggests

Wiessee 1 999, is also good) lO ... ltJa6 ( 1 0 ... ltJd7 that 6 ... ltJe4 7 l:tc l ! is better for White. I I gxf5 ltJxc3+ 1 2 1i'xc3 ! 1i'xc3 1 3 bxc3 exf5 7 �d3 14 cxd5 cxd5 1 5 c4! is another example of how This stops ... �f5. 7 dxc5 ltJc6 8 l:tc 1 is a rea
a strong grandmaster isn't afraid of the ending: sonable alternative.

1 5 ... ltJf6 1 6 l:thc l �d7 1 7 l:tab1 b6 1 8 c5 bxc5 7 ••• ltJc6 8 ltJe2 cxd4 1 9 dxc5 with a clear advantage for White, Yer 8 ... c4 9 �c2 0-0 I 0 0-0 forces Black to de-molinsky-Privman, Ledyard 2009) 1 1 a3 dxc4 vote forces to stopping f3 and e4. 1 2 �xc4 b5 1 3 b4 1i'b6 14 �b3 ltJxc3+ 1 5 9 exd4 0-0 10 0-0 �g4 'iWxc3 fxg4 16 ltJe5 and White dominates, Polu l O ... .l:.e8 I I a3 ;!; (Hertneck). liakov-Chigvintsev, Russian Team Ch, Smo ll f3 lensk 2000. Alternatively 1 1 a3 �e7 1 2 �c2 'iVd7 1 3

Now we return to the position after 3 ... �b4 �e5 �h5 1 4 f3 l:tfe8 1 5 �h I �d8 16 �xf6

(D): �xf6 (Mohota-Gvetadze, World Girls Ch, Ere

4 cxd5 van 2000) and now 17 ltJf4! �g6 1 8 ltJfxd5 is

Naturally, 4 e3 can't be bad either, with the good, with the idea l 8 ... �xd4 1 9 �a4! and a

Nimzo-lndian ideas which we see in Chapter 7. slight advantage for White. Indeed, 4 ... ltJf6 transposes to Section 7.4. l l ... �h5

4 •.• exd5 5 �f4 ltJf6 1 l ...�e6 1 2 a3 �e7 1 3 b4!? ltJe8! ? 14 ltJa4

5 ... ltJe7 is playable, but the knight isn't tar �f6 (Hertneck-Lautier, Munich 1 993; l 4 ... ltJd6
geting e4 and thereby collaborating with the is consistent, to get to c4 or f5, but then 1 5 ltJc5
bishop on b4, so White can develop comfort is strong) and now 1 5 ltJc5 ! ltJxd4 16 �xh7+
ably: 6 ltJf3 (or 6 e3 0-0 7 �d3 �f5 8 ltJf3 ;!;) �xh7 17 ltJxd4 ;!; keeps White on top. 6 ... 0-0 7 e3 �f5 (7 ... c5 8 �e2 ltJbc6 9 dxc5 12 a3 �e7 13 l1cl l:tc8 �xc5 1 0 0-0 �g4 I I l:tc 1 �b6 1 2 h3 �h5 1 3 Bareev-Lautier, Paris blitz 1 99 1 . Here 14
ltJa4 ;!; Cebalo) 8 �d3 �xd3 9 1i'xd3 c6 10 0-0 �f5 ! l1a8 15 1i'b3 ! ltJa5 1 6 1i'a2 is promising.

4 Queen's Gambit Accepted

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 (D) e4 ;!; e6 1 0 a3 lLlfd7 1 1 iLe3 gave White a pleas
ant central advantage in the game Andersson

Kava1ek, Bugojno 1 982, while 8 e4 is also

good) 6 g4! i.g6 7 h4 f6 8 'ili'a4+ c6 9 lLlxg6
w hxg6 10 'ili'xc4 'iii>f7 1 1 e4 ± Alekhine-Griin
feld, Semmering 1 926. White has two bishops
and the centre.

b) 3 ... b5 4 a4 b4 (4 ... c6 5 e3 'ili'b6 6 axb5
cxb5 7 b3 tLlf6 8 bxc4 bxc4 9 iLxc4 e6 1 0 0-0
gives White a clearly better position: he has
much better development and has kept his cen
tral majority) 5 e3 iLa6 (5 ... e6 6 iLxc4 lLlf6 7

0-0 c5 is an inferior version of the main line,
and even 8 il.b5+ lLlbd7 9 e4! is strong) 6 lLle5

'i!i'd5 (versus 'ili'f3) 7 iLe2 c6 8 0-0 f6 9 e4!

'ili'xe4? (9 ... 'ili'e6 1 0 il.g4 'i!i'd6 and now I I

The Queen's Gambit Accepted is a well iLh5+ g6 1 2 iLf4! is very strong; White kept the
respected opening which has been employed by advantage anyway by 1 1 lLlf3 in l.Farago
many World Champions. At first 2 ... dxc4 seems Pidner, Wattens 1 997) 1 0 il.f3 'ili'f5 1 1 i.g4
illogical, because Black gives White a 2- 1 cen 'ili'e4 1 2 .:.e 1 'ili'd5 1 3 il.h5+ g6 1 4 il.f3 'ili'd6 1 5
tral majority for free. But in a sense it resembles il.f4 +-. the Slav Defence in that, by the time White has c) 3 ... c6 4 e3 iLe6!? (D) has received a fair both set up his pieces and recovered his pawn, amount of attention lately. Black is ready to strike back in the centre, as
sisted by the fact that ... dxc4 has opened the d

file with Black's queen already hitting d4.

3 lLlf3 w

I'm advocating the traditional main line,
which is both safe and strategically rich. White
brings a piece out, prevents the move ... e5, and
prepares 4 e3 and 5 iLxc4. After that he plans to
castle and advance his centre pawns.

At this point 3 ... lLlf6 is the main move by a
wide margin, but a few other third moves are
important enough to merit their own section:

4.1: 3 ... a6 69

4.2: 3 ... c5 7 1

4.3: 3 .•. lLlf6 72

Two responses suggest themselves:

In addition, Black has a variety of lesser third c I ) 5 'ili'c2 b5 (after 5 ... lLlf6, both 6 lLlbd2
moves, most involving tricky attempts to exploit and 6 iLxc4 iLxc4 7 'ili'xc4 favour White) 6 b3

White's delay in recovering the pawn on c4: 'ili'a5+ (6 ... cxb3 7 axb3 gives White obvious
a) 3 ... iLg4?! 4 lLle5 il.h5 5 lLlc3 e6?! (5 ... lLld7 compensation in terms of centre, c-file pres

6 lLlxc4 lLlgf6 7 f3 lLlb6 and now 8 lLla5 !? :b8 9 sure, and free and rapid development; White is

QUEEN 'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED 69

for choice) 7 i..d2 cxb3 8 1Wh2 flic7 9 lbc3 (or 9 d22) 6 ... lbf6 7 t:Dc3 t:Dfd7 8 t:Dxc4 g6 9
axb3, again with an excess of compensation) .tf4!? (9 t:Dxb6! t:Dxb6 10 .tf4; 9 .te3 is also

9 ... bxa2 1 0 d5 ! .i.d7 1 1 dxc6 lbxc6 1 2 lbxb5 played) 9 ... c6 1 0 flid2 ( 10 t:Dxb6 flixb6! =)

1Wb6 1 3 l:l.xa2 (threatening liJd6+) l 3 .. J:tb8 1 4 1 0 ... .tg7 I I .th6 0-0 (Gavrikov-Gulko, USSR
i..c3 lbf6 1 5 lLle5 ! e6 ( l 5 .. . lbxe5 1 6 i..xe5 .l:tb7 Ch, Frunze 1 98 1 ) and now the most accurate

1 7 i..d4 flic6 1 8 l:l.xa7 !) 1 6 i..e2 i..e7 1 7 lbxd7 continuation is 1 2 i.xg7 cJi>xg7 1 3 l:l.d I with a
lbxd7 1 8 0-0 0-0 1 9 flia 1 !. modest advantage.

c2) 5 lbc3 b5 (5 ... lbf6 transposes to Section e) 3 ... e6 4 e3 b5 ( 4 ... c5 5 i.xc4 a6 6 0-0 t:Df6

4.3 1 ) 6 i..e2 !? t:Df6 7 0-0 and Black has to un is the main line of this chapter, i.e. Section
wind while White begins to operate in the cen 4.332) 5 a4 c6 6 axb5 cxb5 7 b3 ! (D). tre; e.g., 7 ... .id5 (7 ... 'iJ/c7 8 e4 b4 9 d5 ! .ig4 10
e5 ! bxc3 1 1 exf6 gxf6 1 2 .ixc4) 8 flic2 b4 9

t:Dxd5 cxd5 10 e4! t:Dxe4 ( 1 0 ... e6 1 1 exd5 exd5

1 2 l:l.el i..e7 1 3 b3 c3 14 .ib5+ cJi>f8 1 5 a3 !) I I B i.xc4 dxc4 1 2 flixe4 l2Jd7 1 3 .i.d2 a5 ( 1 3 ... e6

14 i..g5 !) 1 4 a3 bxa3 1 5 l::txa3 e6 1 6 l:ta4 i..e7

1 7 l:l.xc4 0-0 1 8 l:l.fc l with a small edge for

White based upon activity.

d) 3 ... t:Dd7 4 e4 t:Db6 is another way to hold
the c-pawn. Then:

d l ) 5 i..xc4 t:Dxc4 6 flia4+ c6 7 flixc4 is
probably a bit better for White, in spite of the
bishops, due to his ideal centre. After 7 ... t:Df6, 8
t:Dbd2 is quite interesting, because White main
tains a view of the c-file and both t:Dc4 and t:Db3
are possibilities. The main line goes 8 .lDc3 i..e6 White is going to recover his pawn with a

(Fiear considers 8 ... b5? ! unsound due to 9 significant positional advantage: flixc6+ i..d7 and now 1 0 'ii'b7 or 1 0 'ii'c5) 9 e l ) 7 ... .tb7 8 bxc4 b4 is called 'equal' in one
flid3 g6 10 0-0 i..g7 I I h3 0-0 1 2 .te3 and natu source, but I like White following 9 c5 ! with
rally White stands a little better. ideas of flia4+ and i..b5, and t:De5 when called
d2) 5 a4 a5 6 t:De5 (D) and now: for. That threat can be stopped by 9 ... t:De7, but
then 10 lDbd2 t:Dec6 ( l O ... t:Dbc6 I I i.b5) I I
lDc4 i..e7 1 2 e4 0-0 1 3 i.e3 clearly favours

White.

B e2) 7 ... .tb4+ 8 i..d2 .txd2+ 9 t:Dbxd2 a5

(9 ... t:Df6 I 0 bxc4 bxc4 I I t:Dxc4 0-0 12 i.d3
with freer development and the better pawn
structure) 1 0 bxc4 b4 1 1 t:De5 (after I I c5 l2Jf6

White can play 1 2 i.d3 or 1 2 t:Dc4 0-0 1 3 i.d3)

l l ...t:Df6 1 2 flia4+ ( 12 i.e2 ! and i.f3) 1 2 ... ..td7 1 3 t:Dxd7 t:Dbxd7 14 g3 0-0 15 i.g2
l:l.a6 1 6 0-0 and White is in control.

4.1)

3 ••• a6 4 e3
d2 l ) Flear proposes 6 ... g6, to gain a tempo 4 e4 is also good, but messy. attacking d4 after 7 t:Dxc4 t:Dxc4 8 i.xc4 .tg7. 4 ... .tg4 Actually, 9 t:Dc3 ! .i.xd4 10 t:Db5 is rather good Black takes a unique tack; mixing ... a6 and
for White, with the idea 10 ... c5 1 1 i.e3 i.xe3?? ... ..tg4 is unusual. Instead, 4 ... b5 has some

12 .txf7 +, but in any case 9 .te3 keeps an edge. strong advocates, but I believe it ultimately 70 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

favours White: 5 a4 i..b7 6 axb5 axb5 7 l:txa8

i..xa8 8 b3 cxb3 ! ? (called the Haberditz Varia-
tion; instead 8 .. .'!tJf6 9 bxc4 bxc4 10 i..xc4 ;!; is w pleasant for White) 9 i..xb5+ c6 (D) and now:

w

a) 8 ... c5 ! ? 9 dxc5 �xdl 1 0 l:txd l i..xf3 l l
gxf3 i..xc5 has been called equal, but I think

Black will suffer against the bishops for a long
time after, e.g., 1 2 b3 t'Llc6 1 3 i..b2 0-0 14 f4.

And of course White isn't forced to capture on
a) 1 0 i..c4 ?! (since the bishop will retreat c5. later, it is better to move it back to d3 or e2) b) 8 ... t'Llc6 9 i..e2 i..d6 is a standard set-up.

10 ... e6 l l 0-0 t'Lld7 1 2 �xb3 i..e7 1 3 i..a3 t'Llgf6 Pelletier-Brynell, Istanbul Olympiad 2000 went
l 4 l:tc l (this is Semkov and Sakaev's main line) 1 0 t'Lld2! ? i..xe2 1 1 'ii'xe2 0-0 1 2 f4! ? ( 1 2 l:td I

14 ... 0-0 (Cox refutes their suggestion 14 .. .'�a5? ;!;) 1 2 ... t'Lld5 1 3 t'Llb3 f5 1 4 e4 fxe4?! ( 1 4 ... t'Llb6)

with 1 5 i..xe6! fxe6 1 6 �xe6 t'Llg8 1 7 d5, when 1 5 'ii'xe4 :t. White wins) 1 5 i..e2 (there's that lost tempo) 8 ... i..g6 9 t'Lle5 t'Llbd7
l 5 ... c5 1 6 dxc5 t'Lle4 and now they give 1 7 c6, 9 ... c5 has a few answers, including the pawn
but what about 1 7 'ii'b5 instead? Then 1 7 ... 'ii'c7 sacrifice I 0 d5 ! ? ( l 0 'ii'f3 'ii'b6 1 1 i..b3 ;!;)

1 8 c6 t'Lldc5 ! 1 9 t'Lld4! l:tb8 20 'ii'c4 i..xc6 21 1 0 ... b5 1 1 i..e2 t'Llxd5 ( l l ...exd5 1 2 g5 t'Lle4 1 3
t'Llxc6 'ii'xc6 22 i..f3 looks favourable to White, 'ii'xd5 ;!;) 1 2 t'Llxg6 hxg6 1 3 t'Llxd5 ! (Raetsky
who will probably end up with a superior end gives only 1 3 i..f3 l:ta7 14 t'Llxd5 l:td7 ! 1 5 a4
ing. exd5 1 6 axb5 axb5 1 7 l:ta8 "when [White]

b) Given the tempo-loss we have just seen, I clearly has some play for the pawn, but just how
recommend 1 0 i..e2! to simplify matters ( 1 0 much is not so clear.") l 3 ... �xd5 ( 1 3 ... exd5 14
i..d3 is also interesting). Then lO .. . e6 1 1 'ii'xb3 i..f3 l:ta7 15 i..xd5 ;!;, when 1 5 ... l:td7 1 6 e4
t'Lld7 1 2 0-0 i..e7 1 3 i..a3 t'Llgf6 14 l:tc l leaves doesn't really help Black) 1 4 �xd5 exd5 15 White a full tempo ahead of the line with 10 i..f3 t'Lld7 1 6 .i.xd5 l:td8 1 7 'iiie2 ( 1 7 a4 b4 18
i..c4, and anyway, I suspect that with the bishop i..c4 a5 1 9 e4 ;!;) 17 ... t'Lle5 1 8 e4 t'Llxg4 1 9 i..c6+
on e2, playing 'ii'a4 in conjunction with t'Lle5 on 'iiie7 20 i..f4 t'Llf6 2 l l:tad 1 ! :t. moves 1 2- 1 4 is going to give Black fits. Over 10 t'Llxg6 hxg6 1 1 i..fl!? (D) all, it appears that Black's positional disadvan A clever move, the idea of which is that
tages will show in a bad light. White has the two bishops and now need only

5 i..xc4 e6 6 h3 i..h5 7 t'Llc3 consolidate to retain an advantage. On g2, the

This position can arise via 3 ... t'Llf6 4 e3 i..g4 bishop gains strength whether Black plays the

5 i..xc4 e6 6 h3 i..h5 7 t'Llc3 a6, and it should be freeing move ... c5 or ... e5. noted that 7 ... a6 isn't normally played there. ll ... c6

7 ... t'Llf6 (D) What is apparently the original game with 1 1

8 g4 i..fl went l l ...i..d6 1 2 i..g2 l:tb8 !? 1 3 g5 !? ( 1 3

I like this move, but White doesn't have to 0-0 and 1 3 h4! ? are alternatives) 1 3 ... t'Lld5 14
pursue the bishop-pair; 8 0-0 is a perfectly ac t'Lle4!? ( 1 4 h4!) 14 ... i..e7 15 h4 c5 ! 16 dxc5
ceptable alternative. For example: t'Llxc5 1 7 t'Llxc5 i..xc5 1 8 i..d2 ! t'Llb4? (Pytel

QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED 71

8 w

gives " 1 8 ... 'ii'b6! 1 9 �3 ! ;!;", but 1 9 �a4+ is �xd5 'ifxd5 7 tt:Jxd5 i.d6 has been claimed to
better) 1 9 i.c3 ! 0-0 20 �xd8 llfxd8 2 1 'iti>e2 be equal, but at any rate White can still play it
with a significant advantage for White, Pytel for a win) 6 e4 exd5 7 e5, there are serious

Pokojowczyk, Polish Ch, Poznan 1 97 1 . complications including various tactical skir

12 i.g2 �c7 mishes that need to be memorized. What's

Black preferred 1 2 ... i.d6 1 3 �e2 (after 1 3 more, current theory holds that Black stands

0-0 e5?!, as i n E1ianov-Turov, St Petersburg satisfactorily, so there's not much incentive to

2000, White has 14 g5 ! ti:Jh5 1 5 lt:Je4 i.e? 1 6 d5 recommend this. ±) 1 3 ... �e7 14 i.d2 ti:Jb6 1 5 0-0-0 ti:Jbd5 1 6 4 lt:Jc3 is a more appropriate option. White

'it>b I tt:Jxc3+ 17 bxc3 e5 ! i n the game Sakaev aims for an endgame with better development.

Alekseenko, St Petersburg 20 1 1 . Then I think Nevertheless, 4 ... cxd4 5 'ifxd4 (5 lt:Jxd4?! e5 !)

1 8 g5 ti:Jd7 ( 1 8 ... ti:Jd5 1 9 c4) 1 9 h4 ;!; is a good 5 ... �xd4 6 tt:Jxd4 e5 7 ti:Jdb5 tt:Ja6 is regarded
way to establish some space for the bishops, as equal, and 4 ... ti:Jf6 5 e4! ? (5 e3 cxd4 6 exd4
when 1 9 ... exd4 20 cxd4 ti:Jb6 2 1 �d3 watches .i.e6 transposes to the note to White's 5th move
over the queenside. below) 5 ... cxd4 6 11i'xd4 �xd4 7 lt:Jxd4 e5 ! is

13 0-0 also held to be satisfactory, based upon 8 ti:Jdb5

Now 1 3 ... ti:Jd5 1 4 �f3 ! l:ld8 1 5 lld1 intends 'iti>d8 ! (and much analysis). It's perfectly alright
e4 retaining an edge, while 1 3 ... i.e7 was played to play this way (with a little study), but it will
in Kasparov-Petrosian, Tilburg 1 98 1 . Then sim be difficult to extract any advantage from the
ply 14 e4 keeps a small advantage, since after opening. 14 ... e5 1 5 d5, White's bishops can slowly exert Returning to 4 e3, Black can play uniquely,
influence over the board. beginning with ...

4 ... cxd4 (D) 4.2) After 4 ... ti:Jf6 5 i.xc4, the flexible 5 ... e6
transposes to our main line with 3 ti:Jf3 ti:Jf6 4

3 ... c5 (D) e3 e6 5 ..txc4 c5 (Section 4.33). 5 ... cxd4 6 exd4

An important alternative to the 3 ... ti:Jf6 main e6 gives White extra options, but 7 0-0 is sim
line. plest, transposing to Section 4.33 1 .

4 e3 5 i.xc4

I recommend White play this way, content to 5 exd4 is relatively unambitious, but still of
get back to our main lines after 4 ... ti:Jf6 5 ..txc4. interest; then 5 ... i.e6 6 lt:Jc3 ti:Jf6 has a good

Black can, and often does, try to avoid this reputation. White can try to stir up some action
transposition. But before getting to that, a quick by 7 �a4+ �d7 (7 ... tt:Jc6 8 lt:Je5 'ifb6 9 i.e2
word on the traditional replies. First, 4 d5 is the with the idea i.f3 gives chances for both sides,
move which directly tries to prove that 3 ... c5 is and of course there are other options) 8 ti:Jb5 !

wrong. After 4 ... e6 (or 4 ... ti:Jf6 5 tt:Jc3 e6) 5 tt:Jc6 (8 ... 'iti>d8? 9 tt:Je5 �c8 10 i.xc4! i.xc4 1 1
tt:Jc3 ti:Jf6 (the ending following 5 ... exd5 6 tt:Jxc4 leaves Black's king seriously vulnerable) 72 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

there's plenty to play for; one idea is 1 4 �4. to

prevent 1 4 ... .tc6?? due to 1 5 d5, or White can
w simply play 1 4 h3 t:bf6 1 5 t:be5 .tc6 1 6 .:tac l
with a typical isolated-pawn position.

8 .•• t:bc6 9 t:bc3 a6 This seems to be Black's favourite idea.

First, it threatens I O ... t:ba5 without allowing
the response I I .tb5+; in addition, ... b5 with

... .tb7 is a good way to mobilize. Instead,

9 ... .te7 1 0 d5 ! exd5 I I t:bxd5 t:bxd5 1 2 .txd5

0-0 1 3 .te3 favours White because of his ac
tive development.

10 .td3

Moving out of the ... t:ba5 fork, while also

9 t:be5 ! t:bxe5 1 0 t:bc7+ 'it>d8 1 1 t:bxe6+ �xe6 placing the bishop on its best diagonal. 1 2 dxe5 �xe5+ 1 3 .te3 with an excellent at 10 ... .te7 1 1 .te3 0-0 tack for the two pawns; e.g., 1 3 ... e6 14 0-0-0+ Now instead of the strange sequence 1 2

.td6 1 5 g3 ! t:bd5 1 6 .td4 �f5 1 7 .tg2 with .:tael t:bg4 1 3 t:ba4? (Pavlovic-Stojanovic, Ser
ideas of .:the I and .txd5, as shown by 1 7 ... .:tc8 bian Ch, Budva 2003), which could have been

1 8 .:the I c3 1 9 .te4 cxb2++ ?? 20 'it>xb2 'ii'h5 met by 1 3 ... b5 ! 1 4 t:bc5 .txc5 1 5 dxc5 t:bce5,

21 .i.xd5 exd5 22 .txg7, winning. White can play 1 2 .:tac l , when moves like t:ba4

5 .. .'ii'c7!? or t:be4 can follow, as well as a well-timed t:be5;

By attacking the bishop, Black tries to avoid White has the better prospects. the main lines introduced by 5 ... e6. Naturally
not 5 ... dxe3?? 6 .txf7+. 4.3)

6 �b3! e6 (D)

3 ••• t:bf6 4 e3 (D)

w

B

7 exd4

White can also play the pawn sacrifice 7 0-0, White prepares to recover his pawn. Now the
and if Black replies 7 ... dxe3 8 .txe3, White has main lines are: compensation due to his huge lead in develop 4.31: 4 ... �e6 73 ment. 4.32: 4 ... .tg4 74

7 ..• t:bf6 8 0-0 4.33: 4 ... e6 75

Piket-Leko, Wijk aan Zee 1 996 went 8 .tg5

.te7 9 0-0 t:bc6 1 0 t:bc3 0-0 I I .td3 .td7 1 2 These other moves shouldn't be ignored:

.:tfel t:bg4 1 3 .txe7 t:bxe7 1h-1h. This may be a) 4 ... t:bbd7 5 .txc4 t:bb6 6 .tb3 (or 6 .td3
roughly equal, but with this kind of imbalance with a slightly better position for White) 6 ... c6

QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED 73

7 l'Llc3 l'Llbd5 (Oll-Bellon, Dos Hermanas 1 992) 5 l'Llc3 and now 8 1li'c2 or 8 'ii'd3 intending an early e4 This has a large amount of theory attached to
leaves White comfortably on top. it, but is more likely to achieve something sub
b) 4 ... g6 can't be too bad, but gives White a stantial than 5 l'Llbd2. On the other hand, this
free hand in the centre; for example, 5 i.xc4 more modest knight move is easier to play, and
i.g7 6 0-0 0-0 7 l'Llc3 l'Llfd7 !? (7 ... a6 8 e4 b5 9 should offer some advantage: i.d3 i.b7 1 0 e5 l'Lld5 1 1 l'Lle4 ;\;) 8 1li'e2 l'Llb6 9 a) 5 ... i.d5?! 6 'ilkc2! e6 !? 7 e4 i.c6 8 i.xc4
i.b3 l'Llc6 1 0 �d 1 ;\; Kramnik-Kamsky, Amber i.e7 9 0-0 a5 10 :ei with a solid advantage for

Rapid, Monaco 1 996. White, Miles-Larsen, Linares 1 983.

c) 4 ... a6 5 i.xc4 b5 is an attempt to get b) After 5 ... l'Llc6 6 l'Llxc4 g6 7 i.d3 i.g7 8
around some of the main lines of the Queen's 0-0 0-0 9 a3 a5 10 'ilkc2, White has a better grip

Gambit Accepted. After White's reply 6 i.d3, on the centre, although admittedly this isn't
however, White is playing the system I'm rec anything to shout about. ommending anyway, and Black has played ... b5 c) 5 ... b5 6 a4 c6 7 axb5 cxb5 8 b3 ;!; estab
early on, which is generally unfavourable. There lishes a queenside advantage. can follow 6 ... i.b7 7 a4! b4 (this surrenders d) 5 ... c5 is thematic, but it gives White time
the c4-square) 8 0-0 e6 9 l'Llbd2 l'Llbd7 (9 ... c5 to gain some central control: 6 i.xc4 (6 dxc5 !?)

can be met by 1 0 l'Llc4 or 1 0 'ilke2) 1 0 'ii'e2 (now 6 ... i.xc4 7 l'Llxc4 l'Llc6 (7 ... cxd4 8 1li'b3 !) 8 'ilfb3

White is ready for e4-e5) I O ... c5 1 1 e4 (the (possibly better is 8 'i!ka4, or 8 0-0 cxd4 9 exd4
calm 1 1 l'Llc4 gives White a small advantage, if e6 10 'ii'b3 ;\;) 8 ... 1li'c7 ! 9 0-0 e6 10 i.d2 i.e7 I I
you don't like what follows) l l ...cxd4 1 2 e5 dxc5 l'Lle4?! ( 1 1 ...0-0 12 l'Lld6) 1 2 'i!kc2 ( 1 2 i.a5
l'Lld5 1 3 l'Llb3 ! l'Llc5 14 i.g5 'i!Yd7 ( l 4 ... i.e7?? is also strong) l 2 ... l'Llxc5 ( l 2 .. .f5 1 3 b4) 1 3 b4!

1 5 l'Llxc5) 1 5 l'Llfxd4!? ( 1 5 l'Llxc5 i.xc5 1 6 l'Lld7 1 4 :ac 1 with a nice pull. .:.fc 1 ;\; ) 1 5 .. . h6 1 6 l'Llxc5 i.xc5 1 7 l'Llb3 i.b6 We now return to 5 l'Llc3 (D): ( 1 7 ... i.xf2+! ?) 1 8 i.d2 'i!Ye7 1 9 a5 i.a7 20

.:.ac i 0-0 2 1 'ii'e4 f5 22 exf6 �xf6 23 'ilkh7+

Narciso Dublan, Barcelona 2000. B

4.31)

4 ••• i.e6 (D)

w

A much-abbreviated overview follows.

5 ••. c6 This is the solid approach. Black can also try

5 ... h6 6 l'Lle5 c5 7 'i!ka4+ l'Llbd7 8 i.xc4 (8 i.e2
may I be better; e.g., 8 ... a6 9 dxc5 1li'c7 0 l'Llxc4 'i!kxc5 1 1 0-0! ;\;) 8 ... i.xc4 9 'i!kxc4 e6 (Swiercz

N avara, Czech Team Ch 20 1 0/ I I ), when 1 0 0-0 might give White a small advantage; for exam

This move has enjoyed a certain popularity ple, I O ... :c8 ( 1 0 ... i.e7 1 1 l'Llxd7 1li'xd7 12 dxc5) among some �trong players. Now 5 l'Lla3 is a 1 1 :d 1 cxd4 1 2 'i!kxd4 l'Llxe5 1 3 'ii'xe5 'ir'b6 14
fairly good move, but I'll focus on two other 'ii'g3 !. ideas: 6 l'Llg5 (D)

74 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

This knight advance is the best try. 6 a4 is a Upon 6 ... �xf3?! 7 'ili'xf3, White has the

Slav Defence position, when one important line bishop-pair and a strong centre for essentially
goes 6 ... g6 (6 ... �dS 7 lt::ld2! - Burgess; 6 ... h6 7 nothing. One example is 7 ... c6 8 0-0 �e7 9
lUeS lt::lbd7 8 lt::lxc4 �fS, Topalov-I.Sokolov, lt::lc3 0-0 1 0 l:ld 1 'iic8 1 1 e4 lt::la6 1 2 �f4 l:ld8

Sarajevo 1 999, 9 f3 ;!; and there's no good way 1 3 l:tac l (the classical stereotype of an ideal
to prevent e4 or disrupt White's centre). After 7 opening position for White) l 3 ... l:ld7, as played
lUgS ! ? �dS, both 8 f3 h6 and 8 h3 h6 have been in the game Heyken-Schoppmeyer, 2nd Bun
tested a lot and are satisfactory for Black, so the desliga 1 988/9. Now almost any move is good,
calmer 7 �e2 �g7 8 e4 might be preferred, but 14 dS ! is absolutely killing. when it's just a game. 7 lt::lc3 (D)

B B

Now (after 6 lLlgS): We have reached the basic position for the
a) After 6 ... 'i!i'd7, 7 �e2 has had some suc 4 ... �g4 line. White will happily develop and
cess, but the simplest course appears to be 7 e4 advance his centre, so Black needs to disturb
h6 8 lt::lxe6 'i!i'xe6 9 eS (Gelfand-Zilberman, Tel things there. He usually aims for ... eS. Aviv 1 999) when Gelfand gives 9 ... lt::lbd7 1 0 7 ••• lt::lbd7 'ili'e2 lt::ldS I I 'ili'xc4 ;\; . Avrukh points out that a) We already saw the continuation 7 ... a6

Flear's 9 ... lt::lfd7 1 0 �e2 li:lb6 1 1 0-0 'ii'd7 can under the move-order 3 ... a6 4 e3 �g4 S �xc4
be answered with 1 2 a4! intending l 2 ... a5 1 3 e6 6 h3 �hS 7 lt::lc3 lt::lf6 (Section 4. 1 ); it wasn't
b3 ! cxb3? 1 4 'i!i'xb3 'i!i'c7 I S e6. very good.

b) 6 .. .'ii'c8 can also be met strongly by 7 e4, b) 7 ... lt::lc6 8 �bS is a standard pin that
but this time 7 �e2 is another way to exploit the makes life uncomfortable for Black; for exam
passive queen position and gain the upper hand; ple, 8 ... �d6 9 e4 lt::ld7 1 0 �e3 0-0 1 1 'ii'e2 ( 1 1
e.g., 7 ... h6 8 lt::lxe6 'ili'xe6 9 'il'c2 with the idea eS �e7 1 2 l:lc 1 ;\;) l l ...fS 1 2 g4! �f7 1 3 gxfS

9 ... bS 10 a4 b4 1 1 lt::lb 1 , or 7 ... �dS 8 e4 h6 9 exfS 1 4 eS �b4 left White obviously better in
exdS hxgS I 0 dxc6 lt::lxc6 1 1 dS lLleS 1 2 �xgS ;\;. W.Rohde-S.Korolev, corr. 2002. Two good
c) 6 ... �dS 7 e4 h6 8 exdS hxgS 9 dxc6 continuations are I S l:lg 1 and 1 S lt::lgS. li:lxc6 10 dS lUeS ( 1 0 ... lt::la5 1 1 'i!i'a4+ li:ld7 1 2 8 0-0 �d6 �xgS "followed by 0-0-0 gives White a fan Black wants to play ... eS. Otherwise he is se
tastic position" - Avrukh) 1 1 'i!i'd4 lt::lfd7 1 2 riously short of space after White plays e4 .

.i.xgS (Akopian-Kirov, Palma d e Mallorca 9 e4 e5?

1 989) and now 1 2 ... 'i!i'b6 may be best, but not This leads to some forcing play which fa
equal after 1 3 �e3. vours White throughout. So 9 ... �xf3 1 0 'ili'xf3
eS 1 1 dS ;\; is probably the best that Black can

4.32) do.

10 g4! (D)

4 •.• �g4 5 �xc4 e6 6 h3 �h5 10 ... �g6

QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED 75

7th move in Section 4.332, while 7 ... ..tb7 8 a4

compromises Black's queenside.

8

w

The tactics after I O ... exd4? I I tDxd4 ( I I e5
and I I �xd4 are also good) work out well for

White:

a) I I ...tDxg4? 1 2 lDf5 ! is winning for White: This is the main line: Black strikes back in

12 ... ..th2+ ( 1 2 ... tDe3 1 3 tDxg7+ ..ti>e7 1 4 'ii'xh5 the centre. He has ideas of ... cxd4, when White

+-) 1 3 ..ti>h I tDxf2+ ( 1 3 ... ..te5 1 4 hxg4 ..tg6 1 5 is likely to reply exd4 with an isolated queen's

'it>g2) 14 .l:!.xf2 ..txd l 15 lDxg7+ ..ti>e7 1 6 l:hf7+ pawn. Alternatively or in addition, Black will

'it>d6 1 7 ..te3 ! and Black will get mated or lose expand on the queenside with ... a6 and ... b5,
everything, the first major threat being mates winning time and placing his bishop on the
beginning with 1 8 lDf5+ or 1 8 .l:!.xd 1 +. powerful long diagonal. One drawback to this
b) I I .....tg6 1 2 f4! ..tc5 1 3 f5 tDe5 14 ..td5 is that it takes time, and White will end up with
c6 1 5 ..tf4! �e7 1 6 tDa4 ..td6?! 1 7 tDxc6! bxc6 a bigger lead in development. Another is that

1 8 ..txc6+ tDxc6 1 9 ..txd6 +-. his queenside pawns, sometimes a strength, are

11 dxe5 tDxeS 12 tDxeS ..txe5 13 f4 also subject to attack (usually by a4). Finally,

Forcing the pace; Black is in danger of losing whether White has a large centre or an isolated
a piece to f5. Now: pawn, his pieces will naturally have somewhat
a) 1 3 ... ..td4+ 14 ..ti>h2 ..txc3 1 5 bxc3 'ii'xd1 more freedom than Black's. 1 6 .l:!.xd 1 ..txe4 1 7 g5 and the best Black can do 6 0-0 is 17 ... tiJd7 ! 1 8 .l:!.el f5 19 gxf6 tDxf6 20 ..td3 Now we have a fork: 0-0 21 .l:!.xe4! tDxe4 22 ..txe4 c6 23 ..ti>g3 ±. 4.331: 6 .•. cxd4 76
b) After 13 ... 'ii'd4+, the game Atalik-Meins, 4.332: 6 ••. a6 79 Bad Wiessee 2003 continued 14 �xd4 ..txd4+

1 5 ..ti>h2 ..txc3 1 6 bxc3 ..txe4 1 7 g5 ..td5 1 8 6 ... tiJbd7 will usually transpose to Section

.l:!.e I + ..ti>f8 1 9 ..tb5 ! a6 ( 1 9 ... c6 20 ..td3 tDe8 2 1 4.3323 (6 ... a6 7 ..td3 tiJbd7), but Black has an

..ta3+ ..ti>g8 22 c4 ..tf3 23 .l:!.e3 ..th5 24 llae1 f6 obvious alternative in 6 ... tDc6 (D) . 25 .l:!.e7 +-) 20 ..ta4 b5 2 1 ..ta3+ ..ti>g8 22 gxf6 This appears natural but can have draw
bxa4 23 .l:!.e5 ! c6? (23 ... ..te6 24 f5 ±) 24 l:tg I (or backs: 24 fxg7 ! ..ti>xg7 25 l:tg l + ..ti>h6 26 c4! ..txc4 27 a) 7 tDc3 creates certain problems for Black:

f5 f6 28 .l:!.e4 ..ti>h5 29 .l:!.xc4) 24 ... g6 25 .l:!.e7 a ! ) 7 ... cxd4 8 exd4 transposes to note 'b' to

.l:td8? 26 f5 1 -0. Black's 7th move in Section 4.33 1 . The fact
that Black is committed to ... tDc6 if nothing

4.33) else discourages lines with ... a6 and ... b5.

a2) 7 ... ..te7 8 dxc5 !? (8 a3 and 8 'ii'e2 are

4 . .. e6 5 ..txc4 c5 (D) good alternatives) 8 ... ..txc5 (8 ... �xd l 9 .l:!.xd l

5 ... a6 doesn't hold much independent signif- ..txc5 10 a3 0-0 I I b4 ..te7 1 2 ..tb2 ;\;) 9 �xd8+
icance fot us. After 6 0-0 b5 7 ..td3, 7 ... c5 di tDxd8 1 0 e4 ( 1 0 a3 with the idea b4 is also
rectly transposes to note 'b' (7 ... b5) to Black's somewhat better for White) IO ... tDc6 and now 76 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

return, this liberates White's queen's bishop,
and the possibility of a timely ... c4 disappears.

w 7 exd4 (D)

B

both 1 1 e5 l't::ld7 1 2 i..f4 and 1 1 i..f4 give White
a modest advantage.

a3) After 7 ... a6, 8 i..d3 transposes to Sec
tion 4.3322. Black also has to be concerned that

8 dxc5 might be a good version of the 6 ... a6 7 7 ••. ..te7 dxc5 line, since Black's queen's knight should After the important move 7 ... l't::lc6, White
almost always go to d7 in that case. A sample can develop normally with l't::lc3, .:e 1 , a3 and/or
line: 8 .. .'i!Vxd l (8 ... i..xc5 9 'i!Vxd8+ l't::lxd8 10 a3 i..g5, but he has these options, reminiscent of
or 1 0 i..d2 intending .:ac 1 ) 9 .:xd 1 i..xc5 1 0 the choices that presented themselves after
i..d2 0-0 1 1 .:ac 1 i.e? 1 2 lt::la4 .:d8 ( l 2 .. . .:b8 6 ... l't::lc6: 1 3 i..xa6) 1 3 l't::lb6 .:tb8 14 l't::ld4!? l't::lxd4 1 5 a) 8 'iie2 seeks a transposition to the varia
exd4 i..d6 ( l 5 .. . .:txd4 1 6 i..b4 !) 1 6 i..e2 ;l; l't::ld5 tion discussed under the move-order 6 ... l't::lc6 7

1 7 l't::lc4 i.e? 1 8 i..f3 with a very slight edge; 'iie2 cxd4 8 .:tdl ..te7 9 exd4 (note 'b' in Sec

White has ideas of i..xd5 and/or l't::le3. tion 4.33). Grabbing the pawn is quite risky:

b) 7 'iie2 (with the idea dxc5 and e4-e5) 8 ... l't::lxd4!? (8 ... i..e7 9 .:d 1 is the line just men
prepares to get .:d l and l't::lc3 in quickly. This tioned) 9 l't::lxd4 'iixd4 I 0 .:d I 'i!Vb6 1 1 ..tb5+
is a conventional strategy in the Queen's Gam i..d7 (Pelletier-Arencibia, Ubeda 1 995) and now
bit Accepted, given extra bite by the fact that 1 2 i..xd7+ l't::lxd7 1 3 l't::lc3 i.e? 14 i..e3 provides

Black has already played ... l't::lc6, which is not excellent compensation. his most respected set-up. After 7 ... cxd4 8 b) When play goes 8 l't::lc3 i.e? 9 .:tel , it's

.:d 1 i.e? 9 exd4 0-0 1 0 l't::lc3, Avrukh has done instructive to see how ... a6 and ... b5 is too slow:

considerable analysis to demonstrate White's 9 ... a6 10 a3 b5? 1 1 d5 ! exd5 1 2 i..xd5 l't::lxd5 1 3 advantage, one key line beginning 1 o ... lt::la5 1 1 'iixd5 ..tb7 1 4 l't::ld4! ±. Therefore Black should
i..d3 b6 1 2 'i!Ve5 ! ? i..d6 ( l 2 ... l't::lc6 1 3 'iig3 ±; settle for 9 ... 0-0, transposing to our main line.

1 2 ... i..b7 13 'i!Vg3 g6 14 i..h6 .:e8 1 5 l't::le5 8 l't::lc3 0-0 l't::lh5 1 6 'iie3 ..tf8, Drozdovsky-Bogdanovich, 8 ... l't::lc6 transposes to line 'b' of the previous

Odessa 2006, 17 i..xf8 .:xf8 1 8 b4! .:c8 1 9 note, where it was best for Black to castle soon
i..e2 ±) 1 3 'iig5 i..b7 14 l't::le5 with a kingside in any case. attack. 9 ltel (D)

White has been extremely successful from

4.331} this position. The structure with an isolated
queen's pawn (IQP) can also arise from open

6 • . . cxd4 ings such as the Nimzo-Indian Defence, Caro

An irrevocable decision. Black isolates the Kann Panov Attack and the Alapin Sicilian. We
white d-pawn immediately, rather than leave shall see many typical themes in the following
open the possibility of dxc5 (for example, 6 ... a6 lines, especially involving ... a6 and ... b5 and

7 dxc5 or 6 ... l't::lc6 7 l't::lc3 i.e? 8 dxc5). In White's d5 advance. This central thrust is also

QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED 77

B

an important idea when Black plays the more c) 1 2 ... tt:Jb4 1 3 ..i.b3 lt:Jbxd5 14 lt:Jxd5 exd5
modest ... b6, as our main line demonstrates. I 5 'ii'e2! ? ( 1 5 lt:Jd4! .1d7! 1 6 'ii'f3 !) 1 5 ... ..i.b4!

9 .. .liJc6 1 6 l:ted l (Anand-Adianto, Manila Olympiad

This is a bad position for the move 9 ... lZ:lbd7, 1 992) and now 1 6 ... ..i.b7! 1 7 lt:Jd4 l:te8 1 8 'ii'f3
although it is often played, because if the knight l:tc8 achieves a level position. goes to b6 it will prevent Black from fian 10 ... b6 (D) chettoing and put no pressure on d4, giving 1 0 ... a6 I I ..i.a2 'ii'd6 ( l l ...b5 1 2 d5 !) 1 2 ..i.e3

White a free hand to build up. But if Black plays ( 1 2 g3 ! ? with the idea .1f4 looks promising,

... b6 and the knight doesn't move, it has little since White will strike before the weakened
influence and no place to go without other long diagonal becomes an issue) 1 2 ... l::td8 (not
problems arising. White can play 1 0 ..i.b3 (this 1 2 ... b5? I 3 d5 !) 1 3 'ii'c2 ( 1 3 l:tc i might be
is the easiest method, although 10 ..i.g5 and 1 0 better, to discourage I 3 ... b5 due to the tricky I 4
a3 are also good) I O ... lZ:lb6, with these options: d5 exd5 I 5 ..i.b6! l:td7 1 6 lt:Jxd5 lt:Jxd5 1 7 .1c5 !

a) I I 1i'd3 ..i.d7 12 ..i.c2 ..i.c6 ( l 2 ... lZ:lbd5 1 3 and .1xd5) 1 3 ... b5?! ( l 3 ... g6 14 l:tadl lZ:ld5 !)

lZ:lxd5 exd5 1 4 ..i.g5 is a well-known structure I 4 l:tad l lt:Jd5 ( l 4 ... ..tb7 1 5 d5 !) 1 5 lZ:le4 'fic7
favourable to White; then I4 ... g6 can be met by I 6 lt:Jeg5 ..i.xg5 I 7 lt:Jxg5 g6 1 8 lt:Je4 ±.

1 5 lZ:le5 or I 5 'ii'b3) I 3 ..i.g5 g6 1 4 ..i.h6 l:te8 I 5

lZ:le5 ( 1 5 l:tad l lZ:lbd5 I 6 ..i.b3) I 5 ... lZ:lbd5 I 6

..i.b3 ;!;; Pelletier-Domont, Zurich 2007.

b) I I ..i.g5 lLlfd5 1 2 ..i.xe7 lZ:lxe7 I 3 'ii'd3 w with ideas of ..i.c2 and/or lZ:lg5, combined with
h4 and an attack, or simply lZ:le5, 1i'e4, l:tad l ,
etc.

c) I I lZ:le5 ..i.d7 1 2 'ii'f3 ! ? .1c6 ( I 2 ... 'fi'b8?

1 3 d5 !) 1 3 lZ:lxc6 bxc6 14 'ii'xc6 'ii'xd4 1 5 .i.e3

'ii'b4 I 6 'ii'b5 ;!;; (Raetsky).

10 a3

I 0 ..i.g5 is only slightly advantageous, but
very instructive in light of the common tactical
idea 1 0 ... a6 I I l:tc l b5 1 2 d5 ! (D).

Then:

a) 1 2 ... lZ:lxd5 1 3 .1xd5 exd5 1 4 'ii'xd5 with 11 d5!? an edge for White. This is the most direct method, and it secures
b) 1 2 ... lZ:la5 1 3 ..i.d3 ! ! with the idea 1 3 ... exd.5? a moderate advantage by thematically breaking

14 l:txe7 ! 'ii'xe7 1 5 lt:Jxd5 or 1 3 ... tt:Jxd5? 1 4 down Black's blockade square and increasing ..i.xe7 tt:Jxe7 1 5 .i.xh7+! 'it>xh7 1 6 lt:Jg5+ 'it>g6 1 7 the range of almost all of White's pieces. There

'ii'g4 f5 1 8 'ii'g3, winning. are good alternatives in this position, from 78 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

which White has been wmnmg games for 'if g5 .l:tfe8 20 b4 l"Llc6 2 1 .if6 .l:txe 1 + 22 .l:txe 1
years. For example, I I .id3 with the idea of 'ii'd6 23 h4! l -0 Komeev-Hanssen, Oslo 1 994.

.ic2 and 1i'd3 is similar to our 6 ... a6 7 .id3 b) 14 ... .i.e6! 1 5 'i!fxd8 .l:tfxd8 1 6 .ixe6 fxe6
main line (Section 4.332). But I I 1i'd3 ! may be 17 .ig5 .i.xg5 1 8 l"Llxg5 .l:td2!? ( l 8 ... l"Llb3 19
objectively the best move, and certainly the .l:tabl h6 20 l"Llxe6 .l:td2 ;!;) 1 9 b4 (19 .l:tac l)

most dangerous: I l ....ib7 1 2 .ig5 l"Lld5 1 3 l 9 ... l"Llc4 ( 1 9 ... l"Llb3 ! 20 .l:tad l e5 21 l"Llf3 ;!;) 20 .ixd5 ! .ixg5 ( l 3 ... exd5 1 4 .ixe7 l"Llxe7 is the .l:txe6 l"Llxa3 2 1 h3 l"Llc2? (2 l ...h6 22 .l:txa3 hxg5
classic positional advantage for White) 14 .ie4 23 .l:txb6 l:.xf2! 24 .l:tb5 ! with a slight advantage
h6 15 .l:tad l ( 1 5 d5 ! is better still) 1 5 ... .if6 1 6 for White) 22 .l:txa7! and White is winning too
d5 exd5 ( l 6 .. . l"Lla5 1 7 'ti'b I ! 1i'c8 ! ? 1 8 dxe6 much material, Gurchumalidze-Balkhamishvili, fxe6 1 9 .ixb7 l"Llxb7 20 l"Lle4! gives White a Georgian Girls Ch, Tbilisi 2002. clear advantage) 17 .ixd5 1i'c7? ( 1 7 ... .ixc3 1 8 13 b4! 'ifxc3 '6'c8 1 9 l"Llh4! l"Lla5 20 1i'g3 .ixd5 2 1 1 3 l"Llxd5 l"Llxd5 1 4 .ixd5 .ib7 1 5 .ixb7

.l:txd5 .l:te8 22 .l:ted l ;!; intending l"Llf5) 1 8 l"Llb5 l"Llxb7 1 6 .if4 favours White, but not by very

1i'b8 1 9 l"Lld6 l"Lld8 20 .ia2, Komeev-C.Graf, much. Bad Worishofen 2003. This is essentially 13 ••• l"Llc4 resignable, but a fun finish would be 20 ... 1i'c7 White is also in charge following l 3 ... l"Llb7

(20 ... .ixf3 2 1 'ifxf3 .ixb2 22 .l:te7) 2 1 l"Lle5 14 .ib2, as well as l 3 ... l"Llc6 14 l"Llxd5 l"Llxd5 15 .ixe5 22 .l:txe5 .ic6 23 .ibl g6 24 l"Llxf7 'ifxf7 'i!fxd5 .ib7 1 6 b5 ! l"Lla5 17 'ilfxd8 .ixd8 1 8 l"Lle5

25 .ia2 'ifxa2 26 1i'xg6+ �h8 27 1i'xh6+ �g8 .if6 1 9 .id2 .l:tac8 20 .ib4 .ixe5 21 .l:txe5 .l:tfe8

28 1i'g6+ �h8 29 .l:th5#. 22 .l:txe8+ .l:txe8 23 .l:td I ±.

We now return to I I d5 !? (D): 14 l"Llxd5 l"Llxd5 15 .ixc4 (D)

B B

l l ... l"Lla5 12 .ia2 exd5?! Now:

It's surprising that after all these years, this a) l 5 ... .ie6 is a sacrifice that doesn't work
inferior move is played most often. Probably out, since White wins material for insufficient

Black finds that the better 1 2 ... l"Llxd5 1 3 l"Llxd5 compensation: 1 6 .ixd5 .ixd5 17 .l:txe7 'i!fxe7
exd5 l 4 1i'xd5 is too depressing (even 14 .ixd5 1 8 'i!fxd5 .l:tfd8 1 9 'ilfb3 'ifd6 (Black tried to

.ib7 1 5 .ixb7 l"Llxb7 1 6 .if4 is slightly in improve in Riazantsev-Yagupov, Miass (team White's favour, but not enough to be a deter event) 2007 by 1 9 ... 1i'e2 20 .ie3 .l:td3, but 2 1
rent). Play has gone: l"Lld4 ! .l:txb3 22 l"Llxe2 .l:td8 23 g 3 h6 24 l"Lld4
a) 14 ... .ib7?! 1 5 1i'h5 !? ( 1 5 'iff5 ! .ixf3 1 6 .l:td3 25 l"Llc6 .l:t8d7 26 a4 is winning) 20 .ie3

.ibl g6 1 7 'i!Vxf3 ± is strong) l 5 .. . .if6? .l:tac8 2 1 h3 h6 22 b5 'i!fd5 23 'ilfb2 and White ( 1 5 ... .ixf3 1 6 'i!Vxf3 .if6 1 7 .if4!? .ixb2 1 8 had consolidated in the game Serper-Becerra

.l:tad l 'iff6 1 9 .l:td6 1i'c3 20 .l:te3 1i'c5 2 1 .l:te7 Rivero, Internet 2006. 'ifxa3 22 .ixf7+ �h8 23 'ifh5 with an attack) b) 1 5 ... l"Llc7 isn't satisfactory either: 1 6 .i.f4

16 l"Llg5 .ixg5 17 .ixg5 'ti'd4 1 8 .ie7 g6 1 9 .ig4 ( l 6 ... .ie6 17 .ixc7 'i!fxc7 1 8 .ixe6 fxe6

QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED 79

1 9 .:tc I ) 1 7 'ii'xd8 ..txd8 1 8 l:tad 1 ..txf3 1 9 gxf3 unattractive for Black, so a main variation is
tlJe6 20 ..td6 fl.e8 2 1 ..tb5 +-. 8 ... ..txc5 9 e4 with e5 to follow; e.g., 9 ... ..tb7

1 0 e5 ttJd5 - therefore 8 dxc5 is an option to

4.332) think about which might simplify White's life.

b2) 8 a4 (D) forces a queenside structural

6 •.• a6 7 ..td3 (D) concession (this is a major point of playing 7

..td3). Then we have:

B

B

This is my recommendation versus 6 ... a6.

Apart from the defensive idea of avoiding ... b5 b2 1 ) 8 ... bxa4 9 tlJe5 ! is awkward for Black;
with tempo, White strengthens his control of e4 e.g., 9 ... ..te7 (9 ... cxd4 10 exd4 ..tb7 1 1 'ii'xa4+
and in many lines plans to gain the initiative on tlJbd7 1 2 ttJc3 ..td6 1 3 ttJc4 and now 1 3 ... ..tc7
the kingside with e4-e5 . ..td3 also discourages 1 4 'ii'a3 or 1 3 ... ..te7 1 4 tlJa5 ! ±) 1 0 'ii'xa4+ ..td7

Black's thematic move ... b5 as White can reply ( l O ... ttJbd7 1 1 ttJc6; IO ... ttJfd7 1 1 dxc5 ..txc5
with a4 and force concessions in Black's queen 1 2 ttJd2 with the idea 1 2 ... 0-0 1 3 ..txh7+ !) 1 1
side structure. Of course, this comes at the cost ttJxd7 ttJbxd7 ( l l ...'ii'xd7? 1 2 ..tb5) 1 2 dxc5
of a tempo so, not surprisingly, strategically ..txc5 1 3 'ii'c2 !? (or 1 3 fl.d l with the bishop
double-edged positions result. After 7 ..td3, pair) 1 3 ... 0-0 14 fl.xa6 .l:!.c8 1 5 tlJc3 and Black is

Black has a big decision to make: short of compensation for the pawn. 4.3321: 7 •.• cxd4 80 b22) 8 ... b4 9 e4 (9 tlJbd2 ..tb7 10 ttJc4 is 4.3322: 7 •.• ttJc6 8 1 quite a safe way to play which still gives plenty 4.3323: 7 ••• ttJbd7 82 of chances) 9 ... ..tb7 1 0 ttJbd2 (D) ( 1 0 e5 ttJd5

1 1 ttJbd2 may well favour White slightly, but

Alternatively: the theory is messy) and here:

a) 7 ... b6 allows the interesting 8 dxc5 ! ? (8
e4 is also played, with the idea 8 ... cxd4 9 e5)

8 ... ..txc5 9 a3 ..tb7 I 0 'ii'e2 0-0 1 1 ttJbd2 tlJbd7

1 2 b4 ..te7 1 3 ..tb2 a5 14 bxa5 fl.xa5 1 5 ..tb5 B 'ii'b8 1 6 a4 fl.c8 ( 1 6 ... fl.a7 1 7 tlJc4 ;!; Baburin

Godena, Havana 1 999) 1 7 fl.fc 1 ! fl.a7 1 8 l:txc8+

'ii'xc8 1 9 fl.c l 'ii'a8 (Kramnik-Kasparov, Mos
cow rapid 2001 ) 20 tlJc4! ..td5 2 1 ttJfe5 ;!; (Kas
parov). One idea is 2 l ...tlJxe5 22 ttJxb6! (22
ttJxe5 ..txg2?! 23 f3) 22 ... 'ii'b7 23 fl.c8+ ..tf8 24

..txe5 'ii'xb6 25 ..txf6 ;!;.

b) 7 ... b5 and now:

b l ) It's worth noting that 8 dxc5 is some
times given an ' ! ' . Then 8 ... ..tb7?! 9 b4 is 80 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

b22 1 ) 10 ... tt:'lc6 1 1 e5 tt:'ld7 and now 1 2 �e4 whereas both Black's play against d4 and his cxd4 1 3 tt:'lb3 is the safe course, whereas 1 2 outpost on d5 are less efficacious. Here are
tt:'le4 cxd4!? 1 3 �f4 'ii'a5 1 4 :tel �e7 1 5 l:tc l some examples: l:td8 1 6 tt:'ld6+ �xd6 1 7 exd6 ;!; tt:'lf6? 1 8 tt:'le5 ! ± bl) 9 ... tt:'lbd7 1 0 tt:'lc3 0-0 I I �f4 and White

Krivoshei-Simacek, Prievidza 2009 is a typical stands better (Khuzman); Black's knight is pas
example of mixing it up. sive.

b222) 1 O ... cxd4 1 1 e5 tt:'lfd7 1 2 tt:'lc4 tt:'lc6 b2) 9 ... 0-0 10 tt:'lc3 tt:'lc6 1 1 tt:'lxc6 bxc6 1 2

( 1 2 ... tt:'lc5 1 3 �g5 ! ? �xf3 ! 14 'ii'xf3 'ii'd5 1 5 tt:'la4 ( 1 2 �f4 i s another approach) 12 .. . �b7

'ii'xd5 exd5 1 6 tt:'lb6 tt:'lxd3 1 7 tt:'lxa8 'it>d7 1 8 ( 1 2 ... :tb8 1 3 b3 'ii'd5 1 4 �f4 l:tb4 1 5 �e5 ;!; c5?

l:tfd I tt:'lxb2 1 9 l:txd4 ;!; i s a confusing line) 1 3 1 6 �c4 'ii'c6 17 tt:'lxc5 ± Malaniuk-Zlochevsky,

�g5 'i!Vb8 ( 1 3 .. .'ii'c7 14 �f4 ;!;) 1 4 l:tel b3 1 5 MUnster 1 995) 1 3 �f4 (or 1 3 tt:'lc5 ;!;) 1 3 ... 'ii'a5

�e4 h6 16 �f4 �b4 1 7 l:te2 ( 1 7 tt:'ld6+! ±) and now 14 'ii'c2 gave White a good game in

1 7 ... 0-0 1 8 tt:'lxd4 tt:'lxd4 19 'ii'xd4 with an edge Dreev-Xu Jun, Taiyuan 2004, but better still is
for White, Anand/Koneru-Aronian/Danielian, 14 tt:'lc5 ! with the idea 14 ... �xc5 !? 1 5 dxc5

Moscow (consultation blitz) 20 1 1 . 'ii'xc5 1 6 �d6!.

b3) 9 ... tt:'lc6 10 tt:'lxc6 bxc6 1 1 �e3 (D) is a

4.3321) standard sort of position in which White has
only a minor edge.

7 ... cxd4 8 exd4 �e7 (D)

w

This has been contested by some high-level

9 tt:'lc3 players:

Or: b3 1 ) 1 1 ...0-0 1 2 'i!Vc2 'ii'c7 1 3 tt:'ld2 h6 14
a) A thematic idea is shown by 9 �g5 b5 l:tac 1 �b7 15 tt:'le4 (given ' ! ' by Gelfand, al

(9 ... tt:'lc6 10 tt:'lc3 0-0 transposes to the main though 1 5 tt:'lb3 looks both better and good)

line) 1 0 tt:'lc3 �b7 1 1 ltc l 0-0 1 2 a4 b4 1 3 �xf6 1 5 ... tt:'ld5 ( 1 5 ... tt:'lg4 1 6 g3 e5 ! =) 1 6 'ii'e2 l:tfd8 �xf6 1 4 tt:'le4 ;!;. Not forced, but a manoeuvre to (Gelfand-Anand, Biel 1 997) and now 1 7 tt:'lc5
remember when c5 is an outpost. gives White a modest edge.

b) 9 tt:'le5 is an important alternative that has b32) Kramnik-Kasparov, Moscow blitz 2001
been successful in some highly-rated games continued 1 l ...tt:'ld5 1 2 tt:'lc3 ( 1 2 tt:'ld2 ! 0-0 1 3

(likewise 9 tt:'lc3 0-0 1 0 tt:'le5). Apart from the tt:'lf3 ;!;) 1 2 .. . 0-0 1 3 l:tc 1 tt:'lxe3 (Khuzman's move
fact that 9 ... b5? ! runs into 10 'ii'f3 l!i'd5 1 1 'ii'g3 1 3 ... a5 !? can be met by 14 tt:'lxd5 cxd5 1 5 'ii'c2
with the initiative, the idea is that after ... tt:'lc6, h6 1 6 �f4 �f6 1 7 l:tfd 1 ;!;) 14 fxe3 c5? ( 14 ... h6
tt:'lxc6 weakens Black's pawns. Normally the 1 5 tt:'le4!? e5 ! 1 6 �c4! exd4 1 7 exd4 �e6! 1 8
isolated d4-pawn versus the isolated c6-pawn is �xe6 fxe6 1 9 l:!.xf8+ �xf8 20 l:.c4 offers
an even trade-off, but it appears that in this po White a minimal edge at most) 1 5 dxc5 �xc5
sition, with accurate play, White tends to get 1 6 �xh7+ 'it>xh7 17 'ii'h5+ 'it>g8 1 8 'ii'xc5 ±.

pressure on c6 and a solid outpost on c5, 9 ••• tt:'lc6

QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED 81

Again, 9 ... b5 allows 10 a4 ( 1 0 i..g5 is a good 12 i..b1 b5 13 a3 tt:'lbd5 (D) alternative), weakening Black's pawn-structure;
e.g., l O . .. bxa4?! ( l 0 ... b4 I I tt:'le4 .ib7 1 2 'ili'e2 0-0 1 3 l:!.d 1 was only slightly better for White in

Karpov-Short, Linares 1 995) 1 1 tt:Je5 ! 0-0 1 2 w 'ili'f3 .l:.a7 1 3 .l:r.xa4 i..b7 14 'i!i'g3 leaves White
clearly on top.

10 i..g5 (D)

For l O tt:'le5, compare 9 tt:'le5.

B

14 'ili'd3

Quite a few games have taken the safe route

1 4 tt:Jxd5 tt:Jxd5 1 5 'ili'd3 ( 1 5 i..xe7 'i!i'xe7 1 6 i..e4
i..b7 1 7 tt:'le5 ti:Jf6 = Grishchuk-Dreev, Moscow blitz 2007) 1 5 ... g6 16 i..h6 .l:.e8 1 7 tt:Je5 i..b7

( 1 7 ... i..g5 1 8 i..xg5 'i!i'xg5 1 9 'ili'f3 and i..e4 also
leaves Black under some pressure) 1 8 'ili'f3 i..f6

1 9 i..e4 'i!i'e 7 20 i..xd5 ! (after 20 l:!.fe 1 .:.ac8, in

The text-move introduces a standard and spite of his nice-looking pieces, White can't
highly instructive isolated queen's pawn posi claim anything from such a position) 20 ... i..xd5
tion, in which White tends to keep the better 21 'ili'f4 i..h8 (2 l ...i..g7 22 tt:Jg4) 22 tt:Jg4 f6
chances. (22 ... e5 !? stops .l:.c7, when White still gets some

10 .•. 0-0 chances from 23 dxe5 i..xe5 24 'i!i'd2! l:r.ad8 25
l O ... tt:Jb4 I I i..bl 0-0 12 tt:Je5 ( 1 2 a3 tt:'lbd5 i..g5 f6 26 .l:.fel ! i..e6 27 .l:.xe5) 23 .l:.c7 e5 24

1 3 tt:Je5 i..d7 14 .l:r.e l .l:r.c8 1 5 'i!i'd3 ;!;) 1 2 ... i..d7 'i!i'c 1 'ir'e6 25 h3 exd4 ?? (25 ... .:.ec8 26 dxe5 ;!;) 26

(N.Farreli-Shaw, Scottish Ch, Troon 1 992) and .if8 ! ! l:!.ec8 27 'ir'c5 1 -0 Giri-Laznicka, French
now simply 1 3 a3 tt:'lbd5 ( 1 3 ... tt:Jc6 1 4 'i!i'd3 g6 Team Ch, Mulhouse 201 0.

1 5 i..h6 .l:r.e8 1 6 'i!i'g3 ;!; with very active pieces) 14 ••• tt:Jxc3

14 'i!i'd3 g6 1 5 i..a2 is the stereotyped reorgani Now the game Lev - Har-Zvi, Israeli Team
zation that gives White a small but dangerous Ch 2002 continued 1 5 bxc3?! g6! 1 6 a4 i..b7
advantage. with equal chances. Raetsky proposes 1 5 .l:r.xc3

1 1 .U.cl ttJ b4 instead, when after 1 5 ... g6, I think 1 6 tt:Je5 !

This is considered best. 1 1 ... ti:Jd5 12 tt:'lxd5 ! ? i..b7 1 7 'ili'd2 yields the best chance for success,

( 1 2 i..xe7 ! tt:'lcxe7 1 3 .l:r.e 1 i s another and proba with an impending rook transfer to the kingside
bly better way to approach the position) and or simply probing of the dark squares. Then
then: 17 ... .:.c8 ( 1 7 ... tt:Je4? 1 8 i..xe4 i..xe4 1 9 i..xe7
a) Black must avoid 1 2 ... 'i!i'xd5?? l 3 l:!.xc6! 'i!i'xe7 20 'ili'f4 i..d5 2 1 .l:.fc 1 leads to a clear ad
i..xg5 1 4 llc5. vantage for White) 1 8 .l:.xc8 'ii'xc8 1 9 i..h6 .l:.d8
b) 12 ... exd5 1 3 i..xe7 'i!i'xe7 14 .:.e t .ie6 15 20 .l:.c 1 'ii'b8 2 1 'ii'f4 ;!; is annoying, though
i..c2 ;!; (or 1 5 i..f5 ! ?); White doesn't have much. hardly something that Black can't hang in there
c) 1 2 ... i..xg5 1 3 tt:'lxg5 (White can get a lit against. tle something from 1 3 tt:'le3 i..f6 1 4 tt:'lg4 i..e7

1 5 .l:.e1 ;!;) 1 3 ... 'i!i'xg5 1 4 tt:'lb6 .l:.b8 1 5 'ili'c2 with 4.3322) a marginal advantage at best ('i!i'c5 might fol
low), Riazantsev�Kariakin, Biel 2003. 7 .•. tt:Jc6 8 tt:Jc3 (D)

82 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

Or:

a) 10 tt::le4 is a good choice: I O ... tt::lxe4 I I

B ..txe4 ..tb7 1 2 dxc5 bxc5 ( 1 2 ... JI..xc5 1 3 b4 ..td6

14 ..tb2 .:d8 1 5 'ife2, threatening :ac I , is not
what Black wanted when he played ... 'ii'c7!) I 3

..i.d2 ;!;; Black's isolated c-pawn is a target on a
half-open file and White is better developed.

b) 10 dxc5 bxc5 I I tt::le4 was the same idea
in Kasparov-Kamsky, New York rapid 1 994.

M.Gurevich's recommendation I I ... ..tb7 can
be met by 1 2 tt::lxf6+! gxf6 1 3 e4, with a pleas
ant advantage, while after 1 2 'ifc2, Black should
play I 2 ... tt::lxe4 1 3 ..txe4 ..td6 14 ..td2, when

White has only a minor edge. After Gurevich's

8 .•• 'ifc7 1 2 ... tt::le5(?!), 1 3 tt::lxe5 'ifxe5 I4 tt::lxf6+ gxf6

Black doesn't commit to a central exchange. ( 1 4 .. Jihf6? 1 5 'ifa4+) 1 5 e4 leaves White in

Instead, 8 ... cxd4 9 exd4 Jl..e7 transposes to charge. Section 4.332 1 . 10 .•• ..tb7 11 ltcl

8 ... ..i.e7 is considered dubious by Eingom. I I tt::le4 should again produce a small advan

Black has played both ... a6 and ... JI..e7, which tage; e.g., l l ...tt::lxe4 1 2 ..txe4 ..td6 1 3 :c I 0-0
is a clue that 9 dxc5 ! will be good: 9 ... ..i.xc5 10 14 b4 or l l ...cxd4 1 2 tt::lxf6+ gxf6 1 3 exd4 t.

a3 (or 10 'ife2 0-0 I I tt::le4 tt::lxe4 1 2 Jl..xe4 with ll ... cxd4 12 exd4 ..te7 13 tt::le4 a slight advantage for White) 1 0 ... 0-0 I I b4 1 3 d5 ! ? exd5 ( 1 3 ... tt::lxd5? 14 tt::lxd5 exd5 I 5

..td6 ( l l .....te7 1 2 ..tb2 'ii'c7 1 3 :c J ..td7 14 tt::ld4 leaves Black with too much hanging) 14
tt::le4 with a healthy advantage) 12 ..tb2 ("al .:tel 0-0 15 ..i.g5 'ii'd6 16 ..tbi offers White inter
ready 1 2 tt::le4 would have been good" - Ein esting play for a pawn. For example, I 6 ... l:l.fe8
gom) I 2 ... 'ii'e7 ( 1 2 ... tt::le5 1 3 tt::lxe5 ..i.xe5 14 f4 17 'i!fd3 g6 1 8 ..ta2 :ad8 1 9 :cd I d4 20 ..txf6

;!;) 1 3 tt::le4 tt::lxe4 I 4 ..txe4 e5 I 5 1:c I Jl..d7 ..txf6 2 1 tt::le4 'iff4 22 'ifb3 ..te7 23 'ii'xb6, but (Eingom-Dokhoian, Kharkov 1 985) and now even this isn't clear. Eingom suggests 16 'ii'd3 f5 17 ..td5+ 'it>h8 I 8 13 ••• 'i!fd7 14 ..i.g5 e4, with White standing better. This is the game M.Gurevich-Speelman,

9 a3 b6 (D) French League 1 994. Here, instead of 14 ... tt::ld5

9 ... ..te7? is even worse now because of 1 0 (which I think is only nominally worse for
dxc5 ..i.xc5 1 1 b4! ..te7 I 2 ..i.b2 0-0 1 3 :c 1 ± Black), Gurevich analyses I 4 ... :d8 I 5 tt::lxf6+

Polugaevsky-Barlov, Haninge 1 988. gxf6 1 6 .i.e3 :g8 17 Jl..xh7 ( 1 7 g3! ?) 17 ... .:tg7

1 8 .i.e4 f5 1 9 d5 ! as 'unclear' . I 0 tt::le4 or I I
tt::le4 seems the most straightforward way to

achieve something in this variation.

w

4.3323}

7 ••. tt::lbd7 (D) Several theoreticians lean towards this as the
best line. In some ways, that's a compliment to

7 ..td3, as White should never stand worse and
can achieve a modest advantage in a few differ
ent ways.

8 lte1

This move is most frequently played by ex
ponents of 7 ..td3. The idea is to follow up with

10 ..td2 e4 and e5. Since the knight is rather passively

QUEEN 'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED 83

'ii'h5+) 1 2 ..ifl ..ib7 1 3 ltJd2 ..ie7 1 4 'ir'g4! ?

( 14 ltJ4b3 ;!; has the idea ltJxc5 followed by
w ltJe4 or ltJc4, and leaves White with a small
structural advantage after l4 ... ltJxb3 1 5 'ir'xb3

0-0 1 6 ltJe4) 1 4 ... 0-0 ( l 4 ... g6 l 5 ltJ2f3 1ightly
favours White, and more so after 15 ... ltJb4?!

1 6 ..ih6, as in Filippov-Donchenko, Russia

Cup, Smolensk 1 997) 15 ltJ2f3 'it>h8 and now

1 6 ltJg5? ! gave away any advantage in Kram
nik-Kasparov, Linares 2003. 1 6 a3 ! a5 1 7 ..id2
affords some play, with the idea of b4 or, after

1 7 ... a4, 1 8 .l:ted 1 followed by .l:tac 1 and possi
bly .i.g5 or ..ib5, depending upon how Black
plays it.

placed on d7, there are always safe moves; e.g., c) 8 ... ..ie7 9 e4 cxd4 10 e5 ltJd5 1 1 ..ic4 ( I I
you can get interesting play from 8 a4, prevent ltJxd4 is normal) l l ...ltJc5 I 2 ltJxd4 0-0 1 3 b3
ing ... b5 and avoiding the looseness which re ( 1 3 ..ixd5 ! ? with the idea 1 3 ... 'ir'xd5 1 4 ltJf5 !

sults from a e4-e5 plan. 8 ... b6 9 'ii'e2 ..ib7 1 0 ;!;) 1 3 ... 'ir'd7 14 ..ixd5 ! 'ii'xd5 l 5 ltJc3 'ii'd8 1 6

.l:td l 'ii'c7 I I h3 ! ? (worried about I l ...ltJg4, ap ..ie3 (here 1 6 .l:te3 ! , thinking about 'ir'g4 and
parently, although that would lose time; e.g., 1 1 ..ia3, and 1 6 ..if4 are minor improvements)

b3 ltJg4 12 h3 ..ixf3? 1 3 'ii'xf3 'ii'h2+ 1 4 'it>fl 1 6 ... 'ir'a5 !? ( l 6 ... 'ii'c7 1 7 .l:tc l 'ili'xe5 1 8 b4 l2Jd7
wins material) l l .....ie7 12 ltJc3 0-0 1 3 ..id2 19 tLlc6 bxc6 20 ..ic5 'if xe I + 2 1 'if xe 1 l2Jxc5 22

..id6 (maybe h3 was handy, after all) 1 4 l:tac l bxc5 ..ixc5 is obscure) was played in Gelfand
e5 !? and instead of the passive 1 5 ..ib 1 (as Lautier, Belgrade 1 995. Then Gelfand recom played in the game Eingorn-Ehlvest, USSR Ch, mends 1 7 b4!? ( 1 7 'ir'd2 ;!;) l 7 ... 'i!Vxb4 l 8 ltJf5

Moscow 1988), White might try 15 dxc5 ltJxc5 .idS ! 1 9 .l:tbl ! , claiming an edge for White.

( l 5 ... ..ixc5 can be met by 16 e4 with the idea l 9 .. .'i!fxc3 20 .l:.c l 'ir'xe l+ 2 1 "flxel l2Jd3 22

..ic4, controlling d5, or even 1 6 b4 with an 'i!fdl tLlxc l 23 tLlh6+ gxh6 24 ..ixh6 tLle2+ ! 25
edge) 1 6 e4 !?. White's idea is 1 6 ... ltJxd3?! 1 7 'i!fxe2 f5 26 ..ixf8 'it>xf8 27 'ilfh5 is wild stuff,

'ii'xd3 "fle7 (the queen has a hard time avoiding but I can't see this as being more than equal for
attack, and 1 7 ... 'ii'b8 1 8 ltJh4! leaves it far from White. defence of the kingside) 1 8 ltJh4 and White gets We return to 8 ... b5 (D): ltJf5 in, or enjoys 1 8 ... g6? 19 ..ig5. Instead,

16 ... ltJb3 1 7 .l:tc2 ltJxd2 1 8 ltJxd2 'ii'e7 1 9 ..ic4

offers White only a slight advantage, but there
are positive plans such as ltJfl -e3. w

8 ... b5

Black's alternatives are playable, but not ter
ribly impressive:

a) 8 ... 'ii'c7 9 e4 (9 b3 !?) 9 ... cxd4 10 e5 ltJd5

( lO ... ltJg4?! I I ..if4) 1 1 ..ie4 ltJe7?! ( l l ....i.c5

1 2 ltJbd2 0-0 l 3 ltJb3 ;!;; l l ...ltJc5?! 1 2 ..ixd5 !

exd5 1 3 ltJxd4 with a significant positional ad
vantage; best is l l ...ltJ7b6 1 2 'ii'xd4 ..ic5 1 3

'ii'd3 ;!;) 1 2 ltJxd4!? ( 1 2 'ir'xd4!) 1 2 ... ltJg6 1 3 f4
ltJc5 (Piket-Van der Sterren, Dutch Ch, Rotter
dam 1 998) 14 ltJc3 ..ie 7 15 ..ie3 0-0 1 6 .l:tc l
with more space and freer development. At this point there's a big decision and a final
b) 8 ... b6 is solid but a bit restricted. White split: gets an edge from 9 e4 cxd4 10 e5 ltJd5 1 1 4.33231: 9 e4 84
ltJxd4 ltJc5 ! (not l l .. . ..ib7? l 2 ltJxe6! fxe6 1 3 4.33232: 9 a4 85

84 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

4.33231) 'ii'g4! lLlxa4 1 9 'ii'xg7 :f8 20 ..tg5 with a win
ning attack.

9 e4 cxd4 10 e5 lLld5 11 a4 14 lLlbxd2 lLlc5 15 l:.xd4

Apart from trying to open the a-file, White 1 5 ..i.b5+ ..td7 1 6 ..txd7+ lLlxd7 ( 1 6 ... 'ifxd7
wants to win the c4-square for a knight in the 1 7 .:.xd4 'ii'b5 1 8 'ii'b 1 ! 0-0 1 9 b4 lLla4 20 :h4
case of ... bxa4 or ... b4. gives White a slight advantage) 1 7 l:hd4 0-0
ll ... bxa4 1 8 lLlc4 :b8 (Gelfand-Rublevsky, Polanica

This looks anti-positional, but isolated a Zdroj 1 997) and there isn't much happening,
pawns don't mean much in the middlegame and but after 1 9 'ii'e2, White is the one who wants

White's b-pawn becomes vulnerable. Black's to play on. goal is to give himself space and not lose time. 15 ••• ltJxd3 16 l:.xd3 0-0 (D) l l ... b4 transposes to the note to White's l Oth

move in Section 4.33232 (i.e. 9 a4 b4 I 0 e4
cxd4 I I e5 lLld5).

12 l:.xa4 (D) w

B

17 lLlc4

1 7 lLle4(!) is seldom played, but may be
better and should be taken seriously. White got
the advantage in Lomineishvili-Shumiakina, St

12 ••. ..tb4!? Petersburg 2009 after 1 7 ... a5 ( 1 7 ... :b8 is met

A good move in that it develops with tempo by 1 8 'ii'd2 or 1 8 b3 ..i.b7 1 9 lLlfd2!? ;\; with
and swaps off an attacking piece, but of course ideas of lLlc4 and/or swinging the queen and
it also weakens Black's dark squares. 1 2 ... ..tc5 rook to the kingside) 1 8 lLld4 lLlf4 ( 1 8 ... ..td7 1 9
is an obvious alternative because it makes it :g3 l:.b8 20 'ii'd2 'it>h8 2 1 lLld6 ;\;) 1 9 :d2 (or 1 9
difficult for White to recover the d-pawn: 1 3 _:g3 !) 1 9 ... 'ifb6 20 'ii'f3 lLlg6 2 1 lLld6 .:ta 7 and
lLlbd2 lLl5b6 1 4 :at ..tb7 1 5 lLle4 0-0 1 6 lLlfg5 ! here 22 'ii'g3 ! gives every indication of being

(this attack is more interesting than 1 6 lLlxc5, better for White. even with the small trick 1 6 ... ..txf3 1 7 ..txh7+! 17 ••• a5 'it>xh7 1 8 'ii'd3+ 'it>g8 19 lLlxd7 'i'xd7 20 'ifxf3 With the idea ... i.a6. White's space advan

;\;) 16 ... h6 ( 1 6 ... g6 1 7 'ifg4! h5) 1 7 lLlh7 ..txe4 tage is apparent in the continuation 1 7 ... :b8 1 8

( 1 7 ... lle8 1 8 lLlhf6+! lLlxf6 1 9 lLlxc5) 1 8 ..txe4 'i'd2 'ii'e7 (Shariyazdanov and Lysenko's sug

:e8 19 ..txh6! gxh6 20 'ifg4+ 'it>h8 21 'ifh5 gestion 1 8 ... f6 can be effectively answered by

'it>g7 22 :ed t ! !, preparing :d3; this pretty 1 9 lLld4! fxe5 20 lLlxe5) 1 9 ltJd6 ..tb7 20 ltJd4
move simply wins. ..ta8 2 1 l:tg3 with a serious initiative, Shariy

13 ..td2 ..txd2 azdanov-Feletar, Pula 2000.

Rizzitano analyses 1 3 ... ..tc5 14 b4 ( 1 4 ..ta5 !) 18 .l:.a3 ..ta6

14 ... ..tb6? (Black should continue 14 ... ..te7 1 5 Now:

ltJxd4 'ifc7, though 1 6 lLlb5 'ifb8 1 7 ltJd6+! a) 1 9 lLlxa5 seems to yield a slight advantage

..txd6 1 8 exd6 'ifxd6 19 'i'g4 is dangerous) 1 5 following 1 9 ... lLlb4 20 'ii'a4! ltJd3 (20 ... 'ife7 !?)

lLla3 ..tb7 16 lLlc4 ..tc7 1 7 ltJxd4 ltJ5b6 1 8 2 1 :ea1 'ifb6 22 'ifd4 'ifxd4 23 lLlxd4 lLlxe5 24

QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED 85

b4 �c8 2S �fl ! with the better ending for White 9 ••• b4 (Rizzitano ); the b-pawn is a bother. 9 ... bxa4 would transpose to Section 4.3323 1
b) 19 lt::ld6 and then: after 1 0 e4 cxd4 1 1 eS lt::ldS. However, now that
bl ) After 1 9 ... f6!?, 20 'ii'd4 l:tb8 21 b3 is as ... bxa4 is in, White can deviate by 10 lt::lbd2
sessed by Avrukh as slightly better for White, (with the idea lt::lc4; 10 'ii'xa4 �b7 1 1 lt::leS is
but is actually equal after Rizzitano's 2 I ...lt::lb4. also interesting, with the points l l ...�e7 12

But White might try 20 lt::le4 t instead; e.g., lt::lc6, 1 l ...'ii'c7 1 2 �d2 ! and 1 l ...�d6 1 2 lt::ld2)

20 ... �b7 (20 ... fxeS 2 1 lt::lxeS t; 20 ... lt::lb4 2 1 I O ... cxd4 1 1 exd4 �b7 12 'i!Vxa4 �d6 1 3 lt::lc4
exf6 'ii'xd 1 22 l:txd 1 gxf6 23 lt::lcS ;\;) 2 1 lt::lcS �b8 14 lt::lfeS 0-0 l S lt::laS !. 'ii'e7 22 lt::lxb7 'ii'xb7 23 exf6 l:txf6 24 l:tb3 'ii'c7 10 lt::lbd2 2S lt::lgS 'ii'f4 26 lt::le4 with a slight but definite This is easier to play than 10 e4 cxd4 1 1 eS
positional edge. lt::ldS ; nevertheless, 1 2 lt::lbd2 ! �b7 1 3 lt::lxd4
b2) 1 9 ... l:tb8 20 'ii'd2 l:tb4 2 1 lt::lgS !? and lt::lcS 14 lt::le4! preserves some advantage; e.g., here: 14 ... lt::lxd3 1S 'itxd3 lt::lb6 16 �gS 'ii'd7 1 7
b2 1 ) 2 l ...h6?! 22 lt::lge4 'ii'b6 23 l:.g3 and lt::ld6+ (or 1 7 aS !, intending 1 7 ... lt::ldS?! 1 8 now 23 ... �h8?? 24 lt::lf6! was winning for White 'ii'g3!) 1 7 ... �xd6 1 8 exd6 0-0 ( 1 8 .. .'�xd6?! 1 9
in Avrukh-Rublevsky, European Clubs Cup, lt::lxe6 'itxd3 20 lt::lcS+ ;\;) 1 9 'ii'g3 ! �h8 20 Rethymnon 2003. One pretty line is 24 ... l:txb2 lt::lb3 lt::lxa4 (20 ... l:tfc8 2 1 lt::laS) 21 �e7 I:.fc8

2S 'ii'xh6+! gxh6 26 lt::lxf7+! l:txf7 27 l:tg8#. 22 l:teS !, having both an attack and the move

Black should play 23 ... 'ii'd4! 24 'ii'xd4 l:txd4, l:.aS in mind. when, for example, 2S l:ta3 l:tb8 26 l:txaS .i.d3 10 ••• �b7 leaves White a pawn up after 27 lt::lcS l'hb2 28 I O ... �e7 l l lt::lc4 0-0 12 e4! (only now, when
l:ta8+ �h7 29 l:tf8, although this can result in developed) 1 2 ... cxd4 1 3 eS lt::ldS 14 lt::lxd4 �b7
endings that are very hard to win. 1S 'ii'g4 and now instead of 1 S ... l:te8?! 1 6 �h6
b22) 2 l ...'ii'b6 22 'ii'c2 g6 23 b3 f6! 24 exf6 �f8 1 7 l:tad 1 ± Shariyazdanov-Giertz, Biel

'ii'xd6 2S lbe6 'ii'f4 26 f7+! �g7 27 .:.xg6+! 1 999, 1 S ... g6 or 1 S ... lt::lcS would lose the ex
hxg6 28 lt::le6+ �xf7 29 lt::lxf4 lt::lxf4 30 h3 t change after 1 6 �h6, for which Black gets

Avrukh; Black has good activity, so this may some, but not full, compensation. not amount to much. ll lt::lc4 �e7 12 e4 cxd4

1 2 ... 0-0 1 3 eS lt::ldS 14 �c2 ( 1 4 'ii'e2!? cxd4

4.33232) l S 'ii'e4 g6 16 'ii'xd4 may be objectively best)

14 ... l:.c8?! (premature; 14 .. .'ii'c7 l S �gS also

9 a4 (D) gives White a pleasant attacking set-up accord

This gets an ' ! ' from Raetsky. Although I like ing to Raetsky, but 14 ... cxd4 l S 'i!Vxd4!? l:tc8 16

9 e4, this is less forcing and affords White more 'iV g4 g6 1 7 �h6 l:.e8 1 8 a5 produces chances for
choices. both sides) 1 S 'ii'd3 g6 16 �h6 l:te8 17 a5 ! ? 'ii'c7

(Sashikiran-Markowski, Moscow 2004) and
here 1 8 �a4! t would avoid a tactical melee.

13 eS lt::ldS 14 �gS! 0-0 15 lt::ld6! �xgS

B 1 S ... lt::lcS 1 6 �xe7 'ii'xe7 17 �xh7+! �xh7

1 8 'ii'c2+ �g8 1 9 'ii'xcS ±.

16 lt::lxb7

White stands better. Shariyazdanov-Ruste
mov, Nizhny Novgorod 1 998 went 16 ... 'ii'e7 1 7

�e4! �h6 1 8 �xdS ! ( 1 8 'ii'xd4 lt::lxeS 1 9 �xdS
exdS 20 l:txeS 'ii'xb7 21 l:txdS ;\;) 1 8 ... exdS 1 9
lt::laS ! "and White has maintained his advantage
thanks to Black's weak d-pawns and the awk
wardly placed bishop on h6" (Scherbakov,
whose analysis proved invaluable in this sec
tion).

5 Slav Defence

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 designation of this chapter as the 'Slav De

This is the Slav Defence, one of the most ef fence' indicates that Black doesn't play ... e6
fective d-pawn defences. Black stakes out a di before bringing his queen's bishop out or play
rect claim to the centre and secures it in a way ing ... dxc4. that only minimally restricts his development. Here are the major sections of this chapter:

That is, he leaves a diagonal open for his light 5.1: 3 ... dxc4 87 squared bishop, a piece which is the bane of 5.2: 3 ... e5 90 his existence in the Queen's Gambit Declined 5.3: 3 ... lt:Jf6 9 1 lines. The price for this is to deny the theoreti
cally ideal square c6 to his knight, but in most Again, 3 .. . e6 enters into the realm of the
lines d7 is not a bad substitute. Perhaps the Semi-Slav and will be treated in the following
main drawback of 2 ... c6 is that in a I d4 d5 chapter. As with every opening, Black has other
opening, the ... c5 break is one of Black's best available moves, but most of them don't make
weapons, and here it takes two moves to achieve. much sense. For one thing, White is getting

3 lt:Jc3 (D) ready to play e4, either immediately or after 4
lt:Jf3. The most sensible irregular alternative is

3 ... a6, which fits in well if White plays the Ex

change Variation with 4 cxd5 and can easily

B transpose into the Chebanenko Slav (see Sec
tion 5.34 below). Many players answer 3 ... a6
with 4 tt:'lf3 or 4 e3, trying to transpose into fa
miliar lines, and in our case the latter would be
a sound and conservative way to enter into the
basic structure with which we'll be operating.

Still, the reason that 3 ... a6 isn't more popular
must be the forthright 4 e4, when after 4 ... dxe4

5 lt:Jxe4, strong players have actually used two
moves to justify their third-move extravagance:

a) 5 ... .1i.f5 6 lt:Jg3 .i.g6 7 tt:'lf3 tt:'ld7 occurred
in Hernando Rodrigo-Roos, French Team Ch

I'm going to recommend this move in order 2002/3 and several other contests. It seems to
to reach the desired main lines without running me that the normal Caro-Kann sequence 8 h4
into some very difficult and highly theoretical h6 9 h5 .i.h7 10 .i.d3 .i.xd3 I I 'ili'xd3 favours
lines which can stem from 3 tt:'lf3 (White's most White, because although ... a6 isn't useless here,
popular move). The goal is to reduce Black's I think c4 is more valuable. options in the Slav and to meet the Semi-Slav b) 5 ... e5?! 6 dxe5 'ili'a5+ (6 ... 'ili'xd l + 7 'it>xd l

(where Black plays ... e6 on move 3 or 4) with Ji.f5 8 .i.d3 gives Black no compensation) of
an 'Anti-Meran' system. That is, we are aiming fers White a pleasant choice between 7 .i.d2
for the position that can arise from either 3 lt:Jc3 'ili'xe5 8 .i.d3 f5 9 tt:'lf3 ! (9 .i.c3 ?! 'ili'e6 I 0 'ili'h5+
tt:'lf6 4 e3 e6 5 lt:Jf3 or 3 tt:'lc3 e6 4 e3 tt:'lf6 5 lt:Jf3. g6 I I 'ili'e2 fxe4 1 2 'ili'xe4 tt:'lf6 was about equal

That position won't actually be dealt with until in Ward-Velicka, Maidstone 1 994) 9 ... 'ile7 10
the next chapter, so this chapter will be explor 0-0 fxe4 I I .i.xe4, a piece sacrifice for a massive
ing the many alternatives that Black has to go attack, or 7 lt:Jc3 'ili'xe5+ 8 .i.e2, establishing a
ing into the Semi-Slav. For the most part, my comfortable advantage; e.g., 8 ... lt:Jf6 (8 ... .1i.g4 9

SLAV DEFENCE 87

..te3 !) 9 lt:lf3 'ii'd6 10 'ii'c2 ..te7 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 5 a4 l:f.dl 'ii'c7 1 3 g3 with the idea ..tf4. I think that the obscure 5 e5 is very interest
ing and much better than most gambits of this

5.1) type. Without going into the many issues and
variations, you will note that one obvious chal

3 ... dxc4 lenge is 5 ... ..tf5, developing the bishop before

This seeks to highlight a drawback to 3 lt:lc3: playing ... e6, to which White should reply 6 a4

Black can grab a pawn, and White has to reor (6 g4! ? ..tg6 7 ..tg2 is also possible) 6 ... b4 7
ganize at the cost of time to recover it. lt:lce2 ..td3 (7 ... e6 8 lt:lg3 ;t; and the c4-pawn

4 e4 (D) falls; 7 ... 'ii'a5 8 lt:lg3 ..te6 9 lt:lf3 ..td5 1 0 ..te2

Seizing the centre is thematic, although some e6 l l lt:ld2! ? c3 1 2 lt:lc4 ..txc4 1 3 ..txc4 lt:le7 14
leading players have had considerable success bxc3 bxc3 15 lt:le4 lt:ld5 1 6 0-0 ;!;; 7 ... lt:ld7 8 of late with 4 e3 b5 5 a4 b4 6 lt:le4 'ii'd5 7 lt:lg3, lt:\g3 ..te6 9 lt:lf3 ..i.d5 1 0 lt:ld2 c3 1 1 bxc3 bxc3
and upon 7 ... lt:lf6, 8 ..te2!. This is worth investi 12 lt:Jde4 ;!;) 8 e6! (8 lt:lh3 e6 9 lt:lhf4 ..te4 1 0
gating if you're not satisfied with what follows. lt:\g3 ..td5 1 1 .i.e2 i s worth a pawn but unclear)

8 ... fxe6 9 lt:lf4 ..txfl (9 ... 'ii'xd4 10 lt:lxd3 cxd3

1 1 ..txd3 'ii'd5 1 2 lt:lf3 is also very good for

White) 1 0 �xfl ; e.g., 10 ... 'ii'd6 l l lt:lf3 intend

B ing 'ii'e2 and White has the better of the situa
tion.

5 ... b4

Again Black can try 5 ... e5, but for one thing,

I think White can play the nice piece sacrifice 6
axb5 ! (6 lt:lf3 exd4 7 'ii'xd4 �xd4 8 lt:lxd4
transposes to note 'a' to Black's 4th move
above) 6 ... exd4 (6 ... cxb5? 7 lt:lxb5 ±; 6 ... �xd4

7 lt:lf3 ! 'ii'xd 1 + 8

'ii'd3 ! (9 ... lt:lf6 1 0 e5 ±) 10 bxc3 ! �xe4+ 1 1
lt:le2 lt:lf6 1 2 l:ta4! �e5 1 3 ..tf4 'ii'xb5 1 4 .l:.b4

4 ... b5 ±.

4 ... e5 is a reasonable counter in the centre 6 lt:lce2 (D) but Black will end up slightly worse in a posi This is the most ambitious move, because
tion where he isn't doing much: 5 lt:lf3 exd4 6 White delays getting his pawn back to put his

'ii'xd4 (or 6 lt:lxd4 b5 7 ..te2 ;!;) with the idea pieces on active squares. In particular, this

6 ... 'ii'xd4 7 lt:lxd4. Then: knight will usually go to g3 to protect the e
a) 7 ... b5 8 a4 (8 ..tf4!? ;!;) 8 ... b4 9 lt:ldl ..ta6 pawn, although occasionally it goes to f4 or d4,

I 0 f3 ! .i.c5 ( 1 0 ... lt:lf6 1 1 ..te3 lt:lfd7 1 2 J:c 1 ;!;) or even returns to c3 ! For those who find this

1 1 .i.e3 lt:\e 7 1 2 lt:lxc6! .i.xe3 1 3 lt:lxe 7 .i.b6 1 4 move unsatisfactory, you can get your pawn
lt:ld5 with the idea lt:\ 1 e3 and ..txc4. back straightaway with 6 lt:la2 lt:lf6 7 e5 lt:ld5 8
b) 7 ... lt:lf6 8 f3 (the book move, but 8 ..txc4! ..txc4, when Black is able to equalize with the
with the idea 8 ... b5 9 ..te2! may be better; e.g., plan ... a5 and ... ..ta6, but there's an interesting

9 ... b4 10 e5 ! lt:\g4 1 1 lt:le4 lt:lxe5 1 2 .i.f4 f6 1 3 game ahead . .i.h5+ �d8 1 4 0-0 b7 1 6 llfdl 6 ... e6 and Black is suffering in lines such as 1 6 ... a5 1 7 a) Sometimes 6 ... lt:lf6 is played first. There
lt:lb5 ! with the idea 1 7 ... cxb5 1 8 ..txe5 fxe5 1 9 can follow 7 lt:lg3 ..ta6 (7 ... e5 ! ? 8 ..txc4! 'ii'xd4

..tf3 ±) 8 ... ..tc5 (8 ... b5 9 a4 b4 10 lt:ldl ..ta6 is 9 �b3 'ii'd7 10 ..te3 ! is quite strong), and apart
only slightly better for White; e.g., 1 1 ..te3 from 8 lt:lf3 e6, transposing into our main line,
lt:lfd7 ! 1 2 l:f.c 1 c5 ! 1 3 lt:lb5 ..txb5 1 4 axb5 lt:lb6) White can play the dramatic attack 8 e5 lt:ld5 9

9 ..te3 lt:\bd7 I 0 ..txc4 0-0 1 1 e6! ?. Whether or not that works, Black has no

;!; ECO. reason to give White the extra option. 88 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

This looks natural, although Black can aiso

delay the development of this piece:

8 a) 7 ... c5 8 lt:lg3 cxd4 9 .txc4 .ta6 10 'fi'd3 !?

(10 .i.b5+! .txb5 1 1 axb5 .tc5 12 0-0 ;\;, with
the idea 1 2 ... lt:le7 1 3 lt:lh5 ! 0-0? 14 .th6! gxh6

I S 'fi'c l +-) 1 0 ... 1i'c8 (after IO ... .i.xc4! I l 'fi'xc4
lt:ld7, Black's position is only marginally worse)

I I .tb5+ .txb5 1 2 'fi'xb5+ lt:ld7 1 3 lt:lxd4 ;\; Nikolic-Van Wely, Dutch Ch, Rotterdam 1 999.

b) 7 ... ..ia6 8 lt:lg3 c5 (after 8 ... lt:ld7 9 .i.e2
lt:lgf6 10 0-0 .i.e7 I I �c2 c5, as in Ward

N.Berry, British League (4NCL) 2002/3, I think

1 2 d5 exd5 1 3 e5 is good, intending 1 3 ... lt:lg8

14 lt:lf5 g6 1 5 lt:le3 ! ; Black is three pawns up,
b) 6 ... e5 7 lt:lf3 lt:lf6!? 8 lt:lg3 (8 lt:lxe5 lt:lxe4 but after either the c- or d-pawn falls, his posi

9 lt:lf4 li:ld6 10 lt:lxc4 is also good) 8 ... exd4 9 tion will be a mess) 9 d5 !? (but this seems a little

.i.xc4 and White will win the d-pawn back with crazy ! On the other hand, the World Champion
advantage, even in the case of 9 ... -tcS 1 0 e5 is playing White) 9 ... .te7? ! (9 ... exd5 10 exd5
li:ld5 I I lt:le4. lt:lf6 I I ..ig5 ! 'fi'xd5 1 2 'itxd5 lt:lxd5 1 3 0-0-0
c) 6 ... .ta6 7 lt:lf3 and now 7 ... e6 transposes h6! is murky; maybe 1 4 lle l + .te7 1 5 .txe7
to note 'b' to Black's 7th move below, while lt:lxe7 l 6 lt:lf5 lt:lbc6 l 7 lle4! follows) 1 0 .tf4

7 ... lt:lf6 8 lt:lg3 e6 brings us back to the main exd5 I I 'fi'xd5 ( I I exd5 ;\;) l l ...�xd5 1 2 exd5 line. lt:lh6 1 3 0-0-0 0-0 14 .txh6 gxh6 1 5 lt:lf5 .tf6
d) 6 ... a5 7 lt:lf3 lt:lf6 8 lt:lg3 .ta6 9 lt:le5 1 6 lt:lxh6+ �g7 1 7 lt:lf5+ �g6 1 8 g4 with a nice
lt:lbd7 I 0 .txc4!? (or 1 0 lt:lxc4 with a slight ad advantage for White, Anand-Vallejo Pons, Sao
vantage for White) I O ... lt:lxe5 I I ..ixa6 l:ha6 Paulo/Bilbao 20l l .

1 2 'fi'e2! 'itc8 ( 1 2 ... li:lf3+ 1 3 'fi'xf3 'fi'xd4 14 8 lt:lg3 .ta6 (D) 0-0 with ideas of lld I and .i.f4) 13 dxe5 lt:ld7

1 4 e6 ( 1 4 0-0 lt:lxe5 1 5 .tf4 gives White a solid

advantage) 14 ... fxe6 1 5 e5 g6 1 6 h4! (prevent
ing ... g5) 1 6 ... .tg7 1 7 f4 h5?! ( 1 7 ... c5) 1 8 'i¥d3 w �f7 1 9 lt:le4 .th6 20 .te3 lld8 2 1 lld I ±

Sulskis-Simonet Pons, Khanty-Mansiisk Olym
piad 20 1 0.

7 lt:lf3 (D)

8

9 .i.gS This is the most popular move. White wants
to get his pawn back by llc I , but at the same
time to exert pressure on the dark squares, e.g.

by e5 or lt:lh5. Still, other moves may be as good:

a) 9 'fi'c2 has been played a fair amount;
e.g.:

a l ) 9 ... b3 !? 10 1i'c3 .td6 l l .txc4 .txg3 1 2

7 •.• lt:lf6 hxg3 lt:lxe4 1 3 1i'xb3 �aS+ 1 4 .td2 .txc4 1 5

SLAV DEFENCE 89

�xc4 gave White a very slight edge in Zude

S.Haslinger, Palma de Mallorca 2009.

a2) 9 ... 'fia5 1 0 �d2 c3 1 1 bxc3 �xfl 1 2 w tt::lxfl bxc3 1 3 �xc3 'iVa6 and now 1 4 tt::lg3

1h-1h was the finish of Khalifman-Riazantsev, Russian Team Ch, Sochi 2004, but 1 4 tt::le3 fol
lowed by tt::ld2-c4 was a thought.

a3) 9 ... tt::lbd7 I 0 �xc4 �xc4 I I 'if xc4 c5 12

0-0 �e7 13 d5 ! exd5 1 4 exd5 tt::lb6 15 'iib5+

�d7 and now 1 6 tt::lf5 was advantageous in
l.Farago-Doric, Paracin 20 1 1 , but 1 6 d6! would
be more so.

b) I like the move 9 �f4 (D), which devel ops, prepares l:!.c I , and stays away from simpli
fications: bxc3 bxc3 1 3 �xf6 gxf6 1 4 tt::le2 t; for exam
ple, 14 ... �a3 1 5 .l:tc2 'fixa4 1 6 0-0 �b2 1 7

'fib I fibs ( 1 7 ... 'fiM 1 8 tt::le 1 ) 1 8 d5 ! ( 1 8 tt::lxc3 �xc3 19 .l:txc3 'iVxb I 20 .l:txb I t) 1 8 ... exd5

B ( 1 8 ... cxd5?? 1 9 tt::lxc3 'iVa5 20 tt::lxd5 exd5 2 1

.l:.c8+) 1 9 tt::lfd4 ( 19 exd5 is another possibility)

1 9 ... 'ifa5 ( 1 9 ... 'fib4 20 exd5 t) 20 'iVe l ! 'ii'c5 2 1 tt::lf5 dxe4 22 tt::leg3 ± and not only is the f5-
square monstrous, but capture on e4 looms.

b) l O ... b3+ wins the a-pawn yet it doesn't
appear to equalize: 1 1 �d2 'iVxa4 12 .:tal ! 'iVb5

1 3 tt::le5 'iVb6 1 4 �c3 �b4 1 5 �xc4 with a
modest but workable advantage.

10 ... tt::lbd7 a) I O ... b3+ I I �d2 �b4 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 .:te l

'fixa4 14 �xc4 t (Ward).

For example, 9 ... c3 (9 ... c5 1 0 .:te l c3 1 1 b) 10 ... c3 1 1 bxc3 �xe2 12 'fixe2 bxc3 1 3 �xa6 tt::lxa6 12 bxc3 bxc3 1 3 0-0 cxd4 1 4 0-0 tt::lbd7 (Moiseenko-Van Haastert, European tt::lxd4 .l:tc8 1 5 tt::lb5 t ; 9 .. . 'iVa5 1 0 �e2 b3+ 1 1 Clubs Cup, Plovdiv 201 0) and now White has
tt::ld2 t) 1 0 bxc3 �xfl I I �xfl bxc3 1 2 'iib3 14 .l:tfbl ! �e7 1 5 �xf6 �xf6 1 6 'iic4. a5 ! 1 3 'iVxc3 �b4 14 'iVc2 0-0 1 5 h4 'iVb6 1 6 11 0-0 h6 .l:td 1 h6 1 7 .l:th3 tt::lbd7 1 8 �g1 ( 1 8 e5 tt::ld5 1 9 l l ...c3 1 2 �xa6!? cxb2 1 3 �b7 bxai'iV 14
tt::lh5 ! tt::lxf4 20 tt::lxf4 t) 1 8 ... .l:tfd8 1 9 e5 tt::ld5 20 'iVxal .l:td8 1 5 �xc6 h6 1 6 �xf6 gxf6 1 7 d5
tt::lh5 �f8 2 1 .l:tg3 �h8 22 'iVc I 'iib4 23 tt::lxg7 ! (Ward, citing Gelfand) 1 7 ... �e7 is strongly met

�xg7 24 �xh6 .l:tg8 25 �d2! 'fie7 26 .:tel by 1 8 e5 !? �f8 1 9 �xd7 .l:txd7 20 dxe6 fxe6 2 1

:ab8 27 tt::lg5 �h6 28 'ii'd I f6 29 exf6 tt::l7xf6 exf6. 30 .l:txe6 �d7 3 1 .l:td6! with three pawns for the 12 �xf6 gxf6 piece and an ongoing attack. At this point, a couple of games continued

9 ••• 'iVa5 (D) 1 3 'fie I tt::lb6 1 4 tt::ld2 0-0-0 1 5 �xc4 tt::lxc4 1 6

9 ... �e7 10 e5 ( 1 0 �xf6 .i.xf6 I I .:c i t) tt::lxc4 'fic7 with obscure play. A s we have im

1 0 ... tt::ld5 I I �xe7 'iVxe7 1 2 tt::le4 0-0 1 3 tt::lc5 ! t provements in this variation for White above,

(Ward). I'll just mention that another way to play this is

10 �e2 1 3 tt::ld2 tt::lb6 14 .:te l !? 'fixa4 15 'fie l ; e.g.,

1 0 .l:tc I is probably objectively better: 1 5 ... b3 16 .:tal 'iVb5 17 'iVc l 0-0-0 18 tt::lxb3
a) 1 0 ... c3 (Fridman-Milman, Minneapolis �b7 1 9 tba5. But you will probably do better

2005) can be answered by 1 1 �xa6! 'fixa6 by choosing one of the alternatives on move 9

( l l ...cxb2? 1 2 �b7; I l ...tt::lxa6 1 2 0-0 t) 1 2 or 1 0.

90 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

5.2) Or:

a) 7 ... .1i.c5 8 b4 .li.e7 9 tiJf3 �d6 I O c5 �d8

3 ... eS (D) I I .li.f4 ± Mozetic-Pajkovic, Yugoslav Team

Ch, lgalo 1 994.

b) 7 ... .1i.e6 8 tiJf3 �c5 9 a3 (after 9 b4 �xc4

1 0 e3 d3, as in Hiibner-Hertneck, Bundesliga
w 1 993/4, among other moves, I I .l:.c I ! �xa2 I 2

.li.xd3 gives White more than enough compen
sation for a pawn) 9 ... tiJf6 (9 ... ..txc4 10 .l:.c i

�d5 I I tiJxd4!; 9 ... �xc4 1 0 e3 'ii'd5 I I t2Jxd4

±) 1 0 e3 dxe3 I I ..txe3 �d6 I 2 �e2 ( 1 2 ..te2

'i!i'xd i + I 3 .l:.xd i !; I 2 tiJg5) 1 2 ... tiJbd7 1 3 .l:.d l �c7 I 4 �d2 0-0-0 I 5 .li.f4 �b6 16 b4 ±.

c) 7 ... c5 (yet another pawn move) 8 ll:lf3

�c7 9 e3 (D) favours White's development; e.g.:

This central advance is known as the Wina-
wer Countergambit. It turns out that Black B doesn't give up the pawn for very long, but he
can burn up valuable time recovering it.

4 dxeS

A very safe way to play is 4 e3 e4 ( 4 ... exd4 5

�xd4 tiJf6 6 tiJf3 is a reversed A lapin Sicilian)

with a reversed Advance French; e.g., 5 .i.d2
tiJf6 6 tiJh3 !? or 5 tiJge2. If you don't like the
main line, 4 cxd5 cxd5 5 dxe5 d4 6 t2Je4 �a5+

7 tiJd2 will also give White a small but sure ad
vantage.

4 ... d4 S ttJe4 �aS+ 6 .i.d2 �xeS 7 tiJg3 (D)

c I ) 9 ... tiJc6 1 0 exd4 cxd4 I I ..td3 .i.d6

( l l ...g6 I 2 0-0 .li.g7 I 3 'i!i'c I ! ..tg4 I4 .i.f4 'i!i'd7

1 5 .l:.e I + tiJge7 I 6 tiJe5 ± Anton-Grodzensky,

B corr. I 998) l 2 0-0 t2Jge7 I 3 'i!i'c2 ( 1 3 c5 ! is
stronger, with the idea l 3 ... ..tf4 14 ..txf4 'i!i'xf4

I 5 tDe2 or I 3 ... ..txc5 I 4 .l:.c i ..tb6?! I 5 b4 a6

16 a4 +-) I 3 ... .1i.g4 I 4 tiJg5 h6 I 5 tiJ5e4 ;l;;

..tb4? I 6 h3 ..td7 I 7 c5 ! ± Agrest-Hector, Mal
mo I 993.

c2) 9 ... dxe3 lO ..txe3 ( 1 0 'i!i'e2! is a nice
move, with 0-0-0, �xe3 and .i.c3 in mind)

I O ... tiJf6 I I .i.d3 i.e7 I 2 0-0 0-0 I 3 �d2!?

tiJc6 I 4 i.f4 �b6 I5 .l:.fe i .l:.d8 (Rustemov

Litvinov, Minsk I 993) I 6 �c3 !.

8 tiJf3 �d6 9 'i!i'c2 (D)

White is about to gain another free tempo on White is simply going to play 0-0-0, e3 and
the queen with tiJf3. Black is counting upon his i.c3, breaking up the centre and opening lines.

cramping d4-pawn and the fact that White has 9 ... i.e7 little pawn-presence in the centre. 9 ... c5 is slow, as in similar positions: I O e3

7 ... tiJf6 ( I 0 0-0-0 tiJc6 I I e3 .li.g4 1 2 exd4 ;l;; is also

SLA V DEFENCE 91

l:tdl f4 27 l:td6 l:te l +?! 28 'iti>c2 l:te6 29 l2Je4

l:txd6 30 �xd6 ±.

8 12 e3 l2Jc6 13 exd4

1 3 'iti>b l might be more accurate, to get Black
to commit.

13 ••• cxd4 14 l2Jxd4 l2Jb4 (D)

w

played, with the idea 1 2 ... �xf3? 1 3 :te l + i...e7

J 4 l2Jf5) I O ... dxe3 I I �xe3 l2Jc6 1 2 i...e2 'it'e6

1 3 0-0 �e7 1 4 l:tad l 0-0 1 5 l:tfe l with a solid
advantage in Bumier-Zindel, Lenzerheide 201 0,
which only increased after l 5 ... l:td8? 1 6 l:txd8+
l2Jxd8 1 7 �d3 'ifh6 1 8 �g5.

10 0-0-0 0-0 11 �c3

The best move, I think. I I e3 dxe3 1 2 i...c3 Arlandi-Ortega, Imperia 1 996. Now 1 5 'iib3 !

( 1 2 �xe3 ;!;) 1 2 ... 'it'c7 1 3 fxe3 has also been 'ii'f4+ 1 6 'iti>b I a5 ( 1 6 ... l2Ja6 1 7 'ii'c2 l:td8 1 8
popular, an idea first played by Garry Kasparov, 'ii'd2!) 1 7 �d2 �g4 1 8 �f3 ! l:td8 1 9 �c3
who noticed that for control of Black's only 'ii'g6+ 20 �d3 l2Jxd3 21 'iixd3 leaves White
outpost on d4, it might be worth taking on an with an extra pawn for very little compensa
isolated pawn. tion.

ll ... c5

After l l ...'ii'f4+ 1 2 e3 ! dxe3 1 3 fxe3 'it'xe3+ 5.3) ( l 3 ... 'it'c7? is the Kasparov position from the
previous note, but here it's White's move!) 1 4 3 .•. l2Jf6 4 e3 (D) 'iti>bl , White has sacrificed a pawn for develop
ment and an attack. After �d3 and l:the l , every

white piece will be active. This is an emergency
situation for Black, who must strike back im B mediately with l 4 ... l2Ja6 ! 1 5 l2Jd4 l2Jb4 (or
l 5 ... i...b4 I 6 l2Jdf5 �xf5 l 7 l2Jxf5 'ii'e6 1 8 �d3

�xc3 1 9 'it'xc3 c5 20 l:the l �b6 21 l:te3 ! ± with
a menacing attack, Azmaiparashvili-Eslon, Se
ville 1 994) 16 'ir'a4 b5 !, and here I like 1 7 'it'a5

( 1 7 'it'b3 works in most lines, but Black might
be alright after l 7 ... �c5 1 8 �xb4 'it'xb3 1 9
axb3 �xb4 20 l2Jxc6 �c5 !) 1 7 ... l2Je4 ( l 7 ... c5

1 8 l:te l ! �d8 1 9 �xb5 �h6 20 'iVxc5 'ii'g6+ 2 1

'iti>al a5 22 �e2 with a nice edge) 1 8 �xb4

�xb4 ( l 8 ... c5? 1 9 l2Jc2) 1 9 �xb4 l2Jf2 ( 1 9 ... c5

20 �b3 l2Jd2+ 2 1 l:txd2 �xd2 22 l2Jf3 ±) 20 This is our path to the Semi-Slav Anti-Meran l2Jc2 �h6 2 1 �e2 �e6 22 l2Jd4 l2Jxd I 23 �xd I Variation, which we will use not only because

�xc4 24 �f3 and once White wins one of the it's a less complicated way to meet the Slav
pawns back, the two pieces will be clearly supe than other main lines, but also because it lends
rior to the rook; e.g., 24 ... l:tae8 25 l2Jxc6 f5 26 itself to strategic positional play. In playing this 92 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

move, we are consciously avoiding 4 l2Jf3 dxc4, strong players using this line. Nevertheless, de
the main line of the Slav, and 4 l2Jf3 e6 5 .i.g5, a velopment has its place in chess and White
main line of the Semi-Slav whose main lines should come out with a small advantage. At any
involve tactics requiring a book or two to de rate, there aren't other good answers to the
scribe! Now we examine: threat of 7 �xb7: 5.31: 4 .•• .i.f5 92 a) After 6 ... b6? 7 .i.b5+ .i.d7 8 l2Jxd5 .i.xb5 5.32: 4 ... .i.g4 93 9 l2Jxf6+ exf6 1 0 'ii'xb5+ Black loses a pawn for 5.33: 4 .•. g6 94 nothing. 5.34: 4 ... a6 97 b) 6 ... �d7?! 7 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 (7 ... e6 8 .i.b5 ! l2Jc6

9 l2Je5 �c7 1 0 �a4 :c8 1 1 �xa7 ± Kozul

The move 4 ... e6 is covered in Chapter 6 Sutkovic, Bizovac 2001 ) 8 l2Je5 ! (8 .i.b5 a6 9

(Section 6.2 to be precise). l2Je5 �c8 1 0 .i.xc6+ bxc6 1 1 l2Ja4 ;\;) 8 ... �c8

(8 .. .'ii'c7 9 .i.b5 e6 10 �a4) 9 f3 (9 .i.b5 e6 10

5.31) �a4) 9 ... e6 1 0 g4 .i.g6 I I h4 ±.

c) 6 ... �b6?! is the most challenging line: 7

4 ... .i.f5 l2Jxd5 l2Jxd5 (7 ... �xb3 8 l2Jxf6+ exf6 9 axb3 !)

Black's problems would be over if he could 8 �xd5 �b4+ (8 ... e6 9 �b5+) 9 .i.d2! (Prie
successfully develop this bishop. Fortunately likes 9 �d 1 ' !' , when after 9 ... .i.d7 10 l2Jf3 or
for us, the move has a drawback. 1 0 �c4 White holds the pawn; this gives an ad

5 cxd5 cxd5 vantage but maybe it's not worth leaving your

5 ... l2Jxd5 gives up the centre, so White can king in the centre if there's an alternative)

play slowly; e.g., 6 .i.d3 (6 f3 l2Jxc3 7 bxc3 e5 ! 9 ... �xb2 1 0 :c l .i.d7 1 l lDf3 (White has won

8 .i.d3 .i.xd3 9 �xd3 l2Jd7 I 0 lLle2 !) 6 ... .i.xd3 some pretty games with this, and the computer

7 �xd3 e6 8 l2Jf3 .i.e7 9 e4 l2Jxc3 1 0 bxc3 !. move 1 1 �e4! is also good after 1 l ...f5 1 2 �b1

6 �b3 (D) �xb1 1 3 :xb1 b6 1 4 l2Jf3 e6 1 5 .i.c4) 1 l ...e6

12 �c4 l2Ja6 1 3 l2Je5 ! :c8 14 �xc8+ .i.xc8 1 5

.l:!.xc8+ �e7 1 6 .i.xa6 bxa6, and here Prie finds
the nice 1 7 0-0! ( 1 7 .i.a5 ! ? ;\;) 1 7 ... 'ii'xd2 1 8

B :c7+ �e8 ( 1 8 ... �d6? 1 9 :d7# is cute!), when

I think 1 9 :b1 is a little more accurate than his

19 :fc l ?! due to 1 9 ... .i.b4 20 h3 a5 2 1 :be l

.i.d6 22 :7c2, when all Black has are bad
choices.

7 l2Jf3 (D) White has played various moves here, in
cluding 7 f4 and 7 .i.b5+ l2Jc6 8 l2Jf3 e6 with

.i.d2 or l2Je5. Fressinet-Vernay, European Ch,

Aix-les-Bains 201 1 saw a typical build-up for

White with f4 in which he doesn't occupy e5
for a while so that a knight can't be exchanged:

The point. It's not easy to defend b7. 7 .i.d3 e6 8 f4 l2Jc6 9 l2Jf3 .i.e7 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1

6 ... .i.c8! .i.d2 g6 (weakening; it's probably better to pro

This move doesn't really deserve an ' ! ' , as it tect b7 and play l l ...b6 1 2 :ac l .i.d7, but then
is virtually forced. But it's got more going for 1 3 l2Je5 gains in effect) 1 2 nac 1 .i.d7 1 3 l2Je5
it than in most cases where you move a piece (now that his pieces are out and Black has
twice to return it to its original square. To be slightly weakened his kingside dark squares)

gin with, once e3 has been played and White's 1 3 ... l2Ja5 1 4 'ili'd 1 :c8 1 5 'ii'e2 l2Jc6 1 6 'i!Vf3 !.

dark-squared bishop is hemmed in, then the 7 •.. l2Jc6 pawn exchange by cxd5 cxd5 is something In Grishchuk-Prie, French Team Ch 2005,

Black welcomes. In addition, White's queen one of the world's leading players found a
isn't ideally placed on b3. Thus we find pretty unique plan against an attempt to create a very

SLA V DEFENCE 93

8 8

solid set-up: 7 ... e6 8 i..d3 (8 lt:Je5 tt::lc6 trans much better in view of 1 8 :an .:xf3 19 .:xf3
poses to the text) 8 ... tt::lc6 9 0-0 i..e7 1 0 e4! ? (I and again the attack on g6 is too strong because
like this, although naturally 10 ..td2 with the if needed tt::lf4 and .:g3 will chip in to make it
idea .:ac 1 and lt:Je5 is playable and not as dull succeed. as it might at first appear) 10 ... dxe4 1 1 tt::lxe4 12 i..d2 lt:Jdxe5 13 fxe5 i..d7 14 .:r3 0-0 1 2 i..e3. We have a more-or-less standard Sadler-S.Emst, Oslo 20 1 1 . White has more
isolated-pawn position in which White has at space, which results in Black never being able
any rate more opportunities than his opponent to equalize: 14 ... tt::lb4 1 5 i..e2 a5 1 6 a3 a4 1 7
to undertake positive strategies. 'ii'd I tt::lc6 1 8 i..d3 g6 19 'ii'e2 f6? (Black i s un

8 lt:Je5 derstandably wary of White's mounting king

The Grishchuk plan might go 8 i..d3 e6 9 0-0 side attack after l 9 ... tt::la5 20 :an , but that's
i.e 7 1 0 e4 dxe4 I I tt::lxe4 0-0 1 2 .U.d I . better than this further weakening of the posi

8 ... e6 9 f4 tion) 20 exf6 .l:r.xf6 2 1 l:tan 'it>g7 22 i.e I ! .:xf3

This Stonewall position is typical and rather 23 'ii'xf3 i..f6 24 i..g3 tt::la5? ! 25 i..c7 ! 'ii'e7 26
better for White. i..d6 'ii'd8 27 i..c7 'ii'e7 28 i..d6 'ii'd8 29 h4!

9 ••• i..e7 tt::lc6 30 h5 i..e8 3 1 h6+ 1 -0.

9 ... lt:Jd7 10 i..d3 lt:Jdxe5 I I fxe5 i..e7 1 2 0-0
f6 1 3 exf6 i..xf6 14 i..d2 i..d7 1 5 a3 0-0?! 1 6 5 .32) .:f3 ( 1 6 tt::lxd5 !? exd5 1 7 'ii'xd5+ 'ifi>h8 1 8 'ii'h5
g6 1 9 i..xg6 is messy but ultimately nice for 4 ••• i..g4 (D) White) 1 6 ... i..e8 1 7 :an 'f/e7 1 8 'ii'c2 g6 With this infrequently-played move, Black (Korotylev-Komliakov, Moscow 1999) and now again tries to bring his bishop out in front of the

1 9 i.e 1 ! with the idea of i..g3 activates White's pawn-chain he is constructing. last non-contributing piece.

10 i..d3 0-0 11 0-0 (D)

l l ... lt:Jd7
l l ...tt::lxe5 l 2 fxe5 tt::ld7 13 'ii'c2 g6 ( 1 3 ... f5 !?)

1 4 i..d2 a6 1 5 tt::le2 tt::lb8 1 6 .:f3 and after

1 6 ... tt::lc6 1 7 :an , as played in Volkov-P.Cram
ling, Stockholm 2004, White first expanded on
the queenside and eventually drifted over for a
decisive kingside attack. Aagaard says that

1 6 .. .f5 must be played or the position is strate
gically lost. That's right in principle, but then

White wins with 1 7 exf6, when 1 7 ... ..txf6?

loses to 1 8 l:!.an followed by a sacrifice on g6 or
another tactical sequence, but 1 7 ... Itxf6 isn't 94 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

5 f3 gambit-style 9 b3 cxb3 10 axb3 also looks good;

This is a flexible set-up and both sides have a e.g., 1 0 ... i.g7 1 1 lt:'la4! lt:'lbd7 1 2 i.e2 b5 13
lot of possibilities. I' II try to cover the most im lt:'lxe6 fxe6 14 ltJc3 with clear compensation.

portant lines. 9 ••• ..tg7 10 h4

5 ••• ..te6 Or 1 0 g5 lt:'lh5 1 1 lt:'lxh5 gxh5 1 2 il.e3 0-0 1 3

Black can put this piece on a variety of re f4! i.g4 1 4 'i¥d2. treat-squares: 10 ••• h6 11 b3! cxb3 12 axb3 lt:'lbd7 13 lt:'lxe6
a) 5 ... i.c8 6 ..td3 e6 7 lt:'lge2 c5 8 cxd5 exd5 fxe6 14 e5 9 0-0 lt:'lc6 10 a3 i.e7 I I dxc5 ! ? i.xc5 1 2 b4 White stands well, based upon 14 ... lt:'ld5 ! 1 5
i.b6 1 3 lt:'la4 i.c7 14 i.b2 !; e.g., 14 ... 'i!Vd6 15 lt:'lxd5 exd5 1 6 i.d3 lt:'lf8 1 7 'i¥c2 'i!Ve6 1 8 i.e3,
f4 0-0 1 6 lt:'ld4 with a nice positional advantage: when Black is badly cramped.

1 6 ... lt:'lxd4 ( 1 6 ... lt:'lg4 ?! 1 7 'ii'd2; 1 6 ... 'i!Ve7?! 1 7
lt:'lxc6 bxc6 1 8 ..td4 lt:'le4 19 .l::tc 1 ±) 1 7 i.xd4 5.33) .l::te8 ( 1 7 ... b6 1 8 .l::tc l ±) 1 8 .l::tc l !.

b) 5 ... i.f5 6 'ifb3 (6 g4!?) 6 ... 11kb6?! (6 ... i.c8 4 ... g6 5 lt:'lf3 i.g7 (D) 7 cxd5 cxd5 8 i.d3 e6 can be met by 9 lt:'lge2, or

9 f4, transposing to the note to White's 7th
move in Section 5.3 1 , where White plays the
pawn to f4 directly) 7 cxd5 'i¥xb3 8 axb3 lt:'lxd5 w (8 ... cxd5 9 g4 ..te6 10 lt:'lb5 �d7 I I .l::txa7) 9 e4
lt:'lxc3 (9 ... lt:'lb4? 10 .l::ta4!) 1 0 bxc3 with a large
mobile centre and space; IO ... i.e6 can even be
answered with 1 1 i.d3 !.

c) 5 ... i.d7 6 i.d3 e6 7 lt:'lge2 c5 (thematic,
but Black is taking his time) 8 cxd5 exd5 9 0-0
lt:'lc6 10 �h i ( 1 0 a3 ! .l::tc8 I I ..tbl has the idea
of lt:'lf4 and/or ..ta2) IO ... ..te7 1 1 dxc5 ..txc5

(Kruppa-Shaw, Cappelle Ia Grande 2005) and
now 1 2 lt:'lf4 was proposed. 1 2 'ii'b3 ;!; is a good
alternative, because if Black plays 1 2 ... lt:'la5 1 3

�c2, he is less likely to enforce the freeing This is called the Schlechter Slav. It is known
move ... d4. above all for its solidity, with a light-square

We now return to 5 ... i.e6 (D): structure that can range from h7 to a6.

6 i.e2

Aronian likes to play 6 h3 here, preventing

... i.g4, and then i.d3. This strategy resembles
w that of the Queen's Gambit Exchange Variation
in that White takes squares away from Black's
light-squared bishop, trying to convert a piece
with a fine open diagonal into a liability.

The immediate 6 i.d3 has some advantages
and disadvantages compared to 6 i.e2, but in
any case notice that 6 ... dxc4 7 i.xc4 transposes
to the main line. Otherwise 6 ... 0-0 7 0-0 il.g4 8
h3 i.xf3 9 'ii'xf3 is a standard position in which

Black stands solidly, even if most players will
prefer having the bishop-pair. One example:

9 ... e6 10 l:f.d 1 lt:'lbd7 1 1 b3 .l::te8 1 2 i.b2 'i¥e7 1 3

6 lt:'lge2! dxc4 7 lt:'lf4 'i¥c8 8 e4 g6 9 g4!? i.fl h5 1 4 .l::tacl a6 (pawns on light squares

9 lt:'lxe6 �xe6 I 0 'i¥a4 b5 1 1 'i¥a5 ;!; is a sim across the board!) 1 5 l:tc2 b5 1 6 .l::tdc l lt:'lb6 1 7
ple forcing sequence, intending to play a4. The cxd5 cxd5 1 8 i.d3 lt:'lfd7 19 'ii'e2 ( 1 9 a4! ?)

SLAV DEFENCE 95

1 9 ... e5 20 dxe5 ..txe5 2 1 'iV d2 lbf6 22 a4 (or 22 14 l::tfc l lLla5 1 5 'ii'b4 lbd7 1 6 b3 ! ? ( 1 6 lba4 is
f4 ..td6 23 lbd 1 lbbd7 24 .l:.c6 with some real also good) 16 ... l::te8 1 7 lLla4 lbb 7 18 'ii'c3 ! b5
progress) 22 ... b4 23 lbe2 ;!; Cheremnova-Stoja 19 'flc7 ;!; Stohl-Haba, Budapest Zonal 1 993.

novic, Zurich 20 I 0. c) 7 ... lbbd7 8 b4 a6 9 a4 e6 (again, every

6 ... 0-0 7 0-0 (D) black pawn is on a light square; this time White
knows what to do) 1 0 ..ta3 l::te8 I I 'ii'b3 (this is
the perfect set-up for a queenside advance to

undermine the pawn-chain, as follows) l l ... l::tb8

B 1 2 b5 ! ± ..tf8 1 3 ..txf8 l::txf8 1 4 cxd5 lbxd5 1 5
l:tfc 1 lbxc3 1 6 'ii'xc3 axb5 1 7 axb5 cxb5 (the
black queenside is exposed and his bishop still
isn't developed) 1 8 ..txb5 'ii'e7 1 9 'ii'c7 !, Kas
parov-Reis, Lisbon simultaneous 1 999.

d) 7 ... a6 8 'ii'b3 dxc4 9 ..txc4 b5 10 ..te2
lbbd7 I I e4 (White stands better due to his ide
ally-placed central majority) i l ...lbb6 12 ..tf4

..te6 1 3 'ii'c2 lbh5 1 4 ..te3 ..tc4 1 5 b3 ..txe2 1 6
lLlxe2 l::tc8 1 7 l::tac I e6 1 8 l::tfd I lbd7 19 lbe5 !

lbb8 20 lbd3 with control of the dark squares,

S.Mohr-Murey, Palma de Mallorca 1 989.

7 ... dxc4 e) 7 ... ..te6 8 cxd5 cxd5 (8 ... ..txd5 9 'flc2

Whether or not this is the most important ..ixf3 10 ..txf3 ;!;) 9 lbe5 !? (Fiear notes the
continuation, it is by far the most forcing one, idea 9 'ii'b3 'ii'b6 I 0 'ii'xb6 axb6, "when the
critical for an assessment of the variation, and a doubled b-pawns are compensated for by the
position repeatedly tested at the top levels, so potential activity on the a- and c-files") 9 ... lbbd7

I'll give it top billing. Nevertheless, practice has (9 ... lbfd7 1 0 lbd3 lbc6 I I ..tf3 ;!;) 1 0 lbd3 ..tf5
often tended in other positional directions. Six I I 'ii'b3 lbb6 1 2 lbc5 ;!;; Black is a little cramped
other moves should be plenty to illustrate most and White can think about central expansion.

of the strategic themes of this system: f) 7 ... b6 8 b4 ..tb7 9 'ii'b3 (9 ..tb2 lbbd7 I 0
a) 7 ... e6 is a common move because it fits cxd5 cxd5 I I 'fib3 'fibS 1 2 a4 a6 1 3 b5 ! a5 14
with so many lines (and temperaments!): 8 b4 l:tac l l::tc8, Petrosian-Hort, Moscow 1 975, and

(8 'ii'c2 is a good alternative; a rook may come now with 1 5 ..ta3 White maintains a small but
to d I , and e4 is in the background) 8 ... dxc4 definite advantage; Black is cramped) 9 ... lbbd7

(8 ... lbbd7 9 ..tb2 b6 1 0 'ii'b3 ..tb7 { this actually 1 0 a4 'ii'b8 I I ..tb2 e6 (Pinter-Fiear, Szirak
arose via 7 ... b6 8 b4 ..tb7 9 ..tb2 e6 1 0 'ii'b3 1 986) and this would be a good time for 1 2
lbbd7 } I I l::tfd 1 l::te8 1 2 l::tac 1 'ii'b8 1 3 h3 a5 1 4 cxd5 cxd5 1 3 a5 !. a3 axb4 1 5 axb4 l::tc8 1 6 cxd5 cxd5 1 7 lba4 ;!; We now return to 7 ... dxc4 (D): Ponomariov-Danielsen, European Team Ch,

Porto Carras 20 I I ; 8 ... b6 9 a4 ..tb7 1 0 ..ta3
lbbd7 I I 'ii'b3 gave White more-or-less the
ideal set-up in Szabo-Czemiak, Moscow Olym w piad 1 956) 9 ..txc4 lbd5 10 'ii'b3 lbxc3 I I

'ii'xc3 offers White space and a central major
ity; e.g., i l ...lbd7 1 2 e4 b6 1 3 ..ig5 'flc7 14
l::tac l ..tb7 1 5 'ii'd2 .l:.ae8 1 6 .l:.fd1 ± Khalif
man-Deviatkin, Moscow 20 1 1 .

b) 7 ... ..tg4 8 cxd5 cxd5 9 'fib3 b6 (9 ... ..tc8,
as in Section 5.3 1 , runs into 1 0 lLle5 with the
idea f4, which is a little awkward for Black) 1 0
h 3 ..txf3 ( I O .. . ..tc8 I I lbe5 ;!; ) I I ..txf3 e6 1 2

..td2 ;!; (or 1 2 ..te2! ;!; Flear) 1 2 ... lbc6 1 3 ..te2 a6

96 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

8 i.xc4 i.g4 9 h3 i.xf3 10 �xf3 lLlbd7 counterplay after 1 5 i.b3, although there might

Now ... e5 can't be stopped. Notice that this still be something to say about that: 1 5 ... lLlxd5 strategy is too slow if Black plays the solid ... e6 (after 1 5 ... cxd5, 1 6 �xd5 ltJxd5 1 7 .l:.xd5 trans
first. poses, but 1 6 'i¥b4 may be worth a try) 16 i.xd5
ll .l:.d1 e5 (and here 1 6 i.d2 would establish a two-bishop

I I ...'ii'c7 12 e4 e5 1 3 d5 liJb6 1 4 i.b3 cxd5 advantage except that 1 6 ... i.xb2 17 .i:lab I i.g7

1 5 exd5 gives White the two bishops and a renders White's advantage minimal) 1 6 ... cxd5
powerful passed pawn. Even an ideal blockade 1 7 .l:.xd5 'it'b6 1 8 'ifd3 .l:.ad8 was very close to
on d6 can't help: 1 5 .. .lt)c8 1 6 i.g5 lLle8 1 7 lLle4 equal in Bareev-Kramnik, Novgorod 1 994.

ltJcd6 1 8 .l:.ac 1 and the queen runs out of room. 15 ... .l:.e8 16 'it'd3!

12 d5! This is more accurate than 1 6 'ifc2 and has a

For those not interested in an immediate cri huge success rate, although Black is still stuck
sis, 12 i.b3 !? has been recommended, and could with defence in the latter case; for example,
be the way to go if you consider yourself a the value of two bishops is demonstrated by
better strategic player than your opponent. A 1 6 ... cxd5 ( 1 6 ... 'it'h4 should be compared with
natural continuation is 1 2 ... iVe7 ( 1 2 ... exd4 1 3 the main line) 1 7 �b5 .l:.e6 1 8 'iib3 (or 1 8 i.d2)

exd4 liJb6 1 4 i.g5 'iid6 1 5 i.f4 �d8 1 6 i.e5 ;!; 1 8 ... 'it'h4 1 9 i.d2 d4 20 i.fl ! .i:ld8 (20 ... .l:.ae8

Ward), when 1 3 dxe5 lLlxe5 1 4 'ife2 .l:.fd8 1 5 e4 21 .l:.bc 1 ) 2 1 g3 'it'e7 22 i.g2 'it'e8 23 exd4

.l:.xd I + 1 6 i.xd I .l:.d8 1 7 i.c2 'ir'b4 is equal, so i.xd4 (Ponomariov-Wang Yue, Medias 20 10)

1 3 a3 ! might be best, developing cautiously in a and now White has several good moves, such as
line such as 1 3 ... .l:.fe8 14 �a2 .l:.ad8 1 5 i.d2 24 i.g5 ! l:td7 25 i.f3 ±. exd4 1 6 exd4 lLlb6 1 7 .l:.e I iVd6 1 8 i.g5 h6 1 9 16 ... 'it'h4 i.f4 iVxd4 20 .l:.xe8+ .l:.xe8 2 1 .l:.d I iVc5 22 It's not certain what's best here: i.xh6! ;!;. a) Not 1 6 ... ltJxd5?, when in Hammer-Zhu

12 ... e4!? Chen, Cap d' Agde rapid 201 0 White missed 1 7

A clever pawn sacrifice. But what else is e4! lLlb6 1 8 i.xf7 + �xf7 1 9 'it'b3+ ltJd5 20 there? 1 3 dxc6 is threatened, and 1 3 d6 is po exd5 ±. tentially disastrous for Black. 1 2 ... cxd5?! runs b) 16 ... cxd5 (D) has three sensible answers into 1 3 i.xd5 ! 'it'b6 ( 1 3 ... lLlxd5 14 iVxd5 lLlb6 all giving White an edge which has been ade

1 5 'it'xb7 ±) 1 4 e4!? .l:.ac8 1 5 a4 ±. quate to win with in practice, whether or not

13 lLlxe4 lLlxe4 14 �xe4 ltJb6 (D) Black can hold in theory:

The critical point. After 14 ... lLlf6, 1 5 'iff3 !

keeps an eye on the key d ) -square.

w

w

b 1 ) 1 7 i.xd5 iVxd5 1 8 11i'xd5 lLlxd5 1 9 .l:.xd5

.l:.ad8 20 .l:.d2! .l:.xd2 21 i.xd2 .l:.d8 22 i.e I is a

15 .l:.b1! position reached in both Chatalbashev-Soylu,

Regarded as the most accurate, protecting b2. European Ch, Antalya 2004 and Jakovljevic

Experience has shown that Black gets sufficient D.Damjanovic, Obrenovac 2005. White, who is

SLA V DEFENCE 9 7

a pawn ahead, has good winning chances, al

though Black managed a draw in the latter
game. w
b2) 1 7 �b3 ! ? can also be considered, when

Black's knight is not well-placed and White
plans �d2-c3 and gradual pressure on the iso
lated d-pawn.

b3) 1 7 �b5 .l:.e7 18 'ii'b3 .l:l.c8 1 9 �d2 li:lc4

20 �c3 (or 20 �el ! with the idea of playing

�xc4) 20 ... �xc3 2 1 �xc4 'ii'b6 22 'ii'xb6 axb6

23 �b3 �e5 24 .l:.xd5 ± Turov-Ipatov, Nakh
chivan 20 I I . Black has opposite-coloured bish
ops but weak queenside pawns and indeed he
ended up two pawns down and unable to save
the game. attained the status of a main line over the last

17 �b3 couple of decades.

I think that this is very slightly better than 1 7 5 li:Jf3 b3 .l:.ad8 ( l 7 .. . cxd5?! 1 8 �xd5 li:lxd5 1 9 'ii'xd5 5 'ii'c2 is a good alternative. Briefly: .l:.ed8 20 'ii'f3 l:.xd l + 21 'ii'xdl .l:.d8 22 'ii'e l a) 5 ... e6 mixes the Semi-Slav ( ... e6) with

.l:.d3 23 �d2 gives White an extra pawn i n re the Chebanenko move ... a6; in general that's a
turn for what seems more like annoyance than bit slow without the c8-bishop being developed
full compensation) 1 8 e4! 'ii'xe4 ( 1 8 ... .l:l.xe4 1 9 first, but strong players have tried it: 6 li:Jf3 (6

�g5 ! 'i¥xg5 20 'ii'xe4 cxd5 2 1 h4 ±) 1 9 'ii'xe4 c5 is a logical course for White, who normally

.l:.xe4 20 �g5 .l:.de8! and although White pre follows with b4 and �b2, although Black's
vailed after 2 1 dxc6 in the game Kozui-Nikolic, plan of ... li:lbd7, ... g6, ... �g7 and ... e5 appears

Slovenian Team Ch, Murska Sobota 2007, only sufficient; I think White should also consider

21 d6 ! should yield winning chances against setting up with f4, li:Jf3, �d3 and 0-0 and play
accurate play. ing for an attack) 6 ... c5 (this makes some sense

Now (after 17 �b3): of the ... e6/ ... a6 combination; Black is trying to
a) 17 ... cxd5 1 8 �d2! ;!; has been played, exploit the fact that White's queen is not ideally with the bishop-pair and play against the iso placed on c2) 7 cxd5 exd5 8 �e2 li:lc6 9 0-0 (9
lated pawn. li:le5 has recently been popular and may be
b) l 7 ... li:lxd5 1 8 �xd5 cxd5 1 9 b3 ! lbc8 20 even more promising, but I want to emphasize

�b2 also gives White a pull; this may be development) 9 ... li:Jb4 (9 ... �e6 lO .l:.d I lbb4 I I
drawable, but it will be hard to hold on to the d 'ii'bl ! is a better version of the same line, Mame
pawn in the long run. dyarov-Grishchuk, FIDE Grand Prix, Baku
c) After 1 7 ... .l:.ad8, as chosen in Muresan 2008) 10 'ii'b I g6 I I �d2 �f5 1 2 'ii'd I c4 1 3

Semenova, Women's Candidates (3), Bad Kis b3 ! ( 1 3 li:Je5 may also yield a slight advantage)

singen 1 983, White should play, as above, 1 8 l 3 ... �c2 14 'ii'c I cxb3 1 5 'ii'b2 li:Jd3 1 6 �xd3
e4! 'ii'xe4 ( 1 8 ... .l:.xe4 1 9 �g5 !) 1 9 'ii'xe4 .l:l.xe4 �xd3 17 .l:.fc 1 b5? ! ( l 7 ... �f5 ;!;) l 8 li:le5 �f5

20 �g5 ;!;, 1 9 'ii'xb3 ± Mamedyarov-Kariakin, Baku rapid

This main line is more theoretical and tech 2009. Things got even worse after l 9 ... �d6?

nical than I'd like, but even without knowing 20 e4! �e6 2 l li:lc6 'ii'd7 22 exd5 0-0, when 23
the specifics, you can see that Black is under �g5 ! would have won a piece, but White played
pressure the whole way. 23 dxe6?! and Black actually came back to
draw.

5 .34) b) 5 ... �g4 6 �d3 (or 6 f3, having in mind

6 ... �h5 7 'ii'b3 b5 8 cxd5 cxd5 9 g4 �g6 and

4 ... a6 (D) continuing 1 0 h4!? h6 I 1 li:Jh3 e6 l2 li:lf4 �h7

This is one of the modem ... a6 Slav systems, 1 3 g5; note that the obvious 1 0 g5 li:lfd7 1 1
normally called the Chebanenko Slav. It has 'ii'xd5 l:ta7 and ... e6 actually gives Black some 98 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

compensation) 6 ... e6 7 ltJge2 i.h5 8 ..id2 ltJbd7

9 ltJf4 i.g6 10 ltJxg6 hxg6 l l h3 ( l l l:tc l !?)

l l ...dxc4 12 i.xc4 b5 13 i.e2 c5 14 i.f3 cxd4 8 1 5 exd4 l:tc8 1 6 'i�Vb3 ! Mamedyarov-Naka mura, Lausanne 2005.

c) 5 ... b5 6 b3 i.g4 7 ltJge2!? ltJbd7 8 h3

..ih5 (8 ... ..ixe2 9 ..ixe2 e6 1 0 0-0 ! with two bishops, Mamedyarov-Volkov, Russian Team

Ch, Sochi 2006) 9 ltJf4 i.g6 1 0 ltJxg6 hxg6 l l

..ie2 ! ( l l i.b2 has also yielded an advantage) l l ...e6 1 2 0-0 (D) and now:

b) Of other moves, 6 ... ..if5 makes the most
sense, bringing the bishop out before ... e6 closes
it in. This is one of those times where exchang
ing White's good bishop by 7 i.d3 works well,
gaining development and central control (7 i.e2
and 7 ltJe5 are common alternatives); e.g.,

7 ... i.xd3 (7 ... e6 8 i.xf5 ! ? exf5 9 0-0 ..id6 1 0

'ii'c2 g6, Dlugy-Khmelnitsky, Cherry Hill 1 99 1 ,
and now l l a4! b4 1 2 ltJe2 with the idea a5
gives a small but nagging edge, since 1 2 ... a5 1 3
ltJe5 will tie Black down) 8 'it'xd3 e6 9 0-0 i.e?

and now 1 0 a3 or even 1 0 e4! b4 l l e5 bxc3 1 2
c l ) l 2 ... l:tc8?! 1 3 c5 ! ( 1 3 l:td l ! is a less exf6 i.xf6 1 3 i.a3 !. dramatic choice) l 3 ... e5 (thematic, but it leads 7 i.d2 (D) to trouble; l 3 ... 'iec7 is more cautious) 1 4 b4 e4 White plans to play h3, gaining the bishop

(a similar line given by Atalik is 14 ... i.e7 1 5 pair. The text-move protects c3 and thus works
a4! exd4 1 6 exd4 ltJf8 1 7 i.e3 ltJe6 1 8 axb5 against tactics based upon the knight's vulnera
axb5 1 9 l:ta6) 1 5 a4 ..ie7 1 6 axb5 axb5 1 7 l:ta6 bility, as in the line 7 h3 ..ixf3 8 'ii'xf3 e5 ! with
and now instead of 17 ... ltJf8? 1 8 l:txc6! l:txc6 1 9 the idea 9 dxe5 ..ib4 I 0 i.d2 ..ixc3 l l i.xc3

..ixb5, as played i n Atalik-Harikrishna, Greek ltJe4, which according to extensive practice

Team Ch, Kallithea 2008, Atalik gives 1 7 ... 0-0 works out to a draw after many forced moves. 7

1 8 i.d2 ltJh7 1 9 l:tfal ±. i.d2 may be objectively no better than 7 i.e2,
c2) 1 2 ... i.e7 1 3 i.b2 0-0 14 l:tac l !. but it is relatively straightforward and unen
c3) 12 ... i.d6 13 i.f3 !? l:tc8 14 11e1 0-0 1 5 cumbered by too many variations. e4 dxe4 1 6 ltJxe4 ltJxe4 1 7 i.xe4 established a 7 ... e6 classic space advantage and modest plus in This is the most common move. Black can

Mamedyarov-Grishchuk, Moscow 2008. try to enforce ... e5 by 7 ... ltJbd7 8 h3 (8 i.e2 is

5 .•. b5 more flexible) 8 ... i.xf3 9 'ii'xf3 b4 10 ltJa4 ( 1 0

5 ... e6 is another hybrid system that we cover ltJe2 e5 l l ltJg3 may give better long-term
via a Semi-Slav move-order in the note to chances; moves like �d l , i.d3, 0-0 and l:tc l

Black's 5th move in Section 6.2. follow in one order or another, and White hopes

6 b3 (D) that his bishop-pair eventually expresses itself)

This move, maintaining the tension, has been 1 0 ... e5 and now: White's most frequent choice. a) 1 1 'it'd I led to a positional advantage for

6 ... i.g4 White in Kramnik-Kariakin, Amber Rapid, Nice
a) 6 ... b4?! releases the tension, and both 7 2009: l l ...ltJe4 1 2 i.d3 ltJxd2 1 3 'it'xd2 exd4 14
ltJe2 and 7 ltJa4, working on the c-file, are good. cxd5 !? cxd5 l 5 0-0 ..id6 l 6 i.f5 ltJf6 l 7 'ii'xd4.

SLAV DEFENCE 99

e4) 1 1 h4! ltJe4 (Burmakin-Bryzgalin, Russia

Cup, Kstovo 1 997) and now 12 h5 ! is ex

8 tremely strong: 1 2 ... ltJxc3 1 3 ..txc3 ..te4 14 f3
f6 1 5 h6! g6 1 6 lLlxc6 lLlxc6 17 fxe4 ..tg3+ 1 8

'iii>d2 b4 1 9 ..tb2 dxe4 20 'iii>c2 and Black's e
pawn is vulnerable, among other problems, but

20 ... 0-0 2 1 ..tg2 f5? 22 gxf5 exf5 23 d5 is kill
ing, and 20 ... l:tf8 21 'ifd2 f5 22 1Wg2 ..td6 23
gxf5 exf5 24 l:td l is also pretty bad for Black.

9 'ifxf3 ..tb4

Black almost always responds in this man
ner. The slower 9 ... ..te7 10 ..td3 0-0 1 1 0-0 fa
vours White's bishop-pair, and even I I g4!? is
promising.

b) 1 1 l:tc 1 has also been played. 10 ..td3
c) Lugovoi-Volkov, Russian Ch, Moscow 10 l:tc 1 ;!; bypasses what follows because of

1999 continued 1 1 cxd5 !? cxd5 1 2 dxe5 !? ltJxe5 I O ... 'ifa5 l l l:tc2; that isn't really necessary, but

1 3 'ifd l ?! (better is 1 3 'iff4 ! ..td6 14 'ifd4 ;!;) means that the players will be more on their

1 3 ... ..td6?! ( l 3 ... ..te7 ! =). Now that the centre own. has stabilized, White tends to play a redeploy 10 ••• 1Wa5! ll l:tc1! ..txc3 ment such as 14 ..tc I 0-0 1 5 ..tb2 with a slight l l ...bxc4 1 2 bxc4 ltJbd7 1 3 0-0 0-0 14 a3
advantage. ..txc3 15 llxc3 gained a straightforward advan

This whole line is hardly inspiring, but pretty tage for White in Riazantsev-Kotanjian, Mos
much the name of the game when 4 ... a6 and cow 2008. 6 ... ..tg4 is played. 12 ..txc3 1Wxa2 13 'ifd1

8 h3 (D) The next few moves are forced to save the

Now we'll see White's basic idea of ex black queen: changing the bishop. 13 ••• dxc4 14 bxc4 bxc4 15 l:ta1 'ifb3 16

1Wxb3 cxb3 17 'iii>e2

The alternative is 1 7 'iii>d2 0-0 l 8 l:thb l lLlbd7

1 9 l:l.xb3 c5 (Tregubov-Movsesian, Mainz rapid

8 20 10), when White maintains a slight edge
with 20 llb7 cxd4 2 1 ..txd4 intending 2 1 ...e5

22 ..ta7 !, but this isn't much.

17 .•• ltJbd7 18 l:thb1 An ending arises with two bishops versus two
knights. This would normally be difficult for the
knights, but the advantage is limited here by the
pawn-structure. L' Ami-Laznicka, European Un
ion Ch, Liverpool 2008 continued 1 8 ... c5 19
l:txa6!? ( 1 9 l:txb3 cxd4 20 ..txd4 e5 21 ..tb2
ltJc5 22 l:tba3 ltJxd3 23 l:txd3 e4 24 l:tda3 fa
vours White, because in spite of all the pawns

8 ..• ..txf3 being on one side of the board, Black can't sta

8 ... ..th5 9 g4 ..tg6 I 0 ltJe5 ..td6 !? (after bilize the position; for example, 24 ... ltJd7 25

IO ... ltJfd7 I I ltJxg6 hxg6 1 2 'ifc2 lLlb6 1 3 c5 l:td I ! f6 26 l:ta4 f5 27 g4!) 1 9 ... l:txa6 20 ..txa6
ltJ6d7 White stood somewhat better with his 0-0 21 l:txb3 l:tb8 22 l:txb8+ lLlxb8 23 ..td3
bishop-pair in Malakhatko-Wirig, Differdange cxd4 24 ..txd4 ltJc6 25 ..tb2 ;!;, although Black

2007; one way to exploit that is 14 ..tg2 ..te7 1 5 did hold.

6 Semi-Slav Defence

1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tt::lc3 e6 (D) a) After 5 ... tt::lf6, 6 b3 may transpose into
our preferred line of the Semi-Slav (see Section

6.2 1 ), without Black having the ... i.b4 line

available, while 6 i.d3 tt::lbd7 can lead to a
w Meran Variation, but with the bishop already on
d6; this has been getting some attention re
cently, but is generally not considered as good
as the main-line Meran for Black.

b) 5 ... f5 is a type of Stonewall Dutch in
which White has played neither g3 nor a com
bination of tt::lge2 and f3. That may not be so
bad, however, since he can try 6 tt::le5 !? tLlf6

(6 ... i.xe5 7 dxe5 ;!; is hard on Black's dark
squares, although playable) 7 f4 (7 i.e2 0-0 8

0-0 is also possible) 7 ... 0-0 (7 ... tt::le4? 8 'ifh5+)

8 i.e2 tt::le4 9 tt::lxe4! ? (9 0-0 ;!;) 9 .. . fxe4

This move-order, known as the Triangle Vari (9 ... dxe4 10 i.d2 c5 1 1 i.c3 also feels slightly
ation, is one of several that Black can use to preferable for White, although that would need
reach a Semi-Slav (via 4 tLlf3 tt::lf6), though to be investigated) 1 0 0-0 tt::ld7 1 1 i.d2 ;!;.

both sides have additional options. 1 d4 d5 2 c4
e6 3 tt::lc3 c6 also brings about the same posi 6. 1 ) tion. This modest-looking opening has led to
some of the most exciting chess in the last cou 4 ... f5 (D) ple of decades.

4 e3

We choose the same answer that we gave to

3 ... tt::lf6 in Chapter 5. This is necessary for a co w herent repertoire, since 4 tt::lf3 allows 4 ... dxc4 (as
does 3 ... tt::lf6 4 tLlf3). In that case, White can play
some interesting and possibly underestimated
ideas such as 5 g3 and even 5 e4 b5 6 e5 ! ?, but
that's another story. With 4 e3 tLlf6, we arrive at
the position that could arise from last chapter's

3 tt::lc3 tLlf6 4 e3 if Black continues 4 ... e6.

After 4 e3, we examine:

6.1: 4 ... f5 100

6.2: 4 ••• tLlf6 1 05

Black can also try to get to a Dutch Defence This is a tricky and popular way for Black to
by 4 ... i.d6, meeting 5 i.d3 with 5 ... f5. This get to a Stonewall formation without having to
transposes to Section 6. 1 2 ( 4 ... f5 5 i.d3 i.d6), worry about g3 by White, or even develop
which offers White several attractive options. 5 ment by i.f4 or i.g5. However, by playing 3
tt::lf3 is a natural response to 4 ... i.d6 that you tt::lc3 instead of 3 tt::lf3, White gains some op
may prefer. Then: tions.

SEMI-SLAV DEFENCE 101

In response to 4 ... f5, White has two promis a) 6 g5 ! ? 'ili'xg5 7 e4 is an interesting gam
ing courses: bit: 7 ... 'ili'f6 (7 ... 'ili'e7 8 �xh6 gxh6 and after 9

6.11 : 5 g4 101 'ili'h5+ Volkov continues 9 ... �d8 10 e5, but 6.12: 5 �d3 1 03 9 ... 'ili'f7 might simplify and equalize, so per
haps the immediate 9 e5 has more positive po

6. 1 1) tential) 8 exd5 exd5 9 cxd5 �d6 1 0 'ili'e2+ �d7

(Volkov-Landa, Russia Cup, Perm 1 997) and

5 g4 (D) now Volkov gives 1 1 'i!i'd3 .:!.e8+ 1 2 tbge2,
which should favour White.

b) 6 h3 (Volkov's own suggestion, though
he ends up on the wrong side!) 6 ... �d6 7 �d3

B e5? ! 8 cxd5 0-0 (lpatov-Volkov, Moscow 201 0)

and then 9 'ili'b3 ! keeps a nice advantage for

White.

c) 6 gxf5 tbxf5 7 tbf3 (7 �d3 'ili'f6 8 tbf3

�d6 9 e4 tbxd4 1 0 tbxd4 'ili'xd4 and here Vol kov gave 1 1 exd5 'ili'e5+ =, but 1 1 �e3 is a more ambitious try) 7 ... tbd7 (7 ... �d6 is an
swered by 8 e4; 7 ... �e7 may be best) 8 �d3
tbf6 9 'ir'c2 g6? ! and now 10 �d2 was fine in Bergsma-Koomen, Baarn 1 94 1 , but 10 h4! is better, and more fun, threatening I I cxd5 and
upon 1 l ...exd5, 1 2 h5 ! .

One of the advantages of 3 tbc3 is that you
still have this move available. It's very loosen 6. 1 11) ing and therefore somewhat risky; nevertheless,
the play is positionally and strategically based. 5 ... fxg4 6 'ir'xg4 tiJf6 White is trying to break down Black's centre as 6 ... tLlh6 7 'ir'g2 tbf5 requires another move
directly as possible. Either the f5-pawn disap to develop and White takes aim with 8 �d3.

pears by ... fxg4 or White plays gxf5 and after The game Hiibner-Adler, Swiss Team Ch 2000

... exf5 goes after the weakened d5-pawn. The continued a little oddly by 8 ... 'ii'f6 9 f4! ? (9
two important moves are: tLlf3 ! tiJd7 10 �d2 and 0-0-0) 9 ... �b4 10 tLlf3 6.1 11: 5 ... fxg4 1 0 1 tbh4 1 1 tbxh4 'ir'xh4+ 1 2 'ii'g3 !, when a trade 6.112: 5 ... tiJf6 I 02 of queens would have left White with a much
better pawn-structure as well as superior devel

After 5 ... tbh6 (D) there are several promis opment. ing replies: 7 'ii'g2 (D)

w B

102 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

The queen takes aim at dS and g7, while
staying away from further attacks by Black.

7 ••. c5 B

Probably the most common move, and very
thematic, entailing counterattack on White's ne
glected centre. Other moves:

a) 7 ... �b4 led to a pretty game after 8 �d2

0-0 9 lLlf3 'ii'e7 I 0 .l:tg I lLlbd7 1 1 �d3 �d6 1 2

0-0-0 'it>h8 1 3 lLlgS ! dxc4 1 4 �xc4 eS I S lbce4

�b8 1 6 lLle6 .l:tg8 1 7 lLl4gS lLldS 1 8 �xdS cxdS

19 'iVxdS (Ward points out 1 9 �b4! 'ii'xb4 20
lLlf7#) 1 9 ... h6 20 lbd8! (an extraordinary com
bination ends the game) 20 .. Jhd8 21 lLlf7+

'it>h7 22 .l:txg7+! 'it>xg7 23 .l:tgl + 'it>f6 (23 ... 'it>f8

24 �b4! 'ii'xb4 2S lLlxh6) 24 'ii'f3+ 'it>e6 2S dS# lbe2 ..ta4 22 b3 lLle4 23 'ilfe3 �bS gives Black

( 1 -0) Shaked-Vigh, Schwarzach 1 997. some counterchances (Krasenkow).

b) 7 ... lLlbd7 8 �d2 g6 9 lLlf3 �g7 1 0 lLlgS !?

( 1 0 0-0-0) I O ... 'ii'e7 I I 0-0-0 bS 12 cxbS cS 1 3 6. 1 12) h4! ? lbb6 1 4 hS eS ( 1 4 ... lLlxhS l S lLlxh7 !) 1 S
hxg6 hxg6 1 6 .l:txh8+ ..txh8 1 7 dxeS 'ii'xeS 1 8 5 ••• lLlf6 6 gxf5 exf5 (D) lLlf3 'iVhS 1 9 ..td3 ..tg4 (Khenkin-Marcelin,

French League 2002) and now the easiest win

was 20 lLlh4! 'ii'xh4 21 .l:th I .

8 lLlf3 w

8 dxcS should also keep some advantage.

8 •.• lbc6 9 �d2

And here 9 dxcS ! �xeS 1 0 �d2 with the
idea .l:tg 1 and 0-0-0 gives White an edge.

9 ... �d7

Seirawan-Yermolinsky, USA Ch, Key West

1 994 continued 9 ... a6 1 0 0-0-0 'ii'c7 I I dxcS

�xeS 1 2 .l:tg l 0-0 1 3 lLlgS ( 1 3 cxdS exdS 1 4
lLlxdS lLlxdS I S �c4lbcb4 1 6 �c3 !) 1 3 ... 'it>h8

14 'it>bl lLleS? 1 S lba4 ..ta7? 16 �b4 .l:tg8

( 1 6 ... .l:te8 1 7 �d6!) 1 7 'ii'g3 1 -0, since White
threatens 'iVxeS. White's goal is to attack dS; he also wants to

10 0-0-0 'ili'e7!? put a knight on the handy outpost square f4,

I O ... .l:tc8 I I dxcS �xeS 12 .l:tg1 g6 13 'it>bl and a piece on eS could obviously be effective

0-0 14 h4!?. too.

l l lbe5 cxd4 12 exd4 (D) 7 'ilfb3

12 .•• 0-0-0 This is regarded as best, although White can

1 2 ... lbxd4? 1 3 �gS ! is awfully strong. also try simply 7 lLlf3 or the interesting 7 lLlh3

13 �f4 'i¥e8 14 cxdS exd5 15 lbxc6 �xc6 �d6 8 'ilff3 ! 0-0!? 9 cxdS cxdS 10 lLlf4!?. 16 �g3 7 ••• dxc4!

White threatens 17 �h3+. Now: This is better than:

a) 1 6 ... b6? 17 �a6+ �b7 1 8 �d3 ! �c6 1 9 a) 7 ... 'ilkb6?! 8 cxdS (or 8 'ilfxb6 axb6 9

.l:the I is hopeless for Black. cxdS) 8 ... 'i!kxb3 9 axb3 lLlxdS 1 0 lLlxdS cxdS 1 1
b) 1 6 ... bS ! was played in Dautov-Krasen �g2 lbc6 ( l l ...�e6 1 2 lbe2 and White will
kow, Essen 2002. Then White could play 1 7 win the d-pawn with lLlf4, unless 12 ... �d6 1 3

�b8 ! .l:td7 1 8 �h3 'it>b7 1 9 �xd7 'ilfxd7 20 lbc3 �b4 1 4 <;t>e2 �xc3 1 S bxc3 is played,

�eS with an advantage, although 20 ... b4 2 1 when White has better pieces, the centre, etc.)

SEMI-SLAV DEFENCE 103

1 2 l2Je2 l2Jb4 1 3 0-0 .te6 1 4 l2Jf4

g5 1 6 l2Jxe6
baev, Dubai 200 I . B
b) 7 ... l2Je4?! 8 cxd5 l2Jxc3 9 bxc3 'ifxd5 l O

'ii'xd5 cxd5 I I .tg2 and Black has the same
problem: falling pawns. Gretarsson-Ragnars
son, Reykjavik 2000 continued l l . .. i.e6 1 2 l2Je2 .td6 1 3 c4 l2Ja6 1 4 cxd5 .tf7 1 5 l:t b I 0-0

1 6 .l:txb7 l2Jb4 1 7 l2Jc3 ±.

8 .txc4 .td6!?

a) 8 ... 'ife7 9 l2Jh3 ! ? b5 l O .td3 g6 1 1 l2Jf4

.th6 1 2 l2Jce2 g5 ! ? 1 3 l2Jg2 .te6 1 4 'ifc2 (Por
tisch-Haba, Erevan Olympiad 1 996) and White
has two threats: .txf5 and h4.

b) 8 ... 'ifb6 9 'ifc2! ? .td6 1 0 l2Jf3 ! intending This is a very common move-order. Black
l2Jg5 and .l:tgl , or simply 0-0. doesn't want to block his queen's path to the

9 .tf7+!? kingside until he sees how White is deploying
his forces. 5 ... l2Jf6 tends to come to the same
thing, though there are a few independent vari

ations:

w a) 6 l2Jge2 .td6 transposes to line 'd' of the
next note.

b) After 6 'ii'c2 both 6 ... .td6 and the Stone-
walVChebanenko hybrid 6 ... a6! ? 7 l2Jge2 .td6

8 f3 0-0 transpose back to the main line of this
section.

c) 6 f4! ? is played upon occasion. It can't be
bad and even looks slightly irritating to Black;
e.g., 6 ... .td6 7 l2Jf3 0-0 8 0-0 l2Je4 9 .td2 l2Jd7

(if 9 ... l2Jxd2 l O 'ii'xd2 l2Jd7, to bring the other
knight to e4 via f6, I I c5 followed by b4 initi
ates a promising queenside attack) occurred in

Now: Vezzosi-Lputian, Reggio Emilia 1 998/9. Then
a) I 0 l2Jf3 is the calm way to a slight advan Lputian suggests l O c5 ! ? .tc7 I I b4 t, al
tage. though I 0 .l:!.c 1 and I 0 .te I are also reasonable,
b) After l O .tc4, Nickel-Sehner, German since c5 and b4 can be played later. corr. Ch 1 994 continued I 0 ... b5 I I i.d3 .te6 6 'ifc2

1 2 'ii'c2 b4 ( 1 2 ... g6 l 3 l2Jh3 i) 1 3 l2Jce2 'iia5 1 4 Or: b3 l2Jbd7 I 5 l2Jh3 g6 1 6 0-0 .l:tac8 1 7 l2Jef4 i.d5 a) 6 g4?! is now inferior due to 6 ... l2Jh6!

1 8 f3 (with the idea e4) 1 8 ... c5 1 9 l2Jxd5+ (6 ... fxg4 7 'ifxg4 l2Jf6 8 'ii'g2) 7 gxf5 0-0 8 e4 l2Jxd5 20 .l:te I ! ? with an attack. dxe4 9 l2Jxe4 .tb4+ +.

b) With Black playing ... .td6 so early, White

6. 12) might again be tempted to play 6 f4 himself.

Not only would Black need two moves to get

5 .td3 (D) ... .tb4 in, but when White plays l2Je5 it will be

This is worth seeing in part because it's good less favourable to capture that knight with one
to have an alternate repertoire option (although of Black's. 5 g4 is pretty nice), but also because it's an c) 6 l2Jf3 l2Jf6 7 0-0 0-0 8 b3 (or 8 'ifc2) is

Anti-Stonewall weapon for anyone not com obviously playable, probably even slightly ad
mitted to l2Jf3 in the opening. vantageous, but letting Black sink a knight into

5 ••• .td6 e4 isn't always the best policy.

104 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

d) 6 ltJge2 is obviously OK and may trans Here we have a nice comfortable anti
pose. After 6 ... ltJf6, White can try 7 f3 ! ? (7 Stonewall set-up. Black's favourite e4-square 'iVc2 transposes to our main line, and in fact it's isn't available for a knight, and White has pos
probably a more logical way to get there, since sibilities of expansion in the centre and on the

'iYc2 is a move that might be dispensed with, queenside. depending upon the situation) 7 ... 0-0 8 0-0 (D); 8 ... a6 e.g.: Oddly enough, this is the most popular move
among top players. Let's see some alternatives:

a) 8 ... 'iVe7 9 0-0 'iti>h8 10 cxd5! cxd5?! (or

I O ... ltJxd5 1 1 a3 ;\;) l l lDb5 ltJc6 ! 2 lDxd6 �xd6

B 1 3 a3 (not a position in which to be missing your
dark-squared bishop) 1 3 ... ..td7 14 b4 .I:r.ac8 1 5

'iVd2 a6 1 6 �b2 .l:f.c7 1 7 �c3 b5 1 8 lDc l e5 I 9
dxe5 ltJxe5 20 ltJb3 ..tc8 21 .l:f.ac 1 .l:f.e8 22 ..txe5!

'iVxe5 23 l:lxc7 'iVxc7 24 .l:f.c I 'iVe5 25 ..tfl lDd7

26 'i!i'd4 'i!i'd6 27 ltJa5 ltJe5 28 ..te2 .l:f.d8 29 .l:f.c5

± Lautier-Tregubov, Paris 2004.

b) 8 ... ltJbd7 is one of the better moves, de
veloping quickly and covering e5: 9 ..td2 (9
b3 ! ?) 9 ... dxc4! (9 ... b6? 1 0 cxd5 cxd5 1 1 ltJb5

±) 1 0 �xc4 ltJb6 1 1 �b3 'iti>h8 I 2 a3 e5 1 3 0-0-0!? ( 1 3 0-0) 1 3 ... 'i!i'e7 I 4 h3 ..td7 ! 5 'iti>b i a5
d l ) 8 .. .'ii'c7 9 h3 ! ? dxc4 1 0 ..txc4 'iti>h8, 1 6 g4 (Sashikiran-Krasenkow, Cal via Olympiad I.Sokolov-Nikolic, Bled/Rogaska Slatina 1 99 1 . 2004; 1 6 dxe5! �xe5 1 7 g4 ;\;) and now

I like White prospects in the centre after simply Scherbak:ov offers 16 ... e4 with good counter

I I a3 (versus ... b5-b4) l l ...b5 12 ..td3 liJbd7 1 3 play, if not complete equality. 'iVc2 with the idea ..td2 and .l:f.ac I . c) 8 ... 'iti>h8 is a kind of waiting move that
d2) 8 ... e5 9 cxd5 cxd5 1 0 dxe5 ..txe5 I I comes in handy in the conventional Stonewall.

ltJd4 'iVd6 (Obukhov-Maliutin, Moscow 1 99 1 ) White can play for queenside action or slowly
and now 1 2 lDxf5! ..txh2+ 1 3 'iti>h l �xf5 1 4 prepare central activity; e.g., 9 ..td2 c5?! (this is

..txf5 ..te5 1 5 ltJe2 i s strong, intending f4 and awfully risky; a sound move is 9 ... 'i!i'e7) 1 0
ltJd4 or ltJc3 depending upon circumstances. cxd5 cxd4?! l i lDxd4 ltJxd5 1 2 ltJxd5 exd5 1 3

6 .•. ltJf6 7 ltJge2 0-0 f4? 1 4 ltJb5 fxe3 I 5 ..txe3 ltJa6 1 6 ltJxd6

After 7 cxd5 cxd5 8 lDb5 ..tb4+ 9 ..td2 'i!i'xd6 1 7 .l:f.ad l 'i!i'e5? I 8 .l:f.fe i 'ii'h5 1 9 ..td4

..txd2+ 1 0 'iVxd2 White wins the dark squares, .l:tg8 20 .l:f.e5 'ii'h4 21 'ii'c3 ..td7 22 g3 �h6 1 -0
although this appears to be only a small plus. Hass-Seifert, Polish Team Ch, Mikolajki I 99 1 .

7 ... 0-0 8 f3 (D) An off-day for a strong player.

9 c5!?

This fixes some slight weaknesses and pre

vents ... dxc4. 9 0-0 is normal; then after 9 ... 'iti>h8

B I 0 c5 ..tc7 (Akopian-Grishchuk, Ubeda I 999)

Grishchuk offers up I I ..td2 liJbd7 12 .l:f.ae I ;\;. 9 ... b6 1 0 �d2 has been played a few times. For
instance, Black successfully solved his prob
lems in Chemin-Grishchuk, European Team Ch,

Batumi 1 999 by I O ... 'iti>h8 1 1 .l:f.ad I 'ii'c7 1 2 cxd5
cxd5 1 3 h3 lDc6 14 a3 ..tb7 =.

9 ... ..tc7 10 0-0

Now White is set to work in the centre and
on the queenside; he has some advantage.

10 ... 'i!i'e8

SEMJ-SLA V DEFENCE 105

I 0 .. .'it>h8 II ..td2 ti:Jbd7 12 b4 b6!? 13 tt:Ja4 decisive) 23 ... cxd5 (23 ... tt:Jxg4 24 'iig3! ti:Jf6
and here instead of l 3 ... bxc5?! (as played in 25 'iih3+ ti:Jh7 26 tt:Je4 wins for White) 24 g5

Kramnik-Tregubov, French Team Ch 2002) and White regained his material with interest

Scherbakov points to 13 ... b5 as Black's best, due to 24 ... ti:Jf7 25 'ii'h3+. when Kramnik gives 14 ti:Jb2!? g6 (14 ... a5? 15 b) Scherbakov prefers 16 ... 'ilfe7!?, but it's
a4! ±) 15 a4 ..tb7 16 e4 and White stands better; probably too late: 17 d6 ..txd6 18 cxd6 'iixd6

16 f4 also deserves attention. 19 h3! ti:Jh6 20 'il'e4 ±.

11 e4! (D)

6.2)

4 ••• ti:Jf6 5 ti:Jf3 (D) B

B

This pawn-break is White's ace-in-the-hole
in lines with ..td3, ti:Jge2 and f3.

ll ... fxe4 12 fxe4 ti:Jg4 13 ti:Jf4 e5 14 exd5!

White plays for the attack. 14 h3 isn't bad ei 5 .•• ti:Jbd7 ther. This is one of the main positions of the

14 •.. exf4 15 ..txh7+ 'it>h8 16 ..tg6 (D) Semi-Slav, with Black's last move normally a
signal that he is willing to play the complex

Meran System.

5 ... a6 (equivalent to 3 ti:Jc3 ti:Jf6 4 e3 a6 5

B ti:Jf3 e6) mixes ... e6 and ... a6 systems, which
looks slow but has some points; e.g., 6 ..td3
dxc4 7 ..txc4 b5 makes use of ... a6 quite nicely,
and 6 'ifc2 c5 (see note 'a' to White's 5th move
in Section 5.34) makes sense. This has made it
popular among grandmasters, but White should
nevertheless keep an advantage with 6 b3 (a
partial tempo ahead of our main lines, depend
ing upon how you think ... a6 compares with

... ti:Jbd7; 6 c5 is also played) 6 ... ..tb4 7 ..td2
ti:Jbd7 8 ..td3 0-0 9 0-0 (D).

Here are some examples of typical play:

Now: a) Following 9 ... 'iie7, both 10 'ilfc2 and 10
a) After 16 ... tt:Je3, Mamedyarov-D.Schnei tt:Je5 are logical, but the nicest move is Aron
der, World Under-18 Ch, lraklion 2002 contin ian's 10 'iie l !, when 10 ... ..td6 II c5 ..tc7 12 e4 ued 17 'iVd3 ..tf5 18 ..txf5 ti:Jxf5 19 ..txf4 ;!; was l.Sokolov-S.lvanov, Malmo 2004, and ..txf4 20 %hf4 ti:Jh6 21 .l:%.xf8+ 'ilfxf8 22 l:.fl IO ... a5 11 a3! ..txa3 12 e4 gave White the ini 'ilfg8 23 g4! (a beautiful move, even if the less tiative in the game Navara-Erenburg, Bundes
romantic 23 ti:Je2! with the idea ti:Jf4 is more liga 200617.

106 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

8 w

b) 9 ... .id6 1 0 11i'c2 ( 1 0 e4! ? dxc4 l l bxc4 e5 vice-versa, of course; 6 11i'c2 is much more

1 2 c5 .ic7 l 3 lLla4 is a gambit from Kasparov, popular!). It may seem obscure at the moment,
very unclear but probably alright for Black; a but with the queen on c2, Black will often play
good alternative is 10 .l:.c l e5 l l cxd5 cxd5 1 2 for the move ... c5 (after ... b6 and ... .ib7, for
dxe5 lLlxe5 1 3 lLlxe5 .ixe5 1 4 lLle2 t Dreev example, or in lines with ... dxc4, ... a6 and

Godena, European Ch, Warsaw 2005) and then: ... c5). Then the queen is situated awkwardly
b l ) I O ... e5!? 1 1 cxd5 cxd5 1 2 e4! and how on c2 facing a rook on c8. After 6 b3, although ever Black resolves the centre he stands a bit in some variations it will be useful on c2 any
worse. For theory buffs, this is a normal 6 11i'c2 way, White can wait and determine the queen's

Semi-Slav line with an extra b3 and .id2 for optimal placement later- it may turn out to be

White and an extra ... a6 for Black. more effective on e2 or even on its home
b2) Alternatively, I O ... l:te8 1 1 l:tfe l ! leaves square. White better prepared for l l ...e5!? 1 2 cxd5 Before moving on to 6 b3, I can't resist pre
cxd5 1 3 e4! t. senting an eccentric idea that might be worth a
b3) 10 ... h6 l l l:tad l e5 1 2 cxd5 cxd5 1 3 e4 go: 6 11i'c2 .id6 7 h3!? (or 7 .id2 0-0 8 h3)

dxe4 1 4 lLlxe4 lLlxe4 1 5 .ixe4 exd4 (Ftacnik 7 ... 0-0 (7 ... e5 8 cxd5 cxd5 9 lLlb5 .ib8 10 .id2

M.Gurevich, European Ch, Warsaw 2005) and { with the idea .ib4 and .l:tc l } l 0 ... a6 l l ltc 1 ;!;)

now Gurevich indicates that 1 6 lLlxd4 lLlf6 1 7 8 .id2 (8 .ie2 11i'e7 9 0-0 dxc4 1 0 ..i.xc4 e5 l l

.if3 .ixh2+ 1 8 �xh2 11i'xd4 1 9 �gl , threaten .ib3!, to avoid ... lLlb6 with tempo; most players
ing .ixh6, gives White compensation, which is like White in this kind of position) 8 ... dxc4
an understatement. (Black has other moves, of course; 8 ... 1\i'e7 can
b4) I O . . 'i!Ve7 l l c5 .ic7 1 2 e4 dxe4 1 3 lLlxe4 be answered by 9 .ie2 or the useful waiting
lLlxe4 1 4 .ixe4 h6 1 5 l:tfe l t. move 9 .l:td l ) 9 .ixc4 e5 1 0 0-0. Now we have a

We now return to 5 ... tLlbd7 (D): reversed Colle with an extra tempo (or two, de

6 b3 pending upon the variation). It is widely con

This unassuming move has several benefits. sidered that h3 in conjunction with 11i'c2 is the

It prepares a fianchetto, obviously, which solves best system for Black in the reversed position
the problem of White's worst piece. Equally (that is, ... h6 and ... 'i!Vc7). Something to think
importantly, it allows recapture with the pawn about! (bxc4) after ... dxc4. You should be aware that Let's return to 6 b3 (D). one of the two main lines of the Semi-Slav, the Black's main moves are: Meran System, goes 6 .id3 dxc4 7 .ixc4 b5. To 6.21: 6 ••• .id6 1 08 avoid this, White often plays an 'anti-Meran' 6.22: 6 ••• b6 1 1 2 line, usually 6 'i!Vc2. With 6 b3, the capture on
c4 followed by harassment of the bishop after White has unique ways to meet these moves,

.ixc4 by ... b5 is eliminated. There are other and I will also suggest a transposition to main
reasons to play 6 b3 instead of 6 11i'c2 (and stream 11i'c2 lines at some points. Other moves

SEMI-SLAV DEFENCE 107

b 1 1 ) I l ...�e7 1 2 !iJ..d3 J:te8 1 3 t"Llg5! t"Llf8 1 4
f4!? ( 14 J:tfe 1 h6 1 5 t"Llge4 t"Llxe4 1 6 t"Llxe4 !iJ..c7

B and now 1 7 J:tab l , intending !iJ..b4, and 1 7 t"Llg3
g6 1 8 J:tab1 are both appealing) 14 ... exd4 15
exd4 �c7 16 c5! !iJ..e7 1 7 f5 �d8 ( 1 7 ... J:td8 1 8

!iJ..c4!) 1 8 J:tae l ! ? ( 1 8 t"Llf3 ! ;!;) and now Black
should settle for 1 8 ... �xd4+ 1 9 !iJ..e3 �xe3+!

20 J:txe3 !iJ..xc5 2 1 'it>h 1 J:txe3 22 !iJ..c4 ;!;. Instead

1 8 ... t"Lld5?? was answered by the fairly strong

1 9 !iJ..c4 in Halouzka-Pecenka, corr. 1 989-90,
but 1 9 t"Llxd5! is immediately decisive: 19 ... cxd5

( 1 9 ... �xd5 20 !iJ..c4) 20 f6 gxf6 2 1 !iJ..xh7+ 'it>g7

22 t"Llxf7 'it>xf7 23 !iJ..h6! and White wins.

b l 2) l l ...exd4 12 exd4 J:te8 1 3 J:tfel t"Llf8 1 4
may not be of equivalent worth, but they're !iJ..d3 J:txe I + 1 5 J:txe 1 !iJ..g4 1 6 t"Lle5 (or 1 6 t"Llg5
playable: h6 1 7 t"Llge4 t"Llxe4 1 8 t"Llxe4 !iJ..c7 1 9 d5! ;!;)

a) 6 ... !iJ..e7 makes it easier for White to play 1 6 ... !iJ..xe5 ( Krasenkov gave 16 ... t"Lle6 1 7 !iJ..e3

0-0 and e4: 7 !iJ..d3 (the point is that Black can't c5 1 8 t"Lle4 !iJ..h5! 1 9 d5 !iJ..xe5 20 dxe6 fxe6, but
reply with an early ... e5) 7 ... 0-0 (7 ... b6 8 !iJ..b2 among other moves, 2 1 t"Llg5! !iJ..xh2+ 22 'it>h 1

!iJ..b7 transposes to Section 6.22) 8 0-0 b6. Now makes mischief: 22 ... h6 23 t"Llxe6 "fle7 24
watch out for the nasty trap 9 e4? !iJ..b4, when !iJ..xc5 !iJ..d6 25 !iJ..d4 with an attack) 1 7 dxe5

Black wins material ! Instead, 9 !iJ..b2! !iJ..b7 is t"Ll6d7 1 8 t"Lla4 'ifh4 (Krasenkov-Matlak, Polish

6.22 again. Team Ch, Mikolajki 1 99 1 ) and now 1 9 f3 !iJ..h5
b) 6 ... !iJ..b4 7 !iJ..d2 is less common, but not 20 f4 ;!; gives White the better prospects. bad. Black tries to divert White's queen's bishop b2) 7 ... 0-0 (D) and now: from the long diagonal. The drawback is that

this takes time (the bishop will usually return to
d6), and !iJ..d2 is still a useful move in that it
clears the back rank and speeds White's devel
opment. Here are some sample lines:

b I ) 7 ... !iJ..d6 8 �c2 0-0 9 !iJ..e2 dxc4 I 0 bxc4
e5 1 1 0-0 (D) brings us to an interesting posi tion.

B

b2 1 ) 8 !iJ..e2 �e7 9 0-0 is unpretentious and
safe. If 9 ... e5, then White can try 1 0 a3 ! ? !iJ..d6

I I cxd5, when l l ... cxd5 12 t"Llb5 or l l .. . e4 12
t"Llg5 cxd5 13 t"Llb5 won't please Black, so

I I . . . t"Llxd5! 1 2 t"Llxd5 cxd5 1 3 dxe5 t"Llxe5 1 4

!iLc3 ;!; might follow.

b22) 8 !iJ..d3 !? is not bad, but rather optimis
tic:

Black has a foothold in the centre, but his b22 1 ) 8 ... �e7 9 0-0 e5 10 dxe5 t"Llxe5 1 1
pieces are to a considerable extent tied to the e t"Llxe5 �xeS 1 2 t"Llxd5! t"Llxd5 1 3 cxd5 !iJ..d6! 14
pawn. For example: f4 �xd5 15 �c2 �h5 1 6 !iJ..c3 with a slight 108 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

advantage for White, Uhlmann-Starostits, Leu
tersdorf 2002. Admittedly, this isn't much, but
it's a game. w
b222) 8 .. J�e8 9 0-0 ..if8 (9 ... e5 1 0 dxe5
dxc4! 1 1 bxc4 tLlxe5 1 2 tLlxe5 l:txe5 1 3 'ii'c2 g6

14 l:tad l ..id6 1 5 tLle2 intending h3 and ..ic3,
with a minor edge) 10 'ii'c2 g6 1 1 l:tad l !? ( 1 1
l:tfel a6 1 2 e4 dxc4 1 3 ..ixc4 b5 14 ..ifl t)

l l ...b6 12 e4 dxe4 1 3 tLlxe4 'fi/c7 ( 1 3 ... ..ib7 1 4

..ig5 ..ie7 1 5 tLlc3 ! t ; 1 3 .. . tLlxe4 1 4 ..ixe4 ..ib7

1 5 l:tfe 1 t) 1 4 lLlxf6+ lLlxf6 1 5 ..ig5 tLld7 1 6
l:tfe l ..ib7 1 7 ..ih4!? ( 1 7 l:te2! with the idea

1 7 ... e5 1 8 l:tde l ) 1 7 ... ..id6 1 8 ..ig3 ..ixg3 1 9
hxg3 e5 20 dxe5 tLlxe5 2 1 c5 with only a very
minor advantage and few prospects against ac idea 1 2 gxf3? tLld5 1 3 ..id2 ..ixc3 1 4 ..ixc3 llc8
curate play, Kramnik-Marek, Lyons simulta 1 5 ..ic4 tLlxc3 1 6 'ii'xc3 b5, etc. neous 200 1 . a2) 8 dxe5 lLlxe5 9 cxd5?! 'ii'a5! ; e.g., 1 0

'ii'd2 can be met by 1 0 ... ..ib4 1 1 ..ib2 lLlxf3+ 1 2

6.21) gxf3 tLlxd5. Black even gets a little advantage
with the cute trick 1 0 ... 'ii'xc3 !? 1 1 'ii'xc3 ..ib4!,

6 ... ..id6 (D) when White has to play 1 2 �d2! tLlxd3 1 3

�xd3 ..if5+ 1 4 �c4 ..ixc3 1 5 �xc3 tLle4+ +.

a3) Best is 8 lLlxe5 lLlxe5 9 dxe5 ..ixe5 1 0

..ib2 dxc4 +.

w b) It's often better to get ..ie2 and 0-0 in
quickly, because otherwise ... e5 can have more
effect. However, that's primarily the case if

White has also spent a move on 6 'ii'c2, and hav
ing skipped that move here, it turns out that
there's time for 7 ..ib2 (D):

B

This is the 'normal' move, in that it is played
versus 6 'ii'c2 and other anti-Meran moves.

Black would simply like to get castled, protect
his centre, and either continue ... e5 when ad
vantageous, or build up for ... c5 with ... b6 and

... ..ib7.

7 ..ie2

There's one bad alternative and one rather
good one:

a) The move ..id3 should only be played b 1 ) 7 ... e5 8 cxd5 (8 ..ie2!? e4 9 tLld2 is quite
when ... e5 isn't effective. Here White has to be an interesting possibility, as White intends g4-
aware of the forking move ... e4, and 7 ..id3? e5! g5 and 0-0-0; this is very much like a reversed

(D) illustrates this: form of variations of the Tarrasch French with
al ) 8 cxd5? ..ib4! (threatening ... e4) 9 'ii'c2 3 ... lLlf6) 8 ... tLlxd5!? (8 ... cxd5 9 dxe5 tLlxe5 1 0
e4 1 0 dxc6 exf3 ! 1 1 cxd7+ ..ixd7 + with the tLlxe5 ..ixe5 I I ..ib5+ ..id7 1 2 ..ixd7 + 'ii'xd7 1 3

SEMI-SLAV DEFENCE 109

0-0 isn't clear, but since Black can't enforce .i.xf3 .i.e5 1 2 .i.b2 ltJxd5 1 3 .i.xd5 ! cxd5 1 4

... d4, White will get a long-term positional 'ii'd2;!;; .i.e6 ( 1 4 .. . d4?! 1 5 lDb5) l 5 ltJe2, when
edge) 9 ltJxd5 cxd5 1 0 dxe5 'ii'a5+ 1 1 'it>e2! he has control of the position, although his
gives White an extra pawn he can hold on to; game is hardly dominant. for instance, l l ...b6 1 2 'ii'd4 .i.a6+ 1 3 �d1 b) 8 ... 'ii'e7 usually transposes to one of our

.i.xfl 14 l:%.xfl 'ii'h5 1 5 l:%.g 1 ;t main variations. An unusual line would be 9
b2) 7 ... 0-0 8 .i.e2 (8 .i.d3 e5 ! 9 cxd5 cxd5 'ii'c2 (for the paradoxical 9 .i.b2 b6 I 0 .i.d3 ! ?

1 0 dxe5 ltJxe5 1 1 ltJxe5 .i.xe5 1 2 0-0 l:%.e8 ! = .i.b7, see Section 6.2 1 3) 9 ... b6 1 0 cxd5 !? (an
has the dual ideas of ... d4 and ... .i.xh2+) 8 ... e5 oddity when not having played .i.b2 yet; 1 0

(8 ... dxc4 9 bxc4 e5 1 0 0-0 l:t.e8 1 1 'ii'c2 trans .i.b2 is normal) I O .. . cxd5 ( 1 O .. . exd5 I I .i.d3
poses to Section 6.2 1 2) 9 dxe5 ! ltJxe5 1 0 cxd5 .i.b7 1 2 l:%.e1 with the idea e4) 1 1 lDb5 .i.a6 1 2
cxd5 1 1 0-0 ;!;;. A possible continuation runs ltJxd6 .i.xe2 1 3 'ii'xe2 'ii'xd6 1 4 a4 l:%.fc8 1 5
l l ...lDxf3+ 1 2 .i.xf3 .i.e5 1 3 'ii'd2 d4?! (but .i.a3 'ii'b8 1 6 'ii'a6, and White has a very slight
otherwise, in addition to l:%.fd 1 , ltJb5 or ltJe2 is edge because of his influential bishop. coming) 1 4 ltJb5 .i.g4 15 .i.xg4 ltJxg4 1 6 f4

.i.f6 1 7 e4!, when White will win a pawn for 6.211) minimal compensation. Compare the next note.

We now return to 7 .i.e2 (D): 8 ... ltJe4 (D)

8 w

7 ••• 0-0 Black has in mind establishing a Stonewall

With the bishop on e2, 7 ... e5 8 cxd5 cxd5 9 structure with ... f5. dxe5 ltJxe5 I 0 0-0 is what White wants to 9 'ii'c2 achieve from an isolated-pawn position. After 9 ltJxe4 dxe4 1 0 ltJd2 is also played; further

1 0 ... .i.e6 ( 1 0 ... ltJxf3+ 1 1 .i.xf3 .i.e5 1 2 .i.b2 more, 9 .i.b2 f5 I 0 ltJe I l:%.f6 I I f4 l:%.h6 1 2

0-0 1 3 'ii'd2 .i.e6 and now 1 4 l:%.fd 1 or 1 4 ltJe2 ;!;;) ltJxe4 fxe4 1 3 g3 proved a successful plan in

I I i.b2 0-0 1 2 ltJb5 ltJxf3+ 1 3 .i.xf3 .i.b8 1 4 Uhlmann-Lukacs, Austrian Team Ch 2000/1 ,
l:%.c 1 a6 1 5 ltJd4 'ii'd6 1 6 g 3 .i.a7 1 7 ltJe2!, White although right now it's about equal. threatens .i.xf6 and has a variety of moves such 9 ... f5 as ltJf4, 'ii'd3 and .i.d4 at the ready. This is Black's intended set-up, which Vera

8 0-0 suggests following up with a kingside attack,

Now Black picks a strategy: using moves like ... 'iff6 and/or ... g5, with ... l:%.f6-

6.211: 8 ... ltJe4 1 09 h6 as a possibility. That's a logical-sounding

6.212: 8 ... 1:%.e8 1 1 0 plan, but does have the drawback that it will be 6.213: 8 ... b6 1 1 1 a long time before the a8-rook and c8-bishop
will be able to support the other pieces in this
a) Once more, 8 ... e5 gives White comfort endeavour. Let's take a look. able play after 9 dxe5 ltJxe5 1 0 cxd5 ltJxf3+ 1 1 10 a4

110 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

This is the safest counter-strategy, preparing 6.212) .ta3 to eliminate the attacker, while also initiat
ing a queenside expansion. The alternative is I 0 8 .•• l:te8 9 'ii'c2 .tb2, which can support t"Lle5 at the right mo Or, of course, 9 .tb2, which you should
ment; e.g., I O ... 'iff6 I I l:tac l g5 ( l l ...'ii'g6 1 2 compare with this and other lines. .td3 with the idea t"Lle2 and t"Llf4, sometimes 9 ... dxc4 10 bxc4 e5 11 .tb2 "iJ/e7 preceded by t"Lle5) 12 h3 ( 1 2 g3 'ii'h6 1 3 t"Llxe4 The structure after I I ... exd4 1 2 exd4 is very
fxe4 14 t"Lle5 ;!;) 12 ... g4? ( 1 2 ... h5 1 3 t"Llxe4 fxe4 common; White's central pawns are flexible

14 t"Lle5 t"Llxe5 1 5 dxe5 .txe5 1 6 .ta3 ;!; ) 1 3 and always threatening to advance. Play can
hxg4 fxg4 1 4 t"Llxe4 dxe4 1 5 t"Lle5 ±. continue 1 2 ... t"Llf8 1 3 l:tad 1 "iJ/c7 14 c5 ( 1 4 l:tfe I

10 .•. l:tf6!? t"Llg6 1 5 h3 ;!; t"Llf4 1 6 .tfl l:txe I 1 7 l:txe I .te6)

a) IO . . .'ili'e7 I I .tb2 l:tf6 12 a5 l:th6 is an 14 ... ..i.e7 1 5 t"Lle5 .te6 1 6 f4, when Flear gives
easy attack to fend off: 13 g3 t"Lldf6 14 t"Lle5 1 6 ... t"Lld5 an ' ! ' . However, while White has

.txe5 1 5 dxe5 t"Llxc3 1 6 ifxc3 t"Lle4 1 7 ifd4 and given up key squares and entombed his b2-

White has a slight advantage. bishop, he's done so for the sake of a direct at
b) IO ... a5 I I .ta3 .txa3 1 2 l:txa3 �f6 1 3 tack, and 1 7 f5 ! (D) implements that: l:taal t.

ll .ta3 .tb8 (D)

B

a) 1 7 ... t"Lle3 1 8 'i¥d3 t"Llxd l 1 9 .txd l f6 (or

1 9 ... ..tc8 20 ..tb3 and White is winning) 20

12 l:tad1 t"Llxc6! bxc6 2 1 fxe6 and ..tb3 gives White an

I think 1 2 l:tac I should also achieve a moder extra powerful passed central pawn for the ex
ate advantage; for example, 1 2 ... b6 1 3 cxd5 change. exd5 1 4 g3 .tb7 1 5 t"Llh4 g5 ! ? ( 1 5 ... .td6 1 6 b) 1 7 ... t"Llxc3 is the book move, but after 1 8 t"Llxe4 fxe4 1 7 .txd6 l:txd6 1 8 f3 exf3 1 9 t"Llxf3 fxe6 t"Llxe2+ 1 9 'ii'xe2 f6, White can keep his

;!;) 1 6 t"Llxf5 ! t"Llxc3 1 7 t"Lle7+ 'it>h8 1 8 'ifxc3 c5 advantage by 20 t"Lld3 (instead of 20 'ii'g4 ?!, as

1 9 dxc5 .te5 20 'ii'd3 t"Llxc5 2 1 l:txc5 bxc5 22 played in Taimanov-Chekhov, Tallinn 1 980)

.txc5 .td6 23 .txd6 'ii'xd6 24 t"Llf5 'ii'e5 25 20 ... ..td8 2 1 t"Llf4, when a long, semi-forced
t"Lld4 t. variation is 2 1 ...'ili'e7 22 'ii'g4 .tc7 23 t"Llh5

12 • • • l:th6 13 g3 'ii'e8 14 'it>g2 aS 15 l:tcl t"Llg6 24 d5 ! ..te5 (24 ... 'ii'xc5+ 25 'it>h 1 'i!i'd6 26
t"Lldf6 16 t"Lle5 g5 'ili'h3 +-) 25 ..txe5 t"Llxe5 26 �g3 'ii'xc5+ 27

Now: 'it>h I t"Llg6 28 l:txf6 ! gxf6 29 t"Llxf6+ 'it>g7 30
a) 17 t"Llxe4 has the ideas 1 7 .. .fxe4?! 1 8 f4!, t"Llxe8+ l:txe8 3 1 d6 ± 'ii'h5 32 l:te I 'i!i'd5 33 d7

1 7 ... dxe4 18 h3 and 1 7 ... t"Llxe4 18 h3 t. l:tg8 ! 34 'ii'c3+ 'it>h6 35 'ii'h3+ 'ili'h5 36 e7
b) After 17 h3, Korchnoi-Akopian, Gron 'ili'xh3 37 e8'ii'! and White wins. ingen 1 996 went 1 7 ... .tc7 1 8 f3 t"Llxc3 1 9 'ii'xc3 12 l:tae1 (D) t"Lld7 20 l:th 1 t"Llxe5 2 1 dxe5 .td7 22 'it>f2 .tb6 This move gives White time to pursue his

23 .td6 'ii'f7 24 l:tcg 1 'it>h8 25 c5 ±. own ambitions without having to defend the

SEMI-SLAV DEFENCE 111

kingside. The 'other rook' move, 1 2 �.fe 1 ?! ,

has been played a lot, but after 1 2 .. . e4 1 3 liJd2
liJf8, the line 1 4 f3 exf3 1 5 ..txf3 ltJg4! hasn't w treated White well after many tests. Another in
teresting sequence is 14 a4 ltJg6 1 5 c5 i..c7 1 6
a5; e.g., 1 6 .. . ltJh4 1 7 a6 b6 1 8 cxb6 axb6 1 9 a7

'i!Ve6 20 g3.

B

centre. Then after some exchanges leaving the
queen on e4, Black plays either ... f5 (often fol
lowed by ... c5) or ... liJf6, attacking the queen,
and equalizes. It's revealing that with the queen
on c2, Gelfand and others have upon occasion
simply accepted the loss of tempo and played
i..d3, and then 'i!Ve2, either preparing e4 or sim
ply improving the position of the queen while

Now: keeping an eye on a6, for example. Then Black
a) 12 ... e4 1 3 liJd2 liJf8 can be answered by tries to play an early ... e5 and equalize. It occurs

1 4 c5 i..b8 1 5 ltJc4 with the idea 1 5 ... b5 1 6 to me that you could try the same idea here, i.e.,
ltJe5. In the game Azmaiparashvili-Kaidanov, play i..d3 and then save a tempo by playing 'i!Ve2

USSR 1 982, White played the odd-looking 1 4 directly (instead of 'i!Vc2-e2). Let's see how that

..td 1 ltJg6 1 5 f3 ! exf3 1 6 ltJxf3 with the idea might work out:

1 6 ... ltJg4 1 7 e4 or 1 6 ... ..te6 1 7 i..e2! ltJg4 1 8 10 i..d3 (D) i..d3 ±.

b) 12 ... ..tc7 13 c5 !? (a less committal alter

native is 1 3 'i!Vb3, intending ..ta3 in some lines)

1 3 ... h6 14 i..a3 e4?! 1 5 liJd2 liJf8 1 6 ltJc4 ;!; B came out nicely for White in G.Kuzmin-Agza
mov, USSR Ch, Frunze 1 98 1 . This line illus
trates the creative leeway that 6 b3 allows.

6.213}

8 .•. b6 9 i..b2 i..b7 (D)

This is a main line. Now 1 0 'i!Vc2 is the most
common move (a position that much more often
arises when White plays 6 'i!Vc2). We have years
of practice with it, to the extent that many games
have been repeated nearly or entirely move-for 10 ... 'i!V e7 move. The general conclusion is that 1 0 'ii'c2 I think this is the most appropriate move. In
ends in equality, which is not really a problem in general, White can play the more aggressive
itself when you're trying to find an interesting i..d3 in any line in which Black is not poised to
position to play. The difficulty is that White play ... e5; otherwise, i..e2 tends to be prefera
tends to be stuck with the same plan, i.e., playing ble, as it is the best square for the bishop should
for e4 either before or after bringing rooks to the Black take on an isolated queen's pawn. In this 112 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

position 1 o ... e5? is inferior due to 1 1 cxd5 cxd5 lt:Jh4! cxd5 1 4 lt:Jf5 'ii'e6 1 5 lt:Jxd6 'i!Vxd6 1 6

1 2 lt:Jb5. Here are some other typical moves: i.e2 ;!:;) 1 3 e4! and exchanges will favour White.

a) I O ... .l:te8 1 1 'i!Ve2 (contemplating e4, of b) l l ...l:tfe8 1 2 e4 ( 1 2 cxd5 with the idea e4
course, but also introducing the idea of cxd5 might be more accurate, since 1 2 ... cxd5 1 3
and i.a6) can lead to: lt:Jb5 looks worthwhile) and then:

a l ) l l ...e5 always has to be checked: 1 2 b l ) 1 2 ... dxe4 1 3 lt:Jxe4 lt:Jxe4 14 i.xe4 lt:Jf6 dxe5 tt:lxe5 1 3 cxd5 ! ? tt:lxd3 ( 1 3 .. . lt:Jxd5 1 4 1 5 i.c2 .l:ad8 1 6 a3;!:; (versus ... i.b4). lt:Jxd5 tt:\xd3 1 5 'i!Vxd3 cxd5 1 6 .l:tac 1 with a fa b2) 1 2 ... dxc4! 1 3 i.xc4 b5 14 i.d3 e5
vourable isolated-pawn position for White be ( 1 4 ... b4?! 1 5 e5 ! bxc3 1 6 exd6 'i!Vxd6 1 7 i.xc3
cause of the good knight versus bad bishop) 1 4 gives White a slight advantage) 1 5 lt:Je2 a6 1 6

'ii'xd3 cxd5 1 5 lt:Jb5 i.e7 1 6 .l:tac 1 lt:Je4 1 7 'i!Ve2 .l:.c 1 .l:tad8 1 7 'ii'd2 with chances for both sides.

i.a6 1 8 a4 lt:Jc5 1 9 11i'd 1 ;!:; with the idea b4. 12 'i!Ve2 c5 13 cxd5 cxd4
a2) I l ...a6 (versus cxd5 and i.a6) 1 2 .l:tfd l l 3 ... exd5 can be answered by 14 i.a6 (a
dxc4 1 3 bxc4 c5 1 4 lt:Je5 11i'c7 1 5 f4 with an ob side-benefit of the queen on e2). scure position; hard to assess, but I'd rather be 14 lLlxd4 lt:Jxd5 15 lt:Jxd5 i.xd5 16 .l:tacl

White. tt:Jc5 17 i.c4
b) I O ... c5 provides opportunities for both The pawn-structure is still symmetrical but
sides to complicate and this time there are ac White's piece-play can keep the game lively;
tually real game examples: I I 'ii'e2 ( I I cxd5 e.g., 1 7 ... i.xc4 ( 1 7 ... i.a8 1 8 'ii'h5 g6 1 9 'ii'h6
exd5 is preferable; then White's queen is well e5 20 lt:Jf3 ! ? ..txf3 2 1 gxf3 and White has some
placed, so 1 2 l:tc 1 ! , having in mind dxc5 with genuine attacking and endgame prospects) 1 8

..tf5, or lt:Je2-f4, appears to be more accurate 'i!Vxc4 'i!ib7 1 9 .:.ed l .l:.c8 20 lt:Jb5 i.b8 2 l'ifg4 .

than the 1 2 'i!Ve2 a6 1 3 .l:tfd l of Ztiger-Khen Well, to be perfectly clear, the analysis above
kin, Swiss Team Ch 20 1 0) l l ....l:te8 1 2 l:.fd l is for illustrative purposes, and you can be sure
a6, G.Buckley-Wells, London (Lloyds Bank) that with sensible play in the positions after I 0

1 994. The game is essentially equal after 1 3 i.d3, the game is objectively close to equal, just
dxc5 bxc5 or 1 3 cxd5 exd5 1 4 .l:tac 1 g6. as it is in all the anti-Meran systems. I'm pro
ll .l:te1 (D) posing this variation not to guarantee the better

I should probably be consistent and suggest game (although in most cases you can get an

I I 'i!Ve2, but it's tempting to get e4 in with the edge), but to provide an alternative to 1 5 moves
queen a target on e7. of tactical and largely forced theoretical contin
uations. This way you have the whole game in

front of you in which to try to outplay your op
ponent.

B

6.22)

6 ••• b6 (D) Black can play this on any of the next four
moves, so a lot of what I'm showing can come
from an equivalent transposition.

7 i.b2 ..tb7 8 i.d3

As explained in the note to White's 9th move,

White is secure in this move when Black can't
play an early ... e5.

8 ••• i.e7
l l .•. .l:ad8 In this popular set-up, Black plays solidly

Accordingly, Black places his own rook and doesn't expose himself to some of the at
where it eyes the white queen. tacks to which the bishop on d6 was subject
a) On this occasion, White is particularly (e.g., lt:Jb5). Most importantly, he can answer
ready for l l ...e5?!: 1 2 cxd5 cxd5 ( 1 2 ... e4 1 3 lt:Je5 with ... lt:Jxe5 and the bishop won't be

SEMI-SLAV DEFENCE 113

queen can capture on e4 in some lines, and it

also stays out ofthe way of ... l:tc8 and ... c5. No
w tice that after ... i..e7, Black's own queen can't
get to e7 and is itself subject to attack on the c
file if it goes to c7.

In the event, I'll stick with 10 'ifc2 because
you may find that there are other move-orders
by which you reach this position but are already
committed to 'ifc2. This in particular gives you
flexibility if you don't like the 6 b3 move-order,
but do like the b3 set-up. For the record, how
ever, I should say that Kasparov has played the
position after 1 0 'ii'e2 twice (albeit in simulta
neous displays), as have other strong players.

attacked on d6. For lines with ... .i.d6, see Sec 10 ... l:tc8 tion 6.2 1 . a) 1 0 ... 'irc7 I I ltJe5 ( 1 1 l:tfd 1 improves, I

9 0-0 (D) think; for example, I I ...l:tac8 1 2 l:l.ac I h6 1 3

This position can arise by a variety of move 'ii'e2) 1 I ...ltJxe5? ( l l ...c5 1 2 f4 l:tad8 1 3 l:tad I
orders; for example, if Black plays 6 ... .i.e7 7 ;!; Krasenkow, but this isn't much) 1 2 dxe5 dxc4
i..b2 0-0, etc., a set-up which has attracted 1 3 bxc4 ltJg4 ( 1 3 ... ltJd7? 1 4 i..xh7+ �h8 1 5 f4)

some good players recently, or even from a rad 1 4 i..xh7+ �h8 1 5 'ii'e2 f5 1 6 h3 �xh7 1 7 hxg4
ically different move-order such as 3 ltJf3 ltJf6 'ii'xe5?! 1 8 g5 ! l:l.h8 I 9 ltJd5 'ii'd6 20 i..e5 ! 'ii'd7

4 e3 e6 5 b3 ltJbd7 6 .i.b2 b6 7 i..d3 .i.b7 8 0-0 2 1 ltJc7 +- Sargissian-Egiazarian, Erevan 2004;
i..e7 9 ltJc3. a lovely combination.

b) 1 0 ... c5 I I l:l.ad I l:l.c8 1 2 dxc5 l:l.xc5 was
the actual move-order of Polugaevsky-Comas

Fabrego below.

B 11 l:tadl (D)

I I l:tfdl would be better in the line l l ... 'ii'c7

1 2 'ife2 l:f.fe8 1 3 l:tac I ; of course, this is always
a difficult decision, because the most useful
squares for the rooks are determined by how
the game develops.

B

9 .•. 0-0 10 'ifc2

Avrukh says of this position: "This seems to
me to be quite favourable for White. He has a
clear plan of strengthening his position with
l:l.ad I , ltJe5, f4 and so on, while it is not so easy
for Black to create serious counterplay." I would
add that simply e4, often preceded by l:.ad I ,
can be effective at the right moment. As a gen
eral comment, I should also repeat that, since
i..d3 is already in, I prefer putting the queen on l l ... 'ii'c7 e2, and 1 0 'ife2 indeed has some advantages. This is an important juncture with some in

This move often works better with e4. since the structive alternatives:

114 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

a) l l ...h6 1 2 e4 ( 1 2 ltJe5 ltJxe5 1 3 dxe5
ltJd7 14 f4 :;!;) 1 2 ... dxe4 1 3 ltJxe4 ltJxe4 14 ..txe4 ltJf6 ( 1 4 ... f5?! 1 5 ..id3 c5 1 6 d5 ! ) 1 5 J..d3 B 'flic7 1 6 c5 ! ? (I like 1 6 .:tfel :;!;) 1 6 ... ltJd5 1 7 ltJe5 ltJb4 (Kveinys-Hole, Oslo 2007) and now

Avrukh recommends 1 S 'flic4 ltJxd3 1 9 .:txd3
with "a stable advantage due to Black's lazy
bishop on b7".

b) 1 l ...c5 (a natural move) 1 2 cxd5 exd5

( 1 2 ... cxd4 1 3 ltJxd4 leaves White clearly better
after 1 3 ... exd5 1 4 ltJf5 or 1 3 ... ..txd5 1 4 ..ta6)

1 3 dxc5 (D) ( 1 3 ..tf5 :;!; Kramnik) and now:

12 ... l:.fd8

B This is the main theoretical move. Alterna
tives:

a) 1 2 ... ltJxe5? 1 3 dxe5 ltJg4 1 4 i.xh7+ �hS

1 5 'ii'e2! ± Csom-Metz, Budapest 1 995.

b) 1 2 ... h6 1 3 'ii'e2 (or Avrukh's suggestion

1 3 f4! first, to avoid ... ltJxe5 on the following
move; 1 3 ltJxd7 ltJxd7 followed by 14 'fi'e2 or

14 e4 would serve a similar purpose, but with
fewer attacking chances) and here:

b l ) 1 3 ... ltJxe5 1 4 dxe5 ltJd7 is only slightly
better for White; e.g., 1 5 f4 ltJc5 ( 1 5 ... dxc4?!

1 6 bxc4 lDc5 1 7 i.bl l:.fdS I S .l:.d4 ±) 1 6 J..bl
bl ) 1 3 ... .:txc5 1 4 'flibl .:teS 1 5 ltJe2 .:tcS 1 6 dxc4 1 7 bxc4 .:tfdS IS .l:.d4 :;!;. ltJf4 :;!; h 6 1 7 ..if5 .:tc7? 1 S ltJd4 ..ta6?? 1 9 b2) 1 3 ... .:tfdS 1 4 f4! c5? ! (Kramnik-Van ltJde6! 1 -0 Polugaevsky-Comas Fabrego, Palma Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2007) and here 1 5 f5 !

de Mallorca 1 9S9, due to 1 9 .. .fxe6 20 ..txe6+ (Krasenkow) is strong, as is Kramnik's 1 5 lDb5

�hS 2 1 ltJg6+ �h7 22 ltJfS++ �hS 23 'flih7+! 'ii'bS 1 6 f5. ltJxh7 24 ltJg6#. c) 1 2 ... g6 1 3 f4 a6 1 4 'flie2 dxc4! 1 5 bxc4
b2) 1 3 ... bxc5 1 4 i.f5 g6?! ( 1 4 ... .:teS! ? with .:tfdS keeps Black's disadvantage to a mini
the idea ... i.fS - Sokolov) 1 5 i.h3 a6 1 6 ltJe2!? mum. Then ... c5 is in the air, so 16 i.c2! is a

(16 ltJa4 :;!;) 16 ... l:.c7 1 7 f/Jc3 ltJb6 l S f/Ja5 :;!; good move, having in mind both 1 6 ... c5? 1 7 d5

I.Sokolov-Khalifman, Pardubice 1 994. and the fact that the bishop might transfer to b3.

c) l l ...l:.eS 1 2 'flie2 (even with the Joss of 13 f4 tempo, this is a reasonable move) 1 2 ... 'ii'c7 1 3 Now: e4 dxe4 1 4 ltJxe4 ltJxe4 1 5 'flixe4 ltJf8 ( 1 5 ... ltJf6 a) 1 3 ... c5 can be countered by 14 cxd5 !

is the standard response if ... f5 isn't available) exd5 1 5 'flie2 (Avrukh).

16 .:tfe I c5 1 7 d5 ! exd5 IS cxd5 ..if6 1 9 flixeS! b) After 1 3 ... ttJf8, 14 'flie2?! c5? ( 1 4 ... dxc4!

.:txeS 20 .:txeS i.xb2 2 1 d6 'flic6 22 i.b5 ! 'ii'xb5 1 5 ..ixc4 ltJd5) 1 5 f5 ! gave White a serious at

23 d7 i.f6? (23 ... i.xf3 ! 24 .:txfS+ �xfS 25 tack in Aorean-Aliev, Calicut 1 99S. More accu
dS'fV+ flieS 26 gxf3 :;!;) 24 dS'fV ..ixdS 25 l:tdxdS rate is 1 4 f5 ! ; e.g., 14 ... i.d6 ( 1 4 ... i.a6 1 5 fxe6
g6 26 .:txfS+ �g7 27 ltJg5 is winning for White, fxe6 1 6 ltJe2 :;!;) 1 5 fxe6 fxe6 ( 1 5 ... ltJxe6? 1 6 Papenin-Shvidun, Ukrainian Team Ch, Alushta .:txf6! gxf6 1 7 lDg4 ± ) 1 6 cxd5 exd5 ( 1 6 .. . cxd5

2004. 1 7 'ii'f2! with the idea lDb5) 1 7 J..f5 :as I S e4!

12 ltJe5 (D) with a significant initiative.

7 Nimzo-lndian Defence

1 d4 tt::lf6 2 c4 e6 3 tt::lc3 ..tb4 (D)

8

w

1 ) White prepares to develop his kings ide
quickly, and retains flexibility as to the place

The Nimzo-Indian Defence was for many ment of his king's knight on f3 or e2. years a mainstay of nearly every elite player's 2) The e4-square can be challenged by ..td3,
repertoire. It was said that the reason players while c3 can be covered by tt::lge2, potentially
used 1 e4 was because after 1 d4 they had to with a later tt::lg3 to control e4 further. cope with the Nimzo-lndian! The opening is 3) The d4-pawn is covered, so the typical
still one of the elite defences versus 1 d4, al Nimzo-Indian attack by ... c5 and ... tt::lc6 has
though now not as feared, and competing in less forcing effect. popularity with the Slav, Semi-Slav, Queen's These are modest achievements, and the

Gambit Declined and (at this moment) the non-forcing nature of 4 e3 gives Black a great

Griinfeld Defence. In our case, we are using 3 deal of latitude as to how to develop. Still, once
tt::lc3 because it is consistent with the rest of our White develops and castles, he will be threaten
repertoire and, in the event that Black plays ing to expand with e4, and thus Black's main

3 ... d5, we have bypassed some troublesome moves are directed at setting up so as to prevent
defences which White would allow should he or anticipate that advance: play 3 tt::lf3 (an issue I outlined in Chapter 1 ). 7.1: 4 ... c5 1 1 7 Besides, the Nimzo-Indian is one ofthe greatest 7.2: 4 ... b6 1 26 strategic openings in all of chess, so it would be 7.3: 4 ••. 0-0 1 39 a shame to pass it by ! 7.4: 4 ••• d5 143

4 e3 (D) 7.5: 4 ••• tt::lc6 1 46

This gentle advance of the e-pawn has his
torically been played more often than any I'm not going to deal with illogical or slow
other move against the Nimzo-Indian, and in 4th moves - after all, Black can play just about
contemporary chess is played in slightly over a anything - but there are a couple of other moves
third of the games with 3 ... ..tb4. Nearly every that are important enough to mention: leading player has played 4 e3, some of them a) 4 ... d6 is sound, intending an early ... e5 as
regularly. he wishes. White has some leeway in setting up:

Despite blocking in the queen's bishop, the a l ) The classic encounter Euwe-Yanofsky,
move accomplishes a few basic things: Groningen 1 946 continued 5 tt::le2 0-0 6 a3 116 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

..ixc3+ 7 li:Jxc3 e5 8 ..ie2 fiie7 9 0-0 ..if5 1 0 a slight advantage for White, Likavsky-Vuko
f3 ! (D). vic, Zalakaros 200 I .

a23) 7 ... li:Jc6 8 d5 l2Jb8 9 a3 ..ixc3 1 0 l2Jxc3

a5 1 1 e4 l2Je8 1 2 ..ie3 ;\; Botvinnik-Kholmov, Moscow 1 947.

B b) 4 ... l2Je4 has been connected with a few
recent pawn sacrifices. After 5 fiic2 (D) Black has two plausible options:

B

I O ... l2Jc6 (White has cleverly discouraged

IO ... e4?! due to I I fxe4 ..ixe4? 1 2 .l:txf6! gxf6

1 3 l2Jxe4 fiixe4 1 4 ..if3 and b7 falls) l l l2Jd5 !

l2Jxd5 12 cxd5 l2Jb8 1 3 e4 ..ic8 1 4 ..ie3 exd4 1 5
fiixd4. White has taken over the centre and has
the bishop-pair.

a2) 5 ..id3 0-0 6 l2Je2 is attractive, and now b l ) 5 .. .f5 6 ..id3 (or 6 l2Je2 b6 7 a3 i..xc3+ 8
the only consistent move is 6 ... e5. A few exam l2Jxc3 l2Jxc3 9 fiixc3 ;\;) 6 ... 0-0! ? (6 ... i..xc3+ 7 ples after 7 0-0 (D): bxc3 0-0 8 l2Je2 b6 9 0-0 i..b7 1 0 f3 l2Jd6 II
i..a3 l2Jc6 - Rogozenko; then White should

play 1 2 c5 bxc5 1 3 i..xc5 fiig5 l 4 l2Jf4 fiih6 1 5

.l:tab1 .l:tab8 1 6 fiia4 with a distinct advantage) 7

B li:Je2 (you don't have to give up your good
bishop when the alternative is so natural; it
turns out that 7 i..xe4 fxe4 8 fiixe4 d5 has quite
a bit of analysis attached to it, which may not be
worth your time to study) 7 ... b6 8 0-0 i..xc3 9
l2Jxc3 (9 bxc3!? is a bit more ambitious and
looks promising; e.g., 9 ... i..b7 1 0 f3 l2Jd6 1 1

.i.a3 'ii' g5 1 2 l2Jf4 l2Jc6 1 3 c5 bxc5 1 4 i..xc5 ;\;) 9 ... l2Jxc3 1 0 'ii'xc3 i..b7 I I b4 d6 1 2 �b2 (or 1 2
c5) with an edge for White because of the bish
ops - Emms; he nevertheless points out that it's
a fairly normal game and you can't expect any
a2 1 ) 7 ... .l:te8 8 a3 ..ixc3 9 l2Jxc3 l2Jbd7 1 0 quick victories to follow. ..ic2 ( 1 0 f3 h6 1 1 d 5 l2Jc5 1 2 ..ic2 a5 1 3 e4 �d7 b2) 5 ... l2Jxc3 6 bxc3 i..a5 is another rela

1 4 ..ie3 gives White an edge due to his space tively new attempt to block the centre with
and bishops) 1 0 ... h6 1 1 d5 l2Jf8 1 2 f3 l2Jg6 1 3 some combination of ... d6, ... c5 and ... e5. A
b3 ..id7 1 4 ..ib2 with a solid advantage for good way for White to set up is 7 .i.d3 d6 8 White, Chekhov-G.Kuzmin, Leningrad 1 99 1 . l2Je2 followed by central and kingside expan
a22) 7 ... c6 8 a3 ..ia5 9 b4 ..ic7 1 0 'i!Vc2 .l:te8 sion; for example, 8 ... h6 9 0-0 and now 9 ... 0-0

I I ..ib2 (or 1 1 f3 l2Jbd7 1 2 d5 ;\;) 1 1 ...exd4 1 2 1 0 e4 e5 1 1 f4 li:Jd7 1 2 i..e3 li:Jf6 1 3 h3 or
l2Jxd4 l2Jbd7 1 3 l:!.ad I l2Je5 1 4 ..ie2 'ille7 1 5 .l:td2 9 ... l2Jd7 10 e4 c5 I I f4 with a dangerous pawn

..id7 16 li:Jf5 ..ixf5 17 'ilfxf5 .l:tad8 1 8 .l:tfd 1 with mass.

NJMZO-INDIAN DEFENCE 117

7.1) a) 5 ... b6 transposes to Section 7.24 (i.e.

4 ... b6 5 li:Je2 c5).

4 ••• c5 b) 5 ... lt:Je4 (D) is playable, even though it

This is Black's most aggressive continua moves a piece twice and reduces Black's con
tion; it strikes at d4, usually with the specific trol over d5 and e4. White has two logical re
intention of ... cxd4 followed by ... d5, to com plies: promise White's centre. It is in some ways the
most important move to study, because White

has to know tactical specifics and concrete
positional moves, as well as the general con
tours of a variety of types of position. Al
though the alternative 4 ... 0-0 is now played more often, especially at the elite levels, the
resulting play there is slow and easier to un
derstand.

5li:Je2 (D)

B
bl ) 6 i.d2 tbxd2 7 'i!ixd2 gains development
in return for the bishops. White also has ideas of
d5 and a3. Compare this with Section 7.23 (i.e.

4 ... b6 5li:Je2li:Je4). There can follow 7 ... cxd4 8
exd4 0-0 (8 ... d5 9 c5 is the main line of Section

7. 1 2 1 ) 9 a3 i.e7 (now 9 ... ..txc3 10 lt:Jxc3 d5 I I
c5 falls short of transposing to 7. 1 2 1 since Black
isn't in time to play ... a4 - see the note to Black's
l i th move in that section) 1 0 g3 !? (naturally 1 0
d5 i s also playable) IO .. . d5 1 1 cxd5 exd5 12

I am recommending playing this way against i.g2 i.e6 1 3 0-0 ( l 3li:Jf4 i.g5 ! =) 1 3 ... li:Jc6 14 most defensive set-ups. The knight move devel .l:.ad 1 i.g5 (versus li:Jf4) 1 5 'i!Vd3 with balanced
ops a kingside piece, prevents Black from dou play. Knights are often a touch better than bish
bling White's c-pawns, and prepares a3 to force ops in this structure. One idea is 'ti'f3 and li:Jf4 in
a favourable resolution of the queenside situa order to compel ... i.xf4 and leave White with
tion.li:Jf4 or li:Jg3 may follow, with control over the better bishop. the corresponding central squares. With a knight b2) If you can't stand ceding the bishop
on e2, it is also possible to play moves like g3 pair in the opening, 6 'ilic2 plays for a central
and f3. On the negative side, on e2, the knight advantage: 6 ... cxd4 7 exd4 d5 8 a3 tbxc3 ! ?

blocks the king's bishop and fails to control e5. ( 8 .. . i.xc3+ 9li:lxc3 and now both 9 .. . tbxc3 1 0

In the abstract, a knight on f3 is better placed as bxc3 and 9 .. . li:lc6 1 0 i.e3 li:lxc3 1 1 bxc3 ;\; give it covers two central squares and reaches into White the bishop-pair and superior structure)

enemy territory; on the other hand, with a knight and now: on f3, Black can often create doubled c-pawns b21 ) 9 axb4li:Jxe2 10 i.xe2li:Jc6! ( IO ... dxc4
by capturing on c3, and he can put a piece on e4 1 1 b5 ! with the idea 1 l ...'ilixd4?! 1 2 i.e3) 1 1
without being chased away by f3. These are 'i!ic3 dxc4 12 i.e3 ( 1 2 d5 !? 'i!ixd5 1 3 0-0 0-0 14
typical trade-offs in chess, and naturally the i.e3 results in pressure for a pawn) 1 2 ... 0-0 13
consequences are to be found in the particulars 0-0 lt:Je7 14 'i!ixc4 i.d7 1 5 b5 ;\;. This isn't of the play. much, but White has the bishops and some

5 ... cxd4 queenside pressure.

118 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

b22) 9 lbxc3 i.d6 and now I 0 c5 is perhaps

best. Instead, I 0 cxd5 !? exd5 I I i.d3 lbc6 1 2
i.e3 i.e6 1 3 0-0 leaves White a few moves B ahead in a symmetrical position, with a real but
limited advantage.

c) 5 ... d5 is a smart way to get to one of the
main lines below by 6 a3 i.xc3+ 7 lbxc3 cxd4

8 exd4, which transposes to 5 ... cxd4 6 exd4 d5

7 a3 i.xc3+ 8 lbxc3 (see 7. 1 22), but bypasses

White's option of 7 c5 in 7 . 12 1 . The only draw
back is that White can enter the rather sterile
but slightly advantageous lines arising from 6
cxd5 (D), which is therefore important to ex
amine briefly:

bxc3 lbd7 ( l l .. . .td7 1 2 e4 i.c6 1 3 f3 lbd7 1 4
i.e3 ;!; ) 1 2 c 6 bxc6, and one course is 1 3 e4 Wc7

1 4 i.e3 ;!;. It's not a big advantage, but nobody

B really wants to play against such bishops.

c23) 7 ... .txc3+ and now:

c23 1 ) 8 bxc3 is called ';!;' by Babula, per
haps based upon play such as 8 ... cxd4 9 cxd4

0-0 1 0 lbg3 lbc6 I I i.d3 with the idea l l ...e5

1 2 dxe5 lbxe5 1 3 i.xh7+ Wxh7 14 'ifh5+ Wg8

1 5 'iVxe5. 8 ... 0-0 probably improves, when 9
g3 ! ? intending 1 0 e4 and 1 1 i.g2 is interesting.

c232) 8 lbxc3 ! ? cxd4 9 'iVxd4 0-0 10 lbxd5
exd5 1 1 'ii'f4! ? lbc6 1 2 i.d3 d4 1 3 0-0 dxe3 14

'iVxe3 .l:!.e8 1 5 'ii'g3 lbd4 16 i.g5 lbf3+ 1 7 'ii'xf3

'ii'xg5 1 8 i.c4 with just enough mini-threats to
c I ) 6 ... exd5 is sound, but Black lacks posi be annoying, although it would be hard to make tive play after 7 a3 i.xc3+ 8 lbxc3 cxd4 9 exd4 much out of 1 8 ... 'ii'f6 1 9 'iVxf6 gxf6. 0-0 1 0 .te2; for example, 1 0 ... lbe4!? 1 1 lbxe4 c24) 7 ... lbxc3 8 lbxc3 i.a5 (8 ... .txc3+?! 9
dxe4 1 2 d5 ! 'iVf6 1 3 0-0 .l:!.d8 1 4 i.e3 ( 14 'iVb3 bxc3 gives Black no compensation for the bish
lbd7 1 5 'iVg3 !) 14 ... 'iVe5 1 5 'ii'b3 with some ops; likewise with 8 ... cxd4?! 9 axb4 dxc3 1 0
fancy footwork: 1 5 ... b6 ( l 5 ... 'ii'xd5?? 1 6 .l:!.ad l ; 'ii'xd8+ Wxd8 I I bxc3 ;!; ) 9 dxc5 ! ? 'ii'xd I +
l 5 ... .l:!.xd5? 1 6 i.f4!) 1 6 .l:!.fd l .ta6 1 7 .td4! ( 9 .. . .txc3+ 1 0 bxc3 'i!Va5 !? isn't problem-free

'ii'd6 ( l 7 .. .'i!Vxd5?? 1 8 i.e3) 1 8 'ii'e3 i.xe2 1 9 after 1 1 ..te2 lbd7 and now 1 2 c6 or just 1 2 0-0

'ii'xe2 f5 20 .l:!.ac I ± Oil-Novikov, Kuldiga 1 987, lbxc5 1 3 'ii'd6 ..i.d7 14 a4! ;!; intending i.a3) I 0
with the idea 20 ... lbd7 2 1 .::!.c6! 'ii'xd5 22 .l:!.d6! 'it>xd 1 i.xc3 1 1 bxc3 lbd7 1 2 c6 bxc6. This is

'iVf7 23 i.e5 with i.f4 and/or 'ii'd2 next. extremely similar to line 'c22'; e.g., 1 3 'it>c2
c2) 6 ... lbxd5 has been the main move by lbc5 1 4 a4 .ta6 1 5 i.xa6 (or 1 5 i.a3 i.xfl 1 6
some margin. There follows 7 a3 (D): .::!.hxfl lbxa4 1 7 i.b4 ;!;) 1 5 ... lbxa6 1 6 .l:!.d l !.

c2 1 ) 7 ... cxd4?! 8 axb4 (8 'ii'xd4!? ;!;) 8 ... dxc3 6 exd4 (D) 9 bxc3 "fic7 (9 ... 0-0 1 0 e4 lbf6 I I 'ii'xd8 .l:.xd8 This is the most popular position by far. Now

1 2 f3 ;!; and i.e3) I 0 'ii'b3 ! 0-0 I I c4 lbf6 and in Black has two logical moves: G.Kramer-Ulvestad, Baltimore 1 948 White ex 7.11: 6 ... 0-0 1 1 8 tracted an edge from 1 2 lbd4 but 1 2 lbf4 looks 7.12: 6 ... d5 1 2 1
better, or 1 2 lbc3 ! b6 1 3 i.e2 i.b7 14 0-0 ;!;.

c22) 7 ... .ta5 8 dxc5 ! i.xc3+! (8 ... lbxc3? 9 7.11) 'iVxd8+ Wxd8 gives White the extra option of

1 0 i.d2! ±) 9 lbxc3 lbxc3 1 0 'ii'xd8+ Wxd8 I I 6 ... 0-0 7 a3

NIMZO-INDIAN DEFENCE 119

9 . . b6 This break and one with ... e5 have to be criti

8 cal; otherwise White's two bishops and space
will give him the better of it:

a) 9 ... lt:Je4 10 lt:Jxe4!? ( 1 0 it.d3 lt:Jxc3 1 1
bxc3 e5 1 2 0-0 lt:Jc6 1 3 ..te3 t) 1 0 ... dxe4 I I

..te3 lt:Jc6 ( 1 l ...it.d7 1 2 b4!? it.c6 1 3 it.e2 it.d5

1 4 b5) 1 2 it.c4 f5 1 3 11i'd2 'ii'f6 1 4 g3 t.

b) 9 ... lt:Jc6 aims for ... e5. White can play 1 0
it.e2 (or 1 0 it.f4 l:le8 I I it.b5; for example,
l l ...it.d7 1 2 0-0 a6 1 3 it.e2 lt:Je4, Khisma
tullin-Kravtsiv, Voronezh 2007, and now 14
lt:Jxe4 dxe4 1 5 f3 ! is good) I O ... e5 1 1 dxe5 !

lt:Jxe5 1 2 it.e3 lt:Jc4 ( 1 2 ... lt:Jc6 1 3 lt:Jb5 ! ) 1 3

For something different, there's Scherbakov's it.g5 ! ? (or 1 3 i..d4 lt:Jxb2 1 4 11i'c2 lt:Jc4 1 5 0-0

7 c5 !?, preparing it.f4. Black's main replies are it.e6 1 6 l:lad 1 t) 1 3 ... lt:Jxb2 ( 1 3 ... d4 14 it.xc4 7 ... d6 and 7 ... lt:Je4, both adequate, but neither dxc3 1 5 11i'xd8 l:lxd8 1 6 bxc3 t) 1 4 1!i'd4! it.e6
able to snuff the content from the position. 1 5 0-0 h6 1 6 i..h4 lt:Jc4 1 7 f4! lt:Ja5? (Black

Now a last parting of the ways: should play 1 7 ... lt:Je3! , but White stands better

7.111: 7 •.• it.xc3+ 1 1 9 after either 1 8 1!i'xe3 d4 1 9 11i'g3 dxc3 20 l:lad 1 7.112: 7 ... it.e7 1 20 1!i'e7 2 1 l:ld6! or even 1 8 f5 ! ? lt:Jxf5 1 9 l:lxf5 !

it.xf5 20 l:lfl ) 1 8 f5 lt:Jb3 ( 1 8 ... lt:Jc6 1 9 it.xf6!

7.111} +-) 19 1!i'e5 ! lt:Jxa 1 20 fxe6 fxe6 2 1 iV xe6+

�h8 22 l:lxa1 +- Sadler-Khalifman, Bundes

7 ... it.xc3+ 8 lt:Jxc3 d5 9 c5 (D) liga 1 999/00.

This calm move should favour White; it's c) 9 ... e5 !? can and maybe objectively should
instructive to see why. be met by 1 0 dxe5, but that gets complicated

9 cxd5 lt:Jxd5 (9 ... exd5 transposes to note and an easy way to a small positional advantage

'c l ' to Black's 5th move in Section 7. 1 ) 1 0 ..td3 is 1 0 i..b5 ! ? a6 1 1 it.a4 exd4 1 2 1!i'xd4 lt:Jc6 1 3
lt:Jc6 1 1 0-0 b6 1 2 l:le1 it.b7 leads to a typical ..txc6 bxc6 1 4 0-0 h6 1 5 it.f4, again with a
position with chances for both sides. modest advantage.

Remarkably, the position after 9 ..td3 dxc4 We now return to 9 ... b6 (D): 1 0 it.xc4 lt:Jc6 1 1 it.e3 has been played by
strong grandmasters, and hasn't done badly,

even though White is a full tempo down on the
main line of Section 7. 1 22 - all the more reason w to respect that line for White!

8

10 b4 bxc5 11 dxc5

Now:

a) 1 l ...e5?! is natural, but loosening. Khis
matullin-Harutjunian, Izhevsk 20 1 1 continued 120 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

1 2 .tg5 .tb7 1 3 .txf6 ( l 3 lDb5 ! ± is better still) Lautier) 1 2 ... lt:Jg6 1 3 lt:Jxg6 hxg6 1 4 .tf3 with a
l 3 ... 'ii'xf6 ( 1 3 ... gxf6? 14 'ii'h5 !) l 4 l2Jxd5 .txd5 convincing space advantage, Lautier-Cvitan,

1 5 'ii'xd5 e4, and here White's best course was European Ch, Ohrid 200 I . 1 6 :c 1 ! 'ii'h2 1 7 'ii'd2 'ii'xa3 1 8 c6! l2Ja6 1 9 9 cxd5 lt:Jxd5 .txa6 'ii'xa6 20 'ii'e2 'ii'b6 2 1 'ii'c4 ±. 9 ... exd5 isn't played much, as Black would
b) Even after the superior Il ...'ii'c7 12 .te2 like to exchange pieces and win some freedom.

l2Jc6 1 3 0-0 a6 1 4 .tg5 li:Jd7 1 5 'ii'd2, White has There might follow 1 0 i.e2!? (or 1 0 i.d3 lt:Jc6
the upper hand. I I 0-0) IO ... lt:Jc6 II 0-0 i.f5 1 2 i.f3 i.d6! ? 1 3
li:Jfxd5 lt:Jxd5 1 4 i.xd5 with the idea 14 .. . 'ii'h4?

7.112) ( 1 4 ... 'ii'b6 1 5 i.e3 'ii'xb2 1 6 lt:Je4 :ad8 1 7 'ii'f3 !

;!;) 1 5 g3 ! 'ii'xd4?? 1 6 i.xc6.

7 ..• j.e7 (D) 10 lt:Jcxd5 exd5 ll i.d3 l2Jc6 12 0-0 (D)

w B

8 li:Jf4 12 ... i.f6

Again I'll stick to something straightforward a) 1 2 ... lt:Jxd4 1 3 i.xh7+ 'it>xh7 1 4 'ii'xd4 is
which is easy to prepare and offers chances for obviously easy for White to play. an advantage. 8 d5 exd5 9 cxd5 is a main line b) 1 2 ... i.g5 1 3 lte I i.xf4 14 i.xf4 'ii'f6 1 5
that has undergone many years of practice and 'ii'h5 ! g6 1 6 'ii'h6 ( 1 6 i.e5 ! ?) 1 6 .. . i.e6 (not
analysis. It offers plenty of excitement and stra 1 6 ... 'ii'xd4?? 1 7 'ii'xf8+!) 1 7 :act! threatens
tegic challenges, especially in the wild line .:txc6! , so play might go 17 ... �g7 1 8 'ii'xg7+

9 ... l:.e8 1 0 d6 j.f8, where Black plays ... :e6 �xg7 1 9 j.a6! lt:Ja5 ( 1 9 ... i.c8 20 i.b5 ! i.d7 2 1
and captures the d-pawn, but at a considerable :c5 !) 20 ltc5 !? li:Jb3 2 1 :c7 ( 2 1 i.xb7 lt:Jxc5
cost in development and piece placement. Even 22 dxc5 is also promising) 2 1 ... bxa6 22 l:.xe6
the supposedly complete solution 9 ... j_c5 gives :ac8 23 .:tee7 ltxc7 24 :xc7 :e8 25 i.e5+

White chances for a slight advantage. Some 'it>f8 26 g4! with threats such as i.f6, :d7 and
years ago I intended to play this from both sides :xa7. ofthe board and can tell you that it's still a good 13 i.e3 g6 choice for White if you want to spend umpteen Likewise 1 3 ... lt:Jxd4?! 14 .txd4 i.xd4 1 5
hours working out what is, alas, only one small i.xh7+ 'it>xh7 1 6 'ii'xd4; this time the d-pawn is
part of your repertoire. under great pressure.

8 ... d5 14 l::tcl ! (D)

8 ... d6 is sound but a bit slow; for example, 9 14 i.c2 is a logical option, protecting d4; af

.te3 li:Jbd7 (9 ... e5 1 0 dxe5 dxe5 I I li:Jfd5 lt:Jxd5 ter something like 1 4 ... �d6 1 5 �d2 .:te8 1 6

1 2 cxd5 .tg5 1 3 'ii'd2 .txe3 1 4 'ii'xe3 ;!;) 1 0 j.e2 :fe I , the bishop may g o to b 3 or a4. :e8 ( I 0 ... e5 1 1 li:Jfd5 lt:Jxd5 1 2 lt:Jxd5 li:Jf6 1 3 The position after 1 4 l:.c I has been reached
l2Jxe7+ 'ii'xe7 1 4 0-0 ;!; Lautier-Timman, Dord many times over the years (with rather spectac
recht blitz 200 1 ) II 0-0 li:Jf8 1 2 b4 ( 1 2 j.f3 - ular success for White, but Black keeps trying).

NIMZO-INDIAN DEFENCE 121

'ilkd8 1 9 lt:Jc7 lt:Jxd4 20 'ilkg3 ! ± in Aleksan

drov-Dvoirys, St Petersburg 20 1 1 .

B 15 ••. l:td8 16 'ili'd2

Khrushchov-Gavri1ov, Moscow 2008 con
tinued 16 ... lt:Je7 1 7 �a2! ? �d7 1 8 lt:Jd3 ! �b6

I 9 lt:Jc5 �c6 20 �f4 lt:Jf5 21 �e5 �e7 22 llfe I

:e8 23 �bl . This game demonstrates how

White's position can be systematically im
proved. Now 23 ... lt:Jd6? could have been an
swered cleverly by 24 lt:Je6! fxe6 25 �xg6!

hxg6 26 'ilkh6.

7.12)

White intends .l:Ic5 and perhaps 'ii'h3 or 'ilkf3; 6 ••• d5 (D) the manoeuvre Si.b l -a2 can also be useful.

14 .• .'ili'd6

The current favourite. Other moves:

a) 14 ... lt:Jxd4 1 5 Si.xd4 Si.xd4 1 6 Si.xg6 w Si.xf2+ 1 7 llxf2 hxg6 1 8 �d4! Si.e6 1 9 h4! with
an attack (or 1 9 llfc2).

b) 14 ... Si.g7 15 llc5 ( 1 5 Si.b1 !?) 15 ... lt:Je7

( 1 5 ... i.e6 gives White various approaches; e.g.,

16 Si.bl with the idea �d2 or simply 1 6 lt:Jxe6
fxe6 1 7 1i'g4 'ii'f6 1 8 b4! ) 1 6 'ili'b3 b6 1 7 :c3
and now:

b l ) 17 ... Si.f5 1 8 �a6! 'ili'd6 1 9 llfc 1 �e6 20
lt:Je2 (versus ... �xd4, although 20 g3 is also
good) 20 ... lt:Jf5 2 1 �f4 'ilke7 (I.Sokolov-J.Rich
ardson, Reykjavik 1 998) and here in view of the
attack on d4 and the idea of ... 'ilkh4, 22 'ii'd I ! is a Now White has two approaches, demonstrat
good way to keep White's advantage, with llc7 ing positions which can also transpose from
next. other lines:

b2) 17 ... �d6 1 8 llfc 1 !? (giving up a pawn 7.121: 7 c5 1 2 1 for two bishops and pressure; 1 8 'ilkb4! is a sim 7.122: 7 a3 1 24 pler path to advantage - after 1 8 ... 'ilkxb4 1 9
axb4 lld8 20 llfc I �f5 21 �a6, Black i s tied 7.121) down and hasn't won a pawn) 1 8 ... �xd4! 1 9

�xd4 'ili'xf4 20 �e3 (20 'ili'b4!? lt:Jf5 2 1 �f6! 7 c5 'ili'xb4 22 axb4 �d7 23 �a6 ;\; Lautier-Nikolic, White gives the position a closed nature, al

Moscow 200 1 ) 20 ... 1i'd6 21 llc7 d4 22 �h6 though this advance can also buy him time to

�e6 23 'ili'a4 llfd8 (Paramos Dominguez-Nava set up for an attack. Pereda, Cordoba 1 995) and now 24 Si.e4 would 7 •.• lt:Je4 finally recover the pawn with a slight advan Black has two main alternatives: tage. 1 8 'ili'b4 appears to be the way to go; re a) 7 ... lt:Jc6 8 a3 (D) can lead to: gardless, this whole line is a thankless task for a1 ) 8 ... .ll.xc3+ 9 lt:Jxc3 0-0 (9 ... lt:Je4?! 10

Black. �d3 ! lt:Jxc3 1 I bxc3 0-0 1 2 0-0 b6 1 3 a4! bxc5

15 �b1 14 �a3 lle8 15 �xc5 ± Shirov-Pinter, French

Or 1 5 llc5; e.g., 1 5 ... lt:Je7 1 6 'ilkf3 and Black Team Ch 1993) 10 �e2 (or 1 0 �b5 e5 I I dxe5
tried to avoid the passivity of 1 6 ... lld8 17 life 1 lt:Jxe5 1 2 �f4 lt:Jc4 1 3 0-0 lt:Jxb2 14 'ilkb3 lt:Jc4
by choosing 1 6 ... �g7?! 1 7 lt:Jxd5 lt:Jc6 1 8 �f4 1 5 llad 1 lt:Ja5 1 6 'ilkb I ;\; with the ideas of �d6 122 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

advantage is limited. Apart from putting a
bishop on e5 or d6, it' s worth remembering

8 that even �g5xf6 can lead to a large advan
tage for White if he gets a knight to d4 versus

Black's bad bishop.

b2) 1 0 ... 0-0 I I �b5 �d7 ( l l ...lLlc6 trans
poses to 'bi ' ) 1 2 0-0 �xb5 1 3 lLlxb5 lLlc6 I 4

'it'a4 (or I4 'ii'd3 lLle4 1 5 �e3 lLle5 I 6 �b3 ;!;)

I4 ... lLle4 1 5 �e3 d4 ( l 5 ... a6 I 6 lLlc3 ! has been
called '±', which is greatly exaggerated, but

White's control of the dark squares and b-file
after I 6 ... lLlxc3 1 7 bxc3 gives him superior
prospects) I 6 lLlxd4 lLlxc5 1 7 'i!i'c4 lLlxd4 1 8

�xd4 lLle6 I 9 �c3 ;!; Krush-Browne, Parsip
and �g5, among others) I O ... lLle4 ( I O ... e5 ! ? I I pany (2) 1 999. dxe5 lLlxe5 1 2 �e3 lLlc4 1 3 �d4 lLlxb2 14 �c2 8 �d2! (D) lLlc4 1 5 0-0 �e6 1 6 l:tad l gives White more

than enough compensation) I I lLlxe4 dxe4 1 2

�e3 f5 I 3 'it'd2 'it'f6 I4 g 3 e5 I S dxe5 ! lLlxe5

I 6 0-0-0 ;!; M.Gurevich-Zaid, USSR 1 984. 8
a2) 8 ... �a5 9 b4 �c7 1 0 g3 e5 I I �g2 a5

( l l ...�g4 I 2 f3 �f5 1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4 �g5 ! ;!;) 1 2

�g5 (or 1 2 dxe5 �xeS 1 3 b5 lLle7 1 4 �f4 ;!;)

12 ... �g4 (Giigoric-Spassky, Linares 1 98 1 ) 1 3

0-0! (or 1 3 h 3 �xe2 I 4 lLlxe2 axb4 I S axb4
l:txa l I6 'ii'xai lLlxb4 I 7 0-0! ±) 1 3 ... lLlxd4 14
f3 lLlxe2+ 1 5 'ii'xe2 �e6 ( l 5 ... �f5? I6 f4 !) 16
f4! 0-0 I7 f5 axb4 18 axb4 l:txal 1 9 l:txa I �xf5

20 lLlxd5 ±.

b) 7 ... e5 !? leads to wild complications after 8
dxe5 lLlg4. The patient answer is 8 a3 �xc3+ 9
lLlxc3 exd4 I 0 'i!i'xd4, when Black has a choice: 8 ... lLlxd2
b I ) 10 ... lLlc6 I I �b5 0-0 12 �xc6 bxc6 I3 a) 8 ... lLlc6 9 lLlxe4 dxe4 1 0 �xb4 lLlxb4 II 0-0 (D). 'it'a4+ lLlc6 I2 l:.d I favours White, who has
stopped ... e5 and is ready to develop. Stoja

novic-Enchev, Belgrade 2009 continued 1 2 ... 0-0

( l 2 ... 'ili'g5 I 3 g3 e3 I 4 fxe3 'ili'xe3 I S �g2 �d7

8 I 6 'it'c4 0-0 I 7 l:td3 ;!; Koneru-Chiburdanidze,

Doha 20 I I) I3 lLlc3 'ii'h4 1 4 g3 'ii' g4 I S �g2
e5?! I6 d5 ! lLld4 I 7 :xd4! exd4 I 8 �xd4 f5 I 9

0-0 with a clear advantage for White.

b) 8 ... �xc3 9 lLlxc3 0-0 1 0 lLlxe4 dxe4 1 1

�e3 lLlc6 ( l l ...liJd7 I 2 �c4 lLlf6 1 3 'ili'c2 ( ver
sus ... lLld5 } I3 ... �d7 I 4 0-0 �c6 I S b4 �d5
occurred in Muir-Bryson, Scottish Ch, Oban

2005, and now Emms's suggestion I6 �e2 ;!;
preserves the bishop-pair and the better game)

I 2 'ii'd2 f5 I 3 0-0-0 lLle7 (Volkov-Aseev, Rus
sian Ch, St Petersburg 1 998) and here 14 �f4

This type of position favours White's supe lbd5 IS �e5 is attractive. rior bishop and central control, even if that 9 'ili'xd2 a5

NIMZO-INDIAN DEFENCE 123

This is Black's most popular move, holding b2) You might also want to investigate some
down White's queenside expansion. It would be thing simpler such as 1 3 tLla4 ll:ld7 (Gligoric
too space-consuming to describe all the alterna Ivkov, Yugoslav Team Ch, Pula 1 97 1 ), when I
tives, some insignificantly different, so let me don't like Black's game after 1 4 �b5 0-0 1 5 0-0
show the most important two, with which Black �a6 1 6 �xd7 ! �xfl 1 7 tLlb6. changes the basic character of the game: 10 a3 �xc3 11 tLlxc3 a4
a) 9 ... 'iid7 is a clever move, freeing d8 for the Black's idea is to restrain White's pawns and
bishop to retreat to (on c7 it can get hit by tLlb5). strengthen his grip on b3 and c4. What's more,

White will pit his space advantage against the 1 1 ... 0-0 unnecessarily allows 12 tLla4. bishops: I 0 a3 �a5 I I g3 0-0 and now: 12 �d3 �d7
al ) 1 2 �g2 �d8 1 3 0-0 b6 14 f4?! ( 14 b4 is Black protects a4 against White's potential
more accurate, to discourage ... �a6) 14 ... tLla6?! attack on it with �c2 and �d 1 . The bishop also

15 b4 tLlc7 16 a4 �e7 1 7 :fc 1 �b7 1 8 tLld 1 ! covers the key b5-square. Sometimes 1 2 ... 0-0

:fc8 1 9 tLlf2 b5 20 tLld3 and White had all the is played first, but it limits Black's options; e.g.,
play in the game Sadler-Kosten, British Ch, 13 0-0 �d7 ( 1 3 ... tLlc6?! 14 �c2; 13 ... b6?! 14

Hove 1 997. 'iic2! hits h7 and a4, when 14 ... tLlc6 15 �xh7+
a2) 12 b4 �d8 13 �g2 b6 14 l:lbl ( 14 0-0 �h8 16 �d3 tLlxd4 17 �d 1 threatens both

�a6 J5 :ab1 ;!;) 14 ... �e7 1 5 0-0 'ifd8?! 1 6 'ilr'e3 'ifh5+ and tLlxa4 with advantage) 1 4 �c2 ! ?

tLlc6 17 :fd1 �d7 was played in Scherbakov �c6 1 5 :fe I tLld7 1 6 :e3 tLlf6 17 :g3 �h8 1 8

Egiazarian, Kolkata 2002. White has systemati :e i g6 1 9 l:r.h3 tLlg8 20 �d l 'iia5 2 1 :xe6!

cally built up, and the most pointed continua (J.Watson-P.Smith, Kona 1 998) and White was
tion would have been 1 8 b5 tLla5 1 9 c6 tLlc4 20 winning in view of 2 l ...fxe6 22 :xh7+ �xh7

'iUd3 �e8 2 1 a4 ;!; (Scherbakov). 23 'ifh5+.

b) 9 ... b6 10 a3 �xc3 1 1 tLlxc3 bxc5 1 2 dxc5 13 0-0 (D) a5 (D) gives Black a big centre, but at the cost of

development and potentially dangerous queen
side pawns for White. Then:

B

w

13 ... b6 This is the best defence, although it requires
great care. 1 3 ... 0-0 14 �c2 gives Black the
b l ) 1 3 �b5+ �d7 1 4 0-0 a4 ( 1 4 ... 0-0 1 5 b4 same problems as in the last note. For a few �xb5 1 6 tLlxb5 tLla6 1 7 tLld6 'i!Vd7 1 8 f4! :ab8 years, Black defended by 1 3 ... tLlc6 1 4 �c2

19 f5 !? gave White a powerful attack in Re tLle7, watching over the kingside. However,
shevsky-Najdorf, Dallas 1 957, based on the White has superior firepower there anyway and
idea 1 9 ... axb4 20 axb4 tLlxb4 2 1 f6! ) 1 5 �xd7+ the defence is difficult: �xd7 ( 1 5 ... tLlxd7 1 6 c6! tLlb8 17 tLlb5 tLlxc6 1 8 a) One approach is 15 �d l �a5 1 6 'iig4.

�c3 ;!;) 1 6 f4 �e7 (Bu Xiangzhi-Shaposhnikov, b) After 1 5 :ae l , a trappy line is 1 5 ... b6 1 6

World Junior Ch, Athens 200 1 ) and now 1 7 �g5 0-0 1 7 cxb6 tLlg6? 1 8 11i'xd8 :fxd8 1 9 b7

'i!Vd4! 0-0 1 8 tLlxa4 favours White. :a7 20 �xa4 ! ! �xa4 21 tLlxa4 :xa4 22 :c J . 124 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

in view of 22 ... .l:!.c4 23 b3 l:txc l 24 l:txc l li:Je7 game's 20 ..txa4?! li:Jc4 2 1 'ifh6 ltf7 22 ..txd7

25 a4!, when the a-pawn waltzes down to queen. l:txd7 =, White had 20 li:Jxa4! ..txa4 2 1 ..txa4
c) 1 5 l:tfe l b6 16 figS ! 0-0 1 7 cxb6 ltJg6? li:Jc4 22 'ifh6 �a7 ! 23 ..tb5 li:Jxb2 24 .l:r.el ;!;.

( 1 7 ... h6 1 8 'iih4 l:te8 ;!;) 1 8 'iixd8 l:tfxd8 (Nena
shev-Yudasin, Kemerovo 1 995) and here 1 9 7.122) ..txa4! is strong, with the idea 1 9 ... ..txa4 20 b7
and 2 l li:Jxa4 (Burgess). 7 a3 ..txc3+

14 cxb6 'iixb6 15 ltfe1 0-0 7 ... ..te7 transposes after 8 li:Jf4 0-0 or 8 cxd5

1 5 .. .'ii'xd4?? 1 6 l:txe6+! is pretty. li:Jxd5 9 li:Jxd5 exd5 (9 ... 'ifxd5 !? 1 0 li:Jc3 'it'd7

16 ..tc2 (D) 1 1 ..tc4 ;!;) 1 0 li:Jf4 0-0 to Section 7. 1 1 2 (i.e.,

6 ... 0-0 7 a3 ..te7 8 li:Jf4 d5 9 cxd5 li:Jxd5 1 0
li:Jcxd5 exd5).

8 li:Jxc3 dxc4

8 ... 0-0 transposes to Section 7. 1 1 1 (i.e. 6 ... 0-0

7 a3 ..txc3+ 8 li:Jxc3 d5), which favours White.

9 ..txc4 li:Jc6 10 ..te3 0-0 11 0-0 (D)

B

White targets a4, protects d4, and in some
cases prepares 'iid3. Probably Black can de
fend here, but in practice it's been downhill:

a) 16 ... l:tc8 gives Black's king room; for
example, 1 7 l:te3 ( 1 7 l:tad l 'iid8?! 1 8 lte3 'iff8

1 9 h4! , Knaak-Lerner, Lugano 1 989) 1 7 ... l:ta7

( 1 7 ... l:tc4 ! can be met by 1 8 li:Je2 or 1 8 ..td3 ! ? This position is important because, for ex
l:txd4 1 9 l:tg3 ! g6 20 li:Je2, although 20 .. . li:Jc6 ample, it will very often arise from the move

2 1 li:Jxd4 li:Jxd4 creates counterplay) 1 8 .l:tg3 g6 order 4 ... c5 5 li:Je2 d5 6 a3, etc. We don't quite

(Polak-Biolek, Strmilov 2005) 1 9 l:th3 h5 20 have the standard isolated queen's pawn, as for
l:te 1 with an attack. one thing, White has the bishop-pair opposing
b) 1 6 ... l:ta7 1 7 l:tad l 'iid8?! 1 8 l:te3 g6 1 9 Black's bad bishop; furthermore, one pair of
l:tf3 f5 20 l:te I and Black i s reduced to defence, pieces has been exchanged off (so you won't

Scherbakov-Mitenkov, Russian Ch, Elista 1 995. see li:Je5, for example), and White's bishop is
c) After 16 ... ..tc6!, 17 l:te3 li:Jd7 1 8 l:tg3 !? rather passive on e3. Overall, White has very

(18 l:tbl ) 1 8 ... 1:1fc8 19 h4 is suggested by Speel good practical chances and can easily work up
man, although Black has nearly equal chances. an attack. Unfortunately, this position has been
d) 16 ... g6!? prepares to shore up the king played and analysed a lot, and I'll have to limit
side before an attack there begins in earnest. myself to the essential points and exemplary

M.Socko-Mkrtchian, Women's World Ch, Elista games. 2004 continued 17 l:te3 li:Jc6 ( 17 ... l:tc8 !? 1 8 l l ... b6 l:i.h3 ! with the idea �h6 won't force mate, but The most natural move. Other possibilities:

will cause some damage) 1 8 l:td I li:Ja5 1 9 l:th3 a) l l ... a6 is risky as it weakens the queenside
f5 ! . This is the only defence, to meet 'ifh6 with and invites d5: 1 2 ..ta2 (even 1 2 d5 exd5 1 3

... l:tf7; it creates weaknesses, but they are man li:Jxd5 li:Jxd5 1 4 ..txd5 ;!; gives White strong
ageable for the moment. Now, instead of the bishops and a positional advantage) 1 2 ... b5 1 3

N!MZO-INDIAN DEFENCE 125

d5 ! aims for 1 3 ... exd5 14 liJxd5 liJxd5 ( 1 4 ... i..e6 ;t Onishchuk-Vekshenkov, Russian Team Ch, 1 5 i..b6 and tLlxf6+) 1 5 i..xd5; for example, Sochi 2004. Black's bad bishop is a liability. 1 5 ... i..b7 1 6 b4 l:tc8? 1 7 i..c5 l:te8 1 8 i..xf7+! 12 'ti'f3 'it>xf7 1 9 'ifb3+ l:te6 20 l:tad I 'iff6 21 l:td7 + 1 2 d5 exd5 I 3 lt:Jxd5 i..e6 1 4 lt:Jxf6+ 'ii'xf6
with a clear advantage for White. 1 5 i..xe6 Vi'xe6 is more or less equal. The old
b) I I ...h6 (D) has been widely used, includ move 1 2 Vi'd3 is still valid, a classic game pro
ing by some top grandmasters. ceeding 1 2 ... i..b7 1 3 l:tad 1 lt:Je7 !? ( 1 3 ... h6;

1 3 ... l:tc8 14 i..g5 t) 14 i..g5 lt:Jg6 15 f4! h6 1 6
f5 ! exf5 1 7 i..xf6 Vi'xf6 1 8 l:txf5 lt:Jf4? (or

1 8 ... 'ifc6 1 9 l:td2 t) 1 9 l:txf6 lt:Jxd3 20 l:txf7 !

w lt:Jxb2 2 1 l:txf8++ 'it>xf8 22 l:tfl + 'it>e8 23 i..e6
l:td8 24 d5 i..c8 25 l:tf7 (the seventh rank serves

White well) 25 ... i..xe6 26 dxe6 l:td6 27 l:txg7
l:txe6 28 l:txa7 lt:Jd3 29 h3 lt:Jf4 30 l:ta4 lt:Je2+

3 I lt:Jxe2 l:txe2 32 l:ta7 ! , eventually winning in

Botvinnik-Tolush, Moscow-Leningrad match

1 965.

12 ••. i..b7 (D)

w

It is designed to prevent i..g5, so that ... tLle7-
d5 can follow. The problem is that Black is then
rather stuck and isn't poised for positive action.

White therefore has time to build up. Here's a
sampling of the many reasonable ways to do so

(note that 1 2 d5 exd5 1 3 liJxd5 i..e6 achieves
nothing):

b l ) 12 i..a2 tLle7 13 i..f4 (a standard re
sponse, heading for e5) 1 3 ... i..d7 1 4 i..e5 i..c6

1 5 i..xf6 gxf6 1 6 d5 ! lLlxd5 1 7 i..xd5 exd5

( 1 7 ... i..xd5 1 8 'iVh5 and l:tad I ) 1 8 'ifh5 d4 1 9
l:tad 1 Vi'd6 20 Vi'g4+ 'it>h7 2 1 l:txd4 'ife5 22 13 i..d3 'i!Vd I l:tg8 23 g3 with a structural advantage. White isn't subtle: he wants to target h7 in
b2) 1 2 l:te l b6 !? ( 1 2 ... lt:Je7 1 3 i..f4) 1 3 d5 ! order to create weaknesses near Black's king.

lt:Ja5 ( 1 3 ... exd5 l 4 lt:Jxd5 i..e6 1 5 lt:Jxf6+ 'ifxf6 13 'ii'h3 is the other main idea:

1 6 i..xe6 fxe6 1 7 'ti'a4 t) 14 i..a2 exd5 1 5 lt:Jxd5 a) 1 3 ... lt:Jxd4 14 l:tfd l e5 1 5 lt:Jb5 ;t and i..b7 1 6 lt:Jc3 ! 'ti'c8 1 7 'ti'a4 'ti'f5 1 8 'ii'f4! 'i!ih5?! White regains the pawn with some advantage.

( 1 8 ... 'ifxf4 1 9 i..xf4 l:tfe8 20 b4 lt:Jc6 21 lt:Jb5 b) After 1 3 ... l:tc8 (D) White has attacking
l:txe I + 22 l:txe I l:te8 23 l:txe8+ lt:Jxe8 24 f3 and ideas which are typical for the owner of the iso

Black faces a tough defence) 1 9 i..d4! Vi'g6 20 lated queen's pawn: 'ti'g3 'ifxg3 2 1 hxg3 with considerable pressure, b 1 ) 1 4 i..d3 ! ? lt:Ja5 ( 1 4 ... lt:Jxd4? 1 5 l:tad 1

Dydyshko-Macieja, Lubniewice 2003. e5 1 6 f4! costs Black material; 1 4 ... lt:Je7 1 5
b3) 1 2 l:tc l lt:Je7 ( 1 2 ... b6 1 3 d5 ! lt:Je5 1 4 l:tac I lt:Jed5 1 6 i..d2) 1 5 d5 ! ( a typical tactic i..b3 t ) 1 3 'iff3 lt:Jed5 1 4 'ti'g3 ! ? 'it>h8! ? 1 5 worth remembering) 1 5 ... i..xd5 ( 1 5 ... exd5 1 6 lt:Jxd5 ! exd5 ( 1 5 .. . lt:Jxd5 1 6 i..xd5 'ifxd5 1 7 l:tad 1 ) 1 6 l:tad I lt:Jc6 1 7 lt:Jxd5 exd5 1 8 i..f5 l:tc5 'ife4, Rezan-Hulak, Split 2008, 1 8 l:te1 ! l:tc7 1 9 i..f4 l:tb7 20 i..g5 h6 2 1 i..xh6! with
with ideas of l:tc7 and/or i..d2 - the opposite the idea 2 l ...gxh6 22 l:td3 ±. coloured bishops will help White's attack) 1 6 b2) 14 l:tad I lt:Ja5 ! ? 1 5 i..d3 lt:Jc4 1 6 i..g5 h6
i..d3 i..d7 1 7 'ti'd6 i..c6 1 8 'ifxd8 l:tfxd8 1 9 f3 1 7 i..xh6 ! ? ultimately leads to some advantage 126 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

18 ••• 'i;g7 1 8 ... �c7? 1 9 i.xg6 hxg6 20 �h6! �c6 2 1
w lt:le4 �xe4 22 l:txe4 i.xe4 2 3 'ii'f4 f5 24 'ii'c7 !

l:ta8 25 l:tc I gave White a winning game in

Aleksandrov-Vekshenkov, Russian Team Ch,

Sochi 2004, and this sequence was repeated
move-for-move in S.Martinovic-Sandhu, Pula

201 0.

19 i.e4

This has been played several times and yields
a small advantage. The same may be said for 1 9
d5; for example, 1 9 .. . i.xd5 20 i.e4 'ii'c6 (Van
den Bersselaar-Naumkin, St Vincent 2004) and
here 21 i.xd5 ! exd5 22 l:td4 l:tfe8 23 l:ted I t
for White after 1 7 ... lt:lxb2 1 8 il..xg7 'i;xg7 1 9 should have been played. Either way, White's

'ii'g3+ lt:lg4! 20 �xg4+ 'i;f6 (Knoll-Benzoni, advantage is quite modest. corr. 2008), when 2 1 d5 ! is best, based upon 19 ••• il..xe4 20 l:txe4 21 ..Jhc3 22 �d4+ e5 23 �xc3 lt:lxd l 24 Now: �4! !. a) Black's position was loose after 20 ... e5
c) Black's best path is 1 3 ... lt:le7 ! 14 l:tad l , 2 1 �f3 'ii'c8 22 d5 ! f5 23 l:te3 l:tg8 in the game
and now 1 4 ... lt:lfd5 or 1 4 ... lt:lg6 1 5 i.d3 lt:ld5 Monacell-Moura, corr. 2004, when 24 'ifh5

16 'ii'g3 'ii'd7 1 7 h4 (M.Gurevich-Van Beers, keeps an edge.

Belgian Team Ch 2004/5), when 1 7 ... lt:lxc3 1 8 b) 20 ... l:tg8 and after 2 1 l:teel lt:le7 22 l:td3
bxc3 'ii'd5 19 f3 i s only marginally better for 'i;h8 23 d5 lt:lxd5 24 �f3 �c6 (L.Andersen

White. Dard, email 2005) 25 lt:lxd5 exd5 26 g3 White

13 .. .'ii'd7 keeps an edge in the endgame which is likely to

This is the main line, although 1 3 ... l:tc8 is ensue. Again, 2 1 'ii'h5 looks right, intending
still played, with themes similar to the previous d5, and if 2 l ...f5, then 22 l:te3 �c7 23 l:th3 'i;f8
note. 24 l:tg3 intending d5 next.

14 'ifh3 lt:le7 15 il..g5 lt:lg6 16 i.xf6 gxf6 17
l:tad1 7.2)

The little-used 17 d5 !? is apparently slightly
advantageous; e.g., 17 ... i.xd5 1 8 l:tad I �c7 1 9 4 ... b6 (D) lt:lxd5 exd5 20 f4 t or 1 7 .. . .:actS ! ? 1 8 lt:le4 'i;g7

! 9 lt:lg3 exd5?! 20 lt:lf5+ 'i;h8 2 1 �h6 l:tg8 t

Peralta-Ricardi, Buenos Aires 2003.

17 .•• l:tad8 18 l:tfe1 (D) w

B

At first sight, the philosophy behind this
move is simple: to control the d5- and e4-
squares and exert pressure on the long diagonal.

NJMZO-[NDJAN DEFENCE 127

That's true. But it can also introduce a general The most famous move, preparing ... d5 to
light-square strategy, as you will see from the work on the light squares, although the most
alternate idea of ... �a6 and ... d5. Black can challenging is probably 6 ... 0-0, because Black
also delay the decision about where to put the can play it with various structural ideas in mind.

bishop and seek to exploit other aspects of the Here are the alternatives: position tirst. a) 6 ... d5?? 7 �a4+ has happened more of

5 tt:le2 ten than you'd imagine! This is the reason why

Thus we need to examine: Black needs to exchange on c3 first if he wishes

7.21: 5 ••• �a6 1 27 to make the ... d5 advance. 7.22: 5 .•• �b7 1 33 b) 6 ... c5 7 d5 exd5 8 cxd5 �xfl 9 'it>xfl (D) 7.23: 5 .•• tt:le4 1 34 has traditionally been considered to favour 7.24: 5 ••• c5 1 37 White, who has an advanced and influential
centre.

The move-order 5 ... 0-0 is mentioned in Sec
tion 7.22, as the follow-up is almost always

... �b7.

B

7.21)

5 . . �a6

Attacking c4 and preparing ... d5. This time
we examine two systems for White, the first
with a tactical orientation and the second strate
gic:

7.211: 6 tt:lg3 1 27

7.212: 6 a3 1 30

7.211) Note, too, that White has got rid of his 'bad'

6 tt:lg3 (D) bishop, as defined by his pawn on d5 (and soon,
one on e4), in return for Black's 'good' bishop,
as defined by his pawn which will soon be on

d6. In practice, White would like to gain more
space on both wings and not spend too much
time resettling his king; for example, 9 ... 0-0 I 0
e4 l:.e8 I I f3 �xc3 ( l l ...g6 1 2 tt:lb5 ! ; l l ...d6

1 2 tt:lf5 g6 1 3 tt:lh6+ 'it>g7 14 �g5 a6 15 'il'c l ! ±
with the idea h4) 1 2 bxc3 d6 1 3 �g5 ( 1 3 tt:lf5 !

;!;) 1 3 ... tt:lbd7 1 4 h4 h6 1 5 �f4 tt:le5 1 6 l:.h3

'iWd7 1 7 h5 'it>h7 1 8 tt:lf5 with space and a con
tinued central advantage, Geller-Matanovic,

Zagreb 1 958.

c) 6 ... 0-0 is flexible. White can play a slow
move like 7 �d3, but he normally chooses the
consistent 7 e4 (D).

Here White intends to expand with e4 and Black has these noteworthy replies: frees his fl -bishop to develop. This is a much c l ) 7 ... d5 8 cxd5 �xfl 9 'it>xfl exd5 (or
played and analysed position for which I' II try 9 ... �xc3 1 0 bxc3 exd5 I I e5 tt:le4 1 2 'ii'd3 f5
to propose continuations which aren't ultra 1 3 tt:le2 { with the idea h4 and f3 } 1 3 ... tt:lg5 14
theoretical and time-consuming: �xg5 ! 'il'xg5 15 g3 and White holds a substan

6 •.• �xc3+ tial advantage with tt:lf4 and 'it>g2 to come) 1 0 128 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

8 B

e5 tZ'le8 I I 'ii' g4 ( I I 'iff3 i.x.c3 1 2 bx.c3 c5 1 3 i.a3 d6 1 2 'ife2 keeps Black tied down; e.g.,
tZ'lf5 �h8 and now, apart from 1 4 g3, as played 12 ... c5 1 3 0-0 l:tc8 14 dx.c5 dx.c5 15 l:tad I 'ifc7
in Berezjuk-Cvek, Czech Team Ch 2005/6, 16 i.e I and Black's pieces are cut off from the White can 'go for it' with 1 4 c4!? tZ'lc7 1 5 i.b2, kingside. peering down the long diagonal) l l ...�h8 12 c33) 8 ... d5 9 cx.d5 i.x.d3 I 0 'ifx.d3 ex.d5 1 1
tZ'lh5 ( 1 2 tZ'lce2!? i.e7 1 3 h4) 1 2 ... c5 1 3 i.g5 ! ;!; e5 tZ'le4 1 2 a3 i.x.c3+ 1 3 bx.c3 f5 ( 1 3 ... tt:Jx.g3 14
f6 14 ex.f6 gx.f6 1 5 i.h6 l:tg8 1 6 'ife6 i.x.c3 1 7 hx.g3 h6? 15 i.x.h6!) 1 4 tZ'le2 ! tZ'la5 1 5 h4!

bx.c3 'ifd7 1 8 l:te I with a clear advantage for (threatening 1 6 f3) 1 5 ... tZ'lb3 16 l:tb1 tZ'lx.c l 1 7

White. l:tx.c 1 f4 1 8 'ii'f3 "fie7 1 9 c4 c6 20 cx.d5 cx.d5 2 1
c2) 7 ... c5 8 d5 d6 (8 ... ex.d5 9 cx.d5 tZ'lx.e4? I 0 tZ'lx.f4 ± Portisch-Spassky, Moscow 1 967. tZ'lgx.e4 l:te8 I I i.x.a6 i.x.c3+ 12 bx.c3 tZ'lx.a6 1 3 c34) 8 ... e5 is the safest move: 9 d5 i.x.c3+

'i¥a4 ±; 8 .. . l:te8 9 f3 d6 1 0 i.e2 transposes) 9 (9 ... tZ'ld4? I 0 'ii'a4 ±) 10 bx.c3 tZ'le7 ( I O ... tt:Ja5
i.e2 l:te8 (9 ... ex.d5 I 0 ex.d5 ! i.x.c3+ I I bx.c3 I I 'ife2 c6 1 2 tZ'lf5 tZ'le8 1 3 f4! ;!; Spassky
tZ'lbd7 1 2 0-0 l:te8 1 3 'ifa4 gave White a modest Hiibner, Munich 1 979) I I i.g5 tZ'le8 1 2 a4!?

edge in the game Portisch-Reshevsky, Santa (12 0-0 ;!;) 1 2 ... f6!? 13 i.e3 'ireS 14 0-0 tZ'ld6 1 5 Monica 1 966; Black's pieces won't find perma 'i!Ve2 (or 1 5 c 5 bx.c5 1 6 i.x.c5 ;!; ) 1 5 ... tZ'lb7 1 6 f4
nent posts) 1 0 f3 ex.d5 I I cx.d5 i.x.e2 1 2 tZ'lgx.e2 d6 1 7 fx.e5 dx.e5 1 8 c5 ! i.x.d3 19 'ii'x.d3 bx.c5
b5 1 3 0-0 a6 1 4 a4! tZ'lbd7? ( 1 4 ... bx.a4 1 5 tt:Jx.a4 ( 19 ... l:td8 20 'ii'c4 - Dunnington) 20 a5 a6 2 1
tZ'lbd7 1 6 i.g5 ;!;; 1 4 ... i.x.c3 ! ? 1 5 bx.c3 tZ'lbd7) l:tabl l:tf7 (Sadler-Wahls, Bundesliga 1 999/00)

1 5 ax.b5 'itb6 16 bx.a6 l:tx.a6 ( 1 6 ... tZ'le5 17 'ifa4 and here 22 c4 is simplest, when 22 ... tt:Jx.a5 23
c4+ 1 8 �h 1 tZ'ld3 1 9 'ifb5 ± Short) 1 7 l:tx.a6 i.x.c5 tZ'lb7 holds on to the pawn, but at the cost

'ifx.a6 (Korchnoi-Short, Madrid 1 995) and here of a mobile central pawn-mass following 24

Korchnoi proposes 1 8 i.g5 !, which is certainly i.e3 or 24 i.x.e7 l:tx.e7 25 c5. promising. d) 6 ... h5 7 h4 i.b7 8 'ili'd3 ! (8 a3 !? i.d6!? 9
c3) 7 ... tZ'lc6! ? is a unique idea which has had l:th3 is unclear) 8 ... d5 (8 ... i.d6 9 e4 and the
some success over the years. The most promis queen defends g3 - this is why White chose 8
ing approach is 8 i.d3 ! (D), with interesting, 'ifd3 instead of 8 'ili'c2; 8 ... c5 9 a3 i.x.c3+ I 0
varied and instructive play: "ftx.c3 d6 1 1 dx.c5 dx.c5 1 2 b4 ;!;) 9 cx.d5 ex.d5 I 0
c3 1 ) 8 ... tZ'lx.d4?! 9 'ifa4! will win a piece in "iic2 (or 1 0 i.e2) I O ... c5 ( I O ... g6 is more solid) return for some, but not full, compensation; I I a3 cx.d4 1 2 ax.b4 dx.c3 1 3 bx.c3 (or 1 3 b5 !?)

e.g., 9 ... i.a5 1 0 b4 d5 ! I I ex.d5 ex.d5 12 0-0! 1 3 ... tt:Jbd7 14 tZ'lf5 !? 0-0 1 5 i.b2 tZ'le5 1 6 c4!

dx.c4 1 3 i.bl c5 14 bx.a5 b5 1 5 'ifd l b4 1 6 (with an attack on the long diagonal) 1 6 ... l:te8
tZ'lce4 c 3 1 7 l:te 1 l:te8 1 8 i.g5 tZ'le2+ 1 9 �h I 1 7 c5 bx.c5 1 8 bx.c5 d4 1 9 tZ'ld6!, Knaak-Bron

'ifx.d I 20 l:tx.dl and White still has the better stein, Tallinn 1 979.

game. 7 bxc3 d5
c32) 8 ... tt:Ja5 9 e5 (9 i.g5 i.e7 1 0 'ife2 keeps Here 8 i.a3 introduces a famous gambit
some advantage) 9 ... i.x.c3+ 10 bx.c3 tZ'le8 1 1 variation which has years and years of theory

NJMZO-INDIAN DEFENCE 129

and practice attached to it, and is not easy to

play. Fortunately, there's a respected alterna-
tive which at the very least yields interesting B play:

8 'ii'f3 (D)

B

1 3 0-0 with an extra centre pawn. The sound al
ternative is 9 ... exd5 1 0 �xa6 lZJxa6, when I I

0-0 will lead to a manoeuvring game; e.g.,
l l ...l:te8 12 a4 c5 13 �a3 �c7 14 l:tfc 1 . Alter
natively, White can play for a big centre by 1 1

�e2, when an f3/e4 expansion often follows;

This simply pins the d5-pawn and thus pro for example, l l ...lZJb8 1 2 0-0 c5 !? 1 3 f3 ! ? ( 1 3
tects the c4-pawn. The nice thing about 'ii'f3 is dxc5 ! bxc5 1 4 c4 ;\; ) 1 3 ... lZJc6 1 4 �b2 �d7
that the queen can slide over to the kingside to ( 1 4 ... lZJa5 ! ? 1 5 e4 lZJc4 1 6 l:tad l ;l;) 1 5 e4!,
help attack in that sector, and can also ma Knaak-Plachetka, Bratislava 1 983, with the idea
noeuvre to control the dark squares no longer 1 5 ... dxe4 1 6 fxe4 cxd4 ?? 1 7 l:txf6! gxf6 1 8
defended by an enemy bishop. lZJh5 �h8 1 9 �f2 'ii'd6 20 lZJxf6 l:tg8 2 1 cxd4

8 ... 0-0 and White wins.

This is almost always played. Two other 10 e4 'ii'as moves: After 1 0 ... 'ii'b7, 1 1 �xa6 'ifxa6 transposes,
a) 8 ... c5 ! ? 9 cxd5 (9 e4 dxc4 1 0 �g5 h6 I I while White can also try I I �d3. e5 �d5 1 2 exf6 ifxf3 1 3 gxf3 hxg5 1 4 fxg7 11 �xa6 'ii'xa6 (D) l:.g8 1 5 lZJh5 lZJd7 =) 9 ... exd5 1 0 �xa6 lZJxa6

I I 'i!Ve2 ( 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 �e2 lZJc7 1 3 dxc5 bxc5

14 c4 d4 1 5 exd4 l:te8 16 �d3 cxd4 1 7 lZJf5 ;\;)

l l ... lZJc7 1 2 �a3 lZJe6 1 3 0-0 0-0 14 c4 ;\;. w
b) 8 ... c6 is awfully slow. Apart from the nat
ural 9 e4 with some advantage, White has 9

�a3 ! (D).

Now Black may even hesitate to capture the
pawn on c4 (his intent in playing ... c6) because

White gets so much play following 9 ... dxc4

(9 ... �xc4 1 0 �xc4 dxc4 1 1 0-0 �d5?! 1 2 e4

'i!Va5 1 3 �d6 ±) I 0 �e2 "file? i l lZJh5 ! lZJxh5 1 2 �xh5 c5 ( 1 2 .. . lZJd7 1 3 "flig5 !) 1 3 dxc5 b5 1 4 c6!

lZJxc6 1 5 l:td l g6 (15 ... ife5?? 1 6 �f3 ! �xc3+

1 7 �fl l:tc8 1 8 �c5) 16 'ir'h4 �b7 17 �d6 �d8

1 8 'ii'f4, when Black is starting to run out of White has everything going for him here, ex
good ways to get developed. cept that he can't castle.

9 cxd5 �xd5 12 �g5

9 ... �xfl ? 1 0 dxe6! threatens a8 and f1 , com 1 2 .i.h6 ! ? hasn't been tried, as far as I know.

pelling 1 O ... �xg2 I I 'ii'xg2 'ii'd5 1 2 exf7+ l:txf7 It has the idea of e5 and 'il¥ g4; then a sample line 130 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

is 1 2 .. .'�Wc4! ( 1 2 ... �h8 1 3 llc l !?; for example, 7.212) 1 3 ... tt::lbd7 1 4 �f4 c5 1 5 �d6 l:tfd8 1 6 'ii'e2

'ii'xe2+ 1 7 �xe2 and White can claim a tiny 6 a3 (D) edge) 1 3 e5 tt::ld5 14 tt::lh5 ! 'ii'xc3+ 1 5 'ii'xc3 For those who don't like the complexities of
t2Jxc3 1 6 �xg7 with obscure prospects; �h6, 6 tt::lg3 and need an alternative that is easier to
h4 and l:th3-g3 might follow. play, this might suffice, but don't expect too

12 ••• tt::lbd7 13 'ii'e2 'ii'xe2+ much in the way of advantages.

This has been criticized. Knaak suggests

1 3 ... 'ii'a3, although White can't be too unhappy
with 14 l:tc I and 0-0, yielding the type of posi
tion he's been aiming for. A possibility here is 8

14 ... h6 1 5 �f4!? e5 !? 1 6 �e3 ! t.

14 �xe2 c5 15 a4 (D)

8

6 .•. �e7 The alternative is 6 ... �xc3+ 7 tt::lxc3 d5. Now
there are many decades of theory on and practice
with the main move 8 b3, a line which I can rec
ommend as safe and having enough content to
please a technical player. But I'm going to rec

This is the kind of ending that arises from var ommend the other cautious move, 8 'ii'a4+ (D).

ious openings. It should probably be drawn with

accurate play, but Black's defence is no fun.

15 .•• l:tfc8 16 l:thcl �f8 17 f3

It makes sense to include this move at some 8 point so as to free the knight and also protect
against ... t2Jg4 if the king strays.

17 ••• tt::le8

A logical reorganization. The game Knaak

Wahls, Baden-Baden 1 992 continued 1 8 �f4
cxd4 (this doesn't seem to help; sitting tight
with 1 8 ... f6 is possible, but in any case, White
has a small but distinct advantage) 1 9 cxd4 �e7

20 tt::lfl ! �d8? ! (Knaak suggests 20 ... l:txc I 2 1
l:txc l �d8 with an edge for White) 2 1 l:tcbl !

(Black is getting cramped and a5 is becoming an issue) 2 I ...l:tc4 22 �d3 l:tac8 23 a5 l:tc2 24 �d2 This is appropriate when you want to play
t2Jd6 25 axb6 axb6 26 t2Je3 l:t2c7 27 l:tb4 �e8 with minimal risk and/or are willing to go into a

28 e5 ! . Here, instead of the game's 28 ... tt::lb7?! dry position. If your opponent chooses the lat

29 tt::lc4, Knaak gives 28 ... tt::lf5 29 tt::lxf5 exf5 30 ter, you will have some opportunities for out

�e3 l:td8 31 f4 as clearly better for White. playing him, but you' ll have to forget about that

Black has to give up the b-pawn by 3 1 ... tt::lf8 in brilliancy prize! Black has only two serious re
order to prevent d5. plies:

N!MZO-INDIAN DEFENCE 131

a) 8 ... c6 and then:

a 1 ) 9 'ili'b4 is worth a thought, since 9 ... 1!i'e7

1 0 'ii'xe7+ rbxe7 I I b3 yields a bishop-pair B ending which you can play to your heart's de
light. Naturally, there are many alternatives;
e.g., 9 ... ..ib7 1 0 ..id3 !? c5 ! I I 'i!i'a4+ ..ic6 1 2

'ili'd 1 dxc4 1 3 ..ixc4 0-0 1 4 0-0 with a slim ad
vantage for White at best.

a2) 9 ..ie2 affords more prospects: 9 ... dxc4

(9 ... ..ixc4 10 ..ixc4 dxc4 1 1 �xc4; after 9 ... 0-0

I 0 0-0 I don't see a particularly positive plan for

Black apart from exchanging, as I O ... c5 I I .:!.d l
doesn't obviously help) 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 .:!.d1 11i'c7

1 2 e4 (not a risky gambit; now ..ig5 and e5 fol
lowed by lZJe4 become possibilities) l 2 ... b5 7 ... d5 and White can play 1 3 'ili'c2 or even the exotic 7 ... 0-0 can be met calmly with 8 b4, or more

1 3 'iVM!? ..ib7 ( l 3 ... lZJbd7 14 a4) l 4 1!i'c5 lZJbd7 ambitiously by 8 e4 d6 9 ..ie2 lZJbd7 (9 ... e5) 1 0

1 5 1!i'g5. 0-0 c 6 ( l O ... e5 1 1 lZJfd5) I I d5 ! cxd5 1 2 cxd5
b) 8 ... 1!i'd7 9 'i!i'xd7+ (D) and Black can ..txe2 1 3 11i'xe2 e5 14 lZJd3 with a slight advan
choose between: tage for White, Reshevsky-Bisguier, New York

(5) 1 957.

8 cxd5

Or 8 �f3 c6 9 cxd5 exd5 (after 9 ... cxd5 1 0

B ..ixa6 lZJxa6 I I 0-0 0-0 1 2 ..td2 'ii'd7, as in

Janda-Kozak, Decin 1 995, Ca.Hansen recom
mends simply 1 3 .:!.fc l ) I 0 ..txa6 lZJxa6 I I 0-0

0-0 1 2 lZJd3. All this is effectively equal, but it's
an available line if the tactics that follow after the text-move don't appeal to you.

s ... ..txn 9 rbxn This positional move will give White at best
a minor edge versus perfect play, but there are
numerous ways to keep away from theory and
create an original game. Alas, my intention had
been to recommend 9 dxe6!?, which works in a
b l ) 9 ... rbxd7 10 cxd5 exd5 I I ..txa6 ( I I f3 multitude of lines, but I couldn't improve upon and I I b4 ..ixfl 1 2 .:!.xfl are also possible) a couple of completely equal and prospectless
l l ...lZJxa6 12 f3. It would be too much to claim variations after 9 ... ..ta6 (9 ... ..tc4? fails to 1 0
a significant advantage here, but on the positive 'i!i'a4+ b 5 I I lZJxb5 ..txb5 1 2 'i!i'xb5+ rbf8 1 3
side, White can aim to expand slowly in the 'i!i'b7 g5 1 4 11i'xa8 gxf4 1 5 'ii'xa7 ± ) 1 0 exf7+
centre or on the kings ide, and this central struc rbxf7 (D). ture tends to be pretty good at restricting the en For the record, and in case you want to inves
emy knights. tigate further:

b2) 9 ... lZJbxd7 1 0 lZJb5 ! ? ( 1 0 b3 c5 1 1 a4 0-0 a) 1 1 �b3+ rbe8 1 2 e4 ( 1 2 lZJe6?! 'ii'd7

1 2 lZJb5 is of some interest) I O ... ..txb5 ( I O ... rbd8 leaves Black safe after 1 3 lZJxg7+ rbd8 14

1 1 cxd5 exd5 gives White a choice between 1 2 lZJe6+ rbc8 +) l2 ... 1!i'xd4 13 lZJe6 'ii'c4! 14 lZJxc7 ! ? and 1 2 ..td2, i f he likes endgames) 1 1 'i!i'xc4 ..ixc4 1 5 lZJxc7+ rbf7 16 lZJxa8 lZJa6 1 7
cxb5 e5 ! ? 1 2 f3 exd4 1 3 exd4 lZJf8 1 4 ..te3 lZJe6 lZJxb6 axb6. White has three pawns and a rook

1 5 ..td3 with a long-term advantage for White, for two pieces, but Black's pieces are very ac
but again nothing to shout about. tive, and White's prospects of winning aren't

7 lZJf4 (D) good at all; e.g., 1 8 b4 lZJg4! 1 9 ..tf4 ..tf6 20 132 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

play if you are willing to accept that it's proba

bly only equal), and in any case leads to a fasci
w nating position. We have:

a) I O .. . h6 I I h4!, intending i&'f3 with an
early g5, is promising, even after l l ... i&'d7?! 1 2
iif3 ! with the idea 1 2 ... i&'xg4 1 3 'il'xg4 ltJxg4

14 �gl h5 1 5 ltJfxd5.

b) The stem game for the line went 1 0 ... c6

I I g5 ltJfd7 1 2 h4 �d6? ( 1 2 ... 0-0 is awfully
risky due to 1 3 'ili'g4; Kasparov gives a sample
line beginning with 1 3 ... ltJa6 14 e4 dxe4 1 5
ltJxe4 f5? 1 6 gxf6 ltJxf6 1 7 'ti'e6+ 'iti>h8 1 8 h5 ! ,
threatening ltJg6+) 1 3 e4! dxe4 1 4 ltJxe4 �xf4?!

1 5 �xf4 0-0 1 6 h5 ! �e8 17 ltJd6 .l:te6 and here

�c I b5 and Black is holding the balance (but no 1 8 d5 led to a sterling victory in Botvinnik
more than that). Smyslov, World Ch (2), Moscow 1 954, but the
b) I I e4 �c4! is hard/impossible to crack computer proves that 1 8 g6! wins immediately
if Black defends well (there are all kinds of in view of the beautiful sequence 1 8 ... fxg6 19
nice wins after l l ...c5?! 1 2 e5): 1 2 �e3 (or 1 2 hxg6 h6 20 'ii'b3 ltJf8 2 1 �e I i&'d7 22 �xe6
e5 ltJc6 1 3 �e3, transposing) 1 2 ... ltJc6 1 3 e5 i&'xe6 23 ltJf5 ! ! 'ili'xb3 24 ltJe7+ 'iti>h8 25 �xh6+

�e8 ! ( 1 3 ... ltJd5? 14 e6+ 'iti>g8 1 5 ltJcxd5 �xd5 gxh6 26 �e5#. 1 6 iih5 +-) 14 b3 �a6 1 5 b4 �c4 1 6 llc l c) 1 0 ... g5 ! (D) has proven itself in many

'iti>g8 ! 1 7 ltJce2 ! ( 1 7 exf6 �xf6 1 8 ltJce2 b5) contests:

17 ... b5 ! 1 8 �xc4 ! ? ( 1 8 exf6 �xf6 1 9 0-0 i&'d7

=) 1 8 ... bxc4 1 9 iic2 'iti>h8 ! 20 i&'xc4 iid7 2 1 exf6 �xf6 22 0-0 �ad8 2 3 d 5 (23 �d I ? ! ltJxd4)

23 ... ltJe7 24 ltJe6 �c8 25 ltJ6f4 �cd8 =. I've w skipped most of Black's alternatives, but be
lieve they favour White, so if you can find
something against this main line, you're in
business.

We now return to 9 'iti>xfl (D):

B

c 1 ) Someone should give I I ltJd3 a try, hav
ing in mind ltJe5, especially after 1 1 ... ltJc6; a
strange line is l l ... h5 ! 12 gxh5 �xh5 1 3 ltJe5
with chances for both sides.

c2) 1 1 ltJh5 (recommended and played by
everyone) 1 I ...ltJxh5 12 gxh5 c6 ( 1 2 ... �f8 1 3
i&'f3 c6 1 4 e4 dxe4 1 5 'ili'xe4 f5 has also done
well, but the untried 1 6 i&'e5 ! appears to yield an
advantage regardless of Black's reply) 1 3 1i'f3

9 ••• ttJxd5 ltJa6 (generally favoured over l 3 ... i&'d7, which

After 9 ... exd5, Botvinnik's 1 0 g4 was origi is probably of equivalent worth) 14 e4 (or 14
nally considered favourable ( 1 0 h4! ? prepares �gl ltJc7 1 5 e4) 1 4 ... ltJc7, and perhaps the sel
g4, h5 or �h3-g3; this might serve as a way to dom-played 1 5 h4 affords the best prospects;

NJMZO-INDIAN DEFENCE 133

e.g., 1 5 ... h6 1 6 exd5 tbxd5 1 7 hxg5 hxg5 1 8 1 0 0-0 i.a6!?) 8 ... i.b7 (after 8 ... i.a6 White has
i.d2 ;!; and l:te 1 next, or 1 5 .. .f6! 1 6 exd5 tbxd5 9 b3) 9 O-O tLlbd7 1 0 b4! ? (or 1 0 b3 ;!;) 1 0 ... dxc4

17 i.d2, which is more or less equal but never I I i.xc4 c5 1 2 i.b2 a6!? (after 1 2 ... cxd4 1 3
theless rather interesting. 'ifxd4 l:tc8, as i n the game Bareev-Timman,

10 tbcxd5 Wijk aan Zee 1 995, White can play 14 tLlb5 !)

1 0 'ii'f3 c6 1 1 g3 is an uncommon but sensi 13 dxc5 bxc5 1 4 i.e2 tLld5 1 5 tbxd5 i.xd5 16
ble way to play; e.g., 1 1 ...0-0 1 2 �g2 tLld7 1 3 'ii'd2 ;!; M.Gurevich-Rozentalis, Turin Olym
e4 ( 13 l:tdl 'ti'c7 ! ? 1 4 e4 tbxc3 1 5 'ifxc3 l:tac8 piad 2006; the bishop-pair provides some ad

1 6 i.e3 ;!; Ruether-Galje, corr. 1 996) 1 3 ... tbxc3 vantage.

14 'ifxc3 c5 ! 1 5 d5 ! i.f6 1 6 'ifb3 !? exd5 1 7 6 a3 (D)

tbxd5 i.d4 1 8 i.e3 i.xe3 1 9 'ifxe3 tLlf6 (White
has only a nominal edge, although worth play

ing in practice) 20 tbc3 (White can try 20 l:tad 1
l:te8 2 1 'iff3, hoping for 2 1 ...tLlxe4? 22 tbc3 B 'ife7 23 l:the l ) 20 .. .'iVe7 2 1 l:tad l l:tad8 22 f4! ?

(Budnikov-S.Pavlov, Yuzhny 20 1 0) and here a
normal move like 22 ... 'ife6 is satisfactory.

10 ..• exd5 11 'ifh5

This is the standard move. 1 1 h4 might be
worth a try, when l l ...c6 1 2 h5 h6 1 3 i.d2 i.g5

14 tLld3 0-0 1 5 l:tc 1 a5 1 6 tbe5 was Lutsko

S.Pavlov, Khmelnitsky 2008.

l l .•. i.g5 12 tbe6?!

Played umpteen times, as opposed to none
for 1 2 tLld3 !?. In combination with i.d2 and
l:tc 1 , this would help to hold down c5. Even the 6 ••• i.e7 computer seems to think that White has a mod Or: est advantage then ! Well maybe, maybe not, but a) 6 ... i.xc3+ 7 tbxc3 d5 8 cxd5 doesn't give
surely it's better than getting slightly the worse Black enough counterplay to justify the loss of
side of a drawn position (which tends to be the the bishop-pair; e.g., 8 ... exd5 (8 ... tbxd5 has sev
outcome of the text-move)? eral good replies, including the direct 9 tbxd5

12 ... g6 13 'ii'xg5 fxe6 14 'ife5 and 9 'iff3) 9 i.d3 (9 b4 is probably more flexi

Or 1 4 'ifxd8+ �xd8 =. ble) 9 ... 0-0 10 0-0 c5 ( 1 0 ... l:te8 1 1 b4 tLlbd7 1 2

14 •.. �d7 'ifb3 c6 1 3 f3) 1 1 b4!? cxd4 1 2 exd4 tbe4 1 3

White has achieved absolutely nothing here i.xe4!? dxe4 1 4 d5 'iff6 1 5 i.b2 tLld7 1 6 'ii'g4 ;!;
and in fact has both a negative record and per V.Milov-Korchnoi, Swiss Team Ch 2007. formance rating. So you should take a look at b) 6 ... i.d6!? is better than it seems. In fact,
the various alternatives along the way. White might be well advised to play the conser
vative 7 b4 0-0 8 tLlg3 (the immediate 7 tLlg3 h5

7.22) is not so clear). Otherwise, White can go for
central expansion by 7 'ii'd3 ! ? c5 (against other

5 •.• i.b7 moves, e4 will follow) 8 e4 cxd4 9 tbxd4 0-0 1 0

5 ... 0-0 would probably arise more often from tLldb5 !? i.e5 II f4 i.xc3+ 1 2 tbxc3, when

4 ... 0-0 5 tLle2 b6, but it fits here conceptually Black should hurry to establish himself with
because the bishop will go to b7: 6 a3 i.xc3+ 7 1 2 ... d5 1 3 e5 tbe4 1 4 tbxe4 dxe4 1 5 'ifxd8
tbxc3 d5 (7 ... i.b7 can be met by 8 i.d3 !, when l:txd8 1 6 i.e3 tbc6 (otherwise the bishops will

White gains control of e4 unless Black attempts again be a real force) 17 �f2 ( 1 7 b4 tLld4 1 8
the risky 8 ... i.xg2?! 9 l:tg l i.b7 1 0 e4; instead, l:tc l ) 1 7 .. .4 xd4 ! ? (it's not clear that White can

8 f3 is also good) 8 i.e2 (the exchange on d5 al convert this advantage into victory; the alterna
lows Black to exchange light-squared bishops tive is 1 8 b4 tLlc2 1 9 l:tc I tbxe3 20 �xe3 ;!;)

without losing a tempo: 8 cxd5 exd5 9 i.d3 c5 1 8 ... l:txd4 1 9 �e3 l:tad8 20 i.e2 f5 2 1 ex f6 134 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

gxf6 22 �hd I �xd 1 23 �xd 1 �xd 1 24 �xd 1 f5 8 ... b5 might be answered by 9 e4! ?, but

25 g4, when White has all the chances. 8 ... a5 looks best.

7 d5 (D) 9 e4 lLlbd7 10 �e2 �e8 11 0-0

7 lLlf4 has also been played, going way back Now l l ...a6?! 1 2 �f4 �c8 1 3 'ii'd2 lLlf8 1 4
to Rubinstein ! I think that White has a small �ad l 'ii'd7 1 5 �e3 gave White a solid advan
plus to work with; for example, 7 ... 0-0 8 �d3 tage in Levitt-Emms, British Ch, Plymouth

(8 �e2 d5 9 cxd5 exd5 10 �f3 c6 1 1 0-0 �d6 1 992. Emms offers I 1 .. .c6! ;!;, when 1 2 dxe6

12 b4, with the idea b5, might squeeze a little fxe6 1 3 f4 is an interesting course, gaining
something from the position, since ... �xf4 gen space and preparing moves such as �e3, �f3
erally helps White, and especially so when ... c5 and b4, depending upon how the play devel
isn't effective) 8 ... d6 (after 8 ... d5 9 cxd5 exd5 ops.

10 0-0 c5, G.Kuzmin suggests 1 1 'ii'f3 ! with
pressure on d5 and the kingside) 9 0-0 lLlbd7 I 0 7.23) b3 (or 1 0 b4 ;!;) I O ... �e8 1 1 �b2 ;!; Kharlov

Liogky, Cappelle Ia Grande 1 999. White has 5 ••• lLle4 (D) some space advantage and his minor pieces are

actively placed.

w

This is an unambitious move which has a
high percentage of draws at high levels of play

7 •.. 0-0 and is supposed to reduce Black's losing pros

A game which may be known to old-timers pects. In fact, while the system is undoubtedly
went 7 ... a5 8 e4 e5 9 lLlg3 0-0 1 0 �d3 lLle8 1 1 solid and objectively adequate, White has sev
h4 (to avoid the bishop exchange by ... �g5) eral ways to make things interesting.

l l ...lLla6 12 lLlf5 lLlc5 1 3 �c2 lLld6 14 lLlxd6 6 �d2

( 1 4 'iV g4! lLlxf5 1 5 exf5 ;!;) 1 4 ... �xd6 1 5 �e3 I'll recommend this as the best way to obtain

�e7 1 6 �bl !? ( l 6 'ii'g4) 1 6 ... �c8 1 7 b4 axb4 1 8 a complex strategic struggle without taking on
axb4 lLla6 1 9 lt:\a2 d6 20 b5 lLlb8 (versus lLlb4- real risks. 6 'ii'c2 is still the 'main line', leading
c6, but 20 ... lLlc5 may be preferable) 2 I lLlb4 f5?! after 6 ... �b7 7 a3 �xc3+ 8 lLlxc3 lLlxc3 9

22 exf5 �xf5 23 �xf5 �xf5 24 g3 'ii'e8 25 �al �xc3 to a position in which the two bishops are
lLld7 26 �xa8 'ii'xa8 27 lLlc6 �f7 28 0-0 and compensated for by Black's pressure on the

White stood clearly better in Lilienthal-Kotov, kingside and rapid development. USSR Ch, Moscow 1 945. Other moves:

8 lLlg3 a) Aside from the text-move, the choice that

8 g3 can be met by 8 ... b5 ! or 8 ... a5 9 �g2 most appeals to me (and hasn't been seriously
lLla6, spoiling White's fun, while 8 e4 �e8 9 investigated) is 6 f3. This can lead to Samisch
lLlg3 exd5 I 0 cxd5 �d6 is also satisfactory for like positions. Those might not be to everyone's

Black. taste but they are considerably more exciting

8 ... d6 than the alternatives. Play can go:

NIMZO-INDIAN DEFENCE 135

a l ) The fascinating position after 6 ... i..xc3+ 1 1 tt:lf5 i..f6 1 2 f4 with some advantage for

7 bxc3 ti.'!d6 8 tt.'!g3 (D) tends to turn critical be White, L.Karlsson-Stigar, Oslo 1 986) I I 'ii'e2
cause of the race between White's play in the d6 1 2 0-0 'i!Vd7 ( 1 2 ... h5 1 3 f4! h4 14 tt:lh5 g6 1 5
centre/kingside and Black's queenside counter tt:\g7+ �f8 1 6 tt.'!xe6+ fxe6 1 7 f5 gives White a
play: decisive attack - Sokolov) 1 3 l:tb l (Sokolov
prefers l 3 f4 'iVa4 1 4 f5) 1 3 ... h5 ! 1 4 l:te l h4 1 5
tt:lfl c 5 and instead of 1 6 i..e3, as played in

I.Sokolov-D.Johansen, Manila Olympiad 1 992,

B 1 6 f4 is more appropriate.

b) Partly for the record (and since it could
be of surprise value), I should note that 6 a3,
given a straight '?' in most sources, is playable.

The supposed refutation (and best move) is

6 ... 'iVh4! , when White should play 7 tt:\g3 ! (D)

(analysts give the ugly 7 g3 'ii'f6 8 f4 here), with
the following possibilities:

B
a l l ) 8 ... i..a6 9 li'a4 'iVh4 1 0 i..d3 f5 1 1 0-0

0-0 1 2 e4 i..b7 1 3 exf5 tt.'!xf5 ( 1 3 ... exf5 1 4 c5
bxc5 and now 1 5 i..a3 or 1 5 'ii'b3+ c4 1 6
i..xc4+ tt.'!xc4 1 7 li'xc4+ d5 1 8 'ii'xc7 ± ) 1 4
tt:lxf5 exf5 1 5 i..a3 d6 1 6 c5 with a strong at
tack.

a l 2) 8 ... tt.'!c6 9 e4 (9 'ii'a4 0-0 1 0 i..d3 tt:\a5

I I c5, Flear-Harris, Manchester 1 98 1 ) 9 ... i..a6

1 0 e5 tt:lxc4 1 1 i..d3 tt:\6a5 1 2 0-0 i..b7 1 3 'ii'e2
i..d5 14 tt.'!h5 li'h4 1 5 f4 0-0-0 1 6 g3 'ii'e7

(Fedorowicz-Ward, Cannes 1 988) and now 1 7
f5 ! with the idea 1 7 .. . exf5 1 8 tt:lxg7. b l ) 7 ... tt:lxc3?! 8 �f3 ! tt:\e4+ 9 axb4 f5 10
a2) 6 ... tt:\xc3 7 bxc3 and then: tt:lxe4!? (10 'ii'h5+! �xh5 I I tt:lxh5 g6 1 2 f3
a2 1 ) 7 ... i..d6 is active; White can develop gxh5 1 3 fxe4 fxe4 14 i..e2 0-0 1 5 i..xh5 leaves normally or try to expand by 8 e4: White with the bishop-pair in a promising con
a2 1 1 ) 8 ... c5 could be countered radically by text) I O ... fxe4 ( I O ... �xe4?! I I �g3) I I �g3 9 e5 il.e7 1 0 d5 d6 1 1 tt:\g3. Then l l ...dxe5 1 2 �xg3 1 2 hxg3 ;!;. This isn't a great deal, but with
il.d3 ! threatens both d6 and i..e4, and 1 1 .. .0-0 space, the bishops, and Black's rather cramped

1 2 i..d3 exd5 1 3 cxd5 tt:ld7 14 f4!? dxe5 1 5 0-0 position, White can certainly play for a win.

i..b7 1 6 c4 exf4 1 7 i..xf4 gives White unclear b2) 7 ... tt:\xg3?! 8 fxg3 i..xc3+ 9 bxc3 opens
attacking prospects for the pawn. the f-file, which is typical in Nimzo-Indian po
a2 1 2) 8 ... tt:\c6 9 e5 i..e7 1 0 tt:\g3 i..a6 1 1 sitions in which White controls the centre. Of
i..d3 tt:la5 1 2 f4! i..xc4 1 3 f5 i..xd3 1 4 'ii'xd3 course, White's c4-pawn can be harassed (and
d5 1 5 tt:lh5 (or 1 5 0-0 with plenty of compen might want to go to c5 at some point), and if
sation) 1 5 ... i..f8 ( 1 5 ... g6 1 6 fxe6! gxh5?! 1 7 Black stabilizes the centre he can boast of a su
exf7+ �xf7 1 8 0-0+ �e8 1 9 e6 'i!Vd6 20 i..f4 perior pawn-structure. Nevertheless, I'd give

'ii'xe6 2 1 l:tae1 is too strong) was played in White a limited plus; e.g., 9 ... 'iVf6 1 0 l:ta2 0-0 Bleiman-Bisguier, Netanya 1 97 1 . After 16 0-0! I I .l:tf2 'ii'e7 1 2 i..d3 i..b7 1 3 0-0 tt:lc6 14 g4! ?

'ii'd7 17 il.g5 ±, Black's king is stuck. (versus . . . f5) l 4 .. . e5 1 5 c5 intending l 5 .. . bxc5
a22) 7 ... !iJ..e7 8 e4 (8 tt.'!g3 is a legitimate op 1 6 �b3 ! ? ( 1 6 d5 ti.'!d8 1 7 e4) 1 6 ... l:tab8??

tion) 8 ... tt.'!c6 9 tt:\g3 i..a6 1 0 i..d3 tt:\a5 ( 1 0 ... e5 ( 1 6 ... tt:ld8) 17 l:txf7 l:txf7 1 8 l:txf7.

136 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

b3) 7 ... i.xc3+! 8 bxc3 i.b7 offers chances exf4 1 3 gxf4 d6 1 4 0-0-0 l1e8 1 5 l"Llg3 with
for both sides; for example, 9 �h5 !? �xh5 1 0 good attacking chances for White, Szabo-Bot
tt:Jxh5 g6! l l l"Llg3 !? l"Llxc3! 1 2 f3 d5 ! ( 12 ... l"Lla4 vinnik, European Team Ch, Oberhausen 1 96 1 .

1 3 i.d3 i.c6 1 4 lib l a5 1 5 i.c2 d6 l 6 l"Lle2 'it>e 7 c) 7 ... d5 8 a3 ..te7 9 cxd5 exd5 1 0 g3 ( 1 0

1 7 'it>f2 is slightly better for White) 1 3 i.d2!? l"Llf4 c6 1 1 ..td3) 1 0 ... 0-0 1 1 i.g2 c6 1 2 0-0 ;!;

( 1 3 a4 dxc4 14 i.xc4 is unclear, though White M.Gurevich-Enders, Eger 1 987. has compensation) 1 3 ... l"Lla4 14 cxd5 exd5 1 5 8 a3 ..te7 i.b5+ i.c6 16 i.e2 =. Again, 8 ... ..txc3 9 l"Llxc3 i.b7 is reasonable

6 ... l"Llxd2 (but 9 ... f5?! less so; e.g., 10 ..td3 d6 I I 0-0 l"Lld7

The only logical move, gaining the bishop 1 2 f4! l"Llf6 1 3 d5 lle8 1 4 llael has the idea of
pair. 6 ... i.xc3?! 7 l"Llxc3 l"Llxd2 8 �xd2 essen 1 5 e4, even against 1 4 ... e5). tially wastes time compared to other variations 9 l"Llf4 (White didn't have to play a3), and White took This is a flexible option, and perhaps better
advantage by 8 ... i.b7 9 ..td3 ! ..txg2 1 0 llgl than 9 d5 in terms of forcing Black to come up

..tf3 l l llxg7, securing an obvious plus, in the with a plan. game Grandelius-Penalver, Swedish Team Ch 9 .•. ..tg5!? 201 011 1 . 9 ... d6 1 0 i.e2 i.b7 1 1 0-0 l"Lld7 (Aleksan

7 �xd2 (DJ drov-Ehlvest, Polanica Zdroj 1 997) 1 2 llad I
i.g5 ! ? 1 3 l"Lld3 a5 1 4 f4 i.f6 1 5 i.f3 gives

White a comfortable game.

10 i.d3 i.b7

B This is equivalent to 7 ... ..tb7 8 a3 i.e7 9 l"Llf4
i.g5 1 0 ..td3 0-0.

11 0-0 (D)

B

7 ••• 0-0

Here there are important and frequently-seen
alternatives:

a) 7 ... ..ta6 8 a3 (8 l"Llf4 is quite playable)

8 ... ..te7 (8 ... i.xc3 9 l"Llxc3 d5 can be answered
calmly by l 0 b3 or even I 0 ..te2 ..txc4 I I ..txc4
dxc4 1 2 �e2, or more directly with 1 0 cxd5 ll ... i.xf4 ..txfl 1 1 'it>xfl exd5 1 2 lie 1 0-0 1 3 g3 l"Llc6 1 4 It's not clear who profits more from this ex

'it>g2 ;!; ) 9 l"Llf4 i.g5 l 1 0 l"Llh5 ! ? g6 1 1 l"Llg3 change; I'd say White. Sokolov suggests imple (D.Gurevich-Christiansen, USA Ch, Estes Park menting it in another way: l l ...d5 12 cxd5

1 984) and now 1 1 ...0-0! 1 2 ..te2 f5 1 3 0-0! ? i.xf4 1 3 exf4 exd5, which he calls equal, but I
f4! ? 1 4 l"Llge4 ..th6 1 5 d5 ;!; can follow. think White can use his superior activity by
b) 7 ... ..tb7 8 a3 (or 8 d5) 8 ... ..te7 (8 ... ..txc3 means of 1 4 .l:l.fe l , with ideas of lle3 and dou

9 l"Llxc3 0-0 10 d5) 9 d5 (for 9 l"Llf4 ..tg5 I 0 ..td3 bling rooks or attacking on the kingside. Since

0-0, see the main line) 9 ... 0-0 10 g3 c5 !? ( 1 0 ... d6 14 ... c5 1 5 dxc5 bxc5 1 6 llad l is very awkward,

I I ..tg2 e5 12 0-0 l"Lld7 13 f4 gave White more Black might try 1 4 ... l"Llc6 1 5 ..tc2 �d6 1 6 b4
space, but nothing special, in Jelen-Grosar, llae8 1 7 �d3 g6 1 8 f5 i.c8 ! 1 9 �d2! t. Sloven ian Ch, Postojna 1 992) 1 1 ..th3 ! e5 1 2 f4 12 exf4

NIMZO-INDIAN DEFENCE 137

Now 1 2 ... c5? 1 3 dxc5 bxc5 1 4 i..e4 is very b) White also retains an edge after 8 ... 0-0 9
bad for Black, while after 1 2 ... d5 (O.Rodri t:Llg3 t:Lla6 I 0 i..d3 cxd4 1 1 exd4 i.xc3 1 2 i.xc3
guez-I.Sokolov, Barcelona 1 992) 1 3 cxd5 ! exd5 d5 1 3 'ii'e2 dxc4 14 i..xc4 'iVb7 1 5 0-0 t:Llc7 1 6

(Black should avoid 1 3 ... i..xd5? ! 1 4 t:Llxd5 i..b4 .l:!.e8 1 7 i..d6 t:Llcd5 1 8 i..e5 ;!;. 'ii'xd5? 1 5 'ii'c2 f5 1 6 i..c4 ±) 1 4 .l:!.fe1 White has c) 8 ... t:Lla6 9 tLlf4 (with the idea of a timely
the better of it. t:Lld3, or in some cases supporting the advance
d5; or 9 dxc5 bxc5 1 0 tLlf4) 9 ... i..b7 10 i..d3

7.24) cxd4 1 1 exd4 i..xc3 12 bxc3 i..e4 1 3 0-0 0-0 14

.l:!.e1 i..xd3 1 5 t:Llxd3 h6 ( 1 5 ... d6 16 i..g5 h6 1 7

5 •.. c5 i..xf6 'ii'xf6 1 8 'ii'a4 tLlc7 19 'ii'c6 'ii'e7 20 t:Llb4

Notice that this can also arise via 4 ... c5 5 ;!;) 1 6 'ii'a4 t:Llc7 1 7 c5 with a slight advantage tLle2 b6. for White.

6 a3 i..a5 (D) We now return to 7 ... tLla6 (D):

w w

This variation was brought into prominence 8 g3 by Romanishin and Psakhis, and has retained Now that White has gained a small conces
an excellent reputation since it first came into sion, i.e., Black's knight on the awkward square
general notice. Black simply prevents b4 and a6, his centre is secure for the moment and he
maintains his pin, while putting some pressure can develop. 8 i..d2 is the main line, and 8 tLlf4
on d4. is another safe way to play: 8 ... t:Lle4! (8 ... 0-0 9

7 llbl i..d3 should bring White a small advantage) 9

At this juncture, White has tried a large set of �d3 !? t:Llxc3 (9 ... i..b7? 10 b4 t:Llxc3 1 1 �xc3;
responses but there is no known way to achieve 9 ... f5 1 0 b4! cxb4 1 1 t:Llxe4 fxe4 12 �xe4 bxa3+
more than a small theoretical advantage. The 1 3 'it>d l a2 1 4 .l:!.a1 .l:!.b8 1 5 i..a3 with prospects
text-move intends to trap the bishop with b4; of advantage) 1 0 bxc3 i..b7 I I i..e2 ( I I d5 !?)

the other main move is 7 i..d2. l l ... f5 1 2 f3 with a complex and balanced posi

7 ••. t:Lla6 tion. The text-move is more ambitious.

7 ... 'ii'e7 isn't played much. White has several 8 ... i..b7 plausible ways to try for an advantage, includ 8 ... cxd4 9 exd4 i..b7 10 d5 (threatening b4)

ing 8 i..d2. Then: 1 0 ... i..xc3+ I I t:Llxc3 .l:!.c8 1 2 i..e2 exd5 1 3
a) 8 ... i..a6 9 b4! cxb4 1 0 axb4 i.xb4 1 1 cxd5 tLlc7 1 4 0-0 tLlfxd5 ( 14 .. . tLlcxd5 1 5 tLlb5 !) .l:!.xb4! 'ii'xb4 1 2 t:Llb5 'ii'e7 1 3 tLlc7+ 'it>d8 1 4 1 5 t:Llxd5 i..xd5 1 6 i..f4 i..b7 1 7 i..d6 and Black
t:Llxa8 and Black exploits the trapped knight by is struggling.

14 ... i..xc4 but White will get pressure on his 9 d5 b5!? position and king; e.g., 1 5 tLlc3 i..xfl 1 6 l:txfl A bold move, designed to break up the centre
d5 1 7 t:Llb5 'ii'b7 1 8 'ii'c 1 ! t:Lle8 1 9 t:Llac7 tLlf6 20 straightaway. Other moves grant White some

'it>e2 a6 2 1 t:Llxa6 t:Llxa6 22 'ii'a3 ±. advantage:

138 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

a) 9 ... exdS 1 0 ..tg2 gains White some time, 12 e4 (D) reserves the idea of capturing on dS with a piece,
and doesn't really help Black; e.g., 1 0 ... bS 1 1

b4! cxb4 1 2 axb4 lUxb4 ( 1 2 ... i.xb4 1 3 cxbS
i.xc3+ 14 ltJxc3 ltJc7 1 S i.a3 d6 1 6 'i!Vb3 0-0 B

17 0-0 'i!Vd7 1 8 l:tfd 1 ;!;;) 1 3 0-0 bxc4 14 ..ta3 'i!kb6 1 S ltJa2.

b) 9 ... ltJe4?! 1 0 i.g2 ltJxc3 1 1 ltJxc3 ..txc3+

1 2 bxc3 gives White space and creates potential
dark-square problems. Gelfand-Aronian, Leon
rapid 201 0 continued 1 2 ... d6 1 3 'it'a4+ �e7 1 4

0-0 ltJc7 I S e4 .l:!.e8? 1 6 eS ! �f8 ( 1 6 .. . exdS?

fails to 1 7 .l:!.d I or 17 'i1Vc2), and now 1 7 l:tdl !

would have practically won on the spot due to

1 7 ... exdS ( 1 7 ... dxeS 1 8 d6) 1 8 exd6 'i1Vxd6 1 9
i.f4 'it'd8 20 cxdS.

10 i.g2 bxc4 11 0-0 0-0 12 •.• d6

Dearing gives 1 I ...i.xc3 1 2 ltJxc3 ltJxdS 1 3 Or: ltJxdS exdS 1 4 i.xdS 'ii'b6 (D). a) 1 2 ... l:te8 1 3 i.gS (White also gets the
better game from 1 3 dxe6) 1 3 ... h6 1 4 i.xf6

'i1Vxf6 1 S 'i!Va4 and .l:!.fd I ;!;;.

b) Perhaps 1 2 ... exdS ! ? improves; for ex
w ample, 1 3 eS ( 1 3 ltJxdS ltJc7 ! 1 4 ltJxf6+ 'ii'xf6

1 S 'ii'xd7 l:r.fe8 is equal) 1 3 ... ltJg4 1 4 i.xdS
i.c6 ! ( 14 ... i.xdS 1 S 'iiVxdS 'i!Ve7 1 6 'it'xc4 'it'e6

1 7 'ii'xe6 dxe6 1 8 f4 ;!;;) 1 S ..tf4 .l:!.e8 1 6 i.xc6
dxc6 1 7 'i!Va4 tUxeS 1 8 i.xeS l:r.xeS 1 9 .l:!.fd 1

'ii'b6 20 'it'xc4 with the ideas of .l:!.d7 and ltJe4.

White's advantages in this note are slight, to
be sure.

13 ..tgS

1 3 'i!Va4 and 1 3 dxe6 fxe6 1 4 'i!Va4 ;!;; are about
equally good.

13 ••• ttJc7

He continues 1 S i.xb7 'i!Vxb7 1 6 'ii'd6 'ii'e4! , Valsser analyses both 1 3 ... h6 14 ..txf6 'i1Vxf6
when Black i s at least equal. White can get a 1 S 'it'a4 ..tb6 1 6 dxe6 'ii'xe6 1 7 eS i.xg2 1 8
small advantage by other means - nothing out �xg2 ltJc7 1 9 exd6 'i!Vxd6 20 .l:!.bd 1 ;!;; and
of the ordinary, but enough to worry Black: 1 3 ... exdS 1 4 ltJxdS i.xdS 1 S i.xf6 'i1Vxf6 1 6
a) I S i.xc4 ltJc7 1 6 'i1Vc2 dS 1 7 i.d3; for ex 'i!VxdS ;!;;. ample, 1 7 ... ltJe6 1 8 b4 c4 1 9 i.fS. 14 e5
b) 1 S e4 ltJc7 1 6 i.xb7 'i!Vxb7 1 7 i.e3 0-0 Valsser labels this ' ! ' . I ' m not so sure; in any

( 1 7 ... 'ii'c6 1 8 l:k 1 d6 1 9 l:hc4 ltJe6 20 f4 ;!;;) 1 8 case, White seems able to get a slight advantage

'i!Vxd7 ;!;;. by two other moves:

c) 1 S 'i!Vf3 i.xdS 1 6 'ii'xdS has been played a) 1 4 ltJf4 exdS I S 'it'a4 i.xc3 16 bxc3 i.c8
twice but only gives White a minor advantage 1 7 'it'c6; for example, 1 7 ... i.d7 ! ( 17 ... dxe4 can
following 1 6 ... ltJc7 ! ( 1 6 ... 'it'c6 1 7 'i!Vxc6 dxc6 be met by 1 8 i.xf6 gxf6 1 9 i.xe4 ;!;; or 1 8

1 8 i.d2 intending 1 9 .l:!.fc 1 - Dearing; 1 6 ... 0-0 i.xe4) 1 8 'i!Vxd6 tUbS 1 9 i.xf6 ! ? ( 1 9 'i!VxcS)

1 7 �xc4) 1 7 'i!Vxc4 dS 1 8 'i!Va4+ tUbS 1 9 'ii'c2 1 9 ... ltJxd6 20 i.xd8 .l:!.axd8 2 1 ltJxdS ;!;;. 0-0 (Bu Xiangzhi-P.Carlsson, World Junior Ch, b) 1 4 dxe6 fxe6 1 S 'i!Va4 ..tb6 1 6 .l:!.bd l ;!;;. Athens 200 1 ) and now 20 .l:!.d 1 ! l:tfd8 2 1 b4 c4 14 ••• dxe5 15 d6 i.xg2 16 i.xf6! 'i1Vxf6 17 22 a4 ltJc7 23 i.b2 ltJe6 24 'ilffS ;!;; is best. �xg2 ltJdS

NIMZO-INDJAN DEFENCE 139

Or 1 7 .. .'�Je8 !? 1 8 d7 tlJc7 1 9 'ii'a4 �b6 20 slow: 6 a3 �f8 7 liJg3 (I prefer this to the more

:bd l :fd8 = . direct 7 e4; 7 liJf4 is well met by 7 ... d6 with

18 liJxd5 exd5 19 'ii'xd5 l:f.ad8 20 d7 e4! 21 the idea ... e5, either on the following move or

�g1 'ii'e7 after ... c6) 7 ... d5 (7 ... e5 8 dxe5 :xe5 9 �e2 g6

Valsser-Zakhartsov, Aix-les-Bains 20 1 1 . 1 0 0-0 �g7 1 1 e4 ;!;) 8 �e2 c5 9 dxc5 ! (a key

Black has equalized, but White's options above idea which gives White good prospects of cen
afford him good prospects for advantage. tral superiority) 9 ... �xc5 1 0 b4 ( 1 0 0-0 dxc4! ?

I I �a4 �e7 1 2 �xc4 a6 1 3 :d i liJbd7 1 4

7.3) liJge4 ! ;!; ) I O ... �e7 ( I O ... �f8 I I �b2 liJc6 1 2 0-0 ;!;) I I cxd5 !? ( 1 1 �b2) l l ...exd5 1 2 0-0

4 .•. 0-0 (D) �e6 ( 1 2 ... liJc6 1 3 :a2! �e6 1 4 :d2 ;!;) 1 3

�b2 a5 1 4 liJb5 ! (D) and now:

w

B

This is a less dynamic option than 4 ... c5 or

4 ... b6, but it is also the most reliable move, and a) 1 4 ... axb4 1 5 axb4 .l:.xal 1 6 'ii'xal �xb4
impervious to direct attack. As such, it's not 1 7 �xf6 'ii'xf6 1 8 'ii'xf6 gxf6 1 9 :d I liJc6 20
surprising that 4 ... 0-0 is the first choice at the liJh5 �e7 2 1 liJf4 :d8 22 tlJc7 is slightly better
top levels, since a split point as Black is consid for White. ered more acceptable than in a weekend Swiss. b) 14 ... liJc6 15 liJd4 axb4 16 axb4! �xb4

Fortunately, however, White is able to keep 1 7 l:lxa8 �xa8 1 8 liJdf5 (with the ideas tlJxg7
things interesting. and �xf6) 1 8 ... �xf5 1 9 liJxf5 l:le6 ( 1 9 ... �d8

5 liJe2 20 'ii'b3) 20 'ii'b3 �f8 2 1 liJd4 liJxd4 22 �xd4

A tip: it may be that eventually you'll want with the bishop-pair and pressure (l:f.bl and/or
to construct an alternative repertoire with 5 :d 1 ) for the pawn. �d3. It's worth mentioning that because once 6 a3 �e7 Black has committed to ... 0-0, there are certain Or: move-orders that become easier (e.g., 5 ... b6 is a) 6 ... �xc3+ 7 tlJxc3 b6 8 �e2 (8 cxd5
no longer a problem). One very i mportant dif exd5 9 b4 ;!;) 8 ... �b7 (8 ... �a6 9 b3) 9 0-0 liJbd7
ference is that it is much easier to find effective 1 0 b4 ( 1 0 cxd5 liJxd5 I I liJxd5 �xd5 1 2 f3 ;!;)

plans against the Hubner System, normally in I O ... dxc4 1 1 �xc4 c5 1 2 �b2 ;!; M.Gurevich
troduced by 4 e3 c5 5 �d3 liJc6 6 liJf3 �xc3+ Rozentalis, Turin Olympiad 2006. 7 bxc3 d6, when Black has played 4 ... 0-0 and b) 6 ... �d6 deserves respect, and is certainly
can't go queenside. better than its relative rarity would suggest:

5 ••. d5 b l ) 7 c5 �e7 8 b4 and now:

A direct and thematic move, staking out bl 1 ) 8 ... c6 9 liJg3 b6 10 �d2 bxc5 1 1 bxc5
central territory. 5 ... :e8 is a reasonable alter e5 ! 12 �e2 g6! ( 1 2 ... liJbd7 1 3 0-0 'ii'c7 14 f4!

native, giving the b4-bishop a retreat-square exd4 1 5 exd4 l:le8 16 f5 ;!;) 1 3 0-0 h5 and now 14
and helping to enforce ... e5, but it's a little dxe5 !? worked out well in Illescas-Morozevich, 140 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

Madrid 1 996, but perhaps 1 4 f3 h4 1 5 ltJh 1 , in Then: tending lDf2, is objectively more likely to pro a) 7 ... c5 8 cxd5 cxd4 9 exd4 transposes to
duce an advantage. Section 7 . 1 1 2, in which White is slightly better.

b12) 8 ... b6 and ... a5 should be satisfactory. b) 7 ... dxc4 8 i.xc4 c5 9 0-0 has done very

Then 9 ltJf4 a5 I 0 i.b2 axb4 1 1 axb4 .l:.xa1 1 2 well for White in practice and in my opinion fa
i.xa I ltJe4 1 3 ltJxe4 dxe4 1 4 i.c4 ! c6 1 5 0-0 vours him slightly; e.g., 9 ... cxd4 1 0 exd4 and
i.a6 1 6 �c2 gave White a nice space advantage now I O ... t"Llbd7 1 1 i.e3 t"Llb6 1 2 i.b3 ! or in Elianov-Volokitin, Bundesliga 20 1 011 1 . Of I O ... t"Llc6 I I i.e3 i.d6 1 2 ltJh5, a position which
course, both sides have numerous alternative has arisen many times. l 2 ... t"Lld5 is probably
ideas in this line. best, although 1 3 .l:.c I t"Llxc3 14 .l:.xc3 gives
b2) 7 ltJg3 is solid and perhaps objectively White excellent activity. best: c) Black's main line begins with 7 ... c6, pro
b2 1 ) 7 ... c5 is logical, when 8 dxc5 i.xc5 9 tecting d5 so as to organize ... e5. White has b4 i.e7 (9 ... i.b6 1 0 ltJa4 i.c7 I I i.b2 favours played numerous moves with mixed success,

White) 1 0 i.b2 ltJc6 1 1 cxd5 (or 1 1 ltJa4 !?) among them 8 .i.d3 and 8 i.d2. An irregular l l ...exd5 12 t"Llb5 could benefit from more at move of note is 8 h3 !? (covering g4 and usefully
tention. protecting the kingside) 8 ... dxc4!? (8 ... t"Llbd7 9
b22) 7 ... c6 shores up d5 in anticipation of cxd5 exd5 1 0 i.d3 is equal but has the potential

... e5, and has been chosen by some strong play to become interesting) 9 i.xc4 t"Llbd7 1 0 i.a2 e5
ers. Then: I I t"Lld3 ! exd4 1 2 exd4 t"Llb6 ( 1 2 ... .l:.e8 1 3 0-0
b22 1 ) The interesting 8 e4!? has been played t"Llb6 1 4 t"Lle5 !) 1 3 t"Lle5 lL'lfd5 14 0-0 i.e6 15 in a few games, counting upon the open h-file .l:.el ! and I like White's activity, one primitive after the unnecessarily risky 8 ... i.xg3?! 9 hxg3. idea being 'i!kd3 and i.b 1 , while 'i!kf3 is also

Instead, 8 ... dxe4 9 lt:\gxe4 t"Llxe4 1 0 t"Llxe4 e5 !? promising. 1 1 i.e3 i.c7 12 d5 was double-edged in lva Nevertheless, our main line is tougher for
nisevic-Markos, Khanty-Mansiisk Olympiad Black to equalize against than 7 lL'lf4. Thus we

20 1 0. return to 7 cxd5 (D):

b222) 8 i.e2 e5 9 cxd5 (9 0-0! may be more

accurate, since 9 ... e4 1 0 cxd5 cxd5 1 1 'i!kb3 is a
nice French-like position) 9 ... exd4! 1 0 exd4
cxd5 I I 0-0 t"Llc6 with approximate equality, B Ciciotti-Hudak, corr. 2008.

7 cxd5

7 lL'lf4 (D) is also popular and may suit the
style of some t"Llge2 players. Its goal is more to
create problems for Black than to prove any
theoretical advantage.

B

Black can choose between:

7.31: 7 ... t"Llxd5 1 40 7.32: 7 ••• exd5 1 42

7.31)

7 ... ltJxd5 8 i.d2 White has tried many moves here, but I like
this choice because it leaves so much play on

NIMZO-INDIAN DEFENCE 141

the board. White's idea that after the move 9 e4,

9 ... lLixc3 will be answered by 1 0 .i.xc3, which
solves a number of problems related to activat B ing White's pieces. In addition, the move l:tc l
can be useful.

8 ••• ltJd7

It's difficult for Black to demonstrate equal
ity in this unassuming position.

a) 8 ... c5 9 dxc5 (9 lLixd5, with the idea

9 ... 'ii'xd5 !? I 0 lLif4 and I I dxc5, is also promis
ing) 9 ... .i.xc5 10 lLig3 (or 1 0 'ii'c2 ;!;) 1 0 ... b6?!

I I lLixd5 'ii'xd5 1 2 .i.c3 'ii'xd l + 1 3 lhdi �b7?!

( 1 3 ... ..te7 14 lLih5 f6 I5 .i.c4 ;!;) I 4 lLih5 ! f6 1 5 .i.c4 with ongoing pressure, Nenashev-Niko
laidis, Aegina I 995. .i.d6 I 7 'ii'f5 'ii'xb2 1 8 l:tfc I l:tad8 (Aronian
b) 8 ... lLixc3 9 .i.xc3 b6 10 lL\g3 ( 10 lLif4 Gelfand, Spanish Team Ch, Merida 2005) 1 9

.i.b7 I I .i.e2 .i.d6 1 2 ..tf3 ;!;) 1 0 ... .i.b7 I I .i.d3 l:tabi 'ii'xa3 and now 20 lLib5, 20 .i.xb7 and 20
lLid7 ( l l ....i.xg2?! 1 2 l:tg I is perilous for Black, 'ii'c2 are all somewhat favourable for White.

who must avoid l 2 ... .i.b7?? 1 3 .i.xh7+! �xh7 9 g3 (D)

I4 'ii'h5+ 'oti>g8 15 d5 ! , with a winning attack for

White; l 2 ... .i.d5 ! is necessary, but White has
more than enough compensation following 1 3
e4 .i.b7 1 4 lLih5 g6 I 5 'ii'd2 intending 0-0-0 B and/or 'ii'h6) 1 2 'ii'c2 h6 I 3 0-0 and White's
control of the centre means a little something:

b l ) l 3 ... c5?! 1 4 dxc5 .i.xc5? ( 14 ... lLixc5 1 5

.i.h7+ 'oti>h8 1 6 l:tadi 'ii'e8 1 7 lLih5 f6 I 8 .i.g6 t)

15 l:tfd 1 'ii'e7 16 lLih5 ± Sargissian-Tiviakov,

FIDE Knockout, Tripoli 2004.

b2) 1 3 ... lLif6 I 4 e4 c5 I 5 dxc5 bxc5 I 6 .i.c4
lLid7 1 7 f4 ( 1 7 lLih5 ! ? - G.Kuzmin) 1 7 ... lLib6

1 8 ..te2 .i.f6 1 9 l:tad 1 .i.d4+ 20 .i.xd4 cxd4 2 1

'ii'd2 l:tc8 22 'ii'xd4 'ii'xd4+ 23 l:txd4 l:tc2 24
l:tbl :fc8 and now rather than 25 a4, as played
in Aronian-Anand, Calvia Olympiad 2004, 25 9 ... b6 :b4 covers b2 while preparing a4-a5; e.g., Gennady Kuzmin thinks that this is Black's

25 ... :d8 (25 ... l:td2 26 'oti>fl l:tcc2 27 �el with best move. Other ideas: the idea .i.d i ) 26 'oti>fl f6 27 l:tdi !. a) 9 ... lLI5f6 transposes to 8 ... ltJf6 9 g3 lLibd7
c) 8 ... lLif6 9 g3 (9 lLig3 !?) 9 ... lLibd7 1 0 ..tg2 (note 'c' to Black's 8th move). (D). b) 9 ... lLixc3 1 0 .i.xc3 c5 1 1 .i.g2 cxd4 I 2

This has been tested at the top levels: lLixd4 leaves White's minor pieces superior.

c l ) 10 ... c5 1 1 0-0 cxd4 1 2 exd4 ( I 2 lLixd4!?) After 1 2 ... lLib6 1 3 0-0 ltJd5, 14 l:tc l ! (instead
l 2 ... lLib6 1 3 'ii'c2 ( 1 3 .i.f4 lLibd5 1 4 �e5 ;!;) of 1 4 .i.e I , chosen in Volkov-Tomashevsky,

1 3 ... lLifd5 1 4 lLixd5 lLixd5 1 5 lLic3 ;!; (G.Kuz- Russian Team Ch, Sochi 2006) 1 4 ... lLixc3 1 5
min). l:txc3 e5 1 6 lLib5 ! keeps a small advantage.

c2) 10 ... c6 1 1 'ii'c2 e5 12 :di exd4 1 3 lLixd4 c) After 9 ... lLI5b6, G.Kuzmin prefers 10 'ii'c2
lLib6 14 h3 ( 1 4 0-0 ;!;; 14 lLice2 ;!;) 1 4 ... lLifd5?! e5 1 1 l:td 1 with a small edge; indeed, the forc

15 0-0 .i.f6 1 6 lLice2 ! ± followed by e4, Graf ing line l l ...exd4 1 2 lLixd4 lLie5 1 3 .i.e I .i.g4

Xu Jun, Bled Olympiad 2002. I 4 f3 .i.d7 I 5 f4! lLig4 I 6 �g2 gives White a
c3) 1 0 ... e5 1 1 0-0 exd4 1 2 lLixd4 lLie5 1 3 nice game. 'ii'c2 c5 1 4 lLif5 ! .i.xf5 1 5 'ii'xf5 'ii'xd2 I 6 'fi'xe5 10 .i.g2

142 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

I 0 lt:\xd5 exd5 1 1 ..tg2 achieves nothing af centrally posted, and it is still very difficult for
ter 1 1 ... ft:\f6 1 2 0-0 ..tf5 = . Black to arrange ... c5. White reserves the pos

10 •.. ..tb7 sibility of both central and queenside expan

I O ... ..ta6!? I I lt:\xd5 exd5 1 2 ..txd5 lt:\c5 1 3 sion .

..tf3 lt:\d3+ 1 4 'it>fl lt:\xb2 1 5 'iVc2 lt:\c4 1 6 ..tc3 8 .•. c6 'i!Vd7 17 'it>g2 offers White the better chances This position can also arise via 7 ft:\f4 c6 8
due to his central majority; e.g., 1 7 ... lt:\xa3 1 8 cxd5 exd5. Of course, in that case White allows

'iVc l ..txe2 1 9 ..txe2 lt:\c4! 20 ..te 1 lt:\d6 2 1 ..tf3 8 ... cxd5, and with this move-order (7 cxd5), he
t. allows 7 ... lt:\xd5. If Black waits on ... c6 with

11 0-0 lt:\xc3 8 ... l:te8, then after 9 ..td3, either 9 ... c6 or 9 ... a5

J I ...ft:\7f6 1 2 'i!Vc2 lt:\xc3 1 3 ..txc3 ..txg2 1 4 1 0 0-0 c6 will probably follow anyway.

'it>xg2 'iVd5+ 1 5 f3 'iVb7 1 6 e4 t . Admittedly, 9 ..td3 l:te8 some of these advantages are slight; the impor Or: tant thing is that there's a healthy imbalance. a) With 9 ... a5, Black clamps down on the

12 ..txc3 ..txg2 13 'it>xg2 c5 14 d5 ft:\f6 queenside, which can lead to some fundamen

On 1 4 ... exd5 1 5 'ilixd5 ft:\f6 1 6 'iVf3 'iVc7 1 7 tally different strategies after 1 0 0-0 (D): ft:\f4, White has i n mind e4-e5.

15 dxe6 fxe6 16 ft:\f4

White has a slight advantage. The e6-pawn
is a little loose and White has the more active B minor pieces.

7.32)

7 .•• exd5 (D)

a 1 ) 1 0 ... ..td6 I I f3 ..txf4 ( ' ! ' Kotov; al
though White is generally pretty happy with
this exchange, which incidentally has taken four
moves of Black's bishop to implement!) 1 2 exf4
lt:\e8. At this point in Ghitescu-Shamkovich,

Moscow-Bucharest match 1 969, 1 3 ..te3 lt:\d6

14 'iVc2 g6 1 5 g4 f5 led to a dynamically bal
anced game. White stands better in these types
of positions if he can free his bishops; in this

Another solid move. case he should try 1 3 'iVc2 ! h6 ( 1 3 ... g6 1 4 f5

8 ft:\f4 'iVf6 1 5 fxg6! 'iVxd4+ 1 6 'it>h l hxg6 1 7 ..tg5

In my opinion, this is a more promising lt:\c7 1 8 l:tae1 with more than enough compen
course for White than 8 g3, although that has a sation) 14 f5 lt:\d7 1 5 ..tf4 with the upper hand.

long history and is certainly playable. 8 lt:\g3 is a2) 1 0 ... lt:\a6 introduces not just the idea of
a common professional choice; White tends to ... c5, but also centralization by ... lt:\c7-e6: 1 1
play b4 next to stop the freeing move ... c5 and ..tc2 (D) ( I I ..td2 lt:\c7 1 2 l:tc 1 is another idea,
tie down the queenside. In that case too, Black as is I I f3, but probably I I 'iVb3 ! lt:\c7 1 2 lt:\a4!

has no serious theoretical problems, yet some ;!; is objectively best) and now: players might like the manoeuvring game that a2 1 ) 1 I .....td6 12 f3 'ilic7 1 3 'ilid2 (G.Kuz
results. The text-move keeps the knight more min's suggestion 1 3 �d3 has the idea lt:\h5;

NIMZO-INDIAN DEFENCE 143

B B

then 1 3 ... g6 1 4 'ili'd2! could follow, aiming for slight advantage for White, Petrosian-Liber

1 4 ... g5?! 1 5 tt:lfe2 .i.xh2+?! 1 6 hl ± with the zon, USSR Spartakiad, Moscow 1 964) 1 3 .i.c2
threat of f4 and intention of e4) 1 3 ... ..txf4?! .i.d7 (hoping to play ... c5) 1 4 b4 a5 1 5 tt:la4

(usually an ill-advised exchange; 1 3 ... .:!.d8 1 4 'ii'c7 1 6 bxa5 .:!.xa5 ( 1 6 .. .'iha5 1 7 .:!.b 1 ) 1 7 .:I.e I

'iff2!) 1 4 exf4 .i.d7 1 5 f5 c5 (Martinovic .:!.xe I + 1 8 'ii'xe I .:!.a8 1 9 .:!.b I ;!;. Kriebel, Chotowa 20 1 0) and now 1 6 'ii'f2 ! c4 12 b4 .i.b7 1 7 .:tel with the idea .i.g5 uses the bishops to Black's pieces are logically placed and the
good effect. position should be close to equal. Now:

a22) I I ...tt:lc7 1 2 f3 ! ? tt:le6 ( 1 2 ... c5? ! 1 3 a) I.Sokolov-Vitiugov, Poikovsky 20 I 0 went tt:la4! cxd4 1 4 exd4 tt:lb5 1 5 'ii'd3 tt:la7 1 6 tt::lc3 1 3 .:!.b1 a5 1 4 tt:lfe2 (an equal position follows
gave White a solid advantage in G.Kuzmin 14 bxa5 .:!.xa5 15 a4) 1 4 ... axb4 1 5 axb4 tt:la6

Korchnoi, Sochi 1 970) 1 3 tt:ld3 'ii'c7 1 4 tt:le5, with balanced chances. Then 1 6 e4! ? dxe4 1 7
when Kuzmin thinks that the chances are ap fxe4 tt::lxb4 1 8 .i.c4 would produce an unclear
proximately equal; fair enough. attack.

b) 9 ... .i.d6 1 0 0-0! and now: b) I prefer 13 .i.d2, by which White con
b I ) I O ... .:!.e8 transposes to the main line. nects his major pieces and covers b4 indirectly
b2) As already mentioned a few times, ex- against ... a5. In addition, the idea of .i.e1 -g3/h4
changing with I O ... ..txf4?! is very often - but not is a long-term possibility. This may also be ap
always - a mistake. It's important not to Jose proximately equal but White has good potential
control of the dark squares, and White gets the for central progress. A sample continuation is
bishop-pair. To be sure, White's weakness on d4 1 3 ... a5 1 4 tt:lce2 (or 1 4 'iVb3) 1 4 ... axb4 1 5 axb4
can be attacked by ... c5 and ... tt:lc6, but that's not .:!.xa1 ( 1 5 ... tt:la6 1 6 'i¥b3) 1 6 'iVxal 'iilc7 1 7
enough to make genuine progress. After I I exf4 'ii'b l ! ;!; (or 1 7 tt:lg3 ;!; ) with the idea 1 7 .. . fi/e7 1 8
b6 ( l l ....:!.e8 1 2 f5 tt:lbd7 1 3 .:tel .:!.xel+ 1 4 tt:lg3. Here 1 7 ... g5 ! ? does little good following 'ii'xel c5 1 5 .i.e3 ;!; ) 1 2 .:tel .i.a6 1 3 .i.c2 ( 1 3 1 8 tt:lh3 h6 ( 1 8 ... ..txh2+ ?! 19 h 1 g4? 20 fxg4

.i.xa6 tt:lxa6 1 4 'ili'a4 ;!; ) 1 3 ... c5 14 dxc5 bxc5 1 5 tt:le4 2 1 .i.xe4 dxe4 22 tt:\g5) 1 9 f4 g4 20 tt:lf2
b4 ! , intending 1 5 ... d4 1 6 .i.e4! tt:lxe4 1 7 tt:lxe4 h5 2 1 tt::lg3 ;!;. White has the outpost f5 and play
c4 1 8 f5 !, White has the superior pieces. along the c-file.

10 0-0 .i.d6 11 f3 (D)

White wants to play e4, but his centre will 7.4) have to be secured first; in the meantime, this
move also defends the kingside and prevents 4 ... d5 (D) ... tt:le4 or ... tt:\g4. This move isn't even mentioned in most
l l ... b6 books that deal with 4 e3, and barely in others,

Again, I I ....i.xf4 appears to give White more but it has important implications. It's true that
than Black: 1 2 exf4 'ii'b6 ( 1 2 ... b6 1 3 f5 .i.a6 1 4 4 ... d5 will often transpose to other lines, but

.i.xa6 tt:lxa6 1 5 'iVa4 tt:lb8 1 6 .i.f4 leads to a that limits your options, and in fact, you can't 144 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

w w

get into a tt::lge2 system proper, because after 5 b) 6 i.d2 0-0 7 .l:.c i (or 7 'ii'c2 ;!;, while 7
tt::le2 dxc4, it's difficult to get a satisfactory po tt::lf3 gives White an easy game; for example,
sition (recovering the c-pawn takes too much 7 ... c5 can be answered by 8 tt::lxd5 exd5 9 dxc5
effort and Black achieves a central break). So i.xc5 I O .i.d3 g6 I I .l:.c i with superior devel

I'm going to recommend transposing to a line opment, or simply 8 a3) 7 ... c5 8 tt::lxd5 'ii'xd5
that almost always arises via the move-order (8 ... i.xd2+ 9 'ii'xd2 ;!;) 9 i.xb4 cxb4 1 0 'ii'c2!?

4 ... 0-0 5 i.d3 d5, that is: tt::lc6 (10 ... 'ii'xa2?? I I 'ii'xc8) and rather than I I

5 cxd5 'ii'c4 'ii'a5 (Skembris-Djuric, Istanbui i 988), I I

White will answer 5 ... exd5 with 6 i.d3. tt::lf3 'ii'xa2 1 2 .i.d3 h6 I 3 0-0 gives White ex

I should mention that there are other ways to cellent play for the pawn. deal with 4 ... d5 if you go outside our repertoire. 6 ..td3 For example, 5 a3 .i.xc3+ 6 bxc3 is a deferred 6 'ii'a4+ tt::lc6 7 i.b5 is an old recommenda

Samisch Variation, and constitutes a major rea tion ('±' in ECO, for example), but White has son why Black tends to avoid this move-order; nothing, or even stands worse, after 7 ... i.d7 8
that's because ... d5 is not the most popular or ..txc6 ..txc3+ 9 bxc3 ..txc6, when his light
trusted response to the Samisch. Then 6 ... 0-0 7 squares are weak. cxd5 exd5 8 i.d3 will usually follow, and White 6 •.. 0-0 plays the classical plan with tt::le2, 0-0, f3 and This position is usually reached via 4 ... 0-0 5
tt::lg3, slowly building up for e4. You can find i.d3 d5 6 cxd5 exd5. this in theoretical books, of course, and also in 6 ... c5 7 tt::le2 (7 a3 .i.xc3+ 8 bxc3 transposes
many well-known games by leading masters. to that Samisch Variation again, not Black's

5 • • • exd5 normal preference; that's a handy line to pick

5 .. .'ihd5?! will lose time; e.g., after 6 tt::lf3 up if you have a few spare hours ! ) 7 ... tt::lc6 8

0-0 7 i.d3 and 0-0. 0-0 0-0 9 a3 (9 i.d2 would produce a unique

The somewhat better 5 ... tt::lxd5 (D) is rare position, or 9 dxc5 ..txc5 10 b3) 9 ... i.xc3 1 0
because it gives up the centre. tt::lxc3 ! ? (once again, 1 0 bxc3 i s the Samisch)

Instead of 6 tt::le2 (when 6 ... c5 transposes to 1 0 ... cxd4! ? I I exd4 ;!; tt::lxd4?! I 2 ..txh7+ and
note 'c2' to Black's 5th move in Section 7. 1 ), I 3 'ii'xd4 with a nice positional advantage.

White has two more ambitious choices: 7 tt::le2 (D)

a) 6 'ii'c2 c5 (critical) 7 tt::lf3 (or 7 dxc5) Of course, 7 tt::lf3 is also playable. 7 ... cxd4 8 exd4 tt::lc6 9 a3 i.a5 I 0 i.d3 is a 7 ... :es well-known line from the Caro-Kann Panov 7 ... c5 8 0-0 tt::lc6 transposes to the note to

Attack, in which I O ... tt::lxc3 I I bxc3 tt::lxd4 1 2 Black's 6th move above. tt::lxd4 'ii'xd4 is a controversial position, but One line after 7 ... i.d6 is 8 a3 aS 9 0-0 (the

Black tends to avoid it, because lines like 1 3 strategy from our main line is also promising: 9
i.b5+ �f8 1 4 0-0 'ii'xc3 1 5 'ii'b l are hard to de i.d2, with the idea .l:.c I , may transpose if Black
fend. plays ... :e8; see also note 'c' to Black's 8th

NIMZO-INDIAN DEFENCE 145

B w

move) 9 ... tt:'la6 1 0 tt:'lb5 1L.e7 1 1 f3 c6 1 2 tt:'lbc3 Vxd6 20 .ib1 leaves White an exchange down
c5 1 3 1J...d2 lle8, and here one plan is 1 4 1J...e 1 !? for a pawn, but he threatens moves such as
with the idea it'd2, ..tf2 and llae l . tt:'lf5 and Ve4, which are difficult to defend

8 .id2 against) l 8 ... :te8 1 9 'ii'd i tt:'lf4!?, and now 20

.This is a subtle way to improve White's 'ii'f3 ! .ib7 2 1 .ie4 was the way to preserve a
position and prepare to meet Black's potential meaningful advantage. freeing moves. By delaying castling, it also c) 8 ... ..td6 is popular and important. There
neutralizes lines in which Black plays an early can follow 9 :c 1 (Vera mentions 9 Vc2 c6! ? 1 0

... .id6 in order to harass White's kingside. Of h 3 intending g4; a kingside pawn-storm can be
course, 8 0-0 has been played for many, many effective as long as White hasn't played 0-0)

years; one line is Epishin's 8 ... ..td6 9 h3 intend 9 ... a6 (D) (preventing tt:'lb5; 9 ... c6 is natural,
ing it'c2, lld 1 , and ultimately a minority attack but Black would sacrifice his ... c5 freeing move
with llbl and b4. I feel that 8 .id2 is an easier for a while; for example, 1 0 Vc2 tt:'la6 1 1 a3
and in some respects more accurate way to play. tt:'lc7 1 2 f3 tt:'le6 1 3 0-0 c5 1 4 dxc5 .txc5 1 5 b4

8 ... .if8 ;\; Grishchuk-L' Ami, Wijk aan Zee 201 1 ), when
a) The first point of 8 .id2 is that Black's I shall present some samples of the play: standard freeing move 8 ... c5 is answered by 9

a3 .ixc3 I 0 .ixc3, when White plans dxc5. So

Aleksandrov-Malakhatko, European Ch, Ba
tumi 2002 continued 1 0 ... c4 1 1 .ic2 tt:'lc6 1 2 w 0-0 a5, and Postny suggests 1 3 b3 ! b5 1 4 bxc4
dxc4 ( 1 4 ... bxc4 1 5 tt:'lf4 ifd6 1 6 'ifd2) 1 5 tt:'lf4

;\; with the idea 1 5 ... tt:'le4? 1 6 ..txe4 .:.xe4 1 7 d5
tt:'le5 I 8 ifbl ! ..tf5 1 9 'ifxb5 ±.

b) 8 ... a5 introduced a strategic battle which
ultimately turned into a tactical melee in the
game I.Sokolov-Naiditsch, Poikovsky 201 0: 9

:c I b6 (a standard idea, to exchange off White's good bishop; in return, White gets a consider
able lead in development) 1 0 0-0 ..ta6 1 1 .ib1

.id6 I 2 :ei c5 I 3 tt:'lg3 cxd4 1 4 exd4 llxe1 + 1 5

Vxei (with ideas like tt:'lf5 and .ig5) 1 5 .. . tt:'lc6 c 1 ) 1 0 0-0 tt:'lbd7 ( l 0 ... b5 I I tt:'lf4 .ib7 1 2

(D) (it's difficult to find a decent move for Black Vf3 tt:'le4 1 3 .ie 1 'iVg5 I 4 a4 ;\; b4 ? ? 1 5 tt:'lcxd5 !

here). I -0 I.Sokolov-Khenkin, Belgian Team Ch

16 tt:'lxd5 ! ( 1 6 tt:'lf5 ! is also strong) 1 6 ... tt:'lxd5 201 0/1 1 - Black is lost following l 5 ... .ixd5 1 6

I 7 lhc6 ( 1 7 Ve4 .ixg3 ! 1 8 Vxh7+ Wf8) tt:'lxd5 ifxd5 1 7 .ic4; the sacrifice I 0 .. . 1J...xh2+?

I 7 ... Vd7 1 8 llc l ( 1 8 .ixh7+! ? Wh8 1 9 .:.xd6 I I Wxh2 tt:'lg4+ fails after 1 2 Wg3) 1 1 tt:'lg3 b6 146 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

(Aleksandrov-Zhang Zhong, Poikovsky 2004) l l ... lDc6 is natural and sound. White can
and now I like 1 2 'iVf3 ! with the idea 1 2 ... lDc5 ! ? try for a pull with 1 2 lDh5 ! lDe4 ( 1 2 ... lDxh5?

( 1 2 .. . J.b7 1 3 lDf5 J.f8 I 4 'iVh3 ! ) I 3 dxc5 J.g4 1 3 'iVxh5 g6 I 4 'iVxd5) 1 3 lDxe4 dxe4 1 4 J.b5

1 4 cxd6 J.xf3 I 5 dxc7 'ifxc7 1 6 lDce4 ! 'iVe7 J.b7 ( 14 ... ..td7 I 5 dxc5 ;!; intending J.c3 next)

1 7 lDxf6+ 'iVxf6 1 8 J.c3 ! and I 9 gxf3 with a 1 5 dxc5 ( 1 5 'iVg4 has in mind J.c3 and d5)

strong attacking position. 1 5 ... %:te5 ! ? (Krasenkow) 1 6 J.xc6 ! ( 1 6 lDf4
c2) I.Sokolov-Akesson, Stockholm 201 0 l:txc5 =) 1 6 ... J.xc6 1 7 cxb6 !. varied with 1 0 'ifb3 c6 I I f3 ! ? ( I I h3 deserves 12 ..txa6 lDxa6 13 'iVf3 consideration) l l ...liJbd7 1 2 0-0 b5 1 3 J.bl Once again this is an effective way to mobi-
lDb6 14 e4 b4 ( 1 4 ... lDc4 15 J.g5 J.e7 I6 e5 !; lize, putting pressure on d5. 1 4 ... c5 ! I 5 e5 cxd4 16 exd6 dxc3 I 7 .i.xc3 and 13 •.. cxd4 after I 7 ... 'iVxd6 White has compensation for Now: the pawn, but hardly more than that; Black a) After 14 lDcxd5? lDe4 15 l:tcdl , as in
should avoid 1 7 .. Jhe2?! 1 8 ..txf6 'ifxf6 1 9 I.Sokolov-Adams, Khanty-Mansiisk Olympiad

'iVd3 l:txg2+ 20 �xg2 ! ) 1 5 lDd I dxe4 1 6 fxe4 201 0, Black could have played 15 ... g5 ! and ac
lDxe4 1 7 'iVxf7 + 'ith8 I 8 ..txe4 l:txe4 1 9 J.g5 tually gained the advantage. 'iVg8 20 l:txc6 'iVxf7 2 1 l::txf7 l::txe2? 22 l::txd6 b) 1 4 exd4 is better, with a small advantage

±. due to the better-placed knights for this particu

We now return to 8 ... ..tf8 (D): lar pawn-structure; e.g., 1 4 ... lDc7 ( 1 4 ... lDe4 1 5
l:tfd I lDxc3 1 6 l:txc3 J.b4 1 7 l:te3 ..ixd2 1 8

l:txd2 !) 1 5 .l:tc2 lDe4 1 6 l:tfc I .

Of course, this whole line is hardly an exis
w tential threat to Black. Indeed, if he plays well,
he is on the verge of equality at a few points
along the way; nevertheless, it's a practical line
in which knowledge of theory is less important
than understanding the characteristic ideas.

7.5)

4 ..• lDc6 (D)

9 l:tcl w

Again, a useful and noncommittal move. The
obvious 9 0-0 can lead in several directions;
e.g., 9 ... a5 10 l':.c l lDa6 1 1 f3 liJb4 I 2 ..tbl c5

(Rakhmanov-Zakhartsov, Voronezh 201 0) and
here 1 3 .tel ! ? l:txe3 14 J.f2 is an ambitious
continuation; e.g., 14 ... cxd4! 1 5 'iVxd4 l:te8 1 6
l:tfd I lDc6 1 7 'iVd2, and White has compensa
tion in a roughly equal position.

9 ... b6

White's basic strategy is shown by 9 ... c6 1 0

0-0 lDa6 I I f3 lDc7 1 2 'ithl J.e6 1 3 .tel J.d6

1 4 'iVd2 l:tc8 1 5 J.h4 h6 1 6 e4 !. This is the Taimanov Variation, the most im

10 lDf4 portant of the unusual responses to 4 e3. Black

Since f3 will now be met by ... c5, White develops and reserves the right to play ... d5 or
switches course. ... e5. The latter idea is the one which distin

10 ..• c5 11 0-0 J.a6 guishes 4 ... lDc6 most from other lines.

NIMZO-INDIAN DEFENCE 147

5 .i.d3 b) 6 ... exd4 7 exd4 d5 8 c5 (or 8 cxd5 lt:'Jxd5

5 lt:'Jf3 is fine, of course, but not the type of 9 0-0 ;!;) 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0 .i.xc3 10 bxc3 ;!; Geller position we're used to. Taimanov, USSR Ch, Moscow 1 966.

5 lt:'Je2 is worth a look. For example: 7 cxd5 lt:'Jxd5 8 0-0 exd4 9 lt:'Jxd4! (D)

a) 5 ... d5 6 a3 .i.e7 7 cxd5 exd5 8 lt:'Jf4 0-0 9 This is a nice improvement over 9 exd4,

.i.e2 lt:'Ja5 !? (9 ... ne8 10 .i.f3) 10 0-0 ( 1 0 b4 which has been played for many years. Then
lt:'Jc4 and now instead of I I lt:'Jcxd5?! lt:'Jxd5 1 2 the game Lerner-Gurgenidze, Kharkov 1 985

.i.xc4 lt:'Jxf4 1 3 exf4 a5 1 4 b5 .i.g4!, as in went 9 ... 0-0 1 0 'ii'c2 h6! ? ( 1 0 ... lt:'Jf6 1 1 .i.e3 Taimanov-Stobik, San Augustin 1 990, 1 1 e4! .i.d6 1 2 a3 is only slightly better for White) l l
offers White the better position) IO ... c6 1 1 b4 a3 .i.e7 1 2 lt:'Jxd5 'ii'xd5 1 3 .i.e3 .i.d6. Now
lt:'Jc4 1 2 e4! g5 !? 1 3 .i.xc4 dxc4 1 4 lt:'Jfe2 h6 1 5 both 14 nfe I and 1 4 .i.e4 are arguably in
f4 with an attack. White's favour, but not to the extent that 9
b) 5 ... e5 6 a3 .i.xc3+ 7 lt:'Jxc3 exd4 8 exd4 lt:'Jxd4 is. d5 ! ? 9 c5 !? (9 .i.g5 ! ;!;; e.g., 9 ... dxc4 1 0 'ii'e2+! ?

'fie7 1 1 'ii'xe7+ lt:'Jxe7 1 2 0-0-0 .i.e6 1 3 .i.xf6

gxf6 14 d5 .i.f5 1 5 .i.xc4 ;!;) 9 ... h6 10 .i.b5 0-0

I I 0-0 .i.f5 (Botvinnik-Sokolsky, USSR Ch, B Moscow 1 944) and now 12 .i.f4 ;!; still leaves White better.

5 •.. e5!

After 5 ... d5, 6 lt:'Je2 e5 transposes, but White
has the extra possibility of 6 lt:'Jf3 with a pleas
ant Queen's Gambit.

6 ti'Je2 (D)

B

I don't see a way for Black to level things in
this line:

a) After 9 ... lt:'Jxc3 10 bxc3 .i.xc3? ( l 0 ... .i.d6

1 1 nb1 ;!;; this is tough for Black, especially
since l l ...'ii'h4 1 2 g3 �h3 1 3 .i.e4! works out
badly) 1 1 lt:'Jxc6 bxc6 1 2 nb 1 'ii'f6 ( 1 2 . .. 0-0 1 3 'ii'c2 �e5 1 4 f4 .i.d6 1 5 .i.xh7+ 'it>h8 1 6 .i.e4 ±)

13 �a3 ± Black was stuck in Bhat-Matnadze,

Barbera del Valles 20 1 0.

b) Temirov-Kvon, Tashkent 2007 is the only
other game with 9 lt:'Jxd4 that I can find, when

6 ... d5 after 9 ... lt:'Jde7?! 1 0 lt:'Jxc6 lt:'Jxc6 1 1 'ii'c2 .i.d6

Or: 1 2 lt:'Je4, White had a definite advantage, and
a) 6 ... 0-0 gives White time to organize: 7 after the further 1 2 ... i.g4?! 1 3 .i.d2 i.h5?, the

0-0 ne8 8 d5 e4! ? 9 .i.c2 lt:'Je5 1 0 lt:'Jxe4 lt:'Jxe4 move 1 4 .i.a6! would have won material in ad
l l .i.xe4 'ii'h4 ( l l ...lt:'Jxc4?! 12 'ii'c2 'ii'h4 1 3 dition to keeping the better position.

lt:'Jg3 lt:'Jd6 1 4 .i.d3) 1 2 .i.d3 d6 ( 1 2 ... lt:'Jxc4?? 1 3 c) Black will also be unhappy with 9 ... 0-0
g3) 1 3 a3 .i.c5 1 4 b4 .i.b6 1 5 'ii'c2 and Black 1 0 .i.xh7+! 'it>xh7 1 1 'fih5+ 'it>g8 12 lt:'Jxd5 g6
has little compensation for the pawn. 1 3 'ii'f3 lt:'Je5 14 'ii'e4.

8 King's Indian Defence

1 d4 lt:Jf6 2 c4 g6 3 lt:Jc3 i..g7 4 e4 d6 c) After 5 h3, S ... d6 transposes to our main

This is the standard form of the King's In lines. Alternatively, Black can try 5 ... cS (for
dian Defence, against which we'll be adopting S ... c6 6 i..e3, see 5 i..e3 c6 6 h3 in line 'a'

a flexible set-up with h3. above) 6 d5 d6. Then he must be ready for a

The alternative move-order 4 ... 0-0 (D) usu pure Modern Classical line of the Benoni by 7
ally doesn't make any difference but if anything i..d3 (or 7 tt:Jf3 e6 8 i..d3) 7 ... e6 8 lt:Jf3 exd5 9
gives White better possibilities in a few lines. cxdS, or else the recapture with the e-pawn,

For example: which is our repertoire preference - see Section

8. 1 2 for the consequences of 9 exdS .l:te8+ I 0
i..e3.

5 h3 (D)

B

a) 5 i..e3 c5?! (5 ... d6 6 h3 transposes to Sec
tion 8. 1 , while 5 ... c6 6 h3 d5 7 e5 lt:Je4 8 lt:Jge2
is comfortable for White) 6 dxc5 'ii'a5 7 f3 !

keeps White a pawn ahead for insufficient com This unassuming little move is our repertoire
pensation. choice. S h3 introduces two different but related
b) S i..gS and now: set-ups following 6 i..gS or 6 ..te3. These are
b l ) S ... d6 allows for some deviations like 6 both highly strategic variations in which neither 'ifd2, or White can of course ignore Black's side will get a serious attack if the other plays
move-order and play 6 h3 (see Section 8.2). carefully. With S h3, White's first and most basic
b2) After S ... c6, one promising idea is 6 eS idea is to prevent a black piece from arriving at
lt:Je8 7 h4! ? d6 8 hS, or White can go for a small g4, that is, preventing ... lt:Jg4 to secure a square
advantage with 6 i..d3 dS !? 7 cxd5 cxd5 8 eS for his own bishop on e3, and eliminating the
t:Llfd7 9 lt:Jge2. pin ... ..tg4 once lt:Jf3 is played. Importantly, 5
b3) S ... cS 6 dxcS (6 dS is normal - compare h3 supports an advance by g4, which can be

Section 8.23) 6 ... 'ii'aS and now 7 'ii'd2 may ap used for attacking purposes, but also serves as a
peal to White; I see no reason for Black to allow strong disincentive to Black's ... fS. When you
this. Note that White should avoid 7 i..d3?! consider that ... f5 is the foundation of Black's
tt:Jxe4! 8 i..xe4 i..xc3+ 9 bxc3 'ii'xc3+ and now play in many King's Indian variations, you can

I 0 i..d2 "likeS or 1 0 �fl 'tieS hitting two pieces, see how significant its prevention can be. and giving Black at least enough for the ex In the process of clamping down on Black's
change after 1 1 i..h6 lli'xe4 1 2 i..xf8 'ii'xc4+. play, White will extend his lead in territory,

KING 'S INDIAN DEFENCE 149

which he can do on both wings. Ideally, Black This move and the related 5 ... liJbd7 are po
will have to play a manoeuvring game that tentially significant, because they interfere
doesn't always suit the King's Indian player. with White's conventional plan to get a knight

Consider the main lines of the King's Indian, in to d2 via f3 to protect his e4-pawn (that sen
which, after you've read a 300-page book and tence will become clearer as we go along). That
memorized mind-boggling amounts of mate is, both 5 ... e5 6 d5 liJbd7 and 5 ... liJbd7, intend
rial, you get a positional breakthrough on the ing ... e5 and ... ltJc5, force White into the same
queenside only to find yourself checkmated on choice of responses: if White plays one of the
the kingside! I'm always hesitant to say that moves 6 i.e3, 6 i.g5 or 6 liJf3 and Black plays
knowing the 'ideas' of a variation is more im 6 ... e5, then after 7 d5, 7 ... ltJc5 will attack the
portant than memorizing variations, but in this e-pawn and force the play into one of the lines
case I believe that's true, which means that a lot below (but still within this note); in other words,
of playing experience will have exceptional White will need another way to protect his e
value. pawn, which will turn out to be 'i!Vc2. As a side

Another remarkable characteristic of 5 h3 benefit, 5 ... liJbd7 also avoids the possibility of a
lines with 6 i.e3 or 6 i.g5 is how flexible the dxe5 Exchange Variation. Of course, this comes
play becomes. At practically any early point in at the cost of committing the knight early and
the opening, White routinely plays i.d3 or i.e2, foregoing options like ... liJc6. i.g5 or i.e3, liJf3 or ltJge2, g4, h4 (or the latter Incidentally, how about the immediate 5 ... c5?

two in combination), and a3 with b4. Black can Then 6 dxc5 is possible, but it's easier to play 6
also set up in a remarkable number of ways and d5 0-0, transposing into one of the 5 ... 0-0 and
orders, typically using the moves ... e5, ... liJa6 6 ... c5 lines below. It also turns out that playing
or ... liJbd7, ... liJe8 or ... liJh5, ... c5 or ... c6, ... a6 5 ... a6 or 5 ... c6 has no particular benefit over
and/or ... b5, while the odd move ... 'ii'e8 is also playing 5 ... 0-0 first and then one ofthose moves.

commonplace. As a consequence, it is impossi So finally, let's get to a specific analysis of the
ble to be ready for every move at every point, all move 5 ... e5: the more so for Black, who has any number of a) 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 'ii'xd8+ 'it>xd8 (D) doesn't more tactical mainstream King's Indian varia make the heart beat faster, but might be useful if
tions to be prepared for. This is an ideal situa you want to keep things uncomplicated. tion for the strategist.

5 ... 0-0

This is the main move, chosen in the vast ma
jority of games. However, Black does have an w important option (albeit seldom exercised) to
take advantage of the opportunity to dictate a
quick response in the centre, which he can do
by 5 ... e5 (D).

w

For example, 8 i.e3 and now:

a l ) 8 ... c6 9 liJf3 liJbd7 (9 ... 'it>c7 I O liJg5) 1 0
a3 ! ? 'it>e7 ( I O .. . a5 I I c5) I I c5 !? liJf8 12 0-0-0
liJh5 1 3 liJd2 liJe6 14 ltJc4 ;\;.

a2) 8 ... liJbd7 9 0-0-0 c6 1 0 g4 h5 ( l O ... 'it>c7

1 1 f4 b6 1 2 liJf3) 1 1 g5 liJe8 1 2 f4 exf4 1 3 i.xf4

'it>e7 14 liJf3 ;!; (Breutigam).

150 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

You can use this 6 dxeS option if you are ea line of our 6 .i.gS repertoire. These transposi
ger to avoid theory. To be fair, however, I don't tions sound complicated, but as you study this
believe that White can actually get a real advan chapter you' II see that several move-orders lead
tage by force in such endings. to the same basic positions, and those positions
b) 6 dS is normal, when 6 ... 0-0 transposes to are what you really need to know. You can also
our main lines. Instead, Black can try 6 ... lUbd7 experiment with the riskier 9 f3, which seems

(D) (this is equivalent to S ... lUbd7 followed by very weakening, but is surprisingly playable;

6 ... eS; also, 6 ... lUa6 followed by ... lUeS will for example, 9 ... lUhS (9 ... aS l O lUge2 lUh7 I I
also transpose to this note), when White has 'ii'd2 ..tf6 1 2 0-0-0 .i.gS 1 3 h4! .i.xe3 1 4 'ii'xe3
these options: ltJf6 I S hS ! ; 9 ... 0-0 l O 'ii'd2 aS I I 0-0-0 'iith 7 1 2
g4) l O lUge2 aS ( l O ... 'ii'h4+ I I g 3 file? 1 2

..tg2) 1 1 'ii'd2 .i.d7 ( l l ....i.f6 1 2 g3 .i.gS 1 3

0-0-0 ..txe3 1 4 'ii'xe3 fS I S exfS gxfS 1 6 f4 ;!;
w with the idea 1 6 ... e4 1 7 g4!) 1 2 0-0-0 a4 1 3 g4

(or 1 3 'iitb l ), when the pawn sacrifice 1 3 ... lUf4

1 4 lUxf4 exf4 I S .i.xf4 a3 1 6 b3 looks a little
scary, but .i.e3-d4 is a theme, and 1 6 ... f/if6?

runs into 1 7 eS. These are just sample lines, of
course, but if White can play even the weaken
ing f3 without problems, it' s a good sign for the
whole variation.

b3) 7 lUf3 lUeS 8 'ii'c2 is a flexible move
order by which White waits to decide where his
bishops should go. After 8 ... 0-0, 9 b4?! permits
the very messy line 9 ... lUcxe4! l O lUxe4 lUxe4
b l ) 7 .i.e3 lUeS 8 'ili'c2 and then: I I 'ii'xe4 fS 1 2 'ii'bl ! (older theory gave 1 2
b l l ) 8 ... aS 9 ltJf3 0-0 transposes to Section 'ii'e3?! e4 1 3 lUd4 f4 1 4 f/ic3 cS I S dxc6 bxc6 +)

8. 1 1 1 (i.e. S ... 0-0 6 .i.e3 eS 7 dS lUa6 8 ltJf3 1 2 ... e4 1 3 lUd2 e3 !? 14 fxe3 f4!, and I'll stop
lUeS 9 'ili'c2 aS). there, but the end result is an opposite-coloured
b l 2) 8 ... 0-0 ! ? can be met by 9 b4 lUa6 l O bishop ending that White will have no interest
a3 lUhS, when White may continue solidly in. Therefore, White does better to replace 9
with I I lUf3 or even try I I cS; e.g., l l ...dxcS b4?! with one of the repertoire moves I' II be pro

12 bS lUb8 1 3 .i.xcS l:te8 1 4 lUf3 fS I S .i.c4. posing, i.e. 9 .i.e3 or 9 .i.gS, both of them main

That should discourage Black from 8 ... 0-0, line positions which you'll run into below. and of course White can also hold off on b4 As I say, you can worry about these transpo
with normal moves such as 9 ltJf3 if he so sitions later; I just want to point out that the sel
chooses. To emphasize how wonderfully flexi dom-played moves S ... eS and S ... lUbd7 cause
ble the S h3 systems are, White can also play 9 unique problems. a3, 9 .i.e2 or 9 g4 instead. The most common After the standard move S ... 0-0, I'm propos
and interesting alternative is 9 lUge2! ? aS (af ing two replies for White: ter 9 ... .i.d7, l O 0-0-0 aS I I g4 is possible, or 8.1 : 6 ..te3 l S I White might play I O g3 aS I I .i.g2 "with de 8.2: 6 ..tg5 1 60 cent chances of finding an advantage" accord
ing to Panczyk & Ilczuk) 1 0 0-0-0 ltJfd7 I I g4 6 ltJf3 has been played and analysed far
lUa6!? 1 2 'ii'd2 lUdcS I 3 lUg3 a4 1 4 .i.e2 with more than the bishop moves, and a couple of
ideas like h4-hS and ltJfS. 9 lUge2 is a compli anti-King's Indian repertoires in books have
cated option which you may want to study fur featured it. I'll be including several variations
ther on your own. whose theory derives from that move (i.e.,
b2) After 7 .i.gS h6 8 .i.e3 lUeS I recom transposing from 6 .i.e3 or 6 .i.gS), but I'll also
mend 9 'ii'c2, after which 9 ... aS l O ltJf3 0-0 be giving independent methods against each of
transposes to Section 8.22I , which is a main Black's move-orders. The most important thing

KING 'S INDIAN DEFENCE 151

is that, by using the bishop moves, I've avoided

some theoretical problems associated with 6
liJf3 (such as 6 ... e5 7 d5 lbh5, for example). B

8.1}

6 i.e3 (D)

B

the idea b4 is a particularly effective response,
since 8 ... e5 can be met by 9 dxe5 dxe5 l O b4 ;!;
b6 l l i.e2 i.b7 (Piket-Reinderman, Amster
dam 1 999), when 1 2 c5 ! gives White a pleasant
advantage. 9 d5 is of course also possible, when

9 ... lbh5 transposes to the note to Black's 9th
move in Section 8. 1 1 2, while 9 ... ltJc5 l O liJd2
favours White; e.g., l O ... i.d7 l l i.e2 a5 and

This move is somewhat less popular in con now 1 2 b4 led to some advantage in Karpov
temporary play than 6 i.g5, mainly because the J.Polgar, Zurich blitz 2006, but 1 2 b3! would
latter is supposed to be well-suited for meeting leave Black in need of a plan. certain difficult set-ups. But 6 i.e3 is also an ef b) 6 ... liJbd7 (D) will also transpose most of fective weapon, and in certain respects more the time after ... e5. challenging to play against. In some cases it's
better to have the bishop on its natural post de

fending the centre. I've divided the material
into only two initial moves: w 8.11 : 6 ... e5 1 52

8.12: 6 ... c5 1 59

The second section is relatively short, while
the first embraces a large number of subvaria
tions and transpositions, since most variations
will include ... e5 at some point. I have included
numerous alternate suggestions to deviate from
main moves you don't like.

Besides 6 ... e5 and 6 ... c5, we have these
moves to consider:

a) 6 ... lba6 is highly transpositional; e.g., 7 Two exceptional cases: i.d3 ! ? e5 8 d5 transposes to the note to White's b l ) 7 i.d3 is interesting: 7 ... c5 !? 8 d5 (8

8th move in Section 8 . 1 1 . The normal sequence liJf3 cxd4 9 i.xd4!?) 8 ... lbe5, when White
is 7 liJf3 (D). Then: gave up his bishop for development in Izoria
a l ) 7 ... e5 8 d5 is the main-line position of Inarkiev, European Ch playoff, Kusadasi 2006 Section 8. 1 1 , where play branches into 8 ... lbh5 with 9 liJf3 ! lbxd3+ l 0 'i!i'xd3 a6 l l a4 .l:.b8 1 2
and 8 ... lbc5. 0-0. Now one idea i s i.f4 followed by an early
a2) 7 .. .'ife8 can be answered conventionally e5. The game went l 2 ... lbe8 1 3 'i!i'd2! lbc7 1 4
by 8 i.e2 or 8 i.d3, for example. But 8 a3 ! with i.h6 b 5 1 5 i.xg7 Wxg7 1 6 axb5 axb5 1 7 cxb5 152 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

tL::lxb5 1 8 b4! with a threat on Black's c-pawn. 8.11) Following the forced l 8 ... cxb4 1 9 lt:Jxb5 l:lxb5

20 lt:Jd4, White infiltrates on c6 while the b 6 ••• e5 7 d5 (D) pawn falls in any case.

b2) 7 lt:JO a6 8 ..te2 (or 8 ..td3) 8 ... c5 9 e5 !

lt:Je8 1 0 e6! fxe6 1 1 dxc5 dxc5 ( l l ...'ifa5 1 2
cxd6 and now l 2 ... exd6 l 3 ..td4! or 1 2 ... 0xd6 B

1 3 0-0! with the idea 1 3 ... ..txc3 1 4 bxc3 'i!fxc3

1 5 �c I 'if aS 1 6 c5 tLlf5 1 7 'i!i'b3 ! lt:Jf6 1 8 .i.d2

'i!fc7 1 9 ..tc4 ±) 1 2 .i.xc5 b5 !? 1 3 cxb5 axb5 1 4

0-0 ..ta6 1 5 .i.b4! ;!; J.Watson-Gufeld, Las Ve
gas 1 995.

c) 6 ... c6 can go any which way. One rela
tively common set-up in the King's Indian is
that with ... c6 and ... a6; for example, 7 lt:Jf3 a6

(equivalent to 6 ... a6 7 lt:Jf3 c6) 8 ..te2 (8 .i.d3
is equally valid, and because it protects the e
pawn, 8 ... b5 doesn't threaten ... b4, allowing
for 9 0-0; instead, Black might try 8 ... 4Jbd7 9 7 ••• lt:Ja6 0-0 'i!fc7 I 0 �c 1 ;!;) 8 ... b5 (8 ... 4Jbd7 9 0-0 b5 I' II use this move as the way to reach our two

1 0 a3 transposes to line 'c2'). White maintains main lines. 7 ... lt:Jbd7 and 7 ... aS often lead to the
a space advantage after 9 a3 (D) (or 9 cxb5 same positions, but 7 ... lt:Ja6 produces more
axb5 10 a3 lt:Jbd7 1 1 0-0 lt:Jb6 12 b3 ;!;) and unique subvariations than any other move, so
now: it's a good pivot point. Here are some ideas ver
sus the most important alternative lines:

a) 7 . . . a5 sometimes transposes, as men
tioned, but has a few independent paths:

B a l ) 8 lt:JO lt:Ja6 9 ..te2 (D) (9 lt:Jd2! ? lt:Jc5 is
the main line in the books, but that gives Black
the opportunity for 9 ... lt:Je8, which is unclear;
for example, 1 0 h4 doesn't impress after 1 0 ... f5
l l exf5 gxf5 1 2 ..tg5 lt:Jf6! 1 3 h5 h6 1 4 ..th4

'i!fe8 !).

B

c l ) 9 ... bxc4 1 0 ..txc4 d5 ( l 0 ... lt:Jxe4 1 1 lt:Jxe4
d5 1 2 .i.d3 dxe4 1 3 ..txe4 ;!; Pieterse-Bosboom,

Dutch Ch, Eindhoven 1 99 1 ) 1 1 ..td3 dxe4 1 2
lt:Jxe4 ..te6 1 3 0-0 ..td5 1 4 lt:Jc3 with a slight ad
vantage for White.

c2) 9 ... 4Jbd7 1 0 0-0!? (or 1 0 e5 lt:Je8 1 1 0-0

;!;) 1 0 ... bxc4 ( 1 0 ... 4Jb6 1 1 b3 ;!;) 1 1 ..txc4 d5 1 2
exd5 lt:Jb6 1 3 ..ta2 ( l 3 ..td3 tL::lbxd5 1 4 lt:Jxd5
lt:Jxd5 1 5 �c 1 ;!;) 1 3 ... cxd5 !? 1 4 lt:Je5 ..te6 1 5

'i!fe2 lt:Je8 1 6 lt:Jd3 ..tc8 1 7 lt:Jc5 e6 1 8 l:lfd 1 Now, however, 9 ... lt:Jc5 1 0 lt:Jd2 does indeed
lt:Jd6 1 9 ..tf4 lt:Jbc4 20 ..txc4 lt:Jxc4 2 1 b3 lt:Jd6 transpose to a main line. Instead, Black has two

22 ..te5 ;!; J.Watson-Gufeld, Los Angeles 1 995. ways to deviate:

KING 'S INDIAN DEFENCE 153

a l l ) 9 ... lLle8 10 g4!? ( 1 0 a3 ! fS 1 1 b4 lLlf6 But a promising non-transpositional move 1 2 0-0 also appears to favour White; for exam order is 8 .id3 (D). Then: ple, 1 2 ... fxe4 1 3 lLld2 .ifS 1 4 l:.bl ) 1 0 ... fS

( l O ... lLlcS 1 1 liJd2 .id7 1 2 h4!) I I gxfS gxfS 1 2

exfS (or 1 2 l::.g 1 f4 1 3 .id2 with the idea

1 3 ... .ixh3 l 4 lLlgS .id7 1 S .ig4 ;!;) l 2 ... .ixfS 8 1 3 lLlgS lLlcS ( 1 3 ... lLlb4 l 4 lLle6!) 1 4 J:tgl h6 I S

.ixcS dxcS 1 6 lLle6 ! ? .ixe6 1 7 dxe6 'ii'f6 1 8
lLle4 'iVxe6 1 9 'iVd3 lLld6 20 0-0-0 !.

a l 2) 9 ... lLlhS 1 0 g3 fS 1 l exfS gxfS I 2 l::.g l !?

f4 1 3 gxf4 lLlxf4 14 'iVd2 intending 0-0-0, lLlgS
and/or l::.g3 with good attacking chances; as
you will see repeatedly, the bad bishop on g7 is
a positional liability, which adds to Black's
problems.

a2) 8 cS (D) might be a good reason to avoid 7 . . . a5. White won't necessarily gain much more than a normal edge, but that's probably not b l ) 8 ... cxdS 9 cxdS a6 1 0 tLlf3 lLlbd7 I I
what Black wanted to concede at so early a lLld2 bS 1 2 b4! (or 1 2 a4 b4 l 3 lLle2) 1 2 ... lLlhS
stage: ( 1 2 ... lLlb6 1 3 a4 lLlxa4 14 lLlxa4 bxa4 I S l:lxa4
lLlhS 1 6 bS lLlf4 and now 17 .if! or even 1 7

.ixf4 exf4 1 8 0-0 aS 1 9 'iVf3 'iVgS 20 lLlc4 ± ) 1 3

a4 bxa4 1 4 �xa4 lLlf4 I S .if! fS l 6 lLlc4 !.

b2) 8 ... bS ! ? has the idea 9 dxc6 bxc4 1 0

.ixc4 lLlxc6, but maybe White should simply
develop by 9 lLlf3 ! with the idea 9 ... bxc4 10

.ixc4 .ib7 I I 'iVb3 !.

c) 7 ... lLlbd7 8 lLlf3 (D) gives Black three
ways to prepare ... fS:

8

a2 1 ) 8 ... lLla6 9 cxd6 cxd6 (9 ... 'i!i'xd6 1 0 lLlf3

.id7 I I I:.c 1 ;!;) 1 0 lLlf3 (or I 0 .ixa6) 1 0 ... b6 1 1
lLld2 lLlcS 1 2 .ie2 !.

a22) 8 ... c6 9 dxc6 lLlxc6 and here 1 0 'i!i'xd6
has been analysed to equality, but 1 0 cxd6! ap
pears to be an improvement; here's some analy
sis: 1 O ... lLld4 l l lLlf3 'ii'xd6 ( l l ... lLlxf3+ 1 2 gxf3

.ie6 1 3 'iVd2 l::.c8 1 4 .ibS .td7 I S a4) l 2 lLlxd4
exd4 1 3 'iVxd4 'iVxd4 ( 1 3 ... 'i!i'e7 1 4 'i!i'cS) 1 4

.ixd4 lLlxe4 I S .ixg7 �xg7 1 6 lLlxe4 .:.es 1 7 c l ) 8 ... lLlcS transposes to Section 8. 1 1 1 .

.id3 fS 1 8 l::.c l fxe4 l 9 l::!.c7+ �h6! 20 .ibS l:leS c2) 8 ... lLle8 can be countered by 9 g4 (9

2 1 a4 .ie6 22 0-0 .idS 23 l:ld 1 !. Perhaps this h4 !? is also played); e.g., 9 ... aS (9 ... fS?! 1 0 line can be drawn by Black, but at a minimum he gxfS gxfS I I exfS ;!; ) 1 0 'iVc2! ? (this move i s our will have to suffer for some time to come. main idea in this section, so I'll use it here; 1 0
b) 7 ... c6 is a move that can be played at vari lLld2 lLlcS 1 1 .ie2 i s also possible, or I 0 .id3
ous points, and 8 lLlf3 would normally follow. lLlcS I I .ic2 followed by queenside expansion) 154 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

1 0 .. .ltJc5 1 1 0-0-0 ( I I l:lg 1 �h8 1 2 0-0-0 H5?! a2) 1 0 ... lt:\h5 I I lt:\ge2 ( I I .i.d l !? also de

13 gxf5 gxf5 1 4 h4 gave White a nice advan serves a look) l l .. .f5 1 2 exf5 and now Vigorito's
tage in Radjabov-Morozevich, Amber Rapid, 1 2 ... gxf5 can be answered by 1 3 0-0-0! .i.d7 14

Monte Carlo 2007) l l ... f5?! (as so often, this g4! ± with the idea 14 ... fxg4? 1 5 hxg4 .i.xg4 16
move is premature) 1 2 gxf5 gxf5 1 3 l:lg I lt:\xe4 ..ixc5 dxc5 1 7 lldgl +-, while after 1 2 ... ..txf5,

14 lt:\xe4 fxe4 1 5 lt:\g5 lLlf6 1 6 .i.e2 �h8 1 7 as played in Bets-Fedoseev, Peterhof 2007,

..tg4! ;!;. Bologan suggests 1 3 .i.xf5 ! gxf5 14 g4! fxg4
c3) 8 ... lt:\h5 ! ? 9 lt:\d2 a5 (9 ... f5? 10 exf5) 1 0 1 5 hxg4 lLlf4 1 6 .i.xc5 dxc5 1 7 lt:\g3 ;!; (or 1 7
g3 lt:\c5 I I .i.e2 lLlf6 gives White two extra lt:\e4). moves over the traditional line without ... lt:\h5- b) Vigorito proposes 8 ... c6. Play might go 9
f6. To be sure, one of them is g3, which is of lt:\f3 lt:\c5 1 0 .i.c2 cxd5 (D), and now: questionable value. Nevertheless, this affords
time for useful moves, including 1 2 g4 intend

ing h4-h5 and at some point 0-0-0.

d) 7 ... lt:\h5 is also a bit out of the ordinary. w Then I think that 8 .i.e2, which creates a famil
iar pattern but in a unique set-up (the knight on
d7), is a worthy move: 8 ... lt:\f4 9 .i.f3 f5 10 g3
fxe4 I I .i.xe4 lt:\h5 looks forced, and now 1 2

.i.g2!? intends simply to develop by lt:\f3 with a
comfortable game and a small advantage; here
l 2 .. .'f/e7 contemplating ... lt:\f4 can be met by
l 3 �e2.

8 lt:\f3

8 .i.d3 (D) has drawn the attention of some strong players over the years. It's a move that
can serve as an alternative to more theoretical b l ) I I cxd5 a5 1 2 .i.xc5 !? dxc5 1 3 lt:\d2 !

lines. lt:\h5 1 4 g3 lt:\f6 1 5 ..ta4 ;!; lt:\d7 1 6 .i.b5 ( 1 6 h4
f5 1 7 h5) l 6 ... lt:\b6 1 7 h4 h5 1 8 0-0 .i.h6 1 9 a4
with some light-square pressure, but not a seri

ous advantage.

8 b2) I I exd5 yields an extremely unbalanced
game. You'll see this idea elsewhere; in return
for giving Black a central pawn-mass, White
gets the opportunity for a queenside attack. For
example, 1 l ...a5 ( l l ...e4!? 1 2 lt:\d4!? lt:\fd7 1 3
b4 lt:\d3+ 1 4 .i.xd3 exd3 1 5 'fl/xd3 lt:\e5 1 6 'flle2

'fl/c7 1 7 c5; l l ....i.d7 1 2 b4 lt:\a6 1 3 a3 l:tc8 1 4

.i.b3 b 5 1 5 lt:\d2 ;!; ) 1 2 0-0 lt:\h5 1 3 .i.xc5 ! ? ( 1 3
l:le1 b6 1 4 l:lbl ) l 3 ... dxc5 1 4 lle 1 f6 1 5 .i.a4
lt:\f4 1 6 lt:\e2 ;!;.

c) 8 ... lt:\h5 9 g3 lt:\c5 10 .i.e2 lt:\f6 1 1 'ifc2 a5

12 0-0-0 is pleasant for White, who is ready to

Here are three important replies: launch a kingside attack: 1 2 ... a4 ( 1 2 ... lt:\e8 1 3 h4
a) 8 ... lt:\c5 9 .i.c2 a5 1 0 'ii'd2! (Bologan likes f5 1 4 h5 f4? 1 5 gxf4 exf4 1 6 .i.xc5 dxc5 1 7 hxg6
this for White; 1 0 lt:\ge2 is also possible) and hxg6 1 8 lt:\f3 ± Piket) 1 3 g4 lt:\e8 ( 1 3 ... ..td7 1 4
then: g 5 lt:\e8 1 5 h4) 1 4 h4 f5 1 5 gxf5 gxf5 1 6 lLlf3
a l ) 1 0 ... c6 I I dxc6!? bxc6 1 2 l:ld l ! lt:\b7 1 3 ( 1 6 h5 is better because ... h6 is weakening -lLlf3 .i.e6 1 4 b3 'fl/e7 ( 1 4 ... lt:\h5 l 5 lt:\a4 is very this is a positional nicety to file away) 1 6 ... a3
nice for White) 1 5 lt:\g5 !? l:lfd8 1 6 lt:\xe6 'fl/xe6 1 7 b4 ( 1 7 b3 !) 1 7 .. .fxe4 (Knaak-Piket, Ham

1 7 0-0 ;!;. burg 1 99 1 ) and now 1 8 lt:\g5 lt:\d3+ 1 9 .i.xd3

KING 'S INDIAN DEFENCE 155

exd3 20 'iVxd3 .tf5 2 1 lt:\ge4 lt:\f6 22 h5 is not credit, David Vigorito analyses some of the key
simple, but should be in White's favour. positions by transposition, but no one else seems

We now return to the main move, 8 lt:\f3 (D): to). In the coverage of 6 .tg5, we can also ar
rive at the position with lt:\d2 in place of 'ii'c2,
having added the moves ... h6 and .te3. I will

make some limited comments about the lt:\d2

B option in that case (see the note to White's l Oth
move in Section 8.22 1 ), but will forego doing
so here.

9 ..• a5 (D)

Now Black has:

8.111: 8 ••. lt:\c5 1 55

8.112: 8 ••• lt:\h5 1 57

8.111)

8 ••. lt:\c5 9 'ii'c2

I am recommending this unusual move for 10 .te2 several reasons. First, and crucially, this posi I 0 lt:\d2 is still possible here (equivalent to 9
tion is hard to avoid because it can arise via lt:\d2 a5 1 0 'ii'c2) and not a bad move. The idea

5 ... e5 6 d5 lt:\bd7 7 .te3 lt:\c5 8 'ii'c2 a5 9 lt:\f3 is to meet I O ... lt:\h5 with I I g3 followed by

0-0 (assuming that Black plays 9 ... a5 in our .te2 and if the knight retreats to f6, advancing
main line). In fact, it's hard for White to avoid with g4. Then l l ... f5 1 2 .te2 transposes to the
bringing the queen to c2 after 5 ... e5 or 5 ... lt:\bd7, note to White's 1 2th move below. a fact that books treating 5 h3 don't tend to 10 ..• lt:\h5 mention, so you will very likely want to know Arguably the critical move. Black wants to
this position anyway. Furthermore, the varia play ... lt:\f4 and at the same time clears the way
tions with the main theoretical move 9 lt:\d2 are for ... f5. worked out in a depth that is almost prohibitive, a) Black can also prepare .. .f5 by I O ... lt:\e8,
and the resulting assessment isn't particularly when a typical line is 1 1 g4 f5 1 2 gxf5 (but 1 2
optimistic for White (although he maintains exf5 ! gxf5 1 3 0-0-0 ;!; i s a good sequence, when
even chances). On a practical level, the play as Black is rather stuck, especially since 1 3 ... e4
sociated with 9 lt:\d2 can easily become tactical 1 4 lt:\d2 helps White) l 2 ... gxf5 1 3 0-0-0 ( 1 3
and critical; for example, with sacrifices based l:tgl ! ?) 1 3 ... fxe4 ( 1 3 ... f4? 1 4 .txc5 dxc5 1 5
upon trapping the e3-bishop with ... f4. With 9 lt:\d2 lt:\d6 1 6 .tg4) 1 4 lt:\g5 lt:\d3+! 1 5 .txd3

'ii'c2, there are unavoidably tactical situations, exd3 1 6 'ii'xd3 .tf5 1 7 lt:\ce4 lt:\f6 ( 1 7 ... h6? 1 8
but fewer, and they are not already worked out lt:\e6 .txe6 1 9 dxe6 'ii'e7 20 .l:tdg I 'it'xe6 2 1
by theory. Furthermore, the presence of White's .l:tg4! gives White a strong attack) 1 8 f3 'ii'e7 1 9
knight on f3 often serves to deter Black's ... f5 .l:thg 1 with compensation for the pawn. break (for example, lt:\g5 or lt:\h4 might follow). b) I O ... c6 I I .txc5 (or I I l:td i cxd5 1 2

Finally, we have a practical advantage: the .txc5 dxc5 1 3 cxd5) l l ...dxc5 1 2 .l:td i cxd5 1 3
move 9 'ii'c2 doesn't appear in most sources, so cxd5 t. it can throw the opponent off balance (to his 11 g3 (D)

156 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

w

Stopping ... ltJf4 isn't always essential in these g4! ..td7 1 7 g5 ltJh5 1 8 ..tg4! gave White a
lines, but when that move would attack a bishop large positional advantage in Vallejo Pons
on e2, the preventive g3 is often best. Radjabov, Spanish Team Ch, Sant Lluis 2005.

l l ... f5 b) 1 3 ..txc5 ! dxc5 14 h4 looks best:

Naturally there are alternatives, although b I ) 1 4 ... .:ta6 1 5 0-0-0 ..th6 1 6 �b I ..txd2
this was to some extent the point of 1 0 ... ltJh5, 1 7 'il'xd2 ltJxe4 ( 17 ... fxe4 ?! 1 8 h5 ..tf5 1 9 �al
and in view of the positional idea 12 ltJd2, hin gxh5 20 ..txh5 ;!;) 1 8 ltJxe4 fxe4 1 9 Vi'e3 ;!; with
dering .. .f5, it's logical to move quickly. One ideas of 20 'ii'xc5 or 20 h5 g5 2 1 h6 !. possibility is 1 1 ... ..td7, a straightforward devel b2) 14 .. .f4 1 5 gxf4 exf4 1 6 .:1g1 Vi'e7 1 7
oping move. Then after 1 2 ltJd2 ( 1 2 ..txc5 dxc5 0-0-0 .:1a6 1 8 �bl ltJd7 1 9 h 5 ltJe5 20 hxg6

1 3 �fl f5 14 �g2 is a conservative option) hxg6 2 1 ltJf3 ;!;. 1 2 ... ltJf6, 1 3 g4 brings about a standard posi 12 ... dxc5 13 ltJd2 (D) tion where play might go 1 3 ... h6 14 0-0-0 ( 1 4

g5 hxg5 1 5 ..txg5 c6 1 6 h4!) 1 4 .. . c6 ( 1 4 ... ltJh7

1 5 h4 a4) 1 5 g5 hxg5 1 6 ..txg5 a4 1 7 h4 with a
healthy attack. But what's interesting here is 8 that White can also play 1 3 h4 h5 14 f3 a4 1 5

0-0! followed soon by a queenside attack with b4!

12 ..txc5

I like this move, which captures the knight before Black can play ... b6 and retake with the
b-pawn. Still, it may not be any better than 1 2
ltJd2 ltJf6 (D), which unlike 1 2 ..txc5 has ap peared in practice quite a few times. The differ
ence is instructive:

a) 1 3 0-0-0 b6! ( 1 3 ... fxe4?! allows the con
tinuation 1 4 ..txc5 dxc5 1 5 ltJdxe4; Mikha1ev White has some advantage. Now 1 3 ... ltJf6 is
ski analyses 1 3 ... ltJcxe4?! 14 ltJdxe4 ltJxe4 1 5 probably best, when 1 4 h4! intending h5 is a
ltJxe4 fxe4 1 6 h4! "with g4 to follow") 1 4 good continuation (as is 14 ..td3, which denies .:tdgl !? ( 14 �bl prepares to answer 1 4 ... ltJfxe4 Black a plan), but 1 3 ... f4?! 14 ..txh5 gxh5 1 5

1 5 ltJcxe4 fxe4 with 1 6 h4!) 1 4 ... f4?! ( 14 ... a4 g4! is a tactic worth remembering: 1 5 ... hxg4 1 6
improves, but the best move is 1 4 ... ltJfxe4! 1 5 hxg4 ..txg4 1 7 f3 ..td7 1 8 ltJb3 b6 1 9 Vi'h2 h6
ltJdxe4 fxe4, since 1 6 h4?! is strongly met by 20 0-0-0, when not only does White have an at

1 6 ... ltJd3+! 17 ..txd3 exd3 1 8 'ili'xd3 ..tg4 and tack (the knights can gradually shift over to the

1 6 g4?! allows 1 6 ... Vi'h4! ; better is 1 6 ..tg4!? or kingside and use h4 and g4, for example), but

16 �b1 , with equal chances) 1 5 ..txc5 bxc5 1 6 Black's bishop on g7 is very bad.

KING 'S INDIAN DEFENCE 157

8.112)

8 ••. l2Jh5 (D) w

w

sample line: 1 3 ... fxe4 ( 1 3 ... l2Jb8 I 4 :c J l2Jd7

I 5 l2Jb5 'il'd8 1 6 cxd6 cxd6 I 7 exf5 gxf5 1 8

�xf4 exf4 1 9 l2Jxd6 l2Jb6 20 l2Jxc8 :xc8 2 1

�b3 with an extra pawn and a killing position)

Kasparov's choice in days gone by. This I 4 l2Jd2 b6 1 5 cxd6 (or I 5 c6) I 5 ... cxd6 I 6
made the combination of ... lZ:\a6 and ... l2Jh5 l2Jdxe4 �e7 1 7 l2Jb5 :d8 1 8 �xf4 exf4 1 9 :ei

Black's most popular system for many years. �f8 20 l2Jbxd6! :xd6 2 1 lZ:\xd6 �xd6 22 :e8+

9 a3! 'it>f7 (22 ... 'it>h7 23 �xa6) 23 :e6! �xe6 24

This move has been very underrated, in my dxe6+ 'it>e7 25 'iYxd6+ 'it>xd6 26 :d I + 'it>e5 27
opinion. After b4, White will neutralize the .l:td7 ! +-. knight on a6 and initiate an attack at the same b) I I �e2 l2Jf4 1 2 0-0 also looks good,
time. I should mention that even in the main since Black has no apparent way to attack on
line with 9 lZ:\h2 �e8 I'd still rather be White the kingside: 12 ... l2Jxe2+ ( 1 2 ... fxe4 1 3 lZ:\g5)

following 1 0 a3 (instead of the usual 1 0 �e2) 1 3 �xe2 f4 1 4 �d2 c5 1 5 dxc6 (or 1 5 :ab l )

1 0 .. .f5 I I b4, although of course this is much 1 5 .. . bxc6 1 6 c5 !? dxc5 1 7 l2Ja4 sacrifices a
less clear than 9 a3 (in some lines, the knight pawn for a large positional gain. Black, whose
will waste two moves with l2Jh2-f3 for one dark-squared bishop is atrocious, can't seem to
thing); e.g., l l ...fxe4 ( l l ...ltJf6 1 2 �d3) 1 2 get adequate play; e.g., 1 7 ... cxb4 1 8 �xb4! lZ:\xe4 l2Jf4 ( 1 2 .. . l2Jb8 is probably best) 1 3 l2Jf3 l2Jxb4 1 9 axb4 .l:tb8 20 .l:tfb I �f6 21 l2Jc5 'iff7

�f5 1 4 l2Jfd2. You could even play 9 lZ:\gi 'ii'e8 (2 l ...�e7 22 'ifa2+ 'i!Vf7 23 'i!i'xa7 ±) 22 :as

1 0 a3 ! . I'm not actually recommending either and White will keep increasing the pressure.

of these moves (9 a3 is a much better version of c) I I :c J f4?! ( l l ...l2Jf4 1 2 c5 is at least
the same idea), but it all says something about slightly better for White) 1 2 �d2 c5 1 3 dxc6
the effectiveness of restricting the knight to a6. (or 1 3 :bl , because Black has nothing useful

9 ... f5 to do) 1 3 ... bxc6 I 4 �d3 'it>h8 (Bewersdorff

This has to be played soon. Timoshenko, Mainz I 995) and now the simple

9 ... �e8 1 0 b4 f5 (D) is also important, but 1 5 0-0 is best; for example, 1 5 ... lZ:\c7 16 :e J
shouldn't equalize: 'file? ( 1 6 ... lZ:\e6 I 7 c5 ! dxc5 1 8 lZ:\a4 ±) 1 7 c5 !

a) I I c5 yields a solid advantage; for exam d5 1 8 exd5 cxd5 1 9 b5 :d8 ( 1 9 ... 11b8 20 b6!

ple, l l ...f4? 1 2 �d2 dxc5 1 3 �xa6 bxa6 1 4 axb6 2 1 cxb6 :xb6 22 l2Ja4 11b8 23 l2Jxe5 ! +-)

bxc5 ± o r I I ... 'it>h8 1 2 :c I l2Jf6 1 3 �b5 �d8 20 b6 axb6 2 I cxb6 lZ:\a6 22 l2Jxe5 (or 22 l2Ja4!

1 4 0-0 ±, when Black can hardly move, and e4 23 �b3 ! , threatening .l:txc8 and winning)

1 4 ... dxc5 1 5 exf5 ! gxf5 1 6 �xa6 bxa6 1 7 lZ:\xe5 22 ... �xe5 23 l2Jb5 d4 24 lZ:\a7 +-. cxb4 1 8 axb4 is awful. After 1 1 ... h6, as in 10 b4 (D) Bewersdorff-Piket, Ostend I 994, one strong IO • • • 'it>h8 choice is I 2 �c4! ( 1 2 :c l ) I 2 ... l2Jf4 1 3 0-0 ±, Removing his king from potential checks.

when it's hard for Black to find a plan; here is a I' II pursue this position in some detail because 158 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

c2 1 ) 1 2 ... f4?! 1 3 .i.e I dxc5 14 .i.c4 �h8 1 5

.i.b2 and Black has won a pawn but his pieces

B are reduced to passivity; for example, 1 5 ... CiJd7

16 CiJa4 b6 1 7 0-0 'ii'e7 1 8 'ii'd3 h6 ( 18 ... CiJhf6

1 9 CiJg5) 1 9 �fd 1 'ii'd6 (trying to blockade, in
view of 1 9 ... CiJhf6?! 20 d6! ) 20 .i.a2 and CiJd2-
c4.

c22) Burgess's 1 2 ... CiJd7 1 3 c6 CiJdf6! ap
pears better; perhaps White keeps a slight ad
vantage by 1 4 CiJg5 CiJf4! 1 5 g3 CiJ6h5 1 6 h4 h6

1 7 CiJe6 tDxe6 1 8 dxe6 f4 1 9 .i.c4, but this is not
clear.

We now return to I O ... �h8 (D):

the a3/b4 idea is normal in the h3 systems and I haven't given it close attention anywhere else:

a) 1 o ... 'ii'e8 transposes to the previous note. w
b) I O ... c5 runs into I I dxc6 bxc6 1 2 'ii'a4 f4

1 3 .i.d2 .i.b7 14 c5 ± tDc7 ( l 4 ... CiJb8 1 5 cxd6 'ii'xd6 1 6 .i.c4+ �h8 1 7 'ii'a5 ±) 1 5 cxd6 'ii'xd6

1 6 �d 1 'flle7 1 7 .i.c4+ �h8 1 8 0-0. Black has
weak pawns and little activity.

c) I O ... CiJb8 ! is as good as anything (.i.xa6
tends to be good in too many positions), but I I
c5 (D) gets a jump start on the attack and main tains an edge ( I I �c 1 isn't bad either); for ex
ample:

11 �c1

I I c5 ! ? is attractive: l l ...dxc5 ( l l . .. CiJf4 1 2

�c I ) 1 2 .i.xa6!? ( 1 2 b5 f4 1 3 .i.e 1 CiJb8 1 4 .i.b2

;!;) 1 2 ... cxb4 1 3 axb4 fxe4 1 4 tDxe4 bxa6 1 5 0-0
t; e.g., 1 5 ... CiJf4 1 6 �a5 ! .i.b7 1 7 .i.xf4 exf4 1 8 CiJfg5 f3 1 9 g3 'ii'e7 20 tDe6 �f5 2 1 �c5 .i.e5 22

'ii'd2 �g8 23 �el ±.

11 .•• c5! Otherwise c5 gives White a definite advan-
tage.

12 dxc6 bxc6 13 exf5!?

1 3 �c2 t with the idea �d2 is safer.

13 ... gxf5 14 .i.e2 Now:

c I ) I I ... CiJf4 12 'flib3 ! ? (watch out for the a) 14 ... CiJf4? fails positionally to 1 5 .i.xf4! trick 1 2 CiJd2? CiJxg2+! 1 3 .i.xg2 f4, but 1 2 �c 1 exf4 1 6 0-0 ±. fxe4 1 3 CiJd2! is good, in view of 1 3 ... CiJd3+ 1 4 b) White keeps an edge following 14 ... f4 1 5

.i.xd3 exd3 1 5 cxd6 cxd6 1 6 CiJde4) 1 2 .. . fxe4! .i.d2 CiJf6 1 6 'ii'a4 .i.b7 1 7 CiJg5 t.

1 3 tDxe4 .i.f5 1 4 CiJfd2 'ili'e7 1 5 g3 CiJd7 1 6 �c 1 c) After 14 ... CiJf6, White has a moderate ad

.i.xe4 1 7 tDxe4 CiJf6 1 8 tDxf6+ .i.xf6 1 9 h4 vantage; e.g., 1 5 'ii'a4 CiJb8 1 6 .i.g5 'ii'e8 1 7

CiJh5 20 .i.h3 t. CiJh4 'ii'e6 1 8 11i'c2 (threatening g4) 1 8 .. . e4
c2) l l ...a5 1 2 b5 ! ? (risky; 1 2 �c l t may be ( 1 8 ... c5 1 9 CiJd5 !) 1 9 g4! and Black's central
best) and now: pawns will be targets.

KING 'S INDIAN DEFENCE 159

8.12)

6 •.• c5 7 d5 (D) B

For the record, 7 dxc5 'iVa5 8 �d3 dxc5 9 e5
works out fine for Black if he plays simply

9 ... tt::lfd7 10 f4 .l:f.d8, but it's hard to resist the
pseudo-sacrifice 9 ... tt::lh5 ! ? I 0 g4 .l:f.d8 ! 1 1 tt::lf3
tt::lc6! 1 2 0-0 tt::lxe5 1 3 tt::lxe5 �xe5 1 4 tt::ld5 with
a complicated and approximately equal game,

Fressinet-Golod, Biel 2006.

B
a) 9 ... .i.f5 1 0 .i.d3 .l:te8 !? transposes to note

'c' to Black's l Oth move below.

b) 9 ... tt::lfd7 1 0 .i.d3 f5 I I 0-0 ( I I 'iVd2! tt::\e5

1 2 tt::lxe5 .i.xe5 1 3 .i.h6 ;\;) I I ...tt::le5 ( l l ...f4 1 2

.i.d2 tt::\e5 1 3 tt::lxe5 .i.xe5 looks reasonable for

Black) 1 2 tt::\xe5 .i.xe5 1 3 f4!? ( 1 3 .i.h6 ;\;)

13 ... .i.xc3 !? 14 bxc3 'ili'f6 15 'iVd2 tt::la6!? 16 a4

.i.d7 (Elianov-Grishchuk, Moscow blitz 201 0)

and it's difficult for White to make progress, but
g4 (supported by a bishop and rook) might be
possible if White's king takes a walk to the

7 ... e6 queenside, or a reorganization to enforce .i.h4.

7 ... b5 ! ? 8 cxb5 a6 9 a4 'iVa5 1 0 .i.d2 trans- White is certainly for choice. poses to note 'b' to Black's 7th move in Sec 10 .i.d3 (D) tion 8.23 (there the white bishop reached d2
via g5).

Now, without going into enormous detail, I'm
going to present the standard methods against B 6 ... c5 and 7 ... e6, illustrating why Black is reluc
tant to play this move-order. You will see some
thing similar after 6 .i.g5 c5 7 d5.

8 tt::lf3

Or 8 .i.d3, when 8 ... exd5 9 exd5 lle8 1 0 tt::lf3
transposes. If you want one, 8 dxe6 .i.xe6 9
tt::lf3 is a safe alternate line.

8 ••. exd5

8 ... .l:f.e8 9 .i.d3 exd5 1 0 exd5 is simply a dif
ferent path to our main line.

9 exd5 (D)

This (rather than cxd5) is a normal recapture 10 ..• ..th6 in lines with a delayed ... exd5, seeking to em a) White stands much better after I O ... tt::\h5
phasize White's space advantage, and denying I I 0-0 .i.xc3 ( 1 1 ... tt::ld7 1 2 'iVd2 tt::\e5 can be an

Black the dynamic counterchances typical of swered by 1 3 .i.e2 tt::lxf3+ 14 .i.xf3 tt::lf6 I 5

Modern Benoni positions. .l:f.ae I ;\; or 1 3 tt::\xe5 .i.xe5 14 .l:f.ae I ) 1 2 bxc3 f5

9 ••• .l:f.e8 ( 1 2 ... tt::\g7 1 3 .l:f.e l .i.f5 1 4 .i.g5 .l:txe 1 + 1 5 'iVxe 1

Black has several other moves, of which I'll f6 1 6 .i.xf5 ±) 1 3 .i.g5 'iVc7 14 .l:f.e I .i.d7 1 5 'ii'd2 note two: tt::la6 (Ristic-Stankovic, Yugoslav Ch, Kladovo 160 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

1 99 1 ) and already 1 6 ..te7 ! with the idea �g5 b) 15 ..tc2 ! ? tZ:le5 ! occurred in Antic-Veli
would produce a decisive advantage; for exam mirovic, Yugoslav Ch, Subotica 2000. Here
ple, l 6 ... f4 1 7 ..tg5 .:he ! + 1 8 .l:txe1 .l:te8 1 9 Antic analyses 1 6 tZ:lxe5 dxe5, continuing with l:txe8+ ..txe8 20 �e1 ..tf7 2 1 tZ:ld2 with the idea the excellent 1 7 'ii'e3 b6 1 8 ..ta4 ..td7 1 9 ..txd7
tZ:le4 or simply �e7. 'ii'xd7 20 b3 ;t Another way to approach this is
b) IO ... b5 ! ? I I tZ:lxb5 tZ:le4 1 2 0-0 ( 1 2 ..txe4 1 7 l:f3 tZ:ld6 1 8 �f2 b6 1 9 .l:tfl �e7, and now
l:txe4 1 3 fib3 !? is also good) 1 2 ... a6 1 3 tZ:lc3 the dynamic 20 ..ta4 ! tZ:lxc4 2 1 ..tc6 .l:tb8 22
tZ:lxc3 1 4 bxc3 ..txc3 1 5 .l:tc I ..tg7 1 6 ..tf4 is .l:tf6 ..tb7 23 b3 tZ:ld6 24 �h4 �h8 25 tZ:lb5 !

slightly better for White, Ulybin-Kuzuev, Rus tZ:lxb5 26 ..txb5 l:bd8 27 11i'g5 a6 28 ..te2 b5 29
sian Ch, St Petersburg 1 998. h4 with the idea .l:txf7; Black is totally tied
c) IO ... ..tf5 and now 1 1 ..txf5 gxf5 is a little down, and after 29 ... .l:td6 30 .l:txg6! 'ii'xg5 3 1
messy, whereas I I 0-0 tZ:le4 1 2 tZ:lxe4 ..txe4 1 3 .l:txg5 White wins the e-pawn as well. ..txe4 .l:txe4 14 �c2 .l:te8 1 5 ..tf4 secures a mod 13 e4 tZ:lbd7 14 1!i'd2 (D) est edge.

11 0-0! ..txe3
l l .. . .l:txe3? ! looks interesting at first glance,
but 12 fxe3 ..txe3+ 1 3 �h I tZ:lh5 1 4 fie I is B good, with the idea 1 4 ... ..tf4 1 5 tZ:le2 ± (com-
pare the same sacrifice in the 6 ..tg5 lines).

12 fxe3 (D)

8

White has an advantage, and in practice it's a
very large one.

14 ••• a6 After 1 4 ... �g7, 1 5 tZ:lb5 ! .l:tf8 l 6 1!i'c3 ± has
the idea 1 6 ... �g8 1 7 e5 ! or 1 6 ... a6 1 7 tZ:lxd6!

'ii'xd6 1 8 e5 ±.

15 l:f2!

12 ... 'it'e7 White simply doubles rooks. This position

1 2 ... .l:txe3? 1 3 'i!Vd2 is known to be too risky; is well-known in Benoni theory and favours
you can see how White's attack practically plays White. Again, he need only make natural moves
itself with �h6, tZ:lg5, tZ:lce4 and .l:tae1 or dou to build up the attack. For example: 1 5 ... �g7
bling rooks. 1 6 .l:tafl .l:tf8 1 7 e5 ! (alternatively, 1 7 �g5 tZ:lg8

In spite of an extremely lengthy tradition of 1 8 'ii'g3 tZ:le5?! 1 9 tZ:lxe5 ± with the idea tZ:la4,
analysing only 1 2 ... �e7 (which mistake I have Akesson-Ziegler, Swedish Team Ch 2005/6)

joined in), Jan Markos correctly points out that 1 7 ... dxe5 1 8 ..tc2 ! h6 1 9 tZ:lh2 tZ:lh7 20 d6 'ii'g5

1 2 ... tZ:lbd7 ! is more accurate, even if not ulti 2 1 �e1 f5 22 tZ:ld5 with a very large advantage.

mately equal: 1 3 'ii'd2 .l:tf8 14 e4 tZ:le8 and now:

a) I like 1 5 a3 f6 1 6 �h I 'ii'e7 1 7 b4, which 8.2) was favourable for White in Mi.Tseitlin-Sze
kely, Pernik 1 98 1 . Along with an attack on the 6 ..tgS (D) kingside, there's a potentially vulnerable queen White develops the bishop more aggressively,
side, too. That's the advantage of controlling and provokes ... h6, after which it will settle
more space. back to e3. His strategy is sometimes similar to

KING 'S INDIAN DEFENCE 161

headed for a draw. Perhaps 7 dS is the best idea

for White.

B d) 6 ... a6 can be used to prepare ... cS and

... bS: 7 lLlf3 (7 i..d3 cS 8 dS bS 9 tLlf3 trans
poses) 7 ... cS (or 7 ... c6 8 i..d3 bS 9 a3 ;!;; com
pare note 'c' to Black's 6th move in Section

8. 1 ) 8 dS (8 dxcS doesn't give much after

8 ... dxcS 9 i..e2 lLlc6 1 0 0-0 or 8 ... 'ir'aS 9 lLld2

'iii' xeS 1 0 i..e3 'ii'c7 1 1 i..e2, but these are posi tions with a good deal of content) 8 ... bS ! 9
i..d3 ! (D) (9 cxbS axbS 1 0 i..xbS? falls for the old tactic I O ... lLlxe4! 1 1 lLlxe4 'ir'aS+ 1 2 lLlc3
i..xc3+ 1 3 bxc3 'ii'xbS +) and now:

that after 6 .te3, but there are positions in

which one or the other proves superior. Putting
the bishop on gS rather than e3 has gained enor B mously in popularity, not only with this move
order, but in practically every line beginning
with 6 tLlf3. We examine:

8.21: 6 .•. lLla6 1 62

8.22: 6 •.• h6 1 69

8.23: 6 ••. c5 1 73

There are several other moves which are quite
important but go in unique directions that are
not particularly related to overarching themes.

I'll try to illustrate them separately:

a) Not 6 ... eS? 7 dxeS dxeS 8 'ii'xd8 .l:.xd8 9 d l ) 9 ... b4 1 0 lLle2 takes the pressure off tLldS. White's centre.

b) 6 ... lLlbd7 7 lLlf3 (7 .td3 eS 8 dS lLlcS 9 d2) 9 ... tLlbd7 10 0-0 lLlb6?! ( 1 O ... l:tb8 I I .tc2 aS I 0 lLlge2 is an independent move-order 'ii'e2 ;!;) 1 1 cxbS axbS 1 2 i..xbS i..a6 1 3 i..xa6
which I won't analyse here) 7 ... h6 (7 ... eS 8 dS l:txa6 (Grivas-Moutousis, Zouberi Zonal 1 993)

h6 9 .te3 tLlcS transposes to 8.22) 8 .te3 cS?! 14 a4! 'ii'd7 IS b3 l:tfa8 16 l:tc l (or 1 6 lLld2 ;!;)

(8 ... eS ! 9 dS tLlcS again transposes to 8.22) and 16 ... lLle8 ( 1 6 ... c4 17 eS ! lLle8 1 8 e6! fxe6 1 9
now simply 9 dS 'tWaS 1 0 .td2 favours White, dxe6 'ili'xe6 20 l:te l ±) 1 7 lLlbS c4!? 1 8 i..e3 ! while 9 eS !? lLle8 1 0 e6 fxe6 I I dxcS is better cxb3 1 9 i..xb6 l:txb6 20 'ir'xb3 ±. still. d3) 9 ... h6 1 0 i..e3 e6 neglects Black's devel
c) 6 ... lLlc6!? hits d4, and has been rather ne opment, and White shouldn't mind the Benoni
glected: 7 lLlf3 ! ? (7 dS lLlb8 8 .td3 ;!; is modest position after I I 0-0 exdS ( l l ...bxc4 1 2 i..xc4
and somewhat in White's favour) 7 ... h6 8 .te3 exdS 1 3 lLlxdS ! ? lLlxe4 14 lLlf4! threatens 'ii'dS
eS 9 dS (9 dxeS lLlxeS I 0 lLlxeS dxeS 1 1 'ii'c I and lLlxg6; the latter should establish a posi

'it>h7 1 2 .te2 is also possible) 9 ... lLld4! (9 ... lLle7 tional edge) 1 2 cxdS. Black's pawn on h6

1 0 lWe i 'it>h7 I I .td3 ;!; Chernin-Uhlmann, slightly weakens his kingside. Austrian Team Ch 1 993) 10 lLlxd4 ( 1 0 �e2 !? d4) 9 ... bxc4 10 .txc4 is Black's best bet
l:te8 I I 0-0) IO ... exd4 I I i..xd4 ( I I 'ii'xd4!? from a positional point of view, but White's lLlg4 1 2 'ii'd2 lLlxe3 1 3 'iV xe3 cS ! ) l l ...tLlxe4! 12 space and aggressive stance carry a great deal
lLlxe4 ( 1 2 i..xg7?! l:te8) 12 ... 'ir'h4! ( 1 2 ... l:te8? ! of weight; for example, I O ... lLlbd7 I I 0-0 l:tb8

1 3 f3) 1 3 g4 l:te8 1 4 i..g2 i..fS ! I S 0-0! �xe4 1 6 1 2 b3 ! ? ( 1 2 l:tbl ! ;!;) l 2 ... lLle8 ( 1 2 ... lLlg4! 1 3 i..xg7 i..xg2 1 7 'it>xg2 'it>xg7 1 8 'ir'd4+ 'ii'f6 1 9 hxg4 i..xc3) 1 3 l:tc l lLlc7 1 4 'ii'e2 lLlb6 I S l:tfd l

'ir'xf6+ 'it>xf6 20 l:tae1 aS and the game is lLlxc4 1 6 bxc4! .td7 17 i..h4 ( 1 7 eS f6 ;!;) 162 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

1 7 .. .f6 (else e5) l 8 l:tb I tLla8 l 9 l:txb8 'iixb8 20

.l:tb I 'W/c7 2 1 Vib2 'ii'a5 22 'iib7 ! and White was
well on top in Yermolinsky-Piket, Wijk aan B Zee 1 997.

e) 6 ... 'ike8 (D) is a tricky move.

w

e322) 9 ... tLlxd5 l O cxd5 lbd7 ( l 0 ... f5 I I
i.e3 ! with ideas of l:tc l and i.c4; e.g., l l ...fxe4
l 2 lbg5 i.h6 l 3 i.c4 ±) I I l:tc I h6 1 2 i.e3 lbf6 l 3 lbd2 'ii'd8 1 4 'ii'b3 and Black is still having
trouble getting developed. His best course ap
pears to be l 4 ... tLlh5 1 5 g3 b6 1 6 i.b5 ( 1 6 i.e2

Now 7 i.d3 e5 8 tLlf3 can be met by 8 ... exd4 9 lbf6 1 7 h4 ;!;) 1 6 ... i.d7 1 7 i.c6 t. tLlxd4 tLlxe4 followed by .. .f5. But White can
play 7 i.e2 (preventing ... lbh5) 7 ... e5 8 d5 with 8.21) the idea 8 ... tLla6 9 'ikc2. Still, 7 lbf3 is the most
natural move. Then: 6 ••• tLla6 (D)

e l ) 7 ... tLla6 transposes to Section 8.2 1 2 1 .

e2) 7 ... c5 8 d5 ( 8 i.e2 cxd4 9 tLlxd4 lbc6 l O

i.e3 is a sort of Maroczy Bind with Black hav
ing a queen on e8 and White a pawn of h3; per- w sonally I'd rather be on the white side of this
trade-off, but it's not much more than a normal
edge for White) 8 ... e6 9 dxe6 (or 9 i.e2 exd5 I 0
exd5 tLle4 I I tLlxe4 'ii'xe4 1 2 0-0 t) 9 ... 'ii'xe6 l O i.d3 lbc6 I I 0-0 t.

e3) 7 ... e5 is critical:

e3 l ) 8 d5 lbh5 !? (this poses unique chal
lenges; 8 ... tLla6 transposes to Section 8.2 1 22)

can be met by 9 a3; e.g., 9 ... f5 l O exf5 gxf5 I I
i.e2!, intending l l ...f4?! 1 2 lbd2 lbf6 1 3 i.xf6
i.xf6 14 i.h5 and lbde4.

e32) 8 dxe5 !? dxe5 9 lbd5 ! (D) is one of the A critically important move, recommended
few King's Indian Exchange variations that by several leading King's Indian experts as a
creates real problems for Black. Here are a cou good reply to 6 i.g5, especially in conjunction
ple of lines out of many: with 7 .. .'ike8.

e32 l ) 9 ... tLlxe4?! is enterprising but proba I'll examine two moves here:

bly too speculative: after I 0 tLlxc7 'ii'c6 I I tLlxa8 8.21 1: 7 i.d3 1 62 lbxg5 1 2 tLlxg5 h6 1 3 tLlf3 White will ultimately 8.212: 7 tLlf3 1 64 come out a full exchange ahead. Black gets some
counterplay from l 3 ... e4 1 4 lbd4 'ii'c5 !, but 1 5 8.211)

lbb3 "fie 7 1 6 'ii'e2! tLlc6 1 7 l:td 1 retains the
better chances. 7 i.d3 e5

KING'S INDIAN DEFENCE 163

7 .. .'ife8 can develop in various ways; for ex rapid 2007) and now 1 9 :e I would have been
ample, 8 tLlge2 (for 8 lLlf3, see Section 8.2 1 2 1 ) strong. 8 ... e5 ( 8 ... lLld7 9 f4! e5 l O dxe5 dxe5 I I f5 ;!; b) 8 ... tLlc5 9 ..tc2 a5 I 0 tLlge2 !? is a unique

Potapov-Fedorov, Ufa 1 993) 9 0-0 (9 d5 is move-order; White might be aiming for g4 and
more common) 9 ... tLld7 (9 ... tLlh5 l O ..tc2! ;!;; lZJg3 under the right circumstances. After the

9 ... exd4 lO tLlxd4 tLlc5 I I :e l tLlxd3 12 'i!Vxd3 sequence l O ... h6 I I ..te3 c6 1 2 'i�Vd2 'it>h7 (D),

;!; with a dangerous central attack) l O ..tc2 f5?! White has two very different approaches: ( 10 ... exd4 I I tLlxd4 ;!;) I I exf5 gxf5 12 tLld5 ! threatening tLle7+, which will at least secure

the bishop-pair, Stocek-B.Smith, Philadelphia

2009. w

8 d5 (D)

b l ) 1 3 0-0! is a promising move, because

1 3 ... tLlh5?! can be met by 14 dxc6 bxc6 1 5

:act l or 1 4 :act l cxd5 1 5 'iVxd5 ! . So Black
might play 1 3 ... cxd5, when apart from 14 cxd5,

14 exd5 !? looks surprisingly good, as it's hard

8 ..• 'i!Ve8 for Black to undertake a central or kingside ad

As mentioned elsewhere, this queen shuffle vance without overexposing himself. is one of Black's favourite moves versus ..tg5 b2) 1 3 g4 (this position can be reached by
systems. It steps out of the pin on the knight various move-orders; White could have played
while avoiding the weakening ... h6. g4 earlier, for example, avoiding some ... tLlh5
a) 8 ... c6 is an alternative approach: 9 tLlge2 lines) 1 3 ... cxd5, and here two games have gone
cxd5 (9 ... ..td7 l O 0-0 h6 I I ..te3 tLlc5 1 2 ..tc2 14 cxd5 with ultimate success, but 1 4 exd5 !?

cxd5 1 3 cxd5 1 with the idea 1 3 ... a5 1 4 ..txc5 !? would be extremely interesting; for example,
dxc5 1 5 ..ta4 ;!;; 9 ... tLlc5 l 0 ..tc2 cxd5 I I exd5 14 ... ..td7 1 5 0-0-0 ( 1 5 tLlg3 :c8 1 6 0-0 is
transposes) l O exd5 ! . This is an original, seem sound, though White can attack directly by 1 5
ingly anti-positional, way for White to get a real g5 hxg5 1 6 ..txg5, which is probably just un
imbalance out of this line, intending queenside clear, though a nice line is 16 .. .'it>g8?! 17 h4
expansion; e.g., l O ... lZJc5 (after l O ... ..td7, I I 0-0 ..tg4 1 8 h5 ! with the idea 1 8 ... ..txh5? 1 9 :xh5 !

tLlc5 1 2 ..tc2 is normal, but White could also gxh5 20 tLlg3) 1 5 ... :c8 1 6 'it>bl 'iVb6 1 7 f3 fol
grab space with I I a3 tLlc5 1 2 ..tc2 a5 1 3 b4) I I lowed by t'Llg3 and h4-h5 in some order. ..tc2 a5 ( I I .....td7 1 2 b4 tLla6 1 3 a3 :c8 1 4 ..tb3 We now return to the position after 8 .. .'iVe8

;!;) 1 2 0-0 ( 1 2 tLlb5 ;!; is also worth a try) l 2 ... ..td7 (D):

1 3 :bl ( 1 3 tLlg3 'i!Vb6 1 4 :bl ) l 3 ... 'i!Ve8 !? 14 9 t'Llge2 t'Llc5 tt:lg3 h5 (it's hard to find a plan for Black here) Two games continued 9 ... t'Lld7 l O a3 f5 1 1

1 5 ..te3 b6 1 6 f4! ? ( 1 6 :el ! with the idea f4) b4 f4 1 2 f3 ..tf6 1 3 ..txf6 :xf6, when I think

1 6 ... h4 1 7 tLlge2 (or 1 7 fxe5 'i!Vxe5 1 8 .i.f4 'i!Ve7 White merely has to play 14 0-0, because Black

1 9 :e I 'i!Vd8 20 lLlfl and with extra space, will struggle to reorganize; e.g., 1 4 .. .'iVe7 1 5

White's game is easier to play) 1 7 ... exf4 1 8 tLlc 1 :n 1 6 t'Llb3 t'Llf6 and 1 7 'i�Vd2 intending ..txf4 lLlfe4?! (Kazhgaleev-J.Polgar, Calatrava 'i�Vf2 and c5 is natural, but the immediate 17 c5 ! 164 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

White has all the prospects and Black needs a
strategy. In the game Agrest-V.Milov, Frank
w furt rapid 2000, he tried 1 8 ... h6? ! 1 9 �e3 g5

20 'it>f2. This is an example of the kingside be
ing completely closed without Black having
access to f4; generally the pawn-structure d5
versus d6 will ensure that White has some way
to make progress on the queenside. The game
continued 20 ... cxd5 2 1 cxd5 �f6 (to activate
the bishop, ideally on b6 or a5) 22 a3 .l:.c8 23

.l:.hc l .l:.c7 24 'ii'd2 �d8. The players agreed to
a draw at this point, but White is far superior
on the queenside and can play simply 25 b4 ±; for example, 25 ... axb4 (25 ... l"Lla6 can be an
gets a risk-free advantage following 1 7 ... dxc5 swered by 26 �d3 ! or 26 bxa5) 26 axb4 l"Lla6

1 8 �xa6 cxb4 1 9 l"Lla2 ! bxa6 20 l"Llxb4. (26 ... l"Lla4 ?? 27 �xa4 �xa4 28 .l:.xc7 �xc7 29

10 �c2 aS 11 g4!? �xg5 is overwhelming) 27 �d3 .l:.xc 1 28 .l:.xc I

I I 0-0! is not a bad move at all and shows 'it>h7 29 'i!Vc3 with the idea 'iWa3 or b5 ; if
that there are various ways to set up in these Black's bishop is diverted and White's knight
lines. White simply attacks on the queenside; is allowed into f5, it's over. e.g., I I ...'it>h8 1 2 a3 !? a4 1 3 l"Llb5 'iWd7 14 l"Llec3
h6 1 5 �e3 b6 1 6 f3 and 1 7 l"Llxa4. 8.212)

11 •.• l"Llfd7!?

l l ...h5 is well met by 1 2 'iWd2! , but l l ...b6 is 7 l"Llf3 a legitimate alternative. This is more mainstream than 7 �d3, and

12 l"Llg3 also not easy to play against.

Or 1 2 l"Llb5 l"Lla6 1 3 l"Llec3 t. We need one final division here:

12 •.• l"Llb6 13 'ii'e2 �d7 14 h4 l"Llba4!? 15 8.2121: 7 ••• 'iWe8 1 64 l"Llxa4 �xa4 16 b3 �d7 17 h5 c6 8.2122: 7 ••• e5 1 66

1 7 ... b5 1 8 f3 ! has the idea 1 8 ... bxc4? 1 9

'ii'h2 ! f6 20 hxg6 'ii'xg6 2 1 �d2 cxb3 22 axb3 8.2121) with far superior pieces.

18 f3 (D) 7 ••• 'ii'e8 (D)

B w

This is a funny position, as both sides have This is a very popular set-up against 6 �g5.

been making natural moves and nothing special The primary plan is ... e5, when the queen isn't
seemed to be happening, but now suddenly pinned and Black has avoided the potentially

KING 'S INDIAN DEFENCE 165

weakening ... h6. In that case, .. ."iVe8 also has b) 9 ... c6 1 0 .l:!.ei lLlh5 ( I O ... exd4 I I lLlxd4
the subtle point that after ... lLlh5 and ... f5, lLlc5 1 2 ..tc2 lLle6 1 3 lLlxe6 'ifxe6, P.Cramling

Black's h5-knight will be protected in case of Laveryd, Swedish Team Ch 1 998/9, and now 1 4
exf5 and ... gxf5. Finally, Black leaves open the ..tf4 lLle8 1 5 'ifd3 is a simple way to increase the
possibility of other plans such as ... c5. pressure) I I ..tfl h6 ( l l ...lLlf4 1 2 ..txf4 exf4 1 3

S ..td3 �d2) 1 2 ..te3 lLlf4 1 3 c5 ! ( a theme to remember)

This bypasses the deep theory surrounding l 3 ... dxc5 ( 1 3 ... exd4 1 4 ..txf4 dxc3 1 5 ..txd6 ±)

White's best-known move, 8 g4, when apart 14 dxe5 lLle6 1 5 ..txa6 bxa6 l6 lLla4 and Black's
from 8 ... e5 9 d5, Black can play 8 ... c5. The al pawns are too weak. ternative that stays within our repertoire is 8 c) 9 ... lLlh5 (D) is logical and consistent with ..te2 e5 9 d5, transposing to Section 8.2I 22 (i.e. ... 'ife8, but doesn't appear to have been ana

7 ... e5 8 d5 �e8 9 ..te2). lysed.

8 ... e5

8 ... c5?! 9 d5 doesn't work well with the

queen on e8 in view of 9 ... e6 1 0 0-0 exd5 I I
exd5; e.g., l l ...lLlc7 1 2 l:tel 'ii'd7 1 3 �d2 with w the idea 'ii'f4.

8 ... c6 is better motivated. Then the game

Szilagyi-B.Szabo, Hungarian Team Ch 2008/9
went 9 �d2 (9 0-0 e5 transposes to note 'b' to

Black's 9th move below) 9 ... e5 1 0 0-0 tLld7 I 1
d5 f6 1 2 ..th4!? t.

9 0-0 (D)

White maintains the tension because 9 d5
gives Black more counterp1ay after 9 ... lLlc5

(9 ... lLlh5 ! ?) 1 0 ..tc2 a5.

Now 1 0 lLld5 !? is wild and rather unclear,
but White seems able to get a small advantage

B with calmer moves:

c l ) 1 0 'ii'd2 f5? ( I O ... exd4 l l lLlb5 ..td7 12
lLlbxd4 lLlc5 13 l:tael ;!:;) I I exf5 gxf5 (Akes son-Shulman, Stockholm 1 998/9) 1 2 l:tae I ! ± has the idea 1 2 ... e4? 1 3 lLlxe4 fxe4 1 4 ..txe4,
winning; e.g., 1 4 ... 'iti>h8 1 5 ..txh7 'ii'f7 16 l:te7.

c2) I 0 ..te3 is probably the best continua
tion: I O ... f5?! ( I O ... lLlf4 I I ..txf4 exf4 1 2 1Wd2
c5 1 3 d5 ..te5 14 lLle2; IO ... exd4 I I lLlxd4 ;!:;) I I exf5 gxf5 1 2 c5 ! e4 1 3 ..tc4+ ..te6 1 4 d5 ..tc8 1 5
lLlg5 ! f4 1 6 ..td4 ..txd4 1 7 �xd4 lLlxc5 1 8 b4 t.

10 lLlxd4 lLlc5

9 •.• exd4 1 0 . . h6 I I ..te3 lLlc5 1 2 ne I lLlfd7 1 3 ..tc2

Or: lLle5 14 b3 ;!:; Jovanic-Zufic, Rabac 2003.

a) 9 ... lLld7 10 ..tc2!? h6 ( I O ... lLlb6 1 1 b3 exd4 11 l:te1! lLle6

I 2 lLlxd4 'ii'e5 1 3 ..te3) 1 1 ..te3 c6 ( l l ...exd4 1 2 l l ...lLlxd3 1 2 'i!i'xd3 with the idea lLld5 or f4
lLlxd4 lLlb4 1 3 ..t b I lLlb6 1 4 b3 lLlc6 I 5 lLlde2 ;!:;) is difficult for Black to meet; probably l 2 ... h6

1 2 l:te l ( 1 2 d5 t; 12 'ii'd2! 'iti>h7 13 l:tadl ±) 1 3 ..tf4 lLld7 is best, leading to 14 'i!i'd2 lLle5 1 5

12 .. ."�e7 1 3 'i¥d2 'iti>h7 (Ehlvest-Ye Jiangchuan, b 3 'iti>h7 16 l:tad l t. Biel lnterzonal I 993) and now was a good mo 12 ..te3 lLlh5?! 13 lLlf5! ment to play 14 d5 !, with a substantial advan Threatening to exchange the dark-squared
tage. bishop. Laketic-Piscopo, Gallipoli 2000 went 166 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

1 3 ... �e5 14 �h6 lbhg7 ( 1 4 ... lbef4 1 5 lbd5 !

lbxd5 1 6 exd5 ), and here 1 5 lbd5 ! 'iVd8 16 f4
would have put a lot of pressure on Black. B

8.2122)

7 ... e5 (D)

w

l:tad I l:te8 1 3 �f4 ( 1 3 lbb3; 1 3 b3 a6 1 4 lbde2)

1 3 ... 'iVe7 1 4 l:tfe l lbd7 1 5 'iVe3 and Black is
still tied down.

c2) I O ... h6 and now I I �e3 .:te8 ( l l ...'iVe8
transposes to the note to Black's l Oth move in

Section 8.2 1 2 1 ) 1 2 f3 looks strange because of
the hole on g3, but here it doesn't hurt White;
e.g., l 2 ... lbh5 1 3 'i!id2 lbg3 14 l:tfd l �e5 1 5

8 d5 .i.c2 h5 1 6 'iVf2 h4 17 f4 �g7 1 8 e5 ! ; alter

This is an obvious advance, but 8 �d3 seems nately, I I .tf4 makes sense. to afford White real chances for a moderate ad c3) I O ... l:te8 1 1 .:tel h6 1 2 �f4 liJfd7 (or
vantage. This has hardly been played at all, yet l 2 ... lbxd3 1 3 'iVxd3 �e6 14 l:tad l lbd7 1 5 b3)

in most of the few games White has had the 1 3 �fl a5 14 'iVd2 lbf6 ( 14 ... 'it>h7 1 5 lbdb5) 1 5
better position, and it's easy to improve on the f3 'it>h7 1 6 lbdb5 ! lbh5 1 7 �h2 with the better
others. Let me go through some possibilities game for White. and leave you to take it from there: White isn't getting substantial advantages in
a) 8 ... h6 9 �e3 exd4 and now 1 0 lbxd4 lbc5 these lines, but he does exert annoying pressure

I I 0-0 transposes to line 'c2', but I 0 �xd4 is an on Black. extra idea for Black to deal with. We now return to 8 d5 (D):

b) 8 ... c6 and here 9 d5 lbc5 10 �c2 a5 I I

0-0 is a typical �d3 position, while 9 0-0 is also
possible.

c) 8 ... exd4 9 lbxd4 lbc5 (9 ... l:te8 I 0 0-0 B lbc5 I I .:tel is the basic idea; if l l ...h6, 1 2

�c I ! is most interesting) I 0 0-0 (D) and now Black has these natural moves:

c I ) I O ... lbxd3 I I 'ii'xd3 is a Maroczy Bind
like clamp with Black having the bishop-pair, a
situation familiar from lines in several openings
including the Hedgehog. One difference is that

White has got rid of his bad bishop, which is
less of a drawback. It's difficult for Black to
free himself completely; e.g., l l ... c6?! ( l l ... h6
can be met by 12 �h4 i or 1 2 �f4, while

I I ...l:te8 offers White a choice between 1 2 8 ... 'iVe8
l:tfel !, 1 2 l:tad l or even 1 2 lbd5 !? c6 1 3 lbxf6+ This queen move is the favourite of several

�xf6 1 4 �xf6 'iVxf6 1 5 .:tad I with an edge) 1 2 important King's Indian players, and this is

KING 'S INDIAN DEFENCE 167

currently an important position for h3 theory as c) 9 ... �h8 offers White a pleasant choice.

a whole. If you face a strong opponent, you can l 0 ltJd2 is good, while I 0 a3 ltJc5 I I tt:'ld2 may
count upon him to know a fair amount about it. be better still, when 1 1 ...a5 ( l l .....td7 12 0-0)

Now 9 g4 has been analysed to death; theory 1 2 b4 axb4 1 3 axb4 .l:txal 14 'ifxal lDa6 1 5
shifts back and forth between ';;!;;' and '=' . The 'ifa3 favours White. The attempt to block the
problem is that Black has so many options, queenside by 1 5 ... c5 can be answered by 1 6
some of them very messy. And you may not be dxc6 ( 1 6 bxc5 lDxc5 1 7 0-0 with l1b 1 and lDb3
fond enough of moves like 8 �d3 to let them or lDa4 is pretty good too) 16 ... bxc6 and now
deter you from more standard structures. Fortu 1 7 0-0 with the idea 17 ... ltJc7 1 8 b5 is a small
nately, there's a promising alternative, namely improvement on 17 b5 lDc5 !, as played in the

9 ..te2. game lvanisevic-Vogt, Swiss Team Ch 2007.

Before we get to that, notice that instead of d) 9 ... tt:'ld7 (D) is one of Black's most popu 8 ... 'ife8, 8 ... h6 9 ..te3 transposes to 8.22. And lar approaches, with the idea of ... ltJdc5 and

8 ... ltJc5?! loses time to 9 b4 lDa6 1 0 a3, which ... f5. restricts Black's knight to the side of the board
a tempo. Then 1 0 ... c5 is best countered by 1 1 l:.b1 with the upper hand; e.g., 1 1 ...h6 1 2 ..te3

lDh5 1 3 'ifd2 �h7 ( l 3 ... lDf4 14 g3 'iff6! 1 5 w lDgl ! b6 1 6 .l:tb3 ± ) 1 4 ..td3 f5 1 5 exf5 gxf5 1 6 g4! e4 1 7 lDxe4 fxe4 1 8 ..txe4+ �g8 1 9 gxh5 ±.

9 ..te2 (D)

B

From White's point of view, the knight's dis
appearance from the kingside means that there
are fewer defenders in that sector, and also that
attacking ideas such as ... lDh5 aren't available.

Accordingly, the following two suggestions:

d l ) lO g4 should be sufficient for a small
advantage simply on the basis ofterritorial con

9 ••• tt:'lh5 trol: 1 0 ... �h8 ( l O ... ltJdc5 I I a3 f5 1 2 lDd2! h6

There are various alternatives, but nothing 1 3 ..th4 g5 14 ..tg3 ;;!;; with the idea 14 ... f4 1 5
too difficult to cope with: ..th2 ltJd7 1 6 f3 'ii'e7 1 7 ..t g l and White's
a) 9 ... ..td7 is often met by 1 0 g4, but an eas queenside attack proceeds naturally) I I 'ii'd2
ier course is 1 0 ltJd2 h6 1 1 ..te3 lDh7 1 2 g4 f5 ( I I a3 f5 1 2 lDd2 also gives White the better of

1 3 gxf5 gxf5 1 4 exf5 ..txf5 1 5 ..tg4 ;;!;; ( 1 5 .l:tgl ) it; Black has no clear plan) and now:

1 5 ... 'ifg6 1 6 ..txf5 'ifxf5 1 7 'ii'g4! with control d l l ) 1 1 ...f5 1 2 gxf5 gxf5 1 3 .l:tgl f4?! (or
of e4. 1 3 ... fxe4 1 4 ..th6 .l:tg8 1 5 ltJxe4 ;;!;;) 14 0-0-0
b) After 9 ... tt:'lc5, 1 0 "ii'c2 is a familiar set ltJdc5 1 5 �bl .l:tg8 1 6 ..th4 lDb4 1 7 .l:tg2 ± with up, but preventing ... lDh5 by l 0 tt:'ld2 is just as the idea .l:tdg l , when 1 7 ... ..txh3 1 8 .l:th2 just
good; e.g., 1 0 ... a5 1 1 0-0 h6 1 2 �e3 'ife7 and makes things worse. now 1 3 a3 b6 1 4 b4 gave White a considerable d 1 2) l l ...ltJdc5 1 2 0-0-0 f5 1 3 gxf5 gxf5 14
advantage in Boehme-Krebs, corr. 1 992. If the lldg l l:lg8 ! ( 1 4 ... f4? ! releases the pressure;
pawn sacrifice 1 3 ... a4 bothers you, 1 3 b3 is suf White can arrange to move his knight from f3
ficient. and play ..tg4, and he can also play directly: 1 5 168 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

l:th2 'il'f7 1 6 lthg2 �d7 1 7 'i!Vd 1 ! l:tg8 1 8 li:ld2 10 ... f5 ±) I S exfS ( I S �h6 is another approach) I O ... f6!? has been chosen by leading players I S ... �xfS 1 6 lilh4 �d7 1 7 l:tg3 e4 1 8 l:thgl and is considered more sophisticated; if noth
with an attack. ing else, it reduces White's options. I think that
d2) 10 li:ld2 (D), with 0-0 in mind, is a safe White retains a small but definite advantage
alternative (Black has no pieces on the king following 1 1 �e3 ( 1 1 �d2! ? fS 1 2 lilh4 is an
side) and provides a slight advantage: interesting possibility) l l .. .fS 1 2 exfS ! gxfS 1 3
lilh4 ( 1 3 ltJgS ! ? lilf6 1 4 'i!Vd2 li:lcS l S �xeS

dxcS 1 6 0-0-0 is double-edged) 1 3 ... lilf6 1 4

"fid2 liJcS ( 14 .. . f4? can be met b y l S gxf4 exf4

B 1 6 �d4! with the idea 1 6 ... lile4? 1 7 lilxe4

"fixe4 1 8 l:tg 1 l:tf7 1 9 0-0-0 +-) l S 0-0-0 ( I S

"fic2 and l S �xeS dxcS 1 6 'i!VgS !? both slightly
favour White) 1 S ... lilfe4 1 6 lilxe4 lilxe4 and
now 1 7 'i!Vc2 is a rather surprising transpositio:1
to note 'a' to Black's 1 3th move below (the po
sition after 16 �e3), where White is a little
better.

11 exf5!

This is a logical way to destabilize Black's
position.

l l ... gxf5
d2 1 ) I O .. .fS I I exfS liJdcS ( l l ...gxfS? 1 2 l l ...e4 1 2 lilh4 and now 1 2 ... e3?! 1 3 �xhS �hS ! ±) 1 2 f6! �xf6 1 3 �xf6 l:txf6 1 4 0-0 e4 exf2++ 1 4 'ittxf2 gxhS l S l:tel ± F.Schmidt ( 1 4 ... �fS I S a3) l S a3 e3 1 6 lilf3 ! exf2+ 1 7 Klewe, corr. 1 990. 1 2 ... lilcS is an improve
l:txf2 'i!Ve3 1 8 'i!Vc I 'i!Vxc 1 + 1 9 l:txc 1 with a ment, but White still keeps the upper hand with healthy positional advantage for White. 1 3 0-0 or 1 3 �e3.

d22) l O ... li:ldcS 1 1 0-0 ( I I a3 is still a good 12 lilh4 lilf6 (D)

move) l l ...fS 1 2 a3 !? (the standard plan in con
junction with 0-0; b4 cannot be prevented)

12 ... f4 ( 12 ... h6 1 3 �h4 gS I 4 �g3 f4 1 S �h2 ;!;)

13 f3 �f6! (before White plays �h4-f2) 14 w

�xf6 ltxf6 1 S b4 li:ld7 1 6 l:tc l and White has cS,
which is the only thing going at the moment.

10 g3! (D)

1 like this best. White can also play simply

I 0 0-0 with the idea of a3.

B

13 'i!Vc2 This is the most popular and ambitious move.

1 3 g4!? should give a very limited advan-
tage; for example, 1 3 ... lile4! ( 1 3 ... f4 14 lilfS

�xfS 1 S gxfS 'i!Vd7 1 6 �xf6 l:txf6 17 lile4

'i!VxfS ! 1 8 �d3 ! ;!;) 14 lilxe4 fxe4 l S 'i!Vd2 lilcS
and here 1 6 0-0 was alright in Zubarev-Bojkov,

Greek Team Ch. Kallithea 2008. but 16 �e3

KING 'S INDIAN DEFENCE 169

favours White slightly because of the weak e a) 17 ... ..td7 1 8 g4! fxg4 1 9 hxg4 lt::lxg4 20
pawn. ..txc5 dxc5 2 1 ..txg4 ..txg4 22 f3 ..td7 23 0-0-0

13 ••• l2Jb4 with good pieces and some kingside chances.

This is the main move, but players have dif b) 1 7 ... a4 1 8 0-0-0 lt::lb3+ 1 9 �bl ;\;. ferent opinions at this point: c) 17 ... e4 1 8 lt::lg2 a4 1 9 0-0-0 lt::lfd7 20 lt::lf4
a) 1 3 ... l2Jc5 can be met by 14 ..te3 with a (20 lt::lb5 11i'd8 2 1 �bl ;!; and lt::lf4) 20 ... lt::le5 2 1
slight advantage (compare the note to Black's g4 �h8?! (2 l ... lt::lg6 22 lt::lh5 ;\;) 22 �b1 lt::lg6 23

1 6th move below). More ambitious is 14 0-0-0 lt::lh5 ..te5 24 gxf5 ..txf5 25 lt::lg3 ;!; Mched
l2Jce4 1 5 lLlxe4 lLlxe4 1 6 ..te3 ;!; (a position also lishvili-Akshat, Ravana 2009. relevant to the 1 0 .. .f6 ! ? line cited above) and d) 1 7 ... b6 (anticipating ..txc5) 1 8 0-0-0 a4
now: 1 9 �b1 and instead of 19 ... l:tb8?! (as played in
a1 ) 16 ... c6?! 1 7 g4 cxd5 (I.Ivanisevic-Haus Kacheishvili-Smirin, Minneapolis 2005, when
rath, Biel 2008) 1 8 l:txd5 ! is extremely strong 20 g4! and other moves are good), Avrukh sug
for White due to the line 1 8 ... ..te6 1 9 .l:tdd I d5 20 gests 1 9 ... lt::lb3. Nevertheless, 20 lt::lb5 (or 20
l2Jxf5 ! . l:thgl ) 20 .. .'�e7 2 1 ..tg5 ! e4 22 l:thg l is excel
a2) 1 6 ... 11i'e7 ! stops g4, but 1 7 ..td3 still lent for White. leaves White with the better game. 17 0-0-0!?

b) 1 3 ... e4 14 0-0-0 (good, but 14 0-0! with Or 17 0-0 intending lt::lg2-f4. the idea of lLlg2 is simply better for White) 17 ••• ..td7 18 l:thg1 lt::lc5 19 �b1

14 ... l2Jd7 ( 14 ... l2Jc5 1 5 lLlb5 "ikf7 and now 1 6 1 9 ..te3 ! is a good alternative . ..te3 ..td7 1 7 l2Jd4! gives White a nice advan 19 ••• l:tb8 tage, while he can also choose 1 6 �b1 and 1 7 1 9 ... lt::la4 is met by 20 lt::lb5. l2Jd4) 1 5 lLlg2?! (objectively, 1 5 �b1 !, with the 20 g4! fxg4 21 hxg4 idea 1 5 ... l2Je5 1 6 ltJg2, is a superior move- White has a clear advantage. Bregadze-Lias order) 1 5 ... lt::le5 ( 1 5 ... lt::lb4!) 1 6 ..te3 ( 1 6 lt::lf4 ;\;) kovsky, European Under- 1 6 Ch, Herceg Novi

1 6 ... lt::lc5 1 7 lt::lf4 ..td7 ( 1 7 ... lt::la6?!, Arutinian 2008 continued 2 l ...lt::ld3?! 22 l:txd3 ! exd3 23

G.Gutman, Cappelle Ia Grande 2007, 1 8 �bl ..txd3 l:tf7, when 24 lt::lf5 would have been vir

..td7 1 9 g4!) 1 8 �b1 (or 1 8 g4 lt::lg6! 1 9 lt::lh5 ;\;) tually winning, since 24 ... ..txf5 25 ..txf5 h6 26

1 8 ... a6 ( 1 8 ... lt::la4?! 19 lt::lb5 ! ± Avrukh) 1 9 lt::lh5 ! ..td2 is hopeless for Black . ..th8 20 ..txc5 ! dxc5 2 1 g4 ;!; gives White an at
tack that is difficult to counter. 8.22)

14 'iVb3 aS 15 a3 lt::la6 16 'iVc2 (D)

6 ••• h6 Black does the most obvious thing and kicks

back the bishop. He hopes that ... h6 will be
more of an asset than a liability.

7 ..te3 e5 8 d5 (D)

B

16 .•• e4

1 6 ... lt::lc5 is the theoretical move, but White
stands better after 1 7 ..te3 !. None of Black's re
sponses is attractive:

170 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

8 ••• t:ba6 8.221)

Or:

a) 8 ... lbbd7 9 tbf3 a5 is essentially the same, 9 ... t:bc5 (D) for our purposes, as line 'b', as after I 0 ..te2 or

I 0 'ii'c2, Black has nothing better than I O ... t:bc5.

b) 8 ... a5 9 t:bf3 t:ba6 (D) and then:

w

w

10 'ii'c2 This is the same rare move that I recommend
in the 6 ..te3 system. Importantly, what follows
b l ) 1 0 ..te2 tbc5 and here 1 1 t:bd2 is an old can also occur via the move-order 5 ... e5 6 d5 main line, which is worth a glance: l l ...t:be8 lbbd7 7 ..tg5 h6 8 ..te3 tbc5 9 'ii'c2 a5 1 0 tbf3

( 1 1 .. .c6 1 2 0-0; 1 1 ... t:bfd7 1 2 0-0 f5 1 3 exf5 0-0. As playing 'ii'c2 versus 5 ... e5 or 5 ... lbbd7
gxf5 1 4 lbb3 b6 =; l l ... t:bh7 1 2 lbb3 ! ?) 1 2 is hard to avoid anyway, learning this position
h4! ? ( 1 2 0-0 f5 1 3 exf5 gxf5 1 4 f4 'fke7 is solves two problems at once. I like 1 0 'ii'c2 for a about equal) 1 2 ... f5 1 3 h5 t:ba6 14 f3 f4 1 5 few other reasons, the same ones as I outlined

..tf2 g5 with a mixed outlook. More important with 9 'ii'c2 in the corresponding 6 ..te3 section
with respect to our repertoire is that 1 1 'ii'c2 is (i.e. 8. 1 1 1 ). The variations with the approved
a good move (with the idea l l ...t:bh5 1 2 g3). move 1 0 t:bd2 are highly theoretical, and they

This transposes to Section 8.22 1 . will probably be at least partially memorized
b2) 1 0 'ii'c2 is arguably even more accurate. by knowledgeable King's Indian players, so

I'll discuss the position after 1 0 ... t:bc5 via the this move may throw your opponent off. As in
move-order 8 ... t:ba6 9 tbf3 tbc5 1 0 'ii'c2 a5 in the 6 ..te3 lines, 1 0 'ii'c2 either doesn't appear

Section 8.22 1 . (or barely does so) in most sources, and it pro

9 t:bf3 vides some much-needed fresh material. With

Now the material splits into: 1 0 'ii'c2, there are also fewer difficult tactical

8.221: 9 . .. t:bc5 1 70 situations to memorize; the knight on f3 delays

8.222: 9 ... t:bh5 1 72 some of Black's more radical attempts.

Having said all that, you may find that you

9 ... c6 is often played in this and related posi don't like something about 1 0 'ii'c2, so I want to
tions, but generally gives White as many squares make a few brief and incomplete suggestions
to work with as Black; for example, 1 0 t:bd2 ( 1 0 about 1 0 t:bd2, after which White also has fair

..te2 is also fine) 1 0 ... t:bh7 !? ( 1 0 . . t:be8 1 1 g4!? chances for advantage. In any case, these lines
has the idea I 1 .. .f5 1 2 gxf5 gxf5 13 exf5 ..txf5 are characteristic of 5 h3 as a whole:

14 t:bde4 'ii'h4 1 5 .:!.g 1 ! ;!;) 1 1 g4 f5 1 2 gxf5 gxf5 a) 1 0 ... ..td7 1 1 b4 t:ba6 1 2 a3 ;!; restricts the

1 3 exf5 ..txf5 1 4 t:bde4 ( 1 4 dxc6 bxc6 1 5 t:bde4 knight on a6. ;!; is also good but not as clear) 1 4 ... t:bf6 (J.Wat b) 1 0 ... lbh5 1 1 b4 t:ba6 1 2 a3 is more com
son-Dzindzichashvili, Philadelphia 1 996) and plex, but still to White's liking; e.g., 1 2 ... 'ii'e8
now White had simply 1 5 ..tg2! with a signifi 1 3 c5 f5 14 cxd6 cxd6 1 5 lbb5 or 1 5 t:bc4, and
cant advantage. there are other ways to proceed.

KING 'S INDIAN DEFENCE 171

c) 1 0 ... a5 (D) is almost always played.

w

w

i..d2 l:ta8 25 .i.d3 l:tc8 26 'ii'd I with the power
ful idea f4-f5, Poluliakhov-J.Watson, New

Amidst the crowded traffic of moves and York 1 996. transpositions, I' II cover a few typical lines, to Let's return to I 0 'ii'c2: give you a starting point for further investiga lO ... aS (D) tion. First, I I .i.e2 transposes to note 'bl ' to

Black's 8th move in Section 8.22. I should also

mention that I I 'ilfc2 does pretty well even a
move late, with the idea I I .. .luh5 1 2 g3, which w implies that I 0 �c2 a5 I I tt::ld2 isn't bad either!

See the next note. White has a couple of other
ways to continue:

c l ) I I a3 tt::le8 ( l l ...c6 12 b4 axb4 1 3 axb4

.l:ha l 14 'ii'xal tt::la6 1 5 �a3 ;\;; I I ...tt::lfd7 ! ? 1 2 b4 f5 1 3 f3 , when I suspect that White stands a
bit better) 12 b4 axb4 1 3 axb4 1ha1 1 4 'ii'xal
and now 14 ... tt::la6 15 'ii'a3 f5 or 14 ... tt::ld7 15 c5
f5 1 6 c6 ;\;.

c2) After 1 1 g4, extremely dense theory ex
ists on half a dozen possibilities. The most-in
vestigated line is undoubtedly l l ...c6 ( l l ...tt::lh7 11 i..e2 is well met by 1 2 h4! b6 1 3 h5, when l 3 ... g5? I I tt::ld2 is a position that can arise from 1 0

14 f3 gives White all the time in the world to tt::ld2 a5 I I 'ii'c2. As mentioned above, i t i s a
break through on the queenside; this is a typical perfectly good move with prospects of advan
position that White aims for in the h3 lines, al tage; e.g., l l ... c6 (hoping to work on the c-file
though Black seldom allows it) 1 2 .i.e2 .i.d7 1 3 to embarrass the white queen; I I ...tt::lh5 12 g3
h4 a4 ( 1 3 ... tt::lh7 !? 1 4 h5 tt::lg5) 1 4 g5 hxg5 1 5 b6 1 3 i..e2 tt::lf6 14 g4! ;\; has the idea g5 or, if
hxg5 tt::lh7 16 l:tgl 'ii'a5 (D). the f6-knight moves, h4; compare the main line

This position has arisen many times, also via below) 12 .i.e2 i..d7 13 0-0 ;\;, and here Black
the Petrosian System of the King's Indian. For should avoid the positional trick 1 3 ... cxd5?! 14
instance, 17 l:tb I ! ( 17 'iib I .U.fb8!? 1 8 f3 .i.f8 1 9 i..xc5 ! dxc5 1 5 cxd5, when White conquers the

�f2 i..e7 with chances for both sides) 1 7 .. . cxd5 queenside light squares. ( 1 7 ... l:tfb8 1 8 l:tg3 ! i..f8 1 9 �fl il..e7 20 �g2 l l. .. tt::lh5 'iVd8 2 1 tt::lf3 ;\;) 1 8 tt::lxd5 ! 'ii'd8 (remarkably, In principle, this should be the problem with

1 8 ... tt::lxe4 1 9 tt::le7+ �h8 20 i..g4 tt::lxd2 21 'ii'c2, but ... f5 doesn't prove that dangerous: �xd2 favours White) 1 9 .l:!.g3 ! l:ta6 20 �fl i..c6 12 g3 b6 2 1 'ii'c2 tt::le6 22 tt::lf3 tt::ld4 23 tt::lxd4! exd4 24 Or 1 2 .. .f5. and now:

172 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

a) 1 3 li:::lh4!? lLlf4 (forced) 1 4 i.xc5 dxc5 1 5

0-0-0 lLlxe2 + 1 6 � xe2 :a6 1 7 lLlf3 doesn't
give either side much to do, but White can try to w scare something up with lLlel -d3.

b) 1 3 lLld2 maintains an edge: 13 ... lLla6 (or

1 3 ... lLlf6 14 i.xc5 dxc5 15 0-0-0 ;!; with the idea
of exf5 and g4; this isn't much, but Black
doesn't have any obvious plan) 14 exf5 i.xf5

15 lLlde4 lLlf6 1 6 f3 ! ? b6 1 7 0-0-0 lbc5 1 8 g4 ;!;,

13 0-0-0 i.d7 14 tLld2 lLlf6 15 g4 (D)

B
a) 1 0 a3 is the move I recommended in the
analogous section with 6 i.e3 (i.e. 8.1 1 2). It is
supposed to be answered by 1 0 ... f5 1 1 b4 c5,
but then 12 dxc6 bxc6 1 3 'i!Va4 looks good, with
the idea 1 3 ... i.b7 1 4 c5 ! or 1 3 ... f4 1 4 i.d2
lLlb8 ! ? 1 5 c5 dxc5 1 6 'i*'c2! cxb4 1 7 axb4, when

White's compensation is obvious, having :as,
lLla4-c5, i.c4 and other active moves in store.

You can see similar lines in the 6 i.e3 section.

b) 1 0 g3 may also yield a small advantage;
e.g., 1 0 ... 'i*'e8 ( 1 0 .. .f5 1 1 exf5 gxf5 1 2 'i*'d2 f4

White has achieved the standard position 1 3 gxf4 tLlxf4 1 4 _:g 1 ) 1 1 i.e2 f5? 1 2 exf5 gxf5
and should have the better chances; e.g., 1 5 ... a4 l 3 lLlh4 lLlf6 1 4 'i*'d2! ;!;, 1 6 g5 hxg5 1 7 i.xg5 c6 1 8 h4 with good attack We now return to 10 'i*'d2 (D): ing prospects. A natural continuation is 1 8 ... a3 !?

(18 ... cxd5 ! 1 9 lLlxd5 lLle6 20 i.xf6 i.xf6 2 1 h5

;!;) 19 b4 lLla6, but 20 h5 ! is strong: 20 ... �b8

(20 ... lLlxb4?? 2 I 'ii'b3 c5 22 h6 i.h8 23 h7+) 2 1 B hxg6 lLlxb4 22 'ii'b3 c5 2 3 gxf7+ :xf7 24 :dg l

±.

8.222)

9 .•• lLlh5 (D)

This is a position that we've seen before in
the 6 i.e3 section without ... h6. It is generally
considered favourable for White to have ... h6
included, in part because he can target h6 with
tempo by 'i*'d2, and in part because g6 becomes
weak when .. .f5 is played. 10 .•. 'it>h7

10 'i!Vd2 After 1 0 ... lLlf4 1 1 g3 g5 !? ( l l ...lLlh5 1 2

White decides to take direct advantage of i.xh6), the knight cannot be maintained on f4
the move ... h6. This is straightforward and ap indefinitely; for example, 1 2 h4 (or 1 2 0-0-0
parently strong. Nevertheless, there are some lLlh5 !? 1 3 i.e2 lLlf6 14 g4 lLlc5 15 i.xc5 dxc5
promising alternatives, which could be inves 1 6 'it>b1 b6 1 7 :dgl 'i!Ve7 1 8 h4 and Black is in
tigated if for some reason I 0 'i*'d2 fails to trouble) 1 2 ... f6 ( 1 2 .. .f5 1 3 hxg5 hxg5 14 0-0-0
please: with the idea lLlxg5) 1 3 lLlh2 'i*'e8 14 0-0-0 it' g6

KING 'S INDIAN DEFENCE 173

1 5 f3 lbh5 1 6 l:.g l ..td7 1 7 f4! with a decisive 1 6 ... ..td7 1 7 g5 hxg5 1 8 lbxg5 'fi/e7 1 9 h4 l:.g8
attack for White. 20 l:.e I 'fi/f8 2 1 ..th3 +- with the especially

11 0-0-0! cruel idea 2 l .....txh3 22 'fi/g6 ! .

Strangely, I I g4? has been played in most of c ) 1 3 ... lbf6 1 4 gxf5 ..txf5 1 5 ..td3 'it'd7 1 6
the games in this line, although after l l ... lbf4!, lbh4 ..txd3 1 7 'it'xd3+ �g8 1 8 l:.dg I e4 1 9 'file2

Black has done well. He will clearly have a lot �h7 20 l:.g6 l:.f7 2 1 ..td4 l:.e8 22 l:.hgl and
of compensation if White dares to capture twice White's attack crashes through. on f4. 14 hxg4 ..txg4 (D)

ll ... fS?!

This is too loosening. 1 1 .. . ..td7 is more cau

tious, when White can kick the h5-knight by 1 2
lbel 'fi/e7 1 3 ..te2 (D). w

B

Now White has a very pleasant choice of
ways to pursue his attack:

a) 1 5 ..te2! is relatively complex, but virtu
ally winning. A couple of rather pretty lines:

This position favours White; for example, 1 5 ... ..txf3 1 6 ..txf3 lbf4 1 7 l:.dg I lbc5 1 8

1 3 ... lbf4 ( 1 3 ... lbf6 1 4 g4 lbc5 1 5 f3 a5 1 6 h4 ..te4+ ! lbxe4 1 9 lbxe4 �h8 20 lbg5 'ii'f6 2 1
lba4 1 7 h5 ! g5 1 8 �b I and White should even lbe6 l:.f7 22 lbxf4! exf4 23 ..td4 ! and 1 5 ... l:.xf3
tually win on the queenside; a major advantage 1 6 l:.dg I ! l:.xe3 1 7 fxe3 ..txe2 1 8 'ii'xe2 lbf6 1 9
of the h3 systems is that a locked kingside is 'ii'g2 'ii'e7 20 lbe4 l:.f8 2 1 �g6+ �h8 22 lbg5
very often to White's great benefit) 14 ..tf3 f5 'ii'e8 23 l:.xh6+ �g8 24 lbe6 'filxg6 25 l:.hxg6

1 5 g3 lbxh3 ( 1 5 ... fxe4 1 6 lbxe4 lbh5 1 7 ..txh5 +-. gxh5 1 8 lbg2 ! ..tf5 1 9 f3 and lbh4 follows, with b) After the simpler 1 5 lbg5+, the attack tri
or without a capture on e4) 1 6 exf5 gxf5 1 7 umphs as follows: 15 ... hxg5 ( 1 5 ... �g8 1 6 lbe6

..tg2 f4 1 8 ..txh3 fxe3 1 9 'ii'xe3 with a clear po i..xe6 1 7 dxe6 lbf4 1 8 lbd5 ! lbxe6 1 9 ..th3 and
sitional advantage for White. Black's position has fallen apart) 1 6 ..te2! l:.f3

12 exfS gxfS 13 g4! 1 7 l:.dgl 'ii'd7 ( 1 7 ... l:.xe3 loses immediately to

In the intensely strategic battlefield of these 1 8 fxe3) 1 8 lbe4! �g8 1 9 lbxg5 'ii'f5 20 lbxf3
systems, it's a pleasure to see 0-0-0 and a clas ..txf3 2 1 :g5 'fi/f7 22 ..txf3 'ii'xf3 23 l:.hxh5.

sic sacrificial attack! White has multiple threats and even a material

13 ... fxg4 advantage.

There's nothing better:

a) 1 3 ... lbf4 14 ..txf4 exf4 15 ..td3 lbc5 1 6 8.23} ..tc2 ± J.Costa-Watanabe, Maringa (team event)

1 99 1 . 6 ..• c5
b ) 1 3 .. . f4 1 4 'ii'c2+ �h8 1 5 i..d2 ±; for ex- We saw this against 6 i..e3, and will pursue a ample, 1 5 ... lbf6 16 l:.gl ( 1 6 g5? ! lbh7 1 7 h4 similar approach, although the details differ

..tg4 1 8 gxh6 ..txh6 1 9 lbg5 ..tf5 20 lbce4 significantly. lbc5 2 1 ..td3 offers White just a slight edge) 7 dS (D)

1 74 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

b2) 1 1 ..td3 ! lLlfd7 ( l l ...c4 12 ..tc2 lLlfd7

can be met by 1 3 J:tbl 'iVc5 1 4 ..te3 �b4 15

B lLlge2 or 13 lLlge2 lLlc5 14 0-0 with the idea

1 4 ... lLlbd7 1 5 a5 ! axb5 1 6 lLla4) 12 tLlf3 c4 1 3

..tc2 (D) and here:

B

7 .•. e6
a) 7 ... a6 8 a4 (8 tLlf3 b5 9 ..td3 is also good)

8 ... e6 9 ..td3 exd5 and now I 0 exd5 resembles
our main line, but the insertion of these a-pawn
moves will generally favour White. For I 0 cxd5,
see Section I 0. 1 on the Modern Benoni.

b) 7 ... b5 is a fairly respectable version of the b2 1 ) 1 3 ... 'i¥xb2 14 J:tb l 'i¥a3 1 5 lLle2 lLlc5

Benko Gambit, although I think White keeps 1 6 0-0 c3 ( 1 6 ... ..tb2? 1 7 J:txb2! 'i¥xb2 1 8 ..tc3
the advantage following 8 cxb5 a6 9 a4 �a5 'i¥a2 1 9 'i¥d2 with a killing attack; 1 6 ... lLld3 1 7

(9 ... h6 I 0 ..te3 'i¥a5 1 1 ..td2 e6 is a different b6!) 1 7 ..te 1 axb5 1 8 axb5 lLlbd7 1 9 lLlfd4 ±.

strategy, but 12 ..tc4!? 'iVd8?! 1 3 dxe6 is very b22) 1 3 ... lLlc5 1 4 lLle2 ! (or 1 4 0-0 'ili'xb2 1 5
strong in view of 1 3 .. .fxe6 14 tLlf3, threatening J:tb1 'i¥a3 1 6 lLle2 c3 1 7 ..te3) 14 .. .'iWxb2 1 5
e5, or 1 3 ... ..txe6 14 ..txe6 fxe6 1 5 lLlf3 d5 1 6 J:tbl 'i¥a3 1 6 0-0 lLlb3 1 7 ..txb3 cxb3 1 8 b6!

exd5 exd5 17 0-0 d4 1 8 lLle2 with the threat of 'ii'xa4 1 9 'i¥xb3 'i¥xb3 20 J:txb3 ..tb7 2 1 J:tc I
lLlf4) 1 0 ..td2 'ii'b4 (D) ( 1 0 ... e6 can be met by with bright prospects for White.

I I dxe6 ..txe6 1 2 tLlf3 or 1 1 tLlf3; 1 0 ... axb5 1 1 8 ..td3 exd5 ..txb5 and now I I .. . ..ta6 1 2 J:ta3 ! or l l ...lLla6 8 ... J:te8 offers White a choice between 9 lLlf3

1 2 tLlf3 lLlb4 1 3 0-0 ;!;;), and then: exd5 1 0 cxd5, transposing to Section 1 0. 1 1

(Modern Benoni), and 9 lLlge2 exd5 1 0 exd5,
which we cover in Section 8.232.

9 exd5

This is the same method we used after 6 ..te3
c5. White has space and Black's queen's bishop
lacks squares. If you're curious about another
approach, you may want to study the Modern

Benoni section ( 1 0. 1 ) for the position that arises
after 9 cxd5.

We now have:

8.231: 9 .•. lLlbd7 1 74 8.232: 9 ••• J:te8+ 176

8.231)

b l ) The odd-looking 1 1 'i¥bl ! ? axb5 1 2 9 •.• lLlbd7 (D) ..td3 !? c4 1 3 lLlxb5 'i¥c5 1 4 b4 cxb3 1 5 'i¥xb3 Black awaits a decision from White regard
might leave Black a bit short on compensation, ing his king, which is probably the best course
but only just so. in the analogous 6 ..te3 c5 system.

KING 'S INDIAN DEFENCE 175

precise) on the exact same line in the 6 ..te3 cS 7

dS system. Often there are compensations for
w losing a move; for example, the opponent com
mits to a move and you can adjust accordingly.

Here, however, it's hard to see any advantages
that White has gained. On the other hand, maybe
it doesn't matter that much who has an extra
move, because the fundamentals of the position
are the same. And of course, White did very well
indeed in the corresponding 6 ..te3 position.

1 1 �fl has been played exclusively here, but
is apparently only good enough for equality;
e.g., 1 l ...a6 1 2 a4 ltJeS ( 1 2 ... h6 1 3 ..tf4!? ltJhS !

has the idea 14 ..txd6?! 'ili'b6 l S ..th2 'ii'xb2) 1 3

10 ltJf3!? ltJxeS .l:.xeS 1 4 'i!i'd2 ..td7 1 S ..tf4 l:1e8 1 6 aS

This is arguably the most interesting move, (after 1 6 ..txd6 !?, both 1 6 ... bS !? and 1 6 ... ..txa4
responding to the 'threat' of ... ltJeS. 1 0 f4 ad are satisfactory for Black) 16 ... bS ! 1 7 axb6
dresses the same issue ( ... ltJeS), having in mind 'i!i'xb6 1 8 g4! .l:.ab8 1 9 .l:.a2, Suba-Uhlmann,
a potential attack with fS, which has occasion East Berlin 1 979. Now simply 1 9 ... ..tc8 pro
ally succeeded. This is very loosening, how tecting a6 and preparing ... ltJd7 would have
ever, and I can't recommend it - notice the kept the game level. weaknesses on e3, g3 and even e4, now that f3 l l •.• ltJh5 can't be played. After 1 0 ltJge2 ltJeS, Black can l l ... ..th6 is the obvious alternative; com
exchange off the bishop on d3, which should pare the 6 ..te3 cS main line. White plays 1 2
suffice for equality; in return, White has space 0-0! (D) and Black has two ways to capture on and good development, so that would be a bal e3: anced game.

10 .. J:1e8+ (D)

10 ... 'ili'e8+ unpins the f6-knight, but White
retains his space advantage after 1 1 'ili'e2 'i!i'xe2+ B 1 2 �xe2, as shown by several games in this and
related positions.

w

a) 1 2 ... ..txe3 1 3 fxe3 'i!i'e7 ( 1 3 ... .l:.xe3 1 4

'ili'd2 i s too risky for Black, as shown i n the 6

..te3 cS main line) 1 4 e4 with the idea of 'i!Vd2
and doubling on the f-file. This is a tempo down
on the main 6 ..te3 cS line, but it appears to fa
vour White anyway due to Black's kingside
l l ..te3!? weaknesses; for example, 14 ... a6 ( 14 ... ltJeS l S

This is a rather absurd-looking move which ltJxeS 'iii' xeS 1 6 'ili'f3 �g7 1 7 .l:.f2) l S .l:.f2 .l:.b8 nevertheless appears reasonably good. White is 1 6 'i!i'd2 ( 16 a4 is also possible) 1 6 ... bS 17 .l:.afl
a full tempo down (the move ... ltJbd7, to be b4 1 8 ltJe2 aS 1 9 ltJg3 with the idea 'iii' gS. 176 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

b) l 2 .. J:txe3 !? 1 3 fxe3 il.xe3+ 14 'itth l 'iYf8 ! With the idea of f4-f5 at some point soon.

( l 4 ... lbh5 1 5 'iYel il.f4 1 6 lbe2 drives Black 15 ..• il.f5 16 ..txf5 .l:!.xf5?! back) launches a dark-square attack which, how Over-optimistic, but White is on top after
ever, doesn't seem to have quite enough punch: l 6 ... gxf5 1 7 .l:tfel 'ii'e8 1 8 g4!? fxg4 1 9 hxg4

15 'ii'e l ( 1 5 �e2 il.f4! l 6 lbe4! 'ii'h6 1 7 lLlh2 is lbg7 20 f3 ;!;.

slightly better for White) l 5 ... 'iYh6 16 lbgl (or 17 g4 .l:tf3 18 il.g5! 16 lLlh2 ;!;) 16 ... il.f4 ( l 6 ... lbh5 17 il.e2 with the White secures a large advantage in view of
idea l 7 ... lbf4?! 1 8 'ii'g3) 1 7 'ii'f2! g5 1 8 g3 il.e5 the continuation 1 8 .. .f6 19 'ii'e2!, with the point

1 9 .l:!.ael il.d4 20 'ii'f3 il.xg l ? (20 ... 'ittg7 2 l lbe4) 1 9 .. .%hc3? ( 1 9 .. .fxg5 20 'ii'xf3 lLlf4 2 1 .l:!.ae l

21 .l:!.e8+ 'ittg7 22 'ittxgl 'ii'xh3 23 .l:!.e7 +- threat 'iYd7 22 l:.e4 .l:.f8 23 'ii'e3 ±) 20 il.d2 .l:txh3 2 1
ening lbe4. 'ife6+ 'ittg7 2 2 gxh5 .l:!.xh5 2 3 .l:!.ae I .l:!.e5 24

12 0-0 (D) .l:!.xe5 fxe5 25 f4 'Clfh4 26 fxe5 !, when White
wins because there is no perpetual.

8.232)

B

9 ... .l:!.e8+ (D)

w

12 .•. il.xc3! ?

Or 1 2 ... lbe5 1 3 lbxe5 il.xe5 1 4 'iYd2 ;!;, but
not 1 2 ... lbg3? 1 3 .l:!.e l lLlf5 1 4 il.xf5 gxf5 1 5

'ii'd2 lbe5 1 6 lbxe5 il.xe5 1 7 il.g5 ±.

13 bxc3 lbe5

1 3 .. .f5 14 il.h6 and now 14 .. .f4 1 5 il.g5 'ii'c7 10 lbge2

16 .l:te l ± or 1 4 ... lbe5 1 5 lbxe5 dxe5 1 6 .l:!.el a) 1 0 'ittfl can easily transpose to 9 ... lbbd7
e4?! 1 7 il.e2 lLlf6 1 8 'ii'd2 ±; the bishop-pair, 1 0 lbf3 .l:!.e8+ l l 'ittfl (note to White's l i th
dark squares and passed pawn favour White. move in Section 8.23 1 ), and the themes are of

14 lbxe5 .l:!.xe5 15 'ii'd2 (D) ten the same; e.g., 1 0 ... h6 (or 1 0 ... lbbd7 I l lbf3
a6 I 2 a4 h6 1 3 ..te3 lbe5 =) 1 1 il.f4?! lLlh5 (or I I ...lba6 1 2 lbge2 lbc7 + with the idea ... b5; White's knight is poorly placed on e2 when the

B king is on f l ) I 2 iLh2 lbd7 1 3 lLlf3 +.

b) 1 0 il.e3?! is weak this time in view of

1 0 ... lbh5 ! , and if I I lLlf3? ( 1 1 lbge2 lbd7 +), then I I ...lLlg3 ! +.

10 .•. h6 1 0 ... lbbd7 I I f4 ( I I 0-0 lbe5) I l ...h6 12
il.h4 enters line 'a' of the next note.

ll iLe3

A crucial juncture: this doesn't seem to give

White anything special, and nor does I I iLf4 ?!

lbh5 1 2 iLh2 lbd7! 13 il.xd6 'ii'b6.

KING'S INDIAN DEFENCE 177

But 1 1 ..lth4! (D) appears to offer White su perior prospects:

w

B

for White, because he doesn't have his usual
resource 14 ..i.g5 due to 14 ... lLlxc4.

12 ... lLle5 13 lLlg3 lLlxd3
a) l l ... lLlbd7 1 2 f4 grants White a pleasant 1 3 ... h5 1 4 ..ltg5 'ii'b6 1 5 l:tbl lLlh7 ! 1 6 ..lte3
edge because Black is tied down; e.g., 1 2 ... a6 h4 1 7 lLlge4 is complex, although probably

1 3 a4 l:tb8 ( 1 3 ... lLlf8 1 4 0-0 lLl8h7 1 5 'ii'c2 ;l;) 14 slightly in White's favour. Then the greedy

0-0 'ii'c7 15 �h l lLlf8 1 6 ..i.xf6!? (interesting, if 1 7 ... f5 1 8 lLlg5 f4 1 9 ..i.xf4 lLlxd3 20 'ii'xd3 ..i.f5
unnecessary; 1 6 'ii'd2 is also good) 1 6 ... ..txf6 2 1 'ii'f3 ! lLlxg5 22 ..i.xg5 ..i.xb1 23 l:txb1 gives

1 7 f5 g5 ! ? ( 1 7 ... 'ii'e7 1 8 fxg6 lLlxg6 1 9 'ii'c2 White more than enough for the exchange be
lLle5 20 ..lth7+ �h8 2 1 b3 ;!;) 1 8 lLlg3 lLlh7 1 9 cause of Black's weakened kingside. lLlce4 ( 1 9 'ii'h5 ! is strong) 1 9 ... 'ii'e7 20 'ii'h5 14 'ii'xd3 'ii'f8 2 1 l:ta2 ..i.d7 22 b3 l:.e5 23 'ii'd 1 'ii'e7 24 Now: lLlf2 and now Black blundered the game away a) After 14 ... a6?!, play might go 1 5 'ii'd2
with 24 ... l::.e3? (though White was better any �h7 1 6 ..i.f4! g5 1 7 ..i.e3 l:tb8 1 8 l:tabl (or 1 8
way) 25 lLlh5 ..i.g7 26 lLlg4 in Suba-Reyes, a4) 1 8 ... b5 !? 1 9 b4! bxc4 20 bxc5 l:txbl 2 1

Palma de Mallorca 1992. l:txbl dxc5 22 ..i.xc5 with an edge.

b) l l ...lLla6 attempts to get some pieces out: b) 14 ... h5?! is also unimpressive after 1 5

1 2 0-0 ..i.d7 1 3 f4!? (I like 1 3 a3 ! ;!;, simply im ..tg5 'ii'b6 1 6 'ii'f3 lLlh7 1 7 ..ltf4 ;!;, proving White's position with moves such as c) However, 14 ... lLld7! should keep things

..i.g3 and l::.b l to follow) 1 3 ... 'ii'b6 (Suba-Uhl level, particularly as 1 5 f4?? allows 1 5 ... l:.xe3,
mann, Bucharest 1 978) and now 14 'ii'd2! keeps and 1 5 b3 lLle5 1 6 'ii'c2 ..i.xh3 ! 1 7 gxh3 lLlf3+
a slight advantage. 1 8 �g2 lLlh4+ 1 9 �h2 at best repeats (and not
l l ... lL!bd7! (D) 1 9 �h l ? 'ii'f6!).

12 0-0 Overall, I'd assess 1 1 ..lte3 as equal. How

This move hasn't yet been played in prac ever, the continuation with 1 1 ..lth4! is promis
tice, but I think it's best, ceding the bishop on ing; it may be that Black ultimately has nothing
d3 in return for time to consolidate White's to counterbalance White's space advantage and
space advantage. 12 b3 lLle5 1 3 ..i.c2 lLlh5 is must accept a small but real inferiority. In any
unclear, with Black hoping for 14 0-0? ..i.xh3 ! . case, there is potential in this line for subtle ma

And 1 2 lLlg3 lLle5 1 3 ..i.e2 h5 ! + i s depressing noeuvring, and a reward for good strategic play.

9 Grunfeld Defence

1 d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 g6 3 lt:lc3 d5 0-0! ; with White's centre secure, he has the su

The Griinfeld Defence is one of the leading perior position following 9 ... b5 1 0 i..d3) 9 ... a5
defences versus 1 d4, used by high-level players 1 0 0-0 lt:la6 1 1 ..li.e3 lt:lb4 1 2 "iib3 ( 1 2 'i!i'e2 is
everywhere. Today it is at the peak of its popu possible too) l 2 ... lt:le8 (Tolush-Mikenas, USSR
larity and none of the main lines appear to be Ch, Moscow 1 950) and now 1 3 lt:la2 would get
achieving an advantage against it. That makes it rid of Black's only advanced piece. all the more appropriate to propose responses b) 5 ... lt:lb6?! also escapes notice in some
which are not the best known but at the same books. It is more serious, covering c4 and keep
time challenging and complex enough to be re ing the g7-bishop unmasked versus d4. The tra
warding to the player who understands them ditional recommendation is 6 h3 (preventing
well. ... i..g4 and thus denying Black a good square

4 cxd5 lt:lxd5 5 e4 (D) for that bishop, although 6 lt:lf3 i..g4 7 i..b5+ c6

8 i..e2 ..li.g7 9 i..e3 0-0 1 0 0-0 still favours

White; after 6 ..li.e3 i..g7, 7 h3 0-0 8 lt:lf3 trans

poses into the main line, while White can also

B play 7 'i!i'd2 0-0 8 lld 1 ;\; Podgomy-Pachman,

Czechoslovak Ch, Prague 1 954) 6 ... i..g7 7 lt:lf3

0-0 8 i..e3 (8 i..e2 lt:lc6 9 i..e3 f5 10 exf5 ..li.xf5

1 1 'i!i'b3+ 'iti>h8 1 2 d5 lt:le5 1 3 lt:lxe5 i..xe5 1 4
l:td 1 ;\; Christiansen-Castro, Torremolinos 1 977) 8 ... a5 (8 ... c6 9 ..li.e2 ..li.e6 1 0 0-0 ..li.c4 1 1 'ili'd2
lt:l8d7, Portisch-Szabo, Hungarian Ch, Buda
pest 1 958, and now simply 1 2 l:tfd 1 is the most
direct course) 9 i..e2 a4 1 0 0-0 ( 1 0 l::tc 1 a3 1 1 b3 f5 1 2 exf5 ..li.xf5 1 3 0-0 lt:lc6 1 4 'i!i'd2 ;\;

I.Sokolov-Djuric, Novi Sad 1 986) 1 0 ... a3 1 1
bxa3 l:ha3 1 2 'i!i'c 1 l:ta5 1 3 l:td i c6 1 4 i..h6

The Exchange Variation seems a bit main .i.xh6 1 5 'i!i'xh6 f6 1 6 l:tab1 ..li.e6 1 7 d5 ! ±
stream and committal for this book, but has two Petrosian-Smyslov, Garga 1 953. things going for it: 6 bxc3 ..li.g7

I ) It limits Black's options and this makes it This is the most natural move. Other possi
easier to form a repertoire; bilities:

2) It targets the only weakness from which a) 6 ... b6 7 ..li.b5+ (D), and then: the Griinfeld suffers, i.e., that Black allows a l ) According to Botvinnik & Estrin, the White to gain space and control the centre with continuation 7 ... i..d7 is best, but then 8 ..li.c4
a potentially mobile central majority. ..li.g7 9 lt:lf3 0-0 1 0 0-0 is pleasant for White.

5 ••• lt:lxc3 Upon I O ... c5, 1 1 ..li.e3 is natural and good,

Avoiding the exchange is considered clearly while 1 1 ..li.g5 !? is unique and consistent with
inferior, but you will come across the second of our emphasis on that move in this chapter; for
these moves from time to time, especially at example, 1 1 ...lt:lc6 ( l l .....li.g4? 1 2 ..li.d5) 1 2 d5
club level: lt:la5 ( 1 2 ... lt:le5 1 3 d6!) 1 3 d6! lt:lxc4 1 4 dxe7
a) 5 ... lt:lf6?! is practically never seen; one 'i!i'c7 1 5 exf8'ili'+ l:txf8 1 6 'i!i'e2 leaves White the
example is 6 lt:lf3 i..g7 7 h3 (7 .i.e2 0-0 8 0-0 ;\; exchange up for less-than-sufficient positional
is less elaborate) 7 ... 0-0 8 .i.c4 c6 9 a4! ? (or 9 compensation.

GRONFELD DEFENCE 179

B B

a2) 7 ... c6 8 i.c4 b5 9 i.b3 i.b7 l O tiJf3 and b3) 7 ... tLlc6 8 d5 and now: here: b3 1 ) 8 ... �a5? 9 �a4 ! 'ii'xc3+ 10 'it>e2 gives
a2 1 ) l O ... e6 delays Black's development and Black nothing better than 1 0 ... i.g7 1 1 dxc6 0-0 is obviously weakening. 1 1 0-0 i.g7 1 2 i.a3 (± 1 2 l:tbl ! a6 1 3 i.d3 b5 14 'ii'a3 ± Beliavsky

Botvinnik & Estrin) 1 2 ... tLla6 1 3 �e2 �b6, and Mikhalchishin, Terme Zrece 2003, as 1 0 ... i.d7?

now 14 l:tabl keeps Black tied down, while 14 1 1 dxc6 bxc6 1 2 i.xc6 .l:!.d8, tempting White
i.d6 c5 1 5 e5 c4 1 6 i.c2 was also very strong to play 1 3 i.d2?? 'ii'xd2+!, is demolished by
in Rashkovsky-Smyslov, USSR Ch, Moscow Nezhmetdinov's 1 3 'ii'b3 ! 'ii'xal 14 i.b2 'ii'b l

1 973; tLlg5, i.e4 and �g4 can follow, or a4, as 1 5 lLlf3 ! fixh l 1 6 tLle5 +-, which has won sev
in the game. eral games.

a22) l O ... .tg7 1 1 i.xf7+! 'it>xf7 1 2 tLlg5+ b32) 8 ... a6 9 i.e2 and White has the better

'it>e8 1 3 tLle6 �a5 ( 1 3 ... �d6 14 tLlxg7+ 'it>f7 of things; e.g., 9 ... tLla5 1 0 i.e3 e6 1 1 lLlf3 exd5

1 5 i.h6 l:tg8 1 6 e5 �d5 1 7 e6+ 'it>f8 1 8 tiJh5+ 1 2 exd5 b6 1 3 0-0 i.g7 14 'ii'a4+ ;!:: I.Sokolov

'it>e8 19 lLlf4 'ii'e4+ 20 'it>d2 ! +-) 14 0-0! ( 1 4 H.Olafsson, Novi Sad Olympiad 1990 ( 14 i.g5
lDxg7+ 'it>f7 1 5 lLlf5 ! ;!::) 1 4 ... l:tg8 ( 1 4 .. . i.f6 1 5 f6 15 i.f4 is also good). e5 i.c8 1 6 exf6 i.xe6 1 7 l:te 1 'it>d7 1 8 �f3 +-; Thus, in my opinion 6 ... i.g7 (D), to which 14 ... i.f8 15 i.f4) 15 'ii'b3 tLla6 16 i.f4 ±. we now return, is objectively better than 6 ... c5.

b) After 6 ... c5, 7 i.g5 will generally trans
pose to Section 9. 1 following 7 ... i.g7, and

7 ... �a5 allows the new possibility 8 lLlf3 ! ?

'ii'xc3+ 9 i.d2 with compensation. But White w often tries to take advantage of 6 ... c5 with 7
i.b5+ (D). This isn't strictly necessary, but avoids odd variations by Black and gains a
small advantage.

For example:

bl ) 7 ... lDd7 fails to put any pressure on the
centre, and 8 tiJf3 ;!:: gives White a pleasant game.

b2) After 7 ... i.d7, the move 8 l:.bl ;!:: isn't mentioned in the books, but looks promising;
e.g., 8 ... 'ii'a5 9 'ii'd3 cxd4 10 i.d2 i.xb5 1 1
l:txb5 with the idea l l ...�xa2 1 2 l:txb7 tLlc6 1 3 Here the main lines start with 7 lLlf3, 7 i.c4
tiJf3; instead, l l .. . �a6 i s a little better but White or 7 i.e3. I am proposing these two moves in
plays cxd4, tiJf3 and 0-0 and has a small, stable stead: advantage. Upon 8 ... i.g7, White's centre re 9.1: 7 i.g5 1 80
mains strong after 9 tLle2 0-0 1 0 0-0. 9.2: 7 ffa4+ 1 87

180 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

9.1) of the Grtinfeld. All told, I think that this is
rather a good set of trade-offs for White, espe

7 .i.g5 (D) cially when you consider that the moves 7 .i.c4,

7 tt::lf3 and 7 .i.e3 are covered in massive detail
in the literature, and 7 .i.g5 isn't even men
tioned in most sources.

B 7 ... c5 (D)

Or:

a) 7 ... 0-0 can transpose to Section 9 . I I after

8 l:tc 1 c5. With this move-order, White gets the
opportunity to try other moves, such as 8 'ii'd2
c5 9 d5, but I don't know if there's any advan
tage to be found by doing so.

b) 7 ... h6 8 .i.e3 and now 8 ... c5 transposes to
note 'b' to Black's 8th move below if White
plays 9 .:tc I , while 9 tt::lf3 'iii' aS 1 0 .i.d2 leaves Black searching for a way to increase the pres
sure on White's centre. Instead, 8 ... 0-0 9 tt::lf3

This is a slightly unusual continuation which c5 I 0 .i.e2 is pleasant; the h-pawn hangs in sev
has recently attracted the attention of strong eral lines and 'ii'd2 can be a useful tempo
players. The related 7 .i.e3 has been used by gainer. many top players, and Karpov and Kramnik in
particular won some famous games with it. 7

.i.g5 is similar in that one of White's main
goals is to move his rook from a l (to c l in our w case) and then, having protected his c-pawn, be
ready to make the advance d5. This reduces the
need to expend energy defending d4. What's
more, both 7 .i.e3 and 7 .i.g5 prepare the idea of

'ii'd2 and .i.h6. If Black plays passively, this
might even be followed by h4-h5, but tt::lf3 and
early castling is more common. 7 .i.g5 is played
with the idea that after ... h6, White retreats to
e3 and the h6-pawn will prove a drawback. For
example, if Black's g7-bishop takes part in ex
changes or captures on d4 or e5, the h-pawn
will be hanging. And if White plays 'ii'd2 (which s :ct he very often does in the .i.e3 lines), it will This move has three points: come with a gain of time. When Black doesn't I ) It indirectly protects d4, since multiple
play ... h6, another potential benefit of 7 .i.g5 is captures by Black on that square expose his
that it pins the e7-pawn (so that ... e6 and ... e5 bishop on c8; aren't yet possible) and attacks it, so that de 2) It takes White's rook off the a l -h8 diago

fenders such as the queen on d8 or knight on c6 nal; can't stray too far without at least considering 3) It protects c3, which will often be a target

the consequences of a capture on e7. On the of attack, and in doing so allows ... lt::lc6 to be

negative side, 7 .i.g5 (like 7 .i.e3) does nothing answered with d5. to prepare castling and commits the queen's Black's main options are now: bishop at an earlier stage than is usual in most 9.11: 8 ... 0-0 1 82 d-pawn openings. Furthermore (unlike 7 .i.e3), 9.12: 8 .•• 'ii'a5 1 85 the bishop does nothing to protect d4, which is
the first point of attack for Black in most lines There are several other moves too:

GRONFELD DEFENCE 181

a) 8 ... cxd4 9 cxd4 (D) can lead to a couple of unique positions but they aren't recommended

for Black: w

B

cowardly. Then 1 2 ... i.d7 1 3 i.xd7 + �xd7! 14
cxd4 l2Jc6 1 5 l2Jf3 :ac8 1 6 �e2 gives White
only a nominal edge; historically, however, this
kind of centre has helped to win a number of
a l ) 9 ... l2Jc6?! 1 0 d5 l2Jd4 I I "ii'd2 .i.d7 (or simplified endgames and there's minimal risk;

1 1 ...0-0 l 2 l2Je2) 1 2 .i.d3 0-0 1 3 lLJe2 lLJxe2 14 for example, 1 6 ... b6 ( l 6 ... l2Ja5 17 �d3 b5 1 8

.i.xe2 with more space and easy development, l2Jd2 with the idea l2Jb3 isn't a lot to go on, but

Plischki-Kalod, Ceska Trebova 2006. White has some pressure; 1 6 ... e6 is another de
a2) 9 ... 0-0 1 0 d5 ! ? (this is interesting, al fence to consider) 1 7 d5 l2Jb4 1 8 .i.d4 .i.xd4 1 9 though my preference is 1 0 l2Jf3 ! , transposing lLJxd4 lLJxa2? ( 1 9 .. .f5 20 f3 �d6 2 1 �e3 !) 20 to note 'c' to Black's 9th move in Section 9. 1 1 , l:.al l2Jc3+ 2 1 �d3 a5?! 22 lLJc6 lLJb5 23 11ab l
i.e. 8 ... 0-0 9 l2Jf3 cxd4 1 0 cxd4) I O ... "ii'a5+ 1 1 ±. "ii'd2 "ii'xd2+ 1 2 i.xd2 e6 could be investigated b2) 1 0 �d2 is normal: further but in limited experience it is regarded b2 1 ) I O ... cxd4 1 1 cxd4 "ii'xd2+ (D). as equal; e.g., 1 3 .i.b5 ( 1 3 .i.c4 exd5 1 4 .i.xd5
l2Jd7) l 3 ... .i.d7 (or l 3 ... l2Ja6) 14 .i.xd7 l2Jxd7

1 5 dxe6 fxe6 I 6 l2Jf3, and Black has played var
ious moves here, but 1 6 ... :r.fc8 looks satisfac
tory; e.g., 1 7 �e2 l2Jc5 1 8 e5 ( 1 8 l2Jg5 .i.f6)

l 8 ... l2Jd7 =.

a3) After 9 ... .i.xd4?! 10 l:.xc8 .i.xf2+ I I

�xf2 'ii'xc8 1 2 l2Jf3 the minor pieces are worth
considerably more than the rook and two pawns,
as is often the case when you are still in the
middlegame. This is especially true as White
has the bishop-pair, and all the more so with

Black's kingside dark squares exposed.

b) 8 ... h6 9 .i.e3 cooperates with White's plan
by exposing Black's h-pawn to attack via "ii'd2.

It's useful to compare the well-established line Lysy calls this an "inferior ending", based

7 .i.e3 c5 8 :c I , championed by Kramnik; here upon that h6-pawn. That's unclear, and I suspect
the pawn on h6 can be a disadvantage. On the that with perfect play, Black will always stay
other hand, Black gets an escape-square on h7 close to equality. Nevertheless, many grand
and can in principle advance with ... g5 in some masters have played this type of ending as
positions. After 9 ... 'ii'a5 (D), play can go: White with success. White has two recaptures:

b I ) 1 0 'ifb3 !? has the idea 1 0 ... cxd4 I I b2 1 l ) 1 2 �xd2 isn't played much, in spite "ii'b5+ 'ii'xb5 1 2 .i.xb5+, which is admittedly of 1 2 ... 0-0 1 3 l2Jf3 l2Jc6 1 4 d5 .l:td8 1 5 �e 1 ! ? 182 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

( 1 5 c.t>e2 !) 1 5 ... tt'lb4 1 6 �d2 tt'la6 1 7 �xa6

bxa6 1 8 �a5 giving White a modest advan
tage. w
b2 1 2) 1 2 �xd2 0-0 1 3 tt'lf3 is a safe choice:

b2 1 2 1 ) After 1 3 ... e6, 14 �c4 ! ? might be
worth a try; the normal move is 14 .i.b5 �d7 !

1 5 �xd7 tt'lxd7 with the idea 1 6 11c7 tt'lf6 1 7 e5
tt'ld5 1 8 :xb7 :fb8. A better try is 1 6 'it>e2 tt'lf6

17 c.t>d3; e.g., 1 7 ... tt'lg4 1 8 �e3 :ac8 1 9 h3
tt'lxe3 20 fxe3 �f6 21 nxc8 nxc8 22 :bl :c7

23 e5 �e7 and now 24 tt'ld2 t or 24 e4.

b2 1 22) 1 3 ... nd8 1 4 �c4 (unusual in this
type of position, and as far as I know never
played here, but it serves a prophylactic role;
after 14 �b5, 14 ... �d7 ! 1 5 �xd7 tt'lxd7 1 6 tt'le4, limiting White's edge) I I �c4 e5 1 2 0-0 :c7 ! ? tt'lf6 ! gives up a pawn for sufficient (or 1 2 tt'ld2) 1 2 ... h6, but I don't like this ... e5 counterplay) 14 ... �g4 ( 1 4 ... e6 1 5 0-0 tt'lc6 1 6 idea: d5 exd5 1 7 exd5 tt'le7 1 8 :fel t ; 1 4 .. . tt'lc6?! 1 5 al ) After 13 �h4, Dembo says that 13 ... tt'ld7
d5; 1 4 .. . �xd4?! 1 5 tt'lxd4 :xd4 1 6 �xf7+ 1 4 tt'ld2 tt'lb6 "is good for Black, who plans c.t>xf7 1 7 :xc8 :xe4+ 1 8 �e3 t) 1 5 tt'le5 ( 1 5 ... �d7, ... :ae8 and ... f5"; however, after 15 a4
d5 ! ?) 1 5 ... �xe5 1 6 dxe5 tt'lc6 1 7 f3 .i.d7 1 8 �d7 1 6 �b3 :ae8 1 7 a5 tt'lc8 1 8 �a4 i.xa4 19

�xh6 tt'lxe5 1 9 �e2 �c6 20 :c3 and again 'ii'xa4 f5 20 f3, White should stand consider

White is counting upon the bishop-pair for a ably better, since a kingside attack won't work
small pull. without Black's good bishop.

b22) 10 ... tt'lc6 1 1 d5 tt'le5 12 c4 1i'a3 (Valles a2) 1 3 �e3 f5 14 �d3 f4 1 5 �d2 g5 16 h3

Wirig, Lille 20 1 1 ) 1 3 �e2! and then: 'ii'g6 "leads to a massive King's Indian-style
b22 1 ) 1 3 ... b6 14 f4!? tt'lg4 1 5 �xg4 �xg4 pawn-storm on the kingside." White can play

16 h3 �d7 1 7 tt'lf3 'ii'b2 and now one idea is 1 8 for a typical d5 position by 1 7 c4 g4 ( 1 7 ... h5 1 8

:c2 !? 'irb1 + 1 9 'ifi>f2 'ifxh l 20 :c 1 'ii'xc l 2 1 'ife2 with the idea 1 8 .. . g4 1 9 tt'lh4 'irg5 20 g3 'ifxc 1 , when in spite of White's nominal mate gxh3 2 1 c.t>h1 ) 1 8 hxg4 �xg4 1 9 �c3 ! ( 1 9
rial disadvantage, his monstrous centre gives �e2 !? 'ifxe4 20 :e1 ) 19 ... tt'ld7 20 �e2 �h3
him excellent chances. The calmer 1 8 0-0 'ii'xd2 (20 ... 1i'xe4?? 2 1 �d3 �xf3 22 gxf3) 21 tt'le l

19 �xd2 with the idea �c3 is also promising. tt'lf6 22 �f3 ±.

b222) 1 3 ... tt'lg4 14 �xg4 �xg4 1 5 h3 �d7 b) 9 ... f5 ! (Avrukh's preference) I O �c4 c.t>h8

1 6 tt'le2 ( 1 6 tt'lf3 ;!;) 1 6 ... b6 17 0-0 t. is satisfactory for Black, although not easy.

One line: 1 1 tt'le2 (Avrukh gives 1 1 exf5 :xf5

9.11) 1 2 tt'lf3 tt'ld7 1 3 'ire2 tt'le5 1 4 tt'lxe5 :xe5 1 5

�e3 e6 with equality; fair enough) 1 1 ... fxe4

8 ... 0-0 (D) 1 2 tt'lg3 tt'ld7 ( 1 2 ... �f5 1 3 0-0 tt'ld7 ! 1 4 d6

9 tt'lf3 �f6 1 5 �h6 �g7 1 6 �g5 �f6 1 7 �h6 1h- 1h

The advance 9 d5 isn't my first choice but Polak-Ftacnik, Czech Team Ch 20091 1 0) 1 3
it's a handy alternative that's worth knowing. tt'lxe4 tt'lb6 14 'ife2 tt'lxc4 ( 1 4 ... �f5 i s worth

Leaving out a lot of detail, here are two main considering too) 1 5 'ifxc4 and now Avrukh
lines: claimed that 1 5 ... b6(?) leads to double-edged
a) Dembo likes 9 ... 1i'd6! ? "unpinning the play, but 1 6 d6 ! �f6 1 7 0-0 is good, so 1 5 ... h6
e-pawn ... [and intending] to exploit his lead in is preferable, with chances for both sides.

development to break up White's centre with We now return to 9 tt'lf3 (D): ... e6 and/or ... f5." She continues 1 0 tt'lf3 e6?! 9 ... �g4 ( I O ... �g4 transposes to note 'b' to Black's Or:

I Oth move below; also preferable is 10 ... tt'ld7 a) 9 ... 1i'a5 1 0 'ird2 transposes to Section

I I �e2 e6 1 2 0-0 exd5 1 3 exd5 tt'lf6 1 4 c4 9. 1 2 (i.e. 8 ... 'ii'a5 9 'ird2 0-0 10 tt'lf3).

GRUNFELD DEFENCE 183

Emelin suggests 22 l:lc5 t:Dg7 23 t:Dxe5 .i.xe5

24 l:lxe5 t:De6 25 l:lxe6 ! 'ii' xe6 26 e5 ±, while 22

B .i.c4! t:Dg7 23 l:lfd 1 is also promising.

c2) 1 l ...h6 1 2 .i.e3 ( 1 2 .i.f4 also suffices for
some advantage) 1 2 ... e6 1 3 ..tc4 exd5 1 4 ..txd5
t:Dc6 ( 1 4 ... 'ii'a5+ 1 5 'ii'd2 'ii'xd2+ 1 6 ..txd2 ;!; or

1 6 t:Dxd2) 1 5 h3 ..txf3 1 6 'ii'xf3 t:Db4 1 7 0-0
t:Dxd5 1 8 exd5 'ii'd7 (V.Milov-Tseshkovsky,

Biel 2005) and now 1 9 d6! l:lac8 20 .i.f4 is sim
plest.

10 d5 (D)

b) 9 ... b6 1 0 ..td3 .i.g4 1 1 0-0! h6 ( l l ...cxd4 B 1 2 cxd4 i.xd4 1 3 i.c4) 1 2 i.h4 g5 1 3 .i.g3
cxd4 1 4 cxd4 ..txd4 1 5 e5 ! ..tc5 1 6 'ii'e2 gives

White an attack.

c) The position after 9 ... cxd4 1 0 cxd4 .i.g4
has been played by Svidler (twice, unsuccess
fully) and other strong players as Black (often
via 8 ... cxd4 9 cxd4 0-0 1 0 t:Df3 .i.g4), but open
ing the c-file and eliminating the pawn on c3
helps White's game after 1 1 d5 (D):

10 •.. f5!?

B 'Thematic' but at the same time loosening.

Other moves:

a) Dembo likes I O ... t:Dd7 "when Black is all
set to break with ... f5 and White is forced on to
the defensive." White should be able to meet
that move fairly easily, however:

a 1 ) Simply 1 1 h3 ..txf3 1 2 'ii'xf3 is untried
as far as I know. Then the only critical move is

1 2 .. .f5 ! 1 3 ..te2 t:De5 ( 1 3 ... t:Db6 1 4 0-0 and now

1 4 ... f4 1 5 'ii'g4 'ii'd6 1 6 g3 f3 1 7 ..td 1 favours

White, so 1 4 .. .fxe4 1 5 'ii'xe4 'ii'xd5 1 6 'ii'g4
might follow, when the bishops provide ample
c l ) 1 l ...&iJd7 1 2 i.e2 t:Df6 1 3 h3 ..td7 1 4 compensation, even after 1 6 ... 'ii'xa2 1 7 ..tf3) .i.d3 h6 ( 1 4 .. . 'ii'a5+ 1 5 'ii'd2 'ii'a4 1 6 l:.c4 ;!; 'ii'a3 1 4 'ii'e3 t:Df7 1 5 ..tf4 fxe4 1 6 'ii'xe4 'ii'a5 1 7 0-0

1 7 0-0 l:.ac8 1 8 l:lfc I l:lxc4 1 9 I:txc4 ..tb5 20 ..txc3 1 8 .:.b 1 ( 1 8 ..tg4!?) 1 8 ... b6 1 9 'ii'c2! ..tf6
l:lc3 'ii'a5 2 1 i.xf6! i.xf6 22 e5 i.g7 23 i.xb5 20 ..td2 'ii'a3 2 1 ..tb5 ! c4 22 ..txc4 'ii'd6 23

'ilfxb5 24 l:lc7 ;!; Nyblick-Svidler, FIDE World l:lbe1 ;!;. Cup, Khanty-Mansiisk 2009) 1 5 i.f4 (White's a2) 1 1 ..te2 'ii'a5 ( l l ...f5?! 12 d6 ..tf6 1 3
advantage is only small, but is of a type that ..txf6 exf6 1 4 0-0 l:le8 1 5 h3 .i.xf3 1 6 ..txf3
tends to grow in practice) 1 5 ... e6?! ( 1 5 ... 'ii'a5+ fxe4 1 7 ..txe4 ± Prohaszka-Shankland, Buda

1 6 ..td2!? 'ii'xa2 1 7 l:lal 'ilfb2 1 8 l:lb1 'ii'a3 1 9 pest 2009; 1 1 ... c4 should be investigated) 1 2
i.b4 'ii'a2 20 0-0 ;!;) 1 6 ..tc7 'ii'e8 1 7 d6 ..tc6 1 8 'ii'd2 e6 ( 1 2 ... l:lfe8 i s also possible) 1 3 ..te7

'ii'e2 t:Dh5 1 9 g3 e5 20 0-0 'ii'd7 2 1 'it>h2 ..tf6 l:lfe8 1 4 d6 ..tf6 1 5 ..txf6 t:Dxf6 (A.Kopylov

(Ponomariov-Svidler, Moscow 2006) and now Turov, Salekhard 2006) 1 6 e5 &iJd7 1 7 t:Dg5 ! ;!;. 184 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

b) 1 0 ... 1!Vd6! is Svidler's move, and Avrukh's but remarkably, it appears to hold together:

explicit preference over 1 0 ... f5. It is probably 1 4 ... ..if5 1 5 g4 �b8 1 6 "Ji/ixa7 �a8 1 7 1\Vb7 .:tb8

Black's best way to keep things level, but there =, based upon 1 8 ii'c6 e3 ! 1 9 fxe3 ( 1 9 ..ixe3 ?! is plenty of play and options on every move. ..id3 ! ! ) 19 ... ..ixc3 ! ! 20 .:txc3 'ii' a5 ! 21 gxf5 Amongst other ideas, there is 1 1 ..ie2 tt:ld7 1 2 1\Vxc3 22 1!Vxd7 �b2 23 e4 'il'g3+, which soon

0-0 ..ixf3 ! 1 3 ..ixf3 (D): leads to a draw.

b2) 1 3 h3 ! (this is a positional method)

1 3 ... ..ic8 1 4 tt:lxe4 tt:ld7 ( 1 4 ... 1\Vc7 1 5 ..ie3 tt:ld7

1 6 ..ie2 ;!; Prohaszka-Csiba, Budapest 2009) 1 5

B ..ie2 (eyeing g4, and perhaps also considering
h4-h5) 1 5 ... tt:lf6 1 6 tt:lxf6 exf6 1 7 ..ie3 b6 1 8

0-0. White's d-pawn gives him a positional ad
vantage.

w

b 1 ) 1 3 ... c4 clears c5, but 1 4 1\Va4 �fc8 1 5

..ie3 a6 1 6 ..ig4 b5 1 7 11Vc2 with the idea f4
causes a bit of trouble; e.g., l 7 ... �c7 1 8 f4 tt:lc5

1 9 e5.

b2) l 3 ... b5 ! is a called "a very interesting
concept" by Avrukh. The fact that ... ..ixf3 and

... b5 is the computer's instantaneous and persis
tent recommendation says a lot about how far 13 h3!? they have come. Play might go 1 4 1!Vd2 c4 1 5 1 3 f3 ! may be best. After 1 3 ... ..ih5, Lysy

11Ve3 ..if6! ( 1 5 ... tt:lc5 1 6 �b1 a6 1 7 ..if4 1\Vb6 1 8 gives 1 4 1!Vxb7 as '±' , but 1 4 .. .fxe4 1 5 tt:lxe4
e5 ! is reasonably promising for White) 1 6 ..ih6 :b8 is very unclear. On the other hand, 14

..ig7 1 7 ..ixg7 (avoiding repetition) 1 7 ... �xg7 ..ie2! appears to favour White.

1 8 �cd1 f6! 1 9 h4 tt:lc5 20 ..ie2 (20 h5 g5 2 1 13 ••. -thS 14 "Ji/ixb7 �b8 15 'ii'a6 h6 16 ..if4 ..ie2 tt:la4 22 g 3 intending �g2) 20 ... tt:la4 2 1 (D) �d4 a6 22 h 5 with the idea 22 ... g5? 2 3 e5 ! fxe5

24 �e4. OK, I'll grant you that any advantage

White gets in these lines is minuscule, but they
involve complex play in all sectors and should B appeal to the strategic player.

11 'iVb3 �h8 12 tt:ld2!?

Not only defending e4 and potentially trans
ferring to c4, but also stranding Black's bishop
on g4.

12 ••• tt:ld7 (D)

Or:

a) 1 2 ... h6?! 1 3 h3 (or 1 3 1!Vxb7 tt:ld7 1 4 h3)

1 3 ... ..th5 14 ..if4 ;!;.

b) 1 2 .. .fxe4 and now:

b 1 ) After 1 3 1!Vxb7 tt:ld7 14 h3, Avrukh says,

"I don't have much faith in Black's position", Now:

GRUNFELD DEFENCE 185

a) 1 6 ... fxe4? (Black loses the thread) 1 7 a) 9 ... l2Jd7 1 0 lLJf3 e5 (Polak-Ftacnik, Prie
i.xb8 'ii'xb8 ( 1 7 ... e3 1 8 fxe3 'ii'xb8 1 9 g4 'ii'g3+ vidza 2009) I I l2Jxe5 ! ( I I d5 =) l i ...lLJxe5 1 2 20 �d I lLJf6 2 1 .tc4 +-) 1 8 g4 'ii'b2 ( 1 8 ... 'ii'f4 dxe5 0-0 ( 1 2 ... ..txe5? 1 3 .tb5+! �f8 1 4 .tc4 is

1 9 'ii'e2 lLJe5 20 'i!Ve3) 1 9 �d I lLJb6? ( 1 9 ... l:txf2 virtually winning for White) 1 3 .tc4 .txe5 1 4

20 l2Jxe4 l:tf4 2 1 'i!Ve2 ±) 20 'ii'b5 'ii'xa2 2 1 ..tc4 0-0 ..te6 1 5 ..td5 t. and White was winning in Sadorra-Kazhgaleev, b) 9 ... e6 10 l2Jf3 0-0 I I ..te2 b6!? 1 2 d5 ! ?

Subic Bay 2009. ..ta6 1 3 0-0 ..txe2 1 4 'ikxe2 exd5 1 5 exd5 'Lld7

The following are playable, although not 1 6 d6 t. ideal for Black: c) 9 ... cxd4 10 cxd4 �xd2+ I I �xd2 0-0
b) 1 6 ... l:tb6 17 �xa7 e5 ! 1 8 dxe6 l:txe6 1 9 (nothing else makes as much sense; for exam

.tb5 ! lLJf6 20 0-0 t. ple, l l ...lLJd7 1 2 lLJf3 h6 1 3 .te3 lLJf6 1 4 .tb5+
c) 16 ... e5 !? 1 7 dxe6 ( 1 7 .th2 l:tb2!) 17 ... l2Je5 �d8 1 5 �d3 with a superiority in space and de

1 8 ..tc4 l:tb6 1 9 'ii'a4 l:txe6! 20 0-0! lLJd3 2 1 velopment) 1 2 lLJf3 transposes to the main line

.txd3 'ii'xd3 22 l:tfe I g5 23 .te3 f4 24 .txc5 of this section. 'ii'xd2 25 ..txf8 .txf8 26 'ii'd4+ 'ii'xd4 27 cxd4 d) 9 ... 'ii'a4 (this idea, attacking from the side,
affords White the better prospects; his rook and has been used several times in different posi
two central pawns count for somewhat more tions) I 0 l2Jf3 ( I 0 ..te2 'Llc6 I I d5 l2Je5 1 2 lLJf3
than the bishop-pair. transposes) I O ... l2Jc6 I I d5 l2Je5 1 2 .te2 (D)

d) 1 6 ... l2Je5 1 7 g4!? lLJf3+! ( 1 7 .. .fxg4? loses and then: to 1 8 .txe5 .txe5 1 9 hxg4 l:tb6 20 'ii'e2) 1 8
lLJxf3 fxg4 1 9 .txh6 ( 1 9 .txb8 'ii'xb8 leads to

equality; 1 9 .te3 g3 ! ?) 1 9 ... .txh6 20 hxg4 l:tb6

2 1 'ii'd3 .txc I 22 gxh5 gxh5 23 l2Je5 l:th6 24 8 .th3 'ii'd6 25 l2Jd7 l:td8 26 e5 and after further
messiness White will come out with a slight ad
vantage.

9.12)

8 ... 'ii'a5

Here Black wants to bring White's queen to
d2 and maybe exchange queens to divert White's
pieces. We'll see other ideas as we go along.

9 'ii'd2 (D)

d l ) 1 2 ... h6 1 3 ..tf4 �xe4 1 4 0-0 'Llc4 1 5

.txc4 'ii'xc4 1 6 l:tfe l gives White excellent

compensation - Flear.

8 d2) 1 2 .. .f6 1 3 .te3 tt::lc4 14 'ii'd3 and now
rather than 1 4 ... l2Jd6?! 1 5 .txc5 'ii'xe4 1 6 0-0

.tf5? 1 7 'ii'd2 ± Nyblick-Negi, Wijk aan Zee

20 10, 1 4 ... l2Jxe3 1 5 'ii'xe3 0-0 is more obvious,
but still favours White's centre and space.

d3) 1 2 .. .'ii'xe4 1 3 0-0 0-0 ( 1 3 ... ..tg4 ?? loses
to 14 ..1b5+ �f8 1 5 .txe7+ �xe7 1 6 'Llxe5) 14
l:tfe I. This is mainly analysis by Lysy. White
has a strong attack for his pawn; he continues

14 ... .tf6 ( 1 4 ... e6?! 1 5 lLJxe5 'ii'xe5 16 .tf3) 1 5
l:tcd l l:td8 ( l 5 .. . �f5 1 6 .txf6 'i!Vxf6 1 7 'ii'e3 =) 1 6 .txf6 exf6 1 7 tt::lxe5 fxe5 ( 1 7 .. .'i!Vxe5 1 8 d6)

9 ... 0-0 1 8 �g5, when "White will regain the e5-pawn,

Or: and he will retain a long-term initiative thanks 186 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

to his passed d-pawn." A typical result of many
of these 7 �g5 lines.

10 lt:Jf3 (D) w

1 0 �xe7? is too greedy: I O .. J:te8 I I �xc5

�he4+ 12 �e2 lLla6! 1 3 �d6 �d7 is slightly
better for Black.

B

1 3 �c7 is an important alternative. After

1 3 ... lt:Jc6 there's a lot to explore:

a) 14 e5 !? might be an idea; if 14 ... h6, 1 5

�f6 looks a little strange, but this piece needs
to be put to work, and White can apparently be
satisfied with 1 5 ... lt:Jb4 ( 1 5 ... �xf6 1 6 exf6 �d8

1 7 �d3 �d7 1 8 :xd7 �xd7 1 9 �e4) 1 6 �c4

At this point, Black must make an important b5 ! ( 1 6 ... lt:Jd5? ! 1 7 �xd5 exd5 1 8 �hc 1 ) 1 7
decision: �b3 a5 1 8 a3 lt:Ja6 1 9 �e 7 . Similarly, after

10 ... cxd4 l 4 ... lt:Jb4 1 5 �c4 White develops quickly. I like

Instead: the look of this, but it needs testing.

a) I O ... e6 I I �h6 lt:Jc6 1 2 h4! cxd4 1 3 �xg7 b) 14 �b5 (D) is conventional and practical, �xg7 14 cxd4 �d8 1 5 'ifxa5 lLlxa5 1 6 �d2 h5 although probably only equal versus accurate

1 7 �e3 leaves White nicely centralized with a · play: small edge. After 1 7 ... �d7 Lysy gives 1 8 .i.d3,

although l 8 ... �ac8 looks fine. However, 1 8

�c5 ! b6 1 9 �c l , with the idea of �a6, retains
some advantage. B
b) I O ... �g4 I I d5 �e8 ! ? (preparing coun
terplay in the centre; White is in control after
l l ...lt:Jd7 1 2 �e2 lLlf6 1 3 �e3) 1 2 c4 �a3 1 3

�e2 e6 1 4 h3 �xf3 and now instead of 1 5 gxf3?!

(Navara-Laylo, FIDE World Cup, Khanty

Mansiisk 2009), Marin analyses 1 5 �xf3 ! exd5

1 6 cxd5 b5 ! 1 7 0-0 lt:Jd7 1 8 d6 c4, when "the
black pawns should not be underestimated".

Still, 1 9 e5 ! �c5 (versus �c6; 1 9 ... �ac8? 20

�g4) 20 �e3 �xe5 2 1 �xa8 �xa8 22 �a5 !

�xd6 23 �xb5 lt:Je5 24 �fd l leaves Black
short of compensation. b l ) l 4 ... lt:Jxd4 is awfully tempting: 1 5 lLlxd4

11 cxd4 'ii'xd2+ 12 �xd2 e6 (D) �xd4 1 6 �e7 �e5 1 7 �c5 ( 1 7 �c2 a6 1 8 �xf8

This queen less middlegame is a type of posi �xf8 1 9 �d3 '±', according to Predojevic, but
tion that we've seen before, but with the moves I'm not sure it's so different after l 9 ... �d7)

... h6 and �e3 included. In some ways the dif 1 7 ... �f4+ 1 8 �e2 a6 1 9 �a4 b6 20 �c2 b5 21
ference favours White, since d8 is covered and �xf8 �xf8 22 �b3 �b7 23 f3 (Fiear). It

... h6 can be met by �e7. wouldn't be too surprising if this were full com

13 �b5 pensation for the exchange; maybe a quick

GRONFELD DEFENCE 187

pawn-storm in the centre and kingside can get

there for White before the mighty bishops coor-
dinate, but I think that would take a lot of time B to determine.

b2) 14 ... h6! ? 1 5 .lte3 ( 1 5 .ltxc6 hxg5 is ana
lysed at great length by Steenbekkers, Van

Oirschot and Flear, with perhaps the very tiniest
of advantages emerging in some lines, but basi
cally it's just chess, which is not such a bad
thing) 1 5 .. J:td8 1 6 l:k 1 (D) and now:

B
with l2Je5 in mind; but this is hardly inspiring)

14 ... bxc6 and now:

a) 1 5 .ltf4 .lta6 1 6 l2Je5 g5 ! 1 7 .ltg3 f5 is
complex.

b) 1 5 e5 !? looks interesting. After 1 5 ... l::tb8

16 l::txc6, 1 6 ... l::tb2+ 17 l::tc2 l::txc2+ 1 8 Wxc2

.ltb7 appears to be enough to draw.

c) 1 5 We3 f6 1 6 .ltf4 e5 !? 1 7 dxe5 fxe5 1 8
l2Jxe5 l::txf4! 1 9 Wxf4 g5+ 20 Wxg5 i..xe5 2 1
l::txc6 was at most slightly better for White in

Volokitin-Moor, Mainz rapid 2007, and cer
b2 1 ) Flear recommended 1 6 ... .ltxd4 ' ! ' but tainly not '±', Predojevic's assessment! The I'm doubtful. After 1 7 l2Jxd4 l2Jxd4, his line bishops are dangerous; e.g., 2 1 ... i..d7 22 l::tc5
continued 1 8 .ltxd4 l::txd4+ 1 9 We3 l::td8, when h6+! 23 Wh5 ! .ltd4 24 l::td5 .lte8+ 25 Wxh6

Black stands passively but is a pawn up. Flear .ltxf2 26 Wg5 .lte3+, etc. gives 20 e5 a6 2 1 .ltd3 b5 as 'unclear' ; White 14 .lta4 b5 15 .ltb3 .ltb7 may well stand better in that case, but 2 l ... .ltd7 ! 1 5 ... a5 1 6 l::tc5 a4 and now 1 7 .ltd ! ! ;l:; is
with the idea 22 l::txb7 i..b5 apparently ruins the more accurate than 17 .ltc2?!, as played in
fun. However, there's a nice line with 1 8 .ltd3 ! Timofeev-Nepomniashchy, Russian Ch, Mos
l2Jc6 1 9 .ltxh6 which ultimately favours White. cow 201 1 , since 1 7 ... .ltd7 1 8 .lte2 l2Ja6 1 9 l::tc2

Black has two alternatives: doesn't end in a fork by ... l2Jb4.

b22) First, 1 6 ... g5 is logical. If 1 7 h3 (not 16 d5 exd5 the only move), then 17 ... i..f8 with the idea Now: ... .ltb4+ and/or ... .ltd6 makes sense because h6 a) Strange to say, 17 exd5 a5 1 8 l::tc7, as
is shielded, but anything can happen here; for played in Y.Vovk-Bezemer, Dieren 2009, could
example, 1 8 .ltxc6 bxc6 1 9 l:U xc6 .ltb4+ 20 have been well met by 1 8 ... .ltc8! 1 9 d6 l2Ja6 =. Wd 1 .ltd6 2 1 l::txd6 l:hd6 22 l2Je5. b) White can try 1 7 .ltxd5 i..xd5 1 8 exd5
b23) Unfortunately (from our viewpoint), l2Jd7 ( 1 8 .. .f6 1 9 .lte3 l::td8 20 We2 =) 1 9 l::tc6 f6

1 6 ... l2Jxd4 ! forces a mass-liquidation by 1 7 20 i..f4 ;!;, .ltxd4 .ltxd4 1 8 l2Jxd4 l::txd4+; compare line Overall, this line is pretty balanced, or a

'b21 '. So maybe 13 l::tc7 isn't theoretically ad sliver better for White at most. But there are
vantageous, but there's no definitive assess interesting nooks and crannies to investigate
ment. for fresh ideas.

We now return to 13 i..b5 (D):

13 .•• a6 9.2}

1 3 ... l2Jc6!? may be best; e.g., 1 4 .ltxc6 ( 1 4
l::thd 1 h6 1 5 .lte3 l:td8 1 6 .ltxc6 bxc6 1 7 We 1 ;l:; 7 'ii'a4+ (D)

188 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

1 1 ...l:tfd8 ( l l ...l:tab8 1 2 'ii'c2 b5 1 3 �c5 ;!;:)

1 2 'ii'c2 tt::la5 (what else?) 1 3 0-0 �xf3 14 �xf3

8 tt::lc4 ( 1 4 ... e5 1 5 d5 ;!; tt::lc4 1 6 �c l ) 1 5 �c 1 e5

( 1 5 ... c5 1 6 �e2 b5 can be met by 1 7 �xc4 bxc4

1 8 d5 or 1 7 dxc5, in both cases with an edge) 1 6

�g5 l:te8 (Gavrilov-Khachian, Moscow 1992)

and now White gets a pleasant though limited
advantage out of 1 7 �e2! 'ii'c6 ( l 7 ... tt::lb6 1 8 d5

'ifa4 1 9 l:tc l 'fUxc2 20 l:txc2) 1 8 d5 'ii'c5 1 9

�xc4 'ii'xc4 20 .:tbl and .:tb4.

a2) 9 �e2 produces good results because

Black can't challenge White's centre without a
serious compromise. One example is 9 ... �d7

1 0 'ii'a3 �g4 1 1 h3 �xf3 1 2 �xf3 e5 1 3 d5

This is our second repertoire option, similar tt::le7 1 4 c4 b6 1 5 �g5 f6 16 �d2, when White's
to 7 �g5 in that it leads to positions of a strate combination of space and the bishop-pair gives
gic nature, seldom highly tactical, which is the him a clear advantage, Kaunas-Bolacky, Frydek
opposite of so many lines beginning with the Mistek 1 996. main moves 7 �c4 and 7 tt::lf3. Thus, while b) 7 ... c6 8 tt::lf3 0-0 (D) isn't very good for
you are unlikely to win a smashing miniature Black, but the ideas are instructive: or even develop a nasty attack right out of the
opening, it's hard to make the kind of mistake

that gives you a terrible disadvantage. What's
more, in the variations following 7 'ifa4+, the w pieces tend to stay on the board and we don't
see the type of mass-liquidation that can some
times occur in the Griinfeld. After 7 'ifa4+, we
have:

9.21: 7 ..• �d7 1 89

9.22: 7 . ..ti:Jd7 1 89

9.23: 7 .. :¥id7 1 92

Other moves are rare but not necessarily bad:

a) 7 ... tt::lc6 develops, but blocks the c-pawn,
and the desirable ... b6 is temporarily hindered.

8 tt::lf3 0-0 and now: b 1 ) 9 �e2 c5 (Black feels that White's poor
a l ) 9 �a3 !? �g4 1 0 �e2 'ii'd7 l l l:td 1 (D). queen position justifies his waste of time with

... c6-c5) 10 �e3 tt::lc6 ( l 0 ... cxd4 1 1 cxd4 tt::lc6

1 2 l:tbl ;!;:) 1 1 .:te l �d7 1 2 'ii'a3 �a5 ( 1 2 ... cxd4 1 3 cxd4 e5 1 4 d5 tt::ld4 1 5 �xd4 exd4 1 6 0-0 l:te8

8 1 7 �d3 limits Black's disadvantage) 1 3 �xeS

�xa2 14 'ii'd5 ! 'ii'xd5 1 5 exd5 tt::la5 1 6 0-0 .:tfd8

1 7 tt::ld2 ;!;:; this isn't much, but White's centre re stricts Black's pieces and will at some point ad
vance.

b2) 9 �e3 c5 10 .l:tc l ! intends to answer

1 0 ... tt::lc6?! by 1 1 d5, so Black might try I O ... a6!

1 1 �e2 tt::ld7 1 2 0-0 b5 1 3 'ii'c2 �b7 1 4 a4 cxd4

1 5 cxd4 b4 1 6 d5 t.

b3) Since Black wants to play ... c5, and since
a3 is a desirable place for White's queen, White

GRVNFELD DEFENCE 189

might play 9 'ii'a3 straightaway. Then it' s not I 2 �c5 �e7 I 3 �c4 b6! I 4 �xe7 'ifxe7 1 5
clear what Black's plan should be; for example, 'ifxe7+

9 .. .'!2Jd7 1 0 �d3 lt:'lb6 I I 0-0 �e6 I 2 ..tg5 ;l; or fxg4 l:tae8 with equality, M.Gurevich-Manor,

9 ... �g4!? I O �e2, when I O ... e5 is met by I I Tel Aviv I 989. �g5 !, while 1 0 ... �xf3 I I �xf3 e5 I 2 0-0 exd4 c) 8 ... 0-0 9 �g5 f6 (9 ... l:te8 10 ll'lf3 �g4 I I

I 3 l:td I b5 14 �f4 'ii'h6 I 5 e5 dxc3 I 6 'ifxc3 l'Lld2!) 10 �h4 e5 I I �c4+
gives White more than enough compensation I 3 cxd4 ;l; c5 I4 0-0 �e8?! (Toth-Liptay, Hun for a pawn. garian Team Ch 20I I/12) 15 �d5 ! ±.

9 ll'lf3 e5 10 �e3

9.21) 1 0 d5 ! tt'le 7 I I c4 (or I I ..td3) may be better
still.

7 ... �d7 10 .•. exd4 11 cxd4 'ii'e7 12 'iixe7+ lt:'lxe7 (D)

This bishop development is thought to be
the worst of Black's three major defensive

moves, and is given ' ? ! ' by Svidler, who is the
world's most prominent Griinfeld expert. How w ever, Black has an array of options and not ev
erything is worked out by any means.

8 'ifa3 (D)

B

Ponomariov-Svidler, FIDE World Cup, Khan
ty-Mansiisk 20 I I . Here Flear offers 1 3 l:tc I ! c6

(after 1 3 ... 0-0-0 both I 4 d5 and I4 �f4 favour

White) I 4 �c4 0-0 and now 1 5
pleasant enduring edge", although 1 5 ll'le5 1ooks
better, with the same assessment.

8 .•• ll'lc6 9.22)

There are many alternatives of roughly equal
worth: 7 .•• tt'ld7 (D)

a) 8 ... b6 9 lt:'lf3 c5 10 �g5 ! cxd4 ( 1 0 ... 0-0

I I l:tdl !? h6 1 2 �f4! ;l; prevents ... 'ifc7, but nat urally White can set up in many ways; for ex

ample, c I tends to be a good spot for the rook) w

1 1 cxd4 lt:'lc6 (Czakon-Pakleza, Aschach an der

Donau 2006) and here I like 1 2 l:tc l ! intending
d5, and with the point that 1 2 ... lt:'lxd4? ( l 2 ... h6

I 3 �f4 e6 14 d5 lt:'ld4 I 5 �a6!) 1 3 l'Llxd4 �xd4

1 4 l:td I favours White.

b) 8 ... e5 ! ? 9 �e3 !? (9 d5 ! with a pull -

Flear; this looks good, as does 9 tt'lf3) 9 ... exd4

1 0 �xd4!? ( I 0 cxd4 tt'lc6 I I l'Llf3 �g4 1 2 �b5

;l;) I O ... �f6 ( I O ... �xd4 I I cxd4 'ife7 I 2 'ifxe7+

190 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

8 tt:Jf3 weakness, White can get a little something

White can also play 8 �g5 intending l:.d I , or from l 2 e5 ! �b7 ( 1 2 ... 'ifc7 1 3 �e2 �b7 14 0-0

8 �e3; e.g., 8 ... 0-0 (8 ... c5 9 l:tc l 0-0 1 0 lLlf3 ;!;) with a light edge) 1 3 �e2 a6 1 4 0-0 b5 1 5 �2!

9 l:!.c l lLlf6 10 �d3 b6 I I tLle2 e5? ! 1 2 f3 ;!; l:!.b8 ( l 5 ... �c7 16 a4 bxa4 1 7 l:!.xa4 ;!;) 16 �d2 Nakamura-Esserman, Orlando 20 1 1 . 'it>h7 1 7 h4 cxd4 1 8 cxd4 tLlb6 1 9 h5 tLlc4 20

8 ... 0-0 'ii'd3 �xf3 ! 2 1 gxf3 (2 1 �xf3 tt:Jxe5) 2 1 ...�d7

8 ... c5 9 �g5 0-0 transposes into Section 22 'it>h2 l:!.bc8 23 f4 ;!;. 9.22 1 . b) IO ... �c7 I I �d3 ! ? (or the natural I I

9 �g5 l:!.c I ; compare our main line) I I ... cxd4 1 2 cxd4

This is the most assertive move, and has tLlc5 1 3 0-0 tLlxd3 1 4 'ii'xd3 with development
some ideas similar to those arising from 7 �g5. in return for the bishop-pair; e.g., 1 4 ... �g4 1 5

9 �e3 and 9 �e2 c5 are common alternatives. I l:.ac l 'ii'd6 1 6 d5 l:!.fc8 1 7 h3 �xf3 1 8 �xf3
see no mention of 9 .l:!.bl anywhere, and yet in with the idea 'i!kg4 and f4 later. Here it's only
some ways it compares well to 9 �g5, because fair to emphasize that White's advantage in
after 9 l:tb I c5 I 0 �e2 tLlb6 I I 'ii'a3 cxd4 1 2 most of these lines is small and not enough to
cxd4, the move l 2 ... �d6, which is the generic discourage Black. The real point is that there's
antidote with the moves �g5, ... h6, and �e3 in interesting unbalanced play on the board. cluded, is not effective in view of 1 3 �e3 ! ;!; 10 ... 'i!kc7 with the idea �a3 in many lines. Probably 9 I O ... h6 I I �e3 transposes to Section 9.222.

l:tb I is no better or worse than other moves, but 11 �d3 a6 12 �a3 (D) this is an area for investigation. 12 �xe7?! tLlb6 13 'ili'a5 'flxe7 14 'flxb6 �g4

After 9 �g5, Black has: gives Black more than adequate counterplay.

9.221: 9 ••• c5 1 90

9.222: 9 ••• h6 1 9 1

9.221) B

9 ... c5 (D)

12 ... e5

After 12 ... h6, 1 3 �e3 is still possible, but

White can also play 1 3 �xe7 tLle5 1 4 tLlxe5

'ili'xe7 1 5 0-0 �xe5 1 6 dxe5 'ili'xe5 1 7 f4 iVe7 1 8
l:!.ce l ;!; with kingside chances; for example,

1 8 ... �e6 19 f5 l:tad8 20 fxe6! l:!.xd3 2 1 l:txf7

10 l:tcl l:!.xf7 22 exf7+ 'it>xf7 23 e5 and the combina

I 0 'ifa3 is more interesting than theory would tion of White's passed pawn and Black's ex
suggest: posed king gives White a pull. 1 2 ... l:!.e8 1 3 0-0
a) I O ... h6 I I �e3 b6 has been considered b6 is well met by 14 �h4 e5 1 5 �c4 ;!;. fine for Black due to 1 2 �d3 cxd4 1 3 cxd4 13 0-0 l:!.e8! tLlc5 ! (an important theme for Black in this Mark Tseitlin's excellent plan, which may
variation), Varga-Navara, Pula 2003. But given well equalize, but leaves the position full of in

Black's knight on d7 and his slight kingside terest.

GRONFELD DEFENCE 191

14 J..c4 Section 9.22 1 , in which the moves ... h6 and

This has the idea of occupying d5 as well as J..e3 are omitted): capturing twice on e5 and attacking via f4. a) l l ...cxd4 12 cxd4 tt:::lb6 1 3 'iib3 ! J..g4 14

14 •• .lbb6 15 J..b3 c4 J..e2 'iWd6 (the difference between inserting

1 5 ... J..f8?! 1 6 'iia5 i. . .. h6 or not shows up in lines like 14 ... J..xf3 1 5

16 J..c2 exd4 J..xf3 J..xd4 1 6 J..xh6 ± with the idea h4-h5 -

After 1 6 ... lt:Jd7 (Avrukh), White could play Krasenkov) 1 5 0-0 J..xf3 1 6 J..xf3 J..xd4 ! ? 1 7

17 J..e7 ! exd4 1 8 J..d6 J..f8 19 J..xf8 tt:::lxf8 20 J..xh6!? ( 1 7 .l:!.fd l ! e5 1 8 J..xh6 .l:!.fc8 1 9 h4 ;!;)

cxd4 b5 2 1 .l:!.fe l J..b7 22 'iic3 with the idea of a 17 ... .l:!.fc8 1 8 g3 a5 19 �g2 'i!Vb4 (Dzhandzh
well-timed d5 and/or lt:Je5. gava-Krasenkov, Vilnius 1 988) and here 20

17 cxd4 lt:Jd7 'iid3 is enough for a nice advantage.

"The position is very complicated, with mu b) l l ...e5 1 2 d5 ! ( 1 2 tt:::lxe5 cxd4 1 3 cxd4
tual chances" - Avrukh. This describes the situ tt:::lxe5 1 4 dxe5 J..d7 ! is supposed to be equal, al
ation well; e.g., 1 8 'iie3 ( 1 8 J..d2 b5 19 J..a5 though 1 5 J..b5 J..xb5 1 6 'iixb5 should result in

'iif4! 20 J..d2 fkc7 = ; 1 8 e5 b5 1 9 J..f4 J..b7 20 a modest edge) 12 .. .f5 1 3 J..d3 f4 ( 13 ... a6 14 c4
lt:Jg5 !?) 1 8 ... b5 19 ..th6 ( 1 9 h4!? J..b7 20 h5 lt:Jf6 15 lt:Jd2 b6 16 f3 ;!;) 14 J..d2 tt:::lb6 ( 1 4 ... g5
lt:Jf6 21 J..xf6 J..xf6 22 e5) l 9 ... J..b7 20 J..xg7 1 5 h3 ! precludes a kings ide counterattack) 1 5

�xg7 2 1 d5 with unclear play; obviously both 'iib3 J..g4 16 c4!? (or 1 6 J..e2 ;\; ) 1 6 .. . J..xf3 1 7
sides have alternative options throughout, White gxf3 .l:!.f6, and here instead of 1 8 0-0 (Kroes
more so than Black. Nenciulescu, Internet 2009), White should leave
open the ideas of J..fl -h3 and/or h4-h5 by, say,

9.222) l 8 a4 'i!fe7 ! 9 .l:!.b l .

c) l l ... e6 is solid; for example, 12 J..e2 (or

9 ... h6 1 2 J..d3 b6 1 3 0-0 J..b7 14 lt:Jd2, thinking

In general, I think White profits by having about e5 and J..e4 or tt:::le4) 1 2 ... b6 1 3 0-0 J..b7
this move in, but it's not always clear. 14 tt:::ld2 a6 1 5 'iVb3 'iic7 (Belichev-Avrukh,

10 J..e3 c5 Cappelle Ia Grande 1 999), which Avrukh calls

I O ... b6?! loses the light squares after I I J..b5 slightly better for White.

lt:Jf6 1 2 lbe5 ( 12 J..c6 J..d7 1 3 lt:Je5 J..xc6 14 12 J..d3 (D) lt:Jxc6 'iid7 1 5 f3 a6 1 6 'iWc4 ;\;) 12 ... a6 13 J..c6

.l:!.b8 14 f3 i.

ll l:!.cl (D)

8

8

12 ... a6

12 ... e5 1 3 0-0 b6 14 .l:!.fel J..b7 1 5 d5 ( 1 5

J..b5 !?); e.g., 1 5 .. . a6 1 6 c4 b5 !? 1 7 cxb5 axb5

Following the same policy as after 9 ... c5. 1 8 'iVxb5 ltfb8 1 9 'iic4 J..a6 20 'iic2 J..xd3 2 1
ll ... 'iic7 'iixd3 .l:txa2 22 lt:Jd2 with a pleasant positional

Here Black has the typical set of alterna advantage for White.

tives (it is useful to compare the lines from 13 0-0 e6

192 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

1 3 ... b5 14 'ii'd l i..b7 15 'it'd2 shows another an eye on the light squares, which are Black's
idea unique to ... h6 lines; for example, 1 5 .. .';i;>h7 usual hunting grounds in the Exchange Griin

( 1 5 ... lbf6 1 6 i..f4 'ii'd7 17 .l:!.fe l ;\;) 1 6 a4 c4 1 7 feld. i.c2 ;\; . Lines where the centre stays intact like 8 'ii'a3 compiled a hugely positive score a de
this tend to be slightly better for White. cade ago and then almost disappeared -I am

14 'ii'a3!? not actually sure why ! Dembo cites Sevillano

Or 14 'ii'd l b5 15 'ii'd2 h5 16 a4. Yermolinsky, Stratton Mountain 1 999, which

14 ••. b6 went 8 ... 0-0 9 lbf3 b6 I 0 i.e3 i..b7 ( 1 O ... c5 is

1 4 ... b5 1 5 i..xb5 axb5 1 6 'ii'xa8 i..b7 1 7 'ii'a3 probably more accurate; then 1 1 .l:!.d I cxd4 1 2

..txe4 1 8 lbd2 gives Black compensation, but it cxd4 i..b7 1 3 .i.d3 'ii'd6! i s a familiar ma
doesn't seem to be quite enough; e.g., 1 8 ... ..td5 noeuvre for Black - White's chances for advan

1 9 'f9b2 'ii'c6 20 f3 .l:!.a8 2 1 lbb3. tage after 14 'ikxd6 exd6 1 5 0-0 look slim, but

15 .l:!.b1 .i.b7 16 'ii'c1 on the other hand, who would want to be Black

Again this reorganization. here?) 1 1 i..d3 c5. Now instead of that game's

16 ..• 'it>h7 17 .l:!.d1 .l:!.fc8 18 i..f4 1 2 .l:!.d 1 , Szeberenyi-D.Howell, Budapest 2004

Dreev-Gofman, USSR Junior Team Ch, Kra- went 1 2 0-0 cxd4 1 3 cxd4 e6 14 .l:!.fd l ?! ( 1 4
matorsk 1 989. White has a small but definite lbe5 ! is more awkward for Black; i f 14 .. . ..txe5
advantage in this type of position. 1 5 dxe5 lbc6, then 16 ..tb5 and White's central
ized rooks will cause trouble) 1 4 .. . lbc6 1 5

9.23) .l:!.ac I , with a slight advantage for White; .i.b5
and 'ii'a4 is one problem. Such positions are

7 .. .'W/d7 (D) manageable for Black, but still not attractive.

8 ••• 0-0 (D) 8 ... b6 9 lbf3 i..b7 (9 ... 0-0 I 0 i..e3 transposes

to the main line) 10 .i.b5 !? .i.c6 1 1 .i.d3 ..ta4
w 1 2 'ii'a3 0-0 1 3 0-0 c5 ! 1 4 ..te3 !? ( 14 .l:!.b 1 ;\; dis
courages Black's main idea ... ..tb5, as does 14

..tg5 ;\;, threatening .i.xe7) 14 ... ..tb5 1 5 .i.xb5

'ii'xb5 16 dxc5 lbc6 with compensation, M.An
dersen-Kanarek, Krakow 201 1 .

w

This is one of Black's two favourite moves,
and is preferred by Dembo in her treatise on
the Griinfeld. This is a rather theoretical line,
but I found it amenable to new ideas through out.

8 'f9b3

Now it's as if White has played 7 �b3 and
then given Black the move ... 'i!i'd7 for free. The
former position for White's queen isn't bad, but 9 i..e3 the latter ( ... 'iWd7) gets in the way of the devel 9 lbf3 is an important move-order. Then af
opment of Black's c8-bishop and arguably isn't ter 9 ... b6, 1 0 ..te3 transposes to the main line of
the best square for the queen, which normally this section while 1 0 .i.b5 c6 1 1 .i.e2 c5 1 2 0-0
goes to a5 or c7. Still, ... 'ii'd7 clears the back cxd4! 1 3 cxd4 i..b7 14 11i'e3 lbc6 15 i..b2 is
rank, maintains the pressure on d4, and keeps comfortable for White, but very close to equal.

GRONFELD DEFENCE 193

Alternatively, Black can play 9 ... c5, when 1 0

..te3 transposes to 9 .. . c 5 1 0 tt::lf3 i n the next
note, but White might play 1 0 d5. Surprisingly, w the latter move hasn't been contested much, but
might be a promising move-order for White.

9 ••• b6

9 ... c5 tries to exert pressure upon White's
centre along normal lines; it can be played
without ... b6, as seen in the well-known game

Kramnik -Giri, Wij k aan Zee 20 I I : 1 0 d5 ! ? ( 1 0
tt::lf3 is the natural move, when I O ... cxd4 1 1
cxd4 tt::lc6 1 2 l:td 1 is unclear; then 1 2 ... 'ii'd6 is
natural, freeing the c8-bishop and contemplat
ing ... 'ili'b4+) I O ... e6 1 1 ..tc4 exd5 1 2 ..txd5

'ili'c7 ( 1 2 ... tt::la6!?) 13 tt::le2 tt::ld7 14 ..tf4! (D). a) I I l:tc I and then:

a l ) I I ...tt::la5 !? 1 2 'ii'c2 c5 1 3 ..td3 ..tb7

"and Black, with ideas of ... c4 and ... f5, has as
sumed the initiative" - Dembo. Perhaps, but af

B ter 14 0-0, 14 ... f5 is loosening; for example, 1 5
dxc5 bxc5 1 6 exf5 ..txf3 1 7 gxf3 gxf5 1 8 l:tfd 1

'ii'c8 1 9 'ili'a4. Also 14 ... c4 1 5 ..te2 f5 1 6 exf5
gives White a small positional edge; for exam
ple, 1 6 ... .l:txf5 1 7 l:tcel l:laf8 1 8 tt::lh4 l:t5f7 1 9
f4.

a2) l l .....tb7 1 2 'ii'bl e5 1 3 d5 tt::le7 14 c4 c6
and after 1 5 ..td3 f5 "Black is in the driving
seat" (Dembo). But again, that isn't clear to me,
and at any rate, 1 5 .l:td l looks pleasant for

White; e.g., 1 5 ... cxd5 ( 1 5 ... f5? 1 6 d6 tt::lc8 1 7
c5) 1 6 cxd5 tt::lc8 1 7 ..tb5 'ii'e7 1 8 0-0 tt::ld6 1 9

Play continued 14 ... tt::le5 1 5 0-0 c4 ( 1 5 .. J1b8 'ii'b4 t . None of this i s to say, however, that 1 6 c4 ..td7 1 7 a4 - Flear; this is White's planned White gets more than a modest edge in these
set-up once the bishop is on d5, although in lines. general it's best constructed when Black isn't b) 1 1 ..td3 is also natural; e.g., l l ...tt::la5 1 2
well-placed to occupy d4) 1 6 'ii'b4 l:le8 (Flear 'ii'c2 c 5 1 3 0-0 cxd4 1 4 cxd4 ..tb7 1 5 'ii'e2 and
analyses 1 6 ... a5, giving 1 7 'ii'b5 ..tg4! as satis now 1 5 ... .l:Iac8 1 6 l:tfd l or 1 5 ... tt::lc6!? 1 6 d5
factory for Black, with the idea 1 8 tt::ld4 tt::lf3+ ! ; tt::le5 1 7 tt::lxe5 ..txe5 1 8 l:tac l t. I think that 1 7 'ir'bl ! ;!;; i s better, when the same c) 1 1 h4! ? with the idea h5 attempts to take
trick leads to a difficult endgame following advantage of the fact that ... tt::lc6 not only tem

17 ... ..tg4 1 8 tt::ld4 tt::lf3+ 1 9 gxf3 'ii'xf4 20 'ii'c I ) porarily releases central pressure and moves

1 7 ..tg3 l:tb8?! ( 1 7 ... 1i'b6) 1 8 1i'xc4! 'ii'xc4 1 9 away from the kingside, but that it also takes

..txc4 ..td7 20 l:tfd 1 and Black had counterplay valuable time: I I ...tt::la5 1 2 'ii'c2 c5 1 3 dxc5 ! ?

but White's extra pawn granted him a small ad ..tb7 14 .l:tbl bxc5 1 5 h5 'i:Ve6. vantage. 11 ..td3 tt::lc6

We now return to 9 ... b6 (D): l l .. . c5 1 2 0-0 tt::lc6 ( 1 2 ... cxd4 1 3 cxd4 tt::lc6

10 tt::lf3 ..tb7 and now 14 l:tad I l:tac8 1 5 d5 tt::la5 1 6 'ili'b4 ;!;;

Dembo suggests I O ... tt::lc6!?, intending a re was V.Milov-Krasenkow, European Ch, An
organization along the lines of ... tt::la5, ... c5, talya 2004, but I think 14 .l:.fd I is more accu

... 'ii'c7 and ... ..tg4 or ... ..te6. There is almost no rate) 1 3 l:tfd 1 tt::la5 1 4 'ili'c2 cxd4 1 5 cxd4 l:lac8
experience with this, and it's not clear which of 1 6 'ii'e2 is a typical position with chances for
several options is best for White. For example: both sides; one new idea is that if Black plays 194 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

... e6, White can consider h4-h5 in conjunction b) I think White still has a meaningful ad
with e5. Compare the next note. vantage (based upon space) after 1 9 'f6b4! lbd6

12 .:d1 lba5 13 'ii'b1 c5 14 0-0 cxd4 15 20 lbb5 ! . cxd4 (D)

w

B

19 ..te2!?

15 ... .:ac8 1 9 .l:.fe1 also presents problems: 1 9 ... .l:.c7

1 5 ... e6 can weaken the dark squares, al- ( 1 9 ... 'fla3 20 i.fl is slightly better for White;
though that needn't be too serious; for exam 1 9 ... 'fla5 20 i.e2 .l:.c7 2 1 'flc l ! attacking c4 and
ple, 1 6 h4! ? ( 1 6 i.f4 .:ac8 1 7 i.b5 'fle7 1 8 eyeing h6; 1 9 ... .l:.c5 ! ?) 20 h4 (20 'f6b5 ! 'i¥xb5 !

.l:.fe1 ;!; has the idea d5, but reserves e5 as well) 2 1 lbxb5 .l:.c5 22 .l:.c 1 ! lbe5 23 i.e2 a6 24 .l:.xc5

16 ... .l:.ac8 17 h5 ( 1 7 .l:.c 1 is a calmer approach) bxc5 25 lbc3 ;!;) 20 ... 'f6a5 (20 ... .l:.fc8 2 1 h5) 21

1 7 ... gxh5 ! ? (a tough decision, as Black elimi- 'flcl .l:.fc8 22 i.xc4 .:xc4 23 'f6e3 with excel
nates both hxg6 and h6, but of course weakens lent attacking chances, V.Milov-Krasenkow,
his position; 1 7 ... lbc4! is natural and probably European Ch, Warsaw 2005. Upon 23 .. .'ii'xa2,
equal - then an ambitious possibility is 1 8 24 flg5 ! (Milov) is strong. ..tg5 ! ? intending 1 8 ... h6 1 9 i.xc4 .l:.xc4 20 19 ••• lba3 llle5 i.xe5 2 1 dxe5, but this is unclear) 1 8 d5 ! ? 1 9 ... 'f6a5 20 'i!Vc 1 lets White shift to the king-
lbc4 ( 1 8 .. . exd5? ! 1 9 exd5 ! f5 2 0 lbh4 with a side. strong initiative - Flear) 1 9 i.d4 f6 (V.Milov 20 'flb2 lbc2?! Rowson, French Team Ch, Port Barcares 2005) 20 ... .l:.c5 2 1 h4 lbc2 ;!; is more accurate.

and here either 20 i.c3 or 20 .l:.fel keeps White 21 i.g4! .l:.c7?? in front. A blunder. White still gets a dangerous at

16 d5 lbc4 tack after 2 1 .. . .l:.c5 22 lbe6! fxe6 23 i.xe6+

1 6 ... 'fld6 can be met by 1 7 .l:.c l , intending .:n 24 'fle5 ! .

17 ... e6 1 8 ..td2!. 22 lbe6!

17 ..td4 White is winning. After 22 ... fxe6 23 i.xe6+

Exchanging the bishops makes life a bit .l:.f7 24 'f6e5 .l:.c8 (Khairullin-Kumosov, Ro
more difficult for Black. gaska Slatina 20 1 1 ), the easiest course was 25

17 ... ..txd4 18 lDxd4 fla4 (D) d6! exd6 26 .:xd6, with unstoppable threats.

1 8 ... e5 has been assessed as equal, but I dis- Yes, that was fun. But in conclusion, I can't
agree: emphasize enough that the main goal of both the
a) 1 9 lbf3 f6 and now 20 h3 (I.Sokolov 7 i.g5 and 7 'i!Va4+ variations is not so much to

Krasenkow, British League (4NCL) 2005/6) obtain minor theoretical advantages (which is
may be slightly better than 20 i.xc4, as played sometimes impossible anyway if Black plays ac
in the game I.Sokolov-Cheparinov, Khanty curately), as to get playable, strategically com

Mansiisk Olympiad 201 0, but 20 .l:.c1 lbd6 2 1 plex rniddlegarnes and endgames, an aim which

'ir'b4 looks best. these variations accomplish better than most.

1 0 Benoni Systems and Benko Gambit

The common theme in the lines covered in this while providing additional options along the

chapter is that Black plays an early ... c5, pro way, while others head off in different direc
voking White to advance by d5. Black has a tions entirely: wide range of ways to handle the resulting situ a) The most important of these lines is 3 ... b5,
ation, the main ones being to gambit by ... b5, the Benko Gambit - see Section I 0.2. seeking queenside pressure (Benko Gambit), or b) 3 ... ltJe4 is the Vulture - see Section
to play ... e6 and exchange on d5, creating a 1 0.34. queenside majority (Modem Benoni). But there c) 3 ... d6 4 tLlc3 and now 4 ... e5 is covered in
are several other options, including lines where Section 1 0.32, while 4 ... g6 5 e4 i..g7 6 h3 0-0

Black blocks the centre completely. Therefore will transpose to King's Indian lines: 7 i..g5 is

I' II hold off on the strategic commentary for 8.23 and 7 i..e3 is 8. 1 2. There you will tind
now, and discuss themes as and when they be analysis of early ... b5 options, for example, in
come relevant. addition to the standard ... e6 lines.

The chapter is structured as follows: d) 3 ... e5 is a Czech Benoni; see Section

10.1: Modern Benoni 1 95 1 0.32. 10.2: Benko Gambit 205 e) 3 ... a6 is answered with the no-nonsense 4 10.3: Other Benoni Systems 2 1 4 a4 in a substantial majority of grandmaster
games. That fits in with White's plans versus

10.1) Modern Benoni just about every conceivable system, and re
stricts Black's options later; e.g., he may have

1 d4 lLlf6 wanted to play ... tLla6-c7, and there are lines in

For lines after 1 ... c5 2 d5 where the game which ... b5 is played without the support of
does not transpose back to a Modem Benoni, ... a6. That doesn't mean that you can't play 4
see Section I 0.3 1 . tLld2, 4 'i¥c2 or 4 f3, for example, or even 4 tLlc3

2 c4 c5 3 d5 (D) b5 5 e4!? b4 6 tLla4 lLlxe4 7 i..d3 followed by
tLlxc5, which appears favourable for White -
this is covered in Section 1 2.55.

f) 3 ... g6 4 lLlc3 i&.g7 5 e4 0-0 (for 5 ... d6 on

8 this or the next move, see the King's Indian

chapter - Section 8. 1 2 or 8.23) 6 i..d3 e6 !? is a
unique move-order. 7 e5 (this apparently yields
some advantage, but the more restrained 7 ltJge2
exd5 8 exd5 can't be bad, and 7 i..g5 might ulti
mately transpose to our main line after 7 ... exd5

8 cxd5 d6 9 h3 or 7 ... d6 8 h3 exd5 9 cxd5; in
these lines exd5 is also a good option, as we saw
in the King's Indian chapter) 7 ... ltJe8 8 lLlf3
exd5 9 cxd5 (9 i..g5 !? f6 1 0 exf6 i..xf6 I I i..xf6
lLlxf6 1 2 cxd5 d6 1 3 i..e2 is an alternative)

9 ... d6 l O i..g5 f6 ( 1 0 ... 'i¥c7 I I exd6 ltJxd6 1 2

3 ... e6 0-0 t ) I I exf6 i..xf6 1 2 i..h6 ( I 2 'i¥d2 i..g4)

This introduces the Modem Benoni. There 1 2 ... i..g7 1 3 i..xg7 lLlxg7 14 h3 �e8+ 1 5 i..e2
are several other moves, some which are liable t. to transpose back to Modern Benoni lines, 4 ltJc3 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 (D)

196 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

The Snake Benoni, 5 ... ..td6, is covered sepa We have reached our main line. This invites
rately in Section 1 0.35, as its themes have very comparison with 9 l2Jf3, the 'Modem Classi
little in common with the Modem Benoni. cal ' , which can arise from playing l2Jf3 on any
of moves 4 through to 9. At first sight, White's

..tg5 seems to be a poor substitute for lLlf3,
since it fails to help White get castled. On the
other hand, White retains the choice between
l2Jge2 and l2Jf3 as the position requires. Fur
thermore, White manages to sidestep some of
the problems with 9 ... b5 that have plagued the 9
l2Jf3 version - or at least great complicated and
sharpened its theory.

There's a fair amount of history with the

..tg5 system, but it has the advantage of being
little-known (books on the Benoni have ne
glected it to a large degree), and even the

Benoni player who is aware of the existence of

9 ..tg5 may nevertheless not have taken it seri

Black has created the imbalance he sought: ously enough to prepare in any depth against it.

he has a queenside majority and a half-open e One reason I've chosen this system is that it is
file. On the other hand, White has a central ma consistent with one of our repertoire options
jority and the d5-pawn provides him with a versus the King's Indian Defence, and in fact, if
space advantage. you read that chapter you will see that by play

6 e4 g6 7 ..td3 ing 9 cxd5 in the main 6 ..tg5 c5 variation,

This move introduces a modern set-up that White would actually transpose to this position.

has taken over Benoni practice. I don't think Furthermore, in the development of that King's
there is any profitable way for Black to deviate Indian line, we examined many variations which
if White chooses the move-order 7 h3 ..tg7 8 also arise from 1 d4 l2Jf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 d6 4 l2Jc3

..td3. g6 5 e4 ..tg7, material that you need to know in

7 •.• ..tg7 order to have a complete repertoire.

As on move 3, 7 ... a6 8 a4 doesn't limit Let's jump right in. After 9 ..tg5, Black can

White much, since a4 is almost always the play: main response to ... a6 in the lines below. Black 10.11: 9 .. Jie8 1 97 on the other hand has forfeited the possibility 10.12: 9 ••• l2Jbd7 200 of .. .lt)a6-c7 or playing ... b5 without the pre 10.13: 9 ••• h6 201 paratory ... a6. 10.14: 9 .•. ..td7 204

8 h3 0-0 9 ..tg5 (D)

Other moves:

a) In the scheme of move-orders I have cho
sen, the usual 9 ... a6 is always transpositional;

B e.g., after 1 0 a4, I O ... l2Jbd7 l l l2Jf3 and I O . .. l:!.e8

1 1 lDf3 are dealt with under the move-orders

9 ... l2Jbd7 1 0 l2Jf3 a6 1 1 a4 and 9 ... l:!.e8 1 0 l2Jf3
a6 1 1 a4, respectively.

b) 9 ... 'ife8 (D) has the idea of unpinning the
knight while hitting e4.

White can parry the attack on e4 in a few
ways, but the easiest is 1 0 'ife2 ( ' ! ' ECO; Balashov gives I 0 l2Jge2 c4; then 1 1 ..tc2 b5 1 2
a3 resembles later lines and offers an edge;

White could also win a pawn by 1 1 ..txf6 ..txf6

BENONI SYSTEMS AND BENKO GAMBIT 197

bxc3 fxe4 1 5 f3 ! e 3 1 6 tLle4 l:le5 1 7 �xe3 with

a decisive advantage for White.

c2) I O ... b5, with these options:

c2 1 ) 1 1 a4 b4 1 2 tLlb5 'iVd8 ( 1 2 ... c4 !? 1 3

�xf6 �xf6 1 4 �xc4 .i.xb2 1 5 l:lb 1 �g7 1 6 0-0

;!;) 1 3 0-0 a6 14 l2Jxd6 'i'ixd6 15 e5 'it'd8 1 6 �c4

;!;.

c22) 1 1 0-0 c4 1 2 �e2 ( 1 2 �c2! ?) 1 2 ... b4

1 3 e5 ! dxe5 ( 1 3 ... l2Jfd7 1 4 tLle4 tLlxe5 1 5 l2Jxe5

�xe5 1 6 �e7 l:le8 1 7 tLlxd6 l:lxe7 1 8 tLlxc4

'it'd8 1 9 d6) 1 4 �xf6 �xf6 1 5 l2Je4 �g7 1 6

�xc4 ;!; . The d-pawn can be strong and Black
has difficulties organizing a counterattack with

... f5.

1 2 �xc4, but he'd be on the defensive for some
time) I O ... a6 1 1 a4 tLlbd7 1 2 lLlf3 l2Je5 1 3 0-0 10.11) ( 1 3 tLlxe5 !? 'it'xe5 14 'ii'd2 lLlh5 !? 1 5 g4 lLlf6 1 6
a5 ;!;) 1 3 .. .'�Jfd7 (called '?!' by Balashov, who 9 ••• l:le8 (D) gives 1 3 ... t"Llxf3+ 14 'ifxf3 lLld7; then a sample
line is 1 5 �e2 f5 1 6 f4 lLlf6 1 7 e5 tLlh5 1 8 e6 ! ?

tLlg3 1 9 �c2 lLlxfl 2 0 l:.xfl with more than
enough compensation) 1 4 lLld2 lLlxd3 1 5 'it'xd3
and now, instead of 1 5 ... tLle5 1 6 'ii'g3 f5 1 7 f4
lLlf7 (Spassky-J.Polgar, Budapest (5) 1 993),
when White stands considerably better after

Ftacnik's 1 8 �h4!, 1 5 ... h6 1 6 .i.f4 tLle5 was
suggested. Nevertheless, White still has the ad
vantage after 1 7 'ife3 g5 1 8 �xe5 .i.xe5 1 9 l2Jc4

�d7 20 a5 �b5 2 1 lLlxe5 'ifxe5 (not 2 1 ... �xfl ?

22 tLlg4) 22 f4 gxf4 23 .l:r.xf4 'it'd4 24 'ii'xd4
cxd4 25 lLlxb5 axb5 26 .l:r.f6 ;!;.

c) 9 ... �a5 1 0 lLlf3 (D) has some interesting consequences:

This straightforward move may prove better
than playing an early ... h6 and then ... l:le8.

Since White isn't castling next move, Black

B wants to exert pressure on the e-pawn and set
up tactics based upon the e-file; e.g., he threat
ens I O ... tLlxe4! I I tLlxe4 ( 1 1 �xd8 lLlxc3+) 1 l ...'it'xg5. In this section I'm not including
lines with ... h6, which will be seen in 1 0. 1 3.

10 lLlf3 White's favourite piece deployment in the

Benoni; notice that this protects g5.

However, I 0 l2Jge2 is also logical and sim
pler to master. White wants to block the e-file
and also keep open the possibility of f4. With
out going into heavy details, the game Goldin
c l ) 1 0 ... l2Jxe4?! 1 1 �xe4 l:le8 1 2 tLld2 f5 1 3 Pigusov, Novosibirsk 1 993 continued 1 0 ... a6 0-0 �xc3 ( 1 3 ... fxe4 1 4 tLldxe4 'it'b6 1 5 l:le1 1 1 a4 tLlbd7 1 2 0-0 l:lb8 ( 1 2 ... l2Je5 1 3 �c2 is
l2Jd7 1 6 'ifb3 ! �xb3 1 7 axb3 and d6 falls) 1 4 unclear) 1 3 �h i (a little slow; 1 3 tLlg3 ! is 198 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

White's best chance for advantage, and 1 3 a5 White doesn't have to commit so much, and 1 2
b5 14 axb6 �xb6 1 5 l:ta2 is double-edged, with 'i!fc2 offers him a safe edge. plenty of play for both sides) 13 ... h6 1 4 i.h4 11 i.c2 b5 (D) t:Lle5 1 5 f4 t:Llxd3 1 6 �xd3, assessed as ';!;' by

ECO, but that seems unjustified; it's a position in which anything can happen, and I think that 'dynamically equal' is more accurate. w

10 ... c4

Note that lines with the natural move ... h6
will tend to transpose to Section 1 0. 1 3 (9 ... h6),
but there are also unique instances. Here are
other moves of interest:

a) I O . . . b5? is better played via 9 ... h6 I 0 i.e3 b5, as in Section I 0. 1 32, because here I I i.xb5
hits the rook on e8.

b) IO ... t:Lla6 is instructive, because it illus
trates what happens if Black isn't careful to
overprotect e5: I I 0-0 h6 1 2 i.f4 ( 1 2 i.e3 c4 1 3
i.c2 b5 1 4 a3 transposes to note 'c' to Black's 12 a3

1 3th move in Section 1 0. 1 3 1 ) 1 2 ... c4 1 3 i.c2 To stop ... b4. Obviously bad are 1 2 t:Llxb5? b5 1 4 a3 'iVb6 1 5 'ii'd2 h5 1 6 l:tfe I t:Llc5 17 i.h6 'ifa5+ 1 3 t:Llc3 t:Llxe4 and 12 'i!fd4? t:Llxe4. Never
a5 1 8 e5 ! (D). theless, White often has a choice and can allow

. .. b4, counting upon his superior development,

by 1 2 0-0!?. I think this deserves serious atten
tion:

8 a) l 2 ... b4 1 3 t:Llb5 h6 1 4 i.xf6 i.xf6 1 5 "ii'd2
c3! ( l 5 ... i.xb2 1 6 'ii'xb4 i.xal 17 l:txal a5 1 8

'ifxd6! ;!;) 1 6 bxc3 i.a6 1 7 c4! i.xal 1 8 l:txa l
i.xb5 1 9 cxb5 a6! ( 1 9 ... a5 2 0 e5 ! dxe5 2 1

'i!i'xh6) 20 'ifxh6 t:Lld7 2 1 b6 t:Llxb6 22 e5 ! dxe5

23 t:Llg5 'iff6 24 "ii'h7+ 'iti>f8 25 d6 e4 26 .:tel ;!;
offers White a pleasant initiative; i.b3 and d7
are thematic moves.

b) 1 2 ... h6 1 3 i.xf6! i.xf6 1 4 'i!fd2. The ex
change on f6 is normally bad, but White has
such a lead in development and central play
that it works here; e.g., l 4 ... i.a6 ( l 4 ... i.g7 1 5

This typical central breakthrough is White's t:Llxb5 i.xb2?! 1 6 l:tabl i.g7 1 7 'ii'f4) 1 5 e5 !

most deadly weapon in these types of position: i.xe5 1 6 t:Llxe5 l:txe5 1 7 'ifxh6 ;!;.

l 8 ... dxe5 1 9 t:Llxe5 i.f5? ( l 9 ... t:Llb3 ! 20 i.xb3 12 ... i.d7
cxb3 2 1 i.xg7 'iti>xg7 22 'iff4 ;!;) 20 i.xf5 t:Llb3 This idea will be seen again in 1 0. 1 4; Black

21 'iff4 t:Llxal 22 i.xg7 'iti>xg7 23 l:txal b4 wants to get developed and reserve the possibil

(23 ... gxf5 24 'i!i'g5+ 'iti>f8 25 'ifh6+ 'iti>g8 26 t:Llc6 ity of ... a5 and ... b4. Here l 2 ... h6 1 3 i.e3 trans
is winning for White) 24 t:Lla4 'ii'b8 25 i.e6! + poses to Section I 0. 1 3 1 , while 1 2 ... t:Llbd7 1 3

G.Grigore-Florean, Romanian Ch, Bucharest 0-0 apparently doesn't leave Black with any

1 998, with the idea 25 ... fxe6 26 'i!Vg5. thing better than 1 3 ... a6, transposing to line 'a'

c) I O . . a6 I I a4 and now l l ...t:Llbd7 trans below. Other moves:

poses to Section 1 0. 1 2. After l l ...'iVb6?!, 1 2 a) l 2 ... a6 1 3 0-0 t:Llbd7 14 l!e I i.b7 1 5 'ifd2

0-0 'ifxb2 1 3 l:tc I t:Llbd7 1 4 t:Lld2 'ifb6 1 5 t:Llc4 'ifb6 1 6 i.e3 (D) pits White's central space and 'ii'c7 1 6 f4 gave White an attack in the game control of d4 versus Black's queenside majority

Beliavsky-Strikovic, Cacak 1 997. Of course, attack and his mostly active pieces.

BENONI SYSTEMS AND BENKO GAMBIT 199

B B

We see this kind of position with the inclu b3) 1 3 ... 'ii'b6 1 4 lt:ld2 lt:lc5 1 5 a4 i.a6 1 6
sion of ... h6 in 10. 1 3. It is in a sort of dynamic axb5 .ixb5 1 7 'ii'e2 !. equilibrium, but White's practical chances are b4) 1 3 ... lt:lc5 14 l:tel ( 1 4 'ii'd2 has also been
probably better, since they are based upon cen played with fair success) 14 ... h6 ( 1 4 ... 'ii'b6 1 5
tral and kingside action. There are too many di 'ii'd2 a5 1 6 e5 ! dxe5 1 7 lt:lxe5 and here instead
rections in which play can go, so I'll give a of 1 7 ... .if5?, as played in Rogozenko-Marin,
couple of examples and refer you to that section Bucharest 1 993, Knaak suggests 17 ... .ib7 1 8
for more themes: l:tad 1 ;:\;) 1 5 .if4 .ib7 and now 1 6 'ii'd2 was
al) 1 6 ... 'i!Vc7 1 7 .id4 (another approach is very messy in Delemarre-Avrukh, Wijk aan

1 7 .ih6 l:tac8 1 8 l:tad 1 'i!Vb6 1 9 i.xg7 cj;xg7 20 Zee 2000. Avrukh's 1 6 l:tc1 a5 1 7 lt:lxb5 lt:lfxe4
lt:ld4 l:te7 2 1 'ii'f4 ;:\;) 1 7 ... l:tac8 1 8 lt:lh2 ! ? lt:lc5 1 8 .ixe4 lt:lxe4 looks better, as long as you play

1 9 l:tad 1 .ia8!? 20 f4 'i!Vb8 and here 2 1 lt:lg4 1 9 a4! ;:\;; White's pieces are better overall and was complicated and obscure in Yermolinsky Black's d-pawn is in trouble. Wedberg, New York 2000, but 2 1 f5 is an at 13 0-0 aS (D) tractive try, since Black's pieces are some dis

tance from the kingside. White will reorganize
with l:tfl and l:tde 1 , which makes it difficult for

Black to shift his pieces and use his e5 outpost. w This kind of position is more dependent upon
the skill of the players, however, than upon an
unstable theoretical assessment.

a2) 1 6 ... lt:lc5 1 7 .id4 lt:lfd7 1 8 i.xg7 �xg7

19 .l:.e3 cj;g8 20 l:tael is probably about even,
but the weakness of the squares around Black's
king makes his defence a bother; e.g., 20 ... lt:le5

2 1 lt:lxe5 l:txe5 22 f4 l:te7 23 cj;h2 a5 24 f5 ! with
a promising attack, Bochev-Betker, corr. 2007.

These are just examples, of course; one ad
vantage of this variation is that the positions are
relatively unexplored and full of possibilities. Now:

b) 1 2 ... lt:la6 is an important attempt either to a) 1 4 lt:ld4 'i!Vb6 ( 14 ... lt:la6 1 5 lt:ldxb5 .ixb5
support ... b4 or to get the knight into the action 1 6 liJxb5 'i!Vb6 1 7 lt:lc3 'i!Vxb2 1 8 .id2 with a
via c5. 1 3 0-0 (D) and now: slight advantage for White, Rogozenko-Marin,
b l ) 1 3 ... b4?! 14 axb4 lt:lxb4 1 5 i.a4 .id7 Odorheiu Secuiesc 1 993) and here Rogozenko ( 1 5 ... l:tf8 1 6 .ib5 ±) 1 6 lt:ld2 ±. analyses 1 5 i.e3 'i!Vb7 1 6 a4! bxa4! ( 1 6 ... b4 1 7
b2) 1 3 ... l:tb8 1 4 lt:ld4 i.d7 1 5 lt:lc6 .ixc6 1 6 lt:lcb5 lt:lxe4 1 8 .ixe4 l:txe4 1 9 lt:lxd6 'i!Vxd5 20
dxc6 ;:\; Chow-Dejmek, Dallas 1 996. lt:l4b5 ! ;:\;) 1 7 'ii'd2 lt:la6 1 8 f3 lt:lc5 with the idea 200 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

... t:Db3. Then 1 9 t:Dxa4 produces a modest plus Or 14 'i'd2, with the standard ideas . after 1 9 ... t:Dxd5 ( 1 9 ... t:Dxa4 20 i.xa4 ±) 20 14 ••• g4 exd5 .l:.xe3 2 1 'ii'xe3 l::te8 22 'ii'd2. 14 ... t:Df8?! just asks for 1 5 e5 ! dxe5 1 6 i.xc5
b) The alternative approach is 14 l:tel t:Da6 ±. ( 1 4 .. .'ii'c8 1 5 t:Dd4 'ii'b7 1 6 'i'f3 ;!; t:Dh5 1 7 t:Df5 ! 15 hxg4 t:Dxg4 16 i.f4 (D) i.xf5 1 8 exf5 .l:.xe I + 1 9 .l:.xe I i.e5 20 g4 ±

Dumitrache-Popa, Romanian Team Ch, Baile

Tusnad 1 997). Now 1 5 e5 ! , queried by Hazai,
is in fact good provided that White answers

1 5 ... dxe5 with 1 6 d6! h6 ( l 6 ... 'i'b6?! 1 7 t:Dxe5
t:Dc5 1 8 'ii'f3 'i'xd6 1 9 .l:l.ad I 'ii'a6 20 t:Dd5 t:Dxd5

2 1 'iixf7+ 'it>h8 22 'i!i'xd5 and White wins) 1 7
i.h4 b4 1 8 axb4 ( 1 8 t:Dd5 g5 1 9 t:De7+ l:.xe7 is
more complex) 1 8 ... t:Dxb4 1 9 t:Dxe5 l:!.a6 20 .:.c I

.l:l.e6 2 1 t:Dxd7 .l:l.xel + 22 'i'xel 'i'xd7 23 i.g3 !.

10.12)

9 ... lbbd7 (D)

This tends to transpose to 9 ... .l:l.e8 or 9 ... h6
lines. 16 .•. 'i'f6

1 6 ... t:Df8 could be countered by 1 7 e5 ! dxe5

( 1 7 ... t:Dxe5 1 8 t:Dxe5 i.xe5 1 9 i.xe5 .l:l.xe5 20

ltxe5 dxe5 2 1 'ii'f3 ! and t:De4 or .l:l.e I next) 1 8
i.g3 with great activity; for example, 1 8 ... t:Dg6

1 9 i.xg6 fxg6 20 d6, etc.

17 i.g3 t:Dde5 18 i.e2 (D)

B

10 t:Df3 a6 11 a4

As usual, 1 1 0-0 b5 1 2 a3 (or 1 2 'i!i'd2) 1 2 ... c4

1 3 i.c2 is possible, but this time I'll focus upon
queenside restraint.

l l ... .:.es

I I ...'i'c7 1 2 .l:l.c l l:.b8 1 3 0-0 c4 1 4 i.e2! b5

1 5 b4! is a typical way to block Black's queen 18 •.• t:Dxf3+?

side advance in the Benoni, worth remember 1 8 ... t:Dg6 is better, although 1 9 a5 ;!; keeps
ing for other situations. White in control.

12 0-0 h6 19 gxf3 1 2 .. .'iVc7 1 3 l::te l l:.b8 1 4 .l:l.c l ! ? c4 1 5 i.fl b5 White has a significant advantage. Yermo

1 6 axb5 axb5 1 7 t:Dd4 i.a6 1 8 b4! ;!; cxb3? 1 9 linsky-J.Watson, Chicago 2003 went 1 9 ... t:De5
t:Dcxb5 'i!i'b6 20 .l:l.c6 'i'a5 2 1 t:Dxb3 'i'a4 + 20 f4 t:Dd7 2 1 i.d3 'i'd4? and here 22 a5 was

Avrukh-Berend, Groningen 1 993. good, but 22 e5 ! would have been practically

13 i.e3 g5 14 .l:.e1 decisive.

BENONI SYSTEMS AND BENKO GAMBIT 201

10.13} 0-0 ..td7 1 5 .l:.ab l ( 1 5 ..tf4 tbfe8 1 6 ..tc4)

l 5 ... a5 !? (Chernin-Kaminski, Polanica Zdroj

9 . • • h610 ..te3 (D) 1 992; l 5 ... 'ti'e7 16 b4 ;!;;) and now most moves
are fine, but Chemin recommends 16 ..tf4!?

with an advantage, presumably to be followed

by tbg3.

B

10. 13 1}

10 ..• :es (D)

w

Just about every line above can be played
with the interpolation of ... h6 and ..te3. In gen
eral, it's a nice trade-off for White (the bishop is
well-placed and the h6-pawn can be vulnera
ble), but Black is out of the pin and that presents
him with some new opportunities. Two lines are
the most critical:

10.131: 1o ... :es 201 11 tbf3 10.132: 10 b5 !? I I ... 203 tbge2 is a natural option, even if it doesn't
cover e5: l l ...tbbd7 1 2 tbg3 a6 13 a4 tbe5 14

The alternatives often resemble lines from ..te2 tbh7 1 5 0-0 'ii'h4 ('! ' Yermolinsky). Now
previous sections, but there are some unique instead of 1 6 tbh l ?! (Yermolinsky-Sherzer,
features involving ... h6: USA Ch, Durango 1 992) 1 6 ... f5, Yermolinsky
a) IO ... a6 I I a4 (or I I tbf3 b5 1 2 0-0 ;!;;, as suggests 1 6 'ii'e1 with the idea 1 6 ... f5 17 f4 (I
we've seen in other variations) 1 l ...tbbd7 1 2 like 17 exf5 ! ..ixf5 18 'ii'd 1 ;!;;) l7 ... tbf7 1 8 tbf3 .l:.b8 1 3 'ti'd2 ( 1 3 0-0! with the idea l 3 ... b5 ..td3. Then 1 8 .. .fxe4 1 9 tbcxe4 gives White a

14 axb5 axb5 1 5 tbxb5 tbxe4 1 6 tba7) 1 3 .. .'�h7 plus, because 1 9 ... ..txb2 20 .l:.a2 ..tg7 2 1 'ti'b I !

( 1 3 ... b5 !? 14 axb5 axb5 1 5 ..txh6 b4 1 6 tbe2 ..td7 22 .l:.e2 b5 23 f5 ! ..txf5 24 tbxf5 gxf5 25

.l:.e8 - Rogozenko; Black has some compensa I:.xf5 ;!;; yields both attacking chances and a po tion, though perhaps not enough for full equal sitional advantage. ity) 14 ..tf4! ( 1 4 0-0 b5) l 4 ... tbe8 1 5 0-0 with a ll ... c412 ..tc2 b5 13 a3 (D) slight advantage for White, Rogozenko-Stefa This has been a very popular position with
nov, Eforie 1 993. an extraordinary winning percentage for White
b) 10 ... ..td7 1 1 tbf3 (II a4 ;!;;) 1 l ...b5 1 2 ( 1 9 wins, 8 draws, and 2 losses in my database,

'ti'd2 (or 1 2 0-0 .l:.e8 1 3 a3 ;!;;) 1 2 ... .l:.e8 1 3 ..txh6 with a 400 point performance rating advan
b4 14 ..txg7 '3;xg7 1 5 tbe2 tbxe4 1 6 ..txe4 tage!). Although many of the games are com I:.xe4 1 7 0-0 'ii'f6? ( 1 7 ... .l:.e8 1 8 tbg3 ;!;;) 1 8 tbg3 petitive, it appears that giving up d4 is too high

± llf4 19 l:.fe1 .l:.xf3 (Yermolinsky-Maclntyre, a price to pay for a queenside attack that turns

Philadelphia 2002) and now 20 tbe4! 'ii'h4 2 1 out to be ineffective. gxf3 wins. 13 ... a5
c) l O ... tba6 II 'ti'd2 'it>h7 1 2 tbge2! ? (I like Black tries to react aggressively before he is

1 2 tbf3 because one of White's goals after squeezed by White's space advantage. This has ... tba6-c7 is to enforce e5) 1 2 ... tbc7 1 3 a4 b6 14 been a popular move but is rather loosening. 202 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

B w

Most other moves lead to positions with a simi (these positions aren't horrible for Black but it
lar set of themes: takes patience to play them; better is 17 ... 'it>g8
a) 1 3 ... �b7 14 0-0 a6 resembles line 'd' be 1 8 l:.e2 �b7 1 9 l:.fe l and White has a slight ad
low; e.g., 1 5 �d2 'it>h7 1 6 .:Je I tt:lbd7 1 7 �d4 vantage) 1 8 e5 ! dxe5 1 9 �xe5 �d8 20 �d4

�c7 1 8 l:.e2 l:.ad8 1 9 l:.ae1 �b8 20 tt:la2 (20 l:.xe l ?! (20 ... �d6) 2 1 l:.xel �d6 (I.Sokolov
l:.e3 !?) 20 ... l:.e7 (Moldovan-Bartel, Litomysl M.Nilsson, Swedish Team Ch 200 1/2) and now

2005) and now the consistent 2 1 tt:lb4 or 21 a4 the clearest method is 22 tt:\e5 ! 'it>g8 23 'ife3 ±
l:.de8 22 axb5 axb5 23 tt:lb4 would keep Black with the idea 23 ... tt:\cd7 24 tt:lxf7 ! 'it>xf7 25
under pressure. �e6+ 'fi'xe6 26 dxe6+ 'it>g8 27 �xg6! .

b) 1 3 ... �d7 14 0-0 tt:la6 1 5 �d2 'it>h7 1 6 14 tt:lxb5 tt:\xe415 0-0 (D) l:.ae l fl/c7 1 7 �d4 (or 1 7 �f4! ;l;) 1 7 ... tt:\c5? 1 8 e5 dxe5 1 9 tt:lxe5 'it>g8 20 tt:lxd7 tt:lfxd7 2 1

�xg7 'it>xg7 22 �d4+ 'it>g8 2 3 tt:lxb5 +- Ata
lik-Vasilevich, Cappelle Ia Grande 1 997; Black B will lose the c-pawn as well.

c) 13 ... tt:\a6 14 0-0 b4!? (an aggressive pawn
sacrifice for activity) 1 5 axb4 tt:lxb4 and al
though 1 6 l:.xa7 l:.xa7 1 7 �xa7 �xh3! 1 8 gxh3
tt:lxc2 1 9 �xc2 should have resulted in some
advantage for White in Comas Fabrego-Akop
ian, Ubeda 200 1 , 1 6 tt:ld2! is better and safer;
e.g., 1 6 ... tt:\xc2?! ( 1 6 ... a5 1 7 �a4 l:.e7 1 8 �b5 !

±) 1 7 �xc2 �e7 1 8 l:.fe l �b7 1 9 tt:lxc4 with a
winning position for White.

d) The lines after 1 3 ... a6 1 4 0-0 tt:lbd7 (D) illustrate several of White's key ideas: 15 ... �a6
d l ) Here's a salutary lesson about the power This is the best way to keep things moving. of White's e5 advance: 1 5 l:.e I �c7 1 6 �d2 h5 Otherwise:

17 l:.ad l tt:lc5 1 8 �d4 ;l; �d7? 1 9 �f4 tt:lh7 20 a) 1 5 ... �xb2 is well met by 1 6 �xh6! �h8

�xg7 'it>xg7 2 1 e5 and Black is lost! Flear ( 1 6 ... �xa l ? 17 �xal f6 1 8 �d4) 17 .i.xe4

Saldaso, Castellar 1 996 continued 2 l ... dxe5 22 .:txe4 1 8 l:.c l ;l;. tt:lxe5 tt:lf6 23 d6 �d8 24 tt:ld5 l:.c8 25 tt:le7 b) 1 5 ... �d7 1 6 tt:lfd4 (or 16 a4 ;l;) 1 6 ... tt:\a6 tt:le6 26 �g3 l:.xe7 27 dxe7 �xe7 28 �xg6 and 1 7 .i.xe4 l:.xe4 ( 1 7 ... �xb5 1 8 �f3 ! l:.b8 1 9 l:.b I

White won. ;l;) 1 8 tt:lxd6 l:.h4 ( 1 8 ... �g4 1 9 1i'c2!? .:txd4 20
d2) 1 5 �d2 'it>h7 1 6 l:.ael ( 1 6 l:.fel �c7 1 7 �xd4 �xd4 2 1 tt:\xf7! 'it>xf7 22 'ii'xc4) was
l:.ad l �b7 1 8 �d4; both 1 6 tt:ld4 and 1 6 .i.d4 played in the game Gyimesi-J.Horvath, Hungar
are good alternatives) 1 6 ... �c7 1 7 �d4 tt:lc5?! ian Ch, Balatonlelle 2002, when White's best

BENONI SYSTEMS AND BENKO GAMBIT 203

course would have been 1 9 tt:lxc4! ..txh3 20

tt:lc6! "ilc7 2 1 f4! ±.

16 ..txb5 w tt:lfd4

White also stands better following 1 6 ... tt:\c5

1 7 'iVd2 ..txb5 1 8 tt:lxb5 "ilb6 ( 1 8 ... tt:lba6 1 9

..txh6 ;l;) 1 9 a4 t.

17 tt:lxb5 xb2 ..t

Now:

a) 1 8 l:tbl ..tg7 1 9 "ilf3 takes the initiative.

White will recover the pawn; for instance,

1 9 ... tt:lf6 20 "ilf4! l:te5 2 1 "ilxc4 tt:lbd7 (not

2 1 ... tt:lxd5? 22 ..te4 tt:lxe3 23 fxe3 d5 24l:tbd I )

22 tt:lxd6 t.

b) 1 8 ..txh6 (D) and then:

Rarely if ever played, theoreticians and an
notators don't take this move seriously, but

White needs to play accurately:

B 11 tt:lxb5

I I e5 hasn't been played or mentioned as
far as I know, but it deserves consideration:

l l ...tt:lfd7 ! ( l l ...dxe5 12 ..txc5 b4! 1 3 ..txb4
l:.e8 14 ..tb5 ..td7 15 a4! ;l;) 12 exd6 ( 1 2 e6 tt:le5 1 3 ..txb5 c4! 1 4 tt:lf3 tt:ld3+ 1 5 <:J;;fl fxe6 16

'ii'd2 with a mess; dynamic equality seems a
fair assessment) 1 2 ... b4 1 3 tt:lb5 a6 14 tt:lc7l:ta7

1 5 'ii'b3 "ilf6 1 6 l:td I <:$;h8 ! ( 16 ... 'ii'xd6 1 7 tt:le6

;l;; 16 ... 'ii'xb2 1 7 'ii'xb2 ..txb2 1 8 tt:lf3 <:$;g7 1 9 0-0 ;l;) 17 tt:\e6 fxe6 1 8 dxe6 tt:lc6! 1 9 exd7
l:txd7 20 tt:le2 tt:ld4 2 1 'ii'c4 'ilixd6 22 0-0 ..tb7
b l ) 1 8 ... tt:lc3 19 tt:lxc3 ..txc3 20 ..ta4! l:te5 23 tt:lxd4 ..txd4 24 ..txd4+ cxd4 25 l:tde I and 21 l:tc I ..tb2 22 1:1xc4 ± Kizov-Omeri, Venice White's advantage is minimal, although it's cer

201 0. tainly worth playing out.

b2) After 1 8 ... "i/h4, the game I.Ivanisevic 11...tt:\a6!? Stefanopoulos, Panormo Zonal 1 998 continued Or:

1 9 l:tb I tt:lc3 20 tt:lxc3 ..txc3 21 "i/c 1 ..te5 22 a) I I ...tt:lxe4?! 1 2 ..txe4 'ilia5+ 1 3 tt:lc3

..tg5 "i/d4 23 l:td I "i/a7 24 ..ta4 llc8 25 h4. ..txc3+ 14 bxc3 'ii'xc3+ 15 'it>fl ..ta6+ 16 tt:le2

White's bishops have gained excellent range ..txe2+ 17 <:$;xe2 f5 (Atalik-Derieux, Groningen
and now he attacked the already weakened 1 999) 1 8 'ii'c2! leaves White a piece ahead for
kingside: 25 ... c3 26 "ilc2 tt:\a6 27 h5 l:tc4? (after insufficient compensation. 27 ... tt:\c5 28 ..te3 ! <:$;g7 29 hxg6 fxg6 30 ..td4 b) I I ...l:te8 1 2 tt:lc3 'ii'a5 ( 1 2 ... tt:\xe4?! 1 3

'ilie7 3 1 l:tel tt:lxa4 32 "i/xa4 it will be difficult tt:lxe4 f5 is well met by 1 4 tt:lc3 ! f4 1 5 ..txg6
to save the c-pawn; e.g., 32 ... .l:.c7 33 llb6! c2 34 l:te7 1 6 tt:\ge2! fxe3 17 0-0 ±) 1 3 ..td2 tt:lbd7 !

l:tc6 l:txc6 35 'ilixc6) 28 ..tc6! l:tb8 29 hxg6 ( 1 3 ... tt:la6 14 tt:\ge2 tt:lb4 15 ..tbl ..ta6 1 6 0-0
l:txbl 30 l:.xbl tt:\c5 3 1 ..te8 fxg6 32 'ii'xg6+ tt:ld3 17 b3 tt:lh5 1 8 a3 'i!id8 1 9 l:.a2 ;l;; 1 3 ... ..ta6

..tg7 33 ..tf6 tt:la6 34 l:.el <:Ji;f8 35 ..te7+ 1 -0. 14 ..tc2 tt:lbd7 1 5 tt:\ge2 tt:\e5 1 6 0-0 tt:ld3 1 7 b3

35 ... 'ii'xe7 36 l:txe7 <:$;xe7 37 'ilie6+ and mate ;l;) 14 tt:\ge2 tt:\e5 1 5 ..tc2 tt:lc4 1 6 0-0! tt:lxb2 17 next move. 'ii'c 1 ..ta6 ( 17 ... tt:lc4 1 8 ..txh6 ;l;) 18 'ii'xb2 ..txe2

1 9 l:.fe1 ..tc4 20 ..ta4l:ted8 2 1 ..tc6 t.

10. 132) c) 1 1 ...c4 1 2 ..tc2 tt:la6 1 3 tt:le2 l:te8 14
tt:lbc3 ( 14 tt:lec3! ±) 14 ... l:tb8 1 5 l:tb1 tt:lb4 16

10 ... b5 !? (D) 0-0 'ilie7 17 f3 tt:lh5 (Poluliakhov-Chigvintsev, 204 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

Krasnodar 1 997) 1 8 i.a4! offers White a sub
stantial advantage.

12 tt:Je2! w

1 2 a3 l:te8 1 3 tbc3 is an alternative.

12 .•• l:tb8 13 0-0 "S'd7 14 tt:Jec3! (D)

14 lbbc3 is also better for White, with the
idea 14 ... 1:txb2 1 5 "S'c 1 .

B

15 ... "S'c7 1 6 tbc4 a6 17 i.xf6! ( 1 7 i.f4 i.f8 1 8
a5 i.b5 1 9 tt:Jxb5 axb5 20 tt:Jb6 gives White a
slight edge) 1 7 ... i.xf6 1 8 �g3 i.e5 19 tbxe5
l:txe5 20 f4 l:tee8 2 1 f5 ! with kingside threats.

b) l l ...tbb4 and here:

bl ) 1 2 0-0 tt:Jxd3?! 1 3 �xd3 is nice for

White, so Black should wait on the exchange,
while White can play l:tfel and think about e5,

14 ••• tt:Jb4 15 i.e2 ! l:te8 16 a3 a6 17 axb4 as well as i.c4 or i.fl . cxb4 18 tt:Ja4 axb5 19 tt:Jb6 "S'd8 20 tt:Jxc8 b2) Another move is 1 2 i.e2, when after

"S'xc8 21 f3 tbh5 1 2 ... h6, the best way to play it is 1 3 i.h4, so that

Gulko-Sherzer, USA Ch, Durango 1 992. This Black has to create weaknesses if he wants to
is called 'unclear' in various sources, but 22 put the centre under pressure; e.g., 1 3 ... 1:te8 14

"S'd2! ± wins the b- or h-pawn, and 22 ... tbg3 23 tbd2 "S'c7 15 0-0 with the idea of i.g3 and tbc4,
l:tfel tbxe2+ 24 l:txe2 g5 25 l:tc l ! (25 "S'xb4 as well as clamping down on the queenside.

�c4 26 �el ;!;) 25 ... �d7 26 �xb4 doesn't help Black's knight on b4 can sometimes just be out
matters. of play.

In general, this line affords White a modest b3) 1 2 i.bl ! ? (ambitious) 1 2 ... 1:te8 1 3 0-0
advantage if Black plays accurately, and there's a6 1 4 "S'd2 (perfectly good, but 14 l:tel ;!; is
a lot of unexplored territory. more flexible, as tends to be true in all these
lines; the queen may end up somewhere else)

10. 14) 14 ... b5 ! ? ( 14 ... b6) 1 5 �f4 fi/e7 16 l:td l !? tDh5

1 7 "S'd2 ( 1 7 'iVh2! ;!; keeps an eye on d6)

9 •.• i.d7 (D) 17 ... f6! ? ( 1 7 ... "S'f8 1 8 axb5 i.xb5 19 l:te l ) 1 8

This rather eccentric move meets with the i.e3 f5 1 9 exf5 gxf5 (Potapov-Baryshpolets,
approval of some theoreticians, although White Pardubice 2007) and now White can get a clear
appears able to come out with his standard ad advantage by 20 axb5 axb5 2 1 l:txa8 l:txa8 22
vantage. Black's first idea is ... b5. l:tel "S'f8 23 tbg5 ! , in view of 23 ... f4 24 i.xh7+

10 tt:Jf3 �h8 25 i.xc5 dxc5 26 i.g6. Some players will prefer to clamp down on 10 ••• b5 11 a3

... b5, and that should leave White in good shape 1 1 O-O c4 1 2 i.c2 l:te8 ( 1 2 ... b4?! 1 3 tbe2 ;!;
as well. 1 0 a4 tba6 1 1 tt:Jf3 and now: Muller) 1 3 a3 transposes to Section 10. 1 1 .

a) l l ...�b6 !? 1 2 �bl ! ? (or 1 2 l:tbl lbb4) ll . .. c4 12 i.c2 tt:Ja6 13 0-0 b4 14 axb4

1 2 ... tbb4 gives White a choice between 1 3 i.e2 tt:Jxb4 15 e5 dxe5 16 tbxe5
and 1 3 0-0 tbxd3 14 'i¥xd3 l:tfe8 1 5 tbd2 ;!; with Black has weaknesses on the queenside and
tbc4 coming next. White's space and pressure the d-pawn is dangerous, though White should
on d6 and e5 mean more than the bishops; e.g., only be a little better at this point. The game

BENONI SYSTEMS AND BENKO GAMBIT 205

P.Varga-Sikora Lerch, Slovakian Team Ch The idea of this queen move is very simple:

1 998/9 went 1 6 ... h6 1 7 .i.h4 lLlxc2 1 8 'iVxc2 to support the advance e4 without making other

.i.f5 1 9 'iVa4 g5?! 20 lLlc6 'ii'd7 2 1 .i.g3 ± concessions. For comparison, if White plays 4 lLle4?! (2 l ....i.d3 22 .l::.fe I �fe8 23 �xe8+ 'ii'xe8 lLlc3, he runs into 4 ... b4; if he plays 4 f3, he

24 'ii'a6! and 'ii'b7) 22 lLlxe4 .i.xe4 23 'iVxc4 uses up f3 for White's knight; and if he plays 4

�fe8 24 :ad 1 .i.xb2 25 I:!.fe 1 .i.f5. Now 26 d6! lLld2, he blocks off the c ! -bishop and forfeits
is the clearest way to secure White's virtually the chance to play lLlc3 later. winning position.

10.2) Benko Gambit

8

1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 (D)

w

By playing 4 'i:!Vc2, White avoids these is
sues, threatens e4, and also controls c4 in lines
where the battle for that square will prove im
portant. The obvious drawback to 4 'ii'c2 is that
it brings the queen out early and doesn't de

This is the Benko Gambit, which has stood velop a minor piece. In addition, although the
the test of time for the 40 years or so since it move e4 will critically strengthen White's cen
really began to take hold. At the moment there tre, White for the time being reduces his control
are few systems that really threaten to get a over d5. It's interesting to see how these trade
meaningful advantage against the Benko. The offs play out. I believe that 4 'ii'c2 gives White
currently most popular one- accepting the gam some advantage in every line. We now exam
bit pawn, playing g3, castling, and shoring up ine: the queen side with a variety of subtle ideas -is 10.21: 4 ••. .i.b7 207 n't appropriate for this book, both because there 10.22: 4 ••. e6 208 are way too many details and deviations to deal 10.23: 4 •• Ji'a5 + 209 with, and also because just recently Black has 10.24: 4 ..• bxc4 2 1 2 developed some new approaches that could
make the g3 systems only good enough for Other moves are not necessarily worse than
equality anyway. those four, but have somewhat less independent

What is the point of 3 ... b5? Black takes aim theory attached to them: at the base of White's pawn-structure on c4. a) 4 ... b4 5 e4 d6 6 f4 (6 a3 aS 7 f4 e5 8 fxe5

Once that breaks down, he can attack the pawn dxe5 9 axb4! cxb4 10 c5 and instead of the
on d5, or at least keep White's pieces tied to its desperate lO ... lLlxd5??, which Black ventured defence. Therefore it is natural for White to try in Vidarte Morales-Adel Lahchaichi, Spanish
to achieve the move e4, not only gaining space Team Ch 20 1 1 , 1 O ... b3 1 1 'ii'c3 lLlbd7 is play and cramping Black, but also reinforcing the able) 6 ... 'iVc7 7 lLlf3 g6 8 .i.d3 .i.g4 9 lLlbd2
key d5-square. With that in mind, I've chosen a .i.xf3 1 0 lLlxf3 lLlbd7 I I 'iVa4 ! e5 ( l l ....i.g7? direct approach beginning right on move 4: 1 2 e5 and e6) 1 2 dxe6 fxe6 1 3 lLlg5 �e7 14 0-0

4 'ii'c2 (D) h6 1 5 tLlf3 e5 1 6 lLlh4 l:Ig8 1 7 f5 ! gave White a 206 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

nearly winning position in Moskalenko-Mela,

Ampolla rapid 2006.

b) 4 ... g6 and here: w
bl ) 5 lt:\f3 .i.g7 6 cxb5 (6 e4 ;!;) was played
in the game Korchnoi-Topalov, Antwerp 1 997.

Now 6 ... lt:\xd5 ! is unclear; e.g., 7 e4 lt:\b4 8

'i!i'xc5 a5 or 7 'i!i'xc5 .i.b7 8 e4lt:\a6! 9 bxa6 l:l.c8.

b2) 5 e4! d6 6 cxb5 ! .i.g7 7 lt:\c3 a6 8 lt:\f3
was the move-order of Georgiev-Galburd in
line 'c' below, which is favourable for White.

c) 4 ... d6 5 e4 g6 (5 ... b4 transposes to line 'a'

above) 6 cxb5 .i.g7 7 lt:\f3 0-0 8 lt:\c3 a6 9 a4

(D) and now:

d l ) 5 lt:\c3 ! ? is Moskalenko's proposal. He

points out that Black can't put both a pawn and

B a knight on b4! Play can go:

d l l ) 5 ... lt:\b4 6 'iiid l has the idea 6 ... bxc4 7
a3 ! , when de Dovitiis analyses 7 ... .i.b7 8 axb4
cxb4 9 lt:\a2 lt:\xd5 I 0 e4 lLlb6 and his I I 1!i'd4
preserves an advantage but 1 1 lt:\xb4 .i.xe4 12
lt:\a2! e6 1 3 lt:\c3 appears easier.

d 1 2) 5 ... b4 6 lt:\e4 lt:\xe4 7 'ii'xe4 .i.b7 8 'i!Vc2

;!;.

d l 3) 5 ... bxc4 6 a3 ;!; (6 e4? lt:\b4) 6 ... e6 7 e4
exd5 8 exd5 ! ;!; (if 8 e5 !?, 8 ... .i.b7 ! will give

Black three pawns and sufficient counterplay
for the piece).

c I ) 9 ... e6 l O dxe6 .i.xe6 I I .i.e2 ( 1 1 .i.e3 ! d2) 5 a3 ! (D) and then: 'i!i'e7 1 2 l:l.d I ± ) l l ...d5 1 2 exd5 lt:\xd5 1 3 lt:\xd5

'i!i'xd5 14 0-0 axb5 1 5 .i.xb5 lt:\a6 1 6 .i.e3 l:l.fc8

17 l:l.ad I (Yermolinsky-Wheeler, Kings Island

1 995) and now Yermolinsky gives 17 .. .'ii'b3 1 8 B

'ife4! ? 'i!Vb4 1 9 lt:\g5 'i!Vxe4 20 lt:\xe4 .i.xb2 2 1

.i.xa6 (2 1 l:l.d6! lt:\c7 22 .i.c6 l:l.a5 23 l:l.fd 1 is
also good) 2 I ...l:l.xa6 22 lt:\xc5 l:l.a5 ;!;.

c2) 9 ... axb5 lO .i.xb5 lt:\a6 ( 1 0 ... .i.a6 I I 0-0

�xb5 12 lt:\xb5 lt:\a6 1 3 .i.d2 'i!Vb6 14 .i.c3 l:l.fb8

15 lt:\d2 ± V.Georgiev-Galburd, Bansko 2010)

I I 0-0 lt:\b4 (Gurieli-Gaprindashvili, Women's

Candidates (2), Tbilisi 1 980) and now 1 2 'ili'e2 !

safely keeps White's pawn.

In general, White just seems a pawn up in
these lines for minimal compensation. It is a
bad sign in the Benko Gambit when White can d2 1 ) After 5 ... b4, simply 6 e4 d6 7 lt:\f3 with
get castled and play e4 in one move. an edge may be best, but the pawn-storm by 6
d) 4 ... lt:\a6!? (D). f4 g6 7 e4 d6 8 e5 !? is also interesting; e.g.,

This deserves very careful attention, because 8 ... lt:\d7 9 lLlf3 .i.h6?! lO e6 fxe6 I I dxe6 lt:\b6
recently it has gained advocates who seem to and now 1 2 .i.d3 produced some advantage in
think that it's a good antidote to 4 'ii'c2. I'll give V.Georgiev-Nestorovic, Skopje 20 1 1 , while 12
two answers: f5 ! .i.xc I 1 3 1Wxc I ± is better still.

BENONI SYSTEMS AND BENKO GAMBIT 207

d22) 5 ... bxc4 6 e4 e6 (6 ... i.b7 can be met by hxg3 i.a6 2 1 dxc7 i.xc4 22 .l:tfc 1 d5 23 .l:tc3 ;!:;

7 i.xc4 e6 8 tbc3 exd5 9 exd5 tbc7 I 0 'ii'd3, intending b3. while after 6 ... tbc7, 7 i.xc4 e6 transposes to the
next but one bracket, but 7 tL:!f3 is also attrac 10.21) tive, in view of 7 ... e6?! 8 d6! tiJb5 9 e5 ±) 7
i.xc4! (or 7 dxe6 fxe6 8 e5 tiJd5 9 tiJd2 ;!:;) 4 ••• i.b7 (D) 7 ... exd5 (7 ... tbc7 8 tbc3 exd5 9 exd5 ;!:;) 8 exd5

(D) offers White a slight advantage.

w

B

This is not one of Black's best moves, I
think, but it illustrates a direct attempt to break

Now a key decision presents itself for Black: down White's cramping centre, and the basic
d22 1 ) 8 ... d6?? loses to 9 'ii'a4+. strengths of White's position.

d222) 8 ... i.e7 is passive: 9 tiJf3 (I like this 5 e4 simple move, although the position after 9 tbc3 Threatening e5. 0-0 10 tbge2 d6 I I 0-0 tbc7 1 2 b4! has proven 5 ... bxc4 favourable for White) 9 ... 0-0 10 tbc3 d6 1 1 0-0 5 ... d6 6 cxb5 g6 7 tbc3 i.g7 8 tiJf3 0-0 9
tbc7 1 2 .l:te l ;!:;. i.c4 a6 10 0-0 leaves the bishop passively
d223) 8 ... i.b7 9 'ii'e2+ (9 'ii'd3 and 9 tbc3 placed on b7, and Black has nothing serious to
also offer White an edge) 9 ... i..e7 (9 ... 'fi'e7?! 1 0 compensate for the pawn. i.e3 tiJb8 I I tbc3 ±) 10 d6 i.xg2 1 1 JJ..xa6 6 i.xc4 i.xh 1 1 2 dxe7 (or 12 tbc3) 1 2 ... 'fi'xe7 1 3 i.f4 Or 6 tbc3 d6 ( 6 ... e6 7 i.xc4 transposes to the
with the bishop-pair and a distinct advantage main line) 7 i.xc4 tiJbd7 8 tL:!f3 g6 (Genovese
for White. Gardon, Palermo 2000) and now the natural
d224) 8 ... i.d6 (Black's most aggressive re moves 9 0-0 i.g7 I 0 h3 0-0 I I .l:te I ;!:; prepare ply) 9 tbc3 0-0 10 tiJf3 .l:te8+ 1 1 i..e3 tbg4 and i.f4, .l:tad l and an eventual e5. here: 6 ••• e6
d224 1 ) 1 2 0-0 yields an advantage. Then This is really the only point behind ... i.b7;

1 2 ... .l:txe3? 1 3 fxe3 tbxe3 14 'fi'd3 tL:!xfl ? 1 5 otherwise the bishop belongs on a6. .l:txfl gives White a winning attack, so the best 7 tbc3 exd5 8 exd5 d6 9 tbge2 i.e7 try appears to be 1 2 ... tL:!xh2! 1 3 tbxh2 i.xh2+ 9 ... g6 10 0-0 i.g7 is slow: 1 1 'ir'b3 ! 'ifb6

14 'it>xh2 'i!Vh4+ 1 5 'it>gl 'fi'xc4 1 6 l:tfe1 d6 1 7 ( l l ...'iVe7 1 2 i.f4 0-0 1 3 tbg3 ± and .l:tfe l ) 1 2
i.f4! i..b7 1 8 'ii'f5 tbc7 1 9 i.xd6;!:; with the i.f4 tiJbd7 1 3 tiJb5 ±. idea 1 9 ... tL:!xd5?? 20 .l:txe8+ l:txe8 2 1 'ii'd7. 10 0-0 0-0 11 tbg3 tiJbd7 (D)

d2242) 1 2 tbe4 'i!Ve7 ( 1 2 ... tbxe3?! 1 3 fxe3 l l ... tiJfd7, as chosen in Alonso Roselli-Plas

'ife7 14 tL:!fg5 with a clear advantage for White) kan, Sibenik 2007, is well answered by 1 2 .l:tel ,

1 3 tL:!fg5 (or 1 3 tbxd6 'ii'xd6 14 0-0 ;!:;) 1 3 ... g6 when 1 2 ... tbe5 is answered by 1 3 tL:!f5, while

14 'ii'e2! tbxe3 1 5 'ii'xe3 tbc7 ! 16 0-0 f5 1 7 1 2 ... i.f6? ! 1 3 tbce4! ± has the ideas 1 3 ... tiJb6
tbxd6 'ii'xd6 1 8 'ii'g3 ! 'ii'xg3 1 9 d6+ 'it>g7 20 14 i.f4 and 1 3 ... tbe5 14 tbf5.

208 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

l:.xc5 ±. With rooks on the board, the opposite

coloured bishops probably won't save Black.

w

10.22)

4 ••• e6 This is similar to the Blumenfeld Counter
gambit; the difference is that White's knight is
still on gl instead of f3, and his queen is on c2
instead of d 1 . Thus White is able to fortify his
centre:

5 e4 bxc4

5 ... exd5 6 cxd5 c4 (D) (6 .. .'i'e7 7 i..xb5 !?

'flixe4+ 8 'flixe4+ lt:lxe4 9 lt:lc3 lt:lxc3 10 bxc3 ;l;)

12 b3 is an attempt to develop rapidly by ... i..c5, ... 0-0

An idea worth remembering: White doesn't and ... l:.e8 and take the initiative. mind ceding the bishop-pair if it secures his
control over d5; the good bishop and knights

are well-placed to exploit his space advantage.

Nevertheless, 1 2 lt:lf5 ! is the most pointed move, w when Black is cramped and should probably try

1 2 ... g6 1 3 lt:lxe7+ 'flixe7 14 i..h6 l:tfe8 1 5 'flid2

;l;.

12 ••. lt:lb6 13l:td1! ?

Or 1 3 i..b2! ?, initiating a typical sacrificial
theme that you'll often see in d-pawn openings
like the Nimzo- and Queen's Indian Defences:

1 3 ... lt:lfxd5 14 lt:lxd5 i..xd5 ( 1 4 ... lt:lxd5 1 5 'flie4!

lt:lb6 16 'iiV x b 7 lt:lxc4 17 i..xg 7 ! lt:la5 1 8 'flie4 ±
with the idea 1 8 ... �xg7 1 9 lt:lf5+ �f6) 1 5
i..xg7! �xg7 1 6 'flic3+ f6 (after 1 6 .. . i..f6 1 7
lt:lh5+ �g6 1 8 'flid3+ White retrieves the piece Then: with the better game) 1 7 lt:lf5+ �h8 1 8 l:tfe 1 a) 7 a4 should be met by 7 ... lt:la6!, with un
and Black has to return the material. clear play, since 7 ... i.c5? ! 8 axb5 'flib6 9 lt:lc3

13 ... lt:le8 lt:lg4 1 0 lt:lh3 was very much in White's favour

1 3 ... lt:lxc4 14 bxc4 l:te8 1 5 lt:lf5 i..f8 1 6 i..g5 in Moskalenko-Randazzo, Barbera del Valles

;l;. 2005.

14 i..b2 lt:lc7 15 lt:lf5 i..c8 b) A good answer is 7 lt:lc3 i..b4 8 i..e2

1 5 ... i..f6? 1 6 lt:le4 is already winning for (White gets a significant advantage from 8 a4!)

White: 1 6 ... lt:lcxd5 ( 1 6 ... lt:le8 17 lt:lxf6+ lt:lxf6 8 ... 0-0 (8 ... 'ii'e7! 9 f3 lt:la6 I 0 i..d2 ;l; ) 9 lt:lf3 l:.e8

1 8 l:te 1 +- lt:lbd7 1 9 'flid2 h6 20 .:!.e3) 17 i..xd5 10 i..g5 ! h6 I I i..xf6 'i'xf6 1 2 0-0 (suddenly
lt:lxd5 1 8 l:txd5 ! i..xd5 1 9 lt:lxf6+ gxf6, and Black has little to do) 1 2 ... i..xc3 1 3 bxc3 'ii'g6 14
now the attractive 20 'flid2 i..e6 2 1 WigS+ fxg5 lt:ld4! i..b7 ( 1 4 ... 'ii'xe4 1 5 'ii'xe4 l:txe4 can be

22 lt:lh6# (de Dovitiis). met by 1 6 l:tfe I ! or even 16 i..f3 l:txd4 1 7 cxd4

16lt:lxe7 + fkxe7 17 l:tel 'flih4 18 lt:le4 d6 1 8 l:.fbl a6 19 a4) 15 i..f3 lt:la6 1 6 l:tabl lt:lc5

Now Black must worry about both d6 and his 17 l:txb5 l:tac8 1 8 lt:lf5 with a pawn and comfort
king; e.g., 1 8 ... l:td8 1 9 'ii'c3 'flih6 20 l:tad l . Af able play, Nisipeanu-Tate, Gibraltar 201 1 . ter 1 8 ... lt:lcxd5?!, Malakhatko-Simonet Pons, 6 i..xc4 exdS 7 exdS d6 Istanbul Olympiad 2000 continued 1 9 i..xd5 For the alternative 7 ... i..b7 8 lt:lc3, see Sec
lt:lxd5 20 lt:lxd6 lt:lf4 2 1 'ii'e4 i..e6 22 i..e5 lt:lg6 tion 1 0.2 1 (4 ... i..b7).

23 11i'xh4 lt:lxh4 24 l:tec I lt:lf5 25 lt:lxf5 i..xf5 26 8 lt:lc3 i..e7 (D)

BENONI SYSTEMS AND BENKO GAMBIT 209

so he embarks on a tactical adventure) 1 5 �f4

..if6 ( 1 5 ... lbe5 16 �xe5 dxe5 17 .l:tad 1 ! �d6 1 8
w lbb5) 1 6 h3 lbxf2 ! 1 7 'it>xf2 �d4+ 1 8 �e3

'ii'f6+ 1 9 'it>g l �xc3 20 lbe4 �xal (20 ... 'i!ig6

2 1 'ii'xc3 'ii'xe4 22 �xc5 ;\;) 2 1 lbxf6+ �xf6 22 .l:tb I l:::.xb 1 + 23 'ii'xb 1 �e5 24 'ii'c I �f5 25 �f4

;\; Sedlak-Vuckovic, Mataruska Banja 2007.

b) 1 2 ... lbg4 1 3 �d3 !? g6 14 h3 lbe5 and in
stead of 1 5 ..ie2?! f5 !, which equalized in Erdos

Bo1ogan, Caleta 20 1 1 , White should activate
his forces by 15 �h6! .l:te8 1 6 �b5 ..id7 1 7

�xd7 lbexd7 ( 17 .. . lbbxd7?? 1 8 f4) 1 8 .l:tael ;\;,

10.23)

9 lbge2

I think this may well be the best move, be 4 ... 'ii'a5 + (D) cause the knight can prove influential on g3.

On the other hand, putting the knight on f3 has

the advantage that it can support the c4-bishop
by lbd2. White should be able to get some w thing out of his space advantage after 9 lbf3.

Following 9 ... 0-0 10 0-0 lbbd7 ( I O ... �g4 1 1
lbd2 ! lbbd7 1 2 h3 �h5 1 3 f4 is dangerous for

Black, J.Horvath-K.Rovid, Hungarian League

2003) I I �f4 lbb6 (Drozdovsky-S.Kasparov,

Internet blitz 2006), I like 1 2 lbd2 lbxc4 1 3
lbxc4 �a6 1 4 b3, although White's advantage
is not so large. In this set-up with ... �e7, varia
tions including the move ... lba6 are discussed
briefly under the move-order 4 ... lba6 (note 'd'

to Black's 4th move in Section 10.2).

9 ••• 0-0 10 0-0 lbbd7 1llbg3lbb612 b3(D) This move has seldom been played, but is the
one recommended by Nicolai Pedersen, whose
book on the Benko Gambit has changed my

opinion of two major variations. That alone is

B enough to elevate it from the status of a note to
a section, in spite of the fact that there's so lit
tle over-the-board experience with it (except
by transposition; see below). Incidentally, al
though Pedersen tends to be dismissive of some
of the early-move deviations against the Benko,
he obviously respects 4 'ii'c2, saying not only
that 4 ... 'ii'a5+ is the best move, but also that

"Against other moves, I think White has good
chances of an edge."

White has two common ways of meeting

4 ... 'ii'a5+ that have enough content to merit

Now: their own section, and since it's not clear which
a) 1 2 .. J�b8 1 3 .l:tel ( 1 3 �b2! lbxc4 14 bxc4 is better, it would do to look at both: lbg4 1 5 .l:tab1 ;\;) 13 ... lbxc4 14 bxc4 lbg4 (the 10.231: 5 �d2 2 1 0 problem is that Black lacks room to manoeuvre, 10.232: 5 lbd2 2 1 1

210 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

A third reply has almost no history in prac Pedersen says that this is "probably the only
tice but is quite interesting and I think just as serious attempt to get an edge". good as the other two: 5 tt:\c3 (D). s ... b4 6 e4 d6 7 ..td3

If White isn't aiming for a set-up with f4, he
might play 7 tt:Jf3 and 8 h3, delaying a decision

as to where to put his king's bishop. See the

B next note.

7 .•. tt:Jbd7 (D)

w

Now:

a) White has good chances after 5 ... .tb7 6
e4 b4 7 tt:Jd l d6 8 tt:\f3, when the b7-bishop is
locked in.

b) It's also not clear how Black should set
up after 5 ... b4 6 tt:Jd l followed by e4. Probably 8 f4 ... d6 and ... g6 is best, because ... e6 followed by I prefer 8 tt:Jf3, when 8 ... g6 9 0-0 ..tg7 I 0 h3

... exd5 only accentuates White's central space 0-0 1 1 a3 ..tb7 is assessed as "roughly equal"

superiority. To be sure, White's advantage in by Pedersen. I don't want to overstate my case.

any of these positions is a modest one, but I but I think White maintains a definite edge in
don't think most players would be thrilled about such positions, albeit nothing of major propor
taking Black's side. tions. Here's a sample line to give some idea of
c) 5 ... tt:\a6 ( ' ! ' Pedersen, who is one of the how play might follow if a set of natural struc
few who have addressed 5 tt:\c3) 6 .td2! (not tural changes occurs: 1 2 ..te3 'iVc7 1 3 axb4
mentioned by Pedersen, who correctly notes cxb4 14 tt:\d4 (or 14 tiJbd2 tt:\c5 1 5 tt:\b3 tiJfd7
that after 6 a3 b4 Black is slightly better; one 1 6 tiJbd4) l 4 ... tt:\c5 ( l4 ... a6 1 5 tt:\d2 tt:\c5 I 6
point is 7 tt:Jd I b3+ 8 'iVc3 tt:\b4!) 6 ... bxc4 (after tt:\2b3 tt:Jfd7 I 7 tt:\a5 gives White a slight ad

6 ... b4 7 tt:Jd I and e4, it's hard to see what Black vantage) 1 5 tt:\b5 'iVd7 1 6 e5 ! tt:\e8 1 7 exd6
has gained by putting the knight on a6 and exd6 1 8 lla5 ! (threateningtt:\xd6) 1 8 ... tt:Jxd3 19
queen on a5) 7 a3 ! d6 (7 ... :b8 8 :bi 'iVb6 9 e4 'iVxd3 a6 (19 ... .txb2 20 'iVd2 ..tg7 2 I 'iVxb4

'ii'b3 10 'iVc I doesn't help Black's cause) 8 tiJf3 gives White a pleasant queenside initiative) 20
g6 (no better is 8 ... e6 9 lldl followed by e4 and tt:Jd4 'iVd8 and now 2 1 lla2 ;!;; or 2 I lla4 a5 22

..txc4; or 8 ... tt:Jc7 9 e4 ..ta6 1 0 e5 ! tt:Jd7 I I e6!, tt:Jd2 ;!;;.

and I l ... tt:Jf6 is forced, when 1 2 tt:\g5 is strong) 8 ... g6!

9 llbl (eliminating the idea of ... tt:Jb4; 9 tt:\e4 In a rare test of 4 ... 'iVa5+ 5 ..td2, Kutsin

'iVd8 10 tt:Jxf6+ exf6 I I e3 ..tg7 1 2 ..txc4 is also Trifonov, Kiev 1 999 continued 8 ... g5? ! 9 fxg5
somewhat better for White) 9 ... ..tg7 1 0 e4 0-0 (9 e5 dxe5 I 0 fxg5 might be even stronger -

1 I ..txc4 with a solid advantage in space and Pedersen) 9 ... tt:\g4 1 0 tt:\f3 ..tg7 I I 0-0 tt:\ge5
potential activity. 1 2 ..te2 (Pedersen calls this "good for White")

1 2 ... ..ta6. Then White's clearest course is 1 3

10.231) tt:Jxe5 tt:Jxe5 14 ..te3 ..tc8 1 5 tt:Jd2 with the idea a3 and/or tt:Jf3.

5 ..td2 9 tt:Jf3 ..tg7 10 0-0

BENONI SYSTEMS AND BENKO GAMBIT 211

10 e5?! dxe5 I I fxe5 l'Dg4 1 2 e6 is a little him in the game, although White has an advan
premature in view of l 2 ... t'Dde5. tage in both cases.

10 ••• 0-0 11 h3 "i/c7 12 .lie3 a5 13 t'Dbd2 20 .lih6 exd5 21 .lixg7 l'Dxg7 22 l'Dg5

Preparing simply l:bel and e5. 1 -0 Moskalenko-R.Gonzalez, Mollet del

13 ••• .lib7 Valles 20 I I .

l 3 .. J:te8 14 �ael ( 1 4 �f2 !?) 14 ... e5 ! ? is a
thought, when White can try to attack along the 10.232} f-file by 1 5 fxe5 t'Dxe5 1 6 t'Dxe5 �xe5 1 7 �f2.

Then Black can use the e5 outpost by ... t'Dd7; 5 t'Dd2 (D) however, it comes at the cost of having to play

... f6. The resulting position almost certainly fa

vours White in a theoretical sense, but is so
solid that there's a question whether White can B actually get through.

14 �ae1 a4! ?

It's difficult to prevent e5; even 14 ... t'De8 in-
vites 15 e5 ! ? ( 1 5 .lif2 a4 1 6 .lih4) l 5 ... dxe5 1 6
fxe5 t'Dxe5 17 t'Dxe5 .lixe5 1 8 t'De4, when the
c5-pawn falls ( l 8 ... .lid6 1 9 "ilf2).

15 e5!

White's dream move in the Benko.

15 •.• dxe5 16 fxe5 l'Dh5! ? (D)

l 6 ... t'De8 1 7 .lif4 leaves Black terribly pas

SIVe.

This move hasn't been played with this move
order as far as I can tell. However, it is the posi
tion arising from the fairly well-known 4 t'Dd2
w "i/a5 5 "ilc2, a transposition that is easy to miss.

This is quite a legitimate option for White.

5 .•. bxc4 This seems to be the preference of most
grandmasters. 5 ... g6 (5 ... d6 is similar) 6 e4 .lig7
looks too passive: 7 l'Df3 (or 7 cxb5) 7 ... 0-0 8

..ie2 (this retains some advantage, but 8 cxb5 ! a6

9 a4 is a very nice version of the conventional

Benko, since White castles freely and owns c4)

8 ... bxc4 9 0-0 d6 1 0 t'Dxc4 "iic7 I I .lid2 t'Dbd7 1 2 .liaS t'Db6 (Arkhipov-Lependin, Novokuz
netsk 1999) and here 1 3 �ael ! readies the e5

17 e6! ? advance, which is White's real goal.

Here 17 g4! l'Dg3 1 8 .l:tf2 threatens .lif4, win 6 e4 .lia6 ning the knight on g3. This compels l 8 ... f5 This is the most popular move. Now White

( l 8 ... l'Dxe5? 1 9 .lif4 l'Dxf3+ 20 �xf3) 1 9 l'Dg5 ! has to let Black get rid of his problematic

"i/xe5 20 t'De6 ±, when the logical 20 ... t'De4 queen's bishop, but he still keeps his space and
fails to 2 1 .lif4 "ilxb2 22 .lixe4 fxe4 23 "i/xe4! positive prospects. Other moves:

l'Df6 24 "i/e5 ! "i/xe5 25 .lixe5 with a winning a) 6 ... g6 7 .lixc4 d6 (7 ... .lig7 8 l'Df3 0-0 9
game. O-O! ?.lia6? 10 e5 !l'De8 1 1 b3 t'Dc7 and now 12

17 ••• fxe6 18 .lixg6! hxg6 19 "i/xg6 l'Ddf6? ? t'De4! is terribly strong, but 12 ..tb2 e6 ! 1 3 d6

Black blunders fatally. Either l 9 ... l'Df4 20 t'Lld5 14 t'De4 ;\; wasn't bad in the game Lamp

.lixf4 �xf4 2 1 "ilxe6+ �h8 22 "i/xe7 ..if6 23 recht-S.Petrosian, Hamburg 1 999) 8 t'De2 (I like

"ile2 or l 9 ... exd5 20 "ilxh5 "ild6 2 1 t'Dh4 keeps 8 l'Df3 in these positions) 8 ... ..tg7 9 0-0 0-0 10 212 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

lt:Jc3 lt:Jbd7 II �e2 'flc7 1 2 h3 lbb6 1 3 a4 aS 1 4 9 ••• 'fla6 .:.d I �a6 1S lbbS 'fid8 1 6 l:Z.a3 with a slight ad 9 ... lt:Jbd7 10 0-0 g6 II b3 !? �g7 1 2 �b2 ;!; vantage for White, Topalov-Mayer, Dombim M.Thinius-Heinemann, Bundesliga 1 992/3.

1 990. 10 0-0 'ii'xc4 ll lt:Jxc4
b) 6 ... e6 7 �xc4 exdS (7 ... lt:Ja6 8 lbf3 lbb4 This is a typical advantage for White, particu

9 'flc3 exdS l 0 exdS ;!; �d6 ?? 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 a3 larly with a lead in development and control of

�a6 1 3 b3 l -0 Beliavsky-Bukal, Nova Gorica c4. Black therefore tried 1 1 ... lt:Jxe4 1 2 .:.e1 fS in

1 999; 7 ... �b7?! 8 lt:Jf3 exdS 9 exdS �e7 10 0-0 N. Nikolic-IIic, Sutomore 2004. Then 1 3 lt:Jh4
d6 1 1 .:.e l 'flc7 1 2 lt:Jh4 g6 1 3 �bS+ lt:Jbd7 14 won the f-pawn with a very slight advantage, but

'ii'c3 and Black's position is a mess) 8 exdS d6 1 3 lLlfd2! is better, with the idea 1 3 ... lt:Jxd2? 14

(D) and now: lt:Jxd6+ 'it>d7 1S lt:Jf7 lt:Jf3+ 16 gxf3 l:Z.g8 17

:e6! ±.

10.24)

w

4 ... bxc4 5 e4 (D)

B

bl ) 9 lt:Jf3 �e7 10 0-0 0-0 n .:.et :e8 1 2
lbe4! with the idea l 2 ... lbxe4 1 3 'flxe4 lbd7 1 4

�d2 'flc7 1 S �c3 ±.

b2) 9 b4!? is a computer-suggested gambit
that actually makes a lot of sense. All of White's
other pieces will be aggressively-placed, a 5 ... d6 bishop on b2 makes life difficult for Black, and Or: in any case this doesn't give him time for ... g6. a) S ... e6 transposes to Section 1 0.22. Play might go 9 ... cxb4 10 �b2 �e7 l l lt:Jgf3 b) S ... ..ta6!? 6 lt:Jf3 d6 7 lba3 (White doesn't

0-0 1 2 0-0 lbbd7 1 3 .:.fe I �d8 14 a3 bxa3 I S want to play ..txc4 yet and have his queen

.:.xa3 "flc7 1 6 lt:Jd4 and the rook swings to the brought to c4, where it will be attacked and lose
kingside for attacking purposes. time) 7 ... g6 8 .i.xc4 ..tg7 9 0-0 0-0 10 .:.e 1

7 �xc4 �xc4 transposes to note 'b' to White's 9th move be

7 ... d6 8 b3 g6 9 �b2 �xc4 10 bxc4! at any low. rate means that White's centre is there to stay. A c) S ... lt:Ja6!? is normally answered with 6
convincing example went IO ... �g7 l l lt:Jf3 0-0 �xc4 lbb4 7 'ii'e2 'iVaS 8 lt:Jc3, but White can

1 2 �c3 'i¥a6 1 3 0-0 lbbd7 14 .:.fe l lbb6 I S a4 also try to make the knight move irrelevant by 6

:ab8 1 6 eS ! lt:Je8 1 7 aS lt:Jd7 1 8 e6 fxe6 1 9 a3 (transposing into 4 ... lt:Ja6 S a3 bxc4 6 e4 -

.:.xe6 �f6 20 �xf6 exf6 2 1 'fia4 .:.n 22 lt:Je4 note 'd22' to Black's 4th move in Section I 0.2), with a winning game for White, Gulko-Aiburt, while 6 lbc3 transposes to line 'd1 3' of that

USA Ch, Long Beach 1 989. same note.

8 'ii'xc4 d6 9 lt:Jf3 6 �xc4 g6 7 lt:Jf3

9 b3 g6 10 �b2 �g7 1 1 �c3 !? 'fla6 1 2 f4 Pedersen thinks that White is slightly better

0-0 1 3 lt:Jgf3 'flxc4 14 bxc4 ;!; Grachev-Marty after 7 f4 .i.g7 8 lt:Jf3, which could be true, but
nov, St Petersburg 2003. it's a bit loosening. Incidentally, don't fall for 7

BENONI SYSTEMS AND BENKO GAMBIT 213

b3? lt:lxe4!, as leading grandmaster Ivan Soko

lov once did!

7 •.• ..tg7 8 0-0 0-0 (D) w

w

b2) l l ..td2 lt:lb6 1 2 ..tc3 ..txc3 1 3 'ii'xc3
lt:lxc4 l4lt:lxc4 ..txc4 1 5 'ii'xc4lt:ld7 16 'ii'c3 ;\;

Chuprikov-Aveskulov, Alushta 2005. White is
set for an e5 break, which isn't disastrous for

9 h3 Black, but guarantees White an edge.

This semi-waiting move is played partly to 9 ••. lt:lbd7 prevent ... lt:lg4-e5 (and ... ..tg4), but also to Probably this is the best move. The fact that
give a bishop on f4 an escape-square on h2 and he has played 9 h3 enables White to answer
reserve the option of bringing a knight to a3. 9 ... ..ta6 with one knight move or another: 10

Nevertheless, White may do just as well with lt:lbd2 (with the idea :bl and b3; also good is
common-sense moves, as follows: 10 lt:la3 1i'c8 1 1 lt:lb5 !; compare line 'a' of the
a) Moskalenko, perhaps the leading advo previous note) 10 ... lt:lfd7 1 1 :b1 lt:lb6 1 2 b3
cate of 4 'ii'c2, likes the position after 9 lt:lc3, 'ii'c8 ( 1 2 ... lt:lxc4 l 3 lt:lxc4lt:ld7 14 ..tb2 ;\;) 1 3
which can arise by various move-orders. Then i..b2 i..xb2 l 4l:Ixb2lt:l8d7 1 5 :el threatening

9 ... ..ta6 is supposed to be the theoretical prob e5, Ilincic-Vajda, Budapest 2005. lem, but White can play 1 0 lt:lb5 ! (Moskalenko 10 lt:lc3lt:lb6 ll ..te2 (D) himself has experimented with I 0 .i.xa6 lt:lxa6

I I ..tf4, which has consistently led to small ad

vantages) 10 ... ..txb5 1 1 .i.xb5 'ii'b6 1 2 ..te2
lt:lbd7 1 3 lt:ld2 !? (keeping Black's knight out B of g4; 1 3 ..td2 ;\; is possible) 1 3 .. .'ii'c7 14 :bJ
a5 (Moskalenko-Mahailovs, Barbero del Valles

2009) and the easiest path to an advantage is 1 5
lt:lc4lt:lb6 !6lt:la3 ! ;\;, when Black lacks a queen
side attack and White's bishop-pair gives him
the advantage.

b) 9 :e 1 ..ta6 (9 ... lt:lfd7 10 .i.f4 lt:lb6 1 1

..te2 i..g4 1 2 lt:lbd2 a5 1 3 h3 i..xf3 14 lt:lxf3 ;\;

Summermatter-Bischoff, Leukerbad 1 992) 10
lt:la3 also yields a modest positional advantage;
e.g., I O ... lt:lfd7 (D) and now:

b l ) I I ..tf4 lt:lb6 1 2 e5 lt:lxc4 ( 1 2 ... dxe5 l 3 ll ..• lt:le8 ..txe5 lt:lxd5 14 :act ! ;\; ; e.g., 14 ... .i.xc4 1 5 Or: lt:lxc4 e6 l 6lt:le3 lt:lxe3 1 7 :xe3 'ii'a5 1 8 ..txg7 a) 1 l ...lt:lbd7?! (changing plans, but it's in
r3;xg7 l 9lt:le5 ! ±) l 3lt:lxc4 dxe5 1 4 ..txe5 f6 1 5 structive anyway) 1 2 ..tf4 'ii'b6 1 3 :fe I :b8 14

..txb8 :xb8 1 6 :act ! ;\; Bender-Pavlovic, Za J:Iab1 ..ta6 15 e5 ! (almost always the key move,
greb 2007. and one you seldom get to make successfully in 214 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

the main-line Benko Gambit) 1 5 ... dxe5 1 6lZ:lxe5

lZ:lxe5 1 7 ..txe5 l:.bc8 1 8 l:.bd 1 ..txe2 1 9 l:f.xe2

'ifb7 20 d6! exd6 2 1 l:.xd6 l:.fd8?? (21 ... .l:tc6 22 B �d3! - Moskalenko) 22 l:.xf6 l:.e8 23 f4 +

Moskalenko-Robles Garcia, Montcada i Reixac

2009.

b) l l ...a5 1 2 a4 lZ:le8 1 3 ..tf4 ( 1 3 ..tb5 ! ?)

1 3 ... lZ:lc7 14 l:.ad l ..ta6 15 l:.fel f6?! (a real
concession; it is better to allow e5 with a small
advantage for White after 1 5 ... ..txe2 1 6 l:f.xe2
lZ:la6 1 7 e5 lZ:lb4 1 8 'ii'c l ) 1 6 b3 'ii'd7 1 7 lZ:ld2

..txe2 1 8 l:.xe2 e5? ! ( 1 8 ... lZ:la6) 1 9 dxe6lZ:lxe6

20 ..te3 ± Erdos-Van Assendelft, Warsaw 201 0.

12 ..t f4lZ:lc7 13 l:.ad1 ..t b7

Black wants to hold up e5 by attacking d5, a ( 4 ... d6 5 cxb5 lLlf6 6 lLlc3 is a poor Benko Gam
tactic reminiscent of the Modern Benoni. bit, because Black never interfered with White's

14 'ii'c1 'i!Vc8 15 ..t h6 ..t a6 16 l:. fe1 f6 castling plans) 5 ..txc4 d6 6 lLlf3 g6 can be an

The same conundrum for Black: whether to swered slowly by 7 0-0 ..tg7 8 fle l lLlf6?! 9 e5
allow e5 or make this weakening move. dxe5 1 0 lZ:lxe5, or radically with 7 e5 ! ? ..tg7

17 ..t f4 !? (7 ... dxe5 8 lLlxe5 ..tg7 9 lLlxf7 ! 'it>xf7 1 0 d6+ e6

1 7 lLlh4 attempts to start a direct attack; e.g., 1 1 'ii'f3+ and 'ii'xa8) 8 lZ:lc3 dxe5 9 0-0 lLlf6 10

17 ... ..txe2 18 l:.xe2 l:.b8 19 l:.d3 l:.f7 20 l:.g3 lZ:lxe5 0-0 1 1 l:.e 1 ±.

'ii'a6 2 1 ..txg7 l:.xg7 22 'ii'h6; this is neither

forced nor necessary but it hints at one of the 10.3 1 1) problems with .. .f6.

17 •.. l:. b8 18 b3 ..t xe2 19 l:. xe2 2 •.• f5 (D)

White is slightly better, Sachdev-Meenak
shi, Olongapo City (women) 20 10.

10.3) Other Benoni Systems w

In this section we'll cover other lines besides
the Modern Benoni and Benko Gambit which
begin with l ... c5 or 2 ... c5. These are in divided
into the following subsections:

10.31: 1 d4 c5 2 d5Misc. 2 1 4 10.32: Czech Benoni ( ••• e5) 2 1 7 10.33: Benoni without •.• lLlf6 2 1 9 10.34: The Vulture (3 •.. lZ:le4) 22 1 10.35: Snake Benoni (5 ••. ..t d6) 222

10.3 1) This hybrid of a Dutch and Benoni is some
times called the 'Clarendon Court', although

1 d4 c5 2 d5 (D) the name varies by country. It has been subject

Now we have another split: to a surprising amount of analysis. 10.311: 2 ••• f5 2 1 4 3lZ:lc3 10.312: 2 •.• d6/2 .•. e5 2 1 6 Another good approach is 3 e4 fxe4 4 lZ:lc3
lLlf6, and now:

Another hypermodern try i s 2 ... b5, when 3 a) 5 f3 exf3 ! ? (other moves transpose to
e4 already attacks the pawn on b5, and after lines in the note to Black's 4th move: 5 ... e5 6

3 ... a6, 4 c4! is one good solution: 4 ... bxc4 fxe4 d6 is 'a3 ' ; 5 ... d6 is 'a' , and 5 ... e6 is 'bl ') 6

BENONI SYSTEMS AND BENKO GAMBIT 215

tt::lxf3 d6 7 tt::lg5 ! (with the idea �b5+) 7 ... a6 8 a2) 6 ... a6 7 tt::lf3 ;t �d3 g6 9 0-0 �g7 10 tt::le2! intending tt::lf4. a3) 6 ... e5 7 �b5+ (7 tt::lf3 favours White
b) 5 tt::lh3 !? g6 6 tt::lg5 �g7 7 �c4 0-0 8 0-0 slightly) 7 ... �d7 8 �xd7+ 'ifxd7 9 tt::lf3 tt::la6
d6 9 tt::lgxe4 tt::lxe4 1 0 tt::lxe4 and the e6-square is (to meet tt::lg5 with ... tt::lc7) 1 0 0-0 �e7 I I
still a problem for Black, although this is play tt::lh4!? 0-0 ( l l ...g6 1 2 tt::lf3) 1 2 tt::lf5 ;!;. able. b) 4 ... e6 5 e4 and now:

c) 5 g4 is a sort of 'main line': b l ) 5 ... fxe4 6 fxe4 exd5?! 7 e5 ! �e7 8 tt::lf3
c 1) 5 ... g6? 6 g5 tt::lh5 7 �e2 tt::lg7 8 h4 tt::lf5 9 d6 9 �b5+ �d7 I 0 0-0 dxe5 II l:te I ±. h5 �g7 10 tt::lxe4 'iic7 I I tt::lf3 d6 12 h6 �f8?! b2) 5 ... exd5 6 tt::lxd5 (6 exd5 ;!;) 6 ... tt::lc6 7

1 3 b3 tt::ld7 14 �b2 l:lg8 1 5 �d2 with domina �f4 d6 8 �c4 tt::le5 9 �xeS dxe5 I 0 tt::le2 "with
tion of the board. the more comfortable position" (Maurits Wind).

c2) After 5 ... e6!?, 6 dxe6 yields a small edge, 5 tt::lh3!? but I like 6 tLlh3 !? tt::lxd5 7 tt::lxd5 exd5 8 �xd5 5 e4 f4 6 g3 d6 (6 ... tt::lh5 7 d6! - Levitt) 7 tt::lc6 9 �g5, when White has the better of it; �h3 !? (7 gxf4 tt::lh5 8 'ife2!?) is a nice way to
e.g., 9 ... tt::le7 10 �xe4 d5 1 1 �e5 ±. gain a modest advantage while avoiding compli
c3) 5 ... h6 ! 6 �g2 d6 7 tt::lxe4 (D) with some cations; e.g., 7 ... �xh3 (7 ... tt::lh5 8 �g4; 7 ... �d7
edge due to Black's weaknesses. 8 'ii'e2 g5 9 �d2 a6 I 0 0-0-0 b5) 8 tt::lxh3 tt::lh5 9

�e2! with the idea 9 ... fxg3 10 tt::lg5.

5 ••• d6 (D)

B

w

Then upon 7 ... tt::lxg4, Avrukh mentions 8

�e2!? (this is promising, as is 8 tt::le2! intending
tt::lf4) 8 ... tt::la6 9 �h3 tt::le5 (9 ... lLlf6?? 10 tLlxf6+ 6 tt::lg5 gxf6 1 1 �h5#; 9 ... h5 10 tt::lf3 tt::lc7?! 1 1 �f4 6 e4 f4 (6 ... fxe4 7 tt::lg5 ! exf3 8 �xf3 gives e5?! 1 2 dxe6 �xe6? 1 3 0-0-0 gives White a win White far more than enough compensation, ac
ning position) 10 f4 �xh3 I I tt::lxh3 tLlf7 1 2 f5 ! cording to Michiel Wind) 7 �b5+ (7 g3 ! ?)

�d7 1 3 tt::lf4! intending l 3 ... �xf5 1 4 .:.n, when 7 ... tt::lfd7 ! (7 ... �d7 8 tt::lg5 !) 8 g3 (or 8 tt::lf2 a6 9

Black has two pawns but can hardly move with ..tn !? b5 10 g3 �e7 I I �h3) 8 ... a6 9 �e2 tt::lf6 out getting into trouble; e.g., 14 ... 0-0-0 1 5 tt::le6 10 tt::lf2 ;!; and now Black's best is apparently

�xd5? ( 1 5 ... �g6 1 6 h4!) 16 tt::lc3 �e5 17 l::.xf7. I O ... tt::lh5 I I g4 tt::lf6 1 2 a4, when White has

3 •.• tt::lf6 4 f3 e5 more space in the centre with potentially more

This is recommended by the experts of this on both wings. opening. Other moves: 6 ••• h6
a) 4 ... d6 5 e4 fxe4 6 fxe4 looks good for After 6 ... �e7 7 e4 0-0 8 exf5 �xf5 9 �d3 ;!;

White: White wins the light squares.

a l ) 6 ... tt::lbd7 7 tt::lf3 g6 8 tt::lg5 tt::le5? ! (or 7 tt::le6 �xe6 8 dxe6 �c8 9 e4 �xe6 10 exf5 8 ... tt::lb6?! 9 �b5+) 9 �b5+ �d7 1 0 tt::le6 'ii'a5 �xf5 11 �d3 �d7 12 �g6+ �d8 13 0-0

1 1 �xd7+ tt::lfxd7 1 2 0-0 with a huge advantage Black faces a long defensive task as White
for White. activates his bishop-pair.

216 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

10.3 12) is 9 g4! ?, producing a position in which White
can slowly but surely build up for a queenside

2 •.• d6 break and try to win on that side alone. That

2 ... e5 can transpose after 3 c4 d6, but also may seem implausible, but with open files and
tips Black's hand, so that White might forego 3 threats of sacrifices on c5, for example, White
c4 in favour of 3 lt:Jc3. can exert great pressure. He also has f5 avail

3 c4 able for a well-timed knight jump, whereas

In reality, this move-order is relatively rare Black's knights have no access to f4. due to the fact that 3 lt:Jc3 is particularly effec 5 lt:Jf3 tive here, but moving the c-pawn is consistent You can also argue that the exchange of bish
with the rest of this book, so I'll give it a look. ops costs Black time, so that 5 lLlc3 i..g5 6

3 ... e5 i..xg5 'ii'xg5 7 lt:Jf3 'fie7 can be followed by al

Establishing the structure for the Semi-Ben most any normal set-up to White's advantage;
oni and Czech Benoni. Naturally Black can e.g., 8 g3 lLlf6 9 i..g2 0-0 I 0 0-0, with the idea
also play 3 ... e6, when 4lt:Jc3 exd5 5 cxd5 g6 6 of a later f4 or b4. e4 i..g7 is a Modern Benoni without ... lLlf6. To 5 ••• i..g4 be consistent with our repertoire, White should Renewing the ... i..g5 idea, which White's
play 7 i..d3, and if Black replies 7 ... lt:Je7, then next move again frustrates. we have reached Section 10.33. 6lLlbd2 (D)

4 e4 (D)

B

B

6 •.• lt:Ja6

This is called a Semi-Benoni, and it can 6 ... i..g5 is met by 7 'fia4+! i..d7 8 'fib3
change into a Czech Benoni (see I 0.32) if Black i..xd2+ 9 i..xd2 ± (Kasparov). Toth-Hammer,
plays ... lLlf6 soon. I'm not going to cover all the Biel 1 98 1 is a nice example of space exploita
slippery details, but here are a few lines: tion in the opening: 6 ... lLld7 7 i..e2 lt:Jgf6 8 h3

4 •.• i..e7 i..h5 9 'ii'c2 0-0 I 0 g4! i.g6 I I i..d3 lt:Je8 1 2

Black would like to swap off his 'bad' bishop lLlfl ! lLlc7 1 3 lt:Jg3 ± ; later h4-h5 and lLlf5 fol
with ... i..g5. Alternatively: lowed.

a) 4 ... f5?! 5 exf5 i..xf5 6 lLle2 lLlf6 7 lt:Jg3 7 i..e2 i..g6 8 lt:Jc3 i..e7 9 i..d3 controls e4 and f5, 7 a3 !? lLlf6 8 i..d3 0-0 9 h3 i..d7 I 0 g4 l:tb8
while e6 remains a sore spot. 1 1 lLlfl b5 1 2 b3 with an initiative for White
b) 4 ... g6 5 lt:Jc3 i..g7 6 i..d3 lt:Je7 can be met (Kasparov). by 7 h3 0-0 8 g4 !?, intending 8 ... f5 9 gxf5 gxf5 7 ... lt:Jf6 8 a3 0-0 9 0-0 g6

1 0 lLlf3, or by 7 h4!? h6 8 h5 ! ? (8 i..e3 also This is Kasparov-Torre, Baku 1 980, which
yields a slight advantage) 8 ... g5, after which 9 continued I 0 lt:Je I ! i..d7 I I lt:Jd3 lt:Je8 1 2 b4
lt:Jge2 with lLlg3 is customary, although there :c8 1 3 i..b2 i..f6 ( 1 3 .. .f5 14 b5 ! lLlb8 1 5 f4 ±
are other plans. A funny possibility at this point Kasparov) 14 'ii'b3 b6 1 5 'it>h I i..g7 16 f4 ±.

BENONI SYSTEMS AND BENKO GAMBIT 217

Space is a mighty asset against the structure and, at some point, lL!g 1 and i..fl ". Regardless
with ... c5, ... d6 and ... e5. of the details, this is an excellent way to set up.

I should also note that if you play 6 h3 g6 7

10.32) Czech Benoni (. .. e5) .i.g5, as in our King's Indian lines, then 7 ... i..g7

8 i..d3 0-0 9 lLlf3 is still an excellent position

1 d4 lLlf6 for White, with g4 and perhaps h4 at a later

The defining feature of the Czech Benoni is point. that Black plays ... lLlf6, ... c5 and ... e5, leading 6 lLlf3 to a blocked central structure. l ...c5 2 d5 d6 3 Now that Black is no longer fianchettoing
c4 e5 4 lLlc3 lLlf6 is one of several other se his king's bishop, White can play this way
quences that lead to the same position. without worrying about an early ... f5, and so

2 c4 c5 3 d5 e5 move-order becomes less important. Another

After 3 ... d6 4 lL!c3 g6 (4 ... e5 is a Czech possibility is to play i..d3 and ltJge2. Benoni) 5 e4 il..g7 6 h3 0-0, 7 .i.g5 and 7 i..e3 6 ••• 0-0 transpose into positions examined in Chapter 8 6 ... lL!bd7 7 .i.d3 lLlf8 with the idea ... ltJg6 is
on the King's Indian, Sections 8.23 and 8. 1 2 re a typical plan for Black. Then 8 h3 h5 9 g3 lL!g6
spectively. 10 h4 (stopping ... h4) restricts Black's knight,

4 ltJc3 d6 5 e4 (D) with some advantage; e.g., IO ... il..g4 1 1 i..e2 a6

1 2 a4 b6 1 3 lLlh2! (Mellano-J.Fernandez, Bue
nos Aires 1 99 1 ) and after the correct 1 3 ... i..xe2

14 'ii'xe2, White simply controls more of the

B board.

7 h3 (D)

I'm going to recommend the set-up with
lLlf3, h3 and .i.d3, which can be played against
almost any slow system.

B

We have arrived at the Czech Benoni, a rela
tively mainstream variation which has always
had a decent reputation. On the other hand, its
passivity is discouraging to some players.

s ... .i.e7

Black can play any number of moves, of
course, but this is the main one by a good mar
gin. If Black decides to fianchetto by 5 ... lL!bd7

6 .i.d3 g6, Avrukh points out that White can 7 ..• ltJe8 play along the lines of 7 i..g5 .i.g7 8 f3 and "get Black also has a plan with .. J:te8 and
a favourable version of a Slimisch-type posi ... lLlf8-g6; e.g., 7 ... ltJbd7 8 i..d3 a6. I'll present
tion, as Black lacks counterplay on the queen a couple of different approaches for White:

side." I would say 'very favourable' . One of his a) 9 a4 (the only potential drawback to this
examples continues 8 ... a6 9 lL!ge2 h6 10 i..e3 move is that White may want to castle queen
h5 I I 'ii'd2 (versus ... i..h6) 1 l ...h4 (lest White side; it might be wise to wait until ... b5 is a
play h4) 1 2 i..g5 ! 'ii'c7 1 3 a4 lLlh5 14 g3 h3 threat) 9 ... lLlh5 !? 1 0 lLle2 ( 1 0 g3 is a good alter

(Calvo-Diez del Corral, Montilla 1 976) and native, as in so many of our h3 King's Indian
here he recommends 1 5 ltJd1 "followed by lLlf2 positions) 10 ... g6 1 1 g4 ( l l lL!g3 ! ? lL!xg3 1 2 218 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

fxg3 ;;\; is very interesting, and perhaps even anything on the queenside) 1 2 ... .:.es 1 3 h4! b5
best) ! I ...t'Llg7 1 2 t'Llg3 �hS 1 3 i..e3 t'Llf6! 14 ( l 3 ... h6 14 h5 ! t'Llf6 15 g5 hxg5 1 6 t'Llxg5 - Kas

�c2!? (14 i..h6!) 14 ... t'LlgS (14 ... h5 ! 15 i..e2! ;;\;) parov) 14 g5 !? (after 14 cxb5 axb5 1 5 axb5

1 5 �e2 i..d7 (Lautier-Nisipeanu, French Team t'Llb6 a sample line is I 6 h5 i..d7 17 g5 :as I S

Ch, Noyon 2005) and now 1 6 �fl. intending :xaS �xaS 1 9 �e2 'ii'a5 20 i..d2 :as 2 1 .:.g3
a5 and b4, is good, since White comes out �a3 22 t'Llh2 �fS 23 t'Llg4 ±) 14 ... t'LlfS 1 5 h5
better after 1 6 .. .f5 17 exf5 gxf5 I S gxf5 �cS 1 9 .i.d7 ( 1 5 ... bxc4 1 6 i..xc4 ;;\;) 1 6 t'Llh2 bxc4 1 7 �e2! t'Llxf5 20 i..xf5 i..xf5 2 I t'Llxf5 �xf5 22 .i.xc4! f5 1 S exf5 ! ? ( I S gxf6 ! i..xf6 1 9 �f3 ;;\;)

�xf5 .:.xf5 23 a5. 1 S ... i..xf5 1 9 t'Llfl �d7 20 t'Lle3 e4 21 ..tb2 .i.dS
b) 9 g4 .:.es (again with the idea of ... t'LlfS (Kasparov-Miles, Basel ( I ) 1 9S6) and now Kas
g6) 10 _:g I t'LlfS I I g5 t'Llh5 12 t'Llxe5 g6 1 3 parov gives 22 'i¥c2 ! 'i&'f7 23 0-0-0 t'Lld7 24 f4!

t'Llg4 i..xg5 I 4 t'Llh6+ i..xh6 I 5 i..xh6 �h4 1 6 ±. 'i¥d2 was better for White i n Reshevsky-Miles, 9 i..h6 Philadelphia 1 9S7. 9 g4 t'Lld7 is, by transposition, lvanchuk

8 i..d3 (D) Seirawan, Reykjavik 1 990. This game was a
lesson in space advantages and appropriate ex
changes: 10 i..e3 t'Llg7 I I .:.gl t'Llf6 1 2 'ii'e2 h5

(D).

B

w

8 ... g6

Black's idea is to play ... t'Llg7 and ... f5. When

White stops that with i..h6, he can play ... t'Lld7-
f6, ... �hS, and ... t'LlgS. As you can imagine, this This is an important type of position that
isn't terribly practical, and White has an excel White has to be ready for. Generally he doesn't lent record in this variation. Black can also want to play g5, after which Black has stopped
forego ... g6 with S ... t'Lld7. Then: White's kingside attack and can strike back with
a) After 9 a3 g6 I 0 i..h6 t'Llg7 I I g4 �hS 1 2 ... f6 when it's convenient; this theme arises in

�d2 t'Llf6 Black has completed a textbook reor many positions. White should arrange either to
ganization, but White has space in the centre and defend the g4-pawn or to sacrifice it to open the
on the kingside, where he can soon launch an at h- and g-files. The game continued 1 3 t'Lld2 �d7
tack. But in Pytel-A.Srnith, Manchester 1 9S l , 14 f3 t'Llh7 1 5 0-0-0 i..g5 (exchanging dark
another opportunity soon appeared: 1 3 0-0-0 squared bishops, but the 'bad' bishop was also a
i..d7 14 i..c2 a6? I 5 t'Llxe5 ! dxe5 1 6 d6 .i.c6 17 good defender of the dark squares!) 1 6 i..xg5
dxe7 fixe? l S t'Lld5 �e6 1 9 f3 .:.abS 20 h4! and t'Llxg5 17 �g2 ± �e7 ( 1 7 ... h4 I S 'ii'f2 t'Llxh3 19

White's corning attack with h5 was decisive. �xh4 t'Llxgl 20 .:.xgl with a crushing attack
b) 9 g4 a6 1 0 a4 .:.bS I I _:gl ! (a good pro Cox) 1 S h4 t'Llh7 1 9 �g3 a6 20 g5. Now this
phylactic move, discouraging ... f5) l l ...t'Llc7 move is OK, because ... f6 doesn't energize a

( l l ...g6 1 2 i..h6 t'Llg7 1 3 �e2 ;;\; Kasparov; this dark-squared bishop on e7; in the meantime,
resembles our main line) 1 2 b3 ( 1 2 a5 ;;\; Razu White prepares f4, and won with the long-term
vaev; then Black will find it difficult to achieve strategy of exploiting his space and Black's

BENONI SYSTEMS AND BENKO GAMBIT 219

weaknesses: 20 ... f6 2 1 gxf6 .l:txf6 22 .l:tdfl ..td7 i..xg7 'it>xg7 22 'ilfxe5 White wins a piece and

23 f4 exf4 24 .l:txf4 .l:txf4 25 'ifxf4 l:tf8 26 'ii'h6 maintains the mating attack . ..te8 27 e5 ! 'ifxe5 28 ..txg6 ..txg6 29 'i:Vxg6 'it>h8

30 l2Jce4 l2Jf5 3 1 'ii'xh5 l2Jd4 32 'i!Vxe5+ dxe5 33 10.33) Benoni without .. . t2Jf6 .l:tg6 1-0.

9 .•. l2Jg7 10 g4 (D) 1 d4 e6

Here we tum our attention to a modified ver
sion of the Modem Benoni where Black plays

... l2Je7 instead of ... l2Jf6. 1 ... e6 is really the

B most likely way to get into such a position. If
instead Black plays 1 ... c5 2 d5 e6, many play
ers will choose 3 lDc3 or 3 e4, rather than 3 c4
exd5 4 cxd5 d6, which reverts to the line under
question. Another possible move-order is l ... c5

2 d5 d6, but then there's always the chance that
an eventual ... exd5 will be met by exd5. In the
end, 1 ... e6 is the move-order with which White,
in playing the repertoire I have recommended,
will have the hardest time avoiding a ... l2Je7

Benoni.

2 c4 c5 3 d5 exd5 4 cxd5 d6 5 l2Jc3 g6 6 e4

This is your basic clampdown on ... f5. i..g7 7 ..t d3 l2Je7 (D)

10 .•• l2Jd7 11 'ife2

White has many approaches. A cute build-up

was I I 'ifd2 lDf6 1 2 'it>e2! ? ( 1 2 0-0-0 'it>h8 1 3
l:tdg l i s of course fine) 1 2 ... 'it>h8 1 3 l:tagl l2Jg8

14 h4 f6 ( 1 4 ... l2Jxh6 1 5 'ifxh6 f6 1 6 'it>d2 ..td7

17 'it>c2 a6 1 8 'it>b I b5? 19 l2Jg5 ! fxg5 20 hxg5

'it>g8 21 �xh7+ 'it>f7 22 .l:th6 with a killing at
tack; well, maybe 1 2 0-0-0 was better after all,
but this is a nice line) 15 ..te3 ..td7 (Barbero

Partos, Dubai Olympiad 1 986) and now Bar
bero gives 16 .l:tg2 with an advantage. Instead,

16 h5 g5 1 7 tDe I l2Jh6 1 8 f3 l2Jf7 1 9 l2Jc2 a6 20
l:tb 1 is an example of the kind of stabilization of
the kingside followed by queenside action that

I've mentioned before. In this particular case,

White stands extremely well. Note that a white This rare move (instead of the main varia
knight can get to f5 at the right moment, whereas tion 7 ... l2Jf6) makes a certain amount of sense,

Black's knights cannot access f4. keeping the g7-bishop's diagonal unmasked
ll ... a6 12 0-0-0 lDf613 .l:tdg1 and giving Black the opportunity to play ... f5.

Now: However, Black no longer gets any pressure on
a) If Black sits around, he has to be careful e4, and the e-file is blocked, whereas handy
about the f4 break; e.g., 1 3 ... 'it>h8 14 'it>b1 ..id7 Benoni moves like ... l2Jg4, ... l2Jh5 and ... l2Jfd7

15 l2Jd2! .l:tb8 16 ..te3 b5 1 7 f4! . are no longer available. The knight on e7, by
b) 1 3 .. . ..td7 14 l2Jd2 ( a noteworthy reorga contrast with that on f6, lacks good squares to
nization) 14 ... b5 ( 1 4 ... 'it>h8 1 5 h4 l2Jg8 1 6 ..te3 go to. Finally, Black's pawn on d6, which is sel
h5 1 7 g5 ..te8 1 8 f4 ± Spassky-Ghitescu, Bever dom a problem in the main line (even if more
wijk 1 967) 1 5 h4 'i:Va5 1 6 h5 .l:tfb8 17 hxg6 fxg6 active defences aren't available, ... l2Je8 is a

1 8 f4! b4 19 l2Jd1 exf4 20 e5 ! +- Enklaar handy defensive move to have in reserve), be

Sahovic, Wijk aan Zee 1 972. After 20 ... dxe5 2 1 comes hard to defend in certain cases. 220 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

8 �f4 b) IO ... .l:r.e8 1 1 0-0 tt'ld7?! ( l l ...f5? 1 2 "fib3 !

A very rare move, but I think it's useful to fxe4 1 3 tt'lxe4 tt'lf5 14 .l:r.fe 1 ±) 1 2 �xd6 'ikb6 target d6 right away. Naturally 8 tt'lf3 is often 1 3 e5 ! 'ikxb2 14 .l:r.c l ±. played here, as is 8 �g5. The important alterna 11 tt'ld2 tive 8 h4! is underanalysed but apparently very A knight on c4 will attack both d6 and b6.

effective, now that h5 can't be answered by For want of games with 8 �f4, I'll supply some

... tt'lxh5; for example, 8 ... 0-0 (8 ... h6 9 h5 ! with analysis. Two good alternatives (both aimed
the idea 9 ... g5 10 f4! ; 8 ... tt'ld7 9 h5; 8 ... h5 9 against .. .�g4) are 1 1 h3 ;\; and 1 1 'ikb3 tt'ld7 1 2

�g5 !) 9 h5 f5?! (9 ... tt'ld7 10 tt'lf3 ;\;) 10 hxg6 0-0 ;\;. hxg6 1 1 tt'lf3 fxe4 1 2 �xe4 tt'lf5 1 3 tt'lg5 'ike7 ll ... tt'ld7

14 g4 tt'ld4 1 5 �e3 .l:r.f6 1 6 tt'lh7 ± J.lvanov 1 1 ...lle8 1 2 �e2! ( 1 2 tt'lc4 is more compli

Reinaldo Castineira, Pamplona 2009. cated, but still to White's advantage following

8 ... a6 1 2 ... �xc3+ 1 3 bxc3 tt'lxd5 14 �xd6 'ikc6 1 5

Because of the bishop on f4, 8 ... tt'la6 with 'ikf3 with the idea 15 .. . f5 16 e5 !) 1 2 .. . �d7
the idea ... tt'lc7 runs into 9 tt'lb5 0-0 10 'ikd2 ± ( 1 2 ... tt'ld7? is strongly met by 1 3 tt'lc4 intend-
threatening �xd6 or tt'lxd6. 8 ... 0-0 may trans ing 1 3 ... tt'le5 14 �xe5 �xe5 1 5 tt'lxe5 dxe5 16
pose to the main line; in any case, Black will d6; 1 2 ... f5 1 3 tt'lc4 .l:r.d8 14 'ii'd3 leaves Black at
probably want to play ... a6 soon. a loss) 1 3 tt'lc4 tt'lc8 14 'ikd3 ± f5 15 'ili'g3 fxe4

9 a4 1 6 h4!, not just winning d6 but going for the kill

9 tt'lf3, allowing 9 ... b5, is also promising, be with h5. cause White develops so rapidly: 10 0-0 (or 10 12 tt'lc4 tt'leS 13 �xeS �xeS 14 tt'lxeS dxeS

'ii'd2 to cover b2, intending IO .. . b4 1 1 tt'ld 1 ) 1S h4 hS

1 0 ... 0-0 (notice that Black can't play the natural Black doesn't want to allow h5 when his dark

... tt'ld7, and I O .. . b4 I I tt'la4 favours White, in squares are so vulnerable to moves like 'ikd2-h6.

part because c4 will prove a good square for 16 "fld2 �d7 17 �e2 tt'lc8 (D) White's pieces; even White's knight on a4
might reroute to that square via b2) 1 1 h3 'ikc7

1 2 'ii'd2 ;!;.

9 • . • 0-0 10 tt'lf3 (D)

B

In order to blockade on d6.

18 g4!

With Black's dark-square weaknesses on the
kingside, a direct attack should work. Naturally

10 •• .'ii'c7 White needn't play so radically.

Preparing ... tt'ld7. Other moves: 18 ••• �xg4
a) 1 O ... �g4 1 1 h3 �xf3 1 2 'ii'xf3 "flc7 1 3 1 8 ... hxg4 is well met not only by 1 9 h5, but

'ikg3 shows up the weakness of d6. Play might also 1 9 d6! 'ii'd8 ( 1 9 ... 'ikxd6 20 'ii'xd6 tt'lxd6 2 1
continue 1 3 ... tt'lc8 14 a5 b5 1 5 axb6 'ikxb6 16 lid I ; 1 9 .. . tt'lxd6 20 0-0-0) 20 h5 g5 2 1 0-0-0

.l:r.a2, with the idea 1 6 ... 'ikb3 1 7 0-0! �xc3? 1 8 with ideas of 'ikd5 or 'ike3, among others. · �b1 ±. 19 �xg4 hxg4 20 hS 'ike7 ?

BENONI SYSTEMS AND BENKO GAMBIT 221

But 20 .. .'�Jd6 2 1 'ii'h6 is no fun.

21 d6! 'ii'xd6

2 1 ...lbxd6 loses to 22 l2Jd5 'ii'd8 23 hxg6 B fxg6 24 'ii'h6.

22 l2Jd5 l2Je7

Neither 22 ... f5 23 'ii'g5 nor 22 .. .'l;;g7 23 'ii'g5
saves Black.

23 'ii'h6

White wins.

10.34) The Vulture (3 ... lbe4)

1 d4 l2Jf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 l2Je4 (D)

a) Bucker recommends 9 ... exf4 with an ' ! ' ,

but this i s risky as i t opens the long diagonal
w and strips the king of protection. White should
open the e-file, and can even do so immediately
by 10 e3 ! ( 10 g3 ! ? is another way to open
lines); e.g., I O ... 'ii'e7 I I �d3 fxe3 1 2 0-0 or

I O ... fxe3 1 1 �d3 with the idea 0-0 and :ae l .

This really looks pretty tough for Black.

b) 9 ... l2Jd7 10 e3 g6 1 1 h4 �g7 1 2 h5 goes
way back to Tatai-Bucker, corr. 1 984. 1 2 ... lbb6

(what else?) and now:

b l ) The game Gahwens-Gallinis, Germany

(team event) 1 989/90 continued 1 3 fxe5 dxe5

14 0-0-0 �g4, and here 1 5 d6! ± is particularly

The Vulture is the brainchild of the wonder hard to meet, since after 15 ... 'ii'c6 1 6 'ii'f2 both
fully creative Stefan Bucker. It is an opening 1 6 ... �xf3 17 'ii'h4! and 1 6 ... 0-0-0 17 �e2 1eave
that is easy to dismiss, but has survived many Black trying to unravel. refutation attempts over the years. b2) 1 3 �d3 is also good, and if Black tries

4 'ii'c2 to go queenside with 1 3 ... �g4, 14 h6 �f6 1 5

This is the most popular and perhaps critical fxe5 dxe5 16 lbh2! ? looks strong, among oth
line. 4 'ii'd3 is a good alternative if White needs ers; e.g., 1 6 ... �d7 1 7 0-0 �g5 1 8 l2Jf3 �xe3+
one; the move-order 4 lbf3 'ii'a5+ 5 lbfd2 with 1 9 c1i;h 1 0-0 20 �xe5 'ii'd8 2 1 :ae 1 �xh6 22
the idea of �c2 and/or f3, as in S.Emst-Van 'ii'f2, with most of these moves apparently

Dorp, Wolvega 20 I 0, is also of interest, be forced. cause it preserves c3 for the b ! -knight. If Black 5 ••. l2Jf6! (D) adopts the Czech Benoni structure we'll see be Bucker and others some time ago began to
low, then l2Jf3-d2 and l2Jc3 is the same as l2Jd2 prefer this approach. The original idea was the
and lbe2-c3; compare what follows. more provocative 5 ... lbd6, which is what you'll

4 •.• 'ii'a5 + 5 l2Jd2 find covered in most books (if they mention the

It can be difficult to adjust to a surprise sys Vulture at all). Then 6 b3 is a problem, a main
tem, so try to be familiar with either this line or line proceeding 6 ... f5 (6 ... e5 7 �b2 f6 8 e3 lbf7
the challenging continuation 5 lbc3 lbxc3 6 9 �d3 g6 10 h4 :g8 I I h5 f5 1 2 hxg6 hxg6 1 3

�d2!. Then 6 ... 'ii'a4?! 7 'ii'xc3 isn't appealing �c3 'ii'c7 14 g4 e4? 15 �xe4! and Black's posi
for Black, so he normally sets up a Czech tion won't hold up) 7 �b2 e6 8 �c3 'i!Vb6

Benoni structure with 6 ... e5 7 �xc3 'ii'c7 and (8 ... 'i!Vd8 9 l2Jgf3 lba6 10 e4!) 9 'ii'b2 ! :g8 10

... d6. Then a sort of 'main line' goes 8 f4 d6 9 l2Jgf3 (or 10 lbh3 intending l2Jf4) IO ... 'ii'd8 1 1
lbf3 ( D J. and now: e3 b6 1 2 �d3 ±.

222 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

This odd-looking idea has been fairly well

known for a quarter of a century, and has al
w ways had its adherents, but I wonder if it's go
ing to survive as a serious system.

If you are looking for an outright refutation
of the Snake and don't mind devoting many
hours to the effort, you can attack by 6 e4 0-0 7
f4, virtually forcing Black to sacrifice a piece
with 7 ... lt::lxe4 8 lt::lxe4 l:te8 9 'i!Ve2 and now

9 ... iJ..c7 10 g4 or 9 ... iJ..f8 I 0 g4. Lengthy analy
sis convinces me that this does ultimately fa
vour White's extra piece, even though at one
point he will have to escape with his king to d I
and suffer some discomfort. But that's open to

6e4 d6 argument and anyway not in the spirit of this

Black is setting up a Czech Benoni structure book. So I'll recommend a solid approach in
with ... d6 and ... e5; BUcker has also played stead: 6 .. ."iic7 with the same purpose. 6 lt::lf3 iJ..c7

7 lt::lf3 This is a move Black normally plays sooner

I think White gets a small advantage after 7 or later. He can delay it, but shouldn't leave it
lt::le2 e5 8 lt::lc3 iJ..e7 9 iJ..e2 lt::lbd7, intending too long. 6 ... 0-0 can be met by 7 iJ..g5 l:te8

... lt::lf8-g6, and now something along the lines (7 ... h6 8 iJ..h4 doesn't normally affect things
of I 0 a3 'ii'd8 I I l:tb I lt::lf8 1 2 lt::lfl lt::lg6 1 3 lt::le3 much in these lines; a unique try is Mager
with the idea lLlf5. ramov's 8 ... b5 !?, but simply 9 e3 with the idea

7 ••• e5 8 iJ..d3 iJ..e7 9 a3 9 ... b4?? 10 lt::le4 or 9 ... a6 1 0 iJ..xf6 'ifxf6 I I a4

Now 9 ... 0-0 can be met by 10 h3 lt::lh5 I I g3, b4 1 2 lt::le4 'i!Ve7 I 3 iJ..d3 ! favours White) 8 e3
and 9 ... lt::lbd7 with 10 h3 !? 'ii'd8 ( 1 0 ... lt::lf8 I I (D), and now: b4! cxb4? 1 2 lt::lb3) I I lt::lfl lt::lh5 ( 1 1 ...0-0 12
lt::lg3) 1 2 lt::le3 lLlf4 1 3 iJ..fl ;!; followed by g3.

Naturally, both sides can vary in several ways,
even to the extent of pursuing entirely different 8
plans. But this is a start.

10.35) Snake Benoni (5 .. . i.d6)

1 d4lLlf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e6 4 lt::lc3 exd5 5 cxd5
iJ..d6 (D)

w
a) 8 ... h6 9 iJ..h4 a6 (9 ... g5 10 iJ..g3 iJ..xg3 I I
hxg3 'i!;g7 1 2 d6 gives White a clear advan
tage, Vaganian-Hodgson, Sochi 1 986) 1 0 a4
iJ..f8 I I d6! l:te6 I 2 iJ..c4 l:txd6 1 3 �b3 and

Black is in big trouble: 1 3 ... l:te6 ! ( 1 3 ... g5 14
lt::le5 ! l:te6 1 5 iJ..xe6 fxe6 1 6 iJ..g3) I 4 iJ..xe6
fxe6 15 e4 lt::lc6 (G.Georgadze-Lima, Elgoibar

1 997) I 6 e5 ! g5 I 7 iJ..g3 lt::lh5 1 8 'i!Vc2 'i!Ve8 1 9

0-0 ±.

BENONI SYSTEMS AND BENKO GAMBIT 223

b) 8 ... �c7 is Black's main idea, to restrain Cannes rapid 2000) and now 23 l:tb6! l:te6 24

White's centre with ... d6 and, if appropriate, to i.c4 lL:\xc4 2S lL:\xc4 lL:\e4 26 lL:\xd6 lL:\xg3 27
put pressure on e4 with ... �aS. It's interesting fxg3 ! with the idea l:tfl is killing. to compare this with the Leningrad Variation 7 •.. i.a5 8 i.g5 (D) of the Nimzo-lndian ( 1 d4 lLJf6 2 c4 e6 3 lL:\c3

�b4 4 �gS cS S dS), in which Black's bishop

gets to b4 in one move, rather than taking three
to get to aS ! One nice example is 9 d6! �aS I 0 B �c4 lL:\c6 I I 0-0 ( I I 'ii'b3 ! forces I I ... �xc3+

1 2 'ii'xc3 with a solid advantage for White)

l l ...�xc3 12 bxc3 lL:\eS? 1 3 lL:\xeS l:txeS 14 f4!

l:txe3 I S 'ii'd2 .l:le8 1 6 l:tae l l:tf8 1 7 l:te7 l:tb8 1 8

�xf6 gxf6 1 9 'ii'dS bS 20 �d3 c4 2 1 �xh7+

�g7 22 'ii'hS 'ii'b6+ 23 �h l fS 24 l:txf7+! l -0

Arbakov-Handke, Stuttgart 1 998.

We now return to 6 ... i..c7 (D), which has its own problems.

Now we have these examples:

w a) 8 ... h6 9 i.h4 and then:

a t ) 9 ... 'ii'b6 1 0 i.xf6 'ii'xb2 I I i.xg7 .l:lg8

1 2 l:tbl i.xc3+ 1 3 i.xc3 'ii'xc3+ 14 lL:\d2 l:tg6

I S l:tb3 'ii'g7 (Arkell-Bezold, French Team Ch

200 I ) and now I 6 lL:\f3 lL:\c6 17 g3 ! b6 1 8 lL:\h4
l:tf6 1 9 i.g2 i..b7 20 0-0 gives White much the
better pawn-structure and a plan of e4 and lLJfS.

a2) 9 ... lL:\c6 10 e3 b6 1 1 i.c4 i.b7 1 2 0-0
i.xc3 1 3 bxc3 0-0 14 l:te1 l:te8?! 1 S e4! gS 1 6
lL:\xgS ! hxgS 17 i.xgS lL:\eS ! 1 8 l:te3 ! ! �g7 1 9
l:tg3?! ( 1 9 iL.b3 ! +- and f4 follows - Moska
lenko) 1 9 ... i.xe4! 20 i.xf6++ �xf6 2 1 i.dS !

7 d6 i.g6? 22 f4 lL:\c6 23 fS ! i.xfS 24 'ii'hS +

Some people believe this forcing method is a Moskalenko-Almeida, Banyoles rapid 2006.

virtual refutation of the Snake. b) 8 ... 'ii'b6 9 i.xf6 �xb2 10 i.xg7 �xc3+!

7 i..gS is the positional approach: 7 ... d6 8 e3 ( 1 0 ... l:tg8 ! ? I I l:tb1 i.xc3+ 12 i.xc3 'ii'xc3+ 1 3

0-0 9 i.e2 (9 i.d3 is more aggressive, espe lL:\d2 l:tg6 1 4 l:tb3 doesn't improve matters) I I
cially with White's lead in development) 9 ... a6 i.xc3 'ii'xc3+ 1 2 lLJd2. This favours White, in

(9 ... i.aS 10 lLJd2 ! lLJbd7 I I 0-0 a6 1 2 lL:\c4 ;!;) spite of Black's discovery l 2 ... 'ii'eS ! ( 1 2 ... �d4

10 a4 lLJbd7 ( 1 O ... ..taS 1 1 lLJd2 lLJbd7 1 2 lL:\c4 1 3 l:tc l 'ii'xd6 14 e3 ! ), to which White should
i.c7 1 3 aS ;!;) I I 0-0 h6 1 2 i..h4 l.te8 1 3 lLJd2 reply 1 3 e3 ! lL:\c6 14 i.c4! l:tg8 I S 0-0 'ii'xd6 1 6
l:tb8 1 4 l:tb l (preparing to answer ... bS with lL:\e4 'ii'xd 1 17 l:tfxd 1 �e7 1 8 lL:\xcS d6 1 9 lL:\e4,
axbS and b4, a standard Benoni plan) 1 4 ... 'ii'e7 when Black has three isolated pawns to deal
l S 'ii'c2 'ii'f8 1 6 l:tfd 1 gS 1 7 i.g3 lL:\eS 1 8 b4! with, and sensitive squares such as dS and fS;
cxb4 1 9 l:::.xb4 i.aS 20 llbbl i.xc3 2 1 'ii'xc3 e.g., 1 9 ... i.fS 20 lL:\g3 i.e6 2 1 i.d3 might fol
lL:\xdS 22 'ii'd4 lLJf6 (Tkachev-S.Savchenko, low.

1 1 Dutch Defence

1 d4 f5 (D) particular, I examine Black's other first moves
that lead to a Dutch by transposition. I've pre
sented it in this way because you might want to

use 2 c4 against every Dutch move-order in
w cluding l ... f5. In this note, I'll discuss two of

Black's other attempts to employ the Dutch

Defence and how you can respond to them:

a) Versus l ... g6 2 c4 (a move-order that cuts
out any Dutch transpositions, 2 e4 i.g7 3 c4, is
covered in Section 1 2.34) 2 ... f5, one option is 3
tt:'lc3 tt:'lf6, transposing to line 'a' of my note after

White's 2nd move in Section 1 1 . 1 . But there's
also a good alternative in 3 h4! tt:'lf6 4 h5 tt:'lxh5

(D).

The Dutch Defence isn't a regular choice in
elite tournaments nowadays, but is perfectly re w spectable and has always had a following of ex
perienced grandmasters. Perhaps surprisingly,
each of its three main versions - the Leningrad,

Classical and Stonewall Variations - has held
up theoretically into the present. All of them in
clude ... f5 and ... tt:'lf6 at some point, but then go
different directions: the Leningrad is character-
ized by ... g6, ... i.g7 and ... d6; the Classical by

... e6 and ... d6; and the Stonewall by ... c6, ... d5
and ... e6. On top of that, Black can reach these
formations by various move-orders; for exam
ple, we saw the Stonewall via 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Now: tt:'lc3 e6 4 e3 f5 in Chapter 5. The main lines we al ) 5 lhh5 ! gxh5 6 e4. White threatens
shall examine are: mate and best play is 6 ... d6 (6 ... i.g7 7 'ii'xh5+

11.1: 1 d4 f5 225 'it>f8 8 'ii'xf5+ 'it>g8 9 tt:'lf3 d6 10 'ii'h5) 7 iVxh5+ 1 1 .2: 1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 232 'it>d7 8 'ii'xf5+ e6 9 1i'h3 with a pawn and excel
lent attacking chances for the exchange (com

Various forms of the Dutch can arise from pare various h4 lines below). first moves other than l ... f5. It might be useful a2) 5 e4! may be even better: 5 ... tt:'lf6 6 exf5
to explain this up front in the context of our rep gxf5 7 tt:'lf3 d6 8 tt:'lc3 with development, activ
ertoire. First, there's simply l ...f5, which I pro ity and structural superiority - more than enough
pose to answer with 2 tt:'lc3. Against other positional compensation for a pawn. move-orders, I will use 2 c4. In 1 1 .2 I cover 1 b) l ...d6 2 c4 f5 is an unusual move-order
d4 e6 2 c4 f5. Notice that immediately below that can be answered simply by 3 tt:'lc3 tt:'lf6,
and in my note to 2 tt:'lc3 in Section 1 1 . 1 , I dis which is discussed below under the move-order
cuss 2 c4 in the context of a repertoire and in l .. .f5 2 c4 tt:'lf6 3 tt:'lc3 d6 - see line 'b' of the

DUTCH DEFENCE 225

note to White's 2nd move in Section 1 1 . 1 , where you a starting point. The two arguably most im

I recommend 4 ..tg5. Alternatively, since ... d6 portant moves are: weakens the light squares, adventurous souls a) 3 ... g6 4 h4! . This is a recurring theme
could venture upon 3 g4!? fxg4 4 h3, a gambit against ... g6 lines: that I don't recommend in other contexts, but a1) 4 ... ..tg7 5 h5 lt::lxh5 6 e4! is known to
which has more positional basis here. The idea give White a favourable initiative, but that takes
is to control the e6-square, which has been some time to prove, so you might want to check
weakened by ... d6. out the books and databases. One important
line is 6 ... lt'lf6 (6 ... fxe4 7 g4! lt'lf6 8 g5) 7 exf5

1 1. 1) gxf5 8 ..tg5 with an attack.

a2) 4 ... d6 5 h5 lt'lxh5 6 e4! (D) (this is held

1 d4 f5 2 lt'lc3 to be advantageous in most sources; 6 .l:txh5

This is a relatively uncomplicated and effi gxh5 7 e4 'iid7 ! is very complex and dynami
cient way to cut down on the many move-order cally equal). challenges that the Dutch Defence presents in,
say, lines where White plays g3, not to mention

the dense theory associated with those lines.

White's initial idea is very straightforward: to 8 develop and play 3 e4, thus gaining a central ad
vantage. As mentioned, 2 c4 is important not
only because I am recommending it by transpo
sition versus some Dutch move-orders, but be
cause you may want to construct a complete
repertoire around it (which also means you
need a recommendation against the Leningrad).

The following analysis should prove useful: 2
c4 lt'lf6 (2 ... g6 was discussed above, via the
move-order l ... g6 2 c4 f5, where we examined

3 h4!; against other second moves we can play
as in the main lines below with lt'lc3, e3, ..td3, Now: etc., and often transpose directly to them) 3 a2 I ) 6 ... lt'lf6 7 ..td3 fxe4 8 lt'lxe4 and now
lt'lc3 (D). 8 ... ..te6? 9 lt'lxf6+ exf6 I 0 ..txg6+ or 8 ... ..tg7 9
lt'lxf6+ ..txf6?! l O .l:txh7 ! .l:txh7 1 1 ..txg6+ .l:tf7

I 2 'iih5 .i.e6 1 3 d5 ±.

a22) 6 ... fxe4 7 lt'lxe4 ..tf5 8 lt'lg5 (or 8 .i.d3)

8 8 ... 'iid7 9 .i.d3 (threatening l O .i.xf5, winning
a piece) 9 ... ..txd3 l O 'ii'xd3 ..th6 1 1 lt'li f3 with
pressure that is worth more than a pawn.

b) In order to avoid that fate, 3 ... d6 with the
idea of playing ... g6 next is recommended by
leading Leningrad Dutch experts. I propose 4

.i.g5, when Black must tread carefully:

b i ) After 4 ... e6, the moves 5 e3, 5 lt'lh3 and
of course 5 lt'lf3 are logical and objectively
strongest. If you want something very simple
that gives you a minor but distinct positional
edge, there's 5 e4 fxe4 6 lt::lxe4 .i.e7 7 .i.xf6!

The only problem here is that White's best ..txf6 8 lt'lf3 0-0 and now 9 .i.d3 ! ? lt'lc6 I 0
lines are very tactical and require some memo lt'lxf6+ 'iixf6 I I 0-0 or 9 .i.e2. rization, which isn't quite what I'm trying to do b2) 4 ... lt'lbd7 5 'ifc2 (I also like 5 lt'lh3 with
with this repertoire. Nevertheless, let me give the idea 5 ... h6?! 6 lt'lf4! �f7 7 ..txf6 lt'lxf6 8 h4, 226 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

or 5 ... e5 6 e3 c6 7 i.e2 i.e7 8 �c2 h6 9 .i.h4

0-0 1 0 dxe5 tLlxe5 I I 0-0 t) 5 ... g6 6 e3 .i.g7 7 tLlf3 0-0 8 .i.e2 h6 9 i.h4 e5 1 0 dxe5 dxe5 I I B i.g3 �e7 1 2 0-0-0 c6 1 3 h3 a6 14 i.h2 b5 15
tLlh4 �f7?! 1 6 g4 ± Salov-Rivas, European

Team Ch, Haifa 1 989.

We now return to 2 tLlc3 (D):

B

hxg6 { Debarnot-Larsen, Las Palmas 1 976 } 9

�d2 and 0-0-0 with an advantage, White has
the strong move 8 tLlg5 ! with the idea 'ilff3-g3
and 0-0-0) 6 hxg6! ? (6 e4! fxe4 7 tLlxe4 fol
lowed by i.d3) 6 ... hxg6 7 .l:.xh8 i.xh8 8 i.g5 t Argandona Riveiro-Perez Aranda, Torrelavega

2002.

b2) 3 ... tLlf6 4 h5 and now:

Black wants to prevent e4, so his normal re b21 ) 4 ... tLlxh5 5 .l:.xh5 ! gxh5 6 e4 launches
sponses are: a terrific attack, with a clear advantage follow

11.11: 2 ... d5 226 ing 6 ... d6 7 �xh5+ �d7 8 �xf5+ e6 (8 ... �e8 9 11.12: 2 ... tLlf6 229 �h5+ 'it>d7 1 0 .i.c4 c6 I I i.f4 �c7 1 2 i.e5 !

and White wins material, even after 1 2 ... i.g4!

You won't see many other moves played 1 3 �h2) 9 �h3 and White already has a pawn
with regularity, but these two are important: for the exchange with moves ahead such as
a) 2 ... e6 gives up the centre. After 3 e4, we .i.c4, tLle2-f4, and simply i.e3 with 0-0-0.

have: b22) 4 ... i.g7 5 h6 (5 hxg6 hxg6 6 l:txh8+
a1) 3 ... fxe4 4 tLlxe4 tLlf6 5 tLlxf6+ (or 5 .i.d3 i.xh8 7 �d2! intending �h6 is also good, and
t) 5 ... �xf6 6 tLlf3 tLlc6 (6 ... i.e7? 7 i.g5 �f5 8 perhaps clearer) 5 ... i.f8 6 i.g5 d5 7 �d2 e6 8
i.xe7 �xe7 9 i.d3 ± Korchnoi-Midjord, Sie 0-0-0 ..tb4 9 f3 ± Mt:ihring-Knezevic, Hradec gen Olympiad 1 970; 6 ... i.d6 7 i.d3 b6 8 .i.e4 Kralove 1 977/8. tLlc6 9 i.g5 �f7 1 0 d5 ± Winants-Rej, Ger
many (Under- 1 8) 1 980) 7 i.d3 i.e7 8 0-0 0-0 9 1 1. 1 1) c3 �f7 I 0 tLlg5 ! i.xg5 1 1 i.xg5 ± Drzasga

Weritz, Dortmund 1 993. 2 ... d5 3 .i.f4 (D)

a2) 3 ... i.b4 4 exf5 i.xc3+ 5 bxc3 exf5 6 This natural move brings the bishop in front
i.d3 d6 7 tLle2 and White is looking at a combi of the pawn-chain about to be formed with e3,
nation of .l:.el , lLlf4 and d5 to exploit the weak and it introduces the idea of tLlb5.

ness on e6; e.g., 7 ... tLlf6 8 0-0 0-0 9 .l:.el c5 !? 1 0 3 ... tLlf6
d5 �c7 I I c4 tLlxd5? 1 2 cxd5 c4 1 3 tLld4! cxd3 a) 3 ... c6 4 e3 tLlf6 transposes to our main

14 �xd3 and already Black's position is inde line. Let's note that a potential drawback to an
fensible, Hrtko-Wimbersky, corr. 1 990. early ... c6 is that a later ... c5 (a critical reply to
b) If Black heads for a Leningrad set-up some of White's strategies) will come at a loss
with 2 ... g6, then 3 e4 fxe4 4 tLlxe4 is possible, of tempo, so these lines tend to be easy for
but the real problem is 3 h4! (D). Then: White to handle with natural moves.

b l ) 3 ... i.g7 4 h5 tLlc6 5 tLlf3 d6 (5 ... d5 6 b) 3 ... e6 4 e3 (or 4 tLlf3) 4 ... tLlf6 transposes
i.f4 a6 7 e3 tLlh6 and now apart from 8 hxg6 to note 'a' to Black's 4th move; White has

DUTCH DEFENCE 227

White's d-pawn, or an eventual ... c5. However,
with White having traded his bad bishop for

B Black's good one, in addition to opening the e
file against Black's weakness on e6, the human
assessment deserves consideration.

a22) 6 tLlxd6+ cxd6 7 lLlf3 tLlc6 8 i.e2 0-0 9

0-0 a6 10 b3 (White can play for a normal
bishop-pair position by 10 c4 !? dxc4 I I i.xc4
b5 12 i.e2 with the idea of a4, h3 and poten
tially tLld2 and i.f3) I O ... 'ife7 ( 1 0 ... tLle4 I I c4
lLlc3 1 2 'iWd2 lLlxe2+ 1 3 'i6xe2 ;!;) I I c4 dxc4 12 bxc4 e5 1 3 i.g5 h6 14 i.xf6 'i6xf6 1 5 .l:tb l ! ;!;

V.Milov-Kindermann, Biel 1 995.

b) 4 ... a6 is logical. Then:

particularly many 4th-move alternatives in this b l ) A common strategy for White in these
case, but I don't think they're necessary. positions is the g4 advance; e.g., 5 h3 e6 6 g4!?

c) 3 ... a6 is widely recommended, prevent i.d6 7 'i6f3 (D). ing lLlb5 and intending ... c5 in many lines. Then

4 e3 lLlf6 is covered in note 'b' to Black's 4th

move below.

4 e3 B

4 tLlb5 tLla6 5 c4 e6 6 e3 transposes to line

'al ' of the next note. If Black intends to play

... a6 or ... c6, he might want do this as early as
possible to eliminate this possibility.

4 . . . c6

Or:

a) 4 ... e6 5 tLlb5 (D) forces a commitment:

B

7 ... tLlc6 (7 ... i.xf4 8 'ii'xf4 0-0 9 gxf5 exf5 10
i.d3 tLle4 I I tLlge2 followed by .l:tg I and 0-0-0
gives White easy play) 8 gxf5 0-0! (8 ... e5 9
dxe5 tLlxe5 10 �g2 0-0 I I 0-0-0 c6 12 lLlf3
lLlxf3 1 3 �xf3 i.xf4 14 'ifxf4 lLlh5 15 �g4

.l:txf5 16 i.d3 .l:te5 17 'ii'd4 ;!; Epishin) 9 0-0-0
i.xf4 I 0 'i6xf4 exf5 1 1 i.d3 tLle4 1 2 l2Jge2 tLle7

1 3 h4 ;!; Epishin-Malaniuk, Tashkent 1 987. Af
ter the continuation l 3 ... �d6 14 'i¥xd6 tLlxd6

15 lLlf4 c6 1 6 .l:tdg l , Black is still stuck with his
very bad bishop and White has just enough
a I ) 5 ... tLla6 allows White a pleasant edge pieces on the kingside to stir up some trouble. If after 6 c4 i.b4+ 7 tLlc3 0-0 8 lLlf3 t. need be, he also has realistic chances on the
a2) 5 ... i.d6 is less compromising. Then: queenside.

a2 l ) Suetin suggests 6 c4 and says that it's b2) 5 i.d3 e6 6 lLlf3 c5 7 dxc5 i.xc5 8 0-0 clearly better for White. As you can imagine, 0-0 9 tLle2 tLlc6 10 c4 (D). the computer is not thrilled with taking on dou An unusual position; White is breaking up
bled pawns after 6 ... i.xf4 7 exf4, after which Black's central majority and wants to exert some

Black has tempting options of ... dxc4, isolating pressure in that area by, for example, .l:tac I , 228 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

5 •.• g6 a) 5 ... ..te6 6 ..td3 g6 7 h4! h6 8 lt:Je5 l:!.g8 9

8 f3 (one of a few reasonable courses; Bareev
suggests 9 lbe2, but overall I think 9 'ii'd2! and

10 0-0-0 is strongest) 9 ... lt:Jbd7 1 0 lt:Je2?! ( 1 0
lt:Jxd7 'ii'xd7 1 1 'ii'd2 ! with the idea 0-0-0;

Black's pieces don't coordinate and his posi-
tion is rather fragile; e.g., l l ... lt:Jh5 1 2 ..th2

..tg7 1 3 0-0-0 ..tf6 14 'ii'f2) I O ... lt:Jh5 1 1 c3?!

( I I lt:Jxd7 ..txd7 1 2 ..th2 ;\; ) I I ...lt:Jxf4 1 2 exf4 h5 = Bareev-Onishchuk, Elista Olympiad 1 998.

b) A pure Stonewall isn't usually the best
course versus ..tf4 and lt:Jf3, but naturally it's
playable. 5 ... e6 6 ..td3 ..td6 7 lt:Je2 !, as in the

�3, l:!.fd I and at the right moment, lt:Je5 or game Sorokin-Piskov, Minsk 1 990, is promis
lt:Jed4. Black has some space and decent central ing because it prepares an early c4 (after a3)

control, but his queen' s bishop is bad and his and reinforces f4. Because ... e6 interrupts the
rooks are going to have difficulties finding good communication between the c8-bishop and the
squares: g4-square, White can also consider playing h3
b2 1 ) I O ... d4 I I exd4 lt:Jxd4 1 2 lt:Jexd4 ..txd4 and g4 at the right moment, even at the cost of a

1 3 'ir'e2 ..txb2 14 l:!.ad l ± Svetushkin-M.Griin pawn. berg, Bucharest 2003. 6 ..i.d3 ..tg7 7 0-0 0-0 8 lt:Je2! (D)

b22) I O ... 'i!Ve7 leaves d5 a little loose. There

might follow I I cxd5 (or I 1 lt:Jed4 ..td7 1 2 l:!.c I
l:tac8 1 3 cxd5 lt:Jxd5 14 lt:Jxf5 ! exf5 15 ..tc4 ;\; Beim-Renner, Bad Wiessee 2002) 1 1 ... exd5 8 ( I I ...lt:Jxd5 1 2 ..tg3 ..td7 1 3 a3 l:!.fd8 14 l:!.c l

..ta7 1 5 ..tc4 ..te8 1 6 ..th4 lt:Jf6 1 7 'ii'b3 ;\;) 1 2

'i!Vb3 lt:Ja5 1 3 'iVc2 lt:Je4 14 l:!.ac I ;\;.

b23) I O ... lt:Jb4 I I lt:Jc3 ( l l lt:Jed4 is another
approach) I I ...lt:Jxd3 1 2 �xd3 dxc4 1 3 'ii'xc4

"flie7 14 l:!.ac I ..td7 15 �b3 b5 1 6 lt:Je5 l:!.fd8 1 7
lt:Jxd7!? ( 1 7 lbe2 ;\; is more ambitious) 1 7 ... l:!.xd7

18 a4 bxa4 1 9 lt:Jxa4 ..td6 20 l:!.c6! ? ..txf4 2 1
exf4 l:te8 22 lt:Jb6 with some pressure; e.g.,

22 .. J1c7 23 l:!.fc l .

5 lt:Jf3 (D)

A key idea in this line: White prepares c4,
but also covers the critical f4-square in case of

an attack on the bishop.

8 8 .•• lt:Je4

White's control of e5 combined with the c4
advance give him the better game in any case;
for example, 8 ... h6 9 c4 ..te6 1 0 cxd5 lt:Jxd5 and
instead of 1 1 ..te5, which gave White a very
modest advantage in Komarov-Galdunts, Metz

1 994, I think he can more profitably retain the
bishop by 1 1 ..tg3; e.g., I I ...lt:Jd7 1 2 'i!Vd2 (or

1 2 a3 lt:J7f6 1 3 'ii'c2) 12 ... 'ot>h7 1 3 l:!.ac l lt:J7f6

( 1 3 ... ..tg8 14 e4!) 14 h3 lt:Je4 1 5 ..txe4! fxe4 1 6
lbe5 ;\;.

DUTCH DEFENCE 229

9 c4 ..ti>h8 4 ... g6 5 e3 i..g7 6 i..e2 lt:'lf6 7 lt:'lf3 d6 8 0-0 is

9 ... e6 10 .l:tcl lt:'ld7 1 1 h3 gives the bishop an slightly better for White. escape-square on h2. White can begin an attack b) 3 ... g6 has a tendency to transpose to
on the queenside. other lines, but has a couple of possible disad

10 i..e5 e6 vantages at such an early stage. One is that

Now: White can play 'iWd2 without preliminaries and
a) 1 1 i..xg7+ ..ti>xg7 1 2 lt:'lf4 �e7 1 3 .l:tc l have the irritating possibility of i..h6 (possibly
leaves White with the better pieces. in conjunction with 0-0-0 and h4-h5). The more
b) 1 1 b4!? lt:'ld6 1 2 i..xg7+ ( 1 2 �b3 i..xe5 important problem is that, as always, White can

1 3 lt:Jxe5 lt:'ld7 t; 1 2 cxd5 exd5 1 3 lt:'lf4 is an attack ... g6 immediately with 4 h4! i..g7 5 h5
other good way to organize) 1 2 ... ..ti>xg7 1 3 �b3 lt:'lxh5 6 .l:txh5 gxh5 7 e3 0-0 8 'ili'xh5 (D), and lt:'ld7 14 a4 ( 14 lt:'lf4! lt:'lf6 1 5 b5) 14 ... 'ili'f6 1 5 even though Black has managed to castle, this
cxd5 ! exd5 16 b5 lt'le4 ( 1 6 ... lt:'lb6 1 7 bxc6 bxc6 position is very difficult to defend:

1 8 lt:'le5 ±) 17 :tac l 'ili'd6 1 8 �c2 gave White a
hefty advantage in Khalifman-Topalov, Las Pal

mas 1 993.

1 1. 12)

2 ... lt:'lf6 3 i..f4 (D)

B

The play is fascinating; here is a sample of
the analysis:

b l ) 8 .. .'ii'e8 can be answered by 9 �xe8 !

.l:txe8 I 0 lt:'ld5 lt:'la6 1 1 i..xa6 bxa6 1 2 lt:'lxc7
i..b7 1 3 lt:'lxe8 .llxe8 14 lt:'lf3 i..xf3 15 gxf3,
when Black's pawn-structure is considerably
worse than White's. Actually, 9 �h4 isn't so

This uncommon move was actually assigned bad either. a '?' in one source. The argument against put b2) 8 ... d6 9 lt:'lf3 c6 10 i..c4+! d5 1 1 i..d3
ting the bishop on f4 is that it will be kicked lt:'ld7 1 2 0-0-0 lt:'lf6 1 3 �h4 and �h 1 . away by ... e5 with gain of tempo. But it's not b3) 8 ... e6 9 lt:'lf3 d6 (9 ... �e8?! is well met by
clear that this will ever happen (or should, any 10 'ifh2, while 10 �xe8 .l:txe8 1 1 lt'lb5 lt:'la6 1 2
way), and 3 i..f4 is a logical developing move i..xc7 wins so many squares that it must be ad that a number of strong players have chosen. In vantageous too) 10 0-0-0 'ili'e8 (finally! I O ... �f6
stead, 3 i..g5 is the overwhelming preference in I I i..c4 'i¥g6 1 2 'ili'h2 lt:'lc6 runs into 1 3 g4! and
practice, when I feel that Black can equalize, then 1 3 ... 'ilV xg4 14 lt'lg5 ! or 1 3 .. .fxg4 14 i..d3 but that's also a strategically rich variation. .l:tf5 15 lt:'lh4 'ifh5 16 lt:'lxf5 � xh2 17 i..xh2 exf5

3 ... d6 1 8 lt:'ld5 !) 1 1 'ifh2 lt:'ld7 ! 12 e4 lt:'lf6 ( 1 2 .. .fxe4 1 3

Consistent with playing for ... e5, and with lt:'lxe4 lt:'lf6 14 lt:'lxf6+ Itxf6 15 i..g5) 13 e5 lt:'lg4
the Leningrad ( ... g6) as well as the Classical 14 'i¥h4 threatens exd6 with ongoing pressure;

( ... e6)! Alternatively: for example, 14 ... �d8 15 'ir'g3 d5 16 lt'lg5 ! with
a) 3 ... lt:'lh5?! 4 i..g5 (I like 4 i..e5 d6 5 e3 ! t, the idea f3.

and even 4 lt:'lh3 lt:'lxf4 5 lt:'lxf4 is attractive) 4 e3 (D)

230 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

4 lbf3 will be played in this set-up anyway to
restrain ... e5, and may be more accurate, even if
it usually transposes. In that case, White gets a B unique option against the Leningrad set-up

4 ... g6, i.e., 5 'iVd2 with the idea of .i.h6, ex
changing Black's valuable bishop. There can
follow 5 ... h6! ? (this weakens g6) 6 e3 .i.g7 7

.i.d3 (with the idea e4) 7 ... lbc6 8 e4! ? (8 h3 is
more conventional, thinking about g4; for ex
ample, 8 ... g5 9 .i.h2 .i.e6! 1 0 e4 fxe4 1 1 lbxe4

0-0 12 0-0-0 ;!; intending �b1 and l:the 1 ) 8 ... g5

9 .i.g3 ! f4?! (9 ... lbb4 10 exf5 lbxd3+ 1 1 'iVxd3

�d7 1 2 0-0-0 'ii'xf5 1 3 'iVc4 c6 14 l:thel ) 1 0

.i.xf4 gxf4 I I e5, and White wins the piece
back with advantage in view of .i.g6+ and a) 9 'ii'e2 is not bad in itself, but is unrespon
li'xf4(+). sive, and transposes to the main line below.

b) 9 0-0! looks better, planning 9 ... 'ii'g6 10
lbb5 .i.d8 I I c4 t .

8 'iVe2?!

B This has been played in several games, but

Schipkov points out that White also has 8 g4!,
when an exchange on f5 or g4 will pry open ei
ther the g- or h-file, while White can exercise
his option of 'i!Ve2 and g5 followed by e4 in
some lines. Black can doubtless stay in the
game, but it looks rather depressing for him.

8 ... lbc6 (D)

w

Now Black must choose which system he
wants to go into:

11.121: 4 ... e6 230

11.122: 4 ... g6 23 1

11. 12 1)

4 ... e6

This transposes to a Classical set-up ( ... .i.e7
and ... 0-0), when it's not clear whether White is
better off with lbc3 and .i.f4, or c4, lbc3 and

.i.d3, as in our main anti-Classical system. This position is at any rate instructive. In two

5 h3 .i.e7 6 .i.d3 0-0 7 lDf3 (D) games White has castled queenside, but since

White's typical mode of development. e4 can only be stopped at the price of ceding the

7 .• .'iVe8?! e5-square, there's no hurry. Here's an alterna

In view of the next note, Schipkov proposes tive idea:

7 ... lbc6 with idea of ... lbb4 or ... 'ii'e8. This is 9 a3
definitely an improvement, when I think White White calmly prevents ... lbb4. Now:

should play 8 a3 'iVe8 (8 ... a6 9 0-0 b5 I 0 .i.h2 ;!; a) 9 ... a6 1 0 g4 ..td8 1 1 gxf5 exf5 can be met
and I I e4), and now: by 1 2 lbd2 !? ;!; or 1 2 0-0-0.

DUTCH DEFENCE 231

b) 9 .. .'iti>h8 1 0 0-0 (not 1 0 e4? e5 !, a motif played 14 lt:lc3, but he has lost most of his ad
worth remembering) 1 0 ... .td7 ( J O .. Ji'g6 1 1 vantage . .tg3 'ii'h5 1 2 e4) I I e4 fxe4 ( l l ...e5? 1 2 dxe5 b) The continuation that supposedly makes
fxe4 1 3 ltJxe4 ltJxe4 14 'ii'xe4 .tf5 1 5 'ii'e3 ±) the weakening 5 ... h6 unnecessary is 5 ... �g7 6

1 2 ltJxe4 liJd5 ! ( 1 2 ... 'ii'h5 1 3 ltJg3 'ii'f7 1 4 h5 (queried, as usual, this time by Tyomkin, but

.td2) 1 3 �h2 lt:lf4 14 .txf4 l:lxf4 1 5 c 3 (or 1 5 unlike so many annotators, at least he considers
l:lae l !?) 1 5 ... e5 1 6 d5 lt:ld8 1 7 c4 with a posi the move!) 6 ... ltJxh5 7 l:txh5 gxh5 8 'ii'xh5+
tional advantage. Mere analysis, but in general f8 (D), when Black has a clear advantage ac White seems to be controlling the play. cording to Tyomkin. But let's see; White ap
c) 9 ... .td8 ! 1 0 0-0 e5 I I dxe5 dxe5 1 2 pears to have his usual choice of good moves: .tc4+ 'it>h8 1 3 .th2 reaches a position i n which

I'm not sure what either side is doing next.

1 1. 122) w

4 ... g6

Black finally achieves his Leningrad set-up.

5 lt:lf3

This doesn't seem necessary, but it's impor
tant to look at an example of this basic kind of
position. As always, 5 h4! (D) is important, and apparently strong (are we surprised?), with
these responses:

bl ) 9 0-0-0 'i!Ve8 I O 'ii'h3 ( l 0 'ii'h2!?) IO .. .'ii'f7

B I l lt:lf3 h6 1 2 e4 e5 1 3 dxe5 lt:lc6! 14 exf5 ( 1 4

'ii'g3!?) 14 .. . dxe5 1 5 lt:lxe5 ! (White can also
play 1 5 .te3 .txf5 16 'ii'g3, intending lt:lh4
and/or .tc5+) l 5 ... lt:lxe5 1 6 l:ld8+ 'it>e7 1 7
l:ld5 ! with the idea 1 7 .. . lt:lc6? ( 1 7 .. . .txf5 1 8

'ii'e3 !) 1 8 .tc4, when White is a rook down but
winning.

b2) If that looks unclear, 9 .te2 is also at
tractive, and perhaps better, with the possibility
of .th5 in many lines. For example, 9 ... 'ii'e8 l 0

'ii'h3 e5 I I .th5 and now l l ...�d8 1 2 dxe5
dxe5 1 3 l:ld I , 1 1 ... 11i'e6 1 2 'ii'h4! .tf6 1 3 .th6+
a) Vorotnikov-Glek, Russian Ch, St Peters 'it>e7 14 .tg5 c6! 1 5 dxe5 dxe5?! 1 6 �b4+ 'it>d8
burg 1 998 is instructive: 5 ... h6 (criticized as un 1 7 l:ldl + lt:ld7 1 8 l:ld6 ± or I I ...'ife7 ! 2 lt:ld5
necessary, but see line 'b' for what happens 'ii'd8 1 3 .th2! c6 14 lt:lc3, when remarkably,
after 5 ... .tg7) 6 .td3 (6 .tc4 .tg7 7 'i!Vf3 !) Black still can't consolidate ( .. .f4 is always an

6 ... lt:lc6 7 lt:lf3 lt:lg4!? (after 7 ... .tg7, 8 'ii'e2 is swered by 'ii'f3). normal and good; Tyomkin gives 8 e4, but it 5 ... .tg7 6 .tc4!? (D) leads to only a very small plus) 8 d5 ! lt:lce5 9 Now: .txe5 dxe5 (9 ... lt:lxe5 10 ltJxe5 dxe5 I I h5 g5 a) 6 ... c6 7 0-0 e6 8 .td3 (8 'i!Ve2 ;!;) 8 ... 0-0 9
and now Tyomkin offers 1 2 g4 ±, while 1 2 e4 'ii'e2 ;!; with the idea e4, Nett-Vinkes, email
and 12 .tb5+ are also good) 1 0 e4 e6! ( 1 0 ... c6 2002.

1 1 h5) l l .tb5+ ?! ( 1 1 'ii'e2! and 0-0-0 gives b) 6 ... e6 and here 7 lt:lg5?! wastes time and

White an excellent game) l l ....td7 1 2 dxe6 loses control of the centre. M.J0rgensen-Elka,

.txb5 1 3 lt:lxb5 c6 and here White should have Copenhagen 2001 went 7 ... 'ii'e7 8 h4 h6 9 lt:lf3 232 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

... e6 and ... f5. We consider it in Section 1 2.42
via the move-order I d4 e6 2 c4 i..b4+ 3 tLlc3

B f5.

b) Trying to get to a Stonewall by 3 ... d5 can
run into 4 cxd5 exd5 5 .i.f4 (or 5 tiJf3 tLlf6 6
i..g5 .i.e7 7 e3 t) 5 ... tLlf6 (5 ... .i.d6?! 6 tLlxd5 .i.e6 7 .i.xd6 'ii'xd6 8 tLlc3) 6 e3 .i.d6 7 tLlh3 0-0

8 ..td3 c6 9 0-0 tLle4 10 f3 tLlxc3 I I bxc3 t. If Black wants to play this set-up, then it is safest
to do so after White has played a slower move,
such as e3, as we see in the next note.

c) 3 ... c6, again trying for ... d5, fails to equal
ize following 4 e4! ( 4 e3 d5 transposes to Sec
tion 6. 1 , where White has the aggressive option
i..d7, and here Tyomkin gives 10 'ii'e2 tLlc6 I I of 5 g4 as well as the more methodical 5 ..td3)

0-0-0 e5 1 2 i..h2 0-0-0 =; this seems right. Per 4 ... fxe4 5 l2Jxe4 i..b4+ 6 i..d2 i..xd2+ 7 'ii'xd2
haps 7 h3 is best, but 7 'ii'e2 should also keep a d5 8 tLlc3 tLlf6 9 tLlf3 t. modest edge; e.g., 7 .. . 0-0 (7 ... tLlc6 8 0-0-0 'ii'e7 4 f3 9 'it>b l i..d7 - Tyomkin; then 10 d5 exd5 I I This time there's a twist. This is a slightly ec
tLlxd5 tLlxd5 1 2 i..xd5 is slightly better for centric move which, however, is consistent with White) 8 0-0 'ii'e7 9 h3 tLlc6 1 0 a3 t. the normal set-up. White wants to take away e4
from Black's knight, and either develop the c 1 -

1 1.2) bishop or play e3 first, then use the combina
tion of the moves i..d3, tLlge2 and 'ifc2, or place

1 d4 e6 2 c4 f5 the knight on h3, from where it can go to f4 or

This is a good move-order to avoid 2 tLlc3 f2. White can slowly expand on any sector of
lines, although ... e6 doesn't go well with ... g6, the board, most frequently the centre and queen
so Black is usually headed for Classical or side. Stonewall lines. White can use a formation with Nevertheless, 4 e3 (D) is the normal and ar c4, tLlc3, e3 and f3, which is available against guably more flexible move, so let's take a look.

most Dutch systems that don't force the pace.

3 tLlc3 (D)

B

B

If White isn't heading for a position with
tiJf3, then he'll usually play f3 later anyway.

3 •.• tLlf6 Here are a few snippets:

Or: a) The Nimzo-type move 4 ... .i.b4 transposes
a) 3 ... i..b4 is the other natural move, empha to note 'b2' to White's 4th move in Section
sizing the central light-square control begun by 1 2.42.

DUTCH DEFENCE 233

b) 4 ... d5 5 i.d3 c6 transposes into the note 'ii'c2, etc.) 7 ... 0-0 8 0-0 i.b7 9 'ii'c2 and I lean
to Black's 5th move in Section 6. 1 2 (Semi towards White, although obviously Black is

Slav/Stonewall hybrid). right in the mix.

c) 4 ... i.e7 5 i.d3 0-0 6 l2Jge2 d6 7 'ii'c2 l2Jc6 b) 4 ... i.e7 5 e4 (generally this isn't the point

8 a3 i.d7 9 i.d2 'ii'c8 ! ? 1 0 f3 e5 (Seirawan of 4 f3, but when Black plays so slowly it seems Short, Til burg 1 990) 1 1 d5 l2Jd8 1 2 0-0!? ;t to work; 5 l2Jh3 has been tried as well, and of

(Seirawan). course there's always 5 e3 0-0 6 i.d3, etc.)

d) 4 ... b6 5 i.d3 i.b7 6 f3 is the conventional 5 ... fxe4 6 fxe4 d6 (6 ... i.b4?! 7 a3 i.xc3+ 8
formation. Kiselev-Agrest, St Petersburg 1 993 bxc3 d5? 9 e5 l2Je4 I 0 'ii'h5+ g6 I I 'ii'h6 with
continued 6 ... l2Jh5 ! ? (after 6 ... i.e7, a typical the idea i.d3 left Black struggling in Ipinza plan is 7 l2Jge2 0-0 8 0-0 'ii'e8 9 a3, intending to Carmona-Da Silva, corr. 2003) 7 l2Jf3 0-0 and
force through b4) 7 l2Jh3 'ii'h4+ 8 l2Jf2 l2Jc6 9 g3 instead of 8 i.d3?! e5 ! 9 d5 c6, when Black was

(9 d5 !? l2Je5 1 0 i.e2) 9 ... 'ii'e7. Here Palliser at least equal in P.Hoffmann-Lohse, Berlin
gives the ingenious line 10 g4! ? fxg4 ( I O ... l2Jf6! 2007, 8 i.e2! c5 (8 ... e5?! loses a pawn for inad

1 1 gxf5 exf5 1 2 i.xf5 0-0-0!? I 3 0-0 may be a equate compensation) 9 d5 l2Jg4 10 0-0 is a lit
little better for White, but really isn't clear) I I tle better for White. fxg4 l2Jf6 I 2 g5 l2Jg8 1 3 'ii'h5+ Wd8 which he 5 i.d2 0-0 calls unclear, but I 4 l:tfl gives White a pleasant 5 ... b6 is also employed, and in fact was the
advantage; for example, I4 ... 'ii'e8 I S 'ii'h3 (even move-order of Ivanisevic-Sedlak below. IS 'ii'xe8+ 'itxe8 I 6 l2Jg4 followed by i.d2, 6 a3 (D) 0-0-0 and a kingside pawn advance is annoy 6 e3 usually transposes, since a3 will follow.

ing) 15 ... i.e7 1 6 l2Jfe4 and Black needs a plan.

Let's return to 4 f3 (D):

B

B

6 ... i.xc3 After 6 ... i.e7, White can choose 7 e3, when

4 ••. ..tb4 he benefits from the extra move i.d2. In Alex

This has been the choice ofthe majority ofti androva-Manakova, European Women's Ch
tled players. Otherwise: (blitz), Antalya 2002, White played along the
a) 4 ... l2Jc6 is the move Dutch Defence ex same lines with 7 'ii'c2!? (7 e4 is premature be
pert Schipkov prefers, with the idea that 5 e4? cause Black can become active by 7 ... fxe4 8
fxe4 6 fxe4 i.b4 favours Black. It's surprising fxe4 d5 9 e5 l2Je4) 7 ... d6 8 e3 e5 9 i.d3 exd4!?

that this has only been used a few times over the (9 ... g6 doesn't seem much better; e.g., I 0 l2Jge2
years. Then 5 e3 introduces our standard plan. c6 I I 0-0-0!? aS 1 2 h3 l2Ja6 I 3 g4 with a

Some rather random analysis: 5 ... b6 6 l2Jh3 kingside initiative) 1 0 exd4 c5 I I d5 g6 I 2
i.b4 (6 ... i.b7 7 i.e2 and now 7 ... i.e7 8 0-0 0-0 l2Jge2 l2Jbd7 1 3 f4 ( 1 3 l2Jf4! l2Je5 1 4 0-0 ;\;)

9 a3 ;t intending 'ii'c2 and b4; this is only mar 1 3 ... tt:Jg4 I4 0-0 i.f6 I S h3 ;t. ginally better for White, however, and 7 ... i.d6!? I think it's fair to say that most of White's
is interesting) 7 i.d3 (or 7 i.d2, intending a3, advantages in this section are relatively minor 234 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

ones, but at the least reflect better practical centre but must be careful not to unleash his op chances. ponent's bishops. White's flexibility is such that

7 ..txc3 (D) it is possible to castle on either side."

8 e3

Now: ·

a) 8 ... a5 9 tt::lh3 ..tb7 10 ..td3 tt::lc6 1 1 0-0

B �e7 (lvanisevic-Sedlak, Belgrade 2009) and
now White can play for a primitive central ad
vance; e.g., 1 2 �e2 a4? 1 3 .l::tae1 tt::la5 14 e4 ±,
etc.

b) 8 ... .tb7 9 �d2 a5 10 tt::lh3 a4 1 1 ..td3
tt::lc6 1 2 0-0 tt::la5 1 3 l:l.ael is a similar story, al
though White will lose a tempo. Nevertheless,
the game Kempinski-Grabarczyk, Polish Ch,

Plock 2000 saw White retain a little advantage
after l 3 ... tt::lb3 14 �c2, and then a larger one
following 1 4 ... c5? ! 1 5 d5 ! (when you have the
two bishops, this resource is often available)

7 ... b6 1 5 ... exd5 1 6 cxd5 ..txd5 (after 1 6 ... tt::lxd5 1 7

7 ... d6 8 e3 'ii'e8 (8 .. .'iVe7 9 �c2 c5 10 dxc5 ..txf5 h6? 1 8 .th7+ 'ifi>h8 1 9 ..txg7+! White has
dxc5 1 1 ..td3 tt::lc6 1 2 tt::lh3 e5, M.Santos-De To a decisive attack) 1 7 e4!? (Tyomkin correctly
ledo, Sao Paulo 2009, 1 3 0-0! !) 9 �d2 tt::lc6 10 gives 1 7 ..txf5!, when White clearly stands

..td3 e5 1 1 tt::le2 ;!; Kempinski-Gleizerov, Stock better) 1 7 ... ..tc6 ( 17 ... ..tf7 1 8 e5 tt::ld5 1 9 ..txf5
holm 2000. White can't claim more than a slight h6 ;!; improves) 1 8 tt::lf4 b5 1 9 e5 tt::ld5 20 tt::lxd5
edge here; as Dunnington nicely summarizes, .txd5 2 1 .txf5, when White's attack was hard

"Black has succeeded in staking a claim for the to counter.

1 2 Assorted Defences

In this chapter, we deal with options for Black bishop-pair and enemy pawn weaknesses. It
that don't fit into any of the earlier chapters. has been favoured by many if not most of the

Many of these are logical and respectable open world' s top players. ing lines, while others are tricky and trappy, and 4 ... �b4+ a few are verging on the bizarre. As always, I'll Black has only one major non-transpositional
be seeking to find ways to put Black under posi move at this point. After all, White is threaten
tional pressure and to identify lines that will ing h3 to kick the knight away. give us scope to outplay our opponents in a stra a) 4 ... lt:Jc6 5 lt:Jf3 �c5?! (for 5 ... �b4+ 6
tegic struggle. lt:Jbd2, see the main line) 6 e3 �e7 (6 ... f6 7 exf6

The chapter is structured as follows: �xf6 8 �d2 ! and Black has little or nothing for

12.1: Budapest Defence 235 his pawn) 7 lt:Jc3 lt:Jgxe5?? (7 ... �b4 8 �b3 ±) 8 12.2: Fajarowicz Gambit 241 lt:Jxe5 lt:Jxe5 9 lt:Jd5 �d6 10 �h5 ! �b4+ l l 12.3: Systems with .•• d6 and/or ... g6 244 'iti>d 1 0-0 1 2 �xe5 �c5 1 3 lt:Jf6+ 1-0 E.Klein 12.4: Systems with ... e6 and/or ... b6 25 1 Martinez Catalan, World Under- 14 Ch, Fond 12.5: Assorted Systems 258 du Lac 1 990.

b) 4 ... g5 ! ? (D) is an aggressive line which,

12. 1) however, involves Black creating serious weak Budapest Defence nesses in the hope that dynamic play will com

1 d4 lt:Jf6 2 c4 e5 3 dxe5 lt:Jg4 (D) pensate.

w w

This is the Budapest Defence. Despite its It is not surprising that few grandmasters are
outward appearance as an aggressive gambit, it willing to make that trade-off, and yet theory
is really a positional opening more than an at indicates nothing approaching a refutation. I'll
tacking one. Black breaks up White's centre recommend 5 �g3 (5 �d2 is a very popular al
and intends to win back his pawn on e5 in the ternative, with the idea �c3; I think it also
next few moves. leads to some advantage, but nothing special)

4 �f4 5 ... �g7 6 lt:Jf3 and now:

I'm recommending this move, which is al bl ) 6 ... 'fie7? 7 lt:Jc3 lt:Jxe5 (after 7 ... lt:Jc6 8
most entirely strategic in nature, and tries for lt:Jd5 �d8 9 e6 ! White breaks through to c7:

lasting positional advantages, which include the 9 ... d6 10 exf7+ 'iti>xf7 1 1 �d2 h6 1 2 h4 +-) 8 236 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

tLld5 tLlxf3+ 9 gxf3 i..xb2 1 0 �b 1 i..g7 1 1 'iid2 1 0 tLlc3 c6! ( 10 ... 0-0? 1 1 'ilkd3 costs Black a

'iic5 1 2 tLlxc7+ and White wins. piece, as do 10 ... d6? I I �a4+ and I O ... tLlxb2?

b2) 6 ... d6? 7 exd6 i..xb2 8 tLlbd2 i..xal ?? 1 1 'ii'c l tLlc4 1 2 tLld5) I I e4 tLlxb2 1 2 'ifd2 ! d5 !

(8 ... cxd6 9 �bl i..g7 10 h4! gxh4 1 1 i..xh4 (Moskalenko; 1 2 ... tLla4 1 3 tLlxa4! i..xa 1 14
leaves Black in disarray, particularly because i..d6 and now rather than 14 ... b5? 1 5 tLlb2! +

I I ...'ilka5 1 2 i..g3 ! costs him the d-pawn or Kouatly-Preissmann, Bagneux 1983, 14 ... i..g7 other material) 9 dxc7 'ilkf6 10 cxb8'ii �xb8 1 1 improves, but White is still in control following
i..xb8 and White is a piece up. 1 5 e5 h6 1 6 gxh6 i..f8 1 7 'iie3 !) and now Tay
b3) 6 ... tLlc6 (D) is the main continuation, lor gives 1 3 exd5 �e7+ 1 4 i..e2 tLlc4 1 5 'i!Vd3
when White has a variety of move-orders, but i..g4, when 1 6 f3 'ii'a3 1 7 0-0 'ilkxc3 1 8 dxc6 ap
the idea of playing h4 is attractive in several of pears to favour White. them: 5 tLld2 (D)

w B

b3 1 ) 7 tLlc3 tLlgxe5 8 tLlxe5 tLlxe5 9 e3 d6 10 s ... tLlc6 c5 ! (a common theme, here and in the rest of Undoubtedly the best move. Other ideas are
our Budapest lines) and now: speculative in nature:

b3 1 1 ) I O ... i..e6 1 1 cxd6 (after 1 1 h4, the a) 5 ... f6?! 6 tLlf3 fxe5 7 tLlxe5 tLlxe5 (7 ... �f6 queenless middlegames after 1 1 ... dxc5 1 2 hxg5 8 tLld3) 8 i..xe5 0-0 9 e3 d6 I 0 i..g3 'ii'f6 I I a3

'if xd I+ 1 3 .l:txd 1 �d8 1 4 �xd8+ 'it>xd8 1 5 'it>d2! i..a5 1 2 b4 i..b6 1 3 i..e2 ± lg.Jelen-Petek, Bled

'it>e7 16 'it>c2 and I I ...g4 12 h5 h6 1 3 'i!Va4+ 1 993.

'iid7 14 'ii'xd7 + 'it>xd7 1 5 0-0-0 slightly favour b) 5 ... d6? ! 6 exd6 ! 'i¥f6 (6 ... i..xd6 7 i..xd6

White) l l ...cxd6 1 2 h4 ! g4 1 3 'i!Va4+ i..d7 14 'ii'xd6 8 e3 0-0 9 h3 leaves White a pawn up) 7

'ii'b4 0-0 1 5 �d l (or 15 h5) 15 ... i..e6 16 h5 h6 e3 (D) (Taylor gives 7 tLlh3, which garners a

1 7 �xd6 'ilkc7 1 8 i..e2 �ad8 1 9 �xd8 l:lxd8 20 similar plus in the line 7 ... tLlc6 8 dxc7 'ilkxb2 9

0-0 with an extra pawn. �bl 'ilkxa2 1 0 f3 ;!;;) and now:

b3 1 2) 10 ... dxc5 1 1 'ilkxd8+ 'it>xd8 1 2 0-0-0+ b 1 ) 7 ... i..xd6 8 i..e2! i..xf4 9 i..xg4 i..xe3 10
i..d7 (Zakharevich-Zakharov, Novgorod 1 995) tLle4! with a very large advantage; for example,

1 3 i..e2! (with the idea of i..xe5 followed by I O ... i..xf2+ 1 1 tLlxf2 0-0 1 2 i..xc8 �xc8 1 3
i..g4) 1 3 ... f5 ( 1 3 ... h5? 14 �d5 �e8 1 5 l:lhd l tLle2.

�e7 16 i..xh5; 1 3 ... 'it>c8 14 �d5 f6 1 5 �hd l b2) 7 ... 'ilkxb2 8 tLlf3 and now 8 ... i..xd6 9
i..c6 1 6 �xc5 with a nice advantage) 14 �d2! i..xd6 cxd6 1 0 tLle4 (or 10 i..d3) gives White a

'it>e8 15 i..h5+ tLlg6 1 6 tLld5 �c8 1 7 tLlxc7+ modest edge, while 8 ... i..f5? falters before 9

'it>e7 1 8 i..d6+ 'it>f7 1 9 i..e2 i..f6 20 i..c4+ 'it>g7 dxc7 ! tLlc6 10 i..e2.

2 1 �hd l ±. b3) 7 ... tLlxf2!? 8 'it>xf2 g5 9 tLle4! 'ii'xb2+
b32) Taylor advocates 7 h4, saying, "White 10 i..e2 gxf4 I I exf4 cxd6 ( l l ...�xd6 1 2 �bl !

stands clearly better here." The most important 'ii'xa2 1 3 'i!Vd4! ; l l ...tLlc6 1 2 �bl 'ii'g7 1 3 dxc7
line is 7 ... tLlgxe5 8 tLlxe5 tLlxe5 9 hxg5 tLlxc4 ;!;;) 1 2 �bl 'ii'a3 1 3 'i!Vd4 �c5 14 tLlxc5 'iixc5 1 5

ASSORTED DEFENCES 237

9 ... 0-0 This is the only way to get to Black's most

B promising defence. Over the years it hasn't al
ways been the favourite. Here's a smattering of
alternatives; notice how often White gets the
bishop-pair and then, either immediately or
slowly, cracks open lines on the queenside. This
is why the Budapest player would Jove to hold
on to his dark-squared bishop (or exchange it
for its white counterpart) if he can.

a) 9 ... b6 I O O-O i..b7 ( 1 0 ... i..xd2 !? 1 1 �xd2
i..b7 1 2 c5 ! threatens .l:!.ac 1 and �c3, and the
continuation 1 2 ... bxc5 1 3 �a5 d6 14 i..xe5
dxe5 1 5 .l:!.fc I c6 1 6 .l:!.xc5 f6 17 i..c4 left White

�xc5 dxc5 1 6 i..f3 ± Van der Sterren-G.West, positionally winning in Solozhenkin-Stiazhkin,

Canberra 1 99 1 . Leningrad 1 990) 1 1 lL'lf3 i..xf3 ( I I ...l2Jg6?! 1 2

6 lL'lf3 �e7 (D) i..xc7 !) 1 2 i..xf3 .l:!.d8 ( 1 2 ... l2Jxf3+ 1 3 �xf3 0-0

6 ... f6?! 7 exf6 �xf6 is an interesting gambit, 14 �b7 ! with the idea 1 4 ... d6?? 1 5 a3) 1 3 i..e2
but I think a strong and direct reply is 8 e3 ! a5 14 a3 i..d6 1 5 .l:!.b1 ;!; Epishin-Leuba, San

�xb2 9 a3 i..c3 (9 ... .i.xd2+ 1 0 l2Jxd2 d6 I I Bernardino 1 992. i..e2 lL'lf6 1 2 0-0 0-0 1 3 c5 ±) 10 .l:!.b1 �xa3 1 1 b) 9 ... i..xd2+ 10 �xd2 d6 1 1 0-0 i..d7 1 2
i..xc7 0-0 1 2 i..e2 ±. .l:!.ac 1 .i.c6 1 3 b4 0-0 1 4 c5 ;!; Brglez-M1acnik,

Bled 1 992.

c) 9 ... d6!? (D).

w

w

Now White has two effective moves, with
ideas that complement one another:

12.11: 7 e3 237 At the time I first wrote about this opening 12.12: 7 a3 240 ( 1 7 years ago), this was the latest finesse, used to
avoid White's early queenside action. It com

12. 1 1) mits Black to exchanging his dark-squared bishop, however, which has proved increas

7 e3 l2Jgxe5 8 l2Jxe5 l2Jxe5 9 i..e2 ingly problematic over the years. After 1 0 0-0,

This position has a terrific record for White we have: over the years. Although White's advantage is a c 1 ) 10 ... i..xd2 1 1 �xd2 b6 1 2 e4! ? ( 1 2 b4
moderate one, his position is easier to play. I'm i..b7 1 3 c5 ;!;; compare later lines) 1 2 ... .tb7 1 3
going to cite Tim Taylor's book on the Buda f3 0-0 14 i..g3 f5?! 15 exf5 .l:txf5 1 6 f4 lL'lc6 1 7
pest a lot, because he draws the critical lines of .l:!.ae I 'ii'f6 1 8 i..g4 ± Fedorowicz-Shain, New
the battle so well. York 1 99 1 .

238 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

c2) I O ... ..td7 (preventing 'ii'a4+ and prepar does well there, so perhaps he should consider
ing to meet lLlb3 with ... ..ta4) 1 1 a3 ..txd2 1 2 this move-order, although naturally Black has

'ii'xd2 and now: alternatives.

c2 1 ) 12 .. .f6!? 1 3 b4 l:!.d8 14 ..thS+! lLlf7 (Epi lO • • • lLlg6! shin gives both 14 ... g6 l S ..te2 ± and 14 ... lLlg6 This is a way to deny White the bishop-pair,
l S cS ±) l S cS ..tbS 1 6 l:!.fd l dS ( 1 6 ... ..ta4? 1 7 recommended by Taylor. For years, over many

.:I.dc l dxcS 1 8 'ii'b2 ± Epishin) 1 7 e4! (ripping hundreds of games, Black has had trouble in
open the position) 17 ... ..ta4 ( 1 7 ... g6?! 1 8 exdS positions in which he trades his b4-bishop for a
gxhS 1 9 a4! ±; 17 ... d4 1 8 eS ! ±) 1 8 exdS ..txd l knight, either directly or in a few moves. With

1 9 l:!.xd 1 0-0 20 d6 cxd6 2 1 cxd6 'ii'e6 22 ..tf3 out going into massive depth, let's consider a

'it>h8 23 d7 !? b6 (lvanchuk-Epishin, Terrassa few examples: 1 99 1 ) and here 24 bS ! lLleS 2S ..txeS fxeS 26 a) IO ... a5 can be countered in at least two ..tc6 ± was best. A lovely exploitation. ways:

c22) l 2 ... ..tc6 1 3 l:!.ac l 0-0 14 ..tg3 fS I S b4 a 1 ) l l lLlb3 is direct; e.g., l l ... a4 1 2 a3 ..taS

'it>h8?! 1 6 bS ..te8 1 7 cS ! (we shall see this idea ( 1 2 ... ..tcS 1 3 lLlxcS 'ii'xcS 1 4 �d4 l:!.aS ! l S
again) 1 7 ... l:!.d8 1 8 cxd6 cxd6 (the weak d6- .:I.fd 1 d6 1 6 'ii'xcS l:!.xcS 1 7 l:!.dS t) l 3 lLld4 ..tb6 pawn again, as well as the bishop-pair) 19 l:!.fd 1 14 lLlbS ! t Flear-Vesin, French Team Ch 1 993; ..tn 20 'ii'd4 b6 2 1 h4 ..tb3 22 l:!.d2 lLlf7 23 hS the point is 14 ... d6 1 S lLlc3, hitting a4 and pre
l:!.d7 24 ..tf3 'ii'f6 2S 'ii'b4 ..te6 26 ..tc6 l:!.dd8? paring lL:ldS. (but White was dominating the game anyway) a2) 1 1 a3 (D) and now: 27 ..th4 and White wins, Benko-Ragozin, Bu
dapest-Moscow 1 949. A satisfying game.

We now return to the position after 9 ... 0-0

(D): B

w

a21 ) l l ... ..tcS leads to a lengthy forcing line:

1 2 b4! axb4 1 3 axb4 l:!.xal 14 'iVxal lLlg6! I S

..th6 ! gxh6 1 6 bxcS 'ii' xeS 17 lLle4 'ii'eS 1 8

'ii'xeS lLlxeS 1 9 f4 lLlg6 20 lLlf6+ 'it>g7 2 1 lLldS

10 0-0 c6 22 lLlb6 t.

White's idea here, made famous by Karpov, a22) l l .....txd2 1 2 'ii'xd2 d6 ( 1 2 ... a4 1 3 cS !

is lLlb3 followed by a3, forcing the bishop back, is an example of what White is after; at the very
after which White can open lines, usually by least, Black will be saddled with a weak d
cS. This brings up the question of why White pawn: 1 3 ... f6 1 4 l:!.ac l d6 1 S cxd6 cxd6 1 6 l:!.fdl
can't play 10 a3 here, which would contrast ±) 1 3 b4 t, and now White plays for cS, perhaps with our main line where Black can play ... lLlg6 after l:!.ac 1 or 'ii'c3 or both. This position has
in response to a3. After I O ... ..tcS l l lLlb3 White won numerous games for White. gains the bishop-pair (although how you do so b) Taylor is devastatingly critical of the ex
can matter), so I O ... ..txd2+ l l 'ii'xd2 d6 might change I O ... ..txd2?! 1 1 'ii'xd2, and rightly so, as
follow, when 1 2 0-0 aS transposes to note 'a22' in practice, Black is ground down by the bish
to Black's l Oth move in Section 1 2. 1 1 . White ops a frightening percentage of the time. This is

ASSORTED DEFENCES 239

similar to the examples above, which may be

getting tiresome: 1 l ...d6 1 2 .:!.ac l ( 1 2 b4 .:!.d8

1 3 'i!i'c3 f6 14 .:!.fd 1 .if5 1 5 .:!.d2 .ig6 1 6 .:!.ad 1 w .if7 1 7 a3 'i!Ve6 1 8 c5, Bluvshtein-Miezis, Cal
via Olympiad 2004) 1 2 ... .ie6 1 3 .:!.fd1 f6 14

'i&'c3 'i!i'f7 15 .ig3 (Solozhenkin-Miezis, Gaus
dal 200 1 ) and now White threatens 1 6 c5, while

15 ... b6 1 6 f4 tbd7 1 7 .if3 is depressing for

Black.

c) 1 0 ... d6 I I tLlb3 ( 1 1 tiJf3 ;!; has also been used successfully) l l ...b6 1 2 a3 .ic5 1 3 tbxc5
bxc5 14 b4! tbd7 1 5 .ig4! (D).

a) Taylor gives 1 3 l:f.c l 'i!i'eS (hitting the b

B pawn; otherwise 1 3 ... 'iie7 1 4 c5 ;!;) 14 'iic2 d6

1 5 tiJf3 'i&'e7 (D), and makes it seem like a posi tion that you'd want to play as Black.

This position has been established as diffi
cult for Black, the classic example being 1 5 ... a5

( 1 5 ... l:.e8 1 6 .:!.c I aS 1 7 .ixd7 .ixd7 1 8 bxc5
dxc5 19 .ixc7!) 16 .ixd7 .ixd7 1 7 bxc5 dxc5

1 8 'iidS (here too, 18 .ixc7 ! is the right move
order) 1 8 ... .:!.a6!, Karpov-Short, Candidates ( 1 ),

Linares 1992. This is one of the stem games for But White doesn't have to agree to an early
this variation. Karpov won, but here 1 9 'iib7 ! is draw: superior to his 19 'iieS. al) I suggest 1 6 tbd4!; for example, 1 6 ... l:td8
d) I O ... l:te8 has its points after 1 1 tLlb3, but I ( 1 6 ... b6? 17 .if3) 17 .:!.fd1 ( 1 7 tLlb3 !? is also
think White retains a solid plus following 1 1 complex, with the idea 17 ... c5 1 8 l:tcd 1 b6 19
tiJf3 ! d6 1 2 a3 .ic5 1 3 b4 tbxf3+ 1 4 .ixf3 .ib6 .if3 llb8 20 tiJd2 .ib7 2 1 .ixb7 l:txb7 22 tbe4)

1 5 'iic2 ;!;. 17 ... tbe5 1 8 'i!i'e4 g6 1 9 tiJbS !? a6 20 tbc3 t.

11 .ig3 .id6 12 .ixd6 'i&'xd6 (D) a2) There are other interesting possibilities

Here Taylor gives various games and analy too; for example, the game he cites went 16
sis to show that Black, having conceded noth l:tfd l b6 and although White eventually won
ing in the way of weakness or minor pieces, following 1 7 b4, Black could have defended
stands level. Although I agree that this is the adequately. Here I wonder about the simple se
best that Black can do, I think it takes accurate quence 17 tbd4 .ib7 1 8 .if3 .ixf3 1 9 tbxf3,
play here to avoid the sort of problems we've which holds forth chances because White can
seen above, whereas White isn't risking any double on the d-file and try to break with c5, in
thing. Perhaps this is a matter of taste. In any conjunction with tbd4, from where the knight
case, I think his lines themselves indicate that eyes f5 and c6. Even a bind with e4 could ap

White can play for a win. For example: pear. The obvious counter is 1 9 .. .f5, but .. .f4 240 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

will be answered by e4 or .l:r.e 1 ; e.g., 20 b4 f4 2 1 14 .l:r.d l ; instead, I I ....l:r.e8 1 2 .l:r.c l d6 13 cxd6

.l:r.e 1 fxe3 22 .l:r.xe3 'i!Vd7 23 c5 ;;!;. cxd6 gives White a weakness on d6 to target,
a3) Also, Taylor correctly points out that 1 6 and of course the bishop-pair. c5 dxc5 1 7 'i!Vxc5 'i!Vxc5 1 8 .l:r.xc5 c6 i s objec

tively drawn, but even here do you really want
to wait around with nothing to do after 1 9 li:Jd4,
when Black's bishop has no particularly good w place to go and White can play a minority at
tack b4-b5 or perhaps expand in the centre?

b) The game Zimmerman-Pavlenko, Mos
cow 1 99 1 went 1 3 li:Je4 'i!Ve7 (Black has to play
accurately: 1 3 ... 'i!Ve5 1 4 li:Jc3 ;!;; 1 3 ... 'i!Vxd l 14

.l:r.fxd l d6 15 c5 f5 1 6 cxd6 fxe4 1 7 d7 ±) 14
li:Jc3 d6 15 li:Jd5 (White can always vary and at
least pose practical problems; for example, 15

'i�Vd4, when 1 5 ... .l:r.e8 1 6 li:Jd5 'i!Vd8 1 7 .l:r.ad 1
keeps Black under some pressure) 1 5 ... 'i!Vd8. At
this point Taylor suggests that Black accede to a
repetition after the best move 1 6 'i!Vb3 with 10 li:Jb3!

1 6 ... .l:r.b8, and if 1 7 'i!Va3 then 1 7 ... .l:r.a8. If White Taylor's idea is that 10 b4 ..id4 is approxi
avoids the repetition with 1 8 .l:r.ad 1 , he gives mately equal, something that can only be estab

1 8 ... ..ie6 "with no problems", but some might lished with some concrete analysis because it
find such positions annoying to play; e.g., 1 9 depends on several tactical tricks (a timely

.l:r.d2 ( 1 9 f4! ? i s also troublesome) 1 9 ... .l:r.e8 20 ... li:Jg6 is usually the key). But I also wonder

.l:r.fd 1 b6 2 1 'i!Vc3. A lot of this depends upon the about 1 0 ..ie2, when 1 1 b4 ..id4 1 2 .l:r.c I really is
level of Black's defensive skill, of course; what a threat, because even on 12 ... d6, 13 c5 can fol-
seems awkward to some of us might be effort low. So play might go 10 ... d6 ( 1 0 ... a5 I I li:Jb3
less to a top professional. ..ia7 1 2 'i!Vd5 ! d6 1 3 c5 ! ; 1 0 ... li:Jg6? I l ..ixc7 d6

1 2 ..ia5) I I 0-0 0-0 1 2 b4 ..ib6 1 3 'i!Vc2 (with

12.12) the idea li:Jb3) 1 3 ... ..id7 ( 1 3 ... .l:r.e8 1 4 li:Jb3) 14
l:tac l ! (intending c5); for example, 14 ... .l:r.ad8

7 a3 1 5 c5 dxc5 1 6 bxc5 ..ia5 17 li:Jb3 ..ia4 1 8 'i!Vb2

This reaches positions similar to the previ .i.xb3 1 9 'i!Vxb3 b6 20 cxb6 axb6 21 .l:r.fd I !. ous section, but has some handy move-order 10 ... ..td6 advantages, useful for White even if plays 7 e3 I O ... ..ib6?! 1 1 c5 ..ixc5 1 2 li:Jxc5 'i!Vxc5 1 3
and transposes at the right moment. I'll skip .l:r.c 1 ±. most of the details to get to the main issue. 11 'i!Vd4 (D)

7 •.. li:Jgxe5 8 li:Jxe5

Not, of course, 8 axb4?? li:Jd3#!

8 •.• li:Jxe5 9 e3 ..ic5 (D)

Taylor discovered this truly ingenious idea B when looking for an alternative to 9 ... ..ixd2+,
which has a poor record for the same reasons
that move did in Section 1 2. 1 1 . First notice that

9 ... ..id6? 10 li:Je4 is a positional disaster. And
you've seen all the themes associated with

9 ... ..ixd2+ 1 0 'i¥xd2, but here are some lines
from this exact position: 10 ... 0-0 ( 1 0 ... d6 1 1

..ie2 ..id7 1 2 0-0 transposes to note 'c2' to

Black's 9th move in Section 1 2 . 1 1 ) I I c5 ! has
the idea I l ...'i!Vxc5 1 2 .l:r.c I 'iVd6 1 3 'i!Vxd6 cxd6

ASSORTED DEFENCES 241

Now 1 I .. . f6 is Taylor's suggestion (otherwise 'ii'c2 ! (after 5 �f3 �c6, the easiest answer is 6

I l . . .b6 1 2 c5 ! bxc5 1 3 �xc5 �xc5 { 1 3 .. . 0-0 'ifc2, when 6 . . . �c5 transposes back to this

1 4 �e4 } I 4 'ii'xe5 'ii'xe5 1 5 �xe5 forks two 4 . . . a5 line; note that this sequence is equiva
pawns). Then: lent to 4 . . . �c6 5 �f3 a5 ) 5 . . . �c5 (5 . . . d5 6
a) Taylor gives I 2 c5 �c6 1 3 'ii'c4 .i.xf4 1 4 exd6 and now 6 . . . .i.f5 7 �c3 ! �xd6 8 e4 ± or 'ii'xf4 d6, when I think 1 5 �b5 �d7 1 6 0-0 0-0 6 . . . �xd6 7 �c3 �c6 8 e4 ±) 6 �f3 �c6 7 I 7 cxd6 cxd6 I 8 .i.c4+ �h8 I 9 l:tfd I �e5 20 �c3 (or 7 �f4 �e6 8 �g3 �c5 9 e3 b6 I O �c3

.i.d5 looks promising. �b7 l i .td3 ±) 7 . . . d6 8 �g5 (8 exd6 .txd6 9
b) Furthermore, what about I 2 'ifd2, now �e3 0-0 I O .l:.d l ±) 8 . . . f6 9 exf6 gxf6 1 0 .i.h4 that the weakening .. .f6 has been played? For ± Hermesmann-Roes, Dortmund 1 987. example, I 2 .. . �d3+ ( 1 2 .. . c6 1 3 �d4 g6 I 4 b) With 4 . . . �c5 , Black acknowledges that .i.g3 �c7 I S .te2 d6 1 6 0-0 ;!; ) 1 3 �xd3 .i.xf4 the knight will be attacked and so begins the

I 4 0-0 �e5 1 5 �d4 d6 I 6 'ii'c2 g6 1 7 f4 .i.xd4 trek back to e6, where it often ends up anyway.

1 8 exd4 with an obvious advantage for White. Of course there's a thing called development,

I think this 4 .i.f4 system will serve you very and another called the centre, so 5 �c3 is al
well. ready clearly better for White; e.g., 5 . . . �e6 6

�f3 g6 7 g3 �g7 8 �h3 0-0 9 �xe6 ! dxe6

1 2 .2) Fajarowicz Gambit (9 .. . fxe6 10 .tg5 'ii'e8 I I �b5 �a6 I 2 'ii'd2) 1 0

'ii'xd8 .l:r.xd8 1 1 .tg5 .l:r.e8 1 2 �b5 �a6 1 3 .l:.d I

1 d4 �f6 2 c4 eS 3 dxeS �e4 (D) ±.

1 2 . 2 1 )

w 4 ... �c6 5 �f3 d6

Black has never been able to make this move
work. After 5 . . . a5 6 'ii'c2, 6 . . . �c5 transposes to
note 'a' above (about 4 . . . a5), while 6 . . . d5 7 e3

�e6 8 �bd2 �c5 9 .i.e2 .i.e7 10 0-0 0-0 I I .l:r.d l gives White a clear advantage (Avrukh).

6 "ilkc2 (D)

This move defines the Fajarowicz Gambit, a
provocative and unrefuted offshoot of the Bu
dapest.

4 a3

Stopping . . . .i.b4+ and preparing 'ii'c2, to ex
pel the intrusive knight. The advance b4 will be
useful at some point. Black has tried several an
swers:

12.2 1 : 4 ••• �c6 24 1

12.22: 4 ••• 'ii'h4 242

12.23: 4 • • . b6 243 6 • • • d5

12.24: 4 • • • d6 244 a) 6 . . . .i.f5 ? ! was essentially refuted over 50
years ago by 7 �c3 !, when Black is in trouble:

Or: a 1 ) 7 ... �g3 8 e4 �xh l (8 ... �xe4 9 �xe4
a) 4 . . . a5 is a move that Black would like to �xh l 1 0 .tg5 .te7 I I .txe7 'fixe7 I 2 exd6
make, but it comes at the cost of a tempo: 5 cxd6 1 3 0-0-0 ± Avrukh; after the knight on h I 242 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

falls, White will have a material advantage as Just as good is 8 lt:\bd2 lt:\xd2 9 ..txd2 dxc4
well) 9 exf5 dxe5 (after 9 ... lt:\xe5, 10 ..te2! or 10 ..txc4 ..txc4 11 1Vxc4 ± and ..tc3, Fokin

10 ..te3 is simply much better for White) lO Beltugov, Orsk 2000.

�e3 tbd4 ( l 0 ... �e7 8 . II .l:!dl "iVc8 12lt:\d5, with . .'iVe7 9 0-0 0-0-0 10 .l:!dl f5
the idea �d3 or g3 and �g2, is virtually win YrjoHi-Hamdouchi, Manila Olympiad 1992.

ning for White) Now 11 cxd5 ..txd5 12lt:\c3lt:\xc3 13 "iVxc3 ± II �xd4 (or II tbxd4 exd4 12

'ii'e4+) ll...exd4 12 is straightforward. 0-0-0. Black's position is
already close to hopeless.

a2) 7 ... lt:\xc3 8 "iVxf5lt:\a4 9 "iVc2 (9 g3 ..te7 12.22}

I 0 fkc2 lt:\c5 l l b4 lt:\e6 12 exd6 cxd6 13 ..tg2

± Smejkal-Popovic, Novi Sad 1976) 9 ... lt:\c5 lO 4 ... "iVh4 (D)

b4 lt:\e6 I l exd6 ..txd6 12 ..tb2 0-0 13 e3

(Avrukh) is pretty much winning.

a3) 7 ... lt:\xf2 8 "iVxf5 lt:\xh l 9 e6!? (even
better is simply 9 g3 ±) 9 ... fxe6 10 "iVxe6+ "iVe7 w

11 "iVdS h6 12 g3 g5 13 ..tg2 lt:\xg3 14 hxg3

..tg7 15 ..th3 ± Reshevsky-Bisguier, New York

1954/5.

b) 6 ... lt:\c5 is best, but insufficient after 7
b4lt:\e6 8 exd6 (8 ..tb2 dxe5 9 e3! f6 I 0 ..td3 ±
was recommended years ago) 8 ... ..txd6 9 ..tb2

0-0 lO e3 and in Spraggett-Milla de Marco,

Madrid 2000, "Black had no compensation"

(Avrukh).

7 e3 (D)

A strange move which will lose time; it has

nonetheless been used by strong players.

8 5g3

5 ..te3!? (Benjamin and Schiller) is also
strong; e.g., 5 ... lt:\c5 (5 ... ..tc5?! 6..txc5lt:\xc5 7
lt:\f3!? 1Vxc4 8lt:\c3 ±) 6lt:\c3 �xc4 7 .l:!c I ± in
tending 7 ... �b3? 8 ..txc5.

5 ... 1Vh5 6 ..tg2 6 "iVd5! lt:\c5 (Naumkin-G.Mohr, Voskre
sensk 1990) 7lt:\c3! c6 8 "iVd l �xe5 9 ..tf4 �f6

10 ..th3! ±.

6 ... 'ifxe5 7lt:\f3 (D) Or 7 "iVc2 (Avrukh).

7 ... 'iVe7

7 ••• ..te6 Or: a) 7 ... ..tf5 8 ..td3! ..tg6 (N.Pedersen-Siisser, a) 7 ... 1Vc5 8 lt:\d4 lt:\f6 (after 8 ... lt:\d6?, as

Dieren 2004) and now 9 0-0 with the idea .l:!d l , in Effert-Brandics, Kecskemet 1990, 9 ..td5!

or 9lt:\bd2lt:\xd2 I 0 ..txd2 dxc4 l l ..txg6 hxg6 "[wins] on the spot"- Avrukh, with the idea b4)

12 "iVxc4 (Avrukh). 9lt:\c3! c6 lO ..tf4 d6 11 b4 'iVxc4? 12 .l:!c l +-.

b) 7 ... ..tg4 8 cxd5 �xd5 9 ..tc4 "iVa5+ 10 b) 7 ... �h5 8 'ifc2lt:\f6 9 lt:\c3 d6 (Babula
lt:\bd2 (or lO b4! ..txb4+ 11 axb4 "iVxa1 12 Ramik, Moravian Team Ch 1997 /8) and now l 0

..tb2!) IO ... ..txf3 II gxf3lt:\xd2 12 ..txd2 �xeS h3! with the idea lO ... ..te7 11 g4 'ii'g6 12 'iVa4+

13 ..tc3 with a killing position, Fuzishawa ± ..td7? 13 1i'b3 ..ic6 14lt:\h4 was easiest.

Borwell, corr. 2004. c) 7 ... 1Va5+ 8lt:\fd2! (after 8lt:\bd2 ..ic5?, as

S..te2 in Pelletier-Flunkert, Orange 1994, Avrukh finds

ASSORTED DEFENCES 243

Black's last move wasn't a blunder because

the obvious 5 �d5?! is met by 5 ... t'Dc5, and the

8 queen will be trapped if it takes the rook.

5 ... �b7

Or:

a) 5 ... t'Dc5 6 t'Dgf3 �b7 7 b4 t'De6 has been
the fashionable recommendation: 8 �b2 d6

(8 ... a5 can be met by 9 b5 or 9 �c3 !) and now

Avrukh offers the line 9 exd6 �xd6 I 0 g3 !? ( I 0 e3 lLld7 1 1 �d3 seems awfully strong) 10 ... 0-0

I I �g2 (I like I I �h3 a5 1 2 0-0, but there's not much difference) l l ... a5. Now he gives 12 b5
lLld7 1 3 0-0 t'Ddc5 14 W!Vc2 with White better,
but it seems to me that 1 2 �c3, holding on to c5

9 b4 �xb4 10 axb4 'ifxa1 I I t'Dxe4, winning) a little longer, would be a simpler course. At

8 ... t'Dxd2 9 �xd2 'ifc5 I 0 lLlc3 ±. Black will be any rate, a pawn is a pawn. lucky to get his pieces out. b) 5 ... lLlxd2 6 �xd2 �b7 (6 ... g6?! 7 t'Df3
d) 7 ... 'ii'f6 8 'ifc2 t'Dc5 9 t'Dc3 t'De6 1 0 0-0 �g7? 8 �g5) 7 t'Df3 (D) and now: t'Dc6 I I t'Dd5 'itd8 12 b4 �e7 1 3 �b2 + Yrjolli-Fossan, Gausdal 1 988.

8 0-0 d6 9 t'Dd4 c6 10 b4

Or 10 'ii'c2 !. 8

10 ... g6

Now I I �b2 t'Df6 ( l l ...�g7? 1 2 t'Dxc6!) 1 2 lLlc3 �g7 1 3 b5 ! c5 14 t'Dc2 0-0 1 5 t'De3 gave

White 'only' a pleasant positional advantage in

Kutirov-Kurajica, Strumica 1 995. I I 'ifd3! t'Df6 12 t'Dc3 ± improves.

12.23)

4 ... b6 (D)

bl ) 7 ... 'ilie7 8 'ii'c2 t'Dc6 (8 ... g6? 9 �g5) 9

�c3 0-0-0 (not 9 ... g6? 1 0 e6 f6 I I exd7+, as
w the knight isn't on b8 to recapture) 10 0-0-0

�e6 1 1 e3 �e7 and after 1 2 �e2, Avrukh
rather cruelly remarks: "You would need to be

Lev Gutman to believe that Black has anything
for the pawn in this position." Well, a little, I
think, but at any rate, 1 2 �d3 ! is stronger, with
a clear advantage.

b2) 7 ... t'Dc6 8 �c3 'flie7 9 e3 0-0-0 1 0 'flic2
f6 I I exf6 gxf6 1 2 �d3 would be similar; then 1 2 ... t'De5 1 3 lLlxe5 fxe5 1 4 �e4 c6 1 5 �d I cJi>b8 1 6 0-0 gives White a large advantage, because

16 ... d5 1 7 cxd5 cxd5 1 8 't!Vb3 'ilie6 1 9 f4 ! is

This indirect move is a more serious try than very strong. the previous two lines. Moskalenko thinks that 6 'ili c2 this is Black's best option. White can also choose 6 lLlgf3 or 6 lLlxe4

5 t'Dd2! �xe4 7 �f4; e.g., 7 ... t'Dc6 8 t'Df3 h6 9 e3 g5 10 244 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

i.g3 ..tg7 1 1 i.d3 ..txd3 1 2 iVxd3 it'e7 1 3 0-0 6 ... h5 7 i.g2 tbc6 8 lLld4 tbxd4 9 'ii'xd4 tbc5
with an obvious if undramatic advantage, Bell 1 0 'ii'e3 ± F.Levin-Gutman, German Ch, Alten
mann-Polzer, corr. 200 1 . kirchen 200 I .

6 ... tt::lxd2 7 lLlh4!

After 6 .. .f5 7 exf6 tt::lxf6 8 tbgf3 a5 9 b3 tba6 Avrukh's improvement on 7 exd6?! i.xd6 8

I 0 ..tb2 tbc5 1 1 g3 Black doesn't have a lot for ..te3 'ii'f6, which gives Black good compensa
a pawn. tion.

7 ..txd2 aS 7 ••. ..te6

Ti moshchenko-Welling, Ostend 1 99 1 . 8 tbf3 7 ... ..td7 8 ..tg2 tbc5 9 b4 tbe6 1 0 exd6 ..txd6

..tc5 9 ..tc3 leaves White with a solid extra 1 1 i.b2 0-0 1 2 lLlf3 ± (Avrukh) . pawn. 8 ..tg2

Now:

12.24) a) Avrukh analyses 8 ... tbc5 9 b4 tbd7 1 0 exd6 ..txd6 1 1 tbd2 (defending the c4-pawn)

4 ... d6 (D) 1 1 ...0-0 1 2 0-0 a5 (I think 1 2 ... ..te5 ! 1 3 l:a2

..tf6 14 lLlhf3 lLlb6 1 5 iVc2 l:e8 ;!; is a little better) 1 3 b5 tbce5 1 4 ..tb2 tbc5 1 5 'ifc2 ±.

b) After Gutman's suggestion 8 .. .f5, Avrukh
w offers up 9 exf6 tbxf6 1 0 tbc3 ! ..txc4 1 1 'ifa4
i.e6 ( l l ...d5 1 2 b3 ..ta6 1 3 0-0 it'd7 1 4 ..tg5)

1 2 ..txc6+ bxc6 1 3 'ifxc6+ ..td7 14 'ifc4 c6 15
e4 "with a clear advantage".

12.3) Systems with ... d6 and/or ... g6

Our largest topic here is the Modem Defence,
where Black fianchettoes without playing an
early ... tbf6. There is also a variety of lines with

... d6 but without an early ... g6, perhaps most

Black plays for activity. notably 1 d4 d6 2 c4 e5. We divide the section

5 lLlf3 as follows:

5 'i!i'c2 looks quite good to me too; for exam 12.31: 1 ... d6 244 ple, 5 ... ..tf5? (5 ... d5 is answered by 6 e3 !, 12.32: .•. d6 and ... tbf6: Irregular Lines 246 while after 5 ... tbc5 6 b4 tbe6 7 exd6 i.xd6 8 12.33: Old Indian Defence 247 i.b2 c5 9 bxc5 ..txc5 I 0 e3 White's pieces will 12.34: Modern Defence 248 come out very actively) 6 tbc3 d5 7 cxd5
tbxc3 8 'ifxf5 tbxd5 9 e6! f6 I 0 e4 and already 12.3 1) White is winning, M.ROder-Stefanova, Gron
ingen 1 996. 1 d4 d6

5 exd6?! ..txd6 offers Black very active play This is sometimes used as a universal first
for the pawn; note that he threatens 6 ... tbxf2 7 move. Black is willing to play a Pirc Defence

'it>xf2 i.g3+. after 2 e4, and can choose a variety of set-ups
s ... ..tfs after 2 lLlf3 and 2 c4.

White stands simply better after 5 ... dxe5 6 2 c4 e5 (D) 'i!i'xd8+ 'it>xd8 7 tbxe5 i.e6 8 e3 i.d6 9 lLlf3 An important move, since in order to be

(Avrukh). consistent with the rest of the book, White re

6 g3 ally has to play 3 d5. Alternatively, 2 ... g6 3 e4

I'll just follow Avrukh with this; he's found a ..tg7 is covered in the Modern Defence section
few very accurate moves for White. ( 1 2.34), and 2 ... tbf6 is discussed in Sections

6 ... tbc6 1 2.32 and 1 2.33. Finally, 2 .. .f5 is a form of the

ASSORTED DEFENCES 245

Dutch Defence - see note 'b' at the start of

Chapter 1 1 .

B

w

After 4 ... lLlf6 5 exf5 i..xf5 6 lLlc3, with the
idea lLlge2-g3 and i..g5, White wins the light
squares without having to give up a pawn. An

3 d5 uncomplicated example: 6 ... lLlbd7 7 lLlge2 i..e7

It may seem a bit strange to commit to this (7 ... 'iile 7 8 lLlg3 i..g6 9 i..d3 e4 I 0 i..c2 0-0-0 1 1
advance so early, but after 3 lLlc3 exd4 4 'ifxd4, 0-0 and l:tel next) 8 lLlg3 i..g6 9 i..d3 i..xd3 10
you have entered into an extremely complex 'ifxd3 0-0 1 1 0-0 lLlc5 1 2 'ife2 c6 (12 ... a5 1 3 English Opening variation with unavoidable i..e3 lLlfd7 14 lLlge4 ;!;) 1 3 i..e3 ! cxd5 1 4 i..xc5 !

tactics (Black's pieces come out very rapidly), dxc5 1 5 cxd5 ;!; Arutinian-Sturrn, Dresden 2009.

and after 3 lLlf3, you have to consider 3 ... e4, White has a strong passed pawn, while Black
which is heavily analysed and a great favourite has a weakness on e5. of l ... d6 players. 5 lLlc3 lLlf6 6 lLlge2 ..trs 7 lLlg3 i..g6 8 i..gS

3 ... f5 i..e7 9 i..xf6 gxf6 10 h4 'itd7

A bothersome continuation. Other logical Covering f5; both Palliser (who likes White)

moves tend to transpose elsewhere; for exam and Lakdawala (who likes Black) give this an
ple, 3 ... lLlf6 4 lLlc3 is in the next section (or will ' ! ' . An alternative line might go 10 ... h5 1 1 i..e2
transpose to the Old Indian or King's Indian), f5 1 2 i..xh5 i..xh5 1 3 lLlxh5 l:th 7 1 4 g4! i..xh4
and 3 ... g6 can go into a King's Indian or Mod 1 5 lLlg3 ! ;!;. em, for example. One unique move-order after 11 f3 exf3 (D) 3 ... g6 is 4 lLlc3 i..g7 5 e4 f5?!, when White gets l l ...f5 1 2 h5 i..f7 1 3 fxe4 fxe4?! ( 1 3 ... f4 14
the better game by 6 exf5 gxf5 (6 ... i..xf5 gives lLlf5 is better for White, although not by much)

up e4 to 7 i..d3 or 7 lLlge2 and 8 lLlg3) 7 'ifh5+ 14 lLlcxe4 ± Mikhalevski-Milos, Cappelle Ia

'it>f8 8 lLlh3 ! lLlf6 9 'ifh4 (9 'it'd 1 , with the idea Grande 2000. lLlg5, might be even better) 9 ... h6 1 0 f3 lLlbd7

I I i..d3 lLlc5 12 i..c2 i..d7 1 3 i..e3 and 0-0-0,

Murugan-Koshy, Indian Ch, Muzaffapur 1 998.

Although highly unusual from this move w order, 3 ... c5 4 e4 would transpose to the Semi

Benoni (Section 1 0.3 1 2).

4 e4 (D)

This is the most interesting and challenging
move. You can of course simply develop by,
e.g., 4 lLlf3 lLlf6 5 g3 i..e7 (5 ... g6 6 i..g2 i..g7 7

0-0 0-0 8 lLlc3) 6 i..g2 0-0 7 0-0, but White
can't claim any meaningful advantage in a posi
tion like this.

4 .•• fxe4

246 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

12 'ii'xf3!? Rather than the sharp 4 f3 e5 5 e4 exd4, I'll

12 gxf3 ! is a promising alternative: recommend the calm 4 g3 c6 ( 4 ... e5 5 .i.g2 lLJc6
a) 1 2 ... f5 1 3 h5 .i.f7 14 .i.d3 e4 ( 1 4 .. .f4 15 6 lLJf3 ;l;) 5 i.g2 e5 6 lLJf3 lLJbd7 7 lLJh4! ? (7 0-0 .i.f5 'ii'd8 16 lLJge4 .i.h4+ 17 �e2 should be is the main line, also slightly better for White)

good for White) 1 5 fxe4 f4 1 6 lLJf5. According 7 ... exd4 8 lLJxf5 ! (ECO queries this and gives 8 to YrjoHi and Tella, this is unclear, but White 'ii'xd4 ;l;; that assessment appears to be correct has a great game with his knight on f5. in view of 8 ... .i.e6 9 0-0 .i.e7 1 0 i.f4) 8 ... dxc3
b) Yrjolli and Tella don't analyse 1 2 ... h5 !?. (D.Gurevich-Gheorghiu, New York 1 986) and

Then one idea is 1 3 'ii'b3 (or 1 3 .i.d3 f5 14 'ii'b3 now 9 0-0 (or 9 lLJxd6+ .i.xd6 I 0 'ii'xd6 cxb2 1 1
with the point 14 ... b6?! 15 c5 !) 1 3 ... b6 ( 1 3 ... c6 .i.xb2 'ii'a5+ 1 2 �fl ;l;) 9 ... 'ir'a5 l O e4 is better

14 c5! dxc5 15 0-0-0 with an attack) 14 c5 !? (or for White, who will have all sorts of open lines

14 0-0-0 when I'm not sure how Black untan for a pawn.

gles; e.g., 14 ... lLJa6 1 5 'iVa3 'ir'c8 1 6 .i.h3 f5 17 4 d5 (D) !tdg l is awkward) 14 ... iVc8 15 cxd6 cxd6 16

0-0-0 lLJd7 1 7 .i.h3 a6 1 8 .i.f5 ! and again White

stands better.

12 ... h5 13 .i.d3 .i.xd3 14 �xd3 'ii'g4 15 B
lLJce4

1 5 lLJf5 lLJa6 ( 1 5 ... 'ii'xg2? 16 0-0-0 is too
good for White) 16 0-0 lLJc5 17 'ikc2 ( 1 7 'ii'f3 ! ?)

1 7 ... 'iVxc4 1 8 !tf3 �d7 19 b3 'iVb4 20 ltbl , with
the idea a3, is just a mess, but at least Black has
two pawns.

15 ... lLJd7 16 tLJrs

16 0-0 is also hard to assess.

16 ... !tg8 17 lLJeg3 lLJc5 18 'ii'c2 aS 19 0-0

This position is unclear; objectively Black
can probably defend, but he has to untangle
somehow, and White's compensation, high This section covers lines that don't transpose
lighted by the monster on f5 versus the weak into the Old Indian, that is, we're not concern
ling on e7, is clearly worth a pawn. ing ourselves with 4 ... lLJbd7, which is in 1 2.33.

4 ... .i.f5

12.32) 4 ... c5 5 e4 is a Czech Benoni (Section 1 0.32). . . . d6 and . . . tt:Jf6:

I rregular Lines 5 g3

I like this approach better than 5 f3 e4 which,

1 d4 lLJf6 2 c4 d6 3 lLJc3 e5 again, is very complicated and can become tac

3 ... .i.f5 (D) is called the Janowski Indian. tical. That might be fine except that I think

Black gets equality after the smoke clears.

5 ... h6

Alternatives:

w a) White has met 5 ... lLJe4 with 6 lLJxe4, but I
like 6 'iVd3 ! lLJxf2 (6 ... lLJxc3 7 'ii'xf5 lLJa4 8 lLJf3

;l;) 7 'ili'xf5 lLJxh l 8 .i.g2 g6 9 'ili'c2 lLJxg3 l 0 hxg3 t.

b) 5 ... .i.e7 6 .i.g2 lLJbd7 7 e4 .i.g6 8 'ii'c2 !?

a5 9 lLJf3 lLJc5 I 0 lLJh4 t.

6 ..tg2 e4!? 7 f3

Or 7 'ili'c2 'ili'e7 8 'iVb3 !? c6 9 .i.h3 .i.xh3 10
lLJxh3 g5 I I 0-0 .i.g7 1 2 f4 exf3 13 exf3 t.

7 ... 'ili'e7 8 fxe4 .i.xe4

8 ... lLJxe4? 9 'iVd3 ! lLJxc3 1 0 �xf5.

ASSORTED DEFENCES 247

9 ltJxe4 ltJxe4 10 lLlf3 ltJd7 11 0-0 King's Indian for Black) 8 'ilid2 followed by
l l ltJd4! is better still. ltJge2 and in some cases 0-0-0, g4 and lLlg3.

ll ... a5 12 ltJd4 ltJdc5 13 lLlf5 1We5 14 �e3 6 �d3 0-0 7 h3

White has a large advantage, Hamann-Vizan- This is sort of an all-purpose set-up against
tiadis, Vmjacka Banja Zonal 1 967. systems with ... lLlf6, ... d6 and ... e5 and it's had
good success in this position. Although some

12.33) players use it with ltJge2, I'd rather play ltJf3 Old I ndian Defence
and watch over the g5-square.

1 d4 lLlf6 7 .•• ltJe8

We can get to the same position by l ... d6 2 This retreat usually has the initial idea of
c4 e5 3 d5 lLlf6 4 lLlc3 lLlbd7 5 e4. For other ... �g5, and perhaps a secondary one of ... g6,
possibilities with that move-order, see Section ... ltJg7 and ... f5, but White's structure is well

1 2.3 1 . suited to meet that. Alternatively:

2 c4 d6 3 ltJc3 lLlbd7 a) 7 ... lLlc5 8 �c2 a5 9 lLlf3 lLlfd7 l O g4 (not

Other moves were considered in Section a bad move, although normally you only want

1 2.32. Note that 3 ... e5 4 d5 lLlbd7 5 e4 is an to play this when all your pieces are out and
other route to the Old Indian. you have an attacking plan; preventing ... f5

4 e4 e5 isn't necessary as it can be in the King's Indian)

This is one of the basic positions of the Old IO ... ltJb6 I I 'iWe2 �d7 1 2 �e3 ltJba4 1 3 ltJd l ! ?

Indian. White can now maintain the tension by lL\a6 14 b3 ltJ4c5 1 5 a3 �e8 1 6 lLlc3 ltJd7?!

5 lLlf3, but it is also promising, and consistent (that's nine knight moves for Black, but this is
with our repertoire choices against several re the first one that really looks wrong !) 1 7 �b l
lated systems, to gain space by ... with a pleasant space advantage for White,

5 d5 (D) Suetin-Sutterer, World Seniors Ch, Bad Wild
bad 1 993.

b) 7 ... a5 8 �e3 ltJc5 9 �c2 lLlfd7 I 0 lLlf3

.l:te8 1 1 0-0 .l:tb8?! (Black never gets uncramped,

B but it's hard to do so in this structure; e.g.,

1 1 ... h6 with the idea ... �g5 is countered by 1 2

'i¥d2 and l l ... ltJf8, heading for g6, loses the
e-pawn after 1 2 �xc5 dxc5 1 3 ltJxe5) 1 2 a3

�f8 1 3 'iVe2 c6 14 b4 lLla6 15 dxc6! ? (or 1 5

.l:tfb1 ! and ltJa4) 1 5 ... bxc6 1 6 b5 cxb5 1 7 cxb5
lLlac5 1 8 a4 �b7 1 9 .l:tac I .l:tc8 20 .l:tfd l with a
slight advantage for White, Anastasian-Alfonsi,

Bastia rapid 1 999.

8 lLlf3 (D)

5 ... �e7

This is the defining Old Indian Defence B move. With this particular move-order, Black
can play 5 ... lLlc5 right away, although this
knight often wanders to the kingside in the Old

Indian. Then 6 'i!Vc2 is an obvious idea; after

6 ... a5 7 h3 it could transpose to our King's In-
dian lines following 7 ... g6 8 �g5 (or 8 �e3),
while upon 7 ... �e7, the set-up with h3, �e3
and lLlf3 makes sense. You can also set up a

Samisch structure with 6 f3 a5 7 �e3 �e7

(7 ... g6 8 'ilid2 is a poor version of the Samisch 248 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

8 ... g6

8 ... c5 transposes to a Czech Benoni line -
see the note to Black's 8th move in Section B 10.32.

9 g4 l2Jc5 10 i.c2 a5 1 1 l:tgl l2Jg7 12 ..te3 b6

Now 1 3 a3 ;!; i.d7 14 b4 axb4 1 5 axb4 l:txal

16 'iVxal lhb7 17 'iti>e2! 'iVc8 1 8 i.a4! i.xa4 1 9
ii'xa4 gave White a large positional advantage
in Pliasunov-Trusheliov, St Petersburg 2000.

1 3 'iVd2 is another idea.

12.34) Modern Defence

1 d4 g6 2 c4 ..tg7 3 e4 (D)

This set-up is the most consistent with the 'iti>h8 1 3 cxd6 cxd6 14 i.d4 lhc6 1 5 i.xg7+
other openings in this book (and avoids 3 lhc3 'iti>xg7 1 6 l:td 1 ;!;) 1 1 'iVb3+ 'iti>h8 1 2 lhxc6 lhxc6
c5 4 d5 i.xc3+, although I believe that's ulti 1 3 i.xc5 ±. mately a poor variation). b) 5 ... i.f6 6 i.e3 (or 6 i.xf6 lhxf6 7 d5
lhb8 8 lhc3 d6) 6 ... exd4 7 lhxd4 d6 8 lhc3

liJge7 9 i.e2 0-0 10 0-0 and White stands
better; for example, 1 O ... lhxd4 1 1 i.xd4 i.xd4

B 1 2 'ii'xd4 lhc6 1 3 'ii'd2 l:te8 14 f4! f5 1 5 exf5
i.xf5 16 l2Jd5 ±.

4 l2Jc3 (D)

B

For one thing, if Black plays ... c5 over the
next few moves, we've already seen the main
set-ups he can employ in Chapter 1 0 on Benoni

Systems. And if Black plays 3 ... d6 4 lhc3 lhf6,
we have a King's Indian that's consistent with
our repertoire.

3 ... d6 Here the material splits into:

3 ... lhc6 is an ambitious idea, trying to econ- 12.341: 4 .•. l2Jc6 249 omize on the move ... d6 while occupying the 12.342: 4 •.. l2Jd7 250 centre. One straightforward answer is 4 l2Jf3 e5 ( 4 ... d6 5 d5 lhe5 6 i.e2 lhxf3+ 7 i.xf3 lhf6 8 Or: 0-0 0-0 9 lhc3 c5 I 0 i.g5 h6 I I i.e3 ;!;) 5 a) 4 ... lhf6 is a direct transposition to the
i.g5 !? (D) with these ideas: King's Indian Defence.

a) 5 ... f6?! 6 i.e3 exd4 7 lhxd4 lhge7 8 lhc3 b) 4 ... e5 is held in some suspicion because
d6 is passive anyway, but White makes imme of the queenless middlegame 5 dxe5 dxe5 6
diate progress by 9 i.e2 (or 9 c5 ! ? dxc5 10 'ii'xd8+ 'iti>xd8 7 f4 !, which is held to favour
lhxc6 lhxc6 I I 'iVa4 i.d7 1 2 i.xc5 ;!;) 9 ... 0-0 10 White. That's definitely worth investigating.

c5 ! dxc5? (IO ... lhxd4 I I 'iVxd4! f5 1 2 'iVc4+ From our point of view, the move 5 d5 is logical,

ASSORTED DEFENCES 249

transposing into a King's Indian after 5 ... lLlf6 6 aiming at g6; e.g., 14 ... 'i!Vf7 1 5 l:tad 1 b6 1 6 e5 !

h3, or Section 12.342 after 5 ... lLJd7 6 h3. Note dxe5 1 7 i..d3, etc. that we already saw this position in Section 6 lLlge2 (D) 1 2.3 1 via 1 d4 d6 2 c4 e5 3 d5 g6 4 lLlc3 i..g7 5 The very well-known line 6 d5 lLice7 is an
e4, and we analysed the move 5 ... f5?! there. alternative if you aren't happy with my main
c) 4 ... f5 5 exf5 i..xf5 is a rarer option: line. Then 7 g4 is one possibility, while I think
c I ) 6 i..d3 !? i..xd4 7 i..xf5 .i.xc3+ 8 bxc3 that 7 c5 f5 8 cxd6 cxd6 9 i..b5+ 'it>f8 10 lLlf3 ! gxf5 9 'i!Vh5+ 'it>d7 10 'i!Vxf5+ e6 (Portisch (instead of the book move 10 f3) is good, but

Bilek, Sousse Interzonal 1 967) 1 1 'i!Vb5+ lLlc6 that's another story. 1 2 c5 ! 'i!Vf6 1 3 lLle2 d5 14 i..b2 a6 1 5 'i!Vb3 l:tf8

1 6 0-0 'it>c8 1 7 l:tab 1 with an attack; for exam

ple, 1 7 ... lLla5 1 8 'i!Va4 lLlc4 1 9 c6.

c2) 6 lLlf3 lLlh6 7 i..e2 (or 7 h3 0-0 8 i..e3 B lLlc6 9 g4 i..d7 10 i..g2 ;\;) 7 ... 0-0 8 0-0 lLla6

(Polugaevsky-Bilek, Lipetsk 1 968) and along
with effective moves such as 9 d5 and 9 h3, 9 a3
stops ... lLlb4 and prepares l:te1 ; e.g., 9 ... c5 1 0
l:te 1 lLlf7 1 1 i..e3 cxd4 1 2 lLlxd4 i..d7 1 3 i..f3
l:tb8 1 4 'i!Vd2 (or 14 h3) 14 ... lLle5 1 5 i..d5+ �h8

1 6 lLlf3 ! and Black's centre and queenside are
increasingly exposed.

12.341)

4 .•. lLJc6 (D) 6 ••• lLlh6

This threatens ... lLlg4 and keeps the idea of

... f5 alive. Other moves:

a) 6 ... f5 7 exf5 i..xf5 8 d5 lLlce7 9 lLlg3 lLlf6
w 10 i..d3 and White takes over the e4-square
with advantage, Larsen-Ganong, St John 1 970.

b) 6 ... lLlf6 7 d5 lLle7 8 f3 is not an ideal

Samisch King's Indian for Black; e.g., 8 ... 0-0 9

'i!Vd2 c6 (9 ... lLlh5 10 g4; 9 ... lLld7 10 h4) 10 lLic I
a6 I I i..e2 b5 ( l l ...cxd5 12 cxd5 b5 1 3 0-0
lLld7 14 lLld3 f5 15 a4 ;\;) 12 dxc6 lLlxc6 1 3 lLlb3
with a positional advantage for White.

7 f3

7 d5 also suffices for an edge; for example,

7 ... lLlb8 (7 ... lLle7 8 h3 ! ? f5 9 g3 lLlf7 10 .i.g2
i..h6 1 1 i..xh6 lLlxh6 1 2 'i!Vd2 lLlf7 1 3 0-0 0-0 14

5 i..e3 f4!? slightly favours White, Grigorian-Ruka

A straightforward move. 5 d5 lLld4 6 i..e3 c5 vina, Rijeka 20 I 0) 8 f3 f5 9 'i!Vd2 lLlf7 I 0 0-0-0

7 lLlge2 'i!Vb6 is regarded as somewhat in White's 0-0 I I 'it>b1 c5 1 2 exf5 gxf5 ( 1 2 ... i..xf5+?! 1 3
favour, but we can avoid the complications as 'it>al a6 14 lLlg3 ± with the idea h4-h5) 1 3 f4
sociated with that line and reach the same mod lLJd7 14 lLlg3 lLlf6 (Damjanovic-Kotov, Paris
est assessment. 1968) 15 fxe5 ! lLixe5 16 i..g5 with the better

5 •.• e5 pawn-structure and a healthy advantage.

5 ... lLlf6 6 d5 lLle5 7 f4 lLled7 8 lLlf3 0-0 9 7 ••• f5 8 d5 lLle7 9 'ili'd2 (D) i..e2 e6 10 dxe6 fxe6 1 1 lLlg5 'i!Ve7 1 2 0-0 with a 9 •.• lLlf7 nice advantage, Tal-Christiansen, Wijk aan Zee Many King's Indian players will be tempted

1 982. One idea is 1 2 ... h6 1 3 lLlh3 a6 14 'i!Vc2, into 9 .. .f4 10 i..f2 g5, but with White's king 250 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

12.342)

8 4 ... l2Jd7 (D)

w

missing from the kingside and a ready-made
queenside attack, they won't be happy; for ex
ample, 1 1 c5 0-0 1 2 0-0-0 g4 1 3 �b1 l2Jg6 14
lbc I �d7 15 l2Jb3 l2Jh4 (Malakhatko-Tiller,

Troms0 2009) and now 16 'ife l ! (or 1 6 l:tg1 This can go every which way. gxf3 1 7 �xh4 'iVxh4 1 8 gxf3 ±) 1 6 ... l2Jg6 1 7 5 h3 �c4 ± i s quite sufficient for a substantial ad White can play a number of other moves, but
vantage. in order to be consistent with our repertoire

10 l2Jc1 we'll start with this. 5 �e3 e5 6 d5 and h3 is an-

I 0 0-0-0 is an obvious alternative, and 1 0 c5 other way to do so.

is a good option too; for example, I O ... f4 I I 5 ... e5 6 d5 l2Je7!? �f2 g5 1 2 lbc l ( 1 2 0-0-0 l2Jg6 1 3 �b1 �) After 6 ... l2Jgf6, 7 .tg5 or 7 �e3 enters our

12 ... l2Jg6 (Stohl-Seirawan, Manila Interzonal King's Indian repertoire. The text-move is quite

1 990) and now 1 3 �b5+ with the idea 1 3 ... �d7 rare, but has a certain logic, especially as an h

( 1 3 ... �f8 1 4 �e2) 14 �xd7+ 'ii'xd7 1 5 l2Jd3 pawn advance will now cost White a tempo,
g4 1 6 0-0-0 gives White a very comfortable and I'll simply cover some obvious continua
game. tions.

10 ••• c5 7 l2Jf3 (D) Blocking the queen side is a good idea. Other

moves:

a) I O ... l2Jg8 I I c5 ( 1 1 exf5 gxf5 1 2 �d3 �)

l l ...�h6 1 2 �b5+!? �d7 1 3 �xd7+ 'iVxd7 14 8 �xh6 l2Jgxh6 1 5 l2Jd3 �-
b) 10 ... 0-0 1 1 l2Jd3 c6 1 2 �e2 cxd5 1 3 cxd5

�d7 14 a4 � Szabo-Suttles, Hastings 1 973/4. Black has little play in these lines.

ll lDd3

1 1 a3 0-0 1 2 b4 b6 1 3 �e2 h5 1 4 l2Jd3 �h7

(Akvist-Bohm, Eksjo 1 974) and now 1 5 'it>dl
with the idea �c2 was suggested, while 1 5 l:lb1
is a sensible move.

ll ... b6 12 b4 0-0 13 �e2 �h8 14 a4!

White's attack is faster than in the previous
note. 7 ... 0-0

14 ... a5 15 bxc5 dxc5 16 l2Jb5!? 7 ... f5 8 l2Jg5 exerts pressure on the light

� Foisor-Carlier, European Junior Ch, Gron squares; e.g., 8 ... l2Jf6 9 exf5 l2Jxf5 (9 ... gxf5 10
ingen 1 97617. �e2 0-0 1 1 0-0) 10 �d3 0-0 1 1 0-0 � with the

ASSORTED DEFENCES 251

idea l l ...lLld4 1 2 tLle2; otherwise Black' s posi subtle sequence by which Black may seek a
tion is a little passive. favourable transposition to a number of stan

8 g4!? aS dard openings, while there arise several inde

8 ... f5?! is dubious because of 9 l2Jg5 l2Jc5?! pendent ideas in the process. My suggestion

10 gxf5 gxf5 I I _:gl h6 12 b4! ±. tends to lead to Nimzo-type positions. l ... tt:Jf6

9 ..te3 tt:Jcs 10 tt:Jd2 2 c4 b6 is a line you are more likely to find in

10 ..lte2 is also logical, discouraging 10 ... f5 games collections by the 'old masters' than in
due to I I gxf5 gxf5 1 2 _:g I . your next tournament, but it has undergone a

1o . . rs slight revival among theoreticians and illus

I O . .. ..ltd7 can be answered by 1 1 ..lte2 or I I trates some important themes of the Indian
lt:Jb3 ! ?. systems.

ll gxf5 gxf5 (D)

The move-order 1 d4 e6 can also be used in
another way: 2 c4 c5 heads for Benoni struc

tures; viz. 3 d5 exd5 4 cxd5 d6 5 tLlc3 g6 6 e4

.i.g7 7 ..itd3, when 7 ... tt:Jf6 transposes to the
main line of the Modem Benoni in Section

10. 1 , and the rarer 7 ... tt:Je7 was examined in

Section I 0.33.

12.41) English Defence

1 d4 e6 2 c4 b6

The English Defence took a huge leap in
popularity after Black began to realize that after

3 e4 ..ltb7, White's centre could be put under a
lot of pressure, assisted by many enjoyable tac

12 h4 tical tricks.

Thinking about ..ltxc5 and .i.h3 to control the 3 a3 (D) light squares.

12 •.• tt:Jxe4 l3 l2Jdxe4 fxe4 14 h5 h6 15 'iVd2 tt:Jrs 16 tt:Jxe4 tt:Jxe3 17 fxe3 ..trs 18 .i.d3

White has a modest advantage. This cover B age is nowhere near comprehensive, of course,
and there are many other ways to answer Black's
set-up.

12.4) Systems with . . . e6 and/or

. . . b6

In this category we have two major systems and
an older and rarer idea:

12.41: English Defence 25 1

12.42: l. .. e6 2 c4 ..ltb4+ 254

12.43: I...tt:Jf6 2 c4 b6 257 This move, preventing ... .i.b4, is the bane of

English Defence players. Odessky, a leading

The English Defence features ... e6 and ... b6 English Defence expert, repeatedly bemoans

(without ... tt:Jf6), inviting White to set up a Black's fate for having to play against it and
huge centre, which Black will then attack from says that the assessment jumps between ;\; and
all angles. We shall choose a move-order that ±. He himself shows that things aren't so bad,
gives Black less to bite on. Section 12.42 is a but still, the majority of highly-rated players 252 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

employ 3 a3, and this is clearly the choice for a
strategically-minded player.

3 ••. .tb7 B

Or:

a) With 3 ... g6, Black delays the develop
ment of his c8-bishop, thinking that it might go
to a6 in some lines: 4 lt:Jc3 i.g7 5 lL'lf3 (5 e4
lt:Je7 6 lt:Jf3 transposes) 5 ... lt:Je7 6 e4 0-0 7 i.e2

.tb7 8 0-0 ;!;.

b) 3 ... f5 4 lt:Jc3 lL'lf6 5 d5 (5 lt:Jf3 i.b7 6 g3
is a solid alternative) 5 ... .ta6 implements that
idea: 6 b3 (6 e3 is also feasible) 6 ... g6 7 .tb2

.tg7 8 g3 0-0 9 .tg2 lt:Je4 I 0 .l:.c I lt:Jxc3 I I

.txc3 .txc3+ 1 2 .l:.xc3 ;!; Salov-Short, Madrid

1 997. bi l l ) It's unclear why after years and years

4 lt:Jc3 (D) of games with 6 ... b5, 7 lt:Jxb5(!) hasn't been
played! To me, 7 ... .txd5 8 i.g5 i.b7 9 i.xf6
gxf6 I 0 e3 certainly looks good for White, and

he also comes out better following 7 ... lt:Jxd5 8

B e4 lL'lf6; for example, 9 e5 (or 9 .tf4) 9 ... lt:Je4

10 'i!Vc2 i.c5 ! I I i.e3 !, in view of l l ... .txe3 !?

12 lt:Jxc7 + 'iti>f8 1 3 fxe3 'i!Vh4+ 1 4 g3 lt:Jxg3 15
hxg3 'i!Vxg3+ 1 6 'iti>d2 .txh I 1 7 'i!Vc5+ 'iti>g8 18
lt:Jxa8 ±.

bl l 2) 7 e4 b4 8 axb4 i.xb4 9 i.d3 and I
think White can be happy; e.g., 9 ... c6 (9 ... 'i!Ve7

I 0 lL'lf3 ! lt:Jxd5 I I 0-0 lt:Jxc3 1 2 bxc3 .txc3 1 3

'i!Vb3 .tb4 1 4 lt:Jd4! with multiple threats, be
ginning with lL'lf5) and now 1 0 dxc6 yielded a
small edge in Baburin-Speelman, Copenhagen

1 996, but I 0 e5 ! lt:Jxd5 I I 'i!Vg4 is strong; e.g.,

4 ... f5 I I ...g6 12 lt:Jf3 ! h5 13 'i!Vc4 aS 14 0-0 i.a6 15

The most popular move by some margin, but 'i!Ve4 lt:Jxc3 16 bxc3 .txc3?! 1 7 i.g5 ±.

there are respectable alternatives: bl2) 6 ... .td6 7 lt:Jf3 0-0 (D).

a) The easiest set-up against 4 ... g6 is 5 e4

.tg7 6 lL'lf3 lt:Je7, and while 7 d5 ! ? has worked

well in practice, 7 i.e2 0-0 8 0-0 d6 9 i.e3 lL'ld7

I 0 'i!Vd2 ;!; is more natural. w
b) 4 ... lt:Jf6 is the main alternative. It invites 5
lL'lf3, transposing to a main line of the Queen's

Indian Defence. This is a perfectly good option
for White and probably the main reason Eng
lish Defence players prefer 4 ... f5. But 5 d5 (D)

is thematic, involves ideas which will apply
elsewhere and avoids heavy Queen's Indian
theory ! So here's an overview of that move:

b l ) 5 ... exd5 6 cxd5 and then:

bt l ) 6 ... b5 has been played numerous times
and still passes muster in the theory books, but I
have to admit that I'm sceptical for more than Several moves have been played here, but a
one reason: sound practical one is 8 .tg5 .l:.e8 (8 ... h6 9 i.h4

ASSORTED DEFENCES 253

and now 9 ... c6 ?? fails to 10 tbe4, so 9 ... a5 I 0 e3 5 ... i..e7 6 g3 i..f6 (with the idea ... i..xc3+,
tt:'la6 I I .i.c4 ti:Jc5 1 2 �d4 ..te7 1 3 0-0 a4 14 e4 and in some cases ... lL!e7-c8-d6!) 7 �c2 (I like
d6 15 l:He l ;\; might follow) 9 e3 ..te7 (9 ... a5 10 this move; 7 i..d2 is more common, but the

.i.c4 tt:'la6 1 1 0-0 ti:Jc5 1 2 'iVd4 ;\; ) 1 0 ..tc4 h6 1 1 bishop might be better placed on e3, f4 or even

.i.f4 ti:Jh5 1 2 .i.e5 .i.f6 1 3 ..td4! ;\; Karpov b2) 7 ... lL!e7 8 i..g2 0-0 (8 ... lL!c8 9 lDf3 lDd6 10

Miles, Las Palmas 1 977. White has a space ad i..f4! ;\;) 9 ti:Jh3 lL!a6 1 0 0-0 lbc5 I I liJf4 ( I I
vantage which he converted into victory in i..e3 ;\;) 1 l ... lL!g6 1 2 lL!xg6 hxg6 1 3 .i.e3 .i.xc3?!

grand style. (but White stands better in any case) 14 �xc3
bl3) 6 ... g6 7 e4 i..g7 8 i..d3 0-0 9 ti:Jf3 (9 with an obvious advantage for White, lbra
tt:lge2 c5 I 0 0-0 d6 I I h3 ti:Jbd7, Plachetka gimov-Kalinichev, Bad Wiessee 1 998. Sahovic, Vrnjacka Banja 1 985, and now 1 2 6 g3 (D) tt:'lg3 a6 1 3 a4 l:te8 14 i..e3 tbe5 1 5 ..te2 i s a
pleasant version of a normal Modem Benoni

line) 9 ... d6 10 0-0 l:te8 1 1 l:te 1 ti:Jbd7 1 2 i..g5 h6

1 3 i..f4 ti:Jc5 14 i..c2 a5 1 5 l:tb 1 with a slight ad B vantage for White.

b2) 5 ... i..d6 (this development may look ec
centric, but if Black plays meekly and develops
quietly, White will consolidate his space advan
tage and secure a dominant game) 6 ti:Jf3 (ver
sus ... i..e5) 6 ... 0-0 (6 ... c6 7 e4 exd5 8 e5 ! ;\;

Sethuraman-Mihopoulos, Vrachati 201 1 ) 7 e4

(or 7 g3) 7 ... exd5 8 exd5 c6 9 ..te2 (D) with this choice:

6 ••• ti:Ja6

B With 6 ... g6, Black reasons that while White's
d5 advance has blocked off the b7-bishop, it
has also opened the other long diagonal, so he
may as well put his bishop on g7. Compared to
our main line with ... .i.d6-e5, however, Black
is never threatening ... ..txc3, so that after 7
i..g2 .i.g7 8 ti:Jh3 ! 0-0 9 0-0 lL!a6, White can
play I 0 b4! , leaving the a6-knight stuck on the
side of the board: I O ... lL!e4 ( I O ... lL!xd5?! I I
lL!xd5 exd5 1 2 i..xd5+ i..xd5 1 3 "fixd5+ �h8

1 4 i..g5 'ii'e8 1 5 l::tad 1 .�.f7 1 6 i..f4 c6 1 7 'i¥d3 ± I.Farago-Z. Varga, Pees 1 998) I I tbxe4 fxe4
b2 1 ) 9 ... ti:Ja6 10 0-0 ti:Jc7 1 1 dxc6 dxc6 1 2 ( l l ...i..xal 1 2 i..g5 "fie8 1 3 'iVxal fxe4 1 4 i..g5 ;\;. i..h6 .l:.f7 1 5 l:td I ! has the idea of ti:Jg5 with a
b22) 9 ... cxd5 10 cxd5 ti:Ja6 1 1 0-0 ( 1 1 liJd4 devastating attack) 1 2 l:tbl exd5 1 3 cxd5 'if!e7
i..e5) I I ...l:te8 12 .i.g5 ( l 2 lL!b5 "fie7 1 3 .l:.e1 is 14 tt:lg5 �h8 1 5 lL!xe4 with an extra pawn and
a messy alternative) 12 ... h6 13 i..h4 lL!c5 14 a positional advantage, Piket-Plaskett, Mon
lbd4 tt:lce4 1 5 lL!xe4 l:txe4 1 6 lDf5 i..e5 1h-1h dariz Zonal 2000. Knaak-Planinc, Polanica Zdroj 1 979; here 17 7 i..g2 ti:Jc5 8 lL!h3 �d3 ! .i.xb2 18 l:tad 1 is good; e.g., 18 ... l:te8? The modern preference, although 8 lDf3 is

( 1 8 ... l:txh4 1 9 ti:Jxh4 l:tc8 20 lDf5 ;\;) 1 9 l:td2 still unclear . .i.e5 20 f4 .i.c7 21 'iVg3 and Black's position is 8 .•. i..d6 indefensible. Practically the only move Black ever plays,

5 d5 ti:Jf6 and for good reason; he is badly cramped, but 254 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

now intends to play ... �eS with excellent pres
sure on White's centre. 8 ... g6 9 b4 lba6?!

(9 ... lbce4 10 �xe4 fxe4 I I dxe6 dxe6 12 0-0 w �g7 1 3 �f4 ;;!;) 1 0 0-0 �g7? I I dxe6! (a trick to remember) I I ...�xg2 1 2 'it>xg2 0-0 (after

1 2 ... dxe6 1 3 'ii'a4+ White nets a piece) 1 3
exd7 ± 'ii'xd7 1 4 �b2 'ili'c6+ I S tL:ldS 'ii'xc4 1 6

�xf6 �xf6 17 .l:tc I 'ii'e4+ 1 8 f3 'ii'e8 1 9 �d3 !

bS, Tkachev-Hamdouchi, Cannes 200 1 . White
stands much better; for example, 20 e4 fxe4?

21 fxe4 �eS 22 tL:lgS ! is simply winning.

9 0-0

Complex and highly strategic positions re-
sult from 9 �f4 and 9 tL:lbS; e.g., in the latter
case 9 ... �eS 1 0 f4! ( 1 0 �f4 d6!) I O ... �d6. dxe6 dxe6 1 6 cS ! bxcS ( 1 6 ... tL:lxcS?? 1 7 �xeS ;

9 .•. �e5 10 'ifc2 0-0 (D) 1 6 ... �xf4 1 7 �xf4 bxcS 1 8 .l:tac l ;;!;) 1 7 .l:tac l ,
and he retains a small but annoying edge fol
lowing 1 7 ... �d6 1 8 �xe4 �xe4 19 'ti'c4 .l:tfe8

20 f3 .i.b7 2 1 �xeS �a6 22 �c3. Overall, that
w seems the correct assessment of the move 3 a3
in the English Defence.

12.42)

1 d4 e6 2 c4 �b4+

This is a kind of hybrid between the Bogo
lndian and English Defences. It is quite a re
spectable move.

3 lbc3 (D)

Objectively, 3 �d2 is probably the most chal
lenging move (although 3 ... aS is a bother), but 3

This position has been tested repeatedly over lbc3 fits in nicely with the rest of our repertoire.

the years. The best and most practical way to
handle it is to reinforce dS:

l l .l:td1

1 1 �d2 and 1 1 li:lf4 are accepted alterna B
tives.

ll .. J'He7 12 lLlf4!

Odessky suggests that this is the most accu
rate move-order and that Black has "no useful
moves" ! Similar but perhaps less accurate is

1 2 �e3 (intending �d4 at the right moment)

1 2 ... lbce4!? 1 3 lLlxe4 tL:lxe4 1 4 .l:tac l cS with
counterplay, Sher-Lempert, Erevan 1 996.

After 1 2 li:lf4, Odessky gives ...

12 ••• a5 13 �e3 li:lce4 14 tLlxe4 tL:lxe4 (D) Now after I S .l:tabl he says, "the knight is
driven away from e4". However, lS ... gS 1 6 3 ... f5 lbd3 �f6 1 7 lbe l exdS 1 8 cxdS l:tac8 keeps This leads to Dutch-type positions. There are

Black right in the game. And yet there's an some important alternatives: other issue after 14 ... lbxe4: White can play l S a) 3 ... lLlf6 is the Nimzo-Indian.

ASSORTED DEFENCES 255

b) 3 ... d5 transposes to 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lbc3 it' s enough to win versus accurate defence is

.i.b4 in Section 3.6. not clear.

c) 3 ... b6 4 e3 ..i.xc3+ (4 ... ..i.b7 5 lbe2 and d) 3 ... c5 4 e3 (D) (4 lbf3 cxd4 5 lbxd4 can now 5 ... lbf6 transposes to Section 7.22, while transpose into a line of the g3 Nimzo-Indian af

5 ... f5 6 a3 ..i.xc3+ 7 lbxc3 lbf6 8 .i.e2 0-0 9 0-0 ter 5 ... lbf6 6 g3, while 6 g3 or 6 e4 will follow
is a fairly straightforward two-bishops position, most other moves besides 5 ... lbf6). with the possible continuation 9 .. .'i!Ve8 10 f3
lbc6 1 1 ..i.d2 'ii'g6 1 2 .i.e! ;!;) 5 bxc3 .i.b7 6 f3 ! ?

and now:

c 1 ) 6 .. .'ii'h4+ 7 g3 'ii'h5 8 e4 f5 (8 ... lbc6 9 B lbh3 lbge7 10 liJf4 'ii'a5 1 1 ..i.d2 0-0 1 2 ..i.d3 ;!;)

9 exf5 'ii'xf5 1 0 ..i.d3 'ii'f7 ( 1 0 ... 'ii'h5 !? 1 1 ..i.f4
d6? 1 2 'ii'e2 'ii'f7 1 3 lbh3 h6 1 4 0-0 ± Neiman

Bricard, French Ch, Narbonne 1 997) 1 1 ..i.f4 d6

I 2 liJh3 h6 (Stohl) 1 3 0-0 lbd7 14 c5 ! bxc5 1 5
dxc5 lbxc5 1 6 ..i.b5+
attacking chances for the pawn.

c2) 6 ... f5 7 lbh3 (D) and then:

B Now 4 ... lbf6 is a Nimzo-lndian (Section 7. 1 )

and 4 ... f5 5 lbe2, intending 6 a3, doesn't ac
complish much for Black, but he can try:

d 1 ) 4 ... ..i.xc3+ 5 bxc3 d6!? (the most com
mon move here; 5 ... lbf6?! 6 ..i.d3 with the idea
lbe2, e4, etc., is essentially a Samisch Variation
of the Nimzo-Indian a full tempo down be
cause Black voluntarily played ... ..i.xc3+ with
out White playing a3; 5 .. .f5 allows 6 e4! fxe4 7

'ili'h5+ g6 8 'ii'xc5 ;!;) 6 ..i.d3 (6 'ii'g4 !?). This can lead in various directions; for example, 6 ... e5 !?

(6 ... lbc6 7 lbe2 lbge7 !? 8 0-0 0-0 9 'ili'c2 ltJg6
c2 1 ) 1 prefer White's bishops in flexible po 1 0 f4 f5 1 1 e4 with good attacking chances) 7 sitions like 7 ... lbf6 8 ..i.d3 0-0 9 0-0, but Black's 'ii'c2 liJf6 8 lbe2 'ii'e7 9 f3 0-0 1 0 0-0 lbc6 I I
game is certainly playable. Eventually e4 is an ..i.d2, having in mind .i.e I and a transfer to the
issue, or even ..i.a3 and c5, so Black should kingside, or in the case of 1 1 .. . .l:!.e8, 1 2 .l:!.ae I
probably prepare ... c5, although the immediate with the idea lbg3. 9 ... c5?! 10 d5 ! ? exd5 1 1 cxd5 ..i.xd5 1 2 ..i.xf5 d2) 4 ... lbc6 5 lbe2 (D) (5 d5 ..i.xc3+ 6 bxc3 favours White. and now 6 ... lbce7 is unclear, and better than
c22) 7 ... 'ii'h4+ 8 liJf2 liJf6 (8 ... lbe7 9 ..i.d3 6 ... lba5?! 7 ..i.d3 lbf6 8 e4 e5 9 f4 d6 1 0 liJf3

0-0 I 0 0-0 lbbc6 I I e4 ;!;) 9 �d3 0-0 10 0-0 c5 0-0 1 1 0-0 'ii'c7 1 2 'ii'e 1 ! ;!;) and here:

I I e4 (or I I ..i.e2 !?, when I l ...lbc6?! is a mis d2 1 ) 5 ... cxd4 6 exd4 d5 and then: take in view of 1 2 dxc5 bxc5 1 3 l:.b1 liJd8 14 d2 1 1 ) 7 a3 ..i.xc3+ 8 lbxc3 dxc4 9 ..i.xc4,

..i.a3 ±) 1 1 ...fxe4 1 2 fxe4 d6 ( 1 2 ... lbxe4? 1 3 and now after 9 ... lbxd4 I 0 ..i.e3 or 9 ... 'ii'xd4 1 0

..i.xe4 ..i.xe4 14 g3 .l:!.xf2 1 5 .l:.xf2 'ii'e7 1 6 d5 ±) 'ii'e2 White has very good compensation, s o a

1 3 d5 (or 1 3 lbh3) 1 3 ... e5 14 g3 'ii'h5 1 5 'ii'xh5 key line is 9 ... lbge7 ! 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 ..i.g5 h6! 1 2
lbxh5 16 ..i.e2 liJf6 1 7 g4 lbbd7 1 8 g5 lbe8 1 9 ..i.xe7 lbxe7 1 3 .l:!.el ; e.g., 1 3 ... 'ii'b6 14 d5 !?

a4 lbc7 20 ..i.d2 .l:!.f7 2 1 lbg4 .l:!.af8 2 2 l:!.xf7 'ii'xb2 1 5 d6 lbc6 1 6 .l:!.e3. Black may be equal

.l:!.xf7 23 h4 ;!;. In this kind of position, White but still has some problems to solve; obviously
can advance pawns on both wings, but whether both sides can deviate.

256 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

This discourages ... b6 and covers e4. I shall

mention two other natural replies:

B a) 4 1Wc2 lDf6 S i..d2 (S e3 lDe4 transposes
to note 'bl ' to Black's 4th move at the start of

Chapter 7 - on the Nimzo-Indian) S ... 0-0 6 e3
b6 7 a3 i..xc3 8 i..xc3 i..b7 9 f3 aS I 0 i..d3 a4

1 1 tDe2 ;!; Kempinski-Ostrowski, Mistek 1 997.

b) White can also play 4 e3, which is con
sistent with our repertoire versus the Nimzo

Indian. Then:

b1 ) 4 ... b6 S lDe2 lLlf6 6 a3 i..e7 7 lDf4 i..b7

8 ..te2 0-0 9 0-0 ;!;.

b2) 4 ... lDf6 can also be answered by S tDe2
and 6 a3, which is handy. Another approach is S
d2 1 2) 7 cxdS exdS 8 a3 i..aS 9 lDf4 lDf6 i..d3 0-0 6 �c2 b6 (6 ... d6 7 lDe2 cS 8 a3 i..xc3+

(Piot-Eingorn, St Quentin 2001 ) and now White 9 1Wxc3 !? lDc6 10 0-0 aS 1 1 b3 �e7 12 i..b2
can become active with I 0 i..d3, having in with a slight advantage for White, Taimanov
mind that 10 ... lDxd4!? 1 1 0-0 i..xc3 1 2 bxc3 Kamer, USSR Team Ch, Riga 1 968) 7 tDe2
tDe6 1 3 tDxe6 fxe6 14 c4 0-0 1 S i..b2 leaves i..b7 (7 ... lDe4 is another transposition to note

White with ample compensation. Black has 'bl ' to Black's 4th move at the start of Chapter
problems getting his pieces out and White can 7) 8 0-0, with a set-up we see in the Dutch De
bring his rooks to the centre and isolate and tar fence chapter; e.g., 8 ... tDc6 9 a3 i..d6 (Ligter
get Black's d-pawn. 10 ... 0-0! is more solid, ink-Renet, Budel 1 987) and now 10 f3 and 10
with the idea I I 0-0 l:te8 I 2 i..e3 i..c7, but e4 both slightly favour White. White is still slightly better after 1 3 h3 intend b3) 4 ... i..xc3+ S bxc3 lDf6 6 i..d3 b6. We've
ing �f3. seen this kind of thing before. White sets up
d22) S ... dS 6 cxdS ( 6 a3 i..xc3+ 7 lt:\xc3 cxd4 with the standard pawn-structure; for example,

8 exd4 transposes to line 'd21 1 ' ) 6 ... exdS 7 a3 (7 7 lDh3 0-0 8 0-0 tDc6 9 f3 ..ta6 1 0 �e2 tLlaS ! ? lDf4 lDf6 8 i..d3 is an alternative) 7 ... i..xc3+ ( I O ... d S 1 1 cxdS i..xd3 1 2 1Wxd3 �xdS 1 3 c4

(7 ... cxd4? 8 axb4 dxc3 9 bS gives White a real �d7 14 i..b2 ;!;) I I e4 dS 1 2 eS ! ? ( 1 2 i..gS dxc4
advantage) 8 tDxc3 cxd4 9 exd4 lDge7 ! 10 i..d3 1 3 i..c2 threatens lDf4 and eS, with l:tae1 in re

0-0 I I 0-0 i..fS 1 2 i..gS f6 I 3 ..te3 i..xd3 I4 serve) 1 2 ... dxc4 1 3 exf6 cxd3 1 4 'iVxe6+ llf7

'ti'xd3 and Black is within a sliver of equality but I S lDgS 'iiVxf6 1 6 �xf7+ 'ii'xf7 17 lDxf7 'itxf7
the position still has play in it. 1 8 ..tf4 ;!;.

We now return to 3 ... fS (D): 4 • • • lDf6 5 i..g2 0-0 (D)

w w

4 g3 6 �b3

ASSORTED DEFENCES 257

6 lt:'lh3 is eccentric (literally) but playable; he only gives 5 ... lt:'le7. However, Black can use
for example: his lead in development to play 5 ... lt:'la5 ! 6 e4 ( 6
a) 6 ... d5 7 0-0 (7 cxd5 exd5 8 lt:'lf4 c6 9 0-0 e3 ! ? is possible, but 6 ... c6 at any rate leaves

;!;) 7 ... c6 8 'ii'b3 lt:'la6! ? 9 lt:'lf4 .i.d6 1 0 lt:'ld3 ! Black with no problems) 6 ... ..tb4 (6 ... ..td6 is
lt:'lc7 (Grau-Alekhine, Warsaw Olympiad 1 935) more direct and at least equal) 7 .i.d2 lt:'lb7 8 a3
and now 1 1 c5 ! ..te7 12 .i.f4 would accentuate .i.d6 9 b4 a5 + (or 9 ... 0-0). White's advantage. 3 .•• ..tb7
b) 6 ... d6 7 �b3 (7 0-0 is also possible) After 3 ... e6 we saw 4 a3 .i.b7 in note 'b' to

7 ... lt:'lc6 (7 ... c5 ! ?) 8 d5 (8 0-0 a5 9 d5 exd5 1 0 Black's 4th move in Section 1 2.4 1 , on the Eng
cxd5 lt:'le5 1 1 ..te3 ;!;) 8 .. . exd5 9 cxd5 lt:'ld4 10 lish Defence. The natural 4 e4 has also scored

'ii'd 1 lt:'lb5 ! 1 1 'ii'd3 lt:'lxc3 1 2 bxc3 ..tc5 is equal, very well in practice, since with the knight on

M.Wemer-Weiner, 2nd Bundesliga 1 985/6. f6, Black lacks the type of all-out counterplay

6 ••• 'ii'e7 7 a3 ..txc3+ 8 'ii'xc3 d6 he gets in the English Defence when White sets

8 ... a5 9 b3 lt:'le4 1 0 'ii'c2 ;!; Andreev-Kozlov, up a large pawn-centre. St Petersburg 2008. 4 'i!Vc2 (D)

9 b4 a5 10 b5 lt:'lbd7 This old method is still valid.

Now: 4 f3 d5 5 cxd5 lt:'lxd5 6 e4 lt:'lxc3 7 bxc3 e5 ! is
a) 1 1 .i.b2 �e8 ( l l ...lt:'lb6! 1 2 a4 lt:'le4 1 3 extremely unclear, while 4 d5 e6 5 a3 is the

'ii'c2 e5 ! =) 1 2 lt:'lf3 lt:'le4 1 3 'ii'c2 lt:'ldf6 1 4 0-0 English Defence line referred to in the previous
b6 1 5 lt:'le l ! ..td7 ( 1 5 ... ..tb7 1 6 lt:'ld3 ;!;) 1 6 f3 note. lt:'lg5 17 lt:'ld3 ;!; Landa-Balashov, Taganrog 201 1 .

b) 1 1 lt:'lh3 ! improves: l l ...lt:'le4 1 2 'ii'c2 e5

1 3 ..tb2 exd4 14 ..txd4 ;!;,

My suspicion is that most of these lines are B objectively equal or close to equal, but that

Black must play more accurately than his oppo
nent, and so White is more likely to get the ad
vantage in over-the-board play. 2 ... ..tb4+ as a
whole looks like a fully playable variation.

12.43)

1 d4 lt:'lf6 2 c4 b6 (D)

4 ••. d5
w Other moves don't challenge the centre suf
ficiently:

a) 4 ... e6 5 e4 favours White: 5 ... d6 (5 ... ..tb4
can be met by 6 i.d3 or even 6 e5 lt:'le4 7 a3;

5 ... lt:'lc6 6 lt:'lf3 e5 7 dxe5 lt:'lg4 8 ..tf4 ..tc5 9

..tg3 ±) 6 lt:'lf3 (6 f4!? ;!;) 6 ... ..te7 7 .i.d3 lt:'lbd7 8

0-0 ;l;:.

b) 4 ... c5 5 d5 g6 6 e4 d6 7 f4! (7 lt:'lf3 gives

White a slight advantage) 7 ... lt:'lbd7 8 lt:'lf3

'i!Vb8 !? (8 ... ..tg7 9 e5 dxe5 1 0 fxe5 lt:'lg4 1 1 e6
fxe6 1 2 lt:'lg5 lt:'lf8 ! 1 3 ..te2 ± lt:'le5?! 14 0-0!) 9
i.d3 i.g7 I 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 'ii'e2 lt:'le8 1 2 .i.d2 lt:'lc7

3 lt:'lc3 1 3 'ii'f2 e6 14 f5 ! exf5 1 5 exf5 ± with ideas of

Avrukh proposes 3 f3, but in the variation 'ii'h4, �ael and lt:'lg5. 3 ... lt:'lc6!? (suggested by Kogan) 4 lt:'lc3 e5 5 d5, 5 cxd5 lt:'lxd5 6 e4

258 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

6 lt:lf3 secures a safe edge: 6 ... e6 (6 ... g6 7 e4 Zilberstein-Bronstein, USSR Ch, Baku 1 972.

lt:lxc3 8 bxc3 il..g7 9 il..b5+ lt:ld7 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 Now 1 3 e6! fxe6 ( 1 3 ... 0-0 14 exf7+ �h8 15
il..f4 a6 1 2 il..d3 is also slightly better for White, ..tc4) 1 4 il..g6+ �f8 1 5 il..f4 ;!; supplies more

Quinteros-Planinc, Ljubljana/Portoroz 1 973) 7 than enough compensation; Black's king is
e4 lt:lxc3 8 bxc3 il..e7 9 il..b5+ c6 10 il..d3 c5 1 1 really in the way. 0-0 cxd4 1 2 cxd4 0-0 1 3 il..b2 lt:lc6. Here Avrukh
gives 14 a3 and says, "This simply transposes 12.5) Assorted Systems to a position from the Petrosian Variation of the

Queen's Indian Defence." While that's true, We are close to completing our repertoire, and

White also hasn't been demonstrating an ad all that remains is to consider a few of Black's
vantage in that variation. However, 1 4 'ii'e2 more offbeat ideas, some of which still need to
saves White a very valuable tempo on the main be treated with a little respect. Our main themes
line; e.g., 14 .. J:tc8 ( 14 ... lt:lb4 1 5 il..c4 l:tc8 1 6 here are lines with an early ... lt:lc6, and ideas

.l:tac I ) 1 5 .l:tac I 'ii'd6 16 .l:tfd I lt:la5 and now with ... a6 and/or ... b5: White can launch the thematic attack 1 7 d5 ! 12.51: 1 d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 lt:lc6 258 l:txc I ( 1 7 ... exd5 1 8 .l:txc8 .l:txc8 1 9 exd5 with a 12.52: 1 d4 lt:lc6 262 dangerous attack and a troublesome d-pawn 12.53: 1 d4 b5 2 e4 a6 263 that seems to survive) 1 8 .l:txc 1 ( 1 8 il..xc I exd5 12.54: 1 d4 b5 2 e4 ..tb7?! 264

1 9 exd5 g6 20 il..a6 ;!;) 1 8 ... exd5 1 9 e5 'ii'd7 12.55: 1 d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 a6 265 ( 1 9 ... 'i¥h6 is answered with 20 .l:tc7 or 20 lt:ld4! 12.56: 1 d4 e5?! 266 .l:tc8 2 1 .l:txc8+ il..xc8 22 e6! ! ;!;) 20 lt:ld4 il..c5 21
lt:lf5 'fee6 22 'i¥g4 g6 23 lt:lh6+ �g7 24 'ii'f4 12.51) �h8 25 lt:lg4 ± with compensation worth well
more than a pawn. 1 d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 lt:lc6 (D)

6 ... lt:lxc3 7 bxc3 e5! (D)

w

w

This is known as the Black Knights Tango. It

White would simply be better if it weren't is a respectable if still uncommon way of meet
for this move with the idea ... 'i¥h4. ing d4 which resembles a mirror-image Ale

8 lt:lf3 exd4 9 il..c4! lt:lc6 khine Defence if White continues 3 d5 lt:le5 4

Black can't completely neutralize White's e4 e6 5 f4, etc. If White does chase the knight in
initiative by 9 ... d3 10 il..xd3 il..c5 I I 0-0 0-0 be that way, it turns out that, unlike the line I d4
cause of 1 2 il..g5 !. lt:lc6 2 d5 lt:le5 (Section 1 2.52), Black gets

10 0-0 d3 strong counterplay against White's centre. This

10 ... dxc3?! is difficult for Black after the result is to some extent logical as ... lt:lf6 is more
simple I I 'ii'xc3, or even I I il..g5 with the idea immediately active than c4, and furthermore,

1 2 .l:td l . c4 exposes White along the e 1-a5 diagonal to

11 il..xd3 il..c5 12 e5 h6 ... ..tb4( + ). So I'll recommend a calmer solution.

ASSORTED DEFENCES 259

3 ll:lf3 b) 7 ... dxcS 8 ll:lxeS i.g7 9 i.b5+ ll:ld7 and

Now White is threatening 4 dS for real, and now both I 0 i.f4 and 10 f4 give White the

Black has two serious methods of anticipating better game. this: c) 7 ... a6 8 'ii'a4+ i.d7 (8 ... 'i!Vd7 9 i.bS ! ;

12.511: 3 .•. d6 2S9 8 . . . ll:ld7 9 cxd6 cxd6 10 ll:lbS initiates a lengthy 12.512: 3 ... e6 260 forcing sequence: 10 ... ll:lg8 1 1 i.gS f6 1 2 .:.c I
fxgS 1 3 ll:lc7 + �f7 14 ll:lxa8 ll:lcS ! I S :xeS

12.511) dxcS 1 6 'i!Vb3 i.d6 17 ll:lb6 h6 1 8 i.d3 �g7 19
ll:ld2! i.c7 20 ll:ldc4 ±) 9 'il'b3 :b8 10 i.e3 ±,

3 ... d6 in view of I O ... i.g7 I I cxd6 cxd6 1 2 i.b6 'li'c8

Now after 4 dS, 4 ... ll:leS ! ? is possible, and 13 'i!Vb4. has scored rather well (with a lead in perfor d) 7 ... i.g7 8 cxd6 (after 8 i.bS+, 8 ... ll:ld7 9
mance rating for Black), and even 4 ... ll:lb8, in cxd6 cxd6 transposes, while 8 ... i.d7 9 "ii'b3 ;!;
tending ... c6 to break up the centre, isn't bad. is one good way to play it) 8 ... cxd6 9 i.bS+ (9

Instead, White usually plays: 'i!Va4+ is also good) 9 ... ll:ld7 10 0-0 (or 10 i.e3

4 ll:lc3 e5 0-0 I I ll:ld2 fS 1 2 f3 ) I 0 ... 0-0 I I i.e3 fS

The consistent move; anyway, at some point ( l l ...h6 1 2 ll:ld2 ! fS 1 3 f3 ll:lf6 14 i.e2 i.d7 I S

White's dS advance will become a bother, so ll:lc4 ll:lc8 1 6 a4 ± Fyllingen-H.Hageslither,

Black can't delay this indefinitely. Norwegian Team Ch 1 997) 1 2 ll:lgS ll:lf6 and

5 d5 ll:le7 6 e4 (D) now 1 3 i.e2?! h6 ( 1 3 .. . fxe4 14 ll:lgxe4 ll:lfS I S
i.gS 'i!Vb6 1 6 'i!Vd2 and White has a modest
edge) 14 ll:le6 i.xe6 I S dxe6 fxe4 16 'i1Vb3 b6

( 1 6 ... dS 17 i.cS) 17 :act I left White only

8 slightly better in J.Cooper-Trois, Buenos Ai
res Olympiad 1 978, but 1 3 'i!Vb3 ! fxe4 14 i.c4 !

�h8 I S ll:lcxe4 lLlfS 1 6 ll:lxf6 i.xf6 1 7 ll:le6
i.xe6 1 8 dxe6 ll:lxe3 1 9 fxe3 !, planning .idS,
is much more promising.

7 g3

Several good moves are possible here, but
this one is simple, preventing ... ll:lf4 and getting
developed.

7 ... i.e7 8 i.g2 0-0 (D)

6 ... ll:lg6

This is not an ideal place for the knight, and w it prevents Black from fianchettoing, but there
isn't a good alternative. At first it looks as
though 6 ... g6 might get Black into a conven
tional King's Indian, but that dream is shattered
by 7 cS ! . This is an invaluable break which
causes Black more problems than he should
want to deal with. In fact, 7 cS ! has scored so
well that it has almost completely driven 6 ... g6
from high-level play:

a) 7 ... ll:ld7? 8 cxd6 cxd6 9 ll:lbS ! ll:lcS (not

9 ... ll:lb8?? 10 'i!Va4) 10 b4 (or 1 0 i.e3 a6 I I
i.xcS ! ±, hoping for l l ...dxcS?? 1 2 'i!Va4 ! ) 9 0-0

I O .. . ll:lxe4 I I "ii'c2, with threats on both c 7 and I like 9 ll:ld2 with the idea ll:lfl -e3: 9 ... ll:ld7
e4. (9 ... c6 10 ll:lfl i.d7 I I ll:le3 ;!;) 10 ll:lfl (or I 0 260 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

h4! h6 I I h5 lt:lh8 1 2 lt:lf3 a5 1 3 ..te3 with space 4 a3 and better development) I O ... ..tg5 l l ..txg5 (or White stops ... ..tb4, as we did versus the

I I lt:le3 ;\;) l l ...'ir'xg5 1 2 h4 'i!Vd8 1 3 lt:le3, English Defence. An alternate line for the stra Chernin-Blatny, New York 1 996. tegic player is 4 lt:lc3 ..tb4 5 'ir'c2. On the other

9 ••. lt:le8 hand, 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 ..tb4+ 6 lt:lc3 lt:le7 1eads

9 ... c6 10 'ir'd3 "i!ic7 1 1 ..te3 ..td7 ( I I ...lt:lg4 to a double-edged position in which White is

12 ..td2 ..td7 1 3 h3 lt:lf6 14 l:.ac l ) 1 2 l:.ac l ;\;. unlikely to do better than equalize.

10 ..te3 f5 11 exf5 ..txf5 12 lt:ld2 ..ig5 (D) 4 ... d6

This may look a little strange, but Black has

in mind ... g6, ... ..tg7, ... 0-0 and ... e5, reaching a
sort of King's Indian, and in this position he
w feels that the loss of time by ... e6-e5 will tend to
be negated by White's slow move a3. Other
moves have their own drawbacks:

a) 4 ... g6 5 lt:lc3 i.g7 6 e4 (6 d5 lt:le7 7 d6! ?)

and then:

a l ) 6 ... d5?! 7 e5 lt:le4 8 i.d3 lt:lxc3 9 bxc3
dxc4 1 0 i.xc4 (D).

B

13 ..txg5

Or 1 3 lt:lde4! ..txe3 14 fxe3.

13 ... 1!i'xg5 14 lt:lde4 'ili'h6 15 c5

White has a slight advantage, Yerrnolinsky

I.Nogueira, New York 1 997.

12.512)

3 ... e6 (D)

A nice attacking set-up for White: I O ... lt:la5

I I ..id3 c5 1 2 i.g5 !? ( 1 2 0-0 is also good)

w 1 2 ... 'ir'c7 1 3 lt:ld2 ( 1 3 h4 h6 1 4 i.e3 and 1 3 0-0
also offer White an edge) 1 3 ... 0-0 ( 1 3 ... cxd4

1 4 cxd4 'ir'c3? 1 5 i.b5+ lt:lc6? 1 6 l:.c l 'ii'xd4

1 7 l:.xc6 +- Bocharov-Vlassov, Russia Cup,

Tomsk 200 1 ) 14 0-0 cxd4 15 cxd4 'ir'c3 ( 1 5 ... b6

1 6 lt:le4 i.b7 1 7 lt:lf6+ ..txf6 1 8 i.xf6 'i!Vc6 1 9

'ir'g4 with good chances; against 1 5 ... lt:lc6, in
stead of ECO's 1 6 lt:lf3, 1 6 lt:le4! tt:lxd4 1 7
lt:lf6+ 'iii>h8 1 8 l:.el ! i s virtually winning - the
attack is far too strong) 16 tt:le4! 'ir'xd4 1 7 tt:lf6+

'iii>h8 1 8 l:.e I +- Rogozenko-Vlassov, Internet
rapid 2001 .

With this flexible move, it appears that Black a2) 6 ... d6 7 ..te2 0-0 8 0-0 l:.e8 9 i.e3 (or 9
is seeking some kind of Nimzo- or Bogo-Indian h3 e5 10 dxe5 dxe5 1 1 ..te3 ;\;; for example,

(after ... ..tb4), or Queen's Gambit Declined (af I I ...tt:lh5 1 2 'i!Vxd8 tt:lxd8 1 3 l:.fd l lt:lf4 14 i.fl
ter ... d5). c6 1 5 c5) 9 ... e5 10 d5 !? ( ) 0 dxe5 tt:lxe5 1 1

ASSORTED DEFENCES 261

.!DxeS �xeS 1 2 f3 ;!;) I O ... .!Dd4 I I :e1 .!Dxe2+ This is the main move. In games without it,

1 2 �xe2 .!DhS 1 3 .!De I ! ? ( 1 3 h3 has the idea White can consider favourable simplification;

1 3 ... .!Df4 14 �xf4 exf4 1 S 'iVd2 gS 1 6 �ae 1 ! h6 e.g., 6 ... �g7 and then:

17 eS ;!;) 13 ... .!Df4!? 14 �c2 fS I S f3 fxe4 16 a) 7 .!De4!? h6 8 �xf6 �xf6 9 .!Dxf6+ 'ii'xf6

.!Dxe4 b6 1 7 .!Dd3 �h6 18 'ith I with a positional 10 e4 (space!) I O ... eS I I dS .!Db8 ( l l ....!Dd4!? edge for White due to the outpost on e4 and 12 .!Dxd4 exd4 1 3 'iVd2 c6 14 �d3 'iV g7 IS 0-0
prospects of playing cS, Portisch-Wilhelmi, 0-0 16 �ac l cS 17 b4 ;!;) 1 2 �c l !? .!Dd7 1 3 b4

Frankfurt rapid 1 997. aS 1 4 �d3 c6 1 S dxc6 ( 1 S O-O cS ! ? t) I S ... bxc6
b) 4 ... dS S .!Dc3 and now: 1 6 0-0 'itf8 1 7 �d 1 'itg7 1 8 �e2 cS ! ? 1 9 bS
b 1 ) S ... dxc4 6 e4 .!DaS 7 �xc4 .!Dxc4 8 with a clear advantage for White in Wang Yue 'iVa4+ .!Dd7 9 'iVxc4 cS I 0 �e3 ! with a slight ad Deepan Chakkravarthy, World Under- 16 Ch,
vantage for White, Yakovich-V1assov, Moscow Iraklion 2002. Ch 1996. b) 7 e3 and now:

b2) S ... �e7 can be met with 6 �f4 0-0 7 e3 b l ) 7 ... aS, to hold down the queenside, leads

;!; or 6 e3 0-0 7 �d3; Black's knight is poorly to a typical position following 8 �d3 0-0 9 0-0
placed on c6. eS 10 dS .!De? 1 1 i&'c2 ( I I e4 is an odd King's
b3) Orlov's S ... g6 is well answered by 6 Indian; White gets a quick b4 in and I suspect

�f4 a6 7 e3 �g7 8 �c 1 0-0 9 h3 �d7 1 0 �d3 ;!; he has an edge, but this is hard to assess) 1 l ... h6

Silman-Franett, Las Vegas 1 992. White has a 1 2 �h4 .!DhS 13 �xe7 (not terrible, but a little
classic advantage based on Black's cramped strange; 1 3 �e2 fS 14 .!Dd2 .!Df6 I S f3 keeps
pieces. things flexible) 1 3 ... 'iVxe7 (Zdebskaya-Toth,
b4) S ... a6 6 cxdS exdS 7 �gS �e7 8 e3 h6 9 Balatonlelle 2003) and now 14 .!Dd2 fS 1S f3

�h4 0-0 10 �d3 �e6 ( 1 0 ... .!De4 1 1 �xe7 .!Dxc3 slows Black down before White proceeds on

12 �xd8 .!Dxd I 1 3 �xd I .!Dxd8 14 l:tc 1 c6 I S b4 the queenside.

;!; Kasparov) 1 1 0-0 .!Dd7 1 2 �g3 �d6 (Kaspa b2) 7 ... 0-0 8 .!De4 .!Db8 9 �e2 (9 h4! .!Dbd7
rov-Yerrnolinsky, Erevan Olympiad 1 996) 1 3 I 0 hS ;!;) 9 ... .!Dbd7 10 .!Dc3 !? b6 I I �c2 �b7 12 'iVc2 �xg3 1 4 hxg3 .!De7 1 S .!Da4 c 6 1 6 b4 ± �d I ( 1 2 h3 creates an escape-square versus

Kasparov. ... h6, ... gS and ... .!DhS) 1 2 ... 1i'e7 1 3 0-0 h6 14

5 .!Dc3 g6 6 �g5 (D) �h4 gS IS �g3 .!DhS 16 dS ! .!Dxg3 17 hxg3

.!DeS 1 8 .!DxeS �xeS 1 9 �f3 �ab8 20 .!DbS a6

21 .!Dd4 �xd4 22 exd4! ? with a slight advan

tage for White, Ehlvest-Nakamura, Minneapo

B lis 200S.

7 �h4 g5!? 7 ... �g7 8 e3 .!De? !? 9 �d3 .!DfS 10 �xf6

'iVxf6 I I 0-0, as in Pecorelli Garcia-Delgado,

Varadero 2000, pits the bishop-pair against

White's territorial advantage in the centre and

(soon) on the queenside.

8 �g3 (D)

8 ... g4 8 ... �g7 9 e3 (9 h3, versus ... g4 and to pre-
serve the bishop on h2, is the kind of position

White should like) 9 .. .'iJ/e7 (9 ... .!DhS !) 10 'iVc2

A rather unusual move. White is willing to ( 10 h3 is again possible) I O ... b6 I I 0-0-0 ( I I dS
give up the bishop-pair to consolidate his space .!Dd8 12 .!Dd4 ;!;) l l ...�b7 12 dS ! .!Db8 (Moran
advantage. Objectively, White will only get a Nuque-J.Stone, Dos Hermanas 2004) and now
minor edge against precise play, but he achieves White gets a comfortable advantage with the
a safe position from which to outplay the oppo centralizing 1 3 .!Dd4!, having �d3 and even
nent. dxe6 in mind.

6 •.. h6 9 .!Dgl 262 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

12.52)

B 1 d4 lLlc6
l ...lLlc6 can be used versus I c4, and to a
lesser extent against I e4, without straying too
far from conventional ideas. However, in reply
to I d4, the knight move may be too provoca
tive.

2 d5

This is the most obvious move, and gives

White a pleasant game. 2 c4 can transpose into
a Chi gorin Defence after 2 ... d5 or to a Black

Knights Tango after 2 ... lLlf6. That would be
fine from the point of view of our repertoire, ex

9 d5 gxf3 I 0 dxc6 bxc6 I I gxf3 is also inter cept that Black also has the option of 2 ... e5,
esting. which is quite respectable and leads to unique

9 •.. lLlh5 10 e3 ltJxg3 11 hxg3 h5 play.

Aficionados of the Smyslov Variation versus 2 ••• lLle5 (D) the King's Indian will recognize that several of

the positions in this section resemble that varia
tion. Usually both players will castle queenside
before initiating action. w

12 i.d3

White wants to control f5 in case of ... e5.

12 ••• i.g7 13 ltJge2 e5 {D)

w

Black is playing a mirror-image Alekhine

Defence. The idea is to tempt White's pawns
forward and then break up the centre.

3 f4

This is White's most forcing and ambitious
move. 3 e4 yields a small but pleasant advan
tage after 3 ... e6:

This is Sashikiran-Bologan, Linares 1 999, a) 4 lLlc3 exd5 5 exd5 is good, with the idea
which continued 14 dxe5 lLlxe5 ! ( 1 4 ... dxe5 can 5 ... lLlf6 6 'fi'e2 'ili'e7 7 d6! cxd6 8 i.g5 t.

be met by 1 5 11i'c2 or 1 5 i.e4) 1 5 11i'c2 i.d7 16 b) 4 dxe6 !? fxe6 (after 4 ... dxe6 5 'ili'xd8+

0-0-0 1li' g5 1 7 lLlf4 0-0-0 = . I think White should Wxd8, one idea is 6 i.f4 i.d6 7 i.d2 t intend
have tried 14 d5; e.g., l4 ... lLlb8 ( 1 4 ... lLle7 1 5 ing to play lLlc3, f4 and 0-0-0) 5 lLlc3 ! (this

'fi'b3 and now 1 5 .. . f5 1 6 e4! or 1 5 .. . l:.h6 1 6 forces Black to make a committal move) 5 ... b6!?

0-0-0 Wf8 17 l:.h2, thinking about simply l:.dh 1 ) (5 ... i.c5?? 6 'ii'h5+ costs Black a piece; 5 ... ltJf6

1 5 'iVc2 ltJd7 16 0-0-0 'ili'f6 1 7 i.f5 (White has 6 f4 lLlc6 7 e5 lLlg8 8 lLlf3 t) 6 lLlf3 (or 6 f4 lLlf7 been seeking this exchange of light-squared 7 lLlf3 t) 6 ... lLlf7 ! ? (after 6 ... lLlxf3+ 7 'fi'xf3
bishops) 17 ... lLlc5 1 8 i.xc8 l:.xc8 1 9 l:.dfl with i.b7 8 'ili'g3 ! it's hard for Black to develop; e.g.,
the moves e4 and f4 or f3 in mind. 8 ... lLlf6 9 i.e2! g6 I 0 i.f3 d6 I I e5 lLlh5 1 2

ASSORTED DEFENCES 263

'ii'g4 i.xf3 1 3 �xf3 d5 1 4 g4 li:Jg7 1 5 i.h6

planning 0-0-0 and h4) 7 i.d3 i.b7 8 0-0 t'i:Jf6 9

'ii'e2 i..e7 1 0 e5 t'i:Jd5 1 1 t'i:Jxd5 i.xd5 1 2 i.e4 w i.xe4 1 3 'ii'xe4 t.

3 • . • t'i:Jg6 4 e4 e5

4 ... e6 5 dxe6! transposes.

5 dxe6! (D)

Not 5 f5? 'ii'h4+ 6 �d2 t'i:Jf6! 7 'ii'f3 (7 li:Jc3
i.b4 or 7 i.d3 li:Jxe4+ 8 i.xe4 'ii'xe4 9 fxg6

'ii'xg2+ I 0 li:Je2 'ii'xd5+ and Black ends up
with four pawns and an attack for the piece)

7 ... t'i:Jxe4+ 8 'it>e2 li:Jf4+ 9 ..txf4 'ii'xf4 1 0 'ii'xf4
exf4 1 1 'iii>f3 t'i:Jf6 +.

Black can't save them both with 1 2 ... d6?

( 1 2 ... d5 1 3 li:Jxc5 0-0 I4 t'i:Jd3 ±) because of 1 3

B i.g5 'ii'd7 I 4 0-0-0 ..tb6 I 5 ..tb5 ! .

12.53}

1 d4 b5 2 e4 a6 (D)

w

5 .•. fxe6

5 ... dxe6 6 'ii'xd8+ 'it>xd8 gives White a pull;
e.g., 7 t'i:Jf3 i.c5 8 li:Jc3 t'i:Jf6 9 ..td3 a6 10 h3
i.d7 I I i.d2 t with the idea 0-0-0.

6 t'i:Jf3

6 h4!? is an original idea. White has the
better of it after 6 ... i..c5 ! ? (6 ... t'i:Jxh4 7 \i'g4!

t'i:Jg6 8 %hh7 !) 7 h5 t'i:J6e7 8 h6 g6 9 t'i:Jf3 d5 10
li:Jc3, intending 1 0 ... t'i:Jf6 1 1 li:Jg5 ! . This is called the St George Defence, and is

6 . . . ..tc5 7 li:Jc3 t'i:Jh6 better known via the move-order 1 e4 a6 2 d4

7 ... d6 8 li:Ja4 i.b6 9 li:Jxb6 axb6 1 0 h4 with b5. an advantage for White - Ruban. 3 t'i:Jf3 i..b7 4 i.d3 t'i:Jf6

8 f5! li:Jh4 (D) 4 ... e6 will usually transpose, although White

8 ... exf5 9 ..tg5 t'i:Je7 (9 ... i..e7 1 0 i..xh6 gxh6 gets time to play 5 0-0 and .l:.e 1 , for example, or

1 1 exf5) I 0 i.xh6 gxh6 l i 'fi'd2 ± (Minasian & 5 a4. The main point would be to avoid the fol

Nadanian). lowing note 'b' .

From the position after 8 ... li:Jh4, Ara.Mina 5 t'i:Jbd2 sian-Teran Alvarez, Ubeda 1 999 continued 9 Or: g3?! t'i:Jxf3+ 10 'fi'xf3 with only a slight edge. a) Another effective line is 5 'fi'e2 e6 6 a4 c5

Instead, 9 li:Jg5 ! is practically winning; e.g., (6 ... t'i:Jc6! ?) 7 dxc5 i.xc5 8 t'i:Jbd2 b4 9 e5 t'i:Jd5

9 ... exf5 (9 ... 0-0 10 'fi'h5 traps the knight on h4, 10 li:Je4 ..te7 and now 1 1 0-0 or 1 1 .ig5, but I
as does 9 ... g6 10 g3) 1 0 'ii'h5+ li:Jg6 1 1 exf5 think the knight move is better, reserving 'ii'e2
t'i:Jxf5 I 2 li:Jge4!. White attacks two pieces and as an option.

264 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

b) Avrukh believes that 5 e5 ltJd5 6 ltJg5 ! 7 .i.xc5 8 e5 ltJd5 9 ltJe4 .i.e7 10 a4 b4 1 1 .••
gives Black "serious problems". His analysis ltJfd2! (D) goes 6 ... e6 (6 ... ltJb4 7 .i.e4 .i.xe4 8 ltJxe4 gives 1 1 c4 bxc3 1 2 bxc3, with the idea .ia3, is

White much better prospects - Avrukh) 7 'i!Vf3 ! good, but the text-move threatens ltJc4 and is
f5 (7 ... 'i!Ve7 8 ltJxh7 ! ltJc6 9 c3 0-0-0 10 'i!Ve2 f6 even more convincing. I I a4! may not be so clear but is better for

White) 8 exf6 (8 ltJc3 ltJb4! 9 'il'xb7 ltJ8c6 10
ltJxb5 axb5 1 1 'i!Vxb5 ltJxd4 with counterplay)

8 ... 'i1Vxf6 9 .i.xh7 ! and "White has an extra B pawn", Kozhukharov-Vasilev, Sofia 2006. But

Black can still cause some difficulties with

9 ... 'i!Vxf3 (or 9 ... .i.d6!?) 10 .i.g6+ d8 1 1 ltJxf3
ltJe7 followed by ... .i.xf3, which at any rate is
less than a clear advantage. So maybe the main
line with 5 ltJbd2 is just as good or better.

5 ••• e6 6 0-0 (D)

B

1 1 ••• 0-0 l i ...ltJc6 1 2 ltJc4 0-0 1 3 'i1Vh5 g6 1 4 ii'h6 f5
and now 1 5 ltJg5 .i.xg5 1 6 .i.xg5 ± is suffi
cient.

12 'i1Vh5

Or 1 2 ltJc4 f5 1 3 exf6 ltJxf6 14 ltJxf6+ .i.xf6
and now 1 5 'i1Vh5 yielded some advantage in

Khasangatin-Kutuzov, Pardubice 2004, but 1 5

'i!Vg4! gives White a significant positional edge
and the initiative.

12 ••• g6 13 'i1Vh6 f5 14 exf6 .i.xf6 15 ltJxf6+

6 ... c5 ltJxf6

6 ... iJ..e7 is more cautious but gives White Now: time to achieve his goals; for example, 7 e5 a) 1 6 'i1Vh4 gives White pleasant dark-square
ltJd5 8 a4 b4 9 ltJe4 0-0 (9 ... a5 10 c4 bxc3 1 1 control. bxc3 with c4 next, Oll-Bogaerts, European Ju b) I 6 ltJc4 and now in the game Leski-Boog,
nior Ch, Groningen 1 984/5) 1 0 ltJfg5 ! ( 1 0 c4 Geneva 1 986 Black blundered with 1 6 ... ltJe4 ??

bxc3 I I bxc3 ;!;) 10 ... h6 ( I O ... g6 1 1 'i!Vg4 is get ( 1 6 ... .i.d5 would limit White's advantage). Then
ting very dangerous) 1 1 ltJh7 xh7 1 2 ltJc5+ 1 7 .i.xe4! .i.xe4 1 8 ltJd6 wins; for example,

'jj;>g8 1 3 ltJxb7 'iVc8 14 ltJa5 ±, threatening 1 8 ... .i.xc2 ( 1 8 ... .i.c6 1 9 .i.g5 'i!Vc7 20 .i.e7) 1 9 .i.xh6. .i.g5 'i!Vb6 20 ltJe8 ! .l:tf7 (20 .. Jhe8 2 1 .i.f6) 2 I

7 dxc5!? ltJf6+ h8 2 2 ltJxh7 !.

7 c3 is also possible, with a normal edge de
riving from superior central control. Then Black 12.54) has to be careful not to fall a tempo behind our
main line by 7 ... .i.e7?! (7 ... cxd4 8 cxd4 is more 1 d4 b5 2 e4 .ib7?! precise, when 8 ... .ie7 follows, but not 8 ... ltJc6?! I simply don't believe in this one. 9 d5 ! exd5 10 e5 ! ; e.g., 10 ... ltJh5 I I ltJb3 with 3 .i.xb5! the idea g4, leading to l l ...g6 1 2 .i.g5 .i.e7 1 3 It's amazing that the majority of players

.ih6 .if8 1 4 'i!Vd2 ±) 8 dxc5 .i.xc5 9 e5 ltJd5 1 0 choose 3 .id3 or 3 f3 here. ltJe4 .i.e7 I I .i.g5. 3 ••• .i.xe4 4 ltJf3 (D)

ASSORTED DEFENCES 265

is that a later d5 can't be answered by ... c6,

while the bishop will be well-placed for attack

B ing purposes on c2. Instead, the game Kram
nik-Carlsen( !), Moscow rapid 201 1 continued

8 d5 (also strong) 8 ... 0-0 9 ..tf4 lt:la6 1 0 .l:r.el

'ii'c8 l l lt:ld4 ..tb4 ( l l .....td6!?) 1 2 ..tg5 lt:le8?

1 3 .l:r.e3?! ( 1 3 'ii'a4! wins) 13 ... c6 14 ..txa6 ..txa6

15 'iVh5 f6 16 .l:r.h3 fxg5 1 7 'ii'xh7+ �f7 1 8

'ii'h5+ ( 1 8 dxe6+ dxe6 1 9 lt:le4) 1 8 ... �g8 1 9

'ii'h7+ �f7 20 lt:le4 ±. Probably the last l ... b5
with 2 ... ..tb7?! that we'll see on this level for a
long time!

8 • • • 0-0 9 d5 Or

Now White is playing a Sokolsky position a a) 9 ..tc2 d6 and now 10 d5 is still good, or
full tempo up, i.e., a reversed version of 1 b4 e5 10 .l:r.el lt:lbd7 I I ..tf4 ;!;. 2 ..tb2 ..txb4 3 ..txe5 lt:lf6 with the extra move b) 9 .l:r.e l d6 10 d5 ! e5 and although 1 1 ..te3
d4. This happens to be a variation in which was better for White in Danielsen-J.Fries Niel

White (playing 1 b4) struggles even to equalize. sen, Klaksvik 2006, he could have achieved the

Often in a 'reversed' opening, an extra tempo desired 1 1 c5 ! for free in view of l l ... dxc5 1 2
comes with some compensating disadvantages, lL!xe5 lt:lxd5 ( 1 2 .. . ..txd5? 1 3 ..tg5 +- with the
however slight, but there don't seem to be any idea 1 3 ... ..tb7 14 'ii'b3 or 1 3 ... c6 1 4 lt:lxd5
here. 'ii'xd5 1 5 ..tb3 ! 'ii'xd1 1 6 .l:r.axd l ) 1 3 'ii'g4 ( 1 3

4 ••. e6 5 0-0 lt:lf6 6 c4 'ii'f3 ! ?) 1 3 ... lt:lxc3 14 bxc3 ±.

When strong players have reached this posi 9 ••• lt:la6 10 a3 lt:lc5 l l ..tc2 aS 12 ..te3 exd5 tion, they have almost always chosen this move, 13 cxd5 g6?! 14 .l:r.e1 lt:lh5 15 lt:le5 which again is quite effective in the reversed Or 1 5 'ii'd2 ! ; White is beginning to take
position. White could also play 6 .l:.e 1 , continu charge. ing 6 ... ..te7 7 c4; in this case, Black should 15 ••• lt:lg7?! 16 ..td4 avoid 6 ... c5? 7 lLlc3 ..tb7 8 d5 !, when the e By now Black is really in a bad way; for
pawn hangs, but 8 .. .'ii'b6? virtually loses to 9 example, 16 ... d6 17 lt:lc6 ±. Instead 1 6 ... a4?

lt:lg5 ! (or 9 lt:le5 ..te7 10 lt:lc4 'ii'd8 1 1 ..tg5). was played in the game Wojtkiewicz-Bronstein

6 ••• ..te7 7 lt:lc3 ..tb7 (D) (yes, that one !), Reykjavik 1 994, when 1 7 lt:lg4
with the idea .l:r.xe7 is practically resignable for

Black; the only chance is 17 ... f6, but 1 8 lt:lb5 !

lt:la6 1 9 ..txa4 gives White a pawn and a huge
w position.

12.55)

1 d4 lt:lf6 2 c4 a6

This move isn't awful, but Black doesn't
have time to enjoy such luxuries. The same po
sition could also arise via 1 d4 a6 2 c4 lt:lf6, al
though it's unclear how Black benefits with that
move-order.

3 lt:lc3 c5 (D)

Black's idea is to reach Benko lines while
s ..ta4 denying White several of his options with re

This multi-purpose move is also used to spect to declining the pawn or accepting it
good effect in the reversed position. One point while leaving the knight on b l . However, the 266 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

seems to be a big improvement; for example,

9 ... exd5 1 0 cxd5 �b7 ( IO ... ltJxd5?? I I 'iVe2
w �e7 1 2 �c4 ltJf6 1 3 ltJd6+ �f8 1 4 ltJxf7) I I

�g5 .i.xd5 I 2 'ii'e2 �e6 I 3 f4! d5 I 4 ltJxf6+
gxf6 I 5 .i.h4 ±.

1 2 . 56)

1 d4 e5?!

Come now.

2 dxe5 ltJc6

The Englund Gambit. The problem is that

White has no weaknesses and is equal in devel
opment!

move ... a6 itself may tum out to be not so useful 2 ... d6 3 exd6 �xd6 was once promoted by
in certain lines. Smith & Hall, but 4 ltJf3 (or 4 ltJc3) 4 ... ltJc6 5

4 d5 �g5 with the idea e3 looks like a refutation.

4 dxc5 is a conservative response which gives 3 ltJf3 'ii'e7 a small but definite advantage, as the move ... a6 Or: isn't so useful here: 4 ... e6 5 e4 ltJc6 (5 ... 'ii'c7?! a) The Hartlaub Gambit, 3 ... d6, is even
can be met favourably by 6 b4, while 6 f4 .i.xc5 worse than 2 ... d6 due to 4 �g5 !, recommended

7 e5 ltJg8 8 ltJe4 may be stronger) 6 �e3 'ii'a5 7 by Valeri Bronznik, who quotes 4 ... 'ii'd7 5 exd6

'ii'a4 (7 a3 ltJxe4 8 ltJge2 ;!;) 7 ... 'ii'xa4 8 ltJxa4 ..txd6 6 ltJc3 ..tb4 7 'ii'xd7+ �xd7 (A.Kolev
ltJxe4 9 f3 ltJf6 I 0 0-0-0 ;!;. Kaidanov calls this a Strickler, Lenk 1 989) 8 �d2! ±. clear advantage; Black is certainly cramped. b) Bronznik says something about Black

4 •.. b5 5 e4 having slight chances of gaining compensation

5 'ii'c2!? is also possible; compare our 4 'ii'c2 after 3 ... �c5 4 ltJc3 (he likes 4 �f4 ±) 4 ... f6 5
lines versus the Benko Gambit. Instead 5 cxb5 exf6 ltJxf6 6 �g5, but I can't imagine it. axb5 6 ltJxb5 �a6 7 ltJc3 (both sides have alter c) I'll take Bronznik's word for it and bor
natives in this sequence) transposes to a stan row his analysis on 3 ... ltJge7 4 ltJc3 (D): dard Benko Gambit Accepted, an opening we
are avoiding in this repertoire.

5 ... b4 6 ltJa4 ltJxe4 7 �d3 ltJf6 8 ltJxc5 e6 (D) B

w

c I ) 4 ... h6 5 e4 (Petri suggests 5 a3 ltJg6 6

'ii'd5, based upon 6 ... 'ii'e7 7 ltJb5 �d8, and here

White can get a positional advantage from any
of 8 �d2, Bronznik's 8 ltJbd4, 8 g3 and proba

Now Levitt gives 9 ltJa4?! exd5 10 .i.e3 bly a couple of others) 5 ... ltJg6 6 �b5 ltJgxe5 7
dxc4, which is at best unclear, but 9 ltJe4! ltJxe5 ltJxe5 8 'ii'h5 ! ? ltJg6 9 0-0 gives White

ASSORTED DEFENCES 267

terrific development and a meaningful ad van- 6 ••• .ib4 7 l:.b1 'ili'a3 (D) tag e.

c2) 4 ... lt:'lg6 5 .ig5 .ie7 6 .ixe7 'ilxe7 7

lt:'ld5 'ild8 8 'ild2 ! (this is Petri's move, based
upon 8 ... lt:'lgxe5?? 9 lt:'lxe5 lt:'lxe5 I 0 'ilc3) 8 ... h6 w (8 ... 0-0 9 'ilg5 ! lt:'lce7 I 0 lt:'lxe7+ 'ilxe7 I I

'if xe 7 lt:'lxe 7 1 2 e3 l:.e8 1 3 lt:'ld4!) 9 0-0-0 0-0 I 0

'ilc3 l:.e8 1 1 e3 lt:'lgxe5 1 2 lt:'lxe5 l:.xe5 1 3 f4
l:.e8 14 g4! d6 1 5 l:.gl ± (all analysis by Bronz
nik).

We now return to 3 ... 'i/e7 (D):

w

8 l:.b3

8 lt:'ld5 is also strong but a little compli
cated, so I'll just show the main variation:

8 ... ..ta5 9 .l:!.b5 .ixd2+ 10 'i�Vxd2 'it>d8 1 1 e4 (or

Avrukh's l l lt:'lg5 ! , which probably simplifies
matters) l l ... h6 ( l l ... a6 1 2 l:.b3 'ilxa2 and in
stead of 1 3 .ie2, 1 3 lt:'lc3 iVa 1 + 14 l:.b 1 'i�Va5 1 5

.ic4 is simple enough; for example, l 5 ... lt:'lge7

1 6 lt:'lg5 lt:'lxe5 1 7 .ixf7 d6 1 8 f4) 1 2 .ic4 ( 1 2
h4 b6 1 3 .ic4 'ilf8 was Grob's old analysis,

4 .if4 many years before computers, which Benja

Probably not the clearest line, but I am in min refuted with 14 lt:'lf4!) l 2 ... lt:'lge7 ( l 2 ... g5
cluding it to challenge some published assess l 3 h3 - Benjamin) l 3 0-0 lt:'lg6 14 l:.b3 'ila5 1 5
ments. Two other good moves: 'i!ke3 +-.

a) 4 lt:'lbd2 lt:'lxe5 5 lt:'lxe5 'i/xe5 6 lt:'lf3 'ili'f6 7 8 ... 'i/a5 9 a3 e4 ;!;. White has space, a central advantage and 9 e4 'Dge7 I 0 .ib5 is also good. potential play against Black's exposed queen. 9 ... .ixc3
b) 4 lt:'lc3 lt:'lxe5 5 lt:'ld5 (the simple 5 e4 has The greedy 9 ... .ixa3? loses to 10 l:.b5 'i�Va6
also scored well in practice) 5 ... lt:'lxf3+ 6 gxf3 I I e4 (BUcker). 'ild8 7 'il'd4 (7 .if4 d6 8 e4 ;!;) 7 ... d6 (San 10 .ixc3 'il'c5 1 1 e3 lt:'lge7 12 .id3 lt:'lg6

Marco's 7 ... lt:'le7 ! ? is best: 8 ..tg5 f6 9 .if4 ;!;) 8 1 2 ... 0-0?, as played in Ullrich-Petri, Darm

.ig5 f6 (8 ... �d7?? 9 .ih3 'ilxh3 l O lt:'lxc7+ and stadt 1993, can be met by the direct 1 3 .ixh7+

White wins, Korchnoi-E.Koning, Deume 1 978) 'it>xh7 1 4 lt:'lg5+ 'it>g6 1 5 lt:'le4 with the win of

9 .id2 lt:'le7 l O c4 ( 1 0 l:.gl is also possible) the queen or mate.

I O ... .ie6? ( l 0 ... c6 l l lt:'lf4 ;!;) is given by Smith 13 0-0 lt:'lgxe5 14 lt:'lxe5 lt:'lxe5 15 .ie2 f6 16

& Hall, but Schiller points out the direct I I .ib4 'i�Vb6 17 f4 lt:'lf7 lt:'lxf6+ gxf6 1 2 'ilxf6, winning. Pitkaenen-Nicholls, corr. 2009. Now White

4 • • • 'ilb4+ 5 .id2 'ilxb2 6 lt:'lc3 would have done well to play 1 8 i..c4; e.g.,

The classic Englund Gambit trap runs 6 18 ... d6 19 i.e I �c5 20 l:.c3 'ilb6 21 'ilh5 g6 22

.ic3?? .ib4 7 'ild2 .ixc3 8 'ilxc3 'ilc l#. 'ili'h4 0-0 23 ..tf2 ! ±.

I ndex of Va riations

A : 1 d4 d5

B: 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6

C: 1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 g6 B D: 1 d4: Other Lines

A)

1 d4 d5

2 c4

Now:

A 1 : 2 e6 •••

A2: 2 ••• c6

A3: Other Moves

Al) 5 •.. i..e7 10 5 ... c6 1 8 6 e3 i..f5 7 �f3 19

2 ... e6 6 e3 c6 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 8 7 i..d3 0-0

3 ... b6?! 65 8 lLlf3 lLlbd7 3 ... f5 66 9 �c2 l:le8 3 ... a6 66 10 0-0 tLlfS 3 ... ..tb4 65 1 1 h3 13 3 ... c6 100 Now: 3 ... ..te7 22 4 cxd5 exd5 5 ..tf4: l l ...tLlg6 1 5 a) 5 ... lLlf6 26 l l ...i..e6 /7 b) 5 ... c6 24

3 •.. c5 28 4 cxd5: A2) a) 4 ... cxd4 59
a l ) 5 �xd4 60 2 ... c6 86 a2) 5 �a4+ 60 5 ... 1J..d7 6 �xd4 exd5 7 �xd5 3 lLlc3 lLlf6 91
lLlc6 8 tLlf3 lLlf6: 3 ... a6 86
a2 1 ) 9 �d3 ! ? 64 3 ... dxc4 87 a22) 9 �b3 62 3 •.• e5 90 b) 4 ... exd5 28 5 lLlf3 lLlc6 6 g3 lLlf6 7 ..tg2 29 3 ••• e6 100 4 e3:

7 ... ..te7 8 0-0 0-0 9 ..tg5: a) 4 ... 1J..d6 100
b l ) 9 ... ..te6 30 b) 4 ... lLlf6 105 b2) 9 ... c4 32 c) 4 .. .f5 100: b3) 9 ... cxd4 36 10 lLlxd4 h6 1 1 ..te3 :e8 1 2 c I ) 5 i..d3 103
l:lc l ..tf8: c2) 5 g4 101:

b3 1 ) 1 3 �b3 37 c2 1 ) 5 .. .fxg4 101 b32) 13 a3 39 c22) 5 ... lLlf6 102

4 cxd5 exd5 4 e3 e6 105

4 ..• lLlxd5 8 4 ... 1J..f5 92

5 ..tg5 9 4 ... 1J..g4 93

INDEX OF VARIATIONS 269

4 ... g6 94 a) 9 e4 84 4 ... a6 97 b) 9 a4 85

5 lLlf3 tt'lbd7

5 ... a6 105 B)

6 b3 106

6 �d6 108 1 d4 tt'lf6

6 ••• b6 1 1 2 2 c4 e6

7 �e2 0-0 3 tt'lc3 �b4 8 0-0 109 3 .•. d5 8

Now: 4 e3 b6 126

8 ... tt'le4 109 4 ... d6 1 15

8 ... .l:!.e8 1 10 4 ... tt'le4 1 1 6

8 ... b6 1 1 1 4 ... tt'lc6 146

4 •.• d5 143

A3) 4 ... 0-0 139 5 lLle2 d5 6 a3 �e7:

a) 7 tt'lf4 140

2 dxc4 68 b) 7 cxd5:

2 ... tt'lf6?! 42 b l ) 7 ... tt'lxd5 140

2 ... c5 64 b2) 7 ... exd5 142

2 ... e5 54 3 dxe5 d4 4 tt'lf3 tt'lc6 5 tt'lbd2 55: 4 ... c5 1 1 7 5 tt'le2: a) 5 ... �g4 56 a) 5 ... b6 137
b) 5 ... tt'lge7 57 b) 5 ... cxd4 1 1 7 6 exd4:

c) 5 ... �f5 58 b l ) 6 ... 0-0 1 18 7 a3:

2 .. . �f5 42: b l l ) 7 ... �xc3+ 119 a) 3 cxd5 45 b l 2) 7 ... �e7 120
b) 3 tt'lf3 43 3 ... e6 4 tt'lc3 c6 5 'ii'b3 'ii'b6 6 b2) 6 ... d5 121:

c5 ! : b2 1 ) 7 c5 121
b 1 ) 6 ... 'ii'c7 43 b22) 7 a3 124
b2) 6 ... 'ii'xb3 44 5 tt'le2 �a6 127

2 ... tt'lc6 46 3 tt'lf3 �g4 4 tt'lc3 47 4 ... e6: 5 .•. 0-0 133 a) 5 cxd5 49 5 ... �b7 133 b) 5 �f4 52: 5 ... tt'le4 134 bl ) 5 ... �xf3 53 5 ... c5 137
b2) 5 ... tt'lf6 54 Now (after 5 ... �a6):

c) 5 �g5 49: 6 tt'lg3 127
c l ) 5 .. .f6 49 6 a3 130
c2) 5 ... �e7 51

3 lLlf3 lLlf6 72 C)

3 ... a6 69

3 ... c5 71 1 d4 lLlf6

4 e3 e6 75 2 c4 g6

4 ••• �e6 73 3 tt'lc3

4 ... �g4 74 Now:

5 �xc4 c5 C 1 : 3 ... d5 6 0-0 a6 C2: 3 ... �g7

6 ... cxd4 76

Now: 7 �d3 C l )

7 •.. cxd4 80 3 d5 1 78

7 •.. tt'lc6 81 4 cxd5 tt'lxd5

7 . . • tt'lbd7 82 8 .l:!.e l b5: 5 e4 tt'lxc3

270 A STRATEGIC CHESS OPENING REPERTOIRE FOR WHITE

6 bxc3 i.g7 e2 1 ) 8 ... l"Llc5 155

6 .•. b6 1 78 e22) 8 ... l"Llh5 157 6 ... c5 1 79 6 l"Lla6 162 Now (after 6 ... i.g7): 6 • . • e5? 161 7 i.g5 180 7 ... c5 8 l:tc I : 6 ••• l"Llc6 161 a) 8 ... cxd4 181 6 ••• a6 161 b) 8 ... h6 181 6 ••• l"Llbd7 161 c) 8 ... 0-0 182 6 .. J!Ve8 162 d) 8 .. .'i!i'a5 185 6 . • • h6 169 7 i.e3 e5 8 d5 l"Lla6 9 l"Llf3: 7 1!i'a4+ 187: a) 9 ... l"Llc5 1 70 a) 7 . ..li:Jc6 188 b) 9 ... l"Llh5 1 72 b) 7 ... c6 188 6 . • • c5 1 7 3 7 d5 e6 8 i.d3 exd5: c) 7 ... i.d7 189 a) 9 cxd5 196 d) 7 ... fi/d7 192 b) 9 exd5 / 74: e) 7 . ..Ci'Jd7 189 8 l"Llf3 0-0 9 i.g5: b l ) 9 ... l"Llbd7 1 74 e l ) 9 ... c5 190 b2) 9 ... l:te8+ 1 76 e2) 9 ... h6 191 7 tt::lf3 164

7 i.d3 162

C2) Now (after 7 tt::lf3):

7 .. .'i!i'e8 164

3 i.g7 7 ... e5 166 4 e4 d6

4 ... 0-0 148 0) 5 h3 148

1 d4 l"Llf6
l...e5?! 266 l...b5 2 e4:

B a) 2 ... i.b7?! 264
b) 2 ... a6 265
l ... l"Llc6 262 l. .. c5 2 d5 214: a) 2 ... b5 214
b) 2 ... f5 214
c) 2 ... d6 216
d) 2 ... e6 219
e) 2 ... e5 216
l. .. e6 2 c4: a) 2 ... c5 219
b) 2 ... b6 25/

5 0-0 c) 2 ... f5 232 3 l"Llc3:

5 • . • e5 149 c l ) 3 ... d5 66 5 .•. l"Llbd7 149 c2) 3 ... c6 232

6 i.g5 1 60 c3) 3 ... i.b4 254

6 i.e3 /5/: c4) 3 ... l"Llf6 232 a) 6 ... c6 152 d) 2 ... i.b4+ 254 3 l"Llc3: b) 6 ... l"Llbd7 151 d l ) 3 ... l"Llf6 1 15 c) 6 ... l"Lla6 151 d2) 3 ... d5 65 d) 6 ... c5 159 d3) 3 ... b6 255 e) 6 ... e5 152 7 d5 l"Lla6: d4) 3 ... c5 255 e l ) 8 i.d3 154 d5) 3 ... f5 254 e2) 8 l"Llf3: l ... f5 225 2 l"Llc3 (2 c4 225):

INDEX OF VARIATIONS 2 71

a) 2 ... e6 226 3 ••• g6 195
b) 2 ... g6 226 3 ••• b5 205 4 'ii'c2:

c) 2 ... d5 226 a) 4 ... b4 205
d) 2 ... tt::lf6 229 3 ..tf4 d6 4 e3: b) 4 ... g6 206
d l ) 4 ... e6 230 c) 4 ... d6 206
d2) 4 ... g6 231 d) 4 ... tt::la6! ? 206
l...d6 2 c4: e) 4 ... ..tb7 207
a) 2 .. .f5 224 f) 4 ... e6 208
b) 2 ... g6 3 e4 ..tg7 248 g) 4 ... bxc4 2/2
c) 2 ... tt::lf6 246 h) 4 ... 'ifa5+ 209:

d) 2 ... e5 244 h I ) 5 ..td2 2/0
l. .. g6 2 c4 (2 e4 ..tg7 3 c4 248): h2) 5 tt::lc3 2/0
a) 2 ... f5 224 h3) 5 tt::ld2 2 / /
b) 2 ... ..tg7 248 3 e4 d6 4 tt::lc3: 4 tt::lc3 exd5
bl ) 4 ... tt:lf6 /48 5 cxd5 d6 195
b2) 4 ... e5 248 5 ..• ..td6 222
b3) 4 ... f5 249 6 e4 g6
b4) 4 ... tt::lc6 249 7 ..td3 ..tg7
b5) 4 ... tt::ld7 250 8 h3 0-0

2 c4 c5 9 ..tg5 196

2 ... b6 257

2 ... a6 265

2 tt::lc6 258 3 tt::lf3: •..

a) 3 ... d6 259
b) 3 ... e6 260

2 ... d6 3 tt::lc3:

a) 3 ... ..tf5 246
b) 3 ... g6 4 e4 ..tg7 148
c) 3 ... tt::lbd7 247
d) 3 ... e5 246

2 •.. e5 3 dxe5:

a) 3 ... tt::le4 241 4 a3:

al ) 4 ... tt::lc6 241
a2) 4 ... ..Wh4 242
a3) 4 . . . b6 243
a4) 4 ... d6 244 Now:

b) 3 ... tt::lg4 235 4 ..tf4 ..tb4+ 5 tt::ld2 tt::lc6 6 9 ... a6 196
tt::lf3 �e7: 9 . . . 'ife8 196
b l ) 7 a3 240 9 ... 'ifa5 /97
b2) 7 e3 237 9 ... tt::lbd7 200

3 d5 e6 9 ... ..td7 204

3 ••• tt::le4 22/ 9 ... .l:te8 / 97

3 ... a6 195 9 ... h6 201 10 ..te3:

3 ... d6 / 95 a) IO ... b5 !? 203

3 ... e5 2 / 7 b) I O ... .l:te8 201

A Rock-Solid Chess Opening Repertoire FCO: Fundamental Chess Openings for Black Paul van der Sterren Viacheslav Eingorn The perfect single-volume survival guide to the

Grandmaster Eingom shows that it is possible chess openings! All openings are covered, with
both to play solidly, and to take White out of his explanations of the plans for both sides. The comfort zone. He recommends ideas and strategies explained will remain valid as long as
move-orders a little off the beaten track, carefully chess is played, and so the time spent studying
worked out over many years of his own practice. this book will be rewarded many times over. The repertoire, based on playing l ... e6, is I 480 pages. 248 x 1 72 mm; $29.95 £19.99 strikingly creative and will appeal to those who
want a stress-free life as Black. Understanding Chess Middlegames 192 pages, 210 x 145 mm; $23.95 I £14.99 John Nunn

The middlegame is the phase of the chess battle

The Gambit Book of Instructive where most games are decided, yet is the one that

Chess Puzzles has received the least systematic treatment from

Graham Burgess chess writers. With the outstanding clarity for

Solving chess puzzles is one of the most effective which he is famous, Nunn breaks down complex
ways to improve your game. This convenient problems into bite-sized pieces. Each of the I 00 book provides 300 exercises, with instructive lessons features two inspiring examples from
points highlighted in the solutions. There is modem chess, with a clear focus on the key something here for everyone: from puzzles based instructive points. on a clear-cut tactic or checkmate, through to 240 pages. 248 x 1 72 mm; $24.95 I £15.99 endgame challenges and high-level training in
chessboard decision-making. Chess Openings for Kids 1 60 pages, 194 x 132 mm; $16.95 I £10.99 John Watson & Graham Burgess

For chess-players of all ages and abilities, it is

Vishy Anand: World Chess Champion vital to get off to a good start. This book teaches

Vishy Anand & John Nunn the names and starting moves of all the main

Anand cemented his place in the all-time hall of chess openings, and explains the basic ideas. fame by winning the unified World Beginners will learn how to position their pieces

Championship in 2007, and successfully for maximum impact. More experienced players
defending his title against Kramnik and Topalov. may discover some remarkable themes that are

For this 20 1 2 edition, Grandmaster John Nunn vital for chess mastery. has annotated 30 extra games from the period 128 pages. 230 x 1 78 mm; $16. 95 1 £9.99 200 1 -20 I I . This new edition also features
biographical information and a career record. Instructive Modern Chess Masterpieces 544 pages, 210 x 145 mm; $29.95 I £18.99 Igor Stohl

A renowned grandmaster author selects 62

A Course in Chess Tactics outstanding games from recent years, and Dejan Bojkov & Vladimir Georgiev analyses them in painstaking depth. Stohl is a

Few books present a structured approach to famed theoretical expert, so the opening phase of
studying tactics, so this book fills a valuable each game is a lesson in itself. Each middlegame
niche. The authors present each major tactical is dissected in a quest for the truth, and the theme in tum, explaining how it works and endgame, if reached, is handled with similar providing inspiring examples. erudition.

192 pages. 248 x 1 72 mm; $22.95 I £14.99 448 pages, 248 x 1 72 mm; $34. 95 I £1 7.99

About the Publisher: Gambit is a specialist chess publishing company, passionate about produc ing innovative and instructive books suitable for all levels of player. The company is owned and run exclusively by chess masters and grandmasters.

www.gambitbooks.com

Table of Contents

- chapter that these distinctions make sense, and

- chapter is that Black plays an early ... c5, pro way, while others head off in different direc

- chapter - Section 8. 1 2 or 8.23) 6 i..d3 e6 !? is a

- Chapter 1 1 .

- Chapter 7 - on the Nimzo-Indian) S ... 0-0 6 e3