Sunteți pe pagina 1din 226
Win with the Stonewall Dutch Sverre Johnsen and Ivar Bern With a contribution by Simen Agdestein Rock solid or flexible — your choice! Win with the Stonewall Dutch Sverre Johnsen and Ivar Bern With a contribution from Simen Agdestein AMBET First published in the UK by Gambit Publications Ltd 2009 Copyright © Sverre Johnsen, Ivar Bern and Simen Agdestein 2009 The right of Sverre Johnsen, Ivar Bern and Simen Agdestein to be identified as the authors of this, work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. ISBN-13; 978-1-906454-07-4 ISBN-10: 1-906454-07-8 DISTRIBUTION: Worldwide (except USA): Central Books Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 SLN, England. Tel +44 (0)20 8986 4854 Fax +44 (0)20 8533 5821. E-mail: Gambit Publications Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 SLN, England, E-mail: info@ Website (regularly updated): Edited by Graham Burgess ‘Typeset by Petra Nunn Cover image by Wolff Morrow Printed in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Group, Trowbridge, Wilts. 10987654321 Gambit Publications Ltd Managing Director: Murray Chandler GM Chess Director: Dr John Nunn GM Editorial Director: Graham Burgess FM German Editor: Petra Nunn WEM Webmaster: Dr Helen Milligan WFM Contents Symbols Bibliography Preface Foreword Stonewall Invitation Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson Lesson 10 Lesson 11 Lesson 12 CoOIAnNaAWNH 7b3: Introduction The Critical 7 b3 We7 8 Ae5! 7 Wc2, 7 Ac3 and Rare 7th Moves 7 Bia Lines with a Delayed &f4 Early Deviations 44 with Dh3 2 c4: Non-Fianchetto Lines 2 ®f3: Non-Fianchetto Lines 2 Ac3 and 2 &g5 The Staunton Gambit and Rare 2nd Moves 14, 1 Af3 and 1 g3 Solutions to Exercises Index of Variations Index of Players Symbols + check White is slightly better +t double check equal position # checkmate Black is slightly better u brilliant move Black is much better ! good move Black is winning " interesting move championship 4 dubious move tt team tournament ? bad move 1-0 the game ends in a win for White ne blunder 'a-Y2 the game ends in a draw + White is winning 0-1 the game ends in a win for Black + White is much better (D) see next diagram Bibliography Modern Stonewall Dutch and General Stonewall Il, Aagaard, Quality Chess 2007 Starting Out: The Dutch Defence, McDonald, Everyman 2004 ECO A, 4th edition, Informator 2001 Positional Play, Dvoretsky and Yusupov, Batsford 1996 Grandmaster Repertoire 1 d4 Volume 1, Avrukh, Quality Chess 2008 ‘Nunn’s Chess Openings, Nunn, Burgess, Emms and Gallagher, Gambit/Everyman 1999 Trends in the Classical and Stonewall Dutch 2, Lalié, Trends 1996 ‘New in Chess Yearbooks, Nos. 47, 50, 55 Dutch: Non-Stonewall Lines Secrets of Opening Surprises (1), 5, 8, 9, New in Chess 2003-8 Leningrad System, Kindermann, Edition Olms 2005 Play the Classical Dutch, Williams, Gambit 2003 Understanding the Leningrad Dutch, Beim, Gambit 2002 Classical Dutch, Pinsky, Everyman 2002 Opening for White according to Kramnik 1 ©f3, Khalifman, Chess Stars 2001 Teoria actualidad en aperturas No. 12, (Moreno), December 1997 How to Play Black against the Staunton Gambit, Schiller and Colias, Chess Digest 1993 Minor Sources Beating Unusual Openings, Palliser, Everyman 2007 Win with the London System, Johnsen and Kovatevié, Gambit 2005 Dutch Defense, New and Forgotten Ideas!, Minev and Donaldson, Thinker’s Press 2003 Ideas Behind Modern Chess Openings, Lane, Batsford 2003 101 Chess Opening Surprises, Burgess, Gambit 1998 A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire, Summerscale, Everyman 1998 The Contemporary Anti-Dutch, Martin, Tournament Chess 1990 1.Sc3 Sleipner-Erdfjnung, Aasum, Edition Midler 1988 ‘Mid:spiller, Euwe and Kramer, Dansk Skakforlag ca. 1955 (Danish edition of ‘The Middle Game’ ) Electronic Sources Mega Database 2009 Correspondence Database 2006 ChessBase Magazine 105, 120 and 121 Dutch Defence A90-A99, Schipkov, ChessBase 2002 Preface By Sverre Johnsen Thave for a long time been fascinated and mystified by the Stonewall Dutch. In my active yea tournament player, most of the Norwegian chess elite played it — probably inspired by Simen Agdestein’s successes. The system seemed easy to learn but yet [could never quite pinpoint why in one game Black was successful and in another completely destroyed. Having co-authored this book, a lot of questions have been answered and I hope the reader too will increase his chess under- standing ~ not only of the Stonewall Dutch but of chess in general. The format is slightly experi- mental but we hope it will help involve the reader actively in the study of this unique opening Work Distribution When I first decided to write on the Stonewall Dutch, I contacted Norwegian Stonewall pioneer GM Simen Agdestein, who indeed was interested and at the first opportunity gave me a crash course, which was the basis for the first seven chapters of this book. Unfortunately, it soon became clear that Simen didn’t have the time to give the project his full attention. Luckily I found the per- fect replacement — Norwegian Correspondence World Champion Ivar Bern. The selection of games was to some extent influenced by Simen and later modified by Ivar. With a few exceptions I annotated all the games with the help of Mega Database 2008, Rybka 2.3 and Fritz 11. Some have later been reviewed and changed to the extent that very little of the original text and analysis is left unchanged. This is in particular the case with the games in the theoretically criti- cal lines and for Ivar’s and Simen’s own games (this is reflected in the notes, which are written from the players’ perspective) Except for Lessons 1 and 2 and for his annotations of his own games, Simen’s input mostly was of a rather general character. When Ivar took over as the theoretical authority, he accepted special responsibility for the theoretically most challenging lessons: 2 (which was heavily rewritten), 4, 7 and for the 2 “c3 part of Lesson 11. For Lessons 1 (which had already received a lot of input from Simen), 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10, Ivar's role was more that of a reviewer and advisor. Ivar preferred to keep his hands off Lesson 12 as he had little experience with it and — more importantly — because he had fundamental reservations against 1...f5 when White hasn't weakened his e4-square by playing d4. Consequently this chapter is solely my responsibility. I did, however, receive valuable input from GM Berge @stenstad, who pointed out several areas in need of further research. Acknowledgements I want to thank GM Leif Johannessen for providing valuable material and for his help with check- ing the manuscript. This was done at a late stage, when it was no longer possible to make funda- mental changes, but was still of great help. . I must also thank ‘Sjakkbutikken’ and @ystein Brekke who in the hectic days before an extended deadline even gave me moves over the phone from books I had ordered but would not have in my hands for a couple of days During the entire process, Belgian Stonewall expert and enthusiast Helmut Froeyman was there as a valuable contributor. He was my main discussion partner in the early planning stage, found some very important resources for Black, discovered countless improvements on our analysis and saved us from some embarrassing mistakes. Oslo, May 2009 Sverre Johnsen Foreword By Simen Agdestein The Stonewall is an opening you can fall in love with. I did so more than 20 years ago (am I really that old?) and the relationship is still intense. I didn’t discover this adventurous set-up quite on my own though. I must thank IM Knut Helmers, who at that time, in the mid-1980s, assisted me before and during some tournaments, for introducing me to this new world. He in tum was inspired by some Danish IMs and, | think, in par- ticular by Jens Kristiansen. But typically the lesser-known players haven't got the credit they de- served for their new ideas. Artur Yusupov and Sergei Dolmatov have been more fortunate and are deservedly connected with the development of this opening, Also Nigel Short from England had the Stonewall in his rep- ertoire in these early days and contributed many ideas. These were my Stonewall gurus even though more players obviously contributed to its development. With no Internet, no ChessBase, and barely any computers, games and ideas weren't that easily spread. Informator was important and I remember we collected games from Shakhmaty 64. But still that was nothing compared to now. So I wonder from where these players got the same ideas. However, their games and ideas weren’t so easy to copy. The opening was simply too broad and the plans too many, There seemed to be room for everyone. There were no theory books on the opening and very few games. And small deviations could change the positions dramatically. The new realization was that the queen’s bishop didn’t necessarily have to zigzag over to the kingside with the manoeuvre ....2d7-e8-h5/g6. Why not just develop it to b7? Or even to a6? Who could talk about a bad bishop then? ‘The Stonewall is a very old opening, but perhaps the real forefathers were confused by the name. When you erect a wall of stones you may think that you should stay rock solid and defend against any assaults, That is definitely not the modern interpretation of the opening. Actually the whole name could be changed. The pawn-structures you get when Black develops his light-squared bishop to the queenside have very little to do with a stonewall. All those different pawn-structures you may get were one of the main reasons for my excite- ment, White could fix the centre by taking on d5 with the c-pawn, but who would then sit there with a bad bishop? If Black recaptures with the c-pawn, the light-squared bishop has a great diagonal from a6 while its opposite number on g2 is biting on rock. Nimzowitsch’s old thesis that a good bishop is one that operates on squares opposite to your own fixed pawns simply isn’t correct. It's quite obvious that a bishop on a6 with a great view straight into White’s camp is a good piece, but sometimes it’s hard to oppose the authorities by arguing against some basic principles. If you're not afraid of having hanging pawns on c5 and d5, then there is practically nothing to worry about. You can then recapture on d5 with the e-pawn and soon follow up by pushing the c- pawn forward. One of my favourite structures is when Black can take on e4 with the d-pawn, forcing White to take back with the b-pawn, and follow up with either ...c5 or ...c5. The pawn on c4 can then be a great target. It is also possible to run down the board with your a-pawn, Black can even put his knight on a6 — far away from the centre — saying ‘OK, you have complete control over e5, but so what?” Black has to be alittle careful about this strategy though. have pushed this ‘policy of ignorance’ a bit too far sometimes but if you cannot take control of the square completely, you can often just play around it. There are other important squares on the board as well. However, if you get the chance to control 5, take it! FOREWORD 7 Many years after these times of discovery, John Watson wrote a fantastic book, Secrets of Mod- em Chess Strategy, where he re-evaluates many of those ‘facts’ taught us by Aron Nimzowitsch. Is. it necessarily true that the bishop-pair is good in open positions? And is an apparently ‘bad bishop” really bad? Perhaps it has the function of protecting an important pawn? Thus one can go on ques- tioning almost everything we used to consider basic principles. What matters in modern chess is to win the game. What works in practice is the important issue, not general principles. Realizing this may make it harder to learn chess, but it definitely makes it much more interest- ing. Leif Ogaard, who used to be Norway's best player together with Helmers when I grew up, once said that reading Nimzowitsch’s My System is enough to become an IM. But to go further you have to push the limits. | think this modem understanding of the game came at about the time when the Modern Stone- wall was developed. Garry Kasparov, who also appeared on — and conquered — the chess scene at that time, was of course a universal player who mastered everything and cannot really be consid- ered a representative of anything; he was on a level of his own. But the general trend of the new gen- eration in the 1980s was an anti-dogmatic approach. You felt a little revolutionary when accepting a big hole on eS, right in the middle of the board, but how great it felt to oppose the old masters and even succeed with it! T was very conscious of this philosophy at the time and I remember an episode with Gennadi Sosonko in Haninge in Sweden, 1988. I played positionally horribly in the opening and was highly criticized by my opponent after the game. Sosonko grew up with the traditional SoviewBotvinnik school and besides being a world-class GM was considered one of the best trainers in the world, For him my play must have been a real horror. Yet he didn’t manage to punish me. In time-trouble I accepted a draw in a position that that was even clearly better for me. And just a couple of months earlier I had beaten him. With the Stonewall! How frustrating it must have been! But my point was that I did these anti-positional things on purpose. I was pushing the limits in order to experience on my own where they actually were. To- day we have Alexander Morozevich as an extreme example of a player who pushes the limits in al- most every game. I'm deeply impressed! It’s still possible to investigate and find your own playing style in these times with computers and all information available, Is the Stonewall stil an opening where you can find new ideas and develop your personal style? I would definitely say yes! During the 2008 Chess Olympiad in Dresden, I propagated the opening with the rest of the Norwegian team and was happy to see Magnus (Carlsen) score a enterprising win with it against Rowson, while Leif (Johannessen) used it to secure a useful draw. A few months later Jon Ludvig (Hammer) too was playing the Stonewall with great effect. It’s in general important to vary your openings; at least it is for me. You have to be inspired and some new food to chew on is always great. That keeps your creativity alive. And creativity is defi- nitely necessary when you play the Stonewall. What's fun about throwing out moves you know in advance? The Stonewall is an opening for players who like to fight there and then. If you want to do your fighting at home in your laboratory, play correspondence chess or the Najdorf. The best play- ers have to handle everything, but if you're like me, who likes to sit down and have an interesting battle, the Stonewall is great! ‘So my advice is to read this book as a source of inspiration. It’s possible to memorize some lines in the Stonewall but that alone won't get you anywhere. At least for me it’s impossible to play well on autopilot. Just for that reason I've tried lots of things in the Stonewall. I've deviated from the main lines, although I knew nothing wrong with them, just to get something new to ponder over. The richness of the opening is amazing and there is still plenty of unexplored territory, The Stonewall is like a mine with gold glittering underneath. Find your own way of approaching the material. The treasures are there, just waiting for you to discover them. Good luck! Stonewall Invitation The Stonewall is one of only a few openings where Black achieves an immediate advantage in space. ‘VLADIMIR KRAMNIK Allow us to present three games which we be- lieve are quite instructive, in addition to being good advertisements for the Stonewall Dutch. We advise you first to have a quick look — just to get a first impression without bothering much about precise variations and nuances. Then go through the games once more, paying more at- tention to the notes — in particular when you wonder what’s going on! Inspirational Game A Per Tore Aanonsen ~ Otto Milvang Nordstrand Club Ch 2008 This game is all the more impressive taking Black's rating (1520 Norwegian!) into account. 144 £5(D) This is the Dutch Defence, so named due to the Dutch player and theorist Elias Stein (1748- 1812) who published a treatise on it. Quite likely it’s Black’s most unbalancing reaction to 1 d4. Black weakens his kingside somewhat and doesn’t develop anything, but he claims the e4-square and some kingside territory and will soon catch up in development if White contin- ues quietly. 23 D6 3 93! Acking’s fianchetto is a good idea against the Dutch, as it tends to make it harder for Black to develop his light-squared bishop. But consider- ing that this game was played in a club champi- “onship, the move is actually slightly surprising. Many club-level players prefer 3 c4 or even less theoretical moves like 3 2f4, 3 €3 and 3 &g5. 3...06 4 2g? d5! (D) This is the characteristic Stonewall forma- tion, _@& Q: I don’t plan to play the Stonewall as Black; will it be worthwhile for me to follow the lessons? We are confident that these lessons will im- prove your general understanding of some im- portant positional themes — in particular about flank play when the centre is stable but also how a theoretically “bad bishop’ occasionally can be superior to a theoretically ‘good’ one. On a more concrete level, the lessons will be useful if you plan to play some other Dutch vari- ation. Lessons 8 to 12 cover common ground for all Dutch lines. In addition, a good ground- ing in how to handle the Stonewall central for- mation will be handy as ..d5 is the best recipe for Black in many lines in the Classical Dutch, Even in the Leningrad you will get some related pawn-structures. The Stonewall structure is also an important part of another opening — the Semi-Slav Triangle STONEWALL INVITATION 9 (or Wedge’) system I d4 d5 2.¢4 063 O83 (or3 2)c3) 3...e6 when after 4 3 or 4 g3 Black can consider a set-up with ...£5, either immediately or after a preparatory ...2d6. 50-0 £6! This active development of the bishop was Black's idea when he played the somewhat in- flexible ..d5 on his fourth move. It makes an ex- change via a3 harder to achieve but encourages, White to seek the exchange of dark-squared bishops on £4. 6 c4 06 (D) tm s iam a Black completes his Stonewall pawn-chain, securing a firm central grip. This is the real starting point of the Dutch Modern Stonewall. It’s our ambition to provide Black with a com- plete repertoire based on this defence. Q: Will you consider all of Black’s main op- tions, so that this book is useful also for those who primarily want to prepare 10 face the Stone~ wall as White? The Stonewall is more an ideas opening than ‘most, and we are convinced that these lessons will make you more successful also when facing it with White. Yet these lectures are primarily in- tended to offer Black a flexible repertoire. So at the crucial points we generally offer Black one ‘or two options — normally one that is well ex- plored and one which is more experimental. In addition we shall often point out moves for Black worthy of independent research. 7 Dhd2 This is considered rather harmless. How- ever, it's quite likely that the two Norwegians were aware of a nice win by Magnus Carlsen with this move a few months earlier. In passing we would just like to show one of, the very first games with the modern Stonewall Dutch: 7 Wc2 0-0 8 b3 Ae4 (modern theory prefers 8...We7!) 9 2b2 (9 243! is supposed to exploit Black’s inaccuracy) 9...d7 10 es Wo 11 £3? DxeS 12 dxe5? (12 fixed Dgd 13 e5 Who is also bad for White) 12...2c5+ 13 whl 4)xg3+! 0-1 E.Griinfeld-C.Torre, Baden-Baden 1925. 0-08 eS AbdT Carlsen-Krasenkow, Gausdal 2007 contin- ued 8...b6 9 Adf3 ed 10 He2 27, reaching a position considered via a different move-order in the note to White’s 8th move in Game 13. 9 Daf3 Ded 10 Axd7?! This furthers Black's development and ex- changes a well-placed knight which has moved twice for one which has only moved once. Even though it was a simultaneous game, 10 £4 Axe5 11 Sixes We7 12 We? Hd8 13 c5 Bxe5 14 Bxe5 DS 15 Dd3 Wis 16 €3 BA7 17 b4 NET 18 £4. with a small advantage to White in Kasparov-Sermier, Besangon (simultaneous) 1999. is worth noting. 10...2:xd7 11 b3 We8 12 2b2 Ka8 (D) It’s not at all clear that this is the best square for the rook. Black should consider 12...{4!? or 12...a5, making something positive of the rook 2 ‘awase” 13.05% This pawn advance is frequently applauded when played by a grandmaster (especially if he wins) and invariably criticized when played by a lesser light. This is not as unfair as it sounds as GMs are liable to show better judge- ‘ment with this tempting but highly committal move, which defuses the central tension and tums the game into a race between the two wing attacks 13...2€7 14 b4 gS 10 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH Superficially this may seem weakening but with the centre closed, Black is obliged to cre- ate kingside play. 15 eS AE6 This move isn’t particularly easy to under- stand, as 15...dch8 and 15...Wh5 are more obvi- ous options, but probably the knight is attracted to the g4-square. 16 Dxd7 For the second time White helps Black’s mo- bilization with an exchange. It may seem logi- cal to remove a light-squared attacker as White may have to play e3 at some point, but chances are good that there will be a better opportunity. 16...xd7 (D) 17632! White delays ..Wh5 as well as ...f4 but weak- ens his kingside light squares which in the long run contributes to his downfall. 17...W'g6 18 Wd3 Wns 19 Wal Who 20 Wer Del? Black invests two tempi in provoking a fur- ther weakness in White's pawn-cover. This de- cision is open to dispute but it cannot be denied that Black’s finishing combination depends on the weakening of 23. 213 Sf6 22 a4 White's queenside progress is slow but so is Black’s on the kingside. But while White is playing for a positional advantage which ulti- mately may win a pawn or two, Black is playing for mate —and there is a definite possibility that both players may succeed in their ambitions. 22,,.e4 23 Axed? Black’s central knight is strong — arguably stronger than the light-squared bishop. Never- theless it seems a positional misevaluation to give away an important kingside defender while opening the f-file for Black and presenting him with control over £3. There’s no immediate tac- tical punishment but now Black definitely has the better chances. 23..dxe4 24 deg? BE3 25 fc3 Haf7 26 bS Wh (D) 27 Bael? This allows an elegant finish and obviously must be a mistake, but White’s defensive task is extremely difficult, as these variations illus- trate: ) 27 Wb2? 346! and White cannot deal with the threat of ...Wf3+; e.g., 28 Hael 13+ 29 seg] (29 h2 Bho —+) 29...g4 30 h4 2xg3! 31 fxg3 Wrg3+ 32 Wg? Hxfl+ 33 Bxfl Wxe3+ 34 deh Exfl 35 Wel Wxc3 —+. b) After 27 We2? 276 White cannot de- fend simultaneously against the threats on the h- and f-files; e.g.: bl) 28 b6 axb6 29 Babi &xg3 30 fxg3 Hho 31 Bhi Bxg3+ 32 dxg3 Wr3+ + b2) 28 bxc6 bxc6 29 Hab! Zh6 30 Shi Xxg3! 31 fxg3? (31 Bel 2h2! 32 Bxh2 Bxh3 +) 31..dRxg3+ 32 dexg3 WI3+ +. ©) 27 Ha2! is White's only defence. But af- ter 27...84 28 Bh1 (28 hd is met decisively by 28...xg3!) 28...WgS 29 Wel WES 30 Bb2 gxh3+ 31 Exh3 h5 it seems that Black will eventually break through; e.g., 32 bxc6 bxc6 33 We2 deg7 34 Wel deg6 35 We2 Wes 36 Bel (36 Wa6 h4 37 Exh4 Bxf2+!) 36...e5, and here are some sample lines showing possible ideas: cl) 37 Wa6 Wo 38 Wc8 exd4 39 Wy8+ Me7 40 We8+ WI7 41 Wrc6+ Lf6 42 Whs dxe3 43, fxe3 Hf3 44 Wa6+ h7 45 We2 BeS 46 Bb4 Wego —+ €2) 37 dxe5 &xeS 38 Eb! Wis 39 Bhd (39 Eb3 d4) 39...f6 40 Bh3 c3 +, STONEWALL INVITATION UW Q: Isn't it a waste of time to analyse a club game between two amateurs so deeply? This position illustrates Black’s typical king- side attack in the Stonewall. The variations show how Black can increase his pressure on g3 and £2, There may be improvements for White, but his position is very passive, so it’s not really likely that he can hope to hold his game to- gether. Zandi xg3t! 28 fxg3 xf! 29 WahS 29 Wrfl Zxfl 30 Sixt! We2+ is an easy win for Black. 29...AT2# (O-1) Inspirational Game B Matthew Turner — Simen Agdestein Tromso 2008 1445293 Q: I like the Stonewall because the play usu- ally seems strategically oriented but am worried about White's wild deviations on his second and third turn, You might consider the move-order 1.06 (if, you are willing to play the French Defence, of Course) or even starting out with a Semi-Slav set-up (but delaying ..6). However, maybe you should adjust your attitude towards messy positions. There’s no way to stop your opponent playing strange moves or giving away his pawns ~ it may happen not only in the opening but also in the middlegame or even the endgame and the only way to deal with itis calculation and com- mon sense. Actually, moves like 2 e4 or 2 g4 should be considered golden opportunities to win with Black. The complications may be be- wildering but they start from a position with which you are well-acquainted and appear at a stage when your mind normally is fresh and when you have plenty of time left on your clock. 2.6 3 Bg? €6 4 DE3 aS The Stonewall is an ideal way to play for a win with Black, Positional and tactical themes mix in a way that almost always favours the stronger player. 5.0.0 246 6 c4 6 6...0-0!7 is a Scandinavian speciality cham- pioned by Agdestein and Karlsson. The critical lines are: a) 75 gains time and queenside space but a bishop on a6 may become strong. b) 73 is logical as 7...We72? would lose to 8 5 but after 7...b6 Black may gain time by playing ...c5 in one go. 7b3 This is clearly White’s most popular move. White seeks to exchange dark-squared bish- ops with a3 — partly in order to demonstrate the superiority of his own light-squared bishop over ‘that sorry figure on c8". As we shall soon see, the truth isn’t quite so simple. 7...WeT! This, at least temporarily, stops 2a3. There are alternatives as Black shouldn't worry too much about exchanging dark-squared bishops. But why not make the trade a little more diffi- cult for White? 8 &b2(D) White fights for control over e5 but may also follow up with Wel, preparing £23. Another popular way to prepare Sta3 is 8 a4. However, only the non-developing move 8 “e5'!, the sub- ject of Lesson 2, presents Black with any real problems equalizi 8...b6! Black prepares to develop his bishop to b7 or, occasionally, to a6. Black weakens c6 some- what but White isn’t ready to exploit the weak- ness. This developing scheme is particularly effective against slow lines where White spends time exchanging dark-squared bishops at the expense of development and piece activity. The basic idea behind White’s a3 manoeuvre is to control e5, and that is a good strategy if Black runs with his light-squared bishop to the king- side. But with this modern ...b6-set-up, the e5- square becomes much less important — there are other important squares! 9 Welt? 2 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH This somewhat artificial move prepares the desired bishop exchange on a3. 9.b7 10 23 Dbd7 11 &xd6 Wxd6 12 ‘Wa3 (D) 12.4052? The sharpest solution, trying to prove that White’s queen is offside on a3. 12...Wxa3 13 Dxa3 He7 has repeatedly been shown to be fine for Black. 13 exd5 exd5 14 Ac3 0-0 15 Lact 15 €3 Ded 16 Bacl a6 17 De2 g5 18 Bfdl Zac8 19 Wh2 We7 20 Aic3 £4 21 dxes fxe3 22 fxe3 Dxc3 23 Wxc3 bxcS F Mchedlishvili- Hiushin, European Under-18 Ch, Tallinn 1997. 15...f4! The name ‘Stonewall’ has tricked many white players. The wall is actually extremely mobile. 16 fd a6 17 dxeS An earlier game, Ro.Hernandez-Peralta, Bar- celona 2004, continued 17 Bc? Hae8 18 2h3 fxg3 19 hxg3 DhS 20 @g? Axg3 21 fxg3 Wrg3 22 Bocl Re6 23 Bil cxd4 24 Be2 0-1 17...bxe5 18 Ags fxg3 19 hxg3 Ag 20 DF3 Back Black increases his pressure. Next he plans ~Wh6 and ... des 21 Baa?! (D) White tries to fend off the attack by tactical means. It backfires badly but it seems White had serious problems anyway. 21...Dxf271 This spectacular move wins. But Fritz points out that the prosaic 21..,\We6 is even stronger: 22 Bd? (22 Dgs WES and 22 Exgd Weed also win for Black) 22..Wh6 23 Hedi d4 24 Aad Bxe2! 25 Exe? Sixf3 26 Sexf3 Wh2+ 27 Sf Ex —+, 22 dxf2 We7 23 Bddl 7 ike a ab B No better is 23 Hd3 “eS. Probably White’s best try was 23 Hf4 We3+ 24 fl Hxfd 25 ext but 25...44 wins back the piece with a contin- kel Or 24 a4 Wxe2+ 25 gl Exf3 and Black wins easily (although it may not be easy to cal- culate the mate in 9 which Rybka announces). 24,..lWe3+ 25 wh2 DEG 25...28f6 and 25...Be6 win too. 26 Wxe5 Dgd+ 27 Lh3 Dl2+ 27...28e5 is the most direct win, but a repeti- tion brings Black closer to the time-control. 28 dh2 Dede 29 Lh3 D2+ 30 eh2 Dxdl 30...Wh6+ 31 Db4 Dgs+ 32 Phi Axg2+ 33 dexg? Mf2+ 34 deg] We3 -+. 31 Dxdl Who+? 31...Wxe2! 32 Wo4+ Wrxc4 33 Bxcd &xf3 34 Qxf3 Bxt3 35 Hxdd Be2+ 36 wh3 Bxad + 32 Sl? 32 Oh4 is far from clear; e.g., 32...8c8 33 Wxd4 Excl 34 &xb7. 32.88 Now Black wins easily. 33 gS? Bxc5 34 ExeS Wd6 35 Ae6 fixe? 0-4 Inspirational Game C Leif Johannessen ~ Ivar Bern Norwegian Team Ch, Oslo 2000 14 Black can meet most moves except 1 e4 (and 1 eA) with 1..£5, heading for a Stonewall set- up. But in many cases 1...e6 and 1...d5 are safer move-orders (if this otherwise fits into your repertoire). Q: Will you examine these moves in detail? STONEWALL INVITATION 13 1 d4 somewhat weakens e4 so 1...£5, contest- ing this square, is a logical reaction. This isn’t the case with 1 c4 and 1 &f3, so meeting these moves with 1...f5 seems less logical. Neverthe- less it’s quite practical to strive for the same set-up against all closed systems, so we shall discuss these lines in Lesson 12. 1.f5 2 g3 2 e4 followed by g3 will normally transpose to one of the following lessons but allows Black the extra option of ..b4+ against certain lines. ONG 3 2g? 06 2! sacrifices flexibility for no obvious reason. Even if you know what you are plan- ning to do, there’s no need to inform your oppo- nent. Alternatives include: a) 3...d6 can lead to the Leningrad, the Clas- sical or to the Hort-Antoshin system —all rather irrelevant for our Stonewall repertoire. b) 3...g6 is the Leningrad Dutch — an ex- tremely challenging and dynamic system, but even if there are some minor lines where Black plays ..d5, it's also not very relevant to our dis- cussion of the Stonewall. 4c4(D) 4.45 Black's alternatives are: a) 4...c6!? is a useful finesse to which we shall return. b) 4...e7 was originally the most popular prelude to the Stonewall formation. After 5 2Df3 0-0 6 0-0 there are these options: bl) 6...d6 is a form of the Classical Dutch known as the Ilyin-Zhenevsky Variation, It has, little relevance for our suggested repertoire but it should be noted that we recommend a set-up with pawns on d6, e6 and £5 against an early n3 (see Game 35). b2) Bellin’s 6...06! is an attempt to stay flexible, waiting to see where White develops his knights before deciding on whether to play 16 oF ...d5. 3) Alekhine’s 6...De4!? is a slightly time- consuming attempt to remain flexible regard- ing the central formation, In certain lines Black supports his knight with ...d5, reaching a Stone- wall formation. b4) 6...d5 is the basic position of the Classi- cal Stonewall, which is closely related to the Modern Stonewall (with the bishop at d6) but won't be a subject of these lessons. 5@n3 This is one of the critical lines of the Stone- wall Dutch. The knight is heading for £4, but first it frequently supports a bishop develop- ment to f4, Normal development with 5 Af3 is examined in Lessons 1-6. Q: What's the current theoretical status of the Stonewall? In the period 1985 to 1990 the Modern Stone- wall Dutch was a hot topic in top-level chess. Since then interest has cooled somewhat. That isn’t a result of any major theoretical problems but rather reflects the fact that this now is well- explored terrain. The normal result of a Stone- wall contested at top level today is that White achieves a cosmetically better position and both players are happy: White to reach a com- fortable position against a defence he doesn’t face very frequently and Black to have reached a familiar position he is confident that he can hold. 5...c6 6 0-0 2d6 7 We2!? 7 &f4 &e7! is more popular. Then Black will try to demonstrate that the knight on h3 is out of play ~ most frequently by playing ...h6 and ...g5. TouD06 Black sharpens the struggle by eliminating White’s option to exchange his dark-squared bishop for the knight. Q: Given that much of the struggle in the Stonewall revolves around the e5-square, wouldn't 7...@bd7 be more natural? 7...Dbd is untested too — possibly because after 8 &f4 Se7 Black is vulnerable to Ags. More interestingly, we shall see this knight de- velopment to the edge over and over again — even in positions where no such considerations 14 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH are relevant. Essentially Black is claiming that, control over e5 isn’t such a big deal ~ there are other important squares on the board as well! With three white minor pieces hovering over the e5-square, Black may even point out that ‘only one of them can actually occupy it~ mak- ing the other two “superfluous pieces’ in Dvor- etsky’s terminology. 8 Ha2 8 &.f4 &e7 might still have led the play into traditional paths. 8...0-0 9 Df3 DhS!? isa slightly unconventional way to fight for the f4-square. 9...e4 or 9...h6 looks more familiar, 10 Sea xf 11 Sixfd Sixfd 12 ext This pawn-structure is quite popular as White gains total control over e5. The key to Black's play is that he can easily organize ..g5 and there- fore controls the timing for a kingside clash. 12..N€7 13 €3 13 b4? costs White a pawn after 13...Wd6; e.g., 14 Wa2 ded 15 Des Ads 16 Axed Wf. 13...WWe7 14 Efel seh 15 Wb3 De8 16 a4 The alternative 16 Wa3 is harmless; after 16..Wxa3 (16...2d6!2) 17 bxa3 Dd6 18 5 DET the b-pawn isn’t particularly weak. Q: Isn't Black rather passive here? White may be somewhat better, but there is not much he can attack and Black can free his game with ....d8, ...d7-e8-hS and ...Hc8-c7 and eventually break up the kingside with a well-timed ...25. 16...)46 17 Wa3 £7 18 a5?! Now White’s queenside play immediately comes to an end, but b4-b5 wasn’t easy to force anyway. 18 De5 Le8 19 b4 dxcd 20 Axed xe4 21 Hxcd a6 looks solid for Black; e.g., 22 He5 Hy8 23 We3 Wis 24 dhl g5 and it’s Black who enjoys a small initiative. 18...a6! 19 DeS We8 20 He? WhS 21 Hack Ead8 21... g8 is inaccurate as Black cannot meet 22 £31 with 22...2xf327 due to 23 Wxd6! We8 24 Dxs3. 22 Gh gS 23 Wh4 Raf8 24 b3 g5!? ‘The fact that it’s mainly Black deciding when kingside action starts doesn’t make it easy to time it correctly. With both players approaching time-trouble it seemed right to complicate. In hindsight it’s clear that White has sufficient de- fensive resources 25 a3 25 fxg5 is met with 25...f4! 26 h4 h6, White can gain some counterplay with 27 exd5 exd5 28 Z)xc6!? bxc6 29 Exe6, but Black should win after 29...2g6 30 exfd WET! 31 Bxd6?! Wxf4; e.g., 32 Kdc6 Wrxh4+ 33 degi Wxf2+ 34 dhi ‘Exgs 35 Wxf8+ Wxf8 36 Ec8 Re8 37 Hel h7 38 Bexe8 Wr? 39 H1e7+ Be7. 25.ugxt4 26 xf (D) EZ E # ae WuEixg2 27 exg2? White is mated after 27 Axg2?? 2f3 28 Bgl Bg8 29 Wel Ded followed by ...Wh4 and ..ig6-h6. However, 27 @xh5! Hyg 28 At4 ‘fg8 29 £3 is playable. In the heat of the battle Black missed that 29...1Wg7? (29...dxe4 leads to equal chances after 30 bxc4 e5 31 dxeS Wxe5 32 Hg2) is met with 30 Dh3! Bhs 31 Bgi Wa7 32 Exg8+ dixg8 33 Bg2+, when White has a clear advantage. ui gh+ 28 el 263 It’s always a special triumph when Black's bad’ bishop dominates the board. 29 De? Hg? 30 Agi? The only way to fight on was 30 g3 Exh2 31 cxd5 exd5 32 Zxc6! bxc6 33 Wb8+ Ack 34 Exc6 Wed 35 We5+., but Black keeps a clear ad- vantage after 35...Wre5 36 dxe5 dg8. 30..2xgi+! 31 doxgl Wg7+ 32 fl Ded o1 The mating-net has been spun and White’s king is helplessly abandoned by his queenside troops. Lesson 1 7 b3: Introduction A positive attitude may not solve all your prob- Jems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. HERM ALBRIGHT In this first lesson we shall go right to the heart of the matter and investigate 7 b3 — White’s ‘most popular choice and one of his three princi- pal continuations. This is quite an extensive subject so the critical follow-up 8 @eS will have to wait for our next lesson, Lesson Overview (1 d4 5.2 Dy3 DY 3 g3 €6 4 S92 d5 50-0 Ld6 6.04 67 b3) After 7..le7 (D) we arrive at the first june- tion: White’s most obvious continuation is 8 2b2, which we recommend to meet with 8...b6 (but, 8...0-09 cl bS!?, as in Game 4, is worth inves- tigating), when 9 Wel (for 9 Abd2 see Game 1) 9...,b7 (9...0-0 is the subject of Game 2) 10 a3 is covered in Game 3. Then we move on to 8 a4, which should be met by 8...a5 (8...0-0 — Games 5 and 6), as in Game 7. Normally £b2 is followed by Wel and a: but let's first see what may happen if White qui- etly continues development: Game 1 Maya Chiburdanidze — Simen Agdestein Haninge 1988 1d4 06 2.04 £5 3 g3 AEG 4 22 dS 5 DL3 We shall return to move-order finesses in later games and just note in passing that 5 ®h3!? is an important alternative which we shall investigate in Lesson 7. 5.06 6 0-0 £.d6 When I(S.A.) took up the Stonewall Dutch a few years before this game, I used to put my bishop on e7 in Botvinnik style because I feared 7 ¢5 Sc7 and now 8 a3, when White can hold the pawn on c5, or 8 £4, Later I've concluded there is no reason to be afraid of either. I'm now more than happy to exchange bishops on f4 if I can double White’s f-pawns. The pawn-chain d4-c5 isn’t very dangerous for Black anyway. I play ...b6 and get a great view for my light- squared bishop on a6. 7b3 We7! 8 b2 b6 It was this relatively new idea which encour- aged me to take up the Stonewall. I got the idea from my coach at that time, Knut Helmers, who in turn had been inspired by some Danish IMs and in particular by Jens Kristiansen, who was among the first to regularly develop the bishop this way rather than by the traditional ....&d7- €8-hS manoeuvre, Q: How can I know when to develop with Itis to some extent a question of taste and we shall also see examples where Black delays the development of this bishop for a long time. But if in doubt, play ...b6 and go with the bishop to b7 or a6 ~ that is much more fun! It may occa- sionally be the wrong decision but in that case your opponent will have to punish your play at once, which rarely is easy and that’s frequently an excellent winning opportunity for Black! Q: But if there is any doubt about how to de- velop the bishop, why not delay the decision with 8...0-0? 16 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH In Game 3 we shall see some advantages of keeping the king in the centre, But the main rea- sonis a tactical finesse in the 8 eS Tine that we shall examine in Lesson 2. 9 Dbd2 (D) 4. ia WES White is manoeuvring her knights to d3 and £3. This was recommended by Euwe in his clas- sic books on the middlegame and may be a ‘good idea if Black manoeuvres his light-squared bishop to the kingside. But with ..b6 and the bishop on b7 or a6, Black can at any moment change the pawn-structure in the centre, mak- ing the knights on £3 and d3 actually look a bit silly. 9.867 10 De5 0-0 Black has got a few weaknesses in his camp ~ most notably the e5-square but arguably also the pawns on e6 and c6. However, he has a space advantage and is close to completing his development with lots of active options. 11 Bel aS This charge is a relatively new addition to Black's positional armoury in the Stonewall (as are most plans including queenside activity). It isn’t always clear what it threatens, but the op- tion of ..a4 may prove useful and the extra queenside space may also come in handy in certain lines. Nevertheless Black has at least four fully play- able alternatives (11..c8, 11...2a6, LI...c5 and 11...2\bd7). This flexibility grows from the basic solidity of Black’s position and makes it extremely hard for White to prepare by rote learning. Only genuine understanding will make him ready for all of Black’s diverse plans. 12243 White continues the knight manoeuvre, but there are alternatives: a) Ifthere’s any difference between the game move and 12 4\df3, it must be that 12...ed is, more tempting when White hasn’t got an im- mediate £3 available. In Kurajica-Rivera Kuz- awka, La Corufia 1993 after 13 €3 c5 14 dxe5 bxc5 15 We2 Hab 16 a3 Bfd8 17 Efdl Back 18 @d3 Black came up with the original 18...2c7 19 DfeS a8! 20 £3 Af6 21 We3 a4 22 bxad b6 with an unbalanced but probably rather equal position. b) 12 3 Da6 13 We2 b5 14 cxbS cxbS 15 Hfd1 b4 16 2f1 Bfc8 17 Whi Ded 18 Axed?! fxe4 19 £32! (Van Gisbergen-Ulybin, World Ju- nior Ch, Mamaia 1991) 19...S2xe5 20 dxeS exf3 F ) The year before this game, Tukmakov played 12 4\b1 against me (S.A.) in Dortmund. His idea was to exchange on d5, and (when I re- captured with my c-pawn) transfer his knight to bS. However, the manoeuvre is too slow, and after 12...bd7 13 cxd5 exd5 14 Ded b5 15 Dxd6 Wxd6 16 c3 La6 17 Wa2 Bfc8 White had the bishop-pair, but Black’s activity more than compensated. Q: Is it really an advantage to have the bishop-pair in closed positions like the ones normally arising from the Stonewall? That is a difficult question to answer in gen- eral terms. A key evaluation factor is the strength of the unopposed bishop — in this case White's dark-squared bishop. In my game against Tuk- makov it wasn’t too fearsome on b2. But if nothing else, the bishop-pair is often a defen- sive resource that only shines when your oppo- nent opens the position in order to make use of i knights. 12...Da6! Kramnik points out that 12...bd7 is also possible. That move appears somewhat incon- sistent, and has in fact never been played in this position. Nevertheless the position after 12...bd7 arose from a different move-order in Flear-Short, Wijk aan Zee 1987 where Black had comfortable equality after 13 Kc? Zack 14 Wel €5 15 Df3 dxc4 16 Bxc4 Ad5 17 dxe5 Axc5. 13 D3 (D) ‘A few months later Tisdall played 13 a4 against my brother Espen in a game that was prematurely drawn after 13...c5 14 e3 Rae8. This position has some theoretical signifi- cance and is a postcard picture of White's 7 b3: INTRODUCTION 17 “White’s position looks good, but in fact she has nothing” — Kramnik, 18 £37 18 b4! has been played with success in corre- spondence chess by De Mauro. The idea is that after 18..\bd7 19 2\xd7 Wxd7 20 bS White gets a big advantage. Probably Black can im- prove by 18....2a6! 19 £4 axb4 20 axb4 S2xe5! 21 &xeS Wb7! with unclear play. 18...2)bd7 (D) classical anti-Stonewall strategy. White has achieved what the classicists considered the optimal anti-Stonewall set-up with knights on 43 and £3 —securing a complete grip on e5 and generally a harmonious position. But for all its harmony, this set-up isn't a worry for Black. White simply has spent too much time achiev- ing too little. 13..\b4!? This may not be very thematic but Black would be quite happy to exchange the tempo- consumer on d3 — in particular if the exchange ‘would happen on b4 — so the game continuation was the only line that had to be evaluated care- fully. A major alternative is 13...0e4 14 DfeS c5 15 e3 Db4, and now: a) 16 dxc5?! bxc5 17 a3 Dxd3 18 Dxd3 a4 19 £3 @f6 and White's position is starting to look a little shaky. b) After 16 a4 Bac it seems that White should prefer 17 £3 @xd3 18 @xd3 dxe4 19 bxc4 Af6 20 Wb3, with roughly equal pros- pects, over 17 Zxb4?! axb4 18 dxc5? (after 18 £3 Df6 19 We2 White may still fight for equal- ity) 18...bxc5, which gave Black the advantage in Korniushin-Ulybin, Tomsk 1997. 145?! This radically changes the nature of the posi- tion, but in my opinion the change is in my fa- vour as it leaves Black with a central superiority. 14...bxe5 15 dxe5 &c7 16 a3 I believe this only forces me to find the cor- rect plan, which is to redeploy my knight so it participates in the fight over eS. 16...Aa6' After 16....2xd3? 17 exd3, Black’s e6-pawn would be a real weakness. 17 DfeS Dbs Babee ni a os aoe 19 2x7?! This quite unnecessarily gives up control over the important e5-square. Possibly White overestimated the value of forcing a quick e4 break. 19...0)xd7! I may be too generous when giving this obvi- ‘ous move an exclamation mark. But not every- body likes moving their knights backwards even if it’s clear that the knight is ideally placed here, influencing ¢5 and e5. 20 ed fxed 21 fxed Exfl+ 22 Wxfl 2.06 23 Wal Bb8 I now believe Black is slightly better. 24 exdS cxd5!? Possibly 24...exd5 was a better way to keep that slight plus. Now Black enjoys a strong pawn-centre but White's queenside majority is also quite dangerous. 25 06 AKG 26 DeS LB 27 Whi 27 We2, attacking the a-pawn, would have prevented my next move. 27wSd6 (D) 28 a3? This gives away a pawn for very little. 28 ‘Wad would have been answered by the strong 28...@h8!, planning 29...e5. But giving up the bishop-pair with the surprising 28 S2xf6!? might 18 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH A nae ae) have held the balance as 28...2xf6 29 We4+ gains time to protect the c5-knight with b4 and in some lines Black’s king’s position proves surprisingly vulnerable. 28...8x23 29 £&xa3 Wxa3 30 cS Bb6 31 Dxe6? White is most probably lost in all variations, so this must primarily be seen as a desperate at- tempt to confuse me in my time-trouble. 31.....xe6 32 c7 WEB 33 Wel hS 34 2f3 Re8 35 WxaS Rd6 36 Wd2 d4 37 b4 Ags 38 ‘Eel We7 39 Mel d3 40 bs WG ‘A piece down and with my time-pressure over, White could safely have resigned 41 REL We7 42 b6 Exb6 43 Wxd3 Wrxe7 44 Wd5+ £06 45 WxhS Af6 46 Was Wed 47 Hel Ba6 48 Wes 267 49 Kal Ba2 50 Wes Ha? 51 Bal £d5 52 xd5+ Wd5+ 53 Wxd5+ Dxds 54 Had De3 55 gl Bg2+ 56 whl M2 0-1 Game 2 Helgi Olafsson — Simen Agdestein Reykjavik 1987 1d4 e6 2.04 £53 g3 Af6 4 292 06 5 DE3 ds 60-0 2d6 7 b3 We7 8 2b2 b6 9 Wel!? We know this move from Inspirational Game B. 2 ‘As we shall learn from Game 3, this move isn't as obvious as it may appear. 10 2a3 (D) 10...b7 If White puts his knight on c3, bringing the bishop to a6 is very natural. Now, however, when all options are open for White, it’s more logical to put it on b7. Black prepares ...c5, and in general the pieces should point towards the four central squares of the board. 11 2xd6 Wxd6 12 Wa3 5 (D) 12...Wxa3 is also perfectly playable. Flohr- Botvinnik, USSR Ch, Moscow 1955 continued 13 @xa3 Dbd7 14 Bfcl Hfc8 15 Del seF8 16 d3 see7 17 Bc2 c5 with equal chances. It is worth noting that in this line, Black would have preferred not to have castled. BO DE Be This central clash is typical for the entire ‘Modern Stonewall. The great number of possi- ble pawn captures and recaptures is a great starting point for a good fight. In general, piece activity arid concrete calculation is extremely important. In this exact position, activity may seem approximately even. But it will turn out that White's queen is quite badly placed — unless White can win the c5-pawn. But it’s risky hav- ing such a powerful piece so far away from the Kingside. Q: Do you consider Black to have a big ad- vantage here? In general I (S.A.) don’t think in such terms. 1 just play and hope for the best! During the game I was a bit nervous about my c-pawn However, as a theoretician you have to draw some conclusions and actually, yes, perhaps 7 b3: INTRODUCTION 19 Black is already a bit better. But the real mis- take comes a few moves later. 13 dxe5S If White delays clarifying the situation in the centre, Black may suddenly change his mind and start taking back on c5 and d5 with pieces instead, 13 2c3 is the critical line, leading to a tense and complicated position, 13...bxe5 14 2\c3 Dbd7 (D) 15 Hfd1?! This is an instructive mistake. During the game I thought 15 ¢3 necessary, but now I real- ize that Black would be absolutely fine after 15...dxe4 16 bxe4 Ab6; e.g., 17 Bid We7 18 Dd2 Sxg2 19 sexe? Had8 20 Wb3 e5!. The ‘hole’ on e5 has become totally irrelevant, as so often happens in the Stonewall Because of this line White should take on 5 first. 15 exd5 exd5 16 €3! stops the f-pawn and the pieces behind it from joining the at- tack, We would then have a typical hanging pawns structure where White would have the time to centralize his rooks and pressurize the pawns, However, Black shouldn’t have much to worry about and at some point he perhaps may throw in ...g5 in order to support the ...f4 lever. 15...41 Now Black becomes very active, White has just moved his rook from fl to di, hoping to make the other rook useful on cl, but it is more important that Black’s forces now outnumber ‘White’s on the kingside. 16 Hacl a6 Preparing to centralize my rook while avoid- ing any bS stuff. 17 23?! White continues with his own plans, but this weakens the f-file even more. 17.,.Bae8 18 Ze2 h6 I remember being very satisfied with this move. It may prepare ...g5 and it’s always nice tohave some /uft for the king. But mainly it em- phasizes White’s lack of good moves or even plans. 19 Sad? This appears consistent with White’s previ- ‘ous moves, and if the c-pawn actually was hanging, it would be great, but the tall Ice- lander leaves his kingside much too open. Per- haps just 19 S.g2, admitting a mistake, would be better. 19...e4 (D) Simple chess by Black: while White puts his pieces on the edge of the board, I put them in the middle. Came y Q: I can see that Black's attack is now be- coming very dangerous. At what point did you realize you were winning? Actually, one of the most stupid questions I get during games is “How is it going?” How should I know? That depends on what I'm go- ing to do the next few moves, and if I should go around answering such silly questions I would definitely lose concentration and then probably the game as well. The moment you start think- ing ‘now I’m winning’ or anything similar, it’s time to pull yourself together and concentrate on the position. Toften tell my students that good players are like monsters from horror movies. You can shoot them and stab them but they won't lie down and even after they are confirmed dead they keep coming after you. So never relax! 20 exdS exd5 21 Sixd7 20 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH White remains unaware of the dangers fac- ing him, but now there's no way back. After the opening of the e-file, all Black’s pieces are ready for the final stroke. 21...Wxd7 22 Dxe5 “eS 23 HxeS 23 Wxc5 Hc8! was an important point. 23 ..ixe2 24 Dad (D) 7 7 he SOW? male Reg [AZ Z a That’s a nice knight, but in chess the most important piece is the king. The abandoned white monarch is easy prey for Black’s heavy artillery. 24...fxg3! The rest is simple tactics and a logical pun- ishment of White’s careless play. 25 fxg3 The bishop joins the attack nicely after 25 @Dxe2 gxf2+ 26 dg? Wed+ 27 Dg3 d4+!. 25.,.WET O-1 White resigned in view of 26 \xe2 Wf2+ 27 hi d4+ with mate This was an indisputable success for Black. But if you feel that Black was balancing on a knife edge and that an improvernent from White could change the theoretical verdict, we shall examine a calmer approach: Game 3 Alexei Dreev — Rune Djurhuus European Junior Ch, Arnhem 1988/9 1 d4 e6 2.4 £53 g3 O16 4 2g? dS Rune doesn't worry much about 5 2h3!?. Buteight years later he had difficult times in his game against Jacimovié in the Olympiad in Erevan 1996. We shall return to this theme in Lesson 7. 5 DE3 06 6 0-0 2467 b3 We7 8 &b2 The alternative way of exchanging dark- squared bishops would be the a4 and a3 ma- noeuvre. As we shall see, both plans have their drawbacks 8...b6! (D) This is the most precise move-order, and not only directed against the plan White executes in this game. After 8...0-0, White also has the op- tion of 9 eS and afier 9...b6 10 cxd5 cxd5 he has the trick 11 Dod, As we'll see later, even this may be OK for Black after 11...2c6 or 11...b5, but if possible Black should avoid giv- ing White this option. Recapturing with the e- pawn (10...exd5) is always an option and if you like these structures, the Stonewall is definitely an opening for you. But in general terms we think Black should avoid these structures un- less he gains activity very quickly. 9 Wel Note that after 9 De5 267 10 exd5, 10...cxd5! is absolutely fine for Black as White doesn’t have the option of @\cé. In this kind of position with an open c-file, both of White’s bishops are actually highly restricted by the central pawn- formation, while Black has excellent diagonals for his bishops. Who would argue that a black bishop on a6 is weak? The idea that Black's pawns are fixed on light squares and that con- sequently the white bishop on g2 should be strong, is totally absurd. Sb7 Q: Game 2 seemed convincing; why do you now show an alternative for Black? In this game Djurhuus demonstrates how Black can most easily achieve comfortable equality against the Wel plan. But the Stone- wall is a rich opening and in many positions ‘what you do is just a matter of taste and possibly 7 b3: INTRODUCTION 21 your position in the tournament table. If you really need to win, you should seriously con- sider Black’s approach in that game—even if it may objectively be very slightly inferior. 10 @a3 &xa3?! This is surprising as Djurhuus obviously ap- preciated the idea of keeping the king central- ized. 10...2bd7, as in Inspirational Game B, is more accurate. 11 Wra3 After 11 @xa3 White can continue with the classical manoeuvre “c2-e1-d3, but it is more poisonous just to leave the knight on a3, put the queen on b2, centralize the rooks and then per- haps continue with b4. 11...Wxa3 12 O\xa3 eT! (D) Now there’s little doubt that the king belongs in the centre. White’s problem in these end- ‘games is that he can’t take on d5 too early as, Black can simply reply ...cxd5 and happily place a bishop on a6, But what else is there to do? Black, on the other side, remains flexible and may consider going for an endgame with hang- ing pawns, although that is a bit riskier. 13 eS Abd7 14 Axd7 If this is necessary. White’s whole set-up is a failure. White is already struggling to find good work for his minor pieces. In Gyorkos-Z. Varga, Hungarian Team Ch 1993, the players agreed a draw after 14 exd5 exd5 15 2\d3 Bhc8 16 Hfcl Bxcl+ 17 Excl He8 18 Bxc8 &xc8. Only Black can be better in the final position as the bishop soon will go to a6 while White’s bishop is pointing at solid rock, Q: I understand that you consider the c8- bishop at least as strong as the one on g2, and when looking at the position I tend to agree. But what should be the conclusion? Is there no truth in the old rule that you should put pawns on squares of the opposite colour from your bishop? The classicists and even the hypermoderns tried to make chess a game of general rules. But as John Watson points out in his fantastic book Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy, modem play- ers are more interested in winning games than following rules. The basic rules are there as a bottom line, but thankfully every position is unique, leaving plenty of scope for individual judgement. The way to develop your intuition is to analyse lots of positions. Eventually you will gain the experience necessary to break the rules with success. In this Stonewall position you only need to open your eyes to see that a bishop on a6, look- ing down a long diagonal, will be much stron- ger than its counterpart on g2, pointing at a wall =a Stonewall. 14...\xd7 15 Bact 15 bd is an idea and after 15...a5 16 b5 cS at least the bishop on g2 is doing something, but, as the knight on a3 is misplaced, Black should be well prepared for the struggle in the centre, 15...a5! Preventing b4 and sometimes breaking with the a-pawn is possible. 16 Bfdi a6 17 €3 (D) ra 7 ee ae ant *s 17...b5!? Black is the first to make an active advance. 18 cxbS cxbS Again we have this clarified pawn-structure with an open c-file, Black’s threat to dominate with ...b4 gives him the time to oppose on the e-file. 19 SFI bd 20 DbS AxbS 21 AxbS Bhes (D) 22 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH w ee Objectively speaking, this should be a clear draw, but White is rated a lot higher than his Norwegian opponent. Moreover, he is a Rus- sian junior with the heavy responsibility to win the European Championship. Not surprisingly this considerably favoured Black. 22 ofl &d6 23 tee2 Exchanging on d7 would certainly lead to a completely drawn rook endgame. 23.06 24 dd2 Hxcl 25 Exel Zc8 26 EbI h6 27 a3 Lb8 28 axbd axb4 29 doc? He8+ 30 Sb? g5 31 Ral Ha8 32 Bhi He8 33 e2 £41? (D) We 4 me 4 a ‘a ‘a a What's this? Is the lowly-rated Norwegian taking risks trying to win? Probably Dreev didn’t know that toughness is in fact Djurhuus’s main strength. He doesn’t consider himself par- ticularly talented but his fighting abilities are obvious. These qualities showed two years later, when he won the entire championship, defeating Kramnik along the way! 34 exf4 gxf4 35 2g4 Eg8 36 2h3 fxg3 37 hxg3 e5 38 dxe5+ dxe5 39 Hel+ hdd Now there’s no way back. 40 Me6 Ad7 41 Bxh6 Ac5 42 Hh4+ seS 43 EhS+ dd4 44 2f5 Dreev was probably happy with the develop- ment and the active play of his opponent. That was perhaps his only chance to win, but his op- timism soon backfires. 44...10f8 45 £4 Be8 46 Hh2 she3! What a great king! 47 Bhi Ded 48 Lg6 Hes 49 Kel+ ba2 White is now hard-pressed to hold the draw. 50 gi?! Pethaps 50 Sxed dexel 51 &xd5 £2 52 Seb dxg3 53 £5 was White’s best (and last) drawing chance. 50..f2 $1 Hg? ke3 52 Hel dat (D) Y a it’s clear that White is in grave danger. The d-pawn is a major force! 53 2b1 White also has a hard time after 53 &2h5 d3 54 Hel+ ddd 55 Be7 Hc8 56 Rd7+ de3 57 Be7+ ded2: a) 58 £5 Bc5! 59 g4? Dd1+ 60bb1 (60 dead HaS+ 61 Wb1 Ac3+ 62 deb? Ba2#) 60... + 61 a2 De3+- 62 db? Kbit. b) 58 Bes 22+ 59 sebl Hel+ 60 seb2 Bhi 61 Bd5 Zh3 62 Hes Ded 63 bs Bh2 64 Hxb4 $e3+ 65 dea3 Uxh5 —+ 53..d3 54 g4 Zxf4 55 g5 Hed 56 Hel+ hdd 57 He6 xg5 The game is decided and needs no more comments, 58 Hb6 shc5 59 Za Bd5 60 KaS+ ded6 61 HaG+ de5 62 xd3 Dxd3+ 63 he? Del+ 64 el HeS+ 65 dl Ad3 66 Ba8 Bc3 67 BeB+ shd4 68 Hd8+ des 69 Mb8 Axb3 70 te2 Hb2+ 71 ddl Ae5 72 hel Mb3 73 kee? kad 74 MbS Bic3+ 0-1 We could safely leave the Wel plan with this. But actually Black has another interesting plan which we want to illustrate with a game 7 b3: INTRODUCTION 23 example — mainly because the ...b5 idea may well be employed in related positions, Game 4 Quan Zhe ~ Alexander Moiseenko Guelph (open) 2004 1d4e6 This move is very common (actually the third most popular reply to 1 d4, after 1...d5 and 1.6) and has some independent points. But in order to make use of it you need to be pre- pared for the French Defence, which would oc- cur after 2 e4. Therefore we shall only provide a complete repertoire for those willing to play the genuine Dutch with 1...£5. 204 Ithas been claimed that Botvinnik preferred to reach the Stonewall via this move-order be- cause he feared the Staunton Gambit, 1 d4 £52 e4, We strongly doubt this explanation, More likely he appreciated the difficult decision White has to make in this position: * 23, which is the main move after 1 d4 f5, is an option after 1...e6 only if White is comfort- able with both 2...c5 and the Catalan line that arises after 2...d5 (and after 3 c4, Black can still enter a Stonewall with a belated ...f5). + 2 @f3 is a small concession as 2...d5 may Jead to a Queen’s Gambit where White's king's knight has been committed to £3 a bit, too early. And in the Dutch, all \h3 options are eliminated. 2...5 may also be a useful option for Black, depending on the repertoire preferences of both players (note that 3 ¢4 then completes a transposition to an Open Sicilian). ‘The text move (2 c4) is probably White’s best and most uncompromising reply, but still allows Black to enter some lines with ...£b4(+) that aren’t always available in the Dutch. As compensation, White may delay f3 and in some lines play h3. Donel Now we are back in Dutch territory. 3.3 Df6 4 Lp? 065 Df3 d5 6 b3.2d670-0 ‘We7 8 220-0 Of course, early castling isn’t imprecise per se — only in combination with the exchange of dark-squared bishops and queens. 9 Wel b5!? (D) This arguably is the critical reaction to White's exchanging scheme as it effectively brings White’s plans to a halt. On a very theo- retical level, in the Stonewall Black should try to keep the queenside closed while generating counterplay on the kingside. But such abstract, concerns are losing their relevance in contem- porary top-level chess and being replaced by more concrete considerations. Q: Could you please be a bit more concrete? What exactly are these considerations? Mainly calculations and computer-assisted home preparation but also variations over the old trial-and-error method ~ enormously en- hanced by huge databases allowing you to quickly extract other players’ experiences too. 10 bd2 This is a natural developing move. 10 a3 appears pointless when Black can meet it with .».b4, but you will nevertheless find a discussion of it together with some other 10th moves — most notably 10 eS — in theory section 1A. 10...a5 Now Black's queenside activity levels the chances, Also 10...bxc4 11 bxe4 a6 12 DeS Bc8 13 Ab3 (13 We2 c5!?) 13... bd7 14 Axd7 @xd7 15 c5 &c7 16 We? Hab8 was fine for Black in Vul-Gleizerov, New Delhi 2009. 11.25 No better is 11 a4 bxe4 12 bxc4 a6 13 DeS He8 14 2a3 Dbd7 15 &xd6 Wxd6 16 Das ‘Babs (16...c5!2) 17 5 We7 with relatively equal chances, Obsivac-Gleizerov, Katowice 1992. After 18 We3 Dgd 19 Bxg4 fxg4 White was struggling for equality. 11.206 Or 11...bxc4 12 bxe4 a6 13 Bel Bc8 14 We2 Abd7 15 Dxd7 Wxd7 16 c5 Rc7 17 D3 ‘Hab8 = G-Horvath-Barbero, Austria 1994. 24 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH 12 We2 He8 13 c5 c7 14 Ddf3 We8 15 Del Abd7 16 Dd3 Axe5 17 dxeS Dd7 18 £4 b4(D) Razeems 1. yy x a 7 Ly sew Gg Black outrates his opponent by more than 300 points and has achieved an equal and slightly unbalanced position without too much trouble. Now his challenge is to keep enough life in the position to create realistic winning chances. O: You have now demonstrated three differ- ent ways for Black to handle the 8 62 line. They all look fine but what’s your recommenda- tion? ‘There isn’t much practical experience with this 9...b5 system but it seems very playable. Actually we believe all three recipes are sound, but from a theoretical viewpoint we assume the 8.06 9 Wel £67 10 a3 Abd7 line is the most convincing as Black equalizes comfort- ably, However, in our opinion 8 £b2 is natural but not critical. Therefore we use these games just as much to demonstrate some general Stone- wall concepts as to discuss opening theory. We shall soon enough encounter lines demanding Black to follow a narrow path to equality. 19 ad bxa3 20 Bxa3 Heb8 21 £d4 Hb7 22 Sicl Hab8 23 2e3 Wrs 24 bhi White must have feared a kingside expan- sion. But this move doesn’t seem to improve White’s position ~ actually there now appears a back-rank motif that later helps Black. 24...S¢d8 (D) This is mainly a preventive move. However, we suspect that Black guessed White's inten- tion and made this move with at least a faint hope that White would unsuspectingly con- tinue his plan, 25 &d2? This is a tactical oversight. After 25 $13 chances would have been roughly even. 25...8x03! Even though this is Black’s so-called ‘bad’ bishop, it has an excellent view from a6, so this exchange would have been pointless if it weren’t for the tactical follow-up. 26 exd3 AxeS! The skewer isn’t hard to calculate but can easily be missed as the setting is a bit unfamil- iar to most of us. 27 Wxe5 Re7 28 Wxc6 Hb6 ‘The e-pawn needs protection. If not for this zwischenzug, Black's combination might well have backfired. 29 WaT 2xa3 White is an exchange down, his b-pawn is weak and there are some tactical problems on his back-rank; Black is close to winning. 30 Bal? (D) Only with 30 Bc7 Be8 31 Wad &b4 could White have continued to struggle, ie 30...88b7 31 Wad Exb3 32 h3 Exd3 Black is winning comfortably. 33 W6 We? 34 Wc8+ Sf7 35 LxaS Zxg3 36 Rdl Mb2 37 Bd? Exd2 7 b3: INTRODUCTION 25 37..b1+! 38 dh2 Wh4 would have been even more effective; e.g., 39 Wd7+ e7 40 Bd8 Bxh3+! 41 Sixh3 Weds 42 g2 Wxd2+ —+ or 39 Bf2 Exh3+! 40 &xh3 Wxf2+ 41 2g? Wh4+ 42 @h3 Hb2+ -+, 38 Qxd2 Ha3 39 We2 Had 40 263 Hed 41 Wa3 g6 42 Wh? sbp7 43 02 Bel 44 Sxel Excl 45 WhS Wa7 46 Wh4 Wel+ 47 dg3 Wel+ 0-1 Black's early ..b5 in this game naturally leads us to consider White’s other major b3 sys- tem — 8 a4 — which not only prepares $123 but also stops ...b5: Game 5 Jan Plachetka - Ivar Bern Copenhagen Open 1988 1445 Of all Dutch games, more than 75% start out with this move-order but we suspect that among, Stonewallers the numbers are closer to 50%, 2g3! Actually this is a better attempt to take ad- vantage of Black’s move-order than the overly aggressive moves we shall examine in Lesson u. Q: Inwhich way does 2 g3 take advantage of 1f8? It allows White to retain maximum flexibil- ity, as he can still choose between “f3 and Mh3 and is not committed to an early c4. This will be amajor theme in Lesson 7. After | d4.e6,2 g3 is only an option for White if he is happy playing a Catalan after 2...d5. White also needs some- thing against 2.5. 26 3 S92 06 4 DES This is slightly more popular than 4 c4. White gives up the h3 option but avoids the line 4. StbdH, 4.05 Black can set up his Stonewall formation more confidently after White has committed his knight to 3 (and given up the h3-f4 ma- noeuvre). 5.4 c6 6 0-0 2467 b3 We7 Q: Could 7...b5!2, pre-empting a4, be an idea? Checking the databases there are in fact two games with the move — one by a future GM. We can see no obvious tactical problems, so you could try it out if you wish. However, it looks unnecessarily risky as White hasn’t yet played the artificial Wel. 8ad!? (D) White stops ...b5 and may consider a5, but primarily he seeks a bishop exchange via a3. It can be argued that he saves a tempo over 2b2, Wel and a3, but that isn’t so clear, as ex- changing queens on a3 is a plan which White ‘may well pursue even after 8 a4. What is certain is that White somewhat weakens b4. 8...0-0 This is natural, but in some lines Black’s king is well placed in the centre. a) 8...b6 isa flexible and sensible move, but 9 a5 may be a critical reply. b) For8...a5!, which exploits the weakening of b4 and prevents White from advancing his pawn to a5, see Game 7. 9 203 fixa3 10 Axa3 247 (D) This initiates the ancient ...@d7-e8-h5 ma- noeuvre - once Black’s standard way to activate his light-squared bishop. Black’s queenside re- mains intact but the plan is a bit slow and is 26 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH gradually being replaced by the modern ...b6 plan, Q: Why do you demonstrate a game with this bishop development when you generally recom- ‘mend fianchettoing the light-squared bishop? That recommendation was intended to give you some direction for your experiments and analysis, not to restrict you to one single mode of development. The ....f2d7 development is a reasonable plan unless the classical set-up with knights on d3 and £3 threatens to smother all counterplay. 11 Ded White could also try to gain queenside space with 11 a5!?, 11...2e8 12 Deel (D) The set-up with knights on d3 and f3 is an old recipe against the Stonewall. Besides the ®f3 + B\a3-c2-el-d3 route we see in this game, there are also: + Euwe’s traditional 2\f3-e5-d3 + Dbd2-£3. * Blackburne’s route h3-f4-d3 + Dbd2-£3. * Sokolsky’s discovery 43, b3 + @c3-a4-b2- a3. 12... Abd7 It isn't entirely clear that the light-squared bishop should rush for hS as long as White can respond with @\f4, An interesting alternative is, 12...dxe4 13 bxe4 c5, when two plausible con- tinuations are: a) 14 €3 eG 15 Wh3 Has 16 Wa3 b6 17 Ad3 Det 18 Ades and White’s advantage is minuscule. b) 14.d5 Ded 15 W3 2E7 16 Bal exd5 17 exd5 @c6 and Black’s pieces are active. 13 Bd3 Des (D) In an earlier round against Levitt, I (B.) got a depressingly passive position after 13...d2h8 14 We2 Mg82! 15 3 BhS 16 exd5 cxd5?! 17 Bfcl Qxf3 18 Qxf3 Bed’ 19 We7 Babs 20 WaS a6 21 Ha2 Ae8 22 Hac? xe ake ‘The e4-square is one of Black’s strong-points in the Stonewall. The knight may be driven away, but only by the somewhat weakening ad- vance £3 Q: Could f3 followed by e4 be a promising plan? Not so long ago that was considered one of White’s main plans against the Stonewall, but experience showed that Black normally got ‘more than sufficient counterplay by means of a central break with ...c5 or ...e5. Today the plan of £3 and e4 is only seen in top-level games af- ter Black's pieces have been largely pacified. 14 Wet?! 14 @feS and 14 We2 are better tries which may both retain a small plus for White. 14...2h5 15 E4267 This may look like a miserable square for the bishop, but it’s only a temporary stop and while at £7 the bishop supports a kingside initiative quite well by covering the light squares. 16 Des This is hardly the most testing move, but White should do something to keep control over e5 as, e.g., 16 a5 dxc4! 17 bxe4 e5 solves, all Black’s problems. 16...xe5 17 dxeS (D) 17.041? I'm not at all sure that this is Black’s best — but it's certainly the most energetic, and dem- onstrates the flexible state of mind you need in order to play the Stonewall successfully. 18 €3 g5 19 Ae2 19 D3 is safer. 19...d3 7 b3: INTRODUCTION 27 This is the only way to justify Black’s 17th move. The pawn will now be a curious mix of weakness and strength. 20 Dad eS White’s queenside pawns, which are now fixed on squares of the same colour as his bishop, may become a problem in an ending. 21 Dds a6 22 De3 gs 23 £3 Axc3 24 ‘Wrxe3 (D) ‘F is for forward! is an old Motwani motto. It's just as true for the Stonewall as for other branches of the Dutch. The move isn’t so much an attacking attempt as prophylaxis against £4 by White. 25 ed Bad8 26 Hadi We7 27 &h3 &f7 28 ext gxfd Only ruins remain of the once unbreakable Stonewall, but Black’s position is nevertheless in excellent health, An extra triumph for Black is that his bishop is now visibly the stronger. 29 Bxd3? 29 d2 wins an important tempo in compari- son with the game. 29.,.xd3 30 Wxd3 Ha8 31 We3 Bas 32 BF2 WrxeS 33 Bd2 b6 T avoided 33...Hxe4!? as 34 WxeS ZxeS 35 Bd7+ D6 36 Bxb7 He3 37 12 Bc? 38 6 gives White more counterplay. 34 a5?! This speeds up the end, but it’s hard to find good moves. The bishop ending after 34 Zxd4 Waxd4+ 35 Wrxd4 cxd4 looks unpleasant and Black can also keep the queens on. 34..bxa5 35 WxaS 5 36 @e?2 Wa6 37 Bxad? 37 Bf2 was the only way to fight on, but hardly sufficient. When your opponent doesn’t have any counterplay, a seemingly modest ad- vantage may be decisive. 37..tlixdd+ 38 Sf] Wa3+ 39 gl We3+ 40 PEt Sxf3 The game is obviously decided. 41 Gixf3 Wal 3+ 42 Syl Weds 43 O11 13.44 We7+ 16 45 Wa8+ des 46 Wh8+ dexed 47 Wah7+ chdd 48 Wh4+ 43 49 Wel eS 50 hd e451 hS WS 0-1 8 a4 handled purely as a preparation for the bishop exchange clearly isn’t a major threat to the Modern Stonewall. Next we shall see the a- pawn used asa weapon in the fight for queenside space in one of the top Stonewall encounters of all time: Game 6 Garry Kasparov — Nigel Short Rapidplay match (game 1), London 1987 14 e6 2 Af3 £5 3 g3 io 4 2g? dS ‘The short time-limit (25 minutes per player for the whole game) detracts somewhat from the quality of this game but probably not from the opening moves. 5 cd c6 6 0-0 246 7 b3 We7 Short is one of the all-time greatest Stone- wall players and experimenters — frequently testing out lines and set-ups bordering on the unsound, But against Kasparov he goes for the main line. Bad 04 As experience with this kind of position has grown, 8...a5 (Game 7), stopping any expan- sion on the queenside, has been firmly estab- lished as the main line. 9 Ba3 Black cannot really stop this move, so the immediate 9 a5!? could be considered even "1 28 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH though it will be easier for White to engineer the bS break with his pawn on a4. Black’s most natural continuation is 9...52d7 10 &a3 Sixa3 11 Bxa3 Ded. Then White has tried: a) 12 Bal Be8 13 We2 Bh5 14 Des a7 15 443 and in Todoréevié-Lefranc, St Martin 1991 the typical 15...dxe4 16 bxe4 e5 would have been fine for Black. b) 12 Wiel Se8 (12...c5!2) 13 Des was Orr Redmond, Dublin 2008, when 13...2d7 looks quite equal. 9...5xa3 10 Dxa3 (D) xa Het a 10...bd7?! Still Black should restrict White’s queen- side play by 10...a5!, leading to play similar to Game 7. 11 a5 This is the characteristic move. Most alter- natives, including 11 @c2, 11 Wel, 11 We2 and 11 Wd2, seek to strengthen control over e5 by getting a knight to d3 or the queen to b2 and lead to play similar to Game 5. IL..b6!2 Black sharpens the struggle by challenging White's queenside dominance. This is Black’s most popular choice but 11...ed 12 We2 £4 13 De5 fxg3 14 hxg3 Dafo 15 Dbl Wes 16 Dd2 Dd6 17 e4 gave White only a modest plus in This move has a somewhat strange first im- pression, as it invites Black to gain a tempo by D)e4, But this is illusory as the queen has no intention of staying on d2. a) White achieved very little by 12 cxdS cxd5 13 AYb5 a6 14 axb6 Axb6 15 Ac3 &b7 with near equality in Trichkov-Zvara, Prague 1995, b) 12 &c2, intending the Dce1-d3 regroup- ing, is logical, but 12...2a6!, putting pressure on c4, levels the chances: bl) 13 axb6 axb6 14 cxd5 cxd5 15 Bel Ded 16 DeS Lb5 17 Bxa8 Hxak 18 xed dxed 19 Dxd7 Wxd7 looked difficult for White in Sjédahl-Renman, Norképing 1988, but possi- bly 20 4b4 would have kept chances level. 'b2) 13 Dd2e5 14 dxe5 Bxe5 15 Dd4 Ded? (15...Wa7 seems sufficient for equality) 16 Dxe4 dxed 17 axb6 axb6 18 Dxc6! Wes 19 Wd5+ 1-0 Suba-Pablo Marin, Roses 1992 (19...Wxd5 20 De7+ wf7 21 Dxd5 +-). 12...De4 13 Wb2 ‘This somewhat unorthodox queen employ- ment is actually quite common in the Stone- wall. We shall see another example in our next, game. From b2 the queen helps control e5 while also assisting possible queenside advances. 13...2b7 14 b4? White weakens the c4-square and thus the a6-f1 diagonal. 14...bxa5 Black ensures a basically symmetrical pawn- structure, but White is more actively placed, so it appears more likely that he will be able to ex- ploit the weak a-pawn. 15 bxaS Zab8 This game is a reason why Black has started choosing 8...a5 — possibly undeservedly so. By objective criteria the position is unclear. 16 Hifb1 ¢5!? (D) Black opts for maximum tension in the cen- tre, but 16....2a6! looks more natural, trying to take advantage of White’s 14th move. 17 Wel It wouldn’t have been too surprising if Kas- parov, who has never been afraid to invest some 7 b3: INTRODUCTION 29 material for the initiative, had tried the minor sacrifice 17 Wxb7!? Rxb7 18 Exb7. The re- sulting position cannot easily be exhausted by analysis as both sides have quite a lot of free- dom of choice. White will obtain quite pleasant chances simply by picking up the a-pawn, when his own advanced a-pawn will be a significant factor. 17.,.2fe8 18 We3 exd4?! Black prematurely releases the tension. Af- ter 18... Hf6! his pieces will be more active after the inevitable central exchanges, 19 Wxdd Wes We cannot see anything really wrong with 19...26. 20 HbS Wxd4 21 Dxdd S77! The pawn sacrifice 21...dxe4!? 22 @xe6 3 23 Exf5 He8 seems to give Black sufficient ac- tivity to keep the chances equal. 2exdS 22 Habl looks strong too, but it’s not at all clear that White can claim any advantage after 22...2a8. Following the exchange of all the rooks, Black's more active king will be a signif- icant factor. 2audixd5 (D) 23 x65! Short must either have missed this relatively simple tactical shot or have miscalculated one of the continuations. 23.0416 24 xed Axed 25 £3 exfS 26 Hxd5 D3 27 xfS+ 27 Ba7+ df6 28 Bxa7 isn’t necessarily stron- ger, but it seems the position after 28...@)xe2+ 29 Sf2 Dd4 30 HaG+ He5 31 Hb6 would have been easier for White to keep under control. 27.8206 28 e4 g6 29 HgS Hb2 30 whi 216 31nd? Hf2? 31...De2! leaves White struggling to retain equality, so he should have played 31 Bg4! with the better game, 32 Hel Bd8 33 Acd Ae2 34 Hb1 Bxf3 35 hg? Hdd3 36 De5 Bxg3+ 37 2 What a mind-boggling position this must have been to deal with in time-pressure. 37 Bic3?. White’s advantage after 37...2c3! 38 @xd3 Ayxe4+ 39 de? Ac3+ 40 sof] Exd3 might have been manageable. 38 Dgd+ eG 39 texe2 He2+ 40 dtl BF3+ 41 wel Hh3 42 Hes+ La?! Itseems that 42... £7 43 Hb7+ 18 44 OF2 He3+ 45 sedi (45 Sef1? BES =) 45...Axf2 46 Hic5 RE7 would have put up more resistance. From now on the clock must have been Black’s main hope. 43 Md 1+ cheb 44 E27? ‘An clementary blunder. Obviously time must have been low at this point. 44 Bd2 would have preserved White's winning advantage. 44.,.2ixh4?? 44,..2e3+ 45 ofl ILf3 must be a draw. 45 Hd8 Ha2 46 HedS Eh2 47 Bd2 ExaS 48 Belt deb7 49 Hd7+ seb6 50 Ha3 Ebs 51 Hd6+ deb7 52 sof g5 53 sbgl Bhd 54 deg? aS 55 Da3t This finesse ensures that the e-pawn will de- cide 55..2igd+ 56 $3 Bgl 57 e5 g4+ 58 cbf2 Mgbl 59 e6 Zt5+ 60 dg2 hs 1-0 Game 7 Svetozar Gligorié — Vladimir Tukmakov Palma de Mallorca (GMA) 1989 1d4 £5 2 g3 Df6 3 2g? e6 4 DE3 dS 50-0 2d6 6 04 c6 7 b3 We7 8 a4 a5! ‘This move has top priority — even over cas- tling. 9 293 2x03 10 Axa3 (D) 10...0-0 Again an argument can be made for delaying castling, just in case White is planning a queen exchange. Indeed, Tukmakov did this (10...b6) in another game in the same tournament; for this and other examples, see 1B. 11.22 This is White’s most popular continuation, He prepares @ce]-d3 and will frequently play 30 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH mee as pk oa ‘Wel — possibly as preparation for Wa3 but also ‘Wh? or We3, fighting for control of e5, are fre- quent ideas. For 11 eS and 11 We2 see 1B. 11...b6 Another high-level game continued 1...2d8 12 Wel b6 13 Acel Dbd7 14 Dd3 a6 15 DfeS DxeS 16 DxeS Kac8 17 We3 Ad7 18 Hfcl Axe5 19 Wxes Wis 20 Wxf6 gxf6 21 05 £ L.Sokolov-Salov, New York 1996. 12. Acel The immediate 12 Wel, planning Wa3 or 'Wb2, has also been played. 12...2b7 13 Dd3 Dab 14 Wel ‘The queen is attracted to the squares b2 and 23, Alternatively: a) 14 Bel c5 15 cxd5 exdS 16 Wd2 Ded 17 Wh2 Hac8 18 Hfdl Db4 19 DfeS He7 20 e3 Hfc8 = Atalik-Bany, Istanbul 1988 b) 14 Dfd Ded 15 h4 Abd 16 Rcl c5 17 e3 Bac8 18 We? fds 19 Hfel Rd6 20 Wb2 Meds 21 cxd5 xd5 22 Dd3 b4 23 Ades = I. Vuko- vié-Gleizerov, Ljubljana 2000. c) 14 €3 Db4 15 Afes c5 16 Hel Back 17 ‘fa a2"? (the more ambitious 17...Bfd8 ap- pears fine too) 18 Bic2 Db4 19 Hd2 Ded 20 skxed fred 21 We cxd4 22 exdd BFS 23 hd = ‘Tukmakov-Tseshkovsky, Sverdlovsk 1987. d) 14 DfeS c5 15 cxd5 Bxd5 (15...exd5 16 Wa? oxdd 17 AF Ded 18 Wh2 Dacs 19 b4 De6 20 Axd4 Dxd4 21 Wxds WIG = Arkell- Giulian, Edinburgh 1989) 16 dxeS Sxg2 17 Sbxg2 xcs 18 Axc5 xcs 19 Ad3 Wd5+ 20 sbgl e5 F Almada-Barbero, Lenk 1994. ‘Q: Rybka says the position is almost equal after 21 Db2 Web 22 Ded. Well, Black certainly looks better. Rybka probably doesn’t fear ...f4, ..Wh3 and .. ga because she sees a concrete defence against each attacking line, But such attacking schemes can frequently be prepared in various non-obvious ways and it certainly wouldn't be fun to be White in a human-versus-human game here. We now return to 14 Wel (D): 14...05 15 Wb2 Again we see the queen contributing to the fight for eS from this somewhat exotic position. 15...De4 16 AfeS Hfd8 17 3 Lac8 Black is very close to equality. 18 Bfdi Qb4 19 24 19 Hacl cxd4?! (prematurely releasing the tension) 20 exd4 @xd3 21 @xd3 Wi67! 22 £3 gS 23 c5 bxe5 24 Axc5 + L. Gonzalez Perez Cuevas Rodriguez, Spanish Women’s Ch 1993. 19...dxe4 20 bxed Ha6 21 13 “f6 22 Kd2 Bed8 23 Badl (D) The position is unbalanced. White has some pawn weaknesses but two nice knights. There- fore Black sets about to eliminate White’s main This mainly weakens White’s position. After 24 Did3 Dxd3 25 Axd3 Bc6 26 Wa3 chances appear roughly equal. 7 b3: INTRODUCTION 31 24...Dxe5 25 dxeS Uxd2 26 Hxd2 Exd2 27 Wrd2 26 This banal threat actually seems to decide the game. 28 e4 &xad 29 exf5 (D) B 29...1Hd7 30 Wel No better is 30 Wxd7 Sxd7 31 fxe6, after which Tukmakov no doubt would have found 31...$xe6!, when his a-pawn decides. 30..Wd1 31 Wxdl Qxd1 32 fxe6 a4 33 DAS a3 34 €7 47 35 Lh3 Axd5S 36 cxdS a2 37 6 al 0-1 Summary * The pawns on c6, d5, e6 and £5 may be the comerstones of the Stonewall, but Black shouldn't hesitate to push them if a favour- able opportunity arises. * One of White’s main plans against the Stone- wall is to exchange dark-squared bishops and then control e5 by manoeuvring his knights to £3 and a3. * After 7 63, Black cannot completely prevent White from exchanging dark-squared bish- ops with 23, but with 7....We7 he can ensure that White has to pay a fitting price in the form of tempi. * Against these lines with an early b3, ...b6 is an appropriate antidote which prepares not only development with ....8b7 or ...Sia6 but also the central break ...c5. * Black shouldn’t automatically castle at the first opportunity, as in some cases his king is better placed in the centre. + Black may in certain lines take the initiative on the queenside by playing ...b5 — in partic- ular if White's pieces are already passively placed. * In general it’s a good idea to meet a4 with «a5 in order to prevent a5 and take control over b4, For those of you who would like some more systematic and detailed study material, feel free to have a look at the theory sections that follow below. If you don't feel ready for that yet, don’t worry. At this stage playing over the illustrative games at least one more time and testing out the Stonewall in blitz games may be just as useful, If you don’t enjoy playing blitz, an alternative way to develop your Stonewall intuition may be to play through a huge number of games rather quickly with the assistance of a database pro- gram. We shall, however, advise everyone to have a go at the exercises. No matter how good a lesson is, the student is to some extent a pas- sive receiver of knowledge. For most people this isn’t sufficient to develop a thorough un- derstanding. There's no way you can master any opening without analysing it actively and independently. Exercise 1 In this relatively typical Stonewall semi-end- game, Black is to make his 26th move. Give an evaluation and suggest a move. If there are tactics involved, give the lines that need to be calculated. Theory 1A 1d4 £5 2 g3 Af6 3 2g? 6 4 AL3 d5 5.04.66 0-0 267 b3 We7 8 2b2(D) 8...0-0 32 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH If Black plans to develop with ...b6 he should probably do so at once and see if his king be- Jongs in the centre. After 8...b6 9 Wel £7 10 £23 Dbd7 11 2xd6 Wxd6 (D) White must de- cide whether he wants to exchange queens: is a clever way to conceal White's intentions but shouldn’t trouble Black too much: 12...0-0 13 Wi4! Wrxfd 14 gxt4 Back 15 Bact Bfd8 16 He2 Ba6 17 cxds Axd5 18 @xd5 cxd5 19 Hfcl Hxc2 20 Exc? Hc8 = Milov-Radjabov, Torshavn 2000. b) After 12 Wa3 Wxa3 (for 12...c5 see Inspi- rational Game B) 13 @xa3 e7 there is no in- dication that White should be better: bl) 14 Bact Ehc8 (or 14..De4 15 Bfdl Ehc8 16 Bel c5 17 dxc5 DdxeS 18 Dd3 deed 19 x4 Dxd3 20 exd3 De5 21 Sxb7 Dxb7 22 f4 when in Alburt-Short, Subotica Inter- zonal 1987 Black could have kept chances equal with 22...28c7) 15 He2 a5 16 Bfel Bed 17 €3 5 18 @\b5 d6 = Krallmann-Michalezak, Ger- many tt 2002/3. b2) 14 Hcl 5 (or 14...Bhe8 15 exd5 exdS 16 Del Hxcl 17 Excl Be8 18 Bxc® Lxc8 = Goldin-Dolmatov, Klaipeda 1988) 15 e3 Hhd8 16 cxdS &xd5 17 DbS a6 18 Zc3 Back 19 @xd5+ Dxd5 and in Naumann-Agdestein, Bun- desliga 2001/2 White should have tried 20 &f1 with roughly equal chances. 9 Wel (D) a) For 9 &bd2 see Game 1. 'b) 9 DeS is discussed in the next Lesson via the move-order 8 De5 0-0 9 &b2, but note that then 9...a5 is probably best met by 10 a4, trans- posing to the lines we considered in Game 7 and which will be the subject of 1B. 9ubS!2 This is Black's sharpest option and probably quite sound. Less critical (but also perfectly sound) alternatives are: a) 9...Dbd7 is lightly tested but looks fully playable. After 10 £23 Black has tried: al) 10...a5 has been played by Short and leads to a type of position we shall discuss in 2B. a2) 10...b6 11 xd6 Wxd6 12 Wes Wxl4 13 gxf4 a6 14 Bel Bac8 15 Aa3 ef7 16 3 be7 17 Hc? &e4 = Balashov-Ponfilenok, Kazan 2007. a3) 10..De4 11 xd6 Wxd6 12 Dbd2 b6 13 Wb2 &b7 14 Hacl Bac8 15 Bfdl Btds 16 3 We7 17 Del La 18 Ad3 Wao 19 b4 We7 20 a3 B67 21 c5 Sa6 22 AE3 Lxd3 23 Bxd3 bxe5 24 dxc5 e5 and Black had no problems in Ivanchuk-Radjabov, Moscow (rapid) 2002 even if 25 Dh4! would have been unclear. b) 9...247 isn’t our primary recommenda- tion but seems sufficient for near-equality: bl) 10 DeS Be8 11 Ba3 Bxad 12 Wxad Wrxa3 13 @)xa3 a5 14 Bfcl QhS 15 Bd3 Abd7 16 Df4 B67 17 €3 HfeB 18 cxd5 exdS 19 c2 g5 20 Dd3 &hS = Razuvaev-Rechlis, West Berlin 1988. b2) 10 a3 Re8 11 Rxd6 Wrd6 and now: 7 b3: INTRODUCTION 33 b21) 12 a3 Qh 13 Ded Dbd7 14 Bal SRxf3 15 c5 We7 16 exf3 £4 17 Del Hack 18 2d3 fxg3 19 hxg3 5 and Black had solved his, opening problems in Nakamura-Hillarp Pers- son, Reykjavik 2004. b22) 12 Wa3 Wxa3 13 xa3 BhS when White has been unable to demonstrate any ad- vantage: b221) 14 Dgs Hes 15 Bfel Dab 16 Dh3 Db4 17 Ded dxo4 18 DxhS Dxh5 19 bxc4 Had’ = Ftatnik-Rechlis, Manila Interzonal 1990. 222) 14 Hfcl Dbd7 15 €3 &xf3 16 2x13 BET 17 Dc He7 18 Del Des 19 Dd3 Dats 20 Des Dd7 21 Bd3 Adf6 22 DeS a7 23 Ad3 Daf6 2-2 Tyomkin-Moiseenko, Kapus- kasing 2003. ©) 9...b6 appears somewhat less logical after Black has castled but with some care should be sufficient for equality too: cl) After 10 £a3 &b7 11 &xd6 Wxd6 12 ‘Wa (12 W2 Dbd7 13 Abd? cS! 14 Bad Bac8 15 cxd5 exd5 16 DeS He7 17 Dxd7 ‘8xd7 = G.Georgadze-Narciso Dublan, Span- ish Team Ch, Sanxenxo 2004) Black should probably keep the queens on with 12...c5 as in Game 1 even if 12...Wxa3 also seems suffi- cient for equality. €2) 10 DeS 67 and then: c21) 11 &a3 Dbd7 12 Dd3 Des 13 Wb2 dxe4 14 bxo4 c5 15 €3 Back 16 Bel Bfd8 was very comfortable for Black in Mirallés-Dolma- tov, Marseilles 1988. 22) 11 d3 Abd7 12 Ad2 Hack 13 b4 (13 ad e5! F) 13...05 14 dxe5 bxe5 15 bxe5 (15 b5) 15...@xc5 ¥ Privman-Yusupov, Philadelphia 2002 ‘We now return to 9...b5!? (D): “ With this move White attacks the newly- created weakness on c6, trying to make Black's queenside development more cumbersome. Now Black must defend c6 before he can de- velop his queen's knight. The alternatives seem harmless: a) 10 &a3 b4 11 &b2 a5 12 a3 a6 and now: al) 13 De5 2b7 14 axb4 ADxb4 15 Be3 Bfc8 16 Dad LxeS 17 dxeS DIT Ya-"e Van Wely-Moskalenko, Metz 1990. a2) 13 axb4 Dxb4 14 Ac3 Ded 15 Dad S716 DeS 5 17 dxe5 AxcS 18 Axes Axes 19 cxd5 Bfc8 = Guliev-Moskalenko, Nikolaev 1993, b) 10 cS Bc7 doesn’t appear to improve White’s chances: bl) 11 De5 b4 12 a3 bxa3 13 Axa3 aS 14 Dc2 Lab 15 We3 D5 16 £4 Dod 17 bd ad 18 a3 Da6 19 Axb5 exb5 = Roder-Moskalenko, Balassagyarmat 1990. b2) 11 b4 a5 12 a3 Bd7 13 Dbd2 He8 14 De5 Kh5 15 Ddf3 Bab 16 a4 Bxf3 17 Rxt3 SkxeS 18 dxe5 Afd7 19 axb5 cxb5 20 ExaS Bxa5 21 bxaS @c6 = Komljenovié-Moska- lenko, La Corufia 1993. ©) For 10 ®bd2 see Game 4. 10...a5 (D) Black can also play 10....267 11 Qd3 @bd7 12 @d2 a5 13 c5 c7 14 Dl3 Ded 15 a3 h6 16 b4 axb4 17 axb4 Hxal 18 Sixal Ba8 19 &b2 Had = Skembris-Moskalenko, Paretana 2000. ae A as w an wy a Now: a) 11 exbS exbS 12 De3 Wa 13 a4 looks unclear, b) 11 a4 b4 (11...bxe4 12 bxc4 a6 fol- lowed by ...Ag4 or ...Hc8 may be preferable) 12 @d2 and here 12...$2xe52! 13 dxeS Ded 14 34 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH xed fred 15 cxd5 exdS was somewhat better for White in Tlivitsky-Antoshin, Sverdlovsk 1951. Probably 12...32b7 is a better try. ¢) 11 Bc3 and then: cl) I1...a4 12 We2 a3 13 Sc bxe4 14 xed. Ba6 15 £g5 Wa7 is strategically complex. Af- ter 16 Hadl d2h8 17 2 f4 De8 White achieves the better chances with 18 c5 (Van der Sterren- Tukmakov, Wijk aan Zee 1991), 18 Wad or 18 exd5, 2) 11...a6 is probably more precise. Af- ter 12 Dxe6 Dxc6 13 exbs Dxd4 14 bxab Bxa6 15 Hdl Ac6 16 €3 De5 17 Abs Heb 18 Wa? chances were equal in Blees-Piskov, Bel- grade 1988. Conclusion 8 &b2 doesn’t promise White a theoretical ad- vantage; actually Black has several paths to in- teresting equality. Theory 1B 1d4 £523 D163 g2 06 4 Df3 dS 50-0 246 6 c4 067 b3 We7 8 a4 a5! (D) It seems very likely that this move, stopping a5 and controlling b4, is Black's best. a) 8...0-0 was explored in Games 5 and 6. b) 8...169.a5!? Da6 10 Sa3 Bxa3 11 Dxa3 Qb7 12 cxd5 cxd5 13 Ze2 0-0 14 Des Bick was unclear in Kakageldiev-Nevednichy, USSR Team Ch, Azov 1991 c) 8..Abd7 9 a3 0-0 10 Wel dxc4 11 bxe4 €5 12 €3 ef 13 Sxd6 Wxd6 14 c5 We7 15 Dfd2 DAS with equality, Giequel-Onkoud, Guingamp This exchange was the main idea behind White's 8th move. A noteworthy alternative is 9 5, which attempts to take advantage of the slight weakening of b6 caused by 8...a5. But af- ter9...c7 10 2F4 Bxf4 11 gxfd Da6 12 Dbd2 b6 13 cxb6 Wh4 14 DeS b7 15 Ddf3 0-016 2d3 Wxb6 Black had comfortable equality in Braga-Tyomkin, Dos Hermanas 2000. 9. Sdxa3 9...06 is equally playable: a) 10 Wel &b7 11 xd6 Wrxd6 12 Wet? (12 Wa3 c5 13 cxd5 exd5 14 De3 Ac6 15 Wel 0-0 16 Bdt 4b4 = Brito Garcia-Ulybin, Ben- asque 1992) 12...Wxf4 13 gxf4 Da6 14 Dbd2 Se 15 Bfcl Bac8 16 e3 Hhd8 17 cxd5 cxd5 (17...exd5!2) 18 De5 Db4 19 BF1 Bg8 = Frhat- L.Johannessen, Dresden Olympiad 2008. b) After 10 BeS5 Qb7 LL exdS cxd5 12 Bxd6 Wxd6 13 Da3 0-0 14 Abs We7 15 el Dab 16 Wa2 BicB 17 Hxc8+ Bxc8 18 Hel Excl+ 19 Wxcl De8 Black seemed able to hold in Malaniuk-Vaisser, Erevan (open) 1996, 10 Dxa3 0-0 As long as White may still play for a queen exchange (with cl and Wa3), it makes some sense to delay ...0-0. There are some examples of Black delaying castling for some moves: a) 10..Dbd7 11 De? b6 12 De5 Axes 13 dxe5 Dd7 14 exd5 cxd5 15 £4 Dc5 16 Add 0-0 17 Wd2 2d7 18 b4 Ba6 19 bxaS bxa5 20 WxaS Db4 21 We7 Bfes 22 Whe Kebs 23 Wa6 Wxa6 24 exd6 + Kharlov-Dreev, Elista 1995. b) After 10...b6 there is: bl) 11 Wel &b7 12 2 Dab 13 Bact 0-0 14 Des Hfe8 15 fd Mad8 16 cxd5 cxd5 17 €3 Db4 18 Fl Ded 19 £3 Ad6 20 Abs Dab V2-He Moskalenko-Glek, Copenhagen 1995, although White is still slightly better. b2) 1 Wa2 £07 12 exdS exdS (12...cxd5 13 Db5 0-0 14 Bact Deb 15 Hc2 Ded =) 13 De? 0-0 14 Deel Ded 15 Wh2 Das 16 Dds Hac8 17 Bacl Db4 18 DfeS cS = Grabliaus- kas-Gleizerov, Vilnius 1997. b3) 11 BeS and now: B31) 11...b7 12 cxd5 exd5 13 We2 Wes 14 2h3 g6 15 Hfd] Aa6 16 Wh2 0-0 17 3 Hac8 18 acl c5 = Suba-Tukmakov, Palma de Mallorca 1989. 32) 11...0-0 12 We2 &b7 13 Hcl Da6 14 cxd5 cxd5 15 Abs Ric8 16 Wd2 Abd 17 3 Ded 18 Bxed dred 19 Exc8+ Bxc8 20 Hel 7 b3: INTRODUCTION 35 Bxcl+21 Wxcl Dd5 = Akopian-Ulybin, World Junior Ch, Mamaia 1991 ‘We now return to the position after 10...0-0 (D): ring this knight to d3 and then the other knight to £3. But the idea is to lure Black's knight to 7, where itis less active than on a6. Other tries include: a) 11 We2 @a6 and White has tried: al) After 12 DeS Db4 13 Wh2 Dd7 14 Dd3 b6 15 Dc? Axc2 16 Wxe2 a6 17 Bfcl Bac8 18 Wa2, 18...W16! failed to solve Black's problems in Novikov-Dreev, Manila Olympiad 1992, but quite possibly 18...Wd6 would have levelled the chances. a2) 12 Bfcl Ded 13 Aes Db4 14 Wh2 £4 15 £3 Zdo?! (15...2)g5! seems to equalize) 16 c5 De8 17 Wa? g5 18 ADe2 Dxc2 19 Bxc2 Dg7 20 g4 De8 21 €3 + Ibragimov-Rahman, Guntur 2000. b) For 11 De? see Game 7. 11...bd7 11...b6 would most likely transpose to the Positions arising from 10...b6 11 eS. 12 Dd3 (D) 12 £4 shouldn't worry Black much as it weakens e4 at least as much as it strengthens eS. After the fairly normal-looking sequence J 12...Be4 13 xed fxed 14 Dxd7 Axd7 15 @c2, Kadar-Galyas, Hungary 1998 continued with the somewhat artificial-looking 15...fc8, which gave White a small plus after 16 2e3 ‘e817 Wa2. Instead a number of moves de- serve attention, including 15...2e8, 15...c5, 15...n5!? and even the pawn sacrifice 15...e which gives Black’s restricted bishop access to the juicy-looking light squares on the kingside, Here Black leeway: a) 12...Ded 13 We2 Daf 14 Bfb1 Dd6 (14...247!) 15 b4 axb4 16 Exb4 AL seems equal, Sadler-Schmittdiel, Bundesliga 1997/8. b) 12...b6 and now: bl) 13 Wel 2b7 14 Wb2 Rac8 15 Bacl 5 16 ¢3 Ded 17 £3 Dd6 18 cxd5 exd5 19 Des ‘Bfe8 20 £4 Ded was fine for Black in Nisman- Bany, Warsaw 1989. b2) 13 We2 La6 14 Hfcl Back 15 W2 Ded 16 b4 axb4 17 Dxb4 Bb7 18 €3 c5 19 03 exd4 4-2 Akopian-Kramnik, USSR Ch, Moscow 1991, b3) After 13 cxd5 exdS 14 We2 &b7 15 Dbl Hae8 16 €3 Ded 17 Ad? c5 18 dxe5 bxc5 chances were balanced in Rajna-Dolmatoy, Polanica Zdroj 1987. Conclusion After 8 a4 a5!, Black has comfortable play. Lesson 2 The Critical 7 b3 “%e7 8 Ded! The shrewd guess, the fertile hypothesis, the courageous leap to a tentative conclusion — these are the most valuable coins of the thinker at work. But in most schools guessing is heavily penalized and is associated somehow with lazi- ness: JEROME BRUNER 8 2eS is considered White’s best try for an ad- vantage and we shall see Black having a consid- erably tougher time than in Lesson 1. Again the emphasis will be on understanding, but in cer- tain lines Black must play quite precisely to avoid being overrun. Lesson Overview (1 d4 f5 2 BY3 DY6 3 g3 06 4 Wg? d5 50-0 2d6 64 067 b3 We7) 8 DeS! (D) The critical line goes lays castling with 8...b67! now Game 8 covers 9...xd5! 10 Yel, while 9...exd5 10 8.62 £b7 can be found in Game 9) 9 &b2 (92d? —Game 12) 9...b6 (as a back-up system, we suggest Moskalenko’s 9...bd7 followed by 10...a5 ~ see 2B) 10 exd5! exdS! (Game 10 illustrates why Black should avoid 10...exd57! 11 Be4!) 11 We2! Sxe5 (we shall have a look at some less explored 11th moves in Exercise 2) 12 dxe5 e4. Now Black seems to be doing fine in the main variation 13 Qd2 (Game 11), but our analysis shows that 13 2.3! (2A) is amajorimprovement for White. Game 8 Rainer Knaak - Joachim Wintzer Lugano (open) 1989 1 d4 £5 2 Df3 ALG 3 g3 06 4 Bg? dS 50-0 2d6 6 04 c67 b3 We7 8 Des! Superficially this may seem just another way to bring knights to 43 and £3, establishing iron control over e5, And in certain lines that is in deed what White will do. However, White’s main idea is more concrete. Primarily he clears the diagonal hl-a8 and makes it harder for Black to develop with ...b6 Q: What has White achieved by playing b3 if not to exchange the dark-squared bishops? Couldn't he just have played 7 De5 immedi ately? 7 ®e5 is quite a good move but it has a con- crete drawback, to which we shall return in Game 14 in Lesson 3. In the main line of that particular variation, playing b3 would be a use- ful move for White, while ..We7 would be a pure tempo-loss as the queen quickly hurries to h4 in order to create threats on the kingside. However, it may at this point be worthwhile to discuss the inclusion of the two moves b3 and ...We7 in a more general context. In general... Ye7 is quite a useful developing move, but it also has some minor drawbacks: *+ Ina few specific lines White can make use of the unprotected c8-bishop. + After ..0-0, in a few lines ...2c7 or ...Sxe5 would have been a useful move if it hadn’t THE CRITICAL 7 b3 We7 8 Des! 37 been for a3, skewering the queen and the £8-100k. Similarly b3 is generally useful as it pre- pares the development of White’s dark-squared bishop, but it has some minor drawbacks too: * The queen's diagonal d1-a4 is shortened (so ‘Wb3 and Wad aren’t options any more). *+ The c3-square is somewhat weakened, possi- bly making ...e4 a more annoying move, * Black's ...a5 plan may be more annoying when the further ..a4 threatens to open the a-file on Black’s terms. + The a3-square is weakened. If Black plays a5 followed by ...a6, and White meets this with a3 to cover b4, the a3-pawn will be vulnerable due to Black’s bishop and queen Jined up against it on d6 and e7. This will make it harder for White to activate his al- rook. 8...b62! This move must be considered slightly sus- pect. 8...0-0is more flexible and probably better. Q: But wouldn't that allow White to return to plans with $a3, where Black's king is better placed in the centre? Well, as you shall soon see, compared to the lines we are examining in this lesson, the pros- pect of endgames like the ones we saw in the previous lesson is quite tempting - irrespective of whether Black's king remains in the centre or is committed to the kingside. If you insist on keeping your king flexible, 8,..Dbd7 is probably a fully playable alternative Unfortunately it limits Black’s options consid- erably as ...2d7 is then impossible while ...b6 is also more or less out of the question with c6 unprotected. Yet the move isn’t just an attempt to keep the king centralized; Black may also try to accelerate his queenside play with a quick a5-a4. However, after the natural 9 £b2 Black hardly has anything better than 9...0-0, trans- posing t0 8...0-0 9 £b2 bd7, which is the sub- ject of 2B. Other moves are less logical: a) 9...a5!? looks playable but is untested. b) The greedy 9...dixe5?! 10 dxeS Dg4 cannot be recommended as 11 cxd5 exd5 12 Wad3 @dxe5 13 We3 regains the pawn on g7 due to the threat of h3; for example, 13...Dg6 14 Wxg7 Wxg7 15 &xg7 He8 16 2d4 and the powerful bishop guarantees White a lasting ad- vantage. c) 9...Ae4 attempts to close the hl-a8 diago- nal. 10 £3 Def6 (this modest retreat spends two tempi to provoke £3; alternatively, 10...g5!? intends ...7 to fight for eS) 11 €3 0-0 12 d2 (12 Wd3 a5 13 Bd? a4 14 Dxd7 Bxd7 15 04 with unclear play, Karbowiak-Duszezak, Poz- nan 2006; this is one example of Black’s queen- side ideas) 12...95 13 e4 f4 14 Dxd7 Dxd7 15 Wel Bf7 16 2h3 8 17 Phi Ago 18 e5 LeT 19 Bgl Sd7 was completely unclear in Van Wely-Radjabov, Wijk aan Zee 2003. 9 exd5! (D) B White should only relieve the central ten- sion like this if there is anything tangible to be achieved. 9..0xd5?! It’s tempting to free c6 for the still undevel- oped knight, but 9...exd5 is a better attempt to keep White’s edge at a minimum. We shall re- turn to that option in Game 9. 10 Ded! (D) This demonstrates the main idea behind 8 De5. White exploits the pin on the hl-a8 diago- nal and removes Black’s defender of the weak- ened dark squares. 38 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH 10.26 This is a natural follow-up to the recapture with the c-pawn. 10...b5? 11 Dxd6+ Wrd6, in- tending to meet a3 with ...b4, is weaker. In Game 9 we shall consider a very similar posi- tion with the additional moves £2b2 and ...0-0, but with the bishop on cl and Black’s king in the centre White can speed up the action on the queenside with 12 2c3 followed by a4 and Sed. 11 Dxd6+ Wxd6 12 2a3! This is more convincing than 12 a3 &a6 13 D2 St7 14 &a3 WaT 15 Wd2 Back 16 fel Hc7 with approximate equality in PCram- ling-Ansner, Stockholm 1992. 12...\b4 13 Dd2 Ded?! Up to this point Black’s position has been passive but fairly solid, Now White is allowed to break the position open, taking tactical ad- vantage of Black's weak dark squares. 13...0-0 is better but it’s worth noting that White can for the second time make use of the hl-a8 diagonal to improve his position with 14 cd! 14 Dxed! dxed 15 £3 exf3 16 &xf3 Xb8 (D) 17 Bel! The bishop is heading for a more useful di- agonal 17...0b7 Black offers an exchange to get rid of White’s powerful bishop-pair. 17..Dd5 is somewhat better, but after 18 e4 fxe4 19 &xe4 the black king is stuck in the centre. 18 &f4 Wa7 19 Kel Dd5? 20 &xd5! exds 21 Mf3! This nice manoeuvre actually wins the bishop on 8, 21...lHd8 22 Sigs! WaT Forced, but now that the bishop on 8 can’t move, White simply picks it up on its initial square! 23 Hfc3 0-0 24 24 Ha8 25 We2! 1-0 Before we move on to more popular lines, wwe shall have another look at Black’s attempt to delay castling. Game 9 Alexander Shabaloy - Anatoli Vaisser Tilburg 1993 14 £5 2DF3 06 3 23 Df6 4 &g2 dS 5.c4 06 60-0 246 7 b3 We7 8 eS b6?! 9 exd5 exds (D) As we saw in Game 8, Black’s prospects af- ter 9...cxd5?! 10 cd! are relatively bleak. The text-move leads to far more dynamic play but Black still has to deal with his static weak- nesses. ‘The recapture with the e-pawn opens up the 8-h3 diagonal and thus increases Black's pres- ence on the kingside, where he has a potential initiative because of his advanced f-pawn. If Black’s b-pawn were still back on b7, this would have solved all his problems. As it is, Black is stuck with a weak pawn on c6 which is even harder to defend because of the exposed f-pawn, 10 2b2 This may be best but allows a transposition to8...0-09 &b2 b6 10 cxd5 exd5 lines. 10 Dd3 and 10 f4 are sensible and more independent alternatives, We won't give further details as we don’t recommend the 8...b6 move-order. 10..8b7!2 Black insists on delaying ...0-0. It was still possible to transpose to Game 1] with 10...0-0. THE CRITICAL 7 b3 We7 8 DeS! 39 Q: Is there then any reason to consider 8...b6 ‘more dubious than 8...0-0 9 &.b2 b6? Yes, probably there is — because it gave White more information about Black’s plans than 8...0-0 would have done. White exchanges on dS only because ...b6 allows him to use the tactical weakness of the h1-a8 diagonal in order to exploit the weak pawns on c6 and £5. 11 We2(D) 11...g6 This looks somewhat weakening but it will take White some moves to get around to the Kingside dark squares. Q: How about the pawn sacrifice 11...0-0? ‘That certainly is an option. We shall return to the move in Exercise 2 but our preliminary con- clusion it that Black's compensation seems in- sufficient, 12. 20-0 This seems somewhat inconsistent, In later games Vaisser has preferred 12...bd7 (contin- uing to delay ...0-0) but whether it is objectively an improvement is an open question: a) 13@xd7 Dxd7 and now White has tried: al) 14e4 fxed 15 £3 €3 16 Bfel 0-0 (another idea is 16...dub4!) 17 Df Bac8 18 Dxe3 We7 19 Bp4 Be7 20 £4 Bfe8 = San Segundo Car- rillo-Teran Alvarez, Lanzarote 2003. a2) 14 Df3 0-0 15 e3 Bac8 16 Hdl HE7 17 ‘We3 He8 18 Ael g5 = Hernando Rodrigo-del Rio, Santa Clara 1999. b) 13 Ddf3 He8 and then: bl) 14 Dxd7 Axd7 15 Del 0-0 16 Ad3 Zice8 17 Hael h5 18 h4 g5 19 hxgs Wxg5 20 &cl Wg7 21 2f4 and in Izeta-Vaisser, Linares 1995 Black should have tried 21...Sxf4 22 Oxf h4! 23 Wa3 (23 gxh4 Wadd F) 23.007 with fine chances. b2) 14.a4 a5 15 Hadi (15 Zacl 0-0 16 Sal Db8 17 Dd3 Dab 18 DfeS Abd 19 Wd2 Det Dautov-Vaisser, Baden-Baden 1995) 15...0-0 16 lal Ded 17 Axd7 Wxd7 18 Des Wes 19 £3 ®Df6 20 €3 5 and in PNikoli¢-Vaisser, Paris, 1994 Black was at least equal. 13 Bach The only other game which has reached this position continued 13 €3 c5 14 Ddf3 Dbd7 15 Axd7 Wxd7 16 dxc5 bxcS 17 Hdl We7 (17...De4!?) 18 We3 h6 19 Bact Hae8 20 Del and White had somewhat the better chances in Stone-Southam, Philadelphia 1992, 13...c5!? This move seems a bit risky after Black has weakened the al-h8 diagonal with ...g6. 14 Daf3 Dab 15 Sfdl Zack (D) Both sides have completed their develop- ment and it isn’t obvious which bishops are weak or strong. It is, however, clear that the weakness of e5 causes Black some minor wor- ries. 16 Whi Dc7 17 €3 De6 18 dxeS bxe5 19 Dd3 The position is complex and it’s not at all easy to know what is going on. But this move seems to encourage Black’s queenside expan- sion, 19...2e4 20 Ral o4 21 DEA Probably White should have played 21 bxc4 dxcé first, just to get some more breathing space on the queenside, 21...Dxt4 22 gx S.a3 23 Rc? c3 24 Bel (D) Black has played energetically and as a re sult has achieved quite a promising position. 47 This pawn sacrifice makes positional sense as it activates Black’s light-squared bishop while 40 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH 4 9 we Ur some of White’s pieces are a bit out of play on the queenside, Yet it may be Black’s first step in the wrong direction. 25 Gxdd g5? 25...Eifd8 26 Wal &b4 is a better try. White can chase away the defenders of the c3-pawn by 27 £3 followed by 28 a3 but Black seems to have the tactical solution 27...24d2 28 a3 Hxd4! 29 exdd Axf3+! 30 Sxf3 Gxf3 31 Wel Wh4, with perpetual check. However, this isn’t forced and White may try to improve with 27 We2. 26 £3! (D) ea J » as This well-calculated move works only be- cause of the semi-forced sequence of moves that occurs in the game. 26.442 Black must have pinned his hopes on this tempo-gain on White’s queen. But here the knight is exposed and without any retreat-path, 27 Wall gxf4 28 Zxc3 fxe3 29 Rexe3 Wre3+ This is relatively best but far from sufficient. 30 Hxe3 Kel 31 Wxel Sixcl 32 Hel £a3 33 Bal Ke8 34 df2 Eel At the cost of a second pawn, Black man- aged to save his stranded knight. But his game is beyond salvation, 35 Bxel Sixel 36 AxfS Ab 37 su Da2 38 She? Wa8 39 Bd4 a5 40 e3 £7 41 del $16 42 xd? Sxd2+ 43 dexd2 sexf5 44 de 10 While delaying castling may have its points, the risks seem to outweigh the gains. Therefore the main lesson is a first impression of the two main pawn-structures that can arise. We now move on to more deeply researched lines. Game 10 Eric Lobron - Meelis Kanep Keres Memorial (rapid), Tallinn 2004 1 cd e6 2 Df3 d5 3 d4 c6 4 b3 This is hardly the most challenging move in this position, 4...£5 5 g3 DE6 6 Rg? 2d6 7 0-0 Now we have a familiar position on the board. ‘The bishop exchange isn’t an option before White has castled, as 7 £432? loses a piece to 7.893 8 Dxa3 Was+ 7..WeT 8 De5 0-09 £b2 See Game 12 for the important alternative 9 Dd2, which is based on some of the same ideas as the bishop development. 9.ub6' This has been considered dubious and 2A in- deed hints that Black has problems. Therefore in 2B we provide analysis of Moskalenko's rather lightly tested set-up with 9..bd7 and 10...a5 as an alternative. Yet there may be hope for Black based on some very interesting analy- sis provided by Belgian analyst and Stonewall. expert Helmut Froeyman in Exercise 2. 10 exd5 exd5?! (D) This position must be studied in connection with the similar 8...b6 9 cxd5 cxd5 of Game 8. We aren’t sure about the objective merits of this move compared to 10...exd5, which we shall consider in Game 11. But after White’s next move it will be obvious that Black’s winning chances will be extremely limited. Thus it’s strange that a strong GM like Krasenkow has en- tered this position against a clearly lower-rated player (see comments to White's 13th move below). 11 Dest Again this simple tactical point eliminates Black’s important dark-squared bishop. It is food for thought that this idea has been known a THE CRITICAL 7 b3 We7 8 Be5! 41 ong time — no doubt also for Krasenkow, who is always well prepared. 11...2e6! It may be too harsh to adorn this move with the ‘dubious’ sign. 11...b5 has been suggested as an improvement but after 12 @\xd6 Wxd6, it is possible that 13 @a3! of Shabalov-Gausel, Oslo 1991 has made that line unattractive for Black too, as the knight quickly arrives on 43 (via 2 and e1), where it is extremely well placed Q: In Lesson 1 you were quite sceptical about long-winded plans manoeuvring knights 10 f3 and d3. Why is this so much better now? Euwe was probably right that knights on d3 and £3 are White’s ideal set-up. But getting the knights there is a time-consuming project — time that Black can use to create counterplay elsewhere. The great difference here is that Black lacks meaningful counterplay, allowing White to take the time he needs to arrange his pieces. 12 D\xd6 Wrxd6 (D) ava yy Y 13 a3! As in Game 8, White forces the c6-knight to leave its post before transferring his bishop to £4. This practically wins a tempo as the knight is needed on c6 in order to fight for 5. Kelly-Krasenkow, Elista Olympiad 1998 con- tinued 13 Ac3 Ba6 14 a4 Hfc8 (14...W4!2) 15 Ga3 Wa7 16 Wa2 Ded 17 Dxed dxed 18 Bfdl a5 with quite acceptable chances for Black. 13..Db4 14 Rel!? Until this game Black had quite good results in this line, but this paradoxical regrouping to £4 is unpleasant for Black as the weaknesses of €5 and d6 become obvious. The logical justifi- cation is that Black’s knight will have to return to c6 in order to fight for e5, thereby losing two tempi, while White’s £43-cl-f4 loses only one move compared to the direct Sc1-f4. Nevertheless the most accurate execution of White’s idea may be 14 &\c3! a5 and only now 15 Scl! (rather than 15 Wa2 @a6 16 Bfcl Bfe8 17 £3 Be7 18 Dad Hac8 19 Lxc7 Bxe7 20 Hel with only a minimal plus to White in Bareev-Kobaliya, St Petersburg 1998), which transposes to our main game without allowing 14...206!2. 14...a5 Roiz points out that this standard prophylac- tic move prevents White from seizing more space by b4 and a4 and stabilizes the future po- sition of the bishop on a6. The weakening of bS isn’t significant. Yet 14...2\c6!? intending 15 24 Wb4! with counterplay against d4 may be a better try. Instead White should probably just repeat moves with 15 £23 @b4 and now go for 16 %c3!, as described above. 15 2\c3 £a6 16 214 Wa7 (D) D i 2a 1723 Roiz considers this move somewhat weaken- ing and suggests 17 Scl!? Hfc8 18 £3 £. Fritz prefers the immediate 17 Dad. 42 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH 17...2)e6 18 Bel Hfe8 This is probably the wrong rook 19 2adt ‘Very unpleasant — the knight puts pressure on the b-pawn while also preventing its advance. 19...Wb7 20 £3! White takes contro! of e4 and g4 and pre- pares to transfer his queen to e3. The g2-bishop is temporarily obstructed, but right now itis the dark squares that matter. 20...0)47 21 Wa2 (D) 21..Da7? The logical follow-up was to try to simplify the position with 21..b5! 22 De5 Axed 23 Zxc5 bd 24 ad Das. 22 We3 2f7 Roiz suggests that 22...0f8 should be met by 23 g4 @b5 24 £h3 with a strong initiative. 23 ga! £6?! This move weakens the dark squares around Black's king. 23...AbS is probably better, but White can ignore the threat to the a3-pawn and continue 24 £h3 g6 25 gS (or 25 WE2!? in- tending Wh4) 25...¥\xa3? 26 gxfS gxfS 27 2g4! with a decisive attack. 24 gxf5 exf5 Roiz considers this to be the decisive mis- take and instead recommends 24...exf5 25 3 2ybS 26 Who AEB 27 LeS ke but then 28 ed! decides, 25 S.d6! DF8?! (D) This leads to an unnecessarily quick loss 25...f6 is more resilient. 26 Dxb6! Black had probably overlooked this tactical blow. White is also winning after 26 WeS or 26 f4. 26...Wxb6 & After 26...21e8 27 Wh6! Wxb6 28 Hc7+ Black has to give up his queen, as 28...<2e6 29 We3+ leads to a forced mate. 27 We7+ seg8 28 £4! Suddenly the sleeping beauty on g2 enters the attack! 28...Sb7 After 28...Wb7? 29 WeS! Black cannot de- fend d5. 29 Be De6 30 WE6 (D) Black is a piece up, but his uncoordinated pieces are unable to defend their king. 30..2xe1 31 Exel Be8 Or 31.218 32 Wh8+ £17 33 Wxh7+ des 34 Wxg6+ and something bad will happen on 7 due to the pinned knight, Roiz gives 34...£7 35 He7, 34.807 35 Be7+! Wxe7 36 &xc7 Dxc7 37 Wg7+ and 34...sd8 35 Bc7+, with White winning in all cases. 32 Wh8+ @f7 33 Wxh7+ £8 Black's next few moves are forced. 33...8e8 34 Wsxg6+ just transposes to the game. 34 Wh8s 17 35 W6+ de8 36 Wixg6+ eT 37 Wi6+ e8 38 Zt Keeping the rook prevents Black from get- ting any counter-chances. THE CRITICAL 7 b3 We7 8 He5! 43 38...He2 39 £3 39 Wxf5 is even simpler. The d4- and e2- pawns are immune due to 40 WhS+. 39.208? Overlooking a forced mate, but Black's posi- tion was absolutely hopeless. Roiz demonstrates a forced win after 39...b5 40 2hS+, while 40 Ph1 (intending Egl) is even more crushing. 40 QhS+ ded7 41 WI7+ 1-0 Taken together with Game 8 you get a clear impression that Black shouldn't recapture with his c-pawn, allowing White to capture his dark- squared bishop with the \cé finesse. It only re- mains to see how the ...exd5 recapture works in connection with early castling. Game 11 Joaquim Soberano — Ivar Bern ICCF corr. Olympiad Final 2006 144fs 1 (LB.) could find no earlier games with Soberano facing the Dutch. 2263 46 3 g3 6 4 2p? dS 50-0 2d6 64 €6 7 b3 We7 8 AeS 0-09 2h2 This is generally considered White's main line. Therefore it’s interesting to note that Van Wely did not play this move in any of his four games against Moiseenko in Khanty-Mansiisk 2005. Instead he preferred 9 4d? (see Game 12) and the more independent 9 £4, going on to try various moves after 9...\bd7 10 Axd7 Bxd7 11 Gxd6 Wado 12 Da2 F4: a) In the 3rd match game (rapid tie-break) Black was OK when the centre dissolved after 13 DF3 fxg3 14 hxg3 dxed 15 bxed c5 16 Wh3 2c6 17 Had! Mads =. b) Inthe Sth game (blitz tie-break) Van Wely ‘was more successful after keeping the position closed by 13 c5 Wc7 14 Af3 Be8 15 Bh3 27 16 De fxg3 17 fxg3 We7 18 Wd3 Ded 19 Re2 2)f6 20 ta d7 with a minimal advantage to White. 9.ub6 10 exdS For alternatives see 2A. 10..exd5! (D) This capture is much more enterprising than 10..cxd5. In Game 9 we pointed out that Black's posi- tion would have been more solid with his pawn still on £7 or his b-pawn on b7. So the big go ae &e BoOzw ae | question is whether Black is able to activate his pieces and use his advanced f-pawn in a posi- tive way or if he has to defend his weaknesses. This can only be determined by concrete analy- sis. 11 We2t If there’s a concrete problem with Black’s position, this is most likely the move to demon- strate it, White points out the two weaknesses in Black’s position, forcing Black to take quite conerete action. 11 €\d2 is probably weaker as it gives Black a freer hand, but has practical importance as the position could arise from move-orders with an early Abd2. 11...xe5?! This has been Black’s choice in 10 of the 15 games in my database ~ including 4 by Glei- zerov — but is probably not best. Fortunately, Black has several interesting alternatives. In Exercise 2 we shall return to the highly critical position after 11 Wc2. In principle Black should- n't be happy to give up this bishop for a knight, but as compensation his queenside pawns be- come more mobile. 12 dxeS Zed 13 Dd2 ‘This natural developing move has been the most frequent choice in this position, yet it may not be the toughest challenge. We shall return to 13 Bc3 and 13 a3! in 2A. 13...2)xd2 This is Gleizerov’s improvement on 13...052!, which he tried against Farago in Portoroz, 1993. The game continued 14 g4!? (Fritz doesn’t rank this move very highly, but Aagaard gives it two exclamation marks in his Dutch Stonewall; in any case it’s a very interesting move which chal- lenges Black’s grip on e4) 14... Wg5? (14...2c6! 15 gxf5 &xf5 16 Axed deed 17 Bxed xe looks unclear) 15 Had Qc6 (15... Wxg4? loses 4 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH a piece to 16 £3) 16 Wel?! (16 Bxed fred 17 Hxd5 Abd 18 Wa2 +) 16...Wg6! (16...8d8 17 gxfS Qxf5 18 xed Wel 19 Af6+ exf6 20 excl is unclear) 17 gxf5 Axf5 18 Axed dxe4?! (18....xed is better) 19 Hid6 We8 20 xed! +. 14 Wxd2 (D) White has the only passed pawn on the board and a potentially deadly dark-squared bishop (and the bishop-pair), so he is probably fairly happy. However, White's two main assets aren't cooperating very well, as the passed pawn is obstructing the scope of the b2-bishop. Black’s plan is to prepare the pawn push ...c5 by over- protecting d5. Thus the bishop goes to e6 or b7 and one of the rooks moves to the d-file. 14... a6! A knight on the rim is just two moves away from the centre! Gleizerov too seems fond of this knight deployment. On a6 the knight pre- vent White's b4 advance and covers c5, but af- ter Black has achieved ...c5 it often retreats to €7 to cover the light squares. Maybe it moves on to €6, blocking the e-pawn and controlling important dark squares in the centre. The ma- noeuvre ...\a6-c5-e4 frequently fails because of the pinning £2a3 but is worth bearing in mind 14.,..2b7 is less accurate as 15 bd! is a seri- ‘ous obstacle to Black’s ...c5 idea. 15 adt? A logical novelty, threatening a3. Gleizerov has been successful against two other moves: a) 15 Bact &b7 16 f4 Bad8 17 e4 5 18 axf5 Bxf5 19 €3 2620 We3 Ac7 21 6?! da! 22 exd4 Abs 23 Wed?! Gixg? 24 dixg2 Dxdd F O.Romanoy-Gleizerov, Minsk 1997. b) 15£32d8 16 acl c5 17 Hfdl 6 18 e3 Hac8 with counterplay in Ablander-Gleizerov, Stockholm 2002. 15.808 The rook steps out of the a3-f8 diagonal. I didn’t quite trust Black's compensation after the pawn sacrifice 15...£e6!? 16 a3 c5 17 Sixd5 Bfd8 18 £xe6+ Wxe6. Black can put his, ook in the centre and double on the d-file, but most likely his initiative will run out. 16 Bfd1 16 a5 is interesting, immediately putting Black's queenside under pressure. 16...2€6 This is how Gleizerov organized his pieces against Ahlander. The bishop points towards the soft b-pawn and supports a possible queen- side pawn expansion 17 2a3 5 18 Wd3 Ac (D) 19 e321 This is where the fun ends for White in this game. 19 a5 is better, but Black is quite solid af- ter 19...b5 20 b4 c4 followed by ...@a6 in order to hassle b4 and protect ¢5. Black has conceded the d4-square, but he’s not doing so badly on the rest of the important dark squares. The a- pawn makes sense on a7, where it controls b6. I was also considering 19...Hac8 and 19... Lab8. 19...a5! Fritz 9 immediately appreciates this move ), thus confirming my impression from the Correspondence World Championship that it has a decent understanding of Stonewall posi- tions. My other programs at the time (and Fritz 11!) claimed that White has an advantage, fail- ing to appreciate that White has no targets to at- tack. The knight on c7 is doing a wonderful job protecting the light squares, while the a3-bishop is pointing at solid rock. This gives Black the opportunity for slowly developing an initiative on the kingside. THE CRITICAL 7 b3 We7 8 Des! 45 20 Ha2 g5 21 We2 &h8 At this point the computers are in total dis- agreement about evaluations as well as move suggestions, 22 Had Hg8 23 Xd3 Mg6 24 Bel deg? 25 ‘We2(D) e 28.uHaT! This clever defensive move (suggested by Fritz 9, but not Fritz. 11!) stops White’s tricks based on playing b4 or &xc5. The rook is one move further away from the attack on the king- side but by calming things down on the queen- side, Black actually gains a lot of time for kingside play. 26 Ba2 h5 27 2A Manoeuvring the bishop away from the long diagonal may actually be a mistake. The king loses a defender and White gives up his pres- sure against the d5-pawn, 27.8887 The queen keeps an eye on d5, £5 and h5, and points towards b3. 28 e2 Hh6 29 2b2 dg8 This is prophylaxis against tricks from the b2-bishop and preparation for the transfer of major pieces along Black’s 2nd rank. Rushing things gives White counterplay: a) 29...h4 runs into 30 g4! fxg4 31 xed! b) 29...£4 30 gxf4 exf4 31 Shi and White takes over the g-file, 30Bf1 This move was accompanied by a draw offer. 30.28 31 £41? White gets tired of waiting. He has achieved very little since his last pawn move, 19 €3. 31..g4 32 f2 hd 33 Bgl a6 Apparently heading for b4. 34 S.c3 hxg3+ 35 hxg3 (D) With this critical decision, the game enters a ‘more tactical phase. The knight on the rim will soon be on e4 attacking everybody. 36 bxe4 The c-pawn becomes very powerful after 36 S2.d4 Abd followed by ...Hc8. 36..D€5 37 kel White starts evacuating before the knight hits e4, but now Black’s rook takes over the sec- ond rank. 37.204 38 Bdd Bh? (D) 39 exd5 Bxd5 40 2b2 26 White could be threatening 41 HxdS Wxd5 42 Sic4 in some variations, so the bishop re- treats — at the same time preparing to activate the sleeping attacker on a8. This is more than the white position can withstand, 41 Hxed cB! 42 Wa2 fxed 43 Sm Wa7 Black is an exchange up, so it’s time to start exchanging down to an easily won ending. 44 Wxd7 Qxd7 45 Hf? Bxf2 46 coxf2 He2 47 244 (D) 47...b5! 48 tel bxad The position is completely resignable, but as this was an important team match in the 16 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH Z Olympic final (which Norway won!), my op- ponent decided to “hide the loss’, applying the dreaded ‘Dead Man's Defence’ (DMD), drag- ging out time for another six months. 49 &d1 Ee7 50 &b2 S751 ed2 ego 52 La3 £e6 53 Rb5 Lb3 54 2d6 He2+ 55 vel WES 56 Ld7+ Le6 57 Bxa4 Ba? S8 Adi ad 59 Oxad Exad The rest needs no comments. 60 G12 Led 61 Le7 Bal 62 &c5 Bfl+ 63 hg? EFS 64 Wh? AF1 65 26 Bh3 66 La7 Ef2+ 67 Shi Lg? 68 e6 dxe6 69 (5+ SxS 70 Abs cheb 71 REA dS 72 Ld6 Hed 73 Le7 $43 0-1 That didn’t seem bad at all for Black. We now move on to a move-order finesse for White which generally forces the same kind of pawn- structure, Game 12 Geert van der Stricht - Nikola Sediak Turin Olympiad 2006 1d4 £5 2 g3 DL 3 Sg? e6 4 DE3 d5 50-0 Ld6 6 4 c6 7 b3 We7 8 De5 0-0(D) This position could in theory also arise from the move-order 8 bd2 0-07! 9 eS. But in that case, Black should have availed himself of the opportunity to play 8...b6!, meeting 9 Des with 9...2b7 and fairly comfortable play as seen in Lesson 1 Just as 9 $b2, the text-move is intended to discourage development with ...b6, but it seems less critical here, as the lack of support for the e5-knight makes the cxd5 exdS structure less attractive for White. ‘The third major option, 9 Wc2!?, is covered in 2A. 61 Playable alternatives to this move include 9...bd7, 9...De4 and 9....@d7, while Fritz ac- tually recommends the bizarre 9...c5!. 10 exd5 White’s only consistent continuation, but Aagaard considers the move dubious as it in- creases Black's influence over e5. 10 &b2 transposes to Lesson 1, but 10 Adf3 has some independent value. After 10...2b7 11 £4 Da6 12 €3 Hac8 13 We2 Ded 14 h4 cS in Kunin- Agdestein, Tromso 2008 the position was hard to play as initiating central exchanges easily could hand the initiative to the opponent. After 15 Hacl Db4 16 Bfdl Be7 17 Dgs D6 18 dxe5 bxcS 19 a3 Da6 20 He2 Bec8 21 cxd5 exd5 chances were probably dynamically equal. 10...exd5 10...cxd5?! allows White to demonstrate why he preferred to develop his queen’s knight rather than his bishop: after 11 Ade4! we have been inclined to think that Black is more or less lost (e.g. 11...£b4 12 @d3), but we may have to re- vise our opinion as Moiseenko insisted on play- ing it in the decisive game of an important match against Van Wely when he must have expected his opponent to be well prepared: 11....2b7 12 Dxd6 Wxd6 13 a4 Bc8 14 Ba3 Was 15 War (15 Bel may be stronger) 15...Ac6 16 Af3 Ded 17 Wb2 aS 18 Bfel Be7 19 Bet Back = ‘Van Wely-Moiseenko, Khanty-Mansiisk blitz (7) 2005. Moiseenko’s choice of variation was probably influenced by the fact that this was an ‘Armageddon’ blitz game, where Black only needed a draw to be the winner of the match. 11 Dat3 Now that White has protected his e5-knight with his other knight, it would be entirely THE CRITICAL 7 b3 We7 8 De5! 47 undesirable for Black to exchange it for his dark-squared bishop. 11 We2 doesn’t work when the e5-knight is unsupported. Black can win a pawn by 11...fxe5 or even consider 11....@b7 as 12 Wxi57! Ofd7 s slightly better for Black. 11...&b7 11...De4 is playable and may well trans- pose. Two independent lines: a) 12h4 Qb7 13 Bf4 a6 14 Wel Back 15 a3 cS 16 dxe5 DaxcS 17 W2 De6 F Van Wely-Moiseenko, Khanty-Mansiisk (1) 2005. b) 12 We2 c5 and now 13 £471, as in Van der Stricht-Froeyman, Belgian Team Ch 2006, shouldn't worry Black as his position is active and sound after 13...£b7 14 Dd3 &xf4! 15 Axfd 25 16 Dd3 Ac6 17 €3 a6. Probably 13, b2 is a better attempt. 12 We2 Again we see this double attack on Black weaknesses on c6 and £5, But while White has supported his e5-knight, Black has had time to protect his c-pawn. 12...Ded (D) This looks a little more comfortable for Black than the previous game, where he gave up his dark-squared bishop for the e5-knight. Actually the computers already have a marginal preference for Black. 13 Bal This fairly non-committal move may be a novelty. It seems natural to put his rooks on ¢1 and di and it may well be useful to defend d3 with an extra piece. a) We assume that 13 £4 should be met by 13...25 b) 13 h4, planning f4, may be an idea worth testing. ©) 13 &b2 looks natural but the bishop may be better off at £4. One practical example was 13...c5 14 Bacl Qa6 15 e3 Bac8 (15...b4! 16 Wh &xe5! 17 dxeS La6 18 Bid! Le? is slightly better for Black) 16 dxe5 bxc5 17 Efdl Bc7 18 We2 aS 19 a4 Ha8 "2-2 Halasz- Danner, Hungary 1992. d) 13 Dd3, preparing &£4, appears logical. But it is after all a step backward and White hasn't been able to demonstrate much of an ad- vantage after 13....d7 14 2£4: di) 14...Bac8 15 &xd6 Dxd6 16 Macl Shs (16...c5!) 17 Hfd1 Hfe8 18 e3 Bis 19 Wo2 t Shabalov-Gamboa, St Martin 1993. d2) 14..c5 15 Bact Hac8 16 Wal Be7 (16.041?) 17 &xd6 Wxd6 18 Ddes Dato 19 ‘We3 Hfc8 with equality, Gupta-Gleizerov, Abu Dhabi 2005. 13...a5 Black is slightly tied down to the defence of his backward c-pawn. This move grabs some queenside space, and may in certain lines help activate his rook on the a-file. Most computer programs prefer 13....a6 followed by ...c5 (then 14 )xc6? loses to 14...We7). 14 Dd3 Da6 15 264 223 16 Rel a6 17 fs Dba ‘As clearly the higher-rated player, Black has to avoid the repetition. Luckily he can do so without much risk even if he has to accept the exchange of his better bishop. 18 fixd6 Wxd6 19 Wh2 Axd3 20 Hxd3 (D) White should have played 20 exd3! to con- trol 4. = Black’s camp is well organized and active, and again it’s hard to see how White will prove his bishop stronger than its counterpart at b7 48 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH Still, it’s surprising how quickly Black achieves a winning position. 20...f4! Once again this move heralds the success of Black’s strategy. 21 Bad ‘When you see what happens in the game, it’s easy to suggest 21 Zfl, but such a move would be unforgivably passive in a position that looks fundamentally sound. 21.,.Hae8 22 Zack Wh6 This decentralization is surprisingly strong, Beside the vague threats to h2, Black's main point is the contact with the important e3- square. 23 Be2? Probably intending Wl, but there is no time for this move. Had White suspected what Black was planning, he might have tried 23 g4 which, although weakening, would have avoided im- mediate defeat. 23...ixg3 24 hxg3 (D) Of course, the other capture 24 fxg3? leads to the well-known smothered mate after 24... He3+ 25 Shi Df2+ 26 gl Dh3++ 27 hl Wel+ 28 Exgl De2#, 24.2 xf211 Nicely calculated! 25 cbxf2 We3+ 26 del After 26 tf1 a6 White is helpless. 26...8.06 26,..22xf3! 27 &xf3 Wxf3 is even simpler. 27 DeS There is no defence. 27 Hdd2 Bxf3 is as hopeless as 27 sofl Hxf3+. 27...Wxg3+ 28 d2 Wxg2 29 Hxc6 Sxe2 30 Yel Bfl 31 Lxfl Wefl+ 32 a2 Wal+ 33, e3 2b5 0-1 If nothing else, these two games should dem- onstrate that there's nothing wrong with Black’s pawn-structure after ...exd5 per se; if he can or- ganize his pieces well there is no lack of active opportunities. In the notes to Game 11 we hinted that White may have more critical 13th moves. We shall return to these moves in 2A but it may also be that these options become rather irrele- vant if we can demonstrate that Black has im- provements on his 11th move ‘Summary Starting from a rather distinct position after White’s 8th move, our lessons are rather spe- cific to this lesson: * Watch out for the pin on the h1-a8 diagonal. * There is relatively little to be gained and a lot to be risked for Black by delaying ...0-0. *+ The semi-symmetrical positions arising from exd5 and ...cxd5 are generally solid for Black but can be quite depressing if it’s achieved at the cost of giving up the dark-squared bishop for a knight + The asymmetrical positions arising from cxd5 and ...exd5 are strategically challenging and the evaluation will mainly depend on piece activity. * Giving up the important dark-squared bishop with ...fixDe5, d4xe5 can make the white bishop on b2 bad if Black can follow up with c5, shutting off the only other interesting diagonal for the bishop. So far we have concentrated on a rather nar- row set of Stonewall lines; however, 7 b3 is White's most popular line and chances are good that you quite soon will get the chance to test your new knowledge in practical play. Yet it is absolutely necessary to be exposed to a great variety of Stonewall positions in order to gain an understanding of the fundamental tactical and strategic themes. We assume you have had a lot of blitz experience with the Stonewall since last lesson. We again offer two theoretical sections with a lot of game fragments and analysis for those of you who like to prepare thoroughly. How- ever, as the current theoretical status for Black in these lines may not be 100% satisfactory, this, time the Exercise may actually be the Key to success. THE CRITICAL 7 b3 We7 8 We5! 49 Exercise 2 Have a look at the position below from Game 11 (1 d4 £5 2 213 26 3 93 e6 4 2g? d5 50-0 £d6 6 4 06 7 b3 We7 8 De5 0-09 b2 b6 10 exd5 exd5 11 We2). In that game Black gave up his dark-squared bishop with 11...2xe5 in order to reduce the pressure on 6, Your task is to examine the po- sition carefully for tactical and strategic ele- ments and then: 1) List all Black's reasonable candidate moves and rank them roughly according to their apparent strength, 2) Pick two highly ranked candidate moves and examine them more closely. Suggest some plausible continuations and add an evaluation after each line. Make sure to apply your own brain power before you set an analysis engine to work. Theory 2A 14 £5 22\f3 Df6 3 23 €6 4 fig? d5 5 0-0 246 6 04 067 b3 We7 8 eS 0-0 a) 8...2bd7 is covered in the notes to Game 8 b) 8...062! is the subject of Games 8 and 9. 9 .ob2 a) For 9 Ad? b6! see Game 12. b) Aagaard barely mentions 9 We2!? but it may actually be White’s best attempt at dis- couraging the ...b6 set-ups: bl) It may be a bad sign for Black that ex- perts like Gleizerov, Ulybin and Moiseenko have turned to the move 9....d7 in their most recent games but we aren’t too fond of the old .-id7-e8-h5 manoeuvre, and suggest you have a look at the alternatives below. b2) For Moskalenko there’s no problem. He simply sticks to his usual system and plays 9...bd7 followed by ...a5. This is covered in 2B. b3) 9...a5!? deserves further testing: 10 243 Dao 11 Rf4 Dds 12 Dxb4 axb4 13 Qxd6 ‘Wxd6 14 Ad? = Burmakin-Apicella, Cappelle la Grande 2003. b4) For us the most interesting move is 9...b6 10 cxd5, and now: b41) According to Cvetkovié 10...cxd5 11 Dc! gives White a clear advantage, but Black is very solid so it’s probably not too bad; com- pared to the lines after 9 2b2 or 9 @\d2 Black will gain some time by attacking the d4-pawn and the white queen on c2 by moves such as 2c6 and ...Hac8. A recent GM example is 11...2d8!? (11...2c6) 12 Dxd6 Wxd6 13 a3 (after 13 £4 White must be at least a little better) 13...Wd7 14 Ad2 6 15 DF3 La6 16 Efcl Hac8 17 Wd2 = Lalié-Garcia Padron, El Sauzal 2007. b42) 10...exd5!? is untried and may trans- pose to our main line after 11 22. However, the obvious test is 11 Axc6, Now Cvetkovié gives 11...We7 12 b4 +-, but according to the computer programs Black gets some compen- sation after 11...@xc6 12 Wxc6 2b7 13 Ws Bac’. 9...b6 ‘Simply the best” according to Schipkov on a ChessBase training CD from 2002. Gleizerov and Ulybin have played it several times, and seem to agree. It was co-author Bern’s prefer- ence in Game 11, but after working with this game we are no longer so sure! a) 9.,..247 is a popular option which doesn’t fit well in with our recommended repertoire. b) 9...e4 is a relatively rare move which it could pay to research independently. Black de- lays development but blocks the h1-a8 diagonal and covers f5 (in case White plays We2), c) 9...Abd7, with the idea of accelerating ..a5-a4, is the subject of 2B. 4) After 9...a5 White should probably play 10 a4, transposing to the lines we considered in Game 7 (Lesson 1) and which were the subject, of IB. 10 cxds 50 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH This is the consistent follow-up to 8 DeS. Yet White has sensible alternatives: a) 10 2d2 £.b7 transposes to positions cov- ered in Lesson 1. b) 10 Wel 2b7 11 Ba3 c5 12 e3 Dab 13 D2 Bxe5! 14 dxeS Ded 15 Hdl Had 16 £32! Dxd2 17 Bxd2 dxc4 18 bxcd Exd2 19 Wxd2 ‘Ed8 20 We2 Wa7 F Lali¢-Yusupov, Saint John (blitz) 1988. 10...exd5 For the recapture with the c-pawn, see Game 10. 11 We: This is the only critical move, attacking c6 and £5. a) 11 £4 &b7 12 Wc2 Bed 13 Bc3 Dab 14 Dxed fxed 15 a3 c5 16 dxc5 bxe5 17 Bfdl eT 18 b4 c4 = Zarubin-Ulybin, Kazan 1995. b) 11 Ad2 2b7 12 Adf3 ed and now: bl) Stone-Levine, North Bay 1995 contin- ued 13 Hel c5 14 We2 Ha 15 Hfd1?! £4! 16 dxc5 bxc5 17 Dd3 fxg3 18 hxg3 Hack 19 25? Bxe5 20 DdxeS Dxf2 0-1. 2) 13 Dd2 Dd7 14 Axed feed 15 Dxd7 Wxd7 F Elsness-Ulybin, Cappelle la Grande 1994, 3) 13 €3!2, stopping ...f4, may be best. 11....xe5?! For alternatives to this move, see Exerci Our favourite is 11...e6!?, possibly planning .-dixeS at a more promising moment. 12 dxe5 Ded (D) xaems Ze Ww aa we a Baz aul 13 2a3! This recommendation by Aagaard may come close to refuting Gleizerov’s pet variation. White wants to soften the hl-a8 diagonal and put Black's centre under pressure before he has time to develop his queenside. Other moves are less critical: a) For the traditional main line 13 Ad2, see Game 10. b) 13 Ac3 is lightly tested but may well be a serious alternative: bl) 13..Dxc3 14 Wxc3 267 15 Hid! Dab 16 Bd2 Ac7 17 b4 a5 18 a3 axb4 19 axb4 Exal+ 20 &xal Ha8 21 2b2 # Estremera Panos-Nedobora, Mondariz 1995. 2) After 13...28d8 White has these options: b21) 14 Axed fxed 15 £3 c5 16 fxed dd 17 €67! (17 b4! 4) 17...Lxe6 18 e5 RAS 19 Bxd5+ Exd5 20 e3 Ac6 F Z.Mamedyarova-Gleizerov, Abu Dhabi 2005. 22) 14 Bad &d7!? (14...Re6) 15 Dxed fxe4 16 Wel Ba6 and now the clever 17 &xe4! doesn’t quite seem to work: 17...dxe4 18 Wed+ PhS 19 Wxa6 Lh3 20 Wicd (White's problem is that he cannot allow 20 Bfel? Bxd1 21 Bxdi Bd8 22 Bel?! WyS —+) 20...2xfl 21 Bxfl, and Black should be fine. However, it’s worth not- ing that the natural 21...2d2?! may be dubious because of 22 Wxc6 Hf8 23 2c3 Hxa2 24 6 Bxe2 25 Wed. Now 25...a2? loses to 26 Bb4 and 25...c2 26 &xg7+ dxg7 27 Wxc2 Wxeb is a little better for White, so Black should probably go for 21...WicS 22 Wxe5 bxe5 23 cl Bd5 24 Wf4 h6 25 hd Bad8 5. 13.05 After 13...Wxe5?! 14 2x68 dxf8 (wor: 14... Wal? 15 &xe4, threatening 16 %c3) 15 2d2 Black lacks full compensation for the ex- change. 14 £3 Dgs (D) g aan OAe@ GAN awl gf vas 15 De3 Bergloef-Berglund, 1989 continued 15 hd De6 16 f4 Rb7 17 Dc3 da 18 &xb7 Wxb7 19 Abs and now Black probably THE CRITICAL 7 b3 We7 8 De5! 51 should have played 19...Wd5 and ...c6 with nice squares for his pieces. 15...2b7 A computer game Chess Tiger-Shredder 7, 2004 continued 15...d4 16 £4 £7 17 Dds Wa7 18 fxg5 &xd5 19 e4! and Black was in trouble. The only try is 19...fxe4 20 Hxf8+ Sxf8 21 Sixed threatening &xc5+, among other things; e.g. 21...Dc6 22 Bfl+ Hg8 23 &xh7+ Whs 24 £5 We7 25 e6 and Black’s king is hardly de- fendable, 16 Hadi Even 16 f4 @e4 17 Had | looks unpleasant for Black; e.g., 17...WE7 18 xed fxe4 19 b4! Dao 20 bxc5 bxeS 21 £5 with a dangerous initiative. 16.444 16...Wxe5? loses to 17 £4 We3+ 18 Hh1 in- tending 18...2e4? 19 Axed fxed 20 Rel, when the queen is trapped. 17 Bxd4! (D) B a & Aw nS White must be better. When the position opens up, the bishop-pair will dominate. Some sample lines supporting this evaluation: a) 17...Wxe5 18 Bd3 doesn’t change the na- ture of the position. b) 17...8c6 and now: bl) 18 Bddi!? intends 18..Wxes 19 Wel followed by f4 and e4, Aagaard gives 18...xeS 19 Dd5 with advantage to White. b2) After 18 Bd2 Black can try: b21) 18...e6!? gave up a pawn for activity in E.van Dijk-Brousek, cort. 2003, but Black's counterplay evaporated after 19 {4 @cd4 20 Wal Rxg? 21 dxg? W7+2!. It's not clear whether 21...b5 would have been sufficient. b22) 18...AxeS 19 Ads WET 20 Mfdl leaves: White better due to the bishop-pair and nice po- sitions for his pieces. b23) 18..Wxe5 19 f4 We3+ and both of White's legal moves are promising: b231) 20 whl Add 21 Hxdd! &xg2+ 22 oxg2 cxd4 23 Ads Wet+ 24 Wxet Axed 25 Rxf8 WxfB 26 AcT Bc8 27 Deb+ +. 6232) 208f2 Ab4 21 Rxb4 Sxg2 22 xcs Wrc5 23 cexg? +. Conclusion Black has no established path to equality after 11...xe5?!. You must draw your own conclu- sions regarding Black’s 1 Ith-move alternatives (and compare them with our assessments in the ‘solution’ to Exercise 2). Theory 2B As the theoretical status of 9 2b2 b6 to some extent depends on untested moves, we offer a low-maintenance line as a back-up: 1d4 £5 2.04 Af6 3 93 €6 4 Sig? 06 5 AE3 dS 60-0 £467 b3 We7 8 De5 0-09 2b2 Aba7!? (D) Rather than spending time on activating his light-squared bishop to b7 or h5, Black imme- diately initiates the fight for the e5-square. If he succeeds in removing White’s dominating knight, a common plan is ...dxe4, ...bxe4 and ...€5 allowing the bishop to develop to e6 in a single move. 10242 White logically wishes to adopt the typical Dbd2-£3 and Se5-d3 set-up. However, this move temporarily relieves the pressure on c6, giving Black the opportunity to play ...b6 and "-Stb7 (or ....a6), returning to the pawn-struc- ture we discussed in Lesson 1. 52 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH The main alternative 10 We2 has little inde- pendent significance as White usually trans- poses to the main variation after 10...a5 11 Da2. 10...a5!? (D) This is Moskalenko’s idea. The bishop on c8 will be blocking the back rank for a while, so it’s logical to try to activate the rook by advanc- ing the a-pawn to a4. If White captures with bxa4, Moskalenko’s recipe is the queen ma- noeuvre ...e7-d8-a5, putting pressure on the a-pawn, Another idea is ....d7-b6 attacking a4 and c4. White’s dark-squared bishop may turn intoa very bad piece if Black succeeds in estab- lishing a knight on c4 10...2e4 is more popular but requires corre- spondingly more preparation. oe 11 We2 Normal development, connecting the rooks. White has also tried: a) 11 £4 permanently weakens the e3- and e4-squares so Black should be fairly comfort- able after 11.4. b) 11 €3 looks solid but slow: 11...a4 12 We2 Det 13 Axed fred 14 £4 exf3 15 Dxf3 Bf6 (15...b5!2) 16 Des (16 c5!? Be7 17 bad) 16...2d7 17 @xd7 Wxd7 18 e4 (18 bxa4!?) 18...axb3 19 axb3 Hxal 20 sixal Dxed 21 Exf8+ Qxf8 22 Axed dred 23 Wred Le7 24 2c} 6 = Finegold-Shabalov, Chicago 1994. ¢) 11 a3 prepares to meet 11...a4 with 12 b4 but adds a weakness to White’s position. Black simply continues 11...2e4 with an improved version of the 10...A\ed line. 12 Adf3 DxeS 13 Axe5 has led to two short draws: 13...2xe5 14 dxe5 66 '/-'/ Adorjan-Moskalenko, Balassag- yarmat 1990 and 13...a4 14 cxd5 exd5 15 b4 ¥a-th Kiselev-Imashev, Meleuz 2006. d) 11 Ddf3 (D) is natural. Black has tried: pm Z a ow a z ‘2 dl) 11..De4 12 Dd3 b6! 13 Dfes 267 (this kind of position should be familiar from Lesson 1) 14 @xd7 Wxd7 15 £3 Df6 16 cS bxe5 17 dxe5?! (17 Dxc5 Lxc5 18 dxcS We7 17....¢7 18 De5 We7 19 We2 Ad7! 20 Dxd7 Wrd7 21 {4 Bae8 22 2h3 &c8 23 Badl We7 24 Bd3 e5 25 He3 e4 F Estremera Panos- Arizmendi Martinez, Torrevieja 1997. 2) 11...a4 12 43 (Ruban gives 12 xd7 Rxd7 13 c5 as +, but the position is pretty equal after 13...S2c7 14 b4 a3 15 cl EAb8 in- tending ...b6) 12...e4 13 5 Sc7 14 bxa4 &b8 (intending ...Wd8-a5 to pick up the a-pawn; Moskalenko also suggests 14...g5!?, while Fritz likes 14...b6) 15 We2 Wa8 16 DfeS Sxe5!? 17 dxe5 WaS 18 2d4?! (18 Hacl) 18...Wxad 19 Wrad Bxad 20 €3 b6! 21 cxb6 £6 (Fritz pre- fers 21...c5 22 Dxc5 Dexc5 23 Hicl Ha5 fol- lowed by a draw by repetition after 24 23 Bad 25 d4 Ha5) 22 Rxed fxed 23 DeS Dxc5 24 RxcS Rxfl 25 Rxf8 SexfB 26 dexfl Bb4 27 a4 Exb6 28 a5 a6 F Camarena Gimenez-Moska- lenko, Spain 2000. 11.,.De4 12 Bdf3 ad may be more accurate, especially if Black wishes to adopt an approach based on ...e4, Then: a) 13 Dxd7 axb3 14 axb3 (14 Wxb3 Wxd7) 14....xd7 = Ruban, b) 13 bxa4 transposes to the game. ¢) 13 43 b6 (13...5!?) and here: cl) 14 bxa4 a6 15 oxd5 cxd5 16 Bfcl and rather than 16...s¢04 17 @fe5 Dxe5, which was equal in Pogorelov-Moskalenko, Salou 2005, more promising is 16...8fc8! 17 Wdl Bcd 18 Dfe5 We! with a disguised attack against a4 Black has wonderful piece-play. THE CRITICAL 7 b3 We7 8 Des! 53 2) 14 BfeS and now: €21) 14...daxeS!? 15 AxeS (15 dxes + Riaz- antsev) 15...2)xe5 16 dxe5 axb3 17 axb3 &b7 18 cxd5 cxdS 19 ¢3 We5 20 We2 Wb4 21 Sxe4 dxe4 'h-h Akopian-Riazantsev, Linares 2001 €22) 14. DxeS 15 dxeS Riazantsev. €23) 14...@b7!? 15 Dxd7 Wrd7 16 £3 a3! 17 Sct AsG 18 c5 bxcS 19 Axes We7 with chances for both sides according to Aagaard. 12 bxad (D) 12 Ddf3 Ae4 transposes to the previous note. a Fe aRaD Ame a oO Ve auc ; ARWHAAR SH a 12.04 This is another major ingredient in Moska- Jenko’s brew ~ allowing Black to capture on e5 with his knight without being exposed to a fork after dxe5. Other tries include: a) 12...@a3 13 Dd3 Ded 14 D3 (14 Bad! is a possible improvement) 14....xb2 15 Dxb2 b6 16 cxd5 cxd5 17 Bfct Lab 18 Dd3 Dd6 19 DfeS was played in Spacek-Moskalenko, St Ingbert 1989. Then 19...8fc8 20 Wal We8 is interesting, and similar to the suggested im- provement in Pogorelov-Moskalenko above. b) 12...Rxe5 13 dxeS Ded (13..De4 14 xed fxed is unclear according to Moskalenko) 14 D3 Db6! 15 exd5 exd5 16 h3 ho 17 W3 io4 18 S.c3 He 19 Hfdl 47 Moskalenko) 20 Shb4 We6 21 3 Afxes 22 Axes Wxes, Pogorelov-Moskalenko, Salou 2000. ¢) 12...007!7 intending ...2xe5 deserves testing. 13 Wb3 @xe5 14 dxe5 Ded 15 Axed dxe4 affords a minuscule advantage to White. Wii 13 Ddf3 (D) 13 xed fred 14 £4 exf3 15 Dxt3 gives White a small plus. For example, 15...b6 16 exdS cxdS 17 Zacl £a6 18 &h3 followed by Wd2-e3 to put the e6-pawn under pressure. This is the reason why the move-order in the note to Black's 11th move may be more accu- rate, Black seems to be doing fine here: a) 13..xe5 14 Axes Sxe5 15 des Wh4 16 cxd5 exd5 17 e3 Wxad 18 Kfcl Be8 19 dd RAd7 20 £3 Dgs 21 Wa? bS 22 £4 Ded 23 sixet 4h-th Ratzmann-Plitzko, corr. 2001 b) 13..Wa8, heading for a5 to regain the pawn. Now: bl) Fritz tries to keep the pawn with 14 Dxd7 &xd7 15 c5 Vb8 16 a3 Was 17 Bibl cB 18 Bb4, but it’s hard to see how White can make progress if Black plays ...Wa7 and puts a bishop on a5. b2) 14 d3 WaS 15 44 and now: b21) 15...dxe4!? 16 Wxed (16 Dxe6? c3!) 16....66 17 Wb3 ds. 22) 15....Ax84 16 gxfd Wrad 17 Wrad Bxad 18 cxd5 exd5 and in Kiriakov-Moskalenko, Internet 2006 Black already had the better pros- pects due to White’s weak a-pawn and crippled dark-squared bishop. Conclusion Moskalenko’s 9....bd7, planning ...a5, may not promise full equality but it seems Black gets a fully playable position with realistic chances to play for a win, Lesson 3 7 Wc2, 7 Ac3 and Rare 7th Moves Those who don't like thinking should at least rearrange their prejudices from time to time. LUTHER BURBANK White’s less popular 7th-move options are a di- verse collection. Some-—like 7 eS — should be neutralized by a precise sequence of moves, while others are very flexible and can only be handled well if you understand the underlying, logic and are ready to face a lot of different po- sitions ‘The main complex to be considered is a rela- tively recent brew designed to discourage de- velopment with ...b6. The main ingredients are the moves c3, We2, bl, usually £e5 and a quick b4-bS. These moves can be played in var- ious orders and it can be quite tricky for Black to work out a consistent repertoire against them. Lesson Overview (1 d4 f5 2 Df3 D6 3 g3 06 4 & 92 d5 50-0 2d6 6 c4 06) ‘We shall consider 7 We2 the principal con- tinuation (7 2c3, as in Game 15, can easily transpose, while 7 bd? is considered in Game 13 and 7 BeS is Game 14). Then, after 7...0-0 8 c3 (D) we reach a branching point: Now we consider 8...e4 in Game 16, while 8...We8!? is the subject of Game 17. First an example of quiet development; Game 13 Gilles Mirallas - Simen Agdestein Lyons 1988 1d4 6 2 Df3 £5 3 g3 DKS 4g? d5 50-0 RAG 6 4 c6 7 Dbd2 (D) we White doesn’t reveal much about his plans but doesn’t put much pressure on Black either. White's dark-squared bishop still must be de- veloped, so usually b3 will come quite quickly (but without any 2a3 ideas). Alternatively White may complete his f3/Ad3 set-up, and then play £4. 7n0-0 There are minimal chances for mass ex- changes so Black gets his king out of the centre. 8b3 White simply continues developing, but 8 De5 may be better - see Inspirational Game A. After the flexible 8 We2 Black can safely de- velop with 8...b6 9 De5 2b7 10 Adf3 Ded, and now: a) 11 23 cS, when play may continue: 7 We2, 7 @c3 AND RARE 7TH MOVES 55 al) 12 Hdl dxed 13 Wxc4 &d5 14 We2 c4 15 DdeS We7 16 BF4 Dc6 17 Dxc6 Lxf4 18 Dees Lh6 19 3 Wh7 20 Del bS = Hofiman- ‘Vaisser, Mesa 1992 a2) 12.2f4 Be7 13 Le5 Deb 14 Hdl Axes 15 dxe5 when Black should have tried 15...b5 with fine chances in Ubilava-Ochoa, Seville 1994, b) 11 b3 a5 gave Black quite OK chances in Carlsen-Krasenkow, Gausdal 2007. After 12 Rb2 Dab 13.23 We7 14 Dd3 Back 15 €3 5 16 Ddes cxd4 17 exd4 a4 18 Wad3 Dbs 19 Biel Da7 20 cxd5 Axd5 21 b4 Ddf6 chances were relatively equal, although White soon achieved a winning advantage. 8...06 An early ...We7 would very likely transpose to some variation normally occurring from the 703 We7 8 2b2 0-0 move-order. Compare with Game 1 of Lesson 1 9 Des Curiously, in a game against Murey in Lon don 1986, 1 (S.A.) reached this exact position with White to move, having lost a tempo by playing 5...2e7 followed by 9...d6. The fact that I won the game had very litte to do with the opening moves but may be an indication that Black isn’t exactly walking on a knife edge. 9.57 (D) a 10 Ddf3 The well-known pin tactic on the hl-a8 diag onal works here too, but after 10 cxd5 cxd5 11 Ddc4!?, the bishop can simply step back with 11...d8€7 (11...3b4!?, provoking a3 before re- treating to e7, is well worth considering), when 12 Ba3 (12 Rf4 Ded 13 Db2 Acé achieves very little) 12..c6 13 Axc6 Lxc6 14 Lxe7 Wre7 15 De5 Hfe8 16 Wa? Bc7 17 a4 Back 18 Biel £07 19 2£3 Dd7 20 Hxc7 Bxc7 21 Dd3 aS was equal in Grabarczyk-Matlak, Brzeg Dolny 1996, 10...We7 (D) ‘There goes the originality! The game now merges with some games from the 7 b3 We7 move-order. I like this move even when it isn’t necessary in order to stop a3. Yet top players have also investigated 10...e4 11 ®d3 d7 12 £f4, and now: a) 12...e7!? 13 DfeS Ddf6?! (13...05) 14 cl He8 15 £3 Ad6 16 c5 D7 17 b4 = Bezgo- dov-Grishchuk, Moscow 1999. b) 12...Saxf4 13 Dxfd We7 14 Bel dxed 15 Bxc4 Had8 16 Wel e5 17 dxeS DxeS 18 Axes WxeS 19 Ad3 We6 = Graf-Krasenkow, Bun- desliga 2005/6. 11 cxd5?! Black is quite happy to see this move before he has to decide about developing his queen's knight. White's main alternatives are: a) 11 &b2 is the move that really connects us with mainstream 7 b3 We7 8 £b2 lines, b) 11 443 is also very transpositional. Van der Sterren-Padevsky, Dortmund 1989 (where the knight reached d3 via the route @c3-a4-b2) continued 11...Abd7 12 Rf4 Sxf4 13 Dxf4 Ded 14 Wic2 Zack 15 Wh2 dxe4 16 bxed4 c5 17 Wa3 a5 18 Bfdl Wfo and Black was at least equal. ¢) 11 gs Da6 12 Del We7 13 Axf6 xis 14143 Db4 15 Dxb4 Axb4 16 d3 Be7 17 Bel = Wang Yue-Visweswaran, Hyderabad 2005. 11..exd5 ‘This not only eliminates the pawn weakness ‘on c6, but it also provides Black's knight with a natural square for development. 56 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH 121 Q: Why doesn’t White complete his knight pirouette with 12 @d3? That would have been an entirely reasonable continuation and quite possibly stronger than the move chosen, However, afier, for instance, 12 Dd3 Des 13 B64 Mxks 14 Dxf4 it may seem that White has achieved quite a lot, but af- ter 14...Dc6 a concrete analysis reveals that Black's queenside play, in particular on the c- file, is the dominant positional feature. 12...a5!? (D) en bE y In theory this weakens the b6-pawn and the bS-square, but although I (S.A.) have seen a very few games where this has had signifi- cance, usually the extra queenside space and activity more than outweigh any negative con- sequences. 13 &b2 Da6t? The knight heads to b4 in order to exchange off the white knight when it lands on d3. Never- theless, 13...04!? also deserves serious consid- eration. 1403 This move is hardly surprising, as it prepares the 21d3 manoeuvre White started a couple of moves ago, but Black still can be quite happy as now a3 will be under fire from the queen and bishop on the f8-a3 diagonal. Q: After 14 ®1d3 Db4 15 a3, should Black really exchange knights on d3? In Game 1, Black avoided opening the e-file, exposing his weak e-pawn. That's a tough question. Exchanging on d3 is abit more tempting if White ends up with dou- bled isolated pawns, but I would prefer the ex- change to happen on b4. So most probably I would try to delay the exchange to see if an advantageous moment turns up. But after 15 a3 the knight might well have returned to a6, happy to have provoked a target for my dark-squared bishop. 14.,,Hac8 15 Wa3!? (D) This is slightly surprising, as it’s unlikely that the queen is well placed in the crowded central battlefield. 15...20b8! ‘The distance between flexibility and spine- lessness isn’t that great. Probably this is a very strong move. The knight did a good job in pro- voking 43, but isn’t so well placed on a6 now. 16 We3 &a6 17 Dld3 Xc2 18 Efcl &xd3 19 xd3 gd 20 WE3 Exel 21 Axel This undesired recapture and Black’s subse- ‘quent conquest of the c-file is the first concrete benefit from my 13th move, 21.8 22 Df4 D7 23 Wa3 Agl6 24 2b2 25 25 Dh3 gd 26 Ald Sxfd 27 gxfd DB 28 Bet Bxcl+ 29 2xcl We7 (D) White has the bishop-pair but yet Black prob- ably has slightly the better prospects as it would be hard to claim that either of the white bishops is stronger than either of Black’s knights. An 7 We2, 7 Dc3 AND RARE 7TH MOVES 57 additional factor helping Black somewhat is the fact that a queen tends to cooperate better with a knight than with a bishop. Still it’s quite hard for Black to win, as any pawn-break will tend to open the game to the benefit of White’s bish- ops. 30 22 Dgs 31 Whs LE7 32 bd axb4 33 Wxb4 Det Instead I could have picked up a pawn imme- diately with 33...2xf4 34 Sxf4 Wxt4 35 Wxb6 Wel+ 36 Sf1 Wxa3, but it’s even better to keep the threat as White can hardly allow the knight to remain on e4, and after giving up his light- squared bishop, protecting the f4-pawn with e3 would weaken White’s light squares too much. 34 S&xed fxed 35 ad? (D) White had to prevent or diminish the effect of Black's next move with either 35 WS, pro- tecting €2, or 35 Wad, protecting c2. In any case 35...He7, transferring the knight to the ideal square £5, would ensure good winning chances for Black, 35..Wle2 This simple move wins. White’s queen is pinned to his bishop and cannot protect the e- pawn. 36 aS It would be even worse (as usual) to advance the e-pawn: 36 e3 Ah4 37 Rel We2 -+. 36...Wd1+ 37 dg? Dh4s! It's not atall hard to guess that there’s a forced mate, but still Black had to foresee a relatively quiet concluding move. That said, 37...Wxe2 ‘would also have won easily. 38 293 Wel+ 39 xh4 Wxh2+ 40 des h6+ 41 Sxgd Gg6! 0-1 It would hardly be correct to say that this was smooth sailing for Black but theoretically 7 \bd2 isn’t really challenging. Now we tum to a move which requires Black to find a rather precise sequence in order to equalize fully. Game 14 Boris Gelfand - Predrag Nikoli¢ Candidates match (game 1), Sarajevo 1991 14152 .c4 Af6 3 g3 6 4 292 d5 5 Df3.06 60-0 2467 Des This move also fits into several plans. DeS featured in the 7 b3 lines we examined in Lesson 2 and is also part of the standard knight re- grouping we have seen several times. But pri- marily White prepares £24 without accepting any downgrading of his pawn-structure. 7..0-0 (D) An interesting alternative plan was intro- duced with the moves 7...Nbd7 8 Sf4 &xe5 9 dxe5 g4 10 Wad g5 in Gnusarev-Agdestein, Calvia Olympiad 2004. After 11 £d2 ¢5 12 Wc3 dd 13 Wel Bg8 14 b4 Dgxes 15 Da3 a6 16€3 g4 17 bxc5 d3 18 Rb4 Af6 19 We3 DE3+ 20 &xf3 gxf3 Black probably had objectively the better chances in a complicated position, zae Ve 8.284 This is the main move and clearly appears consistent. Yet it leads to very drawish posi- tions and 8 &\d2 is an important alternative for the practical player: a) 8.517 9 @df3 Bc6 10 cxd5 exdS 11 Dxc6 bxc6 12 dxc5 Sxe5 13 Des We7 14 a3 b6 15 f4 We7 16 a4 Ded 17 We2 RAT 18 De5 +12 Kaidanov-Tregubov, Moscow 2002. b) 8...b6 seems most consistent with our general recommendations: bl) 9 Ddf3 De 10 We2 &b7 transposes to the note to White’s 8th move in Game 13. 58 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH b2) 9exd5 exdS 10 We2 Wes 11 Adf3 Aes 12 &f4 2b7 13 Rfdl Dd7 14 Axd7 Wxd7 15 DeS Web 16 Dd3 Lxf4 17 Axtd eT 18 €3 Hf6 19 Bac a6 20 £3 De5 = Nikolié-Tregu- bov, Amsterdam 2004. 8...\gat This is the theoretical refutation of White’s system. Thanks to some direct attacking play, it leads more or less by force to an equal endgame. 9 Dxgd White’s alternatives don’t promise more: a) 9 exd5 only helps Black’s development: 9..cxd5 10 2d3 46 11 €3 Sext4 12 Dxt4 Was 13 a3 &d7 14 Wa2 46 = Fominykh-Litus, Katowice 1991. b) 9 Ad? Bxe5 10 Sxe5 xe5 11 dxes b6 12 Bel £7 13 cxd5 exd5 14 £4 Da6 15 Wb3 Gh8 16 Wa3 Dc7 17 Bfdl Wes 18 Af3 a5 19 ‘Wb3 a6 20 a4 Deb = Romanishin-Grishchuk, Bled 1999, ©) 9 Wd2 AxeS 10 Bxe5 Le7 11 Sxds Exbs 12 Wd3 W6 13 We3 SF 14 c5 Wie 15 £4 b6 16 b4 a5 17 a3 bxcS 18 bxcS Hb3 F Akobian-Summerscale, Philadelphia 2002 d) 9 Wel Axes 10 LxeS Lxe5 11 dxeS g5 12 £4 gxfd 13 gxf4 2d7 14 Qd2 Das 15 Sh1 Sh8 16 Db3 Kgs 17 exd5 exd5 is unclear, Ostenstad-Bern, Norwegian Team Ch 1990. 95x04 10 ext fxgd (D) 113 Wh4 Black's simple idea is to play for mate with Bf6-h6. 12 Wel Other moves contain some risk: a) 12 £3 g3 13 hxg3 Wrg3 14 Dd? Dd7 15 Fcl Af6 16 Wel Wye6 17 cS &d7 18 WE2 Ans: 19 deh2 Who 20 Wh4 e5 21 dxeS d4 F A.Pe- trosian-Moskalenko, Lvov 1988. 'b) 12 @d2 is White’s principal alternative: 12...24f6 13 Hel Qd7 14 Afl (14 c5!2) 14...dxed 15 We2 Ab6 16 £3 gxf3 17 Wxt3 2d7 18 Da2 BafS 19 Bact Bg6 20 Wr2 Whs is unclear, Relange-Rodriguez, Ubeda 1997. 12...2f6 13 £3 Wxel 14 Bel gxf3 15 &xf3 5! This win of a pawn compensates for White's better development. Sensible development with 15...Da6 16 Dd2 2d7 17 a3 Baf8 18 Bg? Be8 19 DE3 didn’t quite equalize in Hutters- H.Olsen, Copenhagen 1993, 16 2\d2 gxf 17 €4 (D) 17.296 Or 17...dxe4 18 Axc4 Ad7 19 Sh eS 20 dxe5 Hg6 21 S&S Hh6? (21...Rg7 leads to equality) 22 Rgl+ + Sidorova-Kozlitin, Sam- ara 2002. 18 exd5 exd5 19 exdS Abd 20 hl £8 21 dxe6 &xe6 22 Sixb7 Hd8 23 Ded Bg6 24 Des Rh3 25 Led Bf 26 a3 DdS 27 D7 Ha7 28 eS Hd8 29 Ab7 HA7 30 eS Hd8 31 Db7 Vath Now we move on to serious attempts to stop Black’s ...b6 development scheme: Game 15 Marek Oliwa — Jakub Zeberski Zielona Gora 2006 1d4 £52 DE3 Af6 3 g3 e6 4 2g2 dS 5.c4.06 60-0 £d6 7 Ac3!? (D) Not too long ago, this was considered an in- accuracy as the knight is a bit distant from the key e5-square, However, an idea of Sosonko, to which we shall soon return, changed that and improved its status considerably. 7 Wc2, 7 Dc3 AND RARE 7TH MOVES 59 More recently, lines with @c3 have become appreciated as a weapon against early develop- ment with ...b6. Tuu0-0 8 3 Or: a) 8 &f4 &xf4 9 gxf4 leads to a characteris- tic pawn-structure and will be considered in connection with related lines in Lesson 5. ) For the straightforward 8 25 see 3A. ©) 8 ic is the subject of Game 16. 8...We7 This is a useful move but possibly 8...2bd7 is more flexible. White is after all not threaten- ing £43. 9 We2(D) ‘The idea that initially made 7 4c3 position- ally legitimate was 9 a4!?, planning b2-d3. It has been attributed to Sosonko, but actually there are precedents. 9...bd7 10 4\b2 and now: a) 10...b6 11 @d3 &b7 12 exd5 exdS 13 ‘Bid Axia 14 Dxfs Des 15 Hel = LAlek- sandrov-Basin, Minsk 1987. b) 10..e5 11 dxeS @xe5 12 We2 Dxt3+ 13 Axf3 Le6 14 gS d4 15 Dd3 Hads 16 Dts Ya-42 Sosonko-Yusupoy, Thessaloniki Olym- piad 1988. We aren't sure who first designed the ma- noeuvre, and we aren't too worried as it seems Black equalizes just as easily against this as against other versions of this set-up; White's knight moves are a little too time-consuming. RAT?! Black prematurely decides how to develop the bishop. 9...e4 is more precise: 10 &f4 (10 &b2 £47 - 9...8d7?! 10 427! Dea) 10...xf4 11 gxf4 Dd7 12.e3 b6 13 Wh aS 14 acl "h-h Davies-Schmittdiel, Gausdal 1994. Q: Why doesn’t Black develop in standard fashion with ...b6 here? 9.66 10 cxdS exd5 (10...cxd5?! 11 bS +) Jeads to a pawn-structure which in Lesson 2 we concluded was OK for Black provided that he could activate his pieces. However, with White’s dark-squared bishop still on cl, unhindered by a knight on d2, 11 £4 becomes an important option. We shall return to the positions where Black captures on f4 in Lessons 4 and 5 and at this point only mention that in those lines Black’s light-squared bishop is most frequently transferred via d7 and e8 to hS. 10 2b2?! This may appear natural but actually the bishop isn’t doing much except eliminating the Bad-b2-43 option. Karpov-Yusupov, Ajaccio (blitz) 2007 is worth noting: 10 Aad! e8 11 Db2 Dbd7 12 Dd3 Ded 13 Gf4 and now 13...LAxf4!? 14 Dx dxc4 15 bxed eS 16 dxeS Dxe5 17 Dads ADe5 18 AxfS Wie 19 e4 BLT ‘would have given Black nice play for the pawn; e.g., 20 We3 Aed3 (20....2xc4?? 21 DhS wins for White) 21 De2 (21 Dxd377 Af3+ —+) 21...hS. 10...e4 11 DeS Le8 12 £32! (D) This move is quite rarely a good idea against the Stonewall. Normally Black will react by 60 WIN WITH THE STONEWALL DUTCH breaking open the centre with ..c5, but some- times, like here, there are even more direct methods available. 12...Sixe5 13 Dxed This doesn’t turn out well, but 13 dxe5 We5+ isn’t satisfactory either. After 14 e3 Wxe3+ 15 Ph1 Axc3 16 Bael Wes 17 &xc3 Black can choose between completing development with 17...2)a6 and the riskier 17...£41?. 13...d€7 (D) 14 Qd2 According to our databases, in 1988 Deg- raeve won two identical games against qualified opposition in this line. We haven't researched the matter, and it may be a database error. But if such things were to happen today, the games should indeed be played within a year or so, be- fore they enter all the databases. The games went 14 4\f2 f4 15 @h1 Ad7 16 Mel 2g6 17 Wa2 fxg3 18 hxg3 Af6 19 Radl Dh5 20 £4 2Dxg3! 21 Dxgd Lxf4 22 We3 WeS 23 Dfl Sed 24 Wh3 Bf6 25 Bcl &xcl and both E.Shvidler and Seret resigned here as 26 Excl Rg6 27 De3 Hh6 is clearly hopeless. 14...f4! This standard attacking move underlines White's kingside weaknesses. 15 gxfd Axf4 16 Bel £e3+ 17 ehi Wes (D) White is in deep trouble, not only because of his king’s weakened pawn protection, but just as much because it’s harder for him to bring his forces to the kingside than it is for Black. 18 Afl Lg6 19 We3 212 20 Hedi Dd7 21 cl Wh4 22 Le3 Lxe3 23 Wxe3 Hae 24 gl dxed ‘This routine preparation for ...e5 may not be strictly necessary as the main point is to bring ee 8 he . Ce 1 Li the reserve troops in to finish the kingside job, but still 24...e5 25 dxe5 would have been a bit less clear. 25 bxe4 e5 26 W2 Wh6 27 e3 27 dS is probably a better attempt to keep fighting. Then Fritz suggests a lot of strange lines where White picks up one or two of Black's, queenside pawns, but with some gentle guid- ance we are always able to demonstrate that Black’s attack succeeds in the not too long run. 27 .exd4 28 Iixd4 DeS 29 Hadi LhS 0-1 After the f3-pawn falls, White’s kingside will collapse completely; ¢.g., 30 Hd6 He6 31 Ed8 Ref 32 We3 Axc4. The rest of this lesson will be dedicated to variations on a theme: active piece develop- ‘ment supporting a queenside pawn-break. Game 16 Dragisa Blagojevié — Vladimir Podinié Bijelo Polje 2005 1.4 £5 2 g3 Af6 3 2g? d5 4 Af3 06 50-0 2d6 6 04 067 We2 The main virtue of this move is that it’s ex- tremely flexible. In addition to the plan exam- ined in the present game, it fits well with White’s knight regrouping plans as well as lines with £4. The downside is that it isn’t among White's most active developing moves. Ton 7...b671 is exactly what White is hoping for as 8 &c3, planning Ebl and b4, is quite effec- tive against an early ..b6. Q: Is that because the pawn on b6 can be a target for White's queenside play? Yes, that’s a major reason, But it’s also a fac- tor that the follow-up ...c5 will be less attractive 7 We2, 7 @c3 AND RARE 7TH Moves 61 if White develops quickly rather than spiralling his knights to d3 and £3. And a white pawn on 4 may even deter ...c5 permanently. 8 2)c3 (D) a) 8 &f4 is considered in Lesson 5 b) 8 b3 more or less forces 8...'We7, which leads to a position that would normally arise af- ter 7 b3 We7 8 We2 0-0, Obviously, this position can arise equally well from the 7 @c3 0-0 8 We2 move-order. 8.004 a) 8...We8 - Game 17. b) 8...b62! looks wrong but White must im- prove on 9 Ebi (9 &g5, 9 2f4, 9 cxd5 and 9 De are all reasonable alternatives) 9...5267 10 b4 We7 11 c5 &c7 12 Rf4 Mxf4 13 exf4 Dod7 14 Bfel De4, when Black was fine in Zimmer- man-Piankov, La Fere 2005. 9Bb1 This is the modern interpretation of the knight development to c3, Rather than trying to rede- ploy the knight to d3, White makes the best of the active position it actually has got. 9 Qf417 &ixf4 10 gxfa leads to positions of a kind that will be discussed in Lessons 4 and 5 10....8d7 seems logical as then 11 Wb3 would lose a tempo. 9.082 This gives Black an open a-file but White benefits more from his queenside activity, so 9...d7 10 bd b5!? makes sense; e.g., 11 cxbS Dxc3 12 Wxc3 exbS 13 Bgs Woo 14 Lic 207 15 We3 Bfe8 = Kerek-C. Horvath, Aggte- lek 1997. 10 a3 We7 11 b4!? ‘The untested 11 S2f4 &xf4 would still lead to positions typical of the lines we shall consider in the next two lessons. Another ~ perhaps safer — way for White to play for queenside expansion is 11 c5 &c7 12 Rf4 Mxf4 13 exf4, and now: a) 13...2\xc3?! unnecessarily opens the b- file, and after 14 bxc3 Ad7 15 Bb3 Ate 16 Des @hS 17 Wa2 Wh4 18 €3 Ato 19 £3 in Mat- veeva-Zaitseva, Moscow 1999, White had ob- viously gained the upper hand. b) 13...d7 appears more logical but Black still needs to improve over 14 b4 axb4 15 axb4 5 16 cxb6 Axb6 17 DeS LA7 (17...Lb7!2) 18 Dxed fxe4 19 WeS + Pichugin-A Savchenko, Odessa 2003. 11...axb4 12 axb4 (D) This is a critical position resulting from very thematic play by both sides. 12,.