G.
Orlov
#13 GM Alex Khalifman-GM M.
Adams, Grooingen 1991
l.d4Nft2x4e63JVGBb4 + 4.Bd2Qe7
5*3 Nc6 6.Nc3 Bxc3 7.Bxc3 Ne4 8.Rcl d6
9.Bg2 Nxc3 10.Rxc3 e5 ll.di Nb8 12.O-O
O-O 13.Nd2 a5 14x5 Na6 15xxd6 cxd6
16J4c4 Qd8 17*3 b5 18JW2 Bd7 19.Qbl
b4 20*xb4 axb4 21.Rccl Nc5 22.Ne4 BfS
23.Rc4 b3 24.Qcl Bxe4 25.Bxe415 26.Bg2
Qa5 27 Ji4 Qb5 28.Qc3 Na4 29.Qb4 Qxb4
3O.Rxb4 Rlb8 31.Rxb8 Rxb8 32.Rbl Rc8
33.Bh3 g6 34x4 Rc2 35.Ral Nc5 36.exfS
Rxb2 37.fxg6 hxg6 38.Be6+ Kf8
39.Ra8+ Ke7 0-l
#14 GM Elisbar Ubilava-IM Georgi
Orlov, Belgrade 1988
I.d4 Nfc 2x4 Nc6 3.NG e6 4.Nc3 Bb4
5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 g5 7.Bg3 Ne4 8.Qc2 Nxg3
9.hxg3 g4 10.d5 gxO Il.dxc6 fre2
12xxd7+ Bxd7 13.Bxe2 Bc6 14*3 Bc5
15.Rh5 Bd4 16.Nb5 a6 17.Nxd4 Qxd4
18.Rdl Qf6 19.KJ1 Rd8 2O.b4 Rxdl +
21.Qxdl Qc3 22.b5 axb5 23xxb5 Bd5
24.BO Bb3 25.Qbl Bc2 26.Qa2 Bg6
27.Rh4 Qcl + 28.Ke2 O-O 29.Qd2 Qxa3
3O.Bxb7 Qc5 31.Bc6 h5 32.KH e5 33.Kgl
Qe7 34.BO Rd8 35.Qc3 Rd3 36.Qc4 Rd2
37. Bxh5 Qf6 38.Qc5 Bxh5 39.Rxh5 Rdl +
4O.Kh2 Rd2 41.Qxc7 1-0
#15 GM L. Dzandzgava-GM A.
Goldin, World Open 1991
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.NO e6 4.Bg5 h6
5.Bxf6 Qxf6 6.Nc3 g5 7x3 Bg7 8.Bd3 d6
9.O-O Bd7 10*3 O-O U.Rcl Qd8 12.d5
Ne7 13.dxe6 fxe6 14.Bbl Be8 15.Nd4 Qd7
16.Nce2 Bg6 17.Bxg6 Nxg6 18x5 dxc5
19.Rxc5 b6 2O.Rc6 Ne5 21.Rc2 c5 22.Nh3
Qa4 23.Necl Rad8 24.Qe2 g4 25.Rdl h5
26.Rxd8 Rxd8 27.Rd2 Rd5 28.Rxd5 exdS
29.Qdl Qc4 3O.Nd2 Qb5 31.Qc2 Qd7
32.Ne2 Qf7 33.Ng3 c4 34.NI5 Nd3 35x4 b5
36.Nfl dxe4 37.Nle3 Qf6 38JI4 a6 39.Ng3
Qxb2 4O.Qxb2 Nxb2 41*xb5 axb5
42.Nxe4 b4 43.KH Bh6 44.Nd5 Nd3 45*3
KT7 46.Ke2 Ke6 47.Nb6 Nb2 48.Nc5 Kd6
49.Ne4 + Kc6 5O.Nc8 c3 51.Ne7 + Kd7
52.NI5 c2 53.Nc5 + Kc6 54.Nb3 cl = N +
55.Nxcl Bxcl 0-1
#16 GM Lubomir Ftacnik-IM Georgi
Orlov, Washington Open 1991
I.d4 Nf6 2.ND e6 3x4 Nc6 4*3 d6
5.Nc3 Be7 6x4 O-O 7Bd3 e5 8.d5 Nb8
9.Nd2 a5 lO.Rbl Na6 ll.O-O g6 12.b4
axb4 13*xb4 Nh5 14*3 Bh3 15.Rel Qe8
16.Be2 Ng7 17x5 dxc5 I&h5 Nb4 19JWc4
b6 2O.Nxe5 Bf6 21J4 Bxe5 22ixe5 Qxe5
23.Qd2 Ne8 24.Rh3 Ral 25.Rdl Nd6
26.Qb2 Rfa8 27Bfl Qb5 28.Bxh3 QxhJ
29.Qe2 Na2 30JSxa2 R8xa2 31.Bb2
Rxdl f 32.Qxdl Nxe4 33.Qe2 OC5 34.Re3
Ra4 35.Qc2 Rc4 36.Ra3 Rd4 37. Bxd4 cxd4
38.Rd3 Nc5 39.Rd2 Qxd5 4O.Re2 Kg7
41.Qb2 Nd3 42.Qc2 Nc5 43.Qn2 Na4
44.QM Nc3 45.Rd2 NxbS 46.Qe7 c5
47.RG d3 48.Qf6 + Kg8 49.Qf4 Nd4
5O.Qb8+ Kg7 51.Qxb6Ne2 + 0-1
#17 F. Inumerable (2194)-IM Georgi
Orlov, National Open 1991
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.ND e6 4*3 d6
5.Nc3 Be7 6x4 O-O 7.Be2 e5 8.d5 Nb8
9.h3 c610.Be3 aS ll.O-O Na6 12.b4 cxd5
13xxd5 Bd7 14.b5 Rc8 15.Na4 Nc7
16.Qbl Na8 17.Nd2 Ne8 18.Nc4 Bg5
19.Bb6 Qf6 2O.Bxa5 Rxc4 21.Bxc4 Qg6
22.Khlf523.Bd3 f424.D Qh625.Qb2 Nf6
26.Kh2 Bh4 27.Bel Bg3+ 28.Kgl g5
29.Nc3 Qh4 3O.Qd2 Rc8 31.Ne2 Kf7
32.Bxg3 fxg3 33.f4 exf4 34.Nxf4 gxf4
35.Rxf4 Qg5 36.Rxf6 + QxflS 37.R/1
Qxfl+ 38.Kxfl Nb6 39.QT4 + Ke7
4O.Qg5 + Kf741.Qxg3Ke742.Qg5+ Kf7
43.Qh5 + Kf6 44.Qh6 + Ke5 45.Qg7 +
KT4 46.KC1-0
#18 IM Jeremy Silman-IM Georgi
Orlov, Western States Open, Reno 1991
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 e6 3*3 Bb4 + 4.Bd2 Qe7
5.Bg2 Nc6 6.NO Bxd2 + 7.Nbxd2 d6 8x4
e5 9.d5 Nb8 10.b4 O-O ll.O-O c6 12.Nel
a5 13*3 cxd5 14xxd5 Bd7 15.Nd3 Bb5
16.Qb3 a4 17.Qc2 Nbd7 18.Rfcl Qd8
19.Bfl Qb6 2O.Nb2 Bxfl 21.Kxfl Qd4
22J3 Rac8 23.Qxc8 Rxc8 24.Rxc8+ Nf8
25.Rc2 b5 26.Rel g5 27.Kg2 h5 28.Ndl
Qd3 29.R&2 g4 30.NC Qc3 31 Jxg4 Nxg4
32 JSxg4 hxg4 33Ji3 gxbJ + 34.Kxh3 Nh7
35.Kg2 Ng5 36.KG Qc8 37.NG Nh3 +
38.Kg2 Qg4 39.Rd2 Nf4 + 40.KJ2 Nh5
41 .Rc2 Qxg3 -I- 42.Ke3 Nf6 43.Rgl Ng4
0-1
#19 IM S. Savchenko-IM Alex
Yermolinsky, World Open 1991
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5 4.d5 Ne7
5*3 Ng6 6.Bg2 Bb4 7Bd2 O-O 8x3 d6
9.Nge2 a5 10.O-O Nd7 11x4 Nc5 12.Be3
f5 13xxf5 Bxf5 14.Nb5 Na6 15.Nec3 Bc5
16.Qd2 Bxe3 17.Qxe3 Nc5 18.Ne4 Bxe4
19.Bxe4 Nxe4 2O.Qxe4 b6 21.Rael RT7
22Ji4 Qd7 23.Qg2 Raf8 24.Nc3 h6 25.b3
Ne7 26.Re4 RO 27.Re3 R3f7 28.Re4 R/6
22
29*4 RO 3O.Re3 Qg4 31.Ndl R3f6
32.Reel Qd4 33.Re4 Qd3 34.R4e3 Qg6
35*4 Rf4 36.Rg3 R8T7 37Ji5 Qc2 38.Qh3
Kh8 39.Ne3 Qxb3 40*5 Qxa4 41*xb6
gxh6 42.Ng2 R4f6 43.Qg4 Qe8 44.Nh4
Qg8 45.Qd7 Rg7 46.Rxg7 Qxg7 + 47.Khl
Ng8 48.Qd8 Qg4 49.Ng6 + Kg7 5O.Rgl
QbJmate
#20 IM Gia Georgadze-IM Alex
Yermolinsky, World Open 1991
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5 4.d5 Ne7
5*3 Ng6 6.Bg2 Bb4 7.Qc2 O-O 8.Bd2 d6
9A4 Ne7 10*3 BXC3 11.BXC3 b5 12xxb5
Nfxd5 13.NO Nxc3 14.Qxc3 Rb815*4 a6
16.Rcl axb5 17.Qxc7 Ba6 18.Qxd8 Rfxd8
19.Rc7 Rb7 2O.Rxb7 Bxb7 21*xb5 Rb8
22.O-O BxD 23.BxO Rxb5 24.Rdl d5
25.e3 f5 26.Rd2 KH 27.KH Ke6 28.Kel e4
29.Be2 Rb7 3O.Rc2 Kd6 31J3 Nc6 32.KC
Ne5 33.Rd2 Rb4 34.fxe4 fxe4 35*4 h6
36.Rc2 Rb3 :?.Rd2 g6 38.Rc2 g5 39.hxg5
hxg5 4O.Rd2 Kc5 41.Rc2+ Nc4 42.Bxc4
dxc4 43.Ke2 Kb5 0-1
#21 SM Larry Remlinger-IM Georgi
Orlov
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5 4.d5 Ne7
5x4 Ng6 6.Be3 Bb4 7.Bd3 Bxc3 + 8.bxc3
d6 9.D O-O 10.Ne2 Nd7 ll.Qd2 b6 12*3
Nc513.h4 f514.Bxc5 bxc515.h5 Ne716.h6
g617.Qg5 fxe4 18.fxe4 Nc619.Qxd8 Nxd8
2O.Rbl NH 21.Kd2 Ba6 22.Rb3 Rib8
23.Ncl Rb6 24.Ke3 Bc8 25.Be2 Bd7
26.Kd2 Ng5 27.Ke3 Kf8 28.Nd3 Ke7
29.NQ Rf830.Nd3 Rib831.Ra3a632.Ra5
Bc8 33.Rh4 Rbl 34.Bg4 Rfl 35.Bxc8 Rxc8
36.Rg4 Nh3 37.Ke2 Rcf8 38.Rxa6 g5
39.Ra7 Kd7 40*4 Rgl 41*5 Rg2 +
42.Kel Rf3 0-1 The MEXICAN DEFENSE
#22 Nick Raptis (1900)-IM Georgi
Orlov, G/30, Portland 1991
1x4 Nf6 2^c3 Nc6 3.d4 e5 4.ND exd4 ("The Black Knights Tango")
5J4xd4 Bb4 6*3 d5 7.Bg2 O-O 8.O-O
Nxd4 9.Qxd4 c5 10.Qh4 d4 ll.Nd5 Nxd5
12.Qxd8 Rxd8 13.Bxd5 Bh3 14.Rdl Be6
15x4 Bxd5 16xxd5 b5 17*3 Ba5 18.b4 transpositions : ECO A50 (main) Qp game, E33: Nimzo/ind.classical line,
Bb6 19.bxc5 Bxc5 2O.cxb5 Rxd5 21.Rd3
Be7 22.Be3 Rxb5 23.Bxd4 Rd5 24.Radl
E04: catalan , E51: Nimzo/indian with 4.e3
Rad8 25.R3d2 Bxa3 26.Ral Bb4 27.Bc3
Bxc3 28.Rxd5 Rxd5 29.Rxa7 h5 3O.Kg2 published by ICE (int'l chess enterprises) 1997, ASIN 1879479036
Rd2 31.Ra4 Bd4 32.Ra8+ Kh7 33.Rd8
Rxf2+ 0-1
ISBN 0 71348349 0, 128 p. 20 $ this issue: 420
released by : kingfischer
Yucatan Press

TABLE OF CONTENTS
art One: A) 3.d5 p. 2
The Center Grab
Here White plays far the all-out win,
hoping to refute the Black Knights
Tango at once. Play is sharp, resem-
3img at times an Akkhine's Defense,
wkh Black squeezed for space bet with
aB his pieces having good squares.
Part Two: 8) 3.g3 p. 4
The Solid Fianchetto Line
, winning a couple of dozen. By any stand-
White chooses the solid plan of a
[King's Fianchetto, retaining a lot of op*
tions but allowing 3...e5, Black's kej
central break.
Part Three C) 3.Nc3 p. 6
The Fluid 3Nc3
White develops while keeping the
tension high. The position is very fluid
wkh both sides having the options of
different plans. Original play figure;
very prominently here. Black choose;
3~.eS as his center break.
Part Four D) 3.NI3 p, 10
The Main Line with 3.NB
White tries to put astop to 3. -e5 while
planning the 4.d5 center expansion.
Transpositions are likely here will.
Black having the greater say in channel!
ing the game into paths of his choice
Many opportunities abound for origii
play by both sides.
Carlos Torre (1905 - 1978),
inventor of the Mexican Defense
Introduction
T he purpose of this monograph is to
introduce chessplayers to the inter-
esting and sharp opening play
resulting from the line I.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6.
The Black Knights Tango is among the
few openings which give Black a chance
to fight for initiative from the very begin-
ning of the game and I feel it has been
unfairly neglected by theory.
1 have played this line for almost six
years in tournaments at normal time
limits, game/30, and blitz. The results
have been very good. As I recall, I have
lost only three tournament games while
ard this is a great result with the Black
pieces.
1 was introduced to The Tango in 1985
when 1 came to live in the city of Kishinev,
the capital of the small republic of Mol-
davia (one of the 15 former Soviet
republics). 1 was working full-time as a
chess coach at a local school and I did not
have enough time to keep up with modern
theory. After having some opening
troubles while facing I.d4 in several tour-
naments, I started looking for a solution.
Fortunately, 1 met a strong player and
great chess coach named Viacheslav
Chebanenko (who numbers several
Grandmasters and International Masters
among his former students), who cap-
tured my attention with l.d4Nf6 2.c4 Nc6.
Several of his students (mostly expert-
level players) had played the opening
with respectable results but nobody took
it too seriously.
I had a very strong tournament coming
up (the Semifinals of the (1986 USSR
Championship) and I thought this line
would be a perfect opening surprise.
When I got the chance, I played The
Tango against Michael Krasenkov, a
strong Master (2450 FIDE back then,
GM nowadays). After having a little
problem in the beginning of the game, I
developed an attack but missed a winning
move and the game was drawn. I made
Soviet Master in that tournament! That
experience convinced me that The Tango
would be a good opening choice for me
and I have played it ever since.
Here are some GMs 1 have played I.d4
Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 against: Yasser Seirawan
(two 30-minute games), Michael Rohde
(1-hour game), Alexey Dreev, Lubomir
Ftacnik, Elisbar Ubilava, Joel Benjamin
(several blitz games and one tournament
game which transposed into a Bogo-ln-
dian Defense, one of the transpositional
possibilities of The Tango), plus many
International Masters, Masters, etc.
There are several reasons that I have
come to believe in the line. Some of them
are sporting, and some are chess-related.
First of all, the line is virtually unknown
to most players. Your opponent often
starts thinking for a long time after move
two! Even if he solves all the problems of
the opening, he may suffer from a time
shortage in the middiegame. With time
controls getting faster and faster, this is
very important.
Secondly, original play starts right
away. There are lots of undiscovered
possibilities and opportunities for
original play and that's one reason why
people like to play chess in the first place.
The Tango is rich in both tactical and
positional play, as well as maneuvering
and improvising. Because a game may
transpose into so many different systems
(from the Nimzo-Indian and Bogo-In-
dian to the Dutch and in one case even the
King's Indian!), you never get bored by
playing the same type of position every
time you face I.d4. Also you don't have
to memorize lines 25-30 moves deep as in
other openings.
Another benefit of this monograph is
that a player can gain some under-
standing of several chess openings from
one source! The only shortcoming I know
about this line of play is that you have to
be flexible, and ready to play all of the
above-mentioned systems. This does not
mean that you have to study all these
openings if you want to play The Tango,
for only certain transpositions are pos-
sible and they will be covered in this work.
For players who like to play blitz chess,
The Tango gives amazing chances even
against much stronger opponents, be-
cause with five minutes on the clock it is
a very tough opening to face, even for a
Master. The same thing may also be said
about rapid chess (game/30 etc.). For
those of you who will decide to include
The Tango in your repertoire, I recom-
mend practising it in speed chess for some
time because some positions are very un-
usual and take a while to get used to.
Georgi Orlov, International Master
 The Black Knights This opening, which has given excel-
Tango lent results to its pioneering practitioners,
can transpose into the Nimzo-Indian,
by IM Gcorgi Orlov Bogo-Indian, the King's Indian Defenses
or lead into original middle-game posi-
tions. Most of the time at Black's discre-
Part One
tion. What is this opening that puts YOU
steps. I believe White has four choices: 13.Nd4 or 13.Rg5 winning the Black
!? b)4.Nc3 c)4.Qc2 d)4.b3?! Queen. Black has to play 12...Bb4
with the idea of having ...Qe4+ as an
a) escape. Now 13.Qd4 renews the
4e4!?
threat again. Here 13...Bxc3 +
Continuing to grab as much space as 14.bxc3 h6 saves the Queen but the

T he Black Knights Tango is an open-

ing which has thus far managed to
evade the microscopic scrutiny of
in the driver's seat? None other than the
following:
possible. The text is White's most natural
follow-up to his third move. The e-pawn
is indirectly protected, for if 4...Nxe4?,
then 5.0d4 wins a Knight.
Black pieces are not active. These
lines convinced me that Black must
have something better and after some
modern theoreticians. Even the En- searching I found 9...Bb4 + !!
cyclopedia of Chess Openings fails to give 1.d4Nf6 2.c4Nc6!!
it the smallest mention. The move 4...Ng6 was criticized in the
Most opening books these days do not tournament bulletin of Baden-Baden
explain to the average chessplayer why 1925 by Toledo Velasco, who recom- White has reached a winning posi- This final position is typical of the cen-
this or that move has actually been played mended 4...e6 as best. His comment was tion but Saemisch was a notoriously ter grab lines. White has space, but Black
but give a lot of variations instead. The reinforced by Jacques Mieses (1865- slow player who once lost on time at has good piece play. I evaluate the posi-
drawback of this kind of opening 1954) in the Leipziger Neue Nachrichten move 13! White's time trouble im- tion as dynamically equal.
"knowledge" is simple: when the op- based on the line: 4...Ng6 5.f4 e6 6.Bd3 parts a certain weirdness to the rest of b)
ponent plays a move which has not been exd5 7x5 Ne4 8.cxd5 Qh4+ 9.g3 Nxg3 the game.
analyzed in the book many players get 10.Nf3 Qh5? ll.Rgl Nf5 12.Rg5, winning 14...Bc515.Be3 d6 16.Bxc5 dxc5 17.Nc3 4.Nc3
confused and have no idea what to do a piece. Bf5 18.Bg2 O-O-O 19.g4? Bc2!? 20.Rcl
A positionally solid approach. It is no
next. I will try to explain why things are But why 10...Qh5? After 10...Qh3!? Bb3 21.Ne4 b5
secret that it is impossible to win a chess
done according to my understanding of ll.Rgl Nh5 12.Bfl Qf5 Black is very game with pawns only so White wants to
chess. much alive. Furthermore Black has an give some piece support to his advanced
GM Joel Benjamin, in his July 1991 excellent reply in 9...Bb4! +, which will be army.
Now White has to choose between a)
article in Chess Life, attributed this open- "In our day, many strange things hap- covered below. 4...e6
ing to the American player Alexander pen," noted the German chess magazine 10.Nd2, b) 10.Bd2 or c) 10.Nc3 because
Nonetheless, 4..x6! given by Toledo Capturing the c-pawn is very risky for
Kevitz (1902-1981) and to the Yugos- Deutsche Schachzeitung back in 1925! 10.Ke2(fl) is trashed by 10...Nxg3 +.
Velasco does seem to be more precise. Black. For example: 4...Nxc4 5x4 Nb6
lavian Master Mihajlo Trajkovic; but no a) 10.Nd2. This eventually loses to
This provocative idea by Black is in The game continued: 6x5 Ng8 7.Nf3 d6 8. Bb5 + Bd7 9x6!
games played by these players were given. reality quite simple. Black develops his 10...Nxg3 ll.Ngf3 Qh5 12.Rgl Nxf4.
5f4 e5?! 6.f5 Nxe4? gives White a strong initiative.
In the tournament book of the Baden- Knights and White is asked what he in- b) 10.Bd2 Nxg3 ll.Nf3 Nxf4!! A
5.e4 exd5 6.cxd5 Bc5 7.Be2
Baden 1925 Tournament, translated and tends to do with his pawns. Will he try to problem-like situation! If 12.Nxh4,
published by Jimmy Adams, we dis- "punish" Black by 3.d5 or will White then 12...Nxd3 mate! Also hopeless is
covered the original name given this choose simple development? When con- 12.Bxb4 Nxd3 + 13.Qxd3 Qxb4 +;
opening and the player who first played fronted with the choice, White almost al- 12.Bfl! is the only move and after
it. ways tries the latter, as the traps resulting Draw agreed!?? 12...Ng2 + 13.Bxg2 Qe4 + 14.Kf2
The Black Knights Tango was from 3.d5 can lead White into immediate A crazy game that raises a lot more Nxhl+ 15.Bxhl Qxd5 the position is
originally called The Mexican Defense! danger. Part One is devoted to the 3.d5 questions than answers! In my view the very sharp and interesting.
The first practitioner was none other center grab. Black e5-Knight is ideal so why should c) 10.Nc3 Nxc3 ll.bxc3 Bxc3+ 12.Bd2
than Carlos Torre, the most famous Black move the dancing horse if he isn't Bxd2 + 13.Qxd2 Qe7 14.Nf3 d6 and Black
player Mexico has ever produced.
Having played it, however, he soon
forced to? It's important not to do is fine.
Back to the main continuation.
White's work for him! Let White create
dropped the line and enriched theory in One of the main ideas behind this pawn weaknesses!
other areas, most notably The Torre At- opening, borrowed from Alekhine's
tack (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5). (Carlos Defense, is to provoke the White A piece sacrifice designed to confuse 1.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.d5 Ne5 4.e4 e6
Torre is most remembered for his bril- pawns forward and then attack them. White has to rein in his ambitions. If
White. Instead of the sacrifice, Black has 5.f4
liant Queen sacrifice which scored him This can be seen clearly after 3.d5, the 7.f4, then 7...Neg4 invites Black to a party
a much superior choice in 6...Bb4+, This move brings to mind the line in the
a fine victory over then World Cham- most obvious attempt to punish the that White is unprepared for. And 7.h3
when White has a space advantage but Alekhine's Defense: 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5
pion Emanuel Lasker in Moscow, two Knight moves. But 3.d5 neglects d6 8.f4 Ng6 9.Nf3 Qe7 10.Bd3 O-O
nothing concrete. 3x4 Nb6 4d4 d6 5.f4 and White fails as
1925.) development. ll.Qe2 Nh5 counterattacking the f4-
7.QD! often as he succeeds in punishing Black pawn is good for Black.
Since other Mexican players haven't The best. This move was doubtlessly
taken up the torch of the Mexican for his brave play. 7...d6 8.Nf3 O-O 9.Nxe5
A) 3.d5 overlooked by Black. Less convincing is 5...Ng6 6.Bd3 exd5 7.exd5
Defense, this no-name opening has lan- Good for Black is 9.O-O Re8 10.Qc2
This move was played in the pioneer 7.6xg6 Qh4 + 8.g3 Nxg3 9.gxf7+ Kxf7 As already noted, 7x5 Ne4 8xxd5
guished, rarely getting even an game Saemisch-Torre, Baden-Baden, Nfg4! with fine piece play.
10.hxg3 Qxhl ll.Qf3 + Qxf3 12.Nxf3, Qh4+ 9.g3 Nxg3 10.Nf3 Qh3 ll.Rgl 9..dxe5 10.O-O h6!
honorable mention. I hope to change 1925. which gives White a smaller edge. Nh5! is unclear, e.g. 12.Bfl Qf5 Black has emerged from the opening in
that by first highlighting the defense 3...Ne5
with a catchy name. Thus The Black 7...Bb4+ 8.Kdl! Qh4 9.g3 Qg4 13.Bd3 leads to a draw. Even more fine shape.
The position has already become a tac- 10.Qxg4 Nf2+ ll.Ke2 Nxg4 12.h3 Nf6 crazy play arises after 12.Nc3 (instead 7...Bb4+ 8.Bd2 Qe7+ 9.Kf1 Bxd2 c)
Knights Tango!
tical land mine. White has to take careful 13.fxg6 hxg6 14.a3 of 12.Bd3). Now White threatens 10.Qxd2 Ne4 I.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 3.d5 Ne5 4.Qc2
3
 4.Qc2
This Queen move covers the important
squares c4 and e4 but neglects develop-
ment and cannot be considered as a
serious threat to Black's position.
4...e6
In Akhsharumova-Sheremetieva,
USSR 1984, BlacK tried 4...Ng6?! but
after 5.Nc3 e5 6.e3!, with the idea of h2-
h4-h5, White was clearly better. Once
again the importance of waiting for White
to kick Black's prancers is revealed.
5.e4 b5!?
An excellent gambit possibility which
gives Black a strong initiative with the
purpose of destroying White's advanced
center. There are strong positional
reasons in favor of 5...b5!? Black has al-
ready developed two pieces and ...Bb4 +
and ...O-O is a matter of one second, so
Black's development is much better. Ac-
cording to basic principles of strategy the
best way to take advantage of that is to
open the game and so Black does. I am
convinced 5...b5!? is best.
Also possible is the quiet 5...Bc5 6.Nc3
d6 7.Be2 O-O with a reasonable game for
Black.
6.dxe6 fxe6 7.cxb5 Bb7 8.Nc3 Bb4 9.f3
d5 l0.exd5 exd5 l l . B d 2 d4
The gambit has worked out well. Black
has good counterplay for the pawn.
d)
l.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 3.d5 Ne5
4.b3?!
Probably the weakest move. The
shortcoming of this try is that White's
position becomes vulnerable to various
tactics on the a5-e1 and a1-h8 diagonals.
There are two games that have been
played with this line. The first one was
played between Frank Marshall and Car-
los Torre on a ship while traveling from
Europe to America in 1925 and was pub-
lished by a Latvian chess magazine.
Torre played here:
Another try, 5.ND, was played in Bal-
mazi-Orlov, G/30, World Open 1991.
After 5...Nxf3+ 6.gxf3 exd5 7xxd5
Bb4 +, White lost a pawn and eventually
the game. The best here is 5.dxe6 fxe6
6.Nf3 Nxf3 + 7.gxf3 but after 7...Bb4 +
8.Bd2 a5 Black stands better because
White's pawn structure is quite com-
promised.
5...Bb4+ 6.Nd2??
I presume that the tactical genius Mar-
shall was suffering from sea-sickness,
otherwise he would have played 6.Nc3.
However, after 6...Ne4 7.Qd4 Nxc3
8.Bxc3 Bxc3 + 9.Qxc3 Qf6 Black has no
reason to complain.
6...Ne4 8.Bcl Qf6
White resigned. Huge material losses
are inevitable. For instance, the follow-
ing beautiful line was pointed out by NM
Michael Franett. 9.0 Nf2! The brave
Knight jumps into the enemy's camp!
10.Kxf2 Ng4+ ll.Kg3, a desperate jour-
ney but ll.Kel loses to ll...Ne3, winning
the Queen. ll...Bd6+ 12.Kxg4 Qf4 +
13.Kh3 Qh6+ 14.Kg4 f5 mate!
Part Two: B) 3.g3
The Solid Fianchetto Line
T he lines in Part One showed that
after 3.d5 Black has at least fair
counterplay and real chances to ex-
ploit White's extended center. But my
experience has been that 3.d5 is the most
unlikely choice from White. Faced with
an opening for the first time, most players
are afraid of falling into a trap. They
glance at a few wild variations and quickly
move on to more solid continuations.
What could be more solid than fianchet-
toing a Bishop? Part Two focuses on the
line:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 3.g3
This continuation hasn't been seriously
tested in competition but nevertheless
deserves attention. The main drawback
of White's solid approach is that it allows
Black to strike with 3...e5, favorably
resolving the center dispute.
3...e5 4.d5 Bb4 +
Now White has two choices: A) 5.Bd2
and B) 5.Nd2.
A)5.Bd2
This line is less ambitious than 5.Nd2.
White just wants to finish developing his
pieces the most natural and fastest way. I
feel that by trading his dark-squared
Bishop, White undercuts his chances for
an opening advantage because of lack of
prospects for his fianchettoed Bishop and
Black's control of the dark squares.
5...Bxd2+ 6.Qxd2
In Pupols-Orlov, Oregon Open 1991,
White tried 6.Nxd2 and I replied 6...Nb8
preparing for dark-square play. (6...Ne7
deserves equal attention as the Knight on
e7 supports ...f7-f5. Here is a sample line:
7.Bg2 d6 8.Ngf3 O-O 9.O-O a5!? Always
an important move in these kinds of posi-
tions since it prevents b2-b4. 10.e4
Nd7!?-going to c5. Black has a
reasonable game.)
Back to Pupols-Orlov: 7.e4 d6 8.Bg2
Na6 9.Ne2 Nc5 10.O-O a5. After giving
away his King Bishop, Black tries to get a
hold on some dark squares. White now
plays to exchange the c5-Knight: ll.Nc3
O-O 12.Nb3 b6 13.Nxc5 bxc5 14.Qd3
Bd7. Now Black plans to double his
Rooks on the b-file and force White to
play b2-b3 when by playing ...a5-a4 he will
create a serious weakness in White's
pawn structure. 15.f4 Qe7 16.Racl Rfb8
17.Rc2 Rb4 18.h3. White has no good
active plan because an attack with f4-f5
can easily be stopped with ...h7-h6, ...Nf6-
h7, and ...f7-f6. 18...Rab8 19.Rff2 h6
20.Ndl?! This is only helping Black.
20...Ba4 21.b3 Bd7 and Black was fine.
6...Ne7 7.Bg2 d6 8.Nc3 O-O 9.Nf3
Both sides are finishing their develop-
ment and now Black has to commit to
some plan. Playing for the dark squares
seems quite logical and also important to
stop White's queenside attack with b2-b4
and c4-c5. Therefore:
9...Nd7!? 10.O-O a5 11.e4 Nc5
The Knight has ascended to his perfect
square.
12.Nel f5
Black has managed to achieve a King's
Indian pawn structure and the
counterplay that goes with it minus the
usual dark-squared Bishop liability. I like
Black's position.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 3.g3 e5 4.d5 Bb4 +
B)5.Nd2
With 5.Nd2 White wants to win the two
Bishops and is willing to spend some time
on the project. This is more promising
than 5.Bd2 but I think that Black's chan-
ces for an equal game are good because
in a closed position Knights are no worse
than Bishops.
5...Ne7 6.Nf3
Grabbing the two Bishops at once with
6.a3 Bxd2 + 7.Bxd2 d6 8.Bg2 O-O 9.Nf3
Ne4! 10.O-O f5 results in equality.
6...Ng6
Not falling into the transparent trap
6...d6?? 7.Qa4 +, winning a piece.
7.a3
White would overreach with the
dubious idea 7.h4? e4! 8.Nd4 e3! 9.fxe3
Ne4, when Black has a marvelous attack.
With the text, White gains his coveted two
Bishops.
7...Bxd2+ 8.Bxd2 d6 9.Bg2 O-O
10.O-O
Again both sides have finished their
development and Black faces some dif-
ficult decisions. A typical plan with ...a7-
a5 and ...Nf6-d7-c5 will not work here
because of b2-b4. It is important for Black
5
to play ...f7-f5 expanding the f8-Rook's
horizons with some attacking chances in-
volving ...f5-f4 later on, but if now
10...Ne8? White plays 11.h4 and if 11...f5
then 12.h5 Ne7 13.h6 g6 14.Ng5 and Black
is in trouble on the kingside.
10... Ne4!?
Attacking the Bishop and preparing
...f7-f5 at the same time. This also con-
tains a drop of poison. If ll.Nxe5? to
meet ll...Nxe5? 12.Bxe4 Nxc4 by
13.Bxh7 + Kxh7 14.Qc2+ and Qxc4,
Black has a nice reply in ll...Nxf2! Now if
12.Rxf2, 12...Nxe5 gives Black a great
position. The same holds after 12.Nxf7
Rxf7 13.Rxf2 Rxf2 14.Kxf2 Qf6 + 15.Kgl
Qxb2.
11.Bel
White wants to keep his Bishop since
having two of them is the main idea be-
hind playing 5.Nd2 in the first place.
11.h4 is not so powerful here: ll...Nxd2
12.Qxd2 h6 (it is important not to let a
pawn get to h6) 13.h5 Ne7 14.Nh2 (stop-
ping ...Bg4, as 14.Nh4 Bg4 15.Bf3 Qd7 is
good for Black) 14...a5. Black wants to fix
the queenside. 15.b3 Nf5 16.e3 Bd7. Play
seems to be equal here.
11...f5
Black has adequate counterplay for
the two Bishops. As you probably have
noticed, Black sometimes achieves a
Dutch Defense-like pawn structure
(pawn chain d6, e5, f5), but unlike the
Dutch, here White does not have a
serious initiative in the center or on the
queenside. Basically, by playing 3.g3
White shows that he does not want to be
involved in a theoretical opening dispute.

Part Three: White
Allows 3...e5
The Fluid C) 3.Nc3
P art Three deals with White's fun-
damental dilemma, which Knight to
develop first, the Queen's Knight or the
King's? Part Three examines 3.Nc3 in
detail, covering a lot of interesting
ground. Don't be too dismissive of this
treatment by White, as you might land in
hot water very quickly!
Ld4Nf6 2.c4Nc6
C) 3.Nc3
3.Nc3 is undoubtedly much more ag-
gressive than B) 3.g3. White shows his
readiness to jump into sharp lines against
The Tango.
This way of attack is better prepared
than A) 3.d5 and White captures a lot of
space in all lines but there is something in
Black's favor. In a King's Indian type of
pawn chain he does get to trade his often
"bad" dark-squared Bishop tor White's
Knight on c3 (which protects e4) and
often with damage to White's pawn struc-
ture. Plus there are no lines here like
those in the KID where White keeps un-
pleasant tension in the center while main-
taining a pawn on d4. I have had great
practical success with the Black pieces in
this line.
3...e5
Black takes advantage of this oppor-
tunity to break in the center. Black can
also take his share of the center in a very
different way with 3...d5. which leads to a
transposition into the Chigorin Variation
of the Queen's Gambit. WTiile this may
or may not be your cup of tea, it is an
indication of the versatility of the Black
Knights Tango. White has to be prepared
for a lot of different opening salvos, while
Black gets to call the shots.
4.d5
In Seirawan-Orlov, Seattle, G/30,1991.
Yasser played: 4.dxe5 Nxe5 5.e3 Bb4
6.Bd2 O-O 7.a3 Be7 8.NG 66 9.Be2 Be6
10.b3 Nxf3+ ll.BxB d5 12.cxd5 Nxd5
13.Qc2 c6 and the game is absolutely
even.
After 4.Nf3, the game transposes into
a variation of the English: I.c4 e5 2.Nc3
Nf6 3.NB Nc6 4.d4, which theory con-
siders equaJ.
Let's take a look at the game Raptis-
Orlov, Portland, G/30, 1991: 4...exd4
5.Nxd4 Bb4 6.g3 d5 7.Bg2 O-O!?
Black does not have to defend the d5-
square!
8.O-O Nxd4 9.Qxd4 c5 10.Qh4 d4
I decided to go for the endgame as
10...dxc4 is met by 11-Bg5!
ll.Nd5 Nxd5 12.Qxd8 Rxd8 13.Bxd5
Bh3
Also a good move. Now if 14.Bxb7
then 14...Bxfl 15.Bxa8 Bxe2 and the d-
pawn makes all the difference.
H.Rdl Be6 15.e4
I was prepared to meet 15.Bxb7 with
15...Rb8 and now if 16.Ba6? then 16...Rb6
17.Bb5 a6 18.Ba4 Bxc4 and Black is on
top.
15...Bxd5 16.exd5 b5 and Black was
fine.
On 4.e3 exd4 5.exd4 d5, or 4.dxe5 Nxe5
5.e4 Bc5, in both cases Black has an easy
game.
This is the key position for Part Three.
White has four major alternatives: A)
5*3, B) 5.NG, O 5Ji4, and the main line
After 5.g3 or 5.Nf3 play could easily
lead into the King's Indian complex.
A) 5.g3
Here Black has a choice between going
into one of the main lines of the KID or
the independent line 5...Ng6!?
6
5...d6 6.Bg2 g6 7.ND Bg7 8.O-O O-O
Leads to a main line Kings Indian.
Importantly, this option of a KID is
Black's choice. Available practice with
5.g3 contains two games played by IM
Alex Yermolinsky in which he side-
stepped the KID line cited above and
continued 5...Ng6!? with original play. I
introduced Alex to the Tango during
some opening preparations at the 1991
World Open. He played it twice and won
both games against strong Russian
Masters!
Savchenko-Yermolinsky, World Open
1991:
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5 4.d5 Ne7
5.g3Ng6!?6.Bg2Bb4
One of the most important ideas of the
Tango is the fast development of all your
pieces!
7.Bd2O-O8.e3
I don't understand this move since if
White wants to achieve anything he has to
play e4.
8...d6 9.Nge2 a5
The move ...a7-a5 is important for
Black. It prepares a way back for the
Bishop in face of a2-a3, expands a Rook,
and makes ...a5-a4, fixing the queenside,
a possibility.
10.O-O Nd7!
Another important reply. The Knight
unlocks the f-pawn and then goes to c5
where it influences both the center and
the queenside.
H.e4Nc5 12.Be3
It was too late to play 12.a3 here. After
12...Bxc3 13.Nxc3 a4! 14.Bc3 Nb3 15.Rbl
Bd7, Black has an easy game.
12...f5 I3.exf5 Bxf5 and Black has
achieved excellent play.
In Georgadze-Yermolinsky, World
Open 1991, White tried to improve with
7.Qc2 instead of 7.Bd2 but after 7...O-O
8.Bd2?! (8.a3 Bxc3+ 9.Qxc3 d6 10.NB
[ 10.e4 a5 11.b3 c6 12.Ne2 cxdi 13.cxd5 a4!
gives Black a good game because he takes
control of the c-file and his light-squared
Bishop gets the good diagonal e8-a4. plus
White falls behind in development]
10...a5 Il.b3 Ne4 12.Qc2 f5 with
counterplay for Black) S...d6 (8...c6!? was
more aggressive) 9.h4? (White does not
develop his pieces! Better is 9.a3 Bxc3
10.Bxc3 Bd7, which leads to roughly equal
play) 9...Ne7! 10.a3 Bxc3 ll.Bxc3 b5!
prancer severely limited. Black can still has really only one idea behind it and
try to fight with 7...Bb4, when the out- cannot promise White any advantage.
come of the opening is unclear, but in this Beset with a new problem, Black rose
line I have to give White a small plus. For to the occasion.
that reason, most players are advised to 5...Neg8!!
transpose to the KID by: This idea belongs to the Moldavian
6*4 g6 7.Be2 Bg7 8.O-O O-O Master Viacheslav Chebanenko, as do
many other original opening ideas. Now
the Bishop is unlocked and the Knight has
changed his route, killing the purpose of
h2-h4. How about development? Both
sides have developed only one piece but
the advanced White pawns will soon re-
quire close attention.
Analysis Diagram 6*3 a6
Very original opening play. Black
Let's stop for a moment to analyze
prepares a way back for the King Bishop
what's going on. After 11 moves Black
because 6...Bc5 is met by 7.Na4! 6...a5
has castled and built a strong position in
also deserves consideration. White has
the center, while by comparison White
some choice here: a) 7.ND, or b) 7.e3.
has made many pawn moves, won the two
Even though you have been "tricked" a) 7.NO Ng4!
Bishops but neglected kingstde develop-
into playing into the diagrammed posi- Another move against all the "rules"
ment. Therefore Black has strong posi-
tion, take heart! Think of how many of but the Knight feels comfortable on g4
tional reasons to open up the game.
the normal challenges to the KID that because there is no h2-pawn! Along with
It is necessary to mention that Black
you've been able to avoid. Perhaps your that, Black prepares ...f7-f5 and ...Ngf6,
also has the quieter Il...c6 12.dxc6 (12.e4
opponent doesn't even play the Classical plus he sets a little trap: 8.e4?? Bc5!
cxd5 I3.cxd5 Ng4 followed by ...f7-f5 gives
line against the KID. Perhaps be'd prefer 8.e3 f5 9.Be2 N8f6
Black strong kingside play) 12...Nxc6
to play a Saemisch, a Four Pawns Attack, Black is okay because he has easy
13.Nf3 Be6 14.b3 h6 leading to equal
or an Averbakh System. Much like development and clear play. For in-
chances for both sides.
you, he has also been tricked into the stance: 10.Qc2 d6 ll.Ng5! Qe7 12X3 Nh6
12.cxb5
diagrammed position. Use this to 13.Bd2 g6 14.O-O-O Bg7 15.Kbl Bd7
12.b3 creates a weak pawn after
your advantage! You can specialize in with dynamic equality.
12...bxc4 13.bxc4 and an excellent square one King's Indian line and almost as- b)7.e3
for Black's Knight. For instance, 13...&5!? suredly be better prepared than your op-
14.e4 (14.ND Bf5) 14...Nd7 15.Ne2 Nc5 ponent.
16.O-O f5 and Black has a great game. White has another interesting alterna-
12...Nfxd5 13.NB tive:
Now Black wants to get all pieces off
I.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5 4.d5 Ne7
the hl-a8 diagonal and open the b-file for
his Rook. C) 5.h4!?
13...Nxc3 14.Qxc3
Of course, 14Ng5 is met by 14...Bf5.
14...Rb8 15.a4 a6! and Black has the
better game.
After A) 5.g3, Black has the option of
choosing a main line KID or playing
originally. The move 5.g3 isn't very forc-
ing and is unlikely to cause Black any real This move lets Black's dark-squared
trouble.
Bishop out, so it is not as good as 7.ND.
I.d4 NP6 2.c4 Nc6 3JMc3 e5 4.d5 Ne7
7^Bc5 8.b4 Ba7 9.NO d6, intending
B) 5.NO
10...Ng4,11..J5 and 12...N8f6, Sedrakian-
This move is more troublesome. Now
Sosonkin, USSR 1986. Black's position is
Black is obligated to go into one of the
This approach was played in Gorniak- perfectly satisfactory.
main lines of the King's Indian
Chebanenko, USSR 1984. The idea is to
5...d6 This brines us to the main line of Part
Now this move seems mandatory.
meet 5...Ng6? with t>.h5, forcing the
Three:
Knight to dance once more. Now Black
5...Ngt> is very risky because of 6.h4!. I.d4 NP6 2x4 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5 4.d5 Ne7
has to dramatically change his plans to
when t>...h5 is strongly met by ? Bgi! in- D) 5.e4
make h2-h4 less useful. This pawn push
tending S.e3 and 9.Be2, leaving the gt>-

White has captured a lot of space with
5.e4, trying to play by classical opening
principles (if you have a chance to estab-
lish a centerdo it!), but he weakens his
dark squares. Again, Black has a choice
between playing a normal King's Indian
with ...d7-d6 and ...g7-g6 or trying to play
on the dark squares. I like the latter op-
tion.
5...Ng6
Surprisingly, my praxis is full of games
from this position. Let's look at: I) 6.Be3,
II) 6.a3, III) 6.Bd3, and the most
dangerous move IV) 6.h4!?
I)6.Be3
White tries to prevent ...Bc5 and plans
to build a strong Saemisch-like center but
he gives Black a chance to damage his
pawn structure. This was first played
against me in Remlinger-Orlov, San
Francisco 1991.
6-BM! 7.Bd3 Bxc3 + 8J>xc3 d6 9J3
The position that has resulted relates
to both the KID and the Nimzo-Indian.
Black's plan is to castle, play ...Nf6-d7-c5,
support with ...b7-b6 and then break with
...f7-5. If White plays c4-c5, Black con-
centrates his pressure on the c-file.
Saemisch-like play with h2-h4 and g2-g4
is met by ...Ng6-f4.
9-.O-O 10JSe2 Nd7 ll.Qd2 b6 12^3
Larry prepares aggression with h2-
h4-h5, but I don't have weaknesses
there!
12~Nc5 13Ji4
This move is out of contact with reality
as White has no chance to succeed with
this plan.
13^1514.Bxc5 bxc5 15JJ5 Ne7 16.h6 g6
17.Qg5
Continuing his "attacking" strategy.
Here 17.O-O-O was necessary.
17~be4 18.fxe4 Nc6!
Forcing White into an endgame be-
cause if 19.0d2, then 19...Na5 with
threats like ...Ba6 and ...R.
19.Qxd8 Nxd8 2O.Rbl Nf7
Black has a large advantage and won
handily.
As we saw, 7.Bd3 didn't work out so
well. 7.B was played in Spiller-Orlov,
U.S. Open 1991.
I.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5 4.d5 Ne7
5.e4 Ng6 6.Be3 Bb4 7J3
This pawn move is a bit better than
7.Bd3 as after ....d7-d6 White has to play
fl-Q anyway in order to prevent ...Nf6-g4,
plus it gives White a chance to get rid of
the weak c-pawn. But then Black benefits
from the open c-file.
7~Bxc3+8J>xc3d6 9x5
White rids himself of the weak pawn on
c4.
9-.O-O 10*3?!
A dangerous mistake. The developing
moves 10.Bd3 and Ne2 were necessarv.
10.-Nd7!?
As usual, the f6-Knight frees the f-
pawn and goes to c5!
Uxxd6cxd6
Black's game is easy: his d7-Knight gets
his perfect square, the Queen Rook gets
play on the c-file and the other Rook will
have the f-file after ...f7-f5 is played.
12.Bd3 Q5 13 J4e2 Nc5 14.Bc2
He should castle instead.
8 9
14.J5 15.O-O fce4 16.fce4 Bh3
17.Rxffi +
Falling into a little trap but the game
was already difficult for White.
17-Rxffi 18.Qd2? Qxa2! 19.Rbl??
Qxbl + 0-1
White's plan with c4-c5 takes too much
time and Black has an easy game.
11)6^3
In the two examples cited above
White's doubled queenside pawns were
terrible. Let's see someone stop the plan
of 6...Bb4 and ...Bb4xc3. In Shahade-
Orlov, World Open G/30, White
prevented ...Bb4:
I.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5 4.d5 Ne7
5,c4 Ng6 6^3
Typical. White prevents ...Bb4 but
now Black can take over the a7-gl-
diagonai.
6...a5?!
Not the best. The text prevents b2-b4
but the a7-gl-diagonal is more important.
I was mistakenly afraid to play 6...Bc5!?
because of 7.b4 Bd4 8.Nge2, but what I
missed was 8...Nxe4!!, hitting f2 and c3
and after 9.Nxe4 Bxal 10.Bg5 f6 ll.Bxf6
gxf6 12.Qxal f5, Black's superiority is ob-
vious.
7.Rbl?
My opponent missed 7.Be3 d6 8.O and
White would be clearly better.
7~Bc5 8.b4 axb4 9.axb4 Bd4 10JSJge2
c5!?
Trying to hold on to d4.
Il.dxc6dxc6
Suddenly White's position looks very
suspicious. Black has developed almost
all his pieces, controls the a-file, and has
tangible pressure on White's center.
12J3 Be6 13x5 O-O
After 13 moves(!) Black has developed
all his pieces and among the various
threats has ...b7-b6. Now White should
have played 14.Bd2, but after 14...b6
Black would be better anyway.
14.Bb2 Be3! 15.Qxd8 Rfxd8 16.Rdl
Shahade tries to lessen the pressure by
trading pieces but lack of the hl-Rook in
the area is very significant.
16~Nf4 17.Nxf4
Doesn't change a thing. If 17.Ncl,then
17...Rxdl+ 18.Nxdl Bxcl 19.Bxcl Ral
and Black wins.
17...exf4 18.e5
A desperate try.
18,.,Nd5 19.Nxd5 Rxd5 2O.Rxd5 Bxd5
Nothing can prevent ...Ra2.
0-1
As bad as the above game was, White
had a far greater disaster in Erion-Orlov,
Portland 1991, where 6.Bd3 was tried:
III) 6.Bd3
A natural move which protects the
e4-pawn and prepares Nge2 in case of
...Bb4. Black's counterplay remains the
same as before the Bishop goes to c5,
t
..d7-d6, ...a7-a5, ...O-O and maybe later
...c7-c6.
6~Bc5 7.Nge2??
While trying to place all his pieces har-
moniously, White misses a cheapo!
7~Ng4!8.O-OQb4 0-l
Huge losses are inevitable.
Of course, 7.Nge2?? was a horrible
blunder, but even after the better...
7.NOd6 8.O-Oa6
The dark-squared Bishop is a very
valuable piece in Black's plans so it has to
be preserved and Black prepares a way
back for the Bishop in case of Na4.
9J3O-O
Another possibility is 9...h6 with the
idea ...Nh7-g5 playing on the kingside. In
either case Black has a fine game.
IV)6Ji4
A stormy pawn move that is not really
dangerous because of counterplay on the
a7-gl diagonal and the possibility of
developing some pressure against the e4-
pawn by playing ...Bb4.
6...h5 7.Bg5
White tries to play all over the board.
The danger of such play is that Black can
counterstrike somewhere in between
White's outspread army.
After 7.Nf3 Bc5 8.Bg5 c6 9.Qc2 Qa5
10.Bxf6 gxf6, Black's activity fully com-
pensates for the structural weaknesses in
his position.
7~Bc5
Unfortunately the "normal" 7...Bb4
would be met by S.Rcl but Black should
not complain. The Bishop has plenty of
work on the a7-gl diagonal.
8.Be2
This is a critical position. White has
played consistently and is prepared to
capture the h5-pawn, b u t . . .
8~c6!
It turns out to be inedible! Now,
9.Bxh5? Rxh5! 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 ll.Qxh5
Qxf2 + is good for Black.
9.Nh3 d6 10*3 Bd4
Black is better.
ll the above lines are not forced, of
A course! Our goal is to show that
International Master Georgi Orlov
Black's position is full of counterchances.
In general 3.Nc3 leads to very original and
interesting play. Attempts to punish
Black (especially with h2-h4) can be suc-
cessfully neutralized. There are a lot of
options for an original player to exercise
his or her tactical abilities and plenty of
possibilities for adventurous players to
come up with new ideas. As for myself, I
like the idea of Nc6-e7-g6, concentrating
pieces for kingside play. Considering the
first three parts together, Black proved
tactically and positionally that the idea of
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 is as good as any other
opening scheme.
Now we move to Part Four which is
most challenging and crucial for The
Tango because 3.ND does not seek im-
mediate tactical victory but seeks to get a
positional edge and slowly capitalize on
it. Black has to be patient in these lines
but ready to counterattack at any mo-
ment. There are a lot of transpositions
possible, so your mind has to be quite
flexible. One thing is for sure, you never
get bored! Good luck!

Part Four D) 3.NI3
The Main Line
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6
D) 3.NO
B y far the most common continuation.
Usually 3.Nft is the choice of an ex-
perienced chessplayer who avoids open-
ing experiments and can easily imagine
the complexity of lines like 3.d5 Ne5 or
3.Nc3 e5.
3.Nf3 is a solid line that does not hope
for immediate opening victory, but in-
stead builds for a middlegame in which he
hopes to take advantage of Black's lack of
a c-pawn in the center. 3.NB is also a
temporary prevention of ...e7-e5. How-
ever, available practice has proven that
Black has several resources of
counterplay and is able to achieve equal
chances. The lack of a c-pawn in the
central fight is compensated for by the
quick development of all Black's pieces
and his healthy pawn structure. Also,
after some preparation, Black will play
...eo-e5, freeing his light-squared Bishop.
Play now becomes very tricky with
transposition into various openings pos-
sible at several junctures. As before,
Black usually decides which variation
he'd like to transpose into.
Black has two paths to choose from
after 3.ND:3...d6 or 3...e6. This book will
focus upon 3...e6.
3...e6
After 3...d6, the game transposes into
a sort of Indian Defense. This plan has
been successfully used by GMs Jonathan
Speelman and Tony Miles.
We will follow 3...e6, as it involves more
dearcut positional plans. The move 3...e6
is the first step in the following strategic
plan:
1) to play ...Bb4 and trade the Bishop
for White's Bishop, or a Knight;
2) after exchanging the dark-squared
Bishop to play ...d7-d6 and ...e6-e5, Black
gives room to his light-squared Bishof/
and builds a positionally healthy center.
3) if White then closes the game by
d4-d5, Black has the traditional method
of counterplay in ...f7-f5. Barring this,
Black has another plan in ...a7-a5, ...Nb8-
a6-c5 along with ...c7-c6. Sometimes
Black can even combine both plans.
After the text White has played:
Dl 4.d5 (?)
D2 4.Bf4 (?!)
D3 4.Bg5
D4 4.g3
D5 4.Nc3
D6 4.a3
D7 4.e3
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.NG e6
Dl) 4.d5?
The tempting 4.d5? fails to:
4~exd5 5xxd5Bb4 + !
Black soon snares a pawn! A trap
worth remembering.
The only way available for White here.
Since the pawn loss is inevitable, he hopes
to get some compensation with the help
of the Bishop pair and some space ad-
vantage. Evidently some compensation is
achievable but insufficient.
IJtouA 8.Qd4 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Nf6
10.d6!?
White tries to disorganize the Black
pieces. No better is 10.c4, as after
10...O-O ll.Bd3 d6 12.O-O c5 White
does not have sufficient compensation for
the pawn, Nesterov-Sosonkin, Minsk
1986.
10~xxd6 ll.BdJ
10
If White takes a pawn with U.Qxd6
then ll...Oa5 12.Bd2O-O! and ...Nf5.
ll_Nc6!? I did not like here Il...d5
12.Bg5 Nc613.Qh4 and if 13...Qe7 then
14.Kfl!
12.Qxd6 Qe7+ 13.Qxe7 + Kxe7
14.Ba3 + d6 15.O-O-O Be6
Also possible was L5...Rd8, fortifying
the d6-pawn.
Black, with his material advantage,
stands better. This was confirmed in
Frog-Orlov, Moscow 1986, because
16.Ba6? bxa617.R*d6 is met by the simple
17...Nd8, keeping the extra loot.
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.NO e6
D2) 4.Bf4?!
Played in Seirawan-Orlov, G/30, Seat-
tle 1991.
The idea of 4.Bf4?! is to prevent ...e6-
e5, but this proves to be impossible.
4...Bb4 + 5.Nbd2 d6 6.e3 e5! 7.Bg5
Recognizing the failure of 4.Bf4 be-
cause 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Nxe5 is met by
8...Ne4! 9.NO Bg4! winning. This note
shows that even GMs can fall for traps
when confronted with a defense for the
first time.
7..Ji6 8.Bxf6 Qxft 9.d5 Bxd2 +
Black avoids a little trap. If 9...Nb8,
then of course 10.Qa4 + winning a piece.
10.Nxd2
If White takes 10.Qxd2 then 10...e4!
10^.Nb8 ll.Bd3 O - 0 1 2 . 0 0 Na6 13A3
e4!? 14.Nxe4 Qxb2 15.Rbl Qe5?!
Black had to accept the offer
14...Qxa3!, asking White to prove the
soundness of his sacrifice.
16J4! Qe7 17J5 16
White has captured a lot of space but
Black's position remains solid. Despite
the final position, it is clear that D2) 4.Bf4
is not a serious threat.
The next try by White is:
D3) 4.Bg5
wasting time.
Unlike the above lines, the developing
move 4.Bg5 is really playable. A draw-
back is that after 4...h6 White has to give
up his dark-squared Bishop or go into the
ultra-sharp 5.Bh4 g5 6.Bg3 Bb4+ where
the advantage of the first move has no
importance at all. This move was first
tried in Dzandzgava-Goldin, World
Open 1991.
4...b6 5.Bxf6
After 5.Bh4 g5! 6.Bg3 Bb4+ 7.Nc3
Ne4 we have a direct transposition to the
line 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bg5 h6.
5-.Oxft>6.Nc3g5?!
Overly-optimistic, according to Goldin
and Yermolinsky. The simple 6...Bb4 fol-
lowed by ...d7-d6 and ...e6-e5 was best.
Also 6...g6!? followed by ...Bg7 was a
reasonable possibility.
7.e3 Bg7 8.Bd3 d6 9.O-O Bd7?!
Goldin recommends 9...O-O as best.
lfcaJ
The text is a typical prophylactic
measure against ...Nb4 and also White
keeps the option of b2-b4.
10~O-Oll.RclQd812.d5!?
After 12-Bbl e513.dxc5 dxe513.b4 Be6,
the position is equal. Black has a strong
center and Odl-c2 is easily neutralized by
..J7-f5. If White plays e3-e4, the Black
Knight gets the excellent square d4.
12~Ne7 13.dxe6 fxe6 14.Bbl
White has prepared everything for a
Qdl-c2 attack but Black has not been
14...Be8! 15.Nd4 Qd7 16.Nce2 Bg6
The danger on the bl-h7 diagonal has
been neutralized. Black has control over
the f-file and the dark-squared Bishop
will be making a difference soon.
Now back to the main alternatives after
Ld4Nf6 2.c4Nc6 3.NDe6.
l.d4NPS2.c4Nc6 3.NDe6
D4) 4.g3
The fianchetto is always a solid choice.
Now the game often transposes into the
Bogo-Indian Defense or the Catalan.
Sharp lines are quite rare; mostly both
sides try to outmaneuver each other. I
will try to add some new ideas to existing
theoretical lines.
I believe 4...Bb4 + is the best continua-
tion against 4.g3 but 4...d5 was tried in
Appleberry-Orlov, Seattle 1991.
4...d5 5.cxd5?!
5.Bg2 is better because now Black's
light-squared Bishop gets too much
freedom.
5...exd56.Bg2Bb4 + 7.Bd2a5!?
I like this move. It is very often played
in Tango lines. There are several reasons
why this move is good. First of all it gives
solid protection to the Bishop and if
White plays Bxb4, after ...axb4 the a8-
Rook gets an open file and the a2-pawn
will be weak. Another important point is
that if White plays a2-a3, Black's Bishop
can retreat or capture on d2 and then
Black often plays ...a5-a4, fudng White's
queenside pawns, and the Black Knight
on c6 also gets squares on c4 and b3.
8.O-O O-O 9Bf4 Ne4!
Black prevents the Knight from com-
ing to c3.
10.a3 Be7 ll.Ne5
11
White forgets about developing his
pieces. The logical ll.Nbd2 was better.
ll...Nxe5 llBxcS c6 13.a4?!
I was prepared to play ...a5-a4 and then
...Qd8-b6 developing some pressure on
the queenside. The text prevents this but
gives away the b4-square.
13...Bb4!14Bf4Qb6
White faces serious problems getting
the Knight out He decides to get back to
cl.
15.Bcl Re8
Another plan worth trying was 15...h5!
16.e3 h4 with initiative.
16.e3 Bf5 17.Na3 Bd6
And Black had the better game.
1NMB
Variations after 5.Nc3 will be analyzed
in D5. After 5.Bd2 a well-known position
from the Bogo-Indian arises which will be
analyzed later. Now we will focus our
attention on the lesser-known 5.Nbd2.
Once again White wants to trade his
Knight for Black's dark-squared Bishop.
Black's play now has to be in the center
because the d4-pawn has lost its Queen
protection and White is behind in
development.
Now we have D41 6.Bg2 and D42
6.0c2.
D41 6.Bg2
 6.a3 was played in Pullen-Orlov,
Tacoma 1991:
6.a3 Be7
I had in mind a transposition into
Dutch-like play with ...Nf6-e4 and ...f7-f5.
Also deserving of some attention
6...Bxd2+ and if 7.Bxd2, then 7...Nc4
8.Qc2 O-O 9.Bg2 a5!? (with the idea of
fixing the queenside with ...a5-a4) 10.b3 f5
ll.O-O Bd7 with the idea of ...Bd7-e8-h5.
7.Qc2 dxc4 8.Qxc4 Qd5 9.Oxd5
This unlocks Black's light-squared
Bishop and gives Black a slightly better
ending. Instead, 9.Bg2 O-O 10.O-O Rd8
would be about equal..
9...exd5 10.b4
If 10.Bg2, then 10...a5! fixing the
queenside.
10...O-O ll.Bg2
In the postmortem we both believed
this move was the reason for all the
troubles White later got into. Necessary
was Il.e3 and if Il...a5, as in the game,
then 12.b5 Na7 13.Ne5! and White is fine.
H...Bf512.O-Oa5! 13.b5Na714.a4c6!
The possession of the b4-square plus
the c-file will make all the difference.
15.bxc6Nxc616.Bb2Rac8
White cannot hold onto the c-file be-
cause of his weak a4-pawn.
17.Rfcl Nb4 18.Nel Rxcl 19.Bxcl
For 19.Rxcl I had prepared 19...Rc8!
and after 2O.Rxc8+ Bxc8 and ...Bc8-d7
winning the a4-pawn. The text is also
hopeless.
19...Rc8 2O.e3 Nc2 21.Nxc2 Rxc2
Now threats like ...Be7-b4 and ...Nf6-
g4 were inevitable and White goes in for
a desperate try.
22.e4 dxe4 and Black easily won the
endgame.
After 6.Bg2, there are two paths from
which Black can choose, A) 6...dxc4 and
B) 6.^Ne4!? First we will see what is of-
ferred by theory. The position that has
occurred is known in the Catalan.
A) 6~dxc4 7.O-O
Setting a dangerous trap. If here the
naive 7...Nxd4?, then 8.Nxd4 Qxd4
9.Qa4 +, winning a piece.
7...c3 8.Nc4 cxb2 9.Bxb2 O-O 10.Qb3
Be7
I don't like this move. My recommen-
dation is 10...a5 and if Il.a3 then Il...a4!
and Black has a reasonable game.
ll.Rfdl Qe8 12Jlacl
White has sufficient compensation for
the pawn, Makogonov-Kasparian, USSR
1947. It is hard to argue with that. I
suggest instead of 6...dxc4 the continua-
tion . . .
B) 6~.Ne4!?
The idea is that after
7.O-O
Black can play
7_I5
Transposing into a kind of Dutch
Defense. A key idea behind this is that
although the Bishop on b4 often has to
retreat, the loss of time will be counter-
balanced by the passive position of the
White Knight on d2 and lack of pressure
on the d5-square.
Now we have D411 8.Qc2 and D412
8.a3Be7 9.b4?!
D411
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.ND e6 4^3 Bb4 +
5.Nbd2 d5 6.Bg2 Ne4!? 7.O-O15
8.Qc2Be7 9.a3a5!
It is a very important point of Black's
strategy to prevent the thrust b2-b4,
which would capture a lot of space.
10.b3 Bffi ll.Bb2 O-O
With the idea of ...Bd7-e8-h5. Black
has a good game.
D412
8.a3 Be7 9.b4?!
White takes action on the queenside
without suitable preparation.
9~Nc3! lO.Qel Bf6 11*3
(Here ll.Bb2 is met by ll...Na4)
l l ~ O - O 12.Nb3 Ne4 13.cxd5 exd5
MlfcSaf
With even play.
Instead of 13.cxd5, White can also try
to protect the c4-pawn with 13.Qe2. In
this case Black would play 13...a5! 14.b5
a4! LS.bxc6 axb3, achieving a marvelous
game.
Also good for Black is 13.Nfd2, after
which 13...a5! (As in the first line with
13.Oe2, Black wants to destroy White's
pawn chain while his opponent is under-
12
developed.)
14.b5 a4 I5.bxc6 axb3 16.cxb7
In case of 16.Nxb3 Black plays
16...bxc6 17.D Ng5! because if 17...Nd6
then 18.c5 Nc4 19.f4 blocking the posi-
tion. After 17...Ng5 White has no such
chance because 18.c5 is met by ...e5!
16...Bxb7 17.Nxb3 Ba6 18.Na5 c5
Black has good counterplay due to his
strong Bishops, as he does after 16.cxd5
exd5 17.Nxb3 bxc6, and if 18.Na5 then
18...C5.
In addition to 6.Bg2, featured in the
Makogonov-Kasparian game, ECO
recommends 6.Qc2 but does not provide
any variations (the game developed as a
Catalan; do not think that ECO has any-
thing to say about I.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6!).
D42
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.ND e6 4.g3 Bb4 +
5.Nbd2d5
6.Qc2
We feel that now White has fallen be-
hind in development and Black can take
advantage of this fact. For instance:
6...dxc4 7.Qxc4 Qd5
There is no hope of any advantage for
White. If...
8.Qd3
Better is 8.Qxd5 exd5 with equal play.
Now after 8...O-O White has either 9.Bg2
or9.a3.
8...O-O 9.Bg2 Rd8 10.e3 e5!
p~ The fifth option is 5.e3, which
All the White pieces are pinned and
Black has a decisive initiative.
Or 9*3 Bxd2+ 10.Bxd2 e5 U.dxe5
White has to take, otherwise e5-e4.
ll~Qxd3 12xxd3 Re8
Again with an excellent game for Black
as 13.O-O-O is met by 13...Ng4! or if I3.d4
then 13..JBg4!
On the better 7.Bg2!? (instead of
7.Qxc4 after 6...dxc4) Black has
7...Bxd2 + 8.Qxd2 Rb8 9.O-O b5. White
has sufficient compensation for the pawn,
but no more than that.
D5) 4.Nc3
4~Bb4
The main line here is 4...Bb4 because
after 4...d5?! 5.Bg5 the game transposes
into The Queen's Gambit and a Knight on
c6 does not make much sense.
By a transposition of moves we have
now arrived at the Nimzo-Indian. Ac-
cording to ECO, this particular line favors
White. We will offer some new ideas for
the second player that may provide a
remedy. White has four moves to choose
from here. We will consider:
D52 5.&3
D53 5.Bg5
D54 5.Qc2
transposes into the Ragozin variation,
which lies outside the scope of this article.
However, here is a sample game where
White tried this option.
(Repkin-Orlov, San Diego Open,
1992)
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.NO e6 4.Nc3 Bb4
5x3 tf
Also 5...Bxc3 + 6.bxc3 d6 deserves
very serious attention.
6.Qc2O-O
Interesting was 6...a5!? with the idea of
meeting 7.a3 with 7...Bxc3 + 8.Qxc3 a4!?
7A3 Bxc3 8.Qxc3 a5! 9.b3 e5! 10.Bb2
White correctly declined the offered
pawn. After 10.dxe5 dxe5 ll.Nxe5 Nxe5
12.0xe5 Re8 Black has a strong attack
because White has developed only his
Queen!
10~Re8 ll.Rdl!? Qc7
Lines like ll...Bg4 12.dxe5 Nxe5
13.Be2 were not attractive at all as the
tandem Qc3 + Bb2 looked very impres-
sive. Instead, I decided to hold on to eS.
12.Be2 Ne4?!
Based on a miscalculation. Instead
12...Bg4 13.d5 (after 13.dxe5 dxe5
14.O-O Ne4! and ...f7-f5 Black has a
nice position) 13...Nb8 14.h3 Bh5
15.O-O (the aggressive 15g4 is properly
met by 15...Ne4! 16.0cl Bg6 17.h4 h5!)
15...c6!? would have given Black good
play.
13.Qc2 Bf5 14.Bd3 exd4 15.Nxd4
Nxd4?!
This makes things even worse. 15...Bg6
was a necessity. If then 16.Nxc6 bxc6,
Black will have some counterplay on the
b-file.
16.Bxd4c5?!
Again, 16...Bg6 was a must. I was at-
tracted here to a combination with ...Nxf2
and wanted to push the Bishop out of
protecting the e3-square.
17.Bb2 Qg5
My miscalculation was that I would
be able to play 17...Nxf2 here but I real-
ized to my horror that after 18.Qxf2
Qxe3 + 19.Be2 Bg4 (if 19...Qxb3, then
2O.Rd2 Bg4 21.O-O, winning) 2O.Rd2
Qe4 21.Qg3!! Qbl + (21...f6 22.Bxf6!
gxf6 23.O-O f5 24.h3 winning a piece;
21...Bxe2?? 22.Qxg7 mate) 22.Kf2 Qxhl
23.Qxg4 g6 24.Qf4, White's attack is
winning.
18.O-O Bg6 19.Rfel
White has a serious advantage. But
despite the final position, 5.e3 cannot
be considered as a serious threat to
Black's defense, because as already
noted 12...Bg4 instead of 12...Ne4
would have given Black a very good
game.
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.NO c6 4.Nc3 Bb4
D51
5.a3Bxc3 +
According to ECO this continuation
13
gives White a small advantage but I would
like to dispute this.
6.bxc3
Now theory gives 6...d6?! 7.Bg5 h6
8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 Ne4 10.Nd2!? (this sets
the trap 10...Nxc3?? ll.Qc2 and the
Knight is lost) 10...Nxd2 ll.Qxd2 f5 12.D
Qf6 13.e3 slightly favoring White. In-
stead of the passive 6...d6 we suggest...
6~Na5!?
Equally interesting is 6...h6!, prevent-
ing an unpleasant pin. Now if 7.e3, then
after 7...d6 8.Bd3 e5 9.Nd2 Oe7 Black's
position looks okay.
7.Qa4
The other option does not promise
much. After 7.e3 bo 8.Bd3 Ba6, Black
holds the initiative.
The idea 8.c5?! is met by 8...Ne4 here
and after 9.Qc2 Bb7 10.cxb6 cxb6 Black
has a serious initiative.
8...Ba6 9.e3 h6 10.Bxf6
Black dominates after 10.Bh4 g5!
H.Bg3Ne4!
10...Qxf6 ll.Ne5 Qe7 12.Bd3 Bb7
13.O-O O-O-O
The present situation looks safe for
Black.
This time the fianchetto does not seem
very strong because Black has powerful
counterplay against the damaged White
queenside pawns, but of course it has to
be taken seriously in any event.
5~Bxc3+ 6.bxc3b6!?
This is an improvement over 6...Rb8
7.Bg2 b6 8.O-O Bab, as in Popov-Gur-
genidze, USSR 1980, which was won by
White.
7.Bg2 Bb7 8.O-O
If 8.Ne5 then 8...Nxe5! 9.Bxb7 Nxc4
10Bxa8 Qxa8 11 .O-O Qc6, and Black has

compensation for the material deficit,
due to the inactivity of the White Rooks
and the well-placed Knight on c4.
8_Na5 9.Nd2
If9.Qd3,then9...Be4.
9...Bxg2 10.Kxg2 d6
Also, 10...d5 deserved close attention.
11x4 Qd7
And Black doesn't have any problems.
If White pushes hard with 12.f4, for in-
stance, then 12...h5 followed by queen-
side castling.
D53
5.Bg5
The most aggressive approach. Now
we have a situation which can be com-
pared to the line I.d4 Nf6 2x4 eo 3.NO b6
4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bg5. The difference is that
the Knight on c6 can participate in a
counterattack.
5...h6 6.Bh4
Of course, 6.Bxf6 Oxf6 7.e3 d6 8.Bd3
e5 gives Black easy play.
6~g5 7.Bg3 Ne4
Now White has to choose between:
D531 8.Rcl
D532 8.Qc2
D533 8.Qd3
D531
8.Rcl
A natural reaction. The Rook did not
have much to do on al.
This plan revolves around play with
...h6-h5, so the Knight needed protection.
In the game Krasenkov-Orlov, USSR
1986, Black tried another plan: 8...Qf6.
After 9.e3 d6 Black wants to castle queen-
side as soon as possible and then attack
with ...h6-h5-h4. 10. Bd3 Bxc3 + Il.bxc3
Nxg3 12.hxg3 Bd7 13JMd2!? Very weU
played! The text prevents ...h6-h5 and
prepares c4-c5. Here I should have
played 13...Qe7, preventing c4-c5.
13...O-O-O 14.c5! Qe7 15.Nb3 Kb8
16.Rbl Ka8. Black has escaped to a
corner and is ready to meet an attack.
White should have played 17.Qe2 with
slightly better chances. Instead, now
17.Qcl? h5!? (I could not miss this chance
for counterplay!) 18.Qa3 h419.gxh4 gxh4.
It is clear now that White cannot succeed
on the queenside without help from a
second Rook but he does not have time to
bring it over. 2O.Na5 Nxa5 21.Qxa5 Bc6
22.cxd6 Qxd6, and Black seized the initia-
tive.
9.Ne5
Played in response to Black's threat of
...h6-h5.
After 9.e3 Black has 9...h5 10.h4 (if
10.Ne5?h4!ll.Nxc6Bxc3 + 12.bxc3Qf6!
and Black gets his piece back, keeping the
initiative). If 10.h3, as in Rohde-Orlov,
World Ope- 1991, there follows 10...Nxg3
H.fxg3 Bd6 12.Kf2 (12.Ne2 does not look
very attractive either) 12...h413.g4 Bg3 +
14.Kgl a6. This is played to prevent a
possible 15.cxd5 exd5 16.Bb5. 15.Ne2
Bd6 16.c5 Bf8. The Bishop goes to g7,
giving the f6-square to the Queen. 17.g3
Qf6 18.Bg2 hxg3. (I did not want to allow
19.gxh4 gxh4 2O.Nf4 Bh6 21.Qd2.) Now
19.Nxg3 Bd7 2O.Qd2 O-O-O and Black's
opening strategy brought him a good
game.
Now back to the position after 9...h5
10.h4: 10...Bc3 + Il.bxc3 Nxg3 12.6cg3
Qd6! 13.Kf2 Now Black concentrates his
forces on the White King. O...g4 14.Ngl
Rh6 15.Ne2. Necessary to stop ...Rf6 +.
L5...dxc4 16.Nf4 e5! with advantage to
Black.
9~Bd7 10xxd5
Does not promise a thing. After
10.Qb3 Black has 10...Bxc3+ Il.bxc3
Nxg3 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.hxg3 dxc4. (The
Bishop needs this diagonal.) 14.Qxc4
Qd6.
l(Lxxd5 ll.Qb3 Bxc3 + 12.bxc3 Nxg3
13.Nxc6
Also good for Black is 13.hxg3 Nxe5
14.dxe5 Bc6 followed by L5...Qe7 and
16...O-O-O.
13~Bxc6 14Jixg3
Now Black's light-squared Bishop
does not have a diagonal but unlike
White, Black has a clear plan-castle
long and storm White's position with
pawns.
14_J5 15x3 Qf6
And O-O-O to follow in Yermolinsky-
14
Chernov, USSR 1984. Black did not have
any problems.
This line poses Black few problems.
Now Black can use the advantage of
having the Knight on c6.
8...Nxg3! 9.hxg3 g4 10.d5
The strongest. If 10.Ne5, then Black
has 10...Nxe5 Il.dxe5 Qg5 12.Qe4 d6!?
I3.exd6 cxd6 and Black has an easy game.
Also interesting is 13...Qg7! 14.Rcl Bxd6
with the idea of ..15, ...Bd7, and ...O-O-O.
In Gornjak-Orlov, USSR 1986, White
tried 10.Nh2!? and after 10...Nxd4 ll.Qd2
Qf6 (Black needs to get his Queen to
defend the h6-pawn) 12.Nxg4 Qg7
13.Ne3! (White avoids the trap 13.Rxh6?
Rxh6 14.Nxh6 f5! and the Knight is not
coming back) 13...d6 14.Rh4! (a very
strong idea; now the Knight has to
depart) 14...Nc6 and now 15.Nedl! fol-
lowed by 16.a3 gave White the better
game. However, after 10...Qg5! (instead
of 10...Nxd4) Il.e3 d6 123e2 e5, White
has no advantage.
10~gxG Il.dxc6 fxt2 12.cxd7+ Bxd7
13.Bxe2 Bc6
After several forced captures Black
has ended up with a pair of Bishops but a
weak h6-pawn. White's play now is quite
interesting.
14a3 Bc5 15.Rh5!
A very strong move. The Rook blocks
the h-pawn and hits Black's Bishop at the
same time.
15~Bd4
Up to this moment, I was thinking that
I could get a better game. After
16.O-O-O Qf6 that would have been true,
but my opponent found something better.
16.Nb5!? a6
Also good was 16...Bg7 17.Rdl Qe7
18.BO Bxf3 19.gx3 a6.
17.Nxd4 Qxd4 18.Rdl Qf6 19.KT1 Rd8
With equality, Ubilava-Orlov,
Belgrade Open 1988.
This move has not received a tourna-
ment testing yet ^ut nevertheless deser-
ves consideration. Two possible lines
are:
1) 8~J5!? 9.d5 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Qf6!
If now Il.dxc6, then ll...Qxc3 +, win-
ning the Exchange.
ll.Rcl Ba3! 12.dxc6 f4!
With very complicated play that is dif-
ficult to assess. And . . .
2)8...Bxc3 +
It is always important to damage
White's pawn structure.
9.bxc3 Nxg3 10.hxg3 Qf6 Il.e3 d6
12.Rbl
Black wants to play ...O-O-O and then
move his h-pawn forward. White tries to
slow Black's development.
12~b6 13.Be2 Bb7
With a safe position for Black.
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.NO e6 4.Nc3 Bb4
We are now in the line of the Nimzo-
Indian called the Zurich Variation. This
variation is not named after the 1953 Can-
didates Tournament, but after the 1934
Zurich event won by Alekhine ahead of
Dr. Max Euwe and Dr. Emanuel Lasker.
Plans based on ...d5 favor White accord-
ing to theory, so we will concentrate on
systems involving the strategically healthy
...d6 and ...e5.
Now White has D541 6.Bd2 and D542
1*3.
A parting of the ways. White has to
choose between 9.Rdl, 9.b4 and 9.e3.
(1) 9.Rdl
A solid positional move which prevents
...e6-e5 and maintains White's position in
the center.
9...Qe7 I<hg3 e5 ll.dS
This is forced. After Il.dxc5 dxe5
12.Bg2 a5! Black would fix the queenside.
ll...Nb8 12.Bg2 c6 (Alekhine played
12...Nbd7 here but had a passive game)
13.dxc6 Nxc6 14.O-O Be6 15.b3 h6 with
the idea of ...Nf6-d7-c5 and ...Rec8 with
counterplay on the queenside.
(2) 9.b4
ECO gives 9...e5 lO.dxeS Nxe5 11x3
Bg4.
Similar to 6.Bd2 is 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bd2
Black doesn't want to play ll...Nx3 +
(after 7.Bh4? g5 8.Bg3 g4!, Black is win-
because after 12.gxf3 White would con-
ning, because 9.d5 is met now by
trol all the central squares, plus the open
9...exd5 10.cxd5 Nxd5 ll.Qe4 + Be6) g-file is dangerous for the Black King.
7...O-O 8.a3 Bxc3 9.Bxc3 Qe7 (Black 12.Nxe5 dxeS 13J3 Bh5 14.Be2 Bg6
prepares ...e6-e5 which is the main 15.Qb2 with better play for White, Euwe-
source of counterplay here) 10.e3 a5! Kramer, HoUand 1952.
(standard procedure!) Il.b3 e5 12.d5 One move worth a look for Black is
Nb8 13.Be2 c6!? (An important part of
Il...b6!? instead of ll...Bg4. After
Black's strategy. If White takes the 12.Be2 Bb7 13.Rdl (there is no ad-
pawn, then the Knight gets out with a vantage for White in 13.Nxe5 dxe5
tempo and Black may later try to play 14.O-O, because of 14...Qe7 15.D c5!
against White's weakened queenside with a counterplay) 13...Qe7 14.O-O c5,
pawns. If White lets Black capture on Black has a solid position. If White
d5, then the d5-pawn will be attacked.) closes the queenside by playing b4-b5,
14.dxc6 Nxc6 15.O-O Bg4 (having in then ...a7-a6.
mind ...e5-e4 at a favorable moment) (3) 9x3 e5 10.dxe5 (in case of 10.Be2,
16.b4?! (a dubious decision, since now Black has a good position after 10...exd4
both the b- and c- pawns are vulnerable U.Nxd4 Ne4) ia...Nxe5 ll.Nxe5 dxe5
to tactics) 16...Rfc8 17.Rfdl Qe6 12.Be2 c5! An important move in this line
18.Bel? (It did not take long for White to which does not allow White to capture
make a decisive mistake. The only move space with b2-b4 and c4-c5. 13.O-O Qe7
was 18.b5) 18...axb4 19.axb4 Rxal M.Rael White has prepared action with
20-Rxal e4! (suddenly the Knight has f2-f4 but Black is ready. 14_b6!? ISS4
nowhere to go) 21.Nd4 Nxd4 22.exd4 Bb7 with equality, Euwe-Najdorf,
Bxe2 23.Qxe2 Qxc4 and Black eventually Groningen 1946. Here 16.Bxe5 is met by
won, Graves-Orlov, Tacoma 1991. 16-.Nd7! 17.Bc3 Qxe3 + 18.Khl Qe6!
6...O-O 7.a3 Bxc3 8.Bxc3 Re8 with counterplay.
15
 D542
The principal move. White wants to
get the Bishop-pair immediately.
6~Bxc3 + 7.Qxc3 O-O 8.b4
The careful 8.e3 was played in Dreev-
Orlov, New-York, l^90: 8.e3 a5 9.b3 Re8
10.Bb2 e5 1 l.Qc2. I was planning to meet
Il.dxe5 dxe5 12.Rdl Qe7 13.Be2 with
13...Ne4! 14.Qc2 Nc5 and Black would be
fine.
H...Bg4 12.d5. The "normal"
12.Be2?! is met by 12...Bxf3 13.Bxf3
exd4 14.Bxc6 bxc6 15.Bxd4 Ne4 and
...c6-c5 to follow and Black would have
a great game.
12...Nb8 13.Be2 Na6 14.O-O
Bh5 (preparing ...Bh5-g6 and ...Nf6-
e4) 15.Bc3 Nc5. Black already has a
better game due to the superior loca-
tion of his pieces. White lacks a clear
plan. His subsequent actions on the
queenside give Black's Knights extra
targets.
16.b4 Bg6! 17.Qdl Nfe4! 18.Bb2 Na6!
Really a Knights Tango! If now 19.bxa5
or 19.b5, then ...Nc5 and ...f7-f5.
19.Qb3 Bh5!? Now the threat Bh5xf3
and Ne4-d2 hangs in the air.
2O.Qc2 f5 21.Bc3 Qf6 and Black is bet-
ter. Among his ideas is 22...Nxc3 23.Qxc3
e4!, winning the b-pawn after 24.Qxf6
gxf6 25.Nd4 Bxe2 26.Nxe2 axb4.
Also 8.b3 does not change things
much. That was played in Pendergast-
Orlov, Portland, 1991:
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.NB e6 4.Nc3 Bb4
5.0c2 d6 6.a3 Bxc3 + 7.0xc3 O-O 8.b3
e5!
A standard pawn sacrifice based on the
better development of the Black pieces.
9.d5 Nb8 10.g3. In my experience this
plan is not dangerous for Black because
it is very slow.
10...c6!? Black does not mind open-
ing up the game. Il.dxc6 Nxco 12.Bg2
Bg4. I was ready to meet 13.O-O with
...e5-e4, winning the e2-pawn. 13.e3
Ne4! Another typical maneuver worth
remembering. 14.Qc2 Nc5 15.O-O.
The naive 15.b4 is crushed by 15...e4!
15...a5 and Black had a pretty good
game.
8~e5!
As the good old books say, a flank
action is supposed to be met by a
counterstrike in the center.
9.dxe5
Our attention now focuses on 1)
9...Ne4 and 2) 9...Nxe5! Let's see the line
recommended by theory.
1) 9...Ne4 10.Qe3 f5 ll.Bb2
The en passant capture would not
be a good idea here. After Il.exf6
Qxf6 12.Ra2 Bf5 and with ...Rae8 to
follow, things look pretty sad tor
White.
ll...Be6 12.Rcl Qe7 13.exd6 Qxd6
With an unclear position (ECO),
Gadalinski-Szabo, Spindlerovy Mliny
1948. This way provides fairly nice play
for Black but it's good to have a second
choice.
2) 9.~Nxe5!
Analysis Diagram
Theory does not give 9...Nxc5!, con-
16
sidering only 9...Ne4 and 9...dxe5. Now
White has a difficult choice to make: to
accept the pawn sacrifice or not.
Accepting: 10.Nxe5 dxe5 H.Qxc5 Re8
12.Ob2
In this position theory gives only
12...Ne4 and 12...Qd3. I propose a new
idea here: 12_Ng4!, believing that 13x3
a5! 14.Be2 Ra6! gives Black compensa-
tion for the pawn. As you can see, all the
Black pieces are poised for a kingside
attack.
Analysis Diagram
For instance, 15.Bxg4 Bxg4 16.O-O.
Here Black faces a choice between the
aggressive 16...Rg6 going after the White
King, and the simple 16...axb4 17.Qxb4
(after 17.axb4 Rxal 18.Qxal Be2 Black
gets his pawn back) 17...Be2 18.Rel Rb6
19.Qc3 Qd3 with an equal game. I like
16...Rg6 better.
If White doesn't capture the e-pawn,
Black gets very easy play. The exchange
of the Knights on ft and c6 greatly eases
Black's position.
Not accepting the sacrifice:
I.d4 Nffi 2x4 Nc6 3.ND e6 4.Nc3 Bb4
5.Qc2 d6 6^3 Bxc3 + 7.Qxc3 O-O 8.b4 e5!
9.dxe5 Nxe5
And now we consider 10.Bb2 and
10.Bg5.
A) 10.Bb2 Re8 Il.e3
White tries to seduce Black into
damaging his pawn structure with
ll...NxG + 12.gxf3 but the open g-file
plus the tandem O + B will kill Black
then.
I l ~ b 6 12.Be2 Bb7
The Bishop has a very good position
here as the a8-hl diagonal is always im-
portant and Black is also ready for Nf6-e4
now.
13.Nxe5dxe514.O-Oc5
With equality. The significant tactical
detail is that after 15.bxc5 Black has
15.~Ne4! and then .~Nxc5 with a great
game.
B) 10.Bg5 h6 U.Bb4 Re8. Having in
mind 12...g5 13.Bg3 Ne4. White softens
things with a trade.
12.Nxe5 dxe5 13.e3 (If B.Rdl Qe7
14.e3, Black has an excellent reply in
14...Ne4! 15.Bxe7 Nxc3 with an equal
game.) 13...g5 14.Bg3 Ne4 gives Black a
strong game because of White's poor
development.
Ld4Nf6 2.c4Nc6 3.NDe6
D6) 4.a3
The most unpleasant reaction by
White. The idea is simple: to prevent
...Bb4 forever. Now Black faces a serious
dilemma because right now he has to
show his plans. Black has two options
here: D61 4...d6 and D62 4...d5.
The difference between the two moves is
this: after 4...d6 the position that arises is of
the Indian type, but Black will lack a tempo
due to ...e6-e5. Whereas 4.~d5 is more of a
Queen's Gambit Declined-type. I consider
4...d5 positionally correct because 4a3 does
nothing for White's development. The fol-
lowing games were played recently. Also
there is original analysis offered for your
consideration.
D61
4d6.
Inumerable-Orlov, National Open
1991.
R .#& H 23.0d2. The attractive 23.Bb2 is well met
lit Itlt
4114
ftftft
B r
6.e3 promises White nothing, as in
Scoville-Orlov, Washington Open 1991.
6...O-O 7.Bd3 e5 8.d5 Nb8 9.b3. This
does not make sense. Instead, 9.h3 or
9.O-O was necessary.
9...C6 10.dxc6 Nxc6 11.O-O h6. Black
wants to develop with ...Be6, so Ng5 has
to be neutralized.
12.h3 Be6 13.Bb2 d5 14.cxd5 Nxd5
15.Nxd5 Qxd5, and Black was okay.
6...O-O 7.Be2
Most natural and the best. 7.Bd3?! was
played in Ftacnik-Orlov, Washington
Open, 1991. 7...e5 8.d5 Nb8 9.Nd2?! A
strange idea. I am not impressed with
7.Bd3 in the first place, but after 8.h3 with
the idea of g2-g4 it would at least be un-
derstandable (the Bishop covers the cen-
ter and maybe a Knight goes to g3 later
on). White tries to play as in some King's
Indian lines where the Knight goes to c4
after c4-c5 but the situation is very dif-
ferent here.
9...a5 lO.Rbl Na6 l l . O - O . White
provokes ll...Nc5?! but after 12.Bc2 he
will kick the Knight back with a gain of a
tempo.
Il...g6!? 12.b4 axb4 13.axb4 Nh5. The
Knight goes to f4 and White has to stop
that. He could do it by 14.Nf3 but that
would mean admitting that his previous
strategy has failed. White's next move
weakens his castled position.
14.g3 Bh3 15.Rel. A triumph for
Black's strategy! There is no sign of
White's attack on the queenside but ...f7-
f5 is coming. Black's next move protects
the h5-Knight.
15...Qe8 16.Be2 Ng7 17.c5?! A
desperate try for the initiative. Instead
17
17.Nf3 was a must.
17...dxc5 18.b5 Nb4 19.Nc4 b6! This
move gives up the dark-squared Bishop
but all the other pieces will hold great
spots.
2O.Nxe5 Bf6 21.f4 Bxe5 22.fxe5 Qxe5
by 23...Od4! + and 24.Qxd4 cxd4 25.Ndl
Nc2 is hopeless for White.
23...Ne8! With an extra pawn and a
winning game for Black.
7^e5 8.d5 Nb8 9 Ji3
It is very important to prevent ...Bg4;
also g2-g4 is now possible with an attack
on the kingside.
9~c6?!
Not the best response to White's
strategy. 9...a5, to meet 10.Be3 by 10...a4!
was a necessity.
10.Be3 a5 ll.O-O Na6?!
Another mistake. Il...cxd5 12.cxd5
Bd7! preparing ...Na6 and ...Rc8 or ...Ne8
and ...f5 was much better.
12j>4!
Cutting off the Black Knight and
threatening 13.dxco bxc6 14.b5.
12...cxd5 13.cxd5 Bd7 14.b5 Rc8
Hoping for 15.bxa6 Rxc3 with some
counterplay, but White is very precise.
15.Na4! Nc7 16.Qbl!
White's play is remarkable! The
Queen protects both pawns and my a7-
pawn is now in trouble. My next move
admits the sadness of my position.
16...Na8 17.Nd2
White's initiative is decisive.
Here are some conclusions: The posi-
tion after Black's 9...a5 (instead of
9...c6?!) remains full of fight. Still we
have to admit that by playing ...e6-e5 and
...Nb8-c6-b8 Black lost couple of tempi
compared to the line I.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6
3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.Nf3 e5 5.e4 Be7 6.Be2 O-O
7.d5. On the other hand, the moves a3
and h3 do not look like such a big deal and
Black keeps some counterplay. Anyway,
for those of you who like a more classical
type of play, here it is:
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.NO e6 4.a3
D62
4...d5
As was mentioned above, central play
with 4...d5 would be a logical reaction to
White's 4.a3.
5.Nc3
The careful 5.e3 was played in Graves-
Orlov Tacoma 1991.
I thought that Grunfeld-like play
would suit the situation. 5...g6!? 6.Nc3
Bg7 7.Bd3 O-O 8.O-O ao. A double-pur-
pose move. It is good for Black to have
the option of ...dxc4 and ...b7-b5. Also
...a7-a6 is helpful in case of b2-b4.
9.Bd2 dxc4 10.Bxc4 b5 ll.Bd3. The
Bishop gets into a compromised position
here. Better was ll.Ba2 and 12.Rcl.
11...e5! Black offers an Exchange
sacrifice.
12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.dxe5 Oxd3 14.exf6
Bxf6 15.OD Bg7. I did not like 15...Bf5
16.Radl and White threatens g2-g4 or
Bd2-cl and Nc3-d5.
16.Oxa8 Qxd2. Black has good
compensation here, his Bishops are
strong.
17.Nd5 Be6 18.Ne7+ Kh8 19.Qxa6
Oxb2 2O.Rabl Qf6 and Black had strong
play for the Exchange. The disadvantage
of 5.e3 is clear: White lacks the Bg5 or Bf4
option and Black can transpose into
Grunfeld-like play where a2-a3 does not
make a big difference.
5.~Be7
This simple move was played in Gut-
man-Orlov, Portland, 1991.
6.Bg5 h6 7.BxflS
After White gives up the Bishop, my
problems are over. I was prepared to
meet 7.Bh4 with 7...Nc4 8.Bxe7 Nxe7 9.e3
O-O and Black has a reasonable game.
7~Bxfl> 8^3 O-O 9.Bd3 a6
A useful move on many occasions.
10.O-Odxc4 11.Bxc4e5
Black already had an equal game but
White's next makes his life even easier. If
White had played 12.d5, then 12...Ne7
planning ...Nf5-d6.
12.dxe5 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Qh5
Og5 15.Oe2 Qh4 16.f4 Bxc3 17.bxc3 Bg4
and Black must be satisfied with the
results of the opening. It seems that
7Bxf6 freed Black from the majority of
his problems.
Development by 6.Bf4 is met by
6...Nh5! 7.Bd2 O-O 8.e3 Nf6 and Black
does not have big problems because the
tempo loss is compensated for by the pas-
sive Bishop on d2.
Interesting is 6.Qc2! O-O 7.Bf4 Nh5
8.Bg3 and if 8...f5 then 9.e3 f410.exf4 Nxf4
ll.O-O-O!
In all of the above lines the absence of
Black's c-pawn was quite noticeable. Be-
cause of that another move comes to our
attention:
I.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 3.ND e6 4.a3 d5
5.Nc3 g6!
Now 6.Bf4 is met by 6...a6 and if 7.e3
then 7...Bg7 8.Bd3 O-O and Black's game
is quite solid.
If6.Bg5then-.Bg7.
There has been no tournament praxis
with 6...Bg7 but in a blitz game Benjamin-
Orlov, Joel played . . .
and Black continued . . .
7~h6 8.Bh4 O-O 9.Bd3 Ne7!?
With the idea ...Ne7-f5.
Black seems to have a good game.
If 7.e4 (instead of 7.e3), then 7...dxe4
8.Nxe4 h6 8.Nxf6 + Bxf6 9.Bxf6 (9.Be3
e5!) 9...Qxf6 10.Qd2 Bd7 preparing
O-O-O and Black must be okay.
5...g6!? deserves close attention!
18
Ld4Nffi2.c4Nc6 3.NOe6
D7) 4.e3
This simple move has not been
popular. The reason is probably as
simple as the move itself. White's dark-
squared Bishop is locked in and ...Bb4 +
is still possible. In any event, 4.e3 deser-
ves some attention.
Now White has three options available:
D71 5.Nc3; D72 5.Bd2; D73 5.Nbd2.
D71
5.Nc3
5...d6 6.a3
If 6.0c2, then 6...O-O 7.a3 Bxc3 +
8.Qxc3 a5!, threatening to fix the queen-
side and 9.b3 Re8 10.Bb2 e5 does not
promise much besides transposition into
Repkin-Orlov, San Diego, 1992.
6~.Bxc3 + 7.bxc3 e5 8.Bc2
8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Qxd8 + Kxd8 10.a4 h6!
ll.Ba3 Be6 gives Black good chances in
the endgame.
8...O-O 9.O-O Bg4
Black is fine.
After this move equality is reached by
simple means.
5~Bxd2+6.Qxd2
After 6.Nbxd2 do 7.Bd3 e5 the game is
equal as Black has free play and White's
Knight does not have good prospects.
6-.d6
This move leads to an interesting game.
6...d5 7.Nc3 O-O 8.Bd3 Qe7 9.O-O Rd8
also merits consideration..
7.Nc3 O-O 8.O-O-O!?
The toothless 8.Be2 e5 is equal.
8~Bd7!?
Now Black is ready to meet 9.e4 with
9...e5.
9.h3
Risky but interesting here is . . .
9.~a6!? 10*4 b5
Offering a pawn sacrifice.
11^5?! b4! 12.gxf6 bxc3 13.Qxc3 Qxf6
14.Be2 Rab8
Black has no problems, if instead
Il.cxb5 axb5 12.Bxb5 then 12...NM 13.a3
Nbd5 and the open a- and b-files promise
Black strong counterplay on the queen-
side.
A nother subject which deserves some
**-special attention is the above-men-
tioned Bogo-Indian Defense position
after:
I.d4 Nffi 2x4 Nc6 3.ND e6 4.g3 Bb4 +
5.Bd2
According to theory, Black's position
is quite solid in this line. We would like
to add some ideas and games for those of
you who are not familiar with this sys-
tem.
5-Qe7
Now White has a choice between I.
6-Bg2 and II. 6.Nc3.
D6.Bg2
This is the move Black had in mind
when he played Il...c6!? The positional
explanation of my play is very simple I
have more pieces on the queenside than
my opponent!
15.Nd3 Bb5 16.Qb3 a4 17.Qc2 Nbd7
All my pieces are in play. Here I
noticed that it would be nice for me to
transfer my Queen to the a7-gl diagonal.
6...Bxd2 +
18.Rfcl Qd8! 19.Bfl Qb6
This move contains a small trap which
The initiative is definitely on Black's
was realized in Shannon-Orlov, G/30,
side.
World Open 1991.
An example of a possible strategy for
7.Qxd2 Ne4 8.Qc2 Qb4+ 9.Nbd2?
9.Nc3! was the only move. Black after 10.O-O is the following game
9_Nxd2 10.Qxd2 Qxc4 11.O-O Qb4 (Utut Adianto-Joel Benjamin, New
York, 1991).
As soon as the Queen gets back home,
Black has a winning game. I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.ND e6 4.g3 Bb4 +
5.Bd2 Qe7 6.Bg2 Bxd2+ 7.Nbxd2 d6
12.Qg5 O-O 13.Qe3 Qe7
And Black had a winning game. 8.O-O O-O 9x4 e5 10.d5 Nb8 ll.Nel
Now the position transposes into one
7.Nbxd2 is preferable to 7.Qxd2. similar to the above game.
I.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 3.NO e6 4.g3 Bb4 +
5.Bd2 Qe7 6.Bg2 Bxd2 + 7.Nbxd2
This position has been reached by
many strong players and Black has
proven he has satisfactory counterplay.
The author would like to share some
practical experiences here. In the follow-
ing game White was represented by a
well-known theoretician.
IM Jeremy Silman (2510)-IM Georgi
Orlov (2608), Western States Open
1991.
7...d6 8.e4 e5 9.d5 Nb8 10.b4
Instead, 10.O-O is more popular. The This reply is very common in such posi-
text has the purpose of preventing ...a5 tions. Black prevents b2-b4 and also
and ...Na6. prepares ...Na6-c5.
10~O-O ll.O-O 12.Nd3 Bg4 13.O Bd7
White plans to support his pawns with Since C2-D does not help any of Whites
ND-el-d3, when his attack becomes real- play, it is useful to Black.
ly dangerous. But right now I have time 14.Qb3 Na6 15.Qc3
to counterattack. Of course not 15.Qxb7 Rfb8, and the
Il_c6!? 12.Nel a5 13.a3 cxd5 14.cxd5 Queen is trapped.
Bd7! 15...b6 16.b3 Nc5 17^3 Nh5
19
 Also interesting was 17...Ra7!? with
the idea of meeting 18.b3-b4by 18...Nxd3
l9.Oxd3 axb4 2O.axb4 Rfa8! The text
prepares ...Qg5 and ...f7-f5.
18.Nb2 Qg5 19.b4 Na6 2O.Rael
Adianto avoided another trap. If
2O.bxa5 bxaf 21.0xa5?, then 21...Qe3 +
22.Rf2 Nc5 and Wliite is in trouble.
20...15 21xxf5 Bxf5 22.Ne4 Qh6 23.Nd3
The greedy 23.bxa5 bxa5 24.Qxa5
would have been punished again, this
time by 24...Nc5 25.Qc3 Bxe4 26.fxe4
Rxfl + 27.Rxfl Nf6 28.Rel Rb8! and
Black has strong pressure.
23...Nb8
The Knight has nothing to do on a6 any
more.
24.c5 axb4 25*xb4 bxc5 26.bxc5 Bxe4
27.Rxe4 Ra2
And Black has achieved fair
counterplay.
I.d4 Nf6 2.^ Nc6 3.NO e6 4*3 Bb4 +
5.Bd2 Qe7
II.6.Nc3
ftH4 :14i- H S.Rcl d6 9.Bg2 Nxc3
This answer we consider the most un-
pleasant for Black because it limits
Black's counterplay.
Theory considers now A) 6...d5 and
also B) 6...Bxc3 7.Bxc3 Ne4 here.
After A) 6...d5 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Bg2 O-O
9.O-O GM Nukhim Rashkovsky recom-
mended . . .
9...Bg4
Black has brought all his pieces into
play. Now he threatens simply ...Bxf3 and
...Nxd4.
10.Bg5 Rad8 11.hJ Bh5 12*4 Bg6
13.Racl h6 14.Bh4
This clarifies why White has actually
played g3-g4. The bishop can step back
and keep up the pressure on the h4-d8
diagonal.
14...Be4!?
The d8-Rook makes a difference here.
White could not capture the e4-Bishop!
15*3 Bd6 16.Nb5 g5
If White can play up his g-pawn, why
can't Black do the same?
17.Nxd6 cxd6! 18.Bg3 Ne8
With the idea of playing ...f7-5.
With fair play for Black (Rashkovsky).
I support that recommendation.
I.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 3.NO e6 4*3 Bb4 +
5.Bd2 Qe7 6.Nc3
B) 6...Bxc3 7.Bxc3 Ne4
Here we would like to address the
game Khalifman-Adams, Groningen
1991.
Black has prepared everything for
...e6-e5, so it's time for the Bishop to dis-
appear. Another possibility, 9...0-0,
would give White some extra options like
10.d5!? Nxc3 ll.Rxc3 Nb8 12.dxe6 with a
slightly better game.
10.Rxc3 e5 Il.d5 Nb8 12.O-O O-O
White has finished his development
and now prepares some action on the
queenside.
13.Nd2 a5 14.c5
Considered as the best before this
game.
14.JSa6!?
The naive 14...dxc5 is met by 15.Nb3
and if 15...b6?? then 16.d6.
15.cxd6 cxd6 16.Nc4 Qd8!
This is the point of Black's defense.
Now 17.Qb3 is met by 17...Nc5 and if
18.0b6 Na4! 19.Qxd8 Rxd8 2O.Rb3, then
20...b5! and if 21.Rxb5, Black plays
21...Ba6 22.Rxa5 Bxc4 23.Rxa8 Rxa8
24.b3 Bxe2!
17*3 b5 18.Nd2 Bd7
Black is obviously doing fine.
There is one more way recently tried in
Benjamin-Orlov, American Openl991.
I.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 3.NO e6 4*3 Bb4 +
5.Bd2 Qe7 6.Nc3 O-O!? 7.Bg2 d6 8. O-O
20
a5!?
I wanted to achieve two things when I
played this move. First, to protect the
Bishop so that in case of 9.d4-d5 I could
respond 9...Ne5 with a fair game. Second,
if 9.a3 then 9...Bxc3 10.Bxc3 a4. One
more thing here. Since Black has to play
...e6-e5 sooner or later he must take care
of Nc3-d5, when the Bb4 needs protec-
tion.
9.Qc2 e5 lO.dxeS
The active 10.d5 met by 10...Nd4! and
Black is fine.
10...Nxe5 ll.Bg5 Bxc3 12.Qxc3 h6?!
12...Re8 would have been better.
13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Nxe5 dxe5 15.Rfdl
Draw agreed.
Objectively White was slightly better.
Interesting was 9...h6!? instead of 9...c5
with the idea of preventing Bd2-g5 in
similar lines. The position is rich in pos-
sibilities.
We would like to emphasize that all the
positions analyzed above are full of undis-
covered possibilities and anybody may
find something new. So what are you
waiting for? Go ahead, the Knights are
ready, amigos!
Games
#1 John Graves (2150)-IM Georgi
Orlov, Tacoma 1991
I.d4 Nf6 2.ND e6 3.c4 Nc6 4*3 d5 5.e3
g6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Bd3 O-O 8.O-O a6 9.Bd2
dxc4 10.Bxc4 b5 ll.Bd3 e5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5
13.dxe5 Qxd3 14.exf6 Bxf6 15.QG Bg7
16.Qxa8 Qxd2 17.Nd5 Be6 18.Ne7+ Kh8
19.Qxa6 Qxb2 2O.Rabl Qf6 2t.Nc6 Bc4
22.Rfdl Qg5 23.Rbcl Be2 24.Nd4 Bxdl
25.Rxdl Bxd4 26.Rxd4 Qc5 27*3 Kg7
28.Qa5 Qcl + 29.Kg2 Qc6 + 3O.Kgl Ra8
31Qd2 Rxa3 32.Qb2 Qc3 33.Qxb5 c5
34.RdS Ral + 35.Kg2 Qcl 36.Rxc5 Qgl +
37.KH3 QxG 38.Qc4 Qxe3 39.Qc3 + Qxc3
4O.Rxc3 h5 41*4 hxg4 + 42.Kxg4 f5 +
43.Kg3 Kfa6 44.Rb3 Kh5 45.Rb4 Ra3 +
46.Kg2 g5 47.Rb8 Ra2 + 48.Kgl Kb4
49.Rb3 g4 5O.Rc3 Re2 51.Ra3 f4 52.Ra8
Kg5 53.Rg8+ KJ5 54.RT8 + Ke4 55.Ra8
K 56.Ral 0-1 (White lost on time.)
#2 GM Alexey Dreev (2605)-IM
Georgi Orlov, New York Open 1990
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.ND e6 4.Nc3 Bb4
5.Qc2 d6 6*3 Bxc3 + 7.Qxc3 O-O 8.e3 a5
9.b3 Re8 10.Bb2 e5 ll.Qc2 Bg4 12.d5 Nb8
13.Be2 Na614.O-O Bh515.Bc3 Nc5 I6.b4
Bg6 17.Qdl Nfe418.Bb2 Na6 19.Qb3 Bh5
2O.Qc2 f5 21.Bc3 Qf6 22.Rfcl Nxc3
23.Qxc3 e4 24.Qxft> gxf6 25.Nd4 Bxe2
26.Nxe2 axb4 27.Nd4 bxa3 28.Rxa3 Nc5
29.Rcal Ra6 3O.Nxf5 Rea8 31.Rxa6 Rxa6
32.Rxa6 bxa6 33.KJ1 a5 34.Nd4 Nd3
35.Nb5 Ne5 36.Na3 KT7 37.Ke2 Ke7 38.O
exO+ 39*xG f5 4O.f4 Ng4 41.h3 NR>
42.Nb5 a4 43.Kd3 Ne4 44.h4 Kf6 45.Nxc7
a3 46.Kc2 Nd2 47x5 Nc4 48.Kh> dxc5
49.d6 Nxd6 50.Nd5+ Kg6 51.KxaJ h6
52.Ne7 + Kh5 53.Ng8 Nc4 + 54.Ka4 Nxe3
55.Kb5 c4 56.Kb4 Kg6 57.Kc3 Ng2
58.Kxc4 Nxh4 59.Kd4 h5 6O.Ne7 + Kf7
61.Nc6 Ng2 62.Ke5 Ne3 63.Nd4 Kg6
64.ND Ng2 65.Nd4 h4 66.Nxf5 h3 67.Ng3
h2 68.R + Kg5 69.f6 Nh4 7O.i7 Ng6 +
71.Ke4 Kg4 72.NH1 Kh3 73.Ke3 Kg2
74.NI2 Draw
#3 GM Michael Rohde-IM Georgi
Orlov, World Open 1991
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.NO e6 4.Nc3 Bb4
5.Bg5 h6 6.BH4 g5 7.Bg3 Ne4 8.Rcl d5
9.e3 h5 10.h3 Nxg3 Il.fxg3 Bd6 12.KC h4
13.g4 Bg3+ U.kgl a6 15.Ne2 Bd6 16x5
Bf8 17*3 Qf6 18.Bg2 hxg3 19.Nxg3 Bd7
2O.Qd2 O-O-O 21.b4 e5 22.Rfl exd4
23.Nxd4 Qe5 24.Ngf5 f6 25*4 a5 26.Nxc6
bxc6 27.Nd4 Re8 28.RD 1-0 (Black lost in
time trouble)
#4 Paul Shannon (2146)-IM Georgi
Orlov, World Open (G/30) 1991
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.NO e6 4*3 Bb4 +
5.Bd2 Qe7 6.Bg2 Bxd2 + 7.Qxd2 Ne4
8.Qc2 Qb4 + 9.Nbd2 Nxd2 10.Qxd2 Qxc4
ll.O-O Qb4 12.Qg5 O-O 13.Qe3 Qe7
14*3 d6 15.b4a6 16.Rfcl Re8 17.Qc3 Bd7
18*4 Rec8 19x4 a5 2O.b5 Nb4 21.Qd2 c6
22.e5 dS 23.Bn bo 24.bxc6 Rxc6 25JMel
Rac8 26.Nd3 Nc2 27.Rabl Nxd4 28.Rxc6
NG + 0-1
#5 SM M. Appleberry-IM Georgi
Orlov, Seattle 1991
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.NO e6 4*3 d5
5xxd5 exd5 6.Bg2 Bb4+ 7Bd2 a5
8.O-O O-O 9.Bf4 Ne4 10*3 Be7 ll.Ne5
Nxe5 12.Bxe5 c6 13*4 Bb4 14.Bf4 Qb6
15.Bcl Re8 16.e3 BI5 17.Na3 Bd6 18.Nc2
Qc7 19.Nel Qd7 2O.f3 Nf6 21.Nd3 h5
22.Nf2 Re7 23.Rel Rae8 24.Bd2 Qc7
25.Re2 h4 26.Qel hxg3 27.hxg3 Bxg3
28.Bxa5 0-1
#6 Kent Pullen (2100)-IM Georgi
Oriov, Tacoma 1991
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.ND e6 4*3 Bb4 +
5.Nbd2 d5 6*3 Be7 7.Qc2 dxc4 8.Qxc4
Qd5 9.Qxd5 exd5 10.b4 O-O ll.Bg2 Bf5
12.O-O a5 13.b5 Na7 14*4 c6 I5.bxc6
Nxc6 16.Bb2 Rac8 17.Rfcl Nb4 18.Nel
Rxcl 19.Bxcl Rc8 20x3 Nc2 21.Nxc2 Rxc2
22.e4 dxe4 23.Nfl Be6 24.Ne3 Rc7 25.Bd2
Bb4 26.Bxb4 axb4 27.Rbl b3 28.G Rc3
29.102 Rd3 3O.d5 Bxd5 31.Nxd5 Nxd5
32.fxe4 Nc3 33.Rel b2 34.Bfl Rdl 0-1
#7 John Graves (2150)-IM Georgi
Orlov, Tacoma 1991
I.d4 Nf6 2.NO e6 3x4 Nc6 4.Nc3 Bb4
5.Qc2 d6 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bd2 O-O 8*3 Bxc3
9.Bxc3 Qe7 10.e3 a5 11.b3 e5 12.d5 Nb8
13.Be2 c614.dxc6 Nxc6 15.O-O Bg4 16.r>4
Rfc8 17.Rfdl Qe6 lX.Bel axb4 19*xb4
Rxal 2O.Rxal e4 21.Nd4 Nxd4 22.exd4
Bxe2 23.Qxe2 Qxc4 24.Qe3 Re8 25.Rdl
Nd5 26.Qa3 e3 27.Qd3 e2 0-1
#8 Scoville (2014HM Georgi Orlov.
Washington Open 1991
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.NO e6 4*3 d6
5.Nc3 Be7 6.e3 O-O 7.Bd3 e5 8.d5 Nb8
9.b3 c6 10.dxc6 Nxc61 l.O-O h6 12.hJ Be6
13.Bb2 d5 14xxd5 Nxd5 15.Nxd5 Qxd5
16.Bc4 Qxdl H.Rfxdl Bxc4 18.bxc4 f6
19.Rd7b620.RadlRfd821.Rxd8+ Rxd8
22.Rxd8+ Bxd8 23.101 Kf7 24.Ke2 Na5
25.Nd2 Be7 26x4 Ke6 27.Kd3 g6 28*4
Bc5 29.0 Kd7 30*4 Bb4 31.Bc3 Bxc3
32.Kxc3 Nb7 33.Nb3 Kc6 34.Kd3 Nc5 +
35.Nxc5 Kxc5 36.Kc3 g5 37.Kb3 a6 38.Kc3
a5 0-l
#9 M. Pendergast (2100)-IM Georgi
Oriov, Portland 1991
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.ND e6 4.Nc3 Bb4
5.Qc2 d6 6*3 Bxc3 + 7.Qxc3 O-O 8.bJ e5
9.d5 Nb8 10*3 c6 Il.dxc6 Nxc6 12.Bg2
Bg4 13x3 Ne4 14.Qc2 Nc5 15.O-O a5
16.Nd2 Q(6 17.Bb2 Bf5 18x4 Bd7 19.f4
Qh6 2O.Rael Rae8 21.Bc3 Bh3 22.f5 Bxg2
23.Kxg2 Nd4 24.Bxd4 exd4 25.b4 axb4
21
26*xb4 Nd7 27.Qd3 Ne5 28.Qxd4 Ra8
29.h3 Ra2 30.R12 Ra3 31.Ree2 Rd3
32.Qal Rc8 33.c5 Qg5 34.NG NxO
35.RxO Rxf3 36.KxD Qh5+ 37.KC dxc5
38.bxc5 Qxh3 39.Qd4 h5 4O.Rd2 Ra8
41.Qe3 Ral 42.Qe2 Kh7 43.f6 gxf6 44x5
Qh2+ 45.KO Ra3 + 46.Rd3 Qxe2 +
47.Kxe2 Rxd3 48.Kxd3 fxe5 49.Ke4 f6
50.KI5 Kg7 0-1
#10 GM Yasser Seirawan-IM Georgi
Orlov, Tacoma (G/30) 1991
I.d4 Nfo 2x4 Nc6 3.NO e6 4.Bf4 Bb4 +
S.Nbd2 d6 6.e3 e5 7.Bg5 h6 8.Bxf6 Qxf6
9.d5 Bxd2+ 10.Nxd2 Nb8 ll.Bd3 O-O
12.O-O Na6 13*3 e4 14.Nxe4 Qxb2
15.Rbl Qe5 16.f4 Qe7 17.f5 f6 18.RT4 Nc5
19*4 Bd7 2O.Qd2 b6 21.Ng3 Rae8 22.Rel
Qe5 23.BI1 a6 24x4 b5 25xxb5 Bxb5
26.Bxb5 axb5 27.Rbl Ra8 28.RD Nxe4
29.Qb2 Qxd5 3O.Qxb5 Qd4 + 31.Kg2 Ng5
32.Rd3 Qxg4 33.Qd5 + Kh8 34.Re3 Rae8
35.Rbel Re5 36.Qc6 Kh7 37.Qxc7 Qh3 +
38.Khl NO 0-1
#11 Richard Gutman (2190)-IM Georgi
Oriov, Portland 1991
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.NO e6 4*3 d5
5.Nc3 Be7 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Bxf6 8.e3 O-O
9.Bd3 a6 10.O-O dxc4 ll.Bxc4 e5 12.dxe5
Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Qh5 Qg5 15.Qe2
Qh4 16.F4 Bxc3 17.bxc3 Bg4 18.QI2
Qxf2 + 19.KxT2 Rad8 20.HJ Bf5 21.Radl
b5 22.Be2 Bc2 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.Rcl Be4
25x4 c6 26.BD BxO 27.KxD Rd3 28xxb5
cxb5 29.Ral 15 3O.Ra2 KT7 31.Ke2 Rb3
32*4 Ke6 33*4 b434*xf5 + Kxf535.Rc2
Ke4 36.Rc4+ Kd5 37.Rc7 Ra3 38.Rxg7
Rxa4 39.Rd7+ Ke640.Rh7a5 4l.Rxh6 +
Kd5 42.Kd3 Ra3+ 43.Kc2 a4 44.Ra6
Rc3+ 45.Kd2 a3 46.R Kc4 47.f6 Rd3 +
48.Kcl Rxe3 49.F7 RI3 50.Ra7 Kb3 51.h4
a2 52.h5 RxH 0-1
#12 Yuri Repkin (2143HM Georgi
Orlov, San Diego Open 1992
I.d4 Nf6 2x4 Nc6 3.NO e6 4.Nc3 Bb4
5.e3 d6 6.Qc2 O-O 7*3 Bxc3 + 8.Qxc3 a5
9.b3 e5 10.Bb2 Re8 11.Rdl Qe7 12.Be2
Ne4 13.Qc2 Bf5 14.BdJ exd4 15.Nxd4
Nxd4 16.Bxd4 c5 17.Bb2 Qg5 18.O-O Bg6
19.Rfel Qe7 20J3 Ng5 21.e4 f6 22.Qd2
Qc7 23.Bc2 Rad8 24.f4 NH 25*4 b6 26.h4
b6 27.Qg2 Re7 28.Rd5 Rde8 29.QO Qc8
30.KK2 Bh7 31.Kg3 Re6 32*5 hxg5
33.hxg5 fxg5 34.Qc3 gxf4 + 35.Kxf4 Ne5
36.Ke3 Rf6 37.Bdl Bxe4 38.Kxe4 QfF +
39.Ke3 Nxc4 mate