American Batsford Chess Library

Th e D utch for the Attacki ng

Pl ayer

Steffen Pedersen

An ICE Book
International Chess Enterprises, Seattle
International Chess Enterprises, Inc.
2005 Fifth Avenue, Suite 402
Seattle, Washington 98121-2850
P.O. Box 19457
Seattle, Washington 98109-1457

First published 1996

Copyright © 1996 by Steffen Pedersen

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be

reproduced, by any means, without prior permission
of the publisher.

Typeset by John Nunn

and printed in Great Britain by
Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wilts
for the publishers,
B . T. Batsford Ltd, 583 Fulliam Road, London SW6 5BY
British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data.
A catalog record for this book is
available from the British Library.

First published in the United States in 1996 by

International Chess Enterprises, Inc.
Originally published in Great Britain in 1996 by
B . T. B atsford.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 96-078266
ISBN 1-879479-44-3 (An ICE Book: pbk.)

First American edition - 1996

Printed in the United Kingdom

All first editions are printed on acid-free paper

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Editorial Panel: Mark Dvoretsky, Jon Speelman
General Adviser: Raymond Keene OBE
Specialist Adviser: Dr John Nunn
Commissioning Editor: Graham Burgess
Contents

Preface 4
Symbols 5
Bibliography 5
Introduction 6

1 Main Line: 7.....e8 12

2 Move-orders and miscellaneous systems 46
3 An early b3 67
4 The Karlsbad Variation 84
5 The Bishop Attack: 2 .tg5 97
6 The Knight Development: 2 lDc3 108
7 The Staunton Gambit: 2 e4 119
8 Unusual second moves 128
9 The Dutch against 1 c4 133
10 The Dutch against 1 lDf3 146
11 How well do you understand the Dutch? 155

Index of Variations 159

Preface
From a very early age I learned that
the weakest spot from the very start
of the game is f2 for White and f7
for Black. With this in mind, it
seems that one ought to refrain
from playing a move like 1 ...f5, but
no one has yet demonstrated a con­
crete reason why it is wrong. From
when I started playing interna­
tional tournaments the Dutch has
been a part of my repertoire. Even
though I have come close to aban­
doning it on several occasions, I
keep coming back to it.
At the outset, I should say that
the Dutch can be an extremely dif­
ficult opening to handle, but please
persevere, and I will try to show
you that there is nothing better than
winning with the Dutch. The funny
thing is, though, I would never
dream of playing I f4 as White!
The book is written for the am­
bitious player, who would like to
play for a win with Black. There­
fore, I have focused exclusively on
the Leningrad variation. It is a rep­
ertoire book, i.e. against every sys­
tem at White's disposal, I have
chosen one or two lines that I be­
lieve have the brightest future
(omitting lines in which I do not
believe) and included suggestions
against I c4 and I iLln as well.
To conclude the book, I have
written a chapter with exercises
that will test your understanding
of the Leningrad Dutch. In case
you are unable to solve a particular
exercise, then at the end of the so­
lution, I have given the referred to
the chapter and page reference, so
that you can immediately find fur­
ther information on that kind of po­
sition.
I would like to thank those peo­
ple who have helped in the prepa­
ration of this book, in particular
Thomas Jepsen, who provided me
with a lot of material, my girl­
friend, Mona Andersen, who kindly
proof-read the material before de­
livery and the staff at Batsford
without whom you would never
have read this!
Steffen Pedersen
Odense, October 1996
Symbols
+ Check 1 -0 White wins
++ Double Check 0- 1 Black wins
# Mate 1/2-1/2 Draw
! Good move Ch Championship
!! Excellent move tt Team tournament
1 Bad move OL Olympiad
11 Blunder Z Zonal
!1 Interesting move IZ Interzonal
1! Dubious move Ct Candidates tournament
� (=F) Advantage to White (Black) jr Junior event
± Big advantage to White wom Women's event
+ Big advantage to Black rpd Rapid game
+- Decisive advantage to White corr. Postal game
-+ Decisive advantage to Black (n) nth match game
= Equal position (D) Diagram follows

Bibliography

Encyclopedia of Chess Openings A, Chess Informant 1 979

M.Gurevich: A86-89, Chess Informant 1 994
R.Bellin: Winning with the Dutch, Batsford 1 990
Ehlvest: The Leningrad Dutch, Batsford 1 993
Christiansen, Silman: Holliindische Verteidigung, Rattmann 1 990
(Dutch Defense, Chess Digest)
Ivkov, Skoko: Leningrad Dutch I, Chess Press 1 990
Soltis: Leningrad Dutch 7... "ile8!, Chess Digest 1 993
De Vault: The Leningrad Dutch, Chess Digest 1 992
De Vault, Hickman: Play The Dutch Defense Against 1 c4 and Ilhj3,
Chess Digest 1 993
Ribli, Kallai: Winning with the English, Batsford 1 992
Pedersen: I. d4!, Axel Nielsens Efterf. vI John Rendboe 1 993

Informator, New in Chess, Die Schachwoche, Inside Chess, and various

others as well as electronic publications such as ChessBase Magazine,
New in Chess Quick Service, Dansk Skak Data Service, The Week in
Chess
I ntrod uction

The Leningrad Dutch can b e a very 3) White takes on eS and Black

difficult opening to handle. Indeed, can take back with the pawn on eS.
I have suffered some terrible de­ As a rule of thumb, if Black can
feats with it myself and almost play ...eS and White does not take,
given it up. But believe me, there is there are no problems.
no need to do that. Only by experi­
ence can an opening be learned and
the occasional loss is inevitable. In
this introductory chapter I am go­
ing to explain some of the most fa­
miliar ideas for both White and
Black. Hopefully this will make
the opening a little easier to under­
stand before entering into a de­
tailed theoretical discussion.
As this book is written primarily
for the black player, let us start
with some ideas for Black:

White has been building up an

Black carries out ... e5
attack on the queenside and to in­
The principal plan for Black in the terfere with this, Black countered
Leningrad Dutch is to carry out the in the centre:
advance ... eS. In the main line this 12 .•• e5
is prepared with the move 7 . 'ii'e8.
.. Since Black threatens the knight,
When playing the move ...eS we and White does not want to retreat
should know about three kinds of as this takes the pressure off c6,
positions: White must take en passant:
I ) White has played dS and 13 dxe6 ti)xe6
captures en passant. 14 ti)b3 ti)g4
2) White takes on eS and Black 15 ..tb2 ti)e5
has to recapture with a piece (gen­ With chances for both sides; Thk­
erally a knight). makov-M.Gurevich, USSR 1 982.
 Introduction 7

B B

In the game Belov-Vyzhmana­ come under attack. Also, when

vin, Moscow 1 992, Black profited White has played dS , he is able to
from the unprotected bishop on b2 capture en passant, should Black
and played: play . . . eS. This opens the diagonal
9••• eSt ? for the g2-bishop. Therefore Black
1 0 dxeS lLlg4 hurried to play his advance:
White now decided that Black 10 ••• eS!
should not be allowed to recapture The next moves were :
with the pawn on eS . 11 dxeS
11 .taJ It was better to preserve the cen­
But B lack's chances were no tral tension and play 1 1 e4.
worse: 11 ••• dxeS
11 ••• lLlxeS 12 e4 (D)
12 lIet lLlc5
13 lLlxeS "'xeS
14 lLlf3 "fIe7
15 e3 as
The position is equal.

Playing on the kingside

This position occurred in Lange­

weg-S .Pedersen, ForH 1 99 1 . White
has just played 1 0 c4. If allowed,
White will play dS followed by e4
and then Black's pawn on e7 will B
8 Introduction

White threatens to play 1 3 exfS . . . bS (and sometimes even . . . as­

and if Black has to take on e4, a4) . In most endgames this struc­
White would be positionally better, ture is preferable for Black since
but Black seized the opportunity to the root of White 's pawn chain
launch an attack on the kingside : (usually c4) is much easier to at­
12 ••• f4! tack than the root of Black's pawn
White now avoided 1 3 gxf4 due chain (e7) .
to the standard reply 1 3 . . . ltJhS ! and
if White continues 14 fxeS Black
will play 14 . . . ltJf4 ! , followed by
. . . �g4 and maybe . . . :d8. All the
black pieces will take up excellent
squares and White will find it hard
to organise a defence. Instead, he
continued:
13 b4
But then came:
13 fxg3
14 hxg3 ltJg4!
15 b5 ltJd4 B
16 �a3 :17
1 7 ltJb3 �e6 + This position occurred in the
All of Black's pieces are in ex­ game Larsen-YrjOla, Espoo Z 1 989
cellent places for the coming at­ (amongst others) . White has just
tack. played b3 and wants to finish de­
veloping without revealing his in­
Playing on the tentions just yet.
11 ltJc7
queenside •••

12 �b2 c5!
Paul Motwani once told me that he Notice that Black played this
played the Dutch because it just only after he had played . . . ltJc7 so
seemed to be so flexible. We have that ltJdbS is ruled out. White con­
seen Black playing in the centre tinued:
and on the kingside but in a lot of 13 ltJc2 b5
games Black has switched his at­ 14 cxb5
tention to the queenside. Playing Usually White takes on bS.
on the queenside usually means What happens if White allows
closing the centre with . . . cS and at­ Black to capture on c4 can be seen
tacking the white pawn-chain with in the next diagram.
 Introduction 9

14 lDxb5 (after . . . lDeS) in a satisfactory way.

15 lDxb5 .ixb5 The exchange sacrifice on b2 is
16 lDa3? ! even a possibility in some vari-
1 6 b4 ! was a better move. ations.
16 as !
17 lDxb5 'ifxb5
White opens the centre
18 a4 ""4
19 'ifc2 lDe4! One of the best ways for White to
20 .ixg7 �xg7 play against the Leningrad Dutch
21 %:tfc1 'ii'd4 is to open up the centre with e4. Af-
22 .ixe4 fxe4 ter Black captures White will have
23 ""2 'ifxb2 a half-open file on which the heavy
24 %:txb2 %:tf5 artillery can be placed to exert
Black has the better endgame. pressure on the weakest spot in
Black's camp, the e7-pawn.

B
W
In response to 1 2 . . . cS, White has
just played 1 3 lDde2 and Beliav­ White, in the game Dreev-Mot­
sky-Malaniuk, USSR Ch (Mos­ wani, Berlin 1 99 1 , has been cen­
cow) 1 983 now continued: tralising his pieces in order to open
13 b5 the centre:
14 'it'c2 %:tb8 12 e4 fxe4
15 %:tac1 bxc4 13 lDxe4 'ifg6
16 bxc4 lDg4! 14 lDxf6+ 'iVxf6
Black has the advantage. He has 15 %:te3 .irs
no weaknesses, and White 's pawn 161M2 %:t17
on c4 may be difficult to defend 17 %:tfel
10 Introduction

This is actually the best forma­

tion for White in the whole Lenin­
grad system. White simply directs
his play against the .weakness on
e7. Black has to be very careful how
he organises his defence in these
positions. Motwani now continued
inaccurately with 17 . . . .:te8? ! and
the game went 1 8 .i.c3 'ifg6 19 d5 !
c5 20 a3 and Black had no counter­
play. But let us go back to move 17.
The problems arise when White is w
allowed to play d5 . After that Black
cannot free himself. Best is there­ If White makes a simple devel­
fore 17 e6! and Black is ready to
••• oping move such as 1 3 .i.e3 , the
meet 1 8 .i.c3 with 1 8 . . ....g6 1 9 d5 best Black can do is 1 3 . . . lDc7 fol­
cxd5 20 cxd5 e5 ! with a good lowed by . . . c5 and . . . b5 (this plan is
game . If White instead continues di scussed above) . However, that
19 b4 Black will play 19 . . . lbc7 and plan may be a little slow if White
White has to watch out for . . . b5 as continues as follows:
well. 13 h4! ? lbc7
14 h5
White does not have to play .:te l So Black takes action in the cen­
in order to prepare e4. Another way tre.
to do it is by playing d5 and lDd4, 14 e5!?
which opens the diagonal for the 15 dxe6 lDxe6
bishop on g2. The following posi­ 16 lDxe6 .i.xe6
tion is well known (D): 17 hxg6 hxg6
18 'ifc2 .i.f5
Usually White plays: The game is equal. For more on
10 e4 fxe4 this position, see Chapter 1.
11 lDxe4 lDxe4
12 .i.xe4 White expands on the
If Black does not do anything in
queenside
particular White will either attack
on the kingside or exert pressure on When Black develops his knight
e7. Black has to counter in the cen­ via a6 White is often tempted to
tre: prepare a pawn advance on the
12 ••• c6! queenside . Thi s is done by .:tb l
 Introduction 11

followed by b4. If Black remains Instead, Black should try to solve

passive his knight will quickly be the problem with his knight and
in trouble on the edge of the board play 9 �!? This idea is rela­
•••

and often White's bishop on g2 tively new but has provided Black
will become a dominating piece. with a good score.

B B

This is one of the most popular With 1 1 b4 White prepares to

positions in the whole Leningrad play 1 2 dxc6 bxc6 1 3 bS but Black
system. White 's last move was 9 solved this problem tactically with :
':b l , which prepares to move the 11 ... lbxb4
b-pawn forward. In Chapter 1 , 12 ':xb4
Game 1 , this exact position is dis­ M .Gurevich 's suggestion of 1 2
cussed but I will give a short gen­ lbxfS gxfS 1 3 ':xb4 i s probably
eral explanation of the position better.
here. If White is to move he will 12 c5
play b4, leaving the a6-knight mis­ 13 ':xb7 cxd4
placed. 9 . . . .id7 followed by . . . c6 is 14 lbb5 'ii'cS !
the most frequent move but after 10 1 5 ':c7 'ii'b 8
b4 White will open up the queen­ 16 ':c6 lbe4!
side with bS . I think that this vari­ Black is better (Milut-Armas,
ation is slightly in White 's favour. Romanian Ch 1 986) .
1 Main Li ne 7 :iVe8 ..

The main line of the Leningrad Game 1

Dutch is reached via the moves 1 Akopian-Vasiukov
d4 f5 2 g3 lLlf6 3 J.g2 g6 4 lLlf3 St Petersburg 1994
J.g7 5 c4 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 lLlc3 and
now I will focus only on the flex­ 1 d4 f5
ible move 7 . . :i!ke8 . This move be­ 2 lLlfJ lLlf6
gan to appear regularly on the 3 g3 g6
tournament scene in the early 4 J.g2 J.g7
1 9 80s, and due to the efforts of 5 0-0 0-0
Mikhail Gurevich and Vladimir 6 c4 d6
Malaniuk it became a popular un­ 7 lLlc3 ft'e8
compromising weapon for players 8 d5 (D)
who want to win with Black.
Black would clearly like to ac­
complish the central push . . . e7-e5
but wants to keep his rook on f8 .
Since . . . lLlbd7 invites White to play
lLlg5 and . . . lLlc6 prompts d5, there
is only 7 . . . 'iWe8 . The queen can
later go to f7 , whence it will exert
pressure down the f-file and target
the c4-pawn, or after a preparatory
. . . h6 and . . . g5, the queen will be ex­
cellently placed for the attack at g6
or h5 . B
This chapter contains a total of
eight games and White 's various White immediately takes pre­
8th move options will be covered cautions against the black ' threat'
in the following order: of . . . e5. There are other ways to
8 d5 (Games 1 -3) counter this but 8 d5 is the most
8 b3 (Game 4) popular way to meet 7 . . . 'iWe8.
8 %te l (Games 5-6) White has tried a range of alter­
8 lLld5 (Games 7-8) native moves, but none of them is

important enough to be covered in
a main game :
a) 8 'it'b3 lba6 9 .tgS 'ith8 (or
9 . . . cS ! ? 1 0 .txf6 .txf6 1 1 l:lad l
'ith8 1 2 'it'c2 l:lb8 1 3 e4 fxe4 1 4
'iixe4 { Black should not worry
about 1 4 lbxe4 .tg7 I S dxcS dxcS ;
the bishop pair is more than suffi­
cient compensation for the isolated
e-pawn } 14 . . . .td7 I s lbdS .tc6 1 6
'ife2 .txdS 17 cxdS 'iWa4 ! 1 8 b 3 'iib4
1 9 h4 cxd4 20 lbgS ? { this is too ag­
gressive ; 20 'ifd2 would keep the
balance } 20 . . . lbcs 2 1 .te4 .txgS !
22 hxgS l:lbe8 and Black was
clearly better in Tukmakov-Mal­
aniuk, USSR 1 986) 1 0 .txf6 ( 1 0
It.)d5 lbg8 ! - Black rightly avoids
exchanges - 1 1 .td2 e5 1 2 dxe5
dxe5 1 3 e4 c6 14 lbc3 f4 gave
Black a promising attacking game
in Lemer-Malaniuk, Tallinn 1 987)
1O . . . .txf6 ( l 0 ... exf6 ! ? 1 1 l:lfe l 'iff7
1 2 e4 c6 1 3 l:lad l l:ld8 14 a3 l:lb8 +
Mascini-Van Mil, Enschede 1 992)
1 1 e4 e5 1 2 l:lfe l exd4 1 3 exf5 'iid8
1 4 lbb5 lbc5 1 5 'iia3 .txf5 1 6
lbbxd4 .tg4 1 7 l:lad l 'it'd7 and
Black should be preferred; Lpu­
tian-Vyzhmanavin, Irkutsk 1 986.
b) 8 e4 lbxe4 9 lbxe4 fxe4 1 0
lbg5 lbc6 1 1 .te3 e 5 1 2 d5 lbd4 1 3
lbxe4 .tf5 = T.Fischer-Schmitt­
diel, Cattolica 1 993.
c) 8 .tg5 e5 9 dxe5 dxe5 1 0
lbdS lbxdS 1 1 cxdS e4 1 2 lbd4 'it'f7
and White was already in trouble ;
Tbebault - Santo-Roman, Cannes
1 988.
Main Line 7... "ile8 13
d) 8 'ifc2 e5 9 dxe5 dxe5 1 0 e4
lbc6 1 1 .te3 f4 ! ? 1 2 gxf4 lbh5 1 3
lbd5 ? ! exf4 1 4 .tc5 l:lf7 1 5 lbg5
b6 1 6 lbxf7 'iixf7 17 'ii'a4 .td7 +
Reilein-Zysk, Munich 1 987.
8 ... 1Da6
9 l:lbl
Preparing to advance the pawns
on the queenside. We will look at 9
lbd4 in the next game.
9 .•• ltks! ? (D)
A relatively new idea. Black has
faced some trouble in the old
main line after 9 . . . .t d7 10 b4 c6
1 1 dxc6 bxc6 or 1 1 . . . .txc6, when
the knight is badly placed to de­
fend against the white attack.
W
Jumping towards the centre will
yield White a tempo but the knight
is outside the danger zone and
ready to create counterplay.
10 b4
If White omits this, Black will
continue with . . . a5, slowing down
the queenside expansion.
14 Main Line 7 . 'ike8
. .
Other moves are:
a) 1 0 lDd4 as ( l O . . . eS 1 1 dxe6
lDxe6 1 2 lDxe6 'ifxe6 13 'ilkd3 lle8
14 lDdS 'iff? I S lDxf6+ .txf6 1 6
b 3 llb8 1 7 .te3 '/2- '/2 Adorj an­
Malaniuk, Alushta 1 994) 1 1 b3 ( 1 1
lDcbS 'ifd8 1 2 b3 .td7 1 3 .tb2
lDfe4 14 lDc3 lDxc3 IS .txc3 'ife8
1 6 'i!fc2 f4 = Serebro-Borichev,
Simferopol 1 99 1 ) 1 1 .. . .td7 1 2 .ta3
( 1 2 e3 c6 1 3 .tb2 h6 ! ? 14 f4 llc8
IS .tal 'iff? 16 'ifd2 llfd8 1 7 llbe l
a4 1 8 'ilkd l axb3 '/2- 1/2 Notkin­
S . Pedersen, Cappelle la Grande
1 996) 1 2 . . . c6 1 3 .txcS dxcS 14
lDe6 .txe6 I S dxe6 Mohr-Vasiu­
kov, Voskresensk 1 990 and now
Black's best is I S . . . b6 ! , intending
. . . 'ilkc8 surrounding the e6-pawn.
b) 1 0 lDgS as with the follow­
ing possibilities :
b I ) 1 1 lDbS 'ifd8 1 2 lDd4 h 6 1 3
lDh3 gS and in Garcia Gonzales­
Remon, Havana 1 983 White played
1 4 'ifc2 allowing the tactical point
14 . . . lDxdS ! IS .txdS+ e6 regaining
the piece with a good position.
However, for some reason Black
did not do this. Best was 14 b3 with
an equal position.
b2) 1 1 .te3 lDfd7 ? ! 1 2 lDbS
'ifd8 1 3 'ifc 1 ! lle8 ? ! 14 lld l .tf6
IS b3 lla6? 16 a3 h6 1 7 lDf3 gS 1 8
lDfd4 lDeS 1 9 'ilkc2 c 6 2 0 dxc6
bxc6 2 1 lDxc6 lDxc6 22 .txcS 1 -0
B aumgartner-Karrer, corr. 1 986.
This was too easy a game for White
and it is not surprising that Black
can improve his play at several
points. Personally I find 1 1 . . .h6 1 2
.txcS dxcS 1 3 lDe6 .txe6 1 4 dxe6
'ii'c 8 I s lDdS lle8 very interesting.
White has a wonderful knight on
dS , which Black is unable to re­
move at the moment, but the pawn
on e6 may be difficult to defend.
c) 1 0 lDbS 'ild8 1 1 lDbd4 .td7
1 2 lDgs 'ilc8 1 3 lDh3 c6 14 lDf4 eS
IS dxe6 lDxe6 16 lDdxe6 .txe6 1 7
b 3 lld8 1 8 .tb2 .tf7 1 9 'ilkc2 'ilkc7
20 llbd l 'ife7 2 1 h4 lld7 22 llfe l
a6 23 .tc3 lle8 = Portisch-Malan­
iuk, Moscow OL 1 994.
d) 10 b3 as 1 1 .tb2 c6 1 2 lDd4
.td7 = Belov.
10 ... lDce4 (D)
w
11 .tb2
Best; White challenges Black on
the diagonal and advances his de­
velopment. In practice White has
also tried 1 1 lDbS leaving Black
with two ways to respond:
a) 1 1 . . .c6 ! ? (certainly a very
risky decision but it is not so easy

to refute) 1 2 ctJc7 Wd8 1 3 ctJxa8
ctJc3 14 'ifb3ctJxb l l S J.b2 (at first
I thought that I S dxc6 should win
immediately but after I S . . . bxc6 1 6
ctJd4 ctJe4 1 7 ctJxc6 'ii'd7 Black is
very much in the game) IS . . . J.d7
16 :xbl 'ifxa8 17 dxc6 bxc6 1 8
cS+ dS 1 9 a4 ± Farrell-Weston,
Scottish League tt 1 994.
b) 1 1 . . . "d8 is the safest con­
tinuation, giving White a choice:
b l ) 1 2 'ifc2 c6 (after 1 2 . . . eS 1 3
dxe6 J.xe6 1 4ctJfd4 J.f7 I S f3 the
knight is trapped, but 1 2 . . . aS ! ? is
also possible) 13 dxc6 bxc6 14
ctJbd4 'ii'e 8 1S bS ! cxbS 16 cxbS eS ! ?
( 1 6 . . . J.d7) 17 ctJc6 :f7 ( 1 7 . . . J.b7)
1 8 ctJgS :c7 19 ctJxe4 fxe4 20
J.gS ! dS 2 1 'ii' b 3 J.e6 22 ctJxeS
d4 23 'it'b2 ctJdS 24 f4 ctJc3 with
compensation; Thor-Kambor, corr.
1 989.
b2) 1 2 J.b2 eS 13 dxe6 J.xe6 = .
b3) 1 2 'iib 3 as 13 a3 c6 14 dxc6
bxc6 I SctJbd4 'it'e8 16 cS+ <it>h8 17
ctJgS a4 18 "ilc2 eS 19 ctJdf3 h6 20
ctJxe4 fxe4 2 1 ctJe 1 dS and the
pawn mass in the centre guaran­
tees Black an edge ; Skomorokhin­
Tseshkovsky, Novgorod 1 995.
Belov also analyses 1 1 ctJxe4
ctJxe4 1 2 J.b2ctJc3 1 3 J.xc3 J.xc3
14ctJd4 f4 IS Wd3 J.xd4 16 Wxd4
Wf7 with an equal position.
11
••• e5
12 dxe6
Allowing Black to preserve his
centre would not do any good.
12
.•• J.xe6
Main Line 7 . WeB 15
. .
13 ctJxe4
1 3 ctJd2 ctJxd2 1 4 'ii'x d2 c6 I S
b S :c8 i s unclear.
13 •.. fxe4! (D)
It is best to keep dark-squared
bishops on the board. 1 3 . . ctJxe4
. 14
J.xg7 �xg7 I S 'it'c2 'iff7 1 6 :bc l
is slightly better for White accord­
ing to Belov.
W
14 ctJd2 J.f5
Trying to split the pawns with
14 . . . e3 ? ! IS fxe3 J.fS would only
open up the diagonal for the bishop
on g2: 1 6 e4 ! ctJxe4 1 7ctJxe4 J.xb2
(not 1 7 . . . J.xe4? 1 8 :xf8+ J.xf8
1 9 Wd4 +-) 1 8 :xb2 J.xe4 1 9
:xf8+ �xf8 2 0 'iVd4 J.xg2 2 1
'iVh8+ �e7 2 2 Wxh7+ Wf7 23
Wxf7+ �xf7 24 <it>xg2 and White
is a pawn up in the endgame.
15 e3 "'00
16 ctJb3!? (D)
White is not forced to sacrifice
the pawn, but 16 Wc2 :ae8 17 ctJb3
J.h3 also looks good for Black.
16 Main Line 7 'ile8
. . .

26 ... .t g7
27 'iie3
Now it was too late to push the
f-pawn: 27 fS ? gxfS 28 exfS .txfS
29 g4 .txbl 30 :xf7 :xf7 =t.
27••• b6
28 :fdl
28 tiJd4 .txa2 29 tiJxc6 :c8 30
:bc 1 .tc4 is also good for Black -
Krasenkov.
28 ... c5
B 29 a3
After 29 bxcS dxcS 30 eS :d7
16 ... 'iixc4 Black will take the d-file and even­
17 :ct tually push the c-pawn.
17 tiJaS 'it'xa2 ! 18 tiJxb7 'iidS is 29 ••• :fe8
clearly better for Black. 30 'it'f3
17••• "'17 30 :d2 ! ? - Belov.
18 .t xf6 30 ••• 'it'd7
If White must give up this bishop, 31 :d2
something has gone wrong. The exchange sacrifice 3 1 bxcS
18 .t xf6 is insufficient. Belov 's analysis
19 'it'c2 c6 runs 3 1 . . . .tg4 32 "'e3 .txd l 3 3
20 .txe4 .too :xd l bxcS 34 tiJxcs "'bS with a
The pair of bishops gives Black clear advantage to Black.
some advantage. 31.•• 'iia4
21 :bl : ae8 32 'it'dl :b8 (D)
2 1 . . .:ac8 ! preparing to get a 32 . . ....xa3 ! 33 eS (33 bxcS bxcS
passed pawn was a more clear-cut 34 eS :b8 =t) 33 . . ....xb4 34 tiJd4
way to realise the advantage, e.g. 'iixd2 3S 'ii'xd2 dxeS 36 fxeS .txeS
22 :fd l cS ! 23 :xd6 cxb4 24 "'e2 collects a lot of material for the
.teS 2S :dd 1 .tc3 +. queen.
22 .tg2 .tf5 33 :xd6 'it'xa3
23 e4 .too 34 e5
24 'iid2 :d8 34 bxcS ! bxcS 3S tiJd2 :xb l 36
25 f4 �h8 'it'xb l "'b4 37 eS would have been
26 'itth l better.
White could have mixed things 34 .tf8
up a bit with 26 fS ! ? 35 :d2 .trs
 Main Line 7 'ike8 17
...

4 1 llxh7+ ..t>g8 42 'ifc l (42

�d5+ or 42 'i'd5+ is easily parried
by 42 . . . �e6) 42 . . . 11bd8 ! 43 lLlxd8
llxd8 44 �f3 lid 1 + 45 �xd l �e4+,
winning.

Apart from the queenside storm,

White has another very attractive
strategy: the e4-break.
If Black is not alert, he can eas­
ily end up in a positionally inferior
W position (check the introductory
chapter for more on this) so quick
35 . . . 'ii'xb4 would have been too counterplay is called for. In the
greedy : 36 lLld4 �g4 37 'ii'c 1 "a4 next game, Black is very success­
38 llal "d7 39 lLlc6 ;1;. ful with a quick attack on the white
36 llal 'iVxb4 centre.
37 llxa7 c4
38 lLld4 c3 Game 2
39 lLlc6 '6'cS S.Pedersen - Malaniuk
40 lldd7 1-0 Cappelle La Grande 1995
Sadly Black lost on time, for
otherwise there could have been a 1 d4 f5
beautiful finish, e.g. 40 lldd7 c2 ! 2 c4 lLlf6
(D). 3 lLlc3 g6
4 g3 � g7
5 � g2 d6
6 lLlo 0-0
7 0-0 'iVe8
8 d5 lLla6
9 lLld4 �d7
10 e4
The passive but solid 1 0 b3 and
other rare moves are covered in
Game 3 .
10 . fxe4
11 lLlxe4 lLlxe4
W 12 �xe4 c6 (D)
13 h4
18 Main Line 7 :fle8
. .
White wants to break up Black's
exposed kingside and give mate!
Therefore, Black must rapidly gen­
erate counterplay in the centre.
More peaceful approaches have
also been tested but in every case
Black's counterplay is sufficient.
a) 13 .i.e3 ftjc7 14 'ifd2 c5 15
ftje2 b5 16 I:tac1 (or 16 cxb5 .i.f5!
17 .i.g2 'ibb5 18 ftjc3 'iWd3 19
I:tfd1 'iWxd2 20 I:txd2 h6 21 I:tc1
l:tab8 :f Hernandez-Chernin, Cien­
fuegos 1981) 16...bxc4 17 1:txc4 a5
18 b3 .i.b5 19 I:tccl 'iVb8 20 I:tfel
a4 :f Schwarz-Bocksberger, corr.
1988.
b) 13 .i.g2 ftjc7 14 .i.e3 (14
li::Je2 c5 15 a4 is an interesting way
of hindering ...b5 but Black should
be able to prepare this advance
slowly anyway: 15...b6 16 h4 a6 17
ftjf4 �h8 18 .i.e4 .i.f519 I:tel'iVd7
20 'iWe2 .i.xe4 21 'iVxe4 .i.f6 22
'ittg2 b5 23 axb5 axb5 24 I:txa8
I:txa8 and Black has enough coun­
terplay although he eventually lost
in Jelling-Alkrersig, Arhus 1992)
14...c515li::Je2 b516 b3?! .i.xal17
'iWxal bxc4 18 bxc4 .i.f5 19 .i.h6
1:tf7 =+= Grivas-Psakhis, Bela Crkva
1987.
c) 13 I:tb1 ftjc7 14 .i.e3 c5 15
ftje2 b5 16 b3 'iff7 (16...l:tb8 17
'it'd2 'iVc8 18 .i.h6 ftje8 19 .i.xg7
�xg7 20 ftjf4 ftjf6 21 .i.g2 l:te8 =
Doring-Kindermann, Dortmund
1992) 17 'ild2 ftje8 18 ftjc3 ftjf6 19
.i.g2 bxc4 20 bxc4 I:tfb8 21 h3 .i.f5
22 I:txb8+ I:txb8 23 g4 .i.c8 24
I:tb1 I:txb1+ 25 ftjxb1 h5 26 g5
ftjd7 27 "'a5 ftjb6 28 ftjd2 e6 29
dxe6 .i.xe6 :f Santos-Lutz, Debre­
cen Echt 1992.
d) 13 l:te1 ftjc7 14 .i.e3 c5 15
li::Je2 b516 cxb5ftjxb517 I:tblI:tb8
18 'iVd2 'ilf7 :f K.Arkell-King,
London 1991.
e) 13 .i.g5lt:Jc7 14 'iVd2 e5!? 15
ftje2 cxd5 16 cxd5 .i.h3 17 I:tfcl
'iVd7 18 f3 1:tf7 19 .i.e3 ftje8 :f
B.Sfllrensen-S.Pedersen, Aalborg
1995.
f) 13 dxc6 bxc6141:tbl(141:te1
It:Jc515 .i.g2 a5 16.i.e31:tb8 17 I:tb1
was played in Vukic-Kontic, Cet­
inje 1993, when White went on to
get an advantage, but Black should
be OK after 17...a4) 14...lt:Jc7 (again
this is the best square; 14 ...ftjc5 15
.i.g2 e5 16 ftjc2 'it'e7 17 .i.e3 ftje6
18 'ild2 I:tfc8 19 I:tbd 1 .i.f8 20 li::Je1
ftjg7 21 ftjd3 I:tc7 22 f4! exf4 23
ftjxf4 left White with a substantial
plus in Vukic-Minic, Yugoslavia
1984, while another interesting

black option is 14... llc8!? IS i.e3
lIn 16 'ife2 eS 17 tLlb3 tLlc7 18
i.g2 dS with a strong centre for
Black; Schmidt-Grigorov, Prague
1985) IS i.g2 eS 16 tLlb3 dS 17
cxdS cxdS 18 i.e3 d4 is unclear;
Aagaard-Djurhuus, Copenhagen
1991.
13 ••• tLlc7
As we have seen, this is the best
square for the knight. 13... tLlcS?! is
inaccurate as it does not sustain the
pressure in the centre. 14 i.g2 Ilc8
IS i.e3 as 16 'ii' d2 ;!; Portisch­
M.Gurevich, Moscow GMA 1990.
14 h5
Other moves are harmless:
a) 14 'ifd3 cS IS tLlf3 bS 16 Ilel
112- 112 Panzalovic - Titova-Boric,
Thzla 1991.
b) 14 i.e3 cS IS tLlf3? i.g4 16
c;i>g211d7 17 IlhltLle8 18 i.f4 tLlf6
=+= Muhr-Kalinichev, Berlin 1995.
14 ••• e5! ? (D)
M.Gurevich considers the posi­
tion after 14...cS IS hxg6 as clearly
better for White, but I doubt he has
analysed much further. The con­
clusion seems a little too hasty. In
the game Lassila-S.Pedersen, Ve­
jenjr Ech 1992 I tried IS ... hxg6?!,
which worked out well after 16
tLlf3 i.g4 17 'ii'd3 bS 18 tLlh4 bxc4
19 lIxc4?! (better was 19 lIc2!,
keeping an advantage) 19...i.fS 20
lIc2 lIn 21 i.gS llab8 22 Ilabl
1lb4 and Black had a very good po­
sition, but White was better earlier
on. Instead Black could force a
Main Line 7... WeB 19
draw with IS... cxd4! 16 'ifhS h6 17
i.xh6 i.g4 18 lIh4 i.fS 19 i.xg7
c;i>xg7 20 lih7+ �f6 and now 21
i.xfS loses the queen to 21...llh8,
so White will have to be content
with the perpetual after 21 'ifh4+
�g7 22 lih7+.
W
15 h6? !
I regretted inserting this move;
now White has lost all chances for
a later kingside assault, and the
pawn can easily become weak. The
correct decision was IS dxe6 tLlxe6
16 tLlxe6 i.xe6 17 hxg6 hxg6 18
'ii'c2 i.fS with a balanced position.
15 i.f6
16 tLlc2 cxd5
17 cxd5 'ile7
18 'ild2? !
This is incorrect too, but I did
not want to allow Black to swap
bishops with ...i.gS ..
18 .•• llac8
Black's play is very simple now,
whereas Wh�te still has problems
20 Main Line 7 'ile8...

finishing his development, mainly The next game is a very good

due to the inaccuracies on moves example of how Black can obtain
15 and 18. the better endgame if White plays
19 f3 lDa6 too passively. Larsen is normally
20 g4? a very dynamic player and it is in­
Another bad move, but White al­ teresting to see how hard he finds it
ready had a very difficult position. to cope with the Leningrad Dutch.
20 b4 preventing ...lDc5 might
have been best. Game 3
20 .th4 Larsen - YrjoUi
21 'ii'e2 lDcs Espoo Z 1989
22 .te3 .tg5
23 �g2 .tf4! 1 00 d6
24 b4? 2 d4 fS
This fails tactically but the posi­ 3 c4 lDf6
tion was lost anyway. 4 lDc3 g6
24 lDxe4 5 g3 .tg7
25 fxe4 (D) 6 .tg2 0-0
7 0-0 'ii'e8
8 d5 lDa6
9 lDd4 .td7 (D)

25 ••• .tb5
0-1

This was a very easy victory for 10 :bl

Black, but I think it shows just how White has several alternatives:
well posted the black pieces are for a) 10 e3 is passive and it is not
an attack if White is not alert. surprising that Black quickly grabs

the initiative: 1O . . . c6 1 1 b3 t'iJc7 1 2
.tb2 c 5 1 3 t'Dde2 (slightly better is
13 t'Df3 b5 14 'ii'c2 with the idea of
t'Dd2 with an equal position - Cvet­
kovic) 1 3 . . . b5 14 'ii'c 2 lIb8 1 5
lIac 1 bxc4 1 6 bxc4 t'Dg4 ! :j: Beli­
avsky-Ma1aniuk, USSR Ch (Mos­
cow) 1 983.
b) 1 0 b3 shows that White is
satisfied with nice quiet develop­
ment and seems to have no inten­
tion of playing b4 or e4 at the
moment. Black has two attractive
ways to respond:
b 1 ) 1 O . . . h6 1 1 .tb2 t'Dc5 1 2
'ji'c2 'iif7 1 3 lIad l a5 1 4 t'De6
.txe6 1 5 dxe6 'ii'x e6 1 6 t'Dd5 'ii'd7
1 7 t'Dxf6+ .txf6 1 8 .ta3 'ii'c 8 1 9
.txc5 dxc5 2 0 'ii'd 2 rJ;g7 2 1 'ii'd 5
c6 22 'ii'xc5 'ii'c7 = Kraidman-Sof­
fer, Tel-Aviv 1992.
b2) 1O . . . c6 1 1 .tb2 ( 1 1 .ta3
lIc8 12 lIc l 'ii'f7 13 e3 h6 1 4 'ii'e2
g5 1 5 lIfd l rJ;h8 1 6 lId2 'ii'g 6 and
Black had counterplay in B .SJ<'}ren­
sen-Kristensen, Denmark tt 1 989)
1 1 . . .t'Dc7 ( 1 1 . . .lIc8 ! ? 12 e3 g5 1 3
'ii'e 2 t'Dc5 14 lIad l 'ii'g6 1 5 lIfe l
t'iJce4 1 6 dxc6 bxc6 17 f3 t'Dxc3 1 8
.txc3 lIf7 1 9 'ii'c2 e 5 2 0 t'De2 t'De8
2 1 f4 gxf4 22 exf4 e4 23 .txg7
lIxg7 24 'ii'c 3 .te6 25 t'Dd4 ± Ros­
siter-Wall, Dublin Z 1 993 ; 1 l . . .t'Dc5
1 2 lIbl lIc8 1 3 b4 t'Dce4 14 t'Dxe4
t'Dxe4 1 5 t'De6 .txe6 1 6 .txg7
rJ;xg7 17 dxe6 tDf6 18 'ji'd4 b6 with
equality in the game Reshevsky­
Vasiukov, Palma de Mallorca 1989)
and now (D):
Main Line 7 'fIe8 21
...
w
b2 1 ) 1 2 lIc l lIb8 1 3 'ii' d2 c5 14
t'Df3 a6 (14 ... b5 seems more natu­
ral: 1 5 cxb5 t'Dxb5 1 6 t'Dxb5 lIxb5
1 7 .txf6 .txf6 1 8 'ii' c 2 intending
t'Dd2-c4 ;!; is given by Kremenet­
sky, but I would disagree with that;
1 8 . . . a5 ! with the idea of . . . a4 pres­
surising the white queenside looks
very pleasant for Black) 15 'ii'c2 b5
1 6 t'Dd2 e5 17 dxe6 .txe6 1 8 .tal
'ii'e 7 1 9 e4 f4 20 t'Dd5 t'Dfxd5 2 1
cxd5 .td7 22 .txg7 'ii'x g7 was un­
clear in F.Lengyel-Kremenetsky,
Satu-Mare 1 983.
b22) 1 2 b4 cxd5 13 cxd5 'ii' f7
1 4 'ii'd 2 h6 1 5 f4 lIac8 1 6 lIac l
rJ;h7 1 7 t'Db3 Foisor-Vyzhmana­
vin, Ibercaja 1 992 and now Black
should play 1 7 . . . t'Da8 ! ? . . . t'Db6-c4
with counterplay (M.Gurevich) .
b23) 12 'ii'd2 c5 1 3 t'Df3 ( 1 3 t'De6
.txe6 { 1 3 . . . t'Dxe6 14 dxe6 .txe6
15 .txb7 lIb8 16 .tg2 ;!; M.Gure­
vich } 14 dxe6 lIb8 15 t'Dd5 t'Dfxd5
{not 1 5 . . . t'Dxe6? 16 t'Dxf6+ exf6 17
lIad l rJ;h8 18 e3 'ii'f7 19 'ii'a5 b6 20
22 Main Line 7... 'fIe8
'ila4 :fd8 Hodgson-M.Gurevich,
Wijk aan Zee 1 993 and now 21 f4 !
± intending :d3 and :fd l } 1 6
i.xg7 rJ;xg7 1 7 cxdS b S with the
idea of . . . b4 gives Black counter­
play - M.Gurevich) 13 ...bS 14 :ae l
:b8 I S i.al 'ilc8 1 6 cxbS lbxbS
17 lbxbS :xbS 1 8 :c l 'it'b7 1 9
lbgS as 2 0 lbe6 i.xe6 2 1 i.xf6
i.f7 22 i.xg7 rJ;xg7 23 :c4 :b4
24 :fc 1 :b8 with a slight advan­
tage for Black; Henk-Bocksberger,
corr. 1988.
c) 1 0 :e 1 lbcs (also good is
1 O ... c6 1 1 e4 fxe4 1 2 lbxe4 lbxe4
1 3 :Xe4 lbc7 14 i.gS :f7 I S 'it'b3
lba6 1/2- 1/2 McNab-Psakhis, Troon
1 9 84) 1 1 b4 ( 1 1 'ii'c 2 c6 { 1 1 . . .aS)
12 i.e3 lbg4 13 b4 eS 1 4 lbxc6
lbxe3 I S fxe3 lba6 16 lbaS e4 1 7
:ab 1 :b8 1 8 a4 'ii'd 8 1 9 'ilb3 hS
with some attacking chances in re­
turn for the pawn; Meyer-Malan­
iuk, Philadelphia 1 992) 1 1 . . .lbfe4
1 2 lbxe4 lbxe4 1 3 i.e3 cS 14 dxc6
bxc6 I S :e l :b8 1 6 bS cS 17 lbb3
a6 1 8 a4 lbc3 19 'ild3 lbxa4 20
bxa6 i.c6 =+= Ryskin-Malaniuk,
Minsk 1988.
d) 1 0 i.gS c6 (interesting is
1 O ... h6 1 1 i.xf6 i.xf6 1 2 e4 fxe4
1 3 lbxe4 i.g7 1 4 'it'd2 cS I S lbe6
i.xe6 16 dxe6 lbc7 17 lbc3 :b8 1 8
:ae l a6 1 9 i.e4 bS 2 0 'it'c2 :f6 2 1
lbdS lbxdS 2 2 cxdS g S 2 3 i.fS c4
and although Black is terribly
weak on the light squares, there is
reasonable counterplay on the
queenside ; Lentrodt- Kindermann,
Munich 1 992) 1 1 :e l h6? ! (why
not 1 1 . . . lbc7 with the idea . . . cS and
. . . bS?) 1 2 i.xf6 :xf6 1 3 a3 :c8 14
e3 rJ;h8 IS :e l gS 1 6 e4 fxe4 17
lbxe4 :g6 18 dxc6 bxc6 1 9 b4 �
Kuzmin-Bareev, Kharkov 1985.
Now we return to the main line
after 10 :bl (D).
B
10 ••• c6
In Game 1 we saw that Black, in
response to :bl , quickly played
his knight towards the centre since
it could otherwise be harassed by
a fast b4-bS . However, now that
White has played lbd4, if he con­
tinues with b4, Black can solve his
problems with the knight by tacti­
cal means. We shall see that in the
note to White's next move . Black
has tried two other moves that also
seem satisfactory:
a) 1 O . . . cS (usually Black plays
. . . c6 and . . . lbc7 to stop lbdbS be-
fore playing . . . cS) 1 1 lbdbS ( 1 1
lbe6 i.xe6 1 2 dxe6 'it'c8 1 3 lbdS

�xdS 1 4 cxdS bS I S .igS .if6 1 6
.ih6 .ig7 1 7 .igS .if6 1 8 .ixf6
l'bf6 1 9 "'d2 ri;g7 20 l':tbc 1 'ifb7
2 1 h3 "'b6 22 b3 �c7 = Heine
Nielsen-S .Petersen, Copenhagen
1 99 1 ) lL .... n 12 b3 h6 1 3 .ib2
gS 14 "'d2? ( 1 4 f4 ! would have been
advantageous for White) 1 4 . . . f4 !
I S gxf4 'ifhS 1 6 f3 gxf4 1 7 "'xf4
�xdS 1 8 "'g3 �f4 1 9 l':tf2 ri;h7 ;
Kuzmin-Norri, Helsinki 1 992.
b) 10 . . . �cS 1 1 b4 �ce4 1 2
�xe4 ( 1 2 �cbS "'c8 1 3 f3 a6 1 4
fxe4 axbS I S exfS l':txa2 1 6 "'b3
'ii'a 8 1 7 fxg6 "'a7 1 8 .ib2 eS ! 1 9
dxe6 .ixe6 2 0 l':t a l l':ta6 2 1 l':txa6
bxa6 22 gxh7+ �xh7 was unclear
in Harmsen-Van Parreren, Nether­
lands 1 9 85) 1 2 . . . �xe4 1 3 "'d3 eS
14 dxe6 .ixe6 IS .ib2 = Lebredo.
11 b3
a) As mentioned in the previous
note, White can again continue 11
b4 (D) giving Black a choice be­
tween two messy lines:
B l':txd8 = Spassov-Grigorov, Bulgar­
Main Line 7 'ile8 23
.. .
a l ) l L.cS 1 2 �e6 (White 's
best move, but two games by the
Israeli grandmaster Valery Beim
prove that Black gets enough coun­
terplay; 1 2 bxcS �xcS 1 3 �b3 l':tc8
14 .ie3 �a6 I S .ixa7 l':txc4 1 6
"'d2 "'a8 1 7 .id4 l':tfc8 1 8 l':tfc 1
�b4 favoured Black, M.Schwarz­
Beim, Groningen 1 99 1 ) 1 2 . . . cxb4
1 3 �xf8 lfiIxf8 14 �bS .ixbS I S
cxbS 'ii'xbS 1 6 a3 ( 1 6 'ikd2 l':tc8 1 7
.ib2 l':tc4 1 8 l':tfc l l':txc l + 1 9 l':txc l
�cS = Boguslavsky-Beim, Vosk­
resensk 1 992) 16 . . ....c4 17 axb4
�xb4 1 8 .id2 �bxdS 1 9 l':txb7 as
20 "'b l 'ikxe2 2 1 l':tb8+ l':txb8 22
'ifxb8+ ri;n 23 .ixaS = Chernos­
vitov-Beim, Voskresensk 1 992.
a2) 1 1 . . .�xb4 ! ? 12 l:lxb4 ( 1 2
�xfS gxfS 1 3 l':txb4 i s a suggestion
by M .Gurevich and should prob­
ably be preferred) 12 . . . cS 1 3 l:lxb7
cxd4 14 �bS 'ifc8 ! I S l':tc7 "'b8 16
l':tc6 �e4 ! 1 7 .ixe4 .ixc6 1 8 dxc6
fxe4 1 9 �xd4 'ifc8 =+= Milut-I.Ar­
mas, Romanian Ch 1 986.
White has tried three other
moves. Line 'd' is the most testing:
b) 1 1 e3 �c7 ( 1 1 . .. l':tc8 ! ? 1 2
'ike2 �7 1 3 b4 cxdS 14 cxdS �8 !
I S .ib2 �b6 with counterplay) 1 2
b4 cxdS ( 1 2 . . . l':td8 ! ? 1 3 'iWd3 eS ! 1 4
dxe6 �xe6 I S �ce2 'ifn 1 6 .ib2
�xd4 1 7 �xd4 � 1 8 "'c2 cS 19
bxcS dxcS 20 �f3 .ie6 2 1 l':tfd l b6
22 .in .ixb2 23 "'xb2 "'g7 24
�eS �gS 2S .ie2 lDn 26 l':txd8
ian Ch 1 9 84) 1 3 cxdS l:lc8 14 a4
24 Main Line 7 . :fie8
.
�a8 1 5 'ifb3 gave White a small
advantage in Gavrikov-M.Gure­
vich, USSR 1 982.
c) 1 1 a3 :tc8 1 2 b4 c5 ( 1 2 ... cxd5
1 3 �xd5 �e4 is interesting, with
unclear play) 1 3 �e6 i.xe6 14
dxe6 cxb4 1 5 axb4 :txc4 1 6 i.xb7
:txc3 17 i.xa6 was unclear in
Svidler-Van Mil, Belgium 1 987.
d) 1 1 dxc6 bxc6 (D) and now:
W 11
d 1 ) 1 2 a3 :tc8 1 3 �b3 �g4 ! 14
i.d2 h6 15 �aS g5 1 6 h3 �e5 1 7
f4 gxf4 1 8 gxf4 �g6 1 9 �h2 e5 20
e3 �c5 2 1 i.e 1 "it'e6 22 b4 Dam­
lj anovic-B areev, Pula 1 987 and
now Black should try 22 . . . exf4 ! 23
bxc5 fxe3 , which is unclear ac­
cording to Bareev.
d2) 1 2 �b3 'it'd8 1 3 :te l 'fIc7
1 4 e4 e5 1 5 c5 ! ? �xc5 1 6 �xc5
dxc5 17 i.e3 i.e6 1 8 i.xc5 :tfd8
1 9 'ifa4 �d7 20 i.e7 :te8 2 1 i.a3
f4 ! 22 :tbc 1 �b6 23 'fIaS 1I£1 ! �
Hausner-Bjelajac, Stara Pazova
1 984.
d3) 12 b4 and again there is a
branch:
d31) 1 2 . . . :td8 1 3 b5 �b8 (or
1 3 . . . cxb5 14 cxb5 �b8 1 5 1Ib3+
'it'f7 16 �d5 ±) 14 bxc6 �xc6 1 5
i.xc6 i.xc6 1 6 �e6 'it'£1 17 �d8
:txd8 1 8 i.g5 �d7 19 �d5 ±
Browne-Shirazi, USA Ch 1 992.
d32) 12 ... :tb8 13 b5 cxb5 14
cxb5 �c5 1 5 �c6 ;to
d33) 1 2 . . . �xb4 ! ? 1 3 :txb4 c5
1 4 i.xa8 ( 1 4 :tb 1 cxd4 { 14 . . . :td8
15 �db5 'it'£1 16 'ii'd3 ±} 15 i.xa8
dxc3 gives Black compensation -
B areev) 1 4 . . . 'i!ba8 ( 1 4 . . . cxb4 ? !
1 5 i.d5+ e 6 1 6 i.xe6+ i.xe6 1 7
�cb5 ! 'it'd7 1 8 'ii' b 3 a 6 1 9 �xe6
'ii'x e6 20 �c7 'it'xe2 2 1 c5+ d5 22
�xd5 �xd5 23 'ii'x d5+ �h8 24
i.d2 ± Shabtai-Tabatadze, Biel
1 993) 15 :tb 1 cxd4 16 'ii'x d4 i.e6
with compensation - M.Gurevich.
••• 1:iJc7 (D)
White's cautious strategy makes
this even more attractive . Another
move is 1 1 . . .:tc8 and then:
a) 1 2 e3 "£1 ! ? ( 1 2 . . . �c5 1 3
i.b2 g5 14 f4 'ifg6 1 5 "'c2 �g4 1 6
'ii'd 2 'ii'h5 1 7 h 3 �f6 1 8 �de2 a5
1 9 i.a1 "it'g6 20 �h2 h5 gave
Black counterplay in Wojtkiewicz­
Ehlvest, New York 1 993) 1 3 i.b2
�c5 14 h3 ? ! ( 1 4 �de2 is equal,
Urzica-Marasescu , Calimanesti
1 9 85) 14 . . . :tfd8 15 'it'e2 �ce4 1 6
�xe4 �xe4 1 7 dxc6 bxc6 � Cal­
lergard-Bareev, Stockholm 1 987.
b) 12 e4 ! fxe4 13 �xe4 �xe4
14 i.xe4 "f7 ( 1 4 . . . �c7 is better)

I S .ig2 tbcs 1 6 .ie3 eS 1 7 dxe6
tbxe6 1 8 tbxe6 'ikxe6 1 9 'ii'd 2 ±
Khuzman-Sanz Alonso, San Se­
bastian 1 993.
W for any preparation. In the game
12 .i b2
Completing White's develop­
ment but not doing much to combat
Black's plan. Other moves:
a) 1 2 b4 eS 13 dxe6 tbxe6 14
tbb3 ( 14 e3 ! ? Tukmakov) 14 . . . tbg4
I S .ib2 tbeS 1 6 tbd2 was unclear
in Tukmakov-M.Gurevich, USSR
1 982.
b) 12 dxc6 ! ? bxc6 13 b4 eS
( l 3 . . . lIb8 ! ?) 14 tbb3 "ile7 was ana­
lysed as unclear by Tukmakov, and
the following almost forced line
seems to be in accordance with that
assessment: I S tbaS e4 1 6 .if4
tbfe8 1 7 'ifd2 gS ! 1 8 .ixgS .ixc3
19 .ixe7 .ixd2 20 .ixf8 �xf8 2 1
lIfd l .ic3 2 2 lIb3 .if6 2 3 f3 exf3
24 .ixf3 .
c) 1 2 e3 cS 1 3 tbde2 bS 14 cxbS
tt:JxbS I S tbxbS .ixbS 1 6 .ib2 "iff7
Main Line 7 :ile8 25
..
1 7 lie 1 tbe4 1 8 .ixg7 'ifxg7 1 9
lIc 1 = Adorjan-Grigorov, Prague Z
1 985.
12
••• cS
13 tbc2
1 3 tbf3 is not a better retreat:
1 3 . . . lIb8 14 tbd2 bS I S cxbS ? !
tbxbS 1 6 tbc4 gS ! 1 7 tbxbS .ixbS
18 'ikc2 f4 19 'iffS h6 20 gxf4 .id7
2 1 "ifd3 gxf4 22 e4 'ii'h S 23 f3
.ibS ! + Ryshkin-Zarubin, Lenin­
grad 1983.
13 ... b5 (D)
When possible, this move should
almost always be carried out im­
mediately. There is really no need
Hjartarson-M .Gurevich, Reykja­
vik 1 990 Black had to change his
intentions after 1 3 . . . a6 14 b4 ! b6
IS .ia1 lIb8 and White should now
have played 1 6 "ifd2 "iff7 1 7 a4
with an edge.
The game Meribanov-Avshalu­
mov, USSR 1 987 is a good exam­
ple of the flexible nature of the
Leningrad Dutch, as Black instead
changed his mind and played on
the kingside : 13 . . . gS ! ? 14 f4 "ifg6 !
I S 'ikd3 gxf4 1 6 gxf4 tbhS 1 7 e3
tbe8 1 8 tbe 1 tbef6 1 9 tbf3 tbe4,
with unclear play.
14 cxb5 tt:Jxb5
15 tt:Jxb5 .ixb5
16 �3? !
This move gives Black a free
hand on the queenside. If Black
gets time for . . . as it is the second
player who is in charge. Therefore,
26 Main Line 7. . . 'fIe8

W W

best is 1 6 b4 ! and Black has to be 16 000 as

careful not to get the inferior posi­ 17 lDxb5 .xb5
tion: 18 a4
a) 1 6 . . . .ta4 ? ! 1 7 bxcS dxcS 1 8 Already a difficult decision for
'ifc 1 ? ! ( 1 8 'ikd2 ;t) 1 8 . . . l%c8 1 9 White . It is not a very pretty move
�e3 c4 ! 20 'ifd2? d ' Amore-Kla­ but allowing Black to play . . . a4 and
sen, Reggio Emilia 1 987 and now exchange a pawn would have been
Ivkov and Skoko point out the ob­ even worse.
vious winning line 20 . . . c3 ! 2 1 18 0.. 'iVb4
.txc3 �e4 22 .txe4 .txc3 -+. 19 'iVa lDe4!
b) 16 . . . l%b8 17 bxcS dxcS 1 8 Exchanging the dark-squared
�a3 'ifd7 1 9 .teS l%b6 20 �xbS bishops so White cannot drive back
l%xbS 2 1 'ilc2 (2 1 'ild3 ! is clearly the active queen.
better for White) 2 1 . . .l%xb l 22 20 .txg7 rJ;;xg7
l%xb l �xdS 23 .txg7 �xg7 24 21 :rel .d4
"'xcS �b6 2S 1i'eS+ rJ;;f7 26 h4 ! ;t Forcing the exchange of queens
N .Nikolic-I.Markovic, Yugoslavia after which White has no active
1 987. play at all.
c) 1 6 ... l%c8 ! (D). 22 .txe4 fxe4
This move suggested by Ivkov 23 'iVb2 'iVxb2
and Skoko seems to equalise: 1 7 24 l%xb2 l%f5!? (D)
bxcS :XcS 1 8 .td4 ( 1 8 �4 .td7 =) 24 . . . l%ab8 2S l%c4 l%b4 was also
1 8 ... l%c7 19 �b4 .ta4 20 'ifd2 l%c4! good.
(20 . . . a5 ? ! 2 1 .txf6 ! .txf6 22 �c6 25 l%c4 e3
±) 2 1 .txf6 .txf6 22 l%fc l l%xc l + 26 fxe3 l%xdS
2 3 l%xc 1 'it'b8 24 �c6 'it'b6 =. 27 l%bl l%b8
 Main Line 7 WeB 27
...

W B

28 � l:td2 41 g5+ �g6

29 e4 �6 42 l:th6+ rM7
30 �e3 l:ta2 43 l:tf5+ �e7
31 e5+!? 44 l:th7+ �e8
If Black gets time to centralise 45 l:tm l:tb2
his king White would be entirely 46 �f3 l:tbxe2
without counterplay. Instead of 47 l:ta7 l:t6e3+
suffering a slow death, Larsen tries 48 �f4 l:te7
to mix things up. 49 l:taS+ �d7
31 ••• �xe5 50 l:ta7+ <ite8
32 l:te4+ �6? 51 l:thS+ rM1
Much stronger was 32 . . . �d5 ! 52 l:th7+ 117._117.
and Black should win the end-
game. 8 b3 is a very good positional
33 l:tfi+ �g5 approach. If Black plays 8 . e5 , the..

34 l:txe7 l:txb3+ sequence 9 dxe5 dxe5 1 0 e4 �c6

35 �fl l:txa4 1 1 �d5 ! has proved very annoy­
36 l:txh7 l:te4 ing. A slower strategy with 8 . . . �a6,
37 l:tdl l:te6 8 . . c6 or 8 . . . h6 has been adopted as
.

38 l:td5+ �6 well but usually White just central­

39 g4 (D) ises his pieces and plays e4 with a
White has almost created a mat­ slightly better game. My sugges­
ing net, and to escape Black has to tion is 8 . . �c6 ! , which recently has
.

allow a perpetual check. become more popular. It prepares

39 ... gS . . .e5 and exerts pressure on the
40 h4 gxh4 white centre. The reply 9 d5 would
28 Main Line 7 . 'fIe8
..
normally deter Black from doing
this, but here 9 . . . �e4 ! would be a
strong answer, as shown in the
notes to the following game.
Game 4
Neverov Malaniuk
- e5 14 dxe5 dxe5 1 5 :tad l i.e6 16
Warsaw 1992
1 d4 f5
2 �f3 �f6
3 c4 g6
4 g3 i.g7
5 i. g2 0-0
6 0-0 d6
7 � "e8
8 b3 �c6
9 �b5
This move is most frequently
seen, forcing Black to come back
with the queen. White has tried
three other moves, of which 'b' and
'c' are interesting.
a) 9 i.b2 ? ! e5 and now:
a l ) 1 0 d5 �d8 ( 1 0 . . . �e7) 1 1
:e l h6 1 2 a4 g5 1 3 c5 e4 ! + Sum­
mermatter-Vanka, Prague 1 988.
a2) 1 0 dxe5 dxe5 1 1 �d5 e4 12
�1 "ilf7 l 3 �f6+ i.xf6 14 i.xf6
"'xf6 1 5 �c2 i.e6 :j: Kutsyn­
Malaniuk, Tallinn 1 988.
b) 9 i.a3 ! ? �e4 10 �d5 ( 1 0
:c l �xc3 1 1 :txc3 f4 ! 1 2 :td3
i.g4 1 3 :d2 h6 14 d5 �5 15 i.b2
�f3+ 16 exf3 i.d7 17 i.xg7 ci;xg7
1 8 :e l :f7 = Kiselev-Makarov,
Podolsk 1 989) 1 0 . . . "'d8 1 1 e3 ( 1 1
:te l a5 1 2 e3 e6 1 3 �f4 �b4 1 4
"'e2 "'e7 1 5 � 1 c 6 1 6 f3 �f6 17
c5 dxc5 18 :txc5 �d7 1 9 :tc2 e5
20 dxe5 �xe5 2 1 �d3 �xd3 22
�xd3 :te8 23 �xb4 axb4 24 i.c 1
i.e6 = D .Gurevich-Vyzhmanavin,
Palma de Mallorca 1 989) 1 1 . . . :te8
( 1 1 . . .e6) 12 �d2 �xd2 13 'ifxd2
"'e l 'ifc8 1 7 'ifa l ;t Anastasian­
Makarov, Podolsk 1 989 .
c) 9 d5 is tempting but leaves
the diagonal wide open: 9 . . . �e4 !
1 0 :tb5 i.xal ( 1 0 . . . 'ild7 ? 1 1 dxc6
bxc6 12 �bd4 c5 1 3 �c2 :tb8 1 4
�g5 i. x a l 1 5 �xal �f6 1 6 i.b2
± Renet-Jakubiec, Clichy tt 1 993)
1 1 i.h6 i.f6 12 �xc7 'ifd8 1 3
�xa8 :te8 14 dxc6 bxc6 1 5 'ifc2
i.b7 1 6 �d2 �xd2 1 7 i.xd2
"ilxa8 1/2- 1/2 Khasin-Makarov, Rus­
sian Ch 1 989. The complications
have petered out to an equal posi­
tion.
9
... "d8 (D)
Probably the best. 9 . . ....d7 has
been played as well. The advantage
is that it leaves d8 as a retreat for
the knight, the disadvantage being
that the knight is not very fortu­
nately placed there ! 1 0 d5 �d8 1 1
i.b2 e5 1 2 dxe6 �xe6 1 3 �fd4
�c5 14 �c3 c6 1 5 'iic2 'iie 7 1 6 b4
�ce4 1 7 �xe4 fxe4 1 8 :tad 1 ;t
Vyzhmanavin-Makarov, Russian
Ch 1 989.
10 d5
1 0 i.a3 ? ! also hinders . . . e5 but
leaves the bishop badly placed:
10 . . . �e4 1 1 i.b2 (realising the
mistake but 1 1 :tc 1 was possibly
 Main Line 7 "ike8 29
...

11 liJxe5?!
After this Black has a promising
attacking position, better is 1 1 i.b2
lLlxf3+ 12 i.xf3 i.d7 1 3 lLld4 ( 1 3
lIc l c 5 1 4 lLlc3 a 6 1 5 a 3 lIc8 1 6
e 3 'it'e8 1 7 lLle2 g 5 1 8 b4 b 6 1 9
i.g2 'it'g6 = Magerramov-Vyzh­
manavin, Moscow PCA rpd 1 994)
1 3 . . . "ife8 ( 1 3 . . . lIc8 14 lIe l c6 1 5
"ifd2 "ifb6 1 6 "ife3 lIfe8 1 7 i. a 1 ;!;
B aburin-Vyzhmanavin, Helsinki
W 1 992) 14 'ii'd 3 c6 1 5 lIab l h5 ! ? 1 6
i.g2 lIc8 1 7 dxc6 bxc6 1 8 lLlf3
better) 1 1 . . .h6 1 2 e3 'it>h7 1 3 lIc l lLle4 19 i.xg7 c;itxg7 20 b4 "ifn 2 1
i.d7 14 lLlc3 lLlxc3 1 5 i.xc3 e5 1 6 lIfc 1 'iff6 2 2 h4 lIcd8 2 3 'ife3 ;!;
d5 lLle7 1 7 lLle i g 5 1 8 f4 lLlg6 1 9 '12-'12 Dzhandzhgava-Ioseliani, Tbi­
lLld3 "ife7 2 0 "ifd2 lIae8 + Bud­ lisi 199 1 .
nikov-Vyzhmanavin, USSR Ch 11 dxeS
199 1 . 12 i.b2 86
1 0 ... lLleS 13 lLla3 e4
If the resulting positions are not 14 f3 exf3
to your liking, then 1O . . . lLla5 ! ? is 15 exf3 f4!
an excellent alternative : 1 1 i.b2 c5 16 lIel lLlhS!
(this structure is known from the 17 i.xg7 lLlxg7
King's Indian ; the only difference 18 'ifd4
is that Black's pawn is here on f5) 1 8 g4 e6 =.
1 2 lLlc3 a6 1 3 "ifc2 lIb8 14 e4? 18••• fxg3! ?
(better is 14 a4 i.d7 1 5 lIa3 ! ? in­ Going i n for complications. Ac­
tending to meet 1 5 . . . b5 with 1 6 cording to Malaniuk 1 8 . . . e6 1 9 g4
axb5 axb5 1 7 lIfa 1 ) 1 4 . . .b 5 1 5 e5 'ifd6 20 lLlc2 exd5 21 'ifxd5+ 'ifxd5
lLlh5 1 6 lLld l ? ! bxc4 17 i.c3 ? (un­ 22 cxd5 is a cleaner way of equalis-
derstandably White did not like 1 7 ing.
bxc4 lIxb2 1 8 "ii'xb2 lLlxc4 19 "ife2 19 hxg3 'ifd6
lLlxe5 with more than enough com­ 20 c5 'ifxg3
pensation for Black, but the text 21 lIxe7 lLlfs
move is even worse) 17 . . . cxb3 1 8 22 'ii'eS 'ifh4!
axb3 lLlxb3 1 9 lIbl (Fokin-Maka­ 22 . . . 'ibe5 23 lIxe5 i.d7 24
roy, Russian Ch 1 989) 1 9 . . . lLld4 ! lIae l would be good for White be­
and Black wins. cause of his very active position.
30 Main Line 7 WeB
. ..

23 :xc7 26 ... fiJe2+

Nor does anything good come 27 c,tn :xf3+! (D)
from 23 d6 fiJxe7 24 dxe7 :e8 25
:e l h6 ! 26 f4 .i.h3 and the e-pawn
is effectively stopped.
23 ••• .i.d7! (D)

28 .i.xf3 'iht3+
29 .i.g2
w White cannot run away, for ex­
ample 29 �el fiJd4+ 30 �d2 fiJxf3+
This brilliant piece sacrifice is 3 1 �c3 fiJe l + 32 �c4 1i'd3+ 3 3
possible because White's king is so � b4 fiJxc2+ wins.
exposed. 29 •••

24 :xd7? 30 �e1
White should probably have de­ 31 'ii1'2
clined: 24 fiJc2 :ae8 25 'ifh2 :e2 3 1 fiJe3 fiJd3+ 32 �d2 'it'f2+ 33
26 'it'xh4 fiJxh4 27 fiJe l fiJxg2 28 �xd3 :xe3+ 34 �c4 'it'xb2 wins
fiJxg2 .i.h3 29 fiJe l g5 30 d6 :d2 for Black.
and now either 3 1 :c l g4 32 :c2 31 •.• fiJd3+
or 3 1 :e7 g4 32 :e3 is unclear. 32 �gl fiJxb2
24••• :ae8 33 c6 :e2
2S -"'2 fiJd4 34 fiJe3 'iff2+
White has a large material ad­ 3S �h1 l:xe3
vantage but all Black's pieces are 36 cxb7
directed against the king. 36 c7 'it'h4+ 37 �gl 'it'd4 3 8
26 fiJc2 �h l :c3 39 :d8+ �g7 4 0 c8'it'
26 �f1 is another way to stop :xc8 41 :xc8 fiJd I ! 42 :ac 1
. . . :e2 but then 26 . . . :e3 quickly fiJf2+ 43 �h2 fiJg4+ 44 �h3 fiJe3
finishes off. is also winning.
 Main Line 7...'iie8 31

36 l:e8 The move S l:e l was quite

37 l:c1 'iVh4+ popular in the late 1 9S0s and it be­
38 �g1 'tWd4+ came the pet line of the Hungarian
39 �h1 (D) grandmasters Lukacs and Farago.
Their contributions to this line are
immense and for some time it gave
Black an headache. Nowadays, it is
not regarded as very dangerous,
but the unwary can easily be
caught out and obtain a bad posi­
tion. In particular the gambit line 9
tLlg5 ! ? needs to be studied.

Game 5
Neverov - M.Gurevich
Baku 1986
B
1 d4 f5
39 ... 'iVh4+ 2 tLlf3 tLlf6
39 . . . 'i!lg4 ! was a little easier, 3 g3 g6
White can choose from two hope­ 4 i.g2 i. g7
less lines: 5 0-0 0-0
a) 40 bS'i!I l:xbS 41 l:cc7 6 c4 d6
'ifh4+ 42 c;t>g l l:eS -+. 7 tLlc3 'i¥e8
b) 40 l:dc7 'i!lh4+ 41 �gl 8 l:e1 'tWf7
l:e 1 + winning. 9 tLlg5!? 'tWxc4
40 �g1 'tWd4+ 10 i.f1 (D)
41 �h1 tLld3 This is a very critical point in the
42 l:c8 tLlf2+ S l:e l line. Black has to choose a
43 �h2 tLlg4+ square for the queen very carefully.
44 �h3 'tWe3+ 10 ... 'tWc6
45 'iti>xg4 h5+ Not the only option. Two more
46 �h4 'tWf4+ moves have been tried and particu­
47 �h3 'tWg4+ larly line 'b' deserves attention.
48 �h2 'tWxd7 a) 1O ...fib4 1 1 a3 'iib6 (in Khuz­
Amazingly White has avoided man- Vyzhmanavin Black decided
being mated but at too great a ma­ to provoke b4 but was hot success­
terial investment. ful in his experiment: 1 1 . . :ii'a5 1 2
0-1 b4 fib6 1 3 fib3+ d5 14 e4 fxe4 1 5
32 Main Line 7... 'ile8

12 'ifb3+? ! dS 13 ':xe4? lDxe4

1 4 lDxdS �h8 IS .tbS lDxgS ! 1 6
.txc6 lDh3+ 1 7 �f1 ':xf2+ 1 8
'ite l lDxc6 - + Hofman-Lutz, Ost­
end 1 992.
12 1fb6
13 .tc4+ �h8
14 M+ ':xt7
IS .txt7 .tfS
As in the to . . . 'ii'b4 line B lack
could consider I S . . . .tg4 ! ?
B 1 6 .te3 c6
1 6 . . . lDbd7 ! ? has been suggested
lDxdS lDxdS 1 6 "'xdS+ e6 1 7 by M.Gurevich.
"'xe4 "'xd4 1 8 ':a2 with a n edge) 17 dS! "a6
12 e4 fxe4 1 3 .tc4+ �h8 14 lDf7+ 18 .td4 lDbd7
':xf7 I S .txf7 .tg4 1 6 "'a4 .td7 19 .te6 ':18
( 1 6 . . ....c6 ! ?) 1 7 "'c4 lDc6 1 8 .te3 20 .t xd7 .txd7
':f8 19 b4 was played in Petursson­ 21 lDxe4 lDxdS
Viilkesalmi, Nordic Ch (Torshavn) 22 .txg7+ �xg7
1 9 87 and now Black could have 23 1Dc3 (D)
complicated matters by 19 . . . lDd8 !
20 dS "'a6 2 1 bS (2 1 "'xa6 bxa6 22
.te6 .txe6 23 dxe6 lDxe6 with com­
pensation) 2 1 . . ....aS 22 .te6 lDxe6
23 dxe6 dS, with unclear play.
b) 1 O . . . 'ith8 ! ? 1 1 dS "'cS 1 2
.te3 "'a5 1 3 a3 c6 14 b4 "d8 I S
dxc6 lDxc6 1 6 'ii'b 3 lDg4 ! turned
out very well for Black in Khuz­
man-Malaniuk, USSR tt 1 986 but
Christiansen and Silman ' s sugges­
tion 1 1 e4 "'g8 12 eS ! ? is more
testing. B
11 e4
1 1 'ii' b 3+ ! ? dS 12 .tf4 is a sug­ 23••• ':t7? !
gestion of Neverov. More active was 2 3 . . . eS ! 24
11 fxe4 lDxdS cxdS 2S 'ii'x dS ':f6 intend­
12 .tbS ing . . . .tc6, with compensation.
 Main Line 7... "iie8 33

24 liJxdS cxdS 43 ••• .tdS? !

25 'it'xdS ""6 To frustrate White 's plan Black
26 'it'd2 .tc6 could try 43 . . . f5 but this would al-
27 l:te3 low White to penetrate with the
White is an exchange up but king after 44 h4 g4 45 fxg4 fxg4 46
must be very careful because of the �f4. Anyway, that would probably
weak light squares. This gives Black have been preferable to the game
some compensation but the back- continuation.
ward e-pawn is a problem. 44 a3 .tc6
27 ... 'it'bS? ! 45 h4 q;e7
Better was 27...'ii'c5 intending to 46 hxgS fxgS
meet 28 l:tae l with 28 . . . q; f8. 47 l:td2 q;e6
28 l:tae1 'it'gS 48 f4 dS
29 'it'd4+ 'it'f6 49 fxgS eMs
30 'it'xf6+ exf6 SO g6 <itxg6
31 l:te6 l:td7 51 �4 �f6
32 l:te7+ 52 l:te2
Now it is clear that White should Black cannot avoid losing one of
win in the long run. his pawns.
32 �f8 52 <M1
33 l:txd7 .txd7 53 l:teS d4
34 f3 �r7 54 l:txhS �e6
35 <itf2 .tc6 55 g4 1-0
36 l:te3 a6
37 �e2 gS Game 6
38 q;d3 q;g6 A.Shneider - Bareev
39 q;d4 hS USSR Ch (Leningrad) 1990
40 l:td3 Q;fS
41 �e3! 1 d4 fS
The king has no future on the 2 c4 liJf6
queenside and should be used to 3 g3 d6
defend f3, so releasing the rook. 4 00 g6
41 Q;eS 5 .tgl .tg7
42 l:td2 �e6 6 0-0 0-0
43 l:td4 7 lLlc3 'it'e8
The easiest way to win is to 8 l:te1 'ikr7 (D)
make a passed pawn. That needs a 9 b3
two-step plan: playing h4 followed If White is not prepared to enter
by hxg5 and after that playing f4. the gambit line . seen in the previous
34 Main Line 7... 'ile8
W :c8, Farago-Malaniuk, Forli 1 99 1 ,
game, there are two ways to defend
c4. The choice is a matter of taste, I
think.
9 "'d3 apparently stops . . . �e4
but the queen cannot feel safe on
d3 ; it can easily be harassed by a
knight, or if Black successfully
carries through . . . e5 it will tum out
to be a very unfortunate square. In
practice three different moves have
been tested:
a) 9 . . . �c6 ! ? (utilising the draw­
back of 9 "'d3 but the black queen
is not safe either) 1 0 �g5 with the
alternatives :
a l ) 1 O . . ....e8 1 1 �d5 ( 1 1 �b5 ! ?
'ifd8 1 2 d5 �e5 1 3 "'c2 h6 14 �f3
i.d7 1 5 �bd4 c5 1 6 dxc6 �xc6 17
b3 �g4 18 i.b2 ;!;; Farago-Dao,
Budapest 1 993) 1 1 . . . lh�d5 1 2 cxd5
�d8 ( 1 2 . . . �b4 1 3 'iWc4 ± Lukacs­
Espig, Leipzig 1 986) 13 "'c4 h6 14
�f3 b5 ! ? 15 "'xc7 i.b7 16 �d2
i.xd4 1 7 �b3 i.g7 1 8 "'c2 e6 1 9
i.e3 'if n 2 0 "'d2 g 5 (Lukacs-Py­
bala, Espoo 1 987) and now White
should play 2 1 f4 ! ;!;; according to
Liogky and Moskalenko.
a2) 1O . . . �b4 1 1 �xn ti)xd3 1 2
�h6+ i.xh6 1 3 exd3 i.xc 1 1 4
:axc 1 e 6 allows White a slight in­
itiative but the endgame should be
about equal. Practice has seen:
a2 1) 1 5 f4 c6 ! ? ( 1 5 ...:e8 16 �b5
:e7 17 d5 , as given by Liogky and
Moskalenko, and 1 5 . . . :n 1 6 :e2
Citf8 17 :ce l c6 18 b4 i.d7 19 b5
are better for White) 1 6 d5 exd5 1 7
cxd5 i.d7 1 8 d4 :fe8 = Miralles­
Gaiik, Cannes 1 988.
a22) 1 5 c5 d5 1 6 c6 b6 ! = Nev­
erov-Liogky, USSR 1 987.
b) 9 . . . �e4 ! ? Anyway ! An ob­
scure game shows that this needs
further testing: 1 0 a3 �c6 1 1 d5
�xc3 12 dxc6 �e4 13 �g5 �g5
14 cxb7 i.xb7 15 i.xb7 :ab8 1 6
i.g2 �e4 1 7 :bl a5 1 8 :n �c5
19 'ifc2 �b3 20 i.e3 c5 and
Black's active position compen­
sates for White 's pair of bishops;
Marttinen-Aulaskari, Corr. 1985.
c) 9 ... h6 is Black's most popu­
lar choice. After 10 b3 ( 1 0 d5 e5
1 1 dxe6 i.xe6 12 c5 �c6 1 3 cxd6
:ad8 14 "'c2 :xd6 gave Black
very comfortable equality in the
game Kotronias-Casper, Moscow
1 987) 1O . . . �c6 White has several
options:
c l ) 1 1 i.b2 e5 12 dxe5 dxe5 1 3
e4 ! i.e6 ( 1 3 . . . fxe4 1 4 �xe4 �xe4
1 5 "'xe4 i.f5 1 6 "'d5 i.e6 1 7 "'e4
i.f5 =) 14 :ad l :ad8 1 5 "'e2 �d4

1 6 lDxd4 exd4 1 7 exfS .txfS 1 8
lDdS was unclear in Hamann-Yr­
joUi, Copenhagen 1 987.
c2) 1 1 .ta3 lDe4 ( 1 l . . . aS ! ? 1 2
lDbS lDe8 1 3 lIad l lDb4 1 4 'ilb l
c6 I s lDc3 eS 16 dxeS dxeS 17 .tb2
= Neverov-Vasiukov, Voskresensk
1 990) 12 lIad l (other moves should
not bother Black: 1 2 lDxe4 fxe4 1 3
"xe4 lDxd4 1 4 lDxd4 "xf2+ I S
�h l "'xd4 1 6 "xe7 .tfS 1 7 'ilxc7
.te4 gives Black a dangerous at­
tack according to Dokhoian and
Piskov; 1 2 lDbS e6 1 3 lIad l lIe8 14
dS lDd8 IS lDd2 a6 1 6 lDd4 exdS
1 7 cxdS with an unclear game;
Farago-YrjoUi, Judenburg 1 987)
12 . . . lDxc3 13 "xc3 with a further
branch:
c2 1 ) 1 3 . . . gS ? ! 14 e3 f4? ! I S
exf4 g4 ( 1 S . . . gxf4 1 6 lIe4 ! fxg3 1 7
fxg3 e S 1 8 dxeS .tfS 1 9 lIf4 dxeS
20 lIxfS "xfS 2 1 .txf8 lIxf8 22
'ii'e 3 ±) 16 lDh4 lDxd4 17 "e3 !
lDc2 1 8 "xe7 c6 ! ? ( 1 8 . . ...xe7 1 9
:Xe7 lDxa3 20 .td5+ �h7 2 1 .te4+
..tg8 22 :Xc7 ! ± Lukacs) 1 9 "xf7+
�xf7 20 .txd6 lDxe l 2 1 :Xe l lId8
22 cS ± Lukacs-Van Mil, Copenha­
gen 1 987.
c22) 13 . . . eS 1 4 dxeS lDxeS I S
lDd4 ! ;!; Lukacs.
c23) 13 . . . lIe8 14 e4 ! ? eS I S
dxeS dxeS 1 6 exfS gxfS 1 7 "e3 is
unclear according to Lukacs.
c24) 1 3 . . . f4 ! 14 "d2 .tg4 (the
alternative 14 . . . gS ! ? is suggested
by Dokhoian and Piskov) IS dS
lDeS 1 6 "xf4 "xf4 17 gxf4 .txf3
Main Line 7 'ile8 35
...
1 8 fxeS .txg2 1 9 �xg2 .txeS =
Dokhoian-Malaniuk, Sverdlovsk
1 987.
Now we return to the main line
after 9 b3 (D).
B
9 ••• lDe4
Exploiting that White has weak­
ened f2 but a major alternative is
9 . . . h6 10 .tb2 gS 1 1 e4 ( 1 1 e3 c6
12 "c2 lDa6 13 lIad l .td7 14
lDeS ! ? dxeS IS dxeS lDg4 1 6 lIxd7
lDxeS 1 7 lId2 g4 was unclear in
the game Pfibyl-Bagaturov, Brno
1 99 1 ) 1 1 . .. fxe4 1 2 lDxe4 and now:
a) 1 2 . . . .tfS 1 3 lDxf6+ 'ii'xf6 14
lIe3 ! (this is White 's ideal set-up)
14 . . . lDa6? ! IS .tc3 lIf7 16 "e2
lIaf8 1 7 lIe l ± B eliavsky-B areev,
Moscow 1 990.
b) 12 . . .lDxe4 13 lIxe4 lDc6 1 4
"'d2 e6 1 S lIael d5 1 6 l14e2 .td7 17
h4 g4 1 8 1Dh2 ± Mageqamov-Vyz­
hmanavin, Balatonbereny 1 989.
c) 12 ... c6 13 "d2 lDa6 1 4 h4
.tfS I S lDxf6+ ( 1 S lDc3 ? ! is too
36 Main Line 7 .'fle8..

passive. Black replies strongly with 16 .txc6!

I S . . . g4 1 6 lilh2 lilb4 ! 17 lLle4 lild3 ! Giving up the strong bishop to
and the complications favoured damage the black pawn structure .
Black in Ruban-Malaniuk, Sibenik 16
••• bxc6
1 990) I S . . . exf6 1 6 :e3 :fe8 1 7 This is an automatic reply but
:ae 1 :xe3 1 8 :xe3 :e8 = Pigu­ 16 . . . 'it'xgS ! is probably better: 1 7
sov-Malaniuk, Moscow 1990. .tg2 e 4 1 8 .txg7+ ct>xg7 1 9 1i'd4+
d) 1 2 . . . g4 13 lilfd2 lDxe4 1 4 1i'f6 with equality; M.Hoffmann­
lLlxe4 lilc6 I S 1i'd2 i; Magerramov. Kindennann, Lippstadt 1 993.
10 .tb2 lilc6 17 f4 :e8
It is virtually a rule of thumb that 1 7 . . . .tf6 1 8 lilf3 ! e4 1 9 1i'e3
if White cannot answer this move .tb7 20 :ad l was slightly better
with dS, it should be played. Alter­ for White in the game Szekely­
natives are : Touzane, Budapest 1 992.
a) 1O ... lila6 ? ! 1 1 'iWc2 lilxc3 12 18 'iWe3
.txc3 c6 13 e4 ! fxe4 ( 1 3 ... h6? ! 14 1 8 lilf3 ! ? is worthy of attention
lilh4 ! ± Lukacs-Schroll, Kecske­ according to Bareev.
met 1 99 1 or 1 3 . . . f4 14 eS .tg4 I S 18 ... exf4! (D)
lilgS ±) 1 4 'it'xe4 .tf6 I S 1i'e3 ± Only this move holds the bal­
Lukacs. ance. 1 8 . . . e4 1 9 .txg7+ ct>xg7 20
b) 1O . . . cS ! ? 1 1 'it'd3 lilc6 1 2 :ed 1 is better for White.
lilxe4 fxe4 1 3 'it'xe4 cxd4 was un­
clear in Chabanon-M.Hoffmann,
Lippstadt 1 99 1 .
1 1 'iWd3
Other moves do not promise
anything:
a) 1 1 :c 1 h6 1 2 :n lilxc3 1 3
.txc3 e S = Gavrikov-Malaniuk ,
USSR Ch 1 986.
b) 1 1 e3 eS 12 :c l lilxc3 1 3
.txc3 e4 14 lild2 as ! I S a3 .td7 1 6
b4 axb4 1 7 axb4 bS ! = Hulak-Bar-
eev, Marseilles 1990. W
11 lilxc3
12 .txc3 eS 19 .txg7+ ct>xg7
13 dxeS dxeS 20 'iWxe7+ :xe7
14 lilgS 'fIe7 21 gxf4 cS
15 .tdS+ ct>h8 22 ffi .tb7
 Main Line 7 WeB 37
...

23 lbe5 g5! the black a-pawn: 30 bxa4 :e6 ! 3 1

24 e3? ! as .ta6 (3 1 . . .:h6 32 lbf2) 32 lbb2
After this, Black seizes the in­ :h6 33 h4 gxh3 34 �h2 �f7 and
itiative. 24 lbd3 gxf4 25 lbxf4 :d8 although Black is clearly better, it
26 :ad 1 :d4 ! was better, with was to be preferred.
chances for both sides. 30 gxh3
24••• : d8! 31 �xh3 a3! (D)
2S �f2
If 25 :ad 1 then Black replies
25 . . . :d6 ! , keeping control of the d­
file and opening up the possibility
of swinging the rook to the king­
side or the queenside.
25 ... g4! (D)

We have reached a very fine ex­

ample of a strong bishop vs bad
knight endgame.
32 M :e6
33 �h2 :g6?
w After 33 . . . �f7 ! White has no
counterplay.
26 :adl :d6 34 e4
27 :xd6 Of course White should not have
What else? 27 . . . :h6 was a big had this chance.
threat. 34
••• �r6? !
27 cxd6 A mistake but Bareev was prob­
28 lbd3 as ably worried about White holding
29 �g3 a4 endgames like 34 . . . fxe4 35 lbxe4
30 h3? .txe4 36 :xe4 �f7 37 :e3 or
It is understandable that White 34 . . . �f7 35 �h3 .t xe4 36 lbxe4
is eager to exchange this pawn but fxe4 37 :xe4 :e6 38 :xe6 �xe6
it was more important to eliminate 39 �g4 �f6 40 f5 h6 41 �h5 �xf5
38 Main Line 7. . . 'fIe8

42 �xh6 �e4 43 �gS �d3 44 �f4 8 lDdS is a strange move. White

�c2 4S �e3 �b2 46 �d3 �xa2 47 accepts a doubled pawn that ap-
�c2. parently blocks the bishop on g2,
35 e5 + �e6 but pressure on the half-open c-file
3S . . . dxeS 36 fxeS+ �e7 37 lDd3 and the control of the important
:g2+ 38 �h3 :xa2 39 lDxcs is squares e6 and c6 outweigh this
unclear. disadvantage.
36 exd6+ �xd6
37 :dl+ �c7 Game 7
38 :gl :h6+ Groszpeter - M.Gurevich
39 �g3 :e6 Palma de Mallorca 1 989
40 �h4?
After this move White is lost; 1 d4 f5
the only chance was 40 :d l ! :e2 2 g3 1Df6
4 1 lDd3 :xa2 42 lDxcs with coun- 3 .tg2 g6
terplay. 4 liJf3 .t g7
40
••• :e2 5 c4 0-0
41 lDdl 6 0-0 d6
Now 4 1 lDd3 does not help be- 7 1Dc3 'iWe8
cause of 4 1 . . .:xa2 42 lDxcs :h2+ 8 lDd5 lDxd5
43 �g3 :h l 44 :xh l .txh l 4S b4 8 . . . lDa6 ? ! is inferior. White has
.te4 winning. two different ways to obtain an ad-
41 : c2 ! vantage:
42 �g5 .te4 a) 9 .tgS c6 10 lDxf6+ .txf6 1 1
43 �f6 �b6 .th6 .tg7 1 2 .txg7 �xg7 1 3 'ifd2
44 lDe3 :xa2 'iff7 14 :ac l "'f6 I S dS cS 1 6
45 lDxf5 :g2 :fe 1 h6 1 7 e4 fxe4 1 8 :xe4 .tfS
46 :al .txf5 1 9 :e3 ± Knezevic-Remon, Ha-
47 �xf5 a2 vana 1 986.
48 �e4 �a5 b) 9 lDxf6+ .txf6 10 .th6 .tg7
49 �f3 :b2 1 1 'iVd2 c6 1 2 b4 lDc7 1 3 .txg7
50 f5 �b4 �xg7 14 dS ! ;t intending :fe l and
51 f6 �a3 e4; Uhlmann-Banas, Stary Smok-
52 f7 :xb3+ ovec 1985 .
53 �e4 :b8 9 adS 'iWb5
54 :n �b2 Theory considers this move to
55 :f2+ �b3 be Black's best but it is not entirely
56 :n :f8 clear if it is better than 9 . . . c6 which
0-1 will remove the annoying pawn

on dS . After 9 . . . c6 (D) White has
two different approaches:
W which did not give Black enough
a) 1 0 dxc6 bxc6 1 1 dS ! ( 1 1 lIe l
ltld7 1 2 e4 fxe4 1 3 ltlgS ltlf6 14
ltlxe4 ltlxe4 I S i.xe4 i.d7 16 i.gS,
Ortega-Remon, Havana 1 986, and
now 1 6 .. .'ii' n would have given
Black a good position) l 1 . . .cS 1 2
e4 ! (better than 1 2 ltlgS ltla6 1 3
ltle6 i.xe6 1 4 dxe6 lIb8 I S "'d3
'ifc8 and the pawn on e6 is, as in
many cases, difficult to defend)
1 2 . . . fxe4 1 3 ltlgS h6 ( 1 3 . . . ltla6 is
met by 1 4 i.xe4 intending ltlxh7)
14 ltlxe4 ltld7 IS i.d2 'ifn 16 i.c3
lIb8 17 "'d2 ltleS ( 1 7 . . . ltlf6 keeps
the balance) 1 8 f4 ltlc4 19 'ife2
ltlb6 20 lIad 1 i.fS 2 1 g4 ± Sem­
kov-Grivas, Plovdiv 1 988.
b) 1 0 'ifb3 and now:
b 1 ) 1O . . . �h8 ! ? 1 1 ltlgS ltla6 1 2
dxc6 bxc6 1 3 'ifa4 (temporarily
very annoying but Black is able to
regroup) 1 3 . . . ltlb8 ! 1 4 dS h6 I S
"'h4? ! (it was better to remove the
Main Line 7 :fie8 39
. .
knight, e.g. l S ltle6 i.xe6 1 6 dxe6
dS or I S ltlh3 cS 1 6 "'c2 gS 1 7 f4
g4 1 8 ltlf2 ltla6 - Ivkov, Skoko ­
in both cases with unclear play)
lS . . . �g8 1 6 ltle6 i.xe6 17 dxe6 gS
=+= Uhlmann-S .Grtinberg, Kecske­
met 1 984.
b2) 10 . . . cxdS 1 1 "'xdS+ �h8
12 i.d2 ltlc6 1 3 i.c3 ltld8 ! (in his
notes to Hj artarson-Beliavsky,
Szirak IZ 1 987, Hj artarson men­
tions this as an improvement over
1 3 . . . i.d7 ? ! 14 "'b3 eS I S dxeS
dxeS 1 6 "'xb7 lIb8 1 7 'ifc7 ±,
compensation for his pawn, but
1 3 . . . f4 ! ? was another move worth
considering) 14 "'b3 eS I S dxeS
dxeS 16 e3 and Hj artarson consid­
ers the position equal.
10 It!el (D)
We will look at the more aggres­
sive 10 ltlgS in the next game. An­
other possibility is 1 0 e4 fxe4 1 1
ltlgS c6 1 2 ltlxe4:
a) 12 . . ....b6 1 3 "'e2 ( 1 3 dxc6
bxc6 14 dS cS IS i.gS lin 16 lIbl
as 17 i.d2 i.fS with unclear play ;
Mastrokoukos-Y rjoUi, Komotini
1 992) 1 3 . . ....a6 14 "xa6 ltlxa6 1 S
dxc6 bxc6 1 6 d S c S 1 7 a 3 lIb8 =+=
Ginsberg-Bareev, Nrestved 1 988.
b) 1 2 . . ....c4 13 i.e3 i.fS 1 4 a4
as I S lIe l "'b4 1 6 b3 lIa6 1 7 lie 1
�h8 1 8 ltld2 cxdS 1 9 i.xdS ±
Linen Bueno-Georgadze, Malaga
1 99 1 .
c) 1 2 . . . i.fS 1 3 i.e3 cxdS 14
ltlc3 "d7 I S ltlxdS ltlc6 1 6 ltlb4
40 Main Line 7... 'fIeB
lLlxb4 1 7 'ifb3+ �h8 1 8 'ifxb4 ;t
Groszpeter-Dao, Budapest 1 993.
d) Black can try 1 2 . . . lLla6.
B c 1 ) 1 1 a4 'ifb6 12 e3 ( 1 2 .i.e3
10 ••• c6
Or:
a) 1 0 . . . lLla6 is a reasonable al­
ternative. White has tried:
a l ) 1 1 a4 ! ? 'it'b6 (returning to
e8 does not look logical: 1 1 . . .tWe8
1 2 .i.e3 cS 1 3 dxc6 bxc6 14 l:c 1
.i.d7 I S 'ifb3+ with an edge for
White; Petursson-YrjOlii, Gausdal
1 987) 1 2 .i.e3 lLlb4 ( l 2 . . . tWxb2? !
1 3 lLld3 'ii'c 3 1 4 l:c 1 'ifa3 I S 'it'c2
lLlb4 1 6 lLlxb4 'ifxb4 17 l:b l tWaS
1 8 .i.d2 'ifa6 19 e3 ±) 13 lLld3 lLlxd3
14 'ifxd3 as I S l:fc l .i.d7 Dautov­
Liogky, USSR 1 987. Dautov now
suggests 1 6 l:c3 ! l:fc8 1 7 h4 'ifa6
1 8 'it'd2 bS 1 9 .i.h6 ;to
a2) 1 1 e3 cS ! ? (a worthy alter­
native is 1 1 . . . .i.d7 1 2 lLld3 cS ! 1 3
dxc6 .i.xc6 14 .i.xc6 bxc6 I S
tWb3+ l:f7 1 6 'it'xbS cxbS 1 7 .i.d2
eS = B alashov-Malaniuk, USSR
Ch 1 986) 1 2 dxc6 bxc6 13 lLld3
l:b8 14 'ii'c 2 cS :j: Bjerke-Yrjolii,
Gausdal 1987.
b) Another familiar idea is
1 O ... 'ii' b 6 but White is better after
1 1 e3 ( 1 1 .i.e3 ! ? 'it'xb2 1 2 lLld3
'ii'a 3 13 'it'c2 c6 is unclear) 1 1 . . .c6
12 lLld3 cxdS ( 1 2 . . . .i.d7 13 .i.d2
lLla6 14 'it'b3 ;t is mentioned by
Chekhov and Ragozin) 1 3 .i.xdS+
e6 14 .i.b3 , Dautov-E.Ragozin,
USSR 1 986.
c) Ma1aniuk's move 10 . . . aS !
may be Black's best. Practice has
seen:
lLla6 13 'ii'd2 .i.d7 1 4 lLlc2 cS I S
dxcs lLlxcs 1 6 l:tb1 l:fc8 1 7 'it'd l
l:c7 1 8 l:a2 l:ac8 1 9 b3 .i.e8 20
lLla3 'ii'a6 2 1 l:c2 b6 gives Black a
slight advantage; Dumitrache-Mal­
aniuk, USSR 1 988) 1 2 . . . lLla6 1 3
lLld3 c S 1 4 dxc6 bxc6 I S 'ifc2 .i.d7
1 6 .i.d2 l:ab8 17 l:ab 1 cS = Sem­
kov - Santo-Roman, Cannes 1989.
c2) 1 1 e3 a4 ( l 1 . . .c6 ! ? M.Gure­
vich) 1 2 lLlc2 c6 (for 1 2 . . . lLla6 see
l 1 lLlc2) 1 3 lLla3 "'b6 14 b3 cxdS
I S .i.xdS+ e6 16 .i.f3 axb3 (D).
Now 1 7 axb3 "'d8 1 8 .i.b2 dS
gave Black a fine game in Lputian­
Malaniuk, Simferopol 1 988 but
White can consider 17 l:bl ! ? with
the point 17 . . . bxa2 ? 1 8 l:xb6 al 'if
1 9 'ifb3 ±.
c3) 1 1 lLlc2 lLla6 ( 1 1 . . .c6 12 a4
'ii'b6 1 3 l:a3 cxdS 14 .i.xdS+ e6 I S
.i.c4 dS 1 6 l:b3 'ifd8 17 .i.bS .i.d7
1 8 .i.f4 lLlc6 = Utemov-Makarov,
 Main Line 7 'ile8 41
. . .

13 as ""'5
The queen is actively attacking
the centre and White finds nothing
better than offering an exchange
with . . .
1 4 'iid3 .td7
15 dxc6? !
I t was better to exchange queens
at once, e.g. 15 'ii'xb5 cxb5 16 tDd3
followed by .td2 and %lae I .
15
••• .txc6
W 16 .td2 e5! (D)

USSR 1 989) 12 e3 a4 1 3 tDa3 We8

1 4 .td2 .td7 1 5 %le I "iln 1 6 'ii'e2
%lfc8 1 7 %lc4 %lab8 1 8 %lfe I e6 ! =
Groszpeter-Glek, Berlin 1 989.
11 a4
Black is slightly lacking in de­
velopment, so White is not advised
to play 1 1 dxc6 as in this case it
only helps Black to develop the rest
of his pieces: 1 1 . . .tDxc6 12 d5 tDe5
13 tDc2 .td7 14 tDd4 'ii'b6 15 .tg5
( 1 5 .te3 ! ? Cvetkovic) 15 . . . tDc4 ! 1 6 W
tDe6 .txe6 1 7 dxe6 %lfe8 1 8 'it'd5
%lac8 19 %lae I %lc5 20 'it'xb7 'it'xb7 This is the problem with White's
2 1 .txb7 Engelkes-Meulders, Neth­ 1 5th move.
erlands 1 988 and Black could now 17 .txc6 bxc6
have achieved the better game with 18 dxe5 dxe5
2 1 . . . .txb2 22 %lc2 .ta3 . 19 .tc3 %lfd8
11
••. ""'6 20 'ii'xb5 cxb5
This is better than 1 1 . . ....a6? ! , 21 00 %ld5!
which allows White to push the 22 %lfdl %lad8
queen around: 1 2 tDc2 e6 1 3 dxe6 23 %lxd5 %lxd5
.txe6 14 d5 .tn 1 5 tDb4 'ilb6 1 6 24 b4
dxc6 tDxc6 1 7 tDd5 ± Isaev-Gal­ The many exchanges have fa­
dunts, Podolsk 1 990. voured Black. Due to the menacing
12 e3 tDa6 threat of . . . b4, this ugly move is
42 Main Line 7. . . 1Ie8

practically forced. However, the Game S

chronic weakness on b4 gives Black Stohl - Topalov
a more or less winning endgame. Burgas 1 992
24 i.f6
25 :ct � 1 l£jf3 f5
26 ci>n ci>e6 2 g3 l£jf6
27 ci>e2 :d7 3 i.g2 g6
Black has succeeded in freeing 4 0-0 i. g7
his rook, and it is now transferred 5 d4 0-0
to the c-file. This will make an ex­ 6 c4 d6
change of rooks unavoidable, clari­ 7 l£Jc3 'it'e8
fying Black's advantage. 8 liJd5 l£Jxd5
28 i.d2 :c7 9 adS ""5
29 :xc7 liJxc7 10 liJg5 (D)
30 &£jel e4
31 f3 ci>d5
32 fxe4+ fxe4
33 liJg2 �c4
34 liJf4 i.e7
35 h4 i.xb4
36 h5 gxh5
37 liJxh5 liJd5
38 g4 i.d6
39 g5 i.e7
40 liJg3 i.xg5
41 liJxe4 i.e7
The game is over. Black's passed B
b-pawn will easily promote.
42 i.el i.b4 Due to a crushing victory of
43 i.xb4 ci>xb4 Khalifman's against Piskov in the
44 �d3 �xa5 Bundesliga, this move enjoyed
45 ci>d4 liJe7 great popUlarity in the early 1 990s,
46 liJf6 h6 but Black has found several im­
47 e4 b4 provements, and it is now out of
48 �c4 ci>a4 fashion again.
49 e5 b3 10 ... h6!
50 liJe4 b2 This is now considered best.
51 liJd2 �a3 Black threatens the knight and
0-1 forces White to decide whether he

wants to move back (claiming that
Black's weakness on the kingside
is worth a few tempi) or go for the
complications after I l lbe6. Other
possibilities are:
a) 1 O . . . lba6:
a l ) 1 1 a4 1i'b6 1 2 e3 h6 1 3 lbh3
gS and Khalifman considers the
position unclear.
a2) 1 1 e4 ! ? c6 1 2 l:e l fxe4 1 3
dxc6 dS ? ! ( 1 3 . . . bxc6 ;1; ) 14 cxb7
"'xb7 ? ! I S lbxe4 ! dxe4 1 6 .txe4
"'b8 1 7 .tf4 ± Peng Zhaoqin­
Ioseliani, Shanghai wom Ct 1 992 .
a3) 1 1 h4 ! ? cS and now:
a3 1 ) 1 2 dxcS lbxcs 1 3 l:bl
.td7 1 4 .te3 "'c4 ? ! (a very risky
decision; better is 14 . . . l:ac8 ! ? and
Black is fine - Pinter) I S b3 "'b4
1 6 l:c l l:ac8 1 7 l:c4 "'a3 1 8 "'d2
;I; Pinter-Norri, Debrecen Echt
1 992.
a32) 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 dS (Pin­
ter's 1 3 l:bl ! ? and 1 3 a4 "'b6 14
dS cS I S hS ! ? also give White an
advantage) 1 3 . . . cS 14 hS c4 I S
hxg6 hxg6 1 6 l:bl lbc7 1 7 lbh3
with a slight advantage for White,
as in C .Horvath-Kindermann, Bu­
dapest 1 992.
b) 1 O ... c6 I I e4 ! ? fxe4 1 2 lbxe4
leads to the note to White' s 1 0th
move in Game 7.
c) 1O . . ....b6 1 1 .te3 (D) and
practice has seen:
c l ) 1 1 . . .aS ! ? 1 2 h4 lba6 1 3
"'d2 c 6 1 4 l:ae l lbb4 I S dxc6
bxc6 16 dS cS 17 b3 lba6 1 8 hS and
White 's initiative on the kingside
Main Line 7 . . 'fIe8 43
.
B
gives him an edge; Itkis-Malaniuk,
Tallinn 1 988.
c2) 1 1 . . .l:d8 1 2 h4 ! as 13 "'d2
c6 1 4 l:ac l .td7 (the above-men­
tioned encounter Khalifman-Pis­
kov, B undesliga 1 992 continued
14 . . .... bS ? ! IS hS .td7 1 6 hxg6
hxg6 17 .tf4 ! lba6 1 8 e4 and now
White was clearly better) I S l:c3
a4 1 6 l:fe l "'bS 17 "'d3 ! ;I; Khalif­
man.
c3) l l ...lba6 1 2 "'d2 c6 13 l:ac 1
.td7 1 4 l:fd l l:ac8 I S a3 "'bS 1 6
dxc6 bxc6 17 b4 dS 1 8 lbo with a
clear White advantage, Blasquez­
Ochoa, Spanish Ch 1 99 1 .
1 1 a4
l 1 lbe6 .txe6 1 2 dxe6 is inter­
esting, and the logical follow-up to
White's 10th move:
a) 12 . . . lbc6 13 dS lbeS 14 e4 c6
I S exfS l:xfS 1 6 .te4 l:f6 17 .te3
"'c4 1 8 f3 cS 19 b3 'ifc3 20 'ii'c 2
l:af8 21 l:ae l 'ii'b4 2 2 �g2 gS 23
.td2 'ii'a3 24 .tc3 ± Krivoshey­
Dovzhik, Simferopol 1 99 1 .
44 Main Line 7 . :fle8
.

b) 1 2 . . . c6? ! 1 3 e4 ! 'ifc4 14 exfS Black prevents White from play­

gxfS I S dS cxdS 1 6 .i.xdS 'ifa6 1 7 ing e4 and at the same time sur­
'it'hS left White much better in rounds the pawn on e6, which has
Nogueiras-Diaz, Havana 1 994. come far away from its colleagues.
c) However, I do not see why White will have to seek his coun­
Black should not play 12 . . . dS ! . terplay on the kingside, or by driv­
11.•• 'it'c4!? ing the black queen back, followed
1 1 . . :it'b6 would force White to by a queenside attack.
retreat: 1 2 iLlf3 as ! 1 3 .i.e3 lba6 14 14 .i.e3 c6
'it'd2 �h7 I S iLle l iLlb4 1 6 iLlc2 15 'it'd2 lLla6!
lLlxc2 17 'ii'xc2 .i.d7 18 'ifd3 c6 1 9 If Black takes his time to protect
%la3 %lfc8 2 0 %lc3 'ifa7 2 1 h4 h S 22 the pawn on h6, White will play
%lcc ! ? ! (22 %lfc ! ) 22 . . . cxdS 23 %lfc l followed by b4-bS .
%lxc8 %lxc8 24 .i.xdS %lc7 (why not 16 .i.xh6 ""4
24 . . . .i.xa4 ! 2S .i.e6 %lc7 with the 17 'it'f4 .i.xh6
idea of meeting 26 .i.xfS ? with 18 'it'xh6 %lf6
26 . . . .i.c2 ! 27 .i.xg6+ �h8?) 2S White has won a pawn but there
%lc l 'it'b6 26 %lxc7 'ifxc7 27 'ifb3 is no way he can avoid losing one
'i!fc8 28 <ith2 e6 29 .i.xb7 and in himself.
L.B .Hansen-Malaniuk, Politiken 19 'it'f4 %lc8 ! (D)
Cup 1 992 the players agreed to a Black is in no rush to take on e6.
draw. After 29 . . . .i.xa4 30 'i!fxa4 This move prepares . . . iLlc7.
'it'xb7 3 1 'ifxaS 'ifxb2 a completely
equal position would arise.
12 iLle6 .i.xe6
13 dxe6 d5! (D)

20 %lfd iLlc7
21 %lc2 � g7
W 22 e3 iLlxe6
 Main Line 7... 'ike8 4S

23 'ii'f3 :h8 26 'ii'f4 :h5!

After regaining the pawn, the Wonderful attacking play; it is
attack is directed against White 's not Black's king that is exposed.
kingside. 27 ..wt 'iib3
24 h4? ! 28 :e2 'tid3
Maybe White should simply al­ 29 :ael
low Black to build up the attack on The counterattack 29 'Wic7 loses,
the h-file. An idea was 24 'ii'd l in­ viz. 29 .. .'itf7 30 :ae l :fh6 3 1 f3
tending :c3-b3 . :h l + 32 .i.xh l (32 �f2 :6h2 ! )
24 g5! ? 32 . . . :xh l + 33 citg2 :xe l 3 4 :Xe l
25 hxg5 lbxg5 (D) 'tid2+ 35 citn lbxf3 36 :e2 'tid 1 +
37 �f2 lbh2 -+.
29 :tb6
30 g4! ? fxg4
3 1 'ji'xg4 �f7
32 f3 lbh7
33 'ii'f4+ lbf6
34 �gl :g6
35 :f2 :g7
36 b4 'ti'h7
37 �n :h2
0-1
White resigned since there is no
w way he can prevent . . . :hxg2.
2 Move -orders a n d
Misce l l a n eous Systems

Move-orders

A kingside fianchetto is without

doubt White 's most popular ap­
proach to the Dutch, but the move­
order can be very important. For
instance, if White starts with the
flexible moves 1 d4 f5 2 c4 lDf6 3
lDc3 it is still possible for him to
continue with a fianchetto. How­
ever, if Black continues in Lenin­
grad style with 3 . . . g6, White might
try to launch a direct attack with 4
h4 ! ? Let us take a look at this
move-order.
Game 9
Komarov - Vragoteris
Coifu 1991
1 d4 fS
2 c4 lDf6
3 lDc3 g6
4 h4! ? (D)
4 i. g!
The first time I was faced with
the move 4 h4 ! ? was in a hotel
room during the Ostend Open in
1 99 1 . My room-mate Allan Holst
showed me the idea. Although in­
itially I wasn ' t too impressed, I
B
soon realised that White 's aggres­
sive tendencies are fully justified. I
eventually came up with the idea
4 . . . lDc6 intending to answer 5 h5
with 5 . . . :g8. Our analyses were a
bit superficial and we didn' t really
end up with a conclusion. I think
the idea still needs to be tested in
practice but White should have the
better game if he develops nor­
mally, e.g. 6 hxg6 hxg6 7 lDf3 .
4 . . . d6 is another idea. There is
some practical experience with this
move. White has two ways to con­
tinue the attack. Line ' a ' is often
played whereas line 'b' is an at­
tempt to confuse Black a little.
 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems 47
a) S hS lDxhS (S . . . ':'gS ! ?) and
now:
a l ) 6 ':'xhS gxhS 7 e4 'ii'd 7 ! (or
7 . . . fxe4 S 'it'xhS+ �d7 9 'ii'h 3+ { 9
.i.e2 ! ? } 9 . . .e6 1 0 lDxe4 .i.e7 1 1
.i.e3 'ii' g 8 1 2 0-0-0 �dS 1 3 lDn
.i.d7 14 .i.d3 { 1 4 .i.e2 ! ? } 14 . . . �cS
I S "'h2 lDc6 � Zsinka-Timosch­
enko, Budapest 1 9S9) S 'ii'x hS+
�dS 9 lDf3 'it'eS 10 'ii' h 2 fxe4 1 1
lDxe4 'ii'g 6 1 2 .i.d3 ':'g8 1 3 lDh4
'ii' g 7 1 4 .i.e3 lDc6 I S 0-0-0 lDxd4
=+= Zsinka-Palatnik, Cattolica 1 993.
a2) 6 e4 ! ? lDf6 (6 . . . fxe4 leads to
a position examined in line 'b' and
6 . . . lDg7 7 exfS gxfS S lDf3 lDd7 9
.i.gS c6 1 0 .i.d3 'it'b6 1 1 'it'e2 e6 1 2
0-0-0 .i.e7 1 3 ':'h6 'ii'd S 1 4 .i.f4
lDf8 I S ':'dh l .i.d7 1 6 cS ! was
clearly better for White in Gausel­
T.Christensen, Gausdal 1 99 1 ) 7
.i.d3 lDc6 S lDge2 eS ! ? 9 dS (9 exfS
gxfS 1 0 dS lDe7 1 1 .i.gS .i.g7 1 2
"'d2 is also possible) 9 . . . lDe7 1 0
.i. g S .i.g7 1 1 'ii'd2 is a King's In­
dian-like position where White has
lost his h-pawn but this gives good
attacking possibilities.
b) S e4 ! ? fxe4 6 hs lDxhS 7 g4 ! ?
(we have already seen the conse­
quences of 7 ':'xhS in line 'a')
7 ... lDf6 S gS lDfd7 9 lDxe4 (9
'ifc2 ! ?) 9 . . . .i.g7 1 0 lDe2 c6 I 1 lDf4
( 1 1 .i.e3 'ii'a S+ 1 2 lD2c3 cS ! �)
1 1 . . .lDfS 1 2 .i.e3 'ii'aS+ ! 1 3 .i.d2
'ii'c7 14 'ii'e2? ! .i.xd4 IS 0-0-0 �f7 !
=+= Piket-Malaniuk, Lvov 1 9S5.
5 h5 lDxh5
Black has also tried:
a) S . . . e6 6 hxg6 hxg6 7 ':'xhS+
.i.xhS S lDn lDe4 9 'ii'd3 lDxc3 10
bxc3 .i.f6 1 1 e4 d6 12 'ii'e 3 'ii'e7 1 3
e S dxeS 14 lDxeS ± Djurhuus-Sil­
seth, Gausdal 1 992 .
b) S . . . d6 6 h6 .i.fS 7 .i.gS e6 S
"'b3 .i.e7 9 0-0-0 lDc6 1 0 lDh3 !
0-0 1 1 e3 ( 1 1 f3 ! ?) 1 1 . . . .i.d7 1 2
.i.e2 a6 1 3 lDf4 lDaS 1 4 "'c2 bS I S
g4 bxc4 1 6 gxfS exfS 1 7 ':'dg 1
A.Holst-Alkrersig, Arhus 1 992.
6 e4 tbf6
This retreat is virtually forced
now.
6 . . .fxe4? ! is dubious because the
king cannot escape to the queen­
side after 7 ':'xhS ! gxhS S 'it'xhS +
�fS 9 .i.h6 ! e6 1 0 lDxe4 'fIe7 1 1
O-O-O ! (D).
B
The attack progresses rapidly.
In my analysis I have not found a
defence for Black . . 1 1 . . . 'ii'f7 1 2
.i.xg7+ 'ii'xg7 1 3 ':'d3 lDc6 1 4 ':'g3
'ii'xd4 IS ':'f3+ �e7 1 6 'ii'g S+ ( 1 6
':'f7 would have mated directly)
48 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems
1 6 . . . ci>eS 1 7 lbf6+ ci>e7 I S lbgs+
ci>d6 19 :d3 b6 20 'ii'f4+ 1-0 Holst­
Wilson, Shackleford 1 992.
Also after 6 . . . e6? ! 7 exfS exfS
the sacrifice is very promising: S
:xhS ! gxhS (the 'clever' S . . ....e7+
runs into 9 .i.e3 gxhS 10 lbdS) 9
'fi'xhS+ 'ifilfS 1 0 lbdS h6 1 1 'ifxfS+
ci>gS 1 2 "'e4 ci>n 1 3 .i.e2 :fS 1 4
.i.xh6 1 -0 Piket-Klip, Netherlands
tt 1 993.
7 .i.d3
White has tried two other moves
of which the better seems to be 7 eS
but White has to be prepared to
play a rather closed position in
which the space advantage and the
open h-file should outweigh the
disadvantage of being a pawn
down:
a) 7 eS lbgS (after 7 . . . lbe4 S
lbxe4 fxe4 9 'it'g4 ! dS 10 e6 0-0 1 1
lbe2 White 's attack looks irresist­
ible ; there followed 1 1 . . . lbc6 1 2
.i.h6 :fS 1 3 .i.xg7 'ifilxg7 1 4 lbg3
.i.xe6 IS lbxfS+ .i.xfS 16 'ii'f4
winning for White in Gausel-Mas­
toras, Gausdal 1 992) S f4 (this
builds up a big centre, but S "'d3 ! ?
intending 'ii'g 3 i s also interesting)
S . . . d6 9 lbf3 and now:
a l ) 9 . . . c6 10 .i.e3 lbh6 1 1 "'b3
lbg4 12 .i.gl lba6 13 0-0-0 'it'b6 14
'ii'c 2 'ii'aS IS exd6 exd6 16 :e l +
<it>fS 1 7 'ii'e 2 'ii'd S I S d S .i.xc3 1 9
bxc3 c S 2 0 .i.f2 lbxf2 2 1 'ii'x f2
'ilf6 22 <it>c2 lbc7 ? ! 23 .i.d3 .i.d7
24 lbeS ! .i.a4+ 2S 'ifilb2 ci>g7 26 g4
dxeS 27 fxeS 'ilb6+ 2S �a l fxg4
29 :efl :afS 30 :xh7+! <;Pxh7 3 1
"'h4+ �g7 3 2 "'e7+ 1 -0 Videki­
Schweckendiek, Zalakaros 1 99 1 .
a2) 9 . . .e6 1 0 .i.e2 lbh6 1 1 "'c2
lbn 1 2 .i.e3 dxeS 1 3 fxeS lbc6 1 4
0-0-0 "'e7 I S g4 ! ? fxg4 1 6 lbd2
.i.d7 17 .i.xg4 0-0-0 IS lbde4 hS
19 .i.f3 .i.h6 20 .i.xh6 lbxh6 2 1
lbcs lbxd4 22 .i.xb7+ ci>bS 23
lbxd7+ 'it'xd7 24 "'e4 lbhfS 2S
lbbS cS 26 lbxd4 lbxd4 27 .i.aS a6
2S :xd4 cxd4 29 :h3 �a7 30 .i.c6
'ii'c s 3 1 :a3 Zsinka-Haik, Ham­
burg 1 99 1 .
b) 7 exfS gxfS S .i.d3 e6 9 'ii'e2
'ile7 1 0 .i.gS lbc6 1 1 lbf3 d6 1 2
0-0-0 .i.d7 1 3 :de l �fS 1 4 "'d2
'ii'n did not seem to give White
enough compensation in Kekki­
PyhaIa, Helsinki 1 9S9.
7 d6
8 ffi lbc6
9 extS gxfS
10 dS lbes
11 lbd4! (D)
B
 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems 49

A little lead in development, the This move is too passive and

weakness of the f-pawn and the gives White a free hand to continue
open h-file all add up to a clear his attack. Better was 2 1 . . . 'ii'h4 22
edge for White. 0-0-0 l:tf7 23 l:tg5 ll:lg4 24 'ii'e2
11
••• eS with an unclear position.
What else ? 1 1 . . .0-0 certainly
looks risky.
12 lLlxfS lLlxd3+
13 'iVxd3 i.xfS
14 'iVxfS 'iVd7
It looks like Black has achieved
some favourable exchanges and is
about to free himself. For example,
now 1 5 'ii'x d7+ would be met by
1 5 . . . �xd7 ! followed by a quick
break with the e-pawn.
15 .....3!
A superb move. White is not go­ W
ing to allow Black to push his e-
pawn. 22 l:tgS ! l:tab8
15 'iVg4!? 23 lLle4! l:txb2
16 f4 a6 24 i.e3 l:te2
17 i.d2 hS! ? 25 l:tbl
18 'it'd3!? With the decisive threat of 'ii'g 3.
White decides to avoid the ex­ 25 •.. l:txe3?
change of queens after all. 25 . . ....c7 ! was the best way to
18
••• O-O!? parry the threat. It is not at all obvi­
Black needed to remove his king ous how White can continue the
from the centre, but was probably attack. Maybe 26 lLlg3 ! ? is best.
worried about going to the queen­ 26 'iVxc3 rld7
side since I S . . . 0-0-0 1 9 O-O ! may 27 'it'f3 l:th8
leave his kingside too weak. 28 l:tg3! 'iVrs
19 l:th3 bS 29 lLlgs+ �g6
20 l:tg3!? 30 lLle6+ lLlg4
Or 20 b3 bxc4 21 bxc4 l:tabS 22 31 l:tb7 i.f6
l:tg3 'it'h4 23 0-0-0 with an unclear 1-0
position.
20 bxe4 This was a very fine example of
21 'iVe3 'iVd7? ! (D) how dangerous the attack is after a
50 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems
quick h4. This is basically the rea­
son why Black usually avoids . . . g6
on move two. In my opinion the
best way to counter the move-order
1 d4 f5 2 c4 �f6 3 �c3 is the one
employed in the next game.
Game 10
Gausel - S.Pedersen
Gausdal Troll Masters 1 994
1 d4 f5
2 c4 �f6
3 �c3 d6
If White now continues 4 �f3 or
4 g3 there is no reason why Black
cannot play 4 . . . g6 whereupon the
game will usually transpose into
the main line . This leaves White
with only one way to test Black:
4 .tg5!? �bd7
The other option is 4 . . . e6 but as a
Leningrad player I do not really
like this move. Play will continue
along paths similar to what I am
calling the ' Knight Development'
or the Staunton Gambit: 5 e4 fxe4 6
i.xf6 ! 'it'xf6 7 �xe4 'ifh6 (7 . . . 'ifd8
8 i.d3 liX6 9 �f3 i.e7 10 d5 �b8
1 1 h4 ! 0-0 1 2 �eg5 h6 1 3 dxe6
i.f6 1 4 'ilVe2 'ilVe8 1 5 0-0-0 gave
White an enormous plus in the
game Lputian-Annakov, Manila
OL 1 992) 8 �f3 i.e7 9 i.d3 0-0
(9 . . . �c6 10 d5 �e5 1 1 �xe5 dxe5
1 2 'ilVa4+ i.d7 1 3 'it'a5 exd5 14
cxd5 'ilVb6 1 5 'ilVxb6 axb6 1 6 �e2
:a5 17 :hc l �d8 18 i.c4 :a4 19
f3 ;!;; Schussler-Pauli, Berlin 1 9 84)
1 0 0-0 ( 1 0 h4 ! ? is a possible im­
provement) 10 . . . �c6 1 1 :e l i.d7
1 2 :c l :f7 1 3 a3 1/2- 1/2 Ligterink­
Van Wijgerden, Wijk aan 'Z£,e 1983.
5 'ii'c2
Alternatives :
a ) 5 �h3 e5 ! 6 e 4 fxe4 7 �xe4
i.e7 8 i.xf6 �xf6 9 i.d3 0-0 1 0
�hg5 �xe4 1 1 �xe4 exd4 1 2 0-0
i.f5 + Anastasian-M .Gurevich,
Naberezhnye Chelny 1 988.
b) 5 h4 ! ? h6 6 i.xf6 �xf6 7 e4
fxe4 8 �xe4 �xe4 ! (much better
than 8 . . . e5 ? ! 9 i.d3 i.e6 10 d5 i.f7
1 1 �xf6+ 'it'xf6 12 'it'a4+ �d8 1 3
'iic2 ;!;; Ca.Hansen-S.Pedersen, Den­
mark 1 993) 9 'ii'h 5+ �d7 1 O 'ifg4+
e6 1 1 'ifxe4 c6 1 2 0-0-0 'iiaS 1 3 a3
'iff5 14 'it'e3 i.e7 1 5 i.d3 'iif6 1 6
�f3 :f8 1 7 litb l �c7 = Anasta­
sian-Grigorov, Plovdiv 1 987.
c) 5 e3 g6 6 h4 h6 7 i.xf6 �xf6
8 �f3 i.g7 9 'it'c2 c6 1 0 h5 g5 1 1
i.d3 'ifaS 1 2 0-0-0 i.d7 1 3 �bl e6
14 e4 fxe4 1 5 i.xe4 0-0-0 1 6 i.g6
:hf8 17 �d2 'ilVc7 18 �de4 1/2- 1/2
Ubilava-Grigorov, Varna 1 985 .
5 ... g6 (DJ
6 e4!
Other moves should not present
Black with any problems.
a) 6 �h3 e5 7 dxe5 �xe5 8 g3
i.g7 9 i.g2 h6 1 0 i.xf6 'iixf6 1 1
0-0 c6 1 2 �f4 'ilVf7 1 3 :ad l g5 14
�h3 'ifxc4 1 5 :xd6 0-0 :j: Guerra­
Ochoa, Spanish Ch 1 99 1 .
b) 6 �f3 i.g7 7 e3 and now
Black should probably avoid the
obvious 7 . . . 0-0 after which White
 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems 51

7 lLlxe4 .t g7
8 lLlxf6+
Before this game, only 8 lLlf3
had been tested:
a) 8 . . . cS ! ? 9 lLlc3 0-0 10 .te2
"ifaS 1 1 .td2 'iVb6 1 2 dS lLlg4 1 3
0-0 lLldeS 14 lLlxeS .txeS I S .txg4
.txg4 16 .th6 :n with unclear
play in the game Barlov-Topalov,
Candas 1 992.
b) 8 . . . 0-0 9 lLlg3 eS 10 .te2
W exd4 1 1 lLlxd4 lLleS 12 0-0-0 lLln
1 3 .te3 lLlg4 14 .txg4 .txg4 IS f3
has been successful with a quick :e8 1 6 .tf2 .td7 1 7 h4 cS 1 8
attack. The two options are: lLlde2 b S with unclear play i n the
b l ) 7 . . . 0-0 ? ! 8 .te2 c6 (8 . . . h6? ! game H.Olafsson-Malaniuk, Lu­
weakens the kingside, which White cerne Wcht 1 993.
managed to exploit in Salov-Rivas, 8 ... lLlxf6
Haifa Echt 1 989: 9 .th4 eS 10 dxeS 8 . . . exf6 ! ? is a serious alterna­
dxeS 1 1 .tg3 'fIe7 1 2 0-0-0 c6 1 3 tive. White then has to play 9 .te3,
h 3 a6 1 4 .th2 bS I S lLlh4 "ifn 1 6 as 9 .th4 'iVe7+ ! 10 .te2 0-0 1 1
g4 ! ± and White already had a very lLlf3 :e8 would prevent White
dangerous attack) 9 0-0-0 a6 10 h3 from castling for a while, and the
bS I l lLld2 dS 1 2 cS eS 1 3 g4 h6 14 position is about equal.
.th4 exd4 IS exd4 gS 16 .tg3 f4 9 .t d3 c5
1 7 .th2 :e8 1 8 .td3 and White is 10 d5 0-0
clearly better, Se.Ivanov-Popov, St 11 lLlf3 lLlg4!?
Petersburg 1 993. 12 0-0 :17
b2) 7 ... c6 ! ? (keeping Black 's 13 h3 (D)
options open) 8 0-0-0 'ifaS 9 h4 13 :xf3
lLlhS (9 . . . lLlg4 ! is better) 1 0 .te2 This is the only logical follow­
lLldf6 1 1 It:)d2 .te6 was unclear in up to Black's 1 1th move. If l 1 ...lLleS
Ubilava-Malaniuk, Tallinn 1 983 . White would play 1 2 .te2 and the
c) 6 e3 .tg7 7 lLlge2 eS ! 8 dxeS knight would soon be kicked back­
dxeS 9 0-0-0 c6 10 g4 fxg4 I 1 lLlg3 wards.
"'as 12 h4 e4 ! ? 1 3 lt:)gxe4 0-0 1 4 14 hxg4
It:)d6 It:)eS was unclear i n Piket­ Or 14 gxf3 It:)es with reasonable
Topalov, Oviedo 1 992. compensation.
6 . .. fxe4 14
••• :17
52 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems

27 "'e6 'it'cs
28 .te3 .txe3
29 "'xcS+ :XcS
30 :Xe3 lIbS
31 b3 lIb4
32 lId1 �
33 �f3 (D)

15 'it'e2 'it'f8
I recall that during the game, I
didn't feel quite comfortable round
about here. I was afraid that White
would simply play g3, �g2, and
then double rooks on the h-file, but
hoped that my counterplay on the B
queenside would come in time.
16 lIae1 .te5 33 ... g5
17 g3 .td7 Time trouble was approaching
IS �g2 'it'g7 and I had to make a decision. U n­
19 .tel a6 fortunately after this White is just
20 f4 .td4 able to draw. 3 3 . . . hS ! was a better
21 lIh1 b5 chance : 34 lIh l (this is logical but
The play in the last few moves maybe 34 gxhS gxhS 3S lIhl lIfS
has been quite logical. White has 36 lId3 �f7 is better, when it is not
been preparing a kingisde attack, clear that Black can win) 34 . . . gS !
while Black has sought counter­ 3S gxhS gxf4 36 gxf4 lIfxf4+ ! and
play on the queenside. Probably it seems like Black is winning, e.g.
White should now play 22 b3 with 37 �e2 (37 �g3 lIg4+ 3 8 �f2
a balanced position. lIbf4+ ! 39 �e2 11h4 40 1Ieh3 1Ie4+
22 cxb5? ! axb5 41 �f3 lIxh3+ 42 lIxh3 lieS 43 h6
23 .txb5 .txb5 lIxdS -+) 37 . . . lIfe4 ! 38 lIhh3 (38
24 'it'xb5 lIxal h6 lIxe3+ 39 �xe3 lIxb3+ 40 �d2
25 "'d7 liaS lIb8 ! -+) 38 . . . lIxe3+ 39 llxe3 lIh4
26 lIe2 'it'f8 40 lIf3+ �g7 4 1 lIe3 �f6 ! (Black
 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems 53

should avoid 4 1 . . . :xhS 42 :xe7+ discuss theory. Still, it demands

'itf8 43 :b7 :xdS 44 b4 and White vigilance to reach equality.
draws) 42 :e6+ 'itf7 43 :h6 :b4
-+. Game 1 1
34 fS hS HJfi - Piskov
35 gxhS :xfS+ Copenhagen 1991
36 'itgl g4
37 h6 :hS 1 d4 fS
38 :n+ 'ite8 2 lbf3 �6
39 :fe1 eS 3 .tgS
39 . . . :b7 40 :e6. Again, Black is deprived of the
40 dxe6 :xh6 possibility for a standard Lenin­
41 e7 :b7 grad set-up.
42 :e4 :g6 3 .tf4 is a very popular move
43 :le3 :g7 amongst club players since this set­
44 b4! up can be used against practically
Just in time to split the pawns. every opening. However, against the
44
••• :xb4 Dutch it is not very good because
Nor is 44 . . . :bxe7 4S bxcS dxcS Black has reasonable chances of
46 :xe7+ :xe7 47 :c3 :eS 48 playing . . . eS, which will then gain
:c4 :gS 49 'itf2 more than a draw. a tempo on the bishop and ideally
White gets his king to f4 before bury it on h2. Black has a few quite
Black reaches d6. good lines. One is: 3 . . . g6 4 h3 .tg7
45 :xb4 cxb4 S e3 d6 6 �bd2 (6 c3 is probably
46 :b3 'itxe7 more accurate) 6 . . . �c6 ! 7 c3 0-0 8
47 :xb4 �e6 1!ib3 'ith8 9 0-0-0 'ii'e 8 ! (this is
48 'itf2 'itfS how Black can organise his pieces
112-112 to play . . . eS ) 10 dS ! ? �aS 1 1 'iIIa3
The final position is a simple b6 12 �b3 �e4 ! with good play ;
draw. White plays :d4 and puts the Hodgson-M .Gurevich, Haifa Echt
king on e3 after which Black can­ 1 989.
not make progress without losing a 3 ... e6
pawn. I prefer this move to 3 . . . �e4 4
.tf4 (4 h4 c6 S c3 'ifb6 6 "'c2 dS 7
Another way to utilise the move .tf4 e6 8 �bd2 .te7 9 �xe4 fxe4
.tgS is seen in the variation 1 d4 1 0 �eS 0-0 1 1 e3 cS = Peitzsch­
fS 2 �f3 �f6 3 .tgS, a rare but Larsen, Dortmund 1 96 1 ) 4 . . . e6 S
very sound line that is generally �bd2, when Black has nothing
used when White does not want to better than to adopt a Stonewall
54 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems
formation: S . . . dS 6 e3 .i.d6 7 c4 0-0
S .i.d3 lDd7 9 0-0 lDdf6 10 :c 1
lDxd2 1 1 'ilxd2 lDe4 1 2 'ile2 c6 1 3
.i.xd6 'iVxd6 1 4 lDeS with a slight
advantage for White, Razuvaev­
MLTseitlin, Tiraspol 1 994.
4 lDbd2
Naturally White wants to play
e2-e4 in one step and therefore pre­
pares it with this move. After 4 e3
Black could simply play 4 . . . .i.e7
but even better is 4 . . . h6! S .i.xf6
'iVxf6 6 h4 g6 7 hS gS S lDeS 1Dc6 9
lDg6 :gS 1 0 g4 lDe7 1 1 gxfS exfS
1 2 lDxe7 .i.xe7 1 3 .i.g2 c6 14 c4
.i.b4+ I s lDc3 .i.xc3+ 1 6 bxc3 d6
:j: Moskalenko-Malaniuk, Alu shta
1 994.
4
••. .i. e7
The Stonewall formation still
gives White a slight advantage:
4 . . . dS S e3 .i.e7 6 .i.d3 0-0 7 c4 c6 S
0-0 lDbd7? ! (S . . . lDe4) 9 cxdS ! . It is
well known that if White can take
on dS and Black has to recapture
with the c-pawn something has
gone wrong for the second player.
9 . . . cxdS l O :e l lDb6 1 1 lDb3 lDa4
1 2 'ile2 .i.d7 1 3 lDeS ;t D.Gure­
vich-Vaiser, Biel 1 99 1 .
5 .i.xf6
This is the most ambitious
move. Others are:
a) S e3 b6 6 .i.d3 .i.b7 7 .i.xf6
.i.xf6 S e4 (D) and now:
a l ) S . . . fxe4 9 lDxe4 .i.xe4 (this
move is given an exclamation mark
in Informator but I really do not
think this is deserved; 9 . . . lDc6 is
B
better) 10 .i.xe4 dS 1 1 .i.d3 0-0 1 2
c 3 'iVd6 1 3 0-O lDd7 14 :e l ;t Hert­
neck-Koch, Germany-France 1993.
a2) S . . . g6 ! 9 'iVe2 'iVe7 1 0 c3
lDc6 1 1 .i.a6 .i.xa6 12 'ifxa6 dS 1 3
'it'bS 'ifd7 14 exdS exdS I S 0-0 0-0
1 6 lDb3 lDeS 17 'ilxd7 lDxd7 =
Brunner-Milov, Bern 1 994.
b) S c3 0-0 6 'iVc2 dS 7 e3 .i.d7
S .i.d3 .i.eS ? ! (S . . . lDe4) 9 .i.xf6 !
.i.xf6 10 h3 g6 1 1 g4 lDd7 1 2 0-0-0
cS 1 3 :dg l f4 ! is unclear; Moska­
lenko-Malaniuk, Alushta 1 994.
5 .•• .i.xf6
6 e4 0-0
Malaniuk's move 6 . . . d6 is inter­
esting but in practice he has tended
to emerge with a slightly worse po­
sition:
a) 7 .i.bS+ lDc6 S 0-0 0-0 9 c3
a6? ! (9 . . . gS ! is unclear) 10 .i.xc6
bxc6 1 1 eS .i.e7 12 :e l ;t Yermo­
linsky-Malaniuk, Groningen 1 993 .
b) 7 .i.d3 lDc6 S c3 f4? ! 9 .i.bS
.i.d7 10 eS ! dxeS 1 1 dxeS .i.e7 1 2
.i.d3 .i.cs 1 3 'iVc2 'iVe7 14 .i.xh7 ±
 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems 55

as in Dokhoian-Malaniuk, USSR
Ch 1 99 1 .
c) 7 e S �e7 8 exd6 cxd6 9
�c4? ! (9 �bS+! �d7 1 O .e2 �xbS
1 1 'iVxbS+ 'it'd7 12 ""3 ! ;!;; Goldin)
9 . . . lLla6 10 0-0 lLlc7 1 1 :e l 0-0 1 2
a4 �h8 = Goldin-Malaniuk, Yugo­
slavia 1 993.
6 ... fxe4 ! ? may be a simple way
to equalise but the move should
have more practical tests before a
conclusion can be drawn: 7 lLlxe4 B
lLlc6 8 c3 b6 9 �d3 �b7 1 0 'ifc2
'it'e7 1 1 0-0-0 0-0-0 with equality, 13 dxeS lLlxeS
Schulz-Bischoff, German Ch (Binz) 14 lLlxeS
1 995. Trying to deliver mate with 14
7 �d3 d6 �h7+ �h8 I S �g8 would backfire
8 c3 lLlc6 after I s . . . lLlxf3 + 1 6 gxf3 �fS 1 7
9 'ii'c2 fxe4 .xfS �xc3+ 1 8 bxc3 :xfS .
9 . . . eS 1 0 dxeS lLlxeS 1 1 lLlxeS 14 ••• �xeS
�xeS 12 exfS .gS 13 0-0 was bet­ 15 lLlh7
ter for White in Piskov-Wessman, There was really no way back. If
Moscow 1 99 1 and 9 ... �h8 1 0 exfS White retreats, e.g. I S lLlf3 , the
exfS 1 1 0-0-0 :b8 1 2 h4 lLle7 1 3 king would be caught in the middle
lLlgS lLldS 1 4 lLldf3 b S I S 'it'd2 of the board by IS . . . �f4 ! .
�d7 1 6 �c2 intending �b3 led to 15 :f4!
a dangerous attack in Bischoff­ 16 0-0-0 'iVd6
Mainka, German Ch (Binz) 1995 . 17 g3 :0
10 lLlxe4 h6 18 �e4 (D)
11 h4! ? (D) White must have put his trust in
This is very typical of Carsten this move but the following sacri­
Hj1ji, who is known for his very un­ fice is very strong.
compromising play. Here he goes 18 dxe4!
straight for the king, but it would 19 :xd6 cxd6
probably have been more appropri­ 20 'ii'xe4 :xf2
ate to get his own king into safety 21 lLlgS hxgS
first. 22 'ii'dS+ . �h7
11 eS! 23 hxgS+ �g6
12 lLlegS dS 24 'iVg8 �xgS !
56 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems

Game 1 2
Karpov - Ivanchuk
Linares 1 995

1 d4 f5
2 g3 lDf6
3 i.g2 d6
4 lDc3 d5
Black wastes a tempo playing
. . . d7-d6-d5 but, on the other hand,
the knight on c3 is misplaced. The
B alternatives allow White to play e4
with an advantage:
Amazingly, the king is totally a) 4 . . . c6 5 e4 fxe4 6 lDxe4
safe in the middle of the board. lDxe4 7 i.xe4 i.f5 8 'iff3 i.xe4 9
25 'iWe8 'iWxe4 'ifa5+ 1 0 c3 'iWd5 1 1 'it'xd5
If 25 'iid 8+ the king would just cxd5 12 lDe2 e6 1 3 lDf4 ct>d7 1 4
move forwards. 0-0 lDa6 1 5 %le I lDc7 1 6 %le2 ;t
25 %lc2+! Khenkin-Vasiukov, Voskresensk
26 'it>bl i.f5 1 990.
27 'ii'e7+ 'it>g6 b) 4 . . . e5 5 dxe5 dxe5 6 'ii'x dS+
28 g4 i.e4 ct>xdS 7 i.g5 c6 8 e4 �c7 9 0-0-0
29 'it'e6+ �g5 h6 10 i.xf6 gxf6 1 1 i.h3 ! ? fxe4 1 2
30 'it'e7+ 'itf4 i.xc8 �xc8 1 3 lDxe4 lDd7 14 lDf3
0-1 f5 1 5 lDd6+ i.xd6 1 6 %lxd6 �c7
There is only one check left, 3 1 17 %lhd l %lh7 1 8 %le6 e4 1 9 lDh4
'iff?+, but this is effectively met by %lf8 20 lDg6 %Iff? 2 1 lDf4 ± Dan­
3 1 . . .i.f6. ielsen-Strange, Copenhagen 1 994.
5 i.g5
If Black is afraid of the Karlsbad After 5 lDf3 e6 6 0-0 i.e7 7 i.g5
Variation then a way to avoid it is I 0-0 8 e3 i.d7 ! ? 9 lDe2 i.b5 1 0
d4 f5 2 g3 lDf6 3 i.g2 d6. This lDe5 , 1O . . . i.xe2 ? ! 1 1 'ifxe2 lDbd7
move-order is frequently adopted 1 2 lDd3 h6 1 3 i.xf6 lDxf6 14 c4 c6
by B areev. If White plays 4 lDh3 1 5 %lfc l i.d6 16 b4 a6 17 a4 was
then 4 . . . e5 ! equalises immediately. better for White in Gelfand-Salov,
Normally it just transposes to other Moscow 1 992 but Gelfand thinks
lines but 4 lDc3 is an independent that Black could have equalised
way for White for continue, and he with 1O . . .lDfd7 1 1 i.xe7 'ikxe7 1 2
has in fact scored very well with it. c4 lDxe5 1 3 cxb5 lDc4.
 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems 57

5••• e6 7 00 .ie7
6 e3 8 �2
6 g4? ! fxg4 7 e4 dxe4 8 ll:)xe4 According to Ivanchuk 8 0-0 0-0
.ie7 9 .ixf6 .ixf6 10 �f6+ 'ilxf6 9 ll:)e2 is more accurate, intending
1 1 'ifxg4 0-0 1 2 ll:)f3 lbc6 was un­ to answer 9 . . . ll:)c6 with 10 c4 ! dxc4
clear in Kaidanov-Avshalumov, 1 1 \!Ia4.
Blagoveshchensk 1 988. 8 ••• 'it'a5+!?
6••• c5? ! (D) For the above-mentioned rea­
Already here Ivanchuk is being sons, Black interpolates this check.
a little too ambitious. The position 9 c3 �6
requires a more cautious approach 10 lLJf4 0-0
and he considers 6 . . . c6 followed by 11 0-0 :d8
7 . . . .id6 as a better idea. Other pos­ 12 �3
sibilities: Ivanchuk considers this a little
a) 6 . . . .ie7 7 ll:)ge2 0-0 8 0-0 c6 inaccurate and suggests 12 'ife2 in­
9 f3 h6 10 .if4 m 1 1 .ixb8 lhb8 stead.
1 2 e4 ll:)f6 1 3 \!Id3 \!Ie8 1 4 :ae l 12 c4
\!If7 1 5 exf5 exf5 1 6 ll:)f4 .id6 and 13 �e5 h6
Black was doing well in Averbakh­ 14 .ixf6 .ixf6
Fishbein, New York 1 990. 15 :et :b8
b) 6 . . . h6 7 .ixf6 \!Ixf6 8 h4 16 h3 'fIc7
.id7 9 h5 c5 (9 . . . .ib4 ! ?) 1 0 ll:)ce2 17 tm:c6 bxc6
ll:)c6 1 1 c3 .id6 1 2 ll:)f3 0-0 1 3 ll:)f4 18 b3 cxb3
cxd4 1 4 exd4 .ixf4 1 5 gxf4 b5 1 6 19 axb3 eS
a 3 a 5 was unclear i n Speelman­ 20 :e2 'it'b6?
Bareev, Brussels rpd 1 992. A big mistake. After 20 . . . cxd4
2 1 cxd4 \!Ib6 Ivanchuk thinks the
position is about equal, although
Karpov disagrees, claiming a small
edge.
21 :a3!
Now it is clear that Black is in
trouble. If 2 1 . . .cxd4 White can
simply recapture with the e-pawn.
21 :d7
22 dxeS ! 'fixeS
23 b4 _e7
24 ll:)d4 :c7
W 25 :ea2
58 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems

The pressure on the a-file gives 33 gxf2+

White an enormous strategic ad­ 34 �g2 'it'xc7
vantage. 35 :a8 .td8
25 :bb7 36 "'a7 'it'd6!
26 'it'd3 .td7 37 tDxe6 "'xe6
27 :a5 �h8 38 :xd8 "'e4+
28 :2a3 .te8 This is what Karpov missed. He
29 .tn :b6 thought that he could just take on
30 "'d2 h5? ! f2 but after 39 . . ....h4+ a rook is en
It is natural that Ivanchuk was prise.
getting a little desperate around 39 <itth2 'it'e5+
here but this only makes the posi­ 40 �g2 "'e4+
tion worse. 41 <itth2 'it'eS+
31 "'a2?! 42 �g2 :g6+!
This fully justifies Black's last The time-trouble is over and
move . Instead 3 1 h4 ! g5 32 hxg5 Black goes for the full point.
.txg5 33 'iWa2 intending 33 . . . h4? ! 43 � f4?
3 4 :xa7 bxg3 35 f4 ± would have Black keeps very good winning
been very strong. chances with 43 . . ....g3 + ! 44 �e2
31 h4 :e6 intending . . . f4.
32 :xa7 hxg3 (D) 44 :xe8+
This is the easiest way to a draw
but 44 'ii'd4 ! ? should also be suffi-
cient.
44 'it'xe8
45 exf4 'it'd8!
46 .td3 'it'h4+
47 �e2 :e6+
48 �dl "'e1+
49 �c2 :e2+!
50 .txe2 'it'xe2+
51 �b3 'it'dl+
liz. liz
W

33 :xc7? c3 systems
33 f4 ! was better, when White is It may seem very innocuous only
still better but Black retains some to advance the c-pawn to c3 but
counterplay. do not be fooled. White 's play is
 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems 59

generally based on the weakness of 6 tbh3

the diagonal a2-g8 and if Black is I.Sokolov-Malaniuk, Moscow
not alert he can easily get into OL 1 994 continued 6 tbf3 e6 7 0-0
trouble. 0-0 8 tbbd2 as 9 a4 dS (generally, I
recommend avoiding this move if
Game 1 3 possible but maybe Malaniuk was
Sosonko - Vanheste afraid of 9 . . . �h8 10 lie 1 d6 1 1 e4)
Netherlands tt 1 986 10 "c2 b6 1 1 b3 tbe4 1 2 i.a3 lIf7
1 3 lIad l lId7 14 b4 and now Black
1 d4 f5 could have tried 14 . . ...e7 ! I S e3 !
1 g3 tbf6 axb4 16 cxb4 tbxb4 17 i.xb4 'it'xb4
3 i.g2 g6 1 8 'it'c6 "xa4 1 9 'ibe6+ lIf7 20
4 c3 i. g7 "xdS tbc3 2 1 'it'c4 tbxd 1 22 tbgS
S ""3 tbc6! (D) with a total mess.
Black could adopt a Stonewall 6
... e6
formation with S . . . c6 followed by 7 tbdl
. . . dS or S . . . dS immediately. This This is the most common move
would neutralise the effect of'it'b3 but 7 i.gS ! is slightly better. Black
and is a relatively solid way to must then be careful, e.g. 7 . . . d6
counter the c3 system but White (7 . . . 0-0 8 tbd2 'ife8 9 tbf4 dS 1 0
usually gets control of the dark i.xf6 i.xf6 1 1 h4 was good for
squares and emerges with an edge. White in Kengis-YrjoUi, Komotini
Vanheste 's move is more risky but 1993) 8 tbf4. Now Black has to de­
also goes better with the title of this cide where to put the queen:
book. a) 8 . . ....d7 ! ? 9 tbd2 tbd8 ! (not
9 . . . eS ? ! 10 dxeS dxeS 1 1 i.xf6
i.xf6 1 2 tbdS i.g7 13 0-0-0 'iff7
14 e4 ±) 10 lid 1 c6 1 1 0-0 0-0 =.
b) 8 . . ....e7 9 tbd2 eS ? ! (again
this is premature; better is 9 . . . tbd8
10 e4 fxe4 1 1 tbxe4 0-0 1 2 h4 with
an unclear game) 1 0 tbdS "'f7 1 1
lLlxf6+ i.xf6 1 2 i.dS ! "e7 1 3
i.xf6 "xf6 14 "bS ± Danielsen­
S.Pedersen, Danish Ch (Aalborg)
1 994.
Another possibility i s 7 lLlf4 0-0
W (according to Malaniuk 7 . . . dS de­
serves attention, e.g. 8 h4 lLle4 9 hS
60 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems

g5 1 0 h6 i.xd4 1 1 cxd4 gxf4 1 2 8 ... 'fIe7 (D)

i.xf4 �xd4 with unclear play) 8
h4 'iVe8 9 h5 g5 10 h6 i.h8 1 1 �d3
� 1 2 g4 d5 1 3 gxf5 �a5 14 'ikb4
�6 1 5 'ifb3 �a5 1 6 'ikc2 exf5 17
l:gl i.f6 18 f3 �d6 1 9 f4 g4 20
i.xd5+ i.e6 2 1 i.g2 c6 and Black
had reasonable compensation in
Varga-Malaniuk, Budapest 1 989.
7
000 d6
Other moves have fared worse:
a) 7 . . . d5 8 �f3 �e4 9 �f4 'ike7
1 0 �d3 0-0 1 1 h4 b6 1 2 i.f4 i.b7
13 'it'c2 �d8 14 i.e5 �f7 15 i.xg7 w
rJ;xg7 16 �fe5 ;t Gavrikov-Vyzh­
manavin, Irkutsk 1 986. 9 �xe6!?
b) 7 . . . 0-0 8 �f4 'jjjl h 8? ! 9 h4 e5 9 d 5 �xd5 1 0 �xd5 exd5 1 1
1 0 dxe5 �xe5 1 1 �f3 �g4 1 2 h5 i.xd5 �e5 1 2 0-0 c6 1 3 i.g2 i.e6
gxh5 1 3 �d4 gave White an enor­ 14 'ikc2 0-0 = Bonsch-Richter, Bun­
mous advantage in Flear-Minic, desliga 1992.
Belgrade 1988. 9 'ifxe6
8 �f4 10 dS �xdS
8 e4 ! ? should be seriously con­ 11 i.xdS 'fIe7
sidered. Black has two responses : Black intends . . . �d8, . . . c6, and
a) 8 . . . e5 9 dxe5 (9 exf5 gxf5 10 . . . i.e6.
dxe5 dxe5 = Vanheste) 9 ... �xe5 10 12 'fibs 'fId7
�f4 'ife7 1 1 0-0 c6 1 2 exf5 i.xf5 13 e4 �S
1 3 �f3 0-0-0 ( 1 3 . . . �xf3+ 14 i.xf3 Black has solved his opening
d5 , Vanheste-Henris, Ostend 1992, problems.
15 c4 with a substantial advantage 14 'ife2
for White) 14 �d4 ± Staller-Kin­ 14 'ikxd7+ i.xd7 15 i.xb7 �d3+
dermann, Bad Worishofen 1 994. 16 rJ;e2 �xc 1 + 17 l:hxc 1 l:b8 is a
b) 8 . . . fxe4 9 �xe4 �xe4 1 0 little better for Black.
i.xe4 d 5 1 1 i.g2 O-O? ! (after this, 14 c6
White stays in control; better was 15 i.b3 fxe4
1 1 . . . e5 with an unclear position) 12 16 �xe4 dS
0-0 �a5 13 'iVd l ;t S.Pedersen­ 17 f4!
M.Jj1jrgensen, Copenhagen Open If 1 7 �g5 then 1 7 . . . 0-0 is good
1 995. for Black.
 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems 61

17 dxe4
18 fxeS 'ii'd 3
19 'ii'xd3 exd3
20 .tgS .tg4!
The black king looks a bit ex­
posed but nor can White feel safe,
e.g. 2 1 0-0 ':f8 ! 22 ':xf8 ? ! .txf8
with an unclear game.
21 �d2 .te2
22 .tc4 h6
23 .tf6 .txf6
24 exf6 0-0-0 W
25 a4 ':d6
26 f7 ':f6 weak squares e6 and n, Black's
27 .txd3 .txd3 next move is more or less forced:
28 'Ifi1xd3 ':xf7 8 . . . dS and now White has a choice
29 ':hfi ':d8+ of attacking the centre immedi­
30 <ii;>c2 ':fd7 ately or playing for dark-square
112 _112 dominance:
a) 9 tLld2 tLlc6 10 tLldf3 h6 1 1
Game 14 tLlh3 gS 1 2 tLles tLlxeS 1 3 dxeS tLle4
F.Olafsson - Smyslov 14 f3 tLlcs IS 'it'd l c6 ! ( 1 S . . . f4 ! ? is
Reykjavik 1 995 interesting but IS ... .te6? would be
a big mistake 1 6 'it'd4 b6 1 7 b4
1 tLlf3 f5 tLld7 1 8 .txgS ! +- Gutman-Knez­
2 g3 g6 evic, Wuppertal 1 9 86) 1 6 .te3 b6
3 .tgl .t g7 17 b4 tLle6 1 8 f4 g4 19 tLlf2 .tb7 20
4 d4 tLlf6 ':bl 'ikc7 2 1 'ikb3 ':ac8 22 ':fd l hS
5 0-0 0-0 = Gutman-Barbero, Montpellier

6 c3 d6 (D)
7 tLlbd2
This has been quite popular re­
cently. White keeps the options
open of advancing on the queen­
side or breaking in the centre . As
so often in the c3-variation, he
could also choose to force Black
into a Stonewall formation by 7
'iVb3+ �h8 8 tLlgS . Due to the
1 987.
b) 9 c4 e6 (9"'tLlc6 ! ? is worth
considering) 10 tLlf3 ( 1 0 tLlc3 tLlc6
1 1 cxdS tLlxd4 1 2 'iVc4 tLlxdS 1 3
tLlxdS exdS 14 .txdS was played in
the game Miralles - Santo-Roman,
Royan 1 988, when Black's best is
14 . . . tLlxe2+ I S 'ii'x e2 'iVxdS 1 6
':dl 'ii'g 8 and White i s apparently
more active but Black's pair of
62 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems
bishops may turn out to be an asset)
1 0 . . . cS ? ! ( 1 0 . . . c6 and l O . . . tbe4 are
safer) 1 1 dxcS tba6 1 2 .i.e3 tbg4
1 3 .i.gS 'ife8 14 cxdS tbxcs I S
'iia3 ;t Dokhoian-Akopian, Vilnius
1 988.
7 ••• tbc6
This is the most active move,
Black intends to play . . . e7-eS and
thus prepares it with a developing
move. He could also try the pro­
phylactic 7 . . . �h8 after which b4
does not make much sense. Hence
White usually prepares a break in
the centre: 8 :e l (8 'ifc2 tbc6 9 b4
a6 1 0 :e l eS 1 1 dxeS dxeS 1 2 e4 f4
1 3 a4 tbhS 1 4 .i.a3 bS I S c4 fxg3
1 6 hxg3 "'f6 is unclear; Kurajica­
Topalov, Star 1 99 1 ) 8 . . . dS ! ? 9 tbes
c6 1 0 tbdf3 tbe4 1 1 .i.f4 .i.e6 1 2
tbgS tbxgS 1 3 .i.xgS tbd7 1 4 tbxd7
'ifxd7 I S 'ifd2 .i.g8 1 6 .i.h3 'ifc7
1 7 .i.f4 (Spasov-Glek, Moscow
1 989) and now 1 7 . . . eS = is com­
pletely equal.
Another interesting idea is
7 . . . 'ife8 ! ? 8 'ifb3+ 'iff7 9 'ifxf7+
:xf7 1 0 e4 fxe4 1 1 tbgS :f8 1 2
tbdxe4 tbxe4 1 3 tbxe4 e S 1 4 dxeS
.i.xeS IS :e l tbc6 16 .i.h6 .i.g7 1 7
.i.xg7 �xg7 1 8 f4 h 6 1 9 b4 .i.fS 20
tbd2 :ae8 2 1 tbb3 .i.d7 22 tbd4
1/2-1/2 Voka�-Danner, Prague 1 994.
8 b4! ?
Again 8 'ifb3+ i s an alternative
and now 8 . . . �h8 9 dS tbaS ! 1 0
"'a3 cS does not cause Black any
problems (Bellin), while 9 tbgS d5
is line 'a' in the previous note.
8 :e l is covered in the next
game.
8 ••• 'it'e8
Preparing eS and making room
for the knight.
9 'it'b3+ �h8 (D)
W
10 bS
The other pawn advance, 1 0 dS ,
led to a smooth win for White in
Zviagintsev-Gavrikov, Biel 1 995
but Black's resources should be
quite sufficient. The game contin­
ued 10 . . . tbd8 ( l O . . . tbeS ! ? 1 1 tbd4
;t) 1 1 .i.b2 as 1 2 a3 eS 1 3 dxe6
tbxe6 ( l 3 . . . .i.xe6 14 c4 .i.d7 I S
tbd4 i s ;t according to Zviagintsev
but Black could try 14 . . . c6 ! ? or
1 4 . . . axb4 I S axb4 :xa l 1 6 :xa l
bS with counterplay) 1 4 e3 'ife7 ? !
( 14 . . . .i.d7 I S tbd4 i s also better for
White but Fritz3 suggests the pro­
vocative 14 . . . bS ! ?) I S c4 .i.d7 1 6
tbd4 cS ? 1 7 tb;:e6 a4 1 8 'ifc2
.i.xe6 1 9 bxcS dxcS 20 :ab l and
White was much better.
 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems 63

10 tbd8 23 l:tadl 'iWxc4

11 a4 e5 24 'iWxc4 tbxc4
12 dxe5 dxe5 25 .txg7+ rJitxg7
13 .taJ l:t g8 26 l:tct l:td4
14 e4 tbn 27 .tn tbe5
15 exf5 gxf5 28 l:txc7+ rJitf6
16 l:tfet e4 29 .t e2 l:tg7
17 c4!? (D) 30 l:txg7 cJ;xg7
31 as (D)

B
B
If the knight moves, Black gets a
fine square for his own knight on 31 ... tbf3+
e5 . Black obviously has the more
1 7 ... .te6 active position but it is not easy to
17 . . . ti'd8 appears to win a piece make progress. With this move it
but after 1 8 l:tad I exf3 1 9 tbxf3 seems as if he is satisfied with a
.td7 20 c5 White wins back the draw but neither does 3 1 . . .l:td2 32
material with advantage. rJitfl l:ta2 33 a6 bxa6 34 bxa6 tbf3
18 tbd4 l:td8 35 l:tc l tbxh2+ 36 rJite l rJitf6 37
19 tb2f3! tbg4 l:tc7 get anywhere - in this vari­
1 9 . . . tbg5 ! ? ation Black even has to fight for a
20 .tb2 draw. The best try for something
21 tbxe6 is probably 3 1 . . .tbd3 ! ? but even in
22 tbxe5 this case White should be able to
Finally, Black has reached the hold the game.
e5-square and thereby achieved a 32 .txf3 exf3
small edge. 33 h3! �f6
64 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems

34 a6 bxa6 1 2 h3 exd4 1 3 exd4 tlJf6 1 4 lLle2

35 bxa6 lId3 lLle4 = .
36 lIet 1Ia3 6 d6
37 �h2 �eS 7 lIet lLlc6
38 lIe7 lIxa6 8 c3
39 lIe3 lIal 8 e4 fxe4 9 lLlxe4 lLlxe4 1 0 lIxe4
40 lIxf3 as .tf5 ( 1 0 . . . d5 ! ? 1 1 lIe3 .tg4 is an
41 lIe3+ 1b. _1/'1. idea worth considering) 1 1 lIel 'it'd7
The final position is a theoretical 1 2 c3 �h8 1 3 d5 lLle5 1 4 lLlxe5
draw. Black has to take his king to .txe5 15 .te3 .tf6 16 .td4 lIae8 =
the queenside in order to help the Schulz-Zysk, Bundesliga 1 994.
pawn all the way down. Mean­ 8
... eS
while White creates a passed pawn The prophylactic 8 . . . 'ii? h 8 is
on the kingside. again a possibility. 9 e4 and now:
a) 9 . . . fxe4 1 0 lLlxe4 lLlxe4 1 1
Game 1 5 lIxe4 e5 ? ! ( 1 1 . . . .tf5 1 2 lie 1 'iid7 =
Spasov - Marin leads to Schulz-Zysk from the pre­
Manresa 1 995 vious note) 1 2 .tg5 'iid 7 1 3 dxe5
dxe5 14 'ife2 'ifn 1 5 lIh4 .te6 1 6
1 lLlf3 fS .te3 'ii'f6 1 7 lLlg5 ± Gligoric-Raj­
2 g3 lLlf6 kovic, Yugoslavia 1 975 .
3 .t g2 g6 b) 9 . . . e5 ! ? 1 0 dxe5 dxe5 1 1
4 0-0 .t g7 exf5 ! ( 1 1 'ii'b 3 ? ! would let Black
5 d4 0-0 launch a typical kingside attack:
6 lLlbd2 1 1 . . .f4 ! 1 2 gxf4? ! lLlh5 1 3 f5 lLlf4
With this move White prepares 1 4 lLln lLlxg2 1 5 �xg2 gxf5 1 6
to break in the centre. Compared to exf5 .txf5 1 7 .tg5 "'d7 1 8 lLlg l
the main lines White holds back .te6 1 9 'ii' b 5 .td5+ 20 f3 lIxf3 2 1
the c-pawn for a few moves and lLlxf3 "g4+ 0- 1 Tataev-Kramnik,
may still choose to put it on c3 Belgorod 1 989) 1 1 . .. e4 1 2 lLlg5
from where it supports the d4- gxf5 13 lLlb3 'ife8 ? ! (exchanging
pawn. Another way to prepare the queens is better, e . g . 1 3 . . .... xd l
e4 advance is 6 lLlc3 . Now 6 . . . d6 7 1 4 lIxd l h6 1 5 lLlh3 .te6 1 6 lLlf4
'ifd3 ! ? has posed Black some prob­ .tn with an unclear position) 1 4
lems but a solid way to play against f3 h 6 1 5 lLlh3 lLle5 1 6 lLlf4 'it'n 1 7
this move is 6 . . . d5 and Black had .te3 .td7 1 8 .td4 lIae8 1 9 lLlc5 ±
no problems in Muir-Tisdall, Gaus­ Schussler-Silva, Thessaloniki OL
dal 1 990: 7 .tf4 c6 8 .te5 lLlbd7 9 1984.
e3 lLlxe5 1 0 lLlxe5 lLlg4 1 1 lLld3 e5 9 dxeS lLlxeS
 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems 65

9 . . . dxe5 10 e4 f4 1 1 gxf4 exf4 1 2

e5 is clearly better for White ac­
cording to M .Gurevich but this as­
sessment does not tally with the
outcome of a European Cup game
P.E.Nielsen-Joksic, which contin­
ued 1 2 . . . tbg4 1 3 e6 'fIe7 1 4 .th3
h5 15 'ilb3 'it>hS 16 'fIc4? ltXe5 1 7
tbxe5 fue5 I S 'it'e4 .txe6 +.
10 c4
1 0 tbxe5 dxe5 1 1 e4 f4 1 2 tbc4
( 1 2 gxf4 tbh5 ! 1 3 fxe5 'ilh4 1 4
tbf3 lIxf3 ! 1 5 'it'xf3 .txe5 1 6 h3
.te6 followed by . . . 1IfS and . . . tbf4 16 .txeS "'xeS
gives Black a dangerous attack ac­ 17 f3 .tfS
cording to M .Gurevich and Cher­ 18 '6'd2 "'cS+
nin) 1 2 . . .fxg3 1 3 hxg3 'ile7 14 b3 19 e3 tbxe3
lieS 1 5 .ta3 'ilf? 16 'fIc2 as 1 7 20 tbxe3 lIfeS? !
tbe3 .te6 = Kaplun-M .Gurevich, I t i s obvious that a rook has to go
USSR 19S3. to eS but which one? Bent Larsen
10 c6 once said that you always choose
11 '6'c2 '6'e7 the wrong rook. Also here it should
12 b3 tbfg4 have been the other one: 20 . . . lIaeS !
1 2 . . . tbeg4 ! ? is interesting and 2 1 'it>f2 as 22 lIad l lIxe3 23 lIxe3
possibly even better. The idea is (the difference between the two
clear: 13 .tb2? loses outright to rook moves comes to light in the
13 . . . tbxf2 ! 14 .txf6 'ile3 15 .tg5 variation 23 'iixd6 fxg3+ 24 hxg3
tbh3+. White's best is to sacrifice a lIxf3 + ! 25 �xf3 .th3+ 26 'fIxfS+
pawn with 1 3 lIfI ! 'ilxe2 1 4 h3 'ilxfS+ 27 �e3 .txg2 -+) 23 . . . lIeS
tbe4 1 5 .tb2 tbe5 1 6 lIad l , when 24 lIdel .tbl ! 25 a3 fxe3+ 26 11xe3
he has compensation. .ta2 27 �e2 lIxe3+ 2S 'fIxe3
13 .tb2 f4 1Vxe3+ 29 �xe3 .txb3 30 �d4 b5
In this position, 1 3 ... fuf2?? does 3 1 cxb5 (3 1 c5 dxc5+ 32 �xc5 .tdS
not work on account of 14 tbxe5 . -+) 3 1 . . .cxb5 32 .tn b4 33 axb4
14 00 g5 (D) axb4 and Black is a clear pawn up.
Black's attack already looks men­ 21 � as
acing so White decides to swap off 22 lIadl lIxe3
some pieces. 23 "'xd6! "'xd6
IS tbxeS .txeS 24 lIxd6 llae8
66 Move-orders and Miscellaneous Systems

25 :xe3 fxe3+ the best (30 . . . :e3 is strongly an­

26 ci>e1 .t bl swered with 3 1 .txh7 �h8 32 :d3)
27 a3 .ta2 and he gives two lines: 3 1 :xb7
It seems as if White is very close :e3 32 :d7 .tdl or 3 1 .txh7+ �h8
to losing. If, for instance, White 32 .td3 :e3 . In both lines, Black is
now plays 28 :d3 then 28 . . . a4 ! 29 supposed to be much better but I
bxa4 .txc4 30 :c3 .ta6 is very am a little puzzled with those as­
promising for Black. The best is to sessments, e.g. in the first line, af­
sacrifice the pawn: ter 32 . . . .td l , White can play 3 3
28 .tn ! .txb3 .txh7+ �h8 3 4 :d3 :e6 35 .tf5
29 .td3 with advantage to White and in the
For the pawn, Black's bishop second line, White is also better af­
has been taken out of play and its ter 33 f4 g4 34 c5 .
white counterpart has occupied an 30 ... .tdl
excellent square on d3 . 31 :d7 h5
29 ••• e2 (D) 3 1 . .. :e3 ! ? is also possible.
After 29 . . . :e7 30 �e2 the extra 32 f4 gxf4
pawn is worth nothing. 33 gxf4 :18
34 .th7+?
34 :d4 ! is equal.
34••• �h8
35 f5 b5? !
Black could gain an advantage
with 35 . . . .tb3 ! , for example 3 6
:xb7 (36 �xe2 .txc4+ 37 ci>e3
:f7 +) 36 . . . .txc4 37 .tg6 :d8 3 8
:bl h4 39 .th5 �g7 4 0 .txe2 :e8
4 1 :b2 �f6 42 �f2 :xe2+ 43
:xe2 .txe2 44 �xe2 'ittxf5 with a
winning position.
w 36 cxb5 cxb5
37 .tg6 b4
30 :d4? 38 axb4 axb4
I don't really see the idea of this 39 :b7 b3
move. Why not 30 :d7 ? In Infor­ 40 .txh5 :xf5
mator Marin mentions 30 . . . a4 as 41 .txe2 1/2-112
3 An ea rly b3

One of the most fashionable devia­ this move-order should not prompt
tions from the main line is for any difference in our set-up.
White to play an early b3 . This can 4 .t g7
be done on virtually every move 5 .tbl 0-0
from number 2 to 7 ! In the games I 6 lbdl d6
have tried to distinguish between 7 lbgf3 tlJc6!
set-ups where White plays c4 As I have said before, this move
(Games 1 9-20) from those where should always be played when
the move c4 is delayed or omitted White is not able to reply dS .
(Games 1 6- 1 8) . In the notes I will 8 0-0 'iVe8
try to explain a few nuances. By 9 :el h6
playing an early b3 , White usually 10 c4 e5 (D)
wants to finish his development in
a nice and easy way before carry­
ing out the central break e4. The
bishop will also be well placed on
either b2 or a3 from where it helps
deter Black from playing . . . eS.

Game 16
Langeweg - S.Pedersen
Forli 1 991

1 d4 f5
1 g3 lbf6 W
3 .tgl g6
4 b3 11 dxe5?!
This is a very popular move-or­ This move only helps Black.
der. White awaits the black strategy B etter is 1 1 e4 lbxe4 ! ? 1 2 dxeS
(mainly to see where he puts the d­ "f7 1 3 lbxe4 fxe4 14 :xe4 dxeS
pawn) and keeps his own options ( 14 ...lbxeS ! ?) IS "e l .t fS 1 6 lbxeS
open. But, as I am suggesting al­ lbxeS 1 7 :xeS .txeS 1 8 "xeS
ways to place the d-pawn on d6, Cit>h7 1 9 .tdS .te6 20 .txb7 :ad8
68 An early b3

2 1 f4 with an unclear position; This loses immediately but also

Cramling- Y rjolii, Helsinki 1 99 1 . after 20 :ad 1 the exchange sacri­
11 •.• dxeS fice is playable: 20 . . . :xf3 2 1 'ii'xf3
12 e4 f4! (D) lDe5 22 1i'b3 1.xc4 with a strong
initiative.

W
B
It is noticeable that White is al­
ready in trouble. 1 3 gxf4 is an­ 20 ••• :xf3!
swered with the standard pawn 21 .xf3 ll:)es
sacrifice 13 . . . lLlli5 ! and Black has a 22 .f4 d3
dangerous attack, so . . . 0-1
13 b4 fxg3 White resigned since 23 :ee 1
14 hxg3 lDg4! g5 24 'ii'd2 li)xc4 25 1i'b4 d2 would
In the main line we saw that 8 put an end to the matter.
:e 1 has the defect of weakening
f2; here it is again ! Game 1 7
15 bS lDd4 Gawronski - Malaniuk
16 1.a3 :f7 Warsaw 1 992
17 lDb3 1.e6
It is interesting how quickly the 1 d4 fS
black attack develops. Every piece 2 W ll:)f6
seems to have found its best square, 3 g3 g6
and all this thanks to White's inac­ 4 1.g2 1. g7
curacy on move 1 1 . 5 0-0 0-0
18 lDbxd4 exd4 6 b3 d6
19 'iVd3 :d8 7 1.b2 'iVe8
20 :e2? ! (D) 8 lDbd2 li)c6

9 :el (D)
B a2) 1 O ... f4 ! ? 1 1 dS (if 1 1 gxf4
9 000
h6
When White is ready to play e4,
the best kingside pawn formation
is to put pawns on h6 and gS . Let us
suppose that White plays e4 and
Black captures. If Black did not
have pawns on h6 and gS , White
would always threaten tbgS-e6.
Furthermore the pawn formation
on the dark squares makes room
for the queen, so that she can go to
g6 0r hS.
The direct 9 ... eS is also play­
able:
a) 10 e4. With the rook opposite
the black queen it is logical to try
opening up the position. Black now
has a choice:
a 1 ) 1 0 . . . tbxe4? ! 1 1 dxeS ! (after
1 1 tbxe4 fxe4 1 2 :xe4 dS Black
intends . . . e4) l 1 . . .dS maintains the
knight on e4 but White is able to
build up a direct attack on the cen­
tre. 1 2 c4 .te6 1 3 cxdS .txdS 1 4
A n early b3 69
tbxe4 .txe4 I S tbgS ! .txg2 1 6
�xg2 "ile7 (trying to improve upon
1 6 . . . f4 1 7 :e4 ! :d8 1 8 "ilc2 fxg3
1 9 hxg3 h6 20 "ilc4+ �h8 2 1 tbf3
gS 22 :h1 which left Black in great
difficulties in Genov-Topalov, Bul­
garian Ch (B ankia) 1 992) 1 7 'it'e I
f4 1 8 gxf4 :fS 1 9 .ta3 'it'e8 20
"ilc4+ �h8 2 1 tbe6 "ilf7 22 tbxg7
"ilxc4 23 bxc4 �xg7 24 :ad 1 l:r.xf4
2S .tb2 with a colossal advantage
for White ; Kharlov-Vyzhmana­
vin, Russian Ch 1 995.
then Black captures the other way,
i .e. 1 1 . ..exd4 ! 1 2 eS tbhS 1 3 exd6
'iVd7 and Black's attack is to be
preferred) 1 1 . . .�d8 1 2 c4 fxg3
( 1 2 . . . h6 1 3 cS gS 1 4 cxd6 cxd6 I S
tbc4 �f7 1 6 .ta3 'ifd8 1 7 "ild2
�e8 1 8 :ac 1 .tf6 1 9 gxf4 gxf4
was unclear in Gonzales-Hedman,
Cuban Ch (Colon) 1 993) 1 3 fxg3
�f7 1 4 b4 .tg4 I S "ilc2 .th6 1 6
�b3 'ifd7 1 7 .tc 1 .txc l 1 8 :axc 1
.txf3 ! 1 9 .txf3 �gS 20 .tg2 �g4
gave Black an attack in the game
Hoffman-And.Rodriguez, Buenos
Aires 1 996.
b) 10 dxeS. In the previous game,
this pawn exchange helped Black
but now White has c4 available for
the knight. 1 0 . . . dxeS ( 1 0 . . . �g4 ! ?
1 1 e4 f4 1 2 �4 tbcxeS 1 3 �xeS
�xeS 1/2- 1/2 Ristic-Nikac, Yugoslav
Ch (Kladovo) 1 992) 1 1 e4 f4 (the
standard kingside attack; 1 1 . . .fxe4
1 2 �xe4 �xe4 1 3 :xe4 .tfS 14
:e3 :d8 I S 'iff! was better for
70 An early b3
White in Szekely-Glek, Moscow
1 99 1 ) 1 2 lDc4 (in Welin-Van Mil,
Copenhagen Open 1 985 White al­
most got the upper hand with 1 2
'it'e2 ! ? lDhS 1 3 'iln .if6 1 4 .ih3
gS I S .ixc8 'ifxc8 16 "'bS but af­
ter 1 6 . . . lIe8 1 7 lDn g4 1 8 lD3d2
lIe6 19 lIad l a6 20 'it'dS 'it'e8 21 f3
fxg3 22 hxg3 .igS ! 23 fxg4 lDf6
Black was ready for a counter-at­
tack) 1 2 . . . .ig4 ( 1 2 . . . fxg3 1 3 fxg3
.ig4 1 4 h3 .ixf3 I S .ixf3 lDd4 is
equal - analysis by Glek) 1 3 h3
lId8 14 'it'e2 .ixf3 I S .ixf3 bS 1 6
lDa3 fxg3 1 7 fxg3 a6 1 8 c 3 'ild7 1 9
ltg2 'it'd2 2 0 lDc2 .ih6 2 1 .ie l
'ilxe2+ 22 lIxe2 .ixc 1 23 lIxc 1 as
= Ligterink-Van Mil, Dutch Ch
(Hilversum) 1 984.
10 e4 fxe4
11 lDxe4 lDxe4
12 lIxe4 gS (D)
W 1 4 . . . 'iff7 I S 'ifd2 .ifS 1 6 11e3 as
13 lIe3
White has carried out hi s stra­
tegic p lan and it is now time to
decide precisely how to organise
the pieces. The move chosen in the
game is the most logical. The rook
cannot be on e4 forever and since
White would like to put as many
heavy pieces as possible on the e­
file, the square chosen looks cor­
rect. Moreover, it adds support to
the knight on f3 , which can easily
be harassed by . . . .ig4 and . . ....hS .
In practice many other moves
have been tested:
a) 13 ti'e2 ti'hS 14 lin .ig4 I S
lIe3 e 6 1 6 c3 lDe7 1 7 h 3 .ixh3 1 8
.ixh3 'ifxh3 1 9 lIxe6 lDdS 20 lDh2
1If7 21 'ifg4 1/Z- 1f2 Yusupov-Malan­
iuk, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1 988.
b) 1 3 ti'd2 'ifhS and now:
b l ) 14 lIe3 .ig4 I S lDe l lIae8
16 c4 'ifg6 17 lDc2 eS 1 8 dxeS dxeS
1 9 .ie4 .ifS 20 'ife2? ! (20 'ifdS+ is
better, intending lIae 1) 20 . . . lId8
21 lDe l lDd4 22 .ixd4? (22 ti'g4
.ixg4 23 .ixg6 lDe2+ 24 ltg2 lId2
+) 22 . . . exd4 23 .ixfS dxe3 0- 1
Botsari-YrjoHi, Komotini 1 992.
b2) 14 lDe l eS IS dS lDb8 1 6
f4 ! ? .ifS 17 1Ic4 gxf4 1 8 gxf4 lDa6
1 9 fxeS lIae8 20 .if3 'ifg6+ 2 1
�h l lDcs 2 2 'fIg2 .ixeS 2 3 .ixeS
lIxeS � Vasiliev-Malaniuk, Kato­
wice 199 1 .
c) 1 3 c4 ! ? 'ifhS ( 1 3 . . . .ifS 14
lIe3 'fihS) 14 lDe i (maybe 14 11e3)
17 lId l a4 1 8 'it'e2 axb3 ? (Black is
OK after 1 8 . . . e6) 1 9 .idS ! (this
surprising rejoinder decides the
game) 19 . . . e6 20 1lxe6 11aS 2 1 lIe7
 An early b3 71

fiJxe7 22 .i.xf7+ :xf7 23 axb3 +­ 18 "'xc6 :f7

Gyimesi-Dao, Budapest 1 994. 19 f3!
d) 13 c3 ! ? 'ilf7 14 'ild2 .i.f5 1 5 This is a fine defensive move .
:e3 e5 ! 1 6 dxe5 dxe5 1 7 'iVe2 Black must work to demonstrate
:ad8 1 8 .i.a3 e4 1 9 fiJd2 .i.g4 ! 20 compensation for his lost pawn.
'ile l 'ilxf2+ 2 1 'iVxf2 :xf2 22 19 000 :bfS
�xf2 :xd2+ 23 �n .i.f3 24 .i.xf3 20 :dl
exf3 25 :xf3 :xh2 26 :d 1 :xa2 20 'ila6 ! is a good idea. Black
27 .i.c5 (Neverov-Malaniuk, Niko­ would then have to seek counter­
laev Z 1 995) 27 . . . b6 28 .i.d4 fiJxd4 play with 20 . . . 'ii'g 6 2 1 c4 h5 .
29 cxd4 :c2 = . 20 000 'iVg6!
13 000 .....5 21 :d2
14 'ild3! ? White could win a piece with 2 1
The start o f a very audacious g4 but his king would come under
plan. 14 'ii'd2 is safer. heavy fire after 2 1 . . . .i.xg4 22 fxg4
14 .i.f5 :n + 23 �g2 :8f2+ 24 �g3 (24
15 'fibs :ab8 �h3 h5) 24 . . .'ilf7.
16 fiJel (D) 21 h5
22 :de2 .....6
23 b4 .i.f6
24 fiJd3 g4
Black has succeeded in building
up a strong attack and now White
fails to find the best defence.
25 fiJf4?
Better was 25 fiJf2.
25 gxf3
26 'iVxf3 .i.g4
27 'iVg2 .i.g5
28 :xe6 .i.xe6
B 29 :xe6 'iVxe6! (D)
Probably what White had missed.
This was the idea. White goes Black now gets a winning ending.
pawn-hunting but it is certainly not 30 fiJxe6 .i.e3+
without risk. To win the pawn 31 �hl :0+
White has to give up one of his best 32 ...xn :xn+
pieces, namely the g2-bishop. 33 �g2 ' :f2+
16 e6 34 �h3 :xc2
17 .i.xc6 bxc6 35 .i.al :xa2
72 An early b3

W B

36 .i.c3 llc2 9
••• ci>h8!?
37 .i.al .i.d2 Black plans 1 O . . . .i.e6. I f i t i s
38 dS .i.xb4 played without ...ci>h8 then 10 It)g5 !
39 tDf4 .i.c3 .i.xc4 1 1 bxc4 lt)d8 1 2 'it'd3 h6 1 3
40 .i.xc3 llxc3 It)f3 e 6 14 c5 ! dxc5 1 5 dxc5 It)c6
0-1 1 6 llab l lld8 17 'ii'b 3 b6 1 8 llfd l
is better for White; Sosonko-Beli­
Game 1 8 avsky, Tilburg 1 984. Black has a
Loginov - Van Mil few other options:
Budapest 1 993 a) 9 . . . e6 and now White has
tried two moves:
1 It)f3 fS a l ) 1 0 a4 (a queenside advance
2 g3 It)f6 seems to be the only reasonable
3 .i.g2 g6 plan) 1 O . . . a5 ( 1 O . . . h6 I I lt)e l .i.d7
4 b3 .i.g7 12 It)d3 It)d8 1 3 n lt)d5 14 e4 lt)b6
5 .i.b2 0-0 1 5 It)e3 a5 1 6 'ii'd 2 lt)f7 1 7 llae l
6 0-0 d6 fxe4 1 8 fxe4 e5 1 9 It)d5 ;!; Grivas­
7 d4 We8 Dao, Budapest 1 993) 1 1 It)e l g5
8 It)bd2 It)c6 ( l 1 . . . .i.d7 1 2 lt)d3 g5 1 3 e3 h5 1 4
9 It)c4 (D) 'ii'e2 b 6 1 5 llae l lld8 1 6 lt)d2 e 5 1 7
With this move White prevents dxe5 dxe5 1 8 f4 gxf4 1 9 gxf4 e4 20
Black from playing e5 but also It)e5 It)g4 with chances for both
loses some possibilities of his own. sides; McNab-Savchenko, NfI}rre­
The e4-break is temporarily out of sundby 1 992) 1 2 lt)d3 h5 1 3 lt)a3
the picture and the knight blocks llf7 14 c4 It)e4? (I am not sure
the way of the c-pawn. what the point of this move is; it is

better to transfer the knight to the
kingside, viz. 1 4 . . . � 7 with the
idea of . . . tDg6) I S f3 tDf6 1 6 e4 eS
1 7 dxeS dxeS 1 8 tDbS fxe4? ! 1 9
fxe4 .t g4 2 0 'it'e l :d8 2 1 "'e3 ±
Mochalov-Galdunts, Kurgan 1 994.
a2) 10 e3 is a very safe continu­
ation, but since it is followed up
with a4, it may seem a little use­
less. Black has no problems after
1O . . . .td7 1 1 a4:
a2 1 ) 1 1 . . . :d8 1 2 'it'e l ( 1 2 'it'e2
tDe4 1 3 tDe 1 dS was equal in the
game Badea-Piskov, Moscow 1 99 1 )
1 2 . . . tDe4 1 3 tDfd2 d S 14 tDxe4
fxe4 I S tDaS 1/2-1/2 Hug-Vyzhman­
avin, Gelsenkirchen 1 99 1 .
a22) 1 1 . . . h6 1 2 tDe l :b8 1 3
tDd3 tDdS 1 4 "'d2 a6 I S :fe l
tDde7 1 6 tDa3 gS 1 7 c4 tDg6 1 8 b4
eS 1 9 bS tDd8 20 dxeS dxeS 2 1
tDcs .tc8 22 tDc2 tDe6 23 tDb3 g4
24 :ed l tDgS (D).
W 1 1 . . . .txf6? 12 'it'd2 .txal 1 3 :xal
Black has counterplay; Michael­
sen-Kindermann, Hamburg 1 993 .
An early b3 73
b) 9 . . . h6 gives White two op­
tions (D):
W
b l ) 10 d5 is the most consistent
move. 1O . . . tDb4 (worth consider-
ing is 1O . . . tDd8 ! ? 1 1 tDe3 gS in-
tending . . . f4) and practice has now
seen:
b l l ) 1 1 tDe3 cS 1 2 dxc6 bxc6
1 3 a3 tDa6 14 b4 :b8 I S c4 cS 1 6
b S tDc7 1 7 tDh4 ! (this i s usually a
very strong move if Black cannot
answer it with . . . gS; 1 7 "'a4? ! a6
1 8 "'as tDe6 19 a4 f4 gave Black a
promising game in Efimov-Malan­
iuk, Kiev 1 9 89) 17 . . . �h7 1 8 'it'd3
'iff? 19 �h 1 .te6 20 a4 gave White
the advantage in Pugachev-Rub­
levsky, USSR 1 99 1 , since Black's
kingside advance has been effec­
tively halted.
b 1 2) 1 1 .txf6 ! ? :xf6 (but not
tDa6 14 'it'xh6 'ilf? 1'S tDh4 with
more than enough compensation
for White) 12 c3 tDa6 1 3 tDd4 ( 1 3
74 An early b3

b4 ! ? M .Gurevich) 1 3 . . . eS 1 4 dxe6 l O . . . i.e6 is no good since 1 1 dS

lClcs I S b4 lCle4 1 6 lIc t i.xe6 1 7 lClxdS 1 2 i.xg7 + �xg7 1 3 lClgS
lCJd2 d5 1 8 lClxe6 'ti'xe6 1 9 c4 c6 = wins material.
Andersson-M.Gurevich, Wijk aan Eperjesi-Eliet, Budapest 1 993
Zee 1 990. was an odd game : lO . . . i.d7 1 1
b2) lO lCle l gS 1 1 lCld3 �h8 "'e2 i.e6 1 2 l1fd l i.g8 1 3 a4 a6 14
( 1 1 . . .... g6 12 e3 i.d7 13 a4 e6 14 lCle l lId8 I s lCld3 lCldS 1 6 lClf4 e6
b4 lIae8 IS bs lCld8 with a compli­ 17 h4 lId7 18 i.f3 i.f6. Despite
cated struggle ahead; Vogel-Beim, the fact that Black practically lost a
Groningen 1 990) 12 e3 i.e6 ! ? 1 3 tempo in the opening, the position
'ife2 i.dS 1 4 i.xdS lClxdS I S e4 is about equal.
fxe4 1 6 "'xe4 "'f7 1 7 lIae l "'fS 11 lCJel
with equality, Tal-Sakaev, USSR 12 lbd3 gS
Ch 1 99 1 . 13 'iVel i.e6
10 e3 14 lDas lClxaS
The set-up chosen is similar to 15 'iVxaS b6
the ones after 9 . . . h6 or 9 . . . e6. It is a 16 'iVd2 i.dS
very solid option but should not 17 i.xdS 'iVxdS (D)
cause problems for Black. More
consistent strategies are:
a) 1 0 ds lClb4 1 1 lCle3 ( 1 l lCle l
c6 1 2 dxc6 lClxc6 1 3 lCld3 i.e6 1 4
lClf4 i. g 8 I S lCldS lId8 1 6 lClxf6
i.xf6 1 7 i.xf6+ lIxf6 = Sosonko­
Korchnoi, B russels 1 987) 1 1 . . .cS
12 dxc6 bxc6 13 c4 lCla6 1 4 'iVd2
lIb8 I S lIad l i.d7 1 6 lClc2 cS =
Kohlweyer-Malaniuk, Groningen
1 990.
b) l O a4 h6 1 1 as i.e6 1 2 a6 bS
13 lCle3 lCldS 1 4 "'d2 lClxe3 I S w
'it'xe3 i.dS 1 6 c4 ! ? bxc4 1 7 bxc4
i.xc4 1 8 dS i.xb2 19 "'xh6+ �g8 Black can be very satisfied with
20 lClgS lIf7 2 1 'it'xg6+ lIg7 22 the outcome of the opening. An ex­
"'e6+ �h8 23 "'h6+ �g8 24 change of the light-squared bish­
"'e6+ �h8 2S 'ifh6+ �g8 112- 112 ops makes a later kingside attack
Ree- Vanheste, Dutch Ch (Hilver­ even more promising.
sum) 1 987. 18 f3 'iV(7
10••• h6 19 :Sel 'iVg6
 An early b3 75

20 .e2 cS! ? 34 :b3+ �g7

2 1 c4 lLld7 35 �b1 l:tf6
22 dxc5? 36 :g1+ :g6
I think this exchange is normally 37 :xg6+ �xg6
in Black's favour. Better was 22 f4 ! 38 :b8 lLlf6
with a dynamic equilibrium. 39 :b8 (D)
22 •.• bxc5
23 i.xg7+ .xg7
24 f4 e5
25 fxg5? ! bxg5
26 e4 f4
27 "'5+ "'7
28 .xh7+ �xh7
29 :d1 (D)

39 ... O?
It is very tempting to provoke 40
h4 but 39 . . . a4 ! was better, e.g. 40
�g2 axb3 4 1 axb3 :a2 42 �f3
:c2 or 40 b4 cxb4 4 1 :xb4 f3 42
c5 ! �g5 ! 43 cxd6 :xd6 44 :xa4
B :d2 45 �g l lLlg4 ! 46 lLlxg4 �xg4
47 :a8 �f4 and Black wins.
White obviously did not feel 40 b4 a4
comfortable but the endgame aris­ 41 �b2
ing is clearly better for Black. 41 b4 cxb4 42 :xb4 �h5 wins a
29 ••• as pawn.
30 lLlfl :a6 41 ••• axb3
31 :d3 till'6 42 axb3 lLlb5
32 :fd1 lLle8 43 :1'8 llli4
The pawn on d6 is now well pro­ 44 �g3 :b6
tected and Black is ready to exert 45 lLlg4!
pressure on the queenside. 45 �xf3 ? ! :xb3+ 46 �g4 lLlh5 !
33 gxf4 gxf4 47 :f3 :b2 intending . . . :c2 +.
76 An early b3

45 lDh5+ books, it is, in tournament practice,

46 �xf3 :xb3+ quite rare that White plays c4 be­
47 � lDg3 fore playing .lb2. One way to take
48 :g8+ �h5 advantage of White omitting J.b2
49 tDf6+ �xh4 is 7 . . . e5 ! ? S dxe5 and Black has
50 �g2 :b2+ two good options:
IIz_lh, a) S . . .lDg4 9 lDc3 dxe5 10 J.a3
It is clear that Black cannot real­ e4 ( l O . . . :eS ? ! 1 1 "'xdS ':xdS 1 2
ise his extra pawn and has to be sat­ lDd5 lDa6 1 3 :ad l J.e6 1 4 lDg5
isfied with a perpetual check. ± Taimanov) 1 1 J.xfS "'xfS 1 2
lDd4 e3 1 3 f4 lDf2 1 4 :xf2 exf2+
Game 1 9 1 5 �xf2 lDa6 with compensation;
Smejkal - Glek Wexler-Uhlmann, Buenos Aires
Bundesliga 1 992 1 960.
b) S . . . dxe5 9 J.a3 (the alterna­
1 lDfJ fS tives do not promise anything
2 g3 lDf6 either: 9 "'xdS :xdS 1 0 lDxe5 ?
3 J.g2 g6 :eS or 9 'ifc2 1Dc6 1 0 J.a3 :n I I
4 d4 J. g7 lDg5 :d7 1 2 lDe6 lDd4 ! = Savon­
5 0-0 0-0 Lutikov, USSR 1 969) 9 . . ....xd I 1 O
6 b3 d6 (D) :xd l :eS 1 1 1Dc3 e4 1 2 lDe i c6 1 3
f3 lDg4 ! 1 4 fxg4 J.xc3 1 5 :ac 1
.lxe l 1 6 :xe l fxg4 1 7 :ed l .lf5
I S :d4 lDd7 leading to unclear
play ; Anastasian-Malaniuk, Mos­
cow GMA 19S9.
7
••• 'ife8
8 J.b2 h6! ?
Black's intentions are clear after
this move. A kingside attack is to
be launched but this is not without
risk. A more flexible approach is
S . . . lDa6, which I shall cover in the
W next game.
9 lDbd2
7 c4 9 lDc3 is a major alternative. It
I have changed the move-order a should be noted that this position
little bit. Although this exact posi­ often arises via the main line (S b3
tion is dealt with in many reference h6 9 J.b2) . Then 9 . . . lDa6 10 :e l

gS 1 1 e4 fxe4 1 2 �xe4 "'g6 1 3
�f6+ .txf6 14 .d2 c6 I S b4 �7
1 6 dS gave White an edge in Van
Wely-B arbero, Leukerbad 1 992,
while after 9 . . . gS (D) White has
tried several moves:
W �bS lIa8 = or I S e4 f4 ! ? 1 6 eS
a) 1 0 dS �a6 ( 1 O . . . cS ! ?) 1 1
�d4 f4 ! ? 1 2 "'c2 �g4 1 3 �e4
'ii'hS 14 h3 �eS is unclear; Rozen­
talis-Galdunts, Podolsk 1 989.
b) 1 0 lIe l .g6 1 1 'iic2 �a6 12
a3 c6 1 3 b4 �7 14 a4 .0 I S .d3
�e4 1 6 bS .te6 1 7 �xe4 fxe4 1 8
.xe4 .txc4 1 9 bxc6 .tdS 20 'ilfc2
.txc6 2 1 e4 e6 and again the game
is quite complicated but Black is
no worse ; Petursson-Ki.Georgiev,
Reggio Emilia 1 989/90.
c) 10 e3 and now (D) :
e l ) 1 O . . . �h8 ? ! is a prophylactic
move that is often adopted, but in
systems where White plays the
move b3 , it is usually just a loss of
time because White is in no posi­
tion to make use of the king being
An early b3 77
on the a2-g8 diagonal. In Shirov­
Piskov, Moscow 1 99 1 White rap­
idly seized the initiative : 1 1 dS as
1 2 �d4 "'g6 1 3 f4 �g4 1 4 "'d2
'ilfhS IS h3 �f6 16 e4 ! fxe4 17 g4
.txg4 1 8 fxgS .txh3 1 9 �e6 ! and
the complications favoured White.
c2) 1 O ... �a6 1 1 dS .td7 1 2 "'e2
c6 (better is 1 2 . . . cS with the idea
of . . . �c7 and . . . bS) 13 �d4 �c7
14 f4 ;t Chekhov-Vyzhmanavin,
Moscow 1 989.
d) After 1 0 'ilfc2 "'hS 1 1 e3
�a6 1 2 a3 c6 1 3 lIae l lIb8 1 4 dS ,
1 4 . . . cxdS I S �xdS gave White the
advantage in Stohl-Topalov, B uda­
pest 1 993 but Black might do bet­
ter to try 14 . . . cS with the point I S
�g4 17 exd6 exd6 with an unclear
position.
Another reasonable move for
White is 9 dS . This has not had
many practical tests but is certainly
well playable. If now 9 . . . gS White
reacts 1 0 �d4 so Black should
switch to 9 . . . cS ! ? 10 dxc6 bxc6 1 1
�c3 �6 when White has tried:
a) 12 lIe l .td7 1 3 .tal gS 14 e3
lIb8 I S a3 cS 16 �dS �xdS 1 7
.xdS+ .O 1 8 .xO+ �xO 1 9
.txg7 �xg7 2 0 lIc3 lIb6 with a
slight plus for Black, M .Jacobsen­
S .Pedersen, Denmark 1 996.
b) 12 �d4 .td7 13 "'d2 lId8 14
lIad l �cS I S .ta3 � 1 6 �xe4
�xe4 1 7 "'c2 cS 1 8 '�f3 .tc6 1 9
.tb2 �f6 = Benko-Zsu.Polgar,
Aruba 1 992.
78 An early b3

••• 9 gS
10 e3
A very safe move . More often
played is 1 0 "c2 which prepares
to play e4 in one go. 1 O . . . 'ilg6
( l 0 . . ... h5 1 1 e3 c6 1 2 b4 is also
playable in spite of Black going
wrong with 1 2 . . ...n ? ! 1 3 a4 tiJa6
14 .ic3 tiJc7 1 5 b5 .id7 16 l:.abl
tlJe6 1 7 bxc6 bxc6 1 8 c5 ± in Sad­
ler-Kindermann, Altensteig 1 992)
1 1 l:.fe l ( 1 1 l:.ae l tiJa6 12 a3 c5 1 3 W
d 5 tiJc7 1 4 e 4 fxe4 1 5 tiJxe4 .if5
16 tiJfd2 l:.ae8 17 h3 tlJxe4 1 8 .ixe4 13 tiJel tlJc6
.ixb2 1 9 'ilxb2 e6 gave Black 1 3 . . . e5 ! ? 14 tiJd3 l:.f8 or 14 . . . l:.n
counterplay in the game Ruck­ is also playable.
Kobaliya, Guarapuava U- 1 8 Wch 14 tlJd3 l:.f8
1 995) 1 1 . . .c6 1 2 l:.ac 1 tlJa6 13 .ic3 IS eS
tiJc7 14 a4 .id7 15 b4 a6 16 a5 If White does not do this, then
�h7 17 .ib2 l:.ac8 1 8 tiJn l:.n 1 9 Black will play . . . e5 himself with a
tiJ3d2 l:.cfS 20 l:.cd l �h8 2 1 tiJbl good game.
h5 is unclear; Cifuentes-Barbero, IS ••• dxeS
Wijk aan Zee 1 99 1 . 1 6 .ixc6
10
..• tiJfd7! ? (D) 1 6 d5 ! ? tiJd4 1 7 l:.e l 'ifn is un-
Not a very common move in the clear - GIek.
Dutch but known from various 16 bxc6
King's Indian lines. Black prepares 17 dxeS :rS
to play . . . e5 or even as in this game 18 "'e2 tiJf8
. . . f4. 19 tlJe4 tiJe6
1 0 . . . c6 leads to a more regular 20 tiJg3 l:.f8
set-up. 1 1 'ifc2 tiJa6 1 2 .ic3 'ifh5 21 'ifhs "'xhS
1 3 l:.ae l tiJc7 14 h3 .id7 15 tiJh2 22 tiJxhS cS
'ifg6 1 6 e4 fxe4 17 tiJxe4 .if5 1 8 23 f4 tlJd4! ?
g4 .ixe4 1 9 .ixe4 tiJxe4 20 "xe4 24 tiJxcS?
'ifxe4 2 1 l:.xe4 e6 22 l:.d l d5 = Better is 2 4 tiJxg7 ! �xg7 25
Brenninkmeijer-Van Mil, Dutch fxg5 tlJe2+ 26 �g2 .ib7+ 27 �h3 ,
Ch 1 992. with unclear play.
11 e4 f4 24
12 gxf4 l:.xf4 2S �g2
 A n early b3 79

25 �h l ! ? 35••• i.xf6?
25 ••• �4+ At first sight this move wins a
26 �xf4 gxf4 piece but 35 . . . i.c5 ! would have
27 lIael lIfS been much easier.
Black has kept the bishop pair 36 exf6 eS
which should suffice for some ad­ 37 lIg7+ �xf6
vantage, but his pawn structure is 38 lIxc7 lIxd4
badly damaged and White's knight 39 lIxc6+ 1-0
on c5 is extremely strong. Black presumably lost on time
28 h4 i.f8 here. The consequences of39 . . . cite7
29 �f2 e6 (39 . . . �g7 40 lIxd4 exd4 4 1 lId6)
30 � i.b7!? (D) 40 lIxd4 exd4 41 lIxh6 d3 do not
30 . . . i.e7 3 1 �f6+ �f7 was an­ seem very clear.
other possibility.
Game 20
Belov Vyzhmanavin
-

Moscow Tal mem 1992

1 �f3 fS
2 g3 �6
3 i.g2 g6
4 b3 i. g7
5 i.b2 d6
6 d4 0-0
7 0-0 'ii'e8
8 c4 �6 (D)
W

31 �6+ rJ;rr
32 lIdl i.c6
33 i.d4 i.e7
34 lIgl lId8!
Removing the knight is tempt­
ing but after 34 . . . i.xf6 35 exf6 e5
36 lIg7+ �xf6 37 lIxc7 White is
clearly better.
35 �
This loses but what should White
do? Black's threat was . . . lIxd4 ! . W
80 An early b3
This move is much more flex­
ible than S . . . h6, which we looked at
in the previous game. Black wants
to finish his development and keep
his options open. With this move it
is possible to play on the queen­
side, in the centre or even revert to
kingside action, depending on how
White reacts. It also has the advan­
tage that the white knight is de­
prived of its most natural square,
as Black can answer 9 lbc3 with
9 . . . eS and obtain full equality.
9 lbbd2
This is the normal move but 9
'iWc2 (D) is a good alternative:
B b2) 1 1 . . .lbhS ! ? 1 2 e4 f4 1 3 eS
a) 9 . . . lbb4 ! ? 1 0 'iVc3 as 1 1 a3
lbc6 1 2 ds lbdS 1 3 lbd4 c6 14 lbd2
eS worked out fine for Black in
Prudnikova-Sheremetieva, Debre­
cen worn Echt 1 992. After IS dxe6
lbxe6 1 6 lbxe6 .i.xe6 17 e3 :f7 I S
"'c2 :d7 Black was doing very
well but I believe the white queen
is better placed on d2. If we follow
the same sequence of moves then
Black will find it more difficult to
accomplish . . . eS .
b) 9 . . . c6 1 0 lbbd2 h6 ( 1 O . . . <i>hS
1 1 :ae 1 dS 12 lbeS .i.e6 1 3 lbdf3
lbe4 1 4 lbd3 :cS I S lbfeS was
slightly better for White, H.Griin­
berg-Mack, Bundesliga 1 990) 1 1
:ae l ( 1 1 a3 gS 1 2 e3 "'hS 1 3 :fe l
:f7 i s unclear; Smejkal-Topalov,
Altensteig 1 990) and Black has
three options:
b l ) 1 1 .. .gS 12 e4 fxe4 13 lbxe4
'ti'g6 1 4 lbxf6+ 'it'xf6 I S :e3 .i.fS
1 6 'ti'd2 :f7 1 7 :fe l :eS? ! (the al­
ternative 17 . . . e6 is better) I S .i.c3
'iVg6 1 9 dS ! cS 20 a3 ± Dreev-Mot­
wani, Berlin 199 1 . Black has played
very natural moves but is already
under strong pressure. The a6-
knight is out of play, the g7-bishop
has been effectively neutralised
and the kingside attack looks com­
pletely innocent, whilst White has
pressure on the e-file and is ready
for a queenside advance. For more
on this type of position, see the in­
troductory chapter.
.i.fS 1 4 'iVc3 dS IS e6 ! ? lbc7 1 6
.i.a3 .i.f6 1 7 lbeS .i.xe6 I S lbdf3
as 1 9 .i.b2 gave White compensa­
tion in Hakulinen-Lim, Manila OL
1 992.
b3) 1 1 . . ....f7 is an interesting
prophylactic move. Now 12 e4? ! is
dubious on account of 12 .. .fxe4 1 3
lbxe4 lbxe4 1 4 "'xe4 .i.fS ! I S
'ii'xe7 ( 1 S "'e3 lbb4 +) I S . . . .i.d3

1 6 'ifxd6 .i.xfl 1 7 �xfl lIad8 1 8
'ife6 lLlb4 and Black i s much better
- Dreev. Instead White can play 1 2
.i.c3 ! g 5 1 3 e 4 fxe4 14 lLlxe4. This
position has arisen several times in
practical play:
b3 1 ) 1 4 . . . lLlxe4 1 5 'ifxe4 .i.f5
1 6 'ife3 lIae8 ( 1 6 . . . e6 ! ?) 1 7 d5 ! ?
.i.xc3 1 8 'ifxc3 cxd5 1 9 cxd5
Wxd5 20 lLld4 'ifc5 2 1 'ife3 gave
White compensation in Scekic-Ni­
kac, Yugoslav Ch 1 992.
b32) 14 . . . .i.d7 ? ! 15 lLlxf6+
exf6 1 6 d5 c5 1 7 lIe6 ! ± Dreev­
Malaniuk, USSR Ch 1 99 1 .
b33) 1 4. . .�h8 1 5 lLlexg5 ! ?
hxg5 1 6 lLlxg5 'ii'h5 17 h4 lLlg8 1 8
d 5 c 5 1 9 .i.xg7+ �xg7 2 0 'ii'c 3+
IIf6 2 1 lIe3 �f8 22 life 1 gave
White compensation in Lputian­
Malaniuk, USSR Ch 1 99 1 .
9••• eSt ?
Black seizes his first chance to
accomplish the central push. Other
moves are :
a) 9 . . . lIb8 ! ? 10 IIc l (10 lie 1 b5
1 1 .i.c3 bxc4 12 bxc4 .i.b7 1 3 IIb l
e6 1 4 e3 lLle4 = Obukhov-Kram­
nik, USSR 1 990) 1O . . . b5 1 1 d5 b4
1 2 lLld4 e5 1 3 dxe6 (White should
prefer 1 3 lLlc6 ! IIb7 14 a3 .i.d7 1 5
lLlxb4 lLlxb4 1 6 axb4 IIxb4 1 7 .i.a3
17 . . . lIb7 1 8 c5 ± according to Mak­
arov) 1 3 . . . .i.b7 ! 1 4 lLlb5 .i.xg2 1 5
�xg2 'ifxe6 1 6 lLlxa7 c 5 1 7 lLlb5
d5 with compensation for Black;
Vaulin-Makarov, USSR 1 99 1 .
b) 9 . . . h6 with the two alterna­
tives:
An early b3 81
b l ) 1 0 lIe l g5 1 1 e4 fxe4 1 2
lLlxe4 'ifg6 1 3 lLlxf6+ .i.xf6 14
'ifd2 c6 1 5 d5 c5 1 6 lIe3 .i.d7 1 7
lIae l l1f7 1 8 .i.xf6 ( 1 8 a 3 i s better)
1 8 . . . exf6 1 9 lIe7 lIaf8 = Shved­
chikov-M.Gurevich, Moscow 1992.
b2) 10 'ii'c2 g5 1 1 e4 fxe4 1 2
lLlxe4 'iVg6 1 3 lLlxf6+ 'ii'xf6 14
lIae l .i.f5 1 5 'ifd2 lIae8 ? ! 1 6 .i.al
'ifg6 17 lIe3 c6 1 8 IIfel 1If7 19 .i.c3
lLlc7 20 d5 ;!; Bagirov-M .Gurevich,
Helsinki 1 992.
10 dxeS lLlg4 (D)
W
11 .i.a3
With this move, White forces
Black to recapture with the knight
and afterwards hopes to gain a po­
sitional advantage. Other moves:
a) 1 1 IIb l dxe5 12 h3 lLlh6 1 3
.i.a3 c 5 1 4 e4 f4 with counterplay ;
Velikov-Bareev, Marseilles 1 990.
b) 1 1 "'c l lLlxe5 1 2 lLlxe5 dxe5
1 3 c5 c6 14 lLlc4 We7 1 5 'ife3
'ifxc5 = Sadler-Grigorov, Cappelle
la Grande 1 993 .
82 An early b3
c) 1 1 'it'c2 dxeS ( l l . . . lLlxeS ! ? ­
Glek) 1 2 e4 and now:
c l ) 1 2 . . .f4 1 3 cS ( 1 3 h3 lLlh6 14
cS is another possibility - Glek)
1 3 . . . fxg3 14 hxg3 'iVbS ! was un­
clear in Belov-Goldin, Moscow
1 992.
c2) 12 ... lLlb4 ! ? 1 3 .c3 lLlc6 14
exfS gxfS IS %lfe l i.f6 1 6 lLlh4 f4
(Glek analysed 1 6 . . . e4 ! ? 1 7 .c l
lLlb4 1 8 i.xf6 lLlxf6 1 9 'ii'c 3 lLld3
20 %le2 'iVeS 2 1 'it'xeS lLlxeS 22 n
lLlhS ! ? 23 fxe4 f4 as providing
compensation) 1 7 i.dS+ lth8 1 8
� was the game Nikolaev-Glek,
Moscow 1 992. Black should now
try 1 8 . . . fxg3 1 9 .xg3 ( 1 9 hxg3
i.xh4 20 gxh4 lLld4 is also un­
clear) 19 . . . i.g7 with unclear play.
11••• lLlxe5
12 %let (D)
White intends to push his queen­
side pawns and the rook is well
placed on c 1 to support this ad­
vance . However, this plan is not
very dangerous for B lack. Instead
White should try to exchange the
dark-squared bishops. To do this
White can play 1 2 lLlxeS .xeS :
a) 1 3 .c2 f4 (a more cautious
approach is 1 3 . . . lLlcs 14 lLln .c3 !
I S .xc3 i.xc3 1 6 %lac l i.f6 1 7
%lfd 1 lLle4 with an equal position)
14 lLln .e7 I S 'iVd2 ! ? (White is
also better after IS i.b2 i.fS 1 6
'it'd2 or I S %lad 1 ) I S . . . fxg3 1 6 hxg3
lLlcs ( 1 6 . . . i.xal 17 %lxal lLlcS 1 8
i.b2 gives White plenty of com­
pensation) 17 i.b2 i.xb2 1 8 'it'xb2
i.d7 ( l 8 . . . aS ! ?) 1 9 b4 ! lLle4 20
lLld2 lLlxd2 (20 . . . i.c6? loses to 2 1
bS lLlxd2 2 2 bxc6 lLlxfl 2 3 i.dS+)
21 .xd2 i.c6 22 i.dS + ! �g7 23
%lac l ± Onishchuk-Vyzhmanavin,
Alushta 1994.
b) 13 %lb l ! ? is presumably the
most serious test. Now Borovikov­
Maksimenko, Nikolaev Z 1 993 con­
tinued 1 3 . . . lLlcS ? ! 14 b4 lLld7 I S
cS ! and White was much better.
13 .. .f4 14 i.b2 'ii'e7 IS i.xg7 .xg7
1 6 b4 also looks promising for
White, but Black can instead try
1 3 . . :ifa5 ! 14 i.b2 i.xb2 I S %lxb2
.eS ! ?
B
12 '" lLlc5
12 . . . lLlc6 is more passive. In
Hertneck-Karolyi, Kecskemet 1 990,
White achieved some advantage
after 1 3 lLlbl lLlcs 14 lLlc3 lLle4 I S
lLldS .
13 �eS "'xeS
14 ffi "'e7
1 5 e3 as
 An early b3 83

Black has successfully prevented advantage. But where did White go

any expansion by White on the wrong? Probably he should not
queenside and the knight has been have allowed Black to fix the pawn
brought into the game . The posi- structure.
tion is about equal but Black soon 30 :c2 a4
seizes the initiative. 31 lL)d2 �6
16 'iVc2 .td7 32 a3?
17 lL)d4 lbe4 White already feels the pressure
18 :fe1 :ae8 and tries to defend actively but this
19 .tb2 'iVeS just loses a pawn.
20 .tal 'iVc5 32 axb3
21 lL)O?! .tn1 33 �b3 bxa3
22 :xa1 b5 34 :a1 :a7
23 :ac1 b4! 35 �2 :b8
24 �4 :e7 36 :ca2 :b4
25 'iVd3 'iVeS 37 La3 :xa3
26 lL)o 'iVg7 38 :xa3 .txc4
27 'iVd5+ .te6 39 lL)xc4 :xc4
28 'iVd4 c5 40 :a7+ �
29 'iVxg7+ rJ;xg7 (D) The ending is now a relatively
easy win. White has no serious
counterplay and therefore it is only
a matter of time before the black
pawns reach their goal.
41 .to g5
42 �n :c1+
43 �e2 g4
44 .tg2 d5
45 h3 h5
46 h4 :gl
47 .tn c4
48 :c7 lDe4
W 49 :h7 c3
50 :c7 �e8
White has been playing normal 51 :b7 �d8
moves but is already under pres­ 52 :a7 :xn !
sure. We know this type of end­ 53 cRxfl c2
game from various systems and it 54 :a1 �2+
invariably gives Black a pleasant 0-1
4 The Ka rlsbad Va riation

The Karlsbad Variation got its to f4 immediately is much more

name after the famous tournament flexible and White might even take
in 1 923 , when no fewer than three his chance to launch a kingside at­
games saw this set-up. Bogolju­ tack beginning with h4-h5 . On 5
bow, Rubinstein and Alekhine all 0-0 the idea of playing . . . �c6 as in
employed the idea of developing this and the following games is a
the king's knight to h3 against the good idea.
Leningrad system. Since then it 5 000 1Dc6! ? (D)
has been an attractive way of
avoiding the main lines for W hite.
The strategy is well founded, as
W hite leaves the diagonal h I -aS
open for the bishop. The knight
will go to f4, controlling the vital
squares e6 and d5 and by a later
pawn advance d4-d5 (normally af­
ter Black has played . . . d6) W hite
takes further control of e6. White
can play the Karlsbad Variation in
two ways, omitting c4 (Game 2 1 )
or with c4 (Games 22-23). w

Game 2 1 This move dates all the way

Malaniuk Borge
- back to Rubinstein-Bogoljubow,
Politiken Cup 1992 Karlsbad 1923.
6 h4! ?
1 d4 f5 Revealing the advantage of leav­
2 g3 �f6 ing out 0-0. With this move White
3 i.g2 g6 prepares to open the h-file, which
4 �h3 i.g7 will pose Black some problems,
5 �4 particularly because the knight on
White usually delays castling f4 becomes very strong then. The
for a few moves. Playing the knight main alternative is 6 d5 � 5 (D):

w doing quite well in the centre.
a) 7 �c3 c6 8 h4 (one of the
first games with the Karlsbad Vari­
ation saw 8 �d3 �f7 9 0-0 0-0 1 0
f4? cxdS 1 1 �xdS �xd5 1 2 .ixd5
e6 1 3 .i g2 dS and Black had a
strong grip on the centre in Rubin­
stein-Bogoljubow, Karlsbad 1 923)
8 ... �f7 ! (again this is a fine defen­
sive move; Black prepares . . . eS and
. also intends to answer 9 h5 with
. . . g5) 9 e4 0-0 (9 . . . eS 10 dxe6 dxe6
1 1 'iVxd8+ �xd8 1 2 hS ! is better
for White) 1 0 exf5 gxf5 1 1 �h5
� S 12 'iVxhS e6 1 3 dxe6 dxe6 14
0-0 eS 15 .i e3 'iVf6 1 6 :ad l .ie6
17 f4 e4 1 8 .i d4 'iVg6 19 'iVxg6
hxg6 20 .i xg7 �xg7 21 �f2 :fd8
= S myslov-Kindermann, Munster
1 993 .
b) 7 0-0 0-0 8 �2 c6 9 c4 �f7
1 0 'iVc2 e5 1 1 dxe6 dxe6 1 2 �d3
e5 13 e4 �gS ! ? 14 �e5 �fxe4 1 5
�df3 1/2- 1/2 Van Gisbergen-Klip,
Sas van Gent 1 992.
c) 7 h4 c6 (B lack could also
transpose to the main game with
The Karlsbad Variation 85
7 . . . �fg4) 8 �c3 O-O ! ? (another
possibility is 8 . . . cxd5 9 �fxd5 e6
10 �xf6+ .i xf6 1 1 e4 ! 0-0 1 2 .i h6
:f7 1 3 'iVe2 'ifb6 with unclear play
- Rublevsky) 9 h5 cxd5 1 0 hxg6
hxg6 1 1 �cxd5 �xd5 12 .i xd5+
e6 13 .i g2 'it'b6 14 c3 d5 15 'it'b3 !
'iVxb3 1 6 axb3 �f7 gave rise to ap­
proximately equal play in Puga­
chev-Rublevsky, USSR 1 99 1 . White
controls the open lines but Black is
More rarely seen are 6 c3, which
leads to positions covered in Chap­
ter 2, and 6 �c3 on which 6 . . . e5 ! ?
( 6 . . . d6) 7 dxe5 �xe5 i s possible
but note that this is only good be­
cause the white knight is blocking
the c-pawn and Black is able to fol­
low up with . . . c6 and . . . d5 . Thragi­
mov-Galdunts, St Petersburg 1 993
then continued 8 �d3 �f7 9 0-0
dS 1 0 �b5 c6 1 1 �a3 �d6 1 2 .if4
0-0 1 3 .i e5 :e8 14 b3 �fe4 1 5
.i xg7 �xg7 with an equal posi­
tion.
6
••• �g4!?
Attacking d4 and intending to
meet h5 with . . . g5. On 6 . . . d6 White
should probably avoid the end­
game arising after 7 h5 e5 8 dxe5
dxe5 9 .i xc6+ bxc6 10 'it'xd8+
�xd8 1 1 h6 .i f8 12 �d3 .i d6 1 3
.i g5 �e7 1 4 liJ d2 e 4 1 5 �f4 �f7
1 6 �c4 .i a6 1 7 �xd6+ cxd6 1 8
:d l d5 =F Cifuentes-Van Mil, Eind­
'
hoven 1 993 and play 7 d5 �e5 8
h5 .
7 dS lbce5
86 The Karlsbad Variation

S lbc3 liJrI
It is a common idea to free the
e5-square and prepare the advance
of the e-pawn.
9 e4 e5
10 dxe6 dxe6
1O ... i.xc3+ 1 1 bxc3 dxe6 1 2 'iWe2
"'f6 is interesting and unclear.
11 'ii'xdS+ �xdS
1 1 . . . liJxdS? is not good in view
of 1 2 liJb5 i.e5 1 3 liJd3 .
12 0-0 W
Some other sources consider
this position slightly better for Black prepares to free himself with
White but I kind of like these end­ the manoeuvre . . , r:� c7, . . . i.d7 and
games. Wait a second, should not . . . :gS.
this book be dedicated to attacking 20 g4! ? (D)
players ? Well, do not worry, there
is a lot of dynamism in this type of
position.
12
000 c6
13 exf5
On 1 3 :d l + the black king is
quite safe on c7 .
13
000 gxf5!? (D)
Played in very combative style .
Instead 1 3 . . . exf5 is a sound move
leading to a more balanced posi­
tion.
14 liJh5 i.e5 B
15 i.f4 i.xf4
16 liJxf4 liJf6! Certainly this move is not with­
Black is right in keeping the e- out risk but White is the stronger
pawn back for a while. player and naturally wanted to win
17 :fe1 :eS the game.
1S i.O! :e7 20 fxg4
19 lfJh5 liJe8 ! ? 21 i.xg4 e5
There was nothing wrong with 22 :ad1+ �c7
1 9 . . . liJxh5 20 i.xh5 liJ d6 ! either. 23 i.xc8 :XcS
 The Karlshad Variation 87

24 f4
This is what White based his
20th move upon but a strong pawn
sacrifice transfers the initiative to
Black.
24 tZ)ed6
25 tZ)f6 :e6!
26 tDxh7 :g6+
27 �n :h8
28 fxe5 lIz_Ill
White was probably afraid that
Black would be able to launch a di­
rect attack against his king and de­
cided to offer the draw at this point. ( 1 2 . . . aS) 1 3 b4 Seirawan-M.Gure­
However, it does not seem that vich, Belgrade 1 99 1 and now Black
Black has anything better than could equalise with 1 3 . . . dS 14 cxdS
28 . . . :xh7 29 exd6+ tZ)xd6 with a tZ)xdS I S 'it'b3 tZ) 7f6 = M .Gure­
draw as the most likely outcome. vich.
a2) 9 tZ)c3 .txe6 10 �e6 "'xe6
Game 22 1 1 .t f4 tZ) a6 ! ( 1 1 . . .0-01 is a seri­
Sher - Beim ous mistake: in the game Vyzh­
Biel 1990 manavin-Yilmaz, Kusadasi 1 990
White got an extra pawn after 1 2
1 c4 f5 .txd6 :d8 1 3 Wb3 ! tZ)bd7 1 4 cS
2 d4 tZ)f6 "'xb3 IS axb3 +-) 12 "'xd6 'it'xc4
3 g3 g6 1 3 :d l 112- 112 Malaniuk-S . Ped­
4 .tgl .t g7 ersen, Forli 1 99 1 .
5 tZ)c3 b) 7 tZ)c3 eS 8 dxe6 .txe6 and
Normally White develops his White has the following options
knight to h3 before moving this with line 'bl ' as the most popular:
one but the text has a point (see b l ) 9 .tf4 .txc4 10 "'xd6 (after
next note) . On S �3 Black can try 10 .txd61 ! tZ)dS ! 1 1 'it'a4, 1 1 . . . tZ)b6
to delay castling for a few moves, 1 2 'it'a3 .tf7 1 3 'it'b4 tZ) a6 14 'fIf4
e.g. S . . . d6 6 dS c6 (D) and White tZ) c4 I S :d l tZ)xd6 1 6 :xd6 "'as
has two options: 1 7 0-0 .teS 1 8 "'e3 "'cS 1 9 :d3
a) 7 tZ)f4 eS 8 dxe6 "'e7 which 0-0 20 "'d2 .tf6 2 1 tZ) gS :ad8 22
again divides into: tZ)xf7 �xf7 23 :d7 + :xd7 24
al) 9 tZ) d2 ! 1 0-0 10 0-0 .txe6 "'xd7+ "'e7 was equal in Geor­
1 1 tZ) xe6 "'xe6 12 :b l tZ)bd7 gadze-Makarov, Podolsk 1 989 but
88 The Karlsbad Variation
1 1 . . . .ta6 ! would have been very
strong) 1 0 . . .... xd6 1 1 .txd6 �a6 !
( 1 1 . . .�bd7 should also be OK, e.g.
12 II c l �b6 13 b3 .tf7 1 4 0-0
�fdS IS �xdS .txdS 1 6 �f4
.txg2 1 7 �xg2 �f7 1 8 IIfd l .th6
19 h4 II hd8 with equality, Gretars­
son-Cherniaev, Gausdal 1 993) 1 2
0-0-0 0-0-0 and now two o f my
own games confirm that Black has
the initiative:
bl 1 ) 1 3 b3 ? ! .tf7 14 �gS .tg8
I S e4? �g4 -+ Labrevsky-S.Ped­
ersen, Cheliabinsk 1 99 1 .
b12) 1 3 e4 fxe4 1 4 �gS liJc7 I S
b3 .tg8 1 6 �cxe4 �xe4 1 7 .txe4
�dS + J .Bellin-S.Pedersen, Gaus­
dal 1 992.
b2) 9 'iVd4? ! 'iVe7 10 �gS �e4
1 1 "'e3 �xgS 1 2 "'xgS "'xgS 1 3
.txgS .txc4 14 0-0-0 dS + Arenci­
bia-Knezevic, Havana 1 985 .
b3) 9 b3 0-0 1 0 0-0 'ike7 1 1
.ta3 II d8 1 2 'iic 2 �a6 1 3 lIae l
�cS 1 4 �gS �g4 I S �xe6 �xe6
1 6 h3 �h6 1 7 e4 f4 gave Black
counterplay in Brynell-Kristensen,
Gausdal 1 995.
5 ... d6
6 d5
This subtle move-order should
make you think a little. Black has
been postponing castling in order
to play a quick . . . eS. Therefore
6 . . . c6 with the idea of 7 �h3 eS
leading to line 'b' in the previous
note would be logical but if you
want to follow the repertoire sug­
gested in this book then you have
been completely cheated after 7
�f3 ! Therefore, Black's best reply
is . . .
6
••• lDa6!
Still leaving the king in the mid­
dle ; note that now 7 �f3 0-0 8 0-0
'ife8 is within our repertoire.
7 lOb3 e5
8 dxe6 �5
9 lM4 c6 (D)
w
10 0-0
The critical test is 1 0 h4 ! . In
B adea-Solonar, Bucharest 1 992
there now followed 10 . . .�xe6 1 1
hS �xf4 1 2 .txf4 �xhS 1 3 .txd6
.te6 14 cS "'as IS 0-0 0-0-0 16 a3
1Ia6 17 IIc l f4 1 8 b4! ± and White's
attack proved the more dangerous.
However, in the previous game we
saw the antidote to 10 h4 ! , namely
10 . . . �g4 ! intending to meet 1 1 hS
with 1 1 . . .gS . Play could then con­
tinue 1 1 e4 ! ? �xe6 1 2 exfS gxfS
with an unclear position.
10
••• 0-0

I would prefer to take on e6 first.
It is much more flexible, and some­
times it is even possible to castle
queenside.
11 .i.e3
Other options are:
a) 1 1 "'d2? ! gS ! 1 2 lLlh3 h6 1 3
lt d l .i.xe6 1 4 "'xd6 "'xd6 I S
lt xd6 .i.xc4 :j: Siegel-Fleck, Bun­
desliga 19S5.
b) 1 1 ltb l as 1 2 .i.e3 "'e7 1 3
"'c2 .i.xe6 1 4 lLlxe6 lLlxe6 I S ltbd l
lLlg4 1 6 .i. c 1 h S was unclear i n the
game Murugan-Vasiukov, Coim­
batore 1 9S7.
c) 1 1 b4 lLlxe6 12 lt b l lLlxf4
(passive is 1 2 . . . lLleS 1 3 "'d3 "'f6
1 4 lLla4 lLlxf4 I S .i.xf4 .i.e6 1 6 bS
lt cS 17 bxc6 bxc6 I S lt fc 1, which
led to advantage for White in Hub­
ner-Danner, Switzerland 1 993) 1 3
.i.xf4 lLlhS 1 4 .i.d2 .i.e6 I S bS
.i.xc4 1 6 bxc6 bxc6 17 .i.xc6 lt cS
IS "'a4 dS 19 lt b7 "'d6 20 .i.d7
lt cdS with complications ; Lutz­
Babu, Manila OL 1 992.
d) 1 1 "'c2 lLlxe6 (after 1 1 .. ....e7
12 b3 lLlxe6 1 3 lLlxe6 .i.xe6 14 .i.a3
lt adS I S e3 lLle4 1 6 lLlxe4 fxe4 1 7
lt ac l .i.fS, Bijnsch-Reinemer, Dort­
mund 1 992, Cvetkovic gives I S
h3 ! thinking that White i s some­
what better) 12 ltd l lLlg4! ( 1 2 ......e7
1 3 lLlxe6 .i.xe6 1 4 b3 lt adS I S
.i.b2 "'f7 1 6 e 3 dS 1 7 cxds lLlxdS
I s lLlxdS .i.xb2 19 "'xb2 .i.xdS 20
"'d4 ! a6 2 1 "'b6 lt d7 22 .i.xdS
cxdS 23 ltac l and Black was strug­
gling for a draw in Bijnsch-Zysk,
The Karlsbad Variation 89
Dortmund 1 992) 1 3 lLlxe6 .i.xe6
and now Cvetkovic considers 1 4
b 3 slightly better for White but in
fact Black has a very powerful con­
tinuation in 14 . . . f4 ! (D).
The idea is that after I S .i.xf4
( I S h3 fxg3 1 6 hxg4 gxf2+ 1 7 �fl
.i.xg4 +) IS . . . lt xf4 ! 16 gxf4 "'h4
17 e3 .i.fS ! I S 'ifd2 .i.xc3 1 9 "'xc3
'ifxf2+ 20 �h l .i.e4 2 1 lt g l "'h4
White gets mated.
11
••• lLlxe6
1 1 . . ....e7 1 2 h3 gS 1 3 lLld3 lLlxe6
14 "'d2 h6 IS f4 lLlhS led to an un­
clear position in Van der Sterren­
Van Mil, Dutch Ch 1 99 1 .
12 ltct
After 1 2 lLlxe6 .i.xe6 13 "'d3 ? !
lLlg4 ! 1 4 b3 lLlxe3 I S "'xe3 lteS 1 6
"'d2 i.. f7 1 7 lt ac l "'as I S lt fd l
lladS Black was slightly better in
the game Sarfati-Garbett, Auck­
land 1 992.
12 'it'e7
13 'it'84 lLlg4! (D)
90 The Karlshad Variation

W B

We are getting quite familiar It was even better to take on f1

with this move, aren't we? before this but there is of course
14 .td2 tLlxf4 nothing wrong with the move actu­
15 .txf4 g5! ally played. White could resign but
16 .td2 f4 hangs on for a short while .
Black' s attack is already on the 24 llxf8+ .txt'S
roll, while White has not achieved 25 .tel 'it'e6
much on the other side. 26 'it'd3 lle4
17 'it'dl?! 27 lle2 g4
This is probably inaccurate, but 28 .tf2 a6
it is difficult to see a good defence 29 b3 .th6
for White. 30 'it'dl 'it'e5
17 fxg3 31 <ii>g2 .te3!
18 hxg3 'it'f6 32 'it'el .txf2
19 .tf3 33 'it'xf2 lle3
Unfortunately White is virtually 34 lld2 hS
forced to cede the bishop in order 35 'ii'e t h4
to avoid mate. 36 gxh4 'it'e4+
19 ••• "iih6 37 � g3+
20 .txg4 .txg4 0-1
21 tLle4 llae8
22 f3 (D) The idea of playing an early . . . e5
22 ... llxe4! is not Black's only option in this
23 fxg4 line. Another good strategy is to
Not, of course, 23 fxe4 .td4+. play . . . tLlc6, . . . d6 to prepare the
23 ••• llxg4 . . . e5 advance. Normally Black 's

knight is pushed with d4-dS and it
goes to eS, though sometimes
. . . �aS is an interesting side-line.
This strategy is covered in the
notes to the next game. Speelman's
idea 7 . . . e6 ! ? is original and de­
serves more practical tests :
Game 23
Timman - Speelman
London Ct (5) 1 989
1 d4 fS
2 g3 �f6
3 J. g2 g6
4 �h3 J. gT
5 0-0
As we know, White could also
postpone castling for a short while,
e.g. S c4 0-0 (S . . . d6 leads to the
note to White's Sth move in game
22) 6 �c3 and again 6 . . . �c6 is a
good move. White now has to de­
cide whether he wants to chase the
knight immediately or wait until
Black has played . . . d6:
a) 7 lIbl ! ? (it is always quite
useful to clear the rook off the long
diagonal) 7 . . . d6 8 dS �eS 9 b3 cS
1 0 0-0 (Suba-Tejero, Seville 1 993
continued 1 0 dxc6 bxc6 1 1 0-0 J.d7
1 2 J.b2 and now Black should
maintain a flexible centre with
1 2 . . ....c7 1 3 'ifd2 11ad8 - M .Gure­
vich) 1O . . . J.d7 1 1 'ifc2 a6 (Black
may also consider playing 1 1 . . .lIb8
1 2 J.d2 �e8 ! 1 3 �f4 �c7 14 a4
b6 with the idea of . . . a6 and . . . bS;
then Black has averted a white
The Karlsbad Variation 91
knight invasion on e6, which is
sometimes very annoying) 1 2 a4
lIb8 1 3 J.d2 �e8 ! (D).
W
This is a good manoeuvre . The
knight is going to c7 from where it
covers e6 and helps to support the
. . . bS advance. White has now tried:
a l ) 14 �f4 �c7 ? ! ( 1 4 . . . b6 I S
�e6 J.xe6 1 6 dxe6 �c7 1 7 J.dS
bS 1 8 axbS axbS is better, with the
idea of 1 9 cxbS �xdS 20 �xdS
lIxbS followed by . . . �c6) IS as ;!;
Suba-Ermenkov, Tunis IZ 1 985.
a2) 1 4 �h l b6 I S libe l �7 16
f4 �f7 17 e4 bS 18 �f2 ! e6 ! 1 9
dxe6 (Scherbakov-Kramnik, USSR
1 990) 19 . . . �xe6 20 exfS �d4 2 1
"d 1 J.xfS 22 J.e4 and White is
better according to Kramnik but
Black could consider 2 1 . . .gxfS ! ?
b) 7 �f4 d6 8 dS ( 8 h4 i s not re­
ally dangerous : 8 . . . eS 9 dxeS dxeS
10 �fd5 �d4 1 1 J.gS ·c6 12 �xf6+
J.xf6 1 3 e3 J.xgS 1 4 hxgS �e6 =
B annik-Savon, USSR Ch 1 962)
92 The Karlsbad Variation
S . . . �eS (S . . . �aS would only be
good if Black could meet 9 'ird3
with 9 . . . eS, but this is not possible
since White has brought his knight
to f4 before castling) 9 b3 (9 'ifb3
cS 1 0 �d2 ltbS 1 1 h4 was Hiibner­
Zsu.Polgar, Munich 1 99 1 ; Black is
then advised to play 1 1 . . .a6 1 2 a4
�d7 1 3 hS b6 with chances for
both sides - Hiibner) 9 . . . cS 1 0 �d2
lt bS 1 1 0-0 a6 12 a4 b6 1 3 'ifc2
� S ! with counterplay.
c) 7 dS �eS (D) and White has
two ways to cover his c-pawn:
c l ) S 'ifb3 cS (S ... �f7 9 0-0 m
1 0 lt d l d6 1 1 �e3 �d7 1 2 cS !
dxcS 1 3 �xcS b6 1 4 �d4 * Kor­
chnoi-Kuzminykb, USSR 1 9S 1 ) 9
0-0 �eS ! ' Regrouping the knight
before playing . . . d6 certainly has
its points. White has to reckon with
. . . �d6 at some stage. In Kloss­
Haag, corr. 1 9S9 White immedi­
ately took measures against this
and put his bishop on e3 forcing
Black to play . . . d6, but the bishop
is not ideally placed on e3, where it
hinders any advance by the e­
pawn. The game continued 1 0 �e3
d6 1 1 lt ad l lt bS 12 �gS �c7 1 3
�f3 �d7 1 4 �xeS �xeS I S �h6
lt eS 16 'iVc2 bS, with unclear play.
c2) After S b3 Black can now
play S . . . d6 followed by . . . cS lead­
ing to a normal position covered in
the next note, but he may also con­
sider playing for the . . . eS advance
without committing the d-pawn,
viz. S . . . �f7 ! ?, after which White
has tried:
c2 1 ) 9 lt bl c6 1 0 0-0 eS 1 1
dxe6 dxe6 1 2 �gS �gS 1 3 �xgS
h6 14 �c1 m ! ? ( 14 ...eS? ! IS �a3
'irxd l 16 lt fxd l lt eS 17 e4 was
better for White in Bonsch-Mal­
aniuk, Bmo 1 993 but 14 . . ....c7 ! ? is
another reasonable move; play may
continue something like this: I S e4
eS 1 6 exfS �xfS 17 ltb2 lt adS and
Black has equalised) I S 'ifc2 eS 1 6
�a3 lt eS 1 7 lt fd l 'fIc7 with un­
clear play - Malaniuk.
c22) 9 1i'c2 ! ? c6 (9 . . . eS ? is pre­
mature : 10 dxe6 dxe6 1 1 �a3 ±
M.Gurevich) 10 �b2 cxdS ? ! (infe­
rior to 1 0 . . . eS 1 1 dxe6 dxe6 1 2
�a3 lteS 1 3 ltd l 'ifc7 =) 1 1 �dS
�xdS 12 �xdS 'fIa5+ 1 3 �f1
�xb2 14 'ifxb2 e6 IS �f3 ltbS 1 6
�g2 'ireS 1 7 'irxeS �eS I S lt hd l
* L.Santos-An.Femandes, Almada
1 9S5.
c23) 9 �b2 eS 1 0 dxe6 dxe6 1 1
'ifxdS ltxdS 1 2 �4, Osnos-Liogky,

Lvov 1 984, and now 1 2 . . .c6 intend­
ing . . . e5 is fine for Black - M.Gure­
vich.
5 0-0
6 c4 �c6
7 �c3 (D)
B bxc6 1 1 �xc6 �c6 1 2 'ifxc6 �d7
7 000 e6! ?
Very creative. After 7 . . . d6 White
has tried:
a) 8 �f4 e5 9 dxe5 dxe5 1 0
�fd5 (the queen exchange should
not be a problem for Black: 1 0
'ifxd8 :xd8 1 1 �xc6 ! ? bxc6 1 2
�d3 �d7 1 3 �b4 �b7 1 4 �g5
:e8 15 :ad l �b6 16 c5 �c4 with
good counterplay ; Dizdar-Malan­
iuk, Baku 1 988) 1O . . . �8 1 1 b4 e4
1 2 b5 �d4 1 3 �e3 �6 1 4 :c 1 c6
1 5 �b4 �d7 ! 1 6 f3 'ife7 with a
messy position; Tukmakov-Mal­
aniuk, Sverdlovsk 1 987.
b) 8 d5 and now 8 ... �e5 is the
normal move but some analysis
shows that 8 . . . � deserves practi­
cal testing but note that the latter
The Karlsbad Variation 93
is only possible because White's
knight is not yet on f4:
b l ) 8 . . . � (D) and now:
b1 1 ) 9 'ifa4 b6 ! ? (9 . . . c5 1 0 dxc6
gives Black compensation) 10 �f4
�d7 1 1 'ifc2 �xc4 1 2 �e6 �xe6
1 3 dxe6 c6 ! 1 4 �xc6 :c8 1 5 �g2
d5 =+= M.Gurevich.
b 1 2) 9 'ifd3 e5 1 0 dxe6 �xe6
1 1 b3 ( 1 1 �d5 �4 ! 12 �4 �f7
13 �",e4 fxe4 14 'ifxe4 c6 15 �e3
�xc4 16 �c4 d5 17 'ife3 :e8 ! 1 8
'ifb3 dxc4 1 9 'ifxb7 g 5 yields com­
pensation for Black) 1 1 . ..�e4 1 2
�b2 �c6 i s unclear - Ga1dunts.
b2) 8 . . . �e5 and White has a
number of options:
b2 1 ) 9 'ifb3 �fd7 which again
divides into:
b2 1 1 ) 1 0 �e3 ? ! �g4 ! 1 1 �d2
e5 ( 1 1 . .. �c5 12 'ifc2 as 13 :ad l
�d7 1 4 �f4 :e8 was ·about equal
in the game Bogoljubow-Tartako­
wer, Kar1sbad 1 923) 1 2 dxe6 ( 1 2
94 The Karlsbad Variation
tDgS ? ! lDcs 1 3 'it'a3 e4 14 b4 tDeS !
was inferior, Poldauf-Glek, Erfurt
1 989) 1 2 . . . tDcS + - Glek.
b2 1 2) 1 0 tDbS tDcs 1 1 1!fc2
tDg4 1 2 tDf4 eS 1 3 dxe6 c6 14 1Dc3
tDxe6 (Espig-Galdunts, Bundes­
liga 1 992) and now IS h3 tDf6 1 6
b 3 tDcs would have been equal -
Galdunts.
b22) 9 'it'c2 tDxc4 (this is inter­
esting, although Black can also play
a standard formation with 9 . . . cS ;
Dzhandzhgava-Kramnik, USSR
1 989 continued 10 b3 a6 1 1 i.b2
lIb8 1 2 a4 b6 1 3 tDf4 tDe8 14 h4
tDc7 I S lIfbl and now I S . . . bS 1 6
axbS axbS 1 7 cxbS tDxbS 1 8 tDxbS
lIxbS is equal according to Kram­
nik and Liubarsky) 1 0 tDbS a6 1 1
'it'xc4 axbS 1 2 'it'xbS e5 1 3 dxe6
( 1 3 tDgS 'it'e7 14 i.d2 h6 IS tDe6
i.xe6 1 6 dxe6 c6 17 'ii b 3 is un­
clear too) 1 3 . . . c6 14 'it'b3 dS is as­
sessed by Galdunts as unclear.
b23) 9 b3 cS (it is best to play
this without any preparation such
as 9 . . . .t.d7 after which White can
play 1 0 i.b2 cS 1 1 dxc6 bxc6 1 2
cS ! ;!;; - Glek; another possibility is
9 . . . lDe4 but also here White comes
out with the better game : 10 tDxe4
fxe4 1 1 lIbl i.fS 1 2 tDgS 'it'd7 1 3
tDxe4 lIae8 1 4 i.b2 e6 I S dxe6 ;!;;
Taimanov-Hort, Wijk aan Zee 1 970)
and now:
b23 1 ) 1 0 i.d2 lIb8 1 1 'it'c2 a6
1 2 a4 b6 1 3 tDgS tDe8 1 4 lIae l h6
( 1 4 . . . 1Dc7 ! ? IS e4 bS is unclear) I S
tDe6 i.xe6 1 6 dxe6 (Frog-Landa,
USSR 1 990) and now Black's
standard reply in this type of posi­
tion is 16 . . . tDc7 17 i.dS bS with
good counterplay - M .Gurevich.
b232) 10 i.b2 i.d7 1 1 'it'd2 lIb8
1 2 a4 a6 13 lIfe l h6 14 f4 tDeg4 I S
e4 fxe4 1 6 tDxe4 b S 1 7 tDxf6+ exf6
with unclear play ; Aleksandrov­
Maliutin, USSR 1 99 1 .
b233) 1 0 dxc6 bxc6 1 1 i.b2
lIb8 1 2 'ii'c 2 'it'c7 1 3 lIad l tDf7 !
is again unclear; Hausner-Glek,
Bundesliga 1 99 1 .
Now we return to the main line
after 7 . . . e6 ! ? (D).
W
8 d5
If 8 tDf4 Black can try 8 . . . gS ! ?
and 8 b3? fails to 8 . . . tDxd4 ! but 8
lIbl ! ? may be a good move.
8 �5
9 b3 m
10 i.a3 lieS
11 lIet
1 1 dxe6 ! ? is given as slightly
better for White by Speelman but I
 The Karlsbad Variation 95

believe that 1 1 . . .dxe6 gives Black 21 ':'fdl .txe4

sufficient counterplay, both after 22 fxe4 a6!
1 2 'ifxdS ':'xdS 1 3 ':'ad l c6 1 4 Opening another line will make
':'xdS+ lbxdS I S ':'d l lbf7 1 6 lba4 White's defence even more diffi­
eS 1 7 lbcs ':'bS = and 1 2 'ifc2 c6 1 3 cult.
':'fd l 'ifc7 . 23 bxa6 ':'a8
11 e5 24 ':'c2 ':'xa6
12 d6 c6 24 . . . .th6 ! ? - Speelman.
13 b4 b6 25 .tel ':'ea8
14 e4? ! 26 a3 h6
1 4 lbbS is interesting but Black 27 lbf2 ':'c8?!
can defend by 14 . . . ':'e6 ! I S cS bxcS This looks like a good move.
1 6 bxcS lbeS intending . . . .ta6. Black plans . . . ':'c6 to capture the
14 fxe4 pawn but in fact White gets a lot of
15 lbxe4 lbxe4 compensation after that. Much bet­
16 .txe4 'iff6 ter was the idea of bringing the
17 b5 .tb7 knight to d4, i.e. 27 . . . lbdS ! intend­
18 .d3?! ing . . . lbc6-d4 and only after that to
I S 'i6g4 was a better move ac- play for the weak pawn on d6.
cording to Speelman. 28 .e2 ':'c6
18 1i'e6! 29 ':'d5! ':'xd6
19 �g2 ':'ab8 30 lbdl ! (D)
20 f3 c5! (D)

B
W
Black cannot prevent White's
The pawn on d6 is almost sur­ knight corning to dS . Unfortunately
rounded. 30 . . . ':'xdS is impossible because
96 The Karlshad Variation

after 3 1 cxd5 the other rook is en

prise.
30 ... h5
31 lLlc3 i.h6? !
This is probably not a very good
idea. B lack's kingside is seriously
weakened after the exchange of the
bishops. The cautious 3 1 . . .':'a8 was
better.
32 i.xh6 lLlxh6
33 ':'xd6 'it'xd6
34 ':'d2 'it'e6 W
On 34 . . . 'iWe6, 35 lLlb5 with the
idea of ':'d6 is strong. ':'a2+ 44 rlif1 'iWf8+ White has the
35 lLld5 rlig7 remarkable 45 lLlf4 ! , but Black can
36 'it'D ':'a8 try to defend with 42 . . . ':'a6 ! .
37 ':'0 ':'b8 42 ••• :a6!
38 h3 'it'e6 Not falling for 42 . . :"xb6? 43
39 'it'e3 lLlgS 'iWxe5+ lLlf6 44 'ii'e 7+, winning for
Black is defending well, cover­ White.
ing all possible penetration squares 43 lLld5 :Xa4
but it is certainly not an easy task. l/z_1h.
The white knight on d5 is totally This is a very complex position
dominant. in which to agree a draw. It is not
40 'it'gS ! 'it'd6 clear who is better. Black is a pawn
41 a4 ':'a8 (D) up but White seems to have a lot of
42 lLlxb6? ! compensation. Play could continue
42 ':'b2 ! was stronger, with the 44 lLle3 lLlh6 ! 45 g4 ! ? hxg4 46 h4 !
point that after 42 . . . ':'xa4 43 ':'xb6 with a complicated struggle.
5 The Bishop Attack : 2 i.. g 5
Hodgson often plays the provoca­
tive 2 .1g5 against 1 . . .d5 , so why
not against the Dutch too? The
bishop move aims to disrupt the
black pawn structure if he contin­
ues . . . �f6. Having calculated that
2 . . . h6 3 .1h4 g5 4 e3 ! does not lose
for White, the bishop sortie actu­
ally has to be taken seriously. The
majority of games follow the above­
mentioned moves with B lack con­
tinuing 4 . . . �f6. I have played this a
few times but practice has shown
me that if White plays correctly he
has the better chances.
Instead I will suggest that Black
plays in Leningrad fashion with
2 . . . g6 and 3 . . . .1g7, to avoid having
his pawn structure damaged by
.1xf6 when he eventually does
play . . . �f6. Sometimes Black is
even able to play . . . e5 before devel­
oping the knight. This was just
what happened in the first game of
this chapter.
Game 24
Kouatly - Kovacevic
Thessaloniki OL 1 984
1 d4 fS
2 .1 gS g6 (D)
3 h4
w
In the many lines of the Dutch,
this is a standard reply when Black
plays an early . . . g6. White intends
to open the h- file, not so much to
attack the black king, but to
weaken the pawn on g6 which has
already lost some of its support
thanks to Black's first move ! Other
moves are:
a) 3 e3 is the main alternative to
3 h4. Black has now tried:
a l ) 3 . . . �h6 ! ? is an interesting
manoeuvre that has recently come
into fashion. Black wants to put the
knight on f7, from where it will
support an advance of the e-pawn.
After 4 �f3 �f7 5 h4 .1g7 6 c3
Black has a pleasant choice:
al l ) 6 . . . h6 7 .1f4 d6 8 .1c4 e6 9
'iWc2 'iWe7 1 0 e4 e5 1 1 dxe5 dxe5 1 2
98 The Bishop Attack: 2 i..g5
i.. x f7+ 'itxf7 1 3 i.. d2 ibc6 14 hS
gS IS exfS e4 16 tDd4 iDxd4 17 cxd4
i.. xfS 1 8 'ifb3+ 'ili'e6 1 9 'ili'xb7 l:thc8
with an active position; Staiger­
Glek, Bern 1 994.
a 1 2) 6 . . . d6 7 i.. c4 c6 8 ibbd2? !
'ili'c7 9 i.. f4 e S 1 0 i.. xf7+ 'itxf7 1 1
'ii'b 3+ 'ite7 1 2 dxeS dxeS 1 3 'iWa3+
cS 1 4 i.. g S+ 'itf8 I S 0-0-0 i..e 6 1 6
ibb3 iba6 1 7 hS h6 1 8 i.. h4 gS 1 9
i.. g3 'itf7 + Remmler-Iunker, 1 992.
a2) 3 ... i.. g7 4 c3 (4 tDc3 d5 trans­
poses to the next chapter) 4 . . .ibf6 S
ibd2 d6 (S . . . O-O was played in the
game Ostermeyer-Borngasser, Sol­
ingen 1 986; Black got a good posi­
tion after 6 i.. d 3 d6 7 ibgO ibc6 8
e4 fxe4 9 ibxe4 dS ! 1 0 ibed2 'ilfd6
1 1 'ii'e 2 ibhS 1 2 0-0-0 ibf4 1 3
i.. xf4 'ili'xf4 1 4 l:tde l a6 I S 'itb l
i.. d7 16 'iWe3 l:tae8 17 l:te2 'iWxe3 1 8
fxe3 e S but usually Black should
not castle so quickly, while White
played this game too passively and
could have improved at several
points) 6 ibgf3 ibc6 7 i.. c4 eS 8
dxeS dxeS 9 'ilfb3 . Here it looks
like White has a good position. The
black king is stuck in the centre and
White has a small lead in develop­
ment. 9 . . . 'ilfe7 10 e4 h6 1 1 i..xf6
i.. xf6 1 2 0-0-0 'itf8 ! (D) .
Now it is clear that Black is no
worse at all. The king comes to g7
where it is completely safe and al­
ready Black is threatening to 'win'
White's bishop with . . . ibaS . 1 3
i.. d S ibd8 1 4 'ili'c2 f4 I S g3 fxg3 1 6
bxg3 i.. g4 1 7 l:tde l c6 1 8 i..b3 'itg7
W
1 9 ibh4 i.. e 6 ( 1 9 . . . i.. d 7 intending
. . . ibe6 was a good attempt to win
the game) 20 ibg2 i.. x b3 1/2- 1/2
Pfleger-Glek, Bundesliga 1 992.
b) 3 ibd2 prepares e4. In con­
trast to the line with ibc3 , the move
. . . dS is not as good now that
White's knight is not blocking the
c-pawn. So Black should develop:
b l ) 3 . . . ibh6 ! ? is again an inter­
esting option. The whole idea of
playing the knight to f7 actually
deserves to be investigated more. 4
e4 ibf7 S i.. e 3 fxe4 6 ibxe4 dS ! 7
ibgS ibxgS 8 i.. x gS i.. g7 9 ibo 0-0
10 i.. e 2 'ilfd6 1 1 0-0 ibc6 12 'iWd2
eS 1 3 c3 exd4 14 ibxd4 ibxd4 I S
cxd4 'iWb6 1 6 i..e 3 i.. fS 1 7 b4 1/2- 1/2
B akic-Kontic, Yugoslav Ch (Kla­
dovo) 1 992.
b2) 3 ... i.. g7 and now White has
three options:
b2 1 ) 4 c3 h6 (4 . . . ibf6 S h4 dS
does not look positionally right,
but I do not know where White
subsequently went wrong in the

following sequence : 6 e3 lDbd7 7
lDgf3 c6 8 .tf4 lDg4 9 hS eS 1 0
dxeS lDdxeS 1 1 'tIVb3 lDn 1 2 bxg6
bxg6 13 :xh8+ .txh8 14 .tg3 'tIVe7
I S 0-0-0 as 1 6 a4 .tf6 17 .te2 �f8
1 8 lDd4 �g7 + Bareev-Topalov,
Oviedo 1 992) S .tf4 d6 6 h3 lDf6
(6 . . . eS was also OK) 7 'tIVb3 e6 8 e3
0-0 9 lDgf3 lDc6 10 .te2 'tIVe7 1 1
0-0 �h7 1 2 .th2 eS 1 3 dxeS dxeS
14 .tbS .te6 IS 'tIVa4 .td7 16 'it'c2
e4 1 7 .txc6 .txc6 1 8 lDd4 .te8 1 9
c4 :d8 2 0 :fd 1 c S 2 1 12Je2 .tc6 =+=
Denoth-Lutz, Bern 1 994.
b22) 4 lDgf3 cS S e3 lDf6 6 c3
b6 7 lDeS .tb7 8 'tIVb3 .tdS 9 .tc4
.txc4 10 'it'xc4 dS 1 1 'it'a4+ lDbd7
1 2 .txf6 .txf6 1 3 f4 � Bogdano­
vic-Kristiansen, Copenhagen 1 99 1 .
b23) 4 e4 ! ? .txd4 ? ! (4 . . . fxe4 S
lDxe4 transposes to the next game)
4 exfS .txb2 (4 . . . gxfS S c3 fol­
lowed by 6 'ifhS+ gives White
compensation) S fxg6 ! .txal 6
'ifxa1 lDf6 7 gxh7 Lh7 8 .td3 and
White has plenty of compensation.
c) 3 e4 ! ? is a kind of Staunton
Gambit with the bishop already on
gS. 3 . . . fxe4 4 f3 .tg7 ? ! (4 . . . dS ! ? is
probably better) S fxe4 cS ? ! (Black
is trying to refute White 's opening
but will soon find himself lacking
in development) 6 .tc4 ! cxd4 7
lDf3 lDc6 8 0-0 d6 9 c3 (D).
Is this not just an excellent
Morra Gambit for White? 9 . . . lDf6
1 0 lDxd4 'ifaS 1 1 .th4 'it'hS 1 2
.txf6 .txf6 1 3 'it'xhS gxhS 14 lDe6
lDeS I S .tdS .txe6 1 6 .txe6 ±
The Bishop Attack: 2 .tg5 99
B
Danielian-Rublevsky, USSRjr Ch
1 99 1 .
3
... .t g7
3 . . . h6 and now:
a) 4 .tf4 d6 S 'ifd2 .tg7 6 lDf3
l2Jf6 (6 ... l2Jc6 intending ... eS) 7 l2Jc3
lDe4 ! 8 lDxe4 fxe4 9 lDg 1 lDc6 1 0
e3 0-0 1 1 c 3 �h8 1 2 0-0-0 e S 1 3
dxeS lDxeS + Segovia-Spraggett,
Andorra 1 99 1 .
b) 4 .te l ! ? argues that Black
has seriously weakened his king­
side. 4 . . . d6 s l2Jc3 lDf6 6 'ifd3 l2Jc6 !
7 lDf3 eS 8 dxeS dxeS 9 'ilxd8+
�xd8 10 e3 .td6 1 1 .td2 .te6 1 2
0-0-0 a6 1 3 .tel �e7 1 4 .te2 :ad8
with a slight plus for Black, Appel­
Hort, Bundesliga 1 994.
4 e3
White could also play 4 c3 keep­
ing open the option of advancing
the e-pawn two squares. Black has
various replies: .
a) 4 . . . dS S lDd2 lDd7 6 lDh3 h6
7 .tf4 lDgf6 8 e3 c6 9 'it'f3 lDg4 10
'ifg3 eS 1 1 dxeS lDgxeS 12 .txeS
100 The Bishop Attack: 2 .tg5
ltlxeS 1 3 ltlf3 "'d6 � Golod-Mak­
simenko, USSR 1 985.
b) 4 ... h6 S .tf4 (S .lc 1 ltlc6 6
e4 ! ? fxe4 7 "'g4 dS 8 "'xg6+ �f8
9 f3 "'d6 1 0 "'xd6 cxd6 1 1 fxe4
dxe4 1 2 ltlh3 eS 1 3 dxeS ltlxeS 1 4
ltlf4 ltlf6 I S ltla3 .lfS gave rise to
an unclear game in Skembris-Tis­
dall, Gausdal 1 993 ; Black is posi­
tionally worse but his minor pieces
work actively together) S . . . d6 6
ltlf3 ltlf6?! (6 . . . ltlc6 intending . . . eS
is better) 7 e3 0-0 8 'i!fb3+ �h7
(8 ...e6 is better) 9 ltlbd2 (White also
plays a little inaccurately around
here ; better was 9 .ld3 ! threaten­
ing 1 0 ltlgS+ hxgS 1 1 hxgS+ ltlhS
1 2 g4 fxg4 1 3 %lxhS+) 9 . . :ife8 1 0
0-0-0 ltlc6 1 1 .lg3 a6 1 2 .ld3 eS
1 3 dxeS dxeS 14 .lbl .le6 with a
good position; Miralles-B arbero,
Cap d' Agde 1 986.
c) 4 . . . d6 (D) and now:
w is premature due to 7 dxeS dxeS 8
c 1 ) S ltlf3 ltlc6 6 e3 h6 7 .lf4
ltlf6 (why not 7 . . . eS ! instead?) 8
ltlbd2 e6 9 'it'c2 "'e7 1 0 .lbS .ld7
1 1 .lh2 a6 12 .ld3 ltlg4? ! (better
is 1 2 . . . 0-0-0, with an equal game)
1 3 hS gS 14 dS ! exdS I S .lxfS ;!;;
Voloshin-Jakubiec, Ekorex Cup
1 996.
c2) S 'ii'd3 h6 6 .lc I ltlf6 7 ltlh3
eS ! ? 8 dxeS dxeS 9 "'g3 wins a
pawn but after 9 . . . 0-0 ! ? 1 0 'it'xg6
f4 1 1 e3 .lg4 1 2 .le2 .lxe2 1 3
�xe2 ltlc6 14 exf4? ! 'it'c8 I S %le I
ltle7 1 6 'it'c2 ltlfS 1 7 �f1 ltlxh4
Black had good compensation and
soon went on to win in Movsesian­
Maksimenko, Pardubice 1 994.
4 ltlc3 is another option for
White. Whilst 4 . . . dS now trans­
poses to the next chapter, Black
also has the strong reply 4 . . . cS ! 5
dS :
a) S . . . h6 6 .ld2 eS ? ! (6 . . . ltlf6 7
ltlf3 0-0 = ) 7 e4 ! ltlf6 8 hS ! gS 9
exfS d6 1 0 g4 a6 1 1 a4 b6 1 2 .lc4
and White was a clear pawn up in
Forsbach-Weinmann, corr. 1 986.
b) S .. :ifb6 6 %lbl eS 7 dxe6
dxe6 8 ltlbS (8 ltlf3 ltlc6 is equal)
8 . . ....xbS 9 "'d8+ �f7 10 "'xc8
"'c6 1 1 "'xc6 ltlxc6. Although
White has the bishop pair, Black's
endgame prospects are not worse.
4 h6
S .lf4 d6
6 .tc4 ltlc6
A fine preparatory move. 6 . . . eS ?
.tf7+ �e7 9 "'xd8+ �xd8 1 0
.lg3 ltle7 1 1 ltlc3 with a substan­
tial plus.
 The Bishop Attack: 2 .ig5 101

7 e3 e5! (D) 12 d5 lLlb8

13 1Lla3
On 1 3 b4, 1 3 . . . f4 ! ? would be a
good answer.
13 86
14 .in 1We8! (D)

In some of the previous notes we

saw Black playing . . .lLlf6 in similar
positions but this is the right way to
play. White 's advantage is that he W
dominates the diagonal a2-gS and
is probably slightly better on the A subtle move, stopping White
queenside, whilst Black has good playing b4-bS .
prospects in the centre and on the 15 .ib3 g5
kingside. After a few prophylactic moves
8 .ig3 Black is ready to carry out his own
The endgame after S dxeS dxeS plan.
9 "'xdS+ lLlxdS 10 .ig3 .ie6 1 1 16 .ie2 e4
lLld2 liJe7 1 2 1L1gf3 lLlec6 1 3 0-0-0 17 lLlg3 1We7
.ixc4 14 lLlxc4 1Llf7 is roughly 18 1Wd2 l:dfB
equal; Summerscale-Shabtai, Lon­ 19 0-0-0
don Lloyds Bank 1 990. In reply to 1 9 b4? Black had pre­
8 1We7 pared an attractive combination :
9 1Lle2 lbf6 1 9 . . . 1L1xdS ! 20 'iVxdS .ixc3+ 2 1
10 f3 .id7 �e2 gxh4 22 1L1hS .ixa l 2 3 l:xal
11 84!? .ic6 24 "'c4 "'gS 2S lLlf4 exf3+ 26
Hoping to make Black feel inse­ gxf3 .ixf3+ and Black . wins -
cure about castling queenside. KovaCevic.
11 ••• O-O-O! 19 gxh4
Black is not worried. 20 1Lle2 1We8
102 The Bishop Attack: 2 J.g5

21 lLlf4 exf3 40 'it'dl lLlgx:f3

22 pO lLlh7! 41 lIxh6 lIg2
23 .i.xh4 lLlgS 42 'it'd lIeg8
24 'it'f2 as! 43 lIhl
A very clever move. Black fixes White sadly has to retreat the
White 's queenside and at the same rook but Black was threatening to
time prepares to get the knight into play . . . lIg l +.
play again. 24 . . . J.xa4 ? ! 25 J.xa4 43 �b8
"'xa4 26 lLlg6 J.xc3 ! would lead to 44 'it'b2 "'a4
a double-edged position. 45 lla3 'ii'xb5 (D)
25 'it'e2 lLla6
26 lLlb5 lLlc5
27 b4? !
White's king becomes more ex­
posed than his opposite number af­
ter this move. Better was 27 .i.f2.
27 axb4
28 cxb4 .i.xb5
29 axb5 'it'e5 !
30 lId4
White would have been mated if
he had captured the knight: 30
bxc5 ? "'b2+ 3 1 �d2 "'b4+ 32 W
�c 1 .i.b2+ 33 �bl .i.c3+, etc.
30 lLld7 Material is now level but take a
31 lLlh5 f4! look at both sides' king position.
32 lLlxg7 "'xg7 Black's king is guarded by pawns
33 lIhdl lIe8!? while White's only has the heavy
Black would also have kept an artillery as protection. Further­
edge with 33 . . . lLle5 . more, all Black's pieces occupy
34 lIxf4 "'c3! dominating places while the white
35 lId3 'it'al+ pieces are more or less randomly
36 .i.bl lLle5 placed in a desperate attempt to
37 lIb3 lIhgS fortify the king.
38 .i.f2 46 'it'al 'ii'c4+
A more stubborn defence was 47 .i.c2 lLld3+!
38 .i.e ! . 48 lIxd3 lIxa
38 lLlh3 49 "'c3 b5!
39 lIh4 lLlgl ! 50 .i.b3 'ii'xc3+
 The Bishop Attack: 2 i.g5 103

51 lbc3 lbe5 An accurate move that wins the

This is a beautiful knight. It can
practically stand there for the rest
of the game (which it in fact almost
does ! ) . In the following moves
Black combines an attack on the
game relatively easily. Black had to
watch out for the trick that could
arise after 65 . . . ':'e4? ! 66 .i.xb5 ! ;
the bishop cannot be taken since
66 . . �xb5?? 67 ':'bl + �c5 68 ':'a5
.

white pawns with a rook switch to is mate.

the a-file. 66 ':'a8 ':'he4
52 .i.c2 ':'g3 67 ':'b8+ �c5
53 ':'el �b7 68 ':'c1 lbc4
54 .i.d3 �b6 69 .i.d3 ':'xe3
55 .i.e2 ':'h2 70 ':'b7 lbe5
56 �dl ':'h4 71 �d2+ �d4
57 ':'b3 ':'g8 0-1
58 �d2 ':'h2
59 �c1 ':'gg2 Another strategy is to prepare
60 �dl ':'h4 e4. We saw this in the note to
61 �c1 ':'gh2 White' s 3rd move (3 lbd2) in the
62 �dl ':'h8 above game. White can do this
63 ':'a3 ':'2h4 with either 3 lbd2 or 3 lbc3 . The
64 �c2 latter gives Black the option of
White decides to give up a pawn transposing into the next chapter,
instead of permitting the black while playing 3 lbd2 could mean
rook to get to the a-file. sacrificing to keep the initiative.
64 ':'xb4
65 �c3 ':'hh4! (D) Game 25
Mi.Tseitlin - Joecks
Krumbach 1 99 1

1 d4 f5
2 .i.g5 g6
3 lbc3 .i. g7
3 . . . d5 transposes into the next
chapter.
4 e4 fxe4
5 lbxe4 d5
6 lbc5! (D)
This is White's only hope for an
W advantage. If it is allowed, the
104 The Bishop Attack: 2 j.g5
knight will come back to d3 taking
control of e5, whereafter Black will
find it hard to generate counter­
play.
The two retreats have not prom­
ised White anything:
a) 6 �g3 c5 7 �f3 �c6 8 dxcS
j.xb2 9 :bl "a5+ 10 j.d2 j.c3 1 1
j.bS j.g4 1 2 j.xc3 ( 1 2 :b3 ! would
have been a better try according to
Evdokimov) 1 2 . . ....xc3+ 1 3 "'d2
"xd2+ 14 �d2 0-0-0 IS 0-0 with
an unclear position; Evdokimov­
B .Kristensen, Denmark 1 990.
b) 6 �c3 �f6 7 j.d3 (if 7 �f3
then 7 . . . �e4 is strong) 7 . . . �c6 8
�ge2 0-0 9 0-0 eS 1 0 dxeS �xeS
1 1 "d2 c6 = Bogoljubow-Samisch,
Berlin 1 936.
B A present-day crown-prince of
6 ... b6
A logical follow-up to Black 's
5th move is 6 . . ...d6 7 �f3 eS but
this fails tactically to 8 �eS ! (8 c3
�7 is not a problem for Black and
8 "e2 �c6 ! ? { 8 . . . e4 9 0-0-0 �d7
; } 9 c3 �ge7 10 0-0-0 0-0 also
looks good for Black) 8 . . . j.xeS 9
"e2 �6 10 �b3 �xd4 ( l O . . . j.fS
1 1 dxeS 'it'xeS 12 'it'xeS+ �eS 1 3
0-0-0 +-) 1 1 �xd4 rilf7 1 2 �b5
"e6 1 3 f4 j.d6 ( 1 3 . . . j.xb2 1 4
"xe6+ j.xe6 I S :bl ±) 14 0-0-0 h6
I S "xe6+ rilxe6 1 6 �xd6 rilxd6
17 j.h4 :h7 1 8 j.e2 ± Hodgson­
Lim, Manila OL 1 992.
7 ... j.g4 ? ! 8 c3 ! eS ? ! is another
way of carrying through . . . eS but
after 9 "a4+ j.d7 (unfortunately
this is forced because 9 . . . c6 1 0
dxeS ! hits the bishop on g4 as well
as the queen) 10 �xd7 �xd7 1 1
�eS j.xeS 1 2 dxeS "'xeS+ 1 3 j.e3
the bishop pair promises White an
advantage - Mi.Tseitlin.
7 . . . �f6 is best; in Chekhov­
Vyzhmanavin, Moscow Tal mem
1 992 Black achieved a fine posi­
tion after 8 �d3 0-0 9 j.f4 "b6 10
c3 j.fS 1 1 "b3 c6 1 2 j.e2 �bd7
13 0-0 � 14 :fe l :ae8 IS �feS
�df6 1 6 f3 �d6 17 'it'xb6 axb6 1 8
g4 j.xd3 1 9 �xd3 �d7 , but I be­
lieve that simple development with
1 1 j.e2 and 0-0 should give White
a little something.
7 �b3 �6
chess, Veselin Topalov, suffered an
awful defeat after the experimental
7 . . . �h6: 8 h4 ! ? �f7 9 �h3 "d6
10 "d2 eS 1 1 0-0-0 �gS 12 hxgS
e4 1 3 "f4 ! ? j.f8 14 g3 c6 I S f3
j.xh3 1 6 .i.xh3 "xf4+ 1 7 gxf4
j.d6 1 8 fS j.f4+ 1 9 rilb l gxfS 20

1.xfS e3 2 1 :dg 1 �f8 22 g6 1 -0
Nalbandian-Topalov, Biel IZ 1 993.
An interesting idea, however, is
7 . . ....d6 ! ? (D).
W dxeS llJd7 1 7 1.c6 :b8 1 8 f4 "'e7
8 llJf3 llJd7 9 1.e2 (9 1.d3 cS)
9 . . . llJgf6 (9 . . . eS would be prema­
ture due to 1 0 dxeS llJxeS 1 1 0-0
llJe7 1 2 :e l ! and Black is not able
to finish his development) 10 'ii'c 1 ! ?
e S 1 1 dxeS llJxeS 1 2 llJxeS "'xeS
1 3 0-0 0-0, and Black is by no
means worse.
8 llJf3
8 1.bS+ c6 9 1.e2 worked out
fine in Guliev-Glek, Stare Mesto
1 992. The game continued 9 . . . llJe4
1 0 1.h4 0-0 1 1 llJf3 cS 1 2 c3 llJc6
1 3 0-0 'it'd6 14 1.bS 1.g4 I S 1.xc6
"'xc6 1 6 llJeS ! 1.xeS 1 7 "'xg4 :f4
1 8 "'h3 1.f6 1 9 1.xf6 "'xf6 20
'it'd7 e6 2 1 f3 :f8 22 dxcS bxcS 23
'it'xa7 c4 24 llJd4 and White could
be more than satisfied but I do not
really see the point in provoking
. . . c6. B lack should be quite happy
The Bishop Attack: 2 1.g5 105
after 9 . . ....d6 ! 10 llJf3 llJbd7 fol-
lowed by . . . eS .
8 ••• 0-0
9 c3? !
This move is not really neces­
sary. 9 1.e2 is better:
a) 9 . . . llJe4 1 0 1.e3 ( 1 0 1.h4 as
1 1 a4 "'d6 1 2 0-0 cS 1 3 c4 e6 1 4
"'c2 llJc6 I S dxcS llJxcs 1 6 1.g3
"'e7 1 7 llJxcS bxcS 18 -..d2 llJd4
1 9 llJxd4 1.xd4 20 1.f3 1.b7 2 1
cxdS exdS 22 :fe l "'f6 23 :ad l is
unclear; H.Gretarsson-Bjornsson,
Reykjavik Cht) 1 O .. :ii'd6 ( 1 O ... llJd7
1 1 0-0 e6 1 2 1.d3 llJd6 1 3 c3 llJf7
14 1.bS llJf6 I S llJeS llJxeS 1 6
1 9 "'e2 1.b7 20 llJd4 llJcS 2 1 b4
llJe4 22 :ac 1 ;t Stem-Bucker, Bun­
desliga 1 993) 1 1 0-0 llJd7 1 2 llJbd2
1.b7 1 3 llJxe4 dxe4 14 1.c4+ 1.dS
IS llJd2 1.xc4 16 llJxc4 'ii'd S 1 7
"'e2 e S 1 8 dxeS llJxeS 1 9 llJxeS
"'xeS 20 "'c4+ �h8 2 1 c3 cS 22
:ad l :ad8 23 :Xd8 :xd8 24 'ii'f7
gave White the better endgame in
Miles-Van Mil, Isle of Man 1 995.
b) 9 ... cS 1 0 c4 1.e6 1 1 cxdS
1.xdS 12 dxcS bxcS 13 0-0 'ii'd6 14
:c 1 llJbd7 IS :e l :ac8 16 1.c4 ;t
Glek-Bronstein, Minsk 1983.
c) 9 . . :it'd6 is still the best idea:
10 0-0 llJbd7 1 1 "'c l eS (Mi.Tseit­
lin only analyses 1 1 . . .llJg4 1 2 h3
:xf3 1 3 hxg4 :f7 14 'it'e3 eS I S
:ad 1 exd4 1 6 llJxd4 llJeS 1 7 llJbS
"'e6 1 8 c4 c6 19 cxdS cxdS 20
:fe l and White is better) 1 2 dxeS
llJxeS 1 3 1.f4 and now 1 3 . . . llJfg4
106 The Bishop Attack: 2 j,g5

gives rise to a level position, while 17 "'xa7 i.b7!

1 3 . . . �e4 14 j,xeS j,xeS IS �xeS 17 . . .ti'xe2 1 8 "'xc7 \Wxb2 1 9
"'xeS 16 j,d3 is ;to "'xb6 "'xc3 i s also better for Black
9 "'d6 but the German player correctly
10 j,e2 �bd7 goes for the attack.
11 0-0 e5 18 i.a6 i.xf3!
12 j, h4 Not falling for the trap 18 . . . lIa8?
With the idea of 1 2 . . . e4 1 3 j,g3 19 \Wxb7 ! �xb7 20 i.xb7, when
"'e7 14 �eS but it was probably suddenly White is better.
better to exchange on eS, although 19 gxf3 'it'h4
Black has no problems after 1 2 This queen sortie is definitely
dxeS �xeS 1 3 �eS ti'xeS. not the only way to continue the at­
12
••• �e4 tack. 1 9 . . . i.eS 20 life I �gS 2 1
13 dxe5 �d4 �h3 + i s very interesting but
After 1 3 �bd2 exd4 14 cxd4 1 9 . . . �gS might be even more pre­
"'b4 ! Black grabs the initiative. cise and now MLTseitlin analyses
13
... �e5 20 �d2 i.eS 2 1 lIfe l �h3+ 22
14 j,e7 �f1 'ifh4 23 lIe2 "'gS 24 lIxeS
14 i.g3 was a little more care­ \Wg l + 2S �e2 �f4+ 26 �e3 \Wxal
ful. and Black is winning.
14 "'xe7 20 i.b7 i. e5
15 "'xd5+ �n 21 lIfet 'it'h3? !
16 "'xa8 �ed6! (D) Although tempting, Black is
wrong to try to catch the king in the
corner. With all the white pieces
led astray on the queenside, there
should really be something deci­
sive. Indeed 2 1 . . .... xh2+ 22 �f1
i.g3 ! (D) would have led to a
beautiful win after 23 fxg3 �fS 24
lIe6 �gS ! (MLTseitlin only analy­
ses 24 . . . �xg3+ 2S �e l �gS 26
lIe7 lId8 27 i.dS+ ! �f8 28 �d4
"'g l + 29 �d2 'ifxal 30 \Wa3 cS 3 1
lIe l �f1 + 3 2 �e2 �g3+ when
W Black must be content with a draw)
2S i.dS (2S lieS �h3 ! 26 i.dS+
Well played. The queen is now �h8 27 �e l "'xg3+ 28 �d2 "'xeS
in deep trouble. -+) 2S . . . �xg3+ 26 �e l �xe6 27
 The Bishop Attack: 2 .i.g5 107

(32 �e2 'it'g2+ 33 �d3 'it'c2+ 34

�d4 c5+) 32 . . . lLlxc4+ 33 'it'xc4
'it'f2+ 34 �d3 'it'e2+ 35 �d4 'it'e3+
36 �d5 'it'xf3+ 37 �d4 'it'e4#.
22 :XeS! tbxeS
23 .i.dS+ �h8
24 'ilxc7 :rS?
Giving away the rest of the full
point. By continuing 24 . . . lLlxf3 + !
25 .i.xf3 'ibf3 26 'it'xd6 'it'xf2+,
Black would have drawn.
w 25 'ild8+ �g7
26 lLld4! lLlxf3+
�xe6+ �h8 28 �c4 :e8+ 29 Or 26 . . . :f6 27 'irxb6.
�d l lLlf5 ! 30 'it'a4 (30 i.d3 'it'f2 ! ) 27 .i.xf3 00
30 . . . lLle3+ 3 1 �e l 'it'g3+ 32 �d2 28 lLle6+ 1-0
6 The Kn ig ht Development :
2 lbc3
The strategy i n this variation is
very similar to the one in the pre­
vious chapter but first White devel­
ops his knight, thus preparing the
advance e4. If Black now continues
2 . . .�f6 then White plays 3 �gS in
order to damage the black pawn
structure with �xf6. The only
move that keeps the structure intact
is 3 . . . e6 but then White gets a
pleasant advantage with 4 e4. The
majority of games continue 3 . . . dS
and White takes on f6, leaving
Black with the advantage of the
bishop pair, but the closed nature
of the position makes the knights
no worse than the bishops; mean­
while the structure is preferable for
White. These moves have been dis­
cussed in many games but the final
assessment of the positions arising
still needs to be settled. Anyway,
the system I want to discuss in this
chapter begins with 2 . . . dS. Nor­
mally, I would never play such a
move since it leaves a big hole on
eS , but the white knight is mis­
placed and the move is therefore
justified. White has three main
continuations. 3 �gS (Game 26) is
the most popular. Black should
then adopt a system with . . . g6 simi­
lar to the previous chapter. 3 �f4
(Game 27) immediately fights for
the eS-square but then Black can
continue developing without any
disturbance. Finally, White has the
gambit continuation 3 e4 ! ? (Game
28), which needs careful study.
Game 26
KovaCevic - Kristiansen
Plovdiv Echt 1 983
1 d4 f5
2 lDc3 d5
3 �g5 g6
4 h4
I am not sure in which order
White should play the opening
moves but in general it does not
matter whether h4 is played before
e3 or the opposite. There are a few
independent lines with 4 e3 �g7 :
a) S 'it'f3 c6 6 �d3 �6 ! ? (D).
This is a relatively new idea in
such positions. Black intends to put
his knight on f7 from where it sup­
ports the . . . eS advance. After 7
'it'g3 �d7 8 �f3 �f6 9 �eS �f7
10 �f7 �xf7 1 1 0-0 :e8 12 f3 h6
1 3 �xf6 �xf6 14 f4 �e6 I S �e2

as Black was doing fine in Rend­
boe-S.Pedersen, Odense 1 996.
b) S .i.d3 c6 6 'ifd2 .i.e6 7 lLlce2
lLld7 8 c3 lLlgf6 = Miles-Liogky,
Groningen 1 989.
c) S h3 ! ? lLlf6 6 g4 c6 7 gxfS
.i.xfS 8 .i.d3 .i.xd3 9 'ii'x d3 lLlbd7
1 0 f4, Zaichik-Kramnik, Moscow
1 989, and now lO . . . bS 1 1 a3 as
would have produced an unclear
position.
4 .i. g7
5 e3 c6
6 .i.d3
Playing without this move is
also interesting : 6 lLlf3 .i.e6 ! (the
good thing about this system is that
it is so easy to play if you know the
nuances : put your bishop on e6,
develop the knights, sometimes in­
terpose the move .. :it'b6 and then
play your knight to e4; White can
play his moves in different orders
but it does not change much for
Black for whom the moves are all
standard) 7 .i.f4 lLlf6 8 hS lLlbd7
The Knight Development: 2 lLlc3 109
(one should rarely take on h5 as the
exchange sacrifice always looks
promising for White ; one example
is 8 . . . lLlxhS ? ! 9 :xhS gxhS 1 0
lLlgS ! .i.g8 1 1 "'xhS+ 'ittf8 1 2 .i.d3
e6 1 3 g4 h6 14 lLlf3 .i.f7 I S 'iWh3
which gave White a strong attack
in Khalifman-Lerner, Kuibyshev
1 986) 9 h6 (D).
B
This move looks very annoying
but a little bit of regrouping will
solve Black's problems. 9 . . . .i.f8 1 0
'ii'd2 .i.f7 I l lDeS e 6 1 2 f3 .i.e7 1 3
g4? ! lLlxeS 14 .i.xeS fxg4 I S fxg4
0-0 1 6 .i.e2, Khalifman-Liogky,
USSR 1 987, and now Black could
seize the initiative with 1 6 . . . lLld7 !
1 7 .i.g3 .i.gS +.
6 ••• .i.e6!
7 00
An interesting way to develop
the pieces is 7 "'f3 ! ? 0f6 8 lLlge2
lLlbd7 9 hS :g8 10 hxg6 hxg6 1 1
0-0-0 "'as 1 2 'itt b l .i.f7 1 3 .i.xf6
lLlxf6 ( l 3 . . . .i. xf6 ! ?) 1 4 'ifg3 lLle4
.
110 The Knight Development: 2 lLlc3
1 5 .txe4 dxe4 1 6 f3 exf3 17 'ilxf3
0-0-0 I S g4 ! .te6 1 9 gxf5 "xf5 20
"g2 Kochiev-Malaniuk, USSR
1 9 S4. It is not clear who is better.
White has the better pawn forma­
tion and Black' s e- and g-pawns
are weak, but Black has the bishop
pair.
7 ... lDd7
8 hS
It is best for White to do this im­
mediately. Other moves have been
tried but White has not been able to
show any advantage:
a) S lDe2 "b6 9 b3 lDgf6 10 h5
lDe4 1 1 hxg6 hxg6 1 2 lhhS+ .txhS
1 3 .txe4 dxe4 1 4 lDh4 .tf? with a
clear plus for Black, J .Andersen­
S.Pedersen, Homslet rpd 1 996.
b) S .tf4 was met by S . . . h6 in
Vera-Paneque, Santa Clara 1 995
and White now missed a strong op­
portunity in 9 g4 ! fxg4 10 .txg6+
�fS 1 1 lDh2 h5 12 f3 ! . However,
there is no reason why Black can­
not play S . . . lDgf6 9 h5 "b6 ! ? by
analogy with the next note.
8
.•• lDgf6
S . . . h6? is bad in view of 9 hxg6
hxg5 1 0 ':'xhS .txhS 1 1 lDxg5
lDfS 12 g7 .txg7 13 'ii'h 5+ �d7 14
lDxe6 lDxe6 15 .txf5 lDh6 1 6
.txe6+ �xe6 1 7 'ilg6+ but the sub­
tle S . . ... b6 ! ? (D), which forces
White to decide what to do with the
queens ide, has occasionally been
tried:
a) 9 ':'bl lDgf6 10 hxg6 hxg6 1 1
':'xhS+ .txhS 1 2 .tf4 lDe4 1 3 lDg5
w
lDxg5 14 .ixg5 .if6 112- 112 Atalik­
S . Pedersen, Cappelle la Grande
1 996.
b) 9 h6 .if6 10 "d2 .if? 1 1
0-0-0 "c7 1 2 .if4 e5 1 3 .ih2 0-0-0
14 lDa4 ':'eS 15 ':'de l "dS 16 dxe5
112- 112 Adamski-Dejkala, Polish Ch
1 9S7.
9 hxg6
As shown before, 9 h6 in this
type of positions is only temporar­
ily annoying: 9 . . . .ifS 10 lDe2 .if?
1 1 b4 ! ? lDg4 1 2 lDd2 "c7 13 f3
lDgf6 14 c4 e5 15 c5 ? ! .ie7 �
Palatnik-Liogky, Tallinn 19S5.
9 hxg6
10 ':'xh8+ .ixh8
11 lDe2 .in
12 lDf4 lDe4
13 �e2 tOOl ? !
A s there i s no direct threat
against g6, there is no need to play
this move. Better was 1 3 . . . .if6 1 4
.ixf6 exf6 1 5 "h I "e7 1 6 'ifh6
lDfS 17 c3 with chances for both
sides - Kova�evic.
 The Knight Development: 2 lLlc3 III

14 ..... 1 i.f6 20 �e2 0-0-0

15 i.h6 lLle6 The king would have been safer
16 g4! (D) on d7.
21 a4! g5
22 i.g3 i. e6
23 'iVbl! :f8
24 b4 'iVd8
25 :a3 i.d7
26 :c3
White's attack is becoming very
dangerous.
26 ... eSt ?
Trying to neutralise the effect of
the strong white bishop on g3 .
27 dxe5 i. g7
B 28 b5 'iVa5
29 'iVb3! :0
16 000 fxg4 30 :c5 b6
Maybe 1 6 . . .... b6 ! ? is a better 31 e6! (D)
chance. Then Kova�evi� gives the
line 1 7 lLlxg6 ! ! i.xg6 1 8 gxf5 i.xf5
1 9 "'h5+ �d7 20 "'xf5 "'xb2 2 1
:gl but this does not seem entirely
clear after 2 1 . . .lLlc3+ 22 �f1 'iVbl +
23 lLle l 'iWxa2.
17 lLld2 lLlxf4+? !
There is no need to force this ex­
change; it was better to take the
other knight: 1 7 . . . lLlxd2 1 8 �xd2
"'a5+ 19 �e2 �d7 ! and now Kova­
�evi� analyses 20 lLlxe6 i.xe6 2 1
i.f4 :h8 2 2 "'b l as much better B
for White but I think he is underes­
timating Black's resources. For ex­ A beautiful and logical break-
ample, B lack can play 22 . . . i.f5 23 through.
c3 e6 24 b4 "'a3 with the better 31 000 .,xc5
game. 32 exd7+ �xd7
18 i.xf4 lLlxd2 33 bxc6+ �e6
19 �xd2 'iVa5+ 34 'iVb7 :Xg3
112 The Knight Development: 2 1Oc3
35 'it'd7+ cM6
36 'it'd6+ 1-0
Black is getting mated after
36 . . .r/if7 37 .i.g6+ �g8 38 'it'e6+
�h8 39 'ife8+
Game 27
Ruf - Zysk
Bundesliga 1994
1 d4 f5
2 tDc3 d5
3 .i.f4 c6
When this move is played Black
no longer has to worry about White
playing lObS at some point. An­
other strategy is to play 3 . . . lOf6 4
e3 e6 but White replies S lObS ! and
gets an edge after both S . . . .i.d6 6
lOxd6+ (6 c4 ! ± Suetin) 6 . . . cxd6 7
lOo lDc6 8 .i.e2 0-0 9 0-0 a6 10 b3
'ife7 1 1 c4 ;t Milov-Kindermann,
Biel 1 99S and S . . . lOa6 6 c4 .i.b4+ 7
lOc3 0-0 8 .i.d3 ;t Golod-Cosma,
Olanesti 1 992.
4 e3 lbf6
5 .i. d3 g6!? (D)
When lObS has been prevented,
S . . . e6 is another idea but generally
I do not like the Stonewall forma­
tion.
6 h3
Besides this, White has tried two
other moves, the first being the
more popular:
a) 6 lOo .i.g7 7 0-0 (7 lOe2
.i.e6 ! 8 c3 1Obd7 9 h3 lbe4 10 'ifc2
h6 { Black has cleverly played with­
out . . . 0-0, and this means that
White cannot occupy eS with a
piece } 1 1 .i.eS lOxeS 1 2 lOxeS
.i.xeS 13 dxeS "fIc7 14 lOf4 �f7 !
I S lOxe6 �xe6 1 6 f4 "fIb6 =F Ak­
sharumova-Zsu.Polgar, Thessalo­
niki OL 1 988) 7 . . . 0-0 (7 . . . .i.e6 is
another idea) 8 lOe2 and now:
a 1 ) 8 . . . h6 9 c4 .i.e6 1 0 cxdS
lOxdS 1 1 .i.eS lOd7 12 .i.xg7 �xg7
13 lDc3 lOxc3 14 bxc3 .i.d5 IS lie 1
.i.xo 1 6 'ifxf3 eS 1 7 e4 f4 1/2- 1/2
Komarov-Galdunts, Metz 1 994.
a2) 8 . . . lOe4 9 c4 �h8 ? ! (this
just turns out to be a waste of time;
9 . . . e6 was better) 10 .i.eS e6 1 1 b4
lOd6 1 2 .i.xg7+ �xg7 1 3 'ifb3
lOd7 14 a4 "fIf6 I S cxdS ! exdS 1 6
b S ± Khalifman-Topalov, Las Pal­
mas 1 993.
a3) 8 . . . lObd7 9 c4 e6 1 0 .i.d6
lIe8 1 1 cS 1Oe4 12 .i.xe4 fxe4 1 3
lbes lOxeS 1 4 dxeS b6 was unclear
in the game Kapetanovic-Grig­
orov, Belgrade 1 990.
b) 6 h4 ! ? I am surprised that
this move has not been played
 The Knight Development: 2 lDc3 113

more often. If we compare with the White plays a bit oddly around
previous game, Black does not here. The rook actually comes in
have . . . h6 as an answer to hS and quite handy on d2 in a few moves,
sometimes White even retreats the but the normal move 12 0-0 was
bishop voluntarily. This could mean better.
that if Black plays inaccurately, he 12 ... 0-0
will just be a tempo down com­ 13 c4? !
pared to the .i.gS lines . 6 . . . .i.g7 ? ! A very risky decision since
(it was certainly worth considering White has not yet castled.
6 . . .. b6 ! ? or 6 . . . .i.e6 7 hS :gS S 13 dxc4
hxg6 hxg6 9 lDf3 lDe4 so that the 14 .i.xc4 .i.xc4
g6-pawn will not be that vulner­ 15 bxc4 "'a5+
able) 7 hS lDe4? ! (after this, White 16 lDd2 lDb6
seems to be a full tempo ahead 17 'iVc1 e5!
compared with some of the 3 .i.gS 18 0-0
lines - White has played .i.f4 in Finally White brings his king
one go instead of .i.gS-f4) S hxg6 into safety.
hxg6 9 :xhS+ .i.xhS 10 'iff3 ! .i.e6 18 ... lDxd2
1 1 'ifh3 �d7 1 2 lDf3 and White is 19 :xd2
clearly better, Serebrjanik-Tostikh, So, this was the point of White's
Moscow 1 99 1 . 1 2th move?
6 .i. g7 19 ••• f4! (D)
7 lDo .i.e6
8 a3
This is not a bad move but why
not wait until Black has played
. . . lDa6 or . . . ""6?
S 0-0 is another try: S . . . lDbd7 9
lDe2 'it'b6 1 0 b3 h6? ! (the idea of
preventing lDgS is correct but it
was better to play 1O . . . lDe4 first
and only then . . . h6) I l lDeS gS 1 2
.i.h2 0-0 1 3 c4 with advantage for
White; Soffer-Welz, Berlin 1 995.
8 lDe4
9 lDe2 lDd7
10 b3 h6 20 :b2?
11 .i.h2 gS One can easily understand that
12 :a2? White wants th� rook on the b-file
114 The Knight Development: 2 lLlc3

but anyway 20 :a2 should have Just to see what White intends to
been played, although Black would do.
then have several promising con­ 32 'iVg6? i. eS+
tinuations. In the notation I have had avail­
20 fxe3 able, it says 32 . . . :f1 but I suppose
21 fxe3 :xf1+ that Black played this check first.
22 � :18+ 33 �hl :0+
23 'itgl exd4 0-1
24 exd4 'iVxa3
25 i.c7 (D) Game 28
25 c5 lbd5 26 :xb7 would fail Gelfand - P.Nikolic
to 26 . . . i.xd4+ ! 27 'ith l "'xc 1 + 28 Munich 1994
lbxc l :f1+.
1 d4 f5
2 M d5
3 e4! ? (D)

25 :e8
26 'iVc2 :e7 B
27 i.xb6 axb6
28 :a2 This gambit continuation should
The easiest way to win after 28 not be underestimated. I have seen
:xb6 is 28 . . ....e3+ ! 29 �f1 i.xd4 more than one player, even quite
30 "'g6+ :g7 and White has no strong ones, automatically play
more checks. 3 . . . fxe4?, and only then find out
28 'iVe3+ that Black has a horrible position
29 �h2 :e8 after 4 "'h5+ g6 5 "'xd5 . Another
30 d5 :f8! idea is to play 3 f3 but this has a du­
31 ""'1 �h8! ? bious reputation because of 3 . . . c5 !

4 e4 eS ! and in Pomar-Larsen, Spain
1 975, Black obtained a strong posi­
tion after S .tbS+ .td7 6 .txd7+
�xd7 7 �xdS cxd4 8 �e2 fxe4 9
fxe4 �gf6 1 0 .tgS "'as+ 1 1 .td2
"'cS 1 2 �xf6+ �xf6 1 3 �g3 hS ! ,
but White can improve with S dxeS
d4 6 .tbS+! .td7 (6 ... �6 7 .txc6+
bxc6 8 �ce2 fxe4 9 fxe4 "'h4+ 1 0
�g3 ;;1;) 7 .tc4 when Black has a
number of moves:
a) 7 . . . �c6 8 e6 .tc8 9 �ce2
fxe4 1 0 fxe4 "'h4+ 1 1 �g3 .td6
( 1 1 . . . �f6 ! ? 12 �f3 'iWg4) 12 "'hS+
"'xhS 1 3 �xhS g6 14 .tf4 .tb8 !
I S .txb8 :xb8 1 6 �f4 �f6 1 7
.tdS �b4 1 8 0-0-0 gS .
b) 7 . . . .tc6 8 exfS ! has the point
that 8 . . . dxc3 ? 9 .tf7+ tj;e7 1 0
.tgS+ wins for White.
c) 7 . . . ...aS 8 �ge2 dxc3 9 �c3
fxe4 10 fxe4 with compensation.
d) 7 . . . dxc3 8 "'dS �h6 9 exfS
.tc6 1 0 "'e6+ "'e7 1 1 "'c8+ "d8
12 "'xd8+ tj;xd8 1 3 .txh6 gxh6 14
0-0-0+ tj;c7 is unclear (Christian­
sen and Silman) .
White has also tried 3 g4. It is
probably best to compare this with
2 g4, which is considered in Chap­
ter 8. One independent example,
though : 3 . . . �f6 ! 4 gS ? ! �e4 S
�e4 fxe4 6 f3 .tfS and Black was
already better in Spielmann-Mie­
ses, Berlin 1 920.
3
000 dxe4
4 .tr4
Another option is 4 f3 but Black
has the strong reply 4 . . . eS ! S dxeS
The Knight Development: 2 .!L1d 115
"'xd l + 6 tj;xd l �d7 (6 . . . .te6 ':j:
Dautov) 7 �dS tj;d8 8 fxe4 fxe4 9
.tf4 �cS ! 1 0 �e2 �e7 1 1 �dc3
�g6 ':j: Beien-Zwaig, Nice OL 1974.
4 �r6
5 f3 (D)
B
5 exf3!?
Generally I do not like accepting
these pawn sacrifices. White seems
to get a lot of compensation but on
the other hand, if Black can get
away with it, he is a pawn up. Other
moves also deserve attention:
a) S . . . �c6 6 .tbS a6 7 .txc6+
bxc6 8 fxe4 fxe4 9 �ge2 :b8 is
unclear; Rublevsky-Poluliakhov,
USSR 1 99 1 .
b) S . . . e6 6 .tc4 �c6 7 fxe4 fxe4
8 �ge2 and now:
b l ) 8 . . . �aS 9 .tb3 (9 .tbS + !
.td7 10 0-0 ;;I; Dautov) 9 . . . �xb3 10
axb3 .td7 1 1 �g3 .tc6 = Benja­
min-Malaniuk, Moscow 1987.
b2) 8 ... .te7 ! 9 a3 0-0 1 0 0-0
tj;h8 1 1 tj;h l b6: Black has played
116 The Knight Development: 2 1Dc3

the opening naturally, simply mak­

ing sensible developing moves.
The ' threat' is now to finish devel­
oping and increase the pressure on
d4. 1 2 1i'e l lDd5 ! 1 3 :d l lDa5 1 4
.i.a2 .i.a6 1 5 :f2 lDc4 gave Black a
clear advantage in the game Dan­
nevig-Borge, Oslo 1 992.
6 lDxf3 e6
7 .i.c4 .i. d6
8 'ii'd2 0-0
9 0-0-0 c6
10 .i.gS !
This is a good move. White 17 :gl
avoids exchanges, which would 1 7 lDxc6? 1i'c7 would just help
ease Black's defence. Black has Black.
good play against other moves: 17 000 'ii'e8
a) 10 :he l ! ? lDd5 1 1 .i.xd5 This placement of the queen ap­
cxd5 ! 1 2 lDb5 .i.xf4 13 "xf4 lDc6 pears a bit odd. Better was 17 .....c7 !
is unclear - Dautov. which also serves the purpose of
b) 1 0 g4? ! b5 l l .i.b3 .i.xf4 1 2 defending against 1 8 .i.h6? ! which
'ilxf4 lDd5 1 3 .i.xd5 exd5 14 g 5 as would now be met by 1 8 . . . lDg4 1 9
1 5 h4 lDa6 + Dannevig-Djurhuus, .i.xg7 'iVxg7 20 h3 1i'h6+.
Oslo 1 992. 18 .i.h6 lDg4
10 000 lDa6 19 .i.xg7! rlixg7
11 'ii'e l 20 h3 (D)
1 1 :he l deserves attention.
11 lDc7
12 g4!? bS!
13 .i.b3 b4
14 lDe2?
14 lDa4 was preferable.
14 lDcdS
15 gxfS extS
16 lDeS .i.e6! (D)
Black has seized the initiative.
White 's mistake on move 14 has
turned out to be serious as Black is
now threatening ... as-a4. B
 The Knight Development: 2 lDc3 117

20
••• �hS? !
The position has become very
unclear and here Nikolic fails to find
the best defence: 20 . . . f4 ! , which
threatens to advance the f-pawn
even further. White has to play 2 1
lDxg4 and only then does Black
continue 2 1 . . .'�h8 ! '
21 bxg4 fxg4
22 lthl?!
This seems a logical move but it
allows Black to remove the knight B
on e 5 . Best was 22 lDg3 and if
22 . . . aS then 23 i.a4 ! . as initiative in such positions. With
22 i.xe5 time trouble approaching Black
23 dxe5 'ii'g6 must watch out for tricks involving
24 lDd4 as this knight.
2S 'ii'd2 32.•• ltf8!
Best seems to be 25 lDxc6 ! when 32 . . . lDe2 would backfire after 33
25 . . . lt fc8 26 i.xd5 i.xd5 27 ltxd5 'ife3 'ifg6 34 �al ! lDc3 (34 . . :i'xc2
lt xc6 28 'ifd2 a4 29 lt d6 lt xd6 30 is met with 35 e6 ! ) 35 lt d7 g2 36
exd6 reaches an unclear endgame, lt hxh7+ 'ifxh7 37 ltxh7+ �xh7 38
which is probably to White's ad­ 'ifh3+ and for some reason this
vantage. position is evaluated as equal by
25 i.gS Gelfand but White is in fact totally
26 lth6 'ii'g7 winning: 38 . . . �g6 39 'ii'g4+ ! �h6
27 lDxc6 g3 40 Wh4+ �g6 41 'ii'x f2 +-.
28 lthhl ltn 33 'ii'cS! lte2! (D)
29 'ii'd4 lDf4 3 3 . . . g2 would only lead to an
30 �bl ltf8? ! equal endgame after 34 'ifxf2
Probably missing White's 32nd gxh rii' 35 l:xh l :
move. Black's advantage would be a) 3 5 . . :ii'd7 3 6 'ifh4 lDg6 37
more visible after the continuation e6 ! lDxh4 3 8 exd7 ltxd8 39 ltxh4
30 . . . i.xb3 3 1 axb3 lDe6 32 'ifc4 ltxd7 40 b3 =.
lte8 =F. b) 35 . . . 'ifxe5 36 'ila7 'iff5 37
31 i. xgS ltxgS 'ife7 lDe6 ! 3 8 'ii'xe6 'ifn + 3 9 We I
32 lDdS! ! (D) 'ilxe l + 40 ltxel ltxd8 4 1 b3 =.
,
The only way to keep White The text move was awarded a " ?
alive . Pawns are not as important by Gelfand. It permits White to
118 The Knight Development: 2 c!Llc3

looks like the only try (not 3 6 e6

tLlxe6 37 tLlxe6 :Xe6 38 'it'd4+ :ef6
+), but then there is 36 . . . :e4 ! ! (D).
This move is found very quickly
by Fritz3 ! (36 . . . tLle6? would be to
White ' s advantage after 37 tLlxe6
'it'xe6 38 'ifd3 'it'h6 39 'it'xe2
'it'xc 1 + 40 �xc l gl'iW+ 41 :d l ±.)

penetrate with the rook which in

the game has deadly consequences
but Black did not find the correct
continuation.
34 :d7
If 34 :h4 g2 35 :g4 then Black
has the surprising move 35 . . . tLld3 ! !
and I do not see anything better W
than 36 cxd3 , when Black wins as
follows : 36 . . . :n 37 tLlf7+ 'it'xf7 37 'it'xe4 (what else?) 37 . . . g 1'it'
3 8 "'c8+ "'f8 39 "'xf8+ :xf8 40 38 :xh7+ 'it'xh7 39 "'xh7+ �xh7
d4 :n 4 1 �c 1 :ee l 42 :xe l 40 :xg l :xd8 and Black has good
:xe l + 43 �d2 g l '" 44 :xg l winning chances.
:xg l -+. 36 00+ �g8
34 ... g2 Or 36 . . ....xf7 37 :xf7 +-.
35 :c1 37 ti:lxe5 'ii'f6
35 :hd l was maybe better. 38 tLlg4 'ii'e6
35 ••. :xe5?? 39 'ii'g5+ tLlg6
An amazing blunder in time 40 :ddl �g7
trouble. Black has the better chances 41 'ii'h6+ �g8
after 3 5 . . ....g8 ! and now 36 "'d4 42 llJe3 1-0
7 The Sta u nton G a m b it
As a Dutch player, I always hope to
be faced with the Staunton Gambit.
Black simply has so many promis­
ing ways to counter this gambit.
For the pawn, White hopes to
achieve fast development, but usu­
ally it works out the other way
around. In order to regain the pawn,
White has to make some odd-look­
ing moves, which normally involve
the surrender of the bishop pair.
Meanwhile, Black organises his
development and builds up an ac­
tive position. The Staunton Gambit
has not enjoyed much popularity
recently, and the future does not
look too bright either.
Game 29
Zurakhov - Korchnoi
Minsk 1952
1 d4 fS
2 e4 fxe4
3 lDc3
On 3 f3 B ellin considers 3 . . . eS !
a strong reply, e.g. 4 dxeS lDc6 S
'iVdS 'iVe7 6 f4 d6 7 exd6 cxd6 8
.ibS .id7 9 lDc3 lDf6 with a good
position for Black. The other alter­
native for White is 3 lDd2 but this
should not bother Black too much
either: 3 . . . lDf6 4 g4 dS S gS lDfd7
(S . . . .ig4 =+=) 6 f3 eS 7 fxe4 'iVxgS
(7 . . . .ie7 ! 8 h4 0-0 9 lDgf3 exd4 10
exdS lDb6 =+= Bellin) 8 lDgf3 'ifhS 9
exdS .id6 1 0 lDe4 0-0 1 1 .ig2
'iVg4 12 'ile2 .ib4+ 13 c3 exd4 !
1 4 lDxd4 'iVh4+ I S �d l .ie7 and
White's vulnerable king' s posi tion
gives Black the better game ; Bis­
guier-Bronstein, Gothenburg IZ
19S5.
3••• lDf6 (D)
W
4 f3
In spirit of the real Staunton
Gambit, which was originally 3 f3 ,
but a s w e have seen 3 . . . eS ! is then a
strong reply. We shall look at 4
.igS in the next game but White
has also tried the provocative 4
g4, without success, though, after
120 The Staunton Gambit
4 . . . h6 ! , which is generally consid­
ered Black's best. Theory now re­
volves around the moves S n dS ,
when White has a wide range of
possibilities:
a) 6 h3 lDc6 7 .te3 eS 8 dxeS
lDxeS 9 f4 lDn t o 'ii'd2 c6 1 1
lDge2 .tb4 + Bronstein-M .Gure­
vich, Moscow TV 1987.
b) 6 .tf4 cS ! ? 7 lDbS lDa6 8
dxcS eS 9 .txeS .txcS t o h3 0-0 1 1
f4 'ifb6 1 2 .td4 .td7 1 3 i.xcs lDxcs
1 4 lDd4 lDd3 + ! I S cxd3 'ii'xd4 +
Efimov - Santo-Roman, Nice 1994.
c) 6 gS hxgS 7 i.xgS .tfS 8
.tg2 e3 (8 . . . lDc6 ! ?) 9 lDge2 lDc6
to a3 e6 1 1 .txe3 i.d6 1 2 .tf4
.txf4 1 3 lDxf4 'ii'd6 14 'ii'd2 :h4
I S fu2 gS :f lYroler-Araiza, 1928.
d) 6 .tg2 cS (6 . . . eS ! ? 7 dxeS
lDxg4 is suggested by Byrne and
Mednis in ECO; it certainly looks
dangerous and White can easily go
wrong, e.g. 8 fxg4 'ilh4+ 9 �f1
.tcS is already winning for Black
but 9 �d2 does not seem so clear)
7 fxe4 cxd4 8 lDxdS lDc6 9 lDh3 ?
e6 ! 1 0 0-0 exdS 1 1 exdS lDxdS 1 2
'ild3 lDce7 ! 1 3 lDf4 lDxf4 14 .txf4
'it'b6 I S a4 'ii'g 6 ! -+ Conquest­
Malaniuk, Espergrerde 1 992.
••.4 dS
4 . . . exf3 is considered a little
risky. White usually gets quite
good compensation thanks to his
fast development and open lines.
With the text move Black holds on
to his pawn for some moves, and in
order to get it back, White has to
play a few strange moves. Mean­
while Black has time to organise
his development, usually creating
good piece play. Black's pawn
structure becomes chaotic, though,
and this is not to everybody 's lik­
ing. A safe alternative is 4 . . . lDc6 ! ?
S fxe4 ( S dS lDeS 6 fxe4 d6 7 .tf4
lDg6 8 .tbS+ .td7 9 .txd7+ 'ii'xd7
to lDge2 eS 1 1 dxe6 'ii'xe6 12 'ii'd3
c6 1 3 0-0-0 .te7 14 .tg3 = Kotov­
Simagin, Moscow 1 946) S . . . eS,
and now:
a) 6 ds lDd4 7 lDn i.cS ! 8 i.gS
d6 9 lDxd4 .txd4 10 .tbS+ c6 1 1
dxc6 0-0 (D) and B lack's active
piece play gives him the better
chances.
W
Verhoeff-Becx, Guernsey 1 987
now continued 12 .tc4+ �h8 1 3
lDd5? .tf2+ 1 4 �f1 lDxd5 I S .txd8
lDe3+ 16 �e2 .tg4+ 17 �d3 .txd l
1 8 :axd l :axd8 0- 1 .
b) 6 lDf3 exd4 7 lDxd4 .tb4
(this is actually a position from the

Four Knights opening but without
f-pawns; it is not entirely clear who
benefits from this) 8 .i.c4 'ile7 9
0-0 lDxd4 1 0 eS ! .i.xc3 1 1 bxc3
lDe6 1 2 exf6 'ilcS+ 1 3 �h l and
now, following 13 . . .gxf6 14 'ilg4
bS I S .i.xe6 dxe6 1 6 'ilg7 'it'f8 1 7
'ilxc7 White was suddenly o n top
in Ivanda-Kova<::evic, Makarska
1 994. Critical is 1 3 . . . 'ilxc4 ! ? 1 4
'ilhS+ g 6 I S f7+ �e7 1 6 .i.gS+
�d6, which looks rather risky but
it seems like Black gets away : 1 7
lIad 1 + �c6 1 8 'ilf3+ dS or 1 7 'ilf3
�cS 1 8 .i.e3+ �bS 1 9 .f6 lIf8 20
.i.h6 'it'c5 .
c) 6 dxe5 is the main continu­
ation. Now after 6 . . . lDxe5 7 lDf3 (7
.i.f4? ! is well met with 7 . . . .i.d6 ! )
7 . . . .i.d6 (worth considering is
7 ... lDxf3+ 8 'ifxf3 .i.b4 ! { ECO only
mentions the passive 8 . . . d6? ! } 9
.i.c4 'ife7 1O .i.d2 d6 1 1 h3 .i.e6 1 2
.i.d3 ? ! 0 - 0 1 3 'ife2 lDd7 1 4 0-0-0
lDe5 =+= Goetsche-Grivas, Dortmund
1 99 1 ) White has a choice:
c l ) 8 lDb5 lDxf3+ 9 .xf3 .i.e5
1 0 .i.f4 'it'e7 1 1 0-0-0 �d8 ? ! (this
saves the pawn but puts the king in
an ugly position; 1 1 . . . 0-0 ! ? is bet­
ter according to B ellin) 1 2 'it'g3
lIe8 13 .i.xe5 'iVxeS 14 'ilxg7 lDxe4
1 5 .xe5 lIxe5 1 6 .i.c4 ;!;; Zeise­
Meinberger, corr. 1 975.
c2) 8 .i.g5 h6 9 .i.h4 and now
Black has two promising moves:
c2 1 ) 9 ...0-0 IO lDd5 ? ! ( l O 'iVd4 ! ?
lDc6 1 1 'it'd2 'ile8 = ) 1 O . . . lDxf3+
1 1 gxf3 .i.e7 1 2 lDxe7+ 'it'xe7 1 3
The Staunton Gambit 121
'ild2 d5 ! 14 0-0-0 dxe4 IS fxe4
'ilxe4 1 6 .i.xf6 lIxf6 1 7 .i.g2 'ile8
1 8 lIhe l 'it'f8 :f Lehmann-Smys­
lov, Havana 1 965 .
c22) 9 . . . lDg6 1 O .i.g3 ! ( 1 0 .i.f2
'ile7 :f) 10 . . . .i.xg3+ 1 1 hxg3 .e7
1 2 'ild4 d6 1 3 .i.c4 ( 1 3 0-0-0 .i.e6
14 lDd5 .i.xd5 15 exdS 0-0 16 lIe l
'ild7 1 7 .i.d3 lDe7 1 8 c4 lIae8 with
an equal position, B eekes-Hass­
elt, corr. 1 989) 13 . . . .i.e6 1 4 0-0-0
.i.xc4 15 'iVxc4 0-0-0 16 lDd5
lDxd5 17 exdS '/2- '/2 Grigorian-Tal,
USSR Ch (Baku) 1 972.
Now we return to the main line
after 4 . . . d5 (D).
W
5 .i.gS
If 5 fxe4 dxe4 6 .i.c4 (6 .i.f4
.i.fS 7 .i.bS+ c6 8 .i.c4 e6 9 lDge2
lDbd7 10 0-0 lDb6 1 1 .i.b3 lDbd5
gave Black a solid position in
Nogueiras-Barbero, Lugano 1 987)
B lack equalises with 6 . :.e5 7 dxe5
'it'xd l + 8 �xd l lDg4, while 6 . . . .i.f5
7 lDge2 'ild7 is also OK.
122 The Staunton Gambit
5
000 i.fS
s . . . lllc 6 6 i.xf6 exf6 7 fxe4 dxe4
8 d5 lbes 9 lL\xe4 'fIe7 10 'fIe2 i.g4
I l lDf3 i.xf3 12 gxf3 fS 1 3 f4 lDg6
1 4 lDg3 lDxf4 I S 'fIxe7+ i.xe7 1 6
lDxfS i.b4+ 1 7 c 3 0-0 1 8 lDg3
:ae8+ 1 9 �d2 i.cs 20 i.c4 with
equality, Teichmann-Mieses, Tep­
litz-Schonau 1 922.
6 fxe4 dxe4 (D)
W with a clear White advantage, Ilic­
7 i.c4
The alternatives are:
a) 7 'ii'e 2? ! (trying to get the
pawn back at once) 7 . . . lllc6 8 i.xf6
exf6 9 0-0-0 i.d6 1 0 lDxe4 0-0 1 1
lDxd6 cxd6 ! (a very strong move
that opens lines for a queenside at­
tack; Black quickly seizes control
of the game) 1 2 'iff2 "'aS 13 i.c4+
�h8 14 lDe2 lDb4 IS i.b3 :ac8 1 6
lllc 3 i.g6 + Lasker-Alekhine, Lon­
don 1 9 1 3 .
b ) 7 lDge2 e6 8 lDg3 i.e7
(Black may have an even better
line in 8 . . . i.b4 9 i.c4 ? ! lllc 6 10 0-0
'fIxd4+ 1 1 'fIxd4 lDxd4 1 2 i.xf6
gxf6 1 3 lDcxe4 i.xe4 1 4 lDxe4 fS
I S lDgS lDxc2 + Martinez-Byrne,
Nice OL 1 974 but the 9th move
was a mistake; 9 'fId2 is better) 9
'fId2 h6 1 0 i.e3 lDbd7 1 1 i.e2
lDb6 1 2 0-0 'fId7 (Bellin considers
1 2 . . . i.g6 ! a safe way to maintain
the advantage ; after the move cho­
sen the game becomes a little un­
clear) 13 lDhS :g8 14 lDxf6+
i.xf6 IS i.hS+ g6 1 6 i.e2 "ilg7 1 7
i.xh6? ! ( 1 7 g 4 was White's only
chance) 17 . . . i.xd4+ 1 8 �h l "ilh8
19 i.f4 0-0-0 20 lDbS eS 21 i.e3 a6
+ Gulko-M .Gurevich, Riga 1 985.
7
000 1Dc6
7 . . . lDbd7 8 lDge2 lDb6 9 i.b3
'fId7 10 0-0 0-0-0 1 1 a4 ! a6 1 2
i.xf6 exf6 1 3 aS lDa8 14 dS i.cS+
IS �h l i.g4 16 lDxe4 "ile7 1 7
lDxcs "ilxcs 1 8 "ild3 c 6 1 9 lDc3
Schwartzmann, Dortmund 1 989.
8 lDge2 1i'd7
9 0-0 e6
10 d5
1 0 'fie 1 ! ? 0-0-0 1 1 :d 1 lDaS 1 2
i.bS c6 1 3 i.a4 lDc4 1 4 dS i.cS+
I S �h l i.e3 ! ? 16 dxc6 'fIc7 led to
great complications in Schulz­
Wille, W.Germany 1 9S7.
10 exdS
11 lDxd5 0-0-0
12 lDxf6 i.cS+
13 �hl 1i'xdl
14 l:axdl l:xdl
15 l:xdl gxf6
16 i.xf6 :18
 The Staunton Gambit 123

17 :O? (D) 26 ci>rl �c6

Walking into an unfortunate pin. 27 �e3 �bS
Better is 17 .tg7 :d8 1 8 :xd8+ 28 g4 �b4
�xd8 1 9 c3 �d7 20 h3 .te6 2 1 29 h4 h6
.txe6+ �xe6 22 g4 b5 23 �g2 and 30 hS .th7
White managed to hold the draw 31 �4 �c3
in McAlpine-Timmermann, corr. 32 �e5 d2
1 994. 33 �xd2 �xd2
34 cM6 �e3
35 �g7 .tbl
36 �6 cM4
37 gS .txa2
38 �g6 .tf7+
39 �h6 �g4
40 g6 .tdS
0-1

Game 30
Parker - Marusenko
London Uoyds Bank 1 994
B
1 d4 f5
17 ••. .tg6 2 e4 fxe4
Due to the unprotected rook on 3 �3 �f6
fl , Black has time to attack the 4 .tgS �6! (D)
queenside pawns.
18 �g3 �b4!
19 c3
Not, of course, 19 .tb3 e3 ! .
19 •.. lDd3
20 .td4 :xO+
21 �xf1 .txd4
22 cxd4 �xb2
With an extra pawn, Korchnoi
had no problems converting the ad­
vantage into a win.
23 .te2 �d7
24 �gl �d3 W
25 .txd3 exd3
124 The Staunton Gambit
We have already become quite
familiar with this move. Black
does not care too much about his
extra pawn but decides to concen­
trate on finishing his development
rather than hanging on to the pawn.
This move develops a piece and
puts pressure on the central pawn
on d4.
5 d5
This is the White's best and most
forceful continuation; the alterna­
tives do not look very promising:
a) S lLlh3 g6 6 J.c4 J.g7 7 0-0
dS 8 J.xf6 exf6 9 J.b3 J.xh3 1 0
gxh3 fS =+= Taimanov.
b) S J.xf6 exf6 6 dS lLleS 7
lLlxe4 fS 8 lLlg3 d6 9 1Ie2 J.e7 1 0
f4 lLlg6 I 1 lLlh3 0-0 1 2 0-0-0 J.d7
1 3 "'f2 cS 14 J.d3 1IaS I S �bl bS
16 c3 c4 17 J.c2 b4 =+= Sjoberg-Vid­
mar, Gothenburg 1 909.
c) S lLlge2 g6 ! :f (Silman and
Christiansen).
d) S J.bS a6 6 J.a4 (6 J.xc6
bxc6 7 "'e2 e6 { 7 . . . dS 8 f3 ! ? } 8
lLlxe4 J.e7 9 J.xf6 J.xf6 1 0 lLlf3
0-0 = ) 6 . . . bS 7 J.b3 lLlaS 8 J.xf6
exf6 9 1IhS+ g6 10 J.f7+ �xf7 1 1
'ifdS+ �g7 1 2 'ilxa8 J.b4 1 3 �f1
c6 14 1i'b8 d6 IS d5 J.xc3 16 bxc3
B reyer-Vaj da, Vienna 1 92 1 and
now 1 6 . . . cxdS ! with the idea of 1 7
a4? ( 1 7 1Ia7+ 1Id7 :f) 17 . . . lLlc6 1 8
1Ia8 'ilc7 1 9 axbS J.b7 -+.
e) S f3 gives Black two promis­
ing continuations:
e l ) S ... eS ! ? 6 dS lLld4 7 lLlxe4
i.e7 8 d6 ! ? (trying to improve on
Horberg-Larsen, Stockholm 1 966/7
in which White got nothing after 8
J.xf6 J.xf6 9 1Id2 0-0 1 0 0-0-0 d6
I I c3 lLlfS) 8 . . . cxd6 9 J.xf6 gxf6
1 0 lLle2 dS I 1 lLlxd4 dxe4 1 2 lLlfS
"'b6 1 3 "'dS ! ? 1Ixb2 1 4 J.c4 !
J.b4+ I S �f2 "'xc2+ 1 6 �g3 �d8
1 7 llhd l and White had some com­
pensation but probably not enough,
Cifuentes-Schmittdiel, B ad Wor­
ishofen 1 992.
e2) S . . . dS and White has a fur­
ther choice:
e2 1 ) 6 J.bS ! ? 1Id6 ! (D).
w
7 J.xf6 exf6 8 fxe4 dxe4 9 d5 a6
1 0 J.a4 bS 1 1 J.b3 lLlaS (perhaps
1 1 . . . lLle7 ! ?) 1 2 lLlxe4 'it'eS 1 3 1Ie2
lLlxb3 (better was 1 3 . . . J.fS 14 lLlc3
0-0-0 I S 0-0-0 lLlxb3+ 16 cxb3
J.b4 =+=) 14 lLlf3 lLld4 I S lLlxd4 fS
1 6 lLlgS 1Ixe2+ 17 �xe2 112- 112
Meyer-S.Pedersen, Odense 1 993.
e22) 6 fxe4 lLlxe4 (6 . . . dxe4 7
J.bS 1Id6 ! 8 1Id2 J.d7 9 0-0-0
0-0-0 10 lLlge2 lLlaS I I J.xd7+

llxd7 :j: Cenal - Santo-Roman, Can­
das 1 992) 7 lLlxe4 dxe4 8 dS lLleS 9
'iWd4 lLlf7 10 .tf4 (better is 10 .te3
e6 1 1 dxe6 .txe6 12 'ii'xe4 'iWdS 1 3
'ifxdS .txdS with an equal position
- Byrne and Mednis) 1O . . . c6 1 1
.tc4 e6 1 2 d6 .txd6 1 3 .txd6
'ifxd6 14 'iWxg7 'ifb4+ IS 'ifc3
'iVxc3+ 1 6 bxc3 lLld6 17 .te2 eS 1 8
.thS+ �e7 + Rubinstein-Mieses,
Gothenburg 1 920.
s ... lLle5
6 'iVd4
Chasing the knight further and
attacking e4. It appears, however,
that the knight is splendidly placed
on f7. Alternatives are not as good,
though:
a) 6 f3 continues in gambit style
but again the knight comes in use­
ful at f7 . 6 . . . lLlf7 ! 7 .tf4 (7 .te3 ?
exf3 8 lLlxf3 g6 9 .te2 .tg7 10 0-0
0-0 1 1 lLld4 c6 1 2 .tf3 lLleS + Van
Seters-Rossolimo, Beverwijk 1 9S0)
7 . . . exf3 8 lLlxf3 c6 9 .tc4 cxdS 1 0
.txdS e6 1 1 .tb3 .tb4 1 2 0-0 0-0
1 3 cli>h l dS 14 "'e2 .td7 I S :ad l
.txc3 1 6 bxc3 bS ! + (Silman and
Christiansen).
b) 6 .txf6 exf6 7 lLlxe4 fS 8
lLlg3 g6 9 'ife2 'ife7 1 0 0-0-0 lLlg4
1 1 lLlh3 .th6+ 1 2 �bl 'ifxe2 1 3
.txe2 d6 :j: Alzate-Nilsson, Havana
1 966.
6••• m (D)
7 h4
Or else:
a) White could also give up the
bishop pair voluntarily and win
The Staunton Gambit 125
w
back the pawn immediately: 7
.txf6 exf6 8 lLlxe4 fS 9 lLlg3 g6 10
0-0-0 (on 1 0 h4, 1O . . . .th6 ! is again
a strong reply) lO . . . .th6+ 1 1 f4 0-0
and now:
a l ) 1 2 lLlf3 .tg7 ( 1 2 . . . bS ! 1 3
�bl c S 1 4 "'xcS .txf4 I S 'ii'd4
'ifc7 is a suggestion of Silman and
Christiansen) 1 3 'iWd2 bS ! 1 4 lLld4
lLld6 I S c3 :b8 1 6 lLlb3 as ! 1 7
lLlxaS :a8 1 8 b4 :xaS ! 1 9 bxaS
.tb7 20 'iWb2 'ifa8 and Black's at­
tack looks very promising; Shumi­
chev-Shaposhnikov, corr. 1 967-9 .
a2) 1 2 h4 cS 1 3 'ii'd 2 'ii'c 7 14
lLlh3 lLld6 I S lLlgS .tg7 1 6 hS h6
1 7 lLlf3 gS 1 8 fxgS 'ifb6 ! 1 9 c3 f4
20 gxh6 .txh6 2 1 .td3 ? ! (missing
Black's next move but retreating
the knight did not look tempting
either) 2 1 . . .lLlc4 ! (this is a great
move; the h6-bishop is now pro­
tected, thereby threatening . . . fxg3,
so White has to give up' a piece) 22
'ii'e2 fxg3+ 23 �bl lLle3 -+ StAhI­
berg-Rautanen, corr. 1 966.
126 The Staunton Gambit
Rarer 7th moves are:
b) 7 .th4 gS ! 8 .tg3 .tg7 9 0-0-0
c6 ! 10 lDxe4 'it'b6 I l lDxf6+ .txf6
1 2 'it'xb6 axb6 :j: Potter-JeZek, corr
1 9S9-60.
c) 7 f4 g6 8 .txf6 exf6 9 �xe4
.tg7 1 0 0-0-0 0-0 1 1 fS d6 12 �g3
cS 1 3 dxc6 bxc6 14 .tc4 dS I S
.td3 �eS 16 00 'it'aS 1 7 �bl :d8
1 8 fxg6 hxg6 19 lDxeS fxeS 20 'it'h4
:d6 2 1 'it'gS :b8 22 .tc4 :xb2+ !
23 �c 1 ti'c3 24 :d2 e4 0- 1 Krato­
chvil-Koxina, corr. 1 973.
7 ••• c6
This is the main continuation
but the ending arising after 7 . . . eS ! ?
8 dxe6 dxe6 9 'it'xd8+ ( 9 .txf6
gxf6 1 0 'it'xe4 �d6 1 1 'it'f3 'it'e7 1 2
0-0-0 .td7 1 3 �h3 .th6+ 1 4 �b l
0-0-0 I S .ta6 c6 :j: Vidmar-Mieses,
1 923) 9 . . . �xd8 is very interesting
as well: 10 0-0-0 .td7 ! (intending
... .tc6; worse is 1O ... �f7?! 1 1 .txf6
gxf6 1 2 �xe4 .te7 1 3 .tbS + ! c6
14 .te2 fS IS �g3 :g8 16 .thS
.tcS 17 :d2 �e7 1 8 �f3 with a
clear advantage for White, Cifuen­
tes-Menvielle Lacourell, Las Pal­
mas 1 993) 1 1 .txf6 gxf6 1 2 �xe4
.te7 1 3 .te2 .tc6 1 4 .thS+ �f8
and the bishop pair secures Black
an edge as in the game Avram­
Araiza, USA 1 9S6.
8 0-0-0 'it'b6
9 .txf6 gxf6
10 'it'xe4 'it'xn
11 �f3 .th6+
12 �bl 'it'e3 (D)
13 'it'g4
W
The ideal square for the queen
has yet not been established. Alter­
natives are:
a) 1 3 'it'a4 'it'f4 14 'it'b3 as IS a4
:g8 1 6 �d4 :g7 1 7 .tc4 �d6 1 8
.te2 :xg2 1 9 .thS+ �f8 20 dxc6
bxc6 2 1 �xc6 �c4 22 �d5 'it'c 1 + !
(this surprising queen check forces
White into a lost endgame) 23 �a2
'it'xb2+ 24 'it'xb2 �xb2 2S �xb2
dxc6 26 �c7 :b8+ 27 �c3 .tfS 28
:d3 .tf4 0- 1 Christ-Daum, corr.
1986.
b) 13 "'b4 ! ? as 14 'it'b3 "'cS ? !
(of course, 14 . . ....f4 transposing to
the above line was worth consider­
ing) I S a3 bS 1 6 �e4 (the black
queen is now becoming a target for
most of White 's pieces) 1 6 . . ....e3
17 .td3 0-0 1 8 :de l "'f4 19 :hfl
.tg7 20 �d4 'fIc7 21 d6! a4 22 "'c3
exd6 23 lDxf6+ .txf6 24 :xf6 .ta6
2S .txh7+ 1 -0 Fyllingen-Eliet, Sas
van Gent jr Ech 1 992.
13 'it'f4
14 'it'hs d6
 The Staunton Gambit 127

15 dxc6 bxc6
16 'ii'aS
1 6 �e2 "'fS 17 liJd4 "'xhS 1 8
�xhS �d7 1 9 g4 �e3 20 liJe4
�xd4 2 1 llxd4 0-0 22 gS fS 23 liX:S
:ad8 24 liJxd7 :xd7 2S :f4 liJeS
26 :hfl e6 + Cifuentes-Reinder­
mann, Dutch tt 1 993.
16 ••• �d7
This move is not strictly neces­
sary. It was possible to go for a di­
rect attack, for example : 16 . . . :b8 W
17 a3 0-0 1 8 'it'xa7 �g4 19 'it'd4
(W.Schmidt-Yilmaz, Thessalon­ be trapped after an eventual . . . :b7,
iki OL 1 988) and now 19 . . ....xd4 so Black has no worries investing
20 :xd4 fS is in Black's favour. an exchange in order to stop the
17 �d3 :b8 check.
18 a3 'ii'e3 23 :g8
19 �c4? 24 �hS+ :g6
Better was 19 'fIhS . 25 �xg6+ bxg6
19 ••• liJeS 26 hS :b7
20 liJxeS fxeS (D) 27 :h4 'ii'b s
Black's 'threat' is now 2 1 . . . 'fIb6 Black is clearly winning.
obtaining a winning endgame, so 28 'ii'xb7 'ii'xb7
White decides to sacrifice another 29 hxg6 � g7
pawn. 30 g4 'ii'b4
21 liJa4 'ii'xa3 31 :dhl �e6
22 'ii'c7 'ii'b4 32 b3 e4
23 �e2 33 :h7 �eS
Threatening �hS+, but notice 34 g7 'ii'
a3
that the white queen will actually 0-1
8 U n us u a l seco nd moves
White has a number of unusual
second moves. None of them is re­
ally dangerous but the so-called
Krej�ik Gambit starting with 2 g4
needs to be examined. An antidote
to this gambit is 3 . . . g3 ! which re­
jects the pawn sacrifice and creates
weaknesses in the white position.
Of the others, maybe 2 h3 is the
best, preparing to play 3 g4 so
Black cannot decline the sacrifice
in the way Malaniuk does in our
main game.
Game 3 1
Tregubov Malaniuk
- did not have enough for the pawn
Linares 1996
1 d4 fS
2 g4!?
This interesting gambit is the
most dangerous of White's unusual
second moves. B y sacrificing a
pawn, White intends to open lines
against the black kingside. Other
moves are :
a ) 2 h 3 is sometimes called the
Korchnoi Gambit. With this inno­
cent-looking move, White tries to
get an improved version of the g4-
gambit since Black does not have
the possibility of declining the gam­
bit as in our main game. However,
the move h3 is itself rather slow, so
Black can decline in another way,
without incurring a disadvantage,
viz. 2 . . .tDf6 3 g4 d5 ! (accepting the
pawn is too dangerous: 3 . . . fxg4 4
hxg4 tDxg4 5 e4 d6 6 .i.g5 g6 7 f3
tDf6 8 tDc3 c6 9 'ifd2 .i.e6 1 0 0-0-0
and White obviously had enough
compensation in Korchnoi-Kae­
nel, Biel 1 979) and White has a
number of possibilities but in all
cases Black's chances are good:
a l ) 4 tDc3 c5 ! 5 .i.g5 tDc6 6 e3
cxd4 7 exd4 fxg4 8 .i.g2 gxh3 9
tDxh3 .i.g4 1 0 'ii'd 2 e6 and White
in SjOdahl-Kubach, 1988.
a2) 4 gxf5 .i.xf5 5 tDf3 c6? !
(this i s a little passive; Christian-
sen 's idea 5 . . . tDc6 followed by
. . . 'ii'd 7 and . . . 0-0-0 is better) 6 c3
e6 7 .i.f4 .i.d6 8 .i.xd6 1i'xd6 9
'ifb3 tDbd7 1 0 tDbd2 0-0-0 = Quin­
tana-Burdio, Alicante 1 989.
a3) 4 g5 tDe4 5 .i.f4 e6 6 h4 c5 7
f3 tDd6 8 e3 b6 9 c3 .i.e7 1 0 tDh3
0-0 1 1 tDd2 .i.a6 1 2 .i.xa6 tDxa6
1 3 1i'e2 tDb8 1 4 0-0-0 tDc6 = Don­
chenko-Cherniaev, Smolensk 1 99 1 .
b ) 2 .i.f4 tDf6 3 e 3 with three
possibilities:
b l ) 3 . . . e6 4 .i.d3 b6 5 c4 .i.b7 6
f3 ? ! (this move limits the power of

the b7-bishop but it is more impor­
tant to finish development and play
6 lDf3 ) 6 . . . lDhS ! 7 i.g3 "'gS ! 8
clif2 cS (Lukov-Piskov, Yugoslavia
1 99 1 ) and now White should have
continued 9 dS exdS 10 cxdS but
after 1 O . . . c4 ! ? 1 1 i.xc4 i.cs (D)
Black has compensation for the
pawn.
W Stonewall formation but the queen
b2) 3 . . . d6 4 lDc3 c6 S lDf3 "'as
6 'it'd2 lDbd7 7 lDe4 ! ? "'xd2+ 8
lDexd2 lDe4 ! 9 lDxe4 fxe4 10 lDd2
lDf6 1 1 h3 h6 = Korchnoi - Santo­
Roman, Las Palmas 1 99 1 .
b3) 3 . . . g6 4 h4 ! (the classical
way of trying to refute the black
set-up immediately) 4 . . . i.g7 S hS
lDxhS 6 :xhS gxhS 7 'ii'x hS+ clif8
8 'iix fS+ clig8 9 lDf3 e6 10 'ii'hS
lDc6 1 1 lDc3 gave White compen­
sation in Sapis-Lukasiewicz, Po­
land 1 990.
c) Mter the odd 2 "'d3, 2 ... dS is
the simplest way to equalise. Apart
from 3 g4, which will transpose to
Unusual second moves 129
line 'c' in the note to White's 3rd
move in our main game, White has
tried:
c 1 ) 3 i.f4 e6? ! (a slight inaccu­
racy ; 3 . . . lDf6 is better) and now,
rather than 4 lDf3 lDf6 S e3 i.d6 6
i.e2 0-0 7 lDeS cS 8 c3 lDc6 9 lDd2
'iic 7 1 0 lDdf3 lDd7 = Kmoch-Ale­
khine, Semmering 1 926, Bellin has
shown that White could have taken
advantage of Black's careless third
move with 4 "'g3 ! , putting pres­
sure on both c7 and g7 . The next
series of moves seem more or less
forced: 4 . . . lDa6 S e3 c6 6 i.xa6
'it'aS+ 7 lDc3 "'xa6 8 i.eS ± with
complete domination of the dark
squares.
c2) 3 g3 lDf6 4 i.g2 e6 S c4
i.d6 6 lDf3 0-0 7 0-0 c6 8 b3 .
Black has been cheated into a
is not ideally placed on d3 . B lack
now got a comfortable position
with 8 . . . i.d7 ! 9 i.a3 i.e8 10 i.xd6
"'xd6 1 1 e3 lDbd7 1 2 lDc3 i.hS in
Gavrikov-Psakhis, Tallinn 1 983.
Black has solved the usual problem
of the light-squared bishop.
2 ••• fxg4
3 h3
This is the real gambit. If B lack
accepts the sacrifice, White will
have a lead in development and a
half-open h-file for the rook. Alas,
Black has a comfortable way of de­
clining the offer of winning mate­
rial. This has encouraged White to
look for other ways of using his
130 Unusual second moves
lead in development. With active
play, though, Black has no prob­
lems in either of the other lines:
a) 3 .i.f4 �f6 4 h3 dS S �c3
and now:
a l ) S . . . .i.fS 6 hxg4 �xg4 7
.i.h3 'ifd7 (Utasi-M.Gurevich, Jur­
mala 1 985) and White could now
obtain an advantage with 8 �f3 !
�f6 9 .i.xfS 'ifxfS 1 0 .i.xc7 ;!;
(Chernin, M.Gurevich).
a2) S . . . �6 ! (D) is better.
W =+= Bouchaud-M.Gurevich, Ostend
After 6 'ii'd 3, 6 . . . g6 7 0-0-0 .i.fS
8 'ilbS lIb8 9 e3 a6 1 0 'it'e2 gxh3
1 1 .i.xh3 gave White some com­
pensation in the game Altshul-Pet­
elin, USSR 1 990, but Black should
have played 6 . . . �b4 ! 7 'ii'd2 (7
'ii'b S+ c6 8 'ii'xb4 eS =+=) 7 . . . .i.fS 8
lIc 1 e6, when White 's pieces have
become disorganised.
b) After 3 e4 dS ! ? 4 eS Black
has a comfortable choice:
b l ) 4 . . . cS S dxcS �c6 6 .i.f4
.i.e6 7 h3 gS ! 8 .i.xgS .i.g7 9 f4
'ilaS+ 1 0 "'d2 "'xcS was unclear
in the game Thorhallsson-Sigfus­
son, Reykjavik 1 994.
b2) 4 . . . .i.fS S �c3 cS 6 .i.bS+
�c6 7 .i.xc6+ bxc6 8 �ge2 e6 =+=
Callinan-Saidy, USA 1 968.
c) 3 "'d3 dS 4 h3 and now:
c 1 ) 4 . . . g3 S 'it'xg3 �f6 6 �c3
.i.fS 7 .i.f4 �a6 8 0-0-0 e6 9 .i.eS
'ifd7 10 f3 .i.b4 1 1 e4 .i.g6 12 �ge2
was unclear in Vegh-J. Horvath ,
Hungarian Ch 1993.
c2) 4 ... �f6 S hxg4 .i.xg4 6
.i.h3 'ild7 7 .i.f4 �6 8 �c3 0-0-0
9 0-0-0 e6 :f Jepson- Thallinger,
Buenos Aires jr Wch 1 993 .
3 ... g3!
Accepting the sacrifice is simply
too dangerous but 3 . . . dS is a rea­
sonable alternative. After 4 hxg4
.i.xg4 White has been unable to
find any compensation, both after
S �c3 �f6 6 'it'd3 e6 7 f3 .i.fS 8
e4 .i.g6 9 �ge2 dxe4 1 0 fxe4 .i.b4
1 99 1 and S �3 �6 6 �gS �6 7
.i.f4 'ild7 8 f3 .i.fS 9 �c3 e6 :f
Kontic-Todorovic, Nik�ic 1 99 1 .
4 fxg3 (D)
A very peculiar position: neither
White nor Black has moved any
pieces and Black's first three
moves have all been with the same
pawn !
4 �6
5 �c3 dS
6 .i. g2 e6
More aggressive is 6 . . . cS 7 �f3
�c6 8 .i.gS cxd4 9 �xd4 eS 1 0
 Unusual second moves 131

One should always try to find the

weakest spot in the enemy camp; in
this case it is the g3-pawn.
8 lDe5
Certainly not 8 .i.f4? lDhS ! and
Black is already winning.
8 ••• c5
Now the eS-outpost has to be
undermined.
9 .i.f4 lDh5 !
10 0-0 0-0
ll e3 lDxf4
12 exf4 1Dc6
.i.xf6 gxf6 1 1 lDxc6 bxc6 1 2 e3 13 lDxc6 bxc6
with an unclear position in the 14 �h2
game Teske-Kristiansen, Voronezh White would also find it difficult
1 987. to retain control of d4 and cS after
7 lDf3? ! 1 4 lDa4 cxd4 I S 'it'xd4 'it'aS but it
White should have seized the was presumably better anyway.
opportunity to get his e-pawn go­ 14 .i.a6
ing . B est was 7 e4 ! ? cS (7 . . . .i.b4 8 15 :tel 'iVf6
eS lDe4 is unclear) 8 eS lDfd7 9 16 dxc5 .i.xc5
lDf3 lDc6 1 0 .i.e3 .i.e7 1 1 0-0 0-0 17 'iVd2 :tae8
with chances for both sides. 18 :tabU
7 ••• .i.d6! (D) The only reasonable plan: White
must try to create more space on
the queenside.
18 h6
19 b4 'iVd4!
20 'iVxd4 .i.xd4
21 lDd1 (D)
21 g5? !
Attacking the kingside seems
like a good idea but 2 1 . . . .i.bS ! =1=
would have been very disturbing.
22 fxg5 hxg5
23 a4
Now, White at least has a little
counterplay.
132 Unusual second moves

36 ':f2
At first sight 36 ':b2 looks good
but Black has the counterblow
36 .. b4! 37 l:xb3 bxc3 and the pawn
.

cannot be stopped.
36 .txc3
37 �7+ rJ;g7
38 .txb5
White has kept material level,
but now Malaniuk shows the im­
portance of the two bishops.
B 38 .td4!
39 ':0 ':d2+
23 .tc4 40 �hl .ta2!
24 c3 .t g7 41 ':d3
25 b5 cxb5 Even after the rooks are ex­
26 axb5 ':t7! changed, White is completely lost
27 b6 ':b7 because the e7-knight is almost
28 ll:)e3 ':xb6 trapped, but also after 41 .tc6 .tc5
29 ':xb6 axb6 42 �8 ':d8 43 .tb7 .tdS 44 .txdS
30 ll:)xd5! exd5 45 ':f5 rJ;g6 46 g4 ':xc8 47
White 's play has been based ':xd5 .tf2 Black wins fairly com­
upon this trick. Although Black has fortably.
some advantage due to his bishop 41 ':xd3
pair, White has been able to untan­ 42 .txd3 <M7
gle his pieces and is at least equal. 43 ll:)g6 .td5+
30 ••• b5 44 rJ;h2 eS
31 ':e3? White cannot avoid losing mate­
3 1 ll:)b6 was the correct move. rial and stop the e-pawn at the same
31 ':d8! time.
32 ll:)b6 .tb3 45 .trs e4
33 .tn ':d6 46 h4 e3
34 ll:)c8 ':d2+ 47 .td3 .te4!
35 ':e2 ':dl 0-1
9 The D utch a g a i nst 1 c4

Playing the Dutch against 1 c4, or 1 goes to f3 (next chapter) . Let's

tDf3 for that matter, usually means have a look at how it all goes ...
that at a later stage in the opening,
we arrive at a normal position from Game 32
the English. Indeed, the majority of Smejkal - Timman
games considered in this chapter Prague GMA 1 990
have started with normal English
moves, only with Black playing the 1 c4 f5
move . . . fS later on. I would like to 2 tDc3 tDf6
say something about the move-or­ 3 g3 g6
der considered in this chapter. My 4 i.g2 i.g7
suggestion is that you start playing 5 d3 d6
the opening as if it were a regular 6 e4 (D)
Dutch, e.g. l . . .fS , 2 . . . tDf6, 3 . . . g6,
etc. We will just wait with the move
. . . eS . There is really nothing White
can do to interfere with this move­
order. Of course, White can play d4
at some point but this would just
transpose to one of the previous
chapters . After playing the set-up
from the Leningrad Dutch and
playing the move . . . eS, we land in­
side the area of the English Open­
ing but with the advantage of
having avoided a lot of sidelines. B
That is also the reason why I have
changed the move-order in some of With this move White immedi­
the games . For the sake of having ately takes part in the fight for the
the easiest comprehensive view, I centre. Let me quote De Vault and
have distinguished between lines Hickman : "White's strategic ad­
where White puts the knight on e2 vantage is that exfS can be played
(this chapter) and lines where it while . . . fxe4 usually can ' t, but the
134 The Dutch against 1 c4
h l -a8 diagonal isn't that much of
an advantage since . . . c6 is available
either directly or after . . .l'iJce7."
OK, now we know that White (at a
favourable moment) wants to open
the centre with exfS utilising the
strong bishop on g2.
6 ... lDc6
Black' s chances are usually on
the kingside. Hence it is a good
idea to play this followed by . . . eS
and . . .lDe7 before . . . c6.
7 lDge2 0-0
8 0-0
White has also tried to get by
without castling but sooner or later
the king needs a shelter. Gorbatov­
Popov, Orel 1 994 continued: 8 h3
0-0 9 i.e3 i.e6 1 0 lDdS 'iid7 1 1
'iid 2 a6 1 2 ':e I ':f7 1 3 b4 ':e8 =
and Black was doing fine. To get
the king into safety White had to
adopt the manoeuvre �f1 -g1 -h2.
8
.•. e5
9 lDd5
This is White's most popular ap­
proach. Other moves are:
a) 9 h3 :
a l ) It is worth paying attention
to 9 . . . f4 ! ?, which has only had one
serious test. 1 0 gxf4 lDhS ! (we
know this kind of attack from some
of the main lines in the Leningrad
Dutch) 1 1 fxe S ? ! 'iih4 1 2 'iid2
lDxeS 1 3 'ii'e 3 i.d7 14 i.d2 and
Black now found the stunning
move 14 . . . .:f3 ! ! (D).
Black intends to meet I S i.xf3
with IS ... i.h6 ! . After IS 'iigS 'iixgS
w
16 i.xgS ':xd3 17 h4 h6 1 8 i.c l c6
19 b3 i.g4 Black went on to win in
Danielsen-Lim, Manila OL 1 992.
a2) 9 ... i.e6 (this is the standard
move) 1 0 lDdS 'iid7 1 1 �h2 and
now:
a2 1 ) 1 1 . . .':f7 1 2 i.e3 ':af8 1 3
'iWd2 lDd8 14 lDxf6+ ':xf6 I S exfS
':xfS 1 6 g4 ':Sf7 1 7 lDc3 c6 1 8
':ae I b6 = Sher-Vyzhmanavin,
Russian Ch 1 995.
a22) 1 1 . . .lDd8 1 2 i.gS fxe4 1 3
dxe4 c6 14 lDxf6+ i.xf6 I S i.h6
i.g7 16 i.xg7 �xg7 17 'iWd3 cS 1 8
b 3 lDc6 + Moutousis-Ibragimov,
Iraklion 1 993.
b) 9 exfS opens the diagonal
before the knight gets to e7. After
9 . . . i.xfS 10 h3 'iid7 White has two
possible moves to save his h-pawn:
b 1) 1 1 �h2 lDb4 12 lDe4 lDxe4
1 3 dxe4 i.e6 1 4 b3 a6 (preparing
the advance . . . bS ; this advance was
tried without preparation in Heine
Nielsen-S.Pedersen, Hornslet rpd
1 996 but White came out on top

after 1 4 . . . bS I S cxbS 'iVxbS 1 6 .i.e3
l:tn 1 7 liX3 'ifa6 IS 'ifd2 ;1;) IS a3
liX6 1 6 .i.e3 bS ! 17 cS lDaS l S l:tbl
'ifn 1 9 f4 dxcS 20 fxeS 'ife7 =F Ab­
ramovic-Ilincic, Vrnjacka B anja
1 992.
b2) 1 1 g4 (this is thought best)
1 1 . . . .i.e6 1 2 lDg3 and now a direct
attack on the kingside is the best:
b2 1 ) 1 2 .. .'�hS 1 3 .i.e3 as ? ! 1 4
'ii'd2 hS ? ! I S gxhS gxhS 1 6 �h2 h4
1 7 lDge4 lDhS I S 'ife2 ! .i.n 1 9
lDgS lDf4 Oll-Karolyi, Hungary
1 990 and now 20 lDxn + 'ifxn 2 1
'ifg4 ;I; i s given by Oll.
b22) 12 . . . hS ! 1 3 gxhS gxhS 14
�h2 lDd4 ! (D).
w occurred in Serper-Sakaev, Kher­
Now I S lDxhS lDxhS 1 6 'ifxhS
l:tfS 17 'ifd l l:tafS is too dangerous
so White has tried:
b22 1 ) I S lDce4 h4 1 6 lDxf6+
l:txf6 1 7 lDe4 l:tg6 1 S l:tg l and now
the combination I S . . . .i.xh3 ! ? 1 9
.i.xh3 lhgl 20 'ifxgl lDf3+ 2 1 �g2
'ifxh3+ 22 �xh3 lDxg l + looks
The Dutch against 1 c4 135
promising but Black had to be sat­
isfied with a draw after 23 �xh4 in
Bern-Borge, Oslo 1 992. However,
Black's prospects would have been
quite good had he played the nor­
mal l S . . . l:tf8, e.g. 1 9 .i.e3 l:txg2+!
20 �xg2 .i.xh3+ 2 1 �h l lDf3 =t.
b222) I S .i.e3 h4 16 lDge4
lDh7 ! ? 1 7 lDd2 c6 I S l:tgl dS 1 9
cxdS cxdS 2 0 lDf3 lDxf3+ 2 1 .i.xf3
�hS =t Savon-Rustemov, Alushta
1 993.
9
••• CiJe7
Following the advice from
DeVault and Hickman this is the
principal move but others are also
interesting:
a) 9 . . . h6 ! ? lO h3 lDe7 1 1 .i.e3
c6 1 2 lDxf6+ l:txf6 13 'ifd2 �h7 14
f4 .i.e6 1 S b3 l:tfS I 6 l:tad l 'ifd7 17
�h2 b6 was about equal in Bern­
Djurhuus, Gausdal l 992.
b) 9 . . . .i.e6 lO .i.gS 'ii'd 7 and
now:
b l ) 1 1 'ifd2 ! ? lDhS 1 2 exfS
.i.xfS (normally it is best to take
with the bishop in these positions,
since taking with the pawn allows
White to play f4 with advantage, as
son 1 99 1 : 1 2 . . . gxfS 1 3 f4 ! �hS 14
l:tae l l:taeS I S b4 and White was
better) 1 3 l:tae l l:tn 14 b4 .i.h3
( 1 4 . . . l:tafS ! ?) IS .i.xh3 ( 1 S bS ! ?)
I S . . . 'ifxh3 1 6 bS lDdS gave Black
counterplay in Ribli-Ibragimov,
Odorheiu Secuiesc 1 993.
b2) 1 1 l:tc l lDhS ! ? 1 2 'ii'd2 l:tn
1 3 b4 l:tafS 14 bS lDdS I S exfS
136 The Dutch against 1 c4
ioxf5 1 6 d4 lDe6 1 7 ioe3 iog4 1 8
lDdc3 lDef4 ! was unclear in Ser­
per-Ibragimov, USSR Cht (Azov)
1 99 1 .
c) 9 . . . lDg4 1 0 exf5 gxf5 I I h3
lDh6 1 2 f4 lDf7 13 �h2 iod7 14
ioe3 lDd4 15 fxe5 dxe5 16 lDxd4
exd4 17 iof4 ioe5 1 8 "it'd2 with a
slight plus for White, Psakhis-Rag­
ozin, London Lloyds Bank 1 994.
10 lDxf6+
Other moves do not promise
anything:
a) 10 f4 c6 I l lDxf6+ ioxf6 1 2
lDc3 ioe6 1 3 <ith l iog7 1 4 ioe3
"'d7 1 5 "'d2 d5 ! 1 6 cxd5 cxd5 1 7
exd5 lDxd5 1 8 fxe5 ioxe5 1 9 :ae l
lDxe3 20 "it'xe3 ioxc3 2 1 'ii'xe6+
"'xe6 22 :Xe6 ioxb2 23 :bl iod4
24 :xb7 :f7 25 :xf7 <itxf7 26
:d6 :e8 27 :xd4 :e l + 28 iofl
:xfl + 29 <itg2 :d I 30 :d7+ <ite6
3 1 :xa7 :xd3 = Pavlenko-Bys­
triakova, Leningrad 1990.
b) 10 lDec3 lDexd5 I I exd5
iod7 12 ioe3 c5 ! ? 13 �h l lDg4 14
"it'd2 f4 ! 15 gxf4 exf4 16 ioxf4
:xf4 1 7 "it'xf4 ioe5 1 8 "iVd2 lDxh2
1 9 f4 'it'h4 20 <itg l iod4+ 2 1 :f2
lDg4 22 lDd i ioa4 0- 1 Van der Zee­
Zwicky, Cattolica 1 993.
10
••• ioxf6 (D)
11 ioe3
I I ioh6 is more popular but not
necessarily any better: I I . . .:f7
( I I . . . :e8 is perhaps OK as well but
it seems natural to keep the rook on
the f-file; Psakhis-Wilson, London
Lloyds B ank 1 994 continued 1 2
'ifd2 c6 1 3 1Dc3 ioe6 1 4 :fe l d5 ! ?
1 5 exd5 cxd5 1 6 iog5 ioxg5 1 7
"it'xg5 dxc4 1 8 ioxb7 :b8 1 9 :xe5
:xb7 20 :xe6 cxd3 with an un­
clear position) 12 'it'd2 and now:
a) 1 2 . . . c6 1 3 :ad l ioe6 14 b3
d5 15 exd5 cxd5 16 :fe l (White
intends lDf4) 16 . . . 'ii'b6 1 7 lDc3 :d8
1 8 iog5 dxc4 1 9 ioxf6 :xf6 20
'ifg5 �g7 2 1 dxc4 :xd l 22 :xd l
:f7 = Makarychev-YrjoHi, Reyk­
javik 1 990.
b) 12 . . . fxe4 (we already know
that this exchange is usually not
good) 1 3 dxe4 ioe6 14 :ac l iog7 ? !
1 5 ioxg7 <itxg7 1 6 a 3 lDc6 1 7 b4
b6 1 8 h3 'ife7 19 f4 :ff8 20 f5 iog8
21 :c3 ± Makarychev-Prasad,
Calcutta 1986.
c) 12 . . . ioe6 13 :ac l <ith8 14
ioe3 "it'd7 1 5 exf5 gxf5 16 f4 c6 17
b3 b6 was unclear in the game
B alashov-Dvoirys, European Cup
1 99 1 .
1 1 d4 ! ? i s interesting. White
opens up the centre and from the
 The Dutch against 1 c4 137

very start of the game creates com­ better was 20 .1d4 with an equal
plications: 1 1 . . .c6 12 dxeS .1xeS? ! game.
(Black i s advised to take back with
the pawn; now White plays against
the weak pawn on d6 and further­
more has access to the important
square d4) 1 3 .1h6 %le8 14 lbd4 !
fxe4 I S .1xe4 dS 1 6 cxds lbxdS 17
%le i ± Serper-Ludwikow, Gausdal
1 99 1 .
Taking on fS now i s not particu­
larly good since Black can take
back with the knight and obtain full
control of the d4-square : 1 1 exfS
lbxfS 1 2 lbc3 1/2- 1/2 Psakhis-Stohl, B
Khalkidhiki 1 992.
11 c6 20
••• h5!
12 %let .1e6 21 eS
13 f4 "d7 Definitely not very good but
14 "d2 a6 what should he do? Trying to es­
14 . . . b6 ! ? - Timman. cape with 21 .1xh3 'ii'x h3 22 %lfe l
15 b3 %lad8 h4 2 3 lbe2 'ifg4+ 24 � n would
Black is hoping to carry out . . . dS give Black a winning attack after
at a suitable moment. 24 . . . .1eS ! 2S fxeS %lxf2+ 26 �xf2
16 .1b6 %lf8+.
This would have been avoided, 21 dxeS
had Timman played 14 . . . b6. How­ 22 "xd7 .1xd7
ever it is not entirely clear whether 23 .1c5 .1g7
the rook is worse on e8. 24 fxeS %lxfi+
16 %lde8 25 %lxf1 .1xeS
17 .1n fxe4 26 %ldl .1g4
18 dxe4 exf4 27 %leI .1xg3
19 gxf4 28 bxg3 rJ;rT
1 9 lbxf4 .1eS 20 lbxe6 'ifxe6 2 1 29 b4 .1e6
%lfd l ! ? was worth considering. 30 b5 (D)
19 ••• .1h3 30 .1n would have been more
20 lbg3? (D) stubborn.
Only prompting an attack that 30 .1xc4
turns out to be irresistible. Much 31 bxc6 bxc6
138 The Dutch against 1 c4

Indian) 9 i.b2 lIbS 1 0 lIc 1 a6 1 1

lIc2 bS 1 2 cxbS axbS 1 3 0-0 lbb4
14 lId2 e6 and Black was doing
fine in Byrne-Larsen, Palma de
Mallorca 1 965.
b) 7 ... eS S b4 (S b3 is more cau­
tious but as White later has to ad­
vance on the queenside it is logical
to move the b-pawn two squares;
the game Golz-Simagin, Polanica
Zdroj 1 965 continued S . . . lbbd7 9
'it'c2 lieS 1 0 0-0 e4 1 1 i.a3 lbrs 1 2
lIad l c6 1 3 b4 i.e6 14 dS cxdS I S
32 a3 i.dS lbxdS lbxdS 1 6 cxdS i.d7 =) S . . . e4
33 i.n as (S . . . lIeS 9 0-0 lbbd7 1 0 "'b3 �hS
34 i. h3 lbg8 1 1 a4 e4 12 aS lbfS 1 3 bS lbe6 1 4
35 lIbl lIe4 lbf4 lbgS was unclear in Karolyi­
36 lIb7 + �f6 Malaniuk, Lvov 1 9S5) 9 'iVb3 i.e6
0-1 10 0-0 i.n 1 1 f3 (White should
White lost on time. rather continue advancing on the
queenside ; thus 1 1 a4 was better)
Game 33 1 1 .. .dS ! 1 2 'it'bl lbc6 1 3 bs lbaS 14
Topalov - Seirawan cxdS exf3 I S i.xf3 lbxdS 1 6 lbxdS
Biel IZ 1 993 i.xdS = Korchnoi-Timman, Leeu­
warden 1 976.
1 c4 fS 7000 eS
2 lbc3 lbf6 8 0-0
3 g3 g6 It is also possible to delay cas­
4 i.g2 i. g7 tling for a few moves, e.g. S lIbl
5 e3 d6 lbc6 9 b4 a6 10 0-0 �hS 1 1 a4 gS
6 lbge2 0-0 12 bS axbS 13 axbS lbe7 14 f4 h6
7 d3 and now two games by the Ameri­
After 7 d4 the position has the can grandmaster Walter Browne
character of a regular Leningrad have shown that Black is OK:
Dutch. B lack has two promising a) IS i.d2 lbg6 16 'it'c2 lieS 1 7
replies: h 3 lIe7 I S �h2 'ii'e S 1 9 libe l lIbS
a) 7 . . . lbc6 S b3 i.d7 (S . . . eS is 20 e4 gxf4 21 gxf4 lbh4 and again
also good; Larsen' s idea is known B lack's attack looks promising;
from the g3 variations in the King's Sax-Browne, Orense 1 977.

b) 1 5 "'d2 �g6 1 6 .tb2 �h7
1 7 l:tal l:txal 1 8 .txal gxf4 1 9
exf4 h 5 was unclear i n the game
Miles-Browne, Las Palmas 1 977.
8 �c6
9 l:tb1 (D)
B �xd5 19 cxd5 "'d7 20 .tn .te5
9000 �e7
Black has adopted the same idea
as in the last game. To reduce the
power of the g2-bishop (and to de­
velop the c8-bishop) Black has to
play . . . c6, but since his chances are
usually best on the kingside, the
knight is first transferred to e7. It is
also possible to play:
a) 9 . . . a5 is a standard move to
slow down White's play on the
queenside. White can now choose
to continue on the queenside in any
case or to switch strategy and play
in the centre:
a l ) 1 0 a3 �e7 1 1 e4 c6 1 2 b4
axb4 1 3 axb4 .te6 14 exf5 �xf5
1 5 .tg5 "'c7 1 6 .txf6 .txf6 1 7 b5
h5 ! ? gave B lack counterplay in
The Dutch against 1 c4 139
Gulko-Korchnoi, San Francisco
1 995.
a2) 1O ... �e7 1 1 f4 c6 1 2 'iVd2
.te6 13 .ta3 .tf7 14 l:tbd l l:te8 1 5
h3 'iVc7 1 6 l:tfe l l:tad8 1 7 .tb2 h6 =
Busch-Mohr, Bundesliga 1 992.
b) 9 . . . .te6. Black intends to
free himself with . . . d6-d5 . White
can now try either to allow the
move or to stop it by occupying the
square with the knight:
b l ) 10 b4 d5 1 1 b5 �e7 1 2 .ta3
l:te8 1 3 "'b3 dxc4 1 4 dxc4 e4 1 5
�f4 .tf7 1 6 l:tfd l 'irc8 . Momen­
tarily it seems as if White is better
but two games have shown that
Black's defensive resources are in
order: 17 �cd5 �exd5 1 8 �xd5
2 1 l:tbc l .td6 = Lobron-Zsu .Pol­
gar, Brussels 1 987 ; 1 7 .tb2 �d7
1 8 �cd5 �e5 1 9 "'b4 c5 20 'irb3
g5 2 1 �xe7+ l:txe7 22 �d5 l:td7 is
unclear; Savchenko-Svidler, Ros­
tov-on-Don 1 993 .
b2) 1 0 �d5 .tf7 ( 1 O . . . 'ird7 is
worse as it allows White to con­
tinue his queenside expansion: 1 1
b4 a6 1 2 a4 l:tab8 1 3 b5 axb5 1 4
axb5 �7 15 �e7+ 'iVxe7 16 .ta3 !
e4? ! { l 6 . . . b6 ! ? } 1 7 l:tc l ! exd3 1 8
'ilxd3 �d7 1 9 �f4 �e5 20 'ire2
.tf7 2 1 c5 ± Bauer-Lane, Cappelle
la Grande 1 994) 1 1 e4 �xd5 1 2
cxd5 �e7 1 3 .te3 c 6 1 4 dxc6
�xc6 15 "'a4 "'d7 16 �c3 .te6 17
�d5 "'f7 1 8 l:tbc l f4 ! ? 1 9 gxf4
exf4 20 �f4 .txa2 2 1 �d5 .txd5
22 exd5 �e5 with counterplay for
140 The Dutch against 1 c4
Black in the game Sher-Howell,
Hastings 1 994/S .
c) 9 . . . �h8 1 0 b4 a6 1 1 a4 �e7
1 2 'ifb3 gS 1 3 f4 h6 14 i.d2 �g6
I S �dS gxf4 16 exf4 �xdS 1 7
cxdS i.d7 1 8 i.c3 'ife8 was un­
clear in the game Cvetkovic-Ilic,
Yugoslavia 1 993.
10 f4
Usually White waits with this
move until Black has played . . . gS
but this does not mean that it is
worse to play it now. Incidentally
the move 1 0 b3 ! ? has given White
great results. Black has tried vari­
ous things :
a) 1O . . . :b8 1 1 h3 i.e6 1 2 f4 a6
1 3 a4 'ifd7 1 4 i.b2 :fe8 I S 'iVd2
c6 1 6 aS "'c7 1 7 �a4 �d7 1 8 i.c3
cS ! ? led to unclear play in the game
Ledger-Thipsay, London Lloyds
Bank 1 992 .
b) 1O . . . a6 1 1 i.b2 gS 1 2 f4 �g6
1 3 'iWd2 h6 1 4 :be l :b8 I S a4 c6
1 6 �h l :e8? ! 1 7 e4 ! gxf4 1 8 gxf4
�g4? ! 1 9 h3 ti'h4? 20 exfS i.xfS
2 1 fxeS :xeS 22 �d I ! +- Peturs­
son-Bhend, San Bernardino 1 99 1 .
c ) 1 O . . . c6 1 1 e4 dS ? ! 1 2 exdS
cxdS 1 3 d4 ! (D).
1 3 . . . exd4 1 4 �xd4 �4 I S i.b2
'iWa5 1 6 b4! �xc3 17 i.xc3 "'xa2 1 8
:e l ti'xc4 1 9 :c l i.f6 2 0 �xfS !
+- Csom-Bhend, Swiss Grand­
Prix 1 992.
d) 1 0 . . . gS is the most logical
and probably the best move. 1 1 f4
h6 (it is also possible not to weaken
g6 and play 1 1 . ..gxf4 1 2 exf4 �g6)
B
1 2 'ifd2 �g6 1 3 i.b2 c6 1 4 �h l
exf4 (I think Black should rarely
capture this way in these positions
and that it was better to finish de­
veloping and play l4 . . . i.e6 fol­
lowed by . . . 'ifd7 and . . . :ad8 ; Black
is also ready to counter I S e4 by
I S . . . gxf4 1 6 gxf4 exf4 1 7 �xf4
�f4 1 8 :xf4 �hS with an attack)
I S exf4 �g4 1 6 :be l ! ? gxf4 1 7
�xf4 �xf4 1 8 :xf4 i.eS 1 9 h3 !
i.xf4 20 "'xf4 �eS 2 1 'iWxh6 with
compensation for White ; Peturs­
son-Berg, Akureyri 1 994.
White has also tried 10 �dS but
this should not bother Black too
much: 1O . . . c6 1 1 �xf6+ i.xf6 1 2
b4 d S 1 3 cxdS cxdS 1 4 i.b2 i.e6
IS ti'd2 "'b6 = Pozarek-Forma­
nek, Philadelphia 1 988.
10••• c6
1 0 . . . exf4 was played in Mou­
tousis-Metaxas, Katerini 1 993 but
as mentioned in the note above,
Black is not advised to capture this
way. The game continued 1 1 �xf4
 The Dutch against 1 c4 141

c6 1 2 d4 g5 1 3 lt)fe2 d5 (White was 15 000 It)hs

threatening 1 4 e4 or 1 4 d5) 1 4 b3 16 exd6 'ifxd6
i.e6 1 5 i.a3 It)e4 1 6 cxd5 cxd5 1 7 17 d4
Il c 1 1lf7 1 8 It)xe4 fxe4 1 9 Ilxf7 Forcing Black to take action in
'1Pxf7 20 It)c3 and White was bet- the centre and hoping that White's
ter. pieces will obtain good squares af­
11 b3 i.e6 terwards.
12 h3 'fIe7 17 000 exd4
The queen is probably better on 18 eS 'iVd7
d7 but Seirawan also mentions the 19 i.xd4
direct 12 . . . h5 as a possibility. 1 9 'iWxd4 lt)xg3 20 It)xg3 'it'xd4
13 e4 hS! ? (D) 2 1 i.xd4 hxg3 22 i.c5 1lf7 23
Ilbd 1 was a better idea.
19 000 It)xg3
20 It)xg3 bxg3 (D)

This very aggressive move is

justified by the fact that White 's
kingside is weakened and if White
opens up the centre, Black's minor
pieces will quickly take action
against the kingside. However, Top­
alov thinks that 1 3 . . . llad8 1 4 i.e3
b6 was more suited to the demands
of the position.
14 i.e3 h4
W
Black has come out with the bet­
ter game. The light-squared bishop
is doing a great job as a blockader
of the passed pawn on e5 and Black
is threatening to destroy the pawn
chain on f4 and e5 by means of
. .. g5 followed by . . .It)g6.
.

15 cS 21 i.cS!
It was also worth paying atten­ Defending against the above­
tion to 1 5 gxh4 ! ? mentioned plan.
142 The Dutch against 1 c4

21 000 'ifxdl?!
There was no need to cede the d­
file voluntarily. 2 1 . . .l:l fd8 22 'iVf3
�d5 23 'iVxg3 �c3 24 'ii'xc3 'iVd2
was better.
22 l:bxdl rJilrT
Not, of course, 22 . . . l:f7 23 l:d6.
23 l:d3 l:fd8
24 l:xg3 .it'S? !
This is unnecessarily passive.
The rook invasion 24 . . . l:d2 is much
better, e.g. 25 l:f2 l:xf2 26 rJilxf2 w
l:d8 ! with chances for both sides.
25 �e2! 3) Black's rook occupies the d­
Planning �d4-f3-g5 . file and is ready to enter the white
25 l:d2 camp; and
26 �4 .idS 4) Black has two dominant bish­
27 e6+ .ixe6 ops and a strong knight.
28 �f3 l:ad8! 33 l:c2 �5
29 �g5+ 34 .ixd5
Black gets enough compensa­ The black knight was simply too
tion after 29 �xd2 l:xd2 due to the strong.
weak pawn on f4 and his active 34 l:xd5
rook. 35 l:e2 .ic5+
29 rJilf6 36 rJilh2 l:d4
30 .ib4 l:c2 37 �g3 .idS
31 .ic3+? A fine example of how strong
It was better to go for the perpet­ two bishops are when they work at
ual check: 3 1 �7+ rJilf7 32 �g5+, maximal powet. White 's rooks are
etc. reduced to the role of walk-ons.
31 000 l:xc3 38 �7+ rJilg7
32 l:xc3 .ig8! (D) 39 �g5 rJilf6
Black has only one pawn for the 40 �7+ rJilg7
exchange, but he is nevertheless 41 �g5 l:d3+
better for the following reasons: 42 rJilh4 rJilh6
I) White has a weak pawn on 43 b4 .ie3
f4; 44 a4 a6!
2) White ' s pieces work poorly White is almost in zugzwang.
together; 45 l:b2 .id4
 The Dutch against 1 c4 143

46 :e2 .t f6
47 :fe1
Losing at once but there Waf noth­
ing that he could do. The threat was
. . . :d4 winning material.
47 ••• :0
0-1

Game 34
Rasmussen - S.Pedersen
Denmark tt 1 995
w
1 c4 f5
2 g3 lbf6 b l ) 9 . . . gS (when Black has not
3 .t gl g6 transferred his Queen 's knight to
4 lbc3 d6 e7, this is risky) 10 :b l as 1 1 f4
5 e3 .t g7 lbg4 ! ? 1 2 h3 lbh6 1 3 .ta3 lbf7 ? !
6 lbge2 0-0 1 4 fxeS lbxeS I S Wd2 lba6 1 6
7 0-0 e5 .tb2 .td7 1 7 d4 lbg6 I S :f2 "fie7
8 d3 c6 1 9 :bfl ;t Petursson-Dunworth,
9 b4 Clichy 1 99 1 .
This is the most straight-for­ b2) 9 . . . aS 1 0 .tb2 lba6 1 1 "fid2
ward approach. Other moves are: .td7 1 2 �h l ( 1 2 :c 1 :bS 1 3 :fd l
a) 9 :b l as 10 a3 .te6 1 1 b3 :eS 14 h3 �hS l S �h2 bS 1 6 cxbS
(the start of a series of dubious cxbS 1 7 .t a l ! ? lbc7 was unclear
moves; 1 1 b4 is of course called in the game Petursson-S.Pedersen,
for, when play would likely con­ Copenhagen 1 996) 1 2 . . . :cS 1 3
tinue along the same lines as our :ae l b S 1 4 e4 lbcS I S cxbS cxbS
main game) 1 1 ...lbbd7 12 e4?! We7 16 exfS .txfS 1 7 lbe4 b4 was also
1 3 h3 ? f4 ! (D). unclear in M .Gurevich-Kasparov,
This attacking move should not Reggio Emilia 199 1 .
come as a surprise. 1 4 gxf4 lbhS ! b3) 9 . . . lba6 1 0 "fid2 .td7 1 1
I S fxeS (better is IS fS gxfS 16 exfS .ta3 We7 1 2 :ae l :adS l 3 f4 .tcS
.txfS 1 7 lbg3 lbf4 �) I S . . . dxeS 1 6 14 b4 lbc7 IS bS cS 16 e4 ! (White
f 3 :adS =1= Augustin-Jansa, De�in is well placed for this opening of
1 977. the centre) 16 . . . fxe4 17 dxe4 lbd7
b) 9 b3 is a favourite of the Ice­ I S Wd3 (maybe I S lbdS lbxdS 1 9
landic grandmaster Margeir Pet­ exdS ;t is better) I s . . . lbb6 1 9 .tb2
ursson. Black has now tried: exf4 20 lbxf4 .td4+ 2 1 �h l Wg7
144 The Dutch against 1 c4
22 1. a l lOd7 23 lOcdS lOxdS 24
exdS 1.xa l 2S Ibai lOeS = Bellon­
Romero, Terrassa 1 994.
c) 9 1.d2 1.e6 1 0 f4 lObd7 1 1
b3 We7 1 2 'ifc2 llacS 1 3 a4 dS ! 14
fxeS lOxeS IS cS 1.d7 16 Ilae l
lOeg4 1 7 lOd i IlceS I S b4 lithS 1 9
lOd4 1lf7 2 0 lOf3 WfS 2 1 1.c3
Ilfe7 was unclear in Karlsson-Kor­
chnoi, Cannes 1 9S6.
d) 9 f4 1.e6 (9 ... aS 10 Ilbl 1.e6
1 1 b3 lleS 12 h3 lithS 1 3 lith2 Wc7
14 1.b2 lObd7 I S 'ifd2 iOcS 1 6 1.a3
exf4 1 7 exf4 1.f7 I S Ilfe 1 lle7 1 9
10 9 1 llaeS 2 0 lOf3 Ilxe 1 1/2 - 1/2 0st
Hansen- Kristiansen, Danish Ch
1 975) 10 b3 lObd7 1 1 h3 dS ! ? 1 2
fxeS lOxeS 1 3 lOf4 lleS 1 4 cxdS
cxdS I S lOxe6 Ilxe6 1 6 lOe2 lOc6
1 7 lOf4 lleS I S Ilbl d4 19 exd4
lOxd4 was unclear in Schandorff­
Kristiansen, Danish Ch (Lyngby)
1 99 1 .
9
••• 1.00
It was also possible first to slow
down White's queenside expan­
sion and only then finish develop­
ing, e.g. 9 . . . a6 10 a4 1.e6 1 1 1.b2
dS 12 cxdS cxdS 13 as (this is the
problem with Black' s 9th move :
the b6-square has become weak)
1 3 . . . lOc6 14 lOa4 1.f7 IS 'it'd2 lleS
1 6 Ilfc l lOd7 1 7 lOcs lOxcs I S
bxcS IlcS 1 9 d4 e4 20 1.c3 gS with
counterplay ; Frias-Romero, Wijk
aan Zee 1 99 1 .
10 b5
Black has no problems after 1 0
1id2 lObd7 1 1 1.b2 1.f7 1 2 Ilac l
lOb6 1 3 'it'c2 dS 14 cS lObd7 I S d4
e4 1 6 bS gS with a promising at­
tack for Black; Miles-Uhlmann,
Hastings 1 975/6.
10 ... d5
It appears best to play this im­
mediately. 1O . . . e4 is a dubious idea
since it opens the centre before
Black has finished his develop­
ment, while 10 . . .'it'd7 is a safer op­
tion, e.g. 1 1 Ilb l IlcS 1 2 Wb3 dS
1 3 bxc6 bxc6 1 4 cxdS cxdS I S
'it'b7 'it'xb7 1 6 Ilxb7 lOc6 1 7 1.a3
e4 I S Ild l lOeS 19 lle7 lleS 20
lOf4 1.f7 21 d4 1/2 - 1/2 Banas-S.Ped­
ersen, Odense 1 993.
11 bxc6
1 1 1.a3 lleS 1 2 d4 e4 1 3 bxc6
bxc6 14 cxdS lOxdS ! ? I S lOxdS
1.xdS 16 'it'a4 looks slightly better
for White but in Quist-Timmer­
man, corr. 1 99 1 Black quickly gen­
erated counterplay on the other
wing : 1 6 . . . lOd7 17 Ilfc l lOb6 I S
'ifa6 gS ! 1 9 Ilc2 'iff6 2 0 1. n hS
with an unclear position.
11 ... lOxc6!
Kasparov has proved that the al­
ternative 1 1 . . .bxc6 is OK as well.
Two blitz games from Brussels
19S7 confirm this:
a) 12 cxdS cxdS 13 d4 e4 14
1.a3 lleS I S lOa4 gS 1 6 lOcs 1.f7
1 7 'ifd2 lOc6 = Hiibner-Kasparov.
b) 1 2 'ifa4 gS 1 3 1.a3 1lf7 1 4
Ilac l Ild7 I S 1. b4 as 1 6 1.a3 1.f7
17 cxdS cxdS I S lObS lOa6 1 9 Ilc6
lOb4 with counterplay ; Ljuboje­
vic-Kasparov.
 The Dutch against 1 c4 145

However, the text move is much 17 M �f1

more dynamic. 18 �b2 a6
12 cxdS 19 :fc1 bS
12 c5 ! ? is worth attention too. 20 1Wdl lZ:)b4?!
12 000 lZ:)xdS Black is clearly better but the
13 ""3? ! knight is now heading for the wrong
White does not sense the danger. square. 20 . . . lZ:)a5 was much better,
Anyway, it is already a little diffi­ with the idea of . . . lZ:)c4.
cult for White. The d3-pawn is weak 21 �n :ab8
and he has to look out for . . . lZ:)db4. 22 a4! lZ:)d3?
Probably 1 3 �a3 :n 1 4 lZ:)xd5 My opponent was beginning to
�xd5 1 5 �xd5 "xd5 1 6 lZ:)c3 is get very short of time and I decided
best, though Black keeps a slight to go for this pawn sacrifice. I knew
advantage with 16 . . ...d7. that it was not the best, but that
13 000 e4! (D) finding the best defence would be
very difficult. This is one of the
most common errors. Objectively
22 . . . �c4 was best.
23 �xd3 exd3
24 nbS nbS
2S 'iixd3 f4
It was upon this that my 22nd
move was based. Had White now
played 26 � ! it would have diffi­
cult for me to find a good continu­
ation. Fortunately he chose another
move.
w 26 gxf4? 'iig4+
. . . and now the unbelievable
14 d4 blunder . . .
The complications arising after 27 �n??
1 4 dxe4 lZ:)a5 1 5 "c2 lZ:)xc3 1 6 It was still possible to defend
lZ:)xc3 :c8 1 7 �d2 �c4 ! are in with 27 �h l , when it is not clear
Black's favour. that Black has anything better than
14 1Wd7 a perpetual.
IS lZ:)xdS �xdS 27000 �c4
16 1Wa4 :fd8 0-1
1 0 The Dutch aga i nst 1 tiJf3
As in the previous chapter, Black
should just pretend he is playing a
regular Dutch when White starts
with 1 llJf3 . One thing that Black
has to be aware of, though, is that
White can try the dangerous Lisit­
syn Gambit, 2 e4, which might
scare many players away from
choosing 1 . . .fS as a reply to 1 llJf3 .
However, I think that Black's re­
sources are completely in order,
and actually the 'refutation ' dates
back a long time. 4 . . . 'ii'd6 is an ex­
cellent move which takes the sting
out of White's opening. This idea is
covered in full in Game 3 S . In
Game 36, White leads the play into
English territory. My suggestion of
how Black should play is one out
of many but I have restricted my­
self to giving one line.
Game 3S
Fayard - Santo-Roman
French Ch 1991
1 llJf3 f5
2 e4
If White continues 2 d3 Black
has to be a little careful with his
move-order. I think that 2 . . . d6 ! is
the best since 2 . . . llJf6 can be met
with 3 e4 ! . Then accepting White's
sacrifice is dangerous, e.g. 3 ... fxe4
4 dxe4 llJxe4 S .i.d3 llJf6 6 llJgS
and White obviously has compen­
sation for the pawn, whilst declin­
ing it with 3 . . . d6 would give White
another attractive line in 4 eS ! ?
llJg4 S d4 ! intending to answer
S . . . dxeS with 6 h3 ! . After 2 . . . d6
White has to choose between a
kind of deferred Lisitsyn Gambit
and a King's Indian Attack.
a) 3 e4 eS is the point of Black's
2nd move. Now White has tried:
a l ) 4 exfS .i.xfS S g3 llJc6 6
.i.g2 .i.e7 7 llJc3 llJf6 8 0-0 0-0 9
.i.gS 'ii'd7 10 .i.xf6 ':xf6 1 1 �dS
':ff8 1 2 llJd2 ':ae8 1 3 llJe4 .i.d8 14
f4 exf4 I S ':xf4 .i.e6 = Dorfman­
Malaniuk, Lvov 1984.
a2) 4 llJc3 llJc6 S exfS .i.xfS 6
d4 llJxd4 7 llJxd4 exd4 8 'ii'xd4 c6
9 .i.d3 .i.xd3 10 'ii'x d3 llJf6 1 1 0-0
.i.e7 = Lerner-B areev, USSR Ch
1 986.
b) 3 g3 llJf6 4 .i.g2 g6 S llJbd2
(the pawn sacrifice S 0-0 .i.g7 6 e4
is best met with 6 . . . llJc6 as 6 . . . fxe4
7 dxe4 llJxe4 8 ':e 1 llJf6 9 llJgS is
too dangerous) S . . . .i.g7 6 0-0 0-0 7
e4 eS 8 llJc4 llJc6 9 llJe 1 .i.e6 1 0
llJe3 ? f4 1 1 llJdS g S 1 2 �xf6+
'ii'xf6 =+= Weiss Hartwig-Bern, Tas­
trup 1 990.
 The Dutch against l lOf3 147

2 fxe4 lOb i , which Benjamin considers

3 lDgS d5 better for White) 7 . . . dxc3 8 .ln+?
4 d3 "d6!? (D) �d8 9 0-0 rJic7 10 'ii'f3 'fIf6 1 1
"'g3+ eS and White did not have
enough for the sacrificed piece in
Tisdall-Stoll, Bern 1 994.
b2) 6 . . . h6 7 iLlf3 dxe4 8 iLlxe4
"'xd l + 9 �xd l .lg4 1 0 .le2 iLlf6
1 1 lLlcs b6 1 2 iLld3 ± Z.Nikolic-Zi­
vanovic, Zlatibor tt 1 989.
c) S ... e3 ? ! 6 .lxe3 c6 7 d4 eS 8
dxeS "'xeS 9 'ii'h S+ g6 1 0 'ii'e2
.lg7 1 1 0-0-0 ± Ricardi-Ye Rong­
guang, Manila OL 1 992.
d) S . . . h6 - this is the critical
W move. Then 6 iLlbS ! (D) is best.

This was Larsen 's antidote to

the Lisitsyn gambit and Kavalek
also praised it a lot in an article
from 1 979.
5 dxe4
Larsen was much more afraid of
S lDc3 ! ? after which Black has a
choice:
a) S . . . lDf6 6 dxe4 h6 7 lLlbS
"'d8 8 eS hxgS 9 exf6 exf6 1 0
"'xdS "'e7+ 1 1 .le3 c 6 1 2 1i'c4
:h4 ( 1 2 . . .... b4+ 1 3 "'xb4 .lxb4+ B
14 c3 .laS I s lDd6+ gives White a
big plus - De Vault and Hickman) 6 . . ....c6 (6 . . . 'it'b4+? 7 c3 "'xbS 8
13 "'c3 lDa6 14 .ld3 'fin I S 0-0-0 "'hS+ �d7 9 "'g4+ �c6 10 'ii'xc8
.le7 with an unclear game but iLld7 1 1 'iWxa8 hxgS 1 2 dxe4 'fIb6
White seems to have good attack­ 1 3 exdS+ �xdS 14 .le2 eS I S .le3
ing prospects; Frolov-Piskov, Lvov 1 -0 Barle-Tozer, London Lloyds
1 986. B ank 1 993) 7 dxe4 hxgS 8 exdS
b) S ... c6 6 dxe4 and now: "'d7 is the critical position for the
b l ) 6 . . . d4 ! ? 7 .lc4 ? ! (better is 7 whole line starting with S iLlc3 h6 ! ?
lDe2 eS 8 lDg3 h6 9 lDf3 lDf6 or 7 White has the following options:
148 The Dutch against 1 tiJf3
d l ) 9 �xgS a6 1 0 lDc3 eS 1 1
�d3 �e7 and White has tried two
moves which both lead to unclear
positions where White has compen­
sation for the sacrificed material:
d l l ) 12 'iff3 llli6 1 3 �g6+ �d8
14 h3 tiJe8 I S �xe7+ 'ifxe7 1 6
�xe8 �xe8 1 7 0-0-0 'ifgS+ 1 8 �bl
�fS 1 9 g4 �g6 20 d6 ! c6 2 1 h4
'iff6 22 'ife3 lDd7 23 hS �f7 24
l:the l Piket-Van Mil, Dutch Ch
1 992.
d 1 2) 12 �g6+ �d8 13 'ifd2
�xgS 14 'iix gS+ "iJe7 I S "iJe3 'iff6
1 6 d6 ! ? �e6 1 7 "iJcs lDc6 1 8 �e4
lDh6 19 0-0-0 J ankovskis-Savchen­
ko, Bern 1 993 .
d2) 9 �c4 a6 10 lDc3 'ifd6 1 1
�xgS 'ifeS+ 1 2 �e3 lDf6 1 3 'iid 2
lDg4 1 4 0-0-0 lDxe3 I S fxe3 �g4
1 6 l:tdfl lDd7 1 7 h3 �hS 1 8 e4
�g6 1 9 l:tf4 0-0-0 20 l:tg4 l:th6 2 1
l:tgS with an unclear position -
Hickman.
d3) 9 �d3 a6 1 0 lDd4 ! ? 'iix dS
1 1 �g6+ �d8 12 �f7 'iid 6 1 3
�xgS and Christiansen claims com­
pensation for White but I do not see
that White has much for the piece
after 1 3 . . . �d7 ! .
5
..• h6
Kavalek thought that Black was
already better.
6 'ii'h S +
The main alternative is 6 lDf3
dxe4 7 lDfd2 lDf6 (D) and White
has tried three moves but in all
cases B lack seems to have excel­
lent play:
W
a) 8 lDa3 �g4 9 �e2 �xe2 1 0
'ifxe2 lDc6 I 1 lDb3 e S 1 2 �e3 lDd4
1 3 lDxd4 exd4 1 4 lDbS 'ii'b4+ I S
c 3 dxc3 1 6 bxc3 "fIe7 1 7 �d4 hS
1 8 �xf6 gxf6 19 0-0 a6 20 lDd4
gave White compensation in the
game L.B .Hansen-T.Christensen,
Nrestved 1 99 1 .
b) 8 "iJe2 "iJc6 9 lDc3 �fS 1 0
'ife3 a6 1 1 lDb3 eS 1 2 �e2 lDbd7
1 3 0-0 �e7 14 "iJg3 0-0-0 I S lDaS
'ifcs 1 6 lDc4 lDhS 17 �xhS 'ifxc4
1 8 �g4 g6 1 9 �e2 'iic 6 � Zag­
ema-Valens, Dutch Ch (Enschede)
1 995.
c) 8 lDc3 �fS 9 'ife2 lDc6 ! 1 0
t!fbs "fId7 I 1 lDb3 a6 1 2 "fIa4 e6 1 3
�bS �d6 1 4 �xc6 bxc6 I S �e3
0-0 1 6 0-0-0 l:tfb8 =+= Ortega-Mos­
kalenko, Capablanca mem 1 989 .
6 lDh3 ? ! is a rare continuation
but Black has no need to be afraid
of this : 6 . . . dxe4 7 lDf4 'ifxd l + 8
�xd 1 �fS 9 lDdS lDa6 1 0 lDe3
0-0-0+ 1 1 lDd2 e6 12 �xa6 bxa6
1 3 �e2 lDf6 14 lDdc4 �cS gave

Black a clear plus in Leski-Akes­
son, Groningen jr Ech 1 980.
6 g6
7 'iih 4 (D)
B b l ) 8 . . . i.f6 and now:
7••• lill'6 !?
This move is investigated very
little compared with the alterna­
tives. The advantage is that if Black
gets time to play . . . i.g7 and . . . g5 as
in this game, then the queen check
on h5 has been avoided. Other
moves are :
a) 7 ... c6 ! ? was awarded a ' ! ' by
Korchnoi and B areev. 8 i.d3 i.g7
9 lbf3 g5 10 'ifh5+ ( 1 0 'ifg3 = )
1 O . . . �fS 1 1 0-0 lbd7 1 2 e5 ! ? llJxe5
1 3 lbxe5 i.xe5 14 f4 i.xf4 1 5
i.xf4 gxf4 1 6 lbc3 . White obvi­
ously has some compensation. The
black king is exposed and his de­
velopment is still not completed.
On the other hand, two pawns are a
high investment if the attack does
not succeed. 16 . . . lbf6 17 'ifh4 e5
1 8 lbe2 i.g4 1 9 lbxf4 ! exf4 20 h3
The Dutch against l lbf3 149
�f7 (20 . . ....e5 ! ?) 2 1 bxg4 'ife5 and
now:
a l ) 22 'ifh2 ! ? 'ife3 + 23 �h l
'ifg3 24 :xf4 'ifxh2+ 25 �xh2
�g7 26 :afl :hfS 27 �g3 :ae8?!
(27 ... lbd7 = ) 28 �h4 lbd7 29 :xf8
lbxf8 30 g5 bxg5+ 3 1 �xg5 ;!;; Lau­
tier-Bareev, Bie1 1 99 1 .
a2) 22 :ae l "'g5 2 3 g 3 :ae8
24 :xe8 :xe8 25 'ifxg5 bxg5 26
gxf4 lbxg4 27 fxg5+ q,g7 28 :f4
lbe5 � Mishra-Prakash, Indian Ch
1 994.
b) 7 . . . i.g7 ! 8 lbf3 and Black
seems to have more than one good
reply:
bl l ) 9 e5 ! i.xe5 10 i.d3 . Euwe
considered this position to be
slightly better for White but Don­
aldson and Piasetski have revised
this assessment: 1O . . . g5 1 1 'ifh5+
�f8 1 2 0-0 ( 1 2 h4 i.g7 !) 12 . . . lbf6
1 3 "'g6 lbg4 1 4 lbxe5 lbxe5 1 5
'ifxd6 cxd6 1 6 f4 gxf4 1 7 i.xf4
rj;g7 with a clear advantage for
Black.
b 1 2) 9 "'g3 'ifxg3 10 hxg3
dxe4 l 1 lbfd2 i.f5 1 2 lbc4 lbc6 1 3
lbc3 0-0-0 14 i.d2 lbd4 1 5 0-0-0
h5 16 lbe3 e6 � Summerscale­
Howell, British Ch 1 992.
b2) 8 ... i.e6 9 i.d3 lbc6 1 0 exd5
i.xd5 1 1 "'g4 i.f7 1 2 0-0 lbf6 1 3
'ifa4 a6 14 i.f4 112- 112 Bauza-Jones,
Novi Sad OL 1 990. White has
compensation.
b3) 8 . . . dxe4 9 'ifxe4 lbc6 1 0
i.b5 i.f5 1 1 i.xc6+ bxc6 1 2 "'e2
150 The Dutch against 1 Ci:Jj3

t'Df6 1 3 0-0 t'DdS 1 4 t'Da3 0-0 I S

1Dc4 'iVf6 1 6 t'DfeS gS 1 7 f4 gxf4 1 8
i.xf4 t'Dxf4 1 9 l:xf4 ...g S 2 0 l:afl
i.e6 was unclear in Schwarts­
Moskalenko, Podolsk tt 1 990.
b4) 8 . . . gS ! 9 'iVhS+ �f8 10 eS
i.xeS 1 1 i.d3 t'Dc6 12 0-0 t'Df6 1 3
'iVg6 i.g4 14 i.xgS bxgS I S lDxgS
i.xh2+ 16 �h l i.f4+ 0- 1 Pons
Morro-Topalov, Palma de Mallorca
1 992.
8 t'Dc3? ! W
White has to try 8 exdS after
which Black might think about Black estimates that he can
sacrificing an exchange : 8 . . . 'iVeS+ probably not keep this pawn in the
9 i.e2 hxgS 10 'it'xh8 t'Da6 ! ?, with long run, so he returns it immedi­
unclear play. ately to disrupt the white pawn
8 i. g7 structure.
9 t'Df3 g5! 18 i.xe3 - �e3
10 'ifg3 19 fxe3 i.e5
The alternatives are in Black's 20 0-0-0
favour: 1 0 eS gxh4 1 1 exd6 cxd6 20 lDe2 i.g4 =t.
1 2 lDxh4 1Dc6 =F or 10 lDxgS?! bxgS 20 ••• i.xg3
1 1 'iix gS 0-0 1 2 exdS =t. Black is a pawn up and has the
10 dxe4 bishop pair. The only problem
11 t'Dd2 i.f5 seems to be where to put his king.
12 t'Db5 'ifxg3 When this problem is solved the
13 bxg3 t'Da6 win should not be far away.
14 t'Dd4 i.d7 21 lDc5 i.g4
15 i.xa6? ! 22 l:d2 i.d6
White should not cede the bishop 23 lDce6 i.xe6
pair. I S i.c4 was better, with some 24 lDxe6 �t7
compensation. 25 lDd4 �g6
15 ••• bxa6 26 lDe6 �
16 t'D2b3? 27 tlJd4 l:af8!
1 6 t'Dc4 would have been a bet- A good move, activating the
ter chance. rook before bringing the king into
16 t'Dd5! safety on g6. The extra pawn is not
17 c3 e3! (D) as important as the possibility of
 The Dutch against 1 liJf3 151

creating a passed pawn on the h-

file.
28 :fl+ �g6
29 :hfi :xfl
30 :xfl h5!
Black immediately starts the
merciless plan of creating a passed
pawn. The bishop on d6 is a great
support to this and there is really
nothing that White can do about it.
He could just as well resign imme-
diately but plays on for a few more B
moves.
31 coPd2 h4 Thi s is the standard English
32 coPe2 g4 set-up. White could play :bl ear­
33 � .tg3 lier but the result would merely be
34 :d2 h3 the same since Black would not
35 gxh3 gxh3 change his set-up anyway.
36 lDe2 :18+ Note that Kasparov did not, in
37 liJf4+ .txf4 fact, reach this position via a Dutch
38 exf4 :xf4+ move-order.
39 �g1 :g4+ 8••• h6!
40 coPh2 :gl+ This shows Kasparov 's typical
41 :xgl+ bxg2 accuracy. He avoids being incon­
42 coPxg2 �5 venienced by a later .tgS and is al­
0-1 ready preparing a future attack on
the kingside. Other moves are:
Game 36 a) S . . . aS 9 .tgS (9 liJdS 0-0 1 0
Psakhis - Kasparov .tgS .te6 1 1 e3 :f7 12 liJd2 h 6 1 3
La Manga (5) 1 990 .txf6 .txf6 14 liJxf6+ :xf6 I S
'ii' b 3 :bS 1 6 a3 coPg7 1 7 :fe 1 :fS
1 liJrJ f5 I S 'iVc3 "f6 19 b4 axb4 20 axb4 gS
2 g3 llJf6 2 1 bS liJe7 22 :al b6 23 :a7 :bcS
3 .tgl g6 24 :ea l and White 's chances on
4 c4 .t g7 the queenside were preferable in
5 liJc3 d6 Smirin-Moutousis, Biel IZ 1 993)
6 0-0 e5 9 . . . h6 10 .txf6 .txf6 ( l 0 . . ...xf6
7 d3 llJc6 1 1 a3 .te6 1 2 liJd2 hS? is simply
8 :b1 (D) too ambitious; in the game Heine
152 The Dutch against 1 &i:Jf3
Nielsen-Svistunov, Pinsk 1 993
White proved that Black's advance
on the kingside is a blow in the
wind: 1 3 �dS 'ilf7 14 b4 axb4 I S
axb4 h4 1 6 bS �d8 1 7 b6 ! cxb6 1 8
:xb6 hxg3 1 9 hxg3 ± ) 1 1 a 3 0-0
and now White has two promising
options:
a1) 1 2 &i:Jd5 1.g7 1 3 b4 ( 1 3 �d2
should be met by 1 3 . . . �d4 intend­
ing . . . c6 rather than 1 3 . . . 1.e6? ! 1 4
b4 axb4 I S axb4 :a2 1 6 b S �b8 17
�b4 :a7 1 8 :a1 :xa1 1 9 'ifxa 1 ±
Beim- Kantsler, Rishon Ie Zion
1 994) 1 3 . . . axb4 1 4 axb4 �e7 I S
�d2 fiii>h 8 1 6 �e7 "iixe7 1 7 bS gS
1 8 'ii'c 2 g4 1 9 :fc 1 ± Ragozin­
Cherniaev, Bie1 1992.
a2) 12 �d2 ! ? 1.g7 ? ! (better is
12 . . . �d4 intending . . .�e6) 13 e3 !
<ith7 1 4 b4 axb4 I S axb4 ;!; Korch­
noi-Anand, Biel IZ 1 993 .
b) After 8 . . . 0-0 White has to
choose between the positional ap­
proach 9 1.gS, which intends to re­
move a possibly attacker and the
immediate advance on the queen­
side 9 b4:
b 1 ) 9 1.gS �7 (9 . . . h6 I 0 1.xf6
'ifxf6 1 1 �dS 'iff7 1 2 b4 �d8 1 3
b 5 �e6 14 �d2 gS I S e 3 <itt h 8 1 6
�b4 �cS 1 7 a4 f4 and Black has
counterplay ; Ragozin-Vyzhman­
avin, Helsinki 1 992) 10 'ifd2 1.e6
1 1 b4 'i1d7 1 2 bS :ab8 1 3 a4 �h8 14
as cS IS bxc6 �xc6 1 6 1.xf6 1.xf6
17 �dS 1.d8 1 8 :a1 'ifg7 (D).
The position, from Budnikov­
B areev, Moscow PCA 1 994, is
w
approximately equal. Black in­
tends . . . h6 followed by . . . gS while
White should try to prove some­
thing on the queenside.
b2) 9 b4 a6 10 a4 h6 1 1 bS axbS
12 axbS �7 and now:
b2 1 ) 1 3 'ilb3 gS 14 1.a3 1.e6
I S �d2 :b8 1 6 �dS �exdS 1 7
cxd5 1.f7 1 8 :fc 1 b6 1 9 'ilc4 :b7
20 :c2 :a7 = Moskow-J.Polgar,
New York 1 992.
b22) 13 1.b2 and play further
divides into:
b22 1 ) 1 3 . . . 1.e6 1 4 :a 1 :c8 I S
:a7 ( 1 S c S �d7 1 6 cxd6 cxd6 1 7
�a4 dS 1 8 �2 \!Ie8 1 9 e 3 g S with
counterplay, as in Ivanchuk-Topa­
lov, Wijk aan Zee 1996) l S . . . b6 1 6
"iic2 ( 1 6 � 1 d5 ? ! 1 7 cxdS �fxdS
1 8 �c2 �xc3 1 9 1.xc3 �dS 20
1.b2 :e8 2 1 'ila1 ± Karlsson-Yr­
joHi, Tallinn 1 987) 1 6 . . . gS 1 7 :fa 1
f4 1 8 �d2 fxg3 1 9 hxg3 'ile8 20
�ce4 �g4 21 �fl �fS with good
attacking prospects; Schneider­
Short, Solingen 1 986.

b222) 1 3 . . . f4 1 4 :a l :b8 I S
:a7 lLlfS 1 6 lLle4 fxg3 1 7 hxg3
lLlg4 1 8 d4 'ii'e 8 19 dxeS dxeS 20
'ii'a l gS with chances for both
sides; Seirawan-Lobron, B ad Kiss­
ingen 1 98 1 .
b23) 1 3 cS .i.e6 14 .i.d2 lLld7 ? !
I S cxdS cxdS 1 6 lLla4 ! b 6 1 7 .i.b4
± Akopian-Anand, Belgrade 1988.
Instead, Anand suggests 14 . . .b6!
I S cxb6 cxb6 with equality.
9 b4 0-0
After 9 . . . gS 10 bS lLle7 1 1 a4
lLld7 1 2 lLle l lLlcS 1 3 e3 0-0 1 4 d4
lLle6, I S lLlc2 ? ! exd4 1 6 exd4 f4 17
:e l �h8 18 lLldS lLlfS 1 9 .i.b2
.i.d7 was quite good for Black in
the game Pfleger-Larsen, Manila
1 974 but Bagirov suggests IS dxeS
dxeS 1 6 .i.a3 as an improvement
whereafter White should have the
better of it.
10 bS
10 lLld5 gS I l lLlxf6+ .i.xf6 12 bS
lLle7 1 3 .i.b2 a6 14 a4 .i.e6 I S 'ii'c2
b6 1 6 lLld2 :a7 17 :al as = Vakhi­
dov-Palatnik, Uzhgorod 1 988.
10
000 fiJe7
11 a4 .i.e6
With this move, Kasparov de­
cides to solve any problems on the
queenside before proceeding with
his kingside attack. The alternative
is 1 1 . . .gS (D) when White has three
options although they all embody
similar strategy:
a) 1 2 as .i.e6 1 3 lLld2 :b8 1 4
.i.a3 b 6 I S .i.b4 g 4 1 6 : a l h S 1 7
axb6 axb6 1 8 e 3 f4 ! and Black has
The Dutch against 1 t;)f3 153
W
the initiative; Plachetka-I.S oko­
lov, Stary Smokovec 1 99 1 .
b) 1 2 .i.a3 :f7 1 3 as lLlg6 1 4
'it'b3 .i.f8 I S :fd l :b8? ! 1 6 d4 e4
1 7 lDeS ! :g7 1 8 cS+ �h7 1 9 b6
axb6 20 axb6 c6 2 1 cxd6 ;!; Ye
Rongguang-Afifi, Manila IZ 1 990.
c) 12 tWc2 f4 13 .i.a3 lDfS 14 as
'ii'e 8 I S cS was given in ECO as be­
ing slightly better for White. The
source was Liebert-Knaak, Zinno­
witz 1 97 1 but in Kitces-Osbun, 7th
United States corr. Ch, Black's at­
tack rapidly grew after I s . . . lDg4 !
1 6 cxd6 fxg3 1 8 hxg3 'ii' h S ! 1 8
:fc 1 .i.e6 1 9 lDe4 lDfe3 ! 20 fxe3
:xf3 2 1 exf3 'it'h2+ 22 �f1 lLlxe3+
23 �f2 lDxc2 24 :Xc2 .i.h3 +.
12 .i. a3
On 1 2 lDd2 Kasparov planned to
free himself with 1 2 . . . dS .
12000 :c8
13 lDci2
The critical test of Black's play
may be 1 3 cS after which Shush­
panov-Bagaturov, Pardubice 1 995
154 The Dutch against l l:i:Jf3

proceeded 1 3 . . . b6 1 4 cxd6 cxd6 1 5

'ifd2 g 5 1 6 llfc l 'ifd7 1 7 lDd i ( 1 7
tba2 ! gives counterplay - Psakhis)
17 . . .f4 1 8 llxc8 llxc8 19 llc 1 lld8
20 tbc3 tbf5 with chances for both
sides.
13
.•• b6
14 e3
If 1 4 a5 Black probably comes
first on the kingside since after the
continuation 14 . . . g5 15 axb6 axb6
White has to regroup his pieces to B
show something on the queenside:
1 6 .i.b2 'ifd7 1 7 llal f4 =t. 23
••• 'iWxe8 !
14 gS 24 lln 'iWhs
IS d4 exd4 This is the attacking formation
16 exd4 f4 Black dreams of in this line.
17 lle1 (D) 2S tbe4? ! tbxe4
Taking on f4 is not advisable . 26 'iWxe4 .i.h3!
First of all, after 1 7 gxf4 Black Threatening to take on g2 fol­
could simply take back, obtaining lowed by . . . g4 and . . . f3 .
a promising position, but Psakhis 27 tbes
has also shown that the sacrifice I would like to give this move a
1 7 . . . tbg6 1 8 fxg5 tbg4 ! 1 9 gxh6 question mark but, on the other
'ifh4 works out well. hand, I do not see any defence my­
17 .i.g4 self.
18 tbf3 'iWd7 27 .i.xg2
19 cS llce8 28 �g2 g4
20 llc1 tbfS 29 .i.xd6 llf6
21 'iWd3 �h8 30 .i.b8 'ti'h3+
Planning . . . dxc5 . 0-1
22 cxd6 cxd6 White resigned since he loses
23 llxe8?! too much material after 3 1 �g l f3
White should not let the black 32 tbxf3 gxf3 33 'ifxf3 tbh4 ! when
queen enter the attack. 23 I:i:Jd2 ! the queen has to go and then comes
would have kept the balance. 34 . . . tbf3+.
1 1 How wel l do you
u ndersta nd the D utch?

In this final chapter, I have selected

9 positions, from various chapters
of the book. In all diagrams Black
is to move. With these exercises, I
hope that you will improve your in­
stincts in Dutch positions. I have
selected the positions so that all
important themes and general rules
in the Leningrad Dutch are cov­
ered. The solutions are given at the
end, and with every solution I have
given a reference to the chapter and 2
page so that you can immediately
look up more information on the
type of position.

3
 6 9
M .. . . .--'
, ���: �.� M� ..
D 0 \7 " 0 \7 ,1
n
� _
� �
� ..
�
�
I.. � .. \7 .. ..
.. , .. .. ..
'. �
I� ..
. 1M
"-
_ ...
_
. ' ..
.
,_ nm � �..
,_ _
.. . _ "T" .
8 s
n
: "T=." a
n � .. �
u \7 � • n \7
"C?1" DC?1"
I�
•.. � • n �
.. M ..
•
m .. , .. ..
..
I�
.'- . ..
�
�
. -
-
'- - - -
� .-
�
I" -T­
_ nm ••
L p
M . .. '
� � .
NIlJ\\ �
.. M'
DTD � \7 m \7
OC?1" " \7 "
.. �
.�
I� . n ..
.. \7, M �
.� ::
�
.. , -. ..
� "i
I�
� ..
'_. - ... � i
..
.. �
1M � _"
,_ •.. _ _ ' _i
.. . _ .. .. T .. .
" IPlna tJl.fl putJIS.lapun nOA op llaM MOR 9Sf
So l utions
1 ) White has taken a very cau­
tious approach to the opening, re­
lying on a good and solid
development but Black now grabs
the initiative with a classic attack
on the queenside:
12 ...cS 13 �c2 ( 1 3 �f3 :b8 1 4
�d2 b 5 1 5 cxb5 ? ! �xb5 1 6 �c4
g5 ! gave Black the better game in
Ryshkin-Zarubin, Leningrad 1 983)
13 bS 14 cxbS �xbS 15 �xbS
•••
.i.xbS 16 �a3 ( 1 6 b4 ! is better)
16 aS! 17 �xbS 'ifxbS 18 a4
•••
'ifb4 19 'ifc2 �e4! with some ad­
vantage for Black; Larsen-YrjoUi,
Espoo Z 1 989. [Chapter 1 , page
25]
2) White has just played the
manoeuvre �g5-e6 forcing Black
to cede his light-squared bishop. A
theme that is also well known from
King's Indian positions. Black's
plan is now clear - the white pawn
on e6 must be surrounded and the
best way to do this is 13 dS! 14
••.
.i.e3 c6 15 'ifd2 �a6! (if 15 ... �h7
then 1 6 :fc 1 followed by b4-b5)
16 .i.xh6 'ifb4 17 'iff4 .i.xh6 18
'ifxh6 :f6 with a slight advantage
for B lack (strong knight against
bad bishop) ; Stohl-Topalov, Bur­
gas 1 992. [Chapter 1 , page 44]
3) White has just played 1 1
'ifb3 ? ! allowing Black to launch an
attack on the kingside: 1 1 f4! 12
••.
gxf4 �hS! (it is extremely impor­
tant to know about this theme in the
Leningrad Dutch; by sacrificing a
pawn Black usually gets a crushing
attack, also in this case White did
not live long) 13 fS �f4 14 �n
�g2 15 �xg2 gxfS 16 exfS .i.xfS
17 .i.gS 'ifd7 18 �gl .i.e6 19 'ifbs
.i.dS+ 20 f3 :xf3 21 �xf3 'ifg4+
0- 1 Tataev-Kramnik, Belgorod
1 989. [Chapter 2, page 64]
4) If you solved the last exer­
cise, this one should not not prove
too difficult. The positions are
structurally very alike with the
slight difference that the d-pawns
have not been exchanged. Again
Black's best is 10 f4! ? ( 1 O . . . �e4
•••
1 1 dxe5 ! is better for White) 11 dS
(after 1 1 gxf4 exd4 ! 12 e5 �5 1 3
exd6 'ifd7 Black's attack i s to be
preferred) 11 �d8 12 c4 fxg3 13
•.•
fxg3 �f7 14 b4 .i.g4 15 'ifc2 .i.h6
16 �b3 'ifd7 17 .i.c1 .i.xc1 18
:axc1 .i.xf3! 19 .i.xf3 �gS 20
.i.g2 �g4! and Black had the in­
itiative; Hoffman-And.Rodriguez,
Buenos Aires 1 996. [Chapter 3 ,
page 69]
"'-
. - IS8 Solutions
S ) Black has to be very careful
in this position. The game Badea­
Solonar, Bucharest 1 992 continued
1 O . . . lLlxe6 1 1 hS lLlxf4 12 i.xf4
lLlxhS 1 3 i.xd6 i.e6 14 cS and
White was better. Instead, Black
should prefer 10 lLlg4! and only
.••
afterwards take on e6. On 1 1 hS
Black can play I I . .. gS and the po­
sition after 1 1 e4 ! ? lLlxe6 1 2 exfS
gxfS is extremely unclear but I
doubt that B lack is worse. Black
has more weaknesses than White
but his pieces are comparatively
more active. [Chapter 4, page 88]
6) In the game Sher-Beim, Biel
1 990 B lack achieved a very prom­
ising attack with 13 lLlg4! 14
•••
i.d2 tbxf4 15 i.xf4 g5! 16 i.d2 f4
when White has not achieved any­
thing on the queenside, whilst
Black's attack on the other wing is
becoming very dangerous. [Chap­
ter 4, page 89]
7) B lack has a good game after
6 lLlc6 (certainly not 6 . . . eS ? 7
•••
dxeS dxeS 8 i.f7+ rj;e7 9 'ii'x d8+
�xd8 10 i.g3 lLle7 1 1 lLlc3 with a
clear plus for White) 7 c3 e5 ! 8
i.g3 'ile7 9 lLle2 lLlf6 10 f3 i.d7
11 a4 0-0-0 12 d5 lLlb8 13 lLla3 a6
14 i.o 'ile8! 15 i.b3 g5 :j: KouatJy­
KovaCevic, Thessaloniki OL 1 984.
[Chapter S, page 100]
8) Black should try to force the
central push . . . e7-eS . This is best
done with 9 'ild6 10 i.e2 lLlbd7
•••
11 0-0 e5 as in MLTseitlin-Joecks,
Krumbach 1 99 1 . The game contin­
ued 12 i.h4 lLle4 13 dxe5 lLlxe5 14
i.e7 'it'xe7 15 'ilxd5+ lLlf7 16
'iixa8 lLled6! 17 'it'xa7 i.b7! and
Black had more than enough com­
pensation for the lost material.
[Chapter S, page 106]
9) Black got an overwhelming
attack after 17 e5 ! 18 0-0 lLlxd2
•••
19 l%xd2 f4! 20 l%b2? he3 21 fxe3
l%xfi + 22 rj;xfi l%f8+ 23 rj;gl
exd4 24 exd4 'iixa3 -+ Ruf-Zysk,
Bundesliga 1 994. [Chapter 6, page
1 1 3]
I nd ex of Va riations

The Dutch: 1 d4 fS

2 c4 lLlf6 3 lLlc3 g6 (3 . . . d6 4 .tg5 6 c3 6 1

50) : 6 lLlbd2 64
4 h4 46 6 lLlc3 64
4 g3 .tg7 5 .tg2 87 6 b3 d6 7 .tb2 'ife8
8 lLlbd2 lLlc6
2 g3 lLlf6 3 .tg2 g6 (3 . . . d6 4 lLlc3 9 :e 1 67
56) : 9 lLlc4 72
4 b3 67 6 c4 d6 (D) :
4 c3 59
4 lLlh3 .tg7 :
5 lLlf4 84
5 c4 87 5 . . . 0-0
6 lLlc3 9 1
6 0-0 lLlc6 7 lLlc3 93

2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 g3 (3 .tg5 53; 3

.tf4 53) 3 . . . g6 4 .tg2 .tg7 5 0-0
0-0 (D):

7 b3 We8 8 .tb2:
8 . . . h6 76
8 . . . lLla6 79
7 lLlc3 We8:
8 d5 1 2
8 b 3 27
8 :e l 3 1
8 lLld5 3 8