Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The Gruenfeld begins with 1.d2-d4 Sg8-f6 2.c2-c4 g7-g6 3.Sb1-c3 d7-d5
The Gruenfeld Defense is still popular and was played by many famous
players like Viktor Korchnoi, Vasily Smyslov, Bobby Fischer and Garry
Kasparov.
The famous game of Donald Byrne - Bobby Fischer, called - Game of the
Century! - was played with the Gruenfeld Defense.
The Main Variation is the Exchange Variation 1.d2-d4 Sg8-f6 2.c2-c4 g7-g6
3.Sb1-c3 d7-d5 4.c4xd5 Sf6xd5 5.e2-e4 Sd5xc3 6.b2xc3 Lf8-g7 See below
White created a mighty pawn formation in the center and has space
advantage. Black has to attack and undermine this white pawn structure. On
the queenside Black has a pawn majority of two pawns against one white
pawn and could create a passed pawn in the endgame. This opening leads to
a game with lots of tactical chances for both sides.
Bobby Fischer played a different set up where he puts his queen to c7 and the
rook to d8. (from Smyslow) 10. Lc1-e3 Dd8-c7 11. Ta1-c1 Tf8-d8
Grunfeld Defense
The Grunfeld Defense is a hypdermodern defense, meaning that it doesn’t try to control
the center early on with his pawns. Instead black tries to attack the center with this
minor pieces from the sides and then once the foundation is in place, then looks to
undermine the center control that white usually has.
There are three main lines in the Grunfeld Defense. The exchange variation is the main
line and is what most players study for when approaching the Grunfeld Defense. Black
allows white to completely dominate the center with his pawns while black focuses all
his energy on the d4 square. Instead of using his spacial advantage in the center, white
is forced to respond to the threat on d4 and focus all his energy on defending the d4
pawn. With all the pawns and pieces aimed at the center early on with no other strategy
in mind, things can quickly turn for the worst if one of the sides looses focus.
For those white players that do not like to defend and instead like to attack, attack,
attack, the Russian variation allows white to give up the potential strong pawn center
and instead get his queen involve and keep the pressure on black.
With the d4 pawn opening from white gaining popularity from GMs every year, it’s not
surprising that the Grunfeld defense is seen more regularly. It is deadly in the right
hands and can many times hault a very well trained d4 player.
Watch the video below to watch an explanation of the Grunfeld Defense.
Grünfeld Defense is named after the player Ernst Grünfeld who used it in the
1920s. Since then, a lot of notable great players and world champions have
used it. However it is only occasionally used in tournament play. Vladimir
Kramnik is a leading supporter of this opening while playing White. Others
have shown its possibilities as Black. This opening can be reached from other
openings. For instance the so called Game of the century between Donald
Byrne and Bobby Fischer (age 13) in 1956 reached a Grünfeld position after
1.Nf3 Nf6, 2.c4 g6, 3.Nc3 Bg7, 4.d4 O-O, 5.Bf4 d5.
Grünfeld Defense, like other openings introduced in 1920s, uses the ideas of
hypermodern theory which consider a center made of pawns to be weak and
aims to attack it with pieces developed in the wings.
Grünfeld Defense is classed among Semi Closed Games and with Indian
systems (which are a subset of Semi Closed Games) which start with moves
1.d4 Nf6, 2.c4. Variations in Grünfeld Defense can be found under ECO
classification codes D70 to E99.
2 c4 g6
3 Nc3 d5
This is the main line of Grünfeld defense and will continue with 4.cxd5 Nxd5,
5.e4. The center created by White appears truly formidable at this point. And
the following moves in the main line 5...Nxc3, 6.bxc3, bolster it even more.
Black will now try to threaten it through c5 and Bg7, and then cxd4, Bg4,
and Nc6. Meanwhile White will try to exploit the center to start an attack on
the Black’s position after Black castles short. A branch of the Exchange
Variation is known as Seville Variation and will continue with a different fifth
move: 5.e4 Nxc3, 6.bxc3 Bg7, 7.Bc4 c5, 8.Ne2 Nc6, 9.Be3 O-O, 10.O-O
Bg4, 11.f3 Na5, 12.Bxf7+ Rxf7, 13.fxg4 Rxf1+, 14.Kxf1.
White can follow several lines in developing pieces. The traditional way is to
develop Bc4, Ne2, 0-0, and f5 and to avoid Nf3 due to Black’s Bg4. However,
since the 1970s, different lines have been developed with the move Rb1 (to
get it out of the way from the diagonal) and cramp Black’s bishop at c8.
Other possibilities are moves Be3, Qd2, Rc1 and Rc1, strengthening the
center and enabling a pawn advance along d file.
4 Bf4
Grünfeld Gambit
Another variation after 4.Bf4 is 4…Bg7, 5.e3 O-O and is known as Grünfeld
Gambit. If White accepts the gambit, play will continue 6.cxd5 Nxd5, 7.Nxd5
Qxd5, 8.Bxc7. Or if White wants to decline it, he can play 6.Qb3 or Rc1. In
that case Black will answer by 6…c5.
Neo-Grünfeld Defense
When White does not play the move Nc3 as the third move variation, it is
called Neo-Grünfeld Defense. Play will normally proceed along the lines of
1.d4 Nf6, 2.c4 g6, 3.f3 d5, or 1.d4 Nf6, 2.c4 g6, 3.g3 d5 (called Kemeri
Variation).
Grünfeld Defence
The Grünfeld Defence (ECO codes D70–D99) is a chess opening characterised by the moves:
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 g6
3. Nc3 d5
Black offers White the possibility of cxd5, when after Nxd5 White further gets the opportunity to kick
the Black Knight around with e4, leading to an imposing central pawn duo for White. If White does
not take the d5 pawn, Black may eventually play dxc4, when a White response of e4 again leads to
the same pawn structure. In classical opening theory this imposing pawn centre was held to give
White a large advantage, but the hypermodern school, which was coming to the fore in the 1920s,
held that a large pawn centre could be a liability rather than an asset. The Grünfeld is therefore a
key hypermodern opening, showing in stark terms how a large pawn centre can either be a powerful
battering ram or a target for attack.
History[edit]
The first instance of this opening is in an 1855 game by Moheschunder Bannerjee, an Indian player
who had transitioned from Indian chess rules, playing Black against John Cochrane in Calcutta, in
May 1855:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.e3 Bg7 5.Nf3 0-0 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Be2 Nxc3 8.bxc3 c5 9.0-0 cxd4
10.cxd4 Nc6 11.Bb2 Bg4 12.Rc1 Rc8 13.Ba3 Qa5 14.Qb3 Rfe8 15.Rc5 Qb6 16.Rb5 Qd8
17.Ng5 Bxe2 18.Nxf7 Na5
and White mates in three (19.Nh6+ double check Kh8 20.Qg8+ Rxg8 21.Nf7#).[1][2] Cochrane
published a book reporting his games with Moheshchunder and other Indians in 1864.
It gained popularity after Ernst Grünfeld introduced it into international play at Vienna 1922, where, in
his first game with the defense, he defeated future world champion Alexander Alekhine.[3] Grünfeld
usually employed a very classical style. The defence was later adopted by a number of prominent
players, including Vasily Smyslov, Viktor Korchnoi, Leonid Stein, and Bobby Fischer. Garry
Kasparov often used the defence, including in his World Championship matches against Anatoly
Karpov in 1986, 1987 and 1990, and Vladimir Kramnik in 2000. Currently active notable players who
employ the opening include Loek van Wely, Peter Svidler, Peter Leko, Viswanathan Anand, Luke
McShane and Gata Kamsky.[4] Anand employed it twice in the World Chess Championship 2010. In
the World Chess Championship 2012 between Anand and Boris Gelfand, each player used the
Grünfeld once with both games ending in draws. Anand faced the Grünfeld against Magnus
Carlsen during the first game of the World Chess Championship 2014 and drew in a Rook and
Queen ending.
The Game of the Century between Donald Byrne and 13-year-old Bobby Fischer on October 17,
1956, featured this opening, although arriving in the Grünfeld via a transpositionof moves (using
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.d4 0-0 5.Bf4 d5).
The main line of the Grünfeld, the Exchange Variation (ECO codes D85–D89), is defined by the
continuation 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4. Now White has an imposing looking centre – and the main
continuation 5... Nxc3 6. bxc3 strengthens it still further. Black generally attacks White's centre with
...c5 and ...Bg7, often followed by moves such as ...Qa5, ...cxd4, ...Bg4, and ...Nc6. White often uses
his big centre to launch an attack against Black's king. One subvariation, frequently played by
Karpov, including four games of his 1987 world championship match against Kasparov in Seville,
Spain, is the Seville Variation, after 6...Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 Nc6 9.Be3 0-0 10.0-0 Bg4 11.f3 Na5
12.Bxf7+, long thought a poor move by theory, as the resultant light-square weakness had been
believed to give Black more than enough compensation for the pawn.
White can develop his pieces in a number of ways in the Exchange Variation. For decades, theory
held that the correct method of development was with Bc4 and Ne2, often followed by 0-0 and f4–f5,
playing for a central breakthrough or kingside attack. It was generally thought that an early Nf3 was
weak in the Exchange Variation because it allowed Black too much pressure on the centre with
...Bg4. In the late 1970s, however, Karpov, Kasparov and others found different methods to play the
Exchange Variation with White, often involving an early Rb1 to remove the rook from the sensitive
a1–h8 diagonal, as well as attempting to hinder the development of Black's queenside. Another,
relatively recently developed system involves quickly playing Be3, Qd2, and Rc1 or Rd1 to fortify
White's centre, remove White's rook from the diagonal, and possibly enable an early d5 push by
White.
Vladimir Kramnik and Boris Gelfand are the leading practitioners as White, and Ľubomír Ftáčnik has
had many fine results with the black pieces.[4]
In bringing more pressure to bear against Black's central outpost on d5, White practically forces
...dxc4, thus gaining a central preponderance; however, in return, his queen will often be exposed as
Black's queenside play unfolds in the middlegame. After 5... dxc4 6. Qxc4 0-0 7. e4, Black has
several primary options:
7...Nc6[edit]
This is recommended as the mainline by several recent Grünfeld texts.
Other lines[edit]
7...c6, 7...b6
in this line, favoured by Yasser Seirawan, after the nearly universal 5...Ne4, White plays 6.Bh4 or
6.cxd5, with Black then opting for either 6...Nxc3 7.bxc3 Qxd5 or 6...Nxg5 7.Nxg5 e6. In the latter
case, 7...c6 is sometimes tried. 6. Nxd5? grabbing the pawn loses a piece after 6...Nxg5 7.Nxg5 e6.
After 6.cxd5 Nxg5 7.Nxg5 e6, White has 8.Qd2 exd5 9.Qe3+, with attacking chances (though the
interpolation 8...h6 9.Nf3 exd5 is a significant alternative), or the more usual 8.Nf3 exd5 after which
play generally proceeds on lines analogous to the Queen's Gambit Declined, Exchange Variation,
with a queenside minority attack by White (b2–b4–b5xc6), as Black aims for his traditional kingside
play with ...f7–f5–f4 and, in this case, ...g6–g5.
For players who do not wish to take on the complexities of the Exchange Variation, the move 4.
Bf4 is generally considered a safer continuation for White.[6] White opts for the initiative on the
queenside with a smaller pawn center. In the main line (D82), play proceeds with 4...Bg7 5.e3 c5
6.dxc5 Qa5, with White's choices at his seventh move being cxd5, Qb3, Qa4, or Rc1. Despite its
reputation, in statistical databases this variation shows only a slightly higher percentage of White
wins and draws, as opposed to the Exchange variation.[7][8] The variation is not often met in top-flight
play today, its usage having declined significantly since its heyday in the 1930s
In this variation, play may also continue 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 0-0, which is known as the Grünfeld
Gambit (ECO code D83). White can accept the gambit by playing 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Nxd5 Qxd5
8.Bxc7, or decline it with 6.Qb3 or 6.Rc1, to which Black responds with 6...c5.
Neo-Grünfeld Defence
Systems in which White delays the development of his queen's knight to c3 are known as the Neo-
Grünfeld Defence (ECO code D70–D79); typical move orders are 1.d4 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.c4 d5 or,
more commonly, 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 d5 (the latter is known as the Kemeri Variation, shown in
the diagram).
Illustrative game[edit]
1.c4 g6 2.g3 Bg7 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Nf3 0-0 5.0-0 c6 6.d4 d5 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.Nc3 Ne4 9.Qb3 Nc6
10.Be3 Na5 11.Qd1 Nxc3 12.bxc3 b6 13.Ne5 Ba6 14.Re1 Rc8 15.Bd2 e6 16.e4 Bb7
17.exd5 Bxd5 18.Bxd5 Qxd5 19.Qe2 Rfd8 20.Ng4 Nc4 21.Bh6 f5 22.Bxg7 Kxg7 23.Ne3
Nxe3 24.Qxe3 Rc6 25.Rac1 Rdc8 26.c4 Rxc4 27.Rxc4 Rxc4 28.Qxe6 Qxe6 29.Rxe6 Kf7
30.Re3 Rxd4 31.Ra3 a5 32.Rc3 Ke6 33.Kg2 Kd6 34.h4 Ra4 35.Rc2 b5 36.Kf3 b4 37.Ke3
Kd5 38.f3 Ra3+ 39.Kf4 a4 40.g4 fxg4 41.fxg4 b3 42.axb3 axb3 43.Rc7 Ra4+ 44.Kg5 Rb4
45.Rc1 Kd4 46.Kh6 Rb7 0–1
Other variations[edit]
Apart from the above, among the more popular continuations are:
ECO Codes
The ECO Codes is a classification system for the chess openings moves. Below is a list of chess
openings organized by the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) code. The openings are
divided in five volumes labeled from "A" through "E".
1. d4 d5
2. c4 c6
The Slav is one of the primary defenses to the Queen's Gambit. Although it was analyzed as early
as 1590, it was not until the 1920s that it started to be explored extensively. Many masters
of Slavic descent helped develop the theory of this opening, including Alapin,Alekhine, Bogoljubov,
and Vidmar.
The Slav received an exhaustive test during the two Alekhine–Euwe World Championship matches
in 1935 and 1937. Played by 11 of the first 13 world champions, this defense was particularly
favored by Euwe, Botvinnik, and Smyslov. More recently the Slav has been adopted
by Anand, Ivanchuk, Lautier, Short, and other top grandmasters, including use in six of the eight
games that Vladimir Kramnikplayed as Black in the 2006 World Championship (in the other two, he
played the related Semi-Slav Defense).
General considerations[edit]
The "Pure" Slav or Main Line Slav where Black attempts to develop the light-squared bishop to
f5 or g4.
The a6 Slav or Chebanenko Slav with 4...a6.
The Semi-Slav with ...e6 (without developing the light-squared bishop). The Semi-Slav Defense,
a kind of a combination Queen's Gambit Declined and Slav Defense, is a very complex opening
in its own right. See the Semi-Slav Defense for details.
There is also a lesser option, the Schlechter Slav with ...g6
Black faces two major problems in many variations of the Queen's Gambit Declined (QGD):
The "Pure" Slav and a6 Slav addresses these problems. Black's queen bishop is unblocked; the
pawn structure remains balanced. Also, if Black later takes the gambit pawn with ...dxc4, the support
provided by the pawn on c6 (and possibly ...a6) allows ...b5 which may threaten to keep the pawn, or
drive away a white piece that has captured it, gaining Black a tempo for queenside expansion. On
the other hand, Black usually will not be able to develop the queen bishop without first giving up the
center with ...dxc4, developing the bishop may leave the black queenside weak, and the thematic
break ...c5 incurs the loss of a tempo.
The Slav can be entered by many move orders. The possibilities include 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 c6,
1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.d4 Nf6, and so on.
Alternatives to 3.Nf3[edit]
The main line is 3.Nf3. White can also try the following alternatives
3.e3[edit]
Black often plays 3...Nf6 but 3...Bf5 is considered to be an easier equalizer. Also, 3...Nf6 4.Nc3
(same as 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 below) may give Black some move-order issues for those wanting to play
the "Pure" Slav and not the semi-slav or ...a6 Slav.
3.Nc3[edit]
The pressure on Black's center prevents 3...Bf5? since after 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.Qb3 White wins a pawn.
Black can try the Winawer Countergambit, 3...e5, which was introduced inMarshall–Winawer, Monte
Carlo 1901 but this is thought to be slightly better for White. The most common continuation is
3...Nf6 when 4.Nf3 transposes to the main line. White can also play 4.e3 when it was thought Black
could no longer play the "Pure" Slav with 4...Bf5 (and had to choose between 4...e6 or 4...a6) due to
5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3. Therefore, "Pure" Slav players sometimes meet 3.Nc3 with 3...dxc4, the
Argentinian Defense, which can transpose to the main line of the "Pure" Slav. Recently the Gambit
4...Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 Nc6 7.Qxb7 Bd7 has revitalized 4...Bf5.
3.Nf3 introduction[edit]
Black usually plays 3...Nf6. 3...e6 transposes to the Semi-Slav. 3...Bf5? is a mistake due to 4.cxd5
cxd5 5.Qb3.
Alternatives to 4.Nc3[edit]
After 3...Nf6, the main line is 4.Nc3. White can also try the following alternatives:
4.Qc2 or 4.Qb3[edit]
A line that is similar to the Catalan Opening is 4.Qc2 or 4.Qb3. Often, White will fianchetto his light-
square bishop. This has the disadvantage of White's queen being somewhat exposed on c2. Black
can meet 4.Qc2 with 4...g6, intending 5...Bf5. White usually plays 5.Bf4 so that after 5...Bf5 6. Qb3
Qb6 White can play 7.c5! Black has to play 7...Qxb3, which will be met by 8.axb3. White has a
moderate advantage in this queenless middlegame, as White can expand on the queenside and try
to create play on the queenside, but Black's position is solid. The most common continuations are
4...dxc4 5.Qxc4 Bf5 or 5...Bg4.
Black should not play 4...Bf5 because White will gain the advantage with either 5.Qb3 or 5.cxd5
followed by 6.Qb3. Traditionally Black had a choice between 4...e6, the Semi-Slav, and 4...dxc4
before developing the queen bishop, but in the 1990s 4...a6 was introduced, with the idea of
developing the queenside without locking in the queen bishop or conceding the center.
White can achieve an important space advantage with 5.c5. Both e5 and b6 become important pawn
breaks for Black. White will often play his bishop to f4, controlling the important dark squares e5, d6,
c7, and b8 (this last square reduces Black's control over the b-file should it open). The game can
continue 5...Bf5 6.Bf4 Nbd7 7.h3 e6 8.e3.[citation needed]
After 4...dxc4, the main line is 5.a4. White can also try the following alternatives
7.Na2 e6 8.Bxc4
7.Nb1 Ba6 8.Nbd2 c3 9.bxc3 Bxf1 10.Nxf1 bxc3
With 5.a4, White acts against ...b5 and prepares 6.e4 and 7.Bxc4. Black's main move is 5...Bf5.
Black can also try the following alternatives:
The Czech Variation can be considered the main line. With 5...Bf5, Black prevents 6.e4.
Bled Attack 6.Nh4[edit]
Dutch Variation: 6.e3[edit]
If White plays 6.e3, the Dutch Variation, play can continue 6...e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0-0 0-0 with a
fairly quiet game. Black can also play 6...Na6 with the idea of 7...Nb4, known as the Dutch,
Lasker Variation.
Krause Attack: 6.Ne5[edit]
A more energetic line begins 6.Ne5 (Krause Attack) where White intends f2–f3 and e2–e4 or Nxc4,
perhaps followed by a fianchetto of the king bishop with g2–g3 and Bg2. Black can try either
6...Nbd7 7.Nxc4 Qc7 or 7...Nb6 or 6...e6 7.f3 Bb4, when 8.e4 Bxe4 9.fxe4 Nxe4 is a complex piece
sacrifice with the possible continuation 10.Bd2 Qxd4 11.Nxe4 Qxe4+ 12.Qe2 Bxd2+ 13.Kxd2 Qd5+
14.Kc2 Na6.
Slav Defense
The Slav Defense is one of the most popular openings with GM’s. This is for two
reasons. The first is that it is one of the most solid lines to play against the Queens
Gambit and with the Queens Gambit being a regular opening at high level play, many
top players have become fans of this opening.
The Slav also allows for lots of different variations so those players that like to be
creative and don’t like to play the same variation every game will really enjoy the Slav
Defense because it offers just that.
In the second move black looks to defend his pawn on d5 with his c6 pawn. This is done
so that his pawn on the e file can stay as needed and not block the way of the light
square bishop.
In the main line of the Slav Defense white looks to dominate the center of the board and
black looks to control the b4 square and later make a push towards the c5 and e5
squares.
1.d4d52.Nf3Nf63.c4c64.Nc3Qb65.Qc2Bg46.Bg5Nbd77.e3Ne48.Bf4e69.Bd3Qa510.O-
ONxc311.bxc3Bxf312.gxf3dxc413.Bxc4Nb614.Qb3Rd815.Be2Bd616.Bg3Bxg317.hxg3
O-
O18.f4c519.Bf3Rd720.a4Nd521.Rfc1g622.Qb5Qxb523.axb5cxd424.cxd4b625.Rc4f526
.Rc6Kf727.Bxd5exd528.Rac1Rfd829.Kf1Ke730.Ke2Rd631.R6c3R6d732.Kd3Ra833.Rc
6Rd634.Ke2Rxc635.Rxc6Kd736.f3Re837.Kd3Re738.g4Re639.Rc1Re740.Rh1Ke641.R
c1Kd742.Re1Rf743.Ra1Kd644.Rc1Kd745.Rc6Rf846.Ke2Rf747.Kf2Rf848.Kg3Re849.R
c3Re750.Kh4h651.Kg3h552.Kh4Rh753.Kg5fxg454.fxg4hxg455.Kxg4Rh156.Kg5Rb157.
Ra3Rxb558.Rxa7+Kd659.Kxg6Rb360.f5Rxe361.f6Rg3+62.Kh7Rf363.f7Rf464.Kg7Rg4
+65.Kf6Rf4+66.Kg5Rf167.Kg6Rg1+68.Kf6Rf1+69.Kg7Rg1+70.Kf8Rd171.Ke8Re1+72.K
d8Rf173.Rd7+Kc674.Ke8Rf475.Re7Kb576.Rc71-0
David Janowski vs Jose Raul Capablanca
"The Left-Right Hook" (game of the day Feb-24-2006)
Rice Memorial (1916), New York, NY USA, rd 3, Feb-08
Slav Defense: Three Knights Variation (D15) · 0-1
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 Bf5 4...Bg4 would be a serious error. 5. Ne5 Bf5 6.
cxd5 cxd5 7. e4 refutes it outright. -- Marovic 5. Qb3 Qb6 6. Qb6 ab6 7. cd5 Nd5 8. Nd5
cd5 9. e3 Nc6 10. Bd2 Bd7 A deep and beautiful move. Black intends to exploit his
command of the a-file, and he conceives a deep strategic plan on the queenside
involving the advance of his doubled pawn. In order to carry this out, he needs his
bishop on d7. -- Marovic 11. Be2 This is bad. Capablanca suggested 11. Bb5, but 11.
Bd3 followed by Ke2 is also good. -- Marovic 11... e6 12. O-O Bd6 13. Rfc1 Ke7 14. Bc3
Rhc8 15. a3 Na5 16. Nd2 f5 17. g3 b5 18. f3 Nc4 19. Bc4 bc4 20. e4 Kf7 21. e5 Be7 22.
f4 b5 23. Kf2 Ra4 24. Ke3 Rca8 25. Rab1 h6 26. Nf3 g5 27. Ne1 Rg8 28. Kf3 gf4 29.
gf4 Raa8 30. Ng2 Rg4 31. Rg1 Rag8 32. Be1 b4 33. ab4 Ba4 34. Ra1 Bc2 35. Bg3 Be4
36. Kf2 h5 37. Ra7 Bg2 38. Rg2 h4 39. Bh4 Rg2 40. Kf3 Rh2 41. Be7 Rh3 42. Kf2 Rb3
43. Bg5 Kg6 44. Re7 Rb2 45. Kf3 Ra8 46. Re6 Kh7
D10 Sub-variants:
Possible continuations:
3. Nf3 44852 39.4 % 39 % 21.6 %
15.2
3. c5 66 24.2 % 60.6 %
%
3. a4 32 34.4 % 25 % 40.6 %
3. Qb3 10 30 % 40 % 30 %
3. Bg5 4 25 % 75 %
3. e4 3 33.3 % 66.7 %
3. a3 3 33.3 % 66.7 %
3. h3 2 50 % 50 %
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Qc2 dc4 5. Qc4 Bf5 6. g3 Nbd7 7. Nc3 e6 8. Bg2 Be7 9.
O-O O-O 10. Re1 Ne4 11. Qb3 Qb6 12. Nh4 Bh4 13. gh4 Nef6 14. e4 Bg6 15. Qb6 ab6
16. Bf4 Rfe8 17. Rad1 b5 18. Bd6 e5 19. d5 Nh5 20. Bf1 f6 21. b3 Nf4 22. a4 ba4 23.
ba4 Bf7 24. Rb1 Ra7 25. Red1 Rc8 26. Ne2 Ne2 27. Be2 cd5 28. ed5 Nf8 29. Bb5
Raa8 30. Be7 Ng6 31. d6 Ne7 32. Bd7 Nc6 33. Rb7 Nd4 34. Bc8 Rc8 35. Rdb1 Rf8 36.
Rb8 Be8 37. a5 Nf3 38. Kf1 Nd2 39. Ke1 Nb1 40. a6 Bc6 41. a7 Kf7 42. d7 Ke7 43. Rf8
Kd7 44. a8Q Ba8 45. Ra8 h5 46. Ra7 Ke6 47. Rg7 Kf5 48. Rg3
The Slav Defense is a good and solid chess opening for Black. If you like it
then study it and use it in the future to gain experience in this opening.
The Slav was played by the world champions Euwe, Botvinnik and Smyslov
and played by the top grandmasters Anand, Kramnik, Ivanchuk, Lautier and
Short.
The theory of the Slav has grown and became quite extensive.
In the Semi-Slav above the bishop at c8 will be locked in for some time as
Black has played e6. He does not bring the bishop out to f5 as in the Open
Slav where Black gets his queenside bishop out quickly to avoid that it is
locked in after playing e6.
At the World Chess Championship 2012 Anand defended game 2 with the
Semi-Slav.
3. c4xd5 c6xd5
If White exchanges the pawns right away (3.cxd) then he has given away his
opening advantage. The position is even. For that reason the exchange
variation is seldom played in grandmaster chess.
Aronian, L. - Anand, V. 0-1
Slav Defense
In the Slav Defense Black does not close the diagonal c8-h3 with e7-e6 and
this makes it possible to develop the bishop at c8 to f5 or g4 before e7-e6 is
played. Black also prepares to capture the c4-pawn playing d5xc4 and then is
able to hold on to his c4-pawn and protect it playing b5 afterwards.
If Black captures the white c-pawn with d5xc4 then he gives up pawn
influence in the center but he tries to compensate for this generating active
piece play.
If the queenside bishop moves out to f5 or g4 the queenside pawn b7
becomes weak and can be attacked with Qb3.
If Black plays e6 and closes in his queenside bishop then this is called the
Semi-Slav. In this case you have to develop your bishop c8 to b7 playing first
b5 to make available the square b7.
1. d4 d5 2.c4 c6
Slav Accepted - Main Line 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3dxc 5.a4 Bg4
(don't play 4...Bf5? (but 4...dxc) because Slav Steiner Variation
White will gain the advantage with either Black plays his bishop to g4 instead of the
5.Qb3 or 5.cxd5 followed by 6.Qb3) usual Bf5
Alapin Variation
5.a4 Bf5
White plays 5.a4 to stop b5 which would
protect the c-pawn.
1. d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc 5.e3 1. d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 a6
Alekhine Variation Chebanenko Slav
Black can protect his c-pawn now. 5...b5 Best move for White here is 5.c5 which
6.a4 b4 7.Na2 and White gets his pawn gives space advantage. Later Pawn breaks
back as two black pawns (b and c pawn) for Black are b6 and e5.
are hanging.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3
dxc5.e4 b5 Slav Declined
Slav Gambit White protects his c-pawn playing e3 and
White tries to go ahead without bothering avoids the Slav Accepted. As Black gets
to regain his pawn playing a4 first to his bishop out without problems this line
prevent b5. He rather wants to get active in does not pose serious problems for Black.
the center. This gambit is unclear and
seldom played in top level chess.
1. d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cxd
Exchange Variation
Not much gain can be expected here as you trade pawns early and this frees
up the natural square c6 for the black knight where it will go later.
Semi-Slav
The systems below belong to the Semi-Slav because Black pushed the e-
pawn to e6 and locked in his queenside bishop.
I like these chess openings and recommend them for Black. Study them and
try them out yourself.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.e3 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.e3
Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc b5 Nbd7 6.Qc2
Meran Variation Anti-Meran Variation (6 Qc2)
This system is solid for Black but requires
good positional play. Black captures the c-
pawn by 6...dxc4 as soon as the white
bishop goes to d3. This wins a tempi
(time) as the bishop must move again to
recapture the c-pawn. After this Black
pushes the b-pawn winning time again
attacking the bishop. This is done to
develop the queenside bishop to b7.
Slav or Semi-Slav?
I've been discussing a choice of defence to 1.d4; defending classically with 1...d5 can't
be bad, but what to play after 2.c4?
The Slav (2...c6, ECO D10-D19) and Semi-Slav (...c6 with ...e6, D43-D49) have a
reputation for being solid, although the main lines of these systems are as sharp and
bookish as any defence. We've seen several lines contested in World Championship
matches between Alekhin and Bogolyubow and Euwe; other lines have been examined
in Kramnik's matches (against Leko, Topalov and Anand) in recent years and, as you
might imagine, the approaches have got quite sharp and sophisticated.
You can avoid all this lofty sophistication and go for solidity, but, as usual in chess, if
Black declines to confront White in a theoretical line, Black must accept less than full
dynamic equality. There is no easy route to equality in chess; if there were, no-one
would play the game!
2 The Variations
I have seen top SW County players play all these lines (I've played one or two myself), but they
can all draw you into a theoretical arms race where only the publishers win... These variations
have been around for a long while, I don't suppose they're likely to be refuted, but it seems the
exact dance steps you need to stay upright change very often in some of these lines, even
monthly. So, rather than face the Botvinnik line, Black invented the Moscow Variation with
5...h6 (6.Bxf6), but now the Anti-Moscow (6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 9.h4!) is
accreting layers of theory faster than a black hole in a galaxy centre...
White can be even more dull with 4.e3 e6 5.Nbd2, after which you can try 5...c5!?, hoping to
sharpen the play. As usual, it's hard for Black to insist on active play if White wants a quiet
game.
Having libelled this variation as 'stodge', I must mention that Shabalov came up with 7.g4!?,
now known as the Latvian Bayonet after Shirov got hold of it. Here's an influential game:
Since then, Shirov has been obliged to defend against his own weapon:
It seems that, as White is likely to castle Queen's-side, 7...Bb4 8.Bd2 c5! is also an effective
antidote.
White has one last 'slow' option that is often seen as unspeakably dull:
These days there are some delicate negotiations about exactly when to exchange and whether Black
can tease White by reserving options for the Bc8 with ...a6:
One example of the move order subtleties being negotiated is that after 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.Nc3,
Black can play an improved version of the Winawer Counter-Gambit with 4...e5! [NCO]. So,
White might prefer to play 3.Nc3 or 3.Nf3 before exchanging (but 3.Nc3 allows not just 3...e5?!
but 3...dxc4!?). Players of the Semi-Slav at least have the opportunity of recapturing with the
e-pawn, which offers more unbalanced play. Vigus says Black can chase the Bf4 with ...Nh5, an
idea played by Botvinnik and Basman...
All exhilarating stuff, but not for the faint-hearted and not to be undertaken lightly (i.e. only
with a big book and a bigger database and preferably a team of seconds and perhaps a
computer in the toilet).
There are other alternatives which are surely playable but perhaps not so dynamic. I used be
be a believer in the Bronstein (Steiner) variation with 5...Bg4; 6.e3 looks a bit limp, but after
6.e4 e5!? or 6...e6 and 7...Bb4 Black gets good play, and after 6.Ne5 Bh5 7.e3 or 7.g3 or 7.h3
Black can equalise. This variation was recommended a long while ago in a repertoire book by
Andy Soltis, and I've had a sort of avuncular interest in it over the years, but when I caught up
with recent developments(*) it started to feel like too much of a struggle: too much theory for
too little play. NCO gives 5 rows for this variation, and lots of notes, the bottom line is +=... But
you can always walk into a +=, it depends if you fancy it! Nikolic, Flear, Conquest and Vigus
have all dabbled in it over the years.
(*) The current recommendation for White is to sharpen the game more, with 6.Ne5 Bh5 7.f3,
after which there are complications and promising conclusions for White. 7...Nfd7!? has the
bright idea of 8.Nxc4 e5! (9.dxe5? Qh4+) but even if, after 9.Ne4 Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Qe7 11.Bxb4
Qxb4+ 12.Qd2 Qxd2+ 13.Kxd2 exd4 14.Ned6+ Ke7 15.Nf5, Black can hold with 15...Kd8, Sadler
still reckons White has promising play after 9.g3, 9.Be3 and the bonkers 9.e4.
Cox suggests 9.g3 f6 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Qxd8 gives a small advantage, while 9.g3 Bb4 10.dxe5 O-
O 11.Nh3 Qe7 12.f4!? (12.Bf4!?) is still up for grabs.
So perhaps Black should play the less common 7...e6 and hope either that White doesn't have
the bottle for 8.g4, or that it's no worse a position to be in than many in the Slav. White's score
from games at www.chesslive.de was pretty impressive, but GM Illescas managed to drop a
game against it. Cox reports the critical line is 8.g4 Nd5 9.e4 Qh4+ 10.Ke2 Nxc3+ 11.bxc3 Bxg6
which Burgess gives as unclear but Cox thinks is better for White. Presumably people have
pondered this over the years but the ChessBase site turned up exactly one Black win in that
line, a correspondence encounter which continued instead 11...f6!? Alternatively 8...Nfd7 was
the line that Illescas lost to... Over to you!
There are other choices here; 5...Na6 is a typically flexible try by Smyslov (with just one row of
NCO) which has been played by other independent spirits like Ivanchuk and Nikolic and
parochially Conquest, Speelman and Short (who beat Kramnik with it). One point is 6.Ne5
Ng4! 7.Nxc4 e5!, so White normally submits to the ...Bg4 pin with 6.e3 or the more
characteristic 6.e4; after 6.e4 Bg4 7.Bxc4 Black can now or later double the f-pawns by 7...Bxf3,
another theme typical of the variation.
I've been watching local players get away with 5...a5 for years: it's theoretically += but who
knows the theory? [6.e4 Bg4 7.Bxc4 e6 8.0-0 Bb4 9.Re1 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Nbd7 11.f4 0-0 12.Qf3+=
(Sosonko)]. Bogolyubov's 5...e6 is also probably 'playable' but concedes the main advantage of
the Slav move order, namely, developing the Bc8.
I wrote about the Tchigorin and Romih (6...Bb4) in a booklet many years ago. In these lines,
you can write all the theory you need to know on the back of a postage stamp. Maybe they're
short of full equality, but you can end up += in the main lines, too! Perhaps a worse drawback is
that you get less dynamic play. The idea of the Romih is to deter e3-e4 and perhaps later
return to the b8-h2 diagonal to support ...e5.
Early ...a6s have been popping up all over the place, in fact. Here's a line popular in the 1930s
which has had renewed interest:
Compare also:
N.B. If White starts with 1.c4, you cannot guarantee to play a Slav system, because if
1...c6, perhaps 2.e4. If Black goes ahead with 2...d5, the game can transpose into the
Panov-Botvinnik Attack in the Caro-Kann 3.exd5 cxd5 4.d4, or into a related variation
with 4.cxd5. Neither are bad for Black, but these are sharp lines which may be outside
your repertoire. If so, you may prefer to slide into a version of the Old Indian with 2...e5.
Club theory:
Many of us have a repertoire book on which we base our opening choices, so it would be worth
checking out these lines too; working from the present to the past:
John Cox (2006) recommends playing proper grown-up chess against everything, so that
means meeting the Slav with the Modern Ne5 and finding something against Morozevich's
fabulous 11...g5. He then goes on to recommend the Botvinnik Anti-Meran Gambit and the
Marshall Gambit. [I honestly don't know how suitable these lines are for people 'starting out'; if
your opponents allow you to enter such lines they may know enough to duff you up without
ever playing a move of their own.]
Richard Palliser (2003) has recommended the Slow Slav with 4.e3 (against which I like to play
4...Bf5 while Vigus suggests 4...Bg4). Palliser also honestly gives what may be an equalising
line against his variation: Palliser,R (2455) - Houska,J (2386) [D12]
4NCL Telford ENG (4), 19.01.2003 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 Qc7
7.Bd2 e6 8.Bb5+ Nbd7 (8...Nfd7!? DR) 9.0-0 a6 10.Bxd7+ Nxd7 11.Ne5 and now 11...Bc2
12.Qc3 Rc8
Angus Dunnington (2001) recommended the QGD Exchange Variation against the Semi-Slav
while against the Slav itself chose the anti-theoretical 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 -- not
critical, but of course very playable.
Ray Keene and Byron Jacobs (1995) also recommended the QGD Exchange but also chose the
Exchange against the Slav.
Like Cox, Graham Burgess and Steffen Pedersen, recommend, in their thorough 1994
repertoire book, rather grown-up main lines across the board: 6.Ne5 against the Slav and the
Marshall Gambit against the Semi-Slav, balking at the Botvinnik Anti-Meran but finding a
promising early diversion (7.a4).
Glenn Flear suggested 5.Qb3 for White in 1988; I think 5...dxc4 6.Qxc4 b5 7.Qb3 Nbd7! is the
recipe for Black.
So, be prepared for any of these... depending on when the most recent date that your
opponent's visit to a chess bookstall coincided with a rush of blood to the head.
Club practice:
I have a database of local games (see www.chessdevon.co.uk) and wondered what ordinary
players adopted. So, of 409 local games (with every standard of player from Minor to GMs),
we had 270 Slavs and 112 Semis. White scores an absolutely average 55% against both
defences (I believe White does a little better than this at GM level).
In the Slav, the single largest group was D10, a grab-bag of non-standard systems, followed by
D13 (standard exchanges) and D15 (non-standard Czechs). In the Semi, the leading system was
D45 (non-standard Semis). I think the only conclusion we can draw is "so much for theory...":
our opponents are so busy fighting shy of whatever theory they think we know, that our
inadequacies are unlikely to be exposed. Just eight brave players negotiated with their
opponents to play 4 examples of the very main line of the Meran.
If you prefer the main QGD Exchange to the Slav Exchange, or your previous defence was the
QGD Orthodox, that's a clear push for the Semi-Slav.
If you can't bear to have a blocked Bc8, then play the Slav.
If you play the Caro-Kann or the Scandinavian with 2...Qxd5, then play the Slav; the French fits
with the Semi-Slav.
If you play a lot of Colles, then the Semi is a natural partner.
If you're happy attacking a big centre, try the Slav; the Semi-Slav seems to me to concede less
ground.
8. Bibliography
As befits a player of my mature standing, all my books on the Slav are ancient and out of date
(Harding, Flear, Silman & Donaldson...). The Slav is pretty popular these days, and so are
opening books, so I won't recommend any of the books I actually own... Our younger readers
might even prefer something databasey. Depending on what depth of coverage you're after:
Semi-Slav Defense
The Semi-Slav Defense is a variation of the Queen's Gambit chess opening defined by
the position reached after the moves:
1. d4 d5
2. c4 c6
3. Nf3 Nf6
4. Nc3 e6
The position may readily be reached by a number of different move orders. With Black
advancing pawns to both e6 and c6, the opening resembles a mixture of the
Orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined (QGD) and the Slav Defense.
Black is threatening to capture the white pawn on c4, and hold it with b7–b5. White can
avoid this in a number of ways. About 80% of games continue 5.Bg5 or 5.e3: the former
constitutes a sharp pawn sacrifice, while the latter restricts the dark-
squared bishop from its natural development to g5. Other possible moves
are 5.Qb3, 5.g3 and 5.cxd5, the last of which, after 5...exd5, leads to a line of the QGD
Exchange Variation where White's early Nf3 enables Black's queen bishop to freely
develop, which should give equality (ECO codes D43 and D45).
5.e3
The main line continues with 5...Nbd7. The bishop moves 5...Bd6 and 5...Be7 are
seldom seen, as masters realized early on that at e7, the bishop was passively placed
and does nothing to further one of Black's aims, the freeing move ...e5. The unusual
move 5...a6 is considered solid for Black. Some sources call 5...a6 the "accelerated
Meran".[1]
Meran Variation: 6.Bd3 [edit]
The main variation of the Semi-Slav is the Meran Variation, 6... dxc4 7. Bxc4
b5 (ECO codes D46 to D49), when play usually continues with 8.Bd3, with 8.Be2 and
8.Bb3 less common alternatives. The line was first played in 1906 in the game
Schlechter–Perlis.[2] The variation takes its name from the town of Meran (Merano) in
northern Italy. During a 1924 tournament in Meran, it was used successfully in the
game Gruenfeld–Rubinstein. Gruenfeld adopted the same variation two rounds later
against Spielmann, winning as well.[3] Viswanathan Anand won two games with Black in
his World Chess Championship 2008 match with Vladimir Kramnik. Black surrenders
his outpost on d5, gaining a tempo forqueenside space expansion by b7–b5. White will
play in the center, leading to a rich, complicated game. These opposing strategies, with
the ensuing keen play, have long made the Meran a favorite for enterprising players of
either color. An example is Gligoric v Ljubojevic, Belgrade, 1979.[4]
After the move 8.Bd3, Black usually plays 8...a6. Bent Larsen introduced the move
8...Bb7, which has been dubbed the "improved Meran".[5] According to one source, the
move was first played in 1923, but since it was developed by Larsen, it carries his
name. Black can also play 8...Bd6, which is the move Anand played in his victory
over Levon Aronian in the Tata Steel Chess Tournament 2013.[6]
Though appearing in contemporary master play with less frequency than the Meran,
there are other possibilities: 6...Be7, 6...Bb4, introduced by the Italian master Max
Romih, and 6...Bd6, which was much the most popular line before the debut of the
Meran, and espoused by the American grandmaster Arthur Bisguier throughout his
career.
6...Bd6 and now 7. 0-0 0-0 8. e4 dxe4 9. Nxe4 Nxe4 10. Bxe4 is the most common
line. There are now several alternatives for Black, with one a clear error, as it loses a
pawn:10... e5 11. dxe5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Bxe5 13. Bxh7+ Kxh7 14. Qh5+ Kg8 15. Qxe5.
This line, however, has a strong drawish tendency in practice, due to the opposite-
colored bishops, although all the heavy pieces remain on the board.
Black's other choices include 10...c5, although theory regards this as premature as it
enables White to play for a kingside attack with 11.Bc2, followed by Qd3 and Bg5.
10...Nf6 has also been played, but this misplaces the knight and does nothing to further
Black's play against the center by means of the pawn breaks c6–c5 or e6–e5. Bisguier
preferred 10...h6 and it has come to be considered the strongest plan.
The other ideas, 6...Be7, which has the same drawback as after 5.e3 Be7, and 6...Bb4,
have become sidelines in modern play.
Anti-Meran Variation: 6.Qc2 [edit]
The main alternative to 6.Bd3 has become 6.Qc2, once a sideline, this move exploded
in popularity in the 1990s, in large part due to Anatoly Karpov's advocacy. The idea is to
wait for Black to commit to ...dxc4 before playing Bd3. Black commonly replies
with 6...Bd6 and now White can choose between two very different continuations:
Karpov Variation: 7.Bd3 [edit]
7.Bd3, Karpov first played 7.Be2 but it soon transpired that the d3-square gives White
better chances.
Shirov–Shabalov Gambit: 7.g4
Another increasingly common gambit line used in the Anti-Meran is the sharp 7.g4.
Popularized by Alexander Shabalov and Alexey Shirov, the gambit destabilizes the
center for Black and has been successful for several grandmasters, including Kasparov,
who won the first game of his 2003 match against the computer chess program Deep
Junior with it.[7]
5.Bg5
The Anti-Meran Gambit (ECO code D44) arises after 5.Bg5. Possible replies include
5...Nbd7, 5...dxc4, 5...h6, and 5...Be7. White refuses to shut in the dark-squared bishop,
instead developing it to an active square where it pins the black knight. It is now
possible for Black to transpose to either the Cambridge Springs Defence with 5... Nbd7
6. e3 Qa5, or enter the Orthodox Defense with 6...Be7.
Botvinnik Variation: 5...dxc4 [edit]
This line is extremely complicated, with theory stretching past move thirty in some
variations. Black captures a pawn by 5...dxc4. White takes control of the center
with 6.e4 as Black defends with 6...b5. The main line of the Botvinnik now continues 7.
e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9. Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7. White will regain his piece with interest,
emerging with an extra pawn, but Black will soon complete his development, gaining
great dynamic compensation, whereas White's task is rather more difficult. White
will fianchetto his king bishop and castle kingside, while Black will play c5, Qb6, castle
queenside, and can carry out an attack in the center or on either flank, leading to
complex play. The opening was introduced by Mikhail Botvinnik in the 1945 USSR vs
USA radio match vs Arnold Denker. Today, Alex Yermolinsky has an excellent record
with the white pieces and Alexei Shirov has been Black's chief proponent in this
variation. Although this variation bears Botvinnik's name, he was not the first person
known to have played it—Klaus Junge is credited as the actual inventor.[8]
Moscow Variation: 5...h6 [edit]
The Moscow Variation 5... h6 6. Bxf6 Qxf6 gives rise to play of a different character
from the Botvinnik variation. Black has the bishop pair, which gives him good long-term
chances, but must avoid prematurely opening the position in the face of White's superior
development and central control, as his position is initially solid but passive. Alexei
Dreevhas played this line successfully as Black. The gambit line 6.Bh4 (the Anti-
Moscow Variation) was once considered dubious, but has seen a recent resurgence. In
return for the pawn, White receives a lead in development and a strong initiative. This
dynamic line, which is characteristic of the modern game, has been played by many
strong grandmasters, with the theoretical verdict remaining inconclusive.
A major factor leading to Anand's victory was his two wins with the black pieces in the
same ultra-sharp line of the Semi-Slav. One win with Black in a world championship
match is very fortunate; two wins, essentially back-to-back, are practically decisive.
Thus, while like most modern players Anand has a wide opening repertoire, making it
hard to say that he is considered a connoisseur of any one particular opening. We will
focus on this line:
The first game of the match had been a tame draw, where Kramnik chose the exchange
variation against Anand's Slav Defense. In the second, Anand pressed hard but agreed
to a draw in a better position due to his time pressure. In the third game, Kramnik
decided to take on the Slav in a more critical manner, and the above position arose after
the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5
8.Bb3 a6!? 9.e4 c5 10.e5.
The move 8...a6 constitutes the so-called "Reynolds Variation" of the Meran Slav, with
8...Bb7 being considered the main line. Anand had only played this variation once
before. Kramnik, in turn, chose the move 10.e5 -- clearly a critical attempt, although
nowadays less common than the other way of piercing the center, 10.d5.
In choosing this variation -- among the many other defenses he could choose against
Kramnik's practically inevitable closed openings -- Anand had to prepare for a great
number of sharp variations. This 10.e5 move was one of them, and as can be seen by
the resulting games, his preparation was phenomenal.
Kramnik publicly stated after this game that Anand's position after the opening was
dubious. And thus, in the fifth game (the next one where Anand had Black), the line was
repeated. Anand anticipated Kramnik's improvement by varying on his own, at move 15.
In recent world championship matches there have not been many repeated opening
debates in sharp variations. The players instead try to surprise each other and then
move on. Carrying on a debate in a sharp variation, in the age of computer analysis,
can be quite scary -- if you miss one tricky possibility that the opponent carefully
analyzed and memorized (perhaps even a reasonable move which isn't, however, the
computer's top line), you come into serious danger. In recent years, most players have
preferred to play "over the board."
But in this match, Anand had faith in the basic positional soundness of this line in the
Meran -- however sharp and complicated. The initial surprise struck one blow, but not
only that: Kramnik got drawn into the wrong debate, a second blow was struck, and this
practically guaranteed Anand victory.
Semi-Slav Defense
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c6
The Semi-Slav Defense is a variation of the Queen's Gambit chess opening, defined by the
position reached after
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Nf3 c6,
though the position may readily be reached by a number of different move-orders. The
opening resembles a mixture of the Orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined and the Slav
Defense, with Black advancing pawns to both c6 and e6.
With 4...c6, Black threatens to capture the white pawn on c4, and hold it with ...b7-b5.
White can avoid this with 5.e3, though at the cost of restricting the dark-
squared bishopfrom its natural development to g5. Alternatively, White often gambits a
pawn with 5.Bg5, the Anti-Meran Gambit, which Black may accept with 5...dxc4 6.e4
b5, leading to sharp play, or decline with 5...h6, the Moscow Variation. If Black plays
the latter variation, White can play 6.Bxf6 Qxf6, ceding the bishop pair in exchange for a
lead in development and a freer game, or again offer a gambit with 6.Bh4!?
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings designates the Semi-Slav with codes D43
through D49.
Main variations
5.e3
The main line continues with 5.e3, when Black usually develops with 5... Nbd7; though a
developing move, 5....Be7 is seldom seen nowadays, as players realised early on that at
e7, the bishop was passively placed and does nothing to further one of Black's aims, the
freeing move ....e5.
Meran Variation
The main variation of the Semi-Slav is the Meran Variation, 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4
b5, (ECO codes D46 to D49), when play usually continues with 8.Bd3, with 8.Be2 and
8.Bb3 less common alternatives. The variation is named after the town
of Meran (Merano) in northern Italy, after its successful use in the game Gruenfeld-
Rubinstein during a tournament held in that city in 1924.[1] Viswanathan Anand won two
games with Black in his World Chess Championship 2008 match with Vladimir Kramnik.
Black surrenders his outpost on d5, gaining a tempofor queenside space expansion by
...b7-b5. White will play in the centre, leading to a rich, complicated game. These
opposing strategies, with the ensuing keen play, have long made the Meran a favourite
for enterprising players of either color.
Anti-Meran Variation
If White wants to avoid the Meran Variation without entering the muddy waters of the
Anti-Meran, 5.cxd5 or 5.Qb3 are possibilities, though after 5....exd5, the former leads to
a line of the QGD Exchange where White's Nf3 enables the Black QB to freely develop,
which should give equality (ECO code D43 and D45). After 5.e3 Nbd7, the main
alternative to 6.Bd3 has become 6.Qc2, waiting for Black to commit to ....dxc4 before
playing Bd3. Once a sideline, this move exploded in popularity, in large part due
to Anatoly Karpov's advocacy during the 1990s.
Shirov-Shabalov Gambit in Anti-Meran
Another increasingly common gambit line used in the Anti-Meran system varition is the
sharp 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.g4. Popularized by Alexander Shabalov and Alexey
Shirov, the gambit destabilizes the center for Black and has been successful for
several grandmasters, including Kasparov.
5.Bg5
The Anti-Meran Gambit (ECO code D44) arises after 5.Bg5. White refuses to shut in the
dark-squared bishop, instead developing it to an active square where it pins the
black knight. It is now possible for Black to transpose to either the Cambridge Springs
Defence with 5....Nbd7 6.e3 Qa5, or enter the Orthodox Defense with 6....Be7, though in
practice he usually opts for either of the variations given below.
Botvinnik Variation
This line is extremely complicated, with theory stretching past move thirty in some
variations. Black captures a pawn by 5...dxc4. White takes control of the centre with 6.e4
as Black defends his booty with 6...b5. The main line of the Botvinnik now continues with
7.e5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Nxg5 hxg5 10.Bxg5 Nbd7. White will regain his piece with interest,
emerging with an extra pawn ahead, but Black will soon complete his development,
gaining great dynamic compensation, whereas White's task is rather more difficult.
White will fianchetto his king's bishop andcastle kingside, while Black will play ...c5,
...Qb6, castle queenside, and can carry out an attack in the centre or on either flank,
leading to complex play. The opening was introduced by Mikhail Botvinnik in the 1945
USSR vs USA radio match vs Arnold Denker. Today, Alex Yermolinsky has an excellent
record with the White pieces and Alexei Shirov has been Black's chief proponent in this
variation.
Moscow Variation
The Moscow Variation 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bxf6 Qxf6, gives rise to play of a different character
than the lines after 5....dxc4. Black has the bishop pair, but must avoid prematurely
opening the position in the face of White's superior development and central control.
The gambit line 6.Bh4 (the Anti-Moscow Variation) was once considered dubious, but
has seen a recent resurgence. In return for the pawn, White receives a lead in
development and a strong initiative. This dynamic mode of play, which is characteristic
of the modern game, has seen this line being played by many strong grandmasters,
though the verdict on the line is unclear.
Alternatives after 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3
Though appearing in contemporary master play with less frequency than the Meran,
there are other playable moves: 6....Be7, 6....Bb4, introduced by the Italian master Max
Romih, and 6....Bd6, which was much the most popular line before the debut of the
Meran, and espoused by the American grandmaster Arthur Bisguier throughout his
career.
After 6....Bd6, 7.0-0 0-0 8.e4 dxe4 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 is the most commom line line in
practice. There are now several alternatives for Black, with one a clear error, as it loses a
pawn: 10....e5 11.dxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Bxe5 13.Bxh7+ Kxh7 14.Qh5+ Kg8 15.Qxe5. This
line, however, has a strong drawish tendency in practice, due to the opposite-coloured
bishops, though all the heavy pieces remain on the board.
Black's other choices include 10....c5, though theory regards this as premature as it
enables White to play for a kingside attack with 11.Bc2, followed by Qd3 and Bg5.
10....Nf6 has also been played, but this misplaces the knight, as it does nothing to
further Black's play against the centre by means of either ....c5 or ....e5. 10....h6 is the
move preferred by Bisguier and has come to be considered strongest.
The other ideas, 6....Be7, which has the same drawback as after 5.e3 Be7, and 6....Bb4,
have become sidelines in modern play.
Semi-Slav
The Semi-Slav Defense is one of the most popular defenses for black against the
Queen’s Gambit line from white. This opening is seen at all levels of chess competition
and is often seen as one of the most sound defenses at top level play.
Black spends most of the time in the Semi-Slav developing pawns and pieces to control
the light sqaures in the middle of the board. It differs from the Slav opening in that the
light square bishop on c8 is not developed before the pawn structure is formed with e6.
This allows more time for black to build up a solid pawn structure around the d5 pawn,
but at the cost of slower development from his light square bishop.
White typically has two main ideas that he can play for. The first is to develop his dark
square bishop on c1 befor he closes the pawn structure with e3. The second is to
immediately play e3, protecting the pawn on c4, while delaying the development of the
dark square bishop. Depending on how white responds many times will determine much
of the dynamics in the game.
Black will typically counter attack on the queen side of the board and try to make a push
for the center control of the light squares. If black can equalize, he should be better off
in the end game with a much better pawn structure.
For those players looking to play sound, fundamental chess, this is a must have
defense against the Queen’s Gambit opening.
Watch the video below to watch more detailed explanations of the opening, multiple
variations, and extended lines.
Benoni Defense
The Benoni Defense is a chess opening characterized by the moves:
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 c5
3. d5
Black can then sacrifice a pawn by 3...b5 (the Benko Gambit), but if Black does not elect this line
then 3...e6 is the most common move (though 3...d6 or 3...g6 are also seen, typically leading to main
lines).
Etymology[edit]
“Ben oni” ( )בֶּ ן אֹונִיis a Hebrew term meaning “son of my sorrow” (cf. Genesis 35:18) – the name of an
1825 book by Aaron Reinganum about several defenses against the King's Gambit and the Queen's
Gambit.[1]
The Old Benoni starts with 1.d4 c5. The Old Benoni may transpose to the Czech Benoni, but there
are a few independent variations. This form has never attracted serious interest in high-level play,
though Alexander Alekhine defeated Efim Bogoljubow with it in one game of their second match, in
1934. The Old Benoni is sometimes called the Blackburne Defense, after Englishman Joseph
Henry Blackburne, the first player known to have used it successfully.[2]
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) has many codes for the Benoni Defense.
A43 1.d4 c5
A44 1.d4 c5 2.d5 e5
Benoni Defense:
Fianchetto Variation:
A62 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6 7.g3 Bg7 8.Bg2 0-0
A63 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6 7.g3 Bg7 8.Bg2 0-0 9.0-0
Nbd7
A64 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nf3 g6 7.g3 Bg7 8.Bg2 0-0 9.0-0
Nbd7 10.Nd2 a6 11.a4 Re8
Modern Benoni:
Taimanov Variation:
A67 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+
A68 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Nf3 0-0
A69 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Nf3 0-0 9.Be2
Re8
Classical Benoni:
A70 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3
A71 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Bg5
A72 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0
A73 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0
A74 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0
a6
A75 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0
a6 10.a4 Bg4
A76 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0
Re8
A77 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0
Re8 10.Nd2
A78 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0
Re8 10.Nd2 Na6
A79 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0
Re8 10.Nd2 Na6 11.f3
Benoni Defense
The Benoni Defense is a very aggressive line that black can play to counter the very
common open by white d4. While many defenses against the queen pawn opening are
closed and drawish, the Benoni Defense gives black many opportunities to not only
equalize the position, but also to gain an advantage and play for the win.
In the Modern Benoni Defense, the main focus of the game is white’s center control of
the light squares with it’s key pawn on d5 and black’s control of the center from the dark
squares. Black will usually fianchetto his bishop on the kingside to g7 to add extra
support to the dark squares.
For a white player you want to keep constant pressure on the d5 square and use it later
on to set up outposts for your minor pieces and to apply pressure on black. For black
players you want to keep white from applying pressure and keep them from getting any
outposts on the e6 and c6 squares. The Benoni Defense usually opens up after the
opening which means that bishops are more powerful than knights so be cautious about
trading off your bishop.
Black should get lots of counter play and should have a very good game after things
open up in the middle.
Watch the video below to watch more detailed explanations of the opening, multiple
variations, and extended lines.
A good Benoni player should be familiar with the Tarrasch Defense, as the Benoni can
often transpose to a slight variation of this if white plays 2. e4. Knowing the Sicilian
Dragon, especially the accelerated variations, can also be useful because
transpositions are often possible and can lead to strong positions for black when white
isn’t ready for this sudden change in position. The Benoni is a response to 1.d4, so you
can’t play it if white plays 1.e4. But luckily for us Benoni players, the French defense is
typically met with 2.d4, and responding with 2…c5 leads to the Franco-Sicilian, which is
almost always transposable to the Modern Benoni. The Nimzo-Indian defense is a
common transposition in the Modern Benoni (occurring in nearly half of all games
played with that opening), and is essential for any Modern Benoni player to know well.
The King’s Indian Defense shares many characteristics with the Benoni and
transpositions between lines are common.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nc3 e6 4. Nf3d5
Disclaimers
The Benoni is an advanced opening that requires players to constantly be aware of the
potential of all pieces, especially the threat of pawn breaks. Players who don’t have a
strong knowledge of positional setups that rely heavily on pawn structure should avoid
this opening until they have more experience. However, the Old Benoni should be
playable by less skilled players. Also, don’t complain about the lack of detail, because
this is a basic guide that is only meant to familiarize players with the absolute basics of
the opening.
The Benoni defense is a closed chess opening and belongs to the family of indian
openings and is sometimes called Benoni-Indian Defense.
If Black plays c5 right away like 1.d4 c5 2.d5 then this is the Old-Ben-Oni
Defense, which has the same pawn structure, just the knight move is delayed.
White does not capture the pawn on c5 because Black would regain it later by
playing 2...e6 or 2...Qa5+.
If Black plays the modern Benoni 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 and then 3...b5 now,
which is a pawn sacrifice, we are entering the realms of the Benko Gambit,
where Black seizes the initiative on the queenside. This opening is
recommended if you are an attacking player.
If Black continues quietly with 3...d6, 3...e6 or 3...g6 then this leads to the
Benoni main lines.
Classical Variation 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Nf3 Bg7 8.Be2
Three Pawn Attack 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Nf3
Taimanov Variation 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.f4 Bg7 8.Bb5+
Czech Benoni Another setup leads to the Czech Benoni: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5
3.d5 e5 - Black has played e5 and locked up the center. Future play will be
expected on the wings.
In the modern Benoni White has space advantage in the center but Black
gains active piece play. White plays for the center break e5 and Black tries to
expand with ...b5 on the queenside and blocks white's e5 center-break in
putting up pressure against the e4 pawn with Re8 and exercising control of e5
using his knights to make the e5 break of White impossible. Black has a very
active bishop on g7. It is not blocked by a black pawn on e5 like in the kings-
indian defense.
As the position in the Modern Benoni is asymmetrical, it is the right setup for chess
players who play an agressive game and play for a win. Players who like a quiet
positional game should avoid this opening. This can be done by playing 3.Nf3 which
leads to a quieter positional game.
Tip: If you play White, then play the Taimanov variation, which is pretty hard to handle
for Black. Taimanov Variation: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6
7.f4 Bg7 8 Bb5+ Nbd7? (correct move is 8...Nfd7) 9.e5!
If you have Black and want to play the Benoni Defense, then avoid the Taimanov
Variation by varying the move sequence. Play 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6(not 2...c5) 3.Nf3
c5 because white has a knight on f3 now and cannot move the f-pawn. This makes the
center break 9.e5 later on impossible. If White plays 3.Nc3 (not 3.Nf3) instead you play
3...Bb4, which is the Nimzo-Indian Defense.
Benko Gambit
The Benko Gambit (or Volga Gambit) is a chess opening characterised by the move 3...b5 in
the Benoni Defense arising after:
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 c5
3. d5 b5
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO) has three codes for the Benko Gambit:[1]
A57 3...b5
A58 3...b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6
A59 3...b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 Bxa6 6.Nc3 d6 7.e4
Use[edit]
The gambit's most notable practitioner has been its eponym, Pal Benko. Many of the
world's strongest players have used it at one time or another, including former world
champions Viswanathan Anand, Garry Kasparov, Veselin Topalov and Mikhail Tal, and
Grandmasters Vassily Ivanchuk, Michael Adams, Alexei Shirov, Boris Gelfand,
and Evgeny Bareev. It is a very popular opening at amateur level, where it is considered
to offer Black good practical chances of playing for a win.
Benko Gambit
The Benko Gambit is one of the most well respected gambits in chess. For this reason it
is one of the main lines stemming from the Benoni Defense.
White can either accept the gambit or decline this gambit with Nf3. Although some
players may prefer to decline the gambit if they are unfamiliar you will amost always see
white accept with cxb5.
Black’s entire goal is to give up a pawn early on to give himself a big advantage on the
queen side. Black will continue to try to give white another pawn with a6. Many players
don’t mind playing down a pawn as black because of the great attacking lines that stem
from the queen side attack in the benko gambit.
If you play as white in the Benko Gambit and you don’t want to get into the main line,
defending your queen side all game, it is common practice to give back the pawn
material advantage and focus on building up your central control.
This opening is not for the faint of heart. It’s a very aggressive opening and should be
played accordingly.
Tarrasch Defense
The Tarrasch Defense is a chess opening characterized by the moves:
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 c5
Swedish Variation
The Swedish Variation (also called the Folkestone Variation) is a sharp line
beginning 6...c4. Black now has a four to three queenside pawnmajority, and will try to
expand with ...b5, with White aiming for a central break with e4. The line is considered
somewhat dubious and is rarely seen nowadays.
The Swedish Variation has ECO code D33.
I’ve played the Tarrasch myself for over 10 years, and with tremendous results. It’s fair
to say that if FIDE had only counted my games with this opening for their rating
calculation, I would have had 200 points more than I have now. The only reason I
recently stopped playing it is because I believe (stupidly, no doubt) that it’s necessary to
vary one’s openings from time to time for fear of getting utterly bored with chess.
Another interesting fact is that despite my excellent results, I’ve never felt the slightest
need to read an opening book on the Tarrasch Defence – often Black’s moves are so
natural that there really seems no point. This is a huge difference with other openings,
such as the King’s Indian or the Benoni Defence, where a lack of theoretical knowledge
is likely to result in an endless bunch of duck-eggs.
But a new book by Jacob Aagaard and Nikolaos Ntirlis, The Tarrasch Defence,
published by Quality Chess, has made me change my mind. The two authors (though I
got the impression Ntirlis did most of the original work) present so many fresh and
fascinating ideas in this old opening that it’s impossible to put down. It’s also a very
objective and sensible book, in which the old opening is both treated with respect and is
challenged to defend itself against computer-age scrutiny and rigour.
Although The Tarrasch Defence is extremely useful for White players (I’ll tell you why
further down), it is mainly aimed at players who want to employ this opening with Black.
Thus, the old main line with 9…cxd4 is only mentioned as part of the introduction, and in
general the authors waste no time analyzing black alternatives that they regard as
inferior to the ones they’re suggesting.
Instead, Aagaard and Ntirlis spend most of the book on what they call the ‘Modern
Treatment’:
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bg5
c4! 10.Ne5 Be6
11.b3 h6! The “early h6”-theme recurs time and again in this book. Here, the authors
confidently write:
In fact the only attention the move gets is in the introduction, where the authors mention
German IM Blauert’s well-known shock novelty 12.Qd2! Rad8 13.bxc4 Nxd4!!N
(Pedersen-Blauert, Gausdal 2004) and amazingly, Black seems fine in all lines.
However, after the more prudent 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Rfd1 Bb4 15.Rfc1! (as mentioned by
Schandorf in his 2009 book Playing the Queen’s Gambit) Black, according to Aagaard
and Ntirlis,
12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.bxc4 dxc4 15.e3 Qa5
The authors don’t stop here but go on to analyze the subsequent positions in great detail. The same is
true for other cases where 11…h6! proves to be surprisingly strong (such as after 11.f4, 11.e3 and
11.Rc1). Although this gives the book it’s a very ‘personal’ touch, I also found it somewhat disappointing
that all these lines I came to love so much, like 11.e3 Nd7 (which is also not bad for Black) and 11.f4
Ng4!? (very exciting as well), are hardly looked at in this book.
But then again: tough luck for me! If Black has more promising ways to play – and Aagaard and Ntirlis
make a convincing case for it – then I should be prepared to kill my darlings and start looking at the new
kids on the block. No boring old theory, but exciting new territory!
And I soon discovered I might actually be better off after all. What to think of the following crazy and
almost completely unknown line?
11.f4 h6! 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.f5 Bxe5! 14.dxe5 Qb6+ 15.Kh1 Qxb2!
Every true Tarrasch player should just love this stuff, which gets its own chapter. The
only problem, of course, is that there’s so much new material here that improvements
are probably just around the corner (although my Rybka and me couldn’t find them so
far). That’s only natural, but it does require a little soberness from the reader from time
to time.
So unless you’re a pro, my advice is to just sort of browse through these pages and
then simply go play the position – much more fun than trying to memorize all these
unlikely moves that Tarrasch himself wouldn’t have found behind the board either…
Despite such spectacular outbursts, I felt the book’s real asset is its excellent treatment
of various endgames where Black can or cannot achieve perfect equality. Playing the
Tarrasch has taught me to try and correctly evaluate certain highly typical endgames,
for instance with an isolated d-pawn or with doubled c-pawns. These endgames are
often not as bad as they look, and they are always very difficult to play for both sides.
Despite this, the authors are very clear about what’s at stake:
They go on to discuss the endgame with doubled c-pawns. The following fragment is
worth quoting in full:
11.b3 h6 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.bxc4 dxc4 15.e3 Qa5 16.Rc1! Rac8 17.Qa4!
Qxa4 18.Nxa4 Be7 19.Nb2! Ba3 20.Rc2 Bxb2 21.Rxb2 Rc7!
I find such fragments irresistible, and in fact this is only the beginning of the discussion
of this particular endgame, which goes on for no less than 6 more pages.
I could go on and on about the many beautiful variations in this book, but the truth is
that it is crammed with fantastic stuff - really too much to mention in one review. So let
me just say that the authors treat the ever-important Timman Variation (9.dxc5 Bxc5
10.Bg5 d4 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Nd5) with due adoration and skepticism (I’ve always felt the
line to be both overestimated and underestimated at the same time!). Here, too, they
improve existing theory as they go along in many crucial lines.
Even more interesting is the authors’ “big discovery” that a ‘minor’ deviation in this
opening turns out to be so dangerous it’s worth two separate chapters:
This is one of those simple-looking lines I myself have never dared to look at closely
(and has fortunately never been played against me!). The problem for Black, which is of
course well-known, is that after 6…d4 7.Na4 Bxc5 8.Nxc5 Qa5+ Black will regain the
piece but White will have the two bishops. Yes, you’ll say, but isn’t Black terribly active
now?
Well, that’s what I always thought too, but the authors forced me to evaluate the
endgame that Black gets after:
9.Bd2 Qxc5 10.Rc1 Qb6 11.e3 Nf6 12.Bc4 dxe3 13.Bxe3 Qb4+ 14.Qd2 Qxd2+
15.Kxd2 Be6 16.Bxe6 fxe6
Jacob Aagaard and Nikolaos Ntirlis invite their readers to think about these positions for
themselves, rather than to just memorize what they prescribe. Would you mind playing
this position as Black? If you don’t, then you’ve got what it takes to become a real
Tarrasch player – not scared of isolated pawns, bishops or your engine indicating
+0.41. The Tarrasch Defence invites you to be scared of nothing.
D32 Sub-variants:
4. Bf4 5 40 % 60 %
4. e4 3 33.3 % 66.7 %
Dutch Defence
The Dutch Defence is a chess opening characterised by the moves:
1. d4 f5
Black's 1... f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4-square and envisions an attack in
the middlegame on White's kingside; however, it also weakens Black's kingside some
(especially the e8–h5 diagonal)[1] and contributes nothing to Black's development. Like
its 1.e4 counterpart, the Sicilian Defence, the Dutch is an aggressive and unbalancing
opening, resulting in the lowest percentage of draws among the most common replies to
1.d4.[2] Through the ages White has tried all sorts of methods to exploit the kingside
weaknesses, such as the Staunton Gambit (2.e4) and Korchnoi Attack (2.h3 and 3.g4),
but Black's resources seem just about adequate.
The Dutch has never been a main line against 1.d4 and is rarely seen at high level,
although a number of top players, includingAlexander Alekhine, Bent Larsen, Paul
Morphy and Miguel Najdorf, have used it with success. Perhaps its high-water mark
occurred in 1951 when both World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik and his
challenger, David Bronstein, played it in their 1951 World Championship match. Among
the world's top 10 players today, only Hikaru Nakamura is a consistent practitioner.
History[edit]
Elias Stein (1748–1812), an Alsatian who settled in The Hague, recommended the
defence as the best reply to 1.d4 in his 1789 book Nouvel essai sur le jeu des échecs,
avec des réflexions militaires relatives à ce jeu.
Siegbert Tarrasch rejected the opening as unsound in his 1931 work The Game of
Chess, arguing that White should reply with the Staunton Gambit, with White being
better after 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 c6 5.f3! exf3
Theory[edit]
White most often fianchettoes his king's bishop with g3 and Bg2. Black also sometimes
fianchettoes his king's bishop with ...g6 and ...Bg7 (the Leningrad Dutch), but may
instead develop his bishop to Be7, d6 (after ...d5), or b4 (the latter is most often seen if
White plays c4 before castling). Play often runs 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 (4.Nh3!? is
also possible, intending Nf4–d3 to control the e5-square if Black plays the Stonewall
Variation) Be7 5.0-0 0-0 6.c4 and now Black chooses between 6...d5 (the characteristic
move of the Stonewall), 6...d6, the Ilyin–Zhenevsky System (less popular today), or
Alekhine's move 6...Ne4!? retaining the option of moving the d-pawn either one or two
squares.
The Stonewall Dutch enjoyed a resurgence of interest in the 1980s and 1990s, when
leading grandmasters Artur Yusupov, Sergey Dolmatov, Nigel Short and Simen
Agdesteinhelped develop the system where Black plays an earlier ...d5 and places his
dark-squared bishop on d6.[4] Termed the Modern Stonewall, this setup has remained
more popular than the traditional early ...Be7.
The opening's attacking potential is shown in the Polish Immortal, in which Miguel
Najdorf, using the Stonewall Variation, sacrificed all of his minor pieces to win
by checkmate.
White continuations
The traditional move order involves White playing 2.c4. More commonly, White will start
with 2.g3. Some common variations are: c4 is played after g3 and Bg2; c4 is played
after Nf3; and c4 is played after 0-0.
Examples:
Dutch Defense
The Dutch Defense is a very active defense in chess against 1.d4. Black looks to
control the e4-square while completely unbalancing the position. Later on in the chess
game, black will look to future his attack on white’s kingside. One of the key concepts is
that the weak f7 square that black has becomes even more a target for white and many
times white will focus exclusively on targeting this weakness. In return, black will have
very active pieces that are not cramped and should provide for some exciting game
play.
White usually fianchettoes his king’s bishop onto g2 to add support on the e4 square
that black is attacking. Black also might fianchetto his bishop in the kingside to add
pressure on the dark squares. As both sides have very different strategies, most games
with the Dutch Defense become very lively and active.
For those players that encounter 1.d4 often and don’t like playing the Queen’s Gambit
line, the Dutch Defense gives lots of great counterattacking for black and is a very good
alternative.
Watch the video below to watch more detailed explanations of the opening, multiple
variations, and extended lines.
The Dutch Defence 1.d4 f5
a Chess SetUp for Black versus 1.d4
Use the Dutch as a surprize weapon as it is not quite sound and not played at
top level chess.
The Dutch Defence is a closed chess opening. It starts with the moves:
1.d4 f5
Stonewall Variation See above - Black should try to activate his dead bishop
on c8 and play it to h5 and exchange it, or place it to b7 and then prepare the
c-pawn push to c5. This set up is not very flexible for Black, but Black will not
get overrun at the kingside because it is highly unlikely that White will be able
to organize a kingside attack due to the blocked pawn structure f5,e6,d5.
Most popular in the beginning was the Stonewall variation (see above), but
the Leningrad Dutch variation has become more popular nowadays where
Black plays his bishop to g7. (called: Fianchetto)
Some top chess players have played it in earlier times like Alexander
Alekhine, Bent Larsen and Paul Morphy. It was played in the 1951
championship match between Mikhail Botvinnik and David Bronstein.
With the move f5 Black wants to control e4 to place a knight there later on in
the game. This idea will be combined with an attack on the white king at the
kingside. But this opening move weakens the black kingside and does not
develop a piece. And it often leads to blocked and unflexible positions.
White tries to open up the center with e2-e4 or d4-d5 and combines this with
an attack at the queenside.
A81 Sub-variants:
Dutch defence
1. d4 f5 2. g3
Dutch defence, Blackburne variation
1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 e6 4. Nh3
Dutch defence
1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 g6
Dutch, Leningrad, Basman system
1. d4 f5 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. Nf3 c6 5. O-O Nh6
Dutch, Leningrad, Karlsbad variation
1. d4 f5 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. Nh3
Budapest Gambit
The Budapest Gambit (or Budapest Defence) is a chess opening that begins with the
moves:
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e5
Despite an early debut in 1896, the Budapest Gambit received attention from leading
players only after a win as Black byGrandmaster Milan Vidmar over Akiba Rubinstein in
1918.[1] It enjoyed a rise in popularity in the early 1920s, but nowadays is rarely played
at the top level. It experiences a lower percentage of draws than other main lines, but
also a lower overall performance for Black.
After 3.dxe5 Black can try the Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4 which concentrates on the
rapid development of pieces, but the most common move is 3...Ng4 with three main
possibilities for White. The Adler variation 4.Nf3 sees White seeking a spatial
advantage in the centre with his pieces, notably the important d5-square. The Alekhine
variation 4.e4 gives White an important spatial advantage and a strong pawn centre.
The Rubinstein variation 4.Bf4 leads to an important choice for White, after 4...Nc6
5.Nf3 Bb4+, between 6.Nbd2 and 6.Nc3. The reply 6.Nbd2 brings a positional game in
which White enjoys the bishop pair and tries to break through on thequeenside, while
6.Nc3 keeps the material advantage of a pawn at the cost of a weakening of the
white pawn structure. Black usually looks to have an aggressive game (many lines can
shock opponents that do not know the theory) or cripple White's pawn structure.
The Budapest Gambit contains several specific strategic themes. After 3.dxe5 Ng4,
there is a battle over White's extra pawn on e5, which Black typically attacks with ...Nc6
and (after ...Bc5 or ...Bb4+) ...Qe7, while White often defends it with Bf4, Nf3, and
sometimes Qd5. In the 4.Nf3 variation the game can evolve either with Black attacking
White's kingside with manoeuvres of rook lifts, or with White attacking Black's kingside
with the push f2–f4, in which case Black reacts in the centre against the e3-pawn. In
numerous variations the move c4–c5 allows White to gain space and to open prospects
for his light-square bishop. For Black, the check Bf8–b4+ often allows rapid
development.
History[edit]
In a Chess Notes feature article, Edward Winter showed that the origins of this opening
are not yet entirely elucidated.[1] The first known game with the Budapest Gambit is
Adler–Maróczy (played in Budapest in 1896). This game already featured some key
aspects of the gambit, such as active play for the black pieces, and White making the
typical mistake of moving the queen too early. As the player of the white pieces was not
a strong player, the new opening went unnoticed apart from the local experts who had
witnessed the game. The Hungarians István Abonyi, Zsigmond Barász and Gyula
Breyer further developed the opening. Abonyi played it in 1916 against the Dutch
surgeon Johannes Esserin a small tournament in Budapest. The Austrian player Josef
Emil Krejcik played it against Helmer in Vienna in 1917. Carl Schlechter published an
optimistic analysis of the gambit in the Deutsche Schachzeitung.[2][3][4]
The first use of the opening against a world-class player was at Berlin in April 1918, a
double round-robin tournament with four players: Akiba Rubinstein, Carl
Schlechter, Jacques Mieses and Milan Vidmar. Vidmar had to play Black in the first
round against Rubinstein, then ranked the fourth best player in the world with a
very positional style.[5] At a loss for what to play, he sought advice from his friend
Abonyi, who showed him the Budapest Gambit and the main ideas the Hungarian
players had found. Vidmar followed Abonyi's advice and beat Rubinstein convincingly in
just 24 moves.[6] This victory so heartened Vidmar that he went on to win the
tournament, while Rubinstein was so demoralised by this defeat that he lost another
game against Mieses and drew a third one against Schlechter in the same opening.[2][7]
After this tournament, the gambit finally began to be taken seriously. Top players
like Savielly Tartakower and Siegbert Tarrasch started to play it. Schlechter published in
1918 the monograph Die budapester Verteidigung des Damengambits,[8] which can be
considered the first book on this opening. The gambit reached its peak of popularity
(around five Budapest Gambits for every thousand games played) around 1920, [9] so
much so that many White players adopted the move-order 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 to avoid
it.[10][11]
The leading exponents of 1.d4 started to look for reliable antidotes. Alexander
Alekhine showed how White could get a strong attack with 4.e4 in his games
against Ilya Rabinovich (Baden-Baden 1925) and Adolf Seitz (Hastings 1925–26). But a
few weeks later a theme tournament on the Budapest Gambit was held, in Budapest,
and the result was 14½–21½ in Black's favor. Another tournament in Semmering the
same year saw Alekhine losing to Karl Gilg in his pet line with White against the gambit,
so that the e4-line had a mixed reputation.[10] Meanwhile, more positional plans were
also developed for White. Rubinstein showed how White could get a small positional
advantage with 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2, an assessment still valid today. The
possibility 6.Nc3 was also considered attractive, as structural weaknesses were not
valued as much as a material advantage of one pawn in those days. By the end of the
1920s, despite the invention of the highly original Fajarowicz variation 3...Ne4 in 1928,
the Budapest Gambit was considered theoretically dubious.[12]
This assessment was left unchanged for decades, as few players at the highest level
used the Budapest Gambit and information about games from lesser players could not
easily be found. During that time, various responses were developed against the 4.Bf4
line; these included 4...g5, invented by István Abonyi, further developed by the masters
Bakonyi and Drimer. The master Kaposztas showed that even when White succeeded
in his positional plan, it only meant for Black a worse endgame with drawish
tendencies.[notes 1] Two pawn sacrifices were also introduced in the variation with 6.Nbd2
(still in the 4.Bf4 line), based on pawn pushes d7–d6 or f7–f6 and a quick attack against
b2.[13]
The Budapest Gambit saw a short-lived revival in 1984–85 when Chess
Informant included three games (as many as in the previous fifteen years), all played at
a high level of competition, and all won by Black.[14] But White players found
reinforcements and even invented a line with 4.e3 and 5.Nh3. [15] In the 21st century,
despite Shakhriyar Mamedyarov's successful efforts to rehabilitate the line 4.Bf4 g5, the
Budapest Gambit almost never appears at the highest level. [16][17] Its most recent
appearance was whenRichárd Rapport defeated Boris Gelfand with Black using the
opening in round 2 of the 2014 Tata Steel Chess competition.[18]
Performance[edit]
In the database of the website ChessGames.com, the Budapest Gambit scores 28.9%
Black wins, 44.1% White wins and 27.1% draws. The percentage of draws is especially
low compared to mainstream alternatives such as 2...e6 (43.7% draws) or 2...g6 (37%
draws). This opening gives more chance to win for both opponents, although the
percentage of Black wins is still lower than the alternative 2...c5. In the main line 3.dxe5
Ng4 4.Bf4 the percentage of Black wins already falls to 21.1%, lower than the main lines
after 2...e6 or 2...g6.[19]
The Budapest Gambit has never been widely used as Black by the top-ten
chessplayers. Richard Réti used it five times in the period 1919–26 when he was
among the ten best players in the world,[20] but he scored only 1½ points.[21] Savielly
Tartakower used it four times in 1928 when he was the eighth-best player in the
world,[22] including thrice in one tournament (Bad Kissingen 1928) but he scored only ½
point against world-class opposition: Bogoljubov then ranked number four in the
world,[23] Capablanca ranked number two,[24] and Rubinstein ranked number
seven.[5][25] Rudolf Spielmann used it thrice in 1922–23 when he was about number 9–
12 in the world,[26] with a win against Euwe but defeats
[27]
against Yates and Sämisch. Nigel Short played the gambit twice in the years 1992–
93 when he was number 7–11,[28] scoring only ½ points against Karpov (then ranked
number two[29]) and Ivanchuk (then ranked number
[30] [31]
three ). Recently, Mamedyarov used it twice in 2004 (scoring 1½ with a win
against Van Wely) when he was not already among the top-players, and six times in
2008 when he was about number 6–14; he scored five points with wins against former
world champion Kramnik (then ranked number three[32]), and
grandmasters Tkachiev and Eljanov, but all six games took place
in rapid or blitz events. [33]
Hence in this variation Black lets White build his pawn centre only to undermine it later, a playing
philosophy espoused in the teachings of the hypermodern school. The strategic themes are similar
to the ones that can be found in other openings like the Four Pawns Attack, the Alekhine Defence or
the Grünfeld Defence.[36]
Budapest rook[edit]
The "Budapest rook" is a manoeuvre, introduced by the IM Dolfi Drimer in 1968,[37] with
which Black develops the a8 rook aggressively along the sixth rank using the moves
a7–a5 and the rook lift Ra8–a6–h6.[38] For example, this can happen in the Adler
variation after the move sequence 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6
6.Be2 Ngxe5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.a3 a5 9.0-0 0-0 10.Nc3 Ra6 11.b3 Rh6.
The rook is then used to support a piece attack against White's castled King.[39] Black
can easily get several pieces around the white king, notably a rook to h6, a queen to h4
and a knight on g4. The queen's arrival on the h4-square is facilitated by the absence of
a white knight on the f3-square (that would otherwise cover the h4-square) and of a
black knight on the f6-square (that would block the way for the black queen). [39] If White
tries to defend with h2–h3, this may allow the Bc8 to be sacrificed at h3 in order to open
the h-file.[39]
The Bc5 may not seem particularly useful in this attack, but by eyeing e3 it makes it
difficult for White to play f4 to chase away the black knight; [40] furthermore, the attack on
e3 is sometimes intensified with major pieces doubling on the e-file. Besides, the Bc5
can sometimes be recycled to the b8–h2 diagonal via Bc5–a7–b8, to apply still more
pressure on h2.[41] It can also stay on the a7–g1 diagonal to put pressure on f2, if White
pushes e3–e4 at some stage.
The "Budapest rook" was an invigorating innovation of the 1980s, and gave the gambit
new life. However, inconveniences arise from delaying d7–d6 in order to allow the lift:
the light-square bishop has to wait a long time to develop, and any attack on the Bc5 is
potentially annoying for Black (since it means either closing the sixth rank with
...d6/...b6, abandoning the active a7–g1 diagonal, or blocking the rook when deployed
to a7). This, in addition to the risk of awkwardness in the king side (a knight on f5 will
fork the Rh6 and the Qh4) and the single-mindedness of Black's plan (with nothing to
fall back on if the direct attack is repelled), has made some revisit the old lines, where it
is instead the king's rook that is developed to h6. The queen's rook can then be retained
on the queenside, and will be well-placed if the b-file opens as a result of Black's Bc5
being exchanged and recaptured with a b6 pawn.
Advantages of ...Bb4+
In most variations Black has the opportunity to play Bb4+, a move whose advisability
depends on White's possible answers. If White blocks the check with Nb1–c3 then
Black should capture the knight only if White is forced to take back with the pawn, after
which theisolated, doubled pawns are a positional advantage for Black that fully
compensates the loss of the bishop pair, and even the gambitted pawn. Due to its
immunity to pawn attacks, the c5-square may be used by Black as a stronghold for his
pieces. Piece exchanges can be good for Black even if he is a pawn down, as he can
hope to exploit the crippled pawn structure in the ending. [42] On the other hand, if White
can recapture with a piece, the trade on c3 typically concedes the bishop pair for
insufficient compensation.
If White is compelled to play Nb1–d2, it is sometimes a minuscule positional
concession, as it makes it harder for this knight to reach its ideal square d5. [43] However,
if Black is later compelled to exchange Bxd2, that is advantageous to White who
thereby gains the bishop pair.[43] Besides, in some situations the Bb4 could be as
misplaced as the Nd2.[43] Finally, if White has to play Bd2, then Black should exchange
the bishops only if White is forced to recapture with the Nb1, as a recapture by the Qd1
would still allow the Nb1 to reach the d5-square through Nb1–c3–d5.
For example in the Alekhine variation, after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4
Ng6 6.Nf3, the move 6...Bb4+ (see diagram at right) is good because White has no
good reply apart from 7.Nc3. Indeed, 7.Nbd2? just loses a pawn after 7...Nxf4 whereas
7.Bd2?! Qe7! causes White great problems: both the pawn f4 and e4 pawns are
attacked, and 8.Bxb4 Qxb4+ results in a double attack against b2 and f4. [44] After 7.Nc3
Black can either answer with 7...Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 or with 7...Qf6, simultaneously attacking
c3 and f4.[notes 2]
Pressure against the e4-square and the e3-pawn
In the Adler variation 3...Ng4 4.Nf3, after White has moved f2–f4, the e3-pawn becomes
a backward pawn on an open file. Black can then apply pressure on the e-file in
general, against the e3-pawn and the e4-square in particular. Typical moves in this plan
would include the manoeuvre Ne5–d7–f6, followed by putting the heavy pieces on the
e-file with Rf8–e8 and Qd8–e7 (see diagram at right).[45] The Bc5 is already well placed
to pressure the e3-pawn. Depending on circumstances, the Bc8 may be involved either
on b7 or on f5, in both cases to assert control over the central e4-square.
This plan is viable only if certain conditions are met. The d7-square must be available
for the Ne5, so that it can later transfer to f6. White should also not be able to easily
advance the e3-pawn to e4, where it would be adequately defended by the Nc3 and a
possible Bf3.[45]Finally, White should not have the time to launch a quick attack on
Black's castled position with the pawn thrust f4–f5–f6.
Breakthrough with the c4–c5 push
In the main lines the pawn push c4–c5 often brings positional gains to White. In
the Rubinstein variation 3...Ng4 4.Bf4 with 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3, after
7...Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 (see diagram at right) White gets
the bishop pair and a space advantage. In order to build up on these potential
advantages, the most common plan is to perform a minority attack on the queenside,
with the goal of performing the pawn advance c4–c5 in favourable conditions.[46] This
push can yield several advantages to White: it enhances the prospects of the light-
square bishop, it creates a half-open file to attack with the rooks, and it creates
an isolated,backward pawn on d6 after the exchange c5xd6.[46]
For example, in the diagram on the right, after the natural but mistaken 10...0-0?! White
can immediately realise his strategic goal with 11.c5![47] Then if Black accepts the
temporary sacrifice after 11...Qxc5 12.Rc1 Qd6 13.Qxd6 cxd6 14.Rd1 White gets his
pawn back and has created a weak pawn in d7, while if Black declines the pawn he has
difficulties in developing his queenside (for example 11...d6 might be followed by
12.cxd6 Qxd6 13.Qxd6 cxd6 and the pawn on d6 is weak).[47] Therefore Black generally
tries to hinder the c4–c5 push with moves like d7–d6, b7–b6 or Rf8–d8 (if this creates a
hidden vis-à-vis between the Rd8 and the Qd2).[46]
Similarly, in the Rubinstein variation 3...Ng4 4.Bf4 with 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3, after
6...Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 White is saddled with doubled pawns in c3 and c4 that limit the scope
of his bishop pair. Hence the push c4–c5 can be used to free the light-squared bishop
and disrupt Black's position.[48]
In the Adler variation 3...Ng4 4.Nf3, after 4...Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 Re8 8.Nc3
Ngxe5 9.b3 a5 10.Bb2 Nxf3+ Bxf3 Ne5 12.Be2 Ra6 13.Qd5 Qe7 14.Ne4 Ba7 White has
good reasons to push 15.c5.[49] This move would close the diagonal of the Ba7. It would
make it harder for Black to develop the Bc8 as pawn pushes like b7–b6 or d7–d6 may
be answered respectively by cxb6 or cxd6, creating a weak pawn for Black. Also, the
prospects of the Be2 would be enhanced.
Kieninger Trap
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3 Ngxe5 8.axb4
Nd3#
The Kieninger Trap is named after Georg Kieninger who used it in an offhand game
against Godai at Vienna in 1925.[50] It occurs in theRubinstein variation 3...Ng4
4.Bf4 with 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3. The Bb4 is attacked but Black does not
have to move it for the moment, and instead both regains the gambit pawn and sets
a trap with 7...Ngxe5 (see diagram at right). Superficially, White seems to win a piece
with 8.axb4??, but that would be falling into the Kieninger Trap because it would allow
8...Nd3 mate; even after the exchange 8.Nxe5 Nxe5, the threat of ...Nd3 mate remains
and indirectly defends the Bb4 from capture.
A rare variant has also occurred in a miniature in the Fajarowicz variation, after the
moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4 4.Qc2 Bb4+ 5.Nd2 d5 6.exd6 Bf5 7.Qa4+ Nc6 8.a3
Nc5 9.dxc7 Qe7! when White, trying to save his queen, fell into 10.Qd1 Nd3 mate. [51]
Adler variation 3...Ng4 4.Nf3
The Adler variation is named after the game Adler–Maróczy, played at the 1896 Budapest
tournament.[52][53] White is ready to return the e5-pawn in order to develop his pieces on their best
squares, i.e. the d5-square for the Nb1, the f3-square for the Ng1 and the a1–h8 diagonal for the
Bc1.
Black can try the minor line 4...Nc6 that delays the development of its dark-square bishop, to
develop it along the a1–h8 diagonal instead of the a3–f8 diagonal, depending on the circumstances.
But the main line is 4...Bc5 to attack the f2-pawn, forcing 5.e3, blocking in White's bishop on c1, so
that after 5...Nc6 White will not have enough pieces to protect his e5-pawn in the long run. Placing
the bishop on the c5-square also has subtler points, as Tseitlin explains:[54]
At first sight the bishop on c5 lacks prospects, being held at bay by the pawn on e3, and is insecure
in view of the threat to exchange it by Nc3–a4/e4. In reality, posting the bishop here has a deep
strategic significance. It holds up the advance of the e- and the f-pawns (assuming the white bishop
will go to b2), and thereby secures e5 as a future knight outpost, which in turn restricts the activity of
both White's bishops. As to the exchanging threat, the bishop may conveniently retreat on a7 or f8,
or even in some cases remain on c5 with support from a pawn on b6.
An important theoretical decision for White is to choose whether to play a2–a3. While this move
protects the b4 square and threatens the pawn advance b2–b4, it encourages Black's rook lift Ra8–
a6–h6. As Lalic puts it:
It was not so long ago that 8.a3, with the obvious intention of expanding with b2–b4, was the
standard move. However, after Black responds with the logical a7–a5, it became apparent in
tournament practice that the inclusion of these moves is in fact in Black's favour, as it gives his
queen's rook access into play via the a6-square.
Sideline 4...g5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 g5
The sideline 4...g5!? was not well regarded at the end of the 20th century. [notes 3] It
weakens several squares—particularly f5 and h5—as they cannot be covered by the g-
pawn any more. White can try to exploit these weaknesses with the manoeuvres Bf4–
d2–c3 (pressure along the diagonal a1–h8), Ng1–e2–g3–h5 (pressure against the
squares f6 and g7) and h2–h4 (to open the h-file). Nonetheless, the 4...g5 line has
found new supporters in recent years thanks to black wins against both 5.Bg3 and
5.Bd2.[70][71]
For years, the reaction 5.Bg3 was not well considered, because the retreat does not
make the most out of Black's provocative fourth move; as Tseitlin points out, "the bishop
is in danger of staying out of play for a long time".[72] But later Lalic found that 5.Bg3 was
"just as effective" as 5.Bd2.[73] Black concentrates on capturing the e5-pawn while White
tries to get an advantage from the weakening of the black kingside. After the typical
moves 5...Bg7 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Nc3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 d6 Lalic considers the best try
to be 10.c5!, sacrificing a pawn to weaken Black's control on the e5-square and expose
the black king further. White has also tried to quickly open the h-file with 7.h4 Ngxe5
8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 but after 9...g4! Black succeeds in keeping the file closed.[74]
The alternative to 5.Bg3 is 5.Bd2 to place the bishop on the wide-open diagonal a1–h8,
after which "White can expect a safe advantage".[73] Then according to Lalic, delaying
the recapture with 5...Bg7 6.Bc3 Nc6 7.e3 Ngxe5 is not correct as White can gain an
advantage by 8.h4 or 8.Qh5,[75] so the immediate 5...Nxe5 is better. For some time
6.Bc3 was well considered because Black had problems dealing with various positional
threats, but the correct way for Black was found in 5...Nxe5 6.Bc3 Qe7 7.e3 Rg8! 8.Nf3
Nbc6 9.Be2 d6 10.Nd4 Bd7 11.b4 g4 with good counterplay for Black on the
kingside.[76] White's efforts then switched to 6.Nf3 to open the e-file, something that
Black cannot really avoid, as 6...Bg7 7.Nxe5 Bxe5 8.Bc3 would leave an advantage to
White.[75] For example 8...Qe7 9.Bxe5 Qxe5 10.Nc3 d6 11.e3 and Black is at a loss for
an equalising line,[77] White's advantage consisting in his ability to install his knight on
the strong d5-square and to attack the weakened Black's kingside with the advance h2–
h4. It is better for Black to continue with 6...Nxf3+ 7.exf3 when both 7...h5? and 7...Bg7
would fail to 8.Qe2+, so Black must try 7...d6 8.Qe2+ Be6 instead.[75]
Line 6.Nc3[edit]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3
This is the only important line in the Budapest where Black is not ensured of regaining
his sacrificed pawn. Black does best to immediately exchange the Nc3 with 6...Bxc3+
7.bxc3 as otherwise White gets a small positional advantage simply by avoiding the
doubled pawns (see the section "Advantages of ...Bb4+").[78][79] Then Black can put
pressure on the e5-pawn with 7...Qe7 when White's only possibility to keep the pawn
is 8.Qd5. White threatens to ease the pressure with the move h2–h3 that would force
the Ng4 to the unfavourable square h6, so Black's only possibilities to sustain the
initiative are 8...Qa3 and 8...f6.
The line 8...Qa3 puts pressure on the white queenside pawns, pressure that may later
be intensified with Nf6–e4. The black queen also gains access to the a5-square, from
where it puts pressure on the e1–a5 diagonal aimed towards the white king. After 9.Rc1
f6 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.Qd2 d6 12.Nd4 0-0 we reach the position of the famous game
between Rubinstein and Vidmar, when Rubinstein erred with 13.e3? and later
lost.[80] After the better 13.f3 the correct method for Black is to target the c4-pawn with
the regrouping Ne5/Qc5.[81] Hence Lalic thinks 11.Qd2 is inappropriate and gives Black
excellent counterplay, and prefers 11.Qd3 or even 11.Qd1!? After 11.Qd3 0-0 12.g3 d6
13.Bg2 Black should switch to a materialistic mode with 13...Qxa2. [82]
In the other line 8...f6 Black does not want to decentralise his queen and prefers to
concentrate on active piece play in the centre. After9.exf6 Nxf6, 10.Qd1, 10.Qd2 and
10.Qd3 are all possible, but each has its drawbacks: on d1 the queen is not developed,
on d3 it is exposed to Bc8–f5 and on d2 it is exposed to Nf6–e4. Lalic considers 10.Qd3
to be the main move, qualifies 10.Qd1 as a "respectable option", but considers 10.Qd2
as "inaccurate". Meanwhile, Black will try to create counterplay by attacking either the
weak c4-pawn, or the kingside with g7–g5 and h7–h5. In both cases a key possibility is
the move Nf6–e4 that centralises the knight, attacks the weak c3-pawn, controls the c5-
square and supports the g7–g5 thrust.
Line 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3[edit]
On the way till 10...d6[edit]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3
The Bb4 is attacked but Black can play 7...Ngxe5 to get the gambitted pawn back, as
8.axb4?? would allow the Kieninger trap 8...Nd3 mate (see the section "Kieninger trap").
Now White is more or less forced to exchange a pair of knights with 8.Nxe5 Nxe5.[notes
4] White still cannot win a piece with 9.axb4?? Nd3# or 9.Bxe5?! Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 Qxe5,
so he usually plays 9.e3 in order to protect the c4-pawn and defuse the mating threat,
so that now Black is obliged to move his Bb4. As 9...Bd6 would misplace the bishop and
9...Ba5?? would lose the bishop to 10.b4 Bb6 11.c5, Black usually plays 9...Bxd2+
10.Qxd2.[notes 5]
After 10.Qxd2, Tseitlin explains that "opening manuals assess this position as
favourable to White on the basis of the bishop pair. However, considering the closed
nature of the position, White faces substantial difficulties in the realisation of this
nominal advantage."[83] Black has not a lot of things to be proud of as there are no
targets in White's camp, but can put up a lot of resistance thanks to small assets.
Black's Ne5 is strongly centralised, attacks the c4-pawn, and restricts the Bf1 from
moving to the natural squares d3 and f3. Moreover, exchanging the knight with Bxe5 is
not appealing for White, since that would mean losing the advantage of the bishop pair.
Also, the Bc8 can sometimes become better than its counterpart the Bf1, if it makes it to
the good squares b7 or c6 while the Bf1 remains restricted by the Ne5.
This explains the most natural plans for both sides. White will try a minority attack on
the queenside, in order to increase its space advantage and to create some
weaknesses in the black pawns (e.g. an isolated pawn or a backward pawn). So White
will try to use the advances b2–b4 or c4–c5 in good conditions, supported by the queen
and the rooks on the c-file and the d-file. On the other hand, Black will try to keep the
position closed, most importantly by keeping the c4-pawn where it is in order to keep
the Bf1 at bay. This can be achieved by moves like b7–b6 and d7–d6, and sometimes
the manoeuvre Ne5–d7–f8–e6. The first move by Black has to be 10...d6! because
otherwise White plays 11.c5! and gets a clear advantage immediately. For example
10...b6? loses a pawn to 11.Qd5 Nc6 12.Bxc7, and 10...0-0?! is bad because of 11.c5!
Qxc5? 12.Rc1 Qe7 13.Rxc7 and White is winning already.[47]
International Master Timothy Taylor has suggested an alternative for Black on move 9.
He regards 9...Bxd2+ as inferior, arguing that "the strong black bishop is traded for the
inoffensive knight, and white gets the long-term advantage of the two bishops in a semi-
open game".[84] Taylor instead advocates 9...Bc5, when Black stands well after 10.b4
Bd4! (11.exd4?? Nd3#) 11.Rb1 d6 12.Be2 Bf5 13.Rb3 Ng6 14.Bg3 (14.exd4 Nxf4
15.Re3? Nxg2+ wins; 14.Bxd6 exd6 15.exd4 Nf4 16.g3 Bc2! wins material) Bf6; 10.Ne4
Ng6; 10.Nb3 Bd6; or 10.Be2 d6.[85]
Battle for the push c4–c5[edit]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5
Nxe5 9.e3 Bxd2+ 10.Qxd2 d6
After 10...d6! White can try (and has tried) about any move that supports the
aforementioned plan. In particular, White has to choose if he wants to start active
operations on the queenside immediately (e.g. Rc1, Qc3, c5), or if he wants to finish his
development first (with Be2 and 0-0). The immediate 11.c5!? is a possible pawn
sacrifice in order to open some diagonals for the bishops. As Lalic points out, "after
11...dxc5 Black's knight on e5 has lost its support and therefore all tactical motifs based
on Qd5 and Bb5+ must be carefully checked".[86] White gets a powerful attack for his
pawn but nothing decisive. The same idea can be tried with the preparatory 11.Rc1, and
after 11...0-0 12.c5!? dxc5 13.Qd5 Ng6 14.Bg3 White should be reminded that he has
not finished his development with 14...Qf6! and a counter-attack on the b2-
pawn.[87][88] Playing Black, Svidler chose a different path with 11...b6 but his
opponent Lesiègenevertheless sacrificed the pawn with 12.c5! bxc5 13.b4 0-0 14.bxc5
Bb7 15.f3 and Svilder chose to destroy his own pawn structure with 15...dxc5!? to
activate his pieces and make use of the d-file.[89] The most popular move is 11.Be2,
where White delays his queenside play until he has achieved castling. [90] It also gives
Black more time to organise a defence on the queenside with b7–b6, either now or after
11...0-0.
Line 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.e3
In this variation White tries to avoid the move a2–a3 in order to gain a tempo over the
7.a3 variation. After the standard moves 7...Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Be2 followed by
10.0-0 it is Black's last chance to exchange the Bb4 for the Nd2. The game will take an
entirely different structure depending on whether Black gives up the bishop pair or tries
to keep it.
Lalic thinks the strategies in which Black gives up the bishop pair (by exchanging its
Bb4 for the Nd2) for nothing are a mistake. He does not like the strategy to retreat the
Bb4 in d6 either, because they are too drawish. He recommends the strategy to retreat
the bishop in c5, and maintain its position there with the help of the a7–a5 pawn
advance.[91]
Black gives up the bishop pair[edit]
When Black opts for 10...Bxd2, he runs the risk to end up a tempo down over the 7.a3
variation and to be soon unable to meet White's positional threats on the queenside.
White can avoid the push a2–a3 and continue with the standard plans of the 7.a3
variation.[92]However, everything is not that bad for Black. First, to implement his plan
White has to concentrate on development (9.Be2, 10.0-0) before he turns his attention
to the queenside. That means Black has more time to organise his play than in the 7.a3
variation, notably to attempt a blockade of the c5-square. Moreover, as White does not
put immediate pressure on Black's position, Black is not compelled to castle rapidly and
he can keep his king in the centre for a longer time, or even castle queenside. Hence
Lalic note that "White has not wasted time with a2–a3, but in fact it is not so easy to
capitalise on this extra tempo."[93]
A possibility for Black is to develop his light-square bishop rapidly, by prioritising the
moves b7–b6 and Bc8–b7 over castling and d7–d6. The game Solozhenkin–Stiazhkin
(Leningrad 1990) continued with 9...b6 10.0-0 Bxd2 11.Qxd2 Bb7 12.c5 bxc5 13.Qa5 d6
14.Bxe5 dxe5 15.Rfc1 and Moskalenko assesses this position as better for
White;[94] Lalic suggests that 13...Ng6 is an improvement.[95] In the game Gausel–Reite
(Norwegian Team Championship 1991), after the same 9.Be2 b6 10.0-0 Bxd2 11.Qxd2
Bb7 Black introduced a highly original plan by avoiding the natural advance d7–d6, and
instead blocked a white c5-push by playing ...c5 himself. The game continued 12.Qc3 f6
13.b4 c5!? and Lalic was "deeply impressed by this plan, which really spoils all of
White's fun". The c4-pawn is never allowed to advance, so that the Be2 is durably
restricted. The Bf4 is obstructed by the Ne5, that cannot be easily removed. The
weakness of the d7-pawn is not a worry as it can be protected by Bb7–c6 if
necessary.[93]
Black keeps the bishop pair
After 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 Black can avoid the immediate exchange of his Bb4 against the
Nd2 in several ways. The first one, resurrected and elaborated by the
grandmaster Pavel Blatny, is to exchange the Bb4 for the Bf4. This can be achieved via
10...Ng6 11.Bg3 (11.Bxc7?? d6 loses a piece) 11...Bd6 12.Bxd6 Qxd6. White still has
possibilities to play for an advantage due to his more advanced development, his space
advantage on the queenside and the possibility to install his knight on the good square
d5. Taylor considers this Black's best line, stating that Black has not given White the
bishop pair, nor weakened his pawn structure, and should be able to gradually
equalize.[96]
The other possibility for Black is to keep his Bb4 as long as possible, exchanging it
against the white knight only in favourable circumstances. A couple of attempts have
been done with this in mind, with subtle variations along the moves a7–a5, b7–b6 and
d7–d6. Against the mundane 10...d6 White can continue with 11.Nb3 (see diagram at
right) to play on the queenside against the exposed Bb4, or 11.Nb1 to recycle the knight
on the ideal d5-square. Another idea is the immediate 10...a5, to have the d6-square for
the bishop, inhibit the b2–b4 push and have the possible a5–a4 pawn advance if the
white knight moves to b3. In the game Mikhalevski–Chabanon (Bad Endbach
1995)[97] Black kept the bishop with 11.Nb3 a4 12.a3 Bd6 13.Nd4 Bc5 14.Nb5 d6
15.Nc3 Ng6 16.Bg3 f5 and had dynamic play.[98]
Line 5...Nec6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Nec6
The Knight on c6 is safer than on g6, and is well-placed as part of a general strategy to
control the central dark squares. It can go to d4 while the other Knight can go to c5 via
a6 or d7. After 6.Nf3 Bc5 White has difficulties castling short, because the plan to
exchange the dark-squared bishops with Bd3/Qe2/Be3 can be met by Bg4/Nd4 to
muddy the waters.[109] As Lalic points out:[110]
White can no longer castle kingside and will usually have to go the other way. However,
this is rather slow and gives Black time to try to undermine the white centre. To this end
Bc8–g4 often comes in handy, in order to pin the white knight on f3 against the white
queen. Note that Black should wait until his opponent has wasted a tempo with Qe2.
The main continuation 6.Be3 controls the a7–g1 diagonal and is considered to be the
best reply.[111] If Black wants to contest the c5-square for his Bf8 he can try
6...Na6,[112] but most games continue with 6...Bb4+. Here the best reply for White is
controversial.[notes 7]
After 7.Nc3 Black has the zwischenzug 7...Qh4+ 8.g3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qe7 so that the
diagonal a8–h1 is weakened before Black develops the Bc8 to the b7-square. The
queen on the e7-square is well placed to pressure the e4-pawn. However, as most of
Black's pieces are on the queenside, continuing with pawn pushes like f7–f5 is probably
too weakening, as Alekhine demonstrated in his game against Seitz in 1925. [113] So
Black does best to attack with pieces, possibly with the setup b6/Nc5/Bb7/0-0-0.[114] In
that case Tseitlin considers that with a knight on c5 the move d7–d6 should be avoided
if Black has to respond to the capture Bxc5 by dxc5, because the white pawns in e4 and
f4 would have too much leeway.[115]
After 7.Nd2 Qe7 8.a3 Lalic considers 8...Qxe4 should be avoided, e.g. the continuation
9.Kf2 Bxd2 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.Nf3 d6 12.Re1 gives White several tempi against the black
queen.[116] After the better 8...Bc5 9.Bxc5 Qxc5 10.Qf3 Lalic recommends
10...a5.[117] The introduction of the intermediate 7...Qh4+ 8.g3 Qe7 does not change
Lalic's opinion, as after 9.Bg2 Na6 10.a3 Bc5 11.Bxc5 Nxc5 12.b4 Ne6 the bishop was
well placed on g2 and Black experienced difficulties developing the Bc8. [118] But Lalic
does not mention the game Pomar–Heidenfeld cited by Borik, in which Black played the
advance a7–a5 to restrict the white advance b2–b4, and achieved equality after 9.Bg2
a5 10.Ne2 Na6.[119]Instead, he recommends 7...d6 8.Nf3 0-0 9.Bd3 and now the same
development as in Pomar's game:[120]
9...a5 and 10...Na6 deserves attention, when White's movements on the queenside are
more restricted and the black knight will be able to settle on the c5-square without being
kicked by the thematic b2–b4. It may appear that we have reached the same position
elaborated in previous games a tempo down for Black, since he has committed his
bishop to b4 and will later drop back to the c5-square instead of heading there at once.
However, the white knight is less actively placed on d2 and in fact this fully
compensates Black for the slight loss of time.
Line 5...Ng6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 Nxe5 5.f4 Ng6
The Knight on g6 puts the f4-pawn under pressure, but may be embarrassed later by
the pawn thrust f4–f5. Now 6.a3, an attempt to deny squares from the Bf8 by continuing
with b2–b4 or Bc1–e3, does not achieve its goal after 6...Bc5! 7.b4?! Bxg1! 8.Rxg1 0-0!
9.Qf3 d6 10.g4 a5 11.b5 Nd7 12.Ra2 Nc5 when Black's superior pawn structure and
well-positioned Nc5 gives him the advantage.[121] That leaves White with the choice
between 6.Nf3 and 6.Be3.
The move 6.Nf3 controls the e5-square in order to prepare the push f4–f5. Unlike after
5...Nec6, White does not have to fear 6...Bc5?!, which encounters difficulties after 7.f5!
Nh4 8.Ng5!, when the black knight is already in danger of being lost to Qd1–g4 or Qd1–
h5.[122]Instead Black must react quickly with 6...Bb4+ 7.Nc3 when he can adopt a
normal setup with d6/0-0/Nc6/b6 or act boldly with 7...Qf6 threatening both the Nc3 and
the f4-pawn.[123] One point in favour of 7...Qf6 is that after 8.e5 Qb6 the black queen
prevents White from castling short and is well placed if White castles long.[124]
The move 6.Be3 takes the a7–g1 diagonal from Black's Bf8 and may in some lines
prepare the long castle. After the mandatory 6...Bb4+ White can opt for 7.Nd2 to avoid
having doubled pawns, but he must be prepared to sacrifice a pawn after 7...Qe7
8.Kf2!? Bxd2 9.Qxd2 Qxe4 10.Bd3 with piece activity for the pawn deficit, [125] because
the normal defence 8.Bd3? runs into 8...Qd6! and both the Bd3 and the f4-pawn are
attacked.[126] White does not need, however, bother too much about the doubled pawns
and after 7.Nc3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 a peaceful black player might choose the quiet 8...b6!?
followed by a normal development with d6/0-0/Bb7/Nd7/Re8/Nc5.[107] Instead of 8...b6 a
more adventurous black player could choose 8...Qe7 9.Bd3 f5!? as indicated by Borik,
Tseitlin and Lalic,[107][127][128] but in his more recent book Moskalenko thinks "this move
complicates the game too much".[129] If the black player is neither peaceful nor
aggressive, Lalic proposes an alternative with 8...Qe7 9.Bd3 0-0 10.Qd2 and only now
that Black has his king safe shall he unleash 10...f5!?, when "it is not so easy for White
to meet [10...f5] as the two main responses, 11.e5 and 11.exf5, allow Black promising
chances with 11...d6 and 11...Nxf4 respectively".
Other possibilities
Line 3...Ng4 4.e3
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e3
Apart from the main lines 4.Bf4, 4.Nf3 and 4.e4, the only significant other fourth move
is 4.e3 to continue by 4...Nxe5 5.Nh3 (or the other move-order 4.Nh3 and 5.e3) so that
the white knight starts the journey Ng1–h3–f4–d5 reach its ideal d5-square.[143] The idea
with 4.e3 and 5.Nh3 was favorite of a leading Soviet coach and writer Mikhail
Shereshevsky, who wrote in his 1994 book The Soviet Chess Conveyor that the line
was first shown to him by a strong correspondence player Donatas Lapienis.[144] Black
has tried to prevent White's idea by the suitably strange-looking move 5...Ng6, taking
the f4-square from the Nh3. Then White can develop along various setups, the most
active being 6.Qh5 with the possibility Nh3–g5 in store to recycle the knight towards a
more central position.[145] Black can also ignore White's intentions and concentrate on
his own play by placing the Nb8 on c5, in order to put pressure on the d3-square. After
5...g6 6.Nf4 Bg7 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0 d6 9.Nc3 Nbd7 10.Qd2 a5 11.b3 Nc5 the position of
Black's knights is secured and Black's position is similar to the Leningrad variation of
the Dutch Defence (once he has played f7–f5).[146] White has no reason, however, to
abandon the a1–h8 diagonal to Black, and he can try 5...g6 6.Bd2 d6 7.Nf4 Bg7 8.Bc3
0-0 9.Be2 Nbd7 10.Nd2 b6 and in one game White gained a minimal edge. [147]
Other fourth moves after 3...Ng4
A few other lines have been tried, with the outcome varying from an immediate equality
to a clear advantage for Black. The cooling 4.e6avoids complications and heads for an
equal endgame with 4...dxe6 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8, Black's loss of the right to castle being of
no great importance since queens have been traded. If Black wants to avoid this early
endgame, he can try 4...Bb4+ 5.Nc3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 dxe6 and now the exchange of
queens would give a plus to Black, as the white queenside pawns are isolated and
doubled.[148] The greedy4.f4 is weak because White neglects his development and
weakens the a7–g1 diagonal.[149][150][151][152] Black can immediately exploit this with
4...Bc5, which threatens a fork on f2 and forbids White's castling; Black may later push
d7–d6 to open the centre, e.g. 5.Nh3 0-0 6.Nc3 d6 7.exd6 cxd6 when Black has good
squares for its pieces while White's castling is delayed.
Another reasonable-looking move is 4.Qd4 as it protects the e5-pawn and attacks the
Ng4. However, "the problem for White in the Budapest is that natural moves often lead
to disaster".[153] Best for Black is the gambit 4...d6 5.exd6 Nc6! 6.Qd1 Bxd6, when the
natural 7.Nf3?? is an error because of 7...Nxf2! 8.Kxf2 Bg3+ winning the
queen.[154] White must develop quietly with moves like Nc3/Nf3/e3/Be2, allowing Black
to find active positions for his pieces with 0-0/Be6/Qe7/Rfd8, and preparing several
sacrificial ideas on e3 or f2, with excellent attacking possibilities.[155] Similar to 4.Qd4
is 4.Qd5 when after 4...Nc6 White can seize the last opportunity to return to calm waters
with 5.Bf4 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 which will transpose in the Rubinstein line,[156] or he can try 5.Nf3
d6 6.exd6 Be6 7.d7+ Bxd7 when Black's lead in development compensates for the
pawn.[157]
Declining the gambit[edit]
Declining the gambit is almost never seen in master play because it promises White
equality at best. After 3.d5?! Bc5 White has prematurely blocked the central position,
giving the a7–g1 diagonal to Black for his bishop. In this variation Black can either play
on the queenside with a plan like b5/Nb6/Bd7, or on the kingside with a plan like
Ne8/g6/Ng7/f5.[158] The shy 3.e3?! exd4 4.exd4 transposes into a line of the Exchange
Variation of the French Defence with 4...d5, but Black can also develop rapidly with
4...Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Bxd2+ 6.Nxd2 0-0.[159][160] After 3.e4? Black gains a crushing attack via
3...Nxe4 4.dxe5 Bc5 5.Nh3 d6 6.Qe2 f5 7.exf6 0-0! 8.fxg7 Re8 9.Be3 Bxe3 10.fxe3
Bxh3 11.gxh3 Qh4+.[161][162] After 3.Bg5?! the game Ladmann–
Tartakower (Scarborough 1929) continued with 3...exd4 4.Qxd4 Be7 5.Nf3 Nc6
6.Qd1 Ne4 7.Bxe7 Qxe7 8.a3 d6 9.e3 0-0 10.Be2 Qf6 11.Nbd2 Bf5 when both Tseitlin
and Borik assess the position as favourable for Black.[159][163] After 3.Nf3?! the game
Menchik–Tartakower (Paris 1929)[164] continued with 3...e4 4.Nfd2 d5 5.cxd5?! Qxd5
6.e3 Bb4 7.Nc3 Bxc3 8.bxc3 0-0 and White has problems developing his kingside
because of the potential weakness of g2.[163]
Illustrative games[edit]
Wu Shaobin–Nadanian, Singapore 2006[edit]
The following game was played between the Chinese GM Wu Shaobin (White) and Armenian
IM Ashot Nadanian (Black) at Singapore 2006
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 Ncxe5 7.Nxe5 Nxe5 8.0-0 0-0
9.b3 Re8 10.Bb2 a5 Preparing Dolfi Drimer's rook manoeuvre Ra8–a6–h6. Nadanian
calls the pawn advance a7–a5 "the soul of the Budapest Gambit".[165] 11.Nc3 Ra6
12.Ne4 Ba7 13.Ng3 Qh4 14.Nf5 Qg5!?This was a new move, before 14...Qe4 had
been played. 15.Nd4 Rg6 16.g3 d5?! 18...Qh6 was stronger. 17.cxd5? White should
have played 17.Nb5! 17...Bh3! 18.Re1 Ng4 19.Nf3 Qxe3! Karolyi writes, "This shows
Kasparov-like aggression and ingenuity." 20.Bd4 Qxf2+!! 21.Bxf2 Bxf2+ 22.Kh1 Bb6
23.Qb1? White should have defended with 23.Rf1! After 23...Ne3 24.Qd3 Bg2+ 25.Kg1
Bh3 White can either repeat moves with 26.Kh1, or try 26.Nd4. 23...Nf2+ 24.Kg1
Rf6! Black has time to increase the pressure. 25.b4! If 25.Qc2?, then 25...Ng4+ 26.Kh1
Bg2+! winning the queen. 25...a4!But not 25...Rxf3? 26.bxa5. 26.Ng5 Black can now
force mate in 8 moves. 26...Ng4+! 27.Kh1 Bg2+!!"This is a marvellous move, and it
must have been such a thrill to play it on the board." (Karolyi).28.Kxg2 Rf2+ 29.Kh3
Rxh2+ 30.Kxg4 h5+ 31.Kf4 Be3+ 0–1[166]
Budapest Gambit
The Budapest Gambit is one of the least common gambits but still offers black a lot of
interesting play. In the main line for example, white can easily fall into a trap that ends in
checkmate very early in the game.
In the second move, black looks to give up his pawn on e5 but then starts to develop of
his pieces to add pressure on the e5 pawn. White will be unable to hold onto the extra
pawn and therefore many times will just give back the pawn and continue to develop
pieces and not worry about the pawn advantage.
In most gambits, the side giving up material will dictate how the game continues, in the
budapest gambit it is usually white that decides how the game will continue. In the main
line it is white that can decide whether to stay up in material and have doubled pawns or
to give back the pawn and have a double bishop pair. This is not to say it is still not
playable for black, but white does have more options in the budapest than in other
gambits.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Nc65. Bf4 Bb4+ 6. Nbd2 Qe7 7. a3 Ngxe58. ax
b4?? Nd3#!
The Budapest gambit's appeal to top GMs can be explained by the next story. GM Milan
Vidmar was supposed to play Black against legendary Akiba Rubinstein in the first round of
a big international tournament. He was at a loss what to play against the "great Akiba", who
was feared for his dry, positional style of play. To beat Rubinstein with the Black pieces was
almost an impossible task. Vidmar asked his friend Istvan Abonyi for advice. Abonyi, the
developer of the Budapest Gambit, showed his invention and recommended to give it a
try. The next day Vidmar managed to beat Rubinstein in less than 25 moves!! He was so
inspired by this win, that he went on to win the whole tournament, and so the official life of
the Budapest Gambit started. Here is the game:
The Budapest Gambit has many tricky variations and traps, so if you decide to include it
in your opening repertoire, you need to do some research. Today I want to show one
venomous idea which is very dangerous even when your opponent knows what to
do. But against the players who never saw it before, this line scores close to 100%! I
am talking about the tricky line in the main variation of the Budapest gambit, where
Black plays a7-a5 and then lifts his Rook to a6 and then to h6. Coupled with a potential
Qh4 move Black attacks becomes very dangerous. See how then young Vladimir
Kramnik annihilated his opponent:.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Bc55. e3 Nc6 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Be2 Ngxe5 8. O-
ONxf3+ 9. Bxf3 Ne5 10. Be2 Re8 11. b3 a5!12. Bb2 Ra6!and the Rook is ready to join
the
attack! 13. Qd5 Ba7 14. Ne4 Rae6 15. Ng3 d616. Qxa5 Bb6 17. Qc3 Rh6 18. Rfd1 Qh
419. Nf1 Rg6 20. b4 Bg4 21. Bxg4 Rxg4 22. c5Nf3+ 23. Kh1 Qxf2 24. Ng3 Nxh2 25.
Qe1Nf3!!due to the Rh4 checkmate threat White resigned!
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. Nc3 Bc5 6. e3 Ngxe5 7. Be2 O-O 8. O-O
a5 9. b3 Nxf3+ 10. Bxf3 Ne5 11. Be4 Ra6 12. g3 Rh6 13. Na4 Ba7 14. Bg2 d6 15. Qe2
Re8 16. f3 Qg5 17. Nc3 Qh5 18. Bh1 Nxc4!!White resigned here due to the next forced
line: 19. bxc4 Rxe3!! 20. Bxe3 Bxe3+ 21. Rf2 Qxh2+ 22. Kf1 Qxh1#
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. e3 Nc6 6. Be2 Ngxe5 7. Nxe5 Nxe5 8. O-
O O-O 9. Nc3 Re8 10. b3 a5 11. Bb2 Ra6 12. Qd5 Ba7 13. Rad1 Rg6 14. Kh1 c6 15.
Qd2 Qh4 16. f4 Rh6! 17. h3 Qg3! 18. Qe1
(18. fxe5? Rxh3+! 19. gxh3 Qxh3+ 20. Kg1 Bxe3+wins)
18... Rxh3+!! 19. gxh3 Qxh3+ 20. Kg1 Re6!with a deadly threat of Rg6 21. Bh5 Qxh5
22. fxe5 Rg6+ 23. Kf2 Qh2+ 24. Kf3 Qg2+ 25. Kf4 Qg4#
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3 Bc5 5. e3 Nc6 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Be2 Ncxe5 8. O-O
Nxf3+ 9. Bxf3 Ne5 10. Be2 Re8 11. a3 a5 12. b3 Ra6 13. Bb2 Rh6 14. h3 d6 15. Ne4
Bxh3!! 16. Nxc5
(16. gxh3 Qh4!and Black attack should win quickly)
16... Bxg2!! 17. Bxe5 Qh4! 18. f4 Qg3!checkmate is inevitable, so White resigned
The Budapest Gambit is a very dangerous weapon, so if you like to attack, you can include it
in your opening repertoire, or at least give it a try in one of your games and see if your
opponent can withstand the assault.
BUDAPEST DEFENCE
A52 Sub-variants:
Budapest defence
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4
Budapest, Adler variation
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Nf3
Budapest, Rubinstein variation
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. Bf4
Budapest, Alekhine variation
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. e4
Budapest, Alekhine, Abonyi variation
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. e4 Nxe5 5. f4 Nec6
Budapest, Alekhine variation, Balogh gambit
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. e4 d6
Budapest Gambit
Chess Opening Surprise for Black versus d4 c4 Setup
The Budapest Gambit (Budapest Defense) is not often played among chess
grandmasters. It is more or less a surprise weapon on lower levels of chess.
White can return the pawn and usually keeps a small advantage without risks.
This opening can lead to sharp tactical games.
Bogo-Indian Defence
The Bogo-Indian Defence is a chess opening characterised by the moves:
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nf3 Bb4+
The position arising after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 is common. The traditional move for White here is 3.Nc3,
threatening to set up a big pawn centre with 4.e4. However, 3.Nf3 is often played instead as a way
of avoiding the Nimzo-Indian Defence (which would follow after 3.Nc3 Bb4). After 3.Nf3, Black
usually plays 3...b6 (the Queen's Indian Defence) or 3...d5 (leading to the Queen's Gambit
Declined), but can instead play 3...Bb4+, the Bogo-Indian, named after Efim Bogoljubov. This
opening is not as popular as the Queen's Indian, but is seen occasionally at all levels.
Variations[edit]
White has three viable moves to meet the check. 4.Nc3 is a transposition to the
Kasparov Variation of the Nimzo-Indian, therefore the main independent variations are
4.Bd2 and 4.Nbd2.
4.Bd2[edit]
4.Bd2 is the most common line, the bishop on b4 is now threatened and Black needs to
decide what to do about it.
The simplest is to trade off the bishop by means of 4...Bxd2+; this line is not
particularly popular, but has been played frequently by the Swedish grandmaster Ulf
Andersson, often as a drawing line.[1]
4...Qe7 This is called Nimzovich variation, defending the bishop, and deferring the
decision of what to do until later is the most common. 5. g3 Nc6 and the Nimzovich
variation main line continues 6. Nc3 Bxc3 7. Bxc3 Ne4 8. Rc1 0-0 9. Bg2 d6 10. d5
Nd8 11. dxe6 Nxe6 and the position is equal. Another alternative is 6. Bg2 Bxd2+ 7.
Nbxd2 d6 8. 0-0 a5 9. e4 e5 10. d5 Nb8 11. Ne1 0-0 12. Nd3 Na6 and the position is
equal.
David Bronstein tried the sharper alternative 4...a5 grabbing space on the queenside
at the cost of structural weaknesses.
A more modern line is 4...c5, after 5.Bxb4 cxb4, Black's pawns are doubled, and a
pawn has been pulled away from the centre, but the b4 pawn can also be annoying
for White since it takes the c3-square away from the knight. In fact, one of White's
major alternatives is 6.a3, trading off this pawn at once.
Simply retreating the bishop by means of 4...Be7 is also possible; Black benefits
from losing a tempo since White's dark-square bishop is misplaced at d2. The line is
somewhat passive, but solid.
4.Nbd2[edit]
4.Nbd2 is an alternative aiming to acquire the bishop for the knight or forcing Black's
bishop to retreat. The downside is that the knight is developed to a square where it
blocks the bishop, and d2 is a less active square than c3. The line is described in
the Gambit Guide as "ambitious". Black's most common replies are 4...b6, 4...0-0, and
4...d5.
Monticelli Trap[edit]
This opening gives rise to the Monticelli Trap.
This idea was employed extensively by Ulf Andersson in the late 80's. He even managed to
hold his own against some of the chess greats like Karpov, Spassky etc. Black's idea in this
opening is simple: exchange the dark-squared bishop and then just keep playing like the
Queen's Indian Defence. It is basically a mixture of both Bogo Indian and Queen's Indian.
Jobava Baadur in his game against Sasikiran employed this opening and even came close to
snatching a full point.
White really never got any chance in this game. It was black who actually had some chances
when white took on unnecessary risk. Our next game is between Topalov and Carlsen,
Nanjing 2010. Topalov had some edge after the opening, but soon misplayed his position
and lost his way.
Topalov, V. (2803) vs. Carlsen, M. (2826)
3rd Pearl Spring | Nanjing CHN | Round 9 | 29 Oct 2010 | ECO: E00 | 0-1
Black could have equalized pretty easily with 20...Rc8 and only after 20...cxd4 white got
some chances to fight for an advantage. Topalov was not in his best form and soon he lost
all his advantage and managed to lose in the end. Basically black's system is pretty solid and
his ideas are simple. He just needs to simplify the position after the central break c6-c5 and
keep waiting for the opponent to commit any errors or sign the truce. Hence, for the time
being this idea is working very well for black and it is white's turn to find a new idea against
this super solid system.
E11: Bogo-Indian defence
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+
The Bogo Indian Defence is a good chess defense for Black versus d4, c4, Nf3 setup.
Just observe if White develops his kingside knight to f3, then you can play this opening
line.
The chess variations of the Bogo Indian Defence are solid but also dynamic enough to
give winning opportunities.
1.d4 Nf6
2.c4 e6
3.Nf3 Bb4+
Hint: If White plays 3.Nf3 instead of 3.Nc3 you can play the Bogo Indian Defence.
This is the common position. White has not played the usual 3.Nc3 to control e4 and
planning to play 4.e4 as this would enable Black to play the Nimzo-Indian defense
3...Bb4. 3.Nf3 is sometimes played instead to avoid the Nimzo Indian.
Now after 3.Nf3, Black usually plays 3...b6 which is the Queen's Indian Defence or
3...d5 which leads to the Queen's Gambit Declined.
However Black can play 3...Bb4+ now, which is called the Bogo Indiannamed after
Efim Bogoljubov. This variation is not so popular but is played on all levels of chess.
4.Bd2
4. Bd2 is the most popular line and Black has to decide what to do. Trade off the bishop
by 4...Bxd2+ which is not popular or play the popular 4...Qe7 which defends the bishop.
A sharper alternative is 4...a5 which grabs some space on the queenside but creates
some structural weaknesses.
The modern line is 4...c5 and after 5.Bxb4 cxb4, Black's pawns are doubled and the c-
pawn has been pulled away from the centre but the b4 pawn controls the c3-square and
hinders the development of the white knight to c3 which is the natural square for it.
Black can also simply retreat the bishop playing 4...Be7 as the loss of tempo is
compensated by the inactive development of the white bishop to d2.
4.Nbd2
4.Nbd2 is an alternative to 4.Bd2 intending to trade off the bishop for the knight or
chasing the Black's bishop away later on. But the knight is not developed to c3 which
would be the natural and active square for the knight. It sits now on d2 where it is
somewhat passively placed and it blocks the bishop on c1. Black's most common
moves now are 4...b6, 4...0-0 or 4...d5.
Key Idea
Exchange your bishop on b4 eventually. After that move your pawns in the center
to black squares! This will bring your bishop on c8 to life and willlimit the activity of
the white enemy bishop on g2 because the white pawns are blocked on white squares.
The English Opening is a flank opening and belongs to the closed chess opening
systems. It is recommended for the experienced positional chess player.
The English starts with 1.c4 which is the fourth popular opening move. The aim is to
control the center square d5. See below
The English is named after the English grandmaster Howard Staunton. He played it
1843 in his match with Saint-Amant and in the first international tournament in London
1851. Howard Staunton researched and developed this opening and played it on a
regular basis.
English is a very flexible opening which can transpose into other openings like Queens-
Gambit, Gruenfeld and Kings-Indian.
With his first move 1.c4 White controls the center square d5. The English chess opening
is solid and has a good reputation. It was played in various world championship
matches by Botvinnik, Bobby Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov. Nowadays it is quite
popular and often played.
If you are a beginner (black colour) answer 1.c4 with 1...e5 and after that I
recommend the following set-up for you, where your pieces are placed on natural
squares. (or play the bishop to c5 in similar situations, if possible.)
Black Repertoire: 1. c4 e5
Dear reader,
I'm pleased to present you today a complete repertoire after 1. c4. I've
chosen e5 as an answer by process of elimination. And my conclusion is that
the reversed sicilian is maybe black's soundest and most logical answer to 1.
c4
Black contests the center in a classical way and seeks strong and powerful
central play. It looks like it's a sicilian defence with one tempo less, but
some particularities that it does not lead to a big advantage for white as we
might suppose. Why? Because black has more information. It is a very
important feature in reversed openings.
They were amazing match-ups featuring this openings and it gives chances
for black to win, which is rare against the English Opening.
I will use as main reference 'Gambit Guide to the English Opening with ...e5'
May this repertoire serve you well in your own games,
LibertyJack
After <1. c4 e5>, white has a few choices which leads to different kinds of
position. Pawn structure is an extremly important aspect of the position
II) The Reversed Sicilian Four Knights <1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6>
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. e3 Bb4 5. Qc2 O-O 6. d3 Re8 7. Bd2 Bc3 8. Bc3 d5 9.
cd5 Nd5 10. Be2 Qd6 11. O-O Ncb4 12. Qb1 Bf5 13. Rd1 Rad8 14. Be1 Nb6 15. a3
N4d5 16. b4 h6 17. Qa2 Be6 18. Qc2 Bd7 19. Rdc1 Ba4 20. Qc5 c6 21. Qa5 Bb5 22.
Rc5 Na4 23. Rb5 cb5 24. d4 a6 25. de5 Qb8 26. Nd4 Qe5 27. Bf3 Nc7 28. Bb7 Rd4 29.
Rc1 Rd7 30. Bc6 Qb2
1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. g3 Bb4 4. Bg2 O-O 5. e4 Bc3 6. bc3 c6 7. Qb3 Na6 8. Ba3 Re8
9. Ne2 d6 10. O-O Nc5 11. Qc2 Qa5 12. Bb4 Qa6 13. d3 Nce4 14. de4 c5 15. Qb2 cb4
16. cb4 Qc4 17. Rfd1 Qa6 18. Rd2 Be6 19. Rad1 Rac8 20. h3 h5 21. Kh2 Rc7 22. a3
Rec8 23. Rd6 Rc2 24. Qc2 Rc2 25. Ra6 ba6 26. Re1 Ra2 27. Nc3 Ra3 28. Nd5 a5 29.
ba5 Ra5 30. Nf6 gf6 31. Bf3 Ra2 32. Kg2 a5 33. Bh5 a4 34. Bg4 Bb3 35. Bd1 Be6 36.
Bg4 Bc4 37. Rc1 Bd3 38. Kf3 Bc2 39. Bd7 Ra3 40. Kg4 Be4 41. Rc4 Bf3 42. Kf5 Kg7
43. Ra4 Rd3 44. Bb5 Rd2 45. Bc4 Bd1 46. Ra2 Bc2
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 Bb4 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nf3 Re8 6. O-O e4 7. Nd4 Nc6 8. Nc2 Bc3
9. dc3 Ne5 10. b3 d6 11. Bg5 Ned7 12. Qd4 h6 13. Bf6 Nf6 14. Ne3 Qe7 15. Rae1 Bd7
16. f4 ef3 17. ef3 Bc6 18. Nc2 Qd7 19. Nb4 Re7 20. Qf2 Re1 21. Re1 a5 22. Nc6 bc6
23. c5 dc5 24. f4 a4 25. Qc5 ab3 26. ab3 Qd2 27. Qe3 Qb2 28. h3 Ra2 29. Qf3 c5 30.
g4 g6 31. c4 Kg7 32. Rd1 Qc2 33. Re1 Rb2 34. Re3 h5 35. g5 Nh7 36. Rc3 Qb1 37.
Bf1 Nf8 38. Qe3 Ne6 39. h4 Qd1 40. Qe5 Kh7 41. f5 Rb1
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 Bb4 4. Bg2 O-O 5. d3 Nc6 6. Bd2 Re8 7. e4 Nd4 8. a3 Bc5 9.
b4 Bf8 10. Nge2 Ne2 11. Ne2 c6 12. O-O d5 13. ed5 cd5 14. Bg5 Be6 15. cd5 Bd5 16.
Bf6 gf6 17. Bd5 Qd5 18. Nc3 Qe6 19. Qf3 Rad8 20. Rfd1 b6 21. g4 Bh6 22. Qf5 Rd4
23. Ne4 Qf5 24. gf5 Red8 25. Kf1 Rd3 26. Ke2 R3d4 27. Rd4 Rd4 28. f3 Bf4 29. Rg1
Kf8 30. h3 b5 31. Rd1 Rd1 32. Kd1 Kg7 33. Nc3 a6 34. Ne4 Be3 35. Kc2 Bd4 36. Nd6
Kh6 37. Ne4 Kh5 38. Nf6 Kg5 39. Nh7 Kf5 40. h4 Be3 41. Nf8
1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. g3 Bb4 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nf3 Re8 6. O-O c6 7. Qb3 Na6 8. d3 Bc3
9. Qc3 d5 10. cd5 Nd5 11. Qc2 Bg4 12. h3 Bf3 13. Bf3 Nac7 14. a3 Ne6 15. e3 f5 16.
Bg2 f4 17. Qc4 Kh8 18. Re1 Nb6 19. Qc2 fg3 20. fg3 Qd6 21. Rd1 Rad8 22. Kh2 Rf8
23. b4 Ng5 24. Qe2 e4 25. Qg4 Nf3 26. Bf3 Rf3 27. Ra2 Nc4 28. Rg2 Qd5 29. dc4 Qd1
30. Bb2 Rf7 31. Qe4 Rf1 32. g4 Rh1 33. Kg3 Qe1 34. Kf4 Qh4 35. Qe5 Rf1 36. Ke4
Qh6 37. Qh5 Qe6 38. Be5 Qc4 39. Bd4 Qe6 40. Be5 Qd5
1. c4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O e4 7. Ng5 Bc3 8. bc3 Re8
9. f3 ef3 10. Nf3 d5 11. cd5 Nd5 12. c4 Nb6 13. d3 Bg4 14. Rb1 Qe7 15. e3 Rad8 16.
Qb3 h6 17. Rb2 Qd7 18. c5 Nd5 19. d4 b6 20. cb6 ab6 21. Re2 Na5 22. Qc2 Nb4 23.
Qb1 c5 24. h3 Bh3 25. Ne5 Re5 26. de5 Bg2 27. Rg2 Nc4 28. a3 Nd3 29. Qb3 Nde5
30. Bb2 Qd3 31. Qd3 Rd3 32. Be5 Ne5 33. Rb1 Ra3 34. Rb6 Re3 35. Rb8 Kh7 36. Kf2
Ra3 37. Re8 f6 38. Rg1 c4 39. Ke2 h5 40. Kf2 g5 41. Rb1 Kg6 42. Rb6 Kf5
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O e4 7. Ng5 Bc3 8. bc3 Re8
9. f3 e3 10. d3 d5 11. Qb3 Na5 12. Qa3 c6 13. cd5 cd5 14. f4 Nc6 15. Rb1 Qc7 16. Bb2
Bg4 17. c4 dc4 18. Bf6 gf6 19. Ne4 Kg7 20. dc4 Rad8 21. Rb3 Nd4 22. Re3 Qc4 23.
Kh1 Nf5 24. Rd3 Be2 25. Rd8 Rd8 26. Re1 Re8 27. Qa5 b5 28. Nd2 Qd3 29. Nb3 Bf3
30. Bf3 Qf3 31. Kg1 Re1 32. Qe1 Ne3
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. e3 Bb4 5. Qc2 O-O 6. b3 Bc3 7. Qc3 Re8 8. d3 d5 9.
cd5 Qd5 10. Be2 e4 11. de4 Ne4 12. Qc4 Qf5 13. O-O Be6 14. Qc2 Bd5 15. b4 Qe6 16.
Bb2 a6 17. Nd4 Nd4 18. Bd4 c6 19. Bd3 h6 20. Be4 Be4 21. Qc3 Bg2 22. Kg2 Qg4 23.
Kh1 Qf3 24. Kg1 Re4 25. Be5 h5 26. Rfe1 Rd8 27. Bg3 h4 28. Qc2 h3 29. Kf1 Rc4 30.
Qb2 Rg4
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d3 g6 5. g3 Bg7 6. Bg2 O-O 7. O-O Re8 8. Bg5 h6 9.
Bf6 Qf6 10. Rb1 a5 11. a3 Qd8 12. b4 ab4 13. ab4 Ne7 14. Nd2 d6 15. Qb3 c6 16. b5
Be6 17. Rfc1 f5 18. bc6 bc6 19. Qc2 Qc7 20. Rb3 Reb8 21. Rcb1 Rb3 22. Qb3 Ra7 23.
h4 Bf6 24. Qb8 Qb8 25. Rb8 Kf7 26. Rb6 e4 27. Ncb1 ed3 28. ed3 Bd4 29. Rb8 Ra2
30. Kf1 d5 31. cd5 Nd5 32. Bf3 c5 33. Be2 Nb4 34. Rb7 Kf6 35. Rb6 Rb2 36. g4 Ke7
37. Rb7 Kd8 38. gf5 gf5 39. Rh7 Ba2 40. Rh6 Bb1
English Opening
The English Opening is a chess opening that begins with the move:
1. c4
A flank opening, it is the fourth most popular[1][2] and, according to various databases,
anywhere from one of the two most successful[1] to the fourth most successful[3] of
White's twenty possible first moves. White begins the fight for the centre by staking a
claim to the d5 square from the wing, in hypermodern style. Although many lines of the
English have a distinct character, the opening is often used as a transpositional device
in much the same way as 1.Nf3 – to avoid such highly regarded responses to 1.d4 as
theNimzo-Indian and Grünfeld defences, and is considered reliable and flexible.[4]
The English derives its name from the English (unofficial) world champion, Howard
Staunton, who played it during his 1843 match withSaint-Amant and at London 1851,
the first international tournament.[5] It did not inspire Staunton's contemporaries, and
only caught on in the twentieth century.[5] It is now recognised as a solid opening that
may be used to reach both classical and hypermodern positions. Mikhail
Botvinnik, Tigran Petrosian, Anatoly Karpov, Garry Kasparov and Magnus
Carlsen employed it during their world championship matches. Bobby Fischer created a
stir when he switched to it from his customary 1.e4 late in his career, employing it
against Lev Polugaevsky and Oscar Panno at the Palma de Mallorca Interzonal in 1970,
and in his world championship match againstBoris Spassky.
Taxonomy[edit]
Opening theoreticians who write on the English Opening break the opening down into
three broad categories, generally determined by Black's choice of defensive setups.
Symmetrical Defense: 1...c5 [edit]
The Symmetrical Defense (classified A30–39 in ECO), which is 1...c5, and is so named
because both of the c-pawns are advanced two squares, maintaining symmetry. Note
that Black can reach the Symmetrical Defense through many move orders by deferring
...c5, and often does. For example, 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 (or 2.Nf3) c5 is a Symmetrical
Defense even though Black played ...Nf6 before ...c5.
There are several types of positions that can arise from the Symmetrical Defense.
Among the ideas are:[6]
The Hedgehog system[7] involves a solid but flexible defence where Black develops
by b6, e6, Bb7, and Be7, before controlling the fifth rank with moves such as a6 and
d6. The game typically involves extended maneuvering, but both players need to be
on the lookout for favorable pawn advances and pawn breaks.
The double fianchetto defence involves Black developing both bishops by fianchetto
to g7 and b7. The line is fairly solid and difficult to defeat at the grandmaster level.
Some lines are considered highly drawish, for instance if White's bishops are also
fianchettoed to g2 and b2 there may be many simplifications leading to a simplified
and equal position.
Either player may make an early break in the centre with the d-pawn.
An early d2–d4 for White can arise in 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4. Since this position is
often reached after the transposition 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3, where White avoided
theBenoni Defense that would arise after 3.d5, this line is often called the Anti-
Benoni. The games can give a large variety of positional and tactical ideas. Games
usually continue with 3...cxd4 4.Nxd4 when Black can choose between the sharp
4...e5 or more sedate moves like the Hedgehog-like 4...b6 or the more common
4...e6.
A typical line of play where Black plays an early d5 is 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 d5,
when White usually trades off in the centre 4.cxd5 Nxd5. White can either challenge
the centre with 5.d4 or 5.e4 or allow Black a space advantage in the centre with
5.g3. In the latter case, Black can play 5...Nc6 6.Bg2 Nc7 followed by 7...e5,
reaching a reversed Maróczy Bind position called the Rubinstein System.
Reversed Sicilian: 1...e5 [edit]
The Reversed Sicilian (classified A20–29 in ECO) is another broad category of defence, introduced
by the response 1...e5. Note again, that Black can delay playing ...e5, for example 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3
Nc6 3.Nf3 e5 whereupon even though ...e5 has been delayed, once it is played the defence is
classified as a Reversed Sicilian.
1...e5 White has Black's position in the Sicilian but with an extra tempo. This is often called the
Reversed Sicilian,[8] though others call it the King's English.[9] Bruce Leverett, writing the English
chapter in MCO-14, stated, "It is natural to treat the English as a Sicilian reversed, but the
results are often surprising—main lines in the Sicilian Defense correspond to obscure side
variations in the English, and vice versa."
Other variations[edit]
The third broad category are the non-...e5 and non-...c5 responses, classified A10–19
in ECO. Most often these defences consist of ...Nf6, ...e6, and ...d5 or ...Bb4 systemic
responses by Black, or a Slav-like system consisting of ...c6 and ...d5, a direct King's
Indian Defense setup with ...Nf6, ...g6, ...Bg7, ...0-0, after which ...c5 and ...e5 are
eschewed, or 1...f5, which usually transposes to a Dutch Defense once White plays d4.
All irregular responses such as 1...b6 and 1...g5 are also lumped into this third broad
category.
Common responses include:[1]
1...Nf6
The most common response to 1.c4, often played to arrive at an Indian Defence. However, more
than half the time, Black subsequently elects to transpose into either a Symmetrical Defense with
...c5, or a Reversed Sicilian with ...e5.
1...e6
Can lead to a Queen's Gambit Declined after 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4, but White often prefers 2.Nf3, which
may lead to a variety of openings.
1...f5
Leads to a Dutch Defense when White follows up with d4. Other choices for White are 2.Nc3, 2.Nf3,
and 2.g3, where Black usually plays ...Nf6.
1...g6
May lead to a Modern Defense or after Nf6 and d6 or d5 to the King's Indian Defence or
the Grünfeld Defence, respectively, or stay within English lines. Often dubbed the Great Snake
variation.
1...c6
Can lead to a Slav Defence after 2.d4 d5, but White will often prefer a Caro–Kann Defence with
2.e4 d5, or a Réti Opening after 2.Nf3 d5 3.b3.
1...b6
The English Defence. This setup involves the fianchetto of the queenside bishop and 2...e6. Often
Black will defer the move ....Nf6, choosing to attack the centre with ...f5 and/or ...Qh4. The
English grandmasters Tony Miles and Jonathan Speelman have successfully used this opening.
1...g5
An eccentric response known as Myers' Defense after Hugh Myers' advocacy of it in print and
actual play.[10][11][12] It is intended as an improved Grob's Attack; after 2.d4, Black will put pressure
on the d4 square with moves such as ...Bg7, ...c5, and ...Qb6.[11][13] According to Nunn's Chess
Openings, White obtains a small advantage after 2.d4 Bg7 (offering a Grob-like gambit: 3.Bxg5
c5) 3.Nc3 h6 4.e4.[14] Myers recommended 3...c5 (instead of 3...h6); in response, Joel
Benjamin advocates 4.dxc5! [11]
1...b5
Called the Jaenisch gambit after Carl Jaenisch,[15] and dubbed the Halibut Gambit by Eric Schiller
"because it belongs at the bottom of the sea." Black obtains no compensation for the sacrificed
pawn.[16]
Transposition potential[edit]
If White plays an early d4, the game will usually transpose into either the Queen's
Gambit or an Indian Defence. For example, after 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.d4 d5 the game
has transposed into the Grünfeld Defence, usually reached by the move order 1.d4 Nf6
2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5.
Note, however, that White can also play 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.e4, making it impossible
for Black to reach a Grünfeld, instead more or less forcing him into lines of the King's
Indian Defence with 3...d6. Black also cannot force a Grünfeld with 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5,
since White can deviate with 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.g3, a line played several times by Mikhail
Botvinnik in 1958, in his final match for the world championship with Vasily Smyslov.
Instead of playing an early d4, White can also play Nf3
and fianchetto the king's bishop (g3 and Bg2), transposing into a Réti Opening.
Also, after 1.c4 c6, White can transpose into the Polish Opening, Outflank Variation, by
playing 2.b4!?, which can be used as a surprise weapon if Black does not know very
much about the Polish Opening.[17]
The many different transpositional possibilities available to White make the English a
slippery opening for Black to defend against, and make it necessary for him to consider
carefully what move order to employ. For instance, if Black would like to play a Queen's
Gambit Declined, the most accurate move order to do so is 1...e6 2.d4 d5. (Of course,
White can again play the Reti instead with 2.Nf3 d5 3.b3.) If Black plays instead 1...Nf6
2.Nc3 e6, White can avoid the QGD by playing 3.e4, the Flohr–Mikenas Attack.
ECO[edit]
The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings has classified the English Opening under the codes A10
through A39:
A10 1.c4
A11 1.c4 c6
A12 1.c4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.b3
A13 1.c4 e6
A14 1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.0-0
A15 1.c4 Nf6
A16 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3
A17 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6
A18 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 (Mikenas–Carls Variation)
A19 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.e4 c5
A20 1.c4 e5
A21 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3
A22 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6
A23 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 c6 (Bremen System, Keres Variation)
A24 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 g6 (Bremen System with ...g6)
A25 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6
A26 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.d3 d6
A27 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 (Three Knights System)
A28 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6
A29 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 (Four Knights, Kingside Fianchetto)
A30 1.c4 c5 (Symmetrical Variation)
A31 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 (Symmetrical, Benoni Formation)
A32 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6
A33 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 Nc6
A34 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3
A35 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6
A36 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3
A37 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3
A38 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 Nf6
A39 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.0-0 0-0 7.d4
Depiction in cinema[edit]
The English Opening is used by Professor Moriarty in the film Sherlock Holmes: A
Game of Shadows as he and Holmes discuss their competing plans over a game of
chess. Both Holmes and Moriarty eventually play the final moves blindfolded by citing
out the last moves in descriptive notation (rather than algebraic, as the former was
contemporary in the late 19th century), ending in Holmes checkmating Moriarty, just
as Watson foils Moriarty's plans.
1.c4 is also used in Pawn Sacrifice by Bobby Fischer in the climactic game six of
the 1972 World Chess Championship versus Boris Spassky.
Some books on the English Opening hardly mention 1.c4 d5!? at all. The obvious
positive plus about this line is that if Black already knows a line after 2.d4, then does not
have to learn much that is unique to the English Opening after 1.c4. It is common for
such books to be a summary of how top players handle the opening. Top players rarely
play 1.c4 d5. Chess database game collections are heavily weighted by grandmaster
and master games. Club players make it into databases much less often.
The average rating for players in my large database with millions of games is about
2300. The rating for players as Black in the opening 1.c4 d5 is in the 1900s and occurs
about one out of every 300 games. In my experience as White after 1.c4 I faced 1...d5
once every 20 games; the average player who played 1.c4 d5 vs me was rated in the
1600s. Compare that to the most common move that I have faced from Black after 1.c4
which is 1...Nf6 (over 200 times) where Black was rated on average 2109.
Today's MaryDawson-Sawyer game saw me play my prepared line after 1.c4 d5 2.cxd5
Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6! 4.Nf3 e5. Clearly White has a lead in development, but Black is not
dead. There are good chances for Black to complete his development. For the fun of it,
in the notes I have added a simultaneous exhibition game were the world champion
Emanuel Lasker lost to an unknown opponent in this line 100 years ago.
MaryDawson (1958) - Sawyer (2094), ICC 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 19.03.2011
begins1.c4 d5 2.cxd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.Nf3 e5 5.g3 a6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.d3 Be7 8.0-0 0-
0 9.Bg5 Nc6 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Ne4 Qd8 12.Nxf6+ Qxf6 13.a3 Be6 14.Rc1 Bd5 15.b4
Rac8 16.Qd2 Rfd8 17.Rfd1 Nd4 18.Nxd4 exd4 19.Bh3 Be6 20.Bg2 Bd5 21.f3 Bb3
22.Re1 b5 23.Rc5 c6 24.Qc1 Bd5 25.h4 g6 26.Kh2 Qd6 27.e4 dxe3 28.Rxe3 Re8
29.Qe1 Kf8 30.Rxe8+ Rxe8 31.Qc3 Qe5 32.d4 Qe3 33.Qxe3 Rxe3 34.g4 Rxa3
35.Kg3 Rb3 36.h5 Rxb4 37.hxg6 hxg6 38.f4 Rc4 39.Bxd5 Rxc5 40.dxc5 cxd5 41.Kf3
a5 42.Ke3 a4 43.Kd3 a3 44.Kc2 b4 45.Kb3 Ke7 46.f5 gxf5 47.gxf5 Kd7 48.f6 Kc6
49.Kxb4 a2 50.Kb3 a1Q 51.Kc2 Qa3 52.Kd2 Kxc5 White resigns 0-1
I am terrible against the English Opening (self.chess)
submitted 2 years ago * by wesleycrush3r1800 USCF - Gruenfeld Defense
I feel quite confident against d4 and e4 since I play against them quite often, and Nf3
usually transposes. The one opening I still feel lost against as Black is the English, 1 c4.
Currently I play 1...Nf6 hoping to get a Grunfeld or Slav-type position (the Grunfeld is
singularly responsible for me feeling comfortable against 1 d4). Much to my chagrin, my
opponents almost always go for the slow, positional setup with Nc3, g3, Bg2, etc. No
matter how hard I try, I can never get a position that I like. The main problem I have is
that after 1 c4 Nf6 2 Nc3, I would like to play ...g6, angling for a Grunfeld, but that
leaves the door open for 3 e4, forcing me into a King's Indian, which I have not studied
at all and do not want to spend the effort learning (it seems like a major endeavor). So I
play 2...e5, but I don't really like playing the Sicilian a tempo down. Can anyone point
me to some good resources or other good options?
Statistics[edit]
Approximately chances: White win 37%, Draw 34%, Black win 29%
Estimated next move popularity: Nf6 31%, e5 23%, e6 13%, c5 12%, g6 8%, c6 6%, f5 4% other
moves less than 2%
Theory table[edit]
For explanation of theory tables see theory table and for notation see algebraic notation
1.c4
1 2 3 4 5
c4 Nc3 e4 e5 Nf3
∞
Nf6 e6 c5 Ng8 Nc6
... d4 Nc3
Myers Defence e4 +=
g5 Bg7 h6
When contributing to this Wikibook, please follow the Conventions for organization.
References[edit]
Modern Chess Openings: MCO-14. 1999. Nick de Firmian, Walter Korn. ISBN 0-8129-3084-3.
Batsford Chess Openings 2 (1989, 1994). Garry Kasparov, Raymond Keene. ISBN 0-8050-
3409-9.
Chess Openings
1. e4 e5 Open Game · King's Gambit · Bishop's Opening · Vienna · Petrov · Latvian Gambit · Scotch · Giuoco Piano · Two Knights · Ruy Lopez ·
1. e4 c5 Sicilian Defence · Closed Sicilian · Taimanov · Sveshnikov · Kan Sicilian · Sicilian Dragon · Scheveningen · Najdorf · Alapin
1.
French Defence · Caro-Kann Defence · Pirc Defence · Alekhine Defence · Modern · Scandinavian · Nimzowitsch
e4other
1. d4 Nf6 Indian Defence · King's Indian · Nimzo-Indian · Queen's Indian · Grünfeld · Benoni · Budapest · Catalan
1. d4 d5 Closed Game · Queen's Gambit · Queen's Gambit Accepted · Queen's Gambit Declined · Chigorin · Slav · Semi-Slav · Marshall
1.
Dutch Defence · Old Benoni Defence · Englund Gambit · English Defence · King's Indian Attack · Reti Opening
d4other
Indian Defence
in the game of chess, Indian defence is a broad term for a group
of openings characterised by the moves:
1. d4 Nf6[1]
They are all to varying degrees hypermodern defences, where Black invites White to
establish an imposing presence in the centre with the plan of undermining and
ultimately destroying it. Although the Indian defences were championed in the 1920s by
players in the hypermodern school, they were not fully accepted until Russian players
showed in the late 1940s that these systems are sound for Black. Since then, the Indian
defences have become a popular way for Black to respond to 1.d4 because they often
offer an unbalanced game with winning chances for both sides. Transpositions are
important and many variations can be reached by several move orders. It is also
possible to transpose into classical openings such as the Queen's Gambit and the Slav
Defence; these are not considered "Indian" openings.
The usual White second move is 2.c4, grabbing a larger share of the centre and
allowing the move Nc3, to prepare for moving the e-pawn to e4 without blocking the c-
pawn with the knight. Black's most popular replies are
2...e6, freeing the king's bishop and leading into the Nimzo-Indian
Defence, Queen's Indian Defence, Bogo-Indian Defence,Modern
Benoni, Catalan Opening, or regular lines of the Queen's Gambit Declined,
2...g6, preparing a fianchetto of the king's bishop and entering the King's Indian
Defence or Grünfeld Defence, and
2...c5, the Benoni Defense, with an immediate counter-punch in the centre,
Historical background[edit]
The earliest known use of the term "Indian Defence" was in 1884, and the name was
attributed to the opening's use by the Indian player Moheschunder
Bannerjee against John Cochrane.[2] Philip W. Sergeant describes Moheschunder as
having been as of 1848 "a Brahman in the Mofussil—up country, as we might say—who
had never been beaten at chess!"[3] Sergeant wrote in 1934 (substituting algebraic
notation for his descriptive notation):[4]
The Indian Defences by g6 coupled with d6, or b6 coupled with e6, were largely taught
to European players by the example of Moheschunder and other Indians, to whom the
fianchetto developments were a natural legacy from their own game. The fondness for
them of the present Indian champion of British chess, Mir Sultan Khan, is well known.
But they are now so widely popular that Dr. S. G. Tartakover was able to declare, some
years ago, that "to-day fianchettos are trumps." A sequel hardly to have been
anticipated from the discovery of Moheschunder in the Mofussil!
In the following game, Moheschunder (Black) plays the Grünfeld Defence against
Cochrane in 1855—some 38 years before Ernst Grünfeld was born.
John Cochrane–Moheschunder Bannerjee, May 1855:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. e3 Bg7 5. Nf3 0-0 6. cxd5 Nxd5 7. Be2 Nxc3 8.
bxc3 c5 9. 0-0 cxd4 10. cxd4 Nc6 11. Bb2 Bg4 12. Rc1 Rc8 13. Ba3 Qa5 14.
Qb3 Rfe8 15. Rc5 Qb6 16. Rb5 Qd8 17. Ng5 Bxe2 18. Nxf7 Na5 and
White mates in three (19.Nh6+ double check Kh8 20.Qg8+ Rxg8 21.Nf7#).[5][6]
Another of the games between these players transposed to what would today be called
the Four Pawns Attack against the King's Indian Defence. This time Moheschunder, as
Black, won after some enterprising (and perhaps dubious) sacrificial play:
1. e4 d6 2. d4 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. f4 0-0 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. Bd3? e5! 8. fxe5
dxe5 9. d5 Nxe4!? 10. Nxe4 f5 11. Neg5 e4 12. Ne6 exf3! 13. Nxd8?! fxg2 14.
Rg1 Bxd1 15. Ne6 Bg4 16. Nxf8 Kxf8 17. Rxg2 Nd7 18. Bf4 Nc5 19. Kd2 Rc8
20. Kc2 Bf3 21. Rf2 Nxd3 22. Kxd3 Be4+ 23. Ke3 b5 24. cxb5 Bxd5 25. Rd2
Bc4 26. Rad1 Bf6 27. Bh6+ Kg8 28. Kf4 Re8 29. b3 Bxb5 30. Rc1 Be2! 31.
Re1 Re4+ 32. Kg3 Bh4+ 0–1[7]
The term "Indian Defence" was popularized by Savielly Tartakower in the early 1920s.
In his 1924 book Die hypermoderne Schachpartie, Tartakower classifies the Indian
Defences under the broad headings "Old Indian" (...d6 and eventual ...g6) and "Neo-
Indian" (...e6 and eventual ...b6). Under the heading "Old Indian", he considers the
openings now known as the King's Indian and Grünfeld Defences. He also proposes the
names "Proto-Indian" for 1.d4 d6, "Pseudo-Indian" for 1.d4 c5, "Semi-Indian" for 1.d4
Nf6 2.Nc3 and "Three Quarter Indian" for 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nd2, none of which came into
wider use.[8]
The modern names "King's Indian Defence", "Queen's Indian Defence", "Old Indian
Defence" and "King's Indian Attack" were attributed by Richard Reti to Hans Kmoch,
though Reti himself did not approve of these terms. Reti also attributed to Kmoch the
terms "All Indian Defence" (where Black fianchettoes both bishops after 1.d4 Nf6) and
"Queen's Indian Attack" (where White opens 1.Nf3 and 2.b3) but these did not come
into general use.[9]
2...g6[edit]
Grünfeld Defence: 3.Nc3 d5
Ernst Grünfeld debuted the Grünfeld Defence in 1922. Distinguished by the move
3...d5, Grünfeld intended it as an improvement to the King's Indian which was not
considered entirely satisfactory at that time. The Grünfeld has been adopted by World
Champions Smyslov,Fischer, and Kasparov.
King's Indian Defence: 3.Nc3 Bg7
The King's Indian Defence is aggressive and somewhat risky, and generally indicates
that Black will not be satisfied with a draw. Although it was played occasionally as early
as the late 19th century, the King's Indian was considered inferior until the 1940s when
it was featured in the games of Bronstein, Boleslavsky,
and Reshevsky. Fischer's favoured defence to 1.d4, its popularity faded in the mid-
1970s. Kasparov'ssuccesses with the defence restored the King's Indian to prominence
in the 1980s.
2...c5[edit]
Benoni Defence
The Benoni Defense is a risky attempt by Black to unbalance the position and gain
active piece play at the cost of allowing White a pawn wedge at d5 and a central
majority. The most common Benoni line is the Modern Benoni (3.d5 e6
4.Nc3). Tal popularised the defence in the 1960s by winning several brilliant games with
it, and Bobby Fischer occasionally adopted it, with good results, including a win in
his 1972 World Championship match against Boris Spassky. Often Black adopts a
slightly different move order, playing 2...e6 before 3...c5 in order to avoid the sharpest
lines for White.
Benko Gambit (or Volga Gambit): 3.d5 b5
The Benko Gambit (known as the Volga Gambit in Russia and Eastern Europe) is one
of Black's most popular ways of meeting 1.d4, though it is less common at elite level.
Black plays to open lines on the queenside where White will be subject to considerable
pressure. If White accepts the gambit, Black's compensation is positional rather than
tactical, and his initiative can last even after many piece exchanges and well into
the endgame. White often chooses instead either to decline the gambit pawn or return
it.
The Old Indian Defence was introduced by Tarrasch in 1902, but it is more commonly
associated with Chigorin who adopted it five years later. It is similar to the King's Indian
in that both feature a ...d6 and ...e5 pawn centre, but in the Old Indian Black's king
bishop is developed to e7 rather than being fianchettoed on g7. The Old Indian is solid,
but Black's position is usually cramped and it lacks the dynamic possibilities found in the
King's Indian.
Budapest Gambit: 2...e5 [edit]
The Budapest Gambit is rarely played in grandmaster games, but more often adopted
by amateurs. Although it is a gambit, White cannot hold on to his extra pawn without
making compromises in the deployment of his pieces, so he often chooses to return the
pawn and retain the initiative.
Others[edit]
2...c6
This normally transposes into the Slav Defence if Black subsequently plays ...d5,
however it may also transpose into the Old Indian or even the King's Indian if
Black instead follows up with ...d6. One of the few independent lines is the
offbeat 2...c6 3.Nf3 b5!?, sometimes called the Kudischewitsch gambit after the
Israeli IM David Kudischewitsch.
Catalan Opening
The Catalan is a chess opening where White adopts a combination of the Queen's
Gambit and Réti Opening: White plays d4 and c4 and fianchettoes the white bishop on
g2. A common opening sequence is 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3, although the opening can
arise from a large number of move orders (see transposition). ECO codes E01–E09 are
for lines with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2, and others are part of E00.
Black has two main approaches to choose between: in the Open Catalan he plays
...dxc4 and can either try to hold on to the pawn with ...b5 or give it back for extra time
to free his game. In the Closed Catalan, Black does not capture on c4; his game can be
somewhat cramped for a while, but is quite solid.
The Catalan is generally seen as a safe way for White to get a small advantage.
History[edit]
The Catalan derives its name from Catalonia, after tournament organisers at the
1929 Barcelona tournament asked Savielly Tartakower to create a new variation in
homage to the area's chess history. It had been played a few times before Tartakower's
usage in the tournament, however:Réti–Leonhardt, Berlin 1928, for
instance, transposed into an Open Catalan.
The Catalan came to prominence at the top level when both Garry Kasparov and Viktor
Korchnoi played it in their Candidates Semifinal match in London in 1983: five games of
the eleven-game match were Catalans.
In 2004, Ruben Felgaer won a tournament celebrating the 75th anniversary
of Barcelona 1929 and the birth of the Catalan Opening, ahead of Grandmasters Viktor
Korchnoi,Mihail Marin, Lluis Comas and Viktor Moskalenko and International
Master Manel Granados. Each game in the tournament, which was also held in
Barcelona, began with the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Nf6.
With its use by Vladimir Kramnik, the Catalan has recently gained a good deal of
attention by high-level GMs. Kramnik played the opening three times in the World
Chess Championship 2006. The Catalan was also played four times by Viswanathan
Anand in the World Chess Championship 2010; in both instances the opponent
was Veselin Topalov, and in each instance White scored two more points than Black.
Illustrative games[edit]
The Catalan opening system is becoming one of the most popular setups for White in
tournament play.
Used extensively by Vladimir Kramnik during the World Chess Championships of 2006,
2007, and 2008, along with Gerry Kasparov and Victor Korchnoi at the London
Canidates Tournament in 1983, the Catalan is easily one of the most flexibe openings
available; it can transpose from a Queen's Gambit (either accepted or declined), a Ruy
Lopez, or even a King's Indian Attack, all of which aim to fianchetto the light-squared
bishop and begin adding tremendous pressure on the quuenside.
But how do you play the Catalan? Well, like I said, the Catalan system can arise from
many openings. However, in this article, we will be reviewing the main line, which
transposes from the Queen's Gambit Declined.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d54. Nf3This is the Classical Variation of the Catalan.
The light-squared bishop is definitely the most powerful minor piece in this opening, so
much to the extent that now this bishop is known as the Catalan bishop.
Let's review some basic principles for the Catalan. Obviously, because we are
fianchttoing our bishop on the kingside, and naturally because we are playing the
Queen's Gambit, we will usually focus on attacking the queenside. As for King safety,
we will generally focus on castling kingside, mainly because the Catalan is sub-
characterized by thematic pawn breaks from the queenside.
In the Catalan, White sidestepps several aggresive ideas by Black and instead focuses
on development, where you can play for an edge for little risk. The safe bishop on g2
can carve along the board, which usually can frusterate Black and push him into making
a mistake.
Keep in mind, though, that we are willingly sacrificing the c4 pawn for a small
advantage. The Catalan diverges from the Queen's Gambit in the fact that the pawn on
c4 becomes a sacrifice, instead of a gambit, because our bishop has been removed
from the f1 square, and we will not be able to recapture using the traditional e3,
assuming that White decides to leave the pawn in exchange for extra initiative, which is,
of the two, the best option. However, Black will find it increasingly difficult to hold on to
this material, and if he attempts to, White will gain a lead in development and a more
connected pawn chain than that of Black's.
Before I continue, let's look at a game I played using the Catalan. Try to imagine why I
played each move. Stuck? Look at the notes bar to see my commentary.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d54. Nf3Again, this is the basic Catalan. Make sure that,
before you play it, you completely understand these lines and why every move is
made. 4... Be75. Bg2This is the characterizing move. Later in the game, this bishop
gives me an overwhelming position. 5... O-O6. O-OI recommend the castling here.
Some players may try something like 6. e3 or 6. Bg5, but it is important to establish King
safety first. 6... c67. Nbd2In the Catalan, you will almost always develop your Queen's
bishop to d2 instead of c3. 7... b6 8. Qc2This is also a move you will commonly play in
the Catalan. 8... Ba6 9. b3I play this just to solidify my pawn
structure. 9... Nbd7 10. Bb2 Rc811. Rac1To combat Black's play on the vital c-
file. 11... c512. Qb1Hmm... Probably could have played something a little more
constructing, but I guess I was waiting for Black to take the first bite of the
center. 12... dxc413. Nxc4 b5 14. Nce5 Qb615. Ng5I begin to transition my attack to
the kingside, where Black's monarch lays. I will pass the rest of the game without
commentary, but note how I use the bishop to win the queen in a dangerous Ne7+
trap. 15... g616. dxc5 Nxc5 17. b4 Ncd718. Nc6 Bd6 19. Bd4 Qb720. Ne7+Here is the
trap.20... Bxe7 21. Bxb7 Bxb722. Rxc8 Bxc8 23. Rc1 Nb624. Ne4My opponent
resigns. I have material superiority, and Black has almost no compensation for that, as I
have a easily workable position and I still control the initiative.
See how my light-squared bishop, my Catalan bishop, helped in the trap of the Black
Queen? I chose this game in particular because it shows just how powerful a single
minor piece can be in the right position.
Anyway, this concludes the first article in our Catalan series. In the second article, I will
go deep into the analysis of a few GM games using the Catalan, as well as some other
main lines and objectives for both Black and White. Hope to see you there!
Grischuk, Alexander (2764) vs. Aronian, Levon (2809)
Wch Candidates | London | Round 13 | 31 Mar 2013 | ECO: D11 | 1/2-1/2
Catalan is an opening which combines Queen’s gambit and Reti in one. Catalan was
employed by many strong players including ex-world champions Vladimir Kramnik as
well as Vishy Anand. It is also popular on club level, and maybe a good opening choice
for many. Here are some of the best games on Catalan Opening.
With this we conclude our survey on Fischer’s play in the Spanish opening. We hope our
readers liked it and learned some valuable lessons from the games explained above.
If you want to improve your chess level, you need to have a clear study plan. If you aim for
a dramatic improvement at chess you need to work on all of the elements of the game in
a systematic way:
tactics
positional play
attacking skills
endgame technique
classical games analysis
psychological preparation
and much more