THE TOURNAMENT P LAYER'S REPERTOIRE OF OPENINGS

Series edited by R.D.Keene OBE

Symmetrical English:
1 ... c5

JOHN L. WATSON

B.T.Batsford Ltd, London

First published 1988
© John L. Watson 1988

ISBN 0 7134 5391 5(1imp)

All rights reserved. No part

of this publication may be
reproduced, by any means, without
prior permission from the publisher

Photoset by Andek Printing, London

and printed in Great Britain by
Dotesios Ltd,
Bradford upon Avon, Wiltshire
for the publishers
B.T.Batsford Ltd, 4 Fitzhardinge Street,
London W1H OA H

A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK

Adviser: R.D.Keene GM, O BE
Technical Editor: Ian Kingston
Contents

Symbols IV

Introduction

Part 1: 2 lbc3 lbc6 - Pure Symmetrical 3

1 Introduction and Various 5th Moves 5
2 5 e4 and 5 e3 19
3 5 lbf3 lbf6 (with ... d5 lines) 32
4 5 lbf3 lbf6 with 7 d4 40
5 5 lbf3: Others 49

Part II: Counterplay by 2 ... lbf6 and ... d5 67

6 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 68
7 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation 83
8 3 lbf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation 98

Part Ill: 2 lbf3 Systems 115

9 2 lbf3 Introduction and 2 'Others' 117
10 Three Knights: 2 ... lbc6 3 lbc3 g6 128
II Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 132
12 Double Fianchetto Defence 155
13 2 lbf3 lbf6 3 d4: 4 ... lbc6 166
14 2 lbf3 lbf6 3 d4: 4 .. . e6 184
15 2 lbf3 lbf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 2 01

Index of Variations and Transpositions 216

Symbols

+ Check
;t + Slight advantage
±+ Clear advantage
±± H Winning advantage
Level position
ro Unclear position
Good move
!! Outstanding move
!? Interesting move
?! Dubious move
? Weak move
?? Blunder
corres Correspondence
01 Olympiad
IZ Interzonal
L League
Ch Championship
�f Semi-final
Introduction

This book is a thorough rewrite of my 1980 book English I ... P-QB4 in

algebraic notation. I say "rewrite" rather than "revision" because so
much of the material is new. Perhaps a third of the most significant I c4 c5
games have been played since 1980. In the meantime, the very character
of the opening has changed. In 1980, I had the large problem of organizing
material into coherent lines, finding names for variations, etc. Since so
little had been written, almost any suggestion was an improvement, and
many obvious moves had never been tried. Now the major systems are
well defined and widely known, much as with I e4 or I d4 systems.
Specialists have arisen in many key variations, and the abundance of new
games has created a certain consensus of opinion about major lines.
The major constraint on this new effort has been space. To take an
already lengthy book and supplement it with so much new material
requires a few compromises. Whenever possible, I cut down on older,
well-established material, looking especially to eliminate redundant
examples. One will find less detail and fewer changes in the Pure
Symmetrical lines of Part I or in (e.g.) the Three Knights lines. Material
on the Keres-Parma and the Rubinstein has been re-organized to reflect
the disuse of former main lines (now relegated to notes) and the rise of
new ones. The biggest changes have come in the second half of the book,
with much new material and analysis in the Hedgehog, Double Fianchetto,
Asymmetrical, and all the 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4 systems.
Because of length, I had to take a close look at what in my view was
most valuable to the reader. It seems to me that two features distinguish
the best Batsford opening books: thoroughness, and individual attention
to the material. I believe the strength of this book goes beyond its use as
an up-to-date reference, however complete. The main difference between
this work and, say, ECO is that I've carefully examined each line,
suggested innumerable improvements, and pointed towards what seems
critical for the assessment and future of each variation, i.e. I've tried to
indicate how each side can best pursue (or salvage) his play.
2 Introduction

In general, for the reader's convenience and my own, I have followed

the order and format of my 1980 book. The main improvement in this
regard has been to cut down on the number of sections. Outside of a few
extremely complex lines, one will not find "B232211 " and the like. Now
that we know better which variations are effective, much of the rest can
be put into notes.
As always, the first edition contained a number of errors. My thanks
to all those who drew attention to these; you are mentioned in the text.
On that subject, I should say a word about attribution. In general, I have
become more conservative in assigning credit. When I have the same
suggestion (or game moves) from several different sources, especially
when the sequence in question is fairly obvious, I have sometimes left it
unaccredited. Also, I have shied away from calling moves (e.g.)
"Korchnoi's move" or "Uhlmann's move", unless the evidence is clear or
the player's use of the move dominant. Too often famous players get
credit for using (sometimes only once) a line developed by someone less
visible.
Transpositions are mentioned throughout the text. When in doubt,
the 'Index of Variations and Transpositions' in the back may prove
useful. Rather than include every major source in the world in some kind
of "bibliography", I will merely mention here that the material extends
through Informant 42, and the games through mid-to-late 1 987.
Finally, please be tolerant of the inevitable oversights which accompany
any such project. The extent of this material is vast, and I greatly appreciate
any corrections or additions readers may bring to my attention.

John Watson
San Diego, 1987
 Part I

2 lLJc3 lt:Jc6: Pure Symmetrical

 1 Introduction and Various
5th Moves
1 c4 c5
2 lt:lc3 lt:lc6
3 g3 g6
4 .ig2 .ig7 (1)
w and Seirawan among others have
My new name for this formation
is the "Pure Symmetrical" variation.
More than in any other ... c5 vari­
ation, Black copies White's set-up,
sometimes well into the middle­
game. By contrast, Chapters 6-15
cover variations where the position
is already unsymmetrical by the
third move or earlier. Although
with the order of this chapter a
blind imitation will be sufficient
for equality in only a very few
cases, it is also true that the plans
available to Black tend to be the
same ones at White's disposal.
What is really remarkable, then,
is how varied and exciting the play
can become. Tal, Fischer and
Adorjan, for example, have scored
many points by exploiting the
dynamic potential in Black's posi­
tion, whereas Uhlmann, Petrosian
found ways to utilize White's ad­
vantage of the first move. In general,
the key ideas have proven relatively
stable. Less has happened since
my 1 980 book to the theory of
these lines than to any other major
formation in the 1 ... c5 English.
This is in part a consequence of
fashion, and in part due to the
number of players who commit
themselves to ltJf] on the first few
moves.
We begin by a brief discussion
of alternatives on the way to the
key position.
1 c4 c5
2 lt:lc3
Independent lines with 2 b3, 2 g3
and other odd second moves are
discussed in Chapter 9. When
desiring to locate a given move
order, the reader should first con­
sult the 'Index of Variations and
Transpositions'.
 6 Introduction and Various 5th Moves
2 lt:Jc6
a) 2 ... g6 will generally transpose.
Gipslis in £CO gives it an"!", but
he ignores the most important
independent answer: 3 d4 cd (3 ...
�g7!? intends 4 lt:Jf3 cd 5 lt:Jxd4
lt:Jc6- Chapter IO,Iine A -but 4 d5
d6 5 e4 lt:Jf6 is not a very popular
form of King's I ndian for Black,
and his 5th move alternatives are
unpromising) 4 't!fxd4 lt:Jf6 5 �g5
(5 b3 !?) 5 ... �g7 (5 ... lt:Jc6 6 'tifd2)
6lt:Jd5 (6lt:Jf3!? lt:Jc6 7'§d2 d6 8 e3
0-0 9�e2�e6?! I O O-O h6 11 �h4
g5 12 �g3 d5!? 13 cd lt:Jxd5 14
lt:Jb5!, Snapik-Schmidt, Poland
1972. ":!; with the idea of e4" -
Sznapik, who suggests 9 ... �f5!)
6 ... lt:Jc6 7 't!i'c3 0-0!? (7 ... lt:Jh5 8
't!t'd2 h6 9 �h4 g5 10 �g3 lt:Jxg3
11 hg, lightly t). and now Zachary­
Zabell, Chicago 1986, went 8 �xf6
ef 9 lt:Jf3?! f5 10 'tifd2 CiJe7 II CiJf4?
'tifb6 12 I!bl d5 13 cd I!d8 14 e3
�e6 15 �c4 I!ac8 16 �b3 �xd5!
17 CiJxd5 CiJxd5 18 �xd5�c3 H.
But 9 I!dI ! improves, so this line
is still a problem for 2 ... g6.
b) 2 ... b6 3 e4 or 3lt:Jf3 transposes
to normal lines, but 3 e3 can be
independent: 3 ... CiJf6 (3 ... �b7?!
4 d4 CiJf6 5 d5) 4 d4 e6 5 d5!? (5
CiJf3!, e.g. 5 ... �e7 6 d5 or 5 ... g6
6 e4!?) 5 ... ed 6 cd d6 7 e4, Szabo­
Rajkovic, Belgrade 1979; and here
7 ... g6 with a kind of Benoni seems
best. In the game 7 ... �e7 8 f4!
0-0 9 CiJf3 was ±. A good reason to
delay 2 ... b6?
3 g3
3 e3, seldom played, can trans­
pose to a Queen's Gambit after
3 ... e6 4 d4 d5 or to a Caro-Kann
after 3 ... CiJf6 4 d4 cd 5 ed d5. 3 ...
g6?! is less appropriate due to either
4 {jjf3 (Chapter 10) or 4 d4 cd 5 ed
�g7 6 d5 (or 6 CiJf3!) 6 ... CiJd4 7
CiJf3 t Krstev-Bonchev, Sandomierz
1976.
3 g6
a) 3
e6 4�g2 CiJf6 (or 3 ... CiJf6
...
4 �g2 e6) usually elicits 5 {jjf3 d5
6 cd ed 7 d4 (a Tarrasch Queen's
Gambit) or here 6 ... CiJxd5 (Chapter
7).
b) After 3 ... e5 4�g2 g6 White can
choose between 5 e3 and 5 CiJf3.
Had Black waited via 3 ... g6 4�g2
�g7, he could play 5 ... e5 or
remain free to deviate. A unique
order occurred in Uhlmann-Pahtz,
East German Ch 1973: 3 ... e5 4
�g2 d6 5 e3 �f5!? 6 a3 CiJf6 7 d3
'§d7 8 h3! g6 9 CiJge2�g7 10 I!bl
0-0 11 b4 h5 12 CiJd5 I!ab8 13 CiJec3
(2) t
 Introduction and Various 5th Moves
13 ... lHc8 14 J:lb3 .ie6 IS .id2 b6
16 't!kf3 ltlh7 17 bS! lLlaS { 17 ...
ltle7 18 g4!) 18 llbl J:lf8 19 e4!
ltlb7(?) 20 g4! hg 21 hg .ixg4 22
ltle7+! �h8 23 't!kg3 llbe8 24 lLlfS!
gf 2S 't!kh4 .ih6 26 .ixh6 1-0.
4 .ig2
a) 4 b3 .ig7 S .ib2 e6 6 't!kcl (6 .ig2)
6 ... ltlf6! 7 e3 0-0 = Kholmov­
Hermlin, Riga 1968.
b) 4 a3 .ig7 S llbl is designed to
provoke S ... aS, thus avoiding the
line 4 .ig2 .ig7 S a3 a6. But S ... aS
is not bad, and otherwise 4 ... a6 is
possible, e.g. S 't!ka4!? llb8 6 b4 cb
7 ab bS 8 ab ab 9 lLlxbS .ig7 1 0
"
llb! 11t'b6 I I ltla3 ltlxb4 oo with
the idea 12 .ig2 1!t'cS.
4 .ig7
Arriving at diagram I above.
We examine:
A S a3
B S b3
c s d3
S e4 and S e3 are in Chapter 2,
S ltlf3 in Chapters 3-S. S llbl will
transpose to A. S ltlh3!? also often
transposes, e.g. to S d3, S b3 or
S e3. Imitation by S ... ltlh6 might
lead to 6 d3 d6 7 1!t'd2 't!t'd7(?) 8 b3
b6 9 .ib2 .ib7 10 ltle4 0-0 { 10 ...
lLleS? II f4) II .ixg7 �xg7 12ltlf4
! intending h4. An example of S ...
e6 was 6 ltlf4 ltlge7 7 h4 h6 8 llb l
(8 b3 Larsen) 8 ... 0-0 9 b3 d6 1 0
.ib2 a6 II d 3 J:lb8 1 2 11t'd2 dS 13
0-0 b4? 14 ltldl! eS IS lLldS lLlfS 16
ltlle3 ! Larst:n- Campos-Lopez,
7
San Antonio 1972.
A
S a3 (3)
A frequently-played and tricky
move. Black has:
AI S ... ltlf6
A2 S ... e6
A3 S ... d6
A4 S ... a6
S ... llb8 transposes (to S ... a6,
in most cases). Others:
a) S ... eS? 6 b4!, e.g. 6 ... cb?! 7 ab
ltlxb4 (7 ... ltlge7 8 bS ltld4 9 .ia3
with the idea cS) 8 .ia3 .if8 (8 ...
ltlc6 9 lLlbS ±) 9 'ii'a4! ltlc6 10 cS
.ig7 II ltle4 fS 1 2 lLld6+ �f8 13
llbl with great pressure.
Better but insufficient was 6 ...
d6 7 J:lbl (or 7 be de 8 .ixc6+! be
9 llbl ;t) 7 ... ltlge7 8 d3 (or 8 e3 !)
8 ... 0-0 9 ltlf3 llb8 10 0-0 b6 II
lLld2 h6 12 lLldS .ib7 13 bS lLld4
1 4 e3 ltle6 IS a4 lLlc7 1 611t'b3! with
the idea .ib2, f4 and eventually aS,
Rail::evic-Radulov, Novi Sad 1974.
b) S ... .i xc3!? 6 be resembles S e3
.ixc3 in Chapter 2. d3, e4 and
 8 Introduction and Various 5th Moves
lila2-e2(f2) would exploit the extra
a3. Also, 6 de!? leaves the c l bishop
open, e.g. 6 ... aS?! 7 .i.e3! d6 8 b4!.
Better is 6 ... d6 7 h4 h6 8 liJh3 oo.
c) S ... aS 6 liJfJ(6 e3 eS is Chapter
2; 6 ... liJh6!?) 6 ... e6?! (6 ... d6; 6 ...
eS) runs into 7 d4! (4)
c l ) 7 . . . .i.xd4? 8 lLlbS d6 (8 ... .i.g7
9 1!t'd6; 8 ... liJge7 9 .i.f4! eS I 0
liJd6+ �f8 II .i.h6+ �g8 1 2 e3
.i.xb2 13 liJgS!) 9 liJfxd4 cd 1 0
liJxd4 liJxd4 II 'iit'xd4 ±.
c2) 7 .. . cd 8 lLlbS eS(8 ... dS 9 cd ed
1 0 .i.f4 �f8 II liJfxd4) 9 e3! d6
(9 ... de 1 0 1!t'd6) 10 ed etc.
c) 7 ... liJxd4 8 liJxd4 cd (8 ... .i.xd4
9 liJbS .i.eS 10 .i.e3!- or 1 0/4 .i.b8
1 1 e4- I 0 ... 1!t'e7 II 1!t'd2 liJf6 1 2
.i.gS) 9 lLlbS liJe7! (9 ... eS 1 0 e3;
9 ... dS 10 cd 1!t'b6 II a4 .i.d7 12 de!)
1 0 liJd6+ �f8 II cS (II liJxb7 !?)
with an interesting attack.
d) S ... b6 can transpose after e.g.
6 d3 .i.b7 7 e4. The obvious 6 lilbl
.i.b7 7 b4?! cb (7 ... liJaS !?) 8 ab
1!t'c8! 9 liJdS e6 1 0 liJe3 liJd4 was
good for Black in Raicevic-Forintos,
Novi Sad 1 974. Better is 7 d3 e6
8 h4 hS (8 ... h6 9 .i.f4 and 1 0 1!t'd2)
9 lLlh3 d6 1 0 .i.f4 Wd7··1 1 lLlgS!
lild8 1 2 0-0 .i.eS! 1 3 'iWd2 1!t'e7,
Watson-Forintos, Lone Pine 1 976,
and now 1 4 .i.xeS liJxeS ( 14 ... de
IS f4) IS e4 with the idea f4 is t.
AI
s liJf6
A sound reply.
6 libl
6 e4 transposes to Chapter 2.
6 e3 d6! =, e.g. 7 d4 (7 b4 cb 8 ab
dS!) 7 ... cd 8 ed dS 9 cd liJxdS =.
6 aS
a) 6 ... a6? 7 b4 cb 8 ab 0-0 9 1!t'a4!
lila7 1 0 bS ab II 't!kxbS lb6 1 2
liJfJ t Bilek-Beckingham, 1 9S8.
b) 6 ... 0-0 7 b4 cb 8 ab aS 9 bS?
(9 ba! liJxaS - 9 .. . 1Wxa5 10 .i.b2
with the idea lia 1 - 1 0 d3 d6 II
.i.d2 .i.d7 1 2 liJfJ .i.c6 13 0-0 t
Taimanov) 9 ... liJb4 1 0 1!t'b3 dS!
II cd e6(or l l ... .i.fS I2 d3 llc8't)
12 d6 1!t'xd6 1 3 lLlf3 eS 1 4 .i.a3?
.i.fS IS lib2 e4 +Reshko-Hamlin,
USSR 1 97S.
c) 6 ... e6!? 7 b4 cb 8 ab dS 9 bS liJe7
I0 cd ed II 1!t'a4 0-0 12 liJfJ liJfS =
Averbakh-Suetin, USSR Ch 1 9S8.
7 liJI'3
A fundamental decision about
White's pawn structure:
a) 7 e4 transposes to Chapter 2,
line A2 (S e4). By committing Black
to ... liJf6 and ... aS, White has
avoided the defences of that chapter
 Introduction and Various 5th Moves
which involve ... e6/... ti:Jge7
and/or ... a6/... b5.
b) 7 d3 0-0 (7 ... d6 8 ti:Jh3!? h5 or
8 ti:Jf3 0-0 9 0-0 ..id7 10 ti:Jei) 8 e3
(8 ti:Jh3!?) 8 ... e6 9 li:Jge2 d5 10 0-0
lile8 II 'i*c2 d4 I2 ti:Ja4 =/oo
Smyslov-Stein, Amsterdam 1 964.
7 0-0
A good option is 7 ... d5(!) 8 cd
(8 b3!?, e.g. 8 ... 0-0 9 0-0 e6 1 0 d3
b6 II e3 ..ib7 I2 ire2 =) 8 ... ti:Jxd5
(5)
5
w
Now 9 ti:Jg5 e6 10 ti:Jge4 b6 II
�a4 was Timman-Enklaar, Dutch
Ch 1974, when II ... t!fd7? 12
ti:Jxd5 ed 13 ti:Jc3 ..ixc3 14 be llb8
I5 d3 favoured White. Much bet ter
is II ... ..id7, when Kurajica gives
12 ti:Jxd5 ed I3 ti:Jd6+ �f8 14lt:Jx17:
but 13 ... �e7! is correct, when 1 4
ti:Jxf7 ti:Je5 15 ti:Jxd8 ..ixa4 1 6 b3
..id7 I7 ..ib2 llaxd8 I8 f4 ..if5 I9
d3 ..ixd3! is strong. I 0 ... c4!?
(Kurajica; "t" ECO ) also looks
fine, e.g. II 'ira4 ti:Jb6 12 'i!fb5 0-0
13 e3 a4! with the idea ... lila5.
9
What else? 9 �b3 ti:Jb6 10 d3
a4! II '@c2 c4! (12 de ti:Jxc4 13
ti:Jxa4 �a5+ I4 ti:Jc3 ti:Jxa3!) is no
improvement. And (e.g.) 9 ti:Jxd5
�xd5 10 d3 '@a2! II ..id2 c4!
(with the idea 12 de ..if5), or here
II ti:Jd2 ..id7, presents Black no
difficulties. Nor does 9 0-0 0-0 10
ti:Jxd5 '@xd5 II d3 '@a2 I2 ..ie3 c4,
or here II b3 '@d6 (II ... a4!?).
Thus 7 ... d5 makes a good impres­
sion. But 7 ... 0-0 is important for
transpositional reasons.
8 0-0 d6
9 ti:Je l
An example of White's possi­
bilities was 9 d3 ti:Je8 10 ti:Jd2 ti:Jc7
II lt:Ja4! lilb8?! (II ... lla6; II ...
b5 t Benko) I2 ti:Jb6! ..if5 l3 ..ic3
e5 I4 ti:Jd2 ..ie6 15 b4 ab 16 ab cb
17 ..ixb4 lle8 I8 li:Je4! ti:Jxb4 I9
lilxb4 ±(b-pawn and d5 control)
Benko-Zuckerman, US Ch I967.
9 ti:Je8 !?
Better seems 9 ... ..id7 10 ti:Jc2
llb8 II b4 ab I2 ab b6.
10 ti:Jc2 a4
To discourage b4. This leads to
a typical example: II d3 ..id7 I2
..id2 lla7 l3 ti:Jb5 lla6 14 ..ic3
�c8 1 5 ..ixg7 ti:Jxg7 I6 ti:Je3 ..ih3
17 ti:Jd5 ..ixg2 18 �xg2 lt:Je8 I9 e3
e6 20 ti:Jdc3 ti:Ja7 2I ti:Jxa7 lilxa7
22 �f3! f5 23 b3 ab 24 llxb3 llf7
25 llfbi U± Ivkov-Nicevski,
Rovinj-Zagreb 1970.
A2
5 e6 (6)
 10 Introduction and Various 5th Moves
6 Ii:bl
6 li:lf3!? is Chapter 5, line C (5
li:lf3 e6 6 a3).
6 b4? is a mistake due to 6 ...
ll:lxb4! 7 ab cb 8 d4!(8 ll:lb5? ..ixa I
9 'ti'a4 ..if6! I 0 d4, and instead of
1 0 ... a5? 11 ..if4 lil:a6, my suggestion
1 0 ... a6! was winning in Lobron-
Kavalek, Bochum 1 981) 8 ... be
9 e3 ll:le7 (9 ... d5!) 10 ll:le2 d5 11 cd
li:lxd5(II ... ed) 12 ..ia3 ..iffi 13 0-0!
..ixa3 14 Ii:xa3 ..id7 + Smyslov­
Hartston, Hastings 1 972-73.
6 a5
6 ... lLlge7?! 7 b4 cb 8 ab d5 9 b5
ll:le5(9 ... ll:la5!? tOed ed II ..ia3!?
d4 12 ll:le4 lLlc4 13 ..ib4 0-0 14
ll:lh3 d3!? 15 'it'b3 oo was Seirawan­
Gurevich, US Ch 1984; II d4 is
probably best here too) 1 0 cd ed
II d4 ll:lc4 12 e3 ("±" Benko;
Black's d-pa wn is a target) 1 2 ...
..ie6 (12 ... ..if5 13 lil:al 't!t'd7 1 4
't!t'b3 - 1 4 lLlge2! lvkov - 1 4 ... 0-0
15 ll:lge2 a6? 16 ba ba 17li:lxd5 ±±
Ivkov-Keene, Skopje OJ 1972) 13
lLlge2 t!fd7 14 lil:al ! 0-0 15 ..ia3
lLlxa3 16 lil:xa3 ll:lc8 17 0-0li:ld6 18
'ti'b3 li:le4 19 lil:faI ± Benko-Martz,
Vrnjacka Banja 1973.
7 e4
This is the Botvinnik set-up
(c4/e4) as in the next chapter.
There we consider e4 versus ... e6,
but in general Black avoids ... a5.
Here he is already committed to
that move, so one should not be
surprised that White gets interesting
chances. Seventh-move options:
a) 7 d3!? ll:lge7 8 ..id2 0-0 9li:lfJ d5
10 tiel li:ld4!? (1 0 ... b6! =; see
Chapter 5, line C) 11 b3 ..id7? (II
... b6) 12 cd ed 13 li:lxd4 cd 1 4
lLlxd5 t Ree-Uhlmann, Amsterdam
1 975.
b) 7 ll:lh3 ll:lge7 (7 ... d5(?) 8 cd ed
9 li:lf4 d4 10 lLle4 c4 II t!t'a4) 8 lLlf4
0-0 9 b3!? (9 0-0) 9 ... d5!? (9 ...
lil:b8 10 ..ib2 b6 =) 10 cd ed II
lLlcxd5 lLlxd5 1 2 lt'Jxd5 lt'Jd4 13 0-0
(1 3 e3 ..ih3! Bukic; 13 lLle3!?) 1 3 ...
..ig4 1 4 lLlc3 lil:e8 15 f3 lLlxe2+
(1 5 ... ..if5! 16 e4 ..ie6 =/oo Bukic)
16 lt'Jxe2 ..if5 17 Ii:b2 ..id3 1 8 Ii:f2
and White took charge in Miles­
Adorjan, London 1975.
c) 7 h4!? tries to improve upon 'b':
7 ... lt'Jge7!? (7 ... h5 8 d3 ll:lge7 9
..ig5 t:, or 8 li:lh3 lt'Jge7 9 lt'Jf4; 7 ...
h6! 8 lt'lh3 ll:lge7 9 li:lf4 0-0 10 b3
b6! 11 ..ib2 d6 =) 8 h5 d5 9 cd ed
(9 ... li:lxd5 10 t!fa4 t) 10 d3 ..ie6
II ltJ h3 f6? 1 2 lt'Jf4 ..if7 13 h6 ..iffi
14 't!t'b3 ±± Watson-Fuller, Harrow
1 979.
 Introduction and Various 5th Moves
7 d6
8 d3 lLlge7
9 lLlge2 0-0
Adorjan-Ermenkov, Warsaw Z
1 979, saw 9 ... b6 10 0-0 .i.b7 II
.i.e3!? lLld4 1 2 b4 ab 1 3 ab .i.c6 1 4
'ifd2 with a draw. Perhaps IIlLlb5!?
with the idea d4, e.g. II ... lLld4? 1 2
lLlxd4 cd 1 3 e5!. or II ... c 5 12 f4
( 12 .i.d2!? intending b4) 12 ... ef 13
gf f5 (13 ... 0-0 14f5) 14cflLlxf5(1 4
... gf 1 5 .i.e3 and d4) 15 .i.d5lLlfe7
(15 ... 'ifd7? 1 6 .i.e6!) 16 f5! lLlxf5
17 lixf5 gf 1 8 lLlg3 or 18 lLlf4.
10 0-0 (7)
1 0 .i.e3 b6 (intends II d4 e5) II
0-0 lib8 (II ... i.a6 1 2 b3 lib8
1 3 d4 e5 = Martinovic-Psakhis,
Sarajevo 1 981 ;12 f4!?) 12 "i!fd2(1 2
f4!?) 1 2 ... ..ta6 13 b3,0 smanovic­
Psakhis, Sarajevo 1 98 I. and now
Psakhis gives 13 ... lLle5! 14 .i.f4
lLl7c6 15 a4 .i.b7 =.
10 lib8
a) 10 ... .i.d7?! II lLlb5! 'ifb6 12
i.g5 ( 12lLlxd6lLld4 ) 12 ... h6 1 3
= 1 3 .i.e3
I1
.i.e3 d5 (13 ...lLld4 1 4 b4!) 1 4 ed ed
15lLlec3!lLld4 16 .i.xd4 cd 17lLlxd5
<t:lxd5 1 8 .i.xd5 ± with the idea b4
(1 8 ... .i.xb5 1 9 "i!i'b3!), Adorjan­
Sznapik, Warsaw Z 1 979.
b) 10 ... lLld4 II b4 ab 1 2 ab lLlec6
13 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 1 4 be be 1 5 f4 f5?
(1 5 ... e5!?;1 5 ... lLlf3+ :t Miles) 16
e5 ( ± " Miles) Miles-Olafsson,
"
Lone Pine 1 978.
c) 10 ... eS II lLld5 lib8 1 2 lLlec3
.i.e6 13 .i.d2 :t .
d) 10 ... b6 may transpose to the
text. Aside from II lLlb5, White
may consider II f4!?, e.g. II ... f5
12 ef (intending .i.e3, d4) or II ...
i.b7 12 lLlb5 (e.g. 12 ... f5 13 d4 :j;
or 12 ... lLld4 1 3lLlexd4 cd 1 4 lH2).
II lLlbS!
Smejkal's move. II .i.e3 e5 1 2
lLld5 is met by 12 ... b5!.
II b6
II ... d5?! 1 2 cd ed 1 3 .i.f4!
(Smejkal) retains the initiative,
and II ... e5 1 2 lLlec3 f5 1 3 ef gf,
Ritov-Balashov, Tallinn 1973, could
be answered by 14 f4!?, e.g. 1 4 ...
.i.e6 15 lLld5 (1 5 ... .i.f7 16 fe!),
14 ... lLld4 15 b4, or 1 4 ... lLlg6 15
lLld5 .i.e6 16 fe de 17 'ifh5. Best is
1 4 ... �h8!.
12 d4 i.a6
12 ... e5 1 3 d5 lLld4 1 4lLlexd4 cd
15 b4 :t (Smejkal), or 1 2 ... cd 13
lLlexd4 lLlxd4 1 4 lLlxd4 .i.b7 1 5 f4
;t (weak d-pawn;1 5 ... d5 16 cd ed
17 e5).
llb7
 12 Introduction and Various 5th Moves
1 4 a4 (intending d5) 14 ... cd 1 5
ll:lexd4 ll:lxd4 16 �xd4 �xd4 1 7
'i¥xd4 lld7 18 llbd1 ll:lc6 1 9 'i¥e3
± Smejkal-Andersson, Biel IZ
1976.
A3
5 d6
6 llbl
a) 6 e3!? is my recommendation
for excitement here, e.g. 6 ... e5
(6 ... �xc3!?) 7 b4!!? cb 8 ab ll:lxb4
9 �a3 ll:ld3+ 1 0 �e2 (8)
II
B
10 ... ll:lc5 11 d4 ed 1 2 ed �f5!?
(on 1 2 ... t!t'a5? or 12 ... ll:le6?, 1 3
ll:lb5!; 12 ... a6 1 3 de �xc3 1 4 lib I
and cd) 13 de �xc3 14 llcl 'i¥a5
15 'ti'b3 :t
6 e3 ll:lh6 7 ll:lge2 ll:lf5 8 b4!?
(8 lib1 a5 9 b3 h5 1 0 h3 e5 11 �b2
h4 1 2 g4 ll:lfe7 1 3 d4 oo Seirawan­
Hort, Hastings 1979-80) 8 ... h5!?
(acceptance is critical) 9 libI ll:le5
1 0 'i!t'c2!? llb8 11 f4 ll:lxc4 12 be 0-0
oo Seirawan-Giardelli, Mar del
Plata 1 982.
b) 6 ll:lf3 e5 7 0-0 (7 b4 e4!) 7 ...
ll:lge7 is Chapter 5, line D.
6 aS
7 e3 e5
Or 7 ... h5!? 8 h3 ll:lh6.
8 ll:lge2 ll:lge7
The position resembles Chapter
2, line B. Black does not generally
resort to ... a5 there, but neither
does White gain much by the in­
sertion of a3. Hort-van der Stcrren,
Lone Pine 1 979, continued 9 b3
llb8! 10 ll:lb5 (else 1 0 ... �e6 11 d5
b5) 10 ... 0-0 II ll:lec3 f5 1 2 d3 �e6
13 ll:ld5 �f7
=.
A4
5 a6
This move constitutes the most
serious problem for 5 a3: White
has trouble breaking symmetry to
good effect.
6 llbl
6 ll:lf3 will be seen in Chapter 5:
5 ll:lf3 a6 6 a3.
6 llb8
7 'ti'a4! (9)
The best bet. 7 ll:la4?! 'i!t'a5
achieves nothing, and 7 b4 cb
8 ab b5 9 cb (9 c5 a5 10 �a3 ab
II �xb4 ll:lxb4 12 llxb4 �xc3 =
Tarjan-Gheorghiu, Hastings 1979-
80) 9 ... ab has been shown to be
equal by many years of games.
10 ll:lf3 allows any of 10 ... d6 =,
10 ... e5 = or 10 ... d5 =;see Chapter
5, line A. 1 0 ll:lh3 lt:Jh6 11 0-0 0-0
12 d4 d5 1 3 �xh6 �xh3! = and
10 e4 e5 (or 10 ... d6 =) also
=
achieve nothing.
 Introduction and Various 5th Moves
7 ti:Jd4!
a) 7 e6? 8 b4 cb 9 ab ti:Jge7? (9 ...
...
'f/c7 ±) 1 0 b5 ab II cb 't'fa5 12 be
i.xc3 13 'i!t'xa5 i.xa5 14 cb 0-0 1 5
bc't'f 1-0 Watson-Meyer, Vancouver
1976.
b) 7 ... ti:Jh6? 8 b4 cb 9 ab b5 lOeb
ab II ti:Jxb5 'i!t'b6 1 2 ti:Ja3! ti:Jxb4?!
13 ti:Jh3 ti:Jf5,Seira wan-Gheorghiu,
US A 1978, and now 14 0-0 ± with
the idea ti:Jc2, i. a3 (Gheorghiu).
c) 7 ... d6!? 8 i.xc6+ be 9 'i!t'xc6+
i.d7 1 0 'i¥g2?! (10 @'xa6? i.xc3!
I I de @'c7 intending ... i.c6; 10
@'f3! i) 10 ... i.xc3! II de ti:Jf6
=/oo intending ... i.f5, ... i.a4.
Christiansen recommends 9 ...
�f8"!" with the idea 10 ti:Jf3 i.b7
II @'a4 @'c8! etc; 1 0 f3 i.b7 II
'f/a4 is awkward but probably
best. Seirawan-Timman, Mont­
pettier C 1985, avoided this line by
8 b4!? i.f5 (8 ... i.d7 9 b5 ti:Ja5!?)
9 i.xc6+ be I 0 'it'xc6+ i.d7 II
'it'xa6 i.xc3! 12 de ti:Jf6, and instead
of 13 ti:Jf3?!, 13 i.h6 with the idea
13 ... ti:Jg4 14 i.g7 lig8 15 h3(15 ...
13
i.xf2!?) or 1 3 ... ti:Je4 1 4 i.g7 lig8
15 f3 oo, when 15 ... lhg7 16 fe
lia8 ought to be fine.
8 b4
8 e3 b5 9 cb (9 ti:Jxb5 ti:Jxb5! 10
cb ab II @'a7 i.b7 12 i.xb7 'it'c7)
9 ... tiJ xb5 I 0 ti:Jge2 ti:Jf6! ( 10 ... e6
I I ti:Je4!) II 0-0 0-0 12 d3 (12 b4
c4! or 12 ... cb 13 ab d5 =) 1 2 ... d6,
Rajkovic-Gheorghiu, Lone Pine
1 979, and here instead of 13 b4?
i.f5! 14 lid! c4! 1 5 e4 i.g4 +,
13 i.d2 is best, e.g. 1 3 ... i.f5 1 4
ti:Je4 ti:Jxe4 1 5 d e i.c8 16 lifd l oo.
8 bS
8 ... cb 9 lixb4!?@'c7!(9 ... e6 1 0
c5!) 10 ti:Jd5 @'c6! =/oo Rajkovic­
Matulovic, Yugoslavia 1979.
9 cb ti:JxbS
9 ... ab?! 10 @'a7. After 9
ti:Jxb5 Seirawan-W.Schmidt, Indo­
nesia 1983, went 10 ti:Jxb5 lixb5
II ti:Jf3 (II e3 'it'c7 1 2 ti:Je2 i.b7 =)
II ... i.b7!? (II ... ti:Jf6 Schmidt)
12 i.b2 (1 2 0-0 ti:Jh6!?- 12 ... liJf6
- 13 d3 cb 14 lixb4 lixb4 15@'xb4
i.c6 1 6 i.g5 i Seirawan-Jansa,
Biel IZ 1 985) 1 2 ... i.xb2 (12 ...
ti:Jf6 1 3 be) 1 3 lixb2 ti:Jf6 14 0-0
@'a8 15 lic l cb 16 lixb4(16 ti:Jd4!
Schmidt; this looks best) 16 ... 0-0
1 7 lixb5 ab 18 1!t'b4 d6 19 d3 lic8,
and now instead of 20 lixc8+ oo,
Schmidt calls 20 libI "±', but
after 20 ... i.c6 this is not at all
clear either (21 i.h3!?).
8
5 b3 (10)
 14 Introduction and Various 5th Moves
10
B
A flexible move employed by
Smyslov and Larsen.
8 1 5 ... li:Jf6
8 2 5 ... e6
a) 5 e5 is normal, but after 6 .ib2
...
li:Jge7 White usually plays 7 e3 0-0
8 li:Jge2 transposing to Chapter 2.
7 li:Jf3 d5 8 cd li:Jxd5 9 li:Jxd5 (9
li:Jxe5!? .ixe5! 10 .ixd5 .ih3 m)
9 ... 'ti'xd5 I 0 0-0 'ti'd61ooks equal.
b) 5 ... b6 6 .ib2 .ib7 7 li:Jf3 is
Chapter 2, but White also has 7
_.bl !?, e.g. 7 ... 'ti'b8 8 li:Jd5! .ixb2
(8 ... li:Jd4 9 e3 e6 10 ed ed II cd cd
1 2 li:Je2 li:Je7 13 li:Jxd4 li:Jxd5 14
li:Jf5!) 9 .-xb2 f6 1 0 li:Jf3 t:.
c) 5 . ..d 6 6 .ib2 e5 transposes to
Chapter 2, and here 6 ... e6 7 li:Jh3!?
is promising, with the idea li:Jf4,
d3, 'ti'd2, li:Je4 etc.
d) 5 ... .ixc3!? 6 de .-as('!) 7 .id2!?
li:Jf6 8 li:Jh3 d6 = Marangunic­
Barle, Bled/Portoroz 1979. But
why not 7 li:Jh3(!) .-xc3+ 8 .id2
_.g7 9 li:Jf4 with the idea li:Jd5 and
.ic3 or llc l and .ic3 etc?
81
5 li:Jf6
6 .ib2 0-0
7 d3!?
a) 7 li:Jh3!? is an attempt to clamp
down on d5 by li:Jf4 (II):
al) 7 e5 8 0-0 d6 9 f4 .id7 1 0 e3
...
.ixh3!? (1 0 ... .ig4) II .ixh3 ef 1 2
gf d5 13 .ig2 dc 14 bc'8'd7 15 llbl
llad8 16 li:Jd5 ;t Romanishin­
Belyavsky, USS R Ch 1974.
a2) 7 d 6 8 0-0 .id7 9 e3 li:Je4!?
...
10 'i!t'c I li:Jxc3 II .ixc3 e5 1 2 f4
m Larsen-Polugayevsky, Bugojno
1980.
a3) 7 d5 (! ) is untried but unjustly
...
so. e.g. 8 li:Jxd5 (8 li:Jf4 d4 9 li:Ja4
�d6!; 8 cd li:Jxd5 9 llcl m) 8 . . .
li:Jxd5 9 .ixg7 'it>xg7 10 cd .ixh3
II .ixh3 �xd5 12 0-0 llfd8 1 3 d3
b6 =.
b) 7 li:Jf3 e5!? is also seen: 8 0-0 d6
9 d3 li:Jh5 (9 ... llb8 10 a3!?, e.g.
10 ... a6 II li:Jd2 .ie6 12 li:Jd5) 10
li:Jd2 .ig4 II a3 .ih6?! 1 2 b4! ;t
Petrosian-Portisch, match (9) 1974.
7 e6
 Introduction and Various 5th Moves
7 ... d6 8 't!t'd2 J.d7 9 lt:lh3 with
the idea lt:lf4; 7 ... llb8 8 't!fd2 a6
9 e3!? b5 10 lt:lge2 e6 II lt:lf4.
8 J.xc6!
Larsen's ingenious idea. Other­
wise 8 ... d5 = follows.
8 be
8 ... de also deserves attention.
I suggest 9llJf3, e.g. 9 ...llJe8 I 0
1i'd2 b6 (10 ... e5 IIllJa4 1i'e7 12
't!fe3) II 't!Ye3!? f6 12 0�-0 e5 1 3
lldg I!? with the idea g4-g5, h4-h5.
9 't!t'd2 (12)
12
8 e5 9 1!t'd2, Larsen-Andersson, Las
9 d6
9 ... e5! is more accurate. Then
Watson-Browne, Los Angeles 1 982,
went 10 0-0-0 d6 II 'it>b l!? (II e3
or II h4 may be better) II ... 't!t'e7!
1 2 f3 J.e6 (12 ... d5? 1 3llJa4 a5-
else 't!Ya5 - 14 J.a3llJd7 1 5 cd ed
16 lilc l etc) 13 h4 h6 14llJh3 lt:ld7
1 5 f4 d5!? 16 e4! d4 17 �a4llJb6
18 \Wa5 lt:lxa4 19 't!Yxa4 't!fd7 20
llJf2 a5 21 J.cI t.
10 f4! 't!t'e7
II lt:lf3 e5 1 2 fe de 13 't!t'g5!.
In Larsen-Betancourt, Lanzarote
15
1 976, White managed by this means
to keep the pawn structure static,
and Black's bishops inactive: 13 ...
lle8 14 0-0-0 h6 (1 4 ... e4? 15llJxe4
± Larsen) 1 5 't!t'e3 �g4 1 6 ifgI h5
17 'it>bI (with the idea 17 ... J.h6
18 J.cl ) 17 ... e4?! 1 8 lt:lxe4 J.xb2
19 'it>xb2 f5 20 llJc3 llJe3 21 llcl
't!ff6 22 't!YeI a5 23 'it>a3! ± intending
llJa4.
B2
5 e6
6 J.b2
6 J.xc6!? was not so impressive
as in BI after 6 ... be 7 J.b2 d6 8 d3
Palmas 1974, when simplest was
9 ...llJge7!, although 9 ...llJf6 10
0-0-0 0-0 II h 4 (II f 4llJg4) II ...
llJh5 was also =.
6 llJge7 (1 3)
13
w
7 h4!?
The most challenging. White
must not be too passive:
a) 7 lt:la4?! J.xb2 8llJxb2 0-0 9 e3
(9llJf3 d5 +) 9 ... d5 10llJf3 ( 1 0 cd?
llJxd5 II lt:le2 b6 12 d4 J.a6 13 de
 16 Introduction and Various 5th Moves
1!t'f6! 14 lLlc4 lLlc3 H Smyslov­
Fischer, Palma de Mallorca IZ
1970) lO ... lLlf5 11 0-0 b6 12lba4
..ib7 13 cd ed 14 d3 t!t'f6 15 'tit'd2
li:ad8 16 li:fd1 li:fe8 + Smyslov­
Tal, Moscow (USS R Club Teams
Ch) 1964.
b) 7 t!t'cl !? is logical, intending
lLld5 or lbe4 at some point, but
Biack's kingside is very solid: 7 ...
0-0!? 8 lbe4 d6 9 ..ixg7 �xg7 I 0
"t!t'b2+ e5 "and Black is already
better" ( Adorjan). Or 7 ... d6 8 f4!?
(8 lLld5 0-0 = or 8 ... e5 9 d3 0-0 10
h4 h6 11 h5 g5 12 f4 f6 oo Donchev­
Adorjan, Prague 1984) 8 ... 0-0 (8
... e5!?) 9 lbe4 e5 10 fe lbxe5 11
lLlf3 f5 12lbf2 lb7c6 13lbxe5 (13
0-0? f4!) l 3 ... de 14 ..id5+!? (14 h4
h6! =) 14 ... 'it>h8 15 ..ixc6 be 16
lLld3 ti'e7! =(17 ..ia3 lild8 18 ..ixc5
ti'e8) Hort-Gulko, Niksic 1978.
7 h6
7 ... h5 8 '@cl !?, e.g. 8 ... d6 9lLle4
0-0 10 ltJf6+ ( lO g4!?) lO ... 'it>h8
11 g4 e5 1 2 g5 lLlg8 13 lbd5 (13
lLle4!?) oo.
8 't!t'b l ! ? d6
8 ... 0-0 9 h5! d5(9 ... g5? lOlLle4)
10 hg fg 11 lLlf3 is promising.
9 lLle4 e5
10 ti' d3! lbf5
lO ... lbb4? II '@xd6 lLlc2+ 12
'it>dl lLlxal 13 ltJf6+! etc.
II e3 0-0
Now Watson-Keene, New York
1981, continued 12 a3 ..ie6 13 h5
g5 14 ltJO (14lLlge2 't!t'b6!? 15 'i!t'c2
l:l:ad8 16 lLlec3 lLlfd7) 14 ... d5! 15
cd ..ixd5! (15 ... 't\fxd5 16 "t!t'b l !
with the idea g4) and here 16l:l:b l!?
..ixe4 (17 lbcxg5 and 17 lt'Jexc5
were threatened) 17 �xe4 lLld6
18 'ilt'd5 was an interesting try.
·
This whole line is unexplored and
replete with creative options.
c
5 d3 (14)
C1 5 ... e6
C2 5 ... d6
a) 5 ... e5 6lbf3 is Chapter 4, line D,
and here 6 e3 is Chapter 2, line B.
b) 5 ... lbf6 has several answers,
e.g. 6 e4(Chapter 2, line A) or 6 ..id2
d6 7 l:l:b l "t!t'd7 8 a3 b6 9lbf3 ..ib7
10 0-0 0-0 11 '@a4 li:fd8? 12 b4
lbe8 13 l:l:fd l ! (with the idea ..iel,
e3, d4) 13 ... lbd4 14 '@xd7 l:l:xd7
15lbxd4 ..ixg2 16 'it>xg2 ..ixd4 17
be be?! ( 17 ... de 18 a4t) 18lba4 e6
19 l:l:b5! with initiative, Rabar­
Djurasevic, Belgrade 1954.
c) 5 .. li:b8! (5 ... a6 allows White
.
the option 6 "t!t'd2 't!t'a5 7 lLld5!?)
6 e3 (if now 6 'i!t'd2 '@a5!, e.g. 7 e3
 Introduction and Various 5th Moves
a6 8 ltJge2 b5 9 ltJe4 't!Vb6 etc) 6 ...
ltJh6 (or 6 ... a6 7 a4 d6 ) 7 ltJge2
= llfdl ltJe7 15 ..ih l ±) 14 ..ig2 ..ie6
ltJf5 8 libI b6 9 a3 ..ib7 I0 b4 'ii'c8
= Borm-Rogers, Eerbeck 1978.
C1
5 e6
6 ltJ h3!?
Again possible is 6 e4. 6 ..id2 is
passive, e.g. 6 ... ltJge7 7 a3 (7 'ii'cI
h6) 7 ... 0-0 8 lib! a5 Krogius­
= 5
Kuzmin, USSR 1964.
6 ltJge7
7 ltJf4 d6 !?
More accurate is 7 ... 0-0 with
the idea 8 'ti'd2 'ii'a5! or 8 0-0 a6 =.
8 'ti'd2 ! llb8
8 ... 't!Va5?! 9 libI lib8 1 0 a3 a6
II b4 with the idea II ... cb 12 ab
ltJxb4 13 ltJe4 ± Bukic.
9 b3 0-0
10 ..ib2 'tW aS!?
10 ... a6; 10 ... b6. White plays
for ltJe4.
11 0-0 eS
Perhaps II ... ..id7. After II . . .
e5 Larsen-Hartston, Hastings 1972-
73, went 12 ltJfd5 ltJxd5 13 ..ixd5
(15)
17
13 ... ltJe7 (1 3 ... ..ih3 Bukic; 14
15 llad l 'i¥d8 16 f4 ef(?) 17 ltJe4!
d5 1 8 ltJf6+ 'Ot'h8 19 cd ltJxd5 20
..ixd5 ..ixf6 (20 ... ..ixd5 21 llxf4)
21 llxf4! ..ixb2 22 1t'xb2+ 'i!lg8 23
..ixe6 fe 24 llxflH 'it'xf8 25 llf l
'f!/e7 26 'it'e5 ±.
C2
d6
6 llb1
6 ltJf3 ltJf6 7 0-0 0-0 is Chapter 3,
line C2.
6 hS!?
Weakening, but imitation by
6 ... llb8 is not problem-free due
to 7 'ti'd2! intending b3, ..ib2, e.g.
7 ... 'tWaS 8 a3 a6 9 b4 cb 1 0 ltJa2!.
Of course 6 ... e5 or 6 ... ltJf6 is
playable.
7 h3. ..id7
8 e3 'ti'c8
8 ... ..ixc3+ 9 be b6 was sug­
gested, but then 10 ltJf3 with the
idea e4, 0-0, ltJh4, f4 keeps the
advantage.
9 ltJge2 ltJ h6
10 a3
Petrosian-Bisguier, New York
1954. The game continued I0 ...
ltJe5!? II f4 ..ic6 12 e4 ltJd7 13
ltJd5! e6 14 ltJe3 t.
Conclusion. 5 ... a6 has taken much
of the sting out of 5 a3, although
Seirawan continues to do reason­
ably well on the White side. Black
might also look into 5 a3 ltJf6, when
18 Introduction and Various 5th Moves

the critical 6 e4 is discussed in the esting alternative to 5 li:Jf3. As for

next chapter. 5 d3, 5 ... I:l:b8 with the idea ... b5
5 b3 has led to some exciting seems the main drawback if White
games, and may be the most inter- needs to make things double-edged.
2 5 e4 and 5 e3

c4 c5 Now Black usually picks one of:

2 lLJc3 lLJc6 AI 5 0 0 0 e6
3 g3 g6 A2 5 0 0 0 lLJf6
4 i,g2 i,g7 Often he will be committed to
The two Pure Symmetrical vari­ one of these moves already. e.g. by
ations about which we have the the order I c4 lLJf6 2 lLJc3 g6 3 g3
most over-the-board experience i.g7 4 i.g2 0-0 5 c4 d6 6 ll:lge2 c5,
arc 5 e4 and 5 c3. The first system when 7 0-0 c5? slightly misplaces
is associated with Botvinnik and, the f6 knight, e.g. l:! f4 ef 9 gf lLJc6
before him, with Nimzowitsch. It 10 d3 :f: or simply 8 d3 lLJeX 9 libI
can come up by a variety of move lLJc6 I0 a3 a5 II lLJd5 .teo 12 f4 or
orders. The second system, 5 c3. is 12 lLJec3 :±:. Others:
in a sense the most natural move a) 5 ... e5 6 lLJge2 lLJeg7 7 d3 d6
for White, who can bring his king's with:
knight to the flexible e2 square and al) 8 i.c3?! (This will illustrate the
leave himself the option of pressing rules of thumb: don't put your
forward with d4 or slowly building knight on d5 until the opponent
up by d3. has played o o . i.e6, and don't play
A 5 e4 i.c3 too early lest your opponent
B 5 e3 play 0 0 0 lLJd4 in favourable circum­
A stances. They apply to Black also)
5 e4 (16) 8 oo· lLJd4 9 0-0 0-0 10 'it'd2 a6 II
i.h6 :Sb8 (or II 0 0 0 lLJec6) 12 i.xg7
®xg7 13 lLJxd4 cd 14 lLJe2? (14
lLJd5) 14 0 0 0 b5 +Fuller-Jamieson,
Melbourne I975.
a2) 8 0-0 0-0 (8 0 0 0 i.e6?! 9 lLJd5!;
8 0 0 0 :Sb8 9 :S b l a6 IO a4 0-0 II
i.d2 with the idea lLJd5) 9 a3 (9 f4!?
ef 10 gf could be tried) 9 0 0 0 i.e6?!
(9 o o . a6! 10 :Sbl :Sb8 = ) 10 :Sb l f5
II lLJd5 fe 12 de lLJd4? (breaking
 20 5 e4 and 5 e3
both rules!) 13 ll:lxd4 cd 14 i.g5
i.xd5 15 cd 'it'd7?! (but otherwise
i.h3 will ensure the win in any con­
ceivable ending) 16 i.h3! 1!rxh3
17 i.e7 ±t lvkov-Torre, Madonna
di Campiglio 1973.
b) 5 ... b6 6 ll:lge2 i.b7 7 d3!? e6
8 0-0 ll:lge7 will transpose to A I
below, but here 7 0-0! e6 8 d4! is
very strong: 8 ... cd (8 ... ll:lxd4 9
ll:lxd4 i.xd4 10 ll:lb5 i.e5 II ll:ld6+
i.xd6 12 1!rxd6 ±; 8 ... i.xd4 9
ll:lb5 i.e5 10 i.f4! Uhlmann) 9
ll:lb5 d6 10 ll:lexd4 ll:lxd4 II ll:lxd4
ll:le7 12 1!i'a4+ (or 12 i.g5 0-0 13
1!i'd2 ± Uhlmann) 12 ... 1!i'd7 13
'i*xd7+ �xd7 14 li[dl a6 15 i.e3
llhc8?! 16 li[ac l li[ab8 17 b4! ±
Uhlmann-Danailov, Halle 1984.
c) 5 ... a6 6 ll:lge2 b5!? is probably
playable, e.g. 7 cb (7 d3 ) 7 ... ab
= 9 ... li[b8 (9 ... 'i*a5 10 li[c l ll:lec6
8 ll:lxb5 i.a6 9 ll:lec3 1!ra5 10 a4
i.xc3! II ll:lxc3 (II be!? i.xb5 12
ab oo) II ... ll:lb4 etc. But 5 ... a6
6 a4! commits Black too early to a
formation which tends to favour
White; compare what follows.
AI
5 e6
6 ll:lge2 ll:lge7 (17)
Instructive is 6 ... llb8 7 d3 a6
8 a4! ll:lge7 9 0-0 0-0, and now 10
f4?! d6 II �hi i.d7 12 llb l 'it'e8!
(intending ... ll:ld4, ... b5) 13 e5?
de 14 ll:le4 b6 15 fe ll:lxe5 =F was
Roizman-Pankratov, USSR 1970.
Much better is 10 li[b l ! d6 11 i.e3
(with the idea d4) II ... e5 (II ...
ll:ld4 12 b4 !) 12 ll:ld5! a5 (12 ...
ll:lxd5 13 cd ll:lb4 14 f4 ;!:: with the
idea 14 ... ef 15 gf f5 16 e5!) 13 f4 t,
e.g. l 3 ... ef 14 gf f5 15 e5 b6 16 ed
'it'xd6 17 d4 t.
17
w
7 0-0
7 d3 helps forestall some of
Black's queenside ideas, e.g. 7 ...
a6!? 8 i.e3 ll:ld4 9'it'd2(or 9li[b l !)
II i.h6 Taimanov) 10 lii:cI! h5?!
II i.g5 d6 12 0-0 b5 13cb ab 14 b4!
0-0 (14 ... cb 15 ll:lxd4 be 16 'i*xc3
'i*b6 17 'it'c7! Taimanov) 15 be de
16 e5! i.xe5 17 ll:le4 f6 18 i.h6 llf7
19 ll:lxc5 ± Hort-Uhlmann, Skopje
1968.
7 0-0
8 d3
8 a3 will transpose after (e.g.)
8 ... a6 9 li[b l llb8 or 8 ... d6 9 libI
b6. Here and on the next few moves,
... a5 transposes to Chapter I, line
A2.
8 d6
9 li[b 1
9 i.e3 ll:ld4 10 1!Vd2 i.d7 II

i.h6 ll:lec6 = and 9 f4 a6 10 g4!? f5!
II gf gf 12 ll:lg3 ll:ld4! are unchal­
lenging.
9 b6
9 ... a6!? 10 a3 llb8 (10 ... b5!?
II cb ab, Makarichev-Kasparov,
USSR Ch 1978, and now critical
would be 12 ll:lxb5 i.a6 13ll:lbc3!?
or 13 a4!? 13 ... ll:le5 14 ll:lf4!
- -
with the idea 14 ... g5 15ll:lh5 i.xd3
16 i.xg5 etc) II b4 cb 12 ab b5 13
cb ab 14 d4! d5 15 .if4 llb6
16 't!t'b3! ;t Reshevsky-E.Castro,
Lugano 01 1968. The ideas include
(e.g.) 16 ... de 17 llfd1! f5? 18 d5
and 16 ... ll:lxd4 17 ll:lxd4 i.xd4
18 llfd l ! etc.
10 a3 i.b7
11 b4 it'd7
1 2 i. e3 (18)
12 tt'a4 !? llfd8 13 llfd1 ll:ld4 14
it'xd7 ll:lxe2+ 15 ll:lxe2 llxd7 16
.ie3 (";t" Speelman) was Lein­
Hartston, Hastings 1978-79- dull
but somewhat unpleasant for Black.
18
B Opening lines of the King's Indian
12 ll:ld4
12 ... llac8 13 f4ll:ld4 14 i.f2! f5
5 e4 and 5 e3 21
(14 ... ll:lec6 15 b5 t) 15 ll:lxd4 cd
16 ll:lb5 fe 17 ll:lxd4 e5 18 fe de 19
ll:lb5! a6 20 de it'xdl 21 llfxd1 ab
22 cb! (with the idea lld7, .ixb6)
led to an overwhelming queenside
pawn mass for White in Sehner­
Chandler, West Germany 1985.
13 it'd2 n fe8
13 ... llfd8 14 i.h6 is similar,
�
and 14 i.f2 with the idea d4 is
also possible. 13 ... ll:lec6!..
14 i.h6
14 f4. 14 lHcl ll:lec6 15 i.xd4
ll:lxd4 16lLl xd4 cd 17 ll:le2 lilacS 18
b5 llc7 19 a4 :t Zi.iger-Adorjan,
Thessaloniki 01 1984.
14 i.h8
We are following Soos-Geller,
Varna 1964. After 15 ll:lxd4 cd 16
ll:le2 Black played the odd 16 ...
a5? 17 ba ba 18 llb6 and got into
trouble. Better was 16 ... d5 (16 ...
b5 !?) 17 cd ed 18ll:lf4 de 19 de ll:lc6
oo, with the idea 20 ll:ld5 ll:le5.
A2
5 ll:lf6
This is one of the purely English
Defence.
6 ll:lge2
6 d3 0-0 7 f4 d6 8 ll:lO (8 ll:lge2
ll:le8 9 0-0 ll:ld4 = was Grigorian­
Antunac, USSR v Yugoslavia 1964)
8 ... llb8 9 0-0 a6 =,e.g. 10 llb1 b5
II b3 ll:le8 12 ll:ld5 ll:lc7 13 .ib2
i.g4! = Bronstein-Najdorf, Moscow
1967.
6 0-0
22 5 e4 and 5 e3
7 0-0 (19)
7 d4? cd 8lt:Jxd4lt:Jxe4! =t= Euwe.
/9
H
7 d6
There are so many games with
this line that I will limit myself to
the most typical and (hopefully)
revealing examples. Here Black
also has:
a) 7 ... a6 8 lib1 (8 a4! or 8 d3; see
below) 8 ... Il:b8 9 a3 b5 10 cb ab
11 b4 cb 12 ab e5 = (with the idea
13 d4? ed 14lt:Jxd4lt:Jxd4 15'it'xd4
lt:Jxe4!) Smyslov-Taimanov, USSR
Ch 1961.
b) 7 ..lt:Je8 8 a3(8 d3lt:Jc7 9 libI !?;
.
compare A22) 8 ... lt:Jc7 9 Il:b1 a5
(or 9 ... d6!?, e.g. IOb4lt:Je6 is A21
below) 10 d3 (10 lt:Jd5!?) 10 ...
lt:Je6!? II f4 f5 12 g4!? lt:Jed4 13 gf
lt:Jxe2+ (?! 13 ... gf) 14 lt:Jxe2 gf
-
15lt:Jg3 with an attack, Augustin­
Kozlov, Stary Smokovec 1976.
After 7 ... d6:
A21 8 a3
A22 8 d3
A2l
8 a3 (20)
This is less flexible than 8 d3,
especially since White is some­
times able to profit from the move
a4.
8 aS
a) Often played is 8 ... lt:Je8,
transposing after 9 Il:b1 a5. Instead,
9 libI Il:b8!? 10 b4 b6 II d3lt:Jc7!
12 b5 lt:Jd4 13 lt:Jxd4 .txd4 was
Stolyar-Bikov, USSR 1957, when
14 lt:Je2 J.g7 is of interest. Most
important is 9 lilb l lt:Jc7!? 10 b4
lt:Je6 II d3 lt:Jed4 12 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxd4
13 lt:Je2, and now Stolyar-Zilber,
Leningrad 1957, went 13 ... b6 14
lt:Jxd4 .txd4 15 J.b2 .txb2?!(15 ...
e5) 16 llxb2 e5?!( 16 ... .ib7 17 f4 e6
18 f5?! ef Stolyar-Nezhmetdinov,
=
Moscow 1957, but 18 'it'el ! with
the idea g4 improves) 17 f4 f6 18
Il:2f2 lilb8 19 h4! 'it'e7 20 f5 ±.
b) 8 .. i.d7 9 h3 lt:Je8 (or 9 ... a6)
.
10 libl lt:Jc7(10 ... a5) II b4lt:Je6
12 d3 lilb8, and now Shatskes gives
13 b5! lt:Jcd4 14 f4! :t
9 libl

9 h3(!), to prevent... .ig4, might
be more accurate, but this hasn't
been tried yet.
9 .i g4!
Others seem less desirable:
a) 9 .id7!? 10 h3 Iii: b8 (I 0 ...lt:Je8
...
II d3 lt:Jc7 12 .ie3 lt:Jd4 13 b4 ;t)
II d3 lt:Je8 12 .ie3 e5!? (12 ...lt:Jd4
13 b4 ab 14 ab t) 13 �h2 lt:Jd4 14
b4 ab 15 ab b6 16 't!fd2 lt:Jc7 17
llb2! (t intending lltbl or llfal)
17 ... f5 18 ef gf 19 .ig5 't!fe8 20 be
± Watson-Shean, Denver 1977.
b) 9 ... lt:Je8 10 d3lt:Jc7 II .ie3 (II
lt:Jd5lt:Jxd5! 12 edlt:Jd4 =; Illt:Ja4!?
lt:Je6 12lt:Jec3 .id7! =) II ...lt:Jd4!?
(II . . lt:Je6!?) 12 b4 ab 13 ab b6,
. Minsk 1963.
Evans-Fischer, New York 1967,
and now 14 h3 ;tor 14 't!fd2 would
maintain the tension.
10 f3
10 h3 .ixe2! IIlt:Jxe2lt:Je8 12 d3
lt:Jc7 13 i.d2 b5! = intending 14 e5?
lt:Jxe5.
10 .id7
11 d3 lt:Je8
12 .ie3!? (12 h3 with the idea
f4) 12 ... lt:Jc7 13 b3 (13 d4 cd 14
lt:Jxd4 a4!, or 14 ... lDxd4 15 .ixd4
.ixd4+ 16 1!t'xd4lt:Je6 and 17 ... a4)
13 ...lt:Jd4 14 a4lt:Ja6 = Taimanov­
Gurgenidze, USSR Ch 1958.
A22
8 d3 (21)
Here White emphasizes central
and kingside play. Black must be
very careful not to cede too much
space.
5 e4 and 5 e3 23
21
B
8 lt:J e8
a) 8 ... .id7 9 h3 't!fc8? ! 10 �h2
lt:Je8 11 .ie3 lt:Jc7 (II ... lt:Jd4 12
.ig5! Shatskes) 12 d4 cd 13lt:Jxd4
lDe6 14lt:Jde3:!: Rapopov- Litvinov­
b) 8 . lii: b 8 9 llb1 b6!? 10 d4( 10 h3
..
Nei) 10 ... cd 11 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxd4 12
't!fxd4lt:Jxe4!? 13 't!fxe4 .ixc3, Ritov­
Spassky, Tallinn 1973, and now
instead of 14 .ig5 .ie5! =!= White
had 14 be! i.f5 15 1!Ve2 i.xa1 16 g4!,
which is at least equal and perhaps
better for White.
c) 8 ... .ig4!? could use tests: 9 f3
.id7 10 h3 with the idea f4 or here
10 .ie3 seems best.
d) 8 . a6 9 h3 (9 lii: b1 lii:b8 10 a4
..
lt:Je8 11 .ie3lt:Jc7 12 d4 t) 9 ... llb8
10 a4!lt:Je8 (10 ... i.d7 II llb1 e6
12 .ie3 h6 13 �h2 �h7 14 d4:!:
Watson-Williams, New York 1979)
II .ie3 and now Black can try II
... lt:Jd4, when 12 .ig5 h6 13 .id2
(Shatskes) is not too frightening.
Better is 12 lii: b l!lt:Jc7(12 ... .id7
13 b4 cb 14 llxb4 t Azmaiparashvili-
 24 5 e4 and 5 e3
Chekhov, USSR 1980) 13 b4
lt:lxe2+? (13 ... b6 ;!;) 14 lt:lxe2 cb
15 .ib6! .id7 16 lhb4 ±.
Otherwise I I ... lt:lc7 is possible,
but then 12 d4 is :t, e.g. 12 ... cd( 12
... lt:la5!? 13 b3 lt:le6 14llbl .id7
15 f4! ;!; Taimanov-Suetin, Riga
1954) 13 lt:lxd4 lt:le6 (13 ... .id7
14 lLlde2!, e.g. 14 ... lbe5 15 b3 b5
16 f4) 14 lt:lde2! lt:lc5 15 l:lbl a5 16
b3;!; with the idea 'it'd2 Taimanov.
9 .i e3 ( ! ) (22)
With ... lt:le8 already in, 9 h3 has
less point, e.g. 9 ... lt:lc7 10 g4!?
lt:ld4 (or 10 ... lLle6 I I f4llJed4 12
f5 e6! ) II f4 f5 Taimanov; 12
= =
lbg3 e6 and ... :C:b8.
22
B Gavrikov, USSR 1983.
9 liJd4
9 ... llJc7?! 10 d4 cd I I llJxd4
llJe6 (or l l ... .id7 12llbl !llJe6
13 liJde2 lbe5 14 b3llJg4 15 .icl!
± Watson-Elseth, Hamar 1980)
12 liJde2 lbc5 13 ll:cl .ie6 14 b3 t
Barcza-Szilagyi, Hungary 1967.
10 l:lbl
Or 10 't!t'd2!?, e.g. 10 ... ll:b8 I I
ll:ab I .ig4 12 f3 .id7 13 b4llJc7
14 f4 b6 15 h3 f5 16 �h2 .ic6,
Filip-Giigoric, Moscow 01 1956.
Theory calls this equal, and yet
17 b5 .ib7 18 a4 (with the ideas
llbel , .ig l , lLlxd4, a5, g4) may
favour White slightly.
·to aS
10 ...llJc7 II b4 t. 10 ... b6 I I e5!
llJxe2+ 12 'i!t'xe2 litb8 13 d4! cd 14
.ixd4 de 15 .i xe5 .ig4! 16 it'e3
.ixe5 17'it'xe5'it'd6 18'it'e3! t plan­
ning h3,llbdl ,b3 etc, M.Gurevich­
Sturua, USSR 1981.
11 h3
a) 1 1 b3?! llJc7 12 a3 .ig4! 13 f3
.id7 14 b4 ab 15 ab llJxe2+ 16
llJxe2 cb! 17 .ib6 (17 lhb4 b5 +
M.Gurevich) 17 ... 'i!t'c8 18 litxb4
lba6 19 liib l llJc5 + M.Gurevich­
b) On 1 1 a 3!?, I I ...llJc7 12 b4 t is
A2 l above. I I . ..llJxe2+ 12llJxe2
a4 is unclear after 13 d4 or after
the trade-off of weaknesses (b7 v
a3) following b4.
11 llJc7
12 f4 f5
Here M.Gurevich gives 13 'i!t'd2
with the idea :!I bel, b3, .if2,
llJxd4 with central pressure. This
and I I a3 llJxe2+ are areas for
further investigation.
Conclusion. 5 e4 remains a com­
plicated and unresolved way for
White to conduct the game. The
5 ... lt:lf6 6llJge2 0-0 7 0-0 d6 8 a3
lines give Black several methods

to achieve good play, but 8 d3 has
proven more dangerous; as of now,
the 8 ... li:le8 lines seem best for the
second player.
8 ening his kingside) 9 ..tb2 .ib7
5 e3 (23)
23
B
White's most fundamental move,
preparing li:lge2 and, perhaps, d4.
Bl 5 ... e5
B2 5 ... li:lf6
B3 5 ... e6
a) 5 ... a6?! 6 li:lge2 b5? should
be answered by 7 li:lxb5! (7 d4 t
Taimanov) 7 ... ab 8 cb, e.g. 8 ...
li:le5 (8 ... li:lb4 9 ..txa8 li:ld3+ I 0
�fl ±±:) 9 ..txa8 d5 10 ..tc6+ �f8
II 0-0 ..tg4, Barle-Savon, Yugo­
slavia 1981, and now 12 f4! was
very strong: 12 ... li:lf3+ 13 �g2 or
12 ... li:ld3 13 a4 'it'a5 (otherwise
14 a5) 14 ..txd5 with the idea ..tf3.
b) 5 ...li:lh6 6li:lge2li:lf5 is difficult
to handle for Black, e.g.
b l )7 0-0 0-0 (7 ... llb8 8 d3 b6 9 b3
is similar; for 7 ... g6? see the end
of this note) 8 b3 b6 (8 ... a6 9 llbi
llb8 I 0 .ib2 d6 II d3 ..td7 I2li:ld5
5 e4 and 5 e3 25
..txb2 I3 llxb2 ::t, or here 10 ... b5
II cb ab I2 li:le4 ..txb2 I3 llxb2
'it'b6 14 li:lf4! Shatskes; in both
cases Black suffers from an inability
to play ... e6 without further weak­
10 llbi e6 (10 ... d6 lvkov) II li:lf4
d6 I2 li:le4 ..txb2 I3 llxb2 1!t'e7 I4
'it' aI! li:lg7 I5 h4 f5 I6 li:lg5 ±(the
threat of li:lgxe6 means White gets
d4 in) Geller-R.Byrne, Sousse I Z
I967.
b2) 7 b3 a6 8 ..tb2 0-0 9 d3 d6 (9 ...
llb8 10 0-0 b5 II llbi t intending
lt:Je4) IO 0-0 ..td7 II 't!td2!? llb8
I2 li:le4 'it'a5 I3 ..tc3 ..txc3 I4
li:lexc3 b5 15 llfei lii:fc8 16 lladi
'it'd8!? I7 li:ld5 'it'f8 oo Andersson­
Miles, Tiiburg I977.
As an illustration of how easy it
is for these lines to become critical,
witness Jakobsen-van der Wiel,
Aarhus I983: 7 0-0 b6? 8 d4! cd
9 li:lxd4 li:lfxd4 IOed ..txd4 II .ih6
..txc3 I2 be ..tb7 I3 c5! 't!lc7 I4
lii: ei be I5 llbi a6(15 ... 0-0-0!PCN,
but then I6 llxe7!, since I6 ...
li:lxe7 I7 ..txb7+ 'it'xb7 I8 llxb7
�xb7 I9 ..tg6 with the idea 'it'd6 is
unplayable for Black) I6 ..tf4 't!Vc8
I7 llxe7+! I-0.
c) 5 ..txc3+ was modestly touted
...
in the first edition, but no one has
picked it up: 6 de!? d6 7 e4 (7 h4!?
and lt:Jh3-f4) 7 ... 't!ld7 8 li:le2 b6
9 li:lf4 ..tb7 10 'it'e2 e6 II li:ld3 h6
I2 ..td2 (12 0-0 li:lge7 I3 f4 0-0-0
I4 b4!?) I2 ... li:lge7 13 0-0-0 0-0-0
26 5 e4 and 5 e3
14 Ilfel 'irc7 15 h4 .ta6 16 b3 b5!
+ Benko-Tarjan, Lone Pine 1979.
Better is 6 be(!) b6 7 lt:lge2 .tb7
8 d3 d6 9 0-0 1i'd7 10 e4, Speelman­
Commons, Lone Pine 1978, which
went 10 ... f5(?) II li:lf4 0-0-0 \12-\12,
although here 12 ef! gf 13 .td5 lt:le5
14 d4 is ±. So 10 ... 0-0-0 is best,
and on II li:lf4, II ... 'i!>b8 12 .th3
1We8 is unclear. The position after
10 ... 0-0-0 looks reasonable for
Black. White might consider trying
to save a tempo by 8 e4 d6 9 0-0,
with the option of d4 in one move.
d) 5 ... h5 6 h4 (6 h3 t) 6 ... li:lh6
7 lt:lge2 lt:lf5 8 a3 lib8 9 liibI
li:ld6?! 10 d3 b5 II cb lt:lxb5 12
lt:lxb5 liixb5 13 1Wc2 .tb7 14 0-0
'ira8 15 lt:lc3 .txc3 16 Wxc3 ±
Padevsky-Gurgenidze, Varna 1975.
e) 5 ... d6 6 lt:lge2 .td7 (6 ... e5 and
6 ... lt:lf6 transpose; 6 ... .tf5 7 d3
h5 8 h3 1Wc8 9 a3 t Sapi-Forintos,
Hungary 1967) 7 0-0 h5 (7 ... 't!t"c8
8 li:lf4 t or 8 d4 ;t) 8 h3 t ECO.
Bl
5 e5
6 lt:lge 2 lt:lge7 (24)
24
w 15 ef lilc8 16 fe! ±;and l l li:la4
7 0-0
Some examples of delayed cast­
ling:
a) 7 d3 d6 8 a3 0-0 9 lib! .te6(or
9 ... a5 10 0-0 lilb8) 10 li:ld5 lilb8
(10 ... b5!? II lt:lxe7+ lt:lxe7 12 cb
li b8 13 lt:lc3 d5 14 a4 f5 is unclear,
Donchev-Adorjan, Prague 1985)
II lt:lec3 a6 12 .td2 b5 13 cb? (13
b4 ) 13 ... ab 14 b4li:lxd5 15li:lxd5
=
lt:le7! 16 lt:lxe7+ Wxe7 17 0-0 c4! =F
Kupka-Faibisovich, Vilnius 1969.
b) 7 a3 d6 8 lil:bl a5 (or 8 ... .te6
9 li:ld5 .tf5 10 d3 li:lxd5 II cd
lt:le7 =, Botvinnik's idea;9 ... b5!?
Gipslis) 9 li:ld5 0-0 10 0-0 .tg4! II
h3 .td7 12 lt:lec3 liib8 13 b4 cb! 14
ab li:lxd5 15 li:lxd5 b5 + Lysenko­
Karpov, Rostov 1971.
c) 7 b3!? d6 8 .tb2 used to be thought
bad due to 8 ... .te6 9 lLld5(?) .t xd5
10 cd lt:lb4, or here 9 d3 d5, e.g. 10
0-0 0-0 II llc l b6 12 a3 Wd7 +with
the idea ... f5 Angantysson-Tarjan,
Lone Pine 1978. But 9 0-0! d5 10 cd
li:lxd5, and now two interesting
ideas of Keene's are II lt:le4 b6
12 lt:lf4!!? intending 12 ... li:lxf4
13 lt:lf6+! .txf6 14 .txc6+ 'i!;>f8
b6 12 d4, although in the second
case mass exchange on d4 should
equalize.
7 0-0
8 b3
This gives the best chances for
some kind of edge.
8 a3 d6 (8 ... a6?! 9 b4!) 9 d3 (9

ll:bl .te6! 10 ll:ld5 .tf5 II ll:lxe7+
't!t'xe7 12 d3 e4! 13 ll:lf4 ed 14 e4
.te6 15 b3 ll:ab8 = Pachman­
Botvinnik, Moscow 01 1956) 9 ...
.te6 10 ll:ld5 Ir.b8! 11 ll:lec3 a6 12
lib! (12 b4 e4! 13 Ir.bl ed 14 't!t'xd3
cb 15 ab ll:le5 =F Adorjan) 12 ... b5
13 cb ab 14 b4ll:lxd5 15ll:lxd5ll:le7
16 ll:lxe7+ 'irxe7 17 .tb2? (17 a4
Adorjan; ) 17 ... c4 18 d4 'ira7!
= Ir.ac l .tg4! 14 h3 .te6 15 ll:ld5?!
19 d5 .tf5 20 e4 .td7 21 lia l f5
=F (c-pa wn and attack) Bertok­
Adorjan, Birmingham 1973.
8 d6
9 .t b2 (25)
9 lib8
a) 9 ... .te6?! 10 ll:le4! h6 II d4 ed
12 ed f5 l 3 lLld2 cd l 4ll:lf3 o!(Keene,
based on Lein).
b) 9 ... .tg4 10 h3! .te6 11ll:ld5(or
II ll:le4! as in 'a') II ... 'ird7 12
¢>h2 ,t Stahlberg-Bobotsov, Zeven­
aar 1961.
10 d3 a6
11 'ird2 b5
12 ll:ad1
An interesting juncture. White
5 e4 and 5 e3 27
could consider the useful waiting
move 12 h3!?. Otherwise he can
play 12 llfdl contemplating central
action, e.g. 12 ... 'it'a5!? 13 llac l
.ie6 14ll:le4 't!t'xd2 15 llxd2("Mini­
mally !" Taimanov) Polugayevsky­
Bobotsov, Le Havre 1966. The
game MacPherson-van der Sterren,
London 1978, went 12 ... �h8 13
( 15 .tal) 15 ... 't!t'd7 16 ct>h2? .txd5
17 cd ll:lb4 +.
12 't!t'a5
Now 12 ... �h8 13 .ta l .tg4 14
h3 .te6 15ll:ld5 is useless. Better is
12 ... .te6, but 13 h3 f5?! (13 ...
't!t'd7) 14 f4 d5 15 fe is also poor:
15 ... de 16 ll:lf4 .ic8 17 ll:lcd5! or
15 ... d4 16 ed cd 17 ll:ld5 o!.
The text is Lein-Polugayevsky,
Tbilisi 1967: 13 h3 .te6 14 .ta l f5
15 f4 �h8 16 't!t'cl ll:lb4 17 lld2
.ig8 18 �h2 libd8 19 llfdl h6!?
20 a3 ll:lbc6 21 ll:ld5! ll:lxd5 22 cd
ll:lb8? (22 ... ll:le7 23 fe de 24 e4!
Petrosian; at least !) 23 fe de 24
't!t'xc5 lieS 25 'it'd6 ±±.
B2
5 ll:lf6
6 ll:lge2
6 d4 generally transposes.
6 0-0
It's a bit illogical to play 6 ... e6!?
(why not 5 ... e6 and 6 ... ll:lge7
instead?), but 7 d4 only transposes
to the next section. The other course
is 7 ll:lf4!? 0-0 8 0-0, and Larsen-Tal,
Bugojno 1984 (by transposition),
28 5 e4 and 5 e3
continued 8 . . . b6!? (9 d4 is threat­
ened; 8 . . . ll:Je 7!?) 9 b3!? (consistent
is 9 d4!: 9 . . . i.a6 !? 10 1!t'a4 i.b7
Tal; but 1 1 li d l looks better for
White) 9 . . . i.a6 1 0 i.b2 ( 10 i.a3 !?
Tal) 10 . . . d5 II lie l li c8 12 d3
d4 !? =/oo.
7 d4
Or 7 0-0, but why allow 7 . . . e6
again?
7 d6
7 . . . cd 8 ed e6!? 9 i.g5?! h6 1 0
i.e3 ll:Je7! = was RaiC:evic-Hort,
Stip 1 977; but 9 d5! intending 9 . . .
ll:J a 5 1 0 b3 o r 9 . . . ed 1 0 cd i s better.
8 0-0 (26)
8 i.d7
The most common try, but White
is better in any case. Others:
a) 8 cd 9 ed i.f5 1 0 d5 ! ( 1 0 h3 h5
...
1 1 b3 't!t'd7 1 2 'it>h2 d 5 ! 1 3 i.a3 ( ! )
de 1 4 d 5 t Watson-Denker, New
York 1 978) lO ... ll:Je5 II b3 't!Vc8
1 2 ll:Jd4 t Rogoff.
b) 8 ... ..trs 9 b3 litb8 1 0 i.b2 't!Va5
( 1 0 . . . a6? II de! de 12 ll:Ja4 and 1 2
. . . 't!Vxd l ? 1 3 lii: a xd 1 lLld7 1 4 i.xg7
and 15 i.xc6 ±, or 1 2 . . . ll:Jd7 1 3
i.xg7 c;S>xg7 1 4 i.xc6 be 1 5 f3 !)
1 1 't!Vd2!? (not II de de 1 2 i.xc6?!
be 1 3 ll:Ja4 ll:Je4 ! , but II a3 ( ! ) has
the idea II . . . a6 1 2 de de 13 ll:Ja4 ±
intending i.c3) 1 1 . . . a6 1 2 l:tfdI
lifc8 ( 1 2 . . . cd!? t) 1 3 de de 1 4
ll:Ja4 !.
c) 8 ... i.g4 ! ? 9 h3 i.xe2 10 ll:J xe2
cd 1 1 ed d5 12 c5 b6 13 i.e3!? (or
13 cb t) 13 ... be 1 4 de ;t with the
idea 1 4 . . . e5 15 i.g5 R. Byme­
Balcerowski, Varna 01 1 962.
9 b3 a6
9 . . . 't!Vc8 l O i.b2 (or l O d5 t, or
1 0 lii: e 1 i.h3 II i. h l i.g4 1 2 't!Vd2
i.xe2 1 3 l he2 cd 14 ed 't!Vg4 1 5
i.b2! ± Petrosian-Giigoric, Bled
1 96 1 ) l O . . . i.h3 1 1 d5 i.xg2 1 2
'it>xg2 ll:Ja5 1 3 't!Vd2 't!Vd8 1 4 ll:Jc 1 a6
15 lil b l lii: b8 16 a4 lLld7 1 7 lite! ±
Hort-Hamman, Copenhagen 1 965.
1 0 i.b2 li b8
1 1 't!Vd2
Or II de!? de 1 2 ll:Ja4! b6 l 3 ltJf4
't!Vc8 ( 1 3 . . . ll:Ja5 1 4 't!t'c2 i.xa4 1 5
ba t Mikenas-Suetin, Vilnius 1 966)
14 li c l e6 1 5 ll:Jd3 ll:Je8 16 i. xg7
ll:J xg7 1 7 't!Vd2 't!t'c7 1 8 li fd 1 ±
with the idea 't!Vb2, ll:Jc3 Kavalek­
N eamtu, Bucharest 1 966.
11 cd
1 1 . . . b5 1 2 eb ab l 3 de ! de 1 4
lii: fd 1 (or 14 lii: a e l , working against
the hanging pawns) 14 . . . 't!Vb6 1 5
lLlf4 is ideal for White, e.g. 1 5 . . . e6
16 ll:Je4 ll:Jxe4 17 i.xe4 i.xb2 1 8
't!Vxb2 ± Pytel-Kupka, Zagreb

1 977.
12 ed
12 ... b5 1 3 cb ab 14 d5 ( ±) 14 . . .
ll:la5 ( 1 4 . . . lLl a 7 1 5 lLl d4 b 4 1 6
lLlce2 lLlb5 1 7 lHe 1 ll: e8 1 8 lLl xb5
± with the idea 1 9 lLld4) 15 lLld4
'i!t'b6 1 6 llfe 1 llfe8 1 7 ll: a c l i.f8?!
18 lLlce2 lil:ec8 1 9 lLlf4 (planning
lLld3-b4) 19 . . . lLle8 20 lLlc6! ±±
Pytel-Wentman, Gausdal 1978.
B3
5 e6
6 lLlge2 lLl ge7 (2 7)
27
w 0-0 (Makarichev gives two instruc­
This is Black's least ambitious
continuation, aiming for only a
draw but challenging White to
achieve more.
7 0-0
Options to mix it up:
a) After 7 lLl f4 0-0 8 0-0 d6 B lack
must be careful, e.g. 9 a3 (9 b3 a6
1 0 i.b2 b5 1 1 d3 i.b7 12 1!t'e2 ll:b8,
about =, Hort-Planinc, Banja Luka
1 974) 9 . . . a6 (9 . . . i.xc3!? would
be interesting) 1 0 lil: b 1 lil:b8 1 1 b4
cb 12 ab b5 13 cb ab 1 4 't!fb3 d5?!
1 5 lLld3! 't!fb6 16 lLl c5 d4 1 7 lLlce4
5 e4 and 5 e3 29
e5 1 8 d3 i.f5 1 9 lLld6 lil: bd8 20 lLlxf5
lLl xf5 2 1 ll:a 1 ± G.Garcia-Estevez,
Camaguey 1 974.
b) 7 d4 (!) is probably best as it limits
Black's options in the main line:
7 . . . cd 8 lLlxd4 d5!? (8 . . . lLlxd4
9 ed d5 10 cd lLl xd5 1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2
't!fb3 and 1 2 lLl xd5 cd 1 3 1!t'a4 !? are
discussed in the main line below)
9 cd lLlxd5 1 0 lLl xd5 lLlxd4 1 1 lLl c3
lLlc6 1 2 't!fxd8+ lLl xd8 and one can
see that the omission of 0-0/ . . . 0-0
makes a difference. White is very
slightly better, and Andersson­
Miles, Tilburg 1 98 1 , went 13 i.d2
tive lines: 1 3 . . . i.d7?! 1 4 lLle4 i.c6
1 5 lLl d6+ �d7 16 i.xc6 �xd6 -
16 . . . �xc6 1 7 lLlc4 1 7 i.f3 i.xb2
-
18 ll b 1 ± intending �e2; and 1 3
. . . �e7 !? 1 4 ll: c 1 i.d7 1 5 0-0 i.c6
16 b4 ±) 14 lil: c 1 i.d7 1 5 0-0 i.c6
1 6 llc2! (t) 1 6 . . . i.xg2 ( 1 6 . . . f5
1 7 i. xc6 lLlxc6 1 8 lLla4 intending
lLlc5 K oval:evic) 17 �xg2 lLlc6 1 8
lLle4 n fd8 (perhaps 1 8 . . . a 5 ! ? with
the idea 1 9 a3 a4 20 lLld6 lla6!
Makarichev) 1 9 i.c3 ll ac8!? ( 1 9 . . .
lil:d5 !?) 20 i.xg7 �xg7 2 1 lil: fc 1
intending lLlc5, a 3 , b4. White's
pressure persisted, and he eventu­
ally won.
7 0-0
7 . . . d5?! is premature due to 8 cd
lLl xd5 9 lLl xd5 ed 10 lLlf4 ! t Hort,
or here 10 1!t'b3 d4 1 1 d3! t Tal.
8 d4 cd
9 lLlxd4
30 5 e4 and 5 e3
9 ed d5 1 0 cd lLl xd5 I I lt:l xd5
( I I 1rb3 lt:l a5 ! 12 1rc2 .id7 ! 1 3
lt:lxd5 ed 1 4 1rc5 lle8 1 5 1rxd5
�g4! +, a game Bukhman-Suetin)
I I . . . ed 12 .ie3 ( 1 2 lt:lc3 lt:lxd4 = ;
1 2 1rb3 i.g4! 1 3 lt:lc3 lt:l xd4 +) 1 2
. . . .ig4 1 3 lle l , Botvinnik-Gligoric,
Hastings 1 96 1 -62, and now 1 3 . . .
1rd7 1 4 1rb3 llad8 i s =.
9 lt:lxd4
9 . . . d5 may be more accurate,
on account of 10 cd lt:lxd5! ( 10 . . .
ed I I 1rb3 lt:l xd4 1 2 ed lt:lf5 1 3
1rxd5 'i!Yxd5 1 4 lt:lxd5 lt:lxd4 1 5
.ig5 t Benko-Geller, Wijk aan Zee
1 969; I 0 . . . lt:lxd4 I I ed lt:lxd5 trans­
poses) I I lt:l xd5 lt:l xd4! = Larsen­
Matulovic, Palma de Mall orca 1967.
H ere I I lie I l0xd4 12 ed 'tWb6 is
also equal.
But the interesting thing here is
that 7 d4( !), instead of 7 0�. doesn't
allow this line; instead we get the
ending of that note, or the play
which follows:
10 ed d5
10 . . . d6 ! ? I I d5 e5 1 2 b3 e4!?
13 i.b2 f5 1 4 'i!Yd2 h6 1 5 lt:lb5 !?
( 1 5 llae I with the idea f3 is t) 15 . . .
.ixb2 1 6 'i!Yxb2 a6 1 7 lt:ld4 g5 1 8
f3 t Doda-Fischer, Havana 1 965.
11 cd lt:lxd5
I I . . . ed?! is worse after either
1 2 .ig5! or 1 2 .ie3 and 13 'i!Yb3 etc.
12 'i!Yb3! (28)
Creating the most problems for
Black. 1 2 lt:lxd5 ed 1 3 .ie3 i.e6 =
or here 1 3 'i!t'b3 i.e6! 14 'i!t'xb7
i.xd4 = has often been seen, and
a game Velez-Boudy, Cuba 1982,
went 13 'i!Ya4!? 'i!Yb6 1 4 .ie3 ( 1 4
.ixd5 i.h3 =) 1 4 . . . .ie6 1 5 ll ac l
ll fc8 =.
28
B
Now Black has a wide choice:
a) 12 ... lt:le7 13 d5 ed 1 4 i.g5 h6
15 .ixe7 'i!Yxe7 16 lt:l xd5 'i!Ye5 =
was Forintos-Sapi, Hungary 1 969.
But 1 3 lld I ! causes more trouble,
e.g. 13 . . . i.xd4?? 14 .ig5 f6 ( 1 4 .. .
lle8 1 5 .if6) 1 5 i.e3 ±±, or 1 3 . . .
lt:lf5 14 d5 etc. Perhaps 1 3 . . . 'W'b6,
yet 14 lt:l a4 ( or 14 'it'a 3!?) 14 . . .
'i!Yxb3 1 5 a b with the idea lt:lb6/ lt:lc5
is not so easy . After 1 5 . . . lLl c6, 1 6
i.f4! renews the threat.
b) 12 ... lt:lb6 13 lild l is similar,
e.g. 13 . . . i.xd4 1 4 i.h6 lle8 1 5 a4!
with the idea 15 . . . a S 16 lild4 f6
1 7 lil xd4 ! or 1 5 . . . e5 1 6 a5 i.e6
17 'i!Yb4.
c) 12 ... 'i!Yb6 13 lt:lxd5!? ed 14 i.e3
.ie6 1 5 ll ac l llac8 16 i. xd5 i.xd5
17 'it'xd5 lilcd8 18 'i!Yc5 i.xd4 1 9
1Wxb6 i.xb6 20 i.xb6 a b 2 1 llfd I
t Kest1er-Pavlov, Bucharest 1 976.

d) 1 2 ... .txd4 (!) is the most critical,
e.g. 13 .th6 ( ! ) lle8? 14 llad l .txc3
15 be 'ti'b6 1 6 'ti'c4 't!rc6 17 'ti'e2! b5
18 .tg5 .tb 7 19 'ti'e5 llac8 20 11 fe I !
.ta8 (now the pawn can't be taken
- if 20 . . . 11t'xc3 then 21 'ti'xc3 and 22
.txd5) 2 1 h4 't!rc5 (21 . . . 't!rxc3? 22
lld5 ! ) 22 .txd5! .txd5 23 .th6 f6
24 'ti'xf6 llc7 25 .te3 'ife7 26 'ife5
:±± Cardoso-Torre, Manila 1973.
13 . . . .tg7 ! is better. After 14
.txg7 ct>xg7 White should try for
a small edge by 1 5 ll fd l 11t'b6 1 6
lLl xd5 1!t'xb3 1 7 ab ed 1 8 ll xd5 ! a6
1 9 b4 t Smyslov-Petrosian, U SSR
Ch 1 974. A similar but probably
less desirable line (for White) goes
1 3 lLlxd5!? ed 1 4 .th6 .tg7 ( 1 4 . . .
lle8 1 5 llad 1 ;;!;) 1 5 .txg7 ct>xg7
1 6 .txd5, Andersson-Gheorghiu,
Moscow 1 98 1 . B lack found 16 . . .
a 5 ! 1 7 llac l ( 1 7 llfd 1 !?) 1 7 . . . a4
5 e4 and 5 e3 31
1 8 't!Vc3+ 1!t'f6 1 9 1!t'xf6+ ct>xf6 20
llc7 lla5! and if 2 1 .txb7, 2 1 . . .
.te6 =.
Conclusion. This last line, with
5 e3 e6 6 lLlge2 lLlge7, remains the
most serious drawback to using 5 e3
as a winning weapon. Andersson's
order with 7 d4 ( ! ), howjv er, gives
White some hope of m � ing Black
suffer for such unimaginative play .
The endings in that line are defen­
sible, but slightly better for White.
Otherwise, 7 lLlf4 is the best bet to
keep the pieces on and try for a
specific advantage later on.
As regards the other replies to
5 e3, 5 . . . lLlf6 is inferior because
it cedes a central advantage, and
5 . . . e5 is a viable and complex
system offering chances for both
sides.
3 5 �f3 �f6 (with
In this chapter we look at assorted
ideas in the Pure S ymmetrical with
lt:lf3, mainly involving . . . d5 ideas
by Black. The first of these is:
A I c4 c5 2 lt:lc3 lt:lf6 3 lt:lf3 d5 4 cd
lt:lxd5 5 g3
Moves other than 5 g3 in this
position are dealt with in Chapter
8. Also, the few lines where Black
plays . . . d5 and . . . g6 withou t . . .
lt:lc6 are i n Chapter 8, line D .
The next two sections introduce
I c4 c5 2 lt:lc3 lt:l c6 3 g3 g6 4 i.g2
i.g7 5 lt:lf3 lt:lf6:
B 6 0-0 d5
C 6 d4 and 6 0-0 0-0, I ntroduction
A ding . . . i.d6, . . . 'i!t'e7) 9 0-0 i.d6
1 c4 c5
2 lt:lc3 lt:lf6
3 lt:lf3 d5
4 cd lt:l xd5
5 g3 lt:lc6 (29)
29
w w
. . . d5 lines)
5 . . . g6 6 i.g2 i.g7 7 lt:lxd5 'tWxd5
8 d3 lt:lc6 is ' B ' below, and here 7
'tWa4+!? lt:lc6 8 1rc4 lt:ldb4 9 0-0
'tWaS is equal.
6 i. g2
a) 6 'i!t'b3?! lt:lc7 + (or 6 . . . e6) is a
good version of the Rubinstein
System - Chapter 6.
b) 6 lt:lxd5(?!) (this can always be
played later, u nless White is afraid
of 6 .ig2 lt:lc7, again Chapter 6)
6 . . . 'tWxd5 7 .ig2 e5 (7 . . . g6 is 'B'
below) 8 d3 (8 0-0 .ie7 9 e3?! e4!
1 0 lt:lei i.f5 II 'i!t'a4 'tWe6 ! 12 d3
.ig4! 13 'tWc2 lt:l b4 + Ree-Smej kal,
Amsterdam 1 975) 8 ... 'tWd7 ( inten­
10 i.e3 ( 10 lLld2! =) 10 . . . 0-0 II
lil c l 'tWe7 12 ltld2 .id7 13 lt:l e4 b6
I4 lt:l xd6 'tWxd6 + A.Schneider­
Portisch, H ungary 1 984.
6 g6 (30)
JO

H ere 6 . . . e5? 7 ltl xe5! ltl xc3 8
i.xc6+ be 9 de 1t'c7 10 1t'a4! is
a blunder, and 6 . . . ltlxc3 7 be
g6 transposes to a Griinfeld-like
position which is discussed in my
English II.
7 d3
a) 7 0-0 i.g7 is ' B ' below.
b) 7 d4!? i.g7 8 0-0 ltl xc3 (8 ... cd
9 ltl xd4 ltlxd4 1 0 ltlxd5 i.g4!? or
1 0 . . . i.e6; 8 . . . ltl xc3 9 be 0-0 is a
Griinfeld Defence) 9 be cd 1 0 cd
ltl xd4 I I ltl xd4 1t'xd4 1 2 llb I
(possibly 1 2 1t'xd4 i.xd4 1 3 ll b l
is more accurate, e.g. 1 3 . . . i.b6
14 i.h6) 1 2 . . . 0-0 13 i.e3 tt'c4!
1 4 1t'd2 i.e6 1 5 llxb7 llad8 =
Ribli-Andersson, Wijk aan Zee
1 983.
c) 7 ltlgS e6! ; see 7 0-0 i.g7 8
= 8
ltlg5 e6 below. 7 ltlg5 ltlb6 8 d3
ltld7 9 0-0 ..tg7 = Djuric-Bertok,
Yugoslavia 1 97 8 .
d) 7 1t'b3? ltldb4! ( o r 7 . . . ltlb6!
8 ltle4 e5! 9 d3 9 d4?! c4! 9 . . .
- -
.i. e6 1 0 tt'd 1 f6 + Szabo-Miles,
Hastings 1 973-74; 7 . . . ltlc7?! 8
ltlg5 ! e6 9 i.xc6+ be 10 d3 ;!;; 7 . . .
e6!? 8 d3 ..tg7 9 i.g5! and 9 . . . ltld4?
1 0 1t'xd5 ! ! or 9 . . . tt'b6 1 0 tt'xb6 ab
I I i.d2 ;!; Uhlmann) 8 ltle4!? (8 a3
ltla5 9 1t'd I lLl bc6 10 d3 i.e6 I I
ltld2 0-0 +; 8 d3 i.g7) 8 . . . i.g7 9
ltl xc5 1t'a5 1 0 lt:le4 i.f5 1 1 ltl fg5
0-0 1 2 e3 h6 1 3 ltlh3 i.e6! H
planning . . . i.c4, Webb-Miles,
England 1 975.
e) 7 't!t'a4 ltlb6 ( ! ) looks good, e.g.
5 lbf3 lbf6 (with ... d5 lines) 33
8 1t'c2 i.g4! or 8 't!t'h4 i.g7 9 d3 h6
or 8 't!t'b5 ltld7 9 d3 ..tg7 1 0 i.e3
lt:ld4. Instead, practice has seen
7 . . . i.g7 8 ltlg5 ! ? (8 't!t'b5 ltldb4
9 0-0 't!t'a5 ! =; 8 't!t'c4 ltldb4 9 0-0
't!t'a5 1 0 ltle4 1t'a6! I I Wxc5 b6 1 2
'i!t'e3 0-0!- 12 . . . lbc2 13 lbd6+ -
1 3 ltl e l i.e6 1 4 ltlc3 ll ac8 1 5
i.xc6 ltlxc6 1 6 d 3 lLl b4 1 7 i.d2 b5!
=F K aiszauri-Georgadze, Tbilisi
1 977) 8 . . . e6 9 ltlge4 ltlb6! 10 tt'b5
c4 I I ltla4 0-0 1 2 ltlxb6 ab 13 't!t'xc4
e5 14 't!t'c2 ltld4 1 5 Wb l f5 1 6 ltlc3
e4 (or 16 . . . i.e6 intending . . . i.b3
Karpov) with a strong initiative,
Tatai-Karpov, Las Palmas 1 977.
7 i.g7
8 i.d2
8 ltl xd5 transposes to 'B'.
0-0!?
Perhaps more accurate is 8 . . .
e6 ( ! ) 9 't!t'c l b 6 1 0 i. h 6 0-0 I I h4
f6 ! 1 2 0-0 i. b7 1 3 i.xg7 �xg7 1 4
tt'd2 e5 1 5 e3 ltlc7! 1 6 ll fd l lt:le6 +
(central bind) Ptleger-Sigurjonsson,
M unich 1 979.
9 tt'cl (31)
31
8
34 5 ltJj3 ltJf6 (with . . d5 lines)
.
9 0-0 b6 and now 1 0 ltJxd5 'tlt'xd5
I I .tc3 i.b7!, or 10 'iWa4 i.b7 I I
ltJxd5 'it'xd5 1 2 ltJg5 'it'd7 1 3 .tc3
h6 = Spiridonov-Bukic, Bajmok
1 980, or 1 0 lii: b l i.b7 I I a3 e6 1 2
'iWa4, K arlsson-Vadasz, Ere van
1 980, when 12 . . . a6 or 12 . . . ltJd4 is
equal.
9 b6
Good seems 9 . . . ltJc7 ! , e.g. 1 0
i.h6 ltJe6 I I h 4 f6! intending . . .
ltJed4. 9 . . . ltJxc3 1 0 be c4!? I I d4
e5 =, I vkov-M iles, Amsterdam
1 976, is also playable, or here 1 0
. . . e 5 I I 0-0 c4!? 1 2 d e ltJa5 1 3 c5,
Uhlmann-Smej kal, Vrbas 1 977,
and now best is 13 . . . 'iWc7! 14 i.e3
i.e6! .
1 0 .th6 .tb7!?
Better is 10 . . . e6! - see Pfleger­
Sigurjonsson above. After 10 . . .
.tb7!? Uhlmann-Aiburt, Bucharest
1 978, continued I I h4 ltJf6 12 h 5 !
ltJd4 1 3 h g ltJxf3+ 1 4 .txf3 .txh6 !
1 5 'iWxh6 i.xf3 1 6 ef fg oo.
Altogether a good line for Black,
barring White's transposition to
'B'.
8 ltJxc3 10 dd!i'b6 ( 1 0 ... b6?! I I ltJg5!
1 c4 c5 2 ltJc3 ltJ c6 3 g3 g6 4 i.g2
.tg7 5 lfjf3 ltJf6 6 0-0:
6 d5
7 cd
I f 7 d3 then Black simply plays
7 ... (}.0 and there is nothing better
than 8 cd, transposing to another
line.
7 ltJ xd5 (32)
32
w
8 ltJ xd5
This time White has some mter­
esting options:
a) 8 d3!? sacrifices the c-pawn for
the sake of quick development and
open lines, e.g. 8 ... ltJxc3 9 be .txc3
10 ll b i i.g7 ( 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I i. h6 or
I I 't!t'a4!?) I I 'it'c2 't!t'd6 12 i.e3 b6
( 1 2 . . . ltJd4 1 3 ltJxd4 cd 14 i.f4) 1 3
i.f4 't!t'd7 I 4 d4! ;t ( J 4 . . . cd I 5 ltJe5)
Speelman-A dy, London I 985.
The problem with 8 d3 is that
after 8 . . . 0-0! White must transpose
by e ither 9 ltJxd5 or 9 i.d2.
b) 8 't!t'a4 ltJ b6! looks good, but
8 . . . 0-0 9 't!t'c4 is less clear, e.g. 9 . . .
i.b7? I2 ltJe6! Uhlmann) I I 't!t'h4!?
lle8 I 2 lii: b i ltJe5!? I 3 ltJxe5 .txe5
1 4 b4 cb I 5 i.e3 'iWa6 16 'tlt'xb4 :t
Uhlmann.
c) 8 'tlt'b3 e6 (8 . . . ltJc7?! 9 ltJg5 ! 0-0
1 0 .txc6 :t, but 8 . . . ltJdb4? with the
idea 9 a3 ltJ a5 or 8 . . . ltJb6 9 'tlt'b5
ltJd7 looks reasonable) 9 'ilt'c4?
(9 'irb5 .b6 =; 9 d 3 0-0 1 0 .tg5

l0d4! I I l0xd4 't!t'xg5 Hi.ibner­
=
van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1 984)
9 . . . b6 10 d3 0-0 I I .ig5 't!t'd7 (or
I I . . . f6 +) 1 2 llac l .ib7 1 3 't!t'h4
l0de7! 1 4 g4 f6 1 5 .id2 e5 was
=F in G.Garcia- Dzindzihashvili,
Wij k aan Zee 1 979.
d) 8 lOgS e6 9 l0 ge4 (9 d3!? 0-0!
10 l0xd5 ed I I lt:lh3 =) 9 . . . b6 I 0
't!t'a4 .id7 ( 1 0 . . . .ib7 !? gives up a
pawn after 1 1 lt:lxd5 ed 1 2 l0c3,
but 12 ... 't!t'd7 13 l0xd5 0-0-0 14
l0c3 lithe8 1 5 litb l l0d4! 1 6 't!t'xa7
.ixg2 1 7 't!t'xd7+ ll xd7 1 8 \!lxg2
l!Jxe2 sufficed for an eventual draw
in Romanishin-Ligterink, Wijk aan
Zee 1 985) I I l0xd5 ( I I l0d6+ 'i!le7
12 l0xd5+ ed 13 l0xf7 l0e5 ! ) I I . . .
e d 1 2 l0 c3 l0e7 + (centre) Browne­
Miles, Lanzarote 1 977.
8 't!t'xd5
9 d3 0-0 (33)
a) 9 ... .id7 may also transpose,
but W hite ca n also try ( e.g.) 1 0
.if4!? 't!t'e6 ( 1 0 . . . 'it'f5!? I I e4 't!t'f6
1 2 e5 't!t'f5 1 3 d4) I I lOgS 't!t'f5 1 2
't!t'b3 ! with the idea .ih3 ( 1 2 . . .
l0d4 1 3 't!t'xb7).
b) 9 ... 't!t'd6?! 10 .ie3 (or 1 0 .if4 e5
I I .ie3; 10 l0d2!? b5 I I l0c4 't!t'c7
1 2 a4 .ib7 1 3 .ie3 - intending a5 -
1 3 . . . l0d4 14 .ixb7 't!t'xb7 1 5 ll b l
with the idea b4) 1 0 . . . .ixb2!? ( 1 0
. . . 0-0 is note 'b' to 1 0 . . . .id7) I I
lit b l .ig7 ( I I . . . .id4 1 2 l0 xd4 cd
1 3 .if4 e5 14 .ih6 t Chess Player)
1 2 ..-c2! l0d4 1 3 l0 xd4 cd 1 4 .if4
e5 1 5 .id2 t.
5 l0j3 l0/6 (with . . . d5 lines) 35
33
w
10 .i e3 ( ! )
Played al most exclusively now.
Others:
a) 10 .tr4 't!t'd7 I I 't!t'c2 e5 12 .ie3
b6 =.
b) 10 t!t'a4!? 't!t'h5 ! I I .ie3 .id7 1 2
llac l b 6 1 3 b4!? l0 e 5 1 4 't!t'd l cb
15 l!Jxe5 .ixe5 16 .ixa8 llxa8 ==/m
Estevez-Uhlmann, Leningrad IZ
1973.
c) 1 0 a3 is rather weak, but impor­
tant due to other move orders, e.g.
5 l0f3 l0f6 6 0-0 0-0 7 a3 d5 8 cd
l0xd5 9 l0xd5 etc:
c l ) 10 ... b6 I I litb l ( I I d4!? cd 1 2
.ie3 't!t'h5 1 3 l0xd4 l0 xd4 1 4 .ixd4
- 14 .ixa8 l0xa2+ and 15 . . . .ig4 -
14 . . . llb8 ==) I I . . . .ib7 1 2 .ie3
( 1 2 b4 't!t'a2! 1 3 't!t'b3 ! =, rather
than 1 3 .ie3 l0d4 + Ribli-Miles,
Amsterdam 1 978) 12 . . . l0d4! with
the idea 1 3 b4 cb 14 ab llfc8.
c2 ) 10 ... 't!t'h5!? I I lirb l .ih3 (or
I I . . . .if5 =) 12 .ie3 .ixg2 13
�xg2 't!t'd5 ! 14 't!t'c2 b6 Larsen­
=
Bukic, Portoroz 1 977.
c3) 10 ... .id7 I I lLlg5 't!lf5 !12-!12
Lein-Zu ckerman, US Ch 1 977;
36 5 liJj3 liJf6 (with . . . d5 lines)
1 2 .ih3 'ti'd5 1 3 .ig2 'ti'f5 etc.
c4) 10 ... 'ti'd6 I I l:lb l .if5 !? (or
I I ... .ie6 =, or even I I ... c4 !?
with the idea 1 2 dc 'i!t'xd l l 3 llxd l
.if5 1 4 l:l a l liJa5 "=/oo" ECO)
1 2 .ie3 l:l ac8 13 'ti'a4 b6 1 4 lit fc I
.ie6 = Notaros-Lein, 1 973.
10 .id 7
This solid defence has taken
over from:
a) 10 ... 'i!t'h5? I I llc l liJd4 12 b4!
± Pirc-Jovanovi c, Yugoslav Ch
1 963.
b) 1 0 ... 'it'd6!? I I l:l c i liJd4 ( 1 1 . . .
b6? 1 2 d4; I I . . . .ixb2 1 2 ll xc5
.ig7 13 'it'b3! ;t:) 1 2 liJxd4 ! ( 1 2 liJd2
.ig4! 13 l:l e l 'it'b6 1 4 liJc4 'it'a6
=/oo R ind-Chandler, New York
1 979) 12 . . . cd ( 1 2 . . . .i xd4!? pre­
vents the g7 bishop from becoming
bad, but then either 1 3 'it'c2!? .ixe3
1 4 fe 'it'e6 1 5 'it'xc5 'it'xa2 1 6 .id5
'it'xb2 1 7 'it'xe7 ±, or 1 3 .if4, e.g.
13 ... 'i!t'a6 1 4 'i!t'b3 .ie6 15 .ixb7! )
1 3 .id2 .ig4 ( 1 3 . . . .ie6 1 4 'it'a4
'i!t'b6 1 5 .i b4 ! , e.g. 1 5 . . . l:lfe8 1 6
.ic5! 'i!t'xb2 1 7 llc2 .id7 1 8 ll xb2
.ixa4 1 9 .ixb7 ±) 14 h3 .ie6 1 5
'it'a4 a5 (versus .ib4) 1 6 'it'b5 ! 'ti'e5
1 7 'it'xe5 .ixe5 1 8 'it'c5 .id6 was
Palatnik-Timoshchenko, USSR Ch
1 973, and now Gufeld gives 1 9
l:l xa5 ! ±.
c) 1 0 ... .ixb2!? has never been
refuted, although B lack doesn't
seem much interested: I I l:l b l .if6!
(to defend the e-pawn) 1 2 'it'a4,
when Black has three choices:
12 . . . 'ti'd7 1 3 .ixc5 liJ d4 ( 1 3 . . . b6!?
14 .ixb6 liJd4) 1 4 'ti'd I liJxf3+?
( 1 4 . . . liJe6 1 5 .ie3 ll b8 1 6 d4 !
Tal-Pytel, Tallinn 1 973) 1 5 .ixf3
l:lb8 16 .ixa7 ± Tal-Pribyl, Tallinn
1 973. Or 1 2 . . . 'it'd6!?, when 1 3
liJd2 liJd4 1 4 .ixd4 .ixd4 1 5
.ixb7 i s critical. O r finally 1 2 . . .
liJb4 1 3 a3 ( 1 3 lldc l .id7 1 4 'it'd l
± Jansa, but then 1 4 . . . b6!? is
in teresting) 1 3 . . . liJ a2 14 liJg5!
liJc6 ( 1 4 ... 'i!t'e5 15 lt:J e4 ±) 1 5
.ixd5 lt:Jxa4 1 6 lt:Je4, Jansa-Pribyl,
Luhacovice 1 973, and now instead
of 16 . . . .id4 1 7 .ixb7 ±, Jansa
gives 16 . . . lt:Jb6 17 lt:Jxf6+ t; after
1 7 . . . gf 1 8 .if3 White stands very
well.
ll lt:Jd4 !
The most promising. Aside from
relatively pointless moves such as
I I 'it'c2?! b6 1 2 a3 l:lac8 1 3 lt:Jd2
lt:Jd4 + Doda-Markovsky, Polanica
Zdroj 1 976, or I I llc l ? 'it'xa2 1 2
.ixc5 l:lac8 +, or I I lt:Jd2 'it'h5 =
(or I I . . . 'it'f5 =), White also has:
a) l l 'i!t'cl !? b6 12 d4 cd 1 3 lt:J xd4
lt:Jxd4! 14 .ixd5 lt:Jxe2+ 1 5 $>g2
lt:J xc l 16 .i xa8 .ixb2 1 7 l:l b l .if6!
= Bagi rov-Tu k ma kov, USSR Ch
1 978.
b) l l lt:Jg5 'ti'f5 ( I I . . . "ire5 !? 1 2
.if4 'ti'xb2 oo/+) 1 2 .ih3 'it'd5 1 3
.ig2 =.
c) ll 'it'd2 'i!t'd6 12 .ih6!? ( 1 2 l:l b l
llac8 1 3 a3 ) 1 2 . . . l:l ac8 1 3 a 3 b6
=
14 .ixg7 $>xg7 1 5 b4 lt:Jd4 1 6 be
( 1 6 llfc l c4!, Larsen-Miles, London
 5 li:\f3 li:\f6 (with . . . d5 lines) 37

1 977) 1 6 . . . li xeS 17 liJ xd4 'ti'xd4
1 8 llad I Y:!- Y2 Geller- Karpov,
Li nares 1 983; 18 . . . i.a4 or 18 . . .
1lfc8 +.
d) 1 1 d4 cd 1 2 li:l xd4 'ti'c4 13 li:lxc6
( 1 3 'ti'b3 'ti'xb3 14 li:l xb3 i.g4! ,
Kaufman-A iburt, New York 1 979)
13 . . . i.xc6 14 i.xc6 be ( 14 . . . 1!¥xc6,
e.g. I S '@'b3 'ti'a6 or I S lic l 'ti'a6)
I S b3 '@'a6 1 6 ll c l 'ti'xa2 1 7 n xc6
Now Black has non-trivial prob­
lems to solve:
a) 16 ... b6 17 '@'a 1 ! 'ti'e6! ( Karpov's
suggestion, to improve upon 1 7 . . .
'ikxa l 1 8 n xa l lifb8 1 9 lii: a 6! �f8?!
- 19 . . . 1lb7 20 1lbxb6 t Karpov -
20 1lb4 i.eS 2 1 liba4 ± Karpov­
Ribli, A msterdam 1 980) 18 't!Va6
( 1 8 't!Va4 !? lHc8 19 ll a l h S ! 20
1lb4 i.f6 21 'ti'a2 'ikd7 Bagirov­
=

1lfb8 1 8 li c7 i.f8! (or 1 8 . . . i.f6 )

= Mi khalchishin, Tbilisi 1 980) 18 . . .
1 9 i.cS 1ld8 Espig-Smejkal, 't!Vd7 ( 1 8 . . . 1lfc8 1 9 't!Vb7 I vanov,
Leipzig 1 977. presumably with the idea 19 . . .
11 'ti'd6 1lcb8 20 'ti'f3) 1 9 lia l (threatening
12 li:lxc6 i.xc6 1lxb6!) 19 . . . hS 20 1l b4 1l fc8 2 1
13 i.xc6 'ti'xc6 'ti'a4!? ( 2 1 'tWbS l vanov) 2 1 . . . '@'b7
14 net 'ti'e6 ! ( 2 1 . . . 't!Vxa4! Ivanov) 22 h4 i.eS
15 lixc5! 23 'ti'b 3 1lc6 24 d4 t Ivanov­
I S i.xcS b6 (or 1 S . . . 'i!Vxa2 ) = Timman, Lucerne 01 1 982; White
1 6 i.a3 'ti'xa2 1 7 i.xe 7 1lfe8 1 8 eventually won.
i.a3 .ixb2 + Gheorghiu. b) 1 6 . . . a6!? 1 7 lixb7 liab8! 1 8
15 't!Vxa2 1l xe7 1l xb2 1 9 .if4 aS 20 1la7 lile8
1 S . . . .i xb2 1 6 ll bS i.f6 17 'i!Va4 21 e3 1ld2 22 'i!Vc l ! 1lxd3 23 'i!Vc6
;!; Karpov. ;t Ostojic.
16 1lb5! (34) c) 16 ... 'ti'a6 17 lilb4!? (or 17 't!Vb3,
This idea of K arpov's revived forcing 17 ... b6 anyway - Karpov;
White's chances in this line (pre­ then 18 n b4 transposes, but 1 8
viously considered +). i.gS !? '@'b7 1 9 lla l i s possible)
17 . . . b6 18 'ti'b3 1l lb8 19 1la4 'ti'b7
34
20 llfa l a6 2 1 't!fa2 aS 22 lilc l (22
B
d4!? with the idea b4) 22 ... i.eS 23
1lc4 ( " ! " Ostojic, intending 23 . . .
.id6 24 .if4 Ostojic), Ribli­
Ti mman, Tilbu rg 1 980.
It's interesting that Tim man did
not repeat 1 6 . . . 'ti'a6 in his later
game versus I vanov. The general
impression in this variation is that
38 5 ltJf3 ltJf6 (with . . . d5 lines)
Black probably ought to draw,
but White ca n develop pressure
without any significant error by
his opponent.
c de 8 1!fxd8+ is somewhat unclear.
1 c4 c5 2 ltJc3 ltJc6 3 g 3 g6 4 i.g2
i.g 7 5 ltJf3 ltJf6:
Now there are two major choices:
C l 6 d4 ( !)
C2 6 0-0 (other than 6 . . . d5)
6 d 3 !? 0-0 (6 . . . d5 7 cd ltJxd5 is
discussed above; 7 ltJd2 !?) 7 i.e3
d6 8 h3 i.d7 9 1!fd2 lilb8 I 0 i.h6
ltJe8 (?) I I h4! i.g4 12 h5! gh 1 3
ltJh4 'ifd7 1 4 i.e4 ltJd4 1 5 0-0-0
b5 1 6 f3 b4 1 7 ltJb5 ! ltJxe2+ 1 8
ot>b I ltJxg3 1 9 fg ltJxe4 20 de 't!fe6
2 1 ltJf5! ± Reti-Becker, Vienna
1 923.
C1
6 d4 (!) (35)
35
B
I f nothing else, this tends to get
into the next chapter without allow­
ing 6 0-0 d5, as above, which seems
satisfactory for Black. On top of
that, 6 d4 has several original fea-
tures.
6 cd
There's nothing wrong with 6 . . .
d6 o r 6 . . . 0-0, but then Black must
deal with the Yugoslav Ki ng's
Indian after 7 d5 . Also , 6 . . . d6 7 de
7 ltJ xd4 d5!?
7 . . . h5!? 8 h3 doesn't achieve
much, and 7 . . . ltJ xd4 8 1!fxd4 0-0
(8 . . . d6 9 b3! :t ) will transpose after
9 0-0 (9 b3 d 5 ! ) 9 . . . d6. But here
9 i.d2 !? is unique, e .g. 9 . . . d6 1 0
lii:a c l a 6 I I b3 Ii b 8 1 2 0-0 i.e6
( 1 2 . . . b5 1 3 1!fa 7!) 1 3 'ifd3 etc.
8 0-0
8 1!fa4 !? i.d7 ! 9 cd ltJxd5. 8 cd!?
ltJxd5 9 ltJxc6 be 1 0 ltJxd5 cd oo,
e.g. I I i.xd5 ( I I 1!fxd5 1!fxd5 1 2
i.xd5 Ii b 8 1 3 i.b3 i.h3 ! oo ) I I . . .
Iib8 1 2 i.c6+ i.d7 1 3 i.xd7+
1!fxd7 14 1!fxd7+ ot>xd7 15 li b !
lii: fc8 1 6 ot>d l Ii c 6 ! =/oo.
8 0-0
8 . . . e6!? 9 cd ltJxd5 I 0 ltJxc6 be
I I 'ifa4 i.d7 1 2 ltJe4 1!fe7 1 3 't!fc4 :t.
9 cd ltJxdS
10 ltJxdS ltJxd4
And now I I i.g5 ! looks danger­
ous, with t he idea I I . . . ltJc6 1 2
ltJxe7+ ltJxe7 1 3 't!fxd8 lii: x d8 1 4
i.xe7 (;!;) 1 4 . . . Iie8 1 5 i.a3 Ii xe2
1 6 Iiae l , or I I ... Iie8 1 2 e3 ltJc6
13 ltJxe7+! ±, or I I . . . f6 1 2 1!fxd4
fg 13 't!fe3 e6 14 ltJc3 ±.
It's surprising that 6 d4 has
seldom been employed.
C2
6 0-0 0-0
6 . . . d6 7 d4 cd 8 ltJxd4 i.d7 is

passive: 9 lLlc2 ! 0-0 I 0 b3 a6 ( 1 0 . . .
tt'a5 I I .td2 tt'h 5 1 2 f3 t ) I I .tb2
Il.b8 1 2 lLld5 ± Bozic-Pete, corres
1 965; or 9 b3 0-0 I 0 .tb2, e.g. 10 . . .
lLlxd4 I I 11t'xd4 .tc6 1 2 'it'd2 1t'a5
13 lil fd l ;!:: Hansen-Larsen, Gausdal
1 985.
7 d3
An alternative to 7 d4 ( !}, and to
the harmless 7 a3, when 7 ... d5 !
8 cd lLl xd5 is discussed above, and
7 ... d6 8 lil b l lLle8 with the idea
9 b4 .tf5 ! 10 e4 .tg4 = (Giigoric ;
o r here 8 . . . .tf5 =) is another solu-
tion.
7 d6
a) 7 ... dS 8 cd is ' B ' above. H ere
8 lLld2 ( ! ) would be more lively:
8 ... d4 9 lLla4 't!i'a5 (9 . . . lt:\d7 1 0
lLlb3) 1 0 a3 .td7 I I b4! ; or 8 . . . de
9 lLl xc4 (9 .txc6 !?) 9 . . . .td7 10 a4 !
with the idea a5; or 8 . . . e6 9 lLlb3
b6 I 0 .tg5 lLle7 I I 1!i'd2; or finally
8 ... .te6 9 lLlb3 b6 10 .tg5 intending
I 0 . . . de I I .txc6 lilc8 1 2 .tb7 lilc7
13 .ta6! cb 1 4 .tf4 lild7 1 5 .tb5
Il.d4 16 e3 lil b4 17 a3 etc. Of course
Black is n ot so badl y off, but this is
5 lt:\j3 lLlf6 (with . . . d5 lines) 39
worth a try.
b) 7 ... a6 8 .tf4 (8 .te3!? d6 9 h3)
8 . . . d6 9 't!i'd2 I:. b8 1 0 .th6 b5 =
Larsen-H tibner, Tilburg 1 978.
8 lilb l lilb8
8 . . . 'it'd7 !? 9 a3 b6 Romanovsky.
9 a3 a6
I 0 b4 cb I I ab b5 12 cb ab 13 d4
.tf5 ( 1 3 ... d5!? is risky due to 1 4
lLle5 ! lLlxe5 1 5 d e lLlg4 1 6 lLlxd5 e6
- 1 6 . . . lLlxe5 1 7 .tg5 - 1 7 lLlf6+ !)
1 4 lilb3 lLle4 15 lLl xe4 .txe4 1 6 d5
.txf3 I 7 ef lLle5 1 8 f4 lLlc4 19 f5!
lila8 ( 1 9 . . . gf 20 g4 ! Keene) 20 fg
hg 2 1 h4 ! lil a ! 22 h5 (=/oo) Stein­
Filip, Moscow 1 967.
Conclusion. The main lessons of
this chapter are that the early . . .
lLlf6 a n d . . . d 5 lines o f the Pure
Symmetrical tend to be satisfactory
for Black . If White is forced into
them, he should exchange on d5
(line B); still better, he should
avoid all that by 6 d4. The . . . d5
lines are thus a problem in such
cases as those in 'A' above, where
White pla ys an early lLlf3.
4 5 lbf3 lbf6 with 7 d4

1 c4 cS There are several reasons for this,

2 li:lc3 li:l c6 including the development of other,
3 g3 g6 more dynamic I . . . c5 lines. Further­
4 i.g2 i. g7 more , al though it was popular at
5 li:lf3 li:lf6 the time of the last edition, this
6 0-0 6-0 whole mode of defence was already
7 d4 cd beginning to look shaky from a
7 . . . d5!? 8 de de 9 Wa4 't!t'a5 1 0 theoretical point of view. That
't!t'xc4 i. e6 I I 't!Yh4 'ti'xc5 1 2 li:lg5 impression has been confirmed in
;t (Taimanov). 7 . . . d6 is a King's many lines which I have now rele­
Indian Defence, Yugoslav Vari- gated to notes.
at ion. A 8 . . . 'ti'a5
8 li:lxd4 (36) B 8 . . . li:lg4
C 8 . . . li:lxd4
36 The alternatives seem insufficient:
B a) 8 'ti'b6?! 9 li:lc2 (or 9 e3 e6 1 0
...

b3 .i d 7 I I i. b 2 li ac8 1 2 'ti'd2 ;!;

with the idea 1 3 li:lde2, Foguelman­
Saadi, Argentina 1 959; or 9 li:ldb5 !?
Mecking; or, finally, 9 li:lb3!?, but
then 9 'ti'b4! is ' A' below) 9 d6
0 0 . 0 0 0

10 b3 .ie6 ( 1 0 li:le6 I I h3 i.e6

0 0 .

12 i.e3 Wc7 1 3 li:ld4 i.d7 14 li:ld5

± Gheorghiu-Buza, Romania 1969)
This was at one time one of the I I li:ld5 ( I I e4 ;t; I I .ie3 Wa5 1 2
very rnuin lines of the English (note .id2 'ti'h5 1 3 e4 ;t) I I .ixd5 1 2
000

for e xample its position in ECO as cd li:le5 1 3 i.e3 Wa6 1 4 a 4 ll:fc8

the culminating line for I . . . c5). 15 li:la3 t Keene-Littlewood, H am­
Remarkabl y, it has practically dis­ mersmith 1 97 1 .
appeared from high-level practice b ) 8 a6?! 9 e3 (or 9 li:lc2 d6 1 0 b3
...

in a few short years, without any 'ti'a5 I I li:ld5 ! t; or even 9 li:lxc6 !?

maj or discoveries in the meantime. de 9- be 10 c5
0 0 0 10 'ti'b3 'ti'c7
-

I I i.f4 e5 1 2 .ie3 .ie6 1 3 a4 t
Ortega-Palhares, Graz 1 978) 9 . . .
"f!/c7 I 0 b 3 llb8 ( 1 0 . . . e5?! I I
ll:Jde2 d6 1 2 i.a3 ± Ti mman­
Andersson, Biel 1 98 1 ) I I a4 d6
12 .ib2 t Sakharov-Popov, K iev
1 964.
c) 8 ... d6!? (3 7) is a chal lenging
gambit:
37
w 't!t'b6! 1 4 .tc3 .txb5 1 5 cb 'it'xb5
c I ) 9 .ixc6!? be 10 ll:Jxc6 is untested,
e.g. 10 . . . "f!/c7 I I ll:Jd5 ll:Jxd5 1 2 cd
.ib7 1 3 i.d2 ( 13 .ig5 !?) 1 3 . . . i.xc6
14 lilc 1 .txb2 (Taimanov) 1 5 ll xc6
'it'd7 1 6 'it'c2 i.f6 1 7 lilfc I ; 10 . . .
"f!/d7 !? ma y improve.
c2) 9 ll:Jc2 ( !) is safe, and u ncom­
fortable for Black, who lacks space,
e.g. 9 . . . .ie6 (9 . . . ll:Jd 7 10 i.d2
ll:Jb6 1 1 b3 e6 1 2 a4 ;!; Portisch­
Sax, Hu ngarian Ch 1 97 1 ) 10 b3
(or 10 ll:Jd5 t with the idea 1 0 . . .
'it'd7 I I .ig5; o r 10 ll:Je3) 1 0 . . . 'it'd7
1 1 .ib2 (or I I ll:Jd5 .if5 1 2 i.b2
;!; Petrosian-Smej kal , A msterdam
1 9 73) 1 1 . . . i.h3 1 2 lil b l i.xg2 1 3
�xg2 llfd8 1 4 e4 lilab8 1 5 'it'e2 a6,
K arner-Musil, 1 975, and now 1 6
5 llJf3 ll:Jf6 with 7 d4 41
ll:Jd5! was advantageous.
c3) 9 ll:Jxc6!? be 10 i.xc6 lilb8 ( 1 0
. . . i.h3!? 1 1 .ixa8 't!t'xa8 1 2 f3 i.xfl
1 3 �xfl llc8 14 "f!/d3 "f!/b7 ! - 14 . . .
t!Vc6 1 5 .i e3! - 1 5 lil b l ll:Jd7 1 6 b3
ll:Je5?! 17 'it'd5 'it'd7 1 8 ll:Je4 ±
Vukic-Nemet, Vi nkovci 1 977; 1 6
. . . i.xc 3 ! 1 7 "f!/xc3 d 5 1 8 .ib2 f6
Vu kic, but 1 9 't!t'e3 t) I I i.g2 'it'a5
and now the main line has been
12 ll:Jb5 .ib7 ( 1 2 . . . .td7 1 3 .td2
16 tib2 ;!; Hansen-Hick!, Kiljava
1 984) 1 3 .txb7 llxb7, and after
14 .td 2 't!t'a6 ( ! ) 1 5 .tc3 ll fc8 1 6 a4
Black has 1 6 . . . ll xc4 with reason­
able play. The variation 1 2 't!t'c2
.ie6 1 3 b3 llfc8?! 1 4 .id2 't!t'h 5 1 5
e 4 ll:Jg4 1 6 h 3 ll:Je5 1 7 't!t'd 1 ! .txh3
18 'it'xh5 ;!; of Espig-Markland,
Polanica Zdroj 1 973, stands or
falls on 13 . . . d 5 !?, e.g. 14 cd .if5
1 5 't!t'd2 .
A
8 'it'aS
9 ll:Jc2
Also quite promising is 9 e3 (38) :
42 5 !i:Jf3 !i:Jf6 with 7 d4
Now the attempt to win the
c-pawn by 9 . . . 'it'b4 10 'ilre2 !i:Je5
fails to l l f4 ltJxc4 12 a3 tfc5 1 3 b4
etc, or here 10 ... !i:J a5 1 1 !i:Jd5 t
(or even I I b3 tfxc3 1 2 .i.d2 !).
So in Zilber-Gurgenidze, USS R
1 959, Black tried 9 . . . d6 !? 10 .i.xc6 ( ! )
b e 1 1 !i:J xc6 tf c 7 1 2 !i:J d 5 !i:J x d 5 1 3
cd .i.b7; but 1 4 .i.d2! .i.xb2 1 5 litb I
.i.xc6 1 6 de litab8 1 7 tfa4 litfc8 1 8
.i.b4 ! .i.f6 1 9 .i.a5 won outright.
The most popular move, 9 !i:J b3 ,
i s the worst after 9 . . . tfb4! 1 0 c 5
(no o ne has tried m y 1 0 !i:J d 2 d6 I I
a3 1!t'a5 1 2 h3!? .i.e6 1 3 !i:J d5), and
Black has done well with 1 0 . . . a5,
1 0 ... b6( !) and even with 1 0 ... d6!?,
e.g. 1 1 a3 1lt'g4! 1 2 cd litd8 1 3 h 3
1!t'h5 1 4 e 4 .i.g4! 1 5 h g !i:Jxg4 1 6
lite 1 .i.xc3 1 7 be lit xd6 1 8 !i:Jd2
!i:Jce5 =/ro Kh asin-Kuksov, USSR
1 980.
9 d6
9 . . . tfh 5 10 !i:J d5 d6 1 1 !i:Jf4 tfa5
1 2 .i.d2 tfd 8 1 3 .i.c3 ("!" £CO)
Romanishin-van den Berg, Amster­
dam 1 973.
10 .i.d2 1rh5
11 e4! tfxd 1
Rogoff- Lo mbard, Ha ifa 1 9 70.
I nstead of 12 ll fxd l !i:Jg4 1 3 .te l
.i.e6 1 4 f3 !i:Jge 5 1 5 b3 g5 ! =, W hite
should have tried 1 2 litaxd 1 ! t,
preparing !i:Jd5.
B 10 .i.xc6!? be I I !i:Jxc6 1!t'd7 12 !i:Jd4
8 !i:Jg4 (39)
This is still the best idea apart
from 8 . . . !i:J xd4. Black aims to
39
w
simplify.
9 e3
The daring gambit 9 !i:Jb3 d6
1 0 !i:Jd5 !? e6 1 1 !i:Je3 !i:Jxe3 1 2 .i.xe3
.i.xb2 1 3 ll b l , Gutman-Petrushin,
Beltsi 1 977, is suspect, but White
did well after 13 . . . .i.g7 14 tfd2
1!t'c7 ( 1 4 . . . 1!t'e7) 1 5 ll fd l ( 1 5
litfc I !?) 1 5 . . . litd8 ( 1 5 . . . !i:Je5 !)
16 .i.h6 .i.xh6 17 tfxh6 e5 1 8 .i.d5
.i.e6 1 9 !i:Jd2! .i.xd5 20 cd ltJa5 2 1
!i:Je4 f5 2 2 !i:Jg5 ± .
9 d6!
9 .. . !i:Jge5? 1 0 b3 d6 1 1 .i.b2
.i.g4 12 f3 .i.d7 1 3 1!t'd2 t and 9 . . .
f5? 1 0 !i:J de 2 o r 1 0 c5 are u nsatis­
factory, but 9 . . . !i:Jh6!? 1 0 b3 ( 10
!i:Jde2 looks best) 10 . . . !i:Jxd4 1 1 ed
!i:Jf5 is possible.
10 b3
1 0 !i:J xc6 be 1 1 .i.xc6 litb8 gives
Black compensation, but 10 !i:Jde2
is a sound alternative, and even
is of interest.
10 !i:Jxd4
1 0 . . . .i.d7?! I I .i.b2 litb8 12 !i:Jd5 !.

Gufeld-Dvoiris, Sochi 198 1 . 1 0
. . . � h6?! I I � de2! 't!i'a5 1 2 i.d 2
�f5 1 3 �d5 t Weinstein-Cleghorn,
Lone Pine 1 976.
11 ed �h6 (40)
40
w
12 i. d2
My suggestion from the first
edition. 1 2 i.b2 �f5 (a new idea
was 12 . . . a6 ( ! ) 13 lle l Ii: b8 1 4 a4
�f5 1 5 �d5 e6 1 6 �e3 �xe3 1 7
ll xe 3 b5 + De Boer-Hartoch , Wijk
aan Zee 1 985) 1 3 �d5 ( 1 3 �e2
llb8 ; or 13 d 5 i.d7 1 4 Ii: b l !?
= llb4) 16 . . . 't!i'b5 Korchnoi-Geller,
Hartoch) 13 . . . i.d7 ( 1 3 . . . e6 I 4
�e3 �xe3 I S fe t) 1 4 lle l Ii:e8 I S
't!i'd2 t Sahovic-Cleghorn, Lone
Pine I 977.
12 �f5
I 2 . . . i.xd4 I 3 i.xh6 .txc3 1 4
i.xf8 .txa I 1 5 i.xe7 t.
13 d5 i.d7
14 l:.c I a6 1 5 �e4 with advan­
tage, e .g. 15 . . . b5 (?) 16 c5 de l 7
�xeS �d6 1 8 Ii:e I lle8 I 9 �e6!
etc.
c d ) 1 0 i.d 2!? is logical, and IO . . . a6
8 �xd4
5 �j] �/6 with 7 d4 43
9 't!i'xd4 d6 (41)
9 . . . 't!i'a5? 10 c5 ! 't!i'a6 I I i.f4 ±
Krogius-Kudinov, USSR Team Ch
I97 1 .
4/
w
10 't!i'd3 (42)
The strength of this move has
eclipsed:
a) 1 0 't!i'd2 Ii:b8 I I b3 a6 (or I I . . .
i.e6 I 2 i.b2 't!i'a5), o r 1 0 . . . .te6( ! )
I I .txb7 ll b 8 1 2 i.d5 � x d 5 1 3
� x d 5 't!i'd7 I 4 e 4 Ii:fc8 ( 1 4 . . . f5! ?
Bertok) I S 't!i'e2 i.xd5 1 6 cd ( l 6 ed
=
USSR Ch 1 963.
b) 10 b3 d5! I I cd i.e6 !? (or 1 1 . . .
� xd5 1 2 't!i'xd5 .txc3 I 3 i.h6
't!i'xd5 = Spassky-Ta l, Moscow
1 967) I 2 't!i'h4 �xd5 1 3 �xd5
i.xd5 14 ll b l =.
c ) 10 lld1 i.e6 ! I I i.xb7 �g4 ( I l
. . . llb8 co) 1 2 't!i'f4 lilb8 1 3 i.g2
't!i'c 8 ( 1 3 . . . i.h6 ) 14 �d5 ll e8
=
I S h 3?! �e5 1 6 't!i'h4 't!i'xc4 1 7
� xe7+ <Zi>h8 + Larsen-Tal , match
1965.
I I b 3 llb8 12 ll c l b5? 13 't!i'a7!
44 5 li:Jj3 li:Jf6 with 7 d4
.i e6 1 4 li:Jd5 ±, or I 0 . . . .ie6 I I
'it'd3 ( I I lHd l ! ?) I I . . . li:Jd7 1 2 b3
lib8 1 3 liac l a6, and now 1 4li:Jd5 !
intending 14 . . . b5? 1 5 cb ab 1 6 li:Jb4
was best.
e) 1 0 1!t'h4 has lost its sting, e.g.
1 0 . . . .ie6 I I .ixb7 ( I I .ig5 'it'a5
1 2 li:Jb5!? lhc8 1 3 b3 lic5 ! 14 a3
h6! = Savon-Osnos, Moscow 1 966)
I I . . . lib8 1 2 .if3 'it'a5 1 3 li:Jd 5
( 1 3 li d ! ? lib4 1 4 b3 lixb3 etc
Mikhalchishin) 1 3 . . . .ixd5 1 4 cd
li:Jxd5 1 5 .ixd5 'it'xd5 16 'it'xe7 a5
17 e4 'it'd4 = Mikhalchishin-Gulko,
USSR Ch 1 978.
Also fine is I 0 'it'h4 'it'a5 (or I 0
. . . l:tb8 I I .ih6 'it'a5 =), e.g. I I
.id2 .ie6 1 2 b3 l:tab8 1 3 llac l
lifc8 = planning ... 'it'd8 , ... a6 etc.
f) 1 0 .igS .ie6 !? I I 'it'f4 'it'a5 (or
I I ... l:tc8 12 b3 'it'a5 =) 1 2 l:t ac I
l:tab8 (or 1 2 . . . l:tac8! 1 3 b3 l:tc7
Fine, or here 13 . . . lic5 !? 14 .ixf6
.ixf6 1 5 li:Je4 'it'xa 2 ! oo H ulak­
Velimirovic, Yugoslav Ch 1 986)
1 3 b3 llfc8 1 4 'it'd2 a6 1 5 ..te3,
Fischer-Spassky, match 1972, and
here 1 5 ... .id7 and ... b5 was
recom mended.
I t is simpler for Black to play
10 ... h6! I I .id2 ( I I .ixf6?! .ixf6
1 2 't!t'd2 .ig7 1 3 l:tfd l lib8! 1 4 c5
..te6 1 5 cd 'it'xd6 1 6 'ifxd6 ed 1 7
li xd6 llfc8 =t= Watson-L . Levy,
Li ncoln 1 975) I I . . . .ie6 12 'it'd3
't!t'd7 (or 12 ... li:Jd7) 13 e4 !? .ih3
14 f4 (14 f3) 14 ... .ixg2 1 5 �xg2
'ifc6 1 6 l:tac l e6 17 b3 li:Jd 7 18 1!t'f3
li:Jc5 19 l:lce I f5 ! + Bronstein­
Kernachevsky, USSR 197 3 .
After 1 0 1!t'd3 , Black's most
common tries are:
c 1 10 . . . .if5
C2 10 . . . a6
a) 10 ... li:Jg4 I I b3 'it'a5 1 2 .id2
1!t'h 5 13 h4 li:Je5 14 1!t'e3 1!t'g4 1 5
liad 1 't!t'd 7 1 6 li:Jd5 1!t'd8 1 7 ..tc3
± Reshevsky-Zuckerman, US Ch
1967.
b) 1 0 ... .ie6 I I .ixb7 ( I I .id2
1!t'd7 12 li:Jd5 !? li:Jxd5 1 3 cd .ig4
14 f3 .if5 1 5 e4 .ih3 16 .ixh3
'ifxh 3 17 liacl liac8, Smyslov­
Ch ristiansen, Hastings 1 9 8 1 - 82)
1 1 . . . l:tb8 1 2 .ig2 llc8 ( 1 2 . . . 'it'a5
13 b3 ! li:Jg4!? 14 .id2 'it'h 5 1 5 h3
li:Je5 16 g4!li:Jxd3 1 7 gh ± Uhlmann­
Bonsch, East German Ch 1 98 1 ; or
here 13 . . . lixb3 14 ab 'it'xa l 1 5
.id2 1!t'a6 1 6 li:Jb5 t Quinteros­
Jimenez, Cienfuegos 1972) 1 3 li:Jd5
li:Jxd 5 14 cd .id 7 1 5 .ig5 !? ( 1 5
lib ! ! t) 1 5 . . . .ixb2 1 6 liab l ..tf6
1 7 .ixf6 e f, Kimelfeld-Mu ratov,

USSR 1 973, and now Osnos gives
1 8 'fla6! t.
c) 10 ... lii:b8 I I ..ie3 ( I I i.f4!? or
1 1 llfd l .ie6 1 2 ..if4 is a lso good)
I I . . . b6 ( I I . . . 'fla5 1 2 h3! t with
the idea 12 . . . i.e6 1 3 i.d4 lii:fc8
1 4 b3 a6 1 5 1i'e3 ! ; I I . . . a6 1 2 i.a7 !
lii:a 8 1 3 i.d4; I I . . . i.f5 1 2 'il'd 2 a6
is 'C2' below) 1 2 i.d4 i.b7 1 3 e4
'fld7 1 4 lii:fd l lii:fd8 1 5 a4 t Ribli­
Venalainen, Nice 01 1 974.
d) 1 0 ... 1i'a5 1 1 h3 (or I I ..id21i'h5
1 2 b3 i.h3 1 3 lii:a c l lii: fd8 1 4 e42;
Smejkal-Hernandez, Banja Luka
1 979) I I . . . ..ie6 1 2 i.d2 ltJd7 ( 1 2
. . . 1i'a6 1 3 b3 lii: fd8 1 4e4d 5!? 1 5 ed
..ixd 5 1 6 ..ixd5 lLJxd5 17 ltJxd5 e6
1 8 lii:a d I lii: x d5 1 91!i'fH Dorfm an­
Sher, USSR 1 973) 1 3 ltJd5 1i'd8 1 4
ltJf4 i.f5 1 5 e4 ltJ c5 1 6 1i'c2 ..id7
17 i.c3 U± Gu.Garcia-Abreu,
Bayamo 1 98 1 .
e) 1 0 . . . ltJd7 I I 'it'c2 ( I I b3 ltJc5
1 2 1i'd2 a5! 1 3 ..ib2 ..ie6! 1 4ltJd5 -
14 lii:a b1!? - 1 4 . . . i.xb2 1 5 'flxb2
llb8 16 lHd l b5 17 cb lii: x b5 1 8
llac l ..ixd5 1 9 ..ixd5 1i'b8 = Vukic-
Zivkovic, Yugoslavia 1 974) I I . . .
ltJc5 1 2 i.g5! h6 1 3 i.e3 i.f5 ( 1 3 . . .
i.e6 1 4 llfd l 1Wc8 1 5 ltJd5 lle8 1 6
..id4 ±) 1 4 'it'd2 �h7 1 5 i.d4 ..ixd4
1 6 1!i'xd4 ..id7, Hort-Unzicker,
Venice 1969, and instead of 1 7 ltJd5
i.c6 + Hort gives 17 f4 ± ( 1 7 . . . f5
1 8 e4) .
C1
10 _ifS
11 e4 ..ie6 (43)
5 liJ./3 ltJf6 with 7 d4 45
43
w
This is second to I 0 . . . a6 in
popularity. Black offers a tempo
to block off the g2 bishop, but it's
a high price to pay.
12 ..id2
Also quite good is 1 2 b3 and:
a) 1 2 ... a6 13 ..ib2 ltJd7 1 4 1i'd2
ltJc5 1 5 f4! llc8? ( 1 5 . . . f5 1 6 eft)
16 f5 i.d7 17 f6 ! gf ( 17 . . . .t xf6 1 8
lii:x f6 ± ) 1 8 ltJd5 f5 1 9 e f i.xf5
20 ..ixg7 �xg7 2 1 1!i'd4+ f6 22 g4
..ie6 23 ltJxf6 ±± Smyslov-Timman,
Moscow 1 98 1 .
b) 1 2 ... 1Wa5 1 3 i.d2 'flh5 1 4 f3!
i.h3 1 5 lii:a c I ..ixg2 16 �xg2 f1fd8
17 f1fd l i.h6 1 8 ltJd5 ± Donner­
Pomar, B runnen 1 966.
c) 12 ... ltJd 7 1 3 i.d2 (or 1 3 i.b2
1i'a5 - 13 . . . ltJc5 14 1i'd2 1Wd7 15
f1ac1 t Karpov-Diaz. Stockholm
1969- 1 4 nac l llac8 1 5 f1fd l t)
13 . . . ltJe5!? 14 'fle2 1!i'd7 15 ltJd5!
ltJc6 16 f1ad I i.h3 17 ..ixh3 1i'xh3
18 ..ie3 ± Uhlmann-Mohring,
East Germany 1 982.
12 ltJd7
a) 12 ... a6 1 3 b3 llb8 14 llac l
46 5 &iJfJ &iJf6 with 7 d4

&iJd7 1 5 'ti'e2 &iJc5 ( 1 5 . . . &iJe5 !? 1 6 the idea h4-h 5 Uhlmann) 20 . . .

lil.fd l ..tg4 1 7 f3 ..td7 1 8 ..te3 ± lil.e8 2 1 lil.c4 \!t'a5 2 2 lil. l c 2 e6 2 3 de
Krogius-Tringov, Varna 1 970; but &iJxe6, and now 24 \!t'g4! (threaten­
16 . . . b5 ( ! ) 1 7 cb ab 1 8 &iJxb5 i.g4 ing i.xb4) 24 . . . h5 25 lil.xb4 hg
improves . So 1 6 h3 or even 1 6 f4 26 lil.xb8 is winn ing.
i.g4 I 7 'ti'e3 &iJc6 1 8 �h I was C2
best) 16 &iJd5 ! a5 ( 1 6 . . . b5 17 b4 10 a6 (44)
&iJa4 1 8 c5 ±) 1 7 lil.fd l;!: Rogoff­
44
Zuckerman, US Ch 1 974. w
b) 12 ... 'ti'd7 1 3 b3 (or 1 3 lil.fe l ;!:)
13 0 0 0 a6 14 lil.fe l !? ( 1 4 nac l ! , e .g.
1 4 . . . i.h3 15 lil.fd l ..t xg2 1 6 �xg2
lii:ab 8 1 7 a4 ;t) 14 . . . lil.ab8 1 5 a4
i.h3 ( 1 5 . . . &iJg4 !?) 16 lil.ad I lil.fc8
1 7 i.g5 ;!; Hort-Browne, Rovinj/
Zagreb 1 970.
13 b3 a6
1 3 . . . &iJc5 1 4 'ti'e2 a6 transposes. The key line at the time of the
14 \!t'e2 first edit ion. I ronically, what seem
Or 14 Il.ac l &iJc5 1 5 \!t'c2! Keene. the two best sequences against it
14 &iJc5 remain untested by leading players.
15 lbc1 11 ..te3!?
1 5 Il.fd l 't!Vd7 1 6 lil.ac l lil.ab8 or What I feel is best was shown to
16 . . . i.h3 is less convincing. me in N orway in 1 980 by the ori-
15 b5!? ginator: I I Il.d I ! ..tf5 ( I I . . . &iJd7
15 . . . i.d 7 16 lil.fd l lil.c8 17 i.e3 12 't!Vc2 ! Il.b8 1 3 ..te3; I I . . . Il.b8
't!Ve8 18 &iJd5 U ± Hort-Unzicker, 12 c5 or 1 2 ..te3; on I I . . . 't!Va 5, 1 2
Lugano 01 1 968. h 3 looks easiest) 1 2 '8' f3 ! (45)
16 cb ab
45
1 7 Il.c2!
B
No t I 7 't!Vxb 5?! ..tc8 ! 1 8 't!Vc4
..ta6 1 9 &iJb5 \!t'd7 20 a4 lil.ab8 2 1
li[b I lifc8 + Portisch-Geller, Skopje
1 968.
After 1 7 lil.c2, Smej k al-Popov,
Wij k a an Zee 1 975, continued 1 7
. . . b4 1 8 &iJd5 i.xd 5 1 9 ed lib8 20
lil.fc I !? (20 lil.c4! 'ti'a5 2 1 i.e3 with

This is the point, although
two recent games have seen 1 2 e4
with quick equality for Blac k .
I s it the refutation o f 1 0 . . . a 6 ?
Lauvsnes-Svenn, Oslo 1 980, went
1 2 . . . llb8 1 3 c5 lLle8 1 4 i.. f4 'W'c8
1 5 cd ed 16 ll xd6 ±, and in Watson­
Kastner, New Y ork 1 980, Black
was equally frustrated following
1 2 . . . llc8 1 3 'W' xb7 'W'a5 1 4 'W'xe7
llfe8 1 5 'irb7 lLld7 !? 1 6 'ti'd5 (or
16 ll xd6! ±±) 1 6 . . . lLlc5 1 7 i..d 2
±±.
Since 1 1 l1 d 1 and 1 1 ..te3 are
both so effective, I will limit com­
ments on 1 1 i.. d 2 to the main line:
1 1 . . . llb8 12 ll ac l ( 1 2 e4 !? b5 ! 1 3
ab a b 1 4 lLlxb 5 ..ta6 1 5 a4 'W'e8,
13 c5 b4! 1 4 lLl a4 'ila5 !; best may
be 1 2 a4 and 1 2 . . . lLld7 1 3 'it'c2 a5
14 llad 1 or 1 2 . . . ..te6 l 3 b3 'W'd7
1 4 a4 �) 1 2 . . . lLld7 ( 1 2 . . . i..f5 !? 1 3
e4 i..d 7 1 4 h3 'irb6 oo) 1 3 b3 ( 1 3
'ti'e3 !?; 1 3 e4 lLle5 1 4 'W'e2 i..g4 ! 1 5
f3 i..e 6 1 6 b3 b5 =) 1 3 . . . lLlc5 1 4
'ti'b 1 b5 1 5 ab a b 1 6 lLld5 i.. b7 =
Uhlmann-Smej kal , Arande1ovac
1 976.
11 lLlg4
a ) 11 . .. llb8? 1 2i.. a7 ! ll a8 1 3i..d 4
±.
b) 11 . i.. f5 12 1!rd2 llb8 ( 1 2 . . .
..
'ti'd7 1 3 i.. d4 ! or 1 3 i..g5 llab8
14 llac 1 t with the idea 14 . . . b5
15 ab ab 16 i.. xf6 t) 13 Jlac 1 (or
1 3 i..a 7 ! lla8 14 i.. d4) 1 3 . . . b5 1 4
cb a b 1 5 ..ta 7 lla8 ( 1 5 . . . b4 1 6
lLla4 ±) 1 6 i..d4 b4 1 7 lLld5 lLl xd 5
5 lLl j3 lLlf6 with 7 d4 47
18 ..txd5 ! Furman-Vasyukov,
USSR Ch 1969.
12 i..d4 lLle5
13 'it'd1 llb8
1 3 ... i..e6 14 i.. x b7 llb8 1 5 ..txa6
llab2 1 6 lLld5 t Vukic-Gufe1d,
Yugoslavia v USSR 1 97 5.
14 lLld5 (46)
The author's move, giving more
play than (e .g.) 14 c5 i..e6 1 5 Jlc1
lle8 = or 14 a4i..e6 15 lLld5 i.. x d5!
1 6 ..txd5 a5 17 b3 lLlc6 = Matera­
Zuckerm an, US Ch 1 977, or 1 4
ll c 1 ..te6 1 5 lLld5 ( 1 5 b 3 b 5 ! = ) 1 5
. . . b5 1 6 c b ..txd5 1 7 ..txd5 a b 1 8
'W'd2 e6 1 9 i..g 2 lLlc4 = Tal-Torre,
Leni ngrad 1973.
46
B
Here Black has 14 . . . i..e 6?! 1 5
i.. b6 (or 1 5 lLlb6) 1 5 . . . 'W'd7 1 6
llc l , or 1 4 . . . b6 1 5 f4 lLld7 1 6 ..txg7
�xg7 1 7 'ird4+, or 1 4 . . . b5 1 5 cb
and now 1 5 . . . llxb5 16 f4 lLld7 1 7
..txg7 �xg7 1 8 'ild4+ �g8 1 9 b4
and 20 a4 or 1 5 . . . ab 16 lLlb4 or 16
llc l . I n fact, Thomas-Matheson ,
corres 198 1-83, saw 1 5 . . . a b 1 6
lLlb4 i..b 7 1 7 e 4 ( 1 7 i.. xb7 !? i) 1 7
48 5 ti:Jf3 ti:J/6 with 7 d4

. . . ti:Jc6 1 8 i.xg7 't>xg7 1 9 ti:Jxc6 development in this whole line is

i.xc6 20 't!i'd4+ 't>g8 2 1 lHcl 't!i'b6 the possibility of I I lld l (!) after
22 'ii'xb6 l hb6 t. 10 . . . a6. In general, despite its rich
heritage, 5 . . . ti:Jf6 has lost its place
Conclusion. The most i mportant as a maj or defensive syste m.
5 5 ltJf3: Others

1 c4 c5 a6 7 d4, or here 6 . . . e5 7 d4! (inten­

2 lt::lc 3 lt::lc 6 ding lt::l b 5, .tf4 after exchanges).
3 g3 g6 b) 5 ... lt::l h6 is an idea which is
4 .tg2 .tg7 easier to play via 5 . . . d6 6 0-0lt::l h6.
5 lt::lf3 (47) The problem is 5 . . . lt::l h6 6 h4! (6
0-0!? lt::lf 5 7 b3 b6 8 .tb2 .tb7 9 d3
e6 = Huguet-Hort, Las Palmas
1973; 10 ._d2 with the idea l O . . .
d5? I I cd e d 1 2 lbxd5! -.xd5 1 3
lt::lh 4 is met by l O . . . 0-0 a n d o n I I
lt::le4, I I . . . d5!) 6 . . . d6 (6 . . . lt::lf 5
7 h5 e6 8 d 3 d5 9 g4lt::lf d4 1 0 lt::l d2!
and I I e3, or j ust 9 lt::ld 2 is promis­
ing) 7 d3 (48)

48

The lines of the last chapter offer B

Black l ittle in the way of active

counterplay, and tend to leave
Wh ite the advantage. Thus (for
the above move order) this is the
natural place to break the sym­
metry, and almost every leading
player does so. The most attractive
means for this are:
A 5 . . . a6 7 . . . ll b8 (7 . . . .tg4 8 h5! - or 8
B 5 . . . d6 .td2 Euwe - 8 . . . gh 9 lt::l h 2 .td7
C 5 . . . e6 10 .txh6 .txh6 I I e3 ;!;; Black's f8
D 5 . . . e5 bishop is a serious problem; 7 . . .
a) 5 ... llb8 is equivalent to 5 ... a6, .tf5 8 h 5 'tid7 9 .t d2 o r 9 lt::l h4!?­
except that White might try 6 e3!? all Taimanov's analysis) 8 h5 .td7?
50 5 li:Jf3: Others
(8 . . . f6 9 hg hg 1 0 li:Jh4 ;!;" Botvinnik)
9 .txh 6! .txh6 1 0 hg hg I I We i !
.tg7 1 2 lhh 8+ .txh 8 1 3 �6
.txc3+ ( 1 3 . . . .tf6 1 4 li:Jg5 ±) 1 4
be e6, Botvinnik-Giigoric, Moscow
01 1 956, and here 1 5 �d2 ! with
the idea 15 . . . 'ife7 16 li:Jg5 ± was
best (Flohr), i nstead of 15 li:Jg5
�e7 t.
A New York 19 80) 12 li:Jxd4 ed 1 3
5 a6
The idea is to beat White to the
punch by enforcing . . . b5 before
b4 is possible.
6 0-0
a) The "main line" with 6 a3lir.b8
7lir.b l b5 8 cb a b 9 b4 cb l 0 ab (49)
is rather d reary, but it often arises:
49
B ( 1 1 . . . li:lh6 1 2 d4 li:lf5 1 3 d 5 ! !; 1 3
Now 1 0 . . . li:Jf6 I I 0-0(}.0 1 2 d4
d5 is Chapter 2, line C2, note to
7 d3, and 10 . . . li:Jh6?! I I e4 f5 ( I I
. . . d6!?) 12 d4! fe 1 3 li:Jxe4 li:Jf5?
( 1 3 . . . d 5 ;!;") 14 d5 ± was Timman­
Kostro, Wij k aan Zee 1 97 1 .
Bu t Black has several good alter­
natives. The least analysed is 1 0
. . . d5 I I 1!t'b3 ( I I d4 .tf5 1 2lir.b3
.te4 ( ! ) = Pirc-Matulovic, Maribor
1967) I I . . . li:Jf6 12 d3 0-0 1 3 .tf4
lir.b6 = (intending . . . d4) Taimanov­
Averbakh, USSR Ch 1 958 .
I 0 . . . e5 !? is not bad either: I I d4
li:Jxd4 (or I I . . . ed 1 2 li:Jd5 i.b7 1 3
.tb2 li:Jf6 1 4 li:Jxd4 0-0 1 5 li:Jxf6+ -
15 li:Jb5!? - 1 5 . . . i.xf6 1 6 li:Jxc6 be
17 0-0 .txb2 + Kastner-Gheorghiu,
li:Je4 d 5 (or 1 3 . . . d 6 1 4 .tb2 ti'b6
1 5 e3 ,tb7 1 6 i.xd4 i.xd4 1 7 ti'xd4
Wxd4 1 8 ed �d7 = Gheorghiu­
Jansa, Budapest 1 970) 14 i.f4 de!
!5 .txb8 i.f5 !? ( 1 5 . . . .tb7 ( ! ) ) 1 6
.ta7 li:Je7 1 7 e3 ! d 3 1 8 g4 .te6 19
.txe4 .tc3+ =/ro Despotovic­
Velimirovic, Yugoslavia 1 984.
Finally, an easy solution is 1 0 . . .
d 6 I I 0-0 ( 1 1 d 4 i.g4!) 1 1 . . . i.g4
. . . li:lxb4 1 4 i.d2) 1 2 h 3 i.xf3 1 3
i.xf3 \!fd7 1 4 i.g2 e6 1 5 e3 li:lge7
= Shatskes.
b) 6 d3lir.b8 7 0-0 (7 a4 d6 8 i.d2
.td7 =) 7 . . . b 5 !? (7 . . . d6 is safer)
8 cb ab 9 i.e3 ! li:ld4 10 lic1 li:lh6
( 10 . . . d6 I I b4!? Euwe, or 1 1 i.xd4
cd 1 2 li:ld5 e6 1 3li:lb4!) I I b4li:lhf5
12 .tf4 li:lxf3+ 1 3 .txf3 e5 14 i.d2
cb 15 li:ld5 ;t Polugayevsky-Malich,
Bad Liebenstein 1 963.
6 lir.b8
7 e3 ( ! )
Untried, b u t I think i t i s best to
counter Black's flank attack with
a central push. In practice, 7 a4
has been played , e.g. 7 . . . a6 8 d3
 5 lt:lf3: Others 51

(8 e3 lt:l h 6 9 d 3 0- 0 and . . . e5) 8 . . . 8

lt:lf6 9 .id2 0-0 1 0 lii: b l .id7 I I 5 d6
lt:le I lt:le8 = Fo rintos- W.Schmidt, If not used for transpositional
Polanica Zdroj 1 968. purposes, this can be too passive.
Bu t also interesting would be 6 0-0
7 d3 !?, e.g. 7 . . . b5 8 cb ab 9 a4! ba After 6 d 3 , 6 . . . e5 is 'D' below
(9 . . . b4? 1 0 lt:lb5 'i!t'b6 I I d4 !) 1 0 and 6 . . . a6 is ' A'; 6 . . . h 5 !? 7 .id2
'!Wxa4 .ib7 I I .if4 ! lia8 ( I I . . . d6 lt:lh6. 6 a3!? is logical , e.g. 6 . . . lib8
1 2 lt:le5!) 1 2 'i!t'b5 :t; or 7 . . . lt:l f6 8 (6 . . . aS 7 e3!?) 7 b4! b6 ( 7 . . . cb 8 ab
h3!? 0-0 9 .ie3 d6 10 d4 et c. lt:lxb4 9 lixb7 lt:la6 1 0 1!t'b3 ! t) 8
7 b5 0-0 e5 9 lib l lt:l ge 7 10 d3 0-0 1 1
Consistent. 7 . . . e5 (t o stop d4) lt:le 1 .ie6 1 2 lt:l d5 :t Watson-Delva,
might be answered by 8 d4(!) a ny­ Philadelphia 1 980.
way, with the idea .if4, lt:le4/d5 , 6 lt:lh6
a nd/or lie ! after exchanges. 6 . . . lt:l f6 7 d4 is Chapter 4. 6 . . .
8 cb ab .id7 7 e3 1!t'c8 8 d 4 t.
9 d4 b4 7 d4(!)
I 0 lt:le2 A recent idea. Also promising is
1 0 lt:le4!?. 7 b3 0-0 8 .ib2 lib8 9 e3! a6 1 0 1!t'c2
10 cd e5 1 1 liad 1 lt:lfe7 1 2 d4:tYudasin­
II ed (50) Georgadze, Bangalore 1 98 1 . Nor-
mal has been 7 a3 0-0 (or 7 . . . lt:l f5
50 =) 8 li b l lib8 9 b4 lt:l f5 (9 . . . b6) 1 0
B e 3 .id 7 1 1 1!t'e2 e6 1 2 lii:d 1 b6 oo
H ort-Spassky, match 1 977.
7 cd
8 .ixh6 .ixh6
9 lt:lxd4 (5 1)

51
B

I li ke White, e .g. I I . . . lt:lf6 1 2 d5

lt:la5 1 3 lt:lf4 :t, or I I . . . d5 1 2 .if4
lib6 1 3 lt:le5 lt:l xe 5 1 4 de e6 1 5 lt:ld4
:t. intending to overprotect e5 and
(e.g.) push the a-pawn ( 1 5 . . . g5?
1 6 .ie3 ±).
52 5 liJf3: Others
9 �d7
"? ! " Andersson; B lack probably
underestimated White's next. But
9 . . . ll:lxd4 I 0 \!t'xd4 0-0 I I l:Ifd 1
�g7 12 \!t'e3 or 12 \!t'd2 (Andersson)
is uncomfortable for B lack. By
a n alogy with the �g5/xf6 systems
of the Hedgehog (Chapter 1 1 ),
White can work up a good deal of
pressure in the centre; 13 c5 is in
the air, for one thing.
10 e5! de
11 ll:lxe6 �xe6
12 ..be6 be
1 3 \!t'e2
":j;" Andersson. Andersson-van
der Wiel, Wij k a an Zee 1983, con­
tinued 1 3 . . . \!t'd2 1 4 \!t'xd2 ( 1 4
li ac 1 Andersson) 14 . . . �xd2 1 5
ll:le4 0-0-0 1 6 lit ad 1 �h6 ( 1 6 . . .
�b4 1 7 a3 �a 5 1 8 ll:lxc5 �b6 !)
1 7 ll:l xe5 lidS 1 8 ll:l d3 rj;c7 1 9 f4 !
�g7 20 lite] lita5 2 1 a3 litb5 22
lic2 lihb8 23 b4 a5 24 l:Ifc l ±.
Simple but effective !
c 1 3 ll:lc2 g5 1 4 lite l �f5 1 5 lilc3
5 e6 (52)
52
w ed 9 d3 h6!? - 9 . . . j.g4!? - 1 0 hg fg
The leading anti-ll:lO system,
due both to its soundness and to
the dynamic chances it offers. Black
threatens to wrest the central ini­
tiative by playing . . . d5 before
White has a chance to do the same
by d4. 5 ... e6 continues to score
well at all levels of international
play, and any player on the White
side would do well to study its
ramifications.
C l 6 0-0
C2 6 d4
There are some feeble options
here, and one fascinating one:
a) 6 d3 li:lge7 7 �g5!? (7 �f4 d5 -
6 0-0) 7 . . . h6 8 �d2 0-0 9 \!t'c 1 rj;h7
1 0 h4!? d5 I I h5 g 5 =F G rigorian­
Furman, USSR 1 972.
b) 6 b3 ll:lge7 7 �b2 0-0 8 ll:la4!?
(8 0-0 d5 +) 8 . . . e5 ! 9 0-0 (9 lLl xc5??
e4) 9 . . . d6 1 0 e3 f5 I I d3 ( 1 1 a3 h6!?
1 2 b4 cb 13 d4! unclear, Torre­
Zuckerman, Cleveland 1 975; but
I I . . . a5 ! is+) I I . . . h6 1 2li:le l f4 ( + )
'it'd7 ! (attack) Smyslov- Fischer,
Buenos Aires 1 970.
c) 6 h4 h6 (6 . . . d 5 !? 7 h5 li:lge7 8 cd
I I �d2 g5 1 2 'it'a4 �d7 1 3 0-0 ll:ld4
=/oo Ribli-Sosonko, Amsterdam
1980) 7 b3 (7 d4 !? - cf 6 d4) 7 .. .
ll:lge7 8 �b2 b6?! (8 . . . d 5 ! +, or 8 . . .
0-0) 9 \!t'b 1 ! e5 1 0 liJd5 Ilb8 I I h5
d6? 12 hg fg 1 3 ll:lh4 ± Fedorowicz­
Shamkovich, Hastings 197 7-78.
d) 6 e3 could transpose to 5 e3 after

6 . . . li:lge7 7 d4 etc; 6 . . . li:lge7 7 0-0
li:lf5 !? (7 . . . d5 = or 7 . . . 0-0 8 d4 d6)
8 b3 0-0 9 ..ib2 l:tb8 (9 d5 =) I O 0 0 0
lba4 ..ixb2 I I li:lxb2 �f6 I 2 lt::la 4
b6 = Kholmov-Suetin, USSR I 970.
e) 6 a3!? is a wild sideline, and also
the variation with my biggest over­
sights from the original volume !
On 6 . . . a5, 7 d4 ( ! ) transposes to
note 'c' of Chapter I , line A . And
the point on 6 . . . lt::lg e7 is 7 b4 !? (53):
53
B
Now one line is 7 . . . cb 8 ab li:lxb4
9 ..ia3, and 9 . . . lb bc6 IO lbb5 0-0
I I ..i d6! lt::lf5 I 2 ..ixf8 ..ixa l I 3
'tlt'xa i thf8 1 4 0-0 b6 ( 1 4 . . . 'tlrg7
I 5 d4 d5 1 6 g4! lt::l fe7 I 7 lt::lc 7 l::t b 8
I8 lt::l e8 e tc ; I4 ... lb d6!? I5 lt::l c 7
l::t b 8 I6 c 5 lt::le 8 17 li:lxe8 with pres­
sure) 15 g4lt::lg 7 ( 1 5 . . . lt::ld 6 1 6lt::le 5
\lre7 I 7 g5! with the idea li:lg4 ),
Watson-Groth, Oslo I9 80, and
i nstead o f I 6 lt::le 5 'fJ/e7 =, I6 g5 !
was strong, e .g. 1 6 . . . lt::l e 8 I 7 lt::le 5
"t!t'e7 I8 lt::lg 4! �xg5 I 9 li:lc7 ! "t!t'xg4
20 ltJ xe8 'it;>f8 2 1 lt::lf6 �h4 2 2
lt::lx d7+ . Here best is probably 9 . . .
lbec6 ( ! ) 1 0 'tlt'a4 a5 I I l::tb I l::t b 8
12 0-0 0- 0 13 li:la2 d5! I4 lt::lxb4 ab
5 ltJf3: Others 53
I 5 ..ixb4 lt::l x b4 I 6 'fJ/xb4 de I 7
't!t'xc4 ..id7 1;2-1;2 Watson-Antunac,
New York 1 98 1 . I 8 lt::ld4 !? e5 I 9
lb b 3 ..ie6 20 � b4 could follo w.
My first error came in the m ain
line 7 . . . lt::l x b4 8 ab cb 9 li:le4! (9
lt::lb 5 ..ixa I 10 lt::ld6+ 'it>f8 I I �a4
..if6 +) 9 . . . ..ixa i I O �a4(?) ..ig7
I I lt::ld 6+ 'it>f8 1 2lt::lg5? ( 1 2 't!t'xb4!?,
but I 2 . . . h6 1 3 0-0 a5 14 't!t'a3 'it>g8
+ with the idea . . . lt::lf5 or . . . lt::l c 6),
Watson-Hjartarson, Lone Pine
1 98 1 , and Black refuted the line
outright by 12 . . . �b6! 1 3 lt::lg xf7
b3 (or even I 3 . . . llg8 +) I4 ..ia3
b2 1 5 0-0 b i � H with the idea
I6 c5 't!t' I b3!.
Oddly enough, this doesn't quite
finish off the 6 a3, 7 b4 idea, because
I l ater realized that after 9 lt::l e4
..ixa i White could still play 1 0 d4!
(with the idealt::lf6+ and ..ih6 mate,
or ..ig5 etc) and get a whole different
set of complications. This may also
be too chancy, but they are posi­
tionally better fou nded than in the
last example, since the black bishop
is cut off from the sensitive kingside
squares. Probably the most im­
portant line goes 1 0 . . . ..ic 3+ 1 I
'itff1 0-0! 1 2 ..ig5 f5 ( I 2 0 0 0 f6 !? I 3
lt::l xf6+ 'it;>g7 I 4 lt::lg4) I 3 li:ld6! and
Black m ust still free himself, e .g.
l 3 ... a5 14 �a4 b3 I 5 �xb3 ..ib4
16 c5 ( I 6 ..if4 1!t'b6! ) I6 . . . b6 ( I 6 . . .
l::t a6? 1 7 li:lxc8) I 7 li:le5 l::t b 8 I 8 d 5
b e ( I 8 . . . .ixc5!? 1 9 lt::l x c8 !? l::t x c8
20 de intending 20 . . . de 2I 't!t'xe6+
54 5 liJf3: Others
</;g7 22 liJd7 i.d4 23 e3; or 1 9 de!?
.txd6 20 ed+ </;g7 21 •b2) 19 •c4
with ideas such as liJxc8 and d6 or
•h4 ( 19 ... i.a 3 20 i.f3; 19 . . . i.a6
20 •xa6 i.c3 21 f4). Admittedly
speculative in the extreme (this
last position, for example, i s very
dangerous), this line provides some
hope for 6 a3!?.
Unfortunately, Black has yet
another answer to 6 a3 which puts
White's chances for advantage to
the test, viz simply 6 . . . d5. This
move is as yet untried in several
6 a3 contests, but seems acceptable.
A sample line might go 7 cd ( 7
•a4!?; 7 0-0) 7 . . . ed 8 b4!? ( 8 0-0
liJge7 9 d4?, given in the first edition,
falls short after 9 ... ltJxd4! 10 liJxd4
cd and on I I lLlb5, I I . .. 'tlt'b6) 8 . . .
c b ( 8 . . . d4 9 ltJa4) 9 a b d 4 1 0 ltJa4
( 10 ltJe4!?) 10 . . . d3 I I i.b2 i.xb2
1 2 ltJ xb2 de! =. White is perhaps
better off with simply 8 d3, e.g.
8 . . . ltJge7 9 i.g5 h6 I 0 i.xe7 ltJxe7
I I d4. Compare lines below.
Cl
6 0-0 liJ ge7 (54)
54
w
6 . . . d 5 here is also generally
ignored. Aside from 7 d3, 7 cd ed
8 d4!? is of some interest, since
pawn grabbing by 8 . . . cd 9 lLlb5
'irb6 is u nclear after 1 0 liJd6+ </;e7
I I ltJxc8 llxc8 1 2 e3 ! .
7 d3
a) 7 b3 is roughly equivalent to 6 b3,
e.g. 7 . .. d5 8 cd ed 9 .tb2 0-0 10
ltJa4 i.xb2 I I lLlxb2 i.g4 1 2 lLld3
'tlt'd6 13 lilc I b6 14 h3 i.xf3 15 i.xf3
llad8 + Dake-Schmidt, Lone Pine
1975.
b) 7 e3 transposes to 6 e3 or 5 e3.
c) 7 lilbl d 5 8 a3!? a5 (8 ... d5 9
ltJa4 t; 8 . . . de 9 'tlt'a4 t Lysenko,
although (e.g.) 9 . . . i.d7 ! 1 0 't!rxc4
b6 I I b4 cb 1 2 ab JileS =) 9 d3 h6
(or 9 . . . 0-0 =) 1 0 i.d2 0-0 I I 't!tc l
</;h7 1 2 cd ed = Lysenko-Kogan,
USS R 1 976.
d) 7 e4!? 0-0 (or 7 . . . d5) 8 d3 d5 ! 9
cd? ! ed 1 0 ltJxd5 liJxd5 I I ed 't!t'xd5
12 .te3 .txb 2! 1 3 liJd4 'tlt'xg2+!?
( 1 3 . . . 'tlt'd6 ) 14 </;xg2 .txd4 =/co
=
Bellon-Adorjan, Lanzarote 1975.
e) 7 d4!? is less dangerous to Black
than its counterpart 6 d4 below.
Best seems 7 . . . liJxd4 8 ltJxd4 cd
9 ltJb5 liJf5 !? (9 . . . d5 I 0 cd lLlxd5
I I .txd5 ed 1 2 liJxd4 = Yusupov-
Cordes, Graz 1978; 9 . . . 'tlt'b6 ( ! )
1 0 a 4 - 1 0 e 3 liJf5 - 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I
c5? 't!rxc5 1 2 b4 'tlt'b6!, K harkin­
Lysenko, USSR 1 968) 10 g4 a6 I I
't!ra4 liJh4 1 2 liJd6+ </;f8 1 3
liJxc8(?!) ( 1 3 c 5 +) 1 3 . . . 't!fxc8 1 4
'tlt'b4+ </;g8 1 5 .txb7 't!t'b8 =F
 5 lb/3: Others 55

Stei nberg-Tu kmakov, Orel 1 966. 1 4 li:lxc6 be 1 5 l:i:c l , when White

7 0-0 (55) has not wasted time via l:i:b l-c1
Or 7 . . . d 5, when 8 ..td2 or 8 .i.f4 and the e-pawn is protected versus
transposes, or 8 cd ed (8 . . . li:lxd 5 ! ? . . . lil:e8, . . . ..ig4 etc. Larsen-Kudrin,
9 .i. g 5 1!rd7) 9 ..tg5 ( 9 ..tf4 0-0 1 0 Reykjavik 1 986, saw 8 . . . a6 9 .i.f4
'trd2 ..if5 1 1 l:i:ac I 't!t'd7 Ptleger­
= d6 (9 . . . d5 1 0 e4!?) 1 0 trd2 l:i:b8
Penrose, Bath 1973) 9 ... h6 10 ..txe7 1 1 ..ih6 ( 1 1 lil:b 1 - cf 8 ..tf4 d6) 1 1
li:lxe7 1 1 d4 cd 12 li:lxd4 0-0 1 3 e3 . . . e5 1 2 ..txg7 'it>xg7 1 3 a 3 b5 1 4
( 1 3 l:i:c 1 ( !) ) 1 3 . . . li:lc6 ! 1 4 li:lxd 5 cb! ? a b 1 5 b4 =.

li:lxd4 = Larsen-Korchnoi, London Cl l

1 980. 8 ..id2
Common, but passive. Trading
55
w
bishops isn't necessarily desirable.
8 d5
Also good are 8 ... b6, e.g. 9 1Wcl
..tb7 1 0 ..ih6 ..txh6 1 1 11xh6
ltJf5 1 2 tt'f4 tt'b8 = Gheorghiu­
Tu kmakov, Buenos Aires 1970,
and 8 . . . d6 9 't!Vc 1 lilb8 10 ..ih6 a6
1 1 a4?! ( 1 1 b3 b5 1 2 ..txg7 ) 1 1 . . .
=

d 5 ! + Lysenk o .
C I I 8 ..td2 9 'ilc 1 b6
C 1 2 8 a3 1 0 ..ih6
C 1 3 8 ..tf4 1 0 cd ed 1 1 i.. h 6 d4 ! 1 2 lt:le4 lbd5
C 1 4 8 l:i:b l 13 a3 i.. b 7 + (centre).
a) 8 ..tg5 h6 9 .i.d2 (9 .i.xe7 'it'xe 7 10 .i.b7
1 0 e 3 ! ? or here 9 . . . li:lxe7 1 0 d4 1 1 i..x g7 �g7
might be tried) 9 . . . b6 (or 9 . . . d5 = ) 12 cd lbxd5 (56)
1 0 a3 .i.b7 1 1 l:i:b 1 d5 1 2 b4? ! (but
56
1 2 cd ed 13 b4 d4 ! +) 1 2 . . . de! 13 de w
cb 1 4 cb lil:c8 1 5 lba4 lbd4 16 lbxd4
..ixg2 1 7 lbxe6 fe 18 'it>xg2 l:i:xc4 +
Korchnoi-Karaklajic, Wijk aan Zee
1 968.
b) 8 l:i:e1 !? is a Larsen refinement
similar to 8 l:i:b l . The idea is prob­
ably 8 . . . d5 9 .i.g5 h6 10 cd ed I I
.i.xe7 lbxe 7 1 2 d4 cd 1 3 lbxd4 lbc6
56 5 li:Jf3: Others
A typical position. Larsen-Tal,
Leningrad IZ 1 973, went 1 3 h4!?
(weakening; 1 3 li:Jxd5 1!t'xd5 1 4
1!t'c3+ o;!;>g8 1 5 li:Je5? li:Jd4! i s also
poor, bu t 13 �e l or 1 3 a3 is prefer­
a ble) 1 3 . . . li:Jd4 1 4 �e l h6 1 5 li:Je5?
( 1 5 lDxd4) 1 5 . . . li:Jxc3 l6 1!t'xc3 ( 1 6
be i.xg2) 1 6 .. . i.xg2 1 7 'it>xg2
1!t'd5+ 1 8 li:Jf3 �ad8 19 o;!;>g I e5 20
li:Jxd4 ed =F.
C1 2
8 a3 dS
Or 8 . . . b6 9 �b l i.b7 1 0 i.d2
d6 I I b4 1!t'd7 =.
9 i.d2
9 cd ed (or 9 . . . li:Jxd5 10 i.g5
1!t'd7 =) 1 0 � b l b6 I I i.f4 h6
1 2 1!t'c I d4 1 3 li:Ja4 g5 + Csom­
Smej kal, K iel 1 978.
Larsen tried 9 i.g5 ! ? h6 l 0 cd ed
l l i.xe 7 li:Jxe 7 12 d4 versus Karpov
at Buenos Aires 1 980, but 1 2 . . . cd
1 3 li:Jxd4 li:Jc6 1 4 li:Jxc6 be 1 5 llc l
i.a6! 1 6 �e l �e8 = held the bal­
ance; see 8 �e l above and 8 �b l
below.
9 b6
10 �b1 i.b7 (5 7)
11 b4?!
Natural, but White never quite
equalizes thereafter. I I 1!t'a4 de!
12 1Wxc4 ( 1 2 dc li:Ja5) 1 2 . . . lDd5 1 3
't!Va4 = or I I cd li:Jxd5 1 2 1!t'a4 ( 1 2
li:Jxd5? 'ifxd5 1 3 b4 cb 1 4 a b li:Jd4!
+ Marjanovic-Gufeld , Vrnjal:ka
Banja 1976) or I I 'itcl 'itd7 achieves
nothing.
11 eb
12 ab de
13 de �e8
White's hanging pawns are a
problem , e.g. 14 c5?! ( 14 li:Jb5 a6
1 5 li:Ja3 is best; 1 4 li:Je l 'itd7 1 5
li:Jd 3 li:Jd4 + ) 1 4 . . . be 1 5 be li:Ja5
16 li:Ja4 i.c6 l 7 1!t'c2 li:Jb7 18 �fc l
1!rd7 1 9 li:Je I ! li:Jd5 ! + Petrosian­
Fischer, Belgrade 1970.
C1 3
8 i.f4
A system Fischer played with
colours reversed. I overestimated
its worth in the first edition.
8 dS
8 ... e5 9 i.d2 or 9 i.g5 ( ! ) is 'D'
below. The main option is 8 . . . d6
9 1!rc l li:Jf5 (9 . . . b6 1 0 �b l i.b7
I I a31!fd7- 11 . .. a5 12 �dl :t-
1 2 b4 �ad8 1 3 �el f5 1 4 b5 e5 1 5
i.h6 :t D.Byrne-R.Byrne, New
York 1 967) 1 0 �b l 1!re7 ll �e l ( !)
(versus . .. li:Jd4) I I . . . i.d7 1 2 li:Je4!
e5 ( 1 2 . . . li:Je5 1 3 li:Jxe5! i.xe 5 -
13 . . . d e 14 i.d2 ±- 1 4 i.xe5 de
1 5 g4 ! a nd 1 6 g5) 1 3 i.d2 a6 1 4
li:Jc3 b5 ! 1 5 li:Jd5 't!Vd8 1 6 li:Jg5!?
( 1 6 b4!?) 1 6 . . . �c8 1 7 li:Je4 i.e6

1 8 g4! li:Jfe7 1 9 li:Jdf6+ ± w ith the
idea .tg5, Malich-Ciocaltea, Halle
1 9 74.
9 l:lb 1 !?
9 cd ed 1 0 We i b6 1 1 .th6 is the
n ote to I 0 .th6 in line C 1 1 ; here
9 ... li:Jxd5 10 li:Jxd5 ed 1 1 W'd2
l:le8 ( Larsen) i s equal.
9 b6!
9 . . . d e 10 de .txc3? 1 1 be W'xd 1
1 2 l:lfxd 1 f6 1 3 .td6 b6 1 4 li:Je5 .
9 . . . e 5 1 0 .td2 h6 1 1 cd ! li:Jxd5 1 2
1t'c l ;!;. 9 . . . d4? 1 0 lDa4 e 5 1 1 .td2
b6 12 a3 a nd b4.
10 a3 .tb7 (58)
1 1 Wa4
The alternatives are comparable
to previous sections and rather
depressing.
11 a6!
Played by McCambridge versus
the author at Lone Pine 198 1 . The
move p repares . . . de and . . . li:Ja5
(compare 1 1 . . . de 12 de li:Ja5 1 3
l:lfd 1 W'e8 1 4 1t'xe8 l:laxe8 1 5 l:ld7 !
or here 14 . . . lUxe8 1 5 li:Jb5). Others
are 1 1 . . . e5? 1 2 cd ef 1 3 de and 1 4
5 liJf3: Others 57
'ifxf4, 1 1 . . . d 4 1 2 li:Ja2 f6 1 3 b4 e5
1 4 .td2 t, and 1 1 . . . W'd7 12 lHc l
lHd8 1 3 cd ed 1 4 b4 cb 1 5 ab d4
( 1 5 . . . li:Jd4 1 6 li:Jxd4 .txd4 1 7 b5
.tg7 1 8 li:Ja2! ;t) 1 6 li:Je4 li:Jd5 1 7 b5
li:Jce7 1 8 .te5 Uoo.
After 1 1 ... a6 ! I countered rather
feebly with 1 2 l:lfc 1? de 13 de? ( 1 3
1t'xc4, b�t 1 3 . . . li:Jd5 is a t least )
=
1 3 . . . li:Ja5 and the threat of . . . .tc6
and . . . li:Jxc4 was too strong, since
14 li:Je5 .t xg2 1 5 'i!i>xg2 g5! doesn't
work . Thus W hite should settle
for something like 12 cd li:Jxd5 1 3
li:Jxd5 e d 1 4 l:lfc l with the idea
W'd l , b4, or perhaps 12 l:lfd l li:c8
( 1 2 . . . li:Ja5 1 3 Wc2 or 12 . . . 1fe8
13 1t'b3!?) 1 3 li:ac 1 or 13 e4!?. These
lines are not necessarily prospectless
for White, but for now 1 1 . . . a6!
seems to provide a complete answer
to the 8 .tf4, 9 li:b 1 idea.
C14
8 li: b l !?
Larsen, who has encountered
some difficul ties on the White side
of 5 li:Jf3 e6, has invented a new
strategy based on i.g5. It has yet
to yield good results, but has some
in teresting features.
8 d5
8 . . . b6 9 .tf4 d5 transposes to
the last section; if 10 cd ed (or 10 . . .
li:Jxd5 ) 1 1 1!t'd2 .tb7 1 2 a3 then
=
1 2 . . . d4 fol lowed by . . . li:Jd5 is
equal.
9 ,tg5 (! ) h6
10 cd ed
58 5 li:Jf3: Others
1 0 . . . hg? I I de li:Jxc6 1 2 h 3 ! ±
(Tu kmakov); or 1 2 li:Ja4! 't!t'e7 1 3
't!t'c 1 li:Jd4 1 4 lii:e l .
11 .i.xe7 li:Jxe7
12 d4 cd
1 2 . . . b6!? (Tu kmakov).
13 li:Jxd4 (59)
59
B
White has some pressure on the
isolani to compensate for the bishop
pair. In Larsen-Tukmakov, Las
Palmas IZ 1 982, Black went for the
Tarrasch-like position after 1 3 . . .
li:Jc6! 1 4 li:Jxc6 b e 1 5 't!t'c2 ( a big
choice: 1 5 e4!?; 1 5 't!t'd2 lii:e 8 1 6
lii:fe 1 .i.a6 1 7 li:Ja4 'it'd6 =) 1 5 . . .
lii:b 8 1 6 llfd 1 ( 1 6 e4!?) 1 6 . . . 't!t'a5 !
1 7 e4 de 1 8 .i.xe4 .i.e6! = ( 1 9 .i. xc6
.i.xc3 ).
One can see how L arsen's ex­
perime nt with 8 lii: e 1 (see above)
was aimed at getting the same
k ind of play with the useful lii:e 1
in; but of course that move had
less point when Black avoided . . .
d5.
C2
6 d4! ? (60)
60
B
Another eccentric tactical idea
(see 6 a3!? above), which probably
"shouldn't" work but has some
charming points. The j ustification
for such madness stems from the
dark-square holes which Black
has created by moving his c-, e­
and g-pawns.
6 li:Jxd4
The most entertaining line. Safer
but less ambitious is 6 . . . cd, but after
7 li:Jb5 Black must move against a
simple edge by li:Jbxd4. If 7 . . . e5 (?)
then 8 e3 (!) a6 9 li:Jd6+ rtle7 can be
followed up by either 10 li:Jxc8+
lii:x c8 1 1 ed ( I I . . . e4 12 li:Jg5 or 1 1
. . . ed 12 0-0 rtlf8 ! 1 3 .i.g5 !?) or even
10 c5!? 't!t'a5+ 1 1 b4 1!rxb4+ ( 1 1 . . .
li:Jxb4 1 2 0-0 'it'xc5 1 3 li:Je4 or 1 3
li:Jxc8+ with the idea e d and/or
.i.a3) 1 2 li:Jd2 ( ! ) 't!t'xc5 ( 1 2 . . . de
1 3 fe exposes Black even more;
1 2 . . . f5 13 lii: b 1 't!t'xc5 14 't!t'b3 ! and
.i.a3) 13 li:J2e4 1!t'b6 ( 1 3 . . . 't!t'b4+
14 .i.d2 't!t'b6 1 5 llb I and 'i!t'b3) 1 4
0- 0 with t h e idea .i.a3.
Similarly, 7 ... 't!t'b6 8 e3! is pro­
mising, e.g. 8 . . . de 9 .i.xe3 (9 1!rd6!?)

9 . . . 'tlra5+ l 0 ..td2 "ifb6 ( 1 0 . . . 1t'd8
I I ..tf4 e 5 12 'tlrd6) I I ..tf4 e 5 1 2
..te3 't!t'a5+ 1 3 ..td2 1lrb6 1 4 0- 0 etc.
The most sensible decision is
therefore 7 . . . d5 ("! " - the author;
b ut I seem to have been asleep to
the possibilities for much of this
chapter) 8 cd! (61)
61
B
Now 8 . . . 'ffa 5+ ! ? proves surpri­
singly risky due to 9 ll:ld2 ! 'tlt'xb5
(9 . . . ed!? 10 a4!? a6 I I l2Jd6+ �e7
13 b4!? ll:lxb4 1 4 ..ta3 'it>xd6 1 5 �b l
etc; safer but less enterprising is
10 ll:ld6+ 'tie 7 I I ll:lxc8+ �xc8 1 2
0-0, e.g. 1 2 . . . ll:lf6 1 3 ll:lb3 'tlrb6 1 4
e3) 1 0 de (or 1 0 a4, to limit Black's
options) 10 . . . be ( 10 ... ll:le7 !?, bu t
then I I a4 1t'a6 1 2 b4, e.g. 1 2 . . . d 3
1 3 b5 1t'a5 1 4 0-0!? ..txa l 1 5 cb-
15 lLlc4!? ._b4 16 ed- 1 5 . . . ..txb7
1 6 ..t xb7 with the idea 16 . . . �b8
1 7 ll:lc4 etc) I I a4 ( I I ll:le4 !? Povah)
I I . . . 'tlt'b7?! ( I I . . . 11t'a5 1 2 b4!; I I
. . . 'tlt'b6 1 2 ll:lc4 'tfb4+ 1 3 ..td2 !
Povah; best looks I I . . . 11t'a6, but
1 2 11t'c2 and ll:le4-d6/c5 is nice) 1 2
lbc4 "with am ple compensation
for a pawn" (Povah). This is an
5 lLljJ: Others 59
understatement, since Black can
hardly defend against the multiple
threats of l2Jd6, ll:la5, ..tf4 and
�cl.
So in Nogueiras-Barbero, Thes­
saloniki 01 1 984, Black played
simply 8 . . . ed, hoping for active
piece play: 9 0-0 ll:lge7 10 ll:lbxd4
0-0 I I ..te3!? �e8 1 2 �c l !? ( 1 2
�e l ( ! ) is more accurate here: e2 is
covered, and the a l rook may yet
end up on d l . Then 1 2 . . . ll:lf5 1 3
ll:lxf5 ..txf5 1 4 ll:ld4 ll:lxd4 1 5 ..txd4
..txd4 1 6 'tlrxd4 ..te4 1 7 �ad I or
15 ... ..te4 16 ..th3 !? is not yet equal)
1 2 . . . ll:lf5 1 3 l2Jxf5 ..txf5 14 �c5?!
d4 1 5 ll:lxd4 ..txd4 16 �xc6 ( 1 6
�d5? ..txe3) 1 6 . . . ..txe3 1 7 �d6
fle7 +.
7 ll:lxd4 cd
7 . . . ..txd4 8 ll:lb5, e.g. 8 . . . ..te5
(8 . . . e5?? 9 e3; 8 ·- ..tg7?? 9 'tlrd6;
8 . . . 'ff b 6 9 a4!? - or 9 e3 ..te5 1 0 /4
..tbB 1 1 e4 etc, or even 9 0-0 - 9 . . .
a 5 l 0 ..tf4 e 5 I I ..t c I etc) 9 ..tf4 ( 9
f4 !?) 9 . . . ..txf4 1 0 g f 'W'a5+ I I ��
d5 1 2 b4 ! cb 1 3 1t'd4 f6 1 4 1t'c5 .
8 ll:le4! (62)
62
B
60 5 li:Jf3: Others
8 1t'c7!?
A good place to look for im­
provements:
a) 8 ... d6 9 \Wa4+ q;e7 (9 ... .i.d7
IO li:Jxd6+ q;(E II 1t'a3 ± Povah)
1 0 'tta 3 with an attack (Povah);
possible is (e.g.) 10 . . . f5 II .i.g5 + !
li:Jf6 1 2 li:Jxf6 .i.xf6 I3 .i.xf6+ q;xf6
I4 ��0 'it'b6 I5 e 3 ! 'ttc 5 I6 1t'xc 5
±.
b) 8 ... dS!? 9 1t'a4+ .i.d7 !? 1 0 li:Jd6+
q;ffi II 1!t'b4!?, or here 9 . . . q;f8 I 0
cd ed ( 1 0 ... 1t'xd5 II \Wb4+ with
the idea .i.g5 or b3) II li:Jc5 with
pressure. 9 cd ed 10 \Wa4+ is similar,
with options l ike 10 . . . q;(E II
1Wa3+ !? and li:Jd6.
c)8 ... fS?! 9li:Jd6+ �7 1 0 c5! \Wa5+
I I .i.d2 \Wxc5 I 2 li:Jxc8 ! (clearer
than I2 'itb3 !? a5 t) I2 . . . 'irxc8 I3
l:l:cl (or I3 .i.b4+ and e3) I 3 . . .
1t'b8 I 4 .i.b4+.
d) 8 ... li:Je7!? 9 li:Jd6+ q;ffi 10 \Wb3!?
intending 1 0 . . . \Wc7 II .i.f4 or I 0
. . . 'itb6 II \Wa3. This could use
tests.
9 cS li:Je7
10 .i.f4!
White has developed strong
pressure on the dark squares. Now
1 0 . . . e5? I I 'irxd4! 0-0 I2 \Wd6! is
given by Povah, but winning is I I
li:Jd6+ with the idea II . . . q;ffi I2
'irb3.
So in Chernin-Parameswaran,
Bangalore I98I, B lack tried 10 . . .
'ita5+ I I .i.d2 ( I I q;n !?) I I . . . 1t'c7
12 li:Jd6+ �ffi 1 3 l:l:c I h5 1 4 'ira4
lbd5 ( 14 ... li:Jf5 15 li:Jc4! ±intending
li:Jb6 Filip) 1 5 .i.xd5 ed 16 1t'a3 ( ±
threatening 1 7 c6, 1 7 \Wf3; 1 6 't!t'b3 !?)
1 6 . . . �g8 1 7 �0 (or 1 7 11t'f3 f5 1 8
\Wd5+ ±) 1 7 . . . f5 1 8 .i.f4 't!t'd8 1 9
li:Jb 5 b6 20 c b \Wxb6 2 1 li:Jc7 .i.b7
22 li:Jxa8 ±±.
Time will tell if 6 d4 (or 6 a3 !?)
can help to spice up a rather settled
5 . . . e6 variation.
D
s eS (63)
63
w
This, the Botvinnik System as
Black, has been utilized by many
top players, although some are
shy of its- committal n ature.
Dl 6 0 -0
02 6 d3 ( .i.g5 lines)
6 a3 tends to t ranpose. 6 e4?
(doesn't mix with li:Jf3) 6 . . . li:Jge7
7 a3 a5 8 0 -0 0-0 and White must
moe his king's knight again versus
. . . f5 -f4.
Dl
6 0-0
The main line; this section in­
cludes lines where �0 is played

here or on the next few moves, e.g.
6 d3 li'Jge7 7 a3 0-0 S 0-0.
6 li'Jg e7
a) 6 . . . li'Jf6?! 7 a3 (or 7 li'Je l and
S li'Jc2) 7 . . . a5 S lib I 0-0 9 d 3 d6
1 0 i.g5 ! h6 I I i.xf6 i.xf6 1 2 li'Je l
i.g7 1 3 li'Jc2 a4 14 li'Je3 li'Jd4 1 5
lie I 't!Va5 1 6 li'Jed5 lieS 1 7 e3 ±
Stein-Doroskevich, USSR Ch 1 967.
b) 6 ... d6 7 d3 or 7 a3 transpose. I f
7 li'J e I , 7 . . . i.e6 ! S li'Jd5 li'Jge7 9
a3?! 0-0 10 d3 libS I I li'Jc2 b5 +
H ubner. A disaster for Black was
6 . . . d6 7 a3 i.e6!? S d3 li'Jge7?!
(8 . . . a5) 9 b4 ! e4? (but 9 . . . cb? 1 0
a b li'Jxb4 I I i.a3 li'Jbc6 1 2 li'Je4
McCa mbridge) 1 0 li'Jxe4 i.xa I I I
i.h6! ± planning 1 1 . . . i.b2 12 't!Vc2
or I I ...li'Jf5 12 't!Vxa I , McCambridge­
Choobak, Los Angeles 1 985.
Oi l 7 a3
0 1 2 7 d3
H arm less is 7 b3 0-0 8 i. b2 d6
9 d3 h6 = with the idea . . . i.e6.
White's main option is 7 li'Je l , a
good reply being 7 . . . d6 8 li'Jc2
..ie6 9 d3 (9 li'Je3 !? lib8 !?) 9 . . . d5 !
1 0 b3 ( 1 0 cd li'Jxd5 I I li'Je3 li'Jde7
or I I . . . li'Jxe3 +) 10 . . . 0-0 I I llb l
lieS 1 2 e4 de 13 deli'Jd4 + Korchnoi­
H iibner , match 1 980-8 1 .
7 li'Je I 0-0 S li'Jc2 d6 9 li'Je3 (9
llb I i.e6! I 0 li'Jd5 a5; 9 d3 i.e6
10 li'Jd5 li b8 ! = planning . . . b5)
9 . . . i.e6 (9 . . . li b8 10 li'Jed5 li'Jxd5
I I li'Jxd5 li'Je7 = Lombardy-Evans,
USA 1 966) 10 a3 't!Vd7 I I d3 i.h3
12 li'Jed5 i.xg2 1 3 �xg2 liJ xd5 1 4
5 li'Jf3: Others 61
li'Jxd5 li'Je7 15 li'Jxe7+ 't!Vxe7 16 e4
f5 1 7 f3 h5 =.
Dll
7 a3! ? (64)
This can simply transpose to
'022', but here we look at White
options.
7 0-0
It's not clear what the best move
order is by which to prevent un­
wanted complications:
a) 7 ... a6?! 8 b4 ! cb 9 ab li'Jxb4 1 0
i.a3 li'Jbc6 I I i.d6 li'Jf5 1 2 li'Je4
i.f8!? 1 3 i.xe5 li'Jxe5 l 4li'Jxe5 i.g7
15 d4 ± Osnos-Tarasov, USSR Ch
1 967 .
b) 7 . . aS!? may prematurely con­
.
cede White the opportunity for a
favourable i.g5. Also of i nterest
is 8 li'Jb5 d6!? 9 e3 i.e6 10 't!Vc2 h6
I I lld I llc8 1 2 d4! with an attack,
Karner-Espig, Tal linn 1 975. But
here 8 . . . d5 9 cd li'Jxd5 10 li'Jg5
(Karner) isn't impressive, e.g. 1 0
. . . li'Jde7 I I li'Jge4 0-0! and 1 2li'Jxc5?
@b6 or 1 2 li'Jed6 i.e6! 1 3 li'Jxb7
't!fb6 14 li'Jbd6 a4 ! etc .
62 5 liJf3: Others
c) 7 ... d6!? looks innocent, but 8
b4 !? creates new problems, e.g.
8 . . . cb 9 ab liJ xb4 1 0 .ta3 ± with
the idea 1 0 ... liJec6 II 't!t'a4 liJa6
12 liJ e4 .tf8 1 3 d4; or 8 ... .te6 9
liJg5 .txc4 I0 d3 cb!? ( I 0 . . . .te6
I I liJxe6 fe 12 be d 5 ! 1 3 e4! �0 1 4
\lt'g4 t Ftacnik-Rogers, Groningen
1 9 76-77) I I ab .te6 12 ll:lxe6 fe 1 3
b5 liJd4 1 4 e 3 't!t'c7 1 5 .td2 liJdf5
1 6 b6! 1!t'xb6 l 7 1!t'a4+ �f8 1 8 ll:b l
'it'd8 1 9 lixb7 ± Ftacnik-Danner,
Vienna 1 985.
So the main move is 8 ... e4! (65):
65
w h6? 1 0 l0gxe4 attacks c5. 9 . . . f5
For example, 9 liJeI f5 I 0 .tb2
�0!? (or 10 ... .te6 1 1 d3 ed 12 ll:lxd3
.txc4 1 3 liJa4 ! =/oo Romanishin­
Short, Lvov 1 984) II d3 (II ll:b 1 !?)
I I . . . .te6 1 2 de!? ( l2 'it'd2!?) 12 . . .
fe 1 3 .txe4 .txc4 = Romanishin­
Agza mov, Sochi 1 984.
But nobody has tried my some­
what fanciful 8 . . . e4 9 liJg5!? h6
(9 ... f5 10 ll:b l t; or 10 .t b2!?
h6 I I h 3 .te6?! 1 2 d 3 ed 13 edt
Rajkovic-Nicevski, Stip 1 976; I I
. . . cb) 1 0 liJgxe4! !? ( 1 0 liJh3 g5 I I
.tb2 0-0 oo Raj kovic), e.g. 1 0 . . . cb
( 1 0 . . . f5 I I be fe 12 cb with good
play) I I ab f5 12 b5 liJe5 ( 1 2 . . .
liJa5 1 3 ll:xa5; 1 2 . . . liJ b 8 !? 1 3 .ta3
fe 14 liJxe4 oo) 13 liJd6+ '@xd6 14
.ta3 't!t'd8 1 5 liJd 5, and 15 . . . liJg8
16 it'b3 or 1 5 . . . liJxd5 1 6 .txd5
with e4, d4 to follow.
Too speculative, perhaps, but
also the best try for advantage once
White h as played 8 b4!?.
8 b4 e4!
8 . . . cb 9 ab liJxb4 1 0 .ta3 gives
clear compensation.
9 liJel?!
Here 9 ltlg5 is critical, since 9 . . .
1 0 lib! ( 1 0 .tb2 d 5 ! ) is unclear,
e .g. 1 0 . . . h6 ( 10 . . . d5 !? I I cd ltlxd5
l 2 1!t'b3 !?) I I ltlh3 cb 12 ab g5 with
complications.
After the text move Horvitz­
Donaldson, match 1 978, went 9 . . .
d 5 ! 1 0 ll:ab l !? cb 1 1 cd l0xd5 1 2
ltlcxe4 .tf5! 1 3 l0ed3 ll:fe8 with
advantage to Black.
Dl2
7 d3 0-0
8 a3
Most flexible (aside from 8 .tg5!?,
which transposes to 02 below).
8 ltle l ll:b8 ! ? (8 . . . d6 =) 9 ltlc2 a6
10 b4 .te6 II be de 12 ltle3 b6 1 3
ltled5 .td7! 1 5 .td2ltlxd5 l 6ltlxd5
ltle7 (=) 1 7 't!fc l ? ltlxd5 1 8 .txd5
.th3 1 9 ll:eI? b5 20 a3 \!t'd6 2 1 .to
.te6 22 cb ab 23 .te3 ll:fc8 24 'ti'd2
b4 H Barcza-Karpov, Caracas

1 9 70.
8 d6
8 . . . f5!? should be met by 9 lib I
a5 10 lLle l ! d6 1 l lLlc2. 8 . . . a6 9 l:Ib l
Itb8 1 0 b4 cb I I ab b5 1 2 c5 ! ;1;.
9 l:Ibl aS (66)
Ideas based on . . . b6 leave White
a slight spatial plus, e.g. 9 ... b6
1 0 b4 .ib7 I I be!? de 12 .ib2 1!t'd7
1 3 lLld2 lLld4 14 .ixb7 'tixb7 1 5 e3
lLle 6 1 6 e4! ! planning lLld5, .tc3,
a4-a 5, Larsen-Bobotsov, Palma
de Mallorca 1 969.
66
w and n ow Uhlmann gives 20 . . .
1 0 .id2
White can still play into the .i.g5
lines by (e.g.) 10 .tg5 f6 I I .i.d2 or
I I .ie3!?, discussed in '02' below.
Or:
a) 10 lLldS l:Ib8 ! I I lLl d2 .i.e6 =.
b) 10 lLle1 .ie6 (the move 10 .i.d2
discourages) and:
b l ) 11 lLlc2!?, e .g. I I . . . d5 12 cd
lLlxd5 13 lLle 3 lLlde7 (or l 3 . . . lLlxe3
14 .txe3 lLld4!?, sacrificing the
b-pawn for a bind) 1 4 lLle4! b6 1 5
lLlg5 ..tc8? ( 1 5 . . . .id7 or even 1 5 . . .
'tid7 (!) l 6 lLlxe6 'ti'xe6oo) l 6 b4 cb
5 lLlf3: Others 63
1 7 ab ab 1 8 .id2 Ita2!? 1 9 .txb4 ;t
Radke-Watson , Sunnyvale 1 975;
or here I I ... l:Ib8 1 2 b4 cb 1 3 ab b6
14 b5 lLld4 1 5 lLle3 ;t Agdestein­
Ke kki, Norway 1 982.
b2) 1 1 lLldS l:Ib8 12 lLlc2 ( 12 .ig5
f6 and . . . b5) 12 . . . b5 1 3 lLlce3 ( 1 3
cb? lLl xd5 1 4 be lLlc3 ; 1 3 lLlxe7+?
lLlxe7 14 lLle3 a4! 1 5 .id2 be 1 6 de
l:Ib3 =F Lengyel-Wedberg, Eksjo
1 980) 1 3 . . . 1Wd7 (or 1 3 . . . b4, or 1 3
. . . b e 1 4 d e f5) 1 4 cb Itxb5 1 5 a4?!
l:Ib8 l 6 lLlxe7+ lLlxe7 1 7 lLlc4 lLlc6
18 .id2 e4! l 9 lLJxa5 lLlxa5 20 ..txa5,
Barcza-Uh l mann, Sarajevo 1 969,
.tb3 ! 2 1 't!fd2 ..ta2 22 n be l l:Ixb2
=F.
10 l:Ib8!
10 . . . h6 and:
a) 11 't!t'a4 !? .te6! 12 Itfc l f5 1 3
't!fd l '@'d7 1 4 lLl e l f4 1 5 lLld5 fg 16
hg Itab8 l 7 lLlc2? ( 1 7 b4 ! oo) 1 7 ...
Itf7 1 8 lLl xe7+ lLlxe7! 1 9 ..txa5
l:Ibf8 20 .i.e l h 5 ! 21 b4 .i.h3 22
..te4!? h4 23 be hg 24 f3 't!fg4! =F
Polgar-Ribli, Hungarian Ch 1 972.
b) 1 1 lLlel! ..te6 ( I I . . . f5 12 lLlc2
�h8 1 3 b4 t; I I . . . l:Ib8 1 2 lLlc2
.te6 1 3 b4 t) 12 lLld5 l:Ib8 ( 1 2 . . .
Ita7 !?) 1 3 b4! a b 1 4 ab .t xd5 1 5 cd
lLlxb4 16 .txb4 cb 1 7 It xb4 !.
1 1 lLle1
Thus ... l:Ib8! has saved the tempo
for . . . h 6. I I h 3 !? is the best option,
trying to get Black to commit him­
self. Suttles-Chow, C anada 1 976,
went I I . . h6 12 lLle l .ie6 13 �h2
.
64 5 li:Jf3: Others
d 5 !? 1 4 cd li:Jxd5 1 5 t!t'c l li:Jd4 1 6
.bd5 i.xd5 1 7 i.h6 i.c6 1 8 .txg7
c;t>xg7 19 t!t'e3 llh8 ! ro. Or here 1 2
t!t'a4!?, e.g. 1 2 ... .te6 ( 1 2 . . . .td7
13 lUc l and t!t' d l ) 1 3 llfc l t!t'd7
14 'it>h2 f5 15 t!t' d l f4 1 6 1!t'h l !? in­
tending i.e I , li:Jd2-e4, or li:Je4 and
b4.
11 .te6
12 li:Jc2
12 li:Jd5 allows 12 . . . b5, e.g. 1 3
b3 ( !) ( 1 3 li:Jxe7+? li:Jxe7 1 4 cb llxb5
15 b4 ab 16 ab c4 ! +n= Csom­
Hartoch, Skopj e 01 1972) 1 3 . . . b4
( 13 . . . f5 !? with the idea . . . be) 1 4 a4
1!t'd7 (or 1 4 . . . h6!) 1 5 li:Jd2, Ek­
Ornstein, Goteborg 1 975, and now
1 5 . . . 'it>h8 is
=.
12 d5
13 cd li:Jxd5
14 li:Jxd5
14 li:Je3 li:Jxe3 (or 14 . . . li:Jde7)
1 5 i.xe3 tt) d4 16 b4 ab 17 ab cb
18 lilxb4 ,-as 1 9 t!t'a4 t!t'xa4 +
Suttles-Ghizdavu, Lone Pine 1975.
14 i.xd5
Now White finally achieves b4,
but having lost the centre: 15 b4
( 1 5 .txd5 1rxd5 16 b4 ab 1 7 ab
ll fd8! 18 li:Je3 t!t'd4 19 be e4! 20
1!t'c2 ed 2 1 ed 1!t'f6 22 llb6 t!t'f3 =F
threatening . . . li:Jd4, O'Donnell­
Watson, Colorado 1 976) 1 5 . . .
i.xg2 1 6 'it>xg2 b5!? ( 1 6 . . . a b ! 1 7
ab 1!t'd5+) 1 7 ba! li:Jxa5 1 8 li:Je3
1le8 1 9 1!t'cI ( 1 9 t!t'c2? i.f8 ! 20 t!t'a2
1le6 21 f4 e4! Jamieson) 1 9 . . . .tf8
20 i.xa5 't!fxa5 2 1 li:Jd5 li:e6 22 e4
t!t'a4! = Evans-Karpov, San Antonio
1 972 .
D2
6 d3 li:Jge 7
7 a3
The irregular 7 h 4!? h6 (or 7 . . .
h 5 ) 8 li:Jd5 li:Jxd5 (8 . . . d6) 9 cd li:Je7
10 h5 g5 1 1 d6! li:Jf5 12 g4! li:Jxd6 1 3
t!t'c2 'irb6 ( 1 3 . . . c4!?) 1 4 .te3 e4!
15 li:Jd2! tiro Bruycker-Schm idt,
M alta 01 1980.
7 0-0
If 7 . . . a5 White has 8 lilb I 0-0
9 i.g5 (see below), or immediately
8 i.g5 ( ! ), e.g. 8 . . . h6 (8 . . . f6 9 .id2
0-0 10 litb l is the text) 9 i.xe7 li:Jxe7
(9 . . . t!t'xe7 10 ll b l d6 J l li:Jd2! .te6
12 1ra4 ! , or here I I . . . 0-0 1 2 li:Jd5
and 1 3 b4) 1 0 llb l (67)
1 0 . . . d5 ( 1 0 . . . li:Jc6 1 1 li:Jd2 ! and
II . . . 0-0 12 li:Jd5 or II . . . d6 12 t!t'a4!
i.d7 1 3 li:Jde4 ! etc) I I li:Jd2 ! de?!
( I I . . . d4 1 2 li:Ja4 1!t'c7 1 3 li:Jb3 ! ; I I
... i.e6!? 12 cd li:Jxd5 1 3 1!t'a4+ c;t>f8!
;!;) 1 2 1!t'a4+ i.d7 1 3 1!t'xc4 1!t'b6 14
li:Ja4 .txa4 15 1!t'xa4+ li:Jc6 16 li:Jc4
1!t'c7 1 7 't!fb5 ± Watson-Gri.inberg,
 5 {£Jj3: Others 65

New York 1 978. This illustrates

6li
the idea behi nd i.g5. B
8 ltb1 a5
9 i.g5!
021 9 . . . h 6 (?!)
022 9 0 0 0 f6
021
9 h6(?!)
10 i.xe7 CiJxe7
10 . . . 'i!he7 I I CiJd2 ::t Petrosian.
Kn ights are worth more than the I I . . . i.e6 (II . . . f5 1 · 2 i.g5 !?
bishops if White can keep things Byrne; here 12 ... h6 1 3 i.xe7 CiJxe7
semi-closed. 1 4 {£Jd2 g5 1 5 b4 might follow: 1 5
11 CiJd2! CiJc6 . . . e4 1 6 'i!t'c2) 1 2 CiJe l ! 'it'd? ( 1 2 . . .
I I . . . d6 1 2 b4 ::t. A fter II . . . CiJc6 h6!?) 1 3 CiJc2 a4 14 b3 ab 1 5 li:xbH.
White's stra tegy is demonstrated The idea of playing i.e3 to stop
by the sa mple line 1 2 CiJd5 ltb8 1 3 . . . d5 may attract attention. If Black
b4 ( 1 3 'it'a4 !? d6 1 4 b4 i.d7! 1 5 plays . . . CiJf5 then after i.d2 inten­
be CiJd4 1 6 'it'd! de = Watson­ ding {£Jd 5 or CiJe l -c2 White has his
H .Oiafsso n, New York 1 977) 1 3 . . . normal position without fear of . . .
a b 1 4 a b b 6 1 5 'it'a4 (or 1 5 b e be d5 or . . . f5.
1 6 lhb8 CiJxb8 1 7 'i!t'b3! planning 10 d6
17 . . . CiJc6 1 8 'it'b5 'it'a5 1 9 'it'xa 5 11 0-0 i.e6
CiJxa 5 20 CiJe4 CiJb7 2 1 0-0 f5 22 12 CiJe 1 f5
CiJec3 ±) 15 ... i.b7 ( 1 5 . . . cb 16 The point is that now 1 2 . . . d5?
CiJxb4 CiJxb4 17 'it'xb4 i.b7 1 8 1 3 cd CiJxd5 14 'it'b3 is ± (see 9 . . .
i.xb7 lixb 7 1 9 'it'd6! ±) 1 6 be be f6).
17 (jJe4 ±. 1 3 CiJc2!?
022 Not necessarily best. 13 CiJd5
9 f6 lib8 14 b4 is untried but attractive.
This is best, but committing Also 1 3 f4!? and 13 i.g5 !? could be
the f-pawn has some original con­ considered .
sequences. 13 d5
10 i.d2 14 b3! d4?!
The new idea l 0 i.e3 !? d6 I I 0-0 Natural , but better is 1 4 . . . lib8.
(68) was seen (by t ransposition) After 1 4 ... d4?! Petrosian-Radulov,
in Andersson-Seirawan, Linares Amsterdam 1 973, continued 1 5
1 983: CiJb5 f4 1 6 b4 b6 (?) ( 1 6 . . . ab 1 7 ab
66 5 li:Jf3: Others
b6 ;!;) 1 7 be be 1 8 a4! ( intending
li:Jba3 and lib5 or li:Ja 1-b3) 18 . . .
�d7 1 9 li:Ja 1 .th3 2 0 li:Jb3 .txg2
21 l&xg2 e4 22 li:Jxc5 f3+ 23 ef ef+
24 �xf3 ! lixf3 25 li:Jxd7 li xd3 26
.tg5! ±.
Conclusion. As a whole, 5 . . . e5 has
a good reputation . On the other
hand, it is probably easier to probe
agains t than 5 . . . e6, and these last
lines with i.g5 are of particular
interest in this regard .
 Part II
Counterplay by 2 ... lt:Jf6 and ... d5
6 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein
Variation
1 c4 c5
2 ltJc3 ltJf6
3 g3 d5
4 cd ltJ xd5
5 i.g2 (69)
69
B ltJxd4 9 ltJxd4 cd 1 0 ltJb5 't!fb6 I I
5 ltJc7 (70)
This introduces the Rubinstein
System, the most ambitious of
Black's established strategies in
the Symmetrical English. By moving
his knight three times only to arrive
at the modest c7, the second player
concedes a lead in development to
his opponent for the sake of central
com mand . The idea is to clamp
down on d4, usually by . . . e5 and
. . . ltJc6. This strategy has been
successful for many years, yet the
assessment of several of the key
lines remains open.
Before looking at replies to 5 . . .
ltJc7, a qu ick look a t Black's alter­
natives:
a) 5 ... ltJf6 6 't!fb3 ! ltJbd7 (6 . . . 't!fc7!?
7 ltJf3 with the idea 7 . . . e5 8 ltJb5
't!fe7 9 d4! cd 10 ltJxe5! etc, or 7 .. .
ltJc6 8 d4 and 8 . . . cd 9 ltJb5 or 8 . . .
't!fc4 t; 6 . . . ltJc6 7 .txc6+ be 8 't!fa4
t or 8 ltJf3 ;!;) 7 ltJf3 e5 8 0-0 .te7
9 e3 0-0 10 d4 tl ±.
b) 5 ... ltJb4!? 6 ltJf3 (6 a3!? ltJ5c6
7 ltJf3 ; 6 f4 g6) 6 . . . tb 8c6 7 0-0 e5
(7 . . . g6 8 ltJa4 ! ?) 8 d3 .te7 9 ltJd2
ltJd4!? (9 . . . i.d 7 1 0 a3 ltJ a6 I I
ltJc4 f6 1 2 f4 ;!;) 1 0 ltJc4 f6 I I f4 ef
12 gf 0-0 1 3 a3 ltJa6 14 e3 ltJ f5
1 5 .id5+! �h8 1 6 e4 ± K otov­
Fu rman , USSR Ch 1 949.
c) 5 ... e6?! 6 ltJf3 ltJc6 would be
Chater 7, but 6 ltJxd 5 ! ed 7 't!fb3 !
(7 d 4 ! ? i ) wins a pawn: 7 . . . .te6
8 't!fxb7 ltJd7 9 ltJh3! (9 ltJf3 ;!;) 9 . . .
9 . . . ltJb6 1 0 't!fa6 .id6 II d 3 0-0 1 2
li::l f4 ± S.Garcia-Farago, Polanica
Zdroj 1 978.
d) 5 ... ltJb6 6 d3 e5 7 .te3 !? (or 7
ltJf3 t, or 7 a4! t e.g. 7 . . . a5 8 f4)
7 . . . i.e7 8 ll c l 0-0?! (8 . . . ltJa6),
Portisch-Hort, Tilburg 1 978, and
now best is 9 ltJe4! f5 I 0 ltJxc5 f4
 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation
I I .i.d2 with the idea I I . . . .i.xc5
12 llxc 5 '@d4 1 3 'i!fb3+ �h8 1 4
'i!fc3.
e) 5 ... lt:lxc3 6 be ( 6 de!?) 6 . . . g6
7 llbl is a line from I o4 lt:lf6 2lt:lc3
d5 3 cd etc.
70
w Peters) 8 llc I f6 !? (or 8 . . . 0-0 9lt:la4
A 6 'i!fb3
B 6 d3
c 6 lt:lf3
a) 6 a3 will generally transpose to
(e.g.) 6 d3 e5 7 a3 or 6 lt:lf3 lt:lc6
7 a3, even after 6 a3 e5 7 b4 lt:lc6
8 lt:lf3 etc.
b) 6 lt:lh3 e 6 (6 . . . e5 encourages f4)
7 0-0 .i.e7 8 b3 0-0 9 .i.b2 lt:lba6
(9 . . . 'i!f d7 ! ?) 1 0 lt:la4 lt:lb5 I I lt:lf4
Iii b 8 = Kholmov-Korchnoi, USSR
Ch 1 9 58.
c) 6 f4 g6 (or 6 . . . e6 7lt:lf3lt:lc6 8 b 3
.i.e7 9 .i.b2 0-0= Korchnoi-Balanel,
1 9 54) 7 b3 (7 lt:le4 lt:lba6! =) 7 . . .
i.g7 8 i.b2 (8 i.a3 lt:lba6 =) 8 . . .
0-0 9 '8'c I ?! lt:lbc6! 1 0 lt:lf3 lt:le6
I I 0-0 lt:ld4 + Ko rch noi-Ragozin,
USSR Ch 1 9 56.
d) 6 b3 e5 7 i.b2 (7 i.a 3 i.e7 8 llc l
lt:lba6 9 lt:lf3 f6 1 0 0-0 b5 I I i.b2
6Y
i.b7" ;!:" ECO) 7 . . . i.e 7 (or 7 . . .
lt:lc6, since 8 i.xc6+?! is not so
good without 'i!fa4 available; but
8 llc l i.d7 ! ? and either 9 etJf3 f6
10 0-0 llc8 I I e3 ! t planning d4 -
Peters, or 9 lt:Ja4 lt:le6 1 0lt:lh3 i.e7
I I 0-0 0-0 1 2 f4 t Taimanov seems
to favour White. Thus 8 . . . f6 -
lt:ld7 1 0 e3 llb8 I llt:le2 b5 1 2lt:lac3
i.b7 1 3 i. xb7 llxb7 1 4 d4 ed ! 1 5
ed lt:le6 =) 9 lt:lh3 (9 lt:la4 lt:lba6
10 lt:l h 3 ! 0-0 I I 0-0 i.e6 1 2 f4 ;t
Brinck-Claussen- Witkowski, Wijk
aa n Zee 1 97 1 ) 9 . . . 0-0 (9 . . . i.e6!?
1 0 f4 'i!fd7 I I lt:lf2 lt:lc6 1 2 felt:lxe5
- 12 . . . fe;!:- 1 3 lt:lce4! Taimanov)
10 f4 l0c6 I I 0-0 i.e6 1 2 fe fe 1 3
llxf8+ 'i!fxf8 1 4 lt:le4 lld8 1 5 'i!ffl !
'i!fxfl + 1 6 �xfl i.d5 1 7 lt:lhf2 b6
1 8 lt:ld3 i.f6 1 9 b4 ! ± Taimanov­
Zhuravlev, Riga 1 968.
e) 6 '8'a4+!? i.d7 !? (6 . . . lt:ld7 7
lt:lf3 ;!: and 7 . . . g6 8 d4 or 7 . . . f6 8
0-0 e6 9 ll d l i.e7 10 e3; 6 . . . '@d7
7 'i!fe4 !? g6 - 7 . . . e6 8 lt:lf3 ;!:; 7 . . .
lt:lc6 - 8 lt:lf3 i.g7 oo, e.g. 9 0-0 0-0
1 0 lld I lt:lc6 I I e3 e5) 7 '@c4 lt:lc6
8 'i!fxc5 e5 ( 8 . . . lt:le6!? 9 'i!fe3 lt:led4
10 i.e4 e5 I llt:lf3 i.c5 1 2 'i!fd3lt:lb4
1 3 'i!fb l f5 14 lt:lxd4 ed, Hank en­
Peters, Los Angeles 1 979, and now
best was 1 5 i.xb7 Iii b 8 1 6 i.g2 d3'
17 0-0 lt:lc2 =/oo Peters) 9 'i!fe3
lt:lb4!? (9 . . . lt:le6 10 d3 lt:led4 I I
'i!fd2 .:t with the idea I I . . . lt:lb4 1 2
Iii b l ) 1 0 '@xeS+ i.e7 I I �fl 0-0
12 'i!fe4, Nikolayevsky-Kudriashov,
70 3 gJ d5 and the Rubinstein Variation

USSR 1 966, and now 1 2 . . . f5! 1 3 below. 8 lt:Jf3 f6 9 t!t'a4 transposes.

'i!f' b 1 14 tim was a better try than 8 i.d7
1 2 . . . g6? 1 3 'i!f'b l ±. Two interesting gambits are
A possi bl e here:
6 'i!¥b3 lt:Jc6 a) 8 ...lt:Je6!? 9 d3 g6 10 i.e3 i.g7
6 . . . lDd7?! 7 lDf3c5 (7 . . . g6 8 d4 ( 1 1 1Wxc6+ i.d7 1 2 1i'b7 l:ib8 =t=
t) 8 d3 t is given under 6 d3 e5 7 Tarjan) I I . . 0-0 1 2 lDf3 lt:Jd4 1 3
.

'i!f'b3 below. i.xd4 cd 1 4 lDe4 i.e6 1 5 0-0 i.d5

7 i.xc6+ be (71) + 'Browne-Brasket', Lone Pine
1 9 72.
71 b) 8 ... e5!? 9 lDf3 f6 10 !t'xc6+
w i.d7 1 1 1!t'e4, 'Matu lovic-Szabo',
Ka pfe nberg 1 970, and 1 1 . . . lt:Je6!
12 0-0 lDd4 with the idea . . . i.c6
was the best try, e.g. 1 3 lDxd4 cd
14 lDb l l:ic8 oo.
c) 8 ...'@d7 9 lt:Jf3 f6 (72) is a very
co mmon line, but has generally led
to difficulties for Black:

In my first book I treated this 72

line under the reverse move order w

I c4 c5 2 lDc3 lDc6 3 lt:Jf3 g6 4 d4 cd

5 lDxd4 i.g7 6 lDc2 i.xc3+ 7 be
't!Va5 (or 7 . . . lDf6 with . . . 't!Va5 to
follow). The point is that if White
plays \lfa4 in the next few moves
after the diagram he transposes to
those li nes but having taken two
moves for \lfa4. Si nce 6 't!fb3 is the
more common line now, I have re­ 1 0 d3 e5 ( 1 0 . . . lDb5?! 1 1 i.e3 e5
versed the order of names from those 1 2 llc I lDd4 1 3 lDe4 11 b8 1 4 lt:Jxc5
6 lDc2 i.xc3+ games, put single i.xc5 1 5 llxc5 llxb2? ! 16 i.xd4!
quotes around them and used the lib! + 17 'it>d2 nxh l 1 8 lt:Jxe5 ! ±
material here. Larsen-van der Wiel, Ams terdam
8 \lfa4 1 980) 1 1 i.e3! ( 1 1 0-0 lDe6 !? 1 2
For lines where White keeps his i.e3 llb8 - 12 . . . lDd4!? - 1 3 llab 1
queen on b3, see 6 d3 e5 7 ti'b3 i.e7 14 llfcl 0-0 1 5 lDe4 t Quinteros-
 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation
Portisch , Mar del Plata 1 98 1 . I I . ..
ll:\b5 ( ! ) improves) I I . . . ll:\d5 ( !?,
but I I ... ll:lb 5? 1 2 l:lcl is Larsen­
van der Wiel, and 1 1 .. . ll:\e6 12 lie I
with the idea ll:\e4 looks equally
poor) 12 ll:\e4 ll:\xe3 l 3 fe n b8 1 4
't!t'c2 ± N ilssen-Trifunovic, Am­
sterdam 1 954.
9 ll:lf3 f6
10 d3
Not n ecessarily best, but played
most often. Others:
a) 1 0 d 4 is safe: 1 0 . . . cd l l'i¥xd4 e5
1 2 't!t'c4 't!t'e7 1 3 0-0 't!t'e6 = Stein­
Matulovic, Sousse I Z 1 967.
b) 10 't!t'a5 e5!? ( lO . . . lLle6 l l'i¥xd8+
llxd8 and . . . ll:ld4 looks okay) I I
b 3 't!tb8 1 2 .ib2 ltle6?! ( 1 2 ... c 4 1 3
.ia3 =) 1 3 .ia3 .ie7 14 llc l 't!tb6;!:
Taimanov-Korchnoi, USSR 1 966.
c) 10 ltle4 e5 1 1 d3 ltlb5 =.
10 e5
1 1 .ie3
a) 1 1 ll:\d2 ll:\d5 1 2ll:\c4 .ie7 1 3 't!t'a5
'i¥b8 ! = lvanovic-Quinteros, Bar
1 977.
b) 11 0-0lLle6 1 2lLle4 't!tb6 1 3ll:\fd2
'i¥b5 ! ? ( 1 3 ... lLl d4!?) 1 4 'i¥d 1 .ie7
1 5 ll:\c4 0-0 =/co A . Petrosian­
A n ikayev, Daugavpils 1973.
11 lii: b 8!?
Or 1 1 . .. ll:\e6. A fter 1 1 . . . lii:b8 !?
Quinteros-Sokolov, Biel lZ 1 985,
continued 1 2 0-0 ll:\d5 13 life! ( 1 3
\!t'xa7 l1a8 1 4 'tib7 ll:lb6 =) 1 3 ...
a5 14 .id2 llxb2 1 5 ltle4 'i¥b6 1 6
'i¥xa5 ( 1 6 .ixa5 't!ta6 =/co So kolov)
1 6 . . . 'tia5 1 7 .ixa5 l1xe2 ! 1 8 ll:lfd2
71
.ih3 =.
Overall, this line remains dyna­
mically equal.
B
6 d3
The idea here is to delay ltlf3, so
that . . . ll:\c6 may be answered by
.ixc6+.
6 e5 (73)
Alternatives tend to have draw­
backs:
a) 6 ... g6 7 .ie3! and 'tid2, .ih6,
h4-h5 may follow.
b) 6 ... ll:\c6? 7 .ixc6 be 8 't!t'a4 .id7
(8 . . . 'tid7 9 ll:lf3 f6 lO 't!t'a5 ! e5 1 1
b3 ll:\e6 1 2 .ia3 ll:\d4 1 3 ll:\xd4 ±;
or here l O .ie3 e5 I I ll:\e4 ll:\e6 1 2
lic l lii: b8 1 3 'i¥c2 ±) 9 ltlf3 f6 l O
.ie3 (or 1 0 lLld2! , e.g. l O ... e 5 1 1
ltlc4 .ie7 1 2 f4 ±) 1 0 ... e5 1 1 ltle4
ltle6 1 2 lii:c 1 't!tb6 1 3 ltlfd 2 ! lii:b8
14 lLlc4 'i¥c7 1 5 b3 l1b7 1 6 't!ta5 ! ±
Sanguinetti- Dbokin, Moscow 01
1 956.
c) 6 ... e6?! 7'i¥b3 (or 7ltlf3 ;!:) 7 . . .
ltld 7 8 lLlf3 b6?! 9 ltld2 lii: b 8 1 0
ltlc4 .ib7?? ( I 0 . . . .ia6) 1 1 .ixb7
lii:x b7 1 2 ltla5 1-0 K arlsson-Bass,
Gausdal 1 983.
d) 6 ... 'i¥d7!? 7 ltlf3 (7 ltlh 3 ltlc6
8 .ie3 b6 = ; 7 .ie3 e5 8 l1clltlc6?!
9 ltlf3 ;!:) 7 . . . ltlc6 8 0-0 e5 9 ltld2
.ie7 (9 . . . lii: b 8 !?) l O ltlc4 f6 ( 1 0 ...
0-0!? and 1 1 .ixc6'i¥xc6 12 ltlxe5
'i¥e6 +leo or 1 1 a4 !? f6 1 2 f4) 1 1
't!Va4 ( 1 1 f4 ;!:) 1 1 . . . ltld8 1 2 'ti'xd7+
.ixd7 ( 1 2 ... �xd7 1 3 .ie3 ltlc6
1 4 liac l ltla6 1 5 ltld5 ;!: lvkov-
 72 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation
Dunkelblum, Caorle 1972) 1 3 f4 ef
1 4 .ixf4 lilc8 (?) ( 1 4 ... lt::l ce6 I 5
lt::la 5 lt::lxf4 t Ti mman; I 5 .id6 !?)
1 5 a4 b6 16 .ixc 7 ! lilxc7 17 lt::lb 5
.ixb5 1 8 a b :±± Ti mman-Hort,
Montreal 1 979.
73
w .ib7 1 4 bc b5 1 5lt::lc 3 a6Voo Ribli­
7 lt::l h 3!?
a) 7 t!fa4+ .id7 8 t!fe4lt::lc6 9lt::lf3 f6
10 0-0 .ie7 I I li::ld5 (}0, Witkowski­
Pietzsch, Riga 1954.
b) 7 'ttb 3 li::ld 7 8 lt::lf3 (8 f4!?) 8 .. .
.ie7, a nd now 9li::ld 5!?li::lx d5 (9 .. .
lt::le 6 1 0 (}0 0-0 I I a4! <t>h8 1 2 a5
l:tb8 1 3 ;V ± Geller-Madera, Buenos
Aires I 954) 1 0 t!fxd5 t!fc7 ! I I .ie3
( I I 0-0 .id6) I I . . . llb8 I 2 llci b6
=. Best seems 9li::ld 2 (}0 lO 0-0, e . g .
1 0 ... li::l b6 ( 1 0 . . . l:tb8 ! ? ) I I lt::lc4
.ie6 I 2 t!fc2 ! t Karlsson-Alburt,
Hastings 1 983-84.
On 7 t!fb3 lt::lc 6 8 .ixc6+ be, 9
t!fa4 transposes to 6 'it'b3; and 9
li::lf3 f6 I 0 .ie3 .id7 ( 1 0 . . .li::le 6 I I
lt::le4 'ikd5? I 2 llc l ± Panno-Strauss,
Lone Pine 1 976; I I . . . 'ikb6 !?) I I
lt::le4 ( I I 0-0 li::le 6!) I I . . . li::le 6 1 2
ll c l t!fb6 1 3li::lfd2 .ie7 = ( I 4 0-0??
f5 ! ) Rasch-B.Stein, West Germany
1975.
c) On 7 a3, independent were 7 . . .
.ie7 8 lt::lf3 lt::l c6 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 llb i ,
Andersson-Tseitlin, Polanica Zdroj
1978 ( 1 0 . . . .ie6! Milic), and 7 . . .
t!fd7!? 8 .ie3 lt::lc6 9 ll c I li::le6 10
li::lf3 llb8 I I 0-0 f5 1 2lt::l a4 b6 13 b4
van Riemsdyck , Riga IZ I 979.
d) 7 f4 ef (7 . . . .id6 !? 8 fe .txe5
intending 9 't!t'a4+ 't!t'd7; 7 . . . li::ld 7
8 'it'a4 t) 8 .ixf4 .ie7 9 'it'a4+ (9
'ikb3 li::lc6 1 0 .txc6+ be I I 't!t'a4
lt::le 6!? 1 2 't!t'xc6+ .id 7 and . . . li::ld 4
oo) 9 . . . li::ld 7 (9 . . . .id 7 10 't!t'a 5!
with the idea 1 0 ... b6? I I .ixc7!
't!t'xc7 I 2li::ld 5 ± ) 1 0li::l f3 0-0 I I 0-0
lt::lb6 1 2 't!t'c2li::lc d5 I 3 a3 .ie6 1 4 e4
was Tal-Gipslis, Riga I 954, when
14 . . . lt::lxf4 15 gff5 would have been
equal.
e) 7 .ie3lt::lc6? 8 .txc6+ still favours
White, and 7 . . . 'ikd7 8 l:tc l lt::lc 6 is
note 'd' to 6 . . . e5. Better is 7 . . . lt::le6
8 llc l li::ld 7 9 lt:lf3 llb8 10 0-0 .te7
=; but here 10 ... g6?? I I 't!t'd2 h6
1 2li::l d 5 b6 1 3 d4 ! ! cd 14 .ixd4 ed
1 5 li::lx d4 was :±± in Sadovsky­
Shaposhni kov, corres 1956.
More conventional is 7 . . . .ie7
8 l:tc l , e .g. 8 ... li::le 6!? (safer 8 . . .
lt::lb a6 9 li::lf3 f6 1 0 li::ld 2 l:tb8! =
Plachetka) 9 li::lf3 lt::lc 6 l O li::ld 2
.id7 I I 0-0 llb8 1 2 lt::lc4 f6 13 a4
(}0 = Plachetka- Bai'ias, Trnava
I 98 I .
Aft er 7 li::lh 3:
 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation 73

7 i.e7 6 . . . g6?! 7 't!t'a4+! and 7 . .. i.d7

7 . . . i.d6 8 0-0 0-0 9 f4 ef(or 9 . .. 8 't!t'c4 or 7 ... 't!t'd7 8 't!t'c4 ltJ ba6
ltJc6 1 0 i.d2 i.g4! = ) 10 ltJxf4 9 ltJe5 .
ltJd7 ! ? I I ltJe4 ( I I b3 !?; I I i.e3 C l 7 b3
ltJf6 12 <t>h I ;!:: ECO ; 1 2 . . . l:tb8) C2 7 't!t'a4
I I ... i.e5 12 e3 f5 13 ltJd ltJf6 was C3 7 a3
Averbakh- Bronstein, USSR 19 74, C4 7 d3
and now best is 1 4 ltJc4 :t. cs 7 0-0
8 0-0 0-0 Cl
9 f4 ltJc6 7 b3 e5
9 . . . ef l O ltJxf4 ltJc6 I I i.e3 i.d7 Or 7 .. . g6!? 8 i.a3 (8 i.b2 i.g7
1 2 Itc l ( 1 2 ltJfdS !?) 1 2 ... Itc8 1 3 9 llc l 0-0 1 0 ltJa4 ! ? i.xb2 l l ltJxb2
't!t'd2 ltJe6 1 4 ltJfdS b6 = Gi ardelli­ ltJe6 = ) 8 ... b6!? (or 8 ... ltJa6 9 l::l: c l
Quinteros, Moron 1 982. 't!t'a5 l O ltJa4 ltJab4) 9 e3 i.g7 l O d4
10 i.e3!? cd I I ltJxd4 ltJxd4 ! 1 2 i.xa8 i.g4 ! !
1 0 <t>h I llb8 I I a3 ef! ? ( I I . .. 1 3 't!t'xg4 't!t'xa8 1 4 0-0-0 f5 1 5 't!t'h4
i.d7 ! = ) 1 2 ltJxf4 ltJe6 1 3 llb l i.f6 16 'it'xf6 ! =/oo Robatsch­
ltJxf4 1 4 i.xf4 t Uhlmann-Kostro, Farago, Erevan 1 982.
Kienbaum 1 9 5 8. 8 i.b2 i.e7
After l O i.e3, B lajwas-Fielding, Generally chosen, although 8 . ..
corres 1 983, continued lO . . . llb8 f6 (75) has a fine theoretical repu­
I I llc l i.g4?! ( I I ... b6! = ) 1 2 ltJf2 tation:
ef 13 gf i.h5 1 4 ltJce4 f5 ( 14 ... b6??
1 5 ltJg3; 14 . . . ltJ d4?? 1 5 ltJg3) 1 5 75

ltJxc5? ( 1 5 ltJg3 ± threatening w

i.xc5 ) 15 . . . ltJd5 oo.

c
6 ltJf3 ltJc6 (74)

74
w

For example, 9 0-0 i.g4! l O ltJe l

't!i'd 7 ( I I ltJd3 @xd 3 ! ) , or here 1 0
ll c l ltJe6 I I ltJa4 :iil.c 8 with solid
control ove r the centre. I nstead
of acceding to passivity, White
 74 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation
could try I 0 h3 .i.h5 l l lLlh4!? 'it'd?
1 2 lLle4!? with the idea 1 2 . . . .i.e?
1 3 llc l b6 14 g4 .i.g6 1 5 lLlg3 oo,
or 12 . . . lld8 1 3 llc l b6 14 d3 (e.g.
14 ... .i.f7 15 f4 !?), or 1 2 ... f5 1 3
lLl xf5! 'ti'xf5 1 4 g4 .i.xg4 1 5 hg
't!fxg4 16 llc l (planning l:tc3-g3).
Shatskes also gives 9 llc I .i.g4
10 lLl a4 (?!) (again, 10 h3 .i.h5 I I
lLlh4 'it'd? 1 2 lLle4 lLle6 1 3 0-0) I 0
. . . lLle6 I I .i.a3 b6! 1 2 h3 ( 1 2 lLlh4
lLled4!) 1 2 . . . .i.h5 1 3 0-0 llc8 +.
9 llc 1 f6
9 . . . lLle6!? I 0 0-0 0-0 I I lLle I !
.i.d7 (lest .i.xc6) 1 2 lLld3 intends
1 2 . . . llc8 1 3 lLla4 or 1 2 . . . f6 1 3
lLld5 b6 1 4 f4 ;!;, In Speel man-Sax,
Plovdiv 1 983, Black found 1 2 . . .
b6 ( ! ) 1 3 lLld5 ( 1 3 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 1 4
lLlxe5 .i. b 7 oo ) 1 3 . . . .i.d6 1 4 f4 e f
1 5 gf llc8 1 6 e3 ( 1 6 'ti'e l !?) 1 6 . . . f6 !
1 7 't!fh6 lLle 7 =.
10 0-0
10 lLla4 lLla6 ! I I 0-0 0-0 trans­
poses.
10 0-0
1 1 lLla4
I I lLl e l !? .i.g4 ! =. Perhaps I I
d3!? .i.e6 ( I I . . . .i.g4 !?) 1 2 e3 lLld5
13 't!fe 2 lLlxc3 14 .i.xc3 't!fd7 1 5
lLle I !? with the idea f4, 't!Vb2 is
worth a try.
11 ltJa6!
I I . . . b6 1 2 lLlh4!? .i.d7 ( 1 2 . . .
.i.b7 1 3 b4 ! ; 1 2 . . . lLld5 1 3 a 3 ;!;) 1 3
a 3 ! ? ( 1 3 e3 lLl b4 oo ) 1 3 . . . 't!fe8 ! 1 4
't!fc2 ll c8 1 5 e3 lLle6 1 6 f4 e f 1 7
gf c4 ! =/oo Sokolsky-Taimanov,
USSR Ch 1 954. Here 1 2 d4 !? ed
1 3 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 1 4 .i.xd4 cd 1 5
llxc7 't!fxc7 1 6 J.xa8 .i.g4 =/oo
was Ruiz-Tarjan, Palo Alto 1 98 1 .
12 e3
Again, 1 2 ltJ e l .i.g4 ! , or 1 2 d3
.i.g4 = . A ft er 1 2 e3, Furman­
Witkowski, Polanica Zdroj 1 967,
went 1 2 . . . .i.e6 !? ( 1 2 ... .i.g4 13 h3
.i.e6) 1 3 d4 cd 1 4 ed e4 15 lLle l f5
16 f3 .i.g5 1 7 llc2 .i.e3+ 1 8 �h 1
lLlxd4 1 9 llc 3 ! .i.g5 20 fe ;!;.
C2
7 't!t'a4 (76)
76
B
7 .i.d7 (!)
7 ... 't!t'd 7 is playable but u n­
necessary. After 8 0-0 (8 't!t'e4 f6
9 0-0 e5 1 0 lld I .i.e? I I e3 't!t'g4 ! =;
8 d3 e5 9 0-0 ll b8 I 0 .i.e3 .i.e? =),
Black has :
a) 8 ... e5 9 e3 ! ? (9 a 3 ll b8 1 0 b4 b 5)
9 . . . .i.e? 1 0 lld l lLle6 !? ( 1 0 . . . 0-0
I I d4 ;!;) I I 't!t'e4 ! ? f6 1 2 .i.h3 'i!t'd8
1 3 d4 ;!;.
b) 8 ... g6!? 9 't!t'c4 (9 lLle I ! ?) 9 . . . b6
10 b4 .i.g7 ! I I be b5 1 2 't!t'e4 b4 1 3
lLlg5 .i.b7 1 4 ll b l h6 ( 1 4 . . . lLla6!
 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation
co) 1 5 ll xb4! lt:lxb4 1 6 1!fxb7 hg
17 '8'xb4 t Mi khalchishin-Chekov,
USSR 1977.
8 1!fe4
8 'it'h4 e5 =.
8 g6!
S afe and good. 8 . . . lt:l e6 !? is rich
in complications, e .g. 9 e 3 g6 1 0 d4
cd 1 1 ed i.g7 1 2 i.e3! ( 1 2 0-0 lt:lexd4
1 3 lt:l xd4 lt:lxd4 14 't!rxb7 ll b8 = ;
1 2 d5? lt:led4 1 3 de i.xc6) 1 2 . . . f5
1 3 'ii'd 5 lt:lc7?! ( 1 3 . . . lt:l b4!? 1 4 'ft'b3
lt:ld3+ 1 5 �e2 f4 ! ro; 1 3 . . . f4 !? with
the idea 1 4 gf lt:lb4 15 'ti'e4 lt:l xd4 ! ?
1 6 lt:l xd4 i.xd4 1 7 i.xd4 i.f5 1 8
'i!Vxb7 1t'xd4! ro) 1 4 'i!Vb3 Uoo
Ro manishin-Tal, USSR Ch 19 76.
9 lt:le5 i.g7
1 0 lt:lx d 7 'i!Vxd 7
11 0-0
White's two bishops are at least
compensated by B lack's space and
development. 1 1 1!fa4 0-0 (or 1 1 . . .
lt:ld4 =) 1 2 d 3 lt:l e6 1 3 i.xc6 !? be
14 i.d2 llfb8 + Csom-Vadasz,
Budapest 1 977.
11 0-0
I I ... llc8 ( ! ) (or I I . . . lt:le6) 12 a3
lt:le 6 is also good, e . g. 13 b4 ( 1 3 d3
0-0) 13 . . . b6 1 4 e3 0-0 + Novak­
Adams, Polish Ch 1977.
12 a3
1 2 d 3 lt:l e6 (or 12 ... llab8 ! and
... lt:ld4) 1 3 i.d2 nac8 =.
12 llac8
Or 1 2 . . . llab8. After 12 . . . llac8,
I gave 13 b4 lt:l e6 14 lib I b6 with
good play in the first edition, but
75
Sokolsky's 1 3 b4 cb 1 4 ab lt:l b5 ! +
is even better. So play should go
13 lib ! ( 1 3 d3 lt:le6 14 i.e3 lt:led4 +)
13 . . . lt:le6 14 b4 b6 1 5 lt:l d 5 lt:led4!
16 be be 17 e3 lt:le2+ 18 �h l e6
19 't!rd3 cd 20 't!rxe2 llb8 + Smcjkal­
Sokolov, Novi Sad 1 984 .
c
7 a3 (77)
7 g6
Best on grounds of simplicity,
but there are two other good moves:
a) 7 ... e6!? 8 0-0 i.e7 is rare: 9 d3
(9 e3 't!rd3! Polugayevsky-Korchnoi,
Amsterdam 1972) 9 . . . 0-0 (9 . . . b6!?)
10 i.e3 lt:ld5 1 1 ll c l lt:lxe3 1 2 fe i.d7
( 1 2 . . . llb8) 1 3 lt:le4 'ft'b6 14 'i!Vc2
c4 1 5 d4 :t Vaganian-Lju boj evic,
Tilburg 1983.
b) 7 ... e5 8 b4 (8 0-0 t ransposes to
7 0-0 below) 8 . . . f6 ! (8 ... cb 9 ab
i.xb4 10 lt:lxe5! 0-0 ! I I lt:l xc6 - 1 1
.ixc6 'tWd6! - I I . . . be 1 2 't!ra4 :t)
9 be (9 li b ! !? cb 10 ab i.f5 1 1 llb2,
Forin tos- Varnusz, Balatonbereny
1983; 1 1 ... i.e7 Forintos) 9 . . . i.xc5
(9 . . . lt:le6!? 1 0 e3 i.xc5 1 1 0-0 0-0
76 3 gJ d5 and the Rubinstein Variation
1 2 't!t'c2 i.d7 ro) 10 0-0 0-0 I I .ib2
( I I a4 lDc6 1 2 i.a3 �h8 1 3 't!t'c I
llb8 = Seirawan-Sax, Amsterdam
1 9 83; I I lib I !? l:l b8 1 2 d 3 i.e6 1 3
li:'Je4 i.e7 1 4 't!t'c2 lLJdS ! Plachetka)
I I . . . i.e6 (or I I . . . lLJ e6 12 llc I
Wh8 1 3 e3 't!t'd3 =, or 1 2 . . . ..tlh8 )
1 2 lt:J e4 { 1 2 't!t'a4!?) 1 2 . . . .ie7 1 3
llc l ll:Ja6 1 4 d4 't!t'b6! I S .ta l llad8
1 6 llb l 't!t'c7 Gofstein-Karasev,
= a6 o r 1 3 lit e I i.e6.
USSR 1 976.
c) 7 ... f6!? 8 llb I eS 9 0-0 (9 b4 is
' b') 9 . . . i.fS 10 d3 't!t'd7 I I i.e3 llc8
1 2 b4? cb 1 2 ab i.xb4 =t= Dorfman­
Ani kayev, USSR Ch 1 98 1 .
8 b4
Consistent. Otherwise, 8 d3 (8
h4'? i.g4? 9 b4 ! M i khalchishin;
but 8 ... h6 =) 8 . . . i.g7 9 0-0 0-0
1 0 i.d2, and now 1 0 . . . b6 (or 1 0 . . .
h 6 ) I I I1b l i.b7 1 2 b 4 cb 1 3 a b
lt.:d4 = Lu kacs, or 1 0 . . . ll:Je6 I I
lt:Jd4 = Lukacs, or 1 0 . . . ll:Je6 I I lib I
a S 1 2 lt:Je4 i.d7 1 3 e3, Vaganian­
Korchnoi, Linares 1 98S, and now
M i k halchishin suggests 1 3 . . . a4 !?.
8 i.g7 (78)
9 be
9 lib ! i.fS ! 1 0 ll b l c4 I I bS
ll:JaS 12 't!t'a4 b6 + E.Meyer-Portisch,
Lone Pine 1978.
9 lt:Ja6
10 i.b2
1 0 0-0 ll:JxcS I I a4, Christiansen­
Peters, USA 1 979, is best met by
I I . . . 0-0 1 2 .ta3 't!t'aS and 1 3 ll b l
I0 ll:Jxc5
Black is already somewhat better,
e.g. I I ll:Ja4 (else I I . . . .ie6) I I . . .
i.xb2 1 2 ll:Jxb2 i.e6 1 3 0-0 llc8
( 1 3 . . . 0-0 14 lie ! 't!t'aS + Andersson­
Portisch, Biel IZ 1 976) 14 lic l "§'aS
+ Osmanovic-Smejkal, Sarajevo
1983.
C4
7 d3
Here we treat lines where White
delays 0-0.
7 e5
7 ... g6 !? resembles 7 0-0 g6 below,
but White gets to the c-pawn more
quickly: 8 i.e3! ll:Je6 (8 . . . ll:Jd4?
9 i.xd4 cd I 0 1i'a4+; 8 . . . eS 9 lt:Jd2
.id7 1 0 0-0 :U ±) 9 0-0 i.g7 I 0 ll:Ja4
ll:Jcd4?! ( 10 . . . 0-0 I I lt:JxcS lt:JxcS
1 2 i.xcS i.xb2 1 3 ll b l i, or l l lie !
i) I I lic l 'ii'aS 1 2 ll:JxcS ! lt:Jxf3+
13 i.xf3 lt:JxcS 1 4 lixcS 't!t'xa2 I S
b4 ± Gheorghiu-Korchnoi, Palma
de Mallorca 1 972.
8 lt:Jd2
8 .ie3?! .ie7 (or 8 . . . i.d7 9 0-0
i.e7 10 lt:Jd2 0-0, e.g. I I ll:Ja4 b6
12 b4 cb! 13 llc l ll:Jd4 =/oo) 9 lt:Jd2
 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation
,.td7 (9 . . . 0-0!? 10 ..ixc6 be I l lb b3 !
Popov, but I I . . . fS 1 2 ..ie3 lbe6 1 3
lba4 f4 ! holds; s o I I lbc4 !) I 0 0-0
( I 0 lbc4 0-0 I I a4 'i!?h8 I 2 0-0 f6
1 3 f4 ef 1 4 gf lbe6 I S fS lbed4 or
14 . . . ..ie8 ) 10 . . . 0-0 I I lbc4 f6
= 79
( I I . . . b6!?; see below) 1 2 f4 ef 1 3 gf
:S:b8 I 4 :S:c l lbd4 I S i.f2 i.g4! +
Rukavina-Lengyel, Virovitica I 977.
8 ..id7
a) 8 ... i..e 7? 9 i.xc6+ be 10 lbc4 f6
I I '@'a4 ±.
b) 8 ... '@d7?! 9 0-0 b6 10 lbc4 f6
I I a4 ..ie7 1 2 f4 ef 1 3 i.xf4 lbe6 1 4
a S ! ± Polugayevs ky-Gheorghiu,
Palma de Mallorca 1 972.
c) 8 ... i..e 6!? 9 ..ixc6+ be 10 b3 !
( 10 '@a4 t!id7) 10 . . . lObS I I lba4
't!i'dS 1 2 f3 ..ie7 (?!) ( 1 2 . . . hS I 3
i.. b 2! !) 1 3 i.. b 2 hS 1 4 :S:c l h4 I S
g4 (intending I 6 lbe4) I S . . . ..ixg4!?
16 e4 '@xd 3 17 fg ..igS 1 8 liJxcS ±
Petrosian-Szabo, Amsterdam 1 973.
No rm al after 8 . . . ..id7 is 9 0-0
i.. e 7 ('CS2' below). 9 lbc4 bS! 1 0
lbe3 lii: c 8 I I 0- 0 lbd4 1 2 i.. d 2 ( 1 2
liJedS = Pach man) I 2 . . . i.. e6 I 3
a4?! ( 1 3 f4 ef 1 4 gf g6 ) 1 3 . . . a6
= with the idea I 0 b4 cb I I ab i.. fS ! .
14 ab ab I S lii: a 7 ..ie7 + Olafsson­
Bronstein, Reykj avik 1 974.
cs
7 0-0
And now:
C S I 7 . . . g6 !?
CS2 7 ... eS
7 . . . e6?! 8 d3 (8 b3 i..e 7 9 ..ib2
0-0 1 0 lii: c l , Ujtel ky-Bednarski,
Po lanica Zdroj I 96S; lO ... b6? I I
77
d4 ! ) 8 . . . i.. e 7 9 ..ie3 0-0 (9 . . . eS
1 0 Iit c l !) 10 d4 !.
est
7 g6!? (79)
w
Recently beginning to catch on
a bit.
8 lba4
Others tend to cede Black control
of d4:
a) 8 b3 i_g7 9 i.. b 2 b6 (or 9 . . . 0-0 =)
10 lba4 ..ixb2 I I lbxb2 Iil b8 I 2 e3
0-0 1 3 d4 cd I4 :S:c i i.. b7 I S ed
lObS! 16 dS lbb4 I 7 a4 lbc7 =t=
Gurevich-Alburt, US Ch 1983.
b) 8 a3 i.g7 9 Iilb l , Filgu th-Law,
Youth Team Ch 198 1 ; 9 . . . 0-0!
c ) 8 d3 ..ig7 9 ..ie3 ( 9 i.. d 2 0- 0 l O a3
..ig4 I I h3 ..id7 =) 9 . . . b6 (9 . . .
lbd4 10 lba4 't!Yd6 I I :S: c l lb e6 I 2
lOgS! Tomas) l O 't!Yd2 ( 1 0 Iil c i 0-0
I I '@a4 i.. d 7 I 2 '@h4 eS 1 3 '@xd8
Iilaxd8 + You nglove-Dlugy, New
York I 983) I O . . . 0-0 I I :S:fd i Iilb8
I2 i.. h 6 lbd4 = Adamski-Cserna,
Budapest 1 9 79.
8 b6
78 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation
8 . .. �a6!? is untried. If 8 . . . �c6,
9 d3 i.g7 10 �g5 ! t looks promis­
ing. Complex is 8 . . . e5!? 9 d3 (9
b3 !? and 9 . . . e4 10 �e l t o r 9 . . . b5
10 �c3 lib8 I I i.b2 i.g7 1 2 li c l
�c6 1 3 �c l i.d7 1 4 �d5 intending
�d3) 9 . . . i.d7 (9 . . . b5 !'? 10 �c3 -
10 �g5 i. d7 I I "f/b3 c4 - 1 0 . . . lib8
I I i.c3 �c6 1 2 li c l f5 =/m) 1 0 a3
�c6 I I i.e3 b6 1 2 b4 cb 1 3 d4 cd
14 �xd4 lic8 1 5 ab, Romanishin­
Palat ni k, K i ev 1 973, and now i n­
stead of 1 5 . . . i.g7?! 1 6 �b5 ! 0-0
1 7 lia2 'i/c7? 1 8 �xa7 ! ±, Black
had 1 5 . . . i.xb4, e.g. 16 �b5 0-0
1 7 � xa7 �xa7 1 8 .ixb6 lic7 .
9 d4! cd
10 i.f4 i.g7
II �d4
1 1 li c l i.b7 = .
II �d4
1 2 i.xc7 �xc7 1 3 i.xa8 0-0 14
i.g2!? ( 14 �c3 lid8 15 i.g2 - versus
. . . i.a6 - 1 5 . . . �f3+ 16 i.xf3 lixd l
1 7 lifxd I , l ightly t , Polugayevsky­
Taimanov, U SSR Ch 1 967) 14 . . .
i.a6 ( 1 4 . . . lid8) 1 5 �c3 li d 8 1 6
�h i ("! t " Razuvayev) 1 6 . . . � xe2
17 "f/a4 i.c4 18 lifd l �d4 19
liacl b5, Razuvayev-Ki rov, Bul­
garia 1 9 8 1 , and now 20 "f/a6 t
was best.
C52
7 e5
C52 1 8 � e l
C522 8 d3
Not 8 �a4'! ! i.d7 9 �e4 f5 1 0
�e3 'ti'e7 + . Others:
a ) 8 b3 i.c7 (8 . . . f6 9 i.b2 was 'C I ' ;
9 i.a3 !'? i.c7 10 �c I .ig4 I I i.xc6+
be 1 2 �a4 �c6 1 3 li c l "f/a5 1 4
�d3 lid8 m; 8 . . . i. e 6 9 i. b 2 lic8
1 0 li c l b6 I I �c l i.d7 1 2 �d3
i.d6 13 �c4 a nd f4 follows: i) 9
�c l !? (9 i.b2 f6 1 0 lic l ; see 'C I ' )
9 . . . .ig4!? ( 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 �d3 f6 I I
�a4 ± intending .ia3, li e ) ; 9 . . .
i.d7 10 �d3 f6 I I f4 ef 1 2 �xf4 :t )
I 0 i.xc6+ be I I i.a3 "f/d7 ( I I . . .
.ih3 ! ? 1 2 �g2 h 5 m) 1 2 tJ i.h3
1 3 li f2 (1) .
b) 8 a3!? f6 ( 8 ... .id7 9 c 3 ! i; but
8 . . . i.d7 is playable, as is 8 . . . a5
9 d3 1f.. e7 . 8 ... i.c7 9 b4 f6 is ·c 3'.
and here 9 lib I a5 10 b3 0-0 I I .ib2
i.f5 12 d3 � c6 = was Olafsson­
Ernst. Reykj avik 1985) 9 d3 (9 e3 !?
i.e7 ! 1 0 d4 cd I I ed cd 1 2 �c2 d3
1 3 �f4 0-0 1 4 �xd3 i.f5 is a line
given by Boleslavsky) 9 . . . i.e7 (9
. . . i.e6?! I 0 i.e3 "f/d7 I I �e4 �d4
12 li c l � a6 13 i.xd4 ! cd 1 4 e3 de
1 5 fc i.f5 1 6 �xe5 ! fe 1 7 �h5+ g6?
- 1 7 . . . i.g6 - 1 8 � f6+ � d8 1 9
�xd7 gh 20 �xffi ++ Adamski­
Foisor. Warsaw 1 98 3 . The same
game with 15 . . . i.d6 1 6 d4 ed 1 7
�xd4 i.e5 1 8 �xe6 "f/xe6 1 9 � g5 !
�b6 20 �d 5 ++ was Gufeld­
Bukic. Skopje 19 7 1 ) 10 �d2 1f.. d 7
( 10 . . . 0-0 !?) I I li:bl ( I I �c4 0-0
1 2 14 b5 1 3 �c3 ef l 4 �f5 ! � c 5 ! oo
Lech tynsky-Trap!, Czechoslovak
Ch 1 986) I I . . . lib8 12 �c4 b5 1 3
�c3 �d4? 1 4 b4 c b 1 5 ab i.e6 1 6
f4 cf 1 7 li xf4 ! ± wit h the idea
 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation
li:lcd5 , Espig-Forintos, Balaton­
bereny 1 9 84.
C521
8 li:lel (80)
/10
B f6 1 0 .ixc6+ be I I 't!ra4 U ± .
I 've s uggested this (Shats kes's)
move as a substitute for the almost
auto matic 8 d3, but haven't aroused
much interest. The idea is to threaten
.ixc6+ while 1Wa4, b3, .ia3 , li:ld3
and :S:c l are all still possible. If
Black defends his pawns, f4 will
become a key break . There is a
certain piqua ncy in 8 li:le l , as
White moves his ki ng's knight
three times to get to an odd square
( d3), j ust as Black moved his three
times to get to c7. Of course Black's
regaining of time gives him many
options.
8 .id7
To prevent .ixc6+. Others:
a ) I gave 8 ... .ie7?! 9 .ixc6+ (?)
be 10 't!t'a4 (}.0 I I b3 1!re8, which was
Michaelides-McDaniels, Boston
1978, when Michaelides gives 1 2
li:ld3 ! f6 1 3 .ia3 ± . True enough,
but Black also had 1 0 . . . 't!rd6! (= )
79
as in Watson-Banks , New York
1 980, when I I f4 or I I d3 is best ,
since the natural I I li:ld 3? .if5! 1 2
li:le4 t!¥d5 1 3 f3 c4 1 4 li:lc3 �d7 1 5
't!t'xc4 .ixd3 clearly favoured Black.
The correct sequence is 9 li:ld3!
b) 8 ... .ie6 9 li:ld3 f6 1 0 .ixc6+ ( 10
f4 c4 I I li:lfl ef 12 gf 'ifd7 = Smyslov­
Htibner, Ve lden (match) 1 983) 1 0
. . . b e I I �a4 �d7 1 2 b3 li:lb5 1 3
.ib2 li:ld4 1 4 f4 t Watson-Grtinberg,
Gausdal , 1 980, with the idea 14 . . .
e 4 1 5 li:l fl f5 1 6 d 3 , or even 1 5
li:l xe4!? li:l xe2+ 1 6 \t12.
c ) 8 ... h5!? 9 f4 (9 h3!? .ie6; 9 h4 g5
10 hg oo) 9 . . . h4 10 d3 hg I I hg c4!?
12 de .ic5+ 13 e3 t!Vxd l 14 li:l xd l
ef 1 5 li:ld3 ( 1 5 gf .if5 with active
piece play) 1 5 . . . f3 ( 1 5 . . . .ixe3+
16 li:lxe3 4') 16 :S:xf3 .ie7 1 7 li:l l f2
li:le6 1 8 li:le4 li:lg5 1 9 li:lxg5 .ixg5
20 :S:fl .ie6 2 1 .id5 0-{}.0 22 e4
.if6 22 .ie3 ± Nikolic-Cebalo,
Vrs ac 1 98 3 .
d) 8 . . . .ig4!? i s the most interesting
alternative: 9 .ixc6+ (9 li:lc2? �d7
10 li:le3 .ih3 '+ ) 9 . . . be 10 t!¥a4 t!¥d7
I I li:ld3 f6 1 2 f4 !? �d4+ 1 3 :S:fl
�xa4 ( 1 3 ... c4 1 4 1Wxc6+ �d8 1 5
li:le l ) 1 4 li:lxa4 t .
9 li:ld3
9 b3 'ticS ( ! ) (9 . . . .ic7 10 li:ld3 f6
I I f4 cf 1 2 li:l xf4 0-0 1 3 e 3 ! b6 14
.ib2 .id6? 15 li:lcd5 t!¥e8 1 6 li:lh5
li:le5 17 :S: xf6! .ig4 18 li:lxg7 ! ±±
D . Cramling-Lengyel , Eksjo 1982;
a good exampl e) 1 0 .ib2 ( 1 0 li:ld3
80 3 gJ d5 and the Rubinstein Variation
.ih3 I I f4 .ixg2 1 2 �xg2 'i!t'd 7 ! ?)
10 . . . ll:ld8? ( 10 . . . .ih3! =) I I ll:ld3
f6 1 2 f4 i Watson-Eversole, Colo­
rado 1 977.
9 f6 (8 1)
9 . . . .ie7 1 0 .ixc6 be I I ll:lxe5
.ih3 1 2 ll:lxc6 �d7 1 3 ll:lxe7 ±;
9 ... c4 10 .ixc6 cd I I .ixb7 Itb8
( I I . . . .ih 3 12 .ixa8 't!t'xa8 14 �a4+
and 'ti'e4) 1 2 .ig2 ± .
81
w =
10 b3
Interesting is 1 0 f4 ( " ! " Colias)
1 0 . . . c4 I I ll:l f2 ef 1 2 gf f5 !? ( 1 2 . . .
.ic5 1 3 \Wa4 !?; 1 2 . . . .ie6) 1 3 b3! cb
1 4 d4! .id6 (? ! ) ( 14 . . . .ib4 Colias)
1 5 e4 fe 16 ll:l fxe4 .if5 1 7 �xb3
.ixe4 1 8 ll:lxe4 .ie7 1 9 ll:lg5 ±±
Ivanov-Ch ow, Ch icago 1 986.
After I 0 b3, play could go 10 . . .
.ie7 I I .ib2 0-0 1 2 f4 t, or 1 0 . . .
.ig4 I I .ixc6+ be 1 2 f3 .if5 ( 12 . . .
.ih3 1 3 llf2 .if5 1 4 ll:le4 .ixe4 1 5
fe t) 1 3 ll:lf2 t/oo.
8 ll:le I still awaits a body of
practical evidence.
C522
8 d3 .ie 7
a) 8 ... f6 9 ll:ld2 (9 e3 .ig4 ! 1 0 h3
.ih5) 9 . . . .id7 1 0 ll:lc4 ll:lc6?! ( 10
. . . .ie7 is the text) I I f4 (or I I a4 ::!-:)
I I ... ef 1 2 .ixf4 ( ! ) ( 1 2 gfis examined
in 'c') 1 2 . . . ll:lxf4 1 3 l:ixf4 .ie7 1 4
.i d 5 ! \Wb8 1 5 c3 b 5 16 \Wf3 ±±
Pavlov-Nach t, Romania 1 973.
b) 8 ... .id7?! 9 e3! :t:: .
c) 8 . . . ll:le6?! 9 ll:ld2 .id7 1 0 ll:lc4
f6 I I f4 ef 1 2 .i x f4! is 'b'; 1 2 gf(? ! )
.i c 7 1 3 e3 0-0 1 4 �b3 l:i b8 1 5 f5
ll:lg5 16 ll:le5+ 'it>h 8 1 7 ll:l xd7 1i'xd7
S hatskes.
9 ll:ld2 (82)
9 .ie3 0-0 10 ll:ld2 is C4 above
( note to 8 ll:l d2).
9 .id7
a) 9 . . . 0-0!? I 0 ..txc6 be I I ll:lc4 f6
1 2 b 3 !? .ih3 1 3 li e ! ll:le6 1 4 .ib2
h 5 1 5 e3 1i'e8 1 6 f3 ( ! ) h4 1 7 ll:le4 hg
1 8 hg \Wh5 19 1!t'e2 t Dzindzihashvili­
Tim man . Tilbu rg 1 985; 1 2 1!t'a4( ! )
( "t" ECO ).
b) 9 . . . hS? ! 1 0 h4! g5 I I hg .ixg5
12 f4 ! h4!? 1 3 ll:lc4 ± Podgayets­
Ka rasev, USSR 1 974.
10 �c4 0-0 (!)
 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation
A gambit sequ ence which con­
tinues to have great success. There
are many games wit h the older
10 . . . f6, e.g:
a) 1 1 a4!? 0-0 1 2 f4 ef 13 .ixf4 �e6
( 13 . . . .ie6!?, e.g. 14 �e3 'it'd7
Blau-Pachman, Munich 1 958; 1 4
.txc6 i s especially risky w i t h t h e
centre a n d b-file exposed) 1 4 �d5
�xf4 1 5 �xf4!? 'it'e8 !? with the
idea 16 �d5 lid8 or 1 6 e3 lidS
17 d4 cd 1 8 ed ..tc8 1 9 d5 .ic5+ 20
'it>h l �e5 =.
b) 11 f4 b5 1 2 �e3 litc8!? (the older
line is 1 2 . . . ef and: 1 3 lhf4!? �e6
14 lHI ! Byrne, but unclear; or
1 3 � f5 !? fg 14 �xg7+ 'it>f7 15 �f5
gh+ 1 6 'it>h l ro Zaichik-Palatnik,
USSR 1 975; or 1 3 gf li b8 ! , and
14 �ed5 0-0 15 f5 ..td6 = or 1 4
.id2!? 0-0 1 5 f5 �e5 1 6 'it>h 1 , Vilela­
Lu kacs, Albena 1 985; 16 . . . c4!?)
13 a4 ( 1 3 f5 0-0 14 .id2 �d4 =;
1 3 �ed5 �xd5 1 4 �xd5 0-0 1 5 fe
�xe5 16 ..tf4 �c6 1 7 a4 b4 1 8 litc l
.ie6 1 9 e4 ..td6 = with the idea
. . . �a5, . . . c4, Smyslov-Htibner,
Velden (match) 1 983) 1 3 . . . b4 1 4
�e4!? ( 1 4 � b 5 e f 1 5 litxf4 �e6
16 �c4 ! 0-0 1 7 �bd6 �xf4 ro
Houshan-van der Sterren, Lucerne
01 1 982; 1 4 �cd5 0-0 1 5 �xe7+? !
'it'xe7 1 6 �c4 litfd8 + Seirawan­
Portisch, Mar del Plata 1 98 1 ) 14 . . .
f5 1 5 �d 2 0-0 1 6 �ec4 e f 1 7 gf
'it>h8 18 �b3 litf6 =/ro Korchnoi­
Portisch, Lucerne (World Team
Ch) 1 985.
81
II ..txc6
I I a4!? is interesting, when 1 1 . . .
f6 ( I I . . . b6 !?) 1 2 f4 ef is note 'a' to
10 . . . 0-0. The more common way
to decl ine is 1 1 f4 ef 12 gf ( 1 2 ..txf4
= �e6 - 12 . . . ..te8!? - 1 3 ..td6 �ed4
14 ..txe7 'it'xe7 15 e3 �f5 =) 12 . . .
f5 !? ( 1 2 . . . lie8; 1 2 . . . li bS 1 3 ..td2
f5 or 1 3 . . . lib8) 1 3 ..te 3 b6 (or 1 3
. . . litb8 1 4 lic l 'it>h8 1 5 'it'e l lif6 =
Lobo-Tarjan, Palo Alto 1 9 S l ) 1 4
..tf2 ..th4 1 5 ..tg3 ..txg3 1 6 h g 'it'f6
=!+ with the idea . . . lidS, Reguera­
Illescas, M edina del Campo 1 9S5.
12 �xeS ..te8 (83)
83
w
13 ..te3
a) 13 f4?! ..tf6 (or 1 3 . . . 'it>h 8 1 4
..te3 �e6 1 5 .i f2 f5 ! with the idea
. . . g5) 14 �f3 ..tc6 1 5 �e4 lieS!
1 6 'it'c2 ..td4+ 1 7 e3 f5 ! =t= Espig­
Polugayevsky, Sochi 1 974.
b) 13 e4!? ..tf6 1 4 �g4 ..td4 1 5 �e3
..tc6 1 6 �f5 �e6 1 7 � xd4 ! ( 1 7
�d5? lie8 I S �xd4 �xd4 1 9 �e3
'it'd7 20 f3 liadS 21 b3 f5 ! =t=
Petrosian-Vaganian, USSR Ch
1 976) 1 7 . . . � xd4 (or 1 7 . . . cd I S
82 3 g3 d5 and the Rubinstein Variation
ll:Je2 f5) 1 8 i.e3 f5 1 9 i.xd4 1!fxd4
20 't!t'b3+ 'it>h8 2 1 ll:Je2 1!fd7 22 f3
i.b5 =/co Schtissler-Donaldson ,
Malmo 1 985.
c) 13 't!Vb3 b6 ! 1 4 i.e3 �h8 1 5
lUd l f6 1 6 lLJf3 i.f7 1 7 't!t'a4 ll:Jd 5
1 8 ll:Jxd5 i.xd5 + Commons­
Gheorghiu, Lone Pine 1 975.
13 ll:Je6
There are other good moves:
a) 13 ... f6 !? 1 4 ll:Jf3 i.c6 15 ll:Je 1
'i!lh8 1 6 d4?! ll:Jd5 1 7 ll:Jxd5 't!t'xd 5
1 8 f3 llad8 =!= Frumkin-Savereide,
Palo Alto 1 9 8 1 .
b) 13 ... i.f6 1 4 ll:Jf3 ll:Je6 1 5 ll:Je4
i.e7! (or 1 5 . . . i.d4 1 6 i.xd4 cd 1 7
't!t'd2 i.c6 = Colditz-Reichenbac h ,
Berlin 1 9 7 7 ; 1 5 . . . b 6! ? ) 1 6 ll:J e 5
'i!l h 8 ! 1 7 f4 f6 1 8 ll:Jf3 b 6 1 9 i.d2
i.c6 (or 19 . . . i.f7) 20 i.c3 't!t'd7 2 1
lLJf2 i.xf3 2 2 ef f5 + Seirawan­
B.Stein, New York 1978.
c) Even 1 3 ... ll:Jd5!? seems okay:
1 4 ll:Jxd5 ( 14 't!t'b3 ll:Jxe3 1 5 fe i.f6!)
14 . . . 't!t'xd5 15 f4 f6 1 6 ll:Jf3 i.f7 ! 1 7
't!t'c2 llfe8 1 8 b3 i.ffi 1 9 i.c 1 b5! +
Watson-Grefe, Las Vegas 1 97 5 .
14 llc1
14 ll:Je4 b6 = wit h the idea . . .
'it>h8 , . . . f6/ . . . f5/ . . . f4. 1 4 't!t'b3 !?
i.f6 (or 1 4 . . . b6 1 5 1Wd5 't!t'c8 1 6 f4
'it>h8 - or 16 . . . i,{6 - 1 7 f5 ll:Jc7 1 8
't!t'e4 i.f6 = Vadasz- Vaganian,
Sk ara 1 980) 1 5 f4 i.xe5 16 fe i.c6
1 7 1Wc4 1Wc7 = Sahovic-J oks ic,
Yugoslav Ch 1 976.
After 14 lie I. Black gets excellent
play, e .g. 1 4 . . . i.f6 1 5 ll:Jc4 i.c6
16 ll:Je4 i.d4 1 7 i.xd4 cd 1 8 ll:Je5
i.d5 19 't!t'a4 lle8 20 ll:Jf3 't!t'b6 2 1
llc2 llad8 2 2 llfc 1 h 6 2 3 h 4 �h8
24 ll:Jed2 ll:Jf4 ! ! 25 gf 't!t'g6+ 26 'i!lf1
1Wg4 =!= Govbinder-Kapengut,
Moscow 1 979.
Conclusion: The Rubinstein is
holding up well, and should prob­
ably be employed more often .
7 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma
Variation

I c4 c5 ..tc7 6 0-0 0-0 7 d4 cd 8 �xd4 1!t"c7

2 �c3 � f6
3 g3
3 �f3 e6 transposes (e.g. 4 d4 to
Chapters 1 3 and 1 4) . 3 e4 e6 is the
I c4 �f6 2 �c3 e6 3 e4 c5 English.
3 e6
4 �f3
4 ..tg2?! d5 5 cd ed 6 d4 (otherwise
. . . d4) 6 . . . cd 7 1!¥xd4 �c6 + is a
line from I c4 e5 2 �c3 � f6 3 g3
c6 4 d4 etc.
4 �c6
4 . . . d5 5 cd �xd5 is the best way
to get to the main line, but we use
this order to look a t irregular lines.
Here 6 ..tg2 �f6!? is Chapter 8
(5 g3 �f6), 5 . . . ed 6 d4 is a Tarrasch
Queen's Gambit, and 4 . . . b6 lines
are dealt with in Chapter I I . White
ca n play for the e4 lines of that
chapter by 4 . . . b6 5 d3 ..tb7 6 e4,
in view of 6 . . . d5? ! 7 cd ed 8 e5
�fd7 9 d4! cd?! (9 . . . ..te7 10 ..tg2
�c6 ;t) 10 � xd4 �xe5 I I .ib5+
�bd7 1 2 1!t"e2 1!¥e7 1 3 0-0 ±
Plato nov-G rigorian, USSR 1 97 1 .
Finally, 4 . . . a6 !? 5 .ig2 (5 d4
b5 !? 6 .ig2 be oo Velimirovic) 5 . . .
9 1!t"d3 (9 b3? d5) 9 . . . d6 I 0 b3 ..td7
I I ..tb2 �c6 1 2 li: c l ;t Watson­
Miles, Lone Pine 1 976.
5 .ig2 .ie7
5 . . . 1!t"b6 !? is Makarichev's idea,
to s top d4: 6 0-0 ..te7 7 b3 ! (7 e3 d5
=) 7 . . . 0-0 8 ..tb2 :ii d8 (8 . . . d5 9 cd
ed 1 0 d4 ! ;!;) 9 d4 cd 1 0 �a4 ;t
(centre).
6 0-0 dS
6 . . . 0-0 7 e4?! d5 8 cd ed 9 e5
�e4! + Ree-Petursson, Malta 01
1 980. 6 . . . 0-0 7 d4 cd (7 . . . d5 tends
towards the main line) 8 �xd4 a6
is ±. This can also arise by 6 . . . a6
7 d4 cd 8 � xd4 0-0 (84) :
White has two ways to obtain
84 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation
the adva ntage:
a) 9 b3 'it'c7 I 0 i.b2 d6 I I llc l
�xd4 ( lest �d5 ) 1 2 'it'xd4 i.d7 1 3
llfd l (or 1 3 .to llfd8 1 4 'it'f4 i.e8
1 5 g4! with the idea g5) 1 3 . . . llfd8
1 4 h3 i.e8 1 5 a4 (or 1 5 'it'e3 ::!:
G .Garcia-A ndersson, Cienfuegos
1 975) 1 5 . . . llab8 1 6 i.a3 ! b6 1 7
lld3 i.f8 1 8 'it'f4 :!; Csom-Augustin,
Pula 1 975.
b) 9 i.f4 (!) is also good, preventing
. . . 'it'c7 : 9 . . . � xd4 (9 . . . d5 1 0 cd
�xd5 I I �xd5 ed 1 2 llc l ) 10 'it'xd4
d6 I I 'it'd3 'it'c7 1 2 llac l lld8 1 3
llfd l ltJ h5 1 4 i.e3 i.d7 1 5 i.d4
(with the idea 'it'e3) 1 5 . . . i.e8? 1 6
'tWO ±± Watson-Slaton, Pasadena
1 983.
7 cd �xdS
A 8 d4
B 8 � xd5
In general, White gets to both
main lines via 8 d4, but 8 � xd5
can be independent. The alternatives
are equal: 8 e3 0-0 (or even 8 . . . c4! )
9 d4 cd 1 0 �xd5 e d I I �xd4 i.f6
= Tarrasch- Rubinstein, Carlsbad
1 9 23; and 8 b3 0-0 9 i.b2 i.f6 I 0
'it'c l b6 I I �xd5 ed 1 2 d4!? i.a6
( 1 2 . . . � xd4 1 3 ltJxd4 cd 14 �d2
i.a6 1 5 i.xd4 t Smej kal-Ftacnik,
Vrsac 1 98 1 ) 1 3 l:Ie l � xd4 1 4
i.xd4 ( 1 4 �xd4 cd 1 5 't!i'd2 d3 ! = )
1 4 . . . cd 1 5 't!i'a3 Wc8 1 6 l:Iad l l:Ie8
= Olafsson-Sigurjonsson, Reykjavik
1 98 1 .
A :!; ,
8 d4 (85)
115
8
The basic positio n . Now 8 . . . cd
9 �xd5 (9 �b5 0-0 1 0 �bxd4 �b6
=) 9 . . . ed 1 0 � xd4 0-0 ( 1 0 . . . i.f6
I I i.e3) I I i.e3 i.f6 1 2 ll c l �xd4
( 1 2 . . . i.xd4!? ;l: is Portisch-Da rga
of Chapter 1 3 ) 1 3 i.xd4 i.g4 1 4
llc2 t . A n d 8 . . . �f6!? 9 e 3 0-0 1 0
a 3 ( 1 0 de!? Mikh alchishi n) 1 0 . . .
c d I I e d 't!t'b 6 1 2 'it'd3 ll d 8 1 3 i.e3
�g4? ! 14 b4 ± was Mikhalchishin­
Lalic, Sa rajevo 1 985. Th us:
A I 8 . . . �xc3
A2 8 . . . 0-0
AI
8 � xc3
A little riskier than 8 . . . 0-0, but
very common.
9 be 0-0
a) 9 ... i.d7 is passive: 10 ll b l b6
I I e4 cd 1 2 cd 0-0, Ujtelky-Szilagyi ,
Budapest 1 979, a nd now best is 1 3
i.b2! ( d5 a n d �d4-c6 can follow).
b) 9 ... i.f6 1 0 e3 ( 1 0 i.a3!? cd I I
cd �xd4 1 2 �xd4 'iWxd4 1 3 �c2
oo) 1 0 . . . 'tWaS I I 't!t'b3 'it'a6 1 2 Wa3
10 e4
 3 gJ and the Keres-Parma Variation
The main line, bu t now we see
that 8 . . . 0-0 is an easier route,
because here 10 llbl !? is rather
difficult for Black. I gave 1 0 . . .
1!t'c7 I I i.f4 i.d6 1 2 i.xd6 1!t'xd6
as equal in the first editio n, but
Unzicker-Miles, Baden-Baden 198 1 ,
went 1 3 1!t'a4 cd, and now Unzicker
suggests " 1 4 ll'l xd4! ± " . Black can
play 14 . . . ll'ld8 1 5 lil:fd l �e7 1 6
ll'lb5 a 6 1 7 ll'ld6 llb8, bu t t seems
fair. The other idea is 10 . . . �a5 ,
but Korchnoi-Lipnitsky, USSR
Ch 1 952, went I I �c2 cd 1 2 ll'lxd4 !
ll'lxd4 ( 1 2 . . . lLl d8 !? 1 3 llb5! 1t'c7
1 4 i.f4 1!t'd7 - 14 . . . i.d7? 15 ll h5 -
1 5 lil:d I 1!t'e8 1 6 lil: b I ) 1 3 cd i.f6 1 4
lld l lld8 1 5 i.e3 1!t'a6 1 6 ll b4 ! ± .
10 cd
In view of this move's poor
results, the alternatives deserve
more attention :
a) 1 0 ... b5!? (Peters) l l d5 ( 1 1 ll b l
b4 1 2 d5 e d 1 3 ed i.f5 ! 1 4 ll a l
lt:Ja 5 ; I I i. e 3 'it'c7 !? 1 2 1!t'e2 a5? 1 3
d5 ! ± Crane-D rysdale, corres
1 979; but I I . . . cd or even I I . . .
ll'la 5 seems to im prove) I I . . . ed
12 ed ll'la5 1 3 ll'le5 co.
b) 1 0 ... b6!? is quite reasonable.
White should probably forego I I
i.e3 i.b7 1 2 1!t'e2 ll'la5 1 3 ll'l e5
'it'c7 = Spassov-Raicevic, Subotica
1 978, in favour of I I d5 ll'la5 (86)
H ere 1 2 'ti'c2!? has been seen in
two games: 1 2 . . . ed 1 3 ed ll'l c4 (or
13 . . . g6!? Smej kal; 13 . . . i.f6 1 4
i.f4 g6 1 5 llad l i.f5 1 6 �c l ,
85
IM
w
Botvinnik-van Scheltinga, Amster­
dam 1 963, a nd now 16 . . . ll'lc4 ! 1 7
d6 �d7 is u nclear) 1 4 i.f4 i.d6
( 1 4 . . . ll'ld6 =) 1 5 ll'lg5 g6 1 6 �e4
b5 1 7 i.xd6 ll'l xd6 1 8 'it'h4 h 5 =
Ftacnik-Lerner, Bratislava 1 98 3 .
A game Hort-Zwaig, Halle 1 967,
was more to the point: 1 2 i.f4 ( ! )
ed 1 3 ed i.f6 ( 1 3 . . . i.a6 ! ? 1 4 lle l
i.f6 or 1 3 . . . i.d6!?) 14 �d3 i.b7
15 llad l it'c8 16 llfe l with the
advantage: 16 . . . c4 !? 17 1t'c2 '@c5
18 ll'l g5 i.xg5 19 i.xg5 ±. But
Black's play is easy to improve
upon.
c) 1 0 . . . 1t'c7!? I I d5 ed 12 ed ll'la5
is fine , so perhaps I I 'it'e2 with the
idea d5, or I I i.f4 i.d6 1 2 i.e3 b6
as in Watson-Carlson, Colorado
1 976, when White should continue
13 lil:cl or 1 3 ll'ld2 !?.
11 cd b6!?
I I . . . i.f6 12 i.b2 b6 transposes,
but limits Black's options; here
12 . . . ll'la5 !? is also interesting. The
other line is I I . . . i.f6 12 i.e3 b6
86 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation

( 1 2 . . . li:J a 5 ! ? 1 3 :ii c l !? .id7 1 4

�d3 a 6 1 5 :ii fd l .ia4 = Wa tson- 117

0 gaard, Os lo 1 9SO; 1 3 '@ld3 !?) B

1 3 't!t'a4 ( 1 3 'i!t'd3 .ib7 1 4 :ii a d I

:ii cS = Schu ssler-Ch ristian sen ,
Reykjavik 1 9S4) 1 3 . . . .id7 1 4 '@'a3
Il eS 1 5 ll a c l lt:Ja5 = Portisch­
H i.i bner, Abano Terme 1 9 80.
12 .ib2 (8 7)
a ) 1 2 d5!? has also s ucceeded, e . g .
1 2 . . . e d ( 1 2 . . . lt:J a 5 1 3 't!t'd3 cd 1 4
ed .if6 1 5 .ia3 ! ± O'Kelly-Barden, 12 .if6!?
England 1 95 1 ; 14 . . . .i b7 ! ?) 1 3 ed 12 . . . .i a6 13 l:le l lt:Jb4 ( 1 3 . ..
lt:J b4 ( 1 3 . . . .i f6 1 4 :ii b 1 .if5 1 5 :ii cS 1 4 d5 ed 1 5 .i h 3 lla8 1 6 ed
l1b3 lt:Ja5 1 6 Ilb4 =t= Mikhalchishin). lt:Ja5 , Sisniega-Karolyi, G raz 1 97 8 ,
H ere my suggestion 1 4 lt:J e 5 ! (t o a n d n o w 1 7 lt:Je5 ! is ;!:;) 1 4 .i f l ! ( 14
replace 1 4 lt:Jd4 .ia6 1 5 lit e 1 .i f6 :ii e 3 !? lii c S 1 5 lilc3 15 .ic3 '@'c7
-

1 6 .i a3 .ixd4 =) has been tried i n with the idea . . lt:Jd3 - 1 5 . . . :ii xc3
.

several ga mes, e .g: 1 4 . . . .i f6 ( 1 4 . . . 1 6 .ixc3 '@'c7 = Robatsch-Pinter,

.ia6? ! 1 5 :ii e I :ii c 8? 1 6 .ia3 .id6 Rome 1 9S2) 1 4 . . . .ixfl 1 5 �xfl
1 7 .ixb4 .ixb4 I S lt:Jc6 ± Gorelov­ :ii cS ( 1 5 . . . 't!t'c S!? Ftacnik) 1 6 lite2
Lukacs, Budapest 1 9S2) 15 :ii e 1 f5? ! ( 1 6 . . . \!t'd7 ) 1 7 't!t'bH Ftacnik-
.if5?! ( 1 5 . . . :ii e 8 1 6 :ii b 1 ! .ixe5 Farago, S kara 1 9SO.
1 7 :ii x b4 t M i n ic; 1 5 . . . .ib7 1 6 Remember, however, that Black
.ia3 t) 1 6 g4! lt:Jd3 1 7 lt:Jxd3 .ixd 3 has to allow 12 d5 to h ave this
1 S .i. a 3 ! .ixa 1 1 9 .ixf8 �xf8 20 opti o n .
't!t'xd3 't!t'f6 2 1 d 6 ! :ii dS 22 g5 ! 13 :ii b 1 ! .ib 7
H Mikhalchishin-Gorelov, U SSR 1 3 . . . .ia6 1 4 l:I e 1 lt:J a5 1 5 d 5
1 984. .ixb2 1 6 l:I b2 t.
b) 1 2 .ie3 .ib7 ( 1 2 . . . .i a6 1 3 :ii e l 14 d5 ed
lt:Ja5 !?) 1 3 :ii c l b 5 ! = Kuzmin. 15 ed lt:Ja5
I ns tead, 1 3 . . . lt:J a5 14 '@'d3 :ii cS 16 lt:Je5 .ixe5?!
15 :ii xcS 'ti'xc 8 1 6 :ii c 1 �aS 1 7 d 5 ! Conceding too m any advantages,
led to 1 7 . . . ed 1 8 ed .ixd5? ( I S . . . yet: 1 6 . . . lit eS 1 7 l:l e 1 lt:Jc4 ("? -
:ii d 8 1 9 lt:Jg5 g 6 M i nic) 1 9 lt:J g5 1 7 . . . lit eS" R ibli; but 1 8 d6 ! ) I S
.ixg5 20 .ixd5 �dS 2 1 .ixg5 �xg5 li:J xc4 l:Ixc4 1 9 d6 .ixg2 20 �xg2
22 l'i:c7 ±± in Qu i n teros-Tringov, lit c6 2 1 d7 litc7 22 .ixf6 't!t'xf6 23
Bar 1 9 77. :ii c l and wins, Berg-Velikov, West
 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation
Germany 1 983.
After 16 . . . .txc5, Christians en­
Portisch, Linares 1 9 8 1 , went 1 7
.ixe5 ltc8 1 8 li e I '@'d7 1 9 .ic3
.ta6 20 li c l lLl b7 2 1 '@'d4 f6 22
.ib4 lixc 1 2 3 li xc l li c8 24 li xc8+
'@'xc8 25 h4 .tb5 26 d6 lLlc5 27
'@'d5+! �f8 28 '@'e4 ! �f7 29 '@'e7+
�g6 30 h5+ �xh5 3 1 i¥f7+ 1 -0.
A2
8 0-0
9 e4
9 lLlxd5 ed (9 . . . 1!¥xd5? 1 0 i.e3 ! )
i s ' B ' below, and 9 d e lLlxc3 (9 . . .
.i xc 5 1 0 i.d2 lLl b6 I I lLl e4 ! t
Ftacnik-Gorik, Dortm u nd 198 1 )
1 0 b e .txc 5 I I 'it'c2 h 6 (or I I . . .
'ft'e7 i ntending 1 2 lLl g5 f5 ! ) 1 2 li d l
( 1 2 ll b l '@'c7 1 3 lLl d 4 i. d 7 =) 1 2 . . .
'ti'f6 1 3 lil: b l e5 + Romanishin­
A iburt, U SSR Ch 1 97 5 .
A new m ove w h i c h has had
success is 9 ll b l !? (88)
The idea is that B lack lacks a
plan, and the rook may be useful:
a) 9 ... .tf6 10 lLlxd5 ( 1 0 e3 cd I I ed
87
� 1 2 i.e3 li d8 CD Cebalo­
Marjanovic, K ovala 1 9 85) 10 . . .
'ti'xd5 I I d e 1!¥xc5 ( I I . . . 1Wxa2 1 2
i.g5 ! ) 1 2 !t'a4 i.d7 1 3 i.e3 !t'e 7
14 'ft'e4 (or 1 4 b4 R ibli) 1 4 . . . llac 8
15 b4 b6 1 6 .id2! t/ ± with the idea
b5 , .tb4 Suba-Petursso n , Thessa­
loniki 01 1 984.
b ) 9 . . . cd 1 0 lLlxd4 lLlxd4 I I �xd4
.tf6 1 2 'ft'c4 lLlxc3 1 3 be �a5 1 4
i.e3! !t'xc3 1 5 '@'a4 ! (or 1 5 1Wxc3
t) 15 . . . i.d8 1 6 .txa7 ! ± Suba­
Cebalo, S kopje 1 9 84.
c) 9 . . . �aS 1 0 d e ! ? ( 1 0 'ti'd2!? li d 8
- 10 . . . cd? 11 cd llJxd4 12 llJd5! -
I I lLl xd5 t; 10 .t d2 lLlxc3 I I .txc3
't!Va2 1 2 e3 lil: d8 13 'ft'e 2 cd 14 lLlxd4
CD S p eel man-Aiburt , Taxco IZ
1 9 8 5 ; 13 . . . e5 !? Speelman) 10 . . .
lt:lxc3 I I b e "it'xa2 (!?) ( perhaps I I
. . . ti'c5 ) 1 2 .te3 e 5 1 3 lLlg5 lidS
1 4 'ifb3 'tWxb3 1 5 ll xb3 lLla5 ( "? ! "
Informant) 16 ll b4 f6 1 7 lLl e 4 llJc6
18 ll b5 t Cebalo-J . Pi nter, Taxco
IZ 1 985.
d ) 9 ... h6!? Speel man. Then 10 e4
llJ b6 I I de (!) 't!Yxd I 12 li xd I .t xc5
1 3 e5 loo ks better than in 'A22'
below, because of 1 3 . . . llJc4 1 4
lie I .
After 9 e4, 9 . . . lLlxc3 is ' A I '
above. A lso:
A 2 1 9 ... lLl db4
A22 9 ... lLlb6
9 . . . lLlc7 1 0 i.e3 t. 9 . . . lLlf6!?
1 0 de i.xc5 I I e5 t.
A2 1
9 lLldb4 (89)
88 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Varia tion
H9
w
10 de!
One o f my best i deas from the
first ed i tion; I believe that it
accounts for the demise o f 9 . . .
ltJdb4. W h i te's o ther choices a re
fai rly harmless:
a ) 10 i.e3 cd I I lt:\xd4 lt:\xd4 1 2
i.xd4 b6 ( 1 2 . . . lt:\ c2 1 3 '@xc2 '@xd4
1 4 Ii a d l ± ; 1 2 . . . i.d7 !? 1 3 Ii c l
.ic6 1 4 a 3 eS!? I S .ixe S ! lt:\ d 3 1 6
.ic 7 'ii'd 7 1 7 Iic2 t Speel m a n )
1 3 eS .ia6 1 4 .ixaH 'iVxa 8 ! I S Iil: e I
Iil:d8 etc.
b ) 10 d5 ed I I ed ltJd4 1 2 a 3 ( 1 2
lt:\xd4 cd 1 3 a 3 de 1 4 a b .ixb4 I S
't!fd4 .id6 1 6 �xc3 - 16 be b6 =
- 1 6 . . . a S ! 1 7 .ie3 .id7 + a n d . . . bS
Schmidt- Po rtisch, Buenos Aires
01 1 978) 1 2 . . . ltJxd S ! 1 3 ltJxd4
lt:\xc 3 1 4 be cd I S cd Iil:b8 ( I S . . .
i.f6 ! ? a nd . . . �aS) 1 6 Iil: b l b S !?
( 1 6 . . . b6 Ri bli) 1 7 �d3 a6 ! 1 8 Ii e l
.id6 1 9 .id2 i.d 7 2 0 i. b4 .ixb4
2 1 a b a S 22 ba Y:> - 'h Gheorghiu­
Un zicker, Lucerne 01 1 982.
c) 10 a3 cd I I ab de 12 be b6
(or 1 2 . . . 't!fc7 1 3 b5 - 1 3 .ie3 Iii: d8
1 4 �e 2 .id 7 = Hubner-Portisch.
Abano Te rme 1 980 - 1 3 . . . l:ld8
14 't!fc2 lt:\a5 15 i. f4 \!Vc4 = Geller­
Piache_t ka. S k ara 1 980; 1 4 't!fa4!?)
1 3 .if4 ( 1 3 �e2 �c7 14 .ie3 .ib7
1 5 l:l a b l l:l fd8 = Ka valek-Ta rja n ,
US Ch 1 97 8 ) 1 3 . . . i. b 7 1 4 'iVb3
'ii'c 8 I S l:lfd l l:lfd8 1 6 ltJ d4 a5 ! =
Ftacni k-Tarj a n , Malta 01 1 980.
10 i.x c5
10 . . . lt:\d3 I I '@'e2 ltJxcl 1 2 l:laxc l
.ixc5 1 3 l:Hd l ! , o r here 1 1 .ic3!?
lt:\xc5 ( I I . . . .ixc5 1 2 'i!t'e2 i.xe3 1 3
't!¥xc3 ! ) 1 2 ltJd4 t ( 1 2 . . . eS 1 3 ltJ fS ) .
11 e5!
I I a3 lt:\d3 1 2 'i!t'e 2 lt:\xc l 1 3
l:l axc l eS 1 4 l:l fd I .i d4 I 5 h 3 a6 =
Vaganian -Portisch. R i o I Z 1 979.
11 i.e7
A nt i cipating lt:\e4 or b4 . Others:
a) l l ... lt:\d3? 1 2 .igS ! f6 ( 12 . . .
't!fd7 1 3 �e2) 1 3 ef g f 1 4 .i h 6 ± .
b) l l . . . 't!fxd1 1 2 l:lxd l lt:\c2 (else
13 a3) 13 li b ! lt:\2d4 1 4 ltJxd4 ( 1 4
.i f4 t:) 1 4 . . . .ixd4 1 5 .i xc6 i.xc3
1 6 be be 1 7 i.c3 t or 1 7 i. a 3 t.
c) l l . . . ltJdS 1 2 lt:\e4 .ie7 1 3 a H,
e .g . 1 3 . . . b6 1 4 �c2 .ib7 1 5 lt:\eg5
g6 1 6 'i!t'e4 etc.
d ) l l ... b6?! 1 2 a 3 't!fxd l 1 3 li xd l
ltJd5 ( 1 3 . . . lt:\ c2?? 1 4 li a2) 1 4 ltJxdS
cd 15 b4 .ic7 1 6 li xd5 ± Watson­
Pe t u rsson, Harrow 1 979 .
12 a3 lt:\d3
l3 'ii'e2 ltJxcl
14 liaxcl
Korchnoi-H i.ibner, Johannesburg
1 9H I . I 4 li fxc l ( ! ) ± i n tendi n g b4,
lid! etc was more accurate, because
 3 g3
n o w 1 4 . . . 'it'a5 ! 1 5 lifd l a6 ! was
playabl e ( H i.ibner tried 15 . . . lifd8?!
16 tt:J b5! :!;). In genera l , if White
gets e5 i n , h is g2 bishop, space and
devel opm e nt o ffer good chances.
A22
9 tt:Jb6
This seems Black's best. despite
a few new White i deas.
10 d5
a ) U nt ried is 10 lt:J e2!?, e.g. I 0 . . . cd
1 1 lt:Jexd4 tt:Jxd4 1 2 tt:Jxd4 .if6 1 3
tt:Jb5, bu t t h is isn't m uc h .
b) 10 de looks good a gai nst 1 0 . . .
.i xc5 I I 't!t'e2! :!;, b u t 1 0 . . . 't!t'xd l
(or I 0 . . . tt:J d7 !? 1 1 e5 tt:Jxc5 1 2 .ie3
lib8 = Tseitli n-Ag 1.a m ov, USSR
Ch 1 982) 1 1 li xd l .i xc 5 12 e5 ( 1 2
.if4 f6 !) 1 2 . . . tt:J c4 1 3 lie 1 .id7
( 1 3 . . . lt:J b4 1 4 .ifl !?; 1 4 lie4 tt:Jb6
1 5 .ie3 i.xe3 16 li xb 4 i.c5 =
Quinteros- Razu vayev, Novi Sad
1 982) 14 i.fl tt:Jb6 1 5 li d 1 tt:Jb4 1 6
a 3 ttJ bd5 1 7 lt:Je4 li fc8 ! 1 8 tt:Jxc5
lil:xc5 1 9 tt:Jg5 ( 1 9 tt:Jd4 ! ? lt:Jc4 20
li e ! t was Leviti na- Li u She La n ,
N a lenczow 1 984; but 1 9 . . . liac8
20 b4 li c7 i m proves) 1 9 . . . .ia4 20
lt:Je4 lic7 2 1 lie I h6 22 b4 a5 =
Watson-Alburt, New York 1 979.
10 ed
II ed
I I tt:J xd 5 ! ? i.g4 ( I I . . . tt:Jxd5 1 2
e d tt:J b4 1 3 lt:J e l :!; o r 1 3 tt:Je5 :t ;
I I . . . .ie6 1 2 tt:Je I !? with the idea
1 2 . . . i.xd5 1 3 ed tt:J b4 14 do, but
th is is critical) 1 2 h3 i.xf3 1 3 i.x f3
tt:Jd4 1 4 .ie3 tt:J xd5!? 1 5 ..ixd4
and the Keres-Parma Variation 89
tt:Jf4?! 1 6 i.xg7 lt:Jxh3+ 1 7 �g2
tt:Jxf2 1 8 't!t'xd8 :tl ± Forintos­
U tasi , H u nga ri an Ch 1 9 8 6 .
II tt:J b4 (90)
I I . . . tt:J a5 ! ? 1 2 b 3 ( 1 2 .i f4!?) 1 2
. . . i. f6 1 3 .id2 .if5 1 4 lie I :t
Ftacnik-Johansson , London 1982.
12 lt:Jel
1 2 lt:Je5!? is still con troversial,
e.g. 12 ... .i f6 1 3 f4 .if5 14 a3 ( 1 4
i.e3!?) 1 4 . . . tt:Jc2 1 5 lia2 lic8 ( 1 5
. . . tt:Jd4?! 1 6 b4 't!t'c7 1 7 .ie3 cb 1 8
lt:Je4! .ixe4 1 9 .ixe4 ± Hjart arson­
H .Ol afsson , I celandic Ch 1 984)
1 6 b3 ( 1 6 g4 .ixe5 1 7 fe .ig6 = )
1 6 . . . tt:J d4 1 7 .ie3 li e8 ( 1 7 . . . 't!t'c7 !
Hjartarson) 1 8 .ixd4! ( 1 8 b4 .ixe5
19 fc lt:Jc4 = Tal- Pe tursson, Ta lli nn
1 98 1 ) 1 8 . . . cd 1 9 't!t'xd4 't!t'c7 20 lt:Jb5
.ixe5 21 fd : Hjartarson . But 12 . . .
i.d6 ( ! ) still has good standing, e.g.
1 3 tt:Jd3 .ig4! 14 'ifxg4 tt:J xd3 1 5
i.g5 ( 1 5 .ih6 i.e5 = Ribl i ) 1 5 . . . f5 ,
Dorfman-Tu k makov, USSR 1984,
and i nstead o f 1 6 't!t'h5 't!t'd7 1 7
't!t'e2 c4 = , White could t ry 1 6 't!t'e2
't!t'xg5 1 7 't!t'xd3 with the ideas tt:Jb5,
f4, liae I -e6, when 17 . . . f4 !? is m .
90 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation

12 i.f6 16 1!t'd4!?
a) 1 2 ... ll:lc4!? 1 3 a3 ll:la6 14 � e4 The latest move. In two earlier
i.f5 1 5 ll:lc2 ..txe4 ( 1 5 . . . ..Q.f6 !?) 1 6 games 16 i.d4 had been played:
i.xe4 ll:ld6 1 7 i.g2 l:l:e8 1 8 l:l: b l 16 . . . i.e6 ( 1 6 . . . i.f5!?) 1 7 ll:ld3 l:l:c8
i.f6 1 9 ..tf4 ..te5 2 0 i.xe5 n xe5 2 1 ( 1 7 . . . 1!t'd6 18 l:l: c l - 18 lLlc5 lLlxc3!
ll:le3 :t Korchnoi-Kuzmin, Moscow threatening . . . 'ilxd4! - 18 . . . l:l: ac8
1 973. 19 l:l:e I litfd8 20 i.e4 ll:ld7 21 li:le5
b) 12 ... c4 1 3 a3 ll:la6 14 i.f4 ..Q.d6 ll:ldf6 22 i.b I =/ oo Chernin­
( 1 4 . . . ll:lc5 1 5 d6 ..tf6 1 6 a4 ! ll:lb3 Petursson , World Junior Ch 1979;
17 l:l:a3 ± Gulko) 15 i.xd6 1!t'xd6 compare what follows) 18 li c l ( 1 8
1 6 �d4! i.f5 1 7 ll:lf3 l:l:fd8 !? 1 8 li:lc5 li:lxc3 1 9 lLl xe6 fe 20 i.xc3
ll:ld2 ! ± Gu lko-Alburt, USSR Ch l:l:xc3 2 1 ..txb7 :t Rodriguez) 18 . . .
1 975. �d6 1 9 li e ! lied8 2 0 'i/h5 ! ? (20
c) 1 2 ... i.d6 1 3 a3 ll:la6 1 4 ll:lc2 ..tf5 ..te4 was Chern in-Petursson) 20 . . .
1 5 li:le3 i.g6 1 6 b3 li:lc7 1 7 ..Q.b2 :t h 6 2 1 l:l: ed l 1!t'ffi =/oo Ftacni k­
Spraggett-Andrijevic, San Bernar­ Am.Rodriguez, Thessaloniki 01
dino 1 986. 1984.
13 i.e3 After 16 't!i'd4!?, Ehlvest-Lputian,
13 a3 !? i. xc3!? ( 1 3 . . . ll:la6 1 4 USSR 1985, went 16 . . . i. e6?! 1 7
ll:lc2 ll:lc4 1 5 li:l e3 ll:ld6 = Alburt­ li:ld3 (or 1 7 f4 g6 1 8 c4 :t Dlugy) 1 7
Burman, USSR 1 973) 14 ab ..txb4 . . . I!c8 ( 1 7 . . . 1!t'c7 !? 1 8 a4 l:l: fd8 1 9
1 5 li:lc2 i.f5 1 6 li:lxb4 cb 1 7 d6 ( 1 7 a 5 ll:l c8 or 1 8 ll:lb4 ll:lxb4: :t ? ) 1 8 a4
�d4 b3) 1 7 . . . �d7 1 8 i.f4 gave ll:ld7 ( 1 8 ... l:l:c7 19 l:l:fe l ! ± Ehlvest)
White some compensat ion (= ?) in 19 i.xa7 ll:l xc3 ( 1 9 . . . 1!t'a5 20 ll:lb4
Boersma-Franco, Amsterdam 1983. li:lxc3 1 6 life ! ± Ehlvest) 20 ll:lf4!
13 ..txc3 ±.
14 be ll:l5xd4 Ftacnik-Dlugy, Lugano 1987,
15 i.xc5 l:l:e8 (91) saw the improvement 16 . . . 't!Yf6 ( ! )
1 7 ..txb6 ( 1 7 ..txd5 1!t'xd4 1 8 ..txf7+
9/• � .t � ;. .K � � 'i&xf7 19 i.xd4 ll:lc4! Dlugy; 17 li:ld3
w�
�-,. l. -
· -
- 1. �-7. 1. ll:lxc3 =; 1 7 �xf6 !? ll:l xf6 1 8 i.d4 is
�-
- .. . . .. .. . interesting) 17 . . . ll:lxb6 18 'ffxf6 gf
. �·- . 19 ll:ld3 li:la4! ( 1 9 . . . i.f5 20 ll:lf4 :t
• • • • or 20 ll:l c5 l:l:ac8 2 I ll:l xb7 :tDlugy)
. �
- �;, -
. " [9,.
20 c4 ..te6! 21 l:l: fc l?! (2 1 i.xb7
i.xc4 2 2 ..txa8 l:l: xa8 = Dl ugy) 2 1
�• - . " "' ..�"
• f.Q� ... . . . l:l:e7 22 ll:l f4 l:l:c8 (=/+). Here
�- · � \llb
� t;'f �· - �· .&�.
o;:? �-f'l ,.,�
� �
2 1 ll:l f4 ( ! ) looks better, e.g. 2 1 . . .
 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation
.txc4 (21 . . . ltJ c5 22 ltJd5 or 21 . . .
l:le7 22 lHe l ) 22 tlfc l .ia6 ( 22 . . .
l:l ac8? 23 .txb7 tl c7 24 ltJd5) 23
ltJd5 ;!;. One feels that Black should
be able to defend this sort of posi­
tion, but i t may not be as easy as
Ftacnik-Diugy would indicate.
B
8 ltJxd5 ed
Here 8 . . . 't!t'xd 5 can be m et by
9 d4!? ltJxd4 (9 . . . 0-0 1 0 .te3) 1 0
ltJ xd4 'ti'xd4 1 1 't!t'c2 0-0 1 2 .te 3
't!t'f6 ( 1 2 . . . 'it'b4 !? 1 3 llfd l e 5 oo )
1 3 ll fd I , Pytel-Bernard, Lublin
1 9 73, and now 1 3 . . . e 5 was best; or
by 9 d3 .td7 (9 . . . 0-0?! 10 .ie3 't!t'd6
1 1 d4 cd 12 ltJxd4 ! Dzindzihashvili­
K raidman, Israel 1 976) 1 0 .ie3
l:lc8 1 1 d4 ed 12 ltJ xd4 'ti'a5 ( 1 2 . . .
't!fh5 ! ) 1 3 ltJb3 't!t'b5 1 4 ne t l:I d8
1 5 ltJc5 .tc8 1 6 't!t'b3 't!t'xb 3 1 7
.txc6+ ! Watson-Martz, Lone Pine
1 976.
9 d4 0-0
A position which also comes
from 8 d4 0-0 9 ltJxd5 ed. White
has:
B 1 10 .te3
B2 1 0 de
81
10 .te3 c4
a) 1 0 . . . .if6 I I de! ( 1 1 'ti'd2 c4; 1 1
't!t'a4 l:Ie8) 1 1 . . . .txb2 1 2 l:I b l .if6
1 3 ltJ d4 ! Csom.
b) 10 ... 'it'b6 1 1 'ti'd2 l:Ifd8 1 2 b3
.te6 1 3 de!? ( 1 3 nac l !? ±) 1 3 . . .
..txc5 1 4 ..txc 5 't!t'xc5 1 5 ltJg5 !
H tibner-Csom, Houston 1 972.
91
11 ltJeS (92)
I I b3 cb (or I I . . . b5!? and 1 2 a4
ltJa5 or 1 2 ltJe5 ltJ xe5 1 3 de i.e6)
12 ab ( 1 2 'tifxb3 ltJa5) 1 2 . . . .ie6 1 3
ltJe5 't!fb6 = E. Meyer-Shamkovich,
New York 1983.
11 .tf5 !
Not I I . . . .te6? 1 2 ltJ xc4! o r I I
. . . ltJ xe5? 1 2 de .te6 1 3 i.. d4 ±.
But I I . . . f6!? 1 2 ltJ xc6 be 13 i.. f4
( 1 3 'ti'a4) 1 3 . . . a5 ( 1 3 . . . .td6 ! ?)
14 b3 .ta6, Portisch-Matulovic,
Biel I Z 1 9 76, is playable , and I I . . .
ltJa5 ( ! ) 1 2 t!t"c2 f6 1 3 ltJf3 b5 1 4
ltJ h 4 i..e 6 = Cillo-Pytel, Istres
1975, deserves attention.
12 b3?!
An instructive move, but not
best.
a) 12 ltJx c6 be 1 3 t!t"a4?! ( 1 3 .td2
l:Ib8 =) 13 . . . 1!fb6 14 b3 .ic2! +
lvkov-A iburt, Yugoslavia v USSR
1975.
b) 12 't!Vd2?! l:I c8 1 3 ltJxc6 n xc6 1 4
f3 l:l e 8 1 5 a3 (?) l:Ie6 1 6 life I h5 +
Bass-Diugy, Bermuda 1985.
92 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation

c) 12 't!t'a4!? lt:'Jxe5 ( 1 2 . . . li:'J b4 1 3 a) 1 1 1t'd3!? is almost unknown .

.id2 ! ; 1 2 . . . 't!t'd6 1 3 1t'b5 ) 1 3 de d4 Petrosian-Keres, San Antonio 1972,
1 4 .tf4 ( 1 4 llad l ? .td7 !) 14 . . . g5 went 1 1 . . . h6 1 2 a3 !? a5 1 3 .id2 b6!
15 .id2 'ti'c7 16 llac 1 m Tal . \12 - \12 with the idea . . . .ta6. Perhaps
12 lle8 ! 12 .id2 is better.
13 be b) 1 1 .if4 .if5 (or I I . . . lii:e 8) 12
Or 1 3 lt:'Jxc6 llxc6 14 be ll xc4 ;!: 'i!t'b3 ( 1 2 ll c l .tb6 =) 1 2 . . . .ib6 1 3
Tal. llad 1 .te4 1 4 .ie3, Andersson­
13 ltJxeS Peters, Hastings 1978-79, and now
14 de de 1 5 't!t'a4 ( 15 .txb7 llc7 14 . . . .txe3 is =.

16 .tf3 1t'xd 1 17 llfxd 1 c3 Tal ) 1 5 c) l l li:'Je1 lle8 (or 1 1 . . . d4 1 2 li:'Jd3

. . . 't!Vc7 1 6 llac I c3 1 7 .id4 c2 1 8 .ib6 13 lt:'Jf4 lle8 1 4 b3 .tf5 =, or
.id5, Tal-Aiburt, USSR Ch 1975, I I . . . .tg4!? 12 li:'Jd3 .ib6 1 3 lt:'J f4
and now Tal gives 1 8 ... llfd8! =F, d4 = Lein-Speelman, Hastings
e.g. 19 e4 .ie6 20 'i!t'b3 .ixd5 21 ed 198 1-82) 1 2 li:'Jd3 ( 1 2 .txd5 .ig4)
't!t'c4 ! etc. 12 . . . .ib6 1 3 lt:'Jf4 d4 14 .td2 .tg4
82 = 8enko-Tarjan, US Ch 1978.
10 de .i xeS (93) 821
1 1 ltJgS
Threatening 't!t'c2 and 't!t'xd5 .
93
w
11 h6!
Actually, 1 1 ... .id4!? is more
important, since after 12 1t'c2! ( 1 2
't!t'b3? h 6 1 3 lt:'Jf3 .ib6 + ) 1 2 . . . g6
1 3 1t'b3 .if6 ! ( 1 3 . . . h6 1 4 lt:'Jxf7
�xf7 15 .ih6 ±) 1 4 1t'xd5 li:'Jd4
(94)

94
w

The most popular position of

the Keres-Parma. White has tried
j ust about everything:
8 2 1 1 1 lt:'J g5
822 1 1 .ig5
823 1 1 b3
824 I I a 3
8 2 5 1 1 'ti'c2
 3 g3 and the Keres- Parma Variation
we have a position which also comes
from I I 1Wc2 .ib6 1 2 lt:Jg5 g6 1 3
@d l .id4 1 4 1Wb3 .if6 etc. This
hasn't been tested, as far as I know,
since the first edition. Best play is
probably 15 Wxd8 ( 15 �h I lt:Jxe2
16 .ie3 Wxd5 17 .ixd5 .ixb2 1 8
l:I ae I lt:Jc3 1 9 .ib3 h6! 20 lt:Jxf7 led
to a draw in Mi les-Tarjan, Riga IZ
1 979) 1 5 . . . lt:Jxe2+ 1 6 �h i l:I xd8
( 1 6 ... .ixd8 1 7 .ie3 ±) 17 lt:J e4
.id7 ( 1 7 . . . lt:J xc l 1 8 lt:Jxf6+ �g7
19 lt:J h5+ �h 6 20 nax c l �xh5 2 1
nc7, or here 1 8 . . . gh 1 9 � xc l n d2
20 ll fd l t) 1 8 .ie3 .ie6 1 9 l:I fd 1 !
l:IacS ! 20 .if3 l:Ic2 2 1 n xd8+ .ixd8
22 li[e l .ic4, Benko-Pe ters, US Ch
1975, and here instead of 23 lt:Jd2
.ia5 ! , 23 .i h6 ( ! ) (23 lt:Jc5 !?) 23 . . .
.ia5 (23 . . . f5 24 lt:Jd6 .ia5 2 5 l:I xe2 !
.ixe2 26 lt:Je8 l:Ic7 27 .ig5 ! h6 28
.tf6+ ±) 24 lLlf6+ �h8 25 nd 1
l:I xb2 26 h4! tl±, e .g. 26 . . . .ie6
27 h5 lt:Jc3 28 hg! fg 29 l:Id6 .ic8
30 .ig4 ±±.
If the above holds , I I . . . .id4 is
suspect; compare comments under
I I 1Wc2 below.
1 2 1Wc2
1 2 lt:Jh3 has several good answers:
1 2 . . . l:Ie8 1 3 lt:Jf4 d4 =; 1 2 . . . .if5
1 3 lt:Jf4 d4 =; 1 2 . . . .ixh3 1 3 .ixh3
lile8 1 4 .ig2 d4 1 5 .if4 Wb6 = Tai­
Lengyel , Mi skolc 1 969; and even
I I . . . g5!? Tukm akov.
12 .i xfl+
12 . . . hg? 1 3 1Wxc5 .ie6 14 lild l
l:Ic8 1 5 .i.e3 ! ± .
93
13 l:Ixfl hg
This is equal, e.g. 14 'tlkd2 d4 ( 1 4
. . . .ie6 ! ? ) 1 5 Wxg5 't!Vxg5 1 6 .i xg5
.ig4 = , or 14 1!t'b3 !? .ie6 ! 1 5 't!Vxb7
't!Vd6 16 .ixg5 l:I ab8 1 7 1!t'a6 n xb2
18 lil c l lii: c 8 19 .if4 'tlkd7 = Watson­
Weinstein, Boston 1 978 .
B22
11 .igS (95)
95
B
11 f6
Not I I . . . .ie7?! 1 2 .i xe7 '@'xe7
1 3 'tlkd2 lld8 , but I I . . . 'tlkb6 !? is
respectable: 12 lt:Je l ( 12 't!Vxd5
.ie6 13 @d2 h6 14 .ie3 .i xe3 1 5
1!t'xe3 't!Vxb2 - o r 1 5 . . . 't!Vxe3 = -
1 6 l:I fb l 't!Vf6 ! = Barbero-Diugy,
Me ndoza 1985; or 14 .if4 lii: fd8 1 5
't!fc2 l:Iac8 etc) 1 2 . . . .ie7 ! ? ( 1 2 . . .
d4!? 1 3 lt:Jd3 .id6 1 4 b 3 t and lt:Jd5 )
1 3 .ixe7 'tlkxe7, Varnusz-Domoter,
Hungary 1 974, a nd now instead of
14 lt:Jd3 .i fS ! 1 5 lt:Jf4 allowing 1 5 . . .
Wxb2 ! 1 6 lt:Jxd5 lt:Jc6 = Florian ,
14 @d2 and 14 . . . .if5 1 5 lt:Jf3 or
1 4 . . . d4 1 5 lt:Jd3 seems best.
12 .i.d2
94 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation
Popular, but it's not clear that
this is any better than the older
1 2 Ii c l .i.b6 ( 1 2 . . . .i. xf2+?? 1 3
Iixf2 fg 1 4 �xg5!) 1 3 .i.d2 ( 1 3 .i.f4
.i.e6 1 4 �e l lite8 1 5 �d3 't!t"e7 ! 1 6
.i.d2 Iiad8 + Ghitescu-Peters,
Bagneux 1 978) 1 3 . . . d4 (or 1 3 . . .
.i.e6 =, or 1 3 . . . .i. f5 , o r 1 3 . . . .i.g4
1 4 't!fb3 �h8 1 5 e3 't!fd7! 1 6 .i.c 3
liad8 = with the idea 1 7 litfd I ?
't!ff5 , Christiansen-Tarjan, U S Ch
1 9 78) 14 � e l .i.e6 1 5 �d3 .i.d5 !
(or 1 5 . . . lite8) with a good game ­
Keres.
12 d4
Several moves are good here:
a) 12 ... liteS 1 3 l:t c l .i.b6 1 4 e 3
.i.f5!? 1 5 .i.c3 .i.e4 1 6 't!fb3 �h8 1 7
li fd l 't!Ve7 1 8 .i.d4 ! t Larsen­
Agdestein, Ga usdal Z 1 985, when
1 8 . . . � xd4 1 9 � xd4 l1 ad8 is
playable. Also, 1 4 . . . .i.g4 (or 14 . . .
d4!? W edberg) may i mprove, e.g.
15 h3 ( 1 5 .i.c3 d4 =; 1 5 't!t"b3 �h8 =;
15 't!Va4 d4 =) 15 ... .i. h5 16 g4!?
.i.g6 I 7 .i.c3 .i.e4 ! .
b) 1 2 . . . .i.b6 1 3 .i.c3 .i.g4 !? 1 4 h 3
.i.f5 1 5 �d4 .i.xd4 1 6 .i.xd4 lie8
17 e3 't!t"d7 18 .i.c3 l1ad8 was equal
in Lombardy-Weinstein, US Ch
1 978.
c ) 12 .. . .i.e6 13 e3 d4? ( not 1 3 . . .
�e5? 1 4 .i.c3 .i.g4 1 5 h3 ; Larsen
gives 1 3 . .. 't!fb6 1 4 .i.c3 l1ad8 1 5
b4 w ith the idea 1 5 . . . .i.xb4 1 6
li b ! 't!t"c5 1 7 .i.xb4 �xb4 1 8 't!t"d4 ! ,
but this i s not convincing after
14 . . . lifd8! 1 5 b4 �xb4 1 6 lib !
't!t"d6) 1 4 ed �xd4 1 5 .i.e3 (" ±"
Larsen) 15 ... � xf3+ 1 6 .i.xf3 't!fb6?
( 1 6 . . . .i.xe3 1 7 't!t"xe3 U ± van der
Wiel) 1 7 life ! ! ± Larsen-Yusupov,
Reykjavik 1 9 8 5 .
d) 12 . . . 1!i'e7!? 1 3 .i.c3 l1d8 1 4 e3
.i.f5 ( 1 4 . . . .i.g4!?) 1 5 lie ! .i.e4 1 6
li e ! .i. b6 1 7 a 3 t Agdestein-Aiburt,
Taxco IZ 1985.
13 �e1
Or 1 3 b4 .i. b6 1 4 b5 (van der
Wiel) and now 1 4 . . . �e7 1 5 .i.b4
lite8 is equal. After 1 3 � e l .i. b6 1 4
�d3, Black can play 1 4 . . . .i.g4
with rough equality.
B23
11 b3 (96)
96
B
11 .trs
I I . . . 't!ff6?! 1 2 .i.g5 't!Ve6 1 3 li c l
.i.b6 1 4 lic2 ! ± was Uhlmann­
Velimirovic, Tallinn 1977. But I I
. . . .i.g4 is very logical , e.g. 1 2 h3
.i.h5 13 .i.b2 'i!t'd6! ( 1 3 . . . d4 14
litcl .i.b6!? 15 g4 .i.g6 1 6 ll xc6! be
1 7 �xd4 t Welin-Watson, Ha mar
1980) 1 4 e3 Ii ad8 1 5 g4 .i.g6 1 6
 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation
ti'id4 =/m Watson-Alburt, Orlando
! 9 8 1 . Here 12 -'.b2 d4 1 3 li[c I -'.b6
!4 h3 -'.e6! is equal too. Finally,
1 1 . . lie8 1 2 -'.b2 d4 is also play-
.
a ble.
12 -'.b2 -'.e4
Here too 1 2 . . . lile8 1 3 llc 1 'it'd6
! 4 e3 liad8 is possible.
13 lilcl 'i!re7
14 't!Yd2
Another try is Suba's 14 lt:lh4 ,
1 4 . . . -'.xg2 1 5 �xg2 (threaten­
c: . g .
i n g 16 .ixg7) 1 5 . . . d4 1 6 e3 !? ( 1 6
:i1c4) 1 6 . . . -'.a3 ! ( 1 6 . . . d e 1 7 lt:lf5
i'We4+ 1 8 'it'f3 ! ± ) 17 -'.xa3 'it'xa3
1 8 ed liad8 , Suba-Pe ters, Hastings
1 9 78-79, and now 19 lic4!? is intt;r­
csting. But Stean-Schtissler, Malta
01 1 980, saw 14 . . . -'.b6! 15 e3 ( 1 5
'i/Ud2!?) 1 5 . . . 't!Ye6 ! 1 6 't!Vh5 f6 1 7
.ixe4 fe = .
14 -'.b6
a ) 1 4 ... d4 1 5 'it'g5 ! 'it'xg5 1 6 lt:l xg5
�xg2 17 �xg2 ± H tibner- Ivkov,
West Germany 1 975.
b) 14 ... f6 !? 1 5 e3 life8 resembles
the main line: 1 6 lilfd l lilad8 1 7
't�Ye2 -'.b6 1 8 a3 'i!r f7 (?) ( 1 8 . . . lt:l a5 )
1 9 lt:ld4 J Uhlmann- Farago , Halle
1 9 78.
15 e3
A place to look for improvement,
e.g. 15 't!Yf4!?. Also, 1 5 't!Yg5 ! ? f6
16 'it'g4, Ostermeyer-Grtinfeld ,
Dortmund 1 984, deserves attention;
15 . . . \i'xg5!? 16 lt:lxg5 -'.xg2 1 7
'4txg2 life8 ( 1 8 e 3 d4).
15 life8
95
16 llfdl lilad8 (97)
97
w
17 -'.a l l ?
This tries to improve upon 1 7
lt:ld4 -'.xd4 1 8 .ixd4 .ixg2 1 9 �xg2
'it'e4+ 20 �g 1 h5 + Palatni k , or
17 'it'e2 't!Yb4 (to prevent lt:ld4 and
meet 18 .ic3 with 18 ... 'it'a3 19
'it'b2 'it'xb2 and 20 . . . lLl b4 ; 17 ... h6
1 8 lt:ld4 lt:le5 is also possible).
On 17 .i a l !? f6 1 8 'it'e2, 18 . . .
'it'f7?! 1 9 lt:ld4 gave W hite a small
edge in Ribli-Pinter, Baile Herculane
Z 1 982. 1 8 . . . a6!? 19 lt:ld4, Smejkal­
Schtissler, Lucerne 01 1982, could
have led to 19 . . . .ixg2 20 <oi'xg2
'i¥e4+ = ( 2 1 'Wf3 lt:le5 !). Easier still
is 18 . . . �h8 , Qui nteros-Alburt,
Ne w York 1 983, which went 1 9
'it'fl ? 't!Ya3 ! 20 lid2 .i xf3 2 1 -'.xf3
lilxe3 ! 22 .ixd5 lle7 =F .
824
11 a3 .i f5
II . . . .ie7 1 2 b4 ( ! ) .if6 1 3 lila2
with the idea lild2 is promising for
White, and I I . . . a5 led to a White
advantage in Petrosian-Peters, Lone
Pine 1 976: 12 lt:l e l ( 1 2 'Wc2 .ib6
96 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation
1 3 lild I h6 1 4 i.f4 i.e6 = Chaudry­
Radulov, Malta 01 1 980) 12 . . .
d4 ! ? ( 1 2 . . . i. e6 1 3 lt:Jd3 i.d6 1 4
i.f4 i.e7 1 5 i.d2!? a nd lt:Jf4) 1 3
li:Jd3 i.b6 ( 1 3 . . . i.d6 !? Peters; 1 3
. . . i.e7 1 4 i.d2 a4 1 5 b3 - 15 ltJf4!?
- 1 5 . . . ab 1 6 1t'xb3, lightly t,
Portisch-Pr i tchett, Buenos Aires
01 1978) 1 4 i.d2 lil e8 1 5 lilc l i.g4
1 6 Ii: e l li eS 1 7 h3 i.f5 1 8 1i'b3
i.e4 1 9 i.xe4 Ii: xe4 20 1t'b5 ! t.
12 b4 i.b6
13 lla2 !?
13 i.b2 lle8 1 4 1t'd2 ( 1 4 e3!?
i.e4 15 �b3 1t'd7 1 6 li[adl llad8
and . . . i. f5 = S passov-Tu k makov,
Plovdiv 1 983; 15 lt:Jd4!? with the
idea 15 . . . i. xg2 1 6 �xg2 lt:Je5 1 7
llc l lt:J c4 1 8 .ta l intending lt:Jf5 ,
1i'g4) 1 4 . . . i. e4 1 5 llfd l 1t'e7 =
Borsch-Ch andler, Keszthely 1 9 8 1 .
1 3 Ii:a2 ! ? i.e4 1 4 li[ d2 1t'e 7 1 5
i.b2 l He8 1 6 1t'a l ! ? ( 1 6 lt:J h4!?
li[ad8) 16 ... f6 ! 17 llfd l 1t'e6 =
Portisch-Spassky, Bugojno 1 978.
825
11 �c2 i.b6 (98)
98
w To 1 3 'i!t'd2 there are three good
I I . . . i.e7?! 1 2 i.eJ i.f6 ( 1 2 . . .
i.e6 1 3 lt:Jd4 ±) 1 3 ll fd l lii e 8?,
Szabo-Flesch , Belgrade 1 964 , and
now 14 lt:Jg5 ! is ± .
Si nce most ofWhite's l i th moves
are rather flat, attention has turned
to I I �c2. W hite can easily risk
disadvantage thereby (see the next
note), but the main line which
follows has some good points.
12 lt:JgS
12 lldl neglects the kingside:
12 . . . h6 (or 12 . . . 1t'f6 ! 13 i.g5 •e6
14 i.f4 14 'iJ/d3 h6 15 i.d2 was
-
recommended, but 1 5 . . . d4 looks
fine - 1 4 . . . h6 1 5 'iJ/d3 li[d8 1 6 a4
1We7 1 7 i.d2 i.g4 + Portisch­
H iib ner, match 1 980 ) 1 3 b3 'iJ/f6
( 1 3 . . . i.g4!? 1 4 i.b2 1l e8 1 5 'i!t'd2
llc8 = Stein-Parma, USSR v Yugo­
slavia 1 97 1 ) 14 i.b2 d4, and now
15 'i!t'd2 lld8 1 6 b4 a6 1 7 a4 i.e6
1 8 b5 lt:Ja5! = Cramling-Kochiev,
Reggio Emilia 1 980, or 15 llac I
i.f5 1 6 'i!t'd2 llad8 17 b4, Adorjan­
Cramli ng, Gladsaxe 1 983, when
17 . . . a6! 18 a4 a5 ! is =.
12 g6
13 'ifd1
replies. 1 3 . . . i.d4 ! ? 1 4 ll d l ( 1 4
lt:Jh3 i.g7 =) 14 . . . 1i'b6 1 5 lt:Jf3 !?
( 1 5 e3 i.f6) 1 5 . . . i.xf2+ 16 �fl
i.c5 1 7 �h6 i.e7 ro . O r 13 . . . lt:Jd4
1 4 lt:J f3 ! lt:Jc6 ! 1 5 b4 ( 1 5 1!t'h6 f6) 1 5
. . . a6 1 6 i.b2 1We7 1 7 a3 i.f5 , about
equal, Bukic-Mikhalchishin , Banja
Luka 1 98 1 .
 3 g3 and the Keres-Parma Variation
Best seems 1 3 . . . d4 ( ! ) 1 4 1i'f4
( 1 4 li:lf3? 1Ve7 1 5 1i'h6 f6 1 6 e3 d3,
Agza mov-Tal, USSR Tea m Ch
1 9 8 1 ) 1 4 ... We7 1 5 i.d5 (with the
idea li:lxh 7) 1 5 . . . i.f5 16 e4 ( 1 6 g4
..tc7 ! ) 1 6 . . . de 1 7 i.xe3 h6 1 8 li:lf3
( 1 8 li:lxf7 l hf7 1 9 i.xf7+ <t>xf7 20
"§'xh6 1i'f6 + Bagirov) 1 8 . . . i. xe3
1 9 1Vxe3 1Vxe 3 20 fe li:l b4 ! +
Pigusov-Kengis, USSR 1 982.
13 li:ld4 !?
An important decision:
a ) 1 3 . . . d4 14 li:le4 t Ad orjan. White
has play on the dark squares, e.g.
1 4 ... .tf5 1 5 i.g5 f6 16 i.h6 i. xe4
17 i.xe4 a nd 1i'b3 .
b ) 1 3 ... i.d4!? 1 4 1i'b3 ! is the com­
plex line given in '821' above (under
the diagram), which seems to favour
White.
c) 13 ... i.e6 (!) is a new idea. The
game Adorjan-Dlugy, New York
1 985, e nded quickly after 14 li:lh3
..txh 3 I 5 i.xh 3 lile8 16 i.g2 We 7
1;2 - '/2. Critical seems 14 li:l xe6 fe
1 5 i.h6, e .g. 1 5 . . . lilf7 ( 1 5 . . . llxf2
1 6 lil xf2 i.xf2+ 1 7 <t>xf2 1i'f6+ 1 8
�g l g5 1 9 \!fb3 ! ) 1 6 e4 ( 1 6 1i'd2
"t!rf6 ) 16 . . . d4 ( 1 6 . . . de!?) a nd 1 7
1i'b3 with the idea 1 7 . . . 1i'f6 t 8 f4 ,
97
or 1 7 f4!?.
14 i.e3 li:le6
15 li:lxe6 i.xe6
16 .id4 ll c8
17 e3 1i'd6
1 7 . . . i. xd4 !? 1 8 1i'xd4 lilc2 19
Wxa7 lil xb2 20 llfbl !.
18 h4!?
Or 18 1i'd2 i.xd4 19 Wxd4 lilc2,
Adorjan-Gri.infeld, Dortmund 1984.
Now 20 lilfd l Wb6 21 Wxb6 ab 22
b3 "w6 uld have assured a small
but lasting edge" (R ibli). After
18 h4!?, Adorjan-Plaskett, Esbjerg
1985, went 18 . . . lilc4? ( 1 8 . . . h 5 !
Plaskett) 1 9 b3! .i xd4 ( 1 9 . . . lilc6
20 h5 ± Plaskett) 20 be i.xa I 2 1
cd! i.g7!? 2 2 de Wxe6 23 1i'a4!
( ±" Plaskett) 23 . . . We8 (23 . . .
"
Wa6 2 4 Wxa6 ba 2 5 lil c l ) 2 4 Wxa7
1i'a8 25 1Vxa8 lil xa8 26 i.d5 ± .
Conclusion. Although this I I Wc2
i.b6 1 2 li:l g5 idea is hardly intimi­
dating, it currently represents
White's best try in the li:l xd5 lines.
The note on 13 . . . .ie6 seems par­
ticularly i mportant. Overall, I feel
the 9 e4 variations grant White
more positive chances.
8 3 ltJf3 d5: Asymmetrical
Variation

1 c4 c5 .id7!? 6 "it'b3 - 6 tWc4? lLlb4 7 lLld5??

2 li'lc3 li'lf6 b5 6 . . . li'lb4 7 a3 .ie6 8 'ii' a4+
-

3 li'lf3 d5 .id7 9 t!rd I t; but 6 . . . li'lb6 and

4 cd li'lxd5 (99) 7 li'l e5 e6 8 g3 li'lc6 or 7 e3 li'lc6 8 d4
cd 9 cd .ie6 I 0 t!rd I .id5 may im­
99 prove) 6 li'le5 'ii'c7 (or 6 . . . .id7 ( ! )
w with the idea 7 li'l x f7 li'lxc3 8 t!rc4
li'la5 9 1!t'f4 li'ld5 1 0 'it'f3 .ig4 ! -
Peters; or here 8 'it'b3 tlrb6! 9 li'lxh8
'it'xb3 1 0 ab li'ld4) 7 li'lxd5 t!rxe5
8 li'l b6 lib8 9 li'lxc8 li xc8 1 0 e3 ,
Uhlm ann-Korchnoi, Sk opje OJ
1972, and now K orch noi gives 10
... g6! =.

A
This freque ntly arises after I c4 5 e4 (1 00)
c5 2 li'l f3 li'lf6 3 li'lc3 d5 4 cd li'lxd 5 .
Black secures h i s share o f central
turf at the cost of a tempo and slight
loosening.
A 5 e4
B 5 d4
C 5 e3
D 5 g3
'D 5 g3' exami nes the odd lines
where Black neither retreats his
k night to c7 (Chapter 6) nor plays
. . . li'lc6 (Chapters 3 and 7). 5 li'l xd5 Once considered dubious, this
t!rxd5 6 g3 is Chapter 3, line A , move of Nimzowitsch 's has ta ken
note to 6 .ig2. 5 t!ra4+ lLlc6 ( 5 . . . over as the main line.
 8 liJj3 d5: A symmetrical Variation
A I 5 . . . liJ xe 3
A 2 5 . . . liJ b4
5 . . . liJe7 6 d 4 e d 7 1t'xd4 (or 7
liJxd4!? e5 8 liJdb5 1t'xd I + 9 ct>xd I
liJxb5 1 0 liJ xb5 liJa6 I I .ie3 .ie6 !
I 2 liJxa 7 liJe5 1 3 i.b 5+ c;!;>d8 1 4
c;!;>e2 Yeo Ti mman-M iles, Nik�ic
1983) 7 ... 1t'xd4 8 liJ xd4 e5 (per-
haps 8 . . . f6 !?; t h en 9 f4 t or 9
liJdb5 liJ xb5 1 0 ltlxb5 liJa6 I I f4
t) 9 liJdb5 liJxb5 I 0 liJxb5 .ib4+
I I .id2 .ixd2+ 12 c;!;>xd2 liJa6,
Foerder-Maehate, 1 93 1 , and now
13 'i!i>e3 ! ± Shatskes, or 13 lite I
c;!;>e7 t Miles.
Al
5 liJ x c3
A l l 6 de
A l 2 6 be
All
6 de!? 1t'xd 1+
Tal's 6 . . . 'tlt'e7 is untried. H e
gives 7 g 3 ! .
7 ct>xdl liJc6
a) The 7 . .ig4 !? 8 .ie3 e6 of
..
van Wijgerden-van Riemsdyck ,
A msterdam 1979, might be met by
9 .ib5+ liJd7 10 a4 t and c;!;>c2.
b) 7 . b6 8 a4 .ib7 9 ltld2 co; 8
. .
.if4 ( ! ) liJ c6 (8 . . . .ib7 9 i.xb8 a nd
.ib5+) 9 .ib5 .ib7 1 0 a4 0-0-0+
I I c;!;>d2 t ( I I . . . f6 1 2 e5).
c) 7 ... f6 8 .ie3 e5 9 i.c4 liJd7 1 0
liJd2 .id6 1 1 a4 c;!;>e7 1 2 a5 ! :tl ±
Seirawan-Arkell, London 1 98 1 .
8 .ie3
Or 8 i.f4 !? g6 (8 . . . e6 9 ct>c2 .ie7
10 litd I Miles; 8 . . . f6 !?) 9 ct>c2 .ig7
99
10 lld l .id7 I I .ic4! f6 1 2 .ixf7+!
± Miles-Vaganian, London 1984.
8 e6
8 . . . b6 !? 9 .ib5 (or 9 liJd2 .ib7
10 f3 t) 9 . . . .ib7 10 b4! e6 1 1 be
( I I a3 !? Cvetkovic) I I . . . .ixc5 1 2
.txc5 be 1 3 'i!i>e2 t Cvetkovic­
Biriescu, Satu Mare 1980.
9 ct>c2
Just as good seems 9 a4, e.g. 9 . . .
b 6 1 0 liJd2 .ib7 ( 1 0 . . . .id6 !?), but
now 1 1 .ie2 or 1 1 ct>c2 (Tal) is pre­
ferable to 1 1 liJc4 0-0-0+! 12 c;!;>c l
( 1 2 ct>e2 liJa5) 1 2 . . . .ie7 1 3 f3 f5 !
with counterplay, Tal- Tim man,
Montreal 1 9 79.
9 .id7 (101)
a) 9 . b6? 10 .ib5 .id7 ( 10 . . . .ib7
. .
I I liJe5 ll c8 1 2 llfd l or 1 2 a4) I I
a4 a6 1 2 .ie2 .id6 1 3 liJd2 liJ a5 1 4
llfb l ! 0-0 1 5 b4 ± Benko-Seirawan ,
Lone Pine 1978.
b) 9 ... .ie 7 10 .ie2 0-0 I I llfd I ;t
Cvetkovic; compare what follows.
10 litd I ! ? .id7 I I liJd2 liJa5 1 2
.ie2 .ie7 ! . 1 0 a4 !?.
Now 10 ..ie2!? .ie7 I I lii:fd l
0-0-0 ( I I .. . lit eS !?) 1 2 lit d2 f6 1 3
 1 00 8 &iJf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation
liad I &iJa5 ( I 3 . . . e5 I 4 .ic4 rt;c7
1 5 .id5 t; 13 . . . .i e8 !?) 14 e5, and
in place of 14 . . . .ia4+? 15 b3
llxd2+ I 6 &iJ xd2 i.c6 I 7 ef gf I 8
.ig4! ± Cvetkovic-Palatnik, USSR
v Yugoslavia 1 976, 14 . . . .ic6 1 5
lhd8+ llxd8 1 6 llxd8+ rt;xd8 I 7
ef gf was = in D voretsky-Barway,
France 1983. 6 de is a bit awkward
for Black, but should be drawn.
Al2
6 be g 6 (1 02)
The most i m portant move . 6 . . .
e 6 7 .ie2 ( 7 d4 is a Queen's Gambit)
7 . . . .ie7 8 0-0 0-0 9 d4 t Vidmar­
Rabar, Lj ubljana I 945, and 6 . . .
&iJc6 7 .ic4 't!t'c7 8 0-0 e 5 9 d 3 .ie7
10 &iJ g5! t Rejfir-Porath , Moscow
Ch I 9 56, are unpleasant for Black.
102
w
Now 7 d4 .ig7 is a Grii nfeld
Defence, but W hite also has:
a) 7 .ia.3 't!t'a5 !? (7 . . . 't!t'c7 8 't!t'b3 ! ?
.ig7 9 't!t'd5 !? lt:ld7 1 0 .ib5 0-0 I I
.ixd7 .ixd7 1 2 't!t'xc5 .ic6 oo
O'Kelly-J .Sch m idt , cor res I 957;
but here 9 .ib5+ .id7 1 0 0-0 0-0
I I d4 is more dynamic) 8 't!t'b3 .ig7
9 .ib5+ .id7 1 0 .ic4 e6?! ( 10 . . .
0-0) I I 0-0 0- 0 1 2 d4 b5 1 3 .ie2 c4
14 't!t'b2 lle8 1 5 .id6 .ic6 I 6 a4! ba
I 7 lt::J d 2 ± Dubinin-Kupert, corres
1957.
b) 7 .ib5+ .i d7 (7 . . . lt::J d 7 8 a4!? or
just 8 0-0 and d4) 8 .ic4 b5 !? (8 . . .
lt::Jc6 9 d4 .ig7 1 0 0-0 0- 0 I I h 3
't!t'c7 oo ) 9 .id5 lt::J c6 1 0 a 4 b4 I I
't!t'b3 e6 1 2 .ixc6 ::t: Korchnoi­
Zaltsman, Lone Pine 1979.
c) 7 't!t'a4+!? m ight be tried, e.g.
7 ... lt::J c6 8 .ia3 or 7 . . . &iJ d7 8 e5 ! ;
best is 7 . . . .id7 8 't!t'b3 't!t'c7 9 lib!
(or 9 d4!?) 9 . . . b6 1 0 .ic4 e6 I I d4
lt::Jc6 1 2 .ib5 oo.
A2
5 &iJb4
Still the main line, but it's under
fi re from:
A21 6 .ic4
A22 6 .ib5+
6 d4 !? cd 7 .ib5+ .id7 (7 . . . &iJ5c6
or 7 . . . lt::J 8c6 transposes) 8 lt::J xd4
and 8 . . . e5 9 lt::J f5 or 8 . . . .ixb5 9
&iJd xb5 is untried, but 6 i.b5+ is
more forcing.
A21
 8 lLlf3 d5: A symmetrical Variation
White threatens 0-0 or d4 .
.\ 2 1 1 6 i.e6
0 0 0
A 2 1 2 6 . . . lLld3+
a ) 6 ... e6? can be answered by 7 d4(!)
cd 8 lLlb5 a6 (8 . . . d3 9 i.c4! lLlc2+
I 0 <M1 lLla6 1 1 lilc 1 ± Rabi novich)
9 lLl bxd4 lLlbc6 I 0 0-0 lLlxd4 I I
lLlxd4 i.d6 1 2" a3 lLlc6 1 3 lLlxc6 be
1 4 \i'g4 ±. Or 7 0-0 lLl8 c6 8 d3
lLla5 (8 . . . lLld4 9 lLlxd4 cd 10 lLle2
a6 I I lLlg3 i.d6 12 \i'g4! ± is given
by Nim zowitsch) 9 i.b5+ lLlbc6
I 0 d4 cd I I lLlxd4 i.d7 1 2 i.f4 t
Gheorghiu-Peters, Lone Pine 1978.
b) 6 .. lLl4c6 !? 7 d3!? (7 0-0 g6! 8 d3
.
i.g7 9 i.e3 b6) 7 . . . g6 8 lLlg5 !? (8
i.e3 lLld4 9 i.xd4 cd 10 lLle2 i.g7
I I lLlg5 !?) 8 . . . e6 9 f4; an untried
line.
A2 l l
6 i.e6
7 i.xe6
7 i.b5+ lLlbc6 8 a3 lLld3+ 9 'it;e2
lLlf4+ 10 �fl o4 ( 1 0 . . . a6 1 1 i.xc6+
be 12 d4 cd 13 \i'xd4, lightly t) I I
"i!t'a4 \i'd3+! 1 2 �gl lilc8 (threatens
. . . lLlh3+) 1 3 lLle5 lLle2+ 1 4 lLl xe2
�xe2 15 h3 it'xe4! +.
7 lLld3+
7 . . . fe 8 0-0 lLlbc6 9 lLlg5 \i'd 7
10 -;!t'g4 lLld4 I I f4 intending e5 ±
Golombek-Dykstra, Leeuwarden
1947.
8 �n fe
9 lLlg5! (104)
9 lLle I ? lLlc6 10 lLlxd3 \i'xd3+ I I
\i'e2 \i'd7 + with . . . 0-0-0 and . . . g6
to fol low. 9 g3?! lLlc6 1 0 �g2 g6 I I
10/
lLle l i.h6 ! 1 2 lLlxd3 \i'xd3 +
W. Koch-Richter. The best option
is 9 \i'b3 !? \i'd7 10 lLlg5 lLlc6! I I
lLlxe6 lLld4 1 2 lLlxd4 \i'xd4 ( 1 2 . . .
lLlxd4 1 3 lLld5 =) 1 3 \i'b5+ �17 1 4
lLld l =/oo Cafferty .
Still a very interesting posit ion,
somewhat lost in the shuffle after
the e mergence of 6 . . . lLld3+.
9 �b6 !?
Tal 's move. B lack has many
in teresting tries; some have been
worked out, others really haven't:
a) 9 . . . �d7 1 0 �f3! ( 1 0 �g4 lLlc6!
- or 10 . . . e5 I I lLle6 lLlf4! = - I I
\i'xe6 \i'xe6 12 lLlxe6 �d7 13 lLlxf8+
lhffi 1 4 f3 g5 ! + Radchenko) 1 0
. . . lLle5 I I it'h3 it'd3+ ( 1 1 . . . lLld3?
12 lLlxe6; I I . . . lLlbc6? 1 2 lLlxe6 li c8
- o r 1 2 . . . lLld4 13 \i'h5+!, o r 1 2 . . .
b6 13 lLld5! - 1 3 f4! Ciocaltea, or
here 13 d3!? lLlxd3 14 .i.h6! Stean)
12 \i'xd3 lLlxd3 1 3 �e2 (or 1 3 gH;
13 lLl xe6 �d7 14 lLlg5 e5 =) 1 3 . . .
lLlf4+ ( 1 3 . . . lLlxc l +? 14 llaxc l �d7
15 d4 ! cd 1 6 1Ud 1 lLlc6 1 7 lLlb5 e5
18 lLlt7+ with the idea 1 8 . . . llg8
19 lLlxe5+! , Stefanov-Neamtu,
 /02 8 li:Jf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation
Romanian Ch 1 977) 14 '.t>f3 ( 1 4
'.t>e3 e5! 1 5 li:Jd5 !?; 1 5 . . . h6 1 6 li:Jc7+
'.t>d7 1 7 li:Jf7 ! ) 1 4 . . . e5 ( 1 4 . . . h6!?
15 '.t>xf4 hg+ 16 �g3 ! S uba-A lburt­
Bucharest 1 978) 15 d4 ! ( 1 5 g3 h6 !
= ; 1 5 li:J d5 li:Jc6 ! ! 1 6 li:Jc7+ �d7 1 7
li:Jxa8 li:Jd4+ 1 8 '.t>g4 - 18 '.t>g3 li:Jd3!
Benko - 1 8 . . . h 5 + 1 9 '.t>h4 e6 20 d 3
i.e7 2 1 llfl llh6! 22 i.xf4 ef 23 b4
llg6 ++ Vadasz-Lukacs, Hun­
garian Ch 1 977) 1 5 . . . cd ( 1 5 . . .
li:Jc6 1 6 d e li:Jg6 1 7 li:J e6 Moiseyev)
1 6 li:J b5 li:J a6 1 7 i.xf4 ef 1 8 li:Je6
( Moiseyev); ±.
b) 9 li:Jc6!? is logical, but 10 li:Jxe6
. .•
'it'd? I I li:Jxc5 ! ( I I li:Jd5 Itc8) I I . . .
li:J xc5 1 2 'it'h5+ g6 1 3 'it'xc5 'i!rd3 +
1 4 '.t>g l , Tim man-Stean, Amster­
dam 1 978, seems to have put this
line to rest: 14 . . . i.g7 ( 1 4 . . . 0-0-0
1 5 h4! and llh3 Stean) 1 5 't!t'b5
Itd8? ( 1 5 . . . 'it'd?!? 1 6 d3, or 1 6
'it'd5, o r 1 6 h4 M iles - a little u n­
clear) 1 6 't!t'xd3 Itxd3 1 7 '.t>fl 0-0
1 8 '.t>e2 l:td7 19 f3 li:Jd4+ 20 '.t>d I
g5 2 1 d3 g4 22 f4 ± . This line is not
completely clear.
c) 9 ... li:Ja6 !? was tried in S zekely­
Palat nik, Fru nze 1 979: 1 0 'i!ra4+!?
'i!rd7 I I 'it'xd7+ '.t>xd7 12 '.t>e2 li:Jf4+
( 1 2 . . . c4!? 1 3 b3 li:J ac5 14 be h6!?)
13 '.t>f3 li:Jg6 1;1 - 1;1 ; 14 h4 seems a
good follow-up. I nstead of 10
'it'a4+ , 1 0 1i'f3 li:Je5 I I 'it'h3 't!t'd3+
1 2 'it'xd3 li:J xd3 gives White the
same ending with the black king
on e8, e.g. 13 '.t>e2 c4 14 b3 li:Jc5
1 5 be lld8 etc. 10 li:Jxe6 'it'd 7 I I
li:Jg5 is a third option ( I I . . . c4 1 2
'it'a4 !?), but most critical seems
10 'it'b3: 10 . .. li:Jxc l ( I 0 . . . 't!t'd4 I I
li:Jd I ;t; 1 0 . . . li:Jc7!? I I 'it'xb7 'it'd4
1 2 li:Jd l li:Jxc l 1 3 l hc l 't!t'xd2 1 4
't!t'c6+; 10 . . . 't!t'd7 I I li:Jxe6) I I l:txcl
'it'xd2 1 2 'it'b5+ 'it'd 7 1 3 li:Jxe6 ;t.
10 'it'f3
Also favourable is 1 0 'it'a4+
li:Jd7 I I 't!t'c4 li:J7e5 ( I I . . . h6 1 2
li:Jxe6 li:J 7e5 1 3 'it'b5+ �f7 1 4
li:J xc5 ! li:J xc5 1 5 d4 ± Chekhov) 1 2
'it'xe6 't!t'xe6 1 3 li:J xe6 l:tc8 ( 1 3 . . .
'.t>d7 1 4 li:J xc5+ ! ) 1 4 f4 'ot>d7 1 5
li:Jxc5+ It xc5 1 6 fe Itxe5 1 7 '.t>e2
li:Jf4+ 1 8 '.t>f2 li:Jd3+ 19 '.t>e3 li:Jb4
20 d4 !I ± Chekhov-Kharitonov,
USSR 1 980. On the other hand,
10 1i'e2?! c4 I I b3 h6! 1 2 li:Jf3 li:Jc6
13 be 0-0-0 + was too passive in
Polugayevsky-Tal , Riga I Z 1 979.
10 c4
11 b3 (105)
105
B
Black has not solved this position:
a) 11 ... li:Je5 12 "t!¥h3 li:Jd3 1 3 "t!¥f3
li:Je5 14 'it'e3 ( ! ) cb 1 5 ab 't!t'xb3 1 6
d 4 li:J f7 1 7 't!t'd3 'it'b6 1 8 '.t>e2 ±
Levin-Zilberstein, USSR 1 983.
 8 lbjJ d5: A symmetrical Variation
b) 1 1 ... 1!t'a6? 1 2 a4 �d7 1 3 lbb5
lbc6 14 be lbce5 1 5 'ft'g3 1!t'c6 1 6
.i.b2! lbxb2 1 7 1!t'xe5 1!t'xc4+ 1 8 d3 !
lb xd3 1 9 lid l lid8 20 lbxe6 1 -0
Gheorghiu-Chow, New York 1984.
c) l l . . . h6 1 2 bc lbxcl !? ( l 2 . . . lZJe5
1 3 1!t'h3 lbbc6 1 4 lbxe6 is given as
u nclear by Tukmakov; but Black
needs an idea. I nstead, 13 ... hg
1 4 1!t'xh8 lbd3 (Tal) allows 1 5 'i!lh5+
�d7 1 6 1!t'e2 etc) 1 3 lZJ17 ( or 1 3
1!t'h5+ !? �d7 1 4 lZJ17 lbd3 1 5 1!t'f3 ,
and now best was 1 5 . . . 1!t'xf2 :t,
Loginov-M alaniuk, USSR 1 984)
1 3 . . . lig8 14 lbe5 ! 1!t'b2 1 5 1!t'f7 +
�d8 1 6 li xc l ! 1!t'xc l + 1 7 �e2
'ft'xh l 18 'ft'xe6 ±± Tukmakov­
Pense, USSR 1 980.
d) " l l . . . lb a6 ! ? 1 2 bc lbac5 =/ro"
(Tal) has yet to be tried . But both
1 2 ..ta3 (e.g. 12 . . . lidS 13 ..t xc5
lb xc5 14 't!¥17+ �d7 1 5 d4) and 1 2
li b l (e.g . 1 2 . . . 1lt'a5 1 3 lib5 1!t'a6
1 4 li xc5 lb xc 5 1 5 lbb5 lic8 1 6
lbt7 lig8 1 7 lbe5) s eem good for
White.
A21 2
6 lbd3+ (106)
106
w
103
7 �e2 lb f4+
7 . . . lbxc l +? 8 libe l leaves Black
way behind in development:
a) 8 .. e6 9 d4 cd 10 i.b5+! lbc6 I I
.
1!t'xd4 1!t'xd4 1 2 lbxd4 ..td7 1 3
lifd l lic8 1 4 lbxc6 be 1 5 ..ta4 ±
Aronin-Mi kenas, USSR 1 947.
b) 8 . . a6 9 d4 cd 10 1!t'xd4 (or 1 0
.
lbxd4) 10 . . . 'ft'xd4 I I lbxd4 e6,
Botvinnik-Kasparian, USSR Ch
1938, when 12 e5 ! , 12 f4 and 1 2
lifd l are all ± according t o Euwe.
c) 8 ... lbc6 9 i.b5 ! (9 'ft'b3 !? e6 10
i.b5 i. d7 I I ..txc6 ..txc6 12 l:Ud I
:t) 9 ... i.d7 10 ..txc6 ..txc6 I I d4
( ± Nimzowitsch, with the idea
I I . . . cd 1 2 1!t'xd4! ) I I . . . e6 1 2 :�l e i
..te7 1 3 d 5 e d 1 4 ed i. d 7 1 5 d6 i.f6
1 6 �fl + �f8 1 7 lbe4 b6 1 8 b4 ! ±
Welin-Bergstro m , Sweden 1 985.
8 �fl lbe6
To prevent d4. 8 . . . ..te6?! ("8 . . .
lbc6? 9 d4! cd 1 0 ..txf4 de I I 1!t'b3
±" Schwarz; I I . . . e6 1 2 1!t'xc3 :t.
H ere 10 lb xd4 is also :t) 9 i.b5+
i.d7 I 0 d4 cd I I lb xd4 lbg6 1 2
..te3 e 6 1 3 1!t'b3 i.e7 1 4 li d ! 1!t'c8
1 5 li[c l 1!t'd8 1 6 g3 lZJa6 1 7 lZJ f3 0-0
1 8 �g2 ;!; Benko-Peters, Lone Pine
1978.
9 b4!?
Also unresolved is 9 lbe5!? (107) :
a) 9 . lbd7? 1 0 lb x f7 ! �xl7 I I
. .
..txe6+ �xe6 1 2 1!t'b3+ �6 1 3
lbd5+ � 17 1 4 lbc7 �g6 1 5 ltJe6!
1!t'e8 1 6 lbf4+ �g5 17 h4+ �h6 1 8
'ft'g3 1lt'g6 19 'ft'g5+ 'ft'xg5 20 hg+
�xg5 2 1 lih5+! ±± J . Pinter-
 104 8 &i:JjJ d5: Asymmetrical Variation
/07
B ..tg7 14 lic l ( 14 .ixe6 .ixe6 1 5
Arkhipov, Ba latonbereny 1 983.
b) 9 'i¥d6!? 1 0 f4 ( 1 0 1!Va4+ &i:Jd7 -
...
10 . . . &i:Jc6!? - I I f4 a6 - I I . . . &i:Jd8!?
Euwe - 12 d3 llb8 1 3 &i:Jxf7 �xf7 1 4
f5 &i:Je5 1 5 .if4 b5 =/m Sifdeif-Zade;
10 i.b5+!? &i:J d7 I I &i:Jc4 1!Vd3+ , or
here 10 . . . &i:Jc6 Sim agin) 10 . . . &i:J c6
( 1 0 . . . &i:Jd7 Ftacnik) I I 'ti'a4 &i:Jd8?
( I I . . .i d7) 1 2 d4 cd 13 &i:Jb5 'ti'b8
. .ixe5 14 'ti'xa8 'ti'b6 etc) I I . . .
14 &i:J xd4 f6? ( 14 . . . 1!Vc7 ±) 1 5
&i:Jdxc6 be 16 ..tf7+ 1 -0 Suba-Sax,
Hastings 1 983-84.
c) 9 ... 'ti'd4 I 0 'ti'a4+ ..td7 I I
&i:J xd7 'ti'xd7 1 2 ..txe6 fe 1 3 'ti'xd7+
�xd7 14 d3 e5 1 5 ..te3 e6 1 6 &i:Je2,
Averbakh-Bondarevsky - called
"!" by Euwe and Schwarz, but 1 6
. . . &i:Jc6 seems equa l .
T h e best cha nce m a y b e 1 0 f4 !?
&i:J xf4 (I 0 . . . f6? I I &i:Jb 5 ! 'ti'xe4 1 2
d3 'ti'f5 1 3 g4 ) I I 't!t'a4+!? ( I I
..txf7+ !? <!td8 1 2 t!t'f3 ! 'ti'xe5 1 3 d4
cd 13 . . . 'ti'/6 14 'ti'xf4 - 1 4 ..txf4
- Stohl gives 14 llc l .ic4+! 1 5 �gl
't!rf6 is u nclear; 1 5 .ic4!? de 1 6
lld I + �e8 1 7 e5 !?) I I . . . ..td7 1 2
..txf7+ �d8 1 3 'ti'xd4 c d 1 4 &i:Jd5
with complex play.
d) 9 ... &i:Jc6 10 &i:J xc6 be I I d3 g6
( I I . . . &i:Jd4 !?) 1 2 &i:Ja4 'it"d6 1 3 ..te3
..txc5 t ) 1 4 . . . 0-0 ( 1 4 . . . .i d4 ! ?) 1 5
'ird2 � h8 1 6 .ixe6 .ixe6 1 7 &i:Jxc5
± Suba-Bukic, Tu zla 198 1 .
e) 9 . . . g6 (!) 1 0 't!Va4+ ( 1 0 'ti'f3 f6;
10 f4 ..tg7!? I I &i:Jxf7 �xf7 1 2 f5
lilf8) and now:
e l ) 10 ... &i:Jd7 I I d4!? cd 1 2 &i:Jb5
.ig7 (?) 1 3 &i:Jxf7! �xf7 14 .ixe6+
�xe6 15 'ti'b3 + with a big attack,
Miles-Hort, London 1 983. But
Miles gives 1 2 . . . a6 ; then 13 &i:Jxd4
b5 14 ..txb5 ab or 1 3 &i:Jxf7 ab 14
&i:Jxd8 li xa4 ! 1 5 .ixb5 �xd8 1 6
.ixa4 &i:J c 5 etc i s unco nvi ncing.
e2) 1 0 ..td7 I I &i:Jxd7 ( I I .ixe6 fe
...
1 2 'ti'b3?! ..tg7 ! i ntending 1 3 'ti'xb7
'ti'xd7 1 2 ..txe6 fe 1 3 'it"xd7+ �xd7
1 4 d 3 &i:Jc6 (or 14 . . . ..tg7 1 5 .ie3 b6
=) 1 5 ..te3 b6 1 6 h4 i.g7 17 h5
liaf8 + Larsen-Ti mman, Bugojno
1984.
9 cb
Very i mportant is 9 . . . g6 !? 10 be
.ig7, when Seirawan-Miles, London
1982, went I I .ixe6 .ixe6 1 2 d4
&i:Jc6 1 3 .ie3 .ig4 1 4 &i:Je2 f5 1 5 h3
t. But in Ftacnik- Pinter, Prague
1 985, Black found 13 . . . 'ira5 ! 1 4
'ird2?! 0-0-0 1 5 lii: fc l f5 ! 1 6 efgf =F .
( 1 5 &i:Je2 ! ?) 15 . . . 0-0-0 1 6 h3 f5 ! 17
ef gf m ; Black looks well off.
I f Black's play holds up, White
might have to deviate at an early
 8 lLlf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation
stage . Risky but enterprising would
be 1 3 . . . \!ka5 14 d5!? .ixc3 ( I4 . . .
'i¥xc3 I 5 llc l \!kb4 I 6 d e fe 1 7
lLlg5) I 5 ll c l with the idea I 5 . . .
0-0-0 I 6 \!kc2.
10 lLle2 ! ( /08)
This has completely replaced
Veresov's original idea of 10 lLl d5 ,
which has failed t o produce much
after 10 . . . g6 ( 1 0 . . . lLlc6!? I I .ib2
lLlc7 oo) I I .ib2 .ig7 I 2 .ixg7
lLl xg7 I 3 lLlxb4 ( I 3 'W"c l !? lLlc6 I 4
d4 .ie6! I 5 h4 lilc8 I 6 h5!? lLlxh5
I7 'i¥h6 lLlxd4 + Seira wan-Pe ters,
US Ch I 98 I ; I 4 d3 .ie6 I 5 h4 f6 I 6
\!kh6 0-0 I 7 llh3 b5 ! + Fedorowicz­
Kuligowski, World U-26 Teams
Ch I 98 I ) I 3 . . . 0-0 I4 h3 ( I 4 d4
.ig4 I 5 �e2?! 'W"d6! I 6 'W"d2 lLle6 !
=t= or I 5 \!kd2 .ixf3 I 6 gf lLlc6 +) I 4
. . . e 5 ! ( 1 4 . . . \!kd6 I 5 lil b i .ie6 is
also playable) I 5 g3 .ie6 (or I 5 . . .
lLlc6 , since I 6 lLlxc6 de takes a way
d5, but 16 lLld5 lLle6 is at least =)
I6 ll c l lLld7 I7 lLld5 lLlf6 ( 1 7
. . . lLlb6 = Sax) 1 8 lLlxf6+ \!kxf6 I 9
�g2, Seirawan-Sax, Li nares I 9 83,
and now 19 ... llac8 ! is +.
lOS
B
105
One advantage of 10 lLle2 is that
10 ... g6? I I .ib2 .ig7 I2 .ixe6
.ixb2 13 .ixf7+ �xf7 14 1!t"b3+,
or here 13 ... �f8 1 4 llb i favours
White. Otherwise, the idea is to
use White's large centre and space.
10 lLlc7
a) 10 . . . lLlcS 1 1 'W"c2 ( I I lLlg5 e6 I 2
d4 Miles; 1 2 . . . h6 ! ) I I . . . e 6 1 2 d4
lLlcd7 1 3 .ib2 ( 13 .if4 with the idea
lld 1 ) I 3 . . . lLlb6 I 4 .id3 .id7 I 5
llc l ( 1 5 h4 ! ) 1 5 . . . lLl a6 1 6 'W"d2
llc8 1 7 h4 ! llxc l + 1 8 .ixc l "Wc7
19 h5 h6 20 llh4! with an attack ,
Miies-Hort, London 1 983.
b) 10 ... lLld7?! I I .ixc6!? (or 1 1 d4
lLlb6 1 2 .id3 g6 - 1 2 . . . lLlc7 13
llb 1 e6 14 .id2 :t - I3 h4! .ig7 14
h5 gh 15 .ie3 .id7 16 li b ! a5 1 7
d5 lLlf8 1 8 lLlf4 ± Lerner-Smejkal,
B ratislava 1983) 1 I . . . fe 12 d4 e5
1 3 'W"b3 (or 13 lLlg5) 1 3 ... ed 1 4
lLlg5 lLle5 1 5 .if4 h 6 1 6 .ixe5 hg
1 7 lild 1 'ira5 1 8 .ixd4 llh6 1 9
'ire3 ! llc6 20 h4 g4 2 1 g3 ±
Dzindzihashvili-Peters, US Ch
1984.
11 d4
1 1 .ib2 e6 ( 1 1 . . . .ie6 1 2 .ixe6
lLlxe6 1 3 d4 !) 12 lLl f4!? lLld7 I 3
lLlh5 llg8 I 4 d 4 lLlb6 I 5 .id3 ( 1 5
.ib3 a 5 I 6 llc l ) I 5 . . . g6! =/
oo SchUssler-Wedberg, Stockholm
I 984.
11 e6
12 h4!?
Other games have seen 12 .ib2,
e.g. I2 . . . lLld7 ( I 2 . . . b5 1 3 .ib3 a5!
106 8 li:Jf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation
oo Vaganian; 1 2 . . . i. e7 1 3 h4 li:Jd7
14 llc l li:Jf6 15 i.d3 i.d7 16 li:Je5 ;!"
Sideif-Zade - Mi khalchishin, Baku
1 983 ) 1 3 h4! li:Jf6 14 i.d3 i.d7 1 5
h5 h6 1 6 li:J f4 i.e7 1 7 't!t'e2 a6 1 8
nh3 i.d6 1 9 't!t'd2 i.xf4 20 't!t'xf4
Uro Psakhis-Vaganian, Lvov 1 984.
12 i.d6
13 h5 h6
14 Ilh4 li:Jd7
Now H tibner-Tuk makov, Wij k
aan Zee 1 9 84, conti nued 1 5 i. b2
( 1 5 i. e3 ! ?) 1 5 . . . i.e7 1 6 Ilh3 li:Jf6
1 7 i.d3 i.d7 1 8 ll:le5 .tb5 1 9 �g l
0-0 20 li:Jf4 with the idea :ag3, and
Black found it di fficult to cope
with the pressure, although this is
hard to assess.
A ll in all, the 6 i.c4 lines are
scoring well for White. It seems
that Black migh t look into the
sideline 6 . . . li:Jd3+ 7 �e2 ll:lf4+ 8
<t>fl li:Je6 9 b4 g6 !? .
A22
6 .tb5+
A221 6 . . . .td7
A 222 6 . . . li:J8c6
6 . . . li:J4c6 7 d4 cd 8 ll:lxd4 ( 8
't!t'xd4 i.d7 9 't!t'd l g6 t ) 8 . . . i.d7
9 i. e3 (9 li:J xc6 !? li:Jxc6 1 0 i.e3 ;!;)
9 ... ll:l xd4 I 0 't!t'xd4 ll:lc6 I I 'it'd2 ;1:: .
A221
6 .td7 (109)
7 a3
A lmost always played, but what
about 7 i.c4 ? This used to be con­
sidered fairly irrelevant due to 7 . . .
i.e6, transposing t o the 6 i.c4
109
w
i.e6 line above. But theory no
longer li kes that line, so perhaps
7 i.c4 is worth a try. On 7 . . . li:J8c6?,
8 a3 is strong, and 7 . . . li:J4c6 can
be met by 8 't!t'b3 (8 d4 t) 8 . . . e6 9
'it'xb7 li:J a5 I 0 't!t'xa8 li:J xc4 and 1 1
d 3 ll:lb6 1 2 't!t'b7 may leave B lack
short. This leaves (e.g.) 7 . . . e6 8 d4
cd 9 li:J xd4 li:J8c6 1 0 a3 li:Jxd4 I I
ab ;!;! ± .
7 lD4c6!
7 ... .txb5? has been discredited:
8 ab .td3 (8 . . . 1t'b6 9 be 't!t'xc5 10
'it'b3 .tc6 1 1 d4 ± Shatskes) 9
'it'a4+! li:Jc6 (9 . . . 'i!t'd7 10 li:Je5!
'it'xa4 I I li:Jxa4 .ta6 1 2 b5 ±±) 10
b5 li:Jb4 I I b6+ ! 't!t'd7 ( I I . . . li:Jc6
1 2 li:Je5) 1 2 't!t'xd7+ �xd7 1 3 ll xa7
nb8 14 li:Je5+ ±± Forintos-Farago,
Dubna 1979.
8 i.c4!?
a) W hite's best may be 8 d4 cd 9
li:Jxd4 ll:l xd4 (9 . . . g6! Peters; 1 0
.te3 , l ightly ;!; ) 1 0 't!t'xd4 li:Jc6 1 1
'fi'd3 a6 1 2 .ta4 li:Je5 1 3 i.xd7+
't!t'xd7 14 't!t'g3 ! f6 1 5 0-0 ± Bukic­
Smejkal, Banja Luka 1 976.
 8 lb./3 d5: A symmetrical Variation
b) 8 0-0 e6!? (8 ... lL!d4 (! ) ) 9 d4 cd 1 0
lL! xd4 i.e7? I I lL!f3 ! 0-0 1 2 i.f4 f6
1 3 'i!Yb3 ± Kholmov-Anikayev,
Sochi 1974.
8 e6
9 d3 i.e7
10 i.e3 0-0
l l 0-0 lle8!? ( 1 1 . . . i.e8 1 2 'i!Yc2!?,
Korchnoi-Lengyel, Moscow 1975;
then 1 2 . . . lL!d4 13 i.xd4 cd 1 4
lL!e2 lL!c6 1 5 b4 llc8 is ! after 'i!Yb2,
llac l etc) 12 d4 cd 13 lL!xd4 lL!xd4
1 4 i.xd4 lL!c6 Y2-Y2 Andersson­
Polugayevsky, Wij k aan Zee 1979.
1 5 i.e3 :!:.
A222
6 liJ8c6
7 d4
Not 7 0-0?! a6 8 i.a4 b5 9 a3
lL!d3 + Tukm a kov-Tal , USSR Ch
1 977. Or 7 a3?! lL!d3+ 8 <t>e2 lL!f4+ !
9 <t>fl lL!e6 I 0 b4 ( 1 0 d3 g6) I 0 . . . g6!
I I be i.g7 1 2 e5 ll:ld4 I 3 lL!xd4
'i!Yxd4 14 i.b2 0-0 + Poutiainen­
Tal, Tallinn 1 977.
7 cd
8 a3 (1 10)
107
8 de!
a) 8 ... i.d7?! 9 ll:lxd4 (9 ab de 10
'i!Yb3 cb I I i.xb2 "ti'b6 ro Plachetka)
9 .. . lL!xd4 I 0 i.xd7+ 'i!Yxd7 I I ab
e6 ( I I . . . e5 1 2 ll:ld5 ±) 1 2 i.e3 ll d8
1 3 0-0! i.xb4 1 4 i.xd4 1t'xd4 1 5
'ti'a4+ <t>e7 ( 1 5 . . . lld7 1 6 ll:lb5 ! ) 1 6
lL!b5 ! 'ikxe4 1 7 llfe l ! 'it'xe i I 8
lilxe I i.xe I 1 9 1t'a3+ <t>f6 2 0 ll:ld6
±± Uhlmann-Lukacs, Berlin 1 982.
b) 8 ... '@b6?! 9 i.xc6+! (9 ab!? de
10 'it'a4 cb I I i.xb2 with an attack)
9 . . be (9 . . . liJ xc6 10 lL!d5 ) 10 ab
.
de I I be i.a6 (0-0, i.e3 etc was
threatened) 1 2 lL!e5 lld8 1 3 'ti'a4
i.b5 1 4 'ti'a2 ! e6 1 5 'ti'xa7 1!t'xa7
1 6 lii: xa7 i.e7 1 7 c4 ! i.xb4+ 1 8
<t>e2 i.c5 1 9 lii: a2 f6 20 c b fe 2 1 be
±± Ribli-Ftacnik, Baile Herculane
z 1 982.
9 'ii'x d8+ <t>xd8
10 ab (J J J)
111
B
10 cb
This is still the m ain move. 10 . . .
lL!xb4 (?) I I <t>e2 with the idea 1 2
ll:lg5 , 1 2 lii: d I + or 1 2 i.e3 i s effec­
tive. Or 10 . . . g6 I I be i.g7 1 2 lla3
/08 8 li:Jf3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation
.id7 1 3 0-0 lii: c 8 14 lii: d l a6 ( 1 4 . . .
�e8? 1 5 litxa 7 !) 1 5 .ie2 �e8 1 6
b5 ! ± Stean-Browne, Buenos Aires
01 1 978. I 0 . . . .id7 I I be g6 trans­
poses.
This leaves 10 . . . c2!? I I .ixc6
be 12 li:Je5 ( 1 2 li:Jd4 .id7 1 3 li:J xc2
e5 1 4 .ie3 �c7 =) 12 . . . �e8 . Bohm­
Langeweg, Du tch Ch 1979, and
here 13 .ie3! e6 1 4 .ic5 ( Stean ), or
1 3 . . . f6 1 4 li:Jd 3 ! e5 1 5 �d2 etc.
11 .ixb2 e6 ! ?
It's unclear what' s best here:
a) 1 1 . e5? 1 2 .ixc6! ( 1 2 0-0-0+
..
�c7 1 3 .ixc6 be 14 .ixe5+ Wb7 = )
1 2 . . . b e ( 1 2 . . . .ixb4+ 1 3 �e2 be
1 4 li:Jxe5 �c7 1 5 :iii: hc l ±) 1 3 li:Jxe5
�c7 1 4 �e2! f6 15 li:Jd3 .id6 1 6
lithcl lite8 1 7 f3 ± Ree-Chandler,
Lone Pine 1 979.
b) 1 1 . . . f6!? 1 2 e5! .id7?! ( 1 2 . . .
.ig4 1 3 .i xc 6 .ixc6 1 4 li:Jd4 fe 1 5
li:Jxc6+ We8 1 6 0-0 ± ; 1 2 . . . �c7 !?
with the idea . . . .ig4) 13 .ic4! litc8
1 4 litdl �c7 1 5 e6 .ie8 1 6 b5 li:Ja5
17 .ie2 �b8 18 0-0 ± Timman­
Bohm, Dutch Ch 1 979.
c) 11 ... .id7!? was Ti mman's im­
provem ent: 1 2 0-0 (here 12 0-0-0!?
has its points; also 1 2 .ia4 !'! with
the idea 12 . . . f6 13 e5 could be tried)
1 2 . . . f6 1 3 .ic4! ( 1 3 lii: fd l e5 1 4
.ixe5 .ixb4 1 5 .if4!?) 1 3 . . . li:Jxb4
14 e5 lit c8 15 .tf7 ( 1 5 e6 n xc4 1 6
litfd l li:J c6 ! 1 7 lit xd7+ �c8 1 8 li:Jd4
li:Jxd4 19 .ixd4 litc6 ! Ligterink)
15 ... li[c2 16 lii: fb l li:Jd3 17 .i d4 fe
1 8 .txa7 e6 1 9 litxb7 .id6 20 .ie3
li:Jc5 ! 21 lita8+ �7 22 litxd7+ \12-\12
Tal-Tim man, Montpellier (play-off)
1985.
12 0-0 f6
1 2 . . . .ixb4? 1 3 litfd l + �c7 1 4
.txc6 b e 1 5 .ixg7 litg8 1 6 .ie5+
�b6 17 litab l c5 18 .id6! .ib7 19
.ixc5 +! ± Chekhov.
13 e5 f5 (1 12)
Here 1 3 . . . .ie7!? s eems a good
option, when W hite can play 1 4
.ixc6 b e a n d n o w 1 5 .id4 .i d 7 1 6
.ixa 7 �c7 1 7 .ic5 = o r 1 5 li:Jd4
.id7 1 6 litfc l fe or 1 5 lii: a 4 .id7 1 6
lit l a l e 5 1 7 lit xa7 litxa7 1 8 lit xa7
cb 19 li:J d4 fe 20 lita8+ .txa8 2 1
li:Jxe6+ �d7 22 li:J xg7 , but none of
these lines seems to offer many
winning chances.
1 4 li:Jd4!?
a) 14 .ixc6 be 1 5 li:Jd4 .id7 1 6
l:lfc I .ixb4 1 7 li:J xc6+ .ixc6 1 8
litxc6 litd7 1 9 litca6 .ic5 =
Rakowiecki-Adamski, Poland 1980.
b) 14 li:Jg5!? �e7 1 5 .ixc6 be 16
.id4 �e8 1 7 .ic5 ( 1 7 l:la4 !? with
the idea 1 7 . . . .id7 18 .ic5) 1 7 . . .
 8 li:lj3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation
.t xc5 1 8 be �e7 19 lUd l aS oo
H i.ibner-Ti m man, West Germany
1985.
14 li::J xd4?
Best is 1 4 . . . .td7 ! oo Ch ekhov.
White could try 15 l Hd l �c7 1 6
.txc6 be 1 7 b5!? cb 1 8 llac l + ( 1 8
. . . � b6 1 9 li::J b3 !?, o r 1 8 . . . �b7 1 9
li::J x f5), but again, the winning
chances are slim.
After 14 . . . li::J xd4?, Chekhov­
Verner, USSR 1979, continued 1 5
.txd4 .td7 1 6 .txa 7 �e8 1 7 .txd7+
�xd7 1 8 llfd l + �c6 1 9 li[dc l + !
�d7 2 0 llc4 g5 ! 2 1 b5, and now
best was 21 . . . li[g8 ::!:: .
6 .ib5+ remains a dangerous
move, but Black can defend .
B
5 d4
B l 5 . . . cd
B 2 5 . . . li::J xc3
5 . . . e6 6 e3 or 6 e4 is a Queen's
Ga mbit Semi-Tarrasch . 5 . . . g6 !?
may be met by 6 e4 li::J x c3 7 be .tg7
( a Gri.i nfeld) or by 6 de li::J x c3 7
't!t'xd8+ �xd8 8 be .tg7 9 li::J d4
li::J c 6 10 e3 (?) ( 1 0 .tg5 ! ) 10 . . . .td7
I I llc l �c7 1 2 li::Jb5+ �b8 + Tarjan­
Sha m kovich , U S Ch 198 1 . A third
try is 5 . . . g6 6 .td2!? cd 7 li::Jxd4 .ig7
8 e4 ! li::J b6 9 .te3 t Christiansen­
Botterill, Hastings 1978-79. Finally,
6 li::J xd5 (?) 'it'xd5 7 't!t'c2 is refuted
by 7 .. . .tf5 ! 8 'it'xeS 't!Vxc5 9 de
.tg7 10 li::J d2 0-0 (or 10 . . . li::J c6 ! ) I I
e4 .td7 with more than enough
for the pawn, Ahlstrom-Ch ow,
109
Chicago 1985 .
B1
5 cd
6 't!t'xd4
6 lt:lxd5 't!t'xd5 7 't!t'xd4 't!Vxd4 8
li::J x d4 .td7 = (9 .tf4 f6; 9 e4 a6).
6 li::J xc3
6 . . . e6 7 e4 li::J x c3 transposes.
7 't!t'xc3 li::J c6
8 e4 (/ 1 3)
8 e3 .tg4 9 .td2?! .txf3 10 gl
'it'd5 + Ribli-Lj uboj evic, Tilburg
1 978.
8 e6
a) 8 a6?! 9 i.c4 1t'a5 (9 . . . e6? 10
...
0-0 .t d7 I I Iidl ±, e.g. I I . . bS 1 2
.
.tg5 't!t'c7 1 3 i.d5! ± Mikhalchishin­
Horvath, Pees 1 978) 10 i.d2 't!t'xc3
I I .txc3 tl ± Korchnoi-Karpov,
USSR Ch 1 970.
b) 8 'tWaS? 9 't!Vxa5 li::J xa5 10 i.bS+
...
(or 10 li::J e 5 ) 10 . . . .id7 I I i.xd7+
�xd7 12 0-0 li::J c 6 1 3 .tf4 ± Tai­
Zhuravlev, Sochi 1 977 .
c) 8 ... i.g4 9 i.b5 li:c8 10 i.e 3 !
.txf3 I I g f a 6 1 2 ll d l �c7 1 3
.txc6+ 't!t'xc6 14 't!t'd4 ! f6 1 5 0-0
 I 10 8 &i:J j3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation
( ±) 1 5 . . . e5? 1 6 'i!Va7 i.e7 1 7 li:c l
±± Portisch- Htibner, Montreal
1979.
9 i.bS i.d7
9 . . . 't!Vb6 ! ? 1 0 i.xc6+ 't!Vxc6 I I
�xc6+ be 1 2 0-0 i.e7 1 3 i.e3 t
Muresan-Savereide, Tbilisi 1982.
10 0-0 'ti'b6 !?
a) 1 0 . a6 I I i.e2 'i!Va5 ( I I . . . li:c8
. .
12 i.f4 ±) 12 'i!Vxa5 &i::J x a5 1 3 &i::Je 5
( 1 3 i.d2 i.b5 ! 14 li:e l !?) 1 3 . . .
i.d6 1 4 &i::J x f7 �xf7 1 5 li: d l i.b5
1 6 i.xb5 ab 17 li: xd6 t Martz­
Dieks, 1 975.
b) 10 li:c8 I I li:d l a6 12 i.xc6 !
...
li: xc6 1 3 'i!Vb3 't!Vb8 1 4 i.e3 i.c5
1 5 li:d2! i.xe3 16 'i!Vxe3 i.c8 1 7
&i::J d4 li:d6 1 8 �g3 0-0 1 9 l/Jxe6 1 -0
Butnoris-Gelyashinis, USSR 1 980.
c) 10 ... f6!? 1 1 i.e3 i.b4 1 2 't!Vb3
't!le7 1 3 li:ad l 0-0? 14 lt xd7 ±±
Fedorowicz-Bouissious, D mitrias
198 1 .
11 i.a4
1 1 a4 !? may be best. After 1 1
i.a4, Mi les- Ri bl i , Baden-Baden
1 9 8 1 , went 1 1 . . . 't!Vc5 !? 1 2 'i!Vd3
�d6 1 3 �e2 a6 14 li d 1 'i!Vc7 1 5
i.xc6 ( 1 5 i.e3 ±) 1 5 . . . i.xc6 1 6
&i::J d4 i.d6 Y2-Y2. H .Oiafsson-Chow,
New York 1984, sa w 1 1 . . . !Va6 1 2
i.b3 ( 1 2 �b3 !?) 1 2 . . . !Va5 1 3 'ti'd3
( 1 3 i.d2 't!fxc 3 1 4 i.xc3 f6 1 5 e5
i.e7! Chow; here 1 5 li:adl planning
.!ad2 looks m ildl y ±) 1 3 . . . li:d8 1 4
i.g5 i.e7 1 5 i.xe7 l/Jxe7 =. Gener­
ally, White seems to retain a light
edge from 5 . . . cd.
82
5 l/Jxc3
6 be g6 (1 14)
Interesting after 6 . . . i.f5 would
be 7 't!Vb3 , e.g. 7 . . . 'W/c7 8 e4!?
i.xe4 9 l/Jg5 i.g6 I 0 i.f4 ! 't!Vc8 ( I 0
. . . 'it'xf4 I I 't!t'xb7) I I i.c4 e6 1 2
l/Jxe6 fe 1 3 i.xe6 with the attac k .
1 14
w
7 e3
7 e4 is a Gri.infeld. Others include:
7 't!t'a4+ l/Jc6 8 de? ! i.g7 9 i.b2
0-0 + Korchnoi-Furman, M oscow
1973; 7 i.g5 !? i.g7 8 e3 0-0 9 'W/d2
cd I 0 cd b6 = Korchnoi-Reshevsky,
Lone Pine 1979; and 7 i.f4!? i.g7
8 e3 'it'a5 (8 . . . de? 9 cd 'W/a5+ 1 0
't!t'd2 t ) 9 't!t'd2 0-0 1 0 i.e2 lt:\ c6 I I
li: b I cd 1 2 cd 't!t'xd2+ 1 3 �xd2
li:d8 = Portisch-Tim man, Til burg
1980.
7 i. g7
8 i.bS+
Karpov's move, which to some
extent revived this line. Actually,
however, both alternatives have
some prom ise:
 8 lLljJ d5: Asymmetrical Variation
a ) 8 .te2 0-0 9 0-0 b 6 ( 9 . . . 'it"c7 1 0
.ta3!? lLld7 1 1 e4 l:i: d8 1 2 'it"b3 e6
13 l:i:d1 ;!; Liberzon-Peters, H astings
1 980-8 1 ; 9 . . . liJ c6 1 0 tt'b3 !? wou1d
intend 1 0 . . . lLla5 1 1 1Wa3; 9 . . . lLld7
1 0 a4!?) 1 0 a4 ltJd7 1 1 a 5 l:l b8 1 2
e4 1Wc7 1 3 .tg5 ! lLlf6 1 4 .td3 h6 1 5
.td2 ( 1 5 .th4 lLl h5) 1 5 . . . .t b7? !
( 1 5 . . . e6 ;!;) 1 6 d5! l:lad8 1 7 c4 e5
1 8 l:i:b1 ± H . Oiafsson-Paolozzi,
Lone Pine 1 979.
b) 8 .td3 (prepares .te4 in some
cases) 8 . . . 0-0 9 0-0 'i/c7 (9 . .. lLlc6
1 0 .ta3 b6 I I de 'i/c7 1 2 .te4 .tb7
1 3 1!t'c2 t Tal-Miles, Bugoj no 1978)
10 .ta3 ( 1 0 l:lb1 t) 10 . . . liJd7 1 1
1We2 b6 1 2 e4 .tb7 1 3 l:l fd 1 l:l fd8 ,
Portisch-Tal, Milan 1 975, and now
1 4 e5 (";!;" Tal) has the idea 1 5 lLld2
on either 14 . . . e6 or 14 . . . .td5.
8 lLld7
8 ... lLlc6!? Tal. 8 . . . .td7 9 a4 !?
1Wa5 1 0 1Wb3 ! cd 1 1 ed .txb5 1 2
1!t'xb5+ t Makarichev.
9 0-0 0-0
10 a4 a6!?
Weakening th e queenside . In
Spraggett-Shamkovich, New York
1983, Black tried 10 . . . lLlf6 1 1
.td3 ( 1 1 .ta3 !? lLle4 1 2 l:lc1 ) 1 1 . . .
.tf5 ( ! ) 1 2 lle 1 ( 1 2 .ia3) 1 2 . . .
.txd3 1 3 1!t'xd3 l:lc8 1 4 e4 e6 1 5
.tf4 1Wa5 +.
11 .td3 b6
Also interesting here is 1 1 . . .
e5!?.
12 l:lb1 .tb7
13 e4 (1 15)
111
1 15
B
13 'i/c7
Or 1 3 . . . e6 1 4 .tf4 l:le8 ( 1 4 . . .
lLlf6) 1 5 e5 ! h6 (versus ltJg5-e4) 1 6
We2 ..tc6 1 7 ..txa6 ..txa4 1 8 ..tb7
l:la5 19 ..te4 ± H . Oiafsson­
Kuligo wski, Reykj avik 1 982.
A ft er 1 3 . . . 1Wc7, Karpov­
Korchnoi, M erano 1 98 1 , went 1 4
ll e 1 e 6 1 5 e 5 ! h 6 1 6 h 4 l:lfd8 1 7
..tf4 ( 1 7 h 5 Tal) 1 7 . . . ll:Jffi 1 8 ..te3
l:lab8 1 9 'i/e2 ..tc6 20 ..txa6 cd 2 1
c d ..txa4 2 2 lLld2 'it"c6 2 3 l:i:ec l
1Wa8 24 .td 3 ..tc6 2 5 f3 b5 26
lLlb3 ±.
c
5 e3
Keres managed to eke out small
advantages from this move, which
still has some punch .
C 1 5 . . . lLlc6
C2 5 . . . lLlxc3
5 . . . e66 d4 is a Queen's Gambit.
Korchnoi's 6 1Wc2 !? ltJc6 7 a3 {=)
mixes it up.
C1
5 ltJc6
6 ..tb5 e6
6 . . . ltJxc3 7 be ..td7 (7 . . . g6? 8
112 8 l0f3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation
l0e5 'ii'c7 9 '§a4; 7 . . . 'ii'c7 8 0-0 e5
9 d4 e4 1 0 l0d2 ±) 8 0-0 e6 (8 . . .
a6!?) 9 d 4 i. e7 I 0 e4 0-0 I I 't!fe cd
1 2 cd lieS 13 i.b2 l0b4 14 i.c4 ±
Keres-Tai manov, USSR 1948.
7 0-0 i.e7
8 t0e5 i.d7
9 ..txc6
9 l0xd5? l0xe5 ! 10 ..txd7+ 1Wxd7
I I t0xe7 t0d3 ! + was Veltmander­
A ronin, USSR I 953. Or 9 t0 xd7
'§xd7 10 d4 cd I I ed t0 c7 ! =
Shatskes.
9 ..txc6
10 l0xc6 be
I I '§a4 1Wb6 1 2 t0xd5 ! ed I 3 b 3
0-0 1 4 i.a3 :t, e.g. 1 4 . . . '§b5 1 5
ll fc l 1Wxa4 1 6 b a 1Hb8 1 7 ..txc5
..txc5 IS llxc5 llb2 19 d4 e tc.
Thus 5 . . . l0c6 does not lead to
clear equality.
C2
5 t0 xc3
6 be
6 de 'iWxd I+ 7 c;!;>xd I l0c6 (7 .. .
.if5?! 8 l0d2!) 8 e4 b6 =, or 8 . . .
i.g4 = .
6 g6 (1 1 6)
/ 16
w
C2 I 7 ..ta3
C22 7 1Wa4+
C23 7 .ib5+
7 d4 is '82' above. 7 h4 h6! is
pointless, and 7 ..tc4 i.g7 8 h4 !? is
artificial after 8 . . . h6 9 '§c2 1Wc7
10 ll b l b6 I I i.d5 l0 c6 I 2 c4 0-0
1 3 h5 ( I 3 't!fxg6? e6) 1 3 . . . g5 1 4
i.b2 e6 + Christiansen-H.Olafsson,
Lone Pine 1978.
C21
7 i.a3 'i!i'c7
7 . . . W'a5 8 W'b3 ! ::!:: , or 8 l0e5 !?
with the idea 8 . . . 'i!i'xa3? 9 .ib5+
and IO l0c4 ; 7 . . . l0c6 8 ..tb5 ! ( all
analysis by Karpov). 7 . . . l0d7 8
.ib5 is C23.
8 ..tc4 ..tg7
9 0-0 0-0
Equal, e.g. 10 lii: c l t0d7 I I d4
llb8 1 2 ..tb5 ( 1 2 e4 i.h6! 1 3 llc2
l0b6 Karpov) 1 2 . . . b6 1 3 l0d2
llfd8 I4 't!ff3 a6 ( I4 ... i.b7 1 5 'i!i'g3
'i!i'c8 ! Karpov) 1 5 .ie2 i.b7 1 6
'i!i'g3 'i!t'c6 1 7 .ib2 e5 + Shamkovich­
Karpov, Leningrad I97 l .
C22
7 'i!t'a4+ l0d7
7 . . . i.d7 8 'i!t'b3 'i!t'c7 9 ..tc4 e6
10 d4 t.
8 i.a3
8 e4 .ig7 9 e5? 0-0 10 e6 fe I I h4
l0b6 1 2 't!fe4 e5! I 3 i.c4+ c;!;>h8 I4
l0g5 i.f5 =!= Lein-Peters, Lone Pine
1977. Best m ay be 8 it'a4!?, e.g. 8
. . . .ig7 ( 8 . . . e5!?) 9 d4 0-0 10 .id3
'i!i'c7 I I .id2 b6 1 2 0-0 i.b7 I 3 e4
etc.
 8 ltJj3 d5: Asymmetrical Variation
8 1Wc7
9 i.e2 i.g7
1 0 0-0 0-0 I I lil ab l b6 1 2 1t'h4
i.b7 1 3 c4 Il:adS 1 4 i.b2 i.xf3 ! ?
1 5 i. x f3 was U hlma nn-S. Garcia,
Madrid 1 973, and now Uhlmann
gives 1 5 ... lt:l e5 = .
C23
7 i.b5 + i. d7
7 . . . lt:ld7 S 0-0 i.g7 9 a4 0-0 I 0
d4 is ' B 2' above. Or here S i.a3 !?
1Wc7 9 d4 cd! ( B u kic; 9 ... i.g7 I 0
i.xc5 0-0 I I i.b4 ! ± Smej kal­
Jansa, Czechoslova kia 19SO) 1 0
1Wxd4, a n d n o w 1 0 . . . lilgS I I 0-0!?
i.g7 12 1Wa4 is u nclear, and 1 0 . . .
f6 I I 0-0 e 5 1 2 1Wa4 ties Black
d own.
8 1Wb3 1Wc7
9 lilbl b6
10 lt:lg5 e6 I I c4 i.b7 1 2 i. b2 0-0
1 3 i.xg7 'it>xg7 14 0-0 lt:lc6 1 5 'W'b2+
f6 1 6 lt:l e4 Il:adS 1 7 lilfd i e5 =
Smej kal-Sc h midt, Warsaw 1 979.
D 7
5 g3
An odds-and-ends section of
those lines which do not trans­
pose.
5 g6
B ronstein's deviation 5 . . . lt:l f6 !?
6 i.g2 lt:l c6 7 0-0 e6 faces a severe
test after S e3 ( " ! " U hlmann) S . . .
i.e7 ( but no one mentions S . . .
1td3 intending 9 lt:le I 1td7 or 9
lt:le2 e5 , which seems critical) 9 d4
cd I 0 lt:lxd4 lt:lxd4 I I ed 0-0 1 2
i.f4!? (or 1 2 i.e3 i.d7 1 3 d5 ! t
1 13
Uhlmann-Adamski , Halle 1 9 S I )
1 2 . . . \!t'b6 1 3 \!t'e2 i.d7 1 4 d 5 lUeS
1 5 de i.xe6 1 6 \!t'b5 ! ± Korchnoi­
Wirthensohn, Bad Kissingen 1 9S 1 .
The older S b3 i.e7 9 i.b2 0-0
10 lil c l 't!t'a5 I I lt:l a4 lidS 1 2 'W'c2!
lt:lb4 1 3 't!tb l t Smyslov-Bronstein ,
Amsterdam I956, and S d 3 i.e7
9 i.f4 with the idea 9 . . . �d5 1 0
lt:l xd5 e d 1 1 d4 a re also possible.
6 i.g2
6 'ti'a4+ is harmless after 6 . . .
lt:lc6 7 �e5 lt:lxc3 ! S de 1td5 9 lt:l xc6
i.d7 = Gheorghiu-Csom , Orense
1975. 6 'ti'b3 �b4! 7 lt:le4? (7 a3
lt:l4c6 =) 7 . . . i.g7 ! S lt:l xc5 1Wa5
9 a3 �4c6 (or 9 . . . ltJS c6 10 �a4
i.e6! I I 1td l i.f5 ! =F Vukic-Bukal,
Yugoslavia 1 973) 10 1Wc4? ! ( 1 0
1Wc2 + ) 1 0 . . . b5 1 1 1th4 b4 I 2 lt:l d3
�a6 1 3 i.g2 i.d7 =F with a bind,
Polugayevsky-Bronstein, USSR Ch
197 1 .
6 i.g7
0-0
7 \!t'a4+ lt:lc6 is Chapter 3. 7 . . .
i.d7 S 1Wc4 �b4 !? ro.
7 0-0
8 lt:l xd5
As usual , S \!t'b3 e6 (or S . . . lt:lc7
=, or S . . . lt:lb4 =) 9 d3 �c6 = ( 10
i.g5? lt:ld4 ! ) doesn't achieve any­
th ing. S d4!? cd 9 lt:l xd4 �xc3 1 0
be is logical, b u t 1 0 . . . lt:lc6! 1 1
lt:lxc6 ( I I i.e3 lt:la5 ! =) 1 1 . . . be
1 2 1WxdS li xdS 1 3 i. xc6 i. xc3 1 4
lilb1 i.f5 ( 14 . . . i.h 5 =) 1 5 e4 lilacS
= was H tibner-Tal, Bugojno 197S.
114 8 &i:Jf3 d5: A symmetrical Variation
8 't!t'xdS
9 d3 &i:Ja6 !?
9 . . . &i:Jc6 is Chapter 3 again. 9 . . .
&i:Ja6 !? was Andersson-Smej kal,
Palma de Mall orca 1 972: 10 a3
't!t'h5 ( 10 000 'it'd6 1 1 lil b 1 �d7 1 2
�e3, Andersson- Ree, Wijk aan
Zee 1973, and n ow 1 2 . . . lil ab8 is
u nclear) 1 1 lil b 1 �h3 1 2 'it'a4
�xg2 1 3 <t>xg2 't!t'd5 1 4 �e3 &i:Jc7
1 5 lilfc l ;!:.
Conclusion. Clearly the m ost dan­
gerous lines in this chapter stem
from 5 e4, but 5 d4 may appeal to
those who want a small, safe edge
and don't mind the Semi-Tarrasch
Queen's Ga mbit.
 Part III
2 ltJf3 Systems
9 2 ltJf3 Introduction and 2 'Others'
1 c4 c5
In this chapter we introduce the
i mportant 2 lbf3 by looking at
irregular li nes, by which one side
or the other avoids the material in
Chapters 1 0- 1 4. Be fore that, we
look at lines where White plays
neither 2 lbc3 nor 2 lDf3:
A 2 b3
8 2 g3
c 2 lbf3
Other moves tend to transpose,
e.g. 2 e4 lbc6 3 lbc3 g6 4 g3 i.g7
5 .ig2 is Chapter 2, line A . 2 e3
can lead to a Queen's Gambit after
2 . . . e6 3 d4 d5 or to a Caro-Kann,
Panov A ttack after 2 . . . lDf6 3 d4
cd 4 ed d5. 2 d3 e6 with the idea . . .
d5 equalizes immediately, and 2 f4
can be a nswered by 2 . . . lb f6 , 2 . . .
g6, or even 2 . . . d 5 3 cd 1t'xd5 4 lDc3
'i!t'd8.
A 3
2 b3 (1 1 7)
117
B
Larsen gave this move new life
a few years bac k, but it is only an
occasional choice now. Its main
virtue is to discourage . . . g6.
A I 2 . . . lDf6
A2 2 . . . e5
2 . . . g6 3 .ib2 lbf6 4 .ixf6 is ' A l '.
2 . . . d6 3 .ib2 e5 will transpose to
' A 2' . On 2 . . . lbc6 3 .ib2 e6 , White
can try 4 lDf3 d 5 5 cd ed 6 e3 (6 d4
lDf6 7 e3 .ig4 = o r 7 . . . cd 8 lDxd4
.tb4+ =) 6 . . . lDf6 (6 . . . d4? 7 .ib5 ;
6 . . . a6 7 d4 t) 7 .ie2 or 7 .ib5 - see
' A I 2' .
2 . . . b 6 3 .ib2 .ib7 i s doubtless
equal, e .g. 4 lDf3 lDf6 5 e3 e6 6 .ie2
.ie7 7 0-0 0-0 8 d4 d5 (or 8 . . . cd =)
9 de .txc5 10 lDbd2 lbc6 I I cd
't!t'xd5 1 2 a3 lUd8 = Petrosian­
Saidy, San Antonio 1972.
AI
2 lb f6
.tb2
A l l 3 . . . g6?!
A l 2 3 . . . lbc6
a) 3 ... d6 4 g3 lDc6 5 .ig2 e5 (5 . . .
g6? ! 6 .ixf6 ! ) 6 lbc3 (6 e 3 .if5 !)
6 ... .ie6 7 lDf3 h6 8 0-0 d 5 (? ) 9 cd
lDxd5 10 e3 ! intending d4.
b) 3 . . . d5 !? 4 cd lDxd5 5 lDf3 lbc6
6 a3 (6 lDc3 lD xc3 7 .txc3 f6 and . . .
e5 = ) 6 . . . f6 ( 6 . . . e 6 7 g 3 lDf6 8 .ig2
.ie7 9 0-0 ;t i ntending d4) 7 e3 e5
8 'i!t'c2 .te6 9 .td3 g6 10 h4 .tg7
 1 18 2 li:Jf3 Introduction and 2 ' Others'
I I li:Jc3 li:Jxc3 1 2 .txc3 li[c8 1 3 h5 !
± Timman-Adorjan, Wijk aan Zee
1 974.
c) 3 ... e6 4 li:Jf3 .te7 (4 . . . d5 5 cd
ed 6 e3 with the idea 6 . . . li:J c6 7
.tb5 !) 5 g3 0-0 (5 . . . d5 6 .tg2 d4
7 b4! ?) 6 .tg2 li:Jc6 7 0-0 d5 is a Re ti
System.
Al l
3 g6?!
4 .txf6 ! ef
5 li:Jc3 (1 18)
1 /8
B Belyavsky, USSR 1973.
5 ..i g7
Probably not the best, but Black
has serious troubles with the l oss
of d 5 , e .g. 5 . . . b6 6 e3 .t b7 7 li:J l e2
d5 (lest li:Jf4, d4) 8 cd ..ixd5 9 li:Jxd5
(or 9 .tf4 .tb7 10 ..ie2 ±) 9 . . .
'tit'xd5 1 0 li:Jf4 ± ( 1 0 . . . 't!fd7 I I 'tit'f3
or 1 0 . . . 't!lb7 I I ..ie2). Or 5 . . . d6
6 g3 li:Jc6 7 .tg2 h5 8 h4 .t h6 9 li:Jf3
..ig4, Keene-Bellon, Cala Galdana
1 974, and now either 10 li:J h2 ! ?
..ie6 I I li:J f l a nd li:Je3-d5 , or 1 0 0-0
0-0 I I li:Jh2 ..ie6 1 2 e3 retains the
advantage.
6 g3 li:Jc6
7 .tg2 f5
8 e3 0-0 9 li:Jge2 a6 1 0 li[c l b5
I I d3 .tb7 1 2 0-0 d6 1 3 1i'd2 t!fa5
14 lUd I lbb8 1 5 li:Jd5 ± K arpov­
B rowne, San A ntonio 1 972 .
All
3 li:Jc6
4 li:Jf3
4 g3 e6 5 li:Jf3 transposes.
4 e6
5 e3
5 g3 d5 6 cd ed 7 .tg2 d4 8 0-0
.te7 9 e3 0-0 1 0 ed cd I I li:J a3 .t f5
( I I ... .tg4!?) 1 2 li[ e l t Gulko­
5 d5
Safer 5 ... .te7 6 .te2 0-0 7 0-0
(7 d4 cd 8 li:J xd4 1!fa5+ 9 1t'd2, very
slightly !, A ndersson-Szabo, A m­
sterdam 1 979) 7 . . . d5 8 cd li:Jxd5!
9 li:J a3 b6 10 li:Jc4 .i.b7 I I d4 li[ c8
= Petrosian-Vasyukov, Moscow
1973.
6 cd ed
Here 6 . . . li:Jxd5 is playable, but
makes the k ingside difficult to
develop after (e.g.) 7 a3 .
7 .tel!?
7 .tb5 is also natural, with the
idea 7 . . . .td7 8 0-0.
7 a6
7 ... d4? 8 ..i b5 ! with advantage .
After 7 . . . a6, Petrosian-Belyavsky,
USSR Ch 1973, continued 8 d4 cd
9 li:Jxd4 ..ib4+ 10 .tc3 ..id6 ( 10 . . .
'tlt'a5 I I 1i'd3 ;t Zaitsev) I I li:J d 2 0-0
1 2 0-0 .tc7 ( 1 2 . . . li[e8 ) 1 3 lL! xc6 be
14 'tit'c2 li[e8 1 5 ..id4 't!rct6 1 6 g3 :t.
 2 lLlj3 Introduction and 2 ' Others'
A2
2 e5
3 .ib2 li:l c6 (1 1 9)
1/9
w cussed in Chapter 2, line B I .
4 g3
a) 4 e3 g6 5 li:lf3 .ig7 6 d 3 li:lge7 (or
6 ... f5 ! ) 7 a3!? d5! 8 cd li:lxd 5 9 'tlrc2
.ie6 + ( 10 'tlrxc5 lieS I I 'it'b5 li:lb6
a nd . . . a6) Seirawa n-Tarjan, USA
1 9 80.
b) 4 li:lf3 d6 5 d3 g6 6 li:lc3 .ig7 7 e3
li:lge7 8 .ie2 0-0 = Andersson­
Stean, Hastings 1 974-75.
c) 4 li:lc3 d6 5 g3 g6 6 .ig2 .ig7 7
li:lf3 !? (7 d3 or 7e3 - see the text).
Now normal is 7 . . . li:lge7 8 d3 0-0
9 0-0 h6 1 0 li:l d2 ( l O e3!? planning
10 . . . .ie6 I I 'it'e2 ) 10 . . . .ie6 I I a3
d5!? ( I I . . . 'tlrd7 = ) 12 b4!? cb 13 ab
li:lxb4 14 .ia3 =/oo Keene-Timman,
Reykjavik 19 72. Or 7 . . . f5 ( ! ) 8 0-0
li:lf6, e .g. 9 li:le l li:l c6 1 0 li:lc2 f4 !
(preventing li:l e3) I I li:ld5 li:lxd5
1 2 cd li:le7 1 3 li b l ? ( l 3 b4 =/oo) 1 3
. . . g5 1 4 e3 li:lg6 =t= Hecht-Hubner,
West Germany 1 980.
4 d6
4 . . . li:lge7 5 .ig2 d5!? 6 cd li:lxd5
1 19
7 li:lf3 f6 8 0-0 .ie7 9 e3 and d4.
5 .ig2 g6
6 li:lc3 .ig7
7 d3
7 e3 li:lge7 8 li:lge2 .ie6? is dis­
7 li:lge7
8 e3 0-0
8 . . . .ie6 !? 9 li:ld5 .ixd5 I 0 cd
li:lb4? ( 1 0 . . . 'tlra5 +! Keene; then
I I �e2! oo; White can avoid this
by 7 e3 is he wishes) I I e4 '@a5 1 2
.ic3 'ifb5 1 3 .if! ! ( ± " Larsen)
"
1 3 . . . 'tWd7 14 li:lf3 0-0 1 5 a3 li:l a6 16
h4 !? li:l c7 17 a4 b5 18 h5 ± Larsen­
Seira wan, N iks ic 1 983.
9 li:lge2 .ie6
9 . . . .if5 l O li:le4 ;!: or 1 0 0-0 'it'd?
I I li:ld5 !. 9 . . . �h8 !?.
10 li:ld5
lO 0-0 is Chapter 2, Iine B. After
lO li:ld5 , Larsen-Kavalek, Lugano
1 970, went 1 0 . . . 'tlrd7 I I h4 !? f5 1 2
'tWd2 li ae8 1 3 h 5 b 5 ! 1 4 h g h g 1 5
li:lec3 b e 16 b e e 5 =/oo .
B
2 g3 e6
a) 2 ... d5!? 3 cd 'it'xd5 4 li:lf3 li:lc6
5 .ig2, Suba-Stefanov, Romania
1980, a nd instead of 5 . . . .ig4 6 h3
.ih5 7 0-0 li:l f6 8 d3 'it'd? 9 li:lbd2
t, 5 . . . e5 6 li:l c3 'it'd?! with the idea
... .id6, . . . li:lge7, . . . b6 (Suba): ! ?
b) 2 ... g6 3 d4!? cd 4 'tlrxd4 lt:l f6
5 .ig2 lt:lc6 6 'it'd2 .ig7 7 li:lc3 0-0
was Larsen-Browne, Tilburg 1982.
8 li:lh3? li:la5 ! 9 'tlrd3 'tWc7 ! + follow­
ed, but 8 b3 ! is :!; unless 8 . . . d5 !?
120 2 li:Jf3 Introduction and 2 ' Others'

9 cd li:J xd5 I 0 .ixd5 .txc3 I I 't!rxc3 2 . . . d6, 2 . . . e6 and 2 . . . g6 all

\!t'xd5 1 2 .ih6 li:Jd4!? or some such transpose. 2 . . . f5!? 3 d4 (or 3 e3 ;!;)
works. 3 ... cd 4 li:J xd4 g6 5 g3 .ig7 6 .ig2
3 .ig2 li:Jc6 7 li:Jb5 ! ? (o r 7 li:JbH) 7 ... li:J f6
3 li:J f3 li:Jf6 4 .ig2 b6 is Chapter 8 li:Jbc3 ;!; Botvinnik-Smyslov, match
I I. (20) 1958.
3 d5 2 . . . b6 is independent in the line
4 cd ed 3 g3 .ib7 4 .ig2 g6 5 d4 cd 6 't!t'xd4
5 d3 li:Jc6!? li:Jf6 7 b3 li:Jc6!? (7 . . . .ig7 is Chapter
Or 5 . . . li:Jf6, e .g. 6 .ig5 .ie7 7 1 2) 8 't!rd I !? li:Je5 9 0-0 li:Jxf3+ 10 ef
't!t'b3 li:Jbd7. .ig7 I I li:Jc3 0-0 12 .ib2 1!t'c7
6 li:Jc3 li:J f6 = Andersson-Adorjan, Indonesia
7 .i g5 .ie7 8 li:J h3 d4 ( or 8 . . . 1983. Mestel suggests 8 '@d2.
.ixh 3 !?) 9 .ixf6 .ixf6 1 0 li:Je4 Cl
.txh3? ( 1 0 . . . .ie7 ! l l li:Jf4 .id7 oo, 2 li:Jc6
or I I �cl 't!ra5+ 1 2 't!t'd2 't!rxa2 oo) C l l 3 li:Jc3
I I .txh3 .ie7 12 0-0 0-0 13 �c l C l 2 3 g3
b6 1 4 \!t'a4 tl ± Seirawan-Giigoric, 3 d4 cd 4 li:J xd4 li:Jf6 is Chapter
Lone Pine 1 979. 1 4. But B lack also has:
c a) 4 d5!? 5 't!ra4 \!t'b6! is suggested
...

2 li:Jf3 (120) by Christiansen ; 5 g3 !?.

b) 4 ... 1!t'b6 !? ( Wedberg) really
120 shouldn't be any better than when
8 White p lays it. 5 li:Jb3 ;!; or 5 e3 t.
c) 4 e6 !? is Wedberg's other idea,
...

which has not done b adly. Critical

is 5 li:Jb5 d6 (5 . . . a6? 6 li:Jd6+ .ixd6
7 't!t'xd6 li:J ge7 8 li:Jc3 0-0 9 e4 ±
Hi.i bner- Wed berg, Lucerne 1979)
6 .if4 e5 (6 . . . li:Je5? 7 c5) 7 .ig3 f5 !?
or 7 .tc 1 .ie6. 5 li:Jc3 .ib4 6 g3
't!t'a5 !? 7 li:Jxc6 de 8 .id2 't!t'c7 ! 9
About half ofSymmetrical Eng­ li:Je4 1!ra5 ! 10 .i g2 e5 I I .ic3
lish games begin with this move. .txc3+ 1 2 be li:Jf6 \12-\12 Adorjan­
This section deals with irregular Wedberg, Oslo 1 984. 5 g3 .i.. b4 +
orders. 6 .id2 .ie7 (6 . . . 1!t'b6!? 7 li:Jb3
C l 2 . . . li:Jc6 li:Je5 8 1!rc2 a5 - 8 . . . 1!Vc6 9 .ixb4! -
C2 2 . . . ll:lf6 9 .ig2 a4 10 li:Jc I ;!; Polugayevsky-
 2 llJj3 Introduction and 2 ' Others'
Ornstein, Buenos A ires 01 1 978)
7 ..tc3 li:lf6 8 ..tg2 0-0 9 0-0 d5 I 0
cd ( 1 0 li:ld2 't!t'b6 =) 10 . . . li:lxd5 !?
( 1 0 ... ed =) I I li:lxc6 be 12 "i!t'a4
't!t'b6 1 3 .id4 c5 1 4 ..te5 f5 1 5 .ic3
"i!t'a6! was = in Eingorn-Dorfman,
M oscow 1 985.
Cll
3 li:lc3 e5!?
3 . . . li:lf6 4 e3 e5!? is the note to
Black's fourth.
4 e3
4 g3 f5 5 d3 llJf6 6 .ig2 .ie7 (6 . . .
g6 !?) 7 0-0 0- 0 8 a 3 d 6 9 l:t b l 1t'e8
(9 . . . a5 !?) I 0 b4 "i!t'h5 I I li:ld5 .idS
1 2 e3 t Bukic-Mestrovic, Yugoslav
Ch 1 974.
4 r5
a) 4 ... li:lf6 5 d4 (121) (5 .ie2 d5 6
cd li:l xd5 7 0-0 li:lc7 ! ? oo Speel man­
Wedberg, 1 982) and:
121
B H elsinki 1 972 .
a l ) 5 . . . ed 6 ed d5?! 7 .ig5 .ie7 8
de! d4 9 .ixf6 .ixf6 1 0 li:ld5 0-0,
Portisch-Radulov, Indonesia 1983,
and now I I .ie2! .ie6 1 2 li:lf4 't!fa5+
1 3 't!fd2 ± (Portisch).
a2) 5 ... cd!? 6 ed e4 7 li:lg5 ! ? i.b4
121
8 d5 li:le5 9 't!t'b3 tt'e7 I 0 .id2
0-0 I I li:lcxe4 ..t xd2+ 12 �xd2
;l; Gurevich-Yudasin, Sverdlovsk
1984. H ere 7 li:le5!? has led to 7 . . .
i.d6 (7 i.b4 8 ..te2 0-0 9 0-0 l:t e8
000
10 .if4 .if8 I I c5 ! ± Moskalenko­
Aseyev, USSR 1 9 85) 8 li:lg4 li:l xg4
9 ti'xg4 0-0 1 0 .ig5 f5 ( 1 0 f6 I I o o .
c5! ;l;) I I .ixd8 fg 1 2 .ig5 li:lxd4
1 3 0-0-0 .ie5 =/oo Vai nerman­
Zaid, USSR 1985.
a3) 5 ... e4 6 d5 (6 li:le5 ! ? W edberg;
6 li:ld2 cd 7 ed .ib4 8 li:lb3!? ) 6 ef o o .
7 de fg 8 cd+ ..txd7 9 .ixg2 'irc7 1 0
'W'b3 .ic6 I I li:l d5 i.xd5 1 2 cd .id6
1 3 "i!t'a4+ 't!fd7 = Suba-Wedberg,
Dortmund 1983.
b) 4 d6 5 d4 cd ( 5 ed 6 ed .ig4
... 00.
7 i.e2! i.xf3 8 i.xf3 li:lxd4 9 .ie3 !
li:lxf3+ 10 1Wxf3 't!fd7 I I 0-0-0 ±
Helmers-Sigurj onsson, Reykjavik
198 1 ) 6 ed .ig4 7 .ie2 li:lf6 8 0-0
i.e7 9 .ie3 ± Timman-Radulov,
5 d4 cd
5 e4 6 d5 (or 6 li:ld2 li:lf6 7 d5
0 0 0
;!;) 6 llJb4 7 li:ld2 .id6 8 a3 li:la6
oo.
9 g4! :!: Odendahl-Costigan, US
Junior Ch 1978.
6 ed e4
7 d5 ef
Now after 8 de White keeps the
edge, e.g. 8 ti'e7+ 9 .ie3! or 8
o o .
000 de 9 't!fxf3 li:lf6 10 .if4 .ie7 I I
l:td l :!:.
Cl2
3 g3 e5
3 0 0 . g6 4 d4 cd 5 li:lxd4 .tg7 6
122 2 liJf3 Introduction and 2 ' Others'
liJc2!? can transpose to Chapter I 0,
line A I , after 6 . . . liJf6 7 liJcH. But
Black has the i mportant options
6 . . . 'ffb6 !? ( when 7 liJd2 =/ oo is
best) and 6 . . . 1!t'a5+ (K eene). In
the latter case, 7 liJd2 d5 frees
Black's game, so critical is 7 .t d2
t!t'b6 8 liJc3 , when 8 . . . 1!t'xb2 9
lii: b l ?? '@xc3 wins, but 9 liJd5 'it>d8
or 9 liJ b5 lt>d8 is unclear.
4 .t g2 f5 ! ?
5 d3 d6
6 liJc3 liJ f6
A standard position, but Larsen­
Shirazi, Lo ne Pine 1979, took an
odd turn after 7 0-0 h6!? (7 . . . g6)
8 liJ h4 g5 9 liJg6 lii:g 8 10 liJ xf8
lt>xfl! I I a3 f4 1 2 b4 Uoo.
C2
2 liJf6 (122)
122
w 3
C2 1 3 g3
C22 3 liJc3
a ) 3 e3!? g6 4 liJc3 .tg7 5 d4 0-0 (5
... cd is safer) 6 .te2 (6 de(!) liJa6
7 .te2 liJxc5 8 0-0 t) 6 . . . cd 7 liJxd4
liJc6 8 liJc2 d6 9 e4 (9 0-0 .tf5 !
1 0 f3 d5! � Vaganian) , Inkiov-
Vaganian, Plovdiv 1 983, transposes
to a Rubinstein Variation (Chapter
6).
b) 3 b4 !? cb 4 d4 d5 (or 4 . . . e6 5 d5
.ic5) 5 cd liJ xd5 (5 . . . 'i¥xd5 ( ! ) )
6 e4 liJb6 7 d5 e5!? 8 liJxe5 .td6,
Napolitano-Adam, corres 1950-53,
and now Napolita no gives 9 liJd3 ! .
c ) 3 b3 g6 4 .t b2 .tg7 5 e3 0-0 6 �e2
liJc6 7 0-0 d5 =; here 3 . . . d5 4 cd
liJxd5 5 .tb2 f6 6 liJc3! e5 !? 7 lt:\xd5
'i¥xd5 8 e3 .te6 9 �c4 t was Miles­
Timman, Amsterdam 1 985.
C2 1
3 g3
C2 1 1 3 . . . d5
C2 1 2 3 . . . g6
3 . . . b6 4 .tg2 .t b7 is Chapter I I ,
and 3 . . . a6!? 4 liJc3 ! (4 �g2 b5 ! )
will lead t o a standard White space
advantage after d4.
C21 1
d5
4 cd
4 .tg2 liJc6 5 0-0 e5?! ( 5 . . . de 6
1!t'a4 is a Catalan ; 5 . . . d4 6 d3 e5
7 b4 !?) 6 t!t'a4 (123) :
 2 lbj3 Introduction and 2 ' Others'
Black's position is exposed, e.g.
6 ... "ilc7? 7 llJc3 de 8 llJxe5 "ilxe5
9 ..txc6+ llJd7 1 0 ..tg2 .i.d6 I I
"ilxc4 ± Zaichik-Eingorn, USSR
1 9 79, or 6 ... ..td7 7 cd llJxd5 8
llJxe5! llJxe5 9 "ile4 etc. The main
line has been 6 ... .i.d6 7 llJg5 !
ltl d7 ! ? (7 . . . .te7 8 cd llJxd5 9 "ilc4
.txg5 1 0 .t xd 5 "ile7 I I d3 .txc l 1 2
.txc6+ ± ; 7 . . . .te6 8 llJxe6 !; 7 . . .
b 5 !? 8 cb llJe7 ;!; ; 7 . . . .td7? 8 c d
lbb4 9 "ild l llJfxd5 1 0 d 4 ! ..t c6 1 1
a3 llJ a6 1 2 "ilb3 .i.e7 1 3 de! ±
Portisc h-Kavalek, Tilburg 1 980)
8 ..t xd5 ! "ilxg5 9 ..txc6 be 1 0 'ifxc6
llb8 I I "ilxd6 lit b6 1 2 1Wc7 0-0 1 3
llJc3 ;!; Kovacevic-Barle, Sombor
1 9 76.
Finally, Quinteros tried the novel
6 . . . 'itd6 !? versus Pan no in Buenos
A ires 1 980: 7 d3 !? .i.d7 8 "ilb3 llJa5
9 'itc3 llJc6 10 1i'b3 =. Th e relevant
options are 7 llJc3!? (e .g. 7 . . . ..td7
8 llJb5 "ilb8 9 cd llJxd5 10 llJg5 !?),
7 llJg5 and even 7 llJa3!?. Th ese
need tests.
4 llJxd5
5 ..tg2
5 b3 f6! 6 .t g2 e5 7 0-0 llJc6
8 llJc3 ..te6 = Miles-Lj ubojevic,
Lucerne 01 1982.
5 llJc6
In teresting is 5 . . . g6 !? 6 d4 ..tg7 ,
e.g. 7 e4 llJc7 ! 8 d5 llJ b5 ! 9 0-0
0-0 (or 9 . . . ..tg4! Karpov) 1 0 'itc2
llJa6 I I .tf4 .i.g4 1 2 ltJ 1 d2 llJd4
=/ro Korchnoi-Ka rpov, Moscow
197 1 .
123
6 d4 (124)
6 0-0 e5 !? 7 llJc3 ..te6 8 llJg5 (8
d 3 .te7 =; 8 e3 llJ xc3 with . . . .tc4,
. . . e4) 8 . . . 1Wxg5 9 llJxd5 't!Vd8 10
llJe3 litc8 I I b3 ( I I 'ita4!?) I I
. . . .i.d6 1 2 .i.b2 0-0 1 3 "ile l !? ( 1 3
lit c l ) 1 3 . . . ..tb8 1 4 f4 e f 1 5 gf
f5 =/ro Timman-Portisch, N ik�ic
1978 .
124
B
Following Andersson's lead, this
has become a popular position.
A sampling of ideas:
a) 6 ... llJc7 7 e3 ..tg4 8 llJc3 cd 9 ed
e6 10 "ila4 "ild7 I I 0-0 .i.e7 1 2 .i.f4
llJd5 ! ? ( 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 ..txc7 and 14
d5) 13 llJxd5 ed 14 litfel :U. ad8 (?)
( 1 4 . . . 0-0) 15 ..tg5! .txf3 16 .txf3
0-0 17 ..txe7 llJxe7 18 1Wxa7 ±
Miles-Ljubojevic, B ugoj no 1 986.
b) 6 ... llJf6!? 7 e3 (7 ..te3!? e6 8 0-0
llJg4 9 ltlc3 llJxe3 10 fe = Andersson­
Portisch, Nik�ic 1 9 83. 7 tWa4
..td7 8 de e5 9 0-0 ..txc5 10 lbc3 t
Andersson-Portisch, Reggio Emilia
1985) 7 . . . e6 8 0-0 .te7 9 de .txc5
1 0 "ilxd8+ �xd8 I I .i.d2! .i.d7 1 2
 124 2 !Df3 Introduction and 2 ' Others'
li[ c l .id6 1 3 &i:Jc3 ( 1 3 &i:Ja3 !? plan­
ning &i:Jc4 or ltJb5 Andersson) 1 3 . . .
lieS 1 4 &i:Jb5 .i bS 1 5 &i:Jfd4 &i:Jxd4
16 &i:Jxd4 &i:Jd5 1 7 li d l ;!; Speelman­
Pritchett,
c) 6 ...ltJb6 7 de tt'xd l + S �xd l
&i:Ja4 9 &i:Jc3 &i:Jxc5 (9 . . . ltJxc3+ 1 0
be .id7 I I .i e 3 li eS 1 2 lil b l ltJa5
1 3 ltJe5 ;t Andersson-Tim man ,
London 1 9S2) 1 0 .i e3?! ( 10 ltJb5 !
ltJe6 I I ltJ g5 ltJ cd4 1 2 ltJ xe6 ltJxb5
- 1 2 . . . ltJxe6 1 3 .ie3 ± Byrne) 1 0
. . . ltJe6 I I � 2 g6 1 2 lilhd l t
Andersson-Seirawan, Wijk aan Zee
l 9S3.
d) 6 .. .if5 7 0-0 (7 ltJc3 ltJdb4 ! S e4
. 1 3 lilcl .ie6 14 b3 .ixc3 ! ( 14 . . . 0-0?
.ig4 9 a3 cd 10 ab de I I be g6! +
Andersson-Po rtisch, Mar del Plata
19S2), and now 7 ... e6 S ltJe5 (S a3!?
.ie7 - 8 . . . lic8!? - 9 de .ixc5 10 b4
.ie7 I I .ib2 t Nikolic-Ra zuvayev,
Novi S ad l9S2) S . . . .ig6 ! ? 9 ltJxg6
hg 10 ltJ c3 ! cd I I ltJ xd5 ed l 2 1!t'b3
;t Andersson-Portisch, Turin 1 982;
or 7 . . . ltJdb4 (!) S a 3 !? (S 't!t'a4! 'tia 5
ro Miles; then 9 't!t'xa5 ltJ xa5 1 0
.id2 !? is interesting, with the idea
10 . . . ltJac6 I I ltJc3 ltJc2 12 d 5 ! )
S . . . ltJc2 9 ltJh4 't!t'xd4 ! 1 0 ltJ d2 ! ?
( 1 0 .id2!? Speelman) 1 0 . . . ltJ xa l
I I i. xc6+ be l 2 ltJxf5 't!t'd7 1 3 't!t'a4
g6, Speelman-van der Wiel, Dort­
mund l 9S5, and now best was 1 4
ltJe4! gf 1 5 ltJ xc5 , although the
onus is on White to improve
earlier.
e) 6 ... cd 7 ltJ xd4 ltJdb4 8 &i:Jxc6
't!t'xd I + 9 �xd l ltJxc6 (1 25)
e l ) 1 0 .ixc6+ be l l ltJc3 ( I I .ie3!?
a5 1 2 ltJd2 .ie6 13 �c 2 .if5+ 14
�c l e5 15 ltJc4 t Miles-Ljubojevic,
Tilburg 19S3) I I . . . g6 1 2 i.e3 .i g7
1 5 ltJa4 ±) 1 5 li[ xc3 a5 = S myslov­
Hubner, match (7) l 9 S 3 .
e 2 ) 1 0 ltJc3 .id7 I I i.e3 llcS (or
I I ... e5 !? 1 2 li[c I 0-0-0, Speelman­
A lbu rt, match (3) l 9S6) 1 2 lilc l g6
1 3 f4 .ig7 14 � e l 0-0 15 �e2 .ie6
= Andersson-Farago, Rome l 9S6.
C212
3 g6
4 b3
a) 4 d4 cd 5 ltJ xd4 d5!? 6 i.g2 e5?
(6 . . . .ig7 ) 7 ltJO d4 S 0-0 ltJc6 9 e3
.ig4 10 't!t'b3 ! ± Tukma kov­
Belyavsky, USSR Ch l 97S.
b) 4 .ig2 .ig7 5 d4 cd 6 ltJ xd4 d5 !?
(6 . . . 0-0 7 ltJc3 1tc7!? S 't!t'd3 ltJc6)
7 cd ltJxd5 S 0-0 0-0 9 ltJb5!? e6 1 0
e4 ltJb4 =.
4 .ig7
5 .ib2 0-0
6 .ig2 d6
A fter 6 . . . d5?! 7 cd ltJ xd5 S

i.xg7 �xg7 9 (}-0 b6 10 d4 t
Dzindz ihashvili- We bb, Hasti ngs
1 977- 78.
7 0-0 e5
7 . . . lt:lc6 8 d4 cd (8 . . . lt:le4 ! ?) 9
li:l xd4 i.d7 I 0 lt:lc3 'ii'a5 I I e3 t
Romanishin-Gulko, USSR 1978.
8 lt:lc3
8 e3 lt:lc6 9 d4?! ed 10 ed i.g4 +
Kasparov.
8 lt:lc6
9 e3
Two good moves after 9 d3 are
9 . . . lt:lh5 I 0 e3 f5 I I li:ld2 lt:lf6
Bernat-Rogers, B uenos A ires 01
1 978, and 9 . . . lt:le8 1 0 lt:ld2 lt:lc7
I I e3? ! i.e6 + Tempone-Kasparov,
Dort m und 1 980.
9 .trs
Or 9 ... lt:le8 planning . . . lt:lc7, . . .
i.f5. After 9 . . . i.f5, Weinstein­
Tarjan, USA 1 977, contin ued 1 0
d 3 ( 1 0 d4? e4 I I lt:lg5 lle8 + Webb­
Kasparov, Sk ara 1 980) 10 . . . 'i!rd7
( 1 0 . . . lt:lb4 I I e4 i.g4 1 2 h3 i.d7 =
Kasparov) I I a3 ( I I lt:lg5! t Kas­
parov) I I . . . ll ab8 1 2 lt:lg5 a6 = .
C22
3 lt:lc3 b6
A risky line which suddenly
attained popularity, although its
value is still unresolved.
4 e4
Also 4 e 3 !? can be dangerous:
a) 4 i.b7 5 d4 cd (5 . . . e6 6 d5 ;!;)
...
6 ed e6 7 a3 ! (7 i. g5 !? i.e7 - 7 . . .
h6! - 8 i.d3 0-0 9 h4!? S peelman­
Kudrin, 1 985; 9 . . . d5 10 i.xf6
2 lbj3 Introduction and 2 ' O thers' 125
i.xf6 I I i.xh7+ 'it>xh7 1 2 lt:lg5+
'it>h6 13 'ii'd 2 i.xg5 Karlsson) 7 . . .
d 5 (126)
= Now 8 i.g5 !? .i.e7 9 i. xf6 .txf6
10 cd (intending 1 0 . . . ed I I .i.b5 +)
ran into I 0 . . . (}-0! I I de fe 1 2 .i.c4
lt:lc6! 1 3 .i.xe6+ 'it>hH in Andersson­
Adorjan, Wijk aan Zee 1984. In
view of 14 d5 .i.a6! 15 de lle8, there
followed 1 4 0-0 lt:lxd4 1 5 lL!xd4
i.xd4 1 6 i.d5 .i.xc3 17 i.xb7
i.xb2 =.
But here 8 cd! lt:lxd5 is promising,
e.g. 9 lt:le5 ( ! ) (9 .i.b5+ i.c6 1 0 i.d3
lt:ld7 oo) 9 . . . a6 (9 . . . i.d6!?) 1 0 'i!rf3
_.c7 I I i.b5+! ab 1 2 lt:l xb5 _.e7
1 3 lt:ld6+ @xd6 (?) 14 _.xf7+ 'it>d8
15 @xb7 Karlsson. Here 1 0 . . . _.f6
looks better, but I I _.g3 ! is still
good, e.g. I I . . . i.e7 12 h4 ! or I I . . .
lt:l xc3 1 2 be i.d6 1 3 i.f4.
b) 4 g6 seems best to me, e.g. 5 d4
...
i.g7 6 i.e2 (6 d5 d6 7 e4 (}-0 8 i.e2
e6 avoids locking in B lack's bishop
on b7, so Black is a tempo u p - . . .
b 6 - o n a Benoni) 6 . . . 0-0 7 0-0
lt:la6!? (7 . . . i.b7? 8 d5 is bad, but
7 . . . e6!? and 7 . . . d6 are possible)
 126 2 li:JjJ In troduction and 2 ' Others'
8 e4 (8 b3 i.b7 9 i. b2 e6 = ; 8 d5 d6
9 e4 li:J c7 l 0 a4 e6 =) 8 . . . cd 9 li:J xd4
i.b7 (9 . . . li:J c 1 0 f3 a5 !?) 1 0 f3 with
a Hedgehog-like position.
4 i.b7!?
a) 4 ... d6 5 d4 cd 6 li:Jxd4 i.b7 (127)
127
w i.e7 I I 0-0 l:l:c8 1 2 i.f4 t Cvetkovic­
No w 7 f3 would tranpose to
Chapter 1 3, and 7 i.d3 e6 (7 . . . g6)
8 0-0 i.e7 9 't!re2 0-0 1 0 b3 ( 10 �h l
with the idea f4, li:J f3 ) 1 0 . . . li:J bd7
I I i. b2 was Ornstein-Lj ubojevic,
Nice 01 1 974, and here I I . . . a6 oo
or 1 1 . . . l:l:e8!? was best.
An irregular seve nth move was
7 li:Jd5 !? e6 8 �xf6+ 'it'xf6 (8 . . . gf?
9 i.d3 �d7 1 0 0-0 h5 I I i.c2 a6
12 J.e3 ± with f4, Murei-Dankert,
Berlin 1 983) , Greenfeld-K udrin,
Beer-Sheva 1 984, and now instead
of 9 c5?! be 1 0 i. b5+ li:Jd7 +loo,
9 li:Jb5 'it'b8 1 0 1t"g4 li:Jd7 I I i.g5 !
(Greenfeld) was interesting.
H owever, the biggest danger in
this sequence is 7 11t"e2 !?, preparing
for 0-0-0 and a central advance:
7 . . . e6 (7 . . . li:J c6?! 8 li:J xc6 i.xc6
9 i.g5 li:Jd7 10 0-0-0 'tireS I I �b l
li:Jc5 1 2 f3 a5 1 3 h4 'it'b7 1 4 h5!
± Korchnoi-Gheorghiu, London
1980; 7 . . . g6 8 i.g5 i.g7 9 0-0-0
li:Jbd7 1 0 f4 ± Lebredo) 8 g4!? (or
8 g3 , e.g. 8 . . . li:Jbd7 9 i.g2 a6 10 0-0
l:l:c8 I I i.d2 'it'c7 12 b3 :!: Korchnoi­
M akropoulos, Rome 198 1 ) 8 . . .
i.e7 ( 8 . . . li:J c6 9 li:Jxc6 l:l: xc6 10 i.g2
Velikovic, Yugoslavia 198 1 ) 9 g5
li:Jfd7 1 0 h4 li:J c6 I I li:Jxc6 ( 1 1 i.e3)
1 1 . . . i.xc6 1 2 i.f4 a6 1 3 0-0-0 't!t'c7
14 � b l i.b7 1 5 h5 li:Je5 1 6 l:l:h3 t
(int ending 1 7 g6 ! ) Vera-Lebredo,
Managua 1 982.
b) 4 ... li:J c6 !? 5 d4 cd 6 li:J xd4 i.b7
7 i.g5 (7 f3 11t"b8 !? 8 i.e3 e6 9 1Wd2
i.d6 l 0 li:J db5 i.e5 I I f4 i.xc3
= Csom-Horvath , Magyarorszag
1984, or 7 i.e2 11t"b8 ! ?) 7 . . . 't!t'b8
8 li:J xc6 i.xc6 9 't!t'e2!? (9 i.d3 t)
9 . . . h6 10 i.d2 e5 I I li:Jd5 i.xd5 ,
Tal-Toskov, Albena 1984, and here
Tal gives 1 2 ed! i.e7 1 3 i. c3 d6 1 4
g3 :!: . Also 7 i.e3 e 6 8 f3 i s solid,
e.g. 8 . . . 'it'b8 9 1!rd2 :!: (9 ... J.c5
10 0-0-0 0-0 I I g4!), K orchnoi­
Winants, SWIFT 1987.
5 e5
5 i.d3 e6 6 0-0 d6 ! ? (6 . . . li:J c6) 7
i.c2 i.e7 8 d4 cd 9 li:J xd4 a6 is
similar to the 4 . . . d6 lines above.
5 d3 d6 6 g3 is Chapter I I .
5 li:J g4
a) 5 . . . �e4!? doesn't deserve the
'??' I gave it (or £CO's " ±±" , for
that matter), since 6 li:Je2 f6 ! 7 d3
li:Jg5 8 li:Jxg5 fg 9 i.xg5 (9 d4 !?) 9 . . .
 2 liJf3 In troduction and 2 ' Others'
ttJc6 may be a playable gambi t.
b) 5 ... lLg8 is a more serious option:
6 d4 (6 ..td3 ..txf3 ! 7 1!rxf3 li:Jc6 8
"fWg3 g6 was equal in Qu interos­
Dzin dzihashvili, Lone Pine 1980)
6 . . . ..txf3 !? (6 . . . cd 7 li:Jxd4 g6 8 ..tf4
i.g 7 9 't!re2! llJ c6 1 0 li:Jf3 li:J h6 1 1
h4 ! V ± Mestel-Miles, London
! 984) 7 'ihf3 (7 gt1? cd 8 't!rxd4 li:Jc6
9 t!fe4) 7 . . . li:J c6 8 de (8 d 5 !? li:J xe5
9 t!fg3 with space and the bishops
would be interesting) 8 . . . be 9 1i'e4
( 9 ..tf4 li:Jd4 1 0 1t'e4 f5 ! = Raicevic­
Planinc, Yugoslav Ch 1 977) 9 . . .
g6 10 ..td3 ..tg7 1 1 f4 f5 1 2 1te3 d6
1 3 .tc2 li:Jd4 1 4 ..ta4+ �f8 =/ oo
Portisch-Quinteros, Mar del Plata
1 98 1 .
6 h3
6 d4!? cd 7 li:Jb5 ! li:Jc6 8 ..tf4
1ib8 9 ..tg3 li:Jgxe5 1 0 llJxe5 li:J xe5
I I 1i'd4 d6 1 2 0-0-0 =/oo Uhlmann.
6 li:J h6
I 27
7 d4
7 .td3 .txf3 ! 8 1txf3 li:Jc6 9 e6 !?
g6 = U hlmann-Adorjan, Sa rajevo
1982.
7 cd
7 . . . ..txf3 8 1hf3 li:Jc6 9 de! with
the idea 9 . . . be 10 ..txh6 gh 1 1 e6 !
± Uhlmann.
8 li:J xd4 e6
8 . . . g6 9 ..tf4 li:Jc6 10 llJf3 ..tg7
1 1 .te2 li:Jf5? 1 2 g4 ! li:J fd4 1 3 li:Jxd4
li:J xd4 14 'it'xd4! was Gheorghi u­
S tefanov, Romania 1979.
After 8 . . . e6, Vaganian-Pytel,
Buenos Aires 01 1978, went 9 .tf4
(9 ..txh6!?) 9 . . . a 6 1 0 li:Jf3 f5 1 1 g3
li:Jf7 1 2 ..tg2 ..te7 1 3 0-0 0-0 14 lil e l
li:Jc6 1 5 h4 h6 1 6 h5 :V ±.
This is a rather s kimpy over­
view of 3 . . . b6 4 e4 .t b7 5 e5,
however, and the reader will find
much room for independent in­
vestigation.
 10 Three Knights: 2 . . . lbc6 3 lbc3 g6

1 c4 cS a) 6 e3 lLlf6 (6 . . . lLlh6 7 lLlc2 !? , e .g.

2 lLlf3 l!Jc6 7 ... i.xc3+ 8 be lLlf5 9 i.d3 'it'a5
3 lLlc3 g6 (128) 10 0-0 ! ) 7 lLlc2 (7 i.e2 0-0 8 0-0 d5
9 cd lLl xd5 10 lLlxc6 be 1 1 l!Ja4
128 lLld7! = van Scheltinga-Tarjan,
w Wij k aan Zee 1 973-74) 7 . . . 0-0 (7
. . . d6 8 i.e2 i.e6 9 e4 lLld7 I 0 lLld5
lLlc5 I I f3 f5 =/oo K ee ne-Tal,
H astings 1973-74) 8 i. e2 b6!? (8 . . .
d6 9 0-0 i.e6 I 0 e 4 = is Chapter 6,
colours reversed)9 e4 i.b7 10 i.g5
lit c8 1 1 lLla3 h6 1 2 i.h4 a6 1 3 1Wd2
lth7 14 0-0 t Korchnoi-Gipslis,
USSR 1 966.
This variation hopes to control b) 6 lLlb3!? d6 7 e4 b6!? (or 7 ... lLlf6,
dark squares and maintain flexi­ or 7 . . . i.xc3+ 8 be lLlf6) 8 i.e2
bility. But the difficulties following i.xc3+ 9 be lLlf6 10 f3 ( 10 i.h6 !?)
4 e3 , and the fact that B lack has 10 . . . 0-0 1 1 i.g5 i.a6 1 2 lD d4 lLl a5
developed better systems, have cast 1 3 lLlb5 lLld7! 1 4 'it'd4 lLlc5 1 5 i. h6
the Three K n ights into relative lLle6 = Osterman-Holzl, Maribor
disuse. 1983.
A 4 d4
129
B 4 e3 B
4 a3 i.g7 5 litb1 a5 6 e3, Hi.ibner­
Diez del Corral, Spain 1 975, is
well a ns wered by 6 . . . l!Jf6 7 d4 cd
8 ed d5 9 i.g5 i.g4! etc.
A
4 d4 cd
S lLlxd4 i.g7
6 lLlc2 (1 29)
 Three Knights: 2 . . . ltlc6 3 ltlc3 g6 129

A I ' 6 . . . d6
A2 6 . . . .1xc3+
6 . . . ltlf6?! 7 g3 d6 8 .i.g2 �0 9 �0
(or 9 b3 �) 9 . . . .i. d7 (9 . . . '1Va5 1 0
e 4 � or 1 0 .i.d2 ± or 1 0 l0 d 5 ± ; 9 . . .
.1e6 1 0 b 3 9d7 I I ltldS .i.fS 1 2
,ib2 ltlxdS 1 3 .1xg7 rj;xg7 1 4
.i.xdS ! .i.h3 I S lit e I h S 1 6 ltle3
h4 17 litcl ± intending cS,
Petrosian-Smej kal , Amsterdam
1 973) 10 b3 9c8 I I .tb2 .i.h3
12 l:t b l litd8 13 e4 .1xg2 1 4
rj;xg2 e6 I S l:t e l a6 1 6 ltl a4 !
± Korchnoi-Htibner, m atch (2)
1 980.
AI
6 d6
7 g3
7 e3 .1xc3+ = . 7 e4 .1xc3+ is line
8 f3
8 ltlb4!? 9aS 9 ltld5 ltl e4 ! 10
9c2 ltld6 I I e4 llJeS 12 .i.f4 f6 1 3
.i.e2 ( 1 3 lit d I !? ltldf7 1 4 .i.g3 ±
planning f4) 1 3 . . . ltldf7 1 4 .i.e3 d6
I S lit b l ;t Szabo- Ribli, Wijk aan
Zee 1 97 3 .
8 d6
9 e4 .i.e6
Now Tai manov recommends 1 0
.i.h6!? or 10 ltld4. · Quinteros­
Fischer, B u enos A ires 1 970, went
10 .i.e2!? liteS I I ltle3 9a5 1 2 .i.d2
llJeS 1 3 9b3 l0 fd7 ! 1 4 f4 tOeS I S
9c2 ltlc6 1 6 � 0 9a4! +.
B
4 e3 (130)
130

A2, and here 7 ... ltl h6 8 h4!? (8 B

.1e2) 8 ... fS 9 hS fe 10 ltlxe4 is given

as unclear by Botvinnik.

7 .te6
8 l0e3 liteS
9 .i.g 2 9d7?!
Better 9 . . . .1xc3+. After 9 . . .
't1Vd7 , Keres-Kuij pers, 1959, went
10 .i.d2 .i.h3 I I .1xh3 9xh3 1 2
ltlcdS ltlh6 1 3 9b3 9d7 1 4 .i.c3 This presents serious problems
U ±. for 3 . . . g6 , and has accounted for
A2 its fall from favour. The threat is
6 .1xc3+ d4-dS.
7 be lt)f6 ! ? B l 4 . . . ltlf6
The lines with . . . 1t'a5 are deal t B2 4 . . . d 6
with in Chapter 6, line A, since B3 4 . . . .i.g7
that order is now the main way of 81
reaching these positions. In fact, 4 ltlf6
7 . . . 9aS is probably Black's best. S d4 cd
 130 Three Knights: 2 . . . li'lc6 3 liJc3 g6
Wi nning d5. 7 cd li'lxd5 1s a
Caro-Kann.
7 lLle4
Nothi ng works, e .g. 7 . . . .ig4
8 .ixf6 ef 9 cd i.xf3 10 1!hf3!
li'lxd4 I I @e4+ @e7 12 (}.(}.0 ± , or
7 . . . .ig7 8 .ixf6 i.xf6 9 cd li'lb8 1 0
h3 0-0 I I .ic4 li'l d7 1 2 0-0 ±
Uhlmann-Pribyl, Tallinn" 1 977.
8 cd li'lxc3
9 be 'ihd5 I 0 .ie2 (" 1 0 'tlrb3 ±"
8o tvinnik) 1 0 . . . .ig7 I I (}.0 0-0 12
c4 't!Vd6 1 3 d 5 li'la5? ( 1 3 . . . .ixa l 14
'i!t"xa l ± ) 14 U.c l b6 15 U.el U. e8
1 6 c5! ±± ( 1 6 . . . be 1 7 1Wa4) Rogoff­
Zuckerman, Lone Pi ne 1 978.
82
4 d6
5 d4 .i g4
5 . . . .ig7, most often played, is
line 83 below. 5 . . . cd 6 ed .ig4 7
.ie2 .ig7 8 0-0 li'lh6 (8 . . . li'lf6 is
' 83'; 8 . . . .ixf3 9 .ixf3 li'l xd4 1 0
.ixb 7 lilb8 I I .ie4 U ±) 9 d5 .ixf3
1 0 .i xf3 li'le5 I I b3 (}.0 1 2 i. d2 a6
13 .ie2 li'l f5 1 4 U.e I @b8 1 5 lic l
U.c8 1 6 f4 li'ld7 1 7 .ig4 ± S mej kal­
Zi nn, Lugano 01 1 968 .
6 i.e2 .ig 7
7 d5 liJ aS
7 . . . li'le5?? 8 li'lxe5 .ixe2 9 @a4+.
7 ... .ixc3+ 8 be li'la5 9 e4 b6 10 0-0
li'lf6 I I h3 ± Taimanov, e.g. I I . . .
.ixf3 1 2 .ixf3 0-0 1 3 .ih6 lieS 1 4
'itd3 li'ld7 1 5 .ie2 lt:le5 1 6 'i!t"g3
lt:lexc4 1 7 f4 etc. Finally, 7 . . . lt:l b8
8 h3 .ixf3 9 .ixf3 lt:lf6 I 0 0-0 0-0
I I 'itd2 a6 1 2 U. b l ! lt:lbd7 1 3 .ie3
was also ± in Smyslov-Simagi n,
USSR 1 95 1 .
8 0-0
Or 8 .id2 lt:lf6 9 h3 .ixf3 10 .ixf3
0-0 I I b3 a6 1 2 0-0 U.b8, Tai­
Velimirovic, Titograd 1 984, and
now best is 1 3 a4! .
8 lt:lf6
8 . . . .ixc3+ 9 be lt:lf6 I 0 lt:ld2
.ixe2 I I 1!¥xe2 0-0 12 e4 li'ld7 1 3
li'lb3 with the idea .ih6, f4 etc.
9 h3 .ixO
10 .ixf3 0-0 I I .ie2 e6 1 2 de ( 1 2
e4 ed 1 3 ed ;l;) 1 2 . . . fe 1 3 @c2 'i!t"e7
14 b3 lt:lc6 1 5 .ib2 i Filip-Averbakh­
Moscow 1 96 1 .
83
4 .i g 7
5 d4 d6
5 . . . lt:lf6? 6 d5 lt:lb8 7 e4 d6 8
.ie2 ± Welin-Zieher, Copenhagen
 Three Knigh ts: 2 . . lt:\c6 3 lLlc3 g6
1982. Better 5 ... cd 6 ed d6 (6 . . .
tDf6 7 d 5 lt:lb8 8 d 6 ! ± ) 7 d5 (or
7 i.e2) 7 . . . lt:l e5 (7 ... lt:lb8 8 i.d3
lt:lf6 9 0-0 0-0 10 i.g5! ±) 8 lt:l d4
(or 8 lt:l xe5 ;!;) 8 . . . lt:l h6 9 h3 0-0 1 0
i.e3 lt:l f5 1 1 lt:lxf5 .ixf5 1 2 g4 .ic8
1 3 f4 t Partos-Paidoussis, Ista nbul
1 975.
6 .ie2 (132)
6 d5!? is not so clear, e.g. 6 . . .
lt:le5 ( or 6 . . . i. xc3+!? 7 be lt:l a5 )
7 li:ld2 (7 lt:lxe5 i. xe 5 8 i.e2 lt:l f6!?
9 0-0 g5!? - 9 0- 0 (D - 1 0 i.d3 g4
000
I I ct>h 1 Jilg8 oo Keene-va n der
Wiel, Aarhus 1 983) 7 . . . f5 8 .ie2
lt:lf6 9 h3 e6!? (9 .. 0-0 10 f4 lt:lf7 00
0 Knights is probably doomed to
Korchnoi-Fischer, Sousse I Z 1 967)
.. 131
10 f4 lt:lf7, Pytel-Tal, Jurmala 1 983;
1 1 g4!? ed 1 2 g5 lt:le4 l 3 lt:l xd5 lt:l g3
=/oo Pytel.
6 lt:lf6
6 . . . cd 7 ed lt:l f6 8 d5 lt:lb8 9 0-0
0-0 10 .ie3 ;!; Portisch-Petrosian,
S an Antonio.
7 d5
Or 7 0-0 cd 8 ed .ig4 9 d5 .ix£3
10 .ix£3 lt:le5 1 1 .ie2 ;!; Uhlmann­
B rowne, Zagreb 1 970.
7 lt:la5
7 . . . lt:le5 8 lt:ld2 0-0 9 0-0 a6 10
a4 lt:le8 1 1 f4 lt:ld7, Ribli-Pogats,
Hungarian Ch 1972, and now Haag
gives 12 Jil a3 ! .
8 e4
Or 8 0-0 0-0 9 'ti'c2 ;!;. A fter 8 e4 ,
Filip-Sanz, Olot 1975, went 8 ...
0-0 9 h3 (o r 9 0-0 .ig4 1 0 .ie3!?
.ixf3 l l gf ;!;) 9 ... a6 1 0 0-0 llb8 l l
lle l ! .i d7 1 2 e5 lt:le8 1 3 .if4 b5 1 4
cb a b 1 5 1t'd2 ;!;.
Conclusion. 4 e3 is still a good
reason to avoid 3 . . . g6. The Three
lasting quiescence.
 11 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog
I c4 c5
2 lt:lf3 lDf6
3 g3
3 lt:l c3 e6 4 g3 b6 will often trans­
pose, but unique is 5 e4 .tb7 (5 . . .
lt:lc6 6 .tg2 .tb7 7 0-0 t!Vb8 8 ll e l
d6 9 d 4 c d 1 0 lDxd4 ;t Romanishin­
Vaiser, Sochi 1 984) 6 'it'e2!? lt:lc6
(6 ... d6 7 d4 cd 8 lDxd4 a6 9 .tg2
'ti'c7 10 0-0 lt:lbd7 I I .te3 ! was
Korchnoi-Csom, Rome 1 98 1 , or
here 8 ... g6! ? 9 .tg2 a6 1 0 0-0 lt:lbd7
I I lld l 'ti'b8 1 2 a4 ! .tg7 1 3 a5 ±
Petrosian-Psa khis, Las Palmas I Z
1 982) 7 .tg2 d6 8 0-0 .te7 9 ll d I
a6 (9 . . . lt:l d4? 1 0 lt:lxd4 cd I l lt:lb5
e5 12 lDxd4 ! ed 1 3 e5 ± Seirawan­
van der Wiel, Wijk aan Zee 1983;
9 ... e5!?) 1 0 d4 cd I I lt:l xd4 lt:l xd4
1 2 ll xd4 'it'c7 1 3 b3 !? ( 1 3 .te3 !)
1 3 . . . b5 1 4 .t b2 e5 1 5 ll d d l be 1 6
ll a c l =/ ro Rivas-Short, Plovdiv
1 984.
3 b6
3 . . . e6 4 .ig2 lt:lc6 5 0-0 b6 !? 6
d4 cd 7 lt:l xd4 .t b7 8 lt:lb5 !? (8 lt:lc3)
8 . . . d6 9 .if4 e5 1 0 .ig5 a6 I I .txf6
gf 1 2 lt:l 5c3 ;Vro Pigott-Brittan ,
London 1 979.
4 .tg2 .i b7
5 0-0!?
An issue of move order which
can prove im portant. White can
gain a tempo in certain lines, and
sidestep problems based on . . .
lt:le4 i n others, b y choosing 5 lt:l c3
e6 6 d4 cd (6 . . . lt:le4 7 d5 ( ! ) lt:l xc3
8 be .ie7 9 e4) 7 'ti'xd4 (133)
a) 7 ... .ic5?! 8 'ti'f4 0-0 9 0-0 d5,
Vaganian- Browne, Gjovik 1983,
and now Adorj an gives 1 0 lld l !
'ti'e7 I I cd lt:lxd5 1 2 lt:lxd5 .ixd5
13 b3 ± .
b) 7 ... d6 8 0-0 i s a main line, but
8 .tg5 is challenging: 8 . . . lt:lbd7
(8 . . . .ie7 9 li d I h6 1 0 .ixf6 .ixf6
I I 'it'f4 - 1 / 'ti'e3!? - I I . . . .txc3+
12 be g5, Chekhova-Litinskaya ,
USSR 1 984, and now 1 3 'it'e3 ! ;t
Chekhova) 9 lt:lb5 t!Vb8 (9 . . . h6 1 0
.ixf6 lt:l xf6 I I lld l lt:le4 1 2 lt:lh4
lbc5 1 3 0-0! ± Suba-K indermann,
Dortmund 1 985; 9 ... e5!? l O lt:lxd6+

.ixd6 I I 'it'xd6 lLlc4 Suba) 1 0 lii:d l
e5 I I 'ire3 a6 l 2 lLl c3 .ie7 1 3 .ih3
.ic6 14 lLld5 ;!: A .Greenfeld-Suba,
Thessaloniki 01 1 984.
c) 7 . . lLlc6 8 'irf4 .ib4 is the main
. lLlxc3 1 1 be ;!:, or 10 lDe5 !?) 1 0 'irg4
problem with this order: 9 .id2 0-0
10 0-0 .ie7 !? (now that White's
bishop is diverted from b2; also
interesting is 1 0 . . . lii:c 8 and ... 'ire7,
or even 1 0 ... lLl a5 ) I I lii: fd l ( I I
ll ad l a6 1 2 lLld4 1!1c8 1 3 lLl xc6
.ixc6 1 4 e4 d6, about equal) I I . . .
d6 ( I I . . . a 6 1 2 e4 d 6 1 3 1!1e3 lii: a 7
= Stean-Andersson, Amsterdam
1 979) 1 2 lii: ac l h6 ( 1 2 ... ll c8 1 3
.i e l lii: c7 1 4 e4 lii: d 7 1 5 'it'e3 't!fa8
16 't!fe2 lii: c8 ro Frias-De Firmian,
New York 1 985) 13 .i e l 'irb8 1 4
h3? ! a 6 1 5 't!fe3 b5 ! + H .Oiafsson­
De Firmian, Copenhagen 1 985.
Aside from this, 5 d 3 !? e6 6 e4
d6 transposes to A3. 5 . . . d5 6 lLle5
or 6 cd lLl xd5 7 0-0 intending d4 is
the alternative.
5 e6 (134)
6 lLlc3
a) 6 d3 d5 (for 6 . . . .ie7 7 e4 d6, see
Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 133
' A3 ') 7 cd lDxd5 (7 . . . ed 8 lDe5!?,
e .g. 8 ... .td6 9 'ira4+ lD bd7 10
lLlc4 .ic7 I I .if4 ro) 8 lDc3 .ie7
9 'it'a4+ 'ird7 (9 . . . lLl bd 7 1 0 e4
h5?! ( 1 0 . . . 0-0! , planning l l .ih6
.if6 1 2 lLle4? .t xb2 ! ) 1 1 'tlfc4 lLlc6
1 2 'ira4! 0-0 1 3 .ig5 ;!: Romanishin­
Georgadze, USSR 1 972.
b ) 6 d4 cd 7 'irxd4 lLlc6 8 '1Vf4 can
be independent, e.g. 8 ... d5 !? 9 lii: d l !
.td6 l 0 'tlfh4 0-0 I I lLlc3 .ie7 1 2
.tg5 h6 1 3 cd! ed 1 4 .te3 ±
Stukaturkin-Sakharov USSR 1 98 1 .
Other tries include 8 ... lLle7 9 lLle5 !?
.txg2 1 0 �xg2 lLlg6 1 1 lLlxg6 hg
1 2 lLlc3 lii: c8 with equality in
Rashkovsky-Kharitonov, Sverd­
lovsk 1 984, and 8 . . . .tc5 9 lLlc3
0-0 1 0 lii:d I lLl e7 ro K asparov,
although in this case I I lLl e5 inten­
ding e4 looks ;!:. Finally, simply
8 . . . 1!1b8 has its points, since 9 lLlb5
is not available .
A 6 . . . .ie7
B 6 . . . a6
a) 6 ... lLle4!? 7 lLla4!? (7 lLlxe4 .ixe4
8 d3 .ib7 9 e4 .ie7 = Fedorowicz;
but 7 'irc2! looks ;!:) 7 . . . .ie7 (7 . . .
d 5 !? ) 8 d 3 lLlf6 9 e4 d 6 1 0 lLlc3 ;!:
Fedorowicz.
b) 6 ... d6 7 lii: e 1 (7 d4 cd 8 lLlxd4 !?)
7 . . . .ie7 8 e4 a6 9 d4 cd is 'A2'.
Otherwise 8 . . . e5 9 b3 lLl c6 1 0 a3
0-0 I I lii: b l a5 1 2 lLld5 = Plachetka­
Vaisman, Stara Pazova I983, or
8 . . . lLl c6 9 d4 cd 1 0 lLl xd4 lii: c 8 I I
b3 0-0 I 2 .ib2 ( 1 2 .ie3 ) I 2 . . . lii: e 8
 /34 Queen 's Indian and Hedgehog

= Karlsson-Fe dorowicz, Lugano improves.

19S3. Thus 7 . . . db is the main answer:
c) 6 ... d5 7 cd (or 7 lt:J e5) 7 . . . S d4 cd 9 lt:Jxd4 lt:Jxd4 (9 li eS 1 0
0 0 0

lt:J xd5 S d4 lt:Jxc3 9 be lt:Jd7 (9 .. . lt:Jxc6 ( ! ) .ixc6 I I .if4 is promising,

.ie7!?) 10 lil:e I cd I I cd .ib4 1 2
.ig5 ! f6 1 3 .id2 t Karpov-Hort,
Waddi nxveen 1 9 79.
d) 6 ...lt:Jc6 is popular, since 7 d4
e.g. I I o o · .ie7 1 2 t!Ye2 a6 13 llfd l
t!Yc 7 1 4 li ac l t!YbS 1 5 e5 ! ) 1 0 t!Yxd4
.ie 7 I I b3 ( 1 1 li d l a6 1 2 ti'd3
lt:Jd7) I I 0-0, Christiansen­
0 0 .

lt:Jxd4 S lt:Jxd4 .ixg2 9 ot>xg2 (9 Andersson, Hastings 1979-SO, and

lt:J xe6!? fe 1 0 ot>xg2 en Siddeek­ instead of the normal 12 .ib2 ti'bS
Fedorowicz, Estes Park 19S4) 9 . . . = , 1 2 .ia3 ( ! ) prevents o o . lLld7 , e.g.
cd 10 '@xd4 is considered equal , 1 2 '@bS ( 1 2 o o • a6? 1 3 li fd 1 lt:JeS
0 0 0

e.g. 10 'tWbS I I .if4 '@b7+ 1 2

0 0 0 14 e5! ±) 13 lUd I li dS 14 .ib4!?
ot>g 1 d6 1 3 .ig5 .ie7 1 4 .ixf6 .ic6 1 5 a4 a6 16 f4 lia7 17 a5 b5
.ixf6 ! = , or 1 0 a6, or 1 0 '@bS
000 0 0 0 IS ti'b6 .
I I .if4 '@c6+ 1 2 f3 .ic5 13 '@d3 A
.ie7 14 lil: d 1 0-0 = Fedorowicz. 6 .ie7 (136)
So W hite' s best is 7 e4 (135)
136
w

A I 7 b3
A2 7 lil: e l
Now 7 . . . e5 S d3 .ie7 9 lt:Jh4 0-0 A3 7 d3
1 0 lt:Jf5 lt:J d4 1 1 g4! t Stean­ A4 7 d4
Sch neider, Beersheva 1 9SO, and 7 t!Yc2 !? 0-0 (7 lt:Jc6 S e4 d6 9
0 0 .

7 · o o lil:cS?! S e5! lt:JgS 9 d3 d6 1 0 lid I e5) S e4 d6 9 d4 cd 10 lt:J xd4

.if4 t Uhlmann-Szabo, Amsterdam lt:Jbd7 1 1 li d 1 '@bS 1 2 b3 lieS 1 3
1 972, are suspect. Smej kal- Larsen, .ib2 a6 1 4 t!Ye2 was Smyslov­
Biel IZ 1 976, sa w 7 'i!t'bS !? 8 d4
0 0 0 Dzindzihashvili, Moscow 1 972,
cd 9 lt:J xd4 lt:J xd4 10 'it'xd4 .id6 ! =; when 1 4 · o o lil:eS! would have been
but S li e I (S d6 9 d4 !) or S d3
000 equal .
 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 135

Al lt:l xd4 , to gain a tempo on lines

7 b3 0-0 where he plays d4/1t'xd4/e4/.e3/
7 . . . a6 is B l . 7 . . . d5 8 e3 lt:le4!? lt:ld4 etc.
9 .ib2 .if6 1 0 'it'c2 lt:lxc3 I I .ixc3
d4 = Le i n-Gurgenidze, Tbilisi
1969.
8 .ib2 d6
8 . . . d5 is fi ne, e.g. 9 cd lt:lxd5 1 0
d 4 ( 1 0 lt:l xd 5 .txd5 I I 1t'b l - or I I
fJ.cl lLld7 12 d4 fJ. c8 - I I . . . lt:ld7
12 fJ.d l 't!fc7 13 d4 1t'b7 1 4 de
lt:l xc5 1 5 .id4 \12 - \12 Smej kal-Ribli,
Lucerne 0 I 1 982) 10 . . . lt:lxc3 I I
.txc3 cd 1 2 1Wxd4 1t'xd4 was equal
in Andersson-Polugayevsky, Mar A 2 l 7 . . . d5
del Plata 1982. A22 7 . . . d6
9 e3 lt:lbd7 Black must be careful after 7 . . .
a) 9 ... a6 10 d4 lt:lbd7? I I d5! ed 1 2 0-0, e . g . 8 e4 lt:lc6?! 9 e5! lLle8 1 0
lt:lh4! g6 ( 1 2 . . . fJ. b8 1 3 lt:l f5 de? 1 4 d 4 ;!; or 8 . . . d 6 9 d4 c d 10 lt:l x d4
.txb7 fJ. xb7 1 5 lt:l d5 ±±: Hulak; with the idea e5 . New is 7 . . . lt:le4!?
1 2 ... fJ.a7 1 3 lLlf5 d4 14 ed ± 8 lt:la4!? (8 lt:lxe4 .txe4 9 d3 .tb7
Karlsson-D.Gu revich, Helsinki 10 e4 lt:lc6 ) 8 . . . d5 9 cd ed 1 0 d3
=

1 983) 13 lt:l xd5 lt:l xd5 14 .txd5 lt:lf6 I I d4 ro Speelman- Fedder,

.txd5 1 5 1t'xd5 ± Andersson­ Plovdiv 1 983 .
Browne , Wij k aan Zee 1983. Best A21
seems 10 . . . 1t'c7 I I 1t'e2 lt:l e4 =. 7 dS
b ) 9 . . . lLlc6 1 0 fJ. e l !? fJ.c8 I I fJ.c l 8 cd ed
fJ.c7 1 2 d4 cd 1 3 ed d5 14 cd � 8 . . . lt:l xd5 9 e4 (9 lt:lxd5 ed 10 d4
Petrosian-Dolmatov, USSR 198 1 . 0-0 ) 9 . . . lt:l xc3 (9 . . . lt:l b4!? 10 d4
=

10 d4 fJ.b8! cd I I lt:lxd4 lLl 8c6 - 1 1 . . . 0-0 12 a3

Stopping d5 d ue to I I d5 ed 1 2 ltJ4c6 13 e5! ;!; Ftacnik-Meduna,
cd b 5 ! . N ow I I 1t'e2 fJ.e8 1 2 e4 cd Czechoslovakia 1978 - 1 2 lt:l xc6
1 3 lt:lxd4 a6 was Dzindzihashvili­
= lt:l xc6 13 e5! ;!; Larsen-G ligoric,
Ribli, Amsterdam 1 978. Portoroz 1 979) 10 be 0-0 I I d4 cd
A2 12 cd lLlc6 1 3 .ib2 .tf6 ( 1 3 . . .
7 fJ.el (13 7) lt:l a 5 ! ? ) 1 4 fJ.b l fJ.e8 1 5 h4 h 6 (?)
The most important alternative ( 1 5 . . . fJ. c8) 16 d5! ed 17 e5 .te7
to 7 d4. W hite hopes, by e4/d4/ 1 8 e6 with the attack, Seirawan-
 136 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog

Timman, Las Palmas 19S l .

9 d4 �0
10 .tgS
10 de be 1 1 ltlh4 is worth a look,
e.g. I I . . . ..d7 1 2 e4! ltlxe4 ( 1 2 . . .
d4?! 1 3 ltlf5 ! .tdS 14 ltla4) 1 3 ll:lxe4
de I 4 -.xd7 ltlxd7 1 5 .i.xe4 ! Kan­
Taimanov, USSR Ch I 95 2. Other
moves include 10 .tf4 ltla6! =, I O
�3 lLl bd7 ( 1 0 . . . ltlc6!? I I de
ltla5) 1 1 de ll:lxc5 I 2 ._d l =, a nd
1 0 ltle5 cd I I -.xd4 .tc5 1 2 �4 9 d4 cd
ltle4 I 3 ltlxe4 -.xh4 with an unclear 10 lLl xd4 'tllc7
position in Fedorowicz-Browne, 11 .te3!
US Ch I 9 S4. I I b3 ltlbd7 I 2 .tb2 =, e.g. I 2 . . .
10 ltlbd7 0- 0 1 3 f4 lit fe8 I 4 f5 !? e 5 1 5 ltlc2
I 0 .. . ll:la6 I I lit c l liteS ( 1 1 . . . b 5 ! , Larsen-Quinteros, Mar del
ltle4 o r I I . . . h6 Tal) I 2 e 3 ltlc7 ! ? Plata 1982.
( 1 2 . . . ltl e 4 =) 1 3 d e be I 4 ltl a4 ;t 11 ltlbd7
Romanishin-Tal , USSR 1977. I I ... 0-0 12 g4 !? is dangerous.
After 10 ... ltlbd7, the con tinu­ 1 1 . . . -.xc4?? loses to 12 lite I ( I 2 . . .
ation I I lit c l h6 ( I I . . . lit eS =) I 2 � 1 3 e5 !).
.txf6 lLlxf6 1 3 -.a4 a6 1 4 de be 12 litc1 0-0
1 5 ltld2 litbS I 6 e4 de led t o a level 13 f4 litfe8
game in Qu interos-Polugayevsky, a) 1 3 ... litad8 1 4 g4 ltlc5 I 5 .tf2 e5
Mar del Plata 1 9S2. 1 6 ltlf5 ef I 7 b4 ! ±± Lemach ko­
A2 Aiexandria, match I 984.
7 d6 b ) 13 ... litac8 14 g4 ( 1 4 f5 e5 I 5
More c ommon than 7 . . . d5, but ltld5 ._d8 =) 1 4 . . . ltlc5 I 5 .tf2 g6,
difficult to handle. Dezan-Bass, I 984, and now 1 6
8 e4 a6 (138) .tg3 ! , e.g. 1 6 . . . e5 I 7 fe de 1 8 lLld5,
S . . . 0-0 9 d4 cd 10 ltlxd4 has the looks better than I 6 b4.
drawback that 10 ... a6 runs into 14 g4
I I e5 ( ! ) de 12 .txb7 lita7 13 ltlc6 a ) 14 .tfl .tf8 I 5 b3 lit ac8 I 6 f5 e5
11fxd i 1 4 lLlxe7+ �hS I 5 lit xd i I7 ltlc2 b5 = Spassov-Stoica, Athens
lit xb 7 1 6 b 3 etc. And here 1 0 . . . 198 1 ; I 5 g4 e5 I 6 ll:lf5 g6 1 7 g5!?
._c8 I I .te3 lLl bd7 1 2 f4 also lLlh5 18 lLld5 oo Fedorowicz .
favours White. b) 14 rs ltlf8 I 5 g4 ±, but 1 4 . . . e5

1 5 llJd5 1t'd8 or 14 . . . .if8 is critical.
14 lLl cS
A t ry t o improve upon 1 4 . . .
lljf8 1 5 g 5 lLlfd7 1 6 b 3 ( 1 6 'W'g4!?)
16 ... llac8 1 7 llfl 'ifb8 18 f5 e5,
Quinteros-Ribli , Li nares 1 98 1 , and
now Fedorowicz gives 19 lLlde2!
with the idea lLlg3, f6.
1 5 .ifl (l39)
/39
B lLlf6 3 g3 e6 4 llJf3 b6 5 e4 .ib7 6 d3
A key position. Ftacnik suc­
ceeded with the move 1 5 . . . e5
versus Agdestein in Naestved 1985:
1 6 fe (?) de 17 lLlf5 ll ad8 1 8 ltJd5
lLlxd5 19 cd a5 20 lLl xe7+ (lest . . .
.ig5) 2 0 . . . 'it'xe7 2 1 "itd2 llc8. B u t
1 6 lLlf5 ! seems t o improve, due to
16 . . . ef 1 7 g5 lLlfd7 1 8 b4 lLle6 1 9
lLld5, when Black gets some com­
pensation for the exchange, but it
doesn't look sufficient.
Fedorowicz analyses 1 5 . . . d5 !? ,
giving 1 6 e5?! lLlfe4 =t= with the idea
1 7 cd lLlxf2 or 1 7 lLlxe4 de 1 8 .ifl
ll d8 ; and 16 ed ed 1 7 b4 lLlce4! 1 8
lLlxe4 de = ( although here 1 7 g5 ! ?
i ntending 1 7 . . . llJfe4 1 8 lLlxd5
may be good). Fedorowicz suggests
Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 137
1 6 cd! as best, e.g. 16 . . . 'it'xf4 17 b4
ltJcd7 ( 17 ... ed 1 8 be be isn't enough)
1 8 de fe 1 9 lLlxe6 1lhg4 ( 1 9 . . . 'tireS
20 'W'b3 ! ) 20 lLlc7 ± .
In general, 7 lle l loo ks good
against 7 . . . d6 , but 7 . . . d5 is likely
equal.
c
7 d3
This variation is fai rly com mon
due to orders like I c4 llJf6 2 lLlc3
or I c4 lLlf6 2 lLlc3 e6 3 llJf3 b6 4 e4
.ib7 5 d3 etc.
C l 7 . . . d5
C2 7 . . . 0-0
C1
7 dS
Not possible i n the above­
mentioned move orders.
8 cd
8 lLle5!? 0-0 9 .if4 'it'c8 1 0 cd
lLl xd5 1 1 lLlxd5 .ixd5 seems =, but
could be tried.
8 eel
On 8 . . . lLl xd5, 9 'it'a4+ is note 'a'
to 6 lLlc3 a bove.
9 lLl h4!?
9 lLle5 0-0 is harmless and 9 d4
0-0 comfortably equal.
9 0-0
9 . . . 'it'd7 10 e4!?. 8 fter 9 . . . 0-0,
the game Shirazi-Winslow, Los
Angeles 1 982, continued 1 0 lLl f5
lLla6 1 1 d4 ( 1 1 .ig5 lLlc7 1 2 d4 h6
Winslow) 1 1 . . . h6 1 2 de be 1 3 a3
( 1 3 lLlb5!?) 1 3 . . . lle8 1 4 b4 .tf8 1 5
lLlb5 lLlc7 1 6 lLlxc7 'it'xc7 1 7 .tb2
138 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog
lt:le4 t.
C2
7 0-0
8 e4 d6 (140)
Not S . . . d5? ! 9 cd ed 10 e5 a nd
I I d4, but S . . . lt:lc6 9 d4 cd 10 lt:lxd4
lt:l xd4 transposes.
140
w t Vaganian-Matanovic, Belgrade
9 b3
a) 9 lt:le l lt:lc6 1 0 f4 ltJeS (or 1 0 . . .
a 6 ) I I g 4 lt:lc7 1 2 lt:\0 d5 1 3 fS d e
1 4 de .i.d6 Y2 - Y2 Pe trosian-Darga,
Las Palmas 1 973.
b) 9 h3 a6 (9 . . . lt:lc6 10 d4 cd I I
lt:lxd4 :cs 1 2 lt:lxc6 ! .i.xc6 1 3 .i.f4
t Smyslov-Reshevsky, Belgrade
1 970) 10 .i.e3 lt:lc6 I I d4 cd 1 2
lt:lxd4 lt:l xd4! (lest lt:l c2) 1 3 1i'xd4
lt:ld7 1 4 :rd :bS 1 5 :ac I 1i'c7 = 1 0 . . . e5?! I I de de 1 2 lt:ld5! ( 1 2
Carrasco-Gh eorghiu, Palo Alto
198 1 .
c ) 9 1i'e2 lt:lbd7 (9 . . . lt:l c6 1 0 :d l
e5 ) 1 0 d4 cd I I lt:l xd4 1i'c7 1 2 b3
= a6 1 4 1i'e2 :res 1 5 :rd ! 1i'c7 1 6
a6 1 3 .i.b2 ;!; Smej k al-Piachet ka,
Czechoslovakia 197S.
d) 9 :el doesn't allow d4 in one
step (as 7 :e l did), so 9 ... lt:lbd7
1 0 d4 cd I I lt:l xd4 a6 12 b3 1i'c7 1 3
.i.b2 :acS (or 1 3 . . . :res 1 4 :ac l
1i'bS) was balanced in Portisch­
Lju bojevic, Madrid 1973.
Common is 9 ... lt:lc6 1 0 d4 e5,
e.g. I I de de 1 2 ltJd5 ltJeS !? ( I 2 . . .
lt:ld7) 1 3 b 3 lt:l c7 1 4 .i.b2 .i.r6 ( 1 4
. . . .i.d6 1 5 lt:l h4! lt:l d4 1 6 lt:l r5 t
Polu gayevsky-Gurgenidze , Kislo­
vodsk 1 972) 1 5 ii'c2 lt:le6 1 6 :ad I
1 974.
9 lt:lc6
a) 9 ... lt:la6 1 0 : e l (or 1 0 1i'e2!
and d4) 1 0 . . . e5 I I .i.h3 lt:lc7 1 2
lt:lh4 g6 1 3 lt:l g2 intending r4,
Korchnoi-Petrosian, match ( 1 )
1 974.
b) 9 ... lt:lbd7 1 0 1i'e2 a6 I I .i.b2
lt:le8 (?) 12 d4 ;!; Smyslov-Filguth,
1978.
c) 9 . . . :es 10 .i.b2 .i.f8 I I :el
lt:lc6 12 d4 e5 "=" ECO, but 13 de
de 14 lt:ld5 looks ;!;.
d) 9 . .. a6 1 0 .i.b2't!fd7 !? ( 10 ... :eS)
I I :e 1 lt:lc6 1 2 .i.h3 ii'c7, Tai­
Polugayevsky, Tallin·n 1973, and
now best. is 1 3 lilac I ! ;!; planning d4.
10 d4 cd
. . . lt:l xe4?! 1 3 lt:lxe5 ! ) ;!; Gligoric.
11 lt:l xd4 lt:lxd4
I I . . . 1i'd7 1 2 .i.b2 : acS 1 3 ltJ c2
: ac l 1i'bS 1 7 f4 .i.aS I S �h i .i.f8
1 9 lt:le3 ;!; was Watson-de Firmian,
Los Angeles 1 9S I . This illustrates
the general " rule" that Black
shouldn't allow lt:lc2 when his

ow n knight is on co ( lt:\ c2 versus . . .
lt:\bd7 is less effective).
1 2 1t'xd4 a6 (141)
141
w Also 9 . . . 0-0 1 0 e4 ( 10 b3 a6 1 1
Here 1 3 ..i b2 ..ic6!? 1 4 :S:fd 1
1t'c7 1 5 :S:ac l 't!t'b7 is double-edged.
Best may be 13 ..ta3 , e.g. 1 3 . . . 1t'c7
14 l:Ud 1 :S:fd8 1 5 llac 1 ( 1 5 lt:\a4
:S: ab8 ! ) 15 ... lii: ac8 1 7 ..ib4 ;l; with
a4 to follow.
A4
7 d4 cd
7 . . . 0-0?! 8 d5 ed 9 cd d6 1 0 lt:\d2
lt:\a6 1 1 lt:\c4 lt:\c7 12 a4 ± Smyslov­
Dominguez, Las Palmas 1 972. 7 . . .
lt:\e4!? is almost untested. Yudovich­
Kovacevic, Zagreb 1 969, saw 8 d5
(8 lt:\xe4 ..ixe4 9 d5 b5 !?; 9 . . . 0-0 1 0
1t'b3 t was H i.ibner-Sunye, Rio de
Janeiro I Z 1 979) 8 . . . lt:\xc3 9 be
i. f6 (9 . . . 0-0 Ku rajica; then 10 d6
i.f6 1 1 1t'd3 lt:\c6 1 2 e4 or 10 e4 d6
1 1 e5 ! ? ca n be tried) 1 0 e4 ! i.xc3
1 1 i.g5 f6!? ( 1 1 . . . i. f6 12 i. xf6
and 1 2 . . . gf 1 3 lt:\h4! or 1 2 . . . 1t'xf6
1 3 e5 1t'h6 14 lt:\ d2 ! is difficult) 1 2
l::tc 1 fg 1 3 l::t xc3 ed 14 ed 0-0 1 5 1i'c I
h6 1 6 h4! gh 1 7 lt:\xh4 ±± .
Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 139
A41 8 lt:\xd4
A42 8 1t'xd4
A41
8 lt:l xd4 i. xg2
9 �xg2 'it'c8
i.b2 d6 1 2 d3 lii: a 7! = Uh 1mann­
Ribli , V rbas 1 977) 1 0 . . . 1t'c8 (or
10 . . . d6 1 1 b3 a6 12 i.e3 'it'c7) 1 1
b 3 1t'b7 1 2 0 lt:\c6, Capablanca­
Vidmar, New York 1927; possible
now is 1 3 i.b2 :S: ad8 14 :i:te I lt:\e8 !?
with the idea ... lt:\xd4 , . . . f5 .
1 0 1t'd3
Harmless is 10 b3 0-0 ( 10 . . . d5
1 1 i.f4!?) 1 1 i. b2 1t'b7+ 1 2 0 d5 =.
But 10 i.f4!? is complex: 1 0 . . . 0-0
1 1 lt:l db5 ( 1 1 e4 1t'xc4 !? 1 2 lt:\cb5
lt:\c6 oo, or 1 1 . . . 't!t'b7 1 2 0 :i:td8)
I I . . . a6 12 i.d6 lt:\c6 ! 13 i.xe7
lt:\ xe7 14 lt:\ d6 1t'c6+ 1 5 0 lt:\c8 1 6
lt:\de4 lt:\ xe4 = N ei-Gipslis, Tallinn
198 1 .
10 lt:\c6
11 lt:\xc6!
Or I I b3 , but 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 i.b2
:i:td8 or 1 2 . . . d5 !? should suffice,
or I I . . . lt:\e5 1 2 1t'e3 1t'b7+ 1 3 0
lt:\g6 , Nei-Gurgenidze, USSR Ch
1967.
11 1t'xc6+
1 2 e4 0-0 1 3 i.d2 l::t ac8 1 4
b3 l::t fd8 1 5 'tW O ( 1 5 0 d 5 ) 1 5 . . .
a6 1 6 l::t fe 1 d6 1 7 l hc l 1!t'b7 =
intending . . . b5 Hort-Tal, H avana
01 1 966.
A42
8 't!txd4 (1 42)
140 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog
142
B After 1 0 lLlb5 , Korchnoi-Barcza­
The m ai n line. Black must first
decide where he wants his q ueen's
k night:
A42 1 8 . . . lLlc6
A422 8 . . . 0-0
A423 8 . . . d6
A421
8 lLlc6
9 1Wf4
9 'tlt'd2 lLla5 1 0 b3 d 5 I I lLle5 de
9 't!t'b8
a) 9 ... 0-0 1 0 e4 ( ! ) ( 1 0 lt d 1 and
10 b3 transpose to 'A422') 1 0 . . .
ltc8 1 1 ltd ! .i.b4? ( I I . . . lLla5 !?)
12 e5 .i.xc3 13 be ± Korchnoi­
Veresov, USSR 1 967.
b) 9 ... lLla5!? 1 0 ltd ! ! ? ( 10 b3 ;t)
10 . . . 1Wc8 ! 1 1 b3 d5 1 2 cd? ( l 2 lLle5
de =; 1 2 lLl b5 0-0 =) 12 . . . 't!t'xc3
.td2 't!t'b2 14 'tlra4+ 'lt>f8 1 5 .txa5
ba 16 de .txf3! 17 .t xf3 lil:c8 =F
Slitsky-Ruderfer, 1 967.
1 0 lLlbS
Or I 0 1Wxb8+ lt xb8 I I .i.f4 l:r.c8
12 lLlb5 lLl e4 1 3 l:r. ad I .i.c5 1 4
lLld2! t Smyslov-Tal, Moscow
1963. 10 e4 transposes to 8 . . . 0-0
below.
Leningrad 1967, went 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I
't!t'xb8 l:r.a xb8 1 2 .i.f4 l:r.d8 1 3 .i.d6
(or 13 .i.c7 l:r.c8 14 .i.d6) 1 3 . . .
.txd6 1 4 lLlxd6 .ta8 1 5 lt fd l ltb8
16 :S:d2 ( 16 lLlg5 !) 16 ... :S:fd8 ( 1 6
. . . h6), and Milic suggests 1 7 lLlg5 ! .
A422
8 o-o (143)
Probably not the m ost accurate
order for the . . . lLlbd7 systems, but
best for the ... lLlc6 ideas.
9 ltdl
a) 9 b3 lLlc6!? 10 't!t'f4 't!t'b8 1 1 .i.b2!?
't!t'xf4 1 2 gf !; 9 . . . d6.
b) 9 e4!? lLlc6 (9 . . . 't!t'c8!? 1 0 e5 - or
10 lil:d1 - 1 0 . . . lLlc6 1 1 't!t'h4 " ! with
the idea 1 1 . . . lLlxd5 1 2 cd .txh4 1 3
de ;!;" Yudovich; Black could argue
with this) 10 ire3 ( 10 'tlrd3 d5 I I e5
- 1 1 cd lLl b4 = - I I . . . lLld7 1 2 cd
lLlb4 ) 10 . . . .i.c5 !? ( 1 0 . . . d6 I I
=
lt d l 1Wc7 1 2 1We2 lLl e5 1 3 b3 lLlxf3+
14 .i.xf3 a6 1 5 .i.b2 , Korchnoi­
Kholmov, Moscow 1 964, and now

Karklins gives 1 5 . . . .i c6 ! ; l O . . .
d 5 ! ? I I e 5 ! , e .g. I I . . . d4 1 2 lt:lxd4
lt:lg4 l 3 lt:l xc 6 etc) I I 1!1e2 d6 1 2 b3
lt:ld7 1 3 .ib2 li:lde5 1 4 llad 1 :!;
Smej kai-Giigoric, Vrbas 1 977.
9 lt:lc6
9 . . . d6 is ' A423'. 9 . . . a6 10 .ie3 !?
.ic5 I I 1!1d3 is oo, and 9 . . . d5? ! l O
lt:le5 .ic5 I I \!fh4 i s d ubious. This
leaves the old move 9 . . . 'tlt'c8 l 0
e4 ( ! ) ( 1 0 .if4 lld8 I I l:l:ac l lt:lc6
12 'tlt'd3 d5! = Refir-Milev, 1958;
1 0 't!Vf4 lt:l a6 ! I I b3 d5 =) I I b3
lt:lc6 1 2 'tlt'd2 lld8 13 't!t'e2! lt:ld7
( 1 3 ... lld7) 14 .ia3 1!1b8 15 lld2
lt:lc5 16 l:l:ad l ± Korchnoi-Gipslis,
Stockholm IZ 1 962.
10 'tlt'f4 d6
Moves like 10 . . . llc8 1 1 b 3 a6
12 e4 b5?! ( 1 2 . . . .ib4) 1 3 e5 ! b4 l 4
lt:la4 lt:le8 1 5 .ie3 f6 1 6 .ib6 ±
Forintos-Kushnir, Lone Pine 1975,
and lO . . . .ib4 I I .id2 (or I I lt:lf5 !
nd lt:lge4) 1 1 . . . lt:la5 1 2 b 3 't!t'e7 1 3
lt:lb5 :t are no longer played. Better
is lO . . . 't!t'b8 (144) :
144
w Rovinj-Zagreb 1970.
a) 1 1 1lhb8 ( I I b3 l:l:d8 1 2 't!t'xb8
Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 141
may be more accurate) I I ... l:l:axb8
( l l . . . l:l:fxb8?! 1 2 .if4 l:l:d8 l 3
lt:lb5 lt:la5 1 4 .id6 :t Portisch-Csom,
Ljubljana 1973) 1 2 .if4 l:l:bc8 1 3
lt:le5 ( 1 3 lt:lb5 d5 ! ) 1 3 . . . d6! 1 4
=
lt:l xc6 .i xc6 1 5 .ixd6 .ixd6 1 6
It xd6 .ixg2 1 7 'ii? xg2 It xc4 1 8
Itad l g5 ! 1 9 lld8 ll xd8 20 l:l: xd8+
'ii?g7 2 1 l:l:a8 lt:ld5 ! = Portisch­
Pachman, Amsterdam 1 967 .
b) 1 1 e4 't!t'xf4 ( 1 1 . . . l:l:d8 AI burt)
12 .ixf4 Itfd8 1 3 e5 lt:le8 14 lt:ld4
lt:l a5 ( 14 . . . l:l: ac8!?; 14 . . . 'ii?f 8!?
Averbakh) 1 5 b3 .ixg2 16 'ii? xg2
g5 ( 1 6 . . . d6 1 7 ed .ixd6 1 8 .i xd6
lt:l xd6 19 l:l:d2 :t Karpov-Portisch,
M ilan 1 975) 17 .ie3 'ii?g7 1 8 f4! gf
1 9 gf lt:l c6 20 lt:l ce2 ± Pet rosian­
Portisch, Palma de Mallorca 1974.
11 b3 'tlt'b8
I I . . . a6 1 2 .ia3 d5 1 3 .ib2( ! )
with the idea 1 3 . . . .id6 1 4 cd! .
1 1 . . . 'tlt'd7 1 2 .i b2 l:l:fd8 1 3 .ih3! ±
intending lt:ld5 or lt:l b5 Szabo­
Tatai , Sarajevo 1972.
12 .i b2 l:l:d8
a) 12 ... lt:leS 1 3 .ia3 ! lt:lxf3+ ( 1 3 . . .
lt:lg6) 1 4 .ixf3 :!; Hort-Nicevski,
b) 12 ... a6 1 3 lt:lg5 ! ( 1 3 e4 l:l:d8
transposes, but 1 3 l:l:d2 ! is also
strong) 1 3 ... l:l:a7 ( 1 3 . . . h6 1 4
lt:lge4) 1 4 lt:lce4 lt:le5 1 5 lt:lxf6+
.ixf6 16 .i xb7 l:l: xb7 17 lt:le4 ! .ie7
( 1 7 . . . lt:lf3+ 18 't!t'xf3 .ixb2 1 9
l:l: ab l .ie5 2 0 lt:l xd6! H aag) 1 8
l:l:d2 ± Smyslov-Andersson , Biel
IZ 1 976.
142 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog
13 e4
Aga in 1 3 l:ld2 is promising, e.g.
13 . . . a6 14 "tit'e3 ! ( 1 4 li:Jg5 ! h6! 1 5
lL!ge4 lL! xe4 intending 1 6 lL! xe4 f5
and . . . .ig5) 1 4 . . . lL!d7 1 5 lL!g5 !
etc.
13 a6
14 "tit'e3 "tit'a7
14 . . . b5?! 1 5 cb ab 16 lL!xb5
lL!b4 1 7 lL!fd4 (or 1 7 e5 !?). After
14 . . . "tit'a7 , Taim anov-Kholmov,
USSR Ch 1 967, continued 15 lL!e l
l:lab8 1 6 lL!c2 .i a8 1 7 t!re2 (;l;) 1 7 . . .
t!rb8 1 8 a 4 t!rc8 1 9 l:lab I lL! e8 20 f4
.i f6 2 1 h3 lL!c7 22 lt>h 2 lL!a7 23
lL!e3 U ± .
A423
8 d6 ( 145)
145
w
Now Black intends . . . lL!bd7 in­
stead of . . . lL!c6. Still in its i n fancy
at the time of the first edi tion, this
' He dgehog' system subsequen tly
became the single most popular
answer to the English Opening.
It's worth a little space to consider
how this came about. By traditional
theory, Black's pawn on d6 should
prove a wea kness in the long run.
White's strategy in these ci rcum­
stances was supposed to be straight­
forward: establish a bind on Black's
two freeing moves . . . . b5 and . . . d5.
The n, with more space to work
with, White could more rapidly
shi ft his forces from one side to
another, eventually forci ng new
weaknesses or material gain. This
sort of squeeze was a trade mark of
many strong players, including
(e.g.) Botvinni k and Smyslov.
Two di fficulties arose: ( I ) Pre­
venting both . . . b5 and . . . d5 turned
out to be more difficult than in
posi tions with the knight on c6; in
particu lar, the b7 bishop had
more direct control of e4, d5 and
even b5 (after, e.g, . . . �c6); (2) I f
Wh ite did manage t o ac hieve the
bind. it often turned out that he
couldn 't transfer his forces as
planned above, because any com­
mittal movement would release the
pressure on Blac k 's game. Thus
White tends to be as much tied up
by Black 's latent activity as Black
himself is tied up by White's space
advantage.
After several years and seemingly
countless games, the essential vali­
dity of Blac k 's st rategy versus a
central bind seems fu lly substan­
tiated. In fact, players on the White
side turned their attention to either
an early central break (e4-e5) or to
a safer positional solution beginning
with �g5 xf6, to defuse the counter-

attacking potential of B lack's set­
up. These latter strategies have
done much to discourage advocates
of the Hedgehog, but the debate
continues.
A423 1 9 b3 ( with 10 .ta3)
A4232 9 l:i: d l
A4233 9 e4
A4234 9 i.. g5
These lines are highly transposi­
tional , so I have grouped b3 and
lid l without e4 under A4232,
those games where an early e4 is
played under A4233, and the rare
9 b3 with 10 i.. a3 u nder A423 l .
A4231
9 b3 0-0
9 . . . a6 is 'B' below. 9 . . . lt:J bd7
1 0 .ta3 lt:J c5 I I b4 lt:Jce4 12 lt:Jxe4
.txe4 1 3 llfd l 0-0 1 4 b5 1!t'cS 1 5
'tie3 ! ? l:i: dS I 6 l:i: d4 ( 1 6 lt:Jd4 !?) 1 6
. . . a6! 1 7 l:i: xe4 lt:Jxe4 1 S lt:l d4 ! ( I S
'ti'xe4 d5 !) I S . . . f5 1 9 lt:Jc6 i.. f6 20
i.. xe4 fe 2 1 i.. b2 l:i:eS 22 .txf6 gf
23 'tixb6 ab = Uhlma nn-J ansa,
Hastings 1975-76.
10 i.. a 3
10 i.. b2 transposes to li nes
below, e .g. 10 a6 I I l:i:d l ts
'A4232' .
10 lt:la6 !
As suggested in the first edition.
10 . . . lt:lc6 I I 'tif4 a6 12 l:i:d l ::!::
transposes to ' A422', whereas 1 0
. . . d5!? I I .txe7 'ti'xe7 1 2 c d lt:lxd5
1 3 lt:lxd5 i.. x d5 14 l:i:ac l is unclear.
11 l:i:fd1 lt:lcS
12 l:i:ac l ( 1 2 ll:Jb5 lt:lfe4 1 3 't!t'e3
Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 143
a6 14 lt:lbd4 'ti'c7 =!+ was Suba­
Stefanov, Ro mania 19SO) 1 2 . . . a6
13 b4?! lt:lcd7 14 i.. b 2 'ti'bS 1 5 lt:ld2
i.. xg2 1 6 'i!txg2 lieS 17 f3 (?) b5! =t=
M il es-Adorjan, R iga IZ 1 979 .
A4232
9 l:i:d1 0-0! ?
The safer 9 . . . a6 10 e4 is examined
in 'A4233', and 9 . . . a6 10 lt:J g5 is
' B22' below. Also possible is 9 . . .
ll:Jbd7, e.g. 1 0 lt:lg5 ! ? .txg2 I I
'i!txg2 0-0 1 2 lt:Jge4 lt:lxe4 ( 1 2 . . .
lt:leS 1 3 lt:lb5) 1 3 lt:Jxe4 1!t'c7 ! 1 4 b3
( 1 4 lt:J xd6 l:i:adS) 1 4 . . . lifdS 1 5 f3,
Krnic-De Firmian, N ice 19S I , and
now Krnic gives 1 5 . . . lt:lf6! =.
10 b3!?
a) 10 lt:lbS !? lt:lc6 I I 'ti'd3 'ti'bS 1 2
b 3 ( 1 2 lt:J xd6? lidS 1 3 i.. f4 e5 1 4
lt:J xe5 lt:lxe5 1 5 .txe5 i.. xg2 1 6
'i!fxg2 lt:leS H Alburt) 1 2 . . . l:i:dS
1 3 i.. b2 , AI burt-Tarjan, US Ch
1 9S I , and now 1 3 . . . a 6 or 1 3 . . . d5 !
14 cd ( 1 4 lt:Jg5 h6! 1 5 .txf6 .txf6
1 6 't!t'h7+ 'i!ff8 Christiansen) 1 4 . . .
lt:lb4 1 5 'ti'b l i.. xd5 1 6 i..e 5 'tib7
1 7 a3 i.. e 4 = B yrne and · M ednis.
b) I mportant for an assessment of
this order is 10 i..g S(!) lt:Jbd7
10 . . . lt:lc6 I I 't!t'f4 ;!; Speelman­
Hawksworth, Edinburgh 19S5) I I
lt:Jb5 d5 ( I I . . . e5!? 1 2 'tie3 e4 1 3
i.. xf6 lt:Jxf6 1 4 lt:lfd4 lt:lg4 1 5 'tif4
;!; Gurevich-Benjamin, US Ch 19S3;
12 'i!t'd2!?) 12 cd i.. x d5 ( 1 2 . . .
lt:l xd5? 1 3 .txe7 't!t'xe7 1 4 e4 and 1 5
e 5 ; 1 2 . . . ed!? 1 3 1t'f4 h 6 1 4 .txf6
lt:J xf6 1 5 lt:Jfd4 - 15 lt:Je5 l:i:e8! - 1 5
144 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog
. . . a6 1 6 lt:lc3 .id6 1 7 't!rf5 ! ]i[e8 1 8
lt:l xd5 lt:lxd5 19 .txd5 .txd5 20
't!rxd5 .te5 2 1 e4 ! U ± Adorjan­
Bouaziz, Riga IZ 1 979) 1 3 lt:lc3 ( 1 3
't!rh4 ]i[c8 ! 1 4 e4 ]i[c4 1 5 lt:lfd4 .ia8
= Horvat h-Borm, Baden 1 980) 1 3
. . . .ic6 1 4 't!rc4! ( 14 lt:le5 lt:lxe5 1 5
't!t'xe5 't!t'c8 = Schii ssler-Suba , Lu­
cerne 01 1 982) 1 4 . . . 't!rc8 ( 1 4 . . .
]i[c8 1 5 'tlra6 'tlk 7 1 6 lt:lb5 ;!; Ftacnik)
15 e4 h6 (?), Korchnoi-Ftacnik ,
Biel 1 984, and n o w 1 6 .if4 ! w as
very s trong, e.g. 1 6 . . . b5 ( 1 6 . . . g5
1 7 lt:l d4 ± ) 1 7 lt:lxb5 't!rb7 1 8 lLlc3 !
± Ftacnik. Better seems 1 5 . . . lt:lc5
1 6 e5 ( 1 6 lt:ld4 .ib7 1 7 e5 !?) 16 ...
lt:ld5 1 7 b4, Kengis-Shabalov,
Jurmala 1 985, and now 17 . . . lt:l xc3
is =/ro according to Kengis; but in
general this looks a risky line . 9 . . .
a 6 i s probably more accurate than
9 ... d6.
10 lLlbd7
11 .tb2 a6 ( 146)
146
w Buenos Aires 1 980, went 15 f3
A423 2 1 1 2 lt:l g5
A42322 1 2 ...e3
1 2 lt:ld2 .txg2 1 3 'i!?xg2 't!rc7 1 4
lt:lde4 transposes t o 1 2 lLlg5 . 1 2
'tlt'd2 ...c7 1 3 lt:ld4 .ixg2 1 4 'i!?xg2
'tlt'b7+ 1 5 f3 lt:le5 (or 1 5 . . . ]i[ fd8 =,
or 1 5 ... ]i[ fc8 1 6 e4 lt:le8 =) 1 6 e4
]i[fc8 1 7 'tlt'e2 lt:lc6 ( 1 7 . . . g5!?) 1 8
lt:l xc6 ]i[xc6 was equal in Korchnoi­
Polugayevsky, Buenos A ires 1980 .
A42321
12 lLlg5 .ixg2
13 'i!?xg2 'tlt'c7
O r 1 3 . . . ]i[a7 1 4 lt:lge4 't!t'a8 1 5 f3
lt:le8 = Baumbach-Espig, 1976. Or
1 3 . . . 't!rb8 1 4 lt:lge4 ]i[ d8 1 5 lt:l xf6+
.txf6! 1 6 't!rxd6 'tlt'b7+ 1 7 'i!?g l ( 1 7
f3 lt:le5 1 8 't!ra3 lt:lg4! 1 9 ]i[xd8+
]i[xd8 20 lt:le4 lt:le3 =/ ro R uderfer­
Psakhis, USSR 1980) 1 7 . . . lt:le5 1 8
't!ra3 lt:lc6 = Koval:evic-Ljubojevic,
Titovo U zice 1 978 .
1 4 lt:l ge4 't!rc6
Or 1 4 . . . lt:le8 with the idea .. .
't!rb7, . . . b5 Ljubojevic. Or 1 4 .. .
]i[ fd8 1 5 f3 ( 1 5 lt:lxf6+ .t xf6 ! ) 1 5 . . .
lt:lc5 1 6 ]i[ac 1 'tlt'b7 = Schmidt­
G iigoric, Buenos A ires 01 1978.
After 14 . . . 'tlt'c6, Hort-Browne,
li[fd8 16 lilac l lt:lc5 1 7 lt:l xc5 be
1 8 'tlt'f4 d5 19 e4 de =.
A42322
12 't!t'e3
With the ideas lt:ld4-c6 and/or
f4-f5 .
12 'tlt'c7
O r 1 2 . . . lil e8 , e .g. 1 3 lLld4 ( 1 3
h3!?) 1 3 . . . .txg2 1 4 'i!?xg2 .tf8 1 5
:C:ac l 'tlt'c7 1 6 h 3 ]i[ac8 = Ribli­
Giigoric, Vrbas 1 977.
 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 145

13 h3 number of defences to the e4-e5

Larsen's move, s topping . . . ll:lg4 plan of ' A4233 1 ' .
and giving the king a safe square A42 33 1 10 b3
on h2. 1 3 ll:ld4 .txg2 14 �xg2 ll:le5 A42332 10 'tlt'e3
(or 14 . . . l:lfe8 !) 1 5 f3 ( 1 5 f4 !? �7+ A42331
1 6 ll:lf3 ll:leg4, e .g. 1 7 1M3 ll:ld7 ! 10 b3 ll:lbd7
1 8 b4 ! f5! ? oo ) 1 5 . . . �7 1 6 lild2 11 lild1
litfc8 1 7 h3 lilc7 1 8 a4 ll:l fd7 = a) 1 1 .ta3 ll:lc5 12 lilfe l 0-0 ( 12 . . .
Seirawan-Browne, US Ch 1 980 . e 5 ! ? =) 1 3 lilad l � 8 1 4 e 5 de 1 5
13 lilfc8 'tlt'xe5 'tlt'a7 ro Lief-Walder, Anaheim
Or, again, 1 3 . . . lilfe8 ! . Complex 1 9S4.
was 13 . . . lil acS 1 4 lilac ! lilfdS 1 5 b) The simple 1 1 .tb2 0-0 has fallen
ll:ld4 .txg2 1 6 �xg2 ll:le5 1 7 f4 from favour:
'it'b7+ I S ll:l f3 ll:lc6 1 9 �h2 b5 b l ) 12 ll:ld2 .tc6 1 3 a4 'tlt'bS 1 4
20 f5 ! e5 2 1 g4, Larsen-Browne, lilfe 1 lit eS 1 5 h3 .tffi Korchnoi­
=

Rey kj avik 1 9 78. B rowne, Chicago 1 9S2.

1 4 ll:ld4 .txg2 b2) 1 2 lilfe1 1Wc7 1 3 11t'd2 lil fe 8 1 4
1 5 �xg2 ll:l eS ll:ld4 .i. ffi 1 5 lilad 1 lil ad8 1 6 ll:lc2
"=" Hubner. In Htibner-Browne, 11t'b8 1 7 11t'f4 .taS 1 8 g4 ll:le5 ! 1 9 g5
Tilburg 1 982, White got some pull ll:lg6 20 'tlt'e3 ll:lh5 2 1 ll:le2 d5 22 e5
after 16 �g l ll:lc6?! ( 16 . . . 'tlt'b7) 1 7 ll:lh4! =F Valvo-Gheorghiu, Phila­
lilac l 'tlt'b7 I S ll:l xc6 lhc6 1 9 a4 delphia 1978.
ll:leS 20 .ta3 . b3) 1 2 lilfd1 and now:
A4233 b3 1 ) 1 2 ... lilc8 13 ll:ld2 .tc6! 14 a4
9 e4 a6 (147) 'tlt'c7 1 5 h3 lilfe8 = Karpov-Browne,
Buenos Aires 1 9SO.
147 b32) 1 2 ... 'tlt'c7 1 3 11t'e3 lil fe8 1 4
w ll:ld4 ( 1 4 'tlt'e2 lilacS 1 5 lil d 2 'tlt'bS
1 6 lil ad l .tf8 1 7 ll:le l ! intending
ll:ld3, f4, Smej kal-Raj kovic, Bel­
grade 1977, is a neglected plan) 1 4
. . . .t f8 1 5 lilac I lit adS 1 6 h3 g6?!
( 1 6 . . . �s = ) 1 7 ll:ld5 ! ! (148)
1 7 . . . ed I S cd ll:lc5? ( I S . . . 'tlt'bS
19 ll:lc6 'tit'aS 20 lZl xdS 'tlt'xdS 2 1
'tlt'f4 ;t Rshaid) 1 9 ll:l f5 ! ll:lxd5 20
Most flexible. 9 ... 0-0 will usually ll:lh6+ .txh6 2 1 'tlt'xh6 ffi 22 ed ±
transpose, but cuts down on the Rshaid-Wiedenhafer, corres 1 984.
146 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog
b33) 1 2 . . . 1i'b8! 1 3 ll:ld2 ( 1 3 'ti'e3
liteS 1 4 ll:ld4 .tffi =) 1 3 . . . litdS (or
1 3 . . . litac8 1 4 'it'e3 b5 ! + Uhlmann­
Ljubojevic, A msterdam 1975) 1 4
a4 't!V c7 1 5 't!Ve3 n acS 1 6 'ti'e2 ll:le5,
Polugayevsky-Ftacnik, Lucerne 01
1 9S2, and i nstead of 1 7 h3 h5! l S
f4 ll:l g6 1 9 ll:lf3 d5 ! 20 cd h4 ! =F,
Ftacnik gives 17 'it>h 1 =.
11 'it'c7!?
a) 1 1 . . . lita7 1 2 ..ia3 ll:lc5 1 3 e5
.txf3 ( 13 ... de 1 4 't!fxdS+ ; compare
below) 14 .txf3 de 1 5 't!fxe5 ll:lcd7
16 ..ixe7 'it'xe7 1 7 'W'e3 litc7 l S
ll:la4 ± Tiller-Lobron, Randers
1 9S2.
b) 11 ... ll:lcS!? 12 e5 de 13 1i'xe5
( 1 3 ll:l xe5 ..c7 =) 1 3 . . . \i'cS 1 4
..ib2 ( 1 4 ..if4 0-0 1 5 't!fc7 't!fxc7 1 6
..ixc7 ll:lcd7 =) 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 lit d2
liteS 1 6 litad l ..ic6 1 7 'it'e2 ll:lcd7
= S mejkal-Quinteros, Novi Sad
1 9S2.
c) 11 ... 1!t'b8 1 2 .ta3 ll:lc5 13 e5 and
now:
c l ) 13 ... ..ixf3 14 ..ixf3 de 15 ..ic6+
'it>ffi 1 6 'it'e3 lita7 (149)
Now known is 1 7 b4 ll:lcd7 1 S c5 ! ,
e.g. l S . . . g6 !? ( l S . . . b 5 1 9 ..ib2 is
untested; l S . . . 'ti'c7?! 19 ..ixd7
ll:l xd7 20 ll xd7 ! ! 't!fxd7 2 1 cb llaS
22 litd 1 'ti'c6 23 ll:le4 f5 24 b5 ! !
with a winning attack, Stempin­
Ksieski, Polanica Zdroj 1 9S3) 19
ll:la4 be 20 't!fh6+ 'it>gS 21 be 'ti'f8 !?
22 'W'e3 'it>g7, Mayorov-Andrianov,
USSR 19S3; 23 litac l ! Andrianov,
but this leaves many questions.
I like the simple 17 lld2. Then
17 . . . 'it'cS? lS 'W'xe5 ! or 17 . . . litc7?
l S 'it'xe5 is bad, but on 17 . . . ll:lcd7,
l S ..i xe7+ 'it>xe7 19 litadl h6 (else
'ti'g5 ) 20 ll:le4 with the idea c5 and/
or litd6/ ll:lf6 can follow. White
intends simply litadl and then (e.g.)
b4 if Black does nothing.
c2) 13 ... de 14 Wxe5 'ti'a7!? ( 1 4 . . .
..ixf3? 1 5 'W'xbS+ lit xbS 1 6 ..ixg3
0-0 1 7 ll:la4 litfcS 1 S ll:l xc5 ..i xc5 19
.ib2! ± and ..ie5 Tiller-H.Olafsson,
Randers 1 9S2) 1 5 ll:la4 ( 1 5 i.b2
liteS 1 6 'it'e2 'ifaS = Tu kma kov­
Psakhis, USSR Ch 1 9S3; 15 'it'e2
0-0 1 6 ll:le5 ..ixg2 1 7 'it>xg2 lit cS ) 1 5

. . lt:Jfd7 ! 1 6 'iff4!? ( 1 6 'ifxg7 .if6
1 7 �h6 .ixa I 1 8 lt:Jxe5 =/ro
G reenfeld) 16 . . . 'ifb8 17 'ifg4 h5
m Miles-Georgiev, B elfort 1 9 83.
Also possible in this line is 14 . . .
tL1ed7 1 5 'ifxb8+ nxb8 1 6 .i e l ( l 6
.ixd6 .ixd6 1 7 n xd6 rt/e7 1 8
Ilad 1 b5 ! + Trosclair-G heorghiu,
New York 1 984; 16 .ib2 !? 0-0 1 7
t'i:ld4 .ixg2 1 8 rtlxg2 ll fe8 1 9 f4
t'iJg4 20 lt:Je2! lt:Je5 2 1 h 3 lt:Jf6 22
t'i:le3 b5 23 Ilacl t Ftaenik; but 23
. . . b4! 24 lt:J e2 lt:Jfe4 =) 16 . . . ne8
17 .ib2 h 5 !? 18 h4 ( 1 8 h3) 18 . . .
ne7 1 9 lt:Jg5 .ixg2 20 rt/xg2 0-0,
Ge orgiev-Ftaenik, Wijk aan Zee
1 985. Instead of 17 . . . h5!?, 1 7 . . .
Ii:g8!? 1 8 lt:Je2 g5 1 9 lt:Je5 .ixg2 20
\t>xg2 lt:Jxe5 2 1 .ixe5 lt:Jd7! was
equal in Pelts-Browne, New York
1986.
d) 11 ... 0-0? 1 2 .ia3 lt:Je5 1 3 e5 de
14 1!fxd8 nfxd8 1 5 lt:Jxe5 .ixg2 1 6
$>xg2 .if8 (or 1 6 . . . Ilde8 1 7 lt:Ja4
Ii:ab8 18 lt:Jxe5 be - /8 . . . .ixc5 / 9
.ixc5 nxc5 2 0 f4! b5 21 lld2
Mednis - 1 9 .ib2 ! Ilb7 20 Ild3
rtlf8 2 1 llad 1 rtle8 22 f4 ± Pytel­
Krusyns ki, Poland 198 1) 17 .ixe5 !
be ( 1 7 . . . .ixe5? 1 8 lt:Ja4 rt/f8 19 b4!
.ixb4 20 lt:Jxb6 .ic3 2 1 lt:Jxa8 n xa8
22 lt:J d7+! lt:Jxd7 23 ll:ac l ±±) 1 8
�a4 lld6 1 9 <M3 h5 20 h3 lla7 2 1
g4 ± Ftacnik-Ambroz, H radec
Kralove 198 1 .
1 2 .ia3 lt:Jc5
13 e5 de
14 'ifxe5 (/50)
Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 147
14 lieS!
a) 14 ... 'i!t'c8 15 lt:Ja4 ( 1 5 1i'e3 !?
lt:Jfd7 Ftaenik) 1 5 . . . lt:Jfd7 ( 1 5 . . .
lt:Jcd7 1 6 'ifb2 .ixa3 1 7 1!fxa3 b5
18 cb ( ! ) ab 19 lt:Jd4! .ixg2 20
lt:Jxb5 ± Korsunsky-Norgulev,
USSR 1977; 1 5 . . . lt:Jxa4 16 .ixe7
rtlxe7 1 7 'ifd6+ ±) 1 6 '@xg7 .if6
1 7 'it'h6 .i xa l 1 8 ll: x a 1 ( 1 8 lt:Jxc5!?
lt:Jxc5 19 ll:xa I \!t'c7 20 lld1 lld8
2 1 Ile I ! ± Olafsson-Kinderrnann,
Reykjavik 1 982) 18 ... '@c7 1 9
lt:Jxc5 be 20 .ib2 lig8 2 1 1i'h7 ±
Stean-Ligterink, Mar del Plata
1982 .
b) 14 ... 't!t'xe5 1 5 lt:J xe5 .ixg5 1 6
rtlxg2 llc8 , K rnic-Stoica, A thens
198 1 , and aside from 17 .txc5
llxc5 18 f4 llc7 19 f5 t, Mednis
gives 1 7 .ib2 ! 0-0 18 rtlf3 t .
1 5 \!t' xc7
1 5 .ib2 h5!? 16 h3 .ic6 (or
16 . . . .ixf3 1 7 1!'xc7 ll: xc7 1 8 .ixf3
h4 ro B rowne) 1 7 1!fxc7 Ilxc7 1 8
lt:Je5 .ixg2 \12-\12 I vanka-Browne,
Las Vegas 1986. 15 .tc I " ! " �xe5
1 6 lt:Jxe5 .ixg2 17 rtlxg2 lt:Jcd 7 1 8
148 Queen's In dian and Hedgehog
lt:lxd7 lt:l xd 7 1 9 lt:l e4 llc6 20 i.f4
;!:: (Kengis) needs tests.
IS lil xc7
16 i.cl
A clever t ry wh ich threatens
i.f4 and lt:le 5.
16 lt:lfe4 !
1 6 . . . lt:lcd7 1 7 i.f4 lieS 1 8 a4 !?
(perhaps 18 lt:le5 i.xg2 1 9 �xg2,
e.g. 19 . . . b5 20 llac l lt:l xe5 2 1
i.xe5 be 22 lt:la4; 1 9 . . . i.a3 !?) 1 8
. . . i.b4 1 9 lt:l a2 i.c5 20 lt:le5 i. xg2
21 �xg2 lt:lxe5 22 i.xe5 ;!: I vanov­
Browne, Los Angeles 1 98 1 .
1 7 lt::lx e4 i.xe4
18 i.f4 lilc8
19 i.d6
1 9 i.e 5 f6 20 i.d6 lt:lb7
Gutman.
19 lt:ld3 !?
Not 19 ... llc6? 20 i.xe7 �xe7
2 1 b4 lt:l a4 22 lt:le5 i.xg2 23 lld7+!
�e8 24 llad 1 ±±: Gutman-de
Firm ian, Lone Pi ne 198 1 . But also
possible is 19 . . . i.f6 ( !), e .g. 20
lt:le5 lt:lb7 ! 21 f4 lt:lxd6 22 ll xd6
i.e7 ! 23 lldd 1 i.xg2 24 �xg2 f6
25 lt:lf3 i.c5 Andersson-Browne­
= 12
Naestved 1 985.
After 19 . . . lt:ld3, Gutman­
Lj ubojevic, Biel 1 985, went 20
i.xe7 �xe7 21 lt:ld4 i.xg2 22
�xg2 lt:le5 23 lild2 llhd8 24 lil ad 1
�e8 25 �fl lt:lc6 26 �e2 . Gutman
calls this ";!::� , but it is no more than
a drawn ending.
A42332
10 1t'e3 0-0
11 lt:ld4 1t'c7
12 b3 (15 1)
/5/
This line has been dominated by
Uhlmann's al most exclusive use of
it over the last decade. For the
most part, other players have
shied away from the variation,
either because they mistrusted
White's c hances or because they
simply didn't feel up to defending
against the (often devastating)
Black counterattacks which can
arise after . . . b5 and/or . . . d5 .
Theoretically, the line may be
better than its l ac k of popularity
would i ndicat e.
lt:lbd7
1 2 . . . lt:lc6 13 i.b2 lilfd8 ( 1 3 . . .
llfe8) 1 4 lil a c l lt:l xd4 1 5 1t'xd4 ;!:,
e.g. 1 5 . . . i.f8 1 6 h3 l:i ac8 1 7 �h2
lile8 1 8 lUd 1 i.a8 19 i.a3 liled8
20 f4 ;!: Uhlmann-Tarjan, Skopje
1976.
13 i.b2 l:ife8
Played exclusively now, although
1 3 . . . lilad8 is not unthin kable.
14 l:ifel

Not even in the first edition, this
has become Uhlmann's m ain idea.
If Black plays . . . d5 at any point,
White is ready to answer with e5 .
a) 1 4 lit acl ll ac8 1 5 h3 'it'bS 1 6 g4,
Uhlmann-Ribli, Manila I Z 1 9 76,
and now 16 . . . g6! 17 ct>h l .US I S
f4 e5 (Stean).
b) 14 ct>h1 i.f8 15 f4 g6 1 6 litae I
i.g7 1 7 1!id2 ( 1 7 h3? e5! - or 1 7 . . .
llad8 18 g4 e5 + Uhlmann-Szabo,
Bucharest l979 - IS ll:lc2 ef 19 1!1xf4
ll:lc5! 20 ll:lb4 ll:lh5 2 1 '@f2 '@d7
=F Stefanov-Gheorghiu, Romanian
Ch 1 97S) 17 . . . e5 !? ( 1 7 . . . ll adS ! =)
1 S ll:lc2 ef 1 9 1!1xf4 ll:lc5 (?) ( 1 9 . . .
ll:le5 2 0 litd I h6! ) 2 0 ll:lb4 ±
Uhlmann-A.Rodriguez, Halle 1976.
c) 14 h3 i.fS 1 5 llfe1 ll adS ( 1 5 . . .
litacS 1 6 lle2 '@bS 1 7 1!id2 ll:lc5 1 S
litd 1 1!1aS 1 9 '@e 1 " ! t Uhlmann­
�
Vaiser, Be rlin 1 9S2) 1 6 ll e2 ( 1 6
llad 1 �bS 1 7 �c 1 ll:lc5 1 S �b 1
'@aS 1 9 f3 '@bS 20 f4 e5 + was
Uhlmann-Akesson, Polanica Zdroj
1 9 S 1 ) 1 6 . . . '@bS 1 7 llae1 g6 1 S �d2
ll:lc5 (or 1 S . . . i.g7 1 9 �d 1 ltJc5 =
Hiibner-Kasparov, Tilburg 1 9S 1 )
1 9 �d 1 '@aS !? 20 ll:lc2 i.g7 2 1
i.a 1 h5 22 b4 li:lcd7 2 3 �xd6 h4 !
24 g4 ll:lc5 25 �xb6 li:ld3 =Iro
Uhlmann-Adorjan, Budapest 19S2.
14 i.f8
15 lite2 llad8
1 5 . . . llac8 1 6 lld 1 �S 1 7 �d2
ll:lc5 1 S i.a 1 '@aS 19 f3 :U. edS 20
ct>h 1 g6 2 1 '@e3 i. g7 22 :U.ed2 liteS
23 1!1f2 i.h6 24 lite2 lledS 25 ll:l c2 !
Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 149
(with the idea ll:la4) 25 . . . lLl eS 26
ll:le3 i.g7 27 lled2 b5 28 ll:le2! tl ±
Uhlmann-Grunberg, Dresden 19S5.
16 1rd2 g6
16 . . . ll:lc5 17 lld 1 ll:lg4 !? ( 1 7 . . .
1!ibS) 1 S ll:l c 2 g 6 transposes.
17 ll d 1 ll:lc5
1 S ll:lc2 ll:lg4 19 ll:le3 ! ( 1 9 .ta 1
i.g7 20 ll:le3 ll:l xe3 2 1 1!1xe3 .tc6 =
Uhlmann-Gheorghiu, East Ger­
many v Romania 1 9S4) 19 . . . i.h6
20 f4 ll:l xe3 21 �xe3 i.g7 ( 2 1 . . . e5
22 li:ld5) 22 b4 li:ld7 23 lit ed2 lLlbS
24 .tfl i. f8 25 �d4 ! e5 26 �f2 ±
Uhlmann-Womacka, East German
Ch 1 9S6. A still unresolved line.
A4234
9 i.g5 (152)
After all the messy lines had
been played a while, this simplifying
posi tional line became popular.
The result was dramatic: after years
of high fashion, the H edgehog was
replaced as the main 1 . . . c5 vari­
ation (by the Double Fianchetto
of the next chapter). This was
apparently not due to any clear
150 Queen's In dian and Hedgehog
advantage produced by 9 .i,g5,
but because it denies Black the
type of game he wants.
9 a6
9 . . . 0-0 1 0 lHd l li:Jbd7 ( 1 0 . . .
li:Jc6 1 1 't!t'd3 t ) 1 1 li:Jb 5 was ex­
am ined in 'A4232' above. 9 . . .
h6? 1 0 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 1 1 't!t'd3 a6 1 2
lUd 1 .i.e7 1 3 li:Je4 d5 ( 1 3 . . . ..txe4)
14 cd ..i xd5 1 5 li:Jc3 .i.c6 16 't!t'c4 !
and 1 7 li:Je5 wins.
10 .i.xf6!
A move I called "uninspired" in
the first edition! 10 Iilfd1 li:Jbd7
1 1 li:Jd2 !? is relatively untested;
best seems 1 1 . . . .i.xg2 1 2 <t>xg2 �0
13 li:J de4 'itc 7! 1 4 li:Jxd6 lHd8 with
counterplay, e .g. 1 5 li:Jde4 't!t'c6 1 6
0 h6! = .
10 .i.xf6
11'itd3 (154)
More popular than 1 1 't!t'f4 (153)
/53
B
a) 1 1 hf3 1 2 't!t'xO ( 1 2 .i.xf3
...
lla7 1 3 llfd 1 .i.e5 1 4 't!t'd2 0-0 1 5
ll ac I b5?! 1 6 't!fe3 ! ;!; K arpov­
Browne, Bath 1983; 1 5 . . . 'ite7
Karpov) 1 2 . . . li[ a7 1 3 llfd 1 ( 1 3
llad 1 �0 1 4 b3 li:Jd7 ! 1 5 li:Je4 .i.e7
= Hebert-Greenfeld, Thessaloniki
01 1984) 1 3 . . . 0-0 14 lld2 lld7 1 5
llc1 't!fc7 1 6 b 3 llc8 1 7 a4 li:Jc6 1 8
't!t'xc6 'itxc6 1 9 .i.xc6 llxc6 20 li:Ja2 !
;!; Andersson-Browne, Tilburg 1982.
b) 11 ... lla7 12 llad1 ..ie7 13 li:Je4
.i.xe4 14 't!t'xe4 li[c7 15 b3 was
Andersson-Langeweg, Wijk aan
Zee 1 98 1 , and now Cebalo gives
1 5 . . . li:Jc6! 16 li:Jd4 li:Jxd4 =.
c) 1 1 0-0 1 2 llad 1 ( 1 2 llfd 1 .i.e7
...
1 3 li:Je4 .i.xe4 14 'it'xe4 lila7 1 5
li:Jd4 't!t'c8 1 6 b 3 JileS 1 7 a4!? 1tc5
oo Karpov-Kasparov, USSR 198 1 )
1 2 . . . .i.e 7 1 3 li:Je4 .i.xe4 1 4 'ti'xe4
li[a 7 1 5 li:J d4 1tc8 ( 1 5 . . . lld7 16 b3
.i.f6 17 a4 ;t Nogueiras-Pazos, Cuba
1984) 1 6 b3 1!t'c 5 1 7 a4 llc7 1 8 lld2
'ti'e5 ( 1 8 . . . li:Jd7 1 9 li:Jxe6 ! ±) 19
'ir'b 1 llfc8 20 ll fd 1 li:Jd7? ( 20 . . . g6)
21 b4 ! ! g6 ( 2 1 . . . ll xc4 22 .i.b7) 22
b5 ab 23 cd d5 24 li:Jc6 ±± Kavalek­
Velikov, Solingen v Slavia 1984.
11 lla7
a) 1 1 ... .i.xf3 1 2 e f! ? ( 1 2 .i.xf3 ;!;)
1 2 . . . lla7 1 3 f4 0-0 1 4 llad 1 .i. xc3 !?

( 1 4 . . . :U.d7 1 5 fS ! ) 1 5 't!t'xc3 :U. d7 1 6
h4! 'tlt'c7 1 7 h 5 ± Ni kolic-De�e.
Novi Sad 1 982.
b) 1 1 ... 0-0? 1 2 :U.fd l i.. e7 1 3 ll:lg5
i.. xg5 14 i.. x b7 lla7 1 5 i.. e4 ! f5
16 i.. g2 :U.d7 1 7 f4 i.. f6 1 8 e4 ±
Vaganian-Htibner, Thessaloniki 01
1 984.
c) 1 1 ... 't!t'c7 is a good alternative,
e.g. 12 :U.fd I i.. e7 1 3 ll:le4 0-0 1 4
ll:lfg5 g6 ( 1 4 . . . :U.d8 1 5 ll:lc5 ! i) 1 5
't!t'd4 h 6 ! 1 6 lLl f3 i..xe4 ! 1 7 't!t'xe4
ll:lc6 1 8 :U.ac l Y:! - Y:! Tal-Browne,
Taxco IZ 1 9 8 5. More common is
1 2 :U. ad l i.. e7 1 3 ll:l d4 i.. x g2 1 4
<t>xg2 ll:lc6 1 5 f4 ll:lxd4 ( 1 5 . . . 0-0
1 6 ll:l xc6 't!t'xc6 17 :U.f3 b5 = Welin­
Browne, Reykjavik 1 986; 16 f5 !?
or 16 b3) 16 1hd4 0-0 1 7 f5 ( 1 7
:U. f3 ! ? Ftacnik) 1 7 . . . :U. ac8 ( 1 7 . . .
i.. f6 1 8 'tlt'xd6 'tlt'b7+! =/ro or 1 7
. . . 'it'b7+ Ftacnik) 1 8 fe fe 1 9 'ii'g4
1Wxc4 20 :U.d4 't!t'c6+ 2 1 :U.e4 =/ro
Ftacnik-Browne, Naestved 1985.
d) 11 ... i.. e7 12 :U.fd 1 ll:le7 13 ll:le4
i.. xe4 14 't!t'xe4 :U.c8 1 5 :U. ac 1 0-0 1 6
ll:ld4 i.. f6 1 7 b 3 'ii' c7 1 8 :U.cd2 i
Htibner-Lj ubojevic, London 1982.
12 :U.ad1 i..e 7
1 3 ll:ld4
1 3 ll:le4 0-0 14 :U.d2 ( 1 4 ll:lxd6?
i.. xf3 1 5 i..x f3 :U.d7) 14 . . . 't!t'c7 1 5
ll:leg5 !? ( 1 5 :U.fd 1 ! ?) 1 5 . . . g6 1 6 h4
ll:ld7 17 b3 ll:lf6 1 8 ll:ld4 i.. xg2 1 9
<t>xg2 Wb 7 + 2 0 f3 d5 = S myslov­
Short, Montpellier 1 985.
13 i..x g2
14 <t>xg2 'ii'c 8!?
Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 151
14 ... :U.c7 1 5 f4 ! (threatening f5)
1 5 . . . ll:l c6 ( 1 5 . . . g6 G reenfeld; 1 6
e4!?) 1 6 ll:l xc6 ( 1 6 f5 ( ! ) ll:l e 5 1 7
't!t'e4 :U.xc4 1 8 fe fe 1 9 b3! Greenfeld)
16 . . . 't!t'a8 ! 17 :U.f3 't!t'xc6 18 b3
0-0, Ehlvest-Greenfeld, Groningen
1 98 2-83, and now 19 e4 is t.
15 f4 g6
1 5 . . . ll:lc6 1 6 f5!? ll:le5 1 7 't!t'e4
0-0 1 8 fe fe 1 9 :U.xf8+ i.. x f8 20 ll:lf3
ll:l xc4 2 1 b3 ll:le5 22 ll:lxe5 i was
Dorfm an-Psakhis, USSR Ch 1 984;
or 1 5 . . . :U.c7 ! ? 1 6 f5 e5 (?), Ni kolic­
Ribli, Novi S ad 1982, when Nikolic
gives 1 7 f6! ed ( 1 7 . . . i.. f6 18 ll:lf5)
18 fg :U.g8 I 9 't!t'xh7 ±± .
16 b3
I 6 f5 !? gf I7 e4 fe I 8 ll:lxe4 f5
(forced) I 9 ll:lg5 !? ( I 9 lixf5 !? gf 20
ll:lf5 'ii'c6 ! ; I9 ll:l c3 ll:l c6 ! 20 't!t'e2
ll:lxd4 = Tal-Gavrikov, Tallinn
I985) 19 . .. i.. g 5 20 ll:l xe6 1Wxe6 2 I
:U.de i 't!t'xe i 2 2 :U.xe l + :U.e7 23 't!t'd4
:U.g8 24 :U.xe7+ <t>xe7 ! 25 'ii' xb6
ll:ld7 26 'ii' xa6 =/oo Tal-Short,
Naestved 1985.
16 0- 0
About equal, although: 1 7 h4!?
b5!? 18 cb :U.c7 I 9 :U.f3 e5? 20 ll:ld5 ! !
'tlt'b7 (20 . . . e d 2 I :U. c l ! ) 2 1 b 6 't!t'xd5
22 be ±± Greenfeld-Pasman, Beer­
Sheva I 984.
Probably Black can equalize
after 9 i.. g5, and often the i end­
i ngs are theoretically drawn. But
very seldom does Black achieve
the active play he gets in other
lines.
152 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog
8 lLlc5 1 3 llfd 1 lLlxe4 1 4 lLlxe4 lLlxe4
6 a6 (155)
155
w �xg2 J.e7 1 2 lLlde4 11t'c7 1 3 llfd 1
7 d4
7 b3 d6 (7 . . . J.e7? 8 d4 cd 9
11t'xd4 d6 1 0 J.a3 ! is looked at
below; 7 ... d5 8 cd lLlxd5 9 lLlxd5
and 9 . . . 11t'xd5 1 0 J.b2 or 9 . . . ed 1 0
d 4 ;t ) 8 J.b2 ( 8 e 3 J.e7 9 d 4 lla7! =)
8 . . . J.e7 9 d4 cd 10 lLlxd4 ( 1 0
11t'xd4 is 'A') 1 0 . . . J.xg2 1 1 �xg2
�0 1 2 e4 ( 1 2 'it'd3 't/c7 =) 1 2 . . .
11t'c7 1 3 f4 lbc6!? ( 1 3 . . . lle8!?; 1 3
. . . 'tlt'b7) 1 4 lLl O 'tlt'b7 1 5 11t'e2 llfe8
1 6 llad 1 oo 8ronstein-Kalinchev,
M oscow 1 982.
7 cd
8 11t'xd4 d6
8 1 9 b3
82 9 lld 1
a) 9 e4 J.e7 1 0 b3 lLlbd7 1 1 J.a3
'tlt'b8 1 2 llad 1 lLlc5 is 'A4233 1 ' ( 1 1
. . . 'tlt'bS ) .
b) 9 J.e3 lLlbd7 1 0 lLl g 5 J.xg2 1 1
�xg2, Sahovic-Gipslis, Jurm ala
1978, and now 1 1 . . . 11t'c7 1 2 lLlge4
lld8 or 1 1 . . . ll c8 1 2 lLlge4 ll c6 is
better t han 1 1 . . . J.e7? 1 2 li:lge4
1 5 11t'xe4 llb8 1 6 J.f4 ! ± .
c ) 9 J. gS J.e7 transposes to 'A4234';
or 9 . . . lLlbd7 1 0 lLld2 J.xg2 1 1
0-0! 1 4 lld2 ( 1 4 lLlxd6 llfd8) 1 4
. . . llfd8 = was Dr� ko-Griinberg,
Polanica Zdroj 1985.
81
9 b3 lLlbd 7 !
9 ... J.e7? ! 1 0 J.a3! lLlc6 ( 1 0 . . .
�0? 1 1 ll fd 1 lLle8 1 2 lLle4 lLlc6 1 3
11t'd2 d5? 1 4 cd J.xa3 1 5 de! 11t'xd2
1 6 li:lfxd2 ± Zuckerman-8enjamin,
New York 1 979; 1 2 . . . d5 1 3 J.xe7
1!rxe7 14 cd J.xd5 1 5 lLlc3 ±±
Zuckerman) 1 1 11f4 ;!;, e.g. 1 1 . . .
11t'c7 1 2 llac1 lLle5 1 3 llfd 1 ;!;
8enko-Diesen, Lone Pine 1976, or
1 1 . . . 11t'b8 12 lilfd 1 d5 1 3 J.xe7
lLlxe7 1 4 lLle5 ;!;.
10 lild1 J.e7
Or 10 .. . 'iVb8 1 1 J.a3 li:lc5 =
Seirawan-Fedorowicz, USA 1 977.
1 1 J.a3 lLlc5
1 2 b4 lLlcd7!? 13 b5 lLlc5 1 4 11t'e3
ab 1 5 lLlxb5, Uhlmann-Rogoff,
8iel I Z 1 976, and now Rogoff gives
15 ... 11t'b8 !. Moreover, 1 2 . . . lLlce4(!)
and 13 lLlxe4 li:lxe4 14 'tlt'xg7 J.f6
or 1 3 lLla4 lLl d7 looks good.
82
9 lild1
821 9 ... lLl bd7
8 22 9 . . . J.e7
8 21
9 lLlbd7
10 lOgS J.xg2

11 �x g 2 (156)
/56
B 1rf4 d 5 1 3 cd (or 1 3 i.b2!? intending
11 i.e7
a) 1 1 ... "tlrc7 1 2 lt:lge4 l!Jxe4 1 3
lt:lxe4 lt:le 5 1 4 b3 lil:d8 ! 1 5 i.e3! b 5
1 6 "tlt'b6 ± Larsen-Gheorghiu, Las
Palmas 1 976.
b) 1 1 ... lil:c8!? 1 2 lt:lge4 lil:c6 1 3
i.g5 !? ( 1 3 i.f4 lt:lxe4! 1 4 "t!t'xe4!?
\12- \12 Adorjan-Sub a, Prague 1985;
14 ... "tlrc7 1 5 b3 lt:lf6 with the idea
. . . b5 could follow. 14 lt:lxe4!?, e .g.
14 . . . e5 1 5 "tlt'd5 "t!t'c7 16 i.e3 i.e7
may favour White) 1 3 . . . i.e7 1 4
lt:lxf6+ lt:lxf6 1 5 lLle4 0- 0 1 6 lt:lxf6+
i.xf6 1 7 i.xf6 "tlt'xf6 1 8 "tixf6 gf 19
lld4 !.
12 lt:lge4 0-0 !
The typical gambit idea. Horvath­
IIijin, Virovitica 198 1 , continued
1 3 lt:lxd6 "t!t'c7 1 4 lt:lde4 ( 14 i.f4 ! ?)
14 . . . lil:ad8 1 5 i.e3!? ( 1 5 lt:lxf6+
Ilijin, but 1 5 . . . lt:l xf6 1 6 11t'h4 lt:ld5
or 1 5 . . . i.xf6 !? is unclear) 1 5 ...
lt:lg4 ! 16 i.f4 lt:lde5 1 7 lt:ld5 ed 18
cd =/oo.
822
9 i.e7
Queen's Indian and Hedgehog 153
1 0 lt:lgS
1 0 b3 lt:l bd7 transposes to 'A';
or here 10 . . . 0-0? 1 1 i.a3! lt:lc6 1 2
1 3 . . . i.d6 1 4 cd lt:lxd5 ! 1 5 "tlt'g4
lt:lf6 1 6 "tn14 with an attack) 1 3 . . .
e d ( 1 3 . . . lt:lxd5 1 4 lt:lxd5 i.xa3 or
14 i.xe7 "tlt'xe7 is a better try) 1 4
i.xe7 lt:lxe7 1 5 lil:ac l lil:e8 1 6 l!Ja4
± Ftacnik-Suba, Sochi 1 977.
10 i.x g2
1 1 �xg2 lt:lc6
1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 lt:lce4 lil:a7 13 lt:lxf6+
i.xf6 14 "tlt'g4 i.e7 1 5 h4 lt:ld7 1 6
b3 lt:lf6 1 7 'tWO lil:d7 1 8 i.b2 ;t
Adorj an-Lau, Plovdiv 1983.
12 "tlt'f4 lil:a7
13 b3
1 3 lt:lge4 ( 1 3 lt:lce4 0-0 1 4 lt:lxf6+
i.xf6 1 5 'ti'g4 'ti'c7!? - 15 . . . lil:d7 -
1 6 "it'e4 g6 1 7 i.f4 t Robatsch­
G . Garcia, M alta 1 98 1 ) 1 3 . . . lil:d7
1 4 i.e3 lt:le5 ( 1 4 . . . 0-0 1 5 lt:l a4 b5
16 lt:lb6 lil:b7 1 7 lt:lxf6+ Horvath)
15 lt:lxf6+ i.xf6 was Horvath­
Schneider, Hungary 1 984, and now
Horvath gives 1 6 "tlt'e4! ± with
the idea lt:la4, but this is not very
convincing.
13 0-0
14 i.b2 lil:d7
A position where White still has
chances to exert pressure, e.g. 1 5
lt:lce4 lt:le8 1 6 lt:lf3 ( 1 6 lil:ac l h6 1 7
lt:lf3 'ti'b8 1 8 � g l 'ti'b7 1 9 "it'd2 !
Ornstein-Ftacnik, Trnava 1 983)
16 . . . b5 ( 1 6 . . . "tia8 1 7 �gl lil: d8
1 8 'ti'e3 b5 1 9 lil: ac 1 ;t Adorj an-
/54 Queen's Indian and Hedgehog

Schneider, Hu ngarian Ch 1 984) 1985.

17 ct>g l ! be 1 8 be ll:la5 1 9 li[ac l Thus an early ... a6 creates certain
li[c7 20 lil de2 't!t'c8 2 1 .ta3 e5 22 problems for Black , apparently
't!t'e3 ± Adorjan-Rohde, New York without corresponding benefits.
 12 Double Fianchetto Defence
1 c4 c5
2 lt:lf3 lt:lf6
2 . . . g6 3 g3 (3 d4 cd 4 lt:lxd4 .tg7
5 e4 is a S icilian) 3 . . . b6 4 .tg2 .tb7
5 0-0 .tg7 6 d 3 !? lt:lh6!? 7 lt:lc3 0-0
8 .t d2 f5 9 ll b i lt:lf7 = Feustei­
Nicolaiczu k, West Ge rman Ch
1978.
3 g3 b6
4 .tg2 .tb7
5 �0
5 lt:lc3 g6 can be independent in
the line 6 b3 d5 (!) 7 cd .tg7 8 .tb2
lt:lxd5 9 t!t'c i (9 0-0 lt:l c6 10 ll b i ?!
lt:lc7! + Andersson-Korchnoi , Sao
Paulo I 979; 10 d4 lt:l xc 3 ! I I .txc3
lt:ld4 +lro) 9 . . . 0-0 10 lt:lxd5 1!hd5
I I .txg7 �xg7 I 2 t!t'c3+ f6 I 3 0-0
lt:lc6 I4 llfe l e5 + Ivkov-Tukmakov,
Lugano I 985.
5 g6 (15 7)
157
w I I t!t'a4+ lt:l bd7 1 2 1Wxc4 a6 ! 1 3
An extraordinarily popular vari­
ation at the highest levels, at least
for the moment. It retains many
of the structural features of the
Hedgehog without as much risk
(no initial weakness on d6, for one
thing). The reader should n ote,
however, that the Double Fian­
chet to can be conveniently used
only against 2 lt:lf3 , as (e.g.) 2 lt:lc3
lt:lf6 3 g3 renders 3 . . . b6 ineffec­
tive , whereas 2 lt:lc3 b6 allows
3 e4 .tb7 4 lt:lf3 intending d4, as
outlined in Chapter 9.
A 6 ll:l c3
8 6 b3
6 d3 .tg7 7 e4 will transpose to
'A2', and 6 d4 cd 7 t!t'xd4 .tg7 will
transpose to 'A I '. Korchnoi-Miles,
Tilburg I985, saw 6 e 3 .tg7 7 d4 cd
(7 . . . 0-0 8 d5 b5 Miles) 8 ed 't!t"c8 !?
(I gave 8 . . . d5 9 lt:le5 t!t'c8 = i n the
first edition) 9 lt:la3 d5 10 lle I de
t!t'e2 0-0! =.
A
6 lt:lc3 .tg7
A I 7 d4
A2 7 d3
S low is 7 ll b i ? ! lt:lc6 8 b3 0-0
9 .tb2 d5 =!+ Andersson-Larsen,
Copenhagen I977; or 7 e3 0-0 8 d4
 156 Double Fianchello Defence
cd 9 ed lt:lc6 1 0 ..if4!? lt:la5 1 1 b3
d5 12 lt:le5 1l c8, a t leas t =, Eising­
Keene, Ma nnheim 1 975.
A1
7 d4
A l l 7 . . . lt:le4
A l 2 7 . . . cd
All
7 lt:le4 (158)
/58
w I I 4Jd2! ( 1 1 a4 a6 1 2 a5 1!rxb5 1 3
8 lt:lxe4
a ) 8 1!rd3 lt:lxc3 ( 8 . . . f5 !? 9 lt:lg5 cd
1 0 lt:lcxe4 f) 9 be 0-0 1 0 e4 (" 1 0 d5
wi th a spatial advantage" Ivanov)
10 . . . cd ( 1 0 . . . d6 1 1 .te3 lt:lc6 1 2
lt:ld2 e5 - 1 2 . . . e6!? - 1 3 d5 lt:l e7 1 4
f4 t Pfleger-Gligoric, M anila 1974)
1 1 cd d6 1 2 ..ig5 lt:lc6 1 3 li[ac I lil:c8
14 li[fd l li[c7 1 5 1!re3 1!t'a8 1 6 ..ih6
=leo Ivanov-Miles, Lucerne 01
1982.
b) 8 4Jd5!? lt:lc6 (8 . . . 0-0 9 lt:lg5 !
lt:ld6 1 0 ..if4 :t; 8 . . . e 6 9 lt:lf4 d5?
1 0 de be I I lt:ld2! lt:lf6 1 2 cd lt:lxd5
13 lt:le4 ± G reenfeld-K arolyi,
Groningen 1 9 8 1 ) 9 dc bc 1 0 lt:le l !?
f5 l l lt:l d3 a6 1 2 lt:ldf4 ..tc8 ( 1 2 . . .
li[d7 1 3 4Je6! ) 1 3 ..td2!? ..id7 1 4
ll b l 0-0 1 5 lt:lc3 , Vadasz- Ftacnik,
Zalaegerszeg 1 979, when Ftacnik
gives 15 . . . lD xc3 ! 1 6 .txc3 .txc3
1 7 be 1!rc8 =.
8 .txe4
9 d5 0-0
a) I gave 9 ... b5 as best, but Renman­
Ornstein, Swedish Ch 1 984, went
10 cb ( 10 lt:ld2 .txg2 I I �xg2 'ti'b6
1 2 e4 0-0 1 3 h4 lt:la6 = Schmidt­
Ornstein, Erevan 1976) 1 0 . . . 1!rb6
lt:ld4 c d 1 4 .txe4 d6 = ) I I . . . .txg2
1 2 �xg2 1!t'xb5 1 3 1!rb 3 ! 'ti'a6 !? ( 1 3
. . . 1!rxe2 1 4 lt:lc4 lt:la6 1 5 .tf4 and
1lae l ; 13 ... 1!rxb3 1 4 ab d6 1 5 lbc4
lt:ld7 1 6 1l a6 :t) 1 4 lt:lc4 d6 1 5 ..id2
lt:ld7 16 .tc3 lt:lf6?! ( 1 6 . . . li[ b8??
1 7 .txg7; 1 6 . . . .txc3 1 7 1!rxc3 0-0)
17 li[ad I 0-0 1 8 .txf6! .txf6 19 'ti'c2
li[lb8 20 b3 with all the play.
b) 9 e5 10 1!t'b3 0-0 I I ..ih3 ..txf3
•..
12 1!t'xf3 f5 1 3 e4 f4!? ( 1 3 . . . 1!t'f6
Karpov) 1 4 1!t'd l d6 1 5 .id2 a5 1 6
'ti'a4 ± Karpov-Timman, Brussels
1986.
10 .th3
Threatening lt:ld2. Not 10 h4
b5! =, but 1 0 'ti'b3 is promising,
e.g. 10 . . . e6 I I ..ih3 t or I I ..ig5 :t.
10 .txf3
11 ef e6 (159)
I I . . . e5 !? 1 2 f4 !? ( 1 2 li[e l ) 1 2 . . .
e f 1 3 .txf4 ..ixb2 1 4 li[ b l ..if6 1 5
't!Va4, Karpov-Timman, Amster­
dam 1 98 1 , is assessed as =/co by
Timman; in the game, 1 5 . . . d6 1 6
ll b l h 5 ! 1 7 lle l g 5 1 8 li[ be3! gf

1 9 lii: e 8 b5 ! 20 't!Yxb5 't!Yb6 =I CD
followed. Timman suggested 1 6
li fe I (! ) and 1 6 . . . h 5 1 7 .ih6 .ig7
1 8 .ixg7 'ii?x g7 1 9 lii: e 3 etc, or 1 6 . . .
a6 1 7 :Iii: b3 :Iii: a 7 1 8 lii: be 3 lii: e 7 1 9
l:Ixe7 .ixe7 20 .ih6 lii: e8 2 1 lii: e 3 !
with ongoing pressure.
!59
w
12 lii:e 1 !
" 1 2 f4!" Filip. 1 2 lii: b 1 a 5 ( 1 2 . . .
ed 1 3 't!Yxd5 ll:J c6 1 4 .ig5 .if6 1 5
.ih6 lii: e8 CD Seirawan-Miles, Lone
Pine 1 978) 1 3 .ie3 ( 1 3 f4) 1 3 . . .
l:I a 7 1 4 't!Yd2 ll e8 = Levitina­
Alexandria, Dubna 1983.
12 .id4
The problem is that now 1 2 . . .
e d 1 3 't!Yxd5 ll:Jc6 1 4 .ig5 .if6 1 5
i.h6 is strong. After 1 2 . . . .id4,
Korchnoi-Panno, Lucerne 1985,
went 1 3 .i h6 lii:e 8 14 1i'a4 a6 ( 14 . . .
..txb2 1 5 llad l !) 1 5 f4 11 47 1 6
llad l :tl ± .
All
7 cd
A 1 2 1 8· 1i'xd4
A l 22 8 ll:l xd4
Al21
8 1i'xd4 ll:Jc6
Double Fianchetto Defence /57
a ) 8 ... 0-0 9 1i'h4 d6 1 0 .ih6 ( 1 0
.ig5 ! ? ll:lbd7 I I lii: fd l ; 1 0 lii: d l
ll:lbd7 l l .ie3 llc8 1 2 lii: a c l a6 1 3
b 3 ll e8 1 4 't!Yh3 ! :;!; planning lLld4
Pekarek-Ambroz, Prague 1986)
10 .. . lLl bd7 I I lii: a c I lii: c 8 12 b3
llc5 1 3 .ixg7 'it'xg7 14 lii: fd l �
Schmidt- Barle, Pula 1975.
b) 8 . . . d6! (160) (Adorjan's move)
9 lii: d l ll:lbd7 10 b3 ( 1 0 't!Yh4 lii: c8
with the idea . . . lii: c5) 1 0 . . . 0-0 1 1
i.b2 lii: c 8 (or 1 1 . . . a6 in tending 1 2
lii: a cl b5; 1 2 't!Yf4!?) 1 2 't!Ye3 ( 1 2
lii: ac l a6 1 3 ll:Jd5 b5! = Donaldson­
Gurevich, New York 1 985) 12 . . .
lii: e8 1 3 lii: a c l a 6 1 4 .ia l lii: c5 ! 1 5
a4 't!Ya8 1 6 ll:Je 1 lii: f5 ! 1 7 .i xb7
1i'xb7 1 8 f3 h5 = ( or 18 . . . d5 =)
Karpov-Kasparov, match (23) 1986.
9 't!Yf4
a) 9 't!fh4 h6 ! 1 0 ll:Jd4 ( 1 0 ll:ld5 lii: c8
= or 1 0 . . . e6 =) I 0 . . . g5 ( 10 . . . lii: c 8
I I lii: d I g5?! 1 2 ll:Jxc6 .ixc6 1 3
1t'd4 .ixg2 1 4 'i!7xg2 :;!; Greenfeld­
E.Gudmundsson, Groningen 1 982-
83) I I ll:Jxc6 de 1 2 't!Yh 3 1i'd7 =
Donaldson-Lengyel, S trasbourg
1985.
 158 Double Fianchetto Defen ce
b) 9 1i'd3 li[c8 1 0 e4 �g4 was equal
in Korchnoi-Miles, Baden-Baden
198 1 .
9 lil:c8
9 . . . �a5 10 b3 0-0 with the idea
I I l:[d I e5! Shamkovich . 9 . . . 0-0
10 1i'h4!? �a5 I I ..tg5 ( I I b3 �h5!
Kengis) I I ... lilc8 12 b3 lic5! 1 3
li[ac l h6 = Kengis-Ma karichev,
Moscow 1 986.
10 lid1
10 b3 � e4 ( 10 . . . 0-0) I I 1i'xe4
..txc3 1 2 li[ b l ..tg7 13 1i'h4 h6 1 4
..tb2 ;t S myslov-Ko hlweyer, Dort­
mund 1986.
10 �a5!?
No t best, perhaps, but most
exciti ng. Either 10 . . . 0-0 I I 1i'h4!?
�a5 12 b3 lil c5 1 3 ..ta3 lif5 ! =
Velez-Lebredo, Cuban Ch 198 1 ,
or 1 0 . . . �h5 I I 'tWe3 �b4 1 2 l:[ b l
li[xc4 1 3 �e 5 ..txe5 1 4 1i'xe 5 f6 1 5
1i'b5 ..ta6 1 6 1i'a4 =/ro is playable.
11 b3 b5
No t I I . . . �e4? 12 �e5 ! ± , and
I I . . . �h5 12 1i'e3 b5 transposes.
12 �xb5! �h5
13 1i'e3 ..txa 1
14 �d6+ �f8
15 �xeS ..txc8
16 g4
Analysis by Panno, who gives
16 0 0 0 �g7 1 7 ..ta3 ..tf6 1 8 g5 �f5
19 gf! ± . But Donaldson-Kouatly,
Strasbourg 1 985, went 1 6 . . . �f6 !
Yl- \t'l . I n fact, 1 7 ..td2 �xg4 1 8 1i'g5
..tf6 1 9 1!ha5 ;t is given by Donald­
son, while even 1 7 ..ta3!? with the
idea 1 7 ... �xg4 18 1i'f4 ..tf6 1 9
1i'xg4 �g7 20 �d4! keeps an edge.
A l 22
8 �xd4 ..t xg2
9 � xg2 (1 61)
Now Black can head for a some­
what passive ending, or take his
chances in the middl egame:
A l 22 1 9 . . . 1i'c8
A l 222 9 . . . 0-0
a) 9 . . . �c6 is less effective due to
1 0 �c2 0-0 I I e4, e.g. I I . . . ltle8 1 2
..td2 �d6 1 3 1i'e2 1i'c8 1 4 lilad l ;!;
Yermolinsky-Eingorn, USSR 1982.
b) 9 . . . 1i'c7 10 b3 0-0 I I e4 trans­
poses to 9 . . . 0-0.
A l221
9 1!Vc8
10 b3
A fascinating alternative is 10
..tg5 !?, as in Agudelo-Rodriguez,
Envigado 1 983: 1 0 . . . 1!Vxc4 ( 1 0 . . .
h 6 I I ..txf6 ..txf6 1 2 �d5) I I l:[ c l
0-0 ( I I . . . �c6!? 1 2 � cb5 1i'd5+ 1 3
e 4 1i'xg5 1 4 �c7+) 1 2 e4! � xe4!
13 �xe4 1!Vxd4 14 1!Vxd4 ..txd4 1 5
..txe7 li[ e8 1 6 �d6 ! ! li[xe7 1 7 li[c8+
�g7 1 8 �e8+ li[xe8 19 li[xe8 ..t xb2
 Double Fianchetto Defence 159

20 f4 =/ro. 16 1i'e6
10 11rb7+ 1 6 . . . 'tib7 1 7 'tlt'd3 (}.0 1 8 Il fd l
11 f3 d5 ll fc8 1 9 'tlt'd7 't!t'xd7 20 Ilxd7 Ilxcl
I I . . . ll:lc6 1 2 i.b2 0-0 1 3 e4 ;!;, 2 1 i.xc l �! 22 a4 :t Polugayevsky­
e.g. 1 3 . . . a6 14 llc I ll:l xd4 1 5 Spassky, Manila IZ 1 976.
'Wxd4 ll:lg4 1 6 1fd2 i.h6 1 7 ll:ld5! 17 'tid3 0-0
± Kochiev. 18 Il fdl
12 cd ll:lxd5 White has some edge here, but
13 ll:lxd5 1fxd5 Black should be able to hold with
14 i.e3! proper defence. Not 1 8 . . . f5? 1 9
1 4 i. b2? 0-0 1 5 'tid3 lld8 + was 1fc4 � f7 20 't!t'xe6+ �xe6 2 1 Ilc6+
Capablanca-Botvinnik, Nottingham �f7 22 i.g5 ! ± Tal-Polugayevsky,
1 936. USSR Ch 1 976, nor 18 . . . Ilac8? 1 9
14 ll:lc6 Ilxc8 1hc8 2 0 'it'd? 'ti'a6 2 1 ll d l
Noteworthy is 1 4 . . . (}.0 1 5 llc l e6 22 i.g5 ! h6 23 i.d8 ± which
h 5 ! (to improve upon 1 5 . . . ll:l a6 1 6 was Polugayevsky-Smyslov from
ll:lc6 1fe6 1 7 1fd3 ± or 1 5 . . . ll:ld7 the same event. But 1 8 . . . i.f6!? 1 9
1 6 llc7 ll fc8 17 ll:lc6 ! 'tlt'e6 1 8 lilc7 ! ( 1 9 i.h6 i.g7 ; 1 9 1i'e4 lil fc8!
Ilxd7 Gl igoric, although then 1 8 20 'it'xe6 fe) 1 9 . . . h5 is possible, or
. . . Il xc6 m ay hold; perhaps 1 8 18 . . . h 5 1 9 lilc7 lilad8 Kasparov,
'tlt'xd7 1fxd7 1 9 ll xd7 Ilc6 20 or, finally, 18 . . . lilfc8 19 lil xc8
Ilfd l ) 1 6 a4 (intending ll:l b5) 16 . . . 'ti'xc8 ( 1 9 . . . lil xc8? 20 'it'd7) 20
a 6 1 7 1Vd3 ! ? ( 1 7 i.f2) 1 7 . . . e 5 1 8 'tlt'd7 't!t'xd7 21 Ilxd7 � ;!; Bagirov,
ll:lc6, lightly ;!;, Rubinetti-Emma, although this last looks difficult.
Buenos Aires 1 979. A1222
15 ll:lxc6 't!t'xc6 9 0-0
16 Ilcl (162) 10 e4 'tlt'c7 (163)

/62 163
B w
1 60 Double Fianchetto Defence
All the rage. Weak er are 10 . . .
lLlc6 I I .ie 3 ;t ( or here I I lLlc2 lLle8
1 2 .i d2 lLld6 1 3 b3 1!t"c8 14 1!t"e l !
1!t"b7 1 5 f3 f5 1 6 litd l � Chekhov­
Psakhis , Irkuts k 1 983), and 10 . . .
lLla6 I I b3 ( or I I .ie3 ! liteS 1 2 b3
lLlc5 I 3 f3 �) I I ... lLlc5 1 2 f3 lLle8
1 3 .te3 �-
11 b3
I I .ie3 1Wxc4 1 2 lit c l lLlc6! 1 3
lLlcb5 1!t"xa2 1 4 lit a l = Ftacn i k­
Adorjan, Gj ovik 1983. I I 1!t"e2
lLlc6 1 2 lLlc2 a6 1 3 lit d l ( 1 3 .ig5 e6
I 4 lit a c l litfc8 1 5 b3 lLl e8 1 6 .id2
1!t"b7 I 7 f3 b5 1 8 lLl e3 f5 = Vukic­
Psakhis, Bor 1985) 13 . . . e6 14 b3 ( 1 4
.if4 1Wb7 1 5 .id6 litfd8 Adorjan)
14 . . . 1Wb7 1 5 .tb2 lit fd8 1 6 f3 d6
1 7 lLl e3 lLle5 1 8 litd2 g6! I 9 litad l
h5! threatening ... g4, H ansen­
Adorj an, Gladsaxe 1 983. Finally,
I I lLl d5 lLlxd5 1 2 cd 1!t"e5 13 lLlf3
1!t"xe4 1 4 lite I 1!t"f5 ! 1 5 litxe7 lLla6
(Kasparov) leaves the white d-pawn
weak .
II lLlxe4!
12 lLlxe4
I 2 lLld5 !? 'ilrct8 ( 1 2 . . . 'ilt'e5 1 3
.ib2; 1 2 . . . 'tlt'c5 1 3 .te3) 1 3 lite I e6
14 litxe4 ed 1 5 cd lLla6 = Gochev­
Vilela, Teteven 1 985.
12 'i!fe5
13 'it'f3 1Wxd4
14 litbl
a ) 1 4 .te3? 'ilt'e5 1 5 litad l ( 1 5 c5
lLlc6; 15 lLl f6+ .txf6 1 6 'it'xa8 lLlc6
17 1Wb7 1We4+ !) 1 5 . . . 1i'c7 ! 16 .if4
1i'c6 I 7 litd5 f5 =t= Kharitonov-
Gavrikov, Jurmala 1983.
b) 1 4 .ta3 lLlc6 15 lit ad l 1We5 1 6
lit xd7 1!t"a5 ! 1 7 .txe7 lLle5 1 8 1!t"d l
lLlxd7 1 9 1!t"xd7 1!t"xa2 = Karpov­
Kasparov, match ( 1 3) 1 984-85.
14 1We5 !
1 4 . . . lLlc6 !? I 5 .ib2 't!fxb2 1 6
lit xb2 .txb2 Speelman; then 1 7
lLlc3 is bothersome.
14 . . . 'ilt'e5 is Karpov-Kasparov,
match (20) 1 984-85, agreed drawn.
After 1 5 .if4 Black has two lines:
15 . . . 'tlt'h5 (!) 1 6 g4! ( 1 6 lLlf6+ .txf6
1 7 'ilt'xa8 lLlc6 1 8 1!t"b7 g5 ! 1 9 'it'xd7
lLld4 20 g4 1Wg6 2 1 .ig3 1!t"e4+ 22
f3 lLlxf3) 1 6 . 'tit'aS 1 7 lLlf6+ .txf6
. .
1 8 'ttx a8 lLlc6 1 9 'it'b7 'it'xa2 20
't!fxd7 lLld4 =/oo intending . . . 'it'e2,
. . . lLlb3. Or 1 5 . . . 1We6 1 6 lLlf6+
.txf6 17 'tlt'xa8 lLl c6 1 8 1Wb7 g 5 ! ,
a n d 1 9 .te3 litb8 2 0 'ilt'a6, o r 1 9
.tc7 h5! 20 litbe l h4, o r (best) 1 9
llbel 1!t"f5 2 0 .t e 3 = Adorjan.
Thus the ending from 9 . . . 1!t"c8
seems sufficient to draw, and,
for n ow, 9 . . . 0-0 10 e4 't!fc7 ! also
appears to equalize.
A2
7 d3 0-0
7 . . . d 5 is still untried, as far as I
k now, e .g. 8 't!fa4+ 1Wd7, or 8 cd
lLlxd5, or 8 l!Je5 0-0 9 .ig5 lLl bd7.
6 d3 .ig7 (6 ... d5 7 lLle5 is annoying,
e.g. 7 . . . g6 8 1!t"a4+) 7 e4 may be a
more accurate order.
8 e4 lLlc6 (164)
8 . . . d6 9 h3 lLlc6 transposes, or
9 lLl h4 lLlc6 10 f4 lLld 7! I I h 3 e6

1 2 i.e3 ltJd4 = Me duna-S m ej kal,
Marians ke Lazne 1 978.
164
w Now 9 . . . e6 10 :e 1 !? is Caffe rty­
9 h3
a) 9 i.g5 ltl e8 1 0 \!rd2 ltlc7 1 1 i.h6
ltle6 1 2 i.xg7 �xg7 1 3 ltlh4 ltled4
14 f4 f5 1 5 ef gf 16 b4! cb 1 7 ltlb5
=/ro Romanishin-Winants, Brussels
1 986.
b) 9 l:l:e1 e6 (9 ... d6 10 a3 e6 I I
l:l: b 1 ltld7 1 2 i.g5 Wb8 1 3 Wd2 !
Karlsson-Miles, Gjovik 1 983) 1 0
h3 d5 1 1 ed? ( 1 1 e5 ! ltl d7 1 2 i.g5
\!rb8 13 cd ro) 1 1 . . . ed 12 i.g5 h6!
13 i.xf6 i.xf6 1 4 ltl xd 5 ( 1 4 cd
ltlb4 +) 1 4 . . . i.xb2 1 5 Ilb 1 i.g7 +
Cafferty-Miles, E n gland 1 980.
c) 9 l:l:b1 ltle8 (or 9 ... d6 1 0 ltlh4
ltld7) 10 i.e3 ltld4 1 1 ltle2 e5 1 2
b4 d6 1 3 be de = Karpov-Savon,
USSR Ch 1 973.
d) 9 ltle1 d6 10 f4 ltld7 ! 1 1 ltlf3
ltld4 1 2 lLl xd4 cd 1 3 ltle2 f5 =
Uhlmann-Hecht, Vr§ac 1 973.
e) 9 ltlh4 ltl e8 ( 9 ... d6 1 0 f4 e6 1 1
g4 ltl e8 1 2 ltl f3 ltlc7 ! 1 3 f5 d5!
Popov) 1 0 f4 f5 ( 1 0 . . . ltld4!? 1 1 f5
Ribli) 1 1 ltlf3 Wc8 !? ( 1 1 . . . ltlc7!)
Double Fianchetto Defence 161
1 2 i.e 3 d6 13 l:l:c1 ltld4 1 4 : e 1
Wd7 = Pfleger-Jansson, N i ce 01
1 974.
9 d6
Miles again ; 10 'tlt'e2 ( ! ) has the
idea 10 . . . d5 1 1 e5 ltld7 1 2 i.g5
and 1 3 cd. 9 . . . ltle8 10 i.g5 ltlc7
1 1 1fd2 ltle6 12 i.h6 ltled4 1 3
ltlxd4 ( 1 3 ltlh4!?) 1 3 . . . ltl xd4 =
A lburt-Vaganian, USSR Ch 1 975.
10 i.e3
1 0 i.g5 ( ! ) may be the best try,
e .g. 10 ... h6 ( 1 0 . . . l:l: c8 1 1 \!rd2
ltld7 1 2 ltlh 2!?) 1 1 i.e3 �h7 ( 1 1 . . .
l:l:c8 1 2 \!rd2 � h 7 1 3 b 3 plan ning
d4) 1 2 d4 ltla5 1 3 Wd3 e5 1 4 d 5 ;!;
Hatjun-Forintos, Hungarian Ch
1954.
10 l:l:c8!
10 . . . h6?! I I Wd2 �h7 12 d4 :t
Vaganian-Ma nning, Ma nila 1 98 1 .
1 0 . . . a 6 1 1 d4 cd 1 2 ltl xd4 ltld7 1 3
ltlxc6 i.xc6 1 4 i.d4 ;!; Uhlmann­
Spiridonov, Polanica Zdroj 1 98 1 .
1 1 't!ld2 ltld7
Equal, e.g. 1 2 b3 ltlde5 1 3 ltle1
ltld4 = Planinc-Sofrevski, S kopje
1 97 1 , or 1 2 �h2 a6 1 3 ltlh4 ltld4
14 f4 b5, Speelman-Browne, Lon­
don 1980, and now B ro wne gives
15 f5 !? be 1 6 de ltl e5 17 b3 e6 1 8
i.h6 a s unclear. Then 1 8 . . . i.xh6
19 \!hh6 �h8 looks forced, but
fine.
B
6 b3 i.g7
I ' m not sure why 6 ... d5!?
162 Double Fianchetto Defence

shou ldn't be effective, e .g. 7 cd 'tid2 ( I I lbd5? ! b5 ! Adorjan) 1 1 . . .

(7 ..tb2 ..ig7) 7 ..ig7 8 ..ib2 0-0
0 0 0 lii: c8 1 2 lii: fd l a 6 1 3 li:ld4 ..ixg2 1 4
and 9 lbc3 li:lxd5 9 d4 li:l xd 5 1 0 =
, 'it>xg2 'tic7 1 5 f3 'tib7 1 6 e4 e6!? ( 1 6
e4 li:l c7 =
o r 9 ..ixf6 ! ? ..ixf6!? 1 0
, . . . lii: fd8 1 7 li:ld5 li:le5 Adorjan)
=

li:lc3 ..ixc3 ! ? I I d e 1Wxd5 1 2 1Wxd5 17 lii: a c l ( 1 7 li:lc2 b 5 ! ; 17 li:lde2 b5 !)

..ixd5 1 3 l Hd l ..ie4. 1 7 ... lii:fd8 = Korchnoi-Adorjan,
7 ..ib2 0-0 Wijk aan Zee 1 984.
7 . . . d5 is the last note, and 7 000 10 'ti'h4
e 6 8 d 4 d5 i s also of interest. 1 0 'ti'd2 d5! I I cd 'ti'xd5 10=
.

8 1 8 d4 'ti'f4 d5 !? I I lii: d I 'ti'c8 1 2 c d li:lxd5

82 8 li:l c3 13 'tid2 (?) ( 1 3 'tie l ) 1 3
=
lii: d 8
0 0 0

8 e3 e6 (8 . . . d5 =) 9 d4 'it'e7 1 0 14 ..ixg7 li:le3! H Kasparov.

li:lc3 li:la6!? I I 'ti'e2 d 5 1 2 lii: fd l 10 h6
lii: fd8 1 3 lhc l de ( 1 3 . . . lbe4 !? 10 ... d6 I I li:lc3 h6 12 lbd5!
Tukmakov) 1 4 be lii: a c8 1 5 li:lb5 li:lxd5 13 ..i xg7 'it>xg7 14 cd lb b8
..ie4 16 a3 t Karpov-Kasparov, 1 5 1Wd4+ 'it>h7 1 6 h4 !I ± 8 arcza-
match ( I I ) 1984-85. 8iro, H ungarian Ch 1 966.
81 11 ..txf6!
8 d4 cd The best chance. 1 1 lbe5 't!t'c7 1 2
8 . . . li:la6!? 9 d5 e6 (9 . . . b5 1 0 lba3? ( 1 2 lb xc6 ) 1 2 ... g5! 1 3
=

lii: e l ! ! ) with the idea 1 0 d 6 lbe4, 1Wh3 lb xe5 1 4 ..ixb7 'ti'xb7 1 5

a nd 8 . . . e6 9 de be 10 li:lc3 1We7 are ..txe5 'ti'e4 + Ribli-Enklaar, Wij k
reasonable options. aan Zee 1 973.
9 't!t'xd4 (165) 11 ef
I I . . . ..ixf6? 1 2 'ti'xh6 e6 1 3 li:lc3.
/65 12 li:lc3
B Kasparov (who queries I I ..txf6)
gives 1 2 lba3 d5 1 3 lii: ad l 'ti'e7 ! +
here.
12 fS
O therwise White dominates the
centre. Now 8jarnehag-Ostenstad,
Sweden v Norway 1 984, continued
1 3 1Wxd8 lii: fxd8 1 4 lii: ac l li:le7 (?)
1 5 lii: fd l lii: ac8 ( 1 5 . . . d5 1 6 lbe 1 )
9 lbc6 1 6 li:l b 5 ! d5 1 7 li:lxa7 lii: a 8 1 8 li:lb5
9 . . . d6 10 li:lc3 ( 10 lii: d l li:l bd7 lii: x a2 19 li:lfd4 lii: aa8 20 cd ± in­
1 1 li:lel 't!t'c7 ) 1 0 . . . li:lbd7 1 1
=
tending li:lc6. Here 14 ..txc3 ( !)
0 0 0

1 5 llxc3 d5 1 6 cd lt:lb4 seems to
improve . I n general, 8 d4 is not
very dangerous.
82
8 lt:le3 (166)
166
B
8 2 1 8 . . . e6
822 8 . . . d5
823 8 . . . lt:l a6
a) 8 ... lt:le4!? 9 '@c2 (9 d4 lt:l xc3 10
i.xc3 lt:lc6 =) 9 . . . lt:l xc3 I 0 i.xc3
i.xc3 I I 'tixc3 d5 ( I I . . . lt:l c6 1 2
ll fd l d5 I 3 d4!) 1 2 cd 'tixd5 1 3 d4,
lightly :t.
b) 8 ... lt:le6 (?) 9 d4 cd (9 . . . lt:le4 10
llcl ;t) 10 lt:l xd4 ( 1 0 'tWxd4 lt:lbd7 is
'8 1 ' ) 10 . . . i.xg2 I I ct>xg2 d 5 !? 1 2
cd lt:lxd5 1 3 lt:ldb5 ( 1 3 'tid2 or I 3
e3!? may im prove) 1 3 . . . lt:lxc3 1 4
'tixd8 ll xd8 1 5 i.xc3 = Alburt­
Polugayevsky, USSR Ch 1974.
821
8 e6
9 d4
9 lic l d5 (9 . . . '@e7 I 0 d4 d6 I I
'tid3 :!) 1 0 cd ed ( IO . . . lt:l xd5 I I d4
:!) I I d4 lt:l a6, and now 1 2 e3 ! ? 'tie7
l 3 de be 14 lt:la4 llfc8 1 5 i.a3 i.f8
oo Eisterer-Sax, 8alatonbereny
Double Fianchetto Defence 163
1984; or 1 2 d e ( ! ) lt:lxc5 ( 1 2 . . . be
is the main line below) 1 3 lt:lb5
( 13 lt:ld4!? :!) 13 . . . 'tid7 I4 lt:lbd4
1lfe8 1 5 nc2 a5 ! 16 a3 i.a6 =
Taimanov-Kudrin, Thessaloniki 01
1 984.
9 d5
1 3 . . . e5! ( 1 3 . . . f6? 1 4 lt:lxf6! nxf6
1 5 lt:lg5 1t'c8 1 6 llac l lt:lc6 1 7 lt:le4!
±) I 4 i.xe5+ ( 1 4 lt:lxe5!? with the
idea 14 . . . f6 I 5 lt:lxf6) I4 . . . f6 1 5
lt:l xf6 ("?!" Ftacnik; 1 5 lt:l f4!?),
Schneider-Ftacnik, Stary Smokovec
I 983, and now 15 . . . llxf6! I 6 lt:l g5
1t'c8 I 7 lil ac ! ? lt:l c6! wins ( I 8 lt:le4
lt:lxe5) , so Ftacnik gi ves 1 7 lt:l e4
lt:ld7 1 8 i.xf6+ lt:lxf6 I 9 lt:ld6 'ife6!
20 lt:lxb7 llc8 + .
10 de be
11 ed ed
12 llcl lt:la6
Now 1 3 e3 would b e the 9 li c l
note above, but more accurate is
I3 lt:la4 'tie7 I4 i.a3 llac8 I 5
lt:le l ! llfd8 1 6 lt:ld3 lt:le4 1 7 1We l ! :t
Taimanov-Tal, USSR 1 983.
164 Double Fianchetto Defence

822 This endi ng is u npleasant but

8 d5 qui te tenable for Black:
9 lt:lxd5 a) 1 5 .. lt:la6 16 1Hd1 liac8 1 7
.

9 cd lt:l xd 5 10 't!t'c 1 lt:l c6 liac 1 lt:lb4! ( 1 7 . . . �f6 1 8 �b5 t)

9 lt:le 5 !? e6 (9 . . . lt:lbd7 1 0 f4 !?) 1 0 18 li xc8 + ( 1 8 a3 lt:la2 =) 18 . . .
d 4 c d ( 1 0 . . . lt:l a6 is ' 8 23') 1 1 lt:lb5 ! lixc8 1 9 lid2 a 6 Y2-Y2 Benk<r
a6? ( 1 1 . . . lt:l fd7) 1 2 lt:lxd4 ( ±) 1 2 . . . Weinstein, Lone Pine 1 9 75.
lt:lfd7 1 3 lt:lxf7 ! with a killing attack, b) 1 5 ... a6?! 16 life ! lia7 17 lic2
Lengyel-Sugar, Hu ngary 1 9 82. lifd8 1 8 e3 �f8 ( 1 8 . . . e5 19 lt:lf3 f6
9 lt:lxd5 20 g4 ! t) 1 9 liac 1 �e8 20 g4! h6
10 i.x g 7 � x g7 2 1 h4 liad7 22 f4 tl ± Andersson­
11 cd 't!t'xd5 H ort, Niksic 1 976.
For 1 1 . . . i.xd5 1 2 d4 �a6 1 3 c) 15 ... liteS 16 lilacl lt:l d7 1 7 lifd 1
't!t'd3 i.b7, see 823. ( 1 7 lt:lc6 �f6) 1 7 . . . lt:l f6 ! 1 8 e3 ( 1 8
12 d4 cd lt:lc6 lic7 1 9 b4 a 6 20 a4 b5) 1 8 . . .
Or 1 2 . . . lt:l a6 1 3 e4! 't!t'd6 ( 1 3 . . . a 6 1 9 a 4 lt:le4 ! 2 0 lt:lc6 Y2- Y2 Tai­
't!t'd7 1 4 d5 t) 1 4 e5 ( 1 4 d 5 e 6 =) Savon, USSR Ch 1 973; 20 . . . �f6
14 . . . 't!t'd8 ( 1 4 . . . 't!t'd5 !? 1 5 lt:lh4 2 1 b4 b5 =.
'ti'd7 oo), Mestei-Chekhov, Tjentiste d) 15 ... lidS 16 lifd 1 lt:l a6 1 7 lt:lc6
1 975, and now Ch ekhov gives 1 5 ( 1 7 liacl lilacS ) 1 7 .. . lildc8 ! 1 8
1!t'e2! cd 1 6 lUd 1 ;!:. lt:lxe7 ( 1 8 lil ac I lic7) 1 8 . . . lle8
13 't!t'xd4+ 19 lt:lc6 lixe2 20 lild7 lilc8 = Marie.
1 3 lt:lh4 'ti'd7 1 4 i. xb7 follow­ 823
ed by 15 't!t'xd4+, 16 lUd 1 may also 8 lt:la6
be lightly t. 9 d4
13 't!t'xd4 9 d3 d5! =. 9 e3 d5 1 0 lt:lxd5
14 lt:lxd4 i. xg 2 lt:l xd5 1 1 i.xg7 �xg7 1 2 cd 't!t'xd5
15 �xg 2 (168) 1 3 d4 lifd8 1 4 lt:le l 't!t'd7 = Torm­
Lj ubojevic, Nice 01 1974. 9 lil c l
168
B
can be met b y 9 . . . d 5 1 0 lt:lxd5 ( 1 0
lt:le5 !?) 1 0 . . . lt:l xd5 1 1 i.xg7 �xg7
12 cd ihd5 1 3 d4 lilfd8 = ( 1 4 e4
't!t'h5), or by 9 . . . e6 1 0 d4 d5 1 1 e3
( I I cd ed 1 2 de w as ' 8 2 1 ' ) 1 1 . . .
't!t'e7 1 2 't!t'e2 1Hd 8 = .
9 d5
9 . . . cd 1 0 lt:l xd4 ( 1 0 't!t'xd4!?
lt:le4!? 1 1 't!t'e3 lDxc3? 1 2 i.xc3

�xc3 1 3 't!Vxc3 lt:\c5 1 4 llfd l ;!:! ±
S i lm an-Wi nslow, Palo Alto 198 1 )
1 0 . . . .ixg2 I I 'ittxg2 lt:\c5 1 2 ll e l
( 1 2 f3 ! ;t-) 1 2 . . . 't!Vc7 1 3 e4 'it'b7 1 4
r3 d6 1 5 't!Vd 2?! ( 1 5 lt:\c2! ;t- with the
idea lt:\e3) 15 . . . a6 16 lbc l llfc8 !
= Su nye-Larsen, Las Pal mas IZ
1 9 82.
10 lt:\e5
A move I suggested in the fi rst
edition, to replace 10 cd lt:\xd5 I I
c3 lt:\ xc3 1 2 .ixc3 llc8 = (or 1 2 . . .
lt:\c7 ! Kasparov), and 1 0 d e lt:\xc5
I I lt:\xd5 lt:\xd5 =.
10 e6
1 0 . . . cd I I 't!Vxd4 lt:\d7 1 2 f4, or
here I I . . . lt:\ b4 12 llad l ± .
11 de (169)
169
B ( = ) ( Ftacni k) was better than 1 6
I I e3 't!Ve7 1 2 't!Ve2 de 13 be ll ac8
Double Fianchetto Defence 165
= A ndersson-Polugayevsky, Biel
1985. I I cd ed ( or I I . . . lLlxd5 =) 1 2
ll c l 't!Ve7 1 3 lLld3 cd 1 4 lt:\b5 't!Vd7
= Andersson- Rodriguez, Biel 1985.
11 lt:\xc5!
I I . . . be? 12 cd ed 1 3 lLld3 't!Ve7
14 lt:\a4 llac8 1 5 ll c l ll fd8 1 6 .ia3
etc.
12 cd ed
1 2 . . . lLl xd5 1 3 lt:\xd5 .ixd5 1 4
.ixd5 't!Vxd5 1 5 't!Vxd5 e d 1 6 llfd l
;t- Ftacnik .
1 3 lt:\f3
1 3 llc l d4 =.
13 't!Vd7 !
Bet ter than 1 3 lle8, which
allows 14 lt:\b5! a nd lLlbd4 . After
13 ... 't!Vd7 Ftacni k-Speelman, Thes­
saloniki 01 1984, went 14 ll c l llfe8
1 5 llc2 llad8, and now 16 lLld4
b4 d4 ! .
Conclusion. The Double Fianchetto
Defence is solid and reliable. Its
m ain drawback is a lack of positive
prospects for the second player.
This will probably inhibit expansion
of its use on any but the highest
levels.
 13 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . lLlc6

1 c4 c5 or here 7 lLld6+ .ixd6 8 't!Yxd6

2 lLlf3 lLlf6 1i'e 7 9 't!Yd l !?.
3 d4 cd b) 5 . .. d5 6 .ig2 e5? (6 . . . e6 is note
4 lLlxd4 lLlc6 (1 70) to 6 . . . 't!Yb6) 7 lLlxc6 be 8 0-0 ;!:.
c) 5 . lLlxd4 6 1i'xd4 g6 7 .ig2 .ig7
..

1 70
w
8 lLlc3 is Chapter 4.
d) 5 ... 't!Yb6!? (1 7 1) is the m ain
alternative:

One of the most common English

Opening positions. White has:
A 5 g3
B 5 lLlc3
5 lLlc2 or 5 f3 are a nswered by 5
. . . d5 = . Slow is 5 e3 e6 (5 . . . d5 =) 6
.ie2 d5 7 cd (7 0-0 .id6 =) 7 . . . ed 8
lLlc3 .id6 = (a Queen's Gambit).
A lLlxc4 8 0-0 e6 (8 . . . g6!? 9 't!Ye2 lLle5
5 g3
This isn't played much, but
Black has no certain route to
equality.
5 e6
a) 5 . . . e5?! 6 lLlb5 .ic5 7 .ie3 !
(compare 5 e4 lLlb4 in Chapter 8),
Now 6 lLlb3 lLle5 ! (intending . . .
1!t'c6) 7 .ig2!? 0 c5!? 1!t'c6 8 li:gl
1i'c7, at least =, or 8 . . . d5 =) 7 . . .
10 .ie3 't!Yd8 I I .id4 lLlc6 12 .ixf6
oo - Janicki) 9 1Wc2 d5 1 0 e4 .ie7
I I ed ed 1 2 lLlc3 .ie6 1 3 lLlxd5
= (Filip).
White can also play 6 lLlc2!?
lLle5 7 lLle3 lLlxc4!? 8 lLlxc4 1i'c6 9
e4 't!Yxe4+ 10 1i'e2 1!t'xh 1 I I lLld6+

( '' ±" Kasparov) I I . . . <c!id8 1 2
.7J xl7+ <c!te8 1 3 ltJxh8 !? ( 1 3 ltJd6+
c=), and now 1 3 . . . g6 14 't!t'c2 ! or 1 3
. . . 't!t'xh 2 1 4 g4 !, but 1 3 . . . d 5 is
u nclear, e.g. 14 't!t'b5+ ( . . . g6 and . . .
�xh2 were threats) 1 4 . . . i.d7 1 5
'tlj'xb7 llc8 .
In t h e first edition I suggested 6
0"J b5(!) with the idea 6 . . . ltJe5 7
�g2! ltJxc4 8 ltJ l c3 d5 (8 . . . a6 9
'tli'a4 ltJd6 1 0 i.e3) 9 i.xd5 ltJd6 I 0
�e3 't!t'd8 I I i.g2 V ±; o r 6 . . . d5 7
cd! 1!t'xb 5 8 ltJ c3 't!Vb6 9 de 1!t'xc6 I 0
c4 a6 I I i.g2 :1:: . Miles-Giigoric,
Bugojno 1 982, went 6 . . . a6 7 l0 5c3
( 7 i.e3!? 't!t'a5+ 8 ltJc3 b5 9 ltJd2 is
interesting) 7 . . . e6 8 i.g2 ltJe5 9
�b3 !? (9 ltJd2) 9 . . . W'b4! I 0 ltJd2
llb8 I I 0-0 i.e7 1 2 W'c2 0-0 13 a3
"i!t'c5 =.
6 i.g2 'W'b6 ! ?
a ) 6 . . . d5 7 0-0 i.c5 8 ltJxc6 (8 ltJb3
i.e7) 8 ... be 9 '§'c2 (=?); compare
the Gri.infeld Defence.
b) 6 ... i.b4+ 7 ltJ c3 is analysed
under 5 ltJc3 e6 6 g3 i.b4 belo w.
He re 7 i.d2 't!t'b6 (7 . . . i.c5 !?) 8
liJ b3 is Ch apter 1 4.
c) 6 ... i.c5 7 ltJb3 (7 ltJc2 d5; 7
li:Jb5 d5 8 0-0 0-0 9 .ig5!? Kova�evic;
7 ltJ xc6 be 8 0-0 0-0 9 t!t'c2 !?) 7 . . .
i.b4+ ( 7 . . . i.e7 8 0- 0 d6 9 ltJc3 i s 5
li:Jc3 e6 6 g3 i.c5 below) 8 i.d2
(lik ewise 8 ltJc3 d5) 8 . . . i.e7 9
li:Jc3 0-0 1 0 0-0 b6? ( 1 0 . . . d6 I I
i.f4 :1::) I I i.f4 i.a6 1 2 lt:Jb5 ! ±
Chernikov-Stein, Moscow 1 966.
7 ltJc2!?
2 l0f3 l0f6 3 d4: 4 . . . li:J c6 167
Or 7 ltJb5!? d5 8 cd ed 9 ltJ lc3
wi th the idea 9 . . . i.c5 (9 . . . d4? 1 0
i.f4) 1 0 i.f4!? 0-0 I I ltJc7 . 7 ltJb3
is natural: 7 . . . li:Je5 (! 7 . . . i.b4+ 8
ltJc3 is 823 below) 8 ltJ I d2 (8 c5!?
i.xc5 9 ltJxc5 't!t'xc5 1 0 0-0 d5 is
speculative; 8 't!t'c2 !?) 8 . . . d6 9 0-0
i.e7 =.
Finally, 7 e3 i.c5 8 0-0!? is
analysed under 4 . . . e6 5 g3 of
Chapter 1 4. Black has 7 . . . i.b4+
and 7 . . . d5 as options, but 7 . . .
lt::l e 5 8 't!t'e2 i s n o t productive.
7 d5
8 0-0!?
8 cd ed = (Aibu rt). After 8 0-0,
Alburt-de Firmian, New York
1985, went 8 . . . de 9 ltJca3 't!t'a6 10
b3 i.e7 ( 10 . . . cb I I 't!t'xb3 ltJd4 1 2
't!t'b2 =/oo - Alburt; then 1 2 . . .
ltJxe2+ 1 3 <c!ih I li:Jxc I 1 4 ltJb5 'ti'b6
1 5 llac l i.c5 is possible; I I ab!?
in tending i.b2, ltJc4 is promising,
however) I I be!? (":!:" Alburt) I I
. . . 0-0 1 2 ltJb5 'W'a5 1 3 i.d2 'ti'd8 1 4
i.f4 e5 1 5 i.g5 i.g4 1 6 li:J d 2 Uoo.
B
5 li:Jc3 (1 72)
1 72
B
 168 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 .. . li:J c6
5 e6 (1 73)
One o f the oldest lines of the
English Opening, and still the
terrain for key i nternational con­
tests. Black's alternatives are mostly
dubious :
a)5 . . . g6 6 g3 .ig7 7 .ig2 or 6 li:Jc2
is Chapter 4.
b) 5 ... e5? 6 li:Jdb5 .ic5 7 .ie3!
.ixe3 8 li:Jd6+ '1!?f8 9 fe ±, e.g. 9 . . .
li:Jg4 I 0 'i!rd2 'i!rh4+ I I g 3 'i!rh6 1 2
li:Jd l ! 'i!rg6 1 3 .ih3 h 5 1 4 0-0 li:Jf6
1 5 .if5 ! 'i!rg5 1 6 li:Jc3 ±± in
Cherepkov-Kiaman, USSR 1958.
c) 5 ... 't!lb6 6 li:Jb3 (6 e3 e6 7 .ie2
.ie7 8 0-0 0-0 9 b3 !; 6 li:Jc2 e6 7 e3
d5!?, or 7 g3 .ic5 8 e3 li:Je5 !) 6 . . .
e 6 7 e4! ? (7 g 3 is the main 6 . . . 'i!rb6
line ) 7 . . . .t b4 8 .id3 d5 9 cd ed 1 0
ed li:J xd5 I I 0-0!, e .g. I I . . . li:J xc3
12 be .ie7 13 'i!rh 5!.
d) 5 ... li:Jxd4 6 'i!rxd4 g6 (6 ... d6 7
.ig5) 7 .ig5 ! .ig7 8 li:Jd5 0-0 9
.ixf6 ef 1 0 'i!rd2 ± Gheorghiu­
Matulovic, Skopje 1968.
e) 5 ... b6!? 6 e4 .ib7 transposes to
Chapter 9, C22, note (b) to 4 . . .
.ib7.
f) 5 ... d5 is the most interesting
deviat io n :
fl) 6 li:Jxc6!? be 7 c d cd 8 e4!?
li:J xe4 9 .ib5+ .id7 1 0 'i!rxd5 !
Ivanov-Ca banas, Edmonton 1985;
f2) 6 'i!ra4!? with the idea 6 . . . 'i!rd7 ?
7 li:Jdb5 or 7 cd li:Jxd5 8 li:J xd5
'it'xd5 9 li:Jb5 ± (Tal) . Or 6 . . .
'it'b6! ? 7 li:J db5 e 6 8 .if4 e 5 9 c d ef
10 'it'xf4 ! li:J b5 I I li:Jc7+ '1!?d8 1 2
li:J xa8 Tal-Donner, Wij k aan Zee
1973, and now 12 . . . 'i!rc5 was
suggested, but Abolinsh-Isomussu,
corres 1 980-2, went 1 3 llc l .id6
14 li:Jb5! ±. After 1 2 . . . 'i!ra5 1 3
lld l ! li:Jxa2 1 4 lil a ! .ib4 1 5 ll xa2!
.ixc3+ 1 6 be 'i!rxa 2 17 'i!rc7+
(Janicki). Here 7 cd li:J xd5 8 li:Jxd5
'i!rxd4 9 'i!rxd4 lLl xd4 I 0 .if4 is also
promising.
But 6 . . . e6(!) seems reasonable,
e.g. 7 li:J xc6 be 8 'i!rxc6+ (8 cd ed) 8
. . . .id7 9 'i!ra6 d4! 10 li:J b l .ib4+
I I .id2 'i!re7 planning . . . 0-0, . . . e5-
e4;
f3) 6 cd li:Jxd5 7 li:Jxc6 be 8 .id2! (8
e4 lt::l x c3 9 'tixd8+ '1!?xd8 =) 8 . . . e6
(8 ... lt::l xc3? 9 .ixc3 'tixd l + 10
llxd l f6 I I g3 e5 12 .ig2 .id7 1 3
0-0 ± Portisch-Donner, Amster­
dam 1 969) 9 g3 (9 e4 lt::l b4 ! =) 9 . . .
.ie7 ( 9 . . . lt::l x c3 !? 1 0 .ixc3 'i!rd5!?
t ) 1 0 .ig2 0-0 I I 0-0 .ib7?! ( I I ...
.ia6 1 2 .if3 't!t'b6 13 lt::l a4 't!t'b5 1 4
a 3 llfd8 1 5 'i!rc2 ! ) 1 2 llc l c5 1 3
li:Ja4 llc8 14 b3 ! intending lt::l b 2-
c4, Polugayevsky-Belyavsky, USSR
Ch 1 974.
1 73
w

B I 6 li:ldb5
B2 6 g3
a) 6 e4 .ib4 is a Taimanov
Sicilian, considered harmless for
Black after e.g. 7 lt:l xc6! be ! (7 . . .
d e 8 1Wxd8+ �xd8 9 e 5 ! is
d angerous) 8 .id3 e5 (or 8 . . . 0-0 9
e5 't!t'a5) 9 .id2 0-0 10 a3 .ie7 and
. . . d6.
b) 6 a3 't!t'c7 (or 6 . . . d5 7 .ig5
.ie7 =, or here 7 . . . .ic5 !? 8 e 3
.ixd4 9 ed de) 7 e 3 (7 e4? lt:l xe4! 8
lt:lxe4 't!t'e 5) 7 . . . a6 8 .ie2 b6 =.
c) 6 .ig5 .ib4 (or 6 . . . 't!t'a5) 7 lbb5
a6 8 lt:ld6+ �e7 9 lt:le4? (9 lt:l xc8+
= ) 9 ... d5 10 cd ed I I lt:lxf6 gf 1 2
.id2 d4 1 3 lt:le4 't!rd5 =t= Oj anen­
Endzelins, corres 1 955.
d) 6 e3 d 5 (or 6 . . . .ib4!, and 7 lt:lb5
0-0 8 a3 .ie7 - or 8 ... .ixc3+ 9
lt:lxc3 d5 = - 9 .ie2 d5 = Filip­
Vasyu kov, Moscow 1 959; or 7
.id2 0-0 8 .ie2 lt:lxd4 9 ed d5 =) 7
cd (7 .ie2 .id6 8 0-0 0-0 = or even
7 . . . .ic5 8 0-0 .ixd4 9 ed de =) 7 . . .
ed 8 .ie2 .id6 =; o r here 8 .ib5
.id7 9 0-0 .id6 =.
e) 6 .if4!? can transpose after 6 . . .
d 5 7 lt:ldb5 e 5 or 6 . . . .ib4 7 lt:ldb5.
Independent is 6 ... d5 7 cd ! ? lt:lxd5
8 lt:l xc6 be 9 .id2, with White a
tempo down on the 5 . . . d 5 ("f3")
line above, e .g. 9 ... .ib4 (or 9 . . .
.ie7) 1 0 lt:lxd5 ( 1 0 Il: c l Il: b 8 ! l l
't!t'c2 't!t'a5 1 2 e3 lt:lxc3 1 3 be .ia3 =
Andersson-Sosonko, Tilburg 1982)
I 0 . . . ..ixd2+ I I 1t'xd2 cd 12 e3 0-0
1 3 ..id3 't!t'b6 (or 13 . . . a5) 14 0-0
2 ltJf3 ltJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . ltJc6 1 69
Korchnoi-Timman, Hilversum 1982,
and aside from 14 . . . ..ia6 1 5 ..i xa6
't!t'xa6, Black had 14 . . . a5 (Hort)
or 1 4 . . . e5 1 5 b4 .ie6.
Bl
6 lbdb5 (1 74)
1 74
B
A move I advocated in the first
edition at a time when 6 g3 was
almost exclusively chosen . Two
cycles have occurred since: first, 6
lt:ldb5 became the main line,
following Korchnoi's lead; recently,
6 g3 has been strengthened again,
and fairly reliable answers to 6
lt:ldb5 have cut into the latter's
popularity .
B l l 6 . . . .ib4
B l 2 6 . . . d5
a) 6 ... ..ic5!? 7 .if4 e5? 8 .ie3! ±
transposes to note (b) above to 5
. . . e6. Better 7 . . . 0-0 8 .ic7 't!t'e7 9
..id6, which is B I I .
b) 6 ... d6 has never been refu ted,
yet doesn't appeal to top players: 7
..if4 e5 (7 . . . lt:le5 ? 8 c5) 8 ..ig5 a6 9
.ixf6 (9 lt:la3 .ie6 - or 9 . . . ..ie? = -
10 g3 't!t'b6 I I lt:lc2! lt:lg4 1 2 ..ie3
1 70 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . li:J c6
li:Jxe3 1 3 li:Jxe3 'tlt'xb2 1 4 li:Jed5
l:tc8 1 5 l:t b l 't!t'a3 1 6 l hb7 li:Ja5 1 7
l:tb4 =/ro - Timman-Soson ko,
London 1980) 9 . . . gf 10 li:Ja3 (1 75)
1 75
B
Now e.g. 1 0 . . . .ie6!? I I e3 ( ! I I
g3 f5 1 2 .ig2 .ig7 1 3 't!t'd2 0-0 140-0
't!t'a5 1 5 l:tfd l e4! ro Mi kenas) I I
. . . f5 I 2 t!fd2 ( 1 2 .ie2 t) 1 2 . . . .ig7
( 1 2 . . . l:t c8 !? I 3 lid I e4!?) I 3 0-0-0
'tlt'a5 I 4 li:Jd5 t!fxd2+ 15 l:txd2 0-0-0
16 .ie2 f4! 1 7 ef .ih6 I 8 li:Jc2 ef I 9
.if3 li:Je5 2 0 li:Jd4 ;!; Zilberstein­
Lein, USSR Ch I 972.
More accurate seems 1 0 . . . f5 ( ! ) ,
because of the sequence I I e 3 .ig7
I 2 't!t'd 2 ( 1 2 't!t'h 5 ! ?) 1 2 . . . e4 1 3
0-0-0 ( 1 3 l:t d i .ie5!) 1 3 . . . .ie6! I 4
'tlt'xd6 'tlt'xd6 1 5 l:txd 6 .ixc3 16 be
li[c8 with no problems. After 10 . . .
f5 I I g3 .ie6 1 2 .ig2 .ig7 I 3 0-0
0-0 I4 't!t'd2 t!fa5 , we have Mikenas'
line of the last paragraph.
811
6 .ib4
7 .if4
7 .ig5 0-0 8 e3 d5 = is slow, and
7 li:Jd6+!? <t;e7 8 li:Jxc8+ l:txc8 is
bad for White's development,
whereas here 8 .if4 e5 9 li:Jf5+ <t;f8
10 .ig5 d5! (Tai manov) favours
B l ack . Finally, 7 a3 .ixc3+ 8
li:Jxc 3 d5 can lead to e.g. 9 cd ed 10
e3 0-0 I I .ie2 .if5 =; or 9 e3 0-0 I 0
.ie2 de I I .ixc4 't!t'xd l + 1 2 li:Jxd l
li:Je5 = (in tending . . . l:td8, . . . li:Jd3)
Gipslis-M inic, USSR v Yugoslavia
1967.
7 0-0
Now 7 . . . e5 8 .ig5 a6 9 li:Jd6+
<t;e7 10 li:Jxc8+ com pares well for
White with 7 li:Jd6+?! above, and
here 10 li:Jde4!? h6 I I li:Jxf6 gf I 2
.id2 also seems good . 7 . . . d 5 ? 8
li:Jc7+ <t;e7 (8 . . . <t;f8 9 li:Jxa8 li:Je4
10 a 3 ! li:Jxc3 I I 'i!t'd3 ±) 9 li:J xa8 e5
(9 . . . d4 1 0 a3 .ia5 I I b4 li:Jxb4 1 2
a b .ixb4 1 3 f3! ±± - Szabo­
Langeweg, Tel Aviv 1 964) 10 .id2
(or 10 cd ef I I de 't!t'a5 1 2 't!t'c l !) 1 0
. . . d 4 1 1 li:Jd5+ li:Jxd5 I 2 c d 't!t'xd5
13 .ixb4+ li:Jxb4 I 4 't!fd2! ±±, in
view of I4 . . . 't!t'a5 15 l:tc l , 14 . . .
li:Jc6 1 5 li:Jc7 o r 1 4 . . . li:Ja6 1 5 li[ c l
't!t'd6 I 6 't!t'g5 +.
8 .ic7!?
8 .id6 .ixd6 9 li:J xd6 (1 76) and:
1 76
B

a) 9 ... 1!t'b6 ! ? 10 1!fd2 ( 1 0 l:lb l
lt:Jd4! I I e 3 1!fxd6 1 2 1!fxd4 - 12 ed
h6 = - 1 2 . . . 't!i'xd4 1 3 ed b6 =
Kapengut; or 1 0 . . . lt:Je8 I I e 3
't!i' b4 ! = - Korchnoi-Andersson,
Johannesburg 198 1) 10 . . . lt:Je8 ( 1 0
. . . lt:Jd4 I I l:l d l 't!i'xd6 1 2 't!i'xd4,
l ightly ;!; after 12 . . . 1!fxd4 1 3
l:lxd4 b6 - Keene) I I lt:Jxe8 ( I I
lt:Jde4 f5 1 2 ll:Jg5 1!fc5 1 3 e3 b6 1 4
.te2 ;!; Euwe; but 1 2 . . . lt:Jf6 1 3 e3
h6 14 lt:Jf3 lt:J e4 1 5 't!i'c2 d 5 !? or
si mply 1 2 . . . ll:Je5 1 3 e3 h6 must be
considered) I I . . l:lxe8 12 e3 ( 1 2
. 10
g3 ll:Je5! 1 3 b3 d 5 !) 1 2 . . . l:ld8 1 3
.te2 d6 ( 1 3 . . . d5!? 1 4 cd ll:Jb4 1 5
.tf3 ed 1 6 a3; 1 4 . . . ll:Je7 ! ?) 1 4 0-0
( 1 4 l:lb!?) 14 ... .id7 1 5 l:lfd l .ie8
;!; Korchnoi-Polugayevsky, match
( 1 3) 1 9 80.
b) 9 ... ll:Je8 10 e3 ( 1 0 1!t'd2 1!t'b6, or
I 0 . . . ll:Jxd6 I I 't!i'xd6 't!i'b6 1 2 l:lb I
lidS 1 3 g3 't!i'b4 1 4 't!i'xb4, very
lightly ;!; ( 19 . . . 1!ff6 ! Hort).
8 1!fe7
9 .id6
9 a 3 ! ? (Raj kovic) 9 . . . .txc3+ 1 0
b e ll:Je8 looks =, e .g. I I .id6 ( I I
.ig3 1!t'f6 1 2 1!fd2 a6 1 3 ll:Jd4 g6 =)
I I ... ll:J xd 6 12 lD xd6 ( 1 2 't!i'xd6
't!i'xd6 and . . . b6) 1 2 . . . b6 1 3 't!i'd2
.ia6 14 l:ld l ll:Ja5 1 5 e4 l:lfd8 =
with . . . ll:Jb7.
9 .ixd6
10 't!i'xd6 (1 77)
10 ll:Jxd6 ll:Je8 I I lDcb5 a6 ! 1 2
lt:J xe8 ab! =, e .g. 1 3 ll:Jc7 l:la4 1 4
ll:Jxb5 ( 1 4 c b 1!t'b4+ 1 5 't!i'd2 ll:Jd4!
2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . ltJc6 1 71
+ Janicki) 14 . . . l hc4 1 5 e3 l:l b4
and . . . d5 =.
1!t'd8 !
N o t I 0 . . . l:ld8 ? I I 't!i'xe7 ll:Jxe7
12 ll:Jd6 'i!;>f8 13 g3 ll:Jc6 1 4 .ig2 ±
Abramson-Rokhlin, corres 1 965-
8, or 1 0 . . . 1!fxd6?! I I ll:Jxd6 l:ld8
1 2 g 3 'i!;>f8 1 3 .tg2 ll:Je8 14 ll:Jcb5
ll:Jxd6 1 5 ll:Jxd6 't>e7 1 6 0-0-0 lib8
17 f4 ± ( 1 7 ... b6 ? 1 8 ll:Jxf7)
Adorj an-Agdestein , Gjovi k 198 3.
11 e4
a) 1 1 0-0-0 a6 1 2 ll:Jd4 ll:Je8 ( 1 2 . . .
ll:Jxd4 1 3 l:lxd4 b5!? Polugayevsky)
13 lLJ xc6 be 14 't!i'd4 d6 1 5 c5 (else
15 . . . e5) 1 5 . . . d 5 1 6 f4 ll:Jf6 1 7 e4 a5
= Korchnoi-Polugayevsky, match
(5) 1 980.
b) I I g3 a6 ( I I . . . ll:Je8 1 2 't!i'd2 a6
1 3 ll:Ja3 b6 1 4 .tg2 .ib7 1 5 0-0
l:ld7 16 l:lfd I ;!; Miles-Hjartarsson,
Mexico City 1 98 1 ) 12 ll:Ja3 1!t'b6 !
1 3 l:lb l 't!i'b4 1 4 't!i'xb4 lDxb4 1 5
.tg2 d5 = ( 1 6 l:l d I b 5 !) Korchnoi­
Polugayevs ky, match ( I ) 1 980.
II a6
Black needs an improvement.
1 72 2 Ci:Jf3 Ci:Jj6 3 d4: 4 . . . Ci:Jc6
Not I I . . . 1!t'a5 1 2 i.d3, but I I . . .
't!t'b6 ! ? is a viable option, e.g. 1 2
lld l ( 1 2 't!i'd2 d 5) 1 2 . . . a6 1 3 't!i'c7
't!t'xc7 1 4 Ci:Jxc 7 llb8 ( 1 4 . . . lla7 1 5
c5) 1 5 a 3 ro . Also, I I . . . Ci:Je8 1 2
1!t'd2 a 6 1 3 Ci:Ja3 (or 1 3 Ci:Jd6) could
use tests.
1 2 Ci:Jc7 Ci:Je8
12 . . . lta7 1 3 c5 t.
1 3 Ci:Jxe8 ltxe8
1 4 ..te2 Wb 6
1 5 lilb 1 'W'd4
Instead of 1 5 . . . 'W'b4 1 6 'itxb4
Ci:Jxb4 1 7 a3 Ci:Jc6 1 8 ltd 1 !, or 1 5 . . .
e 5 1 6 0-0 'tWd4 1 7 ll d I 't!t'xd6 1 8
ltxd6 Ci:Jd4 19 i.g4 U ±. After 1 5 . . .
1t'd4 Korchnoi-Gri.infeld , Lucerne
1 982, went 16 ltd I ! 'itxd6 1 7 ltxd6
�f8 1 8 0-0 �7 19 llfd 1 g5? ( 1 9
. . . b6 20 f4 lilb8 ;!; ) 20 Ci:J a4 b5 2 l cb
ab 22 i.xb5 Ci:Je5 23 a3 lta5 24 Ci:Jc3
±± .
I n general, 6 . . . i.b4 leads to
slight edges for White, and not
much counterplay.
812
6 dS (1 78)
1 78
w 7
Aggressive and critical.
7 ..tf4
7 cd Ci:J xd5 (7 . . . ed 8 Ci:Jxd5
transposes; 8 i.f4!?, e.g. 8 . . . i.b4
9 Ci:Jc7+ �e7 10 Ci:J xa 8 d4 I I a3
..ta5 ! 12 i.c7 !?) 8 Ci:J xd5 (8 e4
Ci:J xc 3 9 'tWxd8+ �xd8 10 Ci:Jxc3
i.c5 = e.g. 1 1 i.f4 �e7 12 i.b5
i.d7 1 3 lite ! a6 14 i.d3 ltac8 =
Filip-Flesch, Hungary 1 969) 8 .. .
ed 9 't!t'xd 5 ! ? (9 e3 i.e6 =) 9 .. .
i.b4+ (or 9 . . . i.e6!? 1 0 't!t'xd8+
llxd8 1 1 e3 i.b4+ 12 Ci:Jc3 0-0 1 3
i.e2 Ci:Je5 1 4 0-0 i.xc3 1 5 b e i.c4 =
Tuzovsky-Greckin, USSR 1967)
10 i.d2 i.e6 ( 1 0 . . . 't!t'e7 I I Ci:Jc3?
0-0 1 2 i.g5 't!t'c7 1 3 e3 i.e6 1 4 't!t'd2
't!t'a5 15 i.h4 g5! 16 i.g3 ll fd8 1 7
1!t'c2 i. xc3+! 1 8 b e Ci:Jb4! =F Suba­
Portisch, Thessaloniki 01 1 984; 1 1
a3 i.xd2+ 1 2 'itxd2 0-0 1 3 't!t'd6
't!t'g5 oo Portisch. B lack could also
try I 0 . . . i.xd2+ 1 1 't!i'xd2 't!t'xd2+
12 �xd 2 0-0 13 f3 !? lild8+ 14 �e l
oo, or here 1 3 Ci:Jc3) 1 1 't!t'xd8+
lilxd8 1 2 Ci:Jc3 0-0 ! ( 1 2 . . . Ci:Jd4 1 3
0-0-0) 1 3 e 3 lild7 ( 1 3 . . . Ci:Je5) 1 4
i.b5 ltfd8 1 5 0-0-0 i.xa2 =
Kraidman-Cramling, Gausdal 198 1 .
e5
Spassky tried 7 . . . d4!? versus
Trifunovic in Belgrade 1964: 8
Ci:Jc7+ �e7 9 'ita4! (9 't!t'b3 !?) 9 . . .
Ci:J h 5 ( 9 ... d e 1 0 ltd ! ) 1 0 Ci:J xa8
Ci:J xf4 I I Ci:Jb5 i.d7 12 g3? Ci:Jg6 1 3
't!t'a3+ �f6 1 4 1!t'f3+ \12- Y2 but 1 2
e3 ! (Gipslis) 1 2 . . . de ( l 2 . . . Ci:Jg6 1 3
Ci:J xa7 ! Ci:Ja5 1 4 Ci:Jb5 ±) l 3 't!t'a3+

ct>f6 1 4 'ti'xe3 ± puts this line to
rest.
8 �
8 �g5 a6! 9 ll:lxd5 ll:l xd5 1 0
�xd8 �b4+ =F.
8 ef
9 de be
10 't!Yxd8 + ct>xd8 (1 79)
An arena for some heavyweight
battles throughout the 80s .
B 1 2 1 1 1 :ild l +
B 1 2 2 1 1 ll:ld4
1 1 0-0-0+ �d7 1 2 ll:ld6 �xd6 1 3
l hd6 ll:lg4! 1 4 ll:ld l ct>c7 1 5 :ild4
g5 16 g3 c5 ( " ! " Raj kovic), e.g.
17 l:tc4 �c6 1 8 l:tg l ( 1 8 f3
:ilfd8 ! ) 1 8 . . . ll:lxh2 1 9 gf ll:l xfl 20
:ilxfl g4! 2 1 lit xc5 h5 etc. In Trois­
Ro gulj, Virovitica 1 980, Black
settled for 12 ... ct>c7 !? 1 3 ll:lxl7
litg8 1 4 ll:le5 �f5 15 e4 !? ( 1 5 g3
ll:le4!?) 15 . . . fe 16 �c4 lite8! 1 7
ll:lf3 ( 1 7 �xg8 l:txe5 1 8 �b3 ef 19
i.. c 2 i..g4 intending ... �c5) 17 . . .
lit h 8 =.
8121
11 :ildl+ �d 7
2 lZlf3 lZlf6 3 d4: 4 . .. lZlc6 1 73
12 ll:ld6 (180)
1�
B
With one further split:
B l2 1 1 12 .. �xd6
B 12 1 2 12 . . . ct>c7
a) Originally 12 . . . l:tb8!? was
played: 1 3 ll:lx17+ <t>e8 14 ll:lxh8
( 1 4 ll:ld6+ i.. x d6 1 5 llxd6 lit xb2 1 6
l:td2 l:tb4 1 7 g3 l:tc4! 1 8 ll:l d 1 ct>e7
= Andersson-Timman, Bugojno
1 98 2) 14 . . . llxb2; but 1 5 lit d4 ! ( 1 5
l:td2? i.. b 4) 1 5 . . . �b4 ( 1 5 . . . a 5 1 6
e 3 fe 1 7 fe, and 1 7 . . . i.. c 5 1 8 �d3!
o r 17 ... �b4 1 8 llxb4 a b 1 9 ll:ld 1
litxa2 20 �c4 lit xg2 2 1 ll:lf7 looks
insufficient) 16 l:txb4 lit xb4 1 7
e 3 ! ? ( 1 7 g3 l:tc4?! 1 8 ct>d2 l:td4+ 1 9
<t>c I ct>f8 20 e 3 ± - H tibner­
Makropoulos, Athens 1 976; 1 7 . . .
ct>f8 1 8 g f ct>g8 1 9 e 3 <t>h 8 2 0 �d3
±; or here 18 . . . l:txf4 19 e3 t or 1 9
litgl ct>g8 20 ll:lg6 :!: Stean-Liberzon,
Baden 1 9 80) 17 . . . fe 18 fe ct>f8 1 9
i..d 3 ct>g8 20 0- 0 ct>xh8 2 1 ll:le4! t
(Xu Jun).
b) 12 ... <t>e7!? 13 g3 g5 14 �g2
�g7 1 5 0-0 lit ab8 16 ll:lc4 ! t
Polugayevsky-Giigoric, B ugojno
1 74 2 !i:JjJ !i:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . !i:Jc6

1 9 82. 15 !i:J xd7 !i:J xd7

81211 16 g3
12 i.xd6 1 6 litd2 !i:Je5 ! 1 7 e3 fe 1 8 fe i.b4
13 lilxd6 llb8(!) 19 ..ie2 ..ixc3 20 be lit b l + 2 1
13 . . . <t1c7 14 lii: d4 g5 1 5 g3 t; 1 3 lit b l litb2 = Rubi netti-Velimirovic,
. . . <tre7 1 4 lld4 ( 1 4 lld2 !i:Jd5 !? 1 5 Lucerne 01 1982.
!i:J xd5 cd 1 6 g3 llac8 = H .Olafsson­ 16 !i:Jxb2
Sosonko, Luceme 01 1982) 14 . . . g5 17 ..ih3 !i:J f6
15 g3 !i:Jh5 ! ? ( 1 5 . . . fg 16 hg !) 1 6 1 7 . . . lt:Jc5?! 1 8 0-0 litc2 1 9 lit c l
i.g2 ( 1 6 !i:Je4 !) 16 . . . f5 1 7 i.f3 g4 litxc l 20 lit xc l t Korchnoi-Portisch,
1 8 i.g2 t va n der Heij den- Fiorito, match (5) 1983. Gutman mentions
Net herlands 1 984. 17 . . . ..ib4!?, 17 . . . lt:Je5 !?, and 17 . . .
14 li[d2 lt:Jb6!? a s well .
14 b3 lii: b4 1 5 g3 <tre7 1 6 litd2 After 1 7 . . . lt:Jf6 , Adorjan­
c5 = Korchnoi-Polugayevsky, match Cebalo, Vrsac 1983, conti nued 1 8
(7) 1983. 0-0 fg 1 9 h g ..ib4 20 lite ) lit d8 2 1
14 liteS ..ig2 litdd2 ! = .

15 g3 f3 8122
16 <t1d1 11 lt:Jd4 (181)
16 i.h3 fe 1 7 i. xd7 !i:Jxd7 1 8 b3
<trc7 = H.Olafsson- Portisch , New 181

York 1 984. 8

16 fe+
1 7 i.xe2 <trc7 1 8 i.c4 i.g4+!?
( 1 8 ... <tre7 19 <t;c i llbe8 20 b3
i.e6 21 i. xe6 t Xu Jun-de Firmian,
Thessalo niki 01 1984) 19 <trc2 ( 1 9
lt>cl !?) 1 9 . . . lle7 20 b3 litd8 2 1
litxd8 <trxd8 22 f4 i.f5+ = Karpov­
Polugayevsky, London 1 984.
81212 Another Korchnoi move, de­
12 l!;>c7 !? signed to avoid Black's active
13 !i:Jxf7 lit g8 piece play of the last two sect ions.
14 !i:Je5 11 ..id7
1 4 g3 lit b8 1 5 litd2 i. b4 1 6 i.g2 1 1 . . . c5 ! ? 1 2 lilc6+ ( or 1 2 lildb5
..ixc3 1 7 be lit b l + Andersson­
= i.b7) 1 2 . . . lt>c7 1 3 lt:Jc5 ..ie6 1 4 g3
Ta l, Ma lmo 1 983. fg 1 5 hg litb8 is worthy of
14 llb8 ! attention ( 1 6 b3 ? c4; 1 6 litc l ) I I . . .

i.b7?! 1 2 g3 c5 1 3 ll:lf3 ± is given
by Levitina. Korchnoi-Portisch,
match (3) 1 983, went I I . . . '!/c7 1 2
g3 i.c5?! ( 1 2 . . . l:tb8 1 3 0- 0-0 i.c5
14 i.g2! ll:lg4 15 ll:le4 ! ! or 1 4 . . .
i.xd4 1 5 l:t xd 4 !; 1 2 . . . i.b4 ! ;t
Gutman) 1 3 l:tc l ! fg 1 4 hg i.a6 ?
1 5 ll:lxc6! ± .
12 g3 fg
1 2 . . . c5?! 1 3 ll:ldb5 l:tb8 1 4
ltJxa7 ! llxb2 1 5 0-0-0 ;t and 1 2 . . .
i.d6 1 3 i.g2 l:tc8 1 4 0- 0 fg 1 5 h g
h5(?) 1 6 l:tad I '!;c7 1 7 i.xc6!
Ligterink-Hulak, European Team
Ch 1 983, are not effective. But 1 2
. . . i. b4!? 1 3 i.g2 ( 1 3 gfl?) 1 3 . . . fg
transposes.
13 hg i.b4
Or 1 3 . . . li b8 1 4 0-0-0 ( 14 i.g2
lixb 2 1 5 0-0 l:tb4 = Andersson­
Polugaye vsky, Tilburg 1 983) 1 4 . . .
'!/c7 oo, intending . . . ll:lg4 -
Polugaye vsky; 1 5 i.h3 i.xh3 1 6
l:txh3 i.b4, roughly equal.
14 i.g2
Or 14 llc l c5 = . After 14 i.g2,
Ti mm an-Gligoric, Volmac 1 984,
went 14 . . . i.xc3+ 15 be '!/c7 1 6
0-0 ( 1 6 l:th4 g5!? 1 7 lith6 ll:lg4 1 8
lih5 h6 = Djuric-Velimirovic,
Titograd 1 985) 16 ... llab8 1 7 ll:lb3,
and here Gligoric likes " 1 7 . . . h 5 !
planning . . . h4" . White was better
after 17 . . . llhe8 18 l:tfe 1 l:tb5 1 9
e4 t.
Overall, 6 . . . d5 appears best
after 6 ll:l db5, as Black's piece play
compensates for his pawn weak-
2 llJf3 llJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . llJc6 1 75
nesses.
82
6 g3 (182)
This simple development has
been debated a mong top players
for over 30 years without in any
way exhausting its possibilities.
B21 6 . . . i.b4
B 22 6 . . . i.c5
B 23 6 . . . it'b6
Older moves tend to be too
passive:
a) 6 . d6 7 i.g2 i.d7 8 0-0 a6 9
..
b3 !, e.g. 9 . . . i.e7 10 a4! 0-0 1 1 ..ta3
'tib8 1 2 lla2 with the idea l:td2,
Karpov-Schauwecker, Bath 1 973.
b) 6 . dS can transpose to 6 . . .
..
i. c 5 after 7 ..tg2 ..t c 5 8 ll:lb3 ..tb4,
or to a Queen's Gambit after 7 cd
ed .
c) 6 . . . a6 7 ..ig2 it'c7 8 0-0 ..te7 (8
. . . ll:l a5 9 b3 d5 10 i.g5 - or 10 ..tb2
de 11 b4 - 1 0 . . . ..te7(?) 1 1 l:t c l de
12 b4 llJ c6 1 3 ll:lxc6 be 14 ..txf6 gf
1 5 ll:le4 ± Gligoric; 1 0 . . . de!? 1 1
i.xf6 !) 9 b3 0-0 10 ..ib2 l:td8 1 1
ll c l d5? 1 2 cd ed 1 3 ll:la4 ..id7 1 4
1 76 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: 4 . . liJc6
.
1i'd3 1i'a5 1 5 liJf5 ± Smys1ov­
Cobo, Havana 1 967.
d) 6 .. liJe5 7 .if4 ! liJg6 (7 . . . liJ xc4
. c) 7 ... 1!t'a5 8 0-0! .i xc3 (8 . . . a6 9
8 e4 d5 9 ed ed lO liJdb5 ±) 8 .id2
(or 8 .ig 5 a6 9 .igH) 8 ... 't!lb6 9 e3
.ie7 1 0 .ig2 liJe5 ;!; Szabo-Enk1aar,
Amsterdam 1973.
e) 6 ... .ie7 7 .ig2 0-0 8 0-0 a6 (8 . . .
d S 9 cd liJxdS l O liJ xdS e d 1 1
.ie3 ;!;, or here l O liJ xc6! be 1 1
.id2 ;!;) 9 .if4 ! (9 e4 !? 1!t'c7 1 0 .ie3
and 9 liJb3 d6 10 .if4 are options)
9 . . . 1i'a5 ( 9 . . . liJhS 10 .ie3; 9 . . .
liJaS l O 1!t'd3 d 6 1 1 liJb3 ;!; ) 1 0 liJb3
"ti'b4? 1 1 cS ! etc.
821
6 .ib4
7 .ig2 (183)
183
B dS 1 1 cd ed 1 2 .if4 liJc4 1 3 liJe3!
7 0-0
a) 7 ... 't!rb6 ! ? 8 llJc2 !? (8 liJb3 is the
main line 823 1 ; 8 liJdbS ! ?) 8 . . .
.ixc3 + 9 b e 0-0 l O 0-0 ( l O .ia3
lld8 1 1 .id6 liJe8 1 2 cS 1!t'a5 1 3
1i'd2!?) l O . . . d S 1 1 liJe3 lld8 1 2 cd
ed 1 3 liJ xd 5 liJxdS 14 .ixdS liJe7
1S c4 liJxd S 16 cd .ifS = Bukal­
Joksic, Yugoslavia 1 977.
b) 7 ... d5 8 liJxc6 ! be 9 1!t'a4 is
awk ward for Black .
liJb3 1!t'hS l O .if4 ±) 9 be 0-0 (9 . . .
1!i'xc3 1 0 liJbS!) 1 0 "ti'b3 lld8 ( I O
. . . ll e8 1 1 liJbS; 10 . . . dS 1 1 cd ed
1 2 .if4 .ig4 1 3 life 1 1!t'c5 1 4
1!t'xb 7 ! liJ xd4 1 S c d 1!t'xd4 1 6 l:lab 1
aS ? 1 7 .ib8 ±± Stahlberg-Pe rsitz,
Lj ubljana 1 9SS) 1 1 .ia3 1!t'hS 1 2
l:lfd 1 liJxd4 1 3 cd d S Spassov­
Form anek, Stara Zagora 1 97 7; 1 4
llac 1 ± .
d) 7 ... liJe5 8 "ti'b3 (8 0-0!? liJ xc4 9
1!t'b3 .ixc3 I 0 1!t'xc3 dS 1 1 b3 liJd6
1 2 .ia 3 0-0 1 3 "ireS llJfe8 1 4 ll fd 1
b6 1 S 1i'c2 oo Shatskes; o r here 8 . . .
.ixc3 9 be liJxc4 1 0 1i'a4 liJ b 6 1 1
'§'b3 0-0 1 2 .ia3) 8 . . . tWaS (8 . . .
.icS 9 liJ c 2 ;!; ) 9 liJ c 2 .ixc3+ l O be
liJ xe3 ( 1 3 . . . 't!t'cS 14 .ixd5 !? or 14
lld l ) 14 .ixe3 ;!; - Furman­
Vistanetskis, Vilnius 1 960.
8 0-0 d5
a) 8 . a6 9 i.gS !? (or 9 liJc2
..
.ixc3+ lO be d 5 1 1 liJe3 ;!;) 9 ... h6
10 .ixf6 "it'xf6 1 1 e3 .ixc3? ( 1 1 . . .
't!t'e7) 1 2 b e 't!t'eS 1 3 llb 1 't!t'c7 1 4
cS ! liJaS 1 S 't!t'h S ! fS 1 6 g 4 ti'xcS
1 7 gS ± ( 1 7 . . . hg 1 8 liJf3) Garcia­
Palermo-Evans, Lone Pine 1 978.
b) 8 . . "it'e7!? 9 liJc2 (9 .igS) 9 . . .
.
.ixc3 1 0 b e lld8 1 1 .ia3 d 6 1 2
liJd4 ( 1 2 e4!?) 1 2 . . . liJe5 1 3 "ti'b3,
Tu kmakov-Hort, De�in 1977; 1 3
. . . liJfd7 ! = (Tukmakov).
9 cd ed

1 0 .ie3
Or 1 0 .ig5, as in Quinteros-
Bertok, Cap D'Agado 1 986: 10 . . .
.ixc3 ( 1 0 . . . h 6!?; 1 0 . . . .ie6 I I
li:lxc6 be 1 2 lilc l t) I I be .ie6 1 2
lilb I ll:l a5 1 3 f4 ! li:lc4 1 4 'it'd3 li:lb6
1 5 l He l h 6 16 .ih4 't!t'd6 1 7 .ixf6
gf 1 8 e4 de 19 .ixe4 .ixa2 20 lilb5
±.
After 1 0 .ie3, 1 0 . . . .ixc3 I I be
.ie6 12 lilb I favours W hite, e.g.
12 . . . li:l a5 1 3 't!t'a4 b6 1 4 lilfd l li:lc4
15 .if4, Portisch-Donner, Santa
Mo nica 1966, went 10 . . . lile8 I I
lilc l .ig4 1 2 '@b3! .txc3 1 3 lil xc 3
li:lxd4 1 4 .txd4 .txe 2 1 5 lil fc l
li:le4 ( 1 5 . . . .ia6 1 6 lilf3! liJe4 1 7
lilf5) and now 1 6 lile3 .ta6 1 7
lice I ± (Portisch).
822
6 .tcs
7 li:lb3
7 li:lc2 't!t'b6 ! or 7 .ie3 't!t'b6 are
fu tile. 7 e3 0-0 (or 7 . . . b6) 8 .ig2
d5 9 cd ed 10 0-0 .ig4 ( else I I
liJb3) I I li:lxc6 be 1 2 't!t'c2 ( 1 2 'it'a4
't!t'd7 or 1 2 . . . ll: c8 ) 1 2 . . . ll:c8 =
Browne- Lj ubojevic, Milan 1 9 75.
7 .ib4
7 ... .te7 is still common, but
White keeps a riskless edge: 8 .ig2
0-0 9 0-0 d6 (184) (9 . . . a6 10 c5! d5
I I cd .txd6 12 .ig5 .te7 1 3 'trxd8
lilxd8 14 liJa4 t Tiller-Pl achet ka,
Norway v Czechoslovakia 1 98 1 ; 9
. . . b6 1 0 liJd5 !? ed I I cd .ib7 1 2 d6
lile8 1 3 de 'tlt'xe7 14 lil e l t
Gheorghiu-Tu kmakov, Wij k aan
2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: 4 .. . liJc6 1 77
Zee 198 1 . I 0 .if4 or 10 .ie3
deserve a look)
184
W
Now harmless is I 0 e4 a6 I I
't!t'e2 lilb8 1 2 lil d l 't!t'c7 1 3 .if4 liJe5
14 liJd2 b6 = Ciafone-Tarjan , Palo
Alto 1 98 1 . 10 li:ld4!? .id7 ( 1 0 . . .
d5 ! ? intending I I c d e d 1 2 .if4
't!t'b6) I I liJ db 5 ( I I b3 a6 1 2 .ib2
lilb8 =) I I . . . 't!t'b8 1 2 .if4 ( 1 2 .ig5
a6 ! 1 3 .txf6 gf =, or 1 3 liJa3 lild8
=) 1 2 . . . ll:le5 1 3 b 3 a6 1 4 liJd4 t
Vu kic-Minic, Vinkovci 1 977.
The best move is 1 0 .if4!, when
10 . . . liJe5 I I c5! and 1 0 . . . li:l a5 I I
liJ xa5 ( I I .ixd6 liJxc4 1 2 .txe7 t)
l l . . . 't!t'a5 1 2 't!t'd2 favours White.
More common are: I 0 . . . liJ h5 I I
.te3 liJf6 ( I I . . . liJe5 1 2 c5 ! d5 1 3
.id4 li:lc6 1 4 e4 ! = Kapengut; or
14 e3 ± Adorjan) 12 ll:cl liJg4 1 3
.tf4 g5 ( 1 3 . . . liJge5 1 4 liJb5 !) 1 4
.i d 2 it:lge5 1 5 liJb5 liJg6 1 6 c5! d 5
Adorj an-Hulak , Toluca 1982, and
either 1 7 liJd6 ± or 1 7 e4 d4 1 8
liJd6! (as played) is strong. O r 1 0
... liJg4 I I :file I liJge5, Adorjan­
M o kry, Prague 1985, and aside
1 78 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 .. . li:Jc6
from 12 li:Jb5 a6 1 3 li:Jbd4 li:Jxd4 1 4
'ifxd4 !, 1 2 li:Jd4(!) li:Jxc4 ( 1 2 . . .
i.d7 1 3 li:J xc6 i.xc6 1 4 c5! ± ) 1 3
i.xc6 ± with the idea li:J xc6,
li:Jxe7+, b3, li:Jb5 etc (Adorjan).
Fi nally, I O . . . h 6 l l litc l e5 1 2 i.d2
i.e6 13 li:Jd5 liteS, Gavrikov­
Zaichik, Tbilisi 1 9 S3; 14 i.c3! !
and li:Jd2 ( Ga vrikov).
8 i.g2 dS
9 cd
9 (}.0 de I 0 li:Jd2 (}.0 ( 10 . . . 'tlt'd4
I I li:Jb5 'ife5 1 2 a4 !) I I li:Jxc4 'ife7
1 2 i.e3 lit dS 1 3 'ifb3 li:Jd5! =
Stean-Sosonko, A msterdam 1979;
12 i.d2 litdS 1 3 'tt"c I li:Jd4 (or 13 . . .
i.d7) is also equal.
9 li:JxdS
9 . . . ed 10 0-0 i.e6 I I i.g5 ! ( I I
. . . 0-0 1 2 lit b l !).
10 0-0 (!)
10 i.d2 li:Jxc3 I I i.xc3 i.xc3+
12 be 'ti'e7 = ; 10 a3 i.xc3+ I I be
0-0! ( I I . . . li:J xc 3 ? 1 2 'tfxdS+ a nd
1 3 i.b2 ±) 1 2 c4 ( 1 2 'ifc2 it'c7 ! 1 3
c4 li:Je5 =) 1 2 . . . li:Jb6 1 3 'ifxdS 1 4
c5 li:Jd5 ! ( 1 4 . . . li:Ja4 1 5 i.f4 ;t) 1 5
i.b2 b6 1 6 e4 li:J de7 ro. Finall y, 1 0
'ifc2 li:Jxc3 ! ( 1 0 . . . (}.0 I I i.d2 ;t) I I
be i.e7 equalises.
10 li:Jxc3
10 . . . i.xc3 I I be (}.0 1 2 i.a3 !
liteS 1 3 c4 li:Jb6 14 litc l i.d7 1 5
li:Jc5 ± Adorjan-Sigurjonsson,
Reykjavik 1 9S2.
11 be!? (1 85)
I I 'ifxdS+ has also had success,
e.g. I I . .. li:Jxd S!? ( I I . . . 'it>xdS
Tu kmakov) 1 2 bc i.xc3 1 3 lit b l a5
( 1 3 . . . 0-0 may improve; 13 . . . i.b4
14 li:Jd4 and li:Jb5) 14 litd l !? ( 1 4
li:Jc5 i.b4 1 5 li:Ja4 ::!:: Tu kmakov­
Tal, Erevan 1 9 SO) 14 . . . f6 1 5 a3
lUd8 1 6 li:Jc5 ± Reshevsky-Kogan,
US Ch 19S I .
11 'ti'xd1
No better seems I I . . . i.xc3 1 2
lit b I 0-0 1 3 i.e3 i.f6 1 4 li:Jc5 'ti'c7
1 5 'ti'a4 litdS 1 6 lUc l ( ±) 1 6 . . .
litbS 1 7 li:Ja4! i.e7 I S 'ti'xa 7 ! etc of
Su nye-Hase, Moron 1 9S2.
1 2 litxd1 i.xc3
13 ll b 1 0-0
14 li:JcS eS
Christiansen gives 1 4 . . . li:Jd4!?
15 'it>fl e5 1 6 litd3!? i.a5 ro , but
the immediate 1 5 lld3(!) intending
15 . . . li:Jxe2+ ( 1 5 . . . e5 16 e3) 1 6
'it>f l li:Jxc l 1 7 lit xc3 li:Jxa2 I S lita3
etc looks good. 14 . . . li:JdS? 1 5 i.a3
liteS 16 li:Ja6! i.a5 1 7 litb5 ± was
Christiansen-Radulov, I ndonesia
1 9S2. Probably Ftacnik's 1 4 . . .
litdS i s best.

After 1 4 . . . e 5, Razuvayev-
Polugayevsky, Moscow l 9S5, ended
quickly: 1 5 .ia3 .tf5 1 6 li xb7
�a5 1 7 lic7 liacS I S lba6! ( ±) I S
. . . l:UdS? 1 9 l hdS+ l hdS 20 lhc3
l -0.
823
6
Still the main line. 6 . . . ._.b6
drives the wh ite knight from the
centre without the loss of tempo 6
. . . .ic5 entails. Recently the move
has p repared the direct . . . d5.
7 �b3 (186)
7 �xc6 'ti'xc6! or:
a) 7 �db5 �e5 (7 . . . .ic5?! S .ig2 !
.ixf2+ 9 � f l �g4 1 0 1!t'd6 ! ±±
Lipinski-Schinzel, Warsaw 1 977)
S .ig2 ( S .if4 lt:lfg4! 9 e3 a6 +) S . . .
a6 (S . . . � xc4!? 9 'W'a4 'ti'c5 ! 1 0
.if4 e 5 I I .ig5 a6 1 2 .ixf6 li b S 1 3
�d5 a b 14 'W'a7 ! 'W'd6 oo) 9 �a3 (9
'ti'a4 .ic5; 9 .ie3 'ti'a5) 9 . . . .ixa3
10 ba � xc 4 I I 1!t'b3 ?! ( I I 0-0 0-0
1 2 e4!?) I I . . . i hb 3 12 ab �a5 1 3
lib l d5 + (Euwe).
b) 7 e3 .ib4 (or 7 . . . d5 = ) S .ig2 d5
9 cd � xd4 1 0 1!t'xd4 'W'xd 4 I I ed
�xd5 =.
c) 7 �c2 d5 ! (or 7 ... .ic5 S e3 0-0 9
.ig2 'ti'a6 =) S cd ed 9 � xd5 (9 b3
= Gufeld) 9 ... lt:\xd5 1 0 1!t'xd5 .ie 6
I I 't!t'e4, Belyavsky-Gurevich, USSR
1 975; . I I . . . .i b4+ ! 1 2 �xb4
'W'xb4+ 13 'ti'xb4 �xb4 + (Gufeld).
see diagram
2 �!3 �!6 3 d4: 4 . . �c6 . 1 79
186
B
8 23 1 7 . . . .ib4
8 232 7 . . . �e5
8233 7 . . . d5
8231
7 .ib4
8 .ig2 ._.a6
Still the normal move, although
Whit e has done well against it.
Others:
a) 8 0-0 9 0-0 .ixc3?! 10 c5! it'c7
...
I I be b5 1 2 .if4 e5 1 3 .ig5 ±
Mikhalchishin-Valenti, Rome 1977;
better 9 . . . � e 5 10 c5 't!t'a6 I I 'ti'd4
�c6 1 2 'it'd3 ! Tischbierek-Goglitz,
East Germany l 9SO.
b) 8 ... �e5 9 .ie3 'W'a6 (9 . . . 'W'c7
10 c5 �c4 I I 'itd4! �xe3 1 2 'W'xe3
libS 1 3 0-0 .ixc3 14 1!t'xc3 b6 1 5 c6
0-0 - 15 . de 16 �d4! - 1 6 � d4 a6,
..
Portisch-Donner, Amsterdam 197 1 ;
1 7 liac l ! d6 I S lifd I ± Portisch)
10 c5 �c4 I I .tel d5 1 2 cd 0-0 1 3
0-0 .ixd6 ( 1 3 . . . lidS 1 4 .ig5 ! ; 1 3
. . . h 6 1 4 'W'd3 lidS 1 5 a 3 .ixd6 1 6
�c5! Ro manishin) 1 4 't!t'd 3 ! libS
15 a4! �e5 16 'itd4 lidS 17 �b5 ±
Romanis hin-H ulak , K rk 1 976.
180 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . li:J c6

c) 8 . . . d5 9 cd (9 li:Jd2 d4 1 0 li:Ja4
'f/c7 = ) 9 li:Jxd5 (9 0 0 0 ed 1 0 .te 3
o o •

/87
"t!la6 I I 0-0 0-0!? 1 2 li:Jc5 ! ) 1 0 0-0! w
li:Jxc3 ( 1 0 .t xc 3 I I be 0-0 1 2 c4
oo•

li:Jde 7 B agirov-Barczay, Ta llinn

1 9 8 1 ; 1 3 .tb2 i; 13 .ta3; l 2 "t!lc2!?
Bagirov) I I be .te7 ( I I 0 0 0 .txc3 1 2
.te3! with a strong attack ) 1 2 .te3
"t!lc7 1 3 li:Jd4 .td7 14 llbl a6 1 5
li:Jxc6! .t xc6 1 6 .txc6+ "t!lxc6 1 7
:U.b6 t planning 1!Va4, :U. fb l etc,
Gulko-So kol ov, Parnu 1977.
9 c5 of E ingorn-Mikhalchishin, Lvov
a) 9 0-0!? "t!lxc4 10 .td2 d5 I I li[ c l 1 984, which went 1 1 . 0 0 d5 l 2 li:Jxc5
i.xc3 1 2 .t xc3 @'a4 o r 1 2 0 0 0 @'g4; @'a5 13 li:Jca4 ± . H ere I I 0 0 0 c4 1 2
here 1 2 . . . li:J d4? l 3 li:J xd 5 ! ! li:'lxe2+ li:Jc5 "t!la5 1 3 @'d6 ! looks worse.
1 3 "t!lxe2! with a k illing attac k , 10 ab
Fernandez-Le bredo, Cuba 1984. 11 0-0 0-0
b) 9 li:Jd2 !? .txc 3 l O be 0-0 (or 10 o o · II .t xc3!? 1 2 be d5 1 3 .tg5
o o •

d5 =) I I 0-0 ( I I c 5 b6; I I "t!lb3 !? ( 1 3 e4!?) 1 3 .tb7 14 .txf6 gf 1 5

oo•

Gligoric) I I 0 0 0 d5 12 "it'b3 .td7 (or li:'ld4 t Thinnsen-de Firmian , Palo

12 000 li:'la5 13 @'a3 b6 1 4 cd ed 1 5 Alto 1 98 1 .
c4! li:J xc 4 1 6 li:Jxc4 "t!lxc4 1 7 .tb2 12 .tg5 .te7
li:'le4 1 8 1!t'e3 =/ro Tatai-Ostojic, 1 3 e4 ! h6 ( 1 3 . . . b5 !?) 14 .tf4 e5
Rome 1 97 7) 13 1!t'a3 , Korchnoi­ 15 .te3 li:Jb4 16 a3 li:Jd3 17 'flc2
Spassky, match (5) 1 97 7- 8; 1 3 0 0 0 li:Jg5 1 8 .td2 1!t'c4 19 .tf3 ± van
1!t'xa3 1 4 .t xa 3 ll fc8 = (Stean). Dyck-Bernard, corres 1979-82. Thus
9 b6 (187) both 10 cb and 10 0-0 look good
9 0 0 0 1!t'c4 1 0 0-0! .t xc5 I I li:J xc5 for White.
1!t'xc5 12 .te3 1!t'e7 1 3 li:Jb5! t 8232
Chekhov-Alburt, U SSR 1978. 7 li:Je5
10 cb!? The old main line.
Perhaps even better is l 0 0-0( ! ) 8 e4 .tb4
be?! ( 1 0 . . . .txc5? I I li:Jxc5 b e 1 2 8 0 0 . d6 9 f4 lt::l g6 1 0 "t!le2 .te7 I I
'f/d6 ! ; 1 0 .tb7 I I .t g5 .t xc3 1 2
o o · .te 3 "t!lc7 1 2 .tg2 .td7 1 3 n e t 0-0
be li:Je5 1 3 .txb7 t intending .txf6 , 14 0-0 a6 1 5 li:Jd4 t Polugayevsky­
1!t'd4, Tukmakov-Razuvayev, Tash­ Lju bojevic, Tilburg 1 985.
kent 1 980) I I .te3 ! (" ±" Eingorn) 9 'ire2 (188)

/88
B :!: Ubi1ava-Gu1ko, USSR Ch 1 98 1 ,
9 0-0
Weak is 9 . . . 'it'c6? 1 0 .id2! (or
l O f4( ! ) w ith the idea lO . . . lLl xe4
1 1 .ig2 lLlxc 3 1 2 be .ixc3 13 .id2
± Shatskes) 10 . . . d6 1 1 f4 ±; or 9
. . . d6?! 1 0 f4 lLlg6 1 1 .id2 0-0 1 2
.ig2 a6 1 3 �c 1 �b8 1 4 g4! ±
Holmov-Razuvayev, USSR 19 7 1 .
A wild line goes 9 . . . a5!? l O .ie3
( l O f4 lt:l eg4! 1 1 e5 a4 oo) lO . . .
'it'c6 ( l 0 . . . 'it'c7 !? 1 1 f4 ! lLlxe4 1 2
.id4) 1 1 f3 0-0 1 2 lLld4 'it'a6 1 3
lLl b5 d5 !? ( 1 3 . . . 't!t'c6 1 4 .id4 ±) 1 4
lLlc7 ( 1 4 cd ed 1 5 .id4 de 1 6 .i xe5
ef 17 'it'c4 f2+ oo Miles-Nunn,
London 1 977) 1 4 . . . 'it'd6 ( 1 4 . . .
'it'c6 !? 1 5 lLlxa8 lLlxc4 1 6 .id4 e 5
1 7 ed lLlxd 5 1 8 'it'xc4 o! Karpov) 1 5
lLlxa 8 de? ( 1 5 . . . lLlxc4! 1 6 a 3 lLlxa2
17 llxa 3 d4 1 8 .id2 de 19 llxc3 U ±
Karpov) 1 6 fe lLl xe4 1 7 �d 1 ! 'it'c6
1 8 .ig2 ±± Karpov-Miles, Tilburg
1977.
10 f4 lLlc6
II .ie3
Or 1 1 e5 lLl e8 1 2 ..i d2 ( 1 2 .ie3
't!t'c7 14 ..td2 t) 12 . . . f6 13 c5 !? ( 1 3
2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . lLlc6 181
ef lLlxf6 14 c5 't!t'c7 1 5 .ig2 b6 1 6
lLlb5 .ixd2+ 1 7 'trxd2 'trb8 1 8 �c 1
or here 1 4 .ig2 d5 1 5 0-0-0 a 5 1 6
.ie3 o!) 1 3 . . . 'trd8 ( 1 3 . . . 'trc7 1 4
lLl b 5 .t xd2+ 1 5 'trxd2 t) 1 4 a3 ( 1 4
.tg2 fe 1 5 fe b6 1 6 lLle4 a 5 oo ) 1 4 . . .
.txc3 1 5 .i xc 3 fe 1 6 .txe5 lLlxe5
17 'trxe5 a5 ( 1 7 . . . b6( ! ) 1 8 .tg2
.ta6 oo) 1 8 i.d3 a4 1 9 lLld2 d6 20
cd lLlxd6 2 1 0-0-0 ± Dvoiris-Tal,
USSR 1 985.
11 'it'c7
12 ..tg2 b6
1 2 . . . d5 falls short after 1 3 e5
lLle4 1 4 llc 1 (Mikha1chishin), or
here 14 0-0 .t xc3 1 5 cd! ed 1 6 be
b6 1 7 � ac 1 f5 1 8 � fd 1 .ie6 1 9 g4
(" ! " Velimirovic).
13 ll acl !?
1 3 e5 lLle8 1 4 �c 1 " ±" (Mikhal­
chishin).
13 .ta6
14 0-0 .txc3
1 5 � xc3 d6 1 6 lLld4 lt:lxd4 1 7
.txd4 e 5 1 8 i.fl Stean-Spassky,
M unich 1 979; and instead of 18 . . .
llac8 1 9 f5 ! ± , 1 8 . . . ef 1 9 gf �ae8
20 i.d4 lLld7 was best .
8233
7 dS (189)
This radical solution was revived
a few years ago and is currently
the main line.
8 cd
8 .te3!? 'ti'b4 9 cd lLlxd5 is
unpromising, although Taimanov
gives I 0 i.d2 lLl xc3 l l .txc3 't!t'e4
18 2 2 l1Jf3 l1Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . l1J c6
189
w b) 10 ... e5 1 1 (}0 ( I I l1Jd2 'irc7 1 2
1 2 f3 'ti'e3 1 3 't!t'd2 t. Instead, 9 c5 !?
is very interesting. Then 9 . . . l1Jg4
1 0 i.f4!? (or 1 0 i.d2 i.xc5 I I e3 )
I 0 . . . i.xc5 I I e3 with the idea a3 is
apparently bad, and 9 . . . e 5 !? 1 0 a3
't!t'c4 I I ..tg5 d4 1 2 e3 'ire6 13 l1Jb 5
is also loose. Perhaps 9 . . . l1Je4 I 0
lic l l1Jxc3 (t he c-p awn is immune)
I I li xc3 't!t'e4 12 f3 'iVf5 would be
best.
8 l1J xd5
9 l1Jxd5
The other popular move is 9
i.g2 (9 i.d2!?) 9 . . . l1J xc3 1 0 be:
a) 1 0 . . . ..te7 I I 0-0 (}0 ( I I . . . e5 1 2
i.e3 'iVc 7 1 3 l1Jc5 0-0 1 4 'iVa4 i.xc5
- lightly ! Kasparov-Karpov (26),
Moscow 1 9S4-5) 12 ..te3 'irc7 1 3
l1Jd4 lidS ( 1 3 . . . i.d7 !?) 1 4 l1Jxc6 !?
( 14 'iVa4 i.d7 15 l1Jxc6 i.xc6 1 6
i.xc6 be 1 7 liab I t Cvetkovic­
Giigoric, Lugano 1 983; or here 1 7
c 4 \12- \12 Kasparov-Karpov, match
( 24) 1 9S4) 14 . . . lixd l 1 5 l1J xe7+
1txe7 16 l:l:xfd l g6 ( 1 6 ... h6 !?
Adorjan) 1 7 l:l:ab I e5 I S lib5 !
i.e6 ( 1 8 . . . e4 1 9 lie5 ! ±) 1 9 lixb7
lidS! 20 lidb l U± Adorj an­
Zys k , Dortmund 1 984.
l1Jc4 �e7 1 3 l1Jc3 �e6 1 4 0-0 0-0
1 5 c4 i.c5 1 6 l1Jd5 'ird7 = Tal­
lvanovic, Nik� ic) I I . . . i.e7 1 2
i.e3 'f!Jc7 1 3 l1Jc5 trans poses to I I
. . . e5 above. H ere I I . . . �e6!? 1 2
..te3 'ira6 1 3 l1Jc5 i.xc5 1 4 i.xc5
lidS is an option.
9 ed
1 0 �g2 �b4+
11 �d2 (190)
I I �f l !? with the idea i.e3, h3,
�g l -h2 is slow but worth con-
sideration.
11 i.g4
a) 1 1 . . . 0-0 1 2 (}0 i.g4 1 3 h3 i.e6
14 i.e3 't!t'dS 1 5 li c l lieS 1 6
l1Jd4!? ! ( 1 6 a3 planning l1J c5), Li­
van der Wiel, Biel 19 85.
b) 11 . . . a5 1 2 0-0 i.xd2 ( 1 2 . . . (}0
1 3 i.e3 'ira6 1 4 l1Jc5 !? - /4 licl!? -
14 . . . i.xc5 1 5 i.xc5 lieS 1 6 e3 �f5
\12-\12 Adorjan-Ivanovic, Vrsac 19S3)
13 'ti'xd2 a4 1 4 ltJc I 0-0 1 5 l1Jd2 ( 1 5
lii:d I i.f5 1 6 l1Jd3 i.xd3) 1 5 . . . lidS

("?! 1 5 . . . lita5! Ei ngorn; 1 6 lt:lf4 d4
17 lt:ld5 t; 1 5 .tf5 1 6 lt:lf4 d4 1 7
0 0 0
lit fd 1 llfd8 1 8 lt:l d 5 t Georgiev­
Gligoric, Plovd iv 1 986) 1 6 lt:l f4 d4
17 litac I i..d 7 18 litfd 1 lita5 1 9
lt:ld5 'tWa7 20 lt:lb4! litc5 2 1 lt:l xc6
.txc6 22 11rb4 ± Eingorn­
- Danner, Lugano 1 983.
M ikhalchishin, Lvov 1 984.
12 0-0
1 2 .txb4!? • 'itxb4+ 1 3 'itd2
11rxd2+ ( 1 3 . . . 0-0!?) 1 4 ct>xd2 0-0-0
15 h3 i.. h 5 1 6 litac l ct>b8 1 7 lt:lc5
litd6 18 II hd 1 :t - Smyslov­
H . Oiafsson, Copenhagen 1 985.
12 litd8
1 2 . . . 0-0-0 1 3 lit e ! lit he8 ( 13 . . .
ct>b8 1 4 i..f4+ ct>a8 1 5 a 3 t
Tukmakov) 14 .txb4 ( 1 4 .te3
litxe3 !?; 14 ... 1Wa 6!?) 14 . . . 1Wxb4
1 5 'tWd4! 't!t'xd4 1 6 lt:l xd4 .txe2?
( 1 6 . . . ct>d7! 1 7 lt:l xc6 be 1 8 e3 :t
Tukmakov) 1 7 life I i.. c4 1 8 lit xe8
llxe8 19 lt:l xc6 be 20 b3 ±
Tukmakov-Veingold, USSR 1979.
13 .txb4
1 3 h3!? .ih5 14 .te3 ( 1 4 lit c l !?;
14 .txb4 1Wxb4 1 5 f4 !? f6 oo
2 lt:lf3 lt:lf6 3 d4: 4 . . . lt:lc6 183
Nikolic- Cebalo, Novi Sad 1 984)
14 . . . d4!? 1 5 .txc6+ be 1 6 .txd4 c5
17 lt:l xc5 .txc5 1 8 'tra4+ ct>f8 1 9
.txc5+ 't!t'xc5 ' 20 ll a c l 't!t'e7 2 1
'tWa5 ! g 5 22 litc7 'tWf6 2 3 'tWc5+
'tWd6 24 'tWxa7 ct>g7 oo Adorj an­
13 't!t'xb4
14 'it'c2 0-0
15 litfd1
" ±" (Spraggett). Here Spraggett­
Chand.ler, Commonwealth Ch 1985,
continued 1 5 . . . 'it'c4!? ( 1 5 . . . litfe8
is natural) 1 6 litd2 litfe8 1 7 e3 g6
1 8 h3 (or 1 8 lite I lt:le5 !? 1 9 lit xd5
't!t'a6 20 llxd8 lit xd8 2 1 h 3 .tf3 22
'itc7 ± Smejkal-Cebalo, France
1986) 1 8 . .. i..f5 19 'tWd I .te4 20
lie! 'tWb4 2 1 lt:ld4 ! ±.
Conclusion: Black has found no
easy way to escape his difficulties
after 6 g3. Neither 6 . . . .ib4, 6 . . .
.ic5 n o r any o f the traditional
move after 6 . . . 't!t'b6 7 lt:lb3 are
presently satisfactory, and the
newer 7 . . . d5!? apparently leaves
White with some pull .
 14 2 lb f3 lbf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6

1 c4 c5 7 lt:ld2 lLle4 ! i ntending 8 1!t'a4 lLlc6

2 lLlf3 lLlf6 9 lLlc7+ <t>f8 1 0 lLlxa8 1!t'f6! I I
3 d4 cd g3 lLl xd2 etc) 6 . . . a6 (or 6 . . . ed 7
4 lLlxd4 e6 (191) .if4 .ib4+ 8 lLl l c 3 0-0 =) 7 lLl5c3
ed 8 .ie3 lLlc6 9 .id4 lLlxd4 10
/ 91
w
1!t'xd4 1!t'c7 I I e3 .ic5 12 1!t'a4 b5!
1 3 .ixb5+ ab 1 4 1!t'xa8 0-0 :t=
Korchnoi-Greenfeld, B iel 1986.
A
5 g3
This move lacks the di rect
punch of 5 lLlc3, but can serve to
produce an original, balanced
game.
4 . . . e6 has long been considered A I 5 . . . .ib4+
Black's most rel iable line. It intro­ A2 5 . . . 1!t'c7
duces variat ions which are of Very important is 5 . . . d5 6 .ig2 ,
great transpositional signi ficance. which is a Catalan Openi ng. I will
The positi on after 5 lt:\c3 .ib4 6 not discuss it for reasons of space,
g3, for example, can arise from the but it is conside red fully equal in
controversial Nimzo-I ndian line the main lines following 6 . . . e5
I d4 lLlf6 2 c4 e6 3 lLlc3 .ib4 4 lLlf3 and 7 . . . d4. For further details,
c5 5 g3 cd 6 lLlxd4, and I d4 lLlf6 2 the reader may consul t the first
c4 c5 3 lLlf3 cd 4 lLlxd4 e6 is a (English notation) edition of this
Benoni. book, and update it by Chess Infor­
A 5 g3 mant from #29 on. Surprisingly
B 5 lLlc3 little has changed, although now
a) 5 e3 (5 .if4?? e5 ! ) 5 . . . lLlc6 6 even li nes such as 5 . . . d5 6 .ig2
.ie2 d5 = . e5 7 lLlf3 d4 8 0-0 lLlc6 9 e3 d3!?
b) 5 lLlb5 d 5 6 cd (6 .if4 .ib4+ and 9 . . . .ig4!? have had some

success, along with the normal 9 . . .
j_e7 and 9 . . . j.c5.
Other moves i nclude 5 ... lt:lc6
( Chapter 1 3, A), 5 ... a6 6 j.g2
flc7 ( 8 2 below) and 5 . . . j.c5, e.g.
6 lt:lb3 j.b4+ (6 . . . 't!t'b6 7 lt:lxc5
tt'xc5 8 lt:ld2 'it'c6 9 e4 ! ±) 7 j.d2
i.e7 8 j_g2 lt:lc6 9 0-0 (t) 9 ... b6?
1 0 lt:ld4! j.b7 l l j_f4 0-0 1 2
lt:lb5 ± Ku ligowski-Su nye, Graz
1981.
Popular is 5 . . . tt'b6 !?, e.g. 6
j_g2 j.c5 7 e3 lt:lc6, and now
instead of 8 lt:l b3 j.b4+ 9 j.d2
lt:le5! l 0 't!Vc2 d 5 =I oo ( I I cd tt'a6 ! )
a s in several games, the gambit 8
0-0!? is critical (or 8 lt:lc3 !, to
transpose and a void 8 . . . j. xd4 9
ed tt'xd4 1 0 lt:lb5!): 8 . . . lt:lxd4! ( 8
. . . 0-0? 9 lt:l c 3 ±; 8 . . . j.xd4 9 ed
flxd4 1 0 1!hd4 lt:lxd4 l l lt:lc3
'it>e7 !? - 11 ... d5!? Nogueiras - 12
Itd I lt:lc6 13 b3 ! a5 1 4 j.f4 ! lt:le8
15 litd2 f6 1 6 litad l lt:le 5? 17 j.xe5
1 -0 - Nogueiras-A m . Rodriguez,
Havana 1986. 8 lt:lc3 avoids this) 9
ed j.xd4 1 0 lt:lc3 (192) (with the
idea lt:la4)
/ 92
B
2 ltlf3 ltlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 185
1 0 . . . e5 ( 1 0 . . . j.xc3?! I I be and
j.a3 ; 10 . . . j.e5 I I lite l j.b8 1 2
lt:lb5 ± Nogueiras) I I lt:l b5 0-0!
( I I . . j.c5 1 2 j_g5 0-0 1 3 fld2
.
h6 1 4 j.xf6 'it'xf6 1 5 b4 j_e7 1 6
lt:lc7 lit b 8 1 7 lt:ld5 f;lg5? - 1 7 . . .
fle6 1 8 f4! - 1 8 f4 ef 1 9 't!t'xf4
l -0 Rogers-Suba, Szirak I Z 1 986)
12 lt:lxd4 ( 1 2 a4 j.c5 ! 1 3 a5 fld8
14 lt:ld6 j.c7 Psakhis) 1 2 . . . ed,
Nogueiras-Psakhis, Szirak IZ 1986.
Now 1 3 tt'd 3 d5 ! l 4 cd Itd8! ( 1 4 . . .
j.g4 1 5 h 3 j. h 5 1 6 f4! ; 1 4 . . . flc5
1 5 j_g5 ! , e.g. 1 5 . . . lt:lxd5 1 6 litacl
tt'a5 1 7 't!t'xd4 lt:l b6 18 j.f6! gf 1 9
Itc5) seems to hold, e.g. 1 5 It e l
h6! etc. The game went 1 3 b3 d5 1 4
..i b 2 ( 1 4 c d j.f5 ! 1 5 j.b2 d3; 1 4
i.a3 lit e S 1 5 c 5 't!t'a5 1 6 j. b 2 't!t'xc5
17 j. xd4 =) 14 . . . de 1 5 'it'xd4 cb 1 6
flxb6 a b 1 7 a b j.e6 1 8 j.xb7 =.
A rare line is 5 ... 'ffa 5+ 6 lt:lc3 (6
j.d2 't!t'b6 7 j.c3 e5 ! 8 lt:lb3 tt'c6 9
f3 't!t'xc4 =, or 9 . . . d5!?; 6 lt:ld2
lt:lc6!? 7 lt:lb3 flc7 8 e3 8 j_g2 -
ltle5 - 8 . . . b6 9 j_g2 j.b7, very
lightly ;!: Pavlovic-Karlsson, Nice
198 1 ; here 6 . . . tt'b6 7 e3 lt:lc6 8
lt:lxc6 8 lt:ldb3!? - 8 . . . be = was
-
Coppini-A verbakh, Reggio Emilia
1 97 7-8) 6 . .. lt:le4 7 j.d2 lt:lxd2 8
'ffx d2 a6 9 i.g2 j.e7 1 0 0-0 0-0 I I
litfd I ;!: Yusupov-Ani kaev, USSR
1979.
AI
5 i.b4+
j.d2
6
6 lt:lc3 is A2 below; on 6 lt:ld2, 6
 186 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6
. . . li:Jc6 7 li:Jc2 ..tc5 = or 7 . . . ..te7 =.
6 'irb6 (1 93)
6 . . . ..tc5 7 li:Jb3 ..te7 8 ..tg2 ;!;;
6 . . . ..te7 7 ..tg2 li:Jc6 8 ..tc3 ;!; (8
e3!?) ; 6 .. . ..txd2 7 'irxd2 (or 7
li:J xd 2 11rb6 8 liJ2b3 'it'b4+ 9
'it'd2 ;!;) 7 . . . d5 ( 7 . . . li:Je4!? 8 1We3
'it'a5+ 9 li:Jd2 li:Jxd 2 1 0 'ihd 2
'irxd2+ 1 1 c;!;>xd 2 c;!;>e7 1 2 ..tg2!? -
1 2 'fJ.dl - 1 2 . . . li:J c6 1 3 c;!;>c3 li:Jxd4
14 c;!;>xd4 d6 1 5 '1J.ac 1 ..td7 =
- Rashkovsky-Sideif-Zade, Baku
1983) 8 ..tg2 0-0 9 cd ed 1 0 li:Jc3
li:Jc6 1 1 0-0 ;!; Grinza-Evans, H aifa
1 9 76. But most of these ";!;"s are
m ild.
193
w ..tg2 ± with the idea 1 1 . . . 't!t'c7? 1 2
7 .txb4
a) 7 ..tg2 li:Jc6 (simplest, but 7 . . .
.ic5 8 e 3 ..txd4 9 e d 'it'xd4 1 0 0-0
li:Jc6! has been equal in practice) 8
li:Jb3 d5 (8 . . . a5 !?) 9 cd ed 1 0 0-0
.bd2 1 1 'irxd2 0-0 1 2 li:Jc3 '1J.d8 1 3
'1J.ac 1 .ig4 = Stean-Sanz, Las
Palmas 1 978.
b) 7 e3 li:Jc6 ( 7 . . . 0-0; 7 . . . ..tc5 !? 8
..tc3 li:Je4 9 'it'b3 ;!; Browne) 8
..txb4 (8 .ig2) 8 . . . 't!t'b4+ 9 't!t'd 2
1t'xd2+ 10 li:Jxd2 d5 !? ( l 0 . . . d6; 1 0
. . . c;!;>e7) 1 1 li:Jxc6 ! b e 1 2 'fJ. c l ;!;
Pribyl-Gross, Czechoslovakia 1975.
7 'it'xb4+
8 li:Jc3!
Zilberstein's gam bit. 8 li:Jd2
'irxb2 (or 8 ... d5 =) is less
effective: 9 li:Jb5 li:Ja6 10 .ig2 0-0
1 1 li:Jd6 'irb4 = Auen-Hartston,
Vienna 1 972.
8 li:J c6 ( !)
Complex is 8 . . . 't!hb2!? (8 . . .
'it'xc4 9 e4 'irc5 1 0 li:Jb3 'ire7 1 1
e5 ±; 8 . . . 0-0 9 'it'b3 'irc5 1 0 '1J.d 1
a6 - /0 . . . liJc6 I I 't!t'b5! ;!; - 1 1 .ig2
li:Jc6 1 2 li:Jxc6 be 1 3 0-0 ;!; -
Rashkovsky-Chekhov, USSR 1975;
8 . . . a6 9 a3 ! 'irxc4 1 0 'fJ.c 1 0-0 1 1
li:Jd5 t!t'd8 1 3 '1J.xc8 ! ; 1 1 . . . li:Jc6 1 2
li:Jxc6 b e 1 3 0-0 'irg4 1 4 'ird6) 9
li:Jdb5 'it'b4 1 0 li:Jc7+! c;!;>d8 1 1 't!t'd2
li:Je4! 1 2 li:J xe6+ fe 1 3 li:Jxe4
't!t'xd2+ 14 li:J xd2 ( 1 4 c;!;>xd2 b6 ! 1 5
.ig2 .ib7 1 6 'fJ.hd 1 li:Ja6 = -
Petursson-Forintos, Ljubljana 198 1 )
1 4 . . . c;!;>c7 1 5 ..tg2 li:J c6 1 6 0-0 b 6 1 7
li:Je4 .ia6 1 8 liac 1 ;!; Alexandria­
Litinskaya, Vilnius 1 980 .
9 li:Jdb5 0-0
10 e3 d5
11 a3 'it'a5!
1 1 . . . 'ire7?! 12 cd ed 1 3 .ig2 ;!; .
After 1 1 . . . 'ira5, Rashkovsky­
Schneider, Frunze 1 983, went 1 2
c5 ( 1 2 b4 'it'd8 1 3 cd ed 1 4 .ig2
.ig4 1 5 'ird2 li:Je5 = Hausner­
Pinter, Skara 1980; or 1 2 . . .

�b6! ?) 1 2 . . . �d8 1 3 .te2 ( 1 3 llc l
llb8 14 b4 a5 ! 1 5 't!t"a4 .t d7 +
Diesen-Andersson, Torremolinos
1 9 78) 1 3 . . . �e7! 1 4 lL!d6 ( 1 4 b4
a 5 ! ) 14 . . . b6 1 5 lL!xc8 ll fxc8 1 6 cb
ab 1 7 0-0 lL!a 5 +.
A2
5 �c 7 (194)
/ 94
w .txd2 1 0 .txd2 d5 + Kapengut) 7
Atta cking c4 and preparing the
Sicilian-like . . . d6, . . . a6 etc.
A 2 1 6 lL!d2
A 22 6 lL!c3
a) 6 '@"c2 d 5 7 lL!b5 �c6 8 .tg2 a6 9
lL!5a3 lL!bd7 = (Ne istadt).
b) 6 b3 .tb4+ 7 lL!d2 (7 .td2 .tc5
and . . . d5) 7 . . . .tc5 8 e3 ltJc6 =.
c) 6 �a4 .tc5 (or 6 . . . �b6 7 e3
lL!c6 =, or 6 . . . a6) 7 lL!b3 .te7 8
lL!c 3 �c6 = or 8 . . . lLlc6 9 lL!b5
't!t"b8 =.
d) 6 '@"d3 a6 (6 . . . e5 7 lL!b5 't!t"c6 8
e4! lL!xe4 9 .tg2 lL!c5 1 0 't!t"d 5 with
attack, Bradford- Peters, Phoenix
1978) 7 .tg2 (7 lL!c 3 is A 22) 7 . . .
lL!c6 8 b3 ( 8 lL!xc6 de!? 9 0-0 .te7
I 0 'it'b3 e5 I I .te3 lL!d7 =
Olafsson-Karpov, Buenos Aires
2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 187
1980) 8 . . . d5?! (8 0 0 0.tb4+ =; 8 . . .
.tc5 = ; 8 . . . lL!xd4) 9 lL!xc6 b e 1 0
0- 0 .t e 7 I I lt:l c3 0-0 1 2 e4 t Arkell­
Psakhis, European Cup 1 984.
e) 6 .tg2 .tb4+ (6 . . . �xc4!? 7 0-0
lL!c6 8 lL!xc6 de! 9 .tg5 .te7 1 0
lL!c3 0-0 I I lL!e4 lld8 1 2 �e l
�d4 = Duric-Antonov, Pernik
198 1 ; 6 . . . a6 7 b3 .tb4+ 8 .td2 t) 7
lL!c3 (7 lL!d2 �xc4 8 lL!c2 0-0 9 0-0
. . . 'it'xc4 8 0-0 0-0 (or 8 . . . lL!c6) 9
.tg5 lL!c6! with the idea . . . d5.
A21
6 lL!d2 lL!c6
Or 6 . . . .tb4 7 .tg2 �xc4 as
above, but White has 7 e3 or 7
1i'b3 . 6 . .. a6 7 .tg2 lL!c6 (7 . . . d6 8
b3 .te7 9 .tb2 ;!;) 8 lL!xc6 de 9 0-0
.te 7 10 1i'c2 0-0 I I b3 e5 1 2 .tb2
.te6 1 3 a3 (or 13 1i'c3 ) 1 3 . . . a5 1 4
c 5 t Stean-Cebalo, S mederevska
Palanka 1 980. 6 . . . .tc5 !? 7 lL!2b3
0-0 8 .tg2 .te7 ( "? ! 8 . . . .tb4+ 9
.td2 'it'xc4 I 0 l:tc I .txd2+ I I
�d2 't!t"a5 1 2 lL!c5 =/rn" Kasparov)
9 1i'd3 a6 1 0 0-0 d6 I I .td2 lL!c6 1 2
lL!xc6 be 1 3 .ta5 'tWb 7 1 4 .tc3 t
- Rashkovsky- Kasparov, USSR
198 1 .
7 lLl bS 't!Vb8
7 . . . 1i'b6 8 .tg2 a6 9 lL!c3 .te7
10 0-0 0-0 I I lL!a4 ! 'it'a5 12 c5!
.txc5 13 lL!c4 't!t"b5 14 b3 ±
Mi khalchishin-Lukin, USSR 1 979.
8 .tg2 a6
9 lL!c3 bS
9 . . . .te7 ( Razuvayev) 10 0-0 0-0
188 2 l1:Jf3 l1:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6
I I 11:Jde4 t inte nding 12 ..tf4. After
9 . . . b5, Polugayevsky-Taimanov,
USSR 1 978, went I 0 0- 0 ..te7 I I
c5!? ( I I b3 0-0 1 2 ..tb2 lil:d8) I I . . .
..txc5 1 2 11:Jde4 l1:Jxe4 1 3 11:J xe4
..tb6! ( 1 3 . . . ..te7 14 ..tf4 e5 1 5 ..te3
0-0 I 6 11:Jc3, Rashkovsky-Taimanov,
USSR Ch 1 977) 14 ..tf4 ..tc7 1 5
..txc7 9xc7 1 6 lil:c l lil:a7, dynamic­
ally equal.
A22
6 l1:Jc3 a6 (195)
Not 6 . . . 9xc4? 7 e4 'it'b4 (7 . . .
1t'c7 8 ..tf4) 8 a 3 't!t'b6 9 ..te3 ±
( Muller). The main option is 6 . . .
..tb4 7 't!t'd 3 (7 ..tf4!?, e .g. 7 . . . e5 8
11:Jdb5 'tixc4 9 ..txe5 or 8 . . . 'tic6 9
..b e5; 7 'tib3!? ..tc5 8 ..te3 a6 9
l1:Jc2) and now: a) 7 . . . a6 8 ..tg2
l1:Jc6 9 11:Jxc6 de (9 . . . be 10 ..tf4 e5
I I ..tg2 !) I 0 0-0 e5 I I l1:Ja4 ;!:
( Gipslis); b) 7 . . . l1:Jc6 8 11:Jdb5 !?
'tib8 9 ..tf4 l1:Je5 10 1!t'd4 d6 I I
11:Jxd6+ ..txd6 1 2 0-0-0 11:J xc4 1 3
1Wxc4 ..txf4+ 1 4 gf 0-0 1 5 lil: g l ,
Seirawan-Polugayevsky, London
1 984; 1 5 ... e5! (Polugayevsky); !.
/ 95
w 1 2 ..td6 ..txd6 1 3 't!t'xd6 1i'b8 =
7 ..tgS!?
a) 7 1t'a4 l1:Jc6 8 11:J xc6 t!t'xc6 =, or 7
... b5 !? 8 cb ..tb7 (Korchnoi).
b) 7 e3 11:Jc6 (7 . . . ..te7 = ) 8 ..te2 b6
9 11:Jxc6 de = .
c) 7 e4 b6 (7 . . . ..tb4 ( !); 7 . . . b5!?) 8
a3 ..tb7 9 't!t'e2 d6 1 0 ..tg2 11:J bd7 =
Maninang-Dolmatov, Manila 1982.
d) 7 b3 b5!? 8 ..tg2 ..tb7 9 ..tf4 d6
=, or 7 . . . ..tb4 8 ..td2 d5 =.
e) 7 ..te3 ..tb4 8 'tib3 ..te7! 9 ..tg2
d6 10 lil c l 11:J bd7 = Tarjan­
Vaganian, S kopje 1976.
f) 7 1id3 l1:Jc6 (7 . . . b6; 7 . . . b5!? 8
cb ..tb7 9 e4!? ..tb4 1 0 ..tg2
l1:Jxe4! = Tarj an-Fedorowicz, US
Ch 1 977) 8 l1:J xc6 (8 b3 ..tc5 !) 8 . . .
't!t'xc6!? ( 8 . . . de =; 8 . . . be) 9 e4!? ( 9
ll g I ..tc5 10 ..tg2 't!t'c7 = with the
idea I I ..tf4 d6 1 2 lld l �e7! ) 9 . . .
b 6 1 0 ..tg2 ..tb7 I I ..td2! lil:c8 1 2
b 3 t H .Olafsson-Alburt, Reykjavik
1 986.
g) 7 ..tg2 1Wxc4 !? (7 . . . ..te7 8 0-0
0-0 9 ..tf4!? d6 l O l1:J b3 11:Jbd7 I I
lil:c I ;!: Dantov-Tischbierek, Berlin
1 984; 7 . . . d6 8 ..tg5 11:J bd7) 8 ..tf4
(8 0-0 1Wc7 9 ..tg5 l1:J c6 +) 8 . . . l1:J c6
9 11:Jxc6 be 10 lil:c l 'irb4 I I a3 1i'b7
Sosonko- Kavalek, Wijk aan Zee
1978.
7 ..te 7
a) 7 . . . ..tb4 8 ..txf6 gf ( 8 . . . ..txc3+
9 be gf 1 0 e4 b5 I I 't!t'f3) 9 ll c l b6
1 0 ..tg2 ..tb7 I I ..txb7 't!t'xb7 1 2 0-0
;t Rashkovsky-Vaganian, USSR
Ch 1976.
 2 ltJfJ ltJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 1 89

b) 7 ... b5!? 8 cb .tb7 9 f3 .tc5 1 0 e4 d6 7 .td3 or 7 f3 is Chapter 1 5 ,

'i!t'd 2 0-0 I I lit e I ab ro Do nchev­
Ortega, Erevan 1 986.
8 llc1 d6
8 . . . b6 9 .tg2 (9 .txf6 gf) 9 . . .
.tb7 1 0 lt:ld5 !? ed I I cd .tc5 ! 1 2 d6
( 1 2 .txf6 gf 1 3 d6 .tb4+; 1 2 lt:lf5
E. Here 6 lt:ldb5 ( ! ) .tc5 (6 . . . d6? 7
.tf4 e5 8 lt:ld5 or 8 .tg5) 7 .tf4 0-0
8 .tc7 'i!t'e7 9 .td6 .txd6 1 0
t!t'xd6 t was Speelman-Fedorowicz,
Lone Pi ne 1 978.
5 a6 6 e4 is a Kan Sicilian, and
..

'i!t'e5 !?) 1 2 . . . 'i!t'c8 1 3 .txf6!? ( 1 3 6 g3 is A22. I ndependent is 6 .tg5

0-0! ? .txg2 1 4 lt:l f5) 1 3 . . . .txg2 1 4 lt:lc6 ( 6 . . . h6 7 .th4 .t b4 8 llc l !?)
'i!t'd 2 1!1b7 ! + Grigorian-Ka rlsson, 7 e3 (7 e4!?) 7 . . . .tc7 8 .ie2 (8
Erevan 1 980. lt:lf3) 8 ... 'tia5 ! 9 .if4 lt:le4 1 0 'i!t'c2
9 .tg 2 lt:lb d 7 lt:lxc3 = Furman-Tal, USSR Ch
9 . . . 0-0 10 0-0 h6 I I .td2 .td7 1 975.
12 e4 lHc8 1 3 b3 'it'd8 1 4 a4 tl ± 81
Gauglitz-Petra n, Budapest 1986. 5 .tb4 (197)
10 0-0 h6
197
11 .te3 0-0 w
1 2 h3 ll e8 1 3 f4 !? ( 1 3 b3) 1 3 . . .
lt:lf8 1 4 lt:lb3 ( 1 4 .tf2 a n d e 4 -
Yusupov) 1 4 . . . .td7 = Yusupov­
Psa khis, Erev an 1 982.
B
5 lt:lc3 (196)
1 96
8
6 g3
a) 6 e3 lt:le4 7 'i!t'c2 lt:l xc3 8 be
.ie7 =.
b) 6 lt:lc2 .ixc3+ 7 be t!t'a5 8 'i!t'd3
lt:la6! (8 . . . lt:l c6 9 .ia3 d5 ! +
Fischer) 9 f3 lt:lc5 1 0 1!i'd2 0-0 +
Debarnot-Tatai, Las Palmas 1975.
c) 6 .ig5 lt:lc6 ( 6 ... h6) 7 li c 1 1i'b6
The main line, not so easy for 8 .txf6 gf 9 lt:lb3 lt:l a5 =/ro
Black as 5 g3. Korchnoi-Furman, USSR Ch 196 1 ;
B l 5 ... .tb4 d ) 6 'it'c2 lt:lc6 7 e 3 0-0 8 .te2 d 5 =.
B2 5 . . . d 5 e) 6 .if4!? 0-0 7 lt:l db5 lt:le4!? (7 . . .
5 lt:lc6 i s Chapter 1 3. 5 . . . b 6 6
... d5( !); 8 lt:lc7 lt:lh5) 8 't!fc2 lt:lxc3 9
1 90 2 li:Jf3 lt/6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6
be '@f6 I 0 e3 a6 I I l:i:c l .ta5 ! ? ( I I
. . . a b 12 cb e5 !?) 1 2 li:Jc7 e5 1 3 li:Jd5
't!i'e6 14 .tg3 d6 1 5 .td3 f5 =/oo
Murei- Shamkovich, Wij k aan Zee
1 9 83.
f) 6 '@b3 li:Ja6 (6 . . . .tc5 7 li:Jf3 '@b6
=, or 7 .te 3 li:Ja6!, or 7 e3 li:J c6 8
li:Jf3 0-0 9 .te2 d5 =) 7 .tg5 (7 e3?
li:Je4; 7 li:Jc2 .te7; 7 .td2 0-0 8 e 3
b 6 = ) 7 . . . h6 ( 7 . . . '@a6 8 .td2 li:Jc5
9 't!i'e2 li:J ee4 10 li:J xe4 li:Jxe4 =
Bronstein; but 1 0 li:Jb 3 ! .txc3 I I
.t.xe3 '@f5 1 2 f3 seems to favour
White) 8 .txf6 't!i'xf6 9 e3 '@g6 1 0
llc l 0-0 I I a 3 .te7 1 2 g 3 li:Je5 1 3
'@e2 '@xc 2 1 4 llxe2 a5 ro Gunawan­
Rom anishin, De Pasar 1 984.
g) 6 li:Jb5 has two good replies:
g l ) 6 . . . 0-0 7 a3 (7 .tf4 d5 or 7 . . .
li:Je4!?) 7 . . . .txe3+ 8 li:Jxe3 d 5 9
.tg5 (9 e3 li:Je6 =; 9 ed ed 1 0 .te3
li:Je6 I I .td4 lle8 12 e3 li:Jg4 ! )
9 . . . h6 1 0 .txf6 '@x6f I I e d e d
'@xd 5 ? ! ( 1 2 e3 li:Je6!? - 1 2 . . . lld8
13 '@d4! w - 1 3 '@xd5 lld8 14 '@f3
't!i'g6 1 5 lid I llxd I + 1 6 li:J xd I
=/oo; here 1 3 . . . .tg4!? 1 4 '@b3? !
'@g6 1 5 f3 .te6 =F was Murei­
West, Biel 1 985; Murei gives 1 4
.t b 5 llad8 1 5 't!i'e4 ! ;!;) 1 2 . . . lld8
1 3 't!i'f3?! ( 1 3 '@b3 li:J a6 ! ? or 1 3 . . .
li:Je6 oo K apengut) 1 3 . . . '@b6 ! 1 4
l:i:d l l:i: xd l+ 1 5 li:Jxd l li:Je6 1 6 1i'e 3
( 1 6 e3 .te6 =F ) 1 6 . . . li:Jd4 1 7 't!i'e8+
'lt>h7 18 e3 li:Je2+ ! 19 'lt>d2 .tf5 ! 20
'@xa 8 't!i'd6+ 21 'lt>e l li:Ja l ! 22
1Wxb7 't!i'e7+ ! 0-1 Vaganian-Planinc,
Hastings 1 974- 5.
g2) 6 ... d5 7 .tf4 (7 a3? .txe3+ 8
li:Jxe3 d4 9 li:Ja2 0-0 1 0 e3 li:J e6 =!=; 7
ed ed 8 .tg5 0-0 9 e3 a6 10 a3 and
10 . . . .ta5 = or 1 0 . . . ab I I ab l ha 1
1 2 '@xa l li:Je6 1 3 .txb5 d4! =/oo
Kagan-Gulko, USSR 197 1 ) 7 . . . 0-
0 8 e3 (8 li:J e7 ? li:Jh5; 8 '@b3 li:J e6) 8
. .. li:Je6 (or 8 . . . a6(! ), and 9 li:Je7
l:i:a7 1 0 li:Jxd5 ed I I .txb8 .txe3 1 2
be .tg4 or 9 a3 .t a 5 1 0 li:J d 6 li:Je6
+) 9 a3 .txe3+!? (or 9 . . . .ta5 10 b4
a6 =) 10 li:Jxe3 h6 I I ed ed 1 2 .te2
( 1 2 li:Jb5!? ) 1 2 . . . d4 = Szilagyi­
Fa ber, Bagneux 1 975.
h) 6 .td2 is the best of these slow
moves: 6 . . . li:Je6 (6 . . . 0-0 7 a3
.te7 ! ? 8 .tf4 d5 9 e3 li:Jbd7 10 .tg3
de I I .txe4 ! Velikov-Sem kov,
Bulgaria 1 9 80- 1 , or 7 . . . .txe3 8
.txe3 li:Je4 9 '@e2!? d5 I 0 e3 li:Jxe3
I I '@xe3 de 12 .txe4, C.Hansen­
Hjartarson, Esbjerg 1 985, and
instead of 12 . . . b6 1 3 0-0 ;!;, 12 . . .
.td 7 was best, but 9 l:i: e l may
improve) 7 a3 (7 li:Je2 .te5 8 .te3
.txe3 9 li:J xe3 0-0 =, or 7 . . . .te7 =)
7 . . . .te7 8 .tg5 (8 .tf4 d6 9 .tg3 !?)
8 . . . 0-0 9 e3 d5 ! ? 10 .te2 h6 I I
.th4 li:Je5 1 2 ed :t Karner-Gipslis,
Tallinn 1 975.
A fter 6 g3:
B I I 6 . . . li:Je4
B l 2 6 . . . 0-0
6 . . . li:Je6 is Chapter 1 3, B 2 1 , and
6 . . . '@e7 7 '@d3 is A22 above.
Bll
6 li:Je4
7 't!i'd3
 2 lLlf3 lLlf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 1 91

No longer seen is 7 1tc2 'ira5 ! (8 be .i.xc3+ 10 'lt>d I 't!t'e5 ! I I .i.f4

t;Jb3 1!ff5!) or 7 .i.d2 .i.xc3 (7 . . . @f6 12 lit e ! .i.e5 ; 9 a3 lLle4+ I O ab
t;:Jxc3!?) 8 .i.xc3 lLlxc3 9 bc 't!t'a5 1 0 't!t'xb4+ I I lLld2 lLlc5 ! .
�d3 0-0 I I .i.g2 lLlc6 1 2 lLlb3 't!t'c7 9 lLle4
1 J c5 b6 = G rigorian-Savon, 10 't!t'xe4 .i.xd2+
U S SR 1 976. 11 lLlxd2 0-0
7 't!t'aS 12 .i.g2 lLlc6
Presumably 7 . . . .i.xc3 8 be lLlc5 13 't!t'e3
m ight be tried, but 7 . . . lLlxc3 8 be The best alternative is 1 3 't!t'd3 !?,
11.. c 7 9 lLlb5 ! favours White. e.g. 13 . . . 't!t'e5 14 li b ! lLld4 1 5
8 lLl b3 (198) 1t'b3(?!) a5 1 6 't!t'c3 f6 oo Suba­
8 lLlc2?! .i.xc3+! (8 . . . lLlxc3?! 9 Ftacnik , Prague 1 985; 1 5 't!t'c3 ! ,
tt:Jxb4 lLlxc2 1 0 lixa2 with pressure) but Black's 1 3th and 1 4th moves
9 be lLlc5 ! I 0 't!t'd2 ( 10 @e3 b6; 1 0 were hardly forced.
�d4 0-0 I I ..b 3 b 6 1 2 .i.g2 lLlc6 + , Lesser moves are 13 a3 lidS ( 1 3
o r I I . . . d6! 1 2 0-0-0 b6 ! Banas­ . . . d5 14 cd ed 1 5 't!t'xd5 't!t'c7 =
Lerner, Stary Smokovec 1977) 1 0 Padevsky) 14 't!t'c2 ( 1 4 't!t'f4!?) 1 4 . . .
. . . b 6 I I .i.g2 .i.b7 1 2 .i.xb7 lLlxb7 d5 1 5 0-0? lLl d 4 1 6 1t'd3 de 1 7
1 3 .i.a3 lLlc6 14 O-O d6 + Lombard­ lLlxc4 't!t'h 5 1 8 lilad l e 5 + -
Rogoff, Biel 1 9 76. Romanishin-lvkov, Sochi 1983;
and 1 3 't!t'f4 e 5 ! 14 'lrh4 ( 1 4 't!t'e3
lLld4 1 5 't!t'd3 d5 ! 1 6 cd .i.g4! +
Dorfm an-Makarichev, USSR Ch
1978) 14 . . . d6 1 5 a3 .i.e6 1 6 ll c l
lilad8 1 7 llc3 d 5 1 8 lLlb3 @b6 1 9
cd lixd5! =F LjubojeviC-Velimirovic,
Yugoslavian Ch 1 982.
13 dS
14 0-0 d4
IS @d3 ( 199)
see diagram
B I I I 8 . . . lLlxc3 IS lid8
B I I 2 8 . . . 't!t'f5 a) IS 't!t'b6 16 'ira3 ! e5 1 7 c5 't!t'b5
...

Bi l l ( 1 7 . . . 'i!t'c7 !? Gulko) 1 8 lil fe l lt:lb4

8 ltJxc3 19 lilac I .i.e6 20 lLle4 :! Gulko­
9 .i.d2! G . Agzamov, USSR 1982; 20 . . .
9 lLl xa 5 lLle4+ 10 .i.d2 .i.xd2+ lLlxa2 ! 2 1 lLld6 1!t'b3 2 2 't!t'xb3
I I 't!t'xd2 lLl xd 2 1 2 'lt>xd 2 lLlc6 = ; 9 .i.xb3 23 .i.xb7 ! t (Gulko).
192 2 liJf3 lf¥6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6
199
B after 1 8 f4; and 1 6 . . . .ie6 1 7 b4
b) After 1 5 . . . e 5 1 6 a3, Black has
tried just a bout everything, e.g. 1 6
. . . f5 1 7 liJ b 3 ( 1 7 b4? ! "t!t'c7 1 8 c 5
.i e 6 + Padevsky-Semkov, Bulgaria
1 9 8 1 ; 1 7 .ixc6!? be 1 8 b4 "t!t'c7 1 9
f4 t Padevsky) 1 7 . . . 1rc7 1 8
.id5+ ! 'it>h8 1 9 f4 lld8 2 0 fe 'irxe 5
2 1 ll ad 1 ± Ljuboj evic-Szmetan,
Buenos Aires 1 979. Or 16 ... @c 7
1 7 f4 ( 1 7 b4 .ie6 1 8 liJe4 liJe7 ! oo)
17 . . . ef 18 llxf4 .ie6?! ( 1 8 ... lle8
19 .id5 .ie6 20 ll af l "t!fb6 ? - 20 . .
llad8 - 2 1 b4 ± Popov-Chekov,
USSR 1 979) 19 .ixc 6! be ( 1 9 . . .
'it'xc6 2 0 b4 ± Informant) 2 0 c 5
t!t"e5 2 1 b 4 .id5 2 2 llxd4 liJe5 2 3
lLlc4 ± Catalan-Saeed , Dubai
1 9 8 1 . Or 16 ... .if5!? 17 liJe4?! ( 1 7
b4 .ixd3 1 8 ba .ixe2 1 9 llfe 1 .id3
20 a6 llab8 21 ab liJa5 oo -
Prandstetter. But 1 7 1i'xf5 1rxd2
18 1lld 3( ! ) with the idea 18 . . .
1rxb2 1 9 llab l t!t"c3 20 ll xb 7
looks best) 1 7 . . . .if6 1 8 b 4 'iVc7 1 9
f4 ( 1 9 c5!? f5 2 0 liJd6) 1 9 . . . f5 20
liJeg5 e4 + Ftacnik-Prandstetter,
Czechoslovakian Ch 1982.
This leaves 16 . . . g6!? 17 b4 11fc7
(Informant), which favours White
t!t"c7 1 8 f4! ? ( 1 8 liJe4 ( !), and 1 8 ..
.
g6 1 9 liJf6+ 'it>g7 20 liJd5, or 1 8 .. .
h6 1 9 liJc5 .ic8 20 f4 Informant) 1 8
. . . ef 1 9 gf g6 ! =/oo Giffard­
Cebalo, Sainte Maxime 1982. Over­
all, none of these 16th moves
seems fully equal for Black.
16 a3
1 6 llfd 1 ( Ftacnik).
16 liJe5
1 6 . . . t!t"c7 ! ? (Gaprindashvili);
1 7 f4 ! ( 1 7 . . . e5 1 8 f5 or 1 8 b4).
17 b4(!)
1 7 @c2 'it'c7 18 1i'e4 ( 1 8 llac l
.id7 =) 1 8 . . . a 5 ?! ( 1 8 . . . llb8 1 9
llac l b6 = S tohl; 1 8 . . . d3!?) 1 9
9 llac 1 a 4 20 c5 ;!; Polugayevsky­
Ftacnik, Moscow 1985.
17 'iVc7!?
. The original idea was 1 7
liJxd3 1 8 ba liJc5. Then 1 9 llab 1
llb8 20 llb4!? is natural, to stop
. . . lLla4 , but 20 . . . b6 2 1 llab 1 lld6
holds. So perhaps 20 liJe4, and 20
. . . liJxe4 2 1 .ixe4 or 20 . . . liJa4 2 1
llb4 liJc3 22 liJ xc 3 de 23 llc l lld2
24 .if3 c2 25 llb2 etc. Needs tests.
18 "t!t'b3 .id7
19 f4!
" ±" (Gaprindashvili): 19 . . .
liJg6 ( 1 9 . . . lLlg4 2 0 1i'f3 ! lLle3 2 1
t!t"xb7 t!t"xb7 22 .ixb7 liJ x f l 2 3
'it>xfl llb8 24 .i f3 ± Gaprindashvili)
20 liJf3 .ic6 2 1 llfd l !? ( 2 1 llac l )
2 1 . . . e 5 22 f5 liJe7, Gaprindashvili-

Mokry, Polanica Zdroj 1986; 23
g4 ! with the idea lilac l , lt:ld2-e4
( Gaprindashvili).
8112
8 1tfS
9 1We3 (200)
:!00
B somewhat underest imated by com­
9 lt:lc6
a) 9 ... lt:l xc3 1 0 be JJ..e 7 1 1 JJ..g 2
lt:lc6 ( 1 1 ... 0-0 12 0-0 lt:la6 1 3 c5!
.ixc5 1 4 lt:l xc 5 1Wxc5 1 5 Wxc 5
lt:lxc5 1 6 JJ..a 3 d6 1 7 lilfd 1 ±
Donchenko-Saharov, USSR 1976)
1 2 c5! 0-0 1 3 .ia 3 lild8 ( 1 3 . . . b6!?
14 lt:ld4 lt:lxd4 1 5 cd lilb8) 14 0-0
t!t'e5 15 Wd3 Wc7 16 lilfd l ;!;! ±
Fedorowicz-Kaufman, New York
1 9 79.
b) 9 ... lt:la6 1 0 JJ.g2 lt:lxc 3 1 1 be
.icS 12 lt:l xc 5 lt:l xc5 1 3 1t"d4 !
t!t'xd4 ( 1 3 . . . 0-0 1 4 JJ.f4) 1 4 cd
lt:lb4 15 �2 ± Lombardy-Hebert,
Lone Pine 1 98 1 .
c ) 9 ... 0-0 1 0 JJ..g 2 lt:l xc3 1 1 be JJ.. e 7
1 2 0-0 ( 1 2 c5 !?) 12 ... lt:lc6 1 3 c5
b6( !) 14 lt:ld4!? ( 1 4 cb ab 1 5 1Wxb6
.ia6 1 6 1We3 JJ.. c4 1 7 lt:ld4 lt:lxd4 1 8
cd lilxa2 Huzman; 1 4 JJ.. a 3 lilb8)
= 1 1 1!rxe3 t Gulko) 10 lild 1 lt:l g4 1 1
2 lLlf3 liJ/6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 1 93
14 . . . 'irxc5 1 5 lt:lxc6 de 1 6 't!t'xc5 be
1 7 .ixc6 lilb8 1 8 lilfd l , H uzman­
Tu k makov, USSR 1 983; "!" -
H uzman . 1 8 . . . .ib7 1 9 JJ.. d 7 lilbd8
20 JJ.f4 JJ..c 8 is one approach.
It's interesting that (a) and (c)
are approximately equal, which
indicates that 8 . . . 't!t'f5 may be
parison with 8 . . . lt:l xc3.
10 JJ..g 2 lt:ld6!?
11 cS lt:l c4
12 11t'd3!
As suggested in the first edi tion,
rather than 12 't!t'f4 't!t'xf4 1 3 gf
b6! =. After 1 2 't!t'd3, Miles-Sax,
D ubai 1 986, w ent 1 2 . . . 'irxd3 1 3
e d lt:l4a5 1 4 lt:l xa5 lt:lxa5 1 5 JJ.e3
( 1 5 .id2 JJ..x c5 1 6 lt:lb5 JJ.. b6 1 7
JJ..b 4 d 5 ! 1 8 lt:ld6+ �d7 1 9 liJxf7
lt:lc6 ! oo Miles; 17 lt:ld6?! �e7 ! 1 8
JJ..b 4 �f6 = ) 1 5 . . . d6 1 6 c d JJ.d7 1 7
0-0! ( 1 7 �e2 JJ..c 6 = Velikov­
Kurtenov, Vrnjacka Banja 1985)
1 7 . . . JJ.. x d6 1 8 lt:le4 (" ±" Miles) 1 8
. . . .ie7 1 9 lilfc 1 lt:lc6 ( 1 9 . . . JJ..c6 20
JJ..d 2) 20 ILleS .ixc5 2 1 .ixc5, and
21 . . . f6 was best , but 22 b4 or 22
d4 is strong.
B12
6 0-0
7 JJ..g 2
7 11t'b3 JJ..c 5 (7 ... .txc3+ 8 be d5
9 cd t Gulko, e.g. 9 ... lt:l xd5 1 0 e4
lt:lb6 1 1 JJ.. a 3 lile8 1 2 lt:lb5) 8 JJ..e 3
(8 lt:lf3 ! ? 11t'b6 9 1!t"xb6) 8 . . . 1i'e7 9
JJ..g2 ! lt:l c6 (9 . . . lt:lg4 1 0 lt:le4 liJxe3
194 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6
Ci:Jxc6 be 1 2 i.xc5 \!t'xc5 1 3 Ci:Je4
't!ta5+ 1 4 \!t'c3 ( 14 �fl !?) 14 . . .
\!t'xc3+ 1 5 Ci:Jxc3 litbS 1 6 b 3 d 5 1 7
0-0 i.a6 ? ! ( 1 7 . . . Ci:Jf6 = Gulko) I S
.
Ci:Ja4 ! d e 1 9 Ci:Jc5 i.cS 20 litd4 t
Gulko- Fedorowicz, Cl ichy 1 9S6-
7.
7 dS (20 1)
201
w
Ke y for both the English and
Nimzo-Indi an. White has:
8 1 2 1 S cd
8 1 22 s \!t'b3
S 0-0 !? is an important recent
move. S . . . e5? 9 li::l c 2 i.xc3 10 be
de 1 1 i.a3 \!t'xd I 1 2 litfxd I liteS 1 3
lt::le 3 favours White, so play has
gone S . . . de 9 \!t'a4 (9 lt::l c 2!? i.xc3
1 0 be 't!tc7 !? I I lt::l e 3 litdS 12 \!t'a4
- Conquest-I . Farago, Dortm und
1 9S6; 12 . . . i.d 7 1 3 't!txc4 't!txc4 1 4
lt::l x c4 i.c6 looks equal) (diagram)
a) 9 ... 't!tb6 1 0 't!tb5 ( 1 0 lt::l c 2!?) 1 0
. . . litdS I I \!t'xb6 a b 1 2 li::ld b5 lt::l c6
1 3 i.e3 i.c5 1 4 i.xc5 be 1 5 litfd l
lit xd l + 1 6 litxd l �f8 1 7 li::l d 6,
I . Sokolov-lzetu, Novi Sad 1 9S6;
" ±" , since Ci:Jxc4 is threatened and
17 . . . lt::l a 5 I S lt::l a 4! is strong.
202
B
b) 9 ... 1raS 1 0 \!t'xa5 ( I 0 \!t'b5 e5 !)
1 0 . . . i.xa5 I I li::l d b5 lt::lc 6 12 litd I
( 1 2 i.g5 !?) 1 2 . . . e5 ( 1 2 . . . a6?! 1 3
li::ld 6 i.xc3 1 4 be li::l d5 - 1 4 . . . lLla5
15 i.e3! - 1 5 lt::l xc4! lbxc3 1 6 litd2
a5 17 i.a3 liteS IS lite! ±
Romanishin-Ribli, Reggio Emilia
19S5- 6) 1 3 lDd6 (or 13 i.e3 i.e6 1 4
li::ld 6 t Suba) 1 3 . . . lbd4 ( 1 3 . . .
i.xc3!?) 1 4 �fl litdS ( 1 4 . . . i.g4 1 5
h 3 k4') 1 5 lbxc4 i.xc3 1 6 b e i.e6 1 7
c d i. xc4 I S i.xb7 litabS 1 9 i.f3
ed 20 i.f4 lit b2, Condie-Suba,
D ubai 1 9S6; 21 a4! planning a5-
a6 (Condie).
c) 9 ... lba6 10 lb db5 lbd5 ( 1 0 . . .
li::l d 7?! I I litd l 1re7 1 2 i.e3 lDdc5
- 1 2 . liJb6 13 i.xb6 14 a3 ± - 1 3
. .
i.xc5! \!t'xc5 1 4 lbe4 \!t'b6 1 5 't!txc4
± Georgadze-A. Rodriguez, Seville
19S6) I I litd I i.d7 1 2 lbxd5 ed 1 3
litxd5 \!t'c8 ( 1 3 . . . 't!teS 1 4 i.e3 i.c5
= Zaitsev) 1 4 a3 i.e7 1 5 i.f4 i.f6
1 6 lit c I c3! 1 7 be i.c6 I S 'tlrd I
i.xd5 1 9 1Wxd5 ! Karpov-Portisch,
Tilburg 1 9S6.

812 1
8 cd
The older move, not a m bitious
but still of i nterest.
8 lt:Jxd5
9 .id2 (203)
9 'i!fb3 can lead to:
a) 9 ... lbc6 10 lt:J xc 6 be I I 0-0! ( I I
'i!fc2?! 1Wa5 1 2 .id2 .ta6 +) I I . . .
lil b 8 1 2 1Wc2 .ie7 1 3 lil d I 'ti'b6 1 4
lt:Ja4 't!t'b5 = /oo Belyavsky-Alburt,
USSR 1 974; here 1 2 . . . .ia6 1 3
lild l 'i!fb6 14 lt:Ja4 't!t'b5 1 5 e4 't!t'e2
oo Schm id- Klar, Neuhausen 1 96 1 .
b ) 9 ... 't!t'b6 1 0 e 3 ( 1 0 .txd5 ed
I I .ie 3 .ih 3 ! Ho rt) 10 . . . lt:Jc6 ( 1 0
. . . .txc3+ I I be 'ifxb5 1 2 a b lt:J xc 3
1 3 .ib2) I I lt:Jxc 6 be 1 2 0-0 ( 1 2
.id2? 't!t'a6! =!= Ho rt-Kindermann,
Dortmund 1 983) 12 . . . .ia6 1 3
lild I lil ab8 = (Hort).
9 .t xc3
9 . . . lt:Jb6 I 0 lt:Jc2 .ie7 I I b3 lt:Jc6
1 2 0-0 .i f6 ( 1 2 . . . e5 1 3 e4 .ig4 1 4
f3 .ie6 1 5 .ie3, Mascarinas­
Ftacnik, Thessaloniki 1 984) 1 3
lilc l ;! Karasev-A iburt, USSR Ch
2 0f3 ltJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 195
1976. The main option is 9 . . .
lt:Jxc3 1 0 be , and n o w 1 0 . . . .ie7 I I
lil b l e 5 1 2 lt:J c2 ( 1 2 lilxb7 ed =) 1 2
. . . lt:Ja6 1 3 c4 lt:Jc5 1 4 lt:Je3 .ie6 1 5
0- 0 lilc8 1 6 .ib4 o f Grigorian­
Tu kmakov, Erevan 1 980, slightly
favoured White, but both 1 0 . . .
.ic5 I I lt:l b 3 ( I I 0- 0 e5 1 2 lt:Jc2
lt:Jc6 1 3 lil b l a6! oo) I I . . . .ib6 1 2
0-0 lt:Jc6 1 3 't!t'c2 e 5 1 4 e 3 .ig4,
Santos-Ligterin k, Lucerne 1 983,
and 1 0 . . . .ia5 I I 0-0 ( I I 't!t'b3 !?) I I
. . . e5 1 2 lt:lb3 .ib6 1 3 c4 lt:Jc6,
Osterman-M inic, Yugoslavia 1 976
seem equal.
10 be e5!?
Or I 0 . . . lt:Jb6( !), e.g. I I .if4
( I I 0-0 e5 - 1 1 . . . ltJc4 - 1 2 lt:lb3
lt:Jc4 1 3 i.e I !?) I I . . . 't!t'e7 12 lt:lb5
e5 1 3 .tel lild8 = Aksharumova­
Alexandria, Volgograd 1 985.
11 lt:l b5 ( !)
a) l l lt:Jc2 lt:Jc6 1 2 c4 ( 1 2 0-0 .ie6
= ) 1 2 . . . lt:lb6 1 3 lt:Je3 .ie6 1 4
lil c l =.
b ) 11 lt:lb3 lt:Jc6 12 0-0 lt:Jb6 ( 1 2 . . .
lt:Jde7 1 3 a4!? 't!t'c7 - 13 . . . ltJa5
Sunye - 14 't!t'c2 .ie6 1 5 c4 :t
Sunye-Agzamov, Cienfuegos 1 984)
1 3 .ie3 't!t'c7 14 't!t'd3 lild8 1 5 't!t'e4
.ie6 16 lilfd l =/oo Tai-Timman,
Bugojno 1 980.
11 lt:Jc6
I I . . . a 6 1 2 .te l (or 1 2 c4! lt:lb6
13 lt:Ja3 lt:lc6 14 c5 ! :t Makarichev)
12 . . . ab ( 1 2 . . . .ie6 1 3 c4) 13 'i!fxd5
( 1 3 .ixd5 ! f) 1 3 . . . 't!t'c7 1 4 0-0 lila5
15 .ie3 lt:Ja6 ( 1 5 . . . b4 16 't!t'b3 f) 1 6
1 96 2 liJf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6
lUc l lii:8 d 1 7 't!t'f3, - Stempin­
Adamski, Poland 1982; 17 . . . lii:a 4
oo (Stempin).
12 e4!
With a small edge, d ue to the
bishops, e .g. 1 2 . . . tiJde7 ( 1 2 . . .
tiJc7 1 3 .ic3; 1 2 . . . tiJ f6 1 3 .ig5 or
13 .ic3; 12 . . . tiJb6 1 3 c5 liJc4 1 4
.ic3) 1 3 0- 0 .ie6 1 4 c 5 ! ? .id5 1 5
tiJd6 t .
8122
8 't!t'b3 (204)
204
B 9
An a ttempt to gain more activity
than 8 cd provides.
8 .ixe3+
a) 8 . . . tiJa6 9 0-0 't!t'a5 10 cd .ixc 3
I I 't!t'xc 3 't!t'xc3 1 2 be ed 1 3 .ia3 lii:e8
14 c4!? ( 1 4 lii: ab l !?) 14 . . . de 1 5
li[fc l t Ghitescu-Short, Lucerne
1 985.
b) 8 . .. .ic5 9 .ie3 ! tiJa6 10 cd liJg4
I I tiJc2! tiJxe3 1 2 liJxe3 .ixe3 ! He
ed 1 4 liJxd5 .ie6 1 5 0-0 tiJc5 1 6
1!fc4 lic8 1 7 lii: a d I ± Gheorghiu­
Knaak, Romania v East Germany
1 983.
c) 8 ... tiJ c6 9 tiJxc6 .ixc3+ 1 0
1!fxc3 be I I 0- 0 't!t'e7 1 2 b3 lii: d 8 ( 1 2
. . . e 5 1 3 .ib2 lii: e 8 1 4 f4 ! ) 1 3 e 3 a5
14 a4 ± ( i.a3 lii: fc I follows)
Polugayevsky-Holmov, Kiev 1 984.
9 be
9 1!fxc3 e5 10 lbb3 ( 1 0 lbb5 a6
I I lba3 d4 +) 1 0 .. . d4 I I 't!t'd3
lbc6 =, although this could re­
semble 8 0-0 de 9 't!t'a4 above after
1 2 .ig5.
8 1 22 1 9 . . . e5
B l 222 9 . . . de
8 1 223 9 . . . lbc6
8 1 22 1
e5
10 lbb5
a) 1 0 lbf3 de I I 1!fxc4 1!fa5 ( I I . . .
't!t'e7 =) 1 2 0-0 lb c6 1 3 a 4 .ie6 1 4
't!t'b 5 't!t'c7 + Kouatly-Portisch,
Toluca 1 982.
b) 1 0 lbc2!? de 1 1 1!fb5!? ( 1 1 1!fxc4
i.e6 and . . . .id5) I I . . . lb c6 ( I I . . .
lbbd7 !?; I I . . . 't!t'e8!?) 1 2 0-0 't!t'c7
13 .ig5 i.e6 14 lii: ab I lii: a b8 1 5
i.xf6 gf 1 6 lbe3 0.e7 1 7 f4 ! with
attack, Farago-Szymczak, Polanica
Zdroj 198 1 .
10 de
1 0 . . . a6!? I I tiJa3 ( I I 'ti'a3 !?) I I
. . . d4 1 2 cd ed 1 3 0-0 0.c6 1 4 tiJc2
lle8 = - Ro manishin-Agzamov,
USSR 1 98 1 ; 1 2 .ib2!? may improve
( 1 2 . . . lbc6 1 3 lii: d l ).
11 't!t'a3
A gambit. I I 't!t'xc4 a6 1 2 lbc7
(205) ( 1 2 lba3 .ie6 1 3 'ird3 - 13
'ikb4 .id5 - 1 3 . . . 1!fc7 !? 14 0-0 lii: d 8
1 5 't!t'b l ! t Arbikov-Gavrikov,

USSR 1 98 1 ; but 1 3 . . . 'tt'xd3 ! =
a nd . . . i. f5 - Gu feld).
:!1!5
H 1 2 . . . i.g4!? (Olafsson).
a ) 1 2 ... bS 1 3 'tt'c 5 lLl bd7 1 4 'tt'a 3
'iVxc7 15 i.xa8 lbb6 16 i.g2 lLlfd5
1 7 e4! lilxc3 1 8 i.d2 lbca4 1 9 ..ia5,
Sosonko-Timman, Tilburg 198 1 ,
a nd instead o f 1 9 . . . lilc4?? 1 -0, 1 9
. . . 1Wc6! 2 0 i.xb6 lbxb6 2 1 0-0 lilc4
intending . . . i.b7, . . . f5 is u nclear.
b) 12 ... lila7(!) 1 3 lLld5 lb xd 5 ( 1 3
. . . b5 1 4 'it'c5 lild7 =) 1 4 1t'xd 5
1!t'c7! 1 5 'it'd3 ( 1 5 0-0 b5 1 6 i.e3
..ib7 1 7 1i'c5 i.xg 2 = Cebalo) 1 5 . . .
't>d8 1 6 tfe3 b 6 1 7 0-0 i.b7 =
Holzi-Portisch, Lucerne 01 1 982.
II lLlc6
a ) I I . . i.h3!? 12 i.xh 3 ( 1 2 i.xb7
. lile8 12 0-0 ( 12 Ild I) 12 . . . e5 1 3
lilbd7 1 3 i.xa8 tfxa8 14 f3 co) 1 2
. . . 1t'd5 1 3 0-0 1t'xb 5, Basin-Aseev,
USSR Ch 1 985; 14 i.g5 ! lb bd7 1 5
lHd l with the idea 1 5 . . . lilfd8 1 6
liab l co.
b) 11 ... tfd7!? 1 2 'it'c5 lba6 1 3
1!t'xc4 lild8 + Ubilava-Georgadze,
USSR 1 983; but 12 li1 b I ! makes
the point of Black's I I th unclear.
12 ..ie3 !
2 lilj] lbf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 1 97
1 2 0-0 i.e6 1 3 i.e3 a6 (or 1 3 . . .
i.d5) 1 4 lild6 i.d5 ! 1 5 lb xb7 tlc7
16 lLld6 ..ixg2 1 7 't>xg2 lbd5 +.
12 i.e6
13 litd 1 'it'b8
14 0-0
1 4 i.c5 a6 15 ..ixf8 ab 16 i.d6
lilxa2 1 7 i.xb8 /Dd7 ! 1 8 i.xc6 bc
1 9 i.xe5 f6 =t= (Hjartarson).
14 lidS
1 5 'it'c5 Ii: xd l 16 Ilxd l a6 1 7
lbd6! ( 1 7 lLla3 tlf8 ! = H . Olafsson­
Hjartarson, Gjovik 1985) 1 7 . . .
lil d 7 1 8 'ika3 'tt'c 7 1 9 1t'a4! ( 1 9
lbb5 'it'b8 = ) 1 9 . . . lila5 20 lbxb7!
lbxb7 2 1 tlc6 ! 'it'xc6 22 ..ixc6 lil b8
23 i.xd7 lild8 24 i.a4 lilxd l + 25
..ixd I ot>f"8 (!) 26 i.e I 't>e 7 27
i.a3+ 't>d7 28 i.c2 g6 29 f3 , and
White's two bishops eventually
prevailed .
B l 222
9 de
10 'it'a3
10 'it'xc4 e5 I I lilb5 is the last
section . I nstead, I 0 . . . a6 I I ..ia3
lbb3 b5 !? 1 4 tlc5 lilbd7 1 5 'it'b4 e4
1 6 c4! ;t was Franco-Marcussi,
Buenos A ires 1 985.
10 'it'b6
Or 1 0 . . . lilbd7 1 1 lilb5 lilb6 1 2
0 -0 i. d 7 1 3 Il d l ( 1 3 lb d6 i.c6 1 4
i.xc6 b e 1 5 lid I 'it'e7 ! = Ubilava­
Tu kmak ov, Kujbysev 1 986) 1 3 . . .
lLlfd5 1 4 lLl d 6 'it'f6! 1 5 lild4! i.c6
16 e4 lil c7 ( 1 6 . . . lilc7!? K arpov) 1 7
1 98 2 &DfJ &Df6 J d4: 4 . . . e6

li b ! ( 17 &Dxb7 ..ixb7 1 8 e5 'tt' xe 5

oo; 1 7 ..ie3 h6! Ka rpov) 17 . . . e5 1 8 206
lid I lifd8 = Karpov-Portisch, B

Lucerne 1985.
11 ..ie3
Or I I ..ig5 e5 1 2 &Dc2 ..if5 !? 1 3
&De 3 ..ie4 oo (Polovodin), o r I I (}.0
e5 1 2 &Dc2 'tt'c7 1 3 ..ig5 &Dbd7 1 4
li fd I h 6 = Basin-Holmov, Mi nsk
1 9 85.
11 'tt'a6 !
No t I I . . . &Dg4 ? 1 2 &Dc6 ! &D xe 3 Kasparov) 1 4 0-0 lic8 ( 1 4 . . . ..ic6!
1 3 &De7+ 'i!lh8 1 4 &Dxg6+ ±± , or 15 ..ia3! ;t Kasparov) 1 5 li:lb3!
1 1 . . . &Dxd5? 1 2 ..ixd 5 ed 13 &Df5 li:lxc4 16 ..ixb7 lic7 1 7 ..ia6! ±
'tt'd 8 1 4 &De7+ 'i!lh8 1 5 &D xd5 ± Kasparov-Karpov, match (4) 1986.
(Polovodin). b) 12 ... b6!? (K orchnoi) has the
12 'tt'x a6 &Dxa6 idea . . . ..ib7, . . . lic8; 13 c4 ..ia6 14
13 &Db5 &Dd5 &Db5 is critical ( 1 4 . . . ..ixb5 15 cb
14 ..id4 lic8 16 ..id2 &Dc4 oo).
1 4 ..ixd5 and 1 5 li:lxa7 is only 13 &Db5
equal. After 14 ..id4, Ubilava­ Kasparov's 1 3 (}.0?! looked
Polovod in, U SSR Ch 1983, went weak after 1 3 . . . ..id7 1 4 e4 li:l b6 1 5
1 4 . . . b6 1 5 (}.0 ..id7 16 &Dd6 ..ic6 f4 o f Kasparov-Suba, D ubai 1 986;
( 1 6 . .. b5!?) 17 &Dxc4 &De7 =. and now 1 5 . . . liac8 =F with the
Generally, 9 . . . de looks superior idea . . . lUd8 .
to 9 . . . e 5. 13 'tt'c 6!
B1 223 14 ..ia3 !?
9 &Dc6 1 4 0-0 ..id7 15 a4 a6 1 6 e4 ab 17
Karpov's move, threatening . . . ed 'tt'c4 = ( K asparov). After 14
li:la5. ..ia3 , I zet a-Simagin, Novi Sad
10 cd &Da5 ! 1986, continued 14 . . . lid8! 1 5 e4
11 'tt'c2 &Dxd5 &Dc4 (or 15 . . . a6 =) 16 ed 'tt' x b5 1 7
12 'tt'd3 (206) lii: b l 'tt'a 6 1 8 ..ie7 lii: xd5 ! 1 9 ..ixd5
Else Black piles up on the c-file. ed 20 0-0 ( 20 'tt' x 5 ..ih3 oo) 20 . . .
12 'tt'c 7! ..ie6 2 1 f4!? ( 2 1 ..ic5 b 6 2 2 ..id4
a) 12 ... ..id7? ! 1 3 c4 &De7 ( 1 3 . . . 'tt'x a2 23 lii: a I 'tt'd 2 + Simagin)
&Db6 14 c5 &Dbc4 1 5 (}.0 t; 1 3 .. . 21 . . . ..ih 3! 22 lii: f2 'tt'e 6 23 'tt'e2 b6!
&Db4 1 4 'tt'c 3 &Dbc6 1 5 ..ia 3 ;!; 24 'tt'x e6 fe +; =F.

This whole l ine with 4 . . . e6 5
tt:Jc 3 .i.b4 6 g3 has opened up
greatly over the past few years.
The key l ines at the moment seem
to be 6 . . . lt:Je4 7 'ti'd 3 'i!t'a5 8 lt:Jb3
"iff5 9 'ti'e 3 and 6 . . . 0-0 7 .i.g2 d5 8
0-0!?.
R2
5 d5!? (207)
_'() 7
w (remarkably, even grandmasters
82 1 6 .i. g5
822 6 cd
6 .i.f4!? is the only other which
prevents ... e5 and does something
useful. Then 6 . . . lt:Jc6 7 lt:Jdb5 (7
lt:Jxc6 be 8 e3 is solid but uninspiring)
is Chapter 1 3, B 1 2. 6 . . . lt:Jh5 7
.i.xb8 and 6 . . . de 7 lt:Jdb5 look
undesirable, so that leaves 6 . . .
.i.e7!? 7 e 3 (7 lt:Jdb5 0- 0 8 e 3 lt:Je6 9
cd lt:Jxd5 1 0 lt:J xd5 ed I I lt:Je7
.i.b4+ 1 2 �e2 oo) 7 . . . lt:J e6 or 6 . . .
.i.b4 7 'ira4+ lt:Jc6 8 lt:J xe6 .i.xc3+
9 be be (9 . . . 'i!t'd 7 I 0 cd lt:Jxd5 I I
lid ! !), and now 1 0 e3 lt:Je4!?, 1 0
'i!t'xc6+ .i.d7 I I 'i!t'd6 d e , or 1 0 e4!?
lt:Jxe4 I I ed 'i!t'xd 5 12 .i.c4 'i!t'c5.
It's a bit surprising that 6 .i.f4
2 lt:Jf3 lt:'l/6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6 199
h asn't been seen more often.
821
6 .i.g5 e5
6 . . . .i.e7 7 cd (7 e3 or 7 lt:Jf3) 7 . . .
lt:Jxd5 8 .i.xe7 lt:Jxe7 9 e 3 � (Filip).
7 lt:Jb3
a) 7 lt:Jc2 d4 8 lt:Jd5 .i.e6" ! " 9
.i.xf6 gf 10 e4 rn (Mikhalehishin);
or 8 ... .i.f5 = (Neistadt).
b) 7 lt:Jdb5!? a6 (7 . . . d4 8 lt:Jd5 lt:Ja6
9 'ti'a4 .i.d7 1 0 e4 ! Neistadt) 8 'it'a4
have fallen for 8 lt:Jxd5?? ab 9
lt:Jxf6+ 'it'xf6 ! ) 8 . . . .i.d7 9 cd (9
.i.xf6?! gf I 0 ed .i.xb5 1 1 ll'lxb5
ab! +) 9 . . . ..ixb5?! (9 . . . 'i!t'b6! 1 0
i.e 3 .i. xb 5 I I .i. x b6 .i.xa4 1 2
lt:Jxa4, and 1 2 . . . lt:J bd7 = or 1 2 . . .
.i.b4+ = Mikhalchishin; a t least)
10 lt:J xb5 ab I I 'i!t'xa8 .i.b4+ 1 2
.i.d 2 .i.xd2+ 1 3 �xd2 'i!t'xd5+ ( 1 3
. . . lt:J xd5 1 4 �e l lt:Jb4 1 5 Ile l ) 1 4
�e l 0-0 1 5 lid ! 'i!t'e5 1 6 'i!t'a3 ±
Mi khalch ishin-Gorelov, USSR Ch
198 1 .
7 d4
8 lt:Jd5 .i.e7
8 . . . .i.e6!? 9 e4 .i.e7 (Tal); 1 0
lt:Jxe7 'i!t'xe7 I I .i.d3 t.
9 lt:Jxe7 'i!t'xe7
10 e3 lt:Jc6
1 0 . . . a5 I I ed a4 1 2 lt:Je5 ed+ 1 3
'ire 2 �; 1 0 . . . 0-0 I I ed ed+ 1 2 .i.e2
t (Tal). Presu mably he doesn't like
1 0 . . . 'i!t'b4+ I I 'i!t'd2 'i!t'xd2+ 1 2
lt:Jxd2 with two bishops, but then
either 1 2 . . . lt:Jc6 or 1 2 . . . de 1 3
.i.xe3 lt:Jc6 looks playable.
200 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: 4 . . . e6
10 .. l£Jc6 was Ortega-Tal,
Erevan 1986. Ortega played I I
.te2!? h6 1 2 .txf6 'ti'xf6 1 3 ed ed
14 0-0 0-0 =. Tal recommends 1 1
ed ! ed+ 1 2 i.e2 h6 1 3 i.h4 ;!;(two
bishops), and that seems correct. 6
.tg 5 deserves a closer look .
822
6 cd l£Jxd5
7 .td2
7 l£J xd 5 'ti'xd5 8 e3 l£Jc6 9 l£Jxc6
1!t'xc6 I 0 .td2 .td7 I I .tc3 f6 =
Adamski-Su etin, Lu blin 1 976. 7
l£Jdb5 a6 ( or 7 . . . l£Jxc3 8 'ihd8+
�xd 8 9 be .tc5 = Gipslis) 8 liJxd5
ed 9 liJd4 liJc6 10 e 3 1i'b6! 1 1 liJc2
.te6 = ( Kapengut).
7 .te7
a) 7 ... liJb4 8 liJ f3 ! i.e7 9 g3 (9 a 3
liJbc6 1 0 e4 :t ) 9 . . . b 6 1 0 .tg2 .tb7
1 1 0-0 0-0 1 2 li[c 1 liJd7 1 3 .tf4 !
Kupreichik-Georgadze, Riga 1972.
b) 7 ... .tc5!? 8 liJb 3 i.b6 !? (8 . . .
.te7 9 liJ xd5 'ti'xd5 I 0 .tc3 'ti'xd 1 +
1 1 li[ xd 1 f6 was Nimzowitsch­
Rubinstein, Liege 1 930; 12 g3 ! !) 9
g3 (9 e4 liJ xc 3 9 . . . liJb4!? 1 0
- -
.txc3 0-0 oo Polugayevsky) 9 . . .
e 5 ! ? 1 0 .tg2 liJxc3 ( 1 0 . . . .t e 6 1 1
liJa4 !) 1 1 .txc3 'ite7 1 2 a4 (or 1 2
liJd2 !) 1 2 . . . a 6 1 3 liJd2 liJc6 1 4
liJc4 i.c7 1 5 liJ e 3 .te6 1 6 l£Jd5
t Polugayevsky-Dzindzihashvil i ,
1985.
8 e4
8 g3 liJb6 =; 8 liJxd5 'itxd5 9
.tc3 e5 =.
8 liJb4
9 .te3
9 i.b5+ .td7 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 a3
liJ4c6 =.
9 0-0
10 .te2 liJ8c6
11 liJxc6 l£Jxc6
Quinteros- Kasparov, Moscow
1 98 2. The game went 12 0-0 'ti'a5
1 3 1t'b3 .tc5 1 4 .txc5 1!t'xc5,
and now instead of 1 5 li[fd l e5 1 6
'itc4 1!Ve7 1 7 liJd5 1!Vg5 = , Janicki
suggests 15 llac1 liJ d4 1 6 't!t'a4
liJxe2+ ( 1 6 . . . e5 may improve) 1 7
liJxe2 1i'e5 1 8 liJc3 a s " a strong
alternative". Here 1 5 . . . e5 1 6
liJd5 1!ra5 1 7 .tc4 would favour
White.
I n any case, White's advantage
after 6 cd is very small, and for
now, 6 i.g5 hasn't been shown to
yield much either. Although Black
sacrifices his counterchances with
5 . . . d5, it looks like a good
neutralising line.
 15 2 ltlf3 ltlf6 3 d4: Various 4th
Moves

1 c4 c5 A
2 lL:lf3 lL:lf6 4 d5
3 d4 cd 5 cd lL:lxd5
A good place to m ention 3 . . . d5 5 . . . a6!? 6 \!t'a4+ (6 f3!?, e.g. 6 . . .
4 cd cd 5 \!t'xd4 (5 lL:lxd4 is " A") 5 .. . lL:lxd5 7 e 4 llJc7 8 .i.f4) 6 . . . b5 7
'iWxd5 6 lL:lc3 't!fxd4 7 lL:lxd4 (!) 7 .. . lL:lxb5 .i.d7 8 llJ bc 3 lL:lxd5 (8 ...
a6 8 g3 e5 9 lL:lb3 ..t d7 (9 . . . lL:lc6 1 0 'tib6 9 \!t'd4 ! ) 9 lL:lxd5 ..txd5 1 0
..tg2 ..td7 1 1 0-0 ..td7 1 2 ..tg5 ! 'tid I Y ± - B rowne-Sosonko,
:t1 ± Reti-Grau, London 1 927) 1 0 Denpasar 1 982.
..tg2 ..tc6 1 1 e4!? with the idea 1 1 6 e4! (208)
. . . ..tb4 1 2 0-0 ..txc3 1 3 be llJxe4 1 4 6 g3 e5 7 lL:lc2 lL:lc6 8 e4 lL:ldb4 = ;
li e I etc. 6 lL:l b 5 't!t'a5+ 7 lL:lbc3 lL:lxc3 8
4 lbxd4 lL:lxc3 e5 9 e3 =.

The theory of Black's 4th move

alternatives to 4 . . . lL:lc6 and 4 . . . e6 208

has grown drama tically over the B

past decade. In particular, 4 . . .

b 6 and 4 . . . e 5 are n o w standard
systems.
A 4 . . . . d5
B 4 . . . g6
C 4 . . . a6
D 4 . . . e5
E 4 . . . b6
4 ... d6 5 lL:lc3 (5 g3 d5!, e.g. 6 ..tg2 6 lL:lc7
e5 etc) 5 . . . e6 6 e4 b6 transposes a) 6 . . . lL:lb4 7 tla4+ (everything
t o E2 after 7 f3, or to Chapter 9, looks good, e.g. 7 .i.e3 lL\8c6 8
C22, note (a) to 4 . . . ..t d7. lL:lxc6 'tixd I + 9 �xd 1 lL:lxc6 1 0
202 2 liJf3 liJf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves
liJ c3 !, 7 liJb5 !? .-xd I + 8 'it'xd I
liJba6 9 a3 liJ4c6 I 0 liJ I c3 ! Savon­
Karasev, Moscow 1 974, or 7 liJa3
e 5 8 liJdb5 1t'xd I+ 9 ct'xd I liJ8a6
10 i.e3 !) 7 . . . liJ4c6 8 liJxc6 liJxc6
9 i.e3 i.d7 1 0 liJc3 e6 I I ll:c l i.d6
1 2 i.e2 ! Dake-Muller, Folkestone
19 33.
b) 6 ... liJf6 7 i.b5+ (or 7 liJc3 e5 -
7 . . . a6 8 e5 - 8 i.b5+ i.d7 9
liJf5 !) 7 . . . i. d7 8 1t'e2 (8 e5 i.xb5
9 liJxb5 1t'xd 1 + =) 8 . . . a6 9
i.xd7+ lt:lbxd7 (9 . . 1t'xd7!? seems
better) I 0 0-0 e6 I I liJc3 1t'c7,
Yudovich- Kara k laic, Yugoslavia
1 9 5 1 ; 1 2 i.e3! ± intending f4
(Minic).
7 i.f4
7 i.c4( !), e .g. 7 . . . e5 8 'ffh 5 !
i.b4+ 9 liJc3 0-0 I 0 liJf3 ±, or 7 . . .
g 6 8 0- 0 i.g7 9 i.e3 ! . Also 7 liJc3
e5 8 liJ db5 1t'xd 1+ 9 ct'xd I lt:lxb5
10 liJxb5 liJ a6 I I i.c4 ! ( I I i.e3 ? !
i.e6! 1 2 i.xa7 i.b4 !) I I . . . i.c5 1 2
'it'e2 i.d7 1 3 i.e3 'it'e7 1 4 ll:hd l
i.c6 1 5 f3 t (Browne).
7 liJe6!?
7 .. . liJd 7 may be better, bu t
White seems to keep some edge by
8 1t'a4 ( !) , e.g. 8 . . . a6 9 liJc3 or 8 . . .
e 6 9 liJc3 i.c5 I 0 ll: d I a 6 I I i.e2.
8 i.b5+ liJc6
Forced, due to 8 . . . i.d7 9
liJxe6 ±. After 8 . . . liJc6, Timman­
Miles, Bugojno 1986, went 9 liJ xe6
(9 liJxc 6 1i'xd l + 10 'it'xd l a6 co) 9
. . . 1t'xd I+ I 0 'it'xd I i.xe6 I I i.xc6+
(or just I I liJc3 intending I I . . .
0-0-0+ 1 2 'it'e l i.d7 1 3 l:lc l t ) I I ...
be 1 2 liJd2 g6, and Tim man
recomm ends 1 3 b3 i.g7 14 ll:c l
i.d4 1 5 'it'e2 c5 1 6 i.e3 !.
B
4 g6
5 liJc3
5 f3 d5! 6 cd liJ xd5 7 e4 liJc7 = (8
liJc3 e 5). Better 5 g3 d5 6 i.g2 de (6
... e 5 ! ? 7 liJf3 d4 8 0-0 liJc6 9 e3
i.g4 - 9 . . . d3!? - 10 1t'b3 t
- Tu kmakov- Belyavsky, Vilnius
1 978) 7 .-a4+ liJbd7 (7 . . . lt:lc6!?
looks strange, but is hard to
refute) 8 0-0 i.g7 9 ll:d l 0-0 1 0
1t'xc4 liJ b 6 ( ? 1 0 . . . 1t'a5 = ) I I
'it'b3 i (Tu kma kov).
5 d5 (209)
5 . . . i.g7 6 e4 is a S icilian, and
here 6 g3 0-0 7 i.g2 is !.
209
w
6 i.g5!?
Most common, although White
has a good option in (b):
a) 6 cd liJxd5 7 liJdb5 liJ xc3 8
.-xd8+ 'it'xd8 9 liJxc3 i.g7 (or 9 . . .
liJc6 = Pac hman) 1 0 i.d2 i.e6 I I
g3 liJd7 1 2 i.g2 ll:c8! 1 3 ll:c l 'it'c7!
 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves
= Flohr-Euwe, match (5) 1932.
h) 6 li:Jf3( ! ) ";!;" (Stean), e . g. 6 . . . de
7 �xd 8 <&xd8 8 e4.
c ) 6 jJ4!? i.g7 7 e3 0-0!? (7 . . . li:Jc6
= ) 8 it'b3, Vaganian-Gulko, USSR
Ch 1 976; 8 . . . li:Jh5!? intending 9
i.xb8 llxb 8 1 0 cd i.xd4 1 1 ed e6
with attack.
6 de
6 . . . li:Je4 7 li:Jxe4 de 8 li:Jb5! with
the idea 8 . . . li:J c6? 9 �xd8+ <&xd 8
1 0 0-0-0+ i.d7 1 1 li:Jd6 ±± or 8 . . .
f6 9 '8'xd8 <&xd8 1 0 0-0-0+ i.d7 I I
i.c3 t ( Korchnoi), or 8 . . . i.g7 9
'ii'x d8+ <&xd8 1 0 0-0-0+ li:Jd7 ( I 0 . . .
i.d7 ! ;!; Stean; I I g3 !) 1 1 i.e3 b 6 1 2
g3 i.a6 1 3 i.g2 llc8 1 4 <& b I ! l hc4
1 5 b3 llc6 16 li:Ja3 ± Stean­
Schmid, London 1 979. Finally, 8
. . . 1Wxd I+!? 9 llxd I li:J a6 of
Speelman-A lburt, match (3) 1986
is less clear. The game went 1 0 g3
i.g7 1 1 b3 f5 1 2 i.g2 i.d7 1 3 f3
i.xb5 1 4 cb li:Jb4 1 5 fe t.
7 e3
Or 7 li:J db5 ( Korchnoi) with the
idea 7 . . . i.d7 8 li:Jd5!
7 i. g7
7 . . . 1Wa5 8 i.xf6 gf 9 i.xc4 i.b4
(9 . . . i_g7 t) 10 llc l a6?! 1 1 0-0
li:Jbd7 1 2 a3?! ( 1 2 li:Jd5! Su etin) 1 2
. . . i.e7? 1 3 b4! 1We5 1 4 f4! '8'b8 1 5
i.xf7+ ±± Petrosian-Korchnoi,
Curar;ao 1 962.
8 i.x c4 0-0
9 0-0 i.d7
9 . . . a6 10 a4! is t or 1 0 1We2 b5
I I i.b3 i.b 7 1 2 llfd l �a5 1 3 e4
203
li:Jbd7 1 4 li:Je6! fe 1 5 i.xe6+ <&h8
16 i.xd7 b4 17 i.xf6 ef, Simagin­
Korchnoi, Leningrad 1 95 6; 1 8
li:Ja4 t.
After 9 ... i.d7, Portisch-Benko,
Las Pa l mas 1 972, went 10 1Wd2!
( 1 0 it'b 3 li:Jc6!) 10 . . . li:Jc6 I I llfd 1
li:Jxd4?! ( I I . . . li:Je5 1 2 i.b3 ±) 1 2
it'xd4 i.c6 ( 1 2 . . . 1Wc7 1 3 i.xf6
i.xf6 14 i.xf7+ ±) 1 3 i.xf7+ ±±.
c
4 a6
A tricky move which may be
used as a transpositional device .
5 li:Jc3
5 g3 d 5 ! 6 i.g2 e5 7 li:JO d4 ! and
Black has a Catalan with the extra
move . . . a6 ( = ) . Here 7 . . . e4!? 8
li:Jfd2 ! (8 li:Jd4 de!) 8 . . . e3 ( 8 . . . de 9
0-0! t) 9 fe li:Jg4 1 0 cd li:Jxe3 I I
'tWa4+ li:Jd7 1 2 'tWe4+ 1We7 1 3
li:Jb3! U ± was Martz-Miles, Lone
Pine 1 976. 5 i.g5 !? d5 6 cd 't!Vxd5 =
(Miles).
5 d5!? (2 10)
5 . . . e6 transposes to Chapter
14.
210
w
 204 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves

6 li:Jb3!? li:Jxc6 1 4 .ixc6 threatens .ib8.

a) 6 e3 e5!? (6 . . . g6 ! =; 6 . . . e6) 7 7 cd ed
li:Jf3 e4 8 li:Jd2 de 9 i.xc4 b5 I 0 8 g3 li:Jc6
i.e2 i, b7, lightly ;!; Webb-Miles, 9 .ig2 .ie6
England I 975. 10 0-0 .ie7
b) 6 i.f4 e6 7 e3 li:Jc6 =. I I .ie3 �0 1 2 li:Ja4! (White
c) 6 i,g5 e 5 ! (6 . . . de 7 e4 ! :t) 7 li:Jc2 takes advantage of . . . a6) 12 o o .
(7 li:Jf3 d4 = planning 8 li:Jd5 i.e7 9 lie8 13 li:Jac5 (even better is I 3
li:J xe7 'i+'xe7 =, or here 8 . . . 'i+'a5+ 9 .ib6! ± Rashkovsky) 1 3 .ic8
0 0 .

i.d2 'i+'d8 =) 7 d4 8 li:Jd5 .if5 ! 9

0 0 0
.ixf6 gf 1 0 e3 li:J c6 1 I i.e2 'i+'a5+ =
G .Garcia-Jansa, Cienfuegos I 945.
d) 6 li:Jf3!? e6 (6 . . . de 7 'i+'xd8+
�xd8 8 e4 e6 9 li:Je5 �e8 1 0
li:J xc4 ;!; Olafsson-Miles, Teesside
14 l:.tc l h6 1 5 li:Ja4! with advantage,
Rashkovsky-Chekhov, Minsk 1976.
D
4 e5 (21 1)
211

I 975) 7 cd (7 i. g5 .ie7 8 e3 li:Jc6 = ) w

7 ed 8 e3 (8 .i g 5 .ie7 9 e3 offers
000

more prospects) 8 o o . li:Jc6 9 .ie2 =,

e .g. 9 . . . .ic5 1 0 �0 �0 1 I li:Jd4
lii:e 8.
e ) 6 cd li:Jxd5 7 li:Jdb5 !? (7 .id2 e5 8
li:Jf3 li:Jc6 9 e4 li:Jdb4 = or 9 0 0 0

li:Jxc3 = ) 7 li:Jb 4! 8 'i+'xd8+ �xd8

0 0 0

9 li:Ja3 b5 (or 9 e 5 I 0 g3 .ie6 I I

0 0 .

.ig2 li:J 8c6 =) 1 0 e4 e5 1 1 .ie3 .ie 6
1 2 ��0+ !? ( 1 2 .ie2) 1 2 o o . li:Jd7 1 3
�b I llc8 + Karasev-Tseshkovsky,
USSR 1976.
6 e6
6 o o . de 7 'i+'xd8+ 'it>xd8 8 li:Ja5 e6
Still experim ental at the time of
the first edition , this is now a well­
established line with a solid repu­
tation.
5 li:Jb5
a) 5 li:Jc2 d5 6 cd 'i+'xd5 (6 .ic5 7
000

9 li:J xc 4 ;!; transposes to Olafsson­ li:Jc3 0-0, and 8 .ie3 ! is critical) 7

Miles in note (d) a bove. Otherwise tixd5 ( 7 .id2 li:Je4 - or 7 . . li:Jc6 -
.

8 . . . li:J bd7 9 a4 b6 10 li:Jxc4 ± or 8 8 li:Je3 'tid4 9 'tic2 li:Jc6 10 .ic3

o o • b5 9 g3 (or 9 .if4) 9 e6 (9 . . . e5
0 0 0 .ib4 = - Su khanov-Sinelnikov,
1 0 i.g2 lit a 7 I I .ie3 lii:d 7 12 li:Jc6+ Moscow 1 980) 7 li:Jxd5 8 e4 li:Jb4
0 0 .

li:Jxc6 1 3 .ib6+ 'it>e7 14 .ixc6 lii: d 4 9 .ib5+ (or 9 li:Jxb4 .ixb4+ 10

15 a4 ! b4 1 6 li:Ja 2 ±) 1 0 .if4! li:J fd7 .id2 li:Jc6 =) 9 . . . li:J8c6 10 li:Jxb4
I I ��0 �e8 1 2 .ig2 lla7 1 3 li:Jc6 .ixb4+ I I .id2 .id7 = Adamski-
 2 fiJ/3 fiJj6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves
Gufeld, Tbi lisi 1983.
b) 5 fiJf3 fiJc6 6 fiJc3 i.b4 7 i.d2
0-0 (or 7 . . . e4 !? 8 fiJ g5 1!t'e7
i ntending 9 'i!t"b l e3) 8 e3 (8 a3
i.xc3 9 i.xc3 �e8 intending . . . d 5
- Scoones) 8 . . . e 4 9 fiJg5 (9 fiJd4
fiJ xd4 10 ed d5!, e.g. I I fiJxe4?
fiJxe4 12 i.xb4 lle8 1 3 i.e2 i.g4 !
Scoones) 9 . .. �e 8 1 0 a3 i.xc3
+ Novikov-Bu khman , Leningrad
1 9 75.
5 d5!
a) 5 ... d6 6 i.g5 fiJa6 7 fiJbc3 !.
b) 5 . . . i.c5 6 i.e3 ! i.xe3 7 fiJd6+
'i!;>fll 8 fe U ±, e .g. 8 fiJg4 9 ll:lc3 !
0 0 .
fiJ xe3 1 0 'tWd3 lt:lg4 I I g3 ll:lf6 1 2
i.h3 ll:l f6 1 3 0-0 ±. 8 . . . lt:lc6
would transpose to Chapter 1 3 , B,
note to 5 . . . e6.
c) 5 ... i.b4+ 6 i.d2 (or 6 ll:l l c3
intending 6 . . . 0-0 7 a3 i.e7 8 lt:ld6
;!;) 6 . . . i.xd2+ ( 6 . . . i.c5 7 i.e3 ! is
note (b), or 7 i.c 3 1!Vb6 8 e3 a6
9 b4! ;!;) 7 'tWxd2 0-0 8 ll:\ 1 c3 lt:la6
9 g3 li:lc5 10 i.g2 a6 I I ll:ld6
± Capablanca-Torres, Barcelona
1 9 29.
6 cd i.c5!
a) 6 . .. a6 !? 7 .ll:l5c3 i.c5 8 ll:ld2 ( 8
b4 !? i.a 7 9 e3 0- 0 1 0 i. e 2 li e8 I I
i.b2 Uoo; 8 'i!t"d3 ! ? lt:lg4 9 lt:ld l f5)
8 . . . 0-0 9 ll:lb3 i.b4 10 i.d2 lie8
I I 'tWc2 i.xc3 12 i.xc3 'tWxd5 1 3
lid l 't!Vc6 1 4 e4 ! i.e6 1 5 i.d3,
lightly ;!; Palatnik-Lutikov, Yurmala
1 98 1 .
b ) 6 . . . 'tWaS+ 7 ll:\ 5 c3 b 5 8 fiJd2 ( 8
g3 b4 9 W'a4+ W'xa4 I 0 li:lxa4 i.b7
205
=; 8 a3 b4 9 W'a4+ 't!Vxa4 10 lt:l xa4
lt:lxd5 I I e4 lt:lc7 + Adamski­
Barlov, Prague 1 98 1 ) 8 b4 9 0 0 .
ll:lce4! (9 lt:lb3 1!t'b6 ! ) 9 ll:l xe4!? 0 0 0
(not 9 ... ll:l xd5? 1 0 lt:lc4 'it'c7 I I
lt:led6+, but 9 't!Vxd5!? is given
0 0 .
by Scoones, when both I 0 1!t'c2
i.e6 I I g3 !? and 1 0 ll:lxf6+ gf I I e4
intending i.c4, 'tWh5/b3 seem good)
10 lt:lxe4 i.b7 ( 1 0 f5 I I ll:lg5) I I 0 0 0
g4 ! lt:la6 (better I I ·W"xd5 1 2 0 0 .
1!t'xd5 i.xd5 1 3 i.g2 lt:l d7 1 4
i.e3 ;!; o r 14 lt:ld6+ ;!; Cvetkovic) 1 2
i.g2 �d8 1 3 0-0 i.xd5 ( 1 3 . . . lhd5
;!;) 14 i.g5 i.e7 1 5 i.xe7 'i!i>xe7 1 6
1!t'c l ! ± Lombardy-M artin, Olot
1974.
c) 6 . . . i.b4+ 7 i.d2 (I gave 7
ll:l l c3 a6 , but then 8 1!t'a4 ! . So 7
liJ l c3 0-0! with the idea 8 a3 i.a5 9
b4 i.b6. If 7 ll:l5c3 , best is 7 . . .
W'xd� 8 1!t'xd5 ll:l xd5 1 0 i.d2 i. e6
= ) 7 . . . i.c5 8 d6 ! (212) ( 8 1!t'c2!?
lt:la6 9 b4!? i.b6 1 0 ll:l l c3 0-0 I I
'i!t'b3 i.f5 I 2 e3 i.e4! 1 3 ll:lxe4
ll:lxe4 - threatening . . . W'f6 - 1 4
ll:lc3 lt:l xd2 1 5 'i!i>xd2 'i!t"h4 1 6 g3 ,
Palatnik-Agzamov, Odessa 1977;
and here 1 6 . . . 1!Vf6! gives a strong
attack).
8000 ll:la6 ( 8 0-0? 9 lt:lc7 ll:le4
0 0 .
10 e3 ; 8 ll:le4 ! ? 9 e3 ll:l xd6 10 b4
0 0 0
i.b6 I I i.c3 ll:l xb5 12 i.xb5+
.id7 13 'i!t"d5 ! ; 8 . . . i.xd6 9 i.g5 ! ,
e .g. 9 .ie7 1 0 '@xd8+ 'i!i>xd8 I I
0 0 0
ll:l l c3 or 9 .ib4 1 0 ll:\ 1 c3 'i!t'xd I +
0 0 0
I I li xd I li:l a6 1 2 .ixf6 gf 1 3 a3 t) 9
e3 0-0 1 0 i.c3 .ig4? ( 1 0 . . . lieS I I
206 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves
:!/2
8
li:Jd2 �xd6 1 2 li:J c4 !) I I �e2
�xe2 1 2 'i!t'xe2 � xd6 1 3 0-0 �b8
( 1 3 . . . 'i!t'e7) 14 li:Jd2 'i!fe7 IS 'i!t'c4
'i!t'd7 16 lifd l lic8 1 7 li:Je4! ±
Zilberstein-Semeniuk, No vosibirsk
1 9 76.
7 li:J5c3
Almost exclusivel y chosen.
a) 7 li:J l c3 0-0 (7 . . . a6 8 li:Ja3! 0-0!?
9 li:Jc4 Scoones) 8 d6 ( 8 �gS a6! ; 8
e3 a6 9 li:Ja3 bS planning . . . b4 , . . .
�b7) 8 . . . li:J c6 9 e 3 �fS 1 0 �e2 a6
I I li:Jc7 lic8 1 2 0-0 e4 +! +
Dzindzihashvili-Alburt, New York
1980.
b) 7 e3 0-0 8 �c4 !? (8 li:JSc3 is the
main line; 8 d6? a6 ! ; 8 a3 lt:JxdS 9
�c4 � e6) 8 . . . li:Jbd7 (or 8 . . .
li:Jbd7 ( or 8 . . . a6 9 li:J S c3 bS 1 0
�b3 li e8 1 1 0-0 e4 = ) 9 li:J Sc3 e4 1 0
h 3 , Co rneli us-Schroer, U S A ( tele­
phone) 1 977; 10 . . . lie8 ! =.
c) 7 d6 0-0! (7 . . . li:Je4? 8 e3 li:Jxd6 9
'i!t'dS; 7 . . . 1!VaS+ 8 li:J I c3 li:Je4 9 e3
li:Jxc3 1 0 be li:Ja6 I I a4 !) 8 �e3 (8
li:Jc7? li:Je4! 9 e3 �b4+! 10 li:Jc3
li:l xc3 H or 1 0 li:Jd2 'i!fxd6 I I
li:Jxa8 lid8 ++ ) 8 . . . �xe3 9 fe
li:Ja6 ( 9 . . . li:Jc6 ! ) 1 0 li:J i c3 �d 7 1 1
'i!t'd2 ( I I a4) I I . . . �xbS 1 2 li:JxbS
li:Je4 =/oo Svedchikov-M .Tseitlin,
Lvov 1977.
d) 7 'i!t'c2 !? has m ore poi nt , e.g. 7 . . .
li:Ja6 ( 7 . . . 'i!t'b6 8 �e3 li:Jbd7 9
�xeS �xeS 10 li:J Sc 3 ; 7 . . . �aS !? 8
lt:J I c3 li:J xdS planning 9 'i!t'e4? li:J xc3
10 't!Vxe5+?? �e6 I I li:Jxc3 �xf2+
Scoones. Here 9 �d2! li:Jxc3 1 0
li:Jxc3 with t h e idea li:J d S i s more
cri tical , e.g. 1 0 . . . �d8 I I g3 0-0 1 2
�g2) 8 a3 0-0 (8 . . . li:JxdS!?) 9
lt:J l c 3 �d 7?! (9 . . . lt:J xdS t Scoones ;
probably jus t equal) 1 0 e3 lic8 I I
�d2 li:J xdS 1 2 'i!fe4! �c6 1 3 'i!t'xeS
lie8 14 '8'g3 ± - Tsamrjuk­
Pukshansky, corres 1979-80.
7 0-0 (213)
7 . . . e4? 8 li:Jxe4 ! li:J xe4 9 'i!t'a4+
wins a second pawn.
8 e3
Most common. 8 e4? lt:Jg4 or 8
�g5 �xf2+ come up short; but
others are of in terest:
a) 8 g3 li:Jg4!? (8 . . . e4 9 �g2 e3!?
 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves
10 i.xe3 i.xe3 1 1 fe 'tWb6 1 2 1Wd4
'ti'xb2 1 3 li:Jd I :!;. 8 . . . l:l:e8 9 i.g2
e4 1 0 0-0 i.f5 oo. 8 . . . 'tWb6 9 e3 e4!?
1 0 i.g2 i.f5 oo; here 9 ... ..ig4 1 0
..ie2 i.h3 I I a3 l:l:d8 1 2 l:l: g l ! i.f5
1 3 b4 ..ie7 1 4 g4 intends g5 , e4
Kui ndzi) 9 e3 (9 li:Je4 f5 ! ) 9 . . . f5 1 0
..ie2 li:J f6 I I a 3 li:Jbd7 1 2 b 4 i.d6
1 3 li:J d2 li:Jb6 14 li:J b3 'it>h8 =/oo
Pesh ina-Vaganian, USSR 1979.
b) 8 h3!? hasn't been tried , bu t
would intend active play based on
i.g5 and or g4/ i.g2. Black could
reply sharply by 8 . . . e4 9 g4 !? e3 1 0
..ixe3 i.xe3 I I fe li:Je8 1 2 'ti'd4
\!t'h4+ 1 3 'it>d2 00 .
8 e4
Similar are 8 . . . i.f5 9 a3 li:J bd7
10 li:Jbd2 e4 I I b4 ..id6 1 2 li:Jc4
li:Jb6 oo Mascarinas-Buturin, Lvov
1 98 1 ; and 8 . . . a6 9 i.e2 e4 10 0-0?
( 1 0 li:Jd2!) 1 0 . . . l:l:e8 I I li:Jd2 i.f5 ,
Antunac-Sh amkovich, Ne w York
1 98 1 .
After 8 . . . e4:
D l 9 i.e2
02 9 li:Jd2
9 a3 will usually transpose, e.g.
9 . . . Ii:e8 1 0 b4 i.f8 I I li:J d2 is
discussed u nder 9 li:Jd2 . Quasi­
independent are:
a) 9 . . . aS !? 10 li:J d2 'tlt'e7 ( 1 0 . . .
l:l:e8) I I d6!? ( I I i.e2 l:l:d8 1 2 'tWd 2
..i f5 1 3 g4 i.g6 oo Hansen­
Reinert, De nmark 1985) 1 1 . . .
i.xd6 1 2 li:J dxe4 li:Jxe4 1 3 li:J xe4
l:l:d8 1 4 li:Jxd6 ( 1 4 'tWc2 i.f5 =) 1 4
. . . Ii: xd6 1 5 't!Vc2 li:J c6 1 6 ..id3?! ( 1 6
207
i.e2 ) 1 6 . . . li:Jd4! 1 7 i.xh7+ 'it>f8
=
1 8 'it'e4 li:Jb3 ± Palatnik-Kasparov,
Kislovodsk 1 982.
b) 9 ... li:Jbd7 1 0 li:Jd2 l:l: e8 I I 'tWc2
'tWe7 1 2 b4( ! ) transposes to 02,
note to 1 0 ... i.f5 .
c) 9 ... "tie7 10 li:J d 2 i.f5 ( 10 . . . l:l:d8
I I b4 i.d6 I 2 li:Jc4 li:Ja6 - 12 . . .
li:Jc6 1 3 d6!? Scoones - 1 3 li:Jxd6
'tWxd6 14 i.c4 t Scoones) I I b4
i.d6 I 2 li:J c4 li:Jbd7 13 i.b2 a6 14
't!Vd4 l:l: fe8 I5 ..ie2 Ii:ad8 I 6 g4!
i.xg4 ( 1 6 . . . ..ig6 1 7 h4! Scoones)
17 i.xg4! li:J xg4 18 li:Jxe4 i.e5 I 9
lb xe5 'ti'xe5 ( ? I 9 . . . li:Jgxe5 20
'it>e2!?) 20 li:Jc6 ± A lterman­
Faerman , U SSR I 979.
Dl
9 i.e2 (21 4)
214
B
9 'tWe7!?
a) An apparently simple solution
is 9 ... li:Ja6 (!) 10 a3 l:l:e8 I I b4
i.f8 12 ..ib2 li:Jc7 1 3 li:Jd2 li:Jcxd5
= Lerner-Tverdokhlebov, Odessa
I98 1 .
b) 9 ... .trs 1 0 li:Jd2 l:l:e8 ( 1 0 . . .
i.b4 I I g4! i.g6 1 2 h4 h6 1 3
208 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves
'it'b3 ;!;) I I li:Jc4 .i.g6 ?! ( I I . . . a6; I I
. . . .i.b4 Scoones) 1 2 a3 ;!; van der
Vliet-Alburt, Be rgen 1 9S2.
c) 9 ... lle8 10 li:Jd2 ( 1 0 0-0 .i.f5 I I
a3 li:Ja6 = ; 1 0 a3 li:Jb7d I I li:Jd 2
li:Jb6 1 2 b4 .i.d6 1 3 Wb3 .i.f5 = 9 . . . ..tf5 l 0 ..t2 .i. b4 !? I I g4 ..tg6
Mamuzic-Barczay, Subotica 1 9S l )
1 0 . . . .i. b4 I I 'it'b3 .i.xc3 1 2 be
'tixd5 1 3 'tixd 5 li:Jxd5 = Pekovic­
Barczay, Subotica 1 9S l .
1 0 li:Jd2
10 a3 .i.f5 would be note (c) to 9
a3 above, but Black also has e.g.
1 0 ... lidS ( 10 ... 'it'e5 !? I I li:Jd2
lieS 12 li:Jc4!? 1t'g5 1 3 g3 .i.h3 1 4
b4 planning 1t'd4, .i.b2 looks safe
for White) 1 1 b4 .i.d 6 1 2 .i.b2
li:Jbd7 1 3 li:Jd2 li:Jb6 14 't!Vb3 .i.e5
15 li:J c4 li:J xc 4 16 .i.xc4 .i.f5 =
Hodos-Gofstein, Daugavpils l 97S.
10 lld8
11 a3 li:Jxd5
1 1 . . . .i.f5 1 2 b4 .i.d6 13 li:Jc4 !.
12 li:Jxd5
12 li:Jcxe4 li:Jxe3 ! 1 3 fe ..txe3 !
was Ba rkovsky-Tseitlin, Leningrad
1 9S l : 14 1t'b3 .i.xd2+ 1 5 li:J xd2
li:Jc6 1 6 li:Jf3 lieS 17 'it'c4 li:la5 ! +.
12 lixd5
1 3 'it'c2 ..tf5 1 4 b4 i.b6 1 5 i.b2
li:Jc6 16 0-0 1t'g5 ! 17 'it'h l ! lid6?!
( 17 .. . lieS Kasparov) IS li:Jxe4 !
..txe4 1 9 'it'xe4 lid2, Mikhalchishin­
Kasparov, USSR ch l 9S l ; and
now 20 ..t a6 ! ! (Kasparov) would
have kept some advantage.
02
9 li:Jd2 lieS
Now 9 . . . 1t'e7 1 0 a3 leads to
note (c) to 9 a3. Also 10 li:J b 3 !?
lidS I I li:Jxc5 1t'xc5 1 2 ..td2
inten ding ll c 1 favoured White in
Ivanov-Popovich, New York l 9S2.
1 2 h4 h6 l 3 1t'b3 .i.xc3 1 4 be 'it'xd5
1 5 .i.a3 llcS 1 6 h5 favoured W hi te
in Hasin-Karasev, USSR 1977.
10 a3 ..trs
I O . . . li:Jbd7 1 1 1t'c2 ( ! ) 1t'e7 1 2 b4
.i.d6 1 3 li:Jc4 a6 ( 1 3 . . . li:Jb6? 1 4
li:Jxd6 'ihd6 1 5 li:Jb5) 14 ..tb2 b5
15 li:J xd6 'ihd6 16 ..te2 li:Jb6 1 7
ll d 1 ..t b7 I S ll d4, Kalinsky­
Pu kshansky, USSR l 9S l ; " ±"
(Scoones, Janicki), although the
situation is still complex. Here 1 7
. . . .i.f5 !? followed b y . . . liacS
should also be considered.
1 1 li:Jb3!?
The "main line" has been I I b4
.i.f8 l 2 li:Jc4 li:Jbd7 1 3 .i.b2 a6 ( 1 3
. . . lieS l 4 li:Jb5! li:Jb6 1 5 li:J xb6 a b
1 6 d 6 ± Ljubojevic-Browne, Yugo­
slavia l 9S l ) 14 1t'b3 b5 1 5 li:Ja5
li:Jc5 ! 1 6 be 1t'xa5 17 d6 llacS I S
1t'b4 'tidS = .
11 ..tf8
12 ..te2 ..tg6
Better 1 2 . . . h6, according to
Scoones, when he suggests g4-g5
and 0-0-0 for White. After 1 2 . . .
i.g6, Litvinov-Shereshevsky, USSR
l 9SO, went 13 0-0 li:Ja6 1 4 .i.d2
li:Jc7 1 5 lic l :t After Black wins
the d-pawn, his bishop is still
m isplaced on g6, although this
 2 ti:Jf3 tl:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves
disadvantage should probably not
be decisive.
Conclusion: Now that White has
some experience versus 4 . . . e5, the
results are beginnig to even out.
This last line with 9 ti:Jd2 seems
to be the most serious try for an
advantage.
E
4 b6
The Sicilian/Hedgehog-like posi­
tions w hich often result from this
move are now standard fare in
international chess.
5 ti:Jc3
The only serious al ternative is 5
f3 e6 ( 5 . . . d5 6 cd ti:Jxd5 7 e4 ti:Jc7 8
.if4 ;t; 5 . . . .i b7 6 e4 d6 7 ti:J c3
transposes) 6 e4 .ib4+!? (agai n, 6
. . . d6 transposes to mai n lines) 7
ti:Jc3 (7 .id2 .ic5 8 .ie3 0-0, or 8
ti:Jb3? ti:Jxe4 ! ) 7 . . . 0-0 8 .ie2 .ib7 9
0-0 ti:Jc6 10 .ie3 'tWb8 , Pomar­
Jansson, Lugano OJ 1 968, and now
instead of I I a3 .id6 ! +, I I ti:Jc2
.ixc3 1 2 be d6 = was best.
5 .ib7
E l 6 .ig5
E2 6 f3
6 'iic 2 d6 7 e4 e6 (7 . . . g6 8 .ie2
.ig7 is also playable) 8 .ie2 d6 9
.ie3 ti:Jbd7 1 0 0-0 .ie7 =. White's
queen is rather poorly placed on
c2.
El
6 .ig5 (215)
A logical move which hopes to
disrupt Black's kingside .
209
215
B
6 a6
a) 6 ... ti:Je4?! 7 ti:Jxe4 .ixe4 8 f3
.ib7 9 e4 g6 (9 . . . f6 1 0 .ie3 l0c6 I I
ti:Jb5! ± Alekhine-Samisch, Baden
Baden 1 925 ) 10 .ie2 ( 10 ti:Jb5
intending ti:Jd6+ - K otov - looks
good, e.g. 10 . . . d6 I I 'W'd4 f6 1 2
.ie2, o r just I I ti:Jc3 ;t) 1 0 . . . .ig7
I I 0-0 ;!; Menchik-Canal, Carlsbad
1929.
b) 6 . ti:Jc(j 7 e4 d6 8 .ie2 e6 9
..
0-0 !; Black's knight is better on
d7.
c) 6 ... 'W'c7 7 lilc l ti:Ja6 8 a3 (8
e3 ;!;) 8 . . . :IileS 9 e3 ti:J c5 10 f3 d6 I I
.ie2 e6 1 2 .ixf6 gf 1 3 0- 0 .ie7
14 b4 ti:Jd7 1 5 f4! ;t Rashkovsky­
Grigori an , USSR 198 1 .
d ) 6 h6 7 .ixf6 gf8 e4 ! ? e6 9 .ie2
•.•
lilg8 10 .if3 ( 1 0 .ih5!? lil xg2 I I
'W'f3 lilg8 1 2 0-0-0) I 0 .. . ti:Jc6 =
Khasin- Karasev, USSR 1 976. I
recom mended 8 ti:Jf5, but then 8 . . .
'iic 7! i s n ot clear, e . g. 9 e 4 e 6 1 0
ti:Je3 ( 1 0 ti:Jg3 !?) 1 0 . . . .ib4 I I .id3
'W'e5 1 2 'tlrc2 .ixc3+ 1 3 be ti:J a6 etc.
Perhaps 8 e3 is best, e.g. 8 . . . a6 9
210 2 li:Jf3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves
._.g4!? ._.c7 1 0 .te 2 and I I .tO , or
here 9 li:J de2 !? intending li:Jf4,
.te2-0.
e) 6 . . . e6 7 li:Jdb5! (7 e4 h6) 7 . . . d6
8 .tf4 e5 9 .ig5 a6 10 .txf6 gf I I
li:Ja3 d5 ( I I . . . b5 1 2 li:Jd5 ! t; I I . . .
f5 1 2 ...d3 !) 1 2 cd t, e.g. 1 2 . . . b5
1 3 li:Jc2 f5 ( 1 3 . . . b4 1 4 li:Jxb4) 1 4 a3 .
I) 6 . . . d6 !? i s the m ain alternative:
7 .txf6 (7 e4 !? intending 7 . . . li:J xe4
8 li:J xe4 .txe4 9 ._.e2 with attack is
well met by 7 . . . li:J bd7! =) 7 . . . gf
8 e3 ( 8 e4 li:Jc6 9 .te2 litg8 1 0 �0
li:J xd4 I I ._.xd4 .tg7 = Vera­
Lebredo, Cuban Ch 1982; Lebredo's
9 li:Jc2!? should be tried) 8 . . . li:Jc6
(8 . . . h5!? 9 h4 e6 I 0 li:Jde2 t with
the idea li:Jf4, .te2-f3; 8 . . . e6 9
'ii'h5 'ii' c8 !? 10 .te2 li:Jc6 I I .tf3
li:Jd8 1 2 0-0 .txO 1 3 'ii' xO .te7 1 4
litfd l ± Kavalek-Kudrin, Berkeley
1 984. H ere 9 . . . 1!re7 10 .te2 li:Jc6
I I .if3 li:Jxd4 1 2 ed .txO 1 3 'ii'xf3
was t in Agza mov- Bonsch, Sochi
1 984) 9 'ii' h 5 (9 li:Jde2!? intending
li:Jf4 should be considered) 9 . . .
'ii'd7 1 0 li:J d5 li:J xd4 I I e d llg8 !?
(intending . . . litg6, . . . e6) 12
.td3 ! ? lit xg2 1 3 .tf5 Wa4 1 4 1irf3
1i'a5+ 1 5 b4 ?! ( 1 5 �fl .txd5 1 6 cd
lit d8 1 7 a3 is crucial - Scoones) 1 5
. . . .txd5 1 6 'ii'b3 'ii'b5 ! 1 7 cb
.txb3 1 8 .te4 ( 1 8 ab litg5 ! ) 18 . . .
litg4 1 9 .txa8 .t a4 and Black
stood well in Butnorius-Palatnik ,
Krasnodar 1 980. A very unclear
line.
7 .txf6
a) The gambit 7 e4! ? is extremely
in teresting after 7 . . . li:Jxe4 8 li:Jxe4
.txe4 9 t!fe2: (216)
2 16
B
Now Black has:
a l ) 9 . .. .tb7 10 li:Jf5 ! d5 ( 10 . . . d6?
I I 0-0-0) I I 0-0-0 ( I I cd t!fd7 ! - 1 1
. . . t!Vxd5 ?? 1 2 li:Jxg 7+ - 1 2 li:J e 3 f6!
in tending . . . e6 ro) is complex but
promising for White.
a2) 9 ... d5 10 f3 .tg6 I I t!fe3 ( I I
�0-0!?) I I . . . 'ii'd 7 ( I I . . . 'ii'd6 !?) 1 2
ll c l e6 1 3 cd .tb4+ 1 4 � f2 0-0 1 5
d e (Scoones).
a3) 9 . . . .i g6 10 g4! f6 I I .tg2 lita7
12 .id2 !? e6 1 3 lld l ( l 3 0-0 looks
more accuxate) 1 3 . . . flc7 (or 1 3 . . .
'ii'c 8) 1 4 0-0 h5? ( 1 4 . . . �f7! 1 5 f4
.tc5 1 6 .tc3 lite8 - Kotov) 1 5
li:J xe6! de 1 6 11Vxe6+ t!fe7 ( 1 6 . . .
.te7 K otov, but 1 7 .if4) 1 7 t!fxb6
'ikc7 1 8 ll fe l + .ie7 1 9 lhe7+!
�xe7 20 .tb4+ �f7 2 1 .idS+ �e8
22 'ii'e 6+ �d8 23 .tb7+ t!fd7 24
.ta5 mate, Zilberstein-Kim, USSR
1978.
This gambit has gone unrepeated,
as far as I k now, but has obvious
 2 li:J./3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves
merits i n terms o f development
and o pe n lines.
b ) 7 f3 e6 8 e4 'ti'c7 ( 8 d6 9 'ti'd 2
0 0 0
li:J bd7 1 0 .ie2 .ie7 I I 0-0 0-0 =
Smyslov- Botvinnik, USSR 1 967 )
9 'ti'd2 li:Jc6 I 0 li:Jxc6 de I I 0-0-0
.ie7 = Zi l berstei n-Suetin, USSR
1 974.
c) 7 l:lcl e6 8 f3 h6 9 .ih4 .ie7 I 0
'ti'b3 'ti'c7 = Dzibuan- Vaiser, A lma
A t a 1 978.
d ) 7 'ti'c2 h6 (or 7 c6 8 e4 d6 = )
o o •
8 .ih4 'i!fc7 9 e3 c6 I 0 li:Jf3 d 6
= Po mar- Lj u bojevic, Pa lma d e
Mallorca 1 972.
e ) 7 li:JfS!? 'ti'c7 8 'ti'd4( ! ) is o f note,
e.g. 8 . . . li:Jc6 9 li:Jd5 li:Jxd5 I 0
li:J xg7+ .i xg7 I I 1!t'xg7 1!t'e5 1 2
'ti'xe5 li:J xe5 1 3 cd .ixd5 1 4 f3 1;2 - 1;2
Rash kovsky-Psa khis , U S S R 1 9 79 .
White is better if he c a n neutralise
Blac k's lead in development.
7 gf (2 1 7)
21 7
w b) 9 li:Jde2!? is again i nterest ing,
8 e3
a ) 8 li:J fS !? b 5 ! ? 9 a 3 ! be 1 0 e4 li:Jc6
I I .ixc4 e6 1 2 li:Jd6 + .ixc6 1 3
'i!Vxd6 llc8 1 4 0-0, Rash k ovsky-
2J J
Sueti n , USSR 1 974; 1 4 li:Je5 ! 15
0 0 0
.ie2 ifc7 1 6 llad l 'i!Vxd6 1 7 li[ xd6
�e7 1 8 ll fd l llc6 = (Suetin ). Still
bet t er 8 ifc7 ( ! ) 9 li:Jd5 !? ( best
o o .
see ms 9 c4 e6 1 0 li:Jg3) 9 .i xd5
0 0 0
1 0 'i!fxd5 ( I 0 cd? c6 ! I I d6 'ilc5 1 2
ll c l 'ifa5+ etc) 1 0 . . . li:Jc6 I I ll d l
e6 1 2 li:Jd6 .i xd6 +.
b) 8 e4 e6 9 g3 ( 9 .ie2 'ti'c7 1 0 0-0
h5 ! ? I I a3 li:Jc6 1 2 �h I h4 1 3 f4 f5!
14 ef h3 1 5 .i f3 hg+ 16 .ixg2 0- 0-0
with an attac k , C. H ansen-Piaskett,
Co pen hagen 1 98 5 ) 9 . . . .ib4 10
.ig2 .ixc3+ ( 10 . . . 'ti'c7 ) I I be 'i!Vc7
1 2 0-0 d6 1 3 ll e l li:J d7 1 4 't!fh5 �e7
with play against t he c-pawns,
H ausner-Tseshkovsky, Banja L uka
1 98 1 .
8 e6
9 'ti'hS!?
a) 9 a3 f5 ! ? 1 0 ll g l .ig7 I I g4 f4 !?
1 2 ef li:Jc6 1 3 li:J xc6 .i xc6 1 4 llg3
'ti'c7 oo Peresipkin-Zaid, Alma
Ata 1 977; simply 9 ... 't!fc7 (prevent­
ing 1 0 ll g l ) was easier.
with the idea 9 . . . .ih6 10 li:Jg3 or 9
. . . 't!fc7 1 0 li:Jf4. I feel that this is
W h ite's best chance for advantage.
9 'ti'c7!
"=" ( Psakhis), t hreatening . . .
'i!fe5 , e . g . 1 0 0-0-0 'ti'e5 I I 'i!fh3
.ib4!? etc. Lerner- Psak h i s, R iga
1 98 5 , went 1 0 li:Jf3 'i!fc5 I I 'ti'h4 f5
1 2 .ie2 .ig7 1 3 0-0 li:Jc6 1 4 ll a c l
li:J e 5 1 5 'i!fg3 li:J g6 1 6 ll fd l llc8 ! 1 7
a3 'ti'c7 = .
The two k ey li nes w i t h regard t o
212 2 &i:Jf3 &i:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves
6 i.g5 are 6 . . . d6, when 7 .txf6 gf
8 e3 is critical , and 6 . . . a6, when
both 7 e4! ? and the line 7 .txf6 gf
8 e3 should be investigated.
E2
6 f3 (2 18)
E2 l 6 . . . &i:Jc6
E22 6 . . . d6
a) 6 ... d5 7 cd &i:J xd 5 8 &i:Jxd5
(8 &i:Jdb5!?) 8 ... 1t"xd5 9 e4 ±.
b7 6 ... e5 7 &i:Jdb5 d5 (7 . . . e4 8
&i:Jd6+ .txd6 9 t!t'xd6 ±) 8 &i:J xd5
.txd5 (8 ... lt:lxd5 9 cd i.b4+ 10
i.d2 a6 - 10 ... .txd5 11 e4! - I I
lt:lc7+ ..Wxc7 1 2 .txb4 1t"c4 1 3 .tc3
± Mi nev) 9 cd .tb4+ 10 .td2
lt:lxd5 I I e4 a6 ( I I . .. lt:l e3 1 2
.txb4 ±± ) 1 2 e d a b 1 3 .txb5+
lt:ld7 1 4 0-0 ±± Hort-Si kora,
Trzyniec 1 972.
c) 6 . . . e6 7 e4 is the main line; h ere
7 .. . i.b4 transposes to 5 f3 e6
above.
E21
6 lt:lc6
7 e4 e6
7 . . . 1i'b8 8 .te3 e6 is the main
line. 7 . . . lt:l xd4 8 't!Vxd4 e6 ( 8 . . .
d6!? 9 i.g5 e6 1 0 c5 ! b e I I 't!Va4+
�e7 1 2 e5 ! with a big attack,
Santos-Soylu, Budva 1 98 1 ) 9 .te3
.tc5 I 0 1t"d2 0-0 I I 0-0-0 .txe3 1 2
1Wxe3 e5 1 3 g4! with attack ,
Pomar-Robatsch, Sant Feliu 1 973.
8 .te3
8 lt:l xc6 .txc6!? (8 . . . de =) 9 e5
lt:lh5! (Spraggett).
8 "i!n>8
a) 8 . . .te7 9 .te2 0-0 l 0 0-0 1t"bS
.
( 1 0 . . . d6 I I 't!Vd2 lt:le5 1 2 lifd l ::t:)
I I f4 ( I I lt:lc2 was recommended .
Then I I . . . lidS - Scoones - would
meet 1 2 f4 by 1 2 . . . d 5 ! 1 3 cd ed 1 4
e 5 d 4 1 5 lt:lxd4 lt:lxd4 etc) I I . . .
lt:lxd4 1 2 1t"xd4 ! d5 ! 1 3 cd e d 1 4 e5
.tc5 1 5 t!t'd3 d4 =/ ro Khasin­
Zelandinov, USSR 1 975. This is
an important sidelin e.
b) 8 . . i.b4 !? 9 lic l lieS 1 0 a3 .te7
.
(Zai tsev) is untested.
c) 8 ... i.c5!? 9 1t"d2 (9 .te2 0-0 10
0-0 d5 !) 9 . . . 0-0 10 0-0-0 ..We7 I I
i.e2 li fdS 1 2 li he l d5 1 3 cd lt:lxd4
1 4 i.xd4 ed 1 5 e5 lt:ld7 1 6 f4
- Spraggett-Spassky, M ontpellier
19S5; 16 . . . .txd4 ! 17 1t"xd4 lt:lc5 =
and . . . lt:le6 (Spraggett).
9 't!Vd2
9 i.e2 i.d6 ! is harder to meet.
9 .td6
9 . .. .tc5 1 0 i.e2 0-0 I I lid I
&i:Je5 ? ! ( I I . . . lidS + Taima nov) 1 2
lt:ldb5 ! a6 1 3 lt:ld6 V ± Taimanov­
Ta l, USSR Ch 1 973.
1 0 lt:ldb5! .te5
 2 ti:Jf3 ti:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves 213

10 . . . i.xh2 I I l hh2 ! . 8 i.e2 i.e7 9 0-0 ti:Jbd7 (9 . . . 0-0

II f4 i.xc3 10 b3 !? ti:J bd7 I I 'it>h i a6 I 2 i.b2
1 2 ti:Jxc3 0-0 (2 19) l:te8 13 't!t'd2, Uhlmann-Ljubojevic,
Madrid I 973; I 3 . . . llf8 = with the
2/9 · � i. � · · � idea . . . 't!t'c7 , . . . Ii: ac8, . . . 't!t'b8 ) 1 0
w �� ... •
�
� �
-• & • & � &
• • �•a • ti:Jdb5 !? ( 1 0 i. e 3 transposes) 1 0 . . .
� --
- .·- �- . . 't!t'b8 I I i.f4 ti:Je5 1 2 a4 0- 0 1 3 'it>h i
� � � � ll c8 I 4 't!t'b3 a6 1 5 ti:Ja3 i.c6 =/oo
����� � Htibner-Ljubojevic, Montreal I979.
•
• � �ffl, wr� •.
8 i.e7
8 . . . a6 9 i.e2 ti:Jbd7 I 0 a4 ! ? i.e7
� � �D1. - � �-
�-� � . � �
is also playable, but not 1 0 . . . d5?!
�--·� � �-� i.. � g I I ed ed I2 0-0 de 13 i.xc4 ti:Je5 I 4
Now harmless is 1 3 e5 ti:Jg4 ll e l ! ± Pomar-Gheorghiu, Torre­
1 4 i. g l f6 1 5 1!fxd7 ( 1 5 h3 ti:Jh6 1 6 molinos 1 973.
ef lhf6 1 7 i.e3 ti:Jf5 = Scoones­ 9 i.e2
Spraggett, Budapest 1 984. But 9 't!t'd2 0-0 10 0-0-0!? a6 I I g4
White has two other advantageous ti:Jfd7 !? ( I I . . . ti:Jc6; 1 1 . . . ti:Jbd7
moves: 1 3 0-0-0 J:ld8 1 4 e5 ti:Je8 I 5 Plask ett) I 2 h4 ti:Jc6 1 3 g5 1!fc7 I4
c5 ti:Jb4! 1 6 'it>b i ti:Jc7 I 7 h4 i.c6 I 8 'it>bl ti:Jxd4 1 5 't!t'xd4 l:t fc8 =/oo
a3 ti:Jbd5 1 9 ti:Jxd5 ti:Jxd5 was Plaskett- A kesson, Esbjerg 1982.
Gheorghiu-Adorjan, Biel I983; 20 9 0-0
llh3! ti:Jxe3 2 1 1!fxe3 ± (Gheorghiu); 10 0-0 (220)
or 1 3 i.e2 ('T Informant) I 3 . . .
lld8 I 4 0-0 d 5 ! ( 1 4 . . . ti:Je7? 1 5 220
i.d4 ! ti:Je8 I 6 llae i ± G reenfeld­ B

Miles, London I 984) I 5 cd ed I 6

e5 t (Mi les), the point being that
I 6 . . . d4 I 7 ef de I8 't!t'xe3 favours
Wh ite.
E22
6 d6
7 e4 e6
7 . . . g6 8 i.d3 i.g7 9 i.e3 0-0 I 0
0-0 ti:Jbd7 I I 't!t'd2 a6 I 2 ll fd i is a 10 ti:Jbd7
Kan Sicilian, c onsidered better for IO . . . a6 I l 't!t'e l ( ! , since l l . . . d5
White after 't!t'f2, b4, ti:Jb3 etco. 1 2 cd ed 13 e5 is strong) I I . . .
8 i.e3 lt:lbd7 ( I I . . . lle8 1 2 't!t'f2 ti:J bd7 1 3
 214 2 fi:Jj3 fi:Jj6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves
lilfd l ;I;) 1 2 1t'f2 ( 1 2 Wg3 ! ? with the
idea 12 . . . 1t'c7 1 3 fi:Jd 5 ! 'it'dS 1 4
fi:Jxe7+ 1t'xe7 1 5 lilfe l ! can be met
by 1 2 . . . li eS) 12 ... lieS ( 1 2 . . .
lilbS!? Byrne) 1 3 lilac l 1t'c7 1 4 b4
'it'bS 1 5 a3 lileS 1 6 lilfd l .idS 1 7
fi:Jb3 ( 1 7 �h l .ic7 l S t!i'g l !
Gurevich) 1 7 . . . .ic7 l S g3 .iaS !
( l S . . . h6 1 9 .id4 lilcdS 20 a4 ! ±
Seirawan-Benj amin, US Ch 19S l )
1 9 lil b l !? ( l 9 c5!? Gurevich) 1 9 . . .
d 5 ( 1 9 . . . h5!? Gu revich) 20 cd ed
21 fi:Jxd5 .ixd5 22 ed .ixg3 ! 23 hg
lilxe3 = Strauss-D.Gurevich, USA
1 9S5.
This bodes well for Black's
main line position, since White
has effectively saved the tempo
.ifl in the above line.
11 t!i'd2
1 1 fi:J db5 'it'bS 1 2 t!i'd2 lildS ( 1 2
. . . a6 1 3 fi:Jd4 lil eS = ) 1 3 lifd l a6 1 4
fi:Ja3 ? ! d5! + Gheorghi u-Ma rovi c,
Skopje 1 96S.
11 a6
Versus fi:Jdb5. 1 1 . . . fi:Jc5 !? 1 2
lifd l d5!? 1 3 cd e d 1 4 fi:Jf5 de 1 5
't!t'e l fi:Jed7 1 6 't!t'g3 oo, with attac k .
12 lilfd 1
1 2 a 4 li e S 1 3 lifd l lieS 1 4 a 5 ? !
d5! 1 5 cd ed 1 6 fi:Jxd5 ?! .ixd5 1 7
ed fi:Jxd5 =F Panno- Lj uboj evic,
Madrid 1 973.
12 lic8
a) 12 ... t!i'c7 1 3 a4 !?. Else 1 3 li ac l
lilfeS 1 4 .ifl lilacS 1 5 t!i'f2 't!t'bS = ,
a typical line.
b) 1 2 .. lile8 13 .ifl lilacS ( 1 3 . . .
.
.i ffi 1 4 lilac l t!i'c7 1 5 b4 litacS 1 6
a 3 't!t'bS 1 7 fi:Jb3 t Polugayevsky­
Ljubojevic, Bugojno 1 9SO) 14
lilac l 't!t'c7 1 5 �h l ( l 5 b4? d5! 1 6 cd
.ixb4; 1 5 a3) 15 . . . 't!t'b8 16 .ig 1 .iffi
= Yusupov-Tses hkovsky, USSR
19S l .
13 liac1 't!t'c7
Or 1 3 . . . lileS 1 4 .ifl ( 1 4 lLlc2
.iffi 1 5 .if2 't!t'c7 1 6 fi:Je3 fi:Je5 =
Eising-Tarjan, Wij k aa n Zee 1 974)
14 . . . .iffi 15 .if2, Ogaard-Omstein,
Eksjo 1 975; 1 5 . . . 't!Vc7 16 a3 li:le5
17 b3 't!t'b8 = .
1 4 .ifl
14 b4 d5!?. 14 't!Ve l lifeS ( 1 4 . . .
't!VbS 1 5 't!t'f2 .idS) 1 5 t!i'g3 .iffi 1 6
li:l b 3 li:l e 5 1 7 t!i'f2 li:lfd7 l S li:la4
li:lc5 19 lLl xeS - I vanov-Sa von,
Kishinev 1 975; 19 . . . be intending
. . . li:lc6, . . . e5 , . . . li:ld4 (Gufeld).
14 't!t'b8
Or, as usual, 1 4 . . . lieS. Here 1 5
a3 !? 't!t'bS ( 1 5 . . . li:le5 !?) 1 6 b4 .idS
17 li:l b3 li:le5 l S li:la4 d5 ! =/ro
 2 li:Jj3 li:Jf6 3 d4: Various 4th Moves
a) 16 li:Jc2 i.fl! 1 7 b3 b5 =, or here
16 . . . i.d8 - com pare (b).
b) 16 li:Jb3 i.d8 1 7 i.d4 i.c7 1 8 g3
lil cd8 1 9 li:Jd2, B radford-Sh apiro,
St. Paul 1 982, and simplest is 19 . . .
i.c6 =.
16 .td8
Several games have gone 16 . . .
.t fl! 1 7 li:Jc2? ( 1 7 a 3 o r 1 7 li:Jb3) 1 7
. . . li:Je5! e.g. 1 8 i.xb6 ( 1 8 li:Ja3 d5 ! )
1 8 . . . li:Jxc4 1 9 i.xc4 li xc4 20 li:Je3
( 20 i.d4 li:Jd7 2 1 't!rg3 lil c6 22 li:Je3
e5 23 li:Jf5 d5! =F Hort-Lj ubojevic,
Wij k a an Zee 1 973) 20 . . . lilc6 2 1
i.a5 d5 ! 22 ed ed 23 li:Jf5 d4 ! 24
li:Jxd4 l:lc5 25 i.b6 1lh5 =F Webb­
Hartston, British Ch 1977.
17 't!rgl
Not 1 7 b4 ?! li:Je5 1 8 li:Ja4 d5 ! or
1 7 li:Jb3? ! i.c7 1 8 't!rg 1 ct>h 8 1 9
lilc2 l:lg8 ! 20 1lcd2 g5! with
attack, Taimanov-Yusupov, USSR
1 982. And 17 b3 i.c7 1 8 't!rh4 ( 1 8
li:Jde2 Yus upov) 1 8 . . . li:Je5 1 9 't!rh3
li:Jg6 20 i.g5 i.d8 2 1 lile I l:lc5 !
2 15
intending . . . 1l h5 , . . . d5 was also
favourable for Black in Grigorian­
Agza mov , USSR 1 98 1 .
A fter the text move, Ani kayev­
Merkulov, USSR 1982, went 17 . . .
li:Je5 (Ani kayev gives 1 7 . . . i.c7
18 b4 1le7 19 a3 1lce8 20 i.f2
with advantage to White; however,
1 8 . . . ct>h8 may be possible,
intending . . . lilg8, . . . g5 , as above)
1 8 b3 h6 19 li:Ja4, and instead of 19
. . . d5? 20 ed ed 21 c5 b5 2 2 li:J b6 ±,
Anikayev gives 1 9 ... li:Jfd7 20 b4
g5!? 2 1 a3 <tig7 (or 2 1 . . . ct>h7
Scoones) with a complex position,
perhaps a bit in White's favou r.
Conclusion: White may have
some kind of theoretical edge if
there is some sequence by which
he achieves the a3, b4, li:Jb3 bind.
Practice shows that this is a very
big "if', however. For now, both
of B lack's basic plans - with . . .
i.d8-c7 a n d . . . i.f8 - look quite
playable.
Index of Variations and Transpositions

Transpositions a bound in the Symmetrical English, and are mentioned

throughout the text. This i ndex is designed to help the reader find h is
way through the various move orders to the pages which cover a
particular sequence of interes t. Transpositions on later moves are dealt
with in the text.
Unless o therwise i ndicated, parentheses without a page n umber mean
that the enclosed moves are analysed in the note to the move preceding
the parentheses, or that they are minor alternatives (discussed in the text
at the beginning of the spli t into major alternatives). If the move in
parentheses transposes to another part of the book, the relevant page
n umber follows.

1 c4 c5 and·
2 lil c3 lilc6 ( 2 . . . Others)
II 2 lilc3 lilf6
III 2 lilf3
IV 2 O thers

2 lil c3 lilc6
2 . . . e6 3 lilf3 (3 e4 lilf6 is English 1 . . . N-KB3 Systems) 3 . . . lilf6 (3 . . . d5
4 cd ed 5 d4 or 4 d4 is a Queen's Gambit) 4 g3 (4 d4 cd 5 lil xd4 is
Chapter 1 4) is Chapter 7
2 . . . g6 3 d4 6
2 . . . e5 3 g3 ( 3 lilf3 lilc6 121 ) 3 . . . lil c6 4 .ig2 d6 5 e3 6
2 . . . b6 3 e3 6
3 g3
3 e3 6
3 lilf3:
3 . . . e5 121
3 . . . g6 Chapter 1 0
 Index of Variations and Transpositions 21 7

3 . . . e6 4 g3 (4 d4 cd 5 lLlxd4 189) 4 . . . lLlf6 Chapter 7

3 . . . lLl f6 4 g3 (4 d4 cd is Chapter 1 3) 4 . . . g6
5 J.g2 J,g7 Chapters 3. 4
3 ... g6 (3 . .. e6, 3 . . . e5) 4 J.gl (4 b3 , 4 a3) 4 .. J,g7 5 lLlf3
.

5 a3 (5 lLlh3):
5 ... lLl f6 (5 . . . . e5, 5 . . . J.xc3, 5 ... a5, 5 ... b6) 8
5 . . . e6 9
5 . .. d6 12
5 . . . a6 12
5 b3 :
5 . . . lLl f6 (5 . . . e5, 5 . . . b6, 5 ... d6, 5 . . . J.xc3) 14
5 . . . e6 15
5 d3:
5 . . . e6 ( 5 ... e5, 5 ... lLlf6, 5 . . . l:t b8 ) 1 7
5 . . . d6 1 7
5 e4:
5 . . . e6 ( 5 . . . e5, 5 . . . b6, 5 . . . a6) 20
5 . . . lLl f6 2 1
5 e3:
5 . . . e 5 ( 5 . . . a6, 5 . . . lLlh6, 5 . . . J.xc3+, 5 . . . h 5 , 5 . . . d6) 26
5 . . . lLl f6 2 7
5 . . . e 6 29
s ... lLl f6
5 . . . a6 ( 5 . . . l:t b8, 5 . . . lLlh6) 50
5 . . . d6 5 1
5 . . . e 6 52
6 0-0 (6 d3, 6 b3 , 6 h4, 6 e3, 6 a3) 54
6 d4 58
5 . . . e5 60
6 0-0 (6 d3)
6 d4 38
6 ... 0-0
6 . . . d6 38
6 . . . d5 7 cd lLlxd5 8 lLlxd5 (8 d3, 8 ira4 , 8 irb3 , 8 lLlg5) 34
7 d4 (7 d3 9) 7 ... cd (7 . . . d5, 7 . . d6) 8 lLlxd4
. Chapter 4
218 Index of Variations and Transpositions

II
2 lt:lc3 lt:lf6
3 g3
3 lLl f3 and:
3 . . . g6 4 d4 (4 e3 i.g7 5 d4 cd 6 ed d5 is a Grti nfeld) 4 . . . cd
5 lt:lxd4 202
3 . . . b6 4 e4 (4 e3) 4 . . . i.b7 (4 . . . d6, 4 . . . lt:lc6) 125
3 . . . e6 4 g3 (4 d4 cd 5 lt:lxd4 is Chapter 1 4 ) Chapter 7
3 . . . d5 4 cd lt:lxd5:
5 e4 (5 li:lxd5, 5 1i'a4):
5 ... lt:l xc3 99
5 . . . lt:lb4 100
5 d4 109
5 e3 1 1 1
5 g3:
5 ... lt:lc7 is Chapter 6
5 . . . lt:lc6 6 i.g2 (6 'i!t'b3 , 6 lt:lxd5 ) 6 . . . g6 32
5 . . . g6 (5 . . . lt:lf6) 6 i.g2 (6 'i!t'a4+, 6 'i!t'b3) 1 13
3 ... e6
3 . . . d5 4 cd lt:lxd5 5 i.g2 lt:lc7 (5 . . . lt:l f6, 5 . . . lt:lb4, 5 . . . e6 , 5 . . . lt:l b6,
5 ... lt:lxc 3 68 ) and:
6 'i!t'b3 (6 a3, 6 lt:lh3, 6 f4, 6 b3, 6 'i!t'a4+) 70
6 d3 71
6 lt:lf3 73
4 li:lf3
4 i.g2 d5 82
4 ... lt:lc6
4 . . . d5 5 cd ed (5 . . . lt:l xd5 83 ) 6 d4 is a Queen's Gambi t
4 . . . a6 83
4 . . . b6 5 e4 (5 i.g2 i.b7 is Chapter 1 1 ) 5 . . . i.b7 126
5 i.g2 i.e7 (5 . . . 'i!t'b6 83 ) 6 0-0 d5 (6 . . . 0-0 83 ) 7 cd lt:l xd5
( 7 . . . ed is a Queen's Gambit ) :
8 d4 0-0 (8 . . . lt:l xc3 84) 9 e4 (9 de, 9 lit b 1 ) 84
8 lt:lxd5 ed (8 . . . 1i'xd5) 9 d4 91
 Index of Variations and Transpositions 219

Ill

2 lLl f3 lLlf6
2 b6 3 g3 .i.b7 4 .i.g2 lLlf6, see Chapters 1 1 and 1 2
. ..
2 . ..
e6 3 d4 cd 4 ll:l xd4 ll:lc6 120
2 f5 1 20
...
2 ...
g6 155
2 lbc6 :
. ..
3 d4 cd 4 ll:lxd4 e6 (4 . . . d5 , 4 . . . 't!t'b6 ) 120
3 lil c3 g6 ( 3 . . . e5 12 1 ) 4 e3 (4 a3 , 4 d4 128 ) 129
3 g3 e5 (3 . . . g6) 4 .i.g2 f5 121
3 d4 (3 e3, 3 b4, 3 b3 122 )
3 lil c3, see I I
3 g3 b6 ( 3 . . . d5 1 22 ; 3 . . . g6 124 ) 4 .i.g2 .i.b7 5 0-0 (5 ll:lc3 e6
6 d4 132 ; 5 ll:lc3 g6 155 ) and:
5 . . . e6 6 ll:lc3 (6 d3, 6 d4 133 ) 6 . . . .i.e7 (6 . . . a6 152 ) 7 d4
(7 b3, 7 l:i:e 1 135 ; 7 d3 137) 7 . . . cd (7 .. 0-0, 7 . . . ll:le4 139 )
.

8 Wxd4 (8 ll:lxd4 139):

8 ... ll:l c6 140
8 . . . 0-0 140
8 . . . d6 142
5 . . . g6:
6 lil c3 (6 d4, 6 e3) 6 . . . .i.g7 7 d4 (7 d3 160) 7 . . . cd
(7 . . . ll:le4 156 ) 1 5 7
6 b 3 .i.g7 (6 . . . d5 161 ) 7 .i.b2 0-0 8 ll:lc3 (8 d 4 162 ) 1 63
3 ... cd (3 . . . d5 201 ) 4 lilxd4 ll:lc6
4 ... d5 ( 4 . . . d6) 201
4 ... g6 202
4 ... a6 203
4 ... e5 204
4 ... b6 209
4 ... e6:
5 g3 (5 e3, 5 ll:ldb5 ) 5 . . . Wc7 (5 . . . d5, 5 . . . a6, 5 . . . Wb6 185 ;
5 . . . Wa5 + , 5 . . . .i.b4+ 185 ) 187
5 ll:l c3:
5 ... .i.b4 (5 ... b6, 5 ... a6) 6 g3 (6 Others 189 ) :
220 Index of Variations and Transpositions

6 . . . ltJe4 190
6 . . . 0-0 193
5 . . . d5 199
5 ltJ c3 (5 g3, 5 Others 166 ) 5 ..• e6 (5 . . . Others 168 ):
6 ltJ db5 :
6 ... .i.b4 (6 . . . .i.c 5, 6 . . . d6 ) 1 70
6 ... d5 1 72
6 g3:
6 ... .i.b4 (6 . . . Others) 1 76
6 ... .i.c5 1 77
6 ... 't!t'b6 1 79

IV
2 b3
2 e4 ltJc6 3 ltJ c3 g6 4 .i.g2, see Chapter 2
2 e3 ltJf6 3 ltJc3 d5 4 cd ltJxd5 5 ltJO 1 1 1
2 g3:
2 ... g6 ( 2 ... d5 1 19) 3 .i.g2 ( 3 d4 1 19 ) 3 ... .i.g7 4 ltJc3 , see
Chapters l -5
2 . . . e6 3 .ig2 (3 ltJf3 ltJf6 4 .ig2 b6 is Chapter I I ) 3 . . . d5 120
2 ... ltJf6 (2 . . . Others 1 1 7 ; 2 . . . e5 1 1 9 ) 3 .ib2:
3 . . . g6 ( 3 . . . Others) 118
3 ... ltJ c6 118