BLACK R E P E R T O I R E

FOR TOURNAMENT PLAYERS

Stefan Kindermann

S
' ;

n
V I " '
Progress inChess

Volume 16 of the ongoing series

Editorial board
GM Victor Korchnoi
GM Helmut Pfleger
GM Nigel Short
GM Rudolf Teschner

2005
EDITION OLMS

0
Stefan Kindermann

Leningrad System
Jf

A complete Weapon against 1 d4

BLACK REPERTOIRE

2005
EDITION OLMS

O
Also available:

Kindermann, The Spanish Exchange Variation

A Fischer Favourite ISBN 3-283-00479-X

Bibliographic Information published by

Die Deutsche Bibliothek

Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the

Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic
data is available in the internet at http://dnb.ddb.de.
V________________________________________________ J

Copyright © 2005 Edition Olms AG

Breitlenstr. 11 • CH-8634 Hombrechtikon/Zurich, Switzerland
E-mail: info@edition-oims.com
Internet: www.edition-olms.com

All rights reserved. This book is sold subject to the condition mat it shall not by way of trade
or otherwise, be lent re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated in any form.qf binding or cover
other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition
being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

Printed in Germany

Translator: Brian Ings

Editor: Ken Neat
Typesetting by Art & Satz • Ulrich Dirr, D-80331 Munchen
Printed by: Druckerei Friedr. Schmucker GmbH, 049624 Loningen
Cover: Eva Konig, D-22769 Hamburg

ISBN 3-283-00478-1
 a

Contents

1 History and Introduction............................................................................................. 7

1.1 Foreword to the English edition.......................................................................... 13

1.2 Foreword to the German edition........................................................................ 14

2 Typical themes and ideas...........................................................................................16

2.1 Black themes....................................................................................................... 16

(1) The advance of the f-pawn - the ‘Dutch lance’ ........................................... 16
(2) The advance of the black e-pawn................................................................. 19
(3) Black kingside attack - the g-file................................................................. 21
(4) Black queenside attack................................................................................. 22
(5) Black play on the queenside.......................................................................... 22
(6) Black pressure on d 5 .....................................................................................23
(7) The white dark-square bishop as object of attack..................................... 23
(8) The exchange on e 6 .......................................................................................24
(9) The ‘Dutch king’.............................................................................................. 24
(10) Leningrad Stonewall.....................................................................................25

2.2 White themes...................................................................................................... 26

(1) The white advance e 4 ................................................................................... 26
(2) The square e6..................................................................................................27
(3) White attack on the queenside.................................................................... 28
(4) The central lever c 4 -c 5 ................................................................................. 29
* (5) Attacking with the h-pawn........................................................................... 30

3 Illustrative g a m e s ....................................................................................................... 32

3.1 Main line 7 £>c3 We8 8 d5 a 5 ............................................................................. 32

3.1.1 9 Ae3 (Yusupov-Bareev)....................................................................... 32
3.1.2 9 £»d4 (van der Sterren-Nikolic)............................................................ 40
3.1.3 9£}e1 (Rogozenko-McDonald).............................................................. 45
3.1.4 9 Ad2 (Beliavsky-Glek)...........................................................................49
<1?

3.2 Alternative main line 8 d5 £}a6 (Beliavsky-Kindermann)............................... 53

3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for W hite....................................................................... 60
3.3.1 8 b3 (Ibragimov-Kramnik).........................................................................60
3.3.2 The knight move 8 £id5 (Lugovoi-Kindermann).................................... 67
3.3.3 My special recommendation for White, 8 He1
(Filippov-Potapov & Filippov-Zhang).....................................................74
3.3.4 8 ®b3 (Yusupov-Kindermann)............................................................... 84
3.4 Various systems with b 3 .................................................................................... 87
3.4.1 White plays b3, c4 followed by an early d5; White omits c4
(Tukmakov-Malaniuk).............................................................................. 87
3.4.2 White systems with b3 and c4 without an early £ic3
(Damljanovic-Onischuk).......................................................................... 92
3.4.3 The alternative: the central 7...£*e4 (Hansen-Berg)...............................98
3.5 White systems with £±>d2 followed by e4 and/or c3 and b4
(Weber - Ki nderman n)......................................................................................... 102
3.6 White systems with an early b4 (Chekhov-Vyzhmanavin)............................106
3.7 Karlsbad Variation (4»h3)...................................................................................110
3.7.1 White plays c4 (Sher-Beim)................................................................... 110
3.7.2 White omits c4 (Krasenkow-Malaniuk).................................................117
3.8 System with 4 c3 and 5 # b 3 (Anand-Fritz)....................................................123
3.9 Leningrad Stonewall after 4 c3 (Gavrikov-Vyzhmanavin)..............................129
3.10 The move order 1 d4, 2 c4, 3 £lc3 (Claesen-Gurevich)............................... 133
3.11 System with 2 £rf3 £}f6 3 Ag5 or 3 Af4 (Oms Pallise-Movsziszian)........... 137
3.12 System with 2 £>c3 (Gurevich-Topalov)......................................................... 143
3.13 System with 2 Ag5 (Lerner-Malaniuk).............................................................153
3.14 Staunton Gambit 2 e4 (Naumann - Kindermann)............................................ 163
3.15 Rare continuations for White at move 2 (Tregubov-Malaniuk).....................172
3.16 Countering flank openings: tips and suggestions.......................................... 177
3.16.1 The Lisitsyn Gambit (Zude-Lutz)..........................................................177
3.16.2 1 £if3 f5 2 d3! My secret tip for White! (Carlsen-Dolmatov).............. 179
3.16.3 Playing the Dutch against 1 c4 (Gelfand-Kindermann)....................... 184

4 A ppendix..................................................................................................................... 189
4.1 Bibliography.......................................................................................................189
4.2 Index of symbols................................................................................................ 191
4.3 Index of players................................................................................................. 192
4.4 Index of games................................................................................................... 195
4.5 Index of variations............................................................................................. 207

6
 a

1 History and Introduction

Dutch and Leningrad Systems: historical variation’ shows how closely Black is court­
development and the path to the main line ing disaster: 2 e4 g5?? 3 ®h5 mate.
with 7...&e8 8 dS; notes on the difficulties
of certain move sequences I # ▲f t I
k kkk A k
1 d4f5

a b c d e f g h kk
9
8 I 4AW I 8 AA
7 7
6 6
AAA AAA
$ H
5
4
k 5
4
fi,
(Analysis diagram after 3 &h5#)
A But with the right continuation, the pawn
3 3
A& A
push to f5 has much to recommend it. If
2 AAAA 2 White wishes to get in the desired advance
1 I ehA <1? S
h
1 e2-e4, he must, just as in the Sicilian de­
a b c d e f g fence, generally consent to the exchange of
a central pawn for a flank pawn, which in the
This black defence against the double ad­ long run will give Black a strategic advan­
vance of the d-pawn was first examined by tage.
the Dutch theoretician Elias Stein in his chess
The special virtue of the move 1...f5 is that it
treatise of 1789. Thus, according to accepted
provides Black with space on the kingside to
criteria for naming openings, calling it ‘The
expand and develop relatively undisturbed.
Dutch’ or ‘The Dutch Defence’ is quite feas­
The knight on f6 is on the whole safe from
ible.
I attack by the white pawns and Black dis­
What lies behind the black move, which poses, by and large, of a greater amount of
judged by classical opening principles space on the kingside than is the case with
seems a little strange? As with either 1...d5 other defensive systerhs. At the same time,
or 1 ...£tf6 Black strives to prevent the white as already mentioned, the black forces are
pawn push to e4, which would allow White to well placed to exercise significant influence
set up the ‘perfect centre’. 1...f5, of course, on the centre. Not infrequently Black has
in contrast to the other two candidate moves, prospects of a direct assault on the king, in
contributes nothing at all to Black’s develop­ which the f-pawn, after f5-f4 will often spear­
ment. In addition the crucial diagonals e8-h5 head the attack. Should Black succeed in
(of especial importance before castling) and favourable circumstances in getting in the
g8-a2 (of importance after castling short) are move ... e5 as well, he will often transpose
seriously weakened. The following ‘sample into a King’s Indian several tempi ahead. (In

7
 1 History and Introduction

the King’s Indian the knight on f6 has first to
move, to release the important f-pawn). The
white central thrust e2-e4 can prove double-
edged, since it opens up both the f-file and
the c8-h3 diagonal for Black. Experience
has shown that Black gets play all over the
board with the Leningrad System because
of his flexible and well-centred piece dis­
position, whilst for White, in contrast to the
King’s Indian, there is no clear line of play.
In sum, although Black is clearly taking some
strategic risks with this opening line, he has
in compensation excellent prospects of seiz­
ing the initiative and playing for a win.
i t i choose this opening according to who
my actual opponent is. If the opposition
lacks fire and all desire for battle, then
I especially like playing the Dutch. They
tread water to no good effect, whilst Black
seeks to create attacking chances on the
kingside.
David Bronstein
The Dutch brings out the “chicken” in
many players. Bent Larsen
Now it’s up to the reader to make up his own
mind!

Thus the Dutch Defence belongs to the range 2g3

of typically hypermodern openings, in which
Black does not, as in classical openings (like,
a b c d e f g h
for example, the Queen’s gambit) strive for
8 1*4.# J.*X 8
equality, but seeks instead to actively seize
the initiative. 7 ▲ ▲A ▲ 1 A A 7
6 6
This explains why few opening lines have
attracted such contrasting views from the 5 A 5
grandmasters as has the Dutch Defence: 4 A 4
3 A 3
One of the openings against which both
I and the majority of grandmasters are 2&DA AA A 2
delighted to play. 1 S£i0 &
1
Tigran Petrosian a b c d e f g h
ICYou can only play the Dutch against Since the beginning of the twentieth cen­
patzers... The only good thing about the tury it has been the consensus of almost all
Dutch is that it provokes your opponent the experts that fianchettoing White’s king
into premature attacks, (or words to that bishop is positionally the most advantageous
effect) way of handling the Dutch Defence. The
Victor Korchnoi bishop bears strongly on both the centre and
the black queenside and will simultaneously
fifi A sharp defence, which I only play in ex­ protect the white king from black attacks
ceptional circumstances. should White decide to castle short.
Alexander Alekhine
2...4tf6 3 Ag2
fit The problem with the Dutch is that in
many positions ...f5-f7 would be the best (see next diagram)
move, (or words to that effect)
Artur Yusupov Now the playable black lines diverge:

8

The oldest version of the Dutch Defence
must certainly be the ‘Stonewall’, which is
typified by the black pawn formation c 6-
d5-e6-f5, reminiscent of a bulwark in stone.
(Often the black c-pawn will stay on c7). A
frequently played modern move sequence
would be: 3...e6 4 £if3 d5 5 0-0 Ad6 6 c4
c6
I # i AA
1A AA
AA A f t
A A
AA
& A
AA A Ai A
0 £>4 Tgf n *
(Analysis diagram after 6... c6)
From the end of the 1930s up to the 1950s
both David Bronstein and especially Mikhail
Botvinnik had great success using this set­
up (at that time, incidentally, the king’s
bishop was mostly developed at el). And
in no other variation of the Dutch Defence
does Black actually have so much space
and stability in the centre; frequently anni­
hilating attacks could be worked up on the
kingside against unsuspecting opponents.
But the positional disadvantages are equally
obvious: the black pawn formation is some­
what rigid and has no dynamic potential.
9
(In the standard line Black can no longer
hope for promising changes to this pawn
set-up.) A crucial consideration is the weak­
ness of the dark squares: eventually a white
knight will gladly occupy the outpost on e5.
The hemmed-in bishop on c8 can also eas­
ily become a problem. So it was in the first
three decades of the twentieth century that
the Russian master and theoretician llyin-
Genevsky began experimenting with a differ­
ent central formation, which aimed at avoid­
ing the weakening of the dark squares and
keeping the centre mobile, but which, for
reasons mentioned below, never became
really popular: 3...e6 4 £rf3 A e l 5 0-0 0-0
6 c4 d6.
I ftA W I
AAA A AA
A Af t
A
£iA
AA A AAA
Ufa 0 I®
(Analysis diagram after 6...d6)
Here we see the classical and most frequent­
ly-played set-up for the white pieces, which
we shall take, at this point, as the basis for
investigation.
Black hopes to force ...e6-e5, which, in
favourable circumstances, would give him
good play. But this method of play has ser­
ious drawbacks: the bishop on e7 is rather
passive and generally it will not be difficult
for White to get in e2-e4, after which the
black e-pawn tends to be weak.
With that we come to ‘the best of all possible
Dutch worlds’, the Leningrad System.
3...g6! 4 £tf3 &g7 5 0-0 0 -0 6 c4 d6
(see next diagram)
 1 History and Introduction
Here, just as in the Ilyin-Genevsky vari­
ation, Black has a flexible centre and good
prospects of forcing through ...e5. But now
the king’s bishop is superbly positioned at g7
from where it can strongly (albeit indirectly)
influence the centre. At the same time the
other bishop is free to emerge, which will
be of particular importance after the disap­
pearance of the f5-pawn. (Either after ...f5-
f4 or after the exchange of the f5-pawn for
the white e-pawn). Should White succeed
in opening the e-file after e2-e4, the black
pawn on e7 will be generally easier to defend
than if it were on e6. Not least among Black’s
trumps is one often overlooked by critics:
It is in the endgame that the black king can
mostly intervene (via f7) much more quickly in
the play than can his white colleague, which
is one of the main reasons that Leningrad
endgames often turn out to be favourable to
Black.
According to Tim Harding, the first game
played with a Leningrad-type set-up (arrived
at, it is true, by a different order of moves)
was in 1874 (between Potter-Coburn and Bal­
lard). But this opening system subsequently
enjoyed little popularity.
The most important pioneer of this opening
in the twentieth century was definitely Saviely
Tartakower, an original and famed represen­
tative of the Hypermodern School, who at
that time belonged to the world chess elite.
10
In 1920 he chose a Leningrad set-up (com­
bined, it must be said, with an early ...e6)
against Nimzowitsch; in 1923 he tried out,
against such opponents as Alekhine and Bo-
goljubow, a completely modern move order
(with, objectively speaking, the somewhat
risky 2...g6).
But we are still only speaking here of isolated
experiments, not really of a genuine opening
system.
The true pioneers of the system enter the
scene in 1936: the Leningrad master Niko­
lay Georgyevich Kopylov, Evgeny Filipovich
Kuzminikh and Kirill Vinogradov. These three
spent years developing the basic ideas of our
system in theory and in practice. But it was
not until Kopylov’s sensational victory with
the Leningrad (this was the first time it could
truly be described as such) over the reigning
world champion Mikhail Botvinnik, during the
19th USSR Championship, that the attention
of the chess world was drawn to this de­
fence. In addition to a ‘converted’ Botvinnik,
the young Victor Korchnoi, who was himself
born in Leningrad, was one of the leading
players who would afterwards employ the
system from time to time. Outside of the So­
viet Union, Leningrad supporters included
the top British player C. H.O’D Alexander as
well as, a little later, the Yugoslav grandmas­
ter Milorad Knezevic. The Leningrad could
not yet lay claim to much wider popularity
than this.
A decisive role was certainly played by the
starting position of the main variations which
we examine here. How is Black to continue
after
7£>c3
Up to the beginning of the 1980s there were
only two alternatives at this point:
A) 7...c6, which is very solid but offers hardly
any winning prospects in the sort of pos­
itions which arise after 8 d5 e5 9 de6 Ae6
10 b3 (or 10 m 3 ).
 &

lines by becoming active on the f-file. After

X* m I the black pawn advances ...h6 and ...g5 the
11 Ak queen can direct an attack on the king from
k A% k h5 or g6. Finally, the queen keeps an eye
k on the queenside; the black pawn advance
A to b5 is often, for example, the beginning
of black play on the queenside. Moreover,
A£> should the moves d5 and c6 be required, the
A A AAA queen is very useful in covering the previ­
H, JL||r fl & ously vulnerable black c6 square.
(Analysis diagram after 10 b3)

Or even after the very sharp a b c g d e f h

8
I QkA w I # 8
AA A A
B) 7...&c6, which should certainly offer
chances of playing for a win against lesser 7
▲7 A
opponents. But after the obvious 8 d5 6
▲ A 6
5
A
I A I # 5
▲
k kk k A k 4 AA 4
Ak Ak 3 £>A 3
A ▲ 2 AA A AAA 2
A
A
1 U A
a b c d e f g h
1

AA A AAA
2 A igr H &
(Analysis diagram after 8 d5)
both black knight moves (to e5 or a5) are
positionally suspect, which makes this line of
play seem, objectively speaking, very risky.
Having to choose between ‘solid but pas­
sive’ and ‘sharp but risky’ is of course not
likely to make an opening greatly popular.
Not until 1983 did a fascinating queen move
open up new perspectives for Black.
7...©e8!
(see next diagram)
An original and astonishingly many-sided
move; from e8 the black queen directs oper­
ations on both wings and in the centre.
Black’s main threat is to force through at
once the important central thrust ...e5. The
black queen can occupy f7 and influence
play by attacking the pawn on c4 or in many
At the 50th USSR Championship in 1983
the move 7..M e 8 burst on the scene with
a roll of drums; the then almost unknown
Ukrainian player Vladimir Malaniuk saw off
Alexander Beliavsky most convincingly and
in another variation of the Leningrad he de­
feated Lev Polugaevsky. Malaniuk remains,
to this day, a faithful adherent of the Lenin­
grad and is seen both as its ‘guru’ and the
originator of 7..Me8.
There is some uncertainty about the lat­
ter claim: my Graz team-mate Alexander
Chernin assures me that he first showed
Malaniuk the move 7...We8 and all the key
basic ideas associated with it!
Whatever the truth, the Leningrad has found
favour with players of the most varied
strength. Among its most prominent and high
calibre modern representatives are: Vladimir
Kramnik (in his early playing career only),
Evgeny Bareev, Mikhail Gurevich, Igor Glek,

11
 1 History and Introduction
Alexander Onischuk (the young Ukrainian
player was for many years a training partner
of Malaniuk), Sergey Dolmatov, Alexey Vyzh-
manavin, who died regrettably young, the
highly-talented Chinese player Zhang Zhong,
and in Germany Christopher Lutz, Romuald
Mainka and the author of this book.
8d5
This straightforward positional move is
White’s most important continuation. White
gains space and can now capture the ad­
vancing black e-pawn en passant, which will
often secure him a favourable central pawn
structure.The important square d4 is also
vacated for the king’s knight.
General remarks about move order
A brief word, before we move on to the first
illustrative game, about problems of move
12
order and the structure of the illustrative
games generally.
If White plays g3 on his second or third move,
then I unreservedly recommend for Black the
move order 2...£tf6 followed by 3...g6. (The
problems associated with 3...d6 and 2...g6
are examined briefly in the sections on 2 c4
followed by 3 ^c3 and 2 £rf3 followed by
3 &g5) Should Black need to vary this move
order because of early White divergencies
(in the two above-mentioned sections, for
example) then this will be explained in detail
in the corresponding section and the index
also offers a general guide to sub-variations.
The arrangement of material in the form of
illustrative games is based on descending
order of importance. This means that we
first look at the principal main line 8 d5 a5
(or possibly 8...^a6) and then consider in­
creasingly earlier divergencies until we reach
unusual White continuations on the second
move.The relevant theoretical material for
each section, beginning with the first dia­
gram of each illustrative game, is presented
uniformly, which means that only transpos­
itions of theoretical importance are high­
lighted, and then only if they open up serious
new options for play. Before we turn to our
illustrative games we will look at a section
on key themes and ideas, which will be of
considerable help in understanding typical
basic Leningrad positions.
 1.1 Foreword to the English edition
1.1 Foreword to the English edition
I regard it as an especially happy coin­
cidence, just two years after the appear­
ance of the original German edition of my
Leningrader System: Eine Waffe gegen 1. d4,
to be able to publish a revised and ex­
tended English version for the Olms publish­
ing house. This permits me the luxury of an­
swering many of the criticisms of the original
German edition, of making good the omis­
sion of certain interesting ideas, and above
all, of course, the possibility of including
much important new material. I was also able
to draw on an especially rich source of ideas,
Valery Beim’s excellent work Understand­
ing the Leningrad Dutch, which came out at
about the same time as the German edition
of the Leningrader System. Even though I do
not completely share many of Beim’s conclu­
sions, he has drawn my attention to certain
1holes' in the repertoire I offered.
I have been especially encouraged by John
Watson’s review of the original German edi­
tion in The Week in Chess and am therefore
delighted to meet his request for a revised
English-language version of my book.
It is with some pride that I can report that,
with one single exception (the sequence
1 £rf3 f5 2 d3!), all the principal recommen­
dations have stood up brilliantly to the tests
of time and tournament practice, so that,
apart from that exception alone, it has not
been necessary to ‘jettison’ any variations.
In almost every line, however, new discov­
eries and many precise moves based on
tournament games and theoretical analysis
have been added, which should also help
to improve basic understanding of the spe­
cific problems associated with these types
of position.
The only completely new sections are those
on the ‘traditional’ 8 d5 £ia6 (as a second line
13
of defence for Black and an alternative to the
main recommendation 8...a5) and the solid
7...£>e4 as an additional possibility against
the popular b3 systems for White. There are
various concrete reasons for this decision.
After 8 d5 £*a6 we have a key position for
the understanding of the whole Leningrad
system, not a few Leningrad practitioners
being somewhat doubtful about the delayed
development implicit in 8...a5.1 continue of
course to regard the fashionable 9 Eb1 in
reply to 8...4£ia6 as extremely dangerous,
but the black position as currently evaluated
looks playable to me. In addition some flex­
ibility in the choice of variation must be a
good thing...
I indicated some reservations about the use
of my own 7...®e4 against white b3 sys­
tems because of their drawish tendencies,
but after a year playing top board in the Ger­
man and Austrian Leagues, I have come to
appreciate more the value of a reliable de­
fensive system. Moreover, with the right ap­
proach, even completely equal endgames
can be won against lesser opponents! The
rarely-played line 1 £rf3 f5 2 d3! has en­
joyed a truly dramatic development, espe­
cially after the quick White victory in the
game Carlsen-Dolmatov (see page 179; the
book contains further explanatory analysis
for the game) which came as a shock for
supporters of the Black system. With a view
to transforming a weakness into a strength,
this extensively revised section constitutes
my hottest secret weapon so far for White in
the struggle against the Dutch, whilst Black
after 1 £rf3 should attempt to transpose to
his preferred Leningrad Dutch via a different
sequence of moves from 1...f5.
I would also like to pay tribute to my friend
Jo Reiter, who drew my attention to the
special qualities of Hiarcs 9 as an analysis
module; its astonishingly good ‘positional
 1 History and Introduction
understanding’ compared to so many other
programs has certainly contributed greatly
to the quality of much of the analysis in
the book. My special thanks go to Man­
fred Olms, to Raymund Stolze, reader for
the Olms publishing house, and of course
1.2 Foreword to the German edition
The Leningrad System of the Dutch Defence
has always possessed for me the charm of
the mysterious and exotic. (I characterise
the Leningrad System as the combining of
the Dutch Defence with the fianchetto of the
black king’s bishop). The well-worn paths
of theory are frequently soon abandoned;
strange and unusual positions are arrived
at, which demand imagination and creativ­
ity. Up to the 1980s the correct handling of
this active defence seemed to be the secret
prerogative of the ‘Soviet School of Chess’;
not just the name but also almost all the im­
portant practitioners seemed to come from
that giant empire. Not the least attraction
of the ‘Leningrad* is that it constitutes an
all-round weapon against all White opening
moves except 1 e 4 , 1 ^c3 (1 ...f5 2 e4!) and
1 g4. (In this book we shall address first and
foremost the positions which arise after an
early white d4. In the final section we give
tips and suggestions for handling flank at­
tacks. It is true that our suggested repertoire
after white deviations on the second move
does not always include the fianchetto of the
black dark-square bishop, but for the sake of
simplicity, though from the strictly system­
atic point of view not quite correctly, I refer to
it generally as the ‘Leningrad’. Without this
fianchetto it should simply be described as
the Dutch Defence.)
Further there is no easy way for draw-minded
or unambitious players of White to sim­
plify or exchange pieces quickly against the
14
to my experienced colleague Ulrich Dirr for
the layout, without whose commitment this
project would not have seen the light of day.
Stefan Kindermann
Munich, December 2004
Leningrad variation as there is in the ex­
change variation of the King’s Indian. Pos­
itional understanding plays a significantly
greater role in this system than a precise
knowledge of forced moves. However nega­
tive the attitude of many strong players to the
Dutch Defence in general and to the Lenin­
grad in particular, the effect on one’s op­
ponent in practice is quite remarkable. Not
infrequently White’s reaction varies between
ill-advised aggression and strategic help­
lessness. My first attempt with 1...f5 in the
early 1990s provoked the solid grandmas­
ter Vlastimil Jansa, who for his part sought
to surprise me with the double advance of
his d-pawn, into a premature and unsound
piece sacrifice.
And the then USA Champion Alex Yermolin-
sky lost a whole piece in 1997 after little more
than ten moves, and from what was already
the worse position, in the decisive tie-break
game for progression into the second round
of the FIDE World Championship.
Of course such an aggressive defence runs
certain strategic risks and as already indi­
cated there are even today many players who
still regard the Dutch Defence and in par­
ticular the Leningrad as strategically inferior.
Too often, and especially after depressing
defeats, I have had to endure appropriate
lectures from kind and well-meaning grand­
master colleagues.
In this book, however, I hope to prove the
opposite and to demonstrate that the Lenin­
 1.2 Foreword to the German edition
grad System is a valuable and interesting
weapon against 1 d4, which still has much
creative potential. Indispensable, of course,
will always be a thorough basic understand­
ing of the typical strategic problems which
arise in the Leningrad. In order to master all
this I recommend the Leningrad beginner to
first study the ‘typical themes and ideas’ and
only then to turn to the explanatory games.
The reader should in the first instance simply
play through the games and read the notes
but not study too attentively the various sub­
variations. The best plan would then be to
try out the new system in lightning, rapid and
other training games before adopting it in
important tournament games. The thorough
study of concrete variations and move se­
quences should take place only gradually.
It is especially good and effective to closely
compare games played with the correspond­
ing theoretical variations. If you happen to
know a pet variation of the opponent before
playing him then of course preparing con­
crete lines makes very good sense.
You may regard the present book as a set of
repertoires, which is to say a set of the most
recommended black set-ups for every white
continuation currently known to me (at Octo­
ber 2002). (This should by no means inhibit
the practical player from going his own way
at many junctures!). In some cases, how­
ever, I suggest alternative possibilities which
may appeal to different types of player. But
I have taken care to establish that the rec­
ommended variations have in my judgement
a sound positional basis. (Isolated analytical
errors are of course excluded from this stric­
ture). Various not yet proven ideas of my own
are given, which have yet to stand the test
of time and tournament practice. But I firmly
believe that the reader who has studied the
“typical ideas and themes’ of the system, in
addition to the analysed games given and
15
some of his own tournament games, has
command of the necessary knowledge to
put together a viable personal version of the
Leningrad!
And players of White looking for systems
against the Leningrad are not overlooked
in this book. I have added a chapter with
my special recommendation for the Lenin­
grad with 7...®e8. Admittedly should Black
have read this book, then an unclear position
with chances for both sides is reached. But
following the current theoretical recommen­
dations would quickly land him in a difficult
situation...
Also, in cases where my set of suggestions
varies from current theoretical main lines,
I have indicated the reasons for doubting
them, so that players of both Black and
White are encouraged to do further research
and are provided with a number of sugges­
tions.
This is in sum a very personal work in which
I provide the reader with my completely in­
dividual view of the Leningrad System and
give him an overview of my experience with
it during ten years of tournament practice.
My special thanks go to Artur Yusupov and
Christopher Lutz. Various analytical sessions
on the Leningrad with these two outstanding
grandmasters have widened my understand­
ing considerably. I must also make men­
tion at this point of my old adversary Klaus
Bischoff, whose monotonously repeated as­
sertions that the move 1...f5 is simply a
strategic error were almost always illustrated
by creative analytical ideas, in which he more
often than not succeeded in proving Black’s
play to be winning!
I would especially also like to thank Stefan
Bucker, who provided me with valuable his­
torical material.
Stefan Kindermann
Munich, October 2002
 2 Typical themes and ideas

2.1 Black themes

(1) The advance of the f-pawn - the ‘Dutch lance’

Barczay-Videki
Kecskemet 1990
a b c d e f g h
E ± f l# 8
ii k A1 7
% * A 6
5
11
A A 4
A£i £>A 3
A i AAA 2
I * 1
a b c d e f g h A very important theme, that should be care­
fully noted: Black intends to occupy the key
11 ...f4! square f4 with the knight, thus procuring a
The ‘Dutch lance’ in action. The advance of powerful attack, which more than outweighs
the f-pawn activates the rook on f8, clears the sacrificed pawn.
the diagonal for the bishop on c8, constricts
13 fe5 c6!
the white kingside and, not least, frustrates
White’s desire to open the e-file. What more This, too, in many positions is a decisive
could you ask of a single move? In the most move. Black denies White access to the im­
varied positions, the advance of the f-pawn portant square d5. [13...£rf4 14 £id5 £ig2
continues to play a central role; not infre­ 15 *g 2 £g4 16 £>f6]
quently it heralds a dangerous attack on the
king! 14 Aa3 Bf7 15 ©c1 [15 £>e2 Ag4]
12 gf4?! £>h5 15...4tf4 16 Ad6 &h3 17 &g5?
[17 £h3 £>h3 18 &g2 We6-+] 17...
(see next diagram)
kg2 0-1

16
 (1) The advance of the f-pawn - the ‘Dutch lance’

T a ta ev - Kramnik S pok-S torm bringer (SK)

Belgorod 1989 Internet 2001
a b c d e f g h

11...f4! 12 gf4 &h5! 13 f5 «tf4 12...&g4

Heralds a kingside attack. [12...£rf4 13 Af4
£lh5 14 Ad2 f4]

13 &d2 &f4 14 &f4 g5! 15 kd2 f4

And already White faces serious problems,
since both ...£*e5 and also ...Wf6-h6 or
...We8-h5 are very unpleasant threats.

And Black has a very strong attack.

14 4rf1 &g2 15 &g2 gf5 16 ef5 k l5

17 Jtg5 ^d7 18 &g1 ke6 19 ®b5
&d5 20 f3 Bf3 21 &f3 ©g4 0-1

16 ke4 W16 17 kh7 &h8 18 ®g6

&e7 19 ®e4 k e 5 20 &g6 ^g7 21 f3
&f6 22 ®c2 4h3+

17
 2 Typical themes and ideas • 2.1 Black themes

Hubner-Kinderm ann 14&d2f4?

Bundesliga 1995/96

12...&f4 13 &f4 &h5!

Now the knight on c3 is hanging, so White 15 Bc1 ^e7^16 e3 fg3 17 hg3 &f6
cannot capture on d6. 18 &e2 £ig4+

18
 (2) The advance of the black e-pawn

(2) The advance of the black e-pawn

Beliavsky-Kinderm ann The typical space-grabbing advance of the

Frankfurt rapid 1998 e-pawn is one of the most important aims of
a b e d e f g h the opening; hopes may now be entertained
8IT VI* 8 of a very favourable King’s Indian set-up with
7 ▲ A A ii 7 several extra tempi.

6 kk M l 6 17 4frd2 e4!oo
5 A 5
4 AA 4
3 A E 3
2 A 2
1 II
a b e d
w e
H<i?
f g h
1

14...&d8!
The worst-placed black piece heads for f7,
Vcxn where it safely protects the pawn on d6
and thus makes ...e5 possible.

15 f5e2 &f7 16 Sfd1 e5! The next strategic target: here the e-pawn
is safely protected by its ‘Dutch colleague’
on f5, it effectively limits the range of the
white fianchettoed bishop and it secures an
important outpost for the black pieces on
e5.

19
 2 Typical themes and ideas • 2.1 Black themes

Anastasian - Malaniuk Farag6 - Kindermann

Moscow 1989 Austrian League (Variation) 1994
a b c d e f g h
8 I A 1 8
7 ▲A «rA 7
6 A A ▲k k k 6
5 ▲ 5
4 AA 4
3 AA A 3
2 A AA A 2
1 Ic 1 1
a b d e f g h

7...e5! 8 de5 de5! 15...e5! 16 de5 Be8!

a b c d e f g h
8 1 A 1 8
7 AA w± 7
6 A AA AA 6
5 AX 5
4 A 4
3 Jl A 3
2 A A AAA 2
1 II 1
a b c d
f i
e f
& h
g
In tactical exchanges it is often best for Black The point! Black exploits the pinned white
to recapture with the pawn on e5, thereby e-pawn and now threatens to capture with
retaining mobile centre pawns. the pawn on e5, which would secure him an
excellent position.
9 &a3 [9 £»e5?! £>g4] 9...&d1 10 Sd1
S e811 &c3 e4! 17 e6! 4 e 6 18 &d2 Sad8oo
Restricts the scope of the white pieces and [18...a5]
gives scope to Black’s own fianchettoed
bishop.
12&e1 c6!oo

20
 (3) Black kingside attack - the g-file

Spassky-Santo-Rom an
Montpellier 1991

Another key move. Black denies his oppo­

nent the central square d5 and neutralises
8...e5! the dangerous white bishop on g2. The e-
Only through this temporary pawn sacrifice pawn can easily be recaptured later.
can Black free his position and obtain coun­
terplay. 10 h4!? £>c5 11 h5 gh5 12 &h5 £>h5
9 de6 c6! 13 Hh5 ke6oo

(3) Black kingside attack - the g-file

Tukmakov - Malaniuk The point! Black forces the weakening h3,
Lvov 1990 after which g3 becomes a desirable object
of attack and Black gains a strong attack on
the king along the g-file.
17 h3 £>f2 18 £>f2 &b2 19 t£b2 gf4
20 gf4 &h7

The last white pawn advance f2-f4 has ap­

parently snuffed out the black attack and
now White hopes to force through e2-e4 as
soon as possible. How should Black react?

14...&g4! 15 &f2 & d416 fccdl ©h5! 21 e4 Hg8 22 e5 Eg7 23 &h1 Sag8+

21
 2 Typical themes and ideas • 2.1 Black themes

(4) Black queenside attack

Beliavsky-M alaniuk
Moscow 1983

And Black has already obtained strong pres­

sure on the queenside.
12...c5! 13 &de2 b5! 14 &c2 Sb8 15 Sac1 bc4 16 bc4 &g4 17 &a1
ihe5 18 fcdl &a4 19 Wd2 &c4
(see next diagram)
20 Bc4 Jta1 +

(5) Black play on the queenside

P elletier-O nischuk 13. ■.c5!
Elista 1998
a b c d e f g h Fixes the white c-pawn and opens the e8-a4

I mE diagonal.

A A A i.A 14 d5?! [14 e4oo] 14...&b4!

A ■ A Ai A A
A A
AA
A i A
A £>A A A A
s S
a b c d e f g h
12...bc4!
Beginning a typical operation on the queen­
side which gives Black good play.
G
13 bc4
13 <§}c4 <£ic7 and Black has secured the im­ 15 k M cb416 &d4 & e 4 17 e3 &c3?
portant central square d5 for his knight. 18 &c6 a5

22
 (6) Black pressure on d5

(6) Black pressure on d5

Gurevich - Mainka d5 is most uncomfortable for his opponent.
Frankfurt rapid 2000 If White exchanges on c6, the black e-pawn
a b c d e f g h becomes mobile after ...bc6.
I # M.
8 16 Bbc1 [16 dc6 bc6 followed by
A A kW ± k 7 ...e5] 16...&C3 17 kc3 &e4 18 &a5
AA A A 6 cd5 19 cd5 ©d5T
A A 5
m
A£\ 4
A£> A A 3
A± 1 A IA 2
H 1
a b c d e f g h

15...&fe4!
Black has achieved ideal positions for his
pieces in the line 8 d5 a5; the pressure on

(7) The white dark-square bishop as object of attack

Kram nik-Vyzhmanavin
Moscow 1994

Had the black c-pawn been on c6, White

10...&g411 &d4?! [11 Af4] 11...4h6!
A key theme; the black bishop avoids the
exchange with gain of tempo and gives the
signal for an attack on its white opposite
number.
12 &d1 c5!
would already have been done for... As things
stand Black can still lay claim to a tiny ad­
vantage.
13 dc6 bc6 14 h3 £>f6 15 &a4 &e4
16 &b6 Sb8 17 &c8 ®c8 18 b3 a4
19 Bb1 ab3 20 ab3 «ib4?

23
 2 Typical themes and ideas • 2.1 Black themes

(8) The exchange on e6

Lukacs-Szabolcsi position, since it severely reduces the effec­
Budapest 1991 tiveness of the white pieces. All of Black’s
a b c d e f g h pieces work very harmoniously together,
8 I #1# 8 whilst the advanced white e-pawn is fre­
7 k kA ▲ Ak 7 quently an object of attack.

6
5
A k A 6
5 8
a b c d e f g h
1 #1# 8
A A
4 A£>k 4 7 ▲ k Ak 7
3 A£> A 3 6
5
A kk A% 6
5
2 AA AAA 2 A
1 Ma, b c d e Hi?
f g h
1 4
3
A k 4
3
AE' A
14 &e6 &e6 2 A i AAA 2
In the lines where Black still has a pawn on 1 H W H st? 1
cl, this attempt to exchange bishops is usu­ a b c d e f g h
ally favourable.
15 de6 c6! 16 &e2 fg3 17 hg3? £>g4 18 &h3
This, too, is an extremely important pos­ &b2 19 Ag4? &a1 20 &a1 ©g6
itional move, which consolidates the black 21 & h 3 ® h 5 0 -1

(9) The ‘Dutch king’

Rogozenko - McDonald 25...&g7!
Budapest 1995 The typical endgame trump of the Dutch
a b c d e f g h
Defence. The black king reaches the cen­
8
I E # 8 tre much more quickly than his ‘safely pro­
tected* white opposite number on g1. The
7
▲ A A 7
black king is often of useful service, too,
6
▲A ▲ 6

5
4
k 5
4
in protecting the vulnerable black e-pawn
(when the e-file has been opened) or in con­
A A 41 trolling the square e6. The black king will
mostly get there via f7. When there is a white
3 A 3
pawn on e6, the route may vary but the final
2 AA A 2 result is no less impressive.
1 Hc H <1? 1 26 &e4 fe4 27 d5 &f6
a b d e f g h
En route for e5!

24
 (10) Leningrad Stonewall &

2 8 f4 d f5 plus the ‘Dutch king’ give Black a big advan­

tage.
a b c d e f g h
8 8 34 Sdd2 &g4! 35 Sc7 Sd2 36 &d2
I I & f3
7 A A A 7
6 AA A 6
5 A # 5
4 A AA 4
3 A 3
2 A 2
1 n <1? 1
a b c d e f g h

29 &f2 Ha2 30 &e3 Sa3 31 &e2

Sca8 32 Sc2 Sd3 33 Ed1 Saa3 <}
The greatly superior activity of his pieces 37 Bc1 &f2 38 Bc2 e3 0-1

(10) Leningrad Stonewall

Gavrikov - Vyzhmanavin the c-pawn; should White abandon attempts
Irkutsk 1986 at central control, Black will, of course, be
only too willing to force through ...e5. A full-
blooded positional struggle lies ahead.
13 &c2 &d8 14 &e5 &f7 15 &g7
&g7 16 &fe5 £>fd6 17 &f4 c5 18 e3
Bac8oo

The diagram position shows the thematic

placing of both sides’ pieces in the Lenin­
grad Stonewall. White lays siege to Black’s
central weakness on e5 and intends to get in
h4-h5 or c3-c4 when the time is right. Black
will typically counter by a double thrust of

25
 2 Typical themes and ideas • 2.2 White themes

2.2 White themes

(1) The white advance e4
Smejkal - Danner In this line the black queen stands ‘some­
Ostrava 1994 what unfavourably’ on f7!
15...hg5 16 5ig5+-
D reev-M alaniuk
Moscow 1991
a b c d e f g h
M. A I (»!•)

11 im i
% 1 1% 1
i 1
AA
A I £>A
13 e4! A ^ A AAA
White has carefully prepared the important 2 H*
central thrust e4 and has placed his pieces a b c d e f g h
well. He hopes to continue by developing 13 e4!
pressure on the e-file. One should not, how­
ever, lose sight of the fact that e4 is a double- Just as in the previous example, White is well
edged move, which is not always good, be­ placed to play e2-e4. The important thing is
cause it opens the f-file and the c8-h3 diag­ to counter the ‘Dutch lance’ ...f4 with e5.
onal for Black. 13...fe4 [13...f4 14 e5!] 14 &e4
13...fe4 [13...f4 14 e5!] 14 &e4±
a b c d e f g h

14...&d7 15 &f6 ef6 16 d5!±

For the rest of this game see the position on
14...Bae8?? 15 &eg5 page 28.

26
 (2) The square e6

Kram nik-lllescas Cordoba his mass of central pawns.

Dos Hermanas 1999
17...&c818e4fe419fe4

17 f3!
White intends to recapture on e4 with the 19...&h5 20 &h5 £>h5 21 Sf8 Sf8
f-pawn, after which he will crush Black with 22 d5 &b2 23 £>b2 &d7 24 a5±

(2) The square e6

Doring - Kindermann a b c d e f g h
Dortmund 1992 8 I 8
a b c d e f g h 7 A A A 7
8 m i 8
6 A AA 6
7 i i# A 7 5 AA 5
6 a AA 6 4 4
5 AA A 5
3
A
A
A
3
4 ■AH & A4 2 A A 2
3 A 3
2 A W A Jl 21 1
a b c d
Me f <1? h
g
1

1 1 B
a b c d e f g h 30 &e6?oo
Tempting but premature. White should
28 &h3! first take control of the important b-file.
[30 ^b2! ± and the weakness on e6 will give
Exchanges the guard of the square e6, which
Black much cause for concern.]
now becomes available to the white knight.
30...Sb8! 31 &h6? &f2 32 &f2 £>g4
28... ©c8 29 &f5 ®f5 33 &f3 £kh6 34 &g5 &e8 35 &h7
(see next diagram) 4 tf5 +

27
 2 Typical themes and ideas • 2.2 White themes

D reev-M alaniuk 17...«ic7

Moscow 1991
a b c d e f g h 17...11e6 18 de6 # e 6 (18...We7 19 W 5 ±)
8
I I 8 19£>g5fg5 20 Ad5±.
7
AA a mA 7
18 Ed6 We7 19 Sd7 ^d7 20 Sd1 ±
6
A A A A 6

5
AA | A 5
a b c d e f g h
4 A 4 8
I I 8
3
£>A 3 7
AAA# A 7
2
A AAA 2 6
A A 6
1
a b
S S <4> 1 5 I AA A 5
c d e f g h
4 A 4
17 Ee6! 3 AA £>A 3

Dreev exploits the weakness of the square

2 A W AAA 2
e6 to get in a powerful and advantageous 1
S B 1

exchange sacrifice. a b c d e f g h

(3) White attack n the queenside

Alterman - Malaniuk play b4-b5 to create a pawn majority on the
Pardubice 1993 queenside, or set about the Black centre with
a b c d e f g h c4-c5. A watchful eye must also be kept on
8
1 A «r 1 # 8 the move £id4, which will discover an attack
by the g2 bishop.
7
AA A AA 7
11...&d7 12 b5 cb5 13 cb5 &c5
6
A A AA 6
14 a4
5
AA A 5

4 A 4
3
& £>A 3

2
AA A AAA 2

1
1 Ac 11& I I 1
a be d f g h

Position after 9...c7-c5.

10 dc6! bc6 11 b4!

In this type of position Black must play very
accurately to avoid disadvantage. White can

28
 (4) The central lever c4-c5

14...&fe4?! a b c d e f g h
8 £ I # 8
m
U...Sc8 15 &b2a6!=.
7 A i i A 7
15 &e4 &e4 16 kb2 kb2 17 Bb2
6 A A 6
Bb8 18 &d2 &c5 19 £>c4 Wf7
5 f t A 5
20 & a 5
4 A 4
(see next diagram)
3 A 3
With strong pressure on the queenside. 2 S A AAA 2
1 2 <4> 1
a b c d e f h g

(4) The central lever c4-c5

Antunes-Vyzhmanavin the tension, which may be the lesser of the
(variation) Tilburg 1994 two evils, then he will have to cope with vul­
a b c d e f g h nerable hanging pawns in the centre.
8 8
I WU # 15.. .&e6
7 Mi A A 7
[15...d5 16 £>a4 £>e4 17 Ag7 &g7 18 f3 £rf6
6
A A ftA 6
19&e5±]
5
wT A 5
16 cd6 ed6 17 &d2±
4 A 4
3 3 a b c d e f h
A 8
g
8
2 A i A AAA 2 I wI #
1 2 Wd e 2f * 1
7 A AA 7
a b c g h 6 A A* * A 6
5 A A 5
15 c5! 4 4
A strong and very disagreeable move for 3 A 3
Black in this sort of position: if he pushes 2 AA a AAA 2
past, he leaves an unpleasant weakness
1 2 2* 1
on e5. (Exchanging on c5 would demolish
a b c d e f h g
Black’s pawn structure.) And if he maintains

29
 2 Typical themes and ideas • 2.2 White themes

(5) Attacking with the h-pawn

Horvath - Kindermann [14...h6 15 £»e6 &e6 16 de6 g5 17 £a8±;

Budapest 1992 14...gh5 15 e4 with an attack for White]
15 hg6 hg6 16 Sb1 £>c7 17 &h3!
Heading for f4.
17...5b818 &e3 kb7 19 £kf4±

12 dc6!
Horvath embarks on a subtle operation in
the centre, which will greatly enhance the ef­
fect of the intended advance of the h-pawn
to h5. [The immediate 12 h5?! would not be The weakness of the black kingside gives
very effective: 12...h6 13 £>e6 (13 £>h3 g5) White a clear advantage.
13...£e6 14 de6 g5+]
12...bc6 13 d5! c5 14 h5! R ibli-H enley
Surakarta/Denpasar 1982

For tactical reasons Black cannot avoid the

exchange on g6, after which the position of 3h4!?
his king is shaky.
In some lines an early ...g6 (without £rf6) is
14...C4 somewhat risky, because it gives White the

30
 (5) Attacking with the h-pawn

opportunity to indulge in an immediate no-

holds-barred attack with the h-pawn, which
puts the black king under great pressure.
Frequently this will involve White in an ex­
change sacrifice on h5.

3...«tf6 4 h5! £>h5 5 Sh5 gh5 6 e4!

(see next diagram)

This opens the diagonal of the white queen

to h5. Even though the resulting positions
are, objectively speaking, unclear, White will,
at the very least, get dangerous attacking
chances in the early part of the game. This 6...&g7 7 &h4 e6 8 ©h5 &f8 9 e5
will certainly not be to the taste of the aver­ [9 ef5 We8!oo] 9...&e8 10 ©e2 £>c6
age Black player. 11 &f3oo

31
 3 Illustrative games

3.1 Main line 7 &c3 ® e8 8 d5 a5

3.1.1 9 &e3
Yusupov - Bareev Black remains a little behind in develop­
Munich 1993 ment, which White can exploit (in the line
with 9 4ftd4) to get in a quick e2-e4. The
pawn on a5 can sometimes prove weak and,
1 d4 f5 2 g3 &f6 3 &g2 g6 4 &f3 kg7 after the thematic ...c6, the square b6 can
5 0-0 0 -0 6 c4 d6 7 £>c3 ©e8 8 d5 become a problem (£te4-b6). But our sug­
a5 gested move 8...a5 has been favoured and
played with success by Leningrad experts
such as Evgeny Bareev, Igor Glek, Alexey
Vyzhmanavin (who died young) and Romuald
Mainka. And in few other lines have there
been so many convincing Black victories
against top-class opponents!
9& e3

In recent years Black has come up against

certain problems in the traditional main line
with 8...^a6 (see Beliavsky-Kindermann,
in lines with 9 Eb1 and 14 c5! on page 57).
I therefore decided, in the original German
edition, to opt for 8...a5 as the repertory
move. The little-known and less-examined
move 8...a5 has much to offer from the pos­ This straightforward developing move has
itional point of view: Black gains space on also been played twice by Vladimir Kramnik,
the queenside, restricts the threatened dan­ but without any great success. White’s main
gerous expansion with b2-b4 and secures plan is to exchange the dark-square bish­
a good position for the knight on c5. But ops by ©d2 (®c1) followed by «&h6, hoping
since, as a general rule, nothing in chess ideally to open the centre with e2-e4. Some­
can be had ‘for nothing’, the move 8...a5 times the sequence Ae3-d4 followed by Se1
will, of course, have its negative aspects. and e4 becomes a possibility.

32
 3.1.1 9 Ae3 (Yusupov-Bareev)
9...H6
Ambitious, challenging and a bit risky. Black
wishes to avoid the exchange of his strong fi-
anchettoed bishop and prepares for possible
expansion on the kingside with g6-g5.
9 ...6 .6 This more solid alternative was pre­
ferred later by Bareev. Black develops with­
out fearing the bishop exchange; this was
also my own choice on my first two try-outs
of 8...a5.
a) 10 <&d4 The most direct approach. White
hopes to force through e2-e4 as soon as
possible and is therefore ready to part with
his dark-square bishop. 10...c5 11 Af6 Af6
12 m 2 Wf7 13 £>g5 @g7 14 &b5 This looks
like inconsistent play. Now Glek finds an ori­
ginal way of activating his knight and devel­
oping an initiative on the queenside. [14 e4
h6 15 £ie6 <&e6 16 de6 fe4 17 £je4 J.d4oo]
14...£g5 15 % 5 &d7 16 #d2 a4 17 f4 [17 e4
f4! 18 gf4 Wh6 19 e5 &b5 20 cb5 £>c7 21 b6
&b5 22 Sae1 ®f4oo] 17...Ab5!
1 I#
A A mA
% A A c21) 11 ...£»c5 12 h3 e5 [12...£>f6 13 Ah6 e5
AAA A
A A A &g8 18 £>g5 c6 19 Sadi &h5 20 £ie6 #e6=
A 13 de6 £>e5 14 &d5 £>e615 M \6 W 7 16 Sd1
AA WA AA
1 4>
18 cb5 £>c7 19 b6 £>b5 20 &h1 a3T 21 Sabi
ab2 22 Sb2 # c3 23 Sc1 Wd2 24 Sd2 Sa3
25£b2 £>d4 26 Se1 Se3 27 &g1 Sa8 28 &f2
Hea3+ Appel-Glek, Bundesliga 1993/94
(0-1,45).
b) 10 Ec1 Ad7 11 Se1 h6 12 A64 c5~
[12...#f7?l 13 e4 fe4 14 £ie4 £»e4 15 Se4
&d4 16 ©d4 Af5 17 Se2 Sae8 18 £>h4± Kol-
bus-Hoang, Budapest 1997 (1/2- 1/2, 24)]
c) 10 © c l Kramnik twice chose this square
for his queen; in some lines the move ...£}e4
33
follows at once. 10...£^4 [10...e5!? 11 de6
Ae6 12 £»d4 c6 13 b3 &g4 14 &e6 # e6
15 Af4 ®f6 16 Ad2 2fc5 17 Wc2= Yakovich-
Lastin, Elista 1997 (V2-V2, 47)]
c1) 11 Ad4?l Ah6!
I A W 1#
AA A
A
A AA
A A A
AA %
£>A
AA A AAA
n
A frequently-played and key move to counter
a white bishop on d4: Black avoids the ex­
change of bishops with gain of tempo and
then makes the white bishop an object of
attack: 12 ®d1 c5 13 dc6 bc6, threaten­
ing ...e5 or ...c5. 14 h3 £rf6 15 £ja4 £ie4
16 &b6 Sb8 17 £>c8 # c 8 18 b3 a4 19 Sb1
ab3 20 ab3 4±>4? Kramnik-Vyzhmanavin,
Moscow 1994 (1/2- 1/2, 45).
c2) 11 Af4
14 de6 Ae6 15 &g7 &g7 16 b3 #e7 17 #b2
Seres-Hoang, Budapest 2004 (1/2- 1/2, 58)]
Ad7 17 &g5 Ah6 18 £if7 Ac1 19 &e5 de5
20 Sac1 1/2- 1/2, Relange-Santo-Roman, Nar-
bonne 1997.
c22) 11 ...&d7 12 Sd1 £>c5 13 h3 £>f6 14 &h6
c6 15 £>d4 Sc8 16 dc6 Ac6
An interesting strategic decision; the ex­
change of bishops would relieve the black
position. It is important, of course, that in
this line the knight on c5 reliably protects
the weak square e6. 17 Jig7 &g7 18 £ic6
bc6 19 b3 ®d7 20 e3 Sb8 21 Sb1 Sb6
Another original solution. Bareev concen­
trates his forces on the queenside, because
he trusts his kingside to hold. The strate­
 3 Illustrative games • 3.1 Main line 7 £>c3 ®e8 8 d5 a5
gic threat ...a5-a4 now poses problems for
White. 22 £>e2 &f7!?
#A# A
1 A A 41A
A % A #f7!? [13...c6 14 e4 fe4 (14...£te5 15 ef5
A gf5) 15 £>e4 £ie4 16 Se4 g5 17 Ag5 Sf2
A A A A
A &e5) 18 £>e2±] 14 e4?! [14 £icb5] 14...Ad4!
Once again correctly played; the king covers
the entry square e6, which could come under
attack by the white knight from d4 or f4. At
the same time the king quits the dangerous
a1-h8 diagonal. Whilst in the endgame the
swift intervention of the black monarch is of­
ten a key and effective manoeuvre for Black,
in the middlegame it looks very unusual in­
deed! 23 #c3 Ha8 24 &d4 ®c8 25 «te1 Sa7
26 a3 £te6 27 Wc3 &c5 28 ®e1 &e6 29 Sdc1
4ic5 30 Sd1 4ie6 V2-V 2, Kramnik-Bareev,
Novgorod 1997.
d) 10 ©d2 A natural move, which has hardly
been analysed at all. Interestingly, this con­
tinuation was especially recommended by
Khalifman in his book An Opening Reper­
toire for White according to Kramnik 3. There
follow a few suggestions:
d1) 10...£jg4 At this point the thematic
knight move again comes into consideration.
d11) 11 &d4!? Ah6!? 12 Wd1 e5 13 de6 c5
[13...&e6 14 &d5±] 14 e7 Sf7 15 &b5 cd4
16 4id6 #e7 17 £rf7 &f7 00 Adianto-Hoang,
Jakarta 2004 (V2-V2, 43).
d12) 11 Af4 £*c5 [11 ...Ad7!? 12 £>d4
thcb 13 £>cb5 (13 £>b3!? Teske) Sc8!?~
A14 ®a5? c6+] 12 £*d4 [12 h3 £rf6 13 J.h6
£ife4 14 4ie4 £}e4 15 © d e5 16 de6 Ah6
17 ©he Ae6 18 & d2 & c5 19 b3 Wf7= Vi-
jayalakshmi-Hoang, Kolkata 2003 (0-1, 66)]
12...&d7 13 h3 £»e5 14 b3 £rf7 15 Sadi c6
16 Ae3 e5 17 de6 Ae6 18 &e6 We6 19 A64
34
Ad4 20 Wd4 # e5 21 Wd2 Sae8= Horvath-
Hoang, Budapest 2003 (1/2- 1/2, 66).
d2) 10...Ad7 This flexible reply, however,
was not examined by Khalifman.
d21) 11 Efe1 &g4 12 Af4 [12 Ad4?! &h6
13 ®c2 c5 14 dc6 bc6f] 12...£ic5 13 &d4
(17...#h5 18 £>f3! Sf3 19 Af3 ®h2 20 &f1
[14...fe4 15 £>e4 £ie4 16 Ee4 g5 17 Jg5 ®h5
18 £if3 Sf3 19 Af3 #h2 20 &f1 Sf8] 15 ®d4
e5 16 de6 £>e6 17 ®d2 £tf4 18 W 4 @c4¥.
d22) 11 Ah6 W 7 [11...&c5 12 Ag7 &g7
13 £id4 WU 14 b3 e5 15 de6 Ae6 16 £>d5
Ad5 17 cd5 £id5 18 £rf5 # f5 19 £d5 Sae8
20 Sadi (Horvath-Hoang, Budapest 2002
(1-0, 47)) 20...c6 21 Ag2 Sf6«.] 12 Ag7 #g7
13 4id4 [13 e4 This direct attempt leads
to simplification which gives White no ad­
vantage. (13 £id4 £>c5oo) 13...fe4 14 £}g5
£ic5 15 £ice4 £lce4 16 £ie4 ^e4 17 Ae4
a4 18 Sac1 c5 19 dc6 bc6 20 Sfe1 Sab8
21 Sc3 g5 22 Ac2 c5 23 b3 ab3 24 ab3=
1/2- 1/2, Beckhuis-Kindermann, Vienna 2003]
13...£ic5 14 Sfe1 Sae8 15 e4 fe4 16 4ie4
£>fe4 17 Ae4 &h8 18 Se3 e5 19 de6 &e6
20 Ab7 Ac4 21 Se8 Se8 22 Ac6 Be7 23 ®c3
M 7 24 Sd1 a4oo Krizsany-Ho&ng, Budapest
1997 (V2-1/2, 59).
d23) 11 Sae1 An interesting idea by Atalik:
White prepares the thematic advance e4,
but holds in reserve the move A e3.11 ...£ig4
[11.. .e512 de6 A e613 £>g5 ±; 11.. ,c612 £ia4
&e4 13 @c1 ±]
d231) 12 Af4 £>c5 13 £»d4 Wf7! This pro­
phylactic measure is aimed indirectly at pre­
venting White’s planned e4. [13...c6 14 e4
£ie4 15 £>e4 fe4 16 Se4±; 13...£»e5 14 b3 a4
15 Ah6 ®f7 16 Ag7 Wg7 17 f4 £>ed3 18 £ie6
£te619 ed3 £id4 20 b4 c6 21 Se3±]: 14 e4?!
fe4 [14...Ad4!? 15 #d 4 e5! 16 de6 £ie6
17 ®d2 £if4 18 W 4 #c4 19 e5~] 15 <he4
(see next analysis diagram)
 3.1.1 9 ±e3 (Yusupov-Bareev)
♦
I I #
A AiAfiA
A A
A % A
A £}£>A%
A AA
AA m aaa
15...4d4! An interesting thematic move,
which should be memorised: Black over­
comes his psychological reluctance and
parts with his valuable fianchettoed bishop.
16 «d4 e5! The point. 17 de6 £>e6 18 Wc3
5tf4 19 £ig5 # f6 [19...&g2!? A wild ‘com­
puter idea’... 20 £rf7 £ie1 21 ®h8 & U
22 m 7 &f6 23 Se1 Sf7 20 gf4 ®c3 21 bc3
3ae8 22 Ab7 <&g7oo.
d232) 12 Ad4 This forces Black to react
sharply. If White were able to simply ex­
change bishops and to force through e4, he
could be sure of a small advantage. 12... Ah6
13 @d1 c5 14 dc6 bc6 [14...&C6 15 h3 £rf6
16 Af6! Bf617 £>d4±] 15 h3 £rf6 16 e4 [16 &f6
3f6 17 e4 e5! +]
I I#
AA A d2322) 16...e5!?oo 17 ef5 gf5 18 &e5!?
% A A % Ai.
A A
AAA
& ^A A
AA AA
1 h 4?
d2321) 16...£te4 I chose this move because
after the alternative 16...e5 the possibility
of a dangerous sacrifice on e5 loomed...
17 £>e4 fe4 18 Ee4 e5 [18...Wf7? 19 Sh4
£lq7 20 &g5+-] 19 Ac3 We7 20 &e5!
(see next analysis diagram)
Strongly played by Atalik. I had not seriously
considered the sacrifice occurring at this
35
1 I #
A
% AA AA
A
A H
AA A, A
a *
point. The piece sacrifice on e5 looks like a
key thematic possibility in positions of this
type. [20 &a5? £>c5 21 Sh4 Sa5 (21...e4)
22 Eh6 (22 b4 e4 23 £>d4 &g5) 22...e4+]
20...de5 [20...Ef3 This was my intended
refutation. At the last moment I saw the
fiendish idea: 21 4f4!l After playing it White is
temporarily a rook and a piece down but he
wins in two further moves: 21 ...®e4 22 Af3
©c4 23 Ah6 Ah3 24 Se1 ±; 20...£f5 21 Eh4
de5 22 Eh6 Wg7 23 Eh4±] 21 £>e5 Af5
22 £>g6 ®f6?l Played too optimistically. The
activity of the minor pieces does not quite
outweigh the material deficit. [22...1^7!
23 £rf8 (23 £ie7 &h8 24 £rf5 Ef5~) 23...Ae4
24 Jle4 Sf8±] 23 £rf8 Ef8 24 Bd4 Ag7
25 Ed2 £ic5 [Atalik-Kindermann, Bun-
desliga 2003/04 (1-0, 49)] 26 Ed6!±.
[18 Ae3 Ae3 19 fe3 e4 20 £>d4 (20 &t\4 @e5)
20...#g6 21 &de2 &b4oo] 18...de5 19 £te5
£>c5! After this the play becomes very com­
plicated, but Black’s position, though ap­
parently shaky, looks playable. There fol­
low some absolutely unforced sample vari­
ations, which mostly lead to an endgame of
pawns versus a piece. [19...®c8? 20 £»d7
m 7 (20...&d7 21 Ee6) 21 Wd7 £id7 22 Ac6
Ead8 23 &d7 Ed7 24 Ee6+- I had rejected
this original double attack in my calcula­
tions, favouring instead lines with 16...£>e4.]
20 «d4!? [20 Wd6 £ice4 (20...£>b7); 20 £id7
®d7 21 ®d7 £>fd7 22 Ac6 Sad8] 20...£>ce4
21 £ie4 fe4 22 &d7 ®d7 23 ®d7 £>d7 24 Ae4
Ef6 [24...£te5 25 &h7 &h7 26 Se5 Ag7
 3 Illustrative games • 3.1 Main line 7 £\c3 We8 8 d5 a5
27 Se7] 25 Ah7 &h7 26 Se7 &g6 27 Sd7
a4.
10 h4!?
Forestalls ...g5, but leads also to kingside
weaknesses for White himself.
A) 10 &b5!? [10 ®d2 &h7] In Informator and
ECO this is regarded as some sort of refuta­
tion of 9...h6. But the situation is not quite
so tragic:
a) 10...®d8?! Very passive. 11 £rfd4 [11 #d2
£ig412 Ad4 b6± Piskov] 11 ...&h712 c5! dc5
13 £ie6 Ae6 14 de6 £>c6 15 Ac5± Pisulin-
ski-Rublevsky, Russia 1992.
b) 10...&a6 11 #d 2 This double attack on
a5 and h6 is the point of White’s play, but in
the sources mentioned above the following
straightforward black move is not consid­
ered: 11...c6
b1) 12 £ibd4 In view of the tactical threats
against c6 Black must play accurately:
12...c5 [12...&g4?! 13 dc6 bc6 14 &c6!]
13 4ib5 &g4oo.
b2) 12 dc6 bc6 13 Wa5 This tactical stroke
wins a pawn temporarily, but gives Black
good counterplay much in the spirit of
the Volga Gambit [13 &bd4 £>e4!? (13...e5
14 &c6 £ie4 15 W65 Ae6 16 Wb5 Ad7=. A
remarkable repetition of moves) 14 Wa5 e5 s.
And Black has play for the pawn. 15 4ib3
Ae6 16 £>fd2 £>ac5]: 13...&d7 14 £*a7 c5!
36
15 ®a6 ® b 8 16 @a5?l [16 £>e5!? Sa717 £id7
Sa6 18 £ib8 Sb8 19 Sfb1 Ste4] 16...Sa7
17 ®d2 £ie4 18 #d5 e6 19 W63 Wb2
20 Sabi #a2 21 Sb3 Aa4 22 Sa3 Wb2
23 Ac1 Wb4 24 £>d2 £>c3 25 &c6 Ac2
26 @c2 Sa3 27 Aa3 £>e2 0-1, Jelen-Zhang,
Olympiad, Bled 2002.
b3) 12 £>c3 g5 [12...&h7 is more solid, as
it so frequently is, but Khalifman does not
examine this move.] The ambitious move
played in this game leads to very sharp play:
13 h4!? [13 £>d4l? Recommended here by
Khalifman 13...<&d7!? (13...e5 14 de6 Ae6
15 Sadi ± Khalifman) 14 f4!?] 13...f4! 14 gf4
gh4 15 £>h2 [15 &h4 ®h5 16 £if3 Ah3]
15...Af5 16 &h1 <» Lin-Zhu, Beijing 1995
(1-0, 42).
B) 10 @d2!? A straightforward move, and
perhaps even the strongest continuation.
It involves a small trap. Should the sharp
10...g5 turn out to be unplayable, Black will
probably have to give up 9...h6 and play the
solid 9...£>a6 instead!
a) 10...&h7 11 £>b5!
IftA W I
A A A A#
A %A A
A& A A
A
A£>A
AA 9 A AAA
fi 1 <1?
This forces Black to play a rather ugly queen
move to d8. But since the white knight can
be forced back by ...c6, even this line should
prove just about playable. [11 Hab1 4ia6
12 h3 Ad7 13 £>d4 c6 14 b3 £>c5 15 a3 Sc8
16 Sfc1 W 7 17 dc6 bc6 18 b4 ab4 19 ab4
&ce4 20 £>e4 &e4 21 #d3 e5 22 £>b3 Ae6
23 £id2 d5T Wyrwich-Mainka, Reckling­
hausen 1999 (0-1, 44)] 11 ...®d8 [11 ...£>e4?
12 £}g5! hg5 13 Ae4+; 11...£>a6 12 #a5±]
 3.1.1 9 Ae3 (Yusupov- Bareev)

12 £rfd4 M 7 13 Sabi c6 14 £ic3 cd5 15 cd5

£>a6 16 £ie6 JLe6 17 de6± Danner-Riedner,
Vienna 2003 (1-0, 40).
b) 10...g 5 11 h4!? This direct attempt at refu­
tation forces Black to make a pawn sacrifice,
the consequences of which are by no means
easy to evaluate [11 £>b5 £>e4 12 Wc2 £>a6]:
11 ...f4! \2 gf4 g4 13 £id4 Wh5

Xftjt I#
AA A A .
A 41 A
A m A Am
A£> A 14 fcd4
& it Aggressively played. Sharp and complicated
AA f AAI play ensues.
1
14 b3oo would definitely have been more
And whilst Black has compensation for the solid. Bareev gives White a small advantage,
pawn I could not honestly vouch for the but this (from Black’s point of view) is prob­
soundness of the black position... Here­ ably somewhat pessimistic. These types of
with a few suggestions: 14 £>cb5 [14 ®c2 position are a matter of taste!
£>a6] 14...£ia6 15 # a5 [15 f5!? ®h4 16 &f4]
14... &c5!?.
15...@h4 16 Wd2 &h5.

1 0 ...6.6 11 Wd2 &h7 12 Eae1 1 4 ...6 .4 15 JU)7!

Typical of Yusupov’s powerful positional 15 b3 &g8 16 Ab7 c5 17 £>db5 d5! 18 Aa8
play: the advance e2-e4 is carefully pre­ [18 Aa6d4!t] 18..J?a8t.
pared. In the following variations I will mostly
quote Evgeny Bareev himself, who annotates 15...Eb8
this game in the Munich 1993 tournament
book published by Olms. 15.. .c5 16 &c6 £>b4 17 ®d6+-.

12...e5
The typical black counter, which after the
positionally practically forced en passant
capture leads to the sort of position often en­
countered. Bareev is most certainly correct
in regarding alternative moves as weaker:
12...£d7 [12...fff7 13 Ad4 e5 14 de6 £e6
15 b3 £»c5 16 &c5 dc5 17 £>e5±; 12...c5
13 &f4± Ae4; 12...£»c5 13 Ac5 dc5 14 e4]
13 Ad4 c5 14 Af6 Af6 15 e4±.
16&c6
16 Ag2 £ib4 17 b3 [17 a3 £>bd5 18 £>f5 gf5
19 &d5 £>d5 20 Ad5 Sb2 21 Wd1 Wb5T]
17...£g8 18 a3 &bd5 19 £>f5 £ie3 20 £>e3
Sb3¥.
16...©c8 17 Af3 &b4!
A strong manoeuvre. The sidelined knight
heads for the centre.

13de6 Ae6 18 a3 & bd519 &d5

37
 3 Illustrative games *3.1 Main line 7 £\c3 We8 8 d5 a5

taken account of, by either player during

19...6.5?!
Bareev regards this move as, objectively
speaking, a mistake and his reasoning is
not lightly to be dismissed! In this game,
however, the mistake turns out well. Had he
played the ‘correct’ move he most certainly
would not have won so brilliantly!
19...£>d5 20 Ec1 the3 21 fe3 &b3= [21 ...d5
22 b3].
the game. The subsequent weakness of the
square e6 is a source of difficulty for Black.
22...613 23 ef3 W 3 (23...Eb2 24 £>e6 Ea8
25 ©c3 ©b7 26 £ig7 £>d5 27 @d3) 24 £ie6 ±]
22 a4 Ea8 23 ©c7 &f3 24 ef3 Ea4 [24...#c7
25 £>c7 Ea4 26 &e6 Ee8 27 £>g7 &g7
28 Af4±] 25 ®d7 4>d7 26 £id6 Ab2 27 Eb1
AEfdl ±.
20...f4!!

20 &c6?
A) 20 Ed1 [20 Ad5 &d5 21 £te6 £ie3 22 ®e3
Sb2 23 &a5 Wa6-+; 20 E d c5 21 £ib5
Af3 22 £id6 £ie4! 23 £>c8 £>d2 24 Ad2
Ae2 25 Efe1 Efc8 26 Ee2 Eb2+] 20...&f3
[20...c5 21 £>b5 £f3 22 £>d6 £ie4 23 £>c8
£id2 24 Ed2=] 21 &f3 #a6 22 &d4 [22 #c2
c5 A^e4?] 22...c5 23 Af6 Ef6 24 e3 Ee6
25 Eb1 @c6+.
B) 20 b4 ab4 21 ab4 c5 22 bc5 dc5 23 E d A very pretty example of ‘the’ key Dutch
Sd8T. move, which is very frequently the prelude to
a powerful attack and threatens White with
C) 20 ®a5! After this move, Bareev gives disaster! Its special feature is that it opens
White the advantage. 20...c5 [20...£f3 the route to h3 for the black queen.
21 ef3 Eb2 22 &b5! £ mJ5 (22...Ef7 23 &d4;
22...#b7 23 £ic7 # f3 24 £ie6±) 23 £id6] 21 £>e7
21 £»b5 ©d7 [21 ...Wc6 22 &c7H Yusupov finds another interesting way of
(see next analysis diagram) continuing the struggle. 21 Ad5 [21 Af4
@h3! Revealing the true point; the fatal threat
The strength of this knight manoeuvre was of 22.. .£ig4 forces White to make major con­
probably not foreseen, or not sufficiently cessions. 22 e4 (22 Ad5 £>g4) 22...Ac6-+]

38
 3.1.1 9 Ae3 (Yusupov-Bareev)
21 ...fe3 22 fe3 ®h3 23 Ag2 ®g3 24 Ef3 #h4
25 £>b8 Eb8 26 Eef1 £ig4 27 Eh3 We7 Ah5,
Ah6+.
21...fe3 22 ®e3 &b7 23 &d5 &d5
24 &d3 c6 25. h5
This appears to provide White with tactical
chances, but with exact play Bareev neu­
tralises White’s initiative:
2 5 ...6 .8 26 &g6
26 hg6 Wb2 27 Ec1 Eb6-+.
26...Ef6 27 ©d3 fcb6
27...#b5 was also a possibility: 28 #b 5
[28 ®c2 £>e7; 28 Sd1 £>e7 29 # 6 4 Eb7
Ad6-d5] 28...Eb5 29 E d £>e7 30 Ac6 £ic6
31 Ec6 Eb2.
28 b4 ab4 29 ab4 fcd7 30 ©c2 d5
31 &g2 &e5!
39
Yet another precise move. 31 ...Wb4 32 e4
d4 33 f4 Ae5 gives White counterchances.
32 b5
32 e4 £rf3; 32 Eb1 #b5.
32...cb5 33 Bd1 Sd8 34 &b3 Bfd6
35 ©b4
35 Eb1 £>c4 36 @b5 Eb6.
35...®b6 36 Ed2
36 Eb1 £>c6 37 @b5 #b5 38 Eb5 &d4-+.
36.. .&c6 37 ©g4 b4
The b-pawn now decides the game.
38 Efd1 &e5 39 ©h4 b3 40 Ed5 b2
41 Sd6 Ed6 42 Sb1 Sf6 43 e3 &f3
43...£>d3!-+.
44 4f3 Sf3 45 ©e4 Sf8 46 ©c2 ©f6
47 & f 1 ©e5 48. g4 ©e3 49 Bb2 ©h3
50 &e1 Hg4 0-1
 3 Illustrative games • 3.1 Main line 7 £\c3 We8 8 d5 a5

3.1.2 9 &d4

Van der Sterren - Nikolic

I wI
Ter Ape! 1994 A Ai. A A A
f t A ft
1 d4 f5 2 g3 £>f6 3 4g2 g6 4 £>f3 kg7 A A A
5 0 -0 0 -0 6 c4 d6 7 &c3 ©e8 8 d5 A A
a5 9 5id4 £>a6 10 e4 A£> A A
a b c d e f g h A i AAA
8 I A 8 I S$
7
6f t
AA A AA 7
6
13 ef4 gf4
1 ftA a1) 14 £te6 A e615 de6 c 6 16 £>e2 (16 £>e4l?
5 ▲ 5 McDonald) 16...fg3 17 hg3? A serious mis­
A A take, made without proper thought, which,
4 A£iA 4
surprisingly, was repeated by Ulf Andersson
3 A 3 a year later [17 fg3oo] 17...£>g4!
2 A A AAA 2
I I
1 2 Jl 2i? 1 A A AA
a b c d e f g h f t AAA
This central pawn advance is certainly A
White’s best continuation. White hopes to A f t
demonstrate the weakness of both the A A
pawn on e7, and the square e6. But Black AA £> A A
gets compensation in the form of the half­ 1, b,
open f-file and an open line for his queen’s
bishop. And already Black has a powerful attack!
In the absence of the h-pawn the twin
A) 10 b3 A calmer move. In lines with 9 Sb1
moves £ig4 and ®h5 are fatal. 18 Ah3 Ab2
similar positions are reached, but White
19 Ag4?? After this it’s all over. [19 Hb1
wishes to avoid having to make just this rook
£rf2 20 Sf2 Sf2 21 &f2 Ae5 22 £if4 &c5
move, so as to develop the bishop to b2
(22...W8!) 23 iLf5! Now the Swedish mas­
as quickly as possible. 10...Ad7 11 Jlb2 g5
ter of defence succeeds in saving the game.
The drawback is that Black can immediately
23...#f8 24 #h5 #g7 25 Bh1 h6 26 f h 6
become active on the kingside.
®h6 27 Sh6 Sf8 28 Sg6 &h8 29 Sh6 &g8
a) 12 e3 [12 f4!? Compare this with Kohler- 30 Bg61/2 -1/2 Andersson-Szabolcsi, French
Bareev variation c on the next page.] 12...f4 Team Championship 1992] 19...Aa1 20 ®a1
[12...&c5co] # g 6 21 Ah3 Wh5 0-1 Lukacs-Szabolcsi,
Once again this advance gives Black good Budapest 1991.
play. a2) 14 4ice2!
(see next analysis diagram) (see next analysis diagram)

40
 3.1.2 9 ®d4 (van der Sterren-Nikolic)

Ludden-Kosteniuk, Wijk aan Zee 2000 (0-1,

I smI # 44)]
1 AA A A A
% A % I I #
.4 A A AA A A A
A& A A
A A A %A A A
£iA A A A& A
I<4> A& A A
AA AA
Much stronger than 14 £}e6, which Ander- I I *
sson also played. 14...£>h5!oo. Black must
stake his claim to the outpost on f4. A good positional move. It is not immedi­
b) 12 ©d2 ®h5 13 e4 f4!? 14 f3 fg3 15 hg3 ately clear how Black is to continue. But Ba­
©g6 16 £>ce2 £*c5 17 g4 h5 18 £>f5 Af5 reev demonstrates an important black idea:
19 gf5 # h 6 20 Ad4 £tfd7! 21 Sae1 A64 14...#h6 15 #e2 £>g4!
22 £id4 £>e5 23 Se2 £ied3 + Sahovic-
Hoang, Budapest 2002 (0-1, 84).
I I#
B) 10 Hb1 &d7 11 b3 £>c5
A AAA i.A
A W
a) 12 e3 # f7 [12...c6] 13 Ab2 &ce4 14 ©c2
c5 15 dc6 bc6 16 f3 &c5 17 Sbd1 &h8
A *A AA
18Aa1 Sab8oo. A£> A *
b) 12 a3 c6 13 b4 ab4 14 ab4 £ice4 A& A A
AA AA
I w I# 1
AA AA A Black provokes h3 so that he can direct play
A A %A against the newly-created weakness on g3.
A A 16 h3 £rf6 17 £>cb5 £>ce4+ Kohler-Bareev,
A Frankfurt 1999 (0-1, 34).
to A 10...fe411 £>e4 & e 4 12 &e4 &h3
A AAA
I A# I *
In my opinion this is the best and safest
strategy: Black aims his forces at the centre
and pressurises d5. 15 £ie4 £ie4 16 ®d3
cd5 17 cd5 W 7 18 Ae3 [18 Le41 fe4
19 ©e4 Ah3+] 18...Wd5 19 £tf5 Wd3 20 ed3
[Mikhalevski-Zhang, Qingdao 2002 (1-0,
41)] 20...gf5 21 de4 Ac6=
c) 12 &b2 g5 [I prefer 12...c6 followed by
...Ec8, ®f7 and &ce4.] 13 e3 ®g6 14 f4!
[14 ®c2l? £>g4 15 Sbd1 ©h5 16 h3 £>f6oo

41
 3 Illustrative games • 3.1 Main line 7 4£>c3 ©e8 8 d5 a5
The most straightforward and to date the
most exclusively-played reply. Now White
has to take a crucial decision: should he ex­
change the light-square bishops or not?
12...&d7!? This idea of the German Lenin­
grad specialist Romuald Mainka may be
playable, but experience is lacking. 13 Ae3
c6 14 #d2 £>c7 15 dc6 bc6 16 Ah6 Ah6
17 #h 6 Sf6 18 #d2 e5~ Burghart-Mainka,
Wurzburg 1997(0-1,38).
13 Se1
At the time of writing this must be regarded
as the main line. Black should now try to get
in the freeing ...e5.
13iLg2 Perfectly plausible. White hopes
that, after the exchange of bishops, the
weakness of e6 will become an important
factor. After the disappearance of his king’s
bishop, of course, the white king itself will
not be quite so secure... 13...Ag2 14 &g2
£>c5 15 Se1 # f7
I I #
Ak k k cd5 24 cd5 (Anic-Koch, Nantes 1993 (0-1,
k k
A %A
A^
A first glance. Should the white bishop manage
AA A&A
1 HU
a) 16 &e3 After this cautious move Black
can force through the freeing ...e5 and
achieve a comfortable equality. 16...e5
[16...C6I? 17 £rf3 (17 dc6 #c4oo) 17...&b2
18 Sb1 &c3 19 Hf1 &f6 20 &c5 dc5 21 dc6
bc6 22 ®e2oo Lukacs-Bao, Budapest 1993
(V2-V2, 35)] 17 de6 £>e618 £te6 We6= 19 #d5
# d 5 20 cd5 c5 21 Af4 Ad4 22 Se6 g5
23 Ae3 Ae3 24 fe3 Sae8 25 Sd1 b5 26 e4 b4
Mamedyarov-Antal, Chalkidiki 2001 fV2-V2,
34).
42
b) 16 f4 Sharper and more risky. White aims
to control the e-file and to blockade e7. Now
Black has several interesting alternatives:
b1) 16...a4 [16...e5?! 17 de6 ®f6 18 £ib5
#e7±] 17 Hb1 g5!
I I#
Ak A Vi. A
A
&A A
A A£> A
A
AA *A
IJ l HU
Here, too, Black has excellent chances. The
rest of this game will repay close study:
Black, with ...g5 and ...c6, cleverly activates
the two levers which can shake the white
position. As in so many Leningrad positions,
Black need not fear the backwardness of
his e-pawn. Dynamic possibilities are there
in abundance! 18 £te6 #f5! 19 Ad2 £>e6
20 He6 Hf7 21 Ae3 gf4 22 Af4 c6! 23 He3
34))24...&d4!+.
b2) 16...Ad4!? It is true that this recommen­
dation of McDonald looks rather doubtful at
to occupy the a1-h8 diagonal unchallenged,
then things would look bad for Black. But
Black’s counterchances are not to be under­
estimated; often the lever ...g5 plays an im­
portant role. 17 ®d4 e5 18 de6 £te6 19 #d2
[19 #d 5 Sae8 20 #a5?! Too greedy. Now
Black gets a dangerous attack. (20 JLd2 g5!)
20...£>d4 21 Se8 Se8 22 ®c3 Se28 23 &f1
c5+] 19...a4 20 Sb1 Hae8 21 b3 g5oo.
b3) 16...Sac8 A good positional move. Black
hopes to crack open the white centre with
.. .c6.17 £te6 £te6 18 Se6 c 6 19 Ae3 [19 «b3
b5! 20 cb5 cd5 21 Wd5 Hc2 with the initiative
for Black] 19...b5!oo
 3.1.2 9 £id4 (van der Sterren-Nikolic)
Dynamic play by Santo-Roman, who is one
of the best exponents of the Leningrad.
20 cb5 cd5 21 ©dS White’s e-pawn looks
rather powerful, but the unfortunate pos­
ition of his rook on e6 will pose consider­
able problems for him. 21 ...Bc2 22 &g1 Sb2
23 Se1 [23 a4 Bb5 24 ab5 A al 25 b6 (25 ®e4
Ae5!) 25...a4 26 b7 Bb8+] 23...Bb5 24 ©b5
We6 25 Wa5 We4 26 Wa7 &f6 27 a4 #d5
28 Sb1 ®e4 29 Eb8 d5 30 a5 d4 31 &f2 d3
Dzuban-Santo-Roman, Moscow 1994 (0-1,
46).
13...&C5 14 &h1
14...®f7
14...®a4?! A somewhat bizarre idea of
Piskov - strictly for the adventurous! 15 b3
©b4
a) 16 &e3?! After this Black can be happy.
16...a4 17 a3 ®c3 18 E d [18 b4 £>b3 As the various white attempts to grab a pawn
19 &b3 ab3 20 S d ©b2 21 Eb1 Wc3~] on a5 or b7 have failed, Black has equalised.
43
18...#b2 19 b4 £>b3 20 Eb1 Wc3 21 £>b3
ab3 22 #b3? [22 Ec1=] 22...Ea3 + Ko­
marov-Piskov, Douai 1993.
b) 16 He7! This is the critical continuation.
I am not really convinced that Black has
sufficient compensation. 16...Af6 [16...#03
17 Ae3] 17 Ee3 a4 18 Ab2±
15 ke3 Sae8
15...<£,d7!? An interesting idea of the Viet­
namese Leningrad specialist: Black wants
to play ...c6 and holds back the e-pawn,
which at least gives better practical chances
of a win than the simplification that fol­
lows in lines with ...e 5 .16 ^ 2 a4 17 Bab1
Sac8 18 Ag2 c6 19 b4 ab3 20 £>b3 &a4
21 Ad4 Af5 22 Ebd c5 23 Ag7 Wg7 24 Ae4
Ad7 25 &a5 Ea8 26 &g2 Af5 27 Ae4 Ad7
28 Ag2 Af5 29 Jle4 V2-V2, Zhu-Hoang,
Jakarta 2004.
16 ©d2 e5!?
Much more direct than the wait-and-see
strategy of Vyzhmanavin, who prefers to
await a more favourable moment before play­
ing this freeing move.
16...b6 17 b3 &h8 18 Bad &d7 19 h4 «TfB
20 £>e2 e6 21 de6 22 Ag2 Wo2 23 Bc2
® f6= Akopian-Vyzhmanavin, Novosibirsk
1993 (1-0, 61).
17 de6
17 &b5 [17 £>b3 £>b3 18 ab3 b6 19 b4 ab4
20 « b 4 Ah6! 21 #d2 Ae3 22 Be3 Ba8=]
17...b6 18 £ic3 e4! 19 Ac5 bc5 20 Se4
[20 Ste4 A 64 1] 20.. .Se4 21 £ie4 4d4 22 Be1
a4 Black has compensation for the pawn
according to Dautov.
1 7 ...6.6
(see next diagram)
 3 Illustrative games • 3.1 Main line 7 £ic3 ®e8 8 d5 a5

28...© f7 29 ©e4 h5 30 a4 &h7

31 &g2

31 Ag5 #d7 [intending ...c6 followed by d5]

32 #e7 #e7 33 Ae7 Ad4 34 Ad8 c6=.

31...6h6!=

18 &e6
18 Ab7? Ad4 19 Ad4 c5-+.
1 8 ...4 .6 19 Sac1
19 Ab7?l [19 #a5?l b6 20 #d2 A c4 t ]
19...Eb8 20 Ad5 Ad5 21 # d 5 # d 5 22 cd5
Sb2=.
19... b6 20 b3 &h8= 21 &f4 Jtd7 32 ©d5
The active 21.. ,a4l? (Dautov) was also a pos­
sibility. 22 Ac6 Ad7 23 Ad5 W 6 24 b4 a3= 32 Ag5 «&g5 33 hg5 Wd7= followed by c6
A #b2.
and d5.

22 h4 ©f5 32...®d5
22...a4!?
Nikolic liquidates to a pawn ending, which, in
23 a3 He1 spite of the weak black queenside, is drawn.

23...®c5l? 24 b4 ab4 25 ab4 #d4=.
24 Se1 Se8 25 Se8 4e8 26 ©e1
After somewhat passive play by Black, White
has achieved a small advantage.
26...©d7
26...Ad7? 27 #e7 Af8 28 #d8±.
27 kd5 k f7 28 kf7
28 We4! [Dautov] 28...&d5 29 cd5± Wf7
[29...b5 30 a4 ba4 31 ba4±] 30 a4 h5
31 &g2±.
33 cd5 &f4 34 gf4 $g7 35& f3& f7
35...6f6 36 &e4 &f7 37 f5 &f6 38 fg6 &g6
39 f4 &f6 40 f5 &g7 41 &e3 &f7 42 &f4 &f6
43 <&e4 &g7=.
36 &e4 &f6 37 &e3
37 f3 &f7 38 f5 &f6 39 fg6 &g6=.
37...6f7 38 &d3 &e7 39 &e4 &f6
40 &e3 &f7 41 &d3 &e7 42 &d4 &f7
43 &e4 V2-V2

44
 3.1.3 9%^e^ (Rogozenko-McDonald)

3.1.3 9 &e1

Rogozenko - McDonald a b c d e f g h
Budapest 1995 8 I #1# 8
7 ▲A A AA 7
1 d4 f5 2 g3 £>f6 3 4g2 g6 4 &f3 kg7 6 A 4ftA 6
5 0-0 0 -0 6 c4 d6 7 &c3 ®e8 8 d5 5 5
a59&e1
A A A
4 A 4
3 A 3
2 AA A AAA 2
1 fi Jl S# h 1
a b c d e f g
A) 10...e5?! Too direct; after this the weak­
nesses of b6 (following the obligatory ...c6)
and of the a-pawn weigh too heavily. 11 de6
c6 12 &a4! Ae6 13 & b6 Eb8 14 Jtd2
&d7 15 £id7 Wd7 16 Wc2 #c7 17 Af4 b6
18 Sadi ± Nikolic-Malaniuk, Groningen 1993
(1-0, 49).
B) 10...@f7!? 11 3tf4 [11 Eb1 Ad7 leads
A good positional move, which once led to by transposition to 10...Ad7 11 Eb1 Wf7.]
excellent results and caused panic in the 11 ...£»c5 12 Ae3 4tfe4 13 4Eie4 £»e4 14 Ad4
black camp. Now, however, correct play for g 5 15 Ag7 Wfg716 &d3 b 6 17 Wfc2 A d 7 18 e3
Black has been established. V2-V2 Lukacs-Anka, Budapest 1994.
C) 10...c6 An interesting and as yet untested
The white knight heads for d3, from where it
idea; Black prepares the advance ...e5 and,
will both aim at the good square f4 and keep
in this line, does not need to fear the weak­
an eye on c5. The bishop on g2 is also un­
ness on b6.
leashed and sometimes the space-grabbing
a) 11 e4 [11 Sb1 e5 12 de6 Ae6 13 b3 &f7
advance f2-f4 is possible.
14 A b 2 1/2 -1/2 Savchenko-Malaniuk, Maikop
Black generally continues with the thematic 1998. Not very informative, unfortunately...]
...c6, but occasionally the best reaction is 11...e5!
to parry on the queenside with ...b6 in con­
junction with ...e5. I WE #
9...& a610 &d3 kd7 A AA
* A A% A
(see next diagram) A AAA
The safest continuation. Black first com­ A A
pletes his development. A
I A AAA
ah I <4?

45
 3 Illustrative games • 3.1 Main line 7 4jc3 We8 8 d5 a5

This thematic counterthrust looks like the

I I
right way for Black to gain active play.
[11 ...fe4 12 £te4 £»e4 13 Ae4 Ad7 is prob­ l i l WJ l A
ably just as playable, but it looks a little A
less solid. 14 Ae3 c5 15 Sb1 (15 a4!? £>b4) A AA A
15...b5 16 cb5 Ab5 17 Se1 &c7 18 &f4 Eb8 A
19 h4 Ad7 20 Wc2 A f5~ Kragelj-Potapov,
ES A

D>
&©•
Pardubice 1997 (0-1, 56)] 12 dc6 [12 de6

[>
AA A
fe4] 12...bc6 13 b3 fe4 14 £ie4 £>e4 15 &e4
Af5oo [15...&e6 16 &a3 # d 7 ~ ] Kremenet- B HU <4>
sky-Piskov, USSR 1989.
A typical problem arises here which is less­
b) 11 &a4 Probably the critical reply.
ened by the rook move to b8.
11.. .cd512 &b6 Sb813 cd5 Ad7 [13.. .£>d71?
14 Ae3 (14 £ic4 a 4 15 Ae3 &dc5 ~) 14.. ,£}b6 b) 12...Bab8
15 Ab6 a4 16 Sc1 ©b5oo] 14 A62 a4 15 Ac3
Ab5 16 £tf4 &c5 17 Ad4 g5 18 £>e6 £te6 I I #
19 de6 f4 And, as is so often the case, the lAilfi A
further advance of the f-pawn gives Black % A ftA
chances of counterplay. 20 gf4 gf4 21 &h1
#h 5 22 Af3 ©f5 23 Sg1 &h8 24 £ja4 ffe6
A A A
25 £>c3 Ac6 26 #d 3 # h 3 V2-V2 Vaulin-
A &
Potapov, Perm 1997. & A
AA A A IA
11 Eb1
n A its
This careful rook move prepares for the fi­
anchetto of the queen’s bishop. The safest move. Should White now play
A) 11 Se1 [11 b3? £te4+] A more aggres­ £>e6, the opening of the g2 bishop’s diagonal
sive plan. White aims at getting in e2-e4. will not be so bad for Black, and the safety
11 ...'§Sff7 Black takes prophylactic measures move ...b6 becomes playable.
with the queen to prevent the double ad­ 13 Ae3 b6 [13...h6 14 Aa7! Sbe8 15 Ad4
vance of the e-pawn. [11...h6 12 e4 fe4 b6 16 e4 fe4 17 £te4 g5 18 £ie6 Ae&
13 &e4 ®f7 14 Ae3+] 12 £rf4 [12 e4?! After 19 de6 #g6 20 ^ c 3 ± Oil-Topalov, Gronin­
this premature thrust White has problems gen 1993 (1-0, 51)] 14 Ad4 £>c5 15 e3
with the f-file, and the black queen shows g5 16 £>fe2 e5 17 de6 £>e6~ 18 Wd2
how strongly placed she is on f7. 12...fe4 £>d4 This direct approach by the Viet­
13 £>e4 £>e4 14 Ae4 (14 Se4 Af5 15 Sf4 g5 namese lady grandmaster looks better to me
16 Sf3 g4 17 Ef4 #g6+) 14...£>c5?] than Malaniuk’s king move. [18...&h8 19 f4
Sbe8 20 fg5 &g5 21 £>d5 £ige4 22 Wd3
a) 12...&c5?! [12...g5? 13 £te6 Ae6 14 de6
Ae6 23 £ief4 4ig4<» Polulyakhov-Malaniuk,
We6 15 Ag5±] 13 Ae3 b6? [13...£ife4 is rel­
Kropotkin 1995 (V2-V2, 42)] 19 &d4 [19 ed4
atively better, but not completely satisfac­
f4!? Again and again a most important the­
tory. 14 £>e4 £>e4 15 Wc2 g5 16 £>e6 Ae6
matic move! 20 gf4 gf4 21 £rf4 Ah6^]
17 de6 We6 18 Ag5 tfe5 19 Wb2 20 Ae4
19...Wc4 20 Sec1 # f7 21 £>cb5 c5 22 &d6
fe4 21 # e 4 ± Garcia Vicente-Hoang, Yere­
©g6 23. &4b5 &h8 24 a4
van 1996 (V2-V2, 31)] 14 Ac5! [14 Ad4 Sae8~]
(see next analysis diagram)
14...bc5 15&e6! +

46

1 I
£ A
1 &
i & i i i 1
A A
A m A A
S H <4
24.. .f4! —
►Here, too, the Dutch lance pierces
the seemingly impregnable White defensive
wall. 25 ef4 gf4 26 He1 £>g4 27 h3 fg3 28 fg3
&e5 29 We3 Sbd8?! [29...M>5 30 £>b5
Sbe8+] 30 Sadi Ac6?! There is presumably
a time scramble going on here!? [30...Ab5!
31 £)b5 Sd1 32 Sd1 £tf3-+] 31 Ac6 &c6
32 Sf1 &d4 33 £>d4 Sf1 34 <&f1 # d 6 0-1
Jelen-Hoang, Budapest 1998.
B) 11 k d 2 Sb8 [11 ...c6 12 Wb3!?] 12 Sc1 b6
13 a4 c6 Playing both ...b6 and ...c6 does
not look especially good to me, but the out­
come is by no means clear. [13...e5! 14 de6
©e6 15 &d5 (15 b3 £>e4 16 £tf4 ®e8~)
15...£te416 b4 c6! 17. &5f4 fte8 18 ba5 ba5
19 Aa5 g5 20 &h3 c5] 14 b3 cd515 cd5 £ta5
16 £»c5 bc5 17 £ib1 ®f7 Parting too soon
with the a-pawn. [17...#d8oo Here follows
a ‘sample’ variation, in which White’s play
is too directly greedy: 18 £»a3 (18 Ac3 £te4
19 Ag7 &g7) 18...3te4 19 Ae4? fe4 20 £ic4
Ah3 21 Se1 Wd7 22 £>a5 Ad4 23 e3 Ag4+]
18 Aa5 g5 19 £lc3 f4 20 Af6 ®f6 21 £id2
g4 22 Ec4± Schlosser-Sadler, Bundesliga
2003/04 (1-0, 46).
11. ..c6
A) 11...Bb8 If Black is intending to play ...c6,
this rook move is unnecessary. 12 b3 c6
13 &b2 £>c7 14 dc6!
a) 14...bc6?! 15 c5! With the given pawn
structure Black must constantly reckon with
this pawn thrust. Weak squares now appear
in Black’s centre.
3.1.3 9 £>e1 (Rogozenko-McDonald)
*
# 1 W I #
1 1 A I
1 1 f t 1
A 1
A ^ ^ i A
A A A A A A A
> I £
15...^e6 [15...d5 16 &a4 £>e4 17 Ag7 &g7
18 f3 £tf6 19 £te5±] 16 cd6 ed6 17 «d2±;
b) 14...&C615 £rf4 A g 2 16 &g2 ® c 6 17 &g1
e5 18 £icd5 £*cd5 19 £>d5 £>d5 20 Wd5
#d5 21 cd5 Bbc8= Antunes-Vyzhmanavin,
Tilburg 1994 (1-0, 44).
B) 11...W7 12 a3 c6 [12...Sab8?! 13 b4 ab4
14 ab4 e5 15 b5 £ic5 16 &c5 dc5 17 b6±
Chabanon-Koch, Besangon 2003 (1-0,41)]
a) 13 &f4 £»c5 14 Ae3 £»ce4 gives Black
good play, e. g. 15 Ad4 [15 # b 3 a4 16 '§fb7
(16 £}a4 cd5 17 &b6 dc4) 16...Hfb8 17 ®c7
Sc8 and, at the very least, Black has a repe­
tition of moves. 18 ®b6 g5!?] 15...g5 16 £id3
e5 17 de6 Ae6 18 b3 &c3 19 Ac3 a4?.
b) 13 &a4 13...cd5 14 &b6 dc4 15 £}a8
Ha8 16 Ab7 [16 £rf4 £>c5] 16...Sa7 17 &a6
Sa6, with excellent compensation for the ex­
change.
12 b3 £>c7
12...frf7!?.
13 Ab2 cd5
McDonald correctly sees an opportunity to
strive for play on the queenside. In many
positions, however, this exchange is not es­
pecially to be recommended.
14&d5
I prefer 14 cd5 and if 14...b5 15 b4<».
1 4 ...6 .d 5 15 cd5 a4
McDonald’s own opinion is that Black has
equalised.
47
 3 Illustrative games • 3.1 Main line 7 £ic3 ^e8 8 d5 a5
16 Sc1
16...nd8!
A pretty and totally correct move. The queen
returns to her home square. There she pre­
vents White from invading the seventh rank
with a rook, and brings her influence to bear
on the queenside. Behind this move is the
correct assessment, that the queenside is
where the main action will take place.
17 &f4 ^b 6 18 &d4 ^b 5 19 &e6
A double-edged decision which in practice
often works out badly for White. Whilst it is
true that the diagonal of the fianchettoed
white bishop opens up, the advanced e-
pawn comes under attack and the remaining
Black pieces co-operate marvellously well.
1 9 ...6.6 20 de6 ab3 21 ©b3
21 ab3!?
21...f$b3 22 ab3 £>e4 23 e3
48
23 Ag7 would still lead to equality. White
clearly underestimates the threats he is fac­
ing. 23...&g7 24 Ae4 fe4 25 Sc7 (25 Sc4 e3)
25...6f6 26 Sb7=.
23...Bfc8 24 b4 4d4 25 ed4 &g7!
The thematic Dutch endgame trump: the
black king reaches the centre much more
quickly than his ‘safely-protected’ white op­
posite number!
26 £e4 fe4 27 d5 &f6
Heading for e5!
28 f4 &f5 29 &f2 Ea2 30. &e3 Sa3
31 &e2 Sca8 32 Sc2 Sd3 33 Ed1
Saa3
Black’s vastly superior piece activity together
with his ‘Dutch king’ give him a big advan­
tage.
34 Sdd2 &g4! 35 Sc7 Sd2 36 &d2
&f3 37 Sc1 &f2 38 Sc2 e3 0-1
 3.1.4 9 A62 (Beliavsky—Glek)
3.1.4 9 &d2
Beliavsky - Glek
Essen 2000
1 d4 f5 2 g3 fcf6 3 kg2 g6 4 &f3 kg7
5 0-0 0-0 6 c4 d6 7 £>c3 ®e8 8 d5
a5
We will now consider two relatively quiet con­
tinuations for White, as well as an interesting
new idea.
9&d2
Here White would like to exchange the dark-
square bishops as quickly as possible. This
Kne is closely linked with 9 &e3.
A»9 Sb1 White prepares the fianchetto of
his queen’s bishop. Very similar positions
and even transpositions frequently occur.
9 &d4 &a6 10 b3 [9 b3? &e4]. 9...£>a6
10 b3 [10 £>e1 Ad7 11 £>d3 c6 compare
this with 9 £>e1. (11 ...h6?! 12 b3 g5 13 Ab2
Wg6 14 e3 h5?! 15 £ie2 Bf7 16 &f6 Af6
17 ®M2 Sh7 18 h4l? gh419 £ief4 #h6 20 gh4
Ah4 21 &h2 Karpov-Zhang, Cap d’Agde
2000 (rapid; 1-0, 35) with White pressure)]
10...J,d7 11 Ab2&c5
49
a) 12 a3 h6 This allows the black queen to
occupy the good square f7, as white’s knight
sortie to g5 has been prevented. [12...c6!?
13 b4 ab4 14 ab4 £>ce4 (14...£>a6? 15 dc6
bc6 16 c5!? A characteristic and dangerous
pawn sacrifice, which destroys Black’s pawn
structure. 16...dc5 17 bc5 &c5 18 £ie5^ Al-
terman-Mainka, Recklinghausen 1998 (1-0,
37) and White has good compensation for
the pawn.) 15 £»e4 fe4 (15...£ie4 16 Jt,g7
<&g7 17 c5!) 16 £>g5 £.f5^] 13 £id4 « f7
[13... c6 14 b4 ab4 15 ab4 £}ce4 16 £te4 £ie4
17 f3 £>f6 18 f4 cd5 19 cd5 W 7 20 £ie6
Ae6 21 de6 We6 22 Af6 tte3= Lukacs-
Hoang, Budapest 1996 (Vfe-Vfe, 42)] 14 b4 ab4
15 ab4 £ice4 16 &e4 £je4 17 e3?! [17 f3!?
£rf618 f4] 17...c6 Black’s best strategy in this
line: the pressure on d5 will force White to
exchange, whereupon the black centre be­
comes mobile. 18 dc6 bc6 19 c5 Not now so
effective, as Black can maintain the tension.
19...Ea2! [19...dc5 20 &b3! (20 bc5 Sa2t)]
20 cd6 ed6? Kachiani-Gersinska-Mainka,
Recklinghausen 1998 (0-1, 64).
b) 12 e3 c6 Probably the most exact move:
if White chooses to play the knight to d4,
Black can omit ...h6 and play ...W 7 at once.
13 £>d4 Ec8 14 We2 Wf7 15 Sfd1 £tfe4
1 I #
▲ ilfii
AA A
A ft A A
A£}ft
AEl A A
AA fA iA
This is Black’s best set-up; the pressure
on d5 is uncomfortable for White. 16 Ebc1
£ic3 17 Ac3 £ie4! The exchange on e4
would, of course, be disastrous for White:
 3 Illustrative games • 3.1 Main line 7 £>c3 We8 8 d5 a5

both the f-file and the diagonal of the light-
square bishop would open up, and the
white king would be exposed to a dan­
gerous attack. 18 Aa5 cd5 19 cd5 #d 5 A
favourable exchange for Black; his mobile
centre pawns and active pieces give him
good play. 20 Ab4 Sc1 21 Sc1 Ad4! 22 Sd1
Sc8 23 ed4 ®b5!¥ As so often, Black has
a favourable endgame. Gurevich-Mainka,
Frankfurt 2000 (rapid; V2-V2, 53).
B) 9 e4!?
I'*JL 1#
1A A AA
bc6 14 b3 £ic5 15 Sd1 ®b8 An interesting
idea, which is rendered dubious by White’s
correct reply. Black wishes to play ...e5,
should it become necessary, and also to
create play on the queenside with a5-a4.
16 Sd4?! [16 We3\ Se8 17 £>e5±] 16...&ce4
17 £>e4 fe4 18 £id2 d5 19 cd5 cd5 20 ©c5
ffe7! 21 Wa7 Sa7 22 £tf1 Ec8? Lobron-
Mainka, Frankfurt 2000 (rapid; V2-V2, 50).
12 &g7 &g7 13 b3 c6 14 &b2
a b c d e f g h
8 I «r I 8

A AA
7 A Ak# A 7
6 AA
* A 6
A A A
A A 5 A A % A 5
&; a 4 A 4
AA AAA 3 A& £>A 3
2 Jl I <A> 2 A# A AAA 2

An interesting and rarely-tried idea: White

1 | & 1
hopes to punish Black for his lack of devel­
a b c d e f g h
opment by opening up play in the centre. Beliavsky has played 9 Ad2 and achieved
9...fe410£>g5 his desired set-up, whilst Black has a char­
a) 10...4g4 11 ft e l!? [11 #b3 #c8 12 £>ce4 acteristic Leningrad formation. Now the first
£>e4 13 £>e4 £id7 14 Ag5 Sf7 15 &d2 a4 crucial decisions must be made:
16 Wc2 a3 17 Ac3 Ac3 18 #c3 ab2 19 #b2
£>e5°o Mohebbi-Glek, Paris 2000 (0-1, 46)] 1 4 ...6 .8
11 ...&a6 12 &ce4 &b4 13 h3! 4f5 [13...£te2 14...e5 15 de6 Ae6 16 Had1 ©e7 followed
14 #d2 &a1 15 hg4+] 14 ®e2 c6 15 g4 by ...&g8 and sometimes ...&ce4 leads to a
Ad7 16 Zhc3 h6 17 dc6 bc6 18 £te6 Ae6 somewhat tense, but very solid type of pos­
19 # e 6 &h7 20 # e 2 ± Dorfman- Bauer, ition, which gives White at best a minimal
French Championship, Aix-les-Bains 2003 advantage. Glek resolves to introduce more
(V2-V2, 31). tension into the position, and to retain some
b) 10...&a6!? 11 £>ce4 £ie4 12 £ie4 [12 Ae4 fluidity in the black pawn structure.
£>c5] 12...a4 13 ®e2 & f5eo.
15 Bad1 ®d8?!
9 ...6 .7
15...©f7! was a possibility, in order to
9...e5!? 10 de6 Ae6 11 £id4 c6 t± Khalifman.
counter 16 £id4 [16 £}g5 ®g7] with 16. ...
10 &c1 & a 6 11 &h6 £>c5 £tae4oo. In many lines Black can play the
queen to g7 and try to get the queens oft
11...c6 [11 ...®f7!? A solid-looking move; the Thanks to his centrally-placed king, Black
queen heads for g7.] 12 Ag7 &g7 13 dc6 generally does not need to fear Leningrad

50
 3.1.4 9 &d2 (Beliavsky-Glek)

endgames. Glek’s queen manoeuvre does
not look especially good to me.
16 £>e1!
Typical regrouping. White opens up the di­
agonal for the bishop on g2 and intends to
exchange a pair of knights.
ab3 27 ab3 Ec7 28 Ed1] 26...ab3 27 ab3 e3
[27...Ea3 28 Ee4 Eb3 29 Se7 Ec4 30 Ea1
Ec8 31 Sd7] 28 f4 Ea2 29 Ee1 followed by
30 Se4.
26 Hc5 dc5 27 Sd1 &f7 28 Sd5
28 Ed7 Eb8.

1 6...6b 617 &d3 &ce4 28...b6 29 a4!

Beliavsky demonstrates his superb endgame
17...6d3 18 ed3l? and the e-file gives Black
technique. The move played immobilises the
problems too, although the position is by no
queenside, and holds onto the d-file, thereby
means clear. 1 8...^ 4!?
preventing all Black counterplay. To this end
18 dc6 kc6 Beliavsky refrains from immediately winning
a pawn, trusting to his positional advantages
At first glance, 18...bc6 looks positionally to win even a pawn ending.
sounder. After 19 4ia4 #a7 20 c5!± White
The primitive 29 Se5 a4 [29...Ed8 30 Se4
would have strong pressure; in some lines a
a4!] 30 Ee4 is clearly weaker because of
white knight will get to b6.20...d5 21 #d4.
30...Ed8! [30...ab3 31 ab3 Ea2 32 f4 Eb2
19«tf4 33 Ee3 &f6 34 &f2] 31 ba4 Ea8! [31 ...Ed2
32 a3 Ea2 33 Ee3 Ec2] and Black seems to
A good square for the knight, from which it have a draw.
can keep an eye on the sensitive squares d5
and e6. 29...6e6 30 g4!
19...5fc8? An important move, which seizes space and
prepares for the king to advance to g3.
A consequence of this move is that Black
gets a weak pawn on e4. Necessary was:
30...5a7 31 &g2 Bd7
19...£*c3 20 ®c3 Ag2 21 &g2 # c 6 22 f3At first glance 31...Ea8 32 &g3 Ef8 ap­
with a small advantage for White. pears to solve Black’s problems, but White
has another poisoned arrow to fire. 33 h3!
20 &e4 ke4 21 &e4 fe4 [33 h4? h6] 33...h6 34 h4 and surprisingly
21 ...£>e4 22 £id5 #d8 23 lti4 ± . Black finds himself in zugzwang! 34...Ef7
[34...&f6 35 &f4 &e6 36 &e3] 35 Sd8 and
22&d2 the penetration of the rook will decide the
Preparing to exchange knights on d5, after game.
which the black pawn on e4 becomes an 32 Sd7
easy target.
Because of various zugzwang possibilities,
22...6b4 the pawn ending looks lost. The decisive fac­
tor here is that White has a number of spare
22...#05 23 £>d5 makes no difference.
pawn moves.
23 &d5 &d2 24 Sd2 &d5 25 Sd5 32...6d7 33 &g3 e5
Bc5
33...g5 34 f4! ef3 35 &f3 &d6 36 &e4 e6
The straightforward 25...a4!? offers only [36...&e6 37 e3 h6 38 h3+- &d6 (38...&f6
slight chances of survival. 26 Ed4 [26 Bb5 39 &d5) 39 &f5] 37 e3 h6 38 h3 &d7 39 &e5

51
 3 Illustrative games • 3.1 Main line 7 c3 We8 8 d5 a5
&e7 40.e4! + - demonstrates clearly the na­
ture of Black’s problems.
34 &h4!
An excellent idea. In order to prevent the
white king from reaching h6, Black has to
‘use up’ his pawn moves, which will later be
vital to his survival. 34 f4? ef3 35 &f3 &e6
36 &e4 &d6 and, as the f5 square is still
guarded by the pawn on g6, Black avoids
zugzwang.
34...H6 35 &g3 g5
35...6e6 looks natural, but here, too, Black
is doomed to zugzwang. 36 f4 &f6 [36...ef3
37 &f3 &d6 38 &e4 &e6 39 h3 &d6 40 h4
&e6 41 h5 g5 42 e3] 37 h3! &e6 38 h4 &f6
[38...&d6 39 h5 gh5 40 gh5 &e6 41 &g4 e3
42 &f3 ef4 43 &f4 &f6 44 &e3 &g5 45 &e4
&h5 46 &f5 &h4 47 e4] 39 g5 &f5 40 gh6
ef4 41 &h3 &f6 42 &g4 f3 43 ef3 e3 44 &g3.
36 e3!
36 f3 e3 37 &g2 &e6 38 &f1 &f6 39 &e1 e4
40 fe4 &e5.
36...6e6
36...6d6 37 f4 gf4 38 ef4 e3 39 f5.
52
37 f4!
The decisive pawn advance. Either the pawn
on e5 falls due to zugzwang, or White creates
an outside passed pawn.
37...6.6
37...ef3 38 &f3 &f6 39 &e4 &e6 40 h3 with
which we are already familiar.
37.. .ef4 38 ef4 &f6 39 f5 h5 40 h3 hg4 41 hg4
&e5 42 &f2 &f6 43 &e2! &e5 44 &e3.
38fg5
38 f5??= This move, which a computer
would recommend, snatches a draw from
the jaws of victory, since the white king has
no means of penetrating further.
38... &g5
38...hg5 39 h4 &g6 40 hg5 [40 h5?? &h6=]
4 0 ...6 .5 41 &h3 &g6 42 &h4.
39 &h3 1-0
And Black resigned. A very instructive and
impressive endgame performance by Beli­
avsky.
 3.2 Alternative main line 8 d5 £\a6 (Beliavsky-Kindermann)

3.2 Alternative main line 8 65 & a6

Beliavsky - Kindermann a b c d e f g h
Frankfurt 1998
1 d 4 f5 2 c 4 & f6 3 g 3 g6 4 &g2 &g7
5 4if3 0-0 6 0 -0 d6 7 £>c3 ®e8 8 d5
Qa6

A) 9 4kd4

I £ wI
.k k k £1
to ▲ 41k
A k
As I have already explained in the introduc­ A£>
tion to the game Yusupov-Bareev (page 32),
I regard 8...a5 as the more solid continua­
& A
tion, according to the latest findings. In reply AA A A Jl A
to the more usual 8...£ia6, White’s 9 Sb1! Jlw I *
fi conjunction with expansion on the queen­
Very natural, but no longer considered best.
side is a plan which has to be taken very
The white knight keeps a watchful eye on
seriously; the move b4 is generally, and in
the sensitive square e6 and makes the cen­
many lines, one of White’s best weapons
tral advance e4 possible. But certain games,
against the Leningrad. But I would nonethe­
those of Malaniuk in particular, have demon­
less, in this English edition, like to examine
strated that Black has adequate counterplay:
the move 8...&a6, which is the choice of so 9...Ad7 10 e4 fe4 11 &e4 &e4 12 Ae4 c6!
many Leningrad players, as to some extent
at least, a secondary weapon. I have also, I w I#
of course, included analysis of the currently
most dangerous White plan beginning with
k 1 Jl k £ k
to k k k
14 c5!
A
9Sb1
(see next diagram)
This has long been the most popular contin­ A
uation: the double advance of the b-pawn AA A A
gains space on the queenside and prepares
for an attack on the left flank.
2 Jl IM?
53
 3 Illustrative games • 3.2 Alternative main line 8 d5 £\a6

This proves again and again to be a key move

1 I #
for Black, essential for gaining control of the
centre, and as preparation for various ac­ 1 to± k A A
tive plans. Sometimes ...e5 becomes possi­ 1 ▲

ble, but the typical plan at this point lies in A ▲ A

the moves ...&c7, ...c5 (only now, after the A

white knight threat to e6 has been blunted; in

most cases Black prefers to capture with his
jl A

knight) and, after the knight withdraws, ...e5
with the initiative for Black on the queenside.
(See also the typical positions)
[12...C5? 13 £>e6 Ae6 14 de6±]
a) 13 h4
a1) 13...e5!? An interesting analytical idea,
which aims at exploiting the downside of h4
(the weakness on g3!). 14 de6 [14 4bb3 c5]
14...&e6 15 Ee1
A A 4 } A A
I 1<4>
16 b3 W 7 17 Wd2 *he8 18 £te3 £>f6 19 4g2
bc4 20 bc4 Efb8 21 h3 Af5 22 Eb8 Sb8
23 g4 Ac8 24 Sb1 Eb1 25 &b1 h5 26 g5
£>d7 27 Wa5 ^b6 28 &d2 e6+ Santos-Lutz.
Debrecen 1992 (V2-V2, 46).
c) 13 &g2 £»c7 14 £te2 c5 15 a4!? £>a6!?
[15...Sb8; 15...#f7] 16£>f4®c817 W b 3 ^M
18 £d2 a5 19 Efe1 Ef7 20 Ac3 Ad4 21 #d1
g5 22 &d4 cd4 23 £te6 Ae6 24 de6 Ef6
25 Wd2 Wc5 26 Ab7 Eaf8 27 Ef1 h6 28 Ead1
d3T Gisbrecht-Kindermann, Gladenbach
1997 (V2-V2, 46).
B) 9 k e3

I V I #
AAA A A
to Ato A
A A
A
15...# f7 [15...&C4!?] 16 £>e6 # f 2 17 *h 1 & A£>A
#g 3 and White must play precisely to hold AA AA I A
the draw. 18 £tf8 E f8 19 4g5 Ef2 20 Ad5 cd5 £ n*
21 #d 5 &h8 22 Ee8 Af8=;
This simple developing move is a speciality
a2) 13...&c7 14 h5 e5 15 h6? Af6 16 £>c2 of the Armenian grandmaster Arshak Pet­
cd5 17 cd5 We7 18 Wd2 Eac8 19 f3 £>a6 rosian (amongst others), the father-in-law
20 g4 Ah4 21 We2 £ic5 22 Ae3 Ag5 The and trainer of Peter Leko! In many cases
white position is already in ruins. 23 &g2 White will try to exchange off the black fi-
Af4 24 b4 £ie4 25 fe4 Ab5 0-1 Pedersen- anchettoed bishop, in order to weaken the
Malaniuk, Cappelle-la-Grande 1995. opponent’s king’s position. Interesting here
is the comparison with our main line 8 d5 a5
b) 13 Sb1 £>c7 14 Ae3 c5 The prelude to 9.&e3. 9...C6
play on the queenside. 15 4le2 b5
a) 10 Sc1 Ad7 [10...£sg4! 11 &f4 h6ce
('see next analysis diagram) is probably a more convincing solution.]

54
 3.2 Alternative main line 8 d5 4Sa6 (Beliavsky-Kindermann)
11 #b3!? To be honest, I had not reck­
oned with this direct assault on b7. In some
lines the dangerous c4-c5 is a possibility.
11...£>g4
a1) 12 Af4?! Somewhat unambitious, but
now, of course, Black has no further prob­
lems. 12...£>c5 13 frd1 h6 14 h3 &f6 15 Ae3
4ice4 16 £ie4 fe4 17 £id2 cd5 18 cd5 4id5
19 £>e4 4ie3 20 Wb3 &h7 21 # e 3 Ac6
22 b3 Wi7 23 f4 a6oo Drawn. Petrosian-
Kindermann, Baden-Baden 1996.
a2) 12 <&d4! would have confronted Black
with a serious dilemma: a slight disad­
vantage or wild complications? 12...Ad4
[12...JUi6!? 13 c5! e5 14 de6 Ae6 15 #b 7
4ic5 16 Ac5oo] 13 £>d4 £>c5 14 # c 2 e5
15de6£>e6±.
b) 10 ®d2 £ig4
I A W 1 #
11 A A A I
to A A A AA
A A
J A to
& A
A A H A A A A &
< 4 >
A key move in the struggle with the white
queen’s bishop. (See also the typical pos­
itions)
[10...&c7 11 Eab1 &d7 12 b4 cd5 13 cd5
a6 14 E fd Ec8 15 &d4 £>g4 16 &e6 £ie6
17 de6 Ae6 18 Ab7 Ec3 19 Sc3 Ac3 20 #c3
#b5 21 ,&f3= Uhlmann-Malaniuk, Linz 1997
(Vt-Vs,24)]
bl) 11 £id4 Ad7 12 h3 £le3 13 We3 &c7
14 ©d2 c5 15 £>f3 a6 16 a4 b5 17 ab5
ab5 18 cb5 Eb8 19 Ea7 &b5 20 £>b5
Eb5T Bjornsson-Kindermann, Reykjavik
1998 (V2-V2, 46).
b2) 11 Af4 [11 Ad4? Ah6 followed by 12...c5]
11...&C5 12 Sac1 [12 h3 ^ f6 13 Ah6 £>ce4
55
14 £te4 fe4 15 &d4 &h6 16 #h 6 cd5 17 cd5
W 7\ 12 b4? &e4 13 £>e4 fe4 14 &g5 &a1
15 Sa1 h6 16 £>e4 g5] 12...a5 13 &d4 [13 h3
£rf6 14 &h6 &ce4 15 £ie4 £>e4 16 # e3
Ab2 17 Eb1 Ag7oo] 13...£d7 14 e4 fe4
[14...£>e5!?] 15 £te4 £ie4 16 Ae4 c5 17 £»e6
Ae6 18 de6 Ad4 and, according to joint an­
alysis by Christopher Lutz and myself, Black
has good counterplay on the dark squares.
9...C5
9...JUI7 This is Black’s best continuation if
he is not comfortable with the type of pos­
ition arising from 9...C5 without 10 dc6 (see
alternatives to 10 dc6, variations A to E on
pages 55-56). Of course, this gives White a
somewhat dangerous extra option: 10 b4 c6
11 #b3!?
[11 dc6 bc6 leads by transposition to the
main line. 11 ...Ac6?! 12 #b 3±]
m I
A k A k
to A A to A
A A
A
A
A A A A A
I I I *
11...cd5 12 cd5 Sc8 13 &e3! &g4 14
Ad4 4d4 15 £>d4 f4 16 £>e4 [Adianto-
Kindermann, Biel 1995 (1-0, 39)] 16...£ic7!?.
10 dc6
This is the most consistent continuation of
the plan suggested by the previous move:
attack on the queenside!
Sometimes White rejects the pawn exchange
and the game leads to quite unforced and
distinctly unclear play. Herewith a few exam­
ples:
A) 10 &d2 Ad7 11 tfc1 £>c7 12 Ah6 « 7
13 b3 Ah6 14 «h 6 #g 7 15 # d 2 h6 16 £>e1
 3 Illustrative games • 3.2 Alternative main line 8 d5 £}a6
Bab8 17 a4 a6 18 a5 b5 19 ab6 Bb6 20 £>d3
Efb8 21 Wc2<x, Cvitan-Malaniuk, Forli 1992
(0-1,47).
B) 10 a3 h6 11 b4 g5 12 e3 ®h5 13Ee1
&e4 14 £>b5 4d7 15 Ab2 Ab2 16 Eb2
Sfc817 We2 ooJelen-Psakhis, Portoroz 1987
(V2-V2, 42).
C) 10 £te1 £}c711 a4 b 612 Ad2 Eb813 &d3
e6 14 de6 Ae6 15 b3 Af7oo Larsen-Yrjola,
Holstebro 1989 (1-0, 47).
D) 10 b3 &c7 [10...h6 11 &b2 g5 12 #d2
#h5 13 e3 Ad7 14 £>e1 f4 15 ef4 gf4 16 Ste2
fg3 17 4ig3 # g 6 V2-V2, Novikov-Malaniuk,
Lvov 1988] 11 a4 [11 Ab2 b5 12 £»b5
£>b5 13 cb5 ®b5 14 £>d2 £>d7 15 Ag7
&g7 16 Be1 # b 4 17 e4± Ivanchuk-Legky,
Tashkent 1987 (1-0, 35)] 11 ...b6 12 e4l? fe4
13 4bg5 e3! 14 ,&e3 Af5oo Timoshchenko-
Malaniuk, Tashkent 1987 (V2-V2, 52).
E) 10 e4!? fe 4 11 &g5 & c 7 12 &ge4 [12 a4!?
a6 13 a5] 12...£ie4 13 £>e4 b5 14 Ee1 ®f7
15 b3 Bb8oo Akesson-Berg, Skara 2002
(V2-V2, 111).
10...bc6 11 b4 4d7 12 a3
This is now regarded as the strongest contin­
uation. White aims first to complete his de­
velopment, and to maintain his flexible pawn
structure, before he puts concrete plans into
action. Black must keep a careful eye on
the two possible pawn advances b4-b5 and
especially c4-c5.
56
A) 12 &d4 Ec8! 13 b5 cb5 14 cb5 Ec3
15 ba6 [Wehmeier-Kindermann, Lippstadt
1993 (V2-V2, 24)] 15...e5!~.
B) 12 b5 According to current theory, this di­
rect advance offers no prospects of a white
advantage, providing that Black counters
precisely. 12...cb5 13 cb5 £ic5
a) 14 &d4 £rfe4! In many lines this knight
outpost is a major black trump card, be­
cause it neutralises the dangerous white
bishop. 15 £ie4 Ste4 16 Eb4 [16 ®b3 ®f7
17 Ae3 ®b3 18 Sb3 Sfc8 19 Eb4 d5 20 Ed1
e5 21 &b3 d4 22 &e4 fe4 23 £>c1 de3
0-1, Stangi-Topalov, Arnhem 1989.16...Ec8
17 £b2 e5 18 £ib3 W 7 19 f3 £>c3 20 Ac3
Sc3 21 Wd6 Sfc8 22 ®a6 Af8 23 Sa4
# e 8 + Blees-Kindermann, Hamburg 1995
(0-1,42).
b) 14 a4 Sc8! An important finesse: plac­
ing the knight on e4 would be premature at
this point, because, in the right conditions.
White can exchange off Black’s fianchettoed
bishop. [14...4tfe4 15 £>e4 £>e4 16 Ab2±]
15 &d4 [15 Lb2 a6!
I I #
A A A k
A I A t o k
A 4 1 A
£ > A
J l A A A A
n
f l s l ?
An excellent move, discovered by Vladimir
Malaniuk, which takes the sting out of
White’s queenside play. 16 £ld4 ab5 17 ab5
£rfe4 18 £>e4 fe4 19 £ib3 Ab5 20 &g7 &g7
21 4bc5 V2-V 2, Greenfeld-Malaniuk, Pardu­
bice 1993] 15...£»ce4 16 £>e4 £>e4 17 &b2
# f7 18 e3 ®a2!=
(see next analysis diagram)
The active intervention of the queen solves
Black’s problems.
 3.2 Alternative main line 8 d5 £ia6 (Beliavsky-Kindermann)
I I #
k A ▲ A
k k
A k
A
A A
A A
19 &c6 &c6 20 Ag7 £>c3! 21 Ac3 Ag2
22 &g2 Ec3 23 #d 4 Ec5 24 Efc1 Efc8
25 Ec5 Ec5 26 Eb2 ®a1 = Babula-Beim,
Bundesliga 1999/2000 (V2-V2, 37).
12...«ic7 13 &b2
I spent much time in my early Leningrad days
examining this position. It seemed to me
then that Black has two main problems to
solve: how can he force through the double
advance of the e-pawn without losing control
of d6, and what is he to do with the problem-
child on c7? White, on the other hand, has
a basic decision to take about how to han­
dle his pawns: should he try to crack open
the black pawn structure with b4-b5 or with
c4-c5?
13...&e6
The knight heads for the centre: now White
must reckon with ...f4 followed by ...g5.
13...Bd8 [13...a5?! 14 b5! cb5 15 cb5 &b5?
16 £>b5 Ab5 17 ®b3] 14 b5?! [14 #a4; 14 c5]
k 14...£ie6 The following classic game shows
Black’s superb strategy against the planned
white b5: 15 a4 Eb8 16 # c2 f4! Here too
the ‘Dutch lance’ unleashes a black attack
on the kingside. Bareev follows up with a
very skilful mesh of various thematic strate­
A
gies, which without tactical complications
gradually force White into a corner. 17 Aa3
g5 18 Ebd1 ©c8 19 Wa2 &h8 20 &c1 a6!
Breaks up the white pawns on the queen­
side and brings more black pieces into play.
21 bc6 &c6 22 £)d5 #e8! Black cleverly out­
manoeuvres the advanced knight, which is
White’s only trump card. [22...Ad5? 23 cd5
&c5 24 &g5] 23 a5 &d7! 24 Bd2 g4 25 &h4
&e5 26 Be1 W 7 + 27 e4 fe3 28 Ee3 £»g5
29 Ed1 e6 30 £if4 Ag2 31 &hg2 Wc7 32 Aa3
# c 4 33 We2 #e2 34 Ee2 £>c4 35 Ac1 e5
36 4£id5 0-1, Damljanovic - Bareev, Sochi
1988.
14 e3
The traditional continuation, which prevents
Black’s ...f4 and keeps all options open.
14 c5! This crucial pawn sacrifice is the real
reason for my rejection of 8...£»a6! White
creates a hole in the black pawn structure
and gains the important central square e5
for his pieces.
a) 14...dc5?! This erroneous capture leads
to overwhelming activity for the white pieces.
15 £>e5 Ed8 16 f?b3 &h8 17 bc5 &c5
18 ®c4+ van der Sterren-Onischuk, Bun­
desliga 1999/2000 (1-0, 53).
b) 14...&e4?! 15 #b3 d5 16 £}e4 fe417 &e5
Ac8 [17...a5!?] 18 f3!± Antunes-Zhang,
Macao 1996 (1-0, 45).
c) 14...d5! The only move! Surprisingly, in
only one game has this precise position been
reached. Herewith some brief analytical pos­
sibilities. It is interesting to compare the pos­
ition with the somewhat less critical continu­
ation 14 e3 4bd8! 15 c5. White now has two
plausible methods of developing his pieces:
57
 3 Illustrative games • 3.2 Alternative main line 8 d5 £ia6
c1) 15 £ia2 A quiet, but totally reasonable
move. White wants to place the knight on
d3 and develop his minor pieces harmo­
niously, thereby achieving total control of
the central dark squares. 15...a5! A very im­
portant resource: Black weakens the op­
ponent’s queenside and prepares to acti­
vate his queen’s bishop. 16 £to1 ab4 17 ab4
Ac8! 18 £>d3 Aa6~ 19 ®c2 Ab5 [19...®d7]
20 Sa1 ®d7 In spite of his obvious cen­
tral weaknesses, Black has a solid position,
which looks very playable to me.
c2) 15 £>e5 The more aggressive move,
which threatens the dangerous-looking ad­
vance b5.15...4ig5 16 b5 e6! Black sets up
an impregnable centre; White’s b-pawn is
less dangerous than it looks. (In this line, ad­
mittedly, Black does need strong nerves and
faith in the Leningrad!) 17 a4 [17 b6 £ig4!?
(17...£rf7)] 17...£rf7~.
It was only shortly before this book ‘went to
press’ that I was able to put my own rec­
ommendation to the test: I would not like to
deprive the reader of it.
15 &e5 £ig5 16 f4!? 4rf7 17 4£>a2 Tratar com­
bines the two main plans for White and
fights for domination of the dark squares.
17...4fre5 18 Ae5 # f7 Black makes prepara­
tions to play the knight to g4 and wants, of
course, to recapture on g7 with his queen.
19 £>c1 A surprise for me; White permits
his opponent’s plan and allows Black to
play the central advance ...e5. But alter­
native moves were not especially convinc­
ing: [19 h3 Now the weakness of g3 will
give White particular problems. 19...£>h5!
20 &g7 #g7 21 &h2 g5 (21 ...e5 22 b5 Sad8
23 &b4 ef4 24 gf4±) 22 e3 #g6«>; 19 Af3
£}g4 20 4g4 fg4oo and the Ad7 will find a
good square at f5.] 19...£}g4 20 Ag7 Wg7
21 Sb3 e5 22 h3 4}h6?! This reaction is too
mechanical; the knight will be very passively
placed on f7. [22...£rf6! 23 fe5 £>e4 24 ©d4
Sae8 25 £>d3?! £>d2 (25...£>g3); 23 £>d3 ef4
24 gf4 a5! 25 &e5 ab4 26 ab4 We7 27 ®d4
Sa4 with excellent counter-play for Black.]
58
23 e3 £>f7 24 Sf2 Sfe8 25 &h2 ± and, thanks
to his mobile queenside majority, White has
a small advantage; Black will have to con­
tinually watch out for the advance b4-b5.
Tratar-Kindermann, Pardubice 2004 (1/2- 1/2.
46).
14...&d8!
At the time I was extremely proud of this
idea: the knight, it has to be said, is un­
favourably posted; it will head for f7, from
where it will guard d6, and thus make the
thematic ...e5 a possibility.
15 &e2
The following games show some typical con­
tinuations to the two white strategies involv­
ing b4-b5 and c4-c5:
A) 15 c5!? d5 16 £>e5 £>f7 17 £>e2 [17 £>d7
Wd7 18 a4 e6 19 f?e2 4te5 20 Sfd1 #c7
21 Aa1 £>c4 22 Wa2 a5 23 &f1 ab4 24 Sb4
Wa5 25 Sdb1 £ie5¥ Falk-Grafl, Kaufungen
2003 (0-1, 38)] 17...£te4 18 f4!? £te5 19 Ae5
Ae5 20 fe5 £»g5 21 £>f4 e6 22 #d 2 &f7
23 Wc3 m 8 24 £>d3 a5~ Lukacs-Lutz.
Austrian League 1998/1999 (1/2- 1/2, 39).
B) 15 b5 Sb8 16 a4 a6! 17 Aa1 [17 &d4 An
attempt as White against my Munich analy­
sis partner brought little joy: 17...ab5 18 cb5
cb5 19 &db5 Ac6 20 &d5 4d5 21 Ad5 &d5
22 Wd5 Wf7 23 Wf7 &f7 24 Ag7 &g7 25 £ic7
Sc8 26 Sfc1 &f7 27 &g2 £>e6 28 £>e6 &e6
29 &f3 Sc1 30 Sc1 Sa8 31 Sc4? Losing the
 3.2 Alternative main line 8 d5 £>a6 (Beliavsky-Kindermann) &

thread completely in time trouble, and then £lfe5 27 &c3 ©d8 28 £ka5 ©f6
later losing on time at move 37... (31 Ba1 ± 29 ©a1
2a5 32 &e2 &d5 33 &d3 e5 34 &c3 &c5
29 ©b2l? &b6!?.
35 &b3 d5? 36 Bc1 &b6 37 &b4 Sa8 38 f4!
ef4 39 ef4) 31...d5 Kindermann-Dirr, Carl 29...&g8 30 &c6 g5 31 a5 f4
Schiechter Memorial, Vienna 1996 (0-1,37)] Objectively speaking, definitely suspect, but
17...4M7 18 ba6 S a819 Sb6 ®c8 20 #b3 e5 in lightning chess it is often the best practical
21 Sb1 Sa6 22 c5 d5 23 Sa6 #a6 24 AM choice!
9a7 25 9 b 6 Ba8+ Hangweyrer-Grafl, Vi­
enna 2003 (V2-V2, 46). 32 ef4 gf4 33 ©b2?
15...«if7 16 Hfd1 e5eo 17 &d2 e4!
a b e d e f g h
8 I m1 8
7 A A ^ l i l 7
6 AA %A 6
5 A 5
4 AA A 4
3 A £> A A 3
2
1
± & Ai A 2
1
11 H 33 Ae4! This calm theft of a pawn should
a b e d e f g h
have raised doubts about Black’s strategy:
An important move, which gains space, re­ 33...5.e8! [33...fg3 34 fg3 912 35 &h1 ±]
stricts the scope of the fianchettoed white 34 #b2 [34 Ag2 fg3 35 fg3 W 2 36 *h1 £>g4
bishop and, above all, secures the outpost 37 Se1 Se1 38 Se1 £ie3 39 Sg1 £>f6 40 ftel
e5 for the black pieces. «tfg4]
18 &b3 fte7 19 b5 c5 a) 34...#h 6 35 Se1 £rf6 [35...f3 36 h4 Sf4
37 #d2] 36 &e5 Se5 37 Af3±.
The subsequent play is riddled with errors, b) 34...®f7! and Black retains some attack­
but it should not be judged too rigorously ing chances. 35 Ag2\7 [35 b6?! ab6 36 ab6
since it was only a lightning game. The £>b6 37 #b6? fg3 38 fg3 912 39 &h1 £>g4
very pretty final attack is, however, worth a 40 Sb2 He4 41 Sf2 £rf2 42 &g2 &d1 +].
glance...
33... e3!
19...£>e5!?.
Now Black’s attack gathers momentum!
20 &a5 ®d8
34 fe3 fg3 35 hg3 ©g5 36 Sf1 ?
20...£»e5!?.
36 e4 £rf3!? 37 A13 Ef3.
21 £kb3
36...^e3 37 &h1 &d3!+ 38 &a1?
21 £ic6!? Ac6 22 bc6 Ec8 23 f3.Sae8 39 ©g3 40 Sf8 &f8
21... 41 ©c2 £tf2 42 <&g1 £ig4 43 HS?d2
©c7 22 a4 ke6 23 £>d5 4d5
24 cd5 &d7 25 kg7 &g7 26 ©d2 ©h2 44 & f 1 foe3 45 &e2 &c4 0-1

59
 3 Illustrative games • 3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for White

3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for White

3.3.1 8 b3

Ibragim ov - Kram nik

I i . #

Kherson 1991 AAA § ±k

to A
1 d4 f5 2 g3 4rf6 3 Ag2 g6 4 &f3 4g7 AA
5 0-0 0 -0 6 c4 d6 7 &c3 ©e8 8 b3 A to
A A 4 } A
With this move White seeks to complete his
development and, at the same time, to ren­ A # A A A

der Black’s planned ...e5 less attractive at 1 I *

least, even if he cannot quite prevent it.

White has strong pressure. Black must
8...&a6 choose between two very dubious-looking
continuations.
The most flexible move. Now Black is once
again ready to play ...e5. a) 14...&d4 15 £kd4 ed4 16 Ae4 [16 Efe1 \7]
16...fe417 # e4 c6 18 £ie7 &f7 19 Sfe1 Af6
a b c d e f g h 20 Ed3 [20 ®f4 &g7 21 Ee4!?] 20...1^4?
8 E ± m I #
8 [20...#e6 is better. 21 Ef3 Ee8] 21 Ef3±
7 AAA A ±k 7 # e 4 22 Ee4 d3 This suggestion of Beim’s
doesn’t work [22...&g7 23 £>c8 Eac8 24 Jte7
6 4 A %k 6
Ae7 25 Ee7 &g8 (Leski-Philippe, French
5 A 5 League 2001 (V2-V2, 40)) 26 Eff7 d3 27 Bg7
4 AA 4 &h8 28 Sh7 &g8 29 Beg7 &f8 30 Eb7 &g8
3 31 Bbg7 &f8 32 Ea7 &g8 33 Bag7
3 £>A 34 Ed7 &g8 35 & f 1 +-] 23 Ab2 Af5 24 £rf5
2 A A AAA 2 <&b2 This leads, somewhat surprisingly, to
1 I I Jl# 1 mate in five moves. Okay, this was ‘discov­
a b c d e f g h ered’ by my analysis software. 25 £ih6 &g7
26 Sf7 &h8 27 See7.
8...e5 This straightforward advance is risky,
b) 14...& h815 £rf6l [15 £ib6?! looks weaker,
considering Black’s backward development;
as Black’s pawn structure is strengthened
of the available theoretical sources, only
after 15...ab6 16 Ed7 M 7 17 Ab2 Ea2
McDonald and Beim suggest the real rea­
18 #b1 Saa8oo van Mechelen-Claesen, Bel­
son: 9 de5 de5 10 e4! £>c6 11 £>d5 Wd7
gian Championship, Charleroi 2001 (V2-V2.
12 Aa3 Ed8! Much better than the older
28)] 15...Af6 16 Ed7 Ad7 17 h4! A e618 TScV
...E e8.13 #02! A very powerful pawn sacri­
Ag7 19 Ab2± and White will continue with
fice which once again exploits Black’s lack
Ee1 and £>g5, after which the black pos­
of development. 13...£>e4 14 Had1
ition comes under considerable pressure.
(see next analysis diagram)
19...h6? 20£le5!.

60
 3.3.1 8 b3 (Ibragimov-Kramnik)
To sum up, 8...e5 is a good surprise weapon,
but is best left alone against a well-prepared
opponent.
9&a3
Karpov’s trademark! After his impressive vic­
tory against Malaniuk (see page 64), for
some time the line beginning 8 b3 became
the main variation. Nowadays, however, this
sequence of moves is seldom played. But
occasionally, in fact, transpositions do lead
to other lines involving a white b3; see, for
example Tukmakov-Malaniuk (see page 87).
The move 9 Aa3 is aimed at Black’s central
advance e7-e5, since after the exchange on
e5, the rook on f8 would come under fire
from the white bishop at a3.
Black should seek activity on one of the two
wings: either on the queenside by ...c6 and
...b5, or on the kingside by ...h6 and ...g5.
Personally, I regard expansion on the king­
side, which some sources give as a pro­
phylactic in most such positions, as very
dubious. Often serious long-term weak­
nesses are created on the black kingside,
whilst Black’s attacking chances dissipate
all too easily. Attacking on the queenside
looks much more natural to me, whereas
plans involving ...g5 should be embarked
on only in especially favourable circum­
stances.
A) 9 a4 & b 4 10 a5 [10 &a3 a5] 10.. .e511 Aa3
c5 12 de5 de5 13 e4 [13 &a4 e4 14 £>e1
©e7 15 £>c5 Sd8 16 ®b1 ®c5 17 £>c2 £rfd5]
13...Ad7s Kramnik.
B) 9 &b2 is a seldom-played move, because
White must then reckon seriously with ...e5.
There follows a convincing example of a
punitive expedition undertaken by Black in
the face of passive white play:
a) 9...e5!? leads to very sharp and unclear
play: several examples follow: 10 de5 de5
11 e4 f4!
61
a1) 12 gf4 Playing with fire. 12...£>h5 Log­
ical. [12...Ag4 is also interesting. 13 fe5
£>d7 (13...Ed8! 14 We2 £id7oo) 14 ®d5 &h8
15 &g5 &e5 16 Aa3 (16 'tb7!?) 16...c6
17 ®a5oo Mohring-Mainka, Senden 1999
(V2-V2, 70)] 13 fe5 c6! [13...£tf4?! 14 £id5
£ig2 15 &g2 Ag4 16 £tf6 Af6 17 ef6 # e4
18 Se1 ±] 14 &a3?! [14 £>e2 Ag4 15 #d3!?
This is possibly the critical move. (15 £tfd4
Ae5 16 f3 Ad7 with good compensation for
Black.) 15...£>c5!? 16 We3 &e6 17 h3 Af3
18 Af3 £>hf4 19 Ag4 *he2 20 Ae2 £rf4 with
Black compensation.] 14...Sf7 15 #c1 £>f4
16 Ad6 Ah3 17 £>g5? [17 e6 was essen­
tial. 17...We6 (17...&e6 18 #e3) 18 &f4 % 4
19 Ag3 Sf3 20 Ah3 ®h3 21 e5 £>c5 with a
strong Black attack.] 17...Ag2 0-1, Barczay-
Videki, Kecskemet 1990.
a2) 12 £>b5 Ag4 13 'te l? ! & d7 [13...c6!?
14 &d6 We7] 14 b4 £>b6 15 Ec1 We6 16 c5
&c4 17 Aa1 c6+ Jellinghaus-Mainka, The
Ruhr 1997/98(0-1,21).
a3) 12 Aa3 This is an attempt by White to
disrupt the coordination of his opponent’s
pieces. 12...Sf7 13 c5 Ag4!?oo [13...&b8?!
14 &g5 &g4 15 Af3 (15 f3 Ed7 16 ®c1
Ae6 17 gf4!?) 15...&f3 16 W 3 ± Utvinov-
Maianiuk, Minsk 1988 (1-0,28)]
E w
AAA I A A
to to A
A A
AA A
AA£>
A AAA
O
n U &
(Analysis diagram after 13... Ag4!? oo)
For example 14 h3 Ed8 15 We2 &f3 16 W 3
c6oo.
b) 9...c6 The most solid move. Black would
like to get in ...e5 ‘comfortably’; White is, of
course, mostly little inclined to co-operate...
 3 Illustrative games • 3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for White
b1) 10 a3? After this ...e5 is clearly strong;
Black seizes the initiative, without any kind of
risk. 10...e5 11 e3 e4 12 £>d2 Ae6 13 b4 £ic7
14 Ee1 g5 15 Af1 itf7! A strong manoeu­
vre; the bishop will be well placed on h5.
16 a4 Ed8 17 Wc2 & h518 Eab1 E f719 a5 d5
Covering e4. After this, all the conditions are
right for our favourite move: 20 b5 f4! 21 bc6
fe3 22 fe3 bc6 23 h3 #e6 24 c5 Ag6 25 &c1
Edf8 26 Eb7 ^h5 27 &h2 £>g3 28 &g3 Ef2
0-1, Andonov-Ermenkov, St. John 1988.
b2) 10 Ee1!? Basically correct: once White
has completed his development, he intends
to open the centre. Black has no other choice
than his standard reaction: 10...e5
b21) 11 de5 de5 12 e4 f4 13 Aa3 Ef7 14 h3!?
[14 gf4 &h5!] 14...fg3 15 fg3 £>h5 16 &h2
A e617 We2 Ed8 18 Ead1 Efd7 ooJuswanto-
Hoang, Jakarta 2004 (1-0, 56).
b22) 11 e4!? An interesting idea: White aban­
dons his plan to exchange first on e5, in order
to keep the black d-pawn as an object of at­
tack. 11...f4 12 &a3!?
A W I#
1A AA
to AA to A of view, the set-up with ...4lic5, ...Ec8, ...h6
A and ...W 7. It should be borne in mind that
AAA
<\M
AA£>
<1
A is, with the queen on f7, to be regarded as a
12...ed4 [12...fg3!? 13 hg3 ed4; 12...c5?
This very serious and completely anti-
positional weakening of the central squares
is a very unpromising emergency plan.
13 &b5! ed4 14 £>d6 ffe7 15 e5 &g4 16 £>c8
Eac817 IS W i Filippov-Potapov, Perm 1997
(1-0, 31)] 13 e5!? Beim regards this as the
refutation, but I am more inclined toward
Tyomkin’s judgement (in Chessbase), which
promises counterplay for Black after the fol­
lowing queen sacrifice. [13 £ld4 fg3 14 hg3
62
We5oo] 13...de5 14 Ee5 dc3! 15 Se8 Se8oo
16 Ec1 M5.
b3) 10 d5
A I
AA A AA
to A A to A
A A
A
A£> 4}A
AA A A JlA
I w 1 <6>
This positional continuation leads frequently
by transposition to b3 systems, which are
considered in the gameTukmakov-Malaniuk
(page 87 onwards). It presupposes that White
will later continue with c4 and £>c3.
10...Ad7
Now both sides have various possible plans,
since we have reached an absolutely typical
Leningrad position, which can arise out of
different move orders (as, for example, via
7...c6 8 b3). I will therefore append mate­
rial from some master games. If it can be
brought about, I prefer, from Black’s point
Black can omit ...h6, should White play his
knight to d4, and also.. .Ec8 whenever White
doesn’t play this thematic knight move (...h6
prophylactic to £ig5.) Compare this with van
der Sterren-Nikolic (page 40 onwards) with­
out 10 e4 and other positions of this type.
b31) 11 £>d4 Ec8
b311) 12 e3 &c5 13 E d ®f7 14 Wc2 £>ce4!
Black’s forces are optimally placed. The
pressure on d5 forces White to resolve the
tension. 15 £»e4 £»e4 16 dc6 [16 Ae4?! fe4
17 #e4? c5] 16...bc6 17 £>e2 Ab2 18 Wb2
c5 19 £»c3 Ac6 20 f3 &c3 21 Wc3 We6 Gre­
byonkin-Rychagov, Voronezh 2002 (Z2-V2,
58).
 3.3.1 8 b3 (Ibragimov-Kramnik)

b312) 12 Eb1 a b c d e f h
I A mI #
g

b3121) 12...£ic7 13 dc6 bc6 14 b4!? e5

8 8
15 £>b3 We7 16 £»a5 [16...e4?! 17 b5! cb5 7 AA A Ak 7
18 &b5 & b 5 19 cb5 Ae6 20 £>c6± Damaso- 6 6
Malaniuk, Yerevan 1996 (1-0, 34)] 16...d5!oo & AA &A
17 cd5 cd5 18 &d5 £>cd5 19 &d5 4id5
5 A 5
20 ®d5 Ae6 with good play for Black. 4 AA 4
b3122) 12...£>c5 13 b4 £\ce4 14 4ie4 £>e4
15 Ste6 Ae6 16 Ag7 &g7 17 de6 £rf6 18 ®d4
3
2
1A^ £hu 3
2
b619 c5 #d8 20 Efd1 bc5 21 bc5 d5 22 Eb7
A A AAA
3c7 23 Edb1 WC800 Reshevsky-Vasiukov,
1 H 2. 1
Palma de Mallorca 1989 (0-1, 42). a b c d e f g h

b32) 11 £>d2 (hc7 12 e4 f4 13 dc6 bc6 14 c5
d5 15 ed5 cd5 16 Ee1 fg3 17 hg3 e5 18 £>f1
# f7 + Jakab-McDonald, Budapest 2003
(1-0, 36).
b33) 11 Sc1 Ec8 [11 ...h6 12 e3 Ec8 13 &d4
Wf7 14 Aa3 cd5 15 £>d5 £>e4 16 f3 £iec5
17 £>b5 Ab5 18 cb5 £>c7 19 &c7 Ec7
20 Ac5 dc5 21 f4 V2-V2, Kasparov-Malaniuk,
55th USSR Championship, Moscow 1988. At
that time an important moral victory for the
‘Leningrad faction’!] 12 £id4 Wf7 13 Aa3 g5
14 e3 f4 15 ef4 gf4 16 £>de2 £>h5 17 Af3
&e5 18 Ah5 Wh5 19 £>f4 #d1 20 Efd1 Af4
21 gf4 Ef4 22 Ed3 &f7 23 Ee3 Eg8 V2-V2,
Moldobaev-Kramnik, Belgorod 1989.
9...C6
a b c d e f g h
8
X 1 t E# 8
This plausible queen move is regarded as the
‘main line’. White takes action against ...b5
and, for his own part, prepares the thematic
double advance of the e-pawn.
10 Hc1 A somewhat slower plan. White ad­
dresses the black play on the queenside and,
as a precaution, vacates the a1-h8 diagonal.
a) 10...H6!? Since White cannot immediately
become active in the centre, this is a rela­
tively favourable moment for the plan with
...h6 and ...g5 outlined above. But even
here the logical play on the queenside looks
preferable. In order to provide the reader
with a comprehensive ‘Leningrad overview’ I
am appending some typical continuations
involving the kingside plan: (the following
game extracts arose from the move order
9 ...h6 followed by 10...c6.)

7
AA i AA 7 a1) 11 # c2 g5 12 e4?! This is precisely the
move for which Black has prepared. [12 e3 00]
6
% AA 4A 6
12...fe4 13 £>e4 # g 6 14 £tf6 W 600 15 d5
5 A 5 cd5 16 cd5 Ag4 17 &d2 Sac8 18 £te4 #d 4
4 AA 4 19 #d 2 #d 2 20 £id2 Ad4!+ Verdihanov-
Malaniuk, St Petersburg 1994 (0-1, 50).
3 AA ^ A 3
a2) 11 Wd3 g5 12 e4 fe4 13 &e4 ®h5!?
2
A A AAA 2
[13...’tg6!?] 14 £tf6 Ef6 15 £>d2 Af5 16 £>e4
1 | # II <1?
1 Sf7 17 # e 3 Eaf8 18 f3 Wg6 19 Ecd1 £>c7
a b c d e f g h 20 Ab2 £te6 21 Aa1 Ae4 22 We4 We4 23 fe4
Sf1 24 <&f1 c5? Skembris-Gausel, Skei 1993
10 ©d3 (V2-V2, 48).

63
 3 Illustrative games • 3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for White

a3) 11 b4! As so often, this type of queen- A) 11 c5 # d 8 12 cd6 ed6 13 Sac1 £>c7
side attack is an effective plan for White. 14 £>d2 Ee815 Ec2 d5+ Koch-Kramnik, Sin­
11 ...&c7 12 d5 cd5 13 cd5 £±>5 [13...®f7!? gapore 1990 (0-1,42).
Must surely be preferable. 14 £>d4! £,d7 oo B) 11 &d2 This quiet move gives Black no
(14...^cd5 15 &d5 £>d5 16 £>f5 &f5 problems, though he must, of course, be
17 tti5 ± )] 14 £>b5 f b 5 15 £>d4 # b 6 16 e3 prepared to make a positional pawn sacri­
J,d7 17 ®b3 Sfc8 18 Ab2 E d 19 E d Bc8 fice. I came to this conclusion for the first
20 Ec8 JLc8 21 a4± Cebaio-Gavrikov, Reg­ time over the board, when playing the strong
gio Emilia 1991/92 (1/2- 1/2( 34). Hungarian theoretician Joszef Pinter, but re­
b) 10...Sb8 11 d5 Ad7 [11...b5?! 12 cb5 grettably I did not dare to actually put it into
cb5 13 b4! &c7 14 £>d4±] 12 &d4 £>c7 effect.
Threatens the thematic counterplay 13...c5 a) 11...&C7?! Just as in the main line the
followed by 14...b5. 13 b4! [13 #d2?! c5 knight is better placed on a6, since from
14 £»f3 b5¥] 13...cd5 [13...e5?! Not sufficient there it supports the important counterthrust
here to equalise. 14 de6 £*e6 15 &b3 We7 ...c5. 12 Sac1 b5 13 £>cb1! [13 &b2 &a6
16 Wd3 Ebd8 (16...f4 17 Scd1 £>e8±) 17 Efd1 14 &a1 Sd8 15 # f3 (15 e3 e5) 15...b4!?
&c8 18 b5±] 14 cd5 # f7 15 Wb3 £ig4 16 4&a4 J,b7» Kramnik] 13...±a6 14 Wc3
[15...Sbc8!?eo 16 b5 £>e4] 16 Efd1 ?! [16 e3!? Now the pressure on the queenside gives
Hbc8oo (16...f4!? 17 £>ce2 £ib5) 17 b5?! White some advantage. Black must keep
f4!] 16...f4! This advance allows Black once an eye on the sensitive square c6 and also
again to seize the initiative. 17 £rf3 fg318 hg3 be alert for a possible queen sortie to a5.
£>b5? 19 &e4 £,h6 20 &b2?! &c1 21 Sc1 14...bc4 15 bc4 Wd7 [15...£ie6 16 e3 c5
Efc8 22 Ed1 ®f5 23 £>h4 W 8 24 a4 *hc7 17 #a5 Wc8 18 dc5 £>c5 19 &c5 dc5 20 £>b3
25 Sd3 £rf6 26 Sf3 £>ce8 27 ®d3 Wh6 28 e3 £>d7 21 Sfd1 ±] 16 # a 5 !± [16 Sfd1 Pinter-
®h5 29 &f6 ef6 30 Ef6 ®e5 31 £>g6 «a1 Kindermann, Austrian League 2003/04 (1-0,
32 &h2 4tf6 33 4£>e7 &g7 0-1, Dolgopolov- 31)].
Cherepanov, Roslavl 1989.
b) 11...b5!
10...Bb8
MJl W I
Black must not delay his counterplay, as oth­ A A 1A
erwise White will develop strong pressure on
the e-file.
% A A %A
A A
Here is a good game by Anatoly Karpov, AA
which drastically reveals the consequences
of passive Black play: 10...ik.d7?! 11 Sfe1
A
Hd8?! 12 Sadi &h8?! 13 e4 fe4 14 £te4 &f5 A AAA
15 £rf6 Af6 16 # e3 W 7 17 h3 *hc7 18 Se2 B 1, <A>
Ac8 19 £>g5 Wg8 20 #d2 £ie6 21 £\e6 Ae6
22 Ede1 Ad7?! 23 Ee7! Ae7 24 Ee7 Ef6 12 &c6!? This tactical possibility, proba­
25 d5 Wf8 26 Be3 &g8 27 Ab2 Ef5 28 Kd4 bly the result of prepared analysis, is not
Ee5 29 Ee5 de5 30. # e5 &f7 31 d6 &f5 to be found in any theory book, nor is it
32 c5 h5 33 g4 hg4 34 hg4 Ad3 35 Ad5 1-0, in the first German edition of the present
Karpov-Malaniuk, Moscow 1988. work... [12 cb5 cb5 13 £>d5 £>d5 14 Ad5
&h8! Black should avoid the weakening
11 e4 pawn move ...e6, which would undermine

64
 3.3.1 8 b3 (Ibragimov-Kramnik)
the pawn on d 6 .15 Sac1 Ab7 16 &b7 Eb7
17 £rf3 (17 e3!?) 17...£>c7 18 e4?! ® f7 !f
Ehlvest] 12...#c6 13 cb5 # b 6 14 £>c4 # d 8
[14...#c7 15 B a d !] 15 ba6 Aa 6 and Black
has good compensation for the pawn, e.g.
16 We3 [16 Sabi Bc8 (16...d5?! 17 We3 dc4
18 We6); 16 Wf3 &c4 17 bc4 #a5] 16...®d7
17 Bfd Bbc8 [17...Bfc8 18 Eab1!] 18 &d2?!
ftg4 19 W 3 Ab7 20 #d3 ®c 6 21 £rf3 [21 f3
&a6] 21 ...A h 6 22 Ec2? [22 d5 1 ^ 6 23 e3
&q7 24 &b2 e5!] 22...£a6.
11...fe412 &e4 Jtf513 «Jf6
13 4kh4 Ae4 14 Ae4 £>e4 15 #e4 c5! 16 Ab2
b5 17 cb5 Sb5. With good counterplay, ac­
cording to Kramnik.
13...£f6 14 &d2
14 ©e3 b 5 15 Sad [15 Sadi bc416 bc4 £ib4
17 Ab4 Sb4+ Kramnik] 15...£>c7 [15...bc4
16 bc4 (16 Sc4 £>c7) 16...£±>4 17 # d 2
a5] 16 Sfe1 Wd7 17 Scd1 [Miles-Kramnik,
Moscow 1989 (1-0, 41)] And now, according
to Kramnik 1 7 ...# 08! A . . . # a 6 would have
given Black a small advantage.
14...6.7
14...©d 7 This seems (with all due modesty)
more precise. Black should keep the knight
on a6, so that later the important move ...c5
becomes possible. [14...b5!? is also worth
considering, since White’s queen move to a5
achieves very little. 15 Wa5 # c 8] 15 h4 b5
16 Sae1 bc4 17 bc4 c5!
I I #
L A
* A AA
A A
AA A Kramnik wants more than just a draw by rep­
Jl £>A
A Tgf A ±
I H&
65
Black seizes the initiative with this move. In
some lines ...£lb4 is also a possibility.
18 # a5 [18 dc5 WaAl (18...&C5 19 Ac5 dc5
20 ®d7 Ad7 21 £te5±) 19 Se3 dc5] 18...1^8
19 dc5 £ic5 20 Se3 Wa6+ [Razuvaev-
Kindermann, Dortmund 1992 (1/ 2- 1/ 2, 20). The
game is concluded by my petty offer of a
draw, although, objectively speaking, Black
even has a small advantage, because his
pieces are more effectively placed.] 21 Wd2
[21 Wa6 £ia6 22 Bd1 &b4] 21...£ie4!.
15 Sae1 Wd7 16 h4 b 5 17 Se3
Without his knight on a6 Black cannot in­
crease the pressure on the white centre, be­
cause ...c5 no longer works.
17...bc418 bc4± &h3
18...5b6 is preferable, according to Ibragi­
mov. 19 Efe1 [19 &b2!?] 19...Sfb8 20 £>g5
Sa6 ± Ibragimov.
19 Sfe1 kg2 20 &g2 ®f5 21 Se4
Ibragimov gives White a clear advantage in
this position, but I think that ‘small White
advantage’ better describes the situation.
In the rest of the game Kramnik shows his
fighting spirit, whilst Ibragimov seems to lose
the thread.
21 ...Ebe8 22 Ef4 &c8 23 &a5 d5!
Gives Black counterplay.
24 cd5 &d5 25 Bfe4 & f5 26 &d2
4g7 27 fch2 Sf7 28 kc5 Wd7 29 a4
«Jf6 30 Be5 «Jd5 31. S5e4 fcf6
32 Se5 &h8
etition!
33 &g1 &d5 34. B5e2 a6 35 &d3
®h3!? 36 £>f3?
 3 Illustrative games • 3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for White

4 This pretty knight move gives Black the ad­

vantage.

37 gf4 Sf4 38 &e5?

38 Ee4 was absolutely essential.

38...Bg4-+ 39 £>g4 ©d3 40 Se4

W 3 41 fch2 W 5 42 k e 7 &g8 43 f3
©h3 44. §1e2 ^g3 45 Bg2 &d4
46 &h1 &h3 47 Egg4 c5 48 h5 Bb8
49 Be1 k e 5 50 Sh4 ®f5 51 hg6 hg6
52 Be2 Bb1 53 &g2 &d4 54 &g4
A serious error. Sg1 55 &h2 ©f4 0-1
36...fitf4!

66
 3.3.2 The knight move 8 £sd5 (Lugovoi- Kindermann)

3.3.2 The knight move 8 £id5

Lugovoi - Kinderm ann As compensation for the doubled pawns,

Neum 2000 the forward d-pawn exerts pressure on the
sensitive square e6, White has chances on
1 d4 f5 2 g3 4tf6 3 &g2 g6 4 £>f3 the half-open c-file, and the defence of the
Black kingside has been weakened by the
&g7 5 0-0 0 -0 6 c4 d6 7 £>c3 We8
exchange of knights.
8 £>d5!?
Being less keen on the position which Black
gets after the traditional 9...Wb5 10 £}g5!
(see sub-variation B on the following page), I
began to look for new possibilities. The main
problem here is to free oneself from historical
precedents and to take a fresh and objective
look at the actual position. 9...Wb5, or the
somewhat passive 9...c6, were almost in­
variably played at this point. How else might
Black arrange his pieces? What about a de­
veloping move?

9...&d7!
A very aggressive and interesting continu­
ation. White brings about a radical change
in the black pawn structure and exchanges
Black’s king’s knight.
8...6d5
8...fca6?! 9 £>f6 Af6 [9...Ef6 10 Ag5]
10 &h6.
9 cd5

The more I studied this straightforward move,

the more I liked it: the knight would be su­
perbly posted on b6 (or f6), from where it
could exert pressure on d5. The weakness
on c7 can be easily guarded, in the first in­
stance by the queen and later by the rook.
In some lines with the knight on b6, ...e6
also becomes an interesting idea, the in­
tention being to counter White’s de6 with

67
 3 Illustrative games • 3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for White
...d5! and to set up an impregnable cen­
tre. It is, of course, impossible to subject
such a position to concrete analysis, and I
had to wait some time before putting it to
the test. My opportunity came in the last
round of the European Cup in Neum (2000),
when my club team, Graz, had to try for a
maximum of wins to get to the top of the
table. My opponent on this occasion was a
relatively unknown Russian grandmaster. In
the meantime I am proud to have acquired
several prominent practitioners of my move.
The very strong Ukrainian player Onischuk
is currently, after Mikhail Gurevich, probably
the highest-ranking ‘Leningrader’, whilst the
leading Vietnamese woman player Hoang
has specialised in this defence - here she
succeeds in brilliantly defeating not just the
almost unbeatable, super-solid Hungarian
Lukdcs, but also the talented German player
Jan Gustafsson! To be absolutely honest, I
cannot say for sure that the move 9...£}d7
was not discovered independently of my
game, since many of the games at Neum
went unrecorded in the current databases.
In the period following the publication of
the first German edition of this book, this
new idea has also proved its worth brilliantly.
Subsequent White results against 9...£ld7!
have been simply disastrous: the 41/2- 131/2 in
favour of Black recorded in my data banks
tells its own story! But I still do not believe
that 8 £>d5 is ‘busted’; after 10 4&g5! 4&b6
11 e4! or 10...£tf6 11 #b3! particularly, I an­
ticipate further exciting developments...
A) 9...c6 is probably playable, but somewhat
passive.
B) 9...@b5 is regarded by (almost) all theory
books as the strongest reply. The move is,
of course, tempting and gives Black’s sev­
enth move special significance! But in recent
years the once strangely neglected knight
move to g5 has proved to be quite danger­
ous for Black. 10 £>g5! [10 £>e1 This older
move is much less effective.]
68
l& i. I#
AAA A A
A A
A k£h
A
A
AA A AAA
1 A flsS?
Some examples demonstrating the risks for
Black:
a) 10...® b6 11 Ae3 a5 [11...Ed8 12 h4 a5
13 Wd2 c6 14 Sac1 # b 5 15 h5 Ad7 16 hg6
hg6 17 Af4 £>a6 18 e4 £>b4 19 a3 £>d3
20 Bcd1 &b2 21 Eb1 £>c4 22 tfe2 #a6
23 ef5 &f5 24 Bbd &b6 25 Wa2± Khal-
ifman-Piskov, Bundesliga 1991/92 (1-0, 41).
This convincing victory by the later FIDE
World Champion rocketed the knight move
to g5 to centre stage.] 12 h4 &a6 13 a3 Ad7
14 m 3 Efc8 15 &e6 &e6 16 de6 c6 17 h5
Gelfand-Malaniuk, Elista 1998 (1-0, 34).
b) 10...H6 11 £»e6 &e6 12 de6 d5 13 a4 #c4
14 e3! [14 Ae3 The following game (unneces­
sarily) dismayed advocates of 8 &d5 for sev­
eral years. 14...c6 15 Wd2 &a6 16 Ah6 WM
17 W 4 Ah6 18 Wh6 Ef6 19 Wf4 Ec8 20 Sfrf
£ic7 21 Ec2 &g7 22 e3 £ie6 23 W 3 Eh8
Stohl-Topalov, Elenite 1992 (0-1,37)] 14...c6
15 &d2 a5 16 #b1 Ef6 17 b4 ab4 18 Ec1
Wa6 19 # b 4 Se6 20 Sabi Bd6 21 #b7 #b7
22 Eb7 Shcherbakov-Potapov, St Peters­
burg 1998 (1-0, 30).
c) 10...4ia6 demonstrates one of my own
unfortunate experiences: 11 h4 c6 12 dc6
bc613 d5! c 5 14 h5! This is the crunch move:
the thematic reaction ...h6 does not work,
which means that the unpleasant opening
of the h-file is no longer to be avoided.
14...c4 [14...h6? 15 £>e6] 15 hg6 hg6 16 Bb1
&c7 17 £>h3 Eb8 18 Ae3 Ab7 19 £>f4 *f7
20 Aa7 Sa8 21 £.d4 Horvath-Kindermann.
Budapest 1992 (1-0, 39).
 3.3.2 The knight move 8 ^d5 (Lugovoi-Kindermann)
d) 10...a5 11 h4 £>a6 12 a3 c6 13 dc6 bc6
14 d5 £>c7 [14...c5 15 h5] 15 dc6 a4 16 &e3
Sa6 17 Sc1 h6 18 £ih3 Wb2 19 £rf4 Bacrot-
Koch, Montpellier 2001 (1-0, 30).
e) 10...C6 11 a4 [11 e4 fe4 12 £te4 Wb6
13 dc6 £>c6 14 d5 £>e5 15 h3 Ad7 16 a4
@b4 17 &g5 Sac8 18 Sa2 b6 19 Ad2 y2- 1/2
Yakovich-Malaniuk, Samara 1998] 11 ...®b6
12 a5 m 4 [12...#b5 13 e4 fe4 14 £te4 cd5
15 £>c3 #e8 16 &d5 &a6 17 Ag5 e6 18 £>e7
&h8 19 *hc8 Wc8 20 Ae7 Sf7 21 &d6 Sd7
22 Aa3 Ad4 23 ®g4 Yakovich-Teran Al­
varez, Santo Antonio 1999 (1-0, 74)] 13 Wb3
c5 14 &e6 Jke6 15 de6 &c6 16 #b 7 €ib4
17 We7 Sae8 18 Wd7 We5 19 Af4 # e 6
20 Wd6 g5 21 ®e6 Se6 22 &e3 Wells-Tozer,
England 1999 (1-0, 40).
10 &c2
a b c d e f g h
A) 10 @b3 &b6 11 &d2 e6! 12 de6 Ae6
13 Wc2 c6 14 Ab4 W67 15 e3 Ad5? 16 &d2
Sae8 17 a4 Ag2 18 &g2 &d5 19 # b 3 &h8
20 ®a3 c5 21 Ac3 f4!
I 1 (yjj)
AA m i.A
A A
A%
A A A
Tgr
Jl A A
A & <J?A
I 1 O various move sequences.
69
The Dutch lance leads to a complete rout.
22 ef4 Se2 23 £>c4 4tf4 24 &h1 Bf2 25 £ie3
Sh2 26 &g1 # h 3 0-1, Lagowski-Potapov,
Pardubice 2003.
B) 10 e4 fe411 £ig5 £tf612 £te4 & d 5 13 £>d6
ed6 14 Ad5 &h8 15 Ae3 Wb5 [15...&h3!?]
16 Wb3 Wb3 17 &b3 c6 18 &g2 d5? Fang-
Grafl, Budapest 2003 (V2-V2, 24).
C) 10 &g5! is the most plausible alterna­
tive; often transpositions arise, since both
the queen move to c2 and the knight move
to g5 are inherent resources of the white
position.
Now Black’s decision about the placing of
his knight is by no means of trivial impor­
tance. On b6 the knight lends support to
the queenside and brings into play the fi-
anchettoed bishop. But in adopting this set­
up Black neglects the protection of his king-
side, which becomes apparent after the im­
mediate 11 e4! This problem could be solved
by 10...£tf6, but then the white queen move
to b3 is that much stronger...
a) 10...£tf6
a1) 11 ®b3! Should this move turn out to be
strong, it would be a clear argument in favour
of 10...&b6, since after this latter move Black
does not need to fear the pressure on b7,
nor is the square c4 available to the white
queen. [11 e4 fe4 12 £}e4 £>d5? see 10 e4,
variation B] 11...Sb8 12 # c4 # d 8 13 h4 h6
14 £>h3 e6!? 15 de6 d5 16 !fc4 A e 6 17 #a7
£>e4 18 Wa4 # f6 19 Af4 Sa8 20 # b 3 #d4
21 ISW c5 Gonda-Markus, Budapest 2002
(0-1, 53). And here Black has some play for
the sacrificed pawn.
a2) 11 # c2 h6 12 ^h3 g5! 13 f4 [13 #c7?!
f4! 14 4tf4 gf4 15 &f4?] 13...g4 14 £tf2 #f7!
(see next analysis diagram)
This important position can be reached by
 3 Illustrative games • 3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for White

14 # c2 (14 a4!?) 14...c6 15 #c5!? #c5

I A I 16 dc5 4ia4oo] 12 dc6 bc6 13 d5 c5 14 a4
AAA AWA [14 h5!?] 14...&C4 15 Sb1 Sb8 16 b3 £ie5
A to A 17 Ad2 Ad7 18 £>e6 Ae6 19 de6 # 0 8 20 Ad5
A A ®a6«. Lukacs-Hoang, Budapest 2001 (0-1,
A AA 51).
A b3) 11 a4!? This, and 11 e4, are the most
dangerous replies to 9...£id7! But, with pre­
AH A&AA cise play, Black’s resources should prove
1A 2<l? completely adequate:
15 #c7 £>d5 16 « a5 &e6 17 e4 fe4 18 Ae4 b31) 11...a5 12 h4 [12 # c 2 !± This is one
b6? [18...&d4? A dreadful move. Players of of the important ideas behind 11 a4: the
the Dutch defence really cannot ever allow ‘automatic’ 11...a5 is weak, because after
White to play f5! 19 f5 &b6 20 Ah6± Zaiatz- the white queen attacks c7, the knight on
Kosintseva, Elista 2002 (1-0, 51)] 19 Wb5 b6 looks dangerously insecure.] 12...Ad7
[19 #d 2 &f5!] 19...a6 20 W63 [20 ffe2 h5 13 £ie6 Ae6 14 de6 d5+ Erdos-Antal, Bu­
21 f5 Otherwise Black can again play Af5, dapest 2002 (0-1, 48).
with positional advantage. 21 ...Af5 22 £\g4 b32) 11 ...c6! Black aims to secure a strong-
Ag4 23 Sf7 Ae2 24 Sf8 &f8 25 Ad5 Ad4 point for his knight on d 5 .12 dc6 [12 £}e6?!
26 &g2 Bc8] 20...Af5 21 Af5 # f5 22 # f5 Ae6 13 de6 d5 Now the advanced white
Sf5 23 &g4 h5 24 £>f2 Ad4+ followed by pawn is surrounded. 14 a5 £ic4 15 b3 £»d6
...Sc8. 16 Af4 £ib 517 e3 Wc8+ Knoll-Schroll, Aus­
b) 10...&b6 trian Championship, Hartberg 2003 (0-1,72)]
12...bc6 13 d5 [13 Wb3 &h8 14 a5 £»d5
I A fl # 15 Ad5 cd5 16 ®d5 Sb8 gives Black ex­
AAA A AA cellent compensation for the pawn. 13 a5
£>d5?] 13...c5
to A A
A A b321) 14 ®c2 [14 a5 £>c4?]
A I A I #
A A A A
A
AA A AAA to A A
fi A Tgr 2 <4? AA A th
b1) 11 fte2 h6 12 &h3 g5 13 f4 [13 Wc7 f4+] A
13...g4 14 £tf2 Wf7 15 @c7 £id5 Transposes A
to lines with 10...£rf6. An A AJ= A
b2) 11 h4 This looks reasonable: on the one 2 A 2*
hand White seeks to secure the good square
f4 for his knight, on the other, Black has now 14...Sb8! Creates a refuge for the harassed
to reckon with the advance h4-h5.11 ...c6!? knight on a8, from where it can transfer to
Herewith two notable alternatives: [11...h6 the good square c7. 15 Ad2 h6 16
12 £ih3! (12 4te6?! Ae6 13 de6 d5) 12...e6 Here I overestimated White’s compensation
13 de6 c6!? (13...d5 14 Af4! ©e7 15 ®c1) after the imminent gain of a pawn and, hav­
14 d5oo; 11...e6!? 12 de6 d5 13 Af4 #e7! ing consulted my team captain, let myse*

70
 3.3.2 The knight move 8 4ld5 (Lugovoi-Kindermann)

be tempted into a draw. V2-V2, Komarov-
Kindermann, French League, Clermont-
Ferrand 2003 16...&e6 17 de6 # c 8 18 e4
ffe 6 19 ef5 gf5 20 Bfe1 f f 7 | .
b322) 14 Ba2 Eb8 15 b3 A67 [15...&a8!?]
16 £>e6 Ae6 17 de6 £>a8 18 e4 £>c7
19 Be2 Bb4 [19...f4!? 20 Ah3 (20 Af4 £>e6?)
20...A e5 00] 20 Ad2 Bd4oo Bacrot-Bauer,
Bundesliga 2003/04 (1-0, 46).
b4) 11 e4!
I A # 1 #
AAA A A
% A A tended!
A A£i
AA
A I Am I #
AA AAA
0 ±W II <4
This natural-looking central advance is really
dangerous with the knight on b6 and could
persuade many players of Black to take a
closer look at the rarely-played 10...£rf6!?.
Then 11 e4 fe4 would lead by transposition
to the completely harmless 10 e4.
b41) 11...fe4 12 Ae4 creates some attack­
ing chances for White, beginning with the
threatened sacrifice on h7.12...M ) [12...h6
13 £>e6 Ae6 14 de6 d5 15 &d3±; 12...c6?
13 £ih7 ±] 13 #e2 which, in view of the gap­
ing hole at e6, looks, to say the least, dubi­
ous.
b42) 11...e5!?
b421) 12 de6 This move only makes sense
when followed by the knight move to f7.
12...h6 13 £rf7! [13 £»h3?! After this meek
withdrawal, Black has no problems. 13...fe4
14 Ae4 ©e6 15 Ag2 g5 16 f4 g4 17 £rf2 h5
18 Ee1 # f6 19 Ae3 c6 20 £ie4 % 6 21 £>g5
Af5 22 ©b3 d5+ Karavade-Kosintseva,
Panaji 2002 (0-1, 77)] 13...«e6 [13...£e6
14 £>h6 &h7 15 Be1] 14 £>h6 &h7 15 ef5
gf5 16 Ee1 % 6 17 Ee7 &h8 18 Ec7 [18 Eg7
&g7] 18...£h6 19 Ah6 # h 6 ~ .
b422) 12 de5! is critical: 12...We5 13 Ee1
[13 Af4 Wb2 14 Ec1 h6 15 £ie6 Ae6 16 de6
g5 17 Ae3 f4~] 13.. .h6 [13...fe4 14 Ee4 W 6
15 Ef4±; 13...W 6 14 &f4±] 14 £>f3 [14 £>e6
Ae6 15 ef5 # f5 16 de6 W 2 17 &h1 Eae8oo;
14 ef5 Wf5] 14...Wf6 15 e5 de5 16 £ie5
Ee8oo.
1 0...t£ d 8? !
Unfortunately I had already forgotten my own
analysis, made a long time previously! The
knight move to b6 (or f6) is probably much
A more exact, and is what I had originally in­
10...fcb6! [10...£rf6!?]
AAA A AA
% A A
A A
A
&A
A A ||r A AAA
B A I &
a) 11 ®c7 £>d512 ®c4 This position alarmed
me during the game for reasons which I now
understand all too well. 12...e6! is more flex­
ible and I prefer it to the queen move to c6.
Black strives to develop his queen’s bishop
harmoniously, whilst asserting control over
the central squares e4 and d5. [12...Wc6
13 Wb3 e6 14 AU A67 15 £>g5 Efe8 16 Bad
# b 5 17 ©b5 Ab5 18 £>e6 £>f4 19 £rf4 Ae2
20 Efe1 &a6 21 &d5 &h8 22 £>e6 A16oo
Krivoshey-Onischuk, Bastia 2000 (0-1,42)]
a1) 13 £ig5 b 5 14 #b 3 A b 7 15 e4 fe416 £>e4
©d7 17 Be1 &d4 18 &h6 Bf7? Gurieli-
Hoang, Batumi 2001 (0-1,46).
a2) 13 ©b3 b5 14 Ad2 #d7 [14...&b7 15 a4
a6 16 B fd ©d7+; 14...a5!?] 15 a4 ba4
16 ©a4 ®a4 17 Ba4 Bb8 18 b4 a6 19 B d ~
Farago-Deglmann, Boblingen 2002 (1/2- 1/2,
38).

71
 3 Illustrative games • 3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for White

a3) 13 Af4 b5! 14 ®b3 #d7 15 a4 b4 16 Ad2 With the transparent threat of a knight sac­
a5 17 Efe1 Ab7T 18 e4 fe4 19 Se4 £>b6 rifice on h7. Here, and in the continuation,
20 Sh4 [20 Sf4 Ad5 21 Wd1 #b7 22 4>e1 Lugovoi loses the thread, which is no rare
£>c4 23 We2 £>d2 24 Wd2 Sf4 25 # f4 &g2 occurrence; in the strange and confusing
26 £»g2 #d 5+ Krivoshey-Rogovski, Alushta positions that arise from the Leningrad, even
2003 (0-1,38)] 20...Ad5! Sets up a powerful strong players often play surprisingly badly!
battery of queen and bishop on the a8-h1 I had expected the logical 14 hg6 hg615 e4!.
diagonal. 21 ®d3 #b7 22 &e1 £lq2 23 &g2 15...e5! 16 &e6 Ae6 17 de6 &g7! 18 ef5 gf5
Wf3 24 Ae3 W 5 25 #e2 £>d5 26 Ad2 19 Ab7 Eb8 with an unclear position.
Sac8 27 £>e1 £>f6 28 Sf4 Wd5 29 £>g2 e5
30 de5 de5 31 Sf3 e4 32 Sf4 Sc2 33 Sd1 14...gh5!
Sb2 34 £>e3 #a2 35 £>c4 Sc2 36 £>e3 Sc5
37 £>g4 #a4 38 &f6 Af6 39 Se4 Sd5 40 Se1 14...£}c4? 15 # f4 £ie5 16 £»h7! Revealing
#b 5 41 #e3 Wd3 42 #d3 Sd3 43 Ah6 Ag7 White’s plan. 16...&h7 17 ©h6 &g8 18 hg6.
44 &g7 &g7 45 Sa1 b3 46 Se7 Sf7 47 g4 Se7
0-1, Gustafsson-Hoang, Budapest 2001. A
strong positional performance by the Viet­
namese woman expert!
b) 11 &g5 h6 [11...Ad4 12 #c7; 11...#b5
12 Wc7 £>d5 13 Ad5 ©d5 14 We7 Wd4]
12 £>e6 [12 £>h3 g5 13 f4 (13 Wc7 f4) 13...g4
14 £rf2 Wf7! 15 ©c7 £id5 Leads by trans­
position to lines with 10 Wc2 £rf6 (Zaiatz-
Kosintseva, variation a2 on page 70) 16 #a5
Ae6 17 e4 fe 4 18 Ae4 b6!+] 12...Ae613 de6
This exchange, as usual, gives Black good
play. The move ...c6, which reduces the ef­
fectiveness of the white bishop, plays a key Now the second pawn can be defended -
role here. 13...c6 14 e4! Absolutely essen­ a golden rule of the Leningrad is: do not be
tial, since otherwise ...d5! follows. 14...fe4 afraid of playing ‘ugly’ moves!!
15 Ae4 Ef6 16 Ee1 &h8 17 Ag2 g5 18 Ad2
Wh5 19 Wd1 ©d1 20 Sadi Eaf8~ Sze- 15 4 f3 &e8 16 &c2!?
berenyi-Hoang, Budapest 2002 (V2-V2, 47). 16 &g2 &c4 17 ®f4 £>e5.
11 &g5 &b6 12 h4!? 16...4.7!
Very aggressive play! Faced with the Lenin­
16...©g6 does not yet work [17 £>h3 f4
grad, White is often provoked into embarking
18 Ae4!], but...
on severe ‘punishment-expeditions’.
17 &g2
12...6d4!
Black is right to grab this pawn! 17 Wc7 Wc8 is very good for Black.

13 h5 &f6! 17...^g6!
13...gh5 14 Af3. ... now!

14 ©d2? 18 &e6

72
 3.3.2 The knight move 8 £}d5 (Lugovoi-Kindermann)
18 £>h3 f4! 19 Ae4 [19 ®g6 hg6 20 £>f4 &f7
21 4e4 Bg8 with a solid pawn advantage.]
19...£h3.
18...6e6 19 de6 c6 20 Eh1 h4 21 e4
fe4 22 ile 4 ©g7
Looked at objectively, Black now has a con­
siderable advantage, but such sharp pos­
itions are not easy to play.
23 4e3?! &d5 24 4d2
a b c d e f
24... h6??
A terrible move, made under some time
pressure, which could have lost the game.
The move played was intended to relieve
the pressure on h7 and thus, in some lines,
to make ...hg3 possible. As soon as I had
played the move, ice-cold shivers ran up
my spine because of... 24...Ae5! [24...Ad4
25 Ah7 &h8 26 Af5] 25 Eh3 For some
strange reason I didn’t like the look of this
move. [25 Eh4 Ef2 is what I had foreseen.]
25...Ef6 26 Sah1 Baf8 and Black wins, e.g.
27 Ah7 ©h7 28 #h7 <&h7 29 Hh4 &g6
30 Eg4 &f5.
25 Bad171
Misses his big opportunity! 25 Ag6! would,
at the very least, have given White very
good play and it would have punished Black
for carelessly weakening the square g6.
25...6h8 26 M l .
25...6d4!
73
Now Black is back on track! But I needed
some of my remaining time to calm down
again.
26 &h6 £>e3!
The decisive counter. The f-file, as is so often
the case, plays a key role. 26...£rf4 27 Af4
Ef4 28 Ed4.
27 k e 3 k e 3 28 Edf1
28 Ah7 would have been objectively bet­
ter, even though the resulting rook endgame
is somewhat bad for White. [28 JLf5 Ef5
29 W 5 Bf8; 28 Af3 hg3 29 fe3 Ef3] 28...WU7
[28...&h8 29 Af5 Ag5] 29 ©h7 &h7 30 fe3
&g6 31 Eh4 &f5.
28...5f2!
Lugovoi had clearly overlooked this move.
29 Bf2 Wg3 30 1 kf2 31 kg6
31 W 2 Sf8 32 Ah7 &g7.
31...4e3
31...W 3 32 &e4; 31...4d4 32 # f5 Ef8
33 Af7 &g7 34 Eh3.
32 Eh2?
Simplifies Black’s task. 32 M 7 &g7 33 ©c3
&h6 [33...#e5] 32 W 5 # f4 .
32...®g1 0-1
Thus the new move 9...£id7! with its plus
score of 41/2-131/2 is proving its worth!
 3 Illustrative games • 3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for White
3.3.3 My special recommendation for White, 8 He1
Filippov - Potapov
Elista 2001
1 d4 f5 2 g3 &f6 3 &g2 g6 4 &f3 kg7
5 0 -0 0-0 6 c4 d6 7 4>c3 ®e8 8 Be1
According to most available theory works,
this move has no special merit, and is dis­
cussed only by reference to the illustrative
games Hulak-Bareev and Shneider-Bareev
(see on the facing page), yet the first of these
games is merely an illustration of excessively
passive white play. Already, when working
on my Chessgate Leningrad video, I had
become aware of the considerable poten­
tial of this underestimated rook move. The
young Russian Grandmaster Valery Filippov
has contributed some very valuable ideas to
the discussion.
The thinking behind White’s idea is both
straightforward and clear: to get in the the­
matic double advance of the e-pawn as
quickly as possible and put pressure on the
e-file!
Shortly after the publication of the first
German edition of this book, the Austrian
League provided an opportunity to put my
recommended move for White properly to
74
the test: on the evening before the match
between my team ‘Frohnleiten’ and the clear
favourites, the ‘United Chocolates Tschat-
uranga’ team of Vienna, I showed Manfred
Freitag the ideas behind the move, because
the following day he was to face Valery Beim,
a leading expert of the Leningrad, who had
just brought out an excellent book on this
opening! (See 12...£}c3, page 76)
8...®f7!
a b c d e f g h
Black gains a very important tempo by at­
tacking c4. Alternatives here are distinctly
weaker.
A) 8...&C6 9 d5 [9 £>d5 £>d5 10 cd5 £>d8
11 e4 fe4 12 £>g5 £>f7 13 £>e4 Ad7 14 h3 #c8
15 g4 e6 16 de6 &e6 17 £>c3 c6 18 d5 Ad7
19 dc6 bc6 20 Ae3 d5 21 &d4± Farago-
Lentrodt, Deizisau 2000 (1-0, 37)] 9...£>a5
10 £>d2 c5 11 Wc2 a6 12 a3 b5 13 cb5
ab5 14 b4 £>b7 15 Ab2 Sb8 16 e4 fe4
17 £>ce4 Af5 18 £>f6 ef6 19 Ae4 Ae4 20 Se4
W17 21 Ee6± Ibragimov-Dunne, Philadel­
phia 1995 (1-0, 33).
B) 8...e5 9 de5 de5 10 e4
a) 10...f4 11 gf4 £ih5 12 f5! [12 £>d5 £>a6
13 fe5 &g4 14 h3 &f3 15 &f3 W 7 16 &g2
Ae5 17 ©e2 c6 18 &h5 cd5 19 Ag4 de4oo
 3.3.3 My special recommendation for White, 8 Ee1 (Filippov-Potapov)

Short-Landenberger, Kilkenny 1999 (1/2- 1/2, a b c d

9 h e f
26)] 12...gf5 [12...&h8 13 £id5 £ia6 14 £ih4 8 I A I (jig) 8
c 6 15 fg6 hg6 16 £>e7 + - Lalev-Gochev, Bul­
7 A A A kW A A 7
garia 1986] 13 ef5 c6 [13...&C6 14 £id5 ®f7
15 &g5 # f5 16 Ae3±] 14 £>e5 Ae5 15 f4 6 *A A 6
£d4 16 &h1 #d 7 17 ®h5 W 5 18 # f5 Af5 5 A 5
19 Ae3±.
4 A A i 4
b) 10...&C6 11 £id5 Sf7 12 £>g5 [12 ef5 gf5
13 ®a4± e4 14 Af4 £>h5 15 £lc 7 Ae6 16 £ig5
3 A& A 3
4d5 17 cd5 Sc7 18 &e6 Scc8] 12...Sd7 2 A± A A iA 2
13 ef5 gf5 14 ®a4 e4 15 Af4 h6 16 *he4 £>e4 1 <1? 1
17 f3 &d4 18 Ae3 £>c5 19 Wa3 ©e5 20 Sadi a b c d e f g h
Sd5 21 cd5 #d5oo Farago-Kuba, Wattens
1997 (1/2-1/2, 53). Guards c3 and thus threatens d4-d5.
A) 11 ©d3 is harmless: 11 ...£ic3 12 Ac3
c) 10...fe4 11 &g5 £>c6 12 &e3 h6 13 &ge4
e5 13 de5 de5 14 £>g5 We7 15 &d5 &h8
*h7 14 £rf6 Sf6 15 &d5 Sf7 16 h4 h5 17 Ae4
16 Ac6 ®g5 The simplest route for Black to
4g4 18 ®c2 Af5 19 Sadi We6 20 b4 Ae4
a comfortable equality. [16...bc6!? 17 f4 Ee8
21 We4 W 5 22 # f5 gf5 23 &g2 a6 1/2- 1/2,
18 #e3 ef4 19 £lq7 &g7 20 We7 Se7 21 gf4
Lukacs-Vaisser, Sochi 1984.
c5 22 £rf3 Ab7 23 £>e5 g5~ Shneider-
9b3 Bareev, Leningrad 1990 (0-1, 56)] 17 Ag2
e4 18 &g7 &g7 19 # d 4 W 6 = y2-y 2, Hoff-
In my view stronger than the alternatives mann-Kindermann, Lippstadt 1993.
9 #d3 and 9 4ig5 (see Filippov-Zhang, on B) 11 e3 is likewise too passive. 11...e5
pages 79 ff.). This illustrative game is seek­ 12 #e2 £ic3 13 Ac3 e4 14 £>g5 We7 15 h4
ing, after all, to demonstrate the best white Ad7 16 ®b2 Sae8 17 b4 £>d8 18 a4 h6
play possible. 19 4&h3 g5+ Gretzinger-Kindermann, Bad
Wiessee 2002 (0-1, 38).
9...&e4
11. ..e5
A further advantage of 8...@f7 is revealed.
11...h6 This slow move is regarded by most
After an exchange on e4, the black queen
sources as satisfactory, wrongly in my view!
can penetrate to f2. The outpost on e4 is
12 d5! £>b4 13 £>d4
thereby secured.

10 4b2 &c6 I A i
AAA AWA
The classical move: Black wants to force A AA
through ...e5, which, in most lines, will solve
all his problems. In my view, this gener­
A A
ally recommended continuation is somewhat % A £ i*
risky. A£> A
The quieter 10...£*d7l? is my recommenda­
A i A AAA
tion for Black, see Filippov-Zhang, on pages S n *
79ff.
13...c5 After this move Black is position­
11 Sc1! ally inferior. [13...£ic3 This basic and ma­

75
 3 Illustrative games • 3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for White

terialistic alternative is recommended by

Meuiders in ChessBase and is supposed I A I
to lead to a small black plus... 14 Sc3 £ia2 AAA WAl
15 Sf3! But Meuiders does not examine this to A A
very strong move. After the planned e4, all AAA
the white pieces contribute to the attack. At o
(15 Se3?! £±>4+) 15...4>b4 (15...c5 16 dc6
bc6 17 e4 c5 18 ef5±) 16 e4 c5 17 dc6 &c6
A0 £>A
18 ef5 With very strong white pressure, e.g. AA A AAA
18...£>d4 19 Ad4 gf5 20 Ag7 <&g7 21 Sfe3 2, U S 4?
He8 22 #d4 With a strong initiative for White.
22...6h7 23 ®d5!] 14 dc6 £>c6 15 e3 Ad7 12...£>c3 [12...£)d8 13 &e4! fe4 14 &g5 W12
[15...toc3 16 Ac3±] 16 Zhe4 fe4 17 Hf1 Af5 15 &h1 ±] 13 Ac3
18 g4 Ad7 19 Ae4 &h7 20 h3 £>d4 21 Ad4 a) 13...&b8 [13...£>e7 14 £>g5 # e 8 15 f4!±
Ac6 22 Ac6± V2-V2, Filippov-Vyzhmanavin, Dolmatov] 14 c5 £>a6 15 b4 [15 cd6 cd6
Elista 1997. A puzzling game result, due per­ 16 £>g5 We7 17 £>e6 Ae6 18 de6 toc5 19 ®d5
haps to a transcription error? e4!oo] 15...e4 16 £>g5 We7 17 Ag7 &g7
18 #d4 &g8 19 h4 h6 20 &h3±.
12 de5!
b) 13...£kd8!? This till now rarely-played
knight move looks better than the alterna­
a b c d e f h
A
g
tives. The horse will find an excellent square
8 E I 8
on f7 .14 c5 #e7! ~ [14...h615 b4 (15 cd6 cd6
7 AAA t i l 7 16 Ab4 looks stronger.) 15...f4 16 tod2 Ag4
6 fa A A 6 17 £>e4 Wd7 18 @d3 tof7 (Hoffmann-Lutz,
Germany 2000/01 (V2-V2, 32)) 19 gf4!] And
5 AA 5
now for example 15 cd6 cd6 16 Ab4 [16 Aa5
4 A fa 4 b6 17 Ab4 Ab7 18 &d2 e4 19 toc4 toff]
3 A& A 3 16...£rf7 17 tod2 e4! 18 toc4 Ad7 [18...b6],
2 AA A AAA 2 12...de5
1 U S <4? 1
Apparently more precise, because # d 5 is
a b c d e f g h
now pointless. But Filippov demonstrates an
excellent idea.
An extremely interesting idea, which was ap­
parently first played by the Canadian Lesiege 1 2 ...6 .3 ? 13 &C3 de5 14 #d5!!
and then taken up by Filippov a few years
later. In normal circumstances this exchange I A I #
is not very promising for White, but there are AAA WA A
peculiarities in this position... to A
IQ
12 d5!? AA
(see next analysis diagram)
A
AA £>A
Nor is this traditional move without danger A A AAA
for Black, but I will examine, at this point, H 4?
some alternatives.

76
 3.3.3 My special recommendation for White, 8 He1 (Filippov-Potapov)

A most important point; the queen move 13...fe4 14 &g5

causes Black big problems. The rook on c1,
in particular, is now perfectly placed in the
event of an exchange on d5.
This brilliant move seems to refute Black’s
game plan! 14...&h8 Probably the only
chance for Black. [14...J,e6? 15 £*g5! This
move demonstrates the real cleverness be­
hind White’s queen move. 15....&d5 16 Ad5
©d5 17 cd5±; 14...h6 15 £>e5; 14...e4?
15 £ig5 ®d5 16 cd5 & e 5 17 f4 ef3 18 ef3 1-0
Lesiege-Ross, Quebec 1994] 15 e4!± This
looks to me like White’s best continuation,
which gives him the advantage. [15 &e5!? An
interesting sacrifice, warmly recommended
14...^f215&h1
by my analysis software, but which fails ul­
timately to convince me. 1 5 ...^ 5 16 4ig6 Both Beim and I myself, in the first German
hg6 17 4g7 &g7 18 cd5 &d4 19 Ec7 Sf7 edition, adjudged this to give White a clear
(19...&f6 20 Ed1 £»b5 21 Eh7); 15 W 7 Ef7 advantage. Now, however, I regard the pos­
16 &g5 Ef8] 15...fe4 [15...Ae6 (15...W 6 ition after 16...®f5! as playable for Black.
16 ef5 # f5 17 Ecd1; 15...f4 16 £>e5) 16 ®c5! 15...Bd8
Covers f2! (16 f?b5 fe4 17 Ee4) 16...fe4
15...e3? 16 t t i5 &h8 17 Ef1 + -.
17 £>g5 # f6 18 £>e6 ®e6 19 Ae4±] Our pre­
pared analysis ended at this point (as does 16 ^c2 We3?!
the line given in the first German edition). 16...®f5! 17 £>e4 #h5!oo
At first Freitag continues to play superbly:
16 ®f7 Sf7 17 Be4 Ee7 18 g4!? h5 19 h3 hg4 I i.1
20 hg4 a5 21 Ece1 &g8 22 £>e5 Ae5 23 Ae5 AAA A A
Lq4 24 Lc2> It was at about this point that % A
Beim, to my astonishment, asked me what
he had done wrong! A genuine compliment
A m
among ‘Leningraders’! As I have already A
pointed out, I regard the knight move to c6 as A A
somewhat risky, but the exchange on c3 is an A i ■igf A AA
outright mistake. 24...Ee4 25 Ee4 Ah5 [Fre- a H *
itag-Beim, Austrian League 2002/03 (V2-V2,
43). Unfortunately Manfred went off track in I now consider this line to be Black’s best
the technical part of the game and finally chance: he plays for knight to d4 in conjunc­
Beim managed to salvage a draw in a re­ tion with ...ig 4 . If White could prevent this
markable way. But, from the point of view of by e3, without incurring disadvantage, Black
theory, this was a very interesting meeting! would be strategically lost. But, because of
25...&f5 26 Eh4] 26 Sf4!+-. the weaknesses on d3 and f3 after the move
e3, things are far from clear:
13&e4! a) 18 4 f3 J.g4 19 iig4 #g 4 20 Ef1 [20 e3?
£>b4 21 ®g2 4>d3 22 £rf2 &e1 -+] 20...£id4
13 ffd5?! &e6 14 #b 5 £id6. 21 Ad4ed4oo.

77
 3 Illustrative games • 3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for White

b) 18 e3 £>b4 19 #b1 4g4 20 £>f2 M 3 21...6e4

c) 18 &c5 looks critical: Black is practically 21...6g4? 22£rf6.
forced to make the following pawn sacri­
fice. 18...&d419 Ad4 [19 ®e4?l c6] 19...ed4 22 ke4 c6 23 b4 kg7 24 e3 £>e6
20 £»b7 Sf8! And Black enjoys considerable 25 h4! Sd1 26 Ed1 Ed8 27 Sb1!
counterplay - guinea pigs are sought to play
One pair of rooks is to stay on the board.
both sides of this! 21 Sf1 [21 £>d6? cd6
The d-file is of no use to Black, because
22 Aa8 (22 A65 &h8 23 Aa8 Sf2) 22...Sf2
all the entry squares are covered by White’s
23&g2 Ab7-+]21...Ag4.
bishops.
17 &e4 Jtf5?! 27...6f7 28 &g2 Bd7 29 &f2 a6
17...6b4!? Also gives White the advantage, 30 &e2 &c7 31 Ef1 &g8 32 h5! gh5
with correct play: 18 ®c3 [18 #b1 ±f5oo]
33 gh5 &e8 34 Sg1 &d6 35 kc2 h6
18...#c3 19 £>c3 c6 [19...Sd2 20 &a4 £»a2
21 Sa1±] 20 a3! [20 Sed1 &f5] 20...£>a6 35...£>c4 36 Ab3 b5 37 h6.
[20...Sd2 21 Ecd1! The refutation. 21 ...Sb2 36 c5
22 Sd8 &f7 23 Sf1 &e7 24 Sg8 Ah6
25 Sh8±] 21 £le4±. a b c d e f g h
8 8
18 f?c3
Black’s most active piece is exchanged.
7 A I A 7

18...6C3
6 A A* , 6
18...11h6! I prefer this move of Kosintseva,
5 A A A5
but I still do not believe that Black achieves 4
A 4

full equality. 19 # e3 Ae3 20 Hcd1 &g7 3 A A 3

[Demina-Kosintseva, Elista 2002 ('V2-V2, 67)]
2 A Jl & 2
21 4>c3!±.
19 kc3 &h6 20 Scd1 &d4 21 g4!
1
S 1

a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h
It Is very instructive to see how Black is grad­
8 I I # 8 ually pushed back; White’s bishops are all-
7 A AA 7 A powerful.
6 6 Ai 36...6f7 37 4f5 Ee7 38 e4 &g5
5 ▲ 5
A 39 a4 &f8 40 Ef1 &e8 41 &g6 &d8
4 A 4 42 b5
3 AJ, 3 Opening a second front.
2 A A ±A 2 42...ab5 43 &a5 &c8 44 Ed1 b6
1 21 1 44...5d7 45.fi.f5.
a b c d e f g h
45 cb6 c5 46 ab5 &b7 47 Jtf5 &f7
Now Black’s remaining active pieces are
48 kd7 4 f6 49 kc6 &b8 50 k c 3 1-0
gradually forced to retreat. This is superb
positional play by Filippov, which recalls Kar­ A superb performance by Filippov!
pov in his best days.

78
 3.3.3 My special recommendation for White, 8 Se1 (Filippov-Zhang)

F ilip p o v -Z h a n g
I I #
Shanghai 2000 AAA WJl
% *A A
1 d4 f5 2 g3 &f6 3 Ag2 g6 4 £rf3 4g7 AA
5 0 -0 0 -0 6 c4 d6 7 &c3 ®e8 8 Se1 A A
&f7 9b3 A& &A
A) 9 f$d3 The favourite move of Farago,
AA AAA
though it doesn’t look particularly danger­
1 H £
ous. 9...h6
14 We2 fe4 15 &e4 £>e4 16 We4 &f5
17 #h 4 e4 18 Ag7 Wg7 19 g4 ef3 20 Af3
I ft*. I# g5 21 Wg3 Ag6 22 Ad5 &h8 23 h4 gh4
ill A'#JL 24 Wh4 &d4 25 &g2 Bd5 26 cd5 &f7
A 4iA 27 Ee7 £if5 0-1, Haag-Rechel, 2nd Bun-
A desliga 2000] 11...£ie4! 12 £>b5 [12 Sadi
AA £>c3 13 # c3 f4 14 #d 2 Ag4 15 d5 &e5
&m ^>A 16 W 4 # f4 17 gf4 &f3 18 fe5 Ag2 19 &g2
Ae5 20 Ac1 &g7 21 Ed3 Bf5 22 Bf3 Eaf8
AA A AAA 23 Bf5 Ef5 24 Ed1 &14 25 Ab2 Ae5 26 Ac1
I JL 1 * 1/2- 1/2, Dokhoian-Malaniuk, Sverdlovsk 1987;
12 £>e4 fe4 13 We4 £ld4 14 £id4 ®f2] 12...e6
a) 10 e4?! Allows Black strong counterplay
here: 10...fe4 11 £ie4 £>e4 12 # e4 £ic6 1 JL I
a1) 13 d5 £>b4! [13...£>e5 14 &e5 W 2
AAA irA
15 &h1 de5 16 Bf1 Wb6 17 Bf8 &f8 18 &e3] 41A A A A
14 £ih4! [14 a3 &f5 15 #h4 Af6 16 #h6 £>c2] A
14...#f2 15 &h1 &d3 16 Be2 ©d4 17 #d 4 A A%
&d4. AA n £>A
a2) 13 Ae3 Af5 14 Wh4 g5 15 Ag5 hg5 AAA
16 £>g5 #c4 17 Ab3 £id4 18 Be7 £rf3 19 £>f3 1 1 $
#h4 20 %h4 Ah3 21 Bc7 Ad4 22 Bc2 Sf2
0-1, Beck-Rechel, Germany 1992/93. 13 Bad a6 14 £>c3 £>c3 15 # c 3 e5! [15...f4
is, for once, weaker: 16 #d 3 fg3 17 fg3
a3) 13 g4 £>d4 14 &d4 # f2 15 &h1 ©d4
« f5 (17...&d4 18 £ld4 # f2 19 &h1 # d 4
16 #d 4 Ad4 17 Be7 g5? Siekanski-Petri-
20 ©g6±) 18 e4 Wa5 19 b4 &b4 20 #c3
enko, Katowice 1991 (0-1, 38).
£»c6 21 Wa5 4ia5 22 e5 with strong white
b) 10 b3 £ic6 11 Aa3 Prophylactic against pressure in Farago-Kindermann, Austrian
...e5, compare 8 b3 4ia6 9 Aa3. [11 JLb2 e5 League 1994 (V2-V2, 59).] 16 de5 Be8 17 e6
12 de5 de5 13 e4?! Ed8! Ae6 18 Wd2 Ead8 [18...a5!?] with good play
(see next analysis diagram) for Black.
B) 9 &g5 This speculative pawn sacrifice
After this move White loses the struggle for is not convincing, and has rightly fallen out
central control. of favour. In many lines Black sacrifices the

79
 3 Illustrative games • 3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for White

exchange for excellent play and one or two 9...h6!? This is a playable alternative for
pawns. 9...®c4 10 Af1 #c6 Black, although I remain generally some­
what mistrustful of any kingside expansion
I 41JL 1 for Black. But Malaniuk’s play in this game
A A A A il makes a solid impression. 10 JLb2 g5 11 e4
WA % A fe4 12 £ie4
A& M &A I #
A AAA Ati
& A A A
AA AA A *
I A *
A
AA^
11 e4 [11 Wb3 d5 12 4f4l? (Neverov) remains A £) A
perhaps White’s best chance of justifying AA AAA
his game. In this line White really does get 0 W£L &
compensation. Black should probably reply
12...®d7 followed by ...c6.] 11...fe4 12 Ab5 12...C6 [12...£f5 13 3lf6 # f6 14 Ee3 &a6
[12 m>3 d5 13 Be4?! £>e4 14 £>d5 &h8 15 &c3 Ef7 16 We2 Baf8 17 Ee1 c6 18 Ee7
15 Ab5 &g5 16 Ac6 &h3 17 &f1 Bf2 18 &e1 Ag4 19 Ee3± Beliavsky-Bareev, Moscow
£>c6 19 Ae3 Eh2 20 £>c7 E b8-+, Hof- 1990 (0-1,44)] 13 Wd2 &a6 14 h4 A f5 15 £if6
man-Lutz, Ostend 1992 (0-1, 31)] 12...#b6 ef6!
13 £c4 &h8 14 £>f7 Ef7 15 M 7 Ag4l? Gives
Black good play, according to joint analy­ I I #
sis by Christopher Lutz and myself. [15...&f5 AA mw.
16 Ae3 c 6 17 d5 c 5 18 &e6 ®b2 19 Ad2 Ae6
20 de6 £>c6 21 Eb1 #a3 22 £>e4 £>e4 23 Be4
% AA A A
Wa2 24 Eb7 # d 5 + , Tozer-Malaniuk, Hast­ Ak
ings 1994/95 (0-1, 43)] 16 Wa4 &c6 17 Ae3 AA A
Wb2 18 £>b5 #b 4 19 #b 4 &b4 20 £ic7 Ef8 A
21 &b3d5+. A i m a
1 s
16 Ee3 [16 Aa3!? According to Florian Grafl,
this gives White hopes of a small advantage.]
16...Efe8 17 Eae1 Be3 18 Ee3 Ee8 19 d5
c5 20 Ac3 !hc7 21 We1 Ee3 22 We3 We8
23 Wd2 1/2- 1/2, Pigusov-Malaniuk, Moscow
1990.
10 kb2 £kd7!?
(see next diagram)

An extremely flexible move, which avoids

the problems associated with the classi­
9...&e4 cal 10...£*c6 (see the recommended move

80
 3.3.3 My special recommendation for White, 8 Ee1 (Filippov-Zhang)

for White in the game Filippov-Potapov on 16...d5! This resource maintains equality,
pages 74ff.). Admittedly Black has to give up e.g. 17 cd5 Ad5 18 £ie4 fe4!= Is more pre­
the plan of playing for the thematic ...e5, but cise, according to Florian Grafl, because the
this move enables him to develop his pieces bishop on d5 can be made unassailable by
harmoniously. Even the 8 Be1 guru Filippov ...c6, thus restricting White’s play on the
has not yet been able to find a good reply to d-file. [18...Ae4 19 Ae4 fe4 20 Wc3 &g8
this continuation. But players of White should 21 We3 a5 22 Sac1 (22 Sadi a4 23 Sd4 ab3
not be dismayed - the move played leads to 24 ab3 Sae8 25 Sed1 Se7) 2 2...a4 23 Sc4
a ‘normal’ position, which is playable for both ab3 24 ab3 Sa3!? (24...Sae8)].
sides. B) 11 &d2!? A basic and good move; White
a b c d e f g h wishes to force through quickly the thematic
e 4 .11... £>c3 12 Ac3
1 £ i #
Ai i i l f l l a) 12...f4!? must be considered. 13 £}e4 h6
14Wd2 g5~;
▲ A b) 12...c6!? Preparing the central thrust ...e5
A and exploiting the temporary immobility of
White’s d-pawn.
A A 4
A£> £iA b1) 13 £>f3 e5 [13...&C5 14 £>g5±] 14 de5
£ie5 [14...de515 Wd6±] 15 Wd2 [15 Bd We7
AA AA IA 16 Wd2 Ae6~] 15...£>f3 16 Af3 [16 ef3 Ac3
17 Wc3 Ae6 18 Wb4 Sad8 19 Sadi Wd7
a b c d e f g h 20 f4 Sfe8oo] 16...Ae5!~;
b2) 13 e4!? is critical:
11 Bc1
b21) 13...e5?! 14 Ab4!
A) 11 f&c2!? Personally, I prefer Filippov’s
first attempt and I would probably play this I A I#
move as White! 11 ...£»df6 12 d5 e5! 13 de6 AA to WJL A
Ae6
AA A
I I# AA
A AA til AA A A
AM A A A
A A AAA
$ I *
A to
A£} £\A A key move from White’s point of view: he
A MM A AAA is trying to provoke ...c5, which would force
H ff
0 Black to fatally weaken his centre. [14 de5?!
on the other hand, would be demonstrably
14 £>e4 £>e4 15 Ag7 &g7 [15...#g7?! weak: 14...£>e5 15 f4 (15 # c2 f4) 15...£>d3!
16£>d2!±] V2-V 2, Filippov-Onischuk, Elista 16 Ag7 # g 7 17 Se3 fe418 Ae4 (18 £>e4 Ag4)
1998. And after this precise move White 18...Ag4+] 14...c5 15 dc5 dc5 [15...£>c5?
accepted a draw. The position is, in fact, 16 ef5 Af5 17 Ac5 dc5 18 M 5 Ae6 19 Ae6
more or less equal. 16 £}d2!? [16 £»d4 Ad7] i 20 £>e4+] 16 Ac3 f4 17 £>f3±;

81
 3 Illustrative games • 3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for White

b22) 13...fe4 14 £>e4 d5 15 cd5 cd5 16 £>g5

®f2 17 &h1 And, thanks to Black’s poor de­
velopment, White enjoys considerable com­
pensation for the pawn.
c) 12...£rf6 This knight move, played in ac­
cordance with generally accepted principles
of development, means that Black will have
to give up ideas of active play in the cen­
tre starting with ...e5. But, in return, White’s
planned central pawn advance is rendered
somewhat less effective (see variations with
14 e4). 13 Wc2 c6 14 a4 [14 e3!?; 14 e4
This direct attempt gives White no advan­
tage because of 16...d5l. 14...fe4 15 £>e4 15 &d2 & d 216 3d2 &d7 17 d5 Bac8
£ie4 16 ±e4 d5! Fixes the weakness at d4. 18 f4
17 cd5 cd5 18 Ag2 &f5oo]
Prepares the thematic e4. [18 e4?l ik,b2
c1) 14...g5 15 a5 a6 16 e4! f4? [16...fe4 19 Eb2 f4l]
17 £ie4 Af5] 17 e5 £>g4 18 £rf3 Af5 19 We2
de5 20 de5 #h 5 21 h3± Buhmann-Dirr, 18...&b2 19 Eb2 & f6 20 Sf2 Sf7
Bundesliga 2003/04 (1-0, 39).
a b c d e f g h
c2) 14_f4!? 15 gf4 £>h5 16 e3 e5 [16...g5?l 8 8
17 Ae4]
I
7 AA AAI A 7
I I# 6 A A mA 6
AA WSl A 5 A A 5
AA A 4 A A 4
A %
A AA A
3
A A A 3

AA A 2
A u AA 2

1 0 & 1
& AAA a b c d e f h
1 I <i> g

First and foremost covers the sensitive

17 de5 de5~ e.g. 18 £>e4 [18 fe5 © f2 19 &h1
^.f5l? (19...Ef5!?)] 18...ef4 19 ^d6.
1 1 . . . 6 d f 6 12 e 3
12 £>e4 £\e413 £>d2 c6 14 f3 £id2 15 ®d2 e5
16 e3 Ae6oo Hille—Sielecki, 2nd Bundesliga
2002/03 (1-0, 34).
1 2 . . . 6 C 3 13 B c 3 & e 4 14 E c 2 c 6
(see next diagram)
square e7, so as to be ready to meet the
opening of the e-file by White.
21 h 4 a6 22 e 4 fe 4 23 ke4 c5!
In this position the chances for the two sides
are more or less equal. I do not see any clear
plan for White of exploiting Black’s weak­
nesses on the e-file, whilst Black, with ...b5,
can hope for counterplay. Black’s queen is
exceptionally well-posted on the a1-h8 di­
agonal.

82
 3.3.3 My special recommendation for White, 8 Ee1 (Filippov-Zhang)

24&f3 26Af5 W5oo.

24 h5 gh5 [24...g5!?] 25 ®h5 Sg7. 26...gh5 27 &f5?!

24...b5 Too optimistic. White will not regain the sac­
rificed pawn. 27 Ah5 Sg7<» 28 g4 Ag4
29 Ag4 h5 30 Sg2 hg4 31 Sg4 #d4 32 &g2
lti1 33. Sg7 &g7 34 Sd1 bc4 35 bc4 Hb8?.

27...W 5 28 Sh2 Sg7 29 &f2 Hg6

30 ^ f3 bc4 31 Eh5
31 bc4 Sb8 32 Ee2 Sb4.

31...cb3+ 32 Sg5 ©g5 33 fg5 Sf8

34 ab3 Ef3 35 &f3 Sg5 36 Be7 Sd5
37 Sd7 h5 38 &e4 Sd4 39 &f5 Bd3
40 &e4 Sd4 41 &f5 Sd3 42 &e4 Sb3
43 Bd6 Bg3 44 Sa6 &h7 45 &f4 h4
25 &g4
46 Sc6 Sc3 47 &f5 h3 48 Sc7 &g8
White hopes, after the exchange of bishops, 49 Sc8 &f7 50 Sc7 &e8 51 Eh7 c4
to exploit the weakness of e6.
52 &f6 Be3 53 Sa7 h2 0-1
25...&f5 26 h5

83
 3 Illustrative games • 3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for White

3.3.4 8 & b3
Yusupov- Kindermann Artur’s important new move at an early
Altenkirchen 1999 stage. White immediately forces changes to
the pawn structure.
1 d 4 f5 2 g 3 & f6 3 k g 2 g 6 4 & f3 4 g 7 9 Jtg5 Lerner’s move. 9...c5
5 0 -0 0 -0 6 c 4 d 6 7 & c 3 & e 8 8 ® b 3
I Am I #
AA A AA
% A &A
A AA
AA
n& &A
AA A AAA
H <4>
I regard this as the most reliable answer.
Black blockades the dangerous diagonal,
fights for space in the centre, and reduces
A seldom-played, but completely sound, the effectiveness of the white queen. 10 M5
queen move discovered by grandmaster Af6
Konstantin Lerner. The white queen heads a) 11 Bfd1 A g 7 12 e3 & h 813 Sac1 h614 dc5
at once for the critical a2-g8 diagonal and £>c5 15 Wc2 A67 16 £>d4 Sb8 17 ©e2 a6
casts a sideways look at the black king. 18 b3 g5 19 £*d5 e5! With this sharp move
8 e4 This premature advance gives Black Black snatches the initiative. 20 £}c2 b5!
good play immediately: 8...fe4 9 £}g5 £}c6
10 &e3 A g411 m 2 [11 «b3!? « d 7 12 £>ge4 1 W 1 #
£ie4 13 £>e4 A f3~ Afifi] 11 .. JTd7 12 £ige4
4&e413 Ae4 £.f314 Af3 Sf3oo Afifi-Yusupov,
A A
Tunis 1985 {V2-V2, 33).
A A A
8 ...& a 6 9 c 5
AAA
A
A A A
A f A IA
fl 4>
The proof: it is not just in the Sicilian Defence
(or the Hedgehog) that the black moves ...e5
and ...b5 go inseparably hand in hand!
21 b4 £>a4 22 £>a3 e4!
(see next analysis diagram)

This very important theme comes up again

and again: the move opens the diagonal for

84
 3.3.4 8 ©b3 (Yusupov-Kindermann)

the bishop on g7, hems in the white fianchet- Af7 17 e4 f4 18 &ce2oo Lerner-Malaniuk,
toed bishop, and makes the square e5 avail­ Kiev 1986 (1-0, 51)] 13 Ed2 h6 14 Se1 Wf7
able for Black’s pieces. 15 &b5 g5 16 &h1 Ae6 17 d5 Ad7 18 e4 fe4
19 Be4 Af6 20 £>g1 Af5 21 Se1 Sfc8 22 Ae4
I «r I # Ad7 23 £*e2 £>c7 oo Ubilava-Malaniuk, Tbilisi
£ £ 1986 (V2-V2, 47).
A A A 9 . . . & h 8 10 c d 6 e d 6
A £> A A
to AA A Much weaker would be 10...cd6, because
the open c-file and the sidelined black knight
A A would then give White chances of an advan­
A
<3
<]
tage.
HI
11 4 e 3
23 Sc2 We5 24 cb5 ab5 25 f4 ef3 26 Af3
3fe8 27 &h1 Sec8 28 Sc8 Ac8 29 #c2 Ae6 With the plan d5, followed by Ad4, which
30 #c7 Sc8 31 ®b7 &c3 32 Sc1 &h7 0-1 would secure a small positional advantage
Vainerman-Malaniuk, Kiev 1986. A power­ for White. I was not too happy with my pos­
ful performance by Malaniuk, who plays the ition initially, since Artur was an especially
black trumps impressively, feared opponent. Then, however, a neat tac­
tical idea occurred to me:
b) 11 Bad1 Ag7 12 e3
11. . .& h 5 !
I £ I
AA A £ A
to A A
A A
AA
H A£}A
AA AAA
I 14>
This leads to a difficult positional strug­
gle. Black certainly has problems develop­
ing his queenside, but it is not clear, on the
other hand, how White is to increase his
pressure on the centre. Black should refrain This prepares our favoured advance of the
from playing the counterblow ...e5, because f-pawn.
opening the centre would leave his knight
on the queenside very unfavourably posi­ 1 2 d 5 14 13 & d 4 & d 4 14 & d 4
tioned. [12 Wc2 e5! 13 dc5 £>b4! Now the Strategically White has achieved all his
knight makes a timely return. 14 ®b3 dc5; goals, but...
12 dc5£>c513 #c2 Ad7 intending ...Eb8, b5
gives Black good counterplay; 12 e4?! cd4 1 4 ...f g 3 15 h g 3 & g 3 !
13 £>d4 &c5 14 Wc2 f4+] 12...&h8 [12...h6
(see next diagram)
13 dc5 £>c5 14 # c2 Ae6 15 b3 Sc8 16 £>d4

85
 3 Illustrative games • 3.3 Alternatives at move 8 for White

a b c d e h f g 16 f g 3 & e 3 17 & h 2 & h 6

8
7
I A 1 m(S^B) 8
7
A ▲▲ A An ingenious perpetual check, but nothing
more, due to Black’s retarded development!
6 & A 6 A
5 A 5 18 & g 1 © e 3
4 S3 4
3 3 18...Sf1 19 Sf1 tfe3 20 &h2 ©d4?
f t
2 2 21 #b 5!±.
AA AA
1 Sa b c d e Sf 1
19 & h 2 © h 6 2 0 & g 1 © e 3 V2- V 2
gh

86
 3.4.1 White plays b3, c4 followed by an early d5; White omits c4 (Tukmakov-Malaniuk)
3.4 Various systems with b3
3.4.1 White plays b3, c4 followed by an early d5;
White omits c4
T u km ako v- M alaniuk
Lvov 1990
1 d4 f5 2 g3 £rf6 3 4g2 g6 4 &f3 kg7
5 0 -0 0 -0 6 b3 d6 7 kb2
7 c4 This move order is imprecise, since it
allows Black to equalise comfortably with
the immediate ...e5. The position is of­
ten reached via 6 c4 and 7 b3. 7...e5!
8 de5 de5 see typical positions, page 20.
9 &a3 [9 £te5?! £>g4] 9...Wd1 10 Ed1
3e8 11 ^c3 e4 12 £}e1 c6= Anastasian-
Malaniuk, Moscow 1989 (1/2- 1/2, 44).
The system involving the fianchetto of the
queen’s bishop is a popular choice for lovers
of quiet positional play. Moreover, general
positional understanding is what is required
here, not knowledge of concrete variations.
Supergrandmaster Alexey Dreev has shown,
with some impressive games, that the ex­
pansion on the king’s wing by ...h6 and
...g5, recommended in so many positions,
is very risky here, as White, in favourable
circumstances, can reply with the central
87
thrust e4 (see typical positions, page 26).
Instead I suggest immediate counterplay on
the queenside beginning with the pawn move
...b5. This considerably lessens the force of
White’s central offensive, and avoids cre­
ating further weaknesses on the kingside.
The young Ukrainian-born player, Alexander
Onischuk, has provided excellent examples
of such play.
7...6e8 8c4
8 &bd2 A rare and relatively harmless con­
tinuation. Here Black can exploit the fact that
White has temporarily abandoned control of
d5, to develop the queen’s knight on its ideal
c6 square. (In most other such positions the
knight would be repulsed at once by d4-d5.)
8...£>c6!
a) 9 4ic4 e6 The most solid move. Black pre­
vents d5 and prepares to develop his queen-
side. Neither side has any effective long-term
ability to open the position and engage with
the enemy, with the result that generally such
play leads to games of tedious manoeuver-
ing. But Black has by no means the inferior
position. The following are two examples of
reasonable play for Black: 10 e3 [10 a4 Ad7
11 £>e1 a5 12 £>d3 g5 13 e3 b 6 14 &d2?! Sd8
15 We2 e5! 16 de5 de5 17 £>c4 e4 18 £>de5
&d5 19 Bad1 &db4 20 £>d7 Ed7 21 Sd7
®d7 22 Ed1 # e6 23 &g7 &g7 24 f3 &d5oo
Murshed-Savchenko, Gausdal 1992 (0-1,
39)] 10...Ad7 11 a4 h6 12 £>e1 Sb8 13 £>d3
£>d5 14 f?d2 a6 15 Sfe1 «ide7 16 ^ia3 g5
17 c4 €ig6 18 b4 e5 19 b5 ^id8 20 de5 de5
21 ^ic5 Ac8 22 £>c2 «ie6 23 «ib3 g4 24 Sed1
4ig5<» Michaelsen-Kindermann, Hamburg
1993 (V2-V2 54).
 3 Illustrative games • 3.4 Various systems with b3
b) 9 Se1
b1) 9...h6!?
b11) 10 c4?! White mixes systems and gets
severely punished. 10...e5! 11 de5?! [11 e4]
11...de5 12 e4 f4!+ Black’s dreams come
true, and the following game demonstrates
a typical sudden Black victory against care­
less White play: 13 b4 [13 gf4?! £}h5! with a
very strong attack, as the knight on f4 soon
becomes powerfully effective.]
I A #1#
A A A A along the e-file. A few sample continuations:
% 4 1 i
A uncomfortable for White. 15 Be3 e6 16 c3
AA AA
^ A
A i & A IA
(Analysis diagram after 13 b4)
How should Black react if White just simply
ignores the advance of the f-pawn? Ped­
ersen demonstrates a key theme: 13...fg3
14 hg3 £>g4! This knight heralds the im­
minent black assault and puts unpleas­
ant pressure on the white king’s position.
Among other threats in such positions are
the thematic advances ...g5 and ...®h5. But
here we have a reached a set-up especially
favourable to Black. The attack plays itself.
15 b5 £>d4 16 Aa3 Sf7 17 £>b3 Ae6 18 £>bd4
ed4 19 Wd3 Sd8 20 Be2? Sf3 21 # f3 £>e5
22 Wf4 d3 0-1, Langeweg-Pedersen, Forli
1991.
b12) 10 e4 This is, of course, the critical
move. 10...fe4 [10...f4?! 11 e5!] 11 £>e4 £>e4
12 Se4 g5
(see next analysis diagram)
Black’s expansion on the kingside packs
more than its usual punch, since the queen’s
knight is very actively posted on c6. But even
so the black plan is extremely risky. Black
88
I A X#
A A A AA
%A A
A
A ^A
AAA AAA
S igr <1?
must take care not to allow his opponent
to play d4-d5 in favourable circumstances,
and he must be prepared for the white thrust
b121) 13 # e2 # h 5 14 Bf1 &g4 This pin is
£>e7 17 h3 Ah3 18 &h3 ©h3 19 Be6 £>d5=
Yusupov-Malaniuk, 55th USSR Champion­
ship, Moscow 1988 (1/2- 1/2, 21).
b122) 13 c4!? #h 5 14 £>e1 #d1 [14...®f7
15 Wd2 Af5 16 Be3 a5 17 Bd1 a4 18 tte2
ab3 Too slow. 19 Ad5 e6 20 Be6+- 1-0,
Gyimesi-Bao, Budapest 1994] 15 Sd1 Af5
16 Be2 Bae8 17 h3 e6=.
b123) 13 c3 Possibly the strongest continu­
ation: White protects d4 and hopes to ex­
ert pressure on the e-file. 13...#f7 14 #d2
&f5 15 Se3 e5 16 de5 de5 17 We2 Sad8
[17...a5! This attack on the queenside should
provide Black with sufficient counterplay.]
18 &a3 e4 19 &d2 &g4 20 «e1 « 2 21 ®f2
Sf2 22 &f2 Sd2oo Neverov-Malaniuk, Zonal
tournament, Nikolaev 1995 (1/2- 1/2, 40).
b2) 9...e5 The main reply.
b21) 10 de5 This continuation opens the d-
file for Black and is completely harmless.
10...de5 11 e4 f4 12 £ic4 Ag4 Black stands
well after this move: 13 h3 Sd8 14 '&e2 J.f3
15 &f3 b5!? [15...fg3 16 fg3 # e 6 (16...^d4
17 &d4 Sd4= Zhidkov-Rychagov, Russian
Cup, Tula 2001 (V2-V2, 44)) 17 Wg2 £>d4
18 Ad1 & h 8 19 a 4 1/2- 1/2, Schmidt-Malaniuk,
Koszalin 1998] 16 £ia3 fg3 17 fg3 a6 18 c3
#d7 = Matlak-Hoang, Budapest 2001 (1/2- 1/2,
58).
 3.4.1 White plays b3, c4 followed by an early d5; White omits c4 (Tukmakov-Malaniuk)
b22) 10 e4 f4
I A # 1 #
AAA AA
%A to k
A I"
A A A
A £>A
AAA^ AAA
11 d5 [11 gf4 £>h5! 12 fe5 £rf4 13 d5? (13 ed6
Ag4) 13...£>e5 14 £>e5 Ae5 15 Ae5
16 Ee3 Ag4 17 ©f1 Ef7 18 Eae1 Baf8 +
Savon-Petrov, St Petersburg 1997 (0-1,37)]
11 ...£>d8! The best square for the knight.
12 gf4 [12 c4 fg3 13 fg3 £rf7 14 b4 &g4
15 ®c2 Ah6 16 £>b3 #d 7 17 Ac1 Ac1
18 Sac1 Af3 19 Af3 £lg5 20 Ag2 £ig4 with
the initiative for Black, Hoffman-Rodriguez,
Viiie Geseii 1996 (0-1, 40)] 12...£ih5! This is
almost always the key move after White’s
gf4! 13 fe5 4rf4 14 £}c4 Ag4 with good com­
pensation for Black.
8...&a6 9 d5 c5
An essential reaction. Black fixes the cen­
tre and prepares play on the wings. Another
possibility is, of course, the flexible 9...c6,
following which Black can continue after
...Ad7 either with ...£ic7, c5 and b5 and
play on the queenside or ...&c5 followed by
89
moves like ...Ec8, h6, W 7, £}ce4 and play
in the centre. [9...c6!?]
10 & c 3
A) 10 &bd2 Too passive in this position to
cause Black any problems. 10...b5 Black
naturally grabs at the chance to get counter­
play on the queenside. 11 £ie1 £»c7 12 £id3
bc4 13 bc4 Eb8 14 Ac3 Ad7 15 © cl Wc8
16 Wa3 Wa6 17 Wa6 £>a6 18 Eab1 Eb1
19 Eb1 Eb8 V2-V2, Uhlmann-Moser, Ans-
felden 2003.
B) 10 dc6 A radical transformation of the
central pawn structure, which, with cor­
rect play, should cause Black no problems.
10...bc6 11 £>c3 [11 £>d4 Ad7 12 £>c3 Bb8
13 Eb1 £>c5 More active and stronger than
the somewhat feeble £>c7. (13...£}c7?! 14 e3
c5 15 £>de2 &c6 16 £id5 £>fd5 17 cd5
Ab5 18 Ag7 &g7 19 Ee1 Ae2 20 # e2 Wf7
21 W62 Eb7 22 Ebd1 # f6 23 Af1 ± 1/2-1/2,
Baumgartner-Kindermann, Austrian League
2001) 14 Aa1 (14 Aa3 £ice4 15 £>e4 &e4)
14...a5!?oo (14...e5!? 15 £>c2 ©e7)] 11...Ad7
a) 12 E d Bb8 13 Ee1 £>c5 14 e3 a5 15 Aa3
£tfe4 16 £>d4 £>c3 17 Ec3 £ie4 18 Sc2 c5
19 £>e2 a4 20 Wd3 ab3 21 ab3 Ac6 22 h4
WdQ 23 Ab2 Ab2 24 Eb2 «a5+ Teske-Koc,
Koszalin 1999 (0-1, 45).
b) 12 Eb1! The best square for the rook:
White protects the bishop on b2 and pre­
pares for the possible advance b3-b4.
b1) 12...Eb8 13 a3 &c5!? [13...c5?! pro­
vokes the following sharp exchange, which
finally results in a somewhat better endgame
for White. This game also belongs to the lost
game material at the European Cup tour­
nament of Neum 2000 (as does Lugovoi-
Kindermann). 14 £>d5 3}d5 15 ©d5 Wf7
(15...&h8 16 Ag7 &g7 17 #d 2± ) 16 &g5
Wd5 17 Ad5 &h8 18 £>f7 Sf7 19 Af7 e6
20 Efd1 Sb6 21 Bd3 Ab2 22 Eb2 &g7
23 Ae6 Ae6 24 Sbd2 &f7 25 Sd6 &e7
26 Eb6 ab6± Korchnoi-Kindermann, Euro­
pean Cup, Neum 2000 (1-0, ??)] 14 b4 £ice4
 3 Illustrative games • 3.4 Various systems with b3

15 £ie4 fe4<» Compare this with 12...£ic5. bishop on g2, transfers the knight to d3, and
16 &d2 Af5. intends to ‘squash’ Black with f4 and e4.
b2) 12...&C5 (Compare this with the line 8 d5 a5 9 &e1.)
Black must counter very accurately, if he is
to avoid this fate.
A A A
I m I

11 © d2 [11 a3 g5 12 #d 3 #h 5 13 e3 A67
AA A
A A

14 4te2 Bab815 Sabi Sf7 Rowley-Malaniuk,

A
*
Philadelphia 1990 (V2-V2, 22)] 11...g5 12 h4!?
%
A very sharp attempt to refute Black’s plan,
A which had not previously been played over
A£> A the board. I offer an important antidote:
A i A AJ l A [12 Hae1 Wh5 and now White will have diffi­
1 Tgf n *
culty playing e4, because he needs both to
consider the position of his king’s knight and
The most active move. If White omits b4, to guard against certain attacking threats.]
Black will continue with ...a5 (cf. Teske- 12...f4! This pawn sacrifice opens up the
Koc). 13 b4 & ce414 £ie4 fe415 £>d2 [15 £ig5 kingside. The black pieces are better placed
Af5 16 g4 Ag4 17 £te4«>] 15...Af5 16 &f6 ef6 to take advantage of this. 13 hg5 [13 gf4 g4
17 £±)3 ®e5oo. 14 &e1 «h5oo] 13...hg5 14 £>g5 [14 gf4!? gf4
15 Wf4 £>d5 16 Wg3 £>f4oo] 14...fg3 15 fg3
10...h6
Ah6 16 Ac1 ®h5 and Black has good com­
One of the few positions in which I regard pensation.
kingside expansion as justifiable! With the 11...g5 12 &d3 ®g6 13 &d2 kd7
black pawn on c5, there is no real danger
1414
on the queenside, and practical play to date
seems generally to indicate that the black
kingside offensive will have gathered suf­
ficient momentum to counter any possible
white breakthrough in the centre.
10...JUI7 11 Bb1 Very slow. The follow­
ing game is of no great theoretical sig­
nificance, but it does demonstrate clearly
Black’s chances against ill-considered white
play. [11 £>e1] 11 ...h6 12 £>e1 g5 13 e4 Wg6
Now the white rook on b1 is extremely un­
favourably placed on the h7-b1 diagonal.
14 # e2 fe4 15 &e4 &g4 16 ©e3 &f5 17 f3
b5 18 &d3 Bab8 19 &df2 bc4 20 bc4 &d5 Is this extremely plausible and straight-
21 cd5 M>2T Konopka-Malaniuk, Frunze forward-looking move in fact a mistake? Tu*-
1987 (0-1, 28). makov, a strongly classical positional player
11 & e1 has placed all his pieces ideally and looks
set with f4 to smother all black piece active
A strong and dangerous plan for which, on the kingside. But Malaniuk demonstrates
after a crushing defeat, I have the greatest an important new idea, which injects new
respect. White opens the diagonal for the into his play on the kingside:

90
 3.4.1 White plays b3, c4 followed by an early d5; White omits c4 (Tukmakov-Malaniuk)
14...4»g4!
A somewhat primitive-looking move: the
bishop check on d4 is surely all-too-easily
parried...
15 £f2 £d4
See typical positions on page 21!
16 &cd1
This looks reasonable enough. Tukmakov in­
tends to exchange off all the black attacking
pieces, after which the black kingside will
make a somewhat ‘empty’ impression.
16... ®h5!
The point of Black’s play: what looked like an
insignificant weakening of the white kingside
will, in fact, have far-reaching consequences.
Malaniuk now manages most impressively
to take advantage of the g-file and to apply
effective pressure on g3, which has become
a weak point.
17 h3 &f2 18 &f2 4b2 19 &b2 gf4
20gf4&h7?
Astonishing, but true: as if from nowhere a
powerful attack is conjured up on the g-file.
What did Tukmakov do wrong? To be hon­
est, I have no idea either! That is precisely
why I have always found this particular game
fascinating. Malaniuk’s play looks like black
magic to me!
21 e4 Sg8
91
From this point on the black attack plays it­
self. White seems to be without defensive
resource.
22 e5 Eg7 23 &h1 Eag8 24 Sg1 ©h4
25 &d2 Eg3 26. Bae1 ke8
Only now do Black’s minor pieces gradually
join in the attack, whilst White seems unable
to shake off the attackers. A terrible revenge
is being exacted for the inconspicuous pawn
move to h3!
27 ed6 ed6 28 &h2 kh5 29 &h1
E3g7 30 ©f2
As the continuation shows, the attempt to re­
lieve the situation by an exchange of queens
turns out to be an act of desperation. Now
the black knight enters the fray with decisive
effect. But my analysis program discovers a
quite astonishing tactical resource at move
32, which would have permitted White to
save the game. As White, I myself would not
have suspected the existence of such a pos­
sibility, and like Tukmakov would have given
up all hope. This is a serious error, as the
variation at move 32 shows.
30...6f2 31 £tf2 £>b4 32 a4?
32 Be6! A dazzling resource and further
proof that it is (almost) always a mistake to
resign inwardly. (Of course it can happen
that, in spite of all one’s optimism, there is
either no way to save a game or one cannot
find it! But if I do not believe in the possibility
of hidden resources, I will in all probability
not even find the ones that are available!)
32...£>a2 [32...M3? 33 M 3 Eg1 34 £>g4!±;
32...Eg6 33 Eg6 Eg6 34 Ee1 ~] 33 £ie4!!
The hidden point. [33 Ed6 4fc3+] 33...Eg2
[33...fe4? 34 Ae4 Ag6 (34...&h8? 35 Eh6)
35 f5±] 34 Eg2 Bg2 35 &g2 fe4 36 Ed6 and
the situation is by no means clear, since the
d-pawn is extremely dangerous. A truly mys­
terious game! [36 Ee4 £»b4 37 Ee6 Ad1].
3 2 ...6 C 2 3 3 Ee6 &d4 3 4 Sd6 0-1
And White surrenders because of 34...M 3.
 3 Illustrative games • 3.4 Various systems with b3
3.4.2 White systems with b3 and c4
without an early &c3
Dam ljanovic - Onischuk
Elista 1998
1 d4 f5 2 g3 £>f6 3 4g2 g6 4 fcf3 &g7
5 0 -0 0-0 6 b3 d6 7 &b2 We8 8 c4
4ia6
In this sort of position White will try to get in
the central pawn thrust e4, playing first the
moves £>bd2 and Wc2. (For the sake of com­
pleteness we shall also consider examples
with a delayed 4l\c3). Black strives to counter
with ...b5 and an exchange of pawns on c4.
The still unresolved question is: when, if at
all, should the preparatory move ...c6 be
played? I shall try to give some guidelines in
the notes which follow.
9&bd2
9® c2
a) 9...c6 10 &bd2 Ad7 11 Bae1 b5 12 Ac3
Now comes the usual double blow: 12...bc4
13 bc4 c5! 14 d5? [14 e4 fe4 15 &e4 £>e4
16 We4 A c 6 17 We3 cd418 £>d4 A g 2 19 &g2
e5 20 £>b5 Wc6 21 # e4 Sfc8= Onischuk]
14...&b4 15 Ab4 cb4 16 &d4 £te4 17 e3
[17 £>e4 Ad4] 17...&C3T 18 £>c6 a5 19 £>b1
92
W 7 20 &c3 Ac3 21 Sd1 &g7 22 f4 &h8
23 Sfe1 Ac3 24 He2 Sfe8 25 e4 [Pelletier-
Onischuk, Elista 1998 (V2-V2, 48)] 25...fe4
26 # e 4 ® f6+ Onischuk.
b) 9...Hb8 The Leningrad guru Malaniuk,
once a passionate advocate of expansion
on the kingside, now also prefers (position­
ally sounder) play on the queenside. Dreev,
an expert at playing the white side of this
system, experiments here with the delayed
development of the knight to c3. There are
strong similarities with the main line begin­
ning 8 b3.
b1) 10 Se1 c6 11 £>bd2 b5 12 a3 Galliamova
deprives the black knight of the square b4.
but her play seems a little slow. 12...&h8
Onischuk takes the opportunity, with &h8
and 4d7, to play two useful extra preparatory
moves before launching into his main plan.
[12...bc4 13 ®c4 &h8 14 £jg5!?] 13 Sac1
Ad7 14 Aa1
wI #
I
A A A
to AA t o A
A A
AA
AA £\A
n £>A A A A
jl n £
14...bc4! Typical black strategy in this line:
if White recaptures with a piece, he allows
Black the fine central square d5. If he recap­
tures with the pawn, Black gets control of the
b-file, whilst longer-term the white c-pawn
can become a weakness. 15 bc4 [15
£}c7 followed by ...4icd5 gives Black a good
position.] 15...c5!
(see next analysis diagram)
 3.4.2 White systems with b3 and c4 without an early £>c3 (Damljanovic-Onischuk)
m1 #
I a faulty combination. 32...Aa1 33 Ea1 Ec4
1 AA A A
% A %A
A A
AA
A &A
n ^ A AAA
H s
The next crucial element in the black plan.
This move gains space on the queenside,
blockades the white c-pawn and opens the
e8-a4 diagonal. 16 d5 £ic717 e4 fe4 18 &e4
©c8 [18...®d8!?] 19 ^\eg5?! Too ambitious.
[19 £tf6 leads to an unclear position. 19...ef6
20 ^ d 2 ~ (20 Ee7 Ee8)] 19...Af5 20 #d2
h6 21 £ie6 £ie6 22 de6 This exchange
on e6 is often very favourable for Black,
who now gets good piece play and has no
more central weaknesses to worry about.
22...g5 23 We3 #e8! 24 h3 % 6 25 g4
£.d3 26 £id2 ®h7 Very fine piece play by
Alexander Onischuk, who is manoeuvering
impressively, considering the small amount
of space available. 27 Ec3 Ag6 28 Eb3 Sb3
29£>b3
I A A A
A A
A A 41JLA
A A
A
i
gf
A 1
A£> A
AA
I <4>
29...£>g8! A fine positional move: the knight
protects e7, the only entry point. After the ex­
change of the dark-square bishops, the dark
squares in the white camp look just a little
weak, whilst Onischuk’s queen can enter the
fray at any time along the h8-a1 diagonal.
30 £>a5 Ef4 31 £\c6 a6? 32 £>d8? Clearly
93
34 & i7 Af7 35 A65 Ae6 36 Ae6 Ee4+ Gal-
liamova-Onischuk, Moscow 2002 (0-1, 61).
b2) 10 ^c3 c6
b21) 11 d5 This could also have been in­
cluded in the previous section dealing with
a white d4-d5 (pages 87 onwards) but
I wanted to provide, at this point, an ex­
ample of the many ways of transposing.
11...Jt,d7 12 Ead1 2c8 13 Wb1 £ic5 14 b4
£ice4 15 £\e4 £ie4 16 Ag7 &g7 17 & d4
cd5 18 cd5 4ic3 19 Wb2 Wf7 The black
queen reaches the vitally important a1-h8
diagonal at almost exactly the right time,
thus solving Black’s problems. 20 Ec1 [V2-V2,
Vladimirov-Malaniuk, Tomsk 2001] 20...'§rf6
21 e3 &b5=.
b22) 11 Eae1 b 5 12 cb5 Giving up the square
d5, a decisive positional choice. 12...cb5
13 b4 &b7 14 # b 3 e6 15 £id2 &g2 16 &g2
Now the white plan is clear: with the move
e4 he intends to make the black e-pawn an
object of attack. But Malaniuk counters in­
geniously. 16...#c6 17 e4d5!
I I#
A iA
% m A% A
A AA
n A
A± &A
A strong reply, which crosses White’s plans
and reduces the bishop on b2 to the role of
spectator. 18 ef5 ef5 19 £ie2 [19 4£>f3 #c4!]
19...®d6 20 a3 4ic7 V2-V2, Dreev-Malaniuk,
Samara 1998.
9...Bb8
(see next diagram)
In contrast to the optimistic assessment of
Black’s chances in this line, which I gave in
 3 Illustrative games • 3.4 Various systems with b3
a b e d e f h 15 dc5 #b1 16 Eab1 £>d3 17 cd6± Dreev-
mI
g
8 K J . # 8
7
6
▲▲ A A AA 7
6
A A
5 A 5 18 dc5? d5+] 16...£>d517 e4 fe418 #e4 Se8
4 AA 4
3 A ^ A 3 young Kramnik’s plan (instead of the ‘the­
2 AA £>A A A A 2 matic’ ...c5) looks good enough for equality.
1 1
H <A>
a b e d e f g h
the first edition of my German book, I now
regard the situation as much more complex.
But practical results to date show clearly
that this is an aggressive system, likely to
win against lesser opponents. It is also more
generally suitable if you are playing for the
full point. Against stronger opponents, how­
ever, I recommend the more solid 7...£ie4.
10 a3!
A) 10 ®c2 [10 d5 c5!] 10...b5!? Christopher
Lutz’s idea is very interesting. He omits the
preparatory ...c6, which after a subsequent
...c5 saves a whole tempo. Plachetka, at
least, does not manage to refute the move.
11 cb5 #b 5
a) 12 @c4 ©04 13 £>c4 c5! As so often in
the Leningrad, the endgame turns out very
favourably for Black. 14 Sac1 £}e4 15 dc5
Ab2 16 &b2 £\ac5 17 £>c4 Aa6 18 Bfd1?!
[18 Ec2 followed by 19 Bfc1 is equal, accord­
ing to Lutz.] 18...Bfc8 19 Bc2 £>a4! Black
seizes the initiative with this move. 20 Bdc1
£>ac3 21 £>d4 [21 Bc3? £>c3 22 Bc3 d5]
21 ...e5 22 Ae4 4}e4 23 f3? [23 £>e6 would,
in Lutz’s opinion, have maintained equality.]
23...ed4 24 fe4 fe4 25 &d6 Sc2 26 Sc2
e3!-+ Plachetka-Lutz, Batumi 1999 (0-1,
42).
b) 12 e3 JLb7! [12...c5?! Played prematurely,
as Black is not sufficiently developed to open
up the position. 13 B fd ! £>b4 14 ®b1 Wd3
94
Malaniuk, Yalta 1995 (rapid; V2-V2, 52)] e.g.
13 S fd [13 &g5 Ag2 14 &g2 #d5] 13...Sfc8
[13...Ebc8!?] 14 Af1 [14 £>c4 c5] 14...#d7
15 &c4 e6~ 16 £>g5 [16 a3 c5! 17 #d3 £}c7
19 Se1 c6oo [19...c5!?].
B) 10 Be1 b5 11 Ac3 bc4 12 bc4 &b7 The
[12...c5] 13 Eb1 e6 14 e3 £ie4 15 &e4 Ae4
16 Bb8 £»b8 17 Af1 Aa8 18 £>d2 c5 19 Ag2
Ag2 20 &g2 #c6 21 &g1 £id7 22 ®b3 &b6
23 Bc1 Sb8+ Obuchov-Kramnik, Kuyby-
shev 1990 (V2-V2, 41).
C) 10 Sc1 b5 Romuald, too, one of the best
German Leningrad-practitioners, prefers the
immediate double advance of the b-pawn.
Lerner’s reaction is unusual: to keep the
queenside closed and to gain space there,
he immediately cedes Black the important
central square d5. 11 c5 Jlb7 12 a3 ^.d5
13 b4 h6 [13...c6!? would probably have
been my choice, in order to get the queen’s
knight into play as quickly as possible via
c7.] 14 cd6 cd6 15 £>e1 Ag2 16 £>g2 £id5
17 f3 £ib6 18 ®b3 Wf7 19 ®d3 d5!?
1 I
A
%% AA
A A A
A A
A W AA
A &A & A
Q I
A most original positional pawn sacri­
fice, typical of Romuald’s active style. He
nonetheless manages to get the better o*
the super-solid Lerner! 20 #b 5 &c4 21 ©a6
£>d2 22 Bfd1 23 iic3 g5 24 Wa4 f4 This
heralds, as so often, a black attack. 25 Sal
®e6 26 # c2 ®h3 27 gf4 gf4 28 #g 6 Bb6
29 Wg4 Wg4 30 fg4 f3 31 ef3 Bf3 32 Bad
 3.4.2 White systems with b3 and c4 without an early £>c3 (Damljanovic-Onischuk)

Sg6 33 Ae1 Hg4 34 Ai2 Sa3 35 Sa1 Sa1

36 Ha1 Ad 4 37 Ad4 Sd4+ Lerner-Mainka, I A WI #
Bad Worishofen 1997 (0-1, 55). A to A AA
10...b5
AA A
to A
Here, too, ...b5 is played at once, but Onis­ A igr A
chuk follows up with an immediate ...c6, with A £>A
the result that he does not gain the tempo of A £)A A A A
lines with 9... or 10...c6.
1 m
11 © c 2
Only this tactical resource, based on the
11 b4!
unprotected bishop at b2, seems to main­
tain the balance! [14...Ab7?l 15 ®>b3 £iac7
l i I 16 &a5 Aa6 17 ®c6! Ae2 18 Efe1 Ab5
A A A iA 19 We8 Bfe8 20 £ic6 Ac6 21 Sc6 a5
to A to A 22 £»g5±] 15 Wc6 [15 #c2 Ad7oo] 15...Wc6
A A 16 Bc6 Ad7 17 Ec2 Aa4 18 Bed a5 19 &g5
AAA Ad7! [19...ab4 20 4ie6 ba3 21 Aa3 £ie6
22 Ad5 & U 23 e4±] 20 Ec4 ab4= A tight­
A 4}A rope act! Before adopting the line in an im­
A £>A A A A portant game, players of Black should ex­
H 1* amine this analysis carefully!

This move, first played by the grandmaster 11...c6

and piano virtuoso Mark Taimanov, looks to
me like the strongest continuation, (cf. Por- a b e d e f g h
tisch-Beim, p. 96). White goes for immediate 8 l i I X #
8
queenside expansion, making it difficult for 7 7
Black to get in the freeing ...c5. A further
A A A A

advantage of this line is that the white queen

6 ft A A A f t
6
can go directly to b3. 5 A A 5
a) 11...bc4 12 &c4 # b 5 [12...Ae6 13 4>a5 4 AA 4
Sl65 14 &g5±; 12...C6 13 Sc1] 13 £>a5 Ae6?!
[13...Ad7 14 E d e6 is possibly playable, al­
3
AA £>A 3

though the knight on a6 looks misplaced to

2
U i£ > A A A A 2

me here; 13...£»e4 14 £»d2±] 14 £ig5 Ad5 1

n n < 1 ?
1

15 Ad5 #d5 16 # d 3 ± Taimanov-Lutz, Ger­ a b e d e f g h

many 2000/01 (1-0, 34).
An interesting moment. Onischuk refrains
b) 11...c6 12 #b3! bc4 13 # c 4 &d5 This
from the immediate ‘counter-punches’ ...bc4
would be my preference. It is important to
and ...c5, so as to be ready to reply to £lc4
get the knight on the wing speedily back into
with the manoeuvre ...£>c7-d5.
play. Otherwise it can all too easily ‘shrivel
up’ in its corner. Black must proceed very 11...bc4 [11 ...Ab7!?] 12 £}c4 This was prob­
carefully, of course, because of the weak­ ably the move Onischuk had feared. 12...c5
ness of c 6 .14 Sac1 £iac7! [12...Ab7 13 b4±] 13 Efd1 Onischuk gives

95
 3 Illustrative games • 3.4 Various systems with b3

White a small advantage here. White is, in 19...Bb6

fact, very well placed, both for the struggle
This provokes the following sequence.
on the queenside and in the centre, whilst
Black will not find it easy to develop his game 20 4f6 &f6 21 &d5 Sb8 22 &f6 Sf6
further. 13...&b7!?oo looks, however, quite
playable. [13...&d7 14 Sac1 (14 £\d6?! ed6
15 # c 4 d5 16 # a 6 Sb3) 14...cd4 15 &d4!
And now Black will have problems with a7
(15 &d4 &c5)] 14 £>a5 A d515 dc5 £ic5 16 b4
&ce4.
12 Bae1
12 b4 &h8 13 Sad Ad7 14 Sfe1 bc4 15 £>c4
&c7 16 &a5 Sb6 17 &d2 &cd5 18 e3 g5~
Portisch-Beim, Berlin 1997 (1/2- 1/2, 41).
Now comes the double-blow.
12...bc4 13 bc4
From the positional point of view Black can
13 &c4 [13 Wc4 &d5 14 £>g5 £*ac7oo] be quite happy. He has a finely-posted knight
1 3...6.7! The difference: Black can transfer on c5 and White’s c-pawn is isolated. The
the knight on a6 to the centre immediately, only question is whether White can exploit
whilst White is unable to exploit the weak­ the present unfortunate posting of the rook
ness of c6. 14 £»a5 Ad7 15 S d £>cd5 16 b4 on f6.
[16 £>c6? Bc8] 16...Sc8~.
23 Bb1
13... c 5 14 &a1?! 23 e4 would have been the right plan, ac­
14 d5 is stronger according to Tyomkin. cording to Onischuk, leading to unclear play.
14...f4!? 15 Aa'l [15 gf4 Sb2! 16 # b 2 &d5 23...£±>7 24 e5 de5 25 Se5 Ag2 26 &g2
17 Wb5 #b 5 18 cb5 &ac7?] 15...&f5~. Wc6 27 &g1 Bb7 28 Bfe1 Se6= Onischuk.

14...cd4 15 &d4 &c5 16 £ic6 23...6d7 24 &c3 Sf8

This attractive-looking knight move achieves
little for White, because, apart from the fi-
anchettoed bishop, the rest of the white
forces are not in touch with this distant out­
post.
16...5.7 17 &b4 Sb8 18 &c6 Sb7
19&b4
White would clearly be content with a draw,
but Onischuk wants more! As the Ukrainian
player said about the Leningrad Dutch in an
interview: I love the Dutch Defence, because
it’s a fighting defence; there is no exchange
variation as in the King’s Indian!
With this move Black adjusts his position and
can begin to play for advantage.
25 &a5 a6 26 kd5 e6 27 k l3 &d8
Once again Black would be happy to go into
an endgame, where his king can be quickly
transferred to the centre.
28 &c3 &c7 29 h4 Sb1 30 Bb1 Bb8
31 Eb4 Bf8
Swings over to the kingside, to unsettle his
opponent. White has no entry-points on the
b-file.
32 h5?!

96
 3.4.2 White systems with b3 and c4 without an early £>c3 (Damljanovic-Onischuk)

After this nervous reply the balance finally 37...fcd7! 38 £>d2 h4+
tips in favour of Black. According to Onis-
chuk, 32 Sb1 was better. Black now has a decisive attack.

32...gh5 33 &e3 39 c5 hg3

33 Ah5 e5 34 &f3 Ae6?. Without having to fear seeing ghosts - such
33... ©d8 34 ®d4?! as the apparition of a second white queen
on c8!
34 &b3!?
40 c6 gf2 41 &f1 &f6 42 Eb8 &a5
3 4 ...6 .8
43 Af3 Ae4! 44 ^ b 4
Now White will not recover his pawn, and the
apparently weak advanced black h-pawn will 44 Ae4 fe4 45 ®b4 #d5 46 c7 e3-+;
punish White by demolishing his position! 44 £se4 ®e1.
35 &b3 e5! 36 &d5 &h8 37 &b2 44...fod2 45 &f2 £>e4 46 &e4 fe4
37 ®d2 # f6 + . 47 &e3 ©d5 48 c7 &f7 0-1

97
 3 Illustrative games • 3.4 Various systems with b3
3.4.3 The alternative: the central 7...&e4
Hansen - Berg
Malmo 2001
1 & f3 f5 2 g 3 & f6 3 & g 2 d 6 4 d 4 g 6
5 b 3 k g 7 6 k b 2 0 - 0 7 0 - 0 4>e4
An active and relatively easy-to-handle move
for Black, which I have frequently played my­
self. Black hopes to force through early the
thematic.. .e5, and thereby solve all his prob­
lems. But a very drawish endgame can arise
in the main line, which is why my main rec­
ommendation is the more complex (and con­
siderably more risky!) 7....£>a6. Qualitatively
speaking, however, the central 7...£le4 is at
least as good a move. In this more compre­
hensive English edition, therefore, I suggest
the move as an alternative.
8 4>bd2 & c 6 9 c 4
After this reasonable-looking move Black is
able to put his plan into effect unhindered.
9 & e 1 !?
(see next analysis diagram)
An interesting idea, which paradoxically (to
do it, the knight abandons the square f3!) at­
tempts to thwart Black’s main plan of ...e5.
98
I Am I#
li A A A A
to A A
A
At o
A A
A IA ^ A A IA
H w I#
a) 9 ...& d 2 ? ! 10 ®d2 ®e8 [10...e5 11 &c6!
bc6 12 de5 de5 13 £id3! Now the point
of White’s play is revealed: he is looking
for an ending of good knight against bad
bishop plus weakened black queenside,
which promises a considerable advantage.
13... e4 14 Ag7 &g7 15 ®c3 ®f6 16 # f6 &f6
17 £*c5±, Kolev-Danailov, Zaragoza 1994
(1-0, 34)] 11 f4! e5 12 &d5 &h8 13 de5 de5
14 &d3 ef4 15 Ag7 &g7 16 Wf4 tfe7 17 e4
£}d8 [17...£>d4!? Stohl] 18 ef5 Sf5 19 Sae1 ±
Stohl-Kindermann, Portoroz 1998 (1-0,27).
b) 9 ...d 5 ! 10 £*df3 f4 The most active
move, but alternatives must be considered.
[10...a5!? 11 a4 f4 (11...e6 12 &d3 b6)
12 &d3 fg3 13 hg3 Af5; 10...e6 11 £>d3
a5~ (Beim) Compare this with the section on
the ‘Leningrad Stonewall’ (p. 129).] 11 &d3
fg3!? [11...g5?! 12 c4 e6 13 Sc1 £te7?!
14 £»d2 £>d6 15 e3 fe3 16 fe3±, Lputian-
Gurevich, Yurmala 1983 (1-0,30)] 12 hg3 Af5
13 &de5 [13 £ife5] 13...£>e5 14 £>e5 [14 de5
c6] 14...c6oo with full equality for Black, e.g.
15 c4 e6 16 e3 [16 g4? Ae5 17 de5 Ag4 18 f3
&g3 19 fg4 # b 6 -+ ] 16...®g5!? [16...h5!?].
9 ...6 d 2 1 0 H d 2 e5
Now White is at a crossroads. I still remem­
ber how curious I was, during my own game
at Biel, to know how the ‘b3 guru’ Alexey
Dreev intended to ‘crack’ the variation:
11 de5
 3.4.3 The alternative: the central 7...®e4 (Hansen-Berg)
Current theory gives White no hope of ad­ [15 4g7!? &g7 16 e5 Ag4 17 Sfe1 We7]
vantage after this move.
11 d5!? This leads to a King’s Indian type of ®h5?
position with approximately equal chances.
11 ...£±)8! The knight stands better here than b) 13...@e7!
on e7.
a) 12 &g5 #e7 [12...£ia6 13 f4 e4 14 Ag7
&g7 15 Wd4 Wf6 16 # f6 Sf6 17 h4 c6
18 Sfd1 h619 4>h3 Ad7 20 &f2 Sc8~ Pribyl-
Grabarczyk, 2nd Bundesliga 2000/01 (V2-V2,
63)] 13 Sadi &a6!= [13...h6?! 14 £>e6 &e6
15 de6 £}c6 16 c5! Efd8 17 cd6± Skembris-
Santo-Roman, Athens 1992 (1-0,34)] 14 b4?!
£b4! 15 &h7 &h7 16 #b4 f4 17 f3 b6? 18 e3
©g5 19 ef4 ef4 20 Ac1 Ae5 21 Sfe1 Ad7
22 Se4 Sf7 23 &h1 Sh8 24 ®d2 &g8 25 &g1
© h5-+ Moutousis-Santo-Roman, Athens
1992 (0-1, 40).
b) 12 Sac1 #e7 13 b4 £id7 14 c5 £>f6
15 Sfd1 f4 16 gf4 £ke4 17 cd6 cd6 18 #c2
Sf4 19 e3 Sg4 20 # c 8 V2-V2, Romanishin-
Casper, Yurmala 1987.
11...de512&d5 &h8
13^d8
13 e4 Dreev had been pinning his hopes on
this move.
a) 13...f4?! In this position, because of his
poor development and the resulting passed
pawn on the e-file, not (for once) especially
to be recommended! 14 gf4 ef4 15 Aa3
15...Se8 16 Sadi W 6 17 e5 # f5 18 Sfe1
[18...&e6!?] 19 e6± Tukmakov-Becx,
Reykjavik 1990 (1-0,28).
I 1 #
AAA J. A
% A
AA
A A
A £>A
AA AAA
I *
The clearest way for Black to resolve his pos­
itional problems. 14 ef5
b1) 14...gf5 15 Sadi [15 #d2 e4=] 15...&e6
16 #d 2 [16 Wb5? a6 17 # a 4 Efd8T]
16...Had8 17 We3 e4 18 &d4 &d4 19 Ad4
Ad4 20 Hd4 c5 21 Hd8 Sd8 22 f3±, Dautov.
b2) 14...Sd8 15 We4 Af5 16 # h 4 [16 We3
Sd3 17 We2 Sad8t followed by ...e4]
16...6.6 [16...#h4 17 &h4 Sd2 18 Ac3
Sd3 19 Sac1 e4 20 Ag7 &g7=] 17 #h 6
Ag7= [17...®g7!?] 18 #g5 &f6 19 ®h6 4g7
20 # c 1 !? Playing again for a win. 20...£»b4
[20...e4 21 Ag7 Wg7 22 £ig5 %d4 23 Se1
Ag4 24 &h1 Af3 25 &e4±, Dautov] 21 Wg5
Se8 [21... Af6? 22 W 6 W 6 23 Ae5 ±] 22 Ac3
a5 23 We7 Se7 24 Sfd1 [24 a3 £>c2 25 Ha2 e4
(25...&d4 26 Se1 Sae8=; 25...a4!?) 26 Ag7
<&g7 27 £>h4 (27 &d2 e3=) 27...£>d4=, Dau­
tov] 24...e4 25 Ag7 &g7 26 &d4 &f6 27 a3
£id3 28 £ic2 V2-V2, Dreev-Kindermann, Biel
1995.
13...Ed814 &g5
Black must now play actively, to maintain
equality.
14 S adi is completely harmless. 14...Sd1
[14...He8!? 15 Sd2 a5 16 a3 Sa6 17 c5 Ae6
18 b4 ab419 ab4 £.c4¥ Arduman-Malaniuk,
Forli 1992 (0-1, 37)] 15 Sd1 e4 16 Ag7 <&g7
17 £>d4 4>d4 18 Sd4 Ae6 19 f3 ef3 20 Af3 c6
21 &f2 &f6 22 e4 Sf8 23 &e3 c5 24 Sd2
99
 3 Illustrative games • 3.4 Various systems with b3

b6 25 h4 fe4 1/2- 1/2, Polugaevsky-Bareev, 22 f3 e3! 23 &f1 f4! 24 gf4 &h3

Moscow 1987. 25 &h3 gf4+
14...Ed2!
a b c d e f 9 h
8 I A £ 8
7 AAA AA 7
6 f t A 6
5 11 □ 5
4 A 4
3 A A 3
2 I A A Jl A 2
1M B ,
1
a b c d e f g h
The central pawn wedge promises Black a
15 kc3 Ec2! great advantage in the endgame.

Another important point. As the following an­ 26 &e1

alysis shows, Black has achieved full equal­
ity: 26 Sd7 &f6 27 Bc7 Bd8 28 Bd7 Bd7 29 Ad7
15...5.2?! 16 Ac6 bc6 17 Sfd1 &f6 18 &f1 £»b4 30 a4 &e5 +.
Bc219 Ae5 Ae5 20 £rf7 &g7 21 £ie5± Sme-
jkal-Fleck, Bundesliga 1986/87 (1-0, 38). 26...Sd8 27 Sd8 £>d8 28 &d1 fcc6
29 &c2 &b4 30 &b2 &f6 31 a3 &c6
16Bfc1? 32 &c3 &e5 33 b4 &d4 34 &d3 &b3
After this error Black gets an advantage in a 35 &c3 &d4 36 &d3 b6 37 Jtc8 fcb3
most instructive way: 38 &c2 £ld4 39 &d3 c5 40 bc5 bc5
16 Sac1 Sc1 [16...Be2 17 Ac6 bc6 18 Efd1 41 &h3 &b3 42 &c2 &d4 43 &d3
Af6 19 &f1 Ba2 20 Ae5] 17 S d e4= 18 f3 &b3 44 &c2 &d2 45 &c3 &d6
[18 &f1 £>d4 19 Bd1 &e6 20 £tf7 &g8 46 Jtg2 &c7
21 £>e5 b6 22 f4 Ab7 23 e3 Bd8 24 Bd8 &d8
25 &e2 £\f7 26 £rf7 & f7= %-%, Ftacnfk- Black takes his time before demonstrating
Kindermann, Bundesliga 1995/96; 18 JLg7 the winning plan.
<£?g7 19 f3 h6 20 £>h3 ef3 21 ef3= V2-V2,
Smejkal-Kindermann, Bundesliga 1995/96] 47 &h3 &b6 48 &f5 &a5 49 &d7 &f1
18...£>d4 19 &f2 ef3 20 ef3 h6 21 £>h3 Ae6 50 &d3 &d2 51 &c3 &b6 52 &h3
22 £rf4 Af7 23 Bd1 Bd8 24 4te2 £}c6 25 Bd8
&c7 53 kg2 &d6 54 kh3 &e7!
£>d8 26 f4 Ac3 27 &c3 c6 28 &e3 &g7
29 &d4 &f6 30 £\e2 £*e6 %-%, van Wely-
55 Ag2 &f6 56 &h3 &g5 57 &g2
Kindermann, Horgen 1995. & h4

16...BC3! 17 Ec3 e4 18 Scc1 &a1 The first zugzwang position. The white king
19 Sa1 &g7 20 Sd1 h6 21 4>h3 g5 has to abandon the a-pawn.

100
 3.4.3 The alternative: the central 7...£}e4 (Hansen-Berg)

58 &d3 b) 61 a5 &f6 62 &h3 <&e7 63 Ag4 &d6

58 A M &h3.
58...&b1 59 &e4?
59 a4 offered better practical chances, but
Black should still win because he can force
a further loosening of the white position and
is able to penetrate the white queenside with
his king. There follow a few (unforced) sam­
ple continuations: 59...£}d2 60 &c3 &g5
a) 61 &h3 &f6 62 Ag2 &e7 63 AY\3 &d6
64 Ag4 <&c7 65 Ae6 <&b6 66 Ah3 &a5
67 Ad7 £rf1 68 &d3 [68 h3 £>g3 69 &d3
*b 4 -+ ] 68...&b4 69 Ah3 £>d2 70 Ad7 £>c4
71 &e4 &c3 72 &f4 & d2-+.
64 &h3 &c7 65 a6 [65 Ae6 &b7] 6 5...&b6
66 Ac8 <&a5 67 Ab7 &a4 68 &d5 &a3
69 Af7 £>b3 70 &c2 [70 &d3 & rf] 70...&b4
71 Ad5 &d4 72 &d3 & b3-+.
59...6a3 60 &f4 &c2 61 &e4 a5
Now White has to sacrifice a decisive tempo,
before he can approach Black’s passed
pawn with his king.
62&f1
62&d3£>e1.
62... a4 63 &d3 4>d4 64 &c3 a3 0-1
This zugzwang is fatal!

101
 3 Illustrative games • 3.5 White systems with £>bd2 followed by e4 and/or c3 and b4

3.5 White systems with £}bd2

followed by e4 and/or c3 and b4

W eber - Kinderm ann A really dangerous plan. As is also shown in

Bad Wiessee 2000 the next section, with its early b4, the ad­
vance of the b-pawn is an excellent attacking
manoeuvre, which has to be taken seriously.
1 d4 f5 2 g3 £kf6 3 kg2 g6 4 £>f3 4g7 White gains space on the queenside and
5 0 -0 0 -0 6 &bd2 reduces Black’s piece activity, without in­
curring significant weaknesses in his own
position.
As the best black reply is not yet clear, I give
here two possibilities:
a) 8...@ e8 9 Wb3 &h8 10 d5 £>d8 11 Ab2
a5 12 a3 e5 13 de6 [13 e3?! 14 c4 &d7
15 Ac3 a4 16 Wb2 g5 17 h4 h6 18 hg5
hg5 19 &h2 g4 20 f4 gf3 21 Af3 £>g5
22 &g2 # g 6+ Zaitseva-Lastin, Moscow
1998 (0-1, 37)] 13...£>e6 threatening ...f4.
14 e3 And now my feeling is that 14...g5l?
[14...We7 15 c4 Ad7 16 £>d4 c5?l 17 £>e6 a4
18 # c 2 Ae6 19 bc5 dc5 20 Bab1 ± Zviag-
An important system. White prepares as intsev-Gavrikov, Biel 1995 (1-0, 47)] would
quickly as possible either the classical ad­ have given Black counterchances. 15 c4 g4
vance e2-e4, or queenside expansion with 16 &d4 [16 &h4 &g5] 16...&g5
c3 and b4.
I Aw I #
6...d6 7 Se1 AA AA
The most direct way, if White wants to play A to
e4 quickly. A Ato
7 c3 &c6 8 b4 [8 Be1 see the main game for AA^ A
the line 8 c3 on page 103] A# A A
A & AA A
I A W I # S U&
AAA A A A
Black’s plan is to play ...£tfe4 followed by
to A to A ...# h 5 , which promises him an initiative on
A the kingside.
A A b) 8...a6 9 t?b3
A £>A
b1) 9...&h8l? 10 d5 £te5 11 Ab2 e6! Here
A £>A A A A too, advancing the e-pawn is the right way
H A 1 <1? to free Black’s game. It leads to the same

102
 3.5 White systems with £)bd2 followed by e4 and/or c3 and b4 (Weber-Kindermann)

sort of position as in Beim’s game. 12 de6 (13 h3 £>e4 14 Ab2 £>gf2; 13 Ab2 £>f2
Se8 [12...#e7 13 c4 We6 14 Efe1 a5 15 a3 14 Af6 (14 &f2 &g4 15 &g1 We3 16 &h1
We7 16 e3 c6 17 £>d4 W 7 18 f4 £ted7 £rf2 17 &g1 £>h3 18 &h1 #g1 19 Sg1
19 5ac1 V2-V2, Kharitonov-Vasiukov, Elista £>f2) 14...®e3 15 &g5 £ih3 16 &h1 Wg1)
1995] 13 c4 &f3 14 Af3 c6 15 Ac3 Ae6 13...#e2 (13...&e4 14 J.b2) 14 h3 (14 Ab2
16 #b 2 We7 17 e3 d5 18 c5 Sg8 19 Ag2 We7) 14.. .£te4 (14.. .& h615 Ee1) 15 4b2 £>e5
h5 20 £>f3 £>e4 21 J.g7 Eg7 22 £te5 <&h7 16 Ead1 m (16 Ae5 &d2 17 &g7 £if3 18 &f3
23 f3 &f6 24 Wd4 Ee8 25 Eae1 Ac8 26 f4 ®c2)] 13 Ab2 f4 14 £rf1 [14 gf4 Ef4 15 e3 Af5
g5 27 4tf3 V2-V2, Kharitonov-Renner, Berlin 16 #d1 (16 e4 Ad7; 16 Wc3 £rf3) 16...^d3
1997. 17 ef4 (17 Se2 £>b2 18 ef4 £>d1 19 Se7 Aa1)
D2)9.. .e6 Beim’s play looks very solid. After 17...£te1 18 Ag7 (18 #e1 #e1 19 Se1 Ab2)
due preparation he intends to force through 1 8...6.2 ] 14...g5 [14...J.f5 15 #d2] 15 &e5
e 6 -e 5 .10 Ab2 &h8 11 c4 We7 12 e3 e5 [15 Ead1 &f3 16 ef3 (16 J,f3 &f5 17 #d 2
&b2 18 Wb2 £>e5 19 Ag2 Wf6) 16...£>e5
I A I# 17 #d 2 £f5 18 &a3 (18 # d 6 Wd6 19 Bd6
A AW Ak £>f3 20 Af3 Ab2) 18.. .c519 Wd6 ®d6 20 Ed6
A &A %A £id3] 15...J.e5 16 Ae5 We5t with a strong
initiative for Black, Spassov-Marin, Manresa
AA 1995 (V2-V2, 41).
AAA b) 10 fce5 de5 11 &b3 [11 e4 f4! 12 gf4 &h5
A^A Black has a strong attack, e.g. 13 fe5 Wh4
AA & AAA 14 £>f3 Ef3 15 Wf3 & e 5 16 h3 &e6, Gurevich
U 1* and Chernin] 11 ..M e7 12 Ae3 Ed8 13 Wc2
e4?.
13 de5 £>e5 14 Ead1 £>f3 15 £rf3 a5 16 b5
Sie4 17 £d4 b6 18 Wb2 M>7 19 &g5 Ad4 8...e5!?
20 #d 4 &g8 21 &h3 Eae8 22 £rf4 Wg7
Sharply played. Black offers an interesting
23 £ie2 Ee7 V2-V2, Zviagintsev-Beim, Berlin
pawn sacrifice.
1993.
8...fe4 The most direct continuation, but
7...&C6 8 e4 Black must now follow up accurately, if he is
8 c3 Playing Ee1 and c3 is a little too slow; to avoid getting the slightly worse position.
Black can already play an immediate ...e5, 9 £ie4 £ie4 10 Ee4
which gives him a good game. 8...e5 9 de5 a) 10...&f5 This gives White a small advan­
4ie5 The safest move, but capturing with the tage and reveals the sort of position he is
pawn was also worth considering. [9...de5!? aiming for: 11 Ee1 e5!? [11...£ib4?! 12 £}h4!
10 e4 f4 And we have reached our main game Wd7 (12...Ac2 13 #d2 is very risky for Black)
by transposition. 11 b4!? a6] 13 £tf5 Wf5 14 Ee2 c6 15 c3 &d5 16 # b 3 ±
a) 10 c4 c6 11 Wc2 We7 Here, too, Black Hoffmann-Bao, Munster 1993 (V2-V2, 25)]
can be very happy, because the move 12 Ag5 #e8 13 de5 de5 14 c3 Wf7
Se1 has seriously weakened f2; the moves a1) 15 ^d2 After this obvious, but imprecise,
...£teg4 and ...£te4 will be very trouble­ white continuation, Leningrad expert Alexan­
some for White. The following analysis by der Onischuk demonstrates the attacking
Mihail Marin shows Black’s attacking po­ potential of the black position: 15...e4!«>
tential: 12 b3 [12 Eb1 £rfg4 13 e3 (13 b3 Clearing e5 for the black knight. 16 # b 3
f4) 13...g5] 12...£tfg4 [12...£>eg4!? 13 Ef1 [16 Ae4!?] 16...£e6 17 Wb7 Ad5 18 c4 Eab8

103
 3 Illustrative games • 3.5 White systems with 4}bd2 followed by e4 and/or c3 and b4
19 «a6 £>b4 20 @a5 e3 21 Ae3 Ag2 22 &g2
&c2 23 Ac5 &a1 24 Ea1 Sfe8 25 Eb1 Se2
26 b3 Ed8 27 £tf3 # f5 28 Sf1 Af8 29 Ab4
We4 30 Af8 Ef8 31 Wc3 Ec2 0-1, Bewers-
dorff-Onischuk, Bad Zwesten 1997.
a2)And here 15 Ae3! £g4 [15...Sad8
16 ®b3] 16 £}g5± would have given White a
slight advantage,
b) 10...d5!
I AW 1
AI A A A A
to A
A I
AI
[>t5?
ftB’O
[>
AAA
S An <4>
The best move. Now the white rook fin­
ishes up misplaced, since it must remain
on the fourth rank to prevent ...A g 4 .11 Ef4
[11 Ee1?l Ag4! 12 c3 e5+; 11 Eh4!? is prob­
ably a little better. 11 ...Af5 12 c3oo] 11 ...Af5
12 c3 e6 13 Eh4 Af6 14 Eh6 Now the poor
position of the rook quickly seals White’s
fate. 14...&e4 15 # e2 We7 16 Ad2 Ef7
17 £>e1 Ag2 18 &g2 e5! 19 de5 £te5 20 Sd1
Se8 21 &c1 #d 7 22 » d 2 £>g4 23 Eh3 d4
24 cd4 Ad4 25 £id3 Wd5 26 &g1 £rf2 0-1,
Luft-Renner, 2nd Bundesliga 1995/96.
9 de5 de5
104
10 C3
White does not accept the challenge, thus
allowing Black a very easy game.
10 ef5 gf511 £}e5 would have been the main
(but, of course, very risky) white continua­
tion. 11 ...£ie5 12 Ee5 £\e4!
a) 13 Sa5?! £tf2! 14 &f2 [14 Wf3 £>g4]
14...#d4 15 *f1 f4!
I A i #
AAA AA
w A
A
A A A£> AA
M An
And the hallmark Dutch Defence move gives
Black a very strong attack: 16 Ad5 [16 g4 f3
17 Af3 Ag4] 16...&h8 17 g4 f3 18 h3 Ag4
19 hg4 Eae8 20 Af3 #g4;
b) 13 Be4! Only by returning the exchange
can White parry the threats. An unclear pos­
ition is reached, in which Black’s active pos­
ition outweighs his minimal material disad­
vantage. 13...fe4 14 We2 e3 15 We3 <&h8
16 #e2 Af5 17 £>e4 « e 8 ~ .
1 0 ...f 4 11 & c 4
Very cautiously played.
A) 11 gf4?! &h5!?.
B) 11 b4! This dynamic move leads to an
unclear position. 11...a6 12 a4 &h5 13 b5
ab5 14 Aa3 b4 15 cb4 £id4 16 b5 Sf7?!
[16...Be8 oo] 17 £>d4 # d 4 18 £>b3 #d1
19 Eed1 ± Meins-Koscielski, Bad Wiessee
2003 (1-0, 46).
1 1 ...W e ll 12 S d 1 fc h 5 !
(see next diagram)
Playing for a win. Capturing on e4 would
merely lead to a drawish position. True, the
black knight on h5 is not particularly well
 3.5 White systems with £>bd2 followed by e4 and/or c3 and b4 (Weber-Kindermann)

18...Bfe8 19 Ed7; 18...Sae8 19 Bd7.

19 Sd5! Sfe8 20 Bad1 Hd5 21 ed5
£>e5 22 &f1! Sd8?!
The continuation initiated by this move turns
out to be unfavourable; like my opponent I
had not foreseen White’s tactical chances
after move 29 [22...h6!+].
23 Sd2 £kc4 24 Se2 Sd5 25 Se8 <&f7
26 Sc8 Sd7
26...C5 27 Ec7.

placed, but the black f-pawn restricts the 27 £>g5 &e 7 28 kb7 &d 6
white kingside most uncomfortably. [12...fg3 a b c d e f g h
13 fg3 £>e4= 14 Ee1 (14 £>fe5 £>e5 15 £>e5 8 8
M,
4ic3 16 Be1 Ee8 17 &f4 £>a4 18 &65)
14...1Lf5 15 £tfe5]
7 AI # A A 7
6 1 f t A 6
13 gf4?!
5 A 5
Simply unsound from the positional point
of view and basically a panic reaction. The 4 A 4
white position was not yet that desperate! 3 A A 3
White gives up the two bishops and gets 2 2
a poor pawn structure. 13 b4 Ag4 14 Ed3 AA A
3ad8 15 Ed8 Ed8?. 1 <1? 1
a b c d e f g h
13...fcf4 14 &f4 ef4?!
Oversubtle’ play. I had rather overestimated I had calculated this far and considered the
the resulting position, and I had not antici­ game move forced. Curiously my opponent
pated the following manoeuvre by the white seems to have fallen victim to my (unin­
knight. tended) power of suggestion:
14...5f4! This obvious continuation would 29 Sb8?
have given Black a clear advantage. 15 £ke3
29 Eg8! JLf6 30 Ac6+ would have turned the
h6 16 £>d5 Ef7+.
game on its head.
15 &a3! a6
29...h6 30 &gf3
15...6g4 16 h3 £h5!? [16...&f3 17 Af3 £>e5
30 &e4 £>e4 [30...£>b7 31 Sb7 Ae5] 31 Ae4
18 &g2].
g5.
16 &c2 lkg417 h3 & h 5 18 &ce1
30...41b7 31 Sb7 g5+
Now the position is much less clear, al­
though Black obviously has some advan­ Now the strong bishop pair gives Black once
tage. 18 £icd4 &d4 19 cd4 Efe8 20 d5 £>e5 again a clear advantage.
21 £>e5 Ad1 22 &d7 Ee7. 32 &e2?! &f7! 33 £>c2 &c4 34 &e1
18...Had8 &d5 0-1

105
 3 Illustrative games • 3.6 White systems with an early b4

3.6 White systems with an early b4

Chekhov - Vyzhmanavin 8 # b 3 [8 Wd5 £>b6 9 Wd3 £>c6] 8...de5
Palma de Mallorca 1989 9 Ag2 tte7 10 0-0 a5! 11 a3 ab4 [11...e4
12 &d4] 12 ab4 Sa1 13 &a1 e4 14 Ag7 Wg7
15 £rfd2 £>c6°o.
1 d4 f5 2 g3
2 «if3£>f6 3 c4 g6 4 g3 Ag7 5 b4
2...fcf6 3&g2
3 d4 g6 4 b4 Ag7 5 J,b2 d6 6 £>bd2
1 %i t # # I
AAAAA i. A
This particular sequence of moves was de­
vised by Baden-Ooser team mates Robert
%A Hubnerand Rustem Dautov. Here, too, Black
A should achieve equality if he opts for a plan
involving an early ...e5. 6...0-0 7 c4 e5
AAA [7...#e8?! 8 Wb3 h6 9 Ag2 &bd7 10 d5 e5
£>A 11 de6 We6 12 0-0 £>e5 13 £>d4 W 7 14 f4
A AA A £ted7 15 Sae1 c6 16 e4± Hubner-Heidrich,
fi £>A A IS Bundesliga 2002/03 (1/2- 1/2, 72)] 8 de5 £ig4
Kramnik chooses here a super-accelerated [8...£tfd7l? 9 Ag2 de5oo would have been
pawn advance on the queenside. The follow­ my choice.] 9 Wb3 £>e510 Ag2 £ibc611 0-0
ing is a forceful example of the fate awaiting £rf3 12 £rf3 Ab2 13 c5 Sf7 14 Wb2 dc5
Black if he plays too passively! 15 bc5 # f6 16 Bab1 Sb8 17 e3 Wb2 18 Sb2
Se7 19 Bd1 J.d7 20 &d4 £>d4 21 Sd4 b6
a) 5 ...0 -0 6 Ab2 c6 7 M,q2 £ia6 8 a3 £ic7 22 a4 a5 Dautov-Beim, Bundesliga 2002/03
9 0 -0 d6 10 &bd2 &h8 11 a4 a6 12 £>e1! (1/2-1/2, 40).
&e8 13 £>d3 Ae6 14 gc1 g5 15 e3 §d8
16 tte2 Wf7 17 f3! &c8 18 e4 fe4 19 fe4± 3...g6 4 «rf3 kg7 5 0-0
Kramnik-lllescas Cordoba, Dos Hermanas A) 5 c4 I am pleased to learn that the
1999 (1-0, 55). Dutch grandmaster Friso Nijboer, who is
b) 5...d6! 6 Ab2 e5! 7 de5 £rfd7! well known for his adventurous style, has

I # I recently moved over to the Leningrad camp!

5...0.0 6 b4 d6 7 Ab2 e5 8 dxe5 £ig4 9 Wb3
A114 A A &xe5 10 c5+ &h8 11 0-0 &bc6 12 £>xe5?!
A A [12 &bd2] 12 ...dxe5 13 e3 We7 14 £>c3
AA e4! 15 £>d5 # f7 16 Axg7+ ffxg7 17 £>f4 g5
18 4ie2 Wf6? Tregubov-Nijboer, Amsterdam
AA 2004 (1/2-1/2, 46).
£>A
AA AA A B )5 b 4
&
(see next analysis diagram)
fi <A>A n As already indicated in the previous section,
We shall see this remedy applied several an early double advance of the white b-pawn
times in the following games. Black puts is a dangerous weapon for White. Black must
into practice the old maxim that a wing at­ react with precise and active play, to avoid
tack should be countered in the centre, e.g. getting saddled with a passive position. Ba-

106
 3.6 White systems with an early b4 (Chekhov-Vyzhmanavin)
I
AAAI A A A
% A
A line 6 b4, variation 6...£ic6! on page 108]
A A
£>A
A A A AAA
n&A f I £
sically speaking, White incurs no serious
weaknesses by this queenside offensive,
which is why Black has difficulty counter­
attacking. (The thematic e2-e4, on the other
hand, does open the f-file for Black, as well
as the diagonal c8-h3.) White intends now to
attack along the queenside on a broad front.
Ideally he hopes to follow up with the moves
b4-b5 , c2-c4, ®b3, £ic3 and a2-a4, after
which Black will lack the space to defend
himself. The queen’s knight in particular can
easily become a problem, because on either
a6 or c6 it is subject to attack from white
pawns. I suggest a rapid counter-thrust in
the centre as the remedy; in some lines the
pawn on b4 itself, or the weakened square c4
(everything has its price!) can become an ob­
ject of attack in the white camp. It is not easy
to achieve the right set-up, because White
can play b4 either before or after castling. A
further relevant question is whether (or not)
Black has played an early d6.
a) 5...&C6
Over the board (against Lazarev) I lost faith
in my own recommendation (in the first edi­
tion of my German book) because the move
€d5, which is not examined there, suddenly
looked ominous. True, an immediate ...e5
followed by ...£tfd7 is still playable, but it
is more effective when White has already
advanced his c-pawn to c4 (as played in
Kachiani-Gersinska-Dirr, variation b4 on the
next page. At this point in the original game
White had played a sequence involving an
early c4. For the sake of clarity alone I omit
107
the precise move order). 5...&C6 has the
merit of being more solid and will most often
lead by transposition back to the main line.
a1) 6 a3 [6 b5 £>a5 7 Wd3 d5~ of. the main
6...d6 7 Ab2 e5 8 de5 £>g4 9 £>bd2 £>ce5
10 £\e5 £\e5 11 Bb1 (see the main line in the
game Lazarev-Kindermann, variation B on
page 109) [11 &c4 #e7].
a2) 6 c3!? d6 7 # b 3 a6 8 0 -0 e6 9 a4
0 -0 10 Ab2 tte7 11 c4 e5! 12 dxe5 &xe5
13 &bd2 &h8 14 Sfd1 £>h5 15 b5 &d7 16 e3
£ic5 17 # c2 f4! Nijboer handles the ‘Dutch
lance’ in an original way and gets good play.
18 gxf4 Af5 19 #c1 £ld3 20 &xg7+ #xg7
21 Wa3 axb5 22 cxb5 £>b2 23 a5 £>xd1
24 Bxd1 oo van Wely-Nijboer, Amsterdam
2004 (V2-V2, 69).
b) 5...d6 6 Ab2 e5 7 de5 £tfd7!
An important new idea, which I had recom­
mended to my Munich team-mate Uli Dirr,
shortly before his first season with Plauen in
the Bundesliga:
I m A W # I
AA A& A A
A A
AA
A
&A
AAA A AA A
H& 1
As there is no material to date from practical
play, variations b1-b3 are works of analysis
only:
b1) 8 @d5!? £>c6 [8...de5 9 ®e6 We710#e7
&e7 11 0-0±] 9 # e6 &f8 [9...#e7? 10 #e7
£>e7 11 £ia3+] 10 # b 3 This queen retreat
is what I had feared in my game against
Lazarev (variation B on page 109). 10...^de5
11 £ie5 [11 0-0?! Ae6!] 11...de5 12 0-0 £id4
13 £l64 ed4oo 14 c3 [14 £id2 #e7] 14...®d6.
 3 Illustrative games • 3.6 White systems with an early b4
b2) 8 0-0 £>c6 [8...de5 9 &bd2 We7 10 £ic4
e4 11 Ag7 Wg7 12 Wd4 0-0 13 Wg7 <&g7
14 £>d4oo] 9 b5 [9 £>bd2 £>ce5 10 £>e5 £>e5
11 f?c1 We7 12 c4 0 -0 oo] 9...&ce5 10 *he5
£>e5 11 Ad4 0 -0 oo.
b3) 8 £>bd2 £>c6 9 £>c4 £ide5 10 £tfe5
£ie5 11 £>e5 Ae5 12 Ae5 de5 13 tfcl8 &d8
14 0 -0 -0 &e7oo [15 Bd5 e4 16 Bhd1 Ae6],
b4) 8 c4 4ic6 9 0-0 0-0 10 c5?! Too am­
bitious. The resulting lead in development
gives Black the better chances. 10...£»de5
11 cd6 Wd6 12 Wd6 cd6 13 £>e5 de5
14 Ad5 &h8 15 b5 £>d4 16 £>c3 [Kachiani-
Gersinska-Dirr, Bundesliga 2001/02 (1/2- 1/2,
43)], and now the move 16...Ae6!¥ would
have secured a small advantage for Black.
5...0-0 6 b4
This particular move order is currently very
popular.
6...d 6
6...&C6! I regard this as the more accu­
rate move order, because the advance b4-
b5 is no longer to be feared: Black can re­
ply d7-d5 and get good play on the light
squares; White must pay a price for b2-b4 -
the square c4 will become a problem. 7 b5
[7 a3 d6] 7...£>a5 8 £>bd2 [8 «d3 d5] 8...d5
followed by ...£ie4, a6 and ...Ae6 with good
play for Black. 9 a4 £ie410 e3 c 6 11 Aa3 cb5
108
12 ab5 Ad7 [12...£\c3! 13 #e1 £>b5 14 Ae7
We7 15 Sa5 a6oo] 13 Ab4 b6 14 Aa5 ba5
15 c4±, Korobov-Grafl, Warsaw 2003 (rapid;
1-0, ??).
7 &b2 &c 6
A) 7...e5 looks just as playable, it is true, but
the interpolation of the moves ...£ic6 and a3
is, of course, favourable to Black! This option
is of interest when Black has already played
...d6! 8 de5 £>g4 9 &a3! [9 h3 £>e5 10 #d5
Gf7 11 Ag7 &g7 12 ®d4 &g8 13 4ibd2 £}c6
14 # b 2 4tfe5 15 e3 W 6 16 Eab1 Ae6oo
Wolter-Renner, Schwarzach 1999 (1/2- 1/2, 40)]
9...6C6 10 &c4 &ce5! [10...Ae6?! 11 £>a5!±
&a5 12 ba5 £>e5 13 £>e5 de5 14 Ab7 Bb8
15 a6 Ac4 16 Ac3 e4 17 #e1 Ac3 18 Wc3
Ae6 19 Bfd1 We? 20 # e 5 ± Vladimirov-
Lindstedt, Helsinki 1990 (1-0, 35)] 11 £rfe5
£>e5 12 £*e5 [12 #d5 4rf7 13 Ag7 &g7oo]
12...de5 13 #d 8 Sd8 14 Sadi Ae6! gives
Black some compensation for the sacrificed
pawn, e.g. 15 Ab7 Sab8! 16 Ed8 Bd817 Ac3
e4.
B) 7...c6 8 c4 ^a6 This set-up is recom­
mended by Beim, but I think the advances
a4 and b5 look promising for White, because
of Black’s great difficulty in countering effec­
tively. 9 #b 3 £>c7
a) 10 4lc3 &h8 11 a4 [11 d5 is not so con­
vincing: 11...e5! 12 de6 Ae6 13 b5 cb5
14 &b5 &b5 15 Wb5 a6 16 Wb4 a5 17 #b5
Ec818 Bad We8oo van Wely-Bareev, Frank­
furt 2000 (0-1, 58)] 11 ...#e8 12 b5±
I mI #
A At o A A
A A to A
A A
A AA
n& A
A A AAA
n 2,*
 3.6 White systems with an early b4 (Chekhov-Vyzhmanavin)
12...Ae6 13 Ead1 Ag8 14 e3 Bc8 15 &d2
g5 16 f4 £>g4 17 £te2 Wh5 18 h3 £>f6 19 fg5
®g5 20 £rf3 Bauer-La Riva Aguado, French
League 2001 (1-0, 30).
b) 10 a4 h6 11 &c3 ®e8 12 d5 [12 b5!±
would have been the best plan here as well.]
12...cd5 13 cd5 &d7 14 b5 W 7 15 &d4?!
£>g4 16 £>d1 f4 17 Ec1 Eac8 18 h3 %e5
19 a5 g5 20 b6 ab6 21 ab6 4la6+ Kurajica-
Topalov, Burgas 1992 (0-1, 47).
8a3
8 b5!? This is White’s best chance of gain­
ing an advantage. 8...£»a5 9 £>bd2!?± Now
Black has to be prepared for Ac3 (before or
after White’s c4). 9...a6 [9...c610 bc6] 10 a4.
8...e5!
The Russian grandmaster Alexey Vyzh-
manavin, who sadly died far too young, was
one of the outstanding practitioners of the
Leningrad and demonstrates here, at the end
of the eighties, the best method for Black.
This central counter-thrust gives Black a
solid position.
9de5
9 d5 £>e7 10 c4 h6 11 £>c3 g5 12 Sc1
a6 13 # b 3 We8 14 c5 Wf7~ [14...Wh5?
15 cd6 cd6 16 £te5± Braun-Murariu, Bu­
dapest 2003 (1-0, 34)].
9 ...6 .4 10 4kbd2
10 c4
a) 10...de5?! 11 h3 [11 b5 #d1 12 Sd1 £ia5
13 &bd2 e 4 14 Ag7 & g 7 15 4id4 e3¥] 11 ...e4
This sharp idea, with accurate play, gives
White an advantage. 12 Ag7 <&g7 13 hg4 ef3
14 ef3 Wd1 15 Ed1 fg4 16 f4±, e.g. 16...Ae6
17 c5 [17 £>d2 Bad8 18 &b3 &c4 19 £>c5
&d4 20 & d7 Bd7 21 Ac6 &e2 22 &g2] 17...
a5 18 b5 Sad819 £ic3 &d4 20 &b7 Ab3.
b) 10...&ce5!? 11 Wc2 We7 12 £>bd2 c6
13 £te5 £>e5 14 £rf3 Ae6 15 c5 £rf3 16 &f3
kb2 17 # b 2 dc5 18 bc5 Sf7 19 Sac1 Sd8
20 Sfd1 ©c7 21 Sd8 Wd8 22 ®e5 Se7 23 h4
kf7 24 Wc3 Sd7oo Voloshin-Malaniuk, Par­
dubice 1998 (Vz-Vz, 64).
109
c)10...& ge5 11 Wc2 We7 [11...f4!?] 12
£>bd2 f4 13 b5 £rf3 14 £rf3 £>e5 15 £>e5 Ae5
16 Ae5 We5 17 Sadi a6~ [17...fg3 18 hg3
Bb8 (van Wely-Kindermann, Frankfurt 2000
(V2-V 2, ??)) 19 Bd5 W 6 20 c5!±].
10...6ce511 &e5 &e5
The passive placing of the white knight
makes this sort of position harmless for
Black. If, instead, White had gone at once
for a set-up with pawn on c4 and knight on
c3, he could rightly have claimed a positional
advantage.
12 &c4
A) 12 e3 £>f313 £>f3 A b 2 14 Bb1 A g715 £>d4
&h8 16 c4 Sb8 17 h4 Ad7 18 #d3 We7
19 Sfd1 a6 20 b5 Sfd8 21 Sb3 a5 22 W62 b6
23 £te6 Ac6 24 Ac6 Sf8= Goloshchapov-
Malaniuk, Ordzhonikidze 2001 (V2-V2, 47).
B) 12 Sb1 c6 13 c4 We7 14 b5 Ad7
[14...c5!?] 15 £,a1 [Lazarev-Kindermann,
Bundesliga 2003/04 (V2-V2, 20)] 15...f4!~
16 £}e4?l Af5.
12...6e7 13 fce5 de5 14 $d5 &h 8
15 Sadi f4!
Our thematic advance first and foremost
frees the bishop. [15...c6 16 ®d6 #d 6
17 Sd6±; 15...e4 16 Ag7 #g7 17 f3± And in
both cases Black will have problems devel­
oping his queen’s bishop.]
16 gf4 ef4 17 kg7 &g7 18 &e4 ® f 6
19 ®d4
This cautious move leads to an equal
endgame.
19...5e8 20 © f 6 &f6 21 Sd4 Se2
22 S14 &f5 23 &b7 Sb8 24 Aa6 Sc2
25 &d3 Bc3 26 &15 gf5 27 Ed1 Sg8
28 &f1 Eg4 29 Eg41g4 30 Sd5 Sa3
31 Sc5 &g 6 32 Sc7 h5 33 Bc6 &g5
34 Ec5 &g 6 V2-V2
 3 Illustrative games • 3.7 Karlsbad Variation (£}h3)
3.7 Karlsbad Variation (&h3)
3.7.1 White plays c4
S h er- Beim
Biel 1990
1 d 4 f 5 2 g 3 & f 6 3 4 g 2 g 6 4 £>h3
The Karlsbad Variation, characterised by
the knight move to h3, seems to belong
to that rare group of systems, which ac­
tually deserve their name: at the Karlsbad
Tournament of 1923 it was employed as a
weapon against the Dutch Defence not just
by Bogoljubow, but also by Rubinstein and
Alekhine! Sooner or later White will usually
play the knight to f4, and this makes good
positional sense: from f4 the knight keeps
an eye on the weak square e6, controls d5
and frees the diagonal for the fianchettoed
bishop. In some lines it also supports the
dangerous thrust h4-h5. Among contempo­
rary grandmasters, the strong French player
Joel Lautier is an adherent of £ih3, and
Leningrad guru Vladimir Malaniuk is happy
to play the move with White.
White has two different ways of playing this
system. In this game we examine the some­
what quieter and more positional line after
110
White’s c4, where he continues with d4-d5
and king-side castling. (One exception is the
variation with 10 h4.).
A sharper and less often played move for
White is £ic3 (omitting c4). This will mostly
be followed by e4 and/or h4. As I hope to
demonstrate in this section, neither variation
needs to be feared by Black, providing he is
well prepared and has a good understanding
of the positions which arise! Many transpos­
itions are possible, as both sides can play
certain moves in a different order. The vari­
ous original continuations will be looked at,
so as to provide a detailed overview; and the
precise move order in certain lines will only
be examined, if important alternative options
arise.
4 c4 Ag7 5 £&3 d6 6 d5 If White delays the
development of his king’s knight, kingside
castling is the most accurate response in
our repertoire. After the more direct 6...&a6
7 £>f3 0-0 8 0-0 # e 8 9 Sb1 we finish up in
the alternative main line (see p. 53ff.). 6...0-0
[6...£>a6!? 7 £rf3!? 0-0 8 0-0 We8 9 Eb1!]
7 £ih3 £ia6 8 £rf4 e5 9 de6 c6 leads back to
the line played in this game.
4 ...& g 7 5 c 4 0 - 0 6 & c 3 d 6
Threatening the thematic double advance of
the e-pawn, which would give Black a very
good position.
7d5
(see next diagram)
The most frequently played and strategically
the most plausible move. White plans to ex­
change off the black e-pawn after its double
advance and hopes, in addition, with £rf4 to
 3.7.1 White plays c4 (Sher-Beim)
put uncomfortable pressure on the vulnera­
ble square e6.
From our repertoire I recommend the classic
remedy: the central advance ...e5, which will
secure Black a good and solid position.
A) 7 4if4 Leads with correct black play,
by transposition, to the main line, but a
small positional trap is to be avoided: 7...c6
[7...e5?! 8 de5 de5 9 #d8 Ed8 10 £>fd5
leads to unpleasantness for Black. 10...Ed7
11 Ag5±] 8 d5 [8 0-0? e5+] 8...e5 9 de6
£ia6 brings us back (by transposition) to the
game line.
B) 7 Ag5 A move of recent date, which is
also directed against Black’s ...e5 - Christo­
pher Lutz comes up with a good reply:
7...&a6! [7...e5? 8 de5 de5 9 ®d8 Bd8
10 £>d5±] 8 ®d2 e5 9 d5 We8 10 Ah6
Ad7 11 Ag7 &g7 12 0-0 #e7 13 e4 f4!
14 f3 [14 gf4 Ah3 15 Ah3 ef4f] 14...g5!
15 £rf2 [15 £>g5 £}h5!] 15...h5? Pelletier-
Lutz, Zurich 1999 (V2-V2, 41).
C) 7 0 -0 Because this move allows an im­
mediate ...e5 it is, objectively speaking, not
particularly good, but as it was played at
Karlsbad 1923, the move is of historical in­
terest!
a) 7...& c6 [7...C6?! 8 d5!] 8 d5 £>e5 9 #b 3
£rfd7 10 Ae3 £ig4 11 Ad2 £>c5 12 Wc2 a5
13 Ead1 Ad7 14 &h1 We8 15 b3 h6 16 f3
£te5 17 f4 £>g4 18 £>f2 £>f2 19 Ef2 &h7
111
20 Ae3 b6 21 a4 Ac3 22 Ac5 Af6 23 A64 e5
24 de6 Ac6 25 Ad5 Ad4 26 Ed4 We6 27 Ac6
We3 28 Ed6! cd6 29 Sf3 Wc5 30 Aa8 Ea8
31 # d 2± Bogoijubow-Tartakower, Karlsbad
1923 (1-0, 74).
b) 7...&a6 8 £rf4 [8 d5 £>c5] 8...e5 9 de5 de5
10 #d8 Ed811 £ifd5 [Erdogan-Kindermann,
Chalkidiki 2002 (0-1, 40)] 11...&f7 12 £>f6
Af6 13 £>d5 Ag7 14 Ag5 Ee8 15 b4 c6 16 b5
e4! 17 ba6 cd5oo.
c) 7...e5! Black is, it is true, confronted by
certain tactical problems, but he emerges fi­
nally with a good position. 8 de5 de5 9 Wd8
Ed8 10 £>d5 [10 Ag5 c6] 10...£id5 11 Ad5
[11 cd5 c6 12 Ag5 Ed5!] 11...&f8 12 b3
[12 Ag5 Sd6 13 Efd1 &a6 14 Ag2 h6] 12...c6
13 Aa3 &e8 14 Ag8 h6 15 Efd1 Ed1 16 Sd1
£>d7.
7 ...& a 6 8 & f4
A) 8 0 -0 Here we examine lines in which
White delays playing the knight to f4. Trans­
positions can occur later, of course. And
Black must be careful: if he plays the other­
wise usual ...e5 und ...c6 too early, White’s
Af4 can give him problems with the weak
square d6. The correct sequence of moves
is as follows. 8...£*c5! [8...e5?! 9 de6 c6
10 Af4!] 9 Wc2 [9 Eb1 (9 Ae3 e5 10 de6
£>e6~; 10...Ae6!?) 9...a5 10 Ae3 e5 11 de6
£te6 12 £>d5 £>g4 13 Ad2 c6 14 £>c3 g5
15 e4 £>e5 16 ef5 Ef5 17 g4 Ef8 18 £>e4
£tf4 19 f3 £>c4 20 £ieg5 £>d2 21 ©d2 Ah6
22 Ebd1 d5 23 Efe1 &h3 24 Ah3 Ag5 0-1,
Ragozin-Lutikov, Leningrad 1954. At last a
true ‘Leningrader’.] 9...e5 10 de6 c6
a) 11 b4!? £>e6 12 Ab2 £>g4 13 Ead1 We7
with a good game for Black, as the knight
on h3 is not easy to get back into play. The
second player can either complete his devel­
opment at once with ...Ad7, Ead8 and Ac8,
or aim for sharper play with an early ...g5.
b) 11 b3 We7 12 Aa3 Ae6 13 Sadi Ead8
14 £>g5 Ac8 15 b4 £>e6 16 ©e6 17 ®b3
 3 Illustrative games • 3.7 Karlsbad Variation (£ih3)

£ie418 £ie4 fe419 b5 Sfe8 20 e3 c5 ooChris- 11 f4 [11 ^f4?! c5 12 dc6 bc6 13 h3 £>f6
tiansen-Reinderman, Wijk aan Zee 1993 14 Ae3 M.g7 together with ...e5] 11...c5
(y 2- 1/2, 78). 12 dc6 [12 Ag1 ?! £>c7 13 a4 b6 14 £rf2 £rf2
c) 11 Sd1 We7 12 b3 Ae6 13 &g5 Ad7 15 Af2 Ag7 16 0-0 a6=] 12...bc6 13 £tf2
14 Ab2 Sad8 15 e3 £>g4! 16 £>h3 [16 £tf3? £>e5! [13...e5?! 14 £>g4fg415 Ae3± Lautier-
£>e4+ Bauer, French League 1998 (1-0, 32)] 14 b3
[14 Wc2?! £>c4 15 #a4 £>a5 16 b4 c5 17 Wa5
I 1# #a5 18 ba5 cd4 19 &a8 Sa8^; 14 c5?! &c4!
i A A nr X A 15 Wc2 (15 Wd3 Ae6t A£kb4, Adc5) 15...dc5
AA A 16 £>a4 # a5 t] 14...£>f7 15 Sd1 e5 16 Ae3~
A Lautier.
A %% 8 ...e 5 !
A £> A ^ A
AAn AAA
<4>
This attack by both knights on the square
f2 (weakened by the removal of the rook
from f1), taken in conjunction with the fol­
lowing witty tactical sequence, is an im­
portant theme, which should be studied
carefully! 17 Ef1 (17 £>e4 fe4 18 £>d2 Ef2)
17...£>c3 18 &c3 £>e3!+] 16...g5 17 Se1 h6
18 Sadi &c8 [18...a5!?oo] 19 b4 &e4 20 f4
£>gf6 21 £te4 £ke4 22 £rf2 Ab2 23 Wb2 £rf6
24 ®d4 c5~ Pelletier-Lutz, Biel 1996 (0-1,
This temporary pawn sacrifice is the key to
48).
Black’s counterplay.
B) 8 <&e3!? An original idea of Joel Lautier,
who demonstrates the correct line for Black 9 de6 c6!
in his analysis. 8...Ad7! [8...£}g4?! 9 Ad4
•5}e5 10 4tf4t] 9 #d2! £\g4 The thematic
reaction, which here, too, makes the white
bishop an object of attack (cf. the variation
8 d5 a5 9 Ae3, p. 32ff.). [9...C5 10 Ah6±]
10 Ad4 Ah6!

1 W E#
A A AAA A
% A A i.
A A
AA *
A£> Another extremely important move in Black’s
A A It A AA A armoury. The advance of the c-pawn lim­
1 m its the range of the dangerous fianchettoed

112
 3.7.1 White plays c4 (Sher-Beim)

bishop and deprives White of the important itself in an unfortunate position. 12 £}h5
central square d5. The white pawn on e6 is [12 e4l? fe4! (12...£>ce4?l 13 £>e4 fe414 £>h5
easily recaptured in the next few moves. Be8 15 £»g7 &g7 16 ®d2 e3 17 fe3 Ae6
18 b3 £}g4 19 Ab2 &g8 20 Ae4± Williams-
10 0-0
Zeidler, Birmingham 2000 (1-0, 34)) 13 Ae3
The usual move, which leads to a thematic (13 £>h5? £>d3) 13...We7 14 Ac5 dc5~]
positional struggle. White is hoping even­ 12...£>h5 13 Hh5 Ae6
tually to exploit the weakness of d6, whilst a) 14 Sg5!? An extremely interesting idea,
Black is counting on active piece play and characteristic of the dynamic style of the
his chances on the kingside. The advance German lightning-play specialist. The valu­
...f4 in particular will once again play a key able black fianchettoed bishop is to be re­
role. moved at the cost of the exchange, after
10 h4!? which Black’s defective pawn structure and
his somewhat shaky king’s position will
I I# cause him problems. 14...'8re7 15 Bg7 #g7
▲A AA [15...&g7l? 16 Wd4 &g8 17 Af4 Bad8oo]
41 AA A * i 16 Wd6 b6 17 A e3~ Sad8 [17...Bfd8!?]
A 18 Wc6 Sc8 19 1W6 Sfd8 20 914 £>e4
21 Ae4 fe4 22 # e 4 Ac4oo Podzielny-
A & A Kindermann, Bundesliga 1991/92 (V2-V2, 37).
A b) 14 &H6 Ah6 15 Bh6 ®g5 16 Bh4 f4l This
AA A AA move requires no further comment! 17 #d2
U AW * n Ac4o> 18 Sf4 [18 0-0-0?? A dreadful mis­
take by the ex-World champion against the
The most dangerous continuation, which French Leningrad expert. At the same time
leads to razor-sharp play and high risks for further evidence is provided for the the­
both players. The h-pawn is to be used ory, that even very strong players can seem
as a battering-ram against the black king’s unusually helpless when confronted by the
stronghold. This continuation has to date Leningrad and can make inexplicable errors!
hardly been used in grandmaster encoun­ 18...6a2!-+
ters, and much remains to be discovered.
10...£>c511 h5gh5! E I
AA A
1 JlW 1 # ▲ A
AA A▲ % W
AA A % A 1
% A A A
A & AA n AAA
A £
AA A AA
I A * fi After this move the white position crum­
bles. 19 9 d 6 (19 £>a2 £>b3) 19...fg3 20 f4
This ugly-looking move appears to be the f?h4 21 9 c5 Ab3 22 Sf1 Sf4 23 Sh1 Wf6
best continuation. If White wishes to re­ 24 £te4 Be4 25 Ae4 # f4 0-1 Spassky-
capture the pawn, his rook on h5 will find Santo-Roman, Montpellier 1991; 18 b3oo

113
4
< ? 3 Illustrative games • 3.7 Karlsbad Variation (£>h3)
Eingorn-Vasiukov, Belgrade 1988 (1/2- 1/2,
97)] 18...Bf4 19 W 4 # f4 20 gf4oo Bf8
[20...Be8!?; 20...&f7!?] 21 b3 Ae6 [21 ...Aa6
22 b4 23 e3±] 22 e3= Hansen.
1 0 . . . & C 5 11 & e 3
This move is often played but, examined ob­
jectively, it is not especially good. It often
leads to black action on the kingside, as the
bishop on e3 or (later) on f4 will come under
attack from the black king’s knight.
A) 11 b4 £>e6 12 Eb1 £ig4! and the weak­
ness of c4 gives Black good counterplay.
B) 11 Sb1 £>e6 12 b3?l [12 b4 £>g4!; 12 £>e6
Ae6 13 b3=] 12...&f4 13 Af4 &h5!
1 A# 1#
AA Ak
kk k first grandmaster norm! 14 Ead1 ® c 4 15 Wd6
k to
A A
A b) 13...&e6! (Christian Gabriel) This is much
A A AA A
H,
At the risk of boring the reader, I repeat that
the attack on the bishop allows Black to
force through the dynamic advance of the
f-pawn. 14 Ad2 f4 15 Ec1 We7 16 e3 fg3
17 hg3 £if6 18 £ie2 £ig4 19 £tf4 a5 Fee­
ble play. [19...g5! 20 £>h3 £>e5+] 20 We2
114
&e5 21 &d3 Ag4 22 f3 Ae6 23 £>e5 de5=
Hubner-Kindermann, Bundesliga 1995/96
(1/2 -y2, 39).
C) 11 @c2 &e6 12 Ed1 £>g4 13 £>e6 Ae6
14 b3 [14 h3 £te5 15 b3 We7 16 Aa3
Ead8 17 e3 g5!] Regarded in older analy­
sis by Cvetkovic as slightly advantageous
for White, but as Pedersen also shows in
his monograph The Dutch for the Attacking
Player, the ‘Dutch lance’ now has great po­
tency: 14...f4!
I I #
. A AA
A AA A
A Ato
A& A
A AAA
1 A
Now Black gets a strong attack, e.g. 15 JLf4
Ef416 gf4 # h 4 17 e3 Af5! [Pedersen] 18 #d2
Ac3 19 ®c3 # f2 20 &h1 Ae4.
11...& e 6
11. ..f?e7!? is just as playable. 12 ®d2 Ae6
13 £te6.
a) 13...@e6?! This error hands the advan­
tage to White. Ziiger goes on to defeat me
in a good positional game and to achieve his
£>fe4 16 Ae4 £>e4 17 £>e4 fe4 18 b3 Wf7
19 '§fb4 Efe8 20 Ad4±, Zuger-Kindermann,
Horgen 1995 (1-0, 44).
stronger. Black’s active knight gives him a
dangerous initiative on the kingside. Here are
several instructive variations which demon­
strate Black’s potential: 14 Efd1 [14 h3 £}h5!
and ...f4; 14 Af3 £>d7! 15 Ead1 £>e5 16 ®d6
#f7T] 14...£}g4! 15 # d 6 # d 6 16 Ed6 &e3
17 fe3£ic5+.
12 Bc1
 3.7.1 White plays c4 (Sher-Beim)

The following is merely a lightning game 14 &d2 4rf4 15 &f4 g5 16 Jkd2 f4+
played on the internet, but of interest is how
rapidly the Black attack can progress against
what appears to be a super-solid white pos­
ition:
12 ©c2 £>g4!
Even stronger than the alternative (but
analogous) variation in the game Hubner-
Kindermann, variation B on the facing page,
12...£tf4 13 &f4 £>h5. 13 Ad2 £rf4 14 4f4
g5! 15 Ad2 f4¥. White already faces con­
siderable problems, since he is threatened
not only by ...£}e5 and a possible ...f3, but
also by ...'iTO-he. Bearing in mind the cir­
cumstances in which the game was played, Now, because of the badly-placed white
the following moves should not, of course, queen, Black has an especially favourable
be taken too seriously. 16 Ae4 Wf6! 17 Ah7 attacking set-up - compare this, too, with the
&h8 18 % 6 @e7 19 ®e4 Ae5 20 4g6 Wg7 game Spok-Stormbringer (SK) (see earlier
21 f3 £>f6 22 # c2 Ah3 23 Sf2 fg3 24 hg3 on this page).
£g3 25 Ag5 Sg8 26 Af6 # f6 27 Sh2 Ah2
28 &h2 Sg6 0-1, Spok-Stormbringer (SK), 17 &d1
Internet 2001.
A sad retreat...
17...fg3!
12...£tf4?! would be weak at this point, since
Beim exchanges pawns at exactly the right
Black must first defend d6 and does not get
moment. Because of the otherwise fatal
a counter-attack on the kingside. 13 Af4±.
weakness of the diagonal a7-g1 White has
13 ®a4? to recapture with the h-pawn, after which the
A weak move. The queen is out of play here, simple move ...Wf6-h6 puts him in mortal
whilst the black attack seems to play itself. danger.

13...6.4! 18 hg3
18 fg3? A64.
18...®f6 19 &f3
19 f3 f?d4 20 &h1 £>f2 21 Hf2 # f2 22 £>e4
Wb6+.
19...©h6 20 kg4 &g4 +
After the practically forced exchange of his
protective bishop, White finds himself help­
less against the coming attack.
21 &e 4 Eae8 22 f3 Se4!
Removes the only good white piece.

115
 3 Illustrative games • 3.7 Karlsbad Variation (4}h3)

a b c d e f g h 23...5g4-+
23...Ef1!?

24 Sf8 kf8 25 k e 1 We6 26 Wd3 Se4

Beim’s solid technique does the rest.

27 Bc2 g4 28 k12 a6 29 b3 &h6

30 ©d 1 ©e 5 31 &g2 4e3 32 Se1
4f2 33 &f2 Se3 34 Sd2 h5 35 We1
h4 36 gh4 ®e 4 37 & f2 g3 0-1
An excellent demonstration of Black’s at­
23fg4 tacking potential against careless white play!
23 fe4 Ad4-+.

116
 3.7.2 White omits c4 (Krasenkow-Malaniuk)
3.7.2 White omits c4
Krasenkow - M alaniuk
Polanica Zdroj 1997
1 d4 f5 2 g3 &f6 3 4g2 g6 4 fch3
4g7 5 £>f4
Precisely this move order had already been
chosen in the ‘mother’ tournament, Karlsbad
1923, by both Akiba Rubinstein (against Bo-
goljubow) and Alexander Alekhine (against
Tartakower). And even if White’s results were
not exactly encouraging (Vfe out of 2), this
cannot be ascribed to the opening idea it­
self. I have myself already played the black
side of this position three times against top
grandmaster opposition (Korchnoi, Smyslov
and Chernin). Black must especially be ready
for the dangerous ‘beserk-attack’ beginning
h4-h5, which has some positional merit. As
so often, the best reply is counterplay in the
centre:
5...£to6!
(see next diagram)
The choice of this active knight move shows
Bogoljubow’s excellent positional under­
standing! Black would like to force through
...e5 or transfer the knight to the fine cen­
tral square e5, should White play d4-d5.
117
Kingside castling is very risky here, but I
would like for once to look at some rele­
vant game analysis, because some of the
themes which arise in these games are of
importance for the understanding of the line.
The game Korchnoi-Kindermann (see next
page), by transposition, also plays a role in
our main repertoire. Last but not least is
the historically interesting game Alekhine-
Tartakower (see also next page).
5...0-0
a) 6 c3 £>c6 7 ®b3 &h8 8 h4 e5 9 de5 £>e5
10 h5 gh5! gives Black a really good position.
[10...£>h5? 11 £>h5 gh5 12 Af4! ®e8 13 Ae5\
A e 5 14 Af3 f4 15 &h5 tfe 7 16 g4 & g717 £>d2
b6 18 g5 c6 19 & q4 Wf7 20 £>f3± Chernin-
Kindermann, Austrian League 1995/96 (1-0,
44)] 11 Ae3 [11 £>h5? £>h5 12 Bh5 We8
13 Bh1 £>d3] 11...We8 12 £>d2 a5oo 13 a4
d6.
b) 6 4ic3 ^c6! 7 d5 ^e5 8 e4 d6 9 ef5 Af5
10 h3 c6!
(see next analysis diagram)
This very often proves to be an extremely im­
portant move, disputing control of the centre
and creating a breathing space for Black on
the queenside.
 3 Illustrative games • 3.7 Karlsbad Variation (£ih3)

grandmaster game?! 10 d5 £\e5 11 ®d4 d6

I W I 12 £ie6 A e 6 13 de6 «&e614 Ab7 Bb815 Ag2
AA k Ak c5 16 We3 &d7 17 £>d5 £>c4 18 Wc3 £>b6
A A %k 19 £rf6 Af6 20 ®a5 £ic8 21 c3 Sh8 22 0-0 g5
A 23 Sd1 ®h5 24 ®c5 We2 25 Wf5 e6 26 #f3
& ^ f3 27 Af3 £>b6 28 Sb1 £>a4 29 Ae3 Sb2
30 La7 Ac3 31 Sb2 £ib2 32 Bc1 Sc8 33 Ae3
□ AA Af6 34 Sc8 &c8 35 Ac1 d5 36 Ab2 &b2
AA A AA V2-V 2, Alekhine-Tartakower, Karlsbad 1923]
n A <4> M 7 d5 c6 8 h5 ®e8 [8...g5 9 h6! This is the
problem: the white h-pawn is very awkward
11 g4 &67 12 0-0 &h8 Prepares the sub­
for Black. 9...£h8 10 £>h3 g4 11 £>f4±] 9 hg6
sequent exchange on d5. 13 a4 Korchnoi’s
hg6 The opening of the h-file after Black has
idea is not especially convincing, but Black’s
castled kingside looks promising for White,
flexible position is very much to my taste.
but Black’s position is certainly not yet des­
13...cd5 14 £>cd5 £>d5 15 Ad5 Wc8! A fine
perate. 10 ^ c 3 ± £la6 11 e4 e5 12 de6 Ae6
queen move, which lends support to the
13 Ae3 Ed8 14 £}e6 ®e6 15 ef5 gf5 Korsun-
weak square e6. 16 J,g2 Ac6 17 £>d5 #d7
sky-Lutz, Meisdorf 1996 (0-1, 51).
18 f4 e6! + With this move Black solves all his
problems and seizes the initiative. 19 £>e3 a b c d e f g h
[19 fe5 Sf1 20 W \ Ad5] 19...Ag2 20 £ig2 8
&c4 21 Sa2 d5 22 b3 £id6 23 c4 £>e4 24 ®f3
X JLW* I8
©c6 V2-V2, Korchnoi-Kindermann, Hamburg
7 i i 7
1995. More out of nervousness and with half 6 % %A 6
an eye on the good tournament position,
which a draw would secure, I’m afraid I al­
5 A 5
lowed myself (pettily) to offer a draw here. I
4 A 4
admit freely that I was expecting a dismis­ 3 A 3
sive refusal of my peace offering from the 2 2
great fighter. But I was surprised in more
AAA A A1 A
ways than one: Korchnoi accepted at once,
1 S 1
declaring that his position was totally lost a b c d e f g h

(even a lengthy examination of the position

by myself did not bear out this judgement) 6h4
and went on to remark that it had been an
A) 6 d5 A calmer move. 6...£>e5
impertinence to play the Dutch against him,
the defence being only suitable against be­ a) 7 h4 £if7! A good positional move, which
ginners... is met with more and more often in such
positions. It takes the sting out of h4-h5,
c) 6 h4! A straightforward move, likely to
since after ...g5 the move h6 will simply lose
be dangerous after kingside castling. 6...d6
a pawn. In addition the knight makes way
[6...£>c6 7 h5 f?e8 8 hg6 hg6 9 £>c3 &f7 A
for its own e-pawn. 8 c4 [8 h5?! g5] 8...0-0
truly heroic move, especially against some­
9 £>c3 e5! 10 de6 de6 11 ®b3 c6 12 0-0 e5
one like Alekhine. For me personally the rest
A rare pleasure; playing ...e5 twice in one
of the game is somewhat muddled, and had
game! 13 £>d3 Wc7 14 e4 f4!
I not known who the participants were, I
(see next analysis diagram)
would never have guessed that this was a

118
 3.7.2 White omits c4 (Krasenkow-Malaniuk)

deep thought. I thought of all the legends

I I surrounding the magical endgame technique
AAm k of the ex-world champion; I began to suspect
a %k countless hitherto unconsidered dangers in
k this only apparently clear position. I played
A Ak A my next moves with an uncertain hand, but
to my astonishment Smyslov made no at­
A tempt to seize the initiative and was him­
AA A I self soon steering the game in the direc­
n A h& tion of a draw. The solution to this mystery?
Most instructive; Black plays several impor­ The former world champion had quite sim­
tant thematic moves in the one game. 15 gf4 ply not heard my offer of a draw! 28 £}e3
£>h5! 16 £>e5 £>e5 17 fe5 Ae5 18 c5 &g7 &e7 29 Ae2 b5 30 a3 a5 31 b4 ab4 32 ab4
19 £>e2 We7 20 f4 [20 Ag5 9 c5 ] 20...£g4! &d6 33 c3 Ad7 34 Ad1 JLe6 V2-V 2, Smyslov-
21 fe5 Ae2 22 Hf8 Sf8 23 We3?! £rf4 24 ®g3 Kindermann, Munster 1993.
£>g2+ Granero Rofca-Teran Alvarez, Cala b2) 8 4&d3?! £rf7! The early phase of the
Galdana 1999 (0-1, 33). opening is played in excellent style by Bo-
b) 7 &c3 c6! goljubow, and in the most modern spirit.
9 0-0 0-0 10 f4 cd5 [10...e6!] 11 £>d5 &d5
I # I 12 Ad5 e6 13 Ag2 d5 14 Ae3 Ad7 15 c3
Ak k A AA £>d6 16 &c5 Wc7 17 e3 Ab5 18 Ad4 £>e4
k %A 19 Se1 A63 20 #d3 Sfc8 21 a4 a5 22 Bed1
A%A &d6 23 Af1 h5 24 Sa3 h4 25 Sb3 hg3
26 hg3 £>e4 27 &g2 Wd7 28 Ae2 Bc7 29 Sb6
Se8 30 Wb5 Wc8 31 Sh1 Ad4 32 ed4 Bee7
& A 33 c4 Bh7 34 Sh7 &h7 35 cd5 #h8 36 #d3
A A A A AAA ed5 37 Eb5 9 c 8 38 Bd5 Ec2 39 f b 5 &h6
H An * I 40 &f3 Sd2 41 Wc4 #c4 42 Ac4 Eb2 43 g4
£>d2 0-1, Rubinstein-Bogoljubow, Karlsbad
Immediately ‘nibbling away’ at the white cen­
1923. After overlooking several clear win­
tre.
ning continuations, Rubinstein concludes
b1) 8 h4 4rf7! The best reaction, see vari­ the game with a dreadful blunder, charac­
ation a, on the preceding page. 9 e4 [9 h5?l teristic, unfortunately, of the Polish genius’s
g5 and 10 h6 would simply lose a pawn.] play towards the end of his playing career -
9...0-0 10 ef5 gf5 11 £>h5 £>h5 12 #h5 e6! quite outstanding games stand alongside
Solving all Black’s problems. 13 de6 de6 bad mistakes throughout the twenties, mis­
14 0-0 e5 15 Ae3 # f6 16 Sadi Ae6 17 f4 takes which diminished his tournament re­
e4 18 Ad4 Wg6 19 #g6 hg6 20 Ag7 &g7 sults considerably.
21 &f2 Sfd8 22 b3 &h6 23 Ah3 &f7 24 Sd8
b3) 8 e4
Sd8 25 Sd1 Sd1 26 &d1 &g8 27 Af1 £>f6
Having imagined myself as standing bet­ b31) 8...fe4 9 £>e4 £>e4 10 Ae4 cd5 11 Ad5
ter here, I could now find no way of mak­ e6 12 &g2± £ic4 [12...0-0 13 0 -0 a5
ing progress. I therefore proposed a draw. (13...#c7 14 Se1 Eb8 15 Ad2 & c6 16 Ac3
Smyslov, to my dismay, instead of answer­ Ac3 17 bc3 b6 18 h4 &b7 19 h5 g5 20 Wg4
ing, firmly played his next move. After play­ Sf5 21 £>d5 Wd6 22 Sadi Wc5 V2-V2, Chatal-
ing briskly up to this point, I now sank into bashev-Santo-Roman, Saint-Affrique 1998)

119
 3 Illustrative games • 3.7 Karlsbad Variation (£ih3)

14 a4 Ea6 15 Eb1 £>c6 16 c4 e5 17 £id5 Now two further rarely-played white alterna­
d6 18 Ae4 &d4 19 Ae3 &h8 20 Ad4 ed4 tives at move 6:
21 f4 Ad7 22 b3 ©c8 23 #d3 # c5 24 Sbe1
Krasenkow-Bareev, Groningen 1997 (1/2 - 1/2, B) 6 c3 e5! 7 de5 £>e5 8 0 -0 c6 9 £>d3 [9 b3
31)] 13 0-0 0 -0 14 c3 Sb8 15 a4 b6 16 Sa2 0-010 £>d2 d 5 11 Ab2 g 5 12 &d3 & g 6 13 e3
Ab7 17 Ab7 Sb7 18 b3 £\e5 19 Aa3 Ee8 f4 14 ef4 gf4 15 c4~ Peng-Dworakowska,
20 c4 Wc8 21 Ee1 a6 22 Ab2 d6 23 £>d3 Moscow 2001 (0-1, 48)] 9...d6 10 £>e5 de5
£>d3 24 Wd3 Ab2 25 Sb2 Serper-Vasiukov, 11 ®d8 &d8 12 £»d2 &c7oo Lamprecht-
Moscow 1995 (1/ 2- 1/2, 42). Bartoiomaus, Dresden 1997 (1-0, 42).
b32) 8...d6!? C) 6 0 -0 0 -0 7 c3 &h8 [7...e5!?] 8 £>d3 d6
9 d5 £>e5 10 £>d2 &d3 11 ed3 f4! 12 & b3
I 1 fg3 13 hg3 Ag4 14 Wc2 Sc8 15 &d4 c6«
Aa A AA Fridman-Mainka, Essen 2000 (1/2 - 1/2, 43).
k A to A 6...e5! 7 de5
A tok
A^ 7 Ac6? ef4 8 Af3 fg3 9 fg3 0-0 T.
& A 7...6e5 8 h5 c6!
AAA AAA
H A & 2 a b c d e f g h
8 I A W# I 8
I regard this as the best positional contin­
7 AA k JL A 7
k
uation here, although to date this position
has not arisen much in practical play. The 6 f t A 6
immediate exchange on e4 has often been
played (see variation b31, on the preceding
5 ft A A 5
page), even though the black central hanging
4 4
pawns promise White only a minimal advan­ 3 A 3
tage. 9 ef5 £,f5 10 h3 0-0 leads by trans­ 2 2
position to the game Korchnoi-Kindermann;
A A A A A Jl
for the ‘original move order’ see variation b
1 U n& i 1
on page 118! 11 g4 [11 0 -0 £\e8!? A weighty a b c d e f h g

move; Black brings his fianchettoed bishop

to bear, whilst the knight will shore up the
weak square e6 from c7. 12 £}ce2 £>c7
13 £>d4 Ad7 14 &h2 We8 15 £>de6 Ae6
16 £>e6 £>e6 17 de6 @c8? 18 f4 (18 ©e2
We6 19 f4 Wc4 20 Ee1 We2 21 Se2 £ic4
22 Ee7 Sf7+) 18...£ic4 19 We2 $±>2 20 Ab2
Ab2 21 Eab1 Ag7 22 h4 d5 23 h5 gh5 Izeta
Txabarri-Kiroski, Batumi 1999 (1/2 - 1/2, 78)]
11...&d7 12 0 -0 &h8 13 a4 cd5 14 £>cd5
&d5 15 Ad5 ®c8! 16 Ag2 Ac6 17 £>d5
'SW 18 f4 e6!¥ Korchnoi-Kindermann (see
page 118). For further commentary see the
line with 5...0-0 (page 117).
This coolly-played and strong move, intend­
ing ...d5, (and which also protects the square
d5) seems to solve all Black’s problems.
Practical experience with this position has
tended to be crushing for the first player:
9 c4
This ambitious move maintains the tension
on the kingside and prevents ...d5. Black
cannot snap up the pawn on c4, because a
catastrophe would ensue on g6. Generally,
however, I still believe that both 9 Ae3 or
9 £id2 are preferable.

120
 3.7.2 White omits c4 (Krasenkow-Malaniuk)
A) 9 4id2 An interesting idea of Anatoly
Vaisser: White wishes to strike a blow at the
enemy knight strongpoint on e5, so as to
put pressure on the weak square g6. The
second player is confronted with a prob­
lem characteristic of this sort of position: the
tempting ...g5 will mostly be countered by a
white h6!, after which the black pawn struc­
ture is dangerously loosened and sometimes
the white knight can force its way, with un­
pleasant effect, to h5 (particularly if there is
a black bishop on f6!). Black should gen­
erally seek to maintain the tension and di­
rectly or indirectly to protect g6. 9...£rfg4!
[9...d510 £if3 £ifg4 11 £>e5 £ie5 12 Ae3 &f6
(12...&d7 13 &d4 We7 14 c3±; 12...£>c4?l is
too risky; White’s lead in development gives
him a strong attack. 13 Ad4 £lb2 14 Wd2
£>c4 15 Wc3 &d4 16 Wd4 Eg8 17 hg6 hg6
18 0 -0 -0 ±) 13 hg6 hg6 14 Sh8 Ah8 15 Ad4
#a5 16 c3 &f7 17 # b 3 b6 18 0 -0 -0 &e6
19 Sh1 Ag7 20 Hh7 1-0, Vaisser-Bartel, Is­
tanbul 2003] 10 £>f3 #b6!
I A # I
AI A Ak
A
«r A
%A A
£>A
AAA A A A,
I S
This move forces White to make a diffi­
cult decision: he either castles short or he
plays e3 and reduces the effectiveness of
his own queen’s bishop. 11 0 -0 d5 12 4te5
£.e5!oo Now the g-pawn is protected indi­
rectly. [13 hg6?! hg6 14 £ig6? Ag3 15 £ih8
Af2 16 &h1 itc7-+].
B) 9 A e3 Just as with 9 4id2 White does
not fear the double advance of the enemy d-
pawn and continues developing. Now Black
must deal with the threat of Ad4. 9...d5
10 iuJ4 £»e4 A bold gambit, the sound­
121
ness of which is difficult to judge. Black ig­
nores the threats to g6 and goes for active
development. [10...#e7 would have been
the more solid way: 11 hg6 hg6 12 Eh8
&h8 13 c3 (13 &e5 # e5 14 &g6 #b 2
15 &d2 &g7+) 13...£rfg4!?«> (13...&f7) 14 f3
£>f6 (14...&h2!? followed by ...g5, another
‘computer-generated’ idea ...)] 11 hg6 hg6
12 £ig6 Sh1 13 Ah1 £ig614 &g7 # e 7 15 Ac3
4e6«> 16 &e4 de4 17 ®d4 c5 18 #a4 A67
19 Wa3 e3 20 &a5 b6 21 &b6 We4 22 f3
We5 23 &f1 f4 24 gf4? Wf4 25 c4 #h6 0-1,
Todorov-Szabolcsi, Val Thorens 1995.
C) 9 hg6?! This premature exchange makes
Black’s task easier. [9 h6 Jt,f8 and Black now
stands well, because White no longer ex­
erts pressure on the black kingside. By con­
trast the white h-pawn can become a target
after ...£}f7 or ...£>g4, whilst the black king,
after moving the bishop on f8 and castling
short (sometimes long castling is also in
order), stands secure.] 9...hg6 10 Eh8 4h8
11 # d 6 This move thwarts ...d5 only tem­
porarily; the ensuing endgame proves, as so
often, thanks to his space advantage, bet­
ter for Black. [11 4id3 4tfg4 12 £*e5 Ae5
13 e4 #e7 14 #e2 d6 15 ^a3 f4!? 16 gf4
it,d4 17 f3 ®h4 18 &d2 Ae3oo Engqvist-
Agrest, Stockholm 1995 (0-1, 32); 11 £.e3!?
d5 12 Ad4~ Tyomkin] 11 ...We7 12 We7 &e7
13 £id3 [13 £>d2 d5 14 &f3 £if3 15 Af3
&f7 16 £>d3 £>e4 17 Ae3 b6 (17...4e6? fol­
lowed by ...d4) 18 0 -0 -0 &b7 19 Sh1 &g7
20 g4 Eh8 1/2- 1/2, Varga-Kindermann, Aus­
trian League 2002/03] 13...£ie4 14 £>e5 Ae5
15 c3 d 5 16 Ae3 A e 6 17 £>d2 b6? Doroshke-
vich-Potapov, St Petersburg 2000 (1/2- 1/2,
43).
9...0-0!
9...@e7!? is likewise worth considering; im­
portant here is the fact that, with the pawn
on g6, Black has no need to fear the ad­
vance h5-h6. [9...g5?! would have been con­
siderably weaker, because the advance of
the g-pawn loosens the kingside too much.
 3 Illustrative games • 3.7 Karlsbad Variation (£>h3)

10 h6 &f8 11 £>d3] 10 c3 [10 h6 Af8~]
10...d6 11 b3 £tfg4 12 h6 4f6 13 0-0 £>f7
14 ®d2 0 -0 15 Ab2 4g5 16 e4 &h6+ Da-
maso-Jakubiec, P&normos 2001 (0-1, 26).
10 hg6 hg6 11 ©c 2 d6 12 «id2 ©e 8
13 4hf3?!
13 b3!?oo. This suggestion by Tyomkin looks
preferable; White intends «&b2 followed by
castling long. It has to be conceded that f2
will be a cause for concern should Black play
his knights to g4 or e4.
13...6e4!
After this move Black has at least solved
all his problems; the following exchange
leads to a pawn structure which favours his
chances.
14 4be5 de5 15 &d3 £>f6!
Mobilising the e-pawn.
16 &h 6?!
16 £g5 e4 17 £rf4 Ae6 18 Sd1 [18 0 -0 -0 b5]
18...Af7+ Tyomkin.
16...6K6 17 Sh6 &g7 18 Bh1 e4!
Krasenkow strives for counterplay, but Lenin­
grad guru Malaniuk keeps everything well
under control.
21 f3 &f7 22 fS?d2
22 fe4!? fe4 23 <&b1 Sh8 24 e3 Tyomkin.
22...5K8! 23 Eh8 Eh8
Now the white knight is in danger, because
...g5 is in the air.
24 fS?e3 &c4!
The c-pawn turns out to be prize booty.
25 &a7 &f7 26 fe4 fe4 27 &d4
27 #b7? g5!-+ [27...Sb8 28 £>e6!].
27...©d4 28 Bd4 Bh2+ 29 &h3
29 Ae4? c5-+.
29...6a2
And Black has won a decisive pawn.
30 &e 6 g5! 31 ka2 gf4 32 gf4 Se2
33 5d2 Be1!
An important finesse, because now, after an
exchange of rooks, the white king will need
an extra move to reach the centre.
33...Ed2 34 &d2 &g6 35 &e6! would have
been less clear.
34& C 2?

34 Ed1 was nonetheless the only chance:

now a second pawn is lost. 34...Sd1 35 &d1
&g6 [35...&d5?l 36 &b1] 36 &e6 £>d5
37 Ac8 b6 38 &d2 [38 Ab7 £tf4 39 Ac6 &f5]
38...6f6 [38...£>f4?! 39 &e3 £>d3 40 &b7]
39 &d7 £>f4 [39...c5 40 Ac6 &e6 41 &b7]
40 Ac6 &e5 and Black should win.
After this thematic expansion Black has the
initiative. Once again the white bishop be­34...Bf1 -+ 35 Eg2 &f8 36 &c3 Sf4
comes a mere spectator, whilst Black gets 37 &d4 Sf5 38 &e 6 c5 39 &c4 Ee5
e5 for his pieces. 40 kc8 b6 41 kb7 <&e7 42 Bg7 &d6
19 £>f4 ©e5 20 0 -0 -0 &e6 T 43 Eg6 &e6 44 &b5 e3 45 &f3 e2
His space advantage and his actively 46 &e2 Se2 47 &b 6 &f5 48 Sg1 6e4
posted pieces give Black a plus. Typically 49 Bb1 &e5 50 &c 6 Sc2 0-1

122
 3.8 System with 4 c3 and 5 Wb3 (Anand-Fritz)
3.8 System with 4 c3 and 5 Wb3
Anand* - Fritz**
Frankfurt 2000
1 d4 f5 2 g3 &f6 3 &g2 g6 4 c3
A venemous move order, which is not easy
to meet. White transfers his queen at once to
the critical diagonal a2-g8, making it difficult
for Black to castle, and ‘incidentally’ casting
an eye on b7. My suggested remedy is a still
quite experimental idea, which came out of
analysis by Christopher Lutz and myself. As
a precaution, however, in case this idea falls
foul of the ‘test of time’, I will also mention
another more solid, though somewhat pas­
sive alternative (see The Leningrad Stonewall
in the next section, p. 129ff.). I have ‘cheated’
a little with the move order of our theoreti­
cally instructive, but not especially important
main game; otherwise the only usable mate­
rial would have come from the uninteresting
encounters between Christian Gabriel and
myself. I hope my readers can forgive the
artistic licence taken!
A) 4 &c3!?
This move is much stronger after 3...d6; here
it is fairly harmless (cf. the introduction to the
game Claesen-Gurevich (see page 133)).
*Viswanathan and not Anand is the actual family name! "Software by Chessbase®
123
Black has two fundamentally different ways
of replying:
a) 4...&g7 Black allows e4, which leads to
sharp and lively play, in which the second
player often gambits the d-pawn. The pos­
ition which arises is therefore of some in­
terest, because it can be reached by other
move orders such as 4 ^d2 or 4 c3 followed
by 5 £>d2. 5 e4 [5 A q5 £>c6!?] 5...fe4 6 £>e4
£*e4 7 Ae4 d5 8 A q2 £>c6 9 4e2 Ag4 10 c3
e5! _____________________
I # I
k AI Ak
to k
kk
A A
A A
A £>AA£
1A f $ I
The energetic and logical continuation; Black
opens up the centre in order to activate his
pieces.
a1) 11 de5?! is at the very least risky, be­
cause of White’s extreme lack of develop­
ment: 11. ..£ie5 12 f4 £ic6 13 ®d5 Wd5
14 Ad5 0 -0 -0 15 h3 Ae2 16 &c6 &h5
[16...4c4!?] 17 g4 bc6 18 gh5 Ehe8 19 &f2
Ed3 Agdestein-Santo-Roman, Lyon 1988
(V2-V 2, 77).
a2) 11 h3 &,e2 [11...&e6!? 12 de5 £ie5
13 £rf4 Af7 14 Ad5 Ad5 15 Wd5 Wd516 £id5
0 -0 -0 S] 12 ®e2 0 -0 13 # b 5 ed4 14 #d 5
&h8 15 0-0 #d5 16 &d5 Ead8 17 &c6 bc6
18 cd4 JkJ4<» Sulava-Santo-Roman, Saint-
Affrique 1998(0-1,46).
b) 4...d5 A simple solution. The knight on c3
is now unfavourably placed. 5 Ag5 [5 Af4!?
c6 6 £rf3 M,g7 7 0 -0 0 -0 8 4}a4 This pos­
itional suggestion of Atalik’s looks most rea-
 3 Illustrative games • 3.8 System with 4 c3 and 5 Wb3

sonable: the knight is heading for d3.] 5...c6 is now, however, much less attractive for
6 Wd2 [6 f3 ®b6!] 6...£>bd7 7 &h3 [7 Ah6 Black than it would be after 4 £ic3, because
Ah6 8 #h6 e5~] 7...&g7 8 &h6 Ah6 9 ®h6 the white knight stands better on d2 in the
e5 10 0 -0 -0 £\g4 11 #d2 0-0 12 f3 £igf6 Stonewall set-up: on this square it maintains
13 e3 [13 e4?! ed4 14 #d 4 c5] 13...e4!? closer contact with the critical central square
[13...©67?! 14 e4! Ataiik-Onischuk, Las Ve­ e5 and leaves the c-pawn free to advance.]
gas 2001 (V2-V 2, 49)]. 5 e4 leads by transposition to 4 4ic3 Ag7
B) 4 h4 A wild attacking move (particularly if (Variation a, p. 123).
White is planning to follow up with an imme­ 4...d6!?
diate h5), which Black must, however, take
Black changes tack immediately and post­
seriously (cf. the sub-variations in the game
pones the bishop fianchetto, in order to be
Claesen-Gurevich after 2 c4 £>f6 3 £>c3 g6
ready to play ...e5 as quickly as possible.
4 h4 (Variation b, p. 134).
4...1.g7
a) 4...d6!? Black hopes thus to counter the
a) 5 &d2 £>c6 6 b4 [6 e4 fe4 7 £>e4 £>e4
‘beserk attack’. But also with an escape
8 Ae4 d5 transposes to the line 4 £ic3 Ag7.]
square at d7, White has compensation.
6...d5 7 b5 &a5 8 a4?! £>e4 9 3te4 fe4
a1) 5 £>h3 Ag7 6 c3 c6 7 £>d2 e5 8 *hc4 10 f3 e5! 11 £ih3 ed4 12 cd4 0 -0 13 0-0 ef3
Ae6 9 de5 A c 4 10 ef6 Af6 11 Af4 d5 12 Wd2 14 Sf3 [Krasenkow-Zhang, Shanghai 2000
4id7 13 4g5 We7 Knaak-lllner, Bundesliga (1-0,43)] 14...Sf315 ef3 £>b3! 16 £g5 Wd6+.
1992/93 (1-0, 40), with a comfortable pos­ b) 5 ©b3 £>c6
ition for Black. b1) 6 £>d2 d6! causes Black no problems
a2) 5 £ic3 £>c6 6 &h3 &g7 7 ®d3 e5 8 Ac6 here, because with the knight on g1, neither
bc6 9 de5 de5 10 Wc4 Wd7 11 Ae3 We6oo £>g5 nor £>f4 is threatened. 7 £ih3 [7 d5 £>e5]
Lutz-Dirr, Bad Wiessee 2002 (0-1, 24). 7...e5 8 ^ g 5 # e 7 .
a3) 5 h5!? To date the black ‘bluff’ has come b2) 6 4if3 was the actual move order in the
off; no player of White has yet dared to play game Anand-Fritz! 6...d6 7 0-0?! [7 d5]
the logical continuation h5... 5...£ih5 6 e4oo 7...e5!.
£rf6 7 ef5 gf5 8 £»c3 e6 and White, after b3) 6 ^h3!, leaving the diagonal open for the
castling queenside, will have some compen­ g2 bishop, and preparing £»d2 followed by e4
sation. and £lf4, is clearly the most dangerous con­
b) 4...&g7 5 h5 £ih5 6 e4 e6! [6...fe4 7 Sh5 tinuation. 6...e5!? [6...e6 7 £*d2 (7 ,&g5!?i
gh5 8 Ae4 &f8 9 # h 5 ©e8co] 7 e5!? This 7...d6?! (7...d5, leading to the Leningrad
interesting suggestion of Beim’s is probably Stonewall (p. 129) is better here.) 8 e4!±:
the critical test. [7 Sh5 gh5 8 Wh5 &f8; 7 ef5 6...d6 7 £}g5 more or less forcing ... d5.]
ef5 8 Sh5 ®e7 9 &e3 gh5 10 £ic3 c6 11 @h5
©f7? Sulava-Malaniuk, Montecatini Terme I A 'm # I
1994 (0-1,23)] 7.. .0-0 8 Af3 «e8 9 Ah5 gh5 AAAA A
10 &h3 d6 11 £>f4 de5 12 &h5eo [12...ltc6?! % % A
But this idea of Beim’s is less convincing, AA
because of the following tactical trick: 13 d5
A
Wd5 (13...©c4 14 Sh4) 14 ®d5 ed5 15 &g7 n A A£>
&g7 16 Ah6±].
C) 4 &d2!? &g7 [4...4ic6!? would be an in­ A A A A A
teresting attempt to reveal the darker side 1 sb 1
(Analysis diagram after 6...e5l?)
of 4 £>d2 as contrasted with 4 4ic3. 4...d5

124
 3.8 System with 4 c3 and 5 ®b3 (Anand-Fritz)

A very interesting gambit idea of Alexan­ Ab7 21 Shg1 c5, with excellent compensa­
der Rustemov, which makes the line with tion for the pawn. Skachkov-Rychagov, St
4...Ag7 and 5...£»c6 look once again attrac­ Petersburg 2001 (1/2- 1/2, 48)] 7...e5! 8 £>gf3
tive. Black plays the move which, tactically, h6 9 &f6 ®f6 10 de5 de5 11 ®b3 EbQ
he most wants to play, without being over­ 12 Af1 a6 13 a4 &e6 14 ®c2 0-0 15 &c4
concerned about the loss of a mere pawn... Slc4 16 £>c4 Sbd8 [16...fe4!? 17 £>h4 Bbd8]
I cite now the variations given by Rustemov 17 0-0 f4oo Osmanovic-Zarkovic, Zlatibor
in Informator 86. 1989 (1/2-1/2, 49).
b31) 7 de5 In the only game to date where 5...4ftc6
this idea has been tried out, Buhmann does
not accept the challenge. But after this move
Black at once gets a very nice position.
7...£ie5 8 0 -0 c6 9 AH £>e4 [9...fte710 £>d2
d5 is not a bad move.] 10 Ed1 d5 11 £*d2
£>d2 [11...®e7!?f Rustemov] 12 Sd2 &c4
13 Hd3 ®b6 14 Wb6 ab6 15 b3 &a3 16 Ee3
&d7 17 Sd1 ^c2 18 Hed3 Sa2 19 c4 d4~
20 e3 Ee8 21 23d2 h6 22 ed4 Sa1 23 &e5
£.e5 24 de5 &c7= Buhmann-Rustemov,
Bundesliga 2002/03 (0-1, 58).
b32) 7 Ac6 The critical continuation: White
gives up his valuable bishop, in order to
capture Black’s e-pawn. The position which
now arises is difficult to evaluate (well it is 6 &f3?!
for me, at least); but generally Rustemov’s
idea looks playable. Further tests are re­ Objectively speaking the move is not advis­
quired! 7...bc6 8 de5 £te4 [8...£ig4?? 9 Ag5 able in this position, as Black can play ...e5
would be ‘somewhat weaker’.] 9 f3! [9 A H g5 without difficulty! I have simply invented this
(9...h6) 10 Ae3 Ae5 11 f3 f4!; 9 f4 d6] 9...&C5 move order so that our theoretically impor­
10 Wc4 d6! 11 Ag5 #d7 12 &f6 [12 ed6 cd6 tant analysis (see the following variation!) can
and the threat... ila6 with pressure on e2, be demonstrated by an appropriate and in­
gives Black an excellent game, thanks to the structive game!
totally uncoordinated white pieces.] 12...Af6 A) 6 &d2!? [6 d5 £>e5oo] 6...e5 7 de5
13 ef6 £.a6 14 # d 4 0-0, and Black has a [7 £c6!? bc6 8 de5 de5oo This interesting
very satisfactory game. analytical idea of Christian Gabriel requires
5 f?b3 examination.] 7... £}e5 8 £}gf3 £rf7! Pre­
pares for black castling and resolves the
5 &g5 [5 h4!? Stanec] A rare and not particu­ opening problems. 9 £}d4 I was somewhat
larly dangerous continuation. 5...Ag7 6 4}d2 taken aback when Christian replied at light­
£ic6 Here, too, the active knight move to ning speed to the novelty 4...d6 and then
c6 followed soon afterwards by ...e5 is the slammed down the rest of his moves with­
best reply. 7 e4 [7 Wb3 a5 8 h4 a4 9 ®c4 d5 out pausing for thought. He told me later
10 ®d3 e5 11 de5 £>e5 12 ®e3 ®e7 13 &f6 that I had already shown him the move some
Af6 14 &d5 £>g4 15 ®e7 &e7 16 £>h3 Sd8 time previously at a training camp for the
17 Ac4 a3 18 0 -0 -0 ab2 19 &b2 b5 20 £b3 German national team, and that we had

125
 3 Illustrative games • 3.8 System with 4 c3 and 5 Wb3

analysed it together... The whole thing had,

I A W * k A I
of course, totally slipped my mind! 9...c6
10 £>2f3 d5 11 0-0 Ag7 12 c4 0-0 13 Af4 dc4 AAA A
14 # c 4 £»d5 15 Sadi #e7 16 Ac1 17 ©b3 to to A
®b4 18 £ie1 ®b3 19 £>b3 Sae8 20 J.d5 A
cd5 21 Sd5 &e6 22 Sd2 £c4 23 £>d3 £>e5 A
24 £>e5 Se5 25 2e1 Hfe8 'h -'h , Gabriei-
A A ^
Kindermann, Bundesliga 2001/02.
A A A A A A
B) 6 &h3!? Both Christopher Lutz and my­
self had regarded this as the critical variation. n & A a <4?
6...e5 [6...<&g7 7 £>g5] 7 de5 de5 Black is, of course, taking considerable risks
with this line of play; against his massive
I A W # A I
space advantage in the centre must be
AAA A weighed the black king’s central position and
to to k his lag in development. But the black pos­
AA ition looks quite playable to both Christopher
and myself, e.g. 9 f3 Ac5 10 &h1 [10 £>f2 e3
11 £>d3 4b6oo] 10...e3 11 &a3oo with an un­
A A £ >
clear position.
A A A A A A

I <4? I 6...6g7?!
6.. .e5! would have been the best way to con­
a) 8 e4 is less strong than it appears; Black is tinue against this move order.
well compensated for his ruined pawn struc­
ture by the weakness of the light squares in 7 0-0
the enemy camp. 8... £ie4 9 Ae4 fe4 10 £lg5 7 d5! This again casts doubt on the black
# f6 !¥ 11 0-0 [11 ®a4 4h6] 11...'tf5 move order (Anand must have passed up this
opportunity purely for reasons of ‘computer-
# I
I A A
tactics’!); I ask the reader to kindly ignore
AAA A the interposition of the last pair of moves
to A and instead to wonder at Fritz’s astonish­
A Wih ingly convincing performance against no less
a player than Viswanathan Anand! 7...£>e5
A
Tgr A A
[7.. ,£>b8!?] 8 £»e5 de5 9 0 -0 e4 10 Sd1 [1013
Wd5 11 #d 5 £id5 12 fe4 fe4 13 &e4
A A A
A
14 &g2 0-0=] 10...0-0 11 &f4± [11 d6 &h8
I I 4? 12 dc7 #c7] 11 ...&h8.

Black has good prospects; in particular there 7...e5! 8 d5

is a fiendish trap waiting to be sprung on In pursuit of his basic anti-computer strategy.
White: 12 Se1? [12 Wc2 Ag7oo (12...e3?! Anand attempts to keep the position closed
13 £>e4 ef2 14 Sf2 would be too risky for But now we have the Leningrad player’s
Black.)] 12...e3! 13 Ae3 h6-+. dream come true: a King’s Indian formation
b) 8 0 -0 e4 with several extra tempi!
(see next analysis diagram)
8...6e7 9 c4 0-0 10 Ed1 £>e4!

126
 3.8 System with 4 c3 and 5 ^b 3 (Anand-Fritz)
This ingenious knight move was rightly
praised by Thomas Luther in his commen­
tary in the Frankfurt tournament book. Fritz
handles the position impeccably!
10...h6 followed by ...g5 and £ig6 would be
the normal plan.
11 &c3 &c3 12 &c3 a5!
Gains space on the queenside and effec­
tively counters white expansion on this side
of the board.
13&c2a4! 14 Bb1?!f4!
0 the black position.
Once again the ‘Dutch lance1puts White in
difficulties - now 15...Af5 is threatened.
15 &g5 &f5!
Immediately eyeing the weakened square d4.
127
16 &e4 4>d4 17 &d3
17 Bd4 ed4 18 £f4 Af5+.
17...6g4! 18 f3 kd7 19 b3 ab3
20 ab3 Sa2+ 21 kb2 4f5
Already after only a few moves Anand, with
the white pieces, is on the ropes and help­
less - what other opening could have led to
such an outcome?
22 kd4 ed4 23 g4 ke4 24 fe4
24 ®e4 Se8.
24...6g5 25 Ba1
Despair; 25 h3 h5 26 gh5? f3-+.
25...Ba1 26 Sa1 ®g4-+ 27 Ea7 &h4
28 Sa1 ke5 29 h3
a b c d e f g h
29...&g3?!
A true computer move, in the negative sense;
every human chess expert would have made
short work of the win by.. .h5 and g5-g4. But
even the move actually played by the com­
puter is good enough for a win, so strong is
30 &g3 fg3 31 Ef1
A glimmer of hope and a missed heart-beat:
he surely won’t swap rooks?
31 ...Sa 8
 3 Illustrative games • 3.8 System with 4 c3 and 5 ®>3

No, this move finishes the game; with rooks 38 &g2 c5 39 &h3 &h 6 40 Sd3 g5
on the board, Black has a clear win in 41 hg5 &g5 42 Bf3 Jlf4 43Bd3 Ba1
prospect. 4 4 g f3 S e 1 0 _-|
32 Bf3 Ba1 33 £f1 &g7 34 &g2 h5
35 h4 Ba2 36 &h3 c6 37 dc6 bc6 Fatal zugzwang!

128
 3.9 Leningrad Stonewall after 4 c3 (Gavrikov-Vyzhmanavin)

3.9 Leningrad Stonewall after 4 c3

Gavrikov - Vyzhm anavin a matter of taste, since the character of the
Irkutsk 1986 game can vary radically!
Basically Black can begin with both 5...£\c6
1 d4 f5 2 g3 £>f6 3 kg2 g6 4 c3 kg7 and also with 5...d5. My own preference
is to play the more flexible knight move at
5 ©b3 &c 6
once. Transpositions will occur frequently, of
course.
5...d5

I I
AAA A AA
41A
A A
A
A A
AA A AAA
Q £>A * H
a) 6 fch3 £ic6 [6...0-0 7 £\f4 e6 8 £>d2 £>c6
This section deals with a set-up, which I
9 £rf3 £>e4 10 h4 b6
would describe as the Leningrad Stonewall,
and whose chief characteristics are the fi­ I A W i #

anchetto of the black king’s bishop, com­

bined with the pawn structure d5-e6-f5. In
A A A A
this line Black must exercise the option of Ato A A
developing the queen’s knight to c6, from A A
where it can dispute control of the impor­ A to*h A
tant central square e5. The king’s knight will A A
then mostly be played to e4; sometimes the
manoeuvre £}e4-d6-f7 is essential to gain
control of e5. Should White play an early
h4, this knight can go to g4 instead. It is
AA
I A a
A AA

Here Black has chosen a typical and com­

1

difficult to deal with this complex of vari­
ations analytically; a full-blooded positional
struggle will ensue, but without a direct clash
of arms. I have put together some material,
suggested some improvements and will at­
tempt to indicate a few general guidelines,
because in other lines, too, it can be useful
to have at least an idea of this mixture of
Leningrad and Stonewall. Black often gets
the chance to transpose to this type of pos­
ition. Whether he does or not is, of course,
pletely reliable piece formation (cf. the main
variation). It is important to be able at all
times to counter a white h4-h5 with ...g5.
Usually Black will continue with ...®e7 and
...<kb7. Sometimes ...a5 followed by ...4a6
should be considered; another possibility is
...£\a5 followed by c5, to get counterplay on
the queenside. In the following example Bab-
ula chooses an original but over-ambitious
plan and gets punished for it by the Bavarian
Leningrad expert Christoph Renner. 11 £ig5

129
 3 Illustrative games • 3.9 Leningrad Stonewall after 4 c3

£}g5 12 hg5 £>a5 13 ®d1 Se8 14 Wd3 Ab7 7...0-0 8 £>bd2 a5 [8...d5 9 £>e1 a5 10 £id3
15 g4 fg416 ®g3 e5 17 de5 % 5 18 £>d3 ®f5 b6 11 a4 &a6 12 £rf3 £ie4 13 ®c2 Sc8
19 Ah6 £>c4 20 Ag7 &g7 21 0 -0 -0 £>e5 14 Ae3 ®e7 V2-V2 Urban-Malaniuk, Kosza-
22 £rf4 c6+ Babula-Renner, Bundesliga lin 1996] 9 a4 d5 10 Wc2 b6 11 b3 £ie4
1997/98 (0-1, 44)] 7 £if4 e6 8 £id2 a5 9 £rf3 12 Aa3 Bf7 13 Bad1 Sd7 [13...Aa6 14 c4
a4 10 Wc2 £>e4 11 £>d3 0-0 12 Ae3 [12 h4 4ib4 00 Sokolov] 14 b4 And now, according
followed by Af4 is White’s standard set-up - to Sokolov, 14...#e7 would have led to un­
see the main game] "\2..M e7 13 0-0 Ad7 clear play. 14...ab4 [14...®e7!? 15 e3! ab4
14 Bad1 g5 15 #c1 h6 16 £tfe5 16 cb4 £>b4 17 &b4 # b 4 18 ®c6 Wa4!?
(18...Sa419 ®e6 &h8 20 &e4 de4 (20...Sd8
I I 21 Wc6 de4 22 £\e5 with initiative for White)
A A JlW i . 21 4>e5 Ae5 22 de5+-) 19 We6 Sf7 20 Wd5
f t A £>c3 21 ©c4! ^d1 22 £ig5 Wc4 23 £>c4«,
A AA Sokolov] 15 cb4 &b7 [15...&d4 16 £id4 Ad4
17 ®c6t] 16 e3 ®b8 17 b5 £>d8 18 Ab2
A Af t 19 £ie4 de4 [19...fe4 20 £\e5 £ie5 21 de5±]
A£>A A 20 £ie5± 1-0, Sokolov-Malaniuk, Moscow
AA A AAA 1994.
U 1&
16...£ie5?! A typical error in this position.
The knight on e4 will get into difficulties
when f2-f3 is threatened later, and Black
will have to make concessions to free it.
[^16...&e8 17 f3 &d6~] 17 de5! &b5 18 f3
Ad3 19 ed3 &c5 20 f4 gf4 [20...g4 21 c4]
21 gf4 £>d7 22 &h1 ± Sergeev-Grabarczyk,
Czech League 2002 (1-0, 38).
b) 6 c4! Because of this somewhat rarely
played move, I would prefer to get into
the Stonewall set-up via 5...£}c6; but this
is clearly a matter of opinion - Dolmatov
does not, apparently, share my preference! 6...e 6
6...C6 7 £>f3 0-0 8 0 -0 e6 9 £>c3 [9 A U
h6 10 &bd2 g5 11 Ab8 Bb8 12 £>e5 Ad7 6...d5 7 4tf4 e6
13 Wa3 a6 14 £>b3 £>g4 15 £ig4 fg4 16 ®d6 a) 8 &d2 0-0 9 h4 Se8 10 £>f3 £ig4!
Sf7 17 Sac1± Christiansen-Dolmatov, Bun­
desliga 1991/92 (V2-V2, 34)] 9...b610 cd5 ed5 I I #
11 £>e5 Ab7 12 Ag5 &h8 13 Sac1 Wd614 a4 AAA i. A
4ibd7 15 A U We6 16 a5 £ie5 17 Ae5 £>d7 A A
18 Ag7 &g7 19 Sa1 Wd6 20 e3± Akopian-
Dolmatov, Novosibirsk 1993 (V2-V2, 48).
A A
A £>ft A
6&H3
#A £>A
6 «if3 e6 [6...d6 7 d5! (7 £>g5!?)] 7 0 -0 Early
white castling seems to me less danger­
AA AAA
ous than Gavrikov’s plan beginning with h4. 1 A * H

130
 3.9 Leningrad Stonewall after 4 c3 (Gavrikov-Vyzhmanavin)

Thematic play worth memorising: as already

mentioned above, the black king’s knight,
after a premature h4 by White, will find a
good outpost on g4, from where it can help
dispute control of the vital square e 5.11 £id3
b6 12 Af4 Ab7 13 ®d1 h6 14 ®c1 &h7
15 £ide5 We7 16 £>c6 Ac6 17 Ae5 Ab7
18 Ag7 Wg719 Wf4 £rf6 20 We5 Bac8 21 0-0
&d7 22 Wg7 &g7 23 Efc1 e5 24 de5 &e5
25 £te5 Ee5 26 e3 Aa6 27 a4 c6 28 a5 b5
29 Bd1 Sb8 30 Ed4 Ac8 31 Ead1 1/2-V 2, Gar­
cia llundain-Vallejo Pons, Linares 1998.
b) 8 h4
b1) 8...0-0 9 £>d2 a5 10 £>f3 a4 11 Wc2 to continue c4 or f3 and e4, but such moves
&e4 12 £id3 b6 13 Ag5 ®d7!? [13...&g5 would be very difficult against black’s ac­
A risky strategy, because White can set up tive position, and would be possible only in
great pressure along the h-file. 14 hg5 a3 the most favourable circumstances.) Many
15 b3 £}a7 I would prefer 1 5 ...^ 6 so as to sources give White a clear advantage in this
be in a position to force through ...e5 (after position, but I regard this judgement as mis­
the preparatory ...A b7, perhaps.). 16 ®d2 taken!
&b5 17 £>de5 c5 18 ®f4 ®c7 19 Ec1 Ea7 13 ^c2 &d 8!?
20 ®h4 Ae5 21 £ie5± Ho&ng-McDonald,
Budapest 2003 (1-0, 54)] 14 h5?! h6 15 Af4 Permits the exchange of the dark-square
g5 16 Ae5 [16 £>fe5? ®d6 17 &c6 gf4+] bishops but prepares the active ...c5.
16...£>e5 17 £>fe5 Wb5 18 0-0 c5«>.
14 ke5 &f7 15 kg7 &g7 16 £>fe5
b2) 8.. JTe7 9 &d2 a5 10 a4 b6 11 &f3 &e4
12 £»d3 Aa6 In contrast to the main game, £>fd617 £>f4 c 5 18 e3 Sac8<x>19 &e2
the black queen’s bishop is here more ac­ &f7 20 h5 £>e5 21 de5 g5 22 h6 &h 8
tively placed. 13 M 4 0-014 Wdl &d8! Make 23 £>h5 d4!?
way for the c-pawn! 15 Ae5 c5 16 Ag7
Wg7 17 £>f4 Ee8 18 e3 cd4 19 ed4 £tf7 A very imaginative sacrifice by Vyzhmanavin!
20 &d3 f4!? An interesting and dynamic 24 f3 d3 25 ©d 1 c4 26 fe4 t£c5
idea of the Leningrad expert, Valery Beim.
27 &d2 Jte4 28 Bg1 ©e 5 <x>29 0 -0 -0
21 gf4 [21 £rf4?! e5 22 de5 &e5 23 Wd5
fof7 with black pressure] 21 ...W6<x> Lehner- b5
Beim, Austrian League 2002 (0-1 34).
29.. .g4!?
7 &d2 d5 8 £rf3 £»e4 9 &f4 ©e7
30 Bdf1
10 &d 3 0 -0 11 h4 b6 12 &f4 kb7
30 g4!?
(see next diagram)
30... a5
Both sides have, in my opinion, achieved
the best possible set-up for their pieces, but 30...g4.
it is difficult for either of them to make fur­
ther progress. (White would like, of course, 31 g4

131
 3 Illustrative games • 3.9 Leningrad Stonewall after 4 c3

Takes the opportunity of opening up the pos­
ition, but the situation remains extremely un­
clear.
31 ...4g2 32 Sg2 fg4 33 Sgf2 Sf5?
33...Bf3!oo.
34 4frg7!
Now White gets the upper hand. The follow­
ing exchange sacrifice by Black is not good
enough, as the white rook is more than a
match for the black pawn mass.
34...Bcf8 35 £>f5 ef5 36 Sg2 &g8
37 Wf2 &e7 38 e4 %e4 39 Se1 © f4
40 &f4 gf4 41 Hf1 Bf6 42 Sf4 <&17
43 a4 ba4 44 Bc4 &g 6 45 Sc7 &h6
46 Sh2 &g 5 47 Bhh7 &f4 48 Scd7
Se6 49 Bd3 Hg6 50 &d1 Eb6 51 Bh2
&e4 52 Hhd2 f4 53 Bd4 &f5 54 Bd5
&e 6 55 Bg5 a3 56 b4 &f6 57 Bg4
&f5 58 Bg8 f3 59 Bd5 &e4 60 Ba5
Bh6 61 Ba3
1-0

132
 3.10 The move order 1 d4, 2 c4, 3 £ic3 (Claesen-Gurevich)

3.10 The move order 1 d4, 2 c4, 3 £}c3

Claesen - Gurevich
Charleroi 2001

1 d 4f52c4
2 g3 [2 £tf3 d6 3 £}c3! Here, too, this knight
move represents the most dangerous reply
to an early d6. As indicated below, the move
...d5 is the best reply, but now costs a vital
tempo. The Leningrad expert Mikhail Gure­
vich has, however, played this variation, and
not without some success; he has reached
this position via the move order 1 d4 d6
2 £>f3 f5 3 £>c3. 3...£>f6 4 Ag5 d5!? More
information on this topic is to be found in
the game Carlsen- Dolmatov, in its introduc­
tion, on the subject of best move orders,
page 179.] 2...£>f6 3 Ag2 d6 [3...g6!]
To summarise at this point: against White’s
'normal move order’ 2 g3 and 3 Ag2 it is
perfectly feasible to play 3...d6 (sometimes
one can get into this position by transpos­
ition of moves, e.g. 1 d4 d6 2 g3 f5 3 «S,g2
£rf6), but 3...d6 suffers from the disadvan­
tage that after a white 4 £}c3!, Black is sup­
posed to defuse the positional threat e2-e4
with ...d5, and this move will now cost him a
tempo. True, the Stonewall position arising
is playable, thanks to the badly-placed white
knight on c3, but tournament practice to date
indicates a slight advantage for White. So
it is only here that I would recommend the
black move order with 3...d6; otherwise I ad­
vise the move order 1...f5, 2...£tf6 followed
by 3...g6. It is also rather risky to replace
2...^f6 by an immediate 2...g6, because in
many instances the ‘beserk attack’ h4-h5 is
thereby greatly strengthened. 4 £}c3!± d5!
2...6f6 3 &c3
(see next diagram)
This rarely-played move order must be
treated seriously. Should Black play the ‘au­
tomatic* 3...g6, then both the ‘berserk at­
tack* 4 h4, (often followed up with an ex­
change sacrifice on h5), and the system with
4 f3 give White good chances. Both lines
can definitely be playable for Black, too, but
the move 3...d6 comfortably avoids several
difficulties. If White now continues 4 g3 or
4 £rf3, we reach (by transposition) familiar
territory.
3...d6!
3...g6
a) 4 f3
This (to my mind, at least) unattractive-
looking move contains more than a little poi­
son. White seeks at once to build a pow­
erful centre and the result is basically a
King’s Indian minus f-pawns! Without go­
ing too deeply into the opening theory, I
would like to show you, as a warning, two
fine wins by Victor the Terrible - Beim*s ap­
proach in his game against Philipp Schlosser
makes the best impression on me, from
the Black point of view. 4...J,g7 5 e4 fe4
6 fe4 d6 7 £>f3 0-0 8 Le2 c5 9 d5 £>g4
10 0-0 £>e5 [10...£>d7 11 fte1 £>de5 12 &h1
e6 13 #g3 ed5 14 Ag5 #d7 15 £>d5

133
 3 Illustrative games • 3.10 The move order 1 d4, 2 c4, 3 £ic3

16 Af3 £>e5 17 Ae2 Sf1 18 Sf1 b6 19 h4 Ab7
20 &h8 21 h5 gh5 22 &f5 Sg8 23 £>g7 % 7
24 &f6 « f6 25 % 8 &g8 26 Sf6 Ae4 27 Sd6
&f7 28 Sd8 h4 29 &h2 £>c6 30 Ed7 &e6
31 Ag4 &e5 32 Af3 Af5 33 Ac6 1-0, Kor-
chnoi-Miton, Krynica 1998] 11 Ag5 [11 &h1
&bd7 12 #e1 £tf7! Valery Beim plays his
own recommendation in Understanding the
Leningrad Dutch and so equalises com­
fortably. The king’s knight makes way for
his colleague on e5, which makes it easy
for Black to group his forces effectively.
13 &d2 £>de5 14 a3 Ad7 15 Sc1 Ec8 16 £>d1
e6 17 £>e3= V2-V2, Schlosser-Beim, Aus­
trian League 2003/04] 11 ...&bd7 12 &h1 h6
13 Ad2 a6 14 Wc2 Eb815 a3 «fe8 16 b4 £rf3
17 gf3 b5 18 cb5 ab5 19 f4 # f7 20 Eg1 &d4
21 e5 £ie5 22 fe5 Af5 23 Ad3 Ad3 24 #d3
Ag1 25 Eg1 &h7 26 bc5 dc5 27 £>e4 W 5
28 ®e3 # h 5 29 d6 Sf3 30 de7 Se3 31 £rf6
&h8 32 £>h5 Ed3 33 Eg6 Ed2 34 Ed6 1-0,
Korchnoi-Onischuk, Wijk aan Zee 1997.1am
continually fascinated by Korchnoi’s incredi­
ble energy and determination, once he has
managed to seize the initiative!
b) 4 h4!
#± I
1111 1 1 B) 4 f3 e5!? This represents, in our cho­
%1
1 systems (e.g. 1 d4 d6 2 c4 e5 3 de5 de5),
AA A Black does not need to fear the endgame
& after the queens have come off; the re­
AA AAA
H A w&A
Now some documentary evidence to back
up the respect I feel for this move:
b1) 4.. .£g7 5 h5 &h5 6 e4 £rf6 [6.. .fe4 7 Eh5
gh5 8 #h5 &f8 9 &h6] 7 Jkd3 [7 e5 £>e4
8 £>e4 (8 £rf3 £>c3 9 bc3 d6 10 Ah6 Ah6
11 Eh6 k \d 7 12 e6 £rf6 Piket-Salov, Brussels
1992 (Lightning tournament; 1-0,48)) 8...fe4
9 #g 4 (9 Ah6!? Piket-Onischuk, Lightning
tournament, Biel 1999 (1-0,18)) 9...d5 10 e6
0-0 11 £>e2 &c6 12 Ah6 Sf5 13 Ag7 &g7
14 £ig3 Gausel-Mastoras, Gausdal 1992
(1-0, 23)] 7...d6 8 £>f3 [8 ef5 Af5 9 Af5 gf5
10 £>f3 ®d7 11 We2 £>g4 12 d5 £>a6 Bunz-
mann-Berg, Bundesliga 2000/01 (1-0, 31)]
8...£>c6 9 ef5 gf5 10 d5 £ie5 11 £>d4± Ko-
marov-Vragoteris, Corfu 1991 (1-0,31).
b2) 4...d6 5 h5 &h5 6 e4! [6 Eh5 gh5 7 e4
Wd7 8 #h5 &d8 9 £>f3 We8 Zsinka-Almasi.
Hungarian League 1998/99 (0-1, 60)] 6...fe4
[6...£rf6 7 Ad3 fe4 8 £>e4 Ae6 9 £rf6 ef6
10 &g6 hg6 11 Eh8 Ac4 12 Ah6 We713 &d2
£>d7 14 Wc2 0 -0 -0 15 Wc4 Ah6 16 Eh6
f5 17 £rf3 Bunzmann-Erker, Schwabisch
Gmund 2002 (1-0, 17)] 7 £ie4 [7 Eh5!?]
7...£f5 8 &g5 #d7 9 Eh4 & f6 10 f3 h611 g4
Eg8 12 gf5 hg5 13 Ag5 gf5 14 ®d2 Ag7
15 d5 £>a6 16 Ah3 0 -0 -0 17 £>e2 Reinder-
man-van Beers, Dutch League 2001 (1-0.
36).
4 Jtg5
The first serious attempt to ‘punish’ Black’s
special move order. The following game ma­
terial, however, shows that Black has every
reason to be happy.
A) 4 g3 g6 5 <&g2 Ag7 leads generally (by
transposition) to the main line.
sen move order, the simplest way to counter
the white build-up. Just as in other related
sult is a full-blooded game with chances
for both sides. 5 de5 [5 Ag5 M,e7 6 e3
is completely harmless. 6...C6 7 ®d2 0-0
8 &h3 h6 9 Ah4 f4 10 ef4 ed4 11 ®d4
Ah3 12 gh3 £>d5 13 Ae7 We7 14 £>e4
£rf4 15 0 -0 -0 d5? Meyer-Kjeldsen, Dan­
ish League 1995/96 (0-1, 44)] 5...de5 6 ®d8
&d8 7 Ag5 [7 e4 fe4 8 &g5!? Ae6 (8...ef3
9 £>f3 £»bd7 10 0 -0 -0 £d6) 9 0 -0 -0 £>bd7
10 £>e4 Ae7 11 £rf6 gf6 12 Ae3 c6 13 g3
&c7 14 Ah3 f5 15 £>e2 £ic5 16 b3 Ehf8~
Heyken-Danieisen, Germany 1997/98 (1/2- 1/2,

134
 3.10 The move order 1 d4, 2 c4, 3 £}c3 (Claesen-Gurevich)
42)] 7...c6 8 e4 Ab4! The most active con­
tinuation. [8...h6 9 0 -0 -0 &c7 10 Ae3 f4
(10...£}a6!?) 11 A12 Ae6 (11...g5!?) 12 g3
fg3 13 hg3 £>bd7 14 £>a4 Ae7 15 b3 Shf8
16 Ab3 &h3 17 &h3 &h7 18 Sd3 b6 19 &d2
Sf7 20 &e2 &df6 21 Shd1 Sd8 22 Sd8
Ad8 23 £>b2 £>g5 %-%, Kiryakov-Kharlov,
Elista 1994] 9 0 -0 -0 &c7 10 ef5 Ac3 11 bc3
Af5 Now the shattered white pawn structure
gives Black good chances. 12 £>e2 £>bd7
13 £>g3 Ae6 14 f4 h6 15 f5 Af7 16 Af6
£>f6 17 Ae2 Sad8 18 She1 &b6 19 Sd8
Hd8 20 Af1 e4 21 £te4 Se8 22 Ad3 Ac4
23 Ac4 He4 24 Se4 £te4 25 &c2 &c5
26 Ae6 &d6 27 AcQ £*c5+ Zenin-Annakov,
Moscow 1997 (1/2- 1/2, 50).
C) 4 4if3 g6 If White now continues g3, we
arrive back again at one of the main lines.
Now for a quick glance at some (very rare)
white alternatives: 5 e3 [5 Ag5 £»bd7 leads
to positions very similar to those of the main
lines (or to transpositions). 6 ®c2 Ag7 7 e4
fe4 8 £>e4 £>e4 9 ©e4 £>f6 10 &f6 Af6
11 Ad3 c5! 12 0 -0 Wb6 13 dc5 Wc5 14 Sae1
0-0 oo Degerman-Agrest, Swedish League
1998/99 (0-1, 58)] 5...£g7 6 b4 [6 Ad3 0-0
7 0 -0 £te6 8 d5 (Dorfman-Gurevich, French
League 1991 (1/2- 1/2, 41)) 8...&e5 9 £»e5 de5
10 e4 e6co] 6...c5!? 7 a3 0-0 8 Ab2 £>c6oo
Sulava-Malaniuk, Montecatini Terme 1995
(1-0, 32).
4...&bd7!
ft
135
The absolutely best move. Black simply can­
not allow his pawns to be doubled on f6.
5& c2
The logical and most frequently-played white
continuation. White tries to seize the oppor­
tunity of forcing through e2-e4 as quickly as
possible.
A) 5 h4 A strange idea, which aims at pre­
venting ...g6. But after this straightforward
reply, Black equalises comfortably. 5...e5
6 e4 fe4 7 &f6 £rf6 8 de5 de5 9 #d 8
&d8 10 0 -0 -0 Ad7 11 g4 h6 12 Ah3 g5
13 Ag2 Ag7 14 hg5 hg5 15 Sh8 Ah8 16 Ae4
£>e4 17 £ie4 &e7 18 f3 Sf8 19 Sd3 Ac6
20 £>e2 Ae4 21 fe4 Sf1 22 Sd1 Sf3? Bun-
zmann-Gurevich, Bundesliga 1999/2000
(1/2- 1/2, 51).
B) 5 &h3 e5 6 e4 fe4 7 £te4 Ae7 8 Af6
9 Ad3 0-0 10 &hg5 Ste4 11 &e4 ed412 0-0
Af5 13 £}g3 Ad3 14 ®d3 Af6? Anastasian-
Gurevich, Naberezhnye Chelny 1988 (0-1,
44).
C) 5 g6 6 e3 Ag7 7 c5?! dc5 8 # b 3
c6 9 Ac4 b5 10 £>b5?! cb5 11 Ab5 An
objectively incorrect and wild sacrificial at­
tack, which Gurevich clearly underestimates
somewhat... Perhaps Wuts had studied Si­
mon Webb’s Chess for TigersW. In the chap­
ter ‘How to trap Heffalumps’ the recom­
mended strategy against vastly superior op­
ponents is to create total chaos! 11 ...WaS
12 &d1 Aa6? [12...£te4-+; 12...Sb813 &e5
Bf8] 13 Jk,c6? Missing the chance of mak­
ing the top favourite sweat a little: [13 Af6!
Af6 14 Ad7 &d7 15 Wd5 &c7 16 Ec1
with a dangerous attack.] 13...c4 14 #c2
Sc8 15 £*e5 0 -0 16 £>d7 Ec6 17 £>f8
&f8 18 f3 &d5 19 #d2 c3 20 bc3 h6
21 c4 Wa4 0-1, Wuts-Gurevich, Hoogeveen
2001.
5...g6 6 e4 fe4 7 &e4 4g7
(see next diagram)
 3 Illustrative games • 3.10 The move order 1 64, 2 c4, 3 £*c3

1 0 ...& a 5

a b c d e f g h
8 I 1 8
7 ▲
6
A
f t A ± A 7
6
A f t A
5
4
m 5
4
A A A
3 3
2 AA AA 2
o 1
a b
<c1?S
d e f h
1

8 &g3
A) 8 4if3 0-0 9 £ig3 e5! This central advance
solves Black’s problems. 10 Le2 [10 de5 £»e5
11 £ie5 ffe7!] 10...ed411 £>d4£>e512 0 -0 -0
£if7 13 &e3 £ig4 14 Jkg4 Ag4 15 f3 Ee8
16 Af2 Ad7 17 h4 c5 18 £>de2 b5~ Olaf-
sson-Malaniuk, Luzern 1993 (1/2- 1/2, 54).
B) 8 4rf6 £>f6 [8...ef6!?] 9 Ad3 c5 10 d5 0-0
11 £>f3 £>g4 12 0-0 Ef7 13 h3 Ef3 14 hg4
Ef7 15 We2 Wf8 16 Eae1 &e5~ Gausel-
Pedersen, Gausdal 1994 (Vfe-Vfe, 48).
g O
11 S d 4 ?
Overstretching finally. A gruesome end is the
consequence.
11 &b1 Supplying at least the probably
hoped-for practical ‘swindling possibilities’.
11...e5 12 h5 &h5 13 £>h5 gh5 14 #e2!
[14 Eh5 £rf8] 14...£>c5 15 ®h5 &f8 z.A.
16 ®f3 &g8 17 Ah6 Ae6 18 Ag7 [18 #g3
#C7] 18...&g7 19 ®g3 &f7?.

8 ...C 5 9 h 4? ! 1 1 ...6 a 2

Claesen, too, attempts to down his power­ White is completely lost. Not only is he down
ful Belgian (by naturalisation) opponent with on material, he also has to face a strong
all-out aggression; this strangely provocative Black attack!
effect of the Leningrad, by the way, is one of
12 B d 3 © a 1 13 & d 2
the secrets of its success. Even the (other­
wise) most solid players of White fall victim 13 ®b1 was objectively the lesser evil, but it
to it... is a sad alternative. 13...®b1 14 &b1 £}e5.
9 d5 b5l; 9 &f3. 1 3 ...£ > g 4 14 & e 2
9 . . . c d 4 10 0 - 0 - 0 14 £ih3 £ic5 15 Ef3 Wb2.
10 h5 White had (presumably) originally in­ 1 4 ...6 f2 1 5 B e 3 ® a 5 16 & c 1 & e 5
tended to advance this pawn, but was dis­ 0-1
suaded by the prospect of Black centralising
his queen. lO.-.WaS 11 4d2 We5 12 Ae2 And understandably, White has had quite
£>c5+ 13 £tf3 d3! enough of this cruel treatment.

136
 3.11 System with 2 4rf3 3 iig5 or 3 Af4 (Oms Pallise-Movsziszian)
3.11 System with 2
3 <S>g5 or 3 Jtf4
Oms Pallise - M ovsziszian
La Pobla de Lillet 1997
1 d4f52£>f3
Played in conjunction with 3 4g5 this is
a rarely-played but very interesting ‘anti-
Leningrad* move order. Black must show
flexibility here, because favourable circum­
stances for the fianchetto of his king’s bishop
do not arise. As my main recommendation
is solid, but has fewer winning prospects
than many other lines, I append, along with
the risky 2...g6, some more material for the
adventurous. But since I am not at all clear
which black set-up is preferable in this line, I
will examine several alternatives.
2 ...£ tf6
2---g6 3 h4! This is the nub of the prob­
lem. As I have already pointed out elsewhere,
playing an early ...g6 before developing the
king’s knight practically invites the ‘beserk
attack’ beginning h4-h5. Even if the pos­
itions arising are objectively unclear, they do
not appeal to me as a player of Black, be­
137
&f6
cause White enjoys such a long-lasting ini­
tiative. But the enterprising and must-win
players of Black should not allow this to in­
timidate them at all... I cannot be held re­
sponsible for the risks and quirks which may
arise in these lines! 3...£rf6 [3...iLg7 4 h5 d6
5 £>c3 £>f6 6 hg6 (6 h6!?) 6...hg6 7 Eh8 Ah8
8 ©d3 £ia6 9 e4 c5 ~ Pomes Marcet-Vallejo
Pons, Linares 1998 (0-1,47)] 4 h5 £>h5 5 Sh5
gh5 6 e4 Ag7 7 £>h4 [7 &c4!?]
I 4A # 1
A ▲A A A A
A A
AA &
AAA AA
I w* A
7...e6! 8 ®h5 &f8 9 ef5 [9 e5!? We8 10 We2
£>c6 11 £>f3 d6 12 £>c3 de5 13 de5 b6
14 Ag5 Ab7 15 0 -0 -0 with compensation
for White. Ribli-Henley, Surakarta 1982 (1-0,
27)] 9...ffe8 [9...&C6I? 10 c3 We8 11 Wf3 e5
(11 ...ef5 12 &e3 ® e 4 13 ®f5 ®f5 14 £rf5 d5)]
10W 3 ef5 11 Ae3 ®e4 12 Wf5 W 5 13 £>f5
d6 14 £>g7 &g7 15 £>c3 Af5 16 &d2 £>d7 oo
Podzielny-Fleck, Bundesliga 1982/83 (1/2- 1/2,
43).
3&g5
3 iLf4 This universal ‘panacea’, so popu­
lar with certain club players and lightning
professionals, is not at all to be recom­
mended against the Dutch. Black can often
force through ...e5 in very favourable circum­
stances and make the white bishop an object
of attack. 3...g6 4 h3 Ag7 5 e3 d6
 3 Illustrative games • 3.11 System with 2 £rf3 £if6 3 Ag5 or 3 Af4

a) 6 &bd2 £>c6 7 c3 0-0 8 # b 3 &h8

9 0 -0 -0 !te8! I A # WE
AAA &k
I Jl WE # % A A4i A
A A A k il A
% A %A AAA A
A A A£i A
A A A
A f A A& A
& AA
1 ^ i 1B
Once again the central thrust ...e5 hangs
in the air. 11 ®b3 Ad7 [11 ...e5!?] 12 a4 h6
With the very unpleasant threat of ...e5, so
13 a5 a6 14 Ah2 g5!? 15 h4 g4 16 £te1 £>h5
that Hodgson must reluctantly bring himself
17 Ae2 e 5 18 de5 de5 19 &d3 f4 20 £ie4 Af5
to play d4-d5, which does not fit his chosen
21 £>dc5 ©g6 22 £»d2 g3-+ Vepkhvishvili-
set-up at all. 10 d5 £>a5 11 # a3 b6 12 £>b3
Kantsler, Belgorod 1989 (0-1,40).
£»e4!? The weakness of f2 forces White
to make a fateful concession. 13 Ag3 £>g3
14 fg3 e6! 15 £ia5 ba5 16 Wa5 c6 Hodgson-
i I #
Gurevich, Haifa 1989 (0-1,39) and Black has AA A
excellent play for the pawn, A % WA
b) 6 4 e 2 0 -0 7 0-0 £>c6! 8 c4?l Weakens A £> A Jl %
the diagonal h8-a1. [8 d5 e5! A A A
n A A A
I W I #
^ A A AA
AAA iA
%A %A 2 fi.

AAA A pretty picture and a graphic illustration or

A why the set-up with Af4 has little to recom­
A£) A mend it!
AA A A A A a b c d e f g h
fi
A key move, which throws further light on the
8
7
EtoJiW A 8
7
1
dark side of 4f4. If the bishop retreats from
AAAAA AA
6 6
f4, Black has a King’s Indian position with
several extra tempi! 9 dc6 ef4 10 cb7 Ab7 5 5 AA
11 ef4 Sb8, with excellent compensation for 4 A 4
the pawn.]
3 3
8...£>e4! 9 Ah2 e5+ 10 a3? ed4 11 ed4 # f6 +
12 d5 #b2 13 dc6 bc6 0-1, Kreindl-Beim, 2 AA A A A A A 2
Oberwart 2002. 1 <
4>A fl 1
c) 6 &c4 e6l Permits kingside castling. 7 0-0 a b c d e f g h
0-0 8 c3 &c6 9 £>bd2 9 e8 10 b4 &h8
(see next analysis diagram)
3...e6

138
 3.11 System with 2 £rf3 £rf6 3 £lq5 or 3 &f4 (Oms Pallise-Movsziszian)

3...6e4?! This knight move looks attractive A thematic re-positioning of the queen’s
but has no merit. Usually the important black bishop, which can later be transferred to g6
knight is soon exchanged off, leaving Black or h5 (and especially to the latter, if there is a
with problems of development. And now a white knight on f3). If Black manages to ex­
few deliberately-chosen warning examples, change off this bishop, he will generally have
to support my thesis. (Which, I will con­ solved all his problems. 11 Bc1 £}e4 12 Jle7
fess, is not very scientifically based!) 4 Jk.f4 We7 13 &f3 &h5! 14 toe5 Le2 15 We2 £id6!
[4 Ah4 d6 5 e3 £>d7 6 &d3 &df6 7 0-0 g6
8 c3 Ag7 9 Wb3 c6 10 a4 # b 6 11 ®a2 a5 I I #
12 £>bd2 tod2 13 to62 d5 14 f3 0-0 15 e4 A W AA
Epishin-Guerrero Alvarez, Llbeda 1998 (1-0, Aft A
32), with strong pressure for White; 4 h4!? is A A
also worth considering.] 4...d6 5 £ibd2 £id2
[5.. .£>d7 6 £>e4 fe4 7 tod2 £rf6 8 e3 e6 9 Ae2
AA
A e710 c4 d5 11 ©c2 c 6 12 0-0 0-0 13 f3 ef3
A
14 Af3 £>d7 15 Sae1 ± Oms Pallise-Aguirre A AAA
izaguirre, Zaragoza 1994 (1-0, 28)] 6 ®d2 e6 AI I
7 e4 fe4 8 £ig5 d5 9 f3 ef310 Ad3 fg211 #g2
Another thematic move. The black knight
£>c6 12 0-0 toe7 13 £>f7 1-0, Atalik-Hoang,
may have looked well posted on e4, but in
Budapest 1998. An unexpected disaster for
fact it provides White with the opportunity of
the Vietnamese Leningrad specialist.
playing the thematic central advance f3 and
4 &bd2 ke7 e4. Dolmatov therefore steers the knight at
once to f7, after which White will not be able
4...d5 is equally playable and leads to a to maintain his piece outpost on e5. 16 f3
solid variation of the Dutch Stonewall. Of Sad8 17 b3 to n 18 to i7 y2- 1/2, Korchnoi-
course, practical winning chances are re­ Dolmatov, Clermont-Ferrand 1989.
duced here to a minimum. 5 e3 Ae7 6 c4 c6
7 £ie5 0 -0 8 Ae2 ^bd7 As so often in the 5& f6
Stonewall, the struggle turns on the weak­ Emphatically the critical move in the strug­
ened central square e5. 9 £>d7 [9 £id3 toeA gle for an opening advantage. This is White’s
10 Jie7 We7 11 Sc1 £>d2 12 ©d2 dc4! 13 Sc4 only way of forcing through e4.
e5! Black has solved all his problems after
this move. 14 de5 toe5 15 toe5 We5 16 ®c3
5...&f6 6 e4
WC3 17 Sc3 ,&e6= Bouaziz-Gurevich, Ost- a b c d e f g h ♦
end 1991 (V2-V2, 42)] 9...&d7 10 0 -0 Ae8!

I WA I #
AA A AA
A Ato
A A Jl
AA
A
AA AA
I I *

139
 3 Illustrative games • 3.11 System with 2 £rf3
6— 0 -0
The exchange on e4 would both now, and
later, be somewhat risky, as White, after
castling queenside, has prospects of a king­
side attack. But things are not so clear, as
Pedersen’s suggestion below shows. At this
point I cannot resist the temptation to cite a
classic game which actually arose from the
Staunton Gambit move order.
6...fe4 7 £>e4 0-0 8 A63 b6 9 £>e5 Ab7
10 Wh5 me7 11 ®h7!!
lillf A
A Ai.
■ ■ & ■
A !&
A A A AAA
11...&h7 12 £>f6 &h6 13 £>eg4 &g5 14 h4
&f4 15 g3 &f3 16 Ae2 &g2 17 Sh2 &g1
18 0 -0 -0 # Lasker-Thomas, London 1912.
Probably the strongest queenside castling in
the history of chess!
7 c3
Not the most accurate move, but my only
chance of bringing in a relevant main game!
A) 7 e5!? Ae7 8 Ac4 An interesting plan,
worth looking at. 8...®e8 [8...d5!? looks
more solid. 9 ed6 Ad6 (9...cd6 10 '&e2±)
10 0 -0 £ic6 11 He1 ®f6«> Black will after
either ...&h8 (and a later ...Ad7 followed by
Sae8), force through ...e5, or at a favourable
moment put the question to the white knight
with ...g5-g4.] 9 We2 c5 10 0 -0 -0 a 6 11 dc5
Ac5 12 Ad3 £ic6 13 g4 b5 14 Shg1 Ha7~
Zysk-Bucker, Bundesliga 1990/91 (0-1, 61).
B) 7 &d3! is the most exact continuation, as
White can now castle kingside.
140
3 &g5 or 3 £f4
a) 7...d6!? Recommended by Steffen Peder­
sen in The Dutch for the Attacking Player
and looks just as playable. 8 c3 £ic6
9 Wc2 [9 ef5!? ef5 (9...e5!?) 10 Wb3 &h8
11 0 -0 -0 followed by h4 deserves consid­
eration; 9 We2 e5!] 9...fe4 [9...g6!? 10 h4
e5 11 de5 £>e5 12 &e5 Ae5 13 0 -0 -0 f4
14 £>f3 W 6 15 £te5 V2-V2, Soppe-Catropa,
Sao Paulo 1993] 10 £»e4 h6
I Jl V I
AAA A
%A A A
<9
<]
AA AAA
I <Sf B, ■0-
And now the coming central advance ...e5
seems to solve all Black’s problems. 11 h4?!
Too optimistic; once again we see the
provocative effect of the Dutch, which makes
so many players of White see red. (I have not
yet heard of any Black player being similarly
affected in this opening...) It seems likely
that Carsten Hoi simply overestimated his
attacking chances. [11 0 -0 -0 e5!oo] 11 ...e5!
12 £>eg5 d5!¥ [12...ed4?? 13 Ac4+-] 13 de5
£ie5 14 4le5 [14 Ah7 &h8 15 4g8 Does
not work. 15...£rf3 16 gf3 Af5-+] 14...Ae5
15 £»h7 Foolhardy; this knight is destined
for the chop. 15...Ef4 16 0 -0 -0 ®d6 17 g3
Hf3! 18 J.e4 [18 She1!?] 18...de4 19 Sd6 cd6
20 #e4 Sf2 21 &g5 hg5 22 Wd5 &h7 23 hg5
&g6 24fTg8 &g5! +
I
&A A
A
A #
A A
AA I
<4> 1 O
 3.11 System with 2 £rf3 £rf6 3 &g5 or 3 &f4 (Oms Pallise-Movsziszian)

White cannot touch the greedy king. 25 WeQ Zurich 1990] 12...Sae813 ffc2 g 6 14 b5 4>d8
Sc2 26 &b1 Af5 27 We7 <&g6 28 g4 Ae4 15 &b3 b6 16 &bd2 c5 17 bc6 &c6 18 a4
29 ®e6 <&g5 30 We7 * f 4 0-1, Hoi-Piskov, Se1 19 Se1 Se8 20 He8 Ae8= Gurevich-
Copenhagen 1991. Schwartzman, Chandler 1997 (V2-V2, 62).
b) 7...d5 The safest move. 7...d5! 8 ef5
b1) 8 e5 Ae7 Leads to a French Defence set­
8 e5 Ae7 00 followed by ...b6 and c5.
up, which Black need not fear. He will attack
the white centre with ...b6 and c5 and then 8...ef5 9 Ad3 Se8
possibly exchange the white queen’s bishop
on a6. 9 c3 [9 c4 £\c6!<» (9...C6 10 a3 b6
11 0-0 £ a6 12 b4 dc4 13 £\c4 c5 14 dc5
bc5 15 £id6 Yanvaryov-Garcia Saez, Villalba
1997 (1-0, 53)) For example 10 cd5 (10 c5 b6
11 Ab5 A67 12 Ac6 &c6 13 b4 a5 14 a3 ab4
15 ab4 Ab5) 10...£>b4 11 &c4 £>d5 (11 ...ed5
12 Ae2 c5 13 0 -0 £>c6) 12 ©b3 b6 13 Ad5
©d5 14 ®d5 ed5 15 Sc1 c5] 9...b6 10 We2
c5 11 h4 a5! A key move: in this way Black
manages to exchange bishops after all. 12 g3
& a613 Aa6 £>a614 0-0 £>c715 c4 f4 ~ Nor-
Sebe, Paks 1998 (V2-V2, 36).
b2) 8 ef5 ef5 9 0-0 £>c6 10 c3 #d6!
This is the disadvantage of 7 c3: White must
I A I give up the idea of castling.
A ii AA 10 & f 1 b6!
A A good plan. Black hopes to shake the solid
A A white centre with ...c5.
■
A 11 g3
AA
AA & AAA 11 Wc2l?
# 1 <A> 11. ..c5
An important move which disputes con­
trol of the central square e5 and permits
the harmonious development of the black
pieces. Should White fail to establish a
knight on e5, he can hardly hope for ad­
vantage. 11 He1 A67 [11...a6 12 b4 g5!?
13 We2?! (13 &b3 g4 14 £>fd2) 13...&d7
14 £>e5 Hae8 15 f4 gf4 16 £>df3 Se7? Kir­
sanov-McDonald, London 2001 (V2-V2, 23)]
12 b4 [12 Wc2 g6 13 Se2 Sfe8 14 Sae1
f4 15 h3 &g7 16 £>f1 Se2 17 Se2 Se8 18.
£>1h2 h5 19 Se8 Ae8 20 h4 £>e7 21 £>g5
Ad7 22 £ihf3 a6 V2-V 2, Nemet-Gavrikov,

141
 3 Illustrative games • 3.11 System with 2 £tf3 £rf6 3 &g5 or 3 Af4

12 &g2 &c6 15...f416 £>g4 fg317 £>f6 © f6 18 hg3

As his knight is denied the square e5, it is 18 Ac6 Ac6 19 hg3 Bf8+.
difficult to suggest a good plan for White.
At least the present game provides a good 18...Hf8 19 Bf1
example of how quickly the first player can
White has bravely resisted all temptation.
come unstuck if he plays indifferently.
19 dc5!? £ie5 [19...d4?! 20 Ac4 &h8
13 &b5 Jtb7 21 Ad5~] 20 c6 £c6 21 Ac6 # c 6 22 £ie5
Se5T.
This temporarily passive bishop is destined
to play a key role, and will in fact be crucial 1 9 ...6.7 20 &e5
to Black’s coming play. (A further warning
against the judgement ‘bad bishop’!) Later
it will allow Black to take certain ‘liberties’ in
the centre, as the opening of the diagonal
a8-h1 would be fatal for White.
14 &f1 Se4!+

20...£>f5
20...Be5!? I would have preferred the im­
mediate sacrifice of the exchange. 21 de5
©e5? [21...d4 22f3©e5].

Black seizes the initiative with this move.
White now has several ways of winning the
exchange, it is true, but for the reasons al­
ready mentioned above, none of them will
bring him any joy.
15 &e3
15 dc5 This exchange would be very risky,
because in the long run ...d5-d4 cannot
be prevented. 15...bc5 16 Ad3 [16 £»e3 d4
17 £tf5 £>e5] 16...Sb8! [16...d4? 17 #b3]
17 Ae4 fe4 18. &>3d2 £>e5 with a very strong
attack.
21 4d3?
21 £»d7 4ih4 22 &h2! looks just about gooc
enough to save White. [22 &g1 # f5 !—
23 £>f8 #h3] 22...£rf3 [22...©h6? 23
22...©f3?! 23 ®f3 £tf3 24 &g2 Sf7 25 dc5
23 * g 2 £»e1 [23...®f5 24 £tf8 Sh4 25 Shr
24 &g1 &f3=.
21...Be5!
Now the ‘bad bishop’ takes on superhumar
strength.
22 de5 d4 23 &g1 &h 6 0-1

142
 3.12 System with 2 £\c3 (Gurevich-Topalov)
3.12 System with 2 &c3
Gurevich - Topalov
Groningen 1993
1 d4 f5 2 £>c3
This knight move, combined with the bishop
sortie to g5, represents the most important
divergence for White at move 2. Simultan­
eously it may be the most effective way of
rendering the fianchetto of the black king’s
bishop unattractive. In order to discourage
the threatened double advance of the e-
pawn, Black will be obliged to play d5 on
the next move or the move after that, thereby
going into a kind of Stonewall set-up. Black’s
compensation in this sort of position, is that
the white knight will find itself badly placed
on c3. A particular drawback for White is that
it blocks the important c-pawn, so vital for
disputing central control.
Since the publication of the first German edi­
tion of this book, this variation has become
increasingly popular; I have had to face it
several times myself. But the available mate­
rial shows that Black’s chances are perfectly
satisfactory, and the results to date also sup­
port this view.
2...& f6
143
2...d5 3 <&f4! has proved a little awkward to
meet. 3...£rf6 4 e3 e6 5 £>b5!±.
3 £g5 d5!
Absolutely necessary expansion at this point.
A) 3...g6?! 4 &f6! ef6 5 d5!?±.
B) 3...e6?! 4 e4±.
4& f6
This exchange, leaving Black with immo­
bile doubled pawns, is almost always played
here.
A) 4 e3 e6
a) 5 g4 This somewhat premature aggres­
sion is best ignored by Black: 5...M,e7\ 6 gf5
ef5 7 Ad3 c6 8 Af6 Af6 9 # f3 g6 10 £>ge2
&e6 11 £rf4 M 7 12 0 -0 -0 £>d7 13 Wg3 A M
14 #g2 #e7 15 &ce2 £>f6 16 &g3 £>e4
My Munich comrade-in-arms and ‘fellow
Leningrader’ Ulrich Dirr has achieved an ex­
cellent set-up and already has a slight plus.
17 &b1 0 -0 -0 T Teske-Dirr, Bundesliga
2002/03 (0-1, 47).
b) 5 &d3 c5 6 g4 c4! [6...fg4 7 &f6 # f6
8 #g4 cd4?l (8 ...& C 6 9 &b5 & d 8o o ) 9 £>d5
®e5 10 £rf4 £ic6 11 0 -0 -0 Yegiazarian-
Minasian, Batumi 2003 (V2-V2, 31)] 7 Ae2
Ab4 8 gf5 0-0! 9 fe6 Ae6?.
 3 Illustrative games • 3.12 System with 2 £ic3

c) 5 4rf3 I did not examine this seem­ 9 £>a4 Ad6 10 c4 dc4 11 <kc4 ©c7 12 Sc1
ingly innocuous move in my first German £>e4 13 Ah4±)]
book. Combined with the right strategic plan,
c21) 6 ...& C 6 7 0 -0 Ae7?! 8 dc5 &c5 9 £>a4!
however, it does contain some positional
This key move is the major problem for Black
threats: if, for example, Black plays too ‘qui­
in this sort of position. 9...&e7 10 c4 0-0
etly’, White will castle short and then attack
11 £>c3± Babu-Gufeld, Kolkata 1994 {V2-V2,
Black’s centre with £>e2 and c4.
25).
c1) 5...&e7 c22) 6...C4!
c11) 6 £ie2 Volkov executes his (position­
ally correct) plan prematurely and underesti­
E%jLW*kJL I
mates the dangers lurking round his uncas­ k k AA
tled king. 6...0-0 7 £rf4 £>e4 8 Ae7 ffe7 9 a3 k%
c5! 10 c4 g5 11 £ld3 g4 12 4tfe5 cd4 13 ed4 A A Jl
dc4 14 £ic4 £}c6 15 £ide5 Sd8 16 £ic6 bc6 k A
17 b4 a5!
A£>
I Jl I # AAA AA A A
1 ||r & 1
wk
A k 7 0-0 Ab4= and Black, thanks to his space
A k advantage on the queenside, has no further
A£>A % k problems.
A B) 4 f3 Black must reply precisely to this
AAA sharp and rarely-seen move. White intends
S n m JL I to force through e4, even at the cost of a
pawn. [4 W62 e6 5 f3 £>c6 transposes to the
Power chess by the up and coming Chinese same position.] 4...£}c6!
master! 18 £\a5 Sa5! 19 ba5 ©a7 20 Ad3
# a 5 21 &f1 Sd4-+ Volkov-Zhang, Elista I A # # it I
1998(0-1,32). AAA A AA
c12) 6 Ad3 £te4 This solid idea looks to 4
playable. [6...0-0 7 0-0 Ad7 8 £te2± fol­ A AA
lowed by c4.] 7 Ae7 ©e7 8 0 -0 0-0 9 £>e2 A
£>d6 10 Sc1 [10 b3 &d7 11 c4 dc4 12 bc4 & A
c5oo] 10...Ad7 11 c4 [11 b3!?] 11...dc4 AAA A AA
12 Ac4 £>c4 13 Sc4 Ac6 14 £ic3
15 b4 &b6 16 Sc5 &d7 17 Sc4 4ib6 18 Bc5
H w& JS
4id7 V2-V 2, Nielsen-Gurevich, Bundesliga
Intended to prevent e4, since White, after
2000/01. .. .de4, must watch out for his d-pawn. 5 ©d2
c2) 5.. ,c5! This rarely-played, dynamic move e6 [5...h6?! loses an important tempo and
is my personal suggestion. 6 Ae2 [6 £ie5 also weakens Black’s kingside pawn struc­
£>c6 7 !.b5 Ad7oo; 6 dc5 Ac5 7 Ae2 *hc6 ture. 6 &f6 ef6 7 £>h3 Ab4 8 £rf4 £>e7 9 h4
8 0 -0 a6! 00 Important counter-action against c6 10 h5 # d 6 11 e3± Volkov-Malaniuk,
White’s main plan of £>a4 and c4. (8...0-0 Smolensk 2000 (1-0, 26)]

144
 3.12 System with 2 £}c3 (Gurevich-Topalov)
a) 6 0 -0 -0 [6 &h3!? followed by e3 looks to
me to be a flexible set-up, worth consider­
ing.] 6...Ab4!oo This pin is really unpleasant
for White, because the awkward bishop is
hardly to be driven away by a3 and b4, as
this would weaken the king’s position too
much. 7 £Hi3 [7 h4 h6 8 Af4 &h5 9 £>h3,
after which the game continued very wildly.
9...®h4!? 10 Ac7 A67 11 a3 Ac3 12 ©c3
Sc8 13 Ad6 4ie5 14 #e1 ©e1 15 Se1 £te4co
Schenk-Grafl, Augsburg 2002 (1/2- 1/2, 22)]
7...0-0 8 a3 Aa5 9 e3 £ie7 A bit passive.
[9...a6!? 10 4&f4 b5oo; 9...®d6«» followed
by ...a6 and ...b5 would be my own prefer­
ence.] 10 £>f4 &d7 11 h4 Ab6 12 &d3 Ae8
13 &b1 Sc8 14 &e2 Ab5 [14...c5!?] 15 £tef4
A63 16 Ad3 ®d7 17 c3± Agrest-Jakubiec,
Griesheim 2003 (1-0, 60).
b) 6 e4 This gambit is not convincing, be­
cause Black can develop comfortably and
White has to play some tricky moves to get
his pawn back.
b1) 6...fe4 7 fe4 de4 8 0 -0 -0 4e7 [8...
4b4!?] 9 &b5 0-0 10 £ige2 ^b4 11 Af6 gf6
12 Ac4 &d5 13 g4 [13 £>e4? f5-+] 13...&h8
14 Shg1 oo Evseev-Yagupov, St Petersburg
2001 (1/2- 1/2, 25).
b2) 6.. ,de4 7 Ab5 Probably White’s relatively
best continuation, but Black has no difficulty
equalising. [7 0 -0 -0 (7 fe4? #d4) 7...Ab4
8 Ab5 0-0 9 Af6 ®f6 10 fe4 fe4 11 £>h3 e5!
12 Shf1 Af5 13 g4 ©h4 14 gf5 ©h3 15 f6 e3
(15...Sf6l? 16 Sf6 gf6) 16 #e2 Ac3 17 bc3
Ef6 18 Sf6 gf6 19 #c4 &h8 20 d5 e2 21 We2
£»e7+ Savchenko-Grabarczyk, Darmstadt
2001 (1/2- 1/2, 71)] 7...&b4 8 fe4 £>e4!? This
tactical sequence leads to a good endgame
for Black. 9 Ad8 £}d2 10 Lc7 4ie4 11 4}ge2
&d7 12 0-0 Ac3 13 bc3 Sc8 14 Af4 £ie7
15 Ad3 £>c316 £>c3 Sc317 Sfb1 Sd3l? Play­
ing for safety! After the positional sacrifice
of the exchange, both sides find it difficult
to make progress. 18 cd3 Ac6 19 Ae5 &f7
20 Ec1 Hd8 21 Sabi Sd71/2- 1/2, Schandorff-
Kindermann, Bundesliga 2002/03.
145
4...ef6 5 e3
Black’s position may not look particularly at­
tractive, but it retains dynamic potential. He
has the two bishops and his massive centre
will be difficult to shake; in the long term the
half-open e-file and the outpost square e4
especially are promising. We will see again
and again how the black knight finds differ­
ent ways to get to this ideal square.
The greatest and most obvious danger to
Black lies in the white advances h3 and
g4, leading to the opening-up of the black
kingside, which could prove unpleasant. So
Black must take counter-measures and play
...h5 at the right moment, protecting the re­
sulting critical square g6 with a bishop on
f7.
The most important recent discovery is that
queenside castling is very risky for Black, as
White gets promising attacking possibilities.
Black should therefore postpone castling for
the moment, and aim, if possible, to carry
out the manoeuvre ...£}c6-e7 (c8-d6). The
pinning of his knight by J,b5 can be dealt
with by a6, b5 followed by ...£>a5 (see the
various game examples). Only after White
has castled long should Black generally fol­
low suit.
My overall opinion is that providing Black
has a good understanding of the strategic
problems, he can look forward confidently to
the future.
 3 Illustrative games • 3.12 System with 2 £}c3

5-.-ile6 21 £>e1 & U 22 £if3 «d5 1/2- 1/2, Eingorn-

Kindermann, Vienna 2003.
The most flexible move; the bishop will need
to occupy this square anyway, whilst the cor­ B) 6 h4 h5 7 £>h3 c6! After the interpola­
rect way to develop the rest of Black’s pieces tions h4 and h5, Black can afford to play
is not yet clear. this positionally excellent move, because
White’s unpleasant plan of h3 followed by
6&d3 g4 is no longer possible. 8 #d3 g6 9 0 -0 -0
£ld7 10 f3 mc7 11 £rf4 [11 e4 de4 12 fe4
0-0-0?] 11...Af7 12 g3 [12 g4 hg4 13 fg4
g5T] 12...Ah6 13 &b1 0 -0 -0 14 Ah3 Hde8
15 Ag2 £>b616 b3 Se717 Sde1 She8? Bere­
zovsky-Kindermann, Bundesliga 2003/04
(0-1,40).
C) 6 <&b5 An attempt to prevent the devel­
opment of the black queen’s knight to c6;
the resulting doubled pawn on c6 would not
be a pretty sight. But Black exploits the gain
of tempo by ...c6 to develop his pieces in
an equally effective way. 6...c6 [6...£\c6?
7 &c6 bc6 8 £ia4!±] 7 A63 Wb6 8 Sb1 £>d7
The traditional continuation; White intends 9 Wf3 g6 10 &ge2 Ad6 11 a3 ©c7 12 h4
to put pressure on the Black kingside. More h5 13 £>f4 Af7 14 g3 &f8 15 0-0 &g7 16 a4
recently, however, White has increasingly ex­ Everything seems to be indicating a slow
perimented with the bishop sortie to b5 (see positional game, but now a bomb explodes
6 WfS! variation E, on the facing page and in the centre: 16...£>e5!
6 Ab5 variation C, on the current page).
A) 6 &f3?S Basically the knight stands badly
I I
on f3; not only is it ineffective, it also blocks
A AW A#
the best square for the white queen. AA A A
Eingorn’s plan is nonetheless worth noting; A %A A
he intends to transfer the knight speedily to A A % A
62 and then to force through the important £>AA A
advance c4. AA A
6...C6 7 Ad3 [7 g3 £>d7 8 Ag2 £ib6 9 £>e2
£ic4! Heading for e4! 10 b3 £id6 11 £ld2
1 I *
£>e4 12 c3 g6 13 0-0 h5 14 @c2 h4 15 Sfc1 This key move must be considered automati­
hg3 16 hg3 Aa3 17 Scb1 Ad6 18 c4 Wd7 cally in this sort of position! 17 de5 [17 ®g2!?
19 c5 £l c 7 20 b4 a6 21 a4 &f8 22 Sa2 g5 £ld3 18 £id3 Sae8¥] 17...fe5 Because of
23 b5 ®h7 — Ippolito-Zhang, Calicut 1998 the threatened fork on e4, Black recovers
(0-1, 36)] 7...£id7 8 £>e2 g6 9 £>d2 £ib6 the sacrificed piece in favourable circum­
10 b3 Ae7 11 c4 c5! This counter brings the stances. 18 £}g2 e4 19 #d1 ed3 20 cd3
bishops into play and gives Black a good d4! Yet another outstanding positional sacri­
game. 12 £rf4 Af7 13 cd5 £>d5 [13...cd4!T] fice, which destroys White’s pawn structure.
14 £>d5 #d5 15. 0-0 cd4 16 Ac4 ©d8 17 ed4 21 ed4 Sad8 22 b4 ®b6 23 b5 # d 4? Uli-
&c4 18 £>c4 b5 19 £»e3 f4 20 £>c2 Sc8 bin-Malaniuk, Bydgoszcz 2001 (0-1, 62).

146
 3.12 System with 2 £>c3 (Gurevich-Topalov)
D) 6 &ge2 Another possible line: White first
transfers the king’s knight to the ideal square
f4 and will then continue by castling long.
6..M 67 7 £rf4 M 7 8 h4 h5!
1% A I
A A Am A k
A the next page. 7 Ab5
A A A
A & A
& A
AAA AA
fi * fi
In this type of position the white h-pawn
must be blockaded on h4, because after a
white h5, the defence of Black’s advanced
f-pawn would force unpleasant concessions.
9 9 d 2 g6 10 0 -0 -0 £\c6 11 &b1 a6 12 f3
0 -0 -0 13 g3 &b8 14 Ah3 g5l? [14...,S,h6
15 £ice2 # d 6 followed by ...Bhe8 gives
Black a good position, according to Dlugy.]
15 &d3 Ad6 16 W 2 £>e7 17 £>e2 Ede8
18 hg5 fg5 19 f4 g4 20 Ag2 £>g8 21 &e5
We7 22 Bh2 £rf6oo Krasenkow-Dolmatov,
Moscow 1989 (0-1, 43).
E) 6 ® f3! Objectively speaking, this is cer­
tainly the most accurate move: White’s pos­
ition stays flexible; whilst f3 is the best
square for the queen, it is not yet clear where
the bishop is to go (d3 or b5).
a) 6...c6?! Compare this with the main
game, annotation to 6...C6, variation A, on
the following page. 7 £>ge2 JLd6 8 £tf4 We7
9 &d3 g6 10 0 -0 -0 £>d7 11 £>e6 ©e6 12 h3!
The thirteen-year old Norwegian wonder-
boy demonstrates his excellent positional
sense. The pawn advance g4 is the best
way for White to secure an advantage, in
spite of (or even because of!) the dissolu­
tion of the black doubled pawns. The first
player continues by developing pressure on
the h-file and forcing through e4, after the re­
moval of the advanced black f-pawn, which
147
had been protecting this square. 12...0-0-0
13 g4 fg4 14 hg4 Bdf8 15 Sh6 Sfg8 16 Bdh1
£tf8 17 e4!± Carlsen-Danner, Schwarzach
2003 (1-0, 54).
b) 6...©d7 Almost always the best square
for the black queen; another interesting idea
is seen in Pyda-Jakubiec, variation c2 on
b1) 7...c6?! 8 Ad3 and it is not easy to get
the black knight into play. 8...Ad6 9 £kge2
g6 10 h4?! [10 £tf4 M l 11 h3!] 10...h5 11 a3
a5 12 &f4 M 7 13 &a4 Wc7 14 b3 b5 15 £ib2
We716 a4 b417 g3 &d7+ Garcia Albarracin-
La Riva Aguado, Barcelona 2000 (0-1, 48).
b2) 7...£>c6
b21) 8 &ge2 a6 [8.. .0-0-0?! 9 £rf4 M 7 10 a3
&b8 11 £>d3 Ae6 12 £>b4 A b4 13 ab4 a6
14 Ac6 Wc6 15 0-0 ©b6 16 b5 ab5 17 Ba2
Shg8 18 Bfa1 c6 19 £>e2 with a dangerous
white attack, Malaniuk-Jakubiec, Polanica-
Zdroj 1999 (1-0,60)] 9 Aa4 Bd8! A key move:
Black decides against queenside castling,
which does not in any case look particularly
inviting; instead, the move played prepares
to drive back the enemy bishop. In order,
after Ab3, to be able to play ...£ia5, Black
takes the precaution of covering d5.
b211) 10 h4 [10 £>f4 Ab4] 10...h5 11 £>f4 M 7
12 £>d3 g6 13 a3 b5! [13...£e7? 14 b4 b5
15 &b3 a5 16 £>b5 ab4 17 ©g3± Volkov-
Malaniuk, Krasnodar 1998 (1-0, 37)] 14 itb3
£la5oo.
b212) 10 a3 b5 11 Ab3 £ia5! 12 £tf4 c6
13 0 -0 &f7 14 Bfe1 &e7 15 a4 b4 16 £ia2
0-0 17 £>c1 £ic4 18 £rfd3 a5 19 La2 £>d2!
I I#
WAAk A
■A A
A A A
AA A
n
£>A
AAA 4 A A A
I & fi *
 3 Illustrative games • 3.12 System with 2 £ic3

Here Black’s knight takes a particularly un­

usual route to e4. 20 ©d1 ~ Now the
# I A I
knight can only be driven off by the weaken­ AA A
ing move f3. But then e3 will become a target 1 m AA
for the black rooks. Vera-Mahjoob, Yerevan & a A A
2001 (V2-V2, 44). A A A
b22) 8 a3 This is directed at preventing A £>£i A W
...Ab4 and, if Black castles queenside, can AA AA
help prepare the attacking move b4. 8...a6
9 Ad3 A different strategy: here White set­
I <A> H
tles for provoking ...a6, as he is hoping for 14 &c5 &c4 15 b4 c6 16 Ab3 ©c7 17 Ac4?l
attacking chances via b4-b5, should Black dc4 18 g3?? A c5-+ 19 dc5 [19 bc5 Wa5
castle queenside too early. But Malaniuk 20 * d 2 Ad5] 19...#e5 20 e4 fe4 21 We3
waits for a more favourable moment to castle Bd3! 22 cd3 ©c3 23 &e2 0-1, Pyda-
long. 9...g6 10 h3 h5 11 &ge2 M 7 12 0 -0 -0 Jakubiec, Zakopane 2000.
h4 13 g4 hg3 14 fg3 0 -0 -0 After White
has chosen to castle to the left, queenside
castling is without danger for Black. 15 g4 fg4
16 hg4 Ag7 17 4tf4 £>e7 18 Bh8 Sh8 19 Sh1
Bh1 20 #h1 We8= Polulyakhov-Malaniuk,
Krasnodar 1999 (V2-V 2, 25).
c) 6...&C6 7 Ab5 #d6l? An original idea for
which there is still no game material. Black
wants to re-position his knight as soon as
possible after castling long, which would not
be possible with the queen on d7 because
of the pin. Here are some pros and cons:
c1) 8 £>ge2 0 -0 -0 9 a3 &b8 [9...&e7!?]
10 4if4 Af7 11 &d3 £>e7 12 &c5 g5 [12...b6
13 £la6 &b7 14 a4!? gives White attack­ 6...6 C 6
ing chances.] 13 Ad3 h5 [13...c6!? 14 b4 A) 6.. .c6 would be very nice from the point of
(14 Af5 £if5 15 # f5 Ag6) 14...b6oo 15 Sb1 view of the central pawn structure, but there
& a 8 16 Aa6!?] 14 #e2 f4 15 0-0 h4?! 16 £>b5 is unfortunately a catch: White will manage
Wc6 17 ef4 gf4 18 Sfe1 thc8 19 b4 Sg8 to force through the favourable advance h3-
20 # f3 Ah6 21 a4 Malakhatko-Dzhumaev, g4: 7 ©f3 g6 8 &ge2 Ad6 9 £rf4 &f7 10 h3!
Yerevan 2001 (1-0, 33), with an attack for 4id7 11 g4±.
White. B) 6...©d7 This move order is also possi­
c2) 8 h4 h5 9 £»h3 0 -0 -0 10 £rf4 Af7 11 £>d3 ble, and mostly transposes to 6...4bc6, both
g6 12 a3 a6 13 Aa4 £>a5l moves being part of Black’s standard set­
(see next analysis diagram) up. 7 £}ge2 [7 £>ce2 £>c6 8 c3 foe? 9 Wc2
0 -0 -0 10 &b8 11 b4 h5 12 a4 h4 13 £ld2
Now the black knight has a good square on g5 14 £ib3 Wd6 15 ^c5 Ac8oo Neverov-
c4. The correct handling of this piece is, in­ Jakubiec, Czech League 2001 (0-1, 35)]
cidentally, one of the secrets of success in 7...£>c6 8 a3 &d6 [8...£>e7 9 LM 10 h4
this variation. £>c8!

148
 3.12 System with 2 5}c3 (Gurevich-Topalov)

g6 14 f3 4h6 15 Wf2 Shg8 16 g3 4>c8oo Per-

I % I alta-Kobaliya, Linares 1998 (0-1, 41).
AA A AAA
A B) 8 &b5!? A strange-looking loss of tempo,
A A
A & A
A £ iJ l A
AA AA
2 & I ing formation for White: 8...0-0-0?! [8...a6
A typical regrouping. 11 ©f3 c6 12 ©h3 £ld6
13 f3 g6 14 g4 fg4 15 Wg4 0 -0 -0 16 0 -0 -0
Se8 17 ®d7 &d7 18 &d2 Ah6? Osmanbe-
govic-Grivas, Cannes 1995 (0-1,42)] 9 Wd2
£te7 10 £*b5 £*c8! 11 f3 c6 12 £id6 £id6
13 £rf4 £f7 14 h4 0 -0 -0 15 b3 Sde8 16 &f2
Se7 17 She1 g5 18 £ih3 Sg8 19 Sac1 Ae6?
Khalifman-Popov, St Petersburg 1994 (1/2- 1/2,
19).
7 © f3
7 a3 Wd7 After two painful defeats with Black
in the King’s Indian (to be contrasted with
two victories with the white pieces) against
the then reigning US champion, this game
was the tie-breaker for entry into the second
round of the FIDE World Championship. Just
in time I recalled the ‘sermon’ of Thomas
Luther, my German fellow-candidate: ‘One
should not play the King’s Indian against ex-
Soviet grandmasters’! (It was at the time my
chief weapon) Changing my opening met
with dramatic success: 8 £rf3?! As already
indicated above, the knight is badly placed
on this square. 8...Ad6 9 £}b5 JLe7 10 0-0
£id8! Another chance of transferring the
knight to d 6 .11 £ic3 £tf7 12 £>e2 £}d6 13 b3
0 -0 14 £>f4 £ f7 15 We2?? g5 + Yermolin-
sky-Kindermann, Groningen 1997 (0-1, 40),
winning a piece.
7...^d7 8 a3
A) 8 £tge2 0 -0 -0 [8...£>e7 followed by ...c6
which has a telling effect: seriously under­
estimating my opponent, I was lured into
castling queenside, which in this position
is extremely risky... In the next few moves
Lahtela soon demonstrates the ideal attack­
9 Aa4 2 d 8 10 £>ge2 b5 11 Ab3 £>a5 ~ would
have been correct.] 9 £ige2 ©d6?! [9...g5
was definitely better. 10 £ic1!?] 10 £if4 Af7
11 £ld3! £>e7 12 £ic5
# I A I
AA A %A A A
W A
Jl A A
A
A ||r
AA A AAA
E <A> I
12...6b8 13 £d3 c6 14 b4 b6 15 &a6
&b7 16 a4± f4 A desperate attempt to de­
flect White from his main plan - of mat­
ing the black king! 17 0 -0 fe3 18 fe3 iig6
19 Sfb1! ®e6 20 a5 Ad3 21 cd3 £if5 In
view of the imminent sacrifice on c5,1 had
given up any hope of surviving. 22 ab6 ab6
23 e4?? [23 &c5! bc5 24 bc5 &c8 25 Sa7!
My opponent had not considered this quiet
move. 25...'&e3 26 ®e3 £>e3 27 ^ a 4 + -
would have been an elegant finish.] 23...4bd4
24 ©f2 de4 25 £»e4 4&b5! + This knight saves
Black’s game. Lucky for me, shame about
the beautiful finish. Lahtela-Kindermann,
Bad Wiessee 2002 (0-1, 33).
8...0- 0-0
(see next diagram)

and £ic8 looks better here.] 9 0 -0 -0 &b8

10 &b1 £>e7! 11 h4 h5! 12 £lf4 £f7 13 Wg3 The classic black ‘basic position’ in this line.

149
 3 Illustrative games • 3.12 System with 2 £sc3

20 4ice2 She8+ Liang-Zhang, Beijing 1998

(0-1,41).

9...g6 10 h3 h 5 11 0 -0 -0 &e7!
Heading for d6. The following variations from
our full-blooded main game are by Gurevich
himself, as published in Informator 59.

12 &b 1
12g4!?fg4 13 ®f6 Sg8oo.

12...6b8 13 &c1 &c 8 14 &b3 b6

In the light of current knowledge, how­
ever, I would, as Black, postpone queen-
side castling (at least until White has already
done so.) In spite of the doubly inaccurate
move order (6 Ad3, 8...0-0-0) I have de­
cided to retain the main game from the first
German edition of this book: the following
duel between two world-class players con­
tains much that is important for the under­
standing of this set-up.
8...g5»? [8...£>e7!] 9 &ge2 0 -0 -0 10 h3 h5
11 g3 h412 0 -0 -0 Ae7 13 Wg2 Sdg8 14 &b1
£id8 15 £>g14£>f71 Agrest-Yagupov, Czesto­
chowa 1992 (1/2- 1/2, 54).
15 She1 Se8 16 4a6 h4
The immediate 16...Sh7 followed by ...She7
and Ah6 is recommended by Gurevich and
looks reasonable.
17 ^e2 Sh7 18 Wd3 She7 19 £>a2
&d 6 20 £kb4 c6 21 f3 4f7
At the cost of a slight weakness in his king’s
position, Topalov has developed his pieces
ideally. In this case the threat of ...£je4 was
already sufficient to provoke the weaken­
ing f3. The square e3 will continue to cause
White many difficulties.

9 &ge2
9 0 -0 -0 [9 Ab5!? followed by £\e2-f4-d3
gives White attacking chances, see Lahtela-
Kindermann, variation B on the preceding
page]
a) 9...f4!? 10 h3 [10 ©f4!? 11 «h 4 g5
12 Wh6 ®f7 13 ie 2 and Black has still to
prove sufficient compensation for the pawn.]
10...fe3 11 # e3 £ia5 12 £>ge2 Af5 13 £ig3
£d3 14 W63 g6 15 ©b5 ®b5 16 £»b5 c6
17 £>c3 £>c4+ La Flair-Otxoa de Echaguen,
New York 1992 (1/2- 1/2, 44). 22 &c3 &c7 23 a4 &h6
b) 9...&b8 10 £>ge2 g6 11 £>f4 Af7 12 h3 (see next diagram)
h5! Black must not allow White to play g4!
13 h4 £ie7! 14 &b1 £>c8 15 ©g3 Ah6 16 f3 And already the pressure on e3 forces White
®d6 17 &b5 # b 6 18 She1 a6 19 &c3 ©d6 to make a critical decision.

150
 3.12 System with 2 £ic3 (Gurevich-Topalov)

31 &e5
31 £ja7 » f4 32 ®d2 Ae8oo.

31...6e8 32 £>f3 © f 4 33 ©f1 Ad7

34 fcc1 4f5 35 &d3 Se4 36 Ee1 Se1
37 fcdel ke3 38 We2 4g5?!
38.. .g5+.

39 ©d 1 4h6 40 &d3 kd7 41 &f2

© f4 42 £>d3 ®g3 43 &e2 &f8
44 &c1 g5 45 &a2 ©f4 46 £>c3 ®f5
24 e4? 47 &h2 ©e 6 48 © f 3 &d 6 49 &g4
W f5!
The question mark is Gurevich’s own, but
the situation after this move is by no means a b c d e f h
A
g
clear, as the game continuation shows. 8 8
24 iLb5! Se3 [24...&b5 25 ab5 Se3 26 Se3
He3 27 Sd3 Sd3 28 cd3 W66 29 &c6 &b7 oo]
7
6
A A 7
6
25 He3 Se3 26 # c6 ®c6 27 Ac6 Se2 oo. A # A
5 A A «r A 5
24...fe4 25 &b5 £>b5 26 ab5 ef3
4 A A 4
27 Ee7 Ee7 28 ® f 3
3 a ig r
A 3
28 bc6 ®d6 29 £>a6 &c8 30 gf3 Se3+.
2 AA A 2
28...6d6 29 fcc6 He3 30 ©f2 4g5
a b c d e f g h
1
a
<b£? c d e f g h
1

8 8
7 ▲
6
Jl 7
6
A strong move; despite losing a pawn,
only Black has any winning chances in the
▲ A▲ endgame following the exchange of queens.
5
4
A 1 A 5
4
50 © f 5
A A
3 3 50 fte2l?
£> I A
2 AA A 2 50...£f5 51 £rf6 4e6 52 &c1 k e 7
1 si? 2
a b c d e
1 53 &g4 4f8 54 b3?!
f g h
54 &d2 Ag7 55 £ie2 Ad7=.
A very complicated position has arisen,
which is difficult for both sides. But Black 54...<&g7 55 4»e2 kd7 56 c4 &e 6
retains, especially for a later endgame, the 57 &e3 g4!
advantage of the two bishops (or possibly a
(see next diagram)
favourable bishop-knight combination).

151
 3 Illustrative games • 3.12 System with 2 £ic3

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
8 8 8 8
7 ▲ A 7 7 A 7
6 ▲ #A 6 6 A # a 6
5 A ▲ 5 5 A 5
4 AA ▲▲4 4 A AA 4
3 A A3 3 st? 3
2 A 2 2
A A 2
1
a b
&c d e f h
1 1
a b c d e h
1
g f g O

White begins to feel the hot breath of the 64 d5?

bishop pair...
The decisive mistake; now the black queen­
58 hg4 side pawns become all-powerful.
64 &b4! &g5 [64...£f1 65 d5 &g2 66 d6
58 £hg4 dc4 59 bc4 Ac4?. ‘with counterplay’ according to Gurevich,
but here, too, Black seems to have an ad­
58...&h6 59 &d2 dc4 60 bc4 &c4 vantage!? 66...&e6 67 g5 Ae4 68 &c3 h3
61 &c3! 69 £>g4 &d6 70 &d4 Af5] 65 £>f7 &g4 66 d5
&g3 67 £te5 &g2 68 d6 h3 69 d7 h2 70 d8©
61 £ic3 &e6+. h i# 71 trd5=.

64...6b5 65 &f5 &g5 66 £>d6 &a 6

61 ...4e2 62 £rf5 &e 6 63 £>h6 &f6!
(see next diagram)
Black must hang onto the h-pawn with­
out fail; in many variations it is one of his
strongest weapons. [63...Ab5 64 £rf5 &f6
65 &h4 &g5 66 £rf3 &g4 67 &e5=.]
67 &d4 &g4 68 &e5 b5 69 fcf5 b4
70 d6 &c8 71 £>e7 kd7 72 &d4 &g3
73 £>g6 a5 74 &e 5 Ae6 75 &e3 kc8
0-1
75...AC8 76 d7 Ad7 77 £>d7 &g2 78 £>e5
h3.

152
 3.13 System with 2 &g5 (Lerner-Malaniuk)

3.13 System with 2 &g5

L e rn e r- M alaniuk 2...h6 3 «&h4 g5 This risky-looking advance,

Koszalin 1999 weakening the kingside, is playable but
White should, with correct play, get a slight
advantage: 4 e3 £rf6 5 Ag3 d6 6 h4 Bg8
1 d4f5 2&g5 7hg5 hg5 8c4!±.

This is a dangerous bishop move, the aim
of which is to hinder Black’s development.
White’s next step will be to force through e4,
or perhaps, if Black plays ...d5, to get into a
Stonewall formation, which will be relatively
unfavourable to Black.
2...g 6
3&d2!
I regard this as White’s best move order, be­
cause now after a black ...d5 the knight is
very much better placed here than on c3 and
the white c-pawn can immediately dispute
control of the centre.
A) 3 &c3 Ag7 [3...d5 is a serious alterna­
tive here, although I would generally rate
White’s chances as better. 4 h4 (4 e3 4ih6!?)
4...6g7 5 e3± (5 £rf3)] 4 h4 [4 e4 fe4 5 £>e4
d5 leads by transposition to the main vari­
ation.] 4...h6 5 &f4 £rf6 6 e3 d6 7 # f3 0-0
8 Ac4 e6 9 £>ge2 £>c6 10 a3 [10 0 -0 -0
&a5 11 Ad3 #e8] 10...&h7 11 Ag5 #e8
12 Af6 Af6 13 0 -0 -0 e5 14 £\d5 Ad8 15 Aa2
Ae6 16 &b1 Wf7 17 £>dc3 Aa2 18 £>a2
[Fressinet-Kindermann, Bundesliga 2001/02
(1-0, 38)] 18...h5!T.
B) 3 h4 This aggressive move should not
be feared by Black, since the bishop on g5
nullifies any threat of h4-h5. Transpositions
occur frequently via 3 e3 followed by a later
h4. 3...£g7
a) 4 h5?! h6!

I # %I
A
AA
AAA
A
AAA AAA
Played in the spirit of the Leningrad!
fi & w$

153
 3 Illustrative games • 3.13 System with 2 Jig5

A key move in many variations; Black pre­

vents the opening of the h-file and keeps i AW f t I
his pawn structure intact. 5 Ac1 [5 M 4 g5] AAA A
5...g5+. f t A A4
AA
b) 4 c3 Here, and in the following examples,
White sets up a pawn formation with c3 and
AA A A
e3; the move order is not especially impor­ A A
tant. Black aims long-term to get in the pawn AA AA
advance ...e5, which (almost) always gives n n & &n
him a good game, providing he has made the
8 Ag3 [8 de5 is objectively best and leads
right preparatory moves! The black queen’s
to a more or less equal endgame. 8...de5
knight should be developed actively to c6,
9 # d 8 &d8 10 £lq3 Ae6 11 &d2 £ie7
the best square from which to help dispute
12 &gf3 £>ec6 13 0 -0 -0 Ac4 14 £>c4 £>f7=
control of the centre. 4...d6 5 £tf3 ^c6 6 e3
Summerscale-Shabtai, London 1990 (0-1,
h6 7 Af4 £>f6 8 &bd2 e6!
37)] 8..M e7 Here Black has not had to play
the move ...e6 and can be very happy. 9 £te2
I AW I £rf6 10 f3 Ad7 11 a4 0 -0 -0 12 d5 £>b8
AAA A 13 £ia3 a6 14 M 2 ®e8 15 Ab3 g5 16 Ac2 e4
% A Aft A A 17 £ig3 ®e7+ Kouatly-Kovacevic, Thessa­
A loniki 1984(0-1,71).
A A A C) 3 e3 Ag7 4 &d3 £rf6 5 h4 0-0 6 &d2
A A^ £>c6 7 £»gf3 d6 8 c3 Here, too, White has
AA AA played the moves e3, c3 und h4. After king­
O <^A n side castling, rarely seen in this variation.
Black must be prepared to face various tac­
tical tricks. The young Chinese player Zhang,
A very important part of Black’s strategy; one of the best and most creative practi­
now the black queen has a fine square on e7, tioners of the Leningrad, finds a convincing
from where it will later support the advance solution to the positional problems: 8...£lh5
.. .e5. Black will mostly attempt to castle long [8...e5?! 9 de5 de5 10 &c4 &h8 11 h5!±]
after ...Ad7, but sometimes castling short 9 Wb3 &h8 10 0 -0 -0 #e8 11 d5 &d8 12 e4
is possible. 9 #c2 We7 10 Ab5 L 6 7 11 M \2 e5!
a6 12 Ad3 £ig4 [12...e5!? looks simple and
strong.] 13 h5 g5 14 d5 ed5 15 4f5 0 -0 -0
i AWW I
16 &g3 Shf8 17 L67 #d7 18 0 -0 -0 &ce5«> AAA AA
Voloshin-Jakubiec, Lazn§ Bohdanec 1996 A A
(0-1,53). A A AA ft
A A
c) 4 e3 h6 5 Af4 d6 6 Ac4 £>c6!? A direct
and interesting strategy; Black postpones
AA
the development of his bishop, in order to AA & AA
play ...e5 as quickly as possible. 7 c3 [7 d5? *1 IS
4ia5] 7...e5
13 de6 £ie614 ffc2 *hc515 Ae3 & d 3 16
(see next analysis diagram) fe4 17 # e4 ®f7 18 a3 &f5 19 # c4 d5

154
 3.13 System with 2 £,g5 (Lerner-Malaniuk)

20 We2 Hae8+ Liang-Zhang, Heibei 2001 4...fe4

(0-1,34).
3...6g7
3...d5?! Definitely not to be recommended
here, for the reasons given earlier. 4 e3 JLg7
5c4!±.
4e4!
4 e3 £>f6 5 f4 Another original strategic plan
for White: the strong Danish master Peter
Heine Nielsen opts for a white Stonewall set­
up. I cannot pass up this opportunity to show
you one of my own original sacrifices: 5...C5
6 c3 b6l? 7 £igf3 Ab7 In the true spirit of the
Leningrad we are, after only seven moves,
way beyond anything known to the theory
books! 8 Af6 &f6 9 &d3 d 5 10 We2 e 6 11 0-0
0-012 g4 £ic613 gf5 ef514 foe5 A e 5 15 de5
£te5!!
I W I#
AA A centrally-placed knight gains an important
A A
A Ato A
A weakness on e5 becoming a decisive factor.
AAA
AA A ever, he will mostly (but not always!) have a
I<4?
An original and surprising sacrifice, which I
was really proud of at the time! 16 fe5 #g5
17 &f2 [17 &h1 c4 18 &b1 d4 19 £>f3 d3,
with very strong black pressure and an im­
portant hidden point.] 17...#h4 18 &g1 ®g5
19 &f2 f4! Here, too, the ‘Dutch lance’ is
very powerful. 20 e4 [20 ef4 Hf4 21 &e1
Sf1 22 £rf1 He8, with a strong black at­
tack.] 20...f3 21 # e 3 ®h4? Underestimat­
ing the strengths of my own position and
settling for a draw. [21 ...Ef4!; after this sug­
gestion of Nielsen’s, I can see no good de­
fence for White.] 22 &g1 Wg4 23 &f2 ®h4
24 &g1 Wg4 25 &f2 #h4 %-%, Nielsen-
Kindermann, Austrian League 1997/98.
4...Ad4?! 5 ef5 with dangerous attacking
chances for White; I would not consider play­
ing this move myself, but my software is quite
attached to i t ...
5 &e4 d5
The only way for Black to continue de­
veloping effectively. This attack on White’s
tempo, but the second player must follow
up accurately if he is to prevent the resulting
Should Black manage to force through the
double advance of his own e-pawn, how­
satisfactory game.
6 &c5
Most strong players prefer (probably rightly)
to place their knight on this square. There fol­
lows some indication of the rare alternative
possibilities:
A) 6 &c3 Black now has various possible
continuations, which all look very good:
a) 6...C6 7 Wd2 £rf6 8 A63 0-0 9 &ge2
£>bd7 10 £tf4 &f7! Very original; His Majesty
personally defends the weak square e6,
because after ...e5, which can no longer
be prevented, Black gets a good position:
11 0-0 [11 # e2 e5] 11...e5 12 de5 £>e5
13 Eae1 ^ 6 14 Ae2 Af5+ Kempinski-
Reinderman, Groningen 1996 (V2-V2, 23).

155
 3 Illustrative games • 3.13 System with 2 &g5
b) 6...£»f6 7 Ad3 £>c6 8 £>ge2 0-0 9 0-0
e5 10 de5 £ie5 11 #d2 c6 with good play
for Black. Bogoljubow-Samisch, Berlin 1936
(1/2- 1/2, 43) - a classic!
c) 6...&h6 7 #d2 [7 Ah6!? Ah6 8 h4 leads
to obscure play which is difficult (well, for
me, it is!) to understand: 8...c6 9 h5 #d 6
10 M.63 W 6 11 We2 A e 6 12 &f1 &d7 13 Se1
<&f7 14 £>d1 &f5 15 £ie3 e 6 1/2- 1/2, Wocken-
fuss-Schlosser, Passau 1998] 7...fa ff 8 Jlf4
0-0 9 &f3 &c6 10 Le2 a6 11 0-0 Af5 12 h3
Wd7 13 4d3 A d 314 Wd3 Ead8 15 Bfe1 £>d4!
I 1
A AmAM l
A A
A Crkva 1983 (0-1, 32).
% ±
n & A
AAA AA
fi fl
A very strong and far-seeing exchange sac­
rifice, which demonstrates Black’s many re­
sources in this sort of position. 16 £»d4 e5
17 &b3 ef418 &c5 «c6 19 <&e6 <&e5 20 &d8
Sd8 21 #d 2 g5 With very good compen­
sation. 22 Sadi &c4 23 £id5 £>d2 24
25 foc6 bc6 26 b3 Sd6 Lopushnoy-
Vasiukov, St Petersburg 1996 (0-1, 72).
B) 6 &g3
a) 6...c5!? Dutch expert Predrag Nikolic puts
his trust in the most active continuation and
finds it relatively easy to tame the new Ar­
menian ‘shooting star’ Levon Aronian. 7 £rf3
&c6 8 dc5 Ab2 9 Bb1 Ac3 10 &d2 ®a5
11 Ab5 [11 Ae2 £rf612 0-0 A d 2 13 Wd2 Wd2
14 £*d2 e5 15 f4 0-0 oo Atalik-Mozes, BSile
Herculane 1996 (1-0, 53)] 11 ...£tf6 [11...Ag4
12 Eb3 Ad2 13 #d2 #d2 14 &d2 &f3
15 gf3oo Evdokimov] 12 0-0 Ad2 13 £id2
0-0 oo 14 c4 a6 15 JLc6 bc6 16 cd5 cd5
17 Wc2 Ad7 18 Efe1 Efe8 19 £tf3 Eac8
20 Sbc1 Aa4 21 f?e2 Ec5 22 Bc5 Wc5
156
23 Wa6 &d7 24 h3 Sb8 1/2- 1/2, Aronian-
Nikolic, Bundesliga 2003/04.
b) 6...£tf6 7 £tf3 [7 h4!? looks the more log­
ical move and is the only way to justify plac­
ing the knight on g3! 7...foc6 8 h5 £ie4
9 £>e4 de4 10 c3 Wd5 11 Ae3 e5 12 de5
WdJ\ 13 Ed1 £>e5 14 £>h3 &f5 15 £tf4 &f7
16 Ad4 c6 17 JLe2 Eae8oo Rohde-Savage,
New York 1984 (1/2- 1/2, 49)] 7...0-0 8 h3 Too
passive. Now Milorad Knezevic, who was
an outstanding practitioner of the Lenin­
grad throughout the seventies and eight­
ies of the last century, succeeds in forc­
ing through ...e5 in very favourable circum­
stances. 8 ...& C 6 9 Ab5 #d6 10 Ac6 bc6
11 0-0 &d7! 12 c4 e5 13 cd5 cd5 14 de5
£ie5 15 £>e5 We5T Medic-Knezevic, Bela
6...b6!
A very important positional move, which
must be played immediately! The retreat of
the knight at this point to its ideal square d3
would cost the d-pawn.
6...®d6? 7 £>f3 £>f6 8 &d3! 0-0 9 A f4± and
for the rest of the game White has undis­
puted control of the central square e5, whilst
Black can expect a long and difficult strug­
gle.
7&b3
7 &d3!? An imaginative and important
gambit, which, according to my database.
 3.13 System with 2 Ag5 (Lerner-Malaniuk)
has only once been played over the board.
White sacrifices his d-pawn for a lead
in development. But, with correct play,
Black gets good chances: 7...A d4 8 £rf3
Ag7 [8...&g4!? 9 h3 4f3 10 W 3 £rf6
11 c3 12 cd4 ^g5 gives White some
compensation. 13 #g4 (13* #e3) 13...£rf7]
9 £}de5 #d6! 10 A H £>c6 The most solid
move. [10...#b4!? is an important option:
11 Ad2 (11 m 2 #d 2 12 &d2 c6 13 Ad3
£tf6+) 11...©e4 12 Ae2 Aa6! (12...Ae5
13 £>e5 #e5? 14 Ac3+) 13 £>d3!«,] 11 &c6
[11 &b5?? Wb4] 11 ..M c 6 12 £>e5 Ae5 Black
gives up his fine bishop in exchange for
good development. 13 Ae5 £rf6 14 Ad3 0-0
15 We2 &d7 [15...% 4 16 Ag3] 16 Ac3 e5~
The rest of the game is not especially impres­
sive, but there is a rich field of activity here for
hardy tactical players! 17 0 -0 -0 d4 18 Ad2
[18 Ae4l? Aa6! 19 ®e1!~ (19 #g4 £rf6)]
18...#f6 [18...£lc5!] 19 Shf1 ?! [19 &h6!]
19...£sc5 20 f4 e4! 21 Ae4 JLa6? Komarov-
Glek, Cattolica 1993 (0-1, 41).
7...6.6!?
I prefer this less usual placing of the knight to
the more popular 7...£rf6. From f7 the knight
can help dispute control of the key square
e5 more effectively; the attack on the bishop
at g5 will gain an important tempo and a
line of action is opened for Black’s fianchet-
toed bishop. The positions which arise have
157
hardly been studied at all, however, and are
very difficult to analyse. I will try to sum­
marise the most important ideas and early
attempts at analysis, but more game ma­
terial is required to evaluate accurately the
main positions arising. That is, of course, the
special charm of the Leningrad: after just a
few moves we find ourselves in a strange
terra incognita, where creativity and pos­
itional understanding count for more than
precise preparation!
A) 7...& f6 The knight contributes nothing
to the struggle for control of e5 from this
square, and the white plan beginning c4 has
already proved to be most unpleasant. A few
examples: 8 £rf3 0-0 9 Ae2
a) 9...© d6 10 0-0 £>bd7 11 c4!
I a 1#
A A f t A J.A
A m ft A
A
AA
AA AA A A
n &
11...Ab7 12 Ec1 £>e4 [12...dc4 13 Ac4 Ad5
14 Ee1 e6 15 &h4 4h6 16 Ag3 Af4 17 Wc2±
Gretarsson-Wiley, Reykjavik 2000 (1-0,29)]
13 Ae3 dc4 14 Ac4 &h8 15 ffe2 Sf5 16 Sfd1
Saf8 17 d5! Sf3 [17...£te5 18 £±>d4 Eh5
19 &e5 Ae5 20 h3] 18 gf3 &e5 19 £id4±
Rowson-Danielsen, Reykjavik 2002 (1-0,
27).
b) 9...& e4 10 Ae3 ®c6 11 0-0 Wd6 12 c4!
Aa6 13 S d Ac4 14 iic4 dc4 15 Sc4 b5
16 Sc1 £>b4 17 £>c5 £>c5 18 Sc5 c6 19 a3
£»a6 20 Hc3± Hodgson-Onischuk, French
League 1999 (V2-V2, 53).
B) 7...a5 A hypermodern move, which, com­
bined with the placing of the knight on h6,
constitutes an important new concept. The
 3 Illustrative games • 3.13 System with 2 Ag5
immediate advance of the a-pawn is in­
tended to unsettle the white camp. Trans­
positions to the main game line are quite
possible, because there, too, the double ad­
vance of the a-pawn is an important element
in the struggle. 8 £»f3 £>h6 9 Ae2 0-010 0-0
£}f7 11 &h4 a4 12 £»bd2 c5 Now we have
transposed to a position from the variation
8 £if7 9 Ah4 0-0 10 Ae2 a5! which was
described in the first German edition of this
book as ‘recommended by analysis only’,
see variation c on page 160.
8 £rf3
A) 8 h4 The most aggressive plan, but I do
not think Black needs to fear it much. (After
8 Ad3 £if7 9 h4 transposition is possible.)
[8 Ah6 Ah6 9 h4 0 -0 (9...'td6) 10 h5 g5~]
8...£tf7
a) 9 &h3 This is a really strange set-up in
my view; the spectacular and much-quoted
victory by Nalbandian over Topalov (taken
together with Nalbandian’s analysis in In-
formator 58) led, however, to general con­
demnation of the move ...£tfi6 (9 Ad3 trans­
poses to 8 Ad3). 9...#d6! A typical move
in this variation: Black unpins the e-pawn,
and thus prepares ...e5.10 ®d2 e 5 11 0 -0 -0
0-0! This natural move gives Black a good
position [11...£>g5?! 12 hg5!± (Nalbandian-
Topalov, Biel 1993 (1-0,22)) 12...0-0 13 de5
W e514 Wd5 With check, which makes all the
difference! 12 de5 (12 Ae3!?) 12...#e5 Now
b2 is hanging. 13 #d4?! Nalbandian’s puz­
zling suggestion (with exclamation marks),
which is supposed to give White an advan­
tage^?). 13...iLh3+ 14 We5 (14 Sh3 &g5)
14...6.5 15 Sh3 £*g5 16 hg5 Sf2+; 13 c3!?
is better and leads to an unclear position.
13...£>g5 14 £>g5 (14 hg5 c6 15 Se1 #d 6
16 &d3 ^d7oo) 14...c6oo 15 £>d4 ®f6!].
b) 9 <&e3 this looks relatively better but
should cause Black few problems. (Com­
pare this with 8 £>f3 £>f7 9 Ae3 on the next
page) 9...0-0 10 £>f3 [10 h5 g5 11 h6 &f6
158
12 £rf3 a5 13 £ic1 c5 14 c3 Wd6 15 £>d3 cd4
16 cd4 £>c6 17 Le2 g4 18 £»h2 &d4 19 £>g4
Ag4 20 Ad4 ke2 21 ®e2 £>d4 22 % 4 «g6
23 #d4 e5T Bergez-Bricard, French League
2004 (0-1, 39)] 10...e5
X ^ if I #
A A A
A A
AA
A £
AAA AA
H A H
Seizing the opportunity to play the the­
matic central advance. Sharp and very com­
plicated play ensues. [10...c5!? 11 h5 cd4
12 £»bd4 e5] 11 £ie5 £ie5 12 de5 Ae5
13 fd 2 !? Ab2 [13...&g4!? 14 f3 (14 c3 c5)
14...Ag3 15 &d1 Af5oo] 14 Sd1 Af6 [14...C6
15 c3 Aa3 16 h5 Af5 17 &d4co] 15 c4 &g4
16 Ae2 Ae2 17 We2 We718 cd5 fte4 19 0-0
£>d7 20 £>d4 # d 5 21 £»b5 # c 6 22 h5«
Nguyin-Grafl, Budapest 2004 (1-0, 40).
B) 8 c4!? A completely different approach:
as in the variations with 7...£tf6 examined
above, White attacks the black centre imme­
diately. But the second player is well armed
against this idea, especially as White lacks
proper development. 8...£rf7 9 JLe3 Aa6!
[9...C6] 10 Wf3 &b7 [10...c6oo, followed by
castling short gives Black a good position.
11 cd5 (11 Sc1 0-0) 11 ...cd5] 11 £>e2 e5
12 & c3 e4 [12...ed4] 13 Wg4 Ac8 14 Wd1
c6 15 cd5 cd5 16 £,b5 Ad7 Myc-Jakubiec,
Wisla 2000 (V2-V2, 16).
C) 8 4d3 £if7 9 h4 Here White combines the
double advance of the h-pawn with devel­
opment of the bishop to d3.
a) 9...® d6 10 !fe2
a1) 10...e5 Played a bit too early and leading
to chaotic complications. [10...c5?! 11 dc5
bc5 12 c4! ± Black must be alert for this sort
 3.13 System with 2 Ag5 (Lerner-Malaniuk)
of move against his central set-up; now his
pawn structure is weakened.] 11 de5 #e5
12 Ae3 c5 [12...0-0 13 h5] 13 £>f3 We714 c4
[14 Ab5 &f8 (14...&d7 15 0 -0 -0 d4 16 &f4
We2 17 Ae2 0-0 18 Ac4 h6) 15 0-0-0]
14...a5 15 cd5 a4 16 £>bd2 a3 17 £>c4 ab2
18 Bb1 Sa2 19 h5 Af5 20 £>b6 &c3co Ny-
back-Danielsen, Reykjavik 2001 (1/2- 1/2, 50).
a2) 10...&g5 11 hg5 0-0!
I#
A A A£ A
A m A
A A
A
& A
AAA AA
S & 4} U.
Leads to an excellent game for Black; there
is no sign of a white attack along the h-
file, and the counter-blow ...e5 is in the
air. Moving the black queen to f4 will also
cause White difficulties in some variations.
[11...e5? 12 de5 We5 13 Sh7!±] 12 £rf3
[12 0 -0 -0 ®f4] 12...&g4?.
b) 9...0-0!? ‘Castling into it’ - 1like this strat­
egy here, and even better two moves later.
10 £>f3 [10 ®d2 £>g5 11 hg5 e5+; 10 Ae3
e5 11 h5 g5T] 10...Ag4 [10...c5 11 dc5 bc5
12 c4!?].
159
8...0 -0
It is not clear whether Black should first play
...£rf7 or castle; mostly transpositions will
occur since both moves are crucial elements
in the black strategy.
8 ...6 f7 9 Ah4 [9 Ae3?! is much weaker,
since Black has no difficulty in playing ...e5.
9...0-0 10 £.e2 £>c6 11 c3 e5 12 de5 £ice5
13 £»e5 £ie5 14 0-0 c5 15 Wd2 Ab7 16 Sadi
We717 Sde1 ^ 7 ? Stimpel-Jakubiec, Ger­
many 1998/99 (0-1, 34). His mobile pawn
centre and White’s bad knight on b3 give
Black a small positional advantage.] 9...0-0
10 Ae2
A very important position from which to
evaluate the variation. White intends, after
castling short, to attack the black centre with
c4. How should Black meet this?
a) 10...c5!? Looks straightforward, but care
must be taken with the following counter:
a1) 11 c4!? [11 0-0?! cd4 12 £*bd4 #d7
13 Ab5 Wb7¥, and ...e5 will follow immedi­
ately; 11 dc5 Ab2 12 Sb1 Ac3+] 11...£>c6!~
[11 ...Ae6 12 I ' d ] 12 cd5 [12 dc5 Ab2 13 cd5
Ac3 14 &f1 Aa1] 12.. .£>d4 13 &bd4 cd4~.
a2) 11 c3 c4 This advance a la Malaniuk is
not so strong here as in the main game, be­
cause the white knight is better placed on
d2 than on d . [11 ...#d6!? would be much
better after the moves ...c5/c3 have been
interpolated. After the following exchange of
pawns in the centre, the important square d4
does not fall under White’s control. 12 0-0
(12 &g3 e5 13 0-0 &c6) 12...£>c6 13 &g3
e5 14 £»e5 £»fe5 15 de5 £te5<»] 12 £>bd2
 3 Illustrative games • 3.13 System with 2 A,g5
£ic6 13 0-0 &f5 14 Se1 tt i7 15 &g3 Sfe8?!
[15...g5 16 &f1 b5 17 &e3 &g6 18 h4±;
15...b5 16 £ih4 Ae6 oo] 16 £ih4± Dresen-
Wiley, Olomouc 2003 (1/2- 1/2, 24).
b) 10...©d6?! is less successful at this point,
because the bishop move to g3 will cause
problems. 11 0 -0 [11 Ag3!? e5 12 0-0 £.b7
transposes.]
b1) 11...e5 12 &g3± [12 de5 £>e5 13 4g 3±
(13 Ae7? This tactical trick does not work:
13...®e7 14 Wd5 Ae6 15 #a8 £>bc6 16 Wb7
&c8 17 Wa8 Aa6 18 « f8 «f8)] Now Black
has real problems, due to the unfavourable
position of his queen, e.g. 12...Ab7 13 de5
&e5 14 £>e5 [14 £>bd4!?±] 14...&e5 15 Ae5
®e5 16 Af3 c6 17 £>d4±.
b2) 11 ...£>c6 12 c4!± &g4 13 cd5 £>b4 14 h3
[14 Ag3±] 14...&f5 15 Sc1 £id5 16 Ab5
Ah6 17 Sc6 Wd8 18 AcA &b4 19 &e5
£>c6 20 £ic6 #d 6 21 £»e7 &h8<x> Wells-
McDonald, Birmingham 2000 (0-1, 28).
c) 10... a5!
IftA # I
▲ A M I
A k
A k
A A
& modern strategy: The black centre, which
AAA A A AA
S n* n ficiently shorn up by Black’s own pieces,
With this move Black exploits the un­
favourably placed knight on b3 and seizes
the initiative. Either White must settle for the
‘blockading’ move a4, which would lead to
serious weaknesses on the queenside, or his
knight will be dislodged, after which White
will have to reckon with the possibility of
...a3.
c1) 11 a4 [11 c4 a 4 12 £>bd2 dc413 &c4 £>c6
14 0-0 &e6¥] 11...c5! 12 0-0 [12 c4 &a6
13 cd5 Ae2 14 #e2 #d 5 and because of
160
the shaky knight on b3 (the consequence of
11 a4) White has problems.] 12...c 4 13 £>bd2
& c6oo.
c2) 11 0-0 a4
c21) 12 £>c1 c5! 13 c4!? cd4 [13...a3!?]
14 cd5 ®d5 15 Ae7 Se8 and I rather pre­
fer the Black position.
c22) 12 £ibd2 c5 13 c3 a3 14 b3 cd4 Strate­
gically risky, as the white minor pieces
can spring back to life. [14...^c6 15 Ab5
&a7 16 A63 &c6 17 #e2!? cd4 18 £id4+;
14...£>d6!oo
IftA # I #
A ±k
1 f t A
AA
A A
AAA
A E jA A A A
I I
My preference. Black threatens the unpleas­
ant 15...4tf5. E.g. 15 Ag3 £ic6 16 £ie5 £ie5
17 Ae5 Ae5 18 de5 £rf5~] 15 £*d4! g5
16 Ag3 e5 17 £ib5 Ab7 [17...Aa6 18 £>b1!
and the weakness of a3 is an embarrass­
ment.] 18 c4!± White, too, employs hyper­
merely looked impressive, but was insuf­
crumbles. Moreno Ruiz-La Riva AgOado,
68th Spanish Championship, Burgos 2003
(1-0, 42).
9& d2
9 Ae2 £rf7 10 Ah4 is better and transposes
to the variation examined above with 8...4rf7,
on the preceding page.
9...4kf7 10 &f4 c5!
(see next diagram)
 3.13 System with 2 Ag5 (Lerner-Malaniuk)

Malaniuk seizes the initiative with this move;

due to his passive piece set-up, White is not
able, after the exchange of pawns, to exploit
either the resulting weakness of the d-pawn,
or the square d4.
16 de5 4hfe5 17 4he5 &e5 18 &e2
kd3
The black c-pawn secures an excellent
strong-point on d3 for Malaniuk’s pieces.
19 Be1 Wf7? 20 4g3 &d7!
Heading for e4.
An excellent positional pawn sacrifice. The 21 &d4 £>c5 22 4g4 Ad4!
double advance of the black c-pawn in this
variation is generally to be commended as a Hitting at White’s pawn structure, and ex­
very important strategy, which activates the changing off the opponent’s best pieces.
black position. 23 cd4 &e4 24 &h6 Hae8 25 4f3?!
11 c3 £»g3 26 hg3
11 dc5 e5 [11 ...^,b2?! I like this move less.
12 Sd1] 12 Ag3 bc5 13 £>c5 £>c6 and Black
has excellent compensation for the sacri­
ficed pawn. 14 c3 [14 Le21\ e4; 14 c4?! e4
15 cd5?! ef3 16 dc6 Se8 17 &d1 &g4-+]
14...Ag4 15 Ae2 #b6.
11. ..c4 12 &c1
Not at all a good square for the knight, be­
cause it cannot get to the fine square d3.
12...6C6 13 &e2 4 f5 14 0 -0 Wd7
15 &d1 e5!
Malaniuk has played an excellent positional
game up to this point, but now he overlooks
the immediate knock-out move:
26...6e4?
2 6 ...6 e 2 !-+ e.g. 27 Se2 Se2 28 #g5
[28 Le2 W 2 29 &h1 ®e2-+] 28...<&g7
29 L e 2 # f2 30 &h1 #e2 31 ®d5 Sf5.
27 Be3 &f3 28 Sf3 We7 29 Sf8 Bf8
30 Wd2 Se8+
Black has a considerable advantage, but the
struggle continues.

161
 3 Illustrative games • 3.13 System with 2 Ag5

31 &f1 b5 32 g4 ©e4 33 g5 Sf8 A pretty counter, which Malaniuk must have

34 Ee1 &f4! underestimated. Now the black pawns lose
their potency.
Leads to a very promising rook ending,
thanks to the weakness of d4 and g5.
35 & f4 Sf4 36 Se8
36 Sd1 &f7 37 g3 Sg4.

36...&f7 37 Hb8 a6 38 f3 Sd4

39 &e2 Sh4 40 Sb6 Sh2 41 &f2 Sh1
42&e3
a b c d e f g h
8 8
7 A 7
6 AH ▲ 6
46...ba3
5 ▲ A A 5
4 6 ...5 .2 47 ab4 d4 48 &e4 c2 [48...&e7
4 ▲ 4
49 b5 &d7 50 Sc4] 49 b5 d3 50 b6.
3 <i?A 3
47 Bc3 d4
2 AA A 2
1 1 47...a2 48 Sc7 &e6 49 Sa7 &d6 50 f4 &c5
I 51 f5 &c4 52 f6.
a b c d e f g h
48 &d4 Eb4 49 &e5 Sa4 50 Ec7
42...5b1 $e8 51 Sc1 a2 52 Sa1
42...5d1! appears to win outright: 43 Ha6 And now, despite the passively-placed white
[43 Sd6 &e7 44 Ha6 d4 45 &e4 d3-+] rook, Black can no longer win this position,
43...d4 44 &e4 [44 &f4 d3 45 Sb6 Sb1! as White can create a passed pawn on the
46 Sb5 c3-+] 44...d3 45 Sa7 [45 Sd6 Se1 f-file.
46 &f4 Sb1; 45 &d4 Sb1 46 &c3 Sc1]
45...6e6 46 Ha6 &d7 47 &d5 [47 Sa7 &c6] 52...$e7 53 f4 Sa5 54 &e4 $d6
47...5e1 -+.
5 4 ...6 .6 55f5.
43 Sa6 Eb2 44 g4 c3?
55 f5 Sa4 56 &f3 &e5 57 f6 Sa3
After this Lerner, famous for his persistence, 58 &g2 &e6 59 Se1 &f7 60 Ha1 Sa8
manages to avoid defeat: 61 &g3 Ha5 62 &f3 Sa7 63 &g2 Ba3
4 4...b4 should still lead to a win, e.g. 45 f4 64 &f2 5a8 65 &g3 $e6 66 &g2 Sa5
c3 46 f5 Sd2 47 Sa7 &e8 48 Sa8 &d7 49 f6 67 &f3 &f7 68 &g3 h6 69 gh6 &f6
d4.
70 Ef1 $g5 71 h7 Sa3 72 &g2 Sa8
45 Sc6 b4 46 a3! 73 Sa1 1/ 2 -V 2

162
 3.14 Staunton Gambit 2 e4 (Naumann-Kindermann)
3.14 Staunton Gambit 2 e4
Naumann - Kinderm ann
Austrian League 2001/02
1 d 4 f5 2 e 4
Howard Staunton’s gambit, which he first
played against Horwitz in 1846, was still a
feared weapon right up to the 1950s. White
intends to grasp the Dutch bull by its horns
and give Black ‘a good drubbing’, before
he has got properly started. Today, however,
the correct defences are known and, against
a well-prepared opponent, White runs the
greater risk of being defeated in the open­
ing battle itself. That is why this objectively-
speaking rather dubious gambit is nowadays
almost never played at grandmaster level. It
is, nonetheless, important to be familiar with
its underlying ideas and different move order
possibilities.
The correct attitude for Black to adopt is de­
scribed by Christiansen and Silman in their
book on the Dutch Defence: ‘Black plays the
Dutch, in order to win. And should White be
so kind as to throw in a pawn, Black should
accept it, repressing as best he may a smile
of satisfaction, and then sweep White off
the board.’ White will, in fact, have either to
163
learn to live with the annoying black pawn
on e4, or be forced to make concessions to
get it back! Black should generally reply to
the typical White gambit move f3, not with
the greedy ...ef3, but rather with the active
...d5 (and sometimes ...e5 or ...e3), which
hinders White’s development.
There exists a body of mostly quite obscure
games on the subject. To provide the reader
with a clear overview, I will focus on the most
important and more frequently played varia­
tions; in the case of rare sub-variations I will
include the material, which, in my opinion,
demonstrates Black’s best replies.
2 ...fe 4 3 & c 3
A) 3 f3?! d5 [3...e5!? 4 de5 £>c6 Beilin] 4 fe4
de4 5 Ac4 [5 &c3 £if6 transposes to 3 £*c3
£lf6 4 f3, variation A on the next page.]
5...£tf6 6 £>e2 e5!+ 7 c3 [7 de5 ®d1 8 &d1
&g4] 7...£>c6 8 0-0 Ag4 9 Ae3 &d6 10 ©e1
®e7 11 Wh4 Ae2 12 Ae2 0-0 Pinkerton-
Tozer, Dublin 1991 (0-1,30).
B) 3 4>d2?! £»f6 4 g4 d5 5 g5 £rfd7 6 f3
e5 7 fe4 #g5 [7...£e7! Beilin] 8 £>gf3 Wh5
9 ed5 A d610 £}e4 0-0? Bisguier-Bronstein,
Goteborg 1955 (0-1, 31).
3 . . . 6 . 6 4 J tg 5 !
 3 Illustrative games • 3.14 Staunton Gambit 2 e4

Certainly the best move here, and played al­ B) 4 g4?! Raw aggression, which, due to f c
most exclusively by the few contemporary weakening of his own kingside, will rebouc
Staunton specialists. White presses on with on the aggressor. 4...h6!
his development and hopes to recapture the
sacrificed e-pawn later under favourable cir­ I ftA# I
cumstances. After this move White has, at AAAAA A
least, some prospect of maintaining equality! f t A
A) 4 f3?! d5!

I AA A
AAA A AA □
f t
AAA A A
A fi A ^A^h n
AA A necessary ‘block’, to protect the knigfc
& A on f6. 5 f3 [5 h4?! d5!; 5 g5 hg5 6 &g5 dS
5...d5!
AA A AA
S A igf * J l M a) 6 <&,g2 c5 [6...e5!? This suggestion b>
Byrne and Mednis looks good; through the
A strong move, aimed at supporting the sacrifice of a piece, the fatally weakenec
thorn in White’s side on e4 and furthering king’s position is to be taken by storm,
Black’s own development. 5 fe4 de4 6 Ag5 There is no game material at all for this idea.
Jlf5 7 M,c4 £}c6 The queen’s knight is almost 7 de5 £>g4 8 fg4 ®h4 9 &d2 (9 &f1 Ac5-b)
always best placed on this square. 8 £sge2 9...Ag4 with a very strong attacking position
e6! Preparing to castle short. [8...1§,d7!? A for Black, who, at the very least, will win a
younger Korchnoi, who clearly was not then third pawn on e5 in very favourable circum­
quite so critical of the Dutch Defence, in­ stances. (9...'§r g5 10 &e1 #h4=) 10 £ige2
tends to increase the pressure on d4 by (10 #e1 ©g5 11 # e3 # e5 12 £>ge2 Ab4
castling long. 9 0-0 e6 10 d5 ed5 11 4id5 (12...^c6)) 10...ilb4] 7 fe4 cd4 8 &d5 £>c6
0 -0 -0 12 £>f6 #d1 13 Sadi Ac5 14 &h1 9 £»h3 e6 10 0 -0 ed5 11 ed5 &d5 12 Wd3
Hd1 15 Sd1 gf6 16 &f6 Sf8 17 Sf1 &g6? £>ce7 13 £rf4 £rf4 14 Af4 # b 6 15 a4 # g 6 -+
Zurakhov-Korchnoi, Minsk 1952 (0-1, 40)] Conquest-Malaniuk, Espergaerde 1992 (0-1,
9 0-0 £»a5! Malaniuk shows the right way 39).
to meet the white set-up. To recover the e- b) 6 &f4 c5 7 &b5 ^a6 8 dc5 e5 9 Ae5 &c5
pawn White will be forced to give up his two 10 h3 0-0 11 f4 Wb6 12 Ad4 Ad7 13 &c5
bishops, which gives Black a clear advan­ £ic5 14 £>d4 ^ d 3 15 cd3 '§rd4+ Efimov-
tage. 10 Af6 [10 Ab5 c 6 11 &a4 b5] 10...©f6 Santo-Roman, Nice 1994 (0-1, 26).
11 Ab3 [11 £>e4 #h6+] 11...Ad6 12 £>g3 c) 6 h3 This would appear to be the relatively
&b3 13 ab3 #h 4!+ 14 d5 0-0 15 de6 Ae6 best continuation. White protects g4 and can
16 £ice4 &e5 White has finally won back his now work up pressure against e4. 6...£>c6
pawn, but at what terrible cost! The pow­ 7 fe4 [7 Ae3 e5! 8 de5 £>e5 9 f4 £rf7 10 Wd2
erful black bishops decide the game in a c6 11 £}ge2 Ab4 12 a3 Aa5 13 0 -0 -0 We7
few moves. 17 c3 Hf1 18 #f1 a6 19 b4 He8 14 £id4 Ad7+ Bronstein-Gurevich, Moscow
20 Sa5 * f 4 21 Wf4 Af4 22 &f2 &c4 23 Ea1 1987(0-1,56)]
Ad5 24 4ic5 Ae3 0-1, Liardet-Malaniuk, c1) 7...de4 8 Ae3 e5 9 de5 £>e5 10 ®d8
Geneva 1997. & d 8 11 0 -0 -0 A d712 &g2 Ad6! [12...£>c4?!

164
 3.14 Staunton Gambit 2 e4 (Naumann-Kindermann)

13 Ad4 A d 6 14 &ge2 Se815 Af6 gf616 Ae4 A) 5 <&b5!? A rarely seen, but completely
Ac5 17 £id4 £id6 18 Ag2± Ligterink-van reasonable move, which is probably in no
Mil, Groningen 1996 (1-0, 41)] 13 £}e4 £}e4 way inferior to the main line 5 d5. Cifuentes
14 Ae4 £>c4 15 Ad4 Se8 16 Ag2 [16 Ab7 Parada, one of the few remaining White prac­
Sb8 17 Af3 Af4 18 &b1 £>a3 19 &a1 £>c2] titioners of the Staunton Gambit, has also
16...5e7 17^f3c5oo. used it on occasion.
c2) 7...£se4! This looks better to me than a) 5...g6 A rather calmer move, which should
7...de4, as played earlier. The route to h4 is
equalise. 6 f3!? As is so often the case, Black
opened for the black queen. 8 £}e4 de4 should refrain from exchanging on f3, which
promotes rapid white development. It is gen­
I AW A I erally better to return the pawn in the most
A AA A A favourable circumstances possible. [6 ik.f6
f t A ef6 7 £>e4 #e7 8 Ac6 dc6 9 #e2 f5 10 £>c3
Ag7 11 #e7 &e7 12 £>ge2 Ae6 13 0 -0 -0
&f7 14 She1 1/2- 1/2, Zelcic-Palac, Pula 2000]
A A A In all probability, possession of the two bish­
A ops even gives Black a slight advantage in
AAA the final position.] 6...e3! 7 Ae3 Ag7 8 Wfd2
1 A TgfH B, 0-0 9 £ige2 e5 10 Ac6 ed4 11 £}d4 bc6
12 0 -0 -0 We7 13 She1 Wf7 14 &h6 c5
9 Ae3 [9 d5 £ib4+ Now the move ...e6 will 15 JLg7 &g7 16 £>db5 d6oo Ukolov-Lastin,
create serious problems for White: 10 <&b5 Moscow 1996 (1/2- 1/2, 37).
(10 Ac4 e6!; 10 Ag2 e6!) 10...&d7 11 Ac4
b) 5...a6 The sharpest reply, chasing off the
e6!] 9...e5! 10 de5 [10 d5 £te7 (10...&b4
11 £lc4 &e7\?) 11 Ac4 £>g6¥] 10...®h4 white bishop.
11 J.f2©e7?. b1) 6 M,a4 is not particularly convincing:
6...b5 [6...e6?! 7 Ste4 Ae7 8 Af6 Af6 9 c3
4 ...& C 6 !
0-0 10 £rf3 *he7 11 £>g6 12 # d 3 ©e7
a b c d e f hg 13 0 -0 -0 ± Cifuentes Parada-Gual Pascual,
8 I
JL* A 1 8 Terrassa 1995 (1-0, 26)] 7 Ab3 £>a5! 8 Ad5
[8 Af6 ef6 9 Wh5 g 6 10 Af7 &f7 11 #d5 &g7
7A A A A A ▲1A 7
12 #a8 Ab4 13 &f1 c 6 14 #b8 d 6 15 d5 Ac3
6 A % 6 16 bc3 (Breyer-Vajda, Vienna 1921 (0-1,45))
5 5 16...cd5! 17 # a7 # d 7 + Christiansen, Sil-
man] 8...&d5 9 &d5 Ab7 10 £>f4 g6 11 h4
4 ▲ 4
o

Sg812 h5 c 5 13 hg6 hg614 dc5 # c 7 15 % 4

3
£> 3 ®c5+ 16 Sh7 &c4 17 Sd1 £ie5 18 H i3 Sd8
A
<3

2
A AAA 2 19 £>ge2 £rf7 20 Sf7 <&f7 21 £>e6 de6 22 Sd8
®g5 23 9U7 Sg7 24 ®h8 Sg8 25 WU7 1/2- 1/2,
1 fi f i 1
a b c d
&e f
Cifuentes Parada-Malaniuk, Hastings 1994.
h
g
b2) 6 £c6
The best move; White is to be encouraged
b21) 6...bc6 Ambitious and riskier! 7 We2 d5
by the pressure against d4 to drive the black
[7...e6!? is recommended by Christiansen
knight onto the fine square e5.
and Silman, who regard the position arising
5d5 as about equal. 8 £»e4 Ae7 9 Af6 A f6 10 £rf3

165
 3 Illustrative games • 3.14 Staunton Gambit 2 e4

0-0] 8 f3! Af5 [8...ef3?! 9 £>f3] 9 0 -0 -0 Wd6 cd5 13 J.b5 Ad7 14 Sd5 &b5 15 Sb5 Ci­
10 &f6 gf611 fe4 de412 &b1 Sb813 b3 Sg8 fuentes Parada-Willms, Eupen 1993 (1-0.
14 Sf1 We6 15 £ih3oo van Mil-Hoeksema, 41), and White has good play for the pawn.
Groningen 1996 (1-0, 37). b2) 6...de4!? I prefer this move; the whole
b22) 6...dc6!? complex beginning 5 f3 has hardly been ana­
lysed at all.
I i. 1 b21) 7 £b5 #d6! 8 #d2 [8 d5 a6 9 Aa4
AA A AA b5 10 dc6 ba4T] 8...&d7 9 0 -0 -0 0 -0 -0
A A to 10 £ige2 £}a5 11 Ad7 Sd7¥ Cenal Gutier-
Jl rez-Santo-Roman, Candas 1992 (0-1, 38).
AA b22) 7 d5 £te5 8 Wd4 €tf7oo

AA AA I JLW #A 1
1 1 AAA Ato A A
to
This would be my choice here; it is defi­ A A
nitely White who will have to fight for equality! n A
7 Af6 [7 £>ge2 Af5 8 £ig3 Wd7 followed by
...0-0-0] 7...ef6 8 &e4 We7 9 #e2 A15 10 f3
0 -0 -0 11 0 -0 -0 W 7. AAA A
B) 5 f3!? Rarely played, but of considerable I AE3 1
interest: the delayed f3 gambit.
E.g. 9 &f6 [9 A14 g5!? 10 Ag3 Ag7 11 &e4
a) 5...e5!? worth considering, but the pawn
(11 J>b5 Ad7) 11...0-0 (11...£>e4 12 f?g7
sacrifice 8 d6 gives White attacking chances.
£ig3 13 hg3 # d 5 14 £rf3 Ag4) 12 0-0-0]
6 d5 &d4 7 £>e4 Ae7 8 d6!? [8 &f6 Af6
9...ef6 10 # e 4 [10 &b5 &d7 11 ®e4 #e7?
9 ®d2 0-0 10 0 -0 -0 d6 11 c3 £rf5«> Hor-
(11.. .Ae7 00)] 10.. ,©e7! After the exchange of
berg-Larsen, Stockholm 1966/67 (0-1, 42)]
queens, the strong dark-square bishop (the
8...cd6 9 A16 gf6 10 £te2 d5 11 £>d4 de4
other will usually be exchanged off) gives
12 Stf5 Wb6 13 Wd5 #b 2 14 Ac4 &b4
Black a small advantage. 11 Ab5 [11 0-0-0?!
15 &f2 Wc2 16 &g3 &d8 17 Shd1 Cifuentes
# e4 12 £>e4 &d7 13 £>f3 0 -0 -0 14 Ac4
Parada-Schmittdiel, Bad Worishofen 1992
Ag4 15 Shf1 Af3 16 Sf3 £te5 17 Sc3 Ab4
(0-1,40).
18 Sb3 £>c4 19 Sb4 £>e3 20 Sd2 Sd5
b) 5...d5! 6 fe4 [6 Ab5?! #d6! 7 &f6 ef6 21 Sd5 £>d5 22 Bb3 He8 23 £>g3 Ee1 0-1.
8 fe4 de4 9 d5 a6 10 Aa4 b5 11 Ab3 Ziese-Kalinitschew, Dresden 1993] 11...J,d7
12 £}e4 #e5 13 ©e2 (Meyer-Pedersen,12 Ad7 &d7 13 ®e7 Ae7 14 0 -0 -0 She8¥.
Odense 1993 (V2-V2, 17)) 13...&f5+]
b1) 6...£>e4 7 Ste4 de4 8 d5 £te5 9 #d4
5...6e5 6 Wd4
4tf7 10 Af4! [10 Ae3 e6 11 de6 iie6 12 We4 6 ©e2!?
Wd5 13 # d 5 Ad5= Byrne, Mednis] 10...c6 (see next analysis diagram)
[10...e5!?] 11 0-0-0! This is much stronger
than Rubinstein’s move. [11 Ac4?l e6! 12 d6 This queen move is a speciality of Georgy
Ad6 13 Ad6 #d6 14 Wg7 ®b4 15 #c3 ©c3 Timoshenko, who introduced it into tourna­
16 bc3 £id6 17 Ae2 e5+ Rubinstein-Mieses, ment play in 1996, and who has built up
Goteborg 1920 (0-1, 59)] 11..M d5 12 Wd5 a massive plus score with it since then.

166
 3.14 Staunton Gambit 2 e4 (Naumann-Kindermann)

&e7 20 She1 &f6= Eriksson-Berg, Stock­

I i. I holm 2003 (1/2- 1/2, 43).
AAA A A AA
f t
A ft A it opens a route for the black queen to enter
A the fray. 7 0 -0 -0 cd5
& b1) 8 Af6 gf6 9 ©h5 £rf7 As is so often the
AAA HAAA
I <A> I
Here, too, White attempts rapid queenside
castling, and aims to recover the pawn
as soon as possible. While it is true that
the queen is less exposed on e2 than
on d4, White is nevertheless short of the
tempo gained when 6 #d4 attacks the black
knight. At all events, these are the latest and
most interesting developments in this time-
honoured gambit, and it is only recently that
a convincing way for Black to get a good
game has been discovered:
a) 6...& f7 This move order, preferred by the
young Norwegian player, Emanuel Berg, is
worth considering: Black demands an im­
mediate decision from his opponent about
the queen’s bishop.
a1) 7 Af6 ef6 8 £>e4 Ab4!? This interpolation
is designed to prevent the white knight from
reaching the square c3 and thus to lessen
the force of the following positional pawn
sacrifice. 9 c3 Ae7 10 d6!? This is the only
way for White to sharpen his play. 10...cd6
11 0 -0 -0 0-0 12 ©h5?! [12 £>h3!? followed
by £rf4 is Beim’s recommendation.] 12...g6
13 «W5 f5 14 £>g3 Sb8 15 h4 AU4 16 £>f3
Ag3 17 fg3 b5+ 18 #d4 4b7 19 Ad3 Ee8
20 Sh7 &h7 21 Af5 gf5 22 Sh1 &g8 23 W 4
Af3 0-1, Mateuta-Berg, Aviles 2000.
a2) 7 h4! c6 8 0 -0 -0 cd5! [8...#a5 9 Af6
gf6 10 ®e4 £>d6 11 ©g4 c5 12 &b1 &d8
13 £lf3 b5 14 &d2 Ab7 15 £ide4± Timo-
shenko-Cacho Reigadas, Arco 1998 (1-0,
55)] 9 £>d5 e6 10 £ic3 @a5 11 Af6 gf6 12 ®e4
f5 13 #d4 Wc5 14 &f3 Wd4 15 £id4 a6
16 £te4 Sb8 17 £>b6 &c5 18 £>c8 Sc8 19 Ae2
b) 6...c6! This direct attack on the white
centre looks to be best; at the same time
case in the Staunton Gambit after 4 Ag5 £}c6
5 d5 £*e5, the black knight finds an excellent
square on f7, from which it is able to defend
the black king effectively. 10 ®d5 e 6 11 We4
Ah6 12 &b1 f5!
I # I
AA A f t A
A A
A
&
AAA AAA
* B,
Now the bishop pair, and the strong dark-
square bishop in particular, give Black excel­
lent prospects. This is the price White must
usually pay to recover the gambit pawn: in
order to re-establish control over e4, White is
obliged to exchange his bishop for the black
knight on f6 ... [12...0-0 is less accurate:
13 g4! d5 14 #g2 &d7 15 £ige2 b5 16 £>g3
Sc8 17 ^h 5± Gonzalez Velez-Vallejo Pons,
Ponferrada 1997 (1-0,37)] 13 #a4!? The bet­
ter square for the queen; White seeks to
avoid an unfavourable exchange of queens.
[13 '@fb4?! ®e7 14 #e7 &e7 15 £>f3 b6
16 &d4 Ab7 17 f3 Ae3 18 Ab5 Sad8 19 Shf1
f4 20 g3 £ie5 + Radjabov-Danielsen, T6r-
shavn 2000 (1/2- 1/2, 56)] 13...4g7 14 &ge2
0-0 [14...a 6 15 £}d4 0-0?? would be a ‘slight
inaccuracy’ at this point... (15...#b6) 16 £*e6
1-0, Schroder-Kummerow, Senden 2003]
15 &d4 #b6oo.
b2) 8 £}d5!? may be better. 8...e6 [8...£if7!?
9 Af6 gf610 #e4 e6; 8.. ,&d5l? 9 Sd5 £rf7 oo]
9 £>c3 £rf7 [9...Ae7!? 10 &e4 0 -0 oo] 10 &f6

167
 3 Illustrative games • 3.14 Staunton Gambit 2 e4

gf6 11 £te4 Ae7 12 f4 ©a5 13 &b1 b6 14 g3
Ab7 15 Ag2 0 -0 -0 oo Bauer-Santo-Roman,
Auxerre 1996 (Vfe-Vfe, 41).
6...6tf7!
The black knight assumes occupation of its
best square in this variation, with gain of
tempo.
of leaving more tension in the position than
exchanging on e6.8...c6 9 Af6 gf610 0-0 -0
[10 We4 # b 6 (10...&h6!?)] 10...f5 11 g4 b5
12 ®b3 b4 13 dc6 bc3 14 cd7 Ad7 15 Ab5
Ad6 16 # e 6 &f8 17 ©d7 ©d7 18 Ad7oo
Mester-Grafl, Budapest 2003 (1/2- 1/2, 47).
a2) 8 de6 de6 9 # d 8 [9 Af6 gf6 10 #e4
£>d6 11 W 3 We7 12 0 -0 -0 Ad7 13 £>h3 Ah6
14 &b1 0 -0 -0 15 Aa6 c6? Vidmar-Mieses,
1923] 9...&d8 10 0 -0 -0
a21) 10...£>f7 11 Af6 gf6 12 £>e4 Ae7
13 Ab5! c6 14 Ae2 f5 15 £>g3 Sg8 [15...e5!?
is my suggested improvement. 16 J.h5
0-0 oo] 16 Ah5 A c 5 17 Ed2 &e7 18 £>f3± Ci­
fuentes Parada-Menvielle Lacourrelle, Las
Palmas 1993 (1-0, 35).
a22) 10...Ad7! The best continuation, ac­
cording to Christiansen and Silman. 11 ,fi,f6
gf6 12 &e4 Ae7 13 Ae2 Ac6 14 Ah5 &f8?
Avram-Araiza, USA 1956.

7&f6?! b) 7...c6 The typical counter-attack on the

white centre. But since White gets really ser­
Taking leave of the two bishops ‘without a ious attacking chances in the main line which
fight’ and settling for the slightly worse pos­ follows, it might be better, from the practical
ition. point of view, to play the relatively simpler
A )7 h 4 is, for me, the better move, although 7...e5.
it gives Black no real problems,
b1) 8 Af6 gf6 9 0 -0 -0 [9 £>e4 W b610 0 -0 -0
a) 7...e5!? ©d4 11 Sd4 cd5 12 Sd5 b6 13 Sd4 Ab7
14 Ab5 0 -0 -0 ? Mester-Hoang, Hungarian
I #A I League 1998/99 (V2-V2, 49)] 9...£h6 10 &b1
AAAA AA f5 11 f3 ®b6 12 @a4 &g7?.
% b2) 8 0 -0 -0 #b6! This strong queen move
AA Jl practically forces White to offer a ‘genuine’
n A A pawn sacrifice. 9 Af6 [9 f d 2 d6 10 &b1
& Ad7 11 £>h3 0 -0 -0 12 &f4 £>g4 13 &h3 h6
AAA AA 14 Ae3 ^e3 15 fe3 e6¥ Yilmaz-Norri, Yere­
van 1996 (0-1, 58)] 9...gf6 10 ®e4 [10 £>e4
fl <A> #d4 11 Sd4 cd5 12 Sd5 b6+ leads by trans­
This suggestion by Christiansen and Silman, position to 9 £ie4 in Mester-Hoang, vari­
based on an old game of Mieses, is worth ation b1.] 10...Wf2 11 £tf3 &h6 12 &b1 We3
consideration; Black still gets a good game b21) 13 1i rb4 And here, thanks to Black’s
and avoids the wild play which follows 7.. .c6. poor development, White has some com­
a1) 8 ©a4!? A new idea, which leads to very pensation for the pawn - another argument
complicated play, and which has the merit perhaps for the more solid 7...e5!?. 13...a5

168
 3.14 Staunton Gambit 2 e4 (Naumann-Kindermann)

14 # b 3 # f4 [14...#c5?! 15 a3 b5 16 2te4 #b6oo Katetov-Simagin, Moscow 1946

We3 17 Ad3 0-0 18 Ede1 ®f4 19 Ehf1 &g7
20 £>d4± Fyllingen—Eliet, Sas van Gent 1992
(1-0,25)] 15 a4 [15 £>d4!?] 15...Eg8oo Christ-
Daum, corr. 1986 (0-1, 28).
b22) 13 Wg47! Now the white queen fin­
ishes up misplaced, as it tries to avoid
the attempts at exchange by its persistent
black opposite number. 13...1®rf4! 14 ®h5
d6 15 dc6 bc6 16 Ae2 [16 Wa5 A67 17 A63
Eb8 18 a3 # e 3 + Parker-Marusenko, Lon­
don 1994 (0-1, 34)] 16...Wf5 17 &d4 ©h5
18 l.h5 Ad7 19 g4 Ae3 20 £\e4 Ad4 21 Ed4
0-0 + Cifuentes Parada-Reinderman, Dutch
League 1993 (0-1, 55).
b23) 13 Wa4\7 # f4 14 Wb3 a5 15 a4 Wb4
16 ©a2 f5 17 Bh3 Imaginative handling of
the attack! 17...&g7 18 &g5 &g5 [18...£te5
19 Ae2 h6 20 Ab5 &f8 21 £tf7! £tf7 22 dc6
Karagiannis-Grivas, Greek League 2003
(0-1, 56) with a strong attack, showing the
dangers lurking for Black if he plays care­
lessly. The rest of the game (Megabase 2004)
looks a bit strange; incorrect notation per­
haps?!] 19 hg5 Wg4!? looks good for Black,
e.g. 20 dc6 bc6 21 Sh7 #g5 22 Ae2 &f8
£>e5.
B) 7 k M g5! 8 Ag3 Ag7
(0-1, 61)] e.g. 10 d6 [10 0 -0 -0 Wb6 trans­
poses to 9 0 -0-0, variation b.] 1 0 ...^ 6 .
b) 9 0 -0 -0 c6 10 £>e4 # b 6 11 &f6 Af6
12 # b 6 ab6? Potter-Jezek, corr. 1959/60
(V2-V2, 52).
7...ef6 8 £>e4
8 @e4 Ae7 9 £>f3 g6 10 0 -0 -0 f5 11 ffe3
0-0 12 h4 Af6 13 Ac4 &d6 14 Ab3 b5
15 ®c5 Eb8 16 a3 a5 17 ©a7 Aa6 18 # c5
b4 19 ab4 ab4 20 &a4 Ab5 21 h5 Ea8
22 # b 4 Aa4 23 Aa4 Eb8 0-1, Markus-
Bosch, Hoogeveen 1999.
8...f5!
Drives off the central white knight and pre­
pares to place the dark-square bishop on the
h8-a1 diagonal.
9 &g3
9 &d2 ffe7 10 Ae2 g6 11 h4 &h6 12 h5 g5
13 &f1 0-0 14 # c3 g4 15 £>b3 d6 16 £>d4
£>g5 17 Ad3 £>e4+ Rogers-van Mil, Tilburg
1993(0-1,42).
9...g6!

I I
AAAA A
%
Ak
k
& A
AAA AAA
1 n
Gives Black a very active position.
a) 9 4*e4 c6!+ [9...0-0 is less precise 10 0 -0 -0 & h 6 11 f4 0-0
here, because Black has problems with h7:
The all-powerful dark-square bishop prom­
10 0 -0 -0 c6 11 £rf6 ef6 (11...&f6 12 We4,
ises Black a brilliant future.
with the unpleasant threat of Ad3.) 12 h4 f5
13 Wd3 ©a5 14 a3 g4 15 W 5 d6 16 ®e4 12 &f3 kg7 13 Wd2 b5!

169
 3 Illustrative games • 3.14 Staunton Gambit 2 e4

a b c d e fg h 19 &b3
8 1 AW I #8 19 Af5 This sacrifice is unsound. 19...gf5
7 ▲ AA 7 A 20 &f5 Sd5 21 £\e7 f?e7 22 Be7 Sd2
6 6 23 &d2.
A
5 ▲ A A 5 19...a5
4 A 4 19...c5 was not a bad move either.
3 3 20 a4
2 AA An AA2 20 a3 c5! Even better now, after the weak­
1 <
A ’s A S, 1 ening of b3. 21 c4 bc4 22 4c4 Sb6 23 b3 a4
a b c d e f g h 24 ba4 £id6 25 Wd3 m 8 .

The beginning of a plan to win the white d- 20...ba4 21 &a4

pawn! The black rook will be transferred via 21 J,a2 is likewise hopeless. 21 ...#a8 22 c4
b6 to d6, whilst the bishop heads for b7. Sb6 23 £id4 Bb4.
White can never afford to play the protective
move c4, because then the powers of the 2 1 ...4 .5
bishop on g7 will be unleashed. This should have wrapped up the game...
14 c3 22 ©c2 Wa8 23 Se3 Sb8 24 She1
14 Ab5 Eb8 is, of course, out of the question. 4e6 25 £>e2

14...5b8 15 h4 h5!
Ending all White’s hopes on the kingside; the
rook will, from the square b6, safely protect
the weakness on g6.
16 Be1
16 Ad3 Sb6 17 She1 seems relatively better.

16...5b6! 17 &d3 kb7 18 kc2 Bd6

From this point on I could not decide be­

tween various winning plans; none of them
looked quite good enough - 1kept finding a
glimmer of hope for White... This perfection­
ist approach was beginning to eat more and
more into my remaining time...
25... c5
25...Hdb6 was good enough. 26 £ted4 I
was determined to deny White this move!

170
 3.14 Staunton Gambit 2 e4 (Naumann-Kindermann)

26...5b2 27 # b 2 Hb2 28 &b2 &d6 29 &c2 30 g3 Ed6? 31 £>c3 &f6 32 &b5

£lc4.
White’s position has improved significantly!
26 &g5 Sdb6
32...Edb6
26...6g5 27 fg5 Sdb6 28 £rf4 I was not pre­
Now we are into mere ‘wood-chopping’ -
pared to let the harassed knight have even
any resemblance to chess is purely coinci­
this square, but here I overlooked a tactical
dental!
detail, which would have rolled up the game
immediately. 28...Sb2 29 #b2 Sb2 30 &b2 33 &c7 ®a1 34 ®b17?
®b8 and the knight falls.
34 &d2.
27 &e6 de6 28 b3 ®b7?!
34...®a37?
A) 28...e5 was simple and strong. 29 fe5
&h6. 34...©a4 would have won a whole piece.
B) 28...©g2 Simply taking the pawn would 35 &c2 Bd6?
have been more than sufficient to win, but
I was fixated by the idea of attacking the 35...£ld6 36 Se6 £>c4.
king... 29 Sg3 W 2 30 Eeg1 £>h8. 36 Ee6 Be6?
C) 28...c4 Trying to find a clear win here, I
used up most of my remaining time. 29 bc4 36...#b4 still offered good chances. 37 £id5
©b7 30 &b5 £>d6 31 Se6 £>b5 32 Eb6 tt>6 Bd5 38 cd5 #c3 39 &d1 Sb4 40. S1e3 Sd4
33 cb5 # b 5 Even this objectively won pos­ 41 &e2 Bd2 42 &f3 #d4.
ition was ‘not good enough’ for me. 34 Hd1 37 Ee6 '@rb4?
The last nail in the coffin. What follows is
29 c4 ©e7? shambolic retreat:
Now my remaining thinking time had dwin­ 38 &d5 &b7 39 Ee7 ®c8 40 ®e1
dled to a mere three minutes; with my lack W 8 41 &e6 Sd8 42 4 e 8 1-0
of tournament practice this was less than
reasonable! [29...#g2; 29...e5 30 £}c3 e4] Quel desastre!!

171
 3 Illustrative games • 3.15 Rare continuations for White at move 2
3.15 Rare continuations
for White at move 2
T reg u b o v- M alaniuk
Moscow 1996
1 d4 f5 2 g4
A truly original gambit, which leads to quite
unusual positions. Although it makes sense
in some positions for White to attack the
Dutch set-up with the g-pawn, I do find it
difficult to take such early aggression seri­
ously. I would not recommend the adoption
of a single one of the white ideas in this sec­
tion.
A) 2 h3
A somewhat slower ‘more qualified’ version
of the attacking plan g4. This odd move was
172
accepted into the ranks of playable opening
moves after a victory of Korchnoi’s against
Kanel in 1979. 2...£rf6 3 g4 d5l The simplest
and probably the best reply. Black resists
the temptation to open lines on the king­
side, which would lead to a sort of Volga
Gambit on the wrong side of the board,
with colours reversed. After this classic re­
ply White looks to be going nowhere, whilst
Black can develop easily. [3...fg4?! 4 hg4
£}g4 is very risky, to say the least: 5 #d3
(5 e4 d6 6 £g5 g6 7 f3 &f6 8 &c3 c6 9 #d2
Ae6 10 0 -0 -0 Korchnoi-Kanel, Biel 1979
(1-0, 37)) 5...4£>f6? Making White’s dreams
come true: 6 Hh7! Eh7 7 #g6#]
a) 4 c4 Over-extending the white position.
4...fg4 5 hg4 &g4 6 Wb3 £>c6 7 f3 Ae6
8 e3 dc4 9 #b7 Ad7 10 Wa6 e5! The clas­
sic central counter gives Black the better
chances. 11 # c 4 ed4 12 ed4 Ad6 13 &f2
#e7+ Liardet-Glek, Geneva 1994 (0-1, 25).
b) 4 g5 £he4 5 &f4 [5 £>f3 c5 6 &g2 cd4
7 0-0 £>c6 8 &f4 e6 9 £id4 Ac5 10 £rf3
®b6 11 e3 m 2 12 &bd2 0-0 + Luik-Yrjola,
Jyvaskyla 1991 (0-1, 37)] 5...e6 6 h4 c5 7 f3
&d6 [7...Ad6!?] 8 e3 b6 [8...#b6l? is more
active and looks better.] 9 c3 Ae7 10 £ih3
0-0 11 £id2 Aa6 12 &a6 £ia6 13 We2 £ib8
14 0 -0 -0 £>c6 15 &b1 ®d7 oo Donchenko-
Chernyaev, Smolensk 1991 (0-1, 33).
c) 4 ©d3 The most frequently-played move.
White wants to force his opponent to show
his hand. 4...e6 This simple reply gives Black
very good play. 5 Ag5 ie 7 6 £ic3 0-0 7 f3
c5 8 gf5 cd4 9 Wd4 &c6 10 Wd2 d4 11 4id1
£>d5 12 Ae7 #e7 13 e4 de3 14 £ie3 £ie3
15 ©e3 # b 4 16 &f2 ®h4 17 &g2 e5+ Fro-
hberg-Mainka, Bremen 1998 (0-1, 25).
 3.15 Rare continuations for White at move 2 (Tregubov-Malaniuk)

B) 2 &d3 b2) 3 g3 £>f6 4 Ag2 e6 5 £if3 4d6 6 c4 c6

7 £>c3 [7 0-0 0-0 8 b3 Ad7 9 Aa3 Ae8
IftA # #A ftI 10 &d6 #d 6 11 e3 £>bd7 12 £>c3 &h5=
k k k ▲k kk Gavrikov-Psakhis, Tallinn 1983 (0-1, 32)]
7...0-0 8 0 -0 b6!
k
A I I #
1 Ak
AAA A AAA k k A if t
n&A ^S?A£>I k k
AA
This odd-looking queen move ‘threatens’ e4; Tgf
Black is to be lured into a Stonewall forma­
tion, in which, of course, the white queen is
AA A AAA
badly placed on d3. Alternatively the inten­
2 A 1 <A>
tion is to prepare for transposition into g4
gambit lines. The best way of making White think again
a) 2...d6!? Especially worth considering by about his opening sin on the second move;
those who dislike the Stonewall forma­ Black’s problem-child comes powerfully to
tion; White’s main plan turns out to cost life! 9 Af4 Aa6 10 b3 4f4 11 gf4 £>bd7
rather a lot of tempi. 3 e4 fe4 4 ©e4 £rf6 12 &g5 Ee8 13 «h3 h6 14 cd5 cd5 15 £rf3
5 ©h4 Af5! 6 c3 e6 7 % 3 [7 &e2 Ae7 £ie4+ Stromer-Yrjola, Cappelle-la-Grande
8 Ag5 0-0 9 £>g3 &g6 10 &c4 d5 11 &b3 1992(0-1,36).
£>c6 12 £>d2 e5 13 £>f3 ed4 14 &d4 £>d4 b3) 3 .fef4 e6 [3...£rf6! is the more accu­
15 #d4 c5 16 Wd2 c4 17 Ac2 £>g4+ Meier- rate move order. 4 4£lf3 e6] 4 £rf3 [4 #g3!?
Galdunts, Schwabisch Gmund 1996 (0-1, would have made astonishingly good sense
40)] 7...£>bd7 8 &d2 g6 9 &d3 d5 10 Af5 of White’s second move!] 4...£rf6 5 e3 4d6
ef5 11 £ie2 Ad6 12 Wd3 «e7 13 0-0 0 -0 -0 6 &e2 0-0 7 &e5 c5 8 c3 4lc6 9 £id2 Wc7
14 £>f3 Ede8 15 Ee1 £ie4 16 MA g5 17 &d6 10 £>df3 £>d7! 11 £>d7 &d7 12 &d6 Wd6
#d6? Lev-Soffer, Tel Aviv 1990 (0-1, 48). 13 0-0 c4 14 #d2 b5 15 £>e1 g5 16 f4 g4
b) 2...d5 17 b3 Efb8? Kmoch-Alekhine, Semmering
b1) 3 c4 [3 g4 transposes to 2 g4 d5 3 #d3 1926(0-1,34).
on the following page] 3...e6 4 £rf3 [4 £>c3
£rf6 5 g3 c6 6 Ag2 Ad6 7 4lh3 0-0 8 0-0 C) 2
b6! Exploiting the unfavourable position of
the queen on d3. 9 Ee1 Aa6 10 ®e3 Ee8
11 cd5 cd5 12 Ad2 £ic6 13 Ac1 Ec8? Gal-
%A W # A ft I
lego Martinez-Otxoa de Echaguen, Matan-
zas 1992 (0-1, 29)] 4...£if6 5 g3 Ae7 6 Ag2
0-0 7 0 -0 £>e4 [7...C6!?; cf. 4 £ic3, vari­ ▲
ation b3, and 3 g3, variation b2, both on this A A
page.] 8 £>c3 b6 9 4£ie5 Ab7 10 £>e4 de4
11 «c3 ilf6 12 b3 c5 13 e3 Wc7 14 ^b2 Sd8 AAA AAAA
15 Ead1 £>d7 16 £id7 Ed7 17 Ed2 Ead8f
Ostojic-Maianiuk, Pula 1990 (V2-V2, 41).
1 <A>A£> H

173
 3 Illustrative games • 3.15 Rare continuations for White at move 2
This mostly leads by transposition to 2 4£>f3
£rf6 3 Af4. Only by combining this move
with an early h4 can White attempt to jus­
tify this precise move order. 2...£rf6 3 e3
g6 [3...d6!?] 4 h4 h6! Takes the sting out
of White’s ‘berserk attack’. [4...Ag7!? 5 h5!]
5 £if3 d6 6 £>c3 Ag7 7 Ad3 £>c6 8 a3 e6l
9 # e2 We7 10 Ah2 Ad7 11 0 -0 -0 0 -0 -0 ?
Rabinovich-Berkvens, Dieren 1999 (0-1,53).
Compare the sort of positions which arise
after 2 £>f3 3 Af4, p. 137 and 2 Ag5 g6
3 e3, variation C on page 154.
2...d5
The simplest reply, although, with this move
order, acceptance of the gambit (later return­
ing the gambit pawn via 3 h3 g3!) is certainly
worth considering.
2...fg4 3 h3 The only continuation which
makes sense. [3 Af4 £rf6 4 h3 d5 5 £ic3 &c6!
6 #d3?! £ib4! (Pedersen) 7 #d2 (7 # b 5 c6
8 Wb4 e5) 7...Af5 8 Sc1 e6; 3 e4 d5! 4 e5
Af5 5 £ic3 c5 6 Ab5 £ic6 7 Ac6 bc6 8 £)ge2
e6 9 &e3 £ie710 a3 £>g611 £ia4 £ih412 0-0
£rf313 &h1 .&e4 0-1, Callinan-Saidy, Aspen
1968] 3...g3!
("see next analysis diagram)
Nullifying White’s attempt to open the g- and
h-files.
174
4 fg3 £>f6 5 Ag2 d5 6 £ic3 [6 &f4 £>c6 7 e3
Af5 8 £>c3 e6 9 £rf3 h6 10 g4 Ah7 11 We2
<&d6 12 0-0 0-0 oo Pantaleev-Vlasov, Bel­
grade 1991 (V2-V2, 41)] 6...e6 [6...g6?! Not
so good here, as Black gets a bad pawn
structure. 7 e4! de4 8 £ige2 &g7 9 Ae3
£>c6 10 f d 2 e5 11 d5 £>e7 12 0 -0 -0 &f5
13 g4 £id6 14 £ig3± Teske-Danner, Aus­
trian League 2000 (1-0, 39)] 7 e4 [7 £>f3
Ad6 8 ^e5 c5 9 Af4 £ih5! 10 0-0 0-0 11 e3
£>f4 12 ef4 £ic6 13 £>c6 bc6 14 &h2 Aa6
15 Be1 ©f6? Tregubov-Malaniuk, Linares
1996(0-1,47).
And Tregubov’s further attempt to lure Mala-
niuk out of his usual Dutch waters via 2 g4
was also completely unsuccessful.] 7...JUd4!
[7...c5?! is weaker: 8 ed5! (8 e5 4£ifd7
9 £tf3 &c6 10 &e3 &e7 11 0-0 0-0) 8...ed5
(8...Ad6 9 £>ge2) 9 &d5! £>d5 (9...&d6
10 Ste2 &d5 11 dc5) 10 ©h5 g6 11 #d5
#d5 12 Ad5 cd4 13 £if3±] 8 e5 £ie4 9 Ae4
[9 £ige2 0-0] 9...de4 and the Black position
rather pleases me, since his opponent’s light
squares will surely be a continuing cause for
concern. 10 &ge2 0 -0 [10...C5!?] e.g. 11 a3
Ac3 12 &c3 b6 13 Ae3 Sf3 14 #d2 Ab7oo.
3® d3
Gives Black the luxury of choice.
A) 3 4>c3 £rf6 4 h3 [4 g5l? £ie4 5 4te4 de4 oo]
4...fg4 Now Black can snap up this pawn
without danger. [4...£\c6!? This active devel­
oping move, with the aim of forcing through
...e5, should also be considered seriously.
 3.15 Rare continuations for White at move 2 (Tregubov-Malaniuk)

5 g5 £>e4 6 Af4 e5 7 £>e4 (7 de5 Ab4 ?) 14 e3 b4 15 foe2 a5 16 foU a4~ Krupa-

7...de4 8 de5 ®e7 9 W62 Ae6 10 e3 2d8 Dworakowska, Brzeg Dolny 2001 (0-1, 29).
11 Wc3 4ib4? Glenne-Berg, Bergen 2001
(0-1, 38)] 5 hg4 Ag4 6 Wd3 e6 7 f3 Af5
4gf5
8 e4 <feg6 9 £ige2 de4 10 fe4 Ab4 11 ilg5 Consistent play, but also very risky.
Ae4 12 Af6 Ad3 13 Ad8 Ae2¥ Bouchaud-
Gurevich, Ostend 1991 (0-1, 55). 4...&f5 5 Wb5 £>c6
B) 3 g5 e6 4 £>f3 c5 5 c3 £>c6 6 h4 ©c7 After this move White’s courage deserts him!
7 Ag2 Ad7 8 * f l 0 -0 -0 9 dc5 Ac5 10 b4 Capturing the pawn on b7 would have been
Ad6 11 a4 foe5 12 £>d4 &c4 13 £>d2 £>e7? the only way of justifying his previous play. It
Movsziszian-Gracia Vergara, Manresa 1997 would have led to weird complications, but
(1/2-1/2, 41). Black would also clearly have had the option
C) 3 gf5 Af5 4 Ag2 £rf6 5 c4 e6 6 £ic3 4lc6 of taking a draw.
7 Ag5 Ab4 8 a3 Ac3 9 bc3 0-0 10 cd5 ed5
11 £rf3 © d 6 12 Ah4 foe413 Ag3 fog 3 14 hg3
Ae4? Pakarinen-Keskinen, Finnish League
1997/98(0-1,22).

3...g6
Played in the true spirit of the Leningrad!
Black protects f5 and prepares to fianchetto
his king’s bishop.

6 c3?!
6 ©b7 &d4 7 foa3*> e5! [7...£e4!? 8 f3 e5
9 c3 (9 fe4 A a310 ba3 Sb8+) 9...Sb810 Wa7
Sa8 11 #b7=] 8 c3 Sb8 9 #a7 [9 ©a6 Aa3
10 cd4 Ab4? 11 &d1 ed4] 9...&a3 [9...Sa8
10 «b7 Sb8=] 10 cd4 Ab4 11 &d1 oo.

6...Wd6! 7 &h3
7 ©b7 is now too late. 7...Sb8 8 # a6 £id4!
A) 3...fg4 4 h3 g3 5 f?g3 [5 fg3 £>f6 see 9 ® a4^c6?.
2...fg4, on the facing page.] 5...£rf6 6 £}c3
Af5 7 Af4 £>h5 8 Wg5 g6 9 Ae5 Ag7 10 Ag7 7 ...6 .3 8 &h3 0 -0 -0 9 Af4 Wd7
fog7 11 0 -0 -0 c6 12 ®h6 £ih5 13 £rf3 # d 6 10 Wd3
14 e3 Wf6 15 £>e5 £id7oo Welling-Bosch,
’s-Hertogenbosch 1999 (1/2- 1/2, 23). 10 £>g5 ®f5.

B) 3...e6 4 ^c3 £>f6 5 gf5 ef5 6 Ag5 Ae7 10... &g7 11 &d2 e5!T
7 £>f3 c6 8 foe5 £>e4 9 Le7 We7 10 h4
(see next diagram)
£>d7 11 £>d7 Ad7 12 Sh2 0-0 13 0 -0 -0 b5

175
 3 Illustrative games • 3.15 Rare continuations for White at move 2

a b c d e f g h is really bad for him, due to the lamentable

position of his pawns.

17 &e6 Se818 &bc5 &e5! 19 0 -0 -0 [19 #d3

Ad6 20 b4 £>f6+] 19...&d6+.

17...®e3 18 fe3 Sd7+

Black seizes the initiative with this move. Due

to his poor piece co-ordination, White al­
ready has severe problems, after only eleven
moves.
12 de5 & e 5 13 k e 5
13 Wg3 £>c6 [13...Se8!? 14 0 -0 -0 £te7
15 Ae5 £rf5] 14 0 -0 -0 £>f6f.
19 Bd1 &f6 20 Bf1 Ee7 21 &c5 She8
13...4e5 14 fcg5
22 e4 c6 23 Ed2 b6 24 e5 &g4
This attempt to bring the knight back into 25 &d3 &e5 26 <2ie5 Jke5-+
play is doomed to failure.
14...6g7 15 &b3?! White continues to fight for a cause, which
is already lost.
15 0 -0 -0 £rf6.
15...Be7! 16 ®h3 27 h3 &c7 28 &d1 h6 29 £>f3 &f4
30 Sc2 g5 31 Ef2 k e 3 32 Sg2 b5
16 £rf3 £tf6 17 0 -0 -0 She8 18 e3 £ie4+.
33 b3 a5 34 c4 bc4 35 bc4 Sb8
16...6b 817 ®e3 36 Ec3 Bb1 37 &c2 Sc1 38 &b2 Ec3
This offer to exchange queens is proof of 39 &c3 He6 40 &d3 Ee4 41 &h2 &f4
White’s desperation; the resulting endgame 0-1

176
 3.16 Countering flank openings: tips and suggestions

3.16 Countering flank openings:

tips and suggestions
3.16.1 The Lisitsyn Gambit

Zude - Lutz abc def h g

Gladenbach 1997 8X 'ftiL lr # 8

7A A ▲▲A i l 7
Against Black’s typical Leningrad set-up, 6 6
with fianchettoed bishop and ...d6, (after
1 £rf3 or 1 c4) White will in many cases play
5
4
k 5
4
d4 to prevent Black’s planned central thrust A
...e5, after which we transpose into familiar
Leningrad territory.
3
2A A A A A A A 2
'd 3
If White omits the double advance of the
d-pawn, the game can transpose into a vari­
1 i l Igf & A 1
ation of the English (where Black plays both
ab def gh C

...e5 and ...£}c6). What we are now deal­ The Lisitsyn Gambit, named after its inventor,
ing with is a closed Sicilian with colours a Russian theoretician; but only unprepared
reversed, which would normally arise after players of Black have any reason to fear it.
the move order 1 c4 e5 2 ^c3 £}c6 3 g3
g6 4 Ag2 &g7 5 d3 d6. This sequence of 2...fe4 3 £>g5 £>c6!?
moves can be found as a variation in the
theory books; and generally speaking it is a
respectable line, which has led to satisfac­
tory results for Black. But a detailed study of
this complex of moves would be well beyond
the scope of the present book. So as not to
abandon the Leningrad-player entirely to his
own devices in the battle against white flank
play, I have included in this section some
tips and some important move order sug­
gestions. These are simply ideas and do not
by any means constitute a detailed and thor­
ough guide, which would require much more
space. We will look first at two attempts after
At the time I was quite proud of playing this
1 £rf3 f5 to put Black under strong pres­
novelty on the third move (!); I showed it to
sure with an early e4. In the light of current
Christopher Lutz, who was then able to em­
knowledge 2 d3 looks to be much the more
ploy it successfully against Zude. Basically it
dangerous move to me.
consists of an attempt by Black to transpose
1 3 f5 2 e4!? into a genuinely favourable variation: after

177
 3 Illustrative games • 3.16 Countering flank openings: tips and suggestions

the moves 3 ...e5 4 d3, 4...e3! is held to be A) 6 c4 &f6 7 £>c3 Ab4 8 Ae2 d5 9 cd5
satisfactory for Black. But a more dangerous £>d5 10. £>ge4 0-0 11 0 -0 £tf4 12 &g4
move is Michael Rohde’s gambit 4 d4!? (see &g4 13 #g4 Ac3 14 ^c3 #d3? Pilaj-Berg,
below). Thereafter, however, White has no Oropesa del Mar 1999 (0-1, 29).
good way of avoiding transposition into the B) 6 h4 £rf6 7 Le2 d5 8 d4 &b4 9 c3 ed4
variation 3...e5 4 d3 e3!. 10 Ad4 £>d4 11 ®d4 Ad6? Beno'it-Legky,
3...e5 [3...£>f6?i 4 d3 ed3 (4...e3 5 Ae3 e5 Le Touquet 1995 (0-1, 21) (with 3...e5).
6 d4!) 5 Ad3, gives White a strong attack C) 6 © h5 g6 7 W 3 £if6 8 £te4 &jq7 9 £>f6
flust as in the variation above 2 d3 £>f6?!).] Af6 10 £>c3 0 -0 11 £>d5 Lg7 12 #g3
4 d4l? ed4 5 £ie4 &c6 [5...£>f6!? 6 Ag5 Ae7 d6 13 Ag5 ®d7 14 h4 # f7 15 c4 &e6?
7 &f6 Af6 8 &c4 &f8 9 Ab3 d5 10 #h 5 Malakhatko-Onischuk, Donetsk 1998 (V2-V2,
c6 11 0-0 Ae6 12 &f6 # f6 13 £id2 San 61).
Segundo Carrillo-Makhulsky, Malaga 1991
(0-1, 25)] 6 Ac4 £>f6 7 &g5 Ae7 8 £>f6 &f6 6...&e7 7 &f3 &f6 8 d4 ed4 9 &d4
9 ©h5 g6 10 # e2 Ae7 11 Ad5 Sf8 12 h4 0-0 10 0-0 4»d4 11 &d4 d5 12 c4 c5
Sf5 13 &c6 dc6 14 £>d2 h6 15 g4 Sf7 16 h5
13 4f6 &f6 14 &c3 dc4 15 kc4 &h8
Wd5 17 £>e4 hg5 18 hg6 Sf4 19 Sh8 &d7
20
16 ®d8 Bd8 17 Sadi &f5? 18 Sd8
f3 b6 21 g7 Ab7 22 0 -0 -0 c5 23 Se1 W 7
24 &g3 ®g7 25 # e 6 1-0, Rohde-Castro Sd8 19 Sd1 Bd1 20 &d1 g5 21 &f1
Rojas, Philadelphia 1990. &g7
4d3 And in the game continuation Christopher
4 &e4?! d5 5 £ig3 e5¥. Lutz (most instructively) makes the advan­
tage of the two bishops count.
4...e3! 5 Jte3 e5
22 &e2 &d7 23 Jtd5 b5 24 b3 &d4
25 &e3 &f6 26 k f3 &e5 27 &g4
ke8 28 &d2 h5 29 ke2 a6 30 g3 h4
31 &g4 &d6 32 kd3 kd7 33 &e3
&e5 34 &e2 a5 35 &d2 &f6 36 &d5
&e5 37 &e3 kc6 38 &g4 &e6 39 f4
gf4 40 gf4 &f3 41 15 &e7 42 h3 b4
43 kc4 ke4 44 &d3 &f3 45 kc4
k e 4 46 kd3 &g2 47 &e2 kh3
48 &d6 49 kc4 kc3 50 ka6 4g4
51 &g4 k!6 52 &f4 &d5 53 &e3 &e5
54 &d3 4g5 55 &f3 &d4 56 4b5
As is shown in the following game material, &c3 57 &e4 &b2 58 &d5 &a2
Black has a very satisfactory game: 59 &c4 h3 60 kc6 h2 61 &d5 &a3
6 Jte2 62 kc6 a4 0-1

178
 3.16.2 1 £rf3 f5 2 d3! My secret tip for White! (Carlsen-Dolmatov)

3.16.2 1 &f3 f5 2 d3! My secret tip for White!

Carlsen - Dolm atov

Moscow 2004
1 £»f3 f5
1...d6 The most reliable move order if Black
wants to steer into Leningrad waters. If White
now, or on his next move, plays e4, Black
must be prepared for a ‘classical Pirc’ (with
foc3, £rf3 and 5 Ae2 or possibly for the
‘150 Attack’ with 5 .&e3). Even so, Black
has, at least, managed to avoid some of
the most dangerous anti-Pirc systems like
4 Ae3, 4 Ag5 and 4 f4. If White plays 2 e4
Black can also, of course, according to taste
and knowledge, transpose into a Sicilian or
Philidor Defence, which means that White,
too, must be well versed in ‘openings-poker’!
2 d4 [2 e4 £>f6 3 foc3 g6 (3...c5; 3...e5)]
2...g6 [2...f5 Here, too, the immediate dou­
ble advance of the f-pawn has a small draw­
back, which is why I would prefer to delay
playing ...f5 for at least one more move...
3 £>c3! & f6 4 Ag5 d5 5 e3! (5 Af6 This ex­
change is not particularly to be feared, as
the knight on f3 is badly placed in this sort
of position. (Compare this with the section
on 2 foc3 £>f6 3 Ag5) 5...ef6) 5...e6 6 Ad3
Ae7 7 0-0 0-0 8 foe2!± followed by c4, cf.
the section on 1 d4 f5 2 £ic3 4if6 3 J.g5;
White has an important extra tempo here.
3 c4 [3 e4 4 £>c3 Ag7; 3 g3 f5] 3...f5
Mission accomplished! Now Black has no
further problems. 4 foc3 fof6.
2d3!
(see next diagram)
In the first edition of my German book I de­
scribe this as a ‘dangerous try’, but since
then, this apparently innocuous move has
become a nightmare for Leningrad players; it
is now my new secret tip for players of White!
The results and the great number of quick
white victories speak for themselves. White
forces through the thematic e4 immediately,
counting not least on his slight lead in devel­
opment and the somewhat exposed Black
king’s position. In contrast to the closely-
related Lisitsyn Gambit with 2 e4 fe4 3 £}g5
on page 177ff., White wastes no time on the
knight manoeuvre typical of that system. The
present state of knowledge offers no safe
and convincing solution for Black, so I will
recommend instead a different move order,
which gets round the problem (see 1...d6).
2 ...d 6
A) 2...4&f6?! 3 e4! fe4 4 de4 4fte4 5 Ad3 con­
fronts Black with the unpleasant choice of
either submitting to a dangerous attack on
the king, or going into a bad endgame.
a) 5...£tf6 6 £ig5 g6 [6...d6 7 <&h7! is most
convincing 7...£}h7 8 Wh5 &67 9 £rf7 ®e8
10 Wh3 e6 11 £\h8 &f6 12 Wd3] 7 h4 d6
[7...Sg8!? 8 h5 e5] 8 h5 gh5? [8...Sg8] 9 Ah7
£ih7 10 ®h5 &d7 11 £rf7 £>g5 1-0, Lisitsyn-
Krogius, Leningrad 1949.
b) 5...&C5 6 £>g5 £>d3 7 #d 3 e6 8 £>h7
#e7 9 £>c3 £>a6 10 &g5 # f7 11 £>f8 Sf8±
12 0 -0 -0 [12 ®e2!] 12...W5 13 f4 Wd3
14 E63 d6 Checuriani-Potapov, Greece
2000 (1-0, 63).

179
 3 Illustrative games • 3.16 Countering flank openings: tips and suggestions
c) 5...d5 6 Ae4 de4 7 ®d8 &d8 8 £ig5 &e8
9 £\c3 Af5 10 £ige4 e6 11 &f4 £\a6 12 0 -0 -0
Ae7 13 Ehe1 ± Keene-Keogh, Ybbs 1968
(1/2-1/2, 54).
B) 2...&c6 An inventive try, which meets
with an extremely simple (but most effec­
tive!) reply. 3 d4! Now it is clear that the
unfavourable position of the black queen’s
knight outweighs the white loss of tempo!
[3 e4 e5! 4 ef5 d5 demonstrates Black’s con­
cept: a reverse King’s Gambit!] 3...d5 [3...d6
4 d5 £te5 5 £}e5 de5 6 e4±] 4 JLf4 e6 5 e3
£tf6 6 c4± with a rather bad Stonewall set­
up for Black is probably the least of several
evils here.
C) 2...d5 must likewise be seen as an act
of desperation. The Stonewall set-up with­
out a white d4 is rightly considered inferior:
Black forfeits control over e4, whilst White,
in just such a position, can wait for the most
favourable moment to attack the centre, e.g.
3 c4 e6 4 g3 £>f6 5 Ag2 Ad6 6 £>c3 0-0
7 0-0 c6 8e4!±.
3 e4 e5
Although, strictly speaking, this is a Latvian
Gambit, with White having played the incon­
sequential 3 d3, Black’s position turns out to
be extremely critical.
4£>c3
White’s plan is simple and dangerous: to
180
open up the centre by exchanging on f5, and
following up with d3-d4.
4 ...6 .6
A) 4...c5 Another rather desperate sugges­
tion for players who refuse to abandon
1.. .f5 - 1cannot be blamed for the risks and
knock-on effects! 5 g3 [5 £ld5 &c6 6 & q5
Ae7] 5...£>c6 [5...&f6 6 Ah3 fe4 7 Ac8 f?c8
8 d e4 ]6 £ h 3± .
B) 4...&e7 5 d4 fe4 6 £ie4 d5 7 £>e5 [7 £>eg5
e4 8 £te5 Ag5 9 t t i5 g6 10 Wg5±] 7...de4
8 Ac4 £rf6?! [8...®d6 9 ®h5 g6 10 M 7 &d8
11 ^g6 Ag4 12 % 4 hg6 13 # e4 £ic6 14 c3
and White has the better chances.] 9 £rf7
Ag4 10 f3 [10 ©d2±] 10...ef3 11 gf3 Ab4
12 c3 We7 13 &f2 £>e4 14 &g1 Sf8 15 fg4±
Borik-Renner, Bundesliga 1998/99 (1-0,28).
C) 4...&f6?! My own invention! I describe
this variation in the first German edition of
this book as sharp and unexplored. In the
light of the game which follows, I would have
to advise against playing it. But somehow it
seems odd to me that a natural move like
4...£tf6 should be bad. Will someone come
up with an idea to save the move?
5 ef5! &f5 6 d4!
a) 6...&bd7!? This continuation may prove
to be playable; further adventurous spirits
are called on to put it to the test! 7 Ae2
[7 Ag5 Ae7 8 &c4!?] 7...L&7 8 0-0 0-0
9 de5 £ie5 10 £id4 Wd7 [10...4d7!?] 11 f4
£>c6 12 £rf5 Wf5 13 &h1 Wc5 14 Af3±
Renet-Koch, French Championship, Stras­
bourg 1992 (1/2- 1/2, 40).
b) 6...e4 7 &h4!
I ft A I
A AA AA
A ft
±
AA &
&
AAA AAA
I Jl <4>Jl 2
 3.16.2 1 £sf3 f5 2 d3! My secret tip for White! (Carlsen-Dolmatov)

This is the crux; Black’s lack of development this somewhat undistinguished game in the
gives him problems. first edition of this book.] All Black’s moves
are now forced: 12...£ kJ4 [12...&d7 13 f?a6]
b1) 7...&d7 8 We2! Ae7 [8...d5? 9 £>d5]
13 0-0-0! Appropriate and strong. Unambi-
9 4}e4 0 -0 10 &f3 £>c6 11 £tf6 ilf6
tiously castling kingside, which I had been
12 Ae3± Benjamin-Gurevich, Saint-Martin
hoping for, would have allowed Black to sur­
1992 (1/2-1/2, 47).
vive. [13 0-0 m>8!oo] 13...&C3 14 bc3 Sb8
b2) 7...£e6 8 d5 Af7 9 £tf5 c6 10 dc6 bc6 15 Jk,f6! An essential interpolation, as the
11 ^.f4 d5 12 # d 4 ± Naumann-Genocchio, continuation shows. [15 ®a7 4}b5 16 ®c5
Mitropa Cup, Baden 1999 (1-0, 32). #d6!] 15...gf6 16 «a7 £}b5 17 # c 5 #d 6 I
b3) 7...®d7 8 d5 Ae7 9 h3 h6 10 &e2 0-0 had been banking on this move. 18 Hd5! I
11 £rf5 W 5 12 Ae3 £>bd7 13 ®d2 £ib6 14 g4 had not reckoned with this piece sacrifice.
®d7 15 0 -0 -0 + Kempter-Wall, Germany [18 ®d6 cd6 gives Black sufficient counter­
1999/2000 (1/2-1/2, 28). play, thanks to the weakness of c 3 .19 &d2
&d7 (19...Ec8 20 Sb1 £>c3 21 Eb7 0-0)]
b4) 7...^g4 I wanted to try out this active
1 8 ...^ 4 19 Hd2! Excellent play, the point of
move; I should, of course, have previously
which is revealed on the next move. [19 &d1
examined it a little more closely... 8 Ae2
£>d6 (19...£>c3 20 # c3 #f2) 20 &e2 Sb2]
b41)8...£c8 9 g4!± [9 d5!?; 9 &h5 g6 19...©h4 20 a4! The point; the knight is lost.
10 4ftg6 This sacrifice, too, gives White at­ 20...£id6 21 ®c6! The last important sub­
tacking chances plus three pawns for the tlety. [21 «Tc7? Ed8 22 Sd6? #f4] 21...&f7
piece. 10...hg6 11 Ag6 &e7 12 £>e4 Eg8 [21 ...&d8 22 Ed6 cd6 23 #d6 &c8 24 ®c6
13 £rf6 Sg6 14 £>d5 &f7 15 W 3 &g7 16 £rf4 &d8 25 Ed1 &e7 26 Sd7] 22 #c7 &g6
Seel-Grafl, Uberlingen 2000 (0-1,39)]. 23 t?d6 Sb7 24 ®g3 ®g3 25 hg3 Loffler-
b42) 8...& e2 9 y£e2 d5 By now I was get­ Kindermann, Austrian League 2002/03 (1-0,
ting quite worried, because I saw clearly that 61). The rest of the game is torture; a strong
there would be no way back from the com­ attacking game by Stefan Loffler.
plications after the white queen’s capture of
the pawn on b7; Black has already burned
all his bridges. 10 <&g5
b421) 10...£>c6!? Might this offer Black
chances of survival? Volunteers required!
[10...C6? 11 f3 Ae7 12 fe4 £>e4 13 Wh5+-]
11 £f6 [11 ®b5 a6 12 Wb7 £>b4; 11 0 -0 -0
Ae7 12 £rf5 0-0 13 £>e3 (13 £>e7 £ie7
14 f3 ef3 15 « e6 &h8 16 gf3 c6) 13...£ie8]
11...W6 12 £>d5 «h4 13 £>c7 &d7 14 £>a8
£d6 15 Wb5 [15 £>b6 ab6 16 0 -0 -0 Sf8±]
15...6C8.
b422) 10...£b4 11 « b 5 £>c6 12 #b7! A
(most straightforward) new move, which, of
course, also demands a certain amount of 5 ef5 4f5 6 d4 &d4
courage by White. [12 0-0?! i!,c3 13 bc3
0-0 oo Kempter-Schmidt, Bavaria 1995/96 A) 6...e4 7 d5! ef3 8 dc6 bc6 9 ®f3 ®d7
(1/2- 1/2, 42). I had already drawn attention to 10&d3±.

181
 3 Illustrative games • 3.16 Countering flank openings: tips and suggestions
B) 6...&b4 This improvised move is not
good enough; Krasenkow gets an oppor­
tunity to demonstrate his marvellous tactical
flair. 7 Ab5 c6 8 Aa4 e4 9 £>g5 d5 10 f3
The black centre turns out to be too easily
breached. 10...ef3 11 0 -0 £rf6 12 a3 £»a6
13 # f3 Ag4 14 #d3 Wd7 15 h3 Ah5 16 Se1
Ae7 17 &e6 &f7 18 £>d5!!
I I
k A WJL # A A
to A thto
ih Jl
A A
A A
AA A stant anxiety.
1 A B *
A brilliant sacrifice which opens up the a2-
g8 diagonal. 18...£>d5 [18...®d5 19 &b3]
19 Wf5 £if6 20 Ab3 Ag6 21 &g7 &f8 22 #d7
£id7 23 Ah6 1-0, Krasenkow-Kindermann,
Panormos 2001.
7 £>d4 ed4 8 ©d4
In all the theory books this position is given
as quite satisfactory, on the basis of two
high-level games played in the 1980s (see
below). It was not until early in the year 2004
that Magnus Carlsen blew this assessment
out of the water! Till then it was thought that
182
Black could construct a rock-solid centre
with ...c6 and ...d5, and then proceed to
complete his development. But if White plays
actively and aggressively, the reality looks
very different. Because of his open king’s
position, Black’s lag in development will put
him at a major disadvantage:
8 ...6 tf6
8...c6 This looks relatively better. The pos­
ition arising after 9 <&f4! does not exactly
inspire confidence, from the Black point of
view, as the two games already played and
some analytical material show. The insecure
position of the black king and the weakness
of the central squares are a source of con­
A) 9 <&,d3 This indifferent move is the rea­
son for the ‘Sleeping Beauty’ status of
2 d3!. 9...ild3 10 ®d3 £if6 11 0-0 iie7
12 £ie2 [12 £>e4 £je4 13 We4 0 -0 14 c4
Af6 15 Ae3 d5 16 cd5 1/2- 1/2, Romanishin-
Malaniuk, Tallinn 1987.] 12... d5 13 £>d4 ®d7
14 Ag5 [14 Se1 0-0 15 £te6 Efe8 16 &g5
&b4] 14...0-0 15 Sae1 Ad6 16 f3 Bae8
17 g3 Ae5 18 c3 h6 19 M 6 Af6 20 &g2
Be1 21 Be1 Se8 22 Se2 Se2 23 &e2 1/2- 1/2,
Lerner- Bareev, 53rd USSR Championship,
Kiev 1986.
B) 9 Af4!
I m # Ato I
k A AA
AA
Jl
A
<\
AAA A A
I &A n
a) 9...&C2 This ‘computer-inspired’ move is
not to be taken seriously; Black falls too far
behind in development. 10 &e2 ®f6 11 #d2
d5 12 0 -0 &e7 13 Bfe1 with strong pressure.
 3.16.2 1 £rf3 f5 2 d3! My secret tip for White! (Carlsen-Dolmatov)

b) 9...d5 10 0 -0 -0 Wd7 11 A d3± a b c d e f g h

c) 9...®b6 10 Wd2! Well played by Gunter 8 I m # ■JL X 8
Sandner, team member and captain of the
Plauen Bundesliga team, who has no cause
7 1▲ AA7
to complain here about my opening ad­
6 Aa f t 6
vice (given the evening before). (‘What, does 5 JLJL 5
your opponent always play the Dutch? Well, 4 w 4
in that case 1 £rf3...’) 10...d5 [10...#b2
11 Eb1 Wc2 12 We3 £>e7 13 Sb7± (13 Ae2)]
3 & 3
AA2

<]
A A

<]
11 0 -0 -0 0 -0 -0 Unfortunately the black 2
king, even after castling long, does not look 1 2 f i 1
exactly secure, due to the powerful Af4. a b c d e f g h
12 Ad3 [12 &e3! ®a5 13 ®d4±; 12 Ae5!?]
12...£d3 13 ®d3 £>h6?? [13...£rf6 14 W15 Two simple developing moves and already
&d7 15 &e5±] 14 ®h3 Sd7 15 £id5 ®d8 Black has no satisfactory way to continue.
16 &h6 cd5 17 Sd5 &c7 18 &f4 1-0, Sand- Even a Dutch expert like Sergey Dolmatov
ner-Rechel, Bundesliga 2003/04. is unable to prolong the game beyond 20
d) 9...#f6 10 Wd2 h6 [10...d5 11 0 -0 -0 Ad6 moves!
(11...Ab4 12 Se1 (12 # e3 £>e7) 12...£>e7 10...b5
13 Ae5 W g614 W 4 a 5 15 a3) 12 Se1 (12 Ag5
Wg6 13 Se1 (13 h4 £>f6) 13...&f8 (13...3te7 10...Ae7 11 0 -0 -0 d5 12 ®e5±.
14 g4; 13...&f7 14 f3) 14 h4 £rf6 15 f3)
11 Ab3 ke7 12 0 -0 -0 Wd7 13 She1
12...£>e7 13 Ad6 ®d6] 11 iie2 [11 0 -0 -0 !±
e.g. 11...0-0-0 12 &e3 &b8 13 £>a4 Ae7 &d8
14 Wa5 c5 15 £>c3] 11...d5 12 0-0 Ad6 Despair; Magnus is now completely in con­
13 Ah5 g6 14 Sfe1 &f8 15 Af3± Breutigam- trol.
Dirr, Bundesliga 2003/04 (1-0, 56).
13...0.0-0 14 g4 Ag4 15 Ee7 ®e7 16 ®g4
9&c4! 4ig4 17 Ae7 +-.

A brilliant novelty by the then just 14 year-old 14 Be7! ©e7 15 © f4 &d7 16 &e4! d5
Norwegian wonderboy.
16...Ef8 17 £>d6.
9 . . . C 6 10 Jtg5 17 &f6 h6 18 &h4 g5 19 f?d4 1-0
(see next diagram)
19...gh4 20 £>d5+-.

183
 3 Illustrative games • 3.16 Countering flank openings: tips and suggestions
3.16.3 Playing the Dutch against 1 c4
Gelfand - Kindermann
Biel 1995
1 c4 f 5 2 &c3
2 b3 A speciality of Klaus Bischoff, to which
Black must reply accurately: 2...e5! 3 k b 2
4£ic6! After this Black should have no fur­
ther opening problems. [3...d6 4 d4!±] 4 g3
[4 e3!?] 4...d5 5 cd5 ®d5 6 £rf3 e4 7 £>h4
W 7 8 e3 Ae6 9 Ab5 £>ge7 10 f3 a6 11 Ae2
0 -0 -0 12 0 -0 £>g6 13 fe4 14 gh4 % 6
15 &h1 fe4¥ Bischoff-Berezovsky, Bun-
desliga 2003/04 (1-0, 45).
2...4W6 3 g3 g6 4 kg2 kg7 5 d3 0-0
Now White has the choice of three differ­
ent basic set-ups: he can develop the king’s
knight to f3 and leave the e-pawn on e2;
he can push the e-pawn to e3, to create a
square for the knight on e2; or he can play
for an early e4, after which the king’s knight
can again be developed at e2. As already
indicated, after Black has played ...e5 fol­
lowed by £lc6, the game will transpose to
an English. In this section, however, I shall
advise what to play against each of the set­
ups in order to avoid the paths which lead
to traditional English games. Against a well-
184
prepared opponent, of course, prospects do
not look nearly as rosy as in the few illus­
trative games, but I nonetheless believe that
my recommended moves lead to interesting
and playable systems. Although most of the
part-games quoted have arisen out of other
move orders, I have ignored this fact in order
to provide a comprehensive overview.
Since the publication of the first German edi­
tion of this book, all the ‘anti-English sys­
tems’ recommended in this section have
proved their worth brilliantly.
6e4
The Botvinnik System, about which I knew
next to nothing at the time, is a danger­
ous weapon against the closed Sicilian with
colours reversed. In preparing for the game
against Gelfand, however, I had a stroke of
luck: my friend Jo Reiter had had difficulties
against just this sequence of moves in the
B-Open, a few days prior to my game with
Gelfand. As a result, Jo, Ulrich Dirr (who,
amongst other things, did the lay-out for this
book), and myself began looking that same
evening for an antidote in a Biel pub. An ex­
cellent fendant (a Swiss white wine) turned
out to favour creativity and the results are
self-evident. But, as I found out later, the
idea we came up with was not altogether
new...
A) 6 e3 d6 [6...a5!?] 7 £ige2 e5 8 0-0 a5l?
Eto&W I #
AA AA
A to A
A AA
A
£>A A A
AA & AAA
2 A 2 <1?
 3.16.3 Playing the Dutch against 1 c4 (Gelfand-Kindermann)

Black intends in the ‘spirit of the Leningrad’

to develop the c-pawn to c6 and the knight
I I A #
to a6, which gives him some flexibility in the m AA
centre and on the queenside. What we are A %A
talking about here is the ‘Big Clamp’ - the A A A
Closed Sicilian set-up with reverse colours A A
(Closed Sicilian with c3 instead of £ic3).
A A A
[8...£>c6 will transpose, as already indicated
AA n AAA
above, to an English-type game.]
a) 9 Bb1 c6 10 b3 &a6 11 #d2 Sb8 12 Ab2
£>2 2&
He8 13 f4 Ad7 14 Sbe1 b5! A very strong positional move; now ...d5
will open up the position and activate all of
IW I # Black’s pieces. [19...d5?! 20 c5] 20 £ic3?
A A A [20 a3] 20...d5+ 21 £>d5 £>fd5 22 Ag7 £>c7
% A A 4*A 23 Ad4 £ie6 24 £ie2 a4 25 Wb2 cd4 26 ed4
▲A AA ab3 27 ab3 £ld3 0-1, Markowski-Sasikiran,
A A Olympiad, Istanbul 2000.
A4^ A A A b3) 10 Ab2 £}a6 11 ®d2 Ad7 12 &h1
AA n [12 Sadi Se8 13 h3 Hc8 14 &h2 &h8 15 f4
I l | A £>c5 16 e4 b5 17 fe5 de5 18 cb5 cb5 19 £>d5
£>d5 20 ed5 b4 21 Sfe1 Ab5 22 £ic1 £>d7
Thematic queenside expansion. 15 cb5 cb5 23 a3 ba3 24 Aa3 £if6 25 d6 Af8 26 £>a2
16 £id5 £>d5 17 &d5 &h8 18 a3 b4~ Ad6 27 &d6 #d6 28 Wa5 Ad3 29 £>c1 e4 Gi-
Malakhatko-Malaniuk, Bydgoszcz 1999 ardelli-Hernandez, Buenos Aires 1998 (0-1,
(1/2-1/2, 64). 35)] 12...SC8 13 Sae1 b5 14 e4 %c5 15 cb5
b) 9 b3 c6 cb5 16 ef5 &f5
b1) 10 e4 &a6 11 h3 f4! I w I #
I A I# AA
A Ak AA &A
4 AA %A A i 4 AA
A A A
A AA A^A A
A^A AA A A Wth A A A
A & A i 22 *
2 Aw 2 & 17 £ie4 b4oo Gurevich-Kasparov, Reggio
The true ‘Leningrader’ will always have this Emilia 1991/92 (0-1, 54).
move up his sleeve! 12 gf4 £ih5 13 fe5 de5 B) 6 £rf3 d6 7 0-0 £>c6 8 Sb1 a5 9 a3 [9 &d2
14 f3 &b4+ Poldauf-Lau, Bad Neuenahr 4bh5!? 10 e3 e5 After the slight weaken­
1991 (0-1, 36). ing of the square f3, this move has more
b2) 10 Aa3 £>a6 11 Sc1 Sb8 12 &b2 ild7 bite. 11 &d5 £>e7 12 4c3 c6 13 £te7 ®e7
13 d4 e4 14 d5 #e7 15 dc6 bc6 16 9d2 Sfd8 14 d4 e 4 15 £>d2 Ae6 16 #c2 # f7 oo Khasin-
17 Scd1 &e8 18 %a4 %b4 19 £>c1 c5! Malaniuk, Koszalin 1997 (0-1, 83)] 9...£ih5!?

185
 3 Illustrative games • 3.16 Countering flank openings: tips and suggestions

I AW I I #
AA A AA A
f t A A A A Aft A
A A ft A A ft#
A A kA
A &A A A ^A
A A AAA A □ AAA
I A I £ I £ 0
An interesting idea, barely considered by 29 &g5 Ag5 30 Ae4 Le2 31 &g1 f3 32 Se1
theory: Black prepares the advance of the f- Ad2 33 Se2 Ag5 34 Ee1 # h 3 35 Af3
pawn, whilst keeping his e-pawn on e7. This Hf3 36 d4 £rf4 37 gf4 J.f4 0-1, Petrosian-
has advantages; the diagonal stays open for Vasiukov, Moscow 1956.
the bishop at g7, the square e5 is available to b) 10 &d2 f4
the black pieces, and sometimes being able
to play ...e6 can be useful ... [9...e5 leads b1) 11 &g5 e6 12 £ige4 d5! 13 cd5 ed5
again to the English.] 14 &c5 [14 £>d5 f3 15 Af3 Sf3 16 £ic7
a) 10 ®c2 It was extremely remiss of me #c7 17 ef3£id4?] 14...£>e7 Under extreme
to have omitted the following classic from pressure, Malakhov comes up with some
the first German edition of this book: 10...f4 (to me at least) quite astonishingly dynamic
11 b4 ab4 12 ab4 Ag4 13 e3 e5 14 b5 £>e7 ideas: 15 gf4!? W66 16 d4!? Ad4 [16...£rf4!?]
15 £>e4 m i 16 Ad2 h6 17 Ac3 g5 17 &d3 c6 18 e4!

1 I # I A I#
A A Wf t A A f t A
A A Am A
A A Aft A A f t
A ehA A A AA
AA A ^ A A
AAA A A AAA
i 1 II I *
Immaculate black strategy: White can no During the game this looked to me to be
longer shake off the stranglehold on the absurdly anti-positional; but it is, in fact,
kingside; having no way of countering, the White’s only chance (albeit at the cost of his
future world champion is destroyed by the pawn structure) to generate activity. 18...de4
weakness of f3. 18 ef4 gf4 19 ®e2 £>g6 [18...1.C3! This suggestion of Henrik Teske
20 Ba1 Ba1 21 Aa1 b6 22 iic3 ®f5 23 Ad2 looks like the clearest way for Black to get
&h8 24 Ac1 Af6 25 &h1 £ig7 26 £b2 £ie6 an advantage. Black parts with his fine fi-
27 Wc2 ®h5 28 £>ed2 £ig5 anchettoed bishop, in order to win control of
(see next analysis diagram) White’s weak squares. 19 &c3 de4 20 it,e4
JJ5+] 19 £ie4 ®c7 20 Wb3 &h8 21 £ig5
Tigran Petrosian has rarely been so thor­ £rf5 22 £>e5 <&gl [22...£>h4!? After this
oughly outplayed! move, suggested by Ulrich Dirr, Black re­

186
 3.16.3 Playing the Dutch against 1 c4 (Gelfand-Kindermann)

tains the advantage, instead of which I con­
tinued trying to find ‘straightforward, sim­
ple’ solutions. This ate into my thinking
time and led me increasingly to lose the
thread ...] 23 &gf3 £rf6 24 Sfe1 c5 25 Sbc1
®d6 26 £ jc4 Wd8 27 &d4 &d4 28 # b 6
Malakhov-Kindermann, Bad Wiessee 2002
(1-0, 44).
b2) 11 b4 ab4 12 ab4 Ag4~
kk k Ak
tok k this outpost on d4 will give him good play.
21 bc6 bc6 22 Sb6 # f5 23 d4 £ig4 24 Sc6
®d3 0-1, Vandevoort-Gurevich, Gent 1995.
6...fe4!?
With a black pawn on e5, this exchange
would be strategically flawed, but here it is
part of a quite different set of plans.
7 de4 d6 8 &ge2 c5! 9 0 -0 &c6
Now Black reveals his idea: against a ‘neu­
tral’ white move, Black will continue with
10 ...e5! followed later by ...£id4, after which

AA li
£}A A
AAAAA

The typical way for Black to group his pieces;

the following material demonstrates Black’s
attacking potential against careless white
play: 13 b5 [13 £>d5 fg3 14 hg3 H?d7 15 &h2
Ha2 16 &e3 Af3 17 Af3 &d4 18 Ag4 e6
19 £id5 £rf5 20 &c3 Saa8 21 Af3 Ae5 22 e3
£>hg3 23 fg3 £>g3 24 &h3 £rf1 25 #f1 ®g7
0-1, Kauko-Yrjola, Jyvaskyla 1997] 13...£>d4
b21) 14 £}d4 Ad4 15 &h1 #d7 16 Ab7 fg3
17 fg3 fog3 18 hg3 &f3l
I i
A ▲ m k k tic. 11 Ae3 &c7 12 f4 Bb8 13 ®d2 e5 14 fe5
k k
A Ab7 22 #d2 &c6 23 &h6 Se8= Schandorff-
A a
A A A
J= A
fl w U &
19 &h2 Ab7 Vivaldo-Santos, Americana
2000(0-1,28).
b22) 14 e3 fe3 15 fe3 £if3 16 Af3 Af3 17 Sf3
#d7 18 #e2 c6 19 Bf8 Sf8 20 Wg2
10 f4!?
A) 10 £>d5 &g4! 11 f3 £>ge5 12 ®c2 e6?
Poldauf-Lobler, Rethymnon 2003 (1/2- 1/2, 27).
B) 10 h3!? e5 [10...£ie8!? An original idea;
Black seeks to keep his pawn structure elas­
£ie5 15 Hf8 W 8 16 Hf1 ®e7 17 Ag5 ®d7
18 b3 b6 19 &d5 £>d5 20 #d5 &h8 21 £>c3
Agrest, Reykjavik 2000 (1/2- 1/2, 33)]
a) 11 &d5 Ae6 12 Ae3 #d7 13 &h2 Sf7
14 £>c1 Saf8 15 &63 &h8 16 a3 £>d4 17 f4?l
Here, too, this only apparently active ad­
vance rebounds on White, because it en­
ables the black fianchettoed bishop to spring
back to life. 17...ef4 18 gf4 £>h5 19 f5 Ad5
20 cd5 #e7+ Nguyln-Ho&ng, Budapest
2003 (1/2- 1/2, 69).

187
 3 Illustrative games • 3.16 Countering flank openings: tips and suggestions
b) 11 f4
b1) 11...£id4?! is really quite risky, because
White can get strong positional pressure with
the following positional pawn sacrifice. 12 f5!
gf5 13 ef5 £if5 14 f t i3 £id4 15 Ag5 R [Daml-
janovic-Kindermann, Chalkidiki 2002 (1-0,
46)] 15...ffe8! 16 £>d4 cd4 17 &f6 Sf6 18 Sf6
Af6 19 £id5 ikl8 with an unclear position.
b2) 11 ...ef4!? is a very interesting suggestion
of Zoltan Ribli in ChessBase, which leads to
very dynamic play for Black.
b21) 12 A U £*e5 13 & b5 Ae6 14 ®d6
[14 £)d6 £ih5+] 14...Ac4 15 Ae5 Ab5~ e.g.
16 Sfe1 [16 Sf2 Se8 17 Wc5 Ae2 18 Se2 Wd3
19 Af6 Af6¥] 16...Se8 17 &c3 Ac4 18 Sadi
b6;
b22) 12 gf4 Zhh5 13 Ae3 £id4! 14 &d4 cd4
15 Ad4 Ad4 16 m 4 £tf4 17 c5 H?h4 with the
initiative for Black [17...®g5].
b3) 11 ...Ae6 The most solid move. 12 £}d5
[12 b3 #d7 13 &h2 &d4; 12 f5 &c4 13 g4
gf5 14 ef5 h6] 12...#d7 13 &h2 [13 g4 ef4
14 £>ef4 Af7oo] 13...^d4oo.
c) 11 kg 5 Ae6 12 £>d5 #d7 13 &h2 £>d4
I I#
A AMW ±A
AAftA
A & AA
Af t A
AA
AA A settle for a draw: Gelfand was already an
I Igr
188
14 £ld4 [14 f4?l A risky move, position­
ally speaking, because the white king is
poorly protected after the position is opened
up. 14...Ad5 15 ed5 £je2 16 # e2 Sae8
17 fe5 He5 18 Wd2 <he4 19 Bf8 &f8 20 Ae4
Se4? Petrosian-Grafl, Vienna 2003 (1-0,
46)] 14...cd4 15 a4 &h8 16 Af6 &f6 17 a5
Ag7oo Psakhis-Grinshpun, Israeli League
1999 (1/ 2-y 2, 28)].
10...11.6!
Black changes his plan and aims at play
against the slightly weakened light squares
of his opponent.
10...e5?! 11 f5± revealing White’s intentions.
11 & d 5
11 b3 ®d7 12 Ab2 Ah3 [12...Ag4!? was
played on the system’s first real outing:
13 #d2 e5 14 Sae1 Sf7 15 %d5 Saf8 16 fe5
de5 17 £ic1 b6 18 £>d3 1/2- 1/2, Spraggett-
Avshalumov, Cannes 1990] 13 e5!? de5
14 fe5 £>e515 *&d7 Ad7 16 £>d5 £ic617 £>ef4
£ie8 18 Ag7 £ig7 19 Sfe1 Sae8 20 £>c7
Sc8 21 ild5 &h8 22 &ce6 Ae6 23 £ie6
Sfe8 24 Sadi £te6 25 Ae6 Sc7 26 Ad7 Sd8
27 Ac6 Sd1 28 Sd1 bc6 1/2- 1/2, Smejkal-
Kindermann, Bundesliga 1997/98.
11...t£d7 12 &d3 &h3 13 4d2 Jtg2
14 &g2 Sad8 15. Ead1 e6 16 &f6
&f6 17 &c3 JLc318 ®c3 e5~ V 2 - V 2
And here both parties were quite happy to
hour down on the clock, and I was still suf­
fering the after-effects of a stormy night...
 a

4 Appendix

4.1 Bibliography
Books

Kindermann, Stefan. Leningrader System. Eine Waffe gegen 1 d4. Nettetal: Chessgate,
2002.

Beim, Valery. Understanding the Leningrad Dutch. London: Gambit, 2002.

Harding, Tim D. The Leningrad Dutch. London: Contemporary Chess Openings, 1976.

Hooper, David, and Kenneth Whylde. Oxford Companion to Chess. 2nd ed. Oxford und New
York, 1992.

Korchnoi, Victor. Meine besten Kampfe, Band 1: Partien m it WeiB. Zurich: Olms, 2001.

Linder, Isaac, and Vladimir Linder. Schach Das Lexikon. Berlin: Sportverlag, 1996.

Pedersen, Steffen. The Dutch for the Attacking Player. London: Batsford, 1996.

McDonald, Neil. The Dutch Leningrad. London: Chess Press, 1997.

Ehlvest, Jaan. The Leningrad Dutch. London: Batsford, 1993.

Christiansen, Larry, and Jeremy Silman. Hollandische Verteidigung.

Hamburg: Das Schacharchiv, 1990.

Martin, Andrew. The Contemporary Anti-Dutch. London: Tournament Chess, 1990.

Ivkov, B., and M. Skoko. Leningrad Dutch. Vol 1. Munich: Chess Press, 1990.

Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings. Ed. Aleksandar Matanovic [et. al.].

Vol. I: A R J 1 e 4 ,1 d4; 1 d4 R J 1 ...d 5 ,1 ...£if6; 1 d4 £rf6 R J 2 c4; 1 d4 £rf6 2 c4 R J
2...e6, 2...g6. 2nd ed. Beograd: Sahovski informator, 1996.

Khalifman, Alexander. An Opening Repertoire according to Kramnik.

Vol. 3. Chess Stars Press, 2001.

Metz, Hartmut. Das SKA-Mephisto-Turnier MQnchen 1993. Zurich: Olms, 1994.

189
 4 Appendix • 4.1 Bibliography

Magazines

Chess Informant. Ed. Aleksandar Matanovic [et. al.]. Vol. I—LXXXVIII. Beograd: Sahovski
informator, 1966-2004.

New in Chess Yearbook. Ed. Genna Sosonko and Paul van der Sterren. Vol. LII-LXX. Alkmaar:
Interchess BV, 1984-2004.
(Series of articles on the Staunton Gambit by Meulders)

Schach. Die Zeitschrift m it Tradition und Anspruch.

Berlin: Excelsior Verlag GmbH, 1990-2004.

Instruction videos

Kindermann, Stefan. Hollandisch: Leningrader Variante.

2 vols. Nettetal: Chessgate AG, 2001.

Databases

Megabase 2004. Hamburg: ChessBase GmbH, 2003.

Schach Plus. Vol. 1999/10-2004/05 Berlin: Excelsior Verlag GmbH, 1999-2004.

Analysis software

Fritz v8. Hamburg: ChessBase GmbH.

Hiarcs v9. Hamburg: ChessBase GmbH.

190
 4 Appendix • 4.2 Index of symbols

4.2 Index of symbols

Symbol Meaning Symbol Meaning

+ White has a small advantage + Black has a small advantage

± White has a clear advantage + Black has a clear advantage
+- White has a decisive advantage -+ Black has a decisive advantage
1-0 White wins 0-1 Black wins
1/2_1/2 drawn # checkmate
= equal position 00 unclear position
!? interesting move ?! doubtful move
I very good move ? weak move
M excellent move ?? blunder
- with attack 00 with compensation
t with initiative better is
with counterplay A with the idea
0 White to move * Black to move

191
 4 Appendix • 4.3 Index of players
4.3 Index of players
Afifi, Assem .............................................84
Alekhine, Alexander....... 8,10,110,117,118
Alexander, Conel Hugh O’Donel............. 10
Anand, Viswanathan....................... 126,127
Andersson, U lf....................................40, 41
Aronian, Levon.......................................156
Atalik, S uat............................... 34, 35,123
B
Babula, Vlastimil ................................... 129
Ballard..................................................... 10
Bareev, Evgeny 11, 32, 33, 37-39, 41, 57, 74
Beim, Valery 13, 60, 62, 74, 77, 98,103,108,
115, 116, 124, 131,133, 134, 167
Beliavsky, Alexander................... 11, 50-52
Beilin, Robert ........................................ 163
Berg, Emanuel.......................................167
Bischoff, Klaus.................................15,184
Bogoljubow, Efim................10,110,117,119
Botvinnik, Mikhail .................................9,10
Bronstein, David.................................... 8, 9
Bucker, Stefan......................................... 15
Buhmann, Rainer.................................. 125
Byrne, Robert............................... 164,166
Carlsen, Magnus...................... 182,183
Chernin, Alexander..............11,103,117
Christiansen, Larry ................163,165,168
Cifuentes Parada, Roberto.............. 165
Claesen, Pieter................................ 136
Cvetkovic, Srdjan.................................... 114
Dautov, Rustem .................. 43, 44, 99, 106
Dirr, Ulrich ...................14,107, 143,184, 186
Dlugy, Maxim......................................... 147
Dolmatov, Sergey ...... 12, 76, 130, 139,183
Dreev, Alexey.....................28, 87, 92, 98, 99
192
E
Ehlvest, Jaan .............................................65
Eingorn, Vereslav..................................... 146
Evdokimov, Vladimir................................ 156
F
Farago, Ivan...............................................79
Filippov, Valery....................... 74, 76, 78, 81
Freitag, Manfred.................................. 74, 77
Fritz.................................................. 126,127
G
Gabriel, Christian................... 114,123,125
Galliamova, Alisa...................................... 92
Gavrikov, Viktor....................................... 130
Gelfand, Boris................................184,188
Glek, Igor.... 11, 32, 33, 50, 51
Grafl, Florian........................................80, 81
Gurevich, Mikhail ...... 11, 68, 103,133,135,
150-152
Gustafsson, J a n ....................................... 68
H
Hansen, C u rt........................................... 114
Harding, Tim ..............................................10
Hoang, Thanh Trang.................................68
Hodgson, Julian...................................... 138
Hoi, Carsten............................................ 140
Horvath, Csaba........................................ 30
Horwitz, Bernhard ...................................163
Hubner, Robert....................................... 106
Hulak, Krunoslav.......................................74
I
Ibragimov, Ildar........................................ 65
Ilyin-Genevsky, Alexander..........................9
J
Jansa, Vlastimil......................................... 14
K
Kanel, Hansjiirg.......................................172
 4 Appendix • 4.3 Index of players

Karpov, Anatoly.............................61, 64, 78 O

Khalifman, Alexander................... 34, 36, 50 Olms, Manfred.........................................14
Kindermann, Stefan.................................12 Onischuk, Alexander...... 12, 68, 87, 92, 93,
Knezevic, Milorad............................10,156 95-97, 103
Kopylov, Nikolay Georgyevich................. 10
Korchnoi, Victor 8,10,117,118,134,164,172 P
Kosintseva, Nadezhda............................78 Pedersen, Steffen .88,114,140, 174
Kramnik, Vladimir .11, 32, 33, 61, 64, 65, 94 Petrosian, Arshak .......................54
Krasenkow, Michal........................ 122,182 Petrosian, Tigran .................8,186
Kuzminikh, Evgeny Filipovich ................. 10 Pinter, Joszef..... ......................64
Piskov, Yuri........ ................36, 43
L Plachetka, Jan ... ......................94
Lahtela, Silvio..................................149 Polugaevsky, Lev .......................... 11
Larsen, Bent................................................8 Potter-Coburn ... ........................10
Lautier, Joel..................................110,112
Lazarev, Vladimir............................. 107 R
Reiter, Jo ......................................... 13, 184
Leko, Peter................................................54
Renner, Christoph .................................. 129
Lerner, Konstantin.....................84, 94,162
Ribli, Zoltan.............................................188
Lesiege, Alexandre....................................76
Rohde, Michael.......................................178
Loffler, Stefan.................................. 181
Rubinstein, Akiba............. 110,117,119,166
Lugovoi, Alexey.................................72, 73
Rustemov, Alexander............................. 125
Lukacs, Peter............................................68
Luther, Thomas............................127,149
S
Lutz, Christopher .... 12,15, 55, 80, 94, 111,
Sandner, Gunter..... .............. 183
123,126,177,178
Santo-Roman, Marc ................ 43
Schlosser, Philipp ... ...............133
M Silman, Jeremy...... 163,165,168
Mainka, Romuald....................12, 32, 42, 94 Smyslov, Vasily...... .........117,119
Malakhov, Vladimir......................... 186 Sokolov, Ivan.......... .............. 130
Malaniuk, Vladimir..........11,12, 46, 53, 56, Stanec, Nikolaus .... ...............125
61, 80, 85, 90-93, 110, 122, 148,159,161, Staunton, Howard .. ...............163
162,164,174 Stein, Elias............. .................. 7
Marin, Mihail....................................103 Stohl, Igor.............. ................98
McDonald, Neil....................... 40, 42, 47, 60 Stolze, Raymund .... ................. 14
Mednis, Edmar............................164,166
Meuiders, Richard.....................................76 T
Mieses, Jacques.............................168 Taimanov, M ark........................................95
Tartakower, Saviely........................ 10,117
N Teske, Henrik.................................34,186
Nalbandian, Tigran......................... 158 Timoshenko, Georgy........................166
Neverov, Valery......................................... 80 Topalov, Veselin.............................. 150,158
Nielsen, Peter Heine.......................155 Tratar, Marko............................................ 58
Nijboer, Friso............................... 106,107 Tregubov, Pavel................................ 174
Nikolic, Predrag ........................... 44,156 Tukmakov, Vladimir............................ 90, 91
Nimzowitsch, Aaron.................................. 10 Tyomkin, Dimitry................62, 96, 121,122

193
 4 Appendix • 4.3 Index of players

VaTsser, Anatoly....................................... 121 Yermolinsky, A lex.................................... 14

Vinogradov, Kirill.......................................10 Yusupov, Artur............. 8, 15, 37, 38, 84, 85
Volkov, Sergey........................................ 144
Vyzhmanavin, Alexey ... 12, 32, 43,109,131

W
Watson, John............................................13 zhan9- zhon9 ................................... 12>154
Webb, Simon.......................................... 135 Zude, Erik.................................................177
Wuts, Frank.............................................135 Zuger, Beat............................................... 114

194
 4 Appendix • 4.4 Index of games

4.4 Index of games

A page number in bold indicates that the first-named player had the black pieces. Underlining
indicates an Illustrative game. A page number in brackets means a particular game was
referred to on that page.

A Atalik, Suat-Onischuk 124

Adianto, Utut-Hoang 34 Avram, Herbert-Araiza 168
-Kindermann 55 Avshalumov, Alex-Spraggett 188
Afifi, Assem-Yusupov 84
Agdestein, Simen-Santo-Roman 123 B
Agrest, Evgeny-Degerman 135 Babu, Sudhakar-Gufeld 144
-Engqvist 121 Babula, Vlastimil-Beim 57
-Jakubiec 145 -Renner 130
-Schandorff 187 Bacrot, Etienne-Bauer 71
-Yagupov150 -Koch 69
Aguirre Izaguirre, Pedro-Oms Pallise 139 Barczay, Laszlo-Videki 16, 61
Akesson, Ralf-Berg 56 Bareev, Evgeny-Beliavsky 80
Akopian, Vladimir-Dolmatov 130 -Damljanovic 57
-Vyzhmanavin 43 -Kohler (40), 41
Alekhine, Alexander-Kmoch 173 -Kramnik 34
-Tartakower (117), 118 -Krasenkow 120
Almasi, Istvan-Zsinka 134 -Lerner 182
Alterman, Boris-Mainka 49 -Polugaevsky 100
-Malaniuk 28 -Shneider (74), 75
Anand, Viswanathan-Fritz 123 -van Wely 108
Anastasian, Ashot-Gurevich 135 -Yusupov 32
-Malaniuk 20, 87 Bartel, Mateusz-Vai'sser 121
Andersson, Ulf-Szabolcsi 40 Bartolomaus, Christian-Lamprecht 120
Andonov, Bogomil-Ermenkov 62 Bauer, Christian-Bacrot 71
Anic, Darko-Koch 42 -Dorfman 50
Anka, Emil-Lukacs 45 -L a Riva Aguado 109
Annakov, Babakuli-Zenin 135 -Lautier 112
Antal, Gergely-Erdos 70 -Santo-Roman 168
-Mamedyarov 42 Baumgartner, Heinz-Kindermann 89
Antunes, Antonio-Vyzhmanavin 29, 47 Beck, Daniel-Rechel 79
-Zhang 57 Beckhuis, Gernod-Kindermann 34
Appel, Ralf-Glek 33 Becx, Cesar-Tukmakov 99
Araiza, -Avram 168 Beim, Valery-Babula 57
Arduman, Can-Malaniuk 99 -Dautov 106
Aronian, Levon-Nikolic 156 -Freitag 77
Atalik, Suat-Hoang 139 -Kreindl 138
-Kindermann 35 -Lehner 131
-Mozes 156 -Portisch 96

195
 4 Appendix • 4.4 Index of games
Beim, Valery-Schlosser 134
-Sher 110
-Zviagintsev 103
Beliavsky, Alexander-Bareev 80
-Glek 49
-Kindermann 19, (32), 53
-Malaniuk 22
Benjamin, Joel-Gurevich 181
Benoit, Michel-Legky 178
Berezovsky, Igor-Bischoff 184
-Kindermann 146
Berg, Emanuel-Akesson 56
-Bunzmann 134
-Eriksson 167
-Glenne 175
-Hansen 98
-Mateuta 167
-Pilaj 178
Bergez, Luc-Bricard 158
Berkvens, Joost-Rabinovich 174
Bewersdorff, Oliver-Onischuk 104
Bischoff, Klaus-Berezovsky 184
Bisguier, Arthur-Bronstein 163
Bjornsson, Tomas-Kindermann 55
Blees, Albert-Kindermann 56
Bogoljubow, Efim-Rubinstein 119
-Samisch 156
-Tartakower 111
Borik, Otto-Renner 180
Bosch, Jeroen-Markus 169
-Welling 175
Bouaziz, Slim-Gurevich 139
Bouchaud, Vincent-Gurevich 175
Braun, Arik-Murariu 109
Breutigam, Martin-Dirr 183
Breyer, Gyula-Vajda 165
Bricard, Emmanuel-Bergez 158
Bronstein, David-Bisguier 163
-Gurevich 164
Bucker, Stefan-Zysk 140
Buhmann, Rainer-Dirr 82
-Rustemov 125
Bunzmann, Dimitrij-Berg 134
-Erker 134
-Gurevich 135
Burghart, Armin-Mainka 42
196
C
Cacho Reigadas, Sergio-Timoshenko 167
Callinan, M.-Saidy 174
Carlsen, Magnus-Danner 147
-Dolmatov (13), 179
Casper, Thomas-Romanishin 99
Castro Rojas, Oscar-Rohde 178
Catropa, Djalma-Soppe 140
Cebalo, Miso-Gavrikov 64
Cenal Gutierrez, Ruben-Santo-Roman 166
Chabanon, Jean-Luc-Koch 47
Chatalbashev, Boris-Santo-Roman 119
Checuriani, Besarion-Potapov 179
Chekhov, Valery-Vyzhmanavin 106
Cherepanov, K.-Dolgopolov64
Chernin, Alexander-Kindermann 117
Chernyaev, Alexander-Donchenko 172
Christ, Heinz-Daum 169
Christiansen, Larry-Dolmatov 130
-Reinderman 112
Cifuentes Parada, Roberto-Gual Pascual
165
-Malaniuk 165
-Menvielle Lacourrelle 168
-Reinderman 169
-Schmittdiel 166
-Willms 166
Claesen, Jeroen-van Mechelen 60
Claesen, Pieter-Gurevich (123), 133
Conquest, Stuart-Malaniuk 164
Cvitan, Ognjen-Malaniuk 56
D
Damaso, Rui-Jakubiec 122
-Malaniuk 63
Damljanovic, Branko-Bareev 57
-Kindermann 188
-Onischuk 92
Danailov, Silvio-Kolev 98
Danielsen, Henrik-Heyken 135
-Nyback 159
-Radjabov 167
-Rowson 157
Danner, Georg-Riedner 37
-Smejkal 26
 4 Appendix • 4.4 Index of games
Danner, Georg-Teske 174
Danner, Lambert-Carlsen 147
Bao, Thien Hai-Gyimesi 88
-Hoffmann 103
-Lukacs42
Daum, Gernot-Christ 169
Dautov, Rustem-Beim 106
Degerman, Lars-Agrest 135
Deglmann, Ludwig-Farago 71
Demina, Juliya-Kosintseva 78
Dirr, Ulrich-Breutigam 183
-Buhmann 82
-Kachiani-Gersinska (107), 108
-Kindermann 59
-Lutz 124
-Teske 143
Dokhoian, Yuri-Malaniuk 79
Dolgopolov, Alexander-Cherepanov 64
Dolmatov, Sergey-Akopian 130
-Carlsen (13), 179
-Christiansen 130
-Korchnoi 139
-Krasenkow 147
Donchenko, Anatoly-Chernyaev 172
Dorfman, Iosif-Bauer 50
-Gurevich 135
Doring, Thomas-Kindermann 27
Doroshkevich, Vladimir-Potapov 121
Dreev, Alexey-Kindermann 99
-Malaniuk 26, 28, (87), 93, 94
Dresen, Ulrich-Wiley 160
Dunne, Alex-Ibragimov 74
Dworakowska, Joanna-Krupa 175
-Peng 120
Dzhumaev, Marat-Malakhatko 148
Dzuban, Oleg-Santo-Roman 43
E Garcia Vicente, Nieves-Hoang 46
Efimov, Igor-Santo-Roman 164
Eingorn, Vereslav-Kindermann 146
-Vasiukov 114
Eliet, Nicolas-Fyllingen 169
Engqvist, Thomas-Agrest 121
Epishin, Vladimir-Guerrero Alvarez 139
Erdogan, Hakan-Kindermann 111
197
Erdos, Viktor-Antal 70
Eriksson, Johan-Berg 167
Erker, Thomas-Bunzmann 134
Ermenkov, Evgeny-Andonov 62
Evseev, Denis-Yagupov 145
F
Falk, Thomas-Grafl 58
Fang, Joseph-Grafl 69
Farag6, Ivan-Deglmann 71
-Kindermann 20, 79
-Kuba 75
-Lentrodt 74
Filippov, Valery-Onischuk 81
-Potapov 62, 74, (81)
-Vyzhmanavin 76
-Zhang (75), 79
Fleck, Jurgen-Podzielny 137
-Smejkal 100
Freitag, Manfred-Beim 77
Fressinet, Laurent-Kindermann 153
Fridman, Daniel-Mainka 120
Fritz-Anand 123
Frohberg, Marco-Mainka 172
Ftacnlk, Lubomir- Kindermann 100
Fyllingen, Roy-Harald-Eliet 169
G
Gabriel, Christian-Kindermann 126
Galdunts, Sergey-Meier 173
Gallego Martinez, Ruben-Otxoa de
Echaguen 173
Galliamova, Alisa-Onischuk 93
Garcia llundain, David-Vallejo Pons 131
Garcia Albarracin, Francisco-La Riva
Aguado 147
Garcia Saez, Juan-Yanvaryov 141
Gausel, Einar-Mastoras 134
-Pedersen 136
-Skembris 63
Gavrikov, Viktor-Cebalo 64
-Nemet 141
-Psakhis 173
-Vyzhmanavin 25,129
 4 Appendix • 4.4 Index of games

Gavrikov, Viktor-Zviagintsev 102 Gurevich, Mikhail-Bronstein 164

Gelfand, Boris-Kindermann 184 -Bunzmann 135
-Malaniuk 68 -Claesen (123), 133
Genocchio, Daniele-Naumann 181 -Dorfman 135
Giardelli, Sergio Carlos-Hernandez 185 -Hodgson 138
Gisbrecht, Evgeny-Kindermann 54 -Kasparov 185
Glek, Igor-Appel 33 -Lputian 98
-Beliavsky 49 -Mainka 23, 50
-Komarov 157 -Nielsen 144
-Liardet 172 -Topalov 143
-Mohebbi 50 -Vandevoort 187
Glenne, Bjorn-Berg 175 -Wuts 135
Gochev, Mladen-Lalev75 Gurieli, Nino-Hoang 71
Goloshchapov, Alexander-Malaniuk 109 Gustafsson, Jan-Hoang 72
Gonda, Laszlo-Markus 69 Gyimesi, Zoltan-B&o 88
Gonzalez Velez, Fermi'n-Vallejo Pons 167
Grabarczyk, Bogdan—Pribyl 99
-Savchenko 145 H
-Sergeev 130 Haag, Wolfgang-Rechel 79
Gracia Vergara, Ferran-Movsziszian 175 Hangweyrer, Roman-Grafl 59
Grafl, Florian-Falk 58 Hansen, Curt-Berg 98
-Fang 69 Heidrich, Manfred-Hubner 106
-Hangweyrer 59 Henley, Ron-Ribli 30,137
-Korobov 108 Hernandez, Gilberto-Giardelli 185
-Mester 168 Heyken, Enno-Danielsen 135
-Nguyen 158 Hille, Ingo-Sielecki 82
-Petrosian 188 Hoang, Thanh Trang-Adianto 34
-Schenk 145 -Atalik 139
-Seel 181 -Garcia Vicente 46
Granero Roca, Antonio-Teran Alvarez 119 -Gurieli 71
Grebyonkin, Vladimir-Rychagov 62 -Gustafsson 72
Greenfeld, Alon-Malaniuk 56 -Horvath 34
Gretarsson, Heigi-Wiley 157 - Jelen 47
Gretzinger, Heinz-Kindermann 75 - Juswanto 62
Grinshpun, Eduard-Psakhis 188 -Kolbus 33
Grivas, Efstratios-Karagiannis 169 -Krizsany 34
-Osmanbegovic 149 -Lukacs 49, 70
Gual Pascual, Antonio-Cifuentes Parada -Matlak88
165 -McDonald 131
Guerrero Alvarez, Rafael-Epishin 139 -Mester (168), 168
Gufeld, Eduard-Babu 144 -Nguyen 187
Gurevich, Dmitry-Benjamin 181 -Sahovic 41
-Schwartzman 141 -Seres 33
Gurevich, Mikhail-Anastasian 135 -Szeberenyi 72
-Bouaziz 139 -Vijayalakshmi 34
-Bouchaud 175 -Zhu 43

198
 4 Appendix • 4.4 Index of games

Hodgson, Julian-Gurevich 138 Kalinitschew, Sergey-Ziese 166

-Onischuk 157 Kanel, Hansjurg-Korchnoi 172
Hoeksema, Hendrik-van Mil 166 Kantsler, Boris-Vepkhvishvili 138
Hoffman, Alejandro-Rodriguez 89 Karagiannis, Athanasios-Grivas 169
Hoffmann, Alexander-Lutz 76 Karavade, Eesha-Kosintseva 71
Hoffmann, Michael-Bao 103 Karpov, Anatoly-Malaniuk (61), 64
-Kindermann 75 -Zhang 49
Hofman, Ron-Lutz 80 Kasparov, Garry-Gurevich 185
Hoi, Carsten-Piskov 141 -Malaniuk 63
Horberg, Beng-Eric-Larsen 166 Katetov, Miroslav-Simagin 169
Horvath, Csaba-Kindermann 30, 68 Kauko, Jussi-Yrjola 187
Horv&th, Peter-Hoang 34 Keene, Raymond-Keogh 180
Hubner, Robert-Heidrich 106 Kempiriski, Robert-Reinderman 155
-Kindermann 18,114, (115) Kempter, Ronald-Schmidt 181
-Wall 181
Keogh, Eamon-Keene 180
I Keskinen, Sauli-Pakarinen 175
Ibragimov, Ildar-Dunne 74 Khalifman, Alexander-Piskov 68
-Kramnik 60 -Popov 149
lllescas Cordoba, Miguel-Kramnik27,106 Kharitonov, Andrey-Renner 103
lllner, Achim-Knaak 124 -Vasiukov 103
Ippolito, Dean-Zhang 146 Kharlov, Andrey-Kiryakov 135
Ivanchuk, Vasily-Legky 56 Khasin, Alexander-Malaniuk 185
Izeta Txabarri, Felix-Kiroski 120 Kindermann, Stefan-Adianto 55
-Atalik 35
J -Baumgartner 89
Jakab, Attila-McDonald 63 -Beckhuis 34
Jakubiec, Artur-Agrest 145 -Beliavsky 19, (32), 53
-Damaso 122 -Berezovsky 146
-Malaniuk 147 -Bjornsson 55
-Myc 158 -Blees 56
-Neverov 148 -Chernin 117
-Pyda (147), 148 -Damljanovic 188
-Stimpel 159 -Dirr 59
-Voloshin 154 -Doring 27
Jelen, Igor-Hoang 47 -Dreev 99
-Zhang 36 -Eingorn 146
Jelen, Iztok-Psakhis 56 -Erdogan 111
Jellinghaus, Lars-Mainka61 -Farag6 20, 79
-Fressinet 153
Jezek, Jaroslav-Potter 169
-Ftacnik 100
Juswanto, Denny-Hoang 62
-Gabriel 126
-Gelfand 184
K -Gisbrecht 54
Kachiani-Gersinska, Ketino-Dirr(107), 108 -Gretzinger 75
-Mainka49 -Hoffmann 75

199
 4 Appendix • 4.4 Index of games

Kindermann, Stefan-Horvath 30, 68 Kolev, Atanas-Danailov 98

-Hubner 18,114, (115) Komarov, Dimitry-Glek 157
-Komarov 71 -Kindermann 71
-Korchnoi 89, (117), 118, (120) -Piskov 43
-Krasenkow 182 -Vragoteris 134
-Lahtela 149, (150) Konopka, Michal-Malaniuk 90
-Lazarev (107), 109 Korchnoi, Victor-Dolmatov 139
-Loftier 181 -Kanel 172
-Lugovoi 67 -Kindermann 89, (117), 118, (120)
-Malakhov 187 -Mitori 134
-Michaelsen 87 -Onischuk 134
-Naumann 163 -Zurakhov 164
-Nielsen 155 Korobov, Anton-Grafl 108
-Petrosian 55 Korsunsky, Yuri-Lutz 118
-Pinter 64 Koscielski, Janusch-Meins 104
-Podzielny 113 Kosintseva, Nadezhda-Demina 78
-Razuvaev 65 -Karavade 71
-Schandorff 145 -Zaiatz 70, (72)
-Smejkal 100,188 Kosteniuk, Alexandra-Ludden 41
-Smyslov 119 Kouatly, Bachar-Kovacevic 154
-Stohl 98 Kovacevic, Vlatko-Kouatly 154
-Tratar 58 Kragelj, Igor-Potapov 46
-van Wely 100,109 Kramnik, Vladimir-Bareev 34
-Varga 121 -Ibragimov 60
-Weber 102 -lllescas Cordoba 27,106
-Wehmeier 56 -Koch 64
-Yermolinsky 149 -Miles 65
-Yusupov 84 -Moldobaev 63
-Zuger 114 -Obuchov 94
Kiroski, Toni-lzeta Txabarri 120 -Tataev 17
Kirsanov, O.-McDonald 141 -Vyzhmanavin 23,33
Kiryakov, Peter-Kharlov 135 Krasenkow, Michal-Bareev 120
Kjeldsen, Jens-Meyer 134 -Dolmatov 147
Kmoch, Hans-Alekhine 173 -Kindermann 182
Knaak, Rainer-lllner 124 -Malaniuk 117
Knezevic, Milorad-Medic 156 -Zhang 124
Knoll, Hermann-Schroll 70 Kreindl, Helmut-Beim 138
Kobaliya, Mikhail-Peralta 149 Kremenetsky, Anatoly-Piskov 46
Koc, Przemyslaw-Teske 89 Krivoshey, Sergey-Onischuk 71
Koch, Jean-Rene-Anic 42 -Rogovski 72
-Bacrot 69 Krizsany, Laszlo-Hoang 34
-Chabanon 47 Krogius, Nikolay-Lisitsyn 179
-Kramnik 64 Krupa, Monika-Dworakowska 175
-Renet 180 Kuba, Gunter-Farago 75
Kohler, Ronald-Bareev (40), 41 Kummerow, Heiko-Schroder 167
Kolbus, Dietmar-Hoang 33 Kurajica, Bojan-Topalov 109

200
 4 Appendix • 4.4 Index of games

L Luik, Helmuth-Yrjola 172

La Flair, Roger-Otxoa de Echagiien 150 Lukacs, Peter-Anka 45
La Riva Aguado, 6scar de-Bauer 109 -Bao 42
-Garcia Albarracin 147 -Hoang 49, 70
-Moreno Ruiz 160 -Lutz 58
Lagowski, Patryk-Potapov 69 -Szabolcsi 24, 40
Lahtela, Silvio-Kindermann 149, (150) -Vaisser 75
Lalev, Dimitr-Gochev 75 Lutikov, Anatoly-Ragozin 111
Lamprecht, Frank-Bartolomaus 120 Lutz, Christopher-Hofman 80
Landenberger, Martin-Short 75 -Korsunsky 118
Langeweg, Kick-Pedersen 88 -Lukacs 58
Larsen, Bent-Horberg 166 -Pelletier 111,112
-Yrjola 56 -Plachetka 94
Lasker, Edward-Thomas 140 -Santos 54
Lastin, Alexander-Ukolov 165 -Z u d e 177
-Yakovich 33 Lutz, Klaus-Jiirgen-Hoffmann 76
-Zaitseva 102 -Taimanov 95
Lau, Ralf-Poldauf 185 Lutz, Thomas-Dirr 124
Lautier, Joel-Bauer 112
Lazarev, Vladimir-Kindermann (107), 109
Legky, Nikolay-Benoit 178 M
-Ivanchuk 56 Mahjoob, Morteza-Vera 148
Lehner, Oliver-Beim 131 Mainka, Romuald-Alterman 49
Lentrodt, Thomas-Farago 74 -Burghart 42
Lerner, Konstantin-Bareev 182 -Fridman 120
-Mainka95 -Frohberg 172
-Malaniuk 85,153 -Gurevich 23, 50
Lesiege, Alexandre-Ross 77 - Jellinghaus 61
Leski, Marc-Philippe 60 -Kachiani-Gersinska 49
Lev, Ronen-Softer 173 -Lerner 95
Liang, Chong-Zhang 150,155 -Lobron 50
Liardet, Fabrice-Glek 172 -Mohring 61
-Malaniuk 164 -Wyrwich 36
Ligterink, Gert-van Mil 165 Makhulsky, Anatoly-San Segundo Carrillo
Lin, Weiguo-Zhu 36 178
Lindstedt, Johan-Vladimirov 108 Malakhatko, Vadim-Dzhumaev 148
Lisitsyn, Georgy-Krogius 179 -Malaniuk 185
Litvinov, Vladimir-Malaniuk 61 -Onischuk 178
Lobron, Eric-Mainka 50 Malakhov, Vladimir-Kindermann 187
Lobler, Heimo-Poldauf 187 Malaniuk, Vladimir-Alterman 28
Loffler, Stefan-Kindermann 181 -Anastasian 20,87
Lopushnoy, Denis-Vasiukov 156 -Arduman 99
Lputian, Smbat-Gurevich 98 -Beliavsky 22
Ludden, Gert-Jan-Kosteniuk41 -Cifuentes Parada 165
Luft, Andreas-Renner 104 -Conquest 164
Lugovoi, Alexey-Kindermann 67 -Cvitan 56

201
 4 Appendix • 4.4 Index of games

Malaniuk, Vladimir-Damaso 63 Marin, Mihail-Spassov 103

-Dokhoian 79 Markowski, Tomasz-Sasikiran 185
-Dreev 26, 28, (87), 93, 94 Markus, John-Bosch 169
-Gelfand 68 Markus, Robert-Gonda 69
-Goloshchapov 109 Marusenko, Petr-Parker 169
-Greenfeld 56 Mastoras, Ilias-Gausel 134
-Jakubiec 147 Mateuta, Gabriel-Berg 167
-Karpov (61), 64 Matlak, Jacek-Hoang 88
-Kasparov 63 McDonald, Neil-Hoang 131
-Khasin 185 - Jakab 63
-Konopka90 -Kirsanov 141
-Krasenkow 117 -Rogozenko 24, 45
-Lerner 85,153 -Wells 160
-Liardet 164 Medic, Miljenko-Knezevic 156
-Litvinov 61 Meier, A.-Galdunts 173
-Malakhatko 185 Meins, Gerlef-Koscielski 104
-Neverov88 Menvielle Lacourrelle, Augusto-Cifuentes
-Nikolic 45 Parada 168
-Novikov 56 Mester, Gyula-Grafl 168
-6lafsson 136 -Hoang 168, (168)
-Ostojic 173 Meyer, Lars-Kjeldsen 134
-Pedersen 54 -Pedersen 166
-Pigusov80 Michaelsen, Nils-Kindermann 87
-Polulyakhov46,148 Mieses, Jacques-Rubinstein 166
-Romanishin 182 -Vidmar 168
-Rowley 90 Mikhalevski, Victor-Zhang 41
-Savchenko 45 Miles, Anthony-Kramnik 65
-Schmidt 88 Minasian, Ara-Yegiazarian 143
-Sokolov 130 Miton, Kamil-Korchnoi 134
-Sulava 124,135 Mohebbi, Jaffar-Glek 50
-Timoshchenko 56 Mohring, Gunther-Mainka 61
-Tozer 80 Moldobaev, Emelbek-Kramnik 63
-Tregubov 172,174 Moreno Ruiz, Javier-La Riva Aguado 160
-Tukmakov 21, (61), 87 Moser, Eva-Uhlmann 89
-Ubilava 85 Moutousis, Konstantinos-Santo-Roman 99
-Uhlmann 55
Movsziszian, Karen-Gracia Vergara 175
-Ulibin 146 -Oms Pallise 137
-Urban 130 Mozes, Ervin-Atalik 156
-Vainerman 85
Murariu, Andrey-Braun 109
-Verdihanov 63
Murshed, Niaz-Savchenko 87
-Vladimirov 93
Myc, Marcin-Jakubiec 158
-Volkov 144,147
-Voloshin 109
-Vakovich 69 N
-Yusupov 88 Nalbandian, Tigran-Topalov 158
Mamedyarov, Shakhriyaz-Antal 42 Naumann, Alexander-Genocchio 181

202
 4 Appendix • 4.4 Index of games

Naumann, Alexander-Kindermann 163 Pantaleev, Dimitar-Vlasov 174

Nemet, Ivan-Gavrikov 141 Parker, Jonathan-Marusenko 169
Neverov, Valery-Jakubiec 148 Pedersen, Steffen-Gausel 136
-Malaniuk 88 -Langeweg 88
Nguyen, Ngoc Trifdng Sdn-Grafl 158 -Meyer 166
-Hoang 187 Pedersen, Svend-Malaniuk 54
Nielsen, Peter Heine-Gurevich 144 Pelletier, Yannick-Lutz 111,112
-Kindermann 155 -Onischuk 22, 92
Nijboer, Friso-Tregubov 106 Peng, Zhaoqin-Dworakowska 120
-van Wely 107 Peralta, Fernando-Kobaiiya 149
Nikolic, Predrag-Aronian 156 Petrienko, Vladimir-Siekanski 79
-Malaniuk 45 Petrosian, Arshak-Kindermann 55
-van der Sterren 40 Petrosian, Suren-Grafl 188
Nor, Igor-Sebe 141 Petrosian, Tigran-Vasiukov 186
Norri, Joose-Yilmaz 168 Petrov, Anton-Savon 89
Novikov, Igor-Malaniuk 56 Philippe, Christophe-Leski 60
Nyback, Tomi-Danielsen 159 Pigusov, Evgeny-Malaniuk 80
Piket, Jeroen-Onischuk 134
O -Salov 134
Obuchov, Alexander-Kramnik 94 Pilaj, Herwig-Berg 178
6lafsson, Helgi-Malaniuk 136 Pinkerton, Arthur-Tozer 163
Oil, Lembit-Topalov 46 Pinter, Joszef-Kindermann 64
Oms Pallise, Josep-Aguirre Izaguirre 139 Piskov, Yuri-Hoi 141
-Movsziszian 137 -Khalifman 68
Onischuk, Alexander-Atalik 124 -Komarov 43
-Bewersdorff 104 -Kremenetsky 46
-Damljanovic 92 Pisulinski, Jan-Rublevsky 36
-Filippov 81 Plachetka, Jan-Lutz 94
-Galliamova 93 Podzielny, Karl-Heinz-Fleck 137
-Hodgson 157 -Kindermann 113
-Korchnoi 134 Poldauf, Dirk-Lau 185
-Krivoshey 71 -Lobler 187
-Malakhatko 178 Polugaevsky, Lev-Bareev 100
-Pelletier 22, 92 Polulyakhov, Alexander-Malaniuk 46,148
-Piket 134 Pomes Marcet, Juan-Vallejo Pons 137
-van der Sterren 57 Popov, Valery-Khalifman 149
Osmanbegovic, Suad-Grivas 149 Portisch, Lajos-Beim 96
Osmanovic, Kemal-Zarkovic 125 Potapov, Alexander-Checuriani 179
Ostojic, Nikola-Malaniuk 173 -Doroshkevich 121
Otxoa de Echagtien, Javier-Gallego -Filippov 62, 74, (81)
Martinez 173 -Kragelj 46
-L a Flair 150 -Lagowski 69
-Shcherbakov 68
P -Vaulin 46
Pakarinen, Pekka-Keskinen 175 Potter, R.B.-Jezek 169
Palac, Mladen-Zel6ic 165 Pribyl, Martin-Grabarczyk 99

203
 4 Appendix • 4.4 Index of games
Psakhis, Lev-Gavrikov 173
-Grinshpun 188
-Jelen 56
Pyda, Zbigniew-Jakubiec (147), 148
R
Rabinovich, Alexander-Berkvens 174
Radjabov, Teimour-Danielsen 167
Ragozin, Vjacheslav-Lutikov 111
Razuvaev, Yuri-Kindermann 65
Rechel, Bernd-Haag 79
-Sandner183
Rechel, Ralf-Beck 79
Reinderman, Dimitri-Christiansen 112
-Cifuentes Parada 169
-Kempinski 155
-van Beers 134
Relange, Eloi-Santo-Roman 33
Renet, Olivier-Koch 180
Renner, Christoph-Babula 130
-Borik 180
-Kharitonov 103
-Luft 104
-Wolter 108
Reshevsky, Samuel-Vasiukov 63
Ribli, Zoltan-Henley 30,137
Riedner, Martin-Danner 37
Rodriguez, Andres-Hoffman 89
Rogers, lan-van Mil 169
Rogovski, Vladimir-Krivoshey 72
Rogozenko, Dorian-McDonald 24, 45
Rohde, Michael-Castro Rojas 178
-Savage 156
Romanishin, Oleg-Casper 99
-Malaniuk 182
Ross, David-Lesiege 77
Rowley, Robert-Malaniuk 90
Rowson, Jonathan-Danielsen 157
Rubinstein, Akiba-Bogoljubow 119
-Mieses 166
Rublevsky, Sergey-Pisulinski 36
Rustemov, Alexander-Buhmann 125
Rychagov, Andrey-Grebyonkin 62
-Skachkov 125
-Zhidkov 88
204
S
Sadler, Matthew-Schlosser 47
Sahovic, Dragutin-Hoang 41
Saidy, Anthony-Callinan 174
Salov, Valery-Piket 134
Samisch, Fritz-Bogoljubow 156
San Segundo Carrillo, Pablo-Makhulsky 178
Sandner, Gunter-Rechel 183
Santo-Roman, Marc-Agdestein 123
-Bauer 168
-Cenal Gutierrez 166
-Chatalbashev 119
-Dzuban 43
-Efimov 164
-Moutousis 99
-Relange 33
-Skembris 99
-Spassky 21,113
-Sulava 123
Santos, Jose Pereira-Lutz 54
Santos, Marcus-Vivaldo 187
Sasikiran, Krishnan-Markowski 185
Savage, Allan-Rohde 156
Savchenko, Stanislav-Grabarczyk 145
-Malaniuk 45
-Murshed 87
Savon, Vladimir-Petrov 89
Schandorff, Lars-Agrest 187
-Kindermann 145
Schenk, Andreas-Grafl 145
Schlosser, Philipp-Beim 134
-Sadler 47
-Wockenfuss 156
Schmidt, Wtodzimierz-Malaniuk 88
Schmidt, Wolfgang-Kempter 181
Schmittdiel, Eckhard-Cifuentes Parada 166
Schroder, Wilfried-Kummerow 167
Schroll, Gerhard-Knoii 70
Schwartzman, Gabriel-Gurevich 141
Sebe, Razvan-Nor 141
Seel, Christian-Grafl 181
Seres, Lajos-Hoang 33
Sergeev, Vladimir-Grabarczyk 130
Serper, Grigory-Vasiukov 120
Shabtai, Ran-Summerscale 154
Shcherbakov, Ruslan-Potapov 68
 4 Appendix • 4.4 Index of games
Sher, Miron-Beim 110
Shneider, Alexander-Bareev (74), 75
Short, Philip-Landenberger 75
Siekanski, Janusz-Petrienko 79
Sielecki, Christof-Hille 82
Simagin, Vladimir-Katetov 169
Skachkov, Pavel-Rychagov 125
Skembris, Spyridon-Gausel 63
-Santo-Roman 99
Smejkal, Jan-Danner 26
-Fleck 100
-Kindermann 100,188
Smyslov, Vasily-Kindermann 119
Softer, Ram-Lev 173
Sokolov, Ivan-Malaniuk 130
Soppe, Guillermo-Catropa 140
Spassky, Boris-Santo-Roman 21,113
Spassov, Ljuben-Marin 103
Spok-Stormbringer (SK) 17,115, (115)
Spraggett, Kevin-Avshalumov 188
Stangl, Markus-Topalov 56
Stimpel, Franz-Jakubiec 159
Stohl, Igor-Kindermann 98
-Topalov 68
Stormbringer (SK)-Spok 17, (115), 115
Stromer, Alexander-Yrjola 173
Sulava, Nenad-Malaniuk 124,135
-Santo-Roman 123
Summerscale, Aaron-Shabtai 154
Szabolcsi, Janos-Andersson 40
-Lukacs 24, 40
-Todorov 121
Szeberenyi, Adam-Hoang 72
T Van Beers, Eddy-Reinderman 134
Taimanov, Mark-Lutz 95
Tartakower, Saviely-Alekhine (117), 118
-Bogoljubow 111
Tataev, Manach- Kramnik 17
Teran Alvarez, Ismael-Granero Roca 119
-Yakovich 69
Teske, Henrik-Danner 174
-Dirr 143
-Koc 89
Thomas, George Alan-Lasker 140
205
Timoshchenko, Gennady-Malaniuk 56
Timoshenko, Georgy-Cacho Reigadas 167
Todorov, Ognjan-Szabolcsi 121
Topalov, Veselin-Gurevich 143
-Kurajica 109
-Nalbandian 158
-Oil 46
-Stangl 56
-Stohl 68
Tozer, Richard-Malaniuk 80
-Pinkerton 163
-Wells 69
Tratar, Marko-Kindermann 58
Tregubov, Pavel-Malaniuk 172,174
-Nijboer 106
Tukmakov, Vladimir-Becx 99
-Malaniuk 21, (61), 87
U
Ubilava, Elizbar-Malaniuk 85
Uhlmann, Wolfgang-Malaniuk 55
-Moser 89
Ukolov, Alexander-Lastin 165
Ulibin, Mikhail-Malaniuk 146
Urban, Klaudiusz-Malaniuk 130
V
Vainerman, Igor-Malaniuk 85
Vaisser, Anatoly-Bartel 121
-Lukacs 75
Vajda, Arpad-Breyer 165
Vallejo Pons, Francisco-Garci'a llundain 131
-Gonzalez Velez 167
-Pomes Marcet 137
Van der Sterren, Paul-Nikolic 40
-Onischuk 57
Van Mechelen, Jan-Claesen 60
Van Mil, Johannes-Hoeksema 166
-Ligterink 165
-Rogers 169
Van Wely, Loek-Bareev 108
-Kindermann 100,109
-Nijboer 107
Vandevoort, Pascal-Gurevich 187
 4 Appendix • 4.4 Index of games

Varga, P6ter-Kindermann 121 Y

Vasiukov, Evgeny-Eingorn 114
-Kharitonov 103
-Lopushnoy 156
-Petrosian 186
-Reshevsky 63
-Serper 120
Vaulin, Alexander-Potapov 46
Vepkhvishvili, Varlam-Kantsler 138
Vera, Reynaldo-Mahjoob 148
Verdihanov, Vladislav-Malaniuk 63
Videki, Sandor-Barczay 16,61
Vidmar, Milan-Mieses 168
Vijayalakshmi, Subbaraman-Hoang 34
Vivaldo, Fernando-Santos 187
Vladimirov, Evgeny-Malaniuk 93
Vladimirov, Vladimir-Lindstedt 108
Vlasov, Igor-Pantaleev 174
Volkov, Sergey-Malaniuk 144,147
-Zhang 144
Voloshin, Leonid-Jakubiec 154
-Malaniuk 109
Vragoteris, Antonios-Komarov 134
Vyzhmanavin, Alexey-Akopian 43
-Antunes 29,47
-Chekhov 106
-Filippov 76
-Gavrikov 2 5 ,129
-Kramnik 23,33
W -Krasenkow 124
Wall, Gavin-Kempter 181
Weber, Ulrich-Kindermann 102
Wehmeier, Stefan-Kindermann 56
Welling, Gerard-Bosch 175
Wells, Peter-McDonald 160
-Tozer 69.
Wiley, Tom-Dresen 160
-Gretarsson 157
Williams, Simon-Zeidler 113
Willms, J-Cifuentes Parada 166
Wockenfuss, Klaus-Schlosser 156
Wolter, Michael-Renner 108
Wuts, Frank-Gurevich 135
Wyrwich, Markus-Mainka36
Yagupov, Igor-Agrest 150
-Evseev 145
Yakovich, Yuri-Lastin 33
-Malaniuk 69
-Teran Alvarez 69
Yanvaryov, Igor-Garcia Saez 141
Yegiazarian, Arsen-Minasian 143
Yermolinsky, Alex-Kindermann 149
Yilmaz, Turham-Norri 168
Yrjola, Jouni-Kauko 187
-Larsen 56
-Luik 172
-Stromer 173
Yusupov, Artur-Afifi 84
-Bareev 32
-Kindermann 84
-Malaniuk 88
Z
Zaiatz, Elena-Kosintseva 70, (72)
Zaitseva, Ludmila-Lastin 102
Zarkovic, Jugoslav-Osmanovic 125
Zeidler, Sven-Williams 113
Zelcic, Robert-Palac 165
Zenin, Dimitry-Annakov 135
Zhang, Zhong-Antunes 57
-Filippov (75), 79
-Ippolito 146
-Jelen 36
-Karpov 49
-Liang 150,155
-Mikhalevski 41
-Volkov 144
Zhidkov, Valery-Rychagov 88
Zhu, Chen-Hoang 43
Zhu, Chunhui-Lin 36
Ziese, Gerhard-Kalinitschew 166
Zsinka, Laszlo-Almasi 134
Zude, Erik-Lutz 177
Ziiger, Beat-Kindermann 114
Zurakhov, Vladen-Korchnoi 164
Zviagintsev, Vadim-Beim 103
-Gavrikov 102
Zysk, Robert-Bucker 140

206
 4 Appendix • 4.5 Index of variations

4.5 Index of variations

1 d4 2...& f6 3 &g2 g6 4 &f3
1 c4 |f5 2 £ic3 £>f6 3 g3 g6 4 Ag2 Ag7 5 d3 0 -0 4£>c3!? I 723

6 e 3 d6 7 £ige2 e5 8 0 -0 a5!? 184 4 h 4 724

6 £rf3 d6 7 0 -0 £ic6 8 Eb1 a5 9 a3 £lh5!? 785
6 e4 fe4!? 187 4& d2!? 724

1 &f3 f5 (1 ...d 6 179) 4 c3

4...d6!? 5 m > 3 ( 5 Ag5) 5 ... & C 6
2e4j? fe4 3 4ig5 £ic6!? 177
6 £ih3!? (6 £>f3?!/6 £id2!? e5 125)
2 d3! d6 3 e4 e5 4 £ic3 &c6 6...e5 7 de5 de5 8 0 -0 (8 e4) 726
4...C5 180 4...A a7 5W b3 (5 <hd2 124)
4...Ae7 780 5 ...6 .6 (5 ...d 5 129)
4...£rf6?! 5 ef5! Af5 6 d4! 180 6 £lh3! (6 &d2/6 £>f3 724 & 130)
5 ef5 Af5 6 d4 181 6...e5!? 7 £,c6 (7 de5 £>e5) 7...bc6 725
6...d5 7 £)f4 e6
1...f5 2 g3 8 £)d2 130
8 h4 737
2 g4 d5 (2...fg4 3 h3 g3! 174) 6...e6 7 £ td 2 d 5 737
3 ©d3 g6 175 4£>h3 £g7
2 h 3 & f6 3 g4 d5! 172 5 c4 0 - 0 6 &c3 d6 7 d5
7 £rf4/7 Ag5/7 0 - 0 777
2 ® d3 d6!?/d5 173 7 ...6 a 6 8«tf4
8 0 - 0 777
I 2 Af4 I 7 7 3 8 Ae3!? 772
8 ...e 5 !9 d e 6 c 6 ! 10 0 - 0
| 2 c4 1£>f6 3 £ic3 d6! (3...g6 133) 10 h4!? 773
4£g5 1 0 ...6 C 5 774
4 f3 e5!? 134
5 £rf4 £ic6!
4 £)f3 g6 135
5... 0 - 0
4...£lbd7! 135
6 c3 £ic6 777
2£>f3 £lf6 (2...g6 3 h4! 137) 6£>c3£ic6! 777
3 c 4 g 6 4 g3 Ag7 5 b4 106 6 h4! d6 778
3 Af4 06 737 6h4
3 A a 5 e6 138 6 d5 (6 c3/6 0 - 0 720) 6...£>e5
7 h4 &f7! 118
2 £>c3 | £rf6 3 Ag5 d5! 4 &f6 7 «Jc3 c6! 779
4 e3 e6 143 6...e5! 720
4 f3 £>c6! 744
4...ef6 5 e3 &e6 6 Jk.d3 4...&g7 5 0 -0
6 «tf3?!/6 h 4 /6 A b 5 /6 4ige2 146/147
5 b 4 d6 6 A b 2e 5 96
6 Wf3! 747
6 . . . 6 C 6 748 5 b3 d6 6 iLb2 0 -0 7 0 -0 see 6 b3
2 & g 5 g6 3 £id2!
3 £>c3/3 h 4/3 e3 153/154 5 ...0 -0 6 c4
3...6g7 4 e4! 6 b 4 d6 (6...Sc6!) 7 Ab2 £>c6 708
4 e3 755
4...fe4 5 £ie4 d5 6 £ic5 (6 4 ic 3 /6 £ig3) 755 6£)bd2 d6 7Se1
7 c3 £>c6 8 b4 a6 (8 ...fte 8 ) 702
2 e 4 fe4 3 £ic3 £rf6 4 Ag5! 7...«lc6 8 e4 (8 c3 103) 8...e5!?
4 f3?!/4 g4?! 164 8...fe4 703
4...&C6! 765 9 de5 de5 704

207
 4 Appendix • 4.5 Index of variations

6 b 3 d6 7 A b 2 8 b 3 | £)a6(8...e5 60)
7... 9£a3
8 c4 9 Ab2 (9 a4) 9 ...C 6 (9...e5!? 61)
8 £>bd2 £ ic 6 ! 10 d5 (10 a3?/10 Be1 62) 10...Ad7 62
9 £ic4 e6 87 9 ...C 6 10 m r c
9 Se1 (9...h6 88 )9 ...e 5 10 Sc1 h6/Sb8 63/64
10 e4 (10 de5 88) 10... f4 89 10...5b8 11 e4 64
8...£>a6
9 d5 c5 10 £>c3 8...a5
10 £>bd2 b5 89
10 dc6 bc6 11 £>c3 Ad7 89 8...£>a6 53
10... h6 90 9 Eb1
9 J fc 2 S b 8 (9 ...c 6 92) 9 £id4 53
10 Se1 c6 92 9 Ae3 54
10 £ic3 c6 93 9...C5 (9...& d7 55) 10 dc6 bc6 11 b4 &d7 12 a3
12 £>d4 Hc8! 56
9 &bd2 Bb8 10 a3!
12 b5 56
10 Wc2 b5!? 94
12...£>c7 13 Ab2 «ie6 (13...Bd8) 14 c5!
10 Be1 b5 94
14 e3 £>d8! 58
10 Bc1 b5 94
14...d5! (14...dc5?!/14...£ie4?!) 57
10... b5 94
7...£te4 8 £>bd2 4}c6
9 c4 £id2 10 W62 e5 9 S b 1 49
11 de5 de5 99 9 e 4 !? 50
11 d5!? £>b8! 99
9 & d 2 49
9 £>e1!? d5! (9...&d2?!) 10 £)df3 f4 98
9 & e 1 £ia6 10 £id3
6...d6 7 &c3 @e8 8 d5 10...Ad7
10...c6 (10...e5?!/10...Wf7l? 45)
11 e4 e5! 45
11 £>a4 cd5 46
11 Bb1
9 c5 11 Be1 W 7 12 Bab8 (12...£ic5?!) 46
9 Ag5 c5 84 11... c6
9...& h8 85 11...Bb8/11...Wf7 47
8 Ee1 Wf7!(8...£ic6/8...e5 65) 12 b3 £>c7 47
9 Wd3 h6 9 4 ld 4 £ia6
10 e4 fe4 70 10 e4
10 b3 %c6 79 10 b3 40
9 & g5 # c 4 79/80 10 Sb1 41
9 b 3 £ )e 4 (9... h6!? 80) 10...fe4 11 «te4 «te4 12 &e4 Ah3
10 Ab2 4ld7!? 12...Ad7!? 42
1 0 ...& C 6 11 Sc1! 75 13 Be1
11 Bc1 72 13 Ag2 Ag2 14 * g 2 £ ic 5 15 Be1 W 7 (16 Ae3)
11 #c2!?/11 4id2!? 81 16 f4 42
11... «idf6 82 13...41.5 43
8 £id5!? <£id5 9 cd5
9& e3
9...6 d 7 !
9...h6
9 ...* b 5 10 &g5! 68
10 Wc2 9 . ..6 .6 10 Wd2 (10 Ad4/10 Bc1/10 © c l 33)
10 &g5 (10 © b3/10 e4) 10...Ad7 (10...£>g4) 34
10... £>f6 69 10 h4!?
10...£)b6 70
10 £>b5!? £ » 6 (10...lTd8?!) 11 Wd2 c6 36
10...6b6!
10...Wd8?! 71 10 m i2!? 36
11 &g5 (11 Wc7 h6 71) 11 ...h6 72 10...£ia6 37

208
 STEFAN KINDERM AN N
gained the chess Grand­
master title in 1988. He
has represented Germany
in six chess Olympiads
and once qualified for the
World Championship. He
has worked for many years
as a chess writer and
trainer.

The Leningrad System is one of the sharpest and most inter­

esting replies to 1 d4, and since this typical set-up is also
playable against the flank openings 1 c4 and 1 Nf3, it pro­
vides the Black player with a genuine universal weapon. A
repertoire for Black based on 7... Qe8 in the main line of
the Leningrad System is presented here, but since the typi­
cal motifs and ideas for both sides are fully explained,
White players too will benefit from a study of the book.

This English edition is a fully updated and expanded ver­

sion of the German edition, which received some highly
favourable reviews, for example:

... must be among the best opening books of the past five
years...rich with history of the variation, meticulously re­
searched, enhanced by explanation and exercises, and full
of original analysis... Anyone interested in the theory of the
Dutch Defence and the Leningrad Variation will find it an
absolute must for their library... Obviously I highly recom­
mend this book...'
John Watson in The Week in Chess'.

Stefan Kindermann has been a grandmaster since 1988

and is one of the world's leading experts on the Leningrad
System.

ISBN 3-283-00478-1
Ift CB555
EDITION OLMS 9 II783283II004781I