Introduction

The Spanish priest Ruy Lopez, who was the strongest
player of his day, described in
the 1500s the opening which now bears his name. At least, the British
and Americans know it as the Ruy
Lopez: in Europe they are more likely to call it the Spanish Game,
and Tartakower wryly referred to it as Spanish Torture. (Because I
was brought up in East Anglia and not Spain, I described it for
years as the “Royal Opez”, but I believe it is properly pronounced more
like
“Ree Lop’eth”.)

It remains the most important of the King’s-side openings, and
is still generally considered the best way to keep White’s
initiative going after 1…e5. It is no accident that most
of the games in Bronstein’s book “200 Open Games” begin with
the Ruy Lopez opening.

The ideas for each side in the Ruy Lopez are very many and
varied; I hope below to introduce some of the basic concepts and
give you some landmarks for your own exploration of this fine
opening.

The first few moves of the Ruy Lopez opening are easy to follow:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 is very natural. The moves often played
by juniors here, 3. Bc4 and 3. d4, are also easy to
understand, but may not be the strongest. 3.d4, the Scotch
Opening, leads to an early clash but perhaps also an early
simplification, with a loss of tension and thus winning chances for
both sides. The Italian game with 3. Bc4, hitting f7 and
hoping to deter …d5, paradoxically rather invites …d7-d5 and an
early exchange in the centre, with equality. This is because the
logical follow-up 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6, results in Black
regaining control of the d5 point.

The Ruy Lopez move, 3. Bb5, keeps the idea of taking over
the centre with d2-d4 (or with c2-c3 and d2-d4), but first does a
number of important other jobs. Like in the Italian Game, the
Bishop clears the way for White to castle, and then play Rf1-e1.
But on b5 rather than c4 the Bishop cannot be hit by …d7-d5. If
Black does ever move the d-Pawn, the half-pin of the Knight on c6
becomes a full pin, undermining Black’s control of e5 and d4.

In the short term there is an immediate threat: the Bishop
attacks the Knight that defends the pawn attacked by the Knight
(the house that Ruy built). It would be great for White if it
worked so simply, but after 3…(pass); 4 Bxc6, dxc6! 5 Nxe5?!
Qd4! Black will regain his pawn through the double
attack. So, the immediate threat to the Pawn isn’t quite so
deadly, but once White has castled and/or protected the e-Pawn the
threat will become real. Also, the Pawn on e5 is a lot easier to
get at than the one on f7, and Black can get badly tied up or just
stiff and cramped trying to hold on to a share of the centre.

The other tactical point to note is that the counterattack by
Black on e4 by …Nf6 can be met by White castling, since after
…Nf6xe4 White has Rf1-e1: if White does not win a piece, it is at
least often awkward for Black to get the King’s-side sorted. So :
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O! Nxe4 5. d4! and White
has an edge.

The most natural sequence of moves trying to hold onto e5 leads
to trouble for Black: after 1 e4, e5; 2 Nf3, Nc6; 3 Bb5, d6; 4
d4, Bd7; 5 Nc3, Nf6; 6 0-0, Be7; 7 Re1, exd4; 8 Nxd4, O-O; 9
Bf1! (to stop the exchanges threatened by 9…Nxd4) when Black
has lots of pieces but not enough space.

Why does Black play 7…exd4 when I said the idea is to
hold on in the centre? Tarrasch’s famous trap showed that Black
cannot play 7…0-0 because of the forcing continuation
8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Qxd8 Raxd8 [10…Rfxd8 allows 15 Kf1
– see later 11.Nxe5 Bxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Nd3 f5 14.f3 Bc5+ 15.Kf1]
11.Nxe5 Bxe4 [11…Nxe4 12.Nxc6] 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Nd3 f5 14.f3
Bc5+
15.Nxc5 [15.Kf1 Bb6 16.fxe4 fxe4+; 15.Kh1 Nf2+ 16.Nxf2 Bxf2 17.Rf1]
15…Nxc5 16.Bg5 Rd5 [16…Rde8 17.Be7] 17.Be7 Re8 18.c4
winning
the exchange. (If instead 10…Rexd8 White would have 15 Kh1
(15…Rxd3; 16 fxe4).) Tarrasch won a game with this against Marco
AFTER publishing it as analysis! (If
instead 10…Rexd8 White would have 15 Kh1
(15…Rxd3; 16 fxe4).)

These lines had a strong effect on players who started to
realise just how good the Ruy Lopez is. The Giuoco Piano is a great
opening for your early chess years; the Ruy Lopez is an opening for
life.

Black has many lines, which fall into basically two approaches
(as usual): defence or counterattack. Defence of the
strong point at e5 we have looked at with 3…d6, the
Steinitz Defence, (or 3…a6; 4 Ba4, d6, the
Deferred Steinitz Defence), but we have seen that the point
cannot be held for long; counterattack may be attempted with
3…Nf6, the Berlin Defence, or 3…a6; 4 Ba4,
Nf6; the Morphy Defence. The Morphy move 3…a6 was an
important refinement of Black’s resources, making the Bishop choose
its diagonal and allowing the pin-breaking …b5. Reuben Fine gives
an instructive comparison of variations with and without …a6:

In reply to the Morphy the obvious 5 Nc3 is rather boring, but
White can play 5 O-O since, as we have seen, Black cannot
really win the e4 pawn. The Morphy has itself a strong point line,
5 O-O, Be7; 6 Re1, b5; 7 Bb3, d6, the Closed Morphy
Defence, and a counter-attacking line, 5 O-O, Nxe4; 6 d4, b5; 7
Bb3, d5, the Open Morphy Defence. These are systems of
great richness, and the Closed Morphy best avoided until your chess
understanding is well advanced.

 

The Ideas
behind the Ruy Lopez

5 d4 or 5 Qe2 (idea O-O and Rd1)
or 5.Qe2/6.Qe2 lead to more familiar open and attacking
e-pawn styles of game. An example: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. O-O Be7 7. Re1 b5 8. Bb3 d6 9. Bd5 Nxd5
10. exd5 Ne5 11. Nxd4 O-O

This is about even, and, I hope, a game juniors would enjoy
playing as either colour; these variations are a good introduction
to the Ruy Lopez.

This is probably a good way to play the Ruy for Black
in your early career. The Open Morphy Defence relies above all on
piece activity, and obeys two good general opening rules for
Black:

(a) If your opponent lets you take a central Pawn, take it off
if you do not lose a piece (viz. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6
4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 and now after 6. Re1 Black is in no
pin, so 6…Nc5 or 6…Nd6 are quite all right.)

(b) Aim to play …d5 yourself if you can

Grandmaster theory suggests that Black is taking on rather a lot
of weaknesses when playing this way, but that may not be so
important if you are not playing Grandmasters. Siegbert Tarrasch,
who was so effective playing the Ruy as White, preferred to play
this way as Black, and since then Max Euwe, Victor Kortchnoi, Artur
Yusupov, Jan Timman and Viswanathan Anand have all been happy to
play the Open Morphy at World Championship and Candidates’ level,
so you can see that this is not very much of a handicap.

The veteran English player Vernon Dilworth suggested the most
aggressive way of playing the Open Morphy as Black:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6
5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.c3 Bc5 10.Nbd2 0-0 11.Bc2
Nxf2

Black sacrifices two active pieces for a Rook while
White is still getting the Queen’s-side organised. Black will
follow up with …f6, attacking down the f-file.

Black can play more calmly at move 11
(11…Bf5 is fashionable since Kortchnoi adopted it), or
earlier play 9…Be7 (Euwe’s preference) or 9…Nc5
(Kortchnoi’s other preference). These lines are all rather complex
and there is a lot of theory on them, but until your opponents know
all the theory, get stuck in!

There are several other lines where we see an early …d5 by
Black:

…d5 in the Marshall Gambit, a favourite of club players:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3
0-0 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6, e.g. 12.d4
Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Be3 Bg4 16.Qd3 Rae8 17.Nd2 f5 18.f4 Kh8
19.Bxd5 cxd5 20.Qf1 Qh5 21.Qg2 Re4 22.a4 bxa4 23.Rxa4 g5 24.Nxe4
fxe4 25.Rxa6 gxf4 26.Rxd6 fxe3 27.Rxe3 Bh3 28.g4 Qxg4 29.Rg3
Qd1+ 0-1, Kosten-Hebden, 1982.

…d5 in the normal Closed Morphy: e.g. Kasparov,G (2800) –
Karpov,A (2730) [C92] Wch35-KK5 USA/FRA (New York) (8), 1990
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6
8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nd7 10.d4 Bf6 11.a4 Bb7 12.Be3 Na5 13.Bc2 Nc4 14.Bc1
d5! TN

…d5 in the Classical Defence: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5
4. c3 d5?!! Or more sanely, Unzicker – Fischer Leipzig 1960
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 Bb6 6.0-0 0-0 7.Re1 exd4
8.cxd4 d5 9.e5 Ne4 10.Nc3 Bg4 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.Rxe4
Bxf3 14.Qxf3 Bxd4 15.Be3 Bxb2 16.Rb1 f5 17.exf6
½-½

And wherever else White is slack, e.g. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5. Nc3 or 5. d3 when Black should get
castled and look for …d7-d5. Tiviakov,S (2625) – Sokolov,I
(2665) [C86]Wijk (10), 1996 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6
5.Qe2 Be7 6.c3 0-0 7.0-0 b5 8.Bb3 d5 9.d3 Re8 10.Re1 h6 11.Nbd2 Be6
12.Nf1 Bc5 13.Ng3 a5 (…0-1, 41),

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6
5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Nc6
12.Nbd2 Qb6 13.dxc5 dxc5 14.Nf1 Be6 15.Ne3 Rad8 16.Qe2 g6 17.Ng5 c4
! 18.a4 Kg7 19.axb5 axb5 20.Rb1 Na5 21.Nf3 Qc7

Every White piece is queuing up behind the e-pawn,
waiting for…

22.Nd5 ! 22…Bxd5
23.exd5

White’s pieces control many central squares, and the
Bishops have new avenues of attack.

23…Rfe8 24.Qxe5 Qxe5 25.Nxe5 Nxd5
26.Ra1 Nb3 27.Bxb3 cxb3 28.Bh6+ ! 28…Kg8 ?! 29.Nc6 Rc8 30.Rad1
Rxc6 31.Rxd5 f6 32.Rxb5 g5 33.Rxb3 Kf7 34.Rb7 Re6 35.Rxe6 Kxe6
36.h4 Rg8 37.f4 Bc5+ 38.Kf1 gxh4 39.Rb5 Rc8 40.f5+ Kd6 41.b4 h3
42.Rxc5 h2 43.Bf4+ 1-0

This is a simple way to play all closed double
King’s-Pawn positions: park a Knight on f5 and play for a
King’s-side attack.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6
5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.d3

White plays quietly in the centre, hoping to avoid
distractions there.

9…Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.Nbd2 Qc7 12.Nf1
Nc6 13.Ne3 Bb7 14.Nf5 Rfe8 15.Bg5 Nd7 16.Bb3 Nb6 17.Bxe7 Nxe7
18.Bxf7+ Kxf7 19.Ng5+ Kg8 20.Qh5 Nxf5 21.Qxh7+ Kf8 22.Qxf5+ Kg8
23.Qg6 Qd7 24.Re3 1-0

You should never forget that one of the key aims for
White in the e-Pawn openings is to take over the centre with c3 and
d4. If Black takes his eye off the ball White can switch to this
plan with effect, and in fact White can win a lot of games through
simple domination of the centre. More space and more
manoeuvrability means chances of attack:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6
5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7

11.Nh4 exd4 12.cxd4 Nb6 13.Nf3 d5
14.e5 Ne4 15.Nbd2 Nxd2 16.Bxd2 Bf5 17.Bc2 Bxc2 18.Qxc2 Rc8 19.b3
Nd7 20.e6 fxe6 21.Rxe6 c5 22.Ba5 Qxa5 23.Rxe7 Qd8 24.Ng5
1-0

The Bishop that lurks on c2 is an ace up White’s
sleeve: while Black is distracted elsewhere White can suddenly whip
out a King’s-side attack. A glorious example of this was:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6
5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Bb7 10.d4 Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8
12.a4 h6 13.Bc2 exd4 14.cxd4 Nb4 15.Bb1 c5 16.d5 Nd7 17.Ra3 f5
18.Rae3 Nf6 19.Nh2 Kh8 20.b3 bxa4 21.bxa4 c4 22.Bb2 fxe4
23.Nxe4

23… Nfxd5 24.Rg3 Re6 25.Ng4 Qe8
26.Nxh6 c3 27.Nf5 cxb2 28.Qg4 Bc8 29.Qh4+ Rh6 30.Nxh6 gxh6 31.Kh2
Qe5 32.Ng5 Qf6 33.Re8 Bf5 34.Qxh6+ [34.Nf7+ is Mate in 6!
34…Qxf7 35.Qxh6+ Bh7 36.Rxa8 Ne7 37.Rxf8+ Ng8 38.Rgxg8+ Qxg8
39.Qxh7#] 34…Qxh6 35.Nf7+ Kh7 36.Bxf5+ Qg6 37.Bxg6+ Kg7
38.Rxa8 Be7 39.Rb8 a5 40.Be4+ Kxf7 41.Bxd5+ 1-0

White can also say nonchalantly that: Black is
cramped, and so will find it difficult to organise a defence, so I
will attack the King in any event. The situation is usually more
complex than this bluntness implies, but the core plan is still
played:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6
5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0

[8…Na5 9.Bc2 c5 10.d4 Qc7 11.h3
Nc6 12.Be3 0-0 13.Nbd2 Rd8 14.Rc1 Bd7 15.Nf1 b4 16.d5 Na7 17.c4 Nc8
18.g4 Nb6 19.b3 a5 20.Ng3 g6 21.Kh2 a4 22.Rg1 axb3 23.axb3 Bf8
24.Qd2 Ra2 25.Bg5 Bg7 26.Qe3 Rda8 27.Bb1 R2a3 28.Ne1 Kh8 29.Qd3 Ng8
30.Nc2 R3a7 31.Rcf1 Be8 32.Be3 Nd7 33.Ne1 Qd8 34.g5 Qa5 35.h4 Qd8
36.h5 Qe7 37.Nf3 Nb6 38.Rh1 Qd7 39.Kg2 Ne7 40.hxg6 fxg6 41.Rh3 Bf7
42.Rfh1 Bg8 43.Nf5 Rf8 44.Nxg7 Kxg7 45.Qe2 1-0
Capablanca,Jose-Kupchik,Abraham/New York (07) 1915]

9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7 12.Nbd2
Nc6 13.d5 Nd8 14.Nf1 Ne8

“In olden times White would often
attack by g4 and Ng3 in the Closed Spanish; once in a while White
would break through with a Nf5 sacrifice, but now it is recognised
that so long as all Black’s pieces can reach the King’s-side, a
direct attack should not work. Thus, the emphasis has switched to
diversionary Queen’s-side play, with a King’s-side attack being
reserved for a favourable moment when Black’s pieces have been
lured away. Moreover, the King’s-side attack is usually based on f4
rather than g4, since only f4 offers the chance of activating the
light-squared Bishop on c2.”

“White’s preliminary a4 gives him control of the a-file; this
may not appear relevant to the conduct of a King’s-side attack, but
watch what happens later!” John Nunn

15.a4

[15.g4 g6 16.Ng3 Ng7 17.Kh2 f6
18.Be3 Bd7 19.Qd2 Nf7 20.Rg1 Kh8 21.Raf1 Rg8 22.Ne1 Raf8 =
Robatsch-Padevsky, Amsterdam 1972]

15…Rb8 16.axb5 axb5 17.b4 c4
18.Ng3 g6 19.Nh2 Ng7 20.Rf1 Bd7 21.f4 Bh4 22.Qf3 f5 23.fxe5 dxe5
24.exf5 Bxg3 25.Qxg3 Nxf5 26.Qf2 [26.Qe1 +/-]
26…Nb7 27.Ng4 h5 28.Ra6 hxg4 29.Rxg6+ Ng7 30.Rxg7+ [30.Rxg7+
Kxg7 31.Bh6+ Kxh6 (31…Kg8 32.Qxf8+ Rxf8 33.Rxf8#; 31…Kh8
32.Qxf8+ Rxf8 33.Rxf8#) 32.Qh4+ Kg7 33.Qh7#] 1-0

Of course, what else may distract Black from defence
of the King’s-side is an opportunity to attack the Queen’s-side,
and this attack can succeed against the best opposition:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6
5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Bb7 10.d4 Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8
12.a4 Qd7 13.axb5 axb5 14.Rxa8 Bxa8 [14…Rxa8?!
15.Ng5±] 15.d5 Na5 16.Ba2!? N 16…c6 17.b4 Nb7! 18.c4
Rc8!? [18…Nd8+=] 19.dxc6?! [19.Qe2] 19…Qxc6= 20.c5?!
[20.Bb2] 20…Nd8 21.Bb2

21…dxc5! =+ 22.bxc5 Qxc5 23.Bxe5
Nd7 24.Bb2 Qb4! 25.Nb3?! [25.Qb1] 25…Nc5-/+

Black has the advantage but there is still a lot of
tension in the position.

26.Ba1 Bxe4 27.Nfd4 Ndb7 28.Qe2 Nd6
29.Nxc5 Qxc5 30.Qg4 Re8 31.Rd1 Bg6 32.Qf4 Qb4 33.Qc1 Be4 34.Re1 Qa5
35.Bb3 Qa8 36.Qb2 b4 37.Re3 Bg6 38.Rxe8 Qxe8 39.Qc1 Ne4 40.Bd5 Nc5
41.Nb3 Nd3 0-1

Often, Black will stake out some space on the
Queen’s-side with …a6 and …b5. Whether in a given position this
represents Queen’s-side counterplay or Queen’s-side weaknesses is
one of the key Ruy Lopez questions!

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6
5.0-0 Bd7 6.d4 Nf6 7.c3 Be7 8.Nbd2 0-0 9.Re1 Re8 10.Nf1 h6 11.Ng3
Bf8 12.Bd2

Modest, but White is not so much concerned to point a
battering-ram at a weak spot (there aren’t any) as to maintain a
flexible position where Black will be less able to re-arrange the
pieces to counter White’s latest idea.

12…b5 13.Bc2 Na5 14.b3 c5 15.d5
Nh7 16.h3 Be7 17.Nf5 Nb7 18.a4 bxa4 19.b4 a5 20.Bxa4 axb4 21.cxb4
Bf8 22.Bc6 Qc7 23.b5 Nf6 24.Qc2 Reb8 25.Ne3 Bc8 26.Nc4 Be7 27.b6
Qd8 28.Ra7

The point of using an open file is to provide
invasion points for rooks, although it’s unusual for a Rook to
arrive on the seventh, supported by a Pawn. Black cannot bear this,
but the exchange concedes a monster pawn on a7.

28…Nd7 29.Qa4 Rxa7 30.bxa7 Ra8
31.Qa6 Qc7

Black’s pieces are standing on each other’s toes and
cannot escape the attack of White’s pieces. The Black Rook has
nowhere to move to.

32.Bxd7 Qxd7 [32…Bxd7
33.Nb6] 33.Nb6 Nd8 34.Qa1 1-0

(see also the first game of the Deep Blue-Kasparov
return match in 1997)

Not a common occurrence but there are several
attacking plans for Black. There are several …Bg4 lines where an
incautious h2-h3 can be met by …h7-h5!

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.c3 Bg4
5. h3 h5! or

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 bxc6 5. O-O Bg4 6.
h3 h5!

A more complex line is seen in the Archangel
Variation: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5 6.Bb3
Bb7 7.Re1 Bc5 8.c3 d6 9.d4 Bb6 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bh4 Qd7

Black announces his intention to abandon all subtlety
and play for a King’s-side attack.

12.a4 0-0-0 13.axb5 axb5
14.Bxf6

[14.Na3 g5 15.Bg3 h5 16.dxe5
(16.h4 gxh4 17.Bxh4 Rh6 18.Nxb5 Rg8 19.Qd3 exd4 20.cxd4 Nb4)
16…h4 17.exf6 hxg3 18.hxg3 g4 19.Nd4 Rh7 20.Bd5 Rdh8 =+ BCO2]

14…gxf6 15.Bd5 Rhg8 16.Kh1 Qg4
17.Rg1 exd4 18.cxd4 f5 19.Nc3 fxe4 20.Nxe4 Qf5 21.Nc3 Nb4 22.Bxb7+
Kxb7 Klovans-Shirov 87 = BCO2

Black also has some gambit lines: as well as the
Marshall Attack (see above), Black has several opportunities to
play …f5. The immediate 3…f5 (or 3…a6 4. Ba4 f5) is often
frowned upon but also often played, and if White is a little slow
in the Steinitz Variation Black may play the Siesta Variation, a
far from sleepy line.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.c3 a6
5.Ba4 f5 6.d4 fxe4 7.Ng5 exd4 8.Nxe4 Nf6 9.Bg5 Be7 10.Qxd4 b5
11.Nxf6+ gxf6 12.Qd5 bxa4 13.Bh6 Qd7 14.0-0 Bb7 15.Bg7 0-0-0
16.Bxh8 Ne5 17.Qd1 Bf3 18.gxf3 Qh3 0-1

Some Key Variations of the Ruy
Lopez

 

Variations
of the Ruy Lopez without 3…a6

These are less important at GM level than the main
lines with 3…a6, but at club level they have many virtues: less
theoretical, less well-known, and often sim pler to understand.
Moreover, I often find that club players when faced with 3…a6
often play 4. Bxc6, and if they do play 4. Ba4, after 4…Nf6 they
cannot be trusted to play 5.O-O, and instead play some clod-hopping
move like 5. d3 or 5. Nc3. While these are not particularly
strong lines they may be more stodgy than you would wish to play
against as Black, and many of these old lines may lead to more open
or complex games at club level. They may be grouped as follows:

Strong-point
lines with …d6, …Nge7 and/or …g6.

Black can hold the centre without 3…a6 using one or
some
combination of these moves. White’s strongest plan in each case is
undoubtedly to play an immediate c3 and d4, with or without O-O.
Black can then hope to slug it out in a roughly equal position
(although Black has not yet castled and may find it awkward if he
has not castled and the centre opens up.)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nge7 4.c3 g6
5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 d5 7.e5 Bg7 8.Bg5 0-0 9.h3 Bf5 10.Nc3 Be4 11.Nxe4
dxe4 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.Nd2 h6 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Nxe4 Rad8 16.Qa4 Qh4
17.Qxc6 Rxd4 0-1

Active lines with …Bc5 and/or
…Nf6

Both Fischer and particularly Spassky have
experimented with the Classical Variation (3…Bc5), and the
related Berlin Classical 3…Nf6 4. O-O Bc5 . Again White is
best advised to go for central break, and again it is reasonable
for Black to hope for equality.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0
Bc5 5.Nxe5 Nxe5 6.d4 a6 7.dxe5 axb5 8.exf6 Qxf6 9.Nc3 c6 10.Qh5 d6
11.Bg5 Qg6 12.Qh4 h6 13.Bf4 b4 14.Ne2 0-0 15.Ng3 Re8 16.Rfd1 d5
17.Be3 Be7 18.Qf4 Bd6 19.Qh4 Bxg3 20.hxg3 Qxe4 21.Rd4 Qxc2 22.Rxb4
Rxa2 23.Rxa2 Qb1+ 24.Kh2 Qxa2 25.Bxh6 Qb1 26.Be3 Qc2 27.Qg5 f6
28.Qh5 Re5 29.Qh4 c5 30.Ra4 Rxe3 31.fxe3 g5 32.Qh6 Qxa4 33.Qxf6 Qc6
34.Qxg5+ Kh7 35.Qe7+ Kg6 36.g4 Bxg4 37.Qh4 Qd6+ 0-1

Make a mess with 3…Nd4

One on its own, Bird’s Defence has never been refuted
and leads to unique positions in which White may be uncomfortable,
or at least less fluent:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nd4 4.Nxd4
exd4 5.Bc4 Nf6 6.Qe2 Bc5 7.e5 0-0 8.0-0 d5 9.exf6 dxc4 10.Qh5 b6
11.fxg7 Re8 12.d3 cxd3 13.cxd3 Ba6 14.Qf3 Qe7 15.Bf4 Qe2 16.Nd2
Qxf3 17.Nxf3 Bxd3 18.Rfe1 Be2 19.Bxc7 d3 20.a3 a5 21.Bf4 Re4 22.Bd2
Rae8 23.Bc3 a4 24.Ng5 Rc4 25.Rad1 Rc8 26.Ra1 Rd8 27.Nf3 Rxc3
28.bxc3 d2 29.Rxe2 d1Q+ 30.Rxd1 Rxd1+ 31.Ne1 Rc1 32.Re4 f5 33.Re8+
Kxg7 34.Kf1 Rxc3 35.Ke2 Rxa3 36.Nd3 Ra2+ 37.Kf3 Ra3 38.Rd8 Rc3
39.Kf4 a3 40.Rd7+ Kf8 41.Ne5 a2 42.Kxf5 a1Q 43.Rd8+ Kg7 44.Rd7+ Kg8
0-1

Variations of the Ruy Lopez with
3…a6

The Exchange Variation

We have seen that after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5
a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 White cannot win a pawn with 5. Nxe5
because of 5….Qd4.

What you may not know is that White can play this line to win,
because in some sense, he is already a pawn up!

Let me explain.

If you have an extra pawn, you should:

• ­ exchange off
  pieces, not pawns
• ­ create a passed
  pawn
• ­ advance the
  passed pawn and either:

1. – force your opponent to give up material to stop it queening,
   or
2. – force your way into the opponent’s position to take material
   yourself (usually pawns)

With this in mind, let’s look at the pawn formation after 1.
e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. d4 exd4 6. Qxd4 Qxd4 7.
Nxd4:

Now, if there were only Kings on the board, White
could easily create a passed pawn with f4, e5 and f5 and e6.

But Black cannot do the same on the other side, unless White
allows all the front pawns to come to a4,b4 and c4, when there is a
trick with …b3! e.g. axb3, c3! bxc3 and …a3. As long as White
avoids that trap, the passed pawn on the King’s side should
win.

This is what I mean by already being a pawn up. You have an
extra pawn on the King’s-side, and Black’s extra Queen’s-side pawn
is useless. This is not the only thing going on in the position
(else the Lopez would be an easy win for White) but it is a
constant fallback plan for White.

Emanuel Lasker played this several times, and more recently,
Bobby Fischer discovered that you could also play 5. O-O!
with an awkward moment for Black, because now there really is a
threat to the e5 pawn which is not easy to meet.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6
dxc6 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 c5 8.Ne2 Bd7 9.b3 Bc6 10.f3 Be7
11.Bb2 Bf6 12.Bxf6 Nxf6 13.Nd2 0-0-0 14.0-0-0 Rd7 15.Nf4 Re8 16.Nc4
b6 17.a4 a5 18.Rxd7 Nxd7 19.Rd1 Ne5 20.Nxe5 Rxe5 21.c4
Re8

22.Nh5 Rg8 23.Rd3 f6 24.Kd2 Be8
25.Ng3 Bd7 26.Ke3 Re8 27.Nh5 Re7 28.g4 c6 29.h4 Kc7 30.g5 f5 31.Ng3
fxe4 32.Nxe4 Bf5 33.h5 Rd7 34.Rc3 Rd1 35.Kf4 Bd7 36.Re3 Rh1 37.Ng3
Rh4+ 38.Ke5 Rh3 39.f4 Kd8 40.f5 Rh4

41.f6 gxf6+ 42.Kxf6 Be8 43.Nf5 Rf4
44.g6 hxg6 45.hxg6 Rg4 46.Rxe8+ Kxe8 47.g7 Kd7 48.Nh4 Rxg7 49.Kxg7
Ke6 50.Nf3 Kf5 51.Kf7 Ke4 52.Ke6 Kd3 53.Kd6 Kc3 54.Kxc6 Kxb3 55.Kb5
1-0

The Closed Morphy Defence

This is the classic battle ground in the Ruy. Black
may find it difficult to hold tight in the closed Morphy, but
perhaps not as difficult as it is for White to keep everything
under control. There are some classic positional themes here,
determined by the pawn formation:

1. Space: Apart from any commitment to passive play
being bad match tactics, as long Black has a Pawn on d6 it will
always be a little more easy for White to manoeuvre than Black, for
the Black position has a bottleneck on the d-file. Stean explains
that this is why White spends so much time in the opening avoiding
the exchange of the light-squared Bishop: while Black retains all
four minor pieces, this slight cramp will be most clearly felt.

2. Flexibility: Moreover, it is extremely important to have good
manoeuvring skills, because at any point the Pawn formation can
shift: from the basic formation (a) we can go at least four
different ways (b-e below)…

Another line of thought I found useful:

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 Nc6 4.Nf3 Bc5
5.0-0 d6 6.c3 Qe7 [6…0-0 7.Nbd2 a6 8.Bb3 Ba7]
7.Nbd2 a6 8.Bb3 0-0 9.Re1 Be6 10.Nf1 [10.Bc2] 10…Ba7
11.Bc2

“…why is the Ruy Lopez (which this
opening has virtually become) so difficult for Black to combat?
Look at the present position: Black’s pieces are sensibly
developed; he has as much space as White; his pawns are strong. Yet
he has problems.”

“The answer seems to be that in this type of Ruy Lopez position
Black can easily get caught in a situation where his game cannot
unfold. Here for instance, White has his plans of Ng3-f5 and later
d4, but it is less easy for Black to find something profitable to
do without weakening himself or making some serious concession. His
pieces may look reasonably placed, but they cannot readily achieve
anything constructive or relevant. I should make it clear that this
does not have to happen in a Lopez; it is far from being a bad
opening for him. But in practice one error (6…Qe7) can leave him
in misery. And so, if a player seems to have a respectable game (in
a Ruy Lopez or any other opening for that matter), yet still loses,
his misfortune may often be traced back to this lack of life in his
position.” — NUNN AND GRIFFITHS

We also recognise that the tension may even be added to by Black
playing …c5, (the Tchigorin line) – see later.

Black may resolve the tension
by playing …e5xd4 (c3xd4) which results in an unbalanced position
where White has an extra central Pawn (b).

These adjacent Pawns in a more open position confer a
bigger advantage, but in a more open position may be more
vulnerable to attack e.g. along the e-file.

White may resolve the tension in the first formation, by
playing either d4-d5 (giving a closed centre (c) with an advanced
d-Pawn), or by playing d4xe5 (…d6xe5) with a balanced, semi-open
KP centre (d).

The advanced d-Pawn gives a space advantage,
particularly on the Queen’s-side. To play for a win the c-Pawn and
maybe b-Pawn should be advanced, to seize more space and perhaps
open lines on that side. The opponent may consider an advance of
the f-Pawn to undermine the d-Pawn and counter-attack on the
King’s-side.

This is a very common formation in KP openings. If
neither side can achieve a sharp advance of the f-Pawn, play will
be dominated by piece play on either wing. There are natural posts
for Knights on d5 and f5 (d4 and f4 for Black), and if Black’s
c-Pawn has pushed to c5 earlier, the d5 point is even more
attractive. Control of the d-file is a good idea but can usually be
countered, resulting in exchanges. Occupation of the mutual
outposts f5 and f4 by Knights is less straightforward to counter,
and while your opponent is sorting out that threat, it may be that
you can get the d-file then.

The e-Pawn confers a space advantage and attacking
prospects on the King’s-side, which may be added to by f2-f4. The
e-Pawn is exposed on the half-open file, and should be restrained
(e.g. by …Re8) from breaking open lines for the attack by e4-e5.
Black’s break …d6-d5 is a natural plan to dissolve the
centre.

The
Tchigorin Counterattack

So, as a result of facing all this hassle, Black
developed a plan of Queen’s-side counterplay in the closed
Morphy:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6
5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5
11.d4

Black’s idea is two-fold: to maintain the e5 point in
the centre, while attacking on the Queen’s-side.

Almost every legal move has been tried here:

11…Qc7 was Tchigorin’s original recipe

11…Nd7 was famously tried by Keres

11…Bb7 is a good idea but may be squashed by d4-d5, so Black
may prefer to preface this with 11…cxd4. After 12. cxd4 as well
as 12…Bb7 we also see two new ideas: 12…Nc6 and 12…Bd7

As we have seen White has a variety of plans in response:

(a) just to manoeuvre, keeping the tension as long as
possible and improving the position of your own pieces, relying on
the slight extra space referred to above

(b) break up the Queen’s-side with a2-a4,

(c) seal the centre with d4-d5 (a Ruy Lopez formation which has
a lot in common with the King’s Indian!),

(d) open up the d5 outpost with dxc5 (or dxe5). However, White
is not yet terribly close to putting a Knight on d5, and Black can
now think about a plan like …c5-c4, and …Na5-b7-c5-d3, with a
monster Black Knight on d3. In fact, Black can aim for …c4
whether or not White exposes the d5 point, and can play for it from
formations other than the main line Tchigorin.

Kasparov-Karpov (1990),
m14

So this is a formation that requires some delicate footwork by
both players.

Modern
variations in the Closed Morphy.

More recently Black has experimented with more
restrained plans than the Tchigorin, hoping to avoid the
disadvantages of this line (decentralised Knight on a5, potential
Queen’s-side weaknesses) and instead manoeuvre more adroitly to
secure adequate play across the board. These lines have included,
after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5
7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3:

The Breyer Variation, 9…Nbd7, where Black hopes to
reorganise his pieces smoothly at a time when White is by no means
well-developed. This was the ‘grower’ when I was a boy, and is
still an important line.

The Smyslov Variation, 9…h6, waiting for White to show
his hand, a line which has been superceded by…

The Flohr-Zaitsev Variation, 9…Bb7, which has been the
height of current fashion since Zaitsev showed that the old plan
with …Na5 (e.g. Fischer,RJ – Stein,L, 1967) was less safe
than re-organising with …Re8 and …Be7. This is a pretty
heavyweight GM line outside my own experience and I won’t comment
further, but you will see it about:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6
5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Bb7 10.d4 Re8

[If White wants, there is a draw to be had by 11. Ng5 Rf8 12.
Nf3]

11.Nbd2 Bf8 12.a4 h6 13.Bc2 Nb8 14.Bd3 c6 15.Nf1 Nbd7
16.Ng3 Qc7 17.Bd2 g6 18.Qc1 Kh7 19.b3 Bg7 20.Qc2 Nf8 21.Be3 Ne6
22.Rad1 Rac8 23.Bf1 Bf8 24.Rd2 Qb8 25.Qb1 Ba8 26.b4 Bb7

Amazing: 26 moves without any exchanges. And it has
been suggested that White’s 27^th was inferior to
Qa2!

27.axb5 axb5 28.Red1 Qc7 29.Rc1 Bg7
30.Rcd1 Rcd8 31.dxe5 dxe5 32.Rxd8 Rxd8 33.Rxd8 Nxd8 34.c4 bxc4
35.Bxc4 Ne8 36.Qa2 Nd6 37.Bb3 Nb5 38.h4 Nd4 39.Bxd4 exd4 40.h5 Qe7
41.Qd2 c5 42.Qc2 cxb4 43.hxg6+ fxg6 44.Qc4 h5 45.e5 Bxf3 46.gxf3
Bxe5 47.f4 Bxf4 48.Qg8+ Kh6 49.Bc2 Qg7 50.Qxd8 Bxg3 51.fxg3 Qe5
52.Qf8+ Kg5 53.Kg2 ½-½

 

Index of
games:

 

Tal – Bronstein [C96] 1956 *

Teichmann,R – Schlechter,C [C90] Karlsbad,
1911 *

Fischer,R – Barczay,L [C95] Sousse izt Rd: 1,
1967 *

Nunn – Short (Brussels) [C98] 1986
[JDMN] *

Kasparov,G (2700) – Karpov,A (2720) [C92]
Wch32-KK2 Moscow (5), 1985 *

Karpov – Westerinen,H [C87]
1974 *

Reti,R – Capablanca,J [C74] Berlin (14),
1928 *

Lasker,E – Tarrasch,S [C68] Duesseldorf,
1908 *

Nunn – Olafsson (Teesside) [C54]
1982 *

Kasparov,G (2700) – Karpov,A (2720) [C92]
WCh32-KK2 Moscow (9), 1985 *

 

Bibliography

Introduction

I once read a comment in an old book that Samisch was the only
master who had more than one opening system named after him
(variations in the Nimzo- and King’s Indian). I think that wasn’t
strictly true even then, but now there are many masters with
opening namesakes. Pianist and Grandmaster Mark Taimanov has given
to the chess world two prominent variations: in the Nimzo-Indian,
the line 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 Nc6!?
beloved of English master Michael Franklin, and in the Sicilian,
the line 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3
a6 , usually followed by Taimanov’s trademark
…Nge7

I thought both variations very odd when I first came across
them: unnatural and awkward. But of course GM Taimanov sees a
little deeper behind these moves than folks like me, so I’ve been
following in his footsteps and trying to find out a bit more about
what he saw in his line of the Sicilian.

My motive to do so now was curiosity, piqued by a few prompts in
the last couple of years:

1. Having a privileged trawl through some of Bob Lee’s games, in
   which the Taimanov Sicilian featured strongly. (Bob approached 200
   grade strength playing for Exeter in the 1970s, but his real forte
   was correspondence chess: read all about it!).
2. Buying a copy of Nunn’s Chess Openings , and, along
   with a thumbs-up to several other variations which I had always
   thought a bit duff theoretically, like the Stonewall Dutch, one
   line of the Sicilian that was doing well was the Taimanov
   Sicilian.

3. ---

   Looking for an answer to the Grand Prix Attack as Black in the
   Sicilian, I came across a try which seemed to leave White nothing
   better than to transpose into a line of the Taimanov. Black
   equalised with some exotic-looking manoeuvres in Lein – Ivanovic
   [B23] Lone Pine, 1980

   1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 e6 4.Nf3 Nge7 5.d4 cxd4 6.Nxd4 Nxd4
   7.Qxd4 a6 8.Qf2 b5 9.Bd3 Ng6 10.Be3 Bb7 11.Bd4 Qc7 12.0-0 f6 13.Bb6
   Qc6 14.Be3 Rc8 15.a4 b4 16.Ne2 Bc5 …0-1 (72)

4. A growing dissatisfaction with the way I’ve been playing the
   Sicilian after 2. Nf3. I’ve played the Hyper-Accelerated Fianchetto
   for a lot of years (mixed in with some other stuff) but I think my
   interpretation of the variation has been a bit straightforward and
   it often leads to positions I find hard to play. So, I’d like to
   try something else, and I have devoted a bit of the summer break to
   researching the Taimanov.

Anyhow, here’s some general thoughts on the Taimanov line.

What’s in a name?

Taimanov himself generally refers to lines with an early …Qc7
as the “(Improved) Paulsen” ( Sicilian Paulsen , Batsford
1984; Sicilian Defence Taimanov System , Batsford 1989,
and Winning with the Sicilian , Batsford 1991), and this
has been the most important at master level. So, Plaskett’s
introductory book on the line for Chess Press includes mostly games
with …Qc7. The strategy which is most characteristic of the line,
and of which Taimanov was most keen to claim under his name, are
the lines with …Nge7.

Black can play his moves in many different orders, and, as so
often in Modern openings, slide out into other variations
entirely.

It’s generally agreed that the Taimanov starts with

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 or

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6

Nunn and co. include under Taimanov the lines

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6
and 6…Qc7

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6
and 6…Nge7

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nb5 d6 6.
c4

 

The related Kan Sicilian (without …Nc6) is the move order:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 ,
followed often by 5.Nc3 Qc7

The position reached after the first four moves of this move
order is printed on a Chess Digest booklet entitled ” Sicilian:
Kann/Paulsen-Taimanov

So… the Kan is e6 and Qc7 without Nc6, Taimanov is e6/Nc6
without Qc7, and e6/Nc6/Qc7 is what Taimanov calls Improved Paulsen
and almost everyone else calls Taimanov. (Nf6 and d6 at any stage
will get you into a Scheveningen.)

What’s the big idea?

The Black d-Pawn is kept back on d7. This enables Black to make
a more aggressive posting of the King’s Bishop, on c5 or b4, for
example, and can also allow the Black Queen on c7 more scope.

Black hopes that the hole on d6 will take too much time and
effort for White to occupy with any effect. While Black is staking
out some space on the Queen’s-side, he does not want to make a
target of the King’s-side.

The King’s Knight is kept away from f6 for the early moves, not
encouraging Pawn prods like e4-e5 or g4-g5, and may even go to e7.
From there, it may go on to g6, covering the King’s-side, but the
other cunning plan is for Black to ‘unload’ a Knight with
…Nc6xd4, and then …Ne7-c6, gaining time to unravel. With such
an exchange of pieces, Black’s typical Sicilian cramp is less, and
White has fewer prospects of attack.

Taimanov’s line has been played for decades and remains
important, having been played in its various forms by many top
players, including champions Tal, Fischer and Karpov, occasionally
Kasparov, and a host of others like Andersson, Benjamin, Bronstein,
Christiansen, Larsen, Portisch, Ribli, Sokolov, Suetin and Timman.
The old Paulsen formation has been played by just about
everybody!

 

After what I’m calling the Paulsen/Taimanov move order:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3
a6

White has a big choice: 6. Be2, 6. Be3, 6. Nxc6
, and 6. g3 are most often played, but you get
6. f4 6. Bf4 and 6.
Bc4 occasionally.

Taimanov’s system

6. Be2 Nge7

According to Plaskett, Bill Hartston once wrote, ‘all true
Taimanov players should be aiming to be playing …Nge7’ ,
although Soapy Jim in his own practice seems to prefer the Paulsen
method with an early …Qc7. In fact, most people do – the
lines with …Nge7 get only three rows in NCO, while …Qc7 gets
three pages!

It’s still a rich position, not yet exhausted. White’s main
tries are: Nb3, O-O, Be3, f4 and Bf4, most of which are dismissed
in NCO with the assessment “=”. It’s only “=” if you know what
you’re doing, though!

Let’s see the Taimanov method in action. This is a game from his
1989 book for Batsford on the system, and the notes are based on
his:

17.c3?! b4!

threat …bxc3 18.Nxc3 Bb4

18.Rc1

[18.cxb4 Bxb4 19.Qd3 Be4]

18…0-0 19.b3 bxc3 20.Nxc3 Rc6 21.Na4 Ba3 22.Rxc6 Qxc6
23.Nb6 d6!? 24.exd6

[24.Nc4 Bb4]

45…d3 46.Qd8+ Kg7 47.Qxd3 f3+ 48.Kg1 Qe1+ 49.Kh2 f2
50.Qg3+ Kf8 51.Qb8+ Ke7 52.Qc7+ Ke6 53.Qc4+ Ke5 0-1

See also the game with Mnatsakian below, with similar themes.
Taimanov has shown the flexibility and resilience of this defence
over decades of master play.

NCO gives the current verdict on alternative lines as:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2
Nge7

7.f4 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qf2 d6 10.Be3 b5 11.0-0 Be7 12.Rad1
Qc7 =;

7.0-0 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qd3 Qc7 (9…Nb4? 10.Qg3! Nxc2
11.Bg5 f6 12.Bf4±) 10.Bg5 Bd6 11.Kh1 f6 12.Be3 (12.Bh4 Ne5
13.Qd2 Ng6 14.Bg3 Bxg3 15.hxg3 b5 =) 12…b5 13.f4 Be7 14.e5 0-0
=

I don’t know how often you’ll get to play these Classical lines:
neither club nor master players currently prefer these slow
Karpovian systems with 6.Be2 against the Sicilian.

Avoiding the unload

If Black has made the unnatural move …Nge7 planning
…Ncxd4/…Nec6, can White take advantage of this? Perhaps by
dodging the exchange with 7.Nb3 or 7.
Nf3. Black must not sit by and get squashed, but must keep
White off-balance.

NCO prefers

7…Ng6 8.0-0 Be7 9.Be3 0-0 10.f4 b5 11.Bd3 Nb4 12.Be2
=

Going for the jugular

i.e. the weak spot on d6. This can be strong plan and may give a
pretty prospectless game for Black (White’s statistics in this line
are impressive), but Taimanov doesn’t usually have much trouble
holding the position, e.g.

White undoubtedly has a plus here, but can he win?

15…e5

---

15…Rd8 16.g3 Ng6 17.b3 d6 18.Na4 Ne5 19.Bh5 g5 20.f3 Bb7
21.c4 d5 22.Nc5 1/2-1/2 Adorjan,A – Taimanov,M [B46] Budapest,
1982; 15…g5!?

16.g3 Ne6 17.Bg4 Nc5 18.a3 a5 19.f4 f6 20.fxe5 fxe5
21.Rf2 d6 22.Bxc8 Rhxc8 23.Rdf1 Rf8 1/2-1/2

Plaskett notes the interesting alternative…

…but goes on to say that he would avoid the whole line by
sticking in 7…Nxd4.

The squeeze

6. g3

This is a good Grandmaster move, flexible and keeping the edge
(5. g3 can be met by 5…d5!=). Taimanov gives a fine game in his
Batsford books:

---

Mnatsakanian,E – Taimanov,M [B46] Erevan, 1986

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6.g3
Nge7

White has a lot of choice here: Nde2, f4, Be3, Nb3 and the
simple Bg2.

7.Bg2 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 Nc6 9.Qd1 Be7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Be3 b5
12.f4 Bb7 13.Qe2

25.fxe5? Qxg2+ 26.Kxg2 Rxd1 0-1

Not all your games with the Taimanov will be so smooth!

More typical is restraint with Nb3 and a4, which, if Black
doesn’t organise any counterplay, can be very effective:

14.g4! Re8 15.g5 Nb4 16.Qf2 b5 17.axb5 axb5 18.f5 Nxc2
19.Qxc2 b4 20.g6 e5 21.Nc5 bxc3 22.Na6 Rxb2 23.Nxc7 Rxc2 24.Nxe8
Bxe8 25.f6 Rxg2+ 26.Kxg2 Bxf6 27.Ra8 Bd7 28.Rc1 1-0

Brutal. The GMs specialising in this line have often gone for
Illescas’ system, but ‘chasing’ the White Knight with …Na5.

Taimanov gives this as “equal” (1989) or “comfortable” (1991),
but gives the whole game in the back of the 1989 book, making it
look like an absolute crush for White, Black being unable to
organise any counterplay with his awkwardly placed pieces. Whatever
the real verdict here, it’s still a pretty passive line for Black,
and I’d like to find an idea to brighten it up a little. Perhaps
Black cannot really hope to equalise with …Nge7 and must play the
Paulsen move …Qc7.

After 6…Nge7, White often plays the 7.Nb3 seen above, so
Plaskett has recommended 6…Nxd4 as played by Wilder, but after 7.
Qxd4 Ne7 8. Bf4 Nc6 9. Qd2 White has organised his pieces better
than usual. Still, it’s a game.

---

DeFirmian,N – Wilder,M [B46] Estes Park (13), 1987

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.g3 Nxd4
7.Qxd4 Ne7 8.Bf4 Nc6 9.Qd2 b5 10.Bg2 Bb7 11.0-0 Na5 12.b3 Rc8
13.Ne2 Nc6 14.Rfd1 Be7 15.Rac1 f6 16.c4

The English attack

Our Government is always going on about traditional British
values, which I have always thought of as class prejudice and
self-loathing. In chess terms, perhaps the distinctive British
value is an aptitude for deceptively simple attacking opening
systems.

I can think of several recent examples of home-grown openings
that have gained a wide currency – the Penrose Benoni, the
DERLD, the Grand Prix Attack, the Trompovsky, the 150 Attack in the
Pirc, and the English Attack in the main line Sicilians. This was
pioneered by top GMs Nunn and Short, and involves playing an attack
with Be3 and Qd2, usually with f3. If you know the Yugoslav Attack
against the Dragon, you’ll know the White moves.

This is a bit of a theoretical minefield at the moment. You can
play into one of the current main lines of the Scheveningen/
Najdorf, which Kasparov is currently handling comfortably as
Black:

---

Anand,V (2769) – Kasparov,G (2851) [B90] Chess@iceland Blitz
Final Kopavogur ISL (4), 02.04.2000

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f3 e6
7.Be3 b5 8.Qd2 Nbd7 9.g4 Nb6 10.a4 Nc4 11.Bxc4 bxc4 12.0-0 Bb7
13.g5 Nd7 14.f4 Nc5 15.Qg2 g6 16.Rad1 Qc7 17.Qg4 h6
18.f5

But if you prefer something a little less topical? A strictly
Taimanov interpretation allows plenty of extra scope for ideas.
Let’s see:

---

Diaz,J – Sion Castro,M [B48] Capablanca mem B (6), 1991

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be3 a6
7.Qd2 Nf6 8.f3 b5 9.g4 Bb7 10.0-0-0 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bd6 12.g5 Bf4
13.Be3 Nh5 14.Ne2 Bxe3 15.Qxe3 Rc8 16.Rd2 Qc5 17.Nd4 Qe5 18.Ne2
Qc5

---

Zagrebelny,S – Saltaev,M [B48] Moscow, 1995

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Qc7 6.Be3
Nf6 7.f3 a6 8.Qd2 Ne5 9.0-0-0 Bb4 10.Nb3 b5 11.Bd4 h6
12.a3

 

[6…Nxd4 7.Qxd4 Ne7 8.f4 b5 9.0-0-0 Nc6 10.Qd2 Be7 11.Qf2
Bb7 12.g4 0-0 13.Bg2 Qc8 14.Bc5 Bxc5 15.Qxc5 Na5 16.Qxc8
Polgar,S-Taimanov,M/Foxtrot, London ENG 1996/0-1 (34)]

7.Nb3 b5 8.a3

[8.f4 d6 9.Bd3 Bb7 10.Qf3 Ng6 (10…Nc8) 11.0-0 (11.0-0-0
Rc8) 11…Be7 12.a4 b4 13.Ne2 0-0 14.a5 Bf6 15.Bb6 Qb8„
Ciocaltea-Taimanov 1974;

8.Bd3]

8…Ng6 9.f4 Be7 [9…Qc7 10.Qd2 Be7 11.g3 0-0 12.h4 b4
13.axb4 Bxb4 14.Bg2 Nge7 15.0-0 d5!?=+ Shamkovich-Taimanov
1967]

10.g3 d6 11.Qd2 Rb8 12.Bg2 Qc7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Rad1 b4…
1/2-1/2 (30)

---

Leconte,J – Appleberry,M [B46] Paris Apsap Sept (4), 1993

Whose afraid of the big bad Maroczy
Bind?

The Maroczy bind, with White Pawns on e4 and c4, is a key test
of any Sicilian line in which it can be applied. The immediate 5.c4
is a bit slow, and players in the days of Nimzovitch and Tarrasch
showed that Black is well-placed to react to it with …Nf6 and
…Bb4. But a preliminary 5.Nb5 is a significant strengthening of
the strategy, forcing …d6, stopping …Bb4 and avoiding
exchanges. It has been an occasional weapon of Karpov against a
line he’s played himself, and Karpov, as always, makes the line
look like a smooth White win. He maintains the spatial edge,
gradually pushing Black back and finally striking hard on the
Queen’s-side, after which Black’s counterattack looks
desperate.

Karpov has made a good living out of such small advantages.

19.Bf2 Qb8 20.Nd4 Rec8 21.b3 Be7 22.Bf1 Kh8 23.Be3 Rg8
24.Bg5 Bf8 25.Nce2 h6 26.Be3 Qd8 27.Ng3 Qh4 28.Be2 g6 29.b4 Ncd7
30.Bf2 Qe7 31.f4 Nc6 32.Nf3 Nf6 33.Bxb6 Rd7 34.b5 Nb8 35.Bd3 Bg7
36.Qe2 Rc8 37.a4 Ba8 38.a5 Ne8 39.Qe3 Kh7 40.Be2 Nf6 41.h3 d5
42.cxd5 Rxc1 43.Qxc1 exd5 44.e5 Ne4 45.Nf1 Qb4 46.Qc8 Nc3 47.Rd2
Nxe2+ 48.Rxe2 d4 49.Qxb8 Bxf3 50.gxf3 d3 51.Rd2 Qxf4 52.Be3 Qxf3
53.bxa6 Rd5 54.Qb7 Bxe5 55.Rf2 Qe4 56.Rxf7+ Kg8 57.Qe7
1-0

Current thinking on the line is that it’s not that good for
White. The offside Knight on a3 is a significant cost and Black
should be able to equalise in true Hedgehog style – White
doesn’t have that many obvious plans and Black should be able to
keep them under control. Gallagher in Beating the Sicilian
3 tells a sad tale; after:

14…h6! Now g4 is met by …Nh7! and …g5!
when White must relinquish control of e5. 15.Rfd1 Qc7
16.Rac1 Rac8 17.Bf2 Rfe8 18.Rc2 Bf8 1/2-1/2

This is the idea Nunn, Gallagher and their collaborators
recommend for Black in Nunn’s Chess Openings . Now, better
players than me are still playing this line for a win as White, but
White is as likely to lose the plot as Black here, typically by
over-reaching on the King’s-side and getting blown up in the
middle:

All finished over there? Right, now, as far as I remember, an
attack on the wing is best met by play in the centre…

22…d5! 23.exd5 Bxa3 24.bxa3 Rxc4 25.Rxc4 Nxc4 26.dxe6
Rxe6 27.Bd4 Nde5 28.Bxe5 Bxf3 29.Qxf3 Nxe5 30.Qf4 Qe7 31.Qb4 Qc7
32.Nf5 Nc4 33.Qc3 Re5 − 34.Qf3?? Nd2 0-1

 

Lastly, the system with Nb5 and Bf4 is still played and may
suffice for a typical White edge (NCO again). A twist noted by NCO
is White’s attempt to lean on the d-Pawn, but Black can let it go
and seems to have sufficient compensation:

---

Berg,K – Eingorn,V [B44] London, 1989

13.Nxd6

[13.Qxd6 Qxd6 14.Nxd6 Be6 15.Be2 Rab8 =~ Kasparov-Anand,
Frankfurt 1998]

13…Be6 14.Nf5 Bxf5 15.Qxd8 Raxd8 16.exf5 e4 17.Nxe4
Rfe8 18.Bd3 Bxb2 with compensation NCO

19.Rb1 Bc3+ 20.Kf1 Bd4 21.g3 Ne7 22.g4 Nd5 23.Kg2 g6
24.Kf3 gxf5 25.gxf5 Nf6 26.Nxf6+ Bxf6 1/2-1/2

 

The non-Sicilian Sicilian

The line that Nunn and Gallagher actually recommended for White
in Beating the Sicilian 3 was a formation which neither
Black nor White will find familiar from elsewhere in the Sicilian,
but which French players might find to their taste.

The idea is for White to play Nxc6, and after …bxc6, play
against Black’s less flexible Pawn structure and maybe get in an
attack on the King’s-side. Black often plays …d5, hence the link
with the French. Fischer had a couple of important games with this
structure: beating Petrosian with White in 1971, a classic BvN
endgame, and holding the draw against Spassky in the decisive game
of the 1972 match.

I don’t see many White endgames in this line these days in this
line, what you get is an abundance of hacks:

This line is one of the reasons Black players like to play
5…Qc7 , on, so they can recapture on c6 with the Queen (
6. Ndb5!? Qb8! and …a6 is not a problem for Black). But
if you want to play 6…Nge7 , you’ve got to play
5…a6 , and if you waste another move with a Pawn
by playing 5…a6 , White might decide to play
6. Nxc6 . (Plaskett says Kamsky once jumped the
gun with 5.Nxc6 , and won.)

Now, this system is undoubtedly dangerous and has a very high
percentage of White wins. But the theoretical verdict from NCO is
quite consoling for Black, and the evergreen Taimanov shows us the
way:

White is well-developed but Black has it all under control.
Gambiting the b-Pawn at move 13 is only unclear: it’s not obvious
that White has compensation.

Overall, this is not a great line to play for a win with as
Black but generally you should look forward to grinding points in
the endgame as Black (in this, like so many other lines of the
Sicilian).

Sundries

Taimanov is pretty dismissive of other systems tried against the
Taimanov, but I would not be confident about refuting them if I had
not seen them before: we examine 6. Bc4, 6. Bf4 ,
and 6. f4.

---

Petursson,M – Cramling,P [B46] Reykjavik (5), 1984

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 Qc7
7.Bb3

[7.0-0 Nf6 8.h3 (8.Be3 Ng4) 8…Nxd4 9.Qxd4 Bc5 10.Qd3 b5
11.Bb3 Bb7 12.Re1 d6 13.Be3 0-0 = Lutikov-Taimanov 1978]

7…Nf6 8.Be3 b5 9.Nxc6 dxc6 10.0-0 c5 11.e5
Nd7

---

Schneider Lars – Ake_Taimanov Mark [B46] Jurmala, 1978

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6. Bf4 d6
7.Nf3

[7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.Bc4 Nf6 (8…d5!? 9.exd5 cxd5 10.Qf3 Nf6
11.0-0-0 Bb7 12.Rhe1 Be7 13.Bd3 0-0 14.Qh3 Rc8 = Lukin-Osnos 1984)
9.Qe2 d5 (9…e5 10.0-0-0 Qc7 11.Bg5 Be7 12.Qd3 Be6 13.Bxf6 gxf6
14.Rhe1!? MT) 10.0-0-0 Bb7 11.Bb3 Be7 12.exd5 cxd5 13.Ba4+ Nd7
14.Qg4ƒ 0-0 15.Bh6 Bf6 16.Bxd7 Qxd7 17.Rd3 Rac8 18.Re1 d4
19.Red1 Qc7 0-1 Van Der Wiel John T H-Polugaevsky Lev/It, Amsterdam
(Netherlands) 1984]

---

[7.Bg3 Be7! (e.g. 7…Nf6 8.Be2 Be7 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.e5 Nd5
11.exd6 Bxd6 12.Ne4 Watson,W – Benjamin,J [B46] New York op (2),
1987/ 1-0 (33)) 8.Be2 e5! 9.Nb3 Nf6 10.Bh4 0-0 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Bg4
Be6 13.Nd5 Nd4 14.Nxd4 Bxd5 15.exd5 exd4 16.0-0 Qa5 17.Bf3
Ivanovic,B-Romanishin,O/Lone Pine 1981/1/2-1/2 (53)]

7…b5 8.Qd2 Ra7 9.0-0-0 Rd7 10.g4 Qa5 11.Kb1 Nf6 12.g5
b4

---

Chandler Murray – Andersson Ulf [B46] Naestved, 1985

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6
6.f4

This is quite an important line, but if Andersson’s approach
given below is adequate, then it may become less so! Having
deprived the dark-squared Bishop of its best square on f4, White
can no longer plan to rearrange with Bf4 and Qd2 if Black unloads.
However, there is another rearrangement, of retreating the Queen to
f2, out of the way of the Bishop – which is the
Wittman-Klinger example used in the introduction. Also, this line
is where we arrive from Lein-Ivanovic, having come across from the
Grand Prix Attack.

6…Nxd4!? 7.Qxd4 b5 8.Bd3 Bb7 9.a3 Rc8 10.Bd2
Nf6

Move orders (1): how to get to move
four

After 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 or 1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 e6 there is no requirement for White to play
3. d4 . There are several alternatives against
each move, including 3. c4 and 3. c3; 2…e6 often prompts 3. d3
and 3.b3. There are arguments which suggest that, say, 3. b3 is
better against 2…e6 than other second moves, although Joe
Gallagher in Beating the Anti-Sicilians once played 2…e6 hoping
to tempt the reply 3. b3…!

---

Bhend,E – Gallagher,J [B40] 1992

26.Ne3 Ba6 27.Nc2 Ra8 28.Rb1 Reb8 29.f4 Na3 30.Rb2 Bxd3
31.Qxd3 Rc8 32.Be3 Rc3 33.Qd1 Nxc2 0-1

The Bb5 system against 2…Nc6 is a serious attempt to get
positive play against the Sicilian, which must be treated with
respect. A “Taimanov” solution might involve …e6 and …Nge7, as
favoured by Krasenkow.

---

Ricardi,P (2555) – Granda Zuniga,J (2600) [B30] Buenos Aires
Najdorf (9), 1996

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 e6 4.0-0 Nge7 5.c3 a6 6.Bxc6
Nxc6 7.d4 d5 8.exd5 Qxd5 9.Be3 c4

Also, there are “Anti-Sicilian” systems, some of which can be
used to switch back into the main line Sicilian. So, the
“Chamaeleon” system with 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 and
3. Nge2 can always be used to switch back with
4. d4 , and a lot of people use 2.
Nc3 to put Black players off 2…d6
(after which they will play the f5 gambit from the Grand Prix
Attack), while after 2…Nc6 will play 3.
Nf3 and 4. d4 . I don’t have very strong
opinions about all this yet: Joe Gallagher was the key reference a
while ago but is dating on the c3 Sicilian.

Move orders (2): just passing
through?

Some folks have been using the Taimanov move-order to get to
other Sicilians. Lev Polugaevsky is all over my database of
Taimanov Sicilians, but always switched out early on. What’s the
point? Well, the most common reason is to play the Scheveningen
without having to face the Keres Attack: so,

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6
risks 6. g4!?

but

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6. Be2 d6
7. O-O Nf6

avoids all that. (Or it did until Karpov got fed up with
Kasparov dodging the Keres, and played 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4
cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 d6 6.g4!? (Wch32-KK2 Moscow (14),
1985))

Black can even use it to get to positions of a
Pelikan/Sveshnikov type:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Nb5 d6
7. Bf4 e5 8. Bg5

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6 6.Bf4 e5
7.Be3 Nf6 8.N1c3 a6 9.Na3 b5

[The latter move order loses a tempo for White over the
modern main Pelikan lines, although it was quite common at one
point. Taimanov had it in his 1971 match with Fischer, but that was
before Sveshnikov taught us all to play a quick …a6 and
…b5.]

So this is the Taimanov: flexible, modern, not too fiercely
theoretical, looking comfortable in most lines of NCO. I fancy
giving it a try this season; I’ll let you know how I get on.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TAIMANOV Sicilian Paulsen (Batsford)

TAIMANOV, Winning with the Sicilian (Batsford)

TAIMANOV, Sicilian Defence: Taimanov System (Batsford)

NUNN & GALLAGHER, Beating the Sicilian 3 (Batsford)

PLASKETT, The Sicilian Taimanov (Chess Press)

NUNN et al., Nunn’s Chess Openings (Batsford)