Category Archives: Class B

A Queen sacrifice

Posted on by

I played an extremely boring last-round game at Torquay, choosing the English Defence, which is usually good for a scrap at my level.

Archer-Lock,C – Regis,D Torbay Open Riviera (5), 20.11.2011

1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e4 Bb7 5.Bd3 f5 6.Qh5+ g6

The Queen check is supposed to weaken the black King’s-side, but it also has some benefits for Black; f5 is strengthened and the g7 square can be a bolt-hole for the black Queen.

7.Qe2 Nf6 8.Bg5 fxe4 9.Bxe4 Bxe4 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.Qxe4 Nc6 12.Nf3 0-0 ½-½

Keene and others in the 1970s tried to show Black has some play against the white pawn structure, but really, White doesn’t have enough weaknesses and the position is too simplified. Even after Black swaps Queens and gets a Rook to (say) a4, White can simplify further with d4-d5 and hold the position.

After the game, my opponent and I discussed the possibility of playing a Queen sacrifice.

1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e4 Bb7 5.Bd3 f5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.Bg5 fxe4 9.Bxe4 Nxe4!?

Quite a scrap, indeed! I couldn’t remember the theory and went for the structure.

This idea has been known for a long while, in various forms. I think I first came across it in the Leningrad Nimzo-Indian.

1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bg5 c5 5.d5 exd5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 7.Bxd8 Nxc3…

I think the verdict in that line is that White is winning, but I wouldn’t fancy working out how to show it over the board, it’s a line you have to know.

The English Defence setting has two varieties, with and without the Queen check.

1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e4 Bb7 5.Bd3 f5 6.Qe2 Nf6 7.Bg5 fxe4 8.Bxe4 Nxe4!?
1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e4 Bb7 5.Bd3 f5 6.Qh5+ g6 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.Bg5 fxe4 9.Bxe4 Nxe4!?

Odessky in his hugely entertaining and thorough book analyses both varieties, reckoning the 9th move version with the check is OK for Black (so Chris was wrong to play the check if he hoped for this line) and the 8th move version without is winning for White, because of ideas like:

9.Bxd8 Nxc3 10.Qg4
9.Bxd8 Nxc3 10.Qh5+ g6 11.Qh4

In the version with the ‘finesse’ 6.Qh5+, White doesn’t have either of these moves available, so must rely on something like 10.Bxd8 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bxc3+ 12.Kf1 Bxa1 13.Bxc7 Bxd4 14.Bd6!?

Without the finesse, what is Black to do? Odessky suggests in reply to 7.Bg5, the move 7…h6, since after 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 9.e5!? (a move that is awkward with a bPg6) 9…Qg6! is available.

Basman has tried a similar sac in his games, including this outing against Pritchett in the St.George Defence, where White eschewed the Queen check.

Pritchett-Basman, Bristol 1980

1.d4 b5 2.e4 a6 3.c4 e6 4.cxb5 axb5 5.Bxb5 Bb7 6.Bd3 f5 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.Nc3 Bb4 9.Bg5 fxe4 10.Bxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxd8 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Bxc3+ 13.Kd1 Bxa1 14.Bxc7 [with Q vs RB] 14…Bxd4 15.Bd6

Black has given up a pawn on top of the usual R+B, but Basman reasons that helps Black because the Ra8 can enter the game quickly. You’ll have to decide for yourself whether this is true, as Basman gives not a single line of analysis in his notes. (The whole book is like that: games set one move to a line with merely descriptive commentary.) Black won after the players baled out into an endgame with level material where Black’s activity persisted, and in fact all the other games I’ve been able to find are wins for Black. So even if your silicon friend likes the material, Black’s practical chances are excellent.

Recently we saw the whole thing launched once more when my team-mate Chris Southall caught out the new Devon Champion, teenager Alex Billings, with it:

1.d4 b5 2.e4 a6 3.c4 e6 4.cxb5 axb5 5.Bxb5 Bb7 6.Bd3 f5 7.Qe2 Nf6 8.Nc3 Bb4 9.Bg5 fxe4 10.Bxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxd8 Nxc3

Alex counted the pieces at move 12 and decided not to give up the exchange,

12.Qg4 Ne4+ [with Q vs BN]

…but the black Knight was a dangerous attacking piece and the white Rook just a paperweight; the discovered check gives Black a continuing initiative. Black’s active pieces ran amok and chased the White King across the board, delivering mate.

13.Ke2
[13.Kf1!?]
13…0-0 14.Bh4 Ba6+ 15.Kd1 Nxf2+ 16.Bxf2 Rxf2 17.Nf3 Be2+ 18.Kc1 Bd2+ 19.Kc2
[19.Kxd2 Bxf3+ 20.Ke3 Bxg4 21.Kxf2-+]
19…Nc6 20.a3
[20.Qg3!?]
20…Be3 21.Kb1
[21.Qg3!?]
21…Bd3+ 22.Ka2 Rb8 23.Rab1 Bc4+
[23…Nb4+! 24.Kb3 Bc2+ 25.Kc3 Nd5+ 26.Kc4 Rb3]
24.Ka1 Na5 25.b4
[25.Ne5 Nb3+ 26.Ka2 Bd5!]
25…Ra2# 1-0

What are we going to do now?

Posted on by


The whole games follow:



Examination of a game

Posted on by

“The unexamined life is not worth living” – Socrates
“The unexamined game is not worth playing” – Dr.Dave

Warming up 1

Play through this game and see what you think. I have omitted the final
moves, which are left as an exercise for the reader.

Warming up 2 – examples

A critical decision, which affected the whole course of the rest of the
game, was 12…g5.

To help us understand this move, let us look at some other positions
where Black throws in …g5, and see what we think.

Here are the other examples:

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

Warming up 3 – comments

I think if you had to put them in some sort of order of merit, they might go:

Best – 6 4 3 2 8 5 7 – Worst

#7 is a rank blunder (1…g5?? 2.Nxg5). “Why did you play it, then?” I
guess I thought that it was a quiet, stodgy position, and so I didn’t
have to look out for my opponent’s tactics. I am here to inform you,
ladies and gentlemen, there is no such position…

6 and 4 very thematic tries (!), nibbling away on the long diagonal with
hope of using some pawn ‘levers’ to open lines, thanks to White’s
earlier pawn moves. 4 in fact reproduces the famous plan from
Fischer-Andersson, 1970. [Examples 4 and 6 also arose from this same
line of the English opening as our game.]

#2 is a poor move: there is no reason why Black should be entitled to
attack White’s solid and well-developed position with the Queen’s-side
still asleep. White immediately blew up the centre, and won with… a
King’s-side attack!

#5 looks simply weakening to me; the Knight gratefully hops into f5, and
after an exchange (or even a pawn sacrifice) on f5, White will own the
32 light squares.

#8 is a try for some play in a poor position; Black’s set-up is not
inspiring, but if left alone White is going to take apart the
Queen’s-side with d4-d5 and/or c4-c5 (options White doesn’t have in
#6). [This also arose from the same line of the English.]

#3 is a French Defence, and a good example of a modern chess opening
variation; the tension in the centre has spread to the wings. With a
closed centre, Black’s King is safe enough for now, and …g5 is both a
simple threat to win a pawn (which can be simply dealt with) and also a
bid for King’s-side concessions, which is not so easily rebuffed. I
think the verdict on this move is currently += and so !? at best (even
?!), but a while ago it was !? and ~, and it might become ~, = or even
=+ if someone comes up with a good idea for Black.

And finally:

The game with comments:

Co-ordination

Posted on by

Left over from the summer, some examples with light notes from a
session on Co-ordination

Click on the […] to see the list of games.

P.S. I had a couple of complaints about leaving out Tigran
Petrosian.  As soon as I manage to understand any of Petrosian’s
games, please be assured that I will include some examples by him too.

Club games: Mark Blackmore on a roll

Posted on by

Annotations by the dead chuffed MB, interruptions by DR

Coburn – Blackmore, Mark (142) East Devon
Major, 1996

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. g3 Be7 4. Bg2 d5 5. O-O O-O 6.
a4

 

tSlD-Tj+
XxX-LxXx
-+-+xS-+
+-+x+-+-
p+-P-+-+
+-+-+nP-
-Pp+pPbP
RnBq+rK-

I’ve never seen this before or since. Maybe he felt safe playing
something different because of my lower grade. It was an advantage,
I think – it’s so much easier to beat someone if they refuse to
take you seriously.

[6. c4 Nbd7 Catalan main line.]

6… Nbd7 7. c3 a5 8. Na3 c6 9. Qc2
Bxa3

 

t+lD-Tj+
+x+s+xXx
-+x+xS-+
X-+x+-+-
p+-P-+-+
L-P-+nP-
-Pq+pPbP
R-B-+rK-

Aggression being the better part of valour, I thought I’d get my
queenside advance in first.

[Impertinent note from typesetter: I thought giving
up this Bishop was very risky]

10. Rxa3 b5 11. Bf4 Nb6 12. axb5 cxb5 13. Ne5 Nc4
14. Nxc4 bxc4 15. Rfa1 Bd7

 

t+-D-Tj+
+-+l+xXx
-+-+xS-+
X-+x+-+-
-+xP-B-+
R-P-+-P-
-Pq+pPbP
R-+-+-K-

This is the good bit. My Bishop, currently attracting Norris
McWhirter’s attention as the world’s worst piece, is about to
become Man of the Match.

16. b3 Bb5 17. e4 cxb3 18. Qxb3 Bc4 19. Qc2 Nxe4
20. Bxe4 dxe4 21. Qxe4 Bd5

 

t+-D-Tj+
+-+-+xXx
-+-+x+-+
X-+l+-+-
-+-PqB-+
R-P-+-P-
-+-+-P-P
R-+-+-K-

Ha! However, Bishop aside, I felt that White still had the edge.
But those light squares will eventually prove fatal.

22. Qd3 Qb6 23. c4 Bb7 24. Bd2 Qc6 25. f3 a4 26.
Kf2 Rfc8 27. c5

 

t+t+-+j+
+l+-+xXx
-+d+x+-+
+-P-+-+-
x+-P-+-+
R-+q+pP-
-+-B-K-P
R-+-+-+-

Now, I’m well aware that I’m more of a tactician than a strategist,
but this struck me as a terrible positional error. Now those pawns
are going nowhere, and the light squares are mine to do with as I
please.

[Impertinent note from typesetter: Mark is clearly
more of a strategist than his opponent! the rest of the game is a
nice illustration of the strategical principle that
opposite-coloured Bishops are a powerful factor in favour of the
attacking side]

27… Ba6 28. Qe4 Bb5

 

t+t+-+j+
+-+-+xXx
-+d+x+-+
+lP-+-+-
x+-Pq+-+
R-+-+pP-
-+-B-K-P
R-+-+-+-

I’d have welcomed a Queen-swap – the b-file would be mine, so my
passed Pawn would be quicker, I hoped. But to be fair, Coburn
clearly agreed.

29. Bf4 Rd8 30. Bd6

 

t+-T-+j+
+-+-+xXx
-+dBx+-+
+lP-+-+-
x+-Pq+-+
R-+-+pP-
-+-+-K-P
R-+-+-+-

Looks impressive, but I was more concerned with making sure I could
challenge on the b-file.

30… Ra7 31. Qg4 Kh8 32. Qe4 Rb7 33. Ke3 Qa6 34.
Qc2 Bc6 35. f4

 

-+-T-+-J
+t+-+xXx
d+lBx+-+
+-P-+-+-
x+-P-P-+
R-+-K-P-
-+q+-+-P
R-+-+-+-

And the King’s starting to look draughty.

35… Rb4 36. h4 Qb5 37. Qd3 Qb7

 

-+-T-+-J
+d+-+xXx
-+lBx+-+
+-P-+-+-
xT-P-P-P
R-+qK-P-
-+-+-+-+
R-+-+-+-

Too late now.

38. Kf2 Rb2+ 39. Kg1 Bb5

  I liked this better than …Bh1.

40. Qf3 Bc6 41. Qe3 Rg2+ 42. Kf1 Qb2 43. R3a2
Qb5+ 44. Re2 Bd5 45. Ke1 Qb4+

 

-+-T-+-J
+-+-+xXx
-+-Bx+-+
+-Pl+-+-
xD-P-P-P
+-+-Q-P-
-+-+r+t+
R-+-K-+-

Some people are on the pitch! They think it’s all over!

46. Kf1 Rxe2

  He’s dropping a Rook (at least). Possibly my best game,
if only because it’s the sort of position in which I’m usually
convincingly outmanoeuvred.

0-1

 

Blackmore, Mark – Dean (140) East Devon
Major, 1996

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Bd3

 

tS-DjLsT
Xx+-+xXx
-+x+x+-+
+-+xPl+-
-+-P-+-+
+-+b+n+-
pPp+-PpP
RnBqK-+r

I know this probably isn’t the best, but I’ve had good results with
this and feel more comfortable with it.

5… Bxd3 6. Qxd3 Qa5+ 7. c3 Qa6

 

tS-+jLsT
Xx+-+xXx
d+x+x+-+
+-+xP-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-Pq+n+-
pP-+-PpP
RnB-K-+r

And Black equalises, Dean told me afterwards. A little optimistic,
I felt.

8. Qxa6 Nxa6 9. Be3 c5 10. Nbd2 Rc8 11.
O-O

[11. Ke2]

11… Ne7 12. Nb3 b6 13. Rac1 Nc6 14. a3 Be7 15.
Ng5

 

-+t+j+-T
X-+-LxXx
sXs+x+-+
+-XxP-N-
-+-P-+-+
PnP-B-+-
-P-+-PpP
+-R-+rK-

At this point, Dean said, he became convinced I had no idea I was
doing. He was probably right.

15… h6 16. Nh3 Nab8 17. f4 Nd7

 

-+t+j+-T
X-+sLxX-
-Xs+x+-X
+-XxP-+-
-+-P-P-+
PnP-B-+n
-P-+-+pP
+-R-+rK-

[17… f5 I thought was better.]

18. f5 Nd8 19. g4 h5 20. g5

 

-+tSj+-T
X-+sLxX-
-X-+x+-+
+-XxPpPx
-+-P-+-+
PnP-B-+n
-P-+-+-P
+-R-+rK-

Charge!

20… exf5 21. Rxf5 g6 22. Rf2 Ne6 23. Rcf1 O-O
24. Rg2 Nb8 25. Nf4 Nxf4 26. Rxf4 Nc6 27. h4 c4 28. Nc1 b5 29. Rgf2
a5 30. R4f3 Nd8 31. Ne2 Ne6 32. Bd2 a4

 

-+t+-Tj+
+-+-Lx+-
-+-+s+x+
+x+xP-Px
x+xP-+-P
P-P-+r+-
-P-BnR-+
+-+-+-K-

You think you’re bored? Imagine how I felt!

[Impertinent note from typesetter: Black deprives
himself of his only active plan, namely …b4, with this
move]

33. Ng3 Kg7 34. Nf1 Rcd8 35. Ne3 Rd7 36. Kh2
Rdd8

 

-+-T-T-+
+-+-LxJ-
-+-+s+x+
+x+xP-Px
x+xP-+-P
P-P-Nr+-
-P-B-R-K
+-+-+-+-

If there is a way through it was beyond me. Besides, I could feel
myself slipping into a coma.

[The White dark-squared Bishop can put no pressure on
the f6/f7 points. – DR]

1/2-1/2

 

Dobber, P – Blackmore, Mark (136) East Devon
Major, 1996

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O Bg4 6. h3
h5 7. d3

 

t+-DjLsT
+xX-+xX-
x+x+-+-+
+-+-X-+x
-+-+p+l+
+-+p+n+p
pPp+-Pp+
RnBq+rK-

Here my knowledge of theory ran out, and I was wary of arsing it up
and dropping my Bishop.

7… Bxf3 8. Qxf3 Qd7 9. Be3 O-O-O 10. Nd2 f6 11.
Nb3 g5 12. Rad1 g4

 

-+jT-LsT
+xXd+-+-
x+x+-X-+
+-+-X-+x
-+-+p+x+
+n+pBq+p
pPp+-Pp+
+-+r+rK-

Even at the time I was thinking ‘this can’t work, look at my
development’, but I’m damned if I can find the refutation. It was
worth it just to see the look on Dobber’s face, anyway.

13. Qg3

[Impertinent note from typesetter: in these
opposite-side castling situations, unless there is an obvious coup
in the centre, the medals go to the side who succeeds with an
attack on the King. Black’s pieces are actually all on the
King’s-side, where they belong, whereas White’s pieces and
especially Pawns do not look as though they are ready to attack on
the opposite wing]

13… Bd6 Now d3-d4 is ruled out. 14. f4 Nh6 15.
f5 gxh3 16. Qxh3 Ng4 17. Kh1 Rdg8 18. Bg1 h4

 

-+j+-+tT
+xXd+-+-
x+xL-X-+
+-+-Xp+-
-+-+p+sX
+n+p+-+q
pPp+-+p+
+-+r+rBk

While this was fun, I couldn’t actually find a spectacular win
despite the position seeming to beg for one. I decided to get rid
of his key defensive piece, after which which the threats from my
Knight would be overwhelming.

19. Nd2 Qe7 20. Rf3 Bc5 21. Rdf1
Bxg1

 

-+j+-+tT
+xX-D-+-
x+x+-X-+
+-+-Xp+-
-+-+p+sX
+-+p+r+q
pPpN-+p+
+-+-+rLk

22. Kxg1

[22. Rxg1 Qc5]

22… Qc5+ 23. Kh1 Qxc2 24. Nc4 b5 25. Ne3 Nxe3
26. Rxe3 Qxb2 27. Qh2 Qxa2 28. Qg1 h3 29. g3 h2 30. Qf2 Qxf2 31.
Rxf2 a5

 

-+j+-+tT
+-X-+-+-
-+x+-X-+
Xx+-Xp+-
-+-+p+-+
+-+pR-P-
-+-+-R-X
+-+-+-+k

Afterwards Rh3 was suggested to me, which I’d missed, but in
retrospect I’m glad I did. White would eventually pick up the Black
f-pawn, and I’m more than capable of making a mess of that kind of
position.

32. Rxh2 Rxh2+ 33. Kxh2 a4 34. Re2 Kd7 35. Ra2
Kd6

 

-+-+-+t+
+-X-+-+-
-+xJ-X-+
+x+-Xp+-
x+-+p+-+
+-+p+-P-
r+-+-+-K
+-+-+-+-

0-1

 

Blackmore, Mark – Pittman (145) East Devon
Major, 1996

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Bd3 Bd7
7. Bc2 h6

 

t+-+jLsT
Xx+l+xX-
-Ds+x+-X
+-XxP-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-P-+n+-
pPb+-PpP
RnBqK-+r

To prevent Ng5 after …O-O-O.

8. O-O O-O-O 9. a3 g5 10. b4?

 

-+jT-LsT
Xx+l+x+-
-Ds+x+-X
+-XxP-X-
-P-P-+-+
P-P-+n+-
-+b+-PpP
RnBq+rK-

Oops. I spent bloody ages working out why Pittman couldn’t play
…Nxd4 after …g4, Ne1, completely forgetting that he could play
…Qxd4 instead and my Rook is hanging. Desperate measures are now
required.

10… cxd4 11. cxd4 g4 12. b5

[12. Ne1 Nxd4

[12… Qxd4]

13. Be3]

12… Na5 13. Ne1 Bxb5 14. Bd3 Qxd4 15. Qc2+
Bc4

 

-+jT-LsT
Xx+-+x+-
-+-+x+-X
S-+xP-+-
-+lD-+x+
P-+b+-+-
-+q+-PpP
RnB-NrK-

Letting me off the hook.

[15… Nc4 stops Bb2]

16. Bb2 Qc5 17. Nd2 Kb8 18. Rc1 Rc8 19. Bxc4 Nxc4
20. Nd3 Qc7 21. Qa4?!

 

-Jt+-LsT
XxD-+x+-
-+-+x+-X
+-+xP-+-
q+s+-+x+
P-+n+-+-
-B-N-PpP
+-R-+rK-

21… Nxb2

[21… Nxd2 may have been better]

22. Nxb2 Qd8 23. Nd3 Rxc1 24. Rxc1
h5

 

-J-D-LsT
Xx+-+x+-
-+-+x+-+
+-+xP-+x
q+-+-+x+
P-+n+-+-
-+-N-PpP
+-R-+-K-

Even with two extra Pawns, Black now looks distinctly unhealthy.
Still, the choice was fairly stark: win it now, or get stuffed in
the endgame.

25. Nb3 Ne7 26. Nbc5 Nc8

 

-JsD-L-T
Xx+-+x+-
-+-+x+-+
+-NxP-+x
q+-+-+x+
P-+n+-+-
-+-+-PpP
+-R-+-K-

I could hardly sit still at this point. Cheapo ahoy!

27. Nd7+ Ka8 28. Rxc8+ Qxc8 29. Nb6+ Kb8 30. Nxc8
Kxc8 31. Qe8+

 

-+j+qL-T
Xx+-+x+-
-+-+x+-+
+-+xP-+x
-+-+-+x+
P-+n+-+-
-+-+-PpP
+-+-+-K-

More luck than judgement, admittedly.

[Typesetter again: but there were some grown-up
decisions taken to throw the game out of a particular ‘natural’
continuation]

1-0

 

Spiegel, Jack – Blackmore, Mark (144) East
Devon Major #5, 1996

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Nf3 Be7

[3… Nd4 The Shilling Gambit was tempting, but with
150 pounds at stake I felt it wasn’t really the game.]

4. d3

[4. d4]

4… Nf6 5. Be3 O-O 6. c3 d6 7. Nbd2 Be6 8. O-O
h6 9. Qe2 Bxc4 10. dxc4

 

t+-D-Tj+
XxX-LxX-
-+sX-S-X
+-+-X-+-
-+p+p+-+
+-P-Bn+-
pP-NqPpP
R-+-+rK-

Some people would say that this move is an intelligent attempt to
induce strategic weaknesses in my position. I, however, would say
that this move is a pile of pants.

10… Nh7 11. Rad1 f5

 

t+-D-Tj+
XxX-L-Xs
-+sX-+-X
+-+-Xx+-
-+p+p+-+
+-P-Bn+-
pP-NqPpP
+-+r+rK-

Hey, I never claimed to be subtle.

12. exf5 Rxf5 13. Ne4 Qc8 14. c5 Qe6 15. cxd6
cxd6 16. c4 Rf7

 

t+-+-+j+
Xx+-LtXs
-+sXd+-X
+-+-X-+-
-+p+n+-+
+-+-Bn+-
pP-+qPpP
+-+r+rK-

So I can play …Nf6 without stranding my Rook.

17. Ne1

[Impertinent note from typesetter: White starts to
drift. He should pick a plan and go for it hard. This is what Black
did, and is why Black won.]

17… Nf6 18. Nc3 Raf8 19. Nd5 Ng4

 

-+-+-Tj+
Xx+-LtX-
-+sXd+-X
+-+nX-+-
-+p+-+s+
+-+-B-+-
pP-+qPpP
+-+rNrK-

Viking Chess

20. Nxe7+ Rxe7

[20… Nxe7]

21. Nf3 Ref7

 

-+-+-Tj+
Xx+-+tX-
-+sXd+-X
+-+-X-+-
-+p+-+s+
+-+-Bn+-
pP-+qPpP
+-+r+rK-

It’s hard not to laugh at my transparency, but at the same time
route one seems to be fairly effective. Spiegel, certainly, was a
nervous wreck at this point. 22. b3 Nxe3 23. Qxe3
Rf4

 

-+-+-Tj+
Xx+-+-X-
-+sXd+-X
+-+-X-+-
-+p+-T-+
+p+-Qn+-
p+-+-PpP
+-+r+rK-

He offered me a draw at this move. I politely declined.

24. Rd5 Qg4 25. Ne1 e4

 

-+-+-Tj+
Xx+-+-X-
-+sX-+-X
+-+r+-+-
-+p+xTd+
+p+-Q-+-
p+-+-PpP
+-+-NrK-

The final insult. White’s whole plan has been based around winning
my d-pawn, and I don’t even have the decency to defend it.

26. Qg3

[26. Rxd6]

26… Qe2 27. Qc3 Rxf2

 

-+-+-Tj+
Xx+-+-X-
-+sX-+-X
+-+r+-+-
-+p+x+-+
+pQ-+-+-
p+-+dTpP
+-+-NrK-

And that was that.

0-1

Choosing an opening repertoire

Posted on by

The Bottom Line {D}

[cool cat says:]

“A knowledge of tactics is the foundation of positional play. This is a rule which has stood its test in chess history and one which we cannot impress forcibly enough upon the young chess player.
“A beginner should avoid the Queen’s Gambit and French Defence and play open games instead! While he may not win as many games at first, he will in the long run be amply compensated by acquiring a thorough knowledge of the game”

– RICHARD RETI, Masters of the Chessboard

See also a recent post.

Comments on openings {C}

(following ECO codes)

A: Irregular openings
– 1. Lines without 1. e4, 1. d4;
– 1. d4 Lines without 1 …d5, 1… Nf6;
– 1. d4 Nf6 2. Lines without 2. c4;
– 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 Lines without 2… e6, 2… g6
[cool cat says:] Dr.Dave’s advice: Leave these alone except to work out what to do if someone played them against you. Mostly these are good for surprise value, but you can only surprise me once, and next time I’ll be ready for you. The main lines are the main lines because they are the strongest openings. Avoid theory, sure, but don’t handicap yourself.
The honorable exception to this among these openings are the lines of the Reti/English complex (1.Nf3/1.c4), which are slow but deep and strong. I’d still leave them alone until you are sure you know what you are doing. Be prepared to defend against them as Black: I recommend using a Dutch formation.
B: Semi-open games
– 1. e4 Lines without 1… c5, 1… e6, 1… e5
– 1. e4 c5
[cool cat says:] Dr.Dave’s advice: Play these second after you have got the hang of C: Open Games. This section includes some of the most exciting and important openings in chess, like the Sicilian, but they are not IMHO for beginners.
C: Open Games (and French Defence)
– 1. e4 e6
– 1. e4 e5
[cool cat says:] Dr.Dave’s advice: Play these first – this is what Reti advises above. The anomaly is the French – a half-open defence that ECO groups under C. Despite Reti’s admonition, I would not object to a relative beginner playing the French – it is a solid defence in which most of the ideas are easy to understand, and Black’s pieces often come to similar squares in each line.
D: Closed Games (and Grunfeld Defence, a semi-closed line)
– 1. d4 d5
– 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 + d7-d5
[cool cat says:] Dr.Dave’s advice: Play these last of all; they are among the most demanding of openings. They are slow, which may lead you to think they are safer, but things can go horribly wrong for the novice and there is no point trying these until you are sure you know what you are doing – say, that you are familiar with the material in the ‘Strategy’ section of the canon. There are one or two ‘open’ lines that start 1.d4, like the Colle System.
E: Semi-Closed Games
– 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6
– 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 ‘ d7-d5
[cool cat says:] Dr.Dave’s advice: Play these third; they are, like the semi-open defences, very tasty, but rather strong meat for inexperienced players. You will need to know what to play against 1.d4 as Black, particularly as you improve, and my recommendation is to adopt a counter-attacking line like the Budapest Gambit or the Stonewall Variation of the Dutch Defence

Putting together a repertoire of variations {B}

What do you hope for when you play 1.e4? Which opening you choose after 1…e5 will depend on what sort of player you are. What I’d like to do below is suggest how you might proceed if Black doesn’t reply 1…e5. First you need to choose a basic plan of campaign:

  • Fast attacking game with pieces
  • Slower attacking game with f4
  • King’s Indian Attack with g3
  • Fast attacking game with pieces
    • Giuoco Piano (my main recommendation for junior players) or
    • Scotch Game
  • Slower attacking game with f4
    • Vienna Gambit or
    • King’s Gambit)
  • King’s Indian Attack with g3
    • KIA with (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. g3 or
    • in the Vienna (1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3)

Which sort of player are you? Larry Evans used to say, The Crunch or the Crouch? Hopefully, one of these set-ups appeals to you more than the others: the brisk, the direct, or the more flexible?

[Sadly, the KIA lines haven’t a lot of force and are not very good lines to adopt against 1…e5.]

But the point is, how well does your chosen repertoire fit together? Once I used to play the following lines, together with the King’s Gambit:

Alekhin (1. e4 Nf6)
Chase variation (1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. c5 Nd5 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nc3)
Caro-Kann (1. e4 c6)
Panov-Botvinnik Attack (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4)
French (1. e4 e6)
Advance Variation (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5)
Pirc/Modern (1. e4 …d6/…g6)
King’s Indian Attack (1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Nge2 and 5. g3, 6. Bg2)
Sicilian (1. e4 c5)
Chamaeleon Variation (1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 … 3. Nge2)

This was an awful lot to keep track of, but more importantly, it didn’t really combine well. Against the Alekhin I played fast, against the Caro I played medium, against the French and Pirc I played slow; the Panov line is main-line established theory with lots to learn and keep track of, the Chamaeleon is a new and obscure line where you have to think at the board.

Now, I’m sure a better idea, and the right idea, is to play similarly against each opening. For example, if you like gambits and play the Danish Gambit against 1…e5, try and find a gambit against the lot….

Alekhin (1. e4 Nf6)
(1. e4 Nf6 2. Bc4 Nxe4 3. Bxf7+ Kxf7 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Qd5+)
or Blackmar-Diemer (1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 dxe4 4. f3)
Caro-Kann (1. e4 c6)
Fantasie Variation (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. f3 e5 4. Nf3 exd4 5. Bc4)
French (1. e4 e6)
Variation, Milner Barry Gambit (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Bd3 cxd4 7. cxd4 Bd7 8. O-O Nxd4 9.Nxd4/9.Ng5!?)
Pirc/Modern (1. e4 …d6/…g6)
I don’t know any gambits for White in the Pirc but against the Modern you can try… the Monkey’s Bum! (1. e4 g6 2. Bc4 Bg7 3. Qf3 e6 4. d4 Bg7 5. Nc3 Bxd4) [An invention of Streatham Chess Club, who showed it to one member who said “Well, if that works, I’m a monkey’s bum!”]
Sicilian (1. e4 c5)
Morra Gambit: (1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 or 3. … Nf6 4. e5 Nd5 5. Bc4 Qc7 6. Qe2)

I don’t think the Monkey’s Bum is really any good (2…d6), but at least we’re thinking along the right lines, even if this isn’t the repertoire we settle on.

“ A 1500 player will lose a pawn anyway about every 15 moves, so you might as well invest a pawn to sharpen your tactics.“

— Tim Sawyer

Here’s a repertoire based on pawn advances and space advantages:

Alekhin (1. e4 Nf6)
Four pawns variation (1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. d4 d6 5. f4 )
Caro-Kann (1. e4 c6)
Advance Variation (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5)
French (1. e4 e6)
Advance Variation (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5)
Pirc/Modern (1. e4 … …d6/…g6)
Three Pawns Attack (1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. c3 g6 4. f4)
Sicilian (1. e4 c5)
Big Clamp Variation (1. e4 c5 2. d3 (…) 3. f4)

Now, what sort of player are you? Whether you like lively piece attacks, slow pawn advances that you can use to force open lines or more flexible systems, there is a repertoire here for you.

Note: I simply haven’t the courage to take on a repertoire which includes the Open Sicilian , and my experience of playing the Black side of the Sicilian is that not many White club players have either! So I’ll leave those lines to you and any time you have to do your own research. I have a feeling it’s something you come to study as your chess improves. Mine has yet to improve enough…

Let’s have a look at some variations that fit together.

Piece attack

Alekhin (1. e4 Nf6) (1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3.exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4)
Caro-Kann (1. e4 c6)
Main line with 7.Nh3 (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nh3)
French (1. e4 e6)
Alekhin-Chatard Attack (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4
Pirc/Modern (1. e4 …d6/…g6)
Austrian Attack (1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4. f4)
Sicilian (1. e4 c5) Closed: without d4
Rossolimo Variation (1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 and 3.Be2 (idea 4. c3) or 3. Bb5(+))

Slow attack with f4

Alekhin (1. e4 Nf6)
(Irregular) (1. e4 Nf6 2. d3 and 3.f4 (sadly, this line has no real force and is not a very good line to adopt)
Caro-Kann (1. e4 c6)
(Irregular) (1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3.f4 (a line of the Dunst opening, (1.Nc3)
French (1. e4 e6)
(Irregular) (1. e4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3.f4 (a line of the Dunst opening, (1.Nc3)
Pirc/Modern (1. e4 …d6/…g6)
(1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4. f4 (Austrian Attack)
Sicilian (1. e4 c5) Closed: without d4
(1. e4 c5 2. f4 (Grand Prix Attack) or
(1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 with 4. Bg2, 5. d3, 6. f4 (Closed Variation)

King’s Indian Attack

Alekhin (1. e4 Nf6)
KIA vs. Alekhin (1. e4 Nf6 2. d3 and 3.g3/Bg2 (sadly, this line has no real force and is not a very good line to adopt)
Caro-Kann (1. e4 c6)
KIA vs. Caro-Kann (1. e4 c6 2. d3 d5 3.Nd2)
French (1. e4 e6)
KIA vs. French(1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3.Nd2)
Pirc/Modern (1. e4 …d6/…g6)
King Fianchetto Variation(1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4. Nge2 and 5. g3, 6. Bg2)
Sicilian (1. e4 c5) Closed: without d4
KIA vs. Sicilian(1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 and 3.g3)

[cool cat says:] There are some wrinkles to be ironed out of these suggestions, but I hope they set you thinking in the right way.

Playing Black and White {A}

It makes a lot of sense for your Black repertoire to be in keeping with your White one.

The easy way out is to play Black openings in reverse, of which the commonest and best of these is probably the King’s Indian Attack. But psychologically it’s not the same and practically it’s not as effective. (See remarks on the Stonewall Dutch ).

The right idea I think is to play openings which have the same ideas – either the same structure or at least the same attitude. So if you play the English with g3, a line which is structurally similar is the Hyper-Accelerated Fianchetto variation of the Sicilian (1. e4 c5, 2. Nf3 g6), and against 1.d4 the same ‘square game’ can be had in the Nimzo-Indian, although this is structurally very different. There are king’s fianchetto lines in most openings, and strongpoint lines too.

Some suggestions if you are…

  1. An attacking player who plays 1. e4, try:
    • Against 1.d4: Budapest Gambit, Benoni, Grunfeld
    • Against 1.e4: Open Lopez, Petroff, Sicilian Dragon (with …g6)
  2. An attacking player who plays 1. d4/2.c4, try:
    • Against 1.d4: King’s Indian, Dutch
    • Against 1.e4: French Winawer, Closed Lopez,
  3. An attacking player who plays the Colle System, try:
    • Against 1.d4: Semi-Slav Defence or Cambridge Springs (same structure as Colle)
    • Against 1.e4: Sicilian Paulsen (with …e6)
  4. A solid player who plays 1. e4, try:
    • Against 1.d4: Nimzo-Indian, QGD, Tarrasch Defence, Old Indian
    • Against 1.e4: Petroff, Philidor (structure like Old Indian)
  5. A solid player who plays 1. d4, try:
    • Against 1.d4: Slav, Queen’s Gambit Orthodox Defence.
    • Against 1.e4: Caro-Kann, Classical French

I would be interested to know about other’s preferences. I stuck to the same opening repertoire for the best part of ten years: English Opening with g3 as White, Sicilian and English Defence as Black – all aiming to hit at an opponent’s centre, and of course with a strong structural link between the English and Sicilian. The English Defence “feels” more like the English Opening to me than the Queen’s-side defence which is structurally most similar, the Benoni.

I think my current recommendation for myself [which must also be true for you 🙂 ], is two fold:

  1. Be prepared to play any sort of position. To be prepared to play any sort of position [if not any opening] for either colour is the ideal; you may always have strengths and weaknesses, but avoiding certain sorts of positions altogether seems unhealthy. Try them out in friendly and blitz games, and see if the rest of your game improves.
  2. Be prepared to play main lines. They are the main lines because they are the best moves, and you may be surprised to find how many players will avoid a main line ‘on principle’ – perhaps choosing a playable alternative, but often an inferior one.

I find that the combination of the two is quite liberating, at least in friendly games, and I’m sure I’m a more rounded player for it. I haven’t quite had the courage (or foolhardiness) to walk into my opponent’s main lines when titles are at stake, you are going to get my favourite defence, but it’s quite satisfying to invite the club gambiteer to play a gambit and then outplay them in their own game.

The initiative

Posted on by

20th_July_2010: Initiative

[Fixed 30 Apr 2020 – replaced PalView games with inline PGN]

Half a story

Some things in chess are very concrete and visible — checkmate, or
a
knight fork, perhaps, or as we get better, we can also see superior
development or pawn weaknesses.  There are more abstract features
of a chess game which are less easy to see, at least at a glance, and
you can appreciate best over a whole game or a part of a game. 
Annotators often talk about a player’s ‘feel for the initiative’, which is
at least a warning that this is not going to be an easy session.

Half a story

For a long while, I understood only half the story of chess. 
From the introduction to Michael Stean’s excellent little book Simple Chess:

“Don’t be deceived by the title–chess is
not a simple game–such a claim would be misleading to say the
least–but that does not mean that we must bear with the full brunt of
its difficulty. When faced with any problem too large to cope with as a
single entity, common sense tells us to break it down into smaller
fragments of manageable proportions. For example, the mathematical
problem of dividing one number by another is not one that can in
general be solved in one step, but primary school taught us to find the
answer by a series of simple division processes (namely long division).
So, how can we break down the ‘problem’ of playing chess?

“Give two of the uninitiated a chessboard, a set of chessmen, a list of
rules and a lot of time, and you may well observe the following
process: the brighter of the two will quickly understand the idea of
checkmate and win some games by 1. e4 2. Bc4 3. Qh5 4. Qxf7 mate. When
the less observant of our brethren learns how to defend his f7 square
in time, the games will grow longer and it will gradually occur to the
players that the side with more pieces will generally per se be
able to force an eventual checkmate. This is the first important
‘reduction’ in the problem of playing chess–the numerically superior
force will win. So now our two novices will no longer look to construct
direct mates, these threats are too easy to parry, but will begin to
learn the tricks of the trade for winning material (forks, skewers,
pins, etc.), confident that this smaller objective is sufficient. Time
passes and each player becomes sufficiently competent not to shed
material without reason. Now they begin to realize the importance of
developing quickly and harmoniously and of castling the king into
safety.”

“So what next? Where are their new objectives? How can the problem be
further reduced? If each player is capable of quick development,
castling and of not blundering any pieces away, what is there to
separate the two sides? This is the starting point of Simple Chess.
It
tries
to
reduce
the
problem
still
further
by
recommending
various
positional
goals
which
you can work toward, other things (i.e.,
material, development, security of king position) being equal. Just as
our two fictitious friends discovered that the one with more pieces can
expect to win if he avoids any mating traps, Simple Chess will
provide him with some equally elementary objectives which if attained
should eventually decide the game in his favor, subject to the
strengthened proviso that he neither allows any mating tricks, nor
loses any material en route. “

“Essentially, Simple Chess aims to give you some of the basic
ideas for forming a long-term campaign. It also shows you how to
recognize and accumulate small, sometimes almost insignificant-looking
advantages which may well have little or no short-term effect, but are permanent
features of the position. As the game progresses, the cumulative effect
begins to make itself felt more and more, leading eventually to more
tangible gains. Combinations and attacks are shelved for their proper
time and place as the culmination of an overall strategy. Given the
right kind of position it is not so difficult to overwhelm the
opposition with an avalanche of sacrifices. The real problem is how to
obtain such positions. This is the objective of Simple Chess.”

These permanent (or at least long-term) features of the position
that he discusses are things like open files, outposts, colour
complexes, space.  We might think about different levels of chess:
Scholar’s Mate (Level 1), tactics (Level 2), opening principles (Level
3), and now positional elements (Level 4).

With this firmly in mind, how can we explain Alekhin’s 9th move here?

Alekhin 
–
Poindle
[C67]
(simul.)
1936

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4
5.d4 Nd6 6.dxe5 Nxb5 7.a4 Nd6 8.exd6 Bxd6 9.Ng5

This move is not possible to understand in terms of the first four
levels of chess.  In fact, it directly contradicts the opening
principles that we have learned, like don’t
move
any
piece
twice
until
you
have
move
every
piece
once. 
Alekhin judges that straightforward
development (e.g. Re1+) would have allowed Black time to get sorted out
– this move
denies Black that time.  Threat follows threat, and Black can
never settle.

    EG:

  • Alekhin – poindle [C67]

Alekhin-Poindle

So, brace yourself for Level 5: dynamic chess.

The Initiative: definition and
description

The initiative is the capacity to
make threats.

“As the pieces are set on the board
both
sides have the same position and the same amount of material. White,
however, has the move, and the move is this case means ‘the
initiative’, and the initiative, other things being equal, is an
advantage. Now this advantage must be kept as long as possible, and
should only be given up if some other advantage, material or
positional, is obtained in its place. White, according to the
principles already laid down, develops his pieces as fast as possible,
but in so doing he also tries to hinder his opponent’s development, by
applying pressure wherever possible. He tries first of all to control
the center, and failing this to obtain some positional advantage that
will make it possible for him to keep on harassing the enemy. He only
relinquishes the initiative when he gets for it some material advantage
under such favorable conditions as to make him feel assured that he
will, in turn, be able to withstand his adversary’s thrust; and
finally, through his  superiority of material, once more resume
the initiative, which alone can give him the victory. This last
assertion is self-evident, since, in order to win the game, the
opposing King must be driven to a position where he is attacked without
having any way to escape. Once the pieces have been properly developed
the resulting positions may vary in character. It may be that a direct
attack against the King is in order; or that it is a case of improving
a position already advantageous; or, finally, that some material can be
gained at the cost of relinquishing the initiative for a more or less
prolonged period.”

— Capablanca in Chess Fundamentals, Chapter 4.

Examples: from initiative to attack

“The
main objective of initiative play is not so much to force the win but
rather to prevent your opponent from equalising.” — Colin
Crouch, Attacking Technique.

EG:
Akesson-Morozevich.

  • Akesson R. – Morozevich A. [D02]

EG: Tal-Simagin.

  • Tal – simagin [B07]

Quieter forms of the initiative

This is much less exciting, but Black
may also struggle to equalise in quieter positions

  • Hort V. – Polugaevsky L. [B22]

EG: Hort-Polugaevsky

Relinquishing initiative

I
haven’t found it so easy to find examples of this feature, which seems
so obvious.  Anyone?

EG: Winawer-Zukertort

  • Winawer S. – Zukertort J. [C49]

EG: Capa – allies

  • Capablanca – Salwe and allies [C83]

I know
a young nman who often loses the initiative, having got a winning
material advantage, and the consequences are sometimes painful to watch:

EG: Malam-Slade

  • Malam J. – Slade T. [C02]

The foundations of initiative
(activity, King safety, structure and space)

Initiative based on
superior piece Activity

We’ve seen Moro on the rampage, here’s a simpler one:

EG:

  • Kramer – Busek [D94]

Kramer-Busek

Initiative based on
opponent’s unsafe King

EG: Lasker-Pirc

  • Lasker – Pirc [B85]

Initiative based on superior
Structure

EG: NN-NN

Initiative based on Space

Another form of structural advantage, I guess.  Many games won
on the basis of space can be thought of as having an element of
initiative to them: the side with the extra space can organise threats
much more easily, even if they can’t at first break through.

EG:
Fischer-Gheorghiu

  • Fischer R. – Gheorghiu F. [C42]

Losing the initiative when you have more space is awful; you’re
defending a much longer line, that is well within reach of your
opponent.

EG:
Webb-Hartston

  • webb – hartston u. [A31]

You will notice that I have so far drawn example from master play;
club
games tend to be cluttered with so many errors in tactics and strategy
that the issue of the initiative is lost in the fog.   But
among the top county players you can see the pursuit of a persistent
initiative in
good style, and I watched one this year:

Mackle,D – Edgell,B [E18]

Devon vs Gloucestershire (1), 2009

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.Nc3 Ne4 7.Nxe4 Bxe4 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bh3 d6 10.Nd2 Bb7 11.e4 c5 12.d5 exd5 13.cxd5 Bf6 14.Re1 Nd7 15.Bf1 a6 16.a4 Ne5 17.f4 Ng6 18.Nc4 b5 19.axb5 axb5 20.Rxa8 Bxa8 21.Ne3 c4 22.b3 cxb3 23.Qxb3 Qa5 24.Re2 Rc8 25.Rc2 Rxc2 26.Nxc2 Bd8 27.Bxb5 Bb6+ 28.Kg2 Bb7 29.Qc4 Ne7 30.f5 Bc5 31.Qd3 f6 32.Bd2 Qa2 33.Bc4 Qb1 34.Ne3 Qb2 35.Nd1 Qa1 36.Bc3 Qc1 37.Bb2 Qg5 38.h4 Qh5 39.Qe2 Qxe2+ 40.Bxe2 Kf7 41.g4 h6 42.Nf2 Nc8 43.g5 hxg5 44.hxg5 fxg5 45.Bh5+ Kf8 46.Nh3 Ne7 47.Nxg5 Bc8 48.f6 gxf6 49.Bxf6 Bd7 50.Kf3 Nc8 51.Bg6 Ba3 52.Nh7+ Kg8 53.Bd4 Ba4 54.Nf6+ Kf8 55.Bf5 ½-½

The psychological initiative

Jonathan Rowson is always interesting to read, and he does not
disappoint in his chapter on the initiative (Chess for Zebras).  However,
he ends up folowing Suba in saying that the initiative is largely
psychological in nature.  I don’t deny that the initiative has
strongly psychological elements, but there is something on the board
too. 

Rowson (and I) find this easiest to see in those games where White
tries to attack Black’s position from the first move, say, in the sharp
main lines of the Najdorf.  Black can always find a defence after
the game, but during a game it’s not so easy.

The struggle for the initiative in
the opening

Alekhin’s
defence:
1.e4 Nf6 “White has
his initiative
to defend” — Tartakower.


The opening can be played to seek an
advantage in development, or space, or both, but some lines cannot be
understood except as a struggle for the initiative.  In many
modern variations this makes for very sharp play, and some ‘unnatural’
moves.  The main lines
of the Najdorf, an opening we looked at earlier, have this quality.

EG: Sicilian Najdorf

EG: Fischer-Tal

  • Fischer R. – Tal M. [C17]

The initiative can be more
important than general opening guidelines

EG: Alekhin-Wolf

  • Alekhin – wolf [D34]

The initiative
can be more important than material

Kasparov did some video interviews a while ago, and John Watson
commented in his review “Kasparov
also believes
that the new generation of the 90s plays a different kind of chess than
that of the 80s, believing that ‘initiative can be worth material’.”
This
comment
is
utterly
lacking
in
historical
subtlety. 
Alekhin’s
quest
for
the
initiative often took precedence over material, and I can
think of a few of Capablanca’s games where his initiative won out over
a lost pawn. More recently, Alexei Suetin’s book Modern Chess Opening Theory,
translated by our very own David Richards, gave many examples of
material sacrifice for the initiative.  Perhaps the top players of
the 1990s extended the range and daring of such sacrifices for the
initiative, but it is hardly a new insight. 

EG: Marshall-Capa

  • F.J. Marshall – J.R.C. [D64]

EG: Nimzo-Capa

  • Nimzowitsch A. – Capablanca J. [C62]

EG:

  • Modern Chess Opening Theory – NN [B34]

initiative in the
opening & a pawn sacrifice for White (Suetin)

EG:

  • Kasparov G. – Petursson M. [D15]

a pawn sacrifice for initiative in the
opening for White (Kasparov: Geller-Tolush gambit)

EG: a pawn sacrifice for initiative in the
opening for Black (Browne: Benko gambit)

  • Lorinczi P – Browne Walter S [A58]

EG: other sacrifices of material for
initiative (Bronstein: exchange sac in the Grunfeld)

  • Bronstein D. – Boleslavsky I. [D89]

EG: not enough initiative

  • Novopashin A. – Kortschnoj V. [B97]

(Korchnoi:
Poisoned pawn)

“I like to coax my opponents
into attacking, to let them taste the joy of the initiative, so they
may get carried away, become careless and sacrifice material.”
— Korchnoi

The
struggle for the initiative in the middlegame

EG: Spassky-Tal

  • Spassky B. – Tal M. [E31]

The initiative can be more
important than structure

A revealing moment:

EG: Fischer-Larsen

  • Fischer R. – Larsen B. [B77]

Defending against the initiative


Defence is another session or three, but to some extent it depends on
your style: do you prefer to defend in an active, enterprising,
opportunistic, counter-attacking style (Lasker, Kasparov, Korchnoi) or
is it more your style to be solid, gritty and patient? (Capablanca,
Petrosian, Karpov)  Of course, all the best players can play how
they like, and it’s hard to put the latest generation (Kramnik,
Topalov, Anand, Carlsen) into pigeonholes.

I mentioned last time Karpov’s tenacity in defence: strengthening his
position where he can, challenging and exchanging his opponent’s strong
pieces, making progress with his own ideas when given a chance; here’s
an example.

EG: Timman-Karpov

  • Timman J. – Karpov A. [E30]

Defensive sacrifices

I was very struck, following the first Karpov-Kasparov encounter, in
how many games Kasparov sacrificed a pawn.  We have seen an
example of him doing so when trying to win, but he also uses the same
device when trying to get enough counterplay to hold the balance.

EG:

  • Karpov A. – Kasparov G. [D87]

  • Karpov A. – Kasparov G. [D55]

Karpov-Kasparov 85

Turning points of a game


…may be seen in the transfer of the initiative.  John Watson in Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy

talks for a while about the ebb and flow of initiative in modern chess,
but without an example to support his highfalutin talk.  It is
difficult to find games where the initiative is exchanged as a result of good play based on
the features of the position, rather than losing the initiative because of a
second-rate move.  Anyhow, here is a game where we see an exchange
of the initiative; play it through and see if you can ‘feel’ who is
pressing.

EG:

  • Karpov A – Kasparov G [D97]

Karpov-Kasparov 87

At club level it’s even harder to find games where the initiative might
go back and
forth as a result of something other than errors, but try this one,
perhaps:   

EG: Regis-Littlejohns

  • Regis D. – Littlejohns D. [B14]


Further reading:

Dvoretsky in School of Chess
Excellence, vol.3, says something characteristically sniffy
along the lines of ‘annotators often
mention the initiative, so you can tell it’s important, but hardly
anybody
has written anything good about it…‘ and then offers a couple
of
chapters of his own.  But don’t start there!  His books
feature a
succession of very complicated examples which I expect are just the
thing that aspiring IMs should study if they want to be GMs, but are
generally hard to make use of if you aren’t that good yet. 

Nonetheless, I think an understanding of the initiative is useful
for
club players.  Fortunately, Dvoretsky is quite wrong to say that
there
is nothing worth reading on the subject; besides the references
mentioned above, Max Euwe
dealt very well with it in his Middlegame
books with Kramer, and Hansen’s more recent chapter in Improve your Positional Chess uses
very much the same framework.  I’ve also noticed (but not read) a
long chapter by Beim in How to Play
Dynamic Chess.  Suba talks a lot about initiative in Dynamic Chess Strategy, a book that
I have struggled to get much out of; again, the talk floats a little
too high above the evidence.

[…] for game list; click H8 for help

Schematic thinking

Posted on by

-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+jX-X
X-+-+-X-
nL-+-+p+
+-+-+p+p
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+k+-

Recently, I was analysing an endgame with Steve Webb and at one point just pushed a bishop from b4 to d4, obliterating the chances of the Knight at a4 which can now only move to leave a lost K+P ending. Steve was briefly outraged, as I recall, so what made me do that? Well, you have to have seen the pattern before, but obviously …Bb4-d4 is not a legal move. The point is that thinking in this way stops you getting bogged down in move orders, and focuses your attention on what must be done soon.

Schematic thinking 1: Bott and Morrison, The Chess Apprentice

Thomas,G-Monticelli 1933: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. Bxc6+ bxc6 6. d4 f6 7. Be3 Ne7 8. Qd2 Ng6 9. Nc3 Be7 10. h4

Thomas-Monticelli, 1933

 

t+lDj+-T
+-X-L-Xx
x+xX-Xs+
+-+-X-+-
-+-Pp+-P
+-N-Bn+-
pPpQ-Pp+
R-+-K-+r

There some lovely sections in The Chess Apprentice called ‘Winning Advantages’ and ‘The forces move into position’‘, which have lots of these schematic diagrams in. They genuinely changed the way I looked at a chessboard.

10…O-O 11. h5 Nh8 12. O-O-O Nf7 13. Rdg1 Bd7 14. g4 exd4 15. Nxd4 Ne5 16. Qe2 Qc8 17. Nf5 Re8 18. f4 Nf7 19. h6 Nxh6 20. Nxg7 Kxg7 21. Qh2 Nf7 22. Qxh7+ Kf8 23. f5 Bd8 24. Qg6 Ke7 25. Rh7 Rf8 26. Bh6 Be8 27. Qg7 1-0

Schematic Thinking 2: Capablanca

“Once in a lobby of the Hall of Columns of the Trade Union Centre in Moscow a group of masters were analysing an ending. They could not find the right way to go about things and there was a lot of arguing about it. Suddenly Capablanca came into the room. He was always find of walking about when it was his opponent’s turn to move. Learning the reason for the dispute the Cuban bent down to the position, said ‘Si, si,’ and suddenly redistributed the pieces all over the board to show what the correct formation was for the side trying to win. I haven’t exaggerated. Don Jose literally pushed the pieces around the board without making moves. He just put them in fresh positions where he thought they were needed.”

“Suddenly everything became clear. The correct scheme of things had been set up and now the win was easy. We were delighted by Capablanca’s mastery…”

KOTOV, Think like a Grandmaster, tr. Cafferty, pub. 1971 Batsford.

Capablanca – Ragozin (Moscow) [E22], 1936

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qb3 Nc6 5. e3 d5 6. Nf3 O-O 7. a3 dxc4 8. Bxc4 Bd6 9. Bb5 e5 10. Bxc6 exd4 11. Nxd4 bxc6 12. Nxc6

This gain of a pawn ultimately decides the game.

12… Qd7 13. Nd4 Qg4 14. O-O Ba6 15. h3 Qh4 16. Nf3 Qh5 17. Re1 Rab8 18. Qa4 Bb7 19. e4 h6 20. Be3

Black is struggling to hold the Queen’s-side.

20… Rfe8 21. Bd4 Nh7 22. Bxa7 Ra8 23. Qb5 Qxb5 24. Nxb5 Rxe4 25. Rxe4 Bxe4 26. Nd2 Bd3 27. Nxd6 Rxa7 28. N6e4 Nf8 29. Nc5 Bf5 30. Nf3 Ne6 31. Rc1 Kf8 32. Nxe6+ Bxe6

 

-+-+-J-+
T-X-+xX-
-+-+l+-X
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
P-+-+n+p
-P-+-Pp+
+-R-+-K-

“White’s plan is to prevent the advance of the enemy c-pawn which might make his own pawn at b2 weak, and to control the whole board as far as the fifth rank. This is achieved by playing the King to e3, the Rook to c3, the Knight to d4 and the pawns to b4 and f4. When this has been achieved White will advance his Q-side pawns”

CAPABLANCA, Moscow 1936 Tournament Bulletin, quoted by KOTOV in Play like a Grandmaster, tr. Cafferty, pub. 1978 Batsford.

(“Note – no variations!” KOTOV)

33. Nd4 Rb7 34. b4 Bd7 35. f4 Ke7 36. Kf2 Ra7 37. Rc3 Kd6 38. Rd3 Ke7 39. Ke3 Ra4 40. Rc3

 

-+-+-+-+
+-XlJxX-
-+-+-+-X
+-+-+-+-
tP-N-P-+
P-R-K-+p
-+-+-+p+
+-+-+-+-

mission accomplished

40… Kd6 41. Rd3 Ke7 42. Rb3 Kd6

 

-+-+-+-+
+-Xl+xX-
-+-J-+-X
+-+-+-+-
tP-N-P-+
Pr+-K-+p
-+-+-+p+
+-+-+-+-

the Knight is needed on c3 now to support the advance of the Q-side pawns, so we have a little shuffle

43. Ne2 g6 44. Rd3+ Ke6 45. Kd4 Ra6 46. Re3+ Kd6 47. Nc3 f5 48. b5 Ra8 49. Kc4 Be6+ 50. Kb4 c5+ 51. bxc6 Bg8 52. Nb5+ Kxc6 53. Rd3 g5

 

t+-+-+l+
+-+-+-+-
-+j+-+-X
+n+-+xX-
-K-+-P-+
P-+r+-+p
-+-+-+p+
+-+-+-+-

A slightly desparate-looking move. The Black pawns fall now and the win becomes straightforward.

54. Rd6+ Kb7 55. fxg5 hxg5 56. Rg6 Rf8 57. Rxg5 f4 58. Nd4 Rc8 59. Rg7+ Kb6 60. Rg6+ Kb7 61. Nb5 Rf8 62. Nd6+ Kb8 63. h4 1-0

 

 

P.S. “Silman Thinking Technique”, my foot.

Just a half? Slav and Semi-Slav

Posted on by

I’ve been discussing a choice of defence to 1.d4; defending classically with 1…d5 can’t be bad, but what to play after 2.c4?

The Slav (2…c6, ECO D10-D19) and Semi-Slav (…c6 with …e6, D43-D49) have a reputation for being solid, although the main lines of these systems are as sharp and bookish as any defence.  We’ve seen several lines contested in World Championship matches between Alekhin and Bogolyubow and Euwe; other lines have been examined in Kramnik’s matches (against Leko, Topalov and Anand) in recent years and, as you might imagine, the approaches have got quite sharp and sophisticated.

You can avoid all this lofty sophistication and go for solidity, but, as usual in chess, if Black declines to confront White in a theoretical line, Black must accept less than full dynamic equality.  There is no easy route to equality in chess; if there were, no-one would play the game!

This is a sort of bird’s-eye view of the Slav, with some hints for Black about some less common lines.  [See also How do you learn a new opening?, forthcoming]

ALL THE GAMES:

1 The ideas behind the Slav defence

1.1 Winning with the Slav

Both Slav/Semi-Slav: Grab the c-pawn

A rodeo variation… Grab something and try and hold on!

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(1000)” title=”QGD : Slav : Tolush-Geller Gambit”>Reefschlaeger H. – Huebner R. [D15]

Take the c-pawn…

…and, while White is recovering the material, get developed, maybe hit back with either …c5 or …e5.

This is a very important theme.  Black can often park their pieces on natural squares in the Slav and think themselves solid, but White’s centre can roll over the Black position.  So Black has to do something about White’s centre.  If you consider the pawn formation after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6, White can expand in the centre with e4.  Black can deter or defuse this advance by making their own assault on the centre with …e5 or …c5.  However, …e5 played now allows White to isolate the d-Pawn after 4.cxd5 cxd5 5.dxe5; a similar possibility exists after …e6 and …c5.  So, first Black plays ….dxc4 (Czech and Meran Variations), then hits back with …e5.  This is a delicate operation, since it leaves White with a dangerous central majority for a move or ten, so you will need to restrain White’s pawns in the manner of the hypermoderns.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10020)” title=”QGD : Slav : Carlsbad Variation”>Alekhin A – Euwe M [D17]

Here’s the other counterblow in a game where Black was happy, even a move behind:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(1002)” title=”QGD : Slav : Soultanbeieff Variation”>Leko P. – Kramnik V. [D16]

[Not a bad surprise weapon, although probably a poor first choice for a defensive system.  Svidler, Kramnik’s second, got a couple of black eyes pushing his luck with it.]

Slav: early development of the Bc8

This is the main selling point of the pure Slav; we will solve the problem of where to place this wretched piece by developing it first, and then every other piece will fall into place (Nbd7 and Bd6 or Bb4).  A common post is f5, restraining the e-pawn which is liberated by …dxc4, or g4, pinning the Nf3.

1.2 Losing with the Slav (ideas for White):

[Gambit the c-pawn]

The brighter side of Black being tempted to grab it.  It was quite in Kasparov’s early style to sacrifice a pawn for the initiative:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10021)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Anti-Meran 4…dxc4″>Kasparov G. – Petursson M. [D44]

Current theory suggests this is better for Black, but at club level, the initiative is a more powerful weapon than “=+”.

Take over the centre

If Black is so good as to relinquish their stake in the centre, let White rejoice!

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10022)” title=”QGD : Slav : Soultanbeieff Variation”>Alekhin A – Bogoljubow E [D16]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10040)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Meran, Reynold’s Variation”>Polugaevsky L. – Navarro [D48]

Harass the Black Queen’s Bishop

Similarly, if Black is so insistent on getting out the Bc8, then White can see it coming and work to take advantage of what may be a premature decision.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10018)” title=”QGD : Slav : 4.e3 Bf5″>Topalov V. – Kramnik V. [D12]

Semi-Slav: Gambit the d-pawn

Black has an option of delaying the development of the Ng8, and setting up a little triangle of pawns after 1…d5 followed by, in one order or another, 2…c6 and 3…e6.  This is a particularly handy move-order for Black if you think White might play an Exchange Variation, and essential if you want to play the Abrahams-Noteboom Variation. However, if White wishes to encourage Black to play …Nf6 (hoping perhaps to avoid the Noteboom) then 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e6 can be followed with 4.e4!?  Now 4…dxe4 5.Nxe4 will lead to a simple White plus unless Black grasps the nettle with 5…Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Qxd4 7.Bxb4 Qxe4.  Instead Black can dodge with 4…Bb4 5.e5 c5 (an old idea which I think is still holding up well enough, but maybe White will get on Black’s case before long).

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10041)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Marshall Gambit”>Wood B. – Alexander C. [D31]

2 The Variations

2.1 The Big Four

The four big sharp main lines, all still in use at the top level, are:

Slav: Czech System (Krause Attack)

White tries to swamp the centre, Black may have to sacrifice to hold the balance.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10042)” title=”QGD : Slav : Wiesbaden Variation”>Kramnik V. – Lautier J. [D17]

Even if White plays less sharply, it’s by no means a calm game: take a look at this one!

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10049)” title=”QGD : Slav : Carlsbad Variation”>Kramnik V. – Morozevich A. [D17]

Someone commented ‘perhaps only Kramnik understands these positions’, but when asked the question about what is best for Black in 2006, he demurred:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10011)” title=”QGD : Slav : Wiesbaden Variation”>Topalov V. – Kramnik V. [D17]

Semi-Slav: Noteboom Variation

In the Abrahams-Noteboom Variation, Black all but abandons the centre in favour of trying to score a try on the wing.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10027)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Abrahams Variation”>Neverov V. – Kramnik V. [D31]

Semi-Slav: Meran Variation

A finely poised battle between central occupation and counterplay.  After the natural 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 (Black can try instead 8…b4 or the uncommital 8…Bb7; there is also 8…Qc7) 9.e4 c5 White can play Reynold’s 10.d5 or 10.e5 cxd4 11.Nxb5…

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10012)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Meran Variation”>Kramnik V. – Topalov V. [D47]

Semi-Slav: Botvinnik’s Anti-Meran Gambit

Even among GM theory, this is regarded as a poisonously complicated line, bewilderingly unbalanced.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10072)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Anti-Meran, Denker”>Ponomariov R. – Shirov A. [D44]

All exhilarating stuff, but not for the faint-hearted and not to be undertaken lightly (i.e. only with a big book and a bigger database and preferably a team of seconds and perhaps a computer in the toilet).

 

I have seen top SW County players play all these lines (I’ve played one or two myself), but they can all draw you into a theoretical arms race where only the publishers win…   These variations have been around for a long while, I don’t suppose they’re likely to be refuted, but it seems the exact dance steps you need to stay upright change very often in some of these lines, even monthly.   So, rather than face the Botvinnik line, Black invented the Moscow Variation with 5…h6 (6.Bxf6), but now the Anti-Moscow (6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 9.h4!) is accreting layers of theory faster than a black hole in a galaxy centre…

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(1004)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Hastings Variation”>Anand V. – Kramnik V. [D43]

2.2 Quieter play for White

Eschewing the arms race of theory, White has many quieter options, which a club player might prefer:

Slav: Czech system, Dutch Variation

White defers the attempt to take over the centre with e4 until development is complete.  I say ‘quieter’, but White can push the accelerator if they wish…  Nunn’s Chess Openings [NCO] says that after 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.O-O Nbd7 (discouraging Ne5), White can force a draw in some lines after 9.Qb3, so, if that’s an issue, then play 8…O-O to keep the three possible results alive.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(1009)” title=”QGD : Slav : Dutch Variation, Main Line”>Topalov V. – Kramnik V. [D19]

Slav: Slow Variation

I used to think of this as an unconvincing attempt by White to keep some play going in the Colle (1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5! 4.c4 c6); I’m tempted to name it the Colloid, in recognition of its gooey nature….  Now it turns out to be cutting-edge World Championship theory.   The continued interest by GMs in teasing out the subtleties of this line is lost on me, but let us put it down to the inexhaustible richness of the chessboard rather than a collective exercise in stodginess.  I guess while Black is solid, White is very flexible and has the two Bishops; Black must wait for White to reveal their plan.  Topalov stung Kramnik with an innovation in the middle of their 2006 match but neither side chose to repeat the line with either colour later in the match (Kramnik choosing the old 8.g3 and Topalov 8.Rb1: most cagey…).  4…Bf5 is natural but 4…Bg4 is OK and even 4…g6 is playable, although not a formation Slav players will be very familiar with.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10013)” title=”QGD : Slav : 4.e3 Bf5″>Topalov V. – Kramnik V. [D12]

Semi-Slav: Anti-Meran Stodge

White secures the centre but puts less pressure on Black.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10017)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Stoltz Variation”>Kramnik V. – Topalov V. [D45]

White can be even more dull with 4.e3 e6 5.Nbd2, after which you can try 5…c5!?, hoping to sharpen the play.  As usual, it’s hard for Black to insist on active play if White wants a quiet game.

Having libelled this variation as ‘stodge’, I must mention that Shabalov came up with 7.g4!?, now known as the Latvian Bayonet after Shirov got hold of it.  Here’s an influential game:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10054)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Stoltz Variation”>Shirov A. – Fressinet L. [D45]

Since then, Shirov has been obliged to defend against his own weapon:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10055)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Stoltz Variation”>Radjabov T. – Shirov A. [D45]

It seems that, as White is likely to castle Queen’s-side, 7…Bb4 8.Bd2 c5! is also an effective antidote.

White has one last ‘slow’ option that is often seen as unspeakably dull:

Slav: Exchange Variation

Well there are still 30 bits on the board, you can still try and make something happen…

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(1005)” title=”QGD : Slav : Exchange, Trifunovic Variation”>Kramnik V. – Anand V. [D14]

These days there are some delicate negotiations about exactly when to exchange and whether Black can tease White by reserving options for the Bc8 with …a6:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10048)” title=”QGD : Slav Defense : Exchange Variation”>Mozetic D. – Shirov A. [D10]

One example of the move order subtleties being negotiated is that after 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.Nc3, Black can play an improved version of the Winawer Counter-Gambit with 4…e5! [NCO]. So, White might prefer to play 3.Nc3 or 3.Nf3 before exchanging (but 3.Nc3 allows not just 3…e5?! but 3…dxc4!?).  Players of the Semi-Slav at least have the opportunity of recapturing with the e-pawn, which offers more unbalanced play.  Vigus says Black can chase the Bf4 with …Nh5, an idea played by Botvinnik and Basman…

2.3 Unconfrontational play by Black

Black can also avoid the sharpest lines.  For example, rather than face Botvinnik’s Anti-Meran Gambit, Black can dodge with 5…h6 (Moscow Variation) or slide out into the Queen’s Gambit Declined by 5…Nbd7, when, after 6.e3, 6…Qa5 is a Cambridge Springs and 6…Be7 is a true Orthodox.

Slav: Alternatives in the main line

James Vigus has built a repertoire book around the soild Sokolov Variation:  1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bf5 6. Ne5 Nbd7 7. Nxc4 Nb6 (rather than 7…Qc7), and that’s got to be worth a look.

There are other alternatives which are surely playable but perhaps not so dynamic.  I used be be a believer in the Bronstein (Steiner) variation with 5…Bg4; 6.e3 looks a bit limp, but after 6.e4 e5!? or 6…e6 and 7…Bb4 Black gets good play, and after 6.Ne5 Bh5 7.e3 or 7.g3 or 7.h3 Black can equalise.  This variation was recommended a long while ago in a repertoire book by Andy Soltis, and I’ve had a sort of avuncular interest in it over the years, but when I caught up with recent developments(*) it started to feel like too much of a struggle: too much theory for too little play.  NCO gives 5 rows for this variation, and lots of notes, the bottom line is +=… But you can always walk into a +=, it depends if you fancy it! Nikolic, Flear, Conquest  and Vigus have all dabbled in it over the years.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10028)” title=”QGD : Slav : Steiner Variation”>Schmidt W. – Stempin P. [D16]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10050)” title=”QGD : Slav : Steiner Variation”>Piket J. – Romanishin O. [D16]

(*) The current recommendation for White is to sharpen the game more, with 6.Ne5 Bh5 7.f3, after which there are complications and promising conclusions for White.  7…Nfd7!? has the bright idea of 8.Nxc4 e5! (9.dxe5? Qh4+) but even if, after 9.Ne4 Bb4+ 10.Bd2 Qe7 11.Bxb4 Qxb4+ 12.Qd2 Qxd2+ 13.Kxd2 exd4 14.Ned6+ Ke7 15.Nf5, Black can hold with 15…Kd8, Sadler still reckons White has promising play after 9.g3, 9.Be3 and the bonkers 9.e4.

Cox suggests 9.g3 f6 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Qxd8 gives a small advantage, while 9.g3 Bb4 10.dxe5 O-O 11.Nh3 Qe7 12.f4!? (12.Bf4!?) is still up for grabs.

So perhaps Black should play the less common 7…e6 and hope either that White doesn’t have the bottle for 8.g4, or that it’s no worse a position to be in than many in the Slav.  White’s score from games at www.chesslive.de was pretty impressive, but GM Illescas managed to drop a game against it.  Cox reports the critical line is 8.g4 Nd5 9.e4 Qh4+ 10.Ke2 Nxc3+ 11.bxc3 Bxg6 which Burgess gives as unclear but Cox thinks is better for White.  Presumably people have pondered this over the years but the ChessBase site turned up exactly one Black win in that line, a correspondence encounter which continued instead 11…f6!?  Alternatively 8…Nfd7 was the line that Illescas lost to… Over to you!

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10064)” title=”QGD : Slav : Steiner Variation”>Tennant S. – Jacobs R. [D16]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10065)” title=”QGD : Slav : Steiner Variation”>Illescas Cordoba M. – Imanaliev T. [D16]

There are other choices here; 5…Na6 is a typically flexible try by Smyslov (with just one row of NCO) which has been played by other independent spirits like Ivanchuk and Nikolic and parochially Conquest, Speelman and Short (who beat Kramnik with it).  One point is 6.Ne5 Ng4! 7.Nxc4 e5!, so White normally submits to the …Bg4 pin with 6.e3 or the more characteristic 6.e4; after 6.e4 Bg4 7.Bxc4 Black can now or later double the f-pawns by 7…Bxf3, another theme typical of the variation.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10070)” title=”QGD : Slav : Smyslov Variation”>Kramnik V. – Ivanchuk V. [D16]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10073)” title=”QGD : Slav : Smyslov Variation”>Atalik S. – Nikolic P. [D16]

I’ve been watching local players get away with 5…a5 for years: it’s theoretically += but who knows the theory?  [6.e4 Bg4 7.Bxc4 e6 8.0-0 Bb4 9.Re1 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Nbd7 11.f4 0-0 12.Qf3+= (Sosonko)].  Bogolyubov’s 5…e6 is also probably ‘playable’ but abandons the main advantage of the Slav move order, namely, developing the Bc8.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10071)” title=”QGD : Slav Accepted : Alapin Variation”>Wheeler J. F. – Menadue J. F. S. [D16]

Semi-Slav: Alternatives to the Meran

Against the Tchigorin Variation with 6…Bd6, White often gets a space advantage which Black can patiently wrestle down.  As far as I understand it, White is currently recommended to play 7.e4 immediately, as 7.O-O O-O 8.e4 allows the familar counter-blow …dxc4 and …e5; with the Black King uncastled, this is riskier.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10029)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav (without Nc3)”>Polgar Z. – Donaldson J. [D46]

I wrote about the Tchigorin and Romih (6…Bb4) in a booklet many years ago. In these lines, you can write all the theory you need to know on the back of a postage stamp.  Maybe they’re short of full equality, but you can end up += in the main lines, too!  Perhaps a worse drawback is that you get less dynamic play.  The idea of the Romih is to deter e3-e4 and perhaps later return to the b8-h2 diagonal to support …e5.

Slav: Chebanenko Variation

The latest fashion in the Slav is the Chebanenko (Chamaeleon) variation with an early 4…a6, which is essentially a way of deferring a decision about any of those ideas and tempting White to make some sort of commitment first. I haven’t attempted to tackle any of this theory, but there are some recent books on it.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10034)” title=”QGD : Slav : 4…a6″>Gurevich D. – Hodgson J. [D15]

Early …a6s have been popping up all over the place, in fact. Here’s a line popular in the 1930s which has had renewed interest:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10033)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : 6.Bd3″>Krainski A. – Popov V. [D46]

3 Playing Slav-style against hypermodern openings.

The main hypermodern systems are the Catalan, English and Réti openings.

Grabbing the c-pawn

The Closed Catalan with …c6 concedes space and initiative to White, but grabbing the c-pawn can be the usual rodeo ride.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10043)” title=”Catalan : Closed”>Butnorius A. – Pushkov N. [E06]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10036)” title=”English : Caro-Kann Defensive System”>Dzindzihashvili R. – Bagirov V. [A11]

Compare also:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10026)” title=”Catalan : Open : 5.Nf3″>Lengyel – Karpov A. [E04]

…b5 against the Catalan.

Playing Semi-Slav with both …c6 and …e6 looks rather too modest against hypermodern systems; not exactly bad, but White can set up their position just as they wish then work out where to punch you.  There is a line with …c6 and …b5 which is easy enough to understand and might be worth a try:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10039)” title=”Catalan : Closed (Qc2 & b3)”>Petrosian A. – Bischoff K. [E08]

Slav-style against the Réti with b3

The systems with …c6, …d5, …Nf6 and either …Bf5 or …Bg4 are well-respected tries against the Réti, with a long history:

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10025)” title=”English : Capablanca’s Variation”>Reti R. – Capablanca J. [A12]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10024)” title=”English : London Defensive System”>Reti R. – Lasker E. [A12]

Slav-style against the English and Réti without b3

The lines with an early development of the Bishop can run into trouble if White declines to defend the c-pawn and instead harasses the Bishop which has been developed to f5 or g4; the tempi saved by omitting b3 and d4 mean that White’s initiative is more difficult to contain.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10035)” title=”English : Caro-Kann Defensive System”>Romanishin O. – Suba M. [A11]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10037)” title=”Reti : King’s Indian Attack (…Bf5)”>Portisch L. – Smyslov V. [A07]

N.B. If White starts with 1.c4, you cannot guarantee to play a Slav system, because if 1…c6, perhaps 2.e4.  If Black goes ahead with  2…d5, the game can transpose into the Panov-Botvinnik Attack in the Caro-Kann 3.exd5 cxd5 4.d4, or into a related variation with 4.cxd5.  Neither are bad for Black, but these are sharp lines which may be outside your repertoire.  If so, you may prefer to slide into a version of the Old Indian with 2…e5.

4 The Slav in club play

Club theory:

Many of us have a repertoire book on which we base our opening choices, so it would be worth checking out these lines too; working from the present to the past:

John Cox (2006) recommends playing proper grown-up chess against everything, so that means meeting the Slav with the Modern Ne5 and finding something against Morozevich’s fabulous 11…g5.  He then goes on to recommend the Botvinnik Anti-Meran Gambit and the Marshall Gambit.  [I honestly don’t know how suitable these lines are for people ‘starting out’; if your opponents allow you to enter such lines they may know enough to duff you up without ever playing a move of their own.]

Richard Palliser (2003) has recommended the Slow Slav with 4.e3 (against which I like to play 4…Bf5 while Vigus suggests 4…Bg4).  Palliser also honestly gives what may be an equalising line against his variation: Palliser,R (2455) – Houska,J (2386) [D12]
4NCL Telford ENG (4), 19.01.2003  1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 Qc7 7.Bd2 e6 8.Bb5+ Nbd7 (8…Nfd7!? DR) 9.0-0 a6 10.Bxd7+ Nxd7 11.Ne5 and now 11…Bc2 12.Qc3 Rc8

Angus Dunnington (2001) recommended the QGD Exchange Variation against the Semi-Slav while against the Slav itself chose the anti-theoretical 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 — not critical, but of course very playable.

Ray Keene and Byron Jacobs (1995) also recommended the QGD Exchange but also chose the Exchange against the Slav.

Like Cox, Graham Burgess and Steffen Pedersen,  recommend, in their thorough 1994 repertoire book, rather grown-up main lines across the board: 6.Ne5 against the Slav and the Marshall Gambit against the Semi-Slav, balking at the Botvinnik Anti-Meran but finding a promising early diversion (7.a4).

Glenn Flear suggested 5.Qb3 for White in 1988; I think 5…dxc4 6.Qxc4 b5 7.Qb3 Nbd7! is the recipe for Black.

So, be prepared for any of these… depending on when the most recent date that your opponent’s visit to a chess bookstall coincided with a rush of blood to the head.

Club practice:

I have a database of local games (see www.chessdevon.co.uk) and wondered what ordinary players adopted.  So, of 409 local games (with every standard of player from Minor to GMs), we had 270 Slavs and 112 Semis. White scores an absolutely average 55% against both defences (I believe White does a little better than this at GM level).

In the Slav, the single largest group was D10, a grab-bag of non-standard systems, followed by D13 (standard exchanges) and D15 (non-standard Czechs). In the Semi, the leading system was D45 (non-standard Semis).  I think the only conclusion we can draw is “so much for theory…”: our opponents are so busy fighting shy of whatever theory they think we know, that our inadequacies are unlikely to be exposed.  Just eight brave players negotiated with their opponents to play 4 examples  of the very main line of the Meran.

5 Heroes of the Slav

Capablanca played the Slav throughout his career, I think losing just one game.  [Avoiding loss doesn’t quite have the ‘heroic’ stamp about it, but is something many of us would settle for.] Contemporary supporters include Shirov, Anand and Kramnik of course, but if their stratospheric displays are more daunting than inspiring, it may be that we need to look elsewhere for a model to follow. Glenn Flear has played the Slav all his career, I think, and so his games and comments are always worth looking at.  Gurevich is a hero of the Semi-Slav, happy to play the sharpest lines of the Meran and Botvinnik.

  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10066)” title=”QGD : Slav : Dutch Variation, Main Line”>Ragozin V. – Capablanca J. [D19]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10067)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : 5…Nd7″>Stapfer J. – Capablanca J. [D45]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10068)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : Botvinnik Variation (…Nbd7)”>Johner P. – Capablanca J. [D46]
  • <ahref=”javascript:Gm(10069)” title=”QGD : Semi-Slav : 6.Bd3″>Saemisch F. – Capablanca J. [D46]

6 Slav variations

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 (or …e6 first, depending on how you feel about various versions of the Exchange)

3 4 5 6 7 8 Name (big four in heavy type)
cxd5 cxd5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bf4 a6 Exchange Variation with …a6
… … Nc3 e5! Transposition to next row
Nc3 e5?! Winawer Counter-Gambit
dxc4!? (e4) Argentinian* Defence (Alekhin Variation)
Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Semi-Slav (transposes below)
dxc4 e3 (b5) Alekhin Gambit
e4 (b5) Tolush/Geller Gambit
Ne5 (b5) Bugadifino Gambit
a4 Bf5 e3 Czech System, Dutch Variation
Ne5 Czech System, Krause Attack
Bg4 Bronstein/Steiner Variation
Na6 Smyslov Variation
a5 Murey Variation
e6 Bogolyubov/Soultanbieff Variation
e3 Bf5 Slow Slav
Nc3 e6 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 Bb4+ Bd2 Qxd4 Bxb4 Qxe4 Marshall Gambit
Bb4 e4 c5 Anti-Marshall
Nf3 dxc4 a4 Bb4 Abrahams-Noteboom Variation
e6 e3 Nbd7 Qc2 Anti-Meran Stodge
(Qc2) Bd6 g4 Latvian Bayonet
Bd3 dxc4 Bxb4 b5 Bd3 Meran Variation
Bd6 Tchigorin Variation
Bb4 Romih Variation
a6 Alekhin Variation (yes, I know)
Bg5 dxc4 e4 b5 e5 Botvinnik Anti-Meran Gambit
a4 (Burgess-Pedersen)
h6 Moscow Variation
Nbd7 e3 Qa5 QGD Cambridge Springs Defence

* Vigus gives Argentinean, which is a spelling I’ve never seen before, so although Vigus has a PhD in spelling I will persist with this form. (Experts, what do they know, eh? I could live with Argentine Defence.)

7 So, Slav, or Semi-Slav?

  • If you prefer the main QGD Exchange to the Slav Exchange, or your previous defence was the QGD Orthodox, that’s a clear push for the Semi-Slav.
  • If you can’t bear to have a blocked Bc8, then play the Slav.
  • If you play the Caro-Kann or the Scandinavian with 2…Qxd5, then play the Slav; the French fits with the Semi-Slav.
  • If you play a lot of Colles, then the Semi is a natural partner.
  • If you’re happy attacking a big centre, try the Slav; the Semi-Slav seems to me to concede less ground.

8. Bibliography

As befits a player of my mature standing, all my books on the Slav are ancient and out of date (Harding, Flear, Silman & Donaldson…).  The Slav is pretty popular these days, and so are opening books, so I won’t recommend any of the books I actually own… Our younger readers might even prefer something databasey.  Depending on what depth of coverage you’re after:

CDs/DVDs

  • MARTIN: ABC of The Modern Slav
  • SHIROV: My Best Games in the Slav and Semi-Slav
  • ROGOZENKO: Slav Defence
  • [Chess Assistant]: Modern Chess Openings – Slav Defence
  • PLASKETT: …a6 Slav

Baby bear’s Porridge:

  • FLEAR: Starting out: Slav and Semi-Slav (ChessBase version available)
  • SADLER: The Slav
  • SADLER: The Semi-Slav
  • VIGORITO: Chess explained: Mainline Slav
  • VERA: Chess explained: Meran (Semi-Slav)

Mummy Bear’s Porridge:

  • PEDERSEN: Botvinnik Semi-Slav
  • FLEAR: Slav …a6
  • VIGORITO: Play the Semi-Slav
  • VIGUS: Play the Slav (ChessBase version available)
  • BOLOGAN: Chenanenko Slav

Daddy Bear’s Porridge:

  • BURGESS: The Slav
  • WELLS: The Complete Semi-Slav

9 Chess Book reviews:

After a soggy phase, it feels to me like the general standard of chess books has improved a lot, so I expect none of these books are bad, but in case you want to check the content and level suits you (specific books are listed before more inclusive sites with potentially several reviews):

The ideas behind the English Opening

Posted on by

I don’t like doing so many sessions on Openings, because we all
play different ones, but while Rex was asking me about the English
it occurred to me that I have played more English Opening games
than any other over the last 15-20 years, but I have never tried to
teach anybody about it. So I sat down and tried to put together
this session.

  I immediately realised why it wasn’t such a natural thing
to do, because the damn thing is so diffuse and complex. [I
wouldn’t dream of doing a session which I had narrowed down to
“1.d4”, even less so if there were vast transpositional
possibilities.] Anyhow, here’s tuppence-worth:

A1. Fools rush in…

The fundamental hypermodern insight is that White can afford to
delay occupation of the centre, since if Black tries to take
advantage of the delay by trying to sieze the centre then White’s
counterattack will be swift and effective. This is most
convincingly seen perhaps in the Grunfeld Reversed: not an English
variation I know, but shows what White can allow with confidence.
So, after 1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 c5 3. Bg2 Nc6:

 

t+lDjLsT
Xx+-XxXx
-+s+-+-+
+-Xx+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+nP-
pPpPpPbP
RnBqK-+r

Korchnoi – Mecking, Augusta (Match), 1974: 4.
d4 e6 5. O-O cxd4 6. Nxd4 Bc5 7. Nb3 Bb68. c4 Nf6 9. cxd5 Nxd5
(…) 63. Be5 1-0
Korchnoi – Pomar, Stockholm, 1962: 4. d4 Nf6 5.
O-O Bf5 6. c4 e6 7. Nc3 Be7 8. cxd5 Nxd5(…) 41. Ke3 Ra3+
1-0

The English is a more balanced strategy combining early restraint
(of …d5) with later ambitions for expansion.

A2. An early break in the centre

The hypermodern movement has been most associated with the
fianchetto, but Reti’s interpretation of the English was a little
different. After 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 he would play
not 3. g3 but 3. Nf3, and after
3…Nc6, 4. d4!

EG: Reti,R – Rabinovich,I
[A28] Moscow-Wch, 1925

This may seem out of keeping with the hypermodern idea, but let’s
listen to Reti’s own account:

“Now I will propose a thesis, the proof of which the
reader and I can seek together. It is known that the significance
of a single tempo, and thus the significance of development, is
greatest in open positions. In closed positions it plays almost no
role. Consequently, it would seem to be in White’s interest to open
the game (without loss of tempo, of course). How can this be
achieved? Most likely by exposing and attacking the opponent’s
strong points. One would expect Black’s strongest point in the
center to be d5 since, unlike e5, it has natural protection by the
queen. Therefore, the ideal initial move is 1. c4, immediately
taking aim at d5. Should Black support d5 by l…Nf6, then White
reinforces the attack by 2. Nc3. Let’s assume that Black answers
2…e5. This weakens d5 and reveals his intention of building his
position around e5 by such moves as …Nc6 and …d6. (Even with
2…e6 he could not control d5 in the long run.) Now White need not
continue attacking d5, which Black abandoned without a fight, by 3.
g3 and 4. Bg2. Rather, following the logic given above, White
should strike the new bastion e5 by 3. Nf3 and (in reply to 3…d6
or …Nc6) 4. d4, and he thereby achieves an advantage.”

[reprinted in Virginia Chess,
Sept/Oct 1993][Jerry Lawson].

  It’s not much played any more (but may be worth a punt
now and then); we are more likely to see the same idea (of playing
for a central break and development advantage) in a different
setting in the English:

EG: Kasparov,Gary –
Beliavsky,A (9) Linares, 1991
EG: Kasparov,Gary – Korchnoi,
Viktor, Skelleftea, 1989

You will remember Chris showing a dozen miniatures from the English
Opening in a coaching session last month, when we saw how racy
attacks can be obtained even with this apparently slow opening.

A3. Delayed occupation of the centre

This is more how we play the English these days.

 

-+p+-+-+
+-N-P-P-
pP-PnPbP
R-Bq+rK-

My first experiments with the English opening had a distinguished
English pedigree: Howard Staunton often practiced the English with
the system 1. c4 2. Nc3 3. g3 4. Bg2 and
5. e3, with a break using d2-d4 in mind. I enjoyed
the following game where Black seems to be playing 100% according
to the guidelines for opening play:

Korchnoi-Szabo, 1963

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 Bc5 4.Bg2 O-O 5.e3 Re8 6.Nge2 Nc6
7.O-O d6

  Black has apparently posted his pieces and Pawns with
classical purity, but gets rapidly squashed.

8.d4 Bb6 9.h3 Bf5 {?} 10.d5 Nb8 11.g4 Bd7 12.Ng3
h6 13.Kh2 a5 14.f4 exf4 15.exf4 Nh7

 

tS-Dt+j+
+xXl+xXs
-L-X-+-X
X-+p+-+-
-+p+-Pp+
+-N-+-Np
pP-+-+bK
R-Bq+r+-

Nothing is left of Black’s early central occupation, and White
seems to have at least nine Pawns harrassing Black’s pieces…

16.g5 Na6 17.gxh6 Qh4 18.hxg7 Nf6 19.f5 Be3
20.Nce4 {!} 20…Nxe4 21.Nxe4 Bxc1 22.Rxc1 Nc5 23.Qg4 Rxe4 24.Bxe4
Qxg4 25.hxg4 Nxe4 26.Rce1 Nc5 27.f6 Re8 28.Rxe8+ Bxe8 29.Re1 Ba4
30.Re3 (threat Rh3) 1-0

  The light squares like d3 in the Staunton system are not
so very weak because Black cannot occupy or fix the Pawns. The most
obvious way to try is to get a Pawn to e4, but this cannot be
sustained:

  Shatskes gives:

Botvinnik M – Simagin Vladimir (RUS) [A25]
Ch URS, Moscow (Russia), 1952

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 f5 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. e3 Be7 6. d4 e4
7. f3 O-O! 8. Nge2

[8. fxe4 fxe4 9. Nxe4 Nxe4 10. Bxe4 Bb4+ 11. Bd2
Qe7]

8… Bb4 9. O-O Bxc3 10. Nxc3 exf3 11. Qxf3 d6
12. Bd2 Bd7 13. Rae1 Qe8

 

t+-+dTj+
XxXl+-Xx
-+sX-S-+
+-+-+x+-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-PqP-
pP-B-+bP
+-+-RrK-

14. Qd1! Qg6 15. Nd5 Nxd5 16. cxd5 Ne7 17. Qb3 b6 18. Rc1
Rac8 19. Rc3!+/- (…) 43. Kd1 1/2-1/2

  I was able to implement these ideas many years ago
against Bob Richmond, when after 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3
f5 4. d4 e4 5. Nh3 Nf6 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. Bg5 c6 9.
f3 White had good prospects: Black’s centre is under
pressure. See also the Keres system, B5a
below.

  This Staunton approach can lead to some interesting and
finely balanced positions. I once got into a real mess against
Richard Nash of Barnstable playing this approach…

1. c4 e5 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. Nc3 Ne7 5. e3
Nbc6 6. Nge2 d6 7. d4

 

t+lDj+-T
XxX-SxLx
-+sX-+x+
+-+-X-+-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-P-P-
pP-+nPbP
R-BqK-+r

I immediately looked it up to see what I had done wrong. I have an
old book by Shatskes which quotes an analysis from Botvinnik, and a
new book by Ribli and Kallai. Are two heads better than one? They
both identified my mistake but then gave completely opposite
advice!

7… exd4 8. Nxd4?! An error.
8… O-O 9. O-O Re8

[9… Bd7 10. Nde2 Qc8 11.Nf4 Ne5 12. Qe2 Re8 13. Bd2
c6 14. Ne4 Qc7 15. Bc3 Rad8 16. h3 d5 += smyslov-radulovic
1964]

10. b3 ? 10… Nxd4 11. exd4 Nf5 =+ (…) 40.
1/2-1/2

[Better is

8. exd4! O-O 9. O-O

 

t+lD-Tj+
XxX-SxLx
-+sX-+x+
+-+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-+-P-
pP-+nPbP
R-Bq+rK-

But what now?

9… Nf5 “?” botvinnik “!” ribli

(9 … Bg4″!” = botvinnik “?” ribli – although there
are probably still finesses to be found:

Now if 10. h3 Bxe2 11. Nxe2 Nf5 12. d5 Ne5 13. Qc2
Re8 ( “!” shatskes ) 14. Bd2 a5 15. Rad1 ( “!” ribli ) 15… Qb8
16. Bc1 Qa7 17. Be4 Ne7 18. Be3 Qa6 19. b3 a4 20. Nc3 axb3 21. axb3
b6 22. Nb5 Qc8 23. Kh2 Nd7 24. Rfe1 Nc5 25. Bf3 Nf5 26. Bg4 ! +=
uhlmann-taimanov 1984]

10. d5 Ne5 11. b3 a5 ?

(11 … a6; 12 Bb2, b5; 13 cxb5, axb5; 14 Qc2, b4; 15
Ne4, Ba6 botvinnik ; 11 …b5!? seirawan)

12. Bb2 Nd7 13. a3 Nc5 14. b4 Nd7 15. Qb3
botvinnik-reshevsky 1938]

  This is why the English is such a fine opening: there is
great flexibility and scope for creativity for each side, which is
why old foxes like Viktor Kortchnoi can win from either side.

  One last example of a delayed occupation proving
effective

EG: Speelman Jonathan – Xu Jun
[A35] Luzern 48/50, 1989

A4. The Queen’s-side attack

-Pp+-+-+
+-Np+nP-
p+-+pPbP
+rBq+rK-

The White set-up with g3 can also be seen in Black’s main system in
the Closed Sicilian, where a Queen’s-side attack can be pursued,
based on the fianchettoed Bishop.

EG: Miles-Belyavsky.

A5. Botvinnik system for White

-+p+p+-+
+-NpB-Pp
pP-+nPb+
R-+q+rK-

This is an interesting system pioneered by Nimzovitch and
Botvinnik, conceding an apparently permanent weak point at d4 but
gaining a firm grip on the centre and hoping to keep Black’s
activity to a minimum while seeking a break with b2-b4 or f2-f4. I
have played this on many occasions and have often won by direct
attack on the King’s-side. Perhaps the best advertisement for this
system at club level is the fact I always find it difficult to play
against, even if I know what’s coming!

EG: Botvinnik,Mikhail –
Scherbakov,Vitaly [A16] , Moscow ch-SU Round: 3 Year: 1955
EG: Benko,Pal – Botvinnik,Mikhail
[A10] , Monte Carlo Year: 1968
EG: Williams,SK (1990) – Regis,D.
(1935) [A36] 1994

A6. The Maroczy bind

One common positional theme against the symmetrical English is the
Maroczy Bind: Black found this difficult to play against for years
because of lack of prospects for active play, although recently the
‘hedgehog’ formation has proved its resilience.

EG: Fischer,R – Spassky,B (8)
[A39] Reykjavik-Wch, 1972
EG: Regis,D. – Richard Dixon
(Corr_92/93) [B36] Devon Vs. Glos.(Ward-Higgs I), 1993
EG: Vukic Milan – Suba Mihai
[A30]Vinkovci, 1977

There is an interesting formation where White immediately threatens
the Maroczy even when Black has not fianchettoed the Bf8:

EG: Korchnoi V – Spassky B
[A33] Beograd m/3, 1977

[…]

B. Playing
against the English opening.

There are three major branches after 1. c4: 1…e5, 1…c5, and
1…Nf6. (There are others, like 1…g6 and 1…e6, or 1…f5 or
1…c6 or 1…g5 …)

  It depends on what style you prefer to play, and how you
like to reply to 1. d4.

  1…e5 would suit a 1.e4 player who likes to attack,
especially if they play (as White) the Closed Sicilian or (as
Black) the Dutch or King’s Indian. I think this is the best
approach for beginners.

  1…c5 would suit a Sicilian player who has the patience
for a longer game but doesn’t mind drawing occasionally.

  1…Nf6 would suit a player who is angling for a version
of their favourite Indian defence.

  Of the others the most important is 1…e6 (or 1…Nf6,
2…e6), an invitation to transpose into the Queen’s Gambit; if
Black also plays the Tarrasch Defence it can be hard for White to
avoid transposing into it, since the main line of the Tarrasch
involves g2-g3!

  After 1. c4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 I don’t often play 3.cd; rather,
after 1. c4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. b3, we are in a position that is meat
and drink to the English/Reti player. It’s not easy for Black to
get organised without either taking on a space disadvantage, or
going for more space but exposing their centre to attack. It’s a
solid enough line but a little difficult to handle, and I would
push club players and juniors towards more active and
counter-attacking lines. The choice that each player has over their
set-up reminds me of the old Arabic version of chess, where
pre-determined formations (mansubat) could be chosen
separately by either side.

B1. An early break in the centre for
Black

tSlDjL-T
XxX-XxXx
-+-+-S-+
+-+x+-+-
-+p+-+-+
Black can play …Nf6 and …d5 immediately (Grunfeld reversed) or
try and combine it with an early …e5 or …c5. White cannot stop
…d5 on move 2 or 3 so all of these systems are playable:

 

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. g3

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. cxd5 Nxd5 (now 4.
e4 Nb4 5. Bc4 is a fun line!)

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. Nf3 (or 3. g3)
3…d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 (the Reversed Open
Sicilian)

  Provided Black is not too ambitious, this can’t be a bad
idea, but if you know how important a tempo can be to Black in the
normal Open Sicilian, it’s a good arena in which White can play for
a win.

EG: Karpov,Anatoly –
Hjartarson,Johann [A22] , Seattle m Round: 2 Year: 1989
EG: Botvinnik,Mikhail –
Portisch,Lajos [A22] , Monte Carlo Round: 7 Year: 1968
EG: Kasparov, Gary – Kortchnoi, V
(1) [A34] Skelleftea, 1989

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. Nf3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5
Nxd5

  This last line can lead to…

B2. An early occupation of the centre: the
Maroczy Bind for Black(!)

This system is named the Rubinstein system but is also associated
with Botvinnik.

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. Bg2
Nc7

  Black now can hope to arrange …e5 with a Maroczy
Bind.

EG: Goldberg, G – Botvinnik,
Mikhail M [A34] USSR, 1945
EG: Langeweg – Korchnoi,
Amsterdam, 1972

B3. An early occupation of the centre:
solid

tSlDjLsT
Xx+-+xXx
-+x+x+-+
+-+x+-+-
Of course, if Black is hoping to equalise first rather than play
for an ambitious centre, the systems with …d5 supported by the c-
or e-Pawn offer a serious challenge to White: can White do any
better than transpose to a normal Queen’s-Pawn opening? The usual
bids to retain separate lines of play involve

b2-b3, with variations that are usually classified as part of
Reti’s system.

EG: Kasparov,G (2740) –
Karpov,An (2700) (24) [A14] Wch34-KK4 Sevilla, 1987
EG: Fischer,Robert –
Filip,Miroslav [A14] Palma de Mallorca iz Rd: 4, 1970

B4. Symmetrical play by Black

After 1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 either side can try an
early break with the d-Pawn (e.g. 1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4
cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5!? 5. Nb5!?). However, the fundamental
position of the symmetrical English occurs after

1. c4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2
Bg7

  This is the Main Line Closed Symmetrical
English. In this position White has tried many plans:
Queen’s-side attack with 5. a3 or 5. Rb1, Staunton system with 5.
e3, Botvinnik system with 5. e4 are all common approaches, and
Black has tried each in defence (e.g. 5. e3 e5,
Staunton vs. Botvinnik!). Fischer often practiced the Staunton
system as Black:

EG: Smyslov,V – Fischer,R
[A36] Palma de Mallorca izt, 1970
EG: Petrosian,T – Fischer,R (2)
[A37] Belgrade URS-WORLD, 1970

This is undoubtedly a good defense for Black: its biggest defect is
that 5. e3 e6 (Staunton vs. Staunton) is often taken as an implicit
draw offer, since 6. Nge2 Nge7 7. O- O O- O 8. d4 cxd4 9.
Nxd4 Nxd4 10. exd5 d5 is hard to see as anything else. Ulf
Andersson has tried to find a way through here by delaying castling
(7. d4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 d5 9. cxd5 Nxd5 10. Nxd5 Nxd4 11. Nc3 Nc6
12. Qxd8+ Nxd8 13. Bd2 +=) and beat Tony Miles with it. The
same approach in a different line can be seen in Ulf’s game against
Tempone below.

  One of the most popular modern systems for Black is the
Hedgehog: allowing White the Maroczy bind while retaining a
flexible position and angling for a break with …d5 or …b5.
White’s Pawn formation seems to be well-placed to counter these
plans, and indeed it is – this is what gives the Maroczy Bind its
teeth – but it does not sit totally comfortably with the Bishop on
g3. On d3 it would inhibit …b5 and support f4-f5, while on g3 it
certainly discourages …d5 but White can not as easily find a
positive plan.

B5. Unbalanced play by Black: the King’s
English with …Nf6

1. c4 e5 is the most radical and least
transpositional of Black’s replies. It is of course at least as
rich as the Sicilian, although most players of Black are more
bashful about taking on the White position. This is really worth a
book but I’ll outline a few of the most common ideas for Black. One
way of looking at the systems are whether Black aims to keep things
closed with …Nc6 (and often …Nge7), or instead tries to develop
the King’s-side starting with …Nf6.

 

B5a. Seeking early central control with
…c6 and …d5

This system bears the name of Keres. It is perhaps the most
successful implementation of Black’s plan to occupy the centre.

EG: Hartston W R – Basman M J
[A23] It, Hastings, 1967

There is even an evil gambit for Black in this line…

EG: Baker,C – Birnboim,N
[A20] London, 1987

B5b. Seeking rapid flexible
development

tSlDj+-T
XxXx+xXx
-+-+-S-+
+-+-X-+-
-Lp+-+-+
1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Bb4

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 Bb4

 

…In each case enabling an early King’s-side castling. This and
related systems have been featured in World Championship matches.

  That subtle player Smyslov developed a system 1.
c4 e5 2. Nc6 d6 which seeks a useful early development of
the other Bishop with …Bg4 or
…Be6.

EG: Olafsson,Fridrik –
Smyslov,Vasily V (2) [A21] Yugoslavia ct, 1959
EG: Petrosian T – Smyslov V (03)
[A21] JUG ct, 1959

B6. Unbalanced play by Black: the King’s
English with …Nc6

t+lDjLsT
XxXx+xXx
-+s+-+-+
+-+-X-+-
The equivalent fundamental positions of the King’s English occur
after:

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7
(The main line Closed King’s English) or

 

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6 (English Four
Knights’ Game)

 

B6a. The main line Closed King’s
English

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7

  Again White has a choice of systems. The Staunton
approach has a little more sting here than in the Symmetrical. This
is of course similar to the Closed Sicilian…

EG: Psakhis – Kasparov [A10]
La Manga, 1990.

B6b. English Four Knights’ Game

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6

  This rich position has many possibilities for each side.
We have seen 4. d4 above, which is OK for Black these days…

EG: Knee – Povah N [A28]
Hereford, 1978

After 4. g3 Black has been fairly successful with
another Smyslov system, 4…Bb4, when Black
fancies the Nimzo approach of doubling the c-Pawns and blockading
the position against the Bishops. So successful, in fact, that
White had tried a variety of ways of avoiding it, most notably with
4. e3. Now here 4…Bb4 is of
course still a perfectly reasonable idea, but White can now sidle
the Queen across with 5. Qc2 to avoid the doubled
Pawns.

  This and related systems have been featured in World
Championship matches.

EG: Kasparov,G (2740) –
Karpov,An (2700) (04) [A29 ] Wch34-KK4 Sevilla, 1987
EG: Kasparov,G (2740) – Karpov,An
(2700) (16) [A29] Wch34-KK4 Sevilla, 1987
EG: Kasparov,G (2740) – Karpov,An
(2700) (02) [A29] Wch34-KK4 Sevilla, 1987

B7. Indian-style defences:

B7a. Grunfeld style

See above (early break in the centre for Black): if Black plays
…c5 or …e5 we will transpose; there are ways for White to avoid
the transposition with an early e2-e4.

EG: Andersson Ulf – Tempone
Marcelo [A16] 04, Buenos Aires, 1979

B7b. King’s Indian style

This is a very resilient and flexible system which invites
transposition to the Fianchetto system of the King’s Indian. This
may be the best idea for White; I have found it hard to play
standard English plans against the King’s Indian. The Staunton
approach in particular does not present Black with many problems,
and playing for a Queen’s-side attack always gives White anxious
moments when the counter-attack sets in.

EG: Petrosian,T – Vasiukov,E
Moscow ch, 1956

I have enjoyed the Botvinnik system against the King’s Indian, and
Black Kings, if they cannot see f2-f4-f5 coming, can be equally
brutally dismissed.

 

B7c. Nimzo-Indian style

Given the flexibility and solidity of the Nimzo, it makes a lot of
sense to apply the same strategy against the English. The play is
significantly different in that White can play d2-d3, and if White
avoids the doubled Pawns with a Queen move, there is no Pawn on d4
to counterattack. Korchnoi had this to say:

“Nearly five years ago I started to use the opening
system 1. c4 e5. This is quite a good system with which to reach an
equal position, but when it had been analysed to death by other GMs
I became bored with it and adopted a different system using my own
move order. The play has some delicate features I don’t fully
understand…”

EG: Langeweg-Korchnoi,
1976

B7d. Queen’s Indian style

Karpov refined many of the ideas in this system in early matches
against Korchnoi. It seems Black can achieve equality.

EG: Kortschnoj,V – Karpov,An
(03) [A17] Moscow cf (Wch), 1974

B7e. Dutch style

It is also possible to play the 1…e5 line with an early …f5,
rather like the White system against the Sicilian developed by
Vincken and often known as the Grand Prix Attack.

EG: Saidy,Anthony –
Fischer,Robert [A25] New York, 1969
EG: Kool – Hodgson [A21] London,
1989
EG: Smart – Hodgson [A21]
England, 1984

This presents many of the same challenges as the King’s
Indian-style system: if White will not occupy the centre and
transpose into the main lines of the Dutch, Black may have a freer
hand to play the King’s-side attack. White must pursue the attack
on the Queen’s-side with extra vigour…

EG: Miles,T – Chaves,J [A27]
Sao Paulo, 1977

However, I believe that White’s extra move and Black’s early
commitment will probably allow White to absorb the aggression and
attack the Black Pawns, as I described in the section on the
Staunton System, and it is better to play without such a fixed idea
of a King’s-side attack.

  There are several interesting early deviations by Black
after 1. c4 e5, including the evil Bellon Gambit, as we see in the
example games:

EG: Uhlmann W – Dobosz H
(0.17) [A22] DDR-Polska, 1974
EG: Plaskett J – Hempson P W
[A22] It, ENG, 1988
EG: Reshevsky,S – Bellon Lopez,J
[A22] Palma, 1971
EG: Karpov,Anatoly –
Anand,Viswanathan (2) Linares, 1991

Example Games

An early break in the centre (A2)

Reti,R – Rabinovich,I [A28] Moscow-Wch,
1925

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. d4

 

t+lDjL-T
XxXx+xXx
-+s+-S-+
+-+-X-+-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-+n+-
pP-+pPpP
R-BqKb+r

4… exd4 5. Nxd4 Bb4 6. g3 O-O 7. Bg2 d5 8. Nxc6 bxc6 9.
O-O Bxc3 10. bxc3 Ba6 11. Qa4 Bxc4 12. Qxc6 Qd7 13. Qxd7 Nxd7 14.
Rd1 Nb6 15. Bf4

 

t+-+-Tj+
X-X-+xXx
-S-+-+-+
+-+x+-+-
-+l+-B-+
+-P-+-P-
p+-+pPbP
R-+r+-K-

15… c6 16. Rd2 Rfe8 17. Kf1 Bb5 18. Rb1 Re7 19. Bf3 Rae8
20. Ke1 Re6 21. e3 Ba6 22. Bg4 Re4 23. Rd4 c5 24. Rd2 g5 25. f3 Rc4
26. Bxg5 Rxc3 27. Kf2 f6 28. Bh6 Bd3 29. Rb3 Rxb3 30. axb3 c4 31.
bxc4 dxc4 32. e4 Re7 33. Ra2 Kf7 34. Bf5 Ke8 35. g4 Rb7 36. Be3 c3
37. Ra3 Nc4 38. Rxc3 Rb2+ 39. Kg3 Nxe3 40. Rxd3 Nf1+ 41. Kf4 Rxh2
42. Rd1 Nd2 43. Be6 Re2 44. Rh1 Ke7 45. Bd5 Kd6 46. Rxh7 Rf2 47.
Ke3 Rg2 48. Rxa7 Nf1+ 49. Kf4 Ng3 1-0

Kasparov,Gary – Beliavsky,A (9) Linares,
1991

1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. e4 c5 4. e5 Ng8 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. d4
cxd4 7. Nxd4 Nxe5 8. Ndb5

 

t+lDjLsT
Xx+x+xXx
-+-+x+-+
+n+-S-+-
-+p+-+-+
+-N-+-+-
pP-+-PpP
R-BqKb+r

This gambit, pioneered by Tony Miles, has also been taken up by
Kasparov.

8… a6 9. Nd6+ Bxd6 10. Qxd6 f6 11. Be3 Ne7 12.
Bb6 Nf5 13. Qc5 d6 14. Qa5 Qd7 15. f4 Nc6 16. Qa3 e5 17. Bd3 O-O
18. O-O exf4 19. Rxf4 Nfe7 20. Rd1

 

t+l+-Tj+
+x+dS-Xx
xBsX-X-+
+-+-+-+-
-+p+-R-+
Q-Nb+-+-
pP-+-+pP
+-+r+-K-

Classic Kasparov: complex, dynamic, penetrating.

20… Ng6 21. Rff1 Nge5 22. Be4 Qf7 23. b3 Be6
24. Qxd6 Kh8 25. Qc7 Qxc7 26. Bxc7 Rf7 27. Bb6 Re8 28. h3 Rd7 29.
Nd5 Rc8 30. g4 Ng6 31. Kh2 Nce5 32. a4 Rd6 33. a5 Nd7 34. Nc7
1-0

Delayed occupation of the centre
(A3)

Speelman Jonathan – Xu Jun [A35] Luzern
48/50, 1989

1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 g6?!

 

t+lDjLsT
Xx+xXx+x
-+s+-+x+
+-X-+-+-
-+p+-+-+
+-N-+n+-
pP-PpPpP
R-BqKb+r

4. e3! d6 5. d4 cxd4 6. exd4 Bg4 7. Be2 Bg7 8. O-O Nh6 9.
d5 Bxf3 10. Bxf3 Ne5 11. Be4 f5 12. Bc2

 

t+-Dj+-T
Xx+-X-Lx
-+-X-+xS
+-+pSx+-
-+p+-+-+
+-N-+-+-
pPb+-PpP
R-Bq+rK-

12… O-O 13. Ne2 Nxc4 14. Nd4 Rf6 15. Bb3 Rc8 16. Re1 Ng4
17. h3 Nge5 18. Re2 Rc5 19. Bg5 Qa5 20. Bxf6 Bxf6 21. Rc1 Kh8 22.
Bxc4 Rxc4 23. Ne6 Kg8 24. Rxe5 1-0

The Queen’s-side attack (A4)

Miles – Beliavsky [A26] Hastings_1974-5,
1974

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. Nf3 Nf6
7. O-O O-O 8. Rb1 h6 9. b4 Be6

 

t+-D-Tj+
XxX-+xL-
-+sXlSxX
+-+-X-+-
-Pp+-+-+
+-Np+nP-
p+-+pPbP
+rBq+rK-

10. b5 Ne7 11. a4 Qc8 12. Ba3 Nd7 13. Nd2 Rb8 14. Nd5
Re8

 

-Td+t+j+
XxXsSxL-
-+-Xl+xX
+p+nX-+-
p+p+-+-+
B-+p+-P-
-+-NpPbP
+r+q+rK-

15. Ne4! f5 16. Nec3 Kh7 17. a5 Bf7 18. Nxe7 Rxe7

 

-Td+-+-+
XxXsTlLj
-+-X-+xX
Pp+-Xx+-
-+p+-+-+
B-Np+-P-
-+-+pPbP
+r+q+rK-

19. b6! axb6 20. axb6 Ra8 21. Nb5 Nxb6 22. Nxd6

 

t+d+-+-+
+xX-TlLj
-S-N-+xX
+-+-Xx+-
-+p+-+-+
B-+p+-P-
-+-+pPbP
+r+q+rK-

22… Qe6? 23. Qc1 cxd6 24. Rxb6 e4 25. Rxd6 Qe5 26. Rb6
Qa5 27. Rb3 Qa4 28. Bxe7 Qxb3 29. Qb1

 

t+-+-+-+
+x+-BlLj
-+-+-+xX
+-+-+x+-
-+p+x+-+
+d+p+-P-
-+-+pPbP
+q+-+rK-

29… Qa4? 30. Qxb7 Ra7 31. Qb4 Qd7 32. Bd6 Ra2 33. dxe4
Rb2 34. Qc5 fxe4 35. Bxe4 Rxe2

 

-+-+-+-+
+-+d+lLj
-+-B-+xX
+-Q-+-+-
-+p+b+-+
+-+-+-P-
-+-+tP-P
+-+-+rK-

36. Bd5! Rc2 37. Bf4 Bxd5 38. Qxd5 Qa7 39. Be3 Qa2 40. Rc1
Rxc1+ 41. Bxc1 Qb1 42. Qd2 Bf8 43. Qb2 Qe4 44. Qc3 Bg7 45. Qb4! Bd4
46. Ba3 Qd3 47. Qb7+ Kh8 48. Qc8+ Kh7 49. Qd7+ Kh8 50. Qe8+ Kh7 51.
Qf7+ Kh8 52. Be7 Bg7 53. Qd5 Qb3 54. h4 Kh7 55. Bc5 h5 56. Be3 Qb1+
57. Kg2 Qb3 58. Qc6 1-0

Botvinnik system for White (A5)

Botvinnik,Mikhail – Scherbakov,Vitaly [A16]
EO 14.2, Moscow ch-SU Round: 3 Year: 1955

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. Nge2
e5 7. O-O Nbd7 8. d3 Nc5 9. f4 c6 10. h3 Ne6

 

t+lD-Tj+
Xx+-+xLx
-+xXsSx+
+-+-X-+-
-+p+pP-+
+-Np+-Pp
pP-+n+b+
R-Bq+rK-

11. f5 Nd4 12. g4 Ne8 13. Be3 a6 14. Qd2 b5 15. Bg5 Bf6 16.
Bxf6 Nxf6 17. Nxd4 exd4 18. Ne2 Qb6 19. cxb5 axb5 20. Qh6 Bd7 21.
g5

 

t+-+-Tj+
+-+l+x+x
-DxX-SxQ
+x+-+pP-
-+-Xp+-+
+-+p+-+p
pP-+n+b+
R-+-+rK-

21… Nh5 22. Nf4 Ng7 23. f6 1-0

Benko,Pal – Botvinnik,Mikhail [A10] EO 18.4,
Monte Carlo Year: 1968

1. c4 g6 2. g3 Bg7 3. Bg2 e5 4. Nc3 Ne7 5. e4 d6 6. Nge2
Nbc6 7. d3 f5 8. Nd5 O-O 9. Be3 Be6 10. Qd2 Qd7 11. O-O

 

t+-+-Tj+
XxXdS-Lx
-+sXl+x+
+-+nXx+-
-+p+p+-+
+-+pB-P-
pP-QnPbP
R-+-+rK-

11… Rf7 12. Rac1 Raf8 13. f4 fxe4 14. dxe4 Nc8 15. c5 Bh3
16. b4 Bxg2 17. Kxg2 exf4 18. gxf4 Re8 19. Ng3 h5 20. b5 N6e7 21.
f5 h4 22. fxg6 Rxf1 23. Rxf1 hxg3 24. Rf7 Be5 25. Bd4 Qg4 26. Rf4
Qh5 27. Bxe5 Qxh2+ 28. Kf3 Qxd2 29. Nf6+ Kg7 30. Nxe8+ Kxg6 31.
Rf6+ Kh7 32. Bxg3 Qd3+ 33. Kf2 Qxb5 34. cxd6 Qxe8 0-1

Williams,SK (1990) – Regis,D. (1935) [A36]
1994

1. c4 g6 2. Nc3 Bg7 3. g3 c5 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. e4 d6 6. Nge2
Nf6 7. O-O O-O 8. d3 Ne8

[8… Bd7]

9. Be3 Nd4 10. Rb1 a5 11. a3 Nc7 12. b4 axb4 13.
axb4 Nxe2+ 14. Nxe2 Ne6 15. Qd2 Nd4 16. Nxd4 cxd4 17. Bh6 e5 18.
Bxg7 Kxg7 19. f4 f5

 

t+lD-T-+
+x+-+-Jx
-+-X-+x+
+-+-Xx+-
-PpXpP-+
+-+p+-P-
-+-Q-+bP
+r+-+rK-

Black’s textbook occupation of d4 has only led to hobbled Pawns

…1-0 (38)

The Maroczy bind (A6)

Fischer,R – Spassky,B (8) [A39]
Reykjavik-Wch, 1972

1. c4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Bg7 6. O-O
O-O 7. d4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 Nxd4 9. Qxd4 d6 10. Bg5 Be6 11. Qf4 Qa5 12.
Rac1 Rab8 13. b3 Rfc8 14. Qd2 a6 15. Be3

 

-Tt+-+j+
+x+-XxLx
x+-XlSx+
D-+-+-+-
-+p+-+-+
+pN-B-P-
p+-QpPbP
+-R-+rK-

15… b5 16. Ba7 bxc4 17. Bxb8 Rxb8 18. bxc4 Bxc4 19. Rfd1
Nd7 20. Nd5 Qxd2 21. Nxe7+ Kf8 22. Rxd2 Kxe7 23. Rxc4 Rb1+ 24. Bf1
Nc5 25. Kg2 a5 26. e4 Ba1 27. f4 f6 28. Re2 Ke6 29. Rec2 Bb2 30.
Be2 h5 31. Rd2 Ba3 32. f5+ gxf5 33. exf5+ Ke5 34. Rcd4 Kxf5 35.
Rd5+ Ke6 36. Rxd6+ Ke7 37. Rc6 1-0

Regis,D. – Richard Dixon (Corr_92/93) [B36]
Devon Vs. Glos. (Ward-Higgs I), 1993

1. c4 g6

  ( I knew a game of Portisch’s which I had in mind
throughout: it went…)

[1… c5 2. Nf3 g6 3. e4 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6
6. Nc3 Nxd4 7. Qxd4 d6 8. Bg5 Bg7 9. Qd2 O-O 10. Bd3 a5 11. O-O a4
12. Rac1 Be6 13. Qc2 Nd7 14. f4 Rc8 15. b3 axb3 16. axb3 Nf6 17.
Kh1 Qa5 18. f5 Bd7 19. Nd5+/- Portisch-Reshevsky]

2. g3 Bg7 3. Bg2 Nf6 4. Nc3 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. Nge2
c5

[6… c5 7. a3 a5 8. O-O Nc6 9. d3 Ne8 10. Be3 Nd4
11. Bxd4 cxd4 12. Nb5 Qb6 13. a4 Nc7 14. f4 Na6 15. h3 e5 16. f5
Bh6 ! 17. h4 Bd7 18. Kh2 Nc5 19. Bh3 was Seirawan-Vukic 1979 given
in Povah’s book: best play for both sides?]

7. O-O Nc6 8. d3 Ne8 9. Be3

[9. Be3 Nd4]

9… Nc7 ( ?! in the books )

[9… Nd4 10. Rb1 b6 ?! ( 10…Nc7 is natural;
10…a5 invites 11. Bxd4, cxd4; 12 Nb5 ) 11. e5 Nxe2+ 12. Qxe2 Rb8
13. d4 cxd4 14. Bxd4 dxe5 15. Bxe5 Bg4 16. Qe3 Bxe5 17. Qxe5 Qd6
18. Qe3 Nf6 (Gurevich-Sturua 1981) 19. h3 Be6 20. Rbd1 Qc5 ( or
…Qc7,b3 with Nb5/Nd5 ) 21. Qxc5 bxc5 22. b3 with weak pawns to go
at – Povah]

10. d4 “!” ( in the books )
10… cxd4 11. Nxd4 Ne6 12. Nde2 Ne5

 

t+lD-Tj+
Xx+-XxLx
-+-Xs+x+
+-+-S-+-
-+p+p+-+
+-N-B-P-
pP-+nPbP
R-+q+rK-

! TN – threatens c4 and e3 via g4

  A long manoeuvring game is in prospect… (1-0, 45)

Vukic Milan – Suba Mihai [A30]Vinkovci,
1977

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 b6 3. Bg2 Bb7 4. O-O e6 5. c4 c5 6. d4
cxd4 7. Qxd4 d6 8. Nc3 a6 9. Rd1 Qc7 10. b3 Nbd7 11. Bb2 Be7 12. e4
O-O 13. Qe3 Rfe8 14. Nd4 Bf8 15. Rac1

 

t+-+tLj+
+lDs+xXx
xX-XxS-+
+-+-+-+-
-+pNp+-+
+pN-Q-P-
pB-+-PbP
+-Rr+-K-

“A frequent picture in the Hedgehog. White’s position looks
ideal. That’s the naked truth about it, but the ‘ideal’ has by
definition one drawback – it cannot be improved.” — SUBA

  Suba is quite mysterious about ‘potential’. But as
evidence, his book Dynamic Chess Strategy contains
many practical examples of this Hedgehog Sicilian-style opening
against the English (1. c4), where Black’s flexible position
threatens to erupt on …b5 or …d5. White finds it difficult to
threaten anything on his own part without allowing Black’s game to
unfold suddenly

15… Rad8 16. h3 g6 17. Kh2 Bg7 18. Qe2 Qb8 19.
Qc2 Rc8 20. Qd2 Nc5 21. Re1 Qa8 22. f3 Qb8 23. Rcd1 Ba8 24. Nde2
Red8 25. Nd4 Ncd7 26. Qf2 Ne5 27. Qe2 Nc6 28. Nc2 Nh5 29. f4 b5 30.
cxb5 axb5 31. Bf3 Ne7 32. Nd4 b4 33. Na4 Nf6 34. e5 dxe5 35. fxe5
Bxf3 36. Nxf3 Nfd5 37. Rc1 Bh6 38. Rc4 Ne3 39. Rcc1 N7d5 40. Rxc8
Rxc8 41. Qf2 Nf5 42. Re2 Be3 43. Qe1 Qb5 44. Nd2 Qd3 45. Nf1 Rc2
46. Rg2 Rxg2+ 47. Kxg2 Qe4+ 0-1

 

Korchnoi V – Spassky B [A33] Beograd m/3,
1977

1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4
e6

 

t+lDjL-T
Xx+x+xXx
-+s+xS-+
+-+-+-+-
-+pN-+-+
+-N-+-+-
pP-+pPpP
R-BqKb+r

This is a very rich and deeply studied position. The line seen here
is out of fashion because of 6…Bb4.

6. g3 Qb6!? 7. Nb3 Ne5!? 8. e4 Bb4

 

t+l+j+-T
Xx+x+xXx
-D-+xS-+
+-+-S-+-
-Lp+p+-+
+nN-+-P-
pP-+-P-P
R-BqKb+r

No respite! If White consolidates Black will have a tough time.

9. Qe2 O-O

[9… a5!? was recommended by Nunn a year or two
before… did Spassky know this? 10. f4 a4!?]

10. f4 Nc6 11. Be3 Qc7 12. Bg2 d5 13. e5 Ne4 14.
O-O Bxc3 15. cxd5 exd5 16. bxc3 b6 17. Rac1 f5 18. exf6 Nxf6 19.
Nd4 Re8 20. Qd3 Na5 21. Nb5 Qc6 22. Bd4 Ne4 23. Be5 Ba6 24. a4 Nc4
25. Qd4 Nxe5 26. fxe5 Bxb5 27. axb5 Qxb5 28. c4 Qc5 29. Qxc5 Nxc5
30. Bxd5+ Ne6 31. Ra1 a5 32. Bxa8 Rxa8 33. Rab1 a4 34. Rxb6 Nd4 35.
Rd6 1-0

Playing against
the English opening.

An early break in the centre for Black
(B1)

Karpov,Anatoly – Hjartarson,Johann [A22] EO
3.4, Seattle m Round: 2 Year: 1989

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. Bg2 Nb6 6. Nf3
Nc6 7. O-O Be7 8. a3 Be6 9. b4

 

t+-Dj+-T
XxX-LxXx
-Ss+l+-+
+-+-X-+-
-P-+-+-+
P-N-+nP-
-+-PpPbP
R-Bq+rK-

This is the modern approach with the White pieces; analogous to the
Sicilian, White seeks pressure on the c-file.

9… O-O 10. Rb1 f6 11. d3 Qd7 12. Ne4 Nd5 13.
Qc2 b6 14. Bb2 Rac8 15. Rbc1 Nd4 16. Bxd4 exd4 17. Qc6 Qxc6 18.
Rxc6 Bd7

 

-+t+-Tj+
X-XlL-Xx
-Xr+-X-+
+-+s+-+-
-P-Xn+-+
P-+p+nP-
-+-+pPbP
+-+-+rK-

19. Nxd4 Bxc6 20. Nxc6 Rce8 21. Rc1 f5 22. Nd2 Nf6 23. Nxa7
Bd6 24. e3 c5 25. Nc4 Bb8 26. Nc6 b5 27. N4a5 cxb4 28. axb4 Nd7 29.
d4 g5 30. Nxb8 Rxb8 31. Rc7 Nf6 32. Nc6 Rb6 33. Ne7+ Kh8 34. Nxf5
Ra6 35. Rc1 Ra2 36. h3 Rb2 37. e4 Rxb4 38. g4 h5 39. e5 hxg4 40.
exf6 gxh3 41. Bxh3 Rxf6 42. Rc8+ Kh7 43. Rc7+ Kg6 44. Rg7+ Kh5 45.
f3 1-0

Botvinnik,Mikhail – Portisch,Lajos [A22] EO
3.5, Monte Carlo Round: 7 Year: 1968

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. Bg2 Be6 6. Nf3
Nc6 7. O-O Nb6 8. d3 Be7 9. a3 a5 10. Be3 O-O

 

t+-D-Tj+
+xX-LxXx
-Ss+l+-+
X-+-X-+-
-+-+-+-+
P-NpBnP-
-P-+pPbP
R-+q+rK-

Black’s position is not bad and club players may be attracted to
the easy development, but it is sometimes hard for Black to come up
with a plan.

11. Na4 Nxa4 12. Qxa4 Bd5 13. Rfc1 Re8 14. Rc2
Bf8 15. Rac1 Nb8

 

tS-DtLj+
+xX-+xXx
-+-+-+-+
X-+lX-+-
q+-+-+-+
P-+pBnP-
-Pr+pPbP
+-R-+-K-

Egging White on to take the c7 Pawn. Botvinnik conceives a
brilliant refutation.

16. Rxc7 Bc6 17. R1xc6 bxc6 18. Rxf7 h6 19. Rb7
Qc8 20. Qc4+ Kh8 21. Nh4 Qxb7 22. Ng6+ Kh7 23. Be4 Bd6 24. Nxe5+ g6
25. Bxg6+ Kg7 26. Bxh6+ 1-0

Kasparov, Gary – Kortchnoi, V (1) [A34]
Skelleftea, 1989

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. Nf3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4
Nb4

 

tSlDjL-T
Xx+-XxXx
-+-+-+-+
+-X-+-+-
-S-+p+-+
+-N-+n+-
pP-P-PpP
R-BqKb+r

White plays for fast development and open lines.

6. Bb5+ N8c6 7. d4 cxd4 8. a3 dxc3 9. Qxd8+ Kxd8
10. axb4 cxb2 11. Bxb2 f6 12. e5 Bg4 13. Bxc6 bxc6 14. Nd4 fxe5 15.
Nxc6+ Kc7 16. Nxe5 Bh5 17. O-O Be8 18. Rfc1+ Kb7 19. Nc4 e5 20.
Bxe5 h5 21. Na5+ Kb6 22. Bc7+ Ka6 23. Nc6+ 1-0

An early occupation of the centre: the
Maroczy Bind for Black(!) (B2)

Goldberg, G – Botvinnik, Mikhail M [A34]
USSR, 1945

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 c5 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. Bg2 Nc7 6. Nf3
Nc6 7. O-O e5 8. b3 Be7 9. Bb2 O-O 10. Rc1 f6 11. Ne1 Bf5 12. Na4
Na6

 

t+-D-Tj+
Xx+-L-Xx
s+s+-X-+
+-X-Xl+-
n+-+-+-+
+p+-+-P-
pB-PpPbP
+-RqNrK-

Black has adopted the Maroczy Bind as Black(!).

  In 1945 Botvinnik commented that the exchange Bxc6 was
evidently not good for White in this type of position, but Suetin
suspects later he changed his mind.

13. Nc2 Qd7 14. Ne3 Be6 15. d3 Nd4 16. Qd2 Rad8
17. Nc3 Nb4 18. Ba1 f5

 

-+-T-Tj+
Xx+dL-Xx
-+-+l+-+
+-X-Xx+-
-S-S-+-+
+pNpN-P-
p+-QpPbP
B-R-+rK-

Black moves from his strong base to a more aggressive posture.

19. Nc4 Bf6 20. Rfd1 b5 21. Nb2 e4 22. e3 Nf3+
23. Bxf3 exf3 24. Qe1 Rc8 25. d4 cxd4 26. exd4 Bg5 27. d5 Bf7 28.
a3 Rfe8 29. Qf1 Bxc1 30. Rxc1 Nxd5 31. Nd3 Nxc3 32. Bxc3 Bxb3 33.
Nf4 Bc4 0-1

Langeweg – Korchnoi, Amsterdam,
1972

1. c4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. g3 Nc6 6. Bg2
Nc7 7. a3 g6 8. d3 Bg7

 

t+lDj+-T
XxS-XxLx
-+s+-+x+
+-X-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
P-Np+nP-
-P-+pPbP
R-BqK-+r

Black does not insist on the Bind but develops his King’s-side.

9. O-O O-O 10. Qa4 Nd4 11. Nxd4 cxd4 12. Ne4 Bd7
13. Qb3 b6 14. Ng5 Rc8 15. Bd2 h6 16. Nf3 Ne6 17. a4 Nc5 18. Qd1
Qe8 19. b3 Be6 20. Ra3 Na6 21. b4 Qd7 22. Re1 Nc7 23.
Qa1

 

-+t+-Tj+
X-SdXxL-
-X-+l+xX
+-+-+-+-
pP-X-+-+
R-+p+nP-
-+-BpPbP
Q-+-R-K-

23… Nd5 24. Nxd4 Nxb4 25. Bxb4 Bxd4 26. Bc3 Bxc3 27. Rxc3
Rxc3 28. Qxc3 Qxa4 29. Ra1 Qd7 30. Ra6 Rc8 31. Qa3 Rc2 0-1

An early occupation of the centre: solid
(B3)

Kasparov,G (2740) – Karpov,An (2700) (24)
[A14] Wch34-KK4 Sevilla, 1987

1. c4 e6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 d5 4. b3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6.
O-O

 

tSlD-Tj+
XxX-LxXx
-+-+xS-+
+-+x+-+-
-+p+-+-+
+p+-+nP-
p+-PpPbP
RnBq+rK-

The English and the Reti share a garden wall here.

6… b6 7. Bb2 Bb7 8. e3 Nbd7 9. Nc3 Ne4 10.
Ne2!? N

10.cd5; 10.Qe2; 10.Qc2

10… a5

[10… Bf6 11. d4!? c5 12. Nf4]

11. d3 Bf6 12. Qc2 Bxb2 13. Qxb2 Nd6 14.
cxd5

 

t+-D-Tj+
+lXs+xXx
-X-Sx+-+
X-+p+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+p+pPnP-
pQ-+nPbP
R-+-+rK-

14… Bxd5

[14… exd5!? 15. d4 c5 16. dxc5 bxc5and ]

15. d4! … 1-0

Fischer,Robert – Filip,Miroslav [A14] Palma
de Mallorca iz Rd: 4, 1970

1. b3 d5 2. Bb2 Nf6 3. Nf3 e6 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O
c5 7. c4 Nc6 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Nc3 Bf6 10. Qc1 b6 11. Nxd5 exd5 12.
d4 Ba6 13. Re1 Nxd4 14. Bxd4 cxd4 15. Qa3

 

t+-D-Tj+
X-+-+xXx
lX-+-L-+
+-+x+-+-
-+-X-+-+
Qp+-+nP-
p+-+pPbP
R-+-R-K-

15… Bb7 16. Rad1 Be7 17. Qa4 Qe8 18. Qxd4 Rc8 19. Qf4 Bf6
20. Nd4 Be5 21. Qe3 g6 22. Nb5 Qxb5 23. Qxe5 Rfe8 24. Qb2 Rc5 25.
h4 Rec8 26. Rd2 Rc3 27. Red1 Qc5 28. b4 Qe7 29. e3 h5 30. a3
Kh7

 

-+t+-+-+
Xl+-Dx+j
-X-+-+x+
+-+x+-+x
-P-+-+-P
P-T-P-P-
-Q-R-Pb+
+-+r+-K-

31. Bxd5 Bxd5 32. Rxd5 Qe4 33. Rd8 Qf3 34. Kh2 R8c4 35.
R1d7 g5 36. Rf8 Kg6 37. Rg8+ Kh7 38. Rxg5 Rc8 39. Rdd5 Kh6 40. Rdf5
1-0

Symmetrical play by Black (B4)

The classically-minded Fischer often played the Staunton system as
Black, preferring 1…g6 to reserve the options of the Ng8.

Smyslov,V – Fischer,R [A36] Palma de
Mallorca izt, 1970

1. c4 g6 2. Nc3 Bg7 3. g3 c5 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. b3 e6 6. Bb2
Nge7

 

t+lDj+-T
Xx+xSxLx
-+s+x+x+
+-X-+-+-
-+p+-+-+
+pN-+-P-
pB-PpPbP
R-+qK-Nr

7. Na4 Bxb2 8. Nxb2 O-O 9. e3 d5 10. cxd5 Nxd5 11. Ne2 b6
12. d4

 

t+lD-Tj+
X-+-+x+x
-Xs+x+x+
+-Xs+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+p+-P-P-
pN-+nPbP
R-+qK-+r

12… Ba6!

  “A brilliant Pawn sacrifice in the style of the young …
Smyslov!” — LEVY

13. dxc5 Qf6 14. Nc4 Nc3 15. Nxc3 Qxc3+ 16. Kf1
Rfd8 17. Qc1 Bxc4+ 18. bxc4 Qd3+ 19. Kg1 Rac8 20. cxb6 axb6 21. Qb2
Na5 22. h4 Nxc4 23. Qf6 Qf5 24. Qxf5 gxf5 25. h5 Rd2 26. Rc1 Rc5
27. Rh4 Ne5 28. Rxc5 bxc5 29. Ra4 c4 30. h6 Kf8 31. Ra8+ Ke7 32.
Rc8 Rxa2 33. Bf1 Rc2 34. Kg2 Ng4 35. Kg1 Rxf2 36. Bxc4 Rf3 37. Kg2
Rxe3 38. Rh8 Nxh6 39. Rxh7 Ng4 40. Bb5 Rb3 41. Bc6 Rb2+ 42. Kg1 Ne5
43. Ba8 Rb8 44. Bh1 0-1

Petrosian,T – Fischer,R (2) [A37] Belgrade
URS-WORLD, 1970

1. c4 g6 2. Nc3 c5 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. Nf3 e6 6. O-O
Nge7 7. d3 O-O 8. Bd2

 

t+lD-Tj+
Xx+xSxLx
-+s+x+x+
+-X-+-+-
-+p+-+-+
+-Np+nP-
pP-BpPbP
R-+q+rK-

8… d5 9. a3 b6 10. Rb1 Bb7 11. b4 cxb4 12. axb4 dxc4 13.
dxc4 Rc8

 

-+tD-Tj+
Xl+-SxLx
-Xs+x+x+
+-+-+-+-
-Pp+-+-+
+-N-+nP-
-+-BpPbP
+r+q+rK-

Black’s pieces have good scope and the c-Pawn is as much of a
liability as an asset. White lunges forward with it…

14. c5 bxc5 15. bxc5 Na5 16. Na4 Bc6 17. Qc2 Nb7
18. Rfc1 Qd7 19. Ne1 Nd5 20. Nb2 Bb5 21. Ned3 Bd4 22.
Qb3

 

-+t+-Tj+
Xs+d+x+x
-+-+x+x+
+lPs+-+-
-+-L-+-+
+q+n+-P-
-N-BpPbP
+rR-+-K-

22… Nxc5 23. Nxc5 Rxc5 24. Rxc5 Bxc5 25. Nd3 Bxd3 26.
Qxd3

 

-+-+-Tj+
X-+d+x+x
-+-+x+x+
+-Ls+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+q+-P-
-+-BpPbP
+r+-+-K-

Black is a Pawn up and can hope to convert in the teeth of the two
Bishops.

26… Rd8 27. Bf3 Qc7 28. Bg5 Be7 29. Bxe7
Qxe7

  One Bishop only, now. White is in trouble.

30. Qd4 e5 31. Qc4 Nb6 32. Qc2 Rc8 33. Qd3 Rc4
34. Bg2 Qc7 35. Qa3 Rc3 36. Qa5 Rc5 37. Qa3 a5 38. h4 Nc4 39. Qd3
Nd6 40. Kh2 Kg7 41. Rd1 Ne8 42. Qd7 Qxd7 43. Rxd7 Nf6 44. Ra7 Ng4+
45. Kg1 Rc1+ 46. Bf1 Ra1 47. e4 a4 48. Kg2 Ra2 49. Rxf7+ Kxf7 50.
Bc4+ Ke7 51. Bxa2 a3 52. Kf3 Nf6 53. Ke3 Kd6 54. f4 Nd7 55. Bb1 Nc5
56. f5 Na6 57. g4 Nb4 58. fxg6 hxg6 59. h5 gxh5 60. gxh5 Ke6 61.
Kd2 Kf6 62. Kc3 a2 63. Bxa2 Nxa2+ 64. Kb2 Nb4 65. Kc3 Nc6 66. Kc4
Nd4 0-1

Unbalanced play by Black: the King’s
English with …Nf6 (B5)

Seeking early central control with …c6
and …d5 (B5a)

Hartston W R – Basman M J [A23] It,
Hastings, 1967

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 c6 4. Nf3 e4 5. Nd4 d5 6.
cxd5

 

tSlDjL-T
Xx+-+xXx
-+x+-S-+
+-+p+-+-
-+-Nx+-+
+-N-+-P-
pP-PpP-P
R-BqKb+r

Black is going for it!

6… Qb6 7. Nb3 Ng4 8. d4 cxd5 9. Bg2 Bb4 10. O-O
Bxc3 11. bxc3 O-O 12. h3 Nf6 13. Rb1 Qc6 14. Qc2 b6 15. Be3 Ba6 16.
Rfc1 Nbd7 17. Bf1 h6

 

t+-+-Tj+
X-+s+xX-
lXd+-S-X
+-+x+-+-
-+-Px+-+
+nP-B-Pp
p+q+pP-+
+rR-+bK-

I prefer White here, but what do I know?

18. Nd2 Rac8 19. Rb4 Bc4 20. Nxc4 dxc4 21. Bg2
Rfe8 22. Rb2 Qe6 23. Bd2 Nd5 24. e3 f5 25. Re1 N7f6 26. a4 a5 27.
Kh2 Rc7 28. Qb1 Kh8 29. Qa2 g5 30. Rb5 h5 31. Qb1 Qd6 32. Kh1 Rg8
33. Rg1 h4 34. gxh4 gxh4 35. f4 Rcg7 36. Qe1 Rg3 37. Qe2 Qc7 38.
Rbb1 Qf7 39. Qf2 Nh5 40. Rb5 Kh7 41. Kh2 Kh6 42. Qe2 Qg6 43.
Rbb1

 

-+-+-+t+
+-+-+-+-
-X-+-+dJ
X-+s+x+s
p+xPxP-X
+-P-P-Tp
-+-Bq+bK
+r+-+-R-

But I prefer Black here!

43… Nhxf4 44. exf4 e3 45. Bxd5 Rxg1 46. Qxe3
Qg2+ 0-1

 

Seeking rapid flexible development
(B5b)

Unbalanced play by Black: the King’s
English with …Nc6 (B6)

The main line Closed King’s English
(B6a)

Psakhis – Kasparov [A10] La Manga,
1990

1. c4 g6 2. Nc3 Bg7 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 d6 5. Nf3 e5 6. d3 f5
7. O-O Nf6

 

t+lDj+-T
XxX-+-Lx
-+sX-Sx+
+-+-Xx+-
-+p+-+-+
+-Np+nP-
pP-+pPbP
R-Bq+rK-

8. Rb1 h6 9. b4 O-O 10. b5 Ne7 11. a4 Be6 12. Ba3
Rc8

 

-+tD-Tj+
XxX-S-L-
-+-XlSxX
+p+-Xx+-
p+p+-+-+
B-Np+nP-
-+-+pPbP
+r+q+rK-

13. Nd2 b6 14. e3 g5 15. d4 exd4 16. exd4 f4

 

-+tD-Tj+
X-X-S-L-
-X-XlS-X
+p+-+-X-
p+pP-X-+
B-N-+-P-
-+-N-PbP
+r+q+rK-

17. Re1 Bg4 18. Nf3 Qd7 19. c5 Rce8 20. Rc1 Nf5 21. Qd3 Kh8
22. cxd6 cxd6 23. Rxe8 Qxe8 24. Rf1 Qh5

 

-+-+-T-J
X-+-+-L-
-X-X-S-X
+p+-+sXd
p+-P-Xl+
B-Nq+nP-
-+-+-PbP
+-+-+rK-

25. Ne4 Nxe4 26. Qxe4 Bh3 27. Ne5 Bxg2 28. Kxg2 g4 29. Bxd6
Rf6 30. Bb8 Qh3+

 

-B-+-+-J
X-+-+-L-
-X-+-T-X
+p+-Ns+-
p+-PqXx+
+-+-+-Pd
-+-+-PkP
+-+-+r+-

0-1 psakhis-kasparov/la manga 1990 0-1

Olafsson,Fridrik – Smyslov,Vasily V (2)
[A21] Yugoslavia ct, 1959

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3 Be6 4. Bg2 c6

 

tS-DjLsT
Xx+-+xXx
-+xXl+-+
+-+-X-+-
-+p+-+-+
+-N-+-P-
pP-PpPbP
R-BqK-Nr

This system is one of Smyslov’s many contributions to the
development of the theory in the English Opening.

5. d3 Nf6 6. Nf3 h6 7. O-O Be7 8. b3 O-O 9. e4 c5
10. Nh4 Nc6 11. f4 exf4 12. gxf4 Nh7 13. Nf3 f5 14. Nd5 Bf6 15. Rb1
fxe4 16. dxe4 Bg4 17. Qd3 Qd7 18. Bd2 Rae8 19. Rbe1 Bd8 20. Bc3 Rf7
21. Kh1 Nf6 22. a3 Nh5 23. Qd2 Ne7 24. f5 Nxd5 25. Qxd5 Qc6 26. Qd2
Qb6 27. b4 cxb4 28. axb4 Qc7 29. c5 dxc5 30. bxc5 Rd7 31. Qa2+ Kh7
32. Qa4 Rde7 33. e5 Bxf5 34. Ng5+ hxg5 35. Rxf5 Re6 36. Qe4 Kh8 37.
Qxb7 Ng3+ 38. hxg3 Rh6+ 39. Kg1 Qxc5+ 40. Kf1 Qxc3 41. Qf3 Qc4+ 42.
Re2 Be7 43. Qd5 Qc1+ 44. Re1 Qc8 45. Qe4 a5 46. Rf3 Bb4 47. Rd1
Qa6+ 48. Rdd3 Rc8 49. Rfe3 Bc5 50. Rf3 a4 51. Qe2 a3 52. Rd2 Qe6
53. g4 Rb8 54. Qd1 Qa6+ 55. Ke1 Bb4 56. Kf2 Bxd2 57. Qxd2 a2
0-1

Petrosian T – Smyslov V (03) [A21] JUG ct,
1959

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. Nf3 Bg4

 

tS-DjLsT
XxX-+xXx
-+-X-+-+
+-+-X-+-
-+p+-+l+
+-N-+n+-
pP-PpPpP
R-BqKb+r

This is the other idea: now g2-g3 is inhibited.

4. e3 Nf6 5. Be2 c6 6. h3 Bh5 7. O-O Be7 8. d3
O-O 9. b3 Nbd7 10. Nh4 Bxe2 11. Qxe2 d5 12. Nf5 Bb4 13. Bb2 Re8 14.
cxd5 cxd5 15. d4 e4 16. Rfc1 Nb6 17. Nb5 Qd7 18. Ng3 Rec8 19. Rxc8+
Nxc8 20. Rc1 a6 21. Ba3 Bxa3 22. Nxa3 Ne7 23. Nb1 Rc8 24. Rxc8+
Qxc8 25. Qd2 g6 26. Qc3 Qxc3 27. Nxc3 Nd7 28. Nge2 b5 29. Nf4 Nb6
30. a4 bxa4 31. bxa4 a5 32. f3 f5 33. Kf2 Kf7 34. h4 h6 35. Nfe2
Nc6 36. Nc1 Nb4 37. Nb3 Nc4 38. f4 Nc2 39. Nd1 Ke7 40. Ke2 Kd6 41.
Kf2 Kc6 42. Ke2 Kd6 43. Kf2 Nb4 44. Ke2 Nc6 45. Nc3 Na7 46. Nc5 Nc8
47. Nb7+ Kc7 48. Nc5 N8b6 49. Kf2 Kd6 50. Ke2 Ke7 51. Kf2 Kf6 52.
Ke2 g5 53. hxg5+ hxg5 54. g3 Kg6 55. Kf2 Kh5 56. Ne6 Nb2 57. fxg5
Kg6 58. Kf1 Kf7 59. Nc5 Kg6 60. Ne6 Kf7 Q

 

English Four Knights’ Game (B6b)

Knee – Povah N [A28] Hereford,
1978

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d4 e4 5. Nd2 Nxd4 6.
Ndxe4 Nxe4 7. Qxd4 Nxc3 8. Qxc3 d5!

 

t+lDjL-T
XxX-+xXx
-+-+-+-+
+-+x+-+-
-+p+-+-+
+-Q-+-+-
pP-+pPpP
R-B-Kb+r

9. cxd5? Qxd5 10. Bf4 Be6 11. Rd1 Qxa2 12. Bxc7 Rc8 13. e3
a6 14. Qd4 Be7 15. Qxg7

 

-+t+j+-T
+xB-LxQx
x+-+l+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-P-+-
dP-+-PpP
+-+rKb+r

In these open positions, activity and development are the most
important features.

15… Bb4+ 16. Ke2 Rf8 17. Be5 Bd5 18. Qxh7
Qb3!

 

-+t+jT-+
+x+-+x+q
x+-+-+-+
+-+lB-+-
-L-+-+-+
+d+-P-+-
-P-+kPpP
+-+r+b+r

19. Bc3 Bxc3 20. bxc3 Rxc3 21. Ke1 Qb4! 22. Be2 Bxg2
0-1

Kasparov,G (2740) – Karpov,An (2700) (04)
[A29 ] Wch34-KK4 Sevilla, 1987

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e5 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O
e4

 

t+lD-Tj+
XxXx+xXx
-+s+-S-+
+-+-+-+-
-Lp+x+-+
+-N-+nP-
pP-PpPbP
R-Bq+rK-

The aggressive line.

7. Ng5

[7. Ne1 was often played.]

7… Bxc3 8. bxc3 Re8 9. f3 exf3

[9… e3!? 10. d3! d5 11. Qb3!+/= ]

10. Nxf3

 

t+lDt+j+
XxXx+xXx
-+s+-S-+
+-+-+-+-
-+p+-+-+
+-P-+nP-
p+-Pp+bP
R-Bq+rK-

10… Qe7?!

[10… d5 11. cxd5 Qxd5 12. Nd4 Qh5 13. Nxc6 bxc6 14.
e3 unclear ]

11. e3 Ne5 N; 11…d6+/= – 16/47 12.
Nd4!

[12. Nxe5 Qxe5 13. Rb1

…1-0

Kasparov,G (2740) – Karpov,An (2700) (16)
[A29] Wch34-KK4 Sevilla, 1987

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O
Re8

 

t+lDt+j+
XxXx+xXx
-+s+-S-+
+-+-X-+-
-Lp+-+-+
+-N-+nP-
pP-PpPbP
R-Bq+rK-

The solid move.

7. d3 Bxc3 8. bxc3 e4 9. Nd4 h6 10. dxe4!
N

  10.Qc2 – 36/39

[10. c5]

[10. Nxc6]

10… Nxe4 11. Qc2 d5!

 

t+lDt+j+
XxX-+xX-
-+s+-+-X
+-+x+-+-
-+pNs+-+
+-P-+-P-
p+q+pPbP
R-B-+rK-

Podgaets,M

12. cxd5

[12. Nb5 Bf5 13. cxd5 Nxg3 14. e4 Nxf1 15.
exf5

[15.dxc6 Bxe4 16. Bxe4 Qh4]

15… Re1 16. Bxf1 Qxd5 ^ /\ 17. Nxc7 Qc4-+
]

12… Qxd5 13. e3

[13. Rd1 Bf5 14. Nxf5

[14. f3 Nf2]

14… Qxf5 15. f3 Nxg3 unclear ]

13… Na5!?=

 

t+l+t+j+
XxX-+xX-
-+-+-+-X
S-+d+-+-
-+-Ns+-+
+-P-P-P-
p+q+-PbP
R-B-+rK-

[13… Nxd4!? 14. cxd4 c6 15. Bb2 Bf5 16. f3?! Nxg3 17. e4 Nxe4
18. fxe4 Bxe4]

… 0-1

Kasparov,G (2740) – Karpov,An (2700) (02)
[A29] Wch34-KK4 Sevilla, 1987

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. g3 Bb4 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O
e4 7. Ng5 Bxc3 8. bxc3 Re8 9. f3 e3!?

N; Zaitsev,I; 9…ef3 – 35/44

10. d3!

…0-1

 

Baker,C – Birnboim,N [A20] London,
1987

1. c4 e5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 c6 4. Nc3 d5 5. cxd5 xd5 6. Qb3
Nc6 7. Nxd5 Nd4 8. Nxf6+ Qxf6

  8…gxf6 was a game Regis-Menadue, where I first met this
line (0-1, 20-odd).

9. Qd1

 

t+l+jL-T
Xx+-+xXx
-+-+-D-+
+-+-X-+-
-+-S-+-+
+-+-+-P-
pP-PpPbP
R-BqK-Nr

I believe Tal was behind this evil gambit.

9… Bf5 10. d3 Rc8 11. Kf1 Be7 12. Bxb7 Rc7 13.
Bd5 O-O 14. Kg2 Rd8 15. e4 Rxd5 16. exd5 Qd6 17. f3 Rc2+ 18. Kf1
Qa6 19. Bd2 Qxd3+ 20. Ke1 Bb4 21. Bxb4 Qe3+ 22. Ne2 Nxf3+
0-1

 

Polugaevsky,L – Estevez,G [A22] Sochi,
1976

see other handout

Uhlmann W – Dobosz H (0.17) [A22]
DDR-Polska, 1974

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 e4 4. Ng5 b5

 

tSlDjL-T
X-Xx+xXx
-+-+-S-+
+x+-+-N-
-+p+x+-+
+-N-+-+-
pP-PpPpP
R-BqKb+r

Bellon’s gambit is designed to intimidate the (presumed) dull
player of the English Opening.

5. b3? b4 6. Nb1 h6 7. Nh3 Bc5=/+

  It sometimes works that way!

8. d4 exd3 9. Qxd3 O-O 10. Bb2 Bb7 11. Nd2 d6 12.
e3 Nbd7 13. Nf4 Ne5 14. Qc2 Nfg4 15. Be2 Bxe3 16. fxe3 Nxe3 17. Qc1
Qg5 18. Nf1 Nxg2+ 19. Nxg2 Qxg2 20. Bxe5 Rfe8 21. Ng3 Rxe5 22. Kd2
Qf2 23. Qg1 Qf4+ 24. Kc2 Rae8 25. Re1 Re3 26. Qf1 Qe5 27. Rg1 Qc3+
28. Kb1 Rxg3 0-1

Plaskett J – Hempson P W [A22] It, ENG,
1988

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 e4 4. Ng5 b5 5. d3 exd3 6. cxb5
h6 7. Nf3 dxe2 8. Bxe2 Bb7 9. O-O Bc5 10. Nd4 Bxd4 11. Qxd4 O-O 12.
b4 d6 13. Bb2 Nbd7 14. f4 Re8 15. Bf3 Bxf3 16. Rxf3 Qb8 17. Nd5 Qb7
18. Nxf6+ Nxf6 19. Rg3 Re6 20. f5

 

t+-+-+j+
XdX-+xX-
-+-XtS-X
+p+-+p+-
-P-Q-+-+
+-+-+-R-
pB-+-+pP
R-+-+-K-

Plaskett characteristically goes for the throat…

20… Re5 21. Qh4 Ne4 22. Re3 Qb6

 

t+-+-+j+
X-X-+xX-
-D-X-+-X
+p+-Tp+-
-P-+s+-Q
+-+-R-+-
pB-+-+pP
R-+-+-K-

…but finds he has put his foot in a pin.

23. Rae1 Nc3 24. Qg3 Rxe3 25. Qxe3 Re8
0-1

Reshevsky,S – Bellon Lopez,J [A22] Palma,
1971

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 e4 4. Ng5 b5

 

tSlDjL-T
X-Xx+xXx
-+-+-S-+
+x+-+-N-
-+p+x+-+
+-N-+-+-
pP-PpPpP
R-BqKb+r

The original game in this line, I think.

5. Nxb5 h6 6. Nh3 c6 7. Nc3 d5 8. cxd5 cxd5 9. e3
Bd6 10. Bb5+ Kf8 11. d3 Bg4 12. Qd2 Qa5 13. a3 Na6 14. O-O Rd8 15.
d4 Bb8 16. Be2 Qc7 17. Nf4 g5 18. Bxa6 gxf4 19. exf4 Rg8 20. g3 Qd7
21. Be2 Bf3 22. Bxf3 exf3 23. Qd3 Qg4 24. Re1 Nh5 25. Re5 Bxe5 26.
fxe5 Ng7 27. Nb5 Rh8 28. Nd6 h5 29. h3 Qxh3 30. Qxf3 Rxd6 31. exd6
Nf5 32. d7 Kg7 33. Bg5 f6 34. Re1 Rd8 35. Re5 Kg6 36. Qxd5 Nxd4 37.
Qxd4 fxe5 38. Qd6+ Kxg5 39. Qe7+ Kg4 40. Qxd8 Kf3 41. Qf6+
1-0

Karpov,Anatoly – Anand,Viswanathan (2)
Linares, 1991

1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nd4

 

t+lDjLsT
Xx+xXxXx
-+-+-+-+
+-X-+-+-
-+pS-+-+
+-N-+n+-
pP-PpPpP
R-BqKb+r

Outrageous! – but watch…

4. e3 Nxf3+ 5. Qxf3 g6 6. b3 Bg7 7. Bb2 d6 8. g3
Rb8 9. Bg2 Nf6 10. h3 O-O 11. O-O a6 12. Qe2 b5 13. d3 b4 14. Nd1
a5 15. a4 e5 16. e4 h5 17. h4 Ne8 18. Ne3 Nc7 19. Kh2 Ne6 20. Bh3
Bh6 21. Ng2 Bg7 22. Rae1 Rb7 23. Bxe6 Bxe6 24. f4 Bg4 25. Qd2 Re7
26. Ne3 f5 27. exf5 gxf5 28. Nd5 Re6 29. Qf2 Rfe8 30. Bc1 e4 31.
dxe4 Rxe4 32. Rxe4 Rxe4 33. Re1 Rxe1 34. Qxe1 Kf7 35. Qd2 Bf3 36.
Ne3 Be4 37. Bb2 Bxb2 38. Qxb2 Qf6 39. Qxf6+ Kxf6 40. Kg1 Bb1 41.
Nf1 Bc2 42. Nd2 Ke6 43. Kf2 d5 44. cxd5+ Kxd5 45. Ke3 Bd1 46. Kd3
Bxb3 0-1

Indian-style defences (B7):

Grunfeld style (B7a)

Andersson Ulf – Tempone Marcelo [A16] 04,
Buenos Aires, 1979

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 g6 3. Nf3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6.
dxc3 Qxd1+ 7. Kxd1

 

tSl+jL-T
XxX-Xx+x
-+-+-+x+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+p+-+
+-P-+n+-
pP-+-PpP
R-Bk+b+r

White has a whisper of a plus: a tempo, a little more space…

7… c5 8. Be3 b6 9. a4 Nc6 10. Bb5 Bd7 11. Kc2
Bg7 12. Rhd1 a6 13. Bc4 Bg4 14. h3 Bxf3 15. gxf3 O-O 16. f4 Ra7 17.
e5 a5 18. Rd2 e6 19. Rad1 Rc8 20. Kb3 Bf8 21. Bb5 Rcc7 22. Bxc6
Rxc6 23. Kc4 Be7 24. Rd7 Rcc7 25. Rxc7 Rxc7 26. Kb5

 

-+-+-+j+
+-T-Lx+x
-X-+x+x+
XkX-P-+-
p+-+-P-+
+-P-B-+p
-P-+-P-+
+-+r+-+-

But now, the contrast in King activity could not be more
pronounced.

26… Rc8 27. Rd7 Kf8 28. Kxb6 Ke8 29. Rb7 Bd8+
30. Kb5 c4 31. Bc5 1-0

King’s Indian style (B7b)

Petrosian,T – Vasiukov,E Moscow ch,
1956

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. O-O O-O 5. c4 d6 6. Nc3
Nc6 7. d3 Nh5 8. Rb1 f5 9. Qc2 a5 10. a3 f4

 

t+lD-Tj+
+xX-X-Lx
-+sX-+x+
X-+-+-+s
-+p+-X-+
P-Np+nP-
-Pq+pPbP
+rB-+rK-

“…I was impressed by this game as Petrosian must have been, as he
got crushed.” — FISCHER.

11. b4 axb4 12. axb4 Bg4 13. e3 e5 14. b5 Ne7 15.
Ne4 Qd7 16. Bd2 h6 17. Bc3 g5 18. exf4 gxf4 19. Qe2 Ng6 20. Ra1
Rxa1 21. Bxa1 b6 22. Bc3 Qf5 23. Bd2 Kh8 24. Bc1 Bf6 25. Kh1 Ng7
26. Bb2 Ne6 27. Qc2 Qh5 28. Ned2 Ng5 29. Nxg5 Bxg5 30. Be4 Be2 31.
Kg1 f3 32. Re1 Bxd2 33. Rxe2 Bg5 34. Re1 Qh3 35. Bxf3 Rxf3 36. d4
Nf4 37. gxf4 Bxf4 0-1

 

Nimzo-Indian style (B7c)

Langeweg – Korchnoi, Amsterdam,
1976

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 0-0 5.a3 Bxc3 6.Qxc3 b6
7.g3 Bb7 8.Bg2 d5 9.d4 dxc4 10.Qxc4 Bd5 11.Qc3 Nbd7

“The game had several critical points.

At move 11 I was threatening to equalise by …c5 so
my opponent played the ambitious b2-b4. It caused White
difficulties because of his under-development and gave the Black
pieces space for active play.”

12.b4 a5 13.b5?! c6 14.bxc6 Rc8 15.0-0 Rxc6
16.Qe3 Qa8 17.Bd2 b5?!

“Imprecise: now the b-Pawn is a weakness.

I had to exchange one of White’s Bishops in order to
obtain chances of advancing the Queen’s-side Pawns and give myself
the better chances in the ending. For the moment the position had
become unclear.”

18.Rfb1 Rb8 19.Ne1?! Bxg2 20.Nxg2
Ne4!

“Siezing the initiative: White is taken
aback.”

21.Qd3 Rd6 22.Be3?! Ne5 23.Qc2? Rc8 24.Qb3 Nc4
25.Rc1 Rdc6 26.Qxb5 Nxa3 27.Qa4 Nc2 28.Rab1 Rc4 0-1

[Notes by Korchnoi.]

 

Queen’s Indian style (B7d)

Kortschnoj,V – Karpov,An (03) [A17] Moscow
cf (Wch), 1974

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. Nf3 b6

 

tSlDjL-T
X-Xx+xXx
-X-+xS-+
+-+-+-+-
-+p+-+-+
+-N-+n+-
pP-PpPpP
R-BqKb+r

4. e4 Bb7 5. Qe2 Bb4 6. e5 Ng8 7. d4 Ne7 N

 

tS-Dj+-T
XlXxSxXx
-X-+x+-+
+-+-P-+-
-LpP-+-+
+-N-+n+-
pP-+qPpP
R-B-Kb+r

8. Bd2 O-O 9. O-O-O d5 10. h4 Bxc3 11. Bxc3 dxc4 12. Qxc4
Ba6 13. Qa4 Bxf1 14. Rhxf1 Qd5 15. Kb1 a5 16. Qc2 h6 17. Rfe1 Na6
18. Qe4 Rfd8 19. Qxd5 Rxd5 20. Rd2 Rad8

 

-+-T-+j+
+-X-SxX-
sX-+x+-X
X-+tP-+-
-+-P-+-P
+-B-+n+-
pP-R-Pp+
+k+-R-+-

21. Red1 h5 22. Kc2 Nf5 23. g3 f6 24. exf6 gxf6 25. Ng1 Ne7
26. Ne2 Ng6 27. Rd3 Nb4+ 28. Bxb4 axb4 29. a3 bxa3 30. Rxa3 R8d7
31. Re1 Kf7 32. Rd3 Rf5 33. f3 c5 34. f4 Ne7 35. dxc5 Rxc5+ 36. Nc3
Rdc7 37. Kd2 Nf5 38. Ra1 Rc4 39. Ra6 b5 40. b3 Rb4 41. Ne2 Ke7 42.
Ra8 Rd7 43. Rxd7+ Kxd7 44. Rh8 Rxb3 45. Rxh5 Nxg3 46. Nxg3 Rxg3 47.
Rxb5 f5 48. Ke2 Rg4 49. Kf3 Rxh4 50. Rb6 Rh1 51. Ra6 Rc1 52. Kg3
Rc4 53. Kf3 Rc3+ 54. Kf2 Rc6 55. Ra1 Rc4 56. Kf3 Kd6 57. Re1 Rc3+
Q

 

Dutch style (B7e)

Miles,T – Chaves,J [A27] Sao Paulo,
1977

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 f5 4. d4 e4 5. Nd2 Nf6 6. e3 g6
7. Be2 Bg7 8. Rb1 a5 9. a3 O-O 10. b4 axb4 11. axb4 Ne7 12. Qb3 d6
13. b5 Kh8 14. Ba3

 

t+lD-T-J
+xX-S-Lx
-+-X-Sx+
+p+-+x+-
-+pPx+-+
BqN-P-+-
-+-NbPpP
+r+-K-+r

14… f4 15. Ncxe4 fxe3 16. fxe3 Nxe4 17. Nxe4 Bf5 18. Bd3
Nd5 19. O-O Nxe3 20. Rf3 Qh4 21. g3 Qg4 22. Rxe3 Rxa3 23. Qxa3 Bxd4
24. Kg2 Qh3+ 25. Kh1 Bxe4+

 

-+-+-T-J
+xX-+-+x
-+-X-+x+
+p+-+-+-
-+pLl+-+
Q-+bR-Pd
-+-+-+-P
+r+-+-+k

0-1

Saidy,Anthony – Fischer,Robert [A25] New
York, 1969

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 f5 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. d3 Bc5 6. e3
f4

 

t+lDj+-T
XxXx+-Xx
-+s+-S-+
+-L-X-+-
-+p+-X-+
+-NpP-P-
pP-+-PbP
R-BqK-Nr

Audacious, even arrogant. Gik had published some analysis on this
line … for White against the Sicilian, but mostly people weren’t
convinced even in that situation. Nowadays of course the theme has
become well-known.

7. exf4 O-O 8. Nge2 Qe8 9. O-O d6 10. Na4 Bd4 11.
Nxd4 exd4 12. h3 h5 13. a3 a5 14. b3 Qg6 15. Nb2 Bf5 16. Qc2 Nd7
17. Re1 Nc5

 

t+-+-Tj+
+xX-+-X-
-+sX-+d+
X-S-+l+x
-+pX-P-+
Pp+p+-Pp
-Nq+-Pb+
R-B-R-K-

Black has a grip on both sides of the board.

18. Bf1 Ra6 19. Bd2 Rb6 20. Bxa5 Rxb3 21. Bd2 Ra8
22. a4 Ra6 23. a5 Kh7 24. Red1 b6 25. Be1 bxa5 26. Na4 Rxd3 27.
Bxd3 Bxd3 28. Qa2 Nb4 29. Qa3 Nc2 30. Qb2 Nxa1 31. Rxa1 Nxa4 32.
Rxa4 Qe4 33. Bxa5 Rxa5 34. Rxa5 Qe1+ 35. Kh2 Qxa5 0-1

Kool – Hodgson [A21] London, 1989

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Bb4

 

tSlDj+sT
XxXx+xXx
-+-+-+-+
+-+-X-+-
-Lp+-+-+
+-N-+-+-
pP-PpPpP
R-BqKbNr

Hodgson’s fondness for the Grand Prix Attack makes this line an
obvious choice. 3. g3 Bxc3 4. bxc3 Ne7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. d3
Nbc6 7. Nh3 d6 8. O-O f5 9. f4 Qe8 10. Rb1 Rb8 11. d4 e4 12. e3 Na5
13. Qe2 c5 14. Nf2 b6 15. Nd1 Ba6

 

-T-+dTj+
X-+-S-Xx
lX-X-+-+
S-X-+x+-
-+pPxP-+
+-P-P-P-
p+-+q+bP
+rBn+rK-

Of course, Black is not forced to win on the King’s-side; he has a
very good version of the Nimzo-Indian!

16. Nb2 Qf7 17. Rd1 Nxc4 0-1

Smart – Hodgson [A21] England,
1984

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Bb4 3. Nd5

  White need not submit to the doubling of the c-Pawns in
this line.

3… Ba5 4. b4 c6 5. bxa5 cxd5 6. e3 Nf6 7. Qa4
dxc4 8. Bxc4 Nc6 9. Nf3 e4 10. Ng5 d5 11. Bb5 Bd7 12. O-O h6 13.
a6! hxg5 14. axb7 Rb8 15. Bxc6 Qc7 16. Bxd7+ Nxd7 17. f4! exf3 18.
g3 Rxb7 19. Ba3 Qc4? 20. Rac1 1-0