Category Archives: Class C

The Caro-Kann Defence

Posted on by

Firstly restrain…

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5

Black counters in the centre, provoking an immediate crisis. White must defend or dodge.

The Caro Kann has a reputation of being a boring defence. It is quite deserved, I believe. Black aims for a solid position where White’s space and activity can be held in check and in the end neutralised by exchanges. It is a system free from weaknesses and has been popular among top Grandmasters for many years.

It is not, however, your best choice if you want to play for a win, unless your technique is very good.

This is the key structure in the Caro-Kann — neither White nor Black has to agree to it, but it is seen in the vast majority of games in this defence.

--------pp--pppp--p----------------PN-----------PPP--PPP--------

What can we say about this?

  • White has more space and easy development. White can hope to turn that to advantage.
  • Black will try and hold back White’s pieces by careful development and exchanges
  • Black can develop the Bc8 happily (unlike the French) then move …e6
  • The best way for Black to hit back in the centre is …c5, which will lose a tempo (unlike the French)

The attempt to find a dynamic Caro-Kann with 5…gxf6 created a bit of interest, but, as is often the case, White found some antidotes and that line is no longer tried as often.

It’s hard to demonstrate a plus against the Caro-Kann, and, even with a plus, you might not win. So White players have tried very hard, and the theory in some of these lines is deep and subtle. White trying hard means that some of the lines have got quite sharp, and, if White really goes for it, winning chances for Black may reappear.

The main lines

The big main lines start with:

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4

There was a time when Black would often try the Gurgenidze line with 3…g6, trying to blockade on the light squares, when White might prefer to have a pawn and not a Knight on c3. So 3.Nd2 may be a finesse.

Anyhow, Black’s turn…

4…Nf6

5.Nxf6 exf6

This was always thought of as a fairly duff line as White has a useful Queen’s-side majority while Black’s four King’s-side pawns are messed up and not useful. There’s a lot of chess to be played between 5…exf6 and 80.c8Q but White always has that idea up their sleeve.

More gloom for Black appeared when a more direct attacking plan was found to be successful.

One of the heroes of the Caro-Kann, Ulf Andersson, showed some better ideas for Black in this line:

But like I say, your technique has to be good.

5.Nxf6 gxf6

Doubled pawns are known to be a disadvantage but they offer a half-open file and some extra central control. White can squelch much of Black’s fun with 6.g3 and Bg2.

4…Nd7

Black wants to play …Ngf6 without getting doubled pawns. Black has given up the centre, and is playing passively, so White can hope to get an initiative by playing with maximum speed and aggression.

When I was a boy, ‘sensible’ play beginning 5.Nf3 had been replaced with more pointed play with 5.Bc4.

These days it’s all about 5.Ng5, daring Black to try and chase it away with …h6.

Two famous games in this line:

4…Bf5

The big main line goes…

and while White can play this for a win, Black still has hopes of holding.

White can try some fiddles to derail Black along the way, but they are not anything to terrify Black.

Other tries for White

The advance variation

3.e5

This has been an important line and one infused with some newer ideas. Structurally, Black wants to play …Bf5, …e6 and …c5 to create some play; White can use the early commitment of Black’s Bishop to harass it. Early pioneers would chase Bishop with pawns, while later enthusiasts found piece play would do as well. Nigel Short later played the line more simply, declaring his pieces more active.

The Exchange Variation

3.exd5 cxd5

Not a bad try, and one I have tried with success. White goes for a small edge in a quiet position, hoping to post their pieces actively and accurately.
White can try to deny Black’s Bc8 its best square with 4.Bd3; after 4…Nc6 5.c3 Qc7 Black returns the disfavour.

The Panov-Botvinnik Attack

3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4

White throws the game into sharper and more open territory. When it arrived on the chess scene, it was a mighty terror, but Black players have calmed down since. I still often recommend this line for White; there is an excellent book on this variation by Aagaard.

The Fantasy Variation

3.f3

White adopts an aggressive attitude, not accepting that the pawn on e4 need be moved nor that it be replaced by a piece. The move f3 is a little awkward but it leads to complex positions that may be to your liking.

Apart from that, it's considered an unimportant try for White, but may give you the sort of closed game you like.

The Goldberg Variation

2.Nc3 d5 3.Qf3

An early favourite of Short, it has some points in its favour, but has never been a popular try.

The King's Indian Attack

2.d3

Another resort for lazy White players: you can plonk your pieces on the same squares in each game.

Or, if you're a genius, you can suddenly change gear with effect.

The Two Pawns' Variation

2.c4

White is just being awkward... This move order may be a fair way to reach lines of the Panov without offering Black the chance to play the best setup against the IQP (H/T: John Emms).

Playing Black against Queen’s-Pawn Openings (3): without c2-c4

Posted on by

A2 Playing actively against
1. D4

The Stonewall
Attack

I will follow some lines from Fine in his 1943 book
The Ideas behind the Chess Openings. You
will soon see the connection with this section.

 

Start: 1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Bd3

[3. f4 is sometimes played to avoid the 3…Nc6
line]

3… c5

[More to the point is 3… Nc6 4. f4 [

or 4. c3 e5

] 4… Nb4 5. Nf3 Nxd3+ 6. cxd3 g6 7. Nc3 Bg7 8. O-O O-O]

4. c3 Nc6 5. f4

r+bqkb-r
pp+-pppp
-+n+-n-+
+-pp+-+-
-+-P-P-+
+-PBP-+-
PP-+-+PP
RNBQK-NR

Now play might go:

5… e6 (which doesn’t look quite right, as it blocks
the Bc8)

6. Nf3 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. Ne5 Qc7

White’s threatening Ne5 needed some response; Black could also
try to occupy e4

9. Nd2 Re8 10. g4 (DIAGRAM)

with a crushing attack.

This is the ideal Stonewall position.

r+b+r+k+
ppq-+ppp
-+nbpn-+
+-ppN-+-
-+-P-PP+
+-PBP-+-
PP-N-+-P
R-BQ+RK-

Let’s go back to the first diagram.

Instead, we might try for Black 5… Bg4,

and play then might go 6. Nf3 e6 7. Nbd2 Bd6 8. h3 Bh5
9. b3 cxd4 10. cxd4 Rc8 (DIAGRAM)

Black is comfortable
-+rqk+-r
pp+-+ppp
-+nbpn-+
+-+p+-+b
-+-P-P-+
+P+BPN+P
P+-N-+P+
R-BQK-+R

Because Black can see what White is up to, Black can arrange the
development to counter it. White’s opening plan is not camouflaged
enough to stop Black from seeing what is going on and opposing it,
and the opening moves are not flexible enough to try any other
plan. This is why you don’t see the Stonewall very often among
stronger players.

One place where the Stonewall formation will not go away is
Black playing it in the Dutch Defence. Why is this more
common?

­ White, starting first, is usually trying to get an
advantage and won’t play just to equalise with moves like Bf4,
Bxd6, Ne5 and f4.

­ Instead, White will often adopt an attacking formation on
the Queen’s side to start with and so there is a tendency for each
side to attack on opposite sides.

­ White often plays g3 and Bg2, creating a slow game with a
slightly weakened King’s side. Black can hope to get the …f4
break in at some point.

This may help explain why you see the Stonewall is a better idea
played a move behind in the Dutch Defence than played straight away
as White. Perhaps the real reason is that World Champion Mikhail
Botvinnik kept playing and winning with it for decades. Take a look
at these games:

 

A2.1 The Dutch Defence,
Stonewall Variation

Rabinovitch – Botvinnik (Ussr Ch’p,
1927)

1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 Be7 5. Nc3 O-O 6. Nf3
d5 7. O-O c6 8. Qc2 Qe8 9. Bf4 Qh5 10. Rad1 Nbd7 11. b3 Ne4 12. Ne5
Ng5

[12… Bf6 is better, says MB]

13. h4

[13. f3 Nh3+ 14. Bxh3 Qxh3 15. e4 += MB]

13… Ne4 14. Bf3 Qe8 15. Nxd7 Bxd7 16. Kg2
Bb4

r+-+qrk+
pp+b+-pp
-+p+p+-+
+-+p+p+-
-bPPnB-P
+PN-+BP-
P+Q+PPK+
+-+R+R+-

White seems to have defended more than got on with his own
plans. He now makes a mistake:

17. Bxe4 ? 17… fxe4 18. Rh1 Qh5 19. f3 Qg6 20. Kf1 e5
21. dxe5 Rxf4 22. gxf4

r+-+-+k+
pp+b+-pp
-+p+-+q+
+-+pP-+-
-bP+pP-P
+PN-+P+-
P+Q+P+-+
+-+R+K+R

Black has some clear achievements: the open g-file, the two
bishops, the upset White King.

22… Qg3

threats …Bc5/…e3

23. Nxe4 dxe4 24. Rxd7 Bc5 25. e3 Qxf3+ 26. Qf2 Qxh1+
27. Ke2 Qh3 28. f5 Qg4+ 29. Kd2 Rf8 30. e6 Qxf5 31. Qxf5 Rxf5 32.
Rxb7 Rf2+ 33. Ke1 Rf6 34. b4 Bxe3 0-1

 

Another decisive King’s side attack:

Steiner – Botvinnik, Groningen,
1946

1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 Bb4+ 5. Bd2 Be7 6.
Nf3 d5 7. Nc3 c6 8. O-O O-O 9. Bf4 Qe8 10. Qc2 Qh5 11. Rae1 Nbd7
12. Nd2

Aiming at e4, but too slowly. Another plan is to attack c6 with
the b-pawn.

12… g5 13. Bc7 Ne8 14. Be5 Nxe5 15. dxe5
f4

Black’s plans are well-advanced; e4 will now be answered by
..f3

16. gxf4 gxf4 17. Nf3 Kh8 18. Kh1 Ng7 19. Qc1 Bd7 20. a3
Rf7 21. b4 Rg8

-+-+-+rk
pp+bbrnp
-+p+p+-+
+-+pP-+q
-PP+-p-+
P-N-+N+-
-+-+PPBP
+-Q-RR+K

Making use of the open g-file

22. Rg1 Nf5 23. Nd1 Rfg7

-+-+-+rk
pp+bb-rp
-+p+p+-+
+-+pPn+q
-PP+-p-+
P-+-+N+-
-+-+PPBP
+-QNR-RK

Black has a winning position

24. Qxf4 Rg4 25. Qd2 Nh4 26. Ne3 Nxf3 27. exf3 Rh4 28.
Nf1 Bg5 0-1

-+-+-+rk
pp+b+-+p
-+p+p+-+
+-+pP-bq
-PP+-+-r
P-+-+P+-
-+-Q-PBP
+-+-RNRK

if the Q moves, …Bf4 forces mate.

Here’s an important game against a powerful rival.

 

Flohr – Botvinnik (10) Match,
1933

1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 Be7 5. Nc3 d5 6. Nf3
c6 7. O-O O-O 8. b3

[8. Bf4 is better, says Botvinnink, or 8. Qc2 Qe8 9. Bg5
with Bxf6]

8… Qe8 9. Bb2 Nbd7 10. Qd3

[ 10. Ng5 Bd6 11. f4 Botvinnik]

10… Qh5 11. cxd5

[11. Bc1 Botvinnik]

11… exd5 12. Nd2

[12. Ne1 and f4]

12… Ne4 13. f3

[13. f4 is now met by 13… Nxd2 14. Qxd2 Nf6 when White
cannot really hope to get the N to e5]

13… Nxc3 14. Bxc3 f4 ! 15. Rfe1 Bd6 16. Nf1 Rf7 17. e3
fxg3 18. Nxg3 Qh4 19.Nf1 Nf6 20. Re2 Bd7 21. Be1 Qg5 22. Bg3 Bxg3
23. Nxg3 h5!

r+-+-+k+
pp+b+rp-
-+p+-n-+
+-+p+-qp
-+-P-+-+
+P+QPPN-
P+-+R+BP
R-+-+-K-

the final phase

24. f4 Qg4 25. Rf2 h4 26. Bf3

[26. h3 Qe6 27. Nf1 Ne4 is still -+]

26… hxg3 27. Bxg4 gxf2+ 28. Kg2 Nxg4 29. h3 Nf6 30.
Kxf2 Ne4+ 0-1

 

And lastly, a more complicated game from an early
tournament:

Yudovitch – Botvinnik,
1934

1. c4 f5 2. d4 Nf6 3. g3 e6 4. Bg2 Be7 5. Nf3 d5 6. O-O
O-O 7. Nc3 c6 8. Qc2 Qe8 9. Bf4

[9. Bg5 Chekhover]

9… Qh5 10. b3 Nbd7 11. Rad1 Kh8 12. Kh1

a loss of tempo, and perhaps not even a better square

12… Rg8 13. e3 g5 14. Bc7 Ne8 15. Be5+ Nxe5 16. Nxe5
Nf6 17. f3

r+b+-+rk
pp+-b-+p
-+p+pn-+
+-+pNppq
-+PP-+-+
+PN-PPP-
P+Q+-+BP
+-+R+R+K

the right plan for White

17… Bd6 18. e4 Nd7 19. g4

[19. Nxd7 Bxg3]

19… Qe8 20. Nxd7 Bxd7 21. e5 Bb4 22. gxf5 exf5 23.
cxd5

r+-+q+rk
pp+b+-+p
-+p+-+-+
+-+PPpp-
-b-P-+-+
+PN-+P+-
P+Q+-+BP
+-+R+R+K

 

23… Bxc3 24. dxc6 risky 24… Bxc6 25. Qxc3 Qe6 26.
Qd2 Bd5 27. Rc1 Rg7 28. Rc2 f4 29. Qc1 Rag8 30. h3 h5 31. Kg1 g4
32. hxg4 hxg4 33. Kf2 Rh7 34. Rh1 g3+ 35. Ke1 Rxh1+ 36. Bxh1 Qh6
37. Bg2

the last move before the time-check

37… Bc6

[37… Be6]

38. a4 Bd7

going for complications instead

[38… Bd5]

39. d5 Bf5 40. Rc7 Qh2 41. Qb2 Qg1+ 42. Bf1 Qe3+ 43. Be2
Be6 44. Qc2 Rg7

-+-+-+-k
ppR-+-r-
-+-+b+-+
+-+PP-+-
P+-+-p-+
+P+-qPp-
-+Q+B+-+
+-+-K-+-

45. dxe6

[45. Rc8+ Bg8 46. Qf5 and Rxg8+, getting perpetual]

45… Qf2+ 46. Kd2 Qd4+

controlling d8

47. Ke1 Rxc7 0-1

 

Since Nigel Short has ventured the Stonewall on occasion
interest in the opening has grown again.


Martin – Troger [A94] 1995

1. Nf3 f5 2. d4 Nf6 3. g3 e6 4. Bg2 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. c4
d5 7. b3 c6 8. Ba3 Bd7 9. Bxe7 Qxe7

rn-+-rk+
pp+bq-pp
-+p+pn-+
+-+p+p+-
-+PP-+-+
+P+-+NP-
P+-+PPBP
RN+Q+RK-

Black has played it the old-fashioned way: more interest
recently has been in the idea of parking the Queen’s Bishop on b7.
White has responded with another traditional recipe – exchange off
Black’s good bishop and milk the dark squares.

10. Nc3 (?)

Martin was unhappy about this natural move afterwards.
Either

[10. Nbd2 Be8 11. Ne5 Nbd7 12. Ndf3 Bh5]

or

[10. Qc1 Be8 11. Qa3 Qxa3 12. Nxa3 Nbd7]

could have been tried, but Black is by no means losing either
game.

10… Be8 11. Qc2 Nbd7 12. cxd5 cxd5!

[Not 12… exd5 13. Qxf5 Ne4 14. Nxd5 cxd5 15. Qxd5+ Bf7 16.
Qxb7]

13. e3 Bh5 14. Rfc1 Bxf3 15. Bxf3

r+-+-rk+
pp+nq-pp
-+-+pn-+
+-+p+p+-
-+-P-+-+
+PN-PBP-
P+Q+-P-P
R-R-+-K-

=+ Martin

15… Rac8 16. Qb2 Nb6

[16… Nb8]

17. a4 g5 18. a5 Nbd7 19. a6 b6 20. Be2 Nb8

Right idea but too late: White is now better.

21. Nb5 Nc6 22. Rc2 Nd7

[22… Nb4 23. Rxc8 Rxc8 24. Qa3]

23. Rxc6

else …Nd7-b8 and Black is ready to attack the King

23… Rxc6 24. Nxa7 Rc7 25. Nb5 Rcc8 26. a7 Nf6 27.
Qa2

-+r+-rk+
P-+-q-+p
-p-+pn-+
+N+p+pp-
-+-P-+-+
+P+-P-P-
Q+-+BP-P
R-+-+-K-

27… Kg7 28. Qa6 Qd8 29. Qb7+ Kg6 30. Ra6 Ra8 31. Nc7
Qe7 32. Qxb6 Qd8 33. Nxa8 Qxa8 34. Qxe6 Rf7 35. Bd3
1-0

 

A2.2 White avoids the
Stonewall

There is no Exchange Variation against the Dutch but there are
some annoying ways for White to avoid the Stonewall. You can avoid
all these by playing first …d5, …e6, …c6 and …f5, but you
must then face the Exchange QGD.

1. d4 f5

A2.2a Modern System with Bg5xf6

2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bg5 d5 4. Bxf6 exf6 5. e3 Be6 6. Bd3
g6

This is currently very popular. I offer you a selection of games
in the examples section.

 

A2.2b Staunton Gambit with e4

2. e4 fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6

Now White can play:

(a) 4. Bg5 Nc6 5. d5 Ne5 6. Qd4 Nf7 7. Bh4

[7. Bxf6 exf6 8. Nxe4 f5 9. Ng3 g6 10. O-O-O Bh6+ 11. f4 O-O
12. Nf3 Bg7 13. Qd2 b5 14. Nd4 Nd6

r+bq-rk+
p-pp+-bp
-+-n-+p+
+p+P+p+-
-+-N-P-+
+-+-+-N-
PPPQ-+PP
+-KR+B+R

= BCO2]

7… g5 8. Bg3 Bg7 9. O-O-O

[9. Nxe4 O-O]

9… c6 =+ BCO2

 

(b) 4. f3

4… Nc6

[4… d5 5. fxe4 dxe4 6. Bg5 Bf5 7. Bc4 e6

[7… Nbd7 8. Nge2 Nb6 9. Bb3 Qd7 = BCO2]

8. Nge2 Bb4 9. O-O c6 =]

5. fxe4 e5 6. dxe5 Nxe5 7. Nf3 d6 8. Bf4
Ng6]]

 

A2.2c Korchnoi Gambit with g4

Korchnoi has offered a number of gambits with g2-g4, making use
of the target on f5.

See the example game Menadue-Pert.

 

A2.2d Others

These shouldn’t be any problem

BCO2 gives:

2. Qd3 d5 3. Bf4 e6 4. Qg3 Na6 5. e3 c6 =+

Ivkov


Examples of White avoiding the Dutch

Karayannis-Bellin 1993

1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. e4

rnbqkbnr
pppp+-pp
-+-+p+-+
+-+-+p+-
-+PPP+-+
+-+-+-+-
PP-+-PPP
RNBQKBNR

This almost forgotten gambit is not much worse than the
others which surface sporadically. Even though dubious, all such
gambits require precise defence from Black. — BELLIN

3… fxe4 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. g4 h6 6. h4 d5 7. Nh3 Nc6 8. Nf4
e5 9. Ng6

[9. dxe5 Nxe5 x f3]

[9. Nfxd5 exd4 10. Nxf6+ Qxf6 11. Nd5 Bb4+ is also
fine]

9… Bxg4 10. Qa4

White insists on being shown, but 10. Be2 was better

10… exd4 11. Nxh8

[11. Nxd5 Nxd5 12. cxd5 Bb4+ 13. Bd2 Bxd2+ 14. Kxd2 Qxd5 and
the White King will not survive …e3+]

11… dxc3 12. bxc3 d4 13. Rb1

[13. Ng6 dxc3 14. Ne5 Bb4 15. Nxc6 Qd2+ 16. Bxd2
cxd2#]

[13. Bh3 Bxh3 14. Rxh3 Qd7 15. Rg3 Bd6 is very good for
Black]

13… dxc3 14. Rxb7

[14. Bh3 Qd3]

[14. Ng6 Qd7 and White is all but paralysed]

14… Qd7 15. f3

[15. Rb5 Bb4 16. Rxb4 Nxb4 17. Qxd7+ Kxd7]

[15. Bh3 Bxh3 16. Rxh3 Bb4 17. Rxb4 Nxb4 18. Qxb4 Qxh3 19.
Ba3 O-O-O]

15… exf3 16. Be3 Bc5 17. Rxc7 Qd2+ 18. Bxd2
f2#

A triumph for the spear-carriers

 

Menadue – Pert 1995

1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 f5 3. h3 Nf6 4. g4 b6

Normally White would try to blot this out by d5 but there is no
Pc4

5. gxf5 exf5 6. Bg2 Bb7 7. Bg5 Be7 8. Nc3 O-O 9.
h4

rn-q-rk+
pbppb-pp
-p-+-n-+
+-+-+pB-
-+-P-+-P
+-N-+N+-
PPP+PPB+
R-+QK-+R

White is wasting too much time on attacking-looking moves but
has no real plan.

[9. d5!?]

9… Qe8 10. Qd3 Nc6 11. O-O-O

[11. Qxf5 Nb4 12. O-O-O Ne4 -+]

11… Nb4 12. Qc4+ d5 13. Qxc7 ?

opens a file against the King

13… Ba6 14. Qe5 Rc8 15. Qxf5 ?

[15. a3]

15… Rxc3 16. Qe6+ Kh8 17. bxc3 Nxa2+ 18.
Kd2

-+-+qr-k
p-+-b-pp
bp-+Qn-+
+-+p+-B-
-+-P-+-P
+-P-+N+-
n+PKPPB+
+-+R+-+R

[18. Kb2 Nxc3!]

18… Bb4!

a beautiful bit of opportunism

19. Bh3

[19. Qxe8 Bxc3+ 20. Ke3 Ng4#]

19… Bxc3+ 20. Ke3 Nb4 21. Qxe8

[21. Rc1 Qb5 22. Rhe1 Bxe1 23. Rxe1

[23. Nxe1 Qxe2+ 24. Kf4 Nh5#]

23… Nxc2+ 24. Kd2 Ne4+ 25. Kxc2 Rxf3 26. exf3 Qd3+ 27. Kc1
Qc3+ 28. Kb1

[28. Kd1 Nxf2#]

28… Bd3+ 29. Ka2 Qa5+ 30. Kb2

[30. Kb3 is better but only delays the inevitable 30… Bc4+
31. Kb2 Qb4+ 32. Kc1 Qa3+ 33. Kd1 Bb3+ 34. Ke2 Qa2+ 35. Kd3 Qc2+
36. Ke3 Qd2#]

30… Qb4+ 31. Ka2 Nc3+ 32. Ka1 Qa3#]

21… Ng4+ 22. Bxg4 Nxc2# 1-0

 

Langeweg,K – Perez Garcia,H [A80] Wijk-B, 1986

1. d4 f5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. O-O O-O 6. b3
c5 7. e3 cxd4 8. exd4 d5 9. Ne5 Nc6 10. Re1 Ne4 11. f3 Nxe5 12.
fxe4 Nf3+ 0-1

 

Sparreboom,W – Bellin,R [A80] Guernsey op, 1988

1. d4 f5 2. Nf3 e6 3. Ne5 d6 4. Nd3 Nc6 5. e3 Nf6 6. Nd2
e5 7. Nb3 Be7 8. d5 Nxd5 9. Nxe5 dxe5 0-1

 

Barczyczyn – Vasiukov,E [A80] Bled op, 1989

1. d4 f5 2. Nc3 d5 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Bf4 c6

The London System vs. the Dutch

5. h3 e6 6. e3 Be7 7. Be2 O-O 8. Ne5 Nbd7 9. g4 Nxe5 10.
dxe5 Ne4 11. Nxe4 fxe4 12. Qd2 Bh4 13. O-O-O Bxf2 14. g5 Qb6 15.
Bf1 Rxf4 16. exf4 Be3

oops

17. Bg2 Bd7 18. Rhe1 Bxd2+ 19. Rxd2 Rf8

-+-+-rk+
pp+b+-pp
-qp+p+-+
+-+pP-P-
-+-+pP-+
+-+-+-+P
PPPR-+B+
+-K-R-+-

20. Bxe4 Rxf4 21. Bd3 0-1

 

Ligterink,G (2470) – Van Heste,J (2290) [A80] NLD-ch,
1987

1. d4 f5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bg5 d5 4. Bxf6 exf6 5. e3 c6 6.
Bd3 Bd6 7. Qf3 g6 8. h3 Qe7 9. g4 f4 10. O-O-O fxe3 11. Re1 O-O 12.
Rxe3 Qc7 13. Nge2 f5 14. gxf5 Bxf5 15. Bxf5 Rxf5 16. Re8+ Kf7 17.
Qe3 Be7 18. Rh8 Kg7 19. Re8 Bg5

rn-+R+-+
ppq-+-kp
-+p+-+p+
+-+p+rb-
-+-P-+-+
+-N-Q-+P
PPP+NP-+
+-K-+-+R

20. f4 Rxf4 21. Kb1 Rf1+ 22. Rxf1 Bxe3 23. Rxe3 Na6 24.
Nf4 Kh6 25. Nd3 Qd6 26. Ne5 Rf8 27. Nf7+ Kg7 28. Ref3 Qe7 29. Ne5
Rxf3 30. Rxf3 Qh4 31. Ne2 Qe4 32. Rf7+ Kg8 33. Rf2 Nb4 34. Nc1 Qxd4
35. Re2 Qd1 36. a3 Na2 37. Kxa2 Qxc1 38. Nd3 Qg5 39. Nc5 Qh4 40. b3
b6 0-1

 

Maksimovic,S (2345) – Akhmilovskaya,E (2420) [A80] Sochi,
1987

1. d4 f5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bg5 d5 4. Bxf6 exf6 5. e3 c6 6.
Bd3 g6 7. Qf3 Bb4 8. Nge2 Nd7 9. h3 Ne5

A characteristic tactic.

10. dxe5 fxe5 11. O-O-O e4 12. Bxe4 fxe4 13. Nxe4 Rf8
14. Qg3 Qe7 15. N4c3 Bd6 16. f4 Bd7 17. Rhe1 O-O-O 18. Nd4 b5 19.
Nf3 b4

-+kr-r-+
p-+bq-+p
-+pb-+p+
+-+p+-+-
-p-+-P-+
+-N-PNQP
PPP+-+P+
+-KRR-+-

20. Nb1 Rde8 21. Nbd2 Qf6 22. Qf2 Bc5 23. Nb3 Bb6 24.
Qd2 Re4 25. Ne5 Re8 26. Qd3 Rxe3 27. Qa6+ Kc7 28. Rxe3 Qxf4 29. Kb1
Qxe3 30. Nxd7 Kxd7 31. Qb7+ Kd6 32. Qxh7 Qe4 33. g4 Re7 34. Qg8 Kc7
35. Qf8 Kb7 36. h4 a5 37. a4 bxa3 38. bxa3 a4 39. Nd2 Qe2 40. Rf1
Bc5 0-1

 

Cazzaniga,W – Speck,H [A80] Mendrisio op, 1988

1. d4 f5 2. g4 d5 3. Bg5 Nf6 4. h3 c6 5. Bxf6 exf6 6. e3
Qb6 7. b3 Bd6 8. Bd3 f4 9. exf4 Bxf4 10. Ne2 Qc7 11. Nxf4 Qxf4 12.
Qd2 Qf3 13. Qe2+ Qxe2+ 14. Kxe2 b6 15. Nd2 Kf7 16. f4 Ba6 17. c4
Nd7 18. a4 c5 19. Bf5 Rhd8

r+-r-+-+
p-+n+kpp
bp-+-p-+
+-pp+B+-
P+PP-PP+
+P+-+-+P
-+-NK+-+
R-+-+-+R

20. Bxh7 cxd4 21. Kf2 dxc4 22. Be4 Rac8 23. Bd5+ Kf8 24.
bxc4 Nc5 25. g5 Re8 26. gxf6 Nd3+ 27. Kg3 Re3+ 28. Kh4 Nxf4 29.
fxg7+ Kxg7 30. Rhg1+ Kh6 31. Bf3 Rf8 32. Rg4 Bc8 33. Kg3 Bxg4 34.
hxg4 Rd3 35. Rh1+ Kg7 36. Rh2 Ng6 37. Re2 Rf7 0-1

 

 

B. English
opening

This subtle system is out to stop you playing …d5, and then
taking over the centre or Queen’s-side later.

 

B1 Playing solidly against
1. c4

The …e6 system is a nice counter to the English; …c6 is OK
as a system as long as White does not transpose into something
unfamiliar to you.

1. c4

rnbqkbnr
pppppppp
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+P+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
PP-PPPPP
RNBQKBNR

1… e6

[1… c6

Now

(a) 2. Nf3 is OK

2… d5 3. b3 Nf6 4. Bb2 Bg4

[or 4… Bf5]

BUT

(b) 2. e4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Bb4 is
a Caro-Kann or Nimzo-Indian line which is OK for Black but is
outside the scope of the repertoire I recommend]

2. Nf3 d5 3. b3 c6 4. g3 Nf6

An alternative system is:

Kurajica [A13] Agincourt Defence (French-English),
1995

1. c4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. g3 c6

offering to transpose into standard QP lines

4. b3

rnbqkbnr
pp+-+ppp
-+p+p+-+
+-+p+-+-
-+P+-+-+
+P+-+NP-
P+-PPP-P
RNBQKB+R

insisting on independent lines

[4. d4]

[4. Bg2 dxc4 5. Qc2 b5 6. a4 Bb7 -/+ Carls-Nimzovitch
1925]

[4. Qc2 Nf6 5. Bg2 a5 6. O-O Na6 7. a3 Be7 8. d4

[8. b3]

8… O-O 9. Nbd2 b6 Naranja-Larsen 1973]

4… b5

Black intends to bite the c-pawn until it screams in
pain ” Benjamin/Schiller

5. Bg2 Ba6

rn-qkbnr
p-+-+ppp
b+p+p+-+
+p+p+-+-
-+P+-+-+
+P+-+NP-
P+-PPPBP
RNBQK-+R

6. cxd5

[6. d3 Qb6 != Kurajica]

6… cxd5 7. O-O Nf6 8. Bb2 Be7 9. d3 O-O

rn-q-rk+
p-+-bppp
b+-+pn-+
+p+p+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+P+P+NP-
PB-+PPBP
RN+Q+RK-

10. e4

White could also try:

[10. Nbd2 Nc6 11. a3

[11. Rc1 Qb6 =+ Masic-Kurajica 1972]

11… b4 12. axb4 Nxb4 13. Ne5 Qb6 = Romanishin-Kurajica
1977]

[10. Ne5!? is a suggestion of Watson]

10… dxe4 11. dxe4 b4 =+ Hartoch-Kurajica 1974 =

 

B2 Playing actively against
1. c4

Your Dutch-style system is a fine counter to the English. The
first time I ever tried it I beat a 140-grade player in about 30
moves.

Theory of the
Anglo-Dutch

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3

This is the Sicilian Reversed line of the English Opening,
sometimes called the King’s English. Black can play two lines with
a Dutch feel, playing on the second move either 2…d6 or 2…Nc6.
The first risks being met by 3. d4 (if that is a risk), the second
may not be quite the right square for the Knight. If you play the
Closed Sicilian as White, this must be the best choice for you.

Example lines go:

After 2… d6:

(a) 3. d4 as in Hubner-Kasparov m1 1979

(b) 3. Nf3 f5

[or 3… Bg4 idea 4. g3 Bxf3 5. exf3 Nc6]

4. g3 Nf6 5. Bg2 Nc6 6. O-O Be7

[or 6… g6]

(c) 3. g3 f5

[or 3… Be6 4. Bg2 c6]

After 2…Nc6:

3. Nf3 f5

r+bqkbnr
pppp+-pp
-+n+-+-+
+-+-pp+-
-+P+-+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-PPPPP
R-BQKB+R

4. d4 e4

r+bqkbnr
pppp+-pp
-+n+-+-+
+-+-+p+-
-+PPp+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+PPPP
R-BQKB+R

Now White has a number of moves:

(a) 5. Bg5

e.g. 5… Be7 6. Bxe7 Ngxe7 7. Nd2 Nxd4 8. Ndxe4 Nec6 9. Nd2
O-O 10. g3 d6 11. Bg2 f4 12. O-O fxg3 13. hxg3 Bg4

r+-q-rk+
ppp-+-pp
-+np-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+Pn-+b+
+-N-+-P-
PP-NPPB+
R-+Q+RK-

 

(b) 5. Ng5 h6

[or 5… Be7 6. Nh3 ]

[or 5… Nf6 6. e3 and now

6… h6

[6…g6]

7. Nh3 g5

r+bqkb-r
pppp+-+-
-+n+-n-p
+-+-+pp-
-+PPp+-+
+-N-P-+N
PP-+-PPP
R-BQKB+R

after 5…h6 White can retreat with

6. Nh3

[6…g5!?]]

or spuddle with

6. Nd5

 

(c) 5. Nd2

as in Miles-Chaves

 

Instead of the immediate 3…f5 Black can play more slowly
e.g.

3… g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. e3 d6 6. Nge2

and now Black has tried:

6…f5

6…h5

Play in these hypermodern openings is more flexible and less
forcing, so both sides have a lot of choice about their early move
orders. I’ve tried to give an example of each line cited in the
games below.

 

 

Example games in the
Anglo-Dutch

System with
2…d6


Hubner – Kasparov (1, Hamburg) [A21] 1985

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. d4

Most folk used to think this was good for White… until this
game!

3…exd4 4. Qxd4 Nf6 5. g3 Nc6 6. Qd2 Be6 7. Nd5
Ne5

r+-qkb-r
ppp-+ppp
-+-pbn-+
+-+Nn-+-
-+P+-+-+
+-+-+-P-
PP-QPP-P
R-B-KBNR

Creating trouble on c4

8. b3 Ne4 9. Qe3 Nc5 10. Bb2 c6 11. Nf4 Ng4

r+-qkb-r
pp+-+ppp
-+ppb+-+
+-n-+-+-
-+P+-Nn+
+P+-Q-P-
PB-+PP-P
R-+-KBNR

The pesky Knights keep hopping around, not letting Black
settle.

12. Qd4 Ne4

Very alert

13. Bh3

[13. Nxe6 fxe6 14. Qxe4 Qa5+ 15. Kd1 Nxf2+]

13… Qa5+ 14. Kf1 Ngxf2 15. Bxe6 fxe6 16. Nxe6 Kd7 17.
Nh3 Nxh3 18. Qxe4

r+-+-b-r
pp+k+-pp
-+ppN+-+
q-+-+-+-
-+P+Q+-+
+P+-+-Pn
PB-+P+-P
R-+-+K+R

Black’s initiative persists.

18… Re8 19. Nc5+ Qxc5 20. Qg4+ Kc7 21.
Qxh3

-+-+rb-r
ppk-+-pp
-+pp-+-+
+-q-+-+-
-+P+-+-+
+P+-+-PQ
PB-+P+-P
R-+-+K+R

21… Be7 22. Bxg7 Rhf8+ 23. Bxf8 Rxf8+ 24. Ke1 Qf2+ 25.
Kd1 Qd4+ 26. Kc2 Qe4+ 27. Kd2 Bg5+ 28. Kc3 Qe5+

-+-+-r-+
ppk-+-+p
-+pp-+-+
+-+-q-b-
-+P+-+-+
+PK-+-PQ
P+-+P+-P
R-+-+-+R

0-1

 

Gonzalez-Rossolimo
1952.

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3 f5 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. e3 Be7 6. Nge2
c6 7. d4 O-O 8. b3 Nbd7 9. O-O h5 10. h4 Ng4 11. f3 Nh6 12. Ba3 Qe8
13. dxe5 dxe5 14. Bxe7 Qxe7 15. Qd2 Nc5

r+b+-rk+
pp+-q-p-
-+p+-+-n
+-n-pp+p
-+P+-+-P
+PN-PPP-
P+-QN+B+
R-+-+RK-

Black has more space.]

 

 

Korchnoi-German 1962.

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3 f5 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. b4 c6 6. b5 c5
!

Now White can’t open a file on the Q-side.

7. Bb2 Nbd7 8. d3 g6 9. a4 a5 10. bxa6 Rxa6 11. Nf3 Bg7
12. Nd2 O-O 13. Nb5 Rf7 14. Bc3 Nf8 15. e3 Ne6 16. O-O g5 17. Qe2
Re7 18. Rfe1 g4 19. f4 gxf3 20. Nxf3 Nf8 21. Nd2 Ng6 22. Nb3 Bh6
23. a5 Ng4 24. Bd5+ Kh8 25. Qd2 Rg7 26. Kh1

-+bq-+-k
+p+-+-rp

r+-p-+nb
PNpBpp+-
-+P+-+n+
+NBPP-P-
-+-Q-+-P
R-+-R-+K

Black has his open lines and could create more with

26… f4 27. exf4 Nxf4

 

 

Zlotnikov-Minasian 1993

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3 f5 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. d3 Be7 6. Nf3
O-O 7. O-O Kh8 8. b4

[After 8. Bd2 the ever-inventive Speelman did once try
…Na6 but 8…Qe8 is still Black’s best]

8… Qe8 9. Bb2 Qh5 10. e3 Nc6 11. a3 Bd7 12. Nd2
Qh6

r+-+-r-k
pppbb-pp
-+np-n-q
+-+-pp+-
-PP+-+-+
P-NPP-P-
-B-N-PBP
R-+Q+RK-

Black is well-placed to build up on the K-side.

…0-1

 

 

Hallerod-Hearst 1960

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3 f5 4. Bg2 Nf6 5. d3
Be7

5… g6 is a Closed Sicilian position: see below

6. Nf3 O-O 7. O-O Qe8

8. c5 c6 9. cxd6 Bxd6 10. b4 Kh8 11. Rb1 Nd5 12. Qb3
Be6

rn-+qr-k
pp+-+-pp
-+pbb+-+
+-+npp+-
-P-+-+-+
+QNP+NP-
P+-+PPBP
+RB-+RK-

= 13. Ng5 Nxc3 14. Qxc3 Bxa2 15. Ra1 Bg8 16. Bb2 Qe7 17.
Nf3 Nd7 18. Ba3 a6 19. Nd2 Nb6 20. Rfb1 Nd5 21. Qb2 Nc7 22. Nc4 Nb5
23. Rc1 Bxc4 24. Rxc4 a5

r+-+-r-k
+p+-q-pp
-+pb-+-+
pn+-pp+-
-PR+-+-+
B-+P+-P-
-Q-+PPBP
R-+-+-K-

0-1 : a Queen’s-side decision!

 

System with
2…Nc6

 

Miles-Chaves 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 f4 15. Ncxe4 fxe3 16. fxe3 Nxe4 17. Nxe4 Bf5
18. Bd3

r+-q-r-k
+pp-n-bp
-+-p-+p+
+P+-+b+-
-+PPN+-+
BQ+BP-+-
-+-+-+PP
+R+-K-+R

18… Nd5 19. O-O

[19. cxd5 Bxe4 20. Bxe4 Qh4+ 21. Kd1 Qxe4 22. Rb2]

19… Nxe3 20. Rf3 Qh4 21. g3 Qg4 22. Rxe3 Rxa3 23. Qxa3
Qh3 24. Kh1 Bxe4+ 0-1

White resigned here but 25. Rxe4 Rf2 26. Re8+ Bf8 27. Rxf8+
Rxf8 28. Qa2 looked worth trying first!

 

Bruno-Kurajica 1985

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 f5 4. d3 Nf6 5. Bg2 Bb4 6.
Bd2 O-O 7. Nf3 d6 8. a3 Bxc3 9. Bxc3 Qe8 10. O-O Qh5 11.
Qd2

r+b+-rk+
ppp-+-pp
-+np-n-+
+-+-pp+q
-+P+-+-+
P-BP+NP-
-P-QPPBP
R-+-+RK-

11… f4 12. gxf4 h6 13. fxe5 dxe5 14. d4 Bh3 15. dxe5
Rad8 16. Qf4

[16. Qc2 Bxg2 17. Kxg2 Ng4 18. Rfd1 Rxf3 19. exf3

[19. Rxd8+ Nxd8 20. Kxf3 Qh3+ 21. Ke4 Nxf2+ 22. Kd5 Qe6+ 23.
Kd4 Nc6+ 24. Ke3]

19… Qxh2+ 20. Kf1 Ne3+]

16… Bxg2 17. Kxg2 Nd5 18. Qc1 Nf4+ 0-1

 

 

Darga-Herter 1968

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 f5 4. d4 e4 5.
Ng5

Black now plays more quietly:

5…Be7 6. Nh3 Bf6 7. e3 d6 8. Nf4 Nge7 9. g4 Ng6 10.
Nfd5 Bh4 11. Bg2 O-O 12. O-O Nce7 13. gxf5 Bxf5 14. Nf4 Nxf4 15.
exf4 d5 16. cxd5 Nxd5 17. Nxe4 Bxe4 18. Bxe4 Nxf4 19. Qg4 Qxd4 20.
Bf3

r+-+-rk+
ppp-+-pp
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-q-nQb
+-+-+B+-
PP-+-P-P
R-B-+RK-

20… h5 0-1

21. Qxh4 Ne2+]

 

 

Seirawan-Browne 1979

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 f5 4. d4 e4 5. Ng5 h6 6. Nh3
g5

r+bqkbnr
pppp+-+-
-+n+-+-p
+-+-+pp-
-+PPp+-+
+-N-+-+N
PP-+PPPP
R-BQKB+R

This is a noisier line!

7. f3 exf3 8. exf3 Bg7 9. d5 Qe7+ 10. Kd2 Nd4 11. Bd3
Kd8 12. Ng1 b5 13. Nge2 bxc4 14. Bxc4 Qc5 15. Kd3 Rb8

-rbk-+nr
p-pp+-b-
-+-+-+-p
+-qP+pp-
-+Bn-+-+
+-NK+P+-
PP-+N+PP
R-BQ+-+R

16. Be3 ?

16… Qxc4+ 17. Kxc4 Ba6+ 18. Nb5 Nxb5 0-1

[19. Qa4 Na3+ 20. Kc5 d6+ 21. Kc6 Ne7#]

[19. Nd4 Nxd4+ 20. Kc3 Ne2+ 21. Kd2 Rxb2+ 22. Ke1 Bc3+ 23.
Kf1

[23. Bd2 Nf4 24. Rg1 Nd3+ 25. Ke2 Rxd2+ 26. Qxd2 Bxd2 27.
Kxd2]

23… Nf4+ 24. Kg1 Rxg2#]

 

Reversed Closed
Sicilian

Grunberg-Kasparov
simul.1987

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3 f5 4. Bg2 Nf6 5.
d3

We have seen all this above. Now

5… g6

is a Closed Sicilian position

6. e4 Bg7 7. Nge2 O-O 8. O-O c6 9. h3 Be6 10. exf5 gxf5
11. Be3 Qe7 12. Qd2 Kh8 13. Rae1 Nbd7 14. f4 Rg8

r+-+-+rk
pp+nq-bp
-+ppbn-+
+-+-pp+-
-+P+-P-+
+-NPB-PP
PP-QN+B+
+-+-RRK-

Black’s position is fine.

15. Kh2 Qf7 16. Bf3 Rae8 17. b4 e4 18. dxe4 fxe4 19.
Bxe4 Bxh3 20. Kxh3 Nxe4 21. Qd3 Bxc3 22. Qxc3+ Nxc3
0-1

 

 


Hodgson-Short 1986

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. e3 d6 6.
Nge2

6… h5 7. h3 h4 8. g4 f5 9. gxf5 Bxf5 10. d4 exd4 11.
Nxd4 Nxd4 12. exd4 c6 13. Be3 Nf6 14. Qd2 Qd7

r+-+k+-r
pp+q+-b-
-+pp-np+
+-+-+b+-
-+PP-+-p
+-N-B-+P
PP-Q-PB+
R-+-K-+R

15. O-O-O Kf7 16. Bg5 b5 17. cxb5 cxb5 18. Bxa8 Rxa8 19.
Qe2 Rc8 20. a3 a5 21. f3 b4 22. Kd2 bxc3+ 23. bxc3 Qb7

-+r+-+-+
+q+-+kb-
-+-p-np+
p-+-+bB-
-+-P-+-p
P-P-+P+P
-+-KQ+-+
+-+R+-+R

0-1

 

 

Pierson-Calverley 1983

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. e3 d6 6.
Nge2

6… h5 7. d4 e4 8. a3 Nf6 9. O-O O-O 10. b4 Ne7 11. Bb2
g5 12. d5 Ng6 13. Na4 Qe7 14. Rc1 f4 15. Bxf6 Rxf6 16. Nd4 Ne5 17.
Bxe4 Bh3 18. Re1 fxg3 19. fxg3 Raf8 20. Qc2 Qf7 21. Qb1 Rf2 22. Ne6
Rg2+ 0-1

23. Kh1

[23. Bxg2 Qf2+ 24. Kh1 Qxg2#]

23… Qf2 24. Bxh7+]

 

 

|Psakhis
-Kasparov, 199|

One of the best example games I have on file for the Reversed
Closed Sicilian is this one

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

r+bqk+-r
ppp-+-bp
-+np-np+
+-+-pp+-
-+P+-+-+
+-NP+NP-
PP-+PPBP
R-BQ+RK-

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

-+rq-rk+
ppp-n-b-
-+-pbnpp
+P+-pp+-
P+P+-+-+
B-NP+NP-
-+-+PPBP
+R+Q+RK-

Black does not rush but secures the Q-side.

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

-+rq-rk+
p-p-n-b-
-p-pbn-p
+P+-+-p-
P+PP-p-+
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

-+-+-r-k
p-+-+-b-
-p-p-n-p
+P+-+npq
P+-P-pb+
B-NQ+NP-
-+-+-PBP
+-+-+RK-

The Black pieces hover like vultures

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

-B-+-+-k
p-+-+-b-
-p-+-r-p
+P+-Nn+-
P+-PQpp+
+-+-+-Pq
-+-+-PKP
+-+-+R+-

0-1

 

C Reti Opening and King’s Indian
Attack

rnbqkbnr
pppppppp
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+N+-
PPPPPPPP
RNBQKB+R

Again, White doesn’t want to rush into the centre without
preparation, and plays Nf3 first to stop you playing …e5.

 


C1 Playing solidly against 1. Nf3

David Norwood, who is a specialist in the King’s Indian Attack,
reckons that Black equalises easily in this line which:

“…offers excellent chances of equality. Black’s plan is
extremely logical – to limit the scope of the fianchetto bishop
with …d5 & …c6, then develops the B to g4 where it can
either exchange or retreat. I predict it will remain difficult for
KIA players to prove any advantage in this system.

1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 c6 3. Bg2 Bg4

rn-qkbnr
pp+-pppp
-+p+-+-+
+-+p+-+-
-+-+-+b+
+-+-+NP-
PPPPPPBP
RNBQK-+R

4. O-O

[4. d3 Nd7 5. O-O Ngf6 6. c4 dxc4 7. dxc4 e5

r+-qkb-r
pp+n+ppp
-+p+-n-+
+-+-p-+-
-+P+-+b+
+-+-+NP-
PP-+PPBP
RNBQ+RK-

8. Nc3 Be7 9. b3 O-O 10. Bb2 Re8 11. Qc2 Bf8 12. h3 Bh5 13.
Nh4 Nc5 14. Rad1 Qc7 15. g4 Bg6 16. Nxg6 hxg6 17. e3 a5

r+-+rbk+
+pq-+pp-
-+p+-np+
p-n-p-+-
-+P+-+P+
+PN-P-+P
PBQ+-PB+
+-+R+RK-

Todorcevic-Rodriguez, Salamanca 1990 …Drawn (47)]

4… Nd7 5. d3 Ngf6 6. Qe1

[6. Nbd2 e5 7. e4 Bd6 8. Re1 O-O 9. Nf1 Bh5 10. Ne3 Re8 11.
Nf5 Bf8 12. c3 dxe4 13. dxe4 Nc5

r+-qrbk+
pp+-+ppp
-+p+-n-+
+-n-pN+b
-+-+P+-+
+-P-+NP-
PP-+-PBP
R-BQR-K-

14. Qxd8 Raxd8 Fahrner-Luther, Graz 1991 …0-1]

6… e5

r+-qkb-r
pp+n+ppp
-+p+-n-+
+-+pp-+-
-+-+-+b+
+-+P+NP-
PPP+PPBP
RNB-QRK-

7. e4 dxe4 8. dxe4 Bc5 9. b4

[9. Nbd2 Qc7 10. Nc4 Be6 11. Qe2 b5 12. Ncd2

r+-+k+-r
p-qn+ppp
-+p+bn-+
+pb-p-+-
-+-+P+-+
+-+-+NP-
PPPNQPBP
R-B-+RK-

Dizdarevic-Huss, Swiss 1990 12… O-O = Norwood]

9… Bd6 10. Na3 Qe7 11. c3 b5 12. Nc2 a5 13. bxa5 O-O
14. c4 Be6 15. cxb5 cxb5 16. Nh4 Bc5 17. Nf5 Qd8 18. Qd2 Qxa5 19.
Qg5

r+-+-rk+
+-+n+ppp
-+-+bn-+
qpb-pNQ-
-+-+P+-+
+-+-+-P-
P+N+-PBP
R-B-+RK-

|Drawn: Vaganian-Dorfman, Moscow
199|

 

You may be interested in this excellent game, which features our
system with colours reversed.

Smyslov,V (2565) – Nunn,J (2565) [A48] (Tilburg 34/91),
1982

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bg5 Bg7 4. Nbd2 O-O

[4… c5 5. Bxf6 Bxf6 6. Ne4 Bxd4 7. Nxd4 cxd4 8. Qxd4 O-O
9. c4 Nc6 10. Qd2 d6 11. Nc3 += Smyslov-Ernst, London
1988]

5. e4 d6 6. c3 h6 7. Bh4

rnbq-rk+
ppp-ppb-
-+-p-npp
+-+-+-+-
-+-PP+-B
+-P-+N+-
PP-N-PPP
R-+QKB+R

Does driving the bishop back have any effect in this formation?
Yes – it does further weaken the kingside fortress.


7…c6 8.Bb5 Bd7 9. O-O a6 10. Bc4 e5 11. dxe5 dxe5 12.
Re1

Overprotection of e4 frees up the minor pieces for more useful
tasks.

12… Qe8

[12… b5 13. Bf1 followed by an eventual a2-a4 would put
strong pressure on the queenside.]

13. a4 Nh5 14. Nb3 g5 15. Bg3 Rd8 16. Nfd2

-+-rqrk+
+ppb+pb-
p+n+-+-p
+-+-p-pn
P+B+P+-+
+NP-+-B-
-P-N-PPP
R-+QR-K-

White’s pieces have been quckly transferred to the queenside.
Black’s pieces, especially the offside knight, cannot get there so
quickly.


|6… Nxg3
17. hxg3 Kh8 18. Qe2
Qe7 19. Nf1|

The exchange of the Black knight for the Bg3 has created new
opportunities on the kingside. Smyslov is the master of harmonic
play – his pieces are often ready to switch to new targets
quickly.

19… Qf6 20. Nc5 Bc8 21. Ne3 Ne7 22. a5
Qg6

Black has chosen to sue the Bc8 to defend the queenside, but the
heavy guns are all on the kingside, and White controls a bit more
of the center. But before foraging on the queenside, Smyslov
squashes the counterplay.

23. g4! b6?!

Black is paralyzed on the kingside, unable to transfer the
knight to f4 due to the placement of the queen at g6. But this
sacrifice of a queenside pawn leads to disaster. There is nothing
more rueful than a lost pawn formation. Black could resign without
remorse

24. Nf5! Nxf5

[24… bxc5 25. Nxe7 Qd6 26. Nxc8 Rxc8 27. Bxa6+/-
]

25. gxf5 Qc6 26. Nxa6 Bxa6 27. Bxa6 bxa5 28.
Rxa5

Now White has an extra pawn and better bishop. The rest is easy
for a player of Smyslov’s caliber.

28… Ra8 29. Rea1 Rfd8 30. Bc4 Rxa5 31. Rxa5 Kg8 32.
Ra6 Qd7 33. Bd5 Qe7 34. Qh5 Rd6 35. Rxd6 cxd6 36. b4
1-0

Resigns; a tale of two bishops…

 

C2 Playing actively against
1. Nf3

There is a slight problem here:

1. Nf3 f5

can be met by the awkward gambit

2. d3 Nf6 3. e4 fxe4 4. Ng5

So you may prefer to play into you line with

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. g3 e6.

The other way to play into the Dutch allows some
transpositions:

1. Nf3 e6

2. g3

[2. e4 d5 is a French Defence which is OK for
Black]

[2… c5 is a Sicilian: White can play the King’s Indian
Attack with 3. d3 or play it open with 3. d4 e.g. 3…cxd4 4. Nxd4
Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. a3 Be7 7. Be2 O-O 8. O-O d5 9. exd5
Nxd5]

[2. b3 Be7]

2… f5 3. Bg2 Nf6 4. O-O Be7

rnbqk+-r
ppppb-pp
-+-+pn-+
+-+-+p+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+NP-
PPPPPPBP
RNBQ+RK-

Both sides are quietly getting on with their own systems. The
trouble with meeting White’s flexible setup with the Dutch is that
Black may be denied the outpost on e4 and White can even try to
blow up the pawn structure by playing e2-e4.

5. d3

[5. b3 c5 6. Bb2 O-O 7. c4 Nc6 8. Nc3 e5 9. e3 d6 10. d4 e4
11. Ne1 Qe8 12. Nd5 Bd8 13. dxc5 dxc5

r+bbqrk+
pp+-+-pp
-+n+-n-+
+-pN+p+-
-+P+p+-+
+P+-P-P-
PB-+-PBP
R-+QNRK-

This is better for White]

5… O-O 6. Nbd2 d6 7. e4 fxe4 8. dxe4 e5 9. c3 Qe8 10.
Nh4 Nc6 11. Nc4 Qh5 12. Qxh5 Nxh5 13. Nf5 Bd8

r+bb-rk+
ppp-+-pp
-+np-+-+
+-+-pN+n
-+N+P+-+
+-P-+-P-
PP-+-PBP
R-B-+RK-

With about equal chances.

 

 

D Sokolsky opening
(Polish)

rnbqkbnr
pppppppp
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-P-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
P+PPPPPP
RNBQKBNR

This is an oddly effective line; White stops active play with
…c5 and prepares to bring the Bb2 onto the long diagonal.

 

D1 Playing solidly against
1. b4

I think the most solid system is

1. b4 e5 2. Bb2 Bxb4 3. Bxe5 Nf6

when I know of no way for White to secure the advantage.

White can try

1. b4 e5 2. a3

but this is fairly harmless:

2…d5 3. Bb2 f6

should be fine for Black

 

 

D2 Playing actively against
1. b4

Of course you can play

1. b4 f5

but the theory on this line is hardly explored.

White may play d3 at some point which may rob you of some of
your best ideas.

 

E Nimzo-Larsen
Opening

rnbqkbnr
pppppppp
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+P+-+-+-
P+PPPPPP
RNBQKBNR

This is a flexible line, aiming at first to post the Bc1 on b2,
pointing at the e5 point and beyond at the Black King’s-side.

The Bb2 needs watching but you should be OK in this opening.

 

E1 Playing solidly against
1. b3

1. b3 d5 2. Bb2 Nf6

is fine for Black

 

 

E2 Playing actively against
1. b3

Go for it…

1. b3 f5

…and Black should not be without play.

1. b3 f5 2. Bb2 Nf6 3. d3 d6 4. e4 e5 5. exf5 Bxf5 6. Ne2
Nc6 7. d4 Be7 8. Ng3 Bg6 9. dxe5 dxe5 10. Qxd8+ Rxd8 11. Bb5
O-O
-+-r-rk+
ppp-b-pp
-+n+-nb+
+B+-p-+-
-+-+-+-+
+P+-+-N-
PBP+-PPP
RN+-K-+R

Black has active play and won in 23 moves! —
KEENE]

 

 

F Various other
openings

This obviously can transpose to other openings, and it is
probably best to try to do just that.

 

F1. Benko’s Opening,
1.g3

rnbqkbnr
pppppppp
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-P-
PPPPPP-P
RNBQKBNR

1…d5

and

1…f5

both look playable. White may well transpose into lines
considered above.

 


F2. Bird’s opening, 1. f4

rnbqkbnr
pppppppp
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-P-+
+-+-+-+-
PPPPP+PP
RNBQKBNR

The obvious snag is, you can’t play the Dutch against this:

1. f4 f5 2. e4

is awkward.

But why not play the most awkward lines for White: the From
Gambit.

1. f4 e5

Now

2. fxe4 d6 3. exd6 Bxd6

gives you a development lead and free play for your pieces.
Instead:

2. e4

transposes into the King’s Gambit, which I think most Bird
players will do. See the booklet on Playing Black in e4
openings

 

F3. The Dunst, 1.
Nc3

rnbqkbnr
pppppppp
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-N-+-+-
PPPPPPPP
R-BQKBNR

A while ago I wouldn’t have bothered with this odd-looking
opening, but it has become a bit of a secret weapon among those in
the know. What to play against it depends on what else you play;
it’s probably the best of the unusual lines.

1…f5 walks into 2. e4.

1…c5 offers a Sicilian, and after 1…d5 2. e4 you can with
2…d5 offer a Caro-Kann or with 2…e6, a French. Perhaps 2…dxe4
3. Nxe4 and …c6 may appeal.

1…d5 2. e4 d4 3. Nce2

is a well-known sequence, after which

3…e5 4. Ng3 Be6

Else 5. Bc4 will follow. This looks like Black’s best idea to
me.

Example game in the
Dunst:

Ekebjaerg,Ove – Strand,Torger cr
Nielsen-mem, 1987

1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 d4 3. Nce2 e5 4. Ng3 Be6 5. Nf3 Nd7 6.
c3 c5 7. cxd4 cxd4 8. Be2 Bd6 9. O-O h5 10. d3

r+-qk+nr
pp+n+pp-
-+-bb+-+
+-+-p-+p
-+-pP+-+
+-+P+NN-
PP-+BPPP
R-BQ+RK-

This doesn’t look to me very promising for White, although White
did win.

 

 

 

F4. Grob’s opening, 1.
g4

rnbqkbnr
pppppppp
-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-+P+
+-+-+-+-
PPPPPP-P
RNBQKBNR

The idea of this odd-looking move is…

1. g4 d5 2. Bg2 Bxg4 3. c4!

…when the pin on the b7 point may be embarrassing.

The two best-known players of this line, Henri Grob and Claude
Bloodgood, agree that one of the most awkward lines for White
is

1. g4 e5

with the idea 2. Bg2 h5! when the pawn cannot advance to
g5.

Grob himself played this against 1. g4. So Bloodgood reckons
White’s best try is

2. d3

To be honest, many Grob players have no idea that this is a
known line, all they know about is the …Bxg4 variation. So they
may be out-tricked in their own opening!

 

Some sample lines in this rare opening:

Ott – Grob, Corr

1. g4 e5 2. Bg2 h5 3. gxh5 Rxh5 4. e3 Rh8 5. c4 f5 6.
Qc2 g6 7. Nc3 c6 8. Nge2 Nf6 9. d4 d6 =

 

Hug – Grob, Corr

1. g4 e5 2. Bg2 h5 3. gxh5 Rxh5 4. e3 Nf6 5. c4 c6 6.
Nc3 d5 7. cxd5 Rg5 8. Bf3 cxd5 9. Qa4+ Nc6 10. d3 Rg6 11. e4 d4 12.
Nd5 Be6 13. Qb5 Qd7 14. Bd2 Bxd5 15. exd5 Nb4 16. Qxd7+ Kxd7 17.
Bxb4 Bxb4+ 18. Kd1 Kd6 = [or 18… Bd6]

 

Grob – Aebi (corr) &
Analysis

1. g4 e5 2. d3! d5 3. Bg2

[3. g5 Be7 4. h4 h6 =+]

3… Bxg4 4. c4

Now this gambit is not as good for White as in the lines without
d3 and …e5.

4…Bb4+ 5. Nd2 c6 6. cxd5 Ne7

[6… cxd5 7. Qb3 Nc6 8. Bxd5 Qe7 9. h3 Bh5 dr]

7. dxc6 Nbxc6 8. a3 =

 

Grob – Stingelin+ Analysis,
1993

1. g4 e5 2. d3! d5 3. Bg2 c6 4. h3 Ne7 5. Nf3 Ng6 6. Nc3
f5 =/+

[6… h6 was the game: 7. e4 !]

If this sly system doesn’t appeal you might fancy the emerging
main line approach:

Basman – Keene, Benedictine,
1981

1. g4 d5 2. h3 e5 3. Bg2 c6 4. d4 e4 5. c4 Bd6 6. Nc3
Ne7 7. g5

Basman has also tried:

[7. Qb3 O-O 8. Bg5 f6 9. cxd5 cxd5 10. Nxd5 Be6 11. Nxe7+
Qxe7 12. d5 Bf7 13. Be3 Na6

r+-+-rk+
pp+-qbpp
n+-b-p-+
+-+P+-+-
-+-+p+P+
+Q+-B-+P
PP-+PPB+
R-+-K-NR

-+ Keene]

[7. Bg5 f6 8. Bd2 unclear, (Basman – Kudrin, Benedictine,
1981)]

7… Be6 8. h4 Nf5 9. Bh3 O-O 10. cxd5 cxd5 11.
Nxd5

rn-q-rk+
pp+-+ppp
-+-bb+-+
+-+N+nP-
-+-Pp+-P
+-+-+-+B
PP-+PP-+
R-BQK-NR

11… Ng3 12. Nf6+ gxf6 13. fxg3 Bxg3+ 14. Kf1 Nc6 15.
Be3 Nb4 16. Kg2 Nd5 17. Kxg3 Nxe3 18. Qd2 Qd6+ 19. Kf2 Qf4+ 20. Nf3
exf3

r+-+-rk+
pp+-+p+p
-+-+bp-+
+-+-+-P-
-+-P-q-P
+-+-np+B
PP-QPK-+
R-+-+-+R

0-1

21. Qxe3 Qxh4+ 22. Kxf3 Bd5+

 

 

Also ran: 1. e3, 1. a3, 1.
a4, 1. h4, 1. f3

I can’t imagine these giving you any trouble: You can certainly
play your usual Colle or Dutch, and various 1. e4 lines can be
played with colours reversed.

1. e3 Van T’Kruy’s Opening hopes for a reversed French. 1…d5
is OK for Black.

1. a3 has some idea of playing b2-b4; just 1…d5 and 2…c6 in
reply is a good start for playing fast or slow. You can also blow
up the Queen’s-side with …a5 if White does play b4.

1. a4 might tempt you to 1…e5 if that’s what you usually
play.

1. h4 e5 must be all right too.

1. f3 is a bit of a joker; 1…d5 or 1…e5 should give you an
easy game.

Index of Games

Pribyl – Penrose (Nice) 1974 [*]

Marshall,F – Tarrasch,S, Nuremberg, 1895 [*]

Ottaviani,W – Liying,P (Novi-14) [D52] Cambridge Springs: loose
Bg5, 1990 [*]

Buthali,D – Figueroa,C (Novi-14) [D52] cambridge springs: loose
Bg5, 1990 [*]

Borovikov,V – Shabanov,Y (Podolsk) [D52] Cambridge Springs:
Black grabs material, 1990 [*]

Duemer,K – Meyer,Frh (2.BLSW) [D52] cambridge springs: Q-side
attack, 1989
[*]

El Mezwaghi,H – Mubarak,A (Novi-12) [D52] cambridge springs:
Queen’s-side majority in EG, 1990 [*]

Michaelsen,N – Hort,V (FRG-ch) [D52] cambridge springs: break on
Q-side, 1989 [*]

Perez,A – Perera,M [D52] cambridge springs: chances with NN,
1989 [*]

Lengyel-Karpov, Moscow 1972 [*]

Tukmakov-Korchnoi Leningrad 1973 [*]

Arkell-Teichmann 1985 [*]

Burn – Teichmann (Hastings) [D46] 1895 [*]

Miralles,G – Granda Zuniga,J [D45] 1989 [*]

Rohde,M – Shabalov,A (8) [*]

[D45] Philadelphia, 1990
[*]

Hegeler,F – Wockenfuss,K [D46] 2BLN, 1989 [*]

Kraai,J – Donaldson,J (2) [D46] American, 1989 [*]

Karpov – Tal [D46] Moscow, 1973 [*]

Plachetka,T – Drtina,M (5) [D46] Trnava, 1989 [*]

Curtis-Teichmann 1985 [*]

Serebrjanik-Maximenko 1991 [*]

Kasparov – Short (10) [D35] WCh, 1994 [*]

Steinbacher,M – van der Sterren,P (5) [D36] Ostend, 1989 [*]

??-?? [D34] [*]

Davidovic,A – Smagin,S (4) [D36] It-open, Dortmund, 1989
[*]

Von Gleich,A – Ekstroem,R (1) [D36] Lugano, 1989 [*]

Yermolinsky – Shipman,W (3) [D36] MCC, 1989 [*]

Deze,A – Tadic,K (1) [D35] Novi, 1989 [*]

Paduch,A – Ghafour,Y (8) [D35] A.Kotov memorial, Singapore,
1990 [*]

Tisdall,J – Inkiov,V (5) [D36] Gausdal, 1990 [*]

Rabinovitch – Botvinnik (Ussr Ch’p, 1927) [*]

Steiner – Botvinnik, Groningen, 1946 [*]

Flohr – Botvinnik (10) Match, 1933 [*]

Yudovitch – Botvinnik, 1934 [*]

Martin – Troger [A94] 1995
[*]

Karayannis-Bellin 1993 [*]

Menadue – Pert 1995 [*]

Langeweg,K – Perez Garcia,H [A80] Wijk-B, 1986 [*]

Sparreboom,W – Bellin,R [A80] Guernsey op, 1988 [*]

Barczyczyn – Vasiukov,E [A80] Bled op, 1989 [*]

Ligterink,G (2470) – Van Heste,J (2290) [A80] NLD-ch, 1987 [*]

Maksimovic,S (2345) – Akhmilovskaya,E (2420) [A80] Sochi, 1987 [*]

Cazzaniga,W – Speck,H [A80] Mendrisio op, 1988 [*]

Kurajica [A13] Agincourt Defence (French-English), 1995 [*]

Hubner – Kasparov (1, Hamburg) [A21] 1985
[*]

Gonzalez-Rossolimo 1952. [*]

Korchnoi-German 1962. [*]

Zlotnikov-Minasian 1993 [*]

Hallerod-Hearst 1960 [*]

Miles-Chaves 1977 [*]

Bruno-Kurajica 1985 [*]

Darga-Herter 1968 [*]

Seirawan-Browne 1979 [*]

Grunberg-Kasparov simul.1987 [*]

Hodgson-Short 1986
[*]

Pierson-Calverley 1983 [*]

Psakhis – Kasparov, 1990 [*]

Smyslov,V (2565) – Nunn,J (2565) [A48] (Tilburg 34/91), 1982 [*]

Ekebjaerg,Ove – Strand,Torger cr Nielsen-mem, 1987 [*]

Ott – Grob, Corr [*]

Hug – Grob, Corr [*]

Grob – Aebi (corr) & Analysis [*]

Grob – Stingelin+ Analysis, 1993 [*]

Basman – Keene, Benedictine, 1981 [*]

Blunder-proofing your chess

Posted on by

Three quite shocking examples from junior chess.



[I will say I was most impressed by the group’s ability to find the
blunders almost instantly! It’s as though we have a special instinct
for such moves…]

There are three sorts of blunder, it seems to me, and we have seen examples of each:

A. you overlook your opponent’s threat (you are asleep)
B. you overlook your own threat (you are lazy)
C. you overlook your opponent’s reply to your threat (you are over-excited)

Some fairly shocking examples from the club championship of recent years… One of each type, again.

It is hard to know which is most common, and it may be that you
specialise in a particular type. Let us try to find out… The cure for
type B is the tactical awareness discussed with the group by Tim last
week, so see how you get on with these, which feature errors of types A
and C.

(see attached PDF, side 1)

Blunder-proofing your game

Three treatments may be recommended, each suited to curing you of a particular sort of blunder:

a. suspicious minds — look before you leap!
b. tactical awareness — practise doing puzzles — add speed to accuracy
c. hesitation — check it before you move it — finish your line of thought with the best move for your opponent

The first and last thing to do

…is check for your opponent’s threats.

First, when your opponent moves, look at everything the move does.
Then choose a move.

Lastly, before making your chosen move, check every forcing reply. If
you can, do the same for the position at the end of your analysis.

So, let’s try that again, from the top:

*[Turn over!]

When you don’t have time for all this…

What about when you are in time trouble, or playing in a rapidplay?
There may not be time to do a proper analysis, in which case you will
have to settle for a ‘good enough’ move. If you rehearse good thinking
habits when playing slowly, I hope you develop some intuition for when
you don’t have proper thinking time.

[There are also strategical blunders, overlooking what is going on positionally, which
are equivalent:

  • overlooking your opponent’s best plan
  • overlooking your best plan
  • overlooking your opponent’s best counter to your plan]

Blunder15.pdf

Middlegame gym

Posted on by

“Failing to plan, is like planning to fail.” ― Stephen McCranie

Test positions in PDF with comments about planning in general

Remember, this is more a guide of how to play positions where you have no idea what to do to start with; if you understand the opening systems you play better and better, that shouldn’t happen so often!

Suggested solutions

A French encounter

Posted on by

The Bogoljubow paradox

Posted on by

“When I am White I win because I am White, when I am Black I win
because I am Bogoljubow.” – Efim Bogoljubow.

I’m still thinking about this, so bear with me, and comments
invited…

I pounced on Nunn’s Chess Openings when it came out, and
found some things that I found puzzling.  Openings like the
Dutch Stonewall, which I had always thought of as being
fundamentally flawed, were being shown as equal, while
the Classical Dutch – which I thought was a superior approach – was coming out as +=.

Firstly, why did I think that the Dutch Stonewall was so
flawed?  Earlier in my life, I had devoured the Euwe/Kramer
books on The Middle Game.  Not unlike 1066 and
all that, I learned lots of Important Ideas like Isolated
Queen’s Pawns and Bad Bishops which were worth writing down in
Capital Letters.  If you played the Dutch Stonewall as Black,
you had a Bad Bishop and White could start in with a Queen’s Side
Attack, perhaps even a Minority Attack.  I also learned that
if you had only one Bishop, you placed your pawns on the Opposite
Colour to your Bishop, leaving its lines of action free. 

So, for example, in the Bogo-Indian, after …Bb4 and an exchange
of dark-squared Bishops, a very logical plan for Black was …d6
and …e5, challenging in the centre on the dark squares, and
releasing the light-squared Bishop on c8.

Imagine my confusion, when reading Nunn et al., to see that the
lines of the Bogo-Indian with …d6 and …e5 were generally given
as +=, while Black seemed to have better chances of equality with
Ulf Andersson’s  favourite …d7-d5, leaving the central
pawns on light squares, and obstructing our remaining Bishop.

I’m still thinking about this, but needing some sort of
explanation, I reached for these ideas:

a. After …e6-e5 and d4-d5, how strong is Black’s claim to have
a Good Bishop?  After all, where can it go?  In the game
Pedersen-Shkapenko (GM 2007), we reached this position:

We can see that the Bishop on each side can only go
backwards!  The fact that Black’s Bishop has a choice of
retreats does not seem very relevant to me!  This position
can be better understood by thinking about the rest of the pieces,
and it seems as though White’s space and centralised Knights offer
a plus.  The Knight on d3 looks especially well-placed,
supporting pawn breaks on both sides of the board.  White can
look forward to arranging c5 at leisure.

b. When you play …d7-d5.  White has a pawn on c4. 
After an exchange of pawns, new career prospects appear for the
Bc8.  White can stop this only by c4-c5, but then Black has
ideas of …b6 and/or …e5, both of which attack White’s pawns
and release the Bc8. 

c. In Queen’s Pawn Openings, after …e6-e5 and d4-d5, White has
a natural plan of pushing forward on the Queen’s-side, with moves
like b4 and c5.  …d7-d5 concedes less space on the
Queen’s-side, and importantly, doesn’t hand White a simple plan of
campaign.  That feels quite a good explanation to me.

d. One last consideration: Black often has a small lead in
development, which is used better by playing …d5 quickly than
…d6 and …e5 slowly.  In the Nimzo-Indian, White is often
embarrassed by Black’s quick …d7-d5 break, even though in the
long run White will want to open up the position for the two
Bishops.  Black can castle and get in …d5 before White has
touched any of the King’s-side pieces.  In the Bogo-Indian,
White might not have the Bishop pair, but the time factor could
still be relevant.  I’m not sure how important this idea is
in every line; we’d probably need to look at some variations.

Overlapping explanations might help us to understand the Dutch
Stonewall.  There Black has some claim to be the side with
more space, and White’s allegedly Good Bishop on g2 seems to have
just as poor career prospects as Black’s on c8.  So again,
simply interpreting the position through the most obvious
difference – the effect of the pawn structure on one pair of
pieces – was Too Simple.  That is very definitely a Bad
Thing.

“The Euwe books are very good for beginners.  But after a
while I began to think that everything Euwe wrote was a lie!” —
Bent Larsen.

To be honest, if the Bogo-Indian ever turns up on my board, I’ll
still be strongly drawn to …d6 and …e5.  As much as it
hands White a plan, it also gives a position where I think I also
know what I’m supposed to be doing.  After …d5, even if the
position is more equal, I’d feel more at a loss as to what to do!

Endgame study

Posted on by

Two things to think about today: a study by Dierdle and a game by Capa. We did each as an exercise, trying to work out the best moves for each side.



Making it up as you go along

Posted on by

“I thought I would try something different.”

This doesn’t usually go well! Here are two examples:


After 1.e4, I expect Tomas has a fair idea about what to do and what
sort of position he is aiming for. After 1.d4, is that really still
true? It is definitely still true for Tomas’ opponent, who I expect
plays those first few moves in every game. Black didn’t really have to
think until move 7, when White was already losing at least a pawn.

The moves White played weren’t daft, but he didn’t seem to know what he
was doing or what the usual tricks are in those sorts of positions. The game
was a fairly easy win for Black and White didn’t really have any chances
at all to draw, let alone win.

Same thing in James’ game last time. I know I have given James a book
which says, play 1…e6 and 2…d5. James chose something else, not
anything daft, because he’s not daft, but he didn’t know what to do. He
ended up failing in all three of the very basic opening goals: get your
pieces out, get at least a stake in the centre, and get castled.

The Benoni is actually a reasonable defence to 1.d4, but Black didn’t
know that, and didn’t know what the right plans are in those sorts of
positions. And by the look of it, White had seen it all before, and knew
exactly what to do about it: put all the pieces in the middle and blast
through with e4-e5.

So, no more of this, please! Pick an opening, learn it, and stick to
it!

When you sit down to play, you really must have four systems in your head:
1. what to play as White as your main opening system
2. what to do if Black dodges
3. what to play as Black against 1.e4
4. what to play as Black against 1.d4

I think I’ve given you all a booklet with enough to get started on all
four systems (different systems for each of you). Please read! I’d
hate for it to feel like homework, but I also hate watching you suffer
in the opening against experienced players.

Now, you may always find an opponent who knows more about the opening
than you do. That doesn’t mean the best thing to do about it is to play
something different than usual, which you don’t know anything about!
This is especially true if you are playing an experienced player. They
may have been playing chess long enough to have played, or played
against, almost every opening there is, and will know much more about
what to do.

What you have to do is be an expert in your opening, so that even if you
do get a surprise, you have an idea about what sorts of things there are
to do for your side.

If you want to try something different:
1. Pick something different from a list of known systems
2. Read a bit about it
3. Try it out in friendly games first to get the hang of it
4. Then you can spring it on an opponent in a match!

What’s the point of learning opening theory?

Posted on by

A four-board match played away at Exmouth one Saturday:

The top board players each made a mistake on move 5: 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 f5 4.Nc3 Nf6 now 5.e3(?) was possibly inaccurate, allowing 5…d5! (see Kosten’s book) but Black didn’t play it, preferring 5…Be7.

Board 2, they both scampered along a main line of the French Tarrasch: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ne2 cxd4 8.cxd4 Qb6 9.Nf3 f6 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.0-0 Bd6 This is the tabiya, where the real first choice lies for White: 12.Nc3 0-0 13.Be3 Bd7 14.Re1 Be8. Now here all the books give this position as equal; although it is unbalanced I don’t know why White wants to play this line. We than had 15.Ng5 (a very important move) and then 15…Bh5? which was the first deviation from theory… White can now get an instant plus with 16.Bxh7+! e.g. 16…Nxh7 17.Qxh5 Nxg5 18.Qxg5 Nxd4? 19.Nxd5! but it was not refuted by White’s chosen move, 16.Qb1?! …

Board three was a bit less theoretical, although it has been played before: 1.Nf3 g6 2.e4 c5 3.Bc4 Bg7 4.0-0 e6 5.c3 Ne7 6.d4 cxd4 7.cxd4 d5 8.exd5 after which Black surely should not have played 8…exd5(?) but 8…Nxd5, when there is some sort of plan against the IQP instead of a ‘normal’ White small plus with no prospects for Black.

And Board 4 had the unlikely start 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.h3…

So, opening preparation can be a complete waste of time!

“For example, I spent a couple of years studying all the possible transpositions in the Noteboom, but then guess what? Almost nobody gave me a chance to play it, preferring an early e2-e3 and the Anti-Meran…” Ruslan SCHERBAKOV

The Petroff Defence for Beginners

Posted on by

The Petroff Defence for beginners

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

An Exeter Junior Chess Club booklet

Edition 2.,

May, 11

Bibliography:

Karpov,
The Open Game in Action

Kasparov/Keene,
Batsford Chess Openings

Levy/Keene,
An Opening Repertoire for the Attacking Club Player

walker,
Chess Openings for Juniors

Various magazines and other books

　

Introduction 3

a. Symmetry in chess 3

b. The isolated Queen’s pawn 4

A. The Classical Variation, 3. Nxe5 5

3… d6 5

1. An alternative on move 4 for White: 4. Nxf7, The Cochrane Gambit
5

2. Main line with 4. Nf3 6

1.1 An alternative on move 5 for White: 5. Qe2, Lasker Variation 6

1.2 The main line with 5. d4 7

1.2 (a) 6…Bd6 Marshall Gambit 7

1.2 (b) 6…Be7 Main Line 8

1.2 (b1) Main line with 8. c4 8

(b1-i) 8… Bg4 9

(b1-ii) 8… Nb4 9

(b1-iii) 8… Nf6 10

1.2 (b2) Main line with 8. Re1 11

(b2-i) 8… Bf5 11

(b2-ii) 8…Bg4 12

(1) Modestly, 9. c3 12

(2) Ambitiously, 9. c4 13

B. The Steinitz Variation, 3. d4 14

(a) 3…exd4 14

(b) 3…Nxe4 15

(b1) 4. dxe5 15

(b2) 4. Bd3 15

(b2-i) 5…Nd7 15

(b2-ii) 5…Bd6 16

C. White tries to get into the Four Knight’s Game, 3. Nc3 17

D. The Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit, 3. Bc4 18

Example games 19

Lasker – Pillsbury, St. Petersburg, 1895 19

Kupreichik – Mikhailchishin, Kujbyshev, 1986 20

Dolmatov – Makarichev, Palma, 1989 21

Introduction

The Petroff is a quiet success story in chess – an old and often
forgetten variation which can give Black a safe way of working for
equal chances in an open game, while avoiding White’s favourite lines.
This booklet tries to give an overview of the Petroff from both sides.
It has a reputation for being “dull and a draw”, but can offer exciting
attacking possibilities for either side. There are a couple of general
themes I’d like to deal with immediately: symmetry, and the isolated
Queen’s pawn.

a. Symmetry in chess

Symmetry usually means equality, and likelihood of a draw – no good
if you are trying to win. The symmetrical Petroff has reputation for
drawishness, but that is not really justified. Look at the Illustrative
Games if you still think the Petroff is dull! And what is drawn at
Grandmaster level can still have a lot of meat left in it for amateur
players (like the Colle system).

+-----------------+
|rhb1kgn4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIBHR|
+-----------------+

For example, after 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 (the Exchange
Variation of the French Defence), we have a symmetrical pawn formation
with the likelihood of exchanges of the major pieces down the e-file.
In fact, Black wins lots of games in this line, perhaps because it is a
line chosen by weak White players seeking a draw against strong Black
players. (Perhaps the best way to play for a draw is to go for a win!)

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

This line of the Petroff (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3
Nxe4 5. d5 d5) has perhaps the worst reputation for drawishness, but
let’s have a look. Black has an aggressive Knight on e4 – it even looks
as if Black is a move ahead. White is not necessarily trying to draw in
this variation, and it is White to move. White will try to undermine
the Ne4 with moves like Bd3, Re1 and c4; Black can try to castle
Queen’s-side and belt down the other wing. All this can make for
exciting and tense struggles in an open game, which might be a lot
better than suffering White’s favourite line of the Ruy Lopez.

b. The isolated Queen’s pawn

Several lines of the Petroff can lead to an isolated Queen’s pawn
(IQP) position, if White plays to undermine the Black Knight on e4 with
c4, and Black later plays …dxc4. White will have the last remaining
central pawn on d4, a situation which is known from many other
openings. For example:

The isolated Queen’s pawn in the Semi-Tarrasch Defence to the
Queen’s Gambit

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+ph.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+P).+.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P).+P)P)|
|$.GQIB+R|
+-----------------+

4… c5 5. cxd5 Nxd5 6. e3 Nc6 7. Bd3 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. a3 cxd4 10.

exd4 Bf6

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p+.+p0p|
|.+n+pg.+|
|+.+n+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|).HB+N+.|
|.).+.)P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

The isolated Queen’s pawn in the Caro-Kann Defence, Panov-Botvinnik
Attack

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kgn4|
|0p+.0p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+P).+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQIBHR|
+-----------------+

4… Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Be7 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Bd3 Nc6 9. O-O O-O 10.
a3

Bf6

Exactly the same!

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p+.+p0p|
|.+n+pg.+|
|+.+n+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|).HB+N+.|
|.).+.)P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

And in the Petroff:

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d5 d5 6. Bd3 Be7 7.
O-O Nc6 8. c4 Nf6
9. Nc3 dxc4 10. Bxc4 O-O 11. Nc3 Nd6 12. Bb3

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+.h.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.h.).+.+|
|+BH.+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

So the IQP is important to know about, although in the Petroff
Black doesn’t have the Bc8 stuck behind the e6 pawn. White’s ideas will
still be the same: develop quickly, use the extra space to dodge about,
avoid exchanges (to keep Black cramped), play Ne5, look for a chance to
start a King’s-side attack using the light-squared bishop, maybe throw
in Rf1-e1-e3-h3.

So, let’s have a look at some variations.

A. The Classical Variation, 3. Nxe5

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.H.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Black must now play 3…d6. Why not 3… Nxe4? White answers 4. Qe2!

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.H.+.|
|.+.+n+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P)Q)P)|
|$NG.IB+R|
+-----------------+

Now 4… Qe7…

[Not 4… Nf6?? 5. Nc6+!

Variation

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+N+.h.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P)Q)P)|
|$NG.IB+R|
+-----------------+


winning the Q]

…and now 5. Qxe4 d6 6. f4 dxe5 7. fxe5 wins a pawn.

So, from the first diagram in the column:

3… d6

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.0.h.+|
|+.+.H.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now, White almost always plays the main line with 4. Nf3, but there
are two alternatives: 4. Nxf7, the Cochrane Gambit, and 4. Nc4. I have
never seen this last move played, and I don’t think it is dangerous,
but it does deny Black the natural …Bg4 pin. BCO recommends 4. Nc4
Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Ne3 Qf6 and 7…Be6 with an early …O-O-O in mind.

So that leaves us with the Cochrane Gambit to examine before we go
down the main line.

1. An alternative on move 4 for White: 4. Nxf7, The Cochrane Gambit

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+N0p|
|.+.0.h.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Looks crazy? Looks promising? Your chess personality may make you
feel confident as White or Black in this position, but either way, you
must know about it.

4… Kxf7 5. d4

Black has tried:

[5… Nxe4? 6. Qh5+ g6 7. Qd5+ Be6 8. Qxe4]

[5… d5?! 6. e5 Ne8 7. Bd3 g6 8. h4]

So Black should prefer the safer:

5…g6 6. Nc3

+-----------------+
|rhb1.g.4|
|0p0.+k+p|
|.+.0.hp+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.)P+.+|
|+.H.+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.GQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now BCO recommends the odd-looking:

6… Qe8

Other tries seem inadequate, e.g.

6… Bg7 7. Bc4+ Be6 8. Bxe6+ Kxe6 9. f4 Kf7 10. e5 Ne8

[or 10… Re8 11. O-O Nc6 12. exf6 Qxf6 13. Nb5 Re7 14. c3
o’neill-solomon 1985]

11. Qf3 c6 12. Ne4+-

+-----------------+
|rh.1n+.4|
|0p+.+kgp|
|.+p0.+p+|
|+.+.).+.|
|.+.)N).+|
|+.+.+Q+.|
|P)P+.+P)|
|$.G.I.+R|
+-----------------+

… with better chances for White (Makropoulos-Toth 1981).

　

2. Main line with 4. Nf3

Black should take the chance to recover the pawn with

4… Nxe4.

white has a choice now, between 5.Qe2, the Lasker Variation, leading
to an early endgame, or 5. d4, the main line.

1.1 An alternative on move 5 for White: 5. Qe2, Lasker Variation

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.0.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+n+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P)Q)P)|
|$NG.IB+R|
+-----------------+

This pin is not dangerous here with the White Knight on f3, just
awkward for the moment.

5… Qe7 6. d3 Nf6 7. Bg5 Nbd7 8. Nc3 Qxe2+ 9. Bxe2 Be7=

+-----------------+
|r+b+k+.4|
|0p0ngp0p|
|.+.0.h.+|
|+.+.+.G.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.HP+N+.|
|P)P+B)P)|
|$.+.I.+R|
+-----------------+

White cannot claim any advantage in this endgame, although Black
still needs to get fully developed. This variation is why the Petroff
is no good when you have to win as Black against a player who knows
this line.

　

1.2 The main line with 5. d4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.0.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now Black can get an equal stake in the centre with:

5… d5

And White brings the Bf1 to its best square, so the King can castle.

6. Bd3

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

Like White, Black should plan to get the K off the open e-file as
soon as possible, and Black has a choice of two squares for the Bf8:

(a) 6…Bd6, a move of Frank Marshall – which looks good but is
perhaps trying a bit too hard – or the safe (b) 6…Be7, sealing the
e-file.

1.2 (a) 6…Bd6 Marshall Gambit

+-----------------+
|rhb1k+.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.g.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

Let us follow the play after the natural moves:

7. O-O O-O 8. c4 Bg4!?

This is Marshall’s idea.

9. cxd5 f5 10. Re1?

One natural move too many.

+-----------------+
|rh.1.4k+|
|0p0.+.0p|
|.+.g.+.+|
|+.+P+p+.|
|.+.)n+b+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+


10… Bxh2+ 11. Kxh2 Nxf2 12. Qc2 Nxd3 13. Qxd3 Bxf3

winning, because if Qxf3, then …Qh4+ will pick up the rook on e1.
Instead of falling for this trap White should play:

　

10. Nc3 Nd7 11. h3 Bh5 12. Nxe4 fxe4 13. Bxe4 Nf6 14. Bf5 +-

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p0.+.0p|
|.+.g.h.+|
|+.+P+B+b|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.+.+N+P|
|P).+.)P+|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

…with advantage, as in the game Alexander- Mattinson from 1938.

So the rather boring truth about this line seems to be that back on
move eight Black should play instead

8… c6

when theory knows of

9. Nc3 Nxc3 10. bxc3 Bg4 11. cxd5 cxd5 12. Rb1 Nd7 13. h3 +=

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p+n+p0p|
|.+.g.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.).+b+|
|+.)B+N+P|
|P+.+.)P+|
|+RGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

Now, this position is solid but offers so few active possibilities
for Black that we should prefer as Black 6…Be7.

　

1.2 (b) 6…Be7 Main Line

+-----------------+
|rhb1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

And now play often goes:

7. O-O Nc6

…when White has a choice:

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

Hit at the centre with 8.c4 (b1), or develop with 8.Re1 (b2). (White
can also play 8.Re1 and 9.c4, but this allows 8…Bg4.)

1.2 (b1) Main line with 8. c4

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+P)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

What are the alternatives here? Black does not have time for (b1-i)
8…Bg4. The position of the knight is now so wobbly that Black should
move it – both

(b1-ii) 8…Nb4, and

(b1-iii) 8…Nf6 have been tried.

(b1-i) 8… Bg4

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+P)n+b+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

Like I said, Black really doesn’t have time for this.

9. cxd5 Qxd5 10. Nc3 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Bxf3 12. Qxf3 Qxf3 13.
gxf3

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.)B+P+.|
|P+.+.).)|
|$.G.+RI.|
+-----------------+

The two bishops and strong centre give White the advantage in this

ending; White has natural ideas of Rb1 and Re1/Be3 which are
difficult

to meet.

(b1-ii) 8… Nb4

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.hP)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

Now White usually preserves the bishop with:

9. Be2


[less promising seems
9. cxd5 Nxd3 10. Qxd3 Qxd5 11. Re1 Bf5 12. Ne5 g6=
Belyavsky-Smyslov 1986
]

　

After 9.Be2 Black has tried

(1) 9…Be6

(2) 9…O-O

(3) 9…dxc4

(1) 9… Be6

A line quoted by Karpov.

10. c5 Nc6 11. Qa4 a5 12. Ne5+=

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|+p0.gp0p|
|.+n+b+.+|
|0.)pH.+.|
|Q+.)n+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P).+B)P)|
|$NG.+RI.|
+-----------------+

With an advantage for White.

(2) 9… O-O

10. Nc3 Be6

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+.+b+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.hP)n+.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P).+B)P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

The Grandmasters are still having a think about this one. It’s as
difficult for White to get an advantage as it is for Black to equalise!

BCO quotes games with 11. Be3, 11. a3, and 11. Nxe4!?. Having just
seen the Karpov line above, you might even fancy 11. c5!?

　

(3) 9… dxc4

This surrender of the centre doesn’t seem to work out too well for
Black.

10. Bxc4 O-O 11. Nc3 Nd6

12. Bb3+=

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+.h.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.h.).+.+|
|+BH.+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

…as in a couple of games from 1985, seems to leave White with a
plus in this IQP position. White will plan to complete development, and
then play Ne5 with hopes of an attack.


(b1-iii) 8… Nf6

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.h.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+P).+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

This is a safe and simple move. Play may continue:

9. Nc3 O-O 10. h3 dxc4

11. Bxc4 Na5 12. Bd3 Be6

13. Re1 Nc6 +=

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+bh.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.HB+N+P|
|P).+.)P+|
|$.GQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

White is held to have a slight advantage in this well-explored
position due to the extra central space, although in the ending the
d-pawn may become exposed.

1.2 (b2) Main line with 8. Re1

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

Black has a choice of squares for the last minor piece:

(b2-i) 8…Bf5

(b2-ii) 8…Bg4.

(b2-i) 8… Bf5

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+b+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

Karpov has shown that this is inaccurate.

9. c4 Nb4 10. Bf1

[not 10…dxc4 11. Nc3 +- with clear advantage: Karpov-Portisch]

10… O-O 11. a3 Nc6 12. cxd5 Qxd5 13. Nc3 Nxc3 14. bxc3
Bg6+=

+-----------------+
|r+.+.4k+|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+b+|
|+.+q+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|).).+N+.|
|.+.+.)P)|
|$.GQ$BI.|
+-----------------+

…with a small advantage for White: Karpov-Portisch 1982. Karpov is
rather behind in development at the moment but he is threatening to
unravel with c4, dominating the centre.

(b2-ii) 8…Bg4

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+b+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

This very well-known position has a reputation for drawishness
(which is not really true at amateur level). White can play modestly
(1) 9. c3, or ambitiously (2) 9. c4.

(1) Modestly, 9. c3

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.)n+b+|
|+.)B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

This rather modest move can lead to an interesting gambit which
Black should not be afraid to play

9 … f5 10. Qb3 O-O 11. Nbd2

(See Lasker-Pillsbury below for 11.Bf4.)

11…Kh8 12. Qxb7 Rf6 13. Qb3 Rg6=

+-----------------+
|r+.1.+.i|
|0.0.g.0p|
|.+n+.+r+|
|+.+p+p+.|
|.+.)n+b+|
|+Q)B+N+.|
|P).H.)P)|
|$.G.$.I.|
+-----------------+


　

(2) Ambitiously, 9. c4

Black’s knight is again too wobbly in the centre.

9… Nf6 10. cxd5

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p0.gp0p|
|.+n+.h.+|
|+.+P+.+.|
|.+.).+b+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+


10… Bxf3

[10… Nxd5 is also known: 11. Nc3 O-O 12. h3 Be6 13. a3 Nxc3
14. bxc3 Bf6 15. Bf4 g6 16. Be4 Na5 17. Ne5 c6 18. Qf3+=

Variation

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p+.+p+p|
|.+p+bgp+|
|h.+.H.+.|
|.+.)BG.+|
|).).+Q+P|
|.+.+.)P+|
|$.+.$.I.|
+-----------------+


After this long sequence, White has a small advantage which will
be long-lasting: Tseshkovsky-Barua 1986]

11. Qxf3 Qxd5 12. Qh3 Qxd4 13. Nc3 Rd8 14. Bf5 h5 15. Qg3
Kf8 16. Be3 Qb4 17. a3 Qa5 18. Qf3 g6 19. Bc2 h4

+-----------------+
|.+.4.i.4|
|0p0.gp+.|
|.+n+.hp+|
|1.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.+.0|
|).H.GQ+.|
|.)B+.)P)|
|$.+.$.I.|
+-----------------+

Another long variation, rather a messy one this time, which BCO
assesses as unclear. I prefer White here: Velimirovic-Kurajica 1984]

　

B. The Steinitz Variation, 3. d4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.)P+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

This is the main alternative to 3. Nxe4 and in the late 70s was
thought to give White good chances of advantage. That was because
everybody then played (a) 3..exd4. More recently Black has been
equalising with (b) 3…Nxe4.

(a) 3…exd4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.0P+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now White must try

4. e5 Ne4 5. Qxd4 +=

It has been thought for a long while that White has the edge here.

5… d5 6. exd6 Nxd6 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. Qf4 g6

　

[or 8… Bf5 when BCO gives 9. Bb5 Qe7+ 10. Be3 Nxb5 11. Nxb5
Qb4+ 12. Qxb4 Bxb4+ 13. c3 Bd6 14. Nxd6+ cxd6 15. O-O-O O-O-O 16. Nd4
Be6 17. b3 a6 18. Ne2+=

Variation

+-----------------+
|.+k4.+.4|
|+p+.+p0p|
|p+n0b+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+P).G.+.|
|P+.+N)P)|
|+.IR+.+R|
+-----------------+


when Black’s weak d-pawn gives White the better endgame
(Gurgenidze-Beim, 1982) ]

Natural moves to follow are:

9. Bd3 Bg7 10. O-O O-O+=

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p0.+pgp|
|.+nh.+p+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.!.+|
|+.HB+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.G.+RI.|
+-----------------+

All the central pawns have disappeared, but White is a little better
placed (Short-Murei 1982-3)

　

(b) 3…Nxe4

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now White usually tries 4. Bd3, but we ought to have a quick look at
4.dxe5 before accepting this as best.

(b1) 4. dxe5

The game may now go:

4…d5 5. Nbd2 Nxd2 6. Bxd2 Be7 7. Bf4 c5 8. c3 Nc6 9. Bd3
Be6=

+-----------------+
|r+.1k+.4|
|0p+.gp0p|
|.+n+b+.+|
|+.0p).+.|
|.+.+.G.+|
|+.)B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$.+QI.+R|
+-----------------+

This position is about equal (Short-Seirawan 1986).

(b2) 4. Bd3

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

This is probably the best move here as on move 6 of the Classical
Variation.

4… d5 5. Nxe5

This variation is both like, and unlike, the Classical. Black’s main
tries are (b2-i) 5…Nd7 and (b2-ii) 5…Bd6, although 5…Be7 and even
other moves have been played.

(b2-i) 5…Nd7

+-----------------+
|r+b1kg.4|
|0p0n+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+pH.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

White has tried all sorts of moves here:

(1) The cheeky 6. Nxf7

(2) The safe 6. Nxd7

(3) The logical 6. Qe2

I’ll just give one quick example of each.

(1) Cheeky

6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qh5+ Ke7 8. Qxd5 Ndf6 9. Qb3 Be6 10. Qxb7
Bd5 11. Qa6 Kf7

+-----------------+
|r+.1.g.4|
|0.0.+k0p|
|Q+.+.h.+|
|+.+b+.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NG.I.+R|
+-----------------+

Nenashev-Baikov 1985: “unclear” says BCO!

(2) Safe

6. Nxd7 Bxd7 7. O-O Qh4 8. c4 O-O-O 9. c5 g5 10. Nc3 Bg7 11.
Ne2 f5 12. f3 Rhf8 13. a4 Rde8°

+-----------------+
|.+k+r4.+|
|0p0b+.gp|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.)p+p0.|
|P+.)n+.1|
|+.+B+P+.|
|.).+N+P)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

Again, “unclear” says BCO (Sveshnikov-Makarichev, 1987). It does
show how Black can play for a win if required.

　

(3) Logical

6. Qe2 Nxe5 7. Bxe4 dxe4 8. Qxe4 Be6 9. Qxe5 Qd7 10. O-O
O-O-O 11. Be3 Bb4 12. Nc3 f6 13. Qg3 Bxc3 14. bxc3 h5 15. h4 g5 16. f3
Rdg8-+

+-----------------+
|.+k+.+r4|
|0p0q+.+.|
|.+.+b0.+|
|+.+.+.0p|
|.+.).+.)|
|+.).GP!.|
|P+P+.+P+|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

Not at all unclear: Black won in the famous upset of Karpov-Larsen,
1980

(b2-ii) 5…Bd6

+-----------------+
|rhb1k+.4|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.g.+.+|
|+.+pH.+.|
|.+.)n+.+|
|+.+B+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

The balance looks a little tense, but Black seems to be able to
hold.

6. O-O O-O 7. c4 Bxe5 8. dxe5 Nc6

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p).+.|
|.+P+n+.+|
|+.+B+.+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$NGQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

This position offers equal chances.

　

C. White tries to get into the Four Knight’s Game, 3. Nc3

+-----------------+
|rhb1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$.GQIB+R|
+-----------------+

Now, after 3… Nc6 we get into those genuinely dull, drawish
variations of the Four Knights Game. I don’t care if Short and Nunn
have played it, it’s a poor line for juniors (in my opinion). It tends
to be stodgy and blocked, you probably won’t enjoy it and it doesn’t
give you the sort of training in open games that you need.

Thankfully Janowski found that Black can play

3… Bb4

+-----------------+
|rhb1k+.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.g.+P+.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$.GQIB+R|
+-----------------+

BCO now gives

4. Nxe5 O-O 5. Be2 Re8 6. Nd3 Bxc3 7. dxc3 Nxe4 =

+-----------------+
|rhb1r+k+|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+n+.+|
|+.)N+.+.|
|P)P+B)P)|
|$.GQI.+R|
+-----------------+

…with equal chances in a more open game. White’s two bishops don’t
frighten me.

　

D. The Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit, 3. Bc4

Now Black can steer for the equally promising lines of the Two
Knights Defence with 3…Nc6, but to look at that properly will take
another booklet.

Two Knight’s Defence

+-----------------+
|r+b1kg.4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+n+.h.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+B+P+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

Black has no real reason to avoid:

3…Nxe4

white can try other moves, but the usual try is

4. Nc3 Nxc3 5. dxc3 Be7

+-----------------+
|rhb1k+.4|
|0p0pgp0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+B+.+.+|
|+.).+N+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.GQI.+R|
+-----------------+

Black has no weaknesses, and White will find it difficult to get
through. Black will want to get the two bishops working, but must be
careful to keep lines
closed
 until development is complete. White has tried various plans in
this position but they are all pretty unconvincing.

　

Example games

Lasker – Pillsbury, St. Petersburg, 1895

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3
Be7 7. O-O Nc6 8. Re1 Bg4 9. c3 f5 10. Qb3 O-O 11. Bf4

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|0p0.g.0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+p+.|
|.+.)nGb+|
|+Q)B+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$N+.$.I.|
+-----------------+

White allows the King’s-side to be weakened.

11… Bxf3 12. gxf3 Ng5 13. Kg2 Qd7 14. Qc2 Ne6 15. Bc1 Bd6
16. Nd2 Rae8 17. Nf1

+-----------------+
|.+.+r4k+|
|0p0q+.0p|
|.+ngn+.+|
|+.+p+p+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.)B+P+.|
|P)Q+.)K)|
|$.G.$N+.|
+-----------------+

Black’s pieces are much better placed than White’s. If White was
hoping to tempt Black into an unsound attack, he has only tempted
Pillsbury into a sound one.

17… Nexd4 18. Qd1 Rxe1 19. Qxe1

+-----------------+
|.+.+.4k+|
|0p0q+.0p|
|.+ng.+.+|
|+.+p+p+.|
|.+.h.+.+|
|+.)B+P+.|
|P).+.)K)|
|$.G.!N+.|
+-----------------+

Black now starts a king hunt, sacrificing a piece for a couple of
pawns.

19… Nxf3 20. Kxf3 f4 21. Qd1 Ne5+ 22. Ke2 Qg4+ 23. Kd2
Qxd1+ 24. Kxd1 Nxd3

+-----------------+
|.+.+.4k+|
|0p0.+.0p|
|.+.g.+.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.+.+.0.+|
|+.)n+.+.|
|P).+.).)|
|$.GK+N+.|
+-----------------+

Black has recovered his piece, and still has his pawns. White is
lost.

25. Ke2 Ne5 26. f3 Re8 27. b3 Ng4+ 28. Kd2 Ne3 29. Bb2 Ng2
30. h3 Bc5 31. Nh2 Bf2 32. c4 dxc4 33. bxc4 h5 0-1

+-----------------+
|.+.+r+k+|
|0p0.+.0.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+p|
|.+P+.0.+|
|+.+.+P+P|
|PG.I.gnH|
|$.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

If anything, White’s position has gone from bad to worse.

Kupreichik – Mikhailchishin, Kujbyshev, 1986

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. c4!? Nc6 6.
d4?!

[Mikhailchishin gives 6. Be2 d5 7. Nc3 Be6]

6… d5 7. Nc3 Bb4 8. Qc2 Qe7 9. Be3 Bf5

Black has the advantage: White cannot easily complete development
and his poor Queen is embarrassed.

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|0p0.1p0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+.+p+b+.|
|.gP)n+.+|
|+.H.GN+.|
|P)Q+.)P)|
|$.+.IB+R|
+-----------------+


10. Qc1

[10. Bd3?! dxc4 11. Bxc4 Ng3-+]

10… Nxc3 11. bxc3 Ba3 12. Qd2 Nb4!!

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|0p0.1p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+p+b+.|
|.hP).+.+|
|g.).GN+.|
|P+.!.)P)|
|$.+.IB+R|
+-----------------+

White is busted. He tries to hang on with Ke2 but it doesn’t take
much longer with the K stuck in the middle.

13. Ke2 Nc2 14. Rd1 dxc4 15. Ne5 O-O 16. f3 b5 17. g4 Nxe3
18. Qxe3 Bd7 19. Kf2 Rae8 20. Qd2 Bc8 21. Re1 Qh4+ 22. Kg2 f6 0-1

Janowsky – Marshall, 1912

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3
Bd6

6…Be7 is honestly better

7. c4 O-O 8. cxd5

Castling was a lot better here

8… Bb4+ 9. Kf1 Qxd5 10.

Qc2 Re8 11. Nc3 Nxc3 12. bxc3

+-----------------+
|rhb+r+k+|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+q+.+.|
|.g.).+.+|
|+.)B+N+.|
|P+Q+.)P)|
|$.G.+K+R|
+-----------------+


12… Qxf3!! 13. cxb4

[13. gxf3 Bh3+ 14. Kg1 Re1+ 15. Bf1 Rxf1#]

13… Nc6 14. Bb2 Nxb4 15. Bxh7+ Kh8 16. gxf3 Bh3+ 17. Kg1
Nxc2 18. Bxc2 Re2 19. Rc1 Rae8 20. Bc3

+-----------------+
|.+.+r+.i|
|0p0.+p0.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.).+.+|
|+.G.+P+b|
|P+B+r).)|
|+.$.+.IR|
+-----------------+


20… R8e3

[brilliant, but 20… Rxc2 21. Rxc2 Re6 was easier]

21. Bb4

[21. fxe3 Rg2+ 22. Kf1 Rxc2+ 23. Ke1 Rxc1+ 24. Kd2 Rxh1]

21… Rxf3 22. Bd1 Rf6 0-1

　

Dolmatov – Makarichev, Palma, 1989

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Bd3 d5 5. Nxe5 Nd7 6. Nxd7
Bxd7 7. O-O Qh4 8. c4 O-O-O 9. c5 g5 10. f3!? Nf6 11. Be3 Rg8 12. Nc3
g4

Black plays with great energy and has a fierce attack.

+-----------------+
|.+k4.gr+|
|0p0b+p+p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.)p+.+.|
|.+.).+p1|
|+.HBGP+.|
|P).+.+P)|
|$.+Q+RI.|
+-----------------+


13. Qe1

[13. Bf2 is better]

13… g3 14. hxg3 Rxg3

+-----------------+
|.+k4.g.+|
|0p0b+p+p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.)p+.+.|
|.+.).+.1|
|+.HBGP4.|
|P).+.+P+|
|$.+.!RI.|
+-----------------+

15. Qd2

[not 15. Bf2, as 15….Rxg2+ 16. Kxg2 Qh3+ 17. Kg1 Bd6 18. cxd6
Rg8+ wins]

15… Bxc5 16. dxc5 Rdg8 17. Rad1 d4 18. c6 dxe3 19. cxd7+
Kd8 0-1

+-----------------+
|.+.i.+r+|
|0p0P+p+p|
|.+.+.h.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.+.1|
|+.HB0P4.|
|P).!.+P+|
|+.+R+RI.|
+-----------------+

Black has various threats – …Rh3, …Rxg2, …Qf2+ and so on –
which cannot all be met.

“Dull and a draw”, eh?