Correspondence openings

Posted on May 19, 2006 by DrDave

James Drake, an occasional correspondent and freelance websoot prifreader, writes:

“I note your recommendation to play open openings when starting out to get more experience with tactics. I wonder if this applies to correspondence games. I’ve been playing them over the Internet the last few years and am at the stage where I get creamed by opponents who know long lines of the Sicilian or Ruy Lopez. Given that I’ve been somewhat influence by Purdy’s recommended openings in Action Chess , which run counter to yours, e.g., The Colle system as White. “

I replied:

That’s depressing. Although if you are following long lines of theory, does that mean you know the theory too? What books are you using to support the play of the opening in these correspondence games? I’ve not played a lot of postal chess but I do know having some pretty meaty opening books at your elbow is a requirement.

The Colle still aims at an open game, and I’m happy to recommend it. http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/colle-system

I regard the Sicilian and Lopez as openings for life in a way I don’t think the Colle is; there are some short lines against the Colle which equalise but there is very little theory to learn for either side, which is appealing.

The Sicilian and Lopez have so much territory between them, it’s likely that a player of any style can find lines to play as White that suit them. Yes, there’s a bunch of theory to learn, but as long as you get a playable position where you understand the ideas, I think it’s possible to play the White side of 1.e4 without spending all your time studying long variations.

James added:

“Do you think I’d improve more quickly playing more OTB, live chess over the Internet, or against a chess engine set down to my level? “

I replied:

I think if you don’t know, I don’t know! Personally, I don’t like playing against chess engines but they don’t half make sure you have your buttons done up. I also think correspondence play is an excellent proving ground, and that any mix of that and other approaches you find appealing is fine.

The most important thing I think is what you do about games you lose. It’s a familiar reaction among amateurs to blame your openings (which I’ve been doing all my life). Is it that you need to dig a bit deeper into the theory, or into the handling of the middle game? What was your most depressing loss, and what was your interpretation of why you lost?

Opening Books to help a solid Black player

Posted on May 18, 2006 by DrDave

Pete Henderson writes:

” My question to you is this; I have pretty much settled on the Colle system for my opening but cannot find a defense that I like playing. I am not trying to be a Grand Master or anything I just want to be a good solid player. I’ve been thinking about the Tarrasch and the Modern. The Modern from what I’ve read can be used for just about any White opening which I guess is what I would prefer (I’m not sure that is aggressive enough for me). The Tarrasch is just an answer to Queen Pawn openings; then I would have to learn a defense for the King Pawn Openings.”

The Tarrasch is a good choice I think: active and solid, perhaps a bit more open than you might like. A good partner for the Tarrasch might be the Petroff; again a very open game as Black. The Queen’s Gambit Accepted also has the same flavour; open and lots of IQP positions.

You can sort of play the Colle reversed against 1.d4; it’s called the Semi-Slav. I’ve got a web-page somewhere (http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/playing-black-against-queens-pawn-openings) which gives a repertoire with it and the Stonewall Dutch (which starts off with the same “Colle Triangle”). The pure Colle Reversed isn’t that great for Black (White normally gets in e3-e4 before you get in …e6-e5) but the Semi-Slav and Stonewall enjoy a good solid reputation at all levels.

I used to play the Modern but gave it up; it’s too hard for me and I used to get very different structures every game, and was losing games I didn’t understand (always a bad sign). A set formation with …g6 …Bg7 …c6 and …d5 leads to the Gurgenidze against 1.e4 and (usually) a variation of the Grunfeld against 1.d4; but I don’t much like either system for Black.

The defence which perhaps gives the most reliable and limited set of structures to play is the French; it comes closest I think to a system which is easier to play for Black than White (Kramnik claims the same about the Stonewall). I think the French fits alongside the Colle and Tarrasch/Semi-Slav quite well; it goes at about the same speed and you can play 1…e6 and 2…d5 no matter what White does as the first two moves: always a comfort!

Pete enquired further:

“Can you recommend good books on either the Dutch-Stonewall or the Semi- Slav?”

I replied:

If there’s not enough in the Playing Black against 1.d4 webpage for you…

There’s a really nice little book, terribly out of date, but still useful, by Tim Harding. Queen’s Gambit Declined: Semi-Slav. A library, a second-hand shop, or a friend might be able to supply it, if you don’t have much left in the piggy bank after buying those books on the Modern. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713424486/ A copy of QGD:SS with a look at Nunn’s Chess Openings to bring you up to date should be all you need at our level.

If you are thinking about buying new books, the Starting Out series from Everyman I think are usually quite good. There are volumes on the Slav/Semi-Slav (which I haven’t read, but Flear writes fine books and knows a lot about the Slav complex: NB not all of the book will be about the Semi-Slav with …e6) and on the Dutch by MacDonald (which I own, and it’s very good, but not all of it is about the Stonewall). http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857443934/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857443772/

A bigger theoretical book is Peter Wells on the Semi-Slav; but that is a book for real theory nuts. I haven’t read it but it’s reckoned a good book, although it’s ten years old now. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805032886/

The Bellin books for Batsford on the Dutch have good chapters on the Stonewall, http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/071343211X/ and http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0713457600/, but if you’re in for a book of that level you can’t do better than Jacob Aagaard’s monograph on the Stonewall. Aagaard always writes well and he’s done everything you need to do for this line. However, it’s pretty chewy material and he doesn’t cover all the sidelines you need to know if your opponent doesn’t want to play the Stonewall (like 2.Bg5). I think also that Aagaard has not played the line himself, just been asked to write a book about it. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857442520/

So, with Aagaard, you’ll need the MacDonald or the Pinski books http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1857443071/ as well to fill out a Dutch repertoire, or a bit of time with an openings encyclopedia like Nunn’s. Many players (like MacDonald) use the move order 1…e6 to dodge lines like 2.Bg5, but that means you have to play the French or some lesser defence.

A book I don’t know at all: The Chess Advantage in Black and White by IM Larry Kaufman http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812935713/ recommends that Black play the Semi-Slav against 1.d4. It should be OK but a lot of the book will be wasted if you don’t play the other lines. (Spanish Exchange, Berlin).

Playing Black against Queen’s-Pawn Openings (2): Semi-Slav and Exchange

Posted on May 2, 2006 by DrDave

A1.2 The
Semi-Slav

Why not a whole one? The ordinary line Slav goes

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5.
a4

and Black has tried the quiet 5…Na6, the active 5…Bg4 and
the main line 5…Bf5. This last is a well known and popular line
and is worth a look.

I have gone for the Semi-Slav because it seems easier to play
into from other openings: if 1. c4 c6 2. e4 you have to play either
a Caro-Kann with 2…d5 or a funny Indian system with 2…e5. But
after 1. c4 e6 2. e4 d5 White has transposed into a lousy version
of the French.

The Semi-Slav has two very popular main lines, (a) the Meran
System and (b) the Anti-Meran Gambit. I’ll show you an example of
each but they are very fashionable systems with an awful lot of
sharp theory to learn.

A1.2(a) The Meran System

6… dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5

The Meran system is characterised by this move.

8. Bd3 a6 9. e4 c5

10. e5

[The alternative is Reynolds’ Variation 10. d5 c4 11. dxe6
fxe6 12. Bc2 Qc7 13. O-O Bc5 14. e5 Nxe5 15. Bf4 Bd6 16. Ng5 Bb7
17. Nxe6 Qc6 18. f3 Bc5+ 19. Nxc5 Qxc5+ 20. Kh1 O-O

a sharp position with good chances for Black]

10… cxd4 11. Nxb5 axb5 12. exf6 Qb6 13. fxg7 Bxg7 14.
O-O Bb7 15. Bf4 O-O 16. Re1 Bd5 17. Ne5 Nxe5 18. Bxe5 Bxe5 19.
Bxh7+ Kxh7 20. Qh5+ Kg7

and White recovers the piece with advantage.

A1.2(b) The Anti-Meran Gambit

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5
h6

This avoids the Gambit.

[The main line goes 5… dxc4 6. e4 b5 7. e5 h6 8. Bh4 g5 9.
Nxg5 hxg5 10. Bxg5 Nbd7

White has a choice:

(a) 11. g3 Qa5 12. exf6 b4 13. Ne4 Ba6

and in this chaotic position White has favoured 14.
Be3

or (b) 11. exf6 Bb7 12. g3

6. Bh4

[6. Bxf6 is the right move: the game might go 6…Qxf6 7. e4
dxe4 8. Nxe4 Bb4+ 9. Ned2 c5 10. a3 Bxd2+ 11. Qxd2 O-O 12. dxc5 Rd8
13. Qc2 Na6 14. Be2 Nxc5 15. O-O Bd7

which looks about equal but White’s game is better for the
moment: the Bd7 is not well-placed yet and the Queen’s-side
majority might roll ]

6… dxc4 7. e4 g5 8. e5

[8. Bg3 b5]

We have now transposed into the main line of the Gambit.

8… Nd5

But this is new. This is Alatortsev’s Variation, an even messier
alternative to the main line of the Gambit.

9. Bg3 Bb4 10. Rc1 Qa5 11. Bxc4 Nxc3 12. bxc3
Bxc3+

13. Kf1 Bb4 14. h4 g4 15. Nh2 h5 16. f3 Nd7 17. fxg4 Nb6
18. gxh5 Nxc4 19. Rxc4 b6 20. Kf2 Ba6 21. Rxc6 Rd8 22. Ng4 Bc3 23.
Rxc3 Qxc3 24. Qa4+ Kf8 25. Qxa6 Rg8 26. Bf4 Rxg4 27. Be3 Qc2+ 28.
Qe2 Rxg2+ 0-1

These are great fun, and are superb counter-attacking systems
for people with time to study, but the amount of theory really is
too much to try as your first defence to 1.d4. I recommend some
slower lines of the Semi-Slav, which are not so dynamic, but quite
safe and should give you a good game.

Semi-slav
theory

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

3…c6 keeps open the option of the Stonewall Dutch e.g. 3…c6
4. e3 f5, but in this section I’ll also show you Abraham’s
Variation 3…c6 4. Nf3 dxc4

4. Nf3 c6

Most of your games will end up in this position. White can play
the opening moves in a different order, e.g. 1. c4 2. Nf3 3. Nc3 4.
d4

A1.2a Main-line Semi-Slav with 5.
Bg5

5. Bg5

5… Nbd7

is an attempt to steer into the Cambridge Springs. After

6. e3 Qa5

we have got there.

A1.2b Main-line Semi-Slav with 5.
e3

5. e3

As Black you should play

5… Nbd7

Now White usually continues:

6. Bd3

This is of course not forced and you may meet 6. Qc2 or 6. Be2.
See Example games for 6. Qc2.

After 6. Bd3 Black has a choice between:

6…dxc4, The Meran System that we saw in action above, or

b-1 6… Bd6, the Tchigorin Variation, or

b-2 6…Bb4, the Romih Variation.

I’ll show you these last two.

A1.2b-1 Semi-Slav with 6…Bd6

White now has a choice:

(1) 7. e4, which is sharp

(2) 7. c5, which is not dangerous

(3) 7. O-O, probably best

b-1(1) Semi-Slav with 6…Bd6 7. e4

Still a critical line

7. e4 dxe4 8. Nxe4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 O-O !

(Harding’s “!”)

10. O-O c5

[Black players have often tried10… h6 e.g. 11. Bc2 e5 12.
Re1 exd4 13. Qxd4 Bc5 14. Qc3

[or 14. Qf4]

14… Re8

[or 14… a5]

11. Bc2 Qc7 12. Qd3

White also has a choice:

[12. Re1]

[or 12. h3 cxd4 13. Qxd4 e5

[or 13… Ne5]]

[or 12. b3]

12… f5 ! 13. b4

[or 13. Rd1 cxd4 14. Qxd4 Bc5 15. Qh4 Nf6

Grunfeld-Bogolyubow 1926: with a fair game for
black]

13… b6 14. dxc5 bxc5 15. Rd1 Be7 16. b5 Bf6 17. Rb1
Ne5 18. Qe2 = Portisch

b-1(2) Semi-Slav with 6…Bd6 7. c5

7. c5

An opportunity? But it takes all the pressure off d5 and Black
can soon get in ….e5

7…Bc7 8. b4 e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 10. Nxe5 Bxe5 11. Bb2 Qe7
12. Be2 O-O 13. Qc2 Bd7 14. O-O Rae8

Burn-Teichmann Hastings 1895

For the conclusion, see Example Games.

b-1(3) Semi-Slav with 6…Bd6 7. O-O

7. O-O

Probably the best preparation for e4.

7… O-O 8. e4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 e5 10. Bg5 Qe7

11. Re1

[11. d5 Rd8 ! (Euwe) and …h6, …Nd7-f8-g6]

11… Nb6

[11… Rd8]

12. Bb3 Bg4 13. h3 Bxf3 14. Qxf3 Nbd7 15. d5 h6 16. Be3
cxd5 17. Bxd5 += ECO

17… Bc5 18. Bxb7 Rab8 19. Bc6 Rxb2

White is more comfortable but Black is still in the game

Gligoric-Pachman, Sarajevo 1961

A1.2b-2 Semi-Slav with 6…Bb4

7. O-O

This natural move may lose the inititiative.

[7. a3 ! is best, according to Harding

7… Ba5

[7… Bxc3+ += concedes the two Bishops for no
compensation]

8. O-O O-O 9. Qc2!

[9. Bd2 Bc7 10. Qc2 dxc4=]

9… dxc4

[9… Bc7 10. Bd2 dxc4 is an alternative, with a view to an
early …e5: it may transpose below]

10. Bxc4 Bc7 11. Bd2 e5

[or 11… Qe7 +=]

12. dxe5 Nxe5 13. Nxe5 Bxe5 14. h3

White is more comfortably placed: Forintos-Kolarov Havana
1966]

7… O-O 8. Qc2 Re8

[or 8… Bd6]

[8… dxc4 ! Harding 9. Bxc4 Bd6 10. Bd3

[10. e4 e5 11. dxe5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Bxe5 13. h3 Nh5 14. Ne2
Qh4 15. f4 Bc7

“unclear”, Doroshkevic-Antoshin 1969]

10… Qe7 11. Ne2

= Tolush-Alatortsev 1947]

A1.2c White avoids
Nc3

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3

[If White plays 3. Nc3 straight away just go 3…e6

[but White must be prepared to face 3… e5 !?]]

3… e6

A1.2c-1 White deviates with 4.
Qc2

4…Nf6 5. Bg5

The outline of the Cambridge Springs can already be seen

[5. g3 Ne4 6. Bg2 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. b3 Nd7 9. Ba3 Bxa3 10.
Nxa3 Qe7

Ilvitsky-Botvinnik 1952]

5… Nbd7 6. Nc3

See above

A1.2c-2 White deviates with 4/5.
Nbd2

4. e3

[My computer always plays 4…Bd6 here, thinking perhaps
that White can’t organise e2-e4 as well as if Nc3 had been played.
If White is so determined to play slowly I wonder if 4… f5 is
worth a punt: White should certainly not chase the Bishop with 5.
c5 Bc7 when …e5 is bound to come quickly]

4… Nf6 5. Nbd2

The best strategy against these Nbd2 systems is to take
advantage of the lack of pressure on d5 by playing …c5(!). This
of course loses a tempo, but it hopes to show that White has
misplaced the Knight on d2 and will not be able to defend the d4
point so easily.

[White often continues 5. Bd3 Nbd7 6. Nbd2

[White can also play 6. O-O when one possible strategy is
6…Ne4 7. Nc3 f5 – see the Stonewall below]

6… c5! Our key move

7. b3

[or 7. O-O Be7 8. cxd5 exd5 9. b3 cxd4 10. exd4 O-O 11. Bb2
Re8 12. Ne5 Bb4 13. a3 Bxd2 14. Qxd2 Ne4 15. Qc2 Qb6 16. a4 Nxe5
17. dxe5

Alekhin-Soultanbieff 1933

Now 17… Bd7! 18. Bxe4

[Not 18. a5 Qb4 (no Ra4)]

18… dxe4 = Alekhin:

the opposite-coloured Bishops reduce the excitement of the
extra pawn which at the moment blocks the line of the Bishop on
b2]

7… cxd4 8. exd4 b6 9. O-O Bb7 10. Qe2 Be7 11. Bb2
O-O

= Harding]

5… c5!

Here we go again

6. Be2

[6. Bd3 Nc6!?]

6… Nc6 7. O-O cxd4 8. exd4 Be7 9. a3 O-O 10. c5 Ne4
11. Qc2 Bf6

“unclear” Keres-Nei Tallinn 1973]

A1.2d Main line Abrahams variation [D31]

One more Semi-Slav option you should know about:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4

This odd move order looks a bit like a Meran, but Black means to
create more trouble with those Queen’s-side pawns. It’s less
well-known, not perhaps as sound, but easy to learn.

Let’s look at a quick game from Erik Teichmann:

Arkell-Teichmann 1985

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bb4 6.
e4

Natural but as we shall see, possibly over-optimistic.

6… b5 7. Bd2 a5 8. axb5 Bxc3 9. Bxc3?! cxb5 10. b3 Bb7
11. d5

In another game White tried

[11. bxc4 b4 12. Qb1 f5

Lupano-Korylov 1954 which continued:

3. Bd3 f6
14. g5
e7 15. xa5
xa5 16.
Bxb4 a1

with a complicated game in which Black has the better
chances]

11… Nf6

12. bxc4 b4! 13. Bb2 Nxe4 14. Bxg7 Rg8 15. Bd4 exd5 16.
cxd5 Qxd5

Black is winning all over the board!

17. Rc1 Nc6 18. Bc4 Qf5 19. Be3 Nc3 20. Qd2 Rd8 21. Qb2
Rxg2 22. Rxc3 Qxf3 23. Be2 Qf6 24. Rc2 Qxb2 25. Rxb2 Nd4 26. Rd2
Rg6 27. Rf1 Nxe2 28. Rxe2 Ba6

Looks easy, doesn’t it? Grab a Queen’s-side pawn, hit the
centre, swarm all over White’s position. Well, you won’t get that
every game, but it’s worth a punt.

Now for a spot of theory:

We will examine

d-1 5. e4

d-2 5. e3

d-3 5. a4

Other moves are possible, for example:

5. g3 (see Catalan),

5. Ne5!? (see Djuurhuus-Volzhin in d-3 below) or

5. Bg5 upon which Black can try

[5. Bg5 Qc7 6. a4 Bb4 7. e4 b5 8. Be2 Bb7 9. axb5 Bxc3+ 10.
bxc3 cxb5

Black is not worse]

A1.2d-1 Abrahams’ Variation with 5.
e4

This is a critical line.

5. e4 b5

[6. e5!?]

6. a4 Bb4 7. Bd2 a5 8. axb5 Bxc3 9. bxc3!

Better than Arkell’s Bishop move.

9…cxb5

White must make something of the central mass or the
Queen’s-side pawn will win for Black.

10. Rb1 Bd7 11. Qc2 Nf6 12. e5 Nd5 13. Ng5

This old analysis shows Black to be at least equal here

A1.2d-2 Abrahams’ Variation with 5.
e3

5. e3 b5 6. a4

This move-order may avoid the …Bb4 manoeuvre but invites other
trouble

6…b4 7. Ne4 Ba6 8. Qc2 Qd5 9. Ned2 c3

10. bxc3 bxc3 11. Qxc3 Bxf1 12. Nxf1 a5 13. Ba3 Bxa3 14.
Qxa3 Na6 15. Ng3 Nb4 16. Rc1

with good chances for Black in an unclear position.

A1.2d-3 Main line Abrahams’ Variation
with 5. a4

This is the main line.

5. a4 Bb4

White usually plays here 6. e3 but can also try:

[6. g3 a5 7. Ne5 Nf6 8. Bg2 Nd5 9. Bd2 Nb6 10. e3
N8d7

Seirawan -Korchnoi 1981 with better
chances to Black]

[6. Bd2 a5 7. Qb1 Nd7! 8. e4 Nb6! 9. Be2 f5!

Piket, again with better chances to Black]

After 5. a4 Bb4:

6. e3 b5 7. Bd2

[7. Ne5 Qb6 8. Qg4 Kf8 9. g3 Nf6 10. Qf3 Bb7 -+
Speelman-Flear 1986]

7… Bxc3 8. Bxc3

8… a5!

The key move. You can also play

7…a5

when

8. axb5 Bxc3! 9. Bxc3

leads to the same position.

Novel play arises in this line on

[9. bxc3!? cxb5 10. Qb1 Ba6 11. Be2 Nc6 12. O-O Nf6 13. e4
Boleslavsky-Randvjir 1955

Now 13… O-O ,…Qc7,…Rfb8 intending …b5-b4 is about
equal]

or earlier after 7…a5:

[8. Qc2 Nf6 9. Ne5 O-O 10. Be2 Bb7 11. O-O Qb6 12. f4
Nbd7

Djurhuus-Volzhin 1992: Black returned the pawn with …b4,
and played …c5]

9. axb5 cxb5

10. b3

[10. d5 should be met by 10…Nf6 11. dxe6 Qxd1+ 12. Kxd1
Ne4 -+ as in Donner-Pliester]

10… Bb7

Now 11. d5!? Nf6 12. bxc4 b4! 13. Bxf6 Qxf6

(As in Gavrikov-Keraser 1982)

14. Qa4+ Nd7 15. Nd4 Unclear! See example games

Instead after the better

11. bxc4 b4

White now has two tries:

(a) 12. Bd2

(b) 12. Bb2

(a)12. Bd2 Nf6 13. Bd3 Nbd7 14. O-O O-O 15. Qc2 Qc7 16. e4
e5

in this important position experience has shown Black to
have fully equal practical chances after:

(a-i) 17. Nxe5 Nxe5 18. dxe5 Ng4

(a-ii) 17. Rfe1 Rfe8 18. c5

and here Black has done all right with

[18… exd4 Neverov-Kramnik 1991]

or [18… Ba6 Flear]

or [18… h6 Soltis]

(a-iii) 17. d5 Nc5

(b) 12. Bb2 Nf6 13. Bd3 Be4

[13… Nbd7 14. Qc2 O-O 15. O-O += Saeed-Pliester
1982]

14. Qc2 ? 14… Bxd3 15. Qxd3 a4 Polugaevsky]

Example games in the
Semi-Slav:

Burn – Teichmann (Hastings) [D46] 1895

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c6 5. e3 Bd6 6. Bd3
Nbd7 7. c5 Bc7 8. b4 e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 10. Nxe5 Bxe5 11. Bb2 Qe7 12.
Be2 O-O 13. Qc2 Bd7 14. O-O Rae8 15. Rad1 Bb8 16. Nb1 Ne4 17. Nd2
f5 18. Bd4 Ng5 19. Bd3 f4 20. Kh1 Qf7 21. Nf3

21… Nxf3 22. gxf3 Qh5 23. Rg1 Rf7 24. Qe2 Be5 25. Bc2
Rf6 26. Bxe5 Qxh2+ 27. Kxh2 Rh6+ 28. Kg2 Bh3+ 29. Kh1 Bf1#
0-1

Deviations by White:

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

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Qc2
Bd6 7. Be2 O-O 8. O-O dxc4 9. Bxc4 e5

10. h3 Qe7 11. a3 g6 12. Ba2 b6 13. dxe5 Nxe5 14. Nxe5
Bxe5 15. e4 Nh5 16. Ne2 Ba6 17. Rd1 Rfd8 18. Be3 Qf6 19.
Rab1

19… g5 20. g3 Qf3 21. Nd4 Bxd4 22. Bxd4 Be2 23. Qc1
Nf4 24. gxf4 Qxh3 25. f5 Qg4+ 26. Kh2 Bf3 27. Bxf7+ Kf8 28. Bc5+
Kxf7 29. Qc4+ Rd5 0-1

Rohde,M – Shabalov,A
(8)

[D45] Philadelphia, 1990

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. e3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. d4 Nbd7 6. Qc2
Bd6 7. Bd3 O-O 8. O-O dxc4 9. Bxc4 e5

10. Bb3 Qc7 11. h3 b5

12. Ng5 Bb7 13. Rd1 Rad8 14. a4 a6 15. Nce4 Nxe4 16.
Nxe4 Be7 17. axb5 axb5 18. d5 Nb6 19. Ra7 Nc8 20. Ra1 c5 21. Ng3 c4
22. e4 Bc5 23. Ba2 Nd6 24. Qe2 Ra8 25. Be3 b4

26. b3 c3 27. Rac1 Ra3 28. Bxc5 Qxc5 29. Nh5 Bc8 30. Rd3
Qb5 31. Rc2 f6 32. f4 Rf7 33. fxe5 fxe5 34. Qe3 Qa6 35. Kh2 Rxa2
36. Rxa2 Qxa2 37. Qb6 Qe2

38. Qd8+ Rf8 39. Nf6+ gxf6 40. Rg3+ Bg4 41. Qxd6 h5 42.
Qxb4 c2 43. Qc5 Qd1 44. hxg4 c1=Q

45. gxh5+ Qg5 46. Rxg5+ fxg5 47. d6 Qxh5+ 48. Kg1 Qd1+
49. Kh2 Rd8 50. Qc4+ Kf8 51. Qe6 Qxd6 52. Qf5+ Ke7 53. Qh7+ Ke8 54.
Qg8+ Kd7 55. Qf7+ Kc6 56. Qc4+ Kb6 57. b4 Qh6+ 0-1

Example of Romih Variation:

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

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Bd3
Bb4 7. a3 Ba5 8. O-O O-O 9. Qc2 Re8 10. Rd1 e5

11. dxe5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Rxe5 13. cxd5 cxd5 14. b4 Bb6 15.
Bb2

15… Bg4 16. Be2 Rc8 17. Qd2 Qd7 18. Rac1 Rd8 19. Nb5
Ne4 20. Qc2 Rg5

21. Bd4 Bh3 22. g3 Rg6 23. Bxb6 Rxb6 24. Qc7 Qe8 25.
Nxa7 Rf6 26. Bf1

26… Nxf2 27. Re1 Ra8 28. Qxb7 h5 29. Rc7 Rxa7 30. Qxa7
Qe4 0-1

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

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 d5 4. Nc3 c6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3
Bb4 7. O-O O-O 8. Qb3 Bd6 9. e4 dxc4 10. Bxc4 e5

11. h3 b5 12. Be2 a6 13. a4 Bb7 14. dxe5 Nxe5 15. Re1
Re8 16. Bg5 h6 17. Bh4 Ng6 18. Bxf6 Qxf6

19. Rad1 Ne5 20. Nb1 Nxf3+ 21. Bxf3 Be5 22. Re2 Bc8 23.
Red2 Be6 24. Qa3 Rac8 25. b4

25… bxa4 26. Qxa4 Bxh3 27. Qxa6 Be6 28. b5 cxb5 29.
Qxb5 Rb8 30. Qe2 Rec8 0-1

[30… Rec8 31. Na3 Rb3]

Karpov – Tal [D46] Moscow, 1973

1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3
Bb4 7. O-O O-O 8. a3 Bd6 9. Qc2 dxc4 10. Bxc4 Qe7 11. h3
e5

12. Ba2 a5 13. a4 Bb4 14. Rd1 b6 15. dxe5 Nxe5 16. Nd4
Bd7 17. Bd2 Rad8 18. Be1 Ng6 19. Nf3 Ne5 20. Nd4 Ng6 21. Nf3
Ne5

1/2-1/2

Example of Tchigorin Variation:

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

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. e3 Nf6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Bd3
Bd6 7. O-O dxc4 8. Bxc4 Qe7 9. e4 e5

10. Bg5 Nb6 11. dxe5 Bxe5 12. Bb3 O-O 13. Qc2 h6 14. Bh4
Re8 15. Nxe5 Qxe5 16. f4

16… Qc5+ 17. Bf2 Qh5 18. Rae1 Be6 19. Bd4 Bxb3 20.
Qxb3 Nfd7 21. Rf3 Kf8 22. Rh3 Qa5 23. Rg3 f6 24. e5 c5 25. Bf2 fxe5
26. fxe5

26… c4 27. Qc2 Rxe5 28. Rf1 Kg8 29. Bd4 Rg5 30. Rff3
Ne5 31. Re3 Nc6

32. Bxg7 Kxg7 33. h4 Rxg3 34. Rxg3+ Kh8 35. Qg6 Qc5+ 36.
Kh2 Qf8 37. Ne4 Ne5 38. Qh5 Qf4 39. Ng5 Qf6 40. Ne4 Qf4 41. Ng5 Qf8
42. Ne4 Nbd7 43. Rg5 Nf7 44. Rf5 Nde5 45. Ng5 Kg8

46. Nxf7 Nxf7 47. Qg6+ Qg7 48. Qe6 Rf8 49. Rf6 Kh8 50.
Kh1 b5 51. Qe7 Rg8 52. Rf2 Ne5 53. Qe6 Nd3 0-1

Abrahams’ Variation

Curtis-Teichmann 1985

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. e4 b5 6.
Bg5

[6. a4]

6…f6 7. Be3 Bb4 8. Be2 Ne7 9. O-O O-O 10. Qc2 Nd7 11.
a4 Nb6 12. axb5 Bxc3 13. Qxc3 cxb5 14. b3 Bb7

15. Nd2 f5 16. Bg5 h6 17. Bxe7 Qxe7 18. bxc4 fxe4 19.
cxb5 Nd5 20. Qa3 Qf6 21. Nxe4 Qg6 22. Ng3 Nf4

23. f3 h5 24. Qe7 Rf7 25. Qh4 Qh6 0-1

[26. Rfe1 g5]

Serebrjanik-Maximenko
1991

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. a4 Bb4 6. e3
b5 7. Bd2 [7…a5] 7… Bxc3 8. Bxc3 a5!
9. axb5 cxb5 10. b3 Bb7

11. d5!? Nf6 12. bxc4 b4! 13. Bxf6 Qxf6 14. Qa4+ Nd7 15.
Nd4

This is the point we left off above

15… e5 16. Nb3 Ke7

17. Qb5

[17. Rd1] or [17. Be2]

17… Ba6 18. Qxa5 Rhb8 19. d6+ Ke8 ! 20. Qd5 Bb7 21.
Qd2 Rxa1+ 22. Nxa1 Nc5 ! 23. d7+ Kd8 ! 24. Qxb4 Qd6 25. Qd2 Qa6 26.
Qb2 [26. Nc2 Be4 -+] 26…
Qa5+

The White pawn on d7 shelters the Black King,While the useless
White pieces can only sit around and watch their own King get
mated.

0-1

A1.3 The Exchange
Variation

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5

White’s approach in this line has many advantages: the position
is simplified, White has a permanent structural advantage and a
clear plan to follow, and Black’s counterplay is limited. White can
now adopt two plans:

A1.3a The minority attack with b4 and
b5

White plans to play b4-b5xc6 when your c-pawn will be backward
on an open file. If nothing else happens, this can be enough to
lose the game.

King’s-side action using the semi-open e-file and
particularly the outpost at e4. (see several games below)

Temporary delay and permanent simplification with …a5,
forcing White to adopt a3 and b4 or make other concessions (Smagin
and Ekstroem games)

The creation of a passed a-pawn with …a6, when b5 is
met by …c6xb5 (white axb5) and …a5 (I have no example of this
plan).

Meet b5 with …c5

Prevent b5 by playing …b5 and using the strong c4 point
(see the Van der Sterren game below)

5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 c6 7. Bd3 Nbd7

8. Qc2

[8. Nf3 loses the initiative straightaway: 8…Ne4 9. Bxe7
Qxe7=]

8… O-O 9. Nf3 Re8 10. O-O Nf8 11. Rab1
Ne4

12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. Ne5 Bf5 14. Nxe4 Bxe4 15. Bxe4 dxe4
16. b4

[16. Qxe4 f6]

A1.3b Central break with f3 and
e4

White’s other plan is less popular but more dynamic. The King’s
Knight come to e2, and then f2-f3 will prepare e2-e4. Black’s best
plan is to hit back. We may see a bit more of this plan since the
following advertisement for it:

Kasparov – Short (10) [D35] WCh, 1994

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6.
e3 O-O 7. Bd3 Nbd7 8. Nge2 Re8 9. O-O Nf8

Normal is 9…c6

10. b4!

10… a6

[10… Bxb4? leads to trouble after 11. Bxf6]

11. a3 c6 12. Qc2 g6 13. f3 Ne6 14. Bh4 Nh5 15. Bxe7
Rxe7

[15… Qxe7!?]

16. Qd2 b6? 17. Rad1 Bb7 18. Bb1 Nhg7 19.
e4

White has his cake and is eating it too: he has succeeded in
playing both b2-b4 and e2-e4, and Black has no counterplay. Black
soon collapsed.

Below you can see some ways of fighting against this idea,
particularly if White risks castling Queen’s-side.

Example Games in the Exchange
Variation

Black plays solidly

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

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 c6 5. cxd5 exd5 6.
Bg5 Be7 7. Qc2 g6 8. e3 Bf5 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nbd7 11. O-O O-O
12. Bxf6 Nxf6 13. Rab1 Bd6 14. b4 b5

Black defends his Queen’s-side solidly. White tries a Knight
advance.

15. Ne5 Bxe5 16. dxe5 Nd7 17. f4 a5 18. a3 Nb6 19. Ne2
axb4

20. axb4 Nc4 21. Nd4 Qb6 22. Ra1 Ra4 23. Rxa4 bxa4 24.
Ra1 Ra8 25. Nc2 a3 26. Ra2 Ra7 27. Qd4 Qxd4 28. exd4 f6 29. exf6
Kf7 30. Kf2 Kxf6

Black now wins methodically.

31. Ne3 Nxe3 32. Kxe3 Kf5 33. Kf3 h5 34. h3 h4 35. Ke3
Ra4 36. Kd3 Kxf4 37. Kc3 Ke3 38. Kb3 Ra8 39. Kc3 Ra7
0-1

Black wins with a King’s-side
attack:

??-?? [D34]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6.
Qc2 O-O 7. e3 Re8 8. Bd3 Nbd7 9. Nf3 Nf8 10. O-O c6 11. Rab1 Ng6
12. b4 a6 13. a4 Bd6 14. b5 axb5 15. axb5 h6 16. Bxf6 Qxf6 17. bxc6
bxc6 18. Rb6 Bg4 19. Nd2 Re6

This neat move is useful for attack and defence: if Rxc6, then
Bxh2+ wins the exchange. GM Nigel Davies in an article praises this
type of rook manoeuvre for Black: the Rook can move to (say) the
g-file and cause problems for the White King. As it happens White
soon digs a pit into which he or she falls!

20. Na4 Nh4 21. g3 Nf3+ 22. Nxf3 Qxf3 23. Re1 Bh3 24.
Bf1 Bf5 25. e4 Rxe4 26. Qxc6 Rxe1 27. Qxa8+ Kh7 28. Nc3 Bh3
0-1

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

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 c6 5. cxd5 exd5 6.
Qc2 Be7 7. Bg5 g6

This plan is unusual.

8. e3 Bf5 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Nbd7 11. O-O O-O 12. Rab1
a5 13. a3 Re8 14. Rfc1 a4 15. Qc2 Qa5 16. Re1 Bd6 17. Bh4
Ne4

This plan is very familiar!

18. Nxe4 dxe4 19. Nd2 Qh5

Black is well-placed for a quick King’s-side attack; White’s
intended Queen’s-side initiative is nowhere to be seen.

20. Bg3 Bxg3 21. hxg3 Nf6 22. b3 Ra5 23. bxa4 Ng4 24.
Nf1 Rf5 25. Rxb7 c5 26. Re2 Qh6 27. Qb3 Re6 28. f3 Rh5 29. fxg4
Rh1+ 30. Kf2 Rxf1+ 0-1

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

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. cxd5 exd5 6.
Bg5 c6 7. Qc2 h6 8. Bxf6 Bxf6 9. e3 O-O 10. Bd3 Re8 11. h3 Nd7 12.
O-O Be7 13. a3 Bd6 14. b4 Nf6 15. Rfc1 Qe7 16. Ra2 a5 17. bxa5 Rxa5
18. a4 Ne4 19. Bxe4 dxe4

The familiar …Ne4 move leads to a quick King’s-side kill.

20. Nd2 Be6 21. Raa1 Bxh3 22. Qxe4 Qd7 23. Qh4 Rg5 24.
g3 Bg4 25. Qh1 Bxg3 26. Nce4 Rh5 27. Qg2 Bh2+ 28. Kf1 Kh8 29. Ke1
Bc7 0-1

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

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 c6 5. Bg5 Nbd7 6.
cxd5 exd5 7. e3 Be7 8. Qc2 O-O 9. Bd3 Re8 10. O-O Nf8 11. h3 Nh5
12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. a3 g6 14. b4 Ne6 15. b5 Ng5 16. Nxg5 Qxg5 17. Kh2
f5 18. bxc6 bxc6 19. Na4 Re6

White has created a weak pawn on c6 but Black doesn’t care too
much!

20. Nc5 Rf6 21. Be2 f4 22. Bxh5 Qxh5 23. f3 fxe3 24. Qd3
Bxh3 25. gxh3 Re8 26. Nd7 Rf4 27. Rae1 Re7 28. Qa6 Qf5 29. Ne5 Rxe5
30. dxe5 Rh4 0-1

White wants to play in the centre:

Deze,A – Tadic,K (1) [D35] Novi, 1989

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6.
e3 O-O 7. Bd3 c6 8. Qc2 h6 9. Bh4 Re8 10. Nge2 Nbd7 11. f3
c5

A change of emphasis: White wants to advance in the centre with
e2-e4, so Black immediately hits at the d-pawn with …c7-c5.

12. O-O b6 13. Rad1 Bb7 14. Bf2 cxd4 15. exd4 a6 16. Qb3
b5 17. a4 b4 18. Na2 Qb6 19. Rc1 Bd6

White’s plan has come to nothing.

20. Qd1 Nf8 21. Bg3 Ne6 22. Bxd6 Qxd6 23. Qd2 a5 24. Bb5
Re7 25. Ng3 Qb6 26. Nf5 Rc7 27. Rfe1 Kf8 28. Rxc7 Qxc7 29. Nc1 Bc6
30. Bxc6 Qxc6 31. Nd3 Re8 32. b3 Qc3 33. Qxc3 bxc3 34. Rc1 Rc8 35.
Nd6 Rc6 36. Nb5 c2 37. Ne5 Nf4 0-1

White castles Queen’s-side:

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

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Nbd7 5. cxd5 exd5 6.
Bf4 Be7 7. e3 c6 8. h3 O-O 9. Bd3 Re8 10. Qc2 a5 11. g4 Nf8 12.
O-O-O a4

Black was all ready to meet White’s King on the
Queen’s-side.

13. a3 Qa5 14. Ne5 Be6 15. Bf5 c5 16. Kb1 Rec8 17. Qe2
c4 18. e4 dxe4 19. Bxe4 Bd5

20. Bxd5 Nxd5 21. Bd2 Bxa3 22. Nxc4 Nxc3+ 23. Bxc3 Qb5
24. d5 Qxc4 25. Qe5 f6 26. Qf5 Bd6 27. f4 Qxf4 28. Qd3 a3 29. Rhg1
axb2 30. Bxb2 Qa4 0-1

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

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Bg5 Be7 6.
Qc2 c6 7. e3 Nbd7 8. Bd3 O-O 9. Nge2 Re8 10. h3 Nf8 11. g4 b5 12.
O-O-O a5 13. Ng3 a4 14. Kb1 Qa5 15. Nce2 Bd7 16. Nf5 Bxf5 17. gxf5
Rac8 18. Rhg1 Kh8 19. Bxf6 Bxf6

An exciting opposite-side castling position has arisen.

20. Nf4 Nd7 21. Rc1 a3 22. b3 c5 23. Nxd5 c4 24. Nxf6
Nxf6 25. bxc4 bxc4 26. Bxc4 Ne4 27. Ka1 Nd2 28. f6 Rxc4 0-1

Exchanging to win

Posted on February 2, 2002 by DrDave

I was struck recently when discussing this position with the coaching group:

+-----------------+

White’s next move, 15. Nh4 , was regarded with scorn by some – ” he’s just playing for a draw “. On the contrary, provoking the exchange of Queens looked like a reasonable winning attempt to me! In fact, Black did swap with 15…Qxg4 without much thought about alternatives, when 15…Qe6 might have been worth a look.

Some players seek exchanges and some avoid them; I get the impression that juniors exchange without much hesitation.

Exchanges are just moves, says Stephen Gerzadowicz. They have good and bad effects, and are better for one side or another. Weight these up, then decide whether to exchange or not. Fortunately, there are some general guidelines to help us.

Rules for exchanging

If you are ahead in material, exchange pieces (but not Pawns)
If you are behind in material, exchange Pawns (but not pieces)
Avoid the exchange of your most active piece (especially if you are defending)
If you have more space, are attacking the King, or have Pawn weaknesses, avoid exchanges (especially of Queens).
If you have less space, are defending the King, or have better Pawn structure, seek exchanges (especially of Queens).
If you have the advantage of the two Bishops, avoid the exchange of your opponent’s remaining Bishop for one of your Bishops.
If you have two Rooks and your opponent only one, seek the exchange of your opponent’s remaining Rook for one of your Rooks.
Avoid being left with a permanently poor piece, like a Bad Bishop
Last but not least, look at the effect of the exchange on the position. Have you improved the opponent’s Pawn structure? Have you brought into play an opposing piece?

Having looked at all these ideas, we can perhaps understand the position given more clearly. The Black Bishop is poor but not yet Bad; Black has the worse Pawn structure, and the Queen is one of his most active pieces. The exchange draws the h-Pawn in to become a g-Pawn, so White can play g3 and f4 without fearing that …exf4 will split his Pawns. Also, White is GM David Norwood, who might have thought that a technical endgame might expose his amateur opponent’s deficiencies.

Okay, let’s look at these guidelines in examples.

If you are ahead in material, exchange pieces (but not Pawns)

If you are behind in material, exchange Pawns (but not pieces)

Right

+-----------------+

Regis,D – Walker,J [C33] Exeter vs. Teignmouth, 1994

34.b6 ! 34…axb6 35.Rxb6+ Kg5 36.Rb5+ Kg6 37.Rc5 h6 38.Rb5 f6 39.Rc5 Re3 40.Rc7 Re5 41.Kg3 h5 42.Rc3 hxg4 ? 43.hxg4 Kg5 44.Ra3 g6 45.Rb3 Re4 46.Rb5+ f5 ? [46…Re5 47.Rb4] 47.gxf5 gxf5 48.Rb8 Re3+ 49.Kf2 Ra3 50.Rb4 f4 51.Rb8 1/2../strong>

the basic draw: Philidor’s position White has been steering for this since move 33!

Wrong

+-----------------+

Hecht,H – Spassky B V [B31] Dortmund, 1973

Black should retain the Rook by 50…Rc5.

50…Rxe1 51.Kxe1 Ke7 52.Kd2 Kd6 53.Kd3 Ke5 54.a5 a6 55.b4 Kd5 56.Kc3 gxh4 57.gxh4 Ke5 58.Kc4 Kd6 59.b5 axb5+ 60.Nxb5+ Ke5 61.Kc5 Bc8 62.Kb6 Bstrong 63.a6 Bg2 64.f4+ Kxf4 65.Nd6 f5 66.Nb7 Kg3 67.a7 f4 68.a8Q f3 69.Qb8+ 1-0

Avoid the exchange of your most active pieces (especially if you are defending)

Wrong

van Scheltinga – de Groot [E94] errors: eagerness to exchange, 1936

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Nfd7 8.Be3 Nc6 9.Qd2

+-----------------+

9…exd4 10.Nxd4 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bxd4 12.Qxd4 Qf6 13.Qd2

The exchanges have left White dominating the board.

13…Qe5 14.f4 Qc5+ 15.Kh1 Nf6 16.b4 Qxb4 17.Qd4 Kg7 18.Nd5 Qc5 19.Qxf6+ 1-0

I couldn’t find another example of this from the point of view of exchanges, but if you think about retreating as having the same effect:

Nimzowitsch,A – Capablanca,J [C62] St Petersburg (1), 1914

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 d6 5.d4 Bd7 6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.Qd3 exd4 8.Nxd4 g6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Qa6 Qd7 11.Qb7 Rc8 12.Qxa7 Bg7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Qa6

+-----------------+

White has grabbed a Pawn on the Queen’s-side. It is striking how quickly White’s game deteriorates:

14…Rfe8 15.Qd3 Qe6 16.f3 Nd7 17.Bd2 Ne5 18.Qe2 Nc4 19.Rab1 Ra8 20.a4 Nxd2 21.Qxd2 Qc4 22.Rfd1 Reb8 23.Qe3 Rb4 24.Qg5 Bd4+ 25.Kh1 Rab8 26.Rxd4 Qxd4 27.Rd1 Qc4 28.h4 Rxb2 29.Qd2 Qc5 30.Re1 Qh5 31.Ra1 Qxh4+ 32.Kg1 Qh5 33.a5 Ra8 34.a6 Qc5+ 35.Kh1 Qc4 36.a7 Qc5 37.e5 Qxe5 38.Ra4 Qh5+ 39.Kg1 Qc5+ 40.Kh2 d5 41.Rh4 Rxa7 0-1

Znosko-Borovsky says, ” A player who is at disadvantage in time should keep up any available threat” . That is, the Queen was better on a6, restricting the freedom of action of Black’s pieces.

If you have more space, are attacking the King, or have Pawn weaknesses, avoid exchanges (especially of Queens).

Right

Timman,J – Petrosian,T, Las Palmas izt (2), 1982

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c6 5.a4 Bg4 6.Ne5 Bh5 7.f3 Nfd7 8.Nxc4 e5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.dxe5 Nd7 11.f4 Bb4 12.Qc2 Qe7 13.e4 g5 14.Be2 gxf4 15.e6 Qh4+ 16.Kf1 Bxe2+ 17.Qxe2 fxe6 18.Qf2

+-----------------+

18…Qe7 19.e5?! Nxe5 20.Bxf4 Rf8 21.Rd1 Bc5 0-1

White’s elaborate Bishop manoeuvres in the main line Ruy Lopez are at least in part designed to keep Black burdened with a full complement of minor pieces.

Kasparov,G (2800) – Karpov,A (2730) [C92](W (20), 1990

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.strong Bb7 10.d4 Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8 12.a4 h6 13.Bc2 1-0

+-----------------+

This was crowned by a famous attack.

14.cxd4 Nb4 15.Bb1 c5 16.d5 Nd7 17.Ra3 f5 18.Rae3 Nf6 19.Nh2 Kh8 20.b3 bxa4 21.bxa4 c4 22.Bb2 fxe4 23.Nxe4 Nfxd5 24.Rg3 Re6 25.Ng4 Qe8 26.Nxh6 c3 27.Nf5 cxb2 28.Qg4 Bc8 29.Qh4+ Rh6 30.Nxh6 gxh6 31.Kh2 Qe5 32.Ng5 Qf6 33.Re8 Bf5 34.Qxh6+

[34.Nf7+ Matt/Mate in 6! 34…Qxf7 35.Qxh6+ Bh7 36.Rxa8 Ne7 37.Rxf8+ Ng8 38.Rgxg8+ Qxg8 39.Qxh7#]

34…Qxh6 35.Nf7+ Kh7 36.Bxf5+ Qg6 37.Bxg6+ Kg7 38.Rxa8 Be7 39.Rb8 a5 40.Be4+ Kxf7 41.Bxd5+ 1-0

Wrong

+-----------------+

Kortchnoi,V (2695) – Karpov,A (2700) [D31], 1981 [Wcstrong0-Merano (9)]

16. Ne4?

Undoubtedly a mistake, freeing Black’s game. As we can see from the sequel, though, White was trying to win, not merely play the best moves.

16…Nxe4 17.Qxe4 Bc6 18.Nxc6 Rxc6 19.Rc3?!

[19.Rxc6 Nxc6 20.d5 exchanges the IQP leaving nothing much left to play for.]

Black won the endgame.

If you have less space, are defending the King, or have better Pawn structure, seek exchanges (especially of Queens).

Right

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.Rc1 c6 8.Bd3

+-----------------+

Capablanca’s freeing manoeuvre took most of the sting out of the QGD:

8…dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.0-0 Nxc3 12.Rxc3 e5 13.dxe5 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Qxe5 =

You will see Capa play like this in many games.

Wrong

Littlewood,P – Mestel,J [E61] Hastings (9), 1981

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 0-0 5.e4 c6 6.e5 Ne8 7.Bf4 d6 8.strong Nd7 9.exd6 Nxd6 10.Be2 Re8 11.Qd2 Nf5 12.Rd1 c5 13.Nb5 Nf8

+-----------------+

The simple 14. dxc5 wins a Pawn and seeks exchanges. Instead White wins an exchange, but allows counterplay.

14.Nc7 Nxd4 15.Nxe8 Qxe8 16.Ne5 f6 17.Nd3 b6 18.0-0 Bb7 19.Be3 e5 20.Rfe1 Rd8 21.Bxd4 Rxd4 22.Bf1 Ne6 23.f3 h5 24.b4 cxb4 25.Qxb4 Bf8 26.Qc3 Qd7 27.Kh1 Kh7 28.Qc2 Bc6 29.Qb1 Ba4 30.Rd2 Bh6 31.Rb2 Bf8 32.Nf2 Ba3 33.Ne4 Kg7 34.Rf2 Bc6 35.Nc3 Bc5 36.Nb5 Rh4 37.Rd1 Nd4 38.Nxd4 Rxd4 39.Re1 Rh4 40.Rd1 Rd4 41.Re1 h4 42.Rb2 Qd6 43.Rb3 e4 44.fxe4 Qe5 45.Rbe3 Bd6 46.g3 Rxe4 47.Qxe4 Bxe4+ 48.Rxe4 Qxg3 49.R4e2 Bb4 50.Rd1 Qf3+ 51.Kh2 Bd6+ 52.Kg1 Bc5+ 53.Kh2 Qg3+ 54.Kh1 Qg1# 0-1

If you have the advantage of the two Bishops, avoid the exchange of your opponent’s remaining Bishop for one of your Bishops.

Right

Wrong

If you have two Rooks and your opponent only one, seek the exchange of your opponent’s remaining Rook for one of your Rooks.

Right

Wrong

Avoid being left with a permanently poor piece, like a Bad Bishop

Right

+-----------------+

Bryson,D – Williams,C [C12] BCCC, 1984 [TDH]

18…Bb5

The classic French manoeuvre to offload the bad Bishop.

Wrong

+-----------------+

Booth,C (1800) – Regis,D (1825) [A42] Exeter vs. Harrogate, National Major Plate Final, 1996

Black has been left with classic KID bad Bishop.

22.b4 b6 23.a4 a5 [23…Bh4 24.a5] 24.Rxg8 Kxg8 25.bxa5 bxa5 26.Rb1 h5 27.Ke3 Bh4 28.Rb5 Rf4 29.Rxa5 Bxf2+ 30.Nxf2 Rxc4 31.Ne4 h4 32.Nd2 Rc3+ 33.Ke4 Kf7 34.Ra7 Kf6 35.a5 c6 [35…] 36.dxc6 Ke6 37.Rd7 Rxc6 38.Rd8 Rc3 39.Re8+ Kf7 40.Rh8 Ra3 [40…] 41.Nc4 Ra4 42.Kd5 Ra1 43.Rxh4 Rd1+ 44.Kc6 e4 45.Nxd6+ 1-0

Last but not least, look at the effect of the exchange on the position. Have you improved the opponent’s Pawn structure? Have you brought into play an opposing piece?

Right

Forintos,G – Gligoric,S [E77] Ljubljana, 1969

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 0-0 6.Be2 c5 7.d5 e6 8.Nf3 exd5 9.exd5

+-----------------+

9…Nh5 (Spassky) 10.0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 f5 12.Ng5 Ng7

A wonderful transformation, despite the loss of the Bg7 which is so often the salvation of Black’s game. White’s Pawns are blockaded across the board, and Black’s weak e6 square is comfortably under observation.

13.Bf3 Nd7 14.Re1 Nf6 15.Rb1 Re8 16.Rxe8+ Qxe8 17.Rb2 Bd7 18.Rxb7 Rb8 19.Rxb8 Qxb8 20.Qc2 h6 21.Nstrong Qe8 22.Bd2 Ba4 23.Qc1 Ng4 24.Nf2 Nxf2 25.Kxf2 Qe7 26.Kg1 Ne8 27.Qb1 1/2../strong>

Wrong

How often do we see in club play, …Bg4, … Bxf3, then Qxf3 or Nxf3 when the net effect is that Black has lost the Bishop pair and brought out a White piece. Here’s a more complex example:

Peters, J – Andersson,U [B15] defence: mending weaknesses, 1978

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ exf6 6.Bc4

+-----------------+

White’s Queen’s-side majority is a big engame plus, so White was startled by…

6…Qe7+ 7.Qe2 Be6

Black will only enter an endgame on certain conditions!

8.Bxe6

[8.Bb3 is the only testing continuation]

8…Qxe6 9.Bf4 Na6

The threat of …Nb4 eventually prompts the exchange on e6

10.0-0-0 0-0-0 11.Qxe6+ fxe6

White has drifted into a dull position.

12.h4 c5 13.Be3 cxd4 14.Bxd4 Bc5 15.Ne2 e5 16.Bxc5 Nxc5

Black has no problems and even won.

Playing White against odd Black defences after 1.e4 (part 1)

Posted on December 8, 1999 by DrDave

Black avoids 2…Nc6 or plays one of the semi-open defences

An Exeter Junior Chess Club booklet Edition 1., December, 99

Bibliography:

Dunnington, How to play the King’s Indian Attack

Evans, The Chess Opening for You

Hodgson/Day, The Grand Prix Attack

Hort, Alekhin’s Defence (inc. Nimzovitch Defence)

Karpov, The Semi-Open Game in Action

Kasparov/Keene, Batsford Chess Openings 2

Keene et al. Understanding the Caro-Kann Defence

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

Nunn, The Complete Pirc

Pachman, Semi-Open Chess

Schiller, How to play the King’s Indian Attack

Solitis/Hall, The King’s Indian Attack

Walker, Chess Openings for Juniors

Various magazines and other books

Introduction

The repertoires below offer you three ways of playing against
most of the semi-open defences, and also tell you what to do
against some of the less common lines after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3.

The three approaches are:

Fast attacking game with pieces

Slower attacking game with f4

King’s Indian Attack with g3

Which you choose will depend on what sort of player you are. It
may also depend on what you hope to play after 1. e4 e5.

Fast attacking game with pieces

Giuoco Piano (my main recomendation 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

Sadly, the KIA lines have no real force and are not 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+

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

Advance Variation, Milner Barry Gambit

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

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 d6 3. Qf3 Nf6 4. d4 e5 5. Nh3

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 think neither the Alekhin line nor the Monkey’s Bum are
really any good, but at least we’re thinking along the right lines,
even if this isn’t the repertoire we settle on.

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.

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

Defence

Piece attack

Slow attack with f4

King’s Indian Attack

Alekhin

1. e4 Nf6

1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3.exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4

1. e4 Nf6 2. d3 and 3.f4 (sadly, this line has no real force
and
is not a very good line to adopt)

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

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6
7.
Nh3 (Main line with 7.Nh3)

1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3.f4 (a line of the Dunst opening, 1.Nc3)

1. e4 c6 2. d3 d5 3.Nd2 (KIA vs. Alekhin)

French

1. e4 e6

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4
(Alekhin-Chatard Attack)

1. e4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3.f4 (a line of the Dunst opening, 1.Nc3)

1. e4 e6 2. d3 d5 3.Nd2 (KIA vs. French)

Pirc/Modern

1. e4 …d6/…g6

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4. f4 (Austrian Attack)

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4. Nge2 and 5. g3, 6. Bg2 (King
Fianchetto Variation)

Sicilian

1. e4 c5

Closed: without d4

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 and 3.Be2 (idea 4. c3) or 3. Bb5(+) (Rossolimo
Variation)

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)

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 and 3.g3 (KIA vs. Sicilian)

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. Analysis and Games

I’ll go through each approach in turn, looking at a system to
play against each defence.

I’ll concentrate more on the example games than the theory, and
more on the ‘piece attack’ lines than the others, because I think
that’s what you should be playing.

A. Piece attacks against the
common half-open defences

In each of these lines White has a straightforward plan of
campaign:

 rapid development

 keep Black passive

 keep lines open if you can

 keep an eye out for lightning raids

A1. Piece attacks vs.
Alekhin 1. e4 Nf6: 1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. exd5 Nxd5 4.
Bc4

This is not a particularly well-regarded line for White – that
is, it is not considered to be a good way to try for advantage at
GM level. But it gives you game where you don’t have to learn much
sharp theory and you are playing the sort of game you like. It has
also been responsible for some amusing miniatures:

Ourmet,J – Cierniak,P (1) Paris,
1989

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nxd5 4. Bc4 Nxc3 5. Qf3 e6
6. Qxc3 Nc6 7. Nf3 b6

8. Bb5 1-0

and

Iskov,G – Woge Nielsen,J, it,
Kobenhavn, 1989

1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. e5 d4 4. Nce2 Ne4 5. c3 c5 6. d3
1-0

You must be prepared, after 1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3, to play the Vienna
or other opening after 2…e5.

After 2…d5 3. exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4 Black has a choice of moving
the knight (4…Nb6, 4…Nxc3) or finding some way to defend it
(4…c6, 4…e6):

Avoiding with 4…Nb6

White’s next is easy to find.

5. Bb3 c5

[5… Nc6 6. Qf3 e6 7. Nge2 Be7 8. d3 O-O 9. Bf4 Na5 10. Qg3
Bd6 11. Ne4 Nxb3 12. axb3 Bxf4 13. Nxf4

+= Tietze-Neumann, corr; the Knights are nicely
placed]

6. Qh5 e6 7. d3 Nc6 8. Bg5 +=

[This is the best move, but an example with 8. Nf3 went
8…Be7 9. Ng5 g6 10. Qh6 Bf8 11. Qh3 Bg7 12. Nge4 Nd5 13. Bh6
e5

White plays a likely-looking Queen sacrifice.

14. Bxg7 Bxh3 15. Nxd5 Qa5+ 16. Kf1 O-O-O 17. Bxh8 Rxh8 18.
gxh3

Visser-Spanjaard 1948; White is better, as the Black pieces
can’t get going]

]

Avoiding with 4… Nxc3

White has a cunning reply to this move.

5. Qf3 e6 6. Qxc3

6… Qg5 7. Nf3

[7. Kf1 +=]

7… Qxg2 8. Rg1 Qh3

]

White has compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

Defending with 4… c6

Again, the Qf3 move is strong; Black is obliged to lock in the
Bc8.

5. Qf3 Be6 6. Nge2 Nc7 7. Bxe6 Nxe6 8. d4

[8. d3 += is good enough]

8… Nxd4 9. Nxd4 Qxd4 10. Be3 Qb4 11. O-O-O e5
?

[11… e6]

12. Qf5 f6 13. Ne4 Be7 14. Qe6

+- Potengowski-Kerckhoff, 1930; White has a clear
advantage]

Defending with 4… e6

White places his pieces as actively as possible.

5. Qf3 Nb4 ?! 6. Bb3 N8c6 7. Nge2 Be7 8. a3 Ne5 9. Qg3
Nbc6 10. d4

+/- Bellon-Alburt 1978]

White is better placed.

Example games
A1

Karaklajic,N – Marjanovic,Z (3) Pula, 1990 [B02]

1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4 Nb6 5. Bb3 c5 6.
Qh5

Again, White tries to get Black to play …e6; Black
resists.

6… c4 7. Bxc4 Nxc4 8. Qb5+ Nc6 9. Qxc4 Qd4 10. Qxd4
Nxd4 11. Kd1

White is a pawn up and just needs to survive the next few moves
to reach a winning endgame.

11… Bf5 12. d3 O-O-O 13. Be3 e5 14. Nge2 Bc5 15. Re1
Nxe2 16. Kxe2 Bxe3 17. Kxe3 Rhe8 18. f3 h5 19. a4 g5 20. h3 g4 21.
hxg4 hxg4 22. f4 Rd4 23. fxe5 Rxe5+ 24. Kd2 1-0

Lendwai – Neckar,L, Nova-Park/SW,2,21, 1989 [B02]

1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4 e6 5. Nf3 Be7 6.
O-O O-O 7. Re1 Nb6 8. Bb3 c5 9. d3 Nc6 10. a3 Nd5 11. Ne4 b6 12.
Qe2 Qc7

Neat Knights!

13. Bd2 Nf4 14. Qe3 Nd5 15. Qe2 h6 16. Ng3 Nf6 17. Bc3
Bb7 18. h4

An adventurous pawn

18…Rad8 19. Ng5 hxg5 20. hxg5 Nd5 21. g6 Nf4 22. gxf7+
Rxf7 23. Qg4 Nd4 24. Bxd4 Rxd4

Now an enterprising sacrifice to expose the Black King. White
can regain the exchange with Bb3xe6 xf7 but hopes for more.

25. Rxe6 Nxe6 26. Qxe6 Qf4 27. Nf5 c4 28. Nxe7+ Kh7 29.
Qg6+ Kh8 30. Qh5+ Qh6 31. Qxf7 Rd8 32. Bxc4 1-0

Madl,I – Guadalpi,D (1) Val-Thorens, 1989 [B02]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nxd5 4. Bc4 Nxc3 5. bxc3 g6
6. Qf3 e6 7. Ne2 Bg7 8. Ba3 Nc6 9. d4 Ne7 10. O-O O-O 11. Ng3 Re8
12. Rfe1 Rb8

White has good chances for an attack.

13. Ne4 Nf5 14. Rad1 b5 15. Bd3 a5 16. Bc1 Bb7 17. Qe2
Bxe4 18. Bxe4 Qe7 19. Bxf5 gxf5 20. Rd3 b4 21. Rg3 Kh8 22. Qh5 Qf8
23. Bf4 Rb7

Black undoubtedly missed White’s idea when considering his last
few moves.

24. Rxg7 1-0

Weiss,M – Shields,P (5), Chicago, 1989 [B02]

1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. exd5 Nxd5 4. Bc4 e6 5. Qf3 Nxc3
6. Qxc3 Nc6 7. Nf3 Qd6 8. a3 Bd7 9. O-O O-O-O

Black skips to the Queen’s-side

10. d4 Be7 11. Be3 Bf6 12. Rad1 Ne7 13. Ne5 Be8 14. Bf4
Nf5 15. Ng6 e5

This central break is the right sort of idea for Black, but goes
very wrong here.

16. dxe5 Qxd1 17. exf6 Bc6 18. Qe5 Rd7 19. Rxd1 Rxd1+
20. Bf1 Nd6 21. Nxh8 Bb5 22. Qxb5 Nxb5 23. fxg7 1-0

I have spent quite a while on the Alekhin’s, not
because it’s a very common line but

you won’t find much on the Bc4 plan in the
books

the White plan is exactly what you should be
doing in all the recommended lines below.

A2. Piece attacks vs.
Caro-Kann Defence

All the main lines in the books continue:

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5

and now

3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4

You may find players who will try and gum the whole position up
with 3…g6. tempting 4. e5. You can play 4. h3 but the resulting
positions are rather dull If you don’t like that idea, try
instead

3. Nd2

when 3…g6 can be met by 4. c3, keeping the tension in the
centre, and

3…dxe4 4. Nxe4

gives us the starting position from the books.

Black has tried 3…Nf6 e.g.

Tal-Campomanes, Leipzig Olympiad 1960 [B15]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. e6 fxe6 6. Bd3 Nf6 7.
Nf3 g6 8. h4 c5 9. dxc5 Nc6 10. Qe2 Bg7 11. Bd2 Qc7 12. O-O-O e5
13. Bg5 Be6 14. Nb5 Qb8 15. h5 gxh5 16. Nfd4 Bg4 17. f3 e4 18. fxg4
Nxd4 19. Nxd4 exd3 20. Rxd3 Ne4 21. Nf5 Qe5 22. Nxg7+ Qxg7 23. Rxd5
Nxg5 24. Qb5+ Kf7 25. Rf1+ Kg6 26. Qd3+ Kh6 27. Rh1 1-0

A2.1 Solid line with 4…
Nd7

White places his pieces actively in the hope of forcing …e6
before the Bc8 escapes.

5. Bc4 Ngf6 6. Ng5 e6 7. Qe2 Nb6

[7… h6 8. Nxf7 Kxf7 9. Qxe6+ Kg6 10. Bd3+ Kh5 11.
Qh3#]

8. Bd3 h6

[8… Qxd4 is too dangerous:

9. N1f3

idea Ne5,Ng5xf7

9… Bb4+ 10. c3 Bxc3+ 11. Kf1 Qc5 12. bxc3 Qxc3 13. Bb2
Qa5

White has great play for the pawn]

9. N5f3 c5 10. dxc5 Bxc5 11. Ne5 Nbd7 12. Ngf3 O-O 13.
Bd2 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Bd4

[14… Qd5 15. O-O-O Qxa2 16. c3]

15. O-O-O Qd5 16. f4 Qxa2 17. c3 Bc5 18. g4 Nd5 19. g5
Qa1+ 20. Bb1 g6 21. gxh6 b5 22. Qd3 Ba3 23. Qc2 Bb7 24. Rhg1
Rfc8

Ripe for picking, I’d say.

25. Rxg6+ Kf8 26. h7 Ke7 27. Rg7 b4

[27… Rf8 28. Ng6+ Kf6 29. Nxf8 Kxg7 30. h8=Q+ Kxh8 31.
Qh7#]

28. Rxf7+ Kd6 29. Rd7+ Kc5 30. Rxb7 1-0

Kirpichnikov-Lein, 1974]

A2.2. Lines with 4… Nf6

5. Nxf6+

…and Black has a choice of captures.

A2.2.1 Tartakower Variation, 5…
exf6

This is a dull line for Black. The most straightforward
attacking line against it is

6. c3 Bd6 7. Bd3 O-O 8. Ne2 Re8 9. Qc2 g6 10.
h4

See example games.

A2.2.2 Bronstein-Larsen line,
5…gxf6

This is the more dynamic line; Black hopes to make good use of
the half-open files.

6. Nf3 Bg4

[6… Bf5

is the normal-looking move, but it isn’t very good here
e.g.

7. Bd3 Bg6 8. O-O Qc7 9. c4 Nd7 10. d5 O-O-O 11. Be3 e5 12.
Be2 Kb8

[12… c5 13. Nh4]

13. Rc1 f5 14. c5

14… cxd5 15. c6 bxc6 16. Bb5]

7. Be2 Qc7 8. h3 Bh5 9. O-O Nd7

[9… e6 is better, but White should still get a good
attacking game after 10. c4 Nd7 11. d5 O-O-O]

10. d5 Rd8 11. c4 Nb6 12. Be3 Bxf3

[12… cxd5 13. cxd5 Nxd5

[13… Rxd5 14. Bxb6 Rxd1 15. Bxc7]

14. Bb5+]

13. Bxb6 axb6 14. Bxf3 cxd5 15. cxd5 Bh6 16. Qa4+ Kf8
+/- Smyslov-Pachman 1964]

A2.3 Classical Variation with 4…Bf5

Now play:

5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nh3

This is the most exciting line. The main line goes something
like:

7. Nf3 Nd7 8. h5 Bh7 9. Bd3 Bxd3 10. Qxd3 Qc7 11. Bd2 e6 12.
O-O-O Ngf6 13. Qe2 O-O-O 14. Ne5

…when White has a small advantage which is difficult to make
any use of.

7… Nf6 8. Nf4 Bh7 9. Bc4 e6 10. O-O Bd6

Now we see the point of the Nf4 move:

11. Nxe6 fxe6 12. Bxe6

White has good chances for attack, although if the attack fails,
the missing piece will lose the game.

12… Qc7 13. Re1

[13. Nh5 may be better]

13… Nbd7 14. Bg8+ Kf8 15. Bxh7 Rxh7

and Black is holding on.

Example games
A2

Kavalek-Andersson 1978

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2

Kavalek actually played 3. Nc3

3…dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Nxf6+ exf6 6.c3 Bd6 7. Bd3 O-O
8. Ne2 Re8 9. Qc2 g6 10. h4 Nd7 11. h5 Nf8 12. Bh6 Qc7 13. O-O-O
Be6

[13… b5 14. Rh4]

14. c4 Rad8 15. hxg6 fxg6 16. c5 Be7 17. Nf4 Bf7 18.
Bc4

The Bf7 must be exchanged.

18… Rd5

[18… Bxc4 19. Qxc4+ Kh8 20. Qf7 Bd6 21. Bg7#]

19. Rde1 Red8 20. Bxd5 cxd5 21. Re3 Rd7 22. Rhe1
g5

else Qe2 and Re8+

23. Bxf8 Bxf8 24. Rh1 h6 25. Ng6 Bxc5 26. Rc3 Bd6 27.
Rxh6 Kg7 28. Nf8 Kxf8

[28… Bg8 29. Nxd7]

29. Rh8+ Ke7 30. Qe2+ Be6 31. Rh7+

White, who has conducted the attack with great accuracy, finds
an equally crisp finish.

1-0

[31… Kf8 32. Rxc7 Bxc7 33. Qxe6 Rxh7 34. Qc8+]

[31… Kd8 32. Qxe6 Rxh7 33. Qg8+]

De Armas,A – Jensen,C (7) Novi, 1990 [B18]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6.
h4 h5 7. N1e2 e6 8. Nf4 Ne7 9. c3 Nd7 10. Nxg6 Nxg6 11. Nxh5 Nxh4
12. g3

The open h-file looks dangerous for both sides, but Black must
retreat.

12… Ng6 13. Bd3 Rh7 14. Qc2

Suddenly, White looks much the better.

14… f5 15. Qb3 Ne7 16. Qxe6 g6 17. Bg5 Qa5 18.
O-O-O

White is looking very good!

18… Rxh5

[18… gxh5 19. Rde1 O-O-O 20. Re5 Qa4 21. Bxf5 Rg7

19. Bxe7 Qd5 20. Qxg6+ Kxe7 21. Rxh5

Enough! 1-0

Haas,C – Trachsel, Arosa, 1990 [B18]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6.
h4 h6 7. Nh3 Nf6 8. Nf4 Bh7 9. c3 e6 10. Bc4 Nd5 11.
Qg4

Black now exchanges one his two developed pieces, bringing
another White piece into play.

11… Nxf4 12. Bxf4 Qf6 13. Kf1 Nd7 14. Re1 O-O-O 15.
Rh3 Bf5

Winning the exchange? This was actually a cunning trap for Black
to fall into.

16. Qf3 Bxh3 17. Qxc6+ 1-0

Rodriguez,Danie – Ruxton,K (6) WchJ, 1989 [B18]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3
Bg6

Here White adopts a slightly different move order to the
recommended line above.

6. N1e2 e6 7. Nf4 Bd6 8. h4

Again, Black is prompted to exchange on f4.

8… Bxf4 9. Bxf4 h6 10. h5 Bh7 11. c3 Nf6 12. Qb3 Qe7
13. Be5 b6 14. O-O-O O-O 15. Bd3 Bxd3 16. Rxd3 Nbd7 17. Kb1 Ng4 18.
Re1

White simply plays to dominate the d-file after the exchange on
e5.

18… Ngxe5 19. dxe5 Nc5 20. Qa3 Qg5 21. Rd4 Rfd8 22.
Red1 Rd5 23. b4 Nd7 24. c4 Rxd4 25. Rxd4 Qe7 26. f4 c5 27. b5 f6
28. exf6 Nxf6 29. Rd2 e5 30. fxe5 Qxe5 31. Qd3

Black’s position is loose and he must be very careful…

31… Rf8 32. Re2 Qf4 33. Nf5 Re8

34. Ne7+ Kf7 35. Qg6+ Kf8

36. Qxe8+ Kxe8 37. Nd5+ 1-0

…More careful than that, anyway

Schlindwein,R – Hugger,M (1) Badenweiler, 1990
[B18]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6.
N1e2 h6 7. Nf4 Bh7 8. Bc4 e6 9. O-O Nf6 10. Re1 Nd5

The pin on the e-file can be exploited.

11. Bxd5 cxd5 12. Qh5 Qg5

[12… g6 13. Qxd5 Nc6]

13. Rxe6+ Kd8 14. Qxf7 Nc6 15. Re8# 1-0

A3. Piece attacks vs. French
1. e4 e6: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4
(Albin-Alekhin-Chatard Attack)

Well, you won’t get the Alekhin line in every game. The French
starts:

1. e4 e6

Now play the natural sequence

2. d4 d5 3. Nc3

Black now has an important choice: safe or brave?

A3.1. Rubinstein Variation
3…dxe4 4. Nxe4

This is a solid line but Black lacks counterplay.

A3.1.1 Rubinstein Variation with
4…Nf6

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6

White can get an advantage through straightforward moves:

5. Nxf6+ gxf6

(5…Qxf6 6. Nf3 h6 7. Bd3

6. Nf3 b6 7. Bb5+ c6 8. Bc4 Bb7 9. Bf4 Bd6 10. Bg3 Qc7
11. Qe2 Nd7 12. O-O O-O-O 13. Ba6

Liublinsky-Ufimsev 1945.

A3.1.2 Rubinstein Variation with
4…Bd7

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bd7

This

Stonewall

variation recently had some recommendations with the idea of
getting a line for the Bishop with Bc6, but White shouldn’t be
short of play:

5. Nf3 Bc6 6. Bd3

6…Nf6

(6…Nd7 may be better)

7. Nxf6+ gxf6 8. Qe2

+/- Levy.

A3.1.3 Rubinstein Variation with
4…Nd7

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7

The main line, which, however, promises Black little. There have
been many lines explored here but as an example you could play
over:

5. Nf3 Nf6 6. Nxf6+ Nxf6 7. Ne5

White has a small advantage with easy development. Tarrasch
showed us several times how to play these positions: see EG.

A3.2. Guimard Variation 3.
… Nc6

In this line, Black cannot play the natural counterattck …c5,
and the other break with …f6 is riskier. Now

4. e5

4…Nge7 5. Nce2 Nf5 6. Nf3 b6 7. Nf4+/-

leaves Black without scope, so Black should prefer

4…f6

when, after

5. exf6 Nxf6 6. Nf6 Bd6 7. Bg5 O-O 8. Bd3 Bd7 9. Qd2 Qe8
10. O-O-O Qh5 11.Rde1

White has pressure along the e-file and is in any event more
actively placed.

A3. 3. Classical Variation,
3…Nf6

This is met by:

4. Bg5

The natural reply here is the balancing …Be7 but Black has two
alternatives: …Bb4 and …dxe4.

A3.3.1. The Burn Variation, 4…
dxe4

This has obvious links with the Rubinstein line.

5. Nxe4 Be7 6. Bxf6

And Black has tried both recaptures:

6…Bxf6 (Variation 1)

Black has the two bishops and is solid; White can claim only a
small advantage.

7. Nf3 Nd7 8. Qd2 O-O 9.O-O-O b6 10. d5 Ne5 11. Qf4 Ng6
12. Nxf6+ Qxf6 13. Qxf6 gxf6

…when White hopes that the greater harmony of the pawns will
give the advantage.

6… gxf6 (Variation 2)

A more risky and more dynamic try.

After 7. Nf3 Black hopes the two bishops and open d- and g-files
will give active play. White should develop properly and aim for
d5, breaking open the position.

A3.3.2. The MacCutcheon Variation, 4… Bb4

This line still offers Black some prospects of a
counterattacking game, but is not as good as the Winawer.

5. e5 h6 6. Bd2 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4 g6 9. Bd3 Nxd2
10. Kxd2 c5 11. Qf4 Nc6 12. Nf3

White has the idea of dxc5 and Nd4, with advantage.

A3.3.3. The Classical Variation 4… Be7
(and Alekhin Chatard attack with 6. h4)

Again White’s move is easy to remember:

5. e5 Nfd7

6. h4

This is, at last, the Alekhin-Chatard Attack. White offers a
pawn for chances of attack. Just how good this line can be is shown
by the following miniature:

Zuber,M – Halmkin,P (Exeter Vs
Teignmouth, 1995)

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4
Bxg5 7. hxg5 Qxg5 8. Nh3 Qe7 9. Qg4 g6 10. Bd3 b6 11. Nf4 Ba6 12.
Bxg6 fxg6 13. Nxe6 Nf8 14. Nxd5 Nxe6 15. Nxe7 1-0

Good, isn’t it?

Black has various ways of declining the gambit, but none are
very promising (analysis from BCO2 and elsewhere):

Declining with 6… f6

7. Qh5+ Kf8

[or 7… g6 8. exf6 gxh5 9. fxe7 Qxe7 10. Bxe7 Kxe7

Declining with 6… c5

7. Bxe7 Qxe7 8. Nb5 +=

Declining with 6… h6

7. Be3 c5 8. Qg4 g6 9. Nf3 +=

Hellers-Barayev 1986

Declining with 6… a6

7. Qg4 Bxg5 8. hxg5 c5 9. g6 f5 10. Qg3 h6 11. Nf3 O-O
12. O-O-O Nc6 13. Ne2

+=/unclear BCO2

Declining with 6… O-O

7. Qg4 f5 8. exf6 Nxf6 9. Qg3 c5 10. dxc5 Nbd7 11. O-O-O
Nxc5 12. Bd3 b5

unclear: Kupreichik-Moskalenko 1986

The Gambit accepted: 6…Bxg5

7. hxg5 Qxg5 8. Nh3 Qe7 9. Nf4 Nc6

The N goes to h3 instead of f3 to allow Q to move to g4 when
White has good prospects of attack.

Black has a couple of alternatives to 9…Nc6:

[9… f5 10. Qh5+ Qf7 11. Nxe6 g6 12. Nxc7+ Kd8 13.
Qf3

+- BCO2

13… Kxc7 14. Nxd5+ Kd8 15. Bc4]

[9… Nf8 10. Qg4 f5 11. exf6 gxf6 12. O-O-O: see example
games]

[9… a6 10. Qg4 Kf8 11. Qf3 Kg8 12. Bd3 c5

[12… h6]

13. Bxh7+

Keres-Wade 1954]

10. Qg4 Nxd4 11. O-O-O Nf5 12. Nfxd5

With compensation, according to BCO2

A3.4. The Winawer variation,
3… Bb4 and Alekhin Gambit 4. Nge2

Black takes a risky decision – to attack White’s Knight but with
the important dark-squared bishop. White has the main try 4. e5 but
also some ways of avoiding these critical lines, including the
gambit lines 4. Nge2 and 4. a3, and the Winawer Exchange 4.
exd5.

4. Nge2

Another Alekhin Gambit

Black is advised not to hang on to the pawn, but to concentrate
on good development instead.

4… dxe4 5. a3 Be7 6. Nxe4 Nf6

An open game with about equal chances has resulted.

Example games
A3

A3.3.3 Examples of the Alekhin-Chatard
Attack

Alekhin – Fahrni, Mannheim, 1914

This is an early game that showed us all the way.

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4
Bxg5 7. hxg5 Qxg5 8. Nh3

The key move in the Gambit Accepted.

8… Qe7 9. Nf4 Nf8 10. Qg4 f5 11. exf6 gxf6 12. O-O-O
c6 13. Re1 Kd8

[13… Na6 14. Bxa6 bxa6 15. Nfxd5 cxd5 16. Nxd5 Qf7 17.
Qf4]

14. Rh6 e5 15. Qh4 Nbd7 16. Bd3 e4 17. Qg3
Qf7

18. Bxe4 dxe4 19. Nxe4 Rg8 20. Qa3!

Great idea.

20… Qg7 21. Nd6 Nb6 22. Ne8 Qf7 23. Qd6+ Qd7 24.
Qxf6+

1-0

Cid,M – Araya,R (4) Copa, 1989[C13]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4
a6

Declined

7. Qg4 Bxg5 8. hxg5 c5 9. g6 f5 10. Qf4 h6 11. Nf3 O-O
12. dxc5 Qe8 13. O-O-O

The g-pawn is tempting…

13… Qxg6 14. Nxd5

A characteristic sac.

14…exd5 15. Rxd5 Qg4 16. Qd2 f4 17. Rh4 Qe6 18. Bc4
Kh8 19. Rxf4 Rxf4 20. Qxf4 Qe7 21. Nh4 Qe8 22. Rd6

Black’s useless Q-side pieces are all still in bed.

1-0

Djurhuus,R – Minero,S (7) Santiago, 1990[C13]

1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 e6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4
a6

Declined

7. Qg4 Kf8 8. Qf4 c5 9. dxc5 Nc6 10. Nf3 Nxc5 11. O-O-O
b5 12. Rh3

The position is still not easy for Black

12… Bd7 13. Kb1 b4 14. Ne2 Ne4 15. Bxe7+ Qxe7 16. Ng5
Nc5 17. h5 h6 18. Nf3 Ne4 19. Qe3 a5 20. Ng3 Nc5 21. Nd4 a4 22. f4
b3 23. cxb3 Nxd4 24. Rxd4 axb3 25. a3 Rb8 26. Rb4 Rc8 27. Ne2 Ba4
28. Qd4 Bd7 29. Nc1 g6 30. hxg6 fxg6 31. Nxb3 Kg7 32. Nxc5 Rxc5 33.
Rg3 Rhc8

At last the K-side attack comes!

34. f5 Rc1+ 35. Ka2 Rxf1 36. f6+ Rxf6 37. exf6+
Qxf6

And White won with the exhange and extra pawns.

38. Qa7 Rd8 39. Rb7 Qe7 40. Rc3 Kf8 41. Qb6 Kf7 42. Qe3
Qg5 43. Qd4 h5 44. Rf3+ Kg8 45. a4 Qe7 46. Qe5 Qg7 47. Rf6 Ra8 48.
b3 Re8 49. Qg5 Kh7

50. Rxd7 1-0

Sokolov – Shemiakin, T, Simferopol, 1989[C13]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4
O-O

Declined

7. Bd3 f5 8. exf6 Nxf6 9. Nf3 c5 10. dxc5 Nc6 11. Qe2
Qa5 12. O-O-O

Black now becomes provocative

12… d4 13. Bxf6 gxf6 14. Nxd4 Nxd4

The crowd were baying for…

15. Bxh7+ Kxh7 16. Qh5+ Kg7 17. Rxd4 f5 18. Rh3 Bxc5 19.
Rg3+ Kf6 20. Ne4+

The lonely King wanders to his grave

20… Ke5

[20… fxe4 21. Rg6+ Kf7 22. Rh6+ Ke7 23. Rh7+ Rf7 24.
Qxf7#]

21. f4+ Kxd4 22. Qd1+ Qd2+ 23. Nxd2 Kd5 24. Nb3+ Kc6 25.
Nxc5 Kxc5 1-0

Zeh,H – Bahry,J, Baden-Baden, 1989[C13]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. e4 d5 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4
a6 7. Qg4 h5

Declined again

8. Qg3 g6 9. Nf3 c5 10. dxc5 Nc6 11. O-O-O

11… Bxg5+ 12. Nxg5 Qe7 13. f4 Nxc5 14. Be2 Bd7 15. Qf2
O-O-O

Black escapes to the Q-side

16. g3 Rdf8

17. Rxd5 exd5 18. Nxd5

the sacrifice is not so great, after all!

18… Nd3+ 19. Bxd3 Qd8 20. Ne4 Kb8 21. Nd6 Qa5 22. Nc3
Be6 23. a3

23… Nxe5

[I think this is unnecessary, but it’s hard to give Black
good advice e.g. 23… Rd8 24. Rd1 f6 25. Nce4 fxe5 26. Nxb7!? Kxb7
27. Nc5+ Kb8 28. Nxe6 Rd6 29. Bc4]

24. fxe5 Qxe5 25. Qb6 Bc8 26. Bxa6 1-0

Now, a few games in the other Alekhin gambit.

A3.4 Examples of the Alekhin Gambit in
the Winawer Variation

Miles – Reefschlager, Porz,
1982

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 dxe4 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6.
Nxc3 Nc6 7.

Bb5 Nge7 8. Be3 O-O 9. Qd2 a6 10. Bxc6 Nxc6 11. O-O-O f5
12. Bg5 Qe8

13. f3 exf3 14. gxf3

14… Nd8

[14… e5 return the pawn to activate the Bc8]

15. Rhg1 c6 16. Rg3 Rf7 17. Rdg1 b5

to allow …Ra7, but a move too late

18. Bf6

1-0 18… Rxf6

[18… Raa7 19. Qh6 Qf8 20. Be5 Kh8 21. Rh3 Qg8 22. Ne2 f4 23.
Rxg7 Rxg7 24. Nxf4

]

19. Rxg7+ Kh8 20. Qg5 Rg6

[20… Rf8 21. Rxh7+]

21. Rxg6 hxg6 22. Qh6+

1-0

Conejero,J. M – Perez Torres,J [C15], Valencia

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 dxe4 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6.
Nxc3 f5

Yeuch.

7. Bf4 Nf6 8. f3

The best approach.

8…exf3 9. Qxf3 O-O 10. O-O-O Nd5 11. Be5 Rf7 12.
Bc4

12… Qg5+ 13. Kb1 Ne3 14. Bf4

1-0

Ristic,Nen – Sanchis, A [C15], Chartres

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 dxe4 5. a3 Be7 6.
Nxe4 Nc6 7. Bf4 Nf6 8. Qd3 b6 9. O-O-O Bb7 10. N2c3 O-O 11. Kb1 Qd7
12. Nxf6+ Bxf6

13. d5

Always, this is the key break.

13…Ne5 14. Qg3 Ng6 15. Bb5 Qc8 16. Bxc7 Bxc3 17. dxe6
Bxg2

The position is opened up nicely.

18. Rhg1 Bf6 19. exf7+ Rxf7 20. Bc4 Bb7 21. Rge1 Qf5 22.
Qb3 Bg5 23. Be6 Qf3 24. Rd3 Qf6 25. Rd7 Ne7 26. Be5 Qxf2 27. Bg3
Qf3 28. Bxf7+

1-0

Westerinen,H – Bergsson,S [C15], Gausdal

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 dxe4 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6.
Nxc3 Nc6 7. Bf4 Nf6 8. Bb5

Black now prompts a move White might make voluntarily.

8… a6 9. Bxc6+ bxc6 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bxf6 Qxf6 12.
Nxe4

Black’s pawns look awful.

12… Qh4 13. Qd3 e5 14. dxe5 Qf4 15. O-O Qxe5 16. f4
Qxb2

Careless.

17. Rfb1

1-0

Abdulla,M – Khechen,N [C15], Novi

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 dxe4 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6.
Nxc3 Nc6 7. Bb5 Nge7 8. Bg5 f6

Ill-advised.

9. Be3 a6 10. Bxc6+ Nxc6

11. Qh5+ g6 12. Qh6 Qe7 13. Nxe4 Bd7 14. Qh4 Rf8 15.
O-O-O O-O-O 16. Rhe1 Be8

Again, the position needs opening up with d5.

17. d5 Rxd5 18. Rxd5 exd5 19. Bc5

winning the exchange

19… Qf7 20. Bxf8 dxe4 21. Qxe4 Bd7 22. Bc5
Qa2

a hopeful lunge

23. Bd4 Nxd4 24. Qxd4 Qa1+ 25. Kd2 Qa2 26. Re7 Bc6 27.
c4 b6 28. Rxh7 Bxg2

1-0

Castillo,O – Segovia,J [C15], WchJ

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 dxe4 5. a3 Be7 6.
Nxe4 Nc6 7. Qd3 Nf6 8. Nxf6+ Bxf6 9. Be3 O-O 10. O-O-O

Black now tries a break. Because White is not much better
developed, he keeps it closed. We than have an opposite-side
castling situation, where both sides must attack quickly.

10… e5 11. d5 Ne7 12. Ng3 Ng6 13. Qe4 Bg5 14. Nf5
Bxe3+ 15. fxe3 Ne7 16. g4

You can make this sort of move if your king is on the other
side.

16… Bxf5 17. gxf5 f6 18. Rg1 Kh8 19. Rg3 Qd7 20. Bd3
Rad8 21. Rdg1 Rg8 22. Qh4 h6

Black’s attack hasn’t even started.

23. Rxg7 Nxf5 24. Rxg8+ Rxg8 25. Qxf6+ 1-0

De Eccher,S – Schneiders,A [C15], Lugano

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 dxe4 5. a3 Be7 6.
Nxe4 Nf6 7. Qd3 b6 8. Bf4 Bb7 9. Nxf6+ Bxf6 10. O-O-O

Black is fairly well placed, though behind in development, but
now blunders.

10… Bg5 11. Qb5+ 1-0

A3. Example of other French
variations

Tarrasch – Mieses[C30], Berlin Match (3) , 1916

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Nf3 Ngf6 6.
Bd3 Be7 7. O-O Nxe4 8. Bxe4 Nf6 9. Bd3 b6

Black has conceded a small space advantage and plays his last
move to get the blocked Bc8 out. Tarrasch prevents even that.

10. Ne5 O-O

Else Bb5+

11. Nc6 Qd6 12. Qf3 Bd7 13. Nxe7+ Qxe7 14. Bg5 Rac8 15.
Rfe1 Rfe8

Black knows enough not to move his King’s-side pawn unless he is
forced to. So Tarrasch forces him to!

16. Qh3

Threatening 17. Bxf6 and 18. Qxh7

16… Qd6 17. Bxf6 gxf6 18. Qh6 f5

In just a few moves, Tarrasch has got into the heart of the
King’s defences.

19. Re3 Qxd4 20. c3!

A pretty final move: Black resigns, unable to stop Rg3.

Beating the Anti-Indians

Posted on October 28, 1999 by DrDave

Playing Black in Indian systems without c2-c4: a repertoire for
the …g6 and the …e6 player

Daniel Hill, Dave Regis and Steve Webb (Credits)

A. Colle System

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 and 3. e3

White will play slowly for the e2-e4 break, opening up the game.

There is a club booklet on the Colle.

Black plays …g6 against the
Colle

This is well-known as a good system: the Bd3 bites on granite and
e3-e4 results in a Pirc-style game satisfactory for Black.

The Colle proper is a system which follows 1. d4 d5,
which is not the Indian move-order, but you may end up in the line
below:

4. c3

4… g6 5. Nbd2 Nbd7 6. Bd3 Bg7 7. O-O O-O

Now Fine says White is best advised to play

8. b4=

Since

[8. e4 dxe4 9. Nxe4 cxd4 10. Nxd4 Ne5 11. Nxf6+ Bxf6
12. Be2 Bd7 is =+]

Colle system vs. King’s
Indian

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. e3

Now e2-e4 just loses a tempo on the Pirc, if that’s in your
repertoire (which it should be! White has more than one way to try
and transpose…). Otherwise White can try to get into a main line
as below:

Belavanets – Bronstein 13th USSR
semi-final, 1941

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 e5 4. Nf3 Nbd7 5. g3 g6 6. Bg2
Bg7 7. O-O O-O 8. b3 Re8 9. e3 c6 10. Qc2 Qa5 11. a4 Nf8 12. Ba3
Bf5 13. Qb2 Rad8 14. Rfd1 e4 15. Nd2 Ne6

The Qa5 is not typical, but we can see several themes here:

fianchetto of the King’s bishop

use of the e-pawn to gain an initiative on the
K-side

over-protection of the advanced
e4-pawn

move all the pieces to the K-side in a committal
attack

16. b4 Qc7 17. Rdb1 Qd7 18. c5 Ng5

More over-protection

19. cxd6 Bh3 20. Bh1 Qf5 21. Ne2 Nd5 22. b5
Bg4

23. Kf1

Two sword-swipes with the Knights decide the game.

23…Nxe3+ 24. Ke1 Nf3+ 0-1

Black plays …e6 against the
Colle

3. e3

Of course 3…e6 gives Black a problem developing the Bc8. It can
hold back and wait for …e6-e5, but it is more natural to develop
it either on the long diagonal or immediately (after …d5 and
before …e6).

3… Bg4 4. Nbd2 Nbd7 5. h3 Bh5 6. c4 e6 7. Qb3
Rb8

about equal: Kovacevic-Timman 1984]

Colle with …b6

2… b6 3. e3 Bb7

“The Queen’s Indian formation against the
Colle-Zukertort has a reputation for reliability; Black indeed had
a good plus score in the games examined.” TRENDS

4. Bd3 e6 5. O-O c5

6. Nbd2

[6. c3 is the traditional recipe]

6… Be7

is the main line but others are known:

[6… cxd4 7. exd4 Be7 8. Re1 O-O 9. a4 a6 10. Nf1
d6= Kovacevic-Hulak, 1985 (BCO)]

[6… d6 is known to theory]

[6… Nc6!? 7. b3

[7. a3 Be7 8. Re1 O-O 9. b3 d6 10. Bb2 Re8 11. c4 Nb8
Yusupov-Sax, 1988 (1/2-1/2, 63)]

7… cxd4 8. exd4 Nb4 9. Be2 Rc8 10. c4 d5
Yusupov-Chernin, 1987 (1/2-1/2, 18)]

Example Game:

Colle,Edgar – Capablanca,Jose
(18) [A47] *Karlsbad, 1929

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 b6 3. e3

3… Bb7 4. Nbd2 e6 5. Bd3 c5 6. O-O Nc6 7. c3 Be7 8. e4
cxd4 9. Nxd4 O-O 10. Qe2

10… Ne5 11. Bc2 Qc8 12. f4 Ba6 13. Qd1 Nc6 14.
Rf3

14… g6 15. N2b3 Nxd4 16. Nxd4 Bb7 17. Qe2 Bc5 18. Rh3 Qc6
19. e5 Nd5 20. Qf2

20… Bxd4 21. cxd4 Rac8 22. Bd1 f6 23. Qh4 Rf7

24. Bf3 Qc4 25. Be3 Nxe3 26. Bxb7 Nf5 27. Qe1 Rc7 28. Be4
Qxd4+ 29. Kh1 fxe5 30. Bxf5 exf5 31. fxe5 Re7 32. Re3 Qxb2 33. e6
dxe6 34. Rxe6 Kf7

White is two pawns down with still the worse position, so:

0-1

B. London System

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 and 3. Bf4

White holds the centre and develops quickly, attacking on either
side as the opportunity arises.

Black plays …g6 against the
London System

The Bishop rather invites …d6 and …e5.

3… Bg7 4. e3 d6

[4… d5 is recommended by Varnusz, but may not sit
easily in the repertoire of a KID player. Also anecdotal evidence
suggests that …d5 may suit a London player’s style]

5. h3

To preserve the Bf4, but it has at the moment little
scope and its position even invites …e5. We will look at an
example game:

Polugaevsky-Gufeld,
1979

5… O-O 6. Be2 c5 7. Nbd2 cxd4 8. exd4 Nc6 9. O-O Bf5 10.
c3 Rc8=

The Bf5 is awkward while it stays and awkward to remove.

11. Bh2 a6 12. a4 Re8 13. Nc4 d5 14. Nce5 Qb6 15.
Ra2 Ne4 16. Nxc6?!

[16. g4!?]

16… bxc6 17. a5 Qb7 18. g4 Bd7 19.
Ne5

19… Bxe5

An unusual exchange!

20. Bxe5

[20. dxe5 e6 /\ …c5]

20… f6 21. Bh2 c5 22. f3 Ng5 23. h4 Nf7 24. Re1
Bb5 25. b3 cxd4 26. cxd4 Rc3 27. Kg2 e5 28. Bxb5 Qxb5 29. Rae2
Rd3

30. Rd2 Rxd2+ 31. Qxd2 Qxb3 32. Re3 Qb5 33. g5 Nd6 34. Re1
Nc4 35. Qf2 exd4 36. Rxe8+ Qxe8 37. gxf6 Ne3+ 38. Kg1 Qb5 39. Be5
Qb1+ 40. Kh2 Qf5 41. Bg3 Qc2 42. Qxc2 Nxc2 43. Be5 Kf7 44. Kg2 d3
45. Kf2 d2 46. Ke2 Ne3

0-1

White’s poor Bishop could do nothing about the Black
attack, and finally dies on what should be its best square!

Hills-Webb 1995

5… Nbd7

for 5…O-O see below

6. Be2

[6. Bd3 is deterred by the Pawn on g6]

6… O-O 7. c4

[7. c3 and Nbd2 is a slower way to play the system;
Black can play the Bc8 to b7 as in the game.]

[7. O-O Qe8 is recommended in the book (Varnusz),
planning …e5]

[7… c5 8. c3 b6 9. a4 Bb7 10. Bh2 a6!
Varnusz]

7… c5

Thematic, playing to pressurise the long diagonal.

8. Nc3 cxd4 9. exd4 b6 10. O-O Bb7 11. Qc2 Rc8
12. b3

Defends the c4 Pawn but weakens the dark squares.

12… a6

/\ …b5

13. a4 Re8 14. Rfd1 Nb8

/\ …Nb8-c6-b4

15. d5 Nxd5

draw agreed (!)

[15… Nxd5 16. Bd2 Nb4-+ ]

One last one with a slightly different move order.

Short,N-Kasparov,Gary/Skelleftea (4) 1989

2… c6 3. Bf4 d6 4. h3 Qb6 5. b3 c5 6. dxc5 Qxc5
7. c4 g6 8. Nc3 Bg7 9. Rc1 Bf5

Black is fine here: both Bishops are better than White’s, Black has
control of e4 and can enjoy the discomfort of White’s King, which
is at least three moves from castling.

10. Be3 Qa5 11. Bd2 Qd8 12. Nd4 Be4 13. e3 Nc6
14. Nde2 Bd3 15. Nf4 Bxf1 16. Kxf1 O-O 17. g3 e6 18. Kg2 d5 19.
cxd5 exd5 20. Qf3 d4 21. Ncd5 Nxd5 22. Qxd5 Qe7 23. Rhe1 Rad8 24.
Qc5 Qd7 25. e4 Ne5 26. Red1 b6 27. Qc7

27. Qc7 Qb5 28. Qxa7 g5 29. Qa4

Sacrificing the Knight for some play

29… Qxa4 30. bxa4 gxf4 31. gxf4 Nd3 32. Rc6 Nb2
33. Rdc1 Nxa4 34. f5 Rfe8 35. f3 Ra8 36. Kh1 Nc5 37. Rg1 Kh8 38.
Rc7 Rf8 39. Bf4 Rac8 40. Re7 Rce8 41. Rc7 Nd3 42. Bd6 Rg8 43. Rxf7
Be5 44. Rxg8+ Rxg8 45. Rd7 Nf2# 0-1

Black plays …e6 against the
London System

3. Bf4

3…b6

[3… d5 4. e3 Bd6 5. Bg3 c5 6. c3 Ne4 7. Bxd6 Qxd6
8. Nbd2 Nxd2 9. Qxd2 Nc6 = Osmanovitch-Lputian, 1983]

4. e3 Bb7 5. Bd3

[5. c4 is Miles’ variation in the Queen’s Indian 5…
Ne4]

5… Be7 6. h3 O-O 7. Nbd2 c5 8. c3 d5 9. O-O Qc8
10. Re1 Ba6 11. Bc2 Rd8 12. Ne5 Nc6 13. Bg5 h6 14. Bh4 Qc7 15. f4
Rac8 16. Qf3 Ne4

1/2-1/2 Gulko-Browne, 1988 (Given in The London
System by Soltis)

C. Torre Attack/Torre System
vs. King Fianchetto

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 and 3. Bg5

The founder of this system scored a famous victory over Lasker with
a ‘windmill’ combination. It has similar ideas to the London
System, and chooses perhaps a better square for the Bishop. It also
tempts Black to chase the bishop.

Black plays …g6 against the
Bg5 system

3. Bg5

3… Bg7

White can try and fiddle c2-c4 or Nb1-c3 with 4. e3, but
this forgoes e2-e4.

4. Nbd2 c5

White can now try

5. Bxf6 or

5. c3:

we’ll look at a game with each.

5. Bxf6 e.g.
Spiridonov,N-Kasparov,Gary/Skara (4) 1980

5. Bxf6 Bxf6 6. Ne4 Bxd4! 7. Nxd4 cxd4 8. Qxd4 O-O 9.
c4

Although Black lacks the dark-squared Bishop, his position is fine.

9… Nc6 10. Qd2 d6 11. Nc3 Be6 12. e4 Qb6 13.
Rd1?!

Over-ambitious: Black spies the traditional weakness on f2

13… Ne5 14. b3 f5! 15. Be2 f4!-+

Cementing the post on e5.

16. Nd5 Bxd5 17. Qxd5+ Kg7 18. O-O Rac8 19. b4
Qxb4 20. Rb1 Qa3 21. Rxb7

White seems to have developed some uncomfortable threats…

21… Kf6!!

…but they are all one-move deep, and this stops the
lot!

22. h4 h6

[22… Qxa2? 23. Bg4]

23. Rd1 Rb8

[23… Qxa2?? 24. Qxd6+ exd6 25. Rxd6#]

24. Rc7 Rfc8 25. Rxc8 Rxc8 26. Qb7 Qc5 27. Qb2
Qb6 28. Qc1 g5 29. Rd5 e6 30. hxg5+ hxg5

31. Rd1 Ke7 32. Qc2 Rb8 33. Qa4 g4 34. Qa3 Qc5 35. Qc3 g3
36. Rf1 gxf2+ 37. Rxf2 Rb1+ 38. Bf1 Qe3 39. Qxe3 fxe3 40. Rc2 Nxc4
0-1

5. c3
Bisguier,Arthur-Fischer,Robert/New York ch-US Rd: 5 1965

5… cxd4

This capture is best and common in these systems after Nbd2, since
White cannot play Nb1-c3

6. cxd4 Nc6 7. e3 O-O 8. a3 h6 9. Bh4 d6 10. Bc4
Bf5 11. h3 Rc8 12. O-O e5 13. e4 Bd7 14. dxe5 dxe5 15. Ba2
g5

with the e-pawn fixed, the light-squared Bishop lacks
access to f5 and related squares, so this is quite safe here.

16. Bg3 Qe7 17. Re1 Rcd8

Black’s position is harmonious with central control; White’s pieces
lack scope by contrast. White would like to sink a Knight into f5
but it’s going to have to be the one on f3, which is going to give
Black the d4 point.

18. Nh2 Be6 19. Bxe6 Qxe6 20. Nhf1 Rd3! 21.
Re3

takes e3 away from the Nf1.

21… Rd7 22. Qb3 Qe7 23. Nf3 Rfd8 24. Rae1 Nh5
25. Rc3 Qf6 26. Ne3 Nd4

A nice example of over-protection, the Knight cannot be left, and
the exchange will give Black’s pieces extra scope.

27. Nxd4 exd4 28. Ng4 Qg6 29. Rd3
Nxg3

White faces an uncomfortable choice

30. fxg3 Rc7 31. Nf2 Rdc8 32. Re2 Rc1+ 33. Kh2 h5
34. Qxb7 Be5 35. Qd5 R1c5 36. Qd7 h4 37. Nh1 Rc1 38. Rf3
g4

Mate is threatened

39. Qxg4 Qxg4 40. hxg4 Kg7 41. Rf5

41… Rxh1+!

0-1

Another recent game featuring …g6 was this encounter:

Short Nigel D-Kasparov
Gary/Cup World, Reykjavik (Iceland) 1989

2… c6 3. Bf4 d6 4. h3 Qb6 5. b3 c5

An interesting tempo-loss

6. dxc5 Qxc5 7. c4 g6 8. Nc3 Bg7 9. Rc1
Bf5

Black is fine here: his dark-squared Bishop is better than White’s,
has control of e4 and can enjoy the discomfort of White’s King,
which is at least three moves from castling.

27…Qc7 Qb5 28. Qxa7 g5 29. Qa4

Sacrificing the Knight for some play

Torre Attack (Bg5 against
…e6)

3. Bg5

3. … c5

…b6 systems tend to be upset by d4-d5

4. e3

There are two alternatives:

[4. e4 Wagner Gambit, a sharp line 4… cxd4 5. e5 h6
6. Bh4 g5 7. Bg3 Nh5 8. Qxd4 Nc6 9. Qe4 Bg7 Marshall-Nimzovitch,
Berlin 1928. /\ …Nxg3 and x e5]

[4. c3 4… cxd4 5. cxd4 Qb6 6. Qc2 Nc6 7.
Nc3?

[7. Bxf6 gxf6 8. e3 d5 9. Nc3 Bd7 10. Be2 Be7 11. O-O
O-O 12. Na4 Qc7 13. Nc5 Rfc8 14. Nxd7 Qxd7 15. Qa4 Ne5 16. Qxd7
Nxd7 17. Rfc1 Nb6=/+ “Black’s Knight is more powerful” – BELLIN
Larsen-Portisch, Tilburg 1980]

7… Bb4

[7… Nxd4]

8. e3 d5 9. Bd3 Bd7 10. O-O Be7

“By now you should realise that this game lacks
quality” – Daniel 11. a3 h6 12. Bxf6 gxf6 13. b4 Rc8 14.
Rfc1 f5 15. Qe2 O-O

and now White blundered with

16. Na4?

[16. Nd2+/= x c5]

16… Nxd4! Stenhouse-Hill, Portsmouth 1996]

After the main line with 4. e3, Black has two
alternatives:

Risky 4…Qb6

Positional 4… cxd4

One rare alternative:

4… Be7 5. Nbd2 Nc6 6. c3 cxd4 7. exd4 O-O 8. Bd3 b6
9. O-O Bb7 10. Re1 h6 11. Bxf6 Bxf6 12. Ne4 Be7 13. Bb1 d5 14. Ng3
Bc8= R Ye-J Ye, Jakarta 1994

Risky 4…Qb6

4… Qb6

“This is undoubtedly the most critical variation of the Torre
Attack” – BELLIN.

White must now decide whether to sacrifice the b2
pawn,

5. Nbd2,

or to defend it with the passive-looking

5. Qc1.

Passive 5. Qc1

5. Qc1 Ne4

[5… Nc6 6. c3

[6. Bxf6 gxf6 7. c3 d5 8. Nbd2 Bd7 9. Be2 Rc8 10. O-O
cxd4 11. exd4 Bh6= Holmov-Anikayev, Tbilisi 1976]

6… Ne4 7. Bf4 d5 8. Bd3 Be7 9. Nbd2 f5

and Black’s position is fine: Petrosian-Cherepkov, USSR
1961.]

6. Bf4 d5 7. c3 Nd7

[7… Nc6]

8. Nbd2 Ndf6 9. h3 Bd6 10. Ne5 c4?!

(This type of move often leaves White free to ignore the
centre and attack elsewhere)

11. g4 Nxd2 12. Qxd2 Ne4 13. Qc2 Bxe5 14.
Bxe5

and now I played the weakening

14… f../strong>

Aggressive 5. Nbd2

5. Nbd2

5… d5

[5… Qxb2 This looks unwise. 6. Bd3 cxd4 7. exd4 Qc3
8. O-O d5 9. Re1 Be7 10. Re3 Qc7 11. Ne5=/and with a nice position
for the sacrificed pawn.]

6. Bxf6 gxf6 7. c4 cxd4 8. exd4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 Nc6
10. O-O Bd7 11. d5

Although Black has played a safer line I would say that this
position is good for White. The problem for Black after 5. Nbd2 the
Knight on f6 can no longer go to e4, and therefore Black is likely
to end up with doubled pawns.

Positional 4… cxd4

4… cxd4

Bronstein-Ward, Maidstone 1994
/0-1

5. exd4 Be7 6. c3 b6 7. a4 O-O 8. Na3!? Nc6 9. Bd3 Bb7 10.
O-O Nd5 11. Bd2 Rc8 12. Re1 Qc7=

This position is equal, although the first thing that struck me was
that White’s position looks a little easier to play. Perhaps Black
can leer at the Knight on a3 and work in a raid based on …Bd6 and
…Nf4. I don’t know how the game went, but Black won.

Summary

If you think that your opponent will defend the
pawn with 5. Qc1 then 4…Qb6 is clearly worth a try. However,
after 5. Nbd2, White is likely to achieve a better position because
no time has been wasted. This is not to say that you can’t take the
b-pawn, if you are looking for a sharp game. For those who prefer a
more positional type of game, then 4…cxd4 is ideal.

D. Trompovsky

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5

An even earlier Bishop move, and now only 2…e6 and 2…Ne4 can
stop White from kicking a hole in the Black pawn formation. In the
‘seventies Hort and Jansa often adopted it with a positional
approach, but a more brawling style has been characteristic of
Hodgson’s revival of the line in the ‘nineties.

Black plays …g6 against the
Trompovsky

Ah, now – this booklet has got a big hole in it – you can hardly
play …g6 against the Trompovsky.

2…g6 3. Bxf6 exf6

and I think Black already has some problems getting
organised.

2… c5

is the sort of move that might appeal to a KID player,
particularly if you have a quick look at

3. d5?! Ne4 4. Bf4 Qa5+

A better idea for White is

3. Bxf6! e.g.

3… gxf6 4. d5 Qb6 5. Qc1

which is probably the funny sort of position that White may feel
more comfortable than you, although I don’t think White can claim a
plus here, e.g. 5… f5

[5… d6]

6. c3

[6. e3]

[6. g3]

6… Bg7 7. e3 e6 8. Nh3

Hort says this is unclear. I believe him.

I recommend

2… Ne4

Now I think the best for White is

3. Bf4

Alternatives:

[3. Bh4 g5 4. f3 gxh4 5. fxe4 is the old theory on
this line: White will struggle to hold the dark squares]

[3. h4 is Hodgson’s favourite]

3… c5

[3… d5 4. f3 Nf6 5. e4 dxe4 6. Nc3 is a
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit a tempo ahead for White!]

[Another idea for Black is3… Nc6!? /\ 4.
f3

[4. d5 e5!]

[4. Nf3!]

4… e5! 5. dxe5 g5! 6. Bc1 Nc5

/\ …Bg7]

After 3…c5:

4. f3 Qa5+ 5. c3 Nf6

when

6. d5

transposes above.

Black plays …e6 against the
Trompovsky

2. Bg5 e6

3. e4

[3. Nf3 is the Torre]

Now

3… h6

is the most common move, but not the only one:

[3… c5

is almost entirely untested. One known example went

4. e5

[4. Nf3 is the Wagner Gambit]

4… h6 5. Bc1 Nd5 6. c4 Nb6 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. Nf3 d5
9. exd6 Qxd6

[9… Bxd6!?]

10. Qxd6 Bxd6 11. Nc3 Nc6 12. Bd2 Nd7 13. O-O-O Ke7
14. Nb5

1/2-1/2 Soffer-Yudasin, Israel 1994.

Black could have played on with

14… Bc5]

After 3…h6:

4. Bxf6 Qxf6

5. Nc3

White can try the Knight on d2:

[5. Nf3 b6 6. Bd3 Bb7 7. Nbd2 a6

[7… c5 8. e5 Qd8 9. Be4 Qc7 10. O-O Be7 11. Re1 O-O
12. dxc5 bxc5 13. Bxb7 Qxb7 14. Nc4

Levenfish-Rabinovitch, Petrosgrad 1921]

8. Qe2 d6 9. O-O-O Nd7 10. Kb1 e5

Lots of pawn moves, but he must have thought White
couldn’t rush the centre.

11. c3 Be7 += Korchnoi-Karpov, Hastings
1971/72]

5… Bb4 6. Nf3

[6. Qd2 c5 7. a3 Bxc3 8. bxc3 d6 9. f4 O-O 10. Nf3
Nc6 11. Bb5 Na5 12. Bd3 b6 13. O-O Bb7 Hodgson-Yudasin,
??]

6… d6 7. Qd2 Nd7 8. a3 Ba5 9. Bd3 O-O 10. O-O
c6 11. b4 Bc7 12. Ne2 e5 =

Bezold-Bischoff, Altensteig 1994

Summary

I believe 3…c5!? is well worth a try, in order
to try and transpose into the Torre. Of course, White can go for a
Torre immediately with 3. Nf3, and it will be interesting to see
how many White players opt for this. 3…h6 is also OK, although
Karpov sank rather against Korchnoi in the game given in the
Custer’s Last Stand handout.

[Footnote from Frederick Prost: is
3…c5 really so easy?]

E. Systems with g3

1. d4 Nf6 2. g3

Transpositional except against the King’s Indian where the double
fianchetto system is known (with b2-b3).

Against the …e6 systems it usually transposes into the
Catalan, where Black may have problems whether the centre is closed
(Botvinnik) or open (Keene).

Black plays …g6 against
g3

The system with g3 and b3 (without c4) is one to know about:

3. b3 Bg7 4. Bb2 d6 5. g3 O-O 6. Bg2

6… e5

Black has an important alternative here:

[6… Nbd7 7. O-O e5 8. dxe5 Ng4

9. Qd2

[9. Nc3 Pirc 9… Ngxe5!

[9… dxe5 10. Nd2+/= Pirc]

]

[9. c4 Re8 10. h3 Nh6 11. Nc3 dxe5 12. e4 c6 13. Qc2
f6 Holmov-Gufeld, about equal]

9… Ngxe5?!

[9… Re8! 10. h3 Nh6 11. Na3 dxe5 12. Nc4 f6 which
is probably OK for Black]

10. Nxe5 dxe5 11. Nc3 c6 12. Rad1../em>

[12. Ba3+/= ]

]

7. dxe5 Nfd7 8. O-O

8… dxe5

[8… Nc6 9. Qd2 Miles-Ristic, 1988 9… Ndxe5
Marovic]

9. e4 Nc6 10. Nbd2 b6 11. Qe2

Now Polugaevsky-Medina, 1972, continued:

11… Qe7

[11… a5 Marovic]

12. Rfd1 Nc5 13. Nf1 Ba../strong>

1-0, 39

[13… Be6 was better, acording to Marovic]

Of course, White might sidle over into the main line with
g3:

Arkell-Nunn/London
1992

3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. O-O

[5. c4 d6 was the game move order]

5… d6

6. c4

[6. c3]

6… Nbd7 7. Nc3 e5 8. Qc2 Re8 9. b3 c6 10. e3
exd4 11. Nxd4 h5

Intending …h5-h4xg3, when White will be reluctant to play f2-f4
to dislodge a Knight on e5.

12. Ba3 Qe7 13. Rad1 Nc5 14. b4 Nce4 15. Nxe4
Nxe4 16. b5 c5

(forced, but the Ba3 needs another post now)

17. Ne2

x d5: Black needs play on the King’s-side

17… Bf5 18. Qb3 h4 19. Nf4 Qe5 to prevent Bb2
20. Rd5 Qf6 21. g4 Bxg4 22. f3 h3

23. Bh1

[23. Nxh3]

[23. Bxh3]

23… Nc3 24. fxg4 Qh4 25. Rd3 Qxg4+ 26. Kf2 Bd4
27. Rxc3 Qxf4+ 28. Ke2 Qxh2+ 29. Kd1 Bxc3 30. Qxc3 Re5 31. Bb2 Rae8
32. Bd5 R8e7 33. Qd2 Qxd2+ 34. Kxd2 Rf5

[34… Rxe3 35. Bf6<-/-> ]

35. Rxf5 gxf5 36. Ke2 h2 37. Kf2 Re6 38.
Bc1

[38. Bxe6 h1=Q]

38… Rg6 39. Bg2 Rg4 40. Bd2 Rxc4
0-1

Black plays …e6 against the g3 system

2. g3 e6

This system with c2-c4 is well known: it is called the Neo-Catalan.

2. g3 e6

3. Nf3

3… c5

[We looked at 4. dxc4 in the Custer booklet: the only
other independent line is]

4. c4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nc6

which is the English Opening: g3 systems have become
fashionable against the Nimzo and so they are another one to slot
into your repertoire

6. Bg2 and now 6… d5 is the Tarrasch Defence to the
Queen’s Gambit

One complex line which offers hances to both sides is

6. Nc3 Qb6!?

[6… Bb4 is safe, 6…Bc5 is uncommon]

7. Nb3

[7. Nc2 d5!? is an approved gambit]

7… Ne5

[7… Bb4!? and 7…d5?! have also been
tried]

8. e4 Bb4 9. Qe2

with a complex position that is given in few Nimzo books! DR has
played either side with pleasure, and some lines he recalls go:

9… a5 10. f4

[10. Be3]

10… a4!? Nunn 11. fxe5 axb3 12. exf6
Rxa2

Pick the bones out of that!

F. Systems with a delayed c4

Even if White has c2-c4 lines in their repertoire, it may reduce
Black’s options to delay this, e.g. in the Catalan.

This is a transpositional device and your main openings
books should help you here.

G. Stonewall Opening

1. d4 2. e3 3. Bd3 4. f4

White locks up the centre and rolls down the King’s-side

1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Bd3

[3. f4 is sometimes played to avoid the 3…Nc6 line,
but then Black can always play …Bf5]

Black plays …g6 against the
Stonewall

The Stonewall is not pointless, particularly after …d5/…e6. But
an early …g6 deadens the attack from d3, and Black can try …d6
and …e5 to blow up the centre, e.g.

1… g6 2. e3 Bg7 3. Bd3 d6 4. c3 Nd7 5. f4 e5 6.
Nf3 Ngf6 7. fxe5 dxe5 8. dxe5 Ng4 9. e6 fxe6 10. Nd4 Nde5 11.
O-O

[11. Be2 O-O 12. Bxg4 Qh4+ 13. g3 Qxg4 14. Qxg4
Nxg4=/+ …1/2-1/2 Jordan,D-Regis,D/Devon vs.Glos 1995]

11… Rf8 12. Rxf8+ Kxf8 13. Qf1+ Kg8 14. Bc2 c5
=+

Black plays …e6 against the Stonewall

2. e3 d5

[2… e6 immediately has no special virtues, unless
you really want to play a …b6 system]

3. Bd3 c5

[There is also the system with 3… Nc6 e.g.

4. f4

[4. c3 e5!]

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

4. c3 Nc6

[4… e6 5. f4]

5. f4

5… e6

blocks the Bc8 better is:

5… Bg4 6. Nf3 e6 7. Nbd2 Bd6 8. h3 Bh5 9. b3
cxd4 10. cxd4 Rc8

when Black is comfortable

H. The Richter-Veresov system

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 (Other moves transpose into
e.g. the Pirc or French)

This is another system emphasising piece play – again with the
threat of doubling the f-pawns, or reserving King’s-side chances.

Against the Veresov itself:

3…Nbd7

3…Bf5 and

3…c5

are independent lines with some little theory
attached.

e.g.

[3… Bf5 4. f3

[4. e3]

[4. Bxf6]

4… Nbd7 5. Nxd5 Nxd5 6. e4 h6 7. Bh4 N7b6 8. exf5
Ne3 9. Qd2 Nxf1 10. Kxf1=/+ ]

[2… c5 is another idea again, which might appeal to
the KID/Benoni player]

Black plays …g6 against the
Veresov

2… g6

Black offers a Pirc. If White declines we probably get a Torre
where the move Nc3 forgoes some of White’s best ideas, like Nbd2
and moves of the c-pawn.

Black plays …e6 against the
Veresov

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6

3. Bg5 d5

3…c5

You will find White players who head for the French here,
as pure Veresov ideas like 4. e3 and 4. Nf3 look insipid. These are
all playable, particularly at club level (what isn’t!).

Credits:

Dan composed the repertoire for the …e6 player.

Steve composed the repertoire for the …g6 player

Dave typed it up, and is responsible for all mistakes
that are not the responsibility of the other authors

Weak pawns

Posted on September 28, 1999 by DrDave

“Doubled, isolated and blockaded pawns are weak: avoid
them!”

— Fine, Basic Chess Endings

Introduction

“That’s what this match is all about – Pawns,
isolated or hanging. They might just as well play without
pieces.” — Eddie GUFELD, considering yet another IQP position
in the 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi match (Game 16, position after White’s
24th move)

The English GM David Norwood once said that he made an offer to
analyse and comment on some club players’ games. They expected him
to offer some brilliant analysis, showing them where they had
missed golden opportunities, but his advice was more simple:
“remember Pawns can’t move backwards“. Now, that is one of
the first things any chess player learns, so they were very
disappointed – why was he telling them what they already knew?
Well, they may have known, but they were playing as if they didn’t
know. They were advancing pawns too far, too fast, too often. They
were moving pawns forward which got surrounded and caught, they
moved pawns forward which created holes near their king, they moved
pawns forward which became the focus of a sacrifice. And once they
had moved them forward, they couldn’t move them back. So be careful
with your Pawns!

The two principal problems with poor Pawn formations
are:

(1) opportunities provided to the opponents pieces (e.g.
occupation of ‘holes’)

(2) weaknesses of the Pawns themselves.

Let us start with a notable example:

Weak pawns: the ultimate collection: Deep Blue –
Kasparov, 1996

Just horrible: every one of the six Black Pawns is isolated, or
isolated and doubled! The b-Pawns are also blockaded. Kasparov
staked everything on a King’s-side hack but after 25.
b3! Deep Blue just grabbed the material and steered clear
of the tactics.

There is a lot of meat in this game, which I append if
you want to go over it, but it should tell you one thing if nothing
else: weak Pawns can lose you the game.

Could Kasparov have defended everything instead of trying
to hack? Well, no. It’s a bit like Franklin’s “For the want of
a nail…”: for the want of a friendly neighbour, a d-Pawn is
weak; to look after the d-Pawn, the Knight is assigned guard duty;
for the want of the Knight, the initiative is lost; for the want of
active play, ground is lost on both sides of the board; for the
want of pieces free from defence, more weakness are conceded…
Once you have more than one weakness, the problem snowballs, and
your Pawns fall like ripe fruit into the arms of your opponent.

Playing against Pawn weaknesses needs some persistence
but also some flexibility: this transformation of
advantages is seen in several games below.

Spielmann,R – Nimzowitsch Aaron (San ) (9) [B29]
1911

Black develops pressure against the hanging Pawns.

16… Ba6 17. Rac1 Rac8 18. Qb3 f6

Tension is now high: White initiates a tactical sequence to avoid
losing the c-Pawn, which Black is happy to see to a conclusion.

19. Qa4 fxe5 20. dxe5 Ba3 21. Qxa3 Bxc4 22. Re4
Qd7 23. h3

23… Bd5

The hanging Pawns have vanished. Has White equalised? By
no means. Black has a superior Bishop, a Queen’s-side Pawn
majority, and one of those odd minority Pawn formations on the
King’s-side which make it difficult for White to make use of his
majority. There is still a lot of play in the position, and Black
won.

…0-1 (42)

As well as transformation of positional advantages, you
can see changes in the Pawn structure – which may be sought by both
sides. One well-known sequence may transform an isolated Pawn
structure to one with hanging Pawns:

Rubinstein-Nimzovich

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6
6.Bf4 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Bb4 (isolated pawn)

8.e3 Nf6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 (pawn island)

10.Bd3 O-O 11.O-O Bd6 12.Bg3 Bxg3 13.hxg3
c5 (hanging pawns)

The game continued:

14.Rc1 Be6 15.Qa4 Qb6 16.Qa3 c4 17.Be2 a5 18.Rfd1
Qb4 19.Rd4 Rfd8 20.Rcd1 Rd7 21.Bf3 Rad8 22.Nb1 {?!}
22…Rb8 23.R1d2 Qxa3 24.Nxa3 Kf8 25.e4 dxe4 26.Rxd7 Nxd7
27.Bxe4 Nc5 28.Rd4 Nxe4 29.Rxe4 Rxb2 30.Nxc4 Rb4 31.Nd6 Rxe4
32.Nxe4 Bxa2 {… 0-1}

A bit of theory

There is one general problem with Pawn moves: the
creation of holes, which your opponent’s pieces can occupy.
Tarrasch used to say, “Every Pawn move loosens the
position“. So the first and simplest form of weakness in a
Pawn formation is the hole.

There are four principal varieties of weak Pawn:

backward Pawn

doubled Pawns

isolated Pawn

hanging Pawns

And there is one further idea which you should know
about:

Pawn islands.

Fine’s comment on the title page is in his endgame book,
which may give you a clue that the weakness of weak Pawns is most
important in the endgame: this is true. It may also give you a clue
that in the middlegame there may be some compensations for having
weak Pawns: this is also true, and is the basis for Tarrasch’s
famous dismissal of the supposed weakness of the isolated Queen’s
Pawn:

“Before the endgame, the Gods have placed the
middle-game.“

The most miserable Pawn is the backward Pawn. There are very few
compensations for having a backward Pawn. On the other hand, I have
enjoyed demonstrating the positive side of hanging Pawns more than
once; these are probably the least miserable of the lot. Almost any
variety of weak Pawn is more miserable if it is blockaded or
otherwise cannot move out of the way of an attack: this is the
meaning of Fine’s last warning about blockaded
Pawns. I’ll consider each type of Pawn weakness and
discuss their advantages and if appropriate their compensations.

Backward Pawn.

Black has a backward Pawn at d6.

White has a potentially backward Pawn at c3.

Disadvantages of Backward
Pawns:

The Pawn on d6 is exposed to attack along the d-file but can
neither be supported by a friendly Pawn nor easily be moved out of
the way. The square in front of it (d5) is a potential outpost for
a White Knight.

Possible compensations with
Backward Pawns:

They may support neighbouring Pawns which are strong: above, Black
has a strong central point at e5.

Doubled Pawns

White has doubled Pawns at c3/c4 and g2/g3.

Disadvantages of Doubled
Pawns:

The hindmost Pawn at c3 is effectively backward, but it is the Pawn
on c4 which is most difficult to defend, as no Rook at c1 can
support it.

Possible compensations with
Doubled Pawns:

Doubling of Pawns should yield an open file: here the b-file might
not offer much but the h-file might be worth something. Capturing
towards the centre may give an extra ounce of influence over some
central squares: here the d-Pawn is both supported by a Pawn at c3
while the d5 square is covered by the Pawn at c4.

Isolated Pawn

White has an isolated Pawn at d4.

Black has an isolated Pawn on h7

Disadvantages of Isolated
Pawns:

The isolated Pawn, like a backward Pawn, cannot be defended and
often cannot advance easily. It is therefore weak, and the square
in front of it is a potential outpost for opposing Knights.

Possible compensations with
Isolated Pawns:

The Pawn may support other pieces e.g. Knight on e5, and in the
example the Pawn on d4 gives extra space and mobility to White.
This is not true of Black’s Pawn on h7, which is only weak.

Hanging Pawns

White has hanging Pawns at c4 and d4.

Disadvantages of Hanging
Pawns:

The Pawns are not quite isolated but have the same sorts of
problems, for, if one advances to be supported by the other, the
hindmost

Possible compensations with
Hanging Pawns:

Hanging Pawns on d4 and c4 confer a space advantage, which can be
nurtured for attack. An advance of one or other Pawn may open lines
for the attack, or result in a Passed Pawn.

Pawn islands

White has two Pawn islands to Black’s three.

Disadvantages of extra Pawn
islands:

The Pawns on the edges of Pawn islands are not isolated, but they
are slightly exposed. We might call them “semi-detached”; there is
only one Pawn which can protect them, and only one Pawn which can
protect the square in front of them. This looseness can be
exploited to create more obvious weaknesses.

Possible compensations with
extra Pawn islands:

Gaps between Pawn islands may be useful half-open files. I also
alluded, in the Spielmann-Nimzovitch game above, to a split
minority possibly being better at restraining an opponent’s
majority than an intact majority.

Winning against holes in the
Pawn formation

Steinitz,W – Blackburne,J
London, 1876

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. c3 Be7
7. h3 O-O 8. Qe2 Ne8 9. g4 b5 10. Bc2 Bb7 11. Nbd2 Qd7 12. Nf1 Nd8
13. Ne3 Ne6 14. Nf5 g6 15. Nxe7+ Qxe7

Morphy and his contemporaries would probably have been
very much surprised if anybody had told him that only ten moves
later White pieces would be settled permanently on f6 and h6.

16. Be3 N8g7 17. O-O-O c5 18. d4 exd4 19. cxd4 c4 20. d5
Nc7 21. Qd2 a5 22. Bd4 f6 23. Qh6 b4 24. g5 f5 25. Bf6

Here we are…!

25… Qf7 26. exf5 gxf5 27. g6 Qxg6 28. Bxg7
Qxh6+ 29. Bxh6 Rf6 30. Rhg1+ Rg6 31. Bxf5 Kf7

[31… Rxg1 32. Rxg1+ Kh8 33. Bg7+ Kg8 34. Be5+ Kf7
35. Rg7+ Ke8 36. Rxc7]

32. Bxg6+ hxg6 33. Ng5+ Kg8 34. Rge1
1-0

Winning against a Backward
Pawn

Bogoljubow,Efim –
Capablanca,Jose (New York ) (09) [D05] 1924

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 c5 5. b3 Nc6 6. O-O Bd6
7. Bb2 O-O 8. Nbd2 Qe7 9. Ne5 cxd4 10. exd4 Ba3 11. Bxa3 Qxa3 12.
Ndf3 Bd7 13. Nxc6 Bxc6 14. Qd2 Rac8

There is some anxiety developing about White’s c-Pawn. His next
move is probably a mistake.

15. c3 a6 16. Ne5 Bb5 17. f3 Bxd3 18. Nxd3 Rc7
19. Rac1 Rfc8 20. Rc2 Ne8 21. Rfc1 Nd6 22. Ne5 Qa5 23.
a4

With straightforward moves Black has put a lot of pressure on the
c-Pawn. His next is a little tactical finesse, which creates a
double attack on two neighbouring Pawns.

23… Qb6 24. Nd3 Qxb3 25. Nc5 Qb6 26. Rb2 Qa7
27. Qe1 b6 28. Nd3 Rc4 29. a5 bxa5 30. Nc5 Nb5 31. Re2

White has been wobbling dreadfully, and finally topples.

31… Nxd4 32. cxd4 R8xc5 0-1

Winning with a Backward
Pawn

Zinn – Sveshnikov, Decin [B33]
1974

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6.
Ndb5 d6

One of the most puzzling of modern variations: didn’t the games on
Knight outposts suggest that Black is virtually lost? Well, he is
if White proceeds smoothly, exchanges all the right pieces, and
Black has no counterplay.

7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Bxf6 gxf6 10.
Nd5

All according to plan A, but there are some differences: Black has
an interesting collection of K-side pawns which may allow …f6-f5
and …Rg8, and White’s Knight on a3 is taking no part in the
struggle.

10… f5 11. Bd3 Be6 12. Qh5 Bg7 13. O-O f4 14.
c3 O-O 15. Nc2 f5

Black is making maximum use of the f-pawns and White looks at least
as loose as Black.

16. Ncb4 Nxb4 17. Nxb4 d5 18. exd5 Bd7 19. Bc2
Be8 20. Qe2 Kh8 21. Rad1 Qh4 22. f3 Rf6 23. Qe1 Qg5 24. Qxe5 Bd7
25. Qe7 Rg8

Black follows his pawn sacrifice with a Bishop!

26. Qxd7 Rf7

The f-pawns keep White’s pieces from defending the King, and White
has no answer to the vacating sacrifice …Bd4.

0-1

Winning against Doubled
Pawns

Mattison – Nimzovich
(carlsbad) CHERNEV [E21] 1929

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 d6 6.
Qc2 Qe7 7. Ba3 c5 8. g3 b6 9. Bg2 Bb7 10. O-O O-O 11. Nh4 Bxg2 12.
Kxg2 Qb7+ 13. Kg1 Qa6 14. Qb3 Nc6 15. Rfd1 Na5

White has a problem with the front c-Pawn, which can be patched up
only at the cost of creating holes. Black’s Knights leap about all
over the White Pawns.

16. Qb5 Qxb5 17. cxb5 Nc4 18. Bc1 a6 19. bxa6
Rxa6 20. dxc5 bxc5 21. Ng2 Nd5 22. Rd3 Rfa8 23. e4 Ne5

“The centre cannot hold…”

0-1

Winning with Doubled
Pawns

Bhend, E – Hort, V (Kecsemet)
[B00] 1964

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Nxf6+
gxf6

All a bit early to call – we observe the Pawn differences, but not
much else. Black has a doubled Pawn, and and extra open file.

6. c3 Bf5 7. Nf3 e6 8. Bf4 Bd6 9. Bg3 Qc7 10. Qb3
Nd7 11. Be2 O-O-O 12. Nd2 Nb6 13. a4 a5 14. O-O Rhg8

Black’s Rooks have done their duty in occupying the files: Black
now executes a simple King’s-side attack.

15. Rfe1 Bxg3 16. hxg3 h5 17. Bf3 Bg4 18. Be2 h4
19. gxh4

Some brisk tactics finish the job.

19… Bh3 20. Bf1 Rxg2+ 21. Bxg2 Rg8 22. Kf1 Rxg2
23. Nf3 Qf4 24. Re3 Nd5 25. c4 Nxe3+ 26. Qxe3 Rg1+ 0-1

Winning against an Isolated
Pawn

Lasker-Reshevsky, Nottingham
1936

Here’s another isolated/hanging pawn game, showing the weakness of
the pawn being turned to attack.

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 e6 5. Bxc4
c5 6. Nc3 a6 7. O-O b5 8. Bd3 cxd4 9. exd4 Bb7 10. Bg5 Be7 11. Qe2
O-O 12. Rad1 Nbd7 13. Ne5 Nd5

Always this blockade: here it also offers desirable exchanges.

14. Bc1 Nxc3 15. bxc3 Nf6 16. a4 Qd5 17. Nf3 Rfc8
18. Bb2 Ne4 19. Rc1 Ng5

Black has developed strong pressure along the long diagonal.

20. axb5 axb5 21. Bxb5 Nxf3+ 22. gxf3 Qg5+
0-1

One might ask:

why does the side attacking the IQP blockade the square
in front of it?

and why should the side with the IQP avoid exchanges?

Simple answers: you blockade the IQP because it may
advance to d5 and blow up your position, and you avoid exchanges if
you have an IQP because the endings are bad for you and you might
make use of the extra space to create an attack.

Winning with an Isolated
Pawn

Stoltz – Thomas, Zaandamk
[D40]1946

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. a3 cxd4
7. exd4 dxc4 8. Bxc4 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10. Re1 a6 11. Ba2 b5

White’s advantage seems trifling – a good Rook on e1, and the move
– but is rapidly converted through the characteristic d4-d5 break.
White can see no tactical opportunity in particular, but a general
optimism based on open lines 12. d5 exd5 13. Nxd5 Nxd5 14.
Qxd5 Qd6

[14… Bb7 15. Bg5 with a strong initiative based on
his more active pieces 15… Bxg5

[or 15… Na5 16. Qf5 Bxg5 17. Nxg5 g6 18.
Nxf7]

16. Nxg5 Qxd5 17. Bxd5 h6 18. Ne4]

15. Rxe7 Qxe7 16. Qxc6 Bg4 17. Be3 Rac8 18. Qd5
Rfd8 19. Qg5 Qxg5 20. Nxg5

White has secured two pieces for a rook, and his initiative
endures.

20… Rd7 21. f3 Bf5 22. g4 Bd3 23. Rd1 Rcd8 24.
Bb6 Bc4 25. Rxd7 Rxd7 26. Bxc4 bxc4 27. Ne4 f5 28. gxf5 Kf7 29. Ba5
Rd5 30. Bc3 h5 31. Kf2 Kg8 32. f6 1-0

Winning against Hanging
Pawns

Fischer – Spassky WCh (6)
[D59] 1972

1. c4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bg5 O-O 6. e3 h6
7. Bh4 b6 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nxd5 exd5 11. Rc1 Be6 12.
Qa4 c5 13. Qa3 Rc8 14. Bb5 a6 15. dxc5 bxc5 16. O-O Ra7 17. Be2
Nd7

Black seems to have supported his Pawns nicely, but Fischer’s next
three moves exploit the remaining looseness to create a new
formation in which White has the better minor piece, prospects of
attack, and an enduring initiative.

18. Nd4! Qf8 19. Nxe6 fxe6 20. e4! d4 21. f4 Qe7
22. e5 Rb8 23. Bc4 Kh8 24. Qh3 Nf8 25. b3 a5 26. f5 exf5 27. Rxf5
Nh7 28. Rcf1 Qd8 29. Qg3 Re7 30. h4 Rbb7 31. e6 Rbc7 32. Qe5 Qe8
33. a4 Qd8 34. R1f2 Qe8 35. R2f3 Qd8 36. Bd3 Qe8 37. Qe4 Nf6 38.
Rxf6 gxf6 39. Rxf6 Kg8 40. Bc4 Kh8 41. Qf4 1-0

Winning with Hanging
Pawns

Bertok – Fischer [D59]
1962

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Be7 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5 O-O 6. e3 h6
7. Bh4 b6 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nxd5 exd5 11. Be2 Be6 12.
O-O c5 13. dxc5?! 13… bxc5 14. Qa4 Qb7!

White is not well-placed to harass the pawns, while Fischer is
making use of his own trumps – like the half-open b-file.

15. Qa3 Nd7 16. Ne1 a5 17. Nd3 c4

This is a very committal move. The b-Pawn is pinned down,
the d-Pawn becomes backward, and the fourth rank becomes
blocked.

18. Nf4 Rfb8 19. Rab1 ? (Nxe6)
19… Bf5 20. Rbd1 Nf6 21. Rd2 g5

White is terribly short of ideas. It’s “make your mind up” time!

22. Nxd5

[22. Nh5 Ne4 23. Rc2 Qb4]

22… Nxd5 23. Bxc4 Be6 24. Rfd1? 24…
Nxe3 (oops) 25. Qxe3 Bxc4 26. h4 Re8 27. Qg3 Qe7
28. b3 Be6 29. f4 g4 30. h5 Qc5+ 31. Rf2 Bf5 0-1

Winning against extra Pawn
islands

Capablanca,Jose –
Kupchik,Abraham (Havana ) (07) [C49] 1913

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. O-O O-O 6.
Bxc6 bxc6 7. Nxe5 Qe8

8. Nd3 Bxc3 9. dxc3 Qxe4

[9… Nxe4 10. Re1]

10. Re1 Qh4 11. Qf3 Ba6 12. Bf4 Rac8 13.
Be5 (idea /\ Nc5)13… Bxd3 14. cxd3 Qg4 15. Bxf6
Qxf3 16. gxf3 gxf6

Assessment, +/-: better Pawns, fewer Pawn islands,
more active pieces. The weakest spot in the Black position is the
isolated a-Pawn, and it is here that an attack should be directed.

17. Re4

First, Capablanca mobilises and centralises his pieces.
There is never any sense of rush when Capa plays an ending. This
ease of mobilisation is a dynamic advantage to add to the static
ones just listed.

17… Rfe8 18. Rae1 Re6 19. R1e3 Rce8 20. Kf1 Kf8
21. Ke2 Ke7

Now, White can attack the a-pawn.

22. Ra4 Ra8 23. Ra5

restrains the Pawns

23… d5!?

I can sympathise with the bid for space but this is not
forced and has the disadvantage of leaving the c-Pawns without
support – backward, although not exposed on a file. White quickly
blockades the Pawns.

24. c4! Kd6

[24… dxc4 leaves all Black’s Pawns isolated and
most of them doubled!]

[24… d4 25. Re4 Kd6 26. b4 Re5 27. Ra6 ‘hopeless’,
said Capa]

25. c5+ Kd7 26. d4

Black’s pawns have become fixed, cutting off the
Queen’s-side.

26… f5

Hoping to nip out to h6 with some play.

27. Rxe6! fxe6 28. f4

Clearing the third rank for a Rook

28… Kc8 29. Kd2 Kb7?!

Black has achieved a solid defence of the a-Pawn and Whiite can
achieve little else there. But White has access to both sides of
the board via the third rank. [29… Rb8!? 30. Kc3

[30. b3 blocks the third rank]

[30. Kc2 Rb4 31. Kc3 Rc4+ 32. Kd3 Rb4]

30… Rb7 may have been better]

30. Ra3 Rg8 31. Rh3 Rg7

This defence from the side keeps the Black Rook more
active than moving it to defend from h8, but I’m sure Black also
considered …Rg1!?, giving up a Pawn to get the Rook active. It
looks a bit speculative here but is the right sort of idea to have
in mind.

32. Ke2 Ka6 33. Rh6 Re7 34. Kd3 Kb7 35. h4 Kc8
36. Rh5 Kd7 37. Rg5 Rf7

Again, Black has achieved a solid, if passive, defence. White now
returns his attention to the Queen’s-side.

38. Kc3 Kc8 39. Kb4 Rf6 40. Ka5 Kb7 41. a4 a6 42.
h5 Rh6

White is poised on both fronts but can improve the position of his
pieces no further. It is time to try and force the issue.

43. b4 Rf6 44. b5!?

[44. Rg7! Rh6 first would have been better, according
to Capa: 45. b5 axb5 46. axb5 cxb5

[46… Rxh5 47. b6]

47. Kxb5 e.g. 47… Rxh5 48. c6+ Kb8 49.
Ka6]

44… axb5 45. axb5 Rf8

Off to sieze the a-file!

[45… Rf7 46. h6 Re7 47. Rg7 is hopeless: so Black
must counterattack.]

46. Rg7 Ra8+ 47. Kb4 cxb5 48. Kxb5
Ra2

Black has gained some activity. Of course, White does not retreat
and defend with Rg2.

49. c6+ Kb8 50. Rxh7

White has an h-pawn. Can the lone Black Rook do enough to
compensate?

50… Rb2+ 51. Ka5 Ra2+ 52. Kb4 Rxf2 53. Re7
Rxf4?!

Natural, but not exact.

[53… Rb2+! 54. Kc3 Rh2 55. Rxe6 Ka7 56. h6 Kb6
which isn’t great but Black is also fighting with the King
now]

[53… Rh2? 54. Rxe6 Rxh5 55. Re5 Ka7 56.
Kc5]

54. h6 Rxd4+ 55. Kb5 Rd1 56. h7

A Pawn on the seventh seems worth three in the bush!
Black can only hope to harass the King with checks, but these are
soon exhausted.

56… Rb1+ 57. Kc5 Rc1+ 58. Kd4 Rd1+ 59. Ke5 Re1+
60. Kf6 Rh1 61. Re8+ Ka7 62. h8=Q Rxh8 63. Rxh8 Kb6 64. Kxe6 Kxc6
65. Kxf5 Kc5 66. Ke5 c6 67. Rh6 Kb5 68. Kd4 1-0

Winning with extra Pawn
islands

This ought to work rather like the extra files in doubled Pawn
positions, but damned if I could find any convincing complete
games. I did dig a couple of examples out of my opening files,
though:

Geller’s Quiet System – Bronstein [B06] 1993

1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. c3 d6 4. Nf3
Nf6

5. Nbd2

[5. Bd3 (best)]

5… O-O 6. Be2

[6. h3 b6 7. Bc4 e6 8. O-O Bb7 9. Qe2 c5 10. dxc5
bxc5 11. e5 dxe5 12. Nxe5 Nd5 13. Ndf3 Nd7 14. Bg5 Qc7 15. Nxd7
Qxd7 16. Rad1 Qc7 17. Rfe1 Nb6 18. Bd3 c4 19. Bc2 Nd5

Simagin-Bronstein, Moscow 1967

[0-1,44]]

6… b6 7. O-O e6

(To stop e4-e5-e6 and discourage d5 in reply to the
coming …c5. Benko has in fact played 7…Bb7 without immediate
harm, but this is safer)

8. Re1 Bb7 9. Bd3 c5 10. dxc5 bxc5 11. e5 dxe5
12. Nxe5 Nc6 13. Ndc4 Nxe5 14. Nxe5 Qc7

=+ K/B

(Better bishops, possibilities of play on b-file, and
some central influence from Pe6; moreover, the Queen’s-side
majority cannot really get going, as there is no real ‘candidate’
for promotion)

15. Qe2 Rab8 16. Bd2 Ba8 17. Nc4 Nh5 18. Be4 Bd5
19. b3 Rfd8 20. Rad1 Nf6 21. Bc2 Qb7 22. Na5 Qb6 23. Nc4 Qa6 24.
Ne3 Qxe2 25. Rxe2 Bc6 26. f3 a5

Filip-Bronstein, Moscow 1967

[0-1,85]

=/+

Pawn formations

Posted on September 9, 1999 by DrDave

Based on: The Middle Game I by Euwe and
Kramer.
[Currently out of print; Batsford’s have the publishing rights for this
title
and I am grateful for their permission to use this material]

“The most important feature of the chess position
is the activity of the pieces. This is absolutely fundamental in
all phases of the game (opening, middlegame and especially endgame). The primary constraint on a
piece’s activity is the Pawn structure.“

— Michael STEAN, in Simple Chess.

“In general, a Pawn centre is a good thing not in
itself but in its usefulness for concrete ends.“

— Mark Dvoretsky & Artur Yusupov, Opening
Preparation

A. Symmetrical Centre
Formations

A.1. Vanished centre

e.g. Scotch 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 then …d5 and
exd5

The placing of the pieces and/or a development advantage
will decide if the game has any real meat.

A.2. The QP centre

e.g. French 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5

The open e-file and outpost at e5 (e4) may become crucial
if pieces are allowed to settle there. The natural break c2-c4 does
little to add tension, unless castling is performed on opposite
sides; the Q-side is then risky with outpost at c5.

A.3. The KP centre

e.g. Philidor or Closed Lopez 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 4.
dxe5 dxe5

Assuming King’s-side castling, the break f2-f4 is much
sharper

A.4. Symmetrical Four Pawns
Centre: (i) KPs forward

e.g. Closed Giuoco Piano 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3
d6

White can prepare the advance d2-d4 with c2-c3, or go for
f2-f4. Black may try to prevent this e.g. h7-h6 and g7-g5, or go
for broke on the Queen’s-side.

A.5. Symmetrical Four Pawns
Centre: (ii) QPs forward

e.g. Queen’s Pawn Game 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3

The advance e2-e4 is more difficult to achieve than d4 in
A.4; the more common plan is c2-c4 and a shift of
the struggle to the Queen’s-side. If for some reason c2-c4 is
impossible or undesirable, then e2-e4 must be sought.

B. Positional advantage in the
centre

B.1. Advanced Fixed Single-pawn
(i) KP forward

e.g. Alapin Sicilian 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 d6 5.
Nf3 dxe5 6. dxe5

White’s chances lie in a direct attack on the King, with
a B on d3

B.2. Advanced Fixed Single-pawn
(ii) QP forward

e.g. Benoni/KID lines with late …e6 1. d4 c5 2. d5 d6 or
Franco-Benoni 1.e4 e6 2. d4 c5 3. d5 exd5 4. exd5

White has a space advantage which must be nurtured
carefully.

B.3. Partially Fixed Centre
(i) tension form

e.g. Philidor and Closed Lopez 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.
Nc3 Nd7

White will try to maintain d4 with c2-c3 and use extra
space and mobility, sometimes for K-side attack with outpost on
f5

B.4. Partially Fixed Centre
(ii) Benoni without …e6

e.g. 1. d4 c5 2. d5 d6

White has a large space advantage and can play for direct
attack on the King with f4-f5 or just roll down the middle with
e4-e5

B.5. Partially fixed centre
(iii) French with White d-pawn backward

e.g. Advance French with exchange on d3 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5
b6 4. Bd3 c5 5. f4 Ba6 6. Nf3 cxd4 7. Nxd4 Bxd3 8. cxd3

White has a post on d4 for a Knight. The major pieces may
come off on the c-file, when White has a post on d4 for a King;
without exchanges White can play for attack and break with
f4-f5

B.6. Partially fixed centre
(iv) French with Black d-pawn backward

e.g. Alapin Sicilian 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 cxd4 5.
cxd4 e6 6. Nf3 b6

Black has a post on d5, White can play for attack on the
K with B on d3

B.7. Mobile Centre (i) King
Pawn

e.g. Nimzo after exchanges of the d- and c-pawns, or other slow
opening after d3, e4 and …d5xe4

There will be a struggle for e5 e.g. White will sieze it
with a N and play for attack. This can be resolved by the advance
of either e-pawn, when we have structures considered above.

B.8. Mobile Centre (ii) Queen
Pawn

e.g. Indian Defence with …e5xd4, e3xd4, or Alekhin Exchange
variation 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. d4 d6 5. exd6 exd6

White has a space advantage and is very likely to play c4
(else …d5 will come quickly), when Black will be short of space.
Black must put pressure on the White centre.

There will be a struggle for d5, which can be resolved by
the advance of either d-pawn, when we have structures similar to
those above, although White can go for a bind with c4-c5.

C. Extra Central Pawns

C.1. Absolute Centre

e.g. King’s Gambit Declined 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. c3
or Nimzo after cxd5,…exd5 and e4, …dxe4 and fxe4

A substantial asset, but not decisive – the reason being
the pressure that can be put on the pawns by the opponent’s rooks
(they are in fact a type of hanging pawns). If the centre can be
kept intact, and perhaps advance, then the advantage will manifest
itself.

C.2. Hanging Centre

e.g. French 1. e4 e5 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nd7 5. Bd3 c5
and later dxc5, and …f6,exf6, …Nxf6

Another hanging formation, with a key square at e5. If
White can occupy e5 or at least prevent …e6-e5 then Black will be
worse. Usually Black can keep White pestered with enough nuisances
to keep in the fight, but often a single tempo will make the
difference between a successful blockade and a successful
advance.

C.3. Classic Centre

e.g. Giuoco Piano 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5.
d4 exd4 6. cxd4

One of the strongest formations – if White can keep it
intact. In the Giuoco Piano line above Black can disrupt it with
…d5. But if Black retreats with 6…Bb6 the centre will either
form the basis of a crushing attack, or simply roll forward.

C.4. Neo-Classic Centre
*

e.g. Slav, Queen’s Gambit Accepted, Grunfeld Defence, Queen’s
Indian 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc5 5. a4 Na6 6. e4 or
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Qb3 dxc4 6. Qxc4

Again strong: Black’s best hopes are to hit at it with
…e5 (risking d5) or …c5. Sometimes in the Grunfeld …f5 may
play a part.

C.5. Neo-Classic Centre: with
open file

e.g. Grunfeld 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4
Nxc3 6. bxc3 c5 7. Bc4 Bg7 8. Ne2 cxd4 9. cxd4

Tactically this may still be dodgy for Black, but
strategically is prefereable to C4, as the cramp
is less, the opportunities to hit at the centre (and directly at
pieces) are better, and the Queen’s-side majority is an endgame
plus.

C.6. Unbalanced tension
form

e.g. Slav 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6.
Bd3 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. e4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 e5

A tense formation: White can exchange on e5 (rival
majorities), Black can exchange on d4 (ditto), or White can push d5
(not strategically worrying for Black, but may be troublesome
tactically).

C.7. Latent Central Majority
(i) QP in reserve

e.g. Delayed Exchange Ruy Lopez 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. d3

Often in the RL Exchange White plays d4, and after
…exd4 has a free majority on the King’s-side. Here Black would
play …c5 if White hinted at this, so White must either play more
slowly for d4, or try f4, or leave things in the centre as they are
and creep over to the King’s-side for an attack on the Black
King.

C.8. Latent Central Majority
(ii) KP in reserve

e.g. Queen’s Gambit and Caro-Kann Exchange. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6
3. cxd5 exd5 or 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5.

White has a choice of plans: to prepare the advance e2-e4
(usually by f3), or to play the minority attack.

The e4 advance is favoured by (a) the d4-pawn not being
vulnerable, and (b) two bishops to fight in the resulting open
position. So in the line 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3
5. bxc3 d5 6. cxd5 exd5 all the signals are there for the e4 plan
to be favoured; in the QGD the minority attack is most common.

D. Closed Formations

D.1. Blocked oblique (i) QP
forward *

e.g. King’s Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 O-O 5.
Nf3 d6 6. Be2 e5 7. d5, or from Ruy Lopez with d4-d5 (cf.
B3)

White has only two ways to open a file: the breaks f4 and
c5. The former may leave a weak backward pawn on e4 after …e5xf4
(even if White can reply g3xf4), so the latter is preferred. Black
will naturally counter with …f5. White can also easily achieve
b4, with a strong Queen’s-side initiative, but Black’s attack on
the castled White King is dangerous.

D.2. Blocked oblique (ii) KP
forward *

e.g. French advance 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 (also
Caro-Kann)

In practice …c5 and …cxd4, cxd4 is common,
tranferring the position to F3. Without …c5
Black is crushed by the advance f2-f4-f5. So the only important
position is if Black pushes past with …c5-c4, as in the line 1.
e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 c4. White will
still aim for the attack, but Black can play for infiltration of b3
and to open lines with …b5-b4. Black can castle Queen’s-side, but
this may make …b5 more difficult.

D.3. Stonewall

e.g. most common is the Dutch 1.d4 f5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.
Nc3 d5, but also Semi- Slav and other QP openings.

Black plays for a King’s-side attack, with an outpost on
e4 and a pawn-break …g5 and …f4; White’s easiest strategical
plan involves assault of c6 with c4-c5 (usually) and b4-b5
(always). White can also try to get at e6 with f3 and e4.

More generally White must aim at restraint of …e5,
exchange of dark-squared bishops, and controlling key squares with
Ns on f3 and d3.
Usually c4xd5 is met by …c6xd5, but if White is organised for b4
then …e6xd5 may wrong-foot White’s pieces.

D.4. Anti-Stonewall

e.g. Semi-Slav 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 e6 4. e3 f5 5. f4!

If White has this option Black is advised to avoid the
Stonewall; the King’s-side attack is unlikely to get far and the
assualt on c6 is just as dangerous.

D.5. Pseudo-Stonewall
(Botvinnik)

e.g. English Opening 1. c4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5.
e4

If Black can organise …d5 White’s formation will
shatter; White must adopt a move-order whereby …d5 is impossible
or undesirable. Then the central bind can enable a King’s-side
initiative with f2-f4 and f4-f5. If both players adopt this
formation, the advantage will go to the player who achieves f4
first.

D.6. Wyvill Formation

e.g. Nimzo-Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 b6 5. a3
Bxc3 6. bxc3 d6 7. e4 Nbd7 8. Bd3 O-O 9. O-O e5 10. d5

Marmaduke Wyvill, the nineteenth century MP, specialised
in this formation; the details are important here.

Ideal for Black is an outpost on c5, and Queen’s-side
castling. Then the assault on the weak c-pawns can be carried out
in safety, and Black can even think about opening a file with
…f5. But White should not volunteer for d4-d5, and usually Black
can only induce this by playing …c5; if in addition Black has
castled King’s-side White has good chances.

Sometimes pressure with …Re8 and …Qe7 threatens a
discovery with …e5xd4, and this may be enough to provoke d4-d5;
Euwe once played …Na5, …Ba6 and …Qe6!

D.8 Winawer Formation

e.g. (and almost exclusively) 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4.
e5 c5 5. a3 Bxc3 6. bxc3.

White has prospects of a King’s-side attack with f4-f5,
but Black’s attack on the c-pawns can be certain of opportunities.
The big structural disadvantage for Black is the lack of the Bf8,
creating possibilities of a dark-square campaign. Black should
castle Queen’s-side, if at all.

E. Open Formations

E.1. Ruy Lopez
Formation

e.g. Philidor or Ruy Lopez Steinitz Variation with
…e5xd4.

White’s superior mobility gives a lasting advantage. It
can be milked for a direct attack on the King; White can post the
Bc1 on b2. These days most players don’t fancy this defensive task
as Black and try to maintain the e5 pawn.

E.2. French/Caro formation
*

e.g. 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4, or 1. e4 c6 2. d4
d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4

With the Bc8 stuck behind the Pe6, Black has a lasting
problem. White can post a Knight on e5 and play sharply to restrict
Black’s pieces and attack the Black King.

It is natural to seek …c5, but even after an exhange
White has the Queen’s-side majority. In the Caro version the Bc8
usually escapes, so Black’s chances are better here, even if it
takes two moves to play …c5. Very often Queen’s-side castling is
an option for either side.

E.3. Sicilian Formation
*

e.g. 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3

A very delicate situation strategically; White has a deal
more space, and prospects of a King’s-side attack. But Black has an
extra central pawn, a minority attack and pressure down the c-file,
and myriad tactical opportunities.

The development of the Bf8 is important; after …e6 and
…Be7 Black has good central control but a slightly weak point on
d6; the centrally sounder …g6/…Bg7 adds so much to Black’s
Queen’s- side play that Black would play it all the time, if it
didn’t also create new opportunities for White’s King’s-side attack
after h4-h5.

White can achieve a powerful bind, and stop Black’s
counterplay, by playing c2-c4. Black may be able to equalise by
good defensive play and achieve a freeing break with …b5 or
…d5, but it is essentially a defensive task that misses out on
the counter-attacking possibilities of the Sicilian.

E.4. Rival Majorities (i) with
open file between

e.g. English Opening 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5
5. Bg2 Nb6 and later d4 and …e5xd4; see also
E3.

Simply, each side must advance their majority.
With Queens on, advancing pawns on the King’s-side cannot be done
casually, but neither can their advance be ignored.

E.5. Rival Majorities (ii)
with no open file between

This formation can be achieved by the centre pawns pushing past
each other once their partners have been exchanged, but more often
it will arise from A2/A3 after an exchange on an
outpost square.

The plans are clear for each side; the bishop’s pawns
must advance, with equal chances.

F. Half-open
formations

F.1. Half-Open with an open
file (i) symmetrical

e.g. Echange Slav 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. cxd5 cxd5

This is plainly similar to other symmetrical formations,
with tactical or dynamic features (lead in development, two
bishops, concentration of force) being more important than the pawn
formation. The structurally important thing here is on which side
the dark-squared bishops are placed.

F.2. Half-Open with an open
file (ii) focus formation

e.g. Ruy Lopez, Tchigorin Defence 1. e4 e5 2. Nf2 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d6 9. h3 Na5 10.
Bc2 c5 11. dxe5 dxe5

This is strategically very much richer. Usually there are
too many pieces around for invasion via the d-file to be possible,
but it should not be overlooked. White has an outpost on d5, and
after an exchange on d5, e4xd5 gives a passed pawn and the Bc2 and
Nd2 can look forward to a bright future. White also has a plan of
Nf5 and a King’s-side attack, and may seek to control c4 after
a2-a4.

Black has counterplay on the Queen’s-side, and if c5-c4
proves possible, Black suddenly has avoided any nasties on c4 and
has a goal on d3. So White’s pursuit of King’s-side goals cannot be
careless.

F.3. Half-Open with an open
file (iii) Blocked Oblique

e.g. King’s Indian, Ruy Lopez or French; cf.
D1/D2

The discussion in D1/D2 was all about how to open a file,
but here such a file already exists. Four possibilities present
themselves, combining each central pawn being forward with either
bishop file being open. Care and exploitation of the open file
affects markedly the plans described above; both players may switch
to the side with the open file in order to keep an eye on it.

Exchanges of rooks down the open file reduce the chances
of a successful mating attack, but do not much reduce the
positional pawn advances.

F.4. Half-open with half-open
files (i) French

e.g. French with dxc5/…c5xd4 e.g. 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3
Nf6 4. e5 Nd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 cxd4 7. Nxd4 Bc5 8. Be3

Black has chances against the Queen’s-side; c4 is an
outpost that cannot easily be disturbed by b2-b3. White’s chances
come on the King’s-side, and the attack must be swift and sure – f5
and h4 may figure in the attack. White should maintain a Knight at
d4, although Black can exchange or otherwise badger it. If Black
can force White to abandon d4, then the advance …d5-d4 may decide
the game in Black’s favour.

F.5. Half-open with half-open
files (ii) Caro-Kann / QGD Exchange

e.g. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. cxd5 exd5 or 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3.
exd5 cxd5

We see this formation from White’s point of view in the
diagram, where we might expect White to be better developed than
Black. The half-open e-file and outpost on e5 gives prospects of a
King’s-side attack, even if Black had the majority there, as the
advance …e5 will be difficult or impossible. Black must counter
with a minority attack, and can think about spending a moment to
exchange the bad Bc8.

F.6. Passed pawn, protected
but blockaded

e.g. This may arise from D1 after an exchange
on c5.or from C4 after the advance of both the c-
and e-pawns is combined with the advance of the d-pawn

White has a difficult game: no way of opening a file
recommends itself, and Black can roll down the Queen’s-side. With
the e-pawn replaced by a pawn on c4, Black’s chances would
naturally come with …f5. The best blockader is always a Knight,
who loses no squares to the pawns on c5,d5 or e5, and is handily
placed to support pawn advances on either side.

F.7. Isolated Queen’s Pawn
*

e.g. Queen’s Gambit Accepted 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 Nf6
4.e3 c5 5. Bxc4 cxd5 6. exd4 or Caro-Kann Panov Attack, 1. e4 c6 2.
d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4.

Isolated pawns are weak, but central pawns are strong.
The critical and common case is the isolated Queen’s pawn (IQP)
where the strength and space is greatest. White can avoid exchanges
and has hopes of a King’s side attack based on a N on e5 and a B on
the b1-h7 diagonal; Black can consolidate and pile up on the d4
pawn, seeking exchanges and an advatageous endgame.

F.8. Hanging Pawns *

Often derived from IQP after …Nd5xc3 and bxc3, then c3-c4.
Directly from e.g. Semi-Tarrasch 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3
c5 or Queen’s Indian 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. e3

The pawns are strong and can be turned to attack because
they control so many key squares, but if either pawn moves the
weakness of the other will be sharply etched. Again, the defending
side can seek exchanges and the endgame, but this is nothing like
as straightforward a game as the IQP. There is a defensive idea
based on the advance of the isolated a-pawn, hoping to disrupt the
Black Queen’s-side pawns.

Rook endgames in practice

Posted on July 30, 1999 by DrDave

I dug out all the rook endings of mine I could find to show both
typical positions and typical errors. Please note that these are
not, therefore, models of technique, more like comedies of error!

  [Event "Andover club ch"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1983.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Regis, D."]  [Black "Knox, Stuart"]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [Annotator "rook ending: club 1 horrible l"]  [ECO "D32"]  [WhiteElo "1800"]  [BlackElo "1950"]  [PlyCount "161"]  [EventDate "1983.??.??"]   1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Bg5 Be7 7. Bxe7 Ngxe7 8. dxc5 Qa5 9. e3 Qxc5 10. Rc1 Bg4 11. Be2 O-O 12. O-O Rad8 13. Qa4 Bxf3 14. Bxf3 Ne5 15. Rfd1 Nxf3+ 16. gxf3 Qb6 17. Qb5 Qxb5 18. Nxb5 Nc6 19. Rc5 a6 20. Nd4 Ne5 21. f4 b6 22. Rc7 Nc4 23. b3 Na3 24. Nc6 Nb5 25. Rb7 Nc3 26. Rd3 Ne4 27. Ne7+ Kh8 28. Rxd5 b5 29. Ra7 Rxd5 30. Nxd5 Nc5 31. Nc7 h5 32. Nxa6 Nxa6 33. Rxa6 g6 34. a4 bxa4 35. bxa4 Rb8 36. a5 Rb1+ 37. Kg2 Ra1 38. Ra7 Kg8 39. a6 Ra5 40. Kf3 Ra4 {[#]} 41. e4 {Already denying the King cover.} (41. Ra8+ Kg7 42. a7 Kf6 {Now White should activate the King because Black cannot respond in kind:} 43. Ke2 Ke6 (43... Ke7 44. Kd3 Kd7 45. Rf8) 44. Re8+) 41... Kf8 42. e5 Kg8 43. Kg3 Kf8 44. Ra8+ Kg7 45. Kf3 Kh7 46. Ke3 Kg7 47. f3 h4 48. Kf2 Ra2+ 49. Kg1 h3 {[#] White has achieved nothing, because he had no plan and no suspicion what Black was up to.} 50. a7 Kh7 51. Rd8 Rxa7 52. Kf2 Ra3 53. Kg3 Kg7 54. Kg4 Re3 55. Rd1 Kh7 56. Rg1 Kg7 57. Rg3 f6 58. exf6+ Kxf6 59. Rxh3 Re2 60. Kg3 Ke6 61. Kg4 Kf6 {[#]} 62. f5 {pointlessly giving up more material} gxf5+ 63. Kf4 Kg6 64. Rg3+ Kf6 65. Rg5 Rxh2 66. Rxf5+ Kg6 67. Rf8 Ra2 68. Re8 Ra1 69. Re6+ Kf7 70. Kf5 Ra5+ 71. Re5 Ra3 72. f4 Ra4 73. Kg5 Ra1 74. Rb5 Ra6 75. Rb7+ Kf8 76. f5 Ra1 77. f6 Rg1+ {[#] the Philidor draw, which I didn't know then, but I do now. ..} 78. Kf5 Rf1+ 79. Ke6 Re1+ 80. Kd7 Kf7 81. Rb6 1/2-1/2   [Event "Exeter club ch"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1992.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Regis, D."]  [Black "Pope, Sean"]  [Result "1-0"]  [Annotator "rook ending: club 2 lack of at"]  [ECO "A36"]  [WhiteElo "1800"]  [PlyCount "113"]  [EventDate "1992.??.??"]   1. c4 c5 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Nc6 4. Nc3 (4. e3 {soltis}) 4... Bg7 5. e3 Nf6 {?! soltis: cf. regis-ayres 92} 6. Nge2 O-O 7. d4 cxd4 8. exd4 {!?} d6 9. O-O a6 10. d5 {!} Ne5 11. b3 Rb8 12. Nd4 Ned7 13. Re1 Re8 14. Rb1 {?!} Qc7 15. a4 Nf8 16. Ne4 {!?} Ng4 {?!} 17. Ba3 Bf5 {?!} 18. Nxf5 gxf5 19. Bb2 {(Sealed: R 19. Qf3)} Ne5 20. Ng5 b5 21. cxb5 axb5 22. axb5 Rxb5 23. Qh5 Neg6 24. Bxg7 Kxg7 25. Qf3 {!?} (25. Nf3) 25... h6 26. Nh3 Reb8 27. Qxf5 Rxb3 28. Rxb3 Rxb3 29. Nf4 Nxf4 30. Qxf4 Ng6 31. Qd4+ Kg8 32. Be4 {[#] White has pressure but Black shouldn't encourage him.} (32. Ra1) 32... Qc3 {?!} (32... Ne5 33. Ra1 Ra3 34. Rxa3 Qc1+ 35. Kg2 Qxa3 36. f4 Qa2+ 37. Kh3 Qc4) 33. Qxc3 Rxc3 34. Bxg6 fxg6 35. Rxe7 {[#] The Rook ending is clearly better for White.} Rd3 36. Re6 Rxd5 37. Rxg6+ Kh7 38. Re6 h5 {?! Just pushes the Pawn in range - see later.} 39. Kg2 Kg7 40. Kf3 Kf7 41. Re4 Kg6 42. Ke3 {[#] Black's Rook is active.} Kg5 {?!} (42... Kf6 43. Rd4 Re5+ 44. Kf3 Ke6 {when it's still a fight}) 43. Rd4 Re5+ 44. Kf3 Re6 45. Rd5+ Kg6 {Black's Rook is passive.} 46. Kf4 Rf6+ 47. Ke3 Re6+ 48. Kf3 Rf6+ 49. Kg2 Re6 50. Kh3 {!} Rf6 51. f4 Kh6 52. Kh4 {[#] This is what I meant about it being in range.} Kg6 53. Rg5+ Kh7 54. Rxh5+ Rh6 {Awful - all you have to do is count.} 55. Rxh6+ Kxh6 56. Kg4 Kg6 57. Kf3 1-0   [Event "Exeter vs Teignmouth"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1994.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Regis, D."]  [Black "Walker, John"]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [Annotator "rook ending: club 3 lack of th"]  [ECO "C33"]  [PlyCount "101"]  [EventDate "1994.??.??"]   1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 d5 4. Bxd5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nxd5 (5... Bb4 {book}) 6. Nxd5 Qh4+ 7. Kf1 Bg4 8. Nf3 Bd6 9. d4 O-O 10. Bxf4 (10. e5 c6 11. Nxf4 Be7 12. Be3 Bxf3 13. Qxf3 Re8) 10... Bxf4 11. Nxf4 Qe7 12. Qd3 Nc6 13. c3 Rad8 14. Re1 Rfe8 (14... f5 15. e5 (15. h3)) 15. h3 Bxf3 16. Qxf3 Na5 17. g4 (17. Kf2 Nc4 18. Nd3 {?} (18. Re2 {!} c5 19. Nd5 Qg5 20. Qf4) 18... Nd2) 17... Nc4 18. Rh2 c5 19. d5 Qf6 20. Qf2 {[#] Black wins a pawn and initiates a few exchanges.} Nxb2 21. Qxb2 Qxf4+ 22. Qf2 Rxe4 23. Qxf4 Rxf4+ 24. Rf2 Rxf2+ 25. Kxf2 Kf8 {[#] If you are losing, exchange pawns, particularly if you can clear those on one side of the board, and hope to get into a drawn ending.} 26. c4 b5 27. cxb5 Rxd5 28. a4 Rd4 29. Re5 Rxa4 30. Rxc5 Ke7 31. Rc7+ Ke6 32. Rb7 Ra3 33. Kg2 Kf6 {[#]} 34. b6 {! The last Queen's-side pawn goes. White still has problems because of the advanced King's-side pawns.} axb6 35. Rxb6+ Kg5 36. Rb5+ Kg6 37. Rc5 h6 38. Rb5 f6 39. Rc5 Re3 40. Rc7 Re5 41. Kg3 h5 42. Rc3 {[#]} hxg4 {?} (42... Kg5 {gives more winning chances}) 43. hxg4 Kg5 44. Ra3 g6 45. Rb3 Re4 46. Rb5+ {[#]} f5 {? really anything else would have been more worrying} 47. gxf5 gxf5 48. Rb8 Re3+ 49. Kf2 Ra3 50. Rb4 f4 51. Rb8 {[#] the basic draw: Philidor's position. Clearly White has been steering for this since move 33!} 1/2-1/2   [Event "Frome"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Woodruff, DG."]  [Black "Regis, D."]  [Result "1/2-1/2"]  [Annotator "rook ending: club 4 lack of co"]  [ECO "A26"]  [WhiteElo "1725"]  [BlackElo "1855"]  [PlyCount "112"]  [EventDate "1995.??.??"]   1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. Nf3 f5 7. O-O Nf6 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bd2 O-O 10. Nd5 Be6 11. Ne1 Rb8 12. Nc2 Ne7 13. Nxf6+ Rxf6 14. Bc3 g5 15. Kh1 Ng6 16. d4 Bxc4 {couldn't see why not!} 17. dxe5 Nxe5 (17... dxe5) 18. Bd5+ (18. f4) 18... Bxd5+ 19. Qxd5+ Rf7 20. Rad1 Qd7 21. f4 Ng6 22. Bxg7 Kxg7 23. fxg5 hxg5 24. Nd4 Ne7 25. Qf3 c5 26. Nc2 Rf6 27. Ne3 Rbf8 (27... Qe6) (27... Qc6 28. Nd5 Nxd5 29. Rxd5 Re8 30. Rfd1 Re5 31. R5d2 Qxf3+ 32. exf3 Rfe6 33. Rxd6 Rxd6 34. Rxd6 Re1+ 35. Kg2 Re2+ 36. Kh3 Rxb2 37. Rd5 Kf6) 28. Nd5 Nxd5 29. Qxd5 Qc6 30. Rf3 Qxd5 31. Rxd5 {[#] we embarked on a long endgame from this point which I never felt happy with; I have thrown in some speculative lines in the notes} b5 $2 (31... Kg6 32. Rfd3 Re8 33. Rxd6 (33. e3) 33... Rxe2 34. Rd2 Rxd6 35. Rxe2 b5 {-+}) (31... Re8) (31... g4) 32. Rfd3 Re8 33. Rd2 Ree6 $2 (33... Re5 34. Rxd6 Rxd6 35. Rxd6 Rxe2 36. Rd5 Rxb2 37. Rxc5 Kg6 {-+}) (33... a5) 34. b4 cxb4 $2 (34... c4 35. Rxb5 c3 36. Rc2 Re3 37. Rb7+ Rf7) 35. Rxb5 $11 Re4 36. Rb2 Kg6 (36... Rfe6) 37. R5xb4 Rxb4 38. Rxb4 Re6 39. Rb2 Kf6 40. Kg2 Re4 41. Rd2 Ke5 42. h3 a5 43. Kf2 d5 44. Rd3 Ra4 45. Re3+ Kd6 46. a3 f4 47. gxf4 Rxf4+ 48. Kg3 d4 49. Rd3 Re4 50. Kf3 Kd5 51. Rb3 $2 (51. e3 $2 Rxe3+ 52. Rxe3 dxe3 53. Kxe3 Kc4 54. Ke4 Kb3 55. Kf5 Kxa3 56. Kxg5 Kb3 57. h4 a4 58. h5 a3 59. h6 a2 60. h7 a1=Q 61. Kg6 {-+ not all forced, I admit} Qh8) 51... Rf4+ 52. Kg3 Kc4 53. Rb8 Re4 54. Kf3 Rf4+ (54... Re3+ {looks good} 55. Kg4 Rxe2 56. Kxg5 d3 57. Rd8 d2 58. h4 Kc3 59. h5 Re5+ 60. Kg4 Rxh5 61. Kxh5 Kc2 62. Rc8+ Kb3 63. Rd8 {drawn}) 55. Kg3 Kc3 (55... Re4) 56. Rb5 Re4 $17 {[#] draw agreed - White: 20min, Black: 2min left} (56... Re4 57. Rxg5 (57. Kf3 Re3+ 58. Kg4 Rxe2 59. Rxa5 d3 60. Kf3 Re1 {-+}) 57... Rxe2 58. Rxa5 (58. Rd5 a4 59. Kf3 d3 60. h4 Re1 61. Rc5+ Kd4 62. Rc8 d2) 58... d3 59. Rd5 d2 60. Kg4 (60. h4 Re3+ {?} (60... Re1) 61. Kf4 Rd3 {-+}) (60. Kf4 {!} Re1 61. h4 d1=Q 62. Rxd1 Rxd1 63. h5 Kd4 64. h6 Kd5 65. Kf5 Rf1+ 66. Kg6 Ke6 67. h7 Rg1+ 68. Kh6 Kf7 69. h8=N+ Kf6 70. Kh7 Rg4 71. a4 Rh4+ 72. Kg8 Rxa4 73. Kh7 (73. Nf7 Ra8+ 74. Kh7 Kxf7 75. Kh6 Ra5 76. Kh7 Rh5#) 73... Rg4 74. Nf7 Kxf7 75. Kh6 Kf6 76. Kh5 Re4 77. Kh6 Rh4#) 60... Re1 61. h4 d1=Q+ 62. Rxd1 Rxd1 63. h5 Kd4 64. h6 Ke5 65. Kg5 Rg1+ 66. Kh5 Kf5 {winning!}) 1/2-1/2   [Event "Exeter Club Ch"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "1995.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "Lane, Peter CR"]  [Black "Regis, D."]  [Result "0-1"]  [Annotator "rook ending: club 5 lack of ac"]  [ECO "A42"]  [PlyCount "160"]  [EventDate "1995.??.??"]   1. d4 g6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 Nc6 5. Nge2 e5 6. d5 Nce7 7. Ng3 h5 8. Bd3 h4 9. Nf1 f5 10. exf5 (10. f3) 10... gxf5 11. f3 Nf6 12. Qc2 c6 13. Ne3 f4 14. Nf5 Nxf5 15. Bxf5 cxd5 16. Bg6+ Kf8 17. cxd5 Qa5 18. Bd2 Nxd5 19. Qb3 (19. Nxd5 Qxd5 20. Rd1 {suggested by PL immediately after: 20...Qc5? 21 Qb3! +-} Qxa2 21. Bb4 Be6 22. Qe4 Qb3 23. Rxd6 Kg8 24. O-O) 19... Be6 20. Qxb7 Rd8 21. Nb5 Qb6 22. Qxb6 axb6 23. Ke2 h3 24. g4 fxg3 25. hxg3 Bh6 26. Rad1 Ke7 27. Be4 {we later suggested 27 Kf2 as better} Bxd2 28. Rxd2 Nf6 29. Bb1 Bc4+ 30. Bd3 Bxa2 31. Ke1 Bd5 32. Bf1 Bxf3 33. Rxh3 Rxh3 34. Bxh3 Bc6 35. Nc3 Rg8 36. Kf2 Ng4+ 37. Ke2 Nf6 38. Kf2 Ng4+ (38... d5 {!} 39. Bg2 Ke6 40. Bh3+ Kd6 41. Rd3 d4 {is simpler and safer; analysing on the night I missed the strong ...d4}) 39. Ke2 Nh2 40. Rd3 e4 41. Nd5+ Bxd5 42. Rxd5 Rxg3 43. Bf5 Rg2+ 44. Ke3 Ng4+ 45. Bxg4 Rxg4 46. Rb5 Ke6 {[#]} 47. Rxb6 (47. Kd4 {! may be better}) 47... Ke5 48. Rb8 Rg3+ 49. Kf2 Rf3+ (49... Rd3 {!?} 50. b4 Kd4) 50. Ke2 d5 51. b4 Kd4 52. b5 Rb3 53. b6 e3 (53... Rb2+ {is more likely to tempt an error?} 54. Kd1 Kd3 55. Ke1 e3) 54. b7 Rb2+ 55. Kf1 Kd3 (55... Rb5 56. Ke2 Rb1 57. Re8 Rxb7 58. Rxe3 {[#]} Rb2+ 59. Kf3 Rh2 60. Re8 Kd3 61. Rd8 d4 62. Rd7 Rh8 63. Rc7 Rf8+ 64. Kg2 Kd2 65. Rd7 d3 66. Rd6 Ke2 67. Re6+ Kd1 68. Rd6 d2 69. Rd7 Rf4 {all like the game but with the d-pawn not the e-pawn - the 'bridge' is easier and the wK is on the long side}) 56. Rd8 Rb1+ {PL missed this one} 57. Kg2 Rxb7 58. Rxd5+ {[#]} Ke2 {! I did wonder about ...Ke4 but PL was not impressed... This is of course better, giving Lucena's win, but Black didn't half make heavy weather of it. The wK is well-placed on the 'short side'} 59. Rd8 Rg7+ {an important finesse} 60. Kh3 Rf7 (60... Ke1) 61. Kg2 Rf4 {you can tell Black can remember about 'building a bridge' but this is too early!} 62. Kg3 Rf7 63. Re8 Rf3+ 64. Kg2 Rf5 65. Rd8 Ke1 66. Re8 e2 67. Re7 (67. Re7 Rf2+ 68. Kg1 Rf1+ 69. Kg2 Kd2 {is trivial...} 70. Rxe2+) 67... Kd2 (67... Rd5 {looks much simpler} 68. Kf3 (68. Ra7 Rg5+ 69. Kh2 Re5 70. Kg2 Kd2 71. Ra2+ Ke3 72. Ra3+ Kf4) 68... Rd3+ 69. Kg2 Kd1) 68. Rd7+ Ke3 69. Re7+ Kd3 70. Rd7+ Ke4 71. Re7+ {we've got all this way but something's still not quite right...} Kd3 (71... Re5 72. Rxe5+ Kxe5 73. Kf2 {... penny dropped!}) 72. Rd7+ Ke3 73. Re7+ Kd2 74. Rd7+ Ke1 75. Re7 Rf4 76. Kg3 (76. Ra7 Rf2+ 77. Kg1 Rf1+ 78. Kg2 Kd2 {+-}) 76... Rd4 77. Kg2 Kd2 78. Kf2 Rf4+ 79. Kg3 Rf1 {a tough game!} 80. Rd7+ Kc3 0-1

The club player at his worst…

regis,d (1800) – knox,stuart (ian miles cup)
(1950) [D32] rook ending: club, horrible lack of everything,
1983

1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 c5 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Bg5
Be7 7. Bxe7

[7. Bxe7 Ngxe7 8. e3 cxd4 9. Nxd4 Qb6 10. Qd2 ! (
10…Nxd4; 11 exd4, 0-0; 12 Be2 and; 13 Bf3+= or 12 Bb5!? ) 10…
Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. Bb5 O-O 13. O-O Nxd4 14. exd4 Nc6 15. Bxc6 !
15… Qxc6 16. Qg5 !]

7… Ngxe7

[7… Ngxe7 8. e3 c4 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O b5 11. Ne5
Nxe5 12. dxe5 Rb8 13. a4 b4 14. Nb5 Nc6 15. f4]

8. dxc5 Qa5

[8… d4 9. Ne4 O-O 10. e3]

9. e3 Qxc5 10. Rc1 Bg4 11. Be2 O-O 12. O-O Rad8
13. Qa4 Bxf3 14. Bxf3 Ne5 15. Rfd1 Nxf3+ 16. gxf3 Qb6 17. Qb5 Qxb5
18. Nxb5 Nc6 19. Rc5 a6 20. Nd4 Ne5 21. f4 b6 22. Rc7 Nc4 23. b3
Na3 24. Nc6 Nb5 25. Rb7 Nc3 26. Rd3 Ne4 27. Ne7+ Kh8 28. Rxd5 b5
29. Ra7 Rxd5 30. Nxd5 Nc5 31. Nc7 h5 32. Nxa6 Nxa6 33. Rxa6 g6 34.
a4 bxa4 35. bxa4 Rb8 36. a5 Rb1+ 37. Kg2 Ra1 38. Ra7 Kg8 39. a6 Ra5
40. Kf3 Ra4

41. e4

I assumed this was a straightforward win, but…
41… Kf8 42. e5 Kg8 43. Kg3 Kf8 44. Ra8+ Kg7 45. Kf3 Kh7
46. Ke3 Kg7 47. f3 h4 48. Kf2 Ra2+ 49. Kg1 h3 50. a7 Kh7 51.
Rd8

[51. Kf1 Kg7

[51… Rxh2 52. Rd8]

52. Ke1 Kh7 53. Kd1 Kg7 54. Kc1 Kh7 55. Kb1 Ra4 56.
Kb2 Kg7 57. Kb3 Ra5 58. Kb4 Ra2 59. Kc5 Ra6]

51… Rxa7 52. Kf2 Ra3 53. Kg3 Kg7 54. Kg4 Re3
55. Rd1 Kh7 56. Rg1 Kg7 57. Rg3 f6 58. exf6+ Kxf6 59. Rxh3 Re2 60.
Kg3 Ke6 61. Kg4 Kf6 62. f5 gxf5+ 63. Kf4 Kg6 64. Rg3+ Kf6 65. Rg5
Rxh2 66. Rxf5+ Kg6 67. Rf8 Ra2 68. Re8 Ra1 69. Re6+ Kf7 70. Kf5
Ra5+ 71. Re5 Ra3 72. f4 Ra4 73. Kg5 Ra1 74. Rb5 Ra6 75. Rb7+ Kf8
76. f5 Ra1 77. f6 Rg1+ 78. Kf5 Rf1+ 79. Ke6 Re1+ 80. Kd7 Kf7 81.
Rb6 1/2-1/2

regis,d (1800) – pope,s (club ch’p) [A36]
rook ending: club, lack of attention, 1992

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

[4. e3 soltis]

4… Bg7 5. e3 Nf6 ?! 6. Nge2 O-O 7. d4 cxd4 8.
exd4 !? 8… d6 9. O-O a6 10. d5 ! 10… Ne5 11. b3 Rb8 12. Nd4
Ned7 13. Re1 Re8 14. Rb1 ?! 14… Qc7 15. a4 Nf8 16. Ne4 !? 16…
Ng4 ?! 17. Ba3 Bf5 ?! 18. Nxf5 gxf5 19. Bb2 (Sealed: R 19.Qf3)
19… Ne5 20. Ng5 b5 21. cxb5 axb5 22. axb5 Rxb5 23. Qh5 Neg6 24.
Bxg7 Kxg7 25. Qf3 !?

[25. Nf3]

25… h6 26. Nh3 Reb8 27. Qxf5 Rxb3 28. Rxb3 Rxb3
29. Nf4 Nxf4 30. Qxf4 Ng6 31. Qd4+ Kg8 32. Be4

[32. Ra1]

32… Qc3 ?!

[32… Ne5 33. Ra1 Ra3 34. Rxa3 Qc1+ 35. Kg2 Qxa3 36.
f4 Qa2+ 37. Kh3 Qc4]

33. Qxc3 Rxc3 34. Bxg6 fxg6 35. Rxe7

35… Rd3 36. Re6 Rxd5 37. Rxg6+ Kh7 38. Re6 h5 ?! 39. Kg2
Kg7 40. Kf3 Kf7 41. Re4 Kg6 42. Ke3

42… Kg5 ?!

[42… Kf6 43. Rd4 Re5+ 44. Kf3 Ke6 when it’s still a
fight]

43. Rd4 Re5+ 44. Kf3 Re6 45. Rd5+ Kg6 46. Kf4
Rf6+ 47. Ke3 Re6+ 48. Kf3 Rf6+ 49. Kg2 Re6 50. Kh3 ! 50… Rf6 51.
f4 Kh6 52. Kh4 Kg6 53. Rg5+ Kh7 54. Rxh5+ Rh6 55. Rxh6+ Kxh6 56.
Kg4 Kg6 57. Kf3 1-0

woodruff,dg (1725) – regis,d (somerset vs.
devon) (1855) [A26] rook ending: club level, black lost courage,
1995

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. Nf3 f5
7. O-O Nf6 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bd2 O-O 10. Nd5 Be6 11. Ne1 Rb8 12. Nc2 Ne7
13. Nxf6+ Rxf6 14. Bc3 g5 15. Kh1 Ng6 16. d4 Bxc4 couldn’t see why
not! 17. dxe5 Nxe5

[17… dxe5]

18. Bd5+

[18. f4]

18… Bxd5+ 19. Qxd5+ Rf7 20. Rad1 Qd7 21. f4 Ng6
22. Bxg7 Kxg7 23. fxg5 hxg5 24. Nd4 Ne7 25. Qf3 c5 26. Nc2 Rf6 27.
Ne3 Rbf8 28. Nd5 Nxd5 29. Qxd5 Qc6 30. Rf3 Qxd5 31.
Rxd5

we embarked on a long endgame from this point which I never felt
happy

with; I have thrown in some speculative lines in the
notes

31… b5

[31… Kg6 32. Rfd3 Re8 33. Rxd6

[33. e3]

33… Rxe2 34. Rd2 Rxd6 35. Rxe2 b5 -+]

32. Rfd3 Re8 33. Rd2 Ree6

[33… Re5 34. Rxd6 Rxd6 35. Rxd6 Rxe2 36. Rd5 Rxb2
37. Rxc5 Kg6 -+]

34. b4 cxb4

[34… c4 35. Rxb5 c3 36. Rc2 Re3 37. Rb7+
Rf7]

35. Rxb5 Re4 36. Rb2 Kg6 37. R5xb4 Rxb4 38. Rxb4
Re6 39. Rb2 Kf6 40. Kg2 Re4 41. Rd2 Ke5 42. h3 a5 43. Kf2 d5 44.
Rd3 Ra4 45. Re3+ Kd6 46. a3 f4 47. gxf4 Rxf4+ 48. Kg3 d4 49. Rd3
Re4 50. Kf3 Kd5 51. Rb3

[51. e3 Rxe3+ 52. Rxe3 dxe3 53. Kxe3 Kc4 54. Ke4 Kb3
55. Kf5 Kxa3 56. Kxg5 Kb3 57. h4 a4 58. h5 a3 59. h6 a2 60. h7 a1=Q
61. Kg6 -+ not all forced, I admit 61… Qh8]

51… Rf4+ 52. Kg3 Kc4 53. Rb8 Re4 54. Kf3
Rf4+

[54… Re3+ looks good 55. Kg4 Rxe2 56. Kxg5 d3 57.
Rd8 d2 58. h4 Kc3 59. h5 Re5+ 60. Kg4 Rxh5 61. Kxh5 Kc2 62. Rc8+
Kb3 63. Rd8 drawn]

55. Kg3 Kc3 56. Rb5 Re4

draw agreed – White: 20min, Black: 2min left

[56… Re4 57. Rxg5

[57. Kf3 Re3+ 58. Kg4 Rxe2 59. Rxa5 d3 60. Kf3 Re1
-+]

57… Rxe2 58. Rxa5

[58.Rd5 a4 59. Kf3 d3 60. h4 Re1 61. Rc5+ Kd4 62. Rc8
d2]

58… d3 59. Rd5 d2 60. Kg4

[60. h4 Re3+ ?

[60… Re1]

61. Kf4 Rd3 -+]

[60. Kf4 ! 60… Re1 61. h4 d1=Q 62. Rxd1 Rxd1 63. h5
Kd4 64. h6 Kd5 65. Kf5 Rf1+ 66. Kg6 Ke6 67. h7 Rg1+ 68. Kh6 Kf7 69.
h8=N+ Kf6 70. Kh7 Rg4 71. a4 Rh4+ 72. Kg8 Rxa4 73. Kh7

[73. Nf7 Ra8+ 74. Kh7 Kxf7 75. Kh6 Ra5 76. Kh7
Rh5#]

73… Rg4 74. Nf7 Kxf7 75. Kh6 Kf6 76. Kh5 Re4 77.
Kh6 Rh4#]

60… Re1 61. h4 d1=Q+ 62. Rxd1 Rxd1 63. h5 Kd4 64.
h6 Ke5 65. Kg5 Rg1+ 66. Kh5 Kf5 winning!]

1/2-1/2

lane,pc – regis,d rook ending: club play,
managed a win, 1995

1. d4 g6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 Nc6 5. Nge2 e5 6. d5
Nce7 7. Ng3 h5 8. Bd3 h4 9. Nf1 f5 10. exf5

[10. f3]

10… gxf5 11. f3 Nf6 12. Qc2 c6 13. Ne3 f4 14.
Nf5 Nxf5 15. Bxf5 cxd5 16. Bg6+ Kf8 17. cxd5 Qa5 18. Bd2 Nxd5 19.
Qb3

[19. Nxd5 Qxd5 20. Rd1 suggested by PL immediately
after: 20…Qc5? 21 Qb3! +- 20… Qxa2 21. Bb4 Be6 22. Qe4 Qb3 23.
Rxd6 Kg8 24. O-O]

19… Be6 20. Qxb7 Rd8 21. Nb5 Qb6 22. Qxb6 axb6
23. Ke2 h3 24. g4 fxg3 25. hxg3 Bh6 26. Rad1 Ke7 27.
Be4

we later suggested 27 Kf2 as better

27… Bxd2 28. Rxd2 Nf6 29. Bb1 Bc4+ 30. Bd3 Bxa2
31. Ke1 Bd5 32. Bf1 Bxf3 33. Rxh3 Rxh3 34. Bxh3 Bc6 35. Nc3 Rg8 36.
Kf2 Ng4+ 37. Ke2 Nf6 38. Kf2 Ng4+

[38… d5 ! 39. Bg2 Ke6 40. Bh3+ Kd6 41. Rd3 d4 is
simpler and safer; analysing on the night I missed the strong
…d4]

39. Ke2 Nh2 40. Rd3 e4 41. Nd5+ Bxd5 42. Rxd5
Rxg3 43. Bf5 Rg2+ 44. Ke3 Ng4+ 45. Bxg4 Rxg4 46. Rb5
Ke6

47. Rxb6

[47. Kd4 ! may be better]

47… Ke5 48. Rb8 Rg3+ 49. Kf2 Rf3+

[49… Rd3 !? 50. b4 Kd4]

50. Ke2 d5 51. b4 Kd4 52. b5 Rb3 53. b6
e3

[53… Rb2+ is more likely to tempt an error? 54. Kd1
Kd3 55. Ke1 e3]

54. b7 Rb2+ 55. Kf1 Kd3

[55… Rb5 56. Ke2 Rb1 57. Re8 Rxb7 58. Rxe3

58… Rb2+ 59. Kf3 Rh2 60. Re8 Kd3 61. Rd8 d4 62. Rd7 Rh8 63.
Rc7 Rf8+ 64. Kg2 Kd2 65. Rd7 d3 66. Rd6 Ke2 67. Re6+ Kd1 68. Rd6 d2
69. Rd7 Rf4

all like the game but with the d-pawn not the e-pawn
– the ‘bridge’ is easier and the wK is on the long side]

56. Rd8 Rb1+

PL missed this one

57. Kg2 Rxb7 58. Rxd5+

58… Ke2 !

I did wonder about …Ke4 but PL was not impressed…
This is of course better, giving Lucena’s win, but Black didn’t
half make heavy weather of it. The wK is well-placed on the ‘short
side’

59. Rd8 Rg7+

an important finesse

60. Kh3 Rf7

[60… Ke1]

61. Kg2 Rf4

you can tell Black can remember about ‘building a bridge’
but this is too early!

62. Kg3 Rf7 63. Re8 Rf3+ 64. Kg2 Rf5 65. Rd8 Ke1
66. Re8 e2 67. Re7

[67. Re7 Rf2+ 68. Kg1 Rf1+ 69. Kg2 Kd2 is trivial…
70. Rxe2+]

67… Kd2

[67… Rd5 looks much simpler 68. Kf3

[68. Ra7 Rg5+ 69. Kh2 Re5 70. Kg2 Kd2 71. Ra2+ Ke3
72. Ra3+ Kf4]

68… Rd3+ 69. Kg2 Kd1]

68. Rd7+ Ke3 69.

Re7+ Kd3 70. Rd7+ Ke4 71. Re7+

we’ve got all this way but something’s still not quite
right…

71… Kd3

[71… Re5 72. Rxe5+ Kxe5 73. Kf2 …penny
dropped!]

72. Rd7+ Ke3 73. Re7+ Kd2 74. Rd7+ Ke1 75. Re7
Rf4 76. Kg3

[76. Ra7 Rf2+ 77. Kg1 Rf1+ 78. Kg2 Kd2 +-]

76… Rd4 77. Kg2 Kd2 78. Kf2 Rf4+ 79. Kg3
Rf1

a tough game!

80. Rd7+ Kc3 0-1

regis,d – walker,jn (exeter vs. teignmouth)
[C33] rook ending: club, lack of theory, 1995

1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 d5 4. Bxd5 Nf6 5. Nc3
Nxd5

[5… Bb4 book]

6. Nxd5 Qh4+ 7. Kf1 Bg4 8. Nf3 Bd6 9. d4 O-O 10.
Bxf4

[10. e5 c6 11. Nxf4 Be7 12. Be3 Bxf3 13. Qxf3
Re8]

10… Bxf4 11. Nxf4 Qe7 12. Qd3 Nc6 13. c3 Rad8
14. Re1 Rfe8

[14… f5 15. e5

[15. h3]]

15. h3 Bxf3 16. Qxf3 Na5 17. g4

[17. Kf2 Nc4 18. Nd3 ?

[18. Re2 ! 18… c5 19. Nd5 Qg5 20. Qf4]

18… Nd2]

17… Nc4 18. Rh2 c5 19. d5 Qf6 20. Qf2 Nxb2 21.
Qxb2 Qxf4+ 22. Qf2 Rxe4 23. Qxf4 Rxf4+ 24. Rf2 Rxf2+ 25. Kxf2 Kf8
26. c4 b5 27. cxb5 Rxd5 28. a4 Rd4 29. Re5 Rxa4 30. Rxc5 Ke7 31.
Rc7+ Ke6 32. Rb7 Ra3 33. Kg2 Kf6

34. b6 ! 34… axb6 35. Rxb6+ Kg5 36. Rb5+ Kg6 37. Rc5 h6
38. Rb5 f6 39. Rc5 Re3 40. Rc7 Re5 41. Kg3 h5 42. Rc3

42… hxg4 ?

[42… Kg5 gives more winning chances]

43. hxg4 Kg5 44. Ra3 g6 45. Rb3 Re4 46.
Rb5+

46… f5 ?

really anything else would have been more worrying

47. gxf5 gxf5 48. Rb8 Re3+ 49. Kf2 Ra3 50. Rb4 f4
51. Rb8

the basic draw: heading towards Philidor’s position.
Clearly White has been steering for this since move 33!

1/2-1/2

white,ir – regis,d (East Devon #1)

[B06] rook ending: club, all rook endings are
drawn, 1994 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Be3 c6 5.
a4 Nf6 6. h3 Nbd7 7. Nf3 O-O 8. Qd2

[8. Be2]

8… e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 10. Nxe5 dxe5 11. O-O-O
Qa5

[11… Qxd2+ 12. Rxd2 Be6 13. Bd3 Rfd8 14.
Rhd1]

12. Qd6 Be6 13. b4 Qd8 14.Qxd8 Rfxd8 15. Rxd8+
Rxd8 16. Bxa7 Bf8 17. Bc5 Bxc5 18. bxc5 Rd4 19. Bd3 Nd7 20. Kd2
Nxc5 21. Rb1 Bc4 22. Ne2 Rd7 23. Kc3 Bxd3 24. cxd3 Nxa4+ 25. Kb4
Nb6 26. Kc5 Nc8 27. Rb3 Kf8 28. f4 f6 29. Ra3 Ke7 30. g4 g5 31.
fxe5 fxe5 32. Ng3 Ke6 33. Nf5 Rc7 34. Ra8 b6+ 35. Kc4

35… Nd6+ 36. Nxd6 Kxd6 37. Rg8 b5+ 38. Kb4 Ra7 39. Rxg5
Ra4+ 40. Kb3 Rd4 41. Kc2 b4 42. Rg8 b3+

43. Kc3 Rb4 ! 44. Kb2 Kc5 45. Re8 Kd4 46. Rd8+ Ke3 47. g5
Kf4 48. Rf8+ Kxg5 49. Rf5+ Kg6 50. Rxe5 Rd4 51. Re6+ Kf7 52. Rxc6
Rxd3

1/2-1/2

Custer’s Last Stand

Posted on June 28, 1999 by DrDave

Attacking Indian systems without
c2-c4

When the Indian Defences were first mooted they were considered
suspect – fancy giving away the centre like that, when White can
fill it up with pawn moves like c2-c4, and e2-e4. While there are
defenders of this classical viewpoint, all White players of 1.d2-d4
have learned to respect the counterpunching power of the Indian
defences and many Black players use them.

So now there is another school of thought, saying White
players can get better practical chances by avoiding the main lines
after 2. c2-c4, and instead play with a more solid centre for
activity on the wings, or perhaps playing a simple developmental
move and only playing in the centre when Black’s activity has been
limited.

One other common theme is to play the Bc1 out early, to
exchange off the Black Knight on f6 (the best defender of the
castled King) and perhaps create weaknesses. We can see all these
themes at work in the following game, where the wily Korchnoi leads
the young Karpov up an unfamiliar alley and duffs him up:

Korchnoi-Karpov, Hastings
1974-5.

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 b6 4. e4 h6 5. Bxf6
Qxf6 Black has the two bishops and an apparently easy
game.

6. Bd3 Bb7 7. Nbd2 d6 8. Qe2 Now
…O-O-O will be met strongly by Ba6 and a2-a4. 8…a6 9.
O-O-O Nd7 10. Kb1 e5 11. c3 Be7 12. Nc4 O-O 13. Bc2 Rfe8?! 14. d5
c5

(Apparently sealing the fate of the White Bc2, but better was 14…
c6: now the centre is closed on the Black bishops too and a
King’s-side attack appears out of nowhere)

15. Ne3 Bf8 16. g4 Qd8 17. g5! h5! 18. g6 fxg6
19. Rhg1 Qf6 20. Ng5 Be7 21. Ne6 Nf8! 22. Nc7 Qf7 23. Rdf1 b5 24.
Nxa8 Bxa8?!

More counterplay was to be had through transferring the
rook across. Karpov is now doomed to await his fate.

25. c4 Rb8 26. Bd3 Qe8 27. Rc1 Bf6 28. Rg2 Rb6?!
29. Rcg1! Rb8 30. Qf1 b4 31. Be2 h4 32. Rxg6! Qxg6 33. Rxg6 Nxg6
34. Bg4 Nf4 35. Qd1 b3 36. axb3 Bb7 37. Ng2(!) Bc8 38. Bxc8 Rxc8
39. Qg4 Re8 40. Nxf4 exf4 41. Qxf4 Be5 42. Qxh4 Rf8 43. b4 Bd4 44.
bxc5 1-0

A. Colle System

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 and; 3.
e3

White will play slowly for the e2-e4 break, opening up the game.

There is a booklet on the Colle
somewhere in circulation.

Landau – Book, Kemeri,
1937

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 c5 5. c3 Nbd7 6. Nbd2
Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. Re1 Qc7 9. e4 cxd4 10. cxd4 dxe4 11. Nxe4 Nxe4
12. Rxe4 Re8 13. Rh4 Nf8 14. Ng5 h6 15. Qh5 e5 16. Bd2 exd4 17. Rc1
Qe7 18. Ne4

18… Ng6 (else Bxh6) 19. Bg5 Qe5

[19… hxg5 20. Qh7+ Kf8 21. Qh8+ Nxh8 22.
Rxh8#]

20. f4 Qd5 [20… Qa5 21.
b4]

White now lands two good punches

21. Nf6+ gxf6 22. Bxg6

Black’s pawn cover has suddenly disappeared.

22… Bf8 The alternatives didn’t
convince:

[22… fxg6 23. Qxg6+ Kf8 24. Qxf6+ Qf7 25. Bxh6+ Kg8
26. Qg5+ Kh8 27. Bg7+ Kg8 28. Rh8#]

[22… fxg5 23. Qxh6 gxh4 24. Bh7+ Kh8 25. Be4+ Kg8
26. Bxd5]

23. Rc7 Be6 24. Bxf6 Qxh5 Ordinarily,
exchanging queens is an important achievement for the defence.

25. Bxh5 Rec8 26. Bxf7+ and still they
come! 26… Kh7 [ 26… Bxf7 27. Rg4+ Kh7 28.
Rxf7+ Bg7 29. Rgxg7+ Kh8 30. Rg6#] 27. Rxc8 Bxc8 28.
Bxd4 Cashing in 28… Bf5 29. Rh5 1-0

B. London System

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 and; 3.
Bf4

White holds the centre and develops quickly, attacking on either
side as the opportunity arises.

Pribyl – Penrose (Nice)
1974

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 c5 4. c3 e6 5. e3 Be7 6. Nbd2
O-O 7. Bd3 b6 8. Ne5 A common theme in the London:
White can also try here [8. O-O Bb7 9. a4 or 9. Ne5]

8… Bb7 9. Qf3 Nc6 10. Qh3 g6 11. Bh6 Re8 12. f4
Nd7 [12… Nxe5 13. fxe5 Ne4 14. Bxe4 dxe4 15. O-O
with a strong attack: White can contemplate Rxf7!]

13. O-O f5 14. Ndf3 Ncxe5 15. fxe5 Bf8 16. Ng5
Bxh6 17. Qxh6 Nf8

[17… Qe7 18. g4 Qg7 19. Qxg7+ Kxg7 20. Bb5 Rad8 21.
gxf5 gxf5 22. Nh3 with an endgame plus]

18. Rf3 Re7 19. g4 Rg7 20. Raf1 Qd7 21. Kh1 Qe7
22. h4 Bc8 23. Rg3 a5 24. Rfg1 Ra7…1-0 DIAGRAM Black
fiddles while the King’s side burns… White won an endgame in
about 40 moves.

C. Torre Attack/Torre System
vs. King Fianchetto

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 and; 3.
Bg5

We saw this in action in the introductory game. The founder of this
system scored a famous victory over Lasker with a ‘windmill’
combination. It has similar ideas to the London System, and chooses
perhaps a better square for the Bishop. It also tempts Black to
chase the bishop, as we can see in this line against a King
Fianchetto system.

Smyslov,V – Nunn,J [A48]
(Tilburg), 1982

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bg5 Bg7 4. Nbd2 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. c3
h6 7. Bh4 Does driving the bishop back have any effect in
this formation? Yes – it does further weaken the kingside fortress.

7… Nc6 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

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

16… 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…

D. Trompovsky

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5

An even earlier Bishop move, and now only …e6 and …Ne4 can stop
White from kicking a hole in the Black pawn formation. In the
‘seventies Hort and Jansa often adopted it with a positional
approach, but the brawling style seen below has been more
characteristic of Hodgson’s revival of the line in the ‘nineties.

Vaganian-Botterill, Hastings
1974

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 g6 Consciously provocative.

3. Bxf6 exf6 4. e3 Bg7 5. Ne2 b6 6. Nf4 d5 7. h4
h5 8. c4 dxc4 9. Bxc4 Bb7 10. Nc3 Bh6 11. Bxf7+ Kxf7 12. Qb3+ Ke8
13. Nxg6 Qd7 14. Nxh8 Qg7 15. Qe6+ Kf8 16. Nd5 Nd7 17. Ne7 1-0

Hodgson,J – Gokhale,J [D00]
British Ch, Dundee, 1993

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5 d5 3. Bxf6 exf6 4. e3 Be7 5. c4 dxc4 6.
Bxc4 O-O 7. Nc3 c6 8. Nge2 Nd7 9. Qc2 Bd6 10. Bd3 g6 11. h3 Qe7 12.
O-O-O a5 13. Kb1 Nb6 14. h4 Be6 DIAGRAM

15. h5 f5 16. g4 Nd5 17. gxf5 Nb4 18. Qd2 Nxd3 19. Qxd3
gxf5 20. d5 cxd5 21. Nxd5 Qd8 22. Rdg1+ Kh8 23. Qc3+ f6 24. Ndf4
Qd7 25. Ng6+ hxg6 26. hxg6+ Kg8 27. g7 Rfc8 28. Qxf6 Bxa2+ 29. Ka1
1-0

E. Systems with g3

1. d4 Nf6 2. g3

Transpositional except against the King’s Indian where the double
fianchetto system is known (with b2-b3).

Against the …e6 systems it usually transposes into the
Catalan, where Black may have problems whether the centre is closed
(Botvinnik) or open (Keene).

Botvinnik,M – Padevsky,N [E07]
Monte, 1968

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. d4
Nbd7 7. b3 b6 8. Bb2 Bb7 9. cxd5 exd5 10. Nc3 Re8 11. Ne5 Bd6 12.
f4 Ne4 13. Nxe4 dxe4 14. e3 Nf6 15. a3 c5 16. Qe2 cxd4 17. Bxd4 Qe7
DIAGRAM 1

White has a central grip

18. b4 a5 19. b5 Bxe5 20. Bxe5 Nd7 21. Bd4 Nc5
22. f5 Nd7 DIAGRAM 2

White turns his advantage into attack.

23. f6 Qe6 24. Qh5 Ne5 25. Rf5 Ng6 26. fxg7 Rad8
27. Qxh7+ 1-0

Keene,R – Robatsch,K [E08]
Madrid, 1971

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. d4
Nbd7 7. Qc2 b6 8. Nc3 Bb7 9. cxd5 Nxd5 10. Nxd5 Bxd5 11. e4 Bb7 12.
Bf4

Black now tries to break up the centre, but White offeres a pawn
sacrifice based on his more active pieces.

12… c5 13. d5 exd5 14. exd5 Bf6

[14… Bxd5 15. Rad1 Nf6 16. Ng5] [14… Nf6 15. Rad1
Nxd5]

15. h4 Re8 16. Ng5 Nf8 17. Rad1 Bd4 18. Be3 h6
19. Ne4 Bxe3 20. fxe3 Ng6 21. Rxf7 Kxf7 22. Rf1+ Ke7 23. d6+ Kd7
24. Rf7+ Ne7 25. Qa4+ Kc8 26. d7+ Qxd7 27. Bh3 1-0

F. Systems with a delayed
c4

Even if White has c2-c4 lines in their repertoire, it may reduce
Black’s options to delay

this, e.g. in the Catalan

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 Be7 5. O-O
O-O 6. c4

avoids the active Black system with

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. g3 d5 4. Bg2 dxc4

Fyllingen Roy – Tisdall
Jonathan D (8) [E05] Ch Norway, Namsos (Norway), 1995

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O
dxc4 7. Qc2 a6 8. a4 Bd7 9. Rd1 Bc6 10. Nc3 Bb4

DIAGRAM: Black’s pieces are actively contesting central squares.
White now finds an ingenious way of shedding a piece.

11. e4 Bxc3 12. d5 exd5 13. exd5 Bxd5 14. Ng5 c6
15. bxc3 h6 16. Ne4 Nxe4 17. Bxe4 Bxe4 0-1

We can see both the g3 and delayed c4 ideas in the
following game:

Speelman,J – Mestel,J [D02]
Hastings, 1979

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 e6 3. g3 c5 4. Bg2 Nc6 5. O-O cxd4 6.
Nxd4

6… Bc5 7. Nb3 Bb6 8. c4 Nf6 9. cxd5 Nxd5 10. Nc3 Nxc3 11.
Qxd8+ Nxd8 12. bxc3 Bd7 13. c4 Bc6 14. Ba3 Bxg2 15. Kxg2 Nc6 16.
Rfd1 Rd8 17. e3 f6 18. Bd6 Rd7 19. Rab1 Kd8 20. c5 Bc7 21. Nd4 Nxd4
22. Rxb7 Bxd6 23. Rxd7+ Kxd7 24. Rxd4 Kc6 25. Rxd6+ Kxc5 26. Rxe6
a5 27. Re7 g6 28. Rb7 Kc6 29. Rf7 f5 30. a4 Re8 31. Rxh7 Re4 32.
Rh4 Rxh4 33. gxh4 Kc5 34. f4 Kb4 35. e4 fxe4 36. Kf2 1-0

G. Stonewall Opening

1. d4 2. e3 3. Bd3 4.
f4

White locks up the centre and rolls down the King’s-side

1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Bd3

[3. f4 is sometimes played to avoid the 3…Nc6 line,
but then Black can always play …Bf5]

3… c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. f4 e6

blocks the Bc8; probably not best. The dangers in this
line can be seen in this line, given by Fine:

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

Ne5 needs some response; Black could also try to occupy
e4

9. Nd2 Re8 10. g4 DIAGRAM with a crushing
attack

Black can usually see this coming but it (and the Stonewall Dutch)
is still played:

Aldrete,Jorge – Ramirez,P (2)
[D45] Tel Aviv ol prel, 1964

1. d4 Nf6 2. e3 d5 3. Bd3 e6 4. Nd2 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. f4 Bd6
7. Ne2 O-O 8. O-O Qc7 9. Nf3

DIAGRAM

9… c4 10. Bc2 b5 11. Ng3 Rd8 12. Ne5 Bf8 13.
Bd2 a5 14. Be1 g6 15. h4 Ba6 16. h5 Ne7 17. hxg6 hxg6 18. Qf3 Bg7
19. Nh1 Bb7 20. Qh3 Kf8 21. Bh4 Nf5 22. Bxf6 Bxf6 23. g4 Nd6 24. g5
Bg7

25. Bxg6 fxg6 26. Qxe6 Bxe5 27. fxe5+ Kg7 28. Qf6+ Kh7 29.
exd6 Qc8 30. Qf7+ Kh8 31. Rf2 Qg4+ 32. Rg2 Rd7 33. Qf6+
1-0

Lots of these Bf4/Bg5 systems can be played with the
Stonewall-style attack in mind but having the dark-squared bishop
the other side of the f-pawn (Burgess below), and of course Harry
Pillsbury imported it into the Queen’s Gambit.

Burgess Graham – Johannesson
Larus (8) [A46] It, 1995

1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bg5 Be7 4. Nbd2 d5 5. e3 O-O 6. Bd3
b6 7. Ne5 c5 8. c3 Qc7 9. f4 Bb7 10. Qf3 h6 11. h4 Nc6 12.
Rh3

seems familiar!

12… Nxe5 13. fxe5 Ne4 14. Nxe4 dxe4 15. Bxe4
Bxe4 16. Qxe4 Qd8 17. Bxe7 Qxe7 18. O-O-O c4 19. Rf1 b5 20. Rf6 Kh8
21. Rg3 b4 22. Qf4 bxc3 23. Qxh6+ 1-0

Pillsbury,Harry N – Marco
(Paris, 1900)

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3 b6
7. Bd3 Bb7 8. cxd5 exd5 9. Ne5 Nbd7 10. f4 c5

This is the basic formation which Pillsbury often steered for
against the …b6 lines.

11. O-O c4 12. Bc2 a6 13. Qf3 b5 14. Qh3 g6 15.
f5 b4 16. fxg6 hxg6

Black’s king’s side has been weakened.

17. Qh4 bxc3 18. Nxd7 Qxd7 19. Rxf6 a5 20. Raf1
Ra6 21. Bxg6

DIAGRAM Black didn’t need to be shown any more: 1-0

H. The Richter-Veresov
system

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 (Other moves transpose into
e.g. the Pirc or French)

This is another system emphasising piece play – again with the
threat of doubling the f-pawns, or reserving King’s-side chances.
In the following game we see both:

Bellin-Penrose, British Ch’p
1974

1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Bg5 h6 4. Bxf6 exf6 5. e3 c6 6. Bd3
Bd6 7. Qf3 O-O 8. Nge2 Re8 9. O-O-O b5 10. g4 Nd7 11. h4 b4 12. Na4
g6 13. Rdg1 Be7 14. g5 fxg5 15. h5 g4 16. Rxg4 g5 17. Rgg1! Qa5 18.
b3

Black has a decision, to counterattack or defend passively, but
Bellin says both lose. In the game Black defended:

18…Nf6

(or 18… Nb6 19. Nc5 Qxa2 20. Kd2 explains the idea
behind move 17. If instead 19… Bxc5 20. dxc5 Qxc5 21. Qf6 Re6 22.
Rxg5+ hxg5 23. Qxg5+ Kh8 24. Qd8+ Kg7 25. h6+ Rxh6 26. Rxh6 Kxh6
27. Qf6+ Kh5 28. Nf4+ Kg4 29. Be2# )

19. Ng3 Bg4 20. Qg2 Kh8 21. Bf5 Bxf5 22. Nxf5 Bf8
23. f4 Ne4 24. fxg5 Nxg5 25. Rh4 Re4 26. Rf4 Rae8 27. Nxh6 Bxh6 28.
Rf6 Qd8 29. Rxh6+ Kg7 30. Rxc6 f6 31. Qf1 Rxe3 32. Rxg5+ fxg5 33.
Rg6+

(221) Torre,C – Lasker,Em
[A46] Moscow, 1925

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 c5 4.e3 cxd4 5.exd4 Be7 6.Nbd2 d6
7.c3 Nbd7 8.Bd3 b6 9.Nc4 Bb7 10.Qe2 Qc7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Rfe1 Rfe8
13.Rad1 Nf8 14.Bc1 Nd5 15.Ng5 b5 16.Na3 b4 17.cxb4 Nxb4 18.Qh5 Bxg5
19.Bxg5 Nxd3 20.Rxd3 Qa5 21.b4 Qf5 22.Rg3 h6 23.Nc4 Qd5 24.Ne3
Qb5

And the famous finale:

25.Bf6 Qxh5 26.Rxg7+ Kh8 27.Rxf7+ Kg8 28.Rg7+ Kh8
29.Rxb7+ Kg8 30.Rg7+ Kh8 31.Rg5+ Kh7 32.Rxh5 Kg6 33.Rh3 Kxf6
34.Rxh6+ Kg5 35.Rh3 Reb8 36.Rg3+ Kf6 37.Rf3+ Kg6 38.a3 a5 39.bxa5
Rxa5 40.Nc4 Rd5 41.Rf4 Nd7 42.Rxe6+ Kg5 43.g3 1-0

All these systems can be met in practical play, and apply
to both the East and West Indian systems (with …d6/…g6 or
…e6/….b6). One can combine these ideas in defence, but we’ll
leave that to another session.

A1.2d Main line Abrahams variation [D31]

Burn – Teichmann (Hastings) [D46] 1895

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

[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

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

Regis,D – Walker,J [C33] Exeter vs. Teignmouth, 1994

Hecht,H – Spassky B V [B31] Dortmund, 1973

van Scheltinga – de Groot [E94] errors: eagerness to exchange, 1936

Nimzowitsch,A – Capablanca,J [C62] St Petersburg (1), 1914

Kasparov,G (2800) – Karpov,A (2730) [C92](W (20), 1990

Kortchnoi,V (2695) – Karpov,A (2700) [D31], 1981 [Wcstrong0-Merano (9)]

Littlewood,P – Mestel,J [E61] Hastings (9), 1981

Bryson,D – Williams,C [C12] BCCC, 1984 [TDH]

Booth,C (1800) – Regis,D (1825) [A42] Exeter vs. Harrogate, National Major Plate Final, 1996

Forintos,G – Gligoric,S [E77] Ljubljana, 1969

Peters, J – Andersson,U [B15] defence: mending weaknesses, 1978

Karaklajic,N – Marjanovic,Z (3) Pula, 1990 [B02]

Lendwai – Neckar,L, Nova-Park/SW,2,21, 1989 [B02]

Madl,I – Guadalpi,D (1) Val-Thorens, 1989 [B02]

Weiss,M – Shields,P (5), Chicago, 1989 [B02]

Tal-Campomanes, Leipzig Olympiad 1960 [B15]

De Armas,A – Jensen,C (7) Novi, 1990 [B18]

Haas,C – Trachsel, Arosa, 1990 [B18]

Rodriguez,Danie – Ruxton,K (6) WchJ, 1989 [B18]

Schlindwein,R – Hugger,M (1) Badenweiler, 1990 [B18]

Stonewall

Cid,M – Araya,R (4) Copa, 1989[C13]

Djurhuus,R – Minero,S (7) Santiago, 1990[C13]

Sokolov – Shemiakin, T, Simferopol, 1989[C13]

Zeh,H – Bahry,J, Baden-Baden, 1989[C13]

Conejero,J. M – Perez Torres,J [C15], Valencia

Ristic,Nen – Sanchis, A [C15], Chartres

Westerinen,H – Bergsson,S [C15], Gausdal

Abdulla,M – Khechen,N [C15], Novi

Castillo,O – Segovia,J [C15], WchJ

De Eccher,S – Schneiders,A [C15], Lugano

Tarrasch – Mieses[C30], Berlin Match (3) , 1916

Playing Black in Indian systems without c2-c4: a repertoire for the …g6 and the …e6 player

Torre Attack (Bg5 against …e6)

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

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

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

Schlindwein,R – Hugger,M (1) Badenweiler, 1990
[B18]

Playing Black in Indian systems without c2-c4: a repertoire for
the …g6 and the …e6 player

Torre Attack (Bg5 against
…e6)