The secret arts of castling

Posted on September 28, 1996 by DrDave

“Castle because you will or because you must; but not because
you can.” — Pillsbury

What can we infer from Pillsbury’s advice? Castling is desirable:
it whips the King out from under the central battle, and it gets a
Rook into play where lines may be opened. But it is also a move
which must be weighed against other moves. Careless, automatic
castling can waste time that could be better spent on other things,
and you can also castle from the frying pan into the fire. Below
I’ll look at the whys and wherefores of castling.

Castling not at all
I show this game to all the juniors. Get your King out of the way!
And if your opponent doesn’t castle, open up lines to the uncastled
King for your Rooks.
Wojciechowski – Weiss (Munich)
[C15]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nge2 dxe4 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6.
Nxc3 f5

?! The only way to hang on to the pawn, but it would have been
safer to let it go. (Nimzo and Weiss did know this, but must have
thought themselves capable of the defence.)
7. f3 exf3 8. Qxf3 Qh4+
[8…Qxd4 9.Qg3 Nf6 10.Qxg7 Qe5+ 11.Be2 Rg8 12.Qh6
Rg6 13.Qh4 Bd7 14.Bg5 Bc6 15.0-0-0 Bxg2 16.Rhe1 Be4 17.Bh5 Nxh5
18.Rd8+ Kf7 19.Qxh5 Kg7 20.Nxe4 fxe4 21.Bh6+ Kf6 22.Rf8+ 1-0
Alekhin Alexander-Nimzowitsch Aaron/Bled 1931]
9. g3 Qxd4 10. Be3 Qg4 11. Qg2

White must preserve the Q having sacrificed two pawns
11… Nf6 12. Be2 Qg6 13. O-O-O Nc6 14. Nb5 Qf7
15. Bc5 a6 16. Bf3 Nd8 17. Qd2 Nd5 18. Bxd5! axb5 19.
Rhe1

White’s major pieces are the main artillery in the attack against
the uncastled King
19… Bd7 20. g4 Nc6 21. gxf5 Qxf5 22. Bxe6 Bxe6
23. Qd7+ 1-0

Castling into it
This is the opposite fault: castling into an area where lines are
more easily opened up against you.
Blackburne – Blanchard (London)
[C30] , 1891
1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Nf3 exf4 ? 5. d4 Bb4 6.
Bxf4 d5 7. e5 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3 Be6 9. Bd3 h6 10. O-O Nge7 11.
Rb1

a rook’s first duty is to sieze the open files (or half-open ones)
11… b6 12. Qd2 O-O

optimistic!
13. Bxh6
sacrifices like this don’t take much thought…
13… gxh6 14. Qxh6 Ng6 15. Ng5 Re8 16.
Rxf7
[16. Qh7+ or 16.Bxg6 both win]
16… Bxf7 17. Qh7+ Kf8 18. Qxf7#
1-0

Dubois – Steinitz Wilhelm
(London (England)) [C55] 1862
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. Bg5
h6

Black, not having castled, can advance on the King’s-side with
impunity.
7. Bh4 g5 8. Bg3 h5 9. Nxg5 h4 10. Nxf7 hxg3 11.
Nxd8 Bg4 12. Qd2 Nd4 13. Nc3 Nf3+ 14. gxf3 Bxf3 15. hxg3 Rh1#
0-1

Nigel Holloway’s Suicide
Variation.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5
e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3 Qc7 9. O-O-O O-O?!
Nigel Holloway’s infamous Suicide Variation of the
Najdorf Sicilian.

10. Bd3!? critical
10… Nc6 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. e5 dxe5 13.
Qh3
[13. Ne4 Nd5 14. Bxe7 Nxe7 15. Ng5 h6 16. Nh7 Rd8-/+
Helman-Holloway, NCC 1973]
13… h6 14. Bxh6 gxh6 15. Qxh6 Rd8and 16.
g4 [16. Rhe1 “or almost anything else” and no-one
could find a decisive line for White]
[10. Qg3 Nbd7 11. Bd3 b5 12. Rhe1 b4 13. Nd5 exd5 14.
Nf5+- Hartston-Holloway, GB chp 1973 – “being Bill Hartston, he
claimed that he thought of this over the board”.]

Hoffmann – Petroff (Zt, Warsaw
(Poland)) [C53] castling: into it?, 1844
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. e5
Ne4 7. Bd5 Nxf2 8. Kxf2 dxc3+ 9. Kg3 cxb2 10. Bxb2 Ne7 11. Ng5 Nxd5
12. Nxf7

12… O-O! 13. Nxd8 Bf2+ 14. Kh3 d6+ 15. e6 Nf4+ 16. Kg4
Nxe6 17. Nxe6 Bxe6+ 18. Kg5 Rf5+ 19. Kg4 h5+ 20. Kh3 Rf3#
0-1

Castling Queen’s-side

nn – nn [B75] castling:
castling Queen’s-side, 1993
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3
Bg7 7. f3 Nc6 8. Qd2 a6 9. O-O-O Bd7 10. g4 Rc8 11. Be2 O-O 12.
h4

Opposite-side castling and asymmetric pawns/files usually adds up
to a race to mate the opponent’s King. Both sides will throw pawns
forward to open up lines for the attack.
12… Nxd4 13. Bxd4 Qa5 14. Kb1 e5 ! 15. Be3 Be6
16. a3 Rfd8 17. Bg5 Rd7 18. h5 Rdc7 19. h6 Rxc3 !? 20. hxg7 R8c6
21. Bxf6 Rb6

! exciting stuff!
22. Bb5 !! 22… Rxb5 23. Qxd6 Rc8 24. Qf8+ Rxf8
25. gxf8=Q+ Kxf8 26. Rxh7 1-0

Castling into it
Queen’s-side

Keres,Paul – Botvinnik,Mikhail
(ch_URS ) (03) [E35] , 1941
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 d5 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Bg5
h6 7. Bh4 c5

8. O-O-O Bxc3 9. Qxc3 g5 10. Bg3 cxd4 11. Qxd4 Nc6 12. Qa4
Bf5 13. e3 Rc8 14. Bd3 Qd7 15. Kb1 Bxd3+ 16. Rxd3 Qf5 17. e4 Nxe4
18. Ka1 O-O 19. Rd1 b5 20. Qxb5 Nd4 21. Qd3 Nc2+ 22. Kb1 Nb4
0-1

Castling late
Castling late runs the risk of not being able to castle at all,
because your King gets trapped in the middle. However I was very
struck watching Jon Speelman on TV many years ago, refraining from
castling to give an extra tempo for the attack. This is
characteristic of no-one so much as Petrosian.

Speelman – Mestel (BBC TV)
[A42] castling: delayed castling, 1979
1.d4 d6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 e5 5.d5 Nd7 6.Be2 a5 7.a3
Ngf6 8.Bg5 0-0 9.Rb1

“Speelman, an original player, is trying a novel plan here. He
delays castling, and uses the extra move to make progress on both
wings.”
9…h6 10.Be3 Nc5 11.Bf3 Bd7 12.b4 axb4 13.axb4
Na4 14.Nge2 Ne8 15.Nxa4 Rxa4 16.Qc1 Kh7 17.Nc3 Ra8
18.h4!

18…h5 19.Bd1 f5 20.exf5 Bxf5 21.Bc2 Nf6 22.Bg5
Qd7

23.0-0!
“Finally! Now Black can no longer counter with a
general advance of the King’s-side Pawns.” — James/Barden
23…c6 24.dxc6 Qxc6 25.Bxf5 gxf5 26.Nd5
a Pawn sac! 26…Nxd5 27.cxd5 Qxd5
[27…Qd7] 28.Rd1 Qe4 29.Rxd6 f4 30.f3 Qe2 31.Rb2
Qb5 32.Qb1+ Kh8 33.Rbd2 e4 34.Bh6 Qe5 35.Qxe4 Rfe8? 36.Bxg7+
Qxg7 [36…Kxg7 37.Qg6+] 37.Qxf4 Ra1+
38.Kh2 Rf8 39.Qxf8+ Qxf8 40.Rd8 Kg7 41.Rxf8 Kxf8 42.Rd7
1-0

Terpugov,E – Petrosian,T
(Moscow Zenit_Spartak m) , 1957
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d6 3. Nc3 Bg4 4. e4 c6 5. h3 Bxf3 6. Qxf3
Nbd7 7. Be3 e6 8. g4 d5 9. e5 Ng8

In closed position it is difficult to open lines against the King,
and if there are no other open lines it may not be essential to
connect the Rooks.
10. O-O-O b5 11. Bd3 Nb6 12. Kb1 Nc4 13. Bc1 Qb6
14. g5 Ne7 15. h4 c5 16. dxc5 Qxc5 17. Rhe1 g6 18. b3 Bg7 19. bxc4
bxc4 20. Bf1

Only now does Black castle, having spent each of his precious
ration of moves in the most effective way.
20… O-O 21. Ka1 Rfb8 22. Nb1 Nc6 23. Qg3 Rxb1+
24. Kxb1 Rb8+ 25. Ka1 c3 26. Bd2 Nb4 27. Bd3 Qc4 0-1

Petrosian,T – Barendregt,J
(Beverwijk), , 1960
1. c4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. e4 c5 5. d5 e5 6. Be2 Nh6
7. h4 f5 8. Bg5 Qb6 9. Rb1 Nf7 10. Bd2 a5 11. Nf3 h6 12. g3 Na6 13.
a3 Qd8 14. Qc2 h5 15. exf5 gxf5 16. Ng5 Qf6 17. Na4 f4
[17… Qd8 18. Ne6 Bxe6 19. dxe6 Nh6 20. Bxh5+ Ke7
21. Bxh6 Bxh6 22. Qxf5+]
18. Nb6 Bf5 19. Bd3 Bxd3 20. Qxd3 Rb8 21. Ne4
Qd8

22. Bxa5 O-O 23. Qd1 f3 24. b4 Nh6 25. Rb3 Ng4 26. O-O Bf6
27. Qxf3! Qe7
[27… Bxh4 28. Qh1 Be7 29. Qxh5 Nf6 30. Qg6+ Kh8 31.
Kg2]
[27… Rf7 28. Qf5 Rh7 29. f3]
28. Qf5 Rf7 29. Qxh5 Rg7 30. f3 Bxh4 31. fxg4 Rh7
32. Qf5 1-0

Yates Frederick D – Alekhin
Alexander (San Remo) [C71] , 1930
This is the record-holder, I think!
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. Nc3
Bd7 6. d3 g6 7. Nd5 b5 8. Bb3 Na5 9. Bg5 f6 10. Bd2 c6 11. Ne3 Nxb3
12. axb3 Nh6 13. b4 f5 14. Qe2 Nf7 15. Nf1 Qe7 16. Ng3 f4 17. Nf1
g5

Neither side seems able to castle with safety on either wing!
18. Bc3 h5 19. N3d2 Bg4 20. f3 Be6 21. d4 Bg7 22.
Qd3 exd4 23. Bxd4 Ne5 24. Qe2

Finally, Black commits the King.
24… O-O 25. h3 c5 26. Bc3 cxb4 27. Bxb4 Nc6 28.
Bc3 Bxc3 29. bxc3 Qf6 30. e5 Nxe5 31. Ne4 Qe7 32. Nfd2 Bc4 33. Nxc4
Nxc4 34. Rd1 Qe5 35. Qd3 Rf5

And now White:
36. O-O d5 37. Qxd5+ Qxd5 38. Rxd5 Rxd5 39. Nf6+
Kf7 40. Nxd5 Rd8 41. Nb4 Rd2 42. Ra1 a5 43. Nc6 Rxc2 44. Nxa5 Ne3
45. Rb1 Rxg2+ 46. Kh1 Rg3 47. Nc6 Rxh3+ 0-1

Castling not at all
(reprise)

Basman – Wall (UK chp
Eastbourne) (2) [A00] , 1990
1. h3 e5 2. a3 d5
Basman has made a career out of this sort of thing.
3. c4 c6 4. cxd5 cxd5 5. g4 Nc6 6. Bg2 Be6 7. d3
Nge7 8. Nc3 Ng6 9. Nf3 Be7 10. g5 f5 11. gxf6 gxf6 12. Rg1 Qd7 13.
h4 h5 14. Qa4 O-O-O

Basman has argued that Kings are safe in the middle as long as you
don’t move the central pawns. It all depends on whether your
opponent can open lines, which depends on pawn mobility.
So White must restrain the Black central pawns.
15. b4 b6 16. Bd2 Kb8 17. b5 Na5 18. Na2 Nb7 19.
Nb4 Bxb4 20. axb4 Nd6

White starts a pincer movement.
21. Bh3 Bxh3 22. Rxg6 Rhg8 23. Rxf6 Rg7 24. Bg5
Qc8 25. Rc1 Rc7 26. Rc6 1-0

And while MJB can get away with this sort of thing, it
still involves definite risks.

Bryson – Basman (Cr) [B00],
1986
1. e4 g5 2. d4 h6 3. Bd3 d6 4. Ne2 c5 5. c3 Nf6 6. O-O Nc6
7. Kh1 Bg4 8. f3 Bh5 9. Be3 e6 10. Nd2 Be7 11. a3 cxd4 12. cxd4 d5
13. e5 Nh7 14. Qc2 Nf8 15. b4 Bg6 16. f4 Rc8 17. Rac1 a6

A bit French, which is odd for Basman, whose games usually look
Martian… If you know about the French, you may feel that White’s
position looks better – Black lacks Queen’s-side counterplay
against the attack.
18. f5 exf5 19. Bxf5 Bxf5 20. Qxf5 Rh7 21. Nc3
Rc7 22. Nb3 Rd7 23. Na4 Rc7 24. Nac5 Bxc5 25. Nxc5

Black has blockaded the central files, but the Bishop files are
haemorrhaging. 25… Ne7 26. Qf6 Rc6 27. e6 Nxe6 28. Nxb7
Qc7 29. Rxc6 Qxc6 30. Nc5 Nxc5 31. dxc5 Qe6 32. Bd4 Kd7 33. Qf2 f5
34. Re1 Qc6 35. Qe2 f4 36. a4 Qxa4 37. Qe6+ Kd8 38. Qb6+ Kc8 39.
Bf6 Rf7 40. Qe6+
Fittingly, the decision comes down the King’s e-file.
1-0

Castling tactics
Unusually, castling can be used as a positive element in a tactical
idea. It’s worth knowing about this, because it is easy to
overlook.

Mikhailov,V – Weteschnik,M (FS
IM A, Budapest) (5), 1995
1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3 c5 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bf4 Nf6 6. e4 a6
7. a4 Nc6 8. dxc5 Bxc5 9. Qxd8+ Kxd8 10. Bxc4 Bb4

11. e5 Ne4 12. O-O-O+ 1-0

Thanks to mig for this game, and to others who
contributed games with the same theme, including Joshua Bromberg,
Dan Scoones, and Matt Guthrie. There are many reasons to like the
internet, and chess is one of
them.
A curiosity:
Wohl,A (2405) – Curtis,J (Doeberl Cup, Canberr )
(2290) (3), 1996
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3
a6 6. f4 e6 7. Qf3 Qc7 8. Be3 b5 9. Bd3 Bb7 10. g4 b4 11. Nce2 d5
12. e5 Ne4 13. f5 Nd7 14. fxe6 Nxe5 15. exf7+ Qxf7 16. Qxf7+ Kxf7
17. Rf1+
[17. O-O+ was possible]
17… Ke8 18. h3 Nc5 19. Nf4 Nc4 20. Bxc4 dxc4
21. Nfe6 Nxe6 22. Nxe6 Kd7 23. Ng5 Re8

24. O-O-O+ Kc8 25. Nf7 Rg8 26. Bf4 Bc5 27. Nd6+ Bxd6 28.
Bxd6 Rd8 29. Rf4 Kd7 30. Rxc4 Ke6 31. Rcd4 Rge8 32. Bxb4 Rxd4 33.
Rxd4 h5 34. gxh5 Rh8 35. Rd6+ Kf5 36. Rd7 Bc8 37. Rxg7 Rxh5 38. Rc7
Rh8 39. Bc3 Rg8 40. b3 Kf4 41. h4 Bf5 42. Bd2+ Kg4 43. Rc4+ Kh5 44.
Bg5 Re8 45. Kd2 Re6 46. a4 Bg4 47. Rc7 Re2+ 48. Kd3 Rh2 49. Rh7+
Kg6 50. Rh6+ Kg7 51. Ke4 Bd1 52. Kd3 Bh5 1-0

Lasker Ed. – Thomas (London),
1912
1. d4 f5 2. e4 fxe4 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 e6 5. Nxe4 Be7 6.
Bxf6 Bxf6 7. Nf3 O-O 8. Bd3 b6 9. Ne5 Bb7 10. Qh5 Qe7 11. Qxh7+
Kxh7 12. Nxf6+ Kh6 13. Neg4+ Kg5 14. h4+ Kf4 15. g3+ Kf3 16. Be2+
Kg2 17. Rh2+ Kg1

18. Kd2#
[18. O-O-O# is given by many sources, which was
possible, but was not Lasker’s choice]
1-0

Playing White against odd Black defences after 1.e4 (2) piece play

Posted on September 28, 1996 by DrDave

A4. Piece attacks vs.
Pirc/Modern 1. e4 …d6/…g6: 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4.
Be3

The trouble with the Pirc is that Black will just lurk behind
his pawns, and your pieces won’t find much to attack. I play the
Pirc/Modern as Black, and am always more impressed by systems which
threaten to open lines with pawn breaks than any of the piece play
lines. But that’s not to say they aren’t all dangerous; the player
with a plan will always beat the player without one.

There are two principal ‘piece play’ lines available:

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nf3 g6 4. Bc4 Bg7 5.
Qe2

White concentrates on rapid development and aims at a timely
e5.

The other line I have in mind is:

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 Bg7 5.
Qd2

Now the simple idea is to play the standard attack with O-O-O,
f3, g4, h4, Nge2-g3 and h5. Let’s see this in action:

Hort,V – Rota [B07], Aachen/SW,16,18

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 Bg7 5. Qd2 O-O 6.
O-O-O

6… c6 7. Bh6 b5 8. f3 a5 9. h4 b4 10. Na4 Bd7 11.
h5

11… Nxh5 12. Rxh5 Bxh6

[12… gxh5 13. Qg5 b3 14. Qxg7#]

13. Rxh6 c5 14. Rh2 1-0

This plan depends a little on Black castling King’s side,
although it will not have guaranteed safety on the other side, nor
in the centre. See the example games.

Example Games
A4

Firstly, let’s look at a few games in the Bc4 lines .

A4.1. Examples with Bc4

Christ,R – Kljako,D [B07], it, Biel

1. e4 d6 2. d4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Qe2 c6 6. e5
dxe5 7. dxe5 Nd5 8. Bd2

Simple development is the trademark of the White system

8… Nxc3 9. Bxc3 O-O 10. f4 a5 11. a4 b6 12. Nf3 Ba6
13. Rd1 Qc7 14. O-O Bxc4 15. Qxc4 Na6

White has a simple advantage in space.

16. Ng5 h6 17. Ne4 Qc8 18. Rd3 Rb8 19. Rh3 b5 20. Qe2 b4
21. Bd2 f5

Black was cramped, but this bid for freedom looks very
loose.

22. exf6 exf6 23. f5 g5 24. Qc4+ Kh7 25. Bxg5 fxg5 26.
f6 Bh8 27. Nxg5+ Kg6

Black’s King is being knocked about all over the place, while
the Black pieces watch glumly from the wings.

28. Rxh6+ Kxh6 29. Qh4+ Kg6 30. Qh7+ Kxg5 31. h4+ Kg4
32. Qg6+ 1-0

Knippel,M – Stratmann,B [B08], NRW

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 g6 3. e4 d6 4. Bc4 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6.
Qe2 Nc6 7. e5

This is the key break in the Bc4 systems.

7… Ng4 8. h3 Nh6 9. g4 Na5 10. Bd3 b6 11. Bf4 Kh8 12.
O-O-O

Black’s next move seals the centre, but White’s King’s side
attack can now proceed without worrying about the central
tension.

12… d5 13. Qe3 Ng8 14. Rdg1 h6 15. h4 Nc4 16. Bxc4
dxc4 17. h5 Bb7 18. g5

It looks grim for the Black King.

18… Bxf3 19. Qxf3 Qxd4 20. Rd1 Qc5 21. Rd5 Qc6 22.
gxh6 Nxh6 23. hxg6 Qxg6

Recapturing with the pawn wasn’t pretty, but this fails to:

24. Rdd1 1-0

25. Rdg1 is killing.

See also the games under the Gurgenidze
System

A4.2. Examples with Be3

Adams,M – Wolff,P [B07], London

1. e4 d6 2. d4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Be3 c6 5. Qd2 b5 6. h4
Nf6 7. f3 Qc7 8. Bh6 Bxh6 9. Qxh6 Be6 10. Nh3 Bxh3 11. Rxh3 Nbd7
12. O-O-O

White’s K-side initiative persuades Black to castle Queen’s
side.

12… Nb6 13. Kb1 O-O-O 14. Qe3 e5 15. a3 d5 16. dxe5
Qxe5 17. f4 Qe7 18. e5 Nfd7

White opens up the Q-side; he can skip the Rh3 across
easily.

19. a4 a6

Taking on a4 will allow Ba6+.

20. a5 Na8 21. Nxd5 cxd5

The entry of the Queen is decisive.

22. Qa7 Nc7 23. Rc3 Nb8 24. g3 1-0

Lane,G – Saucey,M [B07], Royan

1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Be3 Nf6 5. Qd2 O-O 6. f3
e5 7. Nge2 c6 8. O-O-O Nbd7 9. g4 b5 10. Nb1 Nb6 11. Ng3 Be6 12.
b3

Black now takes on d4, and the game starts to look rather like
the Yugoslav Attack in the Sicilian Dragon.

12… exd4 13. Bxd4 d5 14. g5 Nfd7 15. Bxg7 Kxg7 16. f4
f6 17. h4 Bg4 18. Be2 Bxe2 19. Qxe2 Qe7 20. Rdg1

Again, White’s attack has proceeded faster than Black’s.

20… f5 21. exf5 Qxe2 22. f6+ 1-0

Black will have no prospects in the endgame with White’s secure
pawn on f6.

Chacon,E – Blazquez,J. L [B07], Alicante

1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Be3 Nf6 5. f3 c6 6. Qd2
O-O 7. Bh6 Bxh6 8. Qxh6 Qb6 9. O-O-O Nbd7 10. h4

A typical thrust.

10… c5 11. d5

Often, if the situation in the centre is clear, the attack is
easier.

11…Ne5 12. h5 Bd7 13. Be2 c4 14. Nh3

White threatens Ng5 after which hxg6 and f4 look very
strong.

14… Bxh3 15. Rxh3 g5 16. Qxg5+ Kh8 17. g4 Rg8 18. Qd2
Qa5 19. g5 Ne8 20. f4 Nd7 21. Qd4+ f6 22. Bg4 Nc5 23. Bf5 Qb6 24.
Kb1 h6 25. Bg6 Nd7

White’s King’s-side initiative will persist into an endgame.

26. Qxb6 Nxb6 27. gxh6 1-0

After 27… Nc7 28. h7 Rg7

[28… Rgf8 29. Bf5 Na6 30. Rg3 Nc5 31. Rdg1 Rfe8 32. Rg7
Nbd7]

29. Rg3 e5 30. h6

the endgame is hopeless for Black.

A5. Piece attacks vs.
Sicilian: lines with piece play

A5.1. Ideas with Be2

It would be wrong to say there is much theory on these
lines.

The basic idea is to develop the King’s side pieces quickly, and
play c3 and d4 (very much the same plan as the normal 1. e4 e5
openings).

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3

Now Black has a basic choice between 2…d6, 2…Nc6 and 2…e6.
Alternatives are less strong, e.g. 2…a6 3. c4 or 2…Nf6 3. e5.
These should not be scorned – GMs have played each line – but are
less good for Black than normal lines.

2…d6

[after 2… e6 White can play an interesting gambit,
borrowed from a variation of the English Opening: 3. Be2 Nc6 4. b4
Nxb4

[4… cxb4 5. d4]

5. c3 Nc6 6. d4;

(compare the line 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 e4 4. Ng5
b5)]

3. Be2 Nf6

[3… e6 4. c3 Nc6 5. d4 Nf6 6. Nbd2]

4. c3 Nc6 5. d4 cxd4 6. cxd4 Qa5+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 8.
d5

…with interesting gambit play in each line.

A5.2. Ideas with Bb5

Rossolimo Variation with 2… Nc6

3. Bb5

Now the most common line is

3…g6

Alternatives:

[3… Nf6 e.g. 4. e5 Nd5 5. Nc3 Nc7 6. a4 Nxb5 7.
axb5]

[3… e6 e.g. 4. O-O Nge7 5. c3 d5 6. exd5]

4. O-O Bg7 5. c3 Qb6 6. Na3 Nf6 7. Re1

[or 7. e5 Nd5 8. Bc4 Nc7 9. d4]

…when White has good play.

Rossolimo Variation with 2…d6

3. Bb5+

This is a complex line. After 3…Bd7 White will often play 4.
Bxd7+ and 5.c4, placing the pawns on light squares to complement
the dark-squared bishop.

One example in another line:

3… Nd7 4. d4 cxd4 5. Qxd4 Ngf6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Nc3 Be7 8.
O-O a6 9. Bxd7+ Bxd7 10. Rad1 Bc6 11. Rfe1 O-O 12. Bxf6
gxf6

Again, White has good piece play, although the bishops may be
dangerous

Example games
A5

A5.1. Examples with Be2

Basman-Stean,Hastings
1974

This is a famous game in this line.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Be2 Nf6 4. c3 Nc6 5. d4 cxd4 6.
cxd4 Nxe4 7. d5 Qa5+ 8. Nc3 Nxc3 9. bxc3

9…Ne5

[9… Nd8 may be better]

10. Nxe5 Qxc3+ 11. Bd2 Qxe5 12. O-O Qxd5

[The main alternative is 12… a6

Nikolenko-Obukhov 1991

13. Rb1 g6 14. Rxb7 Bg7

[14… Bxb7 15. Qa4+ Kd8 16. Ba5+ Kc8 17. Qe8#]

15. Qa4+ Kf8 16. Rc7 Bf5

[16… Qxe2 17.Qc6 Bb7 18. Qxb7 Re8 19. Rc8 Qb5 20. Rxe8+
Qxe8 21. Rc1]

17. Qc6 Rd8 18. Bxa6

idea Re1 – Gallagher]

The game as it goes is a rout.

13. Rb1 e6 14. Bb5+ Bd7 15. Bxd7+ Kxd7 16. Qa4+ Kd8 17.
Rb5 Qc6 18. Rc1 Qa6 19. Ra5 Qd3 20. Be3 d5 21. Rxa7 Rxa7 22. Qxa7
Ba3 23. Qb8+ Ke7 24. Bg5+ f6 25. Qxb7+ Kd6 26. Qc7#

A5.2. Examples with Bb5

Georgiev,Kr – Feher,G [B30], Cappelle

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 e6 4. O-O Nge7 5. b3 Qb6 6.
Na3 Ng6 7. Bb2 a6 8. Nc4 Qc7 9. Bxc6 Qxc6

White is miles ahead in development, so breaks with d4.

10. d4 cxd4 11. Nxd4

Black now grabs a hot pawn while behind in development. (Kids!
Don’t try this at home!)

11… Qxe4 12. Re1 Qf4 13. Nb6 Rb8 14. Nd5

Almost inevitable

14… f6 1-0

Smirin,I – Nun,Ji [B30], Polanica

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 e6 4. O-O Nge7 5. b3 Ng6 6.
Bb2 Be7 7. Bxg7 Rg8 8. Bb2 h5 9. Nc3 Qc7 10. Re1

10… h4 11. Nd5

A very typical Sicilian sacrifice.

11…exd5 12. exd5 Nd4 13. Nxd4 cxd4 14. Ba3 Qa5 15.
Bxe7 Nxe7 16. Qe2 Qa3

White threatens Qe5 and d6, winning the knight. Black keeps the
Knight, but loses the King.

17. Qe5 Kf8 18. d6 Ng6 19. Qf6 Qa5 20. Bc4 Rg7 21. Re7
1-0

Bogumil – Sarosi [B30], Budapest

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 e6 4. O-O Nge7 5. c3 d5 6.
exd5 Qxd5 7. d4 cxd4 8. c4 Qd8 9. Nxd4 Bd7 10. Nf3 Nf5 11. Nc3 Be7
12. Ba4 O-O 13. Bc2 Nh4 14. Nxh4 Bxh4 15. b3 Bf6 16.
Ba3

A neat move making use of the extra space and mobility.

16… Re8

[If 16…Bxc3, 17. Qd3!]

17. Qd3 g6 18. Rad1 Ne5 19. Qg3 Qa5 20. Ne4 Bg7 21. b4
Qc7 22. Nd6 Red8 23. Bb2 Nc6

White is obviously winning. He finds a neat unmasking (Nf5)

24. Bxg7 1-0

B. Slow attacks with f4 against
the common half-open defences

The move f4 is often a strong idea against the Sicilian and
Pirc, and to some extent the French; less good against other lines.
The ideas are similar:

 develop rapidly

use the extra space given by the extra central
pawn

use the f4 pawn to break open lines against the
King

B1. Playing f4 vs. Alekhin
1. e4 Nf6: 1. e4 Nf6 2. d3 and 3. f4

Sadly, this line has no real force and is not a good line to
adopt.

If you insist on consistency, you can try it, but otherwise I
would look at a different line.

Example games
B1

Lazarevic,M – Maric,D (6) Pula, 1990[B02]

1. e4 Nf6 2. d3 d5 3. e5 Nfd7 4. f4 Nb6

With the N on b6 it is harder to organise the obvious ‘French’
break with f6.

5. c3 c5 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. Be2 e6 8. Na3 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10.
Nc2 Nc6 11. Ne3 Bxf3 12. Bxf3

Black has done everything right so far, but gets careless.

12… d4 13. Ng4 dxc3 14. bxc3 c4 15. d4 Nd5 16. Bxd5
Qxd5 17. Ne3 Qb5 18. Qe2 Rac8 19. f5 Bg5 20. f6 gxf6 21. Ng4 Ne7
22. Bxg5 fxg5 23. Nf6+

White should never have been allowed to reach this easy
attacking position.

23… Kg7 24. Qh5 h6 25. Ng4 Ng8 26. Nxh6 Nxh6 27. Qxg5+
Kh7 28. Rf6 Nf5 29. Rf1 Rg8 30. Qh5+ 1-0

B2. Playing f4 vs. Caro-Kann 1. e4 c6: 1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3. f4 (a
line of the Dunst opening, 1.Nc3)

I couldn’t find a single example of this with f4. This is
probably because it’s not a very good line!

Example games
B2

Van der Vaeren – Savva, Haifa, 1989[A00]

1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 dxe4 3. Nxe4 c6 4. Bc4 Nf6

This could have arisen from the Caro-Kann

5. Nxf6+ exf6 6. Ne2 Be6 7. Bxe6 fxe6 8.
Nf4

Hitting at the weak White squares. Black now prompts an
elementary combination.

8… e5 9. Qh5+ Ke7 10. Ng6+ hxg6 11. Qxh8 Kf7 12. Qh3
Qd7 13. Qb3+ Ke7 14. O-O b6 15. d3 Qd5

An interesting moment: I would have swapped off here to try and
win on material.

16. c4 Qd6 17. Be3 c5 18. a4 Nc6 19. a5 Nb4 20. axb6
Qxb6 21. f4 exf4 22. Bxf4 Kf7 23. d4 Nd5 24. Qf3

Black is very wobbly here.

24… Nxf4 25. Qxa8 Ne2+ 26. Kh1 Nxd4 27. Rxa7+ Kg8 28.
Qd5+ Qe6 29. Qxe6+ Nxe6 30. Re1 1-0

B3. Playing f4 vs. French 1.
e4 e6: 1. e4 e6 2. Nc3 d5 3. f4 (a line of the Dunst opening,
1.Nc3)

Now, I have found a few of these. With the P on e6, Black is
necessarily a little more passive than the Caro lines above. I
don’t think White can claim much advantage (indeed, John Watson
reckons that the Pf4 may be in the way of the Bc1), but it’s an
easy line to understand.

Example games
B3

Hill,S – Wright,A , ch-AUS/SW,5,18, 1989[B21]

1. e4 c5 2. f4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Nc6 6.
Bc4

White has nicely centralised pieces.

6… Nf6 7. Nxf6+ Qxf6 8. O-O Bd6 9. d3 Bxf4 10. Ng5
Qxg5 11. Bxf4 Qe7 12. Qg4 O-O 13. Rae1 Kh8 14. Qg3 Rd8 15. c3 b6
16. Re3 Re8

Every White piece is well-placed.

17. Bd5 Bb7 18. Be4 Nd8 19. Bg5 f6

White now plays a sacrifice which is easy to think of but hard
to analyse!

20. Bxh7 Kxh7 21. Qh4+ Kg8 22. Bxf6 gxf6 23. Rg3+
1-0

Campora,D. H – Shirazi,A , Ch New York ( open ),
1989[B21]

1. e4 c5 2. f4 e6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Nge7 5. O-O a6 6.
Be2 g6 7. d3 Bg7 8. c3 d5 9. Nbd2 O-O 10. Qe1 b5 11. Qf2
Qb6

A position that could have arisen from either the French or the
Sicilian.

12. e5 f6 13. d4 cxd4 14. cxd4 fxe5 15. fxe5 g5 16. g4
h5 17. gxh5 g4 18. h6 Bxh6 19. Nc4 dxc4 20. Bxh6 Nf5

Rather a sign of distress; White is winning.

21. Bxf8 Kxf8 22. Nh4 Ncxd4 23. Bxg4 Bb7 24. h3 Qc5 25.
Rae1 Kg8 26. Kh2 1-0

B4. Playing f4 vs.
Pirc/Modern 1. e4 …d6/…g6: 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4
(Austrian Attack)

Against the Pirc, f4 is not a particularly slow line!

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Nf3
O-O

[5… c5 is probably a better way to equalise, or so the
books say in 1990]

6. Bd3 Nc6 7. O-O

The White attack is easy to understand; White will complete
development and then break with e5 or f5 – or both!

Example games
B4

Ekebjaerg,Ove (2580) – Van Manen,Gerben (2580) cr
Blass-mem, 1990[B07]

1. Nc3 Nf6 2. e4 d6 3. f4 g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. d4 O-O 6. Bd3
Nc6 7. O-O Bg4 8. e5 Nd7 9. Be3

A set-up for White which is easy to understand. I have watched
relatively weak (170-grade) players carve up 200-strength players
in this line.

9… dxe5 10. dxe5 f6 11. exf6 Bxf6 12. h3 Be6 13. Qe2
Bf7 14. Rad1 Qe8 15. f5

The classic break.

15… Kh8 16. fxg6 Bxg6 17. Bxg6 hxg6 18. Nd5 Rc8 19.
Bh6 Rf7

Black is busted.

20. Ng5 Bxg5 21. Bxg5 Nb6 22. Nxb6 cxb6 23. Qe6 Rf5 24.
Rxf5 gxf5 25. Rd7 Rd8 26. Bxe7 1-0

Mednis-Vadasz 1978

Another typical White win in this line

1. d4 d6 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Bd3
Nc6 7. O-O Bg4 8. e5 dxe5 9. dxe5 Nh5 10. Be3 f6 11. exf6 Bxf6 12.
h3 Bxf3 13. Qxf3

threat f5

13… Bd4 14. Ne2 e5 15. Nxd4 Nxd4

[15… exd4 16. Bd2 Ne5 17. Qxb7 Rb8 18. Qe4 Nxd3 19. Qxd3
Rxb2]

16. Qe4 Nxf4 17. Bc4+

1-0

[17… Nfe6 18. Qxe5]

Bareev – Norwood, Marseilles, 1990[B09]

Norwood, in his book Winning with the
Modern , offers this game as a reason for Black to
avoid the Austrian at all costs.

1. d4 d6 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Nf3 c5 6.
e5

[Book is 6. dxc5 or 6. Bb5+]

6…Ng4

[6… Nfd7! was essential]

7. dxc5 dxc5 8. Qxd8+ Kxd8 9. h3 Nh6 10. Be3 b6 11.
O-O-O+ Bd7 12. g4 Kc8 13. Ng5 f6

Yeuch

14. Rxd7 Kxd7 15. Bb5+ Kc8 16. Ne6 Bf8 17. Nd5 Nf7 18.
Ndc7 Nd8 19. Rd1 Nxe6 20. Nxe6 fxe5 21. Rd8+ Kb7 22.
Bd3

1-0

Black never got going.

B5. Playing f4 vs. Sicilian
(a) 1. e4 c5 Grand Prix attack

This is another system where the White side is easy to
understand, and where Black has struggled to find a clear
equaliser. 2. f4 can lead to the slow Sicilian with g3 and Bg2, but
several English players have adopted the more aggressive system
with Bc4. We will look at both systems.

A second idea is to play Bb5xNc6 and then play a slow
Dutch-style attack with Qe1 and Qh4.

1. e4 c5 2. f4 g6

There are alternatives:

[2… d5 can be met by 3. Nc3 (EG)

[The point of 2…d5 is the wicked gambit line 3. exd5 Nf6
4. c4 e6 5. dxe6 Bxe6 devised by Mikhail Tal]

]

[2… e6 3. Nc3 d5

[3… Nc6 4. Nf3 Nge7 5. Bb5 d5 6. Qe2 d4 7. Nd1]

4. Nf3]

3. Nf3 Bg7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Bc4

[The other idea in this line is 5. Bb5 to exchange off the
Nc6, and then play a standard Dutch-style attack with Qe1 and Qh4
(EG)]

Black can play ….d6 (EG) but more often goes:

5… e6

6. f5

This is the sharpest line, although White does not have to
gambit

[e.g. 6. O-O Nge7]

Now the complications that follow…

6… exf5 7. d3 Nge7 8. O-O O-O? (EG)

6… gxf5 7. d3

…must be known in a little detail to be played safely. There
is also plenty of scope for original analysis – for example, what
should happen after

6… d5

The gambit is probably best declined with

6… Nge7 7. fxe6 dxe6

[7… fxe6 may be better

when Black’s King is in danger but the central pawn mass is
dangerous and may trap the White Q-side pieces]

There are also many lines with f4 in the open Sicilian i.e.. 1.
e4 c5 2. Nf3 (…) 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 (…) 6. f4.

Example games
B5a

First, a straightforward quick attack down the King’s side

Hodgson – Ady, Streatham Vs Ymca, London,
1981[B23]

1. e4 c5 2. f4 g6 3. Nf3 Bg7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Bc4 e6 6. f5
exf5 7. d3 Nge7 8. O-O O-O?

This natural-looking move is probably a decisive mistake. Black
has no effective counter to White’s simple mating attack.

9. Qe1 Nd4 10. Qh4 Nxf3+ 11. Rxf3 fxe4 12. Rh3 h6 13.
Bg5 Re8 14. Rf1 d5 15. Nxd5 hxg5 16. Nf6+ Black
resigns

[16. Nf6+ Kf8

[or 16… Bxf6 17. Qh7+ Kf8 18. Qxf7#]

17. Nh7+ Kg8 18. Bxf7+ Kh8 19. Nxg5+ Bh6 20. Qxh6#]

1-0

Next, a slower attack with the Bb5 idea

Hebden – Large, British Ch’p, 1982[B21]

1. e4 c5 2. f4 Nc6 3. Nf3 g6 4. Bb5 Bg7 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6.
d3 Nf6 7. Nc3 O-O 8. O-O b6

White has an obvious plan. And the player with a plan will
always beat the player without one.

9. Qe1 Ne8 10. Qh4 Nd6 11. f5 gxf5 12. e5 Ne8 13. Bh6 f6
14. Kh1 Bxh6 15. Qxh6 Ng7 16. Rae1 Be6 17. Ne2 c4 18. Nf4 cxd3 19.
cxd3 Bxa2

Black might as well snatch a pawn, he has achieved nothing to
counter White’s simple attack.

20. e6 Qc8 21. Re3 Nxe6 22. Nxe6 Bxe6 23. Rxe6
Rf7

[23… Qxe6 24. Ng5 Qf7 25. Nxf7 Rxf7]

24. Rfe1 1-0

And what if Black throws a spanner in the works with 2…d5?

Plaskett – Howell, British Ch’p, 1983[B21]

1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 e6 5. Nf3 Be7 6.
Bc4 Nf6 7. Qe2 Nc6 8. c3 O-O 9. O-O b6 10. d3 Bb7 11. Ng3 Bd6 12.
Bd2 Qc7 13. Ng5

Black’s pieces are nicely placed but going nowhere. White, as
usual, knows where he is going!

13… Ne7 14. N5e4

forcing an exchange he had earlier avoided

14… Nxe4 15. dxe4 Ng6 16. Nh5 Kh8 17. Rae1 Rad8 18.
Bc1 Rd7 19. e5 Be7 20. f5 exf5 21. Rxf5 Bd5 22. Bxd5 Rxd5 23. Qg4
Qd7 24. Ref1 Kg8

25. Nxg7 Kxg7 26. Qh5 Kg8 27. Bh6 Qe6 28. Bxf8 Nxf8 29.
c4

[29. Rxf7 Rxe5]

29… Rd4 30. Rxf7 Qg6 31. Qf3 Ne6 32. Rxe7 Rf4 33. Rxe6
1-0

Ekebjaerg,Ove – Danner,Georg, cr
Nielsen-mem, 1987

[B23/07]

1. Nc3 c5 2. e4 d6 3. f4 g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Bc4 e6 6. f5
Ne7 7. O-O O-O

A typical sort of position in this line, although an odd move
order (no …Nc6)

8. fxe6 fxe6 9. Ng5 d5 10. Rxf8+ Qxf8 11. exd5 b5 12.
Bxb5 exd5 13. Qf3 Qxf3 14. Nxf3

White is simply a pawn up and needs only consolidate to win the
ending.

14… Ba6 15. Ba4 Bb7 16. d3 Nbc6 17. Bg5 h6 18. Bxe7
Nxe7 19. Re1 Nf5 20. Bd7 Nd4 21. Be6+ Nxe6 22. Rxe6

White has given up both bishops, which would make me anxious,
but he seems to know what he is doing.

22… g5 23. Na4 Rc8 24. Ne5 Rc7 25. Re8+ Kh7 26. Nc3 a6
27. Nd1 d4 28. b3 h5 29. Nb2 g4 30. Nbc4 Kh6 31. Nd6 Bd5 32. Nec4
Kg6 33. Nb6 Bf7

34. Nxf7 1-0

Without the light-squared bishop Black is in trouble, but it
might have been worth struggling on over the board (this was
postal).

Hodgson – Nunn, Aaronson Open, 1978[B23]

1. e4 c5 2. f4 g6 3. Nf3 Bg7 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Bc4
d6

[5… e6 and now 6. f5, 6.e5, 6.O-O, 6. d3, and 6.a3 have
been tried. Since Grandmaster Nunn lost this dashing game to the
young Hodgson, hardly anyone has tried this line!]

6. O-O Nf6 7. d3 O-O 8. f5 gxf5 9. Qe1 fxe4 10. dxe4 Bg4
11. Qh4 Bxf3

[11… Bh5 idea …Bg6]

12. Rxf3 Ne5 13. Rh3 Ng6

[13… Nxc4 14. Nd5 Re8 15. Nxf6+

[15. Bh6 Bxh6 16. Qxh6 Ne5 17. Rf1]

15… exf6 16. Qxh7+ Kf8 17. Rg3 Bh8]

14. Qg3 Qd7 15. Nd5 Nxd5 16. Bxd5 e6 17. Bb3 d5 18. Qf3
c4 19. Ba4 Qxa4 20. Qh5 Rfd8 21. Qxh7+ Kf8 22. Bh6 Bxh6 23. Rxh6
Rd7

[23… c3 =+ Nunn]

24. Rf1 Ke8 25. Qg8+ Nf8 26. Rxe6+ Kd8 27. Qxf8+ Kc7 28.
Qc5+ Kd8 29. Rh6 1-0

B5. Playing f4 vs. Sicilian
(b)Traditional Closed Sicilian

This line has been adopted by three World champions at one time
or another: the young Karpov, the mature Spassky, and by Smyslov
throughout his chess career. And as we shall see, Kasparov knows
about the line.

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6.
f4

[6. Be3 e5 7. Qd2 is another popular line; Black gets into
trouble after 6…e6 7. Qd2 Nge7?! 8. Bh6 e.g. 8…O-O? 9. h4! or
8…Bxh6 9. Qxh6 Nd4 10. O-O-O]

6… e6 7. Nf3 Nge7 8. O-O O-O 9. Be3 Nd4

is the main line, although Spassky has tried 9. Bd2. After
6…e5 Spassky has experimented with more active 7. Nh3 Nge7 8. O-O
Nd4 9. f5!?

Theory is not so critical in the Closed Sicilian because of the
non-forcing nature of the line.

Example games
B5b

Spassky – Geller, Candidates,
1968

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3 Nc6 4. Bg2 g6 5. d3 Bg7 6. f4
Nf6 7. Nf3 O-O 8. O-O Rb8 9. h3 b5 10. a3 a5 11. Be3 b4 12. axb4
axb4 13. Ne2 Bb7 14. b3

Another defensive move! Is White just going to stand and get
punched apart?

14… Ra8 15. Rc1 Ra2 16. g4

At last an attacking gesture

16… Qa8 17. Qe1 Qa6 18. Qf2 Na7 19. f5

The characteristic break

19… Nb5 20. fxg6

Opening the f-file (so what? see move 23!)

20… hxg6

[20… fxg6 21. Nf4 Bc8 22. Ng5 Nc7]

21. Ng5 Na3 22. Qh4 Rc8

the Q-side is about to give, but…

23. Rxf6 exf6 24. Qh7+ Kf8 25. Nxf7 Rxc2

[25… Kxf7 26. Bh6 Rg8 27. Nf4 Rxc2 28. Rf1 Kf8 29. Nxg6+
Kf7 30. Nf4

or Nh8+

30… Kf8 31. Nh5 Bxh6 32. Qxh6+ Ke7 33. Qh7+ Kd8 34.
Nxf6

is just terrible]

26. Bh6 Rxc1+ 27. Nxc1 Kxf7 28. Qxg7+ Ke8 29.
g5

[29. e5 Bxg2 30. e6]

29… f5 30. Qxg6+ Kd7 31. Qf7+ Kc6 32.
exf5+

1-0

32… Kb6 33. Qxb7+ Qxb7 34. Bxb7 Kxb7 35. f6 1-0

Psakhis – Kasparov, La Manga, 1990
[compare B23]

Oddly, one of the best example games I have on file for the
Closed Sicilian is this one, from quite a different opening

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

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

Black does not rush but secures the Q-side.

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

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

The Black pieces hover like vultures

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

0-1

Smyslov – Romanishin, Moscow, 1976 [B23]

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. d3 d6 6. Nh3
h5

The sixth moves on each side are unusual.

7. f4 Bg4 8. Qd2 Nd4 9. Ng1 Qd7 10. h3 Be6 11. Nce2 h4
12. g4 f5 13. exf5 gxf5 14. g5

Black can find no refuge on the King’s-side, it is clear.

14… O-O-O 15. Nxd4 cxd4 16. Ne2 Bf7 17. c3 dxc3 18.
bxc3 Kb8 19. Rb1 d5 20. O-O e5 21. fxe5 Bxe5 22. d4 Bc7 23. c4 Ne7
24. c5 Rdg8 25. Qb4 Bd8 26. Rf3 Nc6 27. Qb5 Bh5 28.
Rfb3

White’s tripling is very threatening.

28… Rg7 29. Nf4 Bxg5 30. Nxh5 Rxh5 31. Qe2
Bxc1

And the coup de grace:

32. Rxb7+ Qxb7 33. Qe8+ Kc7 34. Rxb7+ Kxb7 35. Qxh5 Nxd4
36. Kf1 Be3 37. Qh8 Rd7 38. Qe8 1-0

The Colle System (web page version)

Posted on September 28, 1996 by DrDave

Attacking in the Queen-pawn openings:
the Colle system

The Colle opening proper goes 1. d4 d5 and now 2. Nf3 3. e3 4. Bd3
with Nbd2, O-O, Re1 and e4 to follow. If Black hits the d-pawn with
…c5, White should reply c3 to shore up the centre. The formation
c3-d4-e3 is the famous Colle triangle.

Although White takes two moves to achieve e4, it should
lead either to an open game after …dxe4 or, if Black avoids the
exchange, the strong advance e5.

Black should keep up the pressure on d4, holding up
White’s e4 break and threatening to isolate the d-pawn.

Here’s a game to get us started:

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 Diagram

An accurate and important move.

[8. e4 cxd4 9. cxd4 dxe4 10. Nxe4 Nxe4 11. Bxe4 Qb6
and, if anything, Black has better prospects]

8… Qc7 This is probably best:

[8… b6 is too slow]

[8… e5 too early: 9. e4! +=]

[8….c4 is a mistake: 9. Bc2 and 10. e4 will now
come with greater force]

[8… Re8 9. e4 dxe4 10. Nxe4 Nxe4 11. Bxe4 cxd4?
Diagram

12. Bxh7+ Kxh7 13. Ng5+ Kg6 14. h4 Rh8 15. Rxe6+ +-
Fine]

Variation

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

[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

Has Black held on long enough?

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

Here’s another Colle game by that demon attacker, Harry
Pillsbury.

Pillsbury – Amateur, Toronto, 1899

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 Nf6 4. Bd3 Nbd7 5. O-O b6 6. Nbd2 Bd6

The Classic Colle start.

7. e4 dxe4 8. Nxe4 Bb7 9. Nxd6+ cxd6 10. Bf4 Bxf3 11.
Qxf3 d5 12. Bd6 Rc8 13. Rfe1 Rc6 14. Ba3 a5 15. c4 Ne4

The game has developed differently to Landau’s, but Pillsbury still
has a fine attack based on his Bishops and the poor Black K
position.

16. cxd5 Ng5 17. Qg3 Rc8 18. dxe6 Nxe6 19. Rxe6+ fxe6 20.
Qg6+ hxg6 21. Bxg6+ 1-0

Here’s the man himself, who perfected the modern approach
to the opening.

This is well worth going through move by move.

Colle – Stoltz, Bled, 1931

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3 Nbd7 5. Nbd2 Qc7 6. Bd3 e5 7. e4
dxe4 8. Nxe4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 Nf6 10. Bc2 cxd4

11. O-O (a pawn offer, which should not have been accepted) 11…
dxc3 12. Nxe5 Bd6 13. Ba4+ Kf8

[13… Bd7 14. Nxd7 Nxd7 15. Re1+ Kf8 16. Bxd7 Qxd7
17. bxc3]

14. Bf4 Bg4 this attempt to mix it is understandable but
ill-judged 15. Ng6+ Kg8

[15… hxg6 16. Bxd6+ Kg8 17. Bxc7 Bxd1 18.
Raxd1]

16. Bxd6 Bxd1 17. Bxc7 Bxa4 18. Nxh8 Nd5 19. Ba5 c2 20.
Bd2 Kxh8

White has a small advantage, which he exploits
perfectly

21. Rfe1 Kg8 22. Rac1 Rc8 23. Re4 Bd7 24. Rd4 Be6 25. b3
b5 26. Ba5 g5 27. Rd2 Rc6 28. Rcxc2 Ra6 29. b4 Rd6 30. a3 h6 31.
Rc5 a6 32. Bc7 Rd7 33. Be5 Kh7 34. h3 h5 35. Bb2 Kg6 36. Rc6
1-0

And Colle again. Take this one slowly if you play it
through, there’s a lot to enjoy!

Colle – O’Hanlon, Nice Ol, 1930

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3 e6 5. Bd3 Bd6 6. Nbd2 Nbd7 7.
O-O O-O 8. Re1 Re8 9. e4 dxe4 10. Nxe4 Nxe4 11. Bxe4 cxd4

12. Bxh7+ Kxh7 13. Ng5+

13… Kg6

[13… Kg8 This is the only real alternative.
Analysis by Euwe and Kramer suggests that White’s attack is wortha
draw but no more. The variations and ideas are very typical of the
h7 sac in the Colle and are worth playing over.

14. Qh5 DIAGRAM

Variation

(A) 14… Ne5 15. Rxe5

[or 15. Qh7+ Kf8 16. Ne4 Ng6 17. Nxd6 Qxd6 18. h4 Ke7
19. h5 Rh8 20. Bg5+ Ke8 [20… Kf8 21. hxg6 Rxh7 22.
gxh7 wins] 21. Qxg7 Rxh5 22. Qf6 Qe7 and Black is
better]

15… Bxe5 16. Qxf7+ Kh8 17. Qh5+ and White has
nothing better than perpetual check]

(B) [14… Qf6 15. Qh7+ Kf8 16. Ne4 Qe5 17. cxd4 Qd5
?

[17… Qxd4 18. Qh8+ Ke7 19. Bg5+ wins]

[17… Qxh2+ 18. Qxh2 Bxh2+ 19. Kxh2 is about
level]

18. Qh8+ Ke7 19. Qxg7 with strong attack]

(C) 14… Nf6 15. Qxf7+ Kh8 16. Re4 Nxe4

[16… Bxh2+ 17. Kxh2 Nxe4 18. Qh5+ Kg8 19. Qh7+ Kf8
20. Qh8+ Ke7 21. Qxg7+ Kd6 22. Nf7+ wins the Q]

17. Qh5+ Kg8 18. Qh7+ Kf8 19. Qh8+ Ke7 20.
Qxg7#]

Back to the game!

14. h4 Rh8

[14… f5 15. h5+ Kf6 16. Qxd4+ Be5 17. Qh4 g6 18. f4 +-]

15. Rxe6+ Nf6

[15… fxe6 16. Qd3+ Kf6 17. Qf3+ Kg6 18. Qf7+ Kh6
19. Nxe6+]

16. h5+ Kh6

[ 16… Rxh5 17. Qd3+ Kh6 18. Qh7#]

17. Rxd6 Qa5 18. Nxf7+ Kh7 19. Ng5+ Kg8 20. Qb3+ 1-0

A superb game — although Black could have held on in
theory, he was blown away.

Some
Colle theory

Let’s start again, having got the idea of the opening, and look at
some detail of move order.

Start as we have seen: 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5

I will explain some of the ideas behind the moves in the
games above.

Black gets into a little trouble with 4…e6.

4. c3

Now, we often see

4… e6

What next?

Black’s Queen’s Knight should go to d7, supporting c5,e5
and f6

The most logical development for both sides is probably

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!

For this position, see Landau-Book (our first game
above). It’s probably about equal, but Black cannot relax for a
moment.

Black’s Queen’s Knight should not go to c6 but to
d7

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3 e6 5. Nbd2 Nc6

natural, but less accurate

6. Bd3 Bd6 7. O-O O-O 8. dxc5 Bxc5 9. e4 e5(!) 10. exd5
Nxd5 11. Qe2 Bg4 12. Ne4+=

Black can just about equalise in this line:

[9… Qc7 10. Qe2 Bd6 11. Re1 Ng4 12. h3 Nge5 13.
Nxe5 Nxe5 14. exd5 exd5 15. Nf3 Nxd3 16. Qxd3 Qc4 17. Rd1 Qxd3 18.
Rxd3 Rd8

…and the two bishops compensate for the isolated
pawn in the endgame

Black cannot develop fast enough to get in the …e5
counter in one move

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3

4… Nbd7 5. Nbd2 Qc7

aiming at …e5

6. Qa4 g6 7. c4 Bg7 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. e4 N5b6 10. Qc2
+=]

Black can equalise by developing the Queen’s
Bishop

If White’s Bd3 is threatening, and Black’s …e6 leads to
difficulty if the Bc8 gets stuck , the natural move is …Bf5.

In fact, this is recommended as leading to an equal
game.

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3

3… Bf5 e.g. 4. Bd3 e6 5. Bxf5 exf5 6. Qd3 Qc8 7. b3 Na6
8. O-O Be7 9. c4 O-O 10. Nc3 c6 11. Bb2 Ne4

Black is comfortable

Also possible is 3…Bg4 and later …e6, also
equalising.

Black can try to blunt the power of the Bd3 by
…g6

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c3

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

Now Fine says only 8. b4, changing plan, is good enough
for White because the main plan with e4 leads to a slightly worse
game:

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

But even if Black adopts the …g6 idea, the game need
not be easy

Eliskases – Rosetto, Mar del
Plata, 1950

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 c6 3. e3 g6 4. Bd3 Bg7 5. Nbd2 Nh6 6. c3 O-O 7. O-O
Nd7 8. e4 dxe4 9. Nxe4 Nf5 10. Bf4 Nf6 (?) 11. Nxf6+ Bxf6

White has the advantage in the centre

12. Qd2 Qb6 13. Rfe1 c5

it would have been better to aim for the …e5 break

14. Bxf5 Bxf5 15. Be5

15… Rfd8 naive

[15… Bxe5 16. Rxe5 White’s small force is making
very nasty threats]

[15… Kg7 best]

16. Qh6 Bxe5 17. Rxe5 cxd4 18. Ng5 Qf6

19. Rxe7 Qg7

[19… Rd7 20. Rae1]

20. Qh4

[20. Qxg7+ Kxg7 21. Rxf7+ Kg8 22. Rxb7 d3 with
counterplay]

20… dxc3 21. Rxf7 cxb2 22. Rxg7+ Kxg7

23. Re1 Rd7

[23… b1=Q 24. Qxh7+ Kf6 25. Qe7#]

[23… h6 24. Re7+ Kg8 25. Qc4+ Kh8 26.
Rh7#]

[23… Re8 24. Qd4+ Kg8 25. Qc4+ ! 25… Kg7 26. Qc3+
Kg8 27. Qb3+ Kh8 28. Qxb2+ winning]

24. Qb4 Re8 25. Qxb2+ Kh6 26. Nf7+ resigns 26… Kh5 27.
g4+ Bxg4 28. Rxe8 1-0

You can actually apply the style of the Colle in many
d-pawn openings.

NN-NN

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Nf3 c6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 Bd6

Here we go again…

7. e4 dxe4 8. Nxe4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 Nf6 10. Bc2 O-O 11. O-O
c5 12. Bg5 cxd4 13. Qxd4 !

13… Be7

[13… Bxh2+ 14. Kxh2 Ng4+]

14. Qh4 ! 14… h6 15. Bxh6 gxh6 16. Qxh6 Qa5 17. Ng5 e5
18. Bh7+ Kh8 19. Be4+ Kg8 20. Rfe1 Bg4 21. Re3 Rad8 22. Rg3 Rd4 23.
Ne6 fxe6 24. Rxg4+ 1-0 [24. Rxg4+ Kf7 25. Qg6#]

Here’s Harry Pillsbury again, on the White side of the
Slav.

Pillsbury,Harry N – Winawer, S (Budapest, 1896)

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c6 4. e3 Nf6 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 Bd6 7. O-O
O-O

Not the Colle opening, but we can see the approach at work:

8. e4 dxe4 9. Nxe4 Nxe4 10. Bxe4 Nf6 11. Bc2 h6 12. Be3
Re8 13. Qd3 Qc7 14. c5 Bf8 15. Ne5

Black starts to mix it, but White’s better position suggests that
only White can profit when tactics break out.

15…Bxc5 16. Bxh6 Bxd4 17. Qxd4 gxh6 18. Qf4 Nd5 19.
Qxh6 f6 20. f4 Re7 21. Ng6 1-0

The Ulvestad Variation of the Two Knights’ Defence

Posted on May 4, 1996 by DrDave

From minkler@buffnet.net Sat May 4 03:51:23 1996

Subject: The Dreaded Fried Liver attack ….

[Impertinent editorial note: I think the Fried
Liver Attack should refer to only the line 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3
Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxf7, but here my
esteemed correspondent means the line with 4. Ng5
– Dr.Dave]

In my quest at becoming a better player (USCF 1360) I was
constantly faced with the Fried Liver attack as black. After losing
the game several times I finally got off my butt to learn the
stupid thing…And, what I found was striking. First off black
should have nothing to fear from Ng5. In fact he can practically
laugh at it. I have enclosed some games from the local club here
where me and my uncle have done extensive research on the Ulvestad
Var. of the Two Knight’s Defense. If you have MCO- 13 the page is
111. But, what I found its that people DON’T play these lines…
And give black a perfectly healthy game.

If you would like to see the rest of Ng5_1 where my Uncle
John Powell Defeated the Master his E-mail address is
[…]

I think that these lines would be very useful to you web
page and chess club…

[Appreciative editorial note: I
agree!]

Jarret Minkler

  [Event "Ng5_1.pgn"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [Result "?"]  [White "WHITE"]  [Black "BLACK"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5  {  ,R;_,B;Q,K;B,_;R  ;P,P;P,_;_,P;P,P  ,_;_,N;_,_;_,_;_  ;_,_;_,N;P,_;n,_  ,_;_,b;_,_;_,_;_  ;_,_;_,_;_,_;_,_  ,p;p,p;p,_;p,p;p  ;r,n;b,q;k,_;_,r  }  4... d5 5. exd5 b5  {!?}

6. Bxb5 Qxd5 7. Bf1 Bc5 8. Nc3

{This is a game my uncle played vs. a 2050 USCF my uncle is 1500+}

8... Bxf2+ 9. Ke2

{And Black goes on to win...}

*

  [Event "Ng5_2.pgn"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [Result "?"]  [White "WHITE"]  [Black "BLACK"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 b5 6. Bxb5 Qxd5 7. Bxc6+  7... Qxc6 8. O-O Bb7  {Forking The B and g2: Several things I see here are ..Nf3, Qf3 and f3}  9. f3 Bc5+ 10. Kh1 h6 11. Nh3 Ng4  {Just to give an example...O-O can be played also}  *   
your web browser and/or your host do not support iframes as required to display the chessboard; alternatively your wordpress theme might suppress the html iframe tag from articles or excerpts

  [Event "Ng5_3.pgn"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [Result "?"]  [White "WHITE"]  [Black "BLACK"]   1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 b5 6. Bxb5 Qxd5 7. Bxc6+  7... Qxc6 8. O-O Bb7  { instead of 9. f3 above }   9. Qf3 Qxf3 10. Nxf3 Bxf3 11. gxf3  {and Black has a good or =game}  *   [But please note that 6.Bxb5 is not the only, nor perhaps the best, move  for White.]   
your web browser and/or your host do not support iframes as required to display the chessboard; alternatively your wordpress theme might suppress the html iframe tag from articles or excerpts

The Variations behind the French Defence

Posted on January 20, 1996 by DrDave

French Defence: Key Variations for Young Players

Edition 2.8, January, 96

1. e4 e6, French Defence

Introduction

The French is a solid and safe defence which you will certainly
meet and may like to play yourself as a reply to 1. e4. In these
notes I will give a quick run-down on the main variations of the
French, and give an example line for each variation so you can get
some idea of how to play for each side.

Variations I recommend for White include the
Alekhin-Chatard Attack and the Alekhin Gambit against the
Winawer. Black’s best line is certainly the Winawer, but there are
safer alternatives like the Classical or Burn Variations. The
Tarrasch is a line for later on in your chess life, in my
opinion.

White avoids 2.d4

2. d3 The King’s Indian
Attack

A way of getting into the King’s Indian Reversed (KI Attack).

2… d5

3. Nd2

Prevents the exchange of Queens after 3…dxe4

3… Nf6 4. Ngf3

There are now two alternatives for Black: the old 4…c5 and the
modern 4…b6.

4… c5 (Variation A)

The most common approach. One well-known line goes:

5. g3 Nc6 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. Re1 b5 9. e5
Nd7 10. Nf1 a5 11. h4 b4 12. Bf4 a4 13. a3 bxa3 14. bxa3
Nd4

Black’s attack on the Q-side/centre is easier, and at the moment
has got further, but White is aiming at mate.

4… b6 (Variation B)

This is the modern approach.

5. g3 Bb7 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O c5 8. Re1
Nc6

…with Black perhaps planning to castle Queen’s side.

Other ways of avoiding 2. d4 include the
Tchigorin variation 2. Qe2, and the Two
Knights’ Variation with 2. Nf3.

2. Qe2, Tchigorin
variation

Against the Tchigorin Black can play 2…c5 or even
2…e5. Play is often like the King’s Indian Attack.

2. Nf3, Two Knights’
Variation

The Two Knights’ often transposes into Advance lines after

2…d5, 3. Nc3 Nf6, 4. e5 Nd7, 5. d4
c5

The main lines of the French start with

2. d4

When Black should reply

2… d5

White avoids 3. Nc3

Now the most common response is 3. Nc3 but White has alternatives:

3. Nd2 (Tarrasch Variation)

3. exd5 (Exchange Variation)

3. e5 (Advance Variation)

3. Nd2 The Tarrasch
Variation

This avoids the pin …Bb4 and keeps c3 open for a pawn. Black has
two approaches – one open (3…c5), one closed (3…Nf6).

3… c5 (Variation A)

This secures free play at cost of an isolated pawn, although an
open game may be more what White wants with 1. e4.

4. exd5 exd5

4… Qxd5 has been tried

And now White has two choices: to continue normal
development, or to aim for immediate exchanges in the hope of a
better endgame.

5.Ngf3 (Variation A1)

The main line, which may then go:

5… Nc6 6. Bb5 Bd6 7. O-O Nge7 8. dxc5 Bxc5 9.
Nb3 Bd6 10. Nbd4 O-O 11. c3 Bg4 12. Qa4 Qd7 13. Be3 a6

White has isolated the d-pawn but the endgame is a long way off

5.Bb5+ Bd7 6. Qe2+ (Variation
A2)

This is a way of trying to exchange off a few pieces , expecting a
better endgame against a weak isolated d-pawn which will appear
after dxc5.

3… Nf6 (Variation
B)

This line gives positions much more typical of the rest of the
French, and so I recommend this for Black.

4. e5 Nfd7

White again faces a basic choice: normal development with Bd3 or
the more aggressive f4.

5.Bd3 (Variation B1)

5… c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4 Qb6

8… Nb6 is the Leningrad variation

9. Nf3 f6 10. exf6 Nxf6 11. O-O Bd6 12. Nc3 O-O 13. Re1
Bd7

The pawn structure is advantageous to White but Black’s active
pieces give excellent chances in this complex position.

5. f4 (Variation B2)

This is a much sharper try

5… c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ndf3 Qb6 8. g3 cxd4 9. cxd4
Bb4+ 10. Kf2 f5 11. Kg2

White has gained space at the cost of time.

The Advance Variation 3.
e5

The Advance Variation is a straightforward line aiming at a space
advantage on the K-side. The drawback is the loss of time meaning
White goes on the defensive while Black hits at d4.

3… c5

The key counter-blow in the French

4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3

Now the familiar line is 5…Qb6 but 5…Bd7 is a good way of
avoiding this.

5… Qb6 (Variation
A)

White has a choice in this key position:

Bd3 (risky), Be2 (safe), or a3 (best).

6. Bd3 (A1, The Milner-Barry
Gambit )

Sir Stuart Milner-Barry had an attacking flair, and devised this
risky line.

6… cxd4 7. cxd4 Bd7

An ancient trap is 7…Nxd4 8 Nxd4 Qxd4 9. Bb5+
(DIAGRAM)

Diagram (trap)

winning

8. O-O Nxd4 9. Nxd4 Qxd4 10. Nc3

10… a6

(10… Qxe5 is risky but playable)

Now 11. Qe2 with the idea of following up with Rd1; White
has some pressure but Black has prospects of a win with the extra
pawn

6. Be2 (Variation A2)

6…cxd4 7. cxd4 Nge7

When two moves of the Nb1 are tried:

8. Na3 (Try 1)

this is perhaps the most logical way to

play

8… Nf5 9. Nc2 Bb4+ 10. Kf1

And Black has two equally worthwhile tries:

(i) 10… h5 securing the position of the Nf5

(ii) 10… Be7 so if 11. g4, 11…Nh4 keeps the balance
of attack and defence of d4

8. Nc3 (Try 2 -)

A simple approach.

8… Nf5 9. Na4 Qa5+ 10. Bd2 Bb4 11. Bc3 Bxc3+ 12. Nxc3
Qb6 13. Bb5 Bd7

with equal chances

6. a3 (Variation A3)

The modern approach, and probably best.

6… c4 7. g3

7. Nbd2 Na5 (better 7… f6) 8. b4 cxb3 9. c4 is a
dangerous gambit — Keres.

7… f6

This move, unusually hitting the head (e5) of the chain instead of
the base (b2), gives Black equal chances.

5… Bd7 (Variation
B)

6. Be2 Rc8

This is a way of avoiding the familiar lines with …Qb6 which
seems at least as good. White has tried several approaches (6.
dxc5, 6. a3) but this move is fine.

3. exd5 The Exchange
Variation

3…exd5

4. Bd3 Nc6 5. c3 Bd6 6. Qf3 Be6 7. Ne2 Nge7

is level: the open K-file may become important after exchanges

The main line 3. Nc3

Does Black want to play the Winawer or not?

Section I: Black avoids the
Winawer

These are the older lines with 3…dxe4 and 3…Nf6.

3… dxe4 The Rubinstein
Variation

This is an old-fashioned and rather passive approach — all right
if you like that sort of thing.

4. Nxe4 Nd7

4… Bd7 5. Bd3

5. Nf3 Ngf6 6. Nxf6+ Nxf6 7. Bd3 Be7 8. Qe2 O-O
9. Bg5 c5 10. dxc5 Qa5+

White still has freer play and prospects of attack. In the endgame
the Queen’s side majority may count for something.

The Classical French 3…
Nf6

This safe and solid line has always been a reliable way of holding
White’s initiative, but it is not as easy to play for a win.

4. e5 The Steinitz
Variation

This has recently become more fashionable. An example line goes:

4… Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 Qb6 8. Na4 Qa5+ 9.
c3

9… cxd4 10. b4 Nxb4

This difficult piece sacrifice has become very
topical.

11. cxb4 Bxb4+ 12. Bd2 Bxd2+ 13. Nxd2 b6 14. Rb1
Ba6 15. Qb3

Black probably doesn’t have enough for the piece

4. Bg5 The Classical
Variation

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

4… dxe4, The Burn
Variation

This has obvious links with the Rubinstein line

5. Nxe4 Be7 6. Bxf6

And Black has tried both recaptures:

6…Bxf6 (Variation
1)

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.

4… Bb4, The MacCutcheon
Variation

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.

4… Be7 The Classical
Variation

5. e5 Nfd7

And there is yet a further choice:

6. Bxe7, the safe Classical line.

6. h4, the aggressive Alekhin-Chatard attack.

6. Bxe7 Main Line Classical
Variation

6…Qxe7

7. f4 O-O 8. Nf3 c5 9. Bd3 f5 10. exf6 Rxf6 11. Qd2 Nc6 12.
dxc5 Nxc5

Again we have a classic French imbalance between White’s better
pawns and Black’s counterplay

6. h4 The Alekhin-Chatard
Attack

White offers a pawn for chances of attack.

6… Bxg5 7. hxg5 Qxg5 8. Nh3 Qe7 9.
Qg4

The N goes to h3 to allow this Q move when White has good prospects
of attack. Black may decline the Gambit with a passive game.

Section II: The Winawer
Variation 3… Bb4

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 The Alekhin
Gambit

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

4… dxe4 5. a3 Be7 6. Nxe4 Nf6

An open game with about equal chances has resulted.

4. a3 Pawn snatch
variation

4… Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 dxe4 6. Qg4 Nf6 7. Qxg7 Rg8 8. Qh6 Nbd7
9. Ne2 b6 10. Bg5 Qe7

White has a pawn, but Black has active play for it

4. exd5 Winawer
Exchange

4…exd5

The Winawer Exchange Variation is harmless for Black

5. Bd3 Nc6 6. Nge2 Nge7

Equal game.

4. e5, Main line
Winawer

Now Black usually goes 4…c5 but can play more quietly with
4…b6/4…Qd7.

4… c5 (Variation A)

This is the most aggressive line for Black.

5. a3

5… Bxc3+

5… Ba5 has been tried: 6. b4 cxd4 7. Qg4 Ne7 8.
bxa5 dxc3 9. Qxg7 Rg8 10. Qxh7 Nbc6 11. Nf3 Qc7 12. Bf4 Bd7 13.
Bd3

Variation

with complex play

6. bxc3

This is the critical position in the Winawer. Black has given up
the important dark-sqaured bishop to weaken White’s pawns which can
be attacked down the c-file. Black will try to block the centre to
slow up any White attack.

6… Ne7

6… Qc7 is safer, with the idea if 7. Qg4 f5 8. Qg3

7. a4 positional line

White plays slowly, hoping perhaps to get control of the diagonal
a3-f8.

7… Qa5 8. Qd2 Nbc6 9. Nf3 Bd7 10. Be2 Rc8 11.
dxc5 Ng6 12. O-O O-O

…with both sides having chances.

7. Qg4, Winawer ‘Poisoned
Pawn’

White grabs a hot pawn and tries to hang on to his centre.

7… Qc7 8. Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 cxd4 10. Ne2
Nbc6

This position is the starting point of some very detailed opening
research. Both sides have horrid weaknesses.

4… Qd7 (Variation
B)

5. Bd3 b6

This is a slower way to play but offers fewer chances for
Black to win

Exchanging into a King-and-Pawn endgame

Posted on November 27, 1995 by DrDave

Chris Bellers, c.1995

Jones – Bellers, 1975

  [Event "Diagram 1"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/5p2/R7/3rp3/4k2p/1P5P/P5PK/8 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

What makes players do the following? White swaps off his active rook, failing to see just 2 or 3 moves ahead.
It is amazing how often this occurs.

1. Ra4+

[1. Rf6 or indeed almost anything else would have been better!]

1… Rd4 2. Rxd4+ exd4 3. Kg1 Kd3 4. Kf2 Kc2 0-1

Theory:Opposition,Triangulation, 1995

  [Event "Diagram 2"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/1p2k2p/8/P4K2/8/7P/8/8 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

1. Kg5!
[1. Ke5 ? 1… Kd7 2. Kf6

[2. Kd5 h5 the bK is too near the a-pawn for White to win]

2… Kc6 Black can queen the pawn in seven moves]

[1. h4 Kf7 with the opposition 2. h5 h6]

1… Kf7 2. Kh6 Kg8 3. h4 Kh8 4. Kh5

[4. Kg5 Kg7 draws with the opposition]

[4. h5 Kg8 5. Kg5 Kf7

[5… Kg7 even this draws: 6. h6+ Kf7 7. Kf5 Ke7 8. Ke5 Kd7 9. Kf6 Kd6 10. Kg7 Ke7 11. Kxh7 Kf7]

6. Kf5 h6]

4… Kg8 5. Kg4

taking the distant opposition

5… Kf8 6. Kf4 Ke8 7. Kg5 !

[7. Ke4 Kd7 8. Kf5

[8. Kd5 h5]

8… Kc6 9. Kg5 Kb5]

7… Kf7 8. Kf5

again with the opposition but also with the pawn held back on h4

8… Ke7 9. Ke5 Kd7 10. Kf6 Kc6 11. h5 Kb5 12. Kg7 Kxa5 13. h6 b5 14. Kxh7 b4 15. Kg7 ! 15… b3 16. h7 b2 17. h8=Q b1=Q

[17… Kb4 King and Knight or centre pawn loses (Rook or Bishop pawns on the seventh draw) 18. Qb8+ Kc3 19. Kf6 Kc2 20. Qc7+ Kd1 21. Qb6 Kc2 22. Qc5+ Kd3 23. Qb4 Kc2 24. Qc4+ Kd2 25. Qb3 Kc1 26. Qc3+ Kb1 27. Ke5 Ka2 28. Qc2 Ka1 29. Qa4+ Kb1 30. Kd4 Kc1 31. Qc4+ Kb1 32. Kc3 Ka1 33. Qa4+ Kb1 34. Qc2+ Ka2 35. Qxb2#]

18. Qa8+ Kb4 19. Qb7+ Kc3 20. Qxb1 1-0

Hibbitt – Bellers , 1995

  [Event "Diagram 3"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/4k2p/2p1r1p1/1p1p4/5PP1/P5R1/5PKP/8 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

How do you assess this position? Black has a menacing array of Queen’s-side pawns and threatens simply …Kd6, …c5 etc. White’s only chance is to create diversions on the King’s-side and hope that it compensates.
1. Re3 ? 1… d4 2. Rxe6+ Kxe6 3. Kf3 Kd5 4. Ke2 ?

[4. f5 gxf5 5. g5 Ke5 6. h4 f4 !

[6… c5 7. h5 c4 8. h6 wins for White]

7. Kg4 d3 8. Kf3 Kf5 -+]

4… Ke4

resigns.

Note how potent …f4 can be at the right time. 0-1

Bellers – Pritchard 1995

  [Event "Diagram 4"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/pr1k1p2/1pRpp1p1/1P5p/P3PP1P/1P2KP2/8/8 w - - 0 32"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

White has been pressing throughout, but Black now threatens to equalise with …Rc7.
32. f5 ! (that break again) 32… exf5 33. exf5 Rc7 34. fxg6 fxg6 35. Rxc7+ Kxc7 36. Kd4 Kd8 37. Ke4 Ke7 38. Kd5 Kd7 39. b4 Ke7 40. a5 Kd7 41. a6 Ke7 42. Kc6 d5 and resigns:

43. Kb7 d4 44. Kxa7 d3 45. Kxb6 d2 46. a7 d1=Q 47. a8=Q 1-0

Bellers – Hodgson , 1977

  [Event "Diagram 5"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/pp1k4/5p2/2p5/2P1p1b1/4P3/P2K1P2/6N1 w - - 0 25"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Against a youthful Julian Hodgson, White is paying the price of playing Grob’s Attack!
25. Ne2 Bxe2 26. Kxe2 Kc6 27. f3 exf3+ 28. Kxf3 b5 29. cxb5+ Kxb5 30. Ke4 Kc4 resigns.

But is the position before 25.Ne2 totally lost? The Knight is tied down, but the Bishop has to stay on g4 to keep it there, and meanwhile the Knight is guarding all the entry squares

Exchanging to won King ending,

Sarahs – Bellers, 1995

  [Event "Diagram 6"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "4r3/pp4k1/2p3p1/8/3p4/5P2/PP2rRR1/3K4 b - - 0 30"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Black is two pawns up with a passed d-pawn and control of the e-file. What is the best way forward? Double Rook endings can be difficult to win.
30… d3

completing the stranglehold

31. b4 b6 32. a4 Rxf2 33. Rxf2 Re2 34. Rxe2 dxe2+ 35. Kxe2 Kf6 36. Ke3 Ke5 37. a5 bxa5 38. bxa5 c5 0-1

Bellers – Evans, 1977

  [Event "Diagram 7"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/1p2nk2/p6p/2PpR3/P2P2p1/4KpP1/1P3P2/8 w - - 0 47"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

White swaps off into a won K+P ending, but it isn’t as easy as White first thought. Simply 47.b2-b4 would have been stronger.
47. Rxe7+ Kxe7 48. Kf4 h5 49. b4 Kf6 50. b5 axb5 51. axb5 Ke6 52. c6 ?

[52. Kg5 wins easily]

52… bxc6 53. bxc6 Kd6 54. Kg5 Kxc6 55. Kxh5 Kb5 56. Kxg4 Kc4 57. Kxf3 Kxd4 58. Ke2 Kc3 59. Kd1 Kd3 60. g4 Ke4 61. g5 Kf5 62. f4 1-0

Thornley – Bellers, 1995

  [Event "Diagram 8"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/6pk/p6p/P4p2/4p1QP/6P1/5P2/2q3K1 b - - 0 55"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

White is a pawn down but seems to have everything covered. Black must do something active to break through.
55… f4 (that move again) 56. Qxf4 Qxf4 57. gxf4

  [Event "Diagram 9"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/6pk/p6p/P7/4pP1P/8/5P2/6K1 b - - 0 57"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

how do you assess this position?
57… Kg6 58. Kg2 Kf5 59. h5

[59. Kg3 h5]

59… Kxf4 60. Kf1 Kf3 61. Ke1 e3 62. fxe3 Kxe3 63. Kd1 Kf4 64. Kd2 Kg5 65. Kc3 Kxh5 66. Kc4 g5 67. Kc5 g4 68. Kb6 g3 69. Kxa6 g2 70. Kb7 g1=Q 71. a6 Kg5

resigns: advanced Rook pawns do draw against K+Q but not K+Q+P! 1-0

Furnewell – Frost , 1995

  [Event "Diagram 10"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "1r6/2rk2pp/p1p1p3/2RpP3/5P2/8/PPR2KPP/8 b - - 0 26"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

I’m not sure how to categorise this one: Black thought he was transposing into a won K+P ending because of the protected passed d-pawn, White presumably thought it was won. Who was right?
26… Rb5

White has the choice: leaving the rooks on may have been easier

27. Rxb5 cxb5 28. Rxc7+ Kxc7 29. Ke3 Kc6 30. Kd4 a5 31. a3 a4 32. h3 g6 33. g3 h5 34. g4 h4

  [Event "Diagram 11"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/8/2k1p1p1/1p1pP3/p2K1PPp/P6P/1P6/8 w - - 0 35"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

35. f5
But

[35. Ke3 Kc5 36. f5 draws easily! 36… exf5 37. gxf5 gxf5 38. Kf4 d4 39. e6 Kd6 40. Kxf5 d3 41. Kf6 d2 42. e7 Kd7 43. Kf7 d1=Q 44. e8=Q+]

35… exf5 36. gxf5 gxf5 37. Ke3 Kd7 38. Kf3 Ke6 39. Kf4 d4

0-1

Bellers – Saqui, 1983

  [Event "Diagram 12"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/8/2p1pk2/1p1pR2p/1P1P1pb1/2P5/5PK1/8 w - - 0 44"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Finally, an ending to demonstrate the resources that may exist when all seems lost. The key to this ending is the greater mobility of the rook, and the ability of the wK to gain entry on the White squares.
44. Re1 Ke7 45. Rh1 f3+ 46. Kg3 Kf7 47. Kf4 Kf6 48. Ra1 Ke7 49. Ke5 Kf7 50. Kd6

two pawns now go, but it’s still got to be won

50… Bf5 51. Kxc6 Bd3 52. Kd6 Kf6 53. Rh1 Kg5 54. Kxe6 Bc4 55. Ke5 Kg4 56. Rg1+ Kh3 57. Rg3+ Kh2 58. Rxf3 h4 59. Rf4 h3 60. Rg4 Be2 61. Rg7 Bf3 62. Kd6 Bg2 63. f4 Kg1 64. Rh7 h2 65. f5 Be4 66. Rxh2 Kxh2 67. f6 Bg6 68. Ke6 Kg3 69. f7 Bxf7+ 70. Kxf7 Kf4

  [Event "Diagram 13"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "8/5K2/8/1p1p4/1P1P1k2/2P5/8/8 w - - 0 71"]  [SetUp "1"]   *

Black has wriggled well but this K+P ending is won for White
71. Ke6 Ke4 72. Kd6 Kd3 73. Kxd5 Kxc3 74. Kc5 Kb3 75. d5 1-0

(You’ve either got, or you haven’t got…) Style

Posted on May 30, 1994 by DrDave

Games are given in the Style section of the Canon, and relevant examples may be found through the Glossary. Steve Lopez has written pen-portraits of the players at the 1924 NY tournament, and there is a whole site devoted to the World Champions.
[ I wrote this to accompany the lollipops in 1994, but it holds up as well as it ever did 😉 ]

“We perceive after a careful consideration of the evolution of the chess mind that such evolution has gone on, in general, in a way quite similar to that in which it goes on with the individual chess player, only with the latter more rapidly.“

— Richard RETI

“The delight in gambits is a sign of chess youth… In very much the same way as the young man, on reaching his manhood years, lays aside the Indian stories and stories of adventure, and turns to the psychological novel, we with maturing experience leave off gambit playing and become interested in the less vivacious but withal more forceful manoeuvres of the position player.“

— Emanuel LASKER

[cool blue cat says:]

I asked elsewhere, what’s your style – the crunch or the crouch? or a bit of both? To help you in this decision, you might be interested to play over some of the exemplary games of the previous World Champions. Which do you admire most, which seem to you to be most logical, which diagrammed positions attract you? You may find that once you understand your strengths and weaknesses better, you can make efforts to steer the game into channels that suit you and not your opponent. Moreover, as Reti and Lasker suggest, that we often start off playing like Morphy, and then start to get interested in slower play; I would not, however, be in too much of a hurry for this. Advanced players might like to play these games over one at a time in between reading the next section on some of the theories behind these games.

The style of the World Champions

Before Steinitz

Before Steinitz, the first official World Champion, the great names of chess are Andre Danican-Philidor, Howard Staunton, Adolf Anderssen, and Paul Morphy. We’ve seen Anderssen’s two greatest games elsewhere – many would say these are two of the greatest games ever, loved by chess romantics everywhere. Staunton played splendid, direct chess, but not in the romantic style of the period – he was much more controlled and effective, as can be seen in his game against Elijah Williams, no mean positional player himself.

Style section of the Canon

Paul Morphy

Morphy was a razor-sharp attacker, one of the fastest and most accurate talents of the game. I have chosen his famous brilliancy against the great defender Paulsen, which spectators mocked until the game continuation made it obvious to them how much further Morphy had seen. I have given also his effective defensive game against the powerful Andersson; Morphy effectively defined the perfect style for playing open games.

Style section of the Canon

Wilhelm Steinitz, World Champion 1886-1894

The first great chess thinker, whose often awkward-looking and defensive mature chess style was in total contrast to his dashing, gambiting contemporaries. He could attack when it was needed – indeed, he used to be known as the “Austrian Morphy” – but he suppressed his attacking talent in favour of a thoughtful, principled, positional style. His theories, particularly those of the closed game (see part ii below), were adopted and refined by his disciple Siegbert Tarrasch, who can be said to have taught the world how to play chess properly. The game against Andersson is characteristic – apparently awkward and cramped opening manoeuvres which gradually uncoil and engulf his opponent. Not until Nimzovitch did we see more of this.

Style section of the Canon

Emanuel Lasker 1894-1921

The pragmatic philosopher who was also the wiliest combatant in chess history, who was still winning games against the best in the world in his sixties. Although he had a great grasp and appreciation of Steinitz’ theories, Lasker always played the man as well as the board. As an example, see his game against the scientific Tarrasch. Wild rumours circulated about his luck in poor positions, but his mastery was not just of chess but of psychology. It was like inviting his opponents to waltz on a clifftop, confident that his footwork and nerve were stronger. It was a style impossible to imitate – you need always to be the strongest player – but elements of it may prove useful to anyone.

Style section of the Canon

Jose Capablanca 1921-1927

The game’s greatest natural talent, whose elegant and seemingly effortless style awed his contemporaries and has charmed generations since. He made it all look so easy – beating the great Marshall like a child (see elsewhere on Majorities), and nudging Bernstein off the board with one of the neatest finishes ever. More than other masters, he was content with small advantages, and content to give them up for other pluses on the board. This capacity for winning with small advantages led Euwe to comment about one game:

“Whether this advantage is theoretically sufficient to win or not does not worry Capablanca. He simply wins the ending. That is why he is Capablanca!“

Style section of the Canon

Alexander Alekhin 1927-1935,1937-1946

Alekhin’s driving and sometimes unattractive personality powered his chess to bold and brilliant new levels in all phases of the game. His game against Marshall is almost the opposite of Capablanca’s – no less accurate, but a forceful and aggressive drive for mate which looks risky. I’ve also added a sparkling finish, played blindfold.

Sir George Thomas once remarked: “Against Alekhin you never knew what to expect. Against Capablanca, you knew what to expect, but you couldn’t prevent it!“

Alekhin had a knack of finding “accidental” opportunities in apparently harmless variations. The “sting in the tail” is the hallmark of an Alekhin combination, but he beat Capablanca on technique, improbable as it seemed at the time.

Style section of the Canon

Max Euwe 1935-1937

The last real chess amateur and one of the game’s great sportsmen, he devoted the rest of his chess life to writing, teaching and organisation. He played many positions well, but had a clear attacking talent. His game against Alekhin which helped secure the title is one of his best and best-known games.

Style section of the Canon

Mikhail Botvinnik 1948-57,1958-60,1961-63

The first product of the Soviet school, a disciplined and insightful player who remained at the top for decades. No non-Soviet was to win again until 1972. Botvinnik could play clear positions well but was unafraid of complications – perhaps the secret being that they too were clear to Botvinnik. His game against Chekhover is an impressive win, overpowering his opponent by virtue of his grasp of the position; the Matulovic game is much more recent, and shows Botvinnik taking on an apparently unpromising but difficult line from which he emerges better off.

Style section of the Canon

Vassily Smyslov, 1957-1958

Smyslov’s attractively clear style took him to the top but his success served only to motivate Botvinnik for the re-match. His game against Liberzon is a nice blend of dominating positional play and tactically accurate cashing-in. In the 1980s he had a second wind, playing his bright, crisp, modern chess all the way to the Candidate’s Matches where he was stopped by Kasparov.

Style section of the Canon

Mikhail Tal, 1960-1961

Tal, the whirlwind from Riga, won the hearts of the fans and appalled the critics, all the way to a title match with Botvinnik where Botvinnik’s clear head could never seem to keep the board under control for long enough. The game with Barcza is a nice attacking display, and the sacrifice against Smyslov shows that not even his closest rivals could stifle his driving urge to attack. Tal’s collection of bold and risky attacking games continued to impress and inspire, but his poor health kept him out of the top rank after the re-match, in which a grim Botvinnik gradually wrenched the crown from Tal’s hands.

Style section of the Canon

Tigran Petrosian, 1963-1968

The slowest, canniest player of recent years, whose boa-constrictor style concealed great strategical insight and tactical skill. His play harks back to the hypermoderns of the ‘twenties who challenged what they saw as the dogma of Tarrasch and his school. The games show two sides of Petrosian: a determined if dour endgame from the Championship match, and a nice finish from a much brighter game in one of the matches against Spassky.

Style section of the Canon

Boris Spassky, 1968-1972

An attacking player with a well-rounded, classical style, he beat Petrosian at the second attempt. I have included two well-known quick wins, where he seemed to storm past world-class opposition in complex attacking games. His slower games also have a breeziness about them.

Style section of the Canon

Bobby Fischer, 1972-1975

Fischer’s turbulent career finally led to the most famous chess match in history. His chess was always razor-sharp, rational and brilliant. One of the best ever. His win against Byrne is well-known but also characteristic – all vigour and straight lines, with active pieces compensating for the isolated d-Pawn. When Byrne resigned, watching grandmasters were still arguing that White was winning – can you find the win for Black? His sporting achievements (11-0 in the US championship, 6-0 in two(!) Candidates Matches) will probably never be equalled.

Style section of the Canon

Anatoly Karpov, 1975-1986,1993?-

Fischer never agreed to a match, but Karpov’s long reign at the top was always totally convincing. A quiet man whose calm and deft chess was an overwhelming force for ten years. The games: GM John Nunn is a very dangerous and active player, but Karpov doesn’t let him get started. Kasparov too is dangerous when he gets going, but the game given (from the 1985 Championship match) shows everything under control, and the win was always in hand. Currently Karpov holds the FIDE title. Karpov’s style is often compared to Capa’s (who he admires); the style of his great rival Viktor Korchnoi was often likened to that of Lasker.

Style section of the Canon

Garry Kasparov, 1986-present (1994)

To complete the parallel, Kasparov’s play reminds us more of Alekhin. A dynamic attacker with a great appetite for work and a forceful opening repertoire, Kasparov has yet to be seriously challenged by anyone but Karpov. Nigel Short may change all that! [HTMLed 1996, written 1994!] The game shows the man at his best – a great 6-piece attack against the king, in the most tense arena of chess, in an opening that Karpov has played and won with for years. The split with FIDE has led to the creation of two ‘world champions’.

[cool blue cat says:]

So, what do you think? What games attracted you? Which ones looked or felt like your games, which do you admire most? Most players have a favourite or a hero in chess, and fondly imagine their play to be ‘a bit like Morphy‘; the thing to do is to assess what is real and what is you kidding yourself, but then to see how to improve – how to choose your openings, what your weaknesses are, what sort of positions to steer for and avoid. Players of every style have won the championship. Make your style work for you.

A potted history of chess theory.

Behind this human story of successive champions and rivals is a parallel story of the rise and fall of chess ideas. The parallel is not exact, for although Steinitz’ peerless play as Champion was the embodiment of his theories, his title was taken by Lasker, who founded no school; and although the Hypermoderns were the ones to watch in the ‘twenties, none held the title.

“Today we see in chess the fight of aspiring Americanism against the old European intellectual life: a struggle between the technique of Capablanca, a virtuoso in whose play one can find nothing tangible to object to, and between great European masters, all of them artists, who have the qualities as well as the faults of artists in the treatment of the subject they devote themselves to: they experimentalise and in striving after what is deep down. they overlook what is near to hand.

…If Americanism is victorious in chess, it will also be so in life. For the idea of chess and the development of the chess mind we have a pictureof the intellectual struggle of mankind.” – Reti, MOIC.

A start on theory

Many chess ideas which were taken up later can first be found in the play and writing of PHILIDOR. In his 1749 book L’Analyse des Echecs, he discussed holes, blockade, prophylaxis, and the positional sacrifice, he described pawn weaknesses such as the isolated, backward, and doubled pawns, and discussed what we now term pawn islands. For 90 years he was praised but had no lasting influence on the play of the time, although he was re-discovered from time to time. He emphasised above all else play with the pawns, and said (in French) “Pawns are the very soul of the game.”.

The Italian game

The play most characteristic of the late 1700s and later was dominated instead by the style of the Italian MODENESE SCHOOL – Italian players and writers like DEL RIO, LOLLI and PONZIANI, after whom the Italian Game (Guioco Piano and related openings) came into prominence. Fast development followed by attack was the name of the game, and beyond this it is difficult to see much theory at all; players were concerned with direct attack – to mate, or lose gloriously in the attempt. From this period we inherit all the older tactical variations of the King’s Gambit and Giuoco Piano, where sacrifices were common and their acceptance almost routine. This period should not be though of as artless – it produced legions of fine analysts and several games of genius, and much was learned about the art of attack.

The play of the American Paul MORPHY brought some additional science to all this, not that everyone recognised it at the time. Through his games he showed that a successful attack must be based on a lead in development. Similarly, he showed that a player who is behind in development must not open lines to ‘free their position’, since these lines will provide avenues along which the better-developed side will attack – instead, they should keep things closed until they have caught up a bit.

Sadly, when players learned to decline or return sacrificed material, a lot of the steam went out of the Italian approach. e.g. an old line of the Danish Gambit goes 1 e4, e5; 2 d4, exd4; 3 c3, exc3; 4 Bc4, cxb2; 5 Bxb2. If Black clings to the material White will have a good time, but MIESES showed 5…d5; 6 Bxd5, Nf6 secures open lines and probably the two Bishops. The best line for White here is probably 7 Bxf7+ Kxf7; 8 Qxd8, Bb4+ 9 Qd2, Bxd2+ when Black has no extra material but can play to win the ending with the Queen’s-side majority. Technique was replacing romance in chess.

The English school

There was briefly an English school centred around Howard STAUNTON, who directly contradicted the Italian style by playing first for control of the small centre, or some other advantage, before any thought of direct attack on the king. Staunton (and his followers like Wyvill) embraced the Fianchetto, the flank openings (like the English Opening), but although he wrote a fine textbook he never defined or discussed his own system, and the style withered when Staunton retired. The attacking style persisted until the Modern era began with Steinitz.

The modern era

Wilhelm STEINITZ of Austria was a great player but also a great thinker and writer, so it was possible for his ideas to become widely known and adopted. He was a theorist primarily of closed positions (see the Steinitz Variation of the Ruy Lopez for a good example). To him we owe a deal of our understanding about two bishops, about play behind a row of pawns, about weak pawns (see his lines for Black in the Queen’s Gambit Accepted, playing against an isolated Queen’s pawn: 1 d4, d5; 2 c4, dxc4; 3 Nf3, Nf6; 4 e3, c5; 5 Bxc4, cxd4; 6 exd4 followed by …Nc6-b4-d5). He also showed how to play defensively once you have accepted a gambit pawn (that you intend to keep). With Steinitz we associate positional play, accumulating advantages and playing against weaknesses – he did not discover weak points, but he showed that they were more important than had been assumed. By the 1890s most players had been influenced to a greater or lesser extent by Steinitz, and LASKER who took his crown paid tribute to the importance of Steinitz’ theories.

Lasker and TCHIGORIN both played superb defensive chess – Lasker on a knife-edge, waiting for his opponent to stumble, and Tchigorin more solidly – it was Tchigorin who founded the great highway of the Ruy Lopez known as the Closed Morphy or Tchigorin Defence (1 e4, e5; 2 Nf3, Nc6; 3 Bb5, a6; 4 Ba4, Nf6; 5 O-O, Be7 {just this far is the Closed Morphy}; 6 Re1, b5; 7 Bb3, d6; 8 c3, Na5; 9 Bc2, c5 {the Tchigorin Defence; Black can delay the …Na5/…c5 manoeuvre until after castling}). Tchigorin was a demon attacker, rather in the old Romantic mould. When Steinitz defeated Tchigorin in a match he said ironically “youth has triumphed” – meaning, the Modern Steinitz, much the older of the two, had defeated the Romantic.

Steinitz’ awkward-looking chess attracted a lot of criticism, but even if there was no arguing with results there was no arguing with Steinitz, who was as pugnacious an opponent off the board as on it. In 1886 Steinitz played Zukertort for the World Championship, and critics of the day compared the clumsy-looking games unfavourably with the supposedly brilliant, error-free and superior chess of Morphy. Steinitz replied, not just by pointing out in an article Morphy’s tactical blunders, but also indicating his strategical errors. Steinitz agreed that Morphy was a genius, but added that “Morphy in 1886, had he been alive, would have beaten the Morphy of 1859”…

“When it is so freely asserted that Morphy’s style was all genius and inspiration … Morphy possessed that most profound book knowledge of any master of his time, and never introduced a single novelty, whereas since his day the books have had to study the players…

“We may all learn from Morphy and Anderssen how to conduct a King’s side attack, and perhaps I myself may not have learnt enough. But if you want to learn how to avoid such an attack, how to keep the balance of the position on the whole board and how to expose the King and invite a complicated attack that cannot be sustained in the long run, then you must go to the modern school for information…

“The progress of age can no more be disputed than Morphy’s extraordinary genius” – STEINITZ

The technique of chess continued to evolve. His theories were adopted, adapted and publicised by the German player Siegbert TARRASCH, who, while often regarded as dogmatic, played in a fresh, direct style. He would always defend an isolated central pawn if it meant he could develop his pieces freely, and his defence to the Queen’s Gambit does just this: 1 d4, d5; 2 c4, e6; 3 Nc3, c5; 4 cxd5, exd4; 5 Nf3, Nf6 and later Pxc5 (or …cxd4,Nxd4) will give Black the IQP. It was Tarrasch who gave the line 1 d4, d5; 2 c4, e6; 3 Nc3, Nf6 its derisory name of Orthodox Defence. In the Ruy, he advocated the Open Morphy Defence with 5…Nxe4, again leading to an open position where Black has compensation for messy pawns in activity. This balance between pawn structure and piece activity is perhaps the key question in any chess position, and after Tarrasch we see a continuous exploration of these issues across a variety of positions.

Reti, in Modern Ideas in Chess, points to CAPABLANCA as being the first player to subjugate development to playing with a plan. For example, after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Nxf6+ Nxf6 7.Ne5 [Capablanca,Jose – Blanco Estera,Rafael [C10]; Havana (02), 1913] instead of another developing move Capa played 7. Ne5, moving a piece twice but preventing the natural …b6 and …Bd7 which would get the Bc8 out of the box.

[The game finished 7…Bd6 8.Qf3 c6 9.c3 0-0 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Bd3 Ne8 12.Qh3 f5 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.0-0 Rf6 15.Rfe1 Nd6 16.Re2 Bd7 17.Rae1 Re8 18.c4 Nf7 19.d5 Nxe5 20.Rxe5 g6 21.Qh4 Kg7 22.Qd4 c5 23.Qc3 b6 24.dxe6 Bc8 25.Be2 Bxe6 26.Bf3 Kf7 27.Bd5 Qd6 28.Qe3 Re7 29.Qh6 Kg8 30.h4 a6 31.h5 f4 32.hxg6 hxg6 33.Rxe6 1-0]

Hypermodernismus

NIMZOVITCH founded the HYPERMODERN school, and wrote a very engaging text My System in which he expounded his views on the centre, centralisation, prophylaxis, and various pawn formations. The other Hypermoderns, of whom we may take RETI of Czechoslovakia as an example, proposed no really new theory of the middlegame but revolutionised the treatment of the opening. They said (and showed) that there was no need to try to grab the centre immediately – and in fact, you could safely let your opponent rush into the centre with pawns in the opening, using them as a target for attack. In fact, Reti said, to occupy the centre directly as White merely allowed Black either to blockade or blow up what White had established, whereas keeping things unfixed was possibly the most awkward thing White could do.

The hypermoderns would therefore develop the Bishops in fianchetto, and use side-swipes like c2-c4 to undermine the centre. For White, the Reti (1. Nf3 2. c4) and Barcza (1. Nf3 2. g3) openings, and for the Black Alekhin’s Defence (1. e4 Nf6) and the Grunfeld Defence, are good examples of the hypermodern legacy. See the document on hypermodern openings.

Post-war

This century has not produced any great new theories, rather an approach to chess which takes no theory for granted. It was actually Reti who claimed that

“It is the aim of the modern school not to treat every position according to one general law, but according to the principle inherent in the position“

It seems that this claim has become more true as time has gone on. Novel play in the opening has become increasingly sophisticated, and players will defend the most dreadful-looking pawn structures if they get some sort of activity for it. Chess has become more concrete, more dynamic, and more difficult. Let’s have a look at a couple of examples:
[These are taken from the planning handout]

This position, arising after 1 e4, c6; 2 d4, d5; 3 Nc3, dxe4; 4 Nxe4, Nf6; 5 Nxf6, exf6 (now we more often play 5…gxf6); 6 Bc4, Bd6; 7 Qe2, Be7; 8 Nf3, O-O; 9 O-O, was well-known to players and theorists of the 19th century. Lasker, for example, comments:

“White’s plan consists in realising his pawn superiority on the Queen’s side while remaining passive on the King’s side. Black, on the other had will attampt to force his opponent to advance one of his pawns on the King’s wing, in order to start play against White’s King’s side with his pawns.”

Lasker has in mind moves for White such as c4 and d5 to create a passed pawn, and for Black …Bg4, …Bd6, …f5 and …Qh5. In fact play went 9 …Bd6; 10 Re1, Bg4; 11 Qe4! Bh5; 12 Nh4, Nd7; 13 Qf5. Steinitz and Lasker would undoubtedly have criticised White’s crude and ‘unjustified’ attack. What’s going on? Ragozin, a strong and experienced Soviet master, must have been aware of Lasker’s views, and of the theories of Steiniz, so why is he playing on the ‘wrong’ side? He has made in fact a much more dynamic and concrete assessment of the position which notes, not just the Q-side majority, but also: the awkwardly placed bishops, missing Nf6, the compromised f-pawns and White’s development and control of space. Given time, Black could no doubt disentangle his pieces. Ragozin gives him no time at all.

13…Nb6; 14 Qxh5, Nxc4; 15 Bh6!! Qd7 (can you find the win after 15…gxh6?); 16 b3, Nb6; 17 Nf5, Kh8; 18 Re4, Bxh2+ 19 Kh1 and Black resigned.

This is the real contribution of the 20th century to chess theory, in which SOVIET players have been dominant. Players look beyond the geometry of pawn formations and have moved to a more flexible and more dynamic style of play. There are no new general principles, because modern players do not believe in general principles. Players like BRONSTEIN and BOLESLAVSKY turned established ideas on their heads in the 1950s, championing Black’s dynamic chances in the King’s Indian and Sicilian.

The most dramatic recent example of this is Evgeny Sveshnikov’s cherished variation of the Sicilian, sometimes known as the Pelikan: 1 e4, c5; 2 Nf3, Nc6; 3 d4, cxd4; 4 Nxe4, Nf6; 5 Nc3, e5; 6 Nb5, d6; 7 Bg5, a6; 8 Bxf6, gxf6; 9 Na3, f5!? Black will use the extra central pawns and piece activity to stop White getting a proper hold on the weaknesses on …d6 and …f6/…h6.

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

Black has an obvious hole on d5; White sets out, in textbook fashion, to occupy it.

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

Mission accomplished!

But at what cost? The outpost stands unsupported by any other White pieces, and the Na3 is at present a bit lost. Black’s pawns are very muddled but control a lot of key squares (c4,d4 and f4). The muddling also gives Black the open g-file.

Let’s see how things unfold

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

The muddled pawns dominate the centre and the King’s side, while White’s pieces are still looking for a decent plan. Black now attacks down the open g-file. 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 26. Qxd7 Rf7 DIAGRAM 0-1

Games like this may make the classically-trained chessplayer despair, but they have added a great richness and excitement to our understanding of the game.

There is another good example of modern planning from Bronstein’s superb book on the 1953 Candidates tournament The Chess Struggle in Practice.

In this line of the King’s Indian, an opening he and Boleslavsky more or less re-invented, White has a significant space advantage, and Black has a ‘backward’ d-pawn on an open file, although he has covered the outpost on d5. Black has some good pieces: the Bg7 and Nc5 are well-placed, and the Bc8 and Re8 also have some potential.

Bronstein comments:

“I think now is the time to acquaint the reader with the mysteries of the Black d-pawn in the King’s Indian. Even though it is situated on an open file and therefore always exposed to attack, it is not a very easy nut to crack. The simplest method for White is apparently to retreat the Knight from d4, but d4 is precisely where the B needs to be: its jobs are to supervise b5, c6, e6, and f5 and to buffer the influence of the Bg7. Only after White has taken steps against possible Black attacks (…a3, …Be6, …f5) can his Knight leave the centre, but during that time Black can regroup to cause worries elsewhere.

“So the weakness of the d-pawn proves to be imaginary. Contemporary methods of play in the opening recognise the illusory weakness of such pawns. But it was exactly this ‘eternal’ weakness of the Pd6 that led to the King’s Inidan being regarded as dubious.

Hort,V – Rota [B07], Aachen/SW,16,18

Christ,R – Kljako,D [B07], it, Biel

Knippel,M – Stratmann,B [B08], NRW

Adams,M – Wolff,P [B07], London

Lane,G – Saucey,M [B07], Royan

Chacon,E – Blazquez,J. L [B07], Alicante

Georgiev,Kr – Feher,G [B30], Cappelle

Smirin,I – Nun,Ji [B30], Polanica

Bogumil – Sarosi [B30], Budapest

Lazarevic,M – Maric,D (6) Pula, 1990[B02]

Van der Vaeren – Savva, Haifa, 1989[A00]

Hill,S – Wright,A , ch-AUS/SW,5,18, 1989[B21]

Campora,D. H – Shirazi,A , Ch New York ( open ), 1989[B21]

Ekebjaerg,Ove (2580) – Van Manen,Gerben (2580) cr Blass-mem, 1990[B07]

Bareev – Norwood, Marseilles, 1990[B09]

Hodgson – Ady, Streatham Vs Ymca, London, 1981[B23]

Hebden – Large, British Ch’p, 1982[B21]

Plaskett – Howell, British Ch’p, 1983[B21]

Hodgson – Nunn, Aaronson Open, 1978[B23]

Smyslov – Romanishin, Moscow, 1976 [B23]

Attacking in the Queen-pawn openings: the Colle system

Landau – Book, Kemeri, 1937

Pillsbury – Amateur, Toronto, 1899

Colle – Stoltz, Bled, 1931

Colle – O’Hanlon, Nice Ol, 1930

Some Colle theory

Black gets into a little trouble with 4…e6.

Black’s Queen’s Knight should go to d7, supporting c5,e5 and f6

Black’s Queen’s Knight should not go to c6 but to d7

Black cannot develop fast enough to get in the …e5 counter in one move

Black can equalise by developing the Queen’s Bishop

Black can try to blunt the power of the Bd3 by …g6

But even if Black adopts the …g6 idea, the game need not be easy

Eliskases – Rosetto, Mar del Plata, 1950

NN-NN

Pillsbury,Harry N – Winawer, S (Budapest, 1896)

From minkler@buffnet.net Sat May 4 03:51:23 1996

Subject: The Dreaded Fried Liver attack ….

Jarret Minkler

French Defence: Key Variations for Young Players

Edition 2.8, January, 96

Chris Bellers, c.1995

Jones – Bellers, 1975

Theory:Opposition,Triangulation, 1995

Hibbitt – Bellers , 1995

Bellers – Pritchard 1995

Exchanging to won King ending,

Sarahs – Bellers, 1995

Bellers – Evans, 1977

Thornley – Bellers, 1995

Furnewell – Frost , 1995

Bellers – Saqui, 1983

Campora,D. H – Shirazi,A , Ch New York ( open ),
1989[B21]

Ekebjaerg,Ove (2580) – Van Manen,Gerben (2580) cr
Blass-mem, 1990[B07]

Hodgson – Ady, Streatham Vs Ymca, London,
1981[B23]

Attacking in the Queen-pawn openings:
the Colle system

Some
Colle theory

Black’s Queen’s Knight should go to d7, supporting c5,e5
and f6

Black’s Queen’s Knight should not go to c6 but to
d7

Black cannot develop fast enough to get in the …e5
counter in one move

Black can equalise by developing the Queen’s
Bishop

Black can try to blunt the power of the Bd3 by
…g6

But even if Black adopts the …g6 idea, the game need
not be easy

Eliskases – Rosetto, Mar del
Plata, 1950