Category Archives: Openings

Opening development and coordination

Posted on by

Summary

There are useful opening ‘rules’ (really, guidelines) which should be known and adopted at least until you know better.  Sadly, even strict obedience to the rules can lead to trouble, so you have to learn some specific opening lines.  You don’t have to know every opening, but you need at least one system for White and a couple as Black.  Which ones you choose depends on your style and your appetite for study.

Opening principles

It’s useful to review and rehearse the reasons for the ‘rules about opening development’, always remembering that there are exceptions.

* 10 Rules for the opening

  1. Get your pieces out into the centre quickly. The opening  is a race to see who can get their pieces out first while keeping at least a share of control of the centre.
    • This is the main point to remember; all the other rules are just footnotes to this one.  Sortez les pieces!
  2. Get a firm foothold in the centre – a pawn on one of the ‘little centre’ squares e4/e5/d5/d4 – and don’t give it up without good reason
  3. Move your king to safety at the side by castling
  4. Complete your development before moving a piece twice or starting an attack.  By move 12, you should have connected your Rooks, or be about to do so.
  5. More detail on winning the race:
    • move pieces not pawns, and
    • move them to their best squares in one move if you can, and also
    • try to gain time if you can by aggressive moves.
  6. Move your minor pieces out early on generally move Knights before Bishops, and generally straightaway to f3/c3 or f6/c6 (but probably not both, as White)
  7. Don’t move out your major pieces (Q+RR) where they will get chased around by the little guys and possibly trapped.
  8. Don’t grab pawns or attack if you haven’t completed developmen; especially, don’t charge around with your Queen trying to hoover up pawns.
  9. If one side gets ahead in development:

    • If you are ahead in development, start something going and open up lines for your better pieces
    • If you are behind in development, don’t start anything and keep things closed until you have caught up. This is especially true if you have not castled!
  10. Rooks are the hardest piece to develop: “openings should be judged on the prospects they offer to ambitious young Rooks” – PURDY.  To develop your Rooks, open a file; to open a file, bring pawns into a position to swap them off; so after 1.e4, plan to play d2-d4 or f2-f4 soon.
    • In fact, you have to attack the opponent’s centre with pawns to get much chance of an advantage as White (The Four Knights’ Game is next to Old Stodge in drawishness), so d2-d4 makes sense for more than one reason.

Your ideal piece placement might look like this:

 

--BPP---
--N-BN--
PPPQ-PPP
---RR-K-

 

 

* Games illustrating these points No.321 No.322 No.323 No.324 No.325 No.326 No.327 No.328 No.329 No.330 No.331 No.332 No.333 No.334 No.335 No.336 No.337

These are like little morality tales: greedy White grabs material but courageous Black wins in the end…

I leaned heavily for those notes on an excellent (although long out-of-print) book, How to Open a Chess Game, edited by Larry Evans, and with chapters by leading Grandmasters of the day (Larsen, Portisch, Petrosian, Keres…).  Evans described the basic rules, then the remaining chapters get progressively more advanced, so it’s a book you can put down for a while and pick up later and get more out of.

…Which should give you another clue about rules having exceptions, (greedy White grabs material, hangs on to it and wins the endgame…) but you have to start somewhere.  [I often think about the first description you give pupils about an atom, like a little solar system with the nucleus as a sun that planets (electrons) go around.  I’m not sure I understand what sort of pictures physicists are working with these days, but I am pretty sure it’s not very like the solar system.]

Coordination

This is a related issue.  Just plonking your pieces on sensible squares will be OK for a long while, but as you get better you need to play moves that fit together, so that your pieces support not just each other but also at least one plausible short-term plan.  Your opponent will be trying to achieve something in the position, and the least you can do is oppose their ideas, if not undertake something constructive yourself.

Lack of co-ordination is easy to identify.

I like to show this example:

* Ulvestad Variation 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bxb5 Qxd5 …

Now, White is far from lost here, but you get the idea I hope.

Planless play can often lead to a position that looks OK but is going nowhere – that is oddly passive or has no potential to expand.

* Nunn-Olafsson 1982 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 Nc6 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.0-0 d6 6.c3 Qe7 7.Nbd2 a6 8.Bb3 0-0 9.Re1 Be6 10.Nf1 Ba7 11.Bc2 …1-0 [GAME]

When your pieces are co-ordinated, ideas just flow.

* Steinitz-Tchigorin [GAME]

Co-ordination can trump development:

* Petrosian,T – Fischer,R (7) [A06] 1971 1.Nf3 c5 2.b3 d5 3.Bb2 f6 4.c4 d4 5.d3 e5 6.e3 Ne7 7.Be2 Nec6 … 0-1 [GAME]
* Spassky,B – Karpov,A (10) [C95] 1974 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 … ½-½

General and particular

It’s perfectly possible to follow the opening rules as laid down above, and still end up with a rotten position.  Old Stodge is an example.  General rules have to be tested in particular positions, and in some positions very plausible moves that meet all the criteria we know can be second-best, if not actually bad.  So after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 the ‘right’ move is to give up your stake in the centre with 3…exd4, as everything else is pretty duff.  In fact, Black cannot be prevented from playing …d5 soon, but you have to know that or work it out.  Hmm.

Here are some other lines where very sensible-looking play can lead to trouble:

* Two Knights’ Defence 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nxd5 All very sensible by Black 6.Nxf7!? That wasn’t supposed to happen! (6.d4 may be even better)

* Ruy Lopez Steinitz Defence Tarrasch Trap 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 Black plays to hold e5 and develop quietly 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.0-0 Be7 7.Re1 0-0 [7…exd4 Black must surrender the centre, which was not the idea of this variation] 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Qxd8 Raxd8 [10…Rfxd8 allows 15 Kf1 – see later] 11.Nxe5 Bxe4 [11…Nxe4 12.Nxc6] 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Nd3 f5 14.f3 Bc5+ 15.Nxc5 [15.Kf1? Bb6 16.fxe4 fxe4+] 15…Nxc5 16.Bg5 Rd5 [16…Rde8 17.Be7] 17.Be7 Re8 18.c4 1-0 Tarrasch-Marco 1892 [Tarrasch won this game AFTER publishing it as analysis!]  [It’s like a little course in tactics!]

* Modern Defence Averbakh Variation  1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.e4 d6 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Be3 e5 6.Nge2 exd4 7.Nxd4 Nge7 8.Be2 Impeccable development by White 8…f5 9.exf5 Bxd4! 10.Bxd4 Nxf5! 11.Be3 Nxe3 12.fxe3 Qg5 and Black is slightly better.

Unfair, perhaps, but real.

When this starts to happen, you need to get particular – you need to learn some proper opening variations and become aware of the exceptions in your chosen systems.

Putting together a repertoire

Most juniors when they start playing chess will play 1.e4 e5 and head for the safe ground of Old Stodge.

System for White System for Black
1.e4 e5 Old Stodge Old Stodge

This is pretty terrible – no fun and no good for your chess.  [Old Stodge is a Forbidden Opening at Exeter Junior Chess Club.]  I recommend playing something much livelier like the Scotch Gambit or Italian Game as White and the Two Knights’ Defence as Black.

System for White System for Black
1.e4 e5 Italian Game Two Knights’ Defence

Of course, if someone plays the Two Knights’ Defence against you, you can’t play the Italian Game.. As you get better, you will meet players who do not open 1.e4 as White and do not reply to your 1.e4 with 1…e5.  You find you need two opening systems (at least) as White and two as Black.  You might even decide that you want to be one of those players who do not reply 1…e5 to 1.e4.

For example, I had a go at this some years ago, and have a selection of handouts online:

White Black
1.e4 e5 Italian Game [handout]
1.e4 others Playing White against odd openings [handouts No.1 No.2] Playing Black against odd openings after 1.e4 [handout]
1.d4 d5 Playing Black against 1.d4 (and flank openings) [handout No.1 No.2 No.3]

There are plenty of other things on the site about other openings.

My latest efforts have been around sorting out something simple enough for juniors to absorb quickly, and I have changed my mind a little about what is most practical:

 

Systems for White Systems for Black
1.e4 e5 A. Scotch Gambit
1.e4 others B. IQP systems C. French Defence
1.d4 d5 D. Tarrasch Defence

This set of opening systems I have written up as a Junior Repertoire booklet, available as a [PDF] or a [PGN] file.

After a while, you might decide this selection doesn’t suit you completely.  You might learn about the opening systems that the top Grandmasters choose, and discover that they include none of the ones you play!  You might also want a deeper look at some of the openings you already know about.

Learning opening lines

Posted on by

Lots of things to say about this…  Here’s half-a-dozen or so little nuggets to ponder, and a bit more practical advice.

“Of my fifty-seven years I have applied at least thirty to forgetting most of what I have learned or read.  Since then, I have acquired a certain ease and cheer which I should never again like to be without.  (…)  I have stored little in my memory, but I can apply that little, and it is of use in many and varied emergencies.  I keep it in order, but resist every attempt to increase its dead weight.” — Emanuel Lasker

1. Is opening preparation mostly wasted in practical play?  A four-board match played away at Exmouth one Saturday…

The top boards each made a mistake on move 5: 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 f5 4.Nc3 Nf6 now 5.e3(?) was possibly inaccurate, allowing 5…d5!? (highly recommended in Kosten#8217;s book, although NCO suggests White can still extract an advantage here) but Black didn’t play it, preferring 5…Be7.  Did the players know better?  I had the idea they didn’t know it at all, and were making it up as they went along.

Board 2, the players scampered along in the French Tarrasch: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ne2 cxd4 8.cxd4 Qb6 9.Nf3 f6 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.0-0 Bd6  This is the tabiya, where the real first choice lies for White, who followed the old main line: 12.Nc3 0-0 13.Be3 Bd7 14.Re1 Be8.  Now here all the books give this position as equal; although it is unbalanced I don’t know why White wants to learn and play this line, Black has so much counterplay…  [GMs at the time were playing 12.Bf4.] We than had 15.Ng5 (a very important move) and then 15…Bh5? which was the first deviation from theory… White can now get an instant plus with 16.Bxh7+! e.g. 16…Nxh7 17.Qxh5 Nxg5 18.Qxg5 Nxd4? 19.Nxd5! but it was not refuted by White’s chosen 16.Qb1?!  So White played into Black’s hands, Black didn’t know it and  made a mistake, and White couldn’t take advantage of it…

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

And Board 4 had the unlikely start 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.h3… Not a GM move, but an attempt to play the opponent, and not the GM author of the opponent’s latest book purchase.

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

2. We are often told: “Learn ideas not variations”.  This is a good starting point: there’s nothing sadder than watching a player trot out a move from a book in the wrong position, or even a move that leads to the right position, but the player doesn’t understand what to do in that position when the moves run out. [Common examples include: playing c2-c3 in the Colle [1.d4 2.Nf3 3.e3] when you aren’t forced to by Black’s …c7-c5; playing the Giuoco Pianissimo in every game but not having a clue what to do after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.O-O O-O 7.Be3 Bb6, and then playing a3 or h3 or even b3; playing the Fried Liver sacrifice 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 6.exd5 Nxd5?! 6.Nxf7!? rather than the superior 6.d4!]

I got more out of reading Fine’s ” Ideas behind the chess openings” than reading any number of more detailed books; it’s terribly out of date now, but to anyone taking up the Queen’s Gambit or French Defence, I’d certainly recommend starting with Fine’s discussions there.  Tracing the history of ideas-led opening books, I can remember enjoying How to Play the Caro-Kann (Keene et al., RHM), where literally every move is discussed at some length, and How to Play the Sicilian Defence (Levy O’Connell, Batsford), which emphasised systems over variations.  Many modern opening books for club players use ways of explaining I associate with Bellin and Ponzetto in their ‘Mastering the…’ books, showing themes and piece placements related to structures as well as to variations.

3. “It may sound like a platitude, but openings have to be studied in accord with your own tastes. Another point is a little less obvious: in constructing an opening repertoire, you need to take your own powers of memory into account.  (…) I know from my own experience what an excruciating labour it is to memorise ‘theory’ before a game.  You have it all written down in notebooks, you have gone through it ten times before starting play, and you still can’t remember it.  If this is so, it may well be better to concentrate on what I call ‘opening schemes’ — logical systems with a smaller amount of theory, in which it is more important to understand the position and know about typical ideas and resources than to memorise specific details and precise move-orders.” — Mark DVORETSKY

At a minimum, you should have some key games in your memory: the most simple wins for each side, the central ideas, the most common tactical patterns, and, vitally, any traps that are around in your opening.  Dvoretsky says, keep a card index, but these days I guess you would use a computer.  Although modern computers have a huge capacity, treat them like Lasker treats his memory: keep any databases small and well-ordered.  Just having the games saved on your computer won’t transfer them magically to your brain; you need to go through them and see what is typical and untypical of each game, and what reason if any might explain the differences.

4. “Some players learn a lot of variations by heart and repeat them in play whenever possible.  But their opponents may by so  ignorant or unkind that they step ‘out of the book’ long before that wonderful advantage-for-me sign has been reached.  I remember a young player who said he lost three years of his life studying the Najdorf!  He realised that he had learned variations, not chess.”

“On the other hand, it is perhaps overly simple to say that you must learn the ideas behind the openings … But the trouble with chess is the opponent: if you know only the ‘ideas behind the variations’ and he knows the ideas and a lot of variations, he is likely to beat you.” — Bent LARSEN

 

5. “As Victor Korchnoi points out in his book of best games, when you study openings you don’t remember the variations. What happens is that the strategic motifs become familiar to you at a deeper level – which means getting the kind of positions in which you know what to do.” (…) “…It’s really better not to try to memorize anything – the only stuff that will stick are things that can be hung on hooks of deep understanding. If you have good abilities in calculation and vision, much can be worked out during the game; what is ‘theory’ anyway other than a collection of imperfect games which have, for the most part, been analyzed rather badly.” … ” You’re best forearmed by understanding the middlegame structures that come from your openings.” — Nigel DAVIES

I think the other significant ‘hooks’ to hang things on are your own games.  Make a card index or a database of all your own games, find out where you or your opponent diverged from what your book says, decide if it was a mistake or an improvement or just as good.  You should find that each time you play a line, the ‘tree’ of moves that you can recall grows.

6.

“What do most readers look for in an opening book? Unfortunately, something that they won’t get. TWIC readers, for example, apparently want pretty much what my own students keep asking for: a book which explains all the ‘ideas’ of an opening, but isn’t cluttered up with all sorts of nasty variations which one will never run into over the board anyway. I’m sorry to report that this is just a fantasy. Learning an opening by accumulating abstract ideas is a little like learning a language by reading a grammar book. Worse, actually, because generalizations in chess don’t apply with nearly the consistency or predictability of grammatical rules. If a chess opening could be learned by absorbing the opening’s ‘ideas’ (whatever those might be), the opening phase of the game would be universally mastered and of little interest. The fact is, no verbal description of what squares are important or where the pieces ‘usually’ go can describe the dynamic interplay of tactics and positional factors in any major opening. Whereas, by contrast, the straightforward study of enough examples will lead to a nuanced and practical knowledge of how to play that opening. In addition, by studying in context, you will automatically get a much better grasp on how those important squares and typical manoeuvres work than you would have from reading a general description.” (…)

“To summarize this lengthy review, then:

(a) openings can only be learned by study of numerous examples and variations, not by learning abstract ‘ideas’;

(b) books can use either the tree structure or the illustrative-game approach successfully, but the second choice often leads to the omission of key material;

(c) watch out for books which fail to attribute analysis–there’s a good chance that the material is copied from elsewhere;

(d) before you purchase a book, if you get the chance, compare a few variations in it (preferably ones you play) with what you have in your database. If a simple collection of database games gives you more information than what’s in the book, try to assess whether other qualities of the book (line selection, instruction, guidance) outweigh its lack of original information. Barring that approach, your best bet is to go by the company’s and author’s reputation, and hope for the best!”

— John WATSON

Well, Watson is an IM, and is perhaps telling us what we might need if we want to be an IM who plays ‘major’ openings.  Club players who don’t know much about any openings, major or minor, can’t acquire a lot of opening knowledge at once.  I would expect that we have to lay in the broad, rough pencil outlines of understanding before we can paint in each finesse.  I think all of the above quotes are probably true for different levels of player, with different amounts of study time available; what are your ambitions, what can you manage?

7. “Reading and nodding is not learning”, says Jonathan Rowson (after Nigel Davies), and he’s absolutely right.  You have to do something more deliberate to get the information in, and you have to practise getting it out, too.  Read and nod, yes, but put a line in the margin beside everything that is important, then take some notes, and see if you can get all the main points of a chapter down on one side of a piece of paper.  Shut the book and read your notes and see if they still make sense.  Then put aside your notes, get out a set and a board (or an empty game in a database) and see what you can recall.  Wait a day, then try writing it all down from memory, or, even better, explaining it to someone else and see when you dry up and which questions you can’t answer; go back to the book to patch up what you know.  Wait a week, and do the same.  Play a bunch of 15-move games, write the moves down, see where you or your opponent went wrong, see if there was a better way to take advantage of any mistakes.

8. Whatever the green lobby tell me, I always think that the natural resource in shortest supply is time.  There are ways to cut down the amount of theory you need to know:

Choosing non-confrontational openings: Purdy once said (re-published in Action Chess) you can learn all the opening theory you need “to get by” in 10 hours.  He recommended the Colle System (1.d4 2.Nf3 3.e3) as White, and the Rubinstein French ( 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2/Nc3 dxe4) as Black against 1.e4.  Against 1.d4 and other closed openings, he recommended you aim for a standard formation of …d5/…e6/…Nf6/…Be7/…b6/…Bb7/…c5, which, against the Queen’s Gambit, is called the Tartakower variation (first seen at the London 1922 tournament ).  He didn’t say these were great openings, just systems where there was a decent trade-off between strength and ease of use.  If you want to do more than “get by”, maybe you need to study more, but Purdy was very clear that spending 10 hours studying the middlegame or endgame would do more for your chess results than any 10 hours on the opening.

Choosing early deviations: “Is it possible to play the Ruy Lopez with just strategical ideas? Probably not. Is it possible to memorize all the lines? Probably not.” — Alexei SHIROV.  I liked Andrew Greet’s championing of the Worrall Attack in the Ruy Lopez, a deviation from the main line by 5.Qe2.  [He then rather spoiled things by writing a book large enough to act  as a shelter during inclement weather (or even nuclear attack), but  the  approach is sound.]  Retracing his steps, we might recommend the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation (4.Bxc6), or the Scotch Game (3.d4), or Bishop’s Opening (2.Bc4), or even Bird’s Opening (1.f4) as ways of making it more likely that the battle takes place on ground of your choosing.  Then you have to learn less.

White and Black: You can adopt similar systems as White and Black; obvious examples include the King’s Indian Defence and the King’s Indian Attack, Bird’s Opening and the Dutch Defence, the English Opening and the Sicilian Defence, and so on.

Sister openings: You might think about playing the Semi-Slav (…d5/…e6/…c6) as Black against 1.d4, and perhaps the Caro-Kann (1…c6) or Scandinavian Defence (1…d5) as Black against 1.e4.  These openings share some features in common, and your pieces will often end up on similar squares.  These would form a decent set of openings to use if you play the Colle System as White.

Moving in the same street: rather than taking up an entirely new opening, you are better off using as much of your existing knowledge as possible, and moving to a different variation of the same opening.  So, if you already play the Ruy Lopez, you might prefer on move 5 to play the Centre Attack (5.d4), the Four Knights’ (5.Nc3), the Andersson-Steinitz line (5.d3), or some other variation where a lot of your homework will still prove useful.

Traps: I have no problem if people include lines in their repertoire where traps arise.  But you shouldn’t choose an opening just because it has a trap, and you may find that none of your rehearsed traps ever arise in practice.  Ask around… I know Ray has had some success with 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.c4 e6!?, getting in a few standard tricks, while although I like very much to play the MacCutcheon French (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4), I never get to play it, because White nearly always plays 4.e5 or 3.e5…  So everything I know about this line is just ‘dead weight’ in practice.

Wacky openings?: Grob’s Attack (1.g4 e.g. 1…d5 2.Bg2 Bxg4 3.c4) will always have a fan base, but it’s only a surprise once and antidotes can be found.  The trouble is, while any opening can be played with shallow ideas or deep ones, it’s easier to find a layer of deeper ideas in a mainstream opening.  You are then faced with learning the whole of a new opening, with your hours of study of the obscure lines of the Grob being wasted.  “…kids need to move on to real openings as quickly as possible…” opines Nigel Davies.

10. Learning from what?

Dvoretsky recommends building up your own card index; most of us I think would prefer to take a pencil and a stack of sticky notes to a book.

Books: There are different levels of book with different styles which might suit different levels and styles of player.  There are excellent books about things I couldn’t have imagined when I starting reading chess books… I guess there’s a ladder of difficulty which can be hinted at in the title: “Starting Out…” “Explained…” “Winning with…” “The Complete…” and even “The Ultimate…” represent some sort of hierarchy, and depending on your grade, memory and study habits, I expect you could decide what’s appropriate for you.  Some books have key ideas, some use a tree structure, others are based on complete games, some use a mix of approaches. Complete games undoubtedly help you remember themes, but are also undoubtedly used as padding.  It’s not enough that a book contains detail, it needs to be useful, organised and well-explained detail with a point.  So, even if you see detail, don’t assume it will do you any good.  As a rule, more elementary books use illustrative games, and more advanced books use ‘trees’ of variations, but Lev Psakhis arranged all his material in his monumental tetralogy on the French around illustrative games.

Show and tell: I’ve always thought that videos, DVDs and so on, however memorable, have a terribly small amount of content.  I’ve had to transcribe every video I’ve ever owned because (a) such a transcript wasn’t packaged with the product, and (b) it’s essential to compare the lines given with other sources, otherwise you have to keep zipping back and forth to find the position you are interested in.  And when you do this, you might find a video costing pound;15 has about a page of variations in it.  They really have to have a substantial accompanying booklet to be worth it.

Software: Most databases have all the features you need to organise a repertoire: trees, sort functions, training modes and so on.  There is even software ( BookUp) which is designed specifically to help you organise and test yourself on the openings you play, and boasts a transpositional feature which I haven’t heard about elsewhere.

Hybrid DVDs: The latest development seems to be a DVD bearing a database linked to videos of talking heads.  I haven’t seen many of these but if the talking heads are telling you important things, then it’s the same pain as with a video finding the part where they talk about the position you are interested in, and if they’re not telling you important things, well, it does beg the question, why the talking heads…

Spanish Torture? The Ruy Lopez

Posted on by

+-----------------+
|r+b1kgn4|
|0p0p+p0p|
|.+n+.+.+|
|+B+.0.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+N+.|
|P)P).)P)|
|$NGQI.+R|
+-----------------+

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Ideas
behind the Ruy Lopez

White plays for an immediate break in the centre

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

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

Black plays for an immediate break
in the centre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|+.0.+p0p|
|p+n+b+.+|
|+pgp).+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.).+N+.|
|P)BH.hP)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

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

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

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

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

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

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

White’s outpost on d5

Tal – Bronstein
[C96] 1956

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

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

+-----------------+
|.+.4.4.+|
|+.1.gpip|
|.+.+bhp+|
|hp+.0.+.|
|.+p+P+.+|
|+.).HN+P|
|.)B+Q)P+|
|+RG.$.I.|
+-----------------+

22.Nd5 ! 22…Bxd5
23.exd5

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

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

White’s outpost on f5

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

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

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

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

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

White’s central play

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|+.0ngp0p|
|p+.0.h.+|
|+p+.0.+.|
|.+.)P+.+|
|+B).+N+P|
|P).+.)P+|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

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

White’s King’s-side attack

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

Kasparov,G (2800) – Karpov,A (2730) [C92] (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.h3 Bb7 10.d4 Re8 11.Nbd2 Bf8
12.a4 h6 13.Bc2 exd4 14.cxd4 Nb4 15.Bb1 c5 16.d5 Nd7 17.Ra3 f5
18.Rae3 Nf6 19.Nh2 Kh8 20.b3 bxa4 21.bxa4 c4 22.Bb2 fxe4
23.Nxe4

+-----------------+
|r+.1rg.i|
|+b+.+.0.|
|p+.0.h.0|
|+.+P+.+.|
|Php+N+.+|
|+.+.$.+P|
|.G.+.)PH|
|+B+Q$.I.|
+-----------------+

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

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

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|r+bhn4k+|
|+.1.gp0p|
|p+.0.+.+|
|+p0P0.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.).+N+P|
|P)B+.)P+|
|$.GQ$NI.|
+-----------------+

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

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

15.a4

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

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

Black’s Queen’s-side attack

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|b+rh.gk+|
|+.+.+p0p|
|.+q0.h.+|
|+p).0.+.|
|.).+P+.+|
|+.+.+N+P|
|BG.H.)P+|
|+.+Q$.I.|
+-----------------+

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

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

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

White’s Queen’s-side attack

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

Karpov – Westerinen,H [C87]
1974

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|r4b1.+k+|
|$n+.gp0.|
|.)B0.h.0|
|+.0P0.+.|
|.+N+P+.+|
|+.+.+N+P|
|.+QG.)P+|
|+.+.$.I.|
+-----------------+

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

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

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

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

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

Black’s King’s-side
attack

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|+b0q+p0.|
|pgn0.h.0|
|+p+.0.+.|
|.+.)P+.G|
|+B).+N+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$N+Q$.I.|
+-----------------+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Key Variations of the Ruy
Lopez

 

Variations
of the Ruy Lopez without 3…a6

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

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

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

Hindermann Felix – Yudkovsky Yair [C60/02] 05 European Youth
U14 Boys, Tallinn EST, 1997

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

Active lines with …Bc5 and/or
…Nf6

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

Ady JJ – Spassky BV [C65] London, 1984

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

Make a mess with 3…Nd4

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

Short Nigel D – Ivanchuk Vassily [C61] Linares (Spain),
1989

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

Variations of the Ruy Lopez with
3…a6

The Exchange Variation

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

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

Let me explain.

If you have an extra pawn, you should:

  • ­ exchange off
    pieces, not pawns
  • ­ create a passed
    pawn
  • ­ advance the
    passed pawn and either:
  1. – force your opponent to give up material to stop it queening,
    or
  2. – force your way into the opponent’s position to take material
    yourself (usually pawns)

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

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|0p0.+p0p|
|.+p+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

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

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

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|.+k+r+.+|
|+.0.+p0p|
|.0b+.+.+|
|0.0.+.+.|
|P+P+PH.+|
|+P+.+P+.|
|.+.+.+P)|
|+.IR+.+.|
+-----------------+

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

+-----------------+
|.+.i.+.+|
|+.+b+.0p|
|.0p+.+.+|
|0.0.IP)P|
|P+P+.+.4|
|+P+.$.H.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

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

The Closed Morphy Defence

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

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.0.+p+.|
|.+.0.+.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.)P+.+|
|+.).+.+.|
|.+.+.).+|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

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

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

Another line of thought I found useful:

Nunn – Olafsson (Teesside) [C54]
1982

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

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

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

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

(a) Closed KP centre, Tension form (Ruy Lopez)

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.0.+p+.|
|.+.0.+.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.)P+.+|
|+.).+.+.|
|.+.+.).+|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

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

(b) Double Pawn centre, KP unopposed

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.0.+p+.|
|.+.0.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.)P+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+.).+|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

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

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

(c) Closed centre with advanced d-Pawn.

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.0.+p+.|
|.+.0.+.+|
|+.+P0.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.).+.+.|
|.+.+.).+|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

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

(d) Balanced, semi-open KP centre

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.0.+p+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.0.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.).+.+.|
|.+.+.).+|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

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

(e) Semi-open unbalanced KP centre.

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.0.+p+.|
|.+.0.+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.).+.+.|
|.+.+.).+|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

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

The
Tchigorin Counterattack

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|+.+.gp0p|
|p+.0.h.+|
|hp0.0.+.|
|.+.)P+.+|
|+.).+N+P|
|P)B+.)P+|
|$NGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

Almost every legal move has been tried here:

11…Qc7 was Tchigorin’s original recipe

11…Nd7 was famously tried by Keres

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

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

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.+.+p+.|
|.+.0.+.+|
|+.0.0.+.|
|.+.)P+.+|
|+.).+.+.|
|.+.+.).+|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|.+.1rgk+|
|+b+n+p0.|
|.+.0.+.0|
|+p+P+.+.|
|.+pHP+.+|
|).+n+.+P|
|.+.H.)P+|
|+BGQ$.I.|
+-----------------+

Kasparov-Karpov (1990),
m14

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

Modern
variations in the Closed Morphy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|.1r+rg.+|
|+b+.+p+k|
|p+p0nhp0|
|+p+.0.+.|
|P).)P+.+|
|+.).GNHP|
|.+.$.)P+|
|+Q+.$BI.|
+-----------------+

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

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

 

Index of
games:

 

Tal – Bronstein [C96] 1956 *

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

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

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

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

Karpov – Westerinen,H [C87]
1974 *

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

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

Nunn – Olafsson (Teesside) [C54]
1982 *

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

 

Bibliography

+ STEAN Simple Chess (Faber)

+ EUWE/KRAMER, The Middle Game Vol.1 (Bell)

+ SUETIN The Complete Spanish (Batsford)

+ FISCHER My 60 Memorable Games (Faber)

+ SUETIN Modern Chess Opening Theory (Appendix) (Pergamon)

+ KING/PONZETTO, Understanding the Spanish (Batsford)

+ KARPOV The Open Game in Action (Batsford)

+ BARDEN The Ruy Lopez: Winning Chess with 1. P-K4!
(Pergamon)

= YUDOVICH Spanish without 3…a6 (Batsford)

= THOMAS Spanish 5. d4! (Chess Player)

– TAULBUT, How to play the Ruy Lopez (Batsford)

+ SUETIN, The Complete Spanish (Batsford)

= YUDOVITCH, Spanish without …a6 (Batsford)

= SOLTIS, Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation (Chess
Digest)

= RUNKE, Meet CARL (Centre Attack in Ruy Lopez)

= FILIPOWICZ & KONIKOWSKI, 4…d5 in the Cordel Defence,
Spanish Game (Ruy Lopez) (Chess Enterprises)

Chess from Morphy to Botwinnik by Imre Konig

Posted on by

This is one of my favourite books and though rather dated (the last game cited is from 1948) it’s also extremely instructive.

In 100 annotated games, Konig discusses the opening theory of four openings: the Ruy Lopez, Queen’s Gambit, English Opening and King’s Gambit.

It takes an evolutionary approach to chess theory, and instead of jumping straight in to contemporary theory, tells the story of how that theory came about. So we trace the English Opening from Staunton’s new(!) approach in 1843 to Golombek’s ideas in 1939.

The book can still be found in the original Bell hardback edition from 1951 and later Dover reprints. It is in descriptive notation and is sparing with its diagrams, so for my own convenience I put together a collection of the 100 games. I fear they won’t mean a lot without Konig’s notes, but if you have the book, here they are.

P.S. My interest in this book was rekindled by watching a lecture by Sokolov on the Lopez, where he went back to some games chosen by Konig to explain the state of theory.

CFM2B_IK.pgn

Tales of the Unexpected: dealing with Unorthodox Openings

Posted on by

“All openings offer good winning chances in amateur play”
— LOMBARDY.

  I used to know a Henry who was known as H4 Stewart
because of his inclination to 1.h4 as an opening move, and I’m sure
it saved him a lot of time sweating over the latest line in the
Sicilian Dragon. How should you reply to openings like this? If
faced with 1.h4, or anything else unusual, just keep playing good
chess – keep calm, keep developing, keep your eye on the centre,
and keep your wits about you.

  Let’s put a bit of detail alongside that.

  First thing is, there’s usually two games going on: the
chess and the kiddology. An unusual opening is a challenge. It may
be a trick. Depending on the move, your opponent may be thumbing
their nose at you, saying: I can beat you even with this
rubbish. You aren’t worth taking seriously.

  Unless and until you are losing, play the board, play
good chess, and play to your strengths. I’ll review this and some
of the other responses I have seen with examples.

 

Playing the first move that comes into your
head.

This is of course asking to fall into a trap. Here are two which
continue to provide good business for their perpetrators:

Blackburne’s Shilling Gambit: 1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Nxe5? [4.c3 Nxf3+ 5.Qxf3]
4…Qg5 5.Nxf7 Qxg2 6.Rf1 Qxe4+ 7.Be2 Nf3#

The Englund-Charlick Gambit: 1.d4 e5
2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Bf4? (4.Nc3; 4.Qd5)
4…Qb4+ 5.Bd2 Qxb2 6.Bc3 Bb4 7.Qd2 Bxc3 8.Qxc3
Qc1#

  Also there are numerous dodgy lines based on long
diagonal cheapos:

Grob’s Gambit: 1. g4 d5 2. Bg2
Bxg4?! (2…c6) 3. c4 c6 4. cxd5 cxd5 5.
Qb3 and Black may have to return two Pawns.

  N.B. The parallel Sokolsky line 1. b4 e5 2. Bb2
Bxb4 3. Bxe5 Nf6 is nothing like so awkward for Black, and
is a good equalising try.

Morals:

Every move may have (or be given) a point.

Look before you lunch.

Expect your opponent to play the best move next move,
even if they have just played one real lemon.

  The parallel mistake in attitude is:

 

Playing any old move assuming that your
position will win itself.

This risks missing the point of your opponent’s opening – in
effect, falling into a positional trap – or perhaps overlooking
some important tactical point later. A common example of this is to
dismiss 1. h4 with a snort and then play 1…e5,
2…Nf6 and maybe something like …Bc5, …Nc6, …d6, …O-O,
only to look up and find your opponent has played b3, Bb2, e3, Ne2,
Ng3, Bd3 and you have castled into a clockwork attack. It’s
happened to better players than you! Always play with a
plan.

Lasker,Em – Bauer,I (Amsterdam) [A03],
1889. 1.f4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.b3 e6 4.Bb2 Be7 5.Bd3 b6 6.Nf3 Bb7
7.Nc3 Nbd7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Ne2 c5 10.Ng3 Qc7 11.Ne5 Nxe5 12.Bxe5 Qc6
13.Qe2 a6 Black has done nothing to interrupt White’s
clockwork attack 14.Nh5 Nxh5 15.Bxh7+ Kxh7 16.Qxh5+ Kg8
17.Bxg7 this was the first time such a sacrifice was
played; now, we would call this part of technique 17…Kxg7
18.Qg4+ Kh7 19.Rf3 e5 White will recover his investment
with interest 20.Rh3+ Qh6 21.Rxh6+ Kxh6 22.Qd7 Bf6 23.Qxb7
Kg7 24.Rf1 Rab8 25.Qd7 Rfd8 26.Qg4+ Kf8 27.fxe5 Bg7 28.e6 Rb7
29.Qg6 f6 30.Rxf6+ Bxf6 31.Qxf6+ Ke8 32.Qh8+ Ke7 33.Qg7+
1-0

Trying to punish your opponent’s play
immediately.

I do like a problem-setting style, so this is perhaps our best idea
so far, but we may walk into your opponent’s preparation. However,
you may be reassured that (a) you are probably playing moves which
are at least critical and probably best, and (b) your opponent may
rarely if ever meet this line in practice, if everyone else avoids
the main lines out of fear! This approach essentially requires that
you prepare the opening like you would the Sicilian: have some
homework done, and be prepared to think at the board.
Your problem is keeping the lines fresh in your mind if you meet a
given line rarely – which you will do unless your club has a
fanatic. So keep it simple.

  So, against the Sokolsky Opening, I once
prepared the Outflank Defence.
Brodie-Regis (Thetford Major, 1979) went
1.b4 Now 1…c6 with three ideas:
…a5, …Qb6 or simply …e5. 2.Bb2 a5!
[2…Qb6?! 3.a3 a5 4.c4 axb4 5.c5!] 3.a3 axb4
4.axb4 Rxa1 5.Bxa1 Qb6 6.Bc3? Na6 and I was already
winning a Pawn: 7. e3 Nxb4-+. If 7.Qc1 Nxb4!
8.Qb2 Nd5 9.Bxg7? Bxg7 10.Qxg7 Qxb1# Some analysis goes
6.c3 d5 7.Nf3 Bf5 8.d3= [Not 8.g3?
Qa7 9.Nh4 Be4 10.f3 Bxf3 11.Nxf3 Qxa1]. However, in the
following round Osland-Regis (Thetford Major,
1979) went 2. e3! (the theoretically recommended
reply) and I was already frowning.

  [I do like structural advantages, so I also prepared
1. g4 e5 2. Bg2 h5! Similarly, a better try for
White is 2.d3!]

  Let’s have a look at how you can go about busting
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6 Damiano’s Defence. We
can say safely that this is unsound, but can you prove it?

  OK, start 3.Nxe5 fxe5 4.Qh5+ Ke7 (not
4…g6 5.Qxe5+ Qe7 6.Qxh8) 5.Qxe5+ Kf7 6.Bc4+ d5
7.Bxd5+ Kg6 winning easily. Next move? Lots of folk have
played 8.d4?? Bd6. Try instead 8.h4 h6 9.Bxb7
Bd6 (9…Bxb7 10.Qf5#) 10.Qa5 Nc6 11.Bxc6
Rb8 which becomes the Five Pawn Gambit(!) if you fancy
12.Qxa7.

  So, well done, you’ve won that game, but next round your
opponent goes 3…Qe7. Now think for goodness’
sake, and don’t snap out 4.Qh5+?? g6 5.Nxg6 Qxe4+ 6.Be2
Qxg6! Be satisfied with a small advantage after 4.
Nf3. So, I think you can play 3. Nxe5 with confidence:
there are two traps but they are both pretty straightforward. If
you are confident of working out the tactics at the board, them all
you need do is remember (1) 3. Nxe5 is playable, (2) there are two
traps.

  So, this is OK if you can do your homework, but keep your
powder dry – brush up on it occasionally. Also, you must accept
that, unless you are also learning some cute tactical ideas, most
of your time is going to be pretty well wasted, so keep the
time spent and the memorising done down to a minimum. Since
adopting this approach I have lost one game to an unorthodox
opening, and been in trouble against another, but have won
every other game.

  There are some very hairy gambits which you don’t need to
refute, but instead you can play conservatively and expect to
outplay your opponent thereafter. So Regis-Bax,
1982 went 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5. Now Black
was all ready to snap out his analysis after the critical tactical
line 3. Bc4 fxe4 4. Nxe5 Qg5 but he visibly slumped after
I played a positional line of Nimzovitch’s: 3. Nxe5
Qf6 (Nimzo played 4. Nc4 and eventually d2-d3) 4.
d4 d6 5. Nc4 fxe4. [Although this line isn’t very
sharp it is crucial for the success of the Gambit. So it is still
“theory”, but I knew the ideas and he didn’t.]

Play a known solid system

If you are faced with an unusual line in a strategical opening (and
most tactical ones) you can normally play something sensible and
survive. I remember a club game of Pete’s going 1. d4 Nf6
2. Nf3 b5!? which he met with a straight bat: 3.
Bg5 and won in about 12 moves! If we are content to try
for a minimal plus there are certain standard formations which are
playable against almost any unorthodox opening by White or Black.
They won’t refute the system you are facing but should leave you
with a playable and familiar set-up. It’s my belief that this is
the approach adopted by the majority of stronger players.

 

-+-Pp+-+
+-Pb+n+-
pP-NqPpP
R-+-+rK-
Classical approach

-+-+p+-+

+-+p+nP-
pPpNqPbP
R-+-+rK-
King’s Indian approach (or Benoni: Pc4)

-+-P-+-+
+-+-Pn+-

pPpNbPpP
R-+q+rK-
Orthodox approach (or Slav: with Pc3, Pe3)

  The exceptions are pretty obvious: you can’t nonchalantly
play …c7-c5 after b2-b4, and …Nf6 may walk into g2-g4-g5. But
you can rehearse your favourite system against most dodgy stuff
from your

opponent, and find an alternative for the exceptions.

  Oddly, if your opponent is trying to stop you
trotting out 10 moves of a standard opening by playing something
odd like 1.a4, it may be that your best response
is to do exactly that!

Playing by analogy.

One route to picking the best move is to think about transposing
into a type of position where your opponent’s odd move is
irrelevant or actually bad. Do not play routinely: pay
attention to differences. [I once caught Ben Beake in a
5-minute game with 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nge2 e6 4. Bg2
Nge7 5. O-O, now Ben played the routine
5…g6? when 6. d4!, exposed the
d6 point.]

  For example, how do you respond to 1.
a4? It depends on what you play ordinarily, but try
1…e5. Now, in most lines of standard defences to
1.e4, Back never plays 1…a5 and often wants to play 1…a6 –
think about the Ruy Lopez and Sicilian Defence.
The only line of the Reversed Ruy I can think of where you
can make a virtue of 1. a4 is the cheapo 1.a4 e5 2.e4 Nf6
3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Na2?! hoping for4…Ba5
(4…Be7) 5.b4 Bb6 6.a5 Bd4 7.c3,
although I wouldn’t be ready to resign just yet after 7…Bxf2+
8.Kxf2 Nxe4+! The only defence I can think of where Black
actually want to play 1…a5 is a line of the French Advance
(1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. a3 a5, and even
then it’s not the best move!), so as long as you don’t insist
on a reversed version of that you should be OK.

  But see what we are doing here: we are taking the exact
position in front of us seriously, we are weighing up the
advantages and disadvantages of our opponent’s moves, and we are
playing chess and not kiddology. (My Dad has this lovely term
persaudo-intellectual, which is how he pronounces
pseudo.)

Correspondence openings

Posted on by

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 by

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 by

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

r+bqkb-r
p-+n+ppp
-+p+pn-+
+p+-+-+-
-+BP-+-+
+-N-PN+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQK-+R

The Meran system is characterised by this move.

8. Bd3 a6 9. e4 c5

r+bqkb-r
+-+n+ppp
p+-+pn-+
+pp-+-+-
-+-PP+-+
+-NB+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQK-+R

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

r+-+-rk+
+b+-+-pp
p+-+-n-+
+pq-n-+-
-+p+-B-+
+-N-+P+-
PPB+-+PP
R-+Q+R+K

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

r+-+-r-+
+-+-+pk-
-q-+p+-+
+p+bb-+Q
-+-p-+-+
+-+-+-+-
PP-+-PPP
R-+-R-K-

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

r+-qkb-r
pb+n+p+-
-+p+pP-+
+p+-+-B-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-+-P-
PP-+-P-P
R-+QKB+R

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

r+-r-+k+
pp+b+pp-
-+-+pq-p
+-n-+-+-
-+P+-+-+
P-+-+N+-
-PQ+BPPP
R-+-+RK-

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

rnbqkb-r
pp+-+p+-
-+p+pn-p
+-+-P-p-
-+pP-+-B
+-N-+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-+QKB+R

[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+

rnb+k+-r
pp+-+p+-
-+p+p+-p
q-+-P-p-
-+BP-+-+
+-b-+NB-
P+-+-PPP
+-RQK-+R

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

rnbqkb-r
pp+-+ppp
-+p+pn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PP-+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+PPPP
R-BQKB+R

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

rnbqkb-r
pp+-+ppp
-+p+pn-+
+-+p+-B-
-+PP-+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+PPPP
R-+QKB+R

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

rnbqkb-r
pp+-+ppp
-+p+pn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PP-+-+
+-N-PN+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQKB+R

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

r+bqk+-r
pp+n+ppp
-+pbpn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PP-+-+
+-NBPN+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQK-+R

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

r+bqk+-r
pp+n+ppp
-+pbpn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PPP+-+
+-NB+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQK-+R

Still a critical line

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

(Harding’s “!”)

10. O-O c5

r+bq-rk+
pp+n+ppp
-+-bp+-+
+-p-+-+-
-+PPB+-+
+-+-+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQ+RK-

[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

r+b+-rk+
ppq-+-pp
-+-+pn-+
+-b-+p+-
-+P+-+-Q
+-+-+N+-
PPB+-PPP
R-BR+-K-

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

r+bqk+-r
pp+n+ppp
-+pbpn-+
+-Pp+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-NBPN+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQK-+R

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

-+-+rrk+
pp+bqppp
-+p+-n-+
+-Ppb-+-
-P-+-+-+
+-N-P-+-
PBQ+BPPP
R-+-+RK-

Burn-Teichmann Hastings 1895

For the conclusion, see Example Games.

 

 

b-1(3) Semi-Slav with 6…Bd6 7. O-O

7. O-O

r+bqk+-r
pp+n+ppp
-+pbpn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PP-+-+
+-NBPN+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQ+RK-

Probably the best preparation for e4.

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

r+b+-rk+
pp+nqppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-B-
-+BPP+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-+Q+RK-

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

-+-+-rk+
p-+nqpp-
-+B+-n-p
+-b-p-+-
-+-+P+-+
+-N-BQ+P
Pr-+-PP+
R-+-R-K-

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

r+bq-rk+
pp+-+ppp
-+p+-n-+
+-+-b-+-
-+B+-+-+
P-N-P-+P
-PQB-PP+
R-+-+RK-

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

7… O-O 8. Qc2 Re8

r+bqr+k+
pp+n+ppp
-+p+pn-+
+-+p+-+-
-bPP-+-+
+-NBPN+-
PPQ+-PPP
R-B-+RK-

[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

r+b+-rk+
ppb-+ppp
-+p+-+-+
+-+-+-+n
-+B+PP-q
+-+-+-+P
PPQ+N+P+
R-B-+RK-

“unclear”, Doroshkevic-Antoshin 1969]

10… Qe7 11. Ne2

r+b+-rk+
pp+nqppp
-+pbpn-+
+-+-+-+-
-+-P-+-+
+-+BPN+-
PPQ+NPPP
R-B-+RK-

= 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

r+b+-rk+
pp+nqppp
-+p+p+-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PPn+-+
NP+-+NP-
P+Q+PPBP
R-+-+RK-

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

r+b+r+k+
pp+-+ppp
-q-+-+-+
+-+pP-+-
P+-+n+-+
+P+B+-+-
-BQ+-PPP
R-+-+RK-

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

r+-q-rk+
pb+nbppp
-p-+pn-+
+-+p+-+-
-+PP-+-+
+P+B+N+-
PB-NQPPP
R-+-+RK-

= 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

r+bq-rk+
pp+-+ppp
-+n+pb-+
+-Pp+-+-
-+-Pn+-+
P-+-+N+-
-PQNBPPP
R-B-+RK-

“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

rnbqkbnr
pp+-+ppp
-+p+p+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+PPPP
R-BQKB+R

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

rn-qk+nr
+b+-+-pp
-+-+p+-+
p-+-+p+-
-pPPP+-+
+-B-+N+-
-+-+-PPP
RQ+-KB+R

Lupano-Korylov 1954 which continued:


|3. Bd3 Nf6
14. Ng5
Qe7 15. Rxa5
Rxa5 16.
Bxb4 Ra1|

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

11… Nf6

rn-qk+-r
+b+-+ppp
-+-+pn-+
pp+P+-+-
-+p+P+-+
+PB-+N+-
-+-+-PPP
R-+QKB+R

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

rn-+k+r+
+b+-+p+p
-+-+-+-+
p-+q+-+-
-p-Bn+-+
+-+-+N+-
-+-+-PPP
R-+QKB+R

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:

rnbqkbnr
pp+-+ppp
-+p+p+-+
+-+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+PPPP
R-BQKB+R

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

rn-+k+nr
pbq-+ppp
-+-+p+-+
+p+-+-B-
-+pPP+-+
+-P-+N+-
-+-+BPPP
R-+QK-+R

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

rnbqk+nr
+-+-+ppp
-+-+p+-+
pp+-+-+-
-+pPP+-+
+-P-+N+-
-+-B-PPP
R-+QKB+R

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

rn-+kbnr
p-+-+ppp
b+p+p+-+
+-+q+-+-
Pp-P-+-+
+-p-PN+-
-PQN-PPP
R-B-KB+R

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

rnbqkbnr
pp+-+ppp
-+p+p+-+
+-+-+-+-
P+pP-+-+
+-N-+N+-
-P-+PPPP
R-BQKB+R

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

r+bqk+-r
+p+n+ppp
-np+p+-+
p-+-N-+-
PbpP-+-+
+-N-P-P-
-P-B-PBP
R-+QK-+R

Seirawan -Korchnoi 1981 with better
chances to Black]

or

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

r+bqk+nr
+p+-+-pp
-np+p+-+
p-+-+p+-
PbpPP+-+
+-N-+N+-
-P-BBPPP
RQ+-K-+R

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

r+-+-rk+
+b+n+ppp
-qp+pn-+
pp+-N-+-
PbpP-P-+
+-N-P-+-
-PQBB+PP
R-+-+RK-

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

 

9. axb5 cxb5

rnbqk+nr
+-+-+ppp
-+-+p+-+
pp+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+-B-+N+-
-P-+PPPP
R-+QKB+R

10. b3

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

10… Bb7

rn-qk+nr
+b+-+ppp
-+-+p+-+
pp+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+PB-PN+-
-+-+-PPP
R-+QKB+R

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

r+-+r+k+
+bqn+ppp
-+-+-n-+
p-P-p-+-
-p-PP+-+
+-+B+N+-
-+QB-PPP
R-+-R-K-

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

-b-+rrk+
pp+b+qpp
-+p+-+-+
+-Pp+-n-
-P-B-p-+
+-+BPN+-
P+Q+-PPP
+-+R+R+K

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

r+bq-rk+
pp+n+ppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-+-
-+BP-+-+
+-N-PN+-
PPQ+-PPP
R-B-+RK-

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

r+-r-+k+
p-+-+p+p
bpp+-qp+
+-+-b-+n
-+-+P+-+
P-+-B-+P
BPQ+NPP+
+R+R+-K-

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

r+bq-rk+
pp+n+ppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-+-
-+BP-+-+
+-N-PN+-
PPQ+-PPP
R-B-+RK-

10. Bb3 Qc7 11. h3 b5

r+b+-rk+
p-qn+ppp

-+pb-n-+
+p+-p-+-
-+-P-+-+
+BN-PN+P
PPQ+-PP+
R-B-+RK-

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

r+-+-rk+
+bq-+ppp
-+-n-+-+
+-bPp-+-
-pp+P+-+
+-+-B-NP
BP-+QPP+
R-+R+-K-

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

-+b+-+k+
+-+-+rpp
-Q-n-+-+
+-+Pp-+N
-p-+P+-+
+PpR+-+P
-+-+q+PK
+-+-+-+-

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

-+-+-rk+
+-+-+-+-
-+-+-p-+
+-QPp-+p
-+-+P+P+
+P+-+-R-
-+-+-+PK
+-qq+-+-

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

r+bqr+k+
pp+n+ppp
-+p+-n-+
b-+pp-+-
-+PP-+-+
P-NBPN+-
-PQ+-PPP
R-BR+-K-

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

r+bq-+k+
pp+-+ppp
-b-+-n-+
+-+pr-+-
-P-+-+-+
P-NBP-+-
-BQ+-PPP
R-+R+-K-

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

-+-r-+k+
pp+q+ppp
-b-+-+-+
+N+p+-r-
-P-+n+b+
P-+-P-+-
-BQ+BPPP
+-RR+-K-

 

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

-+-rq+k+
NpQ-+ppp
-+-+-r-+
+-+p+-+-
-P-+n+-+
P-+-P-Pb
-+-+-P-P
+-RR+BK-

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

r+bq-rk+
pp+n+ppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-+-
-+BPP+-+
+QN-+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-B-+RK-

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

r+-+r+k+
+b+-+pp-
p+pb-qnp
+p+-+-+-
P+-+P+-+
+QN-+N+P
-P-+BPP+
R-+-R-K-

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

-+r+r+k+
+-+-+pp-
p+p+bq-p
+p+-b-+-
PP-+P+-+
Q-+-+B+P
-+-R-PP+
+N+R+-K-

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

-rr+-+k+
+-+-+pp-
-+-+bq-p
+-+-b-+-
-+-+P+-+
+-+-+B+-
-+-RQPP+
+N+R+-K-

[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

r+b+-rk+
pp+nqppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-+-
-+BP-+-+
P-N-PN+P
-PQ+-PP+
R-B-+RK-

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

-+-r-rk+
+-+bqppp
-pp+-n-+
p-+-n-+-
Pb-+-+-+
+-N-PN+P
BPQ+-PP+
R-+RB-K-

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

r+b+k+-r
pp+nqppp
-+pb-n-+
+-+-p-+-
-+BPP+-+
+-N-+N+-
PP-+-PPP
R-BQ+RK-

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

r+b+r+k+
pp+-+pp-
-np+-n-p
+-+-q-+-
-+-+PP-B
+BN-+-+-
PPQ+-+PP
R-+-+RK-

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

r+-+rk-+
pp+n+-p-
-n-+-+-p
q-p-P-+-
-+-+-+-+
+QN-+-R-
PP-+-BPP
+-+-R-K-

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

r+-+-+k+
pp+-+-p-
-nn+-+-p
q-+-+-r-
-+pB-+-+
+-N-R-R-
PPQ+-+PP
+-+-+-K-

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

r+-+-qk+
pp+-+n+-
-+-+-+-p
+-+-nRNQ
-+p+-+-P
+-+-+-+-
PP-+-+PK
+-+-+-+-

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

r+-q-rk+
pb+-n-pp
-n-+pp-+
+p+-+-+-
-+pPP+-+
+PQ-BN+-
-+-+BPPP
R-+-+RK-

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

r+-+-rk+
pb+-+-p-
-+-+p+qp
+P+-+-+-
-+-P-n-+
Q-+-+-N-
-+-+BPPP
R-+-+RK-

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

rn-qk+nr
+b+-+ppp
-+-+p+-+
pp+-+-+-
-+pP-+-+
+PB-PN+-
-+-+-PPP
R-+QKB+R

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

r+-+-+-r
+b+nkppp
-+-+-q-+
p-+Pp-+-
QpP+-+-+
+N+-P-+-
-+-+-PPP
R-+-KB+R

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.
-r-k-+-+
+b+P+ppp
-+-+-+-+
q-n-p-+-
-+P+-+-+
+-+-P-+-
-Q-+-PPP
N-+-KB+R

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

r+bqk+-r
pp+nbppp
-+p+-n-+
+-+p+-B-
-+-P-+-+
+-NBP-+-
PP-+-PPP
R-+QK-NR

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

r+bqrnk+
pp+-bppp
-+p+-+-+
+-+p+-B-
-+-Pn+-+
+-NBPN+-
PPQ+-PPP
+R+-+RK-

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!

r+bqrnk+
ppp-bppp
-+-+-n-+
+-+p+-B-
-P-P-+-+
+-NBP-+-
P+-+NPPP
R-+Q+RK-

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

r+-q-+k+
+b+-rpnp
ppp+n+p+
+-+p+-+-
-P-PP+-+
P-N-+P+-
-+-QN+PP
+B+R+RK-

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

r+-q-rk+
+-+-+p+p
-np+-+p+
+p+pP-+-
-p-+-P-+
P-+QP-+-
-+-+N+PP
+R+-+RK-

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

r+-+-+k+
+-+-+pp-
-Rpbrqnp
+-+p+-+-
-+-P-+b+
+-NBP-+-
-+QN-PPP
+-+-+RK-

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

r+-+r+k+
+p+n+p+p
-+pb-+p+
+-+-+-+q
p+-Pp+-B
P-+-P-+-
-PQN-PPP
+R+-R-K-

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

-+b+r+k+
+p+-qpp-
-+pb-+-p
r-+-+-+-
P+-Pp+-+
+-N-PN+P
R+Q+-PP+
+-R-+-K-

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

r+b+-+k+
p-+-+-+p
-+p+r+p+
+-+p+pqn
N+-P-+-+
P-+BP-+P
-+Q+-PPK
R-+-+R+-

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

r+-+r+k+
+b+n+pp-
pq-b-n-p
+-+p+-+-
Pp-P-+-+
+Q+B+P+-
NP-+NBPP
+-R-+RK-

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

r+r+-nk+
+p+-bppp
-+-+-n-+
q-+bN-+-
p+pPBBP+
P-N-+-+P
-P-+QP-+
+K+R+-+R

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

-+r+rn-k
+-+-+ppp
-+p+-b-+
qp+p+P+-
p+-P-+-+
+-+BP-+P
PPQ+NP-+
+K+R+-R-

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

Taimanov’s Legacy

Posted on by

Introduction

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

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

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

  1. Having a privileged trawl through some of Bob Lee’s games, in
    which the Taimanov Sicilian featured strongly. (Bob approached 200
    grade strength playing for Exeter in the 1970s, but his real forte
    was correspondence chess: read all about it!).
  2. Buying a copy of Nunn’s Chess Openings , and, along
    with a thumbs-up to several other variations which I had always
    thought a bit duff theoretically, like the Stonewall Dutch, one
    line of the Sicilian that was doing well was the Taimanov
    Sicilian.
  3. Looking for an answer to the Grand Prix Attack as Black in the
    Sicilian, I came across a try which seemed to leave White nothing
    better than to transpose into a line of the Taimanov. Black
    equalised with some exotic-looking manoeuvres in Lein – Ivanovic
    [B23] Lone Pine, 1980

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

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

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

What’s in a name?

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

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

It’s generally agreed that the Taimanov starts with

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

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

Nunn and co. include under Taimanov the lines

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

What’s the big idea?

+-----------------+
|r+b1kgn4|
|+p+p+p0p|
|p+n+p+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.HP+.+|
|+.H.+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.GQIB+R|
+-----------------+

If its possible to put this modern GM opening in a nutshell,
it’s that Black intends to develop the Queen’s-side quickly, with
moves like …b5, …Bb7, …Rc8, …Qc7 and so on. You sometimes
see the complete mobilisation of the Black Queen’s-side forces
before a single King’s-side piece is touched (Leko’s
favourite).

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|r+b+.4k+|
|+.1.gp0p|
|p+n0p+.+|
|+p+.+.+.|
|.+.+P).+|
|+.H.GB+.|
|P)P+.!P)|
|+.+R+RI.|
+-----------------+

(Wittmann,W – Klinger,J AUT-ch (3), 1993 (0-1, 57))

Plaskett comments:

“This is almost exactly what Black aims for in this
system:
a standard Sicilian middle-game but where the reduction in material
lessens the danger of White commencing a successful attack. (…)
In this very standard position Black can face the future with total
confidence.”

This of course could have arisen from the Grand Prix line
above.

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

 

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

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

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

Taimanov’s system

6. Be2 Nge7

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

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

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

Unzicker,W – Taimanov,M [B46] Wijk aan Zee, 1981

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2
Nge7 7.Be3 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 b5 9.0-0[DIAGRAM]

9.O-O-O and 9. a4 are alternatives

9…Nc6 10.Qd2

The White Queen must sometimes find a more awkward square, if
Black ‘unloads’ before White has moved the Bc1

10…Be7

+-----------------+
|r+b1k+.4|
|+.+pgp0p|
|p+n+p+.+|
|+p+.+.+.|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.H.G.+.|
|P)P!B)P)|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

NCO gives here 11.Rad1 0-0 12.Bf4 f6 13.a4 bxa4 14.Nxa4
Ne5
15.Be3 Rb8 16.f4 Nf7 = Khalifman-Taimanov 1996

11.f4 Bb7 12.e5!? [12.Rad1] 12…Na5!? 13.Bd3 Rc8
14.Ne2
Nc4 15.Bxc4 Rxc4 16.Rad1 Qc8

[DIAGRAM] And still Black is not castled – in fact, castling
here drops
the d-Pawn. For all the pressure White has gathered against d7,
Black’s attack on c2 is the more important.

+-----------------+
|.+q+k+.4|
|+b+pgp0p|
|p+.+p+.+|
|+p+.).+.|
|.+r+.).+|
|+.+.G.+.|
|P)P!N+P)|
|+.+R+RI.|
+-----------------+

17.c3?! b4!

threat …bxc3 18.Nxc3 Bb4

18.Rc1

[18.cxb4 Bxb4 19.Qd3 Be4]

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

[24.Nc4 Bb4]

24…Bxd6 25.Rc1 Qe4 26.Rc4 Qb1+ 27.Rc1 Qg6 28.Qc2 Be4
29.Qf2 Rd8!? 30.Rd1 Bc7 31.Rxd8+ Bxd8 32.Nc4 Bd5

[DIAGRAM] Black’s Bishops rule.

+-----------------+
|.+.g.+k+|
|+.+.+p0p|
|p+.+p+q+|
|+.+b+.+.|
|.+N+.).+|
|+P+.G.+.|
|P+.+.!P)|
|+.+.+.I.|
+-----------------+

33.Nd2 h6 34.h3 a5 35.Nf3 Bc7 36.Nd4 Qb1+ 37.Kh2 g5!?
38.Nb5 Bxf4+ 39.Bxf4 gxf4 40.Nc3 Qf5 41.Nxd5 exd5 42.Qd4 Qe4 43.Qf6
d4! 44.Qxh6 Qe5! 45.Qh4  

[DIAGRAM] Black seems to have more Pawns! The thing is, more passed
Pawns.

+-----------------+
|.+.+.+k+|
|+.+.+p+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|0.+.1.+.|
|.+.0.0.!|
|+P+.+.+P|
|P+.+.+PI|
|+.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

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

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

NCO gives the current verdict on alternative lines as:

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

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

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

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

Avoiding the unload

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

Orlov – Taimanov,M [B46] St Petersburg, 1995

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2
Nge7 7.Nb3 b5! 8.0-0 Ng6 9.f4 Be7 10.Be3 0-0 11.Bd3 Nb4! 12.Qh5
Nxd3 13.cxd3 f5! 14.Nd5 Bb7! 15.Nxe7+ Nxe7 16.Nc5 Bc6 17.Bd4 Qe8!
18.Qg5 Qf7 

[DIAGRAM]

…0-1 (61)

+-----------------+
|r+.+.4k+|
|+.+phq0p|
|p+b+p+.+|
|+pH.+p!.|
|.+.GP).+|
|+.+P+.+.|
|P).+.+P)|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

NCO prefers

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

Going for the jugular

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

Kupreichik,V – Taimanov,M [B46] India, 1982

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2
Nge7 7.Bf4 Ng6 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Bd6 Bxd6 10.Qxd6 Qe7 11.0-0-0 Qxd6
12.Rxd6 Ke7 13.Rhd1 Nf4 14.Bf3 Rb8 (threat …Nd5) 15.R6d2

[DIAGRAM]

+-----------------+
|.4b+.+.4|
|+.+pip0p|
|p+p+p+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.+Ph.+|
|+.H.+B+.|
|P)P$.)P)|
|+.IR+.+.|
+-----------------+

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

15…e5

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

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

Plaskett notes the interesting alternative…

Furhoff,J – Taimanov,M [B46] Stockholm (3), 1994

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2
Nge7 7.Bf4 Ng6 8.Nxc6 bxc6 9.Bd6 f6!? 10.0-0 Bxd6 11.Qxd6 Qe7
12.Rad1 Qxd6 13.Rxd6 Ke7 14.Rfd1 Rb8 1/2-1/2

[DIAGRAM]

+-----------------+
|.+r+.i.+|
|+.+R+.0p|
|.+p+p0n+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|N+.+P+.+|
|+.+.+.).|
|P+r+.).)|
|+.+R+.I.|
+-----------------+

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

The squeeze

6. g3

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

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|+b+pgp0p|
|p+n+p+.+|
|+p+.+.+.|
|.+.+P).+|
|+.H.G.).|
|P)P+Q+B)|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

Despite White’s undynamic start the first impression is that
White is doing well (more space, better development, pressure down
the d-file and prospects on the King’s-side). But Black is solid
and has his own chances on the Queen’s-side – chances he makes full
use of! Black’s play is typical and exemplary:

13…Rc8 14.Qf2?! Na5!? 15.Nd1

[15.Bb6 Qxb6!? (15…Qe8!) 16.Qxb6 Bc5+]

15…Nc4 16.Bd4 f6!

[DIAGRAM]

Black is playing a careful game, adeptly combining attack and
defence.

+-----------------+
|.+r1.4k+|
|+b+pg.0p|
|p+.+p0.+|
|+p+.+.+.|
|.+nGP).+|
|+.+.+.).|
|P)P+.!B)|
|$.+N+RI.|
+-----------------+

17.c3 e5 18.Ba7 Qc7 19.Kh1 Bc6!?

[DIAGRAM]

+-----------------+
|.+r+.4k+|
|G.1pg.0p|
|p+b+.0.+|
|+p+.0.+.|
|.+n+P).+|
|+.).+.).|
|P).+.!B)|
|$.+N+R+K|
+-----------------+

20.Be3 Qb7!? 21.Qc2 d5!

[DIAGRAM]

The Sicilian player’s delight is a central break.

+-----------------+
|.+r+.4k+|
|+q+.g.0p|
|p+b+.0.+|
|+p+p0.+.|
|.+n+P).+|
|+.).G.).|
|P)Q+.+B)|
|$.+N+R+K|
+-----------------+

22.exd5 Bxd5 23.Bxd5+ Qxd5+ 24.Qg2 Rfd8

[DIAGRAM]

Black is on top.

+-----------------+
|.+r4.+k+|
|+.+.g.0p|
|p+.+.0.+|
|+p+q0.+.|
|.+n+.).+|
|+.).G.).|
|P).+.+Q)|
|$.+N+R+K|
+-----------------+

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

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

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

Topalov,V – Illescas Cordoba,M [B46] Alcobendas (3), 1994

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6.g3
Nge7
7.Nb3 d6 8.a4 Bd7 9.Bg2 Nc8 10.0-0 Be7 11.Qe2 0-0 12.Be3 Qc7 13.f4
Rb8?!

[DIAGRAM] Black is already on the slide.

+-----------------+
|.4n+.4k+|
|+p1bgp0p|
|p+n0p+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|P+.+P).+|
|+NH.G.).|
|.)P+Q+B)|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

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

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

De Firmian,N – Zapata,A [B46] Tunis (12), 1985

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.g3
Nge7
7.Nb3! d6 (7…Na5!?) 8.Bg2 (8.a4!?)
8…Bd7 9.0-0 Nc8 10.a4 Be7 11.Qe2 0-0
12.Be3 Na5 13.Nxa5 Qxa5 14.Bd4 Bd8 15.Rfd1 Bc6

[DIAGRAM] (1-0, 58)

+-----------------+
|r+ng.4k+|
|+p+.+p0p|
|p+b0p+.+|
|1.+.+.+.|
|P+.GP+.+|
|+.H.+.).|
|.)P+Q)B)|
|$.+R+.I.|
+-----------------+

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

Leko,P (2605) – Lautier,J (2635) [B47] Dortmund (4), 1995

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.g3
a6
7.Bg2 Nf6 8.0-0 Bc5[DIAGRAM]

[8…Be7 9. Re1 Nxd4 10. E5!? (Motwani) 10…Nb4!? (Tal);
8…Nxd4 9. Qxd4 Bc5 is the old main line, as in a Fischer-Taimanov
match game]

+-----------------+
|r+b+k+.4|
|+p1p+p0p|
|p+n+ph.+|
|+.g.+.+.|
|.+.HP+.+|
|+.H.+.).|
|P)P+.)B)|
|$.GQ+RI.|
+-----------------+

9.Nb3 Ba7 10.Bg5 Ne5 11.Qe2 d6 12.Kh1 h6 13.Bxf6 gxf6
14.f4 Nc4 15.f5 Ne3 16.Rf3 Nxg2 17.Kxg2 Bd7 18.fxe6 fxe6 19.Rxf6
h5[DIAGRAM]

with compensation (NCO)

20.Rd1 0-0-0 21.h4 Kb8 22.Nd4 Qc5 23.Nf3 Rhf8 24.Rxf8
Rxf8 1/2-1/2

+-----------------+
|r+.+k+.4|
|gp1b+.+.|
|p+.0p$.+|
|+.+.+.+p|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+NH.+.).|
|P)P+Q+K)|
|$.+.+.+.|
+-----------------+

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

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

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

[DIAGRAM]

16…Ne5

17.cxb5 Rxc1 18.Nxc1 axb5 19.Nd3 Nxd3 20.Qxd3 e5
21.Be3
Bc6 22.Bh3 Qc7 23.a4 bxa4 24.bxa4 Bxa4 25.Ra1 Qc6 26.Qd5 Rf8
27.Bxd7+ Qxd7 28.Qa8+ 1/2-1/2

+-----------------+
|.+r1k+.4|
|+b+pg.0p|
|p+.+p0.+|
|+p+.h.+.|
|.+P+PG.+|
|+P+.+.).|
|P+.!N)B)|
|+.$R+.I.|
+-----------------+

The English attack

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

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|r+.+kg.4|
|+b1.+p+.|
|p+.0p+p0|
|+.h.+P).|
|P+pHP+Q+|
|+.H.G.+.|
|.)P+.+.)|
|+.+R+RI.|
+-----------------+

[DIAGRAM]

Black has held back on the King’s-side, and avoided committing
the King, so is well-placed to absorb this thematic break.

18…gxf5 19.exf5 e5 20.Ne6 fxe6 21.Qh5+ Kd8 22.f6 Qc6
23.Rd2 Kc7 24.g6 Rg8 25.g7 Bxg7 26.Qf7+ Qd7 27.Qxd7+ Nxd7 28.fxg7
Rxg7+ 29.Kf2 d5 0-1

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

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3
Qc7
7.Qd2 Nf6 8.f3

[DIAGRAM] Plaskett notes 8…Ne5!?, 8…Bb4!?, 8…d5!?,
8…Nxd4 and even Fernand Gobet’s 7…Nxd4 as
workable replies making various uses of the Taimanov move-order. A
more orthodox Taimanov strategy (with an early …b5) is also
playable:

+-----------------+
|r+b+kg.4|
|+p1p+p0p|
|p+n+ph.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.HP+.+|
|+.H.GP+.|
|P)P!.+P)|
|$.+.IB+R|
+-----------------+

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

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

+-----------------+
|.+r+k+.4|
|+b+p+p0p|
|p+.+p+.+|
|+p1.+.)n|
|.+.+P+.+|
|+.+.!P+.|
|P)P$N+.)|
|+.I.+B+R|
+-----------------+

[DIAGRAM]

19.Qd3 d5 20.e5 d4 21.Nxd4 Qxe5 22.Nxe6 Qe1+ 23.Rd1
Qxe6
24.Qa3 Nf4 25.h4 Qe3+ 26.Kb1 Qc5 0-1

Theory in this line is still settling down, and while in
practice most Taimanov players have played the familiar way, I
might prefer the early …Bb4 system.
Zagrebelny,S – Saltaev,M [B48] Moscow, 1995

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

+-----------------+
|r+b+k+.4|
|+.1p+p0.|
|p+.+ph.0|
|+p+.h.+.|
|.g.GP+.+|
|)NH.+P+.|
|.)P!.+P)|
|+.IR+B+R|
+-----------------+

[DIAGRAM]

[Pribyl was successful with 12. Kb1 Nc4 against
Christiansen]

12…Be7 13.Bxe5 Qxe5 14.f4 Qc7 15.e5 Ng4 16.Qe2 h5
17.Ne4 Bb7 18.h3 Nh6 19.g4 Qc4 20.Rd4 Qxe2 21.Bxe2 f5 22.exf6 gxf6
1/2-1/2

 

Can you play the pure Taimanov, 6. Be3 Nge7?
Of
course you can, and Taimanov has, but it’s nothing like so popular
a try, since Black knows that the Queen will have a good retreat
square after ‘unloading’. He gives:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3
Nge7

[DIAGRAM]

+-----------------+
|r+b1kgn4|
|+p+p+p0p|
|p+n+p+.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+.HP+.+|
|+.H.G.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.+QIB+R|
+-----------------+

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

7.Nb3 b5 8.a3

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

8.Bd3]

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

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

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

Whose afraid of the big bad Maroczy
Bind?

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

Karpov,A – Van der Wiel,J [B44] Tilburg (7), 1983

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4
Nf6
7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3 Be7 9.Be2 0-0 10.0-0 b6 11.Be3 Re8 12.Rc1 Bf8
13.Qb3 Nd7 14.Rfd1 Nc5 15.Qc2 Bb7 16.Qd2 Rc8 17.Nc2 Ne5 18.f3
Rc7

[DIAGRAM]

+-----------------+
|.+.1rgk+|
|+b4.+p0p|
|p0.0p+.+|
|+.h.h.+.|
|.+P+P+.+|
|+.H.GP+.|
|P)N!B+P)|
|+.$R+.I.|
+-----------------+

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

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

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

Gallagher,J – Cramling,P [B44] Bern (3), 1991

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4
Nf6
7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3 Be7 9.Be2 b6 10.Be3 Ne5! 11.f4 Ned7 12.Bf3 Bb7
13.0-0 0-0 14.Qe2

[DIAGRAM] White has a good plan here of playing his g-Pawn up
from g2 to
g4 and g5, squeezing the bind and getting some heat off the e-Pawn.
But:

+-----------------+
|r+.1.4k+|
|+b+ngp0p|
|p0.0ph.+|
|+.+.+.+.|
|.+P+P).+|
|H.H.GB+.|
|P).+Q+P)|
|$.+.+RI.|
+-----------------+

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

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

Meladze,F – Yudin,V [B44] corr Tch10-SU, 1994

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e6 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4
Nf6
7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3 b6 9.Be2 Bb7 10.f4 Be7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Be3 Nb8 13.Bf3
Nbd7 14.Qe2 Re8 15.g4 h6 16.Qg2 Nh7 17.Rac1 Rc8 18.Ne2 Nhf8 19.g5
hxg5 20.fxg5 Ne5 21.h4 Nfd7 22.Ng3[DIAGRAM]

+-----------------+
|.+r1r+k+|
|+b+ngp0.|
|p0.0p+.+|
|+.+.h.).|
|.+P+P+.)|
|H.+.GBH.|
|P).+.+Q+|
|+.$.+RI.|
+-----------------+

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

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

 

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

Berg,K – Eingorn,V [B44] London, 1989

1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6 6.Bf4
e5
7.Be3 a6 8.N5c3 Nf6 9.Bg5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Nd2

[11.Nd5 Bg5 = NCO 12.Na3 Be6 1/2-1/2
Adorjan,A-Langeweg,K/Amsterdam 1971]

11…0-0 12.Nc4 b5[DIAGRAM]

[12…Be7 13. a4]

+-----------------+
|r+b1.4k+|
|+.+.+p0p|
|p+n0.g.+|
|+p+.0.+.|
|.+N+P+.+|
|+.H.+.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.+QIB+R|
+-----------------+

13.Nxd6

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

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

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

 

The non-Sicilian Sicilian

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

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

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

Klimov,S (2432) – Lindberg,B (2307) [B46] IM Salongernas
Stockholm SWE (5), 09.06.1999

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Nxc6
bxc6 7.Bd3 d5 8.0-0 Bd6 9.Re1 Ne7 10.Qh5

[10.Qg4 0-0 11.e5 f5 12.Qh4 Bc5 = Siero-Lebredo, 1983;
10.e5
Bc7 11.Qg4 Ng6]

10…e5 11.f4 d4 12.fxe5 Qa5 13.Rf1 Ng6 14.Nb5
Bb8[DIAGRAM]

+-----------------+
|rgb+k+.4|
|+.+.+p0p|
|p+p+.+n+|
|1N+.).+Q|
|.+.0P+.+|
|+.+B+.+.|
|P)P+.+P)|
|$.G.+RI.|
+-----------------+

15.e6 axb5 16.exf7+ Kf8 17.e5 Nxe5 18.Bh6 Qc7 19.Bxg7+
Kxg7 20.Qxh7+ 1-0

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

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

Yemelin,V – Taimanov,M [B46] St Petersburg ch (6), 1997

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Nxc6
bxc6 7.Bd3 d5 8.0-0 Nf6 9.Re1 (9. Qe2!?) 9…Be7
(9…Bb7!?, 9…Rb8!?) 10.e5 Nd7 11.Qg4 g6
12.Bh6 Rb8 13.Nd1!? Rb4 14.Qe2 Bg5
15.c3 Rb6=

[DIAGRAM] (1/2-1/2, 80)

+-----------------+
|.+b1k+.4|
|+.+n+p+p|
|p4p+p+pG|
|+.+p).g.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+.)B+.+.|
|P).+Q)P)|
|$.+N$.I.|
+-----------------+

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

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

Sundries

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

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|r+b+kg.4|
|+.1n+p0p|
|p+.+p+.+|
|+p0.).+.|
|.+.+.+.+|
|+BH.G.+.|
|P)P+.)P)|
|$.+Q+RI.|
+-----------------+

[DIAGRAM]

White is tempted by a tactical trick, but it all falls
apart.

12.Nd5 exd5 13.Qxd5 Nb6 14.Qf3 Bb7 15.Qg3 c4 16.e6
Qxg3
17.exf7+ Kd7 18.hxg3 0-1
Schneider Lars – Ake_Taimanov Mark [B46] Jurmala, 1978

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|.+b+kg.4|
|+.+r+p0p|
|p+n0ph.+|
|1.+.+.).|
|.0.+PG.+|
|+.H.+N+.|
|P)P!.).)|
|+K+R+B+R|
+-----------------+

[DIAGRAM]

White has mad a heavy commitment to attack d6, but it has got
nowhere: meanwhile, Black has good Queen’s-side play.

13.Ne2 Nxe4 14.Qe3 d5 15.Nfd4 Nxd4 16.Nxd4 Bd6 17.Bxd6
Nxd6 18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.Qxe6+ Kd8 20.Rxd5 Qxd5 21.Qxd5 Nb5 22.Qf3 Bb7
23.Qg4 Bxh1 24.Bh3 Bc6 25.a3 bxa3 26.Qf4 Rb7 27.bxa3 Nc3+
0-1
Chandler Murray – Andersson Ulf [B46] Naestved, 1985

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|.+r1kg.4|
|+b+p+p0p|
|p+.+ph.+|
|+p+.+.+.|
|.+.!P).+|
|).HB+.+.|
|.)PG.+P)|
|$.+.I.+R|
+-----------------+

[DIAGRAM]

Typical Sicilian: Black looks horribly underdeveloped, but
White
has no obvious way through.

11.b4 d5 12.e5 Ne4 13.Bxe4 dxe4 14.Qxd8+ Kxd8 15.0-0-0
Rc4 16.Be3+ Kc8 17.Kb2 Be7 18.a4 1/2-1/2

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

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

Bhend,E – Gallagher,J [B40] 1992

+-----------------+
|.+r1r+k+|
|+b+.gp0p|
|p0n+ph.+|
|+.+p+.+.|
|.).+P+.+|
|+.+P+N+.|
|.GPH.)P)|
|+R+Q$BI.|
+-----------------+

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.b3 b6 4.Bb2 Bb7 5.d3 d6 6.Be2 Nf6
7.0-0 Be7 8.Nbd2 Nc6 9.Re1 0-0 10.Bf1 Rc8 11.a3 a6 12.Rb1 Re8 13.b4
cxb4 14.axb4 d5! -/+[DIAGRAM]

15.e5 Nd7 16.d4 Nxb4 17.c3 Nc6 18.Bd3 Na5 19.Ra1 Nf8
20.Nf1 b5 21.Re2 Nc4 22.Bc1 a5 23.N3d2 b4 24.cxb4 axb4 25.Nb3
Qb6

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

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

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

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

+-----------------+
|r+b+kg.4|
|+p+.+p0p|
|p+n+p+.+|
|+.+q+.+.|
|.+p).+.+|
|+.).GN+.|
|P).+.)P)|
|$N+Q+RI.|
+-----------------+

10.b3 Be7 11.bxc4 Qxc4 12.Nbd2 Qd3 13.c4 0-0 14.Rc1 b5
15.cxb5 Qxb5 16.Nc4 Bb7 17.Nb6 Rad8 18.Rb1 Nb4 19.a3 Qxb6 20.axb4
Be4 21.Rb3 Qb7 22.Qe2 Rd5 23.Rc1 Rb5 24.Nd2 Bd5 25.Rbc3 Bd6 26.Nb3
Bxg2 27.Nc5 Qa8 28.Qg4 Bf3 29.Qh3 Bd5 30.Bd2 Rxb4 31.Qh4 Bxc5
32.Rh3 Be4 33.dxc5 Rb1 34.Rxb1 Bxb1 35.Rg3 0-1

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

Move orders (2): just passing
through?

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

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

but

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TAIMANOV Sicilian Paulsen (Batsford)

TAIMANOV, Winning with the Sicilian (Batsford)

TAIMANOV, Sicilian Defence: Taimanov System (Batsford)

NUNN & GALLAGHER, Beating the Sicilian 3 (Batsford)

PLASKETT, The Sicilian Taimanov (Chess Press)

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

The Hypermodern Approach

Posted on by

how to handle newfangled openings

[There is a superb essay by Reti on the legacy of
the hypermoderns which was published in Virginia
Chess in 1993, archived at Palle Mathiasen’s World
Champions site at http://www.chesschampions.com/reti.html]
Oh dear, link rot got to it. Reproduced without permission here.

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.

You know that you should sieze the centre in the opening, and
use it to dominate the game. Like this:

Boleslavsky – Scitov (Moscow, 1933). 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.
Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb6?

 

t+lDj+-T
XxXx+xXx
-Ls+-S-+
+-+-+-+-
-+bPp+-+
+-+-+n+-
pP-+-PpP
RnBqK-+r

This move gives White too much of a free hand. The “Plan A” pawn
centre just rolls over the Black position.

7. e5 Ng4 8. h3 Nh6 9. d5 Ne7 10. d6 Ng6 11. Bg5 f6 12.
exf6 gxf6 White can win a piece, but: 13. Qe2+ Kf8
14. Bxh6# 1-0

The hypermoderns 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. The idea is not to ignore the centre
but to control it, perhaps from a distance. If the opponent
occupies the centre, you can hit fiercely at it; if not, your own
occupation of the centre later will be more secure for being
delayed. In fact, Reti said, to occupy the centre directly as White
merely allowed Black either to blockade or blow up what White has
established, whereas keeping things unfixed was the most awkward
thing White could do. They would develop the Bishops in
fianchetto, and use side-swipes like c4 to undermine the
centre. As White they played flank openings like the
English and the Reti; for Black Alekhin’s
Defence and the Grunfeld Defence are good examples of
the hypermodern legacy. Other examples include the Pirc
and Modern Defences, and the more rarely seen English
Defence.

Whiteley – Keene. [A40] 1. d4 e6 2. c4 b6 3. e4 Bb7 4. Nc3 Bb4 5.
Bd3 f5 6. d5

tS-Dj+sT
XlXx+-Xx
-X-+x+-+
+-+p+x+-
-Lp+p+-+
+-Nb+-+-
pP-+-PpP
R-BqK-Nr

Barden recommended 6.d5 (without analysis) just before this game…

6… fxe4 7. Bxe4 Qh4 8. Qd3 exd5 9. cxd5 Nf6 10. Bf3 Ba6 11.
Qe3+ Kf7 12. Qf4 Re8+ 13. Kd1 Qxf4 14. Bxf4 Bxc3 15. bxc3 d6 16.
Nh3 h6 17. Kc2

 

tS-+t+-+
X-X-+jX-
lX-X-S-X
+-+p+-+-
-+-+-B-+
+-P-+b+n
p+k+-PpP
R-+-+-+r

17… Bc4 ( not …g5 allowing counterplay ) 18. Rhd1 Nbd7 19. a4 ?

19… Nc5 20. Rd4 Be2 21. Bxe2 Rxe2+ 22. Kd1 Rae8 23. Ra3 Re1+
24. Kc2 R8e2+ 25. Bd2 Rh1 26. c4 Rxh2 27. a5 Re7 28. axb6 axb6 29.
g4 Re4 30. Rxe4 Ncxe4 31. Rf3 g5 32. Be3 Kg6 33. Kd3 Nc5+ 34. Bxc5
bxc5 35. Rg3 Nxg4 36. Ke2 Kh5 37. Ke1 Ne5 38. Kf1 Kh4 39. Ng1 g4
40. Rc3 Kg5 1-0

Cursoux-Letzelter, 1977 [B03] Alekhin’s Defence

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. c4 Nb6 5. f4 dxe5 6. fxe5 c5 7.
d5 e6

DIAGRAM

tSlDjL-T
Xx+-+xXx
-S-+x+-+
+-XpP-+-
-+p+-+-+
+-+-+-+-
pP-+-+pP
RnBqKbNr

Alekhin’s Defence takes a certain amount of courage to play. Black
sacrifices tempi and space to get White to over-extend the centre.

8. Nc3 exd5 9. cxd5 c4 10. Nf3 Bg4 11. Bxc4 Nxc4

tS-DjL-T
Xx+-+xXx
-+-+-+-+
+-+pP-+-
-+s+-+l+
+-N-+n+-
pP-+-+pP
R-BqK-+r

DIAGRAM White has an almost perfect centre to look at, but is about
to lose his grip. The game enters a very messy phase.

12. Qa4+ Nd7 13. Qxc4 Bxf3 14. gxf3 Nxe5 15. Qe4 Qh4+ 16. Ke2
Qh5 17. Bf4 Kd7 18. Qa4+ Kd8 19. Rhf1 Rc8 20. Qa5+ b6 21. Qxa7 Bc5
22. Rac1 Re8 23. Ne4 Nxf3 24. Rxc5 Nd4+ 25. Kd3 Qe2+ 0-1

White still occupies the centre, and it is symbolic that the
King dies there!

-+tJt+-+
Q-+-+xXx
-X-+-+-+
+-Rp+-+-
-+-SnB-+
+-+k+-+-
pP-+d+-P
+-+-+r+-

Lilienthal – Korchnoi [D86] Modern Grunfeld, 1954

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7
7. Bc4 O-O 8. Ne2 Nc6 9. O-O Qd7 10. Ba3 [10. Be3] 10…
Na5 11. Bd3 b6

t+l+-Tj+
X-XdXxLx
-X-+-+x+
S-+-+-+-
-+-Pp+-+
B-Pb+-+-
p+-+nPpP
R-+q+rK-

Korchnoi has been an occasional devotee of the Grunfeld throughout
his career, and I’m sure it suits his counter-punching style.

12. Nf4 ?

This lets Black get a move ahead, as well as loosening the dark
squares in the centre.

12… Bb7 13. Qe2 Rfd8 14. Rad1 e6 15. e5 c5

t+-T-+j+
Xl+d+xLx
-X-+x+x+
S-X-P-+-
-+-P-N-+
B-Pb+-+-
p+-+qPpP
+-+r+rK-

A typical flank blow in a hypermodern opening: it always reminds me
of judo.

16. dxc5 Qc7 17. cxb6 Qxe5 18. Qxe5 Bxe5 19. Ne2 axb6 20. Bc1
Bd5 -+

t+-T-+j+
+-+-+x+x
-X-+x+x+
S-+lL-+-
-+-+-+-+
+-Pb+-+-
p+-+nPpP
+-Br+rK-

Black’s pieces dominate the game, and Korchnoi went on to win. 21.
Bg5 f6 22. f4 fxg5 23. fxe5 Nc4 24. Bxc4 Bxc4 25. Rxd8+ Rxd8 26.
Re1 Rd2 27. Ng3 Rxa2 28. Ne4 Bd5 29. Nf6+ Kf7 30. Nxd5 exd5 31. Rb1
Ra6 32. Rb5 Ke6 33. Kf2 Kxe5 34. Kf3 Ra3 35. Kg4 Rxc3 36. Rxb6 Rc2
37. Kg3 d4 38. Rb7 d3 39. Rxh7 d2 40. Rd7 Ke4 41. Kg4 Rc4 42. Rxd2
Ke3+ 43. Kxg5 Kxd2 44. Kxg6 Ke3 45. h3 Kf4 46. g4 Rc5 47. Kh6 Rg5
0-1

This is the good side of the hypermodern approach: Black getting
good winning chances in an unbalanced game, but it does have a
shady side.

Firstly, if you hesitate for a moment in the attack on a big
centre, it really will crush you. Norwood, in his book
Winning with the Modern, offers this game as a
reason for Black to avoid the Austrian Attack (f4) at all
costs.

Bareev – Norwood, Marseilles, 1990[B09] 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 DIAGRAM
1-0

tS-R-L-T
Xj+-X-+x
-X-+n+x+
+-X-X-+-
-+-+-Pp+
+-+bB-+p
pPp+-+-+
+-K-+-+-

A famous world-class encounter:

Larsen, B-Spassky, B, Belgrade USSR-World 1970

1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.c4 Nf6 4.Nf3 e4 5.Nd4 Bc5 6.Nxc6
dxc6 7.e3 Bf5 8.Qc2 Qe7 9.Be2 O-O-O 10.f4 Ng4 11.g3 h5
White may already be lost.

  12.h3 h4 DIAGRAM

-+jT-+-T
XxX-DxX-
-+x+-+-+
+-L-+l+-
-+p+xPsX
+p+-P-Pp
pBqPb+-+
Rn+-K-+r

13.hxg4 hxg3 14.Rg1 Rh1 15.Rxh1 g2 16.Rf1 Qh4+ 17.Kd1
gxf1=Q+ 0-1

  So, if GMs like Norwood and Larsen can get it wrong, club
players can too. I have often seen straightforward, even
simple-minded, attacking play bring down hypermodern systems tried
by players a class or two above the attacker. It may be that at
club level the attack is easier than the defence.

Secondly, it may be easier for White to gain an advantage against
hypermodern defences through more conservative play – rather than
grabbing the whole centre, just taking on a better slice of it.
Karpov has repeatedly shown the efficacy of this approach:

Karpov-Nunn 1983 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 The
sharp Pirc defence, which Karpov meets modestly. 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.Be2
O-O 6.O-O Bg4 7.Be3 Nbd7 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 e5 10.g3 c6 11.Bg2 Qa5
12.Qd2 Rfe8 13.Rad1 b5 14.a3 Nb6 15.b3 Nfd7 16.Ra1 Nf8 17.d5 {!}
Black’s pieces are slightly wrong-footed.

17…Rac8 18.Rfd1 c5 19.Bf1 c4 20.a4 {!} DIAGRAM

-+t+tSj+
X-+-+xLx
-S-X-+x+
Dx+pX-+-
p+x+p+-+
+pN-B-Pp
-+pQ-P-+
R-+r+bK-

20…cxb3 21.Nxb5 Qxd2 22.Rxd2 Rxc2 23.Rxc2 bxc2 24.a5 Nc8 25.Rc1
Nd7 26.Rxc2 Nc5 27.Nxd6 Nxd6 28.Rxc5 Nxe4 29.Rc7 Bf8 30.a6 Rd8
31.Rxa7 1-0

Thirdly, it may be harder for White to gain an advantage with a
hypermodern opening if Black is not tempted to take on more than
can be easily chewed. Larry Evans in The Chess Opening for
You complains about an opponent who replied to his King’s
Indian Attack (1.Nf3 2.g3 3.Bg2 4.d3 5.O-O 6.Nbd2) with 1…Nf6
2…g6 3…Bg7 4…d6 5…O-O 6…Nbd7, and Evans had nothing to
shoot at.

Appendix

Here’s two examples of the style from Reti – a hit and a miss.

[Event “Hypermodern Openings”][Site “?”][Date “??.??.??”][Round
“?”]

[White “Reti”][Black “Rubinstein”][Result “1-0”]

1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.c4 d4 5.d3 Bg7 6.b4 O-O 7.Nbd2 c5
8.Nb3 cxb4 9.Bb2 Nc6 10.Nbxd4 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 b6 12.a3 Bb7 13.Bb2 bxa3
14.Rxa3 Qc7 15.Qa1

t+-+-Tj+
XlD-XxLx
-X-+-Sx+
+-+-+-+-
-+p+-+-+
R-+p+nP-
-B-+pPbP
Q-+-K-+r

The characteristic Reti touch

15…Ne8 16.Bxg7 Nxg7 17.O-O Ne6 18.Rb1 Bc6 19.d4 Be4 20.Rd1 a5
21.d5 Nc5 22.Nd4 Bxg2 23.Kxg2 Rfd8 24.Nc6 Rd6 25.Re3 Re8 26.Qe5 f6
27.Qb2 e5 28.Qb5 Kf7 29.Rb1 Nd7 30.f3 Rc8 31.Rd3 (!)

{now if …Nb8, c5!}

-+t+-+-+
+-Ds+j+x
-XnT-Xx+
Xq+pX-+-
-+p+-+-+
+-+r+pP-
-+-+p+kP
+r+-+-+-

White’s grip on the centre and Q-side is decisive

31…e4 32.fxe4 Ne5 33.Qxb6 Nxc6 34.c5 Rd7 35.dxc6 Rxd3 36.Qxc7+
Rxc7 37.exd3 Rxc6 38.Rb7+ Ke8 39.d4 Ra6 40.Rb6 {!} 40…Ra8 41.Rxf6
a4 42.Rf2 a3 43.Ra2 Kd7 44.d5 g5 45.Kf3 Ra5 46.h4 gxh4 47.gxh4 Ke7
48.Kf4 Kd7 49.Kf5 {1-0}

[Event “hypermodern opening”][Site “NY”][Date “1924.??.??”][Round
“?”]

[White “Reti”][Black “Lasker”][Result “0-1”]

1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 c6 3.b3 Bf5 4.g3 Nf6 5.Bg2 Nbd7 6.Bb2 e6 7.O-O Bd6
8.d3 O-O 9.Nbd2 e5 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.Rc1 Qe7 12.Rc2 a5 13.a4 h6
14.Qa1 Rfe8 15.Rfc1 {two opposing chess strategies perfectly
placed!}

t+-+t+j+
+x+sDxX-
-+-L-S-X
X-+xXl+-
p+-+-+-+
+p+p+nP-
-BrNpPbP
Q-R-+-K-

15…Bh7 16.Nf1 Nc5 17.Rxc5 Bxc5 18.Nxe5 Rac8 19.Ne3 Qe6 20.h3 Bd6
21.Rxc8 Rxc8 22.Nf3 Be7 23.Nd4 Qd7 24.Kh2 h5 25.Qh1 h4 26.Nxd5
hxg3+ 27.fxg3 Nxd5 28.Bxd5 Bf6 29.Bxb7 Rc5 30.Ba6 Bg6 31.Qb7 Qd8
32.b4 Rc7 33.Qb6 Rd7 34.Qxd8+ Rxd8 35.e3 axb4 36.Kg2 Bxd4 37.exd4
Bf5 38.Bb7 Be6 39.Kf3 Bb3 40.Bc6 Rd6 41.Bb5 Rf6+ 42.Ke3 Re6+ 43.Kf4
Re2 44.Bc1 Rc2 45.Be3 Bd5 0-1