Erro ergo sum: analysis and error

Posted on December 31, 1999 by DrDave

A tactic appears for you: you get it right.

Here’s a simple one to get us started:

Regis,D – Jones,R (1995)

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. e4 Nc6 4. Nf3 b6 5. e5 Ng4 6. d4 g6 7. h3 Nh6 8. Bg5 Ne7 9. Qd2 Nhf5 10. g4 Ng7 11. Ne4 f5 12. exf6 Bb7

13. f7+ Kxf7 14. Ne5+ 1-0

And a more complicated one: the idea is easy, but can you analyse it to a finish?

Regis,D – Lane,P (1994)

13. Bxe6 fxe6 14. Qh5+ Kf8 15. Bh6+ Rg7 16. Ng5 Qe8 17. Nh7+ 1-0

Ah, if only it was all like that…

A tactic appears for you: you miss it.

Regis,D. – Aston,P (1994)

21. Qe8+??

[21. Qe6 Qd8 22. c6 or even 21. Rxd7 Kxd7 22.Rd1]

…1-0

Patzer sees a check… It didn’t affect the outcome in the end but White had to start all over again to build up another combination.

Jackson,Dave – Regis, D (1993)

17… b4 ??

[17… Qxa2+ 18. Kxa2 Ra6+ 19. Ba5 Rxa5+ 20. Kb1 Ra1#]

18. a4 Bd7 19. e5 Bxa4 20. Bc1 O-O 21. Nd2 Bb5 22. Bb2 Nf5 23. Nc4 Bxc4 24. dxc4 ( Draw agreed)

I suppose I wasn’t looking for a win just then!

A tactic appears for your opponent: you miss it.

Oh, how many times… asleep, overconfident or confused, we ignore our opponent’s best reply.

Regis,D. – Beake,B. (1994)

18. g3? f3 19. Bd3 Ne5 20. Nxe5 fxe5 …0-1

You don’t get away with that sort of thing against 200-grade players.

Regis,D – Stirling,A (1984)

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. c5 Nd5 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nc3 Nf4

7. Qg4 Qh4 …0-1

There are lots of opening traps like that: White bites off more than he can chew.

Fayle,A – Regis,D (1984)

29… Rfc8?? 30. Rd8+ Rxd8 31. Rxd8+ Kh7 32. Bg8+ Kg6 33. Rd6+ winning a piece (but …0-1!)

It was almost the only thing Black had to analyse, and I didn’t!

A tactic appears for you: you see it but analyse it wrongly.

Regis,D. -Stooks, Charles (1993)

19. Nef4? ( yes, very good but unfortunately 19…exf4; 20 Rxf4, g5! gets at least a draw! 20 Nxf4 also fails to 20…g5 )

19… Nc6??

[19… Qb7]

20. Nh3 Qg4 21. Ng5 1-0

Simple over-optimism: I didn’t consider 20…g5.

Regis,D – Prideaux,E (1994)

White lashes out without much justification:

30. Rd8+ Bxd8 31. Nd6+ Kf8 32. Nxf5 Bxb6+ 33. Kh2 Bxf5 winning…

(but here and black’s flag fell… 1-0 There ain’t no justice…)

Not hard to analyse, just I felt I had to do something and couldn’t see anything else!

A tactic appears for you: you see it and analyse it correctly, but wrongly assess the outcome.

Ward,D – Regis,D (1994)

26… Bd4 27. Bxd4 Rxe4 28. Qxe4 Ng3+ 29. Kg1 Nxe4 30. Rxe4 Re8 31. Rbe1 Rxe4 32. Rxe4 Qf7 33. Re6 Kh7 34. Rf6

[34. Kh2! …when it’s all a bit tricky!]

34… Qe8 35. Re6 Qxa4 36. Re7+ Kg6 37. Rxc7 Qd1+ 0-1

The tactic was obvious enough, what I failed to assess was how good White’s pieces would be in the ending.

Webb,S – Regis,D (1994)

17…a5

18. Bxd5 cxd5 19. Nxd5 Bxd5 20. Rxe8+ Qxe8 21. Rxe8+ Rxe8

As last time, Black has secured (or provoked White into giving up) a material advantage that is difficult to make use of, this time with the opponent having the Queen.

22. Ne5 Nxe5 23. dxe5 Bc6 24. Qc3 Re6 25. f3 a4 26. a3 g5 27. Bxg5 Bxe5 28. Qd3 Bd4+ 29. Kf1 Ne3+ 30. Bxe3 Bxe3 31. b3 Bf4 32. c4! Bxh2 33. bxa4 bxc4 34. Qxc4 Bg3 35. Qg4+ Rg6 36. Qc8+ Kg7 draw agreed .

As we start to comment more deeply on these examples, we see two sources of error: mistakes in analysis, surely, but also misjudgements – errors in the general assessment of the board or the opponent.

Let’s clarify this with an example:

Kasparov – Karpov, Linares, 1994

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 5. Bc4 Ngf6 6. Ng5 e6 7. Qe2 Nb6 8. Bb3 h6 9. N5f3 a5 10. c3 c5 11. a3 Qc7 12. Ne5 cxd4 13. cxd4 DIAGRAM

13… a4

[13… Bxa3]

14. Bc2 Bd7 15. Nxd7 Nbxd7 16. Qd1 Bd6 17. Ne2 Nd5 …drawn

I wouldn’t like to say there’s anything wrong with the analytical abilities of either player – what we have here is and error of judgement. My guess is, it’s a quiet position in a solid opening, and neither player bothered to look.

Chess is a tense game. This tension may make you want to believe things that aren’t really true, and comfort yourself with things that mean you don’t have to think too hard any more. Not a bit of it….

Petrosian-Korchnoi 1963

Black has a hopeless, passive position, just as he has had for the last umpteen moves. Petrosian just went

1. Rxh6

which was met by

1…f3!

Hoping for 2. Kxf3 Kg7 discovered check, winning the rook.

2. Kg5 Ke8 White resigns, unable to catch the f-pawn.

Afterwards, Petrosian explained that a move like …f3 just didn’t fit with “Black’s hopeless position“. But where there’s life, there’s hope!

“For a long time I had regarded my position as a winning one. Thus the whole opening phase of the struggle, when Korchnoi was unable to get out of trouble, had psychologically attuned me to the idea that the ending would be favourable to me … and here comes the oversight 35 Rxh6?? I did not even see the threat …f4-f3, possibly because it was in contrast to Black’s hopeless position. Personally, I am of the view that if a strong master does not see such a threat at once he will not notice it, even if he analyses the position for twenty or thirty minutes.” – PETROSIAN.

I have a whole book full of these types of disaster, when one player just turned the alarm off. You should be on guard all the time, with the alarm dial turned up to 11!

Please note that Petrosian was also thinking less than objectively about the game, and thinking only about his plans. Your opponent also has a right to exist…

B. Analysis

It used to be thought that there wasn’t much difference in the abilities of strong and weak players at analysis – rather, it was all about judgement and experience. There might not be a lot of difference between GMs and IMs, but there is increasing evidence that among we club players, there are large and important differences.

Here White gets carried away with his attacking possibilities, when unflappable Exeter player Brian Hewson calmly sidesteps the main line of a sacrifice (11…fxe6) threatening a pin on the e-file.

and won. It is often the case that players will analyse one line very deeply but fail to spot an early alternative – as mentioned above, Grandmaster Kotov advised many years ago to identify each candidate move at the outset before analysing any one move deeply. Had White done this he could not fail to notice the possibility of Black castling, and should then spot the classic pattern of Q and K lined up on the e-file which suggests a pin from a Black R on e8.

surprising/paradoxical moves

Retreats

Christiansen – Karpov (1993)

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 Ba6 5.Qc2 Bb7 6.Nc3 c5 7.e4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nc6 9.Nxc6 Bxc6 10.Bf4 Nh5 11.Be3 Bd6 (wait for it…)

12.Qd1 1-0

The error made by Karpov above is actually a common one – missing an undeveloping retreat.

Other errors of this sort – hard types of move to spot – include long moves, sideways moves by Queens, captures by Pawns away from the centre, and so on. Another example:

Putting pieces en prise

Fischer – Sherwin, USA Ch’p , 1957

30. Rxf7 Rc1+ 31. Qf1!! h5 32. Qxc1 Qh4 33. Rxf8+ Kh7 34. h3 Qg3 35. hxg4 h4 36. Be6 1-0

How about that one: a Queen moving backwards into a position where it can be captured!

‘Creeping moves’

Purdy advises:

“examine moves that smite!”

…which is clearly good advice. But have a look at this:

Spassky – Korchnoi, Kiev, 1968

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. f3 O-O 6. Be3 Nc6 7. Nge2 a6 8. Nc1 e5 9. d5 Nd4 10. Nb3 Nxb3 11. Qxb3 c5 12. dxc6 bxc6 13. O-O-O Be6 14. Qa3 Ne8 15. h4 f6 16. c5 Rf7 17. Qa4 Qc7 18. Bc4 Bxc4 19. Qxc4 Bf8 20. h5 dxc5 21. hxg6 hxg6 22. Qe6 Rd8 23. Rxd8 Qxd8 24. Rd1 Qe7 25. Qxc6 Nc7 DIAGRAM

The situation in this Candidates’ Match game is tense Although White undoubtedly holds the advantage, Moscow players analysing while the game was going on could find no clear continuation, e.g. 26. Nd5 Qe6! and Black holds.

26. Qb6

Surprising and elegant, this ‘creeping move’ impressed many, including Kotov who has cited it more than once. The move prepares to answer …Qe6 with Bxc5 and leads to a swift win. To Kotov, this was a far more brilliant move than the Queen sacrifice that ended the game.

26… Kg7 27. Nd5 Qe6 28. Bxc5 Bxc5 29. Qxc5 Nb5 30. Qe3 Qc6+ 31. Kb1 Nd4 32. Rc1 Qb5 33. Nc7 Qe2 34. Ne6+ Kh7 35. Qh6+ 1-0

It’s hardest of all to spot a ‘creeping’ move in the middle of a combinational exchange.

Wahltuch – Palmer, Manchester, 1912

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 Nd6 (Berlin Defence, Rio De Janiero Variation) 6. dxe5 [6. Bxc6] 6… Nxb5 7. a4

This is a gorgeously messy line

7… Nd6 [better 7… d6]

8. Bg5 f6 9. Re1 fxg5 10. exd6+ Ne7 11. Ne5 cxd6 12. Qh5+ g6 13. Nxg6 Qa5 14. Nxh8+ Kd8

Have a look at the next diagram and see what you think.

15. Nc3

[Obviously not 15. Qf7 Qxe1#]

It is tempting to try a forcing move, but none work.

“A quiet move in the midst of an attack is the sign of the master” – Du Mont

15… Qf5 (else Qf7) 16. Nb5 Ng6 17. Qxg5+ 1-0

The ‘tree of analysis’

The starting point for any consideration of analysis must be Kotov, again.

Candidate moves must be established straight away and they must be clearly enumerated.

Once we have established all the candidate moves, we then proceed to work out the variations arising from them one by one.

In analysing complicated variations, one must examine each branch of the tree once and once only.

This task cannot be split into parts, by examining one move fully and then looking for the next one.

Kotov gives some example of positions where the analysis get progressively more detailed.

[trees]

      bare trunk          bare trunk  with     coppice                bush                                                side-branch

‘Just plunge in’:

Corden – Nunn, Birmingham 1975

Nunn and Griffiths advise: “Just plunge in”

The first move to look at must be 15. Ba4 Nd2+ 16. Kc3 Qe3+ 17. Kb4 a5#

…”and straightaway you have learned a lot about the position”.

That is, you can regain at least one piece whenever you wish, still keeping the K exposed. Other lines include:

‘Play a good positional move’

Nimzovitch

How to improve your analytical skills

So much for theory. How do you put this into practice? Well, you practice!

Solving problems in books and magazines

You have probably seen either the British Chess Magazine column Find the Winning Continuation, or the same idea in Chess magazine, called there Winning Combinative Play. There are also books of tactical positions for solving, one I quite liked for the basics was Chernev and Reinfeld, Winning Chess.

After that, you get serious. More testing (literally) is the Chess magazine feature, How Good is your Chess? which takes you through a real game and gives you points (There is a book of these under the same name by Danny King; BCM have a similar feature called Test Your Chess.) Here’s an easy example of such a test:

How good is your chess?

If you are determined to get better, try the Russian chess training programme contained in three books by Livshits: Test your chess IQ, Vol.1 (for players up to 160), Test your chess IQ, Vol.2 (for 160-200) and Test your chess IQ, Vol.3 – Grandmaster Challenge (for 200+ grades).

This is all ‘practice makes perfect’ style with little explanation. The theory of candidate moves and trees of analysis I found in Kotov, Think like a Grandmaster (a summary is also to be found in Kotov, Plan like a Grandmaster). This book also describes how Kotov used to analyse complicated master games, writing down his conclusions for comparison. Both books give test positions with a full tree of analysis.

Another important book for theory is Nunn and Griffiths, Secrets of Grandmaster Play. It is a deliberately educative book, showing, firstly, what a complete analysis of a game looks like, but also giving lots of practical tips and observations, and trying to show how much players really see at the board.

And lastly, there are some good ideas in Dvoretsky, Secrets of chess tactics. In particular, he describes the technique of playing-out of positions for which an analysis has been published. For example, he played on from the following positions from the Nunn/Griffiths book with his pupils (Yusupov and Dolmatov) as if the position had arisen in a game against the clock. This is a realistic test and you can check your conclusions against what Nunn has analysed.

“I can see the combinations as well as Alekhin, I just cannot get into the same positions” — SPIELMANN

E. Bibliography

Alexander, The Penguin Book of Chess Positions

Avni, Danger in Chess

British Chess Magazine, Find the Winning Continuation

Chernev and Reinfeld, Winning Chess

Chess magazine, Winning Combinative Play

Chess magazine, How Good is your Chess? (Book of same name by Danny King)

Dvoretsky, Secrets of chess tactics

Kotov, Think like a Grandmaster )_candidate moves, tree of analysis, analysis of master games

Kotov, Plan like a Grandmaster )

Livshits, Test your chess IQ, Vol.1

Livshits, Test your chess IQ, Vol.2

Livshits, Test your chess IQ, Vol.3 – Grandmaster Challenge

Nunn and Griffiths, Secrets of Grandmaster Play

My best(?) games

Posted on December 31, 1999 by DrDave

These would be my Best Games if they didn’t have dirty great holes in them!

The best holes

regis,d (1960) – richmond,rh (2150) [A21]

BEST?: cambridge city vs. NCI, 1986

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. g3 f5 4. d4 e4 5. Nh3 Nf6 6. Bg2 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8. Bg5 c6 9. f3 exf3 10. exf3 h6 11. Be3 Be6 12. Qd3 d5 13. c5 Qd7 14. Nf4 Bf7 15. b4 g5 16. Nfe2 Kg7 17. Rab1 Bg6 18. f4 Ne4 19. b5 Qc7 20. fxg5 hxg5 21. Nxe4 fxe4 22. Qd2

22… Qd8 Bob thought exchanging rooks was better … 23. Rxf8 Kxf8 24. bxc6 bxc6 25. Bh3 Na6 26. Bg4 Nc7 27. Rb7 Bf7 28. Qc1 Kg8 29. Qf1 Nb5 30. Qh3 [30. Bxg5 – lay unnoticed until 1992!] 30… Na3 31. Bf5 Qa5 32. Qh7+ Kf8 33. Qh8+ Bg8 34. Qh6+ Ke8 35. Qxc6+ Kf8 36. Qh6+ Ke8 37. Rxe7+ Kxe7 38. Bxg5+ Ke8 39. Qc6+ 1-0

regis,d (1935) – aston,pa (2000) [B23]

BEST?: east devon 2, 1994

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. Nge2 d5 4. exd5 exd5 5. d4 Nc6 6. Be3 Nf6 7. dxc5 Qa5 8. Nd4 Ng4 9. Bb5 Nxe3 10. fxe3 [10. Nxc6] 10… Bd7 11. Nb3 Qb4 12. O-O Qh4 [12… O-O-O 13. Rf4] 13. Nxd5 O-O-O 14. Qf3 Be6 15. Bxc6 bxc6 16. Nf4 Bd5 17. Nxd5 cxd5 18. Qf5+ Kc7 19. Qe5+ Kc8 20. Rxf7 Rd7

21. Qe8+ Yes, very good, but [21. Qe6 Qd8 22. c6] 21… Qd8 22. Qxd8+ Kxd8 23. Rxd7+ [23. Raf1] 23… Kxd7 24. Rd1 Kc6 25. Nd4+ Kxc5 26. Ne6+ Kc6 27. Nf4 Bc5 28. Nxd5 Rf8 29. c4 a5 30. Rf1 Re8 31. Rf3 Re4 32. b3 Kd6 33. Kf2 g6 34. Rf6+ Ke5 35. g3 Bxe3+ oops 36. Kf3 Bc5 37. Ra6 [37. Re6+ Kxe6 38. Kxe4 g5 39. Ne3 Bf8 40. h3 Bc5 41. Nc2 h5 42. g4 hxg4 43. hxg4 Bf2 44. a3 Bc5 45. b4 Be7 46. c5] 37… Bb4 [37… g5 38. h3 h5 39. Rg6] 38. Nxb4 Re1 1-0

osland,bs (1800) – regis,d [A00]

BEST?: thetford major r4, 1979

1. b4 c6 2. e3 e5 3. Bb2 f6 4. a3 a5 5. b5 Ne7 6. c4 cxb5 7. cxb5 d5 8. d4 e4 9. a4 Ng6 10. Nd2 Be6 11. Qb3 Nd7 12. Rc1 [12. Nxe4 bleah …] 12… Bd6 13. Ne2 Kf7 ! 14. g3 Nb6 15. Nf4 Nxf4 16. exf4 Qe7 17. Be2 Bb4 !?

I was very proud of this at the time: I intended to swap off all White’s good pieces and win the a-pawn. That’s actually what happended! 18. Bc3 Rhc8 19. Nb1 Bxc3+ 20. Rxc3 Rxc3 21. Nxc3 Qb4 22. Qxb4 axb4 23. Nb1 Rxa4 24. O-O Ra2 25. Re1 Nc4 26. Bxc4 dxc4 27. Rxe4 Ra1 28. Re1 Bf5 29. Kg2 Rxb1 30. Re2 b3 31. d5 c3 32. d6 c2 33. Re7+ Kg6 34. d7 c1=Q ! 35. g4 Qg1+ 36. Kf3 Qxg4+ 37. Ke3 Re1+ 38. Kd2 Qd1+ 39. Kc3 Rxe7 0-1

escott,k. – regis,d. [B06]

BEST?: warcs. vs devon (county 1/4 final), 1995

1. e4 g6 2. d4 d6 This move order is designed to stop White playing his next move! 3. c4 e5 4. d5 Bh6 ? Strategically brilliant but tactically a joke. 5. Nd2 [5. Bxh6 Nxh6 6. Qd2 Qh4 7. Nc3 f5 8. g3 Qh5 9. Be2] 5… Nf6 6. Bd3 Na6 7. Ngf3 Nc5 8. Bc2 a5 9. b3 Nh5 10. g3 O-O 11. Bb2 Qe8 12. a3 f5

I could see the combination coming… 13. b4 [13. exf5 gxf5 14. b4 e4 15. bxc5 exf3+ 16. Kf1 f4] 13… axb4 14. axb4 Rxa1 15. Bxa1

15…Nxe4 16. Nxe4 fxe4 17. Bxe4 Bg4 18. Qd3 Qf7 19. Ke2 Nf6 20. h3 Bxf3+ 21. Bxf3 e4 22. Bxe4 Nxe4 23. f4 Bg7 24. Bxg7 Kxg7 25. Ra1 Re8 26. Kf3 Qf5 27. Qd4+ Qf6 28. Qxf6+ Kxf6 29. Ra2 Nc3 30. Ra7 Re4 31. Rxb7 Rxc4 32. Ke3 Nxd5+ 33. Kd3 Rxb4 0-1

Posted on December 31, 1999 by DrDave

My best cheapos… I blush with shame, but I’d do it all over again.

Magnificent cheapos…

regis,d – lane,pc [A18]

CHEAPO: exchange vs. exeter,newman speed league, 1994

1. c4 e6 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. e4 Bb4 sucker 4. e5 Bxc3 5. dxc3 Ng8 6. Qg4 Ne7 7. Qxg7 Rg8 8. Qxh7 Nbc6 9. Nf3 d5 10. Bg5 Bd7 11. O-O-O dxc4 12. Bxc4 Na5

13. Bxe6 fxe6 14. Qh5+ Kf8 15. Bh6+ Rg7 16. Ng5 Qe8 17. Nh7+ My neatest combination, I think 1-0

regis,d. (1855) – jones,rh (1800) [A18]

CHEAPO: exchange vs. exmouth, 1995

1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6 3. e4 Nc6 4. Nf3 b6 5. e5 Ng4 6. d4 g6 7. h3 Nh6 8. Bg5 Ne7 9. Qd2 Nhf5 10. g4 Ng7 11. Ne4

11… f5 12. exf6 Bb7 13. f7+ Kxf7 14. Ne5+ [14. Ne5+ Kg8 15. Nf6#] 1-0

ryba,a (2015) – regis,d [B22]

CHEAPO: downing vs. trinity, 1979

1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 cxd4 5. cxd4 b6 6. Nf3 e6 7. Nc3 Bb4 8. Bd2 Bb7 9. Nb5 Be7 10. Rc1 a6 11. Nc3 O-O 12. Bc4 Nxc3 13. Rxc3

White’s chances for an attack must be excellent. 13… f6 14. a3 fxe5 15. dxe5 Nc6 16. O-O Qe8 17. Qc2

Casual 17… Rxf3 18. gxf3 Nd4 19. Qd1 Qg6+ 20. Kh1 Rf8 21. Be2 Nxe2 22. Qxe2 Qh5 23. Kg1 [23. Rg1 Bxf3+ 24. Rxf3 Qxf3+ 25. Qxf3 Rxf3 26. Be3] 23… Rxf3 24. Re1 Qg4+ 0-1

Dr.Dave plays like a Grandmaster

Posted on December 12, 1999 by DrDave

Well, for one move at least!

Playing like a grandmaster

Regis (Exeter) – Orpwood (Salford) [C30]

MASTER: BUCA, Leeds

1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. d3 Bb4 5. Nge2 O-O 6. O-O d6 7. Bg5 Na5 8. Bxf6 ! 8… gxf6 9. Nd5 Bc5 10. b4 Nxc4 11. dxc4 c6 12. bxc5 cxd5 13. cxd5 dxc5 14. Ng3 Kh8 15. Qh5 Qd7 ? 16. Qh6 Qd6 17. Nh5 Rg8

Petrosian-Spassky 18. Nxf6 Rg7 19. Qxg7+ 0-1

regis,d (1800) – langosz,g (1700) [A10]

MASTER: cambridge open, 1980

1. c4 g6 2. g3 Bg7 3. Bg2 d6 4. Nc3 c5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. O-O Nf6 7. d4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 Bd7 9. Bg5 O-O 10. Rc1 a6 11. b3 Qc7 12. Nxc6 [12. Nd5 Nxd5 13. cxd5 Bxd4 14. dxc6 Bxf2+ 15. Rxf2 Bxc6 16. Bh6 Rfc8 17. Bd5] 12… bxc6 13. Qd2 Rfc8 14. Na4 Rab8 15. Rfd1 c5 16. Nc3 Qa7

17. Bxf6 Bxf6 18. Nd5 Kg7 19. Nxf6 Kxf6 20. Qc3+ Kg5 21. Qg7

Petrosian-Pachman, Bled 1961 21… Be6 [21… Bc6 22. f4+ Kg4 23. h3+ Kxg3 24. Qh6 Bxg2 25. Rd3+ Bf3 26. Rxf3#] 22. h4+ Kg4 23. Kh2 Rh8 24. Bf3+ Kf5 25. e4# 1-0

regis,d – fisher,r (1720) [A36]

MASTER: portsmouth open #1, 1984

1. c4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 e6 5. Nf3 Be7 [5… d5 Tarrasch] 6. O-O O-O 7. d4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 Rb8 9. Bf4 Ra8 ? [9… d6 10. Ndb5 Ne8 11. Ne4 e5] 10. Ndb5 e5 11. Bg5 a6 12. Nd6 Ne8 13. Bxe7 Qxe7 14. Nxe8 Qxe8 15. Rc1 !? [15. c5] 15… Kh8 ?! [15… b6 16. Nd5 Rb8 17. Qb3] 16. Nd5 Rb8 17. c5 Qe6 18. Nb6 Rd8

Bernstein-Mieses (see Strategy section of the Canon) [18… Qxa2 19. Qd6 Rd8 20. Bxc6 bxc6 21. Qxb8] 19. Qd6 Qxd6 20. cxd6 Re8 21. e3 f5 22. Rfd1 g6 23. Bd5 Kg7 24. a3 e4 25. f4 exf3 26. Kf2 Kf6 27. Rc5 g5 28. Bxf3 g4 29. Bg2 h5 30. Rdd5 Ke6 31. Bf1 Rh8 32. Bd3 1-0

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

Posted on December 8, 1999 by DrDave

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

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

Bibliography:

Dunnington, How to play the King’s Indian Attack

Evans, The Chess Opening for You

Hodgson/Day, The Grand Prix Attack

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

Karpov, The Semi-Open Game in Action

Kasparov/Keene, Batsford Chess Openings 2

Keene et al. Understanding the Caro-Kann Defence

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

Nunn, The Complete Pirc

Pachman, Semi-Open Chess

Schiller, How to play the King’s Indian Attack

Solitis/Hall, The King’s Indian Attack

Walker, Chess Openings for Juniors

Various magazines and other books

Introduction

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

The three approaches are:

Fast attacking game with pieces

Slower attacking game with f4

King’s Indian Attack with g3

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

Fast attacking game with pieces

Giuoco Piano (my main recomendation for junior players)
or

Scotch Game

Slower attacking game with f4

Vienna Gambit or

King’s Gambit)

King’s Indian Attack with g3

KIA with 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. g3 or

in the Vienna 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3

Sadly, the KIA lines have no real force and are not good lines
to adopt against 1…e5. But the point is, how well does your
chosen repertoire fit together? Once I used to play the following
lines, together with the King’s Gambit:

Alekhin

1. e4 Nf6

Chase variation

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. c5 Nd5 5. Bc4 e6 6. Nc3

Caro-Kann

1. e4 c6

Panov-Botvinnik Attack

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

French

1. e4 e6

Advance Variation

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5

Pirc/Modern

1. e4 …d6/…g6

King’s Indian Attack

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Nge2 and 5. g3, 6. Bg2

Sicilian

1. e4 c5

Chamaeleon Variation

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 … 3. Nge2

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

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

Alekhin 1. e4 Nf6

1. e4 Nf6 2. Bc4 Nxe4 3. Bxf7+ Kxf7 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Qd5+

Caro-Kann 1. e4 c6

Fantasie Variation

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. f3 e5 4. Nf3 exd4 5. Bc4

French 1. e4 e6

Advance Variation, Milner Barry Gambit

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

Pirc/Modern

1. e4 …d6/…g6

I don’t know any gambits for White in the Pirc but against the
Modern you can try… the Monkey’s Bum!

1. e4 g6 2. Bc4 d6 3. Qf3 Nf6 4. d4 e5 5. Nh3

Sicilian 1. e4 c5

Morra Gambit: 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 or 3. …
Nf6 4. e5 Nd5 5. Bc4 Qc7 6. Qe2

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

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

Alekhin 1. e4 Nf6

Four pawns variation 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. c4 Nb6 4. d4 d6 5.
f4

Caro-Kann 1. e4 c6

Advance Variation 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5

French 1. e4 e6

Advance Variation 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5

Pirc/Modern

1. e4 …d6/…g6

Three Pawns Attack 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. c3 g6 4. f4

Sicilian 1. e4 c5

Big Clamp Variation 1. e4 c5 2. d3 (…) 3. f4

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

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

Defence

Piece attack

Slow attack with f4

King’s Indian Attack

Alekhin

1. e4 Nf6

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

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

1. e4 Nf6 2. d3 and 3.g3/Bg2 (sadly, this line has no real
force
and is not a very good line to adopt)

Caro-Kann

1. e4 c6

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

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

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

French

1. e4 e6

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

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

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

Pirc/Modern

1. e4 …d6/…g6

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

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

Sicilian

1. e4 c5

Closed: without d4

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

1. e4 c5 2. f4 (Grand Prix Attack) or

1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 with 4. Bg2, 5. d3, 6. f4 (Closed
Variation)

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

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

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

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

A. Piece attacks against the
common half-open defences

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

 rapid development

 keep Black passive

 keep lines open if you can

 keep an eye out for lightning raids

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

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

Ourmet,J – Cierniak,P (1) Paris,
1989

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

8. Bb5 1-0

and

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

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

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

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

Avoiding with 4…Nb6

White’s next is easy to find.

5. Bb3 c5

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

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

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

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

White plays a likely-looking Queen sacrifice.

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

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

]

Avoiding with 4… Nxc3

White has a cunning reply to this move.

5. Qf3 e6 6. Qxc3

6… Qg5 7. Nf3

[7. Kf1 +=]

7… Qxg2 8. Rg1 Qh3

]

White has compensation for the sacrificed pawn.

Defending with 4… c6

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

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

[8. d3 += is good enough]

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

[11… e6]

12. Qf5 f6 13. Ne4 Be7 14. Qe6

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

Defending with 4… e6

White places his pieces as actively as possible.

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

+/- Bellon-Alburt 1978]

White is better placed.

Example games
A1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neat Knights!

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

An adventurous pawn

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

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

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

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

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

White has good chances for an attack.

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

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

24. Rxg7 1-0

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

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

Black skips to the Queen’s-side

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

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

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

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

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

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

A2. Piece attacks vs.
Caro-Kann Defence

All the main lines in the books continue:

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5

and now

3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4

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

3. Nd2

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

3…dxe4 4. Nxe4

gives us the starting position from the books.

Black has tried 3…Nf6 e.g.

Tal-Campomanes, Leipzig Olympiad 1960 [B15]

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

A2.1 Solid line with 4…
Nd7

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

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

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

8. Bd3 h6

[8… Qxd4 is too dangerous:

9. N1f3

idea Ne5,Ng5xf7

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

White has great play for the pawn]

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

[14… Qd5 15. O-O-O Qxa2 16. c3]

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

Ripe for picking, I’d say.

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

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

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

Kirpichnikov-Lein, 1974]

A2.2. Lines with 4… Nf6

5. Nxf6+

…and Black has a choice of captures.

A2.2.1 Tartakower Variation, 5…
exf6

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

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

See example games.

A2.2.2 Bronstein-Larsen line,
5…gxf6

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

6. Nf3 Bg4

[6… Bf5

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

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

[12… c5 13. Nh4]

13. Rc1 f5 14. c5

14… cxd5 15. c6 bxc6 16. Bb5]

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

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

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

[12… cxd5 13. cxd5 Nxd5

[13… Rxd5 14. Bxb6 Rxd1 15. Bxc7]

14. Bb5+]

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

A2.3 Classical Variation with 4…Bf5

Now play:

5. Ng3 Bg6 6. h4 h6 7. Nh3

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

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

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

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

Now we see the point of the Nf4 move:

11. Nxe6 fxe6 12. Bxe6

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

12… Qc7 13. Re1

[13. Nh5 may be better]

13… Nbd7 14. Bg8+ Kf8 15. Bxh7 Rxh7

and Black is holding on.

Example games
A2

Kavalek-Andersson 1978

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2

Kavalek actually played 3. Nc3

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

[13… b5 14. Rh4]

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

The Bf7 must be exchanged.

18… Rd5

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

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

else Qe2 and Re8+

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

[28… Bg8 29. Nxd7]

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

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

1-0

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

[31… Kd8 32. Qxe6 Rxh7 33. Qg8+]

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

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

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

12… Ng6 13. Bd3 Rh7 14. Qc2

Suddenly, White looks much the better.

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

White is looking very good!

18… Rxh5

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

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

Enough! 1-0

Haas,C – Trachsel, Arosa, 1990 [B18]

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

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

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

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

16. Qf3 Bxh3 17. Qxc6+ 1-0

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

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

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

6. N1e2 e6 7. Nf4 Bd6 8. h4

Again, Black is prompted to exchange on f4.

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

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

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

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

31… Rf8 32. Re2 Qf4 33. Nf5 Re8

34. Ne7+ Kf7 35. Qg6+ Kf8

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

…More careful than that, anyway

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

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

The pin on the e-file can be exploited.

11. Bxd5 cxd5 12. Qh5 Qg5

[12… g6 13. Qxd5 Nc6]

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

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

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

1. e4 e6

Now play the natural sequence

2. d4 d5 3. Nc3

Black now has an important choice: safe or brave?

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

This is a solid line but Black lacks counterplay.

A3.1.1 Rubinstein Variation with
4…Nf6

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

White can get an advantage through straightforward moves:

5. Nxf6+ gxf6

(5…Qxf6 6. Nf3 h6 7. Bd3

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

Liublinsky-Ufimsev 1945.

A3.1.2 Rubinstein Variation with
4…Bd7

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

This

Stonewall

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

5. Nf3 Bc6 6. Bd3

6…Nf6

(6…Nd7 may be better)

7. Nxf6+ gxf6 8. Qe2

+/- Levy.

A3.1.3 Rubinstein Variation with
4…Nd7

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

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

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

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

A3.2. Guimard Variation 3.
… Nc6

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

4. e5

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

leaves Black without scope, so Black should prefer

4…f6

when, after

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

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

A3. 3. Classical Variation,
3…Nf6

This is met by:

4. Bg5

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

A3.3.1. The Burn Variation, 4…
dxe4

This has obvious links with the Rubinstein line.

5. Nxe4 Be7 6. Bxf6

And Black has tried both recaptures:

6…Bxf6 (Variation 1)

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

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

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

6… gxf6 (Variation 2)

A more risky and more dynamic try.

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

A3.3.2. The MacCutcheon Variation, 4… Bb4

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

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

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

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

Again White’s move is easy to remember:

5. e5 Nfd7

6. h4

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

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

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

Good, isn’t it?

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

Declining with 6… f6

7. Qh5+ Kf8

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

Declining with 6… c5

7. Bxe7 Qxe7 8. Nb5 +=

Declining with 6… h6

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

Hellers-Barayev 1986

Declining with 6… a6

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

+=/unclear BCO2

Declining with 6… O-O

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

unclear: Kupreichik-Moskalenko 1986

The Gambit accepted: 6…Bxg5

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

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

Black has a couple of alternatives to 9…Nc6:

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

+- BCO2

13… Kxc7 14. Nxd5+ Kd8 15. Bc4]

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

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

[12… h6]

13. Bxh7+

Keres-Wade 1954]

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

With compensation, according to BCO2

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

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

4. Nge2

Another Alekhin Gambit

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

4… dxe4 5. a3 Be7 6. Nxe4 Nf6

An open game with about equal chances has resulted.

Example games
A3

A3.3.3 Examples of the Alekhin-Chatard
Attack

Alekhin – Fahrni, Mannheim, 1914

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

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

The key move in the Gambit Accepted.

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

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

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

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

Great idea.

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

1-0

Cid,M – Araya,R (4) Copa, 1989[C13]

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

Declined

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

The g-pawn is tempting…

13… Qxg6 14. Nxd5

A characteristic sac.

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

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

1-0

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

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

Declined

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

The position is still not easy for Black

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

At last the K-side attack comes!

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

And White won with the exhange and extra pawns.

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

50. Rxd7 1-0

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

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

Declined

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

Black now becomes provocative

12… d4 13. Bxf6 gxf6 14. Nxd4 Nxd4

The crowd were baying for…

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

The lonely King wanders to his grave

20… Ke5

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

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

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

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

Declined again

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

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

Black escapes to the Q-side

16. g3 Rdf8

17. Rxd5 exd5 18. Nxd5

the sacrifice is not so great, after all!

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

23… Nxe5

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

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

Now, a few games in the other Alekhin gambit.

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

Miles – Reefschlager, Porz,
1982

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

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

13. f3 exf3 14. gxf3

14… Nd8

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

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

to allow …Ra7, but a move too late

18. Bf6

1-0 18… Rxf6

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

]

19. Rxg7+ Kh8 20. Qg5 Rg6

[20… Rf8 21. Rxh7+]

21. Rxg6 hxg6 22. Qh6+

1-0

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

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

Yeuch.

7. Bf4 Nf6 8. f3

The best approach.

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

12… Qg5+ 13. Kb1 Ne3 14. Bf4

1-0

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

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

13. d5

Always, this is the key break.

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

The position is opened up nicely.

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

1-0

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

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

Black now prompts a move White might make voluntarily.

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

Black’s pawns look awful.

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

Careless.

17. Rfb1

1-0

Abdulla,M – Khechen,N [C15], Novi

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

Ill-advised.

9. Be3 a6 10. Bxc6+ Nxc6

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

Again, the position needs opening up with d5.

17. d5 Rxd5 18. Rxd5 exd5 19. Bc5

winning the exchange

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

a hopeful lunge

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

1-0

Castillo,O – Segovia,J [C15], WchJ

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

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

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

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

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

Black’s attack hasn’t even started.

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

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

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

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

10… Bg5 11. Qb5+ 1-0

A3. Example of other French
variations

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

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

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

10. Ne5 O-O

Else Bb5+

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

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

16. Qh3

Threatening 17. Bxf6 and 18. Qxh7

16… Qd6 17. Bxf6 gxf6 18. Qh6 f5

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

19. Re3 Qxd4 20. c3!

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

The fianchetto: a user’s guide

Posted on November 27, 1999 by DrDave

Fianchetto basics

A Bishop developed in fianchetto reaches deep into the opponent’s position and influences two important central squares.
We can see this effect in IQP positions.

Commonly in isolated Queen-Pawn positions Black has a cramped position and White has chances for attacking the King.

When an IQP faces a fianchetto, Black has two advantages over the standard formation: extra pressure on the isolated Pawn, and an extra-strong defensive phalanx on the light squares.
We can see this in Rubinstein’s line in the Tarrasch Defence. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. g3

  [Event "Diagram 3"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]   1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. g3  *

If the opponent tries to block the long diagonal with Pawns, you can lever open the line again with your own Pawns.

This is a simple plan which can be played by either side. I have played dozens of games like this.

A castled fianchetto position can be a very hard nut to crack – for example, h7 is difficult to get to. The Pawns cover the dark squares and the Bishop covers the light squares.

However, there is a recipe for attacking the castled King’s fianchetto position.
The weaknesses created by the g2-g3 move can be used by the opponent to get at the King: either by getting pieces into the holes (f3 and h3), or by using the h-Pawn to lever open the h-file, or some combination of these ideas. If the Bishop is removed, all that will be left is a network of holes.

Black has correctly tried to get at the King through the h-file, particularly h3. If White plays Bxh3, the Black Queen will leap onto the doorstep of the White King. Another clever point is: Black has held the Bishop on h3 while advancing the h-Pawn, so White cannot meet …h7-h5 with h2-h4, blockading the h-file.
Here Black should play 1…hxg3 with the idea of 2. hxg3 Bxg2 3. Kxg2 Qh3+ mating.
This attacking scheme is not very quick to set up, but works like clockwork.
“I had won hundreds of five-minute games in similar positions and had it down to a science: lever open the h-file… sac, sac … and mate!” – Bobby Fischer

Lee,R – Holmes,D [E82] BCCC 1969-70

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 b6 7.Qd2 c5 8.d5 Na6 9.0-0-0 Nc7 10.Bh6 a6 11.g4 b5 12.h4 bxc4 13.Bxc4 Nb5 14.Nge2 Nxc3 15.Nxc3 Bd7 16.h5 Qe8 17.hxg6 fxg6 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.Qh6+ Kh8 20.e5 dxe5 21.d6 exd6 22.Rxd6 Qe7 23.Rxf6 Rxf6 24.Nd5 Qg7 25.Nxf6 1-0

Homer,S – Wilde,T [B07] Devon vs. Cornwall, 06.02.1999

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be2 Bg7 5.h4 h6 6.Be3 0-0 7.h5 Kh7 8.hxg6+ fxg6 9.Qd2 Ng8 10.0-0-0 Nc6 11.Nf3 Qe8 12.Rh4 h5 13.g4 Nf6 14.gxh5 gxh5 15.Rdh1 Rh8 16.Nd5 Nxd5 17.Rxh5+ Kg8 18.Rxh8+ Bxh8 19.Rg1+ Bg7 20.exd5 Nd8 21.Bh6 1-0

[Cool Blue Cat says:]
I must emphasise the importance of this plan. There are several standard attacks which you must be able to play – this is one of them – and where it often seems the attack is easier to play than the defence. If you ever intend to play a fianchetto system, your opponents can trot out this plan almost without thinking, and if you get your counterattack wrong you will almost certainly be checkmated. In every opening where there is a King’s-side fianchetto you can expect to find a critical line where the opponent tried to checkmate down the h-file.

Having placed your Bishop on the long diagonal you need to be careful how you place your central Pawns. If they sit about in front of the Bishop they limit its reach until they move; if they become blocked they can choke it for a long while.

On the other hand, leaving your central Pawns unmoved leaves the centre free for your opponent! So fianchetto openings are difficult to handle, particularly in how you play in the centre. This is part of the attraction of fianchetto systems: they are difficult and so grandmasters can hope for their GM opponents to go astray at some point.

Fianchetto Openings

Fianchettoes turn up frequently in closed Queen’s-Pawn openings, and there is a Fianchetto Variation for White in each of the Indian Defences (semi-closed openings).

King’s Indian: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Nf3 O-O 5. g3
Grunfeld: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 d5
Queen’s Indian: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3
And most recently, Kasparov has experimented with:

Nimzo Indian: 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. g3

But the history of the fianchetto is particularly bound up with the history of the flank (hypermodern) openings.
Reti and his contemporaries rejoiced in the fianchetto, arguing that you did not need to occupy the centre as White as long as you controlled it.
The diagram is from Reti-Lasker, New York 1924. We can see that Reti has allowed Lasker to occupy the centre but Rtei has fianchettoed both Bishops to hit back at this, and has even backed up his Bb2 with a Queen on a1!

  [Event "Diagram 7"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "r3r1k1/1p1nqppb/3b1n1p/p2pp3/P7/1P1P1NP1/1BRNPPBP/Q1R3K1 w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "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

  [Event "Diagram 8"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]   1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.g3

This is the outline of the Catalan Opening (1. d4, 2. c4, & g3). White combines a fianchetto with both a central stake on d4 and pressure on Black’s centre with c2-c4. Black can try to reinforce d5 with moves like …e6 and …c6, but this is rather passive.
Black can stop the fight for the d5 point by …d5xc4, but this gives White a central majority and opens up the long light diagonal.

This is a development we often see in the English Opening (1.c4). White uses the pressure of the fianchettoed Bishop to strike at the Black Queen’s-side.

Having plonked a Pawn on c4, it makes sense to let the light-squared Bishop peer around the side of it; we see the same development by Black in many closed Sicilian systems and in the Benoni and Dutch Defences, where Black fianchettoes to avoid the Bishopâ€™s Pawn. In each case the fianchettoed Bishop can used to support a Pawn advance.

The Reti-Barcza system beginning with 1. Nf3 reserves all White’s options.

This is a rather slow, subtle opening system which is difficult for all players to handle.
White can expand on the King’s-side, centre or Queen’s-side (west, south-west, south).
The King’s-side expansion is known as the King’s Indian Attack, and is often played by players of 1.e4 against half-open defences like the French. It’s another clockwork attack.

Expansion on the King’s-side

Expansion in the centre

Expansion on the Queen’s-side

The fianchetto can also be tried in e-Pawn games, particularly the half-open defences – we have mentioned the King’s Indian Attack against the French, and the Pirc and Modern Defences are based upon a Black King’s-side fianchetto. White has also tried a fianchetto of the King’s Bishop in many lines of the Sicilian, Open and Closed.

Closed Sicilian: 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. g3 g6
Open Sicilian: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 (Scheveningen Variation) 6. g3
Sicilian: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. b3

  [Event "Diagram 14"]  [Site "?"]  [Date "????.??.??"]  [Round "?"]  [White "?"]  [Black "?"]  [Result "*"]  [FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pp1p/3p1np1/8/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w - - 0 1"]  [SetUp "1"]  *

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6
In the open Sicilian, Black may post the dark-squared Bishop on the long diagonal without fear that it may be stifled by Pawns. The Dragon Bishop is a fearsome creature, particularly if White castles Queen’s-side hoping to carry out the clockwork attack against Black’s King’s-side. Black already has a half-open c-file against White’s own King!

Conclusion

The fianchetto is one of the basic building-blocks of chess thinking. Although it is associated with some of the most complex opening systems that are played by GMs, you are bound to come across it, and should at least know how to attack a castled King which is also hiding behind a fianchetto.

Beating the Anti-Indians

Posted on October 28, 1999 by DrDave

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

Daniel Hill, Dave Regis and Steve Webb (Credits)

A. Colle System

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 and 3. e3

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

There is a club booklet on the Colle.

Black plays …g6 against the
Colle

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

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

4. c3

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

Now Fine says White is best advised to play

8. b4=

Since

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

Colle system vs. King’s
Indian

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. e3

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

Belavanets – Bronstein 13th USSR
semi-final, 1941

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

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

fianchetto of the King’s bishop

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

over-protection of the advanced
e4-pawn

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

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

More over-protection

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

23. Kf1

Two sword-swipes with the Knights decide the game.

23…Nxe3+ 24. Ke1 Nf3+ 0-1

Black plays …e6 against the
Colle

3. e3

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

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

about equal: Kovacevic-Timman 1984]

Colle with …b6

2… b6 3. e3 Bb7

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

4. Bd3 e6 5. O-O c5

6. Nbd2

[6. c3 is the traditional recipe]

6… Be7

is the main line but others are known:

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

[6… d6 is known to theory]

[6… Nc6!? 7. b3

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

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

Example Game:

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

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 b6 3. e3

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

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

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

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

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

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

0-1

B. London System

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 and 3. Bf4

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

Black plays …g6 against the
London System

The Bishop rather invites …d6 and …e5.

3… Bg7 4. e3 d6

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

5. h3

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

Polugaevsky-Gufeld,
1979

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

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

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

[16. g4!?]

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

19… Bxe5

An unusual exchange!

20. Bxe5

[20. dxe5 e6 /\ …c5]

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

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

0-1

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

Hills-Webb 1995

5… Nbd7

for 5…O-O see below

6. Be2

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

6… O-O 7. c4

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

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

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

7… c5

Thematic, playing to pressurise the long diagonal.

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

Defends the c4 Pawn but weakens the dark squares.

12… a6

/\ …b5

13. a4 Re8 14. Rfd1 Nb8

/\ …Nb8-c6-b4

15. d5 Nxd5

draw agreed (!)

[15… Nxd5 16. Bd2 Nb4-+ ]

One last one with a slightly different move order.

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

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

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

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

27. Qc7 Qb5 28. Qxa7 g5 29. Qa4

Sacrificing the Knight for some play

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

Black plays …e6 against the
London System

3. Bf4

3…b6

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

4. e3 Bb7 5. Bd3

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

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

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

C. Torre Attack/Torre System
vs. King Fianchetto

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 and 3. Bg5

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

Black plays …g6 against the
Bg5 system

3. Bg5

3… Bg7

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

4. Nbd2 c5

White can now try

5. Bxf6 or

5. c3:

we’ll look at a game with each.

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

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

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

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

Over-ambitious: Black spies the traditional weakness on f2

13… Ne5 14. b3 f5! 15. Be2 f4!-+

Cementing the post on e5.

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

White seems to have developed some uncomfortable threats…

21… Kf6!!

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

22. h4 h6

[22… Qxa2? 23. Bg4]

23. Rd1 Rb8

[23… Qxa2?? 24. Qxd6+ exd6 25. Rxd6#]

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

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

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

5… cxd4

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

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

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

16. Bg3 Qe7 17. Re1 Rcd8

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

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

takes e3 away from the Nf1.

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

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

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

White faces an uncomfortable choice

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

Mate is threatened

39. Qxg4 Qxg4 40. hxg4 Kg7 41. Rf5

41… Rxh1+!

0-1

Another recent game featuring …g6 was this encounter:

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

2… c6 3. Bf4 d6 4. h3 Qb6 5. b3 c5

An interesting tempo-loss

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

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

27…Qc7 Qb5 28. Qxa7 g5 29. Qa4

Sacrificing the Knight for some play

Torre Attack (Bg5 against
…e6)

3. Bg5

3. … c5

…b6 systems tend to be upset by d4-d5

4. e3

There are two alternatives:

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

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

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

7… Bb4

[7… Nxd4]

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

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

and now White blundered with

16. Na4?

[16. Nd2+/= x c5]

16… Nxd4! Stenhouse-Hill, Portsmouth 1996]

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

Risky 4…Qb6

Positional 4… cxd4

One rare alternative:

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

Risky 4…Qb6

4… Qb6

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

White must now decide whether to sacrifice the b2
pawn,

5. Nbd2,

or to defend it with the passive-looking

5. Qc1.

Passive 5. Qc1

5. Qc1 Ne4

[5… Nc6 6. c3

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

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

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

6. Bf4 d5 7. c3 Nd7

[7… Nc6]

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

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

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

and now I played the weakening

14… f../strong>

Aggressive 5. Nbd2

5. Nbd2

5… d5

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

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

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

Positional 4… cxd4

4… cxd4

Bronstein-Ward, Maidstone 1994
/0-1

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

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

Summary

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

D. Trompovsky

1. d4 Nf6 2. Bg5

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

Black plays …g6 against the
Trompovsky

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

2…g6 3. Bxf6 exf6

and I think Black already has some problems getting
organised.

2… c5

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

3. d5?! Ne4 4. Bf4 Qa5+

A better idea for White is

3. Bxf6! e.g.

3… gxf6 4. d5 Qb6 5. Qc1

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

[5… d6]

6. c3

[6. e3]

[6. g3]

6… Bg7 7. e3 e6 8. Nh3

Hort says this is unclear. I believe him.

I recommend

2… Ne4

Now I think the best for White is

3. Bf4

Alternatives:

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

[3. h4 is Hodgson’s favourite]

3… c5

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

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

[4. d5 e5!]

[4. Nf3!]

4… e5! 5. dxe5 g5! 6. Bc1 Nc5

/\ …Bg7]

After 3…c5:

4. f3 Qa5+ 5. c3 Nf6

when

6. d5

transposes above.

Black plays …e6 against the
Trompovsky

2. Bg5 e6

3. e4

[3. Nf3 is the Torre]

Now

3… h6

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

[3… c5

is almost entirely untested. One known example went

4. e5

[4. Nf3 is the Wagner Gambit]

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

[9… Bxd6!?]

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

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

Black could have played on with

14… Bc5]

After 3…h6:

4. Bxf6 Qxf6

5. Nc3

White can try the Knight on d2:

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

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

Levenfish-Rabinovitch, Petrosgrad 1921]

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

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

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

5… Bb4 6. Nf3

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

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

Bezold-Bischoff, Altensteig 1994

Summary

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

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

E. Systems with g3

1. d4 Nf6 2. g3

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

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

Black plays …g6 against
g3

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

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

6… e5

Black has an important alternative here:

[6… Nbd7 7. O-O e5 8. dxe5 Ng4

9. Qd2

[9. Nc3 Pirc 9… Ngxe5!

[9… dxe5 10. Nd2+/= Pirc]

]

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

9… Ngxe5?!

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

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

[12. Ba3+/= ]

]

7. dxe5 Nfd7 8. O-O

8… dxe5

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

9. e4 Nc6 10. Nbd2 b6 11. Qe2

Now Polugaevsky-Medina, 1972, continued:

11… Qe7

[11… a5 Marovic]

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

1-0, 39

[13… Be6 was better, acording to Marovic]

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

Arkell-Nunn/London
1992

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

[5. c4 d6 was the game move order]

5… d6

6. c4

[6. c3]

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

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

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

(forced, but the Ba3 needs another post now)

17. Ne2

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

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

23. Bh1

[23. Nxh3]

[23. Bxh3]

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

[34… Rxe3 35. Bf6<-/-> ]

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

[38. Bxe6 h1=Q]

38… Rg6 39. Bg2 Rg4 40. Bd2 Rxc4
0-1

Black plays …e6 against the g3 system

2. g3 e6

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

2. g3 e6

3. Nf3

3… c5

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

4. c4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nc6

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

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

One complex line which offers hances to both sides is

6. Nc3 Qb6!?

[6… Bb4 is safe, 6…Bc5 is uncommon]

7. Nb3

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

7… Ne5

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

8. e4 Bb4 9. Qe2

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

9… a5 10. f4

[10. Be3]

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

Pick the bones out of that!

F. Systems with a delayed c4

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

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

G. Stonewall Opening

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

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

1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Bd3

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

Black plays …g6 against the
Stonewall

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

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

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

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

Black plays …e6 against the Stonewall

2. e3 d5

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

3. Bd3 c5

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

4. f4

[4. c3 e5!]

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

4. c3 Nc6

[4… e6 5. f4]

5. f4

5… e6

blocks the Bc8 better is:

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

when Black is comfortable

H. The Richter-Veresov system

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

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

Against the Veresov itself:

3…Nbd7

3…Bf5 and

3…c5

are independent lines with some little theory
attached.

e.g.

[3… Bf5 4. f3

[4. e3]

[4. Bxf6]

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

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

Black plays …g6 against the
Veresov

2… g6

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

Black plays …e6 against the
Veresov

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 e6

3. Bg5 d5

3…c5

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

Credits:

Dan composed the repertoire for the …e6 player.

Steve composed the repertoire for the …g6 player

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

General endgame advice

Posted on September 30, 1999 by DrDave

1 key idea, 3 principles, 15 general laws, 12 practical guides and 6 tips for the ending

One key idea: the passed pawn.

Endgames, and some middlegames, are all about creating and advancing a passed pawn. Either the pawn queens, or your opponent gets so tied up in knots trying to stop it that they lose something else.

3 principles (Fine)

Without pawns, you must be at least a Rook ahead in order to force mate (exceptions: R+R wins against two minor pieces; four minor pieces win against a Queen)
If you are two or more Pawns ahead the win should be routine by advancing the Pawns
With only one Pawn advantage, you will win if you can use it to gain more material – it is not usually enough just to advance the Pawn. Often one Pawn advantage is thought to be a theoretical draw, although the practical difficulties may be very great. Winning by the advance of the Pawn may be won because it allows entry with the King, or causes distraction from one vulnerable side, or allows simplification into a known won ending.

15 general laws (Fine again)

Doubled, isolated and blockaded pawns are weak: avoid them!
Passed pawns should be advanced as rapidly as possible.
If you are one or two pawns ahead, exchange pieces but not pawns.
If you are one or two pawns behind, exchange pawns but not pieces.
If you have an advantage, leave pawns on both sides of the board.
If you are just one pawn ahead, in 99 cases out of 100 the game is drawn if there are pawns on only one side of the board.
The easiest endings to win are pure King+Pawn endings.
The easiest endings to draw are those with opposite coloured bishops.
The King is a strong piece: use it!
Do not place pawns on the colour of your bishop.
Bishops are better than knights in all except blocked pawn positions
Two bishops vs. B&N or N&N are usually a real advantage.
Passed pawns should not be blockaded by the king: the only piece which is not much harmed by watching over an opponent’s pawn is the knight.
A rook on the seventh rank is worth a pawn.
Rooks belong behind passed pawns, of your own or the opponent.

12 practical tips (Mednis)

The king is a fighting piece and should be centralised and used actively.
Material advantage wins endgames: hold on to your material.
Be wary of sacrificing pawns for development: only in Rook+Pawn endings is an active piece worth material.
Try and gain tempi whenever possible, but without giving up material.
The fewer the pieces, the more important the pawns
Keep a flexible, sound pawn formation: avoid doubled, isolated and blockaded pawns.
Passed pawns must be pushed.
The outside passed pawn is an advantage: in King&Pawns endings it is decisive.
Rooks belong behind passed pawns.
In open positions the two bishops are murder: in most other positions they are a real advantage.
In open or semi-open positions a bishop is usually superior to a knight.
The knight is superior to the bishop in blocked positions or when the bishop is hemmed in by pawns on the same colour squares as the bishop.

[cool blue cat says:]

COOL TIP: MEDNIS says ‘good technique’ means:

not allowing counterplay
holding on to material advantage
establishing a clear plan and following it
being careful
never being in a hurry
avoiding complications
- (and … winning the game!)

Weak pawns

Posted on September 28, 1999 by DrDave

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

— Fine, Basic Chess Endings

Introduction

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

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

The two principal problems with poor Pawn formations
are:

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

(2) weaknesses of the Pawns themselves.

Let us start with a notable example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black develops pressure against the hanging Pawns.

16… Ba6 17. Rac1 Rac8 18. Qb3 f6

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

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

23… Bd5

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

…0-1 (42)

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

Rubinstein-Nimzovich

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

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

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

The game continued:

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

A bit of theory

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

There are four principal varieties of weak Pawn:

backward Pawn

doubled Pawns

isolated Pawn

hanging Pawns

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

Pawn islands.

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

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

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

Backward Pawn.

Black has a backward Pawn at d6.

White has a potentially backward Pawn at c3.

Disadvantages of Backward
Pawns:

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

Possible compensations with
Backward Pawns:

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

Doubled Pawns

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

Disadvantages of Doubled
Pawns:

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

Possible compensations with
Doubled Pawns:

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

Isolated Pawn

White has an isolated Pawn at d4.

Black has an isolated Pawn on h7

Disadvantages of Isolated
Pawns:

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

Possible compensations with
Isolated Pawns:

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

Hanging Pawns

White has hanging Pawns at c4 and d4.

Disadvantages of Hanging
Pawns:

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

Possible compensations with
Hanging Pawns:

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

Pawn islands

White has two Pawn islands to Black’s three.

Disadvantages of extra Pawn
islands:

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

Possible compensations with
extra Pawn islands:

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

Winning against holes in the
Pawn formation

Steinitz,W – Blackburne,J
London, 1876

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

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

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

Here we are…!

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

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

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

Winning against a Backward
Pawn

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

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

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

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

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

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

White has been wobbling dreadfully, and finally topples.

31… Nxd4 32. cxd4 R8xc5 0-1

Winning with a Backward
Pawn

Zinn – Sveshnikov, Decin [B33]
1974

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black follows his pawn sacrifice with a Bishop!

26. Qxd7 Rf7

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

0-1

Winning against Doubled
Pawns

Mattison – Nimzovich
(carlsbad) CHERNEV [E21] 1929

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

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

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

“The centre cannot hold…”

0-1

Winning with Doubled
Pawns

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some brisk tactics finish the job.

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

Winning against an Isolated
Pawn

Lasker-Reshevsky, Nottingham
1936

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

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

Always this blockade: here it also offers desirable exchanges.

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

Black has developed strong pressure along the long diagonal.

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

One might ask:

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

and why should the side with the IQP avoid exchanges?

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

Winning with an Isolated
Pawn

Stoltz – Thomas, Zaandamk
[D40]1946

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Winning against Hanging
Pawns

Fischer – Spassky WCh (6)
[D59] 1972

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

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

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

Winning with Hanging
Pawns

Bertok – Fischer [D59]
1962

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

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

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

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

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

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

22. Nxd5

[22. Nh5 Ne4 23. Rc2 Qb4]

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

Winning against extra Pawn
islands

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

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

8. Nd3 Bxc3 9. dxc3 Qxe4

[9… Nxe4 10. Re1]

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

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

17. Re4

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

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

Now, White can attack the a-pawn.

22. Ra4 Ra8 23. Ra5

restrains the Pawns

23… d5!?

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

24. c4! Kd6

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

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

25. c5+ Kd7 26. d4

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

26… f5

Hoping to nip out to h6 with some play.

27. Rxe6! fxe6 28. f4

Clearing the third rank for a Rook

28… Kc8 29. Kd2 Kb7?!

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

[30. b3 blocks the third rank]

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

30… Rb7 may have been better]

30. Ra3 Rg8 31. Rh3 Rg7

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

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

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

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

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

43. b4 Rf6 44. b5!?

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

[46… Rxh5 47. b6]

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

44… axb5 45. axb5 Rf8

Off to sieze the a-file!

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

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

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

49. c6+ Kb8 50. Rxh7

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

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

Natural, but not exact.

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

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

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

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

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

Winning with extra Pawn
islands

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

Geller’s Quiet System – Bronstein [B06] 1993

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

5. Nbd2

[5. Bd3 (best)]

5… O-O 6. Be2

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

Simagin-Bronstein, Moscow 1967

[0-1,44]]

6… b6 7. O-O e6

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

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

=+ K/B

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

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

Filip-Bronstein, Moscow 1967

[0-1,85]

=/+

The Benoni in quotes

Posted on September 28, 1999 by DrDave

John Nunn tells us that the Benoni is often called:

“One big swindle”

C.H.O’D. (Hugh) Alexander once remarked:

“If God played God in the Ben-oni, White would win. But at any other level, Black’s practical chances are excellent.”

regis,d (1960) – richmond,rh (2150) [A21]

regis,d (1935) – aston,pa (2000) [B23]

osland,bs (1800) – regis,d [A00]

escott,k. – regis,d. [B06]

regis,d – lane,pc [A18]

regis,d. (1855) – jones,rh (1800) [A18]

ryba,a (2015) – regis,d [B22]

Regis (Exeter) – Orpwood (Salford) [C30]

regis,d (1800) – langosz,g (1700) [A10]

regis,d – fisher,r (1720) [A36]

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

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

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

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

Tal-Campomanes, Leipzig Olympiad 1960 [B15]

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

Haas,C – Trachsel, Arosa, 1990 [B18]

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

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

Stonewall

Cid,M – Araya,R (4) Copa, 1989[C13]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abdulla,M – Khechen,N [C15], Novi

Castillo,O – Segovia,J [C15], WchJ

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

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

Fianchetto basics

Lee,R – Holmes,D [E82] BCCC 1969-70

Homer,S – Wilde,T [B07] Devon vs. Cornwall, 06.02.1999

Fianchetto Openings

Conclusion

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

Torre Attack (Bg5 against …e6)

1 key idea, 3 principles, 15 general laws, 12 practical guides and 6 tips for the ending

One key idea: the passed pawn.

3 principles (Fine)

15 general laws (Fine again)

12 practical tips (Mednis)

COOL TIP: MEDNIS says ‘good technique’ means:

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

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

Torre Attack (Bg5 against
…e6)