and Black",ar

Dielller ,Systellls

Hello everybody'! Hola a todos!

We are a group of chess fans who are producing new chess material, We have members from all around the world, belonging to different cultures and speaking different languages, all of us joined by our common love for chess I We hope you will enjoy our workl

So rnos un gill po de fanatrcos del a j edrez, q tie estamos tram n do de produc i r nuevo m "IeI' ia 1 CD mo este, desarro 11 and 0 diferentes proyectos e ideas, Teuemos miernbros de diferentes partes del muudo, provenientes de diferentes culruras, hahlando diferentes leuguas, uuidos pOI' uuestra pnsion por el ajedrezl. Esperantos qtle disfruten de esra muestra de nuestro tra bajo I.

If you are interested in joining us, or send any comments drop us an email at:caissa_lovers@yahoo.com. Si alguien estuviese interesado en unirse al gl1lpo 1I0S pueden escribir a, cflissa_lovers@yaboo,CDm_

Best regards II Sahrdosl

SPECIALIST CHESS OPENINGS GENERAL EDITOR: R.G. WADE

Colle, London and Blackmar-Diemer systems

T.D. HARDING

B. T. Batsford Limited London

Contents

First published 1979 © T.O.Harding 1979 ISBN 0 7134 21118

Symbols and References Preface

1 Introduction

2 Colle System (24)1'3,3 e3), Ideas and Irregular Lines 3 Main Line Colle (with ... d5)

4 Colle v. Queen's Indian ( ... b6)

5 London System (.af4), Introduction (j London v. King's Indian ( ... g6)

7 Miscellaneous after 2 €If3

8 Stonewall (2 e3 with f4 and c3) 9 t'l'ackmar·Oiemer Gambit (2 e4)

Index of Complete Games Index of Variations

Typeset by

Master Chess Publications, London Printed in Great Britain by

Billing & Sons Ltd., Gulldford and Worcester for the publishers

B.T.Batsford Limited

4 Fitzhardinge Street, London W1 H OAH.

BATSFORO CHESS BOOKS Advisor: R.G.wade

vi

vii

10 22 34 40 52 69 83 87

102 103

Symbols and References

+

! f ± +

~ I

!! ! ? ?!

?

??

11 1-0 Yz-}1 0-1 Ch

corres

check

balanced position

some advantage to White some advantage to Black clear advantage to White clear advantage to Black unclear

good move

excellent move

enterprising move (or idea worth further investigation) du bious move

weak move

outright blunder

with the idea of ...

Black resigned

Draw

White resigned Championship Correspondence game

PREFACE

This book deals chiefly with the Colle System and with the opening 1 d4, 2 <8f3, 3 .Q.f4 (sometimes called the London System). I also discuss some variations (such as 1 d4 d5 2 {)f3 c5 and 1 d4 d5 2 0f3 Jlf5) which players adopting these openings need to know. One advantage of these debuts is their universality· White Can play them against either 1 ... {)f6 or 1 ... d5 and adapt them to more or less any subsequent development used by Black.

The Colle and London Systems are more dangerous than their reputations. They may be somewhat old-fashioned, but that too can be a practical advantage. Players tend to study the variations used by contemporary grandmasters to the neglect of the old. This does not, however, invalidate the knowledge gained by the players of the past and readers will therefore find many pre-war games (and even some pre 1914 games) in this book.

The reader who adopts these openings in his own games will, consequently, be able to use ideas developed by some of the great masters of the past· while, at the Same time, catching his less-prepared opponents on unfamiliar ground. There have, of course, been some developments in recent years - as the dates of the examples quoted show. In selecting games quoted, I have tried to blend the significant modern examples of the Queen Pawn Openings with the accepted theory and classical examples of these systems.

I should like to take this opportunity of thanking all those people whose help, encouragement and bullying finally brought this book into being. Apart from all at Batsfords, credit is due to Robert Bellin, Les Blackstock, George Botterill, Michael Franklin, and Arthur Hall.

W or B at the side of a diagram indicates which player is to move. In the text, anum ber in brackets after a move refers to the diagram of that number.

The following were my chief sources:

ECO Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (volume D)

E uwe Theorie der Schach-Eroffnungen (Tie 1111, Bert i n 1 966)

Koltanowski Colle System (Chess Digest)

Nand T Neikirkh and Tsvetkov, Shakmatny Debyuti (volume 3; Sofia 1968)

Pachman (i) Queen's Gambit and other Closed Games;

(ii) Indian Systems and the following journals and periodicals:

British Chess Magazine, Chess, Chess Player 1-14, Fernschoch, lntormotor '-26 (R50-59), Shakhmatny Bulletin, 64.

Special cources for chapter 9 were:

E.J .Diemer - Vom Ersten Zug an Auf Matt! (Amsterdam 1956,

reprinted 1976 Schachverlag Rudi Schmauss, under the title 'Das modeme Blockmar-Diemer Gambits Kampars and Tejler - Chess Digest booklets (Discover the BlockmaDiemer Gambit, 5 vols 1971·77)

T.D.Harding Dublin February 1979

1 Introduction

The Queen Pawn Openings discussed in th is book have rarely attracted the attention of theoreticians. Nevertheless they have considerable practical value.

Many players do not have the time to study the fash ion able openings which the masters play and which the experts and keen students imitate. They want a reliable way of beginning the game which will not be overthrown by some sensational grandmaster refutation, an opening which they can rely on from season to season. The Colle System and the London (~f4) systems in this book are such openings.

There is, moreover, a lot to be said for learning an uncommon but sound opening and playing it regularly. Soon you know much more about it than your opponents do. Understanding from experience the middle-game positions wh ich arise from it, especially when the opening is of a strategic rather than tactical character, is an advantage which far outweighs any risk that

the occasional opponent, knowing your repertoire, may prepare a special answer to it.

The British master, Michael Franklin, has scored countless points with the London system against the King's Indian Defence, 1 d4 4)f6 2 ors g6 3 ~f4 which is discussed in chapter 6. In his hands, a supposedly innocuous opening has become a fearsome weapon with which, at one time or another, he has defeated most of the leading English players.

It is noteworthy that Spassky has taken up this variation, although he did not handle it in quite the same way as Franklin. Here is the game Spassky-Bukic, Bugojno t 978:

1 d4 1lf6

2 00 g6

3 ~f4

3 .I1g5 has become more popular recently, but it does not have quite the same meaning as the move played by Spassky. On g5, the bishop may help to control d5 (by threatening ~xf6) but it does not give White pressure against the

2 Introduction

square c7, which is one of the features of the London System. Also the bishop on g5 may be more readily challenged, by ... h6 or ... 4:le4.

In this book I shall not be considering Queen Pawn Openings in which White develops this bishop on gS.

3 ~g7

4 e3 O.{)

S 1le2

This is a modest square for the bishop, which Franklin usually plays to c4. White is in effect playing, in reverse, the London System against Reti's Opening. This consists in erecting a barrier of pawns (by d4, e3 and often c3 also) to minimise the effect of the fianchettoed black bishop, having first developed White's own bishop outside the pawn chain in order to avoid its becoming bad. Against the Reti, there is the same choice of squares for the king's bishop.

S d6

6 O.{) lflbd7

7 h3

Black plays to achieve the advance ... e5, which cannot be prevented. In doing so, however, he is backward in the development of his it-side. The plan of ... b6 and ... ~b7, perhaps in conjunction with ... cS, is sometimes preferred. White plays h3 in order to preserve his bishop; the move is usually desirable sooner or later.

7 "lte8

8 c4

The reason for not playing ~c4 is now seen. Spassky intends to take the initiative on the ~side.

8 eS

9.11h2 "lte7

Bukic criticised this move in Informator, preferring 9 ... 4)e4 (to meet 100<:3 with 10 ... €lxc3). At least two courses would have been open to Spasskv then. He could have played 1 0 €)a3!? and, after 1 0 ... a6 or 10 ... c6, 11 at1 preparing for c4-<::S. Alternatively, he could challenge the knight by 10 €lfd2 €ldf6 (10 ... €lxd2 11 ~xd2) 11 de de 12 'lf1c2 ~f5 13 .Q.d3. White's positional edge should survive the simplifications because Black's e-pawn is under pressure on e5. If it advances to e4 then the h2-b8 diagonal becomes open for the white bishop.

9 ... 0e4 was tried in YusupovTukmakov, USSR 1 st League 1978, but the reply was 10 8bd2. There followed 10 ... 8xd2 11 'lf1xd2 e4 12 €le 1 "!3e 7 13 4)c2 f5 with a reasonable position for Black. After 14 b4 gS 15 c5 8f6 16 8a3 f4 17 ef g4 18 hg 4)xg4 19 ~xg4 ftxg4 the position became double-edged but a draw was agreed after 20 Elae1 de 21 dc §adS 22 i*c1 §d3 23 §e3 §fd8 24 fi'c4+ fi'f7 25 'ltYxe4 ~f5 26 "!3c4 !'!xe3 27 fe §d2 28 "flIxf7+ 'tSxf7 29 0c4 !'!xa2 30 8e5 ftxe5 in view of the active black rook and opposite coloured bishops which cancel out White's extra pawn.

10 4lc3 e4

The sequel shows this advance to be mistaken. A game F.PortischButnorius, USSR 1969, went instead 10 ... c6 11 'lf1c2 4)e8 12 b4 fS 13 c5 d5 14 de <tlxe5 15 8d4 Qf6 =. Almost certainly, Spassky had a stronger continuation in mind. 11 c5!? is a posslbility, for if 11 ... de 1 2 de I 11 ... d 5 12 <tlxe5 while if 11 .. , ed 12 ed or 11 ... e4 12 4)fd2 the threat of 13 .I1d6, winning the exchange, becomes embarrassing for Black.

11 lfld2 ~8

12 -u,S "l6"d8

The queen returns to her home square, having made three moves! However 12 ... 4)f8 13 c5 would also be unsatisfactory (13 ... de 14 4)xc7).

13 c5!

Spassky now demonstrates the correctness of his strategy by 'winning' three pawns for a knight. The rest of the game requires less comment.

14 ed! ab

15 de "lte7

16 JlxbS

One of Spasskv's extra pawns is a protected pawn on the 7th -

Introduction 3

thanks to the London System bishop. He also controls most of the squares that matter so Bukie finds it hard to organise his pieces.

16 ~f8

17 4k4 'lte6

18 'ltc2 "ltdS

If 18 ... 0d5 19 a3 followed by

Elae1 and the break f2-f3.

19 a4 ~

20 Sfc1 ~8

21 "ltd ~f6

Not 21 ... <9d6? 22 ~xd7 ~xd7

228b6. 22 23 24

lab6 4lfd7

Defending b5 and so threatening

a4-a5.

24 gf6

25 .\lxd7 .iflxd7

26 ~S! ~5

Not 26 ... fi'xb5 27 ab §xa1 28 §xa1 followed by §a8.

27.Qg3 gfa6

27 ... h5 was a better try, according to Bukie, who was now in time trouble. 28 dS! 29 as

30 b4(2) A new phase: White threatens to cash in his pawn majority by advancing it.

30

31 32 33 34 35

a.tt2 J::1f1! f3 I:1ad1 llxf3

*t6 h5

h4 *tS gS ~6 ef "lte2

Bukic's desperate counter-attack

4 Introduction

has resulted only in the exchange of the e-pawn which was his last bulwark in the centre.

36 S£i2 ftc3

37 d6 ~6

38 e4 'itc1+

39 l!f1 'itc3

40 ftd5 ~f6

The weak f-pawn (40 ... ~g7 41 ~f2) causes the collapse of the blockade.

41 l!xf6! 1'()

If 41 ... ~xf6 42 d7 .lhd7 43 ~xd7 and the c-pawn will be next to claim a victim, while if 41 ... fuf6 42 .I1eS 'lfrcl+ 43 ~dl White not only wins the rook but he still has his pawns.

The full discussion of the London System against ... g6 is in chapter 6. The move ~f4 can also be played at move 2 or 3 against other set-ups by Black, e.g. 1 d4 {lf6 2 {)f3 e6 (or 2 ... b6) 3 ~f4 or 1 d4 dS 2 ~f4 or 1 d4 d5 2 ors {lf6 3 ~f4. Such lines are to be found in chapter S.

Although this type of attack is by no means new - it dates back to the beginning of the century at least - it has still not received a thorough

investigation. The main idea is, once more, to use the ~f4 to exploit any weaknesses that may appear on the b8-h2 diagonal, especially if Black has played not only ... dS but also ... e6 or ... c6 as well. Secondary ideas are to post a knight on e5 and then to adopt a Colle-like formation aimed at an eventual ~side attack.

One drawback of the ~f4 systems is that Black may be able to counter-attack rapidly against b2, which is left unprotected by the bishop sortie. A lively recent example of this plan is the following game, which probably raises more questions than it answers.

Rakic-Bagirov, 'Partizan Belgrade' v. Burevestnik, European Club Championsh ip 1979: 1 d4

2 M

3 llf4

4 ~d2

4 ~cl is safer. 4

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14

e4

e5 ~xe4 l!bl <i)g5 lld2 ~4 g4 c4 f4(3)

3 B

dS c6 'l!rb6

14 ef

15 e6 f2+!

16 ii1txf2 fe 17 l!b2 <lla6 18 ad e5 19 ilg2 e6 20 l!el .I1e7 21 l!xe5 o.()+ 22 ~1 ~f6 23 00 l!ad8 24 ~1 c5 25 .ne5 .lhe5 26 l!xe5 cd 27 l!xb 7 'itxb 71 28 .lhb 7 de 29 ftc1 c2 30 l!el ~5 31 ~ ilxe4 32l!xe4 l!dl+ 0-1.

An earlier example in which itf4 was more successful is von ScheveMarshall, Monte Carlo 1901 :

1 d4 d5

2 g_f4 c5

3 e3 4lc6

4 c3 *tJ6

5 l'td2 c4?

ftxb2 4lf6 4le4

This is almost mistake because it pressure off White's {lf6 is correct.

6 4lf3 7 a.e2

8 O.()

9 i6'c1

10 4lbd2 11 4lxe4 12 €ki2 13 e4

invariably a takes all the centre. 5 ...

de i6'xa2 * .. 5+ *d5 ~f5 Ag6 *d7

4lf6 af5 4le4 e6 .I1e7 .lhe4 l1g6

Can White's gambit be sound? In this game it was enterprisingly refuted.

Retribution for Black's 5th move

Introduction 5

begins. The c4-pawn is now seen to be weak.

13

14 ed 15 ~f3 16 !lel

17 4lf1(4)

Black's long-term prospects are not good. White will complete his development by 'lfrd2 and then double his rooks on the e-file, The knight can go to e3 to increase the pressure against dS. Marshall, never one to endure torture passively, decided on a counter-stroke which at least offered practical chances.

o.{)

ed l!ad8 .Ilf6

4 B

17

18 cd 19 ag5! 20 ilxf6 21 .ne3 22 €ki5 23 ftd2

~d4!? 'ltxd4 b5 'ltxf6 d4 t"d6 d3

White, with knight for two

pawns, faces some technical

difficulties.

24 b3 ii1th8

25 bc bc

26 l!ac1 *c5

27.ne3 E!d4

28!k3 f5

6 Introduction

29 !!ec 1 'Ula5

30 !'1d1

White now has a thorough blockade but 30 ... it'rc5 followed by 31 ... ~8 would still set him an examination in technique. Instead Marshall, untypically, blundered:

30 $1f7?

31 fhd3 ftxd2

32 IDxd2 fhd2 33 fhd2 f4 34 -ikI1 g5 35 h4 h6 36 ~d !!e8 37 ad7 ne1+ 38 ~2 Ag6 39 fha7 Af5 40 hg hg 41 aa5 .Q.d3 42 Ihg5 ~1 43 -ikI5 !k2 44 ~f6 a.h7 45 ~4 1 ~. See chapter 5 for a full discussion of this opening.

The first chapters in this book deal with the Colle System, in which White adopts similar formations except that he delays the development of his queen's bishop. That piece may go to b2 (as in the Zuckertort form of the opening) or remain on c l until it is clear what will be its best square. A typical formation for White can be seen in diagram 5. An allied opening is the Stonewall (chapter 8) but that is generally less recommended than the Colle because of the rigidity of the pawn formation c3+d4+e3+f4. Both openings can, however, lead to dangerous and almost automatic rtJside attacks for White if Black is unable to find counterplay.

Diagram 5 arises by 1 d4 {'lf6 2 ffi e6 3 e3 c5 4 Ad3 <ik6 5 d. The move c2-<:3, protecting d4 and preventing ... <Db4, characterises the Colle system. Black mayor may

As Black's counter-attack gathers momentum, White finds a way to keep the initiative.

14 ~4! ili8

Not 14 ... de? 15 'l.'txe4 threatening

both 'ltxh7+ and ~xc6.

15 <ilg3 Q.d 7

16 h3 na7

17 ~h2 b4

18 ab ab

19 ~7 fua7

20 act 1 ~5

21 ad2 ftb6?

not play an early ... d5. White will normally play <ilbd2, 0-0 and then advance e3-e4. There are plenty of examples of this plan against various black formations in chapters 24.

The game Enevoldsen-Nimzowitsch, Copenhagen 1935, followed a different course: (from diagram 5)

According to Pachman, Black would have had much better chances of holding the game with 21 ... be 22 bc {]a3 to drive the Colle bishop off its killer diagonal b1-h7.

22 23 24 25

If 25

.ng4 bc ~3! ~h5

... Ae7 26

be .at3 Slxa3

4lg6

a.h6! gives a

5 b6

6 O.{) Q.e7

7 a31? O.{)

8 e4 d5

Black is late in playing this - he normally is able to meet e4 with .. , de. Now White produces a middlegame similar to the Advance Variation of the French Defence.

9 e5 ~d7

10 i6'e2 !!e8

11 a.f4

Nimzowitsch has to face his own strategy of over-protection! If 11 .. , f6 12 ef 9.xf6 13 {)e5! <ilxe5 14 de White has attacking chances on the rtJ-side.

11 as

12 4:}bd2 c4

13.Q.c2 b5

winning attack.

26 Qgf6+ *tt8

27 ~xg7 Sg8

28 .gxh7! ~xg7

Black also loses after 28 ... f!xg7 (or 28 ... ';tlxh7 29 't%5+) 2941f6 §Il7! 30 4:lxh7Wxh7 31 iM15+Wg7 32 iM16+ Wg8 33 .Ilxg6 fg 34 'l.'txg6+ ~8 35 .Ilh6+ mating in 5 with checks.

29 *h5 f5

30 ef+ 'tX7 31 ~5+ ~f6 32 i6f3+ ~e7 33 f1f7+ ~d8 34 'Ulxg8+ ili8 35 <tIh7 i6'b2 36 {lxf8 'l.'txc2 37 .rJxe6++ Gt'e7 38 .Q.g5+ ~6 39 i!W8+ ~c6 40 'l6'xa3 1 ~ (40 ... ~e6 41-«ra6+).

Introduction 7

The Colle System is so named because of the Belgian master Edgar Colle (1 897 -1932) who scored many brilliant victories with it. Colle was a dangerous attacking player who, but for ill-health, would probably have become a

grandmaster. His compatriot

George Koltanowski (now a

Californian) was influenced by Colle and also played this' opening with great success and wrote about it.

Although the system is rightly named after Colle, there were some early anticipations of his plan. Perhaps the first of these was the game Charousek-Suchting, Berlin 1897, which follows. Charousek was another player of enormous potential which was not realised because of illness (he died in 1900 at the age of 26).

Here is the game Charousek-

Suchting:

1 d4 d5

2 e3 ~f6

3 ili3 c5

4 d e6

5 ad3 4:}c6

6 O.{) Q.d6

7 <tIbd2 t5?!

This is better delayed until Black has castled. 8 de 9 e4

axeS d4?!

As PW.Sergeant commented, in his book Charousek's Games of Chess, Black is quickly subjected to an attack after this and ought to have preferred 9 ... de. Then 10

8 Introduction

<9xe4 <9xe4 11 .a.xe4 would offer
White a slight advantage, based on
the ~-side pawn majority and
threats against e5.
10 4lb3 ru,6
11 cd ed
12 e5! -Bd7
13 l1g5 *c7
14 ~1 O~
15 I!e1 I!e8
16 ~f4 itd8
17 ~g5!(6) 6 B

17

~xe5

Black is obliged to accept the offered e-pawn now. If instead 17 ... 4::\f8 18 ~h 5 g6 1 9 ~h6 b. 20 <ge4, 21 4::\f6+. Or if 17 ... h6 18 4::\xn '!ixn 19 11c4+ '!if8 20 -&f3 6. 21 11g5+.

18 *tis h6

19 ilh7+ ~8

If 19 ... Wh8 20 <9xf7+ <9xn 21

fue8+ ~xe8 22 .a.g6. 20 1le4!

21 *tI4

22 *tI8+

23 lbg5+

24 *xg7

25 lbc6+

26 ~d8

~4 hg ~e7 'ifid7 gg8 be ~g7

27 ~f6!(7)

Charousek avoids the nasty trap 27 ~b6? 4:lf3+! when Black wins.

41 g4 'i1if6

42 ~3 ~

43 h4 fg

44 fg ~2

45 h5+ 'ifih7

46 'i1ih4 11d 1

47 g5 ~7?

The last chance was 47 ... .a.c2 48 g6+ {not immediately forced, it is true} 48 ... .a.xg6 49 hg+ Wxg6 50 Wg4 c3 hoping to reach the drawn endgame of W versus W, J1 and apawn (since the bishop cannot control a8).

48 g6 ~

49 l1g5+ 'ifig7

50 £le7! 1-0

If 50 ... d3 51 .a.b4 and 52 <t&g5 cannot be prevented since 51 ... <t&h6 52 .Ilf8 is checkmate.

In the popular form of the Queen Pawn Opening, 1 d4 is followed by 2 c4. This gives White more space than the systems in this book, in which White holds back his c-pawn. The drawback of 2 c4 is that it allows Black to strike back against d4 with defences like the Benoni, King's Indian or Griinfeld or (after 1 d4 d5 2 c4) the various defences to the Queen's Gambit. All these well-analysed lines are avoided by playing 1 d4 and (after 1 ... d5 or 1 ... 4'1f6) 2 4)f3. In certain cases, such as when Black plays 2 ... .a.f5!?,White can after all play 3 c4 and obtain some advantage.

The chapters that follow discuss these openings in detail. Although there are few critical main lines, such as one finds in the Sicilian

7 B

27 -Bd3
28 ~g7 ~xe1
29 ~e1 c5
30 ~f6 ~8
31 Ihe8 *xe8
32 f3 ~f5 The smoke has cleared, leaving Charousek a pawn ahead but facing some technical difficulties. 32 ._. ~6 (Sergeant) would have been better, the correct reply being 33 ~1 and not 33 4)cl? d3 34 Ac3 c4+35~1 ~3.

33 oiki2 ~d7

34 ~4 *e6

34 ... Ac7 was also possible but Black trusted to the bishops of opposite colours.

35 ~xb6 ab

36 ~8 b5

37 a3 c4?

Better was 37 ... Wd5.

38 11a5 ac2

39 ~2 f5?

This makes it easier for White to obtain connected passed pawns.

40 ~ ~3

Introduction 9

Defence, I have arranged examples so far as possible according to the normal Batsford system of variations and numbered subvariations. The reader should remain constantly aware of the possibility of transposing from one variation to another, as (in the general absence of sharp early threats) the move-order is often flexible. Several transpositions are pointed out in the text but it would be impossible to mention all those which might arise in a game.

The Stonewall Attack (chapter 8) is an illustration of this. Although the 2 e3 move order is standard, White has the interesting alternative 2 €ld2!? This move rules out the London System but otherwise keeps Black guessing. White may subsequently adopt a Stonewall but he also has the option of a delayed 4)gf3. In that case he leads the game into a Colle {with either c3 or b3}.

My final bonus chapter deals with the controversial Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, 1 d4 d5 2 e4!? de 3 <Dc3 4:lf6 4 f3. I have concentrated my attention there on the two most popular defences, Bogoljuoow's 5

g6 and the Tatakower-

Gunderam Defence 4 ... ef 5 4)x~ .a.f5. These, I believe, are the main reason the gambit is rarely played in serious master chess. Nevertheless, the cause of the BlackmarDiemer is far from hopeless below master level and any chess player can derive instruction and entertainment from its analysis.

Colle System (2 ttJf3, 3 e3), Ideas and Irregular Lines J J

2 Colle System (2 4:]f3, 3 e3), Ideas and Irregular Lines

ld4 4lf6

Or 1 •.. dS 2 00 .ru-6 3 e3, but with .,. d6 no longer possible the alternative 3 Af4 seems more appropriate to us.

2.an e6

Lines in which Black plays .ru-6

and ... dS, but refrains from e6,

are discussed in B below.

3 e3 dS

3 b6 or 3 ... c5 (with ... b6 and

not dS) are in chapter 4. 4 ~3

Or:

a) 4 .aeS ~d7 S f4 4lxeS 6 fe ~4 7 itO fS 8 ~2 -&h4+ 9 g3 "c1th6 10 4lxe4 fe 11 itf4 (Sultan KhanVoellmy, Berne 1932) 11 ... *xf4 12 ef Ae7 = ECO.

b) 4 A.e2 es S O~ 4lc6 6 a3 Ad67 de Axc5 8 b4 Ad6 9 Ab2 O~ 1 O~:4 de 11 Axc4 e5 = BlackburnePillsbury, London 1899.

c) 4 b3 e5 S Ab2 4"lc6 6 4lbd2 cd (6 ... Ad6 7 ad3 see A below) 7 ed *a5 8 a3 4le4 9 Ad3 4lxd2 10 4lxd2 i1e7 11 O~ Ad7 1200 O.{) 13 ae1 t Rossetto-Karaklajic, Belgrade 1962.

d) 4.Qbd2 e5 and now:

d1) 5 .aeS!? 4lc6 6 Ab5 *b6 7 c4 Ad6 8 *a4 Ad7 9 fud7 fud7 (Sultan Khan-Maroczy, London 1932) is unclear.

d2) 5 a3 ~d7 6 de Axcs 7 b4 ae7 8 Ab2 O..() 9 c4 b6 (9 ... de 10 <ilxc4 t Rubinstein-Capablanca, Berlin 1928) 10 ad3 de 11 ilxc4 Ab7 12 O~ ac8 13 ite2 (RubinsteinMonticelli, Budapest 1929) 13 ... 4lds = - Evans.

The Queen Pawn Openings to be discussed in chapters 24 involves White adopting the piece-pawn set up shown in diagram S. This opening was a speciality of the Belgian master Edgar Colle (1897-1932) and of his compatriot George Koltanowski (who later emigrated to America). They turned what in the 19th century had been an occasional method of development into a major attacking system with clearly defined objectives. However counters were finally found so that the Colle System has been only occasionally seen in post-war master chess. Below master level, it retains its sting in the hands of a good attacking prayer, especially as its finesses are largely forgotten now.

It is often said that White in the Colle System takes upon himself the role of the second player with a tempo in hand. He renounces attempts to fight for control of Black's strong-point dS by the traditional methods (c4, ~3, ilgS). Instead, he aims for e3-e4 in the middle-game, when it will be backed up by pieces massed in the centre, and for control of e5 (especially in lines with b3).

If Black plays in routine fashion, castling too early and failing to react vigorously in the centre, White has an automatic ~ide attack which often culminates in a sacrificial breakthrough by ilxh7+ (or 4lxf7). White's main problem is his dark-squared bishop, which is restricted by the pawn chain on its own colour.

Black's counterplay generally consists in central pawn advances aimed at saddling White with an isolated d-pawn which later may become weak, and by preparing tactical blows either against h 2 or (in the lines with ". b6) on the diagonal a8-h 1. He has a considerable choice of development of his bishops and queen's knight, especially if he has not played ... dS. Both players must be careful about their move-order, so to avoid confusion we shall treat the Colle and allied lines in four separate chapters, viz.:

a} All lines with ilf4 are in chapter 5.

b) Lines with ... b6 (no early ... d5) in chapter 4.

c) Lines with ". dS by Black and c3 by White in chapter 3.

d) Others in this chapter.

d3) 5 c3 when:

d31} S cBbd7 6 <ile5!? (6 Ad3

below) 6 {lxeS (6 ... ~d6!? - ECO)

7 de 4:Xi7 8 f4 f6 9 Ad3 g6 10 ef 'ltxf6 11 e4 (Bisguier-Lombardy, New York 1957-58) with complications.

d32) 5 ... b6?! 6 AbS+! ilbd7 (6 ... Ad7 7 ad3! gaining control of eS thanks to Black's misplaced bishop.} 7 Qe5 i1d6 8 f4 i!b7 9 O.{) a6 10 i1a4 fle7 11 *f3 AxeS 12 fe <tle4 1 3 fue4 de 14 *g4 O~ 1 5 ~2 ± Riurnin-Rabinovlch, Moscow 1935.

d33) 5 .. ' cBc6 is usual: d331) 6 ~3 below.

d332) 6 ~S!? 4lxeS 7 de 4ld7 8 f4 f6 9 ild3 g6 10 ef fuf6 11 00 Ag7 12 O.{} O~ 13 fle2 itb6 == (Y:dtl, 47) Wahltuch-Alekhine, London 1922. d333) 6 llb5 itb6 (or 6 ... itc7 7 4)es Ad6 8 f4 4le4!? Sultan KhanT artakower, match 1931) 7 fle2 ad6 8 4)es AxeS (8 ... O~!? = - ECO) 9 de 4)d7 10 f4 0-0 11 ~d3 4)e 7 1 2 4:1£3 f6 13 ef fuf6 14 O.{) i1d7 15 c4 ile8 16 4)e5 4"lc6 = Tartakower-Euwe, Vienna 1921.

4 ... c5(8)

8 W

12 Colle System (2 00, 3 e3), Ideas and Irregular Lines

This move is desirable, to put pressure on the white centre, but not obligatory. Alternatives are discussed in C, below.

White now usually plays 5 c3, which is the subject of chapter 3. He can also play:

5 b3 - A, below.

5 0-0, defying Black to play ... c4 (Maroczy-Nimzowitsch, Gothenburg 1920) - a move that is invariably bad in the Colle if White can play ~c2 (with e4 soon following) but is not so clear here. In Potter-Zukertort, 3rd match game 1875, Black played instead 5 ... t£lc6 and the game went on 6 a3[? (6 c3 or 6 b3 would be norrnal.] 6 ._. ~d6 7 4k3!? b6 8 b3 0-09 ab2 transposing to A below.

A

Colle-Zukertort System (5 b3)

Johannes Zukertort (1842-1888), the Polish-born loser of the first World Championship match [v. Steinitz in 1886), in his early career was a disciple of Adolf Anderssen and delighted in the romantic gambits like the Evans, but in his mature years was one of the pioneers of closed openings Ii ke the English, Queen's Gambit and various QPOs. In the London 1883 tournament which was his greatest triumph he played several games with a system closely allied to the one in this chapter, but in which he developed his bishop less aggressively on e2.

However, against Blackburne on

Coffe System (2 t;Jf3, 3 e3), Ideas and Irregular Lines ]3

11.6.1883, he launched the system which now bears his name. This victory ensured Zu kertort the first prize with four rounds still to go! Zukertort-Blackburne: 1 d4 e6 2 4)(3 4'lf6 3 e3 d5 4 ad3 11e7 5 0-0 0..0 6 b3 c5 7 .Qb2 <iJc6 8 <tIbd2 ('I _ .. determined to fight the whole battle on the Queen's side.') 8 '" cd(?) 9 ed b6 10 c4 11a6 ('The commencement of a futile attack _ . .') 11 ~el ~c8 12 l:!c1 ~S 13 ~S Ab4(?) 14 c5(!) Axd3 15 4.lxd3 itxd2 16 'itrxd2 ~4 17 ite3 E1e8 18 f3 4'lf6 19 Elc2 .aJ7 20 !!ecl be (This exchange gives White a crushing superiority in numbers on the Queen's side, which must decide the contest before Black can make any use of his strong centre. ') 21 de <tib8 22 ~5 f6 ('After 22 ... <tibc6 23 4.lxc6 4.lxc6 - 23 ... !:lxc6 24 11c3 - I intended to proceed with 24 b4, for Black dare not take the pawn on account of 25 '&c3!') 23 c6(!) !:lc7 (23 ... fe 24 c7 '&d7 25 cb::l!i' !:lxb8 26 !:lc7) 24 itd2 (24 At3?? d4!) 24 ... fe 25 '&xa5 itc8 (25 ... 4.lxc6? 26 'lta4) 26 AxeS !:lf7 (26 '" Elxc6? 27 itxa7) 27 itxb8 itxb8 28 c7 itc8 29 itxa7 eS 30 E1c5 e4 31 ~bS !:lef8 32 !:lb8 itd7 33 Elxf8+ !:lxf8 34 ita4 itxa4 35 ba E1c8 36 fe de 37 <M2 (37 as also wins.) 37 ... 'iM7 38 ~e3 ~e6 39 ~xe4 g6 40 !!c6+ ~d7 41 'it'd5 1-0. (Notes based on Zukertort's in the tournament book.)

Zukertort's system was revived by Morrison and Watson in the

London 1922 international tournament and was subsequently played from time to time by a few grandmasters. However, it never attained the high reputation which the Colle system proper attained at its height. Black does not experience serious difficulties in equalizing so long as he avoids the exchange c5xd4 which led to Blackburne's downfall.

White occasionally plays a plan based on b3 and Ab2 against the lines where Black avoids ... dS, but these are discussed in chapter 4 because they are not, strictly speaking, a Zukertort variation.

So, continuing from diagram 8:

5 b3 Qc6

Others:

a) 5 cd?! 6 ed Ab4+ (See below

for 6 Ad6 and 6 ... <tic6.) 7 c3 (7

<M1!? - Alekhine] 7 ." Ad6 8 O.{) 4k6 9 fle2 itc7 10!!el 0-011 Qe5 b6 12 llg5 Qe7 13 flt3 ± EuweBeffie, Hastings 1922.

b) 5 ... 4lbd7 6 Ab2 (6 -tibd2!?, preventing ... ~4 and envisaging e3-e4 - Sozin):

bl ) 6 ... ita5+? 7 <£ibd2 <tIe4 8 O.{) (8 itxe4 de 9 <tig5 cd! 10 {jgxe4 de - Sozin) 8 ... f5 (NenarokovSorokln, 6th match game 1929) 9 c:4! ± - Sozin, Shakhmatny Ustok. b2) 6 ... .Q.d6 7 0-0 flc7 8 <tibd2 (8 c4!? O.{) 9 t£lc3 a6 10 cd ed 11 !!cl t ECO) 8 ... e5! 9 de <tixe5 10 Ab5+ Ad7 11 itxd7+ 4)fxd7 12 4.lxe5 axe5 13 axeS <tixe5 1400 nd8 15 fle2 o-o 16 !!ad 1 = Tartakower·Orbakh, Giessen 1928.

b3) 6 .. , b6 7 O.{) Ab7 8 <tibd2 Ae7 9 de (9 !!e1 !?) 9 ... AxcS (9 ... bc 10 c4 or 9 ... <tIx.c5 10 Ab5+) 10 ite2 0-0 11 e4 !:le8? (11 ... de 1 2 <tIx.e4 <tIx.e4 1 3 Axe4 Axe4 14 flxe4 ors t ECO) 12 e5 <tihS 13 g3 g6 14 If)d4 !:lc8 lS f4 with a double-edged game (1-0, 41), Spielmann-Stoltz, match 1943.

b4) 6 ... cd 7 ed lld6 8 ~bd2 itc7 9 0-0 O.{) 10 'l1te2 !:le8 11 <tieS 08f8 12 f4 ~d7 13 g4 .Qc6 14 gS 086d7 is flhS !:le7 16 !:lf3 ± EljaschoffHilse, Dusseldorf 1908.

b5) 6 ... ae7 7 0-0 0-08 -tibd2 and now:

bSl) 8 ... itc7 9 ~S b6 10 f4 Ab7 11 c4 .£ie4 1 2 cd ed 13 -tlxe4 de 14 Ac4 4)f6 15 'l1te2 Elad8 16 !:lad1 t Rabinovlch-Makagonov, 10th USSR Ch 1937.

bS2) 8 ... b6 9 <tieS llb7 10 f4 ~ 11 ite2 nc8 12 <tIx.e4 de 13 ab5 ~xe5 14 de itc7 15 rs ef 16 11c4! Elcd8 17 ElxfS Ad5 18 axd5 !:lxd5 19 t6'g4 ± Guimard-Lundin, Groningen 1946.

b53) 8 ... a6 9 ~5 <tixe5 lOde 4lcJ7 11 f4 bS 12 c4 be 13 be <tIb6 14 i6'c2 g6 15 !!ad 1 ± YudovichBlumenfeld, USSR 1934.

6 .Qb2

Alternatively:

a) 6 O.{) and now:

a 1) 6 ... .Q.d6 7 <tibd2 (7 Ab2 below) 7 ... 'l1taS and if 8 ab2 cd 9 ed .Qa3 - Euwe.

a2) 6 ... &8 7 Ab2 bS 8 dc AxeS 9 4lcJ4 <tIx.d4 10 ed Ad6 11 ite2 b4 12 4lcJ2 O.{) 13 00 ~b7 14 <ties !:lc:8 with complications,

14 Colle System (2 CiJf3, 3 e3), Ideas and Irregular Lines

Colle System (2liJf3, 3 e3), Ideas and Irregular Lines 15

Vorotnikov-Korchnol, USSR 1964. ECO suggests 9 4lbd2 with the idea e3~t.

a3) 6 ... cd 7 ed 11d7 (BeltranDjurasevic, Oberhausen 1961) 8 ~1!? or Sl1b2!? - ECO.

a4) Also noteworthy is 6 '" itc7!?

when Havin-Ravinsky, ~-final

Burevestnik Club Ch 1956,

continued 7 11b2 (7 a3 e5 =) 7 ... cd 8 ed ~ 9 4le5 lld7 10 !lel !leS 11 c4 <ilxd3 12 'ltxd3 de 13 be lld6 14 ~2 O~ 15 !le3 !lfd816 IDl3 with attacking chances (1~, 32).

b) 6 a3 can be met by 6 ... ~6 7 lli>2 c4 8 lle2 lld7 - Neikirkh and Tsvetkov,

The text move is best. White would like to tempt moves like ... ita5+, ... cd or ... 4lc6-b4 all of which should recoil on Black's head.

6 ... ~6

Questionable plans are:

a) 6 .•. cd 7 ed llb4+ (7 '" llcJ6 below) 8 c3 11d6 9 O~ O~ 10 c4 b6 11 4lbd2 11b7 12 4le5 (1~, 35) Rotlevi-Rozenkrantz, St Petersburg 1909.

b) 6 ... .Q.e7 7 4lbd2 4lb4?! S O~ 4lxd3 9 cd b6 10 4le5 11b7 11 f4 cd 12 11xd4 t Tempelhoff-Rikman, corres 1974-5. Better 7 ... O~ 8 0-0 b6, but not 8 ... cd which transposes to Zu kertort-Blackburne above.

c) 6 ... il.d7 7 O~ !k8 8 c3 (8 a3 ! ECO) 8 ... lld6 9 <ilbd2 eS lOde fue5 11 fueS 11xe5 12 {}f3 llb8 13 h3 c4 14 11c2 0-0 15 fld4 !leS (Gunsberg-Steiniu, match 1890)

was unclear. 7 O.()

If 7 4lbd2:

a) 7 ... ~4 8lle2ite7 9a34lc610 4les llxe5 11 de 4ld7 12 f4 f5 13 c4 .± Rubinstein-Treybal, BadenBaden 1925.

b) 7 ... O.() 8a3 '&e7 94le5 (DusHotimirski v. Romanovsky, USSR 1948) 9 ... adS 10 O{) 4ld7 11 f4 {}f8;;;; - Bogoljubow.

7 ... O.()!(9)

7 ... flc7 is also playable (to prevent 4le5) as the following game by the young Smyslov illustrates: 8 a3 b6 9 c4 11b7 10 4lc3 a6 11 ae1 (correct is 11 de bc 12 cd ed 13 !le1 starting the fight against Black's hanging pawns - Smyslov) 11 ... cd 1 2 ed 0-0 13 4lii4 11f4 14 4le5 (14 cst?) 14 '" de 15 bc fue5 16 de itc6! 17 11ft? (17 -&f3 ~) 1 7 ... IUdS lS ~3 ~4 19 h3 !ld3! 20 "&xb6 (20 "&xd3 ~h2+ 21 ~1 4lxf2+) 20 ... !lxh3! 21 ~d4 .Q.h2+ 22 ~1 ~xe5+ 0·1 Gerasimov-Smyslov, Moscow House of Pioneers Ch 1935.

through his intended plan

(occupying e5) in its full entirety'. 8 a3

Usually played, as ... 4lb4 might soon be troublesome. Others:

a) 8 ~d2 'IlIe7 (now ... e5 is in the air) 9 4le5 cd 10 ed 11a3 11 llxa3 itxa3 ~ Bogoljubow-Capablanca, New York 1924. However, 9 c4 is some improvement for White (Spielmann-Stoltz, 5th match game 1933).

b) 8 {)eS (Maroczy-Bogoljubow,

New York 1 924) can be met by 8 ... fle7 9 f4 cd ' ... after which the exchange of the adverse bishop is forced' - Alekhine. This is not strictly true as White can play 10 ed 4lb4 11 lle2 4le4 12 a3 4lc6 13 4lrl2. In view of this, there seems no reason to criticise the plan adopted by Bogoljubow in the game: 8 ... 4le7!? 9<tk12 b6 10 f4 11b7 11 'ltf3 &8 12 4lg4 (1 2 g4 c4! 13 be de 14 itxb7 cd 15 cd 4led5 T) 12 .,. 4lxg4 13 t6'xg4 when 13 ... f5 (Alekhine) would have been simplest, and would give a roughly even position.

Black could also consider meeting 84le5 by 8 ... lld7!? (ECO) or 8 ... itc7 9 f4 cd 10 ed 4lb4 11 4lc3 4lxd3 12 'ltxd3 11d7 = RabinovichBogoljubow, Moscow 1924.

8 ... b6

a) 8 .. , cd is still wrong. AlekhineRosselli, Zurich 1934, continued 9 ed b6 10 4:llid2 llb7 11 ite2 itc7 12 ~5 4le7 13 f4 !lacS 14 !lacl g6 15 g4 hS 16 h3 'tJg7 17 c4 t\'d818 cSt and not now 18 ... be 19 be

9 W

After the text move, Alekhine wrote, 'White is faced with a dilemma as to how he is to carry

llxc5+ because of 20 !lxc5! and 21 g5'±.

b) 8 ... ftc7 9 c4 and if 9 ... eS?! 10 cd 4lxd5 11 de llxc5 12 4)bd2 t.

c) 8 '" *e7 9 4le5 (otherwise ... e5) 9 ... !:td8 (9 ." 11xe5?! 9 de 4ld7 10 f4) 10 4ld2 4ld7 11 f4 01 4lxd7!? followed by c4) 11 ... 4lf8 = - Bogoljubow, Black's vital h-pawn is protected, and he can continue with ... f6 and possibly ... lk8-d7~8.

9 {)eS

a) 9 4lbd2 11b 7 10 4le5 probably transposes.

b) A curiosity is the 3rd PotterZu kertort match game 1 875: 941c3 (by transposition) 9 ... 11b 7 10 'itre2 !:tc8 11 !:tfd1 cd (a move which met with the approval of Stelnitz] 12 ed !:te8 13 4lb 1 (admission of error) 13 ._. flc7 14 !:tel 4le4 15 4lbd2 (15

11xe4? de 16 "«Yxe4 4leS) 15 f5!?,

but Steinitz preferred 15 fud2

followed by ... f6. This shows that some of the QPO ideas were current in London at least, prior to the 1883 tournament.

9 ... ~7

10 ~2 *e7

Or 10 ... a6 11 f4 b5 12 de llxc5 13 -&f3 !:te8 14 "«Yg3 4lxcS 1 S 11xeS .Ild6 16 lld4 "fIe7 17 1:-4 g6 18 'itrg5 (Dus-Hotlm irski v . Nimzowitsch Carlsbad 1907) 18 ... 4ld7 19 "«Yxe7 llxe7 20 e4 {}f6 ;;;; - Nimzowitsch.

11 f4 ~fd8

11 ... 4ld7? 12 fud7 *xd7 13 de llxc5 14 llxh7+! ~xh7 15 t&h5+ '\$h8 16 11xg7!

12 !!f3 &4!

13 Hh3

16 Colle System (2 !iJf3, 3 e3), Ideas and Irregular Lines

Colle System (2 fJf3, 3 es), Ideas and Irregular Lines 77

13 4.lxe4 de 14 .llxe4 .llxe5!

13 '" f5

The game we follow is EuweRubinstein, Mahrisch-Ostrau 1923:

14 ~e4 de

1S ~S ~eS

Koltanowski prefers 15 ... h6, but Euwe then intended 16 4lxc6 l1xc6 17 ~4 and 18 ag3 with a strong attack.

16 'ltxh7+ rtx7

17 fe llh8

17 ... ~e5 can be met by 18

'lD1l5+ or 18 ag3.

18 'ltxh8 lhh8

19 !Jxh8 ~61

20 .aF1 *d7?

20 ... .llxn 21 axf1 *g5 might save Black, as White cannot link his rooks - Euwe.

21 ~1 fueS

21 ... .llxf1 22 \txn cd would have given plenty of counterplay - Koltanowski.

22 d5! ~4

23 de+ *xe6 24 ahd8 aes 25 c4 l1e8 26 a1 d5 f4 27 h3 fe 28 ~3 e2 (better 28 ... 4lf6 - Euwe) 29 4.lxe2 ~3 30 ag5 g6 31 4)f4 Y!Je 7 32 axg6 4)f5 33 af6+ \tg8 34 a.xe8+ Y!Jxe8 35 axf5 e3 36 ag5+ '!lh7 37 ah5+ HJ.

B

lines without ... e6

1 d4 oOOi

2 clli3 dS

3 e3

81 3 ... g6 82 3 _ .. c5

Other lines without ... e6 are:

a) 3 ... lJbd7 4 <tlbd2 (4 c3; 4 l1d3) 4 ... c5 transposing to 82, unless White tries Koltanowski'ssuggestion 5 ab5!?

b) 3 .. , c6 4 ad3 g6 5 .£lbd2 ilg7 6 O.() (6 c3 <tlbd7 7 e4 de gives White nothing; Schneider-Benites, Moscow 1956) 6 ... O.() 7 e4 de 8 .£lxe4 fue4 9 axe4 ag4 10 c3 .£ld7 11 h3 l1e6 12 ae1 ae8 13 af4 lta5 14 Y!Je2 'lMl5 15 .ac2 ad516 ae4 .llxe4 17 Y!Jxe4 Y!Jd5 18 *xd5 cd Y2:!h Aronson-Stolyar, 24th USSR Ch 1957. Hardly the last word!

81

3 ... g6

The Colle formation is not very good for White against this King's Indian set-up. This is a good reason why White should not go 3 e3 unless Black has played ... e6.

4 ~3 ilg7

S 4lbd2

5 O.() should transpose.

S ... lJbd7

The most flexible reply, though 5 ... O.() {6 b3 l1f5! ;;;; MCO} or 5 ... c5 6 c3 will generally transpose to lines below. Exceptionally, the game Solrnanis-Holrnov, Y:i-final 17th USSR Ch 1949, went 5 ... O.() 6 c3 c5 7 O.() b6 8 e4 cd 9 e5 .£lh5 1 0 cd .:nt4 11 ab 1 ltd 7 12 g3 .£lh 3+ 13 \tg2 *g4 14 4lb3 f6 and White was under pressure.

6 0-0

6 b3 has also been played. Then: a} 6 .,. eS!? 7 <tIxe5 fueS 8 de .£lg4 9 f4! *h4+ (9 ... cilxe3 10 i;W3) 10 g3 *h3 11 an! *hS 12 Y!Jf3!? (12 4lf3 is more solid) 12 ... axeS 13 fe

Y!JxeS 14 ab 1 fue3 15 ab2! (1S .Ge2 <tIxc2+ leads to a draw.) 15 ... d4 (The White king can now escape to c 1 against 15 ... 4.lxc2+.J 16 Y!Je4 <tlxc2+ 17 ~2 Y!Jxe4 18 <tlxe4 l1f5 (18 ... f5!? followed by ... c5 was the last chance.) 19 .ad3 .£lb4 20 4lf6+ and wins; Sultan KhanAlexander, British Ch 1931.

b) 6 ... cS 7 .ab2 O.() 8 h3? (correct is 8 0-0 e5 9 de {lg4 10 e4 ;;;; Neikirkh and Tsvetkov) 8 ... cd 9 ed 4lh5 10 g3 'ffJc7 11 'ffJe2 ~5! 12 ~5 4:lxd3+ 13 4lxd3 l1f5 14 ac1 lhc8 15 Y!Je3 -&ld6 16 c3 afe8 17 f4 g5! 18 O.() gf 19 fuf4 ah6 20 Y!Jf3 4.lxf4 21 gf ~8 22 af2 ag8+ 23 ~2 ag6 :r Rellstab-Petrov, Kerneri 1937.

6 ... cS

Or 6 ... O.()! when:

a) 7 b3 eSt? 8 de (8 !iJxe5!?) 8 ... ~4 9 ab1 <tldxe5 ;;;; Dus-Hotmirsky v. Aratovsky, Y:i·final 17th USSR Ch 1949.

b) 7 c3 e5 8 de {lg4 9 "«tc2 !iJxe5 :r Stahlberg-Book, Stockholm 1952. c) 7 c4!? could be considered.

7 c3 0-0(/0)

10 W

This position is a reversed Catalan in which White has an extra move

and has his bishop posted on d3 instead of e2. Therefore he has little to fear, and may proceed:

a} 8 ~e2 ae8? (Koltanowski 's 8 ... ffc7 is critlcal.) 9 <tieS (or 9 e4 Colle-Fairhurst, Scarborough 1927) 9· ... {}xeS 10 de 4ld7 11 f4 ffb6 12 Y!Jf3 e6 13 c4! ± Seitz-O'Hanlon, Nice 1930.

b} 8 b4!? {or 8 b3} is more in the anti-Catalan spirit, e.g. 8 .:. cb (8 .. , b6!) 9 cb (Black's~g7standspoorly now.) 9 ... <ties 10 Ab2 <tld6 11 \%3 {lb6 12 a4 ars 13 llxf5 gf 14 b5 <tlbc4 "" Prins-Landau, Zandvoort 1936.

c} 8 e4 de (8 ... cd 9 e5 !) 9 €lxe4 fue4 10 .axe4 cd 11 4lxd4.£lc5 12 ac2 ffc7 Nestler-Pachman, Venice 1950.

B2

3 ... cS(Il)

11 W

4 c3

White can also play:

a) 4 de, wh ich is a Queen's Gambit Accepted with reversed colours and an extra tempo; because of this 3 ." c5 is slightly suspect. GuimardShainswit, New York 1951, continued 4 ... ffa5+ 5 {lbd2 (5 ild2!? ffxc5 6 .£la3 - Dr .Dunhaupt,

18 Colle System (2 EiJf3, 3 e3), Ideas and Irregular Lines

MCO) 5 .,. 'ltxc5 6 a3 g6 7 c41lg7 8 b4 fJc7 9 llb2 O-D 10 !kl ±. (but Y2:Y2,35)

b) 4 b3 when:

b l] 4 ... .{k6 5 .l1b2 ~g4 6 ~e2e6 7 0-0 cd 8 ed ad6 (8 ... ac8!? Halprin-Plllsburv, Vienna 1898) 9 EiJe5 .Q.f5 10 .Ild3 .Q.g6 11 '<t'h 1 ~c 7 12 f4 EiJe4 13 EiJd2 ! Dus-Hotimirski v, Spielmann, Carlsbad 1907.

b2J 4 ... cd 5 ed oik6 6 Qb2 llg47 <±lbd2 e6 8 a.d3 (8 Qe2! - Keres) 8 ... ad6 9 h3 llh5 10 0-0 0-0 11 !!e 1? (11 a3) 11 ... EiJb4! T GaslcKeres, Sarajevo 1972.

4 ... <±lbd7

5 ~d2

5 ad3 is playable too, but after 5 ... e6 White must return to normal lines (chapter 3) because there is nothing in 6 'lta4?! lle7 7 EiJbd2 0-0 8 0-0 fIc7 9 e4 cd 10 cd de 11 fue4 fue4 12 llxe4 4lf6 13 lld3 lld7 T Nestler-Szabados, Venice 1950.

5 .. , *c7

Only this gives the variation an independent character. 5 ... g6 see B1; 5 ... e6 see chapter 3.

6 ltd3

If 6 '6a4 e6 7 ad3 Black can play 7 ... 1le7 (note to White's 5th) or:

a) 7 ... l1d6 8 de i1xc5 9 0-0 0-0 10 't'Mi4 lle7 Coile-Spielmann, Bled 1931.

b) 7 ... c4 8 .llb 1 a6 9 e4 de 1 0 fue4 b5 11 '&dl Qb7 - Neikirkh and Tsvetkov.

Also 6 ... g6!? is playable, though after 7 c4! Colle-Rubinstein, Rotterdam 1931, continued 7 ... .llg7? (7

Colle System (21:Jf3, 3 es}, Ideas and Irregular Lines 19

... cd first) 8 cd EiJxd5 9 e4! EiJ5b6 10 fJc2! fJd6 11 a4! ±.

6 ... e5

7 e4

c

Black avoids ... c5

1 d4 ~f6

2 00 e6

3 e3 d5

4 ~3

There is no clear pattern to the lines where Black avoids '" c5.

C1 4 b6

C2 4 Ile7

C3 4 .. , Jld6 C1

7 de is innocuous. MakagonovFridstein, Y2-final 15th USSR Ch 1947, went 7 .,. EiJxe5 8 EiJxe5 'lfrxe5 9 4lf3 'fJc7 10 b3 fte7 11 c4 de 12 be O-D 13 0-0 11g4 14 i1b2 £!ad8 15 'fJc2 =.

7

8 4lxe4 9 .Ilxe4

4lxe4 de 4lf6

4 .. , b6

Koltanowski-Sebestanv, Barcelona 1934, went instead 9 ... cd 10 cd 11b4+ 11 .Ild2 i1xd2+ 12 ifl'xd2 0-0 13 !kl and now only 13 .. , ifl'b8 would avoid the loss of material.

10 ~2

And now:

a) 10 ._ . .Ild6 11 de .llxe5 12 'fJe2 0-0 13 fue5 !!e8 14 f4 ±. - Tartakower.

b) 10 ... ed 11 0-0 Ile7 would be more prudent - Tartakower.

c) Colle-Stoltz , Bled 1931, went 10 ... cd!? 11 0-0 (11 cd? i1b4+ 12 .!ld2 .!lxd2+ 13 'fJxd2 ed =) 11 .. ' dc? (11 ... .!ld6 avoids the worsr.] 12 fue5! lld6 13 .!la4+ ~8 14 .!lf4 .Ilg4 (14 ... ~g8 is slightly better) 15 EiJg6+! ~g8 16i1xd6i1xdl 17 i1xc7 i1xa418fuh84ld5 (18 ... \tlxh819 b3) 19 .!las c2 20 ad2 ~xh8 21 !!he1 ~g8 22 !!acl l:lc8 23 l:le4 ad7 24 !!d4 .!le6 25 b3 b5 26 .!las g5 27 !!d2 !!c6 28 l:lcxc2 Sa6 29 b4 l:id6 30 a3 h6 31 l:ic5 a6 32 11c7 !!d7 33 Ae5 ~h7 34 h3 h5 35 ilb2 ~g6 36 !!c6 1 -0.

Not as good as the lines in chapter 4, because the pawn at d5 is in the way of the bishop.

S ilbd2

Or 5 0-0 ilb7 6 b3 EiJbd7 7 ru,2 (compare A):

a) 7 ... Qd6 8 c4 0-0 transposes to the Keres line against the Queen's Indian Defence, which is one of the best ways of handling that defence, e.g. Keres-Taimanov, Tallinn 1975. b) 7 ... lle7 8 EiJbd2 0-0 9 ite2 (here or last move c2<4 is still good.) 9 ... 4:le4 10 &dl f511 4:le5 (11 c4!?) 11 ... fueS 12 de fud2 13 l:ixd2 ite8 with complex play ahead on both wings; Gibson-Sultan Khan, British Ch 1931 .

5 ... 11b7

If 5 ... .!la6?! 6 c4! ad6 (6 ... de 7 fuc4) 7 0-0 0-0 8 b3 c6 9 'lte2 !!e8 10 ilb2 <£lbd7 11 4:les l:ic8 12 f4 Koltanowski-Sunver, Sitges 1934; Black's 1la6 is not well placed.

6,*e2 Alternatively:

a) 6 0-0 and if 6 ... f.1e 7 7 b3 0-0 8 ilb2 followed by c4 is the Queen's

Indian again.

b) 6 ~5l? ild6 (6 ... a6 7 f4 c5 8 c3 4)c6 9 "tW"3 ± Colle-Sultan Khan, Hastings 1930-31) 7 f4 EiJe4 (7 ... O-D 8 -&f3!? - ECO; compare chapter 8 again.) 8 *f3 EiJxd2 (8 ... f5? 9 *tI5+) 9 ilxd2 *t14+ 10 g3 *tI3 11 ilfl itf5 12 ild3 Y2:Yz Koltanowski-Spielmann, Sitges 1934. Koltanowski said that 10 'itf2 might be playable, heading for the endgame.

6

7 e4

8 4lxe4 9 00{)

~7

de U,d7 0-0 :t

And here White has:

a) 10 ~1 fue4 11 ilxe4 ilxe4 12 -&xe4 4lf6 1 3 'ttc6 t Pirc-Stah lberg, Moscow 1935.

b) 10 ~1 and now:

b1) 10 ... ~8 {Franklin-Najdorf, Hastings 1971-72} 11 EiJeg5 f.1xf3 (or 11 ... ild6 12 EiJes ±) 12 itxf3 ! - Franklin, ECO.

sz) 10 .. ' 4lxe4 11 .!lxe4 ilxe4 12 'ltxe4 4lf6 13 'Ih 7 itc8 14 fIc6 ! Franklin-Markland, Hastings 1971- 72.

C2

4 ... .Qe7

5 U,d2 00{)

Or 5 ... EiJbd7 6 O-D b6?! (7 c3 or 7 b3 would be norrnal.] 7 ... fue5 8 de <£ld7 9 f4 <£le5! 10 Qb5+ lld7 11 1le2 a6 12 c4 dc 13 -'txc4 g6 14 't'b'c2! t Flohr-Noteboom, Hamburg 1930.

6 0-0

Riumin-Budo,7th USSR Ch 1931, went 6 ifl'e2 <£lbd7 7 e4 de 8 fue4

20 Colle System (2 lJf3, 3 e3), Ideas and Irregular Lines

7 e4

Or 7 fre2 b6 8 e4 de 9 <ilxe4 11b 7 10 4:lxf6 fuf6 11 gd 1 (to protect d4 indirectly) 11 ... i6'd5!? 12 a.g5! h6 13 c4 i6'a5 14 Af4 KoltanowskiCherta, Spain 1935.

7 ... de

8 4lxe4 ~xe4

9 11xe4 ors 10 ad3 c5 (Now we see why Black should have played this earlier! If 10 ... b6 ECO gives 11 fre2 11b7 12 gd1 !.) 11 dc! (obtaining a i6'-side majority) 11 ... .axeS 12 llg5 11e7 13 i6'e2 i6'c7 (13 ... b6? 14 Axf6 llxf6 15 fre4) 14 !!adl gd8 15 ~5 Ad7 (better 15 ... h6) 16 Axh7+! 'i!txh7 17 .axf6 Axf6 (17 ... 11e8 holds out longer.) 18 i6'h 5+ 'i!tg8 19 frxf7+ 1-0 ColleBuerger, Hastings 1928.

C3

4 ... ad6

5 Qbd2 ~d7

Alternatively:

a) 5 ... b6 6 e4 ± KoltanowskiRyden, 1957 (blindfold slrnul].

b) 5 ... c6 6 0-0 €lbd7 7 gel 0-08

Colle System (2 lJf3, 3 es), Ideas and Irregular Lines 27

e4 de 9 fue4 4'lxe4 10 !lxe4 i6'c7 11 e3 (Koltanowski-Silverman, Birmingham 1937) 11 ... <lli6 or 11 ... b6 - Koltanowski.

6 O.()

Or 6 e4 de 7 fue4 b6 (7 ... 4'lxe4 8 .Ilxe4 0-0 9 0-0 see note b) to Black's 6th) 8 fud6+!? (instead of 8 0-0 11b7 = Blackburne-Lasker, London 1 879) 8 ... cd 9 .af4 ! ECO.

6 . _. e5?!

After 6 ... 0-0 7 e4 Koltanowski analysed:

a} 7 ... e5?! 8 ed ed 9 ~4 4:le5 10 Ag5 Ag4 11 .axf6 Axf3 (11 ... gf 12 11e2) 12 .axd8 !lxdl 13 4lxd6 <ilxd3 14 gfxd1 gfxd8 15 gxd3 gxd6 16 !!xd4 and Black cannot copy any longer.

b) 7 ... de 8 €lxe4 4lxe4 9 .axe4 f5 (9 ... e5 lOde 4'lxe5 11 fue5 axeS 12 llxh 7 +! 'i!txh 7 13 i6'h 5+) 10 .ad3 e5 11 ~c4+ 'it'h8 12 ~g5 'lfJe8 13 de fue5 (13 ... i6'xe5 14 i6'h5 <lli6 15 'itth4 '&e7 16 ad2 h6 17 gael ~4 18 ~5) 14 gel ± e.g, 14 ... h6 (14 ... i6'g6 15 gxe5; 14 ... f415 i6'd4) 15 Af4 hg 16 !lxe5 axeS 17 gxe5 i6'g6 18 tb'd5 c6 19 tb'd4 with pressure on the open central files . Also good is 11 ~5 ± AlekhineKohnlein, Dusseldorf 1908_

7 e4! de

7 ... ed 8 e5 forking two pieces.

8 4lxe4 4lxe4

9 axe4

Black has a difficult game already, because castling loses a pawn to the typical Colle trap 9 ... O-o?! 10 de fue5 11 0xe5 axeS 12 11xh 7+ Koltanowski-Golmayo, Sitges 1934.

Summary

The Colle-Zu kertort variation (Al leads to interesting and complex middle games, offering objectively level chances. The King's Indian setup against the Colle is probably good, but Black should aim for "'. e5 rather than the reversed Catalan. The ... c5, ... ifJc7 and ... e5 plan is

somewhat in White's favour - but il'ra4 (to prevent ... e5) is inadvisable. Finally the lines in C by and large show the inadvisability of Black's omitting ... c5 if he intends to develop his bishop on e7 or d6. In the next two chapters we proceed to those lines of the Colle that were the most popular in its heyday (late twenties and thirties).

(2) 6 O..() .ilb7 7 4le5 i!d6 8 f4 flc7 9 i!d2 ~6 10 i1el a611 -ik12±. Damjanovlc-Korchnoi, Palma de Mallorca 1969.

Al

A 5 ... ~6-

A 1 with ild6

A2 with £te7

B 5 ... -ilbd7 -

B1 with !ld6

B2 with ile 7

Odd-fits in brief:

a) 5 '" .Qd7 6 ~bd2 1k6 7 de Axc5 8 b4 ild6 9 b5 l1d7 100-0 a6 11 c4 0-0 12 ilb2 .±. Schlechter-Napier, Monte Carlo 1903.

b) 5 ... ~7 6 0ge5 0-0 7 O~ b6 8 'lte2 ilb7 9 -ik12 <£ibd7 10 f4 t Karakiaiic-Arrdric, Belgrade 1961. c) 5 ... b6!? when:

c l ) 6 4bd2 .Ilb 7 7 4Je5 4Jbd7 8 f4 .a.d6 9 ~f3l 0-0 10 0-0 §.cS 11 g4 §c7! 12 g5 .IlxeS 13 fe (13 de 4Je8! 14 ~xh7+ would give no advantage.) 13 ... ~4! 14 h4? (14 4Jxe4 de 15 ~c4!) 14 _ .. fS15 efgf 16 g6 fS 17 l1xe4 de 18 ~g3 §f6 19 h5 hg 20 §f2 4Jf8 21 4Jc4 cd 22 4JeS de 23 be (23 4Jg4 §d7 24 €Ixf6+ ~xf6 +) 23 ... §h 7 24 .Q.a3 !hhS 25 §f1 f4! ++ 26 4Jg4 fg 27 €Ixf6+ 'ft1h8 28 4Jxh5 4Jd7 29 .flxg3 ~g5 30 'i£?g2 ~xe3 was the continuation in Colle v. Znosko-Borowski, Nice 1930 (0-1, 40).

5 <£Ie6

6 .ntJd2 .I1d6

Alternatively:

a) In Gottilf-Romanovsky , Tourney of Leningrad Masters 1930, Black tried 6 ... fJb6 7 0-0 .ad7. If his intention was to castle itt-side, he soon th ough t better of it: 8 de Axc5 9 e4 ad8 10 ed ed 11 <illi3 ~7 12 h3 0-0 13 2.e3 "i!Jc7 (completing the ignominious retreat) 14 <£ibd4 and the position is a Tarrasch French in which Black's pieces are too passively placed to compensate for the isolation of his d-pawn (l-O,42).

b) 6 ... a6 7 0-0 'tt:Jc7 8 ~e2 ile7 9 de 1lxcS 10 e4 ± Przepiorka-Gilfer, Hamburg 1930.

c) 6 ... cd 7 ed ild6 8 0-0 0-0 9 ae 1 ~c7 (9 ... ~8 10.£)e5) note bl) to Black's 7th.

With _._ ild6 Black adopts his most classical minor piece set-up. The position is in effect a reversed Queen's Gambit, Semi-Slav (Chigorin's Half-Meran) in which the extra tempo means a lot to White: he will be the first to advance his e-pawn,

7 0-0

7 e4 is premature because after 7 ... cd 8 cd de 9 <£ixe4 <£ixe4 1 0 .llxe4 .ab4+ the position becomes too simplified and White has an isolated d-pawn.

3 Main Line Colle (with ... d5)

1 d4 .ru6

2 00 e6

3 e3 d5

4.11d3 c5

5 c3(13)

Of the several move-orders that lead to the diagram position, the above is probably the most precise from both players' points of view. Early deviations were dealt with in chapter 2, and lines without .. _ d5 are in the next chapter.

13 B

The variations which follow are distinguished by Black's development of the queeri's knight (to c6 or d7) and the king's bishop (to d6 or e7). Although some transpositions are possible, we shall look at the variations in the following sequence:

Main Line Colle (With ... as) 23

7 'll!e2 0-0 8 de!? (8 0-0 below) 8 '" .!lxeS 9 e4 is an attempt to get on with the centre push: if 9 '" ",*e7 either 10 0-0 (transposing) or 10 e5!? _ Koltanowski-Domenech Sitges 1934, went instead 9 ... d; 10 <lli<e4 fue4 11 Axe4 i1d7 (11 . __ itc7!?) 120-O!k8 13 Af4 ±.

If 7 de Axc5 8 b4?! (8 0-0 O~ below) 8 ... ild6 9 b5 <tle7 (9 ... 0geS! ~ ECO) 100-0 0-0 11 i6'b3 eS 12 e4 ae8 (Rozic-Krestini, Yugoslavia 1932) is unclear.

7 O.(J(14)

Black can transpose by 7 ... 'lke7 8 de Axc5 9 e4 0-0, but should avoid:

a) 7 .. _ e5?! was played in the stemgame Charousek-Suchting, Berlin 1897 (see p, 7); only thirty years later was the variation rediscovered and popularised by Colle!

Charousek-Suchting continued 8 dc l1xc5 9 e4 d4?! 10 4:lb3 ~b611 cd ed 12 e5! -ik17 13 .Ilg5 *c7 14 !!cl ±, but possibly 9 ... de 10 4lxe4 4lxe4 11 11.xe4 *xd 1 1 2 !:Ixdl ilg4 (12 ... f6 13 b4 .ab6 14 a4.±.) 13 h3 .!lxf3 14 .!lxf3 would have restricted White to a minimal endgame advantage. Neikirkh and Isvetkov, the Bulgarlan analysts, suggest that White would do better with 8 de .flxe5 9 <£ixe5 .Q.xeS 10 f4 .Ilc 7 11 e4 de 1 2 <£ixe4 4lxe4 13 .Q.xe4 itxdl 14 axd1 e.g. 14 ... Sb8 15 .Q.e3 b6 16 2.c6+ 'i!i>e 7 17 !:Ie 1 .±.. Another idea is 8 e4 'and White will use the e-file first' - Koltanowski. b) 7 ... cd 8 ed produces an Exchange Variation of the Caro-

24 Main Line Colle (with ... d5)

Kann with Black's queen's bishop locked inside his pawn structure. Two examples after 8 ... "f1c7 9 ael :

b1} 9 ... 0.0 10 "f1e2 ae8 11 4:le5 ae 7 1 2 <tIdt3 -ilfd 7 13 flg5! fli"8 14 fuh7! ± Colle-Soultanbeleff, Liege 1930.

b2} 9 ,., ild7 10 "f1e2 O..Q..Q 11 4:le5 ile8 12 4ldt3 4ld7 13 ad2 ~8 14 c4 f6 1 5 cd ed 16 4:lxc6 be 17 b4 followed by afcl, aab1, a4 and b5, opening up Black's "f1-side ~ Koltanowski.

14 W

All 8 de

A 1 2 8 "f1e2!?

Other tries:

a) 8 b3 (inconsistent) 8 ... e5! Wahltuch-Atkins, London 1922.

b) 8 h3 'lke7 (8 .,. eS!?; 8 ... b6 Vldrnar-Bogoljubow, London 1922) 9 "f1e2 e5 10 de ilxc5 11 e4 !le6! (11 ... -ilh5 12 ed! 4:lg3 13 'ltrel fun 14 4:lxfl 4ld8 15 "fixeS) 12 ed ~xd5 '" Vidmar-Reti, London 1922. c) 8 e4 and now:

c 1) 8 ... de 9 4:lxe4 cd 1 0 4:lxf6+ gf (10 '" '&xf6?? 11 ftg5) 11 fth6 with attacking chances; Romanovsky-Rotlevi, St Petersburg 1909.

(2) 8 ... cd! when:

c21} if 9 flxd4 4:lxd4 10 cd de 11 lillo.e4 4:lxe4 12 g,xe4 g,xh 2+! the laugh is on White for a change.

c22) 9 cd de 10 4:lxe4 !le7! is assessed as f. by Pachman because of the isolated d-pawn (11 4:leg5 h6!). Or possibly 10 ." 4lxe4 11 ftxe4 Ad7 12 ae1 h6 13 ftb1 "fffc7

14 "fId3 f5 15 Ad2 with

complications; Lukic-Djantar,

Yugoslav Ch 1959.

All

c21} 10 _ ... xd5?! 11 \'te2 Ag4 (11 ... llb612 ~4 or 11 ... El.e812 ik4 itd7 13 <tlg5 af8 14 <tIde4 ± ColleRubinstein, Budapest 1926) 12 4::ie4 afd8 13 4:lxf6+ gf 14 .ile4 ± ColleSir George Thomas, Nice 1930.

c22) 10 ... {lxd5 11 4le4 Ae7 12 4:lg3 f5 13 &4 ile6 14 &1 e415 agS ~h8 16 axe7 4lcxe7 17 4:kl4 ~ Colle-Euwe, 1 st match game 1928. d) 9 ... de (or 9 ... 4:lxe4) 10 4:ixe4 when:

dt) 10 '" .ile7 11 ite2 YIIc7 12 4:lxf6+ axf6 13 ftg5 ite 7 14 ite4 g6 (Colle-Maroczy, San Remo 1930) 15 h4! eS 16 'Ute3 ± Toth and Halupetsky.

d2) 10 .. Alxe4 11 Axe4 and now: d21) 11 .. _'l!hd112lhdl with a ,*~ide majority and a slight lead in time. Colle-Rubinstein, Berlin 1926, continued 12 ... f6 13 b4 ile7 14 a3 aS15 b5 ±.

d22) 11 ... .ile7 12 *xd8 axd8 13 af4 likewise favoured White in Rudenko-Zubarevy . All-Union tourney of Spartak clubs 1939. d23) 11 ...• c712 4lg5 h6 13 ilh7+ ~8 14 &2 e5 15i'fh5 ± (threats are <tie4 and 1lxh6) Gilg-Holzhausen, Breslau 1925.

e) 9 ... ~7 and 9 _ .. ~6 have been played, but the loss of tempo helps White.

10 f1e2(7s)

This renews the e5 threat.

Probably 10 ed is too quiet, e.g. 10 ... flxd5 11 4le4 ile7 = as recommended by Euwe and Pachman.

However Colle's opponents used

8 dc

This is designed to avoid the isolated d-pawn and to decoy the black klng's bishop away from ~ide defence. The move was played by Capablanca in a simultaneous display in 1914, but the credit for its development rightly goes to Colle who rediscovered it.

8 ~c5

9 .e4

Thus White achieves his first objective.

An experimental idea was 9 b4!? .Ild6 10 a3 e5 11 e4 .llg4 12 ed 4:lxd5 13 4:le4 Ae7 with an unclear position; Colle-Euwe, match 1924.

9 'i!1c7

To prevent e4-e5. Others:

a) 9 ... d4? 10 4lb3 ± KoltanowskiDomenech, Barcelona 1 934.

b) 9 .. ' i&b6!? might be met by 10 e5, angling for a sacrifice on h7 ~ Neikirkh and Tsvetkov,

c) 9 ... e5 and now:

c 1) 1 0 ~e2 l!e8 (Kostic-Marshall, Stockholm 1937) 11 h3!? ~ ~ Neikirkh and Tsvetkov.

c2) 10 ed when:

Main Line Colle (With ... d5) 25

to reply 10 ... ed!? reach ing positions akin to the T arrasch French which are well-known nowadays (e.g. the 1974 KarpovKorchnoi match). Compared with the line 1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 4ld2 c5 4 ed ed 5 4lgf3 4lc6 6 Ab5 Ad6 7 de axc5 8 0-0 <tlge7 9 <tlb3 Black here has his knight on f6 which gives him chances based on ... 4:le4 or ._. <tlg4. Stilt, the following examples should be reviewed in the light of modern ideas in the French:

10 ... ed 11 <fIb3 (11 h3? .ilxh3! ++ Scafarelli-Lundin, Helsinki 1952) and now:

a) 11 ... l1d6 12 h3 §e8 13 <tlbd4 flxd4 14 flxd4 .ild 7 1 S 'l?tf3 ! a6 16 flfS .ile5 1 7 .Ile3 4Je4 1 8 §ad 1 ae6 19 .Ilc2 .ilc6 20 .lld4 af6 21 'l?th 5 $hd4 12 41xd4 ah6 23 'l?te2 ae8 24 afe1 .Ild7 25 )3d3 ~f8 26 ae3 crs 27.ilf5 (1-0,42) Colle-Yates, Budapest 1926.

b) 11 ." 4.b6 12 ~c2 §.e8 13 .IlgS 4Je4 14 Elae1 .ilf5 z: (Black has an easy development.) 15 .lle3 .llg6 16 <tlh4 (16 .Qxb6!?; 16 flbd4!?) 16 ... <fIxf2!? 17 .llxf2 (17 ~xf2 axe3 18 fue3 ~f4+) 17 ... .Ilxf2+ 18 ~xf2 i!\"b6+ 19 ~g3 ~e3+ 20 El.xe3 i*xe3+ 21 an ~g5+ 22 ~3 €i,,5 23 !lg3 trth6 Colle-Kashdan, Bled 19j1. Now White should have played 24 $hg6 flxg6 25 El.xg6 hg 26 ~3 and Black probably has nothing better than 26 ... "f1g5+ 27 \t1h3 iWh6 repeating positions - Koltanowski.

10 .Q.d6

Others:

a) 10 .. Alg4 is a major alternative:

26 Main Line Colle (with ... d5)

15 B

al ) 11 h3 4lgeS and now:

a1 1) 12 ~xe5 <ilxeS 13 ik2? (13 ed ed 14 00 = - Sokolsky; 14 ... ~g6! - Koltanowski] 13 ... d4! 14 cd axd4 15 ab3 b6 16 00 aa6! 1 7 'lfrxa6 ~xf3+ 1 8 gf -&g3+ 19 \!til 1 'lfrxf3+ 20 \tlgl 'lfrg3+ 21 \!til 1 'lfrxh3+ 22 \tlg1 Ae5! 0-1 YasvoinKopayev , Team Ch of VTsPS 1947. a12) 12 !l.c2 b6 13 ael (13 ~b3 aa6! 14 'lfrxa6 ~xf3 + 1 5 gf 'lfrg3 + - Neikirch and Tsvetkov] 13 ... d4 14 tilxe5 lLlxe5 1S cd .Il.xd4 16 lLlb3 .Il.a6! 17 l¥rd 1 with a double-edged game. Halibeily-Lipnitsky, USSR 1954, continued 17 ... .llxf2!? 18 '<!1xf2 .§fd8 19 .lld2 lLlc4 20 e5 tilxd2 21 4Jxd2 'lfrc5+ 22 .§e3 l¥rb4 23 ihh7+! with White escaping. a13) 12 ed ed 13 <ilxe5 'lfrxeS!? = - Yudovich.

a2) 11 ed ed 12 4:lb3 aes 13 .i1gS .Irecomrnended by Ravinsky) is correct, bringing about a more favourable form of Tarrasch French than in the note to White's 10th. The black klng's knight cannot reach e4 and the white queen '5 bishop will achieve the standard

manoeuvre .Q.g5-h4-g3. If 1 3 ... .Q.d7 14 .Q.h4 lhe8 15 frc2 h6 16 ag3 and 17 !he 1 , or if 13 ... 4lce5 (or 13 ... 4lge5) then 14 .i1f4! is promising - Harding.

b) 10 .,' e5? 11 ed 4:lxd5 12 .Q.xh7+ \tlxh 7 1 3 fre4+ and 1 4 'lfrxd 5.

c) 1 0 ... de 11 4:lxe4 .Q.e 7 1 2 I£lfg5 ± - Neikirkh and Tsvetkov.

d) 10 ... ne8? 11 eS and now:

dl) 11 ... ~7124:lb3(12!!e1?! f6! 13 4:lg5? '&xe5! T WinterLasker, Nottingham 1936) 1 2 ... .i1b6 (12 ... .i1f8! which White meets by 4:lbd4 • .Q.f4 or .Q.b5) 13 af4 f6 14 !hel 4:ldxe5? (14 ." af8 was essential) 15 4lxe5 4:lxe5 16 .i1xh7+ \tlf8 (16 ... \tlxh7 17 ifrh5+ and 18 the8) 17 .Q.g6 fld8 18 ifrh5 ~e7 19 -tld4! .ad7 20 axeS! fe (20 ... flh8 21 4lf5+) 21 .i1xe5 1-0 KoltanowskiO'Hanlon, Dublin (match) 1937, d2) 11 ... 4\14 12<£1b3 .lle7 (12 '" .Il.b613 .Il.f4 f614 h3) 13 '§e1 f614 ef .i1xf6 (14 ... gf!? - 64) 15 h3 4lgeS 16 4lxeS *xe5 17 .Q.xh7+ winning a pawn (Bellavenets-fomina. USSR women's zonal 1975) because if 17 ... 'i!;lxh7 18 *c2+.

11 ne1 ~4

12 h3

Not 1 2 ~1 de 13 .i1xe4 f5 T Engelmann-Soultanbeieff, Belgian Ch 1934.

12 ~ge5

13 ~xeS

13 ik2 h6 14 4:lxe5 4lxe5 1500 <ilxf3+ 16 *xf3 de 17 'lfrxe4 f5 = Gilg-Alekhine, Kecskemet 1927.

13 ~eS

14 ed

Moving the bishop loses needful time:

a) 14 abl? ad7 15 ed ed 1600 !la.e8 T Colle-Ahues, Frankfurt 1930.

b) 14 .llc2 d4 15 cd 'lfrxc2 16 de axe5 17 00 '«rxe2 18 axe2 (Yudovich-Kirillov, 7th USSR Ch 1931) 18 ... .i1c7 ~ - ECO.

14 ed

15 <ilf3 1;-

White has a solid position, while Black must either sacrifice or defend his IQP. White can concentrate his forces against the weakness by ae3, lhd1, .i1c2-b3 and doubl ing rooks on the d-file. Examples:

a) 15 ... ~xd3 16 '«rxd3 'lfrc4!? 17 ad1 *xd3 18 axd3 llfd8! 19 .Q.e3 .i1e6 20!hdl (1S:Y2,44) Koltanowski -Soultanbeieff, 4th match game 1935; White was happy with his game at this stage.

b) 15 ... fuf3+ 16 '«rxf3 .Q.e6 17 Ae3 and now:

b1) 17 '" .§ad8 18 ik2 b5!? 19 .ad4 .i1c5 20 flad1 b4 21 Aes .i1d6 22 .i1xh7+! '<!1xh7 23 i6'h5+ 'i!;lg8 24 Axg7!! rtixg7 25 l¥rg5+ 'i!;lh 7 26 fld4 .±± Koltanowski-Defosse, Belgian Ch 1936.

b2} 17 ... .lleS (to meet 18 Ad4 by

18 .i1xd4) and if 1 8 .Q.xa 7 ru, 2+

(18 axa7 19 '«re3) 19 'i!?h 1 !'lxa7

20 g3 axg3 21 fg = - Koltanowski. White might do better with 18 \tlhl (threatening both 19 .Q.xa 7 and 19 .i1xh7+) 18 '" .Q.f6 19 lle2 followed by lhe 1 and ab 1.

A12

8 *e2!?(76)

Main Line Colle (with ... d5) 27

This transposition of moves allows (or should one say 'invites'?) Black to get his blow in first.

16 B

8

e5!?

Alternatively:

a) 8 *c7 9 de returns to All.

b) 8 b6 9 e4 del 0 4lxe4 .Q.b 7 11

llif6+ i'txf6 1 2 4:lg5 ± Filipek, Vidmar jr., Yugoslav Ch 1945.

c) 8 ... ~7 9 e4 (9 de llic5) 9 '" cd 10 cd 4lb4 11 .i1b1 b6 (unclear - ECO) 12 ae1 Aa6 13l¥re3 fle8 ~ - Pachman.

9 dc

9 de is inferior. Fran klin-Dodson, Ward-Higgs corres 19734, continued 9 ... c£lxe5 1 0 ~xe5 AxeS 11 e4 (11 f4!? - Dodson) 11 ... fic7 12 h3 !!e8 13 ifrf3 .i1e6 14 c4 d4 T (0-1, 37).

9 .lxcS

10 e4

With some initiative to White, according to Euwe and Pachman. Examples:

a) 10 neB 11 h3 ± - Pachman.

b) 10 .llg4 11 ed (11 h3 ah5

Wahltuch-Morrison, London 1922) 11 ... ihd5 12 .i1c4 (better 12 ~4 first - Koltanowski) 12 ... *d7 13

28 Main Line Colle (with ... d5)

h3 (13 4:lxe5? loses the exchange after 13 ... .llxe2 14 4Jxd7 .llxf1.) 13 ... .ru, 5 14 <tle4 4lxe4 1 5 'i'xe4 'if1c 7 16 4lh4 4le 7 17 ilg5 \ttl 8 1 8 ilxe 7 ilxe 7 19 ild 3 g6 20 ffi ild6 21 'if1c4 (21 g4? f5) 21 ... 'if1xc4 22 ilxc4 ilxf3 (22 ... f5 23 4:lg5) 23 gf lbc8 = Koltanowski-Fine, Hastings 1935-6.

c) 10 ... fte7 11 ed 4:lxd5 12 4lb3 .I1d6 13 l1g5 f6 (13 ... 'if1c7 looks safer.) 14 'if1e4 g6 15 'if1xd5+ l1e6 16 'if1e4 fg 17 l1c4 ~f4 18 ilxe6+ 'if1xe6 19 4:lxg5 ± (t-o, 40) IvanovPadevsky, Bulgarian Ch 1955.

A2

5 4)c6

6 cnbd2 ~7

7 0-0(77)

Klaman-Vladimirov, USSR 1963, was unclear after 7 a3 O.(} 8 b4 b6 9 ilb 2 ilb 7 1 0 o-o 'itc 7 11 gc 1 ~e8 12 'lta4 c4 13 l1b1 l1d6 14 '&c2 tile 7 .

17 B

7

0-0

Other tries include:

a) 7 .•. *c7 is known from the game Alekhine-Flohr, Berne 1932: 8 'lte2 o.o 9 e4 (9 de l1xc5 10 e4 see A 1) 9 ... de (Here 9 ... cd

permits 10 e5! e.g. 10 .. Ale17 11 cd 4li:>4 12 aes: a6 13 1la4 ± Neikirkh and Tsvetkov) 10 4:lxe4 cd 11 4lxd4 4:lxd4 1 2 cd when:

a l ) Flohr played 12 ... 4)xe4 13 1lxe4 f5?! (13 ... ild7 14 *t3 ilc6 = - Alekhine) 14 .llf3 .llf6 15 Ekl1 §.d8 16 !le3 ± f4? 17 §ac1 itd6 1 8 .I1d2 .I1xd4 19 .!la5 !:ld7 (19 ... ~S 20 *(4) 20 !:lxd4 itxd4 21 *xe6+ etc .

a2) 12 ... 'ltd8 (or 12 .. , .lld713 .llg5)

13 fuf6+ Axf6 14 'l6'e4 and White has a strong initiative - Koltanowski. a3) 12 ... ~5 might be met by 13 itth5 (Koltanowski) or 13 *t3 (Alekhine).

In these variations White is well compensated for his isolated d-pawn by his lead in development and the misplaced black queen.

Other alternatives:

b) 7 ... ~7 S de 1lxc5 9 e4 de 10 4:lxe4 4:lxe4 11 l1xe4 1le 7 12 *c2 h6 13 l1f4 O.(} 14 §ad1 'if1e8 15 ittd2 f5 16 .I1c2 11cS 17 ~fe 1 ± Colle-Piccardt, Amsterdam 1931.

c) 7 ... e4 8 .I1c2 b5 9 e4 de 10 fue4 O.(} 11 fte 2 ilb 7 1 2 4lfg5 ± - ECO.

8 *e2

If 8 de l1xc5 see A 1, or 8 tile5 ittc7 (8 .. , 4'ld7!? 9 f4 fS EstradaCiric, Rostov 1961) 9 f4 b6 (9 ... g6!? 10 g4 with a \ft-side attack) 10 llf3 as 11 ah3 g6 12 4'ldf3 4:le4 with complications; RomaniBenitez, Lugano 1968.

8 b6

above,

b) 8 ... !'le8 9 de l1xc5 10 e4 4)d7 11 4lb3 (11 13et? 4lde5! ~ RiuminLasker, Moscow 1936) 11 ... de 12 l1xe4 ~ - ECO.

c) 8 ... ~7! (compare A 12) 9 e4 cd 1 0 cd 4lb4 11 l1b 1 b6 1 2 13e 1 1la6 13 'ite3 !kS 14 a3 4lc6 (14 ... 4lc2? 151lxc2 llxc2 16 ed ± - ECO) 15 b4 de 16 4lxe4 4lf6 1 7 4lc3 4ld 5 1 8 fudS ed is unclear; Kan-Chekhover, 14th USSR Ch 1945.

9 de

Others:

a) 9 e4?! cd 1 0 cd 4:lb4 -=F.

b) 9 ~1 ab7 10 b3 !:lc8 11 ab2 cd 12 ed 4ld7 13 4lft l1f6 (but 1-0,41) Watson-Morrison, London 1922.

9 be

10 e4 'i!Jc7

Alternatively:

a) 10 ... de?! 11 fue4 l1b7 12 l1g5 fue4 13 ittxe4 g6 14 llh6 §.e8 15 Ilad1 ~6 (Ragozin-Stahlberg, Moscow 1935) 16 'if1f4! (threatening 4)gS) with an attack - ECO.

b) Sliwa-Salo, Helsinki 1952, went instead 10 ... 1lb7 11 ael !:le8? 12 4)g5 h6 13 ed '&xd5 14 4'lge4 4le5 1S 4:lxf6+ llxf6 16 .I1e4 '&d7 17 .I1xb 7 '&xb 7 18 4le4 ±.

After the column, 10 '" *e7, White should try 11 Elel. The immediate 11 eS? fails to 11 ... 4)g4! 12 !:le1 f6! 13 ef l1xf6 14 4le4?! .I1d4!! (14 ... de 15itxe4) 15 4leg5 (15 cd? <ilxd4; 15 h3 de 16 'l!rxe4 llxf3!) 1 5 ... l1xf2+ 16 1th 1 axel 0-1 (17 i!rxe1 h6 18 4lh3 J.::!xf3) Franklin-Carleton, England 1971.

Or:

a) 8 ... "IJJc7 see Alekhine-Flohr,

Main Line Colle (With ... d5) 29

81

5 4li>d7

6 <tlbd2

If 6 <ile5 (Kupchik-Ed Lasker, Bradley Beach 1928) ECO recommends 6 ... fue5 7 de <ild7 8 f4 ile7 =.

6 ~6(l8)

Other tries:

a) 6 ... 'f1e7 (6 ... ile7 see B2) 70'(} b6 8 e4 de 9 <ilxe4 ilb"7 10 ite2 £:1.e7 (Bisguier-Portisch, Zagreb 1965) 11 l1g5! t.

b) 6 ... b61? might be met by 74leS 4lxe5 (7 ... .I1b7 8 f4 ±) 8 de 4ld7 9 f4 i6'h4+ 10 g3 ith3 11 ers f5 12 ef <ilxf6 13 e4 l1b7 14 eS 4:ld7 15 aft ittfS 16 l1g2 !le7 170-0 O.(} 18 g4 '&g6 (18 ... i!rf7 19 'l!re2 and rs) 19 f5 ef 20 gf *g5 21 4lc4! with a dominating spatial advantage for White; Apostopoulos-E.Madsen, Fernschach 1959.

Compared with vanatron A 1 , Black is ready to answer dc by ... 4:lxe5, and is better placed to blockade an isolated d-pawn (by ... <llid5 and 4:l7f6).

7 0-0

a) If 7 e4?! cd (7 ... de is also good.)

30 Main Line Colle (with ... d5)

8 cd de 9 fue4 fue4 10 llxe4 ~6 11 11c2 l1b4+ 12 M2 llxd2+ 13 *,xd2 0-0 14 0-0 b6 1S ifrf4 .I1b7 16 fiadl fic8 =F Goglidze-Lisitsin, 7th USSR Ch 1931.

b) An interesting alternative is 7 'G'e2 *,c7 (or 7 ... est? 8 e4 with a sharp struggle in the centre) 80-0: bl} 8 ... e5? 9 fueS fueS 10 de .llxe5 11 f4 and the bishop is unhappily placed, e.g. 11 ... ild6 12 e4! .llxf4 13 !hf4 *,xf4 14 e5 ± - Rellstab.

b2} 8 ... 0-0 9 e4 cd 10 cd de 11 Qxe4 when:

b21) 11 ... lU4 12 g3 llxcl 13 fifxc1 *'b6 was unclear in PrinsKeres, Zan dvoort 1936.

b22) 11 ... }1e7 would be more prudent.

b23} 11 ... 4ld5 12 fud6 *xd6 13 *e4 Q7f6 14 ~4 and White, having prevented ... Qf4, has a fine attacking position. O'Kelly-Book, Dubrovnik 1950, continued 14 ... .lld 7 1 5 fie 1 afc8 16 .§.e5 g6 17 .lld2 a6 18 !!ae1 ila4 19 b3 .ab5 20 ilb 1 as 21 4:lgS! .§.e8 22 .lle4 i1c6 23 llxd5 ilxdS 24 Qxe6! Qd7 25 Qg5! fue5 26 itrxh7+ ~8 27 de *'b6 28 e6! 1-0.

7 0-0

The pleasant miniature game Koltanowski-Catala, Spain 1934 went 7 ... b6?! 8 e4 de 94Jxe4<£lxe4 (better 9 ' .. .lle 7) 10 .llxe4 .§.b8 11 dc! .!£ixc5 12 ilc6+ ~e7 13 b4 Qb7 14 <tld4 *'c715 ~5 Qd816 b5 f6? (16 ... ilb7 17 llxb7 ±) 17 .!le1 eS 18 Eixe5+!! ilxe5 19 .lla3+ .lld6 20 Eiel+ 4)e6 21 <ilf5+ 1-0.

After 7 ... 0-0 White has:

B11 8 e4 B12 8.§.el

a) 8 .e2!? e5 (8 ... *,c7 see note to White's 7th) 9 de (9 e4 ed :r) 9 ... fue5 10fue5 .llxe511 h3 (11 f4?! i1c7 12 e4? ilg4!) 11 '" .§.e8 1 2 <ilf3 i1c7 =F Filipovic-Sokolov, Yugoslavia 1953.

b) 8 h3 (Alekhlne) 8 ... *,c7 (8 ... e5 was analysed in Tartakower's Die Hypermoderne Schachpartie.) 9 e4 de 1 0 fue4 fue4 1 1 .I1xe4 4:if6 followed by ... b6, '" 11b7 - A. Zeitsa,Shakhmatny Listok, 1929. Bl1

Qe5? (14 a4 i1c6 =F ECO, despite 15 flgS g6 16 *tI3 .... ?) 14 ... .11b5 15 ~3 -ltxd4! :r e.g. 16 ag5 *,xe5 17 f4 (17 llxf6 *,xh2+!) 17 ... *'e2 18 ~f2 i1cS! 0-1 Colle-Bogoljubow, Berlin 1926.

b} 121l.d311i6 13 *e2 Ad7 14l'!dl 146 15 {)eS and now:

b1) 15 ... M5? 16 .llgS .ile7 17 ilxf6 gf 18 .I1xh7+ ±± ColleTackels, match 1927.

b2) 15 .. , h6 16 <ilg4 <ilxg4 17 *xg4 f5! = - ECO.

c) 12 ite2!?, intending .lle3, comes into consideration - Shakhmatny Listok.

12 f5

If 12 ... <ilxe5 (or 12 ... <£if6 13 .ll(2) 13 de .llxeS 14 ilxh7+ (14 ~5 f5) 14 ... ~xh7 15 ~5+ and 16 ~xe5 with attacking chances for White.

13 4lxd7

Matshall-Alekhine, Bradley Beach 1929, went now 13 ... l1xd714 .IH3 l1c6 lS '§'el '>t>h8! 16 ilgS (best?) 16 ... Etae8 (16 ... h6!? 17 ilh4 g5) 17 Etac1 (17 b3!?) 17 ... l1xf318 *xf3 *,xb2 19 !"kb1 ~xa2 20 l!xb7 fIeb8 21 g3 f41 (0-1,59).

White cannot improve with 13 4k4 because of 13 ... .Ilxh2+! 14 ~h2 *c7+ etc.

B12

8 e4!? cd

9 cd de

1 0 4.lxe4 4.lxe4

11 ~e4 'l1b6!

Or:

a) 11 ... l£If6 12 .ad3! (better than 12 .llc2 h6 13 *e2 b6! =F RiuminCapablanca, Moscow 1936) 12 ... h6 13 Qe5 ilfe7 (13 ... b6 14 ifff3!) 14 *t3 .§.b8 15 *g3 ~h8 16 .I1f4 ± e.g. 16 ... <ile8 17 ilfg6! fS 18 ilb5! Qc7 19 iffg3 llxe5 20 ilxeS <ilxb5 21 .llxb8 Qxd4 22 iffd3 .§.d8 23 .axa7 4k6 24 ~e3 Prlns-Grilnfeld, Zandvoort 1936. Black should not have enough for the exchange, although he drew in 75 moves.

b) 11 ... h6 12 i1c2 b6 13 *'d3l£1f6 14 fie 1 ilb 7 1S l£Ie5 .§.c8 16 .I1f4 ilb4 17 '§'e2 t\'d5 18 f3 ila6 (~:~, 31) Smvslov-Rornanishin, USSR 1976.

12 Qe5 Alternatives include:

a) 12 11c2!? <t:lf6 13 '&d3 ild7 14

8 &1(19) 'iIIe7

Other possibilities are:

a) 8 ... *t>6!? 9 b3 (9 e4 cd 10 cd de 11 fue4 <ilxe4 12 .§.xe4!? ECO) 9 ... e5 10 e4 cd 11 cd de 12 4:lxe4 l£lxe4 13 .llxe4 ed 14 ab2 ~6 15 ~d4 l1c5 16 ilxc5 ~xc5 17 Etc1

Main Line Colle (with ... d5) 31

*,a5 18 *d2 *'b6 = Fine-Keres, Kerner; 1937.

b) 8 '" §e8?! 9 e4 de 1 0 fue4 flxe4 11 ihe4 cd (better 11 ... 4)f6 ! Tartakower and Du Mont) and now White's correct plan, objectively, is 12 4:ixd4 or 12 cd. Colle, however, won a brilliancy prize against O'Hanlon (at Nice 1930) with 12 .llxh7+!? ~xh7 13 4:lg5+ ~6 (13 ... ~g8 14 *'h5 Qe5 15 cd! <ilg6 16 'll1h7+ ~8 17 h4! ± ECO) 14 h4 .§.h8? (14 ... fS! might have refuted the attack - Vukovic, The Art of Attack in Chess.] 15 .§.xe6+! .!£if6 (15 ... fe 16 *,d3+) 16 h5+ ~h6 17 §xd6 ~a5 18 4:lxf7+ 'ttl 7 19 <tJg5+! ~g8 20 ~b3+ 1-0.

c) 8 ... e5 is too hasty. After 9 e4 cd 10 cd de 11 <ilxe4 4:xe4 1 2 ~he4 ed 13 if1xd4 White has the freer game; Colle-Thomas, Carlsbad 1929. d) 8 ... b6 is too slow, e.g. 9 e4 de 10 fue4 otlxe4 11 .llxe4 .§.b8 1 2 *'c2 f5 13 ltd3 &8 14 ac4 with pressure; Reilly-Tumurbator, Moscow 1956.

9 e4

Goglidze-Sozin, 7th USSR Ch

32 Main Line Colle (with ... d5)

1931, went 9 'llre2 fie8 10 h3?! e5 11 de ~xeS 12 ~e5 .axeS 13 ~3 .ad6 14 ~c2 .ad7 15 c4 de 16 llxc4 b5 ~.

9 cd

10 cd de

11 4lxe4 <ikl5!

a) 11 ... 'ilxe4? 1 2 ft.xe4 !le8 13 ah4 4)f8 14 4lg5 h6 15 ~5! e5 16 ad2 ed 17 acl 'llre 7 18 4le4 4lg6 19 ag5! 'llre5 20 f4 ~dS? (20 ... 'llra5 21 b4 ±) 21 {}f6+! LandauBook, Kemeri 1937.

b) 11 ... b6 12 llg5 (PrzepiorkaProkes, Budapest 1925) 12 ... llf4! t - Pirc.

c) 11 ... ilf4 and now:

c l] 12 g3 llxc 1 13 fuel ilYa5 DNeikirch and Tsvetkov,

ez) 12 4lxf6+!? 4lxf6 13 4}e5 llxcl 14 axel followed by g4 ~ - ECO. d) 12 .Q.e3! <£Id5 13 §c 1 'l*b6 14 itd2 axe3 15 fe {l5f6 16 <DeS {}.xcS 17 l3.xcS ild7 18 'llrf2 ~5 19 ~h4 f5 20 e4? (weakens the d-pawn) 20 .,. 4:lb4 21 ilc4 0c2 22 !kl 4le3! 23 llb3 m6 (Crepeaux-Prokes, The Hague 1928) and now 24 'ltf4 was necessary.

12 ~xd6

ECO suggests 12 ild2!? followed by fid ~.

12 itxd6

White has two bishops but Black has a very solid blockade of the d-pawn. Koltanowski-Feigin, Hastings 1936-7, continued 13 4leS (13 4)g5 4l7f6 14 'ltf3 'llrb4 <D , DusHotlmirskl) 13 ... b614 a3 ilb715 .i1b2 as 16 'llrf3 .Ga6 17 0c4 ilxc4 18 axc4 4)7f6 f.

82

a) 8 ite2 a6!? 9 b3!? (9 e4 de 10 4lxe4 b5 11 ilg5 ilb7 12 afe' ~ECO) 9 ... 0-0 10 ilb2 bS 11 c4 be 12 be cd , 3 4lxd4 de 14 4lxc4 4)c5 15 ilc2 Q.b7 16 f3 ~c8 17 ~c1 ild5 ;;; Stoltz-Lilienthal, Saltsjobaden 1948.

b) 8 e4 de 9 <t1xe4 4lxe4 10 Q.xe4 {}f6 11 ilc2 0-0 12 ilgS E!d8 = Gottilf-Rozental, Tourney of Leningrad Masters 1934.

8 <tle5!?

Alternatively:

a) 8 .e2 and now:

a 1) 8 ... b6 9 e4 de 1 0 fue4 ilb 7 11 ad1 ~c7 12 agS E!fe8 13 de .Q.xe4 14 axe4 4lxe4 15 'ltxe4 4lxc5 16 ~c4 ilxg5 17 4lxgS 'lte 7 18 00 ;;; Kashdan-H.5teiner, Pasedena 1932.

sz) 8 ...• c7 9 e4 de 10 4:lxe4 4.lxe4?! (10 ... b6!? ~ ECO) 11 'llrxe4 g6 12 ah6 E!e8 13 4le5 4:lxe5 14 de act7 15 E!fe1 E!.ed8 16l3.e3! ± Havasi-Gemzoe, Hamburg 1930. b) 8!!el when:

b1) 8 ... itt7 9 e4 de 10 €lxe4 4lxe4 11 fixe4 4)f6 12 ac2 b6 13 .ag5 Ab 7 14 ~d3 g6 15 4le5 E!ac8 16 dc l3.fd8 17 ih'h3 ± Colle-Rubinstein, San Remo 1930 .

b2) 8 ... b6 9 e4 de 10 4lxe4 llb7 11 11f47! (11 *e2 ~ ECO) 11 ... cd 12 cd 4:lxe4 13 axe4 .ilxe4 14 ~xe4 .ru-615 E!.e1 {}d5 f Voellmy-Staehlin, Berne 1932.

c) 8 e4 de (not 8 ... cd? 9 e5) 9 fue4 when:

5

6 .ru,d2

~d1 £te7 (20)

A comparatively infrequent

defence, albeit the one recommended as safest by both Euwe and Pachman.

20 W

7 0.0

7 ~e2 0-0 need not transpose if instead of 8 0-0 White plays:

a) 8 e4 (or 8 de fue5) 8 ... de 9 4:lxe4 cd 10 fud4 (or 10 cd .Q.b4+) 10 ... ilb4+ with a free game for Black.

b) 8 4le5!? 4lxe5 (8 'lfIc7 9 f4) 9

de<i:ld710f4fS (10 f611 e4fe

12 ed rather than 11 ~5 f5 12 g4!? - Tartakower and Du Mont) 11 b3 4:lb8! 12 .ilb2 4:lc6 13 0-0 ild7 14 'i!th 1 'i!th8 1 5 g4 g6 16 E!gl .§.g8 17 .§.g3 tW8 1 8 ihg1 ~f7 19 4:lf3 (no better 19 gf gf or 19 g5 't'g7) 19 ... laad8 20 h4 a6 21 c4? (better 21 .§.h3) 21 ... de 22 de 4)b4 23 .Q.b1 llc6 24 a3 (24 g5 relatively best) 24 ... <Del 3 ! (25 .ilxd3? fg) and Black took the initiative; LandauBerger, match 1932.

7 0.0

Or 7 ... 'ltc7 when:

Main Line Colle (With ... d5) 33

c l ) 9 .,. cd?! 10 cd (10 4lxd4 4:lxe4 = Larrain-Lundin, Leipzig 1960) 10 ... fue4 11 .ilxe4 {}f6 12 ild3! (better than 12 .ilc2 b6 of Konstantinopolsky vs Tolush, 16th USSR Ch 1948) 12 ... b613 4le5 .ilb7 14 ~e1 'IfIc7 15 af4 with some in-itiative as compensation for the isolated d-pawn; Koltanowski -Lau, Zurich 1936.

c2) 9 ." ~xe4! (9 ... b6!? - Zeitsa) 10 .ilxe4 {}f6 11 .ilc2 b6 = - Euwe, d) 8 b3 (8 dc {lxcS ~ ECO) 8 ... b6 9 llb2 ilb7 10"«re24:le411 .§.fd1 fS 12 c4 1la6 = Eliskases-Engels, Bad Oeynhausen 1938.

8

9 de 10 f4 11 ef

<Uxe5 <!ld7 f5

Here Black has continued:

a) 11 ... !hf6 12 e4 {lf8 1 3 {lf3 4:lg6 14 e5 af8 1 5 'lfIc2 'lfIe8 16 c4 d4 17 h4 with pressure (1-0, 32) Breyer-Maroczy, Berlin 1920.

b) 11 ... -tlf6 12 e4 c4 13 .ilc2 (better 13 .ile2 - Aitken) 13 ... e5! 14 ed (14 fe 4:lg4) 14 ... 4:lg4 15 4le4 Af5 (Anderson-Nairn, Scottish Ch 1955) 16 d6= = Aitken.

Summary

The less-explored lines in which Black plays ... 4lbd7 offer Black better chances of equalizing than the ." ?:le6 plans. White still has several new ideas to test, however.

Popov-Arlarnovskv, Tsopot 1951.

3 e3(2l)

a) 5 .•. ~7 6 O~ O~ (6 ... d5 chapter 9) 7 b3 d6 8 ab2 .[}bd7 9 1te2 cS 10 c4 tltc7 11 fud1 fud8 12 ab 1 a.fe8 13 .[}g5 t PopovBaltsarek, Tsopot 19S1.

b) 5 ... d6 6 b3 4lild7 7 ab2 ae7 8 0-0 c5 9 tlte2 O~ 10 fud1 YIIc7 11 c4 !He8 (11 ... fud8 see a) 12 e4 e5 13 d5 g614 ~1 4:lilS1S g3 a.f816 4le 1 4ldf6 1 7 f4 fue8 18 <£ig2 ac8 19 f5 <£ig7 20 g4 gS 21 h4 h6 22 hg hg 23 <£Ie3 a.d8 24 t!th2 a.fe8 2S ~2 ab7 26 a.f3 bS 27 a.hl ±± Riumin-Sozin,7th USSR Ch 1931.

6 O~

The immediate 6 c3 is also possible, but not necessary. Then: a) 6 ... <£ic6 7 a3 (7 e4 cd 8 cd .[}b4 9 ac2 Aa6) 7 ... "/!Jc7 8 e4 cd (8 ... eS 9 dS) 9 cd ae7 10 O~ O~ 11 b4 fuc8 12 .11b2 d6 13 llcl ~8 better 13 ... "/!1d8) 14 YIIe2 a.fe8 1S <£ib3 .11f8? (15 ... h6 essential) 16 eS <£ids 17 axh7+! (1-0,29) Koltanowski-Reilly, Barcelona 1935.

b) 6 ." ~7 when:

bl) 7 -¥'e2 4ld5! 8 dc (8 e4 .[}f4 or 8 c4 4lb4) 8 ... be 9.[}f1 'l!Jc7104:1g3 4lc6 11 ad2 gS! and Black has a fine game; Ahues-Alekhine, San Remo 1930 .

b2) 7 e4 (7 O~ below) 7 .. , d6 8 ite2 cd 9<£ixd4;; Schenk-Spielmann, Ebensee 1933.

c) 6 cd 7 ed (7 cd 4:k6 8 O~ <£iM

;; ) 7 4:k6 8 O~ ae7 (8 ... flc7 9

He1 hS?! 10 4lc4 <£ig4 11 .11gS! ±) 9 '«re2 when:

c 1) 9 ... O~ 10 ~4?! <£lxe4 11 Y/Jxe4 f5 12 1te2 ad6 13 .11g5 <£ixd4! 14

4 Colle v. Queen's Indian ( ... b6)

In this chapter we look at those lines of the Colle System in which Black defers or entirely renounces ... dS, preferring a Y/J-side fianchetto. In most of these variations White could transpose to the Queen's Indian by playing c4.

1 d4 2 00

.Q.f6 e6

2 ... b6 can have an independent significance. For 3 .11f4!? ab7 4 <£ibd2 cS S e3 e6 (Tarrasch-Reti, Semmering 1926) compare chapter S.

Some lines peculiar to 2 ... b6 3 e3 .Ilb 7 4 <£ibd 2 are:

a) 4 '" c5 S c3 g6 6 ad3 ag7 7 e4 A d6 8 O~ 0-0 9 tlte2 cd 10 cd <£ic6

11 a3 <£id712<£ib3 as;; Koltanowski· Alekhine, Hastings 1936-7.

b) 4 ... g6 S 4:lbd2 dS (S ... cst?) 6 <£IeS Ag7 7 f4 0-0 8 tltf3 4)fd7 9 .[}g4 fS 10 <£ies cS 11 c3 4:lxeS 12 fe Aa6;; Popov-Sliwa, Tsopot 19S1.

c) 4 ... d6 S b3 4:lbd7 6 Ab2 g6 7 ad3 .11g? 8 YlJe2 O~ 9 h4!? (9 e4 eS lOde 4:lg4 -) 9 '" lle8 (Neikirkh and Tsvetkov prefer 9 ... cS) 10 O~~ eS 11 de de 12 ac4 h6 13

<btl tlte 7 14 .[}g3 e4 1S <£id4 4Jes =

21 B

Black now has:

A 3 b6

B 3 cS 4 <£ibd2 b6

b6

3

4 .Q.bd2 4 Ad3, though often played, is possibly less precise in view of 4 ." .Ila6! ?

4

11b7

Against 4 .,. cS, Koltanowski su ggested 5 Ab S!? but S c3 and 5 4:lbd2 (see below) and line Bare more usual replies.

S ad3 es

For S ... dS see chapter 2, C1. Also possible:

Colle v. Queen s Indian (. .. b6) 35

ilxd4 i6'xgS 15 f311f6 16 AbS llh6 17 f4 hf4 0-1 (18 g3 hg3! 19 hg tltxg3+ 20 "/!Jg2 t!th4 and ... Ilg6) Mouracheff-Soultanbeieff, Liege Ch 1930.

c2) 9 ... flc7 10 <£ies 0-0 11 f4 d6 12 .[}g4 4:lb8 13 f5 e5 14 <£ixf6+ Axf6 15 4Je4 .[}d7 t Popov-Koch, Sopot 1951.

6 4lc6

Others:

a) 6 _ .. ~7 7 c3 (7 b3 see B) 7 ... O~ (maybe premature) 8 e4 and now;

a l] 8 ... cd 9 4:lxd4?! d6 10 'l!re2 lilbd 7 11 f4 <£ic5 1 2 Ac2 .Ila6 13 c4 Elc8 14 b4 eS15 be ed 16 cd i6'xd6 17 Ad3 <£id7 Y2:Y2 Colle-Mattison, Budapest 1926.

a2} 8 ... ilc6 see below.

b) 6 .,. d6 7 l*e2 <ilbd7 8 c3 Ae7 9 e4 cd 10 cd a6 11 b3 O~ 1211b2 g6 13 llfd1 i6'b8 14 h3 Eld8 15 {lf1 4:lhS 16 l*e3 eS 17 de de 18 .11c4 bS 19 Elxd7! llxd7 20 <£ixe5 be 21 ilxd7 tltc7 22 4:lb6 lld8 23 <£ixc4 .11c5 24 itff3 ±± Denker-Ervin, Lone Pine 1976.

c) 6 .,. cd? 7 ed dS?! 8 4:leS <£Ie6 9 4)df3 -litc 7 1 0 4:lgS 4)xe S 11 de 4:ld 7 (11 .. , "/!1xe5 12 Ab5+) 12 'I1&h5 g6 13 itt3 <£ixe5 14 itf6 4lg ~ 15 Ab5+ .11c6 16 axc6+ "/!1xc6 17 -litxf7+ 'itd8 18 <£ixe6+ 'itc8 19 4:1xf8 tltd6 20 tlte6+ 'itc7 21 "/!1xg4 fuxf8 22 "/!1g3 1-0 Denker-Chernev, USA Ch 1942.

7 c3

For 7 b3 see B. 7 c4, transposing to the Queen's Indian, is still possible.

36 Colle v. Queen 5 Indian ( ... b6)

7

f1e7(22)

Alternatively:

a) 7 ... cd 8 ed see note c to White's 6th move.

b) 7 ... flc7 does not always transpose:

bl) 8 &1 Sc89 a3 I1e7 see below. b2) 8 e4!? and if 8 ... cd 9 4lxd4 (but not 9 cd <tlb4 10 I1b 1 S(8) was suggested by Kan.

b3) 8 a3 I1e7 9 e4 d610 Sel h611

<llil O-O-O?! (better 11 ... gS b. .

g4; if 12 eS de 13 de ~S b. .

0-0-0 em - Kan) 12 dS ed 13 ed 4:les 14 4lxeS de 1S c4 I1d6 16 I1d2 ade8 17 I1c3 hS and Black stands no- worse; Lilienthal-Kan, Moscow 1936.

b4) 8 fle2 I1e7 9 e4 and now:

b41) 9 ... cd 10 4lxd4 <tleS 11 I1c2 ttc8 1 2 h3 4'lc6 13 ~f3 4lxd4 14 4lxd4 d6 and Black had a very solid position, Spielrnann-Eliskases, 9th match game 1936.

b42) 9 ... d6 10 eS de 11 de ~S 12 4lc4 h6 13 a4 gS 14 h3? 0-0-015 as Sdg8 16 ab ab 17 M g4 18 hg axg4 19 <tlh2? (better 19 !la6) 19 ... Sxg2+! 20 'i!txg2 <tld4! 21 0'e4 (21 cd 4:lf4+ 22 'i!tg3 <tlxe2+ 23 Axe2 Ilg8+ 24 'i!tf4 I1gS+ -=R=') 21 .,. f5 22 <tlbS ~d8 23 cd fe 24 Ilxe4 4lf4+ 2S I1xf4 I1xe4+ 26 f3 I1b7 27 Ila7 'ltd7 28 Sfa1 *xbS 29 t!a8+ 'tlc7 30 Sxh8 ilYxb2+ 0-1 lglitskvKan, Moscow 1928.

This is the critical position of the Colle v, Queen's Indian. Black has avoided premature castling, which might allow White to build up a strong attack, Instead he posts his

(21) 9 ... oi1eS!? 10 I1c2 !la6 11 nel ~c7 [Euwe suggested 11 ... 4:ld3 12 Ile3 4lxel and 13 ... ~c7.) 12 .fI2f3 ~ t Colle-L.Steiner, Niendorf 1927.

(22) 9 .. , 0-0 1 0 ~e2 (better 1 0 4lxc6 first) 10 ... 4:le5 11 I1c2 *c8! 12 f4 !la6 13 *dl 4'lc6 (not 13 ... Ilxfl? 14 fe with two pieces for the rook) and White's control of the centre will be undermined. ColleCapablanca, Carlsbad 1929, continued 14 Sf3?! (14 eS ~5 and not 1S Ilxh7+? 'i!txh7 16 ithS+ 'tJg8 17 nf3 because of 17 ... f5 18 Sh3 4lxf4.) 14 ... g6! 1S <tl2b3 4lxd4 16 <ilxd4 I1b7 17 ~e2 I1c5 18 nh3 ~c6! 19 e5 l£k:lS 20 *t2?! (Vukovlc suggested 20 I1e3 ilxd4 21 cd &c8 22 ilb3! =.) 20 ... Ilxd4?! (20 ... f5 ~ is sounder - Vukovic.) 21 cd &c8 22 Adl! f6! 23 :l&h4? (Vukovic pointed out that 23 I1d2! might even favour White.) 23 ... Sf7 24 I1f3 *c4 (-=R=') 25 I1e3 4lxe3 26 I1xb7 4JfS! 27 ~e1 l3c7 28I1e4 *d4+ 29 'i!thl fe 30 I1xf5 ef 31 fe Ile7 32 Se3 'fIxb2 33 e6 de 34 Sxe6 'i!tf7! 0-1.

d) 8 ae1 nc89 a3 and now:

dl) 9 ... -lltc7 10 e4 cd 11 cd d612 b4 e5 13 Ab2 ed 14 4lxd4 4lxd4 15 Ilxd4 0-0 16 Se3 Sfd8 17 !':th3 g6 18 ttf3 .fIh5 19 g4 .fIg7 20 *e3 g5 21 Ab2! f6 22 eS de 23 Ilxh7+ 'i!tf7 24 4le4 'fId7 25 *t3! (1-0, 37) Soultanbeieff-Kramer, Beverwijk 1950.

d2) 9 ... dS (9 ... cd!? - Pritchett) 10 e4 (10 dc!? bc 11 e4 'fIc7 or 11 ... d4!?) 10 '" de 11 <tlxe4 cd 12 cd

pieces ready to deal with the advance e3-e4, (without which White's build-up would be senseless.

8 *e2

White has also tried:

a) 8 de bc! 9 e4*c71 o 'fIe 2 d6 11 4'lc4 0-0 12 e5 de 13 .flexeS .fixeS = Colle-Pirc, Frankfurt 1930.

b) 8 4les d6 9 4lxc6 Axc6 10 *e2 e5 11 e4 0-0 12 dS .Q.d7 13 c4 *c8 14 f3 4:lh5 1S g3 g6 16 !':tf2 f5 17 4Jf1 f4 1 8 g4 Axg4! 19 fg f3 20 klxf3 ~xg4+ 21 l3g3 nxf1 +! 22 'i!txfl 4Jxg3+ 23 hg ~xg3 ++ AliegaAlekhine, Paris 1914; comparison with Riumin-Sozin (above) reveals that Black's queen's bishop was better placed here, but also that White played unduly passively after the centre was blocked.

c) 8 e4 and now:

(1) 8 .. , &6 9 a3 (9 *e2 below) 9 ... cd 10 cd -Ibc7 11 b4 &c8 12 .Q.b2 nfd8 13 !':tcl -Ibb8 14 -Ibe2 with a good game for White; Koltanowski-Anderson, Columbus 1957.

(2) 8 ... cd! 9.f1xd4 (9 cd {lb4 10 llb1 !la6) and now:

Colle v. Queen 5 Indian (. .. b6) 37

0-0 and now 13 .fle3! is relatively best (]h :]h, 26 in Harding-Pritchett, Dublin 1976) but White is about two tempi down on normal isolated d-pawn lines (e.g. from the NimzoIndian) so, if anything, stands at a disadvantage here. Possibly the immediate 8 a3, or 9 e4 (instead of 9 a3) could be tried.

8 O.(}

However Black could play 8 ... d5 as in d) above. Neikirkh and Tsvetkov then suggest that White should adopt a Stonewall set-up by 9 <ileS ~c7 10 f4 (like Bird's Opening or a reversed Dutch). Also possible is 8 ... d6 and if 9 e4 fJc7 transposing to lglltsky-Kan above.

9 a3

9 dc might be a little better. 9 !':tel is superfluous, e.g. 9 ... *c7 10 e4 cd 11 <ilxd4 4:les 1 2 llc2 .fIg6 13 <tlf1 nac8 14 I1gS 4:ld5 is Axe7 .fIxe7 16 4:le3 dS 17 ed 4lf4! 18 *t3 4lxdS 19 4lxdS (19 .Q.e4 4lxe3 20 .ilxb 7 4lxg2 21 !!ed1 {lh4! etc.) 19 ... IlxdS 20 I1e4 Ac4 and Black has some initiative (but ]h:71, 40) Maroczy-Colle, San Remo 1930.

9 ~;8

9 ... d5!? might still be best (possibly with 8 ... ~c8 Instead of 8 ... 0-0).

10 e4 cd

11 cd d6

12 b4:!

With the same plan as in Koltanowski-Reilly in note a) to White's 6th move above. The game Koltanowski-Floh r, Antwerp 1932, went on 12 ... 4)hS 13 g3 g6 14

38 Colle v. Queen's Indian (. .. b6)

.I1b2 d5 15 e5 <ilg7 16 4:'Ib3 as?! 17 b5 4:'Ib8 18 t:!fc1 4:ld7 19 t:!xe8 ~xc8 20 ac1 ~8 21 ~c2 4:le8 22 ~d2 (Black ls tied up.) 22 ... ~g7 23 ac2 h6 24 .I1c1 ah8 25 h4 4)f8 26 ~4 ~d8 27 ac3 ilc8 28 t£la1 ild7 29 4:lc2 a4 30 4)b4.11xb4 31 ab 'i!7g8 32 ~d2 fiX7 33 ~e2 ile8 34 4:'lh2 ~d7 35 4)g4 4:lh7 36 .I1xh6 ~e7 37 ~e2 1-0.

B

3 c5

4 <tibd2

4 ild3 usually transposes - but see the note to White's 5th and Enevoldsen-Nimzowitsch, p. 6. Also 4 b3 has been played, and should also transpose into one of the lines below.

4 b6

4 ... d5 see chapter 3.

If 4 ... fiX 6 , 5 ile2 (WatsonRubinstein, London 1922) is too defensive. 5 .I1d3 can be played because 5 ... 4)b4 6 .I1e2 b6 7 c3 fiX6 8 ild3 comes to the same thing as A above; 5 c3 is also possible.

5 .Ild3

If White wants to avoid the line ... .I1a6 (note to Black's Sth) he must play 5 e3 here and transpose to A.

5

.ab7

Stahl berg-Kottnauer , Budapest

1952, however went 5 ... .I1a6!? 6 .I1xa6 fua6 7 e3 .I1e 7 8 0-0 0-0 9 ~e2 ~e8 10 a3 (not 10 e4 cd 11 cd <tib4) 10 ... \%7 11 adl !!ac812 ~1 ~8 13 4:lg3 4le4 14 llie4 ~xe4 15 a4! but now Black lost the initiative by the pointless move 15

... \%7? and White won after further errors.

6 0.0

6 b3 can be played first but usually transposes. However, after 6 ... 4:lc6 7 ilb2 these examples are also available:

a) 7 _., cd 8 ed flli4 9 .I1f1 ! (but not 9ile2 4lbd5 and _ .. lli4) RubinsteinCapablanca, Carlsbad 1929, continuing 9 ... ae8 10 c4 fiX6 11 1ld3 d5 12 0-0 ild6 13 a3 0-0 14 ae1 dc 15 be ilf4 16 ~1 ! 4:la5 17 ~e2 ~c7 (17 ... llh6 18 4:le5!) 18 d5! llic4! 19 .I1xf6 gf 20 de fe! 21 4:ld4! ild5! 22 llie6 llxe6 23 ~xe6+ ~h8 24 ae4! <tIe5! 25 ila6! ace8 26 ~5 ilh6 27 !!ae1 ad8! 28 ah4 *g7 29 ah3 ad4! 30 *tl5 ag4 31 4)g3 .I1f4 32 ad1 llxg333 t:!xg3 t:!xg3 34 hg 'fte7 35 ~5! )12:)12.

b) 7 ._. $le7 8 dc!? (possibly 8 c4 is best"] 8 ... be 90-00-010 c4'ftc7 11 h3 ile8 12 a3 f5 13 ~e2 ars :r Rubinstein-Geiger, Rogaska Slatina 1929.

6 e3 can also be played. Nenarokov -Grigoriev, Moscow Ch 1924, continued 6 ... 4:lc6 7 0-0 (7 e4 cd 8 cd 4:lb4 9 .I1c2 .I1a6) 7 ... .I1e7 8 de be! (8 ... .I1xe5 9 e4 d5 10 e5 <tig4 n ass e) 9 e4 *c7 10 ae1 d5! 11 ed (11 e5 <tlg4 1 2 ~e2 c4 13 .I1c2 .I1c5) 11 ... ed 12 lli1 0-0 13 4:'Ig3 .I1d6 14 .I1g5 4.ld7 15 lli5 .I1f4 and now 16 *a4!? CD - Rabinovich.

6 ~7

7 b3 cd

Alternatively:

a) 7 ... <Bc6 8 a3 (or 8 .I1b2 dS 9 a3

0-0 10 '«re2 *c7 11 <t:le5 4ld7 = N and T) 8 ... 0-0 9 .I1b2 d6 10 c4 ac8 11 ac1 '«rc7 12 *c2 h6 13 afd1 \%8 14 ~1 cd 15 llid4 fud416 .I1xd4 d5 17 'ttb2 4)g4! AverbakhChekhover, Ch of VTsPS 1946.

b) 7 ... 0-0 8 .I1b2 d6 9 ~e2 a6 10 !!ad 1 4:'Ibd7 11 e4 *c7 12 ilb1 afd8 13 e4 cd 14 llid4 .I1f8 15 !!ac1 !!ac8 16 b4 *b8 17 f4 e5! = (0-1, 44) Janowski-Spielmann, Marienbad 1925.

8 ed 0.0

8 .. , d6 is dubious because of 9 .I1b2 4)bd7 10 c4 0-0 11 ac1 ae8 12 ae1 (Colle-Griinfeld, Berlin 1926) with a favourable form of Queen's Indian. White has a space advantage without being committed to any rigid formation.

9.ab2 'dc6(23)

23 W

This position also tends to turn into a kind of Queen's Indian as White is bound to play c2-c4 sooner or later, as the following examples show:

a) Soultanbeieff-Dunkelblum, Spa

Colle v. Queen's Indian ( ... b6) 39

1926: 10 c4 d5 11 a3 ~c7 12 *c2

de 13 be h6 (better 13 afd8) 14

!!ad 1 (14 dS 4:ldS!) 14 afd8 15

afe1 !!acS 16 h3 4leS 17 4)b3 o;!(fS? (17 ... ilf6 or 17 ... as - Soultanbeieff) lS *e2 as 19 d5! ed 20 cd 4)bS (20 .. , axd5 21 ite4!) 21 *e4?f (simpler 21 ilf5) 21 ... 4)(6 22 llxf6 .I1xf6 23 ~7 g6 24 <ilh4!? .I1g7? (24 ... .I1xd5 25 llxg6! .I1xb3 26 lli5! draws.) 25 .I1g6! ad5 26 axd5 .I1xd5 27 lli5! fg 28 ae 7 gf? (28 ... *e7 29 4le7 !idS 30 li1g6+ ~7 31 4ld4 ad6 32 4le5+) 29 ~xg7 mate.

b) Platonov-Karpov, 39th USSR Ch 1971: 10a3~e711.§e1 aacS12 c4 dS 13 !k1 afd8 14 ~e2 de 15 be i6i4! 16 g3 ,*",6 17 !k2 *tls 18 *tl ac7 19 .I1e2 *t5 20 ild3 ,*",5 21 ile2 Y2:)12; however, White did not make the most of his chances in this game. He was probably happy to draw with Karpov.

Summary

Black can get good chances against the Colle system by fianchettoing his queen's bishop, delaying both castling and ... d5. Wh ite usually finds it necessary to play a2-a3 to avoid dangers of ... cd, ... <ilb4 and play on the c-flle. His best plan may well be to play b3 rather than c3 and transpose into the Keres system against the Queen's Indian (in which White's knight is at least as well placed on d2 as on c3).

5 London System C~f4), Introduction

The London System resembles the Colle, but with one important difference. White de .... etoos his queen's bishop more actively, on f4. There it is outside the c3-d4-e3 pawn wedge and bears down on the black *-side. The drawback is that its absence from White's own ift-side may encourage Black to find counterplav on that wing, e.g. by

*b6 attacking the now

unprotected pawn at b2 ~ as indeed happens in some lines of the Torre Attack.

White most often adopts the London System against the King's Indian (see chapter 6) as in the original game Watson-Euwe, London 1922 and others from that same tournament. However, White can also play an early af4 against other black formations - as in Watson-Capablanca from round 12 of the London tournament, although this was not a new idea even then.

More recently, the London

System has been a speciality of some Scottish players - such as Bonner, Fairhurst, Fall one and

London System (!J..f4) , Introduction 47

McAlpine - and of the Yugoslavian masters Gasic and Rakic. Against the King's Indian (1 ... 4lf6 2 ffi g6) the English master M.J .Franklin has refined many of the ideas in two decades of experience with the system - as we shall see in chapter 6.

Where Black does not play ... g6, two move-orders need to be distinguished:

A 1 d4 d5 (to London) B 1 d44)f6 (to London)

of which the former is much the more important. It is true that both of the main move-orders 1 d4 d5 2 ffi <ili"6 3 11f4 and 1 d4 4:lf'6 2 00 e6 3 af4 do involve some weakening of the h2-b8 diagonal which White hopes to exploit, but where Black is not committed to ... d5 he has more flexible counters at his disposal. The slight rigidity in White's position is more likely to be disadvantageous when Black himself does not have a rigid stance.

A

rather knight before bishop - in the approved fashion. Nevertheless 2 af4 is playable, and sometimes can be independently significant:

a) 2 ... c51? 3 e3 (300 below) 3 .,. <tIc6 4 c3 e6 (F or 4 ... "«rb6 see von Scheve-Marshall, Chapter 1, p. 5) 5 €id2 !1d6 611g3 {)f6 7 f4 cd (7 ". *c7 = ECO) 8 ed '#Ie7 9 ~3 ad7 10 .ad3 <ila5 11 <ilh3 .£ic4 12 .axc4 de 13 l:li'e2 bS 14 a4 ! JanowskiMarshall, match 1 916.

b) 2 ". 4lf6 3 e3 when:

b 1) 3 .. _ .(tg4 4 ile2 (4 f3 .I1fS) 4 ... axe2 S ~xe2 c6 6 €id2 e6 7 c3 .flbd7 8 e4 (8 flgf3, intending Oe S, is also possible.) 8 ,,' {)xe4 9 .flxe4 de 10 ~xe4 ! Alapin-Rublnsteln, Carlsbad 1911.

b2} 3 .. ' c5 4 c3 itb6 500 below. b3) 3 ... e6 and now:

b31) 4 ttld2 c5 5 c3 11d6 6 i:lxd6 'llYxd6 7 f4 O.(l 8 .ad3 b6 9 'Ule2 cd 10 cd d5 11 €lgf3 .l'1a6 120-0 axd3 13 "«rxd3 1;S:!i:1 Kovacevlc-Cirlc, Yugoslav Ch 1967.

b32} 4.1l.d3 c5 5 c3 ~b6 6 'Ulc2 and: b321) 6 '" 4:l.bd7 7 4Jd2 ild6 8 ilxd6 (8 <tlgf3!?) 8 ... "«rxd6 9 f4 <9g4?! (ECO suggests 9 ... b6.) 10 4lf1 cd 11 cd 'lfrb4+ 12 ~e2! ! (0:!i:1, 71) [anowski-Ed.Lasker, New York 1924.

b322} 6 ... ttlc6 7 lli3 ad7 8 0-0 E!c8 9 de! axeS 10 flbd2 ae7 11 a3 threatening e4! - Alekhine.

After 2 <£If3 White can meet three distinct systems:

A 1 2 e6 3 af4

A2 2 c5 3 af4

A3 2 {)f6 3 i:lf4

3 a.ct6

Or 3 ... c5 (a natural reaction) 4

Black has also tried 2 ... c6 3 i:lf4 ilfS (3 ... 'Ulb6!? see Rakic-Bagirov, Chapter 1, p. 2) 4 e3 e6 5 .I1d3 <ttf6 6 .axfS (better 6 0-0 Ae 7 7 <tlbd2 - Kotov) 6 ... ef 7 'Uld3 4:Ie4 and Black has stolen his opponent's thunder by obtaining We e-file himself; Nestfer-Smyslov, Venice 1950.

Al

2 e6

3 .I1f4(24)

F or other moves, see chapter 7. Alekhine's general comment on 3 .ilf4 was 'This interesting and not easily handled variation leads to complicated play in the centre with the chances rather favourable to White, chiefly on account of the strength of his black squares.' The exchange of White's dark-squared bishop (essentially a bad bishop) for his 'good' opposite number - especially on f4 - enhances this advantage. By making a nuisance of the bishop, White increases the chances that his opponent will decide to exchange it.

24 B

1 d4 d5

2 ~f3

'Knights before bishops' - or

42 London System (ilf4j, Introduction

c3 ttb6 5 ~b3 and now:

a) 5 ... e4?!6~xb6ab74:lbd2a:6 8 a3!? (to freeze th e 'llY-sid e) 8 ... 4lf6 9 h3 ~7 10 g4 0-0 11 l1g2 4le8 12 0-0 11d6 13 ftxd6 4:lxd6 14 4le1?! (14 l:!ael! f5 15 ef ± - Pribyl) 14 ... f5! ~ (1-0,41) PribylUrzica, Bucharest 1975.

b) 5 ... \bb3 6 ab cd 7 cd ~ - Pribyl. White's pressure on the a-file is good compensation for the doubled b-pawns.

c) 5 ... ilf6 6 e3 see below (J anowski- T arrasch).

4 e3

White has also tried:

a) 4 ag3!? <'£lf6 5 e3 ihg3 6 hg c5 7 dc ~a5+ 8 4:lbd2 a:6 9 c3 'tftxc5 10 Ad3 4:lg4! 11 4:lg5!? (11 l:!xh7? l:!xh7 12 .!lxh7 g6) 11 ... 4:lce5 12 ~f3 ild7 13 4:lxe5 4:lxe5 14 .lle2 f6 1500 <ik6 16 ~c2 g6 17 0-0-0 (17 ~xg6+!? co) 17 ... 0-0-0 Marco and Fahndrich=Charousek and Halprin, Vienna 1897.

b) 4 1lxd6 ~xd6 5 4:lbd2 <'£lf6 6 c3 4:lbd7 7 'lirc2 e5 8 e3 0-0 9 de fue5 10 Ae2 (10 fue5 ~xe5 11 00 = Reti) 10 ... ilg4 11 h3 ilh5 12 fue5 Axe2! 13 €lef3 'llYa6 14 4:lb3 .lld3 15 ~d1 b6 16 <ik1 .llc4! 17 4le5 (17 b3 ~a5) 17 .,. Etad8 1=" Blackburne-Charousek, Berl in 1897.

4 £lxf4

Or: 5 ... <ik6 6 11d3 (6 4:lbd2 ild6 see A2) 6 ... *,,6! 7 il'tc1 (7 'lirc2

ild7 b. ... l:!c8, ... cd, 4:lb4; 7

~3? c4 8 il'txb6 ab b. b5-b4 1=")

7 ... .lld7 80-0 l:!c8 9 4:lbd2 ile7 10 Etb1 (10 €le5 cd) 10 ... 0-0 11 'llYdl Etfd8 12 €le5 fue5 13 de €le8 14

i!'th5 f5 (Marshall-Rubinstein, Lodz 1908) 15 ef 4:lxf6 16 ~e2 = - Reti, Masters of the Chess Board.

S ef 4:lf6

Alternatively:

a) Bogoljubow-Marshall, New York 1924, continued 5 ... c5?! 6 dc ~a5+ 7 c3 'tftxc5 8 ild3 <'£lf6 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 4:lbd 2 €le6 11 €Ie 5 l:!d 8 1 2 l:!e1 .lld713 4:ldf3± (1-0,56)

b) Alekhine said that 5 ._. ~6 would be more logical, and after 6 ~d2 or 6 g3 then 6 ... c5 forcing White to go sooner or later.

6 c3 0-0

7 Sld3 "ltd6

8 g3 c5 9 de ~xc5 10 4:lbd2 <ik6 11 0-0 ad8 12 'tfte2 ~6 13 4:lb3 ftd7 14 4:lbd4 fud4 15 4:lxd4 l3e8 (to forestall f4-f5) 16 l:!fe 1 Etac8 17 Etad1 a6 18 Etd2 'l6'd6 1900 "«re8 20 ~4 ~c5 1'2:Y:z Selesniev-Marshall, Mahrisch -Ostrau 1923.

A2

Vilnius 1912.

c) 3 ... "l!\'b6 4 de "«rxb2 5 ~5 ~4+ 6 4lc3 e6 7 ab 1 ~xc5 8 4:lb5 <lla6 9 e3 f6?! 1 0 .lld4 il'te 7 11 4:lxa 7 €le 5 12 fuc8 axe8 13 Ab 5+ W 14 0-0 'lire7 15 c4 de 16 .llxc4 tile7 17 4le5+! fe 18 "«rf3+ 'ttg6 19 .!lxc5 itxc5 20 ilxe6 h5 21 ilf7+ 1-0 Schlechter-Leonhardt, Carlsbad 1911.

A3

2 4lf6

3 af4(25j

2 c5

3 af4

For alternatives see chapter 7.

Now for 3 ... e6 see A 1 above. Other moves are:

a) 3 ... cd 4 .!lxb8 Etxb8 5 \bd4 b6 6 e4 de? 7 "«rxd8+ ~xd8 8 €le5 1-0 Alekhine-Kaufman, Odessa 1918.

b) 3 ... 4le6 4 e3 <'£lf6 and now 5 c3 (below) or 5 -tlc3?! ilg46 Ab5 e6 7 h3 .llh 5 (7 .,. Axf3 8 *xf3 a6 9 Axc6+ bc * - Neikirkh and Tsvetkov) 8 g4 .llg6 9 4le5 -«rb6 1 0 a4! a5 11 h4! h5 12 4"lxgSfg 13 gh gh 14 'llYe2 0-0-0 15 0-0-0 Ad6 16 .llxd6 Etxd6 with an unclear position; Nimzowitsch-Alekhine,

From the diagrammed position Black has tried:

A31 3 c5

A32 3 e6

Others:

a) 3 ... g6 see chapter 6 (note a to Black's 3rd and line B,passim).

b) 3 ... Qf5 when:

bl) 4 e3 c6 5 ild3 e6 6 c3 .llxd3 7 itxd3 ~7 80-0 4:lh5 9 .llxb8 E!xb8 1 04lbd2 f511 4le5 0-0 = KaraklajicTrifunovic, Yugoslav Ch 1956.

b2) 4 c4 e6 5 'it1b3 "«rc8 6 e3 gives White chances for the initiative according to Horowitz.

A3l

3

e5

London System (1lf4j, Introduction 43

White can now choose between:

A311 4 c3 A312 4 e3

A311

4 e3 'l&b6

4 ... cd 5 cd transposes to the Slav Exchange variation of the Jueen '5 Gambit. SF-I? 4-) .eiA~~ kh ~ c!V,.t41

For 4 ... e6 see A3~. Not ... e4? 5 <tibd2 ftf5 6 4lh4 e6 (6 ... .llg6 7 fug6 hg 8 e4! ±) 7 fuf5 ef 8 b3 eb? (The last chance was 8 ... b5 9 a4 b4! - Czerniak.) 9 itxb3 "«rd7 10 E!bl b6 11 ftxb8! axb812 e4 "«re6 13 ilb5+ ~d8 14 e5 4le4 15 fue4 fe 16 0-0 f6 17 Etfdl !k8 18 Etbel g6 19 c4! 1-0 FairhurstKeogh, Tel Aviv 1964.

5 itb3 4lc6

6 e3 e6

If 6 ... e4 7 '&xb6 ab 8 <tIa3 eS 9 <tib5.

After 6 ... e6:

a) 7 h3 ~7 8 <tibd2 .lld7 9 Ae2 0-0 10 0-0 Etfc8 11 !i)e5 ~8 12 Ag3 4ld 7 1 3 4ldf3 <'£lf8 14 Etfd 1 <lla5 1 5 "«rc2 c4 16 4:ld2 f6 17 !i)ef3 ilg6 18 "«rc1 h619 4:lh2itd8 20 Af3 (1-0.37) Janowski-Tarraseh,Ostend 1905.

b) 1 "ltxb6 ab 8 .llc7?! c4 9 ilxb6 ftd6 10 Ae2 4ld7 11 11c5 AxeS 12 dc fuc5 13 4lbd2 e5 14 e4 (desperately trying to break out) 14 ... de 15 4:lg5 ~3+ 16 ~1 b5 17 4:lgxe4 fub2 18 4:ld6+ 'tie7 19 4"lxb5 EtaS 20 a4 .!le6 21 €le7 l:!d8 22 4:lxe6 E!xd2 23 <tIc7 4:lxa4 24 .!lxe4 fuc3 25 ac1 ac2! 26 Etel ~d7 27 €la6 e4 28 g3 !i)es 29 <tib4 l:!b2 30 f4 {}xc4 0-1 CederquistRantanen, Stockholm 1976.

44 London System (M4), Introduction

A312

4 e3

lik6(26)

Also:

a) 4 ... cd is recommended as safest by Horowitz. After 5 ed a CaroKann (Exchange Variation) can arise if White plays c3.

b) 4 ... e6 5 c3 wh en :

b l ) 5 .. , ~7?! 6 <ilbd2 0-0 7 Q.d3 see A322.

b2) 5 ... 4.k6 6 <ilbd2 ild6 and now: b21) 7 Ag5 0-0 (7 ... h6!?) 8 *c2 (8 ile2 e5!?) 8 ." h6 9 l1h4 ile7!? 10 ile2 b6 11 ~d1 ilb7 12 Ag3 ild6 13 0-0 ilxg3 14 hg file7 15 ~5 fue5 16 de 4ld7 17 f4 f618 ef !hf6 19 e4 e5! (BronsteinDzhindzhihaslwili, 39th USSR Ch 1971) is unclear.

b22) 7 ~3 when:

b221) 7 ... ~g3 8 hg -&d6 9 Q.b5~ t- ECO.

b222) 7 ... fle7 8 ~5 ilxe5 9 de .:ild7 10 Wt ! - ECO.

b223) 7 ... 0-08 ild3 b6 9 QeS Q.b7 10 0-0 (10 f4!?) 10 .. , i!!Ic7 11 f4 ~7 12 -&b1 g6 13 Ah4 <ile8 14 ~4 f6 15 h3 lli5 16 Af2 E!d8 with complications; Winter-tgnatiev, USSR 1970.

b3) 5 .. ' 'C!b6 6 '«rc1!? (6 Ybb3 see A 11' 6 *c2 <Dc6 7 <ilbd2 ild7 == - ECo') 6 ... ~6 7 h3 (7 ild3 ild7 8 0-0 fIc8 == Marshall-Rubinstein, Lodz 1908) and now:

b31) 7 ... ~7 8 l1d3 0-0 9 0-0 (Vidmar-Rotlevi, Carlsbad 1911) 9 ... 11d7 followed by ... 1hc8 and ... fIfd8 is unclear - ECO.

b32) 7 , .. ~7 g ile2 ~c8 9 0-0 Q.e7 10 <ilbd2 0-0 11 i!!Ib1 ± - Horowitz.

Compare chapter 7 (A 12) with colours reversed.

c) 4 ... 'C!b6!? 5 '«rc1 (5 ~3 i!!Ixb2? ::- 6 <ilb5 but 5 ... c4 6 fIb1 AfS~) 5 r:;; ... ~6 6 c3 Af5 7 <ilbd2 (7 dc?!~ ~xc5 8 <ilbd2 fIc8 ~ CapablancaMaroczv, New York 1924) 7 ... cd

8 ed fIc89 l1e2 e6 10 0-0 l1e7 11

h3 (11 E!d1!? intending lli1-g3 - ECO) 11 ... 0-0 12 fId1 fIfd8 13 ~1 <ile4 14 <ilg3 <ilxg3 15 Axg3 Qa5 16 ~h4 rte4! 17 f3 rtg6 18 <ilxg6 hg = Bernstein-Szabo, Groningen 1946.

E!fd8 = Keres-Reshevskv, Kemeri 1937.

b2) 6 flb3 ~5 7 l1b5+ ild7 8 ~a4 4lc4 9 Qe5 4:lb6 10 fud7! 4:lfxd7 (10 ... fua4?? 11 <ilxf6 mate) 11 ~c2 a6 12 ile2 e6 13 0-0 fIcS 14 4:ld2 ile7 15 a4 f6 16 as e5 17 de fe 18 ilh5+ 'itfS (1S .. _ g6 19 .Ilxg6+) 19 l1g3 4lf6 20 ars e4? 21 &2 4laB 22 f3! ef 23 E!xf3 4lc7 24 e4! de 25 4':ixe4 '«rd 5 26 fId 1 'lWc6 27 .Q.c4 1-0 Napolitano-Bernstein, !flfinal 1st World Corres Ch 1947-49.

6 itc1?!

For 6 itb3 see A 11.

6 ~f5

7 oilh4

Or:

a) 7 de 'ttxc5 8 4:lbd2 fIc8 9 <ilb3 itb6 10 'ttd2 e6 11 rtd3 ile4 ~ (12 :12, 30) Capablanca-Maroczy, New York 1924.

b) 7 ~2 e6 intending ... ac8 ~ - Alekhine.

7 ae4

8 ~2 e6

9 f3?! (harmless) 9 ... ilg6 10 .:ilxg6 hg 11 <ilb3? (better 11 l1g3) 11 ... c412.:ild2 4':ih5 13 l1e2 fuf414 ef i1d615 g3 g5!~Watson-Capablanca, London 1922.

A32

5 c3

Or 5 ~3!? l1g46 .llb5 e6 7 h3:

a) 7 ... ~5?! 8 g4 Llg6 9 <ile5 ~b6 10 a4! a5 11 h4~ h5 12 .tixg6 t Nimzowitsch-Alekhine, Vilnius 1912.

b) 7 ... ll.xf3 8 'lWxf3 cd 9 ed ile7 = -ECO.

S *1>6

Alternatively:

a) 5 ... g6!? 6 <ilbd2 (6 dc!? - ECO) .6 ... -ffb6 (Karner-Bronstein, Tallinn 1973) 7'ttb3!! - ECO.

b) 5 ... .Q.g4 when:

b 1 } 6 ~d2 e6 7 *a4 Q.xB 8 fuf3 ~b6 9 ab1 &7 10 .11d3 0-0 11 0-0

3

e6

A more conservative plan. 4 e3(27)

4 <i:lbd2 usually transposes. Now:

A321 4 .11d6

A322 4 &7

Or 4 ... e5 (4 ... .tibd7 should lead to A322) 5 c3 4lc6 (5 ... itb6 see A31) 6 <tIbd211d6 when;

~;';

~.

London System (M4), Introduction 45

27 B

a) 7 ,Q.d3? Axf4 8 ef cd 9 cd itb6 10 .£lb3 a5! - Griinfeld and Becker, in their book of the Teplitz-Schonau 1922 tournament. This occurred half a century later in Timoschen koKupreichik, Rostov 1976 and Black won in 40 moves!

b) 7 .Q.g3 0-0 (7 ... ilxg3 8 hg 'lljd6 intending ... e5 - Griinfeld and Becker) 8 l1d3 '*e7 9 4:le5 Axe5 (0-1, 49) Schlechter-Rotlevi, Carlsbad 1911 .

c) 7 .axd6 'lfrxd6 8 llb5 0-0 9 0-0 l1d7 10 'llYe2 a6 11 ilxc6 l1xc6 12 4le5 cd 13 ed l1b5 14 c4 .a.xc4 15 4:ldxc4 de 16 ~xc4 EIac8 17 iWd3 'lWc7 (White's IQP is weak.) 18 ~3 fIfd8 19 !!ad1 bS 20 tld3 4JdS .21 afd1 flf4 22 !Bd2 fIxd4~ (fork on e2 and than back r.ink mate) Burlvaev-Prokhorovlch , Moscow 1973.

A321

4 11d6

5 ~d2

No move is clearly best here.

Others that have been tried:

a) 5 ~d6 cd 6 c3 ~6 7 <ilbd 2 0-0 B &2 e5 and the exchange on d6

46 London System (fLf4), Introduction

appears to have helped Black; Maroczy-Tartakower, London 1922 b) 5 ~3!? <ge4 (5 ... a6 or 5 ... 4)bd7 6 .act3 :;: ECO) 6 ad3 b6?! (ECO recommends 6 ... <ild7 with the idea ... <tixg3, ... h6 and ... e5.) 7 c4 O,{) 8 4:k:3 ab 7 9 i6'c2 f5 1 0 axd6 itxd6 (10 ... cd 11 cd 4:lxc3 12 be l1xd5 13 e4! i Neikirkh and Tsvetkov) 11 O.{) c6 12.[}e5 4:lxc3 13 itxc3 <tibd 7 14 <tixd7 i6'xd 7 1 5 c5 b5 16 a4 t Makagonov-Kupchik, radio match USSR-USA 1945.

c) 5 c3 axf46 ef 0-07 aas i6'd6 8 g3 cs= ~ ECD.

d) 5 ad3 when:

d l ) 5 ... 0-0 64)bd2 axf4 7 efcS 8 de 'f!1c7 9 g3 'ltxc5 10 O,{) 4lc6 11 c3 transposes to diagram 28 below. d2} 5 ... c5 6 c3 <tic6 is preferable, according to Griinfeld and Becker. e) 5 ~5 is worth more tests. Two examples:

e1) 5 ... 0-0 6 <ild2 c5 7 c3 <tIc6 8 l1d3 itc7 9 <ildf3 .[}e4 10 O,{) cd 11 cd f6 12 fuc6 l1xf4 13 ef be 14 g3 itb6 15 'ite2 c5 16 'ite3 cd 17 4:lxd4 e5 18 <tib3 ef 19 i6'xf4 <tIgs 20 l1f5 (1'{), 41) Sazonov-Hasin, Spartak Club Ch, Kislovodsk 1967. e2) 5 ... 4li>d7 6 l1d3 4)f8 7 <ild2 <tig6 8 c4 (8 l1g3!? ~ ECO) 8 ... axeS 9 AxeS fue5 lOde fld7 11 f4 <tics = Hodzhayev-Blumenfeld, USSR 1931.

5 axf4

Alternatively:

a) 5 ... b6 6 ad3 Ab7 7 O,{) 0-08 c3 cS 9 .[}e5 ~4 10 ~e1 AxeS 11 axeS fld7 12 Af4 4:lxd2 13 i6'xd2 t Rubinsteln-Cohn, Carlsbad 1907.

b) According to Maroczy, Black could play 5 ... fle7, followed by ... <tibd7 and perhaps ... eS.

6 ef cS

7 dc 'iJlc7

8 g3 flxc5

9 ad3 <ik6

10 c3 0-0

11 0.fJ(28)

precise. The text move was introduced by Capablanca in a later round of the same event.

12 'iJle2

Rubinstein-Capablanca went 12 ~5 l1b7 13 'lte2; Maroczy commenting 'Formerly Rubinstein never played so anxiously'. The draw was agreed on the World Champion's proposal, according to Griinfeld and Becker in their book of Teplitz-Schonau 1922. They remark that this was an error by Rubinstein, not only from the sporting standpoint (his acceptance made first prize certain for Capablanca) but also from a chessic standpoint.

12 ru,S

If 12 ... b4 13 c4 is still i.

13 b4!

Samisch-Kostlc, Teplitz-Schonau 1922, went instead 13 <tIb3 and the game was drawn in 66 moves.

The text move was recommended by Grilnfeld and Becker. They pointed out that 13 ... 'ttxc3? is a blunder because of 14 fucl, while 13 ... *"6 14 <tib3 yields White a clear positional advantage, e.g. 14 ... a5 15 a3 <ild7 16 llid4 ab 17 ab .!la6 1 8 .!::! fb 1 foil owed by 4lc 5! at the right moment. White has a firm grip on the dark squares and Black's bishop is a very poor piece.

A322

28 B

11

bS

Other tries:

a) Selesniev-Lasker, Mahrisch-Ostrau 1923, went 11 '" ~8 12 ite2 'itb6 1 3 <tib3 Ad 7 14 4lbd4 4:lxd4 1 5 -ilxd4 ~816 ~fe1 fuc817 .!::!ad1 t. b) After 11 ... h6 12 <tib3 'ttb6 Black has no real play on the ~ide. Rubinstein-Tartakower, London 1922, continued 13 ~1 Ad7 14 'lte2 ~ac8 15 4le5 4:lxe5 16 fe <tih7 whereupon Maroczy commented, in the tournament book, that 'The position which Black has now attained does not show in an advantageous light the opening chosen by him.' White won in 46 moves, and though Maroczy indicated subsequent improvements for the defence, no doubt White's play could also have been more

4 ~7(29)

Black intends to preserve his ~A and develop in straightforward fashion.

S ~b'd2

London System (W4), Introduction 47

5 l1d3 O.{) (or 5 ... <tIbd7) 64lbd2 <tibd7 below. Possibly better is 6 ... c5 when 7 c3 transposes to A31 .

5 cS

Alternatively:

a) S ." Q,d7 6 l1d3 O,{) and now:

al ) 7 c3!? ~e8 8 'ttc2 <lli'8 94leS <ti6d7 10 fldf3 (Ufimtsev-Seredenko USSR 1970) 10 ... f61?:t or 10 ... c5:t ~ ECD.

a2) 7 oi1eS! !k8 8 itf3 <lli'8 9 g4 <tig6 10 g5 4:lxe5 11 axeS 4ld7 12 axh7+! ~xh7 13 'ttxf7 4:lxe5 14 i6'h5+ ~8 15 de .±± BrarneyerDietze, E.German Ch 1971.

a3) 7 h4!? ~e8 8 g4 ilf8 9 g5 <ti6d7 10.[}e5 aas 11 g6!? (11 h5 ~ Rabar, Informator 4) 11 ... hg (11 ... 4:lxg6 12 i6'h5!) 12 h5?! (Rabar preferred 12 4ldf3.) 1:' ... AxeS? (Rabat's 12 ... gS! 13 .!::!gl f6 would give an unclear position.) 13 de g5 14 ~gl! f6 (14 ... gf!? 15 'ttg4 g6 16 hg f5! was the last chance ~ Rabar.) 15 ef gf 16 <lli'3 ~e7 17 4:lxg5 a.g7 18 h6 ~xg5 19 Axg5 fg 20 i6'h5 'lte7 21 l1xg5+ ~8 22 ~g7 'ttf6 23 O-Q.{) 'ttxf2 24 'ltg5 1.{) Rakic-Marovic, Yugoslavia 1967.

48 London System (M4), Introduction

b) 5 ... b6 6 .Ild3 c5 7 c3 O.{) 84)e5 below.

6 c3 O~

Stadler-Aronson, Subbotica 1967, went instead 6 ... 4k6 7 .Ild3 b6 8 h3 .Ilb7 9 0-0 as? (Simply 9 ... O.{) is better - Maric, Informator 4.} 10 4)e5 fue5 11 .Ilxe5 .Ild6? 12 .Ilb5+ ~7 13 f4 ± (1'{), 3D}.

7 ad3 <tlbd 7

7 ... b6 allows 8 4)e5 .Ilb7 (8 ... .!la6?! 9 4kG! ± - Hort] 9 ~f3 e.g.: a} 9 ... <tlbd7 1 0 ~3 g6 11 .Ilh6 !!e8 12 f4 and Black has little counterplay against White's ~-side pressure. Rakic-Cvetkovic, Yugoslavia 1968, went on 12 ... c4 13 .Ilc2 b514 <tldf3 fue5 15 fe 4)e416 0-0 f5 17 ef .Ilxf6 18 <tieS .IlxeS 19 de t!1c7 20 .Ilxe4 de 21 nrs ite5 22 aaf1 !!ad8 23 *g4 (threatens 24 axg6+ hg 2S t!1xg6+ ~hS 26 fl.f7) 23 ... t!1c 7 24 '«rxe6+! 1'{) (24 ... 'i!thS 2S '«rxeS+ axeS 26 fl.fS+).

b) 9 ... <tlc6 is only a slight improvement. White continues with his attack in the same way, but Black at least has d7 as a retreat square for his other knight at move 12; Pribyl-Penrose, Nice 1974 (1'{), 38).

8 4leS!?(30)

just the same! This is probably better than:

a) 8 g4?! otlxg4 9 h3 4lgf6 10 4)eS <tIe8 11 itc2 f5 (0-1, 40) Rakic[anosevic, Novi Sad 1973.

b) or 8 h4!? fl.eS 9 g4 cd 10 cd .Ilb4 11 '«rc2 ili8 12 g5 4)e4 13 a3 fud2 14 fud2 .Ild6 1S .Ilxd6 t!1xd6 16 f4 Ad7 17 h5 t!1b6 1S h6 g6 (Y:!:Y:!, 37) Raklc-Bikhovskv, Belgrade 1967.

c) However 8 *e2 is worth considering, Black's choice then resting between 8 ... b6 (when ila6 by White is in the air) and 8 ... ~S (9 4:lgS!?). A good example of how Black should not play such positions was given by Spielmann, who should have known better, at Baden-Baden 1925. He played 8 ... c4? and Tarrasch immediately seizes the initiative in the centre by 9 .Ilc2 b5 10 e4 de 11 4:lxe4 .Ilb7 12 O.{) (It is not clear whether 12 <tld6!? is better.) 12 ... fue4 13 .Ilxe4 .Ilxe4 14 '«rxe4 lli6 15 ite2 ! (Black's it-side pawns are weak.) and 1'{) in 40 moves.

reduced to desperation; she played 14 ... .IlxeS 1 S 4lg5 t!1xgS 16 '«rxgS .Ilg7 and White won in 31 moves.

B

1 d4 .ru6

2 00

2 .Ilf4 looks premature. RibeiroSeret, Nice 1974, continued 2 ... e6 3 e3 cS 4 c3 .Ile7 S {}bd2 b6 6 4:lgf3 o.{) 7 .Ild3 cd S cd .!la6 with a good game for Black.

2 e6

Or 2 ... b6 (compare chapter 4) 3 .Ilf4 ab7 4 4:lbd2 c5 5 e3 e6 6 ad3 .ile7 7 h3 cd 8 ed <£k6 9 c3 d6 10 the2 thc7 11 O.{).{) a6 12 ~b 1 b5 13 <tle4 (1'{), 41) T arrasch . Reti , Semmering 1926. For 2 ... g6 3 af4 see chapter 6.

3 ~f4 c5

3 ... dS transposes to A32.

Black's best policy may be to follow Bleiman-Korchnoi, Beersheva 1978: 3 ... b6 4 e3 ilb7 S h3 d6 6 {}bd2 {}bd7 7 .Ilh2 t!1e7 8 a4 c5 9 aes g6 10 O.{) .Ilh6 11 ~e2 O~ 12 afd1 <Dds = (0-1,40 after ups and downs). Note, however, that by 4 or S c4 White can transpose into the irregular variation of the Queen's Indian Defence with which Miles twice defeated Spassky in 1975. (1 d4 4lf6 2 c4 e6 3 4lf3 b6 4 af4 .Ilb 7 5 e3 .Ile7 6 h3 O~ 7 4k3 dS 8 cd ed 9 Ad3 cS 1 0 O~ 4:lc6 11 <ties !).

4 c3

4 e3 cd (4 ... 4lf6 see A) Sed 4k6 6 c3 .ile7 7 .Ild3 dS (e.g. GeorgadzeBlatny, Decin 1975) is a transposition to the Ex.change Variation

8 4lxeS

9 .(he5 b6

10 ~ ~7

Once again, because of the blocked centre, White has good prospects of 'iff-side attack, and if Black defends weakly the game will not last long. [ovanovic-Baumstarck, women's zonal, Karlovy Vary 1975, continued 11 ~g3 4)e8 12 'lMl3 g6 13 lli3 ilf6 14 ~6. Now White threatens simply h2-h4 followed by 4lf3-g5 and mate on h7. So Black is

London System (~f4), Introduction 49

of the Caro-Kann: 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 ed cd 4 c3 4k6 5 .Ilf4 etc.

4 '«fb6

Against other moves White builds up much as in A, with e3, 4:lbd2, Ad3 etc.

5 'l6b3! (37) .

Bronstein's move .. which improves upon S ~c2 cd 6 cd {}c6 7 e3 .ad7 8 Qc3 fl.c89 ile2 ili6 10 O.{) lle7 = von Scheve- Tarrasch, Dresden 1892.

31 B

Now Black can double the white b-pawn, giving White control of the a-file, or face the possibility of "«rxb6. White is rather better placed to exploit a doubled b-pawn because of his lead in development.

S ~S

This is an ingenious attempt to resolve the dilemma. S ... thxb3 6 ab cd would be answered by 7 4:"lxd4.ll. S <tlb5.

Another example is the game Bronstein-Farago, Moscow-Budapest match 1971: 5 ... 4le6 6 e3 ~xb3 7 ab b6 8 h3 lle7 9 de be 10 ilb5 .Ilb7 11 4lbd2 a6 12 a.a4 4)d5 13 .Ilh 2 4:"lb6 14 {}c4 otlxc4 1S bc d6 16 O'{)'{) O-Q.{) 17 ftc2 4:"lb8 1 8 e4 e5 19 b3 g6 20 4)d 2 ilg5 21 !!hfl .Ilf4

22 g3 .a.h6 23 f4 <£le6 24 't7b2 ef 25 gf (Bronstein has been consistently capturing towards the centre.) 25 ... ag7 26 e5 de 27 f5! l:!d7 (27 ... gf 28 .!lxf5+ 'it'b8 29 4le4) 28 4le4 lThd8 29 ~xd7 axd7 30 ~xc5 ac7 31 4le4 ad7 32 .a.g1 .a.h6 33 c5 .a.f4 34 4ld6+ 'it'c7 35 b4 4le7 36 rs 4lg8 37 ~xb7 \tlxb7 38 c6+! (the coup de grace) 38 ... \tlxc6 39 i44+ '!,ic7 40 .!lxd7 \tlxd7 41 aa1 ~xf6 42 axa6 ~d5 43 b5 e4 44 c4 <£le7 45 ~a7 e3 46 b6 1-0.

With 5 ... <tid 5 we follow Bronstein-Averbakh, 32nd USSR Ch 1964-65. The notes are based on those by Mikenas in the tournament bulletin:

6 l1.g3 f5

This move is consistent with the previous one, as it prevents e4 and so maintains central position of the knight. The drawback is that it gives control of e5 to White and makes the development of the &8 even more difficult.

7 e3 4)c6

8 1lc4

This is a good continuation, forcing the exchange of queens under favourable circumstances.

S ~5

9 -.xb6 4lxb6

10 a.t2 fik6

11 4lbd2 dS

Black hopes to give the position a blocked, drawish character. However, as in the preceding game against Farago, Bronstein instructively makes use of his long-term advantages ~ better bishops and

control of e5 ....

12 0-0 iL:t7

13 dc hcS

14 e4! de

1S ~xc4 4lxc4

16 hc4 ~7

16 ... 0-017 afdl lkS 18 !!act ±.

17 na.dl ~8

18 h4

With the idea of 19 <tig5.

18 acs

18 ... h6 is met by 19 h5 with the threat of 20 4lh4!

19 Ihd8+ .QxdS

20 rut ~f6

20 ." h6 21 h5 '!,;f7 22 4lh4!

Axh4 23 .I1xh4 is also very difficult for Black.

21 ~S ~gS

22 hg ~7

23 1lc7(32)

This prevents Black from playing '" ad8. White's advantage consists in his two good bishops against a bad bishop and a knight, whose sphere of action is severely circumscribed. The realisation of this superiority was surprisingly swift.

26 ~2 Sds

Up to now Black has defended well, but here he chose the wrong plan. 26 ... a6 was better, so that 27 g4 could be met by 27 ... 4la5 28 ik2 bS.

27 g4 fg

Here 27 ... g6 was a better defence, enabling Averbakh to answer 28 gf gf 29 &2 or 29 e4 by 29 ... 't7g6!

28 ~g3 b6

28 ... g6 was still better. 29 f5

Threatening 30 fe+ Axe6 31 Elf1+.

29 .aeS

30 l1b3 b5

32 B

23

24 f4

25 ~6

a.es Jle7 ad7

31 fe+ .Qxe6

32 QxeS Ihdl

33 hdl 1-0

Summary

The London (l1f4) system has not yet been investigated as deeply as the Colle, but it appears to offer White more chances than the latter of outplaying strong opposition. The best methods for, both sides may still be awaiting discovery. For the time being, the relative rarity of the opening is a great argument in its favour from White's point of view. In the next chapter I show how it can also be used against .. , g6 as well as '" e6.

Black in turn awaits developments, although more committal plans are also sometimes seen:

a) 3 ... d5 4 e3 and now:

a l ) 4 ... c5 5 4li>d2 (S Ae2!?) S ... lflc6 is a sort of reversed Catalan; after 6 Ae2 or 6 ild3 compare B below. Even 6 ilbS!? has some point, but not 6 dc? *as 7 ile2 ilg7 8 c3 *xcS 9 <iles O~ 10 h4?! YUb6 11 4lb3 ile6 12 hS <ile4 13 00 a5 14 *c1 Ad7 1S hg hg 16 4lfd2 e5 T (0-1,39) Thelen-Sajtar, Prague 1943.

a2) 4 ... l1g7 5 h3 (better S 4lbd2 see B) S ... O~ 6 ile2 c6!? 7 c3 ars 8 4lbd2 4lbd7 9 <iles <ile8! 10 4ldf3 4lxe5 11 AxeS f6 12 ilh2 4ld6 13 'l6'b3 *d7 14 ilxd6 ed 15 O~ Jlae8 16 c4 de 17 ilxc4 dS18 ild3 ile6 = Besser-Hort, Halle 1967.

b) 3 ... c5 when:

b 1) 4 c3 will often transpose to lines considered below. An exception was Lasker-Alekhine, New York 1924, which continued 4 ... b6 (4 ... .llg75 dc!? BronsteinWesterinen, Tallinn 1973; or S e3) S lflbd2 (better 5 e3 - Alekhine)

5 ... cd! 6 cd ilb7 7 e3 ilg7 8 ild3 0-0 9 0-0 4lc6 10 h3 d6 11 'lfre2 a6 12 !:tfd1 ~b8 13 ilh2 ~a7 14 a3 1hc8 15 !:tact b5 = (Y2:Y2, 30).

b2) 4 de *as+ S lflc3 ~xc5 (5 ... <ile4 6 l1eS f6 7 ild4 is unclear - Gheorghiu, Chess Player 4) 6 e4 llg7 7 {}d2! d6 8 {}b3 ~6 9 ile2 4lbd7 100-00-011 lle3 ~c7 12 f3 a6 13 a4 b6 14 4lcl .ab 7 15 {}1 a2 <ile5 16 !:tcl t (1-0, 49) T aimanovSpiridonov, Malaga 1973.

c) 3 ... 4lhS?! 4 ilg5! (Fran klin) e.g. 4 ... h6 5 .ah4 g5 6 llg3 .ag7 7 e3 c5 8 4:lbd2 d6 9 ilc4 4:lc6 10 c3 f5?! 11 <ile5 4:lxg3 12 41xc6 be 13 hg; obtaining the two bishops is not worth the light square weaknesses Black incurs thereby.

d) In The King's Indian Defence, Barden says that if 3 ... d6, White must play 4 h3 (see below) if he wants to maintain his dark-squared bishop. However, 4 e3 is playable. Franklin-Cligoric, Hastings 1971-2, continued 4 ... 4:lhS 5 .agS h6 6 ilh4 g5 7 {}fd2 {}g7 8 ilg3 {}fS 9 Ad3 {}xg3 10 hg .ag7 and Franklin said he obtained a good opening. However, somewhere in the next few moves he lost his way: 11 c3 4:ld7 12 00 4lf6 13 4:lbd2 c6 14 'lfIc2 *c715 .afS (lSe4! -Gligoric) 1S ... llxf5 16 "lftxfS e6 17 "lftc2 0-0-0 18 0-0-0 ~b8 19 ~b1 c5! * (0-1, S7).

A 4c3

B 44:lbd2 C 4e3

Move-order is quite flexible in the early stages 50 the reader should

6 London v. King's Indian ( ... g6)

When White avoids c4 against the King's Indian Defence, and develops his queen's bishop to f4, Black is often inclined to take his task too lightly. Yet the London System is a major line against the Reti Opening, and here White has it with an extra tempo! Grandmasters sometimes employ the London when they hope to take their opponent out of 'the books' but, as this chapter shows, some of the variations have in fact been investigated well into the middle-

game.

1 d4 <ilf6

2 4:lfJ g6

3 11f4

The characteristic introductory move of the London System. 3 c3 is sometimes played first but there is no need to sacrifice flexibility so early, since there is no immediate threat against d4.

The Pseudo-London System, 3 4:lc3 d5 4 .af4, will be discussed separately at the end of this chapter.

3 $1g7(33)

London v. King's Indian ( ... g6) 53

33 W

watch out for transpositions. The main questions are: does White play h3?; does he play 4lbd2?; does he play c3?; does Black play ... d5?

4 {}C3 transposes to the PseudoLondon System. 4 h3 is premature, and Black might possibly reply 4 ... c5!?

A

4 c3

The objection to this move is that it wastes a tempo. White should not play this unless it is really necessary.

4 b6!?

More usual is 4 ... d6 which would transpose to B or C.

5 e3 .I1b7

6 a.e2

Or 6 4:lbd2 cS (6 ... d6 7 h3 see Cll.) 7 h3 O.{} 8 ile2 d6 9 0-0 &6 = Smvslov-Geller, USSR Teams Ch 1961. Or 8 Ac4 d5 9 ild3 oilbd7 10 O~ {Je4 (Belavenets-Srnvslov, Moscow-Leningrad 1939) but the immediate 8 ild3 may be better.

6 d6

7 h3 O~

8 O.() ~d7

54 London v. King's Indian (. .. g6)

9 a4 a6 10 ~h2 e611 ~3itJe712 ~dl e5 (12 ... ~fdS - Yudovich, tntormator 4) 13 de de 14 ~a3! c5 (14 ... ~fe8 - Yudovich) 15 oi)bd2 e4 16 ~1 <tieS 17 ~ oi)xc4 18 ~xc4 and White has pressure; Sorokin-Antoshin, USSR 1967.

B

4 -Bbd2

The move I favour. It keeps Black guessing whether Ylhite might pray e2-t:4.

4

dS!?(34)

Others:

a) 4 .. , cS!? S c3 (S e3! below) 5 '" cd 6 cd O..() 7 e3 4k6 S h 3 d6 9 .Q.c4 .1lf5 10 O-{) .§c8 "" Keres-Gheorghiu, Varna 1962.

b) 4 ••• O..() and now:

b1) 5 e3 d6 transposes to C. This may well be White's most precise move-order in the London System. b2) 5 c3 -ilh5!? (5 ... d6 see C; if 6 h3 cS) 6 ileS! f6 7 g4! fe 8 gh ed 9 cd! gh (9 ... cS 10 hg cd 11 gh+ '!tiS 12 4lh4 itJb6 13 ng1 - Neistadt and Fridstein) 10 e3 dS 11 ad3 .I1f5 (11 ... c5!? 12 4lgS ~g4) 12 .I1xf5 nxf5 13 4'lh4 Sf6 (or 13 ... ng5 14 4'ldf3 ~g4 15 h3 ne416 1lfs with a strong white attack) 14 ~xh5 e6 15 ng1 CS 16 4'ldf3 4'ld7 17 O-O..() nc8 1 S '\!,>b 1 nc 7 19 ~xg7+! rttxg7 20 ng1+'\!.>h8 21 4'le5 (21 oi)g6+ is also possible.) 21 '" 4'lxeS 22 de .!':!f5 23 4:lxfS ef 24 ~xfS !!g7 25 nd1 !!g5 26 ~f4 ng6 27 h4 nb6 28 fm d4 29 e6 '&gS 30 'itf6+ -?fJg7 31 -ei'd8 'tbg8 32 e7 ge6 33 §.gl! 1-0 Bronstein-Kots, 29th USSR Ch 1961.

b3) 5 e4 d6 6 c3 (6 .I1d3 Watson·

Euwe, London 1922; 6 &2

Quinteros-Uhlmann, Leningrad

1973) and now:

b31} 6 .,. %d7 7 ac4 c6 8 0-0 <tlxe4 9 fue4 d5 '" Keres-Matulovic, USSR-Yugoslavia 1961.

b32) 6 .. ' 4lc6 is inferior: 7 ilb5 (or 7 i1c4 l1g4 8 d5!? BronsteinHug, quick-play match 1975) 7 ... al7 8 0-0 e5 9 .!lg5 ite8 10 !Jet! a6 11 £ta4 4lb6 12 .!lb3 ilg4 13 h3! ilxf3 14 fuf3 ed 1S cd fl'xe4 16 dS t Keres-Polugavevskv, 26th USSR Ch 1959.

c) 4 ... d6 S e4 (5 e3 see C) S ... c6 (simpler 5_ ... 0-0: Modern Defence) 6 h3 0-0 7 ad3 4'lbd7 8 0-0 4lh5 9 ile3 e5 10 c3 4lf4 11 Axf4 ef 12 Ila1 ne8 13 <'ilc4 4lb6 14 4'la5 h6 15 b4 "itte7 16 1lc2 .!le6 17 i!rd2 gS 18 itJd3 dS 19 eS (1-0, 34) SpasskyZilberman, USSR Spartakiad 1975.

for Black.) 13 ... e414c4ef(14 ... ed? 15 cd threatening 16 c6) 15 cd fg 16 ~1 4)xd4! 17 c6?! (17 ed bel? 18 4)(;3 or 17 ... .l1xd4 18 c6 is still a bit unclear.l 17 ... 8xc6 18 be .l1xc6 19 .l1f4 ilfb 7 20 lde4 4)e5 21 .ll.xe5 .llxeS 22 ilfb4 §.ad8 23 .l1c2 as 0-1 Larsen-Olafsson, Berg en Dal 1960. More material is lost. b) 5 h3 0-0 6 e3 c5 (6 .,. 4)bd7 7 c4!) 7 c3 b6 8 Ad3 l1b7 (8 ... .G.a6!? 9 ,i"ha6 8xa6 1 0 ~a4 t) 9 4)e5 €lfd7 10 <i:ldf3 8c6 (10 ... f6 11 0xg6!?) 11 h4 cd (11 ... f6J?) 12 €lxc6 .l1xc6 13 cd ± SpielmannPrins, Sitges 1934.

5 0.0

Or 5 ... cS 6 c3:

a) 6 ... ~6?! 7 ~b3! 0-0 8 ~xb6 ab 9 Ac7 {}fd7 10 .Ilb5 GaS 11 .l1g3 i Bronstein-Bertok, Vinkovci 1970.

b) ECO suggests 6 Qbd7 7 .lld3

0-0, intending ... b6, .Ilb7 =.

6 ~3

Alternatively:

a) 6 h3 see note b above.

b) 6 c4!? possibly?

c) 6 Q.e2 (e2 is probably a better square than d3 for this piece) 6 ... cS 7 0-0 €lbd7 (7 ... cd?! 8 ed 4)(;6 9 c3 €lh S 1 0 .l1e3 'i!le 7 11 !'!e 1 .Ilg4 12 €lb3 X) though White won in Keres-Bronstein, 26th USSR Ch 1959) 8 c3 b6 9 h3 .Q.b710 4)eS e6 (or 10 ... €lxe5 11 .l1xe5 €ld7 :::

Doda-Hamann, Lugano 1968) 11 <i:lxd7 ~xd7 12 .IleS .§.fcS 13 ilfe1 .Q.c6 14 f4 .Q.b5 ::: Flatow-Byrne, Lugano 1968.

6 c5

Other tries:

34 W

5 e3

Best, in view of:

a) 5 c3 0-0 6 e3 b6 7 h3 c5 8 ild3 ilb 7 9 0-0 4'lc6 1 0 ~ 1 4'ld7 1 1 .l1g5 'l*b8 12 b4 e5 (centre counter to wing attack) 13 bc?! (13 .l1b5 f614 ilh4 itJd6 or 14 ... a6 is also good

London v. King's Indian (... g6) 55

a) 6 ... Qbd7 7 c3 b6 8 4)eS .llb7 9 h4f? 0h5! 10 g4 ollxf4 11 ef4.)xe5 12 fe f6 13 hS? (13 f4 ::: ECO) 13 ... fe 14 hg e4 + Safvat-Badilles, Moscow 1956.

b) 6 ... b67 c3 .l1b7 8 i6'e2 c5 90-0 4)(;6 10 €le5 €lh5 11 0xc6-4)xf412 ef .Ilxc6 = Ku!zinski-Andric, Yugoslav Ch 1945-9.

7 c3 4lc6

Other ideas include:

a) 7 ... '«Yb6 S .§.b1 01:6 9 h3 .§.e8 10 0-0 .llfS 11 .IlxfS gf 12 <DeS t Bisguier-Bertok, Leipzig 1960.

b) 7 ... 4lbd7 8 h4! .§.e8 9 h5 €lxh5 10 .§.xh5 gh 11 .Ilxh 7+ c,fX8 (11 ... Wxh7 12 {)g5+ Wg6 13 4Jdf3) 12 0e5 4)xe5 13 de .Q.g4 14 f3 ild7 15 4)f1 e6 16 4)g3 h4 17 4)h5 h3 18 g4 ~h4+ 19 .Q.g3 h2 20 ~2 'i!lh3 21 ~h1 .Ilb5 22 .Q.xh2 ±t McAlpineMcCurdy, Student Olympiad, Orebro 1966.

c) 7 ._. b6!? was an old Barden recommendation. Gulko-Vaganian, Niksic 1978, continued 8 a4 ~6 9 ilxa6 4:lxa6 1 0 0-0 ~c8 11 *e2 itb7 12 h3 .§.fd8 13 .§.fe1 .§.ac8 14 .Q.eS €lbS! (intending ... 0c6) 1S e4 cd 16 .llxd4 de 17 4.)xe4 4:lxe4 18 i6'xe4 'ltxe419 f!.xe4 0c6! '" (19 ... .ilxd4? 20 4)xd4 e6 21 a~) !-H'2.

8 O.()!

Here Black has tried:

a) 8 ... 4ld7 9 .Ilb5 .Ild6 10 'ita4 a6 11 Jlxc6 bc 1 2 b4 c4 13 e4 <Df6 14 <DeS itb5 15 'itxbS cb 16 a4 .llb7 17 f3 t Kan-Cherepkov, !/:I-final 17th USSR Ch 1949.

b) 8 ... 4)h5 9 .l1g4 itd6 1 0 d d&xc5 11 e4 4)f6 12 h3 de 13 €lxe4 <i:lxe4

56 London v. King's Indian (. .. g6)

14 Axe4 Ae6 15 '8a4 Ac4 16 Ae3 ~5 17 ~b5 Axb5 18 .§fdl f!.fd8 19 fud8+ <Dxd8 20 §.d1 (1-0, 41) Belvavskv-Faibisovich, Leningrad Club Ch 1 %7.

C

4 e3(35)

35 B

C1 4 0-0

e2 4 d6

Or 4 c5 5 c3 0-0 6 <Dbd2 u6!?

(6 ... d6 or 6 ... b6) 7 dc! h6 8 h3 'lta5 9 Ag3 ita4 10 Ae2 b6!? 11 0-0 .!la6 12 cb ab 13 §e1 Axe2 14 *xe2 g5 1 5 ~e5 (or 15 .Ilh2 g4 16 hg <Dxg4 17 .Q.g3 ± Gheorghiu] 15 ... {]xe5 16 4:lxe5 de 17 0d4! <De4 18 €!ec6 e6 19 'ltb5! *xb5 20 4:lxb5 0f6 21 f3 <Dd2 22 e4 de 23 fe 4:lc4 24 e5! ±t Voiculescu-Puscasu, Romanian Ch 1974.

Cl

4 O..()

5 {tbd2

Spasskv-Bu kic, Bugojno 1978, featured a novel plan for White: 5 Ae2 d6 6 0-0 4:lbd7 7 h3 'lte8 8 c4!? e5 9 .llh2 ifJe7 104:lc3 e4 11 4:ld2 §.f8 12 4:lbS ~d8 13 c5. Spassky now sacrificed a piece by 13 ... a6 14 cd! and eventually won.

See the game in Chapter 1, p. 1.

5 l8bd2 is still the most flexible choice otherwise. Lines without flbd2 are discussed in C2 if Black replies ." d6. If instead he chooses ... d5 see these examples:

a) 5 c3 dS 6 .I1d3 {Jc6 7 4)eS l8xeS 8 .Q.xeS c6 9 <Dd2 .Q.e6 10 0-0 'ltd7 = Spiridonov-Malich, linnowitz 1967. b) 5 ~4 dS 6 .Ilb3 cS 7 c3 b6 80-0 u6 Volvnskava-Dimshits, Leningrad Cup 1972.

c) 5 h3 cS (5 ... b6, see below) 6 c3 and now:

c l ) 6 ... d5 (6 .,. b6!?) 7 <Dbd2 b6 8 b4 fDe4 9 4Jxe4 de 1 0 4:ld 2 .Ilb 7 11 be bc is unclear, or even favours Black, Hindle-Taulbut, London 1975.

c2) 6 ... d6 7 ild3 b6 8 0-0 .a.b7 9 ite2 4:le4 10 '8c2 d5 11 4:lbd2 (Chiburdanidze suggested 11 .l1xe4 de 12 €lg5.) 11 ._. 0d6 12 .§fe 1 l;jd7 13 4)eS §.c8 14 Ah2 <Df6 15 §.ad 1 bS 16 dc?! §.xc5 17 4:lb3 .§c8 18 'lte2 '8b6 .l' (0-1, 46) KushnirChiburdanidze, Candidates 1978. c3) 6 ... cd 7 cd 4k6 8 h3? (O'Kelly suggested 8 lle2 4:lh5 9 .lle3 with the threat 10 d5, in his book on Petrosian.) 8 ... d6 9 4:lc4?! b 5! 10 4:le3 b4 11 d5 (11 c4 d5 ~) 11 ... bc!! + Kotov-Petrosian, Moscow 1952.

5 d6(36)

This is the main London System pattern. However,S ... b6 is also possible, e.g.:

a) 6 c3 c5 7 h3 d6 8 .Q.e2 .!la6 9 .Ilxa6 <Dxa6 1 a 0-0 ifJd7 11 i'!1e2

<De7 12 dc be 13 e4 e5 (0-1, 32) Bondarevsky-Bronstein, 31 st USSR Ch 1963.

b) 6 ~2 .Ilb7 70-0 cS 8 c3 d6 9 h3 <ilc6 (9 .,. 4:lbd7!? 10 a4 a6 11 <De4 fIc7 is unclear· Taimanov, Chess Player 9.) 10 a4 a6 (10 ... i'!1c7 intending ... §ad8) 11 llh2 h6?! (11 ... i'!1c7 intending ... e5) 12 §e1 &813 lln d5?! 14 §b1! 4:le815 ees: ± (1·0, 44) TairnanovLechtynsky, Decin 1975.

c) 6 h3 c5 7 c3 .Ilb7 8 .lld3 (8 lle2 is not much better.) 8 ... d6 (or 8 ... dS!? Sluissar-Karpov, Caracas 1970) 9 ~e2 4:lc6 10 0·0 '8c7 11 Aa6 .l1xa6 12 #xa6 e5 13 de de 14 llh2 §ad8 15 f1ld 1 .§.dS 16 e4 .§d7 17 ~e2 §fd8 18 .§fe1 'ltJd6 + GasicSzabo, Sarajevo 1972.

In most of these examples Black did well. However, White should perhaps not play h3 and should probably develop his king's bishop on c4 (though Black's delaying ... d6 makes this a riskier proposition).

36 W

ell 6 h3 Cl2 6 c3 e13 6 .llc4

London v. Kinq's Indian (.. g6) 57

ell

6 h3 cS!?

It is natural to react vigorously to a slow move like h3, but perhaps Black should seek his counterplay in a different way? Consider:

a) 6 ... 'lteS 7 ilh2 4:lfd7 8 .l1c4 {Jc6 9 0-0 e5 10 de 4:ldxe5 (The pawn recapture might leave Black's position congested.) 11 4:lxe54Jxe5 12 .Ilb3 Ae6 13 4:lf3 4Jxf3-t-- 14 ~xf3 '8b5 and Black had the initiative; Franklin-Alexander, British Ch 1956.

b) 6 '" ~6 7 .Ilh2 (7 c3 or 7 Ab5 would be more posltlve.) 7 ... fIe8 8 .Ile2 e5 9 de 4:lxe5 is at least equal for Black; Smyslov-Gligoric, Venice 1957.

c) 6 .<. 4lbd7 7 c3 c5 below. Maybe 6 ... €lfd7!?

d) 6 '" b6 7 c3 see C12.

7 .lle2

A major alternative is 7 c3 4X6 8 .I1c4. As Maroczy wrote in the London 1922 tournament book: 'By far the best square for the bishop. If Black now plays ... d5, White's QB's diagonal is cleared of all obstacles. On the other hand ... e5 leaves the KB in his strong position.' Examples:

a) S ... !!eS 9 O{) e5 10 de:

a l ) 10 ... 4lxe5? 11 .Ilxe5! de 12 4)g5! .ae6 (rather better is 12 ." .§f8 13 l8de4! 't*xd1 14 §fxdl tJe4 15 Qxe4 b6 - Alekhine] 13.11xe6 ± Alekhine-Euwe, London 1922.

a2) 10 ... de 11 .Ilh2 ! (because there is a hole at dS) . Alekhine.

b) S ... 'lte8 9 .Ilh2 e5 10 de de 11

58 London v. King's Indian (.. g6)

~b5 lDd7 12 8e4 *e6 13 ~d6 ~xd6 14 If:lxd6 If:ldb8 15 0-0-0 b6 16 .Ilc4 .Ild 7 17 .l1d 5 .Ile6 1 8 $lxe6 fe 19 If:lb5 {la6 20 .§d6lf:ld8 ± KanKamyshov, Y2-final 17th USSR Ch 1949.

c) 8 ~7 (Alekhine) 9 d5 (9 0-0

e5) 9 0ce5 10 .Ile2 If:lb6 11 \%3

If:lxf3+ 12 gf eS (12 ... e6!?) 13 ~g3 f5 14 f4 ~e8 15 a4 e4 16 .Ilh4.§f7 17 as {)d7 18 ilb5 ~8 190c4 0f6 20 a6 .§b8 21 .!lc6 b5 22 .§as b4 23 8e5!? {1-0, 38} Rupp-Arseniev, 1st ICCF Cup corres_

d) 8 .. _ a6 9 a4 cd 10 ed?! (or cd $lf5 =) 10 '" .§b8 11 0-0 b5 + Boleslavsky _

7 ~6

8 de!

A noteworthy improvement upon the unambitious 8 $lh2_ SmyslovBoleslavsky, Zurich 1953, continued 8 ... cd 9 ed .Ild 7 1 0 0-0 .§c8 11 .§e1 a6 12 .!lfl b5 13 c3 If:la5 14 If:lgS .§e8 t 5 4Jge4 4Jxe4 t 6 4lxe4 ~4 17 E!b 1 Y2 :Y2.

8 dc

9 4lc4 4ld5!?

10 ilh2

Now:

a) 10 ._. b5? 11 4Jce5 <8xe5 12 <Dxe5 ~a5+ 13 c3 .Ilb7 14 0-0 ± Harding-Quinn, British Ch Qualifying 1974_

b] 10 ... b6 11 0-0 .llb7 12 c3 .§e8 13 e4 <Df6 14 e5 (14 ~c2 4Ja5!) 14 ... <8d5 (14 .. _0d715e6!?) 15itfb3 0c7 16 <i:lg5! §f8 17 .§ad1 ~e818 e6 ± Harding-Franks, london League 1975_

C12

6 c3

This shores up the black squares, but encourages counterplay on the light ones by a ~fianchetto.

6 b6

Or:

a) 6 ... lilbd7 7 .Q.c4 ~e8 8 c3 see C13.

b] 6 ... 4lc6 7 h3 see Cl1.

7 h3 ilb7

8.ac4 4)bd7

9 0-0(37)

This is an important position as it can be reached by many widelydiffering move-orders. Although it is generally considered good for Black - who has a flexible position thanks to the choice available between ... cS and .. , e5 - Michael Franklin is still willing to take the white pieces.

.§adl ~8 14 .llb5 .§ad8 15 ad2 Ab7 16 Axd7 Axf3! 17 ~xf3 e4! + Rubinstein-Euwe, London 1922.

b) 9 ... c5 when:

et) 10'ite2a611 a4d5!? 12Ad3 4le4 13 .!lc20xd2 14 ~xd2 .§cB t S me 1 olli6 16 'ltte2 e6 1 7 8e5 'ltte 7 18 Ag5 Franklin-Botterlll, London 1975_

b2} 10 nel a6 11 a4 if1c7 12 .!lh2 Ac6 13 e4 e5 14 if1e2 White has some initiative and eventually won; Franklin-Rayner, Aaronson Masters London 1978.

b3) Franklin has also suggested 10 a4 'to be followed by b4 and ~3 - but obviously White's plan depends upon how Black continues after move 9. The usual plan is __ . *c7 and ._. e5'. (But 9 ... a6 first is probably necessary, as in the Reti, to be able to answer 10 as by 10 ... b5; then 10 b4 would be interesting but perhaps premature - Harding.)

10 ~2 e5

11 a4 a6

12 b4 *e7

Black's "*-side is more solid than in the previous note because ... c5 has been avoided. Chances seem balanced but more tests are needed.

White should not imitate BisguierKorchnoi, Hastings 1975-76, which went on 13 i!l'b3 .§b8 14 bS as 15 *a3 e4 16 8el ~h8 17 '\!;Jhl .I1h6 and now the deteriorating position was further compromised by 18 f4? ef(0-1,51)_

An alternative would be12 ite2, to play a waiting game and keep a watch on the black a-pawn.

37 B

9 ite8

Black continues to playas in a reversed Reti Opening. The point of this move is to prepare _.. e5 without ... c5 but other plans also come into consideration:

a) 9 ._ . .[)e4 10 0xe4 ilxe4 11 ~e2 (Passive; 11 4.)d2 is considerably better.) 11 .. , e5 12 Ah2 -?fJ!e7 13

London v. King's Indian (... g6) 59

C13

6 $1c4(38)

The move Franklin normally plays.

38 B

C131 6 <8bd7

C132 6 4):6

Also:

a) 6 ... c6 7 a4 (7 0-0 <8bd7 8 c3

b5) 7 0bd7 B h3 a5 9 0-0 0b6

10 ilb3 0bd5 11 .!lh2 b5 12 e4 If:lb6 13 ab cb 14 §e1 .I1b7 15 c3 and 16 e5 Harding-Adams, London League 1975.

b) 6 .. _ b6 7 c3 c5:

b1) 8 b4 0c6 9 ib'b3 a6 10 a4 .Ilf5 11 0-0 d 5 1 2 .!le2 If:lh S! 13 .!lg5 h6 14 .Ilh4 g5 15 .!lg3 0xg3 '" BisguierN.Weinstein, USA Ch 1974.

b2) 8 ite2 (8 h3!?) 8 ... a6 9 a4 4Jh5! 10 .!lg5 h6 11 'lh4 cd 12 cd 4):6 13 0-0 <Db4 ~ Bondar=vskvBoleslavskv, 15th USSR Ch 1947. c) 6 ... {lfd7 (dubious against .!lc4) 7 h4!? is promising for White_ According to Franklin, 7 ... <8f6 is probably best, because if 7 .. - e5 (7 ." '«re8 8 hS) then 8 l1g5 is strong. If 7 .. _ h5 Black's position is weakened, and White can play c3, ~1 (threatening .xg6) , a4, *a2

60 London v. King's Indian (oo. g6)

and also <8g5, building up against f7. em 6 7 h3

4li>d7 '&e8

In conjunction with this, ". 4Jc6 would have been more logical.

Here 7 .. , b6 is more logical, e.g. 8 0-0 ilb7 9 c3 reaching the position in Diagram 37 in the important line C12.

8 ~2

Other moves here:

a) 8 ~5?! llb7 or 8 OO' ldh5 911h2 eS - TDH.

b) 8 dS?! <8a5 (8 .oo 0hS 9 llh2 .llxb2? 10 dc; 8 ... 0b8!?) 9 llh2 <8xc4 f' (two bishops) - Harding.

c) S 0-0 e5 9 de de! (9 oo. 0xe5 below) see the illustrative game Franklin-Ree, below.

8 eS

9 de 4lxe5

Possibly 9 OO' de is better when 10 0-0 transposes to Franklin-Ree. 10 e4 ldh5 could be a critical line.

10 .axe5 de

11 0-0

Here Black has:

a) 11 ... ~7 see illustrative game Fran klln-Botteri II, below.

b) 11 .. , '&e7 ("'?) 12 c3 '.t'h8 13 a4 as 14 \%3 <8d7 1S f!fdl f5 1611fl <Db6 17 ~h1 lle6 18 ttb511d7 19 l'tb3 lle6 repeating moves; FranklinHartston, Hastings 1971-72.

Illustrative Games:

The annotations to the following two games were kindly contributed specially by British Master Michael Franklin, the acknowledged expert

in this opening.

Franklin-Ree England-Holland 1964

1 d4.af6 2 ~f3 g6 3 af4 ag7 4 e3 0-0 5 4lbd2 d6 6 ~4 ~bd7

This opening brings about a quiet positional struggle. It causes Black no immediate problems but for the unwary it has a nasty sting in the tail. The following two games are against players well versed in the openings but it is not long before they lose their way.

If Black wishes to play an eventual... eS the knight is best placed at c6, where it does not obstruct the ttll's view. If ... 0bd7 is played then it should be followed by ... b6, ... llb7 and ... c5.

7 h3 i6"e8

8 0-0 e5

9 de

When Black plays the London System (i.e. against the Reti - TDH) it is usual to consolidate the centre by 5 '" c6 instead of ... ldbd7, 6 .oo lle7 instead of ... llcS, and develop the itld at a6 after first playing , .. a5. In this variation one maintains a pawn at d5. The exchange of the dpawn and playing e3~4 by White is my own idea, evolved in over-theboard play and I have had considerable success with this variation over many years.

9 de

10 ah2 i6"e7

[TDH note: Black could try 10 ... e4!? with the idea 11 ldd4 <De5 12 <8bS!? 'ite7! but not 12 ... ldxc413 0xc7 'ltfc6 14 ldxc4 (intending

cDxa8) or 13 ... <8xb2 14 'itb 1. If the black 'ltf4:J were on c6 instead of d7, then the white ~ would have to retreat to the passive square e1 (see C132).J

11 e4 4lh5

12 i6"e2 .ac5

[12 .. , llh6!? comes into consideration - TDH.]

13 i6"e3 c6

[It is still possible to prepare ...

Ah6 by means of 13 , .. !k8, 14 .. , iM8· TDH.]

14 Sfe1

This allows the ac4 to return home where it not only helps to defend the ~ide but supports a il¥-side advance. It also inhibits Black's efforts to play ... f5 because of pressure on eS.

14 15 16 17

an b3 r;:tac 1

b5 ~4 .ab6 4lci7

Almost an admission that he has misplayed the opening.

18 c4 b4

19 c5 -nhf6

19 ... as is probably a little better but 20 <8c4 is still very strong.

20 4lc4 {leS

21 ~5 4lb8

22 'ltd2 f6 23 i6"xb4 .nc 7 24 'lta3 g5' 25 4lc4 g4 26 hg .llxg4 27 .nd6 Q.xf3 28 QfS 'lte8 29 gf i6"h5 30 b4 ~6 31 Acd1 *ti8 32 ~4 iH4 33 ~f4 ef 34 ~1 a5 35 It'e2 ab 36 'ltb2 [This threatens 37 §d8! and 38 -C»-xf6+, so it is no surprise that Black succumbs to a little combination - TDH.J 36 ... &3 37 ilb3

London v. King's Indian (oo. g6) 61

~5 38 ftxf6+ 1-0.

Franklin-Borterill

Surrey-Oxfordshire 1971

1 d4 4lf6 2 4Jf3 g6 3 l1f4 ag7 4 e3 0-0 5 .nbd2 d6 6 £k4 4lbd7 7 h3 'ite8 8 ~2e5

9 de -nxe5

Black, possibly sensing the resulting cramped position after 9 '" de, decides to offer the exchange of knights. In this variation White does not have to play e3~4. Although . the position looks fairly harmless White is able to conjure up a few threats.

10 fue5 de

11 0-0 ad 7(39)

[11 ... 'liJe7 transposes to FranklinHartston, above. Botterill suggests 11 '" b5!? or 11 .oolle6 = (and if 12 .Ilxe5 .Ilxe4 13 4Jc4 bS f').]

39 W

12 'ite2 'ite7

13 ~3 IfthS?

Black is so conditioned to playing ... f5 in the King's Indian Defence that this wasted move can almost be said to be an automatic reflex against the pin, [Better 13 ... Ac6 = according to Botterill.]

62 London v. King's Indian (. .. g6)

14 !lfdl ~d8

15 'itc4 ~

16 'lth4

The 'MJ-side attack with {}c4-a5 is once again causing Black problems. Note how it combines with threats on e5.

16 'itc5

17 a3

The idea is *b4 to exchange queens. The resulting ending would favour White.

17 as

18 00 ~dl+?

{Botterill: 18 ... §.de8 19 ~c4 *xc4 20 -Ilxc4l21e4 = but I couldn't endure such a boring linel]

19 .!:!xd1 axf3

Once again Black feels obliged to give White the advantage of the two bishops. Note how Black is tied to the defence of his f-pawn due to his 13 ... ~h8?

20 gf b5

21 a4! c6

22 nal e4!?

23 ~4 (23 fe gS! is unclear, but 23 ~1! ± - Botterill) 23 ... ef? (23 ... gS!? - Botterill) 24 "ltxf3 ba 25 ~a4 ~5 26 I!c4 "ite 7 27 ~c6 (winning) 27 ... 4lb4 28 !k7 .g5+ 29lf;hl f5? (A blunder due to time pressure) 30 nxg7! lIixg7 31 "itb7+ l!if6 32 ibb6+ ~7 33 ~5+ !lf6 34 .c7+ 1-{).

C132

6 4lc6!(40)

7 c3

Probably necessary in this

position, because if White allows the Franklin plan 7 h3 6'e8 8 -Ilh2

40 W

probably improve on this.

10.lle3 <ilxe5

11 <ilxe5 tf1xe5

12 0-0 4Jf6 13 f3 ~e 1 14 ~ 1 es 15 a4 -Ile6 16 i*b3 d5 '" (}H-S:, 35) Frankl in-Dueball, Great BritainWest Germany 1971.

C2

e5 9 de Black obtains the initiative by 9 ... de! e.g. 10 e4 4:lh5 {Botterill} or 10 0-0 e4 since the black <Be6 controls d4.

How is White to circumvent this difficulty? One possibility is to delay the knight development (cz). White might also look further into 7 O-O!? i6'e8 (7 ... 4:lh5!? 8 _Ilg5) 8 e4!? eS 9 de de 10 -Ile3 which is somewhat like a Classical Pirc,

7 "lte8

Or 7 ... 4)fd7 8 h4 4)f6! 9 -«tc2 4)hS 10 ah2e511 0-0-Oe4?! 12 *xe4 -Ilf5 13 *d5 ± FranklinPerkins, London 1975.

8 e4

A quieter treatment is 8 0-0, e.g, 8 ... e5 9 -Ilg3 #Je7 10 h3 ~h811 b4 e4 12 4)e1 4:lh5 13 _Ilh2 f5 Franklin-Ligterink, Aaronson Masters, London 1978 - which game ended in a draw.

8 e5

9 de <ilh5!

9 ... de allows White more scope, e.g. 10 -Ile3 b6 (10 ... 'iJJe7 11 h3 t) 11 h3 -Ilb7 12 *c2 ~8 13 b44:lh5 14 0-0 4)f4 =, and White can

4 d6

5 h3

Other ideas:

a) 5 -'k4 0-0 6 e3 a6? (6 ... 4:lbd7 e131) 7 a4 <8bd7 8 0-0 ~e8 9 h3 e5 1 0 ~2 fle7 (GoJdin-Kupreichik, USSR 1974) 11 a5! - Boleslavskv and Kapengut.

b) 5 ~2 4:lh5!? 6 -Ilg5 h6 7 Ah4 g5 8 0fd2 (8 Ag3 4:lxg3 9 hg ~7):

b 1) 8 ... ~f4 9 ef gh 10 00 eS 11 c3 cd 12 €lxd4 €le6 13 Qf3 i6'b6 (}-2-}-2, 26) Spiridonov-Grefe, Slanchev Breag 1974.

b2) 8 ... gh 9 .Q.xh5 eS 10 de (10 c3 !?) 1 0 ... 0e6! 11 {}C3 <8xe5 1 2 #Je2 0-0 13 0-0-0 (13 0-0 d5) 13 ... b5! 14 f4 (14 ~xb5 _\le6) 14 ... b4 15 ~5 e61 (0-1, 33) KlamanGufeJd, Sebastopol 1976.

5 0-0(41)

Or 5 ... 4:lbd7 6 ~2 (passive) 6 ... c5 7 c3 b6 8 4:lbd2 Ab7 9 0-0 0-0 10 ~c2 !:tc8 Naegeli-Bogoljubow, German Ch 1933.

Now, apart from 6 l2Jbd2 (C1) White can play:

C21 6-1le2 e22 6 c3

1 anowski-Yates, New York 1924, went 6 _Ile4 when, according to Alekhine, Black should transpose to the reversed Reti by 6 ... c5 7 c3 (7

London v. King's Indian ( ... g6) 63

41 W

de ~a5+} 7 ." b6 and ... .Q.b7. Instead 6 ... 4)c6 was chosen, but this left dS weak, e.g, 7 0-(4)<11 (7 ... e5 8 .ilh2 is critlcal.) 8 4:lc3 h6 (8 . .. e5? 9 .ilg5 il're8 10 €lei 5 ±) 9 ~d2 e510.ilg3~h711 !!adl4:lb6?! 12 ~2*e7 13 ~fel ±.

e21

6 ~2 <ilbd7

Also possible are:

a) 6 .,. c5 7 c4?! il'rb6 8 <Dc3 ~xb2 9 4)1>5 i*b4+ 10 <8d2 a6 11 4:lc7 !::!a7 12 -Ilg5 e6 13 -Ilf4 4)e4 (0-1, 51) Grigorov-Uhlmann, Leipzig 1974. 7 e3 is normal.

b) 6 ... ~6 when:

bl} 7 .Qb5 a6 8 Aa4 b5 9 -Ilb3?! (9 Ac2 <8d7 10 e4 eS 11 de:::.) 9 '" €la5 10 Ac2 4)c4 11 b::S (11 ~c1 -Ilb 7 1 2 Qbd 2 e 5 +) j : .,. €lb6 12 e4 €lfd7 13 0-0 (13 e5 .I1b7) 13 '" eS! ~ Bisguier-Gligoric, Stockholm 1962; White has a very poor form of Ruy Lopez.

b2) 7 d5?! e5! 8 dc? ef 9 cb .Ilxb7 10 ef !:te8+ + - Euwe.

b3) 7 .Ile2 4)d7 8 Ah2 e5 9 de de 10 €lbd2 Yf:Je7 11 0-0 b6 12 ~e2 .Ilb7 13 §.ad 1 f5 (0-1, 30) Sorokin-

64 London v. King's Indian (. .. g6)

Polugayevsky, RSFSR Spartakiad, Leningrad 1967.

b4) 7 O..() *e8 8.1lh2 a6 (8 '" eS!?) 9 d S {)b8 10 c4 e5 11 0c3 {)d7 12 e4 f5 13 {)gS 4:lf6 14 f4 h6 1S fe de 16 {)f3 f4 17 cS with an unclear position; Ranniku-Chiburdanidze, USSR Women's Cup Final 1974.

c) 6 ... b6 70-0 £!.b7 and now:

c'l ) 8 ~bd2 {)bd7 9 c3 e6 (9 ... cS!? see note to Black's 7th below) 10 .Ilh2 l11e7 with a very comfortable position for Black; PrameshuberHubner, Clare Benedict Teams, Paignton 1970.

c2) 8 c4 {)bd7 90c3 §e8 10 *c2 e5 11 de de 12 .llh2 with an unclear position (l-O, 60) Havin-Pogrebisskv Kiev Ch 19S0.

7 O..() 'iI1e8

Or 7 ... b6 8 ~d2 cS 9 d £!.b 7 = e.g. 10 a4 a6 11 .llh2 .§a7! 12 {)e1 ~a8 13 ars cd 14 llxb7 i!Yxb7 15 ed (15 cd J3c8) 15 '" .§.fa8! ~ Trifunovic-Csom, Sombor 1972.

8 Q.h2 e5

9 au

Or 9 de de (9 ... QxeS!?) 10{)c3 ViJe 7 11 -&d2 c6 12 afd 1 {le8 13 .llc4 ~h8 14 e4 (}2-}2, 41 ) Yurchinska-Veroeci, ~elgrade 1975.

9 e4

10 ~d2 'iI1e7

11 ~b5 ~e8

12 c4 fS 13 *c2 a6 14 4)(;3 {)efG 1S E:ae1 b6 "" (}2-}2, S7) RitovPolugayevskv, Tallinn 1973.

e22

6 c3 4lbd7 (42)

Or 6 ... l11e8 7 ~2 <Be6. This placing of the *{) has less point

now that d4 is under control from

the white c-pawn, Moiseyev-

Petrusiak, Havirzhov 1971,

continued 8 0-0 e5 9 £!.h2 4:lhS 10 {je1 f5 11 4:ld3 ers 12 b4 a6 13 4:ld2 g5 14 a4 with White's ~side chances looking better than Black '5 on the ~ide (1-0, 36).

10 a4 ~h8 11 €)a3 fS 12 {)bSl11d8 13 de de 14 g4 fg 15 hg a6 16 {)xc7 'hxc 7 17 gh 'hc6 1 8 h6 llf6 19 c4 e4 20 {)d4 ~b6 21 'hc2 4:lcS 22 as (1-0, 47) Moisevev-Lepesh kin. }2- final Moscow Ch 1972.

10 a4

Here Black has tried:

a)10 ... h5~? 11 de LDxe5 12 Qbd2 {)xf3+ 13 Qxf3 8e4 14 a5 a6 1S 4)d2ll)gS 16 Qf3 8e6 17 Qd4 dS 18 §.el cS (Yl-Y2, 40) Doda-Kavalek, Polanica ldroj 1968.

b) 10 ... a5 11 ael b612 {)a3 .llb7 13 4Jb 5 !hc8 (better 13 ... 4Je8 =] 14 b4 ed?! 1S ed afeS 16 .llc4 t Hort-Prlbvl, Havirzhov 1971.

42 W

The Pseudo-London System

1 d4 .f}f6

2 <Df3 g6

3 <tIc3

The idea is to induce ... d5 so that the subsequent placing of the ~-'l on f4 will be more effective. However, White does not have a very free game for his other pieces are restricted and the knight on c3 in particular is in the way of the c-pawn.

3 d5

If 3 ... d6 (or 3 ... llg7) White will transpose to the classical Pirc by 4 e4, while if 3 ... c5 4 dS d6 5 e4 with a favourable form of Benoni.

4 ilf4

Other tries include:

a) 4 g3 £!.g7 S -'lg2 0-06 0-0 {lbd7 7 .£leS {lxeS 8 de {lg4 9 4JdS c6 10 4Jf4 {lxeS ::: La pez-Toran, Torremolinos 1961.

7 !te2

7 11c4 also comes into consideration:

a) 7 ... Ile8?? 8 .llxf7+ 'ifi'xf7 9 lUg5+ \t>g8 10 41e6 wins the queen. b) 7 ... ite8 8 0-0 e5 9 de (9 Ah2 -J!Je7 10 {lbd2 Bisguler-Langeweg, Beverwijk 1962; 10... b6 ::: - Barden) 9 ... {lxe5 10 lle2?! h6 11 Ah2 gS! 12 {lxeS de 13 Qa3 -J!Je7 14 4:k4 .§d8 lS i6'c2 {)dS 'f Podgornv-Stullk, Prague 1948.

c) 7 _ .. e6 8 4)bd2 (8 0-0 'he7 intending ... e5 - Pachman) S ... 'he7 9 e4? e5 10 de de 11 Ae3 b6 12 -J!Je2 a6 13 g4 (to forestall .,. <8hS-f4) 13 .. , 4:k5 14 ilgS £!.b7 + Vidmar-Flohr, Bled 1931.

7 ite8

8 O..() e5

9 ru-.2 'fie7

9 .. , {lhS is less appropriate, e.g.

London v. King's Indian (. .. g6) 65

b) 4 Q.g5!? (compare chapters 2, B and7,B):

bl} 4 ... ~7 ('" ECO) S 'hd2 or S ~xf6 .Q.xf6 6 e4 - Neikirkh and Tsvetkov.

b2) 4 ... l£Ie4 (usually good when White has played {)f3):

b21) 5 llf4 4)xc3 6 be es 7 e4 de S LDgS -YJa5 9 4:lxe4 ~g7 1 0 ~d2 cd 11 cd 'hd 5 12 -«rf3 {)bd7 1 3 .£legS (1 3 c3 0-0 14 .lld3 eS) 13 ... ~xf3 14 {lxf3 O.{) and Black has counterplay against the c- and d-pawns; KlamanBronstein,24th USSR Ch 19S7. b22} 5 'ltfd3!? l£lxg5 (better 5 ... .llfS) 6 {lxgS .I1h6 (6 ... e6 7 h4 or 6 .. . .llg7 7 -«rf3 0-0 8 ~xdS ±) 7 h4 c6 S e4 de 9 t,)cxe4 ~aS+ 10 c3 t Rakic-Marjanovic, Yugoslavia 1975.

4 f1g7(43)

Other ideas are:

a) 4 ... l£IhS S .I1eS f6 611g3 {)xg3 7 hg .llg7 8 e3 c6 9 lld3 e5? (9 ... <3Jf7 was necessary) 10 fuh7! <:$}f7 (10 . .. fuh7 11 .llxg6+; 10 ... e4 11 fug7 ed 12 4)h4) 11 .I1xg6+! ~xg6 12 8eS+! fe 13 'hh5+ Wf6 14 ~xe5+ ~7 lS i!Jxg7+ ~e6 16 t/JeS mate; Palau-te Koiste, London OL 1927.

b) 4 .. , c6 5 e3 (or 5 h3) ::; .llg7 6

h3 4)bd7 (possibly 6 0-0

followed by ... b6 and ... .!la6 is better.] when:

b1) 7 £te2 b6 S 0-0 .llb7 9 4:leS [Tartakower-Wahltuch, London 1922) 9 ... 0-0 intending ... !DeS, ... f6.

b2) 7 ad3 O..() S O..() aes 9 .llh2 a6 a6 '" Holmov-Glpslis, 29th USSR Ch 1961.

66 London v. King's Indian ( ... g6)

A 5 h3 B 5 e3

Or:

a) 5 <tlliS 4)a6 6 e3 O.() 7 lle2 c6 8 4Jc3 i'rb6 = Bisguier-Tarjan, USA Ch 1973.

b) S *d2 and now:

bl) S .. ;. 0.0 6 .ilh6 with the following possibilities:

b11) 6 ... b6 7 .ilxg7 r:!;xg7 8 O..()..() (or 8 g3 Ab7 = Addison-Ujtumen, Palma de Mallorca 1970) 8 ... .ab7 9 h4 hS 10 4)g5 0bd7 11 f4 e6 12 e3 c5 is unclear; Rakic-Ianosevic, Belgrade 1968.

b12} 6 ." .ne4 7 <9xe4 de 8.1lxg7 ~xg7 9 €lgS ~d5 10 h4 (10 c4 ~xc4 11 <9xe4 . Buslavev in 64) 10 ... h6 11 4Jh3 e5 12 e3 l::kI8 13 c4 ~d6 14 0-0-0 {)C6 1 5 d5 !De 7 16 f3 ef (16 ... .a.xh3~?) 17 gf [AleksandriaChiburdanidze, 8th match game 1977) 17 '" .Q.xh3 followed by 18 ... b5 with an unclear position.

b2) 5 .. , 4.le4!? (Tukmakov later suggested 5 ... c5.) 6 4)xe4 de 7 01::5 f6 (7 ... £le68 O-O-O! f6 9 d5! fe 10 de ±) 8 &4 .!le6 9 e3 0-0 1 a 4)a5 (10 a·O·D!? Q)' Tukrnakov] 10 ... b6 1 1 .llc4 ~c8! 12 .llxe6 il1xe6 13

4)b3 c6 14 0-00d715 !'!fd1 (15 .§adl !?) 15 ... fS! (instead of 15 ... .§ad8? 16 dS! ~xd5 17 ~e2! ± Gurgenidze-Tukrnakov, USSR 1977) 16 d5 cd 17 'l*xd5 ~xd5 18 :§xd5 4)f6 == - Tukrnakov, Informator 24.

A

Bondarevskv-Smvslov, Moscow Ch 1947.

b} 7 0>S 4k6 8 c3 a6 9l2la3 c410 .lle3 bS 11 4)e5 l1b 7 1 2 Af3 4)e4 ~ Prlns-Czernlak, Beverwijk 19S5 (0-1,46).

7 *35

8 4ld2 "«fxcS

9 €lb3 ~b6 10 .lle5 'leading up to an exchange of pieces by which the black squares in the opposing position are considerably weakened, a circumstance which will turn out to be the determining factor in the approaching ending. This is Capablanca!' wrote his great rival. Capablanca-Yates, New York 1924, continued 10 ... e6 11 l£Ib5 €le8 12 .axg7 <9xg7 13 h4! a6 14 €lc3 €lc6 15 .Ild3 ± (1-0,17).

B

5 h3 0-0

5 ... 4)e4 is interesting. Tsvetkov quotes a game that continued 6 103 <9xc3 7 bc cS 8 .lleS f6 9 .llg3 -et"a5 1 a ~d2 c4 11 .lle2 €ld7 12 0-0 €lb6 with complicated play.

6 e3 c5

7 de

Alekhine wrote: 'At first blush this makes a strange impression, but it is based on a profound conception of the position. White may permit his only pawn to disappear from the centre, inasmuch as he commands it sufficiently with his pieces.'

Others are not so good: a) 7 .lle2l£1bd7 and now:

a l ) 8 de ~aS 9 0-0 ~xc5 10 l£Id2 ~b6 11 <db3 ars 12 .llf3 ~fd8 = Balshan-Sharnkovich, Netanya 1975 . a2) 8 ~5 e6 9 0-0 <tlxe5 10 .IlxeS b6 11 a4 .ab 7 1 2 as .llc6 1 3 4)a4 [Neikirkh and Tsvetkov also give 13 AbS ~d7 14 ~e2 cAl = and 13 <9bS!? 0e4! 1411h2'lbd7.) 13 ... c4 14 't¥Ie 1 me8 15 b 3 fu<a4 16 El.xa4 bS! 1 7 .§a 1 a6 18 be (If 1 8 .llfJ cb! 19 cb :§c8, but 18 b4! 0d7 is crltical.) 18 ... de! 19 itf3 4Jd5 20 hg7 <!ixg7 21 e4 10k7 22 ~c3+ <£i'g8 23 §fd 1 !=!ab8 24 h4 «rc7~ 25 h5 b4 26 tfe3 eS 27 ~g5 &6! +

5 e3(44)

5 0-0

S ... .il.f5 might be met by 6 .I1d3 (Alekhine) though this was not played in:

a) Marshall -Ed Lasker, New York 1924; which went 6 h3 0-0 7 Jld3 <tIe4 8 .llxe4 .llxe4 9 0-0 €K:I7 10 .:Ud2 t.

London v. King's Indian ( ... g6) 67

b) Nor in Suetin -Borlsen ko, 21 st USSR Ch 1954; 6 .lle2 c6 7 0e5 <8fd7 =.

6 l1e2

Alternatives:

a) 6 <tlli5 (6 h3 see A) 6 ... tda6 7 .l1e2 .llg4 8 <9c3 <Db8 9 h3' .llf5 10 g4 .llc8 11 g5 4)e8 12 ~d2 c6 13 0-0-0 0d6 14 .ad3 ± (1-0, 40) Bogoljubow-Rellstab, Aachen 1933. b) Alekhine recommended 6 1ld3. Practical examples:

b 1} 6 ... c6 7 h 3 ~bd7 8 0-0 ~8 9 Ah2 a6 10 b4 <8h5 11 {)e5l£1xeS 12 de f6 13 g4 fe 14 gh e4 1 5 4)xe4 unclear; Holmov-Gipslls, 29th USSR Ch 1961.

b2} 6 ... c5 when:

b21} 7 h3 ~b6 8 0-0 c4 9 .ile2 'iffxb2 1 a ilJ'd2 ~b4 11 €le5 e6 12 e4 €le6 13 .§ab1:

bll1) 13 ... "I!1e7 14.afJ is unclear; Bon darevs ky-Bronstein , Parnu 1947. b212) 13 ... 'itaS 14 0xc6 be 15 li)xd5 ~xd2 16 tilxf6+ .Ilxf6 17 .llxd2 .llxd4 18 .ac4 t - ECO.

b22) 7 0-0 <Dc6 (7 ... .llg4 8 h3 Axf3 9 'l*xf3 &6 ~ ECO) 8 dc (8 4)e5 4)hS 9 €lxc6 bc 10 .!lgS h6 ~ Radojevic-Daskalov, Sombor 1964) 8 ... ~a5 9 0d4 ~xc5 10 <tlxc6 bc 11 .lleS ~4 12 §abl lfJg4. 13 a3 ~6 1411xg7 ~c7 15 g3 ~xg7 16 e4 :§fd8 17 ed cd 18 .lle2 4)f6 and Black stood well; GolombekVaitonis, Stockholm 1952.

6 b6?!

Others:

a} 6 .. , U15!? 7 ~g5 h6 8 ~h4 gS 9 Ag3? 4:lc6 10 4)eS <9xg3 11 l£Ixc6 be 12 hg i!fd6 13 034 e5 +

68 London v. King's Indian r ... g6)

Bondarevsky-Liberzon, Rostov 1960. Black's control of the central squares was the critical factor. But why not 9 <tieS!

b) 6 ... a6 7 0-0 b6 8 <tieS .Ilb7 9 .Ilf3 e6 [Maher-Olafsson, Moscow 1956) 1 0 ~e2 followed by e3-e4 = - Olafsson.

c) 6 ... c6 7 0-0 ars 8 "De5 <8fd7 9 g4 1te6 10 tdd3 c5 11 4)b5 4)a6 12 .Ilg3 <8f6! = Suetin-Borisenko, 21 st USSR Ch 1954.

d) 6 ... c5 when:

dl) 7 de!? ~a5 8 0-0 ~xc5 9 tdd2 <De6 10 4)b3 ~6 11 4)xd5 0xd5 12 tlrxdS ilxb2 13 !lib 1 .Ile6 = G.Harris-lvkov, Bognor Regis 1958. d2) 7 O.() cd 8 ed €le6 9 4JeS ~d7 10 41xc6 be 11 4)a4 as 1 2 e3 .lh6 13 .Ilxa6 E!xa6 14 l:!e1 §.e81S §.e3 &7 16 ~e2 !t2:!t2 KottnauerBoleslavskv, Helsinki 1952.

d3) 7 4le5 cd 8 ed ~c6 9 0-0 ~6 1 0 ~xc6 be 11 4:la4 ~aS 12 c3 4:J<i7 13 b4 ~d8 14 .Ilg5 f6 15 .Ilh4 4:lb6 16 <DeS g5 1 7 .Ilg3 e 5 1 8 a4 ~e 7 1 9 de fe 20 ~fe1 4)d7 21 4)xd7 .Ilxd7 22 c4 (1-0, 48) Antoshin-Balashov, Moscow 1967.

7 4)b5

Or 7 0-0 4)h5?! (7 ... .I1b7; 7 ... c6!?) 8 .IlgS h6 9 .I1h4 g5 10 <deS gh 11 .Ilxh5 .Ile6 (11 .. ' e6 - Antoshin]

12 f4 .Ilxe5 13 de "*d7 14 W f5 15 &d1 c6 16 'l!'tf3 .!lf7 17 .Ilf3 4:la6 18 e4! e6 19 ef ef 20 Ci)e4! 'fJe7 21 lZJf6+ ~g7 22 'fJxh4 ~c5+ 23 I:!f2 ~d8 24 ~d3 ~a5 2S i1e2 'fJe 1 + 26 .I1f1 ~ 8 27 4)h 5+ .Ilxh5 28 E!g3+ .!lg4 29 -lM6+ 1-0 Antoshin-H.Olafsson, Reykjavik 1976.

7 4la6

8 c4 ~7

Here Wh ite h as tried:

a) 9 ~1 c6 10 1Jc3 cS 11 0-0 cd 12 4)xd4 <DeS 13 4:ldb5 de 14 .Ilxc4 4:lfe4 15 "*,e2 e5 16 ilg3 a6 17 §fd 1 'f;te7 18 4:lxe4 41xe4 19 4:lc3 4:lxe3 20 f!xc3 !t2:!t2 Harding-Sugden, Athenaeum-Cambridge University 1976.

b) 9 ~5 de [bestr) 10 .lhc4 c5 11 0-0 cd 12 4:lfxd4.:de5 13 I:!c1 a6 14 4Jc7 §.c8 15 b4 ± Holmov-Gligoric, USSR-Yugoslavia 1962.

7 Miscellaneous after 2 {Jf3

This chapter is concerned with various plans by Black after:

A 1 d4 d5 2 ors B 1 d4 4)[6 2 4:lf3

These are chiefly those lines in which Black plays an early ... c5 or in which he develops his queen's bishop at either fS or g4.

A

1 d4 d5

2 {\t3

Al 2 .. .tf)f6

A2 2 .Ilg4

A3 2 srs

A4 2 <Dc6

AS 2 cS

If in doubt, consult the index - p.l02.

Al

Conclusion

The London and Pseudo-London systems are useful weapons for thwarting the intentions of King's Indian and Grilnfeld Defence players - especially if White is happy with 00 lines against the Pirc.

2

Remaining lines only. 3 e3

Now we consider:

All 3 .Ilg4

A12 3 ars

A13 3 c6

3 ... e6 and 3 ... cS have largely been considered in the chapters on the Colle. However. it is worth

noting this form of delayed ... ~g4: 3 ... c5 and now:

a) 4 c3 {jc6 5 .Ild3 .Ilg4 6 h3 {6 4)bd2 eS 7 de <8xe5 8 .Ilb5+ .Ild7 9 .Ilxd7+ {}exd7 10 0-0 .ile7 11 gel 0-0 - Neikirkh and Tsvetkov) 6 ... .!lxf3 7 ~xf3 c4 8 .ac2 e5 9 de 4:lxe5 10 .lh4+ (better 10 -&d1 intending -8b1-d2-f3 =) 10 ... We7! 11 ~d1 4:ld3+ 12 We2 4:le4 13 ,§hfl f5 14 .Ilc2 4)e5 15 f4 4:lf7 16 .ilxe4 de 17 'fJd4 -&xd4 18 cd We6 + Araiza-Alekhine, Pasadena 1932.

b) 4 4lbd2 4:lc6 5 a3?! ~g4 6 de ~a5 7 h3 .Ilxf3 8 gf eS 9 b4 4)xb4 10 ~1 ~6 11 §Xb7 §ab8 12 §Xb8+ {)xb8 13 c4 .!lxcS 14 'fJb3 0-0 15 cd -8bd7 16 .!lc4 §h8 17 i:E'ra2 ers 18 0-0 ~c7 19 j:Jfd1 <8g6 with a promising position fOI Black; Dus-Hotimirski v, Bivshev, !t2-final 17th USSR Ch 1949.

All

3 Qg4

4 c41 e6

Here 4 ... de transposes to the Queen's Gambit Accepted (D25 in ECO). As White has no advantageous. way of avoiding this (though 4.l1e2

70 Miscellaneous after 2 ttJf3

or 4 Ad3 are of course playable) we give here the main line: 5 .axc4 e6 6 h3 m,5 7 4)(;3 4)bd7 (7 ... a6 is also t; 7 ... 4)c6!? 8 llb5 Ad6 9 e4 W7 10 Ae3 0-0 11 e5 ;}.e7 12 .ae2 Qb6!? - Kotov) 8 e4 (The quieter 8 0-0 is also !.) 8 .,. 4:lb6 9 .ad3 (or 9 .ab3 !) 9 ... llxf3 (9 ... ile7 10 Ae3 ±) 10 gf c5 11 Ag5 i6'xd4 12 Ab5+ ~d7 13 lie2.ile7 14 .§d1 i6'e5 15 .§xd7 4:lxd7 16 Axd7+ ~d8 (16 ... ~d7? 17 l!'b5+ :tt) 17 f4 l!'c7 18 .Ila4 Axg5 19 fg ~e7 20 lie3 ;!; Kozma-Smejkal, Czech Ch 1964.

Alternatively, 4 ... axt3 5 i6'xf3 e6 6 4)(;3 when:

a) 6 '" ih7 7 .Ild3 0-0 8 0-0 c6 9 .§dl 4:lbd7 10 e4 de 11 4:lxe4 .§e8 12 .I1d2 4:lf8 13 Ac3 ! ColleFairhurst, London 1927.

b} 6 ... c6 is another sort of Queen's Gambit (Orthodox Defence) in which his bugbear, the queen's bishop, has been exchanged off.

However, White has a free game with the two bishops. Bu khmanChernikov, Y2-final Leningrad Ch 1967, continued 7 aas 4:lbd7 8 g4!? h6 9 Ad2 a6 10 .§g1 b5 11 cd cd 12 a3 4:lb6 13 b3 l3c8 14 h4 g5 15 hg hg 16 ~e2 4:lbd7 17 .§Ill fuhl 18 lixhl!? 4:lxg4 19 ifrh5 4)(If6 20 i6'xg5 4:lxf2 21 4:lxd5 ed (21 ... 4:lxd5 is better, though White has the bishop pair for the ending.) 22 lie5+ lle7 23 llf5 4:l2e4 24 .§Ill 4)g8 25 l3h8 4)ef6 26 Ab4 lk6 27 ibf6! 1-0.

5 *b3

5 4:lbd2 and 5 4)(;3 are also playable.

5 "l&c8

6 l1.d2

6 ~5 llf5 7 4)(;3 c6 holds Black's vital d5 square, but after 8 .ile2 (with a threat of g4) White's game is preferable. Instead of 8 Ae2, White could also follow Colle-P, [ohner, Berlin 1926: 8 cd ed 9 .Ild2 Ad6 10 lk1 ±.

After 6 l1.d2 Prins-Spielmann, Zandvoort 1936, continued 6 ... .ad6 7 llb4 (still 7 4)(;3) 7 ... 0-0 8 4:lbd2 4)(;69 itxd6 (9 Ad, though an admission of error, is better.) 9 ... cd 10 Ad3 dc 11 4:lxc4 (to avoid ... 4:la5) 11 ... Axf3 12 gf d5 13 4)(12 e5! 14 de 4:lxe5 15 f4 4:lxd3+ 16 i6'xd3 l3e8 17 4:lf3 ilfrg4 18 i6'e2 m5 19 4)d4 i6'e4! + (0-1, 67); White's pawn structure is a mess; his king is homeless.

A12

.. ' e6!? see A3} White can either: a1) Transpose to the Exchange Slav by 5 cd cd 64)(;3, or

a2) Continue 54lc3 e6 6 Ad3 Axd3 7 l!'xd3 4:lbd7 8 0-0 when:

a21) Colle-Euwe, Hastings 19234, went 8 ... ~6 9 e4 de 10 4:lxe4 oilxe4 11 "l&xe4 0-0 1 2 Ag5 .Ile 7 13 Ad2 .§e8 14 Ac3 lie7 15 .§ac1 aad8 16 .§fel ~8 17 h4 .af6 18 4:lh2 ilfrb6 19 lkdl lia6 20 4:lg4 Ae7 21 d5 cd 22 cd ed 23 fud5 ild6 24 l3g5 !he4 25 4:lh6+ 1-0 . a22) 8 ... ~4 9 Ad2 (6 10 4:lxd5) 9 ... h5 10 b4 J:J.e7 11 e4 de 12 "l&xc4 e5 13 lle3 0-0 14.§adl ed 15 Axd4 *b8 16 h3 .§e8 17 *d3 h6 18 ctlh4 Ae5 19 ctlf5 .§d8 20 f4 Axd4+ (20 '" Axf4 21 Axf6 gf 22 i6f3 ±) 21 *xd4 ! (Y2-Y2, 41) Franklin-Unzicker, Hastings 1971- 72.

b) 4 ~5!? e6 {4 ... 4)bd7l? '" ECO} 5 g4?! is probably an over-reaction as White 's ~ide was the weaker after 5 ... .ile4 6 f3 J:J.g6 7 h4 h 5 8 ctlxg6 fg 9 .Ild3 00 10 g5 ~d7 11 e3 lld6. Liberman-Petukhin, Habarovsk 1967, continued 12 e4 e5 13 e5 .ile7 14 *d2 il're8 15 c4 4)c6 16 cd ed 17 4)c3 4:lxd4 18 *t'4+ ~8 (heading for the safety of h7!) 190-0 (a home with a leaky roof) 19 ... ctlb6 and Black won in 41 moves. A deceptive variation. ECO gives ± after 12 e4 and they may be right.

4 e6

Other ideas are:

a) 4 ... Qg6 [Colle-Tartakower, Bled 1930) 5 4:lbd2!? e6 6 l!'e2 (intending

3 Q.f5(45)

This was an idea of Alekhine's to prevent the Colle. In effect Black plays a London system a tempo down.

45 W

4 l1.d3

This is usual. Others:

a} 4 c4 is sharpest. After 4 ... e6 (4

Miscellaneous after 2 00 71

e4)!- ECO.

b) 4 '" 4k4? 5 ~4 e6 6 4:lxf5 ef 7 e4 c6 8 cd ~xd5 9 0-0 Ab4 10 f3 ~6 11 4)c3 ± Bochan-Gurvanov, Bulgaria 1955.

c) 4 ... ~d3?! 5 il'rxd3 {or 5 cd ! Colle-Bogoliubow, San Remo l 930) and now:

c'l ) 5 ... c6 6 4:lbd2 e6 70-0 .ad6 8 e4 de 9 <tixe4 ctlxe4 10 i6'xe4121d 7!?

!-ECO. .

e2) 5 ... ~d7 6 4:lbd2 e6 7 e4 de 8 <tixe4 4:lxe4 (8 ... Sl.e 7 is better.) 9 l!'xe4 .ad6 (Consistent, but 9 ... -&c8 was better.) 10il'rxb7! 0-0 11 0-0 .§b8 12 't'te4 !!b5 13 c4 4)f6 14 -&e2 l3f5 15 h3 il'ra816 l3fel e517 de Ab8 18 .Ilg5 l!'e6 19 b4 ctlh5 20 ~4 .e7 21 ilfrxh5 ifrh2+ 22 ~1 l3e5 23 l3xe 5 .axe 5 24 aad 1 ifrh 1 + 25 ~e2 *xg2 26 00 Ag3 27 1l.e3 1-0 Sultan-Khan V. Milner-Barry, British Ch 1931.

5 Axf5 ef

6 'ltd3

Colle-Alekhine, San Remo 1930, went instead 6 0-0 4)bd7 7 e4 de 8 ~a4 Ad6 9 4:lbd2 0-0 1 0 4:lxe4 ctlb6 11 4:lxb6 ab 12 *e2 *d7 with a free game for Black.

6 *c8

7 c4

Alternatives:

a) 7 b3 4:la6 8 0-0 .I1e7 9 c4 (or 9 .Ila3 1l.xa3 1 0 Iclxa3 0-0 11 c4 e6 1 2 4)e5 'iJ!le6 13 .§ael .§ac8'" Neikirkh and T svetkov) 9 ... 0-0 10 4)c3 c6 11 llb 2 4:le4 12 .§fc 1 l3fd8 ;;; Alekhine-Euwe, 2nd match game 1935.

b) 7 O.{) when:

72 Miscellaneous after 2 W3

b1) 7 ... f1e7 8 b3 O,{) 9 c4 c6 10 If)c3 lLIa6 - T artakower and du Mont.

b2} 7 .. ' ~6 8 b3 O,{) 9 c4 c6 10 If)c3 b6 11 l1b2 g6 12 cd Idxd5 13 Idxd5 cd 14 ~fc1 ~a6 15 ~c3 §d8 16 tzle5 Idd7 17 b4 (AlekhineKostic, Bled 1931) 17 ... b5!? =.

7 ~6

8 a3 "«re6

9 cd ~xd5

10 4Jc3 4Jf4 11 ifrb5 a6 12 "t*xb7 ~b8 13 "t*xa6 ~b6 14 "t*a8+ ~b8 15 "«ra4 0d3+ 16 <3lf1 'lfId7 17 ~c2 Qxc1 18 fucl l1d6 19 b4 O.{) 20 8a4 and White won; Sultan Khan v . Milner-Barry, London 1932. Black's play was far too optimistic.

A13

3 c6

4 ~3 ~4(46}

An idea of Alekhine's to improve A 11. White might evade it by 4 Qbd2! and if 4 ... l1g4 then 5 c4! as suggested by Koltanowski.

5 4li>d2

According to Koltanowski, 5 c4 would still be slightly better despite the tempo loss if Black plays 5 ... dc. 5 h3 £th5 would probably

transpose to the next note; here 5 ... l1xf3 6 "«rxf3 Qbd 7 7 ~g3 g6 8 c411g7 9 lde3 dc 10 l1xc4 e5 11 O,{) O,() 12 ~1 ed 13 ed Idb6 14 l1b3 ~d7 15 ~3 ! NikolayevskyGurevich, Ukraine Ch 1967. White's two bishops were more important than the potential weakness of the isolated d-pawn ,

5 4li>d7

6 c4

AI ternatively:

a} 6 h3 l1h5 7 c4 e6 8 O.{) .I1d6 9 ~ 1 O,{) 1 0 e4 de 11 Idxe4 Idxe4 12 l1xe4 l1g6 led to an early draw in Kolarov-Filchev, Bulgarian Ch 1955.

b) 6 e4!? de 7 Idxe4 4Jxe4 8.11xe4 0f6 9 ~d3 comes into consideration - Neikirkh and Tsvetkov.

6 e6

a5 lObS}. Koltanowski-Cherta, Sitges 1934, continued 9 ... ~8 10 4le5 l1d6 11 f4 Qg4 1 2 lflxg4 .I1xg4 13 O.{) 'l»'h4?! (better 13 ... as and 14 ... O,{») 14 e4! de 15 4Jxe4 .I1e7 (better 15 ... Ab8) 16 Ae3 O{) 17 ~e 1 Qf6 1 8 l1f2 'iWh6 19 Qg5 'and White soon attacked with f4-f5.

A2

2

ag4(47)

47 W

Or:

a) 6 ... de 7 lflxc4 "Ulc7 80-0 llxf3 9 "t*xf3 e5 lOde lflxe5 11 *g3 Qfd7 1 2 Af5! ± - Koltanowski.

b] 6 ... e5!? 7 cd 4Jxd5 (7 ... cd 8 de 0xe5 9 l1b5+ l1d7 10 Axd7+ gives Black a weak d-pawn - KoltanowskL) 8 h3 (8 O,{) ed 9 ed Ae7 10 4Jc4 <tJ7f6 11 ideeS l1h5 12 a3 0-0 13 ilg5 "t*e7 14 "t*c2 ~d8 = - Neikirkh and Tsvetkov) 8 ... Axf3 (8 ... .I1h5 9 g4 with an active game for White - Neikirkh and Tsvetkov] 9 lflxf3 ed 10 0xd4 .ab4+ 11 Ad2 i!'1a5 (or 11 ... 4)e5 12 Ae2) 12 O.{)! Axd2 13 4Jb3 = . Koltanowski.

7 a3 ~7

8 "«rc2 ilhs

9 b4

Black is becoming cramped (9 ...

3 c4!

3 tzle5 is a natural reaction, but not so strong. Then:

a) 3 .•. ilfS 4 c4 f6 5 4Jf3 e6 6l'Wb3 b6 7 lde3 c6 8 a4 lLIa6 9 cd ed 1 0 e4 de 11 Axa6 ef 12 0-0 ± LaskerSchiffers, Nuremburg 1896.

b) 3 ... i1h5 is critical:

b1) 4 g3 Idd7 5 Ad3 (better 5 Ag2 lflxe5 6 de e6 7 c4 ! Dobosz, Chess Player 7) 5 ... e6 6 .llg2 0gf6 7 0-0 Ad7 8 .I1f4 O,{) 9 Axd6? (better 9 8d2 intending c4 ! - Dobosz) 9 .. ' cd 10 lflf4 Ag6 11 Qxg6 hg 4= (0-1, 36) PraszakDobosz, Lublin 1974.

b2) 4 g4!? llg6 5 h4 (5 lflxg6 hg 6 llg2 e6 = - Dobosz) 5 ... e6! London-5t Petersburg, 1886-87 (0-1,40).

Miscellaneous after 2 00 73

b3) 4 *d3 "Ulc8 5 c4 f6 6 1df3 e6 7 ilc3 ilg6 8 ~d 1 c6 9 e3 ild6 10 ~d2 10£7 11 ~1 4)d7 12 lflh4 ! Steinitz-Chigorin, 2nd match game 1889.

b4) 4 e4?! de 5 'i!Ya4+ c6 6 i.!Yxc4 8d7 7 {)xd7 i.!Yxd7 8 lde3 §d8 9 i.!Yb3 (9 e3? e5) 9 ... lflf6' 10 e3 e5! 11 de 4Je4 12 f3 4)c5 13 'i!Yc2 'iWe6 14 ile2i.!Yxe5150.{)ilg616e4f5! 4= Schlechter-Charousek, Nuremburg 1896.

3 llxf3!?

A Koltanowski simultaneous

game went instead 3 ... e6 4 i6'b3 b6 5 4)e5 Qf6 6 e3 .Q.e7 (If 6 ... .I1d6? 7 cd .I1xe5? then 8 de Idxd5 9 ~a4+ wins the .llg4!) 7 cd ed (7 ... 'iWxd5 8 l1b5+ c6 9 lflxc6 a6 10 Idxe7+ ~xb5 11 ~xb5 ab 12 Qc8) 8 .I1b5+ Ad7 9 4Jxd7 lflbxd7 10 .I1c6 and White won.

Black can transpose to the Chigorin variation of the Queen's Gambit by 3 ... 4lc6 (instead of 3 ... e6 or 3 ". Axf3) as in the 10th game of the 1889 match: 4 e3 (best) 4 ." e5!? (or 4 ... e6 5 If:lc3 .ab46 'iWb3 ! Pillsbury-Chigorin, St. Petersburg 1895-96) 5 i.!Yb3 Axf3 (5 ... .I1b4+ 6 Ad2 Axd2,. 7 lflbxd2 ed 8 cd de 9 fe 4)ce7 1 n e4 ± ECO) 6 gf ed 7 cd ideS (7 ... Idb4 8 eA ±) 8 ed Idd7 9 4)c3 i.!Ye7+ 10 .ile3 ~4 11 ~c2 lflgf6 12 .Q.b5 §.d8 13 0-0-0 a6 14 Aa4 .lle 7 15 ahgl g6 16 .llh6 ± (1-0,27) Steinitz-Chigorin.

4 gf

4 ef, intending f3-f4, also comes into consideration according to Koltanowski. The text can be

74 Miscellaneous after 2 00

followed up by e4 or (better) e3, 11g2 and 0-0 when White has the two bishops and targets in Black's weak it-side, he said.

The line occurred twice in the Steinitz-Chigorin world championship match of 1889:

a) 4 ... e6 5 cd "r»xd5 (5 ... ed 6 \%3 t Euwe) 6 e4 ~b4+ 7 Qc3 *a5? (better 7 ... ith5) 811d2 4:lc6 9 d5! ± (4th game).

b) 4 ... de 5 e4?! (5 e3 ! ECO) 5 ... e5! 6 de "itxd1+ 7 '37xd1 4:lc6 8 f4 fId8+ 9 ~d2 ~5 10 fIg1 4:lge7! + (6th game).

A3

2

afS

Koltanowski described this move as 'premature' while Botvinnik wrote that it 'had the advantage that it is comparitively rarely played', implying that there is little else to recommend it. However, the defence is not so easy to deal with in practice. Minev devoted an article to this (and the allied line 1 d4 d5 2 c4 ~f5) in Shokhmotny Bulletin 2/1977.

Once again White has no move as good as:

3 c4! e6

Alternatively:

a) 3 ... de? 4 '&a4+ regains the pawn with central control.

b) 3 ... ~? 4 cd '&xd5 5 4:lc3 and 6 e4 - Koltanowski.

c) 3 ... c6 4 cd cd (4 ... itxd5?! 5 ees) 5 *b3 itc86 .ll.f4 (not 6 e3?? "r»xc1+) is a sort of Exchange Slav. White follows up with Qc3 and flcl and has some initiative.

d) 3 ... <ilf6 4 iM>3! €le6 5 4:lc3 (5 "itxb 7? .I1d7! 60c3 nb8 7 ita6.ru,4 +to Minev) 5 ... e5?! (5 ... e6 below) 6 cd Qb4? (or 6 ... 4:lxd4 7 4:lxd4 ed 8 ita4+ c6 9 itxd4 ± l.evenfish] 7 e4! 4:lxe4 8 llb5+ c6 9 cd be 10 4:lxe5! .Q.e6 11 {lxc6 itb6 12 {lxb4 itxb5 13 itrxe6 fe 14 {lxb5 llxb4+ 15 '37e2 ±± Belavenets-Lisitsin, 10th USSR Ch 1937.

4 ~3

Also:

a) 4 cd?! ed 5 itb3 Qc6 6 l1g5 (6 '&xb7 {lb4! or 6 .Q.d2 Elb8 7 4:lc3 .Q.e6 - Botvinnik) 6 ... .Q.e7 7 llxe7 {lgxe78 e3 (8 '&xb7 Elb8) S ... i!rd6 9 {lbd2 (9 4:lc3 {}b4 10 flc:l .Q.d3) 9 ... 0-0 10 flc1 as! 11 a3 fIfcS 12 .Q.d3 a4 13 itc2 .Q.xd3 14 l'txd3 lfldS 150-0 <De6 16 flc:3 (BotvinnikKeres, World Ch 1945) 16 ... b6 ~. b) 4&3 and now:

bl) 4 ... &6 5 cd ed 6 a3 {lf6 7 .Q.g5 11e7 S e3 <De4 9llxe7 {lxe710 .Q.d3 0-0 11 0-0 §es 12 ite2 4:lxe3 = (}'S::}'S:, 40) Hohler-Korchnoi, European Teams Ch, Bath 1973.

b2) 4 ... 4lf6 5 iM>3!? 4:lc6 6 i!rxb7?! (6 c5 t Minev) 6 ... {lb4 7 {lb5 {}g4 8 {lxc7+ (S e4 fIbS! +) S _ .. itxc7! 9 itxa8+ (9 l'txc7? 4:lc2+

mating) 9 Wd7 10 ~5+ 4:lxe5?!

(better 10 itxe5 - Radulov) 11

de 4:lc2+ (11 ... lfld3+!? - Minev) 12 ~~ 1 {lx.ll 13 .Q.e3 4:lc2 14 .ll.xa7 ++ Learner-West. USA 1974.

b3) 4 ... c6 5 i6'b3 '&b6 6 c5 i!rxb3 7 ab {la6 S .ll.f4 f6 9 e3 4:lb4 10 ~d2 e5 = Rashkovsky-Belyavsky, USSR 1st League 1977.

c) 4 e3 0f6 5 i!rb3 €le6 when:

cl ] 6 ihb7 iDb4 7 {}a3 Elb8 8 VIIxa7 flaS 9 itxb7 flxa3!? (9 ... Elb8 draws.) 10 ba c£lc2+ is unclearEuwe.

ez) 6 c5 itc8 (6 ... f!bS 7 .ll.b5 ±) see A32, note b2 to Black's 5th.

c3) 6 A.d2!? fIb8 7 .Q.e2 (followed by 0-0) with complications in store; Kapelius-Dzindzhikhasvili, USSR 1969.

4 {k6(48)

48 W

A31 5.Q.d2 A32 5 e5

If 5 .Q.g5!? .ll.b4+ (or 5 ... i6'e8!?) 6 {le3 de 7 itxc4 itd5 - Minev. This needs tests.

Not 5 'l!'xb7? iDb4! and, as in note c1 above, Black has at least a draw.

A31

S A.d2 &8

5 ... dc?! was shown to be risky in the 8th Botvinnik-Smyslov match game of 1954: 6 '«1xb7 {lge7 (6 ... .ll.e4 is somewhat better, e .g. 7 {}C3 f!b8 8 'lta6 Qb4 9 'l!'a4+ .ll.e6 1 0 '«1dl t.) 7 *b5! fIbS S l'ta4 flxb2 9 {la3 'ltd7 (9 ... !h:d2!? should be analysed, e.g. 1 0 ~xd2 e5 or 10

Miscellaneous after 2liJf3 75

{lxd2 *xd4 11 ~1 c3 12 lfldc4 "If1c5.) 10 {lxc4 fIb8 11 e3 (t) 11 ... {}b4 (11 ... {}d5 12 a3! ±) 12 i!rxd7+ <$}xd7 13 ltxb4 ~b4 14 {}ce5+ \tieS 1 5 ad3 f6 16 .Q.xf5 and now 16 ... ef! (Botvinnik) should have been played.

6 e3 a6?!

Black's plan of ." de and ... b5 subsequently fails to materialise. So he should play the more straightforward 6 ... 0f6 7 {}c3 .Q.e7 which might equalise.

7 ~3 ~d3

8 'l1xd3 <ilb4

9 ilxb4 ilxb4+ 10 <ilbd2 ers 11 0-0 0-0 12 e5 .Q.xd2 13 {lxd2 e6 14 f4 (freezing the centre ready for 'itside action) 14 _ .. Qd7 15 b4 f5?! (15 ." f6 and later ... e5 was the only hope of counterplay.) 16 a4 "l!Jc7 17 fIfcl flaS 18 b5 fIfb8 19 {lf3 ab (19 ... *d8 might be better.) 20 ab "ftrdS 21 b6! flxal 22 flxa1 h6 23 Ha7! ± Petrov-Grau, Buenos Aires 1939. White can prepare a breakthrough with an eventual 0xb 7 or {lxe6. He won in 36

moves.

A32

S c5

1:lb8(49)

Also critical:

a) 5 .. _ i&d7 6 e3 f6 7 c£lc3 fIb8 !3 itra4 a6 9 b4 g5 10 Vi1b3 (10 b5!? Minev) 10 ... {lge7 11 h4 g412 {}d2 .ilh6 13 <De2 e5 = O'Kelly-Kostic, Bled 1950.

b) 5 '._ 'lrc8 and now:

b1) 6 ilf4 {lf6 7 {}c3 .ll.e7 S e3 t Euwe-Kmoch, Amsterdam 1933. b2) 6 e3 ors 7 .ll.bS lfld7 when:

76 Miscellaneous after 2 00

b21) 8 O~ Ae 7 9 ilIra4 <Beb8 10 b4 c6 11 .l1e2 t van den Bosch-Euwe, Amsterdam 1935.

b22} 8 1lxc6 be 9 O-D g6l f ColleNimzowitsch, Frankfurt 1930.

b23) 8 * a 4 .l1e 7 9 Axc6 bc 10 ilIrxc6 0-0 11 O-D §b8 1 2 ilIra4 (if 12 <Be3 §b4 with good compensation) 12 ... Ad3 13 §e1 e514<Be3 c615 e4 de 16 €lxe4 ed 1 7 ilIrxd4 .I1xe4 18 ilIrxe4 .I1xcS (Gulko-Dorfman, 45th USSR Ch play-off 1978) and now 19 ilIrc2l or 19 4)gS €lf6 20 ilIrc2 ! - Moiseyev and Shekhtman in 64.

49 W

6 <Dc3

Koltanowski recommended 6Af4 followed by €lc3, e3 and Afl-e2 or .ilbS (according to circumstances); the pawn at c5 is a thorn in Black's side.

An example is Flohr-Terpugov, 19th USSR Ch 1951: 6 Af4 4)ge7 7 {)c3 a6 8 e3 4)g6 9 Ag3 :J.e 7 1 0 ilIrd1 ilIrc7 11 :J.d3 .I1xd3 12 ilIrxd3 0·0 13 0-0 f5 14 ijab 1 ;1;.

6 eSt?

Or 6 ... .I1e7 7 .af4 ± Fine-Gran, Stockholm 1937.

7 e4!?

Or perhaps 7 {lxeS!? Minev analysed 7 iD'xdS 'ltrxd5 8 €lxd5 ed 9 4)c7+ ~d7 =. 7

8 9

10

50 W

ed

ef abS o-o s

de 1lxeS

Here Black has:

a} 10 ... <tlge7 11 1lxc6+ be 12 'ltrxc3 ifld6 13 t'Jxg7 ± - Portisch.

b) 10 .. Alf6 11 iflxc3 iWd6 12 .af4! 'ltrxf 4 1 3 iflxc 5 i6'd 6 14 §fe 1 4)e4 1S iflxd6 cd 16 §ad1 ± PortischKeres, Wijk aan Zee 1969.

A4

ors 7 0e5 .axeS 8 de {lhS 9 'ltra4 4:lxg3 10 hg .af5 11 e3 a6 12 g4 Ag6 13 0·0-0 bS 14 i1W4 *e 7 1 S {)b3 §b8 (Black dare not castle.) 16 .ad3 .Ilxd3 17 fud3 as 1 8 {)d4 4)d7 19 e4 b4 (19 ... cSt?) 20 ed (1-0, 40) Golz-Schmidt, E.German Ch 1968.

4 e6

5 .Ile2

A cautionary tale is LangewegDiickstein, Zurich 1976: 5 e4 {)f6 6 cd?? .ab4+ 0·1 (because if 7 {)bd2 4)e4 8 .ae2 Axf3 Of 8 de 4:lxd2}.

Also playable:

a) 5 h3 .I1hS 6 {)bd2 .ad6 = - ECO.

b) 5 <tlbd2:

bl) 5 ... Q.d6 6 .ilg3 4:lf6 7 .Ile2 0-0 8 c4 iD'e7 9 §c1 §fe8 10 a3 §ad8 11 0-0 .I1xg3 12 hg ars 13 ~b3 {)as 14 *a4 4Jc4 = ZamikhovskvRavinsky, USSR 1949.

b2) 5 ... 4:l.ge7 can also be considered with the idea of ... {lg6 and ... .ad6.

5 <tlf6

6 oile5 .axe2

7 itrxe2 4:lxeS 8 .axeS c6 9 0-0 .lle7 10 4)d2 0-0 11 .Ilxf6 .axf6 12 c4 .Ile 7 = de Greiff-Spasskv, Havana 1962.

2 4lc6

Now 3 c4 Ag4 transposes to the Queen's Gambit, Chigorin Defence. A full treatment of the variation is not possible here, but one example has been given above in A2. White has also tried 3 e3 .I1g4 4 .I1e2 ("" ECO) 4 ... .[)f6 5 {)bd2 i6'd6 (better S ... e6 - Lisitsin) 6 b3 e5 7 de 0xe5 8 :J.b2 <i:Jxf3+ 9 1lxf3 .af5 (better is 9 ... .Ilxf3 10 'ltxf3 .ae7) 10 O-D O-D-D 11 c4! dc (11 ... .ad3 12 .I1e2) 1 2 0xc4 ili'a6 13 itJc 1 .I1e 7 14 t'Jc3 t Lisitsin-Holmov, 21st USSR Ch 1954.

White can also consider a form of London System:

3 l1f4!? f!l.g4(50)

Continuing the fight for eS.

If 3 ... .I1f5 4 e3 e6 5 .ad3 .[)f6 6 .l1xf5 ef 7 iWd3! 0e4 8 itJb5+ iB'd7 9 O-D! i Euwe-Colle, match 1924.

4 e3

4 e4 won't work here (4 ... dell.

An alternative worth examining is 4 {)bd2 e.g. 4 ... e6 S c3 .I1d6 6 .I1g3

Miscellaneous after 2 00 77

AS

2 drSl)

Black is probably taking on too many commitments with this. In effect he is trying to play the Queen's Gambit himself, a tempo down. It is not easy to demonstrate an outright refutation but White should at least retain the advantage of the move.

51 W

A51 3 e4 A52 3 dc!?

Also:

a) 3 e3 is unnecessarily passive, but could transpose into lines of the Colle considered earlier in the book, after 3 ... ()f6 for example. Others:

al) Not 3 ... c4?! 4 {)c3 f5 50e5 <tJf6 6 b3 ± Pillsbury-Marshall, Buffalo 1901.

a2) 3 ... lilc6 offers White a last chance to play 4 c4, which however gives him a not very aggressive system against the Tarrasch Defence. Others (4 b3, 4 <tJbd2 or 4 .ad3?!) allow Black a free position with 4 ... .ilg4, as often demonstrated in games by Dus-Hotimirski before the 1914·18 war.

78 Miscellaneous after 2!£Jf3

b) 3 .Qf4 ilrrb6?! (3 ... !£Jf6 chapter 11) 4 de ~xb2 5 .aeS ~b4+ 6 !£Je3 e6 7 !!b 1 ~xc5 8 0b5 <i)a6 9 e3 f6 1 0 .ad4 ~e 7 11 t;Jxa 7 ± Sch lech terLeonhardt, Carlsbad 1911.

c) 3 g3 e6 4 ~g2 !£Je6 5 0-0 cd (5 _,. t;Jf6!? 6 c4 is a form of Catalan.) 6 t;Jxd4 .!lcS 7 e3 t;]ge 7 8 Qb3 .llb6 9 l£Jl d2 0-0 10 c4 dc 11 Iilxc4 ilxdl = Sandor-Karaklajic, Beverwijk 1967.

Ast

3 c4

This was probably introduced into master praxis by the great Polish strategist Akiba Rubinstein. He usually steered the game into a Queen's Gambit, Tarrasch variation e.g, by 3 ... e6 4 cd ed 5 t;Jc3 !£Je6 6 g3. With this system he scored fine victories against Marshall (Breslau 1912) and Capablanca (San Sebastian 1911). Unless Black is a Tarrasch Defence specialist he must reject 3 ... e6 and look for another

move. 3

clli6!?(52j

52 W

This position has been comparatively little studied. Other moves:

a) 3 ... ed!? 4 cd !£Jf6 see below.

Not 4 ... itl'xd5 5 !£Je3! (followed by -&xd4) nor 4 ... itl'a5+ S ~d2 *xd5 6 t;Jc3 iMl5 7 !£Jxd4 .Q.d7 8 e4 !£Jc6 9 f4 - Koltanowski.

b) 3 ... de when:

b1) 4 de? 'ilrxdl+ 5 'ttxd1 !£Jc66 e3 l1g4 7 llxc4 e6 8 a3 .!lxe5 9 b4 .ad6 10 l1b2 Qf611 Qd2<3ie7! 12~e2 (better 12 h3 first) 12 ... l1eS! lCohn-Rublnstein, St Petersburg 1909.

b2} 4 d5 {or 4 e4!? - Kmoch} 4 ... !£Jf6 5 <De3 followed by e4 and Axe4 with advantage - Koltanowski. 5 .. ' b5? is of course of no avail because of 6 !£Jxb5 Qxd5? 7 ifl'xd5! *xd5 8 t;Jc7+ ete. What would Rubinstein have done? Black has at any rate a poor form of Benoni.

4 cd

4 de is also playable. Then:

a) 4 ... *a5+? 5 .Qd2 'ltxc5 6 cd .llf5 7 !£Jc3 !£Jxd5 8 *b3 !£Jb4 9 Ae3 *a5 10 t;Jd4 ± Holloway-Harding, Cambridge 1972.

b) 4 ... e6! (= Pachman) transposes to Alekhine-Kaufman, AS2. Does Black really equalize?

4 cd

5 ~xd4!

Thelen-Pachrnan, Hradec Kralove 1944, went instead 5 *xd4 'ltrxd5 6 !£Jc3 'l!!rxd4 (6 ." *a5!? - Bisguier) 7 lflxd4 a6! 8 e4 e5 =. Or 8 g3 .Q.d7! (Polugavevsky-Vaganian, 42nd USSR Ch 1974) and Black drew with no trouble, but not 8 ... eS 9 <De2 .ad7 10 ~g2 ll.c6 11 e4! ± - O'Kelly.

5 4lxdS(53)

Or 5 ... a6 6 e4 !£Jxe4 7 *a4+ ~d7

8 *b3 ees 9 *e3 g6 1000 '/be7 11 'lbc3 ± Alekhine-Wolf, Pistyan 1922.

S3 B

This is a posmon from the English Opening (1 c4 c5 28f3lf)f6 3 d4 cd 4 !£Jxd4 d5 5 cd t;JxdS). That should put it beyond the scope of this volume, but for the fact that most books on the English (e.g. Tairnanov's and Cafferty's) do not consider this variation. The following summarises the theory as I find it:

6 e4!

The only move to set Black problems.

6 4lf6

Also critical are:

a} 6 ... ~4 7 'lba4+ Q4c6 8 !£Jxc6 Qxc6 9 .Qe3 e.g.:

al ) 9 '" g6 10 !£Jc3 ~g7 11 .Qb5 l1d7 12 §ell O-D 13 0-0 *c8 14 !£Jd5! §e8 15 l1c5! .Qf8 16 *a3! *d8 17 *g3 !:k8 18 ~xa7 ± Paehman-Gligoric, Lubliana 1945. a2) 9 ....... 5+ 10 -&xa5 4lxa5 11 !£Jc3 e6 12 .Qb5+ !£Jc6 13 a3 ! - Pirc. a3) 9 __ . .Il.d7 10 !£Jc3 e6 11 J1e2 fie7 12 0-0 O-D (lita-Louma, Rakovnik 1940) 13 §fdl ! (with

Miscellaneous ofter 2 t;Jf3 79

chances on the .side) . Pachman. b} 6 '" c3c7 (best, according to Pachman) 7 <De3 e5 8 !£Jdb5 *xdl + 9 \t>xdl fub5 10 {\xb5 (10 ~b5+ ll.d7 = Levin-Pinkus, USA Ch 1946) 10 ... !£Ja6 11 .ae3 .Q.e6! (11 ". b6 12 ilc4 ±) when, thanks to the badly-placed white king Black obtains compensation for the pawn sacrificed. Zita analysed 12 Qxa 7 .§d8+ 13 ~c1 .QeS and 12 Axa7 .ilb41 13 l1e3 O..o-D+. This line requires further investigation.

7 4:\c3

Pachman recommends 7 .Q.bS+ .ild7 8 e5!? e.g. 8 ... .llxb5 9 !£Jxb5 *xdl + 10 \t'xd1 Qd5 11 ~e2 a6 12 ~dl t.

7 e5

'7 ". e6 was preferable'· Kmoch. 8 i1b5+!

Not 8 4:ldb5 (Rubinstein-Reti, Budapest 1926) 8 ." a61 • Kmoch.

8 a.d7

9 4:\f51 4k6

10 !£Jd6+ hd6 11 -&xd6 fJe7 12 ~xe7+ !£Jxe7 13 .Q..e3! ± RubinsteinMieses, St Petersburg 1909.

A52

3 dc! ? {54}

A reversed Queen's Gambit Accepted.

3 e6

Alternatives:

a) Alekhine-Kaufman, Odessa 1919, went instead 3 __ . 4lf6 4 c4 e6 5 cd (5 !£Jc3 .Ilxc5 6 cd is only = according to Neikirkh and Tsvetkov.) 5 ". ed 6 .lle3 !£Ja6 7 g3 .Q.xc5 {N and T recommend 7 ... !£Jxc 5 8 .Q.g2 .ae 7 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 0c 3

80 Miscellaneous after 2lJf3

54 8

.l1fS =.) 8 llx(;S 9x(;S 9 llg2 0·0 10 0-0 .a.f5 (Black has a poor form of Tarrasch Defence now.) 11 4Jc3 !k8 12 0d4 .itg6 13 ~h3! 4)e4 14 §c1 4)xc3 15 f!xc3 4::Ie4 16 f!b3 Sb817 f4 ±.

b) 3 ... ih5+ [Golornbek] 4 4)bd2 ~xc5 5 e3 4)c6 6 a3 !. Euwe,

4 e4!?

Not 4 a3 llc5 5 b4 ~d6 6 .l1b2 <lli6 7 e3 0-0 8 0bd2 as J :r. Swiderski-Schlechter, Nuremberg 1896.

4

5 ab5+ 6 ed

Or 6 0·0 a6 7 ~4lf)ge7 84;)c3 d4 9 4::Ie2 a·o 1 a a3 e5 11 b4 ~a7 12 ~3 .!le6 13 b5 ab 14 .l1xb5 h6 ::

Pillsburv-Marshall, New York 1904.

6 ed

7 0·0 o!flge7

Not 7 ... 4)f6 8 4)c3 0-0 9 ~g5 ~e 7 1 a ~xf6 .llxf6 11 ~xd5 .llxc3 12 ~xd8 ~d8 13 be t Lasker-

a.x.c5 {le6

Tarrasch, match 1908. 8 l£Ic3

Capablanca-Rubinstein, Bad

Kissingen 1928, saw 8 4)bd2 when Black is a tempo up on the Tarrasch

variation of the French Defence (3 4)d2 (5) and so should have a good game. After 8 ... 0·09 4)b311b6 10 !lel ltg4 11 aes 4)g6 12 h3 .£},xf3 13 ~xf3 instead of 13 .. , 4)ce5? Rubinstein should have played 13 ... 4)ge5 14 ~dl 0xd3 15 *xd3 m6 '" (16 .lle3 d4 17 .Ild2 f!feB) according to Pachman.

8 0-0

9 ilf4 Qg4

10 lle2 a6

11 h3 lle6;;;;

e6 9 .Ild3 ± Pillsbury-Magyar. Vienna 1902.

e) 2 ... c6 may be answered by 3 e3 and a Colle formation in which Black cannot readily find counterplay. A 'lffside fianchetto would be

pointless and a later cS would

cost him a tempo, so 3 g6 is his

best plan. White can also play 3 c4 (when 3 ... dS is a Slav Queen's Gambit),3 .l1f4 or 3 .l1g5!?

B1

2

d6

Blackburne-Tarrasch, Leipzig 1894. B

Black invites transposition to the Old Indian by 3 c4. White has many possible replies, some of which (3 g3, 3 .IlgS) are beyond the scope of this book.

3 <tid]?

This could be played to steer the game into a Pirc Defence (after 3 ... g6).

Other lines with some independent significance are:

a) 3 ~d2 llfS [Pachrnan suggested 3 .,. dS!? or 3 ... 4)bd7 4 e4 e5 5 c3 g6,) 4 4)h4! .Ild7 5 e4 g6 6 llc4 c6 7 4)hfJ llg 7 8 .Ilb3 0-0 9 0-0 a5 10 c3 with a popular Modern Defence position, except that the black bishop is ill-placed on d7. TrifunovicPuc, Yugoslavia 1967, continued 10 ... b5 11 a3 ~c7 12 e5 4)dS 13 l=!el a4 14 .Ila2 .Q.fS 15 ed ~xd6 16 <8e4 !.

b) A Bogoljubow-Reti game went instead 3 .Ilf4 4)bd7 4 Qbd2 g6 5 e4 .l1g7 6 .lld3 0-0 with a position akin to the Geller system against the Modern Defence. The continuation was 7 h3 (;6 (better 7 ... :9.e8 . Reti)

1 d4 l£If6

2 4lf3

2 .,. e6 and 2 ... g6 in this position have already been discussed in detail. Black can also play:

81 2 d6

B2 2 es

Also:

a) 2 .. A.\e4?! (Keres-Becker, Vienna 1937) might be well met by 311W (compare chapter 5). White is a tempo up on the Trompowski Attack (2 .llg5 0e4 3.l1f4).

b) 2 ... b6 can be met by either a Colle or London formation, or by 3 .llg5 (beyond the scope of this book).

c) 2 ... b5!? is chiefly a psychological move, These Polish/Sokolsky systems for White and Black stilt await a definitive treatment. I recommend 3 c3 e.g. 3 ... .Q.b7 4 a4 a6 5 ab ab 6 fua8 .Q.xa8 7 i11b3.

d) 2 ... f6? 3 4)c3 .Q.f5 4 4)h4 .llg6 5 4)xg6 hg 6 ~d3 ~f7 7 e4 c6 8 ~f3

Miscellaneous after 2 4)f3 81

8 O{) 'Y!1c7 9 .Ilh2 eS 10 c3 4)hS 11 a4! as 12 4)c4 b 5 13 ab c6 14 0e3 4)b6 15 g4! ±.

This game can be found complete in Reti '5 book Masters of the Chess Board.

3 Qg4.

Other alternatives to 3 ... g6 are: a) 3 '" llf5 4 lDh4 e6 5 QxfS ef 6 ~d3 -Mrd7 7 g3 dS 8 .Ilg2 c6 ::

Samisch-Reti, Pistyan 1922 .:

b) 3 ... d5 was recommended by Pachman in view of 4 .l1g5? 0e4 and 4 .llf4 .llfS 5 e3 e6 followed by ." ile7, ... 0-0 and ." c5. But an interesting alternative is 4 ~d3, e.g. 4 ... {)bd7 5 .llg5 e6 6 e4 ile 7 (a sort of French Defence!) 7 e5 0e4!? 8 ,l'he7 -Mrxe7 9 4)xe4 de 10 ~xe4 iM>4 11 4)d2 ,*"xb2 12 f!b1 ~xa2 13 .Ild3 with compensation for the pawn; Smvsiov-Bednarski, Havana 1967.

4 e4 <tIbd7?!

4 ... e6 is better.

S eS {lg8

6 h3 llxfJ

7 -Mrxf3 c6 8 .!lf4 dS (8 ... e6J ! Informator 25) 9 e6! fe 10 .Q.d3 4)gf6 11 'tte2 ± e.g. 11 .,. g6 12 ~xe6 .ilg7 13 0-0 (13 0-0-0) 13 ... 4)hS 14 .Q.g5]? (14 .!le3) 14 ... <DfB?! (14 ... lld4! CD) Kasparov-Lutikov, Sokolsky Mern. Minsk 1978.

B2

2

c5

Now 3 c4 is an English . which would transpose to ASl . and could also become a Catalan or Tarrasch Defence.

White can also steer for a Colle by

82 Miscellaneous after 20f3

the conservative 3 e3 or play:

3 d5 b5!?

The alternative is 3 ... d6, which will normally transpose to the Modern Benoni (or at least some sort of Benoni) after White's best move4c4.

The only line of independent significance is Spielmann's 3 ... d6 4 <Dc3 .llf5!?:

a) 5 g3 h6 (5 ... lLIe4! "" Pachman) 6 ,Il.d2 gS 7 h4?! (better 7 0-0) 7 .,. g4 8 <DeI2 lLIbd7 9 e4 .I1g6 10 <Dc4 Ag7 11 .llf40-0 12 '/td2 'ifih7 13 f3 bS! 14 fg (14 <De3 b4 or 14 lLIxb5 gf 15 .axf3 lLIxe4) 14 ... be 1 5 h 5?! Axe4 16 .ilxe4 lLIxe4 17 lLIxe4 .llxb2 18 §.b1 <De5! 19 'if}fl c3 20 '/te2 ~d7 (0-1, 30) Kmoch-Spielmann, Vienna 1922.

b] 5 4ld2 gS! 6 e4 .llg6 when:

b 1) 7 h4 g4 8 .lld3 lLIbd7 9 <Dc4 a6 10 a4 b6 11 .llf4 lLIh5! = GriinfeldSpielmann, Innsbruck 1922.

b2) 7 il.e2 Ag7 8 0-0 <tlbd7 9 §.el? (After 9 f4l? might Black play for .side castling?) 9 ... 0-0 10 .afl <De5 11 00 lLIxf3+ 12 ~xf3 h6 13 'I1&d1 (White fails to find a plan.) 13 .,. lLId7 14 .ile3 <DeS 15 f3 f5 + Griinfeld-Spielmann, Pistyan 1922.

4 c4(55)

4 .I1g5!? could be played to complicate the game, and 4 ... l'tb6!? is an interesting reply.

4 .Qb7

4 ... e6 transposes to the Blumenfeld Counter Gambit.

4 ... d6 or 4 .,. g6 would become

55 B

8 Stonewall (2 e3 with f4 and c3)

a Benko Gambit.

S 34

Best according to Pachman, who analyses:

a) 5 .c2 e6! +.

b) 5 .[k3 b4 6 lLIb 1 e6 + .

S bc

6 €lc3

Here Black has:

a) 6 ... e6 7 e4 (±) 7 ." lLIxe4!? 8 4Jxe4 ed 9 4Jc3 d4 10 -'1.xe4! de 11 .I1xf7+ 'ifixf7 12 ~3+ ± RubinsteinSpielmann, Vienna 1922.

b) 6 ... d6! 7 e4 g6 8 .axc4 .llg7 9 0-0. There is insufficient experience with this sort of position, which can arise when the Benko Gambit (1 d44)f6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 bS) is met by 4 a4 be,

Since the player of Queen Pawn Openings presumably chooses 2 4)f3 rather than 2 c4 to avoid defences like the Benoni, my advice is to avoid all this sort of thing by not playing 3 dS. Instea.d 3 c4 or 3 e3 (which should transpose to lines considered earlier in the book, or to a symmetrical Queen's Gambit Tarrasch) are recommended.

This opening, though rarely seen nowadays, was not uncommon before the 1914-18 war. It is characterised by the white pawn structure shown in diagram 56.

56 W

It is easy to see why this formation is called the stonewall! White sets up a barrier on the dark squares and intends to place a knight on e5 in the middle-game, or to attack on the \$l-side with moves like g2-g4-gS and/or f4-f5. The disadvantages of the opening are the hemmed-in queen's bishop (even more restricted in its scope than in the Colle) and the very slow development of White's attack which gives plenty of time to Black to arrange his

counter-blows.

Black's bishops stand best on b7 and e 7 against the Stonewall. Nor should he be in any hurry to castle. White is better placed to attack on the '\tl-side than in the centre.

1 d4 dS

White can also set about stonewalling against 1 ... 4)f6 by 2 e3 etc., but Black has an even wider range of counters:

a) 2 ... c5 3 c3 b6 followed by ... Ab7, ... d6, ... oilbd7 and an eventual ... e5.

b) 2 ... b6 3 f4 Ab7 4 ffi c5 5 Ad3 g6 6 0-0 .Ilg7 7 c3 0-0 8.e1 dS (8 ... d6!? A ... e51 9 ~4 lla6 10 ~a6 fua6 11 (}bd2 bS 12 a3 -ltb6 13 ~5 lihc8 14 g4 ... Black has a sound development but White retains prospects of a ~siJe attack, Kan-Alatortsev, USSR Young Masters 1936.

c) 2 ..• dS was tried in NenarokovGrekov, Moscow Ch 1928. That game continued 3 Ad3 c5 4 c3 4)bd7 5 f4 <De4 6 ltxe4 de 7 <DeI2 f5 8 {)h3 b6 9 -'tixe4! fe 10 ~5+ g6 11 -&d5 §.b8 12 1t:lg5 e6 13 <£lxe6

84 Stonewall (2 e3 with f4 and c3)

i6'h4+ 14 g3 itf6 15 ifrxe4 ~b7 16 d5 W 17 iB'a4 ifre7 18 e4 ~g7 19 0-0 m.e8 20 f5 \tIg8 21 .I1f4 1De5 22 !tid 1 gf 23 ef a6 24 ite4 Qf7 25 ~b8 ~b8 26 f6 ~f6 27 M5 ~g7 28 d6 Qxd6 29 ~d61-0.

2 e3 Qf6

2 .. , e6 3 ~d3 c5 4 c3 4X6 5 f4 g5!? 6 fg'lbg5 7 Qf3 itg4 8 ite2 f5 9 Qbd2 4)f6 10 4)fl f!g8 (ShowalterMaroczy, London 1899) is unclear.

3 1l.d3 c5

This is generally played, to gain space, but is not absolutely forced.

Instead 3 ... Qc6 4 f4 has been met by:

a) 4 '" ~4 5 00 e6 6 c3 ile7 7 Qbd2 0-0 8 ite2 4:lhS?! (8 '" .I1f5!? - Neikirkh and Tsvetkov) 9 ~xh7+ \tIxh 7 10 QgS+ hgS 11 iYxg4 4:lxf4 12ef ilh613 4:lf3 ± LundquistReyes, Moscow 19S6.

b) 4 ... e6 5 a3 (instead of c3 since ... c5 has been omitted) S '" ild6 6 00 0-0 7l£)c3 b6 8 <tieS .ilb7 9 *F3 {Jd7 10 iirtl3 f51 = Lee-Oiigorln, London 1899.

c) 4 .. Alb4 5 00 4:!xd3+ and now: c1) 6 ihd3 e6 7 O-O.ile7 8 b3 0-0 9 c4 b6 10 4)c3 .ilb7 11 .ilb2 c5 12 !!ac1 f!c8 13 4:le5 CJe4 = GottschallSchlechter, Munich 1900.

c2} 6 cd e6 (6 ... g6 may also equalize.] 7 0-0 .ile7 8 4lbd2 0-09 -&c2 .ild7 10 <i:lb3 .ila4 11 itc3 b6 12 iD"e1 c5 ~ Tarrasch-Chlgorin, Hastings 189S.

3 ." g6 is also possible, e.g. 4 4ld2 ~7 5 f4 c5 6 c3 itc7 7 1De2 (7 ite2 ().() SIilgf3!? may hold the balance - ECO.) 7 ... ilf5 8 ilxf5 gf 9 O.()

Qbd7 10 4)f3 <tIe4 11 .ild2 e6 12 ~1 O-O.() ~ Goldberg-Kamyshov, USSR 1949.

4 c3

Other possibilities (4 l0c3!?) have not yet been explored.

4 e6

Other possibilities:

a) 4 ... ~ 5 f4 .ilg4 (S ... g6!? ECO; S •.. e6 below) 6 00 e6 7 Qbd2 (7 O.() .ild6 8 itel 0-0 94:leS ~fS! + Pachman) 7 ... ~6 8 g3? (or 8 O.() cd! i) 8 '" f!c89 0-0 <tId7 1 0 *e 1 0-0 11 e4 cd 12 4:!xd4 ifrb6 13 m2 eSJ 14 ed 1De7 15 fe <tIxe5 16 ile4 fS ;: Oskarn-Euwe, corres 1920.

b) 4 ... ~d7 S f4 g6 6 4)f3 Ag7 7 4':Jbd2 (7 O.{) 0-0 8 4JeS fIc7 l) 7 ... b6 (7 ." 0-0 is premature, and White may attack with h3, g4 etc.) 8 4:lbd2 .ilb 7 is a reversed Dutch.

c) 4 ... 'fIc7 S f4 .ilg4 6 00 e6 7 ita4 <£Ibd7 8 Qe5 c4 9 4:\xg4 <tIxg4 10 ile2 <£Ih6 11 b3 cb 12 ab a6 13 0-0 l1d6 14 c4 04) 15 c5 ile7 J6 b4 ! Chajes-Capablanca, New York 1911.

5 t4 .[k6

6 cDd2(57)

Or 6 <£If3 <£Ie4 7 0-0 f5 8 4:leS Qxe5 9 fe .ild7 10 Qd2 ile7 11 4)xe4 de 12 ~c4 bS 13 ru,3 c4 14 ilc2 0-0 15 f!d2 llc6 i Marshall· Capablanca, New York 1911.

6 ~6

The most common response, but the bishop may be better placed on e7 so that an invasion by White's ~5 can be repulsed by ... tzJxeS followed by ... <£Ifd7 and ... f6.

57 B

Others:

a) 6 ... ~1? 7 Qgf3? (better 7 ite2 to avoid the next possibility)? '" ~7? (missing 7 '" Qg4, a tempo gain allowing Black to set up a counter-Stonewall by 8 '&e2 f5) 8 0-0 V!1c7 9 .tieS ild6? (The best hope now is 9 ." 0-0 intending ... Qe8 and '" f6.) 10 itf3 cd? (Releases the tension; 10 ... c4 would be even worse.) 11 ed f!b8 12 g4 es 13 g5 <£Ig8 14 ~h5 g6 15 llxg6 fg 16 <£Ixg6 hg 17 '&xh8 'Pf8 18 00 lle8 19 Qe5 b4 20 gf3 Qc:e7 .21 gh3 Axe5 22 fe <£Its 23 lL:J2 b3 24 f!h 7 *a5 25 f!f1 1-0 was a junior game, annotated by Barden in The Field, 1975.

b) 6 ... b6 7 <£Igf3 ilb7 8 <tieS c4 (better 8 '" *c7) 9 ilc2 es 10 O,() g6 11 e4 4)e 7 1 2 a4 a6 13 ab ab 14 !:has V!1xa8 is f5! ilg7 16 ~xf7!? (Alekhine-Liubimov, Moscow 1909) is unclear, but 16 Qg4 (Alekhine) would have given White the initiative without the risks of a sacrifice.

c) 6 ... ~e7 74:lgf3 0-08 4:le5 "/!Jc7 9 0-0 b6?! 10 g4 (Sheila Jackson-a. Green, Manchester Open 1974) 1 0 ... ~5! 11 fe 4Jd7 and Black plays

Stonewall (2 e3 with f4 and c3) 85

on the 'iA'-side - J .E.Littlewood in Chess.

d) 6 ... 'lltc7 sets a positional trap: d1) 7 .agO? cd! 8 cd? (According to Nimzowitsch, White would have compensation for the pawn after 8 ed 'llYxf4 9 Qc4 'll'Jc7 10 4Xe5 .lld6 11 *e2.) 8 ... Qb4 9 .ilb1 ild7 10 a3 f!c8! 11 0-0 ru,S! 12 §el 4X2 13 Axc2 itxc2 14 'itxc2 fuc2 15 h3 .Ild6 16 <tIb1 Qe4 17 4Jfd'2.1ld3 -+ (0-1, 37) Van Vliet v, ZnoskoBorowsk i, Osten d 1907.

d2) '7 4lh3 followed by -ttf3 would have been the. better course' - Nimzowitsch, My System (p.193). d3) 7 -ildf3 <£Ie4 8 <£IeS cd 9 he4 <£Ixe5 10 fe de 11 ed f5! 12 ef gf 13 ithS ifrf7 14 't% 5 '!!'d 7 1 S il1h 5 'Iltf7 Y:dS Marshallupablanca, match 1909.

7 4lh3!?

Bagirov recommends 7 iJf3 in ECO, e.g. 7 ... ild7 8 Qh3 *b6 9 Qf2 0-0-0 1 o 0-0 ~b8 11 e4 de 12 <£Ifxe4 <£Ixe4 13 Qxe4 $1e 7 14 de llxc5 lS <£IxcS fIxe5 16 .ile3 ± Marshall-Rubinstein, Vienna 1908.

7 4Jgf3 is also good:

a) 7 ... b6 8 4JeS ~b7 9 'I'tf3 ± Sultan Khan-Rubinstein, Prague 1931.

b) 7 ... cd 8 cd .lld7 9 a3 &8 1 (, ifre2 itb6 11 0-0 <tIe7 12 {)e5 Jlc6 13 b4 ~4 14 .a.b2 -'42 15 !;!ac1 llxd3 16 V!1xd3 O.() 17 <9b3 (Maroczy-Janowski, Vienna 1902). White won in 42 moves, but is Black at a serious disadvantage?

7 'fIc7

Other tries:

86 Stonewall (2 e3 with f4 and e3)

a) 7 ••. 'lbb6 8 0.0 Ad7 9 ~ 1 O.o.Q 10 00 Ae8 11 I£lf21£ld7 12 "lte2 f6 13 c4 Ah5 14 g4 Af7 15 a3 l:!he8 16 de I£lxc5 17 b4 u-o, 46) BreyerLeonhardt, Berlin 1920.

b) 7 ... Ad7 see below.

S 0-0 ~7

Possibly 8 ... b6 and 9 .. , Ao7 is better.

9 .e2 !'!ds

10.nO O,,()

11 4le5 Ac8 12 0f2 b6 1 3 i6'f3 llb 7 14 g4 4le 7 15 g5 4le8 16 iWh3 g6 17 0fg4 f5 18 0116+ ~g7 19 i6'h4 4:lg8 20 nO! tilxh6? (Loses; Black should play 20 ... Axe5 first.) 21 i6'xh6+ ~g8 22 1£lxg6! hg 23 "ltxg6+ flg7 (23 ... 4:lg7 24 nh3 followed

by Ae2) 24 '&xe6+ itf7 25 llxf5 'ilg7 26 .ilh7+! ~xh7? (26 .,. ~8 27 i6'h6 "hh5 28 §h3 "ltxh6 29 nxh6) 27 i6'h6+ ~8 28 g6 1.Q Sorokin-Talvik, Tbilisi Ch 1929.

Summary

9 Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (2 e4)

The main column line (after 6 ... lld6) tends to favour White, because his centre is so solid that Black has difficulty in finding central counterplav against the almost automatic White ~side build-up. However, there are several promising suggestions for Black in the notes.

The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (1 d4 d5 2 e4 de 3 1[)c3 I£lf6 4 f3) is one of the small class of openings which, although they must be considered dubious from an objective viewpoint, have the capacity to inspire fanatical devotion in some players. White sacrifices a central pawn and apparently jeopardises the safety of his king. On the other hand, Black is set unfamiliar problems and (because of the very outrageousness of the gambit) is often waging a psychological war within himself at the same time as trying to solve the problems on the board.

A loss against the BlackrnarDiemer in a serious game is one of the most ignominious fates that can befall a chess player - especially as Black losses tend to be short and catastrophic - and Black is loth even to draw. All this of course helps White! So does the fact that most masters who have written on the opening (e.g. Pachman) have tended to under-estimate the dangers that Black faces. The treatment of the

gambit by Bagirov in ECO is manifestly inadequate - just one note, a few lines only.

The Blackmar-Diemer is the epitome of coffee-house chess and the people who employ it are often very resourceful players who have studied the published analyses (e.g. by Diemer, Gunderam, Tejler and Kampars) and have worked out their own ways of dealing with the standard defences. Therefore Black should temper with caution his joy at receiving a free pawn when his opponent ventures to play the gambit against him.

The difficulty in dealing

adequately with the BlackrnarDiemer in a theoretical work JS not a shortage of practical examples and analyses; rather the contrary. The problem is that these ideas have rarely been tested in the fire of international competition among masters. In the majority of available games one or other side plays unconvincingly. It is often very hard to assess whether White has or has not sufficient compensation for

88 Blackmar-Dtemer Gambit (2 e4)

his pawn in the absence of top-class games. Whether you will be successful with the Blackmar-Diemer chiefly depends on your style and on the level of opposition which you meet. In a friendly or lightning game, however, I am all for playing this gambit: it leads almost inevitably to unusual and exciting games.

1 d4 d5

2 e4(58)

58 B

First discussed by the New Orleans player A.E.Blackmar in Bren tano 5 Chess Monthly lin 1882.

2 de

Black can play 2 ... e6 (French) or 2 ... c6 [Caro-Kann) but if 2 ... eS? 3 l1e3 de 4 f3 f5 (4 ... 4)f6 5 fe €Ixe4 6 l1d3!) 5 fe! and if 5 ... ith4-t- 6 g3! *xe4+ 7 *e2 *xh1 8 ~2 ± - Diemer.

3 ~3!

This was recommended by von Popiel in Deutsches Wochenschach I 1893.

Blackmar's 3 f3 is bad because of 3 ... eS! e.g, 4 de (or 4 d5 ~c5!) 4 ,.. i*xdl+ 5 ~xd1 €le6 (Diemer) 6

Af4 €lge 7 + - Korn.

3 ~6

Not 3 ... SUS? 4 f3 ef 5 il1xf3 l1c8 6 .Ilf4 4Jf6 7 O.{)..Q c6 8 d5! ~4? 9 de! ±t Bovarinov-Utemov, USSR 1962.

3 ... e5?! is complicated. Diemer devotes nearly twenty pages to attempts to refute it (4 de . von Popiel; also 4 d5!? or 4 €Ixe4 are discussed at length) but we shall follow Arthur Hall's recommendation in Chess (1964). White can play 4 .Ile3 with good compensation, e.g.:

a) 4 '" Q.fS S .Q.c4 tile 7 6 f3 €le6 7 d 5 ef ('too good to be true' - Diemer) 8 €Ixf3 4)b4 9 .1lb3 .!£)g6 10 0-0 .Q.d6 11 a3 {)a6 12 €lgS 4:lf4 13 .Q.xf4 ef 14 §el-t- Ae7 (14 ... ~8 had to be tried.) 15 4:lxf7! '31xf7 16 d6+ ~g6 17 !!xe7 h6 18 .Q.f7+ ~7 19 ~5 .Q.xc2 20 tile4 .Q.xe4 21 fue4 M6 22 !k6 *g5 23 .Q.g6-t~g8 24 ~e1! !:If8 25 §e8 'il'txh5 26 !!xf8+ 1-0 H.Schmidt-Me1cher, W.Germany 1956.

b) 4 ... ed 5 Axd4! and now:

b1) 5 ... ~6 6 .Ilb5 Ad7 7 .!£)ge2 €lxd4 8 l'hxd4 06 9 4:lxe4! .Q.xb5 10 ite5+ ite7 11 €Ixf6-t- gf 12 itxb5+ c6 (Mabbs-Karaklajic, Bognar Regis 1960) 13 itc4! t. The game went 13 -tftf5 and was eventually drawn.

b2) If 5 ... c5 6 Ae5! 'ltxd1+ 7 fud1 + e.g. 7 ... €le6 (or ... €ld7) 8 'ilb5; 7 ... .Q.f5 (or ... .Q.g4) 8.Q.b5+; 7 ... f6 8 .Q.xb8 or finally 7 ... 4)f6 8 t3 - Diemer.

4 f3(59)

4 ~g5, transposing to what is now known as the Richter-Veresov Attack, was von Popiel's plan. The synthesis of 3 {x3 and 4 f3 deserves to be called the BlackrnarDiemer Gambit, though as he explains in his book (p.15) Diemer found this move-order in a footnote to the Handbuch des Schocbspiels; it had been played in 1889 by one Dr. Ryder of Leipzig.

59 B

Only two moves are worth considering here:

A 4 ~f5

B 4 ef

Others in brief:

a) 4 ... eS? 5 de! ~xd1+6'it'xdl! €ltd7 7 €idS 'it'd8 (the exchange sacrifice is unsound.) 8 ~g5+ f6 9 ef gf 10 €lxf6 ~e7 (10 ... h6 11 €Ixd7+) 11 €Ixe4 4)c5 12 0h3 07e5 13 €If4 .Ilf5 14 .Ilxe7+ ±t DiemerElbert, W.Germany 1949.

b} 4 ... e6 5 fe ~b4 6 Q.d3! 0xe4 (6 ... c5 7 a3!) 7 4)ge2! (7 ~xe4? 't%4+) 7 ... €lf6 (7 ... ~d5 8 .!le3! - Hail) 80-0 b6 9 .!lg5 .!le7 10 .ilxf6 Q.xf6 11 ~4 c6 12 d5! ~d7 (12 ... cd 13 0xd5) 13 de ~xe6 14 €If4 ~c4 15 ~d3 ~c5+ 16 ~1 0-0 17 0e4 ~e7 18 i%5 0d7 19 f!ael

Btackmar-Dtemer Gambit (2 e4) 89

~d8 20 §e3 .ilxb2 21 ~xh7-t-!! 'it'xh 7 22 €If6-t- 'it'h6 23 §h 3+ 'it'g5 24 0h7+ (24 0e6+!) 24 ... 'it'g4 25 l;}hS 'iM6 26 l2J5xf6+ €lxf6 27 £te2 mate; Duthllleul-Hachln, Rouen 1956.

c) 4 ... c6 5 €Ixe4 (5 fe e5! O'Kelly] 5 ... €Ixe46 fe eS 7€1f3 ed 8 .llc4! - Diemer.

d) 4 ... c5!? 5 d5 ef 6 ~xf3 (6 €lxf3 g6 compare B12) 6 ... .Q.g4· (6 ... g6!? . Hall) 7 .Ilb5-t- 0bd7 8 ~2 e6 9 h3 .Ilf5 10 .!lg5 jle7 11 d6! .Q.xd6 12 0-0-0 ~c7 (Braune-Bares, W. German Junior Ch 1949) 13 .ilxf6! gf 14 g4 .Ilg6 15 'll1xf6 0-0 16 Axd7 i*xd7 17 h4 ±t - Diemer.

A

4

afS(60)

Hans Muller's Vienna Defence, which is based on sensible ~rounds. Since most of Black '5 losses are due to backward development, resulting from pawn-grabbing, why should Black not refuse the pawn and develop instead? White's fourth move, weakening his ~side, means that he cannot switch to a positional game, but must find ways to complicate - usually at the cost of

90 Blackmar-Dlemer Gambit (2 e4)

further holes in his \f;..side pawn

structure.

White can now try:

A1 5 g4 A2 5 fe

Diemer also considers 5 d5 (when I suggest S ... e6!) and S .ag5 (5 ... <Dbd7).

Then there is the Soller Attack: 5 ilc4 e6 6 g4 (If 6 fe lDxe4 7 ors .ae7! +) 6 ... ~xg4 7 fg iWh4+ B ~1 .axg4 with active counterplav:

Bellin-Bohm, London 1977.

A1

5 g4 ~

White hopes to harass the minor pieces and use the advanced pawns in an eventual attack on the castled king, but his own king is in at least equal danger.

6 h4(61)

This at least has the merit of consistency. Others:

a) 6 f4 e6 7 .ag2 .!lb4? B a3 .!lxc3+ 9 bc ± was suggested by the German postal player M.Kloss. However, Euwe's 7 ... c5 is a considerable improvement.

b) 6 gS~5 (6 ... lDh5!? - Baumbach; 6 .. , ~d7!? - Euwe) when:

b 1) 7 ~xe4 'recovers the pawn but leads to an inferior position for White as he has no compensation for the ~side weakness' as Medni~ said. Tartakower-Simonovic, Paris 1954, continued 7 ... e6 B c4 ~7! (not B ... .!lb4+? 9 ~e2! trapping a piece) 9 ~3 4)bc6 10 .!le3 4)fS 11 lDxf5 .!lxf5 12 .!lh3 .!lxh3 13 ~xh3 and now either 13 ... .!le 7 as played or 13 ... ~7! (Diemer) would be

strong.

b2) 7 llg2 (Peters) and 7 fe (Kampars) have also been tried, but cannot hope to alter the fundamental drawbacks of White's game.

\tbB 25 be itxc3+ 26 'ltrc2 'ltre3+ 27 'ltrd2 'ltrc5+ 28 \t'b2 \%S+ 29 .!lb3 as 30 a4 iM1 31 'ltrxaS 1-0.

7 g5 4.'kI5

If 7 ... 4)fd7 (Muller) White can try 8 lDxe4 e5 9 ~2 (Gunderam) or 8 'ltre2!? (Diemer) rather than 8 fe eS 9 de ~6 which Black wants.

8 ~xe4 e6?!

As Euwe says, a conclusive judgement on the variation must await the testing of h is improvement 8 ... c6!? 9 c4 ~7 10 lDh3 ~d711 4Jf4 e5! This may offer Black sufficient counter-chances, but can hardly be called a refutation of the BlackmarDiemer gambit.

After 8 ... e6 White has several promising continuations:

a) 9 ~h3 ~7 10 c4 4JSb6 11 {)f4 ± [Diemer-Asgstrorn, Gothenburg 19S8) is the line quoted by Euwe. b) Gunderam suggests 9 e3 Bbd7 10 .Ild3 e.g.:

b1) 10 ... e5 11 ~2 cd (11 ... §c8 12 0-0 or 11 ... .!le 7 12 itc2) 12. lDxd4 eS (12 .. , ~S 13 .!lbS+) 13 ~S itb6 14 a4 ~3 15 ite2, or

b2) 10 ... eS 11 itb3 4J7b6 12 Be2 intending .!ld2 and c4 .

c) 9 Q.c4 (9 a3!? - Diemer) 9 ... 4Jb6? 10 Jlb3 lDe6 11 c3 .Ild6 12 ~2 0-0 is an exam ple of what Black should avoid. White has a decisive attack: 13 LDxf4 .Ilxe4 14 fe g6 15 e5 tle7 16 <Z:lxh5! gh? (16 ... l;)xeS 17 de 'lttxd 1 + 18 tlxd1 ±) 17 ~xh5 LDxd4 18 g6! €lf3+ 19 ~e2! fg 20 'l*xg6+ ~h8 21 i*h6+ ~g8 22 She6+ §f7 23 itg6+ ~h8 24 .!lxf7 .!lf8 2S itg8 mate.

61 B

6

h5

Two cautionary tales:

a) Eigstrand-Honfi, Candidates, 1'2- final World Corres Ch 1959: 6 ... h6!? ('unclear' - ECO) 7 lDh3! e6 (7 .. ' ef 8 'lttxf3 Bc6? 9 .!lbS WeisslederSvensson, Fernschoch 1971) 8 ~4 itd6 9 .!le3 e5 10 lflxg6 fg 11 de ~xe5 12 f4 itaS 13 g5! hg 14 fg ~5 15 itg4! ~7 16 *xe4+Be7 17 0-0-0 0-0-0 18 .!lh3 {)fS 19 hS! fuhS 20 *e6 .!lcS 21 .!lf4 .!ld4 22 ~xg6 llxc3 23 be 1-0.

b) Nilssen-Anderssen, Grenaa 1973: 6 ... ef?! 7 il:I'xf3 c6 (7 . __ lDe6 8 .!lbS - lntormator 77) B hS! .I1xc2 9 §h2!? (Diemer gave 9 tle2 *xd4 10 itxc2 'ltrg4 11 ith2!) 9 ... i6'xd4 10 fuc2 i6'xg1 11 §g2 *d4 12 ,g,e3 *d8 13 §d2 lflbd7 14 0-0-0 with compensation for the pawns. There followed 14 ". *a5 (better 14 ". h6) 15 g5 ~5 16 'ltte2 ~fd7 17 .!lf4 e6 18 §e 1 f6 19 .ilh3 0-0-0 20 .I1xe6 .!lb4 21 .!lxeS fe 22 !!cd1 .!lxc3 23 fud7! llid7 24 fud7

Blackmar·Diemer Gambit (2 e4) 91

A2

5 fe(62)

Diemer's preferred method. It seems less dangerous to Black, however.

62 B

5 4::lxe4

Not 5 ... .!lxe4 6 ~xe4 8xe4 7 iM3 ~6 (7 ... i6'xd4? 8 c3 *eS 9 .!lf4 't'te6 10 0-0-0) 8 .I1f4 ~6 (8 ... c6 9 0-0-0; 8 ... lfld7!?) 9 .!ld3! l;)xd4 10 iM2 ~6 11 O,()-O ± Diemer-Keifer, Villingen 1938.

6 'l&f3 4ld6

Or 6 . __ lflxc3 when:

a) 7 be itc8 8 .I1d3 .I1xd3 9 cd and now MCO (11th ed.) recommends 9 ... c6 + Hoev-Lvon, US Forces Ch 1970. Black's plan is ... *e6+ followed by ... 'l*dS, or if 10 8e2 then 10 ... lDd7 11 0-0 ~6 1 2.1lgS il1e6 13 8f4 iMS and White cannot justify h is pawn sacrifice.

b) 7 *xf5 ~dS (7 ... e6 8 iM3 '!%4+ 9 g3 i'J'e4+ 10 .Ile2! ± SeidalMorozov, W.Germany-USSR corres 1959{i0) and now Diemer recommends 8 a3 (e.g. 8 ." e6 9 il1d3 and 10 8f3) to improve on 8 c4?! e6 (and 9 ... l1b4+) or 8 .!lgS h6 9 i'J'h3 against which A. van der Tak 's 9 ... hg 10 i'J'xh8 8e3 seems

92 Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (2 e4)

strong.

7 !tf4 e6

Euwe used to recommend 7 ... 'llfc8 but now acknowledges that Black has problems after 8 ~xd6! cd (8 ... ed 90-0-0) 9 .Q.b5+ .Q.d7 10 tDge2! as in Focke-Mulherr, 1958.

8 0.()4) c6

Strobl-Unzicker, Graz 1970, went instead 8 ... 4"ld7 9 g4 .Q.g6 1 0 ~e3 .I1e7 11 <8f3 f6!? (Unzicker lost an earlier game with 11 '" 0-0 1 2 h4 hS 13 4JeS.) 12 -ehe6 .Q.f7 13 ~e3 0-014 h4 4Jb6 1S d5 §e8 t.

9 g4

MCO only considers 9 d5 cd (9 ... .I1e 7 10 ddhe6 11 4Je4+) 1 0 4Jxd5 .lle4 11 ~e3 ed 12 fud5 .Q.e 7 (or 12 ... rs) 13 .Q.b5+ 4Jc6 14 .Ilxc6+ be 1 S fud6 .I1xd6 1 6 ~xe4+ Wf8 17 4"lf3 hf4+ 18 ~xf4 if1f6 19 lr1b4+ lr1e7 + . Diemer, Gunderam and MUlier.

9 ~6

10 'lte3

Here Black has:

a) 10 ... Qd7? 11 d5 cd 12 fudS! 'i!Jc7 13 f!d2! a6 14 lr1g3 eS 1 S .Q.xe5 4Jxe5 16 4Jd5! ± - Hall.

b) 10 ... ~7 is critical, as Hall said in Chess 4S9460. Can 11 d5!? (Rasa-Haase, Dunedin 1963) be sound after 1 1 ... cd, or should White first play Diemer's 11 4"lf3 (hoping for 11 ... 4Jd7 12 dS!)? The piece sacrifice on d5 is always in the air, but possibly Black can deal with it.

B

4

ef

In view of the problems White is

able to create for his opponent in MUlier's Defence, it seems best to accept the gambit. Now:

Bl S 4Jxf3 B2 5 ~xf3?\

19 gf €lf6 20 \%6 g6 21 ~g6 1-0. b) S ... e6 (too passive) 6 .Q.g5 (6 .ad3 is also plavable.) 6 ... .Q.e7 (6 ... cS 7 d5 a6! . Euwe; or 7 .Q.xf6! - Hall) 7 ~d2 (7 ~3 is still strong.) 7 ... 0-0 8 lld3 4Jbd7 9 'i!Jf4 b6 10 ~4 !'k8 11 0e5! with a dangerous attack; Diemer-Rf uller, Hastings Challengers 19S7, continued 11 ... 4Jf8 12 0c6 itYd6 13 4Jxe7+ oi!Jxe7 14 0-0 €lg6 1 5 .Q.xg6 fg 16 4Je4 §.f8 17 .Q.xf6 gf 18 fuf6 fuf6 19 €lxf6+ ~8 20 *e4 f!b8 21 f!f1 .Ilb7 22 'i!Je5 t'1d6 23 Qe8+! 1-0.

c) 5 ... c:5 6 d5 g6 is a variant of B 1 2. After 7 .I1f4 a6 8 a4 .Ilg 7 (Diemer-Bogoljubow, Constance 1948) White can obtain compensation for the pawn by 9 .Ilc4 0-0 10 0-0 - Diemer. This needs tests. B11

B1

5 ldxf3(63)

~3 l~ ~l~t f@ f@ .. f@ f@ f@ f@ ~ f@ ~ f@4Jf@ ftf@ f@ft

B11 5 .Ilf5

B12 5 g6

Others are inferior:

a) 5 ... !tg4 (Teichmann) 6 h3 (6 .Ilc4!?; 6 .I1e2!? is also possible) and now:

a'l] 6 ... ru.5 7 g4! .Ilg6 8 4JeS (± . Euwe) or 8 ilc4 e6 9 itre2 HallNolte, Blackmar-Diemer Wortd corres final.

a2) 6 ... axf3 7 itrxf3 c6 (7 ... 'ltrxd4? 8 itrxb7) 8 .Ile3 e6 (8 ... If:Jbd7 9 0-0-0 If:Jb6 10 d51 :t!: • Diemer) 9 ~d3 0bd7 (9 ... itd6!? - Rhodes) 1 0 O~ (10 0-0-0 failed in G.Miiller·Danner, Blackmar-Diemer thematic. corres final) 10 ... fie7 11 .§f2 (11 g4!? . Diemer) 11 ... t'1aS 12 0-0 is said to be = by MCO and ECO. Compare this with the continuation of Diemer-Gereben, Zwolle 1959: 13 fuf1 h6 (13 .. ' e5 14 g5€ld5 1 5~f5) 14 h4c515 gS hg 16 hg cd 17 itrh3! de 18 .§g2 gfc8

5

.I1f5

This natural developing move contests White's initiative. It was suggested by Tartakower.

6 4le5!?

White feels the need for early complications to justify his pawn sacrifice. Against other moves Black is able to consolidate by plans which are not hard to find, for example:

a) 6 .I1c4 e6 7 0-0 4Jbd7 8 'ifre2 c6 when:

a1) 9 4leS 4Jxe5 lOde can be countered by 10 ... ~d4+ 11 'tlh 1 €le4 'f (Hall) or 10 ... 4Jd7 + Eigstrand-Lim Hong Gie, }r2-final 4th World Corres Ch 1959-61.

a2) 9 !tgS ile 7 1 0 E!ad 1 'i!1c 7 with a flexible, Caro-Kann type of

Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (2 e4) 93

position . and an extra pawn! Not now 11 €le5? because of 1 1 ... 4Jxe5 12 de .ag4 13 ~2 ~xe5 ++. b) 6 ad3 flxd3 7 'i!1xd3 4Jbd7 allows Black to choose between ... e6 or ." g6~ased development plans, with a ... cS or ... e5 freeing move when king safety has been ach ieved. The exchange of bishops reduces White's attacking prospects and Black's position has no weaknesses.

c) 6 !tgS (and maybe 6 4Jh4!? .ag6 7 4Jxg6) offer White some scope for complicating the position. Black should, however, be safe with the same simple development as in notes a and b.

6 e6

The analyst G.Gunderam

proposed 6 ... h5?! (to forestall g4) but White then seizes the initiative by 7 't'tf3! ~c8 8 .Q.c4 e6 9 .Ilg5 and has good compensation for the sacrificed pawn. The plausible 9 ... fle 7 is answered by 10 0xn! .Q.g4 11 ~d3 ~xn 12 h3 as given by the U.s. master, Ken Smith.

7 g4(64)

This cut-throat continuation is almost always played.

A postal game Marhwardt-i'oschk, 1963, went instead 7 *3!? c6 8 fle3 4Jbd7 9 0·0-0 with chances for both sides. Black could attempt a direct refutation by 7 ... ~xd4 8 ~xb7 ~xeS+ 9 .Ile2 fle4 <", e.g. 10 4Jxe4 il:'1xe4 11 itrc8+ \'i'>'e 7 12 ~xc7+ 4Jbd7 13 b3 4Jd5 14 .lla3+ ®e8 1 5 t'1b 7 41c3 ++.

There are now two distinct lines:

94 Blackmar-Dtemer Gambit (2 e4)

64 B

Bl11 7 <De4!?

B112 7 .I1g6

Blll

7 4\e4!?

Black goes for an immediate counter-attack.

8 ru,S+!

The only move that is any good. Others:

a) 8~? ~xd4! (not 8 ... ~4+? 9 \tle2!) +.

b) 8 h4? 9xc3 9 be .I1e4 +.

c} 8 gf? ~4+ 9 \tle2 ifrf2+ 10 \tld3 9cS+ 11 dc (11 ~c4 a6 + DiemerGunderam, corres 1958-59) 11 ... €la6 12 .I1e3 (or 12 ge4 0.(1-0+ 13 \tlc3 ~xf5) 12 ... !'l.d8+ 13 'i&c4 i£fxe3 14 ~xd8+ (14 9d3 §.d4+ leads to mate.) 14 ... 'i&xd8 15 4:lxf7+ ~c8 16 4lxh8 i#4+ ++ Peilen-Kampars, Blackmar-Diemer thematic corres tournament 1968· 69.

8

9 O~ 10 be

11 1ld3

If 11 4:lxg6 hg 12 ~3 i£fc7 13 .ilf4 then 13 .. , .Ild6! poses White awkward problems, Seidel-

c6 <tlxc3 .I1g6

Gunderam, corres 1963-64.

11 Qd6

12 .lbg6!

If 12 4lxg6 hg 13 §.f2 'ltth4 14 -e'te2 -tld7 Black's chances are preferable. Euwe gives 15 !Thl !Th8 16 .Ilxg6 O.(l! but 1S ... 0.(1.(1 may be even better {16 §.xf7? .Ilxh2+}. Wh ite can try 1 S .I1xg6!? but the endgame after 15 ... .I1xh2+! 16 §.xh2 "&xh2+ 17 "&xh2 §.xh2 18 .Ilxf7 + <:$)xf7 19 \tlxh 2 e S! is very poor by contrast with the one reached by the text move.

After 12 .I1xg6 Burger-Holzvoigt, 6th German Cup corres, went 12 ... hg 13 9xf7 .I1xh2+ 14 ~g2 il'Jd5+ 15 i*f3! (improving on Gunderam's 15 §.f3 0.(1 16 c4 il'txc4 +) 15 ... §.f8 16 "&xdS ed 17 .I1a3! §.xf7 18 fun ~n 19 §'f1 +! This move guarantees that the white rook will reach the 7th rank, causing Black problems.

The game continued 19 ... ~e8 {19 ... ~e6 20 '§el + Wf6 may be somewhat better} 20 §.f8+ ~d7 21 ~xh2 ~c7 22 ~g3 a5 23 Ad! bS 24 .Ilf4+ ~b7 25 §.xb8+ with a winning ~ and pawn ending.

B112

7 i1.g6

Black prefers to continue relying on natural moves.

8 i1.g2

8 h4 .Ilb4 9 .ilg2 c6 transposes. In this line White leaves his Wside wide open and makes many pawn moves - offences against the first principles. Of course Black still has to prove a refutation!

On the other hand, 8 m3!? c6 {8 .. , ~xd4!? again} 9 g5 (or 9 .lle3 .I1b4 10 .I1d3 4lbd7 11 .I1xg6 hg - Gunderam) 9 ... {)g8 10 .lle3 9d7 11 h4 9d7 12 h5 4lxeS 13 de J1xc2 (Euwe) hardly seems to offer White any compensation for the two lost

pawns. 8

9 h4

c6 ru,4(65)

65 W

10 oon

White has also tried:

a) 1 0 ~5 -e'taS 11 .I1d2 .I1xc3? (but 11 ... 4lbd7 12 a3 .I1xc3 gains a tempo - Gunderam) 12 -'txc3 il'tc7 13 "&e2 with compensation thanks to the two bishops (1-0, 28) Sneiders-Fogel, corres 1965.

b) 10 hS (Lagland-Fernandez, corres 1973 -74) 10 ... .I1e4 11 .I1xe4 {)xe4 12 ifrf3 {)d6 13 0-0 0-0 - Gunderam. White's Wside looks exceedingly porous and he is still a pawn down. His nebulous tactical chances should not be sufficient compensation.

10 ~d7

10 ... J1xc3 11 be 0-0 also comes into consideration.

11 4lxd7

If 11 h5? {or 11 g5 .I1h5! + -

Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (2 e4) 95

Pachman) 11 ... {)xe5! 12 de .Q.c5+ 13 ~hl il'txd1 14 §.xdl {)xg4! ++ Nicolaisen-Gjerdrum, corres,

11 'ltxd7

12 h5 ilxc3

13 be il.e4

14 h6 ilxg2

15 hg !Jg8

16 l!x.f6

The German postal player Groth recommended 16 ~xg2 in Fernschoch 1972/9; e.g.:

a) 16 ... ~5 17 c4 ge7 (17 ... 4)b6 18 cS) 18 ~f3 (or 18 .I1h6) 18 ... {)g6 19 .Q.h6 and White has the initiative.

b) 16 ... lfle4 (16 ... "&d 5+ 1 7 ~h 3! ge4 18 .Q.h6) 17 i!'1f3 {)d6 18 llh6 intending ~d3.

c) However, J think that the shady side of White's position may be exploited by t 6 ... ~e4! 17 ittf3 f5! supporting the {) on its strong square. Then if 18 .rut6 0-0.(1 19 E!bl §.xg7! with a powerful counte attack, whilst the endgame after 18 gf §.xg7+ 19 ~h2 ef 20 ~xf5 (or 20 ~h5+ -em) 20 ... il'txf5 21 §.xf5 {)xc3 (or 21 ... O{).(I) is clearly in Black's favour.

16 *e7! +

This is more active th<::."1 16 ... .I1e4 17 "&e2 .Q.g6 18 .Q.h6 ~d6 1!; m2 o o-o 20 J1f4 '&d5 ..,. (1-0, 33) Diemer-Witte, BDG·World corres 1968-69.

After 16 ... ~e7 Engler-Groth, German corres, went 17 ~f2 .I1d5 18.11f4 (18 .I1h6? ~4) 18 ... §.xg7 19 .§h2 rs 20 g5 §.xg5+! 21 .I1xg5 ~xg5+ 22 ~1 0-0.(1 23 '&e2 §.g8

96 Blackrnar-Diemer Gambit (2 e4)

24 't'lh"2 Ac4+ 25 Wel i*gl + 26 Wd2 l'txa1 27 fuh7 ~1 28 ~xf1 ilxf1 0-1. There is still scope for new invention but B112 seems to vindicate the Tartakower-Gunderam Defence.

B12

5 g6(66)

Bogoljubow's Defence, in which Black fianchettoes his klng's bishop and aims for a solid position. White has no immediate threats to meet, 50 he can adopt any of several development schemes.

66 W

6

This is almost invariably chosen.

Others:

a} 6 ~5!? ilg7 7 l'td2 h6 (7 ... O..() compare note b) 8 .!l.e3 4:llid7 9 0-0-0 08b6 10 4Je5 c6 11 .lle24)bd5 12 08xd5 4)xd5 13 .af2 intending with pressure; Pape-Fechner, final, Btackmar-Dierner international thematic corres.

b) 6 ~f4 .l1g7 7 ~d2 O..() 80·0-0 (8 .!l.c4!? - Diemer) 8 ... c5:

b1) 9 d5? a6 10 a4 b5 11 ab ab 12 ~b5 4:le4 13 i6'e2 4)xc3 14 bc .!lxc3 15 4)d2 fu 1 + 16 {)b 1 ~a5 0-1 French-Teller. corres 1967.

b2} 9~5!? (Tejter, Hall) 9 ." 4)a6! (common sense) and Black stands well.

6 i\g7

Now:

B121 70"() B1227Ag5 B123 7 {}e5

Also:

a) 7 'lte2!? 0-08 Ag5 .!l.g4 9 0-0-0 (Gunderam) cc ,

b) 7 ~f4 c6? 8 l'td2 4)bd7 9.!lxf7+ Wxf7 10 4)g5+ Wg8 11 4:le6 tfa5 1 2 O..() 4)f8 13 4)c7 §.b8 14 fuel e615 Ae5 08bd7 16 413d5!! 1"() (RoosFechner, final, Blackrnar-Diemer thematic corres) shows how things can go wrong for Black even in this defence, if he neglects basic precautions such as castling.

B121

7 O.{) O.{)

8 'l6'el(67)

The Studier Attack. Others:

a) 8~5? 4Jc6! 9 4Jxc6 be when: al) 10 h3 4)h5 (or 10 ... 4Jd5 11 .Q.b3 .!l.a6 + Schoch-Echo 6/1953) 11 4:le2 e5! 12 g4 tfh4! + DiemerNiephaus, Freiburg 1951.

a2) 10 af4 41fg4 11 dS eS! 12 de il'rd4+! (0-1, 37) Diemer-Wolk, 5th match game 1951.

b) 8 .Q.g5 c5 9 d5 h6 10 Ah4 41e8! allows Black tb consolidate his extra pawn; Diemer-Kloss, cortes.

c) 8 llf4 or 8 ~hl (preparing .!l.e3) have not been much studied. They should not be any better.

8 -tlbd7!

Not considered by Euwe. Most books give 8 ... 0c6!? as the best

67 B

defence, e.g. 9 't'MI4 and now:

a) 9 ... .[)g4 (Brinckmann, Euwe) 10 h3! .!l.xd4+ 11 Wh1 .llf6124)g5 h6 13 4)xf7 il'rd4 14 fuf6 ef 15 4)xh6+ 'ttJg7 16 4)xg4 titxc4 17 Jlh6+ Wf7 18 l'txf6+ \t>e8 19 -ttixf8+ Wd7 20 ~1+ 1-0 StudierHallier, Freiburg 1959.

b) 9 ... .Q.g4 10 .lle3 ~f3 (10 ... l'td7 11 4:le5) 11 §.xf3 is critical:

b 1) 11 ... h6 12 thd1 (leversFritts, USA corres 1964-6S) 12 ... ~7 and if 13 .llxh6 ~h6 14 §.h3 Qg8 - Euwe.

b2) 11 ... e6 (Gunderam) e.g. 12 ~f1 <8dS 13 .llg5 .I1xd4+ 14 ~h 1 f6 is Qe4 4Jce 7 (Duth illeulGriesmann, Bordeaux 1958) 16 c3!? is unclear.

b3) 11 ... e512 d5 4:ld413 Axd4 ed 14 ~xd4 4:le8 '" Brinckmann, Euwe.

9 «rh4 4)b6

10 i1b3 a5(68)

Pachman gives this as favourite for Black. Too optimistic? This position was discussed by D.}. Rogers in Correspondence Chess 52/1976. White can try:

a) 11 llh6 a4 12 08g5 ab 13 .!l.xg7 C!;xg7 14 fuf6 h6 15 §.xf7+ fun

Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (2 e4) 97

68 W

16 l'txh6+ Wxh6 17 4)xf7+ r3;g7 18 08xd8 be and Black seems to be winning, e.g. 19 ntH .I1g4! or 19 &1 c6 20 fuc2 §h8! (Rogers) or 19 dS .af5!? 20 4:lxb7? 41xdS 21 €Jxd5 §.xa2 22 §.c1 fub2 23 4)f4 !!bl 24 4:le2 .I1d3 =++ - Harding.

b) 11 a4 and now:

b1) 11 ." ~412 4:le2 (12 h3 4)f6 13 .llh6 looks promislng.) 12 ... €Jd5 13 c3 .ilf6! 14 .llg5 4:kIe3 + Hayden-Rogers, corres 1975.

b2) 11 ... -tlbd5!? was rejected by Rogers on account of 12 4)xd5 4)xd5 13 Axd5 "&xd5 14 il'rxe7 (14 ... .llxd4+? 15 4)xd4 ~xd4+ 16 'ttJh1

threatening .llh6). However, 14 .

~c6! 15 c3 (15 llf4 .I1f5! ~) 15 .

.Ile6 16 Af4 fuc8 17 {}e5j? ~d5 seems to leave chances aoproximately equal. This deserves further investigation, as does:

b3) 11 .. , Q.g4!? - Pachman. 812

7.Q.g5 0.0

Or 7 .,. 0bd7 8 ~d2 c6 9 h3 b5 1 0 .Ild3 a6 11 0-0 0-0 1 2 .ah6 4)b6 1 3 §.ae 1 Jle6 14 0e4 €Jxe4 15 .I1xe4 4)c4 16 titc1 .adS 17 c3 4)d6 18 J'lb1 f6 19 4)h2 J'lxh6 20 -ttixh6

98 Blackmer-Diemer Gambit (2 e4)

8fl 21 'l6M '#ig7 22 8g4 i*d6 23 §e3 fue8 = Solter-Heuer, Switzerland 1959 n-o, 46). This type of position offers White some positional compensation but it took Black several errors to lose.

8 'l6'd2

Th is contrasts with the ~ 1-h4 manoeuvre characteristic of the Studier Attack. White in effect plays as if he were not a pawn down - the right policy against the Bogojubow Defence.

8 a6

Others:

a) 8 ... c5!?, suggested in Richter and Teschner's book, SchochEroffnungen, led to an unclear position after 9 d5 8bd7 10 a4 4)b6 11 .I1a2 ~f5 12 0-0 in Stock-Pape, final, Blackmar-Diemer thematic corres tournament.

b) 8 ... 1lg4 9 8e5 -'1f5 10 0-0-0 l£)bd7 11 lttf4 If)b6 [Stock-Fechner, same event) 12 -'1b3 a5! 1 3 g4 .!lc8! I think Black has better chances on the i*-wing than White has on the '#i-wing.

9 a4 ilfS

10 O..() lik6

Richter and Teschner prefer 10 ... €Ibd7 with the idea that if 11 -'1h6 then 11 ._. e6!

11 &dl 4:le4

12 -tlxe4 .Ilxe4

13 ah6 il.ds

If 13 .. _ ilxf3 14 .!lxg7 ilxdl 15 ilxf8 'ltxd4+ 16 i!\'xd4 8xd4 17 ilxe7 White has a favourable ending.

14 ~g7 ~xg7

Not 14 _ .. .Ilxc4? 15 'itih6! with the threat of ~5.

15.ile2 'ltd6

16 c4 .Ilxf3

11 §.xf3 §.ad8 18 dS 'l6'c5+ (18 ... h6! /). 19 §h3 g5 or 19 ~c3+ 4)e5 20 !'!e3 f6 - Richter and Teschner) 19 'l&h1 ~4 20 i*e3 €laS 21 .§.h3 .§.h8 22 .§.fl i1Ixb2? 23 'I11xe7 .§.hf8 (23 ... .§.df8 24 !Thf3!) 24 -ltfh4 .§.h8 25 fufl+! Wxfl 26 §f3+ 1-0 Diemer-Vetter, Rastatt 1953_

B123

7 0-0(69)

about equal (MCO 10).

9 O-tl c51

Black reacts vigorously. Others:

a) 9 ... c6 (Nievergelt; f ECO) 10 £lli3! (Diemer) and as Horowitz says, White has excellent prospects. Not 10 ... €Ixe5 (10 _ .. 4)b6 see b) 11 de ~6+ 12 ®h 1 9g4 because of 13 e6 ll)f2+ 14 Sxf2 i'&xf2 1 5 ef+ Sxf7 16 *d8+ ilf8 17 8e4! (17 ~h6 ~h3!) 17 ... ms 1 8llJg3 ~xg5 19 ~xf7+~xf7 20 .§.f1+ ±!: - Euwe. b) 9 ... 0&6 10 .1lb3 c6 11 i'&d2 Cilbd5 (11 .. ' as? 12 a4 4JbdS 13 !!ael 4lxc3 14 be c5 15 *e3! Kaulich-Klenke, corres] 12 !!ae1 (Diemer-Sutterer, Rastatt 1952) and now 11 ... ~e6 (Euwe) is critical.

10 .[lxd7 "ltxd7!

Horowitz suggested 10 ... £txd7 11 de *c7 :: (12 b4 .l1f6), but this is untested.

11 d5 ~4

Here White has:

a) 12 h3 8eS! 13 .ilb5 *c7 14 d6 and now the exchange offer 14 ... 'l6'xd6! 15 ~xd6 ed 16 ae7 ae6 gives Black at least equality - Diemer, Euwe.

b) 12 "lte1 -&d6 13 'lth4 (or 13 .Ilf4 e5 - Euwe) 13 .. _ f6 14 -'1f4 e5 15 ~2 ns 4)e4 i'&d8) 15 _ .. f5 16 h3 €lf6 17 4)b5 'l*d8 18 d6+ ~h8 19 l1g5 a6 20 0c7 §b8 and Black has a tenable position - Kloss in Fernschoch 1954. Diemer supports his assessment with the sample continuation 21 §ad 1 b5 22 ~e6 .§.b6 23 £txc8 i1Ixc8 24 8d5 4)xd5 25 fud5 'olfrd7! (26 lle7 §fc8).

8 ags

Also worthy of consideration are:

a) 8i6'e2!? ee ,

b) 8 af4 (perhaps best) when:

b 1) 8 .. _ o&d7 9 0-0 4)h 5? 10 4)xf7! fuf7 11 ilxf7+ 'tl'txf7 12 Q.xc7+. b2) 8 ." e6 9 ~d2 4)d5 10 ilxd5 ed 11 O-O-O.Ile6 12h4h5? (12 _ . .lJd7 is criticaL) 13 g4~ .IlxeS 14 de .Ilxg4 15 .!lg5 i'&e8 16 8X'd5 't'te6 17 J1e7 8d7 18 i*h6 i*xeS 19 llxf8 §.xf8 20.§.he1 1-0 Bohnke-Engel, corres,

8 ~d7

Also possible is 8 _" €le6 e.g. 9 8xc6 bc 10 *d2 8d5 (HeilBogoljubow, Wangen 1962) and now 11 O-O-O! (Diemer) is only

Blackrnar-Diemer Gambit (2 e4) 99

82

S itxf3!?(70)

It is sometimes claimed that this move, the subject of Diemer's book Yom Ersten Zug An Auf Matt (Towards mate from move one') is stronger than the recapture with the knight. It has certainly been less analysed than 5 8xf3 but its soundness is more debatable.

70 B

White leaves a second tempting pawn en prise, but if Black declines it then where is the white king's knight to be developed?

S g6!

Bogoljubow's Defence is clearly best here, I think.

Others:

a) S .,. i!rxd4 is given as the refutation by both Euwe and Pachman, but matters are not so clear after:

al ) 6 ~f4 (intending 7 Qb5) - Bagirov, ECO.

a2l Not 6 .Q.d3? *g4 7 ilW2 e5 8 Qf3 ilb4 + - Pachrnan.

a3) If 6 ile3!? then:

a31) 6 __ . ~b4? 7 0-0-0 ~g4?! 8 4Jb5! ±t is a famous trap.

a32) 6 ... 'l6'g4 7 i*f2 e5 is critical (not 7 ." i1Ib4? 8 0-0-00g4 9 8d5!

100 Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (2 e4)

~a5 1 0 ~e1! :tt Diemer), e.g. 8 gn3 e4 {or 8 ... ~b4 9 lDge2 II 10 0-0-0 - Diemer} 9 l1c4 ~5 10 -e;-g3 c6 11 4)h3. This line has occurred in a few postal games and deserves more testing.

b) 5 ... c6 6 ild3 (6 ~3!? - ECO) when:

b1} 6 .. ' 'l!'xd4 7 ~3 ~g4 8 'tW2 e5 9 h3 i!Yh5 10 4)ge2 ild6 11 0-0-0 (~ 1 2 g4) 11 ... e4 1 2 ilxe4 {)xe4 13 4:Jxe4 ile 7 14 4)f4 'i!1a5 15 ~g3 0-0 16 §d5!! cd 17 4)h5 g6 18 0hf6+ ilxf6 19 4)xf6+ '#ig7 20 -e;-e5 '#ih8 21 .I1h6 4)c6 22 .I1g7+! '#ixg7 23 4le8+ '#ih6 24 M4+ g5 25 'ltrf6+ '#ih5 26 4)g7+ 1-0 Mabbs-L. Alexander, London 1961.

b2) 6 ... Q.g4 7 M2 e6 8 h3 .a.h5 9 {)ge2 4)bd7 10 0-0 Ae7 11 g4 ilg6 12 g5! ~a5 (12 ... .Q.xd3 13 gf ilxe2 14 fg) 13 gf gf 14 <i)f4 0-0-0 15 ild2 -e;-g5+ 16 '#ihl *116 17 *112! 'i!1h4 (17 ." .llxd3 18 4le6! .lld6 19 .Q.xh6 9.xh2 20 <tlxd8 .llxfl 21 4)xf7) 18 §fg1 f5 19 b4 e5 20 b5!! ef 21 be <tlb6 22 cb+ ~xb7 23 .Q.f4 l1d6 24 ilxd6 §Xd6 25 -e;-xd6 .llh5 26 'itg3 1-0 (Honfl-Fuster, Hungarian Ch 1950) is that rarity - a BlackmarDiemer between two players of genuine 1M strength, and won by White at that.

6 ~f4

Or 6 .lld3 .Q.g7 7 <tlge2 0-0 8 ~f4 <tlc6 9 0-0-0 transposing.

6 ~7

7 O~.Q

Diemer has also experimented with 7 lflb5!? 4)a6 and now 8 <tlge2 or 8 0-0·0.

O~

~xd5! cd 26 {)c3 §fb8 27 4)xd5 ~gS+ 28 ~bl f1b7! 29 :ad3 e6 30 4Jc3 f5 31 'itJa2 §d8 32 '3tb3 e5 33 d5 e4 34 §d1 9.f6 35 '<&b4 ilxc3 36 ~c3 §bd7 37 d6 ~ 38 ~d4 ~e6 39 a4 !'k8 40 b4 ba 41 '#ic4 a3 42 ad2 t1t8 43 E!a2 !!xd6 44 ilxd6 '#ixd6 and Black won; DiemerBogoljubow, South Baden Ch 1949. However, White may be able to get away with 16 .Q.xf7+! fuf7 17 .llxb4 <tld5 18 'ite1 e.g, 18 ... <De3 19 E!d3 <tlxg2? 20 ilYg3. Therefore, when I reached the diagram position in a postal game, I played instead:

b) 15 ... ~bd5 16 4)g3 a4 17 ilxd5 <tlxd5 + Now MicklethwaiteHarding, corres 1974-75, continued 18 h4 (possibly 18 '#ibl) 18 ... b4 19 h5 b3 20 cb ab 21 a3 ilYb6 22 4le2 l:ha3?!! (22 ... c5! is less flamboyant, but more accurate.) 23 ba -(tra6 24 '#Jb2? (24 .Q.c3! might be a refutatlon.) 24 ... ~d3 25 '#ia1 'itc20-1.

7

8 1'«13

If 8 .llc4 4)bd7! (8 ... 4:k6 9 dS) 9 <8ge2 (or 9 4)b5 If:le8 1 0 ~g3 <tld6) 9 ... 4)b6 10 .ab3 as intending ." .ag4 and/or ... 4)bd5 . analysis.

8 &6J

Diemer-Burger, 1950, went

instead 8 ... 4)bd7 (8 ... ;lg4? 9 ~xb7) 9 g4! c5 10 h4! cd 11 h5 de 12 g5 cb+ 13 '\t'b 1 tf)b6 14 gf ;lxf6 15 hg <8a4 16 gf+ winning the queen. Another Diemer game went 8 ... c6 9 lflge2 .lle6 10 h4 4)d5 11 h5! etc.

9 .!£lge2 10 itf2 11 ~4 12 h3 13 ~xe2

14 .Q.b3

15 S1d2(71)

Or 15 c3 a4 16 a3 ab 17 cb 4:ldS + Oscarsson-Hornstein, %-final 4th Corres World Ch 1959-61.

~4 ~b4

c6 ~e2 b5

a5

71 B

Black can decline the gambit by MUliers 4 ... ilf5 but White seems to get adequate tactical chances in A 1, and maybe even in A2. Acceptance of the gambit seems best, followed by ... g6 if White captured with the queen. If White plays the superior 5

Conclusion

Black is probably winning. Two examples:

a) 15 .. , a4!? 16 .Q.xb4? ab 17 a3 .llhS+ 18 '\t'b1 be+ 19 '#ixc2 4)d5! 20 iMI4! .Q.g7 21 .Q.c5 If:le3+ 22 \t'cl .Q.f6 23 ~e4lflxdl 24 fud1 ~d5 25

Btackmar-Diemer Gambit (2 e4) 101

4)xf3 then the choke is between ... g6 once again, or the more forcing Tartakower-Gunderam Defence, 5 ." ;1f5. If then 6 If:le5 e6 7 g4 ;1g6! Bear in mind that Bogoljubow is the only world-class player to be involved in Blackrnar-Diemer praxis, and that he always preferred plans involving the '#i-side fianchetto for Black. He obtained good results so there seem to be good grounds for following his example. Black after all should be looking for lines that give him winning chances, not for equalizing continuations.

From White's point of view, you are probably not afraid of risk (in fact you probably enjoy it) or else you would not consider playing this gambit. It certainly offers good practical chances of an attacking win and relatively few opponents will feel comfortable against it. The viability of the Blackmar-Diemer in postal chess at sub-master level shows that the correct defences are by no means obvious to everyone.

If you hope to reach a BlackmarDiemer after 1 d4 4)f6, you can try 24Jc3 (as 2 ... d5 3 e4lflxe4 4 ll)xe4 de 5 ;1c4 is good) but 2 ." c5 is often the answer. You are most likely to get what you want via '2 f3!? d5 (2 ... c5 can now lead to a Samisch King's Indian) 3 e4 de 4 4)c3. Good hunting!

Index of Complete Games I ndex of Variations
(underlined = player named was White)
L.Alexander 100 Engler 95 Milner-Barry 71 Page numbers italicised.
-
Anderssen 90 Euwe ~,71 Napolitano ~
Antoshin 68 Fairhurst 43 Nenarokov ~
-' -
Aronson ~ Farago 49 Nilssen ~
Bagirov 4 Flohr 37 Nimzowitsch 6 Colle
Bernstein 45 Franklin ~22,i1 o 'Hanlon 31 1 d4 ~f6 2 ~f3 II e3
Blackburne 12 French ~, O'Kelly ~
Bogoljubow 31 R.Fuller 93 Olafsson 55,68
Behnke 2§ Fuster 100 Platonov J2 2 ... e6 3 e3 d5 4 lld3
Boleslavsky 58,68 Gerasimov l.i Rakic J,~,~ 4 ... b6 79
BOok 30 Grekov 83 Rantanen 43 4 ... lle7 79
Botterill 61 Groth 95 Ree 60 4 ... .Ild 6 20
Bronstein ~,~ Gulko ~ Rubinstein 16,l§
Buerger 20 Hallier 97 von Scheve 5 4 ... c5 5 b3 72
-
Bukhman 70 Harding 101 Schlechter 43 4 ... c5 5 c3 4lc6 6 4lbd2 .Ild6 23
- -
Bukk 1 Honfi 90,lW Schmidt 88 6 ... .Ile7 28
-
Capablanca 37,38,85 Iglitsky ~ Selesniev ~
Carleton 29 Kan 36 Smyslov 14,l§ 5 '" 4lbd7 6 4lbd2 .Ild6 29
Catala 30 Karpov 39 Sorokin ~ 6 _ .. .Ile7 32
Cederquist ~ Keogh 43 Sou ltanbeieff ~ 2 ... e6 3 e3 b6 34
Charousek :J. Ko ltanowsk i 12, ~ II Spasskv J 3 ... c5 4 4lbd2 b6 38
Cherney 35 Kopayev 26 Spielmann 19
Cirk 41 Kots 54 Stoltz 18 2 ._. d5 3 e3 g6 76
Chernikov 70 Kottnauer ~ Stolyar 16 3 ... c5 77
Colle ~,~~,ll, Kovacevic .1l Studier 2l 3 ... .Q.g4 69
~,JZ,Zl Larsen ~ Suchting 7
Cvetkovic 48 Leonhardt 43 Sultan Khan 71- 3 ... .Q.f5 70
-
Denker ~ Mabbs ~ Talvik 86 3 ... c6 72
Diemer ~,~ Marovic 47 Tejler 96
Dunkelblum 39 Marshall 5,42,~ Vaganian 55 London
Eigstrand 29. Mattison 35 Vetter 98
Enevoldsen ~ Melcher 88 Yasvoin ~ 1 d 4 II 2 ~f3, 3 .Q. f4
Engel 98 M icklethwaite ~ Zukertort 12
-
... d 5 2 4lf3 e6 3 .Q. f4 41
2 ... c53.1lf4 42 704 Index of Variations

2 ... {}f6 3 .Ilf4 c5 43 3 ... e6 45

... €:!f6 2 {jf3 e6 3 .Ilf4 c5 4 c3 i11'b6 49

2 ... g6 3 .Ilf4 i:tg7 4 c3 53

4 <£lbd2 54 4e30-0 56 4 ... d6 63

3€:!c3d54.1lf466

Miscellaneous 1 d4 d5 2 4)f3

2 .Ilg4 73

2 .Ilf5 74

2 4:le6 76

2 e5 3 c4 78

2 c5 3 de 79

1 d4 4.)f6

2<£lf3d687 2 ... c5 87

2 e3 4:lf6 3 .ad3 c5 4 c3 e6 5 f4 (Stonewall) 83

Blackmar-Diemer Gambit 1 d4 d5 2 e4 de 88

3 4:le3 4:l f6 4 f3 .Il f5 5 g4 90 5 fe 97

4 ... ef 5 <£lxf3 .Ilf5 93 5 ... g6 96

5 'f¥rxf3 99