SECTIONS
Gurgenidze System
This system , characterized by the
moves I. .. c6, 2 . . . d5 and 3 .. . g6, is a
fusion of t he Caro-Kann and Pirc
defences. It grew in p o pularity after
the Fischer-Petrosian g ame (Belgrade
1970) in which B la ck obtained a
slight initiat i ve and which clearly
illustrated how the two defences
could be combined successfully .
INTRODUCTION TO THE
GURGENIDZE SYSTEM
One may o bj ect that the c6- dS-g6
pawn s truct ure chaiih:i•:nstic of the
Gurgenidze Sy stem h,., nothing in
common with either the Pirc or the
Modern Defence. Strictly speaking
this i� troJe, but we feel that the Pirc­
Ufimtsev, Modern and Gurgenidze
Systems do possess certain similarit-
-75-
ies. The connection between the Pirc­
Ufimtsev and Modern Defences is
c l e ar en ough. The Gurgenidze
System differs fr om these defences
only if Black concentrates sol ely on
play i ng d6 followed by eS. In many
variat ions of th e Pirc-Ufimtsev and
Modern Defences, Black does plan
the move d6-dS , which leads us into
lines similar to the Gurgcnidze
Sy stem, where d7-d5 is played
immediately, thus aainina a tem po
for Black. If either the main line of
the Modern Defence (Matanovic­
Botvinnik) or the illustrative game
Smejkal-Uhlmann (No . 8 in Section
2) is examined, then it is clear that
although it was never played, the
move d6-dS was being considered by
both p l a y e rs . However, Black
deci ded either to play e7-eS or to
retain his central pawns on their
original squares. Why was this?
Clearly, Black tho ug h t that d6-d5
was us e ful, but White never allowed
him the o p po rtu nity to pl ay this
move.
In many variations of the Pirc­
Ufimtsev, White must ens ure that
Black is not able to play d6-dS.
Other reasons why we have incor­
porated the Gurgenidze Sy �tem into
this book are th at the system is mod­
ern, quite successf,JI and gives rise to
a very clastic defensive pattern. A
blockade strate&Y is followed, with a
 THE MODERN DEFENCE

fortress-type posmon being set up A: 4 eS followed by S f4

which should be contrasted with
White's blockading d4-d5 move in I e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 g6
the Pirc-Ufimtsev.
The move d7-d5, by being played
immediately in the Gurgenidze
System, means that Black does not
have to plan it, whereas in the Pirc­
Ufimtsev and Modern Defences, d6-
d5 determines the strategic nature of
the game and needs considerable
thought before being played.
The Gurgenidze System is not
recommended as the basis of a
player's repertoi re, but has consider­
able potenc} as a surprise weapon.
The Timoshchenko-Bronstein game
(Illustrative Game No. 17) illustrates We take as our main line game
how Black can play in a most original Fischer-Petrosian, Belgrade 1970.
manner. Should a player adopt the
Gurgenidze System, he will not only 4 eS
be using an elastic and successful
defence, but also playing really enter­ Fischer gave 4 h3!? (variation B) as
taining chess. better immediately after the game.
Two earlier games which are worth
Four variations are dealt with here, examining are given below.
the first two being the most import­
ant. A: 1 e4 c6 2 d4 dS 3 Nc3 g6 4 eS In the first (Giigoric-Botvinnik,
followed by S f4; 8: 1 e4 c6 2 d4 dS 3 Hamburg 1965) of these examples,
Nc3 g6 4 b3 followed by S Nf3 (p.
after I d4 g6 2 e4 c6 3 f4 d5 4 e5,
81), (Black plays an early ...b5 - p. Black attempted to obtain active play
89); C: 1 e4 c6 2 d4 dS 3 Nd2 (p. 90); by means of a pawn sacrifice; 4...c5?!
D: 1 e4 g6 2 d4 c6?1 3 c41 (p. 92).
5 dxc5! Nc6 (5 .. Qa5 + 6 c3! Qxc5 7
.

The Gurgenidze System allows b4 gives White the advantage.) 6 Nf3

Black a fair degree of freedom in
choosing his move order. He can
begin with the Caro-Kann defence
and then play 3...g6, or first fian­
chetto hi-s king's bishop before play­
ing 3...c6, or even 1.. .g6 and 2...c6.
However, this last move order is
dubious, as a fter I e4 g6 2 d4 c6?1
White has the strong reply 3 c41 (See
variation D).
Bg4 7 Be2 e6 8 Be3 Nh6 9 c3 Nf5 10
Bf2 h5 11 Nbd2. Whitt. has main­
tained his extra pawn on c5, and so
Black tries to mount an offensive on
the king-side. ll...Bh6 12 Qa4 g5! 13
h3! Bxf3 14 Nxf3 gxf4 15 Nd4. White
has now clearly won the theoretical
struggle, but the rest of the game is
interesting, being played at a high
level throughout: 15... Qc7 16 Nxf5

-76-
 GURGENIDZE SYSTEM
exf5 17 0-0 Kf8 18 Bd4 ReS 19 Bf3
Rg!l20 Rae! Qd7 21 Q b3 Rd8 22 Qc2
Ne7 23 Bxh5 Ng6 24 Bxg6 Rxg6 25
Rf3 Kg8 26 Qf2 Qe7 27 Rfl Kh7 28
Qc2 Qe6 29 b4 Rd g8 30 Rlf2 a6 31 a4
Qd7 32 Kh I R8g 7 33 Qb3 Rg8 34 b5
axb5 35 axb5 Ra8 36 Qbl Ra5 37 Rb2
Kg8 38Rfl Ra8 39 Rbf2 Rg3 40 Rb2
Rg6 41 c6! bxc6 42 b6 1-0.
In the second game (Padevski­
Hort, Varna 1%7), Black played the
less ambitious, but better, move
4 Na6!? and after S Nf3 (not S Bxa6
. . .
Qa5 +) S h5 6 Nbd2 Nc7 7 Bd3 Nh6
• . •
8 Nfl Nf5 9 Ne3 Bh6 10 Nxf5 Bxf5 I I
Bxf5 gxf5 12 ()..{) e6 had exchanged
off his 'bad' bishop and had a good
position.
4 ••• Bg7
The interesting alternative
4. .h5!? has been played by Ciocaltea
. Be7 13 Ndl ! leaves White with a
who is considered to be a specialist in
this defensive system. The idea
behind this move is to save an
importa nt tempo later, as the black­
squaJ nl bishop is not always best
placed on g7, and often returns to f8
when the position becomes totally
blocked.
The game Velimirovic-Ciocaltea,
Budapest 1973, now continued 5 f4?!
Nh6 6 Nf3 Bg4 7 Be3 NfS 8 Bf2 e6 9
Be2 Be7 10 Nd2 Bxe2 11 Qxe2 Nd7 12
Nf3 b5 and Black had no problems.
In a later game, Honfi-Ciocaltea,
Bucharest 1975, White had the initi­
ative after 5 h3! Nh6 6 Nf3 b6 7 Be2
a5?! 8 ()..{) Na6 9 Rei Nc7 10 Bfl Ne6
11 Ne2 Nf5 12 Nf4 Neg7 13 c41
5 f4 b5
This move is virtually forced if
Black intends to undertake king-side
operations.
6 Nf3
The other main alternative of 6
Be3!? is worth considering; e.g.
6... Nh6 7 Nf3 (7 h3!? NfS 8 Bf2 bS?!
of 9 Bd3 e6 10 Nf3 h4 11 ()..{) Bf8 12 Qe l
slight advantage, Honfi-Stanciu,
Bucharest 1975) 7. .. 8g4 8 Be2. There
is a clear difference in strategy bet­
ween this variation, in which after
Black captures on f3 the bishop
recaptures, and the main line, in
which White recaptures with the
queen.
In the game Radulov-Bohosyan,
Bulgaria 1971, Black continued with
the hasty 8 ... Bxf3?! 9 Bxf3 e6 10 g3
NfS 11 Bf2 Nd7 12 Qd2 Bh6?! 13
0-0-0 b5 14 h3 Qa5 15 g4?! (15 Kbl ! is
better) 1 5... b4 16 Nbl hxg4 17 hxg4
.Ne7 18 Be3 0-0-0 19 a3 c5 20 dxc5
Nc6 21 g5 Bg7 22 Rxh8 Bxh8 23 c3
and White stands a little better.
Several other games have con­
tinued with 8 . .. e6, and some
examples are given below:
(a) 9 Qd2!? Nd7 10 g3 Nf5 11 Bf2 bS
(l l ...Bf8 is an alternative.) 12 h3
- 77 -
 THE MODERN DEFENCE
Bxf3 13 Bxf3 Nb6 (13 ... Bf8 14 Nc2
Nb6 IS b3 aS 16 Kfl Bc7 17 Kg2 and
White has a clear advantage in view
of t h e advance g4 which is to follow,
Radulov-Velikov, Bulgaria 1971 . ) 14
a4? (A strategic error; 14 b3 is
es�ential) 14 ... Nc4 IS Qcl B f8 ! 16
axbS cxb5 17 NxbS Qb6 18 Na3 Nxa3
19 bxa3 Nxd4 20 Bdl Bc5 2 1 Rbl
QaS + 22 Kfl NfS 23 Rb3 Bxf2 24
Kxf2 Qc S + 2S Kg2 d4 26 Bf3 R c8 27
Be4 h4! 28 g4 Ng3 29 Rei Nxe4 30
Rxe4 Qd5 31 Kf3 Qxb3 + 0-1, Zinn­
Ciocaltea, Havana Olympi ad 1966.
In a later game, Gipslis-Ubilava,
U.S.S.R. 19 73 , Black obtained a
good game after 9 Qd2 Nd7 10 g3
Bf8! 11 Bf2 (Gipslis suggests II a3 or
1 1 0-0) 1 l ... B b4 12 h3 Bxf3 13 Bxf3
N b6 14 0-0 (not 14 b3 Na4 ! 1S bxa4
QaS and Black wins) 14. .. Nc4 15 Qcl
Bxc3 16 bxc3 NfS (even better is
16 ... QaS) .
The following game is of theoret­
ical importance because of the order
of the opening moves: 1 e4 g6 2 d4
Bg7 3 Nc3 c6 4 Be3 d5 5 e5 h5 6 f4
Nh6 7 Nf3 Bg4 8 Bf2 e6 9 Be2 Nf5 10
Qd2 Bf8 11 g3 Nd7 12 h3 Bxf3 13
Bxf3 Be7 14 0� bS 1 5 g4 Ng7 16
Rg 1 Nb6 17 Be2 with White having
the better chances in a complex pos­
ttlo n , K u p r e i c h i k - P o d gae t s ,
U.S.S.R. 1974.
(b) 9 0-0 has been tried in two games.
Rossman-Uhlmann, East German
Championship 1974, continued
9 . . . Nf5 10 Qd2?! ( 10 Bf2 is better)
ttl . . . Nd7 11 h3 Bxf3 12 Bxf3 QaS! 13
a3 BfS 14 b4 Qd8 15 Bf2 (15 Na4
represented a better chance .)
1S. . . Nb6 16 Ne2 Nc4 17 Qd3 Be7
with a small plus for Black.
Klovan-Podgaets, U.S.S.R. 1974,
continued 9... Bf8 10 h3 Nf5 11 Bf2
-78 -
Bxf3 12 l:lxf3 h4 13 Ne2! Nd7 (an
interesting alternative plan for Blac�
would be 13. .. Na6 followed by
. .. Be7, ... Kf8 and . .. Nc7-e8-g7-h5)
14 Kh2 Be7 15 Ngl Kf8 16 Be2 and
now Black made the strategic error of
1 6... c5?, which was duly punished by
White: 17 c4 ! dxc4 18 d5 exd5 19
Qxd5 Nb6 20 Qxb7. Instead of
16... c5? Black could try 16. ..Kg7 and
17 ...bS.
(c) 9 g_; was tried in a game Radulov­
Arnaudov, Bulgaria 1971, and after
9 . . . NfS 10 Bf2 h4! ? 1 1 Rg1 Bf8 12
Ng5 Bxe2 13 Nxe2 hxg3 14 hxg3 Be7?
(after 14 ...c51 15 c3 cxd4 the game is
roughly equal) 15 g4 Nh4 16 Bxh4
Rxh4 17 Nf3 Rh8 18 Qd2 Qb6 19
� Nd7 20 f5 White had achieved
his strategic goal and had the better
game.
As a final example, here are the
opening moves of the gan1e Gligoric­
Cardoso, Manila 1973: 1 d4 g6 2 e4
Bg7 3 Nc3 c6 4 f4 d5 5 e5 h5 6 Nf3
Bg4 7 Be2 e6 8 Be3 Nd7 9 Qd2 Ne7
(9 . . . Nh6 leads to an identical pos­
ition.) 10 �!? QaS?! 11 Kbl NfS
12 Bf2 Bf8 13 Ne4 ! Bb4 (13 ...Qxd2 is
better) 14 c3 Be7 15 Neg5! b5 16 h3
Bxf3 17 Nxf3 Nb6 18 g4 with the bet­
ter game for White.

6 Bg4
7 b3
7 Be2 can often transpose to vari-
ations given above. In Espig Zinn,
East Germa ny 1 973, Black delayed
developing his king's knight and after
7 .. .e6 8 Be3 Nd7 9 g3 b5? 1 0 h3 Bxf3
11 Bxf3 Bf8 1 2 Kf2 Nb6 1 3 b3 Qc7 1 4
g4 W h ite had clear attacking chances
on the king side.
-
7 BxfJ
8 QxfJ e6
This is es sential , as 8...h4 fails to 9
f5.
9 g3?
Although this is in line with mod­
ern strategic principles, it may well be
that 9 Be3 ! ? is p refe rable In the
game Liberzon-Smyslov, Tbilisi
1967, play continued 9 ... h4 10 Bd3
Ne7 1 1 ()..{) Nd7 12 Bf2 Nf5 1 3 Ne2
Qe7 (1 3 .. .Bf8 14 b3 Be7 1 5 c4 Kf8
could have been tried) 1 4 b3 Q.4.0 1 5
c4 Kb8 1 6 Racl f6 (1 6. . .B f8 1 7 Rc2
ReS 18 Rfcl Nb6 1 9 c5 Nd7 20 b4 Ka8
21 b5 cxb5 22 Bxb5 gave White a
strong attack; van der
GURGENIDZE SYSTEM
Brouwn, correspondence) 17 cxd5
· cxd5 18 Rc2 ReS 1 9 Rfcl Rxc2 20
Rxc2 Nb6
-
21 Qg4 ! Qf7 22 Khl Nc8 23 Ngl Nee?
24 Nf3 . Black now loses his h-pawn,
but Smys1ov desperately attempts to
conjure up some counte rplay, and
the game moves towards an interest­
ing finish. 24 ...Nh6 25 Qxh4 Nef5 26
Bxf5 Nxf5 27 Qg4 Nh6 28 Qg3 Nf5 29
Qh2 fxe5 30 dxe5 Bh6 31 g3 g5 (a last
try) 32 g4 Ne7 33 f5 ! Qh7 34 f6 Qe4
35 fxe7 Qxf3 + 36 Qg2 Qdl + 37
Bg l ! Bg7 (if 37 ... Re8 38 Qf2!) 38
Qe2 ! Qa l 39 Qb5 Rxh3 + 40 Kg2
Rg3 + 41 Kxg3 Qxg l + 42 Kf3 Qd l +
43 Qe2 Qhl + 44 Kf2 Qh2 + 45 Ke l
Qg l + 46 Kd2 Qd4 + 47 Qd3 Qb4+
48 Qc3 Qf4 + 49 Ke1 Qe4+ 50 Kd1
1 �. A s plendid and instructive game.
.
9 -·· QWil
This prevents White from develop­
ing na turally by 10 Be3 and 1 1 Q.4.0.
The game is now even.
10 Qfl Ne7
11 Bd3 Nd7
Tak-A. 11 Nel
- 79-
 THE MODERN DEFENCE

Or 12 Bd2 NfS 13 BxfS gxfS with 18 . . . fxe5 19 fxeS BxeS 20 dxe5 Nxe5
approximate equality. 21 Qfl , etc.

12 � 11 ... cxd4
13 c3 f61
14 b31 Black could delay this move and
play 1 8 . Kb8 .
. .

In order to meet 14 . Rhf8 with 15

. .

Ba3 . 19 cxd4 Nb8

20 Kg2 Nc6
14 Nf5 21 Nell
15 Hal c5
White has now fully equalized.

:U Rd7
21 Qd2

White could have kept queens on

the board by playing 22 Rd I, fol·
lowed by Nd3-c5 , but Fischer was
leading 2-0 in the match at this stage,
and decided to play safe.

11 QaS
13 QxaS

White cannot now avoid the

exchange, as 23 Qb2 allows 23.. B f8
. ,

Black now has a slight initiative. or 23 Qe2 fxeS! 24 fxeS Qc3. The
game ended
16 Bxf51
13 NxaS
White must now take defensive 24 Nd3 Nc6
measures, and so gives up his proud 15 Rac l Rc7
bishop, in order to be able to play l6 Rc3 b6
Be3 . 27 Rgc l Kb7
21 Nb4 Rhc8
16 gxf5 29 Rxc6 Rxc6
17 Bel Qa6 30 Rxc6 Rxc6
11 lm 31 Nxc6 Kxc6
31 Kf3 h-Yz
White' s king heads for the safety
of the king-side. Fischer has also
suggested 18 Qf3! , as Black does not Fischer-Petrosian , U. S .S.R.-Rest
get enough for his piece after of the World, Belgrade 1970.

-80-
 GURGENIDZE SYSTEM
8: 4 b3 followed b y S NfJ
I e4 c6 2 d4 dS 3 Nc3 g6
4 b3
A prophylactic move which a voids
the pin of his king's knight when it
reaches f3 ( we will follow Spassky
Ts eshko v sky , U.S.S.R. Team
Championship, Moscow 1974).
4 NfJ is also p layable, e.g. 4 . .Bg4
.
5 h3 Bxf1 6 Qxf1 e6 7 Bf4 Bg7 8 exdS
exd5 9 0-0-0 Ne7 10 g4 and White has
good attacking chances and the two
bishops. 4. . Bg7 is better for Black,
.
when W hite can tran spose into the
main line by S h3. The game
Tashkhodzhaev Roitman, Moscow
-
1972, began I e4 c6 2 d4 dS 3 Nc3 g6 4
Nf1 Bg7 S Bd3'?! Bg4 6 Be3 eS! 7 Be2
Bxf1 8 Bxf1 .
8 ...c5 9 NxdS cxd4 10 Bd2 Nc6 11 0-0
Nge7 12 Nxe7 Qxe7 13 c3 0-0 1 4 cxd4
exd4 with good play for Black.
4 Bf4 is interesting ; White scored a
dramatic success in the game
Chernov-Gorchakov, U.S.S.R. 1973,
but only after Black's full co-oper-
ation. 4 ...Qb6? 5 exd5 Qxb2 6 Nge2
BfS? (6 . Nf6) 7 Rbl Qa3 8 Rxb7 Na6
. .
9 dxc6 gS 10 NbS Qxa2 II Nec3 Qxc2
12 Qxc2 Bxc2 13 NdS 1-0.
After 4 Bf4 Bg7 S exd5 cxd5 6 NbS
Na6 7 Qe2 (th r eatening 8 Nd6 + )
7 ..B e6 8 Nf1 White stands be t ter. A
.
similar idea was demons trated in the
­
game Stibcra-Nebolsin, Novosibirsk
1971, which began 1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3
Nc3 c6 4 Nf1 dS 5 exdS cxdS 6 Bf4.
Black could now find no t hing better
than 6 ...a6 to prevent the entry of the
knight. After 7 Qd2 Nc6 8 NeS NxeS
9 dxeS e6 1 0 Bd3 Qc7 II 0-0 Ne7 12
Rae I Whi te had a clear advantage.
Possibly the best reply to 4 Bf4 is
4 ... Nf6!'? when on S eS Black can
gain a tempo to play ... Nh7-g7 (see
Instructive G an1e No. 16).
4 b4? 1 was played in the game
Kluger Vogt Lublin 1 972, but after
- ,
4 ... Bg7 S exdS cxdS 6 hS Nc6 7 Be3
Nh6! 8 BbS Nf5 9 Qd2 Nxe3 10 Qxe3
Bg4 11 f1 Be6 Black had no
problems.
4 g3 caused no difficulties for
Black after 4... Bg7 5 e5 f6! 6 f4 Nh6 7
Bg2 0-0 8 Nf1 Bg4 9 0-0 (9 h 3 Bxf3 10
Bxf1 NfS!) 9. Qd7 10 Be3 Na6 II
. .
Qd2 Nc7 12 Ne2 Rad8 13 c3 b6
(Spassky-Karner, Tallinn 1973).
4 Be3 was tried in the game
Velimirovic-Kavalek, The Hague
1966. After I e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3 c6
4 Be3 dS S Qd2 dxe4 White typically
sacrificed a pawn by 6 0-0-0 (6 Nxe4
Nd7 7 Nf3 Ngf6 8 Nxf6 + Nxf6 9
B h6'? Bxh6 10 Qxh6 Bg4! and Black
had the better game, Radulov­
Liebert, Kapfenberg 1970.) 6 ... Nf6 7
Nge2 Be6 8 h3 h5 9 Kbl Nbd7 10 Nf4
- 81 -
 THE MODERN DEFENCE
BdS 1 1 Rgl when all W hite had for
his pawn was a poor and difficult
position.
After 1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3 c6 4
Be3 dS S f311 Qb6? 1 6 a3 dxc4 7 fxe4
cS 8 Nf3 cxd4 9 Nxd4 QaS 10 Qd2
Nd7 11 ()..()..() NcS (Ozsvat h- Pod gaets ,
U.S.S.R. 1974), the position is diffic­
ult to assess, as White's lead in devel­
opment is countered by the strong
position of Black's queen's knight.
4 ... Bg7
4 ... Nf6?! is suspect; 5 e5 Nh5?
(L.Nfd7 is better) 6 Be2 Ng7 7 Nt1
h5 8 Bf4 Bf5 9 Qd2 Ne6 10 Be3 h4 1 1
()..()..() Nd7 1 2 g4, Black now has prob­
le ms with his queen' s bishop and
a fter 12 . . . hxg3 13 fxg3 Rxh3 14 Rxh3
Bxh3 15 Nh4 1 g5 ( 16 g4 ! was threat­
ened) 16 BxgS NxgS 17 Qxg5 Qb6 18
g4 White won in a few moves
(Sigurjonsson-Gurgenidze , Tbilisi
1974).
- Nd7 1 1 c4 b6 12 Bf4 Bb7 13 Qc2 fS 14
5 Nf3 Nf6
The latest theoretical idea. A w hole
·series of games has shown that White
obtains a good game after A:
s ue46Nu4.
...
- 82-
There a re now t h ree main
possibilities:
(a) 6••• Nf611 7 Nxf6+ B:itf6 8 Bo4
gives White the better game,
Vasyukov-Basman, Varna 1 97 1 , con·
tinued 8 . . . Qd6 9 Qe2 aS 10 � bS 11
Bd3 Bf5 12 a4 b4 13 Bc4.h5 14 Rcl
Nd7 15 BgS, while Najdorf-Rossetto,
Argentina 1973, w en t 8 . . . BfS 9 ()..()
Nd7 10 Rei Nb6 1 1 B b3 h5 12 NeS e6
13 c3 NdS 14 Qf3 h4 1 5 Bd2 Kf8 16 c4
Nc7 J': l:lc3. In both cases, White had
the aavdntage.
6. . . Nf6? 1 7 Nxf6+ exf6?1 allows
White to obtain a las ting initiative as
in similar lines of the Caro-Kann
De fence . Three examples arc:
Gheorghiu-Hug, Bath 1 973: 8 Bc4
� 9 � ReS 10 Rei Rxel + 1 1 Qxel
Nd7 12 Bd2 b5 13 BaSI Nb6 14 Bb3
Qd7 15 Qe2 Bb7 16 Rei Bf8 17 Nd2
with advantage to W hite .
Andersson-Ljubojevic, Wij k aan
Zee 1 973: 8 Bc4 0-0 9 0-0 Re8 10 Bb3
a4 c5 15 dS aS 1 6 Rael Qf6 17 Re21
and White's chances are better in
spite of Black's block ad e.
Mista-Kupka, Rimavska-Sobota
1974: 8 Bc4 � 9 0-0 Nd7 10 Re 1 Nb6
II Bb3 Re8 12 a4 Be6 13 aS Nc8 14 a6
 GURGENIDZE SYSTEM
bS 15 d5 Bxd5 16 Rxe8+ Qxe8 17
BxdS Qd7 18 Bxfi + and White
stands better in view of Black's weak
points.
(b) 6 Bf5 7 Ng3 Nf6 8 Nxf5 gxf5 9
•.•
Bd3 e6 10 Qe2 c5 11 dxcS QaS + 12
Bd2 Qxc5 13 Bc3 Nc6 14 040 (the
immediate 14 g41 is better) 14 . . . 040
15 g4 Ne8 16 Bxg7 Nxg7 17 Qe3
Qxe3 + 18 fxe3 fxg4 19 hxg4 hS 20
gxh5 Rxh5 21 Rxh5 N xh5 22 Ng5 Ne5
23 Rh1 (23 Nxfi Rxd3 =) Vz-llz,
Sahovic-Botvinnik, Belgrade 1970.
(c) 6 Nd7 is the most solid alternat­
.•.
ive, but even here White can slowly
build up a king-side advantage by
means of 7 Bc4 Ngf6 8 Nxf6 + Nxf6 9
0-0 ().()
The various possibilities are now:
(cl) 10 c3 Qc7 11 Rei Nd5?! 12 Bb3
Bf5 13 Bg5 Rfe8? 14 Bh4 Rad8 15
Ne5 f 6 16 Ng4 Kh8 17 Qf3 and White
stood bette r (Ghizdavu-Buza,
Romania 1970) .
(c2) 10 Rei ! (the mo st exact)
IO . ..NdS 11 c3 a5 12 a4 b6 13 Qe2 Bf5
14 BgS (not 14 1Jx<l5 Qxd5 15 Qxe7
Bxh3 1 ) 14 .. . Ra7 15 Ne5 Rc7 16 Qf3
Be6 17 Bh4 Qa8 18 Bb3 Qb7 19 Bg3
-83 -
Rcc8 20 Rad l Nf4? 1 21 c4! Nh5 22 d5
with a clear advantage to White,
(Browne-Kovacevic, Zagreb 1970).
10 Rei ! Bf5 11 Ne5 (11 BgS Qc7 12
Qe2 Rae8 1 13 c3 Nd5 14 Qd2 Nf6 15
Qf4 Qxf4 16 Bxf4 Nd5 17 Bd2 B h8
18 Bh6 Bg7 19 Bd2 'h-Vz Parma­
Hart, Havana 1970.) l l ...Be4 12 BgS
Bd5 13 Bd3 Be6 14 c3 Nd7 15 Nf3
ReS
16 Rxe6 1 (a positional sacrifice which
gives White a lasting initiative. )
1 6. .. fxe6 1 7 Qe2 e 5 ( 17 . . . N f8 had to
be tried) 18 Bc4 + Kh8 1 9 dxe5 Qc7
20 Bfi Rf8 21 e6 Nf6 22 Q<-.4 QaS 23
Rei Qd5 24 Qh4 Rxfi (25 Bxg6 was
threatened) 25 Ne5 1 1 Nh5 26 Nxfi +
Kg8 27 Bxe7 ReS 28 Nd6 Bf6 29 Bxf6
Qxd6 30 Bg5 Rxe6 31 Qc4 Ng7 32
Qb3 Kf8 33 Rd1 QeS 34 Bh6 Rd6 35
Rxd6 Qxd6 1-0 (Tal-Kolarov.
Kapfenberg 1970). This is a very eff­
ective exchange sacrifice and repres­
en ts a c onstant threat in this type of
posit i on.
10 Rell b6 11 Bg5 Bb7 12 Qe2 e6
13 Ne5 ! ( 13 Rad 1 Qc7 14 Ne5 NdS 1 5
Bh4 Rfe8- 1 5.. . Rae81? - 16 Ng4 Nf4
17 Qe3 c5 18 d51 with complications
favou ring Wh ite; Westerinen­
Robatsch, Sochi 1974.) 13 . . . Qd6 14
 THE MODERN DEFENCE
Bb3 h6 IS Bh4 Rad8 ( 1 S . . . Qxd4? 1 6
Bxf6 Bxf6 1 7 Nx f7! Rx f7 1 8 Radl!
Qxb2 19 Bxe6 Rf8 20 Rd7 Bc8 21
Bxf7 + Rxf7 22 Rxf7 Kxf7 23 Qe8 +
winning.) 16 Radl Qc7 1 7 f4 Rde8?
( 1 7 . . . cS was essential) 1 8 Qf2 Nd7 1 9
Qg3 with a strong attack (Ghizdavu­
Spiridonov, Romania 197 1 ) .
(c3) 10 Bf4 b 6 I I Qe2 B b 7 1 2 Radl e6
1 3 NeS Qe7 14 Bh6 Rfd8 I S Bxg7
Kxg7 16 Rd3 with a minimal
advantage for W hite (Gufeld­
Spiridonov, Tbilisi 1969).
(c4) 10 Qe2 NdS I I Rei Qc7 1 2 Bb3
(or 12 c3 ! ? e6 13 BgS b6 14 Bb3 Bb7
IS Radl cS? ! 16 c4 Nf6 17 QeS ! QxeS
1 8 dxeS NhS 19 Nh2! h6 20 Bel gS 2 1
g 3 Rfc8 2 2 h4 ! with a winning game
for White. Pribyi-Pithart, Olomouc
197S.) 12 . . . aS 13 a3 ! ( 1 3 c4?! a4 !
1 3 . . . a4 ( 1 3 . . . e6 ! ) 14 Ba2 e6 IS c4 Ne7
16 Bd2 NfS 17 Bc3 b6 (better is the
immediate 17 . . . c5 ! ) 18 Radl c5 (if
18 . . . Bb7 19 c5 is possible) 1 9 d5 Bxc3
20 bxc3 exdS 21 cxd5 Nd6 22 NgS!
Bf5 23 g4 Rae8 24 Ne6! fxe6 25 dxe6
Re7 26 Qe5 NbS 27. Qxc7 Nxc7 28
Rd7 Rfe8 29 gxf5 with the better end­
ing for White (Gulko-Dvoretsky,
U.S.S.R. 1970). A well played open­
ing by both sides.
Even if White's king's bishop is
not developed on the most active
square c4, White still has a comfort­
able game, e.g. I e4 c6 2 Nc3 d5 3 Nf3
go 4 d4 Bg7 S h3 dxe4 6 Nxe4 Nd7 7
Bd3 Ngf6 8 Nxf6 + Nxf6 9 0-0 0-0 1 0
Rei Qc7 I I Bg5 c 5 1 2 Qd2 cxd4 1 3
Nxd4 a6 1 4 c 3 with a slight advantage
for White (Zinn-Bohnisch, East
Germany 1972).
In the game Uusi-Spiridonov,
Sofia 1 969, White omitted h3, but
still obtained the better game after I
Nf3 g6 2 e4 8g7 3 d4 c6 4 Nc3 d5 �
Be2 dxe4 6 Nxe4 Nd7 7 0-0 Ngfb &
Nxf6 + Nxf6 9 Bf4 0-0 10 c3 Be6 1.
Rei Qb6 12 b4 aS 1 3 a3 R.ii'
( 1 3 . . . Nd5!) 14 NgS BfS IS Bc4.
As a result of the above example:..
Black has had to look for alternathe�
to 5 . . . dxe4. 8: 5 ... Nb6 has been tried
and is championed by Ciocaltea
Four alternatives have now beca-
tried.
= )
(a) 6 Bd3?1 f6 7 0-0 Nf7 8 Rei 0-0 9
Qe2 e5 ! 10 Be3 f5! 11 exf5 (Whateve1
White plays, he must lose a piece and
has to look for compensation.;
1 1 . . . e4 12 fxg6 hxg6 1 3 Nxe4 dxe4 14
Bxe4 Qf6 15 Ne5 Bf5 16 Bxf5 QxfS 17
Qc4 Nd7 with an unclear position
(Kots-Lutikov, U.S .S.R. 1 970) .
6 Bd3?! 0-0 7 0-0 f6 8 B f4 Nf7 9 eS
(otherwise Black will play . . . e5)
9 . . . fxe5 10 dxe5 ( 1 0 Bxe5'? NxeS II
dxe5 Nd7 12 Rei Nc5 13 b4 Ne6 14
Ne2? Rxf3! 15 gxf3 Ng5 ! 16 f4
Nxh3 + 1 7 Kg2 Q f8 18 Kg3 Bxe5!
0 - 1, H u t t e m ann- C i o c a l t ea.
Dortmund 1 974. Or 10 NxeS?! Ndl!
1 1 Nxd7 Bxd7 1 2 Ne2 eS 13 dxe5
Nxe5 with equality, Jansa- C iocaltea,
Skopje Olympiad 1972) 10 . . . c5 II
-84-
 GURGENIDZE SYSTEM
Rei Be6 12 Qd2 Nc6 13 BbS (13 Bfl
Qd7) 13...Qb6 with good play for
Black, (Kostro-Ciocaltea, Wijk aan
Zee 1971).
(b) 6 Be2 0-0 7 0-0 f6 S Rei Nt7 9 Bfl
b6 (9... as 10 b3 e6 11 Ba3 ReS 12
exdS cxdS 13 NgS Y2-Y2; Weinstein­
Ciocaltea, Wijk aan Zee 197 S) 10 b3
e6 11 a4 ReS 12 Ba3 a6! (preparing
the manoeuvre ... Ra7-d7) 13 Nb l
dxe4 14 Rxe4 cS IS Rei fS 16 c3 cxd4
17 cxd4 Nc6 IS Bb2 Ra7. Black has a
promising game with pressure on
White 's d-pawn (Honfi-Ciemens,
Solingen 1974).
(c) 6 eS f6 7 Bd3 Nd7 S exf6 exf6 9 0-0
0-0 10 B f4 Nt7 II Qd2 ReS 12 Rfel
Nf8 13 RxeS QxeS with an equal
game (Golbin-Uusi, Gomel l 97 4).
(d) White's best move is 6 Bf41 and
after 6 .. . f6 (better than either
6... Qb6 ? ! 7 Qd2 dxe4 S Na4 QdS 9
Bxh6 Bxh6 10 Qxh6 QaS + 11 Nd2
Qxa4 12 Bc4 Qxc2 13 0-0 e3 14
Bxf7 + ! winning for White
(Zhuravlev-Tseitlin, U.S.S.R. 1973)
or 6 ... dxe4?! 7 Nxe4 NfS S c3 0-0 9
Bd3 b6 10 0-0 8b7 II Rei Na6 12 Qe2
Nc7 13 Rad l with the better game for
White; N icevsk i-Notaros, Yugoslavia
1973) 7 exdS! (Otherwise Black con-
solidates with 7. ..0-0.) 7 . .. cxdS S NbS
·
(S BbS + is also good: S. .. Nc6 9 0-0
0-0 10 Rei Nt7 11 Qe2 e6 12 Na4 QaS
13 c4! a6 14 Bxc6 bxc6 IS Qc2 with a
comfortable game for W hite;
Lombard-Westerinen, Mannheim
197S) S... Na6 (White wins a pawn
after S ... 0-0? 9 Nc7 eS 10 Bxh6! Qxc7
II B x g7 Kxg7 12 dxeS) 9 c4 0-0 10
Qb3? (as played in the game Keres­
Karner, Tallin n 1973, leading to com-
- ss-
plications. A simpler yet strong con­
tinuation would have been 10 cxdS
QxdS 11 Nc3! and White completes
his developmen t) 10 .. . eS ! (not
10. .. Be6? 11 Qe3 winning a piece) 11
dxeS fxe5 12 Bg5 (12 8xh6 Bxh6 13
cxdS e4! ) 12. ..QaS + 13 Bd2 Qb6 14
cxdS e4 IS d6+! (IS Be3 Nc5! )
15 ... Kh8 16 Nfd4 NcS Black had
good tactical chances in a complex
position.
In the game Hernando-Diez del
Corral, Orense 197S, W hite failed to
understand the point of 6 Bf4! and 7
exdS! and instead vacillated with 6
Bf4 f6 7 Qd2? Nt7 8 Be2 (S exdS was
essential) S. .. eS! 9 Bg3 Bh6 10 Qdl
dxe4 11 Nxe4 f5 12 Nc3 e4 13 NeS
Be6 14 Nxt7 Bxt7 IS BeS 0-0! with a
clear advantage to Black who is
threatening ... Nd7.
6 eS
White gets nothing after 6 Bd3
dxe4 7 Nxe4 Nxe4 S Bxe4 Nd7 9 0-0
0-0 10 Rei ReS II c3 eS 12 dxe5 NxeS
13 QxdS N x f 3 + (Parm a-Hort,
Portoroz/Ljubljana 197S). In this
line 10 c3 cS 11 Bc2 cxd4 12 Nxd4 e5
13 NbS a6 14 Nd6 Qc7 15 Ne4 Nc5 16
Qd6 Qxd6 17 Nxd6 Rd8 18 Be3 Rxd6
 THE MODERN DEFENCE
19 Bxc5 Rd5 leads to equality
(Bronstein-Tseshkovsky, U .S.S.R.
1974).
6 Ne4
An interesting alternative is
6...Nfd7 7 Bf 4 e6 8 Qd2 h6 9 g4!? b6
10 h4?! Qe7 11 040 a6 12 Bg2 c5
with complications (Paoli-Bohnisch,
Olomouc 1973).
7 Nxe4
The sharpest continuation. White
can avoid the following complic­
ations by playing the little tested 7
Bd3, which turned out very success­
fully for White in the game
Gheorghiu-Cardoso, Torremolinos
1974, which continued 7. . .Nxc3 8
bxc3 c5 9 dxc5 QaS 10 (}..() (}..() 1 1 Be3
Nd7 (if 1 L.Nc6 12 Bd4!) 12 c41 dxc4
13 Bxc4 Nxe5? (13 . . .Nxc5 is essential)
14 NxeS BxeS 15 Rbl Bg7 16 Qf3 Qc7
17 Rb3 e6 18 Rhbl Rb8 19 c6! How­
ever. Black improved on this in a
later game, Jansa-Spiridonov, Brno
1976, with 9 ... Nc6! 10 (}..() (}..() 11 Bf4
Qa5 12 Qd2 Qxc5, giving a comfort-
-
able game. A draw was in fact agreed
after 13 Rabl.
-86-
7 dxe4
8 NgS cS
9 lk4
This is a key move wi th which
White burns all his bridges behind
him. The two alternative moves are 9
cb:cSI? and 9 e6.
9 dxcSI? This is solid and sound,
e.g. 9 .. . QaS + 10 Bd2 QxcS 11 8c3
Nc6 (1l...BxeS? 1 2 Bxe5 Qxe5 13
Qd8 + ! or 11. .. Nd71 12 Bd4 Qd5 13
e6! Bxd4 14 Qxd4 Qxd4 IS exf7+
Kf8 16 Ne6+ Kxf7 17 Nxd4 with a
clear endgame advantage for White;
Karasev-Nebolsin, U.S.S.R. 1969) 12
Nxe4 Qb6 13 Bc4 (}..() (no t 13 . ..NxeS
14 Bxe5 Qb4 + 15 c3 Qxc4 16 Nd6 +
exd6 17 Bxg7 with White having the
edge) 14 (}..() (14 f4!? Qe3 + 1 5 Qe2
Qxf4 with even chances, or 14 e6
Bxc3 + 15 bxc3 fS!) 14 ... Bxe5 IS
Bxe5 Nxe5 16 Bb3 Be6 17 Qe2 Bxb3
1 8 axb3 with approximate equality
(Dvoret sky-Zilbershtein, T bilisi
1 973).
9 e6 Bxe6 10 Nxe6 fxe6 11 dxcS
Qxdl + 12 Kxdl (}..() gives rise to a
rarely seen type of endgame. In the
 GURGENIDZE SYSTEM

game Timoshchenko-Machulsky, IS Rei Bb7

Chelyabinsk 1 974, White now played
13 Ke2 and after 13 ...Na6 1 4 Bel
Rac8 1 S c3 NxcS 16 g3 Na4 Black
s10od somewhat better. However, 1 3
Be3! seems better, e.g. 1 3. . .Bxb2 1 4
Rbl Rd8 + IS Ke2 with a complic­
ated position (analysis by Hort and
Pribyl).
9 0-0
10 e6 f6
For lO...fS see Timoshchenko­
Bronstein, Instructive Game No. 1 7.
11 Nxe4
16 814
There does not seem to be anything
better.
16 Rfdl
17 a3
So far play has followed the earlier
g a m e P e t r u s h i n- R a s h k o v s k y ,
U.S.S.R. 1 974, in which White
played the sharp 1 7 h4!? Play con­
tinued 1 7 ... Rac8 18 a3 NaS 19 hS?
Nc4 20 Rb 1 BdS! 21 hxg6 hxg6 22
Ng3 Bxe6 23 Qe2 Kf7! 24 Be4 (White
tries vainly to increase his attack)
24 .. fS 2S Bb7 ReS ! 26 b4 ReS! (this
.

exchange sacrifice swings the game in

Black's favour) 27 BxeS NxeS 28 Bf3
Bc4! 29 Qd2 Nxf3 + 30 gxf3 BdS 3 1
Qd3 Bf6 3 2 f4 ReS 3 3 ReS BxeS 34
fxeS Bb7 3S Kfl Rc3 36 e6 + Qxe6 37
Qxd4 Qc4+ 38 Qxc4 bxc4 0-1.
Instead of 1 9 hS ? White should have
played the stronger 1 9 b4! creating a
strong square on cS, e.g. 19...Nc4 20
NcS! Spassky's move secures d3 for
his queen and it is quite possible that
he knew about the improvement in
the above game.
11 .•• b5!
17 ... aS
The fate of this whole variation
hinges on this move as 1 2 BxbS loses Preventing b4.
to 1 2... Qa5 + 1 3 Nc3 fS !
18 QdJ
12 Bel cxd4
13 Bf3 Nc6 The most critical moment in the
14 0-0 game. 18 h4 is more aggressive. e.g.
18. .. a4 1 9 hS b4 20 hxg6 hxg6 2 1
Of course not I 4 Nxf6+ Rxf6 I S Qd3! Ba6 2 2 Nxf6+ exf6 2 3 Qxg6
Bxc6 Rxe6+ winning. with a very dangerous attack.
Spassky has a different strategy in
14 . .. Qb6 mind.

-87-
 THE MODERN DEFENCE

18 a4 24 QaS?
19 b4 b4
lO Qe4 This is the losing move. White tri�
to exchange queens at any price, bui
Now White's queen is committed the price is a very heavy one, i.e. the
to glory or disaster. White does not loss of the game. 24 Qxa4! had to be
now have time to exchange his h­ played, affer which the position u
pawn for Black's g-pawn, but he very difficult to assess, e.s.
could still try 20 h5! Ba6 21 Qd2 d3 24...Nxf3 + (24... Bc4 25 Nxf6+ !) 25
22 hxg6 hxg6 23 Be3 with chances for gxf3 Be2 26 Qd7 Bxf3 27 Rxa8 Rxaa
both sides. 28 Qxd8 + Rxd8 29 b5 and White's b­
pawn is very dangerous.
lO Rdcl Or 25 ...Bd3 26 Qd7 Bxc2 27 Rxaa
l1 QcS Rxa8 28 Bc7! or 25 ... Qd5 26 Qd7 Qf5
27 Rxa6! with advantage to White in
Black threatened 21 ... Ne5. both cases. These lines should be
compared with the endgame that
21 Qdl occurs in the actual game when Black
n axb4 NeS has retained his a-pawn.
l3 QbS Ba6?1
24 QxaS
All commentators on this game 25 bxaS Nxf3 +
have praised this move, but not only 26 gxf3 BbSI
does it seem inaccurate, it may even 27 b4 Rc4
be an outright error. It was essential
21 NcS fS
to play 23...Bc6! 24 Qe2 Nxf3 + 25 29 BgS
gxf3 (25 Qxf3? f5) 25 ... Qd5 when
White seeks active play to the bitter
Black keeps his a-pawn on the board,
end, but there is no way of holding
and has various threats such as
Black's a- and d-pawns .
... Qxe6, ...Qf5 and ... Bb5. If 26 Nc5,
Black's best is 26 Qf5 27 Bg3 Bxf3
. . .
29 Rxc2
28 Qd3 Qg4 followed by ...f5-f4. 30 Redl d3

The long diagonal is opened up

and Black now wins quickly.

31 RaJ Bb2
32 Rxa4 RxcS
33 bxcS Bxa4
34 Rxd3 Kfl
35 hS Ke8
36 bxg6 0-1

Spassky-Tseshkovsky, U.S.S.R.
Team Championship, Moscow 1974.

- 88 -
 GURGEN IDZE SYSTEM
Bialek plays an early b5
•..
This combination is seen at its worst
in the sequence ·1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3
NcJ c6 4 NfJ bSI when 5 e51 gives
White much the better game.
The game Lerner - Machulsky,
U.S.S.R. 1 974, continued S...dS (or
S...d6 6 Bf4! ) 6 h3 Nh6 7 Bf4 f6 S
Bd3 0-0 9 0-0 Nf7 1 0 Rei. Had Black
played a better move than . . . b5, his
position would not be too bad. In the
actual game, he committed suicide by
10 . g5? 1 1 Bh2 g4 1 2 exf6 exf6 1 3
. .
Nh4 and Black's king position was in
ruins.
In this line 6 exd6 releases the ten­
sion too early, but even so Black gets
a poo� pawn structure after 6... exd6
7 dS! b4 S Ne4 f5 (otherwise White
plays Bg5) q Ng3 Ne7 1 0 dxc6 Nbxc6
11 Bb5 Qb6 i 2 Bxc6 + Qxc6 1 3 0-0
0-0 1 4 Ret NdS 1 5 a3 bxa3 1 6 Rxa3
Bb7 1 7 Ne2 Nc7 18 Ned4 Qd7 19 c3
(Sosonko-Quinteros, Wijk aan Zee
1974).
More serious attention needs to be
paid to ...b5 in the sequence 1 e4 g6 2
d4 Bg7 3 NcJ c6 4 Bc4 d5 S exd5 b5? 1
although the following games show
that White retains the advantage
- 89-
thanks to the permanent weakening
of Black's pawn structure.
Mikenas-Seoev (Dn.:propetrovsk
1970): 6 Bb3 b4 7 Nce2 cxdS S a3! ( 8
Nf3 Nf6 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 a3! bxa3 1 1
Rxa3 Nc6 1 2 NeS Bb7 1 3 Nf4! e6 1 4
Nxc6 Bxc6 I S c 3 Nd7 1 6 Rei ReS 1 7
Nd3 Bb5 IS Bf4 Qb6 1 9 Ba4 aS 20
Qb3 Bxa4 21 Qxa4 with a definite
plus for White, Lanc-Vogt, Brno
1975) 8 . .bxa3 9 Rxa3 Nf6 10 Nf3 0-0
.
II Ne5 Qb6 12 0-0 Ba6 13 Rei Bxe2
14 Qxe2 e6 1 5 Be3 Nfd7 1 6 Real ReS
1 7 h4 Nxe5 1S dxeS d4 19 Bf4 Nc6 20
hS and White has a clear advantage.
1 e4 c6 2 d4 g6 3 Nc3 (3 c4! ) 3...Bg7
4 Bc4 bS?! S Bb3 b4 6 Nce2 Nf6 7 e5
Nd5 8 a3! bxa3 9 Rxa3 0-0 1 0 f4 and
White stands much better
(Georgadze-Radev, Tbilisi 1971 ).
I e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3 c6 4 Nf3 d5
5 h3 bS after which White played the
modest 6 a3 dxe4 7 Nxe4 Nf6 8
Nxf6 + exf6 9 Bd3 0-0 10 0-0 Bc6 11
a4 h4 12 aS ReS 13 Bd2 Bf8 1 4 Ra4
and Hlack was now faced with the
well-known problem of how to deal
with White's queen-side majority.
:5 ... b5?! can now probably be dis­
carded once and for all.
 THE MODERN DEFENCE
C: Tbe System with 3 Nell
l e4 c6
l d4 d5
3 Ndl
White hopes to support his pawn
chain after 3 . ..g6 4 eS by a later c3. In
addition, the knight seems well
placed on d2 wh en Black plays
... Nh6, and c4 is always easy to carry
out. As against these advantages, the
main disadvantage is that the knight
blocks the queen's bishop diagonal .
Variations B and C are closely linked
and Black can usually transpose by
. . . dxe4 t o lines which have been
examined earlier.
In Sub - v '"'"""' w n (a), those games
in which White plays eS are exam­
ined. Those games in which Black
carries out the manoeuvre .. . Nh6,
... f6 and .. . Nf7 are dealt with i n Sub­
variation (b) , while those games in
which Black re leases the tension with
..".dxe4 are included in Sub-v ar iation
(c) .
(a) Suetin-Gurgenidze, U.S.S.R.
1974: I e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nd2 g6 4 Ngf3
Bg7 5 h3 Nd7 6 Bd3 NfB?! (This
move seems very artificial; a possible
-90-
alternative is 6. . . dxe4 when White's
king bishop is not on its most active
square of c4. Black's h opes after the
text move rest on the blockading
square at e6.) 7 c3 Nf6 8 ()..() Ne6 9
Rei 0-0 10 eS N e8 (White has more
space but Black's position is solid).
For the rest of the game, sec
Instructive Game No . 18 .
The same two players had already
played a ga:;» <>long similar lines a
year previo:,.. in 1973: 1 e4 c6 2 d4
dS 3 Nd2 g6 4 N gf3 Nf6 S eS Nh.S?I6
h3 Ng7 7 Be2 Ne6 8 Nfl Nd7 9 h4 hS
10 NgS Nb6 II c3 NxgS 12 hxg.S Bg7
13 Bf4 Bt..-6 14 a4 Nd7 IS Ne3 Nf8 16
b4 aS 17 B d3 axb4 18 cxb4 Bd7 19
Nc2 Bg4 20 Qd2 Bf.S 21 BxfS gxfS and
Black has a reasonable game, accord­
ing to Sue ti n . S ... NhS?! seem s even
more bizarre than 6 . .. NfB in the pre­
vious game.
Geller-Sveshnikov, U.S.S.R. 1973:
1 t4 r;6 2 d4 c6 3 Nf1 (3 c41) 3 ... Bg7 4
BdJ d5 .S e5 c5 6 c3 Bg4 7 Nbd lc6 8
h3 Bd7? (8 ... Bxf3 9 Nxf3 e6) ':J 0-0 e6
10 Rei Nge7? (a positional error,
all owi ng White's next move which
forces Black to spend con siderable
time recovering the pawn while White
builds up a king-side attack) II dxcS!
Qc7 12 Qe2 aS 13 a4 NbS 14 Nb3 Na6
15 BeJ 0-0 16 Bg5! Rfe8 17 Nh2! h6
18 Bf6 Nxc.S 19 N xc S Qxc.S 20 Ng4
KfB 2 1 Qd2 Ng8 22 Qf4 (threatening
23 Bxg6) 22 ... g.S 23 Qf3 Bc6 24
Bxg7 + Kxg7 25 N x h 6! f.S 26 exf6+
Nxf6 27 Re.S RfB 28 Rxg.S + K h8 29
Qg3 1-0.
Smejkai-Alster, Harrachov 1969: I
e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 c3 c6 4 Nf3 d.S S
Nbd2 Nd7 6 eS e6? (ag ain , Black's
queen bishop is blocked in; Black
 GURGENIDZE SYSTEM

sho uld imitate G u r geni dze s
imaginative 6 Nf8) 7 B d3 c5 8 0-0
. ..
Ne7 9 Rei Nc6 10 Nfl Rb8 II Bf4 bS
12 Qd2 Qb6 13 Bh6 and Whi te has an
excellent position . 1 5 Qdl Qc7 16 Rei B h6 17 Re2 and
(b) Darga-Ciocaltea, West Germany
197 1 : I e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 c3 dS 4 Nd2
c6 5 Bd3 Nh6?1 6 Ngf3 0-0 7 0-0 f6 8
Rei Nf7 9 Bc2 Na6 10 exdS cxdS I I
Nfl eS 1 2 dxeS fxeS
' ween 3 Nc3 and 3 Nd2, as White is
now able to build up a pawn centre
without loss of time .) 10 . . . Nd7 I I b3
Nb6 I2 Bb2 Bd7 1 3 a4 aS I4 Bc3 ReS
W hite s ' space adv antage is
indispu ta ble.
(c) Adorjan-Vadasz, Hungary 1 970:
I e4 c6 2 d4 g6 3 Nf3 B g7 4 c3 dS S
Nbd2 Nd7 6 Bd3 dxe4 7 Nxe4 Ngf6 8
Nxf6+ Nxf6 9 0-0 0-0 10 Rei (this
position is similar to those arising
from 3 Nc3, but White has a pawn on
c3 instead of h3, and his king's
bishop is on d3 instead of c4, if this
game is comp ar ed with Zinn­
Bohnisch in Section B)

Black has a seemingly powerful

centre, but Darga finds the correct
plan for White: 1 3 h4! Nc7 14 NgS!
Qf6 IS Qe2 NxgS 16 BxgS Qf7 1 7
Radi Be6 1 8 Ng3 h6 1 9 Be3 Qf6 20 hS
Qh4 (wi nni ng the exchange but
obtaining a poor game) 21 Bxg6 Bg4
22 Qd2 Bxdl 23 Rxdl Rf6 24 Qe2
(threateni ng 25 Nf5) 24 . . Raf8 25 BcS
.
10 . ReS? 1 1 Bg5 Qb6 12 Qd2
. .

(White's pieces are economically

(winning back the exchange with
interest) 2S ... Ne6 26 Bxf8 Rxf8 27 placed) I 2 . Be6 1 3 Rxe6! fxe6 14 Rei
. .

RxdS N f4 28 Qe4 Rf7 29 Rd7 1-0. cS I5 Bc4 NdS 1 6 Bh6 Rad8?

Pinter - Bi lek , B u d apest 1975: I e4
c6 2 d4 dS 3 Nd2 g6 4 Ng f3 Bg7 5 h3
Nh6 6 Bd3 f6 (6...0-0 7 0-0 aS 8 a4
Na6 9 Rei and White stood a little
better, Tukmakov-Spassky, M osco w
1 97 1 ) 7 0-0 0-0 8 Rei Nf7 9 Qe2 e6 10
c4 (this highlights the difference bet-
(16 ... Bf6 is essential) 17 Bxg7 Kxg7
18 NgS Nc7 19 Qf4 RfB 20 Qxc7 Qxc7
21 Nxe6 + Kh6 22 Nxc7 ReS 23 Ne6
RfS 24 g4 1-0.
Geller-Botvinnik, Moscow 1967: I
e4 c6 2 d4 dS 3 Nd2 g6 4 -Bd3 Bg7
(4 . . dxe4 5 Nxe4 Qxd4 6 Bd2 and
.

-91 -
 THE MODERN DEFENCE
White has a lead in development) 5 c3
dxe4 6 Nxe4 Bf5 7 Nc5!? b6 8 Nb3 (8
Bxf5 bxc5) 8... Bxd3 9 Qxd3 Nf6 10
Nf3 0-0 II 0-0 Qc7 12 Rei with a min­
imal advantage for White.
Andersson-Benko, Palma de
Mallorca 1971: I e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nf3
c6 4 Be2 d5 5 Nbd2 dxe4?! (5... Bg4!?
deserves attention) 6 Nxe4 Bg4?
(6...Nd7 was essential) 7 c3 Nd7
8 Nfg5! Bxe2 9 Qxe2 (White nov. sud­
denly threatens 10 Nd6 + and 10
Nxfi is also in the air) 9... Ndf6 10
Bf4 (maintaining the threat of Nd6 +
and obtaining the better game. 10
Nxfi? fails to 10... Kxfi II Ng5 +
Ke8 12 Ne6 Qd7 13 Nxg7 + Kfi and
Black wins a piece) 10 ... Nxe4 I I
Nxe4 Kf8 12 0-0 Nf6 13 Nc5 b6 14
Nd3 ReS 15 Rfel e6 16 Radl and
White holds all the trump cards (see
Instructive Game No. 19).
Summing up, 3 Nd2 is well worth
attention as it sets Black new prob­
lems . However, more practical
examples are needed before a definit­
ive judgement can be made.
-92-
D: Tbe 3 c4 System
1 e4 g6
2 d4 c6?l
3 c4l
With this move, White builds up a
powerful pawn centre and puts a
question mark over the whole of
Black's strategy. 3 c4! is only strong
because after ...c6, Black cannot
transpose into the King's Indian
which requires .. .c5. The Gurgenidze
set-up is even more dubious in the
sequence I d4 g6 2 c4 c6?! 3 Nc3 Bg7
4 e4 d5, e.g. Hort-Cardoso, Las
Palmas 1975: 5 e5 dxc4? 6 Bxc4 Nh6
7 h3! Nf5 8 Nf3 b5 9 Bb3 h5 10 Ne4
Na6 II Neg5! e6 12 a4 b4 13 Ne4
(strategically the game has already
been decided in view of Black's weak
dark squares on his king-side)
l3 . Qa5 14 Bg5 c5 15 Nf6+ Kf8 16
. .
d5! Hh6 17 Bxh6+ Rxh6 18 0-0 Qd8
19 Qcl Kg7 20 Rdl Qe7 21 d6 Qd8 22
Ng5 Bd7 23 Bc2 Rh8 24 Bxf5 gxf5 25
h4 Bc6 26 Rd3 Rh6 27 Rg3 Rg6 28
Nxe6 + fxe6 29 Rxg6 + 1-0.
Olafsson-Cardoso, Las Palmas
1975: 5 e5 Be6 6 cxd5 (perhaps if
 GURGENIDZESYSTEM

Olafsson had known about the main 5 Nc3 Nb6

line: he would have tried Tal's pawn
�crifice here) 6... Bxd5 7 Nge2 Nh6 8 Tal now led the game into tactical
Nxd5 Qxd5 9 Nc3 Q d 7 lO Bc4 Nf5 11 paths as follows:
Be3 b5 12 Bb3 Na6 13 0-0 0-0 14 a4 b4
15 Ne4 Rad8 16 Ng5 Nc7 17 Qf3 Nd5 6 b4 8e6
I!! Qe4 e6 19 Radl Bh6? 20 Bel 7 Nh3
Nde7? 21 g4! Nxd4
Sacri ficing a pawn, although 7
cxd5 Bxd5 8 Nh3 would also give
White some advantage.

7 dxc4
8 Nf4 Bd5

22 Nf3 (winning a piece) 22...Qc7 23

Rxd4 Bxcl 24 Rxcl and White won in
a few more moves.

During the Las Palmas tourna­

ment, Petros1an asked me one even­
ing whether· 4 ... d5 in this line was 9 b3! ?
dubious for a more obvious reason.
This is correct as, with White's The point of the sacrifice is now
knight on c3 and Black's bishop on clear, White opens up the a3-f8 diag­
g7, White can immediately obtain a onal and plays for mate.
superior ending by 5 exd5 cxd5 6
Nxd5 c:6 7 Nc3 Bxd4 (7...Qx d4 8 9 cxb3
Qxd4 Bxd4 9 NbS!) 8 N g e 2 when, 10 axb3 e6
whatever Black plays, he has the 11 Bd3 Nf5
inferior position.
Tal considers that Black should
3 dS have given up a piece for three pawns
by l l . . . Bxg2 12 Nxg2 Qxd4 with an

We now follow the game Tal­ unclear pos i tion .

Zilbershtein, U.S.S.R. 1974.
12 Bxf51 exf5
4 eS Bg7 13 Bal Bfl

-93 -
 THE MODERN DEFENCE

14 Bxf8 Kxf8 18 dS cxdS

15 Qdll Be6 19 NfxdS BxdS
20 NxdS QxeS +
I S hS was no better as White wins
. . • 21 Re3 Qd6
by 16 Ncxd5 cxd5 17 Qb4 + Qe7 18
Qxe7 + Kxe7 19 NxdS + followed by Or 2 1 . . . Qg7 22 Nc 7! Nxc7 23
Nb6. Qd8 + mates .

16 Rdl Qe7 22 Qc3 f6

l3 Nc7! 1-0
White defends against dS , but his
pieces are so passively placed that he Tai-Zilbershtein, U.S. S.R. 1974.
cannot hold out for long .

17 Rh3 Na6
In conclusion, it appears that I o4
g6 2 d4 c6? 3 c4! gives White a good
garile with more space and prospects
of a king-side attack.

- 94 -
 G U RGEN1DZE SYSTEM

Instructive Game N o . 1 6
W hite: Mukhin 10 Nf3 Bg4
Black: Gurgenidze 11 Bel e6

Ri_ga 1975

I e4 c6
1 d4 d5
3 NcJ g6
4 Bf4 Nf6? 1

If we compare this posltlon with

variation A: I e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 g6
4 e5 Bg7 5 f4 h5 6 Nf3 Bg4, there are
three reasons why Black has a very
satisfactory game; (a) the bishop is
better placed on f8 than on g7 , (b)
White's queen-side is already weak­
Gurgenidze is fond of the Nf6-h5- ened, and (c) Nb6 preparing for Nc8-
g7 manoeuvre, and now wins a tempo e7-fS has already been played.
by attacking the bishop on f4. The
position is a matter of taste, but I bel­ 11 0-0 NcB
ieve that his greater space gives White 13 Na4 Ne7
the better -chances. The problem is 14 c4 NefS
how to continue in the middle-game 15 Bfl b4
which is very complicated. 16 Rfel?

5 eS NbS White begins to play aimlessly.

6 Bel Ng7
7 Qdl Nd7 16 Be7
8 f4? 1 17 Rab 1 Nb6
18 cS N bS
This is a very committing move; 8 19 Bel N fS
Bh6 ! ? comes into consideration. 10 B fl Nh6
21 Bel
8 Nb6
9 b3 bS White would be satisfied with a

- 95 -
 THE MODERN DEFENCE

draw, but Black finds a way to 32 axb4

improve his position. 33 Rc1 Rbb8
34 Rxc6 Rxa1
11 Bf5 35 Bel Ra3
11 Rb1 Ng4
13 Qcl NxeJ StrategicaUy the game is now over,
14 QxeJ Kfll bu tthere are a lot of tactics hidden in
the endgame, which is o f great
The start of another interesting interest.
manoeuvre.
36 Rb3 Ral +
25 Nc3 Kg8 37 Kfl Ra6
16 Bell Qf8! 38 Rc7 Bd8
39 Rd7 B:dl
The f4 pawn is now very weak .• 40 QxfJ Raxb6

27 b4 Qb6 Black wins a pawn, but still needs

l8 Nel b61 to play very carefully to win.

41 g4 hxg3 +
42 hxg3 Ra61
43 Rbl

After 43 g4, Black wins by

43 . . . Ra2! 44 Bb 1 Rxe2 + 45 Qxe2
Nxf4!

43 Rc8
44 Bb3 Ra3
4S Kgl

45 g4? would lose immediately

Black now has much the better because of 45 . . . Bh4 + 46 Kg2 Ng3 !
game . 47 Nxg3 Rc3.

29 Bel Bg4 4S Bb6

30 Bd3 Kg7 46 Qg4
31 Rebl aS!
46 g4? still does not work because
The 'bishop on e7 comes into play o f 46. . Rc3! 47 Nxc3 Nxf4 + 48 Kg3
.

at j ust the right moment. Rxb3! 49 Rxb3 g5 ! 50 Qd l bxc3 5 1

Rx b6 c2 ! and Black wins.
- 31 cxb6?
46 Rc6
32 a3 offered more resistance. 47 Rb7 Qbl

- 96 -
 GURGENIDZE SYSTEM

48 Bxd5 The start of a decisive

combination.

49 NxgJ Rcl +
SO Kfl

If SO Kf3 then SO . Rc3 wins.

. .

so Nxg3 +
51 QxgJ exd5
52 QfJ Rhll
53 Rxb6 0.1

White lost on ti me. After

SJ . . . Rh l + S4 Ke2 Rxb l wins. One
feels that Black calculated this ending
48 ••• Rxgl + l better than a computer!

- 97 -
 THE MODERN DEFENCE

Instructive Game N o . 1 7

Wblte: Tlmosbcbenko 13 Bel

Black: Bronstein

U . S. S.R. 1973

1 e4 &6
1 d4 Ba7
3 Nf3 c6
4 Nc3 dS
5 b3 Nf6
6 e5 Ne4
7 Nxe4 dxe4
a N as c5
9 lk4 �
10 e6 f57 1
13 ... Nc6T I
Only Bronstein would play a move
like this, and on move 13 he makes an A surprising move . If now 14 dxc6
even more bizarre move. As we have then 14 . Bxe6 I S Nh6 + Kh8 with
. .

already seen, IO . . . f6 is quite playable.
the threat of Rd8 and Black has com­
pensation for his piece. There is an
old saying in chess - to be original is
to lose many games. In my opinion
14 dxc6 Bxe6 I S NgS I R fd8
( 1S .Rad8 16 Nxe61 Rxd l + 17 Bxd l
. .

wins for VVhite) 1 6 Qxd8 + Rxd8 17

Nxe6 leads to an advantage for
White, as a rook and two bishops are
stronger than a queen and two
pawns.

14 a4 bxa4
15 b4?

11 dS b5 Adventurous, but it would have

n Nn Qb6 been better to have played more pro­
saically. Stronger was 1 S dxc6 Bxe6
Another unclear continuation is 16 NgS Rfd8 17 Qxd8 + Rxd8 18
12 . Rx f7 13 exf7 + Kxf7 1 4 Be2 ( 14
. . Nxe6 and White has the upper hand.
d6 + e6 ! ) 14 . . c4 I S a4 c3 ! ? with an
.

unclear game. 15 . .. Nd4

- 98 -
 GU RGE N I DZE·SYSTEM

16 Rxa4 aS I This was an implicit draw offer,

17 bS axn which was refused by Timoshchenko
to his own cost.
The situation has now cleared a
lillie, and Black has good compensa­ l6 Rd1
uon for the exchange.
White plays on hoping to win and
18 exn + Kxn later loses. How many times this has
19 Bc4 Bd71 happened in the annals of chess!
20 c3 NbS
l6 8e5
But not 20 Bxa4? because of 2 1
. . .
27 Qd Rgl
Qxa4 and the knight o n d4 h as no l8 Bf4 Bf6
retreat square. 29 Qe3

l1 Bel White can still be satisfied with his

position, as Black now has to prevent
21 Qb3? is not possible because of Qa7 .
21 . . . Rb8 22 Be2 Nxc3 1 with the better
game for Black . 29 Ral
30 Qg3 Nb7
l1 Nd6 31 Be57
ll Rill a4
lJ 0-0 c4 With both sides in time-trouble,
l4 Be3 Qb3 White is the first to go astray. After
l5 Qal l the correct 3 1 hxg6 + ! h xg6 32 BeS I
Black would have been Hl trouble.
The game is still finely balanced. 25
Qxb3 cxb3 26 Raa 1 BbS has no fears 31 ...

for Black.
Now the black position i s very
solid.

32 b6 7

This move is too optimistic, and

loses the game since Black now wins a
piece. It was necessary to play 32
Bxf6 Kxf6 33 f4 with an unclear out­
come, e.g. 3 3 . . .exO 34 QxO Nd6.

32 f4 1
33 BhS + )(fl
34 Bxf4 gxf4
QbS 35 Qxf4 Nd61

- 99 -
 THE MODERN DEFENCE

36 g4 Kg8 42 Kbl Qb6

37 g5 Bb8 43 Qe3 Qd6
44 Rd4 Rf8
The only square, but a good one . 45 Ral Bxd4
46 Qxd4 + Qf6
38 g6 bxg6 47 Rei Qxd4
39 Bxf6 Bf6 48 cxd4 Rf51
40 Bxe4 Nxe4 49 0-1
41 Qxe4 Kb8
An exciting game !
White b now los t .

� Important
Booklet of Recent
Modern Defence Games
W e a t R . H . M . appreciate the su pport you a r e g i v i n g our
efforts to publish the fi nest i n chess literature.
To show ou r appreci ati o n , we want to send you a free
booklet, contai ning a collection of important and instructive
recent games i n this openi n g , which we prepared after this
book was pri nted .
To receive your copy-there is no charge or obli gati on­
j u st send you r name and address as follows :

U.S., Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico: Europe and elsewhere:

MODERN DEFENCE MODERN DEFENCE
R . H . M . Press AFC-R. H . M . Europe
4 1 7 Northern Boulevard Neugasse 28, CH-6300
Great Neck , New York 1 1 021 Zug , Switzerland

- 1 00 -
 GURGENIDZE SYSTEM

Instructive Game N o . 1 8

White: Suetin 20 buS N a6

Black: Gurgenidze
White still has the edge. However,
Oaugavpils 1 974 it is extremely difficult to make real
progress with the passed a-pawn and
1 e4 c6 Black has a considerable amount of
2 d4 d5 counterplay. To handle this middle­
3 Nd2 g6 game correctly calls for real chess
4 Ngf3 Bg7 artistry.
5 h3 Nd7
6 Bd3 N f8?1 21 Rabl Qa7
7 cJ Nf6 22 Nal
8 0-0 Ne6
9 Ret 0-0 The first step towards exchanging
10 e5 Ne8 the blockading piece on a6.

21 ••. Rabl

22 . . . c5 would be premature
because of 23 dxc5 ! Rxc5 24 R.xc5
Qxc5 25 Re i and White wins the
pawn on d5.

23 Rxb8? 1

Better was 23 Nc2 ! Rxbl 24 Rxbl

Rb8 25 Rxb8 + Nxb8 26 Qb3 ! keep­
ing the advantage.

White has more space, while 23 Nxb8

Black's position is very elastic. 24 Rbl Nd71
25 Ncl Bf8
11 b4 a5
12 a4 axb4 Black organizes his defensive
13 cxb4 N8c7 resources very well. 25 . . . c5 ? ! would
14 NbJ b6 again be inferior as White has the
15 Bd2 Ba6 better game after 26 dxcS QxcS 27
16 Qc2 Qd7 Nb4 Nxe5 28 NxeS Bxe5 29 QxdS .
17 Ree l Rfct.
18 a51 BxdJ 2.6 Ral Nbl
19 Q�d3 buS · 27 Nb4

- 1 01 -
 THE MODERN DEFENCE

27 a6 leads to equality after nament . 34 B h6 ! was necessary, and

27 . . . c5 ! 28 dxc5 Nxc5 29 Qxd5 a draw would have ensued after
Nbxa6. 34 . . . Be7 35 Bg5 BfB .

27 Nd8 J4 Qt:7
35 QgS RxaS
21 Q b3 e6
J6 Rbl NxcS
29 NdJ Na6
37 N xcS RxcS
30 BgS?I
J8 b4 Rc4
Changing his general strategy, White now has to fight desparately
White turns his forces against the to save himself.
enemy king. White cannot make any
progress on the queen-side, e.g. , 30 39 bS b6? 1
Qb6 Qa8 with the threat of Rb8 . The
question is whether 30 h41 7 was bet­ Better w as 3 9 . . . Nd4 ! with good
ter than the text. winning chances.

40 QeJ .Kb7
30 ... Rbl
41 bxg6 + fxg6
31 Qc2 cS
41 gJ

Here the game w as adjo u rn ed .

Home analysis showed that White
has su fficient counterplay to draw,
e.g. , 42 . . . Re4 43 Qb6! Qxb6 44 Rxb6
Rc4 45 Rb7 + Kg8 46 Nh4 . 43 Qb6! is
also strong after 42 . . . Bg7 or
42 . . . Be7 . Black sealed another move
which also leads to a draw.
41 BcS
43 NgS + I bxg5
44 QxgS Bf8
32 dxcS Nc6 45 .Kgl Ne7
46 Bxe7 Qxe7
Now Black has active counterplay, 47 Qxe7 + Bxe7
as Rb5 is a real and obvious threat. 48 R b7 g5
White must play sharply on the king­ 49 Rxe7 + .Kg6
side. 50 Rxe6 + KfS
51 ReB Re4
33 Qd1 Rb5 51 fJ Rxe5
34 Bf6? 53 Rxe5 + Kxe5
54 Kn Kd4
A lack of objectivity may be disas­ 55 Kel .Kc3
trous not only for the result of a 56 f4 pf4
single game but also for a whole tour- 57 pf4 Yl· Yl

- 102 -
 GURGE N I DZE SYSTEM

Instructive Game N o . 1 9
Whitr: Andersso n White now stands much better .
Black: Benko
8 ... Bxel
Palma de Mallorca 1 97 1
8 . . . Bf5 was no better because of 9
1 e4 g6 Qb3 !
2 d4 Bg7
3 Nf3 c6 9 Qx.el Ndf6
4 Bel dS 10 Bf41
5 Nbdl dxe4? 1
A very strong move. White is in no
This move is often made without hurry, and now has the simple threat
deep thought , but its consequences of I I Nd6 + , which forces the black
are often dramatic. Better is 5 . . Bg4 6. king to move. 10 Nxn? ! would have
c3 e6 following lines similar to the been premature as after 10 . . . Kxn 1 1
closed variation of the Caro-Kann. NgS + Ke8 1 2 Ne6 Qd7 1 3 Nxg7 +
Kn the black knight is trapped.
6 Nxe4 Ba4?
10 Nxe4
Better was 6 . . . Nd7 7 0-0 Ngf6. 11 Nxe4 Kfl
12 0.0 Nf6
7 c3 Nd7? 13 Nc5 b6
14 Nd3 Rei
Black still does not sense any 15 Rfel e6
danger, else he would have played 16 Rad1
7 . Bxf3 with a somewhat inferior
. .

game. Another strong continuation was

1 6 NeS Qe8 17 a4 ! opening up the a­
file, but Andersson has another plan
in mind.

I N f&5l

- 103 -
 THE MODERN DEFENCE

16 ••. )(gl 31 b4 )(b7

17 Ne5 Qe8 Jl ReS Qdl
33 &3
N (lt of course 17 . . . Nd77 1 8 Nxfi l
and Whi te wins. Why not 33 b 5 ! winning at once?
Andersson is sometimes too careful.
II c4 b6
19 Rd3 Nd7 33 Ral
20 Qf3 b5 34 a3 Ra6
ll RaJ! Nxe5 35 lb.c6 lb.c6
n Bxe5 Qd7 36 Qxc6 Qxd4
23 Qell bxc4
l4 Qxc4 D7 Black could have resigned here as

25 IMI the queen endgame is totally lost.

Black is still not out of danger, as 37 )(gl e5

White keeps up the positional 31 Qc5 Qd3
pressure. 39 bS Qe4 +
40 )(bl Qf3
25 . .
. 115? 41 kgl g5
41 bxgS b4
Natural, but it would have been 43 QeJ Qdl +
better to have played 2S . . . BxeS fol- 44 )(bl bxgl +
lowed by Rd8 . Black: would still be 45 )(xaJ Qa l +
worse, but would not have lost 46 )(b4 Qbl +
material. 47 )(g4 Qal +
48 )(f5 QdS
26 Qc51 Bxe5 49 Qxe5 Qf3 +
l7 Rxe5 50 Qf4 QxaJ
51 )(g4 QbJ
Threatening 28 RxhS + I winning a 51 b6 Qd l +
pawn . 53 Qf3 Qa t +
54 )(f4 Qc l +
17 )(g7 55 QeJ Qcl
21 lba7 Rc7 56 Qe4 + )(g7
l9 lhe7 Qxc7 57 b7 Qc l +
lO Qd Rei 5I 1(15 1-0

- 104 -
 Addenda
Edmar Mednis
This section has two major object­
ives. First, to add important recent
instructive games to the sections
excellently covered by Grandmaster
Hort. Second, to present important
variations which for reasons of space
could not appear in the frrst part. So
that the information is of greatest
practical benefit, these variations are
also presented through the medium
of instructive games. The new varia­
tions are the A verbakh (3 c4. d6 4 Nc3
- games 23-25), the Pseudo-Austrian
(3 Nc3 d6 4 f4 - games 26-28) and
Geller's Quiet Line (3 Nf3 d6 4 c3 -
game 29).
- 105 -
A statistical count of the results of
the ten games discussed shows that
White won six, Black none and there
were four draws. I ask the "Blacks''
not to be alarmed and discouraged,
as the above result is more of a statis­
tical fluke than anything else. Using
the criteria of timeliness and over-all
instructiveness for selecting the
instructive games, the game results
happened to turn out the way they
did. However, as the readers will
learn from the game annotations,
plenty of practical and theoretical
information is presented which shows
how Black can do better.