Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pub - The Petroff Gambit Chess PDF

    Uploaded by

    Osvaldo Cezar Gonçalves de Andrade
    90 views241 pages

    Original Title

    epdf.pub_the-petroff-gambit-chess.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    90 views241 pages

    Pub - The Petroff Gambit Chess PDF

    Uploaded by

    Osvaldo Cezar Gonçalves de Andrade

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 241
    A cetiiled account of the sod opening Savoured by Pe mae er mele eos urd Lasha Janjgava .- . "eB , ms - C S * t —s a re ~‘ ee’ — = o A . — = i , ~% ore, . i. The Petroff Defence Lasha Janjgava Translated by Graham Burgess AMBET| First published in the UK by Gambit Publications Ltd 2001 Copyright © Lasha Janjgava 2001 English language translation © Graham Burgess 2001 Additional material © John Nunn 2001 The right of Lasha Janjgava to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Desigsis and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade ot otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent pur- chaser. A copy of the British Library Cataloguing in Publication data is available from the British Library. ISBN | 901983 46 3 DISTRIBUTION: Worldwide (except USA): Central Books Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 SLN. Tel +44 (0)20 8986 4854 Fax +44 (0)20 8533 5821. E-mail: orders@Centralbooks.com 7 USA: BHB Interhational, Inc., 41 Monroe Turmpike, Trumbull, CT 06611, USA. For all other enquiries (including a full list of all Gambit Chess titles) please con- tact the publishers, Gambit Publications Ltd, P.O. Box 32640, London W14 OJIN. E-mail Murray @ gambitchess.freeserve.co.uk Or visit the GAMBIT web site at http://www.gambitbooks.com Edited by Graham Burgess Typeset by Petra Nunn Printed in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press, Wiltshire. 10987654321 Gambit Publications Ltd Managing Director; GM Murray Chandler Chess Director: GM John Nunn Editorial Director: FM Graham Burgess German Editor: WFM Petra Nuon Contents Symbols Introduction Unusual Third Moves for White 3 d4 without 3...Axe4 3 d4 Axe4: Sidelines for White and Black 3.d4 Axe4 4 2d3 d5 5 AxeS Ad7 3.d4 Axed 4 2d3 d5 5 AxeS B2d6 3 DxeS: Sidelines 3 DxeS d6 4 Af3 Axe: Sidelines 4 DP Dxe4 5 d4 d5 6 2d3 Ac6 4 DP Dxe4 5 d4 d5 6 2d3 Ad6 4 DE3 Dxe4 5 d4 d5 6 2d3 Be7 The Main Line: 7 0-0 Ac6 8 c4 Ab4 KOUMIDWARWNH — Index of Variations 7 32 47 80 107 119 142 155 188 222 238 Symbols + check Weht world team championship ++ double check Ech European championship # checkmate Echt European team championship " brilliant move ECC European Clubs Cup 7 good move ct candidates event 17 interesting move IZ _interzonal event oa) dubious move Z zonal event ? bad move OL olympiad ” blunder je Junior event +7 White is winning wom women’s event £ White is much better mem memorial event z White is slightly better rpd —_ rapidplay game = equal position sim game from simultaneous display ~ unclear position adv Advanced chess (human + computer) F Black is slightly better cor. correspondence game = Black is much better 1-0 the game ends in a win for White -+ Black is winning Y-lfp the game ends in a draw Ch championship 0-L the game ends in a win for Black Cht team championship (n) nth match game Wch world championship (D) — see next diagram Transposilious are displayed by a dash followed by the moves (in italic) of the variation to which the transposition occurs. The moves start with the first one that deviales from the line undcr discussion. All the moves to bring about the transposition are given. Thus, after 1 e4 e5 2 Af3 DAf6 3 d4 Axed 4 2d3 dS 5 Dxe5 D7 6 Df3 the comment “6...2d6 7 0-0 0-0 8 c4 c6 9 Dc3 Dxc3 10 bxc3 ~ 5.,.2.d6 6 0-0 0-07 c4 c6 8 Dc3 Duc3 9 bxc3 Dd7 10 By3 *” signifies that the reader should locate material on I e4 e5 2 Df3 Df6 3 d4 Axed 4 2d3 d5 5 AxeS 2.d6 6 0-00-07 c4 c6 8 Ac3 Axc3 9 bxc3 Dd7 10 Af3, to which play has trans- posed. The ‘+’ sign indicates the overall assessment of that line; such signs are only given when it is meaningful to do so. Introduction Le4 e5 2 Df3 Df6 (D) |] t 5 il | Om A AMAR RAR NEMS 2 7B The Petroff Defence (also known as the Russian Game) is one of the most popular opening systems. This method of defence was introduced into prac- tice in a corespondence game con- tested in St Petersburg in 1837 where Petroff played as White against a team of consultants. The first detailed investigation of this system was made by the Russian master Karl Jaenisch in his book Ana- lyse Nouvelle des Ouvertures de Jeu des Echecs (1842/3). The famous Eng- lish master Staunton named it the Russian Game in his Chéss-Player’s Handbook (London, 1847), noting that, although this method of defence had been known about for a long time, it had “never received the consideration it was entitled to until Mr. Petroff, the celebrated Russian player, introduced it again a few years back”. Further, Staunton drew attention to Petroff’s role in developing White’s attacking line 3 d4. The Petroff Defence was tried in practice and analysed by some of the best players of the 19th and early 20th century: Morphy, Steinitz, Tar- rasch, Chigorin, Marshall and others. The Petroff experienced a new wave of popularity in the 1980s and the 1990s. Those leading this wave in- cluded well-known players such as Karpov, Yusupovy, Hiibner, Hort, Ivan- chuk, Short, Shirov, Makarychev, Roz- entalis and others. In recent years the Petroff has been extremely popular, and it is often used in top-class events, with its adherents including both Kramnik and Anand. In this book I have sought to present a complete picture of the modem the- ory of the Petroff Defence, with espe- cial emphasis on the most critical variations. I hope that this book helps readers to play the Petroff success- fully, whether they defend it as Black or face it as White. I also hope that my work encourages more chess-players to take up this interesting and depend- able opening. 1 Unusual Third Moves for White 14 5 2 Df3 D6 This move characterizes the Petroff Defence. Instead of defending the at- tacked e5-pawn with 2...0c6, Black counterattacks White’s own pawn on e4. The Petroff is often played by be- ginners who simply mimic their oppo- nent’s moves (these beginners usually get a shock after 3 Axe5 Axed 4 We2 ‘We7 5 Wxe4). Moving up a few classes, the Petroff is popular at virtually all levels of chess. It is solid and forces White to fight hard for the initiatiye. It is especially appropriate when facing a dangerous attacking player, who may find the resulting positions not to his taste. At grandmaster level, where a draw with Black is regarded as a good thing, it is particularly popular, and in recent years has been a workhorse of many of the world’s top players. In most lines the e4- and e5-pawns disappeur, which. reduces the tension in the centre. The question then is whether White can usc his extra tempo tu gui a tangible advantage. If White does not succeed, then-the symmetri- cal pawn-suucture and open ¢ file may lead to early exchanges and dead equality. However, if White chooses one of the critical lines then very sharp play can result. Indeed, in these sharp lines it is often Black who sacrifices material for the initiative (see, for ex- ample, Line A21 of Chapter 10). Thus a certain amount of concrete knowl- edge is important when playing the Petroff with either colour. The theory of this opening has developed sub- stantially in recent years with several new lines being developed, in addition to new finesses in older variations. White’s main options are now 3 d4 and 3 @xeS5, which are the subject of later chapters. However, there are a few other possibilities that must be consid- ered: A: 3.Bc4 6 B: 3 2)c3 10 C: 343 16 A) ee 3 Red (D) This move was investigated in the 19th century and etjoyed. a uew wave, of popularity at the beginning of the 1990s. White must be prepared to sac- tifice a pawn, gaining real attacking chances in return. However, readers who might he tempted by this line should note that Black can decline the. offer (see note ‘b’ to Black’s 5th move) and defuse much of White’s attacking potential. UNUSUAL THIRD MOVES FOR WHITE 7 3...Axed 3...Ac6 transposes to the Two Knight’s Defence. 4 Dc3 Or: a) After 4 d3 Dd6 (4.066 was played in the old game Williams-Low- enthal, London 1851; 5 @xe5 d5 =) 5 Bxe5 Dxc4 6 Axc4 d5 7 DeS Rd6 8 d4 0-0 Black’s game is slightly prefer- able due to his bishop-pair. b) White has also tried 4 We2 d5 5 d3 (5 &b3 Ac6 6 d3 AcS7 DxeS Dd4 }) 5...dxc4 6 dxe4, and now: bl) 6...2g4 7 Dc3 Qb4? (7...Dc6 =; 7...2d6 =) 8 Wxcd Bxf3 9 Wxb4! &xg2 10 Bgl Dc6 11 Wxb7 Dd4 12 Exg2 Axc2+ 13 Sl Dxal 14 We6+ £8 15 Dds Hb8 16 Bxg7 Wd6 17 &h6!! 1-0 Pradzhanov-Pinkas, Sofia 1922. b2) 6...Ac6! 7 Wxc4 Le7 8 Dc3 0-09 0-0 2g4 =. c) 4 @xe5 and now: cl) 4...d5 is fully possible: cll) 5 WE 2e6 6 2b3 (6d4d77 Dxd7 Wxd7 F) 6...Dd7 7 Dxd7 Wxd7 843 Dc F. 12) 5 We2 Rc (5...dxo47! 6 Wxed We7 7 Dc3 £5 8 We2 Le6 9 0-0 Dd7 10 Hel #; 5...2e6!? 6 d3 Axf2 7 Dxf7 xf7 8 Wxfl+ Wie 9 Wxfe+ gxf6 10 &b3 Dc6 11 Ac3 Fd4 =) 6 dB dxc4 7 Wxe4 0-08 Wxc4 We7 9 d4 Rxd4 10 Wxd4 Acé = Steinitz. 2) 4..We7! 5 d4.d66 &xf7+ &d8 70-0 dxeS 8 dxeS+ &d7 9 Bd5 Dc5 10 b4.c6 LL bxeS cxd5 #/; White has no real compensation for the sacri- ficed material We now return to 4 43 (D): Or: a) 4.55 Qxd5 Df 6 2b3 2d6 7 d3 0-0 (7...b6!?) 8 &g5 + Yusupov. b) 4...2d6!? 5 2.b3 Ac6 6 0-0 Le7 7 Hel (it is more dangerous, but also riskier, to make a true gambit of it by playing 7 41? exd4 8 @d5) 7...e4! 8 Dxes Dred 9 Exe4 d5 10 Hel 0-0 = Albin-Hodges, New York 1893. c) 4...Df6!? 5 Axe5 d5 6 2b3c67 d4 and then: cl) 7...2e7 8 0-0 0-0 (8...Abd7 9 £4 Db6 10 WF3 £ Morphy-Potier, Paris sim 1858) 9 &g5! Dbd7 10 £4 £. 2) 7...2d6 8 0-00-0 (8...b69 De2 Dbd7 10 Hg3 0-0 11 £4 Ded 12 Axed dxe4 13 We2 (13 Whs! +} 13.06 8 ; THE PETROFF DEFENCE 14 3 cS 15 Be3 + Roeberg-Meijers, Giessen 1992) 9 &g5!(9 De2 Dg 10 £4 £6 11 Axg4 Rxg4 12 Wd? Lxe2 13 Wrxe2 £5 = Pavlov-Solovtsov, Moscow 1904) 9...2bd7 10 £4 £. 5 dxc3 c6!? Or: a) 5...d6? is bad in view of 6 Ags Re6 7 Bxe6 fxe6 8 WES +. b) 5...2e7!7 is interesting: 6 Axed 0-07 Wh5 (70-0 c6 (7...d6!?} 8 2d3 5 9 Bf4 Dd7 =) 7...d5 8 Bd3 g6 9 Dxg6 (9 Wh6 2.6 =) 9...fxg6 10 2xg6 hxg6 11 Wxg6+ =. c) Black often plays 5...f6: cl) 60-0 and here: cll) 6...We7 7 Dh4 c6!? (7...d6 8 Wh5+ Hd8 9 £4 Re6 10 Lxe6 Web 11 fxe5 dxeS 12 Dg6 Bc5+ 13 Shi Be8 14 Wxh7 Wes 15 Whs £ Morphy- Barnes, London 1859) and then: cll!) 8 Whs+ Sd8 9 Ds Wes (9...g67! 10 Dxe7 gxh5 11 Dxc8 ds 12 @e2 +) 10 WET d5 11 Dxg7 We7! at. cl12) 8 DfS Wes 9 Bb3 d5 10 Me3 Was 11 Wed Wc7 F. c12) 6...g67 Hel dé is an interest- ing idea, since 8 @\g5?! fxg5 9 Hxe5+ dxeS 10 2£7+ dexf7 11 Wxd8 Acé 12 Wxc7+? ends in disaster for White af- ter 12...S2g8, intending ...h6 followed by ...Bh7. c13) 6...2c6 7 Dh4 and now: 131) 7...De7?! 8 2d3! g6 (8...d5 9 Whs+ d7 10 £4 We8 11 Wal +) 9 f4 exf4 (9...2g7 10 fxe5 fxe5 11 Res +) 10 Qxf4 +. 132) 7...968 £4 £5 (8...2c5+9Bh1 d6 10 b4 2b6 11 £5 De7 12 2d3 gives White compensation, Ja Afar-Grassi, Thessaloniki OL 1984) 9 Df3 e4 10 BDeS BcS+ 11 Shi Be7 12 VF7+ SFB 13 b4 Ado 14 Rb3 DdB 15 Re3 De6 16 Dxed! fred 17 £5 gives White a strong attack. 133) 7...We7 8 DFS Wc5 9 &b3d5 10 2e3 WaS 11 Dh4 Se6 12 Whs+ £7 13 We4 De7 is slightly better for Black. 14) 6...d67 Dh4 g6 8 £4 and here: c141) 8...£599 Dxf5! (9 Df3 d5 10 Sxd5 Bc5+ 11 Bhi 6 12 Bcd Wadi 13 Exdl e4 14 DeS Dd7 ~) 9... Rxf5 10 Wd5 Se7 11 fxeS HFS (11...0c6 12 Exf5! Dxe5 13 HxeS dxeS 14 WE7+ Sd7 15 gS 1-0 Spitzer-Szen, Pest 1857) 12 Wxb7 Dd7 13 e6 +~. 142) 8...Ac6 9 £5 De7 10 fxg hxg6 11 Exf6 and now Black should ty LL...d5 rather than 11...8xh4? 12 RE7+ Sd7 13 Bg5 +. 143) 8...We7! 9 £5 Wg7! 10 WES (10 2e3 Dc6 11 WE Re7 12 b4 Dds ©) 10...Re7 F intending ...c6 and ...d5. 2) 6 Dh4 g6 7 £4 We7 (7.62! 8 £5 +; 7...c6!? 8 £5 d5 9 fxg6.dxc4 10 Whs bd7 11 g7 Bxp7 12 We4+ bd 13 Wxg7 WE8, Gobel-Koskivirta, corr. 1988-90, 14 We3! with the initiative) 8 £5 (D) and then: UNUSUAL THIRD MOVES FOR WHITE 9 21) 8...c6!? 9 fxg6 dS 10 Whs $d8 11 0-0 (this may well be wrong) 11...Wg7 (11... WeS+ 12 hl Wxc4 13 xf6 was given as winning for White by L.Kuznetsoy, but it is not clear how White is even surviving after 13... We4) 12 Bxf6 hxg6 (12...2¢7 13 BE7 hxg6 14 &g5! +) 13 Wxes &c5+ 14 Sh @Dd7 15 BF8+! Wxf8 16 Bg5+ Le7 17 &xe7+ (I.Kuznetsov-Dementiev, Russia 1992) 17...%e8 18 Wd4 cS (or 18... Hxh4? 19 &xh4 +) 19 Bxc5! +. 622) 8...\Wg7 9 fxg6 (9 £437! g5 10 Whs+ WF7 11 Dg6 dd (11...8g8!7} 12.4 Bg8 F)9..hxg6 10 Wed and now: 221) 10...g5 11 Dts We6 12 2d3 WhS? (better is 12...Wg8) 13 Wxhs+ BxhS 14 Dg7+ Kxg7 15 Qg6+ + Szell-Fedorov, West Berlin 1987. 222) 10...d8 11 Wg3 g5 12 Ds and here: 62221) 12...Wg6 13 2d3 (13 0-0!) 13...d5 (13...Wg8 14 Re3 d6 (14.5 15 0-0-0 +} 15 0-0 gives White com- pensation) 14 De7 WET 15 Axc8 e4 (15...2xc8 16 R£5+ Dd7 17 Be3 in- tending 0-0-0 +) 16 &e2 &xc8 17 e3 (17 Rg4+2! Dd7 18 Re3 £5! 19 0-0 £4 F) 17...2d6 18 WF2 Weé (not 18,..Bxh2? 19 Bxh2 &xh2 20 g3 Wh7 21 &g4+ Dd7 22 0-0-0 c6 23 Bhi xg3 24 Bxh7 Qxf2 25 &xd7+ +-) 19 h3 Ad7 20 0-0-0 HeS 21 Hhfl and now 21...2e7! + is better than either 21...Bf8?! 22 Bxg5 (22 c4 dxc4 23 &xg5 Ke7 ~) 22...fxg5 23 Wxf8+ Rxf8 24 Bxf8+ dd7 25 Bxa8 + or 21...Bh6? 22 c4! c6 (22...dxc4 23 Bd4 +) 23 cxd5 cxd5 24 h4! + Szell-Auten- rieth, Hungary 1987. 2222) 12..Wh7!? 13 0-0 4517 (13...c67! 14 2d3 d5 15 Ad6 e4 16 Exf6 exd3 17 Bxg5 Re7 18 HE7 1-0 Rublevsky-Sketinin, Pardubice 1992) 14 Bxd5 Rxf5 15 BxfS (15 &xb7? Red —+) 15..Wxf5 16 S2xb7 c6 17 Sixa8 Hh7 (« Rublevsky) 18 £3 Wc8 (18...8c8 19 Bfl Wes 20 Wr2 +) 19 WH +. 223) 10...Dc6 11 Wxg6+ Wxg6 12 @xg6 Bhs 13 g4 Hh3 14 M1 (14 Dxf8 SxfB 15 0-0 &g7 16 ee? Bhs ; 14 0-0 d5! 15 Dxf8 dxc4 16 Exf6 Rxg4 17 Rg5 0-0-0 18 Ag6 « [.Kuz- netsov) 14..2h7 15 &d3 Bh3 (th-'e LKuznetsov-Potapov, Russia 1992; 15...c5? 16 Df4 Bg7 17 Dhs +) 16 0-0 dS 17 dg? Bxd3!? 18 cxd3 Qxgd 19 Bxf6 297 20 HE? +. 6 DxeS dS 70-0 Ld6 8 Hel Leb (D) 9 Whs!? This is anew move that I ani recom- mending. I believe that it deserves se- rious attention. 9 2d3 Dd7 10 £4 DxeS 11 fed &c5+ 12 Sh1 Wh4 13 £3 = Boden- Morphy, London 1858. 9... Sxe5 10 THE PETROFF DEFENCE Or: a) 9...W£6? 10 &g5 WES 11 243 +. b) 9...0-07! 10 243 +. c) 9...g67! 10 Axgé fxg6 11 Wed (1 Wh3! +) 11.7 (not 11..dxc4?? 12 Wxe6+ +—) 12 Bxe6+ sef7 13 Wd4 gives White interesting play. 10 Wxes Not 10 Bxe5? g6 11 We2 dxc4 12 Rg5 We8 -+. Now (after 10 Wxe5): a) 10...dxc4? loses to 11 &g5. b) 10...0-0 11 &d3 Dd7 12 Wg3 +. B) 3Dc3 One of the most common ways to avoid the main lines of the Petroff. 3...8b4 (D) Ifhe wishes, Black can transpose to the Four Knights by 3...2\c6, and this is a sound option because the’ Four Knights gives Black few theoretical problems. Ny BAR we ome The text-move is a playable alterna- tive, but probably offers White slightly more chances for an advantage. In the main line, Black is forced to surrender the bishop-pair by exchanging on c3. Although the almost symmetrical pawn-structure makes it hard work for White to make progress, the bishop- pair offers White a small but nagging edge. Black’s main problem is the lack of secure outposts for his knights. He starts off with a knight on e4, but this usually has to move at some point and then Black may run into the typical problem of the player facing the bishop-pair — if he sits tight then White can gradually improve his position, but if he tries direct action, the posi- tion may become more open, which enhances the power of the bishops. 4 Dxes Or: a) 4 Dd5 Dxd5 5 exd5 e4 6 Dd4 0-0 (6... Wg5!? 7 DbS Wes 8 Ac3 0-0 9 &ic4 dG intending ...“Ad7 » Pavio- vié) 7 c3 &c5 gives Black a slight ad- vantage. b) 4d3.d55 exd5 xd5 6 Qd2 0-0 7 Re2 Ac6 8 0-0 Bxc3!? (8...He8!?; 8...Axc3!? 9 bxc3 and now Black can play 9...2.a5!? or 9.,.2e7!?; 8...2e6 9 Bel h6 10 Dxd5 Rxd2 11 Dxd2 Lxd5 12 2£3 Wd6 13. Ded Lxed 14 Bxet Bae8 15 &xc6 Wxc6 = Maroczy-Mar- shall, New York 1924) 9 bxc3 Wd6!? o Alekhine. c) 423% &xc3 5 dxc3 d6 (5...A\xe4 6 Wds Df6 7 Wxes+ We7 8 WxeT+ xc 9 Ld d6 10 0-0-0 Ac6 11 &bS Re6 12 Bhel + Yandemirov-Daniliuk, Voronezh 1991) 6 &c4 h6 7 h3 Acé 8 We2 We7 (intending ...$¢6) is equal, M.Pfibyl-Raetsky, Pardubice 1987. d) 4 &c4 (D) and then: dl) 4...d6!? and here: UNUSUAL THIRD MOVES FOR WHITE I d11) 5 Dd5 Axd5 6 2xd5 0-073 &a5 8 d3 c6 = Becker-Euwe, Karls- bad 1929. 12) 5 d3 and now: d121) 5...Ac6 - 4...Dc6 5 d3 d6. 4122) 5...0-0 and then: 41221) 6 a3?! &xc3+ 7 bxc3 Reb 8 2b3 Ac6 9 0-0 We7 10 Hel (10 &g5!7h6 11 Bhd g5 ~) 10..Ad7 11 Rg5 £6 12 Be3 DcS 13 d4 Dxb3 (13...&xb3_ 14 cxb3 + intending to meet 14...2\xe4?! with 15 dxe5 +) 14 cxb3 Rg4 15 d5 Dd8 16 b3 Lh5 17 g4~. 1222) 6 Rg5 Rxc3+7 bxc3 Leb 8 &b3 Dbd7 =. d123) 5...c6 6 £b3 0-0 7 0-0 Aa6 8 De2 Ac5 93 Dxb3 10 axb3 Ra5 11 4g3 and now Black should play 11...h6! =, rather than 11...&c7?! 12 Rg5h6 13 Bh4 g57 14 Axes hxgs 15 Rxgs +. d13) 50-0 0-0 and then: d131) 6 d4 exdd 7 Wxd4- Dc6 8 Wd3 &xc3 9 bxc3 He8 (9...h6 10 Kel ‘Bed 11 eS dxeS 12 Axes DxeS 13 Bxe5 He8 14 Qf4 BxeS 15 Bxe5 We7 16 Wd4 Bd8 17 We4 Bd1+ is equal) 10 Bel Sg4 11 Rg5 (11 Ags Des) 11...h6 12 Rb4 Qxf3 13 Wxf3 Des 14 We2 Ag6 and Black has a slight ad- vantage. d132) 6 d3 &xc3 (6...2e6 7 &b3 Dbd7 8 De? &xb3 9 axb3 d5 10 Ag3 Be8 11 c3 28 12 b4 c6 =) 7 bxc3 Re6 (7...2.9417 8 h3 LHS 9 4 Qo6 10 &g5 Abd7 =) 8 3 Abd7 9 We2 We7 10 b3 a5 11 Bel a4 %4-% Lanc- Banas, Tava 1986. d2) 4...0c6 and now: 21) 5 d3 and then: d211) 5..0-06 &g5 £. d212) 5...d6 6 0-0 (6 h3 Be6 7 Axe6 fxe6 8 0-0 &xc3 9 bxc3 0-0 10 Bb1 b6 11 c4 Wes is equal, Walbrot- Blackburnc, Vienna 1898) 6...2xc3 (6... 419 7 De2 Qxf3 8 gxf3 Wd7 = Rausis-Goria, St Martin 1991) 7 bxc3 and here: 2121) 7...0-0 8 h3 (8 &g5!? is an alternative) 8...2e6 9 2b3!? (9 Rxe6 fxe6 10 gs?! We7 11 £4 exf4 12 Rxf4 h6 13 ALB Axed 14 Lxh6 DAg3 15 &g5 Hxf3! = Delmar-Pillsbury, Cambridge Springs 1904) 9...a5 10 We2 a4 1] Rxe6 fxe6 12 d4 + Pillsbury. 42122) 7...h6 8 We2 Re6 9 2b3 We8 10 Ah4 Lxb3 11 axb3 Wed = Hartston-Romanishin, Buenos Aires OL 1978. i d213) 5...d5 6 exdS Dxd5 7 Rd2 (70-0 &xc3 8 bxc3 0-0 leads to equal- ity, Schmid-Klein, Hamburg 1987) 7... 2xc3 (7...267! 8 0-0 £6 9 Hel &c5 10 Dad Kd6 11 d4 0-0 12 c3 + Chajes-Black, New York 1918) 8 bxc3 Rgd=. d22) 5 dS Ra5 6 c3 (6 0-0 d67 We2 0-0 8 d3 Dxd5 =) 6...0-0 7 d3 h6 8 a4 Rb6 9 b4 a6 10 Axb6 cxb6 11 ‘Whb3 with a slight advantage for White, 12 THE PETROFF DEFENCE Rohatek-Sefe, Trentianske Teplice 1949. “d3) 4...0-0 (D) and here: 31) 5 d3 d5 (5...c6!? 6 0-0 d5 7 £b3 a5 8 a3 2xc3 9 bxc3 a4 10 La2 Red =) 6 exdS AxdS 7 Rd2 Axc3 (7...6 8 0-0 He8 9 Hel 2xc3 10 bxc3 Rg4 11 h3 Axf3 12 Wxf3 D6 13 a4 ®bd7 © Tartakower-Marshall, Mos- cow 1925; 7...&xc3 8 bxc3 Ac6 9 0-0 Led =) 8 bxc3 2d6 9 Ags b6 10 Ded We7 11 Wns Leb 12 2g5 £6 13 Qxe6+ Wrxe6 14 Rxh6 = Tartakower-Kosti¢é, Bled 1931. 32) 5 We2 d6 6 a3 @xc3 7 dxc3 Le6 8 &g5 Dbd7 = Rogers-Finegold, Prague 1990. 33) 5 Dd5 Axd5 6 Bxd5 067 Lb3 580-0 2949 h3 2hS 10d3 dxed 11 dxed Ad7 12 We2 We7 (12..2h8 13 Hadi We7 14 g4 Rg6 15 2g5 £6 16 Rd2 Bxd2 17 Dxd2 AcS = Spiel- mann-Marshall, Berlin 1928) 13 g4 2g6 14 Dh4 Dc5 15 Axg6 hxg6 16 “@c4 Dd7 = Spielmann-Marshall, Bu- dapest 1928. 434) 5 0-0 and now: 341) 5..2xc3 6 dxc3 (6 bxc3?! Syxed 7 Pxe5 d5 8 Re? Re8 9 E305 10 &b2 WF6 11 Kel Ac6 12 2b5 Aga + Gurieli-Alterman, Katerini 1992) 6...d6 7 2.85 (7 We2 Dbd7 8 29569 Bh4 Dc5 10 Had We7 11 Ad2 g5 = Kofidis-Alterman, Komotini 1992) 7...n6 8 &h4 2g4 9 b3 Lh5 10 Was Dbd7 11 b4 We8 12 We3 Lg6 13 Ad2 @®bS 14 a4 = Lev-Alterman, Israel 1992. 4342) 5...2cé6 and then: 43421) 6 Ads Axd5 (6...2a5 7 d3 h6 8 h3 d6 9 Dh? Axd5 10 exdS De7 11 £4 &b6+ © Rubinstein-A.Rabino- vich, Prague 1908) 7 &xd5 d6 8 c3 a5! 9 d3 2g4 10 h3 Bd7 = Ed.Las- ker-Marshall, New York 1924. 43422) 6 d3 2.xc37 bxc3 d5 8 exd5 Axd5 9 Bel (9 Ags Da5 10 Bxd5 Wxd5 11 2a3 Re8 12.04 Wd7 13 £4 £6 14 Ded 0) 9..2e4 (9,..He8 10 Ags £5 11 Bb1 +) 10 Bd2 (10 h3 Axc3 11 Wd2 Rxf3 12 Wxc3 dS 13 Bb &xc4 14 Wxc4 He8 + Gilg-Marshall, Prague 1931) 10...Wd6 11 bl Ab6 = Bernstein-Alekhine, Paris 1933. 4...0-0 (D) This is clearly the strongest contin- uation, Black experiences problems after 4...We7: a) 5 Of3!? and now: al) 5...2xc3 6 dxc3 Wxed+7 Re2 0-0 8 0-0 d5 9 Hel &g4 10 h3 gives White a slight advantage, Beraha- S.Miiller, Dornbirn 1988. a2) 5...Ac6 is best met by 6 e2 = rather than 6 S2b5 2xc3 7 dxc3 Wxed+ 8 We2 Yxe2+ 9 dxe2 0-0=. a3) 5...Dxe4!? 6 Re2 (6 Axed Wred+ 7 Be? 0-0 8 0-0 d5 9d4 Bg4 10h3 Sh5 11 Be3 Dc6 12 c3 Rd6 13 Sye5 Bxe2 14 Daed Val 15 Dado UNUSUAL THIRD MOVES FOR WHITE 13 Re2 16 Bfel &a6 with equality, Von- thron-M.Braun, Bundesliga 1988/9) 6...2xC3 (6...Axc3!? 7 dxc3 Bc5 0) 7 dxc3 d6 80-0 £e69 Hel Dd7 10 &b5 Def6 + Janowski-Blackburne, Vienna 1898. b) 5 Bd3! Bxc3 6 dxc3 Axed (6...Wxe4+ 7 &e2 0-0 8 0-0. d6 9 2f3 Wh4 10 g3 Wh3 11 Af4 + Yusupov) 7 e2 d5 80-0 0-09 Afa c6 10 c4 dxc4 11 Bxc4 RES (11...2d6?! 12 Hel + Istratescu-Wijesundara, Manila OL 1992) 12 We2 and White has a slight advantage, Alapin-Alekhine, Karlsbad 1911. 5 Re2 Or: a) 5 Df3 Bxc3 (5...He8!7 6 Re2! {6 d32! d5 ¥} 6..Dxe4 7 Axed Exes 8 c3 BEB =) 6 dxc3 Dxe4 7 2d3 d5 8 h3 Dc6 9 0-0 RES = Perlis-A.Rabino- vich, Karlsbad 1911. b) 5 @d3 &xc3 6 dxc3 Axed 7 Se2 (7 Be3 46 8 WZ Hes 9 0-0-0 ®d7 103 b6 11 We4 Sb7 12 13 Dgs with equality, Mainka-Michaelsen, Bad Worishofen 1992; 7 Df4 He8 & Re2-5 Qe2 He8 6 Dd3 Bxc3 7 dxc3 Dred 8 Df) 7...d5 8 0-0 and then: bl) 8..2F5 9 Be3 (9 Df4!? c6 10 4.) 9..Ad7 10 £3 Dd6 11 Hel He8 = Nimzowitsch-Spielmann, Baden- Baden 1925. b2) 8...2d7 9 Af4 c6 10 c4 dxcd 11 &xc4 De5 12 Wxd8 Bxd8 13 Qe2 BES 14 g4! Bc8 15 £3 Dd6 16 Edl + Alapin-A Rabinovich, Karlsbad 1911. b3) 8...c6 9 @\f4 and here: b31) 9..Be8 - 5 2e2 Be 6 Bd3 x03 7 dxc3 Dred 80-0 d5 9 Df c6. b32) 9...2f5 10 @e3 (10 c4!?) 10...2d6 11 Bel @d7 12 Sf1 Bes 13 b3 Af6 (13...De4 14 c4 £) 14 £3 We7 15 Wd2 Had8 16 &d4 * Kreuzer-Nav- ratil, Budapest 1992. b33) 9...d6 10 2h Ad7 11 g4 b6 12 £3 He8 13 Ag2 Bb7 14 Afa Dc5 15 Wd2 Wd7 16 Hael Rad8 17 b3 Heb 18 2g3 cS ~ Ye Jiangchuan- Ye Rongguang, Shenzhen 1992. 5...He8 (D) If 5...d6, then: a) 6 Dc4 Bxc3 7 dxc3 Axed =. b) 6 Df3!2 Rxc3 7 dxc3 Axed 8 0-0 d7 9 Hel Adf6 10 &d3 Ac5 11 &g5 h6 12 Bh4 Vg 13 b3 Dxd3 14 Wxd3 + Janowski-Pillsbury, London 1899. c) 60d3 &xc3 7 dxc3 Dxe4 8 0-0 and then: cl) 8..Dc6 9 Df4 (9 £317 D6 10 &g5 M-Pavlovié) 9...Df6 10 c4 RES 11 b3 Db4 (11...De7 12 Bb2 Ago {MPavlovié} 13 Od5 4) 12 a3 Dc6 (12...Axc2 13 Ha2 +) 13 &b2 He’ 14 £3 4 Svidler-Delanoy, Groningen 1990. 2) 8...Re8 9 Af4 and here: 21) 9...2c6 10 Ad5 (10 Le3 LES 11 Bel b6 12 Lf intending £3 +; 10 4 a5 11 Dd5 Dc57! (11... 2e6!7} 12 14 7 THE PETROFF DEFENCE 3 = Marciano-Mirallés, Montpelier 1991) 10...De5 11 £3 AcS 12 b4 £ intending £4, Golubev-Meiers, Biel 1992. 22) 9...Ad7 10 Be3 (10 2d3 DdcS 11 WF3 Rd7 1204 Dgs 13 WhS Axd3 = Spielmann-A.Rabinovich, Karlsbad 1911; 10 Hel Ddf6 11 Le3 RES 12 a4 (12 c4 =} 12..d5 = Ka-Milller- Schulte, Bundesliga 1989/90) 10...De5 (10... Adf6 11 c4 SF5 12 Bel + in- tending 2f1 and £3) 11 £3 Df6 12 22 £ Tarrasch-Griinfeld, Vienna 1922. 2A 2Wx7 reroren s 6 Dd3 It is easy for Black to equalize after other moves: a)_6 DF3 2xc3 (6...Axe4 =) 7 dxe3 (7 bxc3 Axed 8 0-0 d5 =} 0-0 d6 (8...d5 9 c4 t) 9 Hel!? Ad7 10 Act Adf6 11 Des Axgs 12 Vxgs Brel+ 13 Wxel £5 -. b) 6 Ac4 Axed (6...2xc3 7 dxc3 Dxe4 8 De3 d6 9 0-0 Dc6 {9...Dd7 10 Wd4 +} 10 Ads BFS @) 7 Axes Exc 8 03 and uow: bl) &...d5179.d3 (9 De3 28 10d4 Be8 =) 9...2e8 10 cxb4 dxe4 11 dxe4 We7 12 bS (12 a3 Wed ~) 12... Wed 13 @fl Qh3 14 Bgl +. b2) 8...2£8 9.d4 He8 10 2f4d5 11 Be3 (11 Des Dd7 and now both 12 - 0-0 2d6 and 12 4d3 c5 are equal) 1L...c6 12 &d3 Re6 13 WhS (13 0-0 @d7 =; 13 We2!? leads to unclear play after 13...h6 or 13...g6 14 h4) 13...26 14 W327! (better is 14 We2) 14...c5! 15 dxc5 (15 &b5 Acé F) 15...d4! 16 cxd4 Wrxd4 17 Bd] Wh4+ 18 fl (18 Bd2 Sxa2 ¥) 18...Ac6 ¥ Reinderman-Alt- erman, Tilburg 1994. 6...2xe3 7 dxc3 Axes 8 Df4 Or 8 0-0, and now: a) 8..Ac69 Hel (9 Df4!?; 9 c4!2; 9 £3 Dd6!? 10 Bel DFS 11 LFi d6 12 &g5 Exel 13 Wxel WE8 = Taborov- Yusupov, Baku 1979) 9...d6 10 &f1 2£5 11 £3 Dl6 12 RES Dc5 13 Wd2 t Shtyrenkov-Tolstykh, Katowice 1993. b) 8...d6.9£3!2 (9 Ata -8 Ay4 d69 0-0 +) 9.6 10 Rg5 h6 11 Bh4 Dbd7 12 c4 DFB 13 Wd2 + Oster- meyer-Schulte, Bundesliga 1989/90. c) 8...d5 and then: cl) 9 8e3c6 (9...Dd7 10ers Dats 11 c4 dxc4 12 Wxd8 Bxd8 13 xc4 @d6 and now White should prefer 14 &b3 + to 14 2d32! RES 15 Hadi &xd3 16 Bxd3 AES 17 Bfdl Bxd3 18 Bxd3 Be8 = Maroczy-Pillsbury, Vi- enna 1898) gives White a choice be- tween 10 Hel!?, intending &fl and £3, and 10 Dfa - 9 Dfd cf 10 Led. 2) 9 Af4 c6 (9...Af6!7 deserves attention: 10 $e3 {intending to play 4} 10...Ac6 11 BF3 Le6 12 Axe6 Bxe6 13 Qf4 We7 14 Rel eS = Torre-Borik, Bochum 1981) and here: c21) 10 Wada? Wr LL £3 Wxdd+ 12 cxd4 Ad6 13 &f2 £ Polovodin- Glianets, Leningrad 1981. UNUSUAL THIRD MOVES FOR WHITE Is 622) 10 &e3 @d6! (10...2d77! 11 c4 dxc4 12 @xc4 DeS 13 Wxd8 Exd8 14 Re2 BFS 15 g4! Bd7 16 £3 Df6 17 Bad] Dg6 18 Axg6 bxg6 19 c4 Les 20 b3 2 S.Popov-Onishchuk, Lenin- grad jr tt 1991) 11 &d3 (11 Hel Qd7 12 Ob5 DEB 13 RF RES 14 b3 gs 15 Df4 = Heidrich-K.Lehmann, Bun- desliga 1985/6) 11...2f5 12 Whs g6 13 Wh6 &xd3 14 cxd3 DFS 15 Wh3 Q@d7 16 Bael Wi6 17 Rd2 De5 18 da BDc4 19 Act Hed 20 Bxed dxe4 21 Hel He8 22 Ad3 b5 23 Dc5 Acd6 24 REF b6 25 Rxd6 Dxd6 26 Dd7 Wes "2-2 Benjamin-Yusupov, Munich 1994. 23) 10c4d4 11 £3 (11 Bel Dab 12 Bd3 RES =) 11...Dgs5 (11...Qa6 12 3 +) 12 Rgd Deb (12...0a6!? 13 &Kxc8 Bxc8 =) 13 Hel and then: 231) 13...Qxf4 14 Hxe8+ (but not 14 &xc8? Hxel+ 15 Wxel Axg2 ) 14... Wxe8 15 Bxc8B De2+ 16 Chl Wxc8 17 Wxe2 +. 232) 13...Da6 14 Rxe6 Bxe6 15 @xe6 Exe6 16 Bxe6 fxe6 17 2d2 Whe 18 We2 WES 19 c3 d3 20 Wed @®c5 21 Hel Hd8 22 £3 b6 23 b3 (23 b4 Dad 24 Wxe6+ Wxeb 25 Bxeb6 SF7!7 26 Exc6!? (26 Be4 Dxc3 27 Lxc3 d2 28 &xd2 Bxd2 29 a4 Ha2 =} 26.28 27 Hd6 Db2 gives Black compensa- tion according to Dolmatov, but 28 c5 may favour White) 23...h6 24 @f1 + Adams-Hiibner, Dortmund 1996. We now retum to 8 Af4 (D): 8...d6 White is better after 8...c6 9 c4 d6 10 0-0 £5 11 a4! (intending Ha3) 1L...a5 12 Ba3 Dd7 13 Be3 DdcS 14 g4! Re6 15 £3 D6 16 Wd4 (16 b3 h6 17 Wd4 + Psakhis- Yusupov, USSR Ch (Vilnius) 1980/1) 16...Wc7 17 b3 h6 18 &b2 Had8 19 Hf2! + Oim-Pililian, corr. 1982-3. 90-0 Dd7 If 9...Ac6, then: a) 10 Re3 RES 11 Hel b6 (Bas- tian-G.Réder, Bundesliga 1985/6) 12 S&£1!? + intending £3. b) 10 c4!? a5 11 ad (intending Ba3- 3) 11...b6 12 Ha3 &b7 13 Bh3 Des 14 Ad5 Wc5 (14...06 15 Dc3 Axc3 16 Exc3 We7 17 b3 Kad8 18 He3 Be6 19 £4 Qg6 20 Bxe6 fxe6 21 £5 +) 15 b3 Dg6 16 Rgd RcB 17 Vb2 Ded 18 He3 067! 19 Wd4! HeS 20 Qxc8 cxd5 (20...Eixc8 21 £4! cxd5 22 fxeS dxe5 23 Wxd5 Wxd5 24 cxd5 Hxc2 25. Sxe5 Dxe5 26 Hxe4 +-) 21 &b7 +- Shaba- lov-Gawehns, Bonn 1994. 10c4 10 £3! deserves attention: a) 10..Qec5!? 11 c4 a5 (11... DF8 12 b3 Wf6 13 bi £) 12 b3 WE6 (or 12...a4 13 &b2 +) 13 Hbl c6 gives White a pleasant choice between 14 g3!7 £ and 14 Dh5!?. b) 10...Def6 11 c4 DFS 12 b3 We7 13 Bf2 Wes 14 Bb1 2d7 and then: bl) 15 Dd3 We7 16 2b2 We3! (al- ternatively, 16...Ag6 17 Wd2 We3 18 16 THE PETROFF DEFENCE We3 £) 17 Qb4 (17 WE Dgé 18 Hel Wh6 =) 17...a5 18 Dd5 Dxd5 19 cxd5 = Shirov-Akopian, Linares 1995. b2) 15 Dd5 DxdS 16 cxd5 + 10...a5 Or: a) 10...c6!? 11 2e3!? (11 £327 Wb6+ -+) 11...Qde5 12 Hel WE6 13 3 Rd7 14 Wad +. b) 10...Adf6 11 £3 AcS 12 b3 We7 13 Bf2 Wes 14 Ebi &d7 15 Qf1 (15 23!) 15...De6 16 Dd3 Whs 17 2b2 (17 Db4? Ded!) 17...a5 18 Wd2 Bc6 and now 19 Hel!? tis an improvement over 19 &xf67! gxf6 20 We3 Wh6 21 Hel b6 22 £4 f5 23 He3 Df8 24 Bfe2 He6 is equal, Nijboer-Piket, Dutch Ch 1994. 11 £3 Dec5 12 b3 Wh 13 Ebi c6 14 Db5! 14 g3!?. 14..,Wg6 15 G)g3 White has a slight advantage, Shi- rov-Yusupov, Bundesliga 1994/5. c) 303 White chooses to play a Philidor Defence with a. tempo in hand. How- ever, as so often happens when a pas- sive opening is played with an extra tempo, the free move doesn’t change the essential characteristics of the po- sition. It may make it easier to equal- ize, but one move won't change an opening like the Philidor into an ag- gressive attacking system. Therefore this move is totally harmless and pres- ents Black with no problems. 3...Dc6 4 g3 Other possibilities: a) 4 Dbd2 g6 5 c3 d5 6 b4 067 &b2 &g7 8 a3 0-09 We2 Me8 with an equal position, Planinc-Garcia Marti- nez, Portoro%/Ljubljana 1975. b) 4.3 d5 5 Abd2 a5!? (5...36 -4 Dba2 6 5 c3 d5) 6 Le2 g6!? 7 b3! (7 0-0 &g7 ¥) 7...227! 8 2a3 Dhs! 9 0-0 (9 g3 &h3 =) 9..Af4 10 Bel Dxe2+ 11 Wxe2 Be (11..d4!? 12 exd4 exd4 13 Hacl Db4 =) 12 exd5 (12 Bad1? dd ) 12... Wxd5 13 c4! Wd7 14 &b2 and here: bl) 14...0-0-0 15 &xe5! (15 AxeS? Rxe5! 16 Rxe5 Kgd F) 15...Dxe5 16 Dxe5 Wd6 17 Ddf3 Hhe8 18 d4 f6 19 Dd3 2947 20 Wre8!, b2) 14...g4115d4!? (15 b3 Bxf3 16 Axf3 0-0-0 = with the pomt {7 @xe5 DxeS 18 Rxe5 Bhe8 19 Wb2 ExeS 20 Exe5 Wxd3) 15...0-0-0 16 dxe5 Hhe8 © Morozevich-Makary- chev, Moscow 1992. 4.45 Black has another plan at his dis- posal: 4...&2c5 5 &g2 d6 6 Ac3, trans- posing to a line of the Four Knights. 5 Dbd2 7 White has also tried 5 exd5 Axd5 6 Sig? 26 (6...2d6!? 7 0-0 0-0 8 Ac3?! {8 Dbd2!?} 8...Dxc3 9 bxc3 &g4 10 h3 2h5 11 Qd2 £6 F Seret — Santo- Roman, France 1990) 7 0-0 &g7 8 Hel 0-09 Dbu?2 Hes 10 Ac4 D6! 11 &g5 £6 12 Axd6 axb6 13 2.d2 Reb = Zaichik-Bagirov, Tallinn rpd 1988. 5...S.7 6 2220-07 0-0 Re6 8 Bel dxe4 9 dxe4 a5 10 We2 10 a4!? =. 10...a4 11 c3 Bc5 12 Ded Dg 13 De3 Dxe3 14 Lxe3 Axe 15 Uxe3 £6 = Haas-Flear, Mondorf 1991. 2 3 d4 without 3...Axe4 Led e5 2 Df3 D6 3 d4 (D) Black must now choose between two main continuations. 3...exd4 The most popular move is 3...2xe4, which is considered in Chapters 3-5. At one time, 3...exd4 was quite a popular continuation. It very often leads to the liquidation of all the cen- tral pawns, when the resulting open files and symmetrical pawn-structure might seem to foretell an early draw. However, the defect of the move is that it affords White a significant lead in development. It tums out that it is not easy for Black to complete his devel- opment and execute his plan of a gen- eral liquidation in the face of the pressure exerted by White's active pieces. In most cases Black is forced to make some sort of concession in or- der to complete his development. This concession can take many forms. In some lines where Black plays ...2.d6 or ...&e6, White is able to inflict a central isolated pawn on Black by ex- changing one of these bishops; in other variations White is able to break up Black’s queenside pawn-structure by playing &b5 and then taking a knight on c6; in yet others White gains the bishop-pair, which is a significant plus in such an open position. In any case, Black is left with a permanent positional weakness, which may in- deed become more pronounced if a liquidation to an endgame occurs. Few players are happy with the idea of voluntarily accepting a long-term po- sitional weakness without compensa- tion, and so the popularity of 3...exd4 has severely declined in recent years. There are a few less common moves: a) 3...2e79! 4 dxeS Axed 5 Wd5 (5 &c4 -Dc5 6 D3 De6 7 Qa tye. b) 3...d6 transposes to a Line of the Philidor Defence. c) 3..d5 is an aggressive and lit- tle-explored continuation: cl) 4 DxeS Axed 5 Rd3 - 3...Dyxed 4 Bd3 d5 5 DxeS. 2) 4 &g5!? dxe4 5 Dxe5 Re7 6 &c4 0-0 7 0-0 Afd7 and now White has a choice: 18 THE PETROFF DEFENCE 21) 8 &xe7 Wxe7 9 Hel DxeS 10 Exed Bd8 (10...Wb4 11 dxeS ) 11 Wel ~, 7 22) 8 RF4 Dxe5 9 dxe5 Wxdl 10 Exd1 Se6 11 2b3 (11 Bxe6!7 fxe6 12 &g3 4) 11...&xb3 12 axb3 F5 13 Dc3 7 14 Dbs Dab 15 e6+ (15 Hd7!? might be a better try) 15...2°f6! (15...

    You might also like