The Queen's Gambit

Declined: 5 ~f4!
Colin Crouch

CADOGAN
('hess
LONDON. NEW YORK
Copyright © 1998 Colin Crouch

First published 1998 by Cadogan Books pIc, 27-29 Betwi~k St..

London WI V 3RF

Distributed in North America by The Globe Pequot Press, 6 Business Park Rd,
P.O. Box 833, Old Saybrook, Connecticut 06475-0833, USA.
Telephone 1-800 2430495 (toll free)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British
Library

ISBN 1 85744 207 5

Edited by Graham Burgess and typeset by John Nunn for

Gambit Publications Ltd, London.

Printed in Great Britain by BPC Wheatons Ltd, Exeter

CADOGAN CHESS SERIES

Chief Advisor: Garry Kasparov

Russian Series Editor: Ken Neat
Editor: Murray Chandler

For a complete catalogue of CADOGAN CHESS books (which includes the

Pergamon Chess and Maxwell Macmillan Chess lists) please write to:
Cadogan Books pIc, 27-29 Berwick Street, London WI V 3RF
Freephone 0800 328 0242
Contents

Symbols 5
Preface 6

1 Historical Introduction 8

2 The Old Main Line 20

2.1 Introduction 20
2.2 Alternatives for Black on Move 10 20
2.3 1O...~e7: Alternatives to 11ll:)d2 e5 23
2.4 11 ll:)d2 e5: Introduction 29
2.5 12 ~g5 d4 13 ll:)b3 "d8 30
2.6 12ll:)b3 "b6 13 ~g5 d4 (or 12 ~g5 d4 13ll:)b3 "b6) 41
2.7 12ll:)b3: Alternatives to 12.....b6 13 ~g5 d4 44
2.8 12~g3 47
2.9 Conclusion 50

3 The New Main Line 51

3.1 Introduction 51
3.2 1O...~e7 11 h4 52
3.3 1O...~e7 11 g4 63
3.4 1O... ~e7: White's 11th move alternatives 73
3.5 10...dxc4 11 ~xc4 without 11...~e7 76
3.6 1O...~d7 77
3.7 1O... a6 85
3.8 1O.. Jld8?! 87
3.9 1O...ll:)e4 87
3.10 General conclusion on 10 0-0-0 91

4 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White 93

4.1 Introduction 93
4.2 White's alternatives on move 10 93
4.3 White's alternatives on move 9 102
4.4 White's alternatives on move 8 113
4.5 White's alternatives on move 7 144
5 Black Avoids the Main Line: ...0 Systems 149
5.1 Black's alternatives on move 9 149
5.2 Black's alternatives on move 8 159
5.3 Black's alternatives on move 7 165
5.4 The 5 ...c5 system 168

6 Systems with ••• b6 172

7 Systems with ...c6 195

7.1 7 'ii'c2ltlbd7 195
7.2 7 'ifc2: Black delays ...ltlbd7 or ...0-0 212
7.3 4ltlf3ltlbd7: Transpositions and independent lines 214
7.4 The Exchange Variation, 7 cxd5 217
7.5 7 ~d3 220
7.6 7 :cl 224
7.7 7h3 225
7.8 Odds and ends 226

8 Miscellaneous Systems on Moves 5 and 6 229

8.1 Systems with ... a6 229
8.2 6 ...ltlbd7: Lines not already examined 238
8.3 Miscellaneous 6th moves for Black 244
8.4 Miscellaneous 6th moves for White 247
8.5 Miscellaneous 5th moves for Black 250

Index of Variations 255

Symbols
+ check
++ double check
# checkmate
!! brilliant move
good move
!? interesting move
?! dubious move
? bad move
?? blunder
+- White is winning
± White is much better
;t White is slightly better
= equal position
00 unclear position
=+= Black is slightly better
+ Black is much better
-+ Black is winning
Ch championship
Cht team championship
tt team tournament
Wch world championship
Ech European championship
Wcht World Team Championship
ECC European Clubs Cup
Ct candidates event
IZ interzonal event
Z zonal event
OL olympiad
jr junior event
wom women's event
mem memorial event
rpd rapidplay game
COlT correspondence game
1-0 the game ends in a win for White
1/2- 1/2 the game ends in a draw
0-1 the game ends in a win for Black
(n) nth match game
(D) see next diagram
Preface

When Murray Chandler first suggested that I write a book on the .i.f4 Queen's
Gambit, he noted that no book had been written on this system. To my surprise,
he was right. The exclamation mark at the end of the title was also Murray's idea.
At first I would have preferred !?, but I now feel that I can live with !.
To cover more or less uncharted territory is difficult in any field, but it is also
exciting. Where knowledge has not been properly systematized, there is so much
more room for radical discovery. For example, one of Black's most interesting
defences to the .i.f4 system is 5 ... dxc4, which will take us outside existing pub-
lished theory as early as move 7. In the more established lines, several innova-
tions have been introduced in the text, the general effect of which is to strengthen
these lines for White. In particular, the New Main Line with 10 0-0-0, which ap-
pears to have lost some of its popularity in grandmaster play in 1997, has been
given a new shine in several critical positions. Improvements for Black are more
likely to be found in the lesser-known lines.
The .i.f4 system is a young system, even though some of its key ideas go back
to Hastings 1895. White is aiming for simple development, the objective being to
get his pieces out on good squares before Black, and thus to achieve superior
piece mobility; pawn structures tend to be fluid. Black's choice is either to de-
velop quietly, accepting this disadvantage, or to attempt a counterattack against
White's pawn centre, opening up lines of attack before White's development is
complete. The counter-attacking approach proved more successful for Black,
and the intense exploration of the Old Main Line after 6 ... c5 in the 1970s and
1980s appeared to indicate a wholly satisfactory defence for Black. Counterat-
tack by Black versus normal play by White led to dynamic equilibrium. Then in
1988 a radically new idea for White was discovered. The apparently totally reck-
less idea of castling queenside, into the face of what appeared to be a ready-made
attack, was not only possible, but positionally justified and strong. It has to be
said that the quality of some of the earlier games by top players in this variation
was by grandmaster standards atrocious, with Black in particular suffering some
unnecessarily severe defeats. This itself can be taken as an indication that many
ofthe basic ideas were wholly novel. The theory of the variation has settled down
a bit now, but it is salutary to remember that White's most dangerous plan
(10 ... .i.e7 11 h4) was introduced only as recently as 1995; before then, everyone
was pushing the wrong pawn on the kingside!
So maybe it is only now that it is possible to set down the full case for the .i.f4
variation for White. A book published before 1995 would have missed the most
important variations in the main line, while ECO, published in 1987, missed the
 Preface 7

main line altogether, and was instantly obsolete as far as critical assessment of 5
~f4 is concerned.
It is a fallacy to assume that any openings book can be completely 'objective',
in that discussion of variations necessarily involves consideration of what each
side is aiming for. This book is generally written from White's point of view, but
where I have found improvements for Black I have noted them. Neither have I at-
tempted to keep secrets or to mislead the reader on any position; if there are mis-
takes, and surely there must be, they are genuine mistakes. One can never achieve
perfect accuracy in writing; if the new ideas and corrections of mistakes of others
outweighs the introduction of mistakes from my own hand, then some sort of
contribution has been made to chess literature. I have tried to trust the analysis of
others as little as possible. In one case, Kasparov produced some poor analysis,
overlooking at one point a simple back-row check; I noticed that a strong and re-
spected grandmaster recently published a book that repeated this analysis verba-
tim and on trust.
My approach has been encyclopaedic rather than selective. In part this is out
of necessity. Where there is no existing book on an opening, the author has a
much bigger responsibility to show why some variations are more important than
others. No doubt many of the second-rate lines discussed in this book will be dis-
carded when others write on this opening in several years' time; for the moment,
it is theoretically important to show clearly why they are second-rate.
Again because of the lack of literature on the subject, there is no bibliography
as such. The main, indeed almost the only, sources are a couple of shelves of In-
formator, ECO volume D (1987) and a computer database of around a thousand
games.
It is hoped that the reader will find the book useful. I have tried to explain the
themes that arise, and have continued variations often deep into the middlegame
to make it clearer why particular assessments have been made. The reader as
White who grasps the basic themes should be rewarded by some smooth posi-
tional victories and some attractive attacking wins.

Colin Crouch
Harrow Weald
December 1997
1 Historical Introduction
Early days
Although in the early years of the
twentieth century the .1g5 system es-
tablished itself as White's main choice
in the Queen's Gambit (with 2 ... e6), a
few years earlier the debate was much
more open as to White's most promis-
ing plan of action. At Hastings 1895
three basic plans were tried, and if
anything the .1f4 plan was the most
successful. Gunsberg was the main
advocate of systems of development
with .1b2, a plan that becomes justi-
fied if Black breaks with ... c5. How-
ever, the bishop bites on granite if
Black is content to strongpoint d5.
Gunsberg was famously dismissive of
the .1g5 system, noting that "no good
results from this early sortie of the
bishop" after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 tLlc3
tLlf6 4 .1g5 in the celebrated Pills-
bury-Tarrasch game. Many later writ-
ers have seen this as rather a quaint
point of view, but in fairness it has to
be added that Gunsberg also advo-
cated the queenside fianchetto for
Black, which is now seen as critical in
many defensive and counter-attacking
systems, particularly in the Semi-Slav.
What we are concerned with here is
the third way, neither i.g5 nor .tb2,
but .1f4. Why did .1f4 lose its popu-
larity, and never regain it until re-
cently? And what new theoretical
developments have led to it being seen
as a dangerous weapon, even at top
grandmaster level? These are the
questions to which we try to provide
outline answers in this introductory
chapter.
The first point to note is one of ele-
mentary move-order. Some of the
Hastings games started 1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6
3 tLld tLlf6 4 .tf4 (D), reaching the
following position:
This move-order is inaccurate;
White should insert 4 tLlf3 .1e7 before
playing 5 .1f4. Black has two ways of
equalizing in comfort:
1) 4 ... dxc4!? 5 e3 (or 5 e4 .1b4)
5... .!Lld5 !.
2) 4 ....1b4!.
The second line would be my own
personal preference, leading in effect
to a good Nimzo-Indian, but both sys-
tems leave the white bishop exposed
and ineffective on f4.
The variations analysed in this
book all start with the modern move-
order 1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 tLlc3 tLlf6 4
 Historical Introduction
ffi .te7 5 .tf4 (D), reaching the po-
sition in the next diagram:
B
5 ....tb4? would now be a simple
loss of tempo, so the moves most com-
monly played here are 5...0-0, and oc-
casionally 5 ... c5 or 5 ... c6. Curiously,
5 ... dxc4!?, although natural and logi-
cal, remains almost completely unex-
plored, a defect we try to remedy in
this book.
Leaving aside the point of move-
order on moves 4 and 5, a recurrent
theme in the .tf4 games from Hast-
ings 1895 was the battle against the
'hanging pawns' on c5 and d5, with
Black's b- and e-pawns missing. Black
proved completely unable to handle
this pawn structure, as the result sum-
mary shows:
Round 1: Lasker-Marco, 1-0,29;
Round 4: von Bardeleben-Lasker,
1-0,58;
Round 9: Teichmann-Marco, 1-0,
32.
The two games Marco lost were
massacres, while even World Cham-
pion Lasker was unable as Black to
find a good way to back up his pawns,
in a game which is still of theoretical
interest today.
9
von Bardeleben - Em. Lasker
Hastings 1895
(notes based on C.Crouch and
K.Haines, Hastings 1895;
the Centenary Book).
1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6 3 tOe3 tOf64 .tf4?!
.te7?! 5 e3 0-0 6 ffi b6 7 .td3 cS 8
dxe5 bxcS 9 0-0 tOc610 adS exdS 11
:c1 .te6(D)
The classic hanging pawn position.
The two black pawns cover a lot of
squares in the centre, but they are also
open to attack, and if either of the
pawns advances, Black's grip on the
centre disintegrates, leaving White
with a clear positional advantage.
Black's pieces remain active, how-
ever, and ECO assesses the position as
equal, a verdict I would regard as 'not
proven'.
12 tOe2 1t'b6 13 ~ tOxeS?!
13... tOb4!?
14 .txe5 lDg4 15 .tel 1t'd6
Black aims to solve his difficulties
by means of a kingside attack, but this
plan must be treated with some scepti-
cism, as the pieces diverted to the
kingside do not provide much cover
for the centre.
10 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5J.f41
16 g3J.d7?!
16... lOeS 17lOf4 ;to
17lOc4 "h6IS h3lOc6 (D)
There now follows a standard sim-
plifying sequence which takes the
sting out of Black's kingside initiative,
leaving White with a strongly favour-
able endgame.
19 J.xC6! J.xC6 20 lOxd5 J.xh3
(20 ... J.xb2 21 :c4!) 21lOxC6+ "xr6
22 "h5 'ii'h6 23 'ii'xh6 gxh6 24 :Cdl
(D)
B J.xe4 41 J.xe4 :txa6 42 ~d4 :h6 43
A successful early outing for the
system! White should win this easily,
given that the cS-pawn will almost in-
evitably fall, leaving White with an
active 2-1 queenside pawn majority.
Endgame play in those days was unso-
phisticated however, and Lasker was
almost let off the hook.
24•••:ac8
24 ... J.g4!?
25 ':c3 :CdS 26 ':del :c6 27 J.e4
:a6 28 l:lxc5?
White should play 28 a3!: 28 .. J:tb6
29 :lc2 :db8 30 :xcS :xb2 31
':xb2 l:lxb2 32 :as +- or 28 ...:d2 29
:lc2 :xc2 30 :xc2 :as 31 J.dS!?
and e4, f4, ~f2, etc., with a decisive
advantage.
28..•':xa2 ± 29 :b5 J.e6 30 :c7
as?!
30...l:Id2!?
31 J.C5 :'1+ 32 ~g2 J.a2
32... J.xfS 33 :xfS :f8 34 :a7 a4
3S :f4 :a2 36 :b4 +- Gunsberg.
33 b3a4
33... ':a8 34 J.e4 +- Gunsberg.
34 bxa4 :d2 35 as h5! 36 a6
J.d5+ 37 e4 :aa2! 38 cJilf3!
Avoiding the trap set by the ever-
resourceful Lasker: 38 :xdS? :xf2+
39 ~gl (39 ~h3?? :h2#) 39...:g2+
drawing.
3S••.:a3+ 39 ~C4 l:Ixf2+ 40 ~e5
':c8+ ~g7 44 ~e3 :ff6 45 :g5+ and
Black soon resigned.
For those who would argue that this
is old hat, and that we now know how
to keep the hanging pawns safe, this
more recent game should act as a cor-
rective.
Yusupov - Ljubojevic
1ilburg 1987
I d4lOc6 2 c4 e6 3 ffi d5 4lOc3 J.e7
5 J.C4 0-0 6 e3 b6 7 :el c5 S dxeS
 Historical Introduction
bxeS 9 .i.e2 .i.b7 10 0-0 lObd7 11
cxdS exdS?! (D)
11...lOxd5.
12lbes!
Yet again White sets up a powerful
attack against the hanging pawns, with
.i.f3 in prospect. As in the von Bar-
delehen-Lasker game, it helps White
to have his bishop on f4 rather than on
g5, in that support is given for the
knight to land on e5.
12.••1Ob6
12... lOxe5 13 .i.xeSlbd7 14 .i.g3 ±
Yusupov.
13 a4! a5 14 .i.f3 :e8 15 lOb5!
lIa6(D)
11
16lbd3
Black now has a lifeless position,
and Yusupov points out that the quiet
16 b3!, preventing c4, would present
grave difficulties. The text leads to in-
teresting but unnecessary complica-
tions, which ultimately but not wholly
convincingly favour White.
16...c4 17 .i.c7 "d7 18 lOe5 "c8
19 b3lba8! 20 bxc4lbxc7 21 cxdS
A radical way of dealing with the
hanging pawns! White certainly has
full compensation for the piece, but no
more than that, according to Yusupov.
21•••.i.d6! 22 lbc4 .i.eS?
22....i.b4 keeps Black in the game.
23 lbxaS! :xaS 24 :xc5 "d8 25
lbd6!!
An attractive tactical resource; if
25 ...:xc5, 261Oxb7 "fIe7 27 d6 wins .
25.....xd6 26 :xaS .i.xd5 27 "d4
:eS
"e6 28 .i.xd5lbcxdS 29 :dl
:eS :XeS 31 "xc5 h5 32 as
h3 g6 34 "c6 "b4 35 a6 "as 36
"e4 30
33
"b7 "a4 37 l:[bll-O
Going back to the early years, at
Hastings 1895 Black was also called
upon to handle a couple of isolated
queen's pawn positions, a task which
was achieved more successfully than
that of holding the hanging pawns.
The early part of Teichmann-Janowsky
from round 8 has a modem appear-
ance, with Black successfully liqui-
dating with an early ...d4.
Teichmann - Janowsky
Hastings J895
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 lbc3 lOr64 .i.f4?!
.i.e7?! 5 e3 0-0 6lbr3 eS 7 dxeS .i.xeS
8 cxdS!?
12 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ll.f4!
Nowadays 8 'ii'c2 lOc6 9 a3 is re-
garded as the main line, but there were
times during the 1980s and early
1990s when the main line was not
looking too promising, with attention
therefore switching to the attempt to
make something out of the immediate
pawn exchange.
8 •••exclS
This is now firmly out of favour, but
was one of Black's main defensive
systems (via 7 ...lOc6 8 cxdS exd5) as
recently as the early 1970s. 8 ...lOxdS 9
lOxdS exdS is now preferred, the posi-
tional threat of ... i.b4+ in most cases
persuading White to spend a move on
10 a3. Then after 10...1Oc6 II i.d3
i.b6 12 0-0, Black can try 12 ... d4 or
12...i.g4, in the spirit of the Teich-
mann-Janowsky game, or 12...'ii'f6.
9i.d3
9 i.e2 is now regarded as a better
way to keep the pressure on the iso-
lani.
9 •••lOc6 10 0-0 i.g4! (D)
Then as now the correct develop-
ment of the bishop. The isolated pawn
is a weakness, but if Black plays ac-
tively he can hold the balance. It is only
when Black is passive that the d-pawn
becomes a problem. Steinitz-Burn,
Hastings 189S continued 1O...i.e6?!
11 l:lcl l:lc8 12 i.bl 'ii'a5?! 13 lOd2
i.e7 14 lOb3 'ii'd8 IS 'ii'd3 "d7 16
l:lfdl with a clear edge. Few now
would agree with Nimzowitsch that
"the BK3 [white e3-bishop or black
e6-bishop] belongs to the PQ4 [white
d4-pawn or black dS-pawn] as does a
nurse to a suckling child"; often the
'KNS' development (i.g5 for White;
...i.g4 for Black) is necessary to main-
tain the momentum of the position. On
this particular point, Janowsky was
ahead of his time.
11l:lc1
Chasing the bishop is always a pos-
sibility in this type of position. Here
though, 11 h3 i.hS 12 g4?! is uncon-
vincing after 12...i.g6 13 i.xg6 fxg6
14 g5lOhS 15 "xdS+ (1SlOxdS can
be met by 15 .....d716lOf6+lOxf617
gxf6 GO or 15 ...Wh8) lS .....xdS 16
Illxd5 lOxf4 17 exf4 (17lOxf4 i.d6 =1=)
17...J:lad818l:ladlJ:lfS+. White's king-
side pawns have been weakened more
than Black's.
11•••d4!
Nicely judged.
12 lObS
After 12 lOa4 i.e7 13 exd4 lOxd4
White has problems, as 14 i.xh7+??
Wxh7 15 "xd4 i.xf3 16 "xd8 J:lfxd8
17 gxf3 l:ld4 wins a piece for Black, a
trick which shamefully I missed in
writing my 1895 book. 14 i.c7 "dS!
IS i.xh7+?? also fails: Is ... lOxh7 16
'ii'xd4 i.xf3.
12.••i.b613lObxd4lOxd4 14 exd4
"cIS! (D)
14... i.xd4?! 15 h3! .
The text-move is an elegant way of
dealing with the IQP problem. Black
 Historical Introduction
w 4 ...c6, or a Semi-Tarrasch with 4 ...c5,
sacrifices the weak isolani in order to
give White an even weaker one; fur-
thermore, Black makes full use of the
blockading square in front of the pawn.
15 ~e5 :ac8 16 .e2 ~xd4 17
~xd4 ~xl3 18 .xl3 :xcll9 :Xci
.xd4 20 :c3 :dB 21 h3
21 "xb7?? ~4! is winning for
Black.
21...•b4 and Black is slightly bet-
ter, the knight being able, unlike the
bishop, to reach the dark squares. The
game was later drawn after several in-
accuracies.
After Hastings 1895, the ~f4 sys-
tem was to remain comparatively rare.
Tarrasch-Maroczy, Budapest 1896
started 1 d4 e6 2 c4 d5 3 1Oc3 lDf6 4
~f4, and now 4 ...dxc4, "a new defence
which is perfectly good", according to
Charousek. On 5 e3 lDd5 6 ~xc4
lDxf4 7 exf4 Black already stood com-
fortably, even after the passive 7 ...c6.
Black later won the game.
The secret was out; 4 ~f4 gives
White nothing, and the clear-cut 4
~g5 came to be preferred. We now
know that 4 lDf3 ~e7 5 ~f4 is a per-
fectly valid try for an edge, but there
are complications in that Black need
13
not meet 4 lDf3 with 4 ... ~e7. He
could also choose a Semi-Slav with
while 4 ... ~b4 is another possibility
for Black. Systems with 4 ~g5 or 4
cxd5 cut down Black's options, mak-
ing preparation simpler.
Naturally the problem of how to
deal with 4 ...c6 or 4 ...c5 still has to be
faced by the player who wants to try
the 5 ~f4 system. It is not proposed to
deal with this particular topic in this
book, but it is something the reader
will have to be aware of.
The Recent Revival
For the types of reason listed above,
the ~f4 system remained very much a
secondary plan, a minor alternative to
~g5, for several decades. Connois-
seurs of the Queen's Gambit such as
Rubinstein and Capablanca played it
occasionally, and Bogoljubow tried it
more often, but the system never
really moved out of the shadows. Yet
results with the ~f4 system were
good. Around the early 1970s, the
typical pattern was that White gained
an advantage in pawn structure and
squeezed relentlessly. The next game
is an example.
Gbeorghiu - Rubinetti
Mar del Plata 1971
IlDf3lDf6 2 c4 e6 3M dS 4 d4 ~e7
5 ~f4 cS 6 dxcS lDa6 7 e3
At around the same time, Portisch
had some smooth wins with 7 ~d6.
7.••lDxcS 8 adS exd5 9 ~b5+ ~d7
10 ~xd7+ .xd7 11 0-0 0-0 12 ~e5
(D)
14 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
B 'ifc7 (D)
The start of a prolonged positional
campaign against the isolated pawn.
Such a pawn is not necessarily in itself
a decisive weakness, but if the player
with the isolani cannot achieve active
piece-play, the prospects are grim.
This is the case here.
12•.•lIfd8 13 'ike2 86 14 lIfdl 'iff5
15 j.c7 lId7 16 ~d4 'ifg6 17 j.eS
~fe418:act lieS 19 ~3 'ifOO 20 b3
j.f8 21'ifc2
Meandering play, but also construc-
tive and accurate play. White shifts his
pieces around with no obvious grand
plan in sight. but places reliance on the
fact that it is difficult for the defender to
cover everything adequately. White's
first priority is to keep just a little extra
piece flexibility, so that Black can
never fully equalize; then he can be
perpetually on the lookout for a way to
take advantage of any momentary lapse
in the defence in order to gain ground.
It is this purposeful tacking around,
rather than the attempt to follow a pre-
determined plan, that is the secret of
successful play against a static pawn
weakness.
21 •.. b622~2
Making real progress; the other
knight gets a chance to head for d4.
22.••~gS 23 ~4lbxr3+ 24 ~xf3
~e4 25 j.b2 lIdd8 26 ~d4 'ifd7 27
White has kept a firm grip on the
position, and now progresses towards
an endgame in which all Black's queen-
side pawns, and not just the isolani on
d5, are weak. White's knight outpost
on d4 is more secure than Black's on
e4, a point which becomes even clearer
after queens are exchanged.
27••. j.d6 28 'ifxd7 lIxd7 29 ~S
j.e5 30 j.xe5 :XeS 31 lIc8+ ~b7 32
~4 ~f6 33 lIdct lieS 34 lISe7 lIed8
35 f3 g6 36 lIxd7 :Xd7 37 lIc8 ~g7
38 ~f2 ~b7 39 cRe2 m 40 ~d3 bS
4184 lIe7 42 a5 ~d7 43 'itd2 ~6 44
b4~e84S:d8
The first attempt for over 20 moves
to make a direct attack on the d-pawn.
Static weaknesses don't run away, so
it is perfectly in order to be patient.
4S••• ~7 46 ~d3 cRf6 47 ~b3 ~e5
48~cS (D) .
Black's queenside is now under
clamps, and White has a completely
free hand to use his kingside pawn ma-
jority. The immediate threat is f4+ fol-
lowed by lId6.
48•..g5 49 g3 f6 50 b3 ~b5 51 f4+
 Historical Introduction
gxf4 52 gxf4+ ~5 53 :xd5+ ~g6 54
l:[d7 l:lxd7+ 55 .fu:d7 Ci)a7 56 e4 tDc6
57 'iii'c4 ~7 58 e51-0
In/ormator references to the i.f4
system in the early 1970s were domi-
nated by smooth wins for White, al-
though it has to be acknowledged that
the worst game of the 1972 Fischer-
Spassky match (game 14, Fischer as
White) finished as a draw after several
serious mistakes by both sides. Play-
ers at the time were quick to draw the
lesson that Black's play needed to be
sharpened to avoid the risk of being
slowly ground down. Sometimes in-
deed Black's play became overly sharp,
as in this game from a later world
championship match.
Korchnoi - Karpov
Baguio City Wch (21) 1978
5 i.f4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 i.xc5 8
tDc6 (D)
.c2
1 c4 Ci)f6 2 Ci)c3 e6 3 Ci)f3 d5 4 d4 i.e7
This position remains theoretically
critical for the i.f4 variation. Black
develops rapidly and aggressively,
hoping to ensure that White is not
given the time to build up the sort of
15
clear long-term positional advantage
that we have seen in previous games.
Indeed, if White tries anything too
elaborate there is the danger that he
will find himself suddenly stuck with
an exposed king in the centre and an
exposed kingside. To give one exam-
ple, the line 9 :dl WaS 10 a3 i.e7 II
.J:d2 briefly aroused interest in the
early 1980s, but it was soon found
that 1l...C/)e4! 12 Ci)xe4 dxe413 Wxe4
IId8 followed by a timely ...e5 gives
Black excellent attacking chances.
9 :dl .a5 10 a3
This is what we describe as the 'Old
Main Line'. The usual move here is
lO ...i.e7, which is satisfactory for
Black. Karpov now tried a prepared
'improvement', which Korchnoi im-
pressively demolished over the board.
10...:e8?!
Preparing to sprint through the
barricades with ...e5 and ...d4, but
White's position is not taken so easily.
lllDd2!
A standard response in the main-
line systems. The knight breaks the
pin on the as-el diagonal (so that b4 is
now a threat, without Black having
... Ci)xb4), blocks any ...C/)e4 move by
Black, prepares a knight recapture on
16 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5
c4 should Black exchange, and aims
to play ~b3, dispersing Black's ad-
vanced queenside forces.
1l... eS 12 J.gS ~d4
Still prepared analysis. Black's at-
tack runs out of steam after the other
piece sacrifice 12...d4 13 ~b3 'ii'b6 14
~a4 J.b4+ 15 axb4 Wxb4+ 16 ~d2
e4 17 J.xf6 gxf6 18 ""3.
13 "bl!
White calmly ignores the sacrifice,
avoiding such horrors as 13 exd4?
exd4+ 14 ~2 ~g4 15 b4 d3 16 'ii'xd3
J.xt2#.
After the text-move, Black faces a
common problem in the old main line:
once he has achieved ... e5, the d5-
square becomes particularly weak, es-
pecially after J.xf6 by White. Black
must continue to play very aggres-
sively to justify his earlier play.
13•••J.rS
13 ...J.g4 14 J.xf6 gxf6 15 ~xd5
J.xdl 16 ~xdl ± Speelman.
14 J.d3 e4 (D)
15 J.c2!
Timman, in The Art of Chess Analy-
sis, claimed 15 J.n as a win, suggest-
ing that Kholmov's line of 15 ... ~g4,
with the idea 16 ~xdS ~e5 17 exd4
~f4!
e3 18 'ii'xf5 ~f3+ 19 'ii'xf3 exd2#, is
refuted by 16 cxdS. This claim is made
without considering any variations, and
is made on the hardly earth-shattering
grounds that the c4-square is freed and
the black knight remains trapped. But
with all Black's pieces in play, and
White undeveloped and uncoordinated,
it would be amazing if Black could not
create dangerous attacking possibili-
ties. After 15 J.n ~g4 16 cxdS, Black
plays as before 16 ...~S, and is ready
to meet such direct approaches as 17
~c4 ~ef3+ 18 gxf3 ~xf3+ 19 ~e2
Wa6, or 17 exd4 ~f3+ 18 gxf3 exf3+
19 J.e3 (19 ~de4 llxe4+) 19... J.xbl
with very sharp play, probably favour-
ing Black. Maybe Timman had in
mind 17 J.f4, threatening J.xeS fol-
lowed by ~4. Then the attempt to be
super-cool with 17... bS?! backfires af-
ter 18 J.xeS llxeS 19 WeI! when exd4
becomes a real threat, but the critical
line would seem to be 17 ... ~d3+ 18
J.xd3 exd3 19 0-0 ~2+ 20 ~xe2 dxe2
21 Wxf5, and now perhaps 21...ex-
dl'ii' 22 llxdl 'ii'b5, with the idea of
...We2, with unclear play. [Later note:
In the recently published second edi-
tion of his book, Timman analyses 17
exd4 J.xd4 18 J.e3 to a win for White,
but either ignores or overlooks the
possibility of 17...~f3+.]
It's certainly a long way from the
win claimed by Timman. Korchnoi's
judgement in avoiding this line is vin-
dicated, in that he achieves a clear
edge in the line he plays.
IS•..lDxc2+ 16 .xc2
Despite the exchange of White's
bishop, Black still comes under severe
pressure on the light squares.
16•.••a6!?
 Historical Introduction 17

16... dxc4 17 i.xf6 gxf6 180-0 ± view of his control of the d-file and
Thuman. queenside light squares.
17 i.xf6 .u6 IS lDb3 i.d6 19 Snatching the e-pawn is bad: 23
lhdS Wxe4? .xe4 24lDxe4 :xc4 2s1Dc3
So White has won a pawn, but i.xa3 +, or 23lDxe4? b5 24 0-0 :xc4
Black's bishop-pair gives him the op- :j: Filip.
portunity to create trouble. With some 23•••:xc4 24 :dl 'ii'eS 25 g3 a6 26
regret, we give only brief notes to the 'ii'b3 bS 27 a4! :b4 28 .dS .xdS 29
rest of the game, which is a real heavy- lhdS i.f8 30 nbS as! 31 :dS :xb2
weight struggle, as this is an openings 32ltaS fS 33:xaS (D)
book not a game collection.
19...:e5
19 ...i.e5 20 lDd4 i.xd4 21 :xd4
"gS 22 g3! ± Andersson (cited by
Timman).
20 lDd4 :cS 21lheS
Timman gives 21 f4 as a clear win.
Again one must dispute this. After
21...:xdS 22lDxdS Wh4+, Black is in
the game on either 23 g3 Wh3 24
lDxfS WxfS 2S "b3 hS, when White's
kingside still needs watching, or 23
Wf2 Wxf2+ 24 ~xf2 i.d7, which is if
anything good for Black. White proceeded to win the end-
21 ..."xeS 22lDxfS .US (D) game after a titanic struggle.
33•••i.b4 34 :as+ ~f7 35 lDa4
:bl+ 36 ~g2 i.d6 37 :a7+ ~f6 3S
b6 i.bS 39 :as i.e5 40 lDcS .td6 41
b7 ~e7 42 :g8 .teS 43 f4 eu3+ 44
~~f7(D)

230-0
Returning the extra pawn in order
to complete his development. White
can now look forward to a very pleas-
ant late middlegame and endgame in
 18 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./4!
45I:tc8?!
Timman (based on joint analysis
with Andersson) gives as winning 45
I:td8 ~e7 46 I:td7+ ~e8 47 e4 I:tb5 48
I:td5 fxe4+ 49 ~xe4 ~b8 50 ~d3 ~a7
51 ~c4 I:tb6 52 ~4! followed by I:tb5.
45••• ~e7 46 h3 h5?
Andersson suggested that 46...I:tb5
probably still holds for Black.
47 I:tg8 ~7 48 I:td8 g5 49 g4 bxg4+
50 bxg4 9:;e7 51 llg8 fxg4+ 52 ~xg4
~7 53 I:tc8 .i.d6 54 e4 I:tgl+ 55 ~5
g4 56 e5 I:tn+ 57 ~e4 I:tel+ 58 ~d5
I:tdl+
58 ...~xe5 59ll:)d3 +-.
59ll:)d3 :Xd3+ 60 ~c4 1-0
However, it has to be emphasized
that Black's results in both theory and
practice proved satisfactory after
1O... ~e7, despite various attempts to
improve White's play. The ~f4 sys-
tem proved modestly fashionable dur-
ing the early 1980s, but then interest
gradually waned. Many of the side
systems that were tried, such as 8 ~e2
or 8 cxd5, were modestly successful,
but no more than that. Then suddenly
Grigory Kaidanov's idea of castling
queenside, into what appears to be the
centre of the storm, rejuvenated the
~f4 system; White's king is safer than
it looks, and it turns out that it is not so
easy for Black to hold both centre and
kingside. Many first-class scalps have
been collected in double-quick time
using Kaidanov's idea; several of
these games are given in full in the
theoretical section of the book. In the
meantime, just consider what effect it
had on the chess public when in a Can-
didates' Match Jon Speelman played
the latest and freshest idea on an
unsuspecting Short, scoring a critical
victory. The story was that a critical
game from the Soviet Championship
happened to be published in a Norwe-
gian newspaper, and Tisdall, a mem-
ber of Speelman's team, happened to
be travelling in from Oslo, while Short
was not privy to this particular chan-
nel of information.
Speelman - Short
London Ct (3) 1988
I d4ll:)f6 2 c4 e6 3ll:)f3 d5 4 M ~e7
5 .i.f4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxeS ll:)c6 8 Wc2
~xeS 9 a3"aS 100-0-0! (D)
Upping the ante considerably. In a
system which had previously been
considered quiet, positional and only
dangerous if Black played insuffi-
ciently aggressively, White meets fire
with fire. Clearly White has it in mind
to launch a kingside pawn-storm, but
this is not the only justification for
castling queens ide instead of playing
I:td 1. The point is that the white king is
better placed on cl than on el, in that
White no longer has to take such great
care to deal with counterplay along
the as-el diagonal. This means for
 Historical Introduction
example that White's pressure on the
d5-pawn is also accentuated.
White's whole idea is so counter-
intuitive that it was not even mentioned
as a possibility in the 1987 edition of
ECO; it is 'obviously' wrong ... until
you take a close second look!
10••• j,e7 11 g4
Even this move has been super-
seded, in that ll...dxc4 12 j,xc4 e5 13
g5 exf4 is now regarded as a satisfac-
tory reply for Black. Indeed there was
a danger for a while that White would
lose interest in this system, until Kas-
parov introduced 11 h4! in 1995.
11...:d8 12 h3 a6 13 ti)d2 e5?!
As in the :dl variations, this has to
be timed very carefully to avoid disas-
ter on the light squares. Such timing is
absent here.
14g5!
Forcing a knight move, as 14...exf4?
15 gxf6 j,xf6 16 ti)xd5 is unbearable.
14••• ti)e815 ti)b3 "b6 (D)
16 ti)xd5
So the decision comes not through
a kingside attack, but rather as a result
19
of the acceleration of the attack
against Black's centre, made possible
by getting White's king out of the
central zone.
16•••:xd5 17 cxd5 exf4 18 dxc6
fxe3 19 fxe3 j,xg5 20 ~bl bxc6 21
j,c4 (D)
The liquidation of the centre has
left White with a slight material ad-
vantage and, more importantly, a mas-
sive advantage in piece activity and
coordination.
21 .••:a7 22 :hf1 j,f6?!
Speelman gives 22 ...:e7 as the
only chance to resist.
23 "e4 ~f8 24 "xh7 g6 25 e4 c5
26 e5 j,g7 27 e6 1-0
In very general terms, White's best
approach in the j,f4 system is to try to
create a slight but persistent positional
edge if Black plays quietly, but to play
very aggressively, with queenside cas-
tling, if Black aims for counterplay
with the ...c5, .....a5 plan.
We now move on to the theoretical
analysis of specific variations.
2 The Old Main Line
2.1 Introduction
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 M lDf6 4ffi i.e7
5 i.f4 0·0 6 e3 cS 7 dxcS i.xcS S Wc2
lLlc6 9 a3 WaS 10 :dl (D)
For 10 0-0-0 see Chapter 3. For
other moves (10 l:c1; 10 lLld2!?) see
Chapter 4.1.
This position was the main focus of
theoretical debate through the 1970s
and most of the 1980s. White now
threatens b4, so Black usually replies
10 ...i.e7. White is clearly ahead in de-
velopment on the queenside, but it will
take him a long time to get his king
into safety. This allows Black time to
build up a counter-attack; the thematic
plan is, if White plays lLld2, to reply
with ... e5 followed by ... d4. Play usu-
ally becomes quite sharp, but the gen-
eral impression is that Black holds his
own in the complications. As a result,
10 0-0-0 is currently preferred. The old
main line remains important however,
not least because Black could consider
9 ... i.e7!? instead of9 .....a5, avoiding
the 'new main line', and challenging
White to find something other than 10
:d1 "as. This point is discussed fur-
ther in Chapter 5.1, Line H.
From the diagram, there is a major
branching point after 1O ... i.e7 11
lDd2 e5, when 12lDb3, 12 i.g3 and 12
i.g5 all need to be considered. Before
considering these main lines, we exam-
ine alternatives on moves 10 and 11.
2.2 Alternatives for
Black on Move 10
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 lDc3 lDf6 4ffi i.e7
5 i.f4 0-0 6 e3 cS 7 dxcS i.xcS S Wc2
~9a3WaS 10:dl
Now 10... i.e7 is clearly best, and
the alternatives are mostly inferior. We
consider:
A: 10.•.:eS?! 20
B: 10•••dxc4 20
C: 10...i.d7!? 21
D: 10...:dS 21
E: 10...lDe4?! 21
A)
10...:eS?! is probably too ambi-
tious. See the Korchnoi-Karpov game in
the Introduction for further comment.
B)
10... dxc4, without even waiting for
lDd2, gives White a free hand. 11
 The Old Main Line
i.xc4 i.e7 120-0 eS 13 i.gS i.g4 14
i.xf6 i.xf6 IS ltldS, Tukmakov-
O.Rodriguez, Las Palmas 1978, gives
excellent central control. If IS ...i.d8?,
16 b4 'ifxa3 17 :alltlxb4 18 'ifd2 and
White wins.
C)
10•.• i.d7!? could be considered,
since 11 b4? is met by 11...li:lxb4 12
axb4 i.xb4 13 :clltle4 14 i.eS f6 IS
i.d4 eS. White should probably first
play 11 li:ld2, when 11.. .i.e7 trans-
poses into Chapter 2.3, Line C.
D)
10•••:d8 (D)
This removes an important retreat-
square, as seen after 11 It:ld2:
1) l1...eS? 12 i.gS d413li:lb3 'itb6
14 i.xf6 gxf6 IS It:lds +- R.Bates-
D.Vergun, Bratislava U-14 Wch 1993.
2) 11...d4? 12ltlb3 'ifb6 13 ltla4
i.b4+ 14 axb4 'ifxb4+ IS li:ld2 'ifaS
16 b3li:lb4 17 'ifbl d3 18 f3li:lhS 19
i.g3 and Black has not got enough for
the piece, Gheorghiu-P.Ostojic, Monte
Carlo 1969.
3) 11 ... dxc4 is more sensible, but
White ~an play for an endgame edge:
21
12li:lxc4 (12 i.xc4 i.e7 13 0-0 i.d7
14 i.e2 i.e8 IS ltlc4 "fS 16 'ifxfS
exfS 17 i.f3 :ac8 18ltld6 is slightly
better for White, Balashov-Averbakh,
Moscow 1978) 12...:xdl+ 13 'ifxdl
"d8 14 'ifxd8+ (14 'ii'c2li:ldS IS i.g3
li:lxc3 16 'ifxc3 'ife7 17 i.d3 i.d7 18
0-0 bS =Gallego-San Segundo, Span-
ish Ch 1996) 14... ltlxd8 IS i.e2 (win-
ning a pawn with IS li:la4?! i.e7 16
li:lab6 axb6 17 li:lxb6 :a5 18 li:lxc8
l:tcS gives Black a big lead in develop-
ment, Euwe-Kupper, Zurich 19S4)
IS ... li:ldS!? 16 li:lxdS exdS Bagirov-
Matanovic, USSR-Yugoslavia 1971,
and now instead of 17 i.d6 b6 =,
Matanovic suggests 17 li:ld6 with a
slight advantage for White.
E)
10•••li:le4?! (D) has a poor reputa-
tion for the wrong reason.
11 cxdS
11 i.d3?! h6 12 cxdS (12 i.xe4?
dxe4 13 'ifxe4? i.xa3) 12... ltlxc3 13
bxc3 exdS 14 0-0 i.e7 (threatening
...'ifxa3) IS a4 i.f6 16 li:ld4li:les =Xu
lun-Adianto, Dubai OL 1986.
11 ...exdS 12 :xdS li:lxc3 13 bxc3
'ii'xa3
22 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 51./4!
13 ...lDe7 can be met by 14lLlg5 g6
15 :d2 i.xa3 16 i.c4 i.f5 17 "b3 ±
Gipslis-Shashin, Moscow 1970, or,
perhaps less convincingly, 14 l%dl
i.f5 15 i.d3 i.xa3?! (15 ...i.xd3 16
':xd3 "xa3 ;!; Nepominshay) 160-0
i.xd3 17 :xd3lDg6 18 :al ± Nepom-
inshay-Marciano, St Petersburg 1996.
14lDgS
Who can resist threatening mate in
one? (But see below for White's best
move.)
14.••g61S i.c4 (D)
Black's a-pawn will be a tremen-
dous asset for the endgame, if the
game ever gets that far! Kingside dis-
asters have tended to intervene, for ex-
ample 15 ...lDd8? 16lDxh7 ~xh7 17
%lh5+ q;.g7 18 i.e5+ f6 19 ':g5 1-0
Portisch-T.Berger, Amsterdam 1964;
or 15 ...~g7? 16 0-0 i.e7 17 e4i.f618
e5 i.xg5 19 i.xg5 i.e6 20 i.f6+ ~g8
21 'iWd2 lDe7 22 i.d3 :fc8 23 :a5
"xc3 24 "h6 1-0 G.Schroll-Wohl-
mann, Austria 1989.
15 ...i.f5?! led to desperate compli-
cations in Chekhov-Azmaiparashvili,
USSR 1981: 16 :xf5 gxf5 17 O-O!
lDe7 18 i.e5 i.d6 19 "e2 i.xe5 20
"h5 ~g7 and then 21 "xh7+ ~f6 22
f4 i.d4!! (22 .....xc3? 23lDe4+ fxe4
24 fxe5+ ~xe5 25 "g7+ f6 26 "e7#;
22 ...i.xc3? 23 g4! followed by lDe4+
and g5#) 23 exd4 "xc3 24 "h6+ lDg6
25lDh7+ ct;e7 26 "g5+ f6 (26 ...~d6?
27 "f6+ 1;c7 28 i.xf7 +-) 27 "xg6
with an unclear position, later drawn.
Great fun to play through, but White
can do better by delaying "xh7+ and
playing instead 21 f4! (not mentioned
by Chekhov). Then if 21...i.xc3 or
21.. ...xc3, 22 "xh7+ transposes into
the variations given by Chekhov,
while after 21...i.d4 22 exd4 "xc3 23
i.xf7! (though not 23 "xh7+ ~f6 24
i.xf7?? :h8) White should win. Fi-
nally, 21...h6 is answered by 22lDxf7.
But the main improvement is
Black's ...
15.•• b6! (D)
Black intends to defend by ex-
changing light-squared bishops.
160-0
16 lDxh7 ~xh7 17 :h5+ ~g7 18
i.h6+ ~f6 19 i.g5+ ~g7 is only a
drawing line.
16... i.a6 17 i.xa6 W'xa6 18 h4
:ad8 19 :fdl "c4 20 :d7 i.e7 ;
L.Ravi-D.Donchev, Calcutta 1996 Oater
drawn).
 The Old Main Line 23

Does this mean that 1O... lLle4 is a

simple equalizing line, and that players
with the black pieces need not read the
rest of the chapter? Not so; return to
the position after 13 ...Wxa3 (D).

A: 11 J.e2?! 23
B: 11 :d2 24
c: l1lLld2 without 11•••eS 28

A)
11 J.e2?! lLle4 12 cxdS lLlxc3 13
14 lLlg5?! takes the knight to the bxc3 exdS 140-0 J.e6 (D)
wrong side of the board. Instead of
chasing the king, White can chase the
queen with 14lLld2! threatening lLlc4.
After 14...Wal+ 15lLlbi J.e716J.d3
Black has massive difficulties with his
queen; other lines also leave Black
with problems.
So 10... lLle4 is, after all, dubious,
but not for the reasons given by exist-
ing theory.

2.3 10....i.e7: Alternatives

to 11 lLld2 e5
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3lLlc3lDf6 4 ffi J.e7
5 J.f4 0-0 6 e3 cS 7 dxcS J.xcS 8 Wc2
lLlc69 a3"aS 10 l:[d1 J.e7 (D)
11 lLld2 is very much the main line,
aiming to harass the black queen, and
tempting, ipdeed almost forcing, Black
to unbalance the central pawn-structure
with 11...e5.
Our lines are:
The biggest surprise about this po-
sition is that White has achieved 75%
from it in grandmaster play! His
queenside pawns are too weak to al-
low him to play for an edge.
Now there are two possibilities for
White:
1) 15 l:tbl 'it'xa3 (15 ... b6?! 16 a4)
16 :xb7 :fc8 17 :cl, and instead of
17 ... J.f5 18 'it'dl a5 19 J.b5lLld8 20
l%c7 00 Miles-Van der Sterren, Wijk
24 The Queen·.s Gambit Declined: 5 j.f4!
aan Zee 1984, perhaps 17 ... ~!? 18
l:lc7 -*.f6:j:.
2) IS a4:tc816l:lbl-*.f617lhb7
"xc3(17...-*.xc3? 18ll:)gS; 17... lLlh4?
18 'ifb1-*.xc3 19lLlgS) 18 "xc3 -*.xc3
19 l:lcl, Conquest-Greenfeld, Hast-
ings 198516, and if Black is content to
liquidate to safety, then simply 19...d4
=(instead of 19...-*.f6 20 h3 h6 21 l:lc7
when White is slightly better).
B)
11 l:ld2 (D) was introduced by La-
jos Portisch in 1982, and had some ini-
tial successes through surprise value.
However, Black has several ways of
equalizing.
B massive attack in H.Grunberg-Geller,
The rook move looks a bit strange.
but it breaks the pin on the as-el di-
agonal, and does so without decentral-
izing the king's knight, and without
allowing ... eS. And if White can de-
velop in peace, he might well be able
to double rooks profitably on the d-
file.
Black's main choices are 11...l:ld8,
keeping the tension on the d-fiIe, and
1l...lLle4, a promising gambit line. A
few other moves have also been tried,
so our variations are:
Bl: 11••• l:le8?! 24
B2: 11...h6 24
B3: l1...dxc4 24
B4: 11...l:ld8 2S
BS: 11...lLle4! 27
B1)
11...l:le8?! misplaces the rook. Af-
ter 12 cxdS ll:)xdS 13 ll:)xdS exdS 14
i.d3 h6 150-0 -*.f6 16 l:lfd1 Black is
worse off than in corresponding varia-
tions with the rook on d8 (Line B4 be-
low). Not, however, 12ll:)b5? e5.
B2)
The waiting move 11 ...h6, denying
White use of g5, has been tried with
success by Geller. 12 cxd5 exdS 13
-*.e2 (13 'ifb3?! i.e6 14 "xb7 l:lac8
15 -*.b5 d4! 16 exd4 ~S gave Black a
Sochi 1983) 13 ...i.e6 140-0 l:lac8 IS
l:lfd 1 bS! 16 -*.xbS ~ 17ll:)xe4 dxe4
18 -*.xc6 exf3, and Black is OK de-
spite the pawn count. Meduna-Geller,
Sochi 1983 continued 19 "a4 (19
'ife4? -*.b3) 19... 'ifb6! 20 -*.dS (20
i.xf3 -*.b3) 20...-*.xdS 21 l:lxdS "xb2
22 "xa7 -*.h4 23 g3 i.f6 =.
B3)
l1...dxc4 12 -*.xc4 and now:
1) 12...eS?! is bad; Black weakens
himself too much on the light squares,
for example 13 -*.g3 -*.g4 14 0-0 -*.xf3
IS gxf3 l:lac8 16 -*.a2 bS 17 ~S!
ll:)xdS 18 -*.xdS ~419 "dl l:lcd820
-*.xf7+ lhf7 21 exd4 exd4 22lhd4 a6
23 l:lxd8+ "xd8 24 'ifb3 ± A.Petro-
sian-Ubilava, Telavi 1982.
2) 12 ... lLlhS may be considered.
After 13 -*.d6 -*.xd6 14 l:lxd6ll:)f6, the
game Adorjan-Tisdall, Lugano 1983
 The Old Main Line
continued IS .d2 CiJe7 16 e4 'ircs 17
.d4 .xd418 :Xd4 a619lDeS bS 20
~b3 ~b7 =. The most likely place to
look for an improvement for White is
move IS. Not IS O-O?! .cS 16 lDbS
lDeS! ao (16 ... a6?! 17 b4), but rather 15
:td2, for example IS ... a6 160-0 bS 17
~e2 ~b7 18lDe4!?
84)
1l•••:td8 (D)
This was Black's reaction in the in-
augural Portisch-Balashov game; these
days White usually responds by ex-
changing pawn~
12cxd5 . Balashov, Toluca IZ 1982) 19 gxf3 d4
12 h3?! is, as one would expect, a
serious loss of tempo. In Agzamov-
Lputian, USSR Ch 1982, Black con-
tinued vigorously with 12 ... lDe4! 13
lDxe4 dxe4 14 'iIIxe4 :txd2 (14 ... eS!
ECO) IS lDxd2 eS 16 ~h2 (16 ~g3
~e6 17 ~e2 :d8 18 .c2 ~fS +)
16 ... ~e6 17 g4 l%d8 18 'iIIc2 lDb4!
with a strong initiative. The gambit
with ...lDe4 is dangerous enough with-
out the gift of an extra tempo.
12 ~e2 lDe4 13 lDxe4 dxe4 14
'iIIxe4 transposes to lines given under
11...CiJe4 (BS below).
25
The author toyed with the idea of
12 cS several years ago, but again
12•..lDe4! is a fully adequate reply, and
12...•xcS 13 b4 .b6 14 lDa4lDxb4 is
also worth considering.
12••. lDxd5
12...exdS? 13lDb5! jams up Black's
queenside, for instance 13 ...lDe8 14
~d3 h6 IS 0-0 ±, with White ready to
continue his assault with b4 and, if
..."'6, lDc3 threatening lDa4. In-
stead, Miles-Karpov, Plovdiv Echt
1983 continued tamely 13 ~e2?! ~g4
14 0-0 ~xf3 IS ~xf3 d4 Ih,_ l h. Curi-
ously the analysis in ECO, under Kar-
pov's name, does not cite the above
game, and gives 13 lDbS as merely
·'unclear". Presumably it would not
have been a wise career-move for a
member of Karpov's analytical team
to suggest that the great man could err.
13lDxdS :txd5 .
13 ...exdS 14 ~d3 h6 IS 0-0 ~f6
(IS ...~g4?! 16 lDes ;!; Browne) 16
'iIIb3 ~g4 17 :edl (17 'iIIxb1? ~xf3 18
b4 'iIIxa3 19 'iIIxc6 .xb4 -+ Browne)
17 ...:td7 and now, rather than 18 h3
~xf3! (18 ... ~e6 19 'iIIbS;!; Portisch-
20 'ifb5 'iIIxbS 21 ~xb5 = Browne-
Karpov, Tilburg 1982, 18 ~e2!? gives
chances for a slight edge.
14 ~d3 (D)
14 ~c4 :txd2 15 .xd2 b6 with
equality, Ree-Beliavsky, Plovdiv Echt
1983.
14...e5!
Black must be prepared to abandon
his h-pawn if he is to stay in the game.
14 ... h6?! is too slow: 15 0-0 ci>h8
(IS ...e5 16 ~h7+ ci>h8 17 :txdS .xd5
18 ~e4 'iIIe619 ~g3 ± Farago; White
has plans of building on the light
26 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./41
squares with :dl, etc.) 16 .i.e4 :xd2
17 lDxd2 .i.d7 18 lDc4 ± I.Farago-
Abramovic, Belgrade 1982. White has
a comfortable advantage in space.
IS .i.g3
It turns out that 15 .i.xh7+?! c;j;lh8
does not work: 16 .i.g3 (16 .i.g5??
:xd2) 16...g6 17 .i.xg6 fxg6 18 'ii'xg6
:xd2 19lDxd2 .i.d7, 00 according to
Farago, + according to Karpov. White
has too little to attack with.
If 15 .i.g5, then 15 ... e4! (15 ...h6?!
;1;) 16 .i.xe4 :C5 (but not 16...:xg5? 17
lDxg5 'ii'xg5 18 .i.xc6 bxc6 19 "xc6
:b8 20 :d8+ .i.xd8 21 "e8# Polovo-
din and Fedorov) 17 "bl :xg5 18
lDxg5.i.xg5 19 .i.xh7+ c;j;lh8 20.i.e4
.i.e6 and Black's active minor pieces
perhaps slightly outweigh the slight
material deficit, Y.Zilbershtein-Polov-
odin, USSR 1983.
IS•••.i.g4!
It is best to repeat the pawn offer.
On 15 ... h6, 16 .i.c4?! :xd2 17lDxd2
.i.d7 180-0 occurred in Yuneev-Pol-
ovodin, USSR 1983, when 18 ...:c8 =
(ECO) improves on the game con-
tinuation 18....i.e8 19.i.a2;1;. However,
White offered the exchange of rooks
too early; 16 O-O! .i.e6 17 .i.c4 l:xd2
18 lDxd2 ;!;, Once Black has played
... e5, the exchange of light-squared
bishops will favour White.
16.i.xh7+
16 O-O? faces tactical problems af-
ter 16...:xd3!: 17 "iWxd3 e4 18 "iWb3
(18 "xe4 .i.xf3) 18...exf3 19 "xb7
"xd2 20 "xa8+ tt)d8 21 gxf3 .i.h3 +
(ECO), or 17 :xd3 e4 18 :d4lDxd4
19 lDxd4 Wd5 :j: Agzamov-Ubilava,
USSR Ch (First League) 1982.
16•••c;j;lf8!
The obvious 16... c;j;lh8 is also play-
able, but this move, bringing the king
closer to the centre for the endgame,
might just give Black the edge. Mes-
tel-Vaganian, Hastings 198213 contin-
ued 17 .i.e4 :d6 18 "c3 "xc3 19
bxc3 :xd2 20 c;j;lxd2 f6 21 a4lDa5 22
lDh4 :d8+ 23 ~c2 .i.c5 24 .i.f5 .i.h5,
when Black was comfortably equal
despite being a pawn down, in view of
White's weak queenside pawns and
offside minor pieces.
17 .i.e4 :d6 18 .c3
Not an exchange that White par-
ticularly wants to offer, but 18 O-O??
loses a piece to 18 ... .i.xf3 19 :xd6
.i.xe4, while 18.i.xc6?:xc619"h7?
:Lcl+ 20 c;j;le2 "b5+ 21 :d3 "xb2+
22 :d2 "b5+ 23 ltd3 :c2+ gives
Black a mating attack.
18.•••xc3 19 bxc3 :xd2 20 c;j;lxd2
20 lDxd2!? Polovodin and Fedorov.
20•••f6
As in the Mestel-Vaganian game,
but with Black's king two squares
closer to the centre. I.Kalinsky-Pol-
ovodin, USSR 1983 continued 21 :bl
lDa5 22 a4 :d8+ 23 c;j;lel b624lDh4
:c8=i=.
After 11. ..:d8 Black is comforta-
bly holding the balance, ifhe plays ac-
tively.
 The Old Main Line
85)
1l•.•~! (D)
Even better! This thematic pawn
sacrifice aims to replace the awkward
pin on the c3-knight with an even
more awkward pin on the d2-rook.
Black hopes to build up a major lead in
development.
12lDxe4 dxe4 13 Wxe4 l:d8 (D)
The gambit was originally played
in conjunction with B ... fS, and then
14 Wc2 e5 15 .i.g5 .i.xgS 16 ~xg5 h6
17 ffi (17 ~h3 .i.e6 + Nei) 17...e4
(l7...l:d8? 18 c5! ~h8 19 WcI! .i.e620
b4 ± Browne-0gaard, Gj(6vik 1983)
18 ~d4 ~xd4 19 exd4 f4 20 Wxe4
(20 Wc3?! Wg5 + Nei) 20 ....i.g4 21
Wd5+ 'W'xd5 22 cxd5 l:fe8+ 23 .i.e2
f3, liquidating into a drawn endgame,
Bareev-Goldin, USSR 1983.
The text gives White even more op-
portunities to go wrong!
14c5
An untested suggestion by Miles,
the point of which is to clear the c4-
square. Alternatively:
1) 14 Wc2? e5 15 .i.g3 e4 16 'W'xe4
.i.f5 -+ 17 Wf4 l:xd2 18 ~xd2 l:d8
19 e4 .i.g4! (threatening ....i.g5 and
....i.b4) 20 c5 ~b4 21 f3 g5 22 axb4
27
(22 Wxg4 lLlc2+) 22 ...Wal+ 23 ~f2
gxf4 24 .i.xf4 .i.e6 25 .i.e5 'W'cl 26
.i.c3 .i.g5 0-1 Miles-Beliavsky, Wijk
aan Zee 1984. A devastating example
of the disasters that may occasionally
befall White if he allows his king to
get stuck in the centre in the .i.f4 sys-
tem.
2) 14g4g5!15b4Wxa316l:xd8+
~xd8 17 ~xg5 'W'xb4+ 18 ~dl 'W'b3+
19 ~el (19 Wc2 'W'xc2+ 20 ~xc2 e5
wins a piece) 19.....c3+ 20 ~dl
Wa1+ 21 ~d2 "b2+ 22 ~dl, Agza-
mov-Alzate, Bogota 1984, and now
22....i.d7 (ECO) wins. More problems
for the white king.
3) 14 .i.e2 and now, rather than
14... e5?! 15 b4! (better than 15 .i.g3 f5
16 Wc2 e4 17 lLld4 ~xd4 18 exd4
.i.g5 '; De Roode-Van der Sterren,
AmsterdamlArnhem 1983) 15 .....xa3
16 l:xd8+ ~xd8 (l6....i.xd8 170-0 g6
18 ~xe5 .i.f5 19 'W'f3 "xb4 20 ~xc6
bxc6 21 'W'xc6 +- Baka1ar-Harasta,
Czechoslovakia 1989) 17 0-0 "xb4
18 lLlxe5 ;t Meduna-Velikov, Trnava
1983. ECO suggests as an improve-
ment 14...l:xd2! 15 ~xd2 e5 16.i.g3
.i.e6 17 Wc2 l:d8 ';; White will have
difficulty completing his develop-
ment.
28 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./41
14•••:xd2!
14...1.xcS? IS b4 +-; 14...fS IS 1i'c4
;t Miles. 14...WxcS IS 1.d3 g6 (1S ... fS
16"c4;tMiles) 16Wc4(I60-0?eS=F
ECO) and White forces the exchange
of queens, but with no real sign of an
advantage.
15 tQxd2 eS16 .td3!?
16 .txeS iDxe5 17 Wxe5 .te6 18
Wc3 Wxc3 19 bxc3 1.xcS 20 a4 1.e7 =F
ECO.
16...g617 .th6 .tfS1S "c4 .txd3
19 "xd3 :dS 20 "c2 l:dS ;.
After I1...iDe4, the onus is on White
to equalize.
It is difficult to see any prospects
for a white revival in the 11 l:d2 line.
If in one of the main lines (l1...l:d8)
Black is comfortably equal, and in the
other (l1...iDe4) Black is aiming for
an advantage, it is unlikely that White
will find the necessary improvement in
both lines. Ultimately, II l:d2, though
interesting, is a little too artificial.
C)
lliDd2: alternatives to ll ...eS
11...eS is the natural reply to the
knight retreat, but it radically destabi-
lizes the centre; complications follow.
Black's only realistic alternative is to
play ... .td7 and aim for counterplay
along the c-file. ll...a6 is possible, but
if ...1.d7 is played next move, it is
merely a transposition (thus, for in-
stance, the game Petrosian-Spassky
below went 11 ... a6 12 .te2 .td7 rather
than 11.. ..td7 frrst).
1l•••.td7 (D)
121.e2
The pawn is not really worth win-
ning. After 12 cxdS exdS 13 iDb3
Wb6, 14 .tgS .te6 IS 1.xf6 .txf6 16
iDxdS .txdS 17 l:xdS l:ac8 18 l:cS
iDe7 19 .td3 l:xcS 20 iDxcs Wa5+
gave Black good play in Dreev-Kupo-
rosov, Tallinn 1986, while if 14iDxdS,
Geller gives the entertaining drawing
line 14...iDxdS IS lbdSiDb4 16 axb4
.ta4 17 .td3 Wxb4+ 18 ~e2 J.xb3 19
1.xh7+ ~h8 20 l:h5 .txc2 21 J.xc2+
~g8 22 J.h7+.
12.•.l:fcS
So that the queen can go back to d8
without breaking the coordination of
the rooks. 12 ...l:ac8, suggested by
Geller, might also be worth a try.
After 12 ... a6!? 13 0-0 l:ac8, 14
.tg3?! bS IS cxbS?! axbS 16 .txbS
iDb4 17 Wb3 1.xbS 18 axb4 Wb6 19
:rei 1.d3 11l-1/2 was Petrosian-Spassky,
Buenos Aires 1979. After 20 iDxdS
iDxdS 21 Wxd3iDxb4 Black's active
pieces amply compensate for White's
extra isolated pawn. ECO suggests 14
1.f3 as an improvement for White, cit-
ing 14... eS IS 1.gS ;t, but once Black
has played ...1.d7, it seems a little il-
logical to revert so suddenly to the
... eS plan, with White having had time
to complete his development. I4... bS!?
is more natural, e.g. IS cxdS exdS 16
iDb3 (16 1.xdS b4!?) 16...Wb6 17
iDxdS iDxdS 18 1.xdS iDb4 19 We4
 The Old Main Line
lDxdS 20 'iFxdS IIfd8 (20 ...J.e6?! 21
'iFd4!) with ample compensation for
the pawn.
13 0-0 "d8 14 cxd5lDxd5!
After 14...exdS?! IS lDf3 h6 16
lDeS ;!; White had the standard good
play against the isolani in Karpov-
Spassky, Montreal 1979.
Despite the general principle that
the player opposing the isolated queen's
pawn will tend to want to simplify, in
most cases in the J.f4 system Black
will want to exchange the f6-knight
for the c3-knight before accepting the
isolani. There are two main reasons
for this. First, an inflexible defensive
piece is being exchanged for a flexible
attacking piece, which makes it easier
for Black to create active play. Sec-
ondly, the c3-knight provides impor-
tant cover for White on both the el-aS
diagonal and the c-file, and the re-
moval of this knight adds to Black's
ability to create threats. These themes
will be further illustrated when the
'Exchange Variation' is discussed in
Chapter 4.
15lDc4
Evidently deciding there is nothing
in 15 lDxdS exdS, when the queen has
to take cover. 16 'iFb3 J.e6 17 'ii'xb7??
lDaS would be like taking cover in a
gorse bush.
15.....e8 16 J.g3 b5 17lDd6 J.xd6
18 J.xd6lDaS 19 l:[d4lDxc3 20 bxc3
lDc4 21 J.xc4 l:[xc4
In this opposite-colour bishops po-
sition, Black's grip on the light squares
is more convincing than White's on the
dark, and Black duly won in Taborov-
Lerner, Yalta 1982.
The general impression is that the
... J.d7 line is under-researched, and
29
provides interesting possibilities for
Black. But we lb.ust examine the main
lines to see whether Black has any
need to avoid them.
2.4 11 ltld2 e5:
Introduction
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3lDc3lDf6 4lDf3 J.e7
5 J.f4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 J.xc5 8 "c2
lDc6 9 a3 "as 10 l:[dl J.e7 UlDd2
e5(D)
w
This is Black's most direct method
of dealing with the Old Main Line,
and by the mid-1980s, with most of
the recent theoretical improvements
running in Black's favour, was re-
garded as fully satisfactory. Indeed, as
we noted in the introductory chapter,
there was even a lull in the popUlarity
of the J.f4 system for a few years, un-
til interest was revived by the 'New
Main Line' (10 0-0-0) in 1988.
11.. .eS gains a tempo, but ensures
that the d-pawn is totally unsustain-
able on dS. Since ...dxc4 is usually po-
sitionally inadvisable, especially when
Black has already weakened the light
squares with ...eS, Black will want to
30 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./41
play ...d4 at the fIrst opportunity. White
can then exchange in order to isolate
the d-pawn, but this opens up the e-flle
at a time when White's kingside devel-
opment is severely lacking. Indeed the
general theme of battle in these varia-
tions is that White will try to establish
control of the light squares, and maybe
try to surround an isolated d-pawn,
while Black will try to make some-
thing of his lead in development.
From the diagram, White can play
12 ~b3, 12 i.g5 or 12 i.g3, with the
knight move being able to transpose
into either of the other lines. To take
into account these transpositions, we
consider:
2.512 i.g5 d4 13 ~b3 Wd8 (gener-
ally regarded as the main line);
2.6 12 i.g5 d4 13 ~b3 Wb6 (or 12
~b3 'ifb613 i.g5 d4);
2.7 12 ~b3 Wb6 13 i.g5 i.g4
(White avoids 2.5 and Black avoids
2.6);
2.S 12 i.g3 d4 13 ~b3 "ifb6 (or 12
~b3 Wb6 13 i.g3 d4).
2.5 12 1.g5 d4 13 lLlb3
.dB
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ~c3 ~f6 4 ~f3 i.e7
5 i.f4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 i.xc5 S
~c6 9 a3 .a5 10 lIdl i.e7 11 ~2
.c2
eS 12 i.gS d4 13 ~b3 .dS (D)
Black avoids the simplifIcation (and
hence danger of a slight but steady
edge to White) that follows 13 ...Wb6
14 i.xf6 i.xf6 15 ~d5. Instead, he al-
lows his d-pawn to be pinned. The
popUlarity of this variation for Black
increased when Geller, who has un-
covered several new ideas for Black in
the i.f4 system, demonstrated that 14
i.e2 as! was a good equalizer.
Before discussing 14 i.e2, we con-
sider a few alternatives. Our lines are:
A: 14 i.xf6 30
B: 14 i.d3?! 30
C: 14exd4 31
D: 14 i.e2 33
A)
14 i.xf6 i.xf6 is strictly a minor al-
ternative. The obvious 15 ~5leaves
White a tempo down on 2.6 (12 i.g5
d4 13 ~b3 Wb6 14 i.xf6 i.xf6 15
~5), while 15 i.d3 g6 16 ~5 i.g7,
Fta~nik-Rosandic, Vinkovci 1995,
should by the same analogy hold no
terrors for Black.
B)
14 i.d3?! was tried in Kaidanov-
Murugan, Calcutta 1988, and after
14... g61! 15 exd4 exd4 16 ~e2 ~g4
17 i.xe7 "ilxe7 180-0 "ile5 19 ~g3
White stood well. As so often though,
Black does best to abandon his h-pawn
and get on with his counterplay. Thus
14...~g4! 15 i.xh7+ (15 i.xe7 .xe7
16 ~5 .h4;) 15 .. /~)h8 16 h4! (the
only move; 16 i.xe7 .xe7 17 ~d5
"ilM +) 16... g6 17 i.xe7 (17 i.xg6
 The Old Main Line
fxg61S Wxg6 WeS 19 WxeS :xeS 20
lLldS :bS +) 17...lLlxe7! IS hS ..tg7!
and Black will eventually eat up the
bishop (not, however, IS ... Wxh1? 19
hxg6+ ..tg7 20 l:lh7+ WgS 21 g7).
C)
14 exd4 (D)
Now Black may capture either way,
although he may well be obliged at
some stage to sacrifice the isolated
pawn for active piece-play:
Cl: 14•••exd4 31
C2: 14...lLlxd4 32
C1)
14..•exd41S .te2
I) IS .te3!? is given without analy-
sis as an untried suggestion in ECO.
Then the obvious IS ... lLlg4 16 .txd4
lLlxd4 17 :xd4 gives White a suffi-
cient grip on dS to allow him to count
on an edge. IS ... WeS!? may improve
for Black, but probably does not equal-
ize. After 16lLlxd4 the post-ECO game
Bewersdorff-A.Arnason, Reykjavik
1990 continued 16... lLlg4?! 17lLlxc6
bxc6 IS .te2lLlxe3 19 fxe3 .th4+ 20
~d2! .tgS 21 Wcl and after castling
by hand White had a clearly good
31
game. A simpler try would have been
16... lLlxd4 17 .txd4 (17 :xd4?! .tcS
+) 17 ... .txa3+ IS .te2 .te7, but after
190-0 .te6 20 lLldS! White's lead in
development is cause for concern for
Black. One light-hearted tactical pos-
sibility is 20... lLlxdS 21 cxdS .txdS?!
22 .txg7 .txg2? 23 .txfS .txfl 24
.txe7 .txe2 25 Wxe2 and White safe-
guards his extra piece. This is worth
savouring, as it is one of the few unex-
plored possibilities in the Old Main
Line that offers White the chance to
make headway. However, it must be
remembered that Black can also vary
with 14...lLlxd4 (Line C2 below).
2) IslLlbS is another untried sug-
gestion in ECO, where Is ... lLlg4 16
i.f4 .tgS 17 .tg3 .tf6 "" is cited, but
by analogy with the 14...lLlxd4 IslLlxd4
exd4 16 lLlbS .tg4 line (C2 below),
Black might want to try IS ....tg4!?
Is...lLlg4 16 i.xe7 'fIxe7 (D)
This position can also be reached
after 14 .te2lLlg4 IS .txe7 Wxe7 16
exd4 exd4!? (Line D below). In this
particular move-order, 16... Wh4 is
usually preferred, but the simple pawn
recapture is also fully satisfactory.
17lLlds
32 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 j"f4!
17 itlxd4 could provoke Black into
an unsound piece sacrifice:
1) 17 ...itlxd4?! 18 :xd4itlxt2 19
~xf2! (not, however, 19 O-O??, as
recommended by Azmaiparashvili in
Informator 33, in view of 19... We3,
threatening the standard smothered
mate with ... lLlh3++, ... Wgl+, etc.)
19...Wf6+ 20 ~e3 1.f5 21 Wd2 :ad8
22itld5 :fe8+ 23 ~t2 :xd5 24 I[xdS
1.d3+ 25 1.f3 :e2+ 26 Wxe2 1.xe2
and now the killer zwischenzug 27
.:tel! left White a clear piece up in
Cu.Hansen-Ahlander, Malmo 1994.
2) The correct reply is the thematic
17 ...Wh4 18 g3 Wh3:
2a) 19 We4? leaves White's king in
the crossfire after 19 ...1.d7 20 lLlf3
Wg2 21 :n :ae8 22 'ii'f4 lLlce5 23
lLlh4 itlxh2! (very pretty; 24 itlxg2
lLlef3+ 25 Wxf3lLlxf3# leads to a less
stereotypical smothered mate) 24 I[xd7
Wh3 25 :d4itlg6 26itlxg6 Wxfl + 27
~d2 :xe2+ 28 ~d3 fxg6 0-1 Dreev-
Kruppa, Fronze 1988.
2b) 19 lLlxc6 bxc6 20 'ii'e4 and
now, rather than 20...:b8 21 :d21.e6
(2l...itlf6 22 Wf4!) 22 nitlf6 23 Wd3
:fe8 24 ~t2 ± Sher-Ahlander, Farum
1993, Black can play more resolutely:
20...itlf6! 21 Wf4 :e8 and the initia-
tive is with Black after, for example,
22 ~d2 i.f5 23 ~c IlLle4!.
17••:iVeS!
This time the direct attack is less
convincing: 17...Wh4?! 18 g3 Wh3 19
itlf4! (19 'ii'e4 1.d7 20 ~d2 GO Petrai-
tis-Tomson, corr. 1984) 19 ...'ii'h6 20
lLlxd4itlxd4 21 :xd4 :e8 22 h4! and
Black had nothing to show for the
pawn in the game Dreev-Gelfand,
Uzhgorod 1987.
18(4
18 h3 J.fS 19 'it'd2 d3 20 hxg4 dxe2
21 :cl (21 Wxe2 'ii'xe2+ 22 ~xe2
1.c2 =F) 2l...J.xg4 =F.
18•.•1.(5
18...itle3 19 fxeS itlxc2+ 20 ~t2
lLle3 21 lLlxe3 dxe3+ 22 ~xe3 itlxeS
23lLld4left White nicely placed for the
endgame in Forintos-Radulov, Sofia
1981. The text-move is more logical in
that Black is developing a piece while
attacking the queen.
19 1Wd2 1We4 20 0-0 itle3 21itlxe3
dxe3 22 'ii'c3
Assessed as equal in ECa, but Black
was looking good in Dreev-Gelfand,
Riga 1987 after 22 ...Wc2 23 :del
Wxc3 24 bxc3 :fe8 25 : n :ad8 26
1.n 1.c2 27 lLld4 itlxd4 28 cxd4
:xd4 29 :fxe3 :xe3 30 :xe3 ~f8 31
g3 i.e4. In this endgame, both Black's
pieces are more actively placed than
their counterparts, and White's queen-
side pawn structure is broken. Black
duly won some 40 moves later.
Unless White can make something
out of IS i.e3, one gets the impression
that it is White who is struggling to
equalize.
C2)
14••• lLlxd4 15 itlxd4 exd4 (D)
 The Old Main Line
16~bS
White must play for material gain;
it is too late to play quietly with 16
.i.e2? Black won nicely in J.Scbroer-
Dolgitser, USA 1984, after 16...•a5 17
.i.xf6.i.xf6 18 b4 "e5 19 li:)d5 .i.f5
20 "b2 (20 ~xf6+ gxf6!) 20 ... l:[fe8
21 f4 "xd5! 22 cxd5 d3 23 "b3
llxe2+ 24 ~f1l:[ae8 25 .c4 .i.h4.
ECO gives another promising queen
sacrifice after 16 .i.e3?! .i.c5 17 .i.e2
dxe3! 18l:[xd8 exf2+ 19 ~fll:[xd8 20
ll)dl g6 21 fuf2 .i.f5 22 "cl bS! +.
16••.i.g4
Likewise, it is a little too late for
Black to try retaining the d4-pawn.
16 ... .i.c5?! 17 b4 "e7+ (17 ...a6 18
li:)xd4 .i.xd4 19 .i.e3 ± Cu.Hansen)
and now 18 .i.e2 d3 19 "xd3 .i.xf2+
20 'it'fl WeS 21 .i.xf6 "xf6 22.f3;t
Cu.Hansen-Thorsteins, Kiljavajr Wch
1984; instead 18 'ife2?! is tempting,
but Black has the resource 18 ...l:[e819
i.xf6? (hoping for 19... gxf6 20 ll)c7)
19.....d7! 20.i.e5 f6.
Ivanchuk-Vaganian, USSR Ch 1988
was agreed drawn after 16... .i.d7 17
li:)xd4 "a5+ 18 "d2 "b6 19 i.e3,
but Ivanchuk analyses further with
19 ... .i.a4 20 b3, and then 20....i.xb3
21 l:[blli:)e4 22 :xb3li:)xd2 23l:txb6
li:)xfl 24 :xb7li:)xe3 25 fxe3 ±. This
does not exhaust the possibilities, and
there are many entertaining varia-
tions, the most theoretically relevant
perhaps being 20... li:)e4! 21li:)f5 (21
"c2 Wa5+; 21 li:)b5 li:)xd2) 21.. ..i.c5 !
(21 .....xb3 22 ~xe7+ ~h8 23 'ifcl ±),
when my initial view was that Black
stood well. However, Burgess then
suggested 22 'ifb2! f6 (22.....a5+? 23
l:[d2! ±; 23 b4?! .i.xb4+ 24 1fxb4
"xfS 25 "xa4li:)c3 00) 23 .i.d3l:[ae8
33
24 .i.xe4 l:[xe4 25 0-0 .i.xe3 26 fxe3
"xb3 (26 ... l:[xc4? 27 l:[bl) 27 "xb3
.i.xb3 28l:[d7, with one possible line
being 28 ....i.xc4 29 l:[xg7+ ~h8 30
l:[f3! (30 l:tcl?! .i.e6) 30...l:[e5 with an
unclear endgame; if 31 l:[h3, then
3l...i.g8. One gets the feeling that, if
anything, it was Vaganian with Black,
and not Ivanchuk, who agreed the draw
prematurely. Certainly 16... i.d7 de-
serves serious consideration as an al-
ternative to 16....i.g4.
17l:txd4
17 f3 encounters the same reply.
17•••l:[eS!
Gaining an important tempo with
the threat of ....i.b4#.
IS.i.e3.b6
Another queen sacrifice; 19l:txg4??
li:)xg4 20 .i.xb6 i.b4+ 21 ~dll:[el#.
19 .td3 .tcS 20 0-0 .txd4
20... a6? 21l:[d6.
21 .txd4 .dS 22 .i.xf6 gxf6 23 h3
.thS 24 .txh7+ ~g7 with an unclear
position perhaps slightly favouring
Black, Piket-Van der Sterren, Lyons Z
1990.
0)
14 .te2 (D)
34 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i,.f4!
14••.aS
This move of Geller's is currently
the most popular, and is backed up by
a number of tactical resources. Black
aims to dissolve White's pressure
against the black centre with a timely
... a4. Of the alternatives, the old
14...lOg4 is satisfactory, but others of-
fer White an edge.
1) 14 ... lOg4 IS i.xe7 'iIIxe7 16
exd4, and now 16...exd4!? transposes
into lines considered under 14 exd4
exd4 (Line C 1 above). 16...'iIIh4 is safe,
but is liable to fizzle out into a draw.
There follows 17 g3 (White hasn't so
far risked 17 i.xg4 i.xg4 18 l:[d2
exd4 19lOxd4, and indeed 19 ... l:ae8+
20 ~n {20 lOde2 lIe6 gives a strong
initiative} 20 ...'ille7 is strong, for ex-
ample 21 'iIIc 1 lOxd4 22 lIxd4 i.e2+
23 ~gl i.xc4) 17 ...'illh3 18 dSiOd4!
(18 ...Wg2? 19l1niOd420fud4exd4
21 'iIIe4 ±) 19 li.)xd4 exd4 20 :lxd4
:est (20..."g2? loses control: 21 'iIIe4!
'iIIxf2+ 22 <it>d2lOf6 23 'iIIe3 'iIIg2 24
'iIIgl 'iIIh3 2S 1Ih4 'iIId7 26 'iIId4 lIe8
27 i.d3 b6 28 l:tn 1-0 Petrosian-Filip,
Cura~ao Ct 1962) 21 l:te4 i.d7 and
now various games have subsided to
repetition here, for example Portisch-
Spassky, Havana 1966, 22 i.n 'iIIhS
23 i.e2 'iIIh3, etc., or Ree-Pfleger,
Lone Pine 1981, with Black playing
22 ...'illh6 instead of 22 ...•hS (proba-
bly a slightly safer move-order, as it
cuts out the possibility of 23 h3 i.fS
24 hxg4 .txe4). Black's initiative
fully compensates for the two pawns,
and White is well advised to accept the
repetition. The one attempt by White
to try for more backfired in Chiburdan-
idze-Azmaiparashvili, USSR 1982:
22 ~d2? .h6+ 23 f4 lOf2 24 lIxe8+
lIxe8 2S lin .xh2 with a clear ad-
vantage for Black.
2) 14 ... h6 IS i.xf6 i.xf6 160-0 as
(by analogy with 14... aS variations,
but White is fully developed and there-
fore ready; 16... i.e6 17lOcs .e7 18
lOxe6 .xe6 19 lOdS ;t Korchnoi-
Karpov, Baguio City Wch (9) 1975)
17 .tf3 i.d7 (17 ... a4 IS1Oc5 i.e7 19
lO3xa4 'iIIaS 20 b4 'iIIa7 21 i.xc6 bxc6
22 exd4 +- Abramovic; this trick of
Black's can work in 14 ... aS lines, but
here White is too far ahead in tempi)
18 lOc5 i.e8 19 lOd5 i.e7 20 lOd3
dxe3 21 fxe3, and White has achieved
his dream of complete control of the
central light squares, Hiibner-Short,
Brussels 1986.
3) 14... g6 15 exd4 exd4 160-0 and
now:
3a) 16... i.f5 gives White two at-
tractive choices: either 17 i.d3 i.e6
(17 ... i.xd3 ;t) 18 lOe2 ;t Yusupov-
Klovans, USSR 1984, or, more imagi-
natively though not necessarily better,
17.cl d3?! (17 ...•b61SlOb5! threat-
ening c5; 17 ... a6!?) 18 i.xd3! i.xd3
19 lIfel :le8 20 i.xf6 i.xf6 21 lIxe8+
.xeS 22 lOd5 ± Forintos-I.Zaitsev,
USSR 1978.
3b) Black may do better with
16... a6!?, keeping ...i.f5 in reserve.
4) 14... i.e6?! makes the mistake
of delaying active play until White has
finished his development and is ready
to react. Goehler-Koglin, Bundesliga
wom 1997 continued IS 0-0 lIc8 16
exd4 lOxd4 17 lOxd4 exd4 18 lOb5
.as 19 i.xf6 i.xf6 20 lOxd4 and
White had safely picked up the iso-
lated pawn.
After 14... a5, play branches, with
the most popular choices being IS
 The Old Main Line
exd4 and 15lDa4, though the two other
lines covered here are perfectly ac-
ceptable:
01: IS 0-0 35
02: IS .txf6!? 35
03: IS exd4 36
04: IS lDa4 37
15 lDb5 is briefly mentioned at the
start ofD4.
D1)
IS 0-0 84 161Dc1 (D)
This has had rather a poor reputa-
tion, since the uninterrupted thrust of
the a-pawn has allowed Black to con-
solidate the position of his d-pawn.
However, a recent game by Ivan Sok-
olov suggests that the position is not
the straightforward; that for example
ECO assumes.
16•...te6
With the point 17lDxa4?"a5 18 b3
.txa3 =t.
16.....a5 17lDb5 .te6 18 b4 axb3
19lDxb3 "b6 20 exd4 exd4 21lD3xd4
;!; Bog~- Wlodarczyk, Copenhagen
1991, has also been tried, but the indi-
rect defence is clearly more economi-
cal and does not misplace the queen.
35
17.td3!
In the inaugural game of the 14...a5
variation, I.Farago-Geller, Novi Sad
1979, White mistakenly tried to mix
things up with 17 f4?, and Black stood
slightly better after 17 .....b6 18lDxa4
"a7 19 f5 .td7 (19 ....tc8! =t Geller)
20 b3 lDg4 21 .txg4 .txg5. After-
wards Geller showed that 17 ...lDg4!
18 .txe7lDxe7 19 .txg4 .txg4 20 :ct3
"b6! would have been winning; the
weakness on e3 costs White dearly.
Blocking the centre with 17 e4 gives
Black an unchallenged edge. Geller
gives 17 .....b6! 18 .txf6 (18lDd5??
lDxd5 -+) 18 ...dxc3! 19 .txe7 "xb2
20 "xb2 cxb2 21lDd3lDxe7 22lDxb2
1Dc6 ;. Black has the better bishop, the
superior pawn structure, and the d4-
square.
17•••g6
Not 17...dxc3? 18 .txf6.
18exd4
Correctly releasing the pressure in
the centre.
18•••lDxd4 19 Wd2 lDhS 20 .txe7
Wxe7 21 We3 f6 22 .te4
White possibly has a slight edge, al-
though the awkward position of the
knight on c 1 reduces his prospects
somewhat, I.Sokolov-Portisch. Jakarta
1996. Black must avoid 22 ....txc4??
23 l:lxd4 exd4 24 .td5+.
D2)
IS .txf6!? .txf616 0-0 (D)
Exchanging on f6 first is a refine-
ment of White's play; the exchange
has not only weakened Black's grip
on d5, but has also provided the b3-
knight with a 'retreat' on c5, a consid-
erable improvement on the c I-square.
16•••84
36 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i.j4!
As given by Geller in his analysis of
his game with Farago, but Black might
well do better to try 16... g6, a thematic
move which increases the flexibility
"a7
17lLlcS "as
of both bishops.
18lLl3xa4 i.e7 19 b4
Beliavsky is quoted in ECO as ad-
vocating 19 ...•c7 with compensation
for the pawn, but this assessment seems
rather optimistic. 20 b5 b6! 21 i.f3
bxc5 22 i.xc6 i.b7 keeps Black in the
game, but the immediate 20 i.f3 is
strong, as 20...i.xc5 can be met with
21 bxc5!, preparing lLlb6. This pawn
capture would not be possible if Black
had doubled on the a-file.
20 i.f3 dxe3 21 fxe3 i.xc5 22
lLlxc5 "xa3 (D)
w sulting in positions where Black seems
This position provides an excellent
object lesson against taking someone
else's analysis on trust. In Informa-
tor 28 Geller assesses this position,
reached after a long forcing variation,
as being much better for Black. And a
year later, Hubner, in a critical Candi-
dates' Match game against Korchnoi,
played down Geller's analysis. Korch-
noi, however, had seen beyond the two
weak pawns on b4 and e3, and saw
that with correct play he could force a
favourable endgame. Thus:
23.d2! 'ifxb4
23 ... lLlxb4 24lLlxb7 is also good for
White.
24'ifxb4
24 "'d6 ':a5 25 lLlxb7 i.xb7 26
"'xb4 lLlxb4 27 i.xb7 ':c5 = Quin-
teros-Chen, Hanover 1983.
24•••lLlxb4 25 lLlxb7
The passed c-pawn, well backed up
by White's active pieces, is now a ma-
jor factor in the position, Korchnoi-
Hubner, Merano Ct (6) 1980. White
soon established a winning position,
but Black slipped to safety just before
the time control.
The line with 15 i.xf6 merits fur-
ther investigation.
D3)
15 exd4 a4 (D)
This leads to a tactical interlude, re-
no worse.
16lLlxa4
16 dxe5? is well answered by
16... lLld7 17 i.xe7 axb3! + - Geller,
ECO. Geller's original analysis sug-
gested 16... axb3 17 "'xb3 lLld7, but
White can cut his losses with 17 ':xd8
(ECO).
 The Old Main Line
16•••tbxd4
Black aims to illustrate the old prov-
erb, "Knights on the edge get stuck in
the hedge". Diving into the hedge with
16 ...:xa4? is unwise, as after 17 dS
tbaS 18 d6.i.xd6 19 tbcs (Beliavsky)
White is about to trim the a-me.
17 tbxd4 exd4 18 b3
18 0-0 "as 19 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 20 b3
.i.d7 is given as equal by Beliavsky. If
anything, this is generous to White.
18••:.aS+ 19 'iVd2
Agreeing to the exchange of queens
and the return of the pawn. A more
ambitious and riskier plan would be
19 .i.d2 .i.fS! 20 "b2. After 20.....eS,
Portisch-Beliavsky, Moscow 1981 con-
tinued 21 .i.b4?! .i.xb4+ 22 axb4 :fe8
23 :xd4 .i.c2 24 :d2 .i.xb3 2S "xb3
"al+. White could try instead 21
.i.e3!? .i.xa3 22 "xd4 .i.b4+ 23 ~f1
"e7, which Beliavsky assesses as giv-
ing compensation for the pawn. How-
ever, 24 c5! quickly reduces the appeal
of Black's position.
19•••.i.xa3 20 WxaS
200-0 tbe4 21 "xaS :xaS 22 .i.d2
tbxd2 23 :xd2 .i.d7 =Korchnoi, was
an assessment confirmed by the game
Bagirov-Vaganian, USSR Ch (First
League) 1982: 24 :xd4 .i.xa4 2S bxa4
37
:xa4 26 :d7 b6 and soon agreed
drawn.
2O•••:xaS 21 .i.xf6 .i.b4+ 22 ~n
gxf6 23 l:[xd4 :eS
Equal, and indeed one of the games
on the database was agreed drawn
here. White is a pawn up, but he is be-
hind in development and his knight is
sidelined. Korchnoi-Karpov, Merano
Wch (11) 1981 continued 24 g4 bS 2S
cxb5 .i.b7 26 f3 :fe8 27 .i.dl :xbS,
with a draw soon following. Korchnoi
noted that the exchange sacrifice 26
':xb4 .i.xhl 27 f3 leads to a more
elaborate draw. After 27 ...:fe8 28
tbc3 :e3 29 tbdS :xe2 30 tbxf6+
~f8 31 tbxe8 :xe8 32 ~f2 :b8 33 b6
:b7 Black cannot escape with his cor-
nered bishop, but White cannot win it
without shedding enough pawns to
concede the draw.
The line with 19 .i.d2!? might well
be theoretically critical for Geller's
14... aS.
D4)
15 tba4 (D)
The most popular move in this posi-
tion, immediately squelching Black's
ambitions with the a-pawn. However,
White's knights are moving far enough
to the left to cause concern among spin
doctors.
Another knight move deserves a
brief mention: 15 tbb5 a4 16 tiJd2 dxe3
17 .i.xe3 tbg4 18 lLle4 lLlxe3 19 fxe3
"as+ 20 "d2 fS with an equal posi-
tion, Portisch-H.Olafsson, Reykjavik
1987.
After IS tba4, Black's choice is as
wide as a move earlier, with IS ... g6
and IS ... h6 being the main possibili-
ties:
38 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 /J..f4!

043)
15•••li)g4 (D)

041: 15•••.i.g4?! 38
042: 15....i.d7 38
043: 15...tOg4 38
044: 15.••b6 39
045: 15...g6 39
041)
15..•.i.g4?! is perhaps a little primi-
tive. 16 0-0 .i.xe2 (16 ... d3 17 :xd3
.i.f5 18 :xd8 .i.xc2 19 :xa8 :xa8 20
.i.dl ± Yusupov) 17 "xe2 :e8 18 c5
and now, rather than 18 .....c7?! 19
.i.xf6 .i.xf6 20 tOb6 :ad8 21 e4 ±
Yusupov-Beliavsky, Montpellier Ct
1985, Yusupov suggests 18 .....d5 as
an improvement; then maybe 19 "c2
(instead of the suggested 19 lOcI e4!?,
etc.), again with thoughts of .i.xf6 and
e4.
042)
15... ~d7 is a sensible development
for the bishop, but it is more flexible to
insert 15 ... h6 16 .i.h4 first. 16 li)bc5
:b8 (16 ... .i.c8!?; 16... b6?! leaves too
many weaknesses: 17li)xd7 fud7 18
.i.xe7 'fIxe7 19.i.f3 ± Ivanchuk-Beli-
avsky, Moscow 1987) 17 ~xf6 ~xf6
18 li)xd7 "xd7 19 ~f3 li)e7 20 .i.e4
g6 21 c5 ;!;; Yusupov-Ubilava, USSR
1983.
Arguably with less point than a
move earlier, in that White's knight is
out of range of the d-pawn.
16 ~xe7 'jIxe7 17 b3!
After 17 exd4?! "h4, 18 ~xg4?!
~xg4 19 :d2 exd4 =i= was Yusupov-
Korchnoi, Tilburg 1987, while 18 g3
(Korchnoi) is possible, but promises
no edge.
17•••li)b6
The piece sacrifice is not quite good
enough. 17 ... li)xe3 18 fxe3 Wh4+ 19
Citd2 Wg5 20 ~c1 "xe3+ 21 ci>bl e4
22 .tg4 ;!;; Korchnoi.
After 17 ... 'ii'h4, 18 g3?! li)xe3 19
"d3 li)g2+ 20 ~f1 e4 21 Wd2li)e3+
22 ci>gl "g5 23 :h2 'ii'e5 24 fxe3 d3,
as given by Korchnoi, is messy and
unclear. He notes that the simpler 18
0-0 li)h6 19 exd4 exd4 20 .td3 is good
for an edge.
18exd4
18 ~f3 is probably more accurate .
18...exd4
Korchnoi gives 18 .....g5! co. If 19
"e4 ~f5 20 Wf3 exd4 21 li)xd4?
then 21...li)xd4 22 :xd4 'ii'cl+ 23
:dl"c2=t:.
 The Old Main Line
190-0"g5
Now:
1) 20 'iWd2 'ii'g6 21 ~hl .tf5 22
lLlxd4i.Llxd4 23 'ii'xd4 .txh3 24 gxh3
'ii'c6+ = Av.Bykhovsky-Kharitonov,
USSR 1983.
2) ECO suggests that 20 f4 stabi-
lizes the position in White's favour; if
20.....e7 then 21 .td3 g6 22lLlb6 ±.
044)
15•••h6 (D)
w lLlxd7 19 .txe7 'ii'xe7, and now by
16.th4
16 .txf6 .txf6 170-0 "c7 18 e4
b6, Grabowski-Sapis, Poland 1986, is
hannless; Black is already taking over
the initiative.
16....td7
After 16...i.Llg4 17 .txe7 'fIxe7 18
h3 the black knight lacks the retreat on
h6.
17i.Llbc5
Not very convincing as a try for an
edge, but neither is anything else:
1) Certainly not 17lLlac5?? a4.
2) Portisch-Tal, Montpellier Ct 1985
went 17 O-O?! lLlb4 18 axb4 .txa4 19
exd4 exd4 20 :d3 (White must aim to
unpin the knight; 20 .txf6 .txf6 21 b5
'ii'e7 22 .tf3 "b4 23 :d3 :ac8 =t, or
39
20 bxa5 i.Lld7! aiming for c5 - Tal)
20 ... lLld7 21 .txe7 "xe7 22 :xd4,
and now 22 .....xb4! 23 'ii'd2 'ii'xb3 24
.tdl "b4 25 .txa4lLlc5; (Tal) would
have been more precise than 22... axb4
23 'fId3 ltfe8 24 .td 1 112-112, as actu-
ally played.
3) Tal also analysed 17 exd4lLlxd4
(17 ... exd4!?) 18lLlxd4 exd4190-0(19
ltxd4?? .txa4) 19....txa4 20 'ii'xa4
"b6=.
17....tCS
A challenge to White; can he do
better than to repeat moves?
17... b6?! is less reliable; 18i.Llxd7
analogy with the Ivanchuk-Beliavsky
game (Line 042 above), 20 .tf3! with
a light square bind. Gorelov-Polovo-
din, Kharkov 1982, unnecessarily in-
terpolated 20 'fIe4 'ii'f6, but after 21
.tf3 :ac8 22 "g4 :fd8 Black was on
the point of consolidating. The white
queen needs to attack the queenside
('ii'c2-b3 perhaps) rather than the heav-
ily defended kingside.
IslLlb3
With a draw by repetition following,
Kharitonov-Polovodin, Tallinn 1983.
18 .tg3 lLld7 19 lLlb3 dxe3 20 fxe3
.th4leaves White's pawns too man-
gled to give any advantage, while on,
for example, 180-0, the exchange of
various minor pieces after 18 ... i.Lld7
leaves the a4-knight stranded.
045)
15•••16 (D)
The most popular choice. Black
takes advantage of the displacement of
White's knight, and aims for immedi-
ate pressure along the h7-bl diagonal.
16.txf6
40 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
w 1988) is most accurate, exchanging
So as to loosen Black's grip on the
e4-square. On 16 exd4 White suffered
a drastic setback in Hiibner-Short,
Tilburg 1988: 16....tfS 17"c1 exd4
(17 ... liJxd4 18 liJxd4 exd4 19 0-0 l:tc8
is equal, Gutop-Vitolin~, corr. 1983)
180-0 l:te8 19 :lfel?! (19 .tf3 is an-
swered by 19 ... :lc8 with equality, but
not 19 ... .te4 ? 20 .txe4 liJxe4 21
i.xe7 "xe7 22 "f4 ± Bareev-Zotkin,
USSR 1982/3) 19 ...:lc8 20 i.e3, and
after the thematic queen sacrifice with
20...dxe3 21 ':xd8 exf2+ 22 ~xf2
i.xd8 23 c;tgl liJeS, White, demoral-
ized, resigned prematurely. It is clear
though that Black is covering all the
important squares, and has the best
minor pieces.
White cannot really afford a sudden
opening of the position when his
knights are so off-centre.
16..•i.xf617 cS
Gaining some queenside space, and
hoping to bring the knight back into
the game.
17 0-0 .tg7 18 cS transposes, but
17 cS is slightly more flexible, in that
17 c5 "c7?! 18liJb6 is inadvisable for
Black.
After 17 0-0 "c7 18 c5 i.e6 19 e4,
19 ... i.g5! (improving on 19 ... liJe7 20
liJd2 .tg5 21 liJf3 .th6 22 .tc4 ;t
Fta~nik-Kotronias, Thessaloniki OL
the knight as soon as it reaches d2.
Then F~nik-Ubilava, Belgrade 1988
concluded 20 i.c4 l:tac8 21 l:tfe1 ~h8
22liJd2 i.xd2 1/Z-1f2.
17....tg718 0-0 'it'b419 e4.te6 (D)
w
20 liJb6
After the alternative 20 i.d3, Sch-
neider and V.Gurevich give 20....th6
21liJd2 .tg4 22 :ldel i.f4 23 g3 'ii'hs
24 gxf4 i.f3 25liJxf3 "g4+, with a
draw.
2O•••l:tad8 21 i.c4 i.h6
Now in 0stenstad-Bonsch, Novi Sad
OL 1990, White unwisely exchanged
with 22 i.xe6?! fxe6 23 "d3:lf7 24
llJc4 :ldf8, and Black was already
gaining pressure on the kingside,
while White had lost his grip on dS.
Several possible improvements come
to mind, for example 22 "d3!?;t.
General conclusion on 12 .tg5
d4 13liJb3 'it'dB
Black has little to fear. The pin on the
d-file looks awkward, but White's
kings ide development takes a long
 The Old Main Line
time. If Black plays sharply, and
builds up counterplay before White
can castle, White will not be able to
dominate the light squares as he would
wish.
That having been said, there is still
the suspicion that Black does not quite
equalize with Geller's 14 .te2 as, the
main focus of debate during the 1980s,
and older lines involving ...~g4 seem
more reliable.
2.6 12 l2Jb3 'ii'b6 13 i.g5
d4 (or 12 .tg5 d4 13l2Jb3
"b6)
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 M ~r6 4 ~r3 .te7
5 .tr4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 clxc5 .txc5 8 "c2
~c6 9 a3 "as 10 :Ldl .te7 11 ~d2
e5 12 ~b3 "b6 13 .tgS d4 (D)
Black's queen is no longer pinned
in this line, but is open to a hit with
~dS. The critical question is whether
White can establish an edge with the
exchange on f6.
14.txr6
Almost invariably chosen. 14 cS?!,
by forcing another queen move, 'gains'
a tempo, but the net effect is to weaken
41
White's grip on dS. After 14.....dS IS
.tbS ~g4 16 .txe7 "xe7 17 exd4
exd4+ 18 ~2, 18 ...'ilh419 g3"h3 20
~f4 :LeS+ 21 ~d2 'iht6 22 ~cl .td7
'±' Doroshkevich-Plisetsky, USSR
1979 is the reference given by ECO,
but 23 h3! (instead of23 .tc4?!), looks
very unclear. However, 18 .....f6! is
extremely strong for Black.
14•••.txf'6 15 ~d5 "d8 16 .td3
16 exd4?! exd4 17 .te2 .te6 ;t;
gives Black an easy and harmonious
development. Gupta-Lengyel, Dort-
mund 1988 finished abruptly: 18
~xf6+ 1t'xf6 19 0-0 :Lac8 20 :Ld2
~eS 21 ~xd4 .txc4 22 1t'fS :LcdS 23
"c2 .txe2 24 ~xe2 ~f3+ 0-1.
16•.•g6
Or 16...h6:
1) White gets nowhere by follow-
ing the same plan as against ... g6: 17
exd4 ~xd4 IS ~xd4 exd4 190-0 .te6
20 .th7+ ~h8 21 .te4 .txdS 22 .txdS
112_112 Miles-D.Gurevich, San Fran-
cisco 1987.
2) 17 ~xf6+ "xf6 18 exd4 exd4
19 0-0 .te6 20 f4 :Lad8 21 ~S (with-
out a black pawn on g6, the move fS is
pointless) 21.....e7 22 ~xe6 1t'xe6 23
:Ldel 1t'f6 24 :Le4 :LfeS with equality,
Tolstikh-laworski, Ceske Budejovice
1995.
3) Since 16 ... h6 to some extent
abandons the light squares, White
does better to focus on these squares
with 17 0-0 .te6 18 .th7+ ~hS 19
.te4;t, when I.Farago-Bayer, Luxem-
bourg 1986 continued 19 ...:Lc8 20
~xf6 Wxf6 21 ~S dxe3 22 fxe3 WgS
23 ~xe6 1t'xe3+ 24 Wf2 1t'xf2+ 2S
:Lxf2 fxe6 26 :Lxf8+ :Lxf8 27 b4 :Lf4
28 :LeI ±.
17exd4~d4
42 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./4!
17...exd4 IS ~xf6+ 'ilxf6 19 0-0
l:[dS (after 19... a5, White should try 20
~c5!? rather than 20f4?! ~e7 21 'ilf2
:ldS 22 .i.bl .i.e6 23 :lxd4 a4 24
lIxdS+ lIxdS 25 ~a5 l:[d4 26 c5 i.d5
27 f5 'ilg5 +2S f6 lId2 29 fxe7 'ilxg2+
30 'ilxg2 lIxg2+ 31 ~hl lIg4+ 0-1
Cu.Hansen-Bonsch, Tilburg 1994) 20
i.e4 i.g4 21 f3 i.e6 22 ~5 lIacS 23
~xb7 d3 112_1/2 Savon-Geller, Tiraspol
1994, although 24 'ilf2 seems strong.
There is scope for further testing here,
but on the whole Black would probably
prefer to exchange his passive knight
for White's active knight.
18 ~xd4 exd4 19 ~xf6+
19 O-O?! i.g7 20 i.e4 i.g4 leads to
an equal position, Ruderfer-Zhidkov,
USSR 1979.
19.....xf6 20 0-0 (D)
The critical position, in which White
tries to play for a slight positional
edge. Black's d-pawn will always re-
quire protection, while White has a
queenside pawn majority, and also the
possibility of pushing on the kingside
with f4-f5. We have:
A: 20•••i.e6 42
B: 2O•••i.d7 42
C: 20...i.g4 43
A)
20•••i.e6 21 f4
21 :lfel lIacS 22 b3 lIfdS =Korch-
noi-Karpov, Baguio City Weh (23)
1975.
21 ...i.d7
21...:lacS?! 22 f5 i.xf5 23 i.xf5
gxf5 24 b3! (24 :lxf5 lIxc4) 24 ...lIfdS
25 lIxf5 'ile7 26 1If3 lIc6 27 'ilf2
"xa3 2S "g3+ lIg6 29 "c7 ± Forin-
tos-Doroshkevich, Lipetsk 1965.
Allowing f5 with gain of tempo is
dangerous, while with the text-move
Black hopes to have provoked a sig-
nificant weakening of the e-file.
22i.e4
22 f5 g5 is watertight.
22•••i.c6 23 i.d5
23 i.xc6 bxc6 24 f5 looks more
promising.
23•••lIfe8 24 "d3 i.xd5 25 cxd5
lIac8
Black gets his rook into play just in
time to offset the loss of the pawn.
Cu.Hansen-Yusupov, Reykjavik 19S5
continued 26 g3 ~f8 27 1112 lIe3 2S
1i'xd4 1i'xd4 29 lIxd4 ~e7 30 d6+
~d7 31 lIfd2 lIc6 32 :lb4 1Ib6 33 ~f2
lIe6 and soon drawn. This was reached
via 20 ... i.g4 21 f3 i.e6 22 f4, so in
fact each player had taken an extra
move.
B)
2O•••i.d7 (D)
2111d2
Aiming to double rooks.
21 b4 lIacS 22 1i'b2 lIfdS 23 1Id2
112-112 Korehnoi-Schiissler, Haninge
19S5.
ECO cites 21 i.e4 i.c6 22 i.d5,
and then 22 ... lIadS 23 1i'e4 ±, Forin-
tos-Smederevac, Wijk aan Zee 1970,
 The Old Main Line
but 22 ... lIac8, aiming for counterplay
on the c-file, looks much more natural,
e.g. 23 'ile4 .txdS 24 cxdS lIc4 or 23
Wd3 lIfd8 24 Wxd4 Wxd4 2S :xd4
.txdS 26 cxdS (26 :xdS lIxdS 27
cxdS ~f8 will round up White's extra
pawn) 26...:c2 27 :bl :d6 and Black
holds. As in the Hansen-Yusupov
game, winning the isolated pawn does
not mean a win in the double rook
endgame when White's extra pawn is
isolated and Black's rooks fully acti-
vated.
2l•••lIac8
Again, counterplay on the c-file is
the most reliable method for Black.
Kallai-I.Almasi, Hungary 1993 con-
tinued 21.. ..tc6 22 b4 'ii'f4 (threaten-
ing ....txg2) 23 h3 :fe8 (23 .. :ii'gS 24
f4 Wg3 2S bS .td7 26:f3 Wel+ 27
<ili>h2 ±) 24 lIfdl :eS 2S.tfl l:tgS 26
:xd4 Wf3 27 :g4 ±.
22 b3 .te6 23 :tfdl :fd8 24 .tn
:e7 2S cS b6 26 ab6 axb6 27 b4 .f4
=
28 .b3 lIed7 Beliavsky-San Se-
gundo, Madrid 1995.
C)
20•••.tg4 (D)
2llld2
21 f3!? is also possible:
43
1) 21.. ..te6 (maybe best) 22 f4
transposes into the 20....te6 variation
(Line A, above).
2) 21.. ..tfS proved a little too ex-
perimental in I.Farago-Arlandi, Forli
1992: 22 .txfS gxfS 23 Wd3 :ad8 24
l:tfel b6 2S lIe2 l:td6 26 f4 ±. Having
four isolated pawns is not a recipe for
success in a positional struggle.
3) After 21.. ..td7, 22 :f2?! :fe8
23 :fd2 :ad8 24 .te4 .tc6 2S .txc6
bxc6 26 cS :e3 27 W'c4 'ii'eS 28 ~f2
d3 ~ was Tukmakov-Balashov, Kislo-
vodsk 1982. The manoeuvre :f2-d2
looks out of place in this line though.
The queen belongs on f2, where it at-
tacks the d-pawn, and the rooks should
double on the e-fiJe rather than on the
d-file, forcing Black either to concede
the open file or to go into an awkward
queen and minor piece endgame.
Thus 22 'ii'f2! ;t. White has also tried
22 b4, when 22...:fe8 23 .te4 .tc6 24
bS, Forintos-Genovese, Catania 1994,
keeps an edge for White. 22 ...:ac8! is
better.
2l•••lIae8
The most direct, although 21 ...l:fe8
22 .te4 :e7 23 Wd3 (23 h3? .txh3)
23 ...:ae8 24 f3 .tfS 2S .txfS gxfS
26 'ii'xd4 Wxd4+ 27 :xd4 :e2 also
44 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 51;./4!
proved sufficient to hold in Gorelov-
Andrianov, USSR 1984.
22 ~e4 ~e6 23 c5 b6 24 c6 :fd8
25 :el ~cIS 26 ~xd5 :xd5 27 b4 b5
= L.Spassov-Bonsch, Polanica Zdroj
1987. This is another case where the
singleton passed pawn is easily block-
aded.
Conclusion
White can aim for a microscopic edge
in the ..."b6line, and probably gets it.
Black should be holding the margin of
the draw comfortably enough though.
He must be prepared in some lines to
let the pawn drop, and get a rook on
the seventh.
2.7 12 tDb3: Alternatives
to 12...'ifb6 13 .i.g5 d4
1 d4 cIS 2 c4 e6 3llk31Of6 4 tbf3 ~e7
5 ~f4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 ~xc5 8
~c6 9 a3 "as 10 l:ld1 ~e7 11 ~2
"c2
e5 12 tbb3 (D)
If White plays 12 ~g5 first, then
Black is more or less obliged to play
12 ... d4. The trouble for White is that,
as we have seen, 13 tbb3 Wd8 is satis-
factory for Black. So White can try 12
~b3, aiming to force the queen to b6,
and then attempt to transpose into 2.6
above with 12.....b6 13 ~g5 d4. How-
ever, Black is not obliged to play
13 ...d4, and 13 ... ~g4 is a genuine al-
ternative. One point is that if White
has already played ~b3, ...dxc4 is a
more likely possibility, particularly if
Black has already played ...~e6.
12.....b6
12...Wd8? loses a pawn to 13 tbxd5.
12 .....c7 is rarely played, but de-
serves consideration:
1) 13~g3dxc414~xc4,andnow
not 14... ~b4? 15 We2llk2+ 16 Wxc2
"xc4 17 ~xe5 ± K.Grigorian-Spassky,
USSR 1973, nor 14...~g4? 15 f3 ~d7
16 0-0 :ad8 17 tbd5 tbxd5 18 ~xd5
'iVc8 19 e4 with a light-squared bind,
Tukmakov-Lputian, Tbilisi 1980, but
rather 14... ~d8! 15 tbb5 Wc6 160-0
~e617 :cI ~xc418 .xc4 Wxc4 19
l:lxc4llk6 =Lputian.
2) 13 ~g5. Now ECO gives 13...d4
(maybe best) 14 ~xf6 ~xf6 15 tbd5,
transposing to 2.6 above if Black plays
15 .....d8, but 15 ...•d6!? enters new
territory. ECO also gives 13 ...~g4 14
f3 ~e6 15 cxdS ~xd5 16 ~xd5 ~xdS
17 ~xe7 ~xb3 18 .xb3 ;to
13~g5
For 13 ~g3, see 2.8 below.
13••• ~g4
Aiming to provoke a weakening
pawn move.
1) 13 ... ~e6?! immediately saw a
spectacular but objectively not fully
deserved success in Seirawan-Short,
Amsterdam 1992: 14 ~a4 'iVa6 and
then 15 cxdS Wxa4 16 ~xf6? tbb4! 17
"e4 :ac8 18 axb4 ~xb4+ 19 ~e2
Wxb3 20 i.xe5 :c4 21 l:td4 :xd4 22
 The Old Main Line
'fIxd4 .i.xd5 0-1. A crushing exploita-
tion of White's underdeveloped king-
side, but Seirawan noted afterwards
that White could have turned the ta-
bles with 15 lLlac5! i.xc5 16 cxd5
.i.b4+ 17lDd2 i.xd2+ 18 ':xd2 "a5
19 dxe6 :ad8 20 .i.xf6 gxf6 21 exf7+
~g7 22 .i.c4 ±. Pieces are level again,
but White has two extra pawns and is
close to completing his development.
Also, by analogy with Chekhov-Ken-
gis (discussed under 13 ....i.g4 14 f3
i.e6), 15 cxd5! 'fIxa4 16 dxe6 should
be strong.
2) 13 ... dxc4?! 14 i.xc4 .i.g4 15
l:1d2! ;!; :ad8 16 .txf6 .i.xf6 17 lLld5
was a move-order lapse by Black in
Naumkin-Slezka, Prague 1989.
14f3
14 :bl 112-112 Portisch-Beliavsky,
Tunis IZ 1985, did not test Black's
idea'to destruction. 14... d4 is the natu-
ral reply.
After the text-move, Black can
choose between:
A: 14.•. dxc4 45
B: 14....te6 46
A)
14...dxc4 15 .i.xc4 (D)
45
15...i.e6!?
A recent attempt by Yusupov to
sharpen Black's play. He accepts the
weakness of the doubled isolated e-
pawn, but in doing so enhances his
control of all the key central squares
except for e4. White's e-pawn will it-
self be weak, as if he ever plays e4 he
loses control of d4 and foregoes the
possibility of occupying the blockad-
ing square.
The old move is 15 ....i.h5, with the
equalizing plan being to challenge the
d-file:
1) 16 'fIe2?! was met by 16...:ad8
170-0 :xdl 18 :xdl l:1d8 19 :xd8+
112-112 in I.Farago-Kurajica, Amster-
dam 1976, but even in this line Black
can play more sharply: 16... e4! 17
i.xf6 exf3 18 gxf3 i.xf6 19lLld5 'fId8
20 lLlf4 i.h4+ 21 ~f1 1i'g5:j: Naum-
kin-Klovans, USSR 1985. Then 22:d5
lbe5 23 :gl i.xf3 24 :xg5 .i.xe2+ 25
lLlxe2 i.xg5 26 :xe5 .i.f6 followed by
...i.xb2, a variation given in In/orma-
tor.
2) 160-0 leaves the king less ex-
posed: 16...e4 17 ~hl exf3 18 .txf6
i.xf6 (18 ... fxg2+ 19 1i'xg2 i.xf6 20
:xf6 i.xdl 21 lDxdl .d8 is also
slightly better for White) 19lLld5 Wd8
20 gxf3 ;!; I.Farago-K.Grigorian, Ere-
van 1982. Black must avoid 16... h6??
17 .i.xf6 1i'xe3+ 18 ~hl.i.xf6 19 g4
i.g6 20 .xg6, but 16...:ac8 may be
considered.
3) 16 Wf2 ':fd8 17 0-0 :xdl 18
:xdl :d8 19 :cl :c8 (19 ... lLlg4? 20
fxg4 i.xg5 21 :el! i.xg4 22 lLld5
wins the exchange) 20 i.xf6 i.xf6 21
lLld5 ;!; I.Farago-Eolian, Erevan 1982.
We conclude that Black is not fully
equal after 15 ....i.h5.
46 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i.,f4!
16.i.xe6
After 16itJa4, 16.....c7? 17 .i.xe6
fxe6 18 .i.xf6! l:txf6 19 0-0 l:th6 20
itJac5 saw White in control in Gulko-
Yusupov, Novi Sad 1990, but 16...itJb4!
equalizes after 17 axb4 "xb4+ 18
ltJd2 .i.xc4 19 "xc4 ji'xc4 20 itJxc4
b5, 17 "c3 itJa2 18 "c2 itJb4 or 17
"e2 .i.xc4 18 "xc4 "a6 - Gulko.
16•••fxe617lbd2
As this time 17 .i.xf6? is not possi-
ble in view of 17 ...Wxe3+.
17•••lOds 18 iOOI
Not 18itJxd5? in view of 18 ...exd5
19 .i.xe7 "xe3+.
18•••"c7 19 itJb5 "d7 20 .i.xe7
"xe7
Black is comfortable, with well-
entrenched knights, Kamsky-Short,
Tilburg 1991.
B)
14....i.e6 (D)
w "e6! ±) 20 "xc8 l:txc8 21 .i.xe7
This simple retreat is also possible,
the tactical point being that 15 .i.xf6
can be met by 15 ...dxc4.
15 itJa4
15 c5?! takes too much pressure off
the black centre. Following 15 .....d8,
16 J.d3 d4 left Black already on top in
Yurtaev-Lputian, Tbilisi 1980. Neither
does 16 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 17 itJxd5 .i.xd5
18 J.c4 work, in view of 18 ... ltJd4! 19
itJxd4 .i.xc4 -+ Lputian. 16 e4, as
suggested in ECO, still looks pleasant
for Black after 16... d4.
15.....c7
Cited as the main line in ECO.
1) The only recent Informator ref-
erence is 15 .....d8 16 J.xf6 .i.xf6 and
then 17 itJac5 d4 18 .i.d3 g6 19 itJxe6
fxe6 20 .i.e4itJe7! =Tukmakov-Klo-
vans, USSR 1981. ECO, however,
gives 17 cxd5 .i.xd5 18 ltJc3 .i.xb3 19
"xb3 ;t, a fair enough verdict given
that Black is likely to face problems on
the light squares. .
2) 15 .....a6?! is interesting but in-
advisable, analogous to the Seirawan-
Short game (13 ... .i.e6 14 itJa4 Wa6),
but with White's extra f3 move as
likely to be a handicap as an advan-
tage. Chekhov-Kengis, USSR 1981
continued 16 cxd5 "xa4 17 dxe6 l:tac8
(17 ...fxe6 18 "c4 ±) 18 exf7+ ~h8 19
.i.xf6itJb4 (19 ... gxf6 20 "c4itJb4 21
ltJc2+ 22 ~d2 and White will emerge
with a good spread for the queen.
16 .i.xr6 dxc4
A vital gain of tempo.
17 .i.xc4 .i.xc4 18 'ii'xc4 .i.xf6 19
0-0
19 itJbc5 l:tfd8 20 l:txd8+ l:txd8 21
itJe4 .i.h4+ 22 g3 .i.e7 23 ~f2 Wd7 24
ltJac3 'ii'h3 and White's kingside pawns
are ragged, Piket-Ivanchuk, Monaco
1997. This was a quickplay game, and
one should be cautious about drawing
conclusions from such games, but the
text-move definitely looks more solid.
19....i.g5 20 e4 l:tacH =
Analysis by Kengis.
 The Old Main Line
2.8 12 ~g3
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 M ~f6 4 ~f3 J.e'
S J.f4 0-0 6 e3 c5 , dxc5 J.xc5 8 Wc2
~c6 9 83 WaS 10 l:ldl J.e' Ulbd2
eS 12 J.g3 (D)
Lines with J.gS do not promise all
that much, mainly because the bishop
is exposed to tactical tricks and sim-
plifying manoeuvres. The quieter 12
J.g3 makes it more difficult for Black
to exchange the bishop, but also re-
moves the pressure from the f6-knight,
and hence lessens the pressure on d5.
12...d4
Still the most effective reply.
12 ...dxc4? is unthematic. After 13
lbxc4 Wc7 14 lbbS Wb8 IS lbd4!
lbd7 16 .i.d3, Ivkov-Pfleger, Bamberg
1968, White's pieces were in picture
positions.
12... J.g4 involves a queen sacri-
fice: 13 f3 J.e6 14 ~b3 "d8 IS cxdS
J.xdS 16 .i.c4 J.xc4 17 l:lxd8 l:lfxd8
18 ~f2 J.d3 19 "cl ~ Toth-Barbero,
Switzerland 1986.
13 lbb3Wb6
13 ...Wd8 gives White a choice:
1) 14 exd4 exd4 IS lbbS J.g4 16
J.e2 (16 f3 ~) 16... J.xe2 17 "xe2
47
.txa3180-0J.b419lb3xd4lbxd420
lbxd4 We7 21 "f3 We4 22 "b3 ~
Glek-Donchenko, USSR 1983.
2) 14 J.e2!? g6?! (14...J.e6!?) IS
exd4 lbxd4 16 ~xd4 exd4 17 lbbS
J.fS 18 Wd2 ~e4 19 Wxd4 "a5+ 20
b4 .txb4+ 21 axb4 "xb4+ 22 ~f1
l:lad8 23 J.d6 ± Plaskett-Cools, Skien
jrWch 1979.
After the text-move, we have reached
a branching-out point, with White's
choices being:
A: 14 c5?! 47
B: 14lbbS 48
C: 14 exd4 48
14 lba4?! has also been tried, but
presumably only as a move-order slip.
C.Wagner-Goldgewicht, Cannes 1997
continued 14....tfS IS fub6 J.xc2 16
lbxa8 .txb3 (16 ...l:lxa8! +) 17 lbc7
J.xdl 18 ~xdl dxe3 and Black was
slightly better.
A)
14 c5?! (D)
Attempting to drive the queen to an
inferior square, but Black unleashes a
typical tactical resource.
14•••J.xc5!
48 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
Also 14 ....tfS!? IS .td3 .txd3 16
:xd3 Wa6 17 exd4 exd4 IS lDe2 lDe4
=1= Klovans.
15 ~a4 .tb4+ 16 axb4 Wxb4+ 17
~.tg4
With two pawns, an attack, and a
massive lead in development for the
piece.
IS:al
Or:
1) 18 f3 dxe3 19 fxg41Oe4! keeps
White in a bind - Ciolac.
2) 18 .te2 .ixe2 19 'lixe2 d3+ 20
~xd3 "bS+ 21 "c4 .J:lfdS+ 22 'lic3
"as+ 23 ~c2 bS -+ Ciolac.
3) 18 'ikb3 (relatively the best move)
IS .....xb3 19 lOxb3 .ixdl 20 ~xdl
.J:lfdS 21 ~c1 :acS gives White an ex-
tremely nasty endgame to defend,
Footner-Dijkstra, corr 1984.
IS...:ScS 19 Wb3
Queen sacrifices for Black in the
Old Main Line are highly thematic,
and 19 e410aS 20 "d3 'ii'xa4 (Ciolac)
is another.
19•••:fdS 20 f3 .te6 21 'ira3 dxe3
22 -'xe3 lOd4 23 .td3 e4! 24 fxe4
lOg4 25 Wf41Ob3 -+ Bondoc-Ciolac,
Romania 19S4.
B)
14~b5(D)
With obvious designs on the queen.
Black must respond vigorously.
14•••a6!
A simple, direct and effective move.
14... dxe3 leads to complications after
IS cS "a6 161Dc7 (161Oc3 exf2+ 17
.txf2 bS IS .txbS "b7 is unclear,
possibly favouring Black) 16 ... exf2+
17 .txf2 "a4 IS ~aS .ig4 with com-
pensation for the sacrificed material,
according to Kaidanov. Such positions
are fun to play, but should not be ven-
tured on if there is a simpler and better
alternative. Analytically, it is enough
to show that Black is not better in this
line, and 19 :c1, preparing ~2, is
the way to start.
15 c5 WdS 16 exd4 nbS 17 dxeS
'ife8! IS .ixbS
Perhaps it is better to allow Black to
do his worst on the e-file: IS exf6
.ixf6+ 19 .te2 .te6 20 .id6 .txb3 21
1i'xb3 lOd4 =Klovans.
l8•••lObS 19 .te2
19 f4!? Klovans.
19•••lOxg3 20 hxg3 h6 ; Kaida-
nov-Klovans, Pinsk 1986.
C)
l4exd4
The main line. Black's choice lies
between the natural 14... lOxd4 and the
less obvious 14....tfS:
Cl: l4...~d4 48
C2: l4••..tfS 49
C1)
l4•••lOxd4 15 lOxd4 exd4 16 lObS
(D)
As so often, the d4-pawn appears
doomed, but Black can seek compen-
sation through active piece-play.
 The Old Main line
B .i.a4 22 1Wxa4 .i.xd4 112-112 Arlandi-
16.•.a6!
Putting White's undeveloped king-
side under great pressure.
1) 16....i.d7 is also good. 17lDxd4
:fe8 18 .i.e2 'ii'a5+ 19 'ii'd2 (19 :d2
lIad8 20 0-0 .i.a4 21 b3 {21 .i.c7
'ii'xc7 22 'ilxa4 'ii'f4 23 lIfdllDe4 -+;
21 "d3lDe4 22 b4 "b6 23 "xe4 .i.g5
+} 21. ...i.c5 22 :fd 1 lDe4 23 lId3
lDxg3 24 hxg3 lIxd4 25 lIxd4 .i.xd4
26 lIxd4 .i.xb3 27 "xb3 lIxe2 = is
analysis by Abramovic) 19 .....xd2+
20 lIxd2lDe4 21 lId3 (21 lid 1? .i.f6
22 .i.f4 .i.a4! 23 lId3 lDc5 24 lId2
.i.xd4 2S lIxd4li::le6, and Black, hav-
ing ftrst won a tempo with ....i.a4, now
wins the exchange, Hai'k-Abramovic,
Montpellier 1986) 21.. ..i.f6 22 .i.f4
lDcS 23 lId2 .i.xd4 24 lIxd4 lDe6 2S
lIxd7lDxf4 26 lId2lDxg2+ =Abram-
ovic.
2) 16....i.g4 17 f3 .i.d7 is less con-
vincing than in variations where White
has played .i.g5; Black lacks the tacti-
cal tricks resulting from the exposure
of the bishop, and voluntarily relin-
quishes the possibility of playing
... lDe4. 18lDxd4 and now:
2a) 18 ... .i.c5?! 19 .i.f2 lIfe8+ 20
.i.e2 lIad8 (20 ... a5 21 0-0 lIad8 22
lId2 .i.a4 23 'ii'xa4 .i.xd4 24 "dl and
49
White is a safe pawn up, Kaidanov-
Lysenko, USSR 1983) 21 b4! (21l1d2?!
Inkiov, Banco 1985) and Black is in
trouble.
"d22b) 18 ...lIad8 19 .i.f2 "a5+ 20
'ifh5 21 "c3 (21.i.e2 might im-
prove) 2l....i.cS 22 .i.e2 lIfe8 23 lId2
"g6 24 ~f1 and Black has compensa-
tion for the pawn, H.Griinberg-Lobron,
West Germany 1983.
17li)c7
The obvious capture on d4 is weak.
17 lDxd4? :dS 18 lDb3 (IS lDf3?
"a5+ favours Black), and now instead
of IS ...lIxdl+? 19 ~xdl.i.e6 20 ~cl
co YrjOlii-Westerinen, Gausdal 19S5,
Black could have kept up the pressure
with IS ....i.fS! 19"xfS"xb320.i.d3
"xb2 21 .i.e5 "xa3 22 .i.xf6 g6! 23
"f3 .i.xf6 + YrjOlii.
17•••lIb8!
17...lIa7?! IS .i.e2 .i.d7 19 b4 ±.
The text-move is assessed as un-
clear by Yrjolii, without giving sup-
porting analysis.
18 lDds lDxdS 19 .i.xb8 lDb4! 20
1We4
20 axb4 .i.xb4+ 21 lId2 (21 ~e2?
"e6+ -+) 21...:e8+ 22 .i.e2 .i.f5! 23
"xfS .i.xd2+ -+.
The position after 20 "e4 is unex-
plored. One feels that Black ought to
have plenty of compensation for the
exchange. Maybe 20 ... lDc6!? is the
way to proceed.
C2)
14•••.i.fS
Aiming to get stuck into White's
queenside before White can complete
his kingside development.
IS.i.d3
50 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i.,f4!
lLlb5 a6 18 :bl .a2
15 .xf5 .xb3 16 dxe5 .xb2 17
19.i.d3 g6 20.f3
lLld7 21lLlc7lLldxe5 22 .e2 .xa3 23
.txe5 lLlxe5 24 0-0 lLlxd3 25 lLlxa8
:xa8 26 :xb7 and after some fast-
moving but relatively straightforward
play, Black is perhaps a little better,
Arkhangelsky-St.Nikolov, Bulgaria
1986. Black played passively with
26 ...:e8 and later lost, but 26 ... i.c5
27 .f3 lLle5 would leave him well
placed.
IS•••.i.xd3 16 :xd3 (D)
16.••lLlxd4
16...exd4?! 17lLlb5;t.
17 lLlxd4 exd4 18lLle2
18 lLlb5 .e6+ keeps the white king
in the centre, unless he is prepared to
surrender his c-pawn.
ECO assesses the position after 18
lLle2 as even, while Averkin regards it
as slightly advantageous for White.
We leave it to the reader to decide,
from the last few moves of the game; a
microscopic advantage perhaps?
18.••:t'd8 19 0-0 lLle4 20 :fdl (20
i.e5 i.f6) 20•••i.f6 21 b4 as 22 eS
"a6 23 i.e7 :de8 24 i.xaS lLlxeS 2S
bxeS 'i'xaS 26 lLlxd4 "xeS
Glek-Averkin, USSR 1983.
l/z_l/,.
2.9 Conclusion
We have now reached the end of our
survey of the Old Main Line with 10
:dl. Time after time it becomes clear
that White has nothing or next to noth-
ing, and while there are several sharp
variations, these are just as likely to fa-
vour Black as White.
This chapter is perhaps of most
practical use to the player with the
black pieces attempting to find a reli-
able method against 10 :dl. For such
a player, the most reliable choices
would seem to be:
10 :dl i.e7 and then:
1) 11 :d2 lLle4 12 lLlxe4 dxe4 13
.xe4:d8.
2) I1lLld2 e5 and here:
2a) 12 i.g5 d4 13 lLlb3 .d8 14
i.e2lLlg4.
2b) 12lLlb3 'il'b6 13 .tg5 .i.g4 14
f3 .te6.
2c) 12 i.g3 d4 13 lLlb3 Wb6 14
exd4lLlxd4 15lLlxd4 exd4 16lLlb5 a6.
Such a selection is slightly subjec-
tive, based at least in part on the
author's own style of play, but the
good news for Black is that in each of
these lines of play, Black has a satis-
factory and valid alternative. This
means that it is unlikely that any im-
provement for White in a particular
line will challenge the basic sound-
ness of Black's position.
It is time to tum to the New Main
Line, and to see what Black has got
there.
3 The New Main Line
3.1 Introduction
1 d4 cIS 2 c4 e6 3lLlc3lLlc6 4lLlc3 i.e7
lLlc6 9 a3 "as
5 i.C4 0·0 6 e3 cS 7 dxcS i.xcS 8 "c2
10 O-O-O!? (D)
We now move to the cutting edge of
theory. Queenside castling was not even
mentioned as a possibility in ECO,
published in 1987, yet from 1988 on-
wards it has been very much the main
line. Even so, the move is so visually
implausible that it can be difficult to
convince oneself that White's play is
sound. After all, Black has already
started to open up lines on the queen-
side, and lines will be opened up still
more upon an exchange of pawns,
while as yet White's kingside attack is
not even in its infancy. It takes a defi-
nite leap in imagination to appreciate
that there are several positive points to
the move, which outweigh the mani-
fest defects.
For example:
• The pin on the knight is broken, and
White need no longer worry about
his king getting stuck in the centre.
These are far from minor considera-
tions, given that in so many other-
wise promising lines in the .l:tdl
variation, the initiative disintegrates
because the white king comes under
attack. The king, surprising as it
may seem, is safer on c1 than on el.
• Associated with this, White need no
longer have worries over the devel-
opment of his king's bishop. The
fl-bishop moves out when it is ready
to play its part in the game, and not
as an emergency measure to speed
up castling, or to block the e-file.
• Again associated with this, White
no longer needs to play the excruci-
atingly slow lLld2-b3 purely in or-
der to relieve the pressure on the
a5-el diagonal. This diversion of
the knight in the Old Main Line al-
lows Black time to play ...e5 and
...d4. Sometimes White will still
want to play lLld2-b3 to embarrass
the black queen, but this will be a
matter of choice, an element in an
attack, rather than an obligation.
These points together suggest that
White's development is quicker and
more flexible in the new main line
than in the old - and efficient develop-
ment is one of the chief objectives of
opening play. If we now consider the
positions of the respective kings, we
52 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 j.,f4!
may first of all note that Black's king
has not too many friendly pieces around
it, giving White legitimate hopes of
building up an attack. Secondly we
may note that White's pressure in the
centre makes it particularly difficult
for Black to develop the c8-bishop,
which makes it more difficult for Black
to open up lines effectively on the
queenside.
So far, general experience has fa-
voured White in this position, and
grandmasters of the calibre of Short,
Timman and Vaganian have suffered
crushing defeats as Black. One would
not be surprised if reliable equalizers
were found for Black in several lines,
and many of the verdicts in this chap-
ter are best regarded as provisional. It
must be reassuring for White though
that this line has proved its worth for a
decade now; it is not one of those
lines, such as 10 l:ldl and 11 l:ld2, thilt
briefly flits into fashion before being
packed off to the lumber room. One
may feel reasonably confident that
White will be winning grandmaster
games from this position in ten years'
time, provided of course Black allows
the position to occur.
The main lines in this chapter are as
follows:
3.2 1O... .i.e7 11 h4;
3.3 10... .i.e7 11 g4;
3.4 1O....i.e7 with neither 11 h4 nor
11 g4;
3.5 1O...dxc4 11 .i.xc4 without
1l....i.e7;
3.6 1O... .i.d7;
3.7 1O... a6;
3.8 1O... l:ld8;
3.9 1O... lOe4.
3.2 10....i.e7 11 h4
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 M lLlr6 4lLlr3 .i.e7
5 .i.r4 0-0 6 e3 cS 7 dxcS .i.xcS 8 'it'd
lLlc6 9 a3 .as 10 0-0-0 .i.e7 11 h4
(D)
The older 11 g4 is considered in
3.3, and other moves, such as 111L1d2,
11 ~bl and 11 lLlbS, in 3.4.
With so many of the examples so
far coming from the 1980s, it is re-
freshing to jump straight into the latest
theory.
White naturally intends some sort
of kingside pawn-storm, but which
comes first, the g-pawn or the h-pawn?
11 g4 is the most obvious move, with
the straightforward plan of booting the
knight with gS and then taking control
in the centre. However, Black can re-
spond with an immediate counter-
attack, 11...dxc4 12 .i.xc4 eS! 13 gS
exf4 14 gxf6 .i.xf6 IS lLlds being a
critical line (3.3 below).
11 h4 has the merit of avoiding this
possibility. The h-pawn will always be
useful in a kingside attack, not least
because it will support any piece land-
ing on gS, but 11 h4 does not threaten
anything just yet. Neither, though,
 The New Main Line 53

does it provide any target for Black to believe in the exclamation mark that
attack, which is important as it makes he awards this move, especially given
it difficult to him to develop quickly that 13 .i.b5! places the queen in mortal
with the aid of threats and tactics. danger. Kasparov then gives 13 ....i.b7
We consider: 14 ~d2 a6 15 ~c4 axb5 16 ~xa5
A: 1l...dxc4 53 ~xa5 (l6 ... l:xa5 17 .i.d6 .i.xd6 18
B: 11..•:d8 60 :xd6 b4 19tile4 ~xe4 20 'ii'xe4 bxa3
c: 11••.a6 61 21 bxa3 :xa3 22 :hdl gives White a
D: 11 ••..i.d7?! 63 clear advantage) 17 .i.d6 .i.xd6 IS
:xd6 b4 19 axb4 ~4 20 l:ddl :al+
A) (20 ....i.e4! is stronger - Burgess) 21
1l•••dxc4 12 .i.xc4 ~bl :cS "with compensation for the
Now we have: material". Yet it would be extraordi-
AI: 1l...b6?! 53 nary if White, with queen and pawn
A2: 12•••86 54 for two minor pieces, did not have an
A3: 12... l:d8 58 outright win in all this. 20 :d4! in-
stead of the limp 20 :ddl? must
An inferior option is 12...e5?! 13 surely bust Black:
.i.g5 ±, and if 13 ...h6?, 14 .i.xh6 gxh6 1) For example, after 20...:fcS 21
15"g6+~hS16"xh6+~h717 :d5 :hdl ~5 (Black must watch out for
"ikc7 IS ~g5 .i.f5 19 .i.d3, etc. back-row mates after, for example,
21...:al +) 22 "b3 Black's attack has
A1) only limited resources.
12•••b6?! (D) 2) 20...J:a1+ 21 ~bl b5 (Burgess)
with the idea of ...e5 is a tougher de-
fence. Then 22 :hdl e5 23 :dS .i.e4
24 :xf8+ ~xfS 25 :d3 :a2, and now
Nunn gives 26 "dl :xb2 27 ~3 ±;
White's lack of queenside pawns will
make it difficult to force the win. 26 f3!
looks even stronger, and if 26 ....i.xd3,
27 'ii'xd3 :xb2 28 'ii'dS+ tiles 29 ~3!
and now either 29 ...:xb4 or 29 ...:d2
would be decisively met by 30 ~d5.
After 26 ...:xb2 27 fxe4 :xc2+ 2S
~xc2 ~xe4 29 ~c3 ~f2 (29 ... ~ed6
30 ~b3 +-) 30 :d7 ~xe3+ 31 ~b3
This was Black's first try, in Kaspa- and ~xb5 White's passed pawn will
rov-Vaganian, Novgorod 1995. Black easily outpace Black's.
didn't last long! Could it be that Kasparov was writ-
13~gS?! ing on the principle that "the winner's
Although Kasparov won the stem moves are always correct; doubly so if
game very nicely, I find it hard to the wi~ner is Kasparov"?
54 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1£./41
13...~a6 14 IOce4 g6 15 IOxf6+
~xf616lOe4! ~e7 17 ~xa6 "xa618
~b1"b7?
Kasparov annotated the phase from
moves 16-1S in considerable depth in
Informator 63. Since this phase is of
no great significance theoretically,
given White's improvement on move
13, no attempt is made to repeat or
summarize his analysis here. It is worth
noting, however, that Kasparov re-
garded this as the critical mistake, pre-
ferring instead IS ...lIacS 19 ~h6, giv-
ing 19... lOe5 20 Wb3 as;t. De Boer-
Tondivar, Netherlands 199516 saw in-
stead 19 ... lIfdS 20 ~g5 1Ob4 21
l:xdS+ ~xdS 22 Wd2 i.xg5 23 hxg5
IOd5 24 /Od6 ':'c6 25 IOxf7 ~xf7 26
e4 iOe7 27 lIxh7+ (27 'ti'dS h5 28
gxh6 Wc8!) 27 ...~e8 2S l:thS+ ~f7 29
lIh7+ with a perpetual. The interest-
ing point of this is that presumably
both players took Kasparov's analysis
at move 13 on trust!
19 hS lIac8 20 hxg6 IOb4 21
gxh7+ <it'h8 22 i.e5+ f6
And now a little combination.
23iOxf6! i.xf6
23 ... lIxc2 241Og4+ l:tf6 25 axb4!
We4 26 i.xf6+ i.xf6 27lOxf6 lIxb2+
28 <it'xb2 We5+ 29 <it'b3 Wxf6 30 lId7
+- Kasparov.
24 ~xf6+ 1-0 Kasparov-Vaganian,
Novgorod 1995.
Since if 24 ...l:txf6, 25 axb4 lIxc2 26
lId8+.
A2)
12•••a6 13 lOgS (D)
Both sides limber up for their at-
tacks on the opposing king. But should
Black just get on with his attack, or
should he do something about White's
kingside pressure? We consider three
possibilities:
A21: 13•••lOe5?! 54
A22: 13••• b5 55
A23: 13...h6 56
None of these moves seem to be
adequate, leading to the conclusion
that 12... a6 does not solve Black's
problems.
A21)
13...lOe5?!
Given the honour of the exclama-
tion mark in Informator 67, but uncon-
vincing.
14lOce4?
Black's last move is to be regarded
with suspicion, as it places the knight
on an exposed square in a position sus-
ceptible to tactics. White's reply is
even more questionable, however, as it
exposes his weaknesses on the c-file,
without adding anything substantial to
the kingside attack. The recommended
move is the more discreet 14 i.a2!,
threatening /Ods, and if 14...lOg6, 15
~g3 IOh5 (15 ...i.d7 16 IOxh7) 16
i.h2, when Black's counterplay is
fruitless. My first impression was that
the forcing 14iOd5?! would have been
strong, but after 14... exd5 15 lIxd5
 The New Main Line
lLlxc4 16 l:xaS lLlxaS 17 .i.eS l:e8!
(Burgess and Nunn) the invasion on
h7 is relatively harmless. Nunn gives
18 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 19 "xh7+ ~f8 20 lLle4
.i.e6 21 lLlxf6 lLlb3+ with Black giv-
ing perpetual check.
For what it is worth (3 Elo points to
the Scottish GM; perhaps not so much
theoretically), after 14 lLlce4?, Mot-
wani-Bartels, Tilburg 1996 finished
=
14 ... lLlg6? (14 ... g6! IS .i.b3 .i.d7
Motwani) IS hSlLlxe4 16 "xe4 .i.xgS
17 hxg6 h6 (17 ...hxg6) 18 .i.d6 l:d8
19 gxf7+ ~xf7 20 f4 .i.f6 21 l:xh6!
gxh6 22 "h7+ .i.g7 23 .i.eS l:g8 24
"fS+ .i.f6 2S .i.xe6+ .i.xe6 26 "xf6+
~e8 27 "xe6+ 1-0.
In both the Motwani-Bartels and
the Kasparov-Vaganian games, we see
short and snappy wins by White, but
only after openings in which both
players made mistakes. This is alas
typical of what happens in new and
complicated opening systems where
the theoretical material is lacking, or
has not had time to be properly evalu-
ated. The rest of the chapter provides
several further instances of play which
comes well below meeting the needs
of the position, with even leading
grandmasters making big mistakes. It
is the modest hope of the author that
the fmt proper codification of the new
system will make it easier for players,
at both grandmaster and club levels, to
avoid making the elementary mis-
takes.
A22)
13••. b5 (D)
This would be fine if White had to
move his bishop. But White is not so
obliged.
55
w
14lLlce4! g615 .i.b3
Hjartarson suggests IS .i.d6, with-
out offering further analysis. There
might follow:
1) IS ...bxc4 16 .i.xe7lLlxe7 (after
16... lLlxe4 17 .i.xf8lLlxgS 18 .i.d6 the
knight is trapped) 17 lLlxf6+ ~g7 18
lLlfxh7 l:h8 19 hS with a massive at-
tack.
2) lS ...lLle8 is complicated and
critical, with pieces flying allover the
place:
2a) In an editorial comment, Nunn
suggests 16 .i.xe6!?, and perhaps wisely
leaves the author to sort out the result-
ing chaos. It turns out, however, that
16... lLlxd6 17 lLlxd6 .i.xe6 18 lLlxe6
fxe6 19 "xc6 b4! is, contrary to all
notions of natural chess justice, appar-
ently satisfactory for Black:
2al) The main point is that if the
queen aims for e6 (20 "c4; 20 "e4; 20
'ii'd7) Black has 20 ... bxa3 21 "xe6+
~h8, and if 22 "xe7 then 22... axb2+,
when perhaps it is wisest for the
author to leave the reader the analyti-
cal exercise of working out whether
Black is winning after 23 ~bl "al +
24 ~c2. Black's attack should be good
enough for a draw at least if he plays
24 .. :.a4+.
56 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 JLf4!
2a2) If instead White tries 20 1&4,
Black has 20...•f5 21 e4 .f4+ 22
~b1 :tacS 23 'ii'xe6+ .f7 24.xf7+
:txf7 and Black saves the day by a
rapid counterattack on b2, for example
25 lbe5 :txf2 or 25 lOb6 :tbS 26lOdS
bxa3.
2a3) It is not clear either that 20 a4
b3 makes progress for White.
2b) My original note suggested 16
i.xe7 lOxe7 17 h5 h6 (17 ... bxc4 IS
hxg6 is extremely unlikely to be ten-
able for Black, for example IS ... hxg6
19:th7 i.b720':dhl.e5 21 f4i.xe4
22 fxe5 i.xc2 23 :thS+ ~g7 24
:tlh7#) IS hxg6 hxg5, and now I mis-
takenly suggested 19 gxf7+? :txf7 20
.e2, when 20...•c7! (Burgess) is good
for Black. 19 g7! improves, but is still
only good for a draw after 19...~xg7
20 :th7+ ~xh7! 21 lOxg5++ (not 21
lOf6++? ~g7) 21...~h6 22 .h7+
~xg5 23 f4+ CiPf6 24 .h4+ CiPg7 25
:thllOg6 26 .h6+ ~f6 27 .g5+.
3) 15 ... lOxe4 16 .xe4, and now
what?
Variation '2' is critical for the
soundness of 13 ... b5. On my flfSt draft
of the book, I felt that White was much
better, and that 13 ... b5 was inferior. It
is with some amazement that I con-
clude that Black may well be OK after
IS ...lOeS, though there is scope for
further analysis. For example, after
Nunn's 16 ..txe6, can White find an
improvement on move 20? At the very
least, Hjartarson's IS i.b3 is not, as I
first assumed, a case of bottling out of
the critical lines.
IS•••i.b7 16lOxf6+
16 hS? lOxe4 17lOxe4 :tacS with a
strong counterattack - Hjartarson.
16•••i.xf6 17 lOe4
Hjartarson analysed 17 :td7? :tacS
IS :txb7lOes +and suggested, with-
out further analysis, 17lOxh7!? ~xh7
IS hS. It is hard to believe that the
piece sacrifice is well timed.
17•••..teS!
Improving on 17.....te7? IS ':d7 eS
(1S ... lOb4 19 i.c7! ± Hjartarson) 19
:txb7 ':acS 20 ..th6 lOb4 21 .xcS
':xcS+ 22 CiPb1 lOc6 23 :tc1, with
White having an excellent mixed bag
in return for the queen, Schandorff-
Olesen, Copenhagen 1995. The game
finished abruptly: 23 ...b4?? (23 ...•dS
±) 24 .:xc6 ':xc6 2S :txe7 1-0.
18lOeS i.xf4 19 exf4 'fIe7 20 ~bl
:tad8 21lOxb7 'fIxb7 22 'fIe4 b4
According to Hjartarson, 23 axb4
.xb4 24 'ilxb4lOxb4 2S i.c4 should
be played, with White having frac-
tionally the better endgame. Instead,
the game Hjartarson-King, Winterthur
1996 continued 23 a4 .b6? (23 ... lOaS
=
24 .xb7 lOxb7 Hjartarson) 24 hS
with a clear plus for White.
But IS ..td6!? is the move that has
to be looked at.
A23)
13.•• h6 (D)
 The New Main Line
Black might not be threatening the
knight straight away, but it is useful to
keep it attacked. This position may
also be reached via the move-order
IO...dxc4 11 .i.xc4 a6 12lOg5 .i.e7 13
h4 h6, which explains why we have a
couple of pre-1990 references in the
notes that follow.
14.tal!
Untried, but probably very strong.
White takes the bishop out of harm's
way, and prepares to bring it to bl to
intensify the attack on h7. Indeed,
White is attempting to make a non-
sense of Black's whole plan of action;
11...dxc4 develops White's bishop,
then 12 ...a6 aims to push it to a differ-
ent square, so that Black has used up
two tempi to help White with the
lengthy but dangerous manoeuvre
.tfl-c4-a2-bl.
Other moves have been tried here.
1) 14 IOce4!? is good for a slight
edge, but not so ambitious. A.Sokolov-
Beliavsky, Erevan OL 1996 continued
14 ... lOxe4 15 Wxe4 Wf5 (following
15...hxg5? 16hxg5, 16...Wf517Wxf5
exf5 18 .:th2!, Ruban, gives White a
mating attack down the h-file, while
the refutation of 16... g6, given by Sok-
olov is even prettier: 17 l:r.d5! exd5 18
.te5 IOxe5 19 Wh4) 16 Wxf5 exf5 17
IOf3 .tf6, and now according to Be-
liavsky, instead of the quiet 18 ~bl
.te6 =, 18 .td6 would have kept a
slight edge. Black's pawn structure is
suspect, and his development lags a
bit.
2) 14 g4 is violent, but arguably
less logical, in that the pawn is ob-
structed by the knight.
2a) Ruban-Kotronias, Sochi 1989
saw some brutal hacking after 14 ... b5?!
57
15lOce4 g6 161Oxf6+ .i.xf6 17.td3
(17lOxf7!?, Ruban, is also worth a try:
17 ... ~xf7? 18 h5 yields a winning at-
tack, while 17...:xf7 18 Wxg6+ .tg7
19 .td3 also gives Black some scary
moments) 17... b4 18 .txg6! hxg5 19
hxg5 .i.e5, and now White blew it with
20 .txf7+?? :xf7 21 Wg6+ ~f8 -+.
Instead 20 .te4! bxa3 21 .txe5 Wxe5
22 .txc6 Wxb2+ 23 Wxb2 axb2+ 24
~bl (Ruban) would have left White
with a good endgame.
2b) 14 ... lOe51eads to complicated
play:
2bl) Ruban blew another fuse in
Ruban-A.Maric, Palma de Mallorca
1989: 15 :d5? exd5 16 .txe5 .:td8
(16 ... dxc4! 17 .txf6 .tf5 -+, Ruban,
would have been even stronger) 17
.ta2 .txg4 +.
2b2) After 15lOd5 exd5, 16.txe5
:d8 is given by Ruban as unclear,
while 16 :xd5? IOxc4 17 :xa5lOxa5
18 .i.e5 g6 19 Wc3 .i.xg4 20 Wxa5
l:ac8+ 21 ~b1 (21.tc3 hxg5) 21...:C5
would be distinctly unwise. Compared
with the variation to the Motwani-
Bartels game (13 ... lOe5?! 14IOd5?!,
etc., Line A21 above), White has the
extra move g4, which attacks nothing,
and Black has the extra move ... h6,
which attacks the knight; this swings
the variation in Black's favour.
2b3) Ruban also analyses the line
15 IOce4!? lOexg4 16 :hgl IOxe4
(l6 ...hxg5?! 17 hxg5 gives Black h-
file problems) 17 IOxe4 f5 18 lOd6
with compensation for the pawn.
Since White need not go into any of
these double-edged lines, it is not nec-
essary to analyse further to overturn
these 'unclear' verdicts.
14•.•:d8
58 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 J..f4!
A sensible idea, but it would have
been better a couple of moves earlier.
Other moves lead to disaster:
1) 14 ......f5? 15 "'e2 followed by
.tbl would walk straight into White's
attack.
2) 14...hxg5? 15 hxg5 'iff5 16 'ife2
is similar.
3) 14... lDe5? 15 ll:xIs works for
White this time, as Black no longer has
the ... lOxc4 resource after 15 ... lOxdS
16l:txd5.
4) 14....txa3 has no real right to
work: 15 bxa3 'ifxa3+ 16 'ifb2 'ifxb2+
17 ~xb2 hxgS 18 hxgSlOg4 19 l:r.h4
lOxf2 20 .l:.d2 eS 21.l:.xf2 exf4 22 exf4
and Black's kingside will soon buckle
under.
S) 14....td7?? IS l:r.xd7.
IS .l:.xdS+ .txdS
White now has several ways of
playing for a lasting edge, simplest
perhaps being 161Oge4.
Thus 12... a6 does not solve Black's
problems.
A3)
12•••.l:.dS (D)
This is the basic formation which
Kharitonov has favoured on several
occasions, against both g4 and h4.
One possible drawback is the lack of
flight squares for the black queen. We
discuss:
A31: 13 ~bl S8
A32: 13 lObS!? S9
A31)
13 ~bl old7 14 lOgS
14 g4 transposes to positions usu-
ally reached via 11 h4.l:.d8 12 g4 .td7
13 ~bl dxc4 14 .txc4 (Line B, be-
low). After 14 ....l:.ac8 Black has good
chances of equalizing.
14 lObS lOeS is comfortable for
Black.
14•••h6!?
This move leads to massive compli-
cations. 14....te8 defends much more
simply, and prepares favourable sim-
plifications. Kharitonov then gives IS
lOce4lOxe4 16 'ifxe4 'iffS 17 "'xfS
exfS as ;1;, but it is difficult to see White
making much progress.
151Od5!?
Kharitonov gave both IS g4.te8
and IS lOge4lOeS as unclear.
15•••exdS 16 J:.xdS 1i'b6
16...olc5?? 17 .l:.xc5 +-; 16..:iVxdS?
17 .txdS hxgS 18 hxg5 +- Khari-
tonov.
171Oxf7 (D)
17•••lbxd5
Better than 17 ... ~f8 18 .l:.b5! (in
Korotylev-Kharitonov, Moscow 1996,
White chickened out with 18 .l:.ddl?,
and Black was able to counterattack to
great effect with IS ....txa3 1910xdS
.l:.xd8 20 olb3 ole7 =+= 21 f3 loaS 22
.ta2 J:.cS 23 "f2? .tfS+ 0-1) Is ...lOd4
(Kharitonov gives the line 18 .....xbS
19 .txbS ct;xf7 as unclear, but 20
.tc4+ seems to favour White) 19 :xb6
 The New Main Line
ll)xc2 20 ll)xdS! (in his analysis in In-
formator, Kharitonov considers only
the less incisive 20 lIxb7 .i.f5 21
ll)xdS ll)xe3+ 22 ~a2 ll)xc4 23 ll)c6
.i.e4 24 lhe7 .i.xc6 25 lIe7 .i.d5, when
if anyone has the edge, it is Black)
20 ... axb6 (20 ....i.xdS? 21 lIxf6+) 21
ll)e6+ .i.xe6 22 .i.xe6 and Black's ex-
tra knight is trapped, leaving White
with excellent chances in the end-
game, thanks to his strong bishop-pair
and passed e-pawn.
18.i.xdS
lSll)xh6+ ~f8 19 "h7 .i.f5+! 20
ll)xf5 .tf6 21 "hS+ ~f7 22 "h5+
~gS 23 .txd5+ lIxd5 24 ll)h6+ ~h7
(24 ... gxh6 00) 25ll)f5+ is a perpetual
check.
18•••~ 19l1)g5!
Not 19 "h7 .tf5+! (Burgess) 20
.xf5 .tf6 and White is in trouble.
19•••.txgS
The lines 19....txa3?? 20 ll)h7+
q;e7 21 "e4+ and 19...ll)a5?? 20 Wh7
.tf5+ 21 "xf5+ .tf6 22ll)h7+ ~e7
23 "e4+ ~d7 24ll)xf6+ both win for
White, while 19... hxg5 20 hxg5 opens
the h-file for White's attack.
20 hxg5 ll)e7 21 gxh6 .tC5
21...ll)xd5 22 "h7 is extremely
dangerous for Black, e.g. 22 ... gxh6 23
59
.txh6+ ~eS 24 .tg5! ~fS 25 "hS+
~f7 26 lIh7+ ~e6 27 lIh6+ ~f5 2S
"h7+! ~xg5 29 "g7+ ~f5 30 lIh5+
leads to mate.
22 hxg7+ ~xg7 23 .te5+ ~g6 24
e4l1xd5!
The alternatives 24 ....te6 25 "dl,
24 ....tg4 25 "d2 ll)gS 26 "f4 and
24 ...ll)xd5 25 exf5+ ~f7 26 "e2 lIgS
(26... ll)f6 27 lIh6) 27 lIh7+ ~f8 2S
"h5 all win for White.
25 exf5+ ~5 26 .tel "b5
with a likely draw.
A32)
13ll)b5!? (D)
Unexplored, yet I suspect this is
White's most promising idea.
13•••ll)d5
Black's queen is out of play after
13 ...lIxdl+ 14 lIxdl.td7 15 .tc7 b6
16ll)g5, etc.
14.txdS
14 ll)g5 g6 15 h5 ll)xf4 is uncon-
vincing, so White plays for a posi-
tional edge.
14•••exd5
14... lIxd5 15 lIxd5 exd5 16ll)fd4;!;
a6? 17 .tc7 ll)b4 18 .txa5 ll)xc2 19
ll)c7ll)xd4 20 exd4 (20 ll)xa8? ll)b3+)
60 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i.f4!
20.. Jlb8 21lLlxdS and White is win-
ning.
14...•xbS IS .i.e4 i.
15 .!Drd4lLlxd4 16lLlxd4 ;t
White has the standard active piece-
play against the isolated d-pawn, with
Black's bishop-pair not counting for
much. If 16....i.g4, 17 .i.c7 .i.xdl 18
l:[xdl .cS 19 .i.xd8, and the simplifi-
cation process is well in hand.
The general conclusion is that the
exchange 11 ...dxc4 is premature, as it
assists White's development without
enhancing Black's counterplay to a
corresponding degree.
B)
11 .•.l:[d8 (D)
w lLlhS IS .i.d6 ':ac8 would transpose
This is much better timing than in
the variation just considered, but it is
probably still not sufficient to equal-
ize. Black can quietly meet 12lLlbS?
with 12 ... l:[d7, and White has suc-
ceeded only in misplacing his knight,
but there is a better knight move.
12 .!Lld2!
Still chasing the lady. The attempt
to make her a widow with 12 g4 is less
convincing; in effect White is playing
the g4 variation with h4 thrown in,
which leaves unresolved the question
of how to make gS a killer blow when
the knight still has an escape square on
hS. After 12 g4:
1) Kasparov-Ehlvest, Novgorod
1995 continued 12....i.d7 13 ~bl dxc4
14 .i.xc4l:[ac8 IS gSlLlhS 16 .i.d6 g6!
(correctly preferring good piece coor-
dination to early simplification; Black
collapsed remarkably quickly in Lu-
govoi-Komeev, Elista 1995: 16....i.e8?!
17 .i.xe7lLlxe7 18l:[xd8l:[xd8 19l:[d I
i l:[c8 20 .i.b3lLlfS 21 'it'd3 g622lLld4
± lLlxd4 23 exd4 .i.c6 24 dS lLlf4? 2S
'it'd2 1-0; if 2S ...lLlxdS, then 26lLlxdS
Wxd2 27lLlf6+ wins a piece) 17 .i.e2
.i.xd6 18 l:[xd61:iJe7 19 Wb3 .i.c6 20
l:[xd8+ ':xd8 21 ':dl WfS+ 22 ~al
':f8 23 e4 WcS 24 'it'b4, forcing a level
ending.
2) 12...dxc4 13 .i.xc4 .i.d7 14 gS
after 16 ~bl. Instead, 16 .i.e2 .i.e8 17
.i.xe7 ':xdl+ 18 ':xdllLlxe7 1/2- 1/2 was
Rustemov-Kharitonov, Russia 1996.
12•••':d7
This looks awkward, but Black is
creating a flight square for the queen
without losing his grip on dS.
1) 12...dxc4 was recommended in
Informator, both by Agdestein and by
Cvetkovic, and indeed Black is doing
reasonably well after 13 .i.xc4?! a6.
However, after the more natural 13
lLlxc4! l:[xdl + 14 Wxdl Wd8 it is hard
to concur with Cvetkovic's view that
Black is equal. After IS Wxd8+ fol-
lowed by .i.e2, White has a pleasant
advantage in space and development
to take through to the endgame.
2) The familiar plan of 12...eS 13
.i.gS d4 was seen in Cifuentes-Van der
 The New Main Line
Sterren, Amsterdam 1995, but the set-
ting seems wrong for Black. After 14
liJb3 "b6 IS cS "c7 16liJbS "b8 17
exd4 a6, White let things slip to equal-
itywith 18liJd6?! i.xd619cxd6 "xd6
20 dxe5 "xdl+ 21 "xdl l%xdl+ 22
<iitxd 1 liJxeS, but 18 liJc3! is more
natural, leaving Black with the prob-
lem of how to develop his queenside.
After 18 ... liJxd4 19 liJxd4 exd4 20
liJa4 or 18 ...exd4 19liJa4, White has a
clear positional advantage. White's
h4-pawn turns out not to be the spear-
head of a kingside attack, but rather an
important prop for the bishop.
So often in the 11 h4 line, we find
that the threat to attack on the kingside
is secondary; White must always be
prepared if necessary to take things
quietly and positionally.
13.td3!
Pressure on h7, but also piece de-
velopment.
13•••eS
After 13 .....d8 14 cxdS exdS 15
liJf3 (1S i.fS?! d4! 00) Black has obvi-
ous difficulties with his rook place-
ment. White is clearly better, and later
won spectacularly in Agdestein-Short,
Stornaway 1995: 15 .....f8 16 g4liJe4
(16 ... g6 17 hS ±) 17 liJeS liJxe5 18
.txeS f6 19 .td4 l%c7 20 f3 (20.txe4!?
± Cvetkovic) 20 ... liJxc3 21 .txh7+
~h8 22 .txc3 .txa3 23 l%xdS! .txg4
24 fxg4 l%xc3 25 'il'xc3 (25 l%hS "b4!
Agdestein) 25 ...:c8 26 "xc8 "xc8+
27 .tc2 i.e7 28 l%hdl ~g8 29 l%d7
~f8 30 ~bl as 31 hS "c6 32 .tfS a4
33 :e11-0.
Agdestein also gives the line
13 ... d4 14liJb3 "d8 15 exd4liJxd4 16
liJxd4 l%xd4 17 .teS l%d7 18 .txf6 ±;
the h-pawn goes.
61
The text and notes follow analysis
by Cvetkovic.
14.tgSd4
14...e4 15 .te21eaves Black's pawn
centre badly over-extended.
15 liJb3
15 .txf6? dxc3 =t.
IS..:W'd8 16 exd4
16 .txf6 dxc3! ;1;.
16•••liJxd4
16...exd4 17 .txf6 .txf6 18liJd5 ±.
17 liJxd4 exd4 18 .txf6 .txf6 19
liJds!
Cvetkovic suggests instead 19
.txh7+ ~h8 20 liJds g6 21.txg6 fxg6
22 "xg6 '±', which is unconvincing
as Black has 22 ...l%xdS 23 cxd5 "c7+
24 ~bl "h7, exchanging queens and
ensuring that Black has the better sup-
ported passed d-pawn.
The text-move gives White a sig-
nificant positional advantage without
any risk whatsoever. White is about
two or three tempi ahead of corre-
sponding lines with 10 l%dl .te7 11
liJd2 e5 12 .tgS d4 13 liJb3 "b6 14
.txf6, etc., given the misplacement of
Black's rook and the better placement
of White's king.
So another of Black's tries proves
unsuccessful.
C)
11... a6 (D)
Black has done well with this so far,
but it looks a bit slow.
12liJgS
Threatening a double capture on
dS.
12...l%d8
12...dxc4 transposes to the ll...dxc4
line (A2 above).
13.td3
 62 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i.f4!
This direct attacking move is proba-
bly best.
13 cxdS exdS is the alternative:
1) In a game Van Wely-Me.Sharif,
Linares Z 1995 (in which the ex-
change on dS actually took place on
move 12), White lost the plot: 14
~bl ? h6 16 lLlf3 i.g4 17 i.e2 l:lacS,
and Black, having gained a couple of
tempi, was powering ahead on the
queenside.
2) I spent a lot of effort trying to
make 14 e4 work:
2a) One attractive possibility is
14...dxe4?! IS i.c4 lLld4 16 i.xf7+
~f8 17 l:lxd4 l:lxd4 IS i.a2! l:ld3 19
lLlcxe4 "iffS 20 "ifxd3 "ifxf4+ 21 ~bl
and White should win.
2b) However, I finally had to con-
cede defeat, after a few editorial sug-
gestions, on the attempt to prove
. k'.'. something for White after 14... lLlxe4!.
\ ,. ""':' •• >- Black is happy after IS l:I.xdS l:lxdS 16
(.\ (it' ~:~ "ifxe4 l:lxgSl or IS lLlcxe4 dxe4 16
'. ~p /.p l:lxds+lLlxdSI7"ife4 "iffS!.ISi.c4is
! '/ . .. an interesting try, but after IS ... dxc4
",' 16 l:lxdS+ "ifxdS 17 l:ldl "as! IS
l:[dS? (IS "ifxe4 i.fS 19 "ifxc4 i.xgS
20 hxgS l:ldS= Nunn) IS ...i.xgS!
Black is on top. Black also probably
has nothing to fear after IS ...i.fS 16
lLlxdSlLlg3 (or 16...i.xgS - Nunn) 17
'ii'b3 lLlxhl (Burgess).
13.••h6
It is not so pleasant for Black to
have to make a pawn move in front of
the king. 13 ... g6 14 hS leaves White
with good attacking chances, and if
14...lLlxhS?! then IS l:lxhS gxhS 16
i.xh7+ followed by lLlxf7.
14 g4!
With ideas of a knight sacrifice fol-
lowed by gS. Naturally, capturing the
knight on gS is extremely hazardous;
if immediately 14... hxgS IS hxgS,
White's plan is to play f3 to bring the
queen to h2.
14•••eS!?
White is obviously planning i.h7+
followed by lLlxf7, so 14...dxc4 doesn't
really slow him down. Attacking the
bishop might just make the difference;
if it retreats the i.xh6 sacrifice will
not be on.
15 i.h7+ Wf8 16lLlxf7 cJlxr7
16... exf4 17 lLlxdS keeps White's
attacking chances for negligible sacri-
fice in material.
17"g6+
17 i.xh6 e4! blocks White's lines
of communication.
17•••~f818 i.xh6 gxh619 "xh6+
~7
Running with the king does not
really help, for example 19 ... ~eS 20
j,g6+ ~d7 21 lLlxdS and Black's
queen is in trouble.
20lLlxdS
I found plenty of perpetual checks,
but nothing conclusive, after direct
measures on the kingside. But taking
control of the centre might do the
trick. "ifg6+ is now the big threat.
2o•••lLlxh7 21 "xh7+ ~e8
 The New Main Line
21...<it>fB leaves time for White to
run his g-pawn with 22 g5, etc. The at-
tempt at counterattack with 22 ....txa3
23 g6 .txb2+ 24 <it>xb2 leaves Black
with no playable checks.
22"'g8+~d7
Or 22....tfB 23 "g6+ Wd7 24 Wt7+
Wd6 25 lDb6+ Wc5 26 lOxa8 with an
easy win.
23"'r7!
and Black is helpless against the
threat of 24 lOxe7+ <it>c7 25 lOxc6+
<it>xc6 26 Wf6+.
It is perhaps not surprising that
Black has avoided, on general grounds,
the line with 11...a6. Even so, con-
ducting the kingside attack for White
involves having to play very accu-
rately.
0)
11•••.td7 (D)
If Black wants to play the ... .td7
defence, he should do so on move 10.
The inserted 1O....te7 11 h4 favours
White, one important detail being that
White's bishop has a retreat on h2.
Practical experience is limited, but
the game H.Olafsson-0gaard, Gaus-
dal 1996 is unlikely to appeal to Black:
63
12g4:fc813g5lOh514.th2.te815
lOd2 a6 16 cxdSlOb4? 17 axb4 "'al+
18 lOdbl .ta4 19 b3 .txb4 20 .te5 f6
21 Wb2 1-0. Black's one-shot attack
didn't work.
Also, White can try to steer towards
the types of position reached in the
10....td7 11 <it>bl dxc4 12 .txc4 .te7
line (Chapter 3.6, Line B) with, for ex-
ample, 12lOg5 or 12 <it>bl.
Conclusion:
At the moment, 11 h4! looks a very
good prospect against the 1O ... .te7
system. The big plus that it has in
comparison with 11 g4 systems (to be
discussed shortly) is that White builds
up pressure on the kingside without
creating weaknesses. And if White
has no structural pawn weaknesses in
his position, that implies that he can
shift seamlessly to positional lines if
Black makes compromises in order to
defend his kingside.
3.3 10...i.e7 11 g4
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3lDc3lOr6 4lDf3 .te7
5 .tf4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 .txc5 8 "'c2
lOc6 9 83"'aS 100-0-0 .te7 11 g4 (D)
64 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./4!

This was what White usually played ISlbds

when the castling line first came into Bringing up the reserves. White's
fashion. White makes an immediate score with IS :dS is an unimpressive
and direct lunge at the king, but he 115 on my database, but the move is
must ask himself, first what he does not as bad as all that. lS ...•c7 and
when the pawn reaches gS, and sec- now:
ondly whether he is weakening him- 1) 16 J.d3 g6 17 :gl J.g7 18 h4
self on the dl-hS diagonal. lbe7 19 :dgS fxe3 + Cais-Ciolac,
The direct approach with 11...dxc4 Schwabisch Gmund 1996.
12 J.xc4 eS 13 gS exf4 is Black's most 2) 16lbe4 .e7! 17 h4 g6 18 h5
popular, and will be considered first. J.fS 19 lbxf6+ .xf6 20 e4, Nasy-
The pressure on dS is so strong that it bullin-Klovans, corr. 1988-90, and
is difficult to see convincing ways for now Black played 20...J.e6 co, missing
Black to avoid the exchange on c4. the startling defensive idea demon-
OUT lines are: strated by Nasybullin: 20...J.g4! =+= 21
A: 1l•••dxc4 64 hxg6? J.xf3 22 gxf7+ ~h8 23 :xh7+
B: 1l ...:d8 72 'itxh7 24 eS+ J.e4!! (24...•g6? 2S
J.d3 +-) 2S .xe4+ .g6 -+. This line
A) features a problem theme, with the
1l...dxc4 12 J.xc4 bishop sacrifice drawing the queen
Now: over the critical d3-square. 20... lbe7!
AI: 12...eS 64 is also strong, ifless spectacular, as 21
A2: 12...bS? 69 exfS is met by 21...lbxdS 22 J.xdS
A3: 12...lbxg4?! 69 :ac8 23 J.c4 .c6. Agrest-Sanden,
A4: 12..':d8 70 Stockholm 1992 continued instead 21
AS: 12...a6 71 :d4 J.g4 + 22 eS .c6 23 hxg6 hxg6
24 e6 (24 :d6 .xc4! -+) 24 ...•xf3
A1) 2S exf7+ ~g7 26 :e1 :ac8 and
12...e5 13 gS exf4 14 gxf6 J.xf6 White's attack had run out of steam.
(D) 3) 16 l:lhS g6 17lbdS .d8 (after
17...•d6 18 :gl fxe3 19 fxe3 b5 20
J.a2 J.g7 21 lbf4, Gogichaishvili-
Tabatadze, Bmo 1991, was agreed
drawn just in time to prevent massive
complications breaking out) 18 :gl
J.e6 (18 ... J.g7? 19 :xg6 hxg6 20
.xg6! fxg6 21lbe7#) 19lbgS J.xgS
(19 ... J.xdS 20 J.xdS .xdS 21lbxh7
"'d8 22 :xg6+ fxg6 23 "'xg6+ J.g7
24lbgS +-) 20 :hxgS J.xdS 21 J.xd5
~g7 co Libeau-A.Hoffman, Bie11993.
We conclude that 15 :d5 .c7 16
:hS deserves further exploration.
 The New Main Une
15•••~e7
Many of the apparently more natu-
ral moves lose very quickly.
1) IS ... .ie6? 16 ~xf6+ gxf6 17
:hg1+ ~h8 18 .ixe6 fxe6 19 :d7 +-
Kruppa.
2) IS ....ie7? 16lO<i4 :e8 17 ~b3
• a4 18 t;Jc7 .ifS, Jaksland-L.A.Niel-
sen, Randers 1990, and now instead of
19 e4? :ec8 20 fua8 ~S GO, 19
.ixf7+ would have won.
3) IS .....d8? 16 ~xf4 .id7 17 :dS
~a5 18 :hS! with a winning attack,
A.Rabinovich-Dervishi, Rimavska
Sobota 1996, e.g. 18 ... g6 19 ~xg6, or
18 ... h6 19 :xh6 gxh6 20 .g6+ .ig7
21~.
4) It is a little surprising that
IS ....id8 has not been tried more of-
ten. At the cost of a tempo, the bishop
is preserved, and the g-file is not fully
opened against the king.
4a) The sole Informator reference
is a brief note by Kruppa (Informator
46) who suggests 16 h4, intending
~gS, with an attack. But Black is al-
lowed to counter-attack: 16... .ig4! 17
~gS g6 18 f3 (18 :dgl ~) 18 ...~S!
19 fxg4 :c8 20 b3 (20 :d4? :xc4 21
lbc4 .xdS 22 :e4 ~d3+ 23 ~bl
.ixgS -+) 20...•xa3+! (20 ... bS? 21
• b2 ±) 21 "b2 ~xc4 22 bxc4 :xc4+
23 ~bl "xb2+ 24 ~xb2 fxe3 and
Black has liquidated and won enough
white pawns to feel secure against
White's extra piece.
4b) 16 :hgl is critical, a recent fi-
asco for Black being 16...h6? 17 "e4
~h8 18 :xg7 f5 19 .xf4 ~xg7 20
:g1+ ~h7 21 "g3 1-0 Summerscale-
Mednis, Cannes 1997. 16... fxe3 17
fxe3 g6! (17 ....ie6 18 ~gS ±), and if
18 h4, then 18...b5 keeps the position
65
alive, although there is still much to be
explored. Ultimately, I would expect
the assessment to run in White's fa-
vour.
16~xf6+
16 :hgl ~h8 17 ~xf6 gxf6 trans-
poses.
16 h4 ~xd5 17 :xdS "c7 18 ~gS
+
.ixg5 19 hxgS g6 Kruppa.
16•••gxf6 (D)
w
The main subject for theoretical
discussion in the early 1990s. White
hopes to make use of the exposure of
the black king, while Black hopes to
get his pieces out quickly to expose
White's weaknesses on the queenside.
After several practical tests it seems
that Black is doing OK.
17:hgl+
The natural move, although White
can also hold fire, and indeed might
well be advised to do so if his inten-
tion is lO<i4. Hubner-Van der Sterren,
Bundesliga 1994 continued 17 ~d4
fxe3 (17 .....eS 18 ~bl bS 19 .id3 .ib7
20 .ixh7+ ~h8 21 exf4.h5 22 .ie4
:ac8 23 "d3 ± Shabalov-Kruppa,
Minsk 1990) 18 fxe3 "eS 19 ~bl
.if5! 20 ~xfS ~xfS (20...•xfS? 21
.id3 ±) 21 :dS fue3 22 :xeS ~xc2,
66 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i..f4!
and White finds there is no way to take
advantage of the wayward position of
Black's knight since 23 rle4 is met by
23 ... fS. The clearest way to the draw is
given by Van der Sterren as 23 lIe7
lLld4 24 lIxb7lLlf3! 2S .i.dS lLleS. If
White had given a check on gl, ... lLlO
would have gained a tempo.
17 e4 will usually end up with
White throwing in a check along the
g-file, for example 17 ... i.h3 18 ~bl
llac8 19 l:hgl+.
17.••~h8
Play now branches out into:
All: 18 We4 66
AU: 18lLld4 67
A13: 18e4 67
A11)
18 We4 (D)
B 27 l:n lLle7 28 l:dxf6 lLlxd5 29
18•••lLlg6
18 ...•c5? 19 .xf4 .tfS 20 b4 'ii'c6
and now 21 ~b2 ± Khalifman, rather
than 21 l:d6? Wa4 22 .t..d3 .xa3+ 23
~dl l:fd8 + Ambartsumian-Mago-
medov, Frunze 1989.
19Wd4
19 ridS? Wc7 20 Wd4 i.e6! 21
l:cs We7 +Shabalov-Kruppa, Frunze
1989.
19••• Wb6
Forcing the exchange of queens.
White has not had much luck trying to
win this position.
20Wxb6
20 exf4 Wxd4 21 l:xd4 .tf5 22
~d2 rlac8 23 l:cl.tg4 24 l:c3 l:cd8
=Gulko-Rodriguez Talavera, Seville
1992.
20...axb6 21 l:d6 .th3
Or alternatively 21...fxe3 22 fxe3
l:aS! (22 ... i.fS?! 23 rlxf6 i.e6 24
.td3 l:fd8 2S lLld4 ± Agamaliev-
Smagacz, Koszalin 1997) 23 <i>d2 (23
.tdS bS! 24 ~d2 l:a6 =; 23 rlxb6 rlcS
24 b3 .te6 2SlLld2lLleS =Khalifman)
and now:
1) 23 ... l:fS 24 rln rlcs 2S .td3
l:c6 is equal, Kasparov-Khalifman,
Reggio Emilia 199112.
2) 23 ...l:cS 24 .tdS (! Khalifman)
24 ... 'it>g7 25 lLld4 rle8 is more adven-
turous for Black, but after 26 e4 l:e5
l:xf7+ ~g8 30 exdS rlexdS, White
can try 31 l:f8+ ~g7 32 l:1f7+ ~g6
33 l:f4! instead of 31 ~e3?! l:d8 32
l:e7 rlh5 ~ Lputian-Van der Sterren,
Wijk aan Zee 1993.
22~b1
After 22 .tdS!?, 22 ... rlac8+?! 23
'it>bl l:cd8 24 rlxd8 l:xd8 25 .t..xb7
fxe3 26 fxe3 l:d3 27 lLld4 ;t was
Vera-Van der Sterren, Lucerne Wcht
1993. Black may be a pawn up after
27 ... l:xe3, but if the weak b-pawn
should fall, White will have two con-
nected outside passed pawns. Instead,
22 ...lLle5! 23lLlxe5 fxe5 24 exf4 (24
.txb7 fxe3) holds the balance.
22....t..rS+ 23 ~a1
The safest square. 23 'it>a2 leaves
the king too exposed: 23 ... i.e4 24
 The New Main Line 67

lbd4 l'Lle5 25 .i.b3 fxe3 26 fxe3 l:tg8 fxe3 .i.f5 19 l'Llxf5 .xf5 20 l:thgl + is
27 l:tn b5 28 l:tf4? l'Lld3 29 .i.c2 (29 to be preferred.
.l:lxe4?? l'Llb4+ mates on the back rank) 20 l'Llxes ..xes
29 ... .i.d5+ 30 l:txd5 l'Llb4+ winning 20 ... l'Llxf5? would be mistimed: 21
the exchange, Akopian-Kruppa, St Pe- l:[d5 .b6 22 ~bl .xe3 (22 ... l'Llxe3?
tersburg 1993. 23 .xh7+ ~xh7 24 l:th5#) 23 l:tg4!
23.-..i.e4 24l'Lld4l'LleS 2S .i.bS fxe3 l'Llg7 (23 ...lLle7 24 l:th5l'Llg6 25 l:txh7+
+
26 fxe3 l:tgS Gelfand-Yusupov, Li- ~xh7 26 .i.xf7 .h6 27 .i.xg6+ ~h8
nares 1993. 28 'iff2, followed by l:th3 winning -
. Pelletier) 24 l:td3 .el + 25 ~a2 and
A12) Black is in trouble on the kingside,
ISl'Lld4 (D) Pelletier-Van der Sterren, Zurich 1995.
21.i.d3 "eS
21.. .•c8? 22 .i.xh7 f5 23 l:td4! -
Akopian.
22~blfS
White seems to have adequate com-
pensation for the pawn, but perhaps
nothing more. After 23 .b3. Akop-
ian-Pigusov. Tilburg 1994 continued
23 ... l:tac8 24 .i.c2 .f6 (24 ...l:tc6? 25
.xf7; 24 ... b5!? 25 l:td7 as ao Akopian)
25 l:td7 ±, although Akopian notes that
Black could also have tried 23 ...lbd5.

White's next try, after 18 .e4 was A13)

found to be prospectless. ISe4!? (D)
IS___fxe3
18 ... .i.f5 19 l'Llxf5 .xf5 20.xf5
l'Llxf5 21 .i.d3 ;t Akopian.
19 fxe3 .i.fS B
Black could also try 19...•e5!? 20
c,i;>bl .i.f5! 21 l'Llxf5 l'Llxf5 22 l:td5
l'Llxe3, much as in Hiibner-Van der
Sterren, given in the notes to White's
17th. There, however, White had taken
care to avoid l:thgl+, the reason being
that after 23 l:txe5 l'Llxc2 24 l:te7 l'Lld4
25 .i.d3 l'Llf3 Black gains an important
tempo.
This would imply that 17 l:thgl+ The latest try. ·slowing down his
c,i;>h8 18 l'Lld4 is in fact an inaccurate own initiative. but preventing any black
move-order, and that 17 l'Lld4 fxe3 18 counterplay on the h7-bl diagonal.
68 The Queen' s Gambit Declined: 5 1./41
18... bS
The most direct. 18 ... .i.h3 19 ~bl
l:tac8 20 "'b3 wins the f7-pawn and
gives White a clear positional advan-
tage. Akopian-Egiazarian. Annenian
Ch 1996.
19 .i.dS .!DxdS
Black has many attempts to sharpen
the play still further. but this simple
and obvious move seems best. After
19 ... l:tb8?, 20 "'c5 is surprisingly dif-
ficult to meet. while the various at-
tempts to 'win' queen for two rooks
favour White in view of his control of
the open d- and g-files, and the vulner-
ability of Black's king. On 19 ... .i.e6.
20 .i.xa8 l:txa8 21 ~bl b4 22 "'d2
squashes another attempt to counter-
attack.
20exdS (D)
B highly practical setting for the Excel-
20••• b4
On quieter moves. White consoli-
dates with ~bl. though 20 ....i.g4 is an
intriguing alternative. The critical line
runs 21 "'e4 .i.h5 22 "'xf4 .i.g6 23
"'xf6+ ~g8 and now:
1) 24 .!De5 l:tac8+ 25 .!Dc6 b4 26
l:td3 and now 26 ... l:tfe8 loses to 27
l:tc3!. but 26 ... bxa3!? the situation is
less clear.
2) 24 l:td3! is a clever idea. using
pin and counterpin to clear a route to
bl for the king, and this seems to cause
serious problems for Black. After
24 ......a4 White continues 25 o!iJd4! (25
.!De5 "'e4 is less clear-cut) 25 ... l:tfc8+
26 o!tJc6 "'e4 and now the simplest line
for White is to force a very favourable
ending by 27 "'d4 "'xd4 (27 ......f5 28
~bl) 28 l:txd4.
21 axb4
The only move to have been tried so
far, though there are certainly alterna-
tives to be considered.
1) 21 "'c6?! .i.e6! (21.. ....b6 22
"'xb6 axb6 23 axb4 ;1;) 22 ~bl (22
"'d6? bxa3 23 dxe6? axb2+) 22 ....i.f5+
23 ~a2 "'b6 24 "'xb6 axb6 =i=. White
would be doing very well in the 18 e4
variation, if only he had a safe place
for the king!
2) 21 l:td4!? bxa3! 22 b4 a2! 23
bxa5? al"'+ 24 ~d2 "'xa5+ =1= gives a
sior theme. or as close to it as you are
likely to get in an over-the-board mid-
dlegame, in which the humble pawn.
metaphorical sword in hand. marches
boldly from home square to queening
square. nonchalantly brushing aside
all the diverse obstacles in its path. But
in chess, heroics often require co-
operation from the opponent in order
to succeed. 23 ~b2! l:tb8 24 "'b3 is
probably best described as unclear. at
least until practical tests emerge.
3) 21 a4?! .i.g4! is too slow.
21 •.:.al+
2l......xb4 22 l:td4;1; Short.
22 ~d2 'ii'a6 (D)
22 ... 'ii'a2!? 23 "c3 "'xd5+ 24 ~cl
"'e6. Short. If 25 .!Dg5. 25 ......e7! de-
fends. but not 25 .....e5?? 26 .!Dxf7+.
 The New Main Line
23~d4
23 "'c6 is not as strong as it looks,
as Black has 23 .. J:ld8! and if 24
'fixa8?, then 24......c4! leaves White's
defences totally uncoordinated. The
queen cannot return, since 25 'fixa7
fails to 25 ...:xd5+ 26 ~el "'e4+ and
Black wins. White's best defensive try
is to set up some back-row tricks with
2S :del, but after 2S ......xb4+ 26 ~c1
'ficS+ 27 ~d2 :xd5+ (27 ..."'as+ 28
~cl "'al+ 29 ~c2! .i.fS+? 30 ~b3!
turns the tables) 28 1i'xdS 'fixdS+ 29
~c 1 1i'cS+ 30 ~d2 .i.e6 Black should
win.
White avoided this humiliation in
Van Wely-Short, Wijk aan Zee 1997,
but after 24 ~c3 .i.b7 2S "'xa6 .i.xa6
26 :d4 :ac8+ 27 ~d2 .i.b7, Black
won the d-pawn, reaching a drawn
endgame in which White later went
astray.
23•••:d8 24 bS 1i'b6 2S 1i'e4 .i.b7
26"xf4l:[xdS
Both sides determinedly centralize,
and both sides just about consolidate.
Akopian-Short, Groningen 1996, was
agreed drawn, with repetition of posi-
tion looming, after the further moves
27 ~cl fS 28 "'gS :cS+ 29 ~d2 "'g6
30"'e7"'b6.
69
It would seem that the main line 11
g4 dxc4 12 .i.xc4 eS is holding up well
for Black. We now consider other pos-
sibilities for Black, starting with those
where Black has already exchanged
pawns.
A2)
12•••bS? (D)
w
A reckless pawn sacrifice. White
can safely capture either way.
13~xbS
13 .i.xbS .i.b7 14 ~d2 ~b4?!
(l4...~S 15 ~4 "'d8 16 e4 .i.gS 17
exdS .i.xf4+ 18 ~bl gives White a
distinct advantage - Gurevich) IS axb4
.i.xb4 16 ~4 1i'al+ 17 ~d2 .i.xc3+
18 ~e2 'fia2 19 :al 1-0 M.Gure-
vich-A.Sokolov, USSR Ch 1988.
13•••eS 14 ~eS ~eS 15 .i.xeS
.i.xg4 16 .i.c7 1-0 Bertholee-Peelen,
Wijk aan Zee 1995. If 16....i.xdl, 17
:xdl1i'a6 18 ~d6 'fic6 19 .i.xf7+. If
only points came so easily all the time!
A3)
12.•.~xg4?! (D)
This also sails too close to the wind.
13:hgl'ii'hS
Or:
70 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./41
1) 13 ... e5 14 .i.gS ~f6 (otherwise
~d5, etc.) 15 .i.xf6! .i.xf6 16 ~e4
.i.e7 17 ~gS, and White should win,
e.g. 17 ... g6 18 ~xf7 l:txf7 19 l:txg6+
or 17...e4 18 l:td5.
2) 13 ...~ge5 14 ~xe5 ~xe5 15
lDd5 ±.
3) 13 ... ~f6 14 .i.h6 ±.
14 h3 ~f6 15 .i.e2 l:tdS 16 ~e5
'ifh4 17 .i.g5 'ifxf2 IS 00
White soon snared the black queen
in G.Georgadze-Kharitonov, Simfero-
pol 1988 (18...clOds 19 .i.h6 g6 20 ~
"xgl 21 l:txgl), but somehow failed
to win the game.
A4)
12•••l:tdS (D)
w keeps White in control. Not, however,
Not often seen, as the offer to ex-
change rooks slows White down mther
less than the various counter-attacking
possibilities.
13 e4!?
A little more testing than 13 h3.i.d7
14 e4 .i.e8 1/2- 1/2 Bagaturov-Dzhan-
dzhgava. Tbilisi 1996.
13...~xg4
13 ....i.d7 14 e5 ~e8 15 ~g5 ±
Kharitonov.
13 ...l:txdl+ 14 l:txdl ~xg4 15 l:tgl
gives White good attacking chances.
14l:tdgl
A sane and rational move. 14l:thgl
led to crazy complications in Shaba-
lov-Kharitonov, Leningmd 1989. The
whole game is worth reprinting for
the stunning swindle through which
Black knocked back a winning attack:
14... l:txdl+ 15 1I'xdl ~xf2 16 1I'n
.i.xa3 17 .i.d2 .i.c5 18 ¢>bl b5?!
(18 .....d8 00 Kharitonov) 19lDd5 "d8
20 l:txg7+! ¢>xg7 21 "g2+ ¢>h8
(21...¢>f8 22 .i.h6+ ¢>e8 23 1I'g8+
¢>d7 24 ~5+! ~xe5 25 .i.xb5+ +-
Kharitonov) 22 .i.c3+? (22 .i.g5! .i.e7
23 ~5!! +- Shabalov) 22 ... lDd4 23
~xd4lDdl !! 24 1I'g3 ~xc3+ 25 bxc3
.i.xd4 26 cxd4 f6 0-1.
14••• ~geS 15 ~xe5 ~xe5 16 ~dS
exdS 17 .i.xe5 .i.f8
If 17 ... f6, then the reply 18 .i.c3!
18 .i.c??? "xc7 19 .i.xdS+ l:txd5 20
"fIxc7 l:tc5+.
ISexd5!
Kharitonov's analysis continues 18
.i.xd5 lIxd5! 19 exd5 "xd5 00. But if
White can gain a tempo, the assess-
ment of the position will change con-
siderably.
IS•••l:txdS
 The New Main Line
It's difficult to see how Black can
avoid the exchange sacrifice; if 18 ... b5,
then 19 .i.d3 ±.
19.i.e3!
The gain of tempo.
19••:.cS 20 .i.xdS 'iVxdS 21ltdl ±
With a sound material advantage
for White. 21 .d2?! .i.e6! is more
tricky, since 22 WgS :c8! 23 .f6??
loses to 23 .....xhl !.
AS)
12...a6 (D)
Quieter than 12 ... eS, and therefore
not as popular, but maybe just as reli-
able. The threat of ... bS-b4 means that
White has little time to build up a
kingside attack, and so must release
some of the tension.
13gS
After 13 .i.d3!?:
1) 13 ... ~h8 was answered by 14
gS 112-112 in Ivanchuk-Ehlvesl, Novgo-
rod 1995. Presumably 14 ... lDg4 IS
.*.xh7 (IS ':hgl lDgeS 00) Is ...lDxf2
holds no joy for White. Even so, there
is plenty of unexplored territory here,
for example 14 .*.g3lDxg4 IS .i.xh7.
2) A recent try for Black, reached
via 1O...dxc4 11 .i.xc4 a6 12 .*.d3 .i.e7
71
13 g4, is 13 ... g6, for example 14 gS
lDh5 IS h4 eS 16 .i.h2 .i.e6 17 .i.e4
':ac8 18 ~bl .i.xa3 19 .a4 .*.b4 20
.xaS lDxaS 21 .i.xeS ~4 22 .i.d4
lDd6 ; R.Kempinski-R.EkstrOm, Cap-
pelle la Grande 1997.
13...lDhS
The thematic square, blocking any
pawn-roller, and preserving options
on the bishop.
13 ... lDd7? is a mistake. Mter 14
~4 ~S ISlDf6+! White has a win-
ning attack, Kaidanov-KonsaIa, Po-
land 1988. Kaidanov gives the main
line as IS ... gxf6 16 gxf6 .*.xf6 17
':hgl+ ~h8 18lDgS .i.xgS 19 .i.xgS
f6 20 .i.h6 ltf7 21 f4! lDe7 22 .g2
lDg6 23 fS +-.
14.i.d6
Or 14 .i.d3 g6 (14...~h8!? Beliav-
sky) IS .*.e4 (IS cttbl!? Vladimirov)
Is ... lDxf4 (1S ... eS?? 16lDxeS wins a
pawn, Styrenkov-Gasthofer, Podolsk
1993) 16 exf4 .c7 17 h4 "xf4+ 18
~bl hS (18 ...f5? 19 gxf6 .*.xf6 20 hS
± Vladimirov) 19 ~2 "c7 20.i.xg6
fxg6 21 .xg6+ ~h8 E.Vladimirov-
Bass, Matalascaiias 1989. Obviously
White has a draw whenever he wants
it, but it is unlikely he can do better.
14....i.xd6 15 .J:xd6 tOes 16 .*.e2
lDxf3 17 .i.xf3 "xgS 18 ~ ..rs 19
.i.xhS 1i'xhS 20 ':gl
Agreed drawn in Gelfand-Beliav-
sky, USSR Ch 1989. A few years later
this position was played out: 20...fS
(20 ...•h6!? Beliavsky) 21lDf6+':xf6
22 .c7 .h6 (22 ... g6? 23 ':d8+ ':f8
24 ':xf8+ ~xf8 2S ':dl +-) 23 ':d8+
':f8 24 ':xf8+ ~xf8 2S ':dl .i.d726
':xd7 bS, led eventually to a draw in
the game Akopian-Beliavsky, Erevan
OL 1996.
72 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 J.f4!
B)
1l...:ct8 (D)
w 13lOd2
In some of the earlier games with
11 g4, Black tried to hold firm in the
centre. However, experience has shown
that in this particular variation White's
attack is better met by active piece-
play than by trying to keep the central
pawn tension.
12h3
Consolidating his gains.
12 li)d2!? leads to simplifications
after 12... dxc4 13 li)xc4 :xdl+ 14
Wxdl Wd8. In comparison with corre-
sponding lines after 11 h4, the vulner-
ability of the g-pawn costs White a
tempo, but he still has chances of
keeping an edge. After 15 Wxd8+
.i.xd8 (15 ...li)xd8 16 .i.e2 li)d5 17
:dl!? li)xf4 18 exf4 f6 19 .i.f3 ~f8 ;t
Agrest-Ambartsumian, Podolsk 1989)
16 h3lai5 17li)xd5 exd5 18lai6 .i.c7
19 .i.g2 .i.xd6 20 .i.xd6 .i.e6 White
had fractionally the better of the draw
in Malaniuk-Kharitonov, Simferopol
1989.
12...a6?!
It is surprising that Black has not
tried 12...dxc4 here. Speelman gives
13 :xd8+ Wxd8 14 .i.xc4 =, while 13
=
.txc4 .i.d7 leads to a quiet side-
variation of Line A4 above.
12....td7 13 ll)d2 a6 transposes;
Black must be careful not to let his
queen get snagged by li)b3.
Black has tried a number of moves
here, without challenging the verdict
that White is better.
1) 13 ....td7 14 .te2 :ac8 15 g5 ;t
(now that h5 is no longer available
for the knight) 15... li)e4 16 li)dxe4
dxe4 17 li)xe4 li)e5 18 :d4 .i.c6 19
:hdl li)g6, and after 20 :xd8+?!
:xd8 21 :xd8+ J.xd8 Black had ex-
cellent compensation for the pawn in
M.Gurevich-Kharitonov, USSR Ch
1988. Gurevich noted as better 20 .td6,
with the idea 20....i.xe4 21 Wxe4
J.xd6 22 :xd6 :xd6 23 :xd6 WeI +
24 .i.d 1 Wxf2 25 :xe6.
2) 13 ...e5? 14 g5! li)e8 (14 ...li)h5
15 .th2 ±; 14...li)e4 15lbb3 Wxc3 16
bxc3 .txa3+ 17 ~bl .tf5 18 ~a2!
.tb4 19 .txe5 ± Speelman) 15 lbb3
"b6 16li)xd5 :xd5 17 cxd5 ± Speel-
man-Short, London Ct (3) 1988. The
rest of the game is given in the intro-
ductory chapter.
3) 13 ... b5 14 cxd5li)xd5 15li)xd5
exd5 (15 ...:xd5 16 ~bl Wb6 17 .tg2
:c5 18 "d3;t {Nunn} is safer but in-
sufficient to equalize) 16 Wxc6 .tf5
17 li)b3! Wa4 18 gxf5 :ac8 19 .tc7
Wxb3 (19 ....td6? 20 ll)c5! - Nunn; if
then 20....txc5, 21 "xc5 :d7 22
'ifd4!) and now Nunn in his original
analysis cited in Informator gives 20
.tg2 '! ±'. This is not correct, since
20...:d6! is fully satisfactory for Black
after 21 Wc2 (certainly not 21 "b7?
Wc4+, nor 21 Wc5? :d7 22 .txd5
"xdl+) 21...Wxc2+ 22 ~xc2 :xc7+
 The New Main Line
with equality. However, 20 :d3! .a2
21 :c3 seems to preserve a substantial
advantage for White. Then 21...-*.f6
22 -*.xd8 :xc6 23 -*.xf6! is an attrac-
tive simplification, while 21.. .•al+
22 ~c2 -*.f6 (22 ...•el 23 -*.xd8!) 23
-*.g2"a2 24 -*.xd8! :xc6 2S ~xf6,
Nunn, wins in similar fashion.
4) 13 ...•b6 14 -*.g2 d4 IS lOa4
'fIa7 16 ~xc6 bxc617 exd4 .xd4 18
-*.e3.d3 19 .xd3 :xd3 20 gSlOe8
21 ~c2 :d8 221Ob3 eS 2310aS -*.fS+
24 ~c3 ± E. Vladimirov-Campora,
Moscow 1989.
3.4 10...i.e7: White's
11th move alternatives
5 -*.f4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 ~xcS 8
1Oc69 a3 .a510 0-0-0 ~e7 (D)
.c2
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 31Oc31Of6 4 00 -*.e7
11 lOd2 and the prophylactic 11 ~bl
have occasionally been tried in grand-
master play, and indeed were to be-
come, for some obscure reason,
relatively fashionable in 1997. White
is at best aiming for a slight edge.
The first three of our lines are
strictly minor alternatives:
73
A: 11lOb5?
B: 11 adS
73
73
c: 11~g5 73
D: 11lOd2 74
E: 11 ~bl 7S
A)
11 lOb5? is pointless, and just
makes it easier for Black to open the
c-file: ll...dxc412-*.xc4~d713~c7
b614:xd71Oxd71S.e4a616.xc6
axbS 17 .xd7 -*.xa3 18 .xbS :fc8
19 bxa3 :xc7 20 ~b1 .xa3 21 :c1
:ac8 22lOd2 .d6 23 lOb3 :xc4 0-1
Deak-Bauer, Hungary 1993. Or, with
fewer complications, 11...~d7 12 ~c7
b6 13 lOd6 (13 b4?! -*.xb4 14 axb4
lOxb4 followed by ...~xbS, etc.)
13 ... -*.xd6 14 ~xd6 l:tfcS IslOd2 bS
16 cS b4 + Vescovi-Arlandi, Catania
1995. White is wasting too much time.
B)
11 cxd5 lOxdS 12 lOxdS exdS 13
-*.d3 would be a good idea if it weren't
for the placement of the white king!
N.Saleh-I.Seitaj, Thessaloniki OL
1998 continued 13 ... h6 14 lOeS ~e6
IslOxc6 bxc6 16 ~eS cS 17 g4 d4 IS
.i.c4.i.xc4 19 'ii'xc4 :re8 =t. But Black
can do better still with 13 ...~e6! fol-
lowed by quickly playing a rook to cS,
when White is in difficulties, for ex-
ample 14 -*.xh7+ ~hS IS -*.d3 l:tacS
(ls ...lOd4? 16 -*.c7!) 16 .d2 lOeS+
17 -*.c2 (17 'ittbl 'ii'xd2 IS l:txd2
lOxd3 19 l:txd3 .i.fS) 17 ....i.fS! IS
'ii'xaS l:txc2+ 19 ~b1 l:tcS+ and Black
wins.
C)
11.i.g5 :d8 12 -*.d3 dxc4 13 .i.xc4
.i.d7 14 ~b1 kS =Kveinys-Klovans,
74 The Queen' s Gambit Declined: 5 ~4!
Groningen 1991, is too slow to cause
Black problems.
Back now to the more serious varia-
tions.
0)
1l~2(D)
By analogy with the 10 l:1dl line.
1l... eS
Preserving the analogy.
I) 11...dxc4? forces Black's queen
into adrenaline-sapping exertion: 12
lbxc4111cs 13 b4 1IIh514.i.e2 1IIg61S
.i.d3111hS 16 h3lbdS 17 g4111h4 18
.i.g3 'iWh6 19 J.e4 ± Avrukh-Gild.Gar-
cia, Linares 1997.
2) 11 ....td7 is a little inflexible. As
we shall see later (section 3.6 below),
Black often prefers to retreat his
bishop to f8 rather than to e7 in the
1O....td7 line.
2a) White tried too hard in Agrest-
G.Ginsburg, Pinsk 1993: 12lbb3 1IIb6
13 e4?! eS 14 cS .d8 IS exdS exf4 16
dxc6 bxc6. All he had succeeded in
doing was in giving Black the bishop-
pair in an open position.
2b) R.Kempinski-Lutz, Groningen
1996 continued 12 g4 :fc8 13 .te2!
(White's timing was less successful in
G.Georgadze-Vaganian, Pula Echt
1997: 13 gS lbhS 14 lbb3 .b6 IS
cxdS lbxf4 16 exf4 lbaS 17 lbxaS
WxaS 18 :d3 .td619 .th3 .txf4+ 20
~bl .txgS 21 'iWe2 'iWa6 =1=) 13 ...eS 14
gSlbe8 IS .td3 d4 16lbb3 Wd8 17
exd4±.
3) 11. .. a6 is discussed, under
1O... a611 ~2 .te7, in section 3.7 be-
low. White is doing well.
4) 11 ... Wb6 !? is the latest try, this
time by analogy with II ~bl a6 12
~2 111b6. Line E below:
4a) 12 lbb3 lbaS 13 lbxaS .xaS
14 e4 (14 cxdS exdS =) 14... dxe4 IS
lbxe4lbxe4 16 1IIxe4 .i.xa3 17 bxa3
Wc3+ 18 Wc2 Wa1+ 19 1IIbl (not 19
~d2?? 'iWd4+) 19 ....c3+ 20 .c2
1/2- 1/2 Gabriel-Lutz, Bad Homburg
1997.
4b) 12 .td3 d4 13 cS WxcS 14
lbb3 Wb6 IS exd4 ~aS (IS ... .td7!?)
16 ~S .txcS 17 dxcS ~b3+ 18 ~bl
lbxcs 19 .teS (19 .te3!? .c6 20 .tbS
Wc7 21 lbdS ~xd5 22 1IIxcS with
good compensation for the pawn; there
are probably other reasonable tries)
19... clDxd3 20 :xd3 lbg4 21 .txg7
~xg7 22 :g3 eS 23 h3 1IIg6 24 hxg4
.te6 2S .xg6+ hxg6 26 :tel 1/2- 1/2
Hebert-Fahrbach, corr. Internet 1997.
12.tg3
12 .tgS!? d4 13 ~b3 Wb6 14 exd4
~xd4 IS ~xd4 exd4 16 .txf6 .txf6
17lbdS Wd8 is a formation more com-
monly seen after 10 :tdl:
I) 18 .td3 should be met not by
18....tgS+? 19 ~bl ~h8 20 f4 .tf6 21
:hel ± Osterman-Krudde, Dieren
1990, but by 18 ... ~h8 =.
2) 18 Wd2!? .tg4 19 J.e2 (19 f3??
loses the exchange to 19 ....tgS; 19
 The New Main Line
lLlxf6+ "xf6 20 f3 is probably critical
- White wins a pawn, but Black is well
ahead in development) 19 ... .1xe2 20
"xe2 l:r.c8 21 ~bl g6 22 l:r.hel ~h8
23 "d3 .1g7 =Lima-Pelikian, Brasi-
lia 1997.
12•••d4
12 ... dxc4?! 13lLlxc4 "c7 14 ~b5
'it'b8 15 lLld4 ± Ftaenik.
13lLlb3 'irb6
After 13 .....d8, Fta~nik gives both
14 exd4lLlxd4 15lLlxd4 exd4 16lLlb5
.1d7 17lLlxd4 l:r.c8 and 14lLle2 g6 15
exd4 .1f5 16 "c3 lLle4 17 "e3 as
leading to a slight edge for White.
The text-move looks more natural.
14 cS 1Fd8
Fta~nik points out that the extrava-
gant-looking 14....1f5 is also possible.
15 e4 and now:
1) 15....1xc516lLla4.1xe417.1d3
.1xd3 followed by ..."c7 with com-
pensation for the piece. Even so, 18
'irxd3 'irc7 19 lLlaxc5 l:r.fc8, desig-
nated as unclear by Fta~nik, looks
good for White after the simple 20 ~bl.
White then has excellent chances of
keeping Black's extra central pawns
blockaded, enabling him to use his ex-
tra piece effectively.
2) The even more extravagant
15 ... lLlxe4?! is best met by 16lLlxe4!
.1xe4 17 cxb6 .1xc2 18 ~xc2 ±. In-
stead 16 cxb6?! lLlxg3 17 .1d3 .1xd3
18 .xd3 lLlxhl 19 l:r.xhl dxc3, as-
sessed as ± by Fta~nik, seems thor-
oughly unclear.
15 exd4 lOxd4
After 15 ...exd4 16 lLlb5 .1d7, 17
lLl3xd4 lLlxd4 18 l:r.xd4 transposes,
while Fta~nik also gives a massive tac-
tical liquidation into a level ending: 17
lLl5xd4 lLlxd4 18 l:r.xd4 l:r.c8 19 .1b5
75
"e8 20l:r.xd7lLlxd7 21 l:r.dllLlxc5! 22
.1xe8 lLlxb3+ 23 ~bl l:r.xc2 24 ~xc2
l:r.xe8 25 ~xb3.
16 lLlxd4 exd4 17 lLlbS .1d7 18
l:r.xd4
18 lLlxd4 .1xc5; 18 b4 .1xb5 19
.1xb5 a5 - Fta~nik
18....aS!
Improving on the somewhat me-
chanicaI18 ...l:r.c8?! 19lLld6 .1xd6 20
.txd6 l:r.e8 21 .1c4 b6 22 b4 ± Fta~­
nik-Klovans, Erfurt 1993 .
After the text-move, 19 b4?! "a6
gets White nowhere in view of the
weakness of the a-pawn. Other lines
lead to equality, for example 19 .1d6
.txb5 20 .1xe7 "el+ 21 l:r.dl "xe7
22 .1xb5 l:r.ac8 or 19lLlci6 b6! 20 lLlb7
.el+ 21 l:r.dl "e6 22 .tc4 .c6 23
.td6 .1xd6 24lLlxd6 "xe5.
E)
11 ~bl (D)
B
Though fairly safe, this is a bit too
slow to promise much.
11•••a6
1) 11.. ..td7?! seems a little awk-
ward when White's king has already
left the c-file, and vigorous play with
12 g4 or 12 h4 would be promising.
76 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
White played too slowly with 12 h3?!
in Eslon-A.Hoffman. Javea 1992. and
after 12...lIfcS 13 g4 bS 14 cxbSlDds
IS lDd2 a6 Black already held the ini-
tiative.
2) H ... lIdS!? 12 lDd2 dxc4 13
.ixc4 (13ll)xc4l1xdl+ 14 Wxdl WdS
=) 13 ...WfS 14lDde4ll)xe4 IS lIxdS+
.lxdS 16 ll)xe4 eS 17 .ig3 Wg6 IS
=
.id3 'i!i'h6 19 lIdl .ie7 Van Wely-
Jinrong Liang, Beijing 1997. A com-
mendably straightforward way of tak-
ing advantage of the lack of pace of 11
~b1.
12 ll)d2 'ikb6
12 ... bS 13ll)b3 Wb6 14 cxdS exdS
IS .igS .ie6 16 .ixf6 .ixf6 17ll)xdS
.ixdS IS lIxdS lIac8 gives Black good
attacking chances in return for the
pawn, Van Wely-Khuzman, Amster-
dam 1995. Sometimes the best way of
'defending' an isolated pawn is to sac-
rifice it.
13 ll)b3 ll)aS 14 ll)xaS "'xaS IS
exdS exdS 16 .ieS .ie6 17 .id3 lIae8
18"'d2~h8!
At first it is difficult to see what this
move is aiming at, but the Van Wely-
Pigusov game will clarify matters.
Black envisages a defensive formation
with ... lDd7, .. .f6 and ....igS, and with
the kingside thus secured it will be
possible to try for something on the
queenside.
The less subtle 18 ... lLld7 19 .id4
ll)bS allows White to pressurize the
isolated d-pawn: 20 ll)e2 Wxd2 21
lIxd2 ll)c6 22 .ic3 lIfd8 23 lIhd I bS
24 ll)f4 .igS 2S .ic2 ;t Van Wely-Van
der Sterren, Antwerp 1997.
19f3
Black's pieces are much better
placed to work with the isolani after
19l1)e4 Wxd2 20 ll)xd2ll)d7 21 .if4
f6 22 ll)f3 ll)cs = Gelfand-Short,
Novgorod 1996.
19•••ll)d7 20 .id4 f6 21 "e2 .ig8
22 .ifS lIe7 23 'iVctlDeS 24 b4
Otherwise Black is clearly better.
Now after 24 ... .ixb4 2S axb4 Wxb4+
26 Wb2 We7 27 ll)a2 as 28 ~a11Dc4
29 WbSll)d6 30 Wbl bS Black had ex-
cellent compensation for the sacri-
ficed piece in Van Wely-Pigusov,
Beijing 1997. The recent theoretical
battle with 11 ~bl has not gone in
White's favour.
Concluding our survey of 10....ie7,
the recommendation for White is defi-
nitely H h4!, which, in conjunction
with some of the innovations sug-
gested in the text, promises a clear ad-
vantage for White. The older move II
g4 leads to equally complicated posi-
tions, with long forcing lines, but
Black emerges with a satisfactory po-
sition. Of the quieter moves, II ~bl is
only equal, while 11 ll)d2 might per-
haps offer the chance for a small edge.
3.5 10... dxc4 11 ..txc4
without 11 ....*.e7
1 d4 dS 2 e4 e6 3ll)c3ll)f6 4ll)f3 .ie7
S .if4 0-0 6 e3 eS 7 dxeS .ixcS 8 "'e2
lLle6 9 a3 "'as 100·0·0 dxe4 11 .txc4
(D)
Taken next as a matter of conven-
ience, since 11.. ..te7 transposes to
lines we have just looked at, after 12
h4! or 12 g4.
11•••a6
Again with transpositional possi-
bilities.
 The New Main Une
11...l:ldS 12 ~2 i.e7 13 lLlb3
l:lxdl+ 14l:lxdl Wh51Sf3lLla5 ought
to be good for White, but he lost the
thread, and later the game, in Blees-
Pliester, Dutch Ch 1990, after 16 g4?!
lLlxb3+ 17 i.xb3 WcS GO. Instead, 16
lLlxaS Wxa5 17 e4 gives White a men-
acing lead in development.
12lLlgS!
Aiming for yet another transposi-
tion to the lO...i.e7line. Instead:
I) 12 g4 and then:
la) 12...i.e7 13 gSlLlh5, etc., leads
back to lines already considered under
lO...J.e7 11 g4 dxc4 12 i.xc4 a6 (sec-
tion 3.3, Line AS).
Ib) 12 ... eS?! 13 J.gS! is strong for
White, since 13 ... ~xg4 is met by 14
h3 ±. Instead, Azmaiparashvili-A.Dav-
idovic, Sydney 1990 finished 13 ...lLld7
14lLle4 i.e7 IS i.xe7 ~xe7 16lLlfgS
lLlg6 17 ~6 1-0, illustrating perfectly
the dangers of a mistimed ... eS.
lc) Black offered a pawn race and
lost in Yepez-Pau, Catalonia 1996:
12... bS 13 J.d3 b4 14 gS bxc3 IS gxf6
cxb2+ 16 <i>bl Wxa3 17 i.xh7+ <i>hS
and it was White's attack that pre-
vailed.
2) 12 J.d3 J.e7 13 g4 is another
transposition to the lO...J.e7 line (3.3,
77
Line AS, 13 J.d3). Black's position
seems, on the limited evidence so far,
to be satisfactory.
12.••i.e7
12... bS?? 13lLlce4 +- Ruban.
13h4
13 J.d3 worked well for White in
the game Alterman-Jinrong Liang,
Beijing 1997: 13 ... g6?! 14 h4lLleS IS
hS (tempting, but having provoked
... g6, White might want to spend a
move preserving the bishop with IS
J.e2!?) Is ... lLlxd3+ 16 l:lxd3 eS 17
lLlxh7! exf4 IS lLlxfS J.xfS 19 hxg6
fxg6 20 l:ldS Wc7 (20...lLlxdS 21
Wxg6+ i.g7 22 WeS+ i.fS and now
23 l:lh5!, as pointed out by Burgess, is
an elegant way to conclude the attack)
21 l:lgS J.g7 22 Wxg6 Wf7? (22.....e7
offers longer resistance) 23 l:lhS+ 1-0.
However, Black has no need to set up
the target on g6; 13 ...h6 14 h4 lLleS
should be OK for Black, as White's
queen and bishop are the wrong way
round on the bl-h7 diagonal.
13•••h6
Again Black cannot get on with his
queenside attack: 13 ... bS 14 ~ce4 g6
IS i.b3 ± Ruban.
14 J.a2!
We have now transposed back to
the 10...J.e7 11 h4 dxc4 12 J.xc4 a6
13lLlgS h6 variation (3.2, Line A23),
so let us be consistent and recommend
the same move. White stands well.
3.610....id7
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3lLlc3ll)f6 4 W i.e7
"as
S J.f4 0-06 e3 cS 7 dxcS .i.xcS 8
lLlc6 9 a3 10 0-0-0 J.d7 (D)
"c2
A straightforward developing move,
which allows Black to place his king's
78 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 J..f4!
rook on c8, which in tum vacates f8
for the bishop, where it is better placed
defensively than on e7. Black contem-
plates defending on the kingside with
minor pieces (... R.f8, ... R.e8, ... iLle7)
and attacking on the queenside with
pawns and major pieces. The one real
drawback to this plan is that Black is
voluntarily placing himself under
pressure on the d-file; maybe White
can make this work in his favour.
White has several options here; we
consider:
A: 11 g4 78
B: 11 ~b1! 81
C: 11 adS 83
D: 11 R.gS 84
E: lliLld2! 8S
F: 11 h4!? 8S
A)
11 g4 (D)
This was played many times in the
late 1980s and early 1990s, before
White seriously questioned whether
the g4 push was really achieving any-
thing. Since the threat of gS and taking
on dS is easily met by placing a rook
on the c-file, other plans are now pre-
ferred, of which 11 ~bl is probably
White's best choice.
11...:Cc8
11...dxc4!? may also be consid-
ered:
1) If 12 R.xc4, then not 12 ...l:.fd8?!
13iLld2iLle7 14iLlb3""6 IS gSiLlfdS
16 iLlxdS iLlxdS 17 iLlxcs 'ii'xcs 18
R.d3 ;!; Gulko-Portisch, Reggio Emilia
1990/1, but rather 12 ... l:.fc8! (Gulko).
Black is doing well;:for White to win
the pawn by 13 gSiLldS would be fool-
hardy.
2) After 12 iLld2 bS, 13 iLlde4 b4
14iLlxf6+ gxf6 ISiLle4 R.e7 16 l:.xd7
bxa3 17 bxa3 l:.ad8 leads to complica-
tions that tum out well for Black
(Gulko), but 13lLlce4!? is worth a shot.
e.g. 13 ... R.e7 14iLlxf6+ R.xf61SiLle4.
White is much better after 13 ... R.xa3
14 iLlxf6+ gxf6 IS bxa3 "xa3+ 16
'ii'b2 'ii'xb2+ 17 ~xb2, since 17 ... eS is
met by 18 iLle4.
12~bl
1) 12 h3?! is too slow. Timman-
Ivanchuk, Hilversum (1) 1993 showed
to good effect Black's regrouping plan
after 12 ... R.e8 13 iLld2 R.f8 14 R.e2
iLle7 IS h4?! (after IS gS iLld7 16 h4
bS Ivanchuk cited 17 iLlb3 "d8 18
cxbS iLlb6, with Black having good at-
tacking chances as he uncoils; he also
gave 17 cxbS l:.xc3!? 18 bxc3iLlg6 - it
 The New Main Line
used to be Petrosian who had the repu-
tation of preparing for a decisive at-
tack against the king by retreating
everything to the back rank!) IS ... bS
16 gS li)e4! and the white king soon
came under serious attack.
2) 12 h4?! looks ferocious, but
White's attack failed to connect after
12 ... bS 13 cxbSl:iJe7 14 ~bl (14 gS?
J..xa3 IS gxf6? lhc3) 14... J..xa3 IS
'ii'a4 J..b4 16 'ifxaS J..xaS 17 J..d6
J..xc3! 18 J..xe7 (18 bxc3 li)e4 19
J..xe7li)xc3+ 20 ~c2li)e4+ 21 ~b2
li)xf2 followed by ... li)xhl and ...l:ab8
+) 18 ... li)xg4 19 bxc3 li)xf2 + in
Shabalov-Tisdall, Oslo Cup 1991.
3) 12lt)d2 has also been tried, but
it is not clear that the knight should
abandon the kingside. 12 ....tf8 13
lLlb3 'irb6 14 gS lLlhS IS .tg3 g6 16
J..e2li)aS 17li)xaS 'irxaS 18 e4 d4 19
l:xd4 'irxgS+!1= S.Farago-R.Stem, Bu-
dapest 1991.
After the text-move, play branches
into:
AI: 12••. J..f8 79
A2: 12... bS!? 80
A3: 12•••dxc4!? 81
A1)
12.••.tfS (D)
79
13gS
13li)gS is also promising, although
again it raises the question of why
White ever played g4.
I) 13 ...1:iJe714h4g6IShSJ..g716
.td6 'ird8 (16...lt)c6 17 hxg6 hxg618
cxdS exdS 19 J..d3 ± Khalifman) 17
hxg6 hxg6 18 .teSlt)c6 19 J..xf6 'irxf6
20 f4 li)aS, and instead of the miscal-
culated 21li)ce4?? 'ire7 22 l:h7 dxe4
23 'irh2 f6 -+, Khalifman-Ki.Geor-
giev, Manila IZ 1990, White could
have played 21 cxdS .ta4 22 'irxa4
l:xc3 23 'ird4!; (Khalifman).
2) 13 ... g614h4.tg7IShSJ..e816
hxg6 hxg6 17 0, and now:
2a) Black should try 17 ...eS 18
J..g3 d4 19 exd4 li)xd4 20 'iWh2 .tc6
21.txeSli)xf3 22li)xf3 .txO 23 ~
.txdS 24 cxdS ;1;, or maybe ±.
2b) The game Vera-Gild.Garcia,
Matanzas 1992, finished spectacularly
after 17 ... bS? (too late) 18 cxbSl:iJe7
19 J..eS d4 20 .txd4lt)edS 21li)xdS!
l:xc2 22lLlxf6+ ~f8 23 li)gh7+ ~e7
24 J..cS+ 1-0, in view of 24 ...l:xcS 2S
li)g8#. A checkmating position to
dream of.
2c) 17...dxc4?! is a more recent try,
but probably no improvement. S.Ped-
ersen-Parker, London 1997 (reached
via II h4; see line F below) continued
18 'irh2 eS 19 J..g3 l:d8, with unclear
complications after 20 l:c 1 WcS 21
li)ce4lLlxe4 22 ~e4 'irxe3. However,
Black's kingside would have been
highly vulnerable after 20 l:xd8! fol-
lowed by .txc4.
13•••li)h5 14 .tg3lt)e7
14... g6 prepares an imaginative
piece sacrifice:
1) IS cxdS .tg7 16 dxc6 .i.xc6 17
J..e2 .i.xc3 18 bxc3 li)xg3 19 hxg3
80 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 j"f4!
.i.a4 20 'iWb2 and now in Dinstuhl-
Lengyel, Budapest 1994 Black played
20....i.xdl? 21 .i.xdl :xc3 22 lDd2
l:acs 23 lDe4! l:cl + 24 Wa2 ±. Better
would have been 20...:xc3 21 lDd2
(21 :d3 .i.c2+ 22 'iWxc2 :xc2 23
Wxc2 :cS+ +) 21.. ..i.c2+! 22 Wa2
.i.xdl 23 :xdl (23 .i.xdl 'iWdS+!, ex-
plaining why Black wanted to force
the king to a2) 23 ...:acS 24 lDc4
:3xc4 2S .i.xc4 :xc4 26 'ilxb7 =, but
not 26 'iff6?! :c8 27 :d7 :c2+ 2S
Wbl'iWbS++.
2) However, White does not have
to accept the bait. IS .i.h3! ± places
the black centre under enormous pres-
sure, since on IS ...lDe716 cxdslDxdS
there follows 17 :xdS!.
15 .i.e2 .i.e8 16 .i.d6
16 It)eS f6 17 gxf6 gxf6 IS lDf3
.i.g6 (IS ...dxc4 19lDd4 .i.g6 20 e4 eS
21 lDfS lDxfS 22 exfS .i.f7 23 :d7
with an attack - Beliavsky) 19 e4 Gel-
fand-Beliavsky, Linares 1990, and now
19... fS! looks good for Black. White
inverted moves IS and 16 in this game.
16 lDd4 lDxg3 17 hxg3 g6 18 :h4 00
(Georgadze and AzmaiparashviIi).
16•••g6
16...dxc4 17lDeS g6 18 .i.xhS gxbS
19 lDe4 lDg6 20 lDf6+ WhS 21lDxeS!
lDxeS 22 .i.xeS+ 'iWxeS 23lDf6 'iWfS 24
'fi'xfS exfS 2S l:d7 gives White a clear
advantage.
17lDeS "d8
17 ...lt)g7 18lDg4 ±.
18 .i.xe7 "xe7 19 cxdS
19 .i.xh5? 'iWxg5.
19...exdS 20 f4 ± G.Georgadze-
Sturua, TbiIisi 1981 (notes from move
16 by Georgadze and Azmaiparash-
viIi). Here Black's defensive structure
proved too passive.
A2)
12...bS!? (D)
Enthusiastically awarded a double
exclamation mark by Mikhalchishin
in Informator 51, but we make a more
modest assessment here. The kingside
barricades can wait until White has
started attacking there; meanwhile
there is work to be done on the queen-
side.
13 cxbS!
1) 13 cxdS b4! 14 lDa4 (14 dxc6
.i.xc6 IS axb4 .i.xb4 16 .i.e2 .i.xc3 17
bxc3 .i.e4 -+ Ftacnik) 14... .i.f8 15
dxc6 .i.xc6 -+ Mikhalchishin.
2) 13 lDxb5 is well met by either
13 ... lDe7 + Ftaenik, or 13 ... a6 141Dc3
.i.xa3 IS bxa3 'iWxa3 16 "b2 :ab8 17
.i.xb8 :xb8 18 lDb5 'iWaS + Mikhal-
chishin.
3) 13 g5 It)bs 14 cxb5 lDxf4 15
exf4 (IS 'iWa4 d4!; 15 bxc6 .i.xc6 16
exf4 d4 17 lDe4 .i.xa3) 15 ...lDe7 16
lDe5 .i.e8 + Mikhalchishin.
13•••lDe7 14 .i.e5
1) 14 lDd2 'iWd8 (14 ....i.xa3?? 15
lDb3) IslDb3 (15 gSlDhS followed by
...lDg6) 15 ...lDe4! 16lDxc5 (16lDxe4
.i.xe3 +; 16 .i.e5 .i.d6! 17 .i.xd6lDxd6
~ Mikhalchishin) 16...:xcS 17 .i.e5
 The New Main Line
~xc3+ 18 j,xc3 j,xbS ; Gelfand-
Beliavsky, Linares 1991. Black has re-
gained his pawn, and has achieved
more on the queenside than White has
on the kingside.
2) 14 Wd2 j,xa3 15 ~xdS "a4 16
~xf6+ gxf617 ~d4 j,b4 18 b3"aS
19 "a2 "xa2+ 20 ~xa2 eS + Vera-
Gild.Garcia, Matanzas 1994.
3) 14 :cl, Mikhalchishin, awaits
exploration.
14...~xg4 15 j,xg7 ~e3?!
Following IS ...~xg7 16 :gl, 16.. .fS
17 h3 hS 18 hxg4 hxg4 19 ~S j,e8
20 ~xg4!? gives White a promising
attack according to Kishnev. However,
this is far from exhaustive, and Black
may well be able to seek improve-
ments, for example 16 ...hS 17 h3 a6!?
18 hxg4 h4, when Black's counter-
attacking possibilities should not be
dismissed lightly.
16fxe3~xg7
Pawns are now level, and Black's
king is exposed. However, Black's
bishop-pair and much the better pawn
structure give him hope. Now, Kish-
nev-Barsov, Zwolle 1993 continued
17 h4j,xe3 18 :d3 (18 "g2+~fSI9
~gS CD Kishnev) 18 .....b6 19 "g2+
'ifi!fS 20 ~S?! (20 ~gS is better -
Kishnev) 20 ... j,e8 21 ~g4 :xc3! 22
':xc3 j,d4 ;. The exchange sacrifice
kills off White's attack, and leaves
Black the chance to make something
of his bishop-pair and three connected
passed pawns. White can improve
upon this though.
17e4!
Not mentioned by Kishnev, this
breaks up Black's pawn centre, mak-
ing it easier for White to use the cen-
tral squares as staging posts for the
81
kingside attack. After, for example,
17... j,xa3 18 exdS ~xdS? (18 ... exdS
±) 19 .g2+ WfS (19...~h8?? 20 :gl
~xc3+ 21 bxc3 +-) 20 ~xdS exdS
21 ~gS both kings are exposed, but
White's attack is faster.
White is better here, but earlier on
IS ...~xg7 seems fine for Black.
A3)
12.••dxc4!? 13 lOcl2 liJe7
13 ... bS may be compared with the
position reached after 11. .. dxc4 12
lbd2 bS; the inserted ~bl and ...:fc8
slightly surprisingly help White. Thus
14 ~e4 b4 IS ~xf6+ gxf6 16 :xd7
bxc3 17 j,xc4;t cxb2? 18 :xf7.
14~xc4.d8
Black's play might give a slightly
passive impression, but his position is
resilient, and he will soon be able to
get moving on the queenside. Khalif-
man-Kotronias, Sochi 1989 continued
15 e4 ~g6 16 j,g3 .e7 17 h4 hS 18
gS~81geS.i.c620:g1 bS21lM6,
and now 21.. ..i.xd6 22 exd6 "b7!?
might be worth considering.
B)
11 ~bl! (D)
B
82 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i,.f4!
It is questionable whether White
actually achieves anything after an
early g4, while ~bl, to remove the
king from the perilous c-file, is usually
necessary sooner or later. It is more
flexible to play it immediately, and
then play according to Black's reply.
1l...dxc4
1) 11...l:tfc812cxdS ~713~S!
lDexdS (13 ... exdS 14lDxd7lDxd7 IS
'iVa4 ± Akopian-Gild.Garcia, New
York 1994) 14lDxd7lDxd7 IslDxdS
exdS 16 .b3 a6 17 .ie2lDb6 18 l:td3
.ie7 19 .ieS ':'c6 20 .io .if6 21
.ixf6 ':'xf6 22 l:thdl g6 23 1!fc3,
Delemarre-Van der Sterren, Antwerp
1995, and the draw agreement had
more to do with the 300-point rating
difference between the players than
with the position, which clearly favours
White.
2) 11.. ..ie7 screams out for a hack
attack with 12 lDgS, one point being
that tactics based on l:txd7 make it
very difficult for Black to capture with
his d-pawn. After 12 ...h6 13 h4, White
is clearly better. Another possibility is
12 g4 dxc4 (12...eS?! leaves Black with
an inferior version of the to....ie7 11
g4 line, for example 13 gS .ig4 14
.ie2 lDe4 IS lDxe4 dxe4 16 lDxeS
.ixe2 17 "xe2 l:tfd8 {17 ... lDxeS? 18
l:tdS} 18 lDxc6 bxc6 19 h4 "fS, with
White a clear pawn up, but facing con-
siderable technical difficulties, Kallai-
Borocz, Budapest 1995) 13 .ixc4
l:tfd8 14 gS lDh5 IS .id6 .ie8 16
.ixe7 lDxe7 17 .id3 g6 18 .ie4 ~
Beliavsky-Stohl, Bled 1996.
12 .ixc4 .ie'
12...l:tfc8 13 ~4! lDxe4 14 l:txd7
±Akopian.
13lDgS l:tfd8 14 h4
14lDds exdS IS l:txdS "b6 16 l:tbS
lDd4 17 l:txb6lDxc2 18 l:txb7 .ifS 19
~a2 ~f8 00 Akopian. However, the
alert reader will have noted that the
positions reached are the same as in
Korotylev-Kharitonov, Moscow 1996
(section 3.2, Line A31), except that h4
and ... h6 have been omitted. By anal-
ogy, this would suggest for White 16
~xf7 (instead of 16 l:tbS) 16... lDxdS
(16...~f8 17 l:tbslDd4 18 l:txb6lDxc2
19 lDxd8! axb6 20 lDe6+ .ixe6 21
.ixe6 ±) 17 .ixdS ~f8. Now 18 ~gS,
as analysed in the Korotylev-Kharito-
nov game, is harmless with no pawn on
h4 to back up the knight. Similarly, 18
"xh7 .ifS+!, Burgess, favours Black.
There is a third way, 18 lDd6!?, but
even here Black can defend: 18....if6!
(18 ....ifS? 19 "xfS+ .if6 is less accu-
rate due to 20 b3! +-) 19lDc4 'iVbs 20
l:tdl .ig4 and the attack collapses.
So probably 14lDds has to be aban-
doned, although there may still be
room to look for new ideas - maybe 18
l:tdl!?
14•••lDeS!
14...l:tac8? ISlDce4lDxe4 16.xe4
g6 17 l:txd7 l:txd7 18 .ixe6! +- Akop-
ian .
14... h6 directly transposes to the
Korotylev-Kharitonov game.
IS.ixeS!
Black has covered all the tactics on
dS. Akopian notes ISlDdS? exdS 16
.ixeS (16 l:txdS? .ia4) 16...dxc4 17
.ixf6 .ifS 18 e4 l:txdl+ 19 l:txdl
gxf6. Also, IS ~ce4? lDxc4 16lDxf6+
.ixf6.
15.•.•xeS 16 f4!
This pawn sacrifice is necessary to
maintain the initiative. Again the im-
mediate tactics don't work: 16lDd5?
 The New Main Line
exd5 17 ':'xd5 'fIc7 IS lDxf7 b5! 19
lDxdS 'fIxc4 -+ (Akopian).
16.....CS!
The sacrifice is best declined. Black
got poleaxed in Akopian-Gild.Garcia,
Philadelphia 1994, after 16 ...'ii'xe3?!
17 f5 ':'acS IS ':'hel 'fIg3 19 fxe6
':'xc4 20 exf7+ ~fS 21 'fIe2 +-.
17.i.b3(D)
As recommended by Akopian, who
notes that after 17 lDce4 lDxe4 IS
'ifxe4 .i.xg5 19 hxg5 g6 20 ':'c I 'fIf5!
Black is holding comfortably.
17.••.i.e8!
17 ...h6 IS e4 hxg5 19 hxg5 and
now:
I) 19...lDeS 20 e5 g6 21 ':'xd7
':'xd7 22 .i.xe6 fxe6 23 'fIxg6+ lDg7
24 'fIh7+ ~f7 25 g6+ ~eS 26 'fIxg7
.i.fS 27 'fIf6 'fIc4 2S ':'hS 'fin + 29
~c2, and White's king soon escapes
the checks, leaving Black in a desper-
ate position. Akopian gives 19 ... lDeS
as the "only move"; as we shall see,
there are alternatives, but nothing ef-
fective.
2) 19... g6 20 e5! (20 gxf6 .i.xf6 00)
20... lDh7 21 ':'xd7 l:r.xd7 22.i.xe6lDfS
23 .i.xd7lDxd7 24 'fId3!!. The sting in
the tail of the combination; the threat
83
of'flh3 gives Black no time to save his
knight.
3) 19 ...lDh7 20 ':'xh7 ~xh7 21
':'hl+ ~gS (21...~g6 22 e5+ f5 23
exf6+ 'fIf5 {23 ...~f7 24 g6+J 24 g4!
'fIxc2+ 25 .i.xc2+ ~f7 26 g6+ ~f6 27
g5#) 22 e5 g6 23 "d3! ~fS (23 ....i.fS
24 lDe4 +-) 24 'fIh3 ~eS 25 lDe4
'iVb6 26 'fIhS+.i.fS 27&Dd6+ 'fIxd6
2S exd6 and White wins, e.g. 2S ....i.c6
29 'figS ':'xd6 30 ':'hS ~e7 31 ':'h7
with a decisive advantage.
18 e4 eS 19 ':'dO!
Akopian suggests 19 g3 with a
slight edge, but a resolute exchanging
policy should keep Black in the game,
for example 19...':'xdl+20':'xdl ':'dS
21 ':'xdS .i.xdS 22 'fId3 'fId4 23 'fIxd4
exd4 24 &Dd5 h6 25 lDxf6+ .i.xf6 26
lDf3 .i.c6 27 .i.d5 .i.xd5 2S exd5 ~fS
=. Black's bishop-pair provides good
insurance for an endgame.
With 19 ':'dn!, White argues that
his pressure is greatest if he can keep
pieces on, and that it does not matter if
the d-file is ceded, so long as White
can build up pressure elsewhere.
White's plan is to roll up the centre
with fxe5, ':'f5 and e5, and it is diffi-
cult to see how Black defends, since
19... h6 is met simply by 20 fxe5.
Given that the tactics with 14lDd5
do not quite work out, Akopian's 14
h4 seems critical.
C,
11 adS (D)
This is a standard plan against
....i.d7 in positions where White has
not castled queenside, but the exposed
position of the white king makes it
more hazardous here.
11•••lDxdS 12lDgS?!
84 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i..f4!
B
12 ~xd5 exd5 13 ~bl might still
leave White better.
12•••g6 13 ~ge4
Lputian gives 13 h4?! :ac8, when
Black's attack is favourite to come in
fIrst.
13•••.i.e7
Piketdescribes 13 ... ~xc3 14.xc3
.xc3+ 15 ~xc3 e5 as unclear, but the
chances must be with White after 16
:Xd7 exf4 17 ~4.
14.i.c4
14 ~xd5?! exd5 15 ~c3 .i.f5 16
.a4:acS~; 14~bl :fdSaoLputian.
14•••~b6!
14...~xf4? 15 :xd7 ~xg2 16.i.b5
± Piket-Timman, Amsterdam 1995.
14...~c315.xc3 'ii'xc3+ 16~c3
e5 17 .i.h6 :fdS IS ~ ;I;; Piket.
IS.i.b3
15 .i.c?? ~5 16 .i.b3 :fcS 17 .i.d6
(17 .i.xb6 axb6 IS f4 .i.c6 19 fxe5
.i.xe4 20 .xe4 .i.xa3 wins for Black,
Lputian) 17....i.xd6 IS ~xd6 ~a4! =1=
Azmaiparashvili-Lputian, USSR 1991.
White's bishop excursion used up too
much time.
IS •••~
This position is assessed as unclear
by Lputian, but if I were White, I
would be deeply worried about the
gathering of Black's pieces in front of
the king.
0)
ll.i.gS (D)
The most direct attempt to win the
battle of the d-file, but it uses up a
tempo which might otherwise have
been spent securing the king's posi-
tion.
1l•.•.i.e7 12 adS
12 .i.xf6? .i.xf6 13 cxd5 ~e7! 14
.i.c4 :acS 15 dxe6 .i.xe6 16 .i.xe6
fxe6 17 :d3 ~5 =1= Klinger-Bonsch,
Linz 1990. A memorable pawn sacri-
fIce justifIed by White's front-of-king
weaknesses.
12 .i.d3 h6 13 .i.h4 :acS 14 ~bl
a6?! (mistimed; 14...:tdS! =) 15 cxd5
~xd5 16 ~xdS .i.xh4?? (16...exd5 ;1;;)
17 ~c3 .i.f6 IS .i.h7+ ~hS 19 :xd7
+- Kobrin-Kunin, Petach Kivka 1997.
12...~xdS 13 ~xdS exdS 14 ~bl
14 .i.d3 :fcS!.
14•••l:ac8 15 .i.xe7 ~e7 16 Wd2
Given as equal by Bonsch, but
White can make Black suffer a long
time before agreeing to the draw.
White has defInite chances of pressure
against the isolated queen's pawn.
 The New Main Line
This line deserves further testing,
but our next line suggests that .i.g5
might profitably be delayed a move.
E)
11lLld2!
Not often played, but probably
strong. Black is immediately forced to
work out how to disentangle his bish-
ops.
11...lLle7
11.. ..i.e7 leads to positions dis-
cussed under 1O... .i.e7 11 lLld2 .i.d7
(3.4, Line D). There the view was ex-
pressed that 11.. ..i.d7 was not the
most accurate, the other bishop be-
longing on fS rather than e7. The rec-
ommended line was 12 g4 l:tfcS 13
.i.e2 ~.
12.i.g5!
Damaging Black's pawn structure.
12•••:t'ca
12 .....c7 13 .i.xf6 gxf6 14 cxd5
exd5 (14 ...l:tacS 15 dxe6! fxe6 16
lLlde4 ±) 15lLlb3 .i.b6 16lLld4 ~.
13 .i.xf6 gxf6 14 lLlde4! dxe4 15
l:txd7 f5 ± Alterman-Jinrong Liang,
Beijing 1995.
White is better on the kingside, has
taken control of the open central file,
and has an extra queenside pawn, hav-
ing already neutralized Black's play
there.
F)
11 h4!? (D)
Yet another promising try, but with
only a solitary appearance on the data-
base. There are several transpositional
possibilities.
11•••:t'ca
11...dxc4?! 12 lLld2 b5 13 lLlde4
leaves both Black's bishops hanging.
85
B
12 «i>bl .i.e8
12...lLle7 13 b4 ±.
13lLlg5 g6
13 ... h6 14 cxd5 exd5 15 lLlxd5
hxg5 16 hxg5 lLlxdS 17 l:txdS lLle7 IS
1Ifh7+ «i>f8 19 1IfhS+ lLlg8 20 l:th7
wins for White.
14 hS .i.f8 15 bxg6 bxg6 16 g4
.i.g717 f3 S.Pedersen-Parker, London
1997.
We have reached positions dis-
cussed earlier (section 3.6, Line AI)
under the move-order 10....i.d7 11 g4
l:tfc8 12 «i>bl .i.f8 13 lLlg5 g6 14 h4
.i.g7 15 h5 .i.e8 16 hxg6 hxg6 17 f3,
where the next few moves are dis-
cussed. White has a promising attack.
In conclusion, 1O... .i.d7 is no prob-
lem for White, who has a wide choice
of advantageous replies. 11 «i>bl! and
IllLld2! both seem good for White,
while 11 h4!? is promising. and even
11 .i.g5 keeps the initiative on a mod-
est scale.
3.710... a6
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3lLlc3lLlf6 4lLlf3 J.e7
5 J.f4 0-0 6 e3 eS 7 dxeS .i.xeS 8 .. a
lLlc6 9 a3"aS 100-0-0 a6 (D)
86 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i.,f4!
w as unclear, but one feels that White
Black has ideas of getting on with
his queenside counterplay without, as
in the 1O... £d7line, leaving a hanging
bishop. The problem is that this move
does not actually help get his pieces
out, so if White can neutralize the plan
of ... bS he stands well. Again an im-
mediate response on the queenside is
indicated:
A: 11 adS 86
B: 11 /t)d2 87
First we should note that 11 £gS?!
gave Black no problems in the game
Pardoen-Solomon, Brisbane 1995. Af-
ter 11...dxc4 12 £xf6 gxf6 13 £xc4
bS 14 £dS (a flashy but ineffective
move) 14 ... £b7! IS 'iFe4 £xa3 16
'iFg4+ ~h8 17 tbe4 exdS 18 'iffS £e7
White's desperate attack had burnt it-
self out; if 19lilxf6 then 19 ...'ifal + 20
~c2lilb4+ -+.
A)
11 adS
So that ... bS will attack precisely
nothing!
11 •••exdS (D)
After 11 ...lilxdS 12 lilxdS exdS 13
~bl £e7 14 b4, 14...£g4?! IS lilgS
g6 16 f3 £fS 17 £d3 was clearly
better for White in M.Gurevich-Silva,
Bern 1989. Gurevich assesses 14...h6
ought to be slightly better, maybe by
IS i.e2!?, planning to meet IS ...i.g4?
with 16lilgs.
12i.gS
There is no real consensus on this
position, but it makes sense to try to
damage Black's pawns. Alternatively:
1) 12 ~bl i.e6 13 i.d3?! (13lilgS
transposes to '2'; 13 b4? lilxb4 14
axb4 i.xb4 IS lila2 :ac8 16 "'b2
i.a3 17 'ifd2 i.fS+ 18 ~al :c2! 19
"'xaS i.b2+ 20 ~bl :d2+ and mate
follows, Ubilava; 13 'iFa4 "'xa4 14
lilxa4 i.a7 IS i.d3 d4 16:c 1 dxe3 17
fxe3, Ubilava) 13 ...b8 14lilgS h6 IS
lilxe6 fxe6 16 'iFb3 bS + Conquest-
Ubilava, Tbilisi 1988.
2) 12 lilgS i.e6 13 ~bl :ac8 14
:xdS!? (14 i.d3?! transposes into
Conquest-Ubilava) 14 ...lile7 (but not
14... i.xdS? IS lilxdS "'el+ 16 ~a2
+-) IS :eS lilg6 16 :xe6 fxe6 17
i.c4lilxf4 18 exf4 ~h8 19lilce4 "'c7
20 i.xe6 i.xa3 21 "'xc7 :xc7 22
bxa3 lilxe4 23 lilxe4 :xf4 ~ Tisdall-
0gaard, Norwegian Ch 1995. White
has a slight material advantage, but
 The New Main Line
not enough to create anything work-
able, given Black's active rooks.
12.•• j.,e613 j.,xf6 gxf614 ~bl
An unnecessary precaution, with
the black rook not yet on cS. 14llXl4!?
;1;.
14•• JUc8 15 'iWa4 'iWxa4 16 lLlxa4
j.,a7 17 lLlc3 :d8 18 lLld4 lLlxd4 19
=
exd4 ~f8 Malaniuk-Ziatdinov. Ku-
sadasi 1990.
B)
11~2
Thematic, and again quite promis-
ing.
11••• j.,e7 12lLlb3
I) 12 g4!? also looks strong: 12...eS
13 gS exf4 14 gxf6 (14lLlb3?! "d8 IS
gxf6 j.,xf6 16lDxdS fxe3 :j: Eriksson-
Sanden, Helsingborg 1991) 14... ..ixf6
IS lDxdS ..ieS (IS ... fxe3 16 lDxf6+
gxf6 17lDe4 ±; IS ... j.,dS?? 16lDb3
'ifa4 17lDc3 +-) 16lLlb3 "dS 17 exf4
j.,bS IS ~bl ± Hjartarson-Thorsteins-
son, Reykjavik 1997. Black could
consider instead 12... bS!? 13 gSlDhS
14 cxdS lLlxf4, but IS dxc6! will force
him to spend a lot of time regaining
the pawn.
2) 12 ..ie2 e5?! (12 ... b5! is more
thematic) 13 j.,g5 d4 14lDb3 "b6 IS
exd4 exd4 16 ..ixf6 dxc3 17 j.,xc3
"xf2 IS lIhfl ± Astrom-Nordstrom,
Stockholm 1995.
12•••"b613 c5 'ii'd8 14 e4 d4 15 e5
lDh5 16 ..ig3 "c7 17 lLla4lLlxe5 18
l:[xd4 lDxg3 19 bxg3 h6 20 j.,e2 ±
Tabatadze-Kuzmina, Moscow 1991.
White has the upper hand on the
queenside, and is about to roll pawns
on the kingside.
So 10... a6 11lDd2 is looking good
for White.
87
3.8 10.. Jld871
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 M till'6 4lDf3 i.e7
5 j.,r4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 j.,xc5 8 'iWc2
lDc6 9 a3 "a510 0-0-0 lId8?!
This soon gets Black in a tangle.
11lLlb5!
I1lDd2 dxc4 12lDxc4 lIxdl+ 13
"xdl "dS 14 "xdS+ lDxdS IS i.e2;1;
Gelfand-Ki.Georgiev, Novi Sad OL
1990.
11••• b6
l1...dxc4 12 ..ixc4 ±. What is Black
going to do with her queen?
12lDes j.,b7 13lDxc6 i.xc6 14 b4
± Miles-Amura, Andorra 1994.
3.910...lDe4
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3lLlc3lDr6 4lLlf3 ..ie7
5 j.,f4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 j.,xc5 8 'iWc2
lLlc69 a3 "a510 0-0-0 lDe4 (D)
The sharpest move on the board,
but more or less abandoned by Black
since Kasparov won a miniature
against Vaganian in 1992, playing the
equally sharp 11lLlb5. The good news
for Black is that Kasparov's published
analysis on 11lLlbS, suggesting a big
advantage for White, is unconvincing;
88 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ij4!

at one point he even misses a simple Play may continue:

back-rank check. The bad news for 14 ~eS ~eS IS .txeS .txe3+
Black, and thus the good news for 15....txa3 16 J:[d5 'ifel+ 17 W'dl.
White, is that White can safely snatch 16 fxe3 "xeS 17 "d2:es 18.tel
the e4-pawn. We examine the simpler Black could get a genuine initiative
and stronger move first: if White tried to hold on to the pawn
A: 11~e4! 88 with 18 J:[el.
B: 11 ~bS 89 18.....xe3 19 "xe3 J:[xe3 20 J:[d8+
~f721.tf3±
A) Black can offer the exchange of
11 ~xe4! dxe4 rooks with 21...J:[e8, but his queenside
Now: will still be very troublesome to disen-
AI: 12 'ifxe4! 88 tangle.
A2: 12 .!Dd2 88 I find it difficult to see how Black is
supposed to improve in all this. The
A1) fact that grandmaster theory has
12 'ifxe4! (D) tended to concentrate on the compli-
cated and obscure II ~b5, rather than
the simple and strong II ~xe4, is per-
haps indicative that the spirit of old-
B fashioned romanticism is not yet dead.
Sometimes though the Steinitzian ac-
cumulation of small advantages is
more to the point; and a whole pawn is
quite large in the scale of small advan-
tages.

A2)
12~(D)
Less direct and less menacing.
12•••fS
A suggestion in Informator 54 (al-
legedly by Yusupov) gives 12 ... .txa3
"! with an attack". Yes, but after 13 B
bxa3 'ii'xa3+ 14 ~d2, White has an
extra piece and the better develop-
ment, and it is questionable whether
Black's attack has any legs after, e.g.,
14...:<18+ 15 .td3, 14...'iVh4+ 15 ~e2,
14..:ifb2+ 15 ~el! or 14...e5 15 .txcS.
13 'ifc2 eS
With compensation for the pawn,
according to Valdes. I just don't see it.
 The New Main Line
12.••eS
12 ...fS? 13 lOb3 Wb6 14 lOxcs
"xcS 15 .ld6 wins the exchange, so
Black is obliged to weaken dS.
13.lg3
An Informator reference gives 13
lOb3 Wb6 00 S.Spasov-Sergiev, COIT.
1991, but with no follow-up. It seems
sensible to delay the knight move, to
keep the pressure on e4.
13•••.lg4!
An important zwischenzug. 13 ...fS?!
14 ~b3 Wb61S :td5! .le716 .lxe5;t
14 :tel rs 15 f3 exf3 16 gxf3 .lhS
If anyone is better here, it is Black.
B)
11 lObS (D)
8
If this is genuinely strong, then
fine; if not, 11 ~xe4 should be pre-
ferred.
11•••a6
11...eS 12 cxdS exf4 (12 ....lfS 13
~h4) 13 Wxe4 tOe7 14 b4! 'ifa4 15
Wc2 +- Valdes.
12lOc7
12 .lc??! b6 13 ~bd4 (Yusupov)
13 ....lxd4, followed by ...:ta7 at the
fIrst opportunity, is fine for Black.
12..•eS!
89
12...:ta7? 13 cxdS ± Valdes-Otano,
Cuba 1991, the point being that for
once 13 ...exdS 14 :txdS is possible for
White, without having to worry about
....lxe3+.
Now we have an important branch-
ing point, with White having the
choice of:
Bl: 13lbdS 89
B2: 13lbxas 91
B3: 13tOxdS 91
Three minor alternatives:
1) 13 cxdS? Wxc7 14 Wxe4 exf4
15 dxc6 fxe3 =+= Yusupov.
2) 13 .lxeS lOxeS 14 lOxaSlOg4 =+=
Ftacnik.
3) 13lOxeS Wxc7 14lOxc6 Wxc6
15 cxdS We8 16 f3 .lfS is unclear ac-
cording to Yusupov, but Black is
surely much better after 17 fxe4 :tc8.
Let us now take a look at Kaspa-
rov's attempted refutation.
B1)
13lbdS (D)
Four pieces are en prise, but they
can't all be taken at once! As might be
expected, there is a bewildering array
90 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 /£.f4!
of alternatives, some of which leave
various pieces hanging for a few moves.
The complicated lines are the most
fun, and also the most difficult to ana-
lyse, but Black's best shot may well be
a simple retreat. Maybe there is a
moral in all this?
13••• t?Jf6!
This move retreats one of the at-
tacked pieces to a safe square, and
opens up an attack on another piece.
As such, it is certainly a logical try. Al-
ternatives:
1) I3 ... f5?! 14 ':xe5! ± t?Jxe5 15
i.xeS ':a7 (lS ...':b8 is better - Kaspa-
rov) 16 /DdS! (so that if 16... i.d6, 17
b4! "'xa3+ 18 i.b2 and the queen
soon gets trapped) 16... b6 17 i.d3
i.d7 18 b4 "'xa3+ 19 i.b2 "'a4
(19 ......a2 20 t?Jc3! +- Kasparov) 20
bxcS bxc5 21 t?Je5 Wxc2+ 22 i.xc2
i.e6 23 /Df4 1-0 Kasparov-Vaganian,
Debrecen Echt 1992.
2) I3 ...'ii'xc7 14 'ii'xe4 and now af-
terl4...exf4 15 ':xc5 fxe3 16 fxe3!? ±,
one doubts Yusupov's claim that Black
has compensation for the pawn. Black
may consider instead 14...f5, but after
15 i.xe5 (15 'iVc2?! exf416 ':xc5 fxe3
17 fxe3 'ii'e7) 15......e7 16 'ii'h4! Black's
hopes of effective gambit play will be
disappointed.
3) 13 ...i.e6?! 14 ':xe5 (an original
method of destroying a pawn centre!)
14... t?Jxe5 15 i.xe5 i.f5 16 i.d3 +-
Kasparov.
4) 13 ...t?Jxf2 and now:
4a) Kasparov recommends the con-
tinuation 14 t?Jg5(??) i.f5 IS 'ii'xf5 in
lnformator 56, totally missing the
winning 14......el+. Even world cham-
pions can sometimes miss simple
back-rankers!
4b) 14 1i'xt2 "'xc7 15 t?Jxe5 t?Jxe5
16 ':xe5 (16 i.xe5 Wc6 17 "'g3 f6 18
lIxc5 'ii'xc5 19 i.d6 Wc6 20 i.xfS
'itxfS 21 i.d3 i.e6 22 "'f3, Burgess,
may also be good) 16...i.e6 (16...i.d6?!
17 ':d5) and now:
4bl) White has the opportunity to
over-combine with 17 ':gS "'c6 18
':xg7+? 'itxg7 19 i.h6+ 'itg6!! 20
'ii'g3+ 'itxh6 21 "'h4+ 'itg6 22 'ii'g3+
i.g4!.
4b2) 17 "'g3!? is another try. Af-
ter 17...i.d6 Nunn points out 18
i.d3 !? with the spectacular possibility
18... i.xc419 i.xh7+'ith8 20b4!!, the
main point being 20 ...i.d3+ 21 lIc5.
18 ... ':fd8! keeps Black in the game
though. Another approach is that men-
tioned by Burgess: 18 ':g5 i.xf4 19
':xg7+ 'ith8 20 exf4. However, after
20... i.xc4 Black's position is unex-
pectedly resilient: 21 "'c3 "'xf4+ 22
'itbl f6 is unclear, while after 21 ~bl
':ad8 22 i.xc4 'ii'xc4 the tangle of
white pieces on the kingside gives
Black the chance to create counter-
play.
5) 13 ...i.f5 14 t?Jxa8 t?Jg3 appears
vastly complicated at first, but 15 e4!!
(Burgess; Kasparov's 15 'iVd2 is less
clear-cut) 15 ... i.xe416i.d2! traps the
black queen and forces liquidation
into a queenless position where White
is material up. Some of the key posi-
tions look as though they have been
reached by enthusiastic primary school
children, the pieces being apparently
so randomly placed. But evidence of
the design of strong players is shown
by the way that the queen is snared.
14':xe5
14 t?Jxa8? exf4leaves Black with a
clear advantage.
 The New Main Line 91

Kasparov's Informator analysis

stops here, with the strong implication
that White is better. This can be dis-
puted.
14•••lLlxeS IS.ixeS
IS lLlxa8 lLlxf3 16 gxf3 "el + 17
"dl "xf2 is at the very least comfort-
able for Black, for example 18 "e2
"xe2 19 .ixe2 lLlhS.
IS...':a7 16.ixf6
16lLlgS? .ixe3+.
16.....xc7
16... gxf6 17lLlds ;to 13...lLlxf2 14lLlgS
17 lLlgS g6 18 lLlxh7?! After 14 "xf2 exf4 IS lLlxf4 ':e8
This combinative try is the only at- 16lLld4.ig4 17 .ie2 .ixe2 18lLlfxe2
tempt to keep the initiative going; on lLleS (Yusupov) White's extra pawn
other moves Black is fine. The idea is probably counts for less than Black's
that now 18 ...~xh7? is met by 19 extra piece-activity.
"e4. Black can do better though.
18....ifS! 19 .id3 ~xb7 20 .ixfS
14....ifS! 15 "xf2
IS "xfS g6 (the knight blocks off
"c6! h3!) 16lLlf6+ ~h8 17 W'd7, and now
Winning a piece. either 17 ....ixa3 or 17 ....ie7 - Yusu-
Kasparov's 13 ':xdS gives rise to pov.
massive complications, but does not IS...exf4 16 "xf4liJe717lLlxe7+
seem to refute Black's play. So we tum 17 .id3 lLlxdS 18 "xfS g6 19
now to other tries. 'ii'xdS .ixe3+ :;: Yusupov.

82)
13lLlxa8
On the 'grab the material and run'
principle.
13...exf4 14 adS lLlxf2
As given by Ftacnik. Black is doing
well after IS dxc6 .ixe3+ 16 ~bl
lLlxhl.
Also to be considered is 14...lLle7
(Valdes) IS "xe4 .ifS 16 "xf4 .ixa3
17 :d2 ':c8+ 18 ~dl .ixb2, Yusu-
pov, with a strong attack.
83)
13lLlxdS (D)
The safest option.
"as 17•••.ixe7 18 ':dS! "el+ 19 ':dl
20 ':dS 9e1 + 21 ':dl lh· 1h Gel-
fand-Yusupov, Linares 1992.
This was an exhausting section to
write, but the conclusion is clear
enough. 1O... lLle4 is objectively best
met with 11lLlxe4 dxe4 12 "xe4.
3.10 General conclusion
on 100-0-0
White is better. 10 O-O-O!, suggested
by Kaidanov, must be regarded as one
of the most important opening innova-
tions of the 1980s, opening up a whole
92 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 J.f4!
new field of research for opening the-
ory, in a system which had previously
been assumed to be veering towards
equality.
To summarize the key variations af-
ter 10 0-0-0:
1O... ~e7 11 h4!;t (11 g4 00; 11lLld2
00);
1O...dxc4 11 ~xc4 a6 12lLlg5 ;t;
10... ~d7 11 ~bl ;t (11lLld2 ;t; 11
g4 00);
10... a6 II lLld2 ;t or 11 cxd5 exd5
12 ~g5;t;
1O... lLle4 I1lLlxe4 dxe4 12 Wxe4;t.
Most of the ;t's tend much more to-
=.
wards ± than towards Unless Black
can challenge at least one of these ver-
dicts, then either it is necessary for
Black to vary much earlier, or the ~f4
system is at least as good for White as
the ~g5 system.
Meanwhile, here are·some practi-
cal tips concerning the variations we
have just seen. Yes, 10 0-0-0 is poten-
tially an aggressive and violent system
involving a lot of sharp tactical play,
but remember that the basic positional
advantages lie with White. He has the
better development and the freer piece
disposition, and the pressure against
the opposing centre. His one real
cause for concern in his own position
lies in the placement of his king. The
important thing for White to remem-
ber is to keep his positional trumps.
This sometimes involves a kingside
attack, but Black's king is better
shielded by pawns than White's, and it
is unwise to deal with the position
purely in terms of attacks against
kings. White should think first about
the centre, and only secondly about
the kingside. And if the kingside is the
correct theatre of operations, White
should lead with pieces (lLlg5, lLlce4,
etc.) rather than with pawns. White
must not forget either that it is not just
the black king that is vulnerable; the
queen may still be chased with iOd2-
b3.
4 Alternatives to the Main
Lines for White
4.1 Introduction
If this were a repertoire book ('White
to play and win with the 5 ~f4 Queen's
Gambit') this chapter would be unnec-
essary; after having completed our
survey of 10 0-0-0 we would shoot
straight on to what to do against Black's
attempts to avoid the main line. In-
deed, it will be noted that few of the
games in this chapter post-date 1995,
the year that Kasparov introduced 11
h4 into grandmaster play. This indi-
cates the consensus of grandmaster
practitioners that 10 0-0-0 is indeed
the most dangerous try against ...c5
systems, although it is noticeable that
Black has been a little more willing to
defend this type of position in 1997
than in 1996.
Why then include this chapter? The
first reason is completeness, which is a
good enough reason in itself, from
both theoretical and historical points of
view. The second reason is that play-
ers with the black pieces in particular
will want to know about deviations by
White from the main line. The third
reason is that White too might well
want to know about alternative plans,
whether through reasons of personal
style, or because of the possibility that
Black might yet find something strong
against the New Main Line.
In general, the lines presented in
this chapter aim for a modest edge for
White. The extent to which this is
achieved is variable.
4.2 White's alternatives
on move 10
After 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ~c3 ~f6 4
~f3 i.e7 5 ~f4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5
~xc5 8 'ii'c2 ~c6 9 a3 "as, we have
already considered 10 l:ld 1 and 10 0-
0-0. White has also tried 10 l:lcl and,
more importantly, 10 ~d2.
We also mention alternative ideas at
move 10 in the sequence 9 l:ldl "as,
by which White avoids a transposition
to the Old Main Line by 10 a3. Our
A: 9 a3 "as
sections are:
"as
10 l:ld
10 ~d2
93
B: 9 a3
C: 9 l:ldl
D: 9 l:ldl
"as
"as 10 ~e2 100
10 ~d2 101
94
A)
9 a3 ••510 l:ld (D)
Strictly a minor alternative. White
renews the threat of b4, and provides
extra cover for his knight, but does
nothing to develop the kingside or cre-
ate tension in the centre. Black equal-
izes comfortably enough.
10...d4
94 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1;.f41
Or 1O... .i.e7 II .i.e2 and now:
1) 11...dxc4 12 .i.xc4 still gives
White a slight pull, e.g. 12 ... ~5 13
.i.xd5 exd5 14 "b3 ;t Taimanov-Lar-
sen, Vinkovci 1970; or 12...e5 13 .i.g3
.i.g4 140-0;t Denk-Foessmeier, Aus-
tria 1989.
2) 11...lOe4! 12 cxd5 .!Dxc3 13
"xc3 "xc3+ 14 :xc3 exd5 150-0
.tf6 16 :b3 h6! =Taimanov-T.Geor-
gadze, USSR 1983 seems to be a safe
enough option.
11 exd4
11 b4? "xa3 12 bxc5 dxc3 13
"xc3 "xc3+ 14 :xc3 .!De4 + T.Geor-
gadze.
11•••tDxd4
Simple and steady. If Black is out
for blood, he may try 11.. ..i.xd4!? 12
.te2 e5 13 .td2 "d8 14 .tg5 h6 15
.th4 g5 16 .tg3 :e8 GO GIek-Lputian,
Tashkent 1984.
12 tDxd4 .txd4 13 .i.d3 b6
13 ...e5 14 .td2 "d8 = T.Geor-
gadze. If 15 .tg5? then 15 ....txf2+.
14 0-0 .txc3 15 .xc3 .xc3 16
=
:xc3 .i.b7 1713 :ac8 Tomaszew-
ski-Staniszewski, Naleczow 1995.
White's bishop-pair promises little,
as Black's pieces are healthily placed
and he has an extra central pawn.
B)
9 a3.aS 10 tDd2 (D)
A serious alternative to the main
lines, which was explored a lot in 1993
and 1994, just before Kasparov's 10
0-0-0.te7 11 h4line altered the terms
of the debate.
Of Black's choices, the second is
more critical:
B1: 10....te7 94
B2: 10....tb4 97
1O.....d8?! 11 :d1 "e7, Zaradic-
Bitman, Bucharest 1967, draws obvi-
ous comparisons with the 9 .....e7line
(Chapter 5.1, line F), with White be-
ing a tempo up if he can find some-
thing more constructive than 12lbf3.
12 .tg5 :d8 13 .!Db3 dxc4, as in the
game cited, is unconvincing, but 12
b4!? .td6 13 .txd6 .xd6 14 cxd5
looks promising.
B1)
10....i.e7 (D)
Inviting transposition to the Old
Main Line with 11 :d 1. Also 11 0-0-0
leads to one of the lesser offshoots of
the New Main Line (Chapter 3.4, Line
D), with 11 ... e5 12 .tg3 d4 13lbb3
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
'iFb6 tending towards equality. White
does not have to touch the rook though;
the following moves are all more con-
structive:
Bll: 11 .te2 95
B12: 11 .tg3 95
B13: 11 ~b3 96
811)
11.te2
Why not? White's main problem in
the 10 l:tdl line is that his king gets
stuck in the centre inconveniently
long, so he prepares to castle before
taking action in the centre.
11•••.td7
11...e5, as the previous note hinted,
leaves White with an improved ver-
sion of the Old Main Line. 12 .tg3 d4
13 ~b3 Wb6 14 exd4 (after 14 ~d5,
l4 ... 'fId8 15 ~xe7+ 'ilxe7 16 exd4
exd4 17 0-0 ;!; was the game Orn-
stein-C.Hartman, Swedish Ch 1987,
while 14... ~xd5 15 cxd5 ~a5? 16
~d2! dxe3 17 fxe3 leaves the black
knight stranded) 14 ...exd4 15 ~b5
.tg4 16 .txg4 ~xg4 17 0-0 :lacS 18
:adl :lfeS 19 :lfel ± Suba-Margolin,
Ubeda 1996.
120·0
Insufficiently forceful.
95
12 O-O-O!? is much more testing, re-
turning to the New Main Line. Al-
though this position is not directly
discussed in Chapter 3, White usually
preferring against ....td7 to play g4 in
advance of .te2, the position after
12 ...:lfc8, and now 13 g4 e5?! 14 g5,
R.Kempinski-Lutz, Groningen 1996,
was assessed as very good for White
in Chapter 3.4, Line D.
12..•:lac8
After 12...:lfc8 13 :lfdl Wd8, forc-
ing an isolated pawn did not help
White much in Bern-Heine Nielsen,
Gausdal 1993: 14 cxd5 ~xd5 15
~xd5 exd5 16 Wb3?! ~a5! 17 Wxd5
.ta4! :f.
13 :lfdl Wb6 14 b4 as 15 cS Wd8
16 Wb2 e5 17 .tg3 d4 18 exd4 exd4
19 ~a4 axb4 20 axb4 ~d5 21 b5
~cb4 22 ~f3 .txc5 23 ~xcS :lxc5
24 ~xd4 'irf6 25 'ira3 Ib.. 1/z Yrjola-
T.Upton, Pula Echt 1997.
But 120-0-0 is critical.
812)
11 J.g3(D)
Prophylaxis, directed against the
advance ...e5.
11•••.td7
96 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
1l .. :.d8!? and 11...1Wb6!? were,
effectively, both tried in the same
game! Petrosian-Liberzon, Biel IZ 1976
continued 11..:.d8 12 M (12 :dl
.i.d7 13 cxd5lOxd5 14lOxd5 exd5 =
Liberzon) 12.. :.a5 13 lOd2 'lrb6 14
.i.e2 d4 15 lOa4 "d8 16 e4lOd7 17
:dl e5?! (17 ... f5 18 exf5 exf5 19 f4
lOf6 co Liberzon) 18 b4 with a slight
advantage for White.
The text-move is based on the gen-
erally quite reasonable belief that it is
better to develop than to undevelop,
but it leaves Black less solid in the
centre.
12 .i.e2
12 :dl :ac8 13 .i.e2, as played in
the Costescu-Ionescu game below,
transposes.
12..•""6
One of several moves to have been
tried.
1) 12...:tdS?! 130-0 a6 14 b4 "b6
15 c5 "a7 16lOa4 ± L.Hansen-P.And-
ersen, Denmark 1993 shows the old
problem of the blocked retreat.
2) 12 ...:fc8 13 0-0 "dS 14 :adl
15 lObS dxe3 16 fxe3 "b6
d4?! (14 ... lOa5! looks fine for Black)
.i.e8 18 b4 :d8 19 1i'b3 ± Tukma-
17 "d3
kov-S.Jakob, Bern 1991.
3) 12...:ac8 13 0-0 (13 :dl "b6
should be met by 14 cxd5 !? rather than
14 O-O? d4 15 lOa4 "as:; Costescu-
O.Ionescu, Bucharest 1993) 13 .....dS
(intending to play ...d4) 14 cxdS exd5
(14 ...lOxd5!?) 15 lOn ;t L.Hansen-
Cifuentes, Wijk aan Zee 1994.
4) 12 .....d8!? 13 cxd5 lOxd5 14
lOxd5 exd5 15 0-0 d4!? 16 e4:C8 17
'lrd3 f5 IS n ~hS and Black was
starting to take the initiative in Koma-
rov-Beliavsky, Ni~ 1996.
Black is looking solid in this family
of variations.
13cxdS
13 O-O? is carelessly mistimed:
13 ...d4 14 lOa4 "dS :; L.Hansen-
Deep Blue, Copenhagen 1993 .
13... exd5 14 0-0 :ac8 15 :Idl
.i.e6
The position is balanced. White's
pieces are not placed actively enough
to take any advantage of the isolation
of Black's d-pawn. Van Wely-San Se-
gundo, Buenos Aires 1995 continued
16lOb3 a6 17 l:tacllOe4!? 18lOxd5
.i.xd5 19 :xd5 lOd4 20 lOxd4 :xc2
21 :xc2=.
Possibly 11 .i.g3 is a little too
elaborate to cause Black's defences
serious problems.
813)
11lOb3(D)
B
11•••""6
11.. ...dS 12 :dl a5 13 lOa4 (13
cxd5!?) 13 ... e5, and now 14 .i.g5 d4
15 .i.e2 would transpose into the Old
Main Line (Chapter 2.5, Line 04).
However, 14 .i.g3! d4 15 .i.e2 g6 16
exd4 exd4 17 0-0 .i.f5 18 .i.d3 was
better for White in Tisdall-T.Upton,
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
Gausdal 1993. The g3-bishop exerts
pressure on the queenside.
12cxdS
This exchange is rather more likely
to provide prospects for White, with-
out him having wasted a tempo on the
move .i.g3, as in Line B 12 above.
Other tries:
1) 12 l:ldl e5 13 .i.g5 again trans-
poses to the Old Main Line (Chapter
2.6 above). One feels that White ought
to be aiming for more.
2) 12 .i.e2 and then:
2a) After 12... e5, 13 .i.g3 trans-
poses into Line B 11 above, which is
favourable to White. A less successful
idea for White is 13 .i.g5 d4 14 .i.xf6
dxc3! 15 .i..xe7 cxb2 16 tWxb2lL1xe7 =
I.Garcia-A.Hemando, Ibercaja 1993,
a tactical possibility not available in
positions where l:ldl has been played.
2b) Black might well prefer to try
12... lLIaS!? 13 lLIxaS "xaS 14 0-0
dxc4 15 .i.xc4 .i.d7, much as in line
'3' below.
3) 12 .i.d3 h613 .i.g3lL1a5 (13 ...d4?
14 lLIa4 "a6 15 lLIxd4) 14 lLIxa5
It'xa5 150-0 dxc4 16 .i.xc4 .i.d7 17
b4 "b6 18 "b3 l:lfc8?! (18 ...lLIh5!?
00) 19 :Udl ;t Tomaszewski-Slezka,
Sumperk 1990.
12••.lLIxdS 13lL1a4
13lL1xd5 exd5 14 l:dl.i..e6 = Prze-
woznik.
13..:ii'd8140-0-0!
This, rather than the obvious 14
.l:1d 1, beeause of the unlikely tactical
point that White does not want Black
to play ...lLIxc2 with check. Thus if
14.....e8:
1) 15 .i..b5 .i.d7 (15 ... lLIcb4?! 16
'ii'e2 lLIc2+? 17 ~f1 .i.d7 18 .i.xd7
'ii'xd7 19lL1c3 +-) 16lL1ac5? lLIcb4!.
97
2) Black has no problems either af-
ter 15 .i.d3lL1xf416exf4lL1b417 axb4
"xa4:j: Kelei!evic-Przewoznik, Fink-
enstein 1990.
14••••e81S .i.bS! .i..d716lL\acS
Now 16...lLIcb4? is no longer possi-
ble: 17 .i..xd7 +-.
16•••l:lcS 17 lLIxd7 .xd7 18 ~bl
a619.i..c4 bS 20 .i..xdS exdS 21 .d3
With strong play against the iso-
lated d-pawn, Vaganian-Arfandi, Reg-
gio Emilia 1992/3.
Theory is far from settled yet, but
10 liJd2 .i..e7, and either lllLlb3 or 11
.i.e2, gives White freer and more
flexible play than in the 10 l:dl .i.e7
lines.
B2}
10.••.i..b4! (D)
A much more direct challenge to
White's initiative.
11 cxdS
1) The defensive 11 l:lc 1 is ineffec-
tive after 11.. ..i..xc3 12 'ifxc3 'ifxc3 13
l:lxc3 e5 14 .i.g5 (14 .i..g3 d4 15 l:lcl
.i.f5 =Gavrikov-Peshina, USSR 1981)
14 ... d4 15 l:lcllL1d7! (taking the ini-
tiative; 15 ... lLIg4 16 h3 dxe3 17 fxe3,
Benko-T.Berger, Amsterdam 1964,
98 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
=
and now 17... h6 ECO; 15 ... dxe3 16
fxe3 l:d8 17 .i.xf6 gxf6 = H.Griin-
berg-Bonsch, Hanover 1991) 16.i.e2?
(16 exd4 exd4 ':F) 16...h617 .i.h4f518
h3 g5 19 .i.g3 f4 20 exf4 exf4 21 .i.h2
l:e8 22 ~dllOc5 23 b4lOa4 24 lObi
.i.f5 25 ~d2 1Oc3 0-1 Konikowski-
Foeldi, corr. 1978 - not exactly the
best advertisement for White's f4-
bishop.
2) ll.i.e2 d4 120-0 .i.xc3 131Ob3
'ii'a4 14 bxc3 dxe3 15 fxe3 lOa5 00
112_112 H.Griinberg-M.Miiller, Bundes-
liga 199112. Possibly both sides were
unhappy with their position. White
has the bishop-pair and the higher
FIDE rating, but having all those pawn
islands is not much fun.
1l•••exdS
1) 11...e5 12 .i.g3 .i.xc3 13 dxc6
.i.xd2+ 14 'ii'xd2 'ii'xd2+ 15 ~xd2
lOe4+ 16 ~ellOxg3 17 hxg3 bxc6 18
l:h5 l:e8 19 ~d2 as 20 ~c3 leaves
several question marks hanging over
Black's pawn structure in the endgame,
Suba-Cvetkovic, Belgrade 1984.
2) 11...lOe7?! is reasonably prom-
ising if White exchanges on e6 (12
dxe6?! .i.xe6 13 l:cl .i.xc3 14 'ii'xc3
'ii'a4 00), but Lputian notes that 12 d6!
lbed5 13ll'lxd5ll'lxd5 14 l:d 1 strongly
favours White. Black will have to con-
tort himself to regain the pawn.
3) 11 ... lOxdS releases the tension a
little too early, giving White chances
of play against the isolani. 121Oxd5
exd5 13 .i.d3 (13 l:dl.i.e7 14 .i.d3 h6
15 0-0 .i.g4! 16 1Of3 d4 = O.Foisor-
Pigusov, Sochi 1995) 13 ... h6 14 l:cl
.i.e7 (14....i.xd2+ 15 'ii'xd2 ;!; Bareev)
15 0-0 .i.e6 16 lOb3 'ii'b6 17 lOc5
.i.xc5 (17 ... l:ac8?! 18ll'lxe6 fxe6 19
'ii'e2 .i.f6 20 'ii'h5! and White has
successfully transferred his attack to
the kingside: 20...'ii'xb2? 21 'ii'g6 fol-
lowed by a well-timed l:bl wins,
while 20 ...lOe7 21 b4 ±, as in Kram-
nik-Htibner, Bundesliga 1993/4, ex-
tends White's bind) 18 _xeS 'ii'xb2 19
l:bl 'ii'd2 20 l:fdl 'ii'a5 21 l:b5 'ii'a4
22 l:al! and White regains the pawn
on b7 with a slight edge, Bareev-
Dzhandzhgava, Debrecen Echt 1992.
12.i.d3!
Another line you won't find in
ECO! This has supplanted the older 12
lOb3 .i.xc3+ 13 bxc3 'ii'a4 (13 ....i.f5??
14 lOxaS .i.xc2 15 lOxb7, Stohl-
Franzen, Tmava 1985) 14 .i.d3 b6
(14 ...l:e8!? 150-0 ll'le5 16ll'ld4 {16
.i.xe5 l:xe5 17 c4 J.e6 =} 16...'ii'xc2
17 .i.xc2 .i.d7 =Agdestein-Gild.Gar-
cia, New York tpd 1994) 15 f3 (15
lOd4!? Agdestein), when Agdestein
suggested 15 ....i.a6 16ll'ld4 _xc2 17
J.xc2 lOaS as equalizing. Black has
pressure on the queenside, Nimzo-
Indian style, to compensate for the
loss of the bishop-pair. In Agdestein-
Hjartarson, Gjl1Jvik (5) 1985, Black
played less convincingly, and after
15 ...l:e8 16ll'ld4 'ii'xc2 17 J.xc21OhS
18 J.a4 J.d7 19 J.xc6 J.xc6 20 J.g5
h6 21 J.h4 J.d7 22 ~d2 White had the
better-placed minor pieces.
12...d4 (D)
130-0!
This Korchnoi idea put the 10 ll'ld2
variation back on the theoretical map
in 1990.
13.••J.xc3
13 ...dxc3?! 14 axb4 'ii'xb4 15 bxc3
leaves White with much the more ac-
tive pieces, so Black has little alterna-
tive but to fall in with White's idea.
Korchnoi suggested 13 ....i.e7 in his
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White 99

:fd8 19 c4! lOd4 20 Wb2lOxbS 21

cxdS .i.xdS 22 j,xbS j,e4 23 j,c7
:dc8 24 :cl, when the two minor
pieces easily outweighed the rook.
17 ... WcS!? looks more secure, with
counterplay against the a-pawn.
2) In Nogueiras-Gild.Garcia, Mat-
anzas 1994, White kept the a-pawn
covered with 17 :fbl :ac8 18 j,e2
(18 :xb7ltXiS! gives Black counter-
play; having the rook on the c-file
makes a big difference) 18...WcS 19
Informator notes, but it remains un- :xb7 ltXi4 20 cxd4 Wxd4 21 Wb2
tested, probably with good reason, as Wxf4 22 :xa7 ;1;. White is an isolated
14ltX4! Wd8 ISlDe2 dxe3 16 fxe3!? passed pawn up, but it will be very dif-
leaves White with a lot of clout in the ficult to advance it if Black keeps his
centre. pieces active.
14lbc4 WhS 15 bxc3 17 :abl
Now Black has three choices: 17 :fdl?! lOe7! 18 c4 :fe8 19
B21: IS•••dxe3 99 j,e2 WaS 20 Wb2 lOg6 21 j,d6 .tc6
B22: IS•••dxc3 99 22 cS lOe4 ;: Dreev-Vaganian, Mos-
B23: Is...lbclS 100 cow 1991.
17...lOas
821) ;I; Vaganian; GO Dreev.
IS...dxe3 16 ~e3 (D) Black hopes to equalize gradually
with ...j,c6, ... b6, etc.
Not, however, Vaganian's alterna-
tive proposal 17 ...lDeS?, which leaves
the queen short of squares: 18 j,e2
lOeg4 (18 ... lOfg4 19 j,xe5 lOxe3 20
j,xhS lOxc2 21 :xb7 +- Dreev) 19
lOxg4 .txg4 20 :bS lOdS 21 :xdS
WxdS 22 j,xg4 +- Dreev-L.Ravi,
Calcutta 1992.

822)
IS...dxc3 (D)
16.tg3
16....i.d7!? 16 Wxc3? lOdS ;:.
16....i.e6 and now: 16 j,d6:d8 17 Wxc3, with the idea
1) Following 17 :abl, 17 ... ltXiS? 17... bS 18 lOb6, was suggested by
led to a catastrophe in Korchnoi-Beli- Korchnoi, but Black is gaining time
avsky, Amsterdam 1990 after 18 :bS after 17 ... j,e6.
100 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5
16••. bS 17lLld6 b4 18 .i.bS
18 axb4lLlxb4 19 "xc3 lLlxd3 20
'ilxd3 .i.e6 =.
18•.•.i.d7 19 .i.xc6 .i.xc6 20 axb4
:ad8 21 :as 'ii'g4 22 'ii'xc3 l:[xd623
f3 .i.xf3 24 gxf3 'it'g6
Black equalized in Stohl-Korneev,
Hamburg 1993 after 2S :xa7?! lLlh5
26 ~g2 :c6, but 2S e4! would have
maintained White's initiative.
823)
Is•••lLlds (D)
Simple piece-play preserves Black's
opportunities. Lputian now gives 16
.i.d6? :d8 17 cxd4 bS 18 lLleS :xd6
19lLlxc6 :h6 +.
16 .i.g3 dxe3 17 :ael .i.e6
~f4!
17...exf2+? 18 :xf2 .i.e6 19:e4 ±
Lalie.
18lLlxe3
18 fxe3 is messy, but probably not
favourable to White, e.g. 18 ...:ad8 19
lLld6lLleS 20 .i.fS (20 lLlxb7lLlxd3 21
"'xd3 :d7 22 "'bS "g4 GO Lputian)
20 ...:xd6 21 .i.xeS :dd8 22 e4lLle7
23 .i.d4?! (23 :e3 lLlg6 24 .i.d4 b6 GO
Lputian) 23 ....i.xfS 24 exfS lLlc6 =F
Tukmakov-Lputian, Tilburg 1994.
18...h6
18 ...:ad8!? 19lLlxdS :xdS and now
Lalie gives 20 .i.c4 :d2 21 'ilxd2
.i.xc4 =. Instead 20:e4? would be po-
sitionally weak due to 20 ....i.fS 21
:h4 "'g6, but maybe 20 c4!?
19lLlc4?!
Too time-consuming. White still
has the initiative after 19 c4!, the
weakening of the d4-square being of
little concern.
19...:ad8 20 lLld6
20 lLleSlLlce7! 21 .i.e2 "'fS =Lalie.
20•••b6 21 .i.bS lLlde7 = L.Hansen-
B.Lalie, Moscow OL 1994.
It would seem that White's pros-
pects in the 10 lLld2line are better than
in the 10 :dlline, but not as good as
after 10 0-0-0. White has chances for a
modest edge in the critical lines.
C)
9 :dl "'as 10 .i.e2 (D)
Instead 10 a3 is the Old Main Line.
This position was reached via the
move-order 8 .i.e2 lLlc6 9 "'c2 (9
0-0I?; 9 cxdS!?) in the game O.Foi-
sor-Morovie, New York 1988. Play
continued 1O....i.e7 11 lLld2 eS 12
~b3 Wb6 13 .i.gS d4 14 .i.xf6 .i.xf6
15 ~dS "d8, and White had indeed
saved a tempo by missing out a3, but
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
since he played 16 .td3 next anyway,
this was hardly an improvement.
Black can play more vigorously:
10•••~e4!?
This is not so convincing if White
has already played a3 (Chapter 2.2,
Line E), but Black's ability here to
place a piece on b4 without coming to
harm from the a-pawn has some tacti-
cal implications.
11 cxd5 exd5 12 :xd5 ~xc3 13
bxc3
13 "'xc3.tb4 14 :xaS .txaS wins
the exchange.
13...~b4 14 cxb4 .txb4+ 15 :d2
.tg416~g5
16 it)d4? :acS 17 "'dl .txd2+ IS
"'xd2 :cl+ 19 .tdl :xdl#.
16 e4?! .txf3 17 .txf3 :acS IS
"'dl :fdS leaves a killer pin on the
as-el diagonal.
16 .tc7! is Burgess's suggestion.
After 16......d5 White has the pleasant
choice between 17 e4 "'d7 IS 0-0
.txd2 19·~e5 "'e7 20 ~xg4 :acS 21
'ii'xd2 :xc7 22 .td3, followed by
ttJe3-d5, or 170-0 .txd2 IS :dl :acS
19 :xd2 and Black cannot exploit the
c-file pin. So maybe Black must try
16... b6, and if 17 a3 then 17 ....tc3.
16....txd2+
101
16...:fcS? 17 .xh7+ eRfS IS 0-01
turns the tables.
17 .xd2 .xd2+ 18 eRxd2 :td8+
IS ... .txe2 19 eRxe2 :acS 20 :dl
leaves White perhaps a little better in
the endgame, but the weak a-pawn
will need attention.
19 .td3 l%ac8!?
19 ...:d7?! 20 :cl :adS 21 :c3
consolidates White's position.
The text is complicated, but given
that Black's rooks are well placed on
open files, while White's minor pieces
are far from fully coordinated and his
a-pawn is weak, it is likely that Black
is holding his own. If for example 20
f3, then 20...:c5!?
This is almost totally unexplored,
but ultimately unconvincing. White
again hopes to save a tempo by not
playing a3; Black naturally must re-
spond by making use of the unpro-
tected b4-square.
10....tb4 11 ~b3 .b6 12 .td3
1) 12 a3 .txc3+ 13 .xc3 eS (Filip)
leaves Black with a significant lead in
development.
102 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 51./4!

2) 12 j,e2?! eS 13 j,gS (not 13 20 %lxd4 'ifeS+, winning a piece after

j,g3? d4 14 a3 j,xc3+ IS bxc3 dxe3) either 21 %le4 j,xc3+ 22 bxc3 'ifh5, or
13 ...~ 14 cxdS .txc3+ 15 bxc3 ~g5 21 'ife4 j,xc3+ 22 bxc3 %lh8.
16 dxc6 'ifxc617 0-0j,h3 18 f3 j,d7 17 0-0 dxc3 18 axb4 lLlxb4 19
is slightly better for Black. 'ifxc3lLlxd3 =P.Littlewood-Speelman,
12.••e5 13 .tg5 d4 Hastings 198112.
1) 13 ...dxc4 14 j,xc4 j,g4 (Filip),
and now IS %ld2 ;to
2) 13 ... j,g4 14 f3 e4 (Filip), and 4.3 White's alternatives
now not IS j,xf6?! exd3 16 'ifxd3 on move 9
dxc4 (Burgess; 16...gxf6 17 fxg4 /t)eS
=F is not so sharp) 17 'ifxc4 (17 .td4 1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 c!Llc3lLlf6 4lLln j,e7
cxd3 18 j,xb6 axb6 19 fxg4 %lxa2) 5 j,r4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxcS j,xcS 8 a3
17 ... j,e6! winning a piece, but rather c!Llc6 (D)
IS j,e2 exf3 16 gxf3 dxc4 17 lLld2
.te6 18 j,xf6 gxf6 19 'ife4 with at-
tacking chances.
14 j,xf6 gxf6 15 cS?!
An unnecessary weakening. 15 a3
is best:
1) IS ...dxc3 16 axb4 cxb2 (White
is slightly better after 16... lLlxb4 17
'ifxc3lOa2 18 'ifc2 c!Llb4 19 'ife2) 17
bSlLlb418j,xh7+~g719'ifd2~xh7
20 'ifxb4 ±; if 20....tfS then 21 e4 as
(21 ... j,xe4? 22 cS +-) 22 'ifa4 j,e6 23
0-0 (23 cS? j,xb3) 23 ...%lac8 24 cS
j,xb3 2S 'ifxb3 %lxcS (if the other The main alternative to entering the
rook had moved to c8 to give the king main lines with 9 'ifc2 is 9 j,e2, al-
a flight square, 26 'ifxf7+ would now though there is a strong argument for
win) 26 'ii'h3+ ~g7 27 'ifg4+ fol- suggesting that White does better to
lowed by 28 %ld3. play 8 j,e2, and to try to do without
2) IS ... j,xc3+ 16 bxc3 dxe3 17 a3. This is covered in Chapter 4.4,
0-0;;1;. Line A. 9 b4 and 9 %lcl have also been
3) IS ....taS! 16 c!Llxa5 'ifxa5 17 tried. We discuss:
exd4 exd4 18 0-0 dxc3 19 .txh7+ A: 9 adS 102
~g7 20 %ld5 'ifc7 21 'ifxc3 'iff4 22 g3 B: 9 b4 103
'ifh6 23 j,e4 j,e6 =F. There are other C: 9%lel 104
attacking tries for White, but Black al- D: 9 j,e2 lOS
ways seems to come out ahead.
15...1i'c7 16 83 ~g7?! A)
16... j,a5! is again strong. 17 exd4 9 cxd5 has no independent signifi-
exd4 18 c!Llxd4 c!Llxd4 19 j,xh7+ q;g7 cance, and transposes directly into
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
systems discussed in Chapter S, under
8 cxdS. 9 ...lDxdS 10 lLlxdS exdS trans-
poses into 8 cxdS lDxdS 9 lLlxdS exdS
10 a3, while 9 ...exdS 10 ~e2 trans-
poses into 8 cxdS exdS 9 ~e2lLlc6 10
a3 (instead of the critical continuation
10 0-0).
B)
9 b4 (D)
Aiming to show that a3 can be di-
rectly aggressive, and not just part of a
prophylactic plan. Having said that, it
seems a little unusual to use this plan
when the Queen's bishop is already
outside the pawn-chain; it would be
more naturally placed on b2 rather
than f4.
9.••~e7
1) 9 ...~d6 and now:
la) 10 cxdS exd5 11 ~gS ~e6 12
c!DbS ~e7 13 lLlbd4 c!De4 =Barkha-
gen-Wedberg, Stockholm Rilton Cup
1992. White's queenside pawn ad-
vances actually make it more difficult
to play against the isolani.
Ib) 10~gSdxc411 ~xc4.!DeSI2
~e2 lLlxf3+ 13 ~xf3 as 14 bS a4 IS
0-0 hS with equality, Mikhalchi-
shin-Koziak, Lvov 1996.
103
lc) 10 ~xd6 'ilfxd6 11 ~e2! (11
cxdS exdS 12 ~e2 ~g4 = SjOOin-
Barkhagen, Vaxjo 1992) 11...l:ld8 12
0-0 b6 13 cxdSlLlxdS 14lLlxdS .xdS
IS.xdSl:lxdSI6l:lfdl ~d717 l:lxdS
exdS 18 l:lcl ~ Mikhalchishin-Ubi-
lava, Volgodonsk 1981. Instructive
timing by White: instead of exchang-
ing on dS immediately, and isolating
Black's pawn but releasing his bishop,
White bided his time and exchanged
only when he had completed his own
development and had forced Black to
commit his bishop.
2) 9...~b6 and then:
2a) 10 l:la2.!De4 11 c!Dxe4 dxe4 12
.xd8 ~xd8 13 lLld2 (13 .!Des i.e7,
aiming to hit the queenside pawns
with ...as) 13 ...eS 14 ~g3 fS IS bS f4
16 bxc6 fxg3 17 bxg3 bxc6 = Stohl-
Prandstetter, Czech Ch (Tren~ianske
Teplice) 1995.
2b) 10 ~e2 lLlh5!? (1O ...dxc4 11
.c2;t; 1O...d4?! 11 exd4lLlxd412 cS!
±) 11 cxdS lLlxf4 12 exf4 (12 dxc6
.f6!) 12...•f6 13 0-0.xc3 14 dxc6
Mikhalchishin-Magomedov, Tallinn
rpd 1988. Since this was a quickplay,
one should not expect highly refined
decisions, and 14...•xc6!? IS l:lci
=
.dS would appear to be more accu-
rate than 14...•f6 IS g3 bxc6 16 "c2
~b7 17 .!Des ~, as played.
lOcxdS
1) 10 "c2 is the main alternative,
but does the insertion of b4 really help
White's development? Play down the
c-file is the natural plan, for example
1O...~d7 (or 10...dxc4 11 ~xc4 i.d7
12 0-0 l:lc8 13 "e2 c!Dhs 14 .i.eS
lLlxeS 15 lLlxeS ~f6 16lLlxd7 "xd7
=
17 l:lacl g6 Mikhalchishin-Renet,
Dortmund 1991) 11 ~e2 (11 cxdS can
104 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
be met by 1l...~xd5 12 ~xd5 exd5 :;:
Olafsson; instead 11...exdS 12 b5
~aS 13 .td3 Ilc8 140-0 lbc4 =was
Grynszpan-R.EkstrOm, Lugano 1989)
11...llc8 120-0 dxc4 13 Iladl 'if'e8 14
Ild2 as 15 bS ~b4! 16 axb4 axb4 17
~e4 b3 :;: Christiansen-H.Olafsson,
Reykjavik 1986.
2) 10 1la2 and now 10... aS 11 bS
~b8 12 .te2 b6 13 cxd5 ~xdS 14
~xdS exd5 Is0-0;t was Arkhipov-
L.Spassov, Moscow 1985. Olafsson
suggested instead 1O...tDe4 00, with 11
~xe4 dxe4 12 'if'xd8 .txd8 transpos-
ing to the Stohl-Prandstetter game
given under 9....tb6.
3) 10 h3 dxc4 ll.txc4 'if'xdl+ 12
Ilxdl gains a tempo on the 9 .te2 dxc4
10 .txc4 lines discussed later, but b4
is as much a weakening move as a
constructive one. 12 ... a6 130-0 b5 14
.td3 Ild8 15 ~41Dd5 16 .tg3 .tb7 =
Granda-Ivanchuk, Amsterdam 1991.
10...~xdS
1O...exdS 11 .te2.te6 121Dd4 Ilc8
13 0-0 ~xb4 14 axb4 Ilxc3 15 Ilxa7
'if'b6 16 ~bS ;t Zsu.Polgar-Geller, Vi-
enna 1993.
11 ~dS exd5 12.td3 .tf613 Ild
a6
This is probably a wise precaution.
13 ...lle8 14 0-0 .tg4 15 h3 .txf3 16
'if'xf3 ~eS 17 .txeS IlxeS 18 Ilfdl ;t
Mikhalchishin-Heine Nielsen, Copen-
hagen 1991.
140-0.te6
14... g6 is unnecessarily passive: IS
h3 'if'e7 (lS ....tb2? 16 Ilc2 .txa3 17
'if'al.txb418.th6±) 16'if'd2.te617
Ilc2 ;t Heine Nielsen-Barkhagen, Ma-
maiajr Wch 1991.
14...lle8 IS .tb1 g6 16 .ta2 .te6
17 'if'd3 d4 18 .txe6 Ilxe6 19 e4 'if'e7
20 ~d2 .te5 21 .tg3 .txg3 22 bxg3
~S 23 11'b3 Ild8 24 IlcS d3 was
played successfully in Beliavsky-
Short, Groningen FIDE Wch 1997.
15 .tbl .e7 16 e4?!
16 'if'd3 00.
16....d7!
Black has taken the initiative, Dreev-
Lutz, Dortmund 1994.
C)
9 Ild (D)
B
9...dxc4
The simplest, but perhaps not very
plausible as a winning attempt.
1) 9...d4!? and now:
la) 10 exd4 ~xd4 =.
1b) White can also try 10 ~xd4,
e.g. 1O...~xd4 11 b4! ~c6 12 'if'xd8
Ilxd8 13 bxcS ± Knezevic-Szabo,
Belgrade 1977. However, Black can
improve with 10... eS! 11 ~b3 (11
~xc6 'it'xd1+ 12 Ilxdl exf4 13 ~d4
fxe3 14 fxe3 lle8 with ample com-
pensation for the pawn - Kramnik)
1l....txa3! 12 bxa3 exf4 13 'if'xd8
Ilxd8 14 exf4 .te6 15 f3 (15 lbcS?!
.:r.e8!) and now Kramnik-Beliavsky,
Belgrade 1993 continued IS ... b6? 16
~f21Dd4 17 ~xd4 Ilxd4 18 ~e3 ±.
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
Kramnik notes that Black should not
be scared of l'lX:S: lS ...:ac8! 16lDcs
lDaS 17 lDxe6 fxe6 =. If anything,
Black could be regarded as slightly
better.
2) 9 ... a6 and 9 ... j.e7 both trans-
pose to the 'Exchange Variation' of
Chapter 4.4, Line B2 after 10 cxdS
exdS. White is better.
3) 9 ... j.b6 (since 9 ... d4 now ap-
pears to be satisfactory for Black, this
is revealed as an unnecessary loss of
tempo) 10 j.e2 (10 cxdS!?) 10 ... d4 11
exd4 lDxd4 12 lLlxd4 j.xd4 13 0-0 ;j;
Orlowski-Gerigk, Germany 1994.
10 j.xc4 .xdl+ 11 ~xdl
11 :xd1 transposes into the line 9
j.e2 dxc4 10 j.xc4 .xd1+ 11 hd1,
discussed in Line D 11 below. The text
aims to squeeze a little more from the
position.
11•••b6 12 ~e2 j.b713 :hdl :Cd8
14lDb5 lDe8 15 j.d3 as
Black aims to stabilize the position
by restraining White's b4 idea. Kram-
nik gives lS ... j.a6 16 lDc7 lDxc7 17
j.xc7 ':xd3 18 :xd3 ':c8 19 j.g3
l:td8 20 :d1 f6 21lLlel eS 22 ~f3 as
also equalizing.
lS ...h6?! 16 b4 j.e7 17 j.e4 :xd1
18 ~xdl! lDd8 19 j.xb7 lDxb7 20
lDfd4 ±, Kramnik-Vaganian, Lucerne
Wcht 1993, is too slow for Black.
16 lDgS lLlf6 17 j.g3 j.a6 18 a4
lDb4 19 j.c4 h6 = Dreev-Vaganian,
Tilburg rpd 1993.
D)
9 j.e2 (D)
Now:
Dl: 9...dxc4 lOS
D2: 9•••a6 110
D3: 9•••:e8 110
105
D4: 9 ...lLle4!? 111
DS: 9••• j.e7 112
D6: 9.••others 112
D1}
9•••dxc4
The most direct of Black's many al-
ternatives. Black aims to take the sting
out of the position by exchanging
queens.
10 j.xc4
10 'tixd8?! is unhealthily eager, and
not worth analysing.
10 .c2!? at least makes sure the
queens stay on. Then Black can con-
tinue:
1) 1O.••bS! forces White to con-
tinue in gambit fashion. 11 0-0 (11
lDxbS?! .as+ 12l'lX:3 lDb4 13 'tiel
lDbdS 14 j.xc4lLlxf4 IS exf4 j.xf2+
16 ~xf2 'ticS+ 17 ~g3 'tixc4 I8iLleS
"'b3 =+= Gavrikov-Lutz, Bundesliga
199516) 11...a6 12 :adl (12 lDgS?!
j.b7 13 :adl "'e7 14 lDge4lDxe4 IS
lDxe4 eS 16 j.gS f6 17 j.h4 112-112, but
probably:j:, Adorjan-Helmers, Gjjljvik
1983) 12...Wb6 (12 ......e7 13 j.gS!
h6 14 j.h4 gS? IS lLlxgS) 13lDg5 h6
14 lDge4 lLlxe4 15 lLlxe4 e5 16 j.g3
j.e6 17 j.f3 112-112, Adorjan-Karlsson,
Gjjljvik 1983, 17....te7!? 00.
106 The Queen' s Gambit Declined: 5
2) 1O...~a5?! is an inferior way to
hold on to the pawn: 11 :d 1 "eS 12
~g5 i.e7 13 i.e5 g614 ~ge4 ~xe4
15 ~xe4 f6 16 i.c3 .b5 17 0-0 and
White has a clear advantage, Szym-
czak-Novak, Poland 19S2.
3) 1O...i.d7 11 :dl i.e7 12 i.xc4
:cS (12 ...•a5 130-0;1; Adorjan-Van
der Sterren, Plovdiv Echt 19S3) 130-0
~h5 14 i.e5 "eS 15 .e2 a6, and now
instead of 16 ~e4 ~xe5 17 ~xe5 i.c6
= Gavrikov-Ubilava, Minsk 19S3,
maybe 16 :d2!?;I;.
4) 1O...•e7?! 11 i.xc4 :dS 120-0
i.d6 13 i.g5 h6 14 i.h4 ~e5 15 ~4
~g6 16 i.xf6 gxf6 17 :fd 1 ± Muse-
Bonsch, German Ch 1991.
5) For 10... a6, see 9... a6 10 .c2
dxc4.
After 10 i.xc4 play again branches
out, according to whether or not Black
exchanges queens immediately:
011: 10.....xdl+ 106
012: 10••. ~hS! 107
013: 10•••86 107
014: 10•••b6 109
011)
10••••xdl+ 11 :xdl (D)
11 ~xdl b6 12 ~e2 i.b7 13 :hdl
:fdS 14 :xdS+ :xdS 151.dl :xdl
16 ~xdl lh-lh Hertneck-Yusupov,
Munich 1992, is probably the most
boring game in this book.
Black has a slight lag in develop-
ment he must try to neutralize. White
will play for e4-e5.
11•••i.e7
1) 11...a6 12 i.e2!? (12 i.d3 :dS
13 i.g5 h6 14 i.h4 e5 15 i.xf6 gxf6
16 ~h4 i.e6 is unclear, Zsu.Polgar-
Gomez Esteban, Pamplona 1990/1)
12...:dS (12...b5 13:c1 Gurevich) 13
~f4!
:xdS+ ~xdS 14 0-0 i.d7 (14... b5!?
Gurevich) 15 :dl i.eS 16 ~d2 ~6
17 ~e4 ~xe4 18 ~xe4 i.e7 19 ~d6
;I; M.Gurevich-R.Ekstrom, Neuchlitel
1996, demonstrating that Black has to
handle his pieces very carefully ifhe is
to equalize.
2) After 11 ... b6 12 e4, a top grand-
master even lost a miniature, though
admittedly in a quickplay. 12...i.b7?!
13 e5 ~g4 14 ~4 :fdS 15 0-0 ~5
16 ~xc5 ± i.xf3? 17 :xd8+l:xd8 IS
lLlxe6 :e8 19lLlc7 :c8 20 e6 ~xc4 21
e7 i.c6 22 :dl :eS 23 ~e8 i.xeS 24
:dS ~f6 25 i.g5 1-0 Kramnik-Yusu-
pov, Moscow PCA rpd 1995. Safer for
Black is 12 ...:d8 13 :xdS+ ~xdS 14
e5 ~eS, with Dreev-Vaganian, Til-
burg 1993 continuing 15 ~e2 i.b7 16
:dl h6 17 i.e3 i.xe3 IS ~xe3 =, but
15 ~e4 i.e7 16 i.d3 i.b7 17 ~e2
would force Black to work hard to
close the .8ap.
12e4~d7!?
12...:dS 13 ~e2 i.d7 14 e5 ~eS
15 :d2 :acS 16 :hdl ~bS 17 i.d3
i.c61S i.e4 :xd2+ 19 :xd2 :dS 20
:xdS i.xdS gave White a slight ad-
vantage in mobility in the minor-piece
ending in Vaganian-BeJiavsky, Til-
burg rpd 1993, although he eventually
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
contrived to lose it by leaving his e-
pawn weak.
13~e2a6
Black did well to delay touching his
queenside pawns, as he could thereby
wait to see what White did before de-
ciding his own pawn structure.
14 .i.d6 bS IS 1.xe7lDxe7 161.a2
b4 17 axb4lbc6ISl:[d6lDxb4 19 1.c4
l:ta7 20 l:ta1l:[c7 21 ll)d2 lDes 221.b3
l::td7 23 l:[xd7 .i.xd7 112-112 Bareev-
Novikov, Lvov 1987.
So Black should equalize, but he
must take great care. There is, how-
ever, a safer way to exchange queens,
as we shall see.
012)
10•••lDhS! (D)
This continuation has the reputa-
tion of being a reliable equalizer.
Black forces simplification without
loss of time.
ll'iVxdS
11 1.g5 1.e7 12 1.xe7 (12 .xd8
l:[xd8 transposes into the next note)
12 ...•xe7 13 0-0 l:[d8 14 .e2 1.d7
with equality, P.Nikolic-Ki.Georgiev,
Dubai OL 1986.
1l•••l::txdS 12 1.c7
107
12 1.g5 1.e7 13 1.xe7 lDxe7 14
~e2 (14 0-0 1.d7 15 l:[fdl 1.c6 16
lDe5 lDf6 17 .i.e2 ~f8 = Lechtynsky-
Dobrolowski, Rimavska Sobota 1990)
14 ...1.d7 15 1De5 1.e8 16l:[hdl lDf6
17 f3 (17 e4 ~f8 18 ~e3 ll)c6 19
lDxc6 1.xc6 20 f4 ~e7 = Agzamov-
I.Zaitsev, Erevan Z 1982) 17...~f8 18
e41Dc6 19lDxc6 .i.xc6 20 .i.b5, and in
Liogky-Marciano, St Affrique 1997,
Black needlessly landed in an inferior
endgame after 20....i.e8?! 21 .i.xe8
lDxe8 22 e5 ~e7 23 g3 f6 24 exf6+ i.
Instead, 20 ...1.xb5+ 21 lDxb5 l:[xdl
22l:[xdl ~e7 ought to be a safe draw;
if23l:tcl a624l:tc7+??then24...~d8.
12•••l:[d7 13 1.eS lDxeS
If 13 ...l:[d8, any advance on 14 1.c7
l:[d7 112-112 Zlochevsky-Kharitonov,
Moscow 1996?
13...b614ll)e4 and now 14...lDxe5?!
15 lDxe5 l:[c7 16 1.e2 lDf6 17 lDxc5
bxc5 18 1.f3l:[b8 190-0-0 i was Dau-
tov-Beliavsky, Reggio Emilia 199516.
14... .i.e7, preserving the bishop, is
safer, and led to a draw after 15 1.c3
1.b7 16 1.e2 l:[dd8 17 0-0 lDa5 18
lDed2 lDc6 19 lDe4 lDa5 20 lDed2 in
Lobron-Lutz, Nussloch 1996.
14lDxeS l:[dSIS 0-0 lDf616l:[fdl
1.d7 17 lDxd7 l:[xd7 IS l:[xd7 lDxd7
19 l:[dl ll)f6 20 ~n 112_112 Topalov-
Gelfand, Vienna 1996.
This variation is a very safe choice,
provided Black is not careless or am-
bitious.
D13)
10•••a6 (D)
Keeping close symmetry, but allow-
ing a bit more tension in the position
than after 10...1Dh5.
1l"c2
108 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 j:,f4!
A natural square for the queen, and
a move that Black cannot reciprocate.
1) 11 0-0 bS 12 .td3 .tb7 13 "'c2
(13 :cl .te7 14 We2 :cS was soon
agreed drawn in the game Yuferov-
Zhachev, Moscow 1990) 13 ....te7 14
:adl Wb6 (14......a5!?) IS e4lLlh5 16
.te3 "'c7 17 eSlLlxeS ISlLldS! lLlxf3+
19 gxf3 Wd6 20 lLlb6 Wc6 21.txh7+
~hS 22 Wxc6 .txc6 23 .te4 .txe4 24
fxe4 ;t Hellsten-San Segundo, Pula
Echt 1997.
2) After 11 .te2 White managed to
squeeze something out of 11.. .lLlhS
12 .tgS .te7 13 WxdS .txdS in Hau-
chard-Marciano, French Ch 1996: 14
lLle4 f6 IS lLlfd2 ;t and the knight is
awkwardly placed on hS. Instead
11....td7!? should be safe enough.
11•••.te7
The most popular choice, keeping
the bishop out of trouble, but not nec-
essarily the most solid.
1) ll...bSI2.td3.tb713lLle4(13
0-0 transposes to HeIlsten-San Se-
gundo) 13 ... .te7 (13 ...WaS+?! is mis-
timed: 14 ~e2 i.e7 ISlLlxf6+ .txf6
16.txh7+~hSI7 :acl :acSlSWbl
b4 19 .te4 ± I.Sokolov-Cifuentes,
Oviedo rpd 1992) 14lLlxf6+ .txf6 IS
.txh7+ ~hS 16 :dl WaS+ 17 ~e2
:acS IS Wbl b4 with unclear play,
Maiwald-Bonsch, Berlin 1994.
2) 11.. ..td7 and now 120-0 lLlhS
13 .tgS .te7 14 :adl h6 IS .txe7
Wxe7 16 .ta2 1/2- 1/2 was Stohl-Ubi-
lava, Trencianske Teplice 19S5. 12
':dl is much more challenging, and
if 12 ...lLlhS?! 13 lLlgS g6 14 lLlge4
lLlxf4?, then IslLlxcS.
3) 11...We7 12 .tgS h6 13 .th4
Wc7!? (challenging White to play 14
.txf6, which, however, leads to no
clear results) 140-0 (14 :dl ;t, with
ideas of i.a2-bl, is more forceful)
14 ... .td6 IS .te2lLleS 16 .tg3 .td7
17 :ac 1 :acS = Yakovich-Lputian,
USSR Ch (Kiev) 19S6.
4) 11...WaS?! is premature. 120-0
.te7 13 b4 WhS (l3 .. :ifb6 14 :fdl
Wa7 IS e4 ± Maiwald-Masserey, AI-
tensteig 1994) 14 .te2 WfS IS .td3
WhS 16 lLle2 eS 17lLlg3 Wg41SlLlxeS
winning a clear pawn, Skalik-Jawor-
ski, Poland 1996. The queen wasted
too much time.
12:d1
1) 12 O-O!? bS 13 :fdl WeS 14
.ta2 .tb7 IS :acl :d8 16 .tbl
:xdl+ 17 :xdl WcS 18lLlgS g6 19
lLlce4 ± Lechtynsky-Tozer, CappeUe
la Grande 19S9.
2) 12 i.d3 h6 13 0-0 .td7 (or
13 ... lLlhS 14 :fdl ± Adorjan-P.Nik-
olic, Vdac 1983, reached via 11 .td3
h6 12 "'c2 .te7 13 0-0 lLlhS) 14 h3
:'c8 IS e4 bS 16 eS lLldS 17 lLlxdS
exdS 18 1i'd2 ;t Zlochevsky-Arlandi,
Fonnia 1995.
12..:.&5 13 0-0 (D)
Results favour White, not sur-
prisingly considering his more active
minor pieces in an otherwise symmet-
rical position.
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
13.•.i.d7
1) 13 ...bS 14 i.d3 i.b7 IS ttle4 h6
16 ttlxf6+ i.xf6 17 i.h7+ Iii>h8 18
.l:td7 eS 19 i.xh6 ttld8 20 i.gS +-
Stohl-Cvitan, Polanica Zdroj 1985.
2) 13 ...eS 14 i.gS i.g4 IS i.xf6
i.xf3 16 gxf3 i.xf6 17 l:ld7 e4 18
'it'xe4 i.xc3 19 bxc3 l:lac8 20 i.dS
'ifxa3 21 c4 ± Stohl-Dobrolowsky, Ri-
mavsIca Sobota 1990, illustrating yet
again the potential dangers on the light
squares after Black has played ...eS.
3) 13 ...h6 and then:
3a) 14 i.a2 i.d7 (l4 ...ttlhS!?) IS
ttld2 ± Miles-Ivkov, Vrbas 1980.
3b) 14 e4 ttlg4 (14 ...eS IS i.d2
'ifc7 16 ttldS ttlxdS 17 exdS ttld4 18
ttlxd4 exd4 19 'ili'd3 'ili'b6 is unclear ac-
cording to ECO, but White would
seem to have a useful lead in develop-
ment) IS i.a2 i.f6 16 h3 ttlgeS 17
ttlxeS ttlxeS 18 i.e3 bS 19 i.cs liz-liz
Stohl-Kotronias, Khalkidhiki 1992.
3c) 14 h3 l:ld8 IS i.a2 i.d7 16
ttld2 i.e8 Stohl-Gavrilaikis, Haifa
Echt 1989. White now unnecessarily
contented himself with 17 i.bl 'ili'hS
18 ttlce4 t, whereas 17 ttlc4! 'ifhs 18
ttlb6 l:lxdl (18 ...:a7 ±) 19 ttlxdl and
then 19 ...l:ld8? 20 i.c7 would have
trapped Black's rook in broad daylight.
109
Naturally 19... l:la7 can be tried, hop-
ing for something like 20 ttlc8 l:la8 21
ttlxe7+ ttlxe7 22 'ifc7 ttlfdS! 23 'ili'xb7
i.c6, but after 20 'ifb3 Black's posi-
tion is miserable.
14 ttlgS
14 e4 i.e8 IS :fel bS 16 i.a2 l:lc8
17 i.bl ttlhs 18 eS g6 19 i.h6 b4 20
i.xfS bxc3 21 i.xe7 ttlxe7 22 i.a2
i.a4 liz-liz Pekarek-Geller, Dortmund
1992.
14•••lUd8 IS ttlds!?
A familiar tactical idea from the
New Main Line.
IS•••exdS 16 l:lxdS .b6
In comparison with the New Main
Line, Black has the extra move ... a6,
which prevents White from ever play-
ing l:lbS. However, White's king is
much safer on gl than on cl, giving
White a little more time to mature his
attack, without having to wony about
counter-tactics.
17 l:lxd7 l:lxd7 18 i.xf7+ 1ii>f8 19
i.a2 g6 20 ttlxh7+ Iii>r:T 21.lbl1ii>xh7
22 .xg6+ Iii>h8 23 .h6+ Iii>g8 24
i.a2+ ttldS 25 .g6+ Iii>h8 26 .hS+
Iii>g8
White has a decisive attack, Efi-
mov-Dutreeuw, Asti 1995. Now 27 e4
'ili'xb2 30 exdS .xa2 32 dxc6 wins,
though in the game, White repeated
moves before playing this line.
D14)
10•••b6
The problem with this move is that
the black queen runs dangerously
short of squares.
11 .c2 i.b7 12 l:ldl
i.e7
.cS13 0-0
13 ... i.a6? 14 i.xa6 'ifxa6 IS b4!
spears a piece.
110 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i.f4!
14 i.a2 .:r.d8 15 i.b1 i; Y.Kozlov-
Shuraev, Tula 1995.
The general conclusion concerning
9 ... dxc4 10 i.xc4 is that Black can
equalize very easily with 10 ... ~h5,
but the position is dull and drawish.
Alternatives to 10 ... ~h5 leave White
with good prospects of an advantage.
If Black wants to keep options of play-
ing for a win, he should vary at move
9.
02)
9 ...a6 (D)
lOadS
It is of course possible to transpose
to the previous line, should both sides
desire, with 10 Wc2 dxc4 (or, less sat-
isfactorily, 1O... Wa5?! 11 0-0 dxc4 12
i.xc4 Maiwald-Masserey, Altensteig
1994) 11 i.xc4.
10... exdS
1O... ~xd5 11 ~xd5 exd5 is like the
Knight Exchange Variation, discussed
in Chapter 4.4 Line B 1, except that
Black has played ... a6 prematurely, al-
lowing White time to develop his king-
side. Goldin gives 12 ~e5 ~xe5 13
i.xe5.:r.e8 14 i.d4 i.xd4?! (14 ... i.d6
:j:) 15 Wxd4 .:r.e4 16 'ii'd2 d4 17 i.f3
l:te8 18 l:tdl ±.
11 i.gS
If 11 0-0, simply 11...d4 = Goldin-
Beliavsky, Yugoslav Cht (Tivat) 1995.
11...d4 12 i.xf6
12 ~e4 i.e7! (12 ... Wa5+?! 13 b4
~xb4 14 axb4 Wxb4+ 15 ~ed2) 13
~xf6+ i.xf6 14 i.xf6 'ii'xf6 =.
12..:it'xf6 13 lbe4 We7 14 ~xeS
'it'xeS 15 ~xd4 .:r.d8 16 'it'c2 Wxc2 17
~xc2 i.fS 18 .:r.c1.:r.ac8 19 g4 i.g6 20
f3
Thus far Psakhis-Sitnik, Portoro~
1995. Now 20... ~5 21 e4 ~xg4! 22
0-0 .:r.d2 23 ~4 .:r.xcl 24 .:r.xcl h625
.:r.dl, as given in Informator, leads to a
drawn endgame.
Perhaps 10 Wc2 is to be preferred.
03)
9•••.:r.e8
Black has in mind the ...e51...d4
push.
10 i.gS
Mter 100-0:
1) Black wasted a tempo with
10... h6?! in Miles-Lobron, Reggio
Emilia 1985, and was soon forced on
the defensive: 11 b4 i.f8 12 i.g3 a6
13 Wc2 i.d7 14 .:r.fdl ±.
2) Black can simply play 10... e5!
11 i.g5 d4!, when 12 ~e4 i.e7 13
i.xf6 i.xf6 is assessed as unclear by
Sokolov. Ifinstead 12 ~d5?!, Sokolov
analyses 12 ... d3! 13 i.xd3 (13 'ii'xd3
e4 14 Wc3 ~xd5! 15 cxd5 Wxd5 16
i.f4 exf3 17 i.xf3 Wf5 18 g4 Wg6
19 Wxc5 i.xg4 +) 13 ... e4 14 i.xe4
':'xe4 15 ~xf6+ gxf6 16 'ii'xd8+
~xd8 17 i.xf6 :j:. These lines feature
some tactics reminiscent of the Old
MainLine.
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
Therefore White contents himself
with a quieter move.
10.•. ~e7 11 'ii'c2 h6 12 ~h4
It is not worth isolating Black's d-
pawn when ... d4 can be achieved so
easily.
12•••dxc413 .i.xc4.!Dd5 14.i.xe7
14 .i.xd5 exd5 15 ~xe7 lIxe7 16
0-0-0 ~e6, given as unclear by Sok-
olov, could be critical.
14...lDcxe7 15 0-0 lDxc3 16 'ii'xc3
'ii'c7
Now 17 lDd4 ~d7 led to equality
in I.Sokolov-Lobron, Debrecen Echt
1992. 17 lIac 1 (Sokolov) preserves
White's slight edge in piece mobility.
D4)
9...lbe4!? (D)
Although this is largely ignored by
theory, Black can improve on previous
play. This variation might just hold the
answer to how Black can play for a
win against the ultra-solid 9 .i.e2
variation.
10~xe4!
10 "c2lDxc3 11 "xc3 d4 12 exd4
lDxd413 lIdllDxe2 14 ~xe2"b6 15
b4 ~e7 is given by Dreev, who does
not provide an assessment. Unclear
111
perhaps? The position needs further
testing.
10...dxe4 l1lDe5 lDbS!
Black runs out of tactical tricks af-
lbd7.
"a3
ter 11.. ...a5+? 12 b4 lDxb4 13 axb4
"xb4+ 14 ~f1 f6 15 lIbl 16
The text-move is a more sophisti-
cated way of trying to exploit the lack
of escape squares for White's minor
pieces. Undeveloping to b8 puts the
knight on the only square where it
does not get in the way; if l1...lbe7?,
then 12 "xd8 lIxd8 13 b4 ~b6 14 c5
~c7 15lDxf7.
Only 11..:"f6 12 lDxc6 bxc6 13
"c2 has been previously seen. Then
13 ... a5 14 "xe4! (14 O-O?! e5 15 ~g3
:e8 16 b3 ~f5 17 "b2 "e7; Muse-
Van der Sterren, Altensteig 1991)
14.....xb2 15 ~e5 f5 16 "f4 "c2 17
~f3 ~a6 18 0-0 ± Dreev, or 13 ...e5 14
~g3 ~f5 15 0-0 (15 b4! Dreev)
15 .. :"e7 (l5 ... a5 16 'ifc3 ± Dreev) 16
b4 ~b6 17 c5 .i.c7 18 lIfdl ± Dreev-
Khalifman, Linares 1995.
12b4
Preparing a retreat on c4. 12 'ii'xd8
:xd8 13 b4 ~e7 14 c5 a5!, challeng-
ing the queenside pawn majority, is
unclear, but probably satisfactory for
Black.
12....i.e7 13 c5 f6!
13...a5 14lbc4 axb4 15 axb4 lIxal
16 'ii'xallDa6 17 'ii'bl ±. Other lines
are also good for White.
14lDc4 e5 15 ~g3
15 'ifxd8 ~xd8 16 .i.g3 b6 trans-
poses.
15... b6 16 cxb6 axb6 17 'ii'xdS
~xdS Islbd6 ~e6
Leading to unclear play after 19 0-0
~e7 20 ~c4 ~xc4 21lDxc4 b5. Not,
112 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 j"f4!
however, 19 ~xe4?? fS followed by
...f4, trapping White's bishop.
05)
9•• ~e7 (D)
w structure. And if the pawns remain im-
10 lbes
10 0-0 dxc4 11 i.xc4 c!DhS! is just
as solid as in the 9 ...dxc4 line, e.g.:
1) 12 'ffxd8 :xd8 13 i.c7 :d7 14
i.eS ~xeS (14 ... gS!? IS h3 c!DxeS =
KneZevic-Karpov, Leningrad 1977)
IS fOxeS IIc7 16 fObS :cS 17 f4 a618
=
c!Dd4 c!Df6 Lputian-Aseev, Irkutsk
1986. The position is perhaps slightly
deceptive; it looks as though White is
building up a significant space advan-
tage, but Black has no real weaknesses
to attack, and there are some potential
holes in White's position that need
watching.
2) 12 'ii'e2 ~xf4 13 exf4 ~d4 14
c!Dxd4 'ii'xd4 IS g3 i.f6 16 lIfdl 'ii'b6
17 :ac1 a6 18 i.a2 :d8 19 ~4 i.e7
20 ~3 i.f6 1/2- 1/2 Lin Ta - Santo-
Roman, Lucerne Wcht 1985.
10 'ii'c2 transposes to Chapter S.I,
Line H.
10•••i.d6
10...~xeS!? lli.xeS dxc412i.xc4
'ii'aS is safer.
11 ~c6 bxc6 12 i.xd6 'iIIxd6 13
0-0 Szymczak-Abramovic, Polanica
Zdroj 1983.
Black's position looks OK until one
asks how he is going to advance any of
his central pawns safely, ...cS and ...eS
both being answered by cxdS, leaving
White with clearly the better pawn
mobile, White can pressurize pawns
on the light squares, and seek out-
posts, notably cS, on the dark squares.
ECO gives it as ± after 13 ...:d8 14
':'cl.
06)
Finally, a couple of 'played-onces'
from several years back:
D61: 9•••i.d6 112
D62: 9•••d4?! 112
061)
9... i.d6Ied to 'orthodoxy' in Sze-
kely-I.Zaitsev, Moscow 1982: 10 i.gS
i.e7 11 0-0 dxc4 12 i.xc4 h6 13 i.h4
a6 14 :cl 1/2- 1h. White could also try
10 i.xd6!? with possibilities of play
against the isolated d-pawn. Analo-
gous lines of play are discussed under
9 'ii'c2 i.d6 in Chapter S.I, Line E.
062)
9...d4?! is premature. 10 ~a4 i.d6
11 i.xd6 'ii'xd6 12 ~xd4 ~xd4 13
'ii'xd4 'it'c6 14 ~3 'ii'xg2 IS 0-0-0 eS
16 'ii'xeS 'ifxt2 17 :dfl 'ii'h4 18 :hgl
~h8 19 ~S :e8 20 'ii'c3 ± Szym-
czak-lasnikowski, Poland 1982.
General conclusion to 9 i.e2
The move is extremely solid, and there
are few ways for Black to seek any sort
 Alternatives to the Main lines for White
of complications, the relatively unex-
plored 9 ... ~4 being perhaps the ma-
jor exception. If, however, Black is
content with a drawish position, with
9 ...dxc4 10 .i.xc4iOh5, there is little
White can do to try for an advantage.
4.4 White's alternatives
on move 8
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 1Dc3 iOf6 4iOf3 .i.e7
S .i.f4 0-0 6 e3 cS 7 dxcS .i.xcS (D)
We now consider lines where White
plays neither 8 'ifc2 nor 8 a3 here. Any
line not already considered where
White plays 8 Wc2 or 8 a3 will be cov-
ered in Chapter 5, under 'Alternatives
for Black'.
The most important alternative here
is 8 cxd5, the 'Exchange Variation'.
However, it makes for better continu-
ity in the text to start with 8 .i.e2. We
have just looked at 8 a3 iOc6 9 .i.e2,
but is a3 really necessary in this line?
8 .i.d3 and 8 :cl could well trans-
pose into the 8 .i.e2 line after 8...dxc4
9 .i.xc4 'ifxdl+ 10 :xdl, although
clearly 8 Acl discourages alterna-
tives to the queen swap on move 9. An
113
independent possibility, unpromising
for White, is 8 .i.d31Oc6 9 0-0 We7 10
cxdS exd5 11 .i.g5 :d8 12 :cl h6 13
.i.h4 a6 14 :el g5 15 .i.g3 lOe4 16
iOd2 .i.b4 :j: Tjiam-Vaganian, Dutch
Cht 1997. Developing the bishop to e2
is generally more flexible if the central
pawn formation has not been clarified.
We note also in passing the game
Gabler-Zlatilov, St Ingbert 1990, which
ended tamely after 8 .i.g5 .i.e7 9 .i.e2
dxc4 10 .i.xc4 a6 11 0-0 b5 12.i.b3
.i.b7 13 'ife2iObd7 112_112.
Our lines are:
A: 8.i.e2 113
B: 8 adS 122
A)
8 .i.e2 (D)
This ought in principle to have
more bite than the 8 a3 1Oc6 9 .i.e2
system. After all, from the diagram
8...iOc6 is a common enough move,
and few would consider 9 a3 as the
most dangerous reply. The only draw-
back to 8 .i.e2 instead of 9 .i.e2 is that
Black then has the possibility of de-
veloping his queenside more flexibly
with ... a6, ... b5, ... .i.b7 and ... iObd7.
Even so, White's extra tempo, or
114 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./41
half-tempo, is arguably more signifi-
cant.
The main lines are:
AI: 8...dxc4 114
A2: 8...lLlc6 121
First, one minor alternative for Black
may be noted: 8.....e7 9 cxd5 :d8 10
0-0 lLlxd5 I1lLlxd5 :xdS 12 .b3lLlc6
13 :adl :xdl 14 :xdl is a rather
time-consuming way for Black to clear
the central pawns. After 14...b6. 15
lLlg5!? looks strong (instead of 15 a3.
Stahlberg-Chekhover, Moscow 1935).
A1)
8...dxc4 9 .ixc4
Again one must ask whether Black
can equalize by exchanging queens. If
not. 9 ... a6 or 9 ...lLlc6 comes into con-
sideration. The immediate 9 ... lLlh5?!
is not this time an antidote, with the
other knight not yet in the game. e.g.
10 .ig5!? .ie7 11 Wxd8 .ixd8 12
.ixd8 lhd8 13 ~e2 and White is much
better mobilized for any endgame. We
consider:
All: 9 ....xd1+ 114
All: 9 ...a6 116
A13: 9"'lLlc6 119
A11)
9....xd1+ 10 :xd1 (D)
10...a6
Again envisaging a development
with the knight on d7.
1) 1O... .td7?! 11 lLleS .ic6 relin-
quishes the bishop-pair much too eas-
ily: 12 0-0 a6 13 :d2 b5 14 lLlxc6
lLlxc6 15 .ie2 ±.
2) 1O... lLlc6 11 0-0 is clearly more
favourable for White than in the 8 a3
lines.
2a) If then 1l....id7. 12 e4 is a lot
more testing than the limp 12 .id6?!
.txd6 13 :xd6 :fd8 = of Augustin-
Faibisovich. Brno 1991.
2b) 11...b6 12 e4 .tb7 13 eSlLlaS!
is a more interesting attempt to take
advantage of White's omission of a3.
After 14 exf6 lLlxc4 15 b3 .ib4 16
lLlbS lLla3 17 fxg7 ~xg7 18 lLlc7
.txf3 19 gxf3 :ad8 White played for
control of the d-file with 20 .tg5 in
Ibragimov-Lputian, Vienna 1996. but
after 20...:xdl 21 :xdl ~g6 22 .th4
lLlc2 23 ~f1 :c8 Black had counter-
play. Targeting Black's minor pieces
with 20 .ieS+ ~g6 21 .ib2 is more
threatening; White should be better.
ulLleS!
Given the 'N' symbol in lnformator
56, but actually played by Nimzowitsch
in the 1930s. True, Nimzo contrived to
lose the game ...
Alternatives pose Black few prob-
lems:
1) 11 0-0lLlbd712lLleS bS 13 .td3
lLlxeS 14 .ixeS .te7 IS a4 b4 16lLle4
.ib7 17 .id6 .txd6 18lLlxd6 .tc6 19
a5 :fd8 =Zsu.Polgar-A.Mari~. Novi
Sad wom OL 1990.
2) 11 .td3 lLlbd7 12 :cl b6 13
lLle4 .ib7 14 lLlxc5 lLlxc5 15 .te2
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White 115

=
IICc8 160-0 ttld5 Donner-Benko, complete mobilization of the black
Wijk aan Zee 1972. forces. If enough pressure is exerted
3) 11 a4?! ttlc6 12 ~e5 and now, on the black position, it should be pos-
rather than 12... ~xe5 13 .*oxe5 with sible, if things go smoothly, to force an
equality, M.Markovic-Carlhammar, identifiable weakness without allow-
Stockholm 1987, 12...~h5 would have ing any corresponding increase in ac-
heen more enterprising. tivity among the enemy pieces.
4) 11 ~e2 b5 12.*ob3 .*ob7 13 .*od6 Yet in the game Nimzowitsch-
ixd6 14 IIxd6 ~6 15 IIhdl :Cd8 = Stablberg, Gothenburg 1934, Nimzo-
Bobotsov-Sobhani, Teheran 1991. witsch was perfectly happy to ex-
11••• ~bd7 12 .i.e2! change his excellent bishop on eS for a
Forestalling ...bS. not particularly active knight in order
12••• ~xe5 13 .*oxe5 bS 14.i.f3 lIa7 to inflict what is in context a trivial
(f)) pawn weakness. He was soon overrun
by Black's piece-play on the queen-
side. The game went 15 .*oxf6? gxf6
16 ~4 .i.e7 17 g4.*ob7 18 ~e2 .*od5
19 b3 IIc8 20 IId2 ~f8 21 IIhdl :ac7
22 IId4 a5 23 ~d2 .*oxf3+ 24 ~xf3
IIc2 25 a4 bxa4 26 bxa4 lIa2 27 ~e4
IIcc2 28 IIld2 f5 0-1. In fairness to
Nimzowitsch, this game was played in
his last tournament, and by then his
playing strength had declined.
Now let us see the modem treat-
ment with 15 We2.
IS•••.i.d7
lS~e2! 15 ....i.b7 16 .*oxb7 IIxb7 17 .i.d6 ;!;
Those who fondly look back to the Malaniuk.
J(lIod old days in chess tend to argue 16 lIel! b417 tDdS!
Ihut while our knowledge of openings Leaving Black only one way to pre-
might well have increased immensely serve the bishop-pair. The sequence
liver the last sixty years, our under- that follows is forced.
~lIl1lding of the inner spirit of chess has 17•••.*obS+ 18 ~d2 ~7 19.*od4
nlll; a Capablanca is at least equal to a .*oxd4 20 ~e7+ Wh8 21 exd4 ~b6 22
Knsparov, with corresponding rela- ~6 IId7 23 b3;t Malaniuk-Arlandi,
IllIns applying to lesser players. This Forli 1992.
pllsition suggests otherwise. It is an In formal terms, White has even
Ilpen position, with White having the slightly the worse pawn structure, but
,,,Ivantage in piece mobility, and the there is little doubt that he has more
nnlural way for White to play it would than enough compensatory piece ac-
Ill' In aim to preserve and enhance this tivity as a result of the minor tactical
,,,Ivantage by struggling to prevent the skirmishes. The pawn that is most
116 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./4!
likely to drop for nothing is not the
white d-pawn, but rather Black's b-
pawn.
A12)
9 •••a610 0-0 (D)
10 'ilfe2 almost invariably trans-
poses; White's standard plan involves
0-0, 'ilfe2, .i.d3, completing his devel-
opment, and readying himself to initi-
ate play on either side of the board.
10...bS
For 1O...l&6, see 9 ...l&6 10 0-0
a6, Line A13 below.
ll.i.d3.i.b7
Black can also tease White with
l1...lDbd7. After 12lLle4 .i.b7 13 lDxc5
lDxc5 14 .i.e2 .!Dd5 15 .i.g3 lDe4 16
.i.h4 'ilfb6, Danielian-Rustemov, Mos-
cow 1996, the concessions that White
has made to preserve his bishop-pair
are not worth it.
12"e2(D)
Alternatives generally involve tar-
geting h7:
I) 1211cllDbd713 lDg5!? (13 'ilfe2
reverts to the main line) 13 .....b6!?
(13 ... .i.e 7 14 lDce4 lDxe4 15 .i.xe4
.i.xe4 16 lDxe4 ~ Efimov-Ziatdinov,
Lenk 1991) 14 lDxh7.!Dxh7 15 .i.xh7+
~xh7 16 'ilfxd7 lIad8 17 'ilfc7 'ilfxc7
18 .i.xc7 lIc8 19 lDxb5 .i.xe3 20 fxe3
axb5 21 b3 f6 22 .i.b6 lIa8 23 lIc7
.i.d5 1/2- 1/2 Lechtynsky-Efimov, Pra-
gue 1985. Black's active bishop-pair
enabled him to hold the position com-
fortably despite losing a pawn; White
found no alternative but to allow an
opposite-coloured bishop ending.
2) 12 lDg5 lDbd7 13 l&e4 (13
lDge4 b4 14 lDxf6+ lDxf6 15 lDa4
.i.e7 =Zsu.Polgar-Schiissler, Vejstrup
1989) 13 ... h6 14 lDxf6+ lDxf6 15.!Do
=
'ilfb6 16 'ilfe2 and now, in Kacheish-
vili-Myc, Zaganjr Wch 1997, Black's
16... .i.e4?! 17 .i.xe4 lDxe4 18.!De5 ~
was unnecessary; centralizing the
rooks would hold the balance.
3) 12 e4 is probably best answered
with 12... lDh5, by analogy with the
Smyslov-Kasparov game discussed in
the note to move 13. Instead 12... b4 13
lDa4.i.e7 14 'ilfc2 lDbd7 15 .i.c7 'ilfc8
16 lIacl .!De8 17 .i.a5 'ilfb8 18 b3 is
messy, possibly favouring White,
A.Eriksson-I.Almasi, Budapest 1994.
B
12...lDbd7
1) 12 ... h6?! should be too slow, if
there is any justice in chess, although it
does prevent any awkward .i.g5 pins.
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
13 lIfd 1 'ile7 14 e41Dbd7 IS eS lDdS
16 "'e4 fS 17 exf61D7xf6 co Kishnev-
Negulescu, Cappelle la Grande 1993,
hut White has scope for improvement
- maybe 13 lIacl ;t. If Black plans to
play .. :ile7 anyway, it is best to put the
rook on its best square immediately,
rather than 'gain' a tempo by attacking
the queen.
2) 12 ....te7 13 ':fdl "b6 is poten-
tially transpositional, but there are in-
dependent possibilities:
2a) 14 .tg3 lDbd7 (14 ...1Dc6!?)
Icads back to the main line.
2b) White could, however, try to
tuke advantage of the early withdrawal
of the bishop from cS by playing 14
e4!'!, and if 14... lDhS, IS .te3 with a
critical gain of tempo when compared
with 12 ... lDbd7 13 e4?! lDhS 14.ie3
(sec Smyslov-Kasparov below). If
15 .....c7, 16 eS is extremely danger-
ous; Black's kingside lacks any realis-
tic defences.
2c) Instead, in the game M.Gure-
vich-Dutreeuw, Antwerp 1993, White
played analogously to the main line
with 14 a4 b4 151Dbi (Gurevich notes
II possible queen sacrifice after IS as
~c5 l61Da4 "xaS 17 ':dcl ':c8 and
then 18 lDcS ':xcS! 19 ':xaS ':xcl+
20 lDel1Dc6, and Black has the initia-
tive; 18 lIxc8+ .ixc8 191DeS is tempt-
ing at first, but there is no obvious
hrcakthrough after 19....ib7) IS ...~bd7
16 lDbd2 lDcs 17 as "a7 18 .ic2
li)fd7 with chances for both sides.
li)dS IS .ig3 "as
3) 12 ... b4 13 lDa4 .ie7 14 lIacl
and now 16 'ilc2!
(lUght to be good for White, the tempo
~uined by threatening h7 giving time
for e4 ± next move. Instead, 16 b3?
li)d7 17 lIc4 lIfc8 was played in
117
Wedberg-Van der Wiel, Stockholm
1987 and the unnecessary hole on c3
cost White dearly.
4) 12... lDc6 leads to a position nor-
mally reached via 8...lDc6 9 0-0 dxc4
10 .ixc4 a6 11 "e2 bS 12 .tb3 .ib7.
Then:
4a) Razuvaev-Geller, USSR Ch
1983 was drawn quickly after 13 :adl
"b6 (this position actually arose via
12 lIadl 'ilb6 13 .id3 .ib7 in the
8 ...lDc6 move order) 14 a3 lIfd8 15
.igS .ie7 16 h3 liz-liz.
4b) Zsu.Polgar-Sarapu, Wellington
1988 did not last much longer: 13
lIac 1 'ilb6 14 .igS (if White wants to
try for more, 14 lDgS! is the way -
White takes advantage of the fact that
after ...1Dc6 the king's knight is no
longer supported by its colleague)
14....ie7 IS lIfdl lIad8 16 h3 h6 17
.if4 1Db4 18 .ibl lIxdl+ 19 lIxdl
lId8 20 lDes lIxdl+ 211Wxdl "'d822
"xd8+ 11z-112.
1311fdl (D)
1) 13 e4?! lDhS! 14 .id2 (14 .ie3
'ilb6! IS :fel .ixe3 16 "xe3 lIfd8 :;:
Kasparov) 14.....c7 was already com-
fortable for Black in Smyslov-Kas-
parov, Vilnius Ct (4) 1984. After 15
g3, the main problem for Black is to
avoid sacrificing prematurely; Kaspa-
rov notes IS ...lDxg3? 16 hxg3 "xg3+
17 ~hl "h3+ 181Dh21DeS 19 f3 ±.
Play continued instead IS ...lIad8 16
.ie3 (16 .igSlDxg3! 17 hxg3 "xg3+
18 ~hl "h3+ 191Dh2 .id6 20 f3 f6
21 .ie3 lDeS 22 .ic2 lDc4 23 .igl
.ieS with a strong attack - Kasparov)
16....ixe3 17 'ilxe3 "cS :;:. Kasparov
also gives a couple of move IS alterna-
tives, showing that Black remains un-
troubled after either IS eS? .ixf3 16
118 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
.xf3 g6 + or 15 b4 Ab6 (15 ... Axb4
161Oxb5.aS17iDd6Axd218lDxb7
lOf4! 19 .xd2 .xd2 20 lOxd2 lOxd3
is a complicated liquidation to equal-
ity) 16 a41Of4 17 Axf4 .xf4 18 axb5
axb5 19 Axb5 lOe5 with an ample
pawn's worth of piece-play.
2) 13 :acl Ae7 (l3 ...•e7 14 Ag5
:fd8 15 Ae4 Axe4 161Oxe4 Ab6 17
:c6 ;t F.Olafsson-H.Meyer, Reykja-
vik 1984) 14 :tdl .b6 15 a3lDc5 16
Ac2 :fd8 171Oe5 1/2- 1/2 Gulko-Pigu-
sov, Biel IZ 1993.
13.....b6
Black's most popular choice in re-
cent years. Games featuring 13 ...•e7
or 13 ...h6 are generally slightly older.
1) 13 ...•e7 and now:
la) 14 Ag5 and then:
lal) 14...:ac8 15 a4 b4 16 lObi
(161Oe4 Axe4 17 Axe4 h6 = Gure-
vich) 16... aS 171Obd2 h6 18 Ah4 i.b6
19 Ae4 ;t M.Gurevich-Beliavsky,
Moscow 1990. If 19...Axe4, Gurevich
gives 20 lOxe4 g5 21 lOfxg5 lOxe4 22
:xd7 .xd7 23 lOxe4 Ad8 24 Af6
~h7 25 '6'h5 .c6 26 f3 with a danger-
ous attack.
la2) 14... h6 15 Ah4 .e8!? (or
15 ...:fc8 16 Ae4! lOb6 17 i.xf6 gxf6
181Od4 f5 19 i.xb7 .xb7;t Gomez
Esteban-A.Hoffman, Salamanca 1991)
16 :acl Ae7 17 i.bl :c8 18 a3lDc5
19 lOe5 /Dd5 20 .c2 g6 21 Axe7
Ih.-Ih. Kaidanov-Van der Sterren, Bu-
dapest 1989. The loss of tempo with
the queen looks strange at first, but
White's bishop has been lured to a less
active diagonal.
Ib) 141Od2!? is a more recent try
for White, which cuts across the ...•e8
defensive plan, and aims to take ad-
vantage of the lack of retreat squares
for the black bishop. Blees-I.Ivanov,
Gausdal1993 continued 14 ...:ac8 15
lOde4 /Dd5 16 lOxd5 exd5 17 lOxc5
lDxc5 18 Af5 iDe6 19 i.e5 f6 20 i.c3
;to This might well be promising.
2) 13 ... h6 14 Ag3 Ab4 15 iDe5
.e7 16 lOxd7 lOxd7 17 a3 i.xc3 18
i.d6 .h4, and in view of 19 AxfS1!
Ae5 20 f4 :xfS 21 fxe51Oxe5, when
Black has excellent compensation for
the exchange, White played 19 bxc3
and agreed a draw in M.Gurevich-
Yusupov, Munich 1992. It is of course
open for White to try to improve. For
example 14iDe5looks more economi-
cal than 14 Ag3.
14i.g3
1) 14 a4!1 b4 15 lObi (15 as .c6!
16 iDa4 e5 17 lOxc5 .xc5 18 i.f5
exf4 19 i.xd7 fxe3 ~ M.Gurevich; one
of the points of 14 i.g3 is to prepare
a4-a5 without allowing this type of
possibility) 15 ...:fe8 (15 ...i.e??! 16
lObd2 :fc8 17 lOc4 ;t E.Shvidler-
Ciolac, Silvaplana 1993) 16 i.g3 e5
17 Ac4 h618 as .a7 191Obd2 e4 20
iDel AfS (20... iDe5 21 Axe5 :xe5 22
lOb3 i.fS transposes) 211Ob3 iDe5 22
i.xe5 :xe5. An Informator reference
tersely gives 23 lDc2 'iVb8 24 :d4
 Alternatives to the Main lines for White
Cifuentes-Van der Sterren, Dutch Ch
(Eindhoven) 1992, while Chekhov-
Gorelov, Moscow 1995 was agreed
drawn after 23 l:td4 l:taeS 24 ~2 .i.cS
25 "d2 "bS 26 l:ta4 l:thS 27 g3 .i.g4
2S iClxb4 .i.f3 29 .i.fl "eS 30 .i.g2
.i.xg2 31 Citxg2 "fS 32 h4 "f3+ 33
Citgl l:txh4. So where does the truth
lie? Probably Black should meet 23
~2 with 23 ...l:laeS; 23 ... ~S unnec-
essarily blocks off the rook. The b-
pawn will almost inevitably fall, but
Black has good chances of achieving a
compensatory kingside attack.
2) 14iClgS eS IS .i.g3 b4 16 ~e4
h6 = Ibragimov-Sturua, Peristeri 1993.
3) 14 l:tac1 l:tac8 ISiClgS l:tfd8 16
iClge4 (16 .tbl.te7 17iClge4 b4 =Mal-
aniuk-Heine Nielsen, Katowice 1993;
16 ~e4?! h6; Rustemov) 16....te7
17 .td6 CitfS IS .txe7+ Q;xe7 19
iClxf6iClxf6 20 b4 (20 a3 =; 20 e4?! e5
21 iCld5+ .txd5 22 exd5 l:txc1 23
"xe5+ "e6! ; Rustemov) 20... l:lc7
21 "b2 l:tcd7 22 .te2 l:txd 1+ 23 :xdl
"c6 24 .tfl 112_1/2 Kiriakov-Ruste-
mov, Russian Ch 1997. Several minor
transpositions of move-order are pos-
sible in this line, but the impression
given in both '2' and '3'isthatanearly
iClg5 is not all that threatening if Black
has played ...iClbd7.
14..•.te7
14...:fcS!? - Zsu.Polgar.
IS a4 b4
15 ... bxa4 16iClxa4 ;t Zsu.Polgar.
16aS"d8!?
16... 'ii'c6? 17iCla4 l:tfcS IS e4! left
Black in a bind in Zsu.Polgar-Geller,
Aruba 1992.
16.....c5!? 17 ~bl "h5 IS iClbd2
lCJcS 19.i.c4 l:tfc8 (19 ...lCJfe4 20 iClxe4
iClxe4 21 l:td7iClxg3 22 hxg3 .txf3 23
119
gxf3 .tf6 24 .txa6 ;!; Gurevich) 20
~d4 "g6 (20 .....xe2 21 .txe2iClfe4
22 ~4;!; Gurevich) 21 f3iClfd7 22 e4
h5! 23 .tf4 h4 aD and Black is well set
for counterplay on the dark squares,
M.Gurevich-Geller, Helsinki 1992.
17 ~bliClhS 18 iClbd2
18 .txh7+? Citxh7 19 'ii'd3+ Citg8
20 'ifxd7 Wxd7 21 l:txd7 l:tfdS 22
l:lxdS+ l:txdS 23 iClbd2 .i.f6 24 ~4
iClxg3 25 hxg3 .txf3 26 gxf3 l:tcS =+=
Tregubov.
18 .te5 g6 19iClbd2iClxe5 20 lClxe5
"c7 21 ~ec4 iClf6 22 iClb6 l:ta7 23
~c4 l:td8 24:ac1 Wc5! and Black's
bishops gradually took control in
Blees-Van der Sterren, Brussels 1993.
18... ~xg3 19 bxg3llkS 20 ~
Now Black got into trouble in Treg-
ubov-Van der Sterren, Wijk aan Zee
1995 after20...iCJxd3? 21iClb6! ±.te4
22 lCJel WeS 23 iClxd3 :dS 24 lCJe5
.td6 25lCJed7! l:txd7 26iClxd7 Wxd7
27 Wxa6 l:tdS, when Tregubov gives
28 "b6 .tdS 29 a6 :bS 30 WaS, etc.,
as winning - a rare case of the knight-
pair dominating the bishop-pair in an
open position. Tregubov suggests that
the more patient 20..."eS! is equal.
We are still a long way from being
able to give a lasting verdict on the
9...a6 line. Maybe White achieves a
slight edge, or maybe Black equalizes.
What is clear is that both sides must
manoeuvre their pieces carefully in
positions where direct tactical threats
are not far below the surface.
A13)
9...~(D)
White could transpose to the 9 a3
line with 10 a3, but it is extremely un-
likely that he would want to do so.
120 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 j.f4!
w .te2line) makes it much less likely for
100-0
10 "e2!? and now:
I) Black rashly went pawn-snatch-
ing in the game Khurtsidze-A.Koglin,
Leon 1996: 1O...i.b4 II 0-0 i.xc3 12
bxc3 'iVa5 13 e4 "xc3? 14 :lac 1 "a5
15 e5 tLld5 16 i.d2 "d8 17 :lfdl i.d7
18 i.g5 ±.
2) 1O.....e7 is more cautious: 11
0-0 h6 12 i.g3 i.b4 (the whole idea of
...i.b4 seems a bit of a time-waster;
practical experience is lacking, but
maybe 12... a6 13 :lfdl 'ire8!? could
be tried) 13 l:lfdl e5 1400 lLlxd5 15
i.xd5 i.g4 16 "c4 i.h5. Now 17 a3
.td6 18 i.xc6 :lac8 was M.Gurevich-
Short, Paris rpd 1991, but 17 'ire4!?
might be better; indeed it is hard to see
how Black holds everything together.
10•••a6
I) 1O.....xdlll l:lfxdl b6?! 12lLlb5
i.b7 13 i.d6 i.xd6 14 lLlxd6lLla5 IS
i.bS ± Karlsson-Balashov, Helsinki
1983. Even if Black can improve on
move II, the immediate queen ex-
change is a little too slow.
2) 1O... tLlhS 11 "xd8 l:lxd8 12
i.c7 :ld7 13 i.eSlLlf6 14 i.g3 a6 15
:acl i.e7 16 i.e2 h617 h3 'iPfB 18 a3
:ld8 19lLleS lLlxeS 20 i.xeS i.d7 21
i.f3 ;!; Portisch-Vaganian, Reggio
Emilia 199112. Substituting 0-0 for a3
(comparing this and the 8 a3 lLlc6 9
Black to secure equality with an early
...lLlhs.
3) 1O.....e7 11 i.gS (or II "e2,
transposing into the Gurevich-Short
game above) 11...h6 12 i.h4 :ld8 13
"e2 'iWfB and in H.Meyer-R.Wiemer,
Bundesliga 199112 White played qui-
etly and soon drew. Splitting the king-
side pawns with 14 i.xf6 gxf6 ISlLle4
i.e7 16 :lac1, as in Parker-McLaren
below, is a more attractive option.
4) 10... i.e7 II h3 a6 12 We2 bS 13
:ladl "b6 14 i.d3 i.b7 IS e4 b4 16
tLla4"a5 17 b3 :lfd8 18 "e3lLld7 19
:lcl :lac8 20 eS ;!; Ibragimov-Ruste-
mov, St Petersburg 1996.
l1:lct
After II "e2 bS, 12 i.d3 i.b7 was
discussed under 12...lLlc6 in the 9...a6
line (Line AI2 above), when 13 :lacl
White. Instead, 12 l:lfd1 "b6
"b6 14lLlgS was recommended for
13 i.d3
is less threatening: 13 ...lLlb4 14 lLle4
tLlxd3 IS tLlxf6+ gxf6 16 :lxd3 :ld8
= V.Ragozin-Makogonov, USSR Ch
(Moscow) 1944.
11••• b5
11...h6 12 tLleS tLlxeS 13 .txeS
lLld7 14 i.g3 bS and now IS i.b3 i.b7
16 tLle2 might improve on IS i.d3,
Zysk-Hochgrlife, Dortmund 1991.
1l.....e7 12 i.gS h6 13 i.h4 :ld8
14 'ire2 "fB IS i.xf6 gxf6 16lLle4 ;!;
Parker-McLaren, British Ch (East-
bourne) 1991.
12 i.d3 lLlb4 13 i.bl 'irxdl 14
:lfxdl i.e7 15 lLle4 lLlbd5 16 i.d6
i.xd6 17 lLlxd6 :ld8 18 lLlxf7 'iPxf7
19 e4;!; Karlsson-Lechtynsky, Copen-
hagen 1983.
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
A2)
8...lDc6 (D)
With mainly transpositional effects.
9 cxd5 exd5 leads to the Pawn Ex-
change Variation, Line B3 below. 9
0-0 dxc4leads to variations just exam-
ined. 9 'ii'c2 'ii'a5 10 l:tdl is Chapter
4.3, LineC.
The main non-transpositional pos-
sibility is 9 cxd5 tDxd5 10 tDxd5 exd5.
First, we must deal with some odds
and ends after 9 0-0. Our sections are
thus:
A21: 9 0-0 121
A22: 9 cxdS tDxd5 121
A21)
90-086
9...i.e7?! 10 cxd5 tDxd5?! 11 tDxd5
cxd5 12 'ii'b3 is uncomfortable for
Black, Kiriakov-O.Danielian, USSRjr
Ch (Alma-Ata) 1991. After 12... tDa5
White gets good play with either 13
.c2 or 13 'it'd3 i.e6 14 l:tac 1 (better
Ih,lD the game's 14 i.e5 tDc615 i.c3).
10 cxdS tDxdS
IO ... exd5 does not fit in well with
.. 016. 11 ':cl i.a7 12 'it'b3 (after 12
l,i)c5!'!, 12...tDe7!? 13 'ii'b3 d4?! 14
J:lld 1 i.e6 15 'it'xb7 tDfd5 16 tDxd5
121
i.xd5 17 Wb4 +- was Kaidanov-Gel-
ler, New York rpd 1990, but 12...l:te8
13 tDxc6 bxc6 14 tDa4 i.b7 keeps
Black alive, Stull-Arencibia, Moscow
OL 1994) 12... tDa5 13 Wa3 i.e6 14
l:tfdl :lc8 15 tDd4 tDc4 16 'ii'b3 tDa5
17 Wc2 We7 18 Wbl l:tfd8 19 i.g5 ±
Kolev-Polak, Vienna 1990.
11 tDxdS exdS
It is not particularly clear how
Black has gained by interpolating ...a6
in this line either.
12:lct
White gains significant pressure
against the isolani after either 12...i.b6
13 tDe5 tDe7 14 tDd3 i.e6 15 Wa4
l:tc8 16 'it'a3 l:tc4 17 i.d6 :le8 18
i.xe7 'ii'xe7 19 Wxe7 :lxe7 20 l:txc4
dxc4 (the pawn is weak even when it is
no longer isolated) 21 tDf4 ± Lobron-
Renet, Uzes 1990, or 12...i.a713 tDe5
tDe7 14 W'b3 Wb6 15 Wa3 :le8 16
l:tfdl "f6 17 tDo h6 18 i.e5 W'e6 19
Wb3 ± Kharitonov-Gavrilov, Smo-
lensk 1992.
This tends to suggest that 9 ...dxc4
is best.
A22)
9cxdS tDxdS
For 9...exd5, see Line B3 below.
10 tDxdS exdS (D)
110-0
In comparison with the Knight Ex-
change Variation (8 cxd5 tDxd5 9
ICJxd5 exd5), White is able to castle
without having inserted a3.
11•.•i.b6
1) Abramovic analysed 11...d4?!
to a big plus for White, after 12 Wc2
(12 l:tel i.b613 exd4 tDxd414 tDxd4
i.xd415 b3;t D.Gurevich-Frias, New
York 1983, is far less challenging)
122 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 J.f4!
12.....e7 13lLlgS g6 (13 ... fS 14 l:ac1
i..b6 IS i..c4+ ~h8 16 exd4lLlxd4 17
"d3 ±) 14lLle4 and then 14... i..fS IS
"xcS "xe4 16 i..f3 ±. Geller tried to
resurrect Black's play with 14 ... i..b4,
but after IS a3 i..fS 16 i..d3 i..xe4 17
i..xe4 i..d6 18 i..xd6 "xd6 19 l:fdl
:ac8 20 "a4 l:fd8 21 l:acl the iso-
lani was under mortal pressure in
Av.Bykbovsky-Geller, Dortmund 1992.
2) 11...h6!? and then 12 l:cl i..b6
13 lLleS "f6! 14 .xd5 i..e6 15 "bS
lLld4 16 exd4 "xf4 = was Conquest-
Motwani, British Ch (Swansea) 1987,
while 12 .c2 i..b6 13 l:adl i..e6 14
lLle5 "f6 leads to a position assessed
by Abramovic as equal, but maybe 12
"b3, angling for a transposition into
Kaidanov-Abramovic, could be tried.
12i..g5
12 "c2 h6 = Abramovic; see above.
12 "b3 h6 (12 ...d4 13 exd4lLlxd4
14lLlxd4 i..xd4 15 :adl "f6 16 "g3
CID Abramovic) 13 lLle5 i..e6 14 l:adl
d41S"a3 (IS"a4 "f6=Abramovic)
Kaidanov-Abramovic, Vienna 1989,
and now Abramovic suggests 15.....f6!
16 lLlxc6 bxc6 17 i..d6 l:fe8 threaten-
ing ... i..xa2.
The text aims to keep the game qui-
eter.
12•••"'d6 13 l:c1 .ie6 14 "'a4 h6
15 .if4 "'e716lLleslLlxe5 17.ixe5
White has the typical modicum of
pressure against the isolated pawn,
bu.Polgar-Lobron, Brussels 1987.
In conclusion, 8 i..e2 is a genuine
try for an edge, even if only a modest
one. White aims for less, and risks
less, than in the New Main Line, but
play is more lively than in the 8 a3
lLlc69 i..e2line. From Black's point of
view, the most promising plan is
8 ...dxc49 .ixc4 a6 followed by ... b5
and a queenside fianchetto, with the
knight going to d7. 8...lLlc6 gives White
good prospects after 9 0-0.
B)
8 cxd5 (D)
For convenience we call this the
Exchange Variation, and hope that no
one confuses it with the 'other' ex-
change variation (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3
1Oc3lLlf6 4 cxd5 exd5, etc.).
Black is not absolutely obliged to
complete the exchange. since 8......a5.
although tried only once in grandmas-
ter chess, has not been refuted. I.Far-
ago-l.Zaitsev, Sochi 1981 continued 9
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
.1d3lLlxdS 10 0-0 lLlxc3 II bxc3 j.e7
12 "c2 h613 :abl, when 13....tf6!?,
instead of 13 ... lLld7 14 :bS 1id8 IS
:d 1 i, is worthy of consideration.
Farago in his notes suggests 9 dxe6
.1xe6 10 .td3 :d8 11 "e2 lLldS 12
0-0 ±, but it is not so clear why White
should be so much better if Black con-
tinues 12 ...lLlxc3 13 bxc3 "xc3 14
:fdllLld7 - something for the adven-
turous to explore perhaps.
If Black is to recapture, the choice
is with the knight or the pawn. The
knight capture leads to lively play,
with White facing the problem that if
he wants to castle kingside after
8...lLlxdS 9lLlxdS exdS he will have to
spend a tempo on 10 a3. The Knight
Exchange Variation has been popular
in recent years, but as with most other
white options in the .tf4 system, it
has been seen a bit less often since
the successes of h4 in the New Main
Line.
Black generally feels happier in the
Knight Exchange Variation, where he
has free development, lively piece-
play, and the opportunity to liquidate
his isolani with ...d4, than in the Pawn
Exchange Variation, 8 ...exdS, which
leads to stodgy positions where Black
has to stick his pieces behind the iso-
lated pawn, and hope that White can't
build up any initiative. Many of the
games in the Pawn Exchange Varia-
tion were played with the move-order
7... lLlc6 8 cxdS exdS 9 j.e2 j.xcS, in-
stead of 7 ....txcS 8 cxdS exdS 9 .te2
lLlc6. For some reason I've forgotten,
and fail to fathom now, 7 ... lLlc6 was
once regarded as slightly more accu-
rate than 7 ....txcS; few now believe
this.
123
We divide our coverage as follows:
Bl: 8.••lLlxdS 123
B2: 8•••exdS 13S
B1)
8..•lLlxdS (D)
9lLlxdS
Mter 9 .td3, 9 ...lLlxf4 10 exf4lLld7
II 0-0 lLlf6 12lLleS .id4 13 :c I .ixc3
14 :xc3 b6 00 Dementiev-Tavadian,
Erevan 1983 is possible, but 9...lLlxc3!?,
splitting White's queenside pawns, is
a simpler route to equality.
9 •••exdS (D)
As well as the Knight Exchange
Variation, there is also a Queen Ex-
change Variation, with 9 .....xdS 10
"xdS exdS, agreed drawn immedi-
ately in Nogueiras-Damljanovic, Saint
John 1988, and after 11 a3 lLlc6 12
:cl.tb613j.bSj.d7140-0:ac8IS
:fdl j.e6 16 lLleS lLlxeS 17 .txeS
:xc1 18 :xcl :c8 19 :xc8+ j.xc8
20 ~f1 in Ruban-Smirin, Novosibirsk
1995.
Supposing that White is not content
with a quick draw, then what? II
O-O-O?! lLlc6! 12 :xdS .1b6 wins a
pawn, but at the cost of development.
Black's rooks and bishops will soon
124 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5
swann around the white king after
....i.e6, ...:ac8, etc. For example 13 a3
.i.e6 14 :d2lDa5, or 13liJe5 .i.e6 14
lDxc6 bxc6.
Maybe the most promising shot is
11 a3 lDc6 12 .i.b5!, waiting a little
before deciding the best squares for the
rooks. The attempt by Black to reach
an opposite-coloured bishops position
a pawn down is unconvincing: 12... d4
13 .i.xc6 bxc6 14 ~xd4 .i.xd4 15
exd4, and White's general plan will be
to exchange a pair of rooks on the e-
file, and to target Black's weak queen-
side pawns.
w 12... ~c6Ieaves the kingside bare; in
Now White must decide whether to
allow the bishop check with 10 .i.d3
.i.b4+, or whether to spend a tempo
preventing it with 10 a3. Our sections:
B11: 10.i.d3 124
B12: 10 a3 126
B11)
10 .i.d3 .i.b4+
An opportunity too good to miss.
1O.....e7?! 11 0-0 ~c6 12 :cl .i.b6,
Ek-Nordstrom, Swedish Ch 1974, and
now 13 .i.bl!? is slightly better for
White.
11~e2
~f4!
1) II liJd2 takes the knight out of
position:
la) 11 .....f6120-01Dc6?! (it makes
more sense to snatch the pawn) 13 a3
.i.xd2 14 Wxd2 .i.f5 15 .i.bS d4 16
.i.xc6 dxe3 17 Wd6 ;t; Granda-J .Ar-
mas, Palma Soriano 1986.
Ib) 11...lDc6 120-0 .i.e7 13lDb3
(13 a3 .i.f6 14 "c2 h6 15 ~b3 :e8 16
=
:labl "e7 17 "cS liJes Blagojevic-
Abramovic, Nik~ic 1997) 13 ....i.f6 14
"d2 .i.e6 IS :ac1 :c8 16 ~cS We7
=
17 :c2 ~S Lputian-Timoshchenko,
Irkutsk 1986.
2) 11 ~f1 has a venerable pedi-
gree, O.Bernstein-Rubinstein, Ostend
1906 continuing 11.. ..i.e7 12 h4lDd7
(this was questioned by Bernstein, but
his notes, Bernstein mistakenly remem-
bered Janowsky-Em.Lasker, London
1899 as continuing 12...1Dc6 here, but
in fact this was in a different position
via a very inaccurate move-order, with
Lasker not yet castled) 13 :cl (after
13 g4, 13...:e8?? walks into 14 .i.xh7+
~xh7 IS Wc2+ ~g8 16 .i.c7 trapping
the queen, Bernstein, but 13 ...lDf6 and
a speedy ... ~e4 makes White's king-
side activity seem premature) 13 ...lDf6
14 liJd4 "b6 IS "b3 ;t;; White has
good play against the isolani. Don-
aldson and Minev, in Akiba Rubin-
stein: Uncrowned King, suggest that
11.. ..i.e7 is better than the 'modern'
11.. ..i.d6, but I find it hard to agree;
Black wants to lessen the pressure
against his kingside. Vaiser-Speel-
man, Sochi 1982 continued 11.. ..i.d6
12 .i.g3 ~c6 13 .i.c2 .i.e7 (now that
White's bishop no longer covers gS)
14 h4 .i.f6 IS "d2 d4 16 :dl .i.g4 17
hS :e8 Ill_Ill.
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
White generally prefers 11 ~e2,
even though it leaves his king a little
more exposed, as it allows the rooks to
be connected without wasting time.
1l•••lZk6
1) This time 11....td6 is not so im-
pressive: 12 .txd6 'ifxd6 13 'ifa4! (13
'ifc2 g6 14 l:laci .tg4 15 'ifc5 'ife5 16
'iFc3 'iFh5 17 'iff6 ~d7 18 'iff4 l:lac8
"" A.Petrosian-Beliavsky, Lvov 1981)
13 ... ~c6 14 l:.hdl ~e5 15 ~xe5
'ifxe5 16 'ifh4 h6 17 l:ld2 d4 18 e4 l:le8
19 ~fl ;t Smyslov-Beliavsky, Mos-
cow 1981.
2) Il...l:.e8?! 12 'ifc2 h6 13 l:lhdl
~c6 14 c,ftfl ;t Bischoff-Kuligowski,
Reykjavik 1982 allows White the
smooth development that he wants.
3) Similarly, 11....te7?! 12 'iVc2 h6
13 l:lhdl ~c6 14 a3 .te6 15 l:ld2 l:lc8
16 'ifa4 .tf6 17 ltadl 'iVb6 18 'ifb5;t
D.Gurevich-Gudmundsson, Reykjavik
1982.
It is essential for Black to get his
queenside pieces out quickly, before
White can consolidate in the centre.
12'iVc2
1) 12 h3 and now, instead of
12... .td6 13 "a4 ~b4 14 .txd6 'ifxd6
15 'ifa3 'ifb6 16 l:lhd 1 .td7 17 ~d4 ;t
de Firmian-Handoko, Dubai OL 1986,
12 ...l:le8 is more harmonious; Black
aims for ... d4 before White can sort
out his king's position.
2) 12 "bl!? h6 13 l:.dl l:.e8 14
c,ftfl .tg4 15 .te2 'ifd7 16 a3.tfS 17
b4 a6 18 1:Ia2 ltad8 and now 19 b5!?
might well improve on 19 l:lad2 'ife6 ""
Seirawan-Campora, Buenos Aires
1993. An approach worth considering,
even though White lost the game in
question.
12.••h6
125
This compromises the kingside the
least, but 12 ... g6 has also been played.
Then:
1) 13 ~5 ~xe5 14 .txe5 1Ig5 15
.tg3 .tg4+ 16 ~fl l:lac8 = Djuric-
Abramovic, Yugoslav Ch 1995.
2) 13 a3 .te7 14 h3 .tf6 15 l:lac1
a5 16 :lhdl .te6 17 ~f1 a4 18 .tb5
'ifb6 19 .txc6 bxc6 20 .te5 with a
slight advantage for White, I.Soko-
10v-Van der Sterren, Rotterdam 1997.
3) 13 l:lhdl .tg4 and then:
3a) 14 ~fl .txf3 15 gxf3 1If6 16
~g2 (16 a3 .ta5 17 ~g2 .tb6 =F
A.Petrosian-Lputian, Erevan 1983)
16...~d4 17 'ifa4.tc5 18 :lac 1 ~6 =
O.Foisor-Oll, Tbilisi 1983.
3b) 14 'ifa4!? 'ife7 15 .tb5 :lfd8
16 .txc6 bxc6 17 h3 .txf3+ 18 gxf3
.td6 19 .txd6 'ifxd6 20 l:ld2 l:ld7 21
l:lcl c5 22 1Ib5 d4 23 b4 ± D.Gure-
vich-Rechlis, Beersheba 1987. The
weakness of Black's hanging pawns
outweighed White's pawn weaknesses
on the kingside.
13l:lhdl
1) After 13 h3?! White had an em-
barrassing accident in Lechtynsky-
Lputian, Berlin 1982: 13 ...l:le8 14 a3
.ta5 15 l:lhdl 'iff6 =F 16 ~f1? g5 17
.tg3 .txh3 18 .te2 .tf5 19 .td3
.tg4 -+. Black played less vigorously
in Lematschko-Gaprindashvili, Bad
Kissingen 1982, 13 ....td6 14 .txd6
'ifxd6 15 :lhdl .te6 16 l:lacl l:lac8
17 'ifc5 ;t, and in Kndevic-P.Meyer,
Wuppertal 1986, 13 ....te6 14 l:lhdl
l:tc815 'iVa4 'iff616l:labl d417 l:lbcl
112_ 1h.
2) 13 a3 .td6 14 .i.xd6 'iVxd6 is a
bit too simplistic to promise White
much, and indeed Gavrikov-Geller,
Erevan 1982 was agreed drawn here.
126 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5.t./4!
IS :hd 1 .tg4 should give Black no
problems.
13••••f6(D)
1) 13 ....td6?? 14 .th7+ ~h8 IS
:xdS ~b4 16 :xd6 +- Seirawan-Li
Zunian. Biel IZ 1985. is a massive
miscalculation rather than a real trap.
2) ECO quotes Zaltsman-Benko.
USA 1983 as leading to a slight edge
for White after 13....tg414.th7+~h8
IS .tfS j,xf3+ 16 gxf3 ~e7 17 .tc7.
even though Black won a miniature in
the game in question. After 17...•e8.
18 a3! improves on the game's 18
j,h3?! .taS 19 j,d6 :d8 20.ta3 (20
'iVcS? b6 21 'iVa3 :xd6 22 'iVxd6
'it'bS+) 20 ....tb4 21 j,xb4 Wbs+ 22
:d3 'ilxb4 23 :b3 'it'h4 24 :xb7 d4
2S exd4 ~6 26 'ilxc6 0-1 (26 ...:fe8+
would follow).
3) 13 ... j,e614 :acl 'it'f6 and now.
rather than IS ~f1 :fd8 16 .tbS j,d6
17 j,xd6 :xd6 18 'ilc3 d4 19 exd4
:ad8 20 j,xc6 1/2- 1/2 Mikhalchishin-
Balashov. USSR Ch (Riga) 1985.
maybe IS a3 could be considered. e.g.
IS ....taS 16 b4 .tb6 17 bS. while if
IS ....te7. the flashy 16 "xc6?! bxc6
17 .teS leads nowhere after 17 ....tg4.
but 16 .b3 looks good.
This critical position remains vastly
under-explored. certainly when com-
pared with positions in the more popu-
lar. but not necessarily better. 10 a3. A
combination of ECO. Informator, and
computer database gives only the two
examples below.
14a3
14 ~f1 .taS IS .te2 .tb6 16 .d2
':d8 17 ~4 ~xd4 18 exd4 = Quin-
.c3
teros-Najdorf. Mar del Plata 1982.
14•••.te7 15 j,e6
Is .. .'ii'xc3 16 bxc3;1;.
16~d4
Maybe this is the critical place to
look for an improvement. 16 ':acl?!
leads to sudden tactical problems after
16.....xc3 17 ':xc3 .tf6 18 ':c2 d4!.
but Black still has some work to do to
equalize after 16 "xf6!? j,xf6 17
':abl.
16...lDxd4+ 17 .xd4 .xd4 18
exd4 Ill_lIz Tukmakov-Geller. Tbilisi
1978.
812)
10a3(D)
B
White eliminates the possibility of
the bishop check at the cost of a
tempo. This line was a popular try for
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
White in the early 1990s; Black has to
play very actively to stay in the game,
and sometimes has to sacrifice the
h7-pawn with check.
10...lDc6
The natural move, preparing to neu-
tralize the weakness of the d-pawn
with an early ...d4.
10....i.f5 has also been tried, but af-
tcr 11 .i.d3 .i.xd3 12 "xd3 "a5+ 13
~c2 "b6 14 b4 .i.d6 15 .i.g3 (15
.i.xd6!? "xd6 16 l:thdl ;t) 15...lDa6 16
:ac 1 ~7 17 lLld4 Speelman-Chand-
ler, Hastings 198112, White has the
sort of slight but stable positional ad-
vantage that the Queen's Gambit
player should feel very comfortable
with.
ll.i.d3 (D)
Threatening .i.xh7+.
I) 11 :cl has only limited point,
as the bishop is going to leave c5 any-
way:
la) 11.. ..i.b6 12 .i.d3 (12 .i.b5?!
can be met by 12...d4 13 .i.xc6 bxc6
14lLlxd4 c5 15lLlb3 "xdl+ 16 ~xd1
:d8+ 17 ~el 112-112 Browne-Chris-
tiansen, SurakartalDenpasar 1982, or
12 ....i.xe3! 13 .i.xe3 "a5+ 14 b4
'irxb5 15 l:tc5 "a6 16 b5 "a5+! 17
'ird2 +) 12.....e7 13 lLlg5?! (13 0-0
.ig4 14 h3 .ixf3 15 "xf3 d4 00 Ga-
prindashvili, Ubilava) 13 ...h6 14 .i.h7+
~h8 15 .i.bl d4! 16lLle4 (16 'it'd3 f5
17 lLlf3 dxe3 18 fxe3 :f6 +Gaprin-
dashvili, Ubilava) 16....i.f5! 17 .i.d6
"c6 18 .i.xfS .i.xe4 19 .i.c5 dxe3 20
.ixe4 "xe4 21 "f3 exf2+ 22 ~fl
'irg6 ; Vaiser-Ubilava, Kislovodsk
1982. White has cause to regret not
having castled earlier.
I b) 11.. ..i.e7 is also possible, al-
though the example cited by ECO as
127
good for Black is unconvincing. Tolo-
nen-Kimelfeld, USSR 198213 contin-
ued 12 .i.d3 .ig4 13 "c2 l:tc8?!
(13 ...h6!?; 13 ... g6!?) 14 .i.xh7+ ~h8
15 .i.f5 "a5+, and now instead of 16
lLld2?! lLlb417 "xc8lLld3+! 18.i.xd3
.ixc8 ;, White should have tried 16
~dl, when Arkhangelsky and Kimel-
feld's suggestion of 16....i.xf5 17
"xf5 "b5 is well met by 18 .ie5!
consolidating the extra pawn.
2) 11 .i.e2!?, taking the sting out of
....i.g4, is under-explored:
2a) 11.. ..i.b6 12 b4 a6 130-0 l:te8
and now Meduna-Abramovic, Prague
1983 was soon drawn after 14 "c2?!
"f6 15 :adl d4 16 .ig5 'ii'g6, but 14
"d3!? is worth trying, and if 14...d4,
15 lLlg5 g6 16 e4 ;t, the white queen
having a good square in reserve on g3.
2b) Black played more actively in
D.Cramling-Schiissler, Swedish Ch
1983, but White still stood better after
11.. ...f6 12 "c2 .ib6 13 .ig5!?
.i.a5+ 14 ~fl "d6 15 l:tdl .i.e6 16
.i.f4 "e7 17lLlg5 g618lDxe6 fxe6 19
h4.
11••..i.b6
This strategic retreat, keeping an
eye on d4, is Black's most popular
128 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
here, although there are several alter-
natives. Not, however, 11 ....*.e6??, the
problem being not 12 ~5 ;t, as given
in a hasty note in an old Informator
(I'm not saying which!), but rather 12
.*.xh7+ winning a pawn.
1) 11 ...h6? is a horrible little move,
wasting time and weakening the king-
side. White's most direct plan is to pile
up on the bl-h7 diagonal, for example
12.*.bl (12 .*.c2!? Farago) 12.. J%e8?
13 "c2 "as+ 14 b4 .*.xb4+ 15 axb4
"xal 16 'ifh7+ 1-0 Ehlvest-Martinov-
sky, Linares 1994. 120-0, though less
ambitious, is also good for an edge, for
example 12 ... .*.d6 13 "a4 .*.xf4 14
"xf4 I.Farago-Griinfeld, Malta OL
1980, and White is effectively a tempo
ahead of the 11 ....*.d6line; or 12....*.e6
13 .*.bl ~ 14 "d3 g6 15 .*.xh6 l:[fd8
16 b4 ± A.Nikitin-Svidler, Lugansk
1989.
2) 11 ....*.d6 aims for gradual equal-
ity. 12 "a4 (12 .*.xd6 "xd6 13 0-0
and now rather than 13 ... h6?! 14 "a4
.*.d7 15 lIadl lLle5 16 "f4 ;t Skem-
bris-D.Jano§evic, Belgrade 1988, Black
should prefer 13 .....f6! 14 b4 .*.g4 15
.*.e2 lIad8 = Gavrikov) 12....*.xf4
(12 ... ~7 13 .*.xd6 'ilfxd6 140-0 'ilff6
15 lIfdl g6 16 lId2 lLlc6 17 lIadl ;t
M.Letelier-L.Sanchez, Moscow 1956)
13 'ilfxf4 d4!?, when Gavrikov has
failed to prove an advantage for White
in two attempts:
2a) 14lLlxd4 'ilfaS+ 15 'ite2lLlxd4+
16 "xd4 lId8 17 'ilfb4 'ilfg5! 1811hdl
.*.g4+ (18 ... 'ilfxg2? 19 .*.xh7+ <;Pxh7
20 "h4+ 'itg6 21 lIgl .*.g4+ 22
"xg4+ ± Gavrikov) 19 f3 .tf5 20
.*.xf5 Wxg2+ 21 <;Pel "gl+ with a
perpetual, Gavrikov-Beliavsky, USSR
Ch 1986.
2b) 140-0-0 .*.e6 and now 15lLlg5
g6 16lLlxe6 fxe6 17 ..g3 'ilff6 18 lIhfl
was Gavrikov-Timoshchenko, Irkutsk
1986. Instead, IS .*.c2 is tempting, but
Black should have enough, in terms of
the white king's exposure, to compen-
sate for the pawn after 15 ...lIc8, e.g.
16lLlxd4lLlxd4 17 'ilfxd4 'ilfaS 18 'itbl
(18 "e4?? loses to 18...lIxc2+ or
18....*.f5) 18...lIc419'ilfd3 g620.*.b3!?
(20 'ital lIfc8 21 .*.b3? lIc3) 20....*.f5
21.*.xc4 .*.xd3+ 22 .*.xd3.
Still, 13 ...d4 does not feel entirely
convincing, and White can think of
ways to sacrifice a pawn or two for the
initiative, for example:
2c) 14 O-O!? dxe3 15 lIadl!? ext2+
16 l:txt2 or even ...
2d) 14 lIdl!? 'ilfa5+ 15 b4 'ilfxa3
160-0.
3) 11 ... .*.e7 (perhaps slightly too
passive) 120-0 (12 h3?! .*.f6 13 "c2
=
'ilfa5+ 14 'ite2 Alexandria-A.Maric,
Biel 1991) 12....*.f6 and now:
3a) 13 'ilfc2 h6 14 lIadl, Ih-lh Yu-
ferov-Doroshkevich, Krasnodar 1991,
is uninformative.
3b) 13 h3?! is slow. Black can im-
prove over 13 ... h6 14 IIbl .*.e6 IS
.*.c2 ;t Titov-M.Iosif, Sumperk 1990,
with 13 ... .*.xb2 14 .*.xh7+ 'itxh7 15
'ilfc2+ .tf5 16 'ilfxb2 (16 'ilfxf5+?! g6
and now 17 'ilfg4 is bad due to
17 ... .txal 18 lLlg5+ 'itg7!, but even
after the better 17 "g5! W'xg5 18
lLlxg5+ <;Pg8 Black's queenside pawn
majority might start to become threat-
ening) 16... 'ilfb6 =.
3c) 13 'ilfb3 g6 (13 .....b614 'ii'xb6
axb6 IS lIabl .te6 16 .*.c7 .td8 17
.*.d6 .*.e7 18 .*.xe7 lLlxe7 19 lLlg5 ;t
Lputian) 14 l%adl lLla5 15 'ilfa4 .te6
16 .th6 l%e8 17 .tb5 gave White a
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
slight advantage in the game Van der
Sterren-Bonsch, Munich 1991.
4) 11...g6 12 h3 (12 O-O!?) 12 ...d4
13 e4 ~d6 14 ~h6 :e8 IS 0-0 a6 16
:cl ~f817.d2~Panno-Amura,Ar­
gcntine Ch 1992. Black is weak on too
many dark squares.
None of these alternatives is likely
to supplant 11...~b6 as the main line.
120-0
1) 12 b4!? is a move-order tease,
with White generally castling next
move and transposing into the main
lines, for example 12...~g4 130-0, as
in the Gofshtein-Kharitonov game
discussed later.
2) 12 h3 is unenterprising; ...~g4
is not fearsome enough to justify the
loss of a tempo in its prevention.
12 ... d4 13 e4 h6 14 0-0 ~e6 IS:tel
:'c8 16 .e2 1/2- 1/2 Keene-O.Rodri-
/luez, SurakartalDenpasar 1982.
3) 12 ~gS is ferocious, but is soon
neutralized: 12... h6 13 ~h7+ ~h8 14
J.c2 d4! IS .hS dxe3 (lS ...d3!? 16
n·()·o ~fS 17 ~xf7+ l:txf7 18 .xf7
Wc8 19 ~xh6 gxh6 20.f6+, Anikaev,
is " perpetual) 16 fxe3 1i'e8 17 ~ fS
I H "xe8 1/2- 1/2 Anikaev-Geller, Mos-
row 1982.
4) 12 .c2 h6 13 0-0 .f6 14 b4
i.g4 = Skembris-Abramovic, Vrn-
I,,~ka Banja 1989. The queen is mis-
placed on c2.
After White castles, Black must de-
mle how to complete his development.
1.! ... ~g4 is the only line given by
,·ro, and is still critical, but 12...•f6
IIIIlI 12 ... d4 have been played with suc-
, I·SS:
11121: 12••."f6 129
11122: 12•••d4 131
11123: 12••• ~g4 131
129
8121)
12.....f6 (D)
13b4
13 .c2 h6 transposes to Skem-
bris-Abramovic above, and so is not
particularly promising for White.
13...~f5
1) 13 ... a6?! 14 ~gS .d6 IS l:ta2
leaves White ahead of similar lines
where Black has played 12... ~g4.
Arlandi-Van Dongen, Cannes 1993
continued IS ...h6 16 ~h4 g5 17 ~g3
'iVf6 18 l:td2 l:td8 19 ~bl d4 20 ~xd4
23 'iVd3 ~g4, and now 24 .e4
~xd4 21 exd4 :xd4 22 :xd4 ~xd4
would
have been strong, meeting 24 ... h5
with 25 h3 and 'iVh7+. Instead White
played 24 "h7+?! ~f8 2S 1i'e4 hS
with an unclear position.
2) 13 ... ~g4 14 h3 ~fS has been
tried a couple of times, although one
would imagine that the extra move h3
slightly improves White's position.
When playing through the variations
that follow, bear in mind that Black
can reach them with h3 inserted.
14 b5
Lputian suggests that 14 ~xfS
"xfS 15 .bl also maintains a slight
edge for White, for example IS .....e6
130 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i.f4!
16 a4 as 17 bxaSlbxaS 18 :dl :fd8
19 i.eS;t.
14••• lbd4! (D)
A spectacular idea of Beliavsky's,
and the tactical justification behind
12...•f6. However, it seems that with
accurate play White can still keep a
slight edge.
15 i.xfS
1) Islbxd4i.xd416:tcl (l6exd4
i.xd3 =) 16... i.b6 17 i.xfS "xfS 18
though Seirawan suggested that 19 "f3
i.c7 .e4 is on the whole drawish, al-
might keep a slight edge for White. In-
stead, Seirawan-Beliavsky, Belgrade
1991 continued 19 .c2 "xc2 20
:xc2 d4 21 exd4 :ac8 22 :fcl i.xd4
23 'ii?fl f6 =. Thnik-Sulipa, Minsk
1993, saw the same position, but with
the white pawn on h3 rather than h2
(see note to Black's 13th), and this
slight difference in pawn structure
eliminated any back-rank wornes White
might have had. Play continued 20
.c2 h6 21 'ii'xe4 dxe4 22 :fdl :fc8
23 i.xb6 :xc I 24 :xc I axb6 2S :C7
±; the extra tempo proved useful.
2) IS lbeS i.xd3 16 .xd3 :fd8!
17 a4 (l7lbg4 Wg6 18 Wxg6lbe2+;
Lputian) 17 ...lbe6 18 as i.c7 19lbg4
should not be too dangerous. Black
can equalize either with 19...•e7 20
i.xc7 "xc7!? (20... lbxc7 21 f3 =
Lputian) 21 :fcl "d6 22 .fS d4 23
lbes dxe3! (Lputian; 23 ...We7 24 a6;t
Lputian-Beliavsky, USSR Cht (Azov)
1991) or, more simply, with 19...Wg6
20 "xg6 hxg6 21 i.xc7 lbxc7 22
:fbl (22 :abl f6 =Lputian) 22 ... d4
23 exd4:d5 24 b6 axb6 2S axb6 :xal
26 lbal lbe6 =Brenninkmeijer-Van
der Sterren, Dutch Ch 1992.
Is..•lbxf3+ 16.xf3 'ibfS 1784
After 17 :fdl, 17...:fd8 18 a4
transposes, while M.Gurevich in In-
Jormator 53 gives 17... d4 18 exd4
"xbS 19 Wxb7 :ad8 as equal, but
Goldin in InJormator 56 claims a
slight edge for White after 20 a4, e.g.
20... WfS 21 i.e3 :dS (21...:d7 22
"f3 ;t) 22 :ac 1 :fd8 23 h3 h6 24
:c4. One can remain sceptical as to
whether White is achieving anything
in another of the lines that Goldin
gives; after 20...Wb2 21 i.e3 i.xd4 22
'iVxb2 i.xb2 23 :abl a6 24 :xd8
:xd8 2S h4 (;t Goldin) Black looks
safe enough on 2S ... i.c3.
With the white pawn on h3 (via the
move-order 13 ... i.g4 14 h3 i.fS in-
stead of 13 ...i.fS), Yusupov-Beliav-
sky, Linares 1990 continued 18 :fdl
:ad8 19 :ac1 d4 20 i.c7 .xf3 21
gxf3 ;to
17...:fd8
17...:ac8 18 :fdl :fd8 19 as i.cs
20 :acl ;t Gurevich, but again Goldin
disputes this assessment, giving 20...b6
21 axb6 axb6 22 h3 (if 22 .g3, then
22 ...d4 =) 22.....d7 =.
18 as
18 :fdl transposes to Yusupov-
Goldin, Tilburg 1992 (reached via 17
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
Afdl) and White achieved nothing af-
Icr 18 ... Aac8 19 h3 (19 a5 transposes
10 the previous note) 19... h6 20 a5
J.c7 =.
18••..i.e5 19 .i.e7 .xf3 20 gxf3
Ad7 21 b6!
Black has a difficult endgame to
defend, M.Gurevich-Beliavsky, Bel-
grade 1991. If now 21...i.d6?, 22 a6!.
It should be noted though that Gure-
vich gave 17... Aac8 as a more accu-
rute defence.
The general impression is that
12 ..."f6 gives Black a couple of
moves of tactical fun, but then forces
him to play carefully to hold in a very
Icchnical sort of position. A reasona-
hly solid drawing line, perhaps, rather
Ihan a winning attempt.
8122)
12... d4 (D)
To knock out the pawn protection
III'the bishop on f4, so that .....f6 will
l"IImc with gain of tempo. There is not
much experience of this, but Be-
liavsky has twice guided the position
h, equality against world-class oppo-
ncnts.
l3e4
131
When even 13 "c2 remains un-
tried, it is difficult to come to firm con-
clusions on this line. 13 ... h6 14 exd4
(14 Aadl .i.g4!) 14... lLlxd4 ISlLlxd4
tlt'xd4 16 .i.e3 "f6 17 i.xb6 "xb6 18
Aac 1 i.e6 is nothing, though.
13•••i.g4 14 h3 i.h5
"ill After 14.....f6!?, 15 i.h2 .i.xf3 16
=
"xf3 17 gxf3lLla5 was Salov-
Beliavsky, Linares 1992, but Beliavsky
notes 15 hxg4 "xf4 16 gS as a possi-
ble improvement, continuing 16... f6
17 g3 'it'g4 18 gxf6l1xf6 19lLlh2 'iVh3
20 "g4 "xg4 21lLlxg4 Ag6 22 .i.c4+
;1;. However, 16.. .f6?! is a strange move,
handing White a passed e-pawn, and
removing his headaches over the g5-
pawn. 16 ...:ae8!, preparing ... lLle5,
looks good for Black.
15 g4 .i.g6 16 Ad Ae8 17 Ael
~h8 18 ~g2 f6 19lLlh4 .i.e7
Black is comfortable, Karpov-Beli-
avsky, Tilburg 1993.
12...d4 would appear to be a sound
enough way for Black to avoid the
masses of theory after 12... .i.g4, to
which we now turn.
8123)
12•••i.g4 (D)
132 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i.,f4!
13b3
13 b4 :e8 (or 13 ... a6) 14 h3 trans-
poses; White will have to prod the
bishop sooner or later.
13•••.t.bS 14 b4
14 .t.e2 is uninspiring. 14...:e8 15
b4, as in Spassov-Georgadze, Line
B1231 below, leads to a minor white
deviation from the main line, while
14....t.xf3 15 .t.xf3 d4 16 exd4 .t.xd4
17 "d2 Wb6, Hiibner-Karpov, Tilburg
1983, is extremely drawish, notwith-
standing White's bishop-pair.
14•••:e8 (D)
Reckoning that b5 is no threat, and
that bringing another piece into play is
useful.
1) Even so, 14... a6 has been tried a
few times:
la) If then 15 :a2 d4 16 e4 (or 16
g4 .t.g6 17 .t.xg6 fxg6! Georgiev)
16....t.c7 17 .t.xc7 Wxc7 18 g4?! (18
:c2!? :ad8!? Georgiev), 18 ....t.g6 19
:e2 :fe8 ; Seirawan-Ki.Georgiev,
Dubai OL 1986; White must watch
out for the f4-square.
Ib) White's main choice is 15:Cl
d4 16 g4 .t.g6 17 e4:
Ibl) After 17 ...:c8 18 :el, Epi-
shin-Van der Sterren, Ter Apel 1992
continued 18 ...:e8 19 Wg2 .t.c7 20
Wd2 .t.xf4 21 Wxf4;t, but by analogy
with the Karpov-Beliavsky game in
section B122 (with b4 and ... a6 omit-
ted), 18 ...~h8 followed by ...f6 might
be a more reliable choice for Black.
Ib2) Beliavsky-Ki.Georgiev, Biel
1992 saw instead 17...:e8, but again
we may doubt whether this is the best
place for the rook. Play continued 18
ltld2 (18 :el!? Beliavsky) 18 ...:c8
(18 ...f6!? Beliavsky) 19 .t.g3 (19 Wb3!
;t Beliavsky) 19... f6 20 b5 (20 f4!
Georgiev) 20 ... axb5 21 Wb3+ Wh8 22
"xb5 .t.c7 =. Evidently Beliavsky as
White learnt a lot from this game of
use for his encounter as Black with
Karpov the following year. Piling
pieces on the e-file is not important in
this line; it is better to restrain the
pawn roller with ...f6, and get the
bishop back into play without loss of
time.
2) 14.....f6?! 15 g4 .t.g6 16 .t.xg6
hxg6 17 Wxd5 grabbed a pawn for in-
sufficient compensation in Gavrikov-
Vaganian, Tallinn 1988, but this was
only a quickplay encounter.
w
This position has been reached sev-
eral times in recent years, with White
trying a variety of moves, but Black,
with ...d4 and ...ltle5 both in the air,
has enough play to remain comfort-
able:
B1231: 15.t.e2?! 132
B1232: 15 :ct 133
B1233: 15 g4 134
B1234: 15 :&2 134
81231)
15 .t.e2?! d4!
Georgadze's suggestion. Alterna-
tives:
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
I) IS ... a6 16 l:a2 Wd7 17 lDes
~)xeS IS i.xhS o!ik4 =
L.Spassov-
T.Georgadze. Bulgaria 19S1.
2) IS ... i.g6 16 l:a2 d4 17 exd4
li)xd41SlOxd4 Wxd419 Wxd4 i.xd4
::: Gofshtein-Kharitonov, Aktiubinsk
1985.
16exd4
16 lOxd4 i.xd4 17 i.xhS i.xal =+=
Gcorgadze.
16•••l:xe2 17 .xe2lLlxd4 18 'iVe4
i.g6! 19 We3 1Oc2 20 'iVb3 lOxal :j:
Georgadze.
81232)
ISl:c1 (D)
IS•••d4
This thematic thrust leads to a sharp
tactical sequence which liquidates to
what should be a drawn endgame.
Others:
1) 15 ... a6!? is simple and reliable.
16 g4 i.g6 17 i.xg6 hxg6 IS Wd3 d4
19 e4 '12-'12 Speelman-Geller, London
19S2. 16 i.e2!? i.g6 =.
2) 15 ... aS (with the point 16 b5
lOeS 17 i.xeS i.xf3) 16 g4 i.g6 17
i.xg6 hxg6 IS bSlDe7!? (1S ... lLla7 19
Wd3 ~ Lputian-Geller, New York
1990) 19 i.eS?! (exchanging bishops
133
leaves holes in the white position; 19
Wd2 ~) 19 ... Wd7 20 i.d4 i.xd4 21
lOxd41Ocs 22 Wc2 l:e7 23 WcS WdS
24 l:fd 1 lOb6 2S 1Of3 l:eS 26 Wc7
l:e7, Tunik-Kharitonov, Russian Ch
(Elista) 1995, and now repetition with
27 WcS would have been advisable.
Instead White exchanged queens, and
his far-advanced queenside pawns
proved weaIc:er than Black's isolated
d-pawn in the endgame.
3) IS ...lOe5, Lputian, is an un-
tested idea.
16 g4 i.g617 i.xg6 bxg618 bS
Now Dreev-Geller, Helsinki 1992
headed for a quick but bright draw af-
ter IS ... lOe7!? 191Oxd4 (19 e4 might
improve) 19 ...lLlds 20 lDe2 (20 i.g3!?
ao) 20 ... gS 21 i.g3 lOxe3! 22 Wxd8
:axdS 23 l:fellOdS 24 ~f1 :d7 2S
l:edl l:edS 26 o!ik3 f6 27 l:d3 '12-'12.
Dreev showed a simpler, tactical
path to safety, and a Brazilian GM fol-
lowed the road a year later...
18•••dxe3 19 bxc6 e2 20 WxdS ex-
nW+ 21 ~ l:axdS 22 cxb7 f6??
A move too far down the track.
Dreev gives this as equal, but it loses.
22 ... a6, Lima, prepares the defence
... i.a7-bS, and forces White to win
back the exchange while he still has
the chance. Fta<:nik has suggested 23
lOeS!? l:bS 24 lOc4 l:xb7 25 lOd6,
and if 2S ...l:bbS, 26 lOxeS l:xeS 27
l:c6 with endgame pressure. Black is
fine though after 25 ...i.c7! 26 l:xc7
:xc7 27 lOxeS l:c3, and if 2S i.d6 f6
White's minor pieces are in a tangle.
Instead...
23 l:bl! gS 24 i.g3 l:d7
24 ...l:bS 2S i.xbS l:xbS 26 a4 ~f7
(26 ...l:xb7 27 as +-) 27 l:bS +-;
24 ... l:d3 2S ~g2 l:xa3 26 l:el! l:f8
 1.\4 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 J.J4!
(26...l:ld8 27 l:lel +-) 27 -*.d6 l:lb3 28
-*.xf8 -*.c7 (28 ...-*.a5 29 -*.b4! +-) 29
l:le7 -*.d6 30 l:le8 +- is analysis by
Lima.
25 bS'it' l:lxbS 26 -*.xbS
And the extra piece won the end-
game in Lima-Milos, Sao Paulo Z
1993. A game with a moral: when fol-
lowing published analysis, keep check-
ing the position on the board, and
don't just rely on the analyst, particu-
larly if the move in question is a quiet
one at the end of a long forcing se-
quence.
81233)
15 g4 (D)
B would seem that Black may also kill
Possibly releasing the tension a lit-
tle too early.
15•••-*.g616-*.xg6hxg617 b5 ~
IS 'it'd3 ~4 19 'it'b3 'it'r6 20 l:ladl
l:ladS 21 ~g2 'it'e7 22 l:ld3 'it'e4 23
~g3
In the game Chiburdanidze-Geller,
Aruba 1992, Black headed for the
draw with 23 ...lbb2 24 l:ld2lbc4, etc.
Black may well be able to try for more,
for example 23 ... f6 24 h4 l:le7 fol-
lowed by ... l:led7 and White's king-
side is over-extended.
81234)
15 l:la2 (D)
The most popular choice. White is
prepared to double rooks on any of the
central files if required.
15•••d4
The most enterprising reply, but it
the tension with 15 ... lbe5!? 16 -*.xe5
-*.xf3 17 "xf3 l:lxe5 18 l:ldl "g5 19
l:lc2 l:lae8 =Ehlvest-Kotronias, Reyk-
javik 1994.
16b5
16 g4 -*.g6 17 -*.xg6 hxg6 18 :ld2
(after 18 b5, 18 ...lba5, as in the Seira-
wan-Speelman game given below,
would transpose to the main line,
whileI8 .....d519bxc6 ..xa220cxb7
is unclear) 18 .....d5 19 exd4 l:le4,
Kharitonov, and Black's central block-
ade nullifies White's extra pawn.
Kharitonov also gives 16 l:ld2 "f6
17 g4 -*.g6 18 -*.xg6 hxg6 19 -*.g5
"e6 20 exd4 "d5!, and again White's
extra pawn means very little.
16•••~
1) 16... lbe5 17 -*.xe5 -*.xf3 18
"xf3 l:lxe5 and now White stands bet-
ter in the centre after 19 e4, followed
by "e2 and f4 - M.Gurevich. White
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
could try picking up a pawn with 19
exd4 1i'xd4 20 1i'xb7 instead, but after
20 .. J:ld8 21 :d2 1i'c3 22 :e2 g6
Tunik-Komeev, Smolensk 1991, his
winning chances are slight, in view of
the opposite-coloured bishops and
Black's active pieces.
2) 16 ... i.xf3?! 17 "xf3 dxe3?
(l7 ... 11k5 ;t) is unsound, but highly
entertaining, with promotion, under-
promotion and a king wandering com-
ing up. Gavrikov-Kharitonov, USSR
Ch(Moscow) 1988 continued 18bxc6
'iVxd3 19 cxb7 exf2+ 20 Wh2!! (20
:fxf2 'iWxf3 21 gxf3 .!:tab8 = Khari-
tonov) 20 .....xfl (20... 'iWxf3 21 gxf3
:ab8 22 i.xb8 :xb8 23 :b2! +-
Kharitonov) 21 bxaS....gl+ 22 Wg3
fl tD+ 23 Wh4 i.dS+ 24 'iWxdS .!:txd8
25 .!:tf2 f6 26 :xfl g5+ 27 Wh5 "c5
28 i.e3? (a move-order slip; Khari-
tonov notes that 28 "b3+! Wh8 29
i.e3 'iWe5 30 'iWf7 would have won
easily) 28 .....c4! (now the white king
is in danger) 29 Wh6:e8 30 i.d2 "f7
31 "d3 :e2! (threatening ...:xd2) 32
'iWdS+ .!:teS 33 'iWd3 with a draw.
17 g4 i.g6 18 i.xg6
18 exd4 'iWdS 19 l:e2 i.xd3 20 "xd3
:xe2 21 'iWxe2 h6 22 :dl tDc4 23 a4
:d8 is another line where Black suc-
cessfully blockades the light squares
after having sacrificed the isolani to
give White an isolani of his own. Nei-
ther side can do anything constructive
if the opponent holds his ground. Gav-
rikov-M.Gurevich, USSR Ch play-off
Vilnius (4) 1985 continued 24 Wg2
WfS 2S "c2 WgS 26 .!:td3 i.aS! 27
1i'e2WfS 28 Wh2 :e8 29 "c2 wgS
and the deadlock remained unre-
solved.
18••• hxg6 19 tDxd4 1i'dS 20 :c2
135
Here Seirawan-Speelman, London
1984 continued 20... tDc4 21 a4 :acS
22 tDf3 "xdl 23 :xdl tDeS 24 tDel
tDf3+ 2S Wfl tDxel 26 :xc8 :xcS 27
.!:txel :c4 28 :al and Black was ulti-
mately unable to hold the endgame.
The simple 20... i.xd4, again aiming
to fix a white pawn on d4, seems more
satisfactory, when after 21 'iWxd4
"xbS 22 :cS 'iWa6!, Black is comfort-
able, or 21 exd4 :e4 22 i.e3 b6 (to
prevent :cS) and Black can think
about attacking with ...fS-f4.
Various attempts have been made to
bolster the Knight Exchange System
in recent years. but Black seems OK if
he plays actively. If there is any scope
for improvement for White. one intui-
tively feels that it is in the less well ex-
plored 10 i.d3 system, rather than 10
a3, after which the plan of develop-
ment with ...i.b6, ..."f6 and ....tg4.
often in association with ...d4. is diffi-
cult for White to attack.
82)
8 ...exdS (D)
This is the Pawn Exchange Varia-
tion. Play normally continues with 9
136 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
.i.e2 ~c6 here, leading to a position
that can be arrived at by several differ-
ent move-orders after 1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3
~c3 ~f6 4 ~f3 .i.e7 5 .i.f4. For ex-
ample:
5 ...0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 .i.xc5 8 cxdS
exdS 9 .i.e2 ~6 (the move-order be-
ing considered here);
5 ... 0-06 e3 c5 7 dxc5 .i.xc5 8.i.e2
~c6 9 cxdS exd5;
5 ... 0-06 e3 c5 7 dxc5 .i.xc5 8l:lcl
~6 (8 ...dxc4!?) 9 cxd5 exd5;
5 ... 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 ~c6 8 cxd5
exd5 9 .i.e2 .i.xc5;
5 ... c5 6 dxc5 ~c6 7 e3 J.xc5 8
cxdS exd5 9 J.e2 0-0.
If one is looking for something
against the Tarrasch, there is also the
further possibility 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3
~3 c5 4 cxdS exd5 5 ~f3 ~6 6 .i.f4
~f6 7 e3, and if 7 ....i.e7, 8 dxc5 .i.xc5
9 .i.e2 0-0. The .i.f4 system against the
Tarrasch is well out of fashion, with no
recent InJormator references. ECO
(Kasparov) gives 7 ...cxd4 8 ~xd4.i.b4
as equal, but the material is sparse, and
there must surely be scope for explo-
ration and improvement. I leave this to
the reader.
The diagram position is generally a
pleasant one for White to play; he has
chances of manoeuvring against the
isolated queen's pawn structure, while
Black will find it difficult to establish
counterplay. Black certainly does not
have the fluidity of piece movement
associated with the Knight Exchange
Variation.
White's main. choices are 9 .i.e2
and 9l:lc 1. With the c3- and f6- knights
still on the board, it makes sense to
keep the isolated pawn under restraint,
rather than, as in the 9 cxd5 ~xdS 10
~xd5 exd5 line, to play for pressure
along the bl-h7 diagonal. We consider
two minor lines first:
821: 9 J.d3 136
822: 9 J.eS 136
823: 9l:lcl 136
824: 9 .i.e2 137
821)
9J.d3lllc6I00-0andnow 1O...J.g4
11 l:lcl d4! 12 ~b5 .i.b6 13 ~bxd4
~xd4 14 exd4 Wd5! = Teichmann-
Janowsky, Hastings 1895, was, as we
noted in the Introduction, a remarka-
bly avant-garde idea for its time. In-
stead 1O....i.e6 lll:lci lIc8 12 .i.bl ~
as in the game Steinitz-Burn, Hastings
1895, leaves White's initiative unchal-
lenged.
822)
9 .i.eS .i.e6 10 .i.d4 shouldn't be
too dangerous: 1O....i.d6 (1O....i.e7!?)
11 .i.e2 ~c6 12 0-0, Juarez-Campi-
telli, Villa Ballester 1996, and now
12...~ seems simpler than 12...~d4
13 ~xd4.
823)
9l:lcl~(D)
w
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
This will usually transpose, after 10
i.e2, back into the main line, B24,
though 1O... d4! should equalize (for
example 11 exd4li)xd4 12ll)xd4 'ilxd4
13 'ilxd4 .i.xd4 14 li)b5 .i.b6 15 0-0
i.e616 a3li)dS =Ye Rongguang-Van
der Sterren, Antwerp 1997) suggest-
ing perhaps that White's rook move is
best delayed. There are also a few mi-
nor offshoots.
10a3
1) 10 li)xdS?! (this tactic rarely
works, as we shall see in other settings
as well) 1O... li)xdS 11 ':xcS li)xf4 12
'if'xd8 (12 exf4?? 'ile7+) 12...li)xg2+
13 .i.xg2 ':xd8 = Reinfeld. If any-
thing, Black may be a little better.
2) 10 .i.d3?! d4 11 exd4li)xd4 12
0-0 .i.g4 ~ Steinitz-Em.Lasker, St Pe-
tersburg 189516.
10...d4!
If you can play ... d4, do so!
1) 10....i.g4 11 .i.e2 l:te8 12 0-0
.i.e7 13 'ii'b3li)aS 14 'ila2li)c6 is also
reasonably solid, Larsen-B.lvanovic,
Bugojno 1982.
2) 10... a6 was reached by transpo-
sition (8 a3 li)c6 9 ':cl a6 10 cxdS
exdS) in Dreev-Short, Linares 1995.
11 .i.e2 would lead towards standard
positions. Instead White tried for
more, and achieved much less, with 11
.i.gS?! d4 (11.. ..i.e7?! 12 .i.e2 .i.e6 13
0-0 ± Hamann-Filip, Lugano OL 1968)
12li)b5? (12 exd4) 12... dxe3 13 'ilxd8
exf2+ 14 ~e2 ':xd8-+.
11 exd4
White probably does best to settle
for dull eqUality.
1) llli)a4?! 'if'aS+ 12 b4li)xb4 13
li)d2 (captures on cS are met by
... ltXl3+; 13 axb4 .i.xb4+ 14 'it'e2 d3+
15 'it'xd3 .b5+ -+) 13 ...dxe3 14 fxe3
137
(14 li)xc5!? exd2+ ~) 14...li)a6 15
.i.xa6 .txa3! 16 ':al 'i'xa6 17 ':xa3
bS + Slutskin-Kibalnichenko, Russia
1992.
2) 11 li)e2? dxe3 12 'i'xd8 exf2+
and Black wins.
3) 11 li)bS 'ilaS+ 12 b4 (12 'ild2
'i'xd2+ 13li)xd2 dxe3 14 .:xcS exd2+
15 .i.xd2li)e4 ~) 12... li)xb4 13 axb4
.i.xb4+ 14 li)d2li)e4 15 exd4 ':e8 16
li)c7 li)xd2+ 17li)xe8 li)b3+ 18 'it'e2
li)xcl+ 19 'if'xcl .i.g4+ +.
In this analysis by Kibalnichenko
and Zinov, the play is fast-moving, but
White's lack of development always
tells.
1l...li)xd4 12li)xd4 'ii'xd4 13 'ii'xd4
.i.xd4
Equal, according to Kibalnichenko
and Zinov. If anything, Black is to be
preferred, as White is behind in devel-
opment and exposed to checks on the
e-file. The f2-square could also cause
problems. An editorial note in In/or-
mator 57 gives, after the suggested 14
li)b5.i.xb2 IS ':c2, 15 ....:e8+ as good
for Black. If then 16 .te2 li)dS 17
l:txb2 li)xf4 18 li)c7, Black wins a
pawn by 18... li)d3+! 19 'it'd2li)xb2.
824)
9 .i.e2 (D)
9•••li)c610 0-0
After lO':c 1, 1O....i.e6 11 0-0 leads
back to the main line, while 10...d4!
11 exd4 li)xd4 12 li)xd4 .xd4 13
.xd4 .i.xd4 14li)b5 .tb6 15 0-0 (IS
li)c7? .i.xc7 16 .i.xc7 ':e8 +) IS ....i.e6
16 a3 ':fd8 17 li)d6 l:ld7 18 .i.bS ':e7
19 ':fel Ill-If'], was ~~~~Karpov,
Seville Wch (22) 1987 (where the
move-order was 8 ':c 1 li)c6 9 cxdS
exdS 10 .i.e2).
138 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./41
lO....te6
1) 10...h6 was not tested very hard
in Bagirov-Guseinov, Baku 1993: 11
~e5 .td6 12 ~xc6 bxc6 13 .txd6
'iVxd6 14 ':cl .te6 15 Wc2 :lab8 16
b3 ':fc8 17 ':fdl 112-112. It makes more
sense to force the black bishop to
commit itself before playing ~5. 11
':cl!? .tb6 12 ~5 ~e7 13 ~a4 ;t
Nikitin-Shur, USSR Cht (Azov) 1991.
2) 10... a6 11 ~5!? (11 ':cl .te6
leads back to the main text) 11...~7
12 ~d3 .ta7 13 .te5 ;t D.Johansen-
Federau, Berlin 1984.
U':c1
The natural developing move, and
the most popular choice, but there are
several reasonable alternatives, most
of which seem to keep a plus for
White.
1) 11 ~b5!? a6 (11...':c8 12 ':cl
transposes to the main line) 12 ~bd4
'iVb613 ~b3 (13 ~xc6 bxc614 Wc2
.te7 15 ~g5 .td7 16 ':acl also gives
White a slight advantage, E.Meduna-
Abramovi~, Moscow 1982) 13 ... .te7
14 ~fd4 ~ 15 .td3 ~xd4 16 ~xd4
.tf6 17 ~xe6 Wxe6 18 We2 ~c5 19
.tc2 g6 20 ':adl d4 21 b4 iDd7 22
.tb3 "e7 23 "d2 dxe3 24 'ifxe3 ;t
Portisch-T.Bauer, Hungary 1993.
2) 11 ~a4 .te7 12 ~5 ~e4 13
':cl ~xe5 14 .txe5:C8 15 :Xc8 "xc8
16 ~c3 "c5 17 .td3 ~xc3 18 .txc3;t
Zsu.Polgar-Franco, Salamanca 1989.
3) I1lL1e5 .td6 (11...~7 12.tO
;t Mikhalchishin; 11.. .':c8 12 ~xc6
':xc6 {12...bxc6? 13 .ta6 traps the
rook} 13 .te5 ~d7 14 .td4 ;t Gavri-
kov-Magomedov, Tallinn rpd 1988)
12 ~xc6 bxc6 13 "a4 (13 .txd6!?
'ii'xd6 14 "d3 c5 15 ':fdl Mikhalchi-
shin) 13 ....txf414 Wxf4c5 (14 ...Wb8
15 'ii'xb8 ':axb8 16 b3 c5 17 :edl
':fc8 18 ':acl g6 {18...':b4!? Cebalo}
190 ;t Cebalo-Rukavina, Yugoslavia
1982) 15 b3 WaS 16 ':acl :lac8 17
'ii'a4 Wxa4?! (17 ...Wb6! 18 ':fdl
':fd8 GO Mikhalchishin) 18 ~xa4 ;t
Mikhalchishin-Beliavsky, Moscow tt
1981.
4) 11 a3 a6 (1l...':c8 12 ':cl trans-
poses to the main line) 12 ':cl.te7 13
~5 ':c8 14 ~xc6 ':xc6 15 .te5 ~4
16 .td4lL1xc3 17 ':xc3 ':xc3 18.txc3
.tf6 19 'ifd2 ;t Golod-Suetin, Alushta
1993.
5) 11 J..g5 seems slightly unthe-
matic: 11.. ..te7 12iDd4 h6 13 .th4
':c8 14 ':cl WaS 15 ~xe6 fxe6 16
"b3 Wb4 = Shamkovich-Yudovichjr,
USSR 1964.
These lines exhibit a wide range of
typical isolated and hanging pawn p0-
sitions. The general impression would
be that White plays natural moves and
keeps a slight edge. This is a pattern
we shall witness several times in the
second half of this book, as we exam-
ine ways in which Black avoids the
double-edged positions of the main
lines. Black avoids being quickly
overrun, but makes it easier for White
to achieve a modest positional plus.
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
After 11 lIcl, Black has several
choices, with 11.. .:c8 and 11.. ..tb6
being the most popular. 11..."e7 may
be disregarded, as it loses a clear tempo
after 12 tLla4 .td6 13 .txd6 "xd6 14
tLlc5 b6 15 tLld3 it L.Popov-Marjano-
vie, Albena 1977. We discuss in detail:
B241: 11 ....te7 139
B242: 11•.•a6 139
B243: 11.••.tb6 140
B244: 11••• :ca 140
8241)
11.•..te7 (D)
This should be regarded with some
suspicion, as Black takes a guard off
the blockading square in front of the
isolated pawn.
12tLld4
The natural reply. Others allow
Black good prospects of equalizing.
1) 12 .tg5 :c8 13 a3 (13 tLld4
tLlxd4 14 "xd4 "a5 15 a3 :c6 16 e4
dxe4 17 tLlxe4 J:d8 18 "e3 112-112
Reshevsky-R.Byrne, USA Ch 1981)
13 .....a5 14 tLla4 and now, rather than
14 ... tLle4 15 b4 "d8 16 .txe7 tLlxe7
17 tLlcI4 it Petrosian-Filip, Buenos Ai-
res 1964, Black should try 14...b5!? IS
tLlcs b4 IIC.
139
2) 12 "a4 "b6 13 'iWbS "xbS 14
tLlxb5 tLle4 IS :fdl .tf6 =Ornstein-
Schussler, Eksjo 1982. Here White
simplified a little too early and a little
too directly, allowing Black to posi-
tion his minor pieces actively.
:ca
12••• 13 tLlxc6
13.tn'iWd7 14 h3 tLlxd4 IS "xd4
(IS exd4!? it) IS ...bS 16 :fdl :c4 17
"e5 :fc8 18 :bl :4cS 19 e4 ± Tarta-
kower-Klein, Paris 1935, although one
can certainly question the accuracy of
Black's play. Piling everything on the
c-file leads to neglect of the d- and e-
files.
13•••:Xc6
13 ... bxc6?? 14 .ta6 wins the ex-
change, a recurring theme in this type
of position where White has a bishop
onf4.
14 .to .as .d3 15 :d8 16.b5
.tb417 .xaS .txaS 18 tLlb5 .tb619
tLld4 ± Browne-Cifuentes, Santiago
1981.
These isolated queen's pawn posi-
tions can be difficult to judge. When is
White better? When is Black equal?
The general answer is that when, as
here, White establishes the more ac-
tive piece positioning in the centre he
is clearly better. When Black, as in the
Ornstein-Schussler game, is able to
establish the more active cluster of
pieces in the centre, he is comfortable
at least.
8242)
11... a6 12 tLla4
12 tLleS!? is a more promising try
for White.
12.••.ta7
12....te7 13 tLlcs .txcS 14 :xcS it
was played in Uhlmann-StAhlberg,
140 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 51./4!
Marianske Lazne 1965, but it makes
questionable sense for Black to vacate
a7 for the bishop, then play it to the in-
ferior square e7.
13a3
13 J.g5 d4!?
13...:c8 14 ~cS liz_liz Notkin-
Horin, Moscow 1991, possibly in view
of 14 .....e7.
8243)
1l...J.b6 (D)
Taking the bishop out of range of
the rook, in order to be able to play
... d4 if given the chance.
12 'i'a4!
Deterring ... d4, because of the pos-
sible pin on the d-file.
In other lines, ... d4 equalizes, for
example:
1) 12 ~a4 d4 (another possibility
is 12...~e4 13 ~5 ~xe5 14 J.xe5
"g5, as in Schiissler-S.Heim, Reykja-
vik 1981) 13 exd4 ~xd4 14 ~xd4
=
'ifxd4 15 'ifxd4 J.xd4 Taimanov-
An.Bykhovsky, USSR Ch (Tallinn)
1965.
2) 12 ~e5 ~7 (or, more directly,
12 ...d4 13 ~xc6 bxc6 14 exd4 .xd4
15 'ifxd4 .txd4 =Kne!evie-Rukavina,
Yugoslav Ch (Borovo) 1981) 13 'ifa4
(13 .i.g5 d4 14 exd4 'ifxd4 15 .txf6
gxf6 oo ECO) 13 ...d414exd4(14:fdl
~! Bukie) 14.....xd415~f3 .xa4
16 ~xa4 .i.xa2!? (16...~d5 =is sim-
pler) 17 .i.d6 :fe8 18 :al ~5 19
J.b5 J.c4 20 .i.xe8 :xe8 21 :fdl
.i.b3 22 ~xb6 .i.xdl 1/Z-1f2 Vaganian-
Beliavsky, Baden-Baden 1980. A flurry
of tactics leads to a peaceful conclu-
sion.
12....i.d7
12.. :ii'e7 13 :fdl :fd8 14 .tg5 h6
15 .th4 :ac8 16 ~b5 'ifb4 17 'ifxb4
~xb4 18 .i.xf6 gxf6 19 a3 ~c6 20
~fd4 ~xd4 21 ~xd4 .txd4 22 exd4
:xc 1 23 :xc1 :c8 24 :xc8+ .txc8
and White should almost certainly win
the bishop ending, Seirawan-R.Byme,
USACh 1981.
13 :fdl ~4 14 .b4 as
14...~xe2+ 15 ~xe2 .i.g4 16 ~d4
~ 17 h3; Karpov-BeJiavsky, Mos-
cow 1981.
15.a3 ~xe2+ 16 ~e2 .tg417
lOed4
17 .d6?! :a6! 18 'ifxd8 .txd8 =
Vaganian-Beliavsky, Leningrad 1977.
17...:c818 b3; Gheorghiu-Soylu,
Athens 1981.
8244)
1l...:c8 (D)
The main line. White now gener-
ally chooses 12 ~b5 or the perhaps
most accurate 12 a3, while there are a
few others too:
B2441: 12 ~dS? 141
B2442: 12 J.g5 141
B2443: 12.a4 141
B2444: 12 ~ 141
B2445: 12 ~b5 141
B2446: 12 a3 142
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
82441)
12lbxdS?
This fails tactically. The same trap
is also sprung after 12 a3 h6 13
lbxdS?
12.....xdS 131fxdS lbxdS 14 :XCS
lL\xf41S exf4lbd4! 16 :eS lbxe2+ 17
llxe21.c4
Black wins the exchange.
82442)
12 1.gS 1.e7
This inter-transposes with 11 .i.gS
.i.e7, or with 11 :cl .i.e7 12 .i.gS (12
lbd4!?); see B24 and B241 respec-
tively. The second move with the
bishop is not very convincing.
82443)
12"a4""6
As Black has no need to fear'ifbS,
12 ... a6 13 %lfdl 'ii'b6 is too cautious:
14 "c2 1.e7 IslOes :fdS 16 .i.f3 is
slightly better for White, Ribli-Un-
zicker, Baden-Baden 19S1.
13'irbSd4!
13 .....xbS ;t Chekhov.
14 lba4 'ifxbS 15 .i.xbS .i.e7 16
exd41.xa2
Unclear, according to Chekhov.
Black should be OK.
141
82444)
12lDeS(D)
Il....i.d6
12... lbe7 13 "a4 ;t, although ECO
is mistaken in citing this as Quin-
teros-Bolbochan, Buenos Aires 1976,
since a3 and ...h6 had been inserted.
13 lbxc6 bxc6 14 .a4 1.xf4 15
.xf4 cs 16 :Cdl :b8!
This seems satisfactory for Black,
despite the loss of tempo when com-
pared with lllOes lines (B24, note to
move 11).
17 b3 :b4 18 .eS :e8 = J~:­
Keres, USSR Ch (Tbilisi) 19S9.
-lJlacK's- pieces are so active that
White can launch no really effective
attack on the hanging pawns.
82445)
12lbbS (D)
The direct approach.
l l... lbe4
Black in return aims for immediate
piece activity.
1) 12....e7?! runs into an awk-
ward pin. 13 1.gS .i.b6 14 "d3 .i.g4
IS h3 .i.hS (lS ....txf3 16.txf3lOeS
17 "dl ± Chekhov) 16 ~3 .tg6 17
"bS .te4 ISlL\d2 :cdS 19l:lcdl :reS
142 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i.f4!
B 14.xdlJ.b4
20 lDdxe4 dxe4 21lDds ± Chekhov-
Wilhelmi, Hamburg 1996.
2) 12...ole713 tDes (13lilld4 'ifb6
14lDxe6 fxe6 IslDd4lDxd4 16 "xd4
olcs = Tischbierek-Lechtynsky, Halle
1981) 13 .....a5 (why not 13 .....b6im-
mediately?) 14 a3 'ifb6 IS b4 tDe4 16
lDxc6 bxc6 17 lDd4 old7 =P.Meyer-
H.Eng, Bundesliga 199112, although
one feels the play on both sides can be
tightened up.
13lDd2
13lDfd4?! .b6 14lDb3 ole7 IS f3
lDf616.d2 a6 17lDsd4 i.b4 18 "dl
lDh5 =+= A.Petrosian-Magomedov, Tal-
linn rpd 1988, merely shows that
strong players can make substandard
strategic decisions in a quickplay.
13 lDgS lOxgS 14 :xcS (14 i.xgS
=) 14... lDe4 IS :cl .b6 is given by
Kasparov as unclear. Black appears
comfortable.
13...lDxd2
After 13 ...ole7!? 14lDxe4 dxe4 IS
lDd6 i.xd6 16 olxd6 :e8, given as un-
clear by Kasparov, the possession of
the bishop-pair does not promise
much for White, as Black's pieces are
centralized and active, and his pawns
straightened out. IS "a4 (Kasparov) at
first looks good, e.g. IS ... a6?! 161Oc3
fS 17 i.c4 ;t, but IS .....d2 is a con·
vincing reply.
14.....b6!? IS :xcS .xcS 16 J.d6
"b6 17 J.xf8 ~xf8 18 :cI a6 19
lOd4 lOxd4 20 :xc8+ olxc8 21 exd4
=
a5 Kasparov.
IS.dl
IS "d3!? W'f6 16 a3 (16lDd6 i.xd6
17 J.xd6 J.fS! "") 16... J.e7 17 b4 as
181Oc7 i.fS 19 W'b3 W'g6!, Kasparov,
provides adequate counterplay.
15••••b6 16 a3 ole7 17 b4 as 18
lOd6 :cd8 19 lDxb7! .xb7 20 bS
:c8!
If the knight moves, 21 :c7. After
the text, a draw was soon agreed in
Korchnoi-Kasparov, Brussels 1986:
21 bxc6 :xc6 22 :bl :b6 23 :xb6
'i'xb6 24 i.eS 112-112.
12 lObS is an interesting try, but its
defect is that it abandons the e4-square
too quickly.
82446)
12a3(D)
The most subtle of White's tries,
and perhaps the best chance of carry-
ing through an advantage. It is essen-
tially a waiting move; White makes a
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
little pawn move which will probably
be useful later on (in preparing b4, or
taking b4 away from a black piece),
and waits for Black to make a piece
move before deciding his own piece
placement.
12••• h6
Black too waits. This cuts out .i.gS,
and leaves open the potential threat of
...lbhs. Others:
I) 12 ... .i.d6 13 .i.xd6 Wxd6 14
'ifa4 a6 IS ':fdl ':fd8 16 h3 t. White,
who has the classic slight edge against
the isolani, made ground using the
standard plan with 16...h6 17 l:ld2
"fIc7 18li)d4li)xd4 19 Wxd4li)e4 20
lldc2li)xc3 21 ':xc3 Wd7 22 .i.f3, etc.,
in Korchnoi-Seirawan, Las Palmas
1981.
2) 12... .i.b6 and now 13 'iWa4 "e7
14 .i.gS h6 IS .i.h4 gS 16 .i.g3 ':fd8
17 ':fdl li)hS = Quinteros-Spassky,
Amsterdam 1973 is about the first
chance of dynamic play for Black that
we have seen in this system. White can
try instead 13li)bS!? li)e4 14li)bd4;1;
(Minev) or 13 li)a4!?
3) 12....i.e7 13ll)eS (13 .i.gS trans-
poses to Petrosian-Filip, section B241;
13 h3!?) and now 13 .....aS 14 "d3
':fd8 ISli)xc6 ':xc6 16 b4 Wxa3 17
li)xdSWxd318li)xe7+~fSI9li)xc6!
"ii'xe2 20 li)xd8 ± Suba-Resende,
Hastings 199011, unexpectedly shows
a theme we saw a lot in the Old and
New Main Lines - the queen getting
into trouble on as. 13 ... .i.d6!? might
be worth trying, despite the apparent
loss of tempo, the point being that in
any hanging pawn position (after 14
li)xc6 bxc6, etc.), it is more difficult
for White to restrain ...c4, and to with-
stand pressure along the b-file, if the
143
white pawn is on a3 rather than on a2,
as protection is removed from b3.
4) 12... a6 13li)bS "b6 (13 ...li)e4
14 li)bd4 ;1;) 14 ':xcS "xcS IS .i.d6
"b6 16 .i.xfS ~xfS 17li)bd4 "xb2,
and now, rather than 18 a4?!, Portisch-
Ioseliani, Monaco 1994, 18 li)xe6+!
fxe6 19 'ifd3 gives various attacking
chances, though one would not blame
the player of the white pieces for dis-
trusting this plan. 13 'iWd3!? is a more
thematic method of development.
13.i.g3
Another quiet move which, it should
not be forgotten, now threatens li)xdS.
For 13li)xd5? see B2441.
=
1) 13ll)eSll)e7 (13 ....i.d6 ECO)
14 'ifa4 a6 IS ':fdl ;I; Quinteros-Bol-
boehan, Buenos Aires 1976.
2) 13 li)bS and now 13 ....i.b6? 14
li)fd4? li)xd4 ISli)xd4 ':xc116 "xcI
.i.xd4 17 exd4 "b6 112-112 O'Kelly-
Timman, London 1973 was very odd,
as 14lOci6 wins material. Black should
play 13 ... .i.e7!? or 13 ...li)e4!?
3) 13 "a4 a6 14 li)eS li)xeS IS
.i.xeSli)d7 16 .i.d4 =ECO, the point
presumably being 16...li)b6 17 'ifdl
.i.xd4 18 "xd41Dc4.
13....i.b6 14li)e5
14li)a4li)e4.
14...li)e7 15 li)a4 li)e4 16 :Xe8
.i.xc8 17 li)f3
White keeps a slight advantage,
Fischer-Spassky, Reykjavik Wch (14)
1972. This is the sort of clear-cut posi-
tion with well-defined strategic objec-
tives that Fischer normally played
superbly in his peak years. It is all the
more surprising then that his position
quickly fell apart after 17 ....i.d7 18
.i.eS? (allowing Black to exchange his
bad bishop, rather than his good
144 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 J.f4!
bishop, for the knight; 18lOxb6 .xb6
19 .te5 ~ Gligoric) 18....txa4 19 .xa4
1Oc6! 20 .tf4 .f6! and Black had a se-
rious initiative, although after further
mistakes the game was drawn.
The heavy positions with an iso-
lated d-pawn are not to everyone's
taste, demanding from both players
good manoeuvring skills and clear
positional judgement. Nevertheless,
White keeps a slight pull, and can use
this line as a legitimate winning try.
The player who seeks the main lines,
with .c2, a3, 0-0-0, etc., will encoun-
ter this line only if Black plays 7 ...lOc6
instead of7 ....txc5, though even here,
White could, if he so chooses, offer
the main line with 8 .c2!? lOb4 9
.bl.txcS 10 a31Oc6 11 .c2!?, as in
Ribli-Gligoric, BledlPortoroz 1979.
4.5 White's alternatives
on move 7
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3lOc3lOf6 4lOn .te7
5 .tf4 0-0 6 e3 c5 (D)
w C)
These mostly come under the cate-
gory 'naIve developing moves'; White
moves a piece out to a reasonably
good-looking square, and ignores the
pawn structure. Black's main priority
is to find a favourable way to fix the
central pawn structure; this is usually
easily enough done. We consider the
following moves:
A: 7.c2 144
B: 7:et 144
C: 7h3 144
D: 7.td3 14S
E: 7.te2!? 146
F: 7 adS 147
A)
7 .c21Oc6 8 0-0-0 WaS 9 a3 cxd4
10 exd4 .td7 11 lOe5 :fd8 ao San-
chez-0stergaard, Copenhagen 1996.
This is certainly no improvement
on the New Main Line.
B)
7:let.aS
7 ... cxd4 8 exd4 b6 9 .te2 lOc6 10
0-0 dxc4 11 .txc4 .tb7 = Kapstan-
D.Allan, Canada 1996.
8 .d2 :d8 9 cxdS cxd4 10 exd4
ll'lxdS lllOxdS .xdS 12 .tc4 'if'e4+
=
13 .te3 .td7 14 0-0 .tc6 Savitsky-
Rauzer, USSR Ch (Leningrad) 1934.
7 h3lOc6
7 ... cxd4 8 exd4 a6 and rather than 9
cxdslOxdS 10 lOxdS .xdS ; Torbin-
Tokmachev, Kazan 1997, White should
try 9 cS!?
883
8 cxd5 lOxdS 9 lOxdS .xdS 10
dxcS .xcS 11 .td3 :d8 12 Wbl
:xd3 13 .xd3lOb4 is slightly better
for Black, Schwierskott-G.Schmidt,
Bundesliga 1996f7.
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
8•••a6 ~H[c1 cxd4 10 exd4 dxe4 11
i.xc4 b512 i.al i.b7 = Anikaev-Lis-
tengarten, USSR 1972.
This line is too quiet.
D)
7 i.d3 (D)
B 8...cxd4 9 exd4 dxc4 (9 ... b6 10 cxd5
Played a lot in the early days, but
still a 'naIve developing move'.
7•••lLle6
1) 7 ...dxc4 8 i.xc4 and now:
la) S... a6 9 dxc5 will transpose
into the 7 dxc5 i.xc5 8 i.e2 dxc41ine.
Less to the point is 9 O-O?! b5 10 i.b3
=
i.b7 11 We2 Wb6 P.lohner-Teich-
mann, Karlovy Vary 1907.
1b) Similarly, White does best to
meet 8 ... lLlc6 with 9 dxc5; instead, 9
lLle5?! cxd4 10 lLlxc6 bxc6 11 exd4
Wb6 12 Wd2 :d8 =was S.Booth-San-
dager, Las Vegas 1994.
2) 7 ... a6 8 cxd5 (8 0-0 lDc6?!
{8 ... dxc4 9 i.xc4 transposes into
1ohner-Teichmann} 9 h3?! cxd4 10
exd4 dxc4 11 i.xc4 b5 = Tarrasch-
Schlechter, Ostend 1905) 8...lDxd5 9
lDxd5 W'xd5 10 0-0 cxd4 11 exd4.id7
12 :el i.c6 13 :e5 Wd8 14 :e3 ;I;
Schlechter-Tartakower, Karlovy Vary
1907.
145
80-0
1) 8 cxd5 exd5 9 dxc5 i.xc5 10 0-0
leads to a Pawn Exchange Variation (7
dxc5 i.xc5 8 cxd5 exd5, etc.) where
White has taken the unusual decision
to develop the bishop to d3 rather than
e2. As noted in the Introduction, Black
equalizes with 1O...i.g4! 11 :cl d4!,
Teichmann-lanowsky, Hastings 1895.
2) 8 :cl (or 7 :Cl lLlc6 8 i.d3)
lLlxd5 11lLlxd5 Wxd5 120-0 i.b7 13
:el :ac8 14 i.e4 Wd7 15 d5 exd5 16
Wd3 "g4 17 i.xh7+ <RhS 18 Wf5;1;
G.Krahenbiihl-E.Agdestein, Gausdal
1982) 10 i.xc4 b6 11 0-0 i.b7 12 a3
':c8 13 i.a2 Wd7 14 i.e3 lLlg4 with
equality, Schlechter-Rubinstein, Bres-
lau 1912.
8 •••cxd4
Played in the one modern game in-
volving a grandmaster from this posi-
tion, and the move I suggested when
annotating lanowsky-Pillsbury (be-
low) for my book on Hastings 1895.
Older moves:
1) S... dxc4 9 i.xc4lLlh5 10 dxc5!
(an idea later developed by Rubinstein
and others: the minor-piece exchange
on f4 strengthens White's grip on e5)
1O...lDxf4 11 exf4 i.xc5 12lLle4 i.e7
(assessed as equal in ECO, but White
still seems better) 13 :cl "a5, and
now 14 We2;1; improves on 14 Wc2, as
played in lanowsky-Pillsbury, Hast-
ings 1895.
2) 8 ... lLlh5 9 i.g3?! (too tame; 9
cxd5! lDxf4 10 exf4 cxd4 {1O...exd5?!
11 dxc5 i.xc5? 12 lLlxd5 ±} 11 dxc6
dxc3 12 bxc3 bxc6 13 Wc2;1;) 9...lDxg3
10 fxg3?! (10 hxg3 =) 1O... dxc4 11
.ixc4 a6 12 a3 b5 13 i.a2 :a7 ;
G.Exner-Charousek, Budapest 1897.
146 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./41
3) 8 ... b6 9 l:lcl .i.b7 10 cxdS exdS
leads to positions discussed under
... b6 systems. White should be better.
9 exd4lDb4 10.i.e2 dxc4 11 .i.xc4
=
lDbdS Averbakh-Castillo, Thessalo-
niki 1988.
11...b6!? could also be tried.
E)
7 .i.e2!? (D)
This is the one move in this section
that might have been under-estimated.
Black does not appear to have any
quick and certain route to equality. The
modest bishop move allows White to
keep some influence on the d-file.
7•••cxd4
After 7 ... lDc6 8 0-0, 8 ... dxc4 9 dxcS
.i.xcs 10 .i.xc4, V.Ragozin-Makogo-
nov, USSR Ch (Moscow) 1944, is yet
another way to transpose to the 6 ... cS
7 dxcS .i.xcs 8 .i.e2 variation, while
8 ...cxd4 9 exd4 transposes to the next
note.
8lDxd4
This poses the sternest test. 8 exd4
leads to an attacking IQP position for
White, but in such positions the bishop
is misplaced on f4, its ideal square be-
ing gS. There might follow:
1) 8 ... dxc4 9 .i.xc4 lDbd7 10 0-0
lDb6 11 .i.d3lDbdS 12 .i.eS ;t Skvor-
tsov-Bitman, Moscow 1968.
2) 8 ...lDc6 9 0-0 dxc4 (9 ... b6 10 a3
.i.b7 11 l:lcl l:lc8 12 cxdS lDxdS 13
.i.g3lDxc3 14 l:lxc3 .i.f6 IS l:ld3 .i.a6
=
16 l:ld2 .i.xe2 17 ti'xe2lDe7 Brad-
bury-T.Sl/.lrensen, Copenhagen 1997)
10 .i.xc4 b6 (1O ... a6 11 .i.b3?! {II
a3!?} 11...lDa512.i.c2bSI3lDeS.i.b7
14 a3 l:lc8 IS ti'd3 g6 16 l:lfel l:le8 17
l:ladllDds ~ P.Costa-C.Santos, Portu-
guese Ch 1997) 11 a3 .i.b7 12 ti'd3
l:c8 =Gloria-Campora, Bern 1993.
8•••lDbd7?!
Missing a tactical trick. 8 ... dxc4 9
.i.xc4lDbd7 is a more accurate move-
order, aiming for the same equalizing
position.
8 ...lDc6 9 cxdS exdS 10 O-o;t ti'b6?
lllDdbS .i.e6?? 12 .i.c7 1-0 Giretti-
Perssinotto, Ceriano Laghetto 1997.
Possibly a premature resignation, but
Black is at the very least losing a lot of
dignity after 12...ti'cs 13 a3, threaten-
ing to trap the queen with lDa4. How-
ever, one of the main databases sug-
gests however that the game actually
finished 12 a3 l:lac8? 13 .i.c7 1-0, as if
13 ... l:lxc7, 14 lDa4 ti'aS IS b4 wins
material.
9.i.g3?!
9 cxdS! is strong, since 9 ...eS?! is
met by 10 lDfS! exf4 (1O... .i.b4 11
.i.gS! lDb6 12 .i.xf6 ti'xf6 13 lDg3
leaves Black wondering how to regain
the pawn) 11 d6.i.xd6 12 ti'xd6 fxe3
13 lDxe3, when White's pieces are
much better mobilized in an open po-
sition.
9 •••dxc4 10 .i.xc4 lDb6 11 .i.d3
=
lDbdS Brestian-Murugan, Moscow
OL 1994.
 Alternatives to the Main Lines for White
F)
7 adS (D)
There are obvious comparisons to
be made with the Exchange Variation
(7 dxcS .i.xcs 8 cxdS), but this par-
ticular move-order is less accurate in
that Black has more flexibility in how
to recapture.
7.../oxdS
7...exdS?! gives White the opportu-
nity, should he so desire, of entering
the Pawn Exchange Variation with 8
dxcS. White could also consider 8
i.e2, for example 8...~c6 9 0-0 c4 10
~S i.e6 11 ~xc6 bxc6 12 b3 WaS 13
~a4 ltac8 14 bxc4 dxc4 IS ~b2 11'b4
16 Wc2;t J.Gonzales-H.Leyva, Cien-
fuegos Capablanca mem 1991, or
8...cxd49~xd4~4?! lOWb3~xc3
11 bxc3 WaS 120-0 l:td8 13 l:tfdl ±
Chachalev-Rabara, Bratislava 1992.
SlOxdS
8 i.g3 cxd4 9 exd4 WaS lO "b3
~6 =B.Sadiku-Wiegner, Berlin 1996.
S.....xd5
After 8... exdS:
1) 9 dxcS transposes to the Knight
Exchange Variation.
2) 9 i.e2 1I'aS+ 10 Wd2 "xd2+ 11
<Rxd2 lDc6 12 dxcS i.xcs 13 ~S
147
=
i.b4+ (13 ... d4!?) 14 <Rdl i.fS Dos
Santos-GarweII, Dubai wom OL 1986.
3) 9 .i.d3!? cxd410 exd4 .i.b4+ 11
<Rfl might be worth a try.
9dxc5
9 i.d3 cxd4 10 exd4 i.b4+ 11 ~2
'iVaS:;:Minev.
9 i.e2 cxd4 10 Wxd4 WaS+ 11 <Rfl
~c6 12 "e4 i.d7 13 ltdl l:tfd8 :;:
K.Ryan-Mateus, Dubai OL 1986.
9 Wb3 Wxb3 10 axb3 cxd4 11
~xd4 i.b4+ 12 <Re2 i.d7 13 f3 ~6
again with a slight plus for Black,
L.Gomes-C.Toth, Brazilian Ch 1996.
9.....xc5 (D)
10 i.d3
lO a31Dc6 (10...ltd8 11 Wcl as 12
i.e2 b6 13 o-o;t Wislez-G.WinkIer,
Brussels 1993) 11 l:tel WaS+ 12 Wd2
Wxd2+ 13 ~xd2 eS 14 i.g3 was as-
sessed by Minev in Informator 33 as
unclear. Korotkova-Strygina, Kaluga
1996 soon headed for the draw after
14...ltd8 IS i.c4 <Rf8 16 <Re2 f6 17
l:tc3 i.fS 18 l:tdl l:td7 19 f3 ltad8 20
i.el, etc. Not very inspiring, but at
least White is relatively safe.
10.....85+
lO...Wb4+!? 11 Wd21Dc6-Minev.
11 <Re2 (D)
148 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 J.f4!

IIl£ld2?? :dS with a killing pin- After 12...eS? 13 b4 We7 14.tg3

Minev. a6 IS We2 fS 16l£lxeS White wins a
pawn, G.Goldberg-Chekhover, Kiev
1940.
13 b4 WhS 14 l:lel eS 15 .tg3
After the incorrect IS ...:dS? White
won a brilliancy in Ribli-Chandler,
Surakarta/Denpasar 1982: 16 Wc2
.te6 17 .te4 ± l:lac8 18 Wbl g6 19
l:[hdl l:lxdl 20 ~xdl .tg7 21 ~el fS
22 .txe6 bxe6 23 l£lxeS .tdS 24 Wd3
f4 2S l:lxc6! l:ld8 26 l:le8! 1-0. But
roles would have been reversed after
the even prettier IS ...l:le8! 16 Wc2 e4
17 .i.xe4 .i.f5! 18 .i.xfS l£ld4+ - Mi-
1l•••l£lc6 12 a3 .tf6! nev.
 5 Black Avoids the Main
Line: ... c5 Systems

The rest of the book examines ways in We are looking for alternatives to
which Black avoids the main line. In 9 ... 'Wa5, of which the most important
this chapter we consider lines where are 9 ...J..d7 and 9 ...J..e7. First we dis-
Black plays an early ...c5, but deviates pose of the unquestionably weak
later. lines. Our sections are:
A: 9•••e5? 149
5.1 Black's alternatives B: 9...a5? 149
C: 9...d4?! 150
on move 9 D: 9...dxc4?! 150
E: 9...J..d6 151
F: 9.....e7
5 J..f4 0-0 6 e3 cS 7 dxcS J..xcS 8
lDc69 a3 (D)
"c2
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 lDc3 lDf6 4lDf3 J..e7
G:9••• :e8
H: 9 ...J..e7
152
153
154
I: 9••• J..d7 155

B 9•••e5?
In so many of the main lines, Black
plays something like ... J..e7xc5-e7
and ...Wd8-a5-d8. If this gives the im-
pression of being an inelegant waste
of time, we may sympathize to some
extent, although Black is of course try-
ing to provoke weaknesses in the
white position.
A)
Is this pure bluff? Or even a mis-
print for 9 ... d4 10 0-0-0 e5? I can see
no reason why White shouldn't just
swipe the pawn with 10 lDxe5, e.g.
1O... lDxe5 11 J..xe5 lDg4 12 J..f4 d4
13 O-O-O! (Burgess). White played
more respectfully in Sobolev-Purgin,
Yaroslavl 1995, with 10 J..g5 d4 11
0-0-0 J..e6 12 exd4 lDxd4 13 lDxd4
exd4°o.
B)
9...aS?
This just eats a tempo.
10 :dl J..e7 11 J..e2 a4 12 e4
13 cxd5 exd5 14 exd5 +- Miles-
"as
Franco del Valle, Seville 1993.
150 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 J.f4!
C)
9 •••d4?! (D)
This is premature. The tactics fa-
vourWhite.
100-0-0 eS
1) 1O... dxc3 11 .:txd8 cxb2+ 12
~xb2 .:txd8 13 .td3 .td7 14 g4 leaves
Black with insufficient compensation
for the queen, Gheorghiu-Voilescu,
Romanian Ch 1977.
2) 1O.....e7 11 exd4 ~d4 12 ~d4
e5 13 tOf5! (13 .tg5 .txd4 14 /Od5
"d6 15 .txf6 gxf6 16 .td3 ~g7 17
o!tle3 b5! and Black is developing dan-
gerous counterplay, Filip-Guimard,
Buenos Aires 1964) 13....txf5 14 "u5
exf4 15 .td3 g6 16 "xf4 ± ECO.
The text-move is a recent attempt to
enliven Black's play, and is tricky,
though one would suspect not wholly
reliable.
11 tOxeS
11 exd4 exd4 "".
II •••'ite8 12 o!tla4 tOxeS 13 tOxcS
dxe3
Black is aiming for the sort of posi-
tion where, although a pawn down, he
has enough counterplay on the h7-bl
diagonal and along the c-file to make
it difficult for White to consolidate.
14.txe3
14 tOe4 is met not by 14... exf2? 15
tOxf6+ gxf6 16 .th6 ±, but 14.....e7!
is unclear.
White could try 14 fxe3!?
14....c6 IS h3?!
This seems to be one preparatory
move too many. It is the queenside
rather than the kingside that White
needs to be consolidating. 15 .te2
makes it more difficult for Black to
justify the pawn sacrifice. White can
then think in terms of .td4 and, if the
knightmoves,.tf3.
IS••..:te816 tOb3 .td7 17 iOd4 Wc7
18 ~bl .:tacK 19 .:tel Wb8
It is not so easy for White to con-
solidate. Mohandessi-Dutreeuw, Bel-
gian Ch 1996 continued 20 .te2 /Od5
"", while 20 1Ifb3!? iOe4 is not clear ei-
ther.
D)
9•••dxc4?! 10.txc4 (D)
B
Exchanging on c4 before White
has played .te2 is a pointless loss of
tempo. Examples:
1) 10... a6 11 0-0 tOIt5 (11. ...td7
12 .:tad 1 "e8 13 o!tlg5?! {13 .ta2!?;t}
13 ....te7 14 "d3?! .:td8 15 .tc7 .:tc8
 Black Avoids the Main Line: ... c5 Systems
16.id6.ixd617.xd6.e718~ge4
'/2-'12 Nickoloff-I.Findlay, Toronto
1997) 12 :adl .e7 13lbe4 ~xf4 14
exf4.ia7 IS :fel :d8 16lOegS g6 17
.c3 bS 18 .idS .ib7 19 .ixc6 :ac8
20 :xd8+ .xd8 21 lDxf7 ~xf7 22
lDgS+ ~g8 23 Wh3 We7 24 .txb7
:c2 2S :dl :xf2 1-0 (26 :d8+ wins)
Nogueiras-J.Diaz, Santa Clara 1991.
White was too far ahead in develop-
ment throughout.
2) 1O... .id7 11 0-0 lDhS and now
12lDgS?! g6 13lDge4lDxf4 14lDxcs
.gS IS .idS lDxg2 16 .txg2 .xcS
can't be bad for Black, even though he
later lost in Kallai-Eberlin, Bundes-
liga 1990/1. 12 :adl is better, as in the
Nogueiras game - the centre needs to
be watched.
3) 10....td7 11 0-0 :c8 12 :adl
.te7 13 e4 WaS 14 eS lDhS IS .tcl
:fd8 (1S ... lDxe5? 16lDxe5 .xeS 17
:xd7 :xc4 18 :xe7 +-) 16.e2! g6
17 b4 ± Vera-Borges, Cuban Ch (Mat-
anzas) 1997.
4) 1O...•e7 11 .ig5 h6 12 .th4 a6
13 .ta2 :d8 14 lDe4 g5 and now 15
lDxc5 gxh416 :cl b617lDa4 .ib718
~xb6 h3! 19 gxh3lDb4 20 axb4 .txn
led to a short but sharp draw in Suba-
S.Mirlcovic, Belgrade 1984. White must
surely have improvements, starting
perhaps with the simple 15 .ixg5.
E)
9•••.td6(D)
This move has a slightly old-
fashioned feel to it, and the average
age of the games below confinns the
impression. Black is not too con-
cerned with minor pawn weaknesses;
he just wants to blunt the white initia-
tive with exchanges.
151
lO.txd6
The obvious choice, but the unex-
plored 10 .ig5!? might be more test-
ing.
lO••.•xd6 11 :dl
If immediately II cxdS exd5, the
black bishop can get to g4.
11••.•CS!
A new improvement in an old line.
1l ...:d8 12 .ie2.e7 13 cxd5 exdS
14 0-0 .te6 15 .a4 :ac8 16 ~4
lDxd4 (16... a6 17lDxc6 :Xc618 :d4
'fIc7 19 :fdl :cd6 20 h3 h6 21 .tn ~
Gipslis-Naglis, Moscow 1970) 17 :xd4
a6 18 :fdl :d7 19.tn .c5 20 h3 h6
21 .b3 :cd8 22lDa4 'fIc7 23 'fIb6
.xb6 24lDxb6 :d6 25 ~a4 :6d7,
and in Capablanca-Yates, Hastings
1929, the players settled for a draw af-
ter 26 ~b6 :d6. Capa was evidently
in an easy-going mood that day. He
could certainly have squeezed a lot
harder with, for example, 26 b4, with
standard play against the isolani.
12b4
12 cxd5 lDxd5 13 :c 1 lDxc3 14
.xc3 .e7 leaves White little to work
with.
12.•••d6
Black has sacrificed two tempi, and
in return has succeeded in luring
152 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 j"f4!
White's queenside pawns forward be-
fore they are fully backed up by pieces.
The immediate plan is to play for ...as.
Korotylev-Duchov, Moscow 1996 was
agreed drawn after 13 cxdS exdS 14
tl)bS "e7 IS "cS.
F)
9.•:fle7 (D)
w should beware the pawn snatch. IS
A straightforward plan of develop-
ment, which avoids a lot of the to-ing
and fro-ing of the .....as lines. The
drawback is that a pin with ~gS could
be awkward.
lO:dl
1) 10 ~gS is perfectly playable.
After 1O...:d8, White can choose be-
tween 11 :dl and 11 0-0-0, transpos-
ing to lines considered elsewhere in
this section.
2) 10 cxdS exdS gives an Exchange
Variation, where Black's extra ... 'ille7
is probably more useful than White's
a3. White kept a slight edge in Suba-
Lobron, Dortmund 1983 after 11 ~e2
~e6 12 0-0 l:.ac8 13 :tfdl l:tfd8?!
(13 ... a6! Suba) 14 tl)a4 i.d6 IS ~xd6
'ifxd6 16 tl)c3.
3) 10 O-O-O!? might well tum out
to be the most promising line against
9 .....e7, as well as against 9 .....aS. If
the d-file is cleared suddenly, White's
rooks are cOMected. After 1O...l:td8 11
~gS d4 12 tl)e4 (the simpler 12 exd4
tl)xd4 13 tl)xd4 ~xd4 14 ~d3 gives a
comfortable lead in development, but
the text too is worth trying) 12...eS 13
~d3 ~g4 14 h3 ~h5, Hemdl-Martin-
ovsky, Chicago 1994 continued IS
tl)xf6+?! gxf616~xh7+~g717tl)b4
~xdl 18 l:txdl "d7 19 ~fS "c7 and
White had over-extended himself - one
~xf6! gxf6 16 tl)g3 ~g6 (16 ... ~xf3
17 gxf3 dxe3 18 tl)fS ±) 17 e4 fol-
lowed by h4 may already be position-
ally lost for Black.
4) If 10 b4:
4a) Black can try the piece sacri-
fice 1O...tl)xb4 11 axb4 ~xb4 12 tl)d2
~d7 13 ~e2 :fc8 14 0-0 bS, and it
would be a brave annotator who de-
scribed it as anything other than un-
clear. In the game Van Wely-Ziatdinov,
Amsterdam 1994, White was starting
to gain control after IS ~eS dxc4 16
~f3 tl)dS 17 fudS (17 ~xdS?! exdS
I8fudS"xeSI9fub4aS!) 17...exdS
18 ~d4. Black's queenside pawns are
not as mobile as they might look.
4b) Black does not have to sacri-
fice, however. 10... ~d6!? should be
perfectly playable, and if 11 ~xd6?!
'ii'xd6 Black is a tempo ahead of the
Korotylev-Duchov game, Line E above.
Or 11 ~gS dxc4 12 ~xc4 as 13 bS
tl)eS.
1O•••l:td8
1O...d4? 11 tl)xd4! (11 exd4 tl)xd4
12tl)xd4eS) 11...tl)xd412exd4~xd4
13 l:txd4 eS 14 lle4 gives White a clear
advantage - Ziatdinov.
11~g5
 Black Avoids the
1) After II b4, Ziatdinov tried the
piece sacrifice again, but with the rooks
in more favourable positions for him;
his rook is centralized on dS, while on
dl White's rook no longer covers the
queenside. 11...~b4!? (11.. ..i.d6 12
.i.g5 dxc4 13 i.xc4 as 14 b5 1&5 15
~xe5 J.xe5 16lhdS+ "xdS 17 ~e4
± Miles-Kogan, USA 19S0; this time
the inserted rook moves favour White)
12 axb4 J.xb4 13 ~2 J.d7 14.i.e2
dxc4 (14 ...l:lac8!? Miles) 15 .i.0 e5
16 J.g5 J.f5 17 "xf5? (17 e4! 00 Zi-
atdinov) 17...J.xc31S"c2~ 1ge4
b5 20 0-0 "b2 + Miles-Ziatdinov,
Montpellier 1994.
2) 11 J.e2 and now:
2a) 11...h6 12 cxd5 exd5 13 0-0
J.e6 14 ~a4 J.d6 15 J.xd6 l:lxd6 16
li'lc5, Ribli-Gligoric, BledIPortoroz
1979, and now Gligoric assesses
16....:tcS as equal, though White might
be able to try for a little more with 17
~xe6.
2b) Black can of course avoid the
isolani with 11...dxc4, but Black's
pieces are a little awkwardly placed
when compared with the 9 i.e2 lines
(Chapter 4. 1, Line D). After 12l:lxdS+
"xdS (12 ... li'lxdS!?) 13 0-0 i.d7 14
i.xc4 a6 15 l:ldl i.e7 16 h3 l:lcS 17
"e2 "as IS e4, White held the initia-
tive in Stean-B.Toth, Biel19Sl.
11•••dx:c4
Safe, ifa little dull. l1...d4?! favours
White after 12 ~e4 dxe3 (12 ...i.b6?!
13 c5 i.aS+ 14 b4 ~xb4 15 axb4
i.xb4+ 16 ~fd2, Chemin-Plachetka,
Prague 19S9, is an implausible sacri-
fice) 13 ':xdS+ ~xd8 14 ~xc5 "xc5
15 i.xe3 with the bishop-pair in an
open position, Lucas-Hochgriife, Barg-
teheide 19S9.
Mai~ Line: ... c5 Systems 153
12l:lxdS+
12 i.xc4 l:lxdl+ 13 "xdl h6 14
.i.h4 a6 15 i.d3 "dS 16 0-0 .i.e7 =
Petrosian-M.Yudovich, Moscow 1967.
12.....xdS 13 i.xc4 i.e7 14 0-0
i.d7 15l:ldl "cS with an equal posi-
tion, Doroshkevich-Liberzon, USSR
Ch (Tbilisi) 1967.
But 10 0-0-0 is critical.
G) .
9•••l:leS (D)
This could lead to positions rather
like the main line, except that Black
has omitted ... "dS-a5-dS and White
has omitted ~f3-d2-b3. The differ-
ence probably favours White.
100-0·0
1) 10 .i.e2 transposes after 1O... e5
11 i.g5 d4 (11...e4 12 ~2 d4 13
~xe4 i.f5 14 i.d3 ±) 120-0-0; it is
unlikely that Black will want to try
1O...dxc4.
2) White missed an important tac-
tical trick in the game Pinter-Hurme,
Helsinki 19S3: 10 :dl e5 11 i.g5 d4
12 ~5 i.e7 13 ~xe7+?! (13 i.xf6 =)
13 .....xe7 14 i.e2?? d3! 15 i.xd3 e4
winning a piece. So the knight does
not always stand we)] on 0.
154 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i..f4!
3) 10 cxdS exdS 11 .i.e2 is enough
for a slight edge, as there does not
seem to be any way for Black to take
advantage of the e-file, e.g. 11.. ..i.g4
120-0, or 11...d4?! 120-0-0. Szabo-
Ivkov, Hungary-Yugoslavia 1966 con-
tinued 11.. ..i.e6 12 0-0 h6 13 l:r.fd1
"e7 14111a4;1;.
10...eS 11 .i.gS
Not 11 cxdS? exf4 12 dxc6 "c7!
Forintos.
11•••d4 12 .i.e2
Calmly completing his develop-
ment, and waiting for Black to show
his hand. The more turbulent 12111dS
.i.e6 (12 ... .i.e7! - Forintos; then per-
haps 13 .i.xf6 .i.xf6 14 .i.d3 ;1;) 13
.i.d3 .i.xdS 14 cxdS "xdS IS .i.xf6
gxf6 16 .i.xh7+ c,tJf8 17 .i.e4 is also
good for White, Forintos-Vaiser, Tal-
linn 1986.
12.....&5 13 exd4111xd4 14111xd4
.i.xd4 IS lllbS ± Langeweg-Van der
Wiel. Dutch Ch 1983.
H)
9....i.e7 (D)
This unpretentious move might in
future be destined to become the main
line. replacing 9......aS. The point is
that on the current state of theory.
Black has no need to fear 10 l:r.dl
transposing into the Old Main Line.
"as.
while if White angles for the New
Main Line with 100-0-0. Black could
consider moves other than 1O......aS.
Black can. for example. try 1O....i.d7!?
and if 11 cxdS?! lllxdS 12111xdS exdS
13 l:r.xdS?! l:r.c8 then the dark side of
queenside castling clearly reveals it-
self. Naturally White does not have to
be so compliant. but if. for instance.
11 c,tJbl. then again Black need not
transpose to the Main Line with
11.. ...aS. but could try for more im-
mediate pressure along the c-file with
11....l:lc8. After l1111gS, 11...h6?! 12
h4 is dangerous. but 11...l:r.c8 12 c,tJb1
g6 is unclear.
All this remains. surprisingly, un-
tested. at least according to the data-
base.
10.i.e2
10 .i.d3 dxc4 11 .i.xc4 transposes.
White avoids seeking the main
lines. but reaches one of the lines of
the 9 .i.e2 variation (Chapter 4.3, Line
DS). which on the whole is uninspiring.
10...dxc4 11 .i.xc4.i.d7
The most reliable. Black came hor-
ribly unstuck trying to fianchetto in
I.Farago-I.Almasi. Hungarian Cht
199213: 1l...a6 12 .i.a2! (12 l:r.d1.i.d7
130-0 "c8 14 .i.d3lllaS ISllleS i.bS
= Mikhalchishin-Bonsch. Budapest
1989) 12 ... bS 13 0-0 i.b7 14 l:r.adl
"as IS i.b1 ;!; l:r.ac8?? 16 l:r.d7 i.a8 17
.i.gS g6 18 l:r.xe7111xe7 19 .i.xf6 +-.
Elementary tactical themes in the i.f4
Queen's Gambit...
120-0
12 l:r.dl transposes to 8 a3 lllc6 9
.i.e2 dxc4 10 "'c2 .i.d7 11 l:r.dl .i.e7
 Black Avoids the Main Line: ... c5 Systems
12 -*.xc4 (Chapter 4.3, Line 01).
White might perhaps be able to claim
a small advantage, since if 12... ltlh5,
13 -*.e5.
12•••:c8
12 ... m!?
13 :rdl "'6 14 -*.d3
14 -*.a2!?
14... h6 15 b4 .!DdS 16 ltlxdS exdS
17 'Ii'd2 -*.g4 18 -*.e2 :fd8 with
equality, Mirkovic-Cvetkovic, Yugo-
slavia 1985.
I)
9...-*.d7 (D)
Finally we come to the most popu-
lar of Black's 9th move alternatives to
9 ... 'it'a5. With the rook coming to c8 in
minimum time, White would be fool-
hardy rather than brave in castling
queenside, and this in itself must count
as a minor positional victory for Black.
On the negative side, the bishop is not
necessarily well placed on d7, particu-
larly if the position is opened up.
White generally exchanges on d5 at
some stage.
IO:dl
After 10 cxd5 exd5, 11 :c 1 lIc8
transposes. Instead 11 .!Dxd5?! ltlxd5
155
12 Wxc5ltlxf4 13 exf4 :e8+, Forin-
tos, leaves Black with too much play
for the pawn, and 11 -*.e2 d4, Bangiev,
is satisfactory for Black.
10...:c8
White can now choose between:
11: 11 -*.gS 155
12: 11 -*.e2 156
13: 11 o:dS 157
11)
l1-*.gS (D)
B
11...-*.e7!
Black's simplest is to let the pawn
go. Forintos's suggestion of 11 ...dxc4
could be very uncomfortable to play
after 12 -*.xf6 gxf6 13 -*.xc4.
12 -*.xf6
12 cxd5ltlxd5 =.
12...-*.xf6 13 cxdS exdS 14 :xdS
'We7!
Black sought immediate compen-
sation for the pawn in terms of creat-
ing direct threats in Forintos-Averkin,
Hungary 1969: 14...ltle7?! 15 :d2
-*.xc3 16 bxc3 Wc7 17 -*.d3 g6 180-0
Wxc3 19 -*.xg6! 'fIg7 20 Wbl ;1;. How-
ever, Black's main assets are active
piece-play, backed up by the bishop-
pair and a lead in development, and it
156 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5
makes sense to build on this by acti-
vating the remaining pieces. rather
than by trying to cash in immediately.
15 .i.d3?! g616 0-0 .i.e617 l:Lb5
Not the ideal square for the rook.
17•..l:Lrd8 18 .i.e4 a6 19 l:Lb6 ti)a5
20 "a4 "cS 21 l:[b4 "c7 22 ti)d4
.i.c4 +Browne-Christiansen. USA Ch
1990.
12)
ll.i.e2 (D)
B 151Oge4.i.e7 16 .i.d6 .i.xd6 17 l:Lxd6
1l... dxc4
After 11.. ..i.e7. 120-0 dxc4 trans-
poses. as in Ruban-Geller below. while
12 cxdS ti)xdS 13 ti)xd5 exd5 14 Wb3
1i'a5+ is considered unclear by Ruban.
120-0
A refinement in move-order to dis-
courage Black from early activity. If
now. for example. 12 .....a5 13 ti)e4
tDxe4 14 "xe4 (14 l:Lxd7?! tDf6 15
l:Lxb7 tDd8!). Black's kingside is ex-
posed.
12 .i.xc4 has also been played:
I) 12.....a5 13 0-0 l:Lfd8 14 e4 (14
tDe4.i.e7 15 ti)d6.i.xd6 16 .i.xd6 b5
17 .i.a2 tDd4 18 Wd2 tDxf3+ 19 gxf3
Wxd2 20 l:Lxd2 .i.c6 =) 14...1Oh5 15
.i.cl! (15 .i.g5 .i.e7 =) 15 .....c7?!
~f4!
(15 ....i.e7 16 "e2;t) 16 tDbS "bS 17
.txe6.txf2+ IS"xt2.i.xe619l:LxdS+
ti)xdS (19 ...l:Lxd8 20"h4 ±) 20 tDxa7
± Gelfand-Yusupov. Linares 1991
(notes based on those by Gelfand and
Kapengut).
2) On 12.....e7. 13 lOgS ;t is proba-
bly best. Instead. in Kohlweyer-Kon-
ings. Netherlands 1995. Black took
the initiative after 13 .tg5 .tb6 140-0
(141Oe4 .ta5+ 15 ~e21ObS!) 14... h6
IS .i.xf6 gxf6 16 tDe410bS 17 "e2 f5.
12....te7
12... a6 13 .i.xc4 lOh5 (13 ...b5 14
.td3.i.e7 ISlDeS!;t EGO) 14 lOgS g6
tDbS IS .te2 lOg7 19 l:Ld3 "e7 20
"d2 .i.c6 21 l:Ldl ± Kramnik-Yusu-
pov. Dortmund 1997.
13 .i.xc4 Wb6
13 .....a5?! 14 "b3 leaves the b-
pawn weak. Portisch-Westerinen. Nice
OL 1974 continued 14...l:LfdS 15 "xb7
e5 16 .i.g3 l:[b8 17 "a6 "xa6 IS
.i.xa6 e4 19 tDe5 (19 .i.xbS? tDxb8)
19... l:lxb2 20 l:Lxd7 :xd7 21 tDxc6 ±.
13 ... lOh5?! 14 .td3 g6 15 .i.h6 ±
Ruban.
14tDgS _
1) 14 .i.a2!? l:LfdS IS tDd2 ;t. Ru-
ban. with the knight possibly coming
to c4. may be more accurate.
2) 14 .td3!? threatening .i.xh7+.
is a try. but after 14...l:Lfd8 IS tDgS h6
White must be careful not to get car-
ried away with the attack:
2a) 16.i.h7+?!~f8171Oxf7~xf7
18 "g6+ 'it?f8 19 .i.xh6 wins attrac-
tively for White if Black takes the sec-
ond piece. for example. 19... gxh6? 20
"xh6+ ~f7 21 .i.g6+ ~g8 221Oe4!
lOeS 23 lOgS .i.f8 (23 ....i.e8 24.i.h7+
~h8 2S .tfS+ ~gS 26 .i.xe6+) 24
 Black Avoids the Main Line: ... c5 Systems
.i.f7+ t:j)xf7 25 'ifg6+ J..g7 26 'ifxf7+
~h8 27 ':d4 'ifxd4 28 exd4 +-, but
19... t:j)e8! is a good and surprising de-
fence, however, as 20 ':xd7 ':xd7 21
lIhe6 t:j)f6! covers everything.
2b) 16 t:j)ge4 might keep chances
for a slight edge.
14..•h6
14 ...Itfd8? ISlike4 ± Ruban.
IS t:j)ge4
Not 15 ':xd7?? hxg5 -+ Ruban.
IS••• t:j)aS (D)
Ruban gives some detailed analysis
of IS ... t:j)xe4 16 Wxe4, the basic ver-
dict being that White is slightly better
after, for example, 16...lDaS 17 ':xd7
':xc4 18 Wf3 J..f6 19 J..d6 ':d8 20
':xd8+ Wxd8 21 J..b4. There is no rea-
son to quote the analysis in detail here,
as the text is simpler and better. Why
hring the white queen into play?
16lDxf6+ J..xf6 17 .lal .lbS
17 ....lxc3!? 18 J..bl fS 19 bxc3
.lbS, Ruban, is also to be considered.
Black's centre and kingside look frag-
ile at first, but the picture will soon
change if Black can play ...lik4 and
take control of the long light-squared
diagonal.
18 .lbl g6 19 ':d6
157
19 J..xh6? J..xfl 20 J..xfB J..c4!
wins the exchange - Ruban.
19•••WcS 20 l:.xe6!?
Stirring up the mud. Ruban gives 20
lDxb5 Wxb5 21 Wdl Wxb2 (2l...J..g7
22 b4!) 22 .lxh6 as slightly advanta-
geous for White, but this is highly
questionable. After 22 ... ':fd8 White's
bishop-pair does not accomplish much,
while his queenside is on the point of
collapse, with Black's a- and b-pawns
ready to fill the vacuum.
20••• Wc4! 21lDxbS Wxc2 22 hel
fxe6 23 .txg6 q;g7 lh-lh Ruban-
Geller, Sochi 1989.
Black was generous in agreeing the
draw. With the c- and d-files fully
open, the exchange counts for more
than White's bishop-pair and extra
kingside pawns. In addition, White's
queenside pawns remain weak.
13)
11 adS exdS (D)
By a process of elimination, this
pawn exchange is White's one realis-
tic try for an advantage. As already
noted, White can exchange a move
earlier (10 cxdS exdS 11 ':dl ':c8).
12J..e2
158 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 l.f41
White aspires to the long-term po-
sitional pressure that the Pawn Ex-
change Variation offers. The 1i'c2, l:[dl
development is less economical than
%lcl and keeping the queen at home,
especially since c2 is not a particularly
safe square for the queen, but on the
other hand Black will soon have to
play ... ~e6, losing a tempo.
12...~e6
12...1i'e7 13 0..0 ~e6 transposes.
12...i.e7 13 0-0.b6 14 1i'bl ~e6
induces White to playa queen move
before Black has to play ...~e6.
YrjOlii-Dutreeuw, Debrecen Echt 1992
should have been uncomfortable for
Black: IS ~d3 tOaS 16 ~eS g6?!
(16 ... h6 ~) 17 ~d4 1i'd8 and now
White went for the sacrificial option
with 18 tOgS1Dc6 19 ~xg6 hxg6 20
tOxe6 fxe6 21 1i'xg6+ ~h8, following
up with 22 e4 tOxd4 23 lIxd4 (23
lId3? tOh7 24 l:[h3 ~h4) 23 ...•e8!
with an unclear position. At first I as-
sumed that 22 lId3 improved, but
22 ...1i'e8 231i'h6+ ~g8 24 e4 .hS!
(Burgess) defends. However, Black's
whole structure seems so unconvinc-
ing that sacrificial measures should
not be necessary. I do not see anything
immediately crushing, but 18 e4!? (in-
stead of 18 tOgS) opens up the position
in White's favour, for example 18...dxe4
(l8 ...tOe6 19 ~xf6 ~xf6 20 cxdS) 19
tOxe4 tOdS (19 ... tOc6 20 ~xf6 ~xf6
21 i.a6!) 20 b4 tOc6 21 ~b2 ±.
130-0 'fie7
13 ...i.b6?! 14 1i'a4 reaches a posi-
tion that can occur through the Pawn
Exchange Variation, except that White
now has the rook on dl rather than on
c 1. The difference favours White, as
Black has no time to put the queen
under pressure with 14...i.d7 in view
of IS tOxdS. In Sturua-B.Toth, Biel
1996, Black was very passive after
14...1i'e7 15 tOes lIfd8 16 tOxc6 lIxc6
17 i.eS tOd7 18 i.g3 tOes 19.b4 ±.
14 tOeS
Angling for the endgame. The more
complex 14 ~gS gave Black sufficient
play to compensate for his pawn weak-
nesses after 14 ... lIfd8 IS1i'a4 (1S lId2
h6 16 ~xf6 1i'xf6 17 lIfdl tOe7 ao
Bangiev) IS ...h6 16 i.h4 a6 (16... gS!?
Bangiev) 17 lId2 gS 18 ~g3 ~fS 19
:tfdl ~e4 in Bangiev-Yusupov, Bun-
desliga 1992/3.
14 lId2 :fd8 IS lIfdl h6 16 tOeS
~d6 17 tOxc6 bxc6 18 ~xd6 lIxd6 ao
A.Martin-Dutreeuw, London 1988, is
a slightly less flexible mode of devel-
opment for White.
14•••~d6 15 tOxe6 bxe6 16 ~xd6
'fixd6 17 lId2 'fieS 18 'fia4 lIe7 19
lid lIb8 20 ~f3 hS 21 g3 ~g4 22
~g2 ;t Van der Sterren-M.Martens,
Dutch Ch 1995.
White can make Black suffer for a
very long time in this type of position.
In conclusion, we have noted no
fewer than nine alternatives to 9...'fiaS.
Most of these are clearly inferior, but
9 ...•e7, 9 ...~d6, 9...~e7 and 9... ~d7
all seem viable, although not neces-
sarily sufficient for speedy equality.
9 ...~d7 has been popular, but the ex-
change of pawns on dS leaves White
with a nagging positional advantage.
If 9...~e7 is really as effective as im-
plied in the notes, then this is one of
the best pieces of news for Black in the
book, although Black still has to be
prepared to enter the Old Main Line
after 10 lIdl1i'aS. The most important
 Black Avoids the Main Line: ... c5 Systems
position for further investigation in
Ihis section is the one after 9 ... j.e7 10
O-D-O j.d7!?
5.2 Black's alternatives
on move 8
I d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 ~c3lOt'6 4lOt'3 j.e7
5 .tf4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 j.xcS 8 'ifc2
ur8a3
Mostly these alternatives involve a
tempo-wasting ...dxc4, and only a de-
sire for completeness keeps these
sub-optimal variations in the book.
There are, however, a few lines of in-
dependent significance to be consid-
ered. Our coverage divides as follows:
A: Alternatives after 8 a3 159
B: Alternatives after 8 'ii'c2 163
A)
After 8 a3 (D):
First two very minor alternatives,
then the marginally playable:
AI: 8 .••aS?! 159
A2: 8 ••:"aS?? 159
A3: 8 ...b6 159
A4:8...~ 160
AS: 8 ...dxc4 160
159
A6: 8 •••a6 162
A7: 8 ••• j.e7 162
A1)
8...aS?!
This misses the point. White plays
a3 not to prepare b4, but rather to stop
Black using b4 for a piece. White
should simply develop, with, for exam-
ple, 9 'iVc2 ~6 10 :d1, etc. R.Letel-
ier-l.Clement, Marostica 1990 was
agreed drawn after 9 cxd5 exd5 10
.te2 ~6 11 0-0 h6 12 :cl, although
even this seems over-friendly on
White's part.
A2)
8...'''aS??
Possibly played very early in the
morning. Though b4 is not top of
White's agenda, ifit wins a piece, then
play it. 9 b4 j.xb4 10 axb4 'iVxb4 11
1t'd2 ~6 12 cxd5 exd5 13 .te2 and
White wins, Chabanon-C.Bouton, Cli-
chy 1992.
A3)
8... b6 (D)
The natural reaction is now to ex-
change pawns and force Black to
160 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 J.f4!
block d5 before the bishop takes con-
trol of the long diagonal.
9cxdS
9 Wc2 .i.b7 10 lIdllbbd7 11 cxd5
exd5 12 .i.e2 a6 = Forintos-Stefans-
son, Budapest 19S9. Black's pieces
tum out to be very flexibly placed.
White did not help his cause by play-
ing 13 b4? (13 0-0), and after 13 ... .i.e7
14lbd411c8 15 Wb3 b5 16lbf5 lieS
17 lbxe7+ Wxe7 IS 0-0 lbb6 Black
was already starting to take advantage
of White's weakened queenside.
9•••exdS
9 ...lbxd5?! 10 lbxd5 Wxd5 11 Wxd5
exd5 12 lIcl a5 13 .i.b5 .i.a614 .i.xa6
lbxa6 15 ~e2leaves Black with seri-
ously weakened pawns for the end-
game, Miles - Altan-Och, Moscow
OL 1994.
10 .i.d3 .i.b7 11 0-0 h6 12 b4
12 ':cl!?
12....i.d6 13 .i.xd6 "xd6 14 lbbS
"d8 15 :lel lbc6 16 lbbd4 "d6 17
lbfS "d8 18 "84 ± Van Wely-
Stefansson, New York 1994.
Compared with the Pawn Exchange
Variation, having the bishop on b7
rather than on e6 is no advantage for
Black.
A4)
8•••lbe4
Here there is just a single reference
in ECO to go on. Adorjan-Sibarevic,
Banja Luka 1983 continued 9 'ilfc2
'ilfa5 10 cxd5 lbxc3 II bxc3 exd5 12
.i.d3 h6 130-0 lbc6 14 lIabl WdS 15
l:fdl 'ilfe7 =. White might want to
consider instead 9 lbxe4!? dxe4 10
WxdS lIxd8 11 ibd2 f5 12 .i.e5 (or
even 12 g4), when White's queenside
pawn majority will be more effective
than Black's kingside majority, con-
strained by the doubled e-pawns.
A5)
8...dxc4
Leaving the choice of 9 .i.xc4,
when White is a tempo ahead of the 8
.i.e2 line, or the more spirited 9 Wc2:
ASl: 9.i.xc4 160
AS2: 9 'it'c2 161
A51)
9 .i.xc4 (D)
White's extra tempo is only a2-a3
though, and Black can attempt to
prove that this little pawn-push is not
such a great barrier to his attempts to
consolidate.
9.....xdl+
For 9 ... a6 10 Wc2, see 9 Wc2 a6,
section A52.
9 ...We7100-01ldSll Wc2lbc612
lIadl b6 13 lIxdS+ lbxdS 14 lIdl a5
15 .i.g5 .i.b7 16 .i.a2 allowed White
to build up the standard kingside at-
tack in Roiz-Bodnar, Sao Lorenco jr
1995.
10 lIxdl 86 11 .i.d3
Taking the sting out of the advance
... b5.
 Black Avoids the Main line: ... c5 Systems
1) 11 0-0 and now 11...b5 12 .i.e2
.i.b7 13 .i.d6 i.xd6 14 :xd6 lOc6
liz-liz, Portisch-St8hlberg, Erevan 1965,
is hopelessly dull, but satisfactory for
Black. Alternatively, 11 ...lObd7 12 lOgS
.i.e7 13 lOge4 lOxe4 14 lOxe4lOb6
15 i.b3 .i.d7 16 .i.d6;!; Lechtynsky-
Prandstetter, Czechoslovak Ch 1986.
2) lllOes, the recommended move
in the 8 .i.e2 line (thus with White's
pawn still on a2, Chapter 4.4, Line
A 11) is less appropriate here. After
II...lObd7 12 .i.e2lOxes 13 i.xeS b5
14 i.f3 l:a7, Black would be ready to
force a favourable pawn exchange
with ... b4, and if 15 b4 .i.e7, Black can
aim to consolidate with ...:d7.
3) 11 b4 .i.e7 12 i.d6 .i.xd6 13
:xd6 bS 14 .i.b3 i.b7 15 lOe5, and
Black eagerly gobbled the poisoned
pawn in Knezevic-Halldorsson, Reyk-
javik 1984: 15 ... .i.xg2? 16 :gl .i.h3
17 e4 a5 18 lId3 axb4 19 axb4 lIal+
20 i.dl +-. Simply 15 ... lIc8 keeps an
acceptable position.
H ...lObd7
l1...b5 12lOe4 ± Miles.
120-0
After 12.!Od2 b5 13lOde4 i.b7 14
f3 .!Ods IS lOxdS i.xdS, Petrosian-
A.Oliviera, Buenos Aires 1964, one
suspects that White won because he
was World Champion, rather than as
the result of any gains made from the
opening.
12••• b5
l2 ... b6 l3lOe4 i.b7 14lOxc5.!OxcS
15 .i.e2 .i.d5 16lOe5 b5 (anyway!) 17
lOd3 lOxd3 18 i.xd3 ;!; Pekarek-
Prandstetter, Czechoslovak Ch 1986.
13 lOe4 .i.b7 14 lOxc5 lOxc5 15
.te2 ;!; Miles-Li Zunian, Lucerne
Wcht 1985.
161
White's bishop-pair ensured him a
slight but enduring pull in the end-
game. The rooks soon came off, and
Black proved unable to hold the posi-
tion .
A52)
9 'ilc2 (D)
A sharper approach, attempting to
refute Black's play.
9.••a6
1) 9 ... .!OdS?! 10 O-O-O! "as 11
lOxd5 exdS 12 lOgS g6 13 lIxd5!
.i.xe3+ 14 fxe3 "xdS IS .i.xc4 gave
White a winning attack in Adorjan-
R.Behling, Lugano 1983. The game
finished 15 .....f5 16 "c3lOc6 17 g4
"a5 18 b4 "d8 19lOe4 lIe8 20 lOf6+
<i>f8 21 lIdll-O.
2) 9 ... bS?! 10 lOxb5 "a5+ l11Oc3
lOdS 12 .i.xc4lOxf4 13 exf4.i.b7 14
lOgS g6 IS 0-0 leaves Black with very
questionable compensation for the
pawn, Muse-Lechtynsky, Budapest
1986.
10i.xc4
10 lid llObd7 11 .i.xc4 transposes.
lO... .!tJbd7
1O... b5 11 .i.d3lObd7 (11...i.b7 12
i.g5! Suba) 12 lIdl ;!; leads back to
 162 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i.,f4!
the main line. In I.Farago-W.Schuett,
Velden 1995, White gained nothing
from the liquidations after 12 liJe4
.i.b7 13 :dllilxe4 14 .i.xe4 .i.xe4 IS
"xe4 lilf6 16 lIxd8 lilxe4 17 l::txa8
':xa8=.
nlldl
1) 11 e4lilg4 (ll...lilhS!?) 120-0
"f6 13 .i.g3 bS 14 .i.a2 .i.b6 IS eS
"g6 (ls ...lilgxeS?? 16lilxeSlilxeS 17
"e4 +-) 16 "xg6 hxg6 17 lIfdl.i.c7
18 lIel .i.b7 19 lIadililb6 20 lilgS;!;
Stohl-Bus, Hradec Kralove 1988.
2) 11 0-0 bS 12 .i.d3 "b6 13 ':'fdl
.i.b7!? 14 .i.xh7+ lilxh7 15 ':'xd7 :ac8
16 ':'adllilf6 17lilg5!? "c6 18 ':'xb7
"xb7 19 .i.eS ':'fe8 20 .i.xf6 gxf6 21
"h7+ ~f8 22 "h6+ ~e7 23 lilge4
':'g8 24 "xf6+ ~e8 2S g3 .i.e7 is a
complicated sequence leading to an
unclear position, Maiwald - Schmidt-
Schiiffer, German Ch 1993.
n •••bS 12.i.d3 Wb6 13 lDes
After 13 b4 .i.e7 14 e4:
1) Spassky notes that Black can't
develop the bishop due to 14....i.b7?
IS eSlildS 16 fudS .i.xdS 17 .i.xh7+
~h8 18 ':'xdS exdS 19 "fS with a
winning attack.
2) Suba gives some analysis lead-
ing to an unclear position after 14...a5
15 eS lilhS 16 .i.e3 "b8 17.i.xh7+
~h8 18 .i.e4 axb4, and now 19 axb4
:a3 20 "b2 ':'a6, etc. However, White
can just play 19 .i.xa8 in all this!
3) Black's correct plan would seem
to be 14...eS! ISlilxeSlilxeS 16.i.xe5
.i.b7 followed by ...:ac8, when White
will find it very difficult to disentan-
gle, despite his extra pawn. Once again,
White must be very careful about
playing an early b4, in view of the
weakening of the c-file.
13•••h6 14lDe4!
Black is under great pressure.
Less effective is 14 0-0 lilxeS IS
.i.xeS lilg4 (IS ....i.b7 16 .i.xf6 gxf6
17 .i.e4 ;!; Suba-Spassky, Thessaloniki
OL 1984) 16 liJe4 lilxeS 17 "xeS
"xeS 18 lilxcS :a7 19 b4 lild7 20
lilxd7 1/2- 1/2 Piket-Beliavsky, Gronin-
gen 1992.
Suba recommends 14 "e2, in view
of 14....i.b7 IS lilxd7lilxd7 16 "hS
lilf6 17 "h4, but 14 ....i.e7 keeps a
solid position. Also, on another Suba
suggestion, 14 lilxd7, Black can im-
prove over 14 ....i.xd7 IS .i.eS .i.c6 16
.i.xf6 gxf6 17 "e2 ;!; with 14... lilxd7.
14•••.i.b7
Mistakenly given as equal by Suba.
It is difficult to see reasonable alter-
natives, as if 14....i.e7, IS lilc6, or
14... lilxeS IS .i.xeS lilxe4 16 .i.xe4
':'a7 17 b4! .i.e7 18 .i.d4 winning the
exchange.
15 lilxd7 lilxd7 16lilxc5 lilxc5
16.....xcS?? 17 .i.h7+ ~h8 18
':'xd7+-.
17 .i.h7+ ~h818 ':'d6 Wa719 b4
with a clear advantage for White.
A6)
8•••a6 9 Wc2 dxc4 transposes to the
line we have just been looking at,
which White can feel happy about.
A7)
8•.•.i.e7
This is the one fully satisfactory al-
ternative to 8...lilc6, but its effects are
almost entirely transpositional. 9 "c2
lilc6 leads to Chapter S.I, Line H
above (9 ....i.e7). and this is the most
natural play.
9.te2lilc6
 Black Avoids the Main Line: ... c5 Systems 163

The simplest. 9 ...dxc4 immediately White stands well. See B2, note '2'
is also possible, as after 10 "'c2 tOdS, to Black's 9th, for the continuation.
11 O-O-O"'aS 12 ~xdS exdS 13 e4 c3!
recoils badly on White, while 11 B2)
.txc4 ~xf4 12 exf4 "fIc7 13 .i.d3 h6 8•..dxc4?! 9 .i.xc4 (D)
=, De Roode-Hrsec, AmsterdamlAm-
hem 1983, is unthreatening.
10 0-0 dxc4 11 .i.xc4 ~h5 =
Kne!evic-Karpov, Leningrad 1977. B
Black has used a simple equalizing
plan from Chapter 4.3, Line D.

B)
After 8 "fIc2 (D):

This is even less appealing for

Black than after 8 a3, as White's extra
tempo is a developing move rather
than a prophylactic pawn-push.
9•.•86
9 ...~bd7 and now:
1) After 100-0?! lQb511:tad1 (11
.i.gS!? ECO) ll...llhl412exf4 "fIc713
~gS ~f6 14 ~e4 ~xe4 IS 1Wxe4 g6
The normal move is 8 ... ~6, but 16 fS?! (too adventurous) 16....i.e7!
there are several alternatives: 17 ~xe6 fxe6 18 .i.xe6+ Wg7 Black
81: 8 .••~bd7 163 had slig1ltJy the better of the draw in
82: 8••.dxc4?! 163 Larsen-tiric, Beverwijk 1964.
83: 8......85 164 2) The best answer is probably 10
:dl, discouraging ...~hS. From this
B1) position, Mancebo-Cabrara, Alicante
8...lbbd7 1997 continued 10... a6 11 0-0 bS 12
Unthematic; the knight generally .i.d3.tb7 13lbeS ± h6 14 ~ "'b6
wants to come to c6. IS ~xd7 ~xd7 16 ~xcS ~xc5 17
9:dl .i.h7+ ~h8 18 :d6, leaving White ef-
9 cxdS must also be good for a se- fectively a tempo ahead of the already
cure edge; White will not have to worry promising line given under A52 above.
about lines where Black forces ...d4. 10.td3
9..•dxc410 .i.xc4 Mancebo-Cabrara. To meet 1O... b5 with 11 ~ ±. 10
Alicante 1977. 0-0 b5 11 .i.d3 .tb7 is less well timed.
164 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 j,{4!
10•••h6
10... iLlbd7 110-0 b5 12lDe4 Wb6
13 :acl ~e7 14 ~c7 Wa7 15 ~d6 ±
Petrosian-R.Byme, Moscow 1975, is
horrible.
11 O-O?!
Again, fractionally early. 11 :dl!?
iLlbd7 120-0 ±.
11•••iLlc6
Ensuring that White has to spend a
tempo on a3.
12 a3 iLlh5 13 b4 iLlxf4 14 ~h7+
'it'h8 15 bxc5 iLlxg2! 16 'it'xg2 g6 17
.ixg6 fxg6 ao Tabatadze-Michenka,
Ostrava 1992.
Entertaining, but White could have
kept better control.
83)
8.....aS (D)
This is a respectable try. The main
line is similar to S... iLlc6 9 a3 Wa5 10
iLld2, but without White having to
spend a move on a3.
9lLld2
1) 9 a3 may obviously be met by
9 ... lLlc6 10 0-0-0, while 9 ....ie7 and
9 ... dxc4 10 .ixe4 a6 are fully worth
considering. 9 ... a6 10 iLld2 .ie7 11
iLlb3 Wb6 120-0-0 Wa7 13 e4 dxc4 14
.ixc4iLlbd7 15 e5 WbS 16.ig3iLlg4
17 :hel g61SiLld4 Wc719.ia2~hS
is too elaborate to be convincing for
Black. 20 h3 iLlh6 21 h4 might be an
improvement on 20 We2iLlh6 21 .if4
iLlgS ao Pelletier-Dubiel, Altensteig
1994, when White's queenside is a lit-
tle loose.
2) 9 .ie2 and now:
2a) The simplest reply is 9 ... iLle4,
and if 10 iLld2?!, then 1O... iLlxd2
(1O...iLlxe3?! lliLlb3) 11 Wxd2 dxc4
12 .ixc4 =.
2b) Another try is 9 ... iLlc6 10 0-0
dxc4 11 .ixc4 .ie7 and now 12
:fdl?! .id7 13 a3 :fcS! 14 b4 WdS
was fine for Black in Greenfeld-Khol-
mov, Pardubice 1995. However, Khol-
mov admits that 12 a3! .id7 13 b4
Wh5 14 .ie2 would have been good
for White.
9•••.ib4
9 ....ie7!? seems more secure, al-
though after 10 .ie2, 10...lLlc6 11 0-0
e5 Ih-Ih Bellon-Martin Gonzalez, Ali-
cante 19S9, is not a rigorous test. In-
deed, in the final position White may
be regarded as ahead of the Old Main
Line, in that he has substituted .ie2
and 0-0 for a3 and :dl, thus sorting
out the problem of his kingside devel-
opment before the centre opens up.
10....id7 is more flexible for Black,
11 cxd5?! iLlxd5 12 iLlxd5 Wxd5 13
.if3 Wb5 giving White nothing.
10.id3
10 .ie2?! .ixe3 11 bxe3 iLlc6 12
0-0 e5 13 .ig5lLle4! =F O.Foisor-Ubi-
lava, Tbilisi 1986.
10•••lLlc6 11 0-0 d4
1) 1l ...e5 12 .ig3 d4, and now 13
a3?! .ixc3 14iLlb3 Wa415 bxc3 dxe3
=F G.Sachs-Emeste, Biel 1991, was
 Black Avoids the Main Line: ... c5 Systems
over-elaborate. Simply 13 ~b3 "d8
14 exd4 is strong.
2) 11.. ..i.xc3 12 bxc3 e5 13 .i.g3
.te6 14 .!:tabl ;!; Sanna-Hawes, Novi
Sad OL 1990.
12 ~b3 .d8 13 exd4 ~xd4 14
~xd4 .xd4 15 lLle2 "d8 16 .!:tadl
"'as 17 a3 .i.e718lDc3
White has an imposing lead in de-
vclopment, Shneider-Kakhiani, Buda-
Jlcst 1990, though, as noted, Black
could have improved earlier.
5.3 Black's alternatives
on move 7
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 M ~f6 4 ~f3 .i.e7
5 .tf4 0-0 6 e3 c5 7 dxc5 (D)
B B: 8 ':c1!?
Back in the early 1970s, 7 ... ~6
was regarded as the main line, Black
not being frightened of the isolated
pawn, or at least willing to accept the
slight disadvantage it entailed, after 8
cxd5 exd5 9 .te2 .i.xc5. We have al-
ready considered this variation under
the move-order 7....i.xc5 8 cxd5 exd5
9 .i.e2 ~6 (Chapter 4.4, Line B2).
Another way of accepting the iso-
lated pawn is 7 ... ~6 8 cxd5 ~xd5 9
165
~xd5 exd5 10 .i.e5 ~xc5 11 .te2
.i.f6 12 .txf6 Wxf613 Wd4 Wxd4 14
fud4 ;!; Gavrikov-Begovac, Swiss Cht
1993. This is certainly not a winning
attempt for Black.
7...dxc4?! is dubious, if for no other
reason than that it leaves White a
tempo ahead of 7 ....i.xc5 8 .te2 dxc4
'ifc2 a6 10 ':dl .a5
9 .txc4. For example, 8 .txc4 .i.xc5 9
(1O ... ~bd7 11
.i.d3 b5 12 ~e5 Wb6 13 .i.xh7+
~xh7 14 ':xd7 ± Miles-Barua, British
Ch (Edinburgh) 1985) 11 a3.te7 12
0-0 b5 13 .ta2 .i.b7 14.i.bl ':c8 15
~g5 g6 16 Wb3 'ifb617 e4 ~bd7 18
e5 ~d5 19 ~xd5 .i.xd5 20 .g3 ~f8
21 h4 ±V.Bukaljr-Jukic, Zagreb 1995.
7....aS!?
This is a more interesting try, still
relatively under-explored. White has a
wide choice:
A: 8.i.d6?! 165
166
C: 8.c2 166
D:8~ 167
A)
8 .i.d6?! (D)
This is premature. White will not be
able to keep the extra pawn.
166 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 JJ..f4!
S••..i.xd6
Heading to what western players
often derogatorily refer to as the
'Russian draw' . If Black is more am-
bitious. he may try 8...1Dc6 9 ~d4
.i.xd6 10 cxd6 Wb4 11 ~b5 dxc4 12
'ii'a4 a6 13 Wxb4 ~xb4 141Dc7 l:lbS
150-0-0b516a3 ~c617 .i.e2l:lb618
f4 l:ldS 19 e4 e5 with sharp and unclear
play, Csaba-Kapu, Hungary 1993.
9 cxd6l:ld8 10 Wd2 dxc4 11 .i.xc4
l/2-1fz Mikhalchishin-Azmaiparashvili,
Dortmund 1992.
11. ..Wc5 =.
B)
Sl:lcl!?
This looks impressive from the two
examples given in ECO: 8...dxc4 9
.i.xe4 Wxc5 10 We2 ~c6 11 0-0 :dS
12 e4 ± Govbinder-M.]ohanessen,
corr. 1972; or S....i.xc5 9 ~2 .i.e7 10
.i.e2 ~c6 11 0-0 .d8 12 cxd5 ~xd5
13 ~xd5 exdS 14 ~b3 ± Larsen-Lom-
bardy, Monte Carlo 1967. However,
these are old examples, and one should
always be a little suspicious of lines
which have not been tested recently.
S•..ll)c6!? 9 a3lOe4 10 Wa4
Black has no reason to be scared of
10 cxd5 exdS 11 b4 Wxa3 12 ~xd5
.i.e6.
10•••Wxa4! 11 ~xa4.i.f6
Black has excellent compensation
for the pawn; the knight is very un-
comfortably placed on a4. If, for ex-
ample, 12 ~d2, then 12... ~xd2 13
'i>xd2 ~a5! with ....i.d7 to follow af-
ter White has averted the knight fork
on b3.
C)
SWc2(D)
8
Sticking closely to the themes of
the main line.
S...~
1) S...dxc4 9 .i.xc4 Wxc5 and now
10 .i.b3 ~c6 is e<Lual according to
ECO, but 10 .i.d3 ~6 11 a3 e5 12
.i.g3looks more thematic, and slightly
advantageous to White.
2) S...l:ld8 9 l:lel dxc4 10 .i.xc4
.xe5 11 .i.b3 b5 120-0 .i.b7 13 .e2
± Larsen-F.Kuijpers, Beverwijk 1967,
leaves Black exposed on the c-file.
9a3'ii'xcS!?
Showing willingness to avoid the
main lines. Attacking the queen with
10 b4, etc., would weaken White more
than it would damage Black's posi-
tion.
100-0-0
Provided Black avoids any sudden
accident to the queen, this formation
seems more promising for Black than
the New Main Line, with the queen on
a5. There is extra pressure on the c-
file.
10•••.i.d711 g4 l:lfcSl2 'i>bl.i.eS
13 ~2 .i.f8?!
Black feels obliged to provide a re-
treat for the queen, and loses the
thread of the game. There is a promis-
ing exchange sacrifice with 13 ...dxc4
 Black Avoids the Main Line: ... c5 Systems
14 lbxc4 bS! 15 o!M6 (15 b4lbxb4)
IS ... b4 16lbxc8 l:txc8 and Black's at-
lack is a few tempi ahead of White's,
always useful when the kings are cas-
lIed on opposite flanks.
14 gS 'DhS 15 adS lbxf4 16 exf4
lbd417 jM3lbfS 18 .i.h3 ± Goldin-
Geller, Sochi 1989.
0)
8lbd2 (D)
Strongly discouraging the simple re-
capture with the bishop. We consider:
Dl: 8 .....xCS 167
D2: 8 ••• dxc4 167
01)
8 .....xCS9:c1
1) 9 a3 dxc4 10 .i.xc4 l:td8 11 :cl
lbc6 12 b4 "fS = Benko-Ivkov, Tel-
Aviv 1964.
2) 9 lbb3 "b6 10 cxdS lbxdS 11
lbxdS exdS 12 .td3 .tb4+ 13iOd2 (13
c;t>e2!?; 13 c;t>n I?) 13 ...10:6 14 0-0
=
.i.e6 KlingelhOfer-A.Nikitin, Dort-
mund 1993.
9 •..lbc6 10 a3?!
White's pawn-storm on the queen-
side is rarely dangerous in the .i.f4
system, while a tempo-gain with ...eS
167
always needs watching. The prophy-
lactic 10 .tg3! ;I; is best.
10•••eS 11 b4 "d6 12 .tg3 l:td8 13
lbo d4 14 exd4 lbxd4 15 lbxd4
=
"xd4 Gligoric-Geller, Yugoslavia-
USSR 1967.
02)
8.••dxc4 (D)
9.i.d6
In another dodgy ECO verdict, this
is given as ±.
1) 9 lbxc4 "xeS 10 l:te1 l:td8 11
"e2 lbc6 12 a3 "fS 13 .te2 (13
"xfS!?) l3 .....xe2 14 :xe2 .i.d7 =
Plachetka-Prandstetter, Czechoslovak
Ch 1978.
2) 9 .i.xc4!? :d8 10 "e2 "xeS 11
lbb3 "fS 12 .i.e7 :d7 13 .tg31O:6
14 :dl (14 0-0 lbbS =; 14 h3! ;1;)
14...:xd1+ 15 "xd1 .td7, when, un-
fortunately for the author's Elo rating,
there was not enough to squeeze in
Croueh-N.Moloney, Mill Hill 1997 .
Even so, with the move 14 improve-
9 •••.i.xd6 10 cxd6.cS
ment, this might be White's best try.
Black has no time for 10... b5?? in
view of 11 .f3.
l1lbxc4?!
168 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 j.f4!
It is tempting to try to keep hold of
the extra pawn, but the effect is to re-
tard White's development. 11 .i.xc4 is
safe, if deadly dull.
1l••• bS!
11 ...~c6 12 Wb3 :b8 13 a4 b6 14
WbS .i.a6 15 Wxa6 ~b4 16 'it'bS
~2+ 17 ~d2 ~xa118 .te2 WxbS 19
axbS ~b3+ 20 ~c2 ~S 21 b4 ~b7
22 e4 is clearly better for White, Cher-
nenko-Rovner, corr. 1970.
12~aS?!
But 12 ~d2 b4 13 ~e4 ~xe4 14
~xe4 WeS still gives Black a danger-
ous lead in development.
12••• b4!
Improving on the horrible 12 ... a6?
13 ~b3 Wb6 14 Wd4 Wxd4 15 ~xd4
:d8 160-0-0 :xd6 17 .i.e2 ~bd7 18
.i.f3, when Black has fallen a long
way behind in development in regain-
ing his pawn, Knezevic-M.Kapelan,
Vriac 1977.
13 ~b3 "eS 14liJa4
14 Wf3? bxc3 15 Wxa8 cxb2 wrecks
White's position.
14•••.i.d7
The obvious continuation 14...:d8
ISWd4! Wxd616'ifxd6lhd617:cl
leaves Black with a few weaknesses
along the c-file.
IS~bcS.tc6
But not IS ... ~4? 16 f4!.
Black should be at least equal, and
possibly a little better, given the tangle
of the white knights. Offering the
queen exchange with 16 Wd4 is White's
most prudent choice.
5.4 The 5 ... c5 system
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 31Oc3lM6 4 ~f3 .te7
5 .i.f4 cS (D)
w
Black may play ... cS before cas-
tling, but generally chooses not to.
White's natural response is 6 dxcS,
when play could transpose to the main
lines if both sides are willing, but de-
viations are possible. 6 ...~6 could be
tried, for example, with the idea of
bringing pressure to bear on e4, but
various games from the early 1970s
suggest that what usually happens is
that White exchanges on dS and gains
comfortable play against the black
isolani.
6dxcS
6 e3?!justifies Black's move-order.
6 ...cxd4 7 exd4 dxc4 (simplest; 7...0-0
8 cS ~e4 9 .td3 fS 10 h4 .i.d7 GO
Horak-Efler, Czech Republic 1996) 8
.txc4 0-0 9 0-0 gives rise to a the-
matic IQP position, with White for
once having the isolani. Play contin-
ued 9 ...~bd7 10 :el ~b6 II .tb3
~bdS?! (l1...~fdS leaves Black less
tucked up on the kingside) 12 .i.gS
b6?! 13 ~dS exdS (13 ...~dS?? loses
a piece to 14 .i.xdS) 14 ~eS ;t in
E.Meduna-Brameyer, Bad Worisho-
fen 1995.
Now we have:
A: 6•••.txCS 169
B: 6...liJa6 169
 Black Avoids the Main line: ... c5 Systems
A)
6•••.i.xc5
This would quickly lose independ-
ent significance if after 7 e3 Black
were to castle immediately or to play
7...1Oc6 and then castle. Here we con-
sider the deviations.
7e3
7 cxdS ~xd5! 8 ~xdS exdS is un-
promising. Black is threatening ...'iWb6,
lind if 9 e3, then 9....i.b4+ =. 9 'ii'c2
'iVb6 10 O-O-O?! ~c6 would be taking
great risks with the king.
7...~c6
Here there are three examples:
1) 8cxdS~dS9~dSexdSlOa3.
Now 10...0-0 transposes to the Knight
Exchange Variation. In Chekhov-
Anikaev, Moscow 1992, Black varied
with 1O..•.i.e7, maybe hoping to estab-
lish the bishop on f6 before castling.
Play continued 11 ~5!? 0-0 12 .i.d3
~xe5 13 .i.xe5 .i.f6 14 .i.xf6 'ii'xf6 15
'iVc2 g6 160-0 d4 17 e4 with perhaps a
slight edge to White.
2) 8 .i.e2 .i.b4!? (8 ...0-0) 9 0-0 (9
1i'c2!? ~ 10 0-0 ;t) 9 ... .i.xc3 10
bxc3 0-0, Hertneck-Beliavsky, Mu-
nich 1994 takes the game out of estab-
lished theory. Unclear play resulted
after 11 ~d2 (11 'ii'c2! Hertneck)
11.....e7 (1l...dxc4! 12 .i.xc4 ~S 13
=
.i.xd5 'ifxdS 14 c4 Hertneck) 12.i.gS
Itd8 13 'ifc2 h6 14 .i.h4 ~5!? 15
Itfd 1 ~g6 16 .i.g3 b6.
3) After 8 a3, 8 ... 0-0 goes straight
back to the main lines, while 8 ... a6?!
gains nothing for Black: 9 'ii'c2!? dxc4
(9 ... 0-0 10 Itdl ;t) 10 Itdl 'ii'a5 11
.i.xc4 .i.e7 12 0-0 0-0 13 ~e4 ;t
Whiteley-McDonald, London 1994.
There is nothing particularly star-
tling here. S...cS is probably no better
169
and no worse than 5... 0-0 6 e3 c5,
though from force of habit Black usu-
ally castles first.
B)
6...~a6(D)
w
This form of development is famil-
iar from the Nimzo-Indian (1 d4 ~f6 2
c4 e6 31Oc3 .i.b4 4 'ii'c2 c5 5 dxcS 0-0
6 ~f3 ~6), but Black is worse off
here through his bishop being pas-
sively placed on e7, rather than on b4.
This takes all the bite out of the ... ~a6
idea, leaving White free to develop
without interruption. He may continue:
Bl: 7 e3 169
B2: 7 .i.d6!? 170
B1)
7 e3 ~c5 8 adS
8 .i.e2 0-0 (8 ...dxc4!?) 9 cxdS ~dS
10 ~dS exd5 11 .i.e5 ;t D.Gurevich-
Begovac, Bern 1995.
8...~dS
8 ...exdS and then:
1) 9 .i.e2 0-0 10 0-0 .i.e6 11 .i.eS
Itc8 12 Itcl a6 13 h3 bS with unclear
play, Petrosian-Spassky, Moscow Wch
(5) 1969. The normally alert Petrosian
now fell for 14 .i.d3?? d4! IS .i.xd4
 170 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./4!
lilxd3 16 "xd3 .i.c4 winning the ex-
change. ECO gives 14lild4 and then
14....i.d6 IS .i.xd6 "xd6 16.i.f3 ;t,
but this is far from conclusive. Black
could, for example, consider 14.....d7,
with ... b4 in mind.
2) However, there is a simpler and
better plan for White: 9 .i.bS+! .i.d7
10 .i.xd7+ "xd7 11 0-0 0-0 12 .i.eS
l:fd8 13 "e2 a6 14 l:fdl ;t and White
has effortlessly achieved pressure
against the isolani, Gheorghiu-Rubin-
etti, Mar del Plata 1971. See the Intro-
duction for the complete game.
9 lbxdS exdS 10 .i.bS+ .i.d7 11
.i.xd7+ "xd7 12 0-0
ECO tersely gives this as ;t, quoting
Darga-C.Bielicki, Havana 1965, but
on the database I am using, Black has
212 from this position! Apparently, a
more extensive database gives three
extra draws, but White's minus score
still stands.
12•••0-0 13 .i.e5 :'c8
13 ...f6 14 .i.d4lile4 IS "d3 b6 16
l:fdl l:fd8 with equality, Danielian-
Nikolac, Balatonbereny ECC 1993.
14 "d4?!
Depriving the bishop of an impor-
tant retreat square. 14 l:cl is about
equal.
14•••f6 IS .i.g3lUd8 16lUdl 'ii'bs
17 :ac1 lile4 ; Orlowski-Begovac,
Switzerland 1994.
Chess technique is still evolving! A
generation ago, players felt happier
protecting the isolated pawn with the
knight, but now there is more sympa-
thy for an approach involving ex-
changing Black's passive f6-knight for
White's active c3-knight. This plan
gives Black's other pieces more free-
dom.
82)
7 .i.d6!? (D)
B
White too can pick a pair of minor
pieces to exchange. Black's 'good
bishop' is the target.
7•••lbxcs
1) 7 ...dxc4 8 "d4 0-0 9 e4lLld7 10
.i.xc4 (10 eSt? Portisch) 1O...lilaxc5
II l:dl .i.xd6 12 "xd6 "b6 13 .i.bS
a6 14 "xb6lbxb6 IS .i.e2 ;!; Portisch-
Ivkov, Prague 1970.
2) 7 ...0-0 8 cxdS exdS 9 e3 (9
.i.xe7 "xe7 10 e3lilxcS transposes to
the next note) 9....i.xd6 10 cxd6 "xd6
II .i.e2 "b6 12 "b3 "xb3 13 axb3
lilb4 14 0-0 .i.d7 IS :fdl :fc8 16
lilel Wf8 17 .i.f3 ;!; Tukmakov-Savon,
Lvov 1978.
8 .i.xe7 ~e7!
The text is startling, but it avoids
the tedious positions reached after
8.....xe7. for example 9 cxdS exdS 10
e3 0-0 11 .i.e2lLlce4 12 "d4lilxc3 13
"xc3 .i.g4 140-0 :ac8 15 11'b3 :c7
16lLld4.i.xe2 17lilxe2 "eS 18 l:adl
;t Portisch-Bobotsov, Amsterdam 1971.
It should be noted that the game
cited in the text actually went 7 cxdS
exdS 8 .i.d6lilxcs 9 .i.xe7 "xe7, but
there seems to be no reason that the
 Black Avoids the Main Line: ... c5 Systems 171

king capture can't be tried against the
7 i.d6 move-order. Black's king looks
temporarily exposed, but it can soon
he secured by ...:e8, ... ~f8, etc.
9cxdS
9 e3 dxc4 =.
9•.•exdS 10 e3 .te6 11 .te2 'ii'b6
=
12 Wd4 :hc8 13 0·0 ltlce4 14lt:la4
Wxd4 15 ltlxd4 .td7 16 .tbS .txbS
17 ltlxbS ltlcs 18 ltlxcS :xcS 19
ltld4 I/z·112 L.Popov-Spassky, Dort-
mund 1973.
6 Systems with ... b6
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3lLlc3lLlf6 4lLlr3 i.e'
5 i.r40-0
For S...b6, see Line F, at the end of
the chapter.
6e3b6(D)
In effect, we reach Part 2 of the
book. White's basic plan in the i.f4
system is simple and unpretentious
development, and the avoidance of un-
necessary exchanges of pieces, with
his pawn structure providing just that
little extra room to manoeuvre to give
chances of a lasting edge. We have so
far considered what happens if Black
challenges White's initiative with an
early ... cS; now we examine what hap-
pens if Black too is content to play
simply and unpretentiously.
Few would contend that White's
advantage is anywhere near decisive if
Black plays quietly, but it would also
be difficult to argue that Black, a move
behind and with less space, can claim
easy equality without making a serious
assault on the logic of White's plan of
development. Thus with both the ...b6
system, and the ... c6 and related sys-
tems discussed later, we are in the ter-
ritory of a slight but unquestioned
advantage to White. The important
theoretical and practical question is
whether this is the sort of slight advan-
tage that is likely to be the prelude to a
bigger advantage, or whether Black is
gradually edging his way towards a
playable middlegame with chances for
both sides.
In the ...b6 system, White's main
hope of making progress is either to
play for a Pillsbury Bind with cxdS,
lLle5, i.d3, Wf3, etc., or to play against
the hanging pawns if Black plays a
later ...c5. In terms of particular moves
from the diagram. position, the main
choice is between 7 cxd5, 7 i.d3 and 7
l:[cl, with 7 i.e2 being solid and un-
ambitious. 7 Wc2 has had a big cloud
over it, but may still be OK if White
takes care; we look at this shortly.
Also, a game with 7 lLlbS? i.b4+ 8
lLlc3 :j: has crept on to the database, but
since this was in an under-l0 tourna-
ment, it would be unfair to cite the ex-
act reference.
Our sections are:
A:' Wc2 173
B:' i.e2 174
C: 'adS 175
D:' i.d3 187
E:' l:[c1 190
F: 5••• b6 (instead of 5•••0-0) 194
 Systems with ... b6
A)
7"c2(D)
This routine developing move is not
as noncommittal as it looks. Black can
now revert to the aggressive plan of at-
tacking White's centre with ...cS, with
the bonus of having the bishop occu-
pying the long diagonal.
7 •••.i.b7
I) For 7 ... c6, see 6 ... c6 7 "c2 b6
(Chapter 7.2, Line E).
2) 7...cS?! 8 dxcS bxcS 9 .i.e2 of-
fers White the pleasant prospect of play
against the hanging pawns. M.Gure-
vich-Dolmatov, Marseilles 1988 con-
tinued 9 ....i.b7 (9 ...d4 10 exd4 cxd4 11
l:dl ~c6 120-0;t Gurevich) 10 0-0
ll:lbd7 11 l:fdl l:c8 12 l:d2 "b6 13
cxdS exdS?! (l3 ...~xdS 14 .i.gS ;t
Gurevich) 14 ~eS :Cd8 IS .i.f3 ~xeS
16 .i.xeS d4 (16 .....e6 17 .i.xf6 .i.xf6
18 l:ad 1 .i.xc3 19 bxc3 ± Gurevich)
17 .i.xb7 dxc3 18 l:xd8+ l:xd8 19
.i.f3 cxb2 20 .i.xb2 and White had the
better pawn structure to work with,
along with his bishop-pair.
31. 7 ....i.a6 8 ~S dxc4 9 .i.xc4
.i.xc4 10 ~xc4 ~dS 11 ~xdS "xdS
120-0cS 13dxcS"xcS 14l:acl ~6
= Khalifman-Pigusov, Sochi 1989.
173
8cxdS~xd5!
The one example of 8...exdS on the
database is ancient. 9 .i.d3 and rather
than 9 ...~bd7 10 0-0 cS 11 dxcS bxcS
12 l:adl h6 13 .i.fS, when Black's
hanging pawns soon fell apart in
Blackbume-Taubenhaus, New York
1889, 9 ...~6!? 10 a3 cS 11 dxcS ~cS
is worth considering. White could also
win a pawn by 9 ~bS?!, but Black has
compensatory piece activity after
9 ... .i.h4+ 10 ~dl ~6 11 .i.xc7 "e7,
etc. Maybe 9 .i.e2!?
9 ~xdS "xdS 10 .i.d3
10 "xc?? is extremely risky due to
1O....i.h4+ followed by ...l:c8.
10 a3 "a5+ 11 ~2 =.
10•••c5
The check isn't worth it 1O... .i.b4+?!
11 ~e2 .i.a6 12 l:hcl .i.xd3+ 13
"xd3.i.d6 14 .i.xd6 "xd6 IS ~gs;t
Bewersdorff-Rybak, Prague 1989.
11 dxc5
11 .i.xh7+ ~h8 12 .i.d3 cxd4 13
exd4 ~6 14.i.e4 ~d4 ;.
11•••h6!
This pawn sacrifice, if accepted, al-
lows Black to take the initiative.
12cxb6?!
But White shouldn't accept, al-
though one would have to see over ten
moves ahead in a line where White
wins a pawn and exchanges queens to
see why this should not be played.
White still has chances for an edge if
he ignores the pawn and just develops,
for example 12 J:[dl "xcS 13 0-0!1.
12.....a5+ 13 ~e2
13 ~2ll:la6 +.
13•••l:c8 14 "b3 ~6 15 l:hc1
axb6 16 'lfb5
If White doesn't exchange queens,
...~S is going to be a big problem.
174 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!

16••••xb5 17 J.xb5 J.f6! 18 ~e5 ':dl cxb3 + was Naumkin-Pushkov,

:c5! 19 :Xc5 ~c5 (D) Azov 1993. Astonishingly, Pushkov
got a second chance to find the correct
move!
25 J.xe5 J.xe5 26 .:et
w 26 ~c2 J.xg2 27 f4 gxf4 28 exf4
J.e4+ 29 J.d3 J.d4 30 J.xe4 ~xe4
31 ':dl (31 ~d3 ~c5+) 31...J.c5-+
Oragomaretsky-Koniushkov, Sochi
1996.
26•••J.e4+ 27 ~d2 ~bl+ 28 ~e2
~xa3 29 J.d3 J.xg2 30 f4 gxf4 31
exf4 J.d4 32 ':c7 J.d5 33 ':a7 J.c5
0-IIzkuznykh-Pushkov,~1 1995.

20a3?! B)
White made this identical mistake 7 J.e2 (D)
on all three games on the database! We
are in the middle of one of the deepest
and most subtle opening traps there is.
White has won a pawn, and naturally B
wants to keep a tight pawn structure to
make use of his extra pawn in the end-
game. It is only with the benefit of
hindsight that one can say that 20 a4!
is the correct way to play. Naturally
the pawn cannot be held in the long
run, but in the time that Black takes to
win the pawn back, White can get all
his pieces into reasonably active play,
with a draw being the likely result. Ultra-solid, if slightly unthematic.
The most interesting traps are those 7•••i.b7
which only a strong player would fall For 7 ...dxc4 8 J.xc4, see Line 02 (7
into. i.d3 dxc4).
20... g5 21 J.g3 ':a5 22 J.c4? 80-0
It is still not too late for 22 a4. As with so many games from the
22••• ~4!! Soviet and ex-Soviet school of chess,
The trap is sprung. Suddenly the one wonders whether A.Nikitin-Bai-
black pieces are totally dominant, and kov, Erevan 1983 took longer than five
White's position is about to collapse. minutes: 8 cxd5?! (drab) 8 ... ~xd5 ~
23 b3 ~+ 24 ~d3 ':xe5 ~d5 J.xd5 10 0-0 ~7 II ~5 ~xe:),
The cleanest kill. 24 ... b5?! 25 ~xc3 12 J.xe5 i.d6 13 J.xd6 cxd6 14 J.f3'
bxc4 26 ~b4 ':xe5 27 J.xe5 J.xe5 28 Ih-1h.
 Systems with ... b6
For 8 :c 1, see Line E2, note to
White's 8th (7 :el i..b7 8 i..e2); the
normal move with the 7 :c 1 move-
order would be 8 cxd5.
8...li:)bd7
8 ... c5 (T.Georgadze) is a touch
premature. With White's development
close to completion, it is wiser for
Black to get some more pieces out be-
fore opening the centre. White can
now try 9 dxc5 i..xc5 (9 ... bxc5 10
cxd5 exd5 ;t gives Black the problem
of the hanging pawns) 10 cxd5li:)xd5
II li:)xd5 "xd5 12 "c2 with a slight
advantage. Symmetry does not guar-
antee equality.
9h3
White keeps the tension. Instead 9
li:)e5 li:)e4 1O:C 1 li:)xc3 11 :xc3 ll:)f6
12 :el dxc4 13 :xc4 c5 was equal in
Tomczak-H-l.Schulz, 2nd Bundesliga
1983/4.
9 .•.0 10 i..h2 a6?1
The pawn becomes a potential tar-
get here. Black probably has several
routes to a reasonable game, for exam-
ple 1O... dxc4 11 i..xc4 cxd4 12li:)xd4
(12 exd4!?) 12...:c8.
lla4:c8
Again, pawn exchanges could be
considered.
12 adS lOxd5
Now Karpov-T.Georgadze, Moscow
1979 continued 13 "bllD7f614:dl
cxd4. Karpov in ECO suggests 13
li:)xd5 exd5 (13 ... i..xd5 is impossible
in view of the weakness on a6) 14 b3
;to I was at first sceptical of this judge-
ment in view of 14...c4 creating a
passed pawn, but if White avoids the
immediate exchange and plays, for ex-
ample, 15 Wc2, it is difficult to see
what Black can do with the pawn.
17S
C)
7cxdS
We now move on to the heavy the-
ory. White will generally want to ex-
change pawns here sooner or later, in
order to clarify the position in the cen-
tre, and is more likely to be able to
force a pawn recapture if the bishop is
not yet on b7. That having been said,
Black is still able here to recapture ei-
ther with pawn or knight:
Cl: 7 •••li:)xdS 175
C2: 7 •••exdS 178
C1}
7... li:)xd5 (D)
SlOxdS
After 8 i..g3, the critical reply is
8...i..b7 9 i..d3 c5. Instead it is diffI-
cult to see why Black should voluntar-
ily strengthen White's pawn centre by
8 ...li:)xc3?! 9 bxc3 i..b7 10 i..d3 c5 11
O-O;t Fiedler-Pallova, Bradee Kralove
1992.
S...exd5
8 .....xdS has also been tried:
1) No one seems to have risked
taking the gambit pawn with White,
although there is no immediate refuta-
tion of9 i..xc7!?, which not only wins
176 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./41
a pawn, but also cuts out the ...cS break,
thus helping keep the centre secure.
The onus must be on Black to justify
the sacrifice.
2) Instead, the insipid 9 .td3 has
generally been chosen, with games
mostly tending towards early eqUality.
2a) 9....ta6 10 0-0 cS 11 .txa6
lbxa6 12 "e2 'iVb7 13 :fdl :fdS 14
e4 cxd4 IS lbxd4 lbcs 160 a6 17
=
:ac1 lIac8 D.zilbershtein-Pigusov,
Irkutsk 19S3.
2b) 9.....aS+ 10lbd2.ta611.txa6
"xa6 12 'ii'e2 c5 13 .txbS 'iVxe2+ 14
r,i;>xe2 :axb8 = Yakovich-Gelfand,
Minsk 19S6.
2c) 9 ....tb4+?! 10 r,i;>e2 1.d6 11
e4 ~ 'ii'aS 12 .td2 .h5 (12 ....tb4 13
a3 .txd2 14 .xd2 .a4 15 :hcl ;t
G.SchrolI-Bradner, Austrian League
1989/90) 13 1Ic1 eS 14 dxe5 .txeS 15
h3.ta6! 16 1.xa6lbxa6 17 'iVa4 (17
g4? is pointless, as 17...'iVg6 threatens
...•xe4+) 17....txb21S 'iVxa6.txc119
:xcl cS 20r,i;>n .g6, Tisdall-Kveinys,
Oslo 1992, and now, instead of21 :c4
:feS 22 eS 00, the immediate 21 eS!?
possibly slightly favours White.
2d) 9...cS?! 10 .c2 .tb7 11 0-0
(Oreev's notes in Informator 57 sug-
gest that 11 .txh7+! r,i;>hS 12 .td3
cxd4 13 0-0 is a more accurate move-
order, as now Black can confuse the is-
sue with 11...lba6!) l1...cxd4 12
.txh7+ r,i;>hS 13 1.d3 dxe3 14 fxe3
lba6 15 :adl lbb4 16 .c7 .tf6 17
1.bl ± 'ii'c6 18 'iVxc6 lbxc6 19 :d7
i.a6 20 :fdl :acS 21 i.e4 1.xb2 22
.td6 .te2 23 .txfS 1-0 Dreev-Dor-
oshkevich, Rostov on Don 1993.
We leave the lack of votes for 9
i.xc7 as an unsolved mystery.
9.td3
Thematic in that White places the
bishop on its strongest diagonal, but
there is the drawback that Black has an
awkward bishop check. Two attempts
to bypass this problem:
1) 9 .c2!?.tb4+ 10 lbd2 i.d6 11
.txd6.xd6 12 .td3 h6 130-0 .ta6
14 :acl .txd3 15 .xd3 c6 16 lbo
lbd7 17 .a6 lUcS 18 :c2 ;t R.Scher-
bakov-Landa, lurmala 1989. The clas-
sic 'minority attack' pawn structure, in
which Black's c-pawn is held back by
White's d-pawn, and White can pre-
pare to lay siege to the queenside with
b4-bS. Black's position is tedious to
defend.
2) 9 .te2 .tb4+ 10 lbd2 i.d6 11
1.g3 .tfS 12:c 1 i.xg3 13 hxg3 .d6
14 .a4 c6 IS 0-0 (IS b4!?;t) IS ... aS!
16 "b3 lbd7 17 i.o lbf6 =Aleksan-
drov-Landa, lurmala 1991. Now 18
.xb6 :fb8 proved perfectly satisfac-
tory for Black, although later in the
game White blundered a piece ... and
won!
9•••i.b4+ (D)
The usual irritant, although 9...cS is
also possible:
1) 10 dxcS bxcS 11 0-0 i.e6
(ll...lbc6 12lbeS lbxe5 13 .txeS .te6
14 .c2 g6 15 b3 ;t Donner-Darga,
West Germany 1969) 12 .c2 h6 13
:fd 1 .b6 14 e4 lbc6 15 exdS lbb4
16 .e2lbxdS 17.teS lbb4 18 i.c4
:ad8 was equal in Ruderfer-Butnor-
ius, Moscow 1979.
2) 10 0-0, with divergent experi-
ences:
2a) 1O...lbd7 11 :cl (II dxcS!?;t)
l1...c4 12 .tbllbf6 13 lbes .tb7 14
. 0 bS 15 b3 .b6 16 .tgS :fe8 17
.tfS h6 18 .txf6?! (winning material
is tempting, but it releases the tension
 Systems with ... b6
on the kingside; 18 .i.f4! gives dan-
gerous attacking chances against the
under-protected kingside) 18 ...•xf6
19 .i.d7 .xf3 20 gxf3 a6! 21 .i.xe8
:'xe8 22 bxc4 dxc4 GO Lechtynsky-
Ubilava, Tren~ianske Teplice 1985.
Black's queenside pawns outweighed
the exchange in the cited game. This is
nur first introduction to the Pillsbury
Bind in this chapter; there will be sev-
eral more.
2b) 10....i.e6 and now 11 dxcS
hxcS 12 e41Dc6 13 exdS tWxdS 14.e2
:'008 IS .i.e4lM4 =Blagojevic-Hresc,
Kirchheim rpd 1990. However, this
was only a quickplay, and improve-
ments for White are probably easy to
lind, e.g. 11 tWc2!? h6 12lbeS.
2c) 1O...lbc6 11 lbeS lbxeS 12
.i.xeS .i.d6 13 .i.xd6 .xd6 14 dxcS
hxcS IS :'cl (1S tWc2 followed by
:'fdllooks more accurate) IS ... fS 16
h3 .i.e6 17 .i.e2 :'ac8 18 .d2 :'fd8
with equality, Rezsek-Letay, Hungar-
ian Cht 1993/4.
3) 10 lbeS!? and now 1O...cxd4 11
cxd4 .i.b4+ 12 ~f1 was suggested by
Psakhis in Informator 61 and given as
unclear. White should be able to play
this for an edge; after all, the king gets
in the way less on f1 than on e2. One
possible idea is to gain space on the
kingside with .f3, g4, h4, ~g2, etc. If
instead 10....i.b7, 11 0-Olbd712dxcS
bxcS 13 .a4lbxeS 14 .i.xeS;t Ibrag-
imov-Radulov, Iraklion 1993.
10~e2
Sometimes the most obvious moves
remain untested; there is nothing on
the database on 10 lbd2. If White can't
improve on the Lalic-McDonald game
given below, this might have to be
tried. Then:
177
1) After 1O...cS 11 dxcS, 11...bxcS
would leave the black bishop mis-
placed, but 1 l...lM7!? (Burgess) might
be a try, for example 12 c6 lDcs 13
.i.c2 .i.a6! (13 ... lbe4 14 .i.xe4 dxe4
IS a3 ±) 14 a3 .i.xd2+ IS .xd2 :'c8
16 c7 tWf6 and White's king is un-
comfortably stuck in the centre, while
Black can play to recover the pawn
with ...lbe6. Maybe White should set-
tle for play against the IQP with 120-0
lbxcs 13 .i.e2; if then 13...d4, 141Dc4!
presents Black with a few problems in
completing his development; the
bishop is still weak!
2) If 10....i.d6 11 .i.xd6 "xd6
White can if he chooses transpose into
the Scherbakov-Landa game above (9
.c2) with 12 .c2 ;to
10•••.i.d6 11 hd6 "xd6 12 "c2
12 :'cl cS (12 ....i.a6?! 13 .i.xa6
lbxa6 14 .a4 bS IS .c2 ± Psakhis)
13 dxcS (after 13 .c2?! lba6! 14
.i.xh7+ ~h8 IS .i.fS lbb4 16 .bl
lbxa2!, Psakhis, Black is in control)
13 ... bxcS 14 .a4, and now Psakhis-
Westerinen, Gausdal 1994 continued
with the routine 14....i.a6?! IS :'hdl
.i.xd3+ 16 :'xd3 and White was a little
better. Psakhis notes that 14...c4 IS
.i.bl .i.g4 16 :'hdl! .i.xf3+ 17 gxf3 is
178 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./41
good for White, but 14 .. JWb6 should
be playable for Black.
12...cS!
Yet another instance where Black's
best policy is to let the h7-pawn go.
12...J.a6 13 :hdl J.xd3+ 14 :xd3
~a6 15 a3 c5 16 dxc5 ~xc5 17 :c3
as 18 b3 gave White a small advantage
in Seirawan-Christiansen, Lone Pine
1981.
13:hc1
Black gets plenty of chances for
counterplay after 13 J.xh7+ ~h8 14
J.f5 J.a6+ 15 ~d2 ~6 16l:[hcl c4-
Lalic.
13•••~6 14 J.xh7+ ~h8 15 J.d3
After 15 J.f5 ~b4 16 .bl J.a6+
17 ~d2 (17 ~el!?) 17... g618 a3liX:6
19 J.d3 J.xd3 20.xd3 c4 followed
by ...~a5 White has queenside prob-
lems - Lalic. Again, winning the h7-
pawn has used up a lot of time.
15•••~b4 16 dxcS
16 .c3 c4! - Lalic.
16..:.f6
It is not advisable to snatch the ex-
change. 16... ~xc2? 17 cxd6 ~xal 18
~5! (the prisoner can wait) 18...J.e6
19 f4 d4 20 f5 J.d5 (20...J.xa2 21
:xal J.d5 22 J.b5 ±) 21 e4 :ad8
(21...:fe8? 22 d7 :xe5 23 :c8+ +-;
21...J.xe4? 22 J.xe4 :ae8 23 d7!
:xe5 24 :c8 :xe4+ 25 ~f2 +-) 22 d7
± is analysis by Lalic. Black is tempo-
rarily a rook ahead, but his piece coor-
dination is miserable, and White will
soon start clawing back material.
17 'ire3 ~xd3 18 'irxd3
18 ~xd3? chances his arm too
much; after 18.....g6+ followed by
...•xg2 Black's attack should prevail.
18...bxcS 19 ~el liz_liz B.Lalic-
McDonald, Hastings 199415.
White prudently brings the king
back to safety and offers the draw; 19
.xd5? J.a6+ 20 ~el .xb2 would
have been unwise. After the text-move,
Lalic gives 19...J.a6 20 .a3 :ab8 21
':c2 "g6 22 :acl "xg2 23 'irxa6
"xO 24 "e2 =.
This isn't quite proof that White has
nothing after 7...~xd5, as Black still
has to demonstrate clear equality after
10 ~d2. Even so, White's edge is far
from overwhelming.
e2)
7...exd5 (D)
The more traditional, and indeed
the more popular response. However,
one cannot help feeling that, as with
analogous lines after 6... c5 7 dxc5
J.xc5 8 cxd5, the failure to exchange
the defensive f6-knight for the attack-
ing c3-knight favours White.
8J.d3
This is White's natural response,
aiming for the Pillsbury Bind with
~5, "0, etc. The alternatives mainly
anticipate playing against a hanging,
pawn formation. I
1) 8 J.e2 with the following possi1,
bilities: .
 Systems with ... b6
I a) 8 ....tb7 9 0-0 (9 ~5lbbd7 10
II·() transposes) 9 ... lbbd7 (9 ... c5 10
Ic I lbbd7 11 lbe5 is discussed under
7 Icl) 10 lbe5 a6 11 'iVb3 (11 Icl
.id6 12lb<i3 .txf4 13lbxf4 ±, Gheor-
IIhiu-A.Medina, Las Palmas 1982, is
nlKo pleasant for White) 11...lc8 (not
11 ... c5?? 12 lbxd7 winning a pawn)
12 Afdl c6 13 .tg3 b5 14 a4 ± Toma-
II/.cwski-Haubro, Dortmund 1987.
However, Black's queenside fian-
rhetto is questionable. As in the Tar-
IlIkower system ( ... b6 against .tg5),
JIIuck can play ... .te6, using the b6-
puwn as a possible support for ... c5:
I b) Thus Langeweg-Hort, Amster-
,111m 1981 continued 8 ....te6! 9lbe5
/i)fd7 10 0-0 lbxe5 11 .txe5 c6 12
lei ltid7 13 .tg3 as 14 .td3 Ae8 15
1;'\c2 cS =.
2) It is not clear that 8 .tbS
IIchieves anything special after, for ex-
IImple, 8 ... a6. Black was also holding
Ihe balance in Doroshkevich-Sitni-
kova, St Petersburg 1995, after 8 ...c5 9
llxc5 bxcS 10 0-0 h6 11 'ffe2 a6 12
~a4 .te6 13 AfdI 'ffb6 14 .teS Ad8.
White's one success in this variation
came when Black played slightly pas-
sively: 8....tb7 9 0-0 c6 10.ta4lbbd7
II 'tIe2lbh5 12 .teS! f6 (12 ...lbxeS??
loses a pawn to 13 lbxe5) 13 .tg3
t;i)xg3 14 hxg3 fS IS AfcI .td6 16
'it'd3 'iVe7 17 lbe2 Aac8 18 Ac3 ;t
Seirawan-Spassky. N~ic 1983.
3) 8 Acl is promising. but it must
he recognized that it fits in better with
a .te2 development than with a .td3
development. 8 ....te6. by analogy with
Ihe Langeweg-Hort game. runs into 9
lDeS lbfd7 10 lbxd7lbxd7 II .tb5!.
when Black is in trouble. 8 ... a6?!
(slow) 9 .te2 .tb7 10 0-0 lbh5?! II
179
.teS lbd7 12lbellbhf6 13 .tg3 Ac8
14lbd3 ± Steinitz-Schallop, Nurem-
berg 1896. 8 ...cS 9 .te2 is examined
under 7 Acl c5 8 cxd5 exd5. Line EI
below.
4) The only examples I have with 8
lbeS or 8 h3 follow up with 9 .td3.
and are considered under 8 .td3.
The position after 8 .td3 is a major
branching point. We consider:
e21: 8 •••cS 9 0-0 .tb7 (or 8 •••.tb7 9
O-OCS) 179
e22: 8 •••cS without 9 0-0 .tb7 184
e23: 8 •••.tb7 without 9 0-0 cS 186
Many of the games listed in C21
and C23 started via 7 .td3 .tb7 8 cxdS
exdS.
C21)
8•••cS 9 0-0
9lbeS .tb7 10 'iVf3 will almost in-
variably transpose.
9•••.tb7 (D)
10lbes
The most natural, but the position
after 10 h3 has an interesting history.
In 1978 Tony Miles tried out a new
system against the Queen's Indian,
scoring wins against leading grand-
masters such as Spassky (twice!).
180 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i,t4!
Larsen, Dzhindzhikhashvili and Tim-
man. The system he tried was 1 d4lDf6
2 c4 e6 3 lDf3 b6 4 .i.f4, which could
clearly transpose into a .i.f4 Queen's
Gambit if Black plays an early ... dS.
The innovation was briefly successful,
but then antidotes were found. In par-
ticular, after 4 ....i.b7 S e3 .i.e7! White
must play 6 h3 (D) in order to avoid
the exchange of his bishop after
... 1OhS. Instead 61Oc3ll)bS 7 .i.g3 d6
8 .i.d3 lOd7 9 "c2 (9 O-O?! g6 10 h3
lOxg3 + Spassky-Karpov, Montreal
1979) 9 ... g6 10 .i.e4 .i.xe4 11 Wxe4
0-0 12 Wc6 a6 13 a411a7 14 aSlOb8
IS "e4 cS proved very solid for Black
in Miles-Andersson, Amsterdam 1978.
Mter 6 ...cS, I do not even begin to
see how to play for an edge for White,
whether after 7 dxcS bxcS, or 7 lOc3
cxd4 S lOxd4 0-0 9 lbdbS ~8. In
view of this possibility, I can't really
add a chapter recommending 4 .i.f4 as
a system against the Queen's Indian.
However, Spas sky preferred 6 ... 0-0 7
lOc3 dS 8 cxdS exdS?! (8 ... lOxdS!
should equalize; White's h3 is of doubt-
ful relevance) 9 .i.d3 cS (9... lObd7 10
0-0 a6 11 lOeS lIe8 12 Wf3 .i.d6 13
lOg4 ;t Miles-Larsen, Tilburg 1975)
10 0-0, and we have transposed to the
line being considered (Le. after 10 h3
in the Queen's Gambit move-order of
our main line). Now we have:
1) 1O... lOc6 11 ~S, and now
11...c4 12 .i.c2 a613 g4 bS 14 gSlOe8
IS Wg4 ;!; Miles-Spassky, Montilla
1978; or l1...a612"f3 lIe8 13 lIadl
cxd4 14 lOxc6 .i.xc6 IS exd4 ;t Miles-
Spassky, Buenos Aires OL 1978.
Looking at this from a Queen's Gam-
bit point of view, if White can estab-
lish an edge by playing a quiet move
like 10 h3, his prospects must be very
promising if he can play something
more aggressive!
2) 1O... a6 11 ~S c4 12 .i.fS bS 13
"f3 g6 14 .i.h6 lieS IS .i.c2? (prema-
turely releasing the pressure; IS lIadl
;!; Florian) IS ...lObd7! with chances
for both sides, Florian-Berney, Hun-
gary 1979.
3) 10... lObd7 11 We2?! (the queen
proves to be poorly placed here; Stean
suggests 11 IIcl!?) 11...c4 12 .i.c2 a6
13 lIadl bS 14 a3 lIe8 IS lOeS 1Of8
and Black stands well, Korchnoi-
Petrosian, Velden Ct (S) 1980. Black's
kingside is secure and he is ready to
roll on the queenside; a knight on f8
neutralizes the Pillsbury Bind.
From the Queen's Gambit move-
order, 10 IIcl is also possible, some-
times reached by transposition from 7
IIcl. After 10...c4?! 11 .i.bl a6 12
lOeS bS 13 "f3 b4 14 ~2 lIa7 IS
lOg3 as 1610fS ± Sydor-Zinn, Lublin
1977, White had achieved the Pills-
bury Bind attacking formation against
the minimum of resistance. 1O...lObd7
is wiser, and if 11 dxcS then 11...bxcS /
(ll...lOxcS 12 .i.bllOfe4 13 .i.eS IIcS\
14 Wc2 Wd7 IS b4 lOa6 16 a3 is a'
 Systems with ... b6
little better for White. Ara.Minasian-
Kashashvili, Erevan 1996) 12.e2 (12
h3!?) 12...lbhSI3.i.g3lbxg314hxg3
"'a5 15 :tfdl tLlf6 16 tLld2, and now
instead of 16...':fe8?! 17lbb3 .c7 18
~a4 c4 19 .i.c2 .i.f8 20 lbd4 ± Gip-
slis-Andri~, Belgrade 1968, Black can
play 16...c417 .i.c2.b4=. Tbehang-
ing pawns are less problematic to de-
fcnd if White's dark-squared bishop
has been exchanged for a knight.
After 10 lbeS, Black has tried all
three ways of developing the queen's
knight, and also 1O... a6:
C211: 10•••a6?! 181
C212: 10...ttx6 181
C213: 10...lbbd7 182
C214: 10...lba6!? 183
C211)
10...a6?! 11 "(3:a7
ll...lbbd7 or 11...lbc6 would trans-
pose to lines considered shortly. With
the text-move, Black hopes to create a
hit more flexibility on the queenside
hy keeping the knight at home, but
White's advantage on the kingside re-
mains unchallenged.
12':adl
12 g4!?; 12 .i.gS!? - Mikhalchi-
shin.
12...c4 13 .i.c2 bS 14 a3
14 g4!? - Mikhalchishin.
14... lbbd7 15 "h3 .i.a8 16 g4 h6
17f3
It is best not to be provoked too
quickly. Mikhalchishin notes that 17
.i.xh6? only draws after 17...gxh6 18
"'xh6':e8.
17...lbh718 .i.xh6 gxh619 "xh6
tLldf6 20 gS lbe4 21 fxe4 .i.xgS 22
1I'h3 ± Mikhalchishin-A.Hoffman,
Kecskemet 1991.
181
C212)
10...lbc6 (D)
A natural and popular move, yet it is
still not enough to challenge White's
kingside preponderance.
l1"f3
11 ':cl!? might well be just as
strong:
1) 11...cxd4 12 lbxc6 .i.xc6 13
lbe2! ± Kramnik.
2) 11...a6 12 'iFf3 .i.d6 13 ':fd1
cxd4 (13 ....c7 14 lbg4! lbxg4 IS
lbxdS lbxh2 16 'iWh3 +- Kramnik) 14
lbxc6 .i.xc61Slbe2! .i.a4 16 b3 .i.bS
17lbxd4 ± Kramnik-Yanvariev, USSR
1991. The discovered attack with lbe2
shows that there is a specific point to
':c 1, and that it is not just a random
developing move.
3) 11...lbxeS 12 dxeS (12 .i.xeS ;t
Kramnik) 12 ... lbe4 13 "c2 fS and
now 14 exf6lbxf6 IS .i.eS h6 GO was
N.Popov-Klovans, Moscow 1979.
One suspects that White has room for
improvement, for example 14 :Cdl I?,
and if 14 ... tLlxc3 15 bxc3 g51! 16.i.g3
f41, then 17 .i.xh7+~h818 .g6fxg3
19 .i.g8! wins nicely.
4) l1...c4 12 .i.bl a6 13 .f3 bS 14
a3 ':a7 15 ':cdl!1 (at first glance, a
182 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 51.f41
strange loss of tempo, but White wants
to discourage the defensive idea of
... iLlxe5 followed by ... 1Lle4; Black's
structure is passive, and he can do lit-
tle to stop White's attack) 15 ...1..d6 16
"h3iLle717iLld7! iLlg6 (17 .....xd718
1..xh7+ <;Ph8 19 1..f5+ +-) 18 1..xd6
winning material, Malaniuk-Arbakov,
Warsaw 1992.
11•••cxd4
1) 11...a6?! is too slow. 12 lIacl
transposes into Kramnik-Yanvariev
above, while 12 dxc5 bxc5 13 lIadl
leaves Black with a particularly vulner-
able pair of hanging pawns. Black's
attempts to wriggle out of trouble in
the game Dautov-M.ROder, 2nd Bun-
desliga 1995/6, were unsuccessful af-
ter 13 .. :ii'b6 14iLlxd5iLlxd5 15 "xd5
iLlxe5 16 "xe5 "c6 17 f3 1..f6 18
"d6 1..xb2 19 1..e4 "xd6 20 1..xd6,
winning the exchange.
2) 11.....c8 and now after 12 lIadl
c4131..bliLlxe5141..xe5(14dxe5d4
00) 14 .....g4 Black succeeded in ex-
changing queens in M.Kobrin-Kal-
cheim, Petach Tikva 1997. Possibly
this would be the time to follow the
Miles-Spassky games in the note to
White's IOthinC21 and play 12h3!?
12iLlxc6 1..xc6 13 exd4
An illustration of the point that po-
sitions with symmetrical pawn struc-
tures are not necessarily drawish;
indeed the symmetry often enhances
the effects of any superiority in piece
mobility that one player might have.
White is clearly better.
13.....d7
13 ...1..d6 14 1..g5 1..e7 15 lIfel h6
16 1..h4 "d7 17 lIe5 lIfe8 18 lIael ±
Dinstuhl-Hedke, Bundesliga 1996/7.
1411rel
14 a3?! (why?) 14... lIfe8 15 lIfel
1..d6 16 1..xd6 "xd6 17 "g3 is only
equal, Lirindzakis-Mikhalevski, Kha-
nia 1993.
14...:re8 15 1..eS "g4
15 ... b5 16 1..f5 "b7 17 lIe3 b4 18
1Lle2 g6 19iLlg3 ± Keene-O.Jakobsen,
Esbjerg 1981.
16iLlb5!
16 "e3 1..d6 17 h3 "h4 18 iLlb5
1..xb5 19 1..xb5 lIe6 does not give
White very much, Ruban-Begun, Po-
dolsk 1990. Black's pressure on the
e5-bishop keeps him in the game.
16.....xfJ 17 gxf3 1If8 18 lIael
1..d7 19 a3 1..xbS 20 1..xbS I.Farago-
Sturua, Erevan 1982. White has a
dominating bishop-pair and, notwith-
standing the doubled f-pawns, the safer
pawn structure.
C213)
10•••iLlbd7 (D)
Again this allows White too free a
hand.
11 "'3 a6 1211adl
12 1..f5!? iLlxe5 13 dxe5 1Lle8 14
lIadl1Llc7 15 Wh3 g6 16 1..h6 lIe8 17
e6 ± is analysis by Nogueiras and Gar-
cia Gonzalez.
 Systems with ... b6
12 l:lfdl l:leS 13 l:lacl l:la7 14 g4 g6
I ~ .i.e2 b5 16 .h3 b4 17 llla4 lllxe5
IK dxe5 lOd7 19 .i.f3 ;t Nogueiras-
Speelman, Taxco IZ 19S5.
12.••b5
12...cxd4 13 exd4 l:leS 14l:[fellOfS
15 .i.g5 l:lcS 16 .tc2 b5 17 .txf6 .i.xf6
IK .i.b3 ± Mikhalchishin-Azmaipar-
IIshvili, Tbilisi 1980.
13 a3 c4 14 .tc2lllb6?! 15 g4lOe8
16"h3 g617 .th61Og718 f4
A kingside wipe-out is in progress,
Mikhalchishin-S.Luce, Budapest 1990.
C214)
10...lDa6!? (D)
The only move to cause White any
problems. Black intends to swing his
knight round to e6, challenging the
hishop rather than the knight.
11"a4
The latest try, switching attention to
the queenside. 11 'Wf3 ~7 is the
older line:
1) 12 l:lfdllOe6 13 dxc51Oxf4 14
cxf4 .txc5 15 .tc4 dxc4 16 'Wxb7
'ii'c8 17 'iff3 'We6 Islllb5 'iff5 19lOd6
.i.xd6 20 l:lxd6 l:lacS was equal in
Vaganian-Beliavsky, USSR Ch (Vil-
nius) 1980.
183
2) 12 l:ladl lOe6 13 dxc5 lOxc5!
(Bagirov suggests that both 13 ... bxc5
14 .tc4 and 13 ....i.xc5 14 .tc4 turn
out well for White) 14 .tbl .cS 15
=
"e2 l:le8 16 l:lfel .td6 Bagirov-
Lputian, Erevan 1982. It is surprising
that both here and in '1' White waited
until the knight had already landed on
e6 before capturing on c5.
3) 12 dxc5! .txc5 13 l:ladl may
well be the way to play the position for
an edge.
4) 121Og4 has also been tried. The
correct response is not 12...lOe6?! 13
lIIh3 g6 141Oh6+ ~g7 15 .te5 .td6
16 f4 ± Kolesar-Hirsch, Bmo 1991,
but rather 12...lOxg4 13 .xg4lOe6.
1l.....CS
11...1Ob4!?
12 .i.g5
If 12 .i.b5, then Cvetkovic gives
12 ... lllc7!? 13 lllc6 .d7 14 lOxe7+
'Wxe7 15 .i.c6 llle6! =. In V.Mikhal-
evski-A.Mikhalevski, Beersheba 1996,
Black's attempts to complicate mis-
fired: 12...1Ob4?! (amove too late?) 13
a3 cxd4 14 exd4 .f5 15 .tg3 as 16
.td7.h5 17111b3lOd3 ISlIIxb6 .i.a6
19 .tb5 ±.
12...1Ob4
12...c4?! 13 .tbl l:le8 14 .dl! (an
attractive switching of flanks; the
Pillsbury Bind is powerful, even if a
couple of tempi have gone missing)
14...g6 15"f3 "e616 .txf6! winning
a pawn (16 ....txf6 17lllxc4; 16...lIIxf6
17 lOxd5), Avrukh-Florath, Gronin-
gen 1995.
13.tel
13 .tbl! looks stronger, with a
possible battery along the diagonal
leading to h7. The bishop is a little
misplaced on e2.
184 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 j.f41

13•••l:tdS 14 l:tael a6 IS a3 clear extra pawn, Keene-Kraidman,

15 Wdl!?
IS •••c!0c6 16""3 "'e6!
Since 17 Wxb6?! is answered by
Haifa OL 1976, and 10 .txa6ltlxa6 11
'ii'a4 cxd4 12 exd4 ltlc7 13 ttles ±
Taleb-S.Mohd, Singapore 1995.
17...ltlxd4, Black was OK in the game 3) 9...ltlc6 10 .tbs!? (10 It!es .tb7
Avrukh-A.Mikhalevski, Beersheba leads back to C212) 1O....tb7 11 Wa4
1996. However, the suggested im- ltlaS 12 dxcs bxcs 13 l:tfdl a6 14 .te2
provements in the above notes run in ~ Forintos-Liptay, Hungary 1969.
White's favour.
C222)
C22) 9 dxeS bxeS (D)
S•••eS
Here we discuss lines without 9 0-0
.tb7 as follows:
C221: 90-0 without 9•••.tb7 184
C222: 9 dxeS 184
C223: 9 l:tel 184
C224: 9ltleS 185

C221)
9 0-0 (D)

This exchange is probably prema-

1) 9...ltlh5?? 10 .txb8 l:txb8 11
ltles wins the exchange - Keene. If
Black wants to play ... ltlhs, he must
prepare it with ....tb7 rather than ...cs;
see Line C23 below.
2) 9....ta6?! leaves White the pleas-
ant choice between 10 dxcs bxcs 11
l:cl WaS?! 12 .txa6ltlxa6 13 ltlxds
ltlxds 14 'ii'xdS l:tad8 15 'ii'c4 with a
ture. To play it as a pure hanging-pawn
position, the white bishop is better
placed on e2.
10 0-0 .tb7 11 l:tel ltla6 12 ltle2
"'b6 13 ltlg3 g6 14 h4 l:trd8 IS hS
ltle4 = Keres-V.Simagin, USSR Ch
(Tallinn) 1965. In this example White
made no progress against the hanging
pawns, so diverted his attacks to the
kingside, but there was no joy to be
gained there either.
C223)
9 l:tel (D)
There are obvious transpositional
possibilities, after, for example, 9 ....tb7
10 0-0 ltlc6 I1ttles. Here we consider
the independent lines.
 Systems with ...b6
H of lLleS; the difference is in Black's fa-
9...J.b7
9 ... a6?! allows White to follow the
main lines with 10 lLle5, etc. It also
gives White a more opportune mo-
ment to initiate play against the hang-
ing pawns; even so, success is not
guaranteed. 10 dxcS bxcS 11 0-0 lLlbd7,
nnd now 12 lLleS J.b7 13 lLla4 lLlxeS
14 J.xeS lLld7 IS J.g3 Wa5 16 J.fS
lLlf6 17 'ifc2 g6 18 J.h3 lLle4 19 J.eS
.i.c6 20 lbc3 lLlgS 21 J.g4 ':ad8 =
Velikov-Abramovit, Pamporovo 1982;
or 12 We2 J.b7 13 ':fdl (13 h3!?)
13 ... lLlh5 14 J.xh7+ ~xh7 IS lLlgS+
.ixgS 16 'ifxhS+ .ih6 17 lLlxdS (17
.ixh6 lLlf6) 17 ....ixd5 18 Wxd5 .ixf4
19 exf4 ':a7 20 ':c3 'iff6 21 ':h3+
~g8 22 'ifhS 'ifh6 23 'ifxh6 gxb6 24
':xh6 =Doroshkevich-Vrulin, Kstovo
1994.
So maybe 10 lDes is clearest.
100-0
1) 10 dxc5 bxc5 11 0-0 and now in-
stead of 11.. ..id6?! 12 .igS lLlbd7 13
.ifS ;t Teichmann-Marco, Hastings
189S, Black should play ll...lLlbd7 =.
2) 10 lLleS lLlbd7 11 Wf3 lLlxeS 12
dxeS (12 .ixeS!?) 12...lLle8 130-0 lbc7
=
14 :fdl 'ifc8 Lugovoi-Sirotkina, St
Petersburg 1996.
10•••lDa6!?
185
In comparison with Line C214
above, White has played ':cl instead
vour, as White is not so aggressively
placed in the centre.
11 "e2lDc7 12 :rdl ttJe6 13 .ig3
c4 14.ifS a6 IS e4 dxe4 16 lLlxe4
lLlxe4 17 .ixe4 .ixe4 18 "xe4 bS 19
a4 .id6 with a slight advantage for
Black, M.Nemeth-Vujo§evit, Bala-
tonbereny 1996.
White should be able to improve on
this, but Black's set-up is sound.
C224)
9ttJeS (D)
B
Normally just an inversion of
move-order, with 100-0 (or 10"f3
and 11 0-0) coming next.
9 •••.ib7
9 ....ie6?! worked out badly for Black
in the game Mikhalchishin-Zumtobe,
Bern 1995 after 10 0-0 'iFc8 (ugly, but
how else does Black develop the
knight?) 11 :CI1Wb7 12"f3 :d8 13
':fdl ± lLla6? 14 .ixa6 "xa6 Islbc6
.ig4 16 lLlxe7+ ~f8 17 "g3 .ixdl 18
.id6 lLle8 19 lLlf5+ ':xd6 20 lLlxd6
and White wins.
10 "nlDa6 11 g4?!
186 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 j.f4!
An unconvincing attempt at a pawn-
storm with the king still in the centre.
110-0 is discussed under C214.
1l•••cxd4 12 exd4 li:k7 13 g5?!
lCle4! 14 lClxe4 dxe4 15 .txe4 .txe4
16 Wxe4 .txg517 l%dl.txr418 Wxf4
Wd5 =1= Dinstuhl-Florath, Bundesliga
199516.
At the very least, White should wait
for Black to play ...c4 before carrying
out this pawn-storm.
e23)
8.•..tb7 (D)
Here we discuss lines without 9 0-0
cS.
90-0
An early lCleS loses much of its
sting when Black has not committed
his queenside pawns: 9 lCJes lClbd7 10
0-0 (10 'iff3 l%e8 11 0-0 and now not
11.. ..td6?! 12lClxd7 Wxd7 13 l%fcl ;!;
Damaso-Alexandre, Lisbon 1997, but
11...a6!? followed by ... lClf8) 1O... a6
11 Wf3 l%e8 12 Wh3lClfS 13 .tgS cS
14 1i'f3 lh,_lh, Kharitonov-Shvedchi-
kov, Moscow 1992.
9 h3, motivated by fears of ... lClhS,
leads into the Miles Variation of the
Queen's Indian, discussed in Line
C21. The one independent, or semi-
independent, line is 9 ... a6 100-0 lClbd7
11 l%cl cS 12 l%el l%e8 13 a3 l%c8 =
A.Nagy-S.Baranyaijr, Hungary 1993.
In the Queen's Gambit move-order, 9
h3 is an unnecessary concession.
9.•.86
Black's most direct try, assuming
he is not content to transpose into the
main line with 9...cS, is 9 ...lClhS.
Whether it is good is another question.
10 .tg3 ought to be harmless after ei-
ther 10... lClxg3 11 hxg3 lCJd7, or
1O...lCJd7 immediately. Osipiak-Der-
vishi, Rimavska Sobota 1992 saw in-
stead 1O...lCJxg3 11 hxg3 cS 12 ~h2!?
.tf6 13 l%hl g614 ~gllCJc6 00; one of
the quickest uncastlings on record. In-
stead after 9 ... %5, the move 10 .teS
is critical:
1) After 1O... lCJd7, White is doing
well on either 11 'ifa4 c6 (l1...lCJxeS
12 dxeS ±) 12 l%acllClxeS 13 dxeS g6
14lCld4 bS IS Wdl a6 16 f4 ± O.Foi-
sor-Bonsch, Warsaw 1983, or 11 l%ct
lClxeS 12 lClxeS g6 13 Wa4 .td6 14
.te2lClg7 ISlCJc6 'ifgS 16 f4 ± P.Neu-
man-J.Groh, Czech Republic 1996.
2) 1O...f6 lIlClgS! 'ife8! (lI ...fxgS?
12 Wi'xhS +-; 11...g6? 12lClxh7 fxeS
13lClxfS followed by .txg6 ±) leads to
unexplored complications. However,
these would seem to run in White's
favour after 12 lClxh7! fxeS 13 dxeS
lCJd7 14lClxf8 .txfS IS f4! - White is
slightly ahead on material, the knight
on h5 has no way back into the game,
and White has kingside attacking
chances by means of l%f3-h3.
Black would need to find a substan-
tial improvement to put 9 ... %5 back
in business; his retarded queenside de-
velopment works against him.
 Systems with ... b6
Why though 9 ... a6, a seemingly
passive move? The point is that if
9 ... ti)bd7? immediately, White has 10
ti)bS! ti)e8? (1O...cS 11 ti)d6 ±) 11 Wc2
winning a pawn. White missed this
trick in Teichmann-Schallop, Nurem-
herg 1896, playing instead 10 l:lc I?! :t.
Therefore ...a6 must come first to cover
hS.
10 l:lct ti)bd7
1O... .i.d6 was met by 11 ti)eS l:le8
12Wf3ti)bd713 ti)xd7Wxd714l:lfdl
c5 IS .i.xd6 Wxd6 16 dxcS bxcS 17
.tc4 :t in Uhlmann-Bonsch, Leipzig
1983. In his notes, Uhlmann gave 11
J.gS as even better, e.g. 11...ti)bd7 12
c4! dxe4 13 ti)xe4 .i.e7 14 ti)g3 :t, or
1l...l:le8 12 l:le1 ti)bd7 13 .i.fS :t.
11 ti)es cS 12 "13 l:lc8 13 "h3 g6
14.i.h6l:le8
White has the makings of a formi-
dable kingside attack. In Soponyai-
H1azsik, Hungary 1993, he played im-
patiently with IS f4?! ti)xeS 16 fxeS
ti)e4 GO, whereas the 'mysterious' 15
l:lcdl, preventing Black's freeing plan.
would have kept full control.
To summarize, after 7 cxdS, the
pawn recapture 7 ...exd5 looks dis-
tinctly favourable to White, and Black
is probably better advised to recapture
with the knight.
However, White is not obliged to
capture on d5 immediately; he can de-
lay a move with 7 .i.d3.
D)
7.i.d3 (D)
Naturally this could easily trans-
pose to variations already given, after,
for example, 7 ... .i.b7 8 cxdS exd5,
though White must always be careful
187
B
not to capture in a position in which
... ti)xd5 is strong .
The most popular moves for Black
here are:
Dl: 7••..i.b7 188
D2: 7...dxc4 189
First we shall consider a couple of
alternatives:
1) 7 ....i.a6?! 8 cxdS exdS 90-0 c5
10 .i.xa6 ± Taleb-S.Mohd, Singapore
1995 has been noted under 7 cxd5
exd5 8 .i.d3 .i.a6?!, Line C221.
2) 7 ...c5 is given as the main line in
ECO, but is seldom played:
2a) ECO gives 8 0-0 .i.b7 9 'ire2,
transposing to a position we consider
under 7 ....i.b7.
2b) 8 dxcS and now:
2bl) 8 ...dxc4 9 .i.xc4 'irxdl+ 10
l:lxdl .i.xc5 11 0-0 ti)c6 and now 12
ti)es ti)xe5 13 .i.xe5 .i.b7 14 h3 1/2- 1/2
was Szymczak-Rybak, Prague 1989.
Maybe both players were happy with a
draw before the game. We have al-
ready cited an Ibragimov-Lputian
game (reached via 6...cS 7 dxcS .i.xc5
8 .i.e2 dxc4, etc., Chapter 4.4, Line
All), in which White kept a slight
edge by playing instead 12 e4 .i.b7 13
e5 ti)a5 14 exf6 ti)xc4 IS b3.
188 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
2b2) If instead 8 ...bxcS, then after
9 0-0 1Oc6 10 cxdS (10 "'e2!? keeps
the tension; Black will not want to
play ... dxc4) 1O...exd5 11 :c1 .i.e6
von Bardeleben-Em.Lasker, Hastings
189S continued 12 tOe2 W'b6 with ap-
proximate equality. A century later
your author made no progress with 12
~S l'bxeS 13 .i.xeS .i.d6 =in Crouch-
Van Voorthuijsen, Guernsey 1997. Yet
a subtle shift in the position (placing
the bishop on e2 rather than on d3)
would change this to a substantial plus
for White, which is the motivation for
the 7 :cl variation described later.
2c) 8 cxdS is probably the best,
transposing to the ... b6 Exchange
Variation just considered. Your author
would have played it in the Guernsey
game, had he seen the simple tactic
8 ...cxd4? 9 iDxd4 iDxdS 10 .i.xb8!
.I:Ixb8 111Dc6 winning the exchange.
01)
7•••.i.b7 (D)
w continuing 12 :acl .i.d6 =, but one
80-0
It may well be that White should
transpose to the ...b6 Exchange Varia-
tion with 8 cxdS here, and indeed this
is White's most common option. In
this section we consider some inde-
pendent lines.
8 "'e2 cS 9 0-0 leads back to the
main text.
8•..cS
8 ...dxc4 leads to the 7 ...dxc4 varia-
tion, Line D2.
8 ... iDbd7 is again most simply an-
swered by 9 cxdS. Instead, 9 :lc1lDhs
10 .i.esiDxeS 11iDxeSiDf6 12 cxdS
exdS 13 f4 cS 14"'f3 a61S g4 cxd416
exd4 :c8 17 <.t>hl tOe8 =was Porten-
schlager-Klovans, Loosdorf 1993.
91i'e2
9 :cl cxd4 10 iDxd4iDbd7 = ECO.
9 dxcS!? bxcS (9 ...dxc4 10 .i.xc4
"'xdl 11 .I:Ifxdl .i.xcs 12 iDeS ±
ECO) 10 "'e2 iDbd7 (for 1O... iDc6,
see 9 "'e2 iDc6 10 dxcS bxc5, note
'2b' to Black's 9th) 11 :fdl and now:
1) l1...lDhS?! 12 "'c2! iDxf4 13
.i.xh7+ \&Ih8 14 exf4 "fIc7 IS cxdSiDf6
and here, instead of 16 d6 .i.xd6 17
iDbS "'b6 ~ Yuferov-Klovans, USSR
1977, Lepeshkin suggests 16 .i.e4
"xf417 g3 "'g418tOeSW'hS191Dc6
with a clear advantage for White.
2) ECO recommends 11.. ....b6,
feels there ought to be scope for White
to improve - maybe 12 .i.gS!?
One possible point of capturing the
pawn on move 9, rather than delaying,
is so that Black cannot recapture with
the knight, e.g. 9 'iFe2iDbd7 10 dxcS?
iDxcS ;.
9•••iDbd7
The most solid response.
1) It is probably a little too early,
given that Black is not fully devel-
oped, to open the centre with 9 ...cxd4
10 iDxd4 (10 exd4 dxc4 11 .txc4 00
= ECO) 1O...iDbd7 11 cxdS iDxdS 12
 Systems with ... b6
~xdS .i.xdS. Now ECO gives 13 e4
.tb7 14 lIfdl .i.cS 15 li)fl 'ile7 =
Forintos-Donner, Wijk aan Zee 1971,
hut it is presumably possible for White
In play more incisively, for example
13 .i.bS!? eS?! 14 .i.c6!?
2) 9 ...li)c6 and now:
2a) 10 lIadlli)b4 11 .i.bl .i.a6 12
~S 'ilcs 13 a3ll)c6 14 .i.gS ± cxd4 15
exd4l:[dSI6l:fel h617 .i.Mdxc41S
lLlxc6 'ilxc6 19 dS! lhdS (19 ... lLlxdS
20 li)xdS .i.xM 2Ili)b4 'ilcs 22 'ile4
.tf6 23 'ilh7+ ~f8 24 'ilhS+ g;e7 25
J:[xdS 'ii'xdS 26ll)c6+ +-) 20 :txdS (20
lLlxdSli)xdS ±) 20... exdS (20 ... li)xdS
21 li)xdS .i.xM 22li)b4 'ilcs 23li)xa6
'ii'xa6 24 We4 +-) 21 'ilxe7 lieS 22
liJxdS G;hS 23 WxeS+ li)xeS 24 lLlb4
'ii'bS 2Sli)xa6li)f6 26li)b4 as 27ll)c2
'ii'xb2 28 .i.xf6 gxf6 29 a4 fS 30 g3 bS
:~ lli)e3 b4 32 .i.xfS c3 33 J:[bl Wa234
i.c2 and White's material advantage
eventually proved decisive, even though
it took another thirty moves to convert
in Keres-Pelikan, Prague 1937. This
entertaining combinative display from
Ihe great Estonian did not even make
his autobiographical collection - is
Ihere a flaw somewhere?
2b) 10 dxcS bxcS 11 :fdl 'ilaS
(ll...li)b4 12 .i.bl WeS 13 a3 dxc4 14
axb4 cxb4 ISli)a4 .i.c6 16 Wc2 .i.bS
17 b3±Zaitsev) 12a311fdSI3h3:d7
14 Wc2 ;t Forintos-Bobotsov, Hun-
gary 1969.
The general impression is that
9...ll)c6 is a little inflexible; it does not
protect the cS-pawn, and gets in the
way of the bishop. Hence 9 ...li)bd7.
10J:[fdl
10 h3 is unnecessary. 1O...a6 11 a4
lLle4 12 lIfdl cxd4 13 exd4lLldf6 14
cxd5 exdS 15 Wc2 lIcS 16 Wb3 .i.d6
189
17 .i.e5 lIe8 leads to equality, Tuk-
makov-T.Georgadze, USSR Ch (Tbi-
lisi) 1975.
10.••a611 adS exdS12 b3 :teS13
J:[actli)h5 14 .i.eS g6 15 g4li)bf6 16
h3
White has some chances of a king-
side attack, but his play is clearly slower
than in the lines with 7 or 8 cxdS,
li)eS, 'ilfl, etc., so the early exchange
should be preferred. In Tukmakov-
Petrosian, Vilnius 1978, Black sacri-
ficed a pawn to gain active piece-play:
16... bS!? 17 .i.xf6.i.xf618dxcSd419
li)bl 'ilc7 20 e4 M 21 'ilc2 J:[ac8 22
b4 ll)e6 with unclear play; the game
was later drawn.
D2)
7.••dxc4 8 .i.xc4 .i.b7 (D)
A standard Queen's Gambit reac-
tion by Black; he waits until White
makes a move with his king's bishop,
then exchanges on c4, gaining a tempo
at the cost of conceding a little ground
in the centre.
90-0
9 We2lLld5 (9 ... a6!?) 10 j.g3 c5 11
0-0 cxd4 12 exd4li)xc3 13 bxc3lLld7
14 j.d3 li)f6 IS lIad 1 li)h5 16 j.e5
190 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 jJ4!
l:lcS 17 c4 .td6 IS 'ire3 ~ Gavrikov-
Ciri~, San Bernardino 1991. It makes
a change for White to have the hang-
ing pawns in this system!
9•••a6
Not so much to prevent ~bS, but
rather to prepare ... bS and ... cS, after
which Black will have no reason to
feel inferior on the queenside. While it
is true that ... b7-b6-bSloses a tempo,
White has also lost a tempo with
.tfl-d3xc4, thus leaving the tempo-
count the same as in the Queen's Gam-
bit Accepted.
White's initiative is unchallenged
by other methods:
1) 9 ...cS?! 10 dxcS .txcS?! (Black
should prefer 1O.....xdl ~) 11 "e2
'ire7 12 .tgS ~bd7 13 e4 ± Ivkov-
Cudina, Sombor 1968.
2) 9...~bd7?! lO'ire2~ ll:acl
(11 ~xe4 .txe4 12 l:lac1 as 13 .tbS
l:la7 14l:lfdl 'ircs IS ~ .taS 16 e4
± Ivkov-Pietzsch. Sarajevo 1966; hor-
rible contortions by Black to defend
his weak queenside) 11...~xc3 12
l:lxc3cSI3l:ldl cxd414~xd4±.tb4
IS ~e6 fxe6 16 .txe6+ ~hS 17 l:lc7
+- Liogky-Pushkov, Ore11994.
lO'ire2
lO:Cl bSll.tb3 cS12dxcS ~bd7
13 c6 .txc6 14 ~2 ~S IS ~ed4
.td7 16 .tc2 l:lc8 17 .tbl "b6 18
'ire2 l:lfdS Ih-lh Tunik-Doroshkevich,
Anapa 1991.
lO••• bS 11 .td3! ~bd7
11...cS?! 12 dxcS, and now after
12...~bd7, 13 l:lfdl 'ireS 14 .tc2
~xc5 soon led to a draw in Turian-
Pushkov. Orel 1995, but can anyone
explain why White didn't play 13 b4
or 14 b4. keeping the extra pawn? If
Black plays 12....txc5. all he has
succeeded in doing is entering the line
6 ...c5 7 dxc5 .txc5 S .te2 dxc4 9
.txc4 a6 10 0-0 b5 11 .td3 .tb7
(Chapter 4.4, Line A12) a tempo down.
12 l:lfdl cS 13 dxcS .txcS 14 ~
b6
While Black may be happy on the
queenside, White still has the centre
and kingside. Now 15 ~xd7!? ~xd7
16 .tc2 ~ is promising (implying also
that White could consider 12 l:ladl and
16 .tbl). while Dokhoian-Kveinys•
Bad Godesburg 1993 continued more
violently with 15 ~xb5!? axb5 16
.txbS .tdS 17 ~xd7 ~xd7 IS e4 .td4
19 .txd7 "f6 ~. White has an extra
pawn. but it is difficult to convert.
Thus the idea of 7 ... dxc4, S....tb7
and 9...a6 does not solve Black's prob-
lems.
E)
7l:ld(D)
B
A natural plan in the Orthodox
Queen's Gambit (l d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3
~c3 ~f6 4 .tg5 .te7 5 ~f3 ~bd7 6
e3 0-07 l:lcl). but with even more
point here in that there is direct pres-
sure on c7. This is one of the few lines
in the .tf4 system where White directs
 Systems with ... b6
his main attention to the queenside
rather than the kingside.
The main lines to be considered, the
second of which is perhaps the more
accurate, are:
10;1: 7•••cS 191
":2: 7•••.ib7 193
There are, as usual, a few minor al-
ternatives to be considered, the most
implausible being the game cited in
BCO as continuing 7 ... lDbd7(?) 8
1i'c2(?) l:le8(??) 9 a3(?) with both
players being apparently oblivious to
the effect of a white knight reaching
hS. Checking sources, in the game
cited Black had actually played 6 ...c6
rather than 6 ...b6. Others:
1) 7 ... dxc4?! leaves Black a tempo
down on the already unsatisfactory 7
.td3 dxc4 line: 8 .ixc4 cS 9 0-0 .ib7
10 'ii'e2lDbd7 11 dxcS .ixcs 12 l:tfdl
and White has a clear advantage, Sal-
tcrs-Maris, Hengelo 1995.
2) 7...lDhS?! is mistimed, with
White being so far ahead in develop-
ment. 8 .ig3 (8 .ieS!?) 8 ....ib7 9 cxdS
exdS 10 .id3 lDd7?! 11 lDeS lDxg3??
12 .ixh7+ +- Paasikangas-Moshin,
Kishinev 1995.
3) 7 ... c6?! adopts a plan some-
times seen in ...c6 systems, but gener-
ally used only when White has played,
as he often does, a waiting move such
as h3. In the present position, White
has consistently played developing
moves, and his pieces are well enough
activated exploit the weak square on
c6. Or, as in A.Martin-A.Johanessen,
Gausdal 1990, to take advantage of
Black not having challenged the cen-
tre with ...cS: 8 .id3 .ib7 9 cxdS exdS
IOO-Ol:le8111DeslDbd712'ii'f3M
191
13 g4lDg6 14 gSlDxeS IS .ixeSlDd7
16 'ii'h3lDfS 17 f4 ±.
4) 7 ... a6 8 cxdS exdS 9 .id3 cS,
Doroshkevich-Vrulin, Kstovo 1994,
has already been considered under 7
cxdS, Line C223.
E1)
7•••cS (D)
w
Now White really oUght to resolve
the pawn structure in the centre, be-
fore Black develops his queenside. Af-
ter 8 .id3 .ib7 9 0-0 lDbd7 10 lDe5,
1O... lDxe5 11 dxe51De8 12 "c2 g6 13
:rdl ± was Schlechter-Janowsky, Kar-
lovy Vary 1902, but 1O...cxd4 11 exd4
dxc4 12 .ixc4 l:tc8 is fully satisfactory
for Black. Instead, after 8 .ie2 .ib7 9
dxc5, 9 ... bxcS transposes to note' I' to
White's 8th move, below. However,
since White is not threatening to iso-
late the d-pawn, 9 ... .ixcS!? should be
safe enough.
8cxdS
8 dxcS, as played in the Yusupov-
Ljubojevic game cited below, may ul-
timately transpose, e.g. 8 ... bxcS and
now:
1) 9 .ie2 .ib7 10 0-0 lDbd7
(l0...lDc6?! 11 cxdS lDxdS 12 lDxdS
192 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 J.f4!
exd5 13 1IIa4 111b6 14 l:tfdl lOb4 15
~5 l:tfd8 16 a3 ~c6 17 .tf3 ± Uf-
imtsev-Konstantinov, Sverdlovsk 1951)
11 cxd5 (11l'tle5lOxe5 {1l...lOb6!? 12
cxd5lObxd5} 12 .txeS dxc4 13 .txc4
111b6 14 1IIe2 l:tfd8 15 e4 a6 16 .tf4
~d7 17 f3 ;t Obukhov-Zhukovitsky,
Krasnodar 1991) and after 11...exd5
12lOe5 we have transposed back into
the main line. Since on Dvoretsky's
reckoning 1l ...lOxd5! would cut down
White's advantage significantly in this
particular move-order, there would
seem to be a strong case for taking on
d5 as early as possible, to make it less
enticing for Black to recapture with a
knight.
2) The one possible objection to an
early cxdS for White in this variation
is that it gives Black the chance to de-
fend his centre with ....te6. For exam-
ple, Guedes-de Asis, Havana 1997 went
9 cxd5 exd5 10 .te2 .te6 (1O....tb7
11 0-0 lObd7 transposes to the main
line) 11 0-0 h6 12 ~e5111c8 13111a4
~fd7 14 ~xd7 ~xd7 15 .tf3 ~f6 16
l:tfdl l:td8 17 h3'ifb7 18 .te5l:td7 19
1IIf4; nevertheless Black has not suc-
ceeded in relieving the pressure on his
pawn centre.
8...exdS
8... lOxdS 9 lOxd5 1IIxd5 (9 ... exd5
10 .td3 lOd7 11 0-0.tb7 12 1IIc2 g6
13 dxc5 bxc5 14 :fdllOf6 15 .th6 ±
Agdestein-Spassky, Gjl/lvik 1983) 10
.tc4 1IId8 11 0-0 .tb7 (11...a6?! 12
dxc5.txcS 13 ~e5111e7 14111g4 f6 15
~3 ~h8 16 ~xcS bxc5 17111f3 .tb7
18 .td6111d7 19 .txe6 winning a pawn,
Kallai-Zo.Varga, Hungarian Ch 1993)
12 dxc5 .txc5 13111c2?! (13 ~eS!?;t)
13 ... .txf3 14 gxf3 ~d7 IS .tbS 'fIe7
16 1IIa4 lOf6 with an equal position in
the game Kallai-T.Bauer, Hungarian
Cht 1992/3.
9.te2
9 .td3 .tb7 10 0-0 lObd7 00 is cov-
ered under Line C21, 7 cxd5 exdS 8
.td3 c5 9 0-0 .tb7 10 l:tcl. It is more
flexible for White, having already
played l:tc 1, to keep the bishop off the
d-file.
9••..tb7 10 0-0 ~bd7 11 dxc5!
In strategic terms, Yusupov's real
innovation in his game against Ljubo-
jevic, quoted in full in the Introduc-
tion, was not so much the individual
move 8 dxc5. Rather it was the appre-
ciation that this set-up could be treated
by means of an assault on the hanging
pawns, rather than by trying to create a
permanent outpost on eS.
1) 11 l'tles is the older try:
la) 11...lOxe5 12 .txe5 lOe4 13
~xe4 (13 dxc5 .txc5 14 ~xe4 dxe4
IS .tc4 "'g5 16111d7111xe5 17111xb7
:ae8 18 :cd 1 with at best a micro-
scopic edge, Antoshin-Donner, Ha-
vana 1968) 13 ... dxe4 14 "'a4 .tf6 15
.txf6 1IIxf6 16 dxc5 bxc5 17 1IIbS ;t
Ree-Donner, Leeuwarden 1981.
1b) 11.. .:c8 12 dxcS ~xc5 (after
12 ... bxcS?! 13 "'a4 ~xe5 14 .txe5
111b6 15 :fdl :fd8 16 .tf3 Black's
hanging pawns cracked in Ibragi-
mov-Galdunts, Kherson 1991), and in
Gheorghiu-Ree, Wijk aan Zee 1981,
White could find nothing better than
the retrograde 13 lOf3 lOfe4 14lOd4
.tf6 15 .tg4lOxc3 16 l:txc3l'tle4, with
equality.
2) The quiet 11 h3 has also been
tried to no great effect: 11...lOe4 12
dxc5 ~xc3 13 l:txc3 bxc5 = R.Kem-
pinski-Gyzinski, Poland 1993, or
l1...a6 12 dxc5 bxc5 13 l'tle5lOxe5 14
 Systems with ... b6
=
i.xeS i.d6 Agzamov-Azmaiparash-
viii, Erevan 1981.
11... bxc5
If 11...lClxcS, White is two tempi
ahead of Gheorghiu-Ree above. 12
lLld4 should preserve an advantage.
12 lCleS! lClb6
12... lLlxeS 13 i.xe5lCld7 14 i.g3 ±
Dvoretsky.
13a4!
Forcing Black to make concessions
in his queenside pawn structure, in
view of the threat of as and a6. The
immediate 13 i.f3 'iVc8 14 lCla4 (14
a4!?) 14"'lClxa4 15 'fIxa4 'fIe6, Tol-
stikh-Anikaev, Cheliabinsk 1991, is
not so incisive.
13... a5 14 i.r3 :e8 IS lLlbS! ±
Yusupov-Ljubojevic, Tilburg 1987 (see
Historical Introduction).
E2)
7...i.b7! (D)
This is a much safer line for Black.
By holding back the c-pawn, and by
being prepared to recapture on dS with
a piece, he minimizes White's chances
of achieving a favourable pawn struc-
ture.
8cxdS
193
8 i.e2 and then:
1) 8 ...dxc4 9 i.xc4lClbd7 10 h3 cS
11 0-0 a6 12 a4lLldS (l2 ... cxd4!?) 13
i.h2lCl7f6 14 'it'e2 'it'e8 ISlCle5 with a
small advantage for White, Semionov-
Muraviov, Alushta 1994.
2) 8 ...cS 9 0-0 (clearly White could
consider 9 cxd5 or 9 dxcS) 9 ... lClbd7
10 cxdS lClxdS 11 i.g3 lCl7f6 Ih_lh
Lechtynsky-Chiburdanidze, Banja
Luka 1985.
8 ...lClxdS! 9lClxdS
9 i.g3 is less aggressive, but not to-
tally harmless:
1) 9... cS 10 lClxdS (10 i.d3lCld7 11
0-0 lCl7f6 12 :el lClxc3 13 bxc3
i.e4?! {13 ... lCle4 would have been
equal} 14 i.a6;1; D.Rajkovic-M.Kape-
lan, Vdac 1983) 10...i.xdS 11 dxcS
bxc5! (11...i.xc5 12 'fIa4 as 13 a3;1;
Kapelan) 12 i.c4 'it'b6! 13 i.xdS exd5
14 'it'xdS?! (Petrosian was not nor-
mally a man in a hurry; 14 O-O!, hop-
ing to win the pawn thirty moves later,
makes it more difficult for Black)
14...:d8! IS 'it'b3 (IS "xaS 'iWb4+ 16
~f1 'it'xb2 17 :el 'it'bS+ 18 ~gllClc6
+ Kapelan) IS .....aS+ 16~e2lClc617
:hdl i.f6 and Black's active pieces
make it very difficult for White to util-
ize his extra pawn, Petrosian-M.Kape-
lan, Vdac 1981.
2) 9 ... lLlxc3 10 bxc3 cS could be
considered.
9..:ibdS 10 i.c4
10 :xc7?! i.b4+ II lCld2 lCla6 12
:el 'iVxa2 ±; 10 i.xc7 i.b4+ 11lCld2
'iVxa2 ;I; Kapelan.
10..:.a5+ 11 ~e2 i.d6?!
Slightly limp. Surely Black can't be
worried about that c7-pawn? ll...lCld7
should equalize, since if 12 .i.xc7?!,
then 12 ...:ac8 13 i.g3 (13 i.b3??
194 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./4!

.ta6+ -+; 13 .td3 .xa2 +) 13 ...:xc4 7lbbS and 6 ...•d7?! 7 .xd7+ ~xd7
14 l:r.xc4 .ta6 with a slight advantage (otherwise White exchanges as neces-
for Black. sary on dS, then wins the c-pawn) 8
12 ~S .txeS 13 .txeS lbd7 14 lOeS+ ~e8 9 cxdS with a secure posi-
.txc7 :rc8 15 .td3 .txg2 16 :gl tional edge for White.
'ii'dS 17 ~e1;t Svirin-Yanvariev, Nab- After 6....td7 7 'iib3 lLlc6 (7 ... dxc4
erezhnye Chelny 1988. 8 'ili'xc4 cS 9 dxcS .txcS 10 :dllLlc6
II e3 leaves Black under a lot of pres-
In conclusion, 7 :cl may not be as sure) 8 cxdS lOaS 9 'ili'c2 exdS 10 e3
strong as its reputation, but 7 .td3 and and White stands better, both Black's
7 cxdS both offer excellent prospects queenside minor pieces being mis-
of a comfortable edge for White. placed.
7cxdS
There is just one loose end to be After 7 .txb8 :xb8, 8 .xc6+??
tied up; Black can perhaps delay cas- .td7 traps the queen, while 8 .xa7
tling and try 5...b6. .td7 9.a4 cS 10 .b3 dxc4 II .xc4
bS gives Black compensation for the
F) pawn. 8 lLles .td7 is critical, for ex-
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 1Oc3 lOr6 4 lOr3 ample 91Oxc6 (otherwise Black is se-
.te7S .tr4 b6 ~ .. :·.·:cllf.tlL9 ... 'iIi'c7 10 'it'xa7! .xa7 11
It seems a little strange that while . 'lOxa7 dxc4. Black is a pawn down, but
S... c6 instead of 6 ... c6 is frequently has the two bishops and prospects of
played, S... b6 has been ignored. How- active play. It is perhaps safest to de-
ever, if Black can substitute ....tb7 for scribe the position as unclear.
...0-0, then he is more likely to be able The text-move aims for a more po-
to make a safe recapture on dS with a sitional solution.
piece, and in some lines (for example 7•••exdS 8 g3!
6 e3 .tb7 7 .td31OhS!?) he can play Fianchettoing the bishop makes it
...lLlhs without having to worry about much more difficult for Black to free
a later .txh7+ or attacks against the his position with ... cS. White should
king along the open h-file (after .tg3 be better, in a very technical sort of po-
lLJxg3). sition. This line reminds me of a sys-
I do not propose to analyse this in tern in the a3 Queen's Indian (1 d4
detail; what follows is just an outline. lOf6 2 c4 e6 310n b6 4 a3 .tb7 SlLlc3
6 .a4+!? dS 6 cxdS exdS 7 g3 .i.e7 8 .a4+ c6)
6 cxdSlOxdS 7 .tg3 (71Oxd5 .xdS except that White has been able to
00) 7... c5 00. substitute .tf4, which is the thematic
6•.•c6 developing square for the bishop, for
Black should avoid both 6...lObd7?? the by now redundant a3.
7 Systems with ... c6
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 itX3 lbi'6 4ll)f3 JLe7
5 i.r4 0-0
Non-transpositional lines involving
S...c6 will be covered at the end of the
chapter.
6 e3 c6 (D)
Black is not aiming for excitement,
and indeed one gets the impression
from the database that this is the line
that is all too frequently wheeled out if
Black is anxious about the opponent's
possible superiority of opening prepa-
ration. To an even greater extent than
with the ... b6Iines, White can achieve
a slight advantage just by playing
natural moves, without any detailed
knowledge of theory. Perhaps partly
for that reason, this system is largely
ignored by ECO, getting just one line
plus footnotes of coverage, compared
with nine lines on the Old Main Line.
This variation will probably be en-
countered a lot at club and congress
level by the player who tries the JLf4
system. Such a reader will presumably
want a lot more than 7 'iFc2 ;t or 7 ':c 1
;t, and so I have resisted the temptation
to truncate coverage in line with what
I would estimate to be the true theo-
retical significance of this defensive
system.
7.1 7 'ifc2 ~bd7
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 M lbi'6 4lbi'3 i.e7
5 i.r4 0-0 6 e3 c6 7 'iFcZll)bd7 (D)
The first key position. The theoreti-
cian's frustration at dealing with this
system can be seen from the fact that
just about every reasonable move
from a3 to h3 has been tried, with most
of the lines leading to a slight edge for
White. Why though should White play
a nondescript pawn move rather than
completing his development? The an-
swer lies in what is commonly known
as 'the battle of the tempo'. To free
his position, Black will want to play
 196 The Queen' s Gambit Declined: 5 J.J4!

something like ...dxc4 followed by ... b5 A6: 8••• g6?! 204

and ... .i.b7. If White plays an early A7: 8...h6 204
.i.d3, Black will generally be very
happy to make this exchange. White A1)
having lost a tempo with his bishop. If. 8 •••l:e8 (D)
however. White can play a useful
waiting move like h3. and Black then
captures on c4. it is White who has
won the battle of the tempo. There are
even a few instances in this chapter
where White plays a3 and h3. and
Black plays ... a6 and ... h6. each player
waiting for something to happen.
White. with more space to manoeuvre.
has nothing to lose from these tempo
battles, but Black often has to think of
some way to free his rather constricted
pieces without opening the position.
The usual if convoluted plan is ... l:e8 White's main choices here are 9
followed by ... ~f8-g6 and ....i.d6. and 0-0-0. 9 l:dl and 9 a3.
suddenly Black is ready for ... e5. All: 9 i.h2!? 196
Now: AU: 9 .i.d3 196
A: 8 h3 196 A13: 9.i.e2 197
B: 8l:dl 205 A14: 9 cxdS 197
C: 8cxdS 208 AIS: 90-0-0 197
D: 8 .i.d3 208 A16: 9l:d1 198
E: 8 .i.e2 209 A17: 9 a3 199
F: 80-0-0 210
G:8a3 211 A11)
9 i.h2!? deserves to have been
A) played more than once. White's plan
8h3 worked smoothly in Conquest-Hogg.
The benefits of this waiting move Kuala Lumpur 1992. though Black's
are readily appreciated; the bishop play can doubtless be improved: 9...00
now has a retreat on h2, while assis- 10 0-0-0 dxc4 11 .i.xc4 b5 12 .i.e2
tance is given for a possible later .tb7 13ltle5"a5 14 Wbl l:ac8 15 f4
pawn-storm with g4. Now Black can .i.b4 16 ltle4 ~S 17 "b3. Maybe
choose from: 9 ...dxc4 10 .txc4 bS.
AI: 8•••l:e8 196
A2: 8•••dxc4 200 A12)
A3: 8•••86 202 9 i.d3 is too much of a routine de-
A4: 8...b6 203 veloping move; it does nothing to pre-
AS: 8.....aS 204 vent Black's freeing plan. 9 ... ~f8 10
 Systems with ... c6
0-0 (10 g4 .i.d6 11 ~5 dxc4 12 .i.xc4
li)d5 13 0-0-0 ~xf4 14 exf4, Sere-
dcnko-Mainapalert, Manila OL 1992,
14... f6!? 00) 1O...~g6 11 .i.h2 .i.d6 12
~xd6 .xd613 .i.xg6hxg614e4 .d8
R.Kempinski-Asrian, Erevan OL 1996.
Black has successfully exchanged two
pairs of minor pieces, and although
White has an obvious advantage in
space, it is difficult to see what dam-
age he can do to the black position; if
for example 15 b3 b6, even the bad
hishop has a life. In the game, White
over-pressed with 15 e5 ~h7 16 Wd2
21 l:.abl ~f8:j:.
.as
h6 17 lIfel .i.a6 IS c5? (18 cxd5 =)
18 ... bxc5 19 dxc5 20 We3 lIabS
A13)
9 .i.e2 ~f8 10 0-0 ~g6 11 .i.h2
i.d6 12 .i.xd6 Wxd6 13 c5 'fIc7 14
i.d3?! merely leaves White a tempo
down on the 9 .i.d3line, but in the game
Loncar-Ranieri, Rebecchetto 1996,
Black obligingly played 14...~f8? 15
li.:le5 ±.
A14)
9 cxd5 ~xd5 10 ~xd5 exd5 11
0-0-0 ~f8 12 .td3, with two games
from the same tournament diverging:
1) 12....i.e6 13 ~bl :CS 14 g4 (14
h4!?;t Speelman) 14....i.d6 15 Wa4 a6
16 .i.xd6 .xd6 17 lIcl lIc7 with a
very slight edge to White which could
easily be (and was) overturned, Khal-
ifman-Speelman, Moscow GMA 1990.
2) 12 ... .i.d7 13 ~bl lIcS 14 g4
'fIb6 15 lIc 1 c5 16 dxc5 lIxc5 17 'fIb3
'ii'xb3 18 axb3 ~e6 19 .tg3 lIecS 20
lIcdl .tb5 21 .txb5 lIxb5 22 lId3 ;t
Gelfand-Azmaiparashvili, Moscow
GMA 1990.
197
A15)
90-0-0 (D)
This is promoted to joint main-line
status for subjective reasons: I like it!
It is surprising that this ultra-direct
move is not tried more often; after all,
castling queenside is now an accepted
part of White's arsenal against ...c5,
and the queenside is being opened up
rather more slowly here.
9•••dxc4
1) 9 ...~f8 10 .td3 (10 .i.h2!?)
1O...~g6 11 .te5 ~7 12 .txg6 hxg6
13 h4 ~f8 14 h5 ± Cattomio-Aller-
heiligen, Bie11993.
2) 9 ...'fIaS (0stenstad-Lein, Gaus-
dal 1990) 10 ~d2! borrows an idea
from the New Main Line, yet is appar-
ently an innovation. White must surely
be doing very well.
3) 9 ...b6?! 10 cxdS cxdS (lO...exdS?
11 ~b5! wins the exchange) 11 .tb5!
(11 ~b5 .ta6! 12.tc7 {12 ~7 .txfl
13 ~xa8 .txg2!} 12...'fIcS 13 ~6
.i.xd6 14 .txd6 .txfl) 11.. ..tb7 12
~5 a6 13 ~c6 .txc6 14 .txc6 gives
White a slight advantage.
10.txc4 bS
Not 1O...~d5?? 11 .txdS exdS 12
~xdS cxdS? 13 .tc7 +-.
 198 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i.f4!
11 1.d3 'ii'b6 12 g4 ~f8 13 ~e4
lbds
13 ... ~xe4 14 1.xe4 1.b7 ±.
14 ~eg5 g6 15 h4 ~b4 16 'ii'b1
e5!?
Fritz's idea is critical. Crouch-Bielby,
Durham 1997 continued 16... cS 17 h5
1.b7?! (17 ... cxd418 hxg6; 17 ...~xd3+
18 1i'xd3 ±) 18 hxg6 fxg6 19 1.xg6!
hxg6 (I was hoping for the chance to
make a queen sacrifice with 19... ~xg6
20 1i'xg6+! hxg6 21 1.eS 1.xgS {or
21...~xa2+ 22 ~bl 1.e4+ 23 ~al
1.xgS 24 ~xgS .txhl 2S l:lxhl ~fS
26 .tf6 with mate on h8} 22 l:lh8+!
~f7 23 ~xgS+ ~e7 24 l:lh7+ ~d8 2S
dxcS+ and White regains the queen,
keeping a decisive attack) 20 .teS
1.xgS 21 ~xgS 1.xhl 22 l:lxhl 1-0. I
enjoyed playing this game.
17 ~xeS f6 18 h5! fxeS 19 bxg6 h6
20g7!
20 .txeS?! 1.xgS 21 g7 l:lxeS! 22
gxfS1i'+ ~xfS 23 dxeS 1i'cS+ gives
Black a strong counter-attack, and 20
l:lxh6 is slow.
2O•••1.xgS
20...~xg7 (20...hxgS? 21 .txeS
+-) 21 1.xeS+ 1.f6 22 1.xf6+ ~xf6
23 l:lxh6+ ~xgS (otherwise White is
ahead in material) 24 l:ldhl +-.
21 gxf8'ii'+ ~xf8 22 1.xgS bxgS 23
1.c4!?
This position contains a wealth of
fascinating tactics. White has no trou-
ble drawing, but a win is elusive.
23••• bxc4 24 'ii'g6 ~a2+ 25 ~d2
:e6 26 'ii'xgS ~e8 and now:
I) 27 ~el 1i'b4+ 28 ~fl 1i'e729
l:lh8+ ~d7 301i'fS 1i'd6! 31 l:lh7+ (31
~e2 ri;c7) 3l...~d8 32 1i'gS+ (32 ~e2
.l:.b8 33 dxeS l:lxb2+ 34 ~el .l:.e2+
and 32 ~e I e4 33 1i'a5+ ~e8 34 1i'xa2
'ii'b4+ 3S ~fl 1i'b3 are bad or lost for
White) 32... l:le7 33 l:lxe7 1i'xe7 34
dxeS+ 1.d7 3S 1i'g8+ 1i'e8 36 1i'xc4
~c7 37 1i'xa2 1i'xeS and Black is bet-
ter.
2) 27 ~e2 ~d7 28 l:lh7+ ~d6 29
1i'g7 ~dS! 301i'fS c3! opens the a6-fl
diagonal for a juicy check and clears
c4 for the king to flee to the queenside.
After 31 dxeS+ ~c4 32 l:ld4+ 1i'xd4!
33 exd4 l:lxeS+ 34 ~fl cxb2 Black
wins easily.
3) 27 l:lh7! 1i'xb2+ 28 ~el 'ifb4+
29 ~fl ~3 (forced) 30 l:lh8+ 'iffS 31
'ifhS+ ~e7 and now, after 32 l:lxfS
~xfS 33 l:lcl !? (or maybe with checks
on h8 and h7 first) the position is very
unclear.
A16)
9l:ldl (D)
B
A good square for the rook, and the
most popular move here. But why this
strange reluctance to have the king on
cl as well?
9...~f8
9 ...1.fS 10 cS!? b6 II b4 a5 12 a3
axb4 13 axb4 bxcS 14 bxcS 'ifa5 15
1i'd2 1.a6 16 g4 ± Van Wely-Ravia,
Antwerp 1995.
 Systems with ... c6
9...•aS 10 a3!? ~4 ll.i.d3lDdf6
(l1.. ..i.xa3? 12 l:tal! lDxc3 13 l:txa3
lDa4+ 14lDd2 followed by b3 wins a
piece) 120-0 lDxc3 13 bxc3 dxc4 14
i.xc4lDds IS .i.d3 g6 16 c4!? lDxf4
17 exf4 .xa3 18 cS.aS 19 h4 .c7
20 g3 and White's positional bind is
well worth the pawn, Lima-de An-
drade, Brasilia 1997.
10i.d3
lO.!DeS ~4! ll.i.d3 f6 12lDf3 fS
13 lDeS i.f6 140-0 .i.xeS IS .i.xeS
lDg616i.h2.gS17lDe2lDit418lDf4
=Landa-Astian, Russia Cup (Novgo-
rod) 1997.
10•••dxc4
1O... lDg6 II .i.g3 i.d6 12 .i.xd6
.xd6130-0.c714e4dxc4IS.i.xc4
cS 16lDgS l:tf8 17 dS cxdS 18lDxdS
lDxdSIgexdS.d820h4i.g421 f3?!
.b6+
(21 l:td2 ±) 21...bS 22 fxg4 (22 .i.b3
23l:tf2 :rc8 followed by ...m)
22... bxc4 23 .fS .c8 00 A.Zakharov-
Astian, Moscow 1996.
11 i.xc4lDds
II...bS 12 .i.d3 i.b7 13 0-0 l:tc8
looks like loose queenside play by
Black. Then, rather than 14 a3 .b6 IS
b4 as 161i'b2 axb4 17 axb4lDdS 18
lDxdS exdS = Elsness-Kosasih, Dja-
karta 1997, White can, for example,
gain space in the centre with 14 e4 fol-
lowed perhaps by 'iVe2, when Black
will find it hard to generate counter-
play.
12.i.g3
12 O-O!? should also be possible. As
we shall see at various points in this
chapter (Section A2, etc.), capturing
on f4 does not guarantee Black easy
equality, despite the advantage of the
bishop-pair and the doubled f-pawns.
12.••i.d6
199
12 ... lDxc3 13 bxc3 (or 13 .xc3)
13 ....i.d6 14 .i.xd6 .xd6 IS 0-0 will
transpose.
13 .i.xd6 'iVxd6 140-0 lDxc3 IS
bxc3
IS .xc3 b6 16 l:tc1 .i.b7 17 i.e2
lDd7 18 :rdl .e7 19.!De1 eS =Koba-
liya-Astian, Russia Cup (Moscow)
1996.
IS•••b6 16 .i.d3 'iVc7
A little refinement to cover f7.
Lima-A.Hoffman, Matanzas Capa-
blanca mem 1994 continued instead
16... i.b7 17 lDgS g6 (17 ...h6?? 18
i.h7+ lDxh7 19 .xh7+ ~f8 20 lDe4
+-) 18 f4 cS 19.f2;t.
17 c4 cS IslDgS h6
Now this is perfectly possible, and
gives Black a very solid position.
19 .i.h7+ ~hS 2O.i.e4 l:tb8 21 m
.i.b7 =Razuvaev-Astian, Russia Cup
(Novgorod) 1997.
Ultra-solid defence from the land of
Petrosian. The exchange of two pairs
of minor pieces ensures that Black is
able to manoeuvre freely behind the
lines without feeling cramped.
A17)
9a3(D)
200 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./41
White continues to play the waiting
game. One possible justification for
this move is that White may have in
mind, after Black's freeing manoeu-
vre, b4 and l:acl restricting Black's
queenside.
9...lDfS
1) 9 ....tfS 10 .td3 dxc4 11 .txc4
lDdS 12 .th2lDxc3 13 bxc3 b6 140-0
.tb7 IS .td3 g6 16 a4 cS 17 e4 "ii'c8 18
1IM2.ta6 19 as ~ Gelfand-H.Olafs-
son, Novi Sad OL 1990.
2) 9 ...dxc4 10 .txc4 bS 11 .td3
(11 .ta2!?) and now:
2a) 11.. ..tb7 120-0 a6 13 b4 as 14
l:abl h6 IS e4 axb4 16 axb4 l:a3 17
.tcl l:a6 18 .te3 ~ L.Hansen-Lyrberg,
Copenhagen 1994.
2b) 11...a6 12 b4 as 13 l:bl axb4
14 axb4 'iVb6 IS 0-0 .tb7 16 e4lDfS
17 l:fdl l:ec8 18 .tgS 'ifd8 19 eSlDdS
20 lDe4 f6 ~ Hjartarson-G.Thorhalls-
son, Reykjavik 1994.
10.td3
10 l:d 1 and now, instead of the infe-
rior 10....td6?! lllDeS a612 cS .txeS
13 .txe5 ± A.Ivanov-Korkina, Vladi-
vostok 1994, 10... lDg6 11 .th2.td6
would be more thematic.
10•••dxc4
1O...lDg6 11 .th2 .td6 12 .txd6
'iVxd6 13 0-0 (13l:dl 'ife7 140-0 dxc4
15 .txc4 b6?! 16 ttle5 ± P.Iotti-Dole-
schal, Salsomaggiore 1997) 13 ...dxc4
14 .txc4 lDd5 15 l:adl lDxc3 16
'ifxc3 b6 17lDe5lDxe5 18 dxeS "ii'e7 ~
Mikhalchishin-Brestian, Tmava 1988.
11 .txc4lDds 12 .tg3lDxc3
12....td6 13 .txd6 'W'xd6 14 lDe4
"ii'd8 150-0 lDg6 16 l:adl b6 17lDe5
.tb7 18 'ife2;t lDf6? 19lDg5 ± Savon-
Gerbich, Vladivostok 1995.
13 Wxc3 .td6 14 O-O!?
14 .txd6!? 'W'xd6 IS b4 b6 160-0
.tb7 17 l:fdl l:ed8 18 l:d2 ~ Be-
liavsky.
14....txg3 15 fxg3 .td7 16 g4 We7
17 gS l:ec8
It takes a lot of ingenuity for White
to create anything unusual in such a
stodgy variation. White now made a
pawn move too many on the kingside
in Beliavsky-Speelman, Linares 1991:
18 h4?! c5 19 d5 exd5 20 .txd5 .tc6
=. Beliavsky suggests instead trying to
spread the bind across the whole board
with 18 b4 as 19 l:abl axb4 20 axb4
.te8 21 l:f2 b6 22 h4 l:c7 (22 ...c5 23
dxcS bxc5 24 b5 ±) 23lDd2 l:ca7 24
lDe4±.
White's best chances of securing an
edge seem to be in the ultra-violent but
under-explored 9 0-0-0 or in the out-
wardly ultra-quiet 9 a3. Black can
handle 9 l:dl.
A2)
8 •••dxc4 9 .txc4 (D)
B
Black apparently disregards the
battle of the tempo. The plan has its
logic, however, in that Black can offer
a double exchange of minor pieces
 Systems with ... c6
rather more economically than after
...l:le8, ...M, etc.
9 •••lOb6
I) 9 ... lOdS?! and now:
la) 10 .th2?! and here:
lal) 1O...107f6?! 11 0-0 b6 12
l:lfdl (too quiet; 12 e4!?) 12 ....tb7 13
a3 .td6 =B.Reilly-Conrady, Moscow
19S6.
la2) 1O... bS?! II.te2107f6120-0
i.b7 13lLlxdSlOxdS 14lLld2;1;, and in
Psakhis-Onoprienko, Groningen 1995
Black tried to solve his difficulties by
tactical means, but after 14 ... cS IS
dxcSlOb4 16 'ifc3 .tf6 17 Wxb4 as 18
'it'xbS .ta6 19 'ifxa6 l:lxa6 20 .txa6
the passed c-pawn soon told.
la3) 1O...107b6! 11 .tb3 (11 .td3
h6 12 a3 .td6) 11.. ..td6 is Black's
hcst.
Ib) 10 .tg3, which seems to put
the bishop on a better square, is still
well answered by 1O...107b6!, just as
in line' la3'.
lc) The real problem is that White
can play 10 lOxdS exdS 11 .td3 .tb4+
12 ~e2, reaching Vaganian-Forintos
in Section C (8 cxdS lOxdS 9 lOxdS
exdS 10 .td3 .tb4+ lllit>e2) a tempo
up. Since a possible kingside pawn-
storm is part of White's agenda, the
extra h3 tempo is useful.
2) 9 ... bS 10 .td3 .tb7 11 e4 b4 12
lLla4 cS 13 dxcS l:lc8 14 eS lOxcs IS
lOxc5 l:lxcS 16 'ife2 lOdS 17 'ife4 g6
18 .th6 lOc3 19 'ife3 l:ldS 20 .tc2 ±
Mainville-Brumen, Cannes 1997. If
Black wishes to prepare for the 'semi-
Meran' formation, 8...a6 (Line A3) is a
more natural way to do so.
10.tb31OfdS
Black drifted into complete passiv-
ity after 1O... l:le8 11 0-0.td6 12 .tgS
201
(12 .teS!?) 12... lObd7 13 l:lfdl 'ikc7
14 :tacl a6 IS We2 'ifaS 16 e4.tf8 in
Doering-Genduso, Nuremberg 1989.
This is exactly the type of nightmare
that Black must work hard to avoid in
the ...c6 variation.
11 0-0
Ironically, the extra move h3 works
against White here, the point being
that if the pawn had still been on h3
(after 8 .td3 dxc4 9 .txc4, etc.), White
could happily drop the bishop back to
g3, planning to recapture with the h-
pawn after ... .td6xg3. Here though,
11 .tg3 .td6 12 e41Oxc3 13 bxc3 (13
.txd6!?) 13....txg3 14 fxg3 cS! should
be satisfactory for Black; White's pawns
are too badly split to be a real threat.
11...lOxf4 12 exf4
Establishing what might be de-
scribed as the 'Rubinstein Bind'. White
intends to keep a complete grip on the
central and kingside dark squares with
pawns, with space being created on
the kingside by g3 and h4.
Black's position is more difficult to
defend than it looks, and any plan to
open the centre quickly (for example
12... cS 13 dxcS .txcS 14 lOe4 ±) is
likely to come unstuck.
12...lLlds 13 g3
Now:
1) 13 ... lOxc3 14 Wxc3 Wd6 IS
l:lac1.td7 16lLleS l:lad8 17 :fdl.tc8
18 a3 .tf6 19 We3 'ike7 20 h4 l:ld6 21
hS :fd8 22 :c3 and the bind has been
tightened considerably, Rubinstein-
Canal, RogaSka-Slatina 1929.
2) 13 ... f6 covers both eS and gS,
and prepares for possible counterplay
later on with .. :ii'e8-hS. If White plays
lOxdS, Black will generally want to
capture with the d-pawn. However, 14
202 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i.,f4!
l:fel "eS 15 f5 'ifh5 16 ~g2.i.b4 17
fxe6 causes problems for Black, e.g.
17 ...l:eS IS .!l)xd5! cxd5 19 g4! "g6
20 "xg6 hxg6 21 .i.xd5 .i.xel 22 e7+
~h7 23 l:xel .i.d7 24.i.f7 and White's
connected passed pawns should win
the endgame, or 17....i.xc3 IS bxc3 %leS
19 c4 .i.xe6 (19 ....!l)b4 20 "d2 .i.xe6
20 l:xe6 is similar) 20 l:txe6 and wins.
The whole line with S...dxc4 is so
little explored that the theoretically
critical game is nearly 70 years old.
A3)
8•.•a6 (D)
This move takes its inspiration from
a main line of the Meran Variation of
the Semi-Slav (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ~3
.!l)f6 4 .!l)f3 c6 5 e3 .!l)bd7 6 .i.d3 dxc4
7 .i.xc4 b5 S .i.d3 a6). Black's plan is
to pick a moment to play ...dxc4, then
follow up quickly with ... b5, ... .i.b7,
... c5, etc.
9:ctl
At least Black knows White is not
going to castle queenside.
Alternatives:
1) 9 a3 dxc4 10 .i.xc4 bS 11 .i.a2
.i.b7 12 l:dl "b6 (12 ...b4!?) 13 .i.bl
l:fdS 14 e4.!l)f8 15 e5 ~5 16 .!l)xdS
exdS ~ Ivkov-Kurajica, Wijk aan Zee
1970.
2) 9 cS b6 10 cxb6 "xb6 11 .i.d3
cS 120-0 .i.b7 13 l:adl :acS 14 "bl
h6 15 :fel :fdS (1S ...cxd4 00) 16.i.c2
"as 00 Shulman-Lyrberg, Minsk 1996.
3) 9 .i.d3 dxc4 10 .i.xc4 b5 11 .i.e2
.i.b7 120-0 c5 13 l:fdl 'ilb6 14 .!l)e5
:fdS 15 .!l)xd7 :xd7 16 dxc5 "xeS 17
l:xd7.!l)xd7 IS :dl .!l)f6 =Kobaliya-
Asrian, Russia Cup (Krasnodar) 1997.
There are too many options on both
sides to draw any strong conclusions
from these lines.
9..•b5
Deciding that it is not worth playing
the waiting game any longer.
1) 9 ... h6?! (not one of the most
successful of recent grandmaster inno-
vations) 10 a3 dxc4 11 .i.xc4 and now:
la) 11...~S 12 O-O! .!l)xf4 13 exf4
"c7 (after 13 ...:eS 14~5 .!l)f815 f5
.i.f6 16 .!l)e4 "e7 17 .!l)g4 .!l)h7 18
l:fel Black's position is close to col-
lapse-Kramnilc) 14~5~615.i.a2
.i.d7 16 .i.bl .i.eS 17 d5 ± Kramnik-
Lputian, Debrecen Echt 1992.
Ib) 11...b5 12 .i.a2 .i.b7 13 e4?!
(13 .!l)e5! looks very strong, and if
13 ...%leS, then 14 .i.xh6 gxh6 15 .i.xe6
with a winning attack) 13 ...:eS 14
.i.bl .!l)f8 15 b4 as 16 "b3 axb4 17
axb4 .!l)6d7 18 e5 00 Psakhis-Pigusov,
Novosibirsk 1993.
2) 9 ...l:e8 10 a3 lLlf8 11 cSlLl6d7
(11...b6 12 b4 ±) 12 .i.e2 .!l)g6 13 0-0
"as
b6 14 b4 bxcS 15 bxc5 .i.f6 16.i.d6
17 e4 ± Gheorghiu-Westerinen,
Palma de Mallorca 1965.
3) 9 ...dxc4 10 .i.xc4 bS 11 .i.d3
"b6 12 e4 g6 13 eS ~ 14 .!l)xdS
cxd5 15 h4 ± Gheorghiu-J.Kristins-
son, Reykjavik 1972.
 Systems with ... c6
4) 9 .....a5 and now:
4a) 10 ~d2 cS 11 ~b3 "b6 12
cxdS ~xdS 13 lLlxdS exdS 14 i.e2
cxd4 15 ~xd4 "a5+ 16 ~fl ao Koro-
tylev-Deviatkin, Moscow 1996. At
last we see a position with some life in
it for Black.
4b) 10 cS!? (a more positionally
11mbitious try for White) 10...~e4
(1O... b6 11 cxb6) 11 "a4 i.d8 12
"xa5! (after 12 b4?!, 12... ~xc3?! 13
'irb3! is good for White, but 12.....xa4
13lLlxa4 bS! favours Black) 12 ...i.xaS
13 J:[c 1 ;to If Black tries to break
White's spatial advantage by 13 ... b6,
White still keeps the initiative with 14
cxb6 ~xc3 15 bxc3 i.xb6 16 i.d3.
10cS
10 cxd5!?; 10 cxbS!?
1O•••aS 11 i.d3 b4 12ltla4 i.a6 13
.i.xa6 :xa6 14 0-0 "cS 15 lOel i.d8
16 ~3 i.e717 a3 bxa318 bxa3 J:[e8
White has a definite advantage in
space, but needs to find some way to
make it tell. White took care to keep
cS covered in Bagirov-A.Petrosian,
Riga 1981 with 19 "b2 i.xf4 20 exf4
"c7 21 J:[bl J:[b8 22 'ii'c2 ±. In a later
game, White used a more tactical ap-
proach: 19 i.xc7 'fIxc7 20 J:[bl eS 21
J:[b6! J:[aa8 (21...~xb6 22 cxb6 J:[xb6
23 ~xb6 'fIxb6 24 l:[bl ±; attempts by
Black to keep the exchange lead to ca-
tastrophe) 22 'ii'b2 exd4 23 exd4 J:[e4
24 J:[b7 'fIc8 25 J:[bl ± Kramnik-Zude,
Bundesliga 1994/5. But was Black's
plan worth repeating in the first place?
A4)
8...b6 (D)
Encouraged by White's loss of time
with h3, Black tries to fit in the fian-
chetto without ill effect.
203
gexdS
The natural response, trying to fix a
weakness on c6.
9 i.d3 dxc4 10 i.xc4 00 11 i.h2
(11 O-O!?; 11 ~xdS!?) 11.. ..i.b7 12
0-0 lLlxc3 13 bxc3 c5 =Nazin-Pirozh-
kov, Kaluga 1996.
9 J:[dl!? i.a6 10 ~S "c8 11 i.e2
~xeS 12 dxeS ~7 13 0-0 bS 14 cxbS
cxbS 15 'ii'd3 ;t Kacheishvili-Dzhan-
dzhgava, Georgian Ch 1996.
9•••cxdS
9 ...exdS?! is to be regarded with
some suspicion. At best, Black will be
able to reach a hanging pawn position
a tempo down after ... cS. For example:
1) 10 i.e2 .i.b7 11 0-0 'fIc8 12
J:[acl i.a6 13 'fIa4 i.xe2 14 ~e2 cS
15 dxcS bxcS 16 J:[fdl "b7 17 'fIc2;t
Minzer-Gamarian, Boca 1997.
2) 10 .i.d3 i.b7 11 ~S J:[e8 12
0-0 ~f8 is another way of playing it,
treating ...c6 as a loss of tempo in a
... b6 system. 13 'fIa4!? bS 14 'fIdl ;t
Muse-Fuhrmann, Bundesliga 1996n.
10 i.d3 i.b7 11 0-0 a6 12 a4 h6 13
i.h2 ~b8 14 ~eS lLle6 15 ~xe6
.i.xe6 16 J:[rct .i.d6 17 i.xd6 "xd6
18 ~b5 i.xb5 19 axb5 axb5 2O:xas
=
J:[xa8 Arduman-Vaganian, Erevan
OL 1996.
204 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
This is fine for Black if you are
happy playing the more deadly dull
forms of the Exchange Slav. White for
his own part could play more aggres-
sively at various stages, for example
13 'ife2!?
A5)
8 ••••aS(D)
We have just a couple of examples
of this move, with Black scoring 100%
after White tried too hard to refute the
queen sortie.
9 lM2 :e8 10 J-d3 J-b4 11 adS
After 11 0-0 e5 12 J-g3 e4 13 J-e2
a6 14 a3 J-fS, Karlsson-Hf1ji, Copen-
hagen 1985 continued 15 b4?! 'ifd816
c5? g6 17 a4 h5, when Black's play on
the kingside proved stronger than
anything White could muster on the
opposite side. However, closing the
queenside is entirely anti-positional
for White; he needs to expose weak-
nesses, not conceal them. Thus 15
cxdS cxd5 16 ~b3 'ifd8 17 ~a4 is
good for White.
11•••cxdS 12 0-0 eS 13 ~b3 "'b6
14 dxeS ~eS IS i.xb7+!?
White's advantage is much more
slender than it looks, bearing in mind
such possibilities as 15 i.g5ltJxd3 16
'ifxd3 J-xc3 17 'ifxc3?? ltJe4. Steady
play such as 15 :fd 1 !? should give
something though.
IS...ltJxb716ltJxdS "'d617 ~c7?
Burgess makes the interesting sug-
gestion of 17 :fdl I?, keeping a few
threats hanging over Black. If then
17...b618ltJxb4 'ifxb419 J-xe5 J-xh3
(19 ....:xe5? 20 :d8+), White contin-
ues 20 J-d6 'ifg4 21 J-g3! ltJg5 (after
2l...'iff5 or2l...'ifc8 White has a clear
extra pawn in the ending) 22 ltJd4
:ad8 23 gxh3 'ifxh3 24 'ife2 and the
attack collapses.
17...J-fS 18ltJxe8
Maybe in Tavadian-Anastasian,
Erevan 1982, White's calculations had
stopped here. However, after 18......g6!
19 .c7 J-e4 20 f3 (20 J-g3 :xe8!)
20...~xf3+ 21 ~hl ~4 22:n :xe8
Black was winning.
Finally a couple of very minor al-
ternatives, although one of these was
able to knock over Kramnik in a
quickplay.
A6)
8...g61t
Not very pretty, so no diagram.
9J-d3
9 :dl!?
9...dxc4 10 i.xc4 bS 11 J-e2 i.b7
12 0-0 a6 13 :fdl "'b6 14 a4 b4 IS
as "'a7 16ltJa4 cS 17 ltJeS ;t Povah-
Merriman, England 1996.
There is no immediate refutation,
though Black could do without the
kingside holes.
A7)
8...b6
 Systems with ... c6
When one considers that the theo-
retical recommendation after 1 d4 d5 2
c4 e6 3 lDc3 lDf6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 J.g5
i.e7 6 e3 lDbd7 7 J.d3 h6 is 8 J.f4 ;1;,
the wisdom of 7...h6 here is readily
doubted.
9l:r.dl
9 cxd5!?; 9 O-O-O!?; 9 g4!? In a
game at normal speed, White would
have time to think.
9... b610 J.e2
10 cxd5!?
10••• J.a6 11 b3 'irc8 12 0-0 bS 13
cxbS?
Walking into a self-made pin. 13 cS
might yet give something to play for.
Now Kramnik-Ubilava, Oviedo rpd
1992 continued 13 ...cxb5 14 "d3 b4
15 "xa6 bxc3 16 'ira5lDe417 Ilcl a6
18 ':c2 "b7 19 Ilal Ilfc8 20 lDel
J.b4 21 "a4 ~5 0-1.
The theory on 7 'irc2lDbd7 8 h3 is
as yet not very systematic. After
8... lle8, the most popular, the recom-
mendation is 9 0-0-0. 8...dxc4 and
8.....aS do not seem quite sufficient to
equalize.
B,
8 Ildl (D)
205
Yet again there is a frustrating lack
of consensus as to what Black should
play next. White plays a natural devel-
oping move instead of a pawn-push,
but the move has two potential de-
fects. First, no retreat is provided for
the bishop if Black plays 8 ... lDh5. Sec-
ondly, if Black can create immediate
play on the a5-el diagonal (after
8.....aS), there is a danger that White
will have to play ':c 1 at some stage to
cover c3. We cover the two aggressive
moves first. Our lines are:
Bl: 8...lDhS 205
B2: 8....aS 206
B3: 8...1le8 206
B4: 8...a6 207
BS:8•••b6 207
B6: 8...dxc4 207
B1)
8...lDhS 9 .td3!?
Aiming for a Rubinstein Bind. The
straightforward 9 .tg3 is also possi-
i.d3 dxc4 12 .txc4 b5 13 .td3
14 cRe2.ta6 15 ~ ± Matras-Jirman,
.as
ble, and if 9 ...lDxg3?!, 10 hxg3 g6 11
Klatovy 1995. Instead, 9 ... f5!? gives
good chances of equalizing.
9...lDxf4 10 exf4 g6
After 10... lDf6 11 0-0 dxc4 12
.txc4 lDd5 13 83 86 (13 ... f6!?) 14
.!Lle4lDf6 lSlDe5 (1SlDeg5!?; 15 h4
;1;) 15 ... lDxe4 16 "xe4 i.f6 17 h4
"c7, White can keep up the pressure
with 18 h5;1;, instead of 18 Ilfe1 b619
lDxc6 .tb7 20 d5 .txb2 = Matthias-
Schlindwein, Lippstadt 1996.
11 h4 dxc4 12 .txc4 lDb6 13
i.d3?!
This is a slightly unfortunate square
for the bishop. 13 .tb3! looks very
strong, and if 13 ...~, 14 g3 ±.
206 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 iLj4!
13•••lbd5 14lbxd5
14 g3?! ~b4 reveals the point be-
hind Black's last move.
14•••exd5 15 b5 i.f6 16 wn i.g4
17 hxg6 hxg6 18 .i.xg6 .i.xf3 19
.i.h7+ ~g7 20 IId3 IIhS 21 IId3
i.xd4 =
White's attack has burnt itself out,
Van Wely-Radulov, Khania 1993.
82)
S.....a5
Here we have three games, and
three different moves, even against
one of Black's most direct approaches.
It is rare to get an opening system
where there is such lack of consensus.
1) 9 ~d2 i.b4 10 i.d3 i.xc3 (this
can wait for a move; 1O...cS! GO) 11
bxc3 dxc4? (a disastrous surrender of
the centre; 11 ...cS 12 ~b3 ~) 12 ~xc4
~S 13 h3 ~b6 14 ~S +- Buki~­
Mali, BledIRog~ka Slatina 1992.
2) 9 a3 ~410 i.d3 ~df61l 0-0
~c3 12 bxc3 dxc4 13 i.xc4ltX1S 14
IIcl ~xf4 IS exf4, and in M.Gure-
vich-Weemaes, Antwerp 1994, Black
snatched the pawn with IS .....xa3?!
16 IIfel "d617 ~S .i.f618 :Cdl g6
19 .:r.e3 i.g7 20 h4 and White had a
bind. It is more important for Black to
free his queenside: IS ...cS GO.
3) 9cSwasmetby9 ... ~41Oi.d3
fS 11 IIbl "d8 12 h3 "e8 13 b4 i.f6
14 ~e2 a6 IS "b2 g6 16 g4 gS 17
i.h2"f7 18 IIgl fxg4 19 IIxg4 i.g7
20 tilegl h6 21 i.xe4 dxe4 22 ~eS ±
in Najer-Notkin, Moscow 1995. How-
ever, Black doesn't have to playa
Stonewall; 9 ... bS!? and 9 ... ~h5!? are
both possible, while 9 ... b6!? might be
best of all, despite the worrying lack
of flight squares for the queen.
One can conclude very little from
this, except that 8.....aS is a valid try.
No real significance should be at-
tached to the statistic, 8 h3 "as, on
for White; 8 IIdl "as, 3/3 for White.
If anything, 8 .....a5 makes more sense
after 8 IIdl.
83)
S•••.:r.eS (D)
The main line here is 9 h3, transpos-
ing to Line AI6 above, though White
can try a different waiting move:
9a3!?M
The standard manoeuvre, preparing
... i.d6,etc. Alternatives tend to be
gUilty of mixing plans.
I) 9 .....aS (a strange choice with
... i.b4 unavailable) 10 1tX12 i.f8 11
i.g3 eS 12 ~b31t'd8 13 cxd5 cxdS 14
i.e2 e4 15 ~b5 l:e6 16 IIcl ~ P.Neu-
mann-Vorisek, Cesky Brod 1995.
2) 9... aS 10 c5 b6 11 ~S?! (11
cxb6 ~) 11...~xe5 12 dxe5 ~d7 13
cxb6 tilxb614 .i.d3 g61S h4 i.a6 was
unclear in the game Klingelhoefer-
Labahn, Dortmund 1993.
3) 9 ... a6 transposes to 8 ... a6 9 a3
lIe8; see Line B4 below.
10.i.d3 ~g6
 Systems with ... c6
1O...dxc4 11 .i.xc4 l2Xis 12 0-0
lLlxf4 13 exf4lLlg6 14 g3 b6 15 h4 .i.f6
16 h5 lLle7 17 lLle5 ± Kacheish-
viii-H. Schneider, Schwabisch Gmiind
1994.
11 .i.g3 .i.d6 12 0-0 .i.xg3 13 bxg3
"e7 14 l:td2 a6 IS e4 dxe4 16 .i.xe4
eS 17 lLlgS :rs 18 dS ± Nepomni-
shay-Asrian, St Petersburg 1996.
84)
8...a6(D)
This has two possible objectives:
either to play an early ... b5, or to de-
velop in Meran fashion with ...dxc4,
... bS, etc.
9&3
I) 9 h3!? transposes to the Bag-
irov-A.Petrosian and Kramnik-Zude
games, discussed in Line A3 above.
2) 9 .i.d3 dxc4 10 .i.xc4 b5 11 .i.e2
c5?! (l1.. ...b6 =; White lacks the
tempo to block the queenside with b4)
12 dxcS .i.xc5 13 0-0 'iWb6 14lLlg5 h6
15 lLlge4 ;t Meulders-G.Winkler,
Brussels 1993.
3) 9 .i.e2 b5 and now:
3a) 10 cS?! (thi,~.~aves the posi-
tion too blocked) 1O...h4 (1O...aS! Gel-
fand) 11 1&4 as 12 lLleS ~xeS 13
207
~b6! l:ta7 14 ~xcS "xcS IS .i.xe5 ;t
Gelfand-King, Haifa Echt 19S9 (the
move-order in this game was 6 ... a6 7
"c2 ~bd7 S l:tdl c6).
3b) Gelfand suggests 10 lLle5, giv-
ing a slight edge after 1O... .i.b7 11 c5,
10 ... bxc4 11 ~xc6 "eS 12 b3 or
1O... ~xe5 11 dxeSl2Xi7 12 cxd5 cxd5
13.i.d3.
9•••dxe4
9 ...lIeS 10 h3 dxc4 11 .i.xc4 bS 12
.i.a2 .i.b7, and now 13 ~e5 looks
slightly better for White. Instead, White
over-pressed in Kotov-Grechkin, Len-
ingrad 1938, and after 130-0 'iWb6 14
e4 cS IS dS?! exdS 16 eS d4 17 ~gS
c4! 18 exf6 lLlxf6 White, though a
piece up, was soon suffocated by
Black's advancing pawns.
10 .i.xe4 bS 11 .i.d3 .i.b7 12 b4 as
13 l:tbl l:te8 14 e4 ;t Psakhis-King,
London Lloyds Bank 1994.
B5)
8•••b6
Not a move one would expect to be
successful.
9cxdS
The thematic reply, rather than 9
.i.e2?! .i.a6 10 b3 :CS 11 0-0 ~ 12
.i.eS ~hf6 13 .i.g3 = Avrukh-Hao
Yin, Cala Galdana U-18 1996.
9...exdS 10 .i.d3 l:te811 0-0 lLlf8?!
The disease of mixing plans. What
does Black do about his c6-pawn?
12lLleS .i.b713.i.g3 :c814 .i.fS ±
A.Hoffman-Aramayo, Salta 1995.
B6)
8 •••dxe4 is not very thematic either.
9 .i.xc4 ~b6 10 .i.e2 ~bd5 l1.i.g3 h6
12 e4 ;t Pogorelov-Ruberg, Munster
1991.
208 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
C)
S cxdslOxdS (D)
We look at the alternative capture
8 ...exd5 under the move-order 7 cxd5
exd5.
w J.xh7+ ~f8 ac.
The knight recapture is known in
positions where White has not played
.c2, but is all the more tempting after
Wc2 (instead of a bishop move) in that
White's king is still two moves away
from castling, providing chances of
play along the a5-el diagonal.
9lOxdS
After 9 J.g3 .a5 10 e4 lOxc3 II
bxc3, 11...:e8?! 12 J.d3 h6 13 0-0
lOf6 14 J.f4 ;t was H.Miiller-Kaju-
mova, Dresden 1993, but Black has
livelier defensive attempts available,
such as ll...c5.
9 •••exdS 10 J.d3
White can try 10 a3!1, and if Black
replies 1O...•a5+, then 11 Wd2.
10•••J.b4+!?
1O...lOf6 II 0-0 J.g4 1h_ 111 K.Berg-
Hf2Ii, Danish Ch (Ringsted) 1995, al-
though White looks a little better.
11 ~e2lOr6 12lOeS :e8 13 g4!1
With ideas of a full-blooded attack.
Even so, as with the New Main Line, it
would seem to be more prudent to play
13 h4 first, since as played the g-pawn
itself becomes a target.
13 J.g5 h6 14 h4 J.d6 ac.
13•••g6?!
Unnecessarily weakening his pawn
structure. Forintos gives two better de-
fences:
1) 13 ... J.xg4+ 14 lOxg4lOxg4 15
2) 13 ...c5 14 a3 (14 dxc5 lOe4 15
f3 .h4! 16 fxe4 :xe5 00; 14 gSlOe415
J.xe4 dxe4 16 .xe4 J.e6 00) 14... c4
15 J.xh7+ lOxh7 16 axb4 .d6! 17
.c3 J.xg4+ 18 lOxg4 .xf4 00.
14 :agl J.d6 15 h4 cS 16 h5
White's attack now broke through
spectacularly in Vaganian-Forintos,
Moscow 1975: 16...cxd4? 17 hxg6
J.xe5 18 g5! J.g4+ 19 :xg4 :c8 20
gxh7+ ~h8 21 J.xe5 :xe5 22 gxf6
:xc2+ 23 J.xc2 d3+ 24 J.xd3 :e8 25
:hgll-O. Forintos suggests as an im-
provement 16... c4 17 J.xg6 J.xe5,
continuing 18 dxe5 d4, but 18 J.xe5
looks strong.
D)
SJ.d3 (D)
The most natural move on the board,
aiming to complete development in
 Systems with ... c6
the simplest fashion possible. The one
snag is, of course, the loss of tempo if
Black exchanges on c4.
8•••dxc4
There is no particular sense in de-
laying with S...:eS. Then 9 0-0 dxc4 10
i.xc4 ~dS?? 11 i.xdS exdS 12 ~xdS,
winning a pawn, Goldin-Lamoureux,
Paris 1994, is just one of several ver-
sions of an old trap. 9 lid 1 is another
possibility, as after 9... dxc4 10 i.xc4
LDb6 11 i.b3 ~bd5 12 i.eS WaS 13
0-0 ;t Csaba-Vajani, Hungary 1993
(reached via S l:.dl lieS 9 i.d3),
White's interpolated move is more use-
ful than Black's.
9 i.xc4 b5
The 'Semi-Slav' treatment is the
most effective. Alternatives:
1) 9... ~dS?! leaves White ahead of
the S cxdS ~xdS variation. 10 i.g3
~7f6 11 a3 (unnecessary; 11 0-0 ;t)
11 ... ~xc3 12 bxc3 WaS 13 0-0 ~h5?!
(I3 ... cS=) 14i.eSg61Sh3~g716e4
! Tartakower-Yates, Baden-Baden
1925. This suggests that Marovic's
claim, in Play the Queen's Gambit,
that the old masters had a better feel
for this opening than the moderns, is
to be treated with some scepticism.
2) 9...~b6IOi.e2(1Oi.d3!?~bdS
II ~xdS exd5 120-0 leaves White
ahead of the S cxdS ~xdS 9 ~xdS
cxdS line) 1O... ~bdS l1i.g3 ~xc3 12
bxc3 cS 13 ~eS (13 0-0 ;t) 13 ... cxd4
14 exd4 ~d7 15 i.d3 h6 16 0-0 ~xe5
17 i.xe5 i.d7 IS i.h7+ ~hS 19 i.e4
i.c6 = Nedela-P.Bazant, Czech Ch
1996.
3) 9 ... a6 10 0-0 cS tt-dxc5 i.xc5
transposes to the 6 ... c5, S i.e2 varia-
tion (Chapter 4.4, line A), except that
in that variation White usually plays
209
his queen to e2 rather than to the ex-
posed c2-square; Kholmov-Dmitriev-
sky, Moscow 1966 continued 12 lIfdl
We713i.d3(13a3!?) 13 ...h614a3e5
15 i.g3 lieS 16 i.f5 i.d6 17 i.h4 WfS
IS lId2 ~cS! 19 :adli.xf5 20 Wxf5
lIe6 21 i.xf6 lIxf6 22 Wbl b5 23 b4
~b7 24 ~e4 lIe6 25 ~xd6 lIxd6 26
lIxd6 ~xd6 27 ~xe5 We7, when
White's extra pawn proved insufficient
to force the win against active play.
4) 9 ... WaS 10 0-0 ~b6 11 i.e2 (11
i.d3!? ~bd5 12 ~xd5 ;t) 11...~bd5
12i.g5 Wc713 l:.ac1 h6?! (13 ... ~xc3
;t) 14 i.h4 ~g4? 15 i.g3 i.d616 ~bS
± O.Stefan-J.Groch, Slovakia 1994.
10 i.d3 i.b7 11 0-0 :c8
1) 11...h6 (too passive?) 12 lIfdl
a6 13 a4 lIcS 14 We2 ~b6 15 e4 lieS
16 h3 i.b4 17 ~a2 i.fS IS as ~bd7
19 b4 ;t Mikhalchishin-Lyrberg, Bern
1995.
2) 11...b4 12 ~e4 ~xe4 13 i.xe4
;t Korchnoi-Doroshkevich, USSR Ch
1970.
12 ~g5 h6 13 ~ge4 b4 14 ~a4
~xe4 15 i.xe4 i.a6 16 lIfc1?!
1611fdl =.
16•••eS! 17 ~c5 ~c5 18 dxc5
i.xc5 19 .xeS lIxeS 20 lIxc5 +Gal-
liamova-Kakhiani, Borzhomi wom Ct
1990.
Black now contented herself with a
draw after 20 ... i.d3?! 21 lIdl i.xe4,
but there are several ways of playing
for a win, for example 20... f6!? fol-
lowed by ...e5.
If Black plays accurately, White's
loss of tempo makes it difficult to keep
any ftrm grip on the position.
E)
8 i.e2(D)
210 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 j.f4!
B the queenside. 8 ...h6? 9 h4 dxc4 10
The simplest way is 8 ...dxc4, trans-
posing to lines we have just looked at.
Black tried to vary, with no great suc-
cess, in Touzane-Laclau, French Cht
1993: 8 ...~h5?! 9 ~g3 f5 100-0-0 a6
11 ~bl g6 12 ~2 ~xg3 13 hxg3
~f6 14 g4!? (14 c5!?) 14... ~xg4 15
~xg4 fxg416 f4 with a positional grip
that more than compensated for the
sacrificed pawn.
F)
8 O-O-O!? (D)
Not the sort of move to play if you
want a reputation for subtlety! I would
suspect that 8 h3 :e8 9 0-0-0 is a
slightly more accurate rendering of
the plan. Naturally, in either case White
is after the black king's throat.
B
8•••dxc4
Black must urgently start action on
~xc4 ~d5 11 g4 ~xf4 12 exf4 .c7
13 ~2 ~d6 14 f5 ~b6 15 ~b3 exf5
16 gxf5 ~d5 17 :dgl ~d7 18 f6
~f4+ 19 ~bl ~xf6 20 .g6 ~8 21
~g5 1-0 Doeserich-Krebs, Baden-
weiler 1995 was a rottweilering in
Badenweiler.
8 ....a5?! 9 ~bl?! (unnecessary; 9
~2 ;1;) 9 ... ~b4 10 ~2 ~ 11 ~g3
f5 12 ~d3 ~xg3 13 hxg3lDffi 14 ~2?
(14 f3!?) 14...~xd2 15 :xd2 dxc4 16
~xc4 ~4 and Black should win,
Pein-Martinovsky, Wrexham 1995.
Naturally, White's lacklustre play can
be improved considerably.
9~xc4bS
The most thematic plan, though
9 ....aS could also be considered.
9 ... ~b6 is perhaps a little inflexible
after 10 ~d3. However, Valdes-Rivi-
era, Cuban Ch 1995 continued 10
~b3?! (the bishop is now a target for
Black's advancing pawns) 1O... aS II
h4 (11 a3!?) 11 ... a4! 12 ~xa4 ~xa4
13 ~xa4 ~d5 14 ~g5 g6 15 ~b3
~b416 jlb1 e5! 17 ~xe5 ~f5 18 e4
~g419:d2c520f3 c421 ~xc4:c8
22 b3 b5 23 fxg4 bxc4 24 bxc4 :xc4+
25 ~dl .c8 and White was unable to
.as
withstand the three-pawn gambit.
10 ~d3 11 ~d2
Taking the knight from the kingside
is already a minor concession, but as
we have seen while examining the
New Main Line, White can often fol-
low queenside castling by central play.
The point of this move is to discourage
... h4.
11 ~bl ~b7?! (routine play may
lead to quick disaster in this type of
 Systems with ... c6
sharp position; it makes more sense to
play 11 ... b4 followed by ...i.a6, tak-
ing some of the pressure off h7) 12
~5 l:lfdS 13 ~?! (13 g4! is much
more effective) 13 ...lLId5 14 ~g5lDxe5
15 i.xh7+ <RfS 16 dxe5 c5 17 a3 (oth-
erwise ...~b4) 17...b4 and Black has a
powerful counter-attack. In Veltmann-
Zugic, Toronto 1997, White ventured
18 ~xe6+ fxe6 19 i.h6 <Re8, but
Black was in control.
11...i.b7
This position needs exploring. al-
though one feels that Black, with ... b4
or ... c5 in reserve, should not be
slower than White.
Not. however, 11...b4?! 12 ~b3 "'dB
13 ~a4 ~b6 14 ~bc5 ± Dubinka-
Eriksson. Duisburg girls U-18 Wch
1992.
G)
Sa3 (D)
H 9.teS
Another tempo move, leaving yet
again the usual bewildering array of
choice.
8••• ~bS "-
I) S....a5 9 ~2 ~h5 10 .i.g3 f5
II i.e2 ~df6, and now instead of
playing 12 O-O? ~xg3 13 bxg3 i.d7 ~,
211
Kain-G.Kis, Hungary 1995, White
should play 12 i.e5 ±. The queen
doesn't really belong on as in this type
of Stonewall position.
2) S... as?! misreads White's inten-
tions. In D.McMahon-Tuddenham,
Golders Green 1995, the old trap on
the c-file was sprung after 9 cxd5 exd5
10 i.d3 l:leS? 11 ~b5.
3) S...h6 9 h3 dxc4 10.i.xc4 b5 11
i.e2 i.b7 120-0 a6 13 l:lfdl .b6 14
a4 l:lacS 15 ~5 l:lfdS 16 .b3 b4 17
as "'a7 IS ~xd7 ~xd7 19 ~e4 and
White is taking control, Tisdall-Lyr-
berg, Oslo 1994.
4) S...a69cxd5(9c5!?c!llli5 1Oi.d3
~xf4 11 exf4 h6 120-0 i.f6 13 b4 ±
Ortega-Giretti, Verona 1997) 9 ...exd5
10 i.d3 l:leS 11 h3 ~fS 12 0-0 ~g6 13
.i.h2.i.d6 14 .i.xd6 .xd6 15 b4 i.e6
16~a4~717~5~xc518bxc5;t
Efimov-Barletta, Montecatini Terme
1995.
5) S...l:leS will transpose into lines
already considered after 9 h3 or 9
:dl.
9 .td3 ~xf4 10 .txh7+ <RhS 11
exf4 dxc4 (or even ll...g6) with coun-
terplay - Gurevich.
9•••f6
9...~xe5 10 dxe5 g6 II O-O-O.as
12 g4 ~g7 13 h4 with a kingside at-
tack - Gurevich.
10.tg3 f5
1O...~xg311 bxg3 f512g4~f613
gxf5 exf5 14 .i.d3, Gurevich, gives
White good play against the weakened
kingside.
1l.te5
11 .te2 ~xg3 12 hxg3 ~f6 GO
Gurevich.
1l•••~hf6?!
212 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
Gurevich gives 11...l£lxeS 12 dxeS,
with the idea of .i.e2, 0-0, etc., as good
for White, but one can be sceptical of
this assessment. After 12 ... gS, with the
idea of ... l£lg7, and possibly ...J.d7-
e8, Black looks comfortable enough.
White's pieces are not working effec-
tively in the centre, which allows
Black to take certain liberties with his
kingside pawn structure in order to
keep his pieces active.
12 J.f4! 1£le4
12 ...111hS 13 J.d3l£lxf4 14 exf4 ±
Gurevich.
13 h3 llldf6 14 J.d3 J.d7 15 0·0
J.e816J.h2
Gurevich notes that 16 llleS fol-
lowed by f3 is also good.
16•••J.hS 17 llle5I£ld7 18 f3111xe5
19 J.xe5l£lxc3 20 bxc3 J.d6 21 J.xd6
'it'xd6 22 c5 'it'c7 23 c4 ;t M.Gure-
vich-An.Fernandes, Linares 1995.
After going through seven alterna-
tives, it is possible to conclude that 8
h3 is at least as promising as anything
else in the 'it'c2 system. Before leaving
7 'it'c2, we must note that Black too
has seventh-move alternatives.
7.27 'ii'c2: Black delays
... ~bd7 or ... 0-0
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3lllc3 ~ 4 00 .i.e7
5 J.f4 c6 6 e3 lllbd7 (or 6...0·0) 7
'it'c2
Our coverage falls naturally into
two sections:
A: 6 •••111bd7 7 'it'c2 with •••0-0
delayed 212
B: 6 •••0·0 7 'it'c2 with •••lllbd7
delayed/omitted 213
A) Black delays castling
6...111bd7 7 'it'c2 (D)
7•••111hS
1) 7... h6?! (pointless) 8 lIdl111hS
9 J.d3 lllxf4 10 exf4 lllf6 11 0-0 0-0
121£leS with a distinct advantage for
White, Mikhalchishin-Siska, Ljublj-
ana 1994.
2) 7 ...'it'aS?! 8111d2 0-0 and now:
2a) Following 9 0-0-0, Black could
find nothing better than 9 ...'it'dS?! in
Delemarre-Andrade, Guarapuava U-lS
Wch 1995. This is undoubtedly an ex-
aggerated reaction, but the queen is
not well placed on as.
2b) 9 .td3 lIe8 10 0-0 J.f8 11 J.g3
g6 12 lIfel a6 13 e4 ± Chenaux-
Astengo, Geneva 1996.
8 J.g3 1£lxg3
It is usually a positional error to
make this capture before White has
castled kingside. Kramnik suggests
8 ... g6, S... h6, or simply 8 ...0-0, as pos-
sibilities worth exploring.
9hxg3g6
9... h6 10 a3;t Kramnik.
10J.d3
Kramnik notes that 100-0-0 'it'as
11 ~bl is also promising.
10•••0-0?
 Systems with ... c6
1O... a6; 1O...dxc4 11 .txc4 b5 12
.td3 .tb7;t Kramnik.
11 0-0-0 dxc4 12 .txc4 bS 13 .td3
"as 14 ~bl .ta6 15 1Oe4 ± Krarn-
nik-Abrarnovic, Biel IZ 1993.
In this game it was not long before
White broke through on the h-file.
B) Black avoids ...lObd7
6 ...0·07 Wc2 (D)
7 .••b6
While not particularly thematic,
this has been tried a few times. Black's
thinking is that once White has played
'iic2, the plan of cxd5, tOe5 and "f3,
which is so dangerous in the 6 ...b6
line, is no longer available.
Others:
1) 7 ... a6 and now:
la) 8 cxd5 exd5 9 .td3 :e8 trans-
poses into the ...c6 Exchange Varia-
tion, where Black's ...a6 is not looking
very relevant. 10 0-0-0 is worth con-
sidering, while Doroshkevich-Lobach,
Simferopol 1989 continued 10 0-0
lObd7 11 :ablM 12 b4lOb5 13 .te5
f6 14 .tg3 lOxg) 15 hxg3, which is
perhaps about equal.
Ib) 8 c5!? is also possible, for ex-
ample 8 ...lObd7 9.td3 b6 10 b4?! (10
213
cxb6;t) 1O..•~h8? (lO...a5 11 b5.tb7!
00) 11 0-0 lOh5 12 :fel ;t Den Ber-
Bossuyt, Antwerp 1992.
lc) Other 8th move replies by
White, such as 8 :dl or 8 h3, will tend
to transpose to lines already consid-
ered.
2) 7...dxc4? has been played, but it
is a simple loss of tempo.
3) 7...h6?! S .td3 (8 h3!?;t) 8...dxc4
9 .txc4 b5 10 .td3 .tb7 11 0-0 a6 12
h31Obd7 13tOe41Oxe4 14 .txe4"b6
= Belarnaric-Paraminski, Makarska-
Tucepi 1995.
4) 7 .....a5?! 8 lDd21Obd7 9 i.d3
:leS 10 0-0 1Of8 11 a3 ;t J .Andersen-
Hellegard, Aalborg 1995.
5) 7...lOa6 and now:
5a) 8 a3 dxc4 (8 ...1Dc7? 9 c5 .td7
10 i.d3 b6 11 b4 and Black is getting
squashed, Bobotsov-Shafie, Teheran
1991) 9 .txc4 b5 10 .te2 b4 11 axb4
lOxb4 12 "d2 c5 112-112 Korneevets-
Begun, Belarussian Ch (Minsk) 1996.
Just occasionally, 'Russian draws' re-
veal something interesting.
5b) 8 c5 is probably best, and if
S...b6 (8 ...1Ob4 9 Wb3; 8 ... b5 91Oe5),
9 Wa4 (9 lOe5? 1Ob4! followed by
... dxc5) 9 ... b5 101Wdl ;t; the knight is
misplaced.
:e8
6) 7... 8 i.d3 (8 h3 I?) S...dxc4 9
.txc41Obd7 100-0 lOb6 11.td31ObdS
12 .tg3 h6 13 a3 lOb5 00 M.Varga-
Slavk.Marjanovic, Nova Gorica 1997.
8 .td3! (D)
1) Sa3?!i.b79cxd5exd5lOi.d3
c5 111Ob5? 1Dc6 12 .tf5? g6 13 .td3,
Em.Lasker-Marco, Hastings 1895, and
now Tarrasch gives 13 ... c4 +. The
opening never was Lasker's strong
point, even by the standafds of a hun-
dred years ago.
214 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i.f4!
2) 8 cxdS cxdS! 9 .te2 .tb7 10 0-0
lObd7 11 h3 %tc8 12 'iWb3 lOe4 13
%tacl a6 = Lobron-Beliavsky, Novi
Sad OL 1990 is an Exchange Slav
with White's queen misplaced.
3) 8 lOes .tb7 9 cxdS, and now
9 ...cxdS is probably safest. 9...lOxdS is
tempting, but after 10 lOxdS 'iWxdS 11
.td3! "a5+ 12 ~e2 .ta6 13 lOc4
'iWhS+ 14 f3, Muse-Pfleger, Bundes-
liga 1993/4, White probably has the
better of a messy position.
B independent lines
8•••.tb7 9 0-0 lObd7 10 cxd5!
Good timing. He waits until Black
has played ...lObd7 before exchanging
on dS. If now 1O..•cxdS White is better
as Black cannot play ... lOe4; usually it
is only the possibility of creating this
knight outpost that justifies ... lObd7
rather than ...1Oc6 in the Exchange Slav.
10...exd5 11 ~e5?!
This is a little impatient. 11 %tfdl ~
makes it very difficult for Black to
make any freeing pawn move; White
can then build up in relative leisure.
1l...h6 12 h3 lOxe5 13 dxe5 1Oci7
14 %tfdl l:r.e8 15 e4 d4 16 .tc4 .tcS!
Avoiding 16...dxc3? 17 e6.
17 b4 .txb4 18 l:r.xd4 .tcS 19 l:r.d2
.tb4
With unclear play, Van der Sterren-
Brestian, Hilversum 1993. However,
White's improvement on move 11
would have kept Black under more
pressure.
We now leave the 7 'ifc2 system to
look at the pawn exchange on dS. First
though we make a detour, to consider
the 4 ... ~bd7 variation, which often
transposes.
7.3 4 ~f3 ~bd7:
Transpositions and
After 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ~c3 ~r6 4
~f3 ~bd7 the following position is
reached (D):
w
It would be stretching the bounds of
this book to attempt a full survey of
this system, but players with White
should beware that S .tf4?! dxc4 is re-
puted to be fine for Black: 6 e4?! .tb4
7 'ifc2 bS 8 eS (8 a4?! .i.b7 9 eS .txf3
Sokolov) 8 ... ~dS 9 .i.gS f6 ~ Van
Wely-I.Sokolov, Tilburg 1994; or 6 e3
~b6!? (6 ... ~dS 7 .txc4 ~xf4 8 exf4
.i.e7 9 dS? ~b6 10 .tbS+ ~f8 ~
 Systems with ... c6
Portisch-R.Byrne, Biel IZ 1976, but
Byrne and Mednis note that White
keeps his edge after 9 'iVc2) 7 .i.xc4
~xc4 8 'iVa4+ c6 9 'iVxc4 and now
Byrne and Mednis give 9 ... ~d5 as
equal.
5 "'c2 has also been tried, with
Kasparov-Seirawan, Amsterdam 1996
continuing 5 ... dxc4 6 e4 c5 7 dxc5 (7
d5 exd5 and now Kasparov gives 8
exd5 as unclear, and 8 e5 ~xe5! 9
~xe5 .i.d6 10 "'a4+ with unresolved
complications) 7 ... .i.xc5 8 .i.xc4 a6 9
a4 "fIc7 10 0-0 ~g4 11 h3 ~xf2 (or
1l...~ge5 12 ~xe5 ~xe5 13 .i.e2 0-0
= Kasparov) 12 :lxf2 .i.xf2+ 13 "'xf2
"fIxc4 14 Wg3 f6 15 "'xg7 Wc5+ 16
~hl "'fS 17 "'g4 and White won the
game after 17......f7 18 e5 :lg8 19
"c4 f5 20 .i.g5 ±, though I'll have to
rub my eyes a few more times before I
can believe that White has enough for
the exchange after 17......g8. Earlier,
White could vary with, for example, 9
a3, but it is far from clear that this
brings anything much.
What this is all leading up to is that
White could consider entering a Clas-
sical Exchange Variation with .i.f4 in-
stead of .i.g5. After 5 cxd5 exd5,
White has played 6 .i.f4 several times,
but this leaves Black the option of de-
veloping more actively with 6 ....i.b4
rather than 6 ....i.e7. White can of
course play 6 .i.g5 instead, entering
the main lines of the .i.g5 Exchange
Variation, but if he wants to stick with
the .i.f4 Variation, then 6 'iVc2!? c6 7
.i.f4 (D) could be considered.
7 ....i.e7 8 e3 0-"U9-.i.d3 leads to
standard positions which will be dis-
cussed shortly in Section 7.4. In recent
grandmaster play, Black has attempted
215
B
to inject a bit more life into the posi-
tion by playing 7 ... lDb6 or 7 ... lDh5.
The following key references come
from recent Informators (D35) rather
than from computer databases; thus,
partly for reasons of space, a full sur-
vey is not given. Our coverage divides
as follows:
A: 7 ••• lDb6 215
B: 7•••lDh5 216
A)
7..•lDb6
Black intends to offer the exchange
of dark-squared bishops without wast-
ing a tempo on ... .i.e7, and without
playing such elaborate manoeuvres as
...0-0, ...:le8, ...lDfS, ....i.d6. Even so,
the knight is not well placed on b6,
which gives White a bit of time to
catch up later.
8e3
8 h3 .i.d6 9 .i.xd6 "'xd6 10 e3 'iVe7
(1O....i.e6 11 .i.d3 lDbd7 12 O-O-O!?
0-0-0 13 ~bl ~b8 14 ~al ! :lhe8 15
:lbl :lc8 16 :lhcllDb6 17 b4;!; 1\1k-
makov-l.Ivanov, Ashkhabad 1978) 11
U3lDc4?! (Smagin suggests 1l ....i.e6
intending ...lDc8-d6 as equal, but
maybe White can try 120-0-0 again)
12 .i.xc4 dxc4 130-00-0 14 e4 b5 15
216 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 Af4!
':fel ~ Epishin-Smagin, Russian Ch
(Elista) 1995.
8••.£g4 9 ~ .*.h5 10 h3
10 .*.d3 .*.e7 II.*.g5 .*.g6 12.*.xg6
hxg6 13 0-0 lDfd7 14 .*.xe7 Wxe7 15
lDxd7 Wxd7 16 a4 as = Shabalov-
Kamsky, USA Ch 1993.
10....*.d6
1O.•..*.g6 11 Wb3 (11 .*.d3 .*.xd3 12
=
lDxd3 .*.e7 Ki.Georgiev) I1...a5?!
(weakening and ineffective; I1.. ..*.e7
12 .*.e2 0-0 13 0-0 lDfd7 14 lDxg6
hxg6 is given by Georgiev, without
venturing an assessment - probably
White is a little better after 15 .*.f3,
angling for a well-timed e4) 12 a3 a4
13 WdllDe4 14 .*.e2 .*.d6 15 lDxg6
hxg6 16 lDxe4 dxe4 17 Wc2 f5 18
.ixd6 Wxd6 and now Georgiev gives
19 b4! ±, instead of 19 b3 lDd5 20
bxa4 g5 =as played in Ki.Georgiev-
Piket, Moscow OL 1994.
l1g4
Probably not the most accurate.
White can think in terms of a Pillsbury
Bind after 11 .*.g5!? and if 11 ....*.g6,
12lDxg6~. There is also 11 .*.d3!?
11 ....*.g6 12 1Wb3 'fIe7 13 .*.e2
=
lDfd7 Ki.Georgiev-Smagin, Yugo-
slavia 1995.
B)
7 •••lDh5 (D)
This seems very solid here. Black
gains considerably from not having
committed his bishop to e7.
8.*.13
8 g3 .*.e7 9 h4lDxf4 10 gxf4lDf6
110-0-0 g6 12 e3 1/2- 1/2 Bareev-Kram-
nik, Biel IZ 1993.
8 .*.d2 lDb6 9 e4 (9 h3!? Bareev)
9 ...dxe4 10 lDxe4 .*.e7 =Bareev-Short,
Linares 1992.
8.••g6
8 ....*.e7 9 e3lDxg3 10 hxg3lDf6 11
.*.d3 h6 120-0-0 .*.e6 13 ~bl WaS 14
lDe5lDg4 15lDxg4 .*.xg4 16 f3 .*.e6
17 .*.f5 and White keeps a strong grip
in the centre, Piket-Timman, Wijk aan
Zee rpd (3) 1995.
9 e3lDxg3 10 bxg3 .*.d6
1O....*.g7 11 .*.d3 0-0 120-0-0 %:le8
13 ~bl (13 %:lh4lDfS 14 %:ldhl b6 15
'i1'd2.*.f6 16 %:l4h2 .*.g4 17 ~bl c5 ;
S.Martinovic-Cvetkovic, Yugoslavia
1995) 13 ...lDfS and now Cvetkovic
gives 14lDe2!'? .*.e6 15 lDf4 %:lc8 16
%:lcl b6 as unclear; 17 lDe5 looks criti-
cal. Instead, D.Gurevich-Csom, Hast-
ings 1983/4 continued 14 e4 dxe4 15
lDxe4 .*.e6 16 lDeg5?! (16 1Dc5 =
Csom) 16... .*.d5 17 .*.c4 h6 +.
11 .*.d3lDf6 12 0-0-0 .*.e6 13 ~bl
1We7 14 ~al 0-0.0 15 %:let
Seirawan recommends 15 %:lbl fol-
lowed by %:lhcl, b4, etc., the same plan
as in Thkmakov-Ivanov after 7...lDb6.
IS••. ~b8 16 c!ba4 h5 with equality,
Piket-Seirawan, Amsterdam Donner
mem 1995.
There is still much to be explored
in the 4 ...lDbd7 line. and Black can
make the play more lively than in the
 Systems with ... c6
4 ... i.e7 and ...c6 line. White's edge is
slender, particularly if Black plays
7...tOh5.
If White wants to try something a
little different, then after 5 cxd5 exd5
6 'ifc2 c6, instead of 7 i.g5 or 7 i.f4,
he can try 7 g3!?, not mentioned in
ECO. Since this is a book on i.f4, and
since this book is already much longer
than originally envisaged, I shall not
try to examine this further!
Back to the key position we left ear-
lier.
7.4 The Exchange
Variation, 7 cxd5
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 M ~6 4tOf3 i.e7
5 i.f4 0-0 6 e3 c6 7 cxdS (D)
Naturally, in a system in which
transpositions are rife, this exchange
may take place a move or so later,
most notably after 7 i.d3 tObd7 8
cxd5. The general policy in this book
is to cover recaptur~s with the e-pawn
in this section, and to'cover other re-
captures according to the move-order
in which White initiated the exchange.
It should not be forgotten that in this
217
position too, Black has alternative re-
captures:
A: 7•••lOxdS 217
B: 7•••cxdS 218
C: 7•••exdS 218
A)
7 •••lOxdS does not appear on the da-
tabase, but this is perhaps more to do
with White delaying the pawn ex-
change until move 8, than as the result
of any specific defect in the knight re-
capture.
This capture has been seen where
Black delays castling: S•••c6 6 e3
tObd7 7 cxdS lOxdS (D) and for com-
parison purposes we shall examine
this position.
8 tOxdS exdS 9 a3
Avoiding the irritating check. After
9 i.d3, P6cksteiner-F.Schuh, Austrian
League 1988/9 continued 9 ... i[}f6 10
0-0 i.g4 11 h3 i.h5 12 l:lbl 0-0 13 b4
a6 14 a4 ;t, but Black should of course
have taken the opportunity to play
9 ...i.b4+ 10 lOd2tOf6, with White at
best having a tiny edge. This sort of
possibility might encourage White to
delay cxd5 until he has developed his
bishop, allowing the king a quick
218 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 J.f4!
getaway, for example 7 .i.d3 0-0 8
cxdS tLlxdS 9 tLlxdS exdS 10 0-0 !.
9...tLlf6 10 .i.d3
10 "c2 0-0 transposes into Tis-
dall-0stenstad, Gausdal Eikrem mem
1997 (reached via S...O-O 6 e3 tLlbd7 7
cxdS tLlxdS 8 tLlxdS exdS 9 a3 tLlf6 10
"c2 c6), play continuing 11 .i.d3 .i.g4
12 .i.eS ~h8 13 h3 .i.hS 14 .i.xf6
.*.xf6 IS g4 ~g6 16 ~xg6 hxg6 17
0-0~e7 18 tLles ~d619 f4 gS 20~g2
=. Of course, in the move-order with
an early ...c6 rather than ...0-0, Black
could try lO .....aS+!?
10...~g4 11 h3 ~h5 12 0-0 as!
Stopping the minority attack. In
Crisan-Cifuentes, Amsterdam 1989,
White played 13 "c2 ~xfJ 14 gxfJ,
though there is no particular reason
why this should give White anything.
On other moves, Black is comfortable.
B)
7...adS (D)
w for waiting until Black plays ...tLlbd7
This is perfectly playable, transpos-
ing into one of the main lines of the
Exchange Slav. At first sight, the fact
that White's bad bishop is outside the
pawn chain, while Black's isn't, is a
major plus for White, but in fact Black's
more modestly placed bishop might
be useful in assisting queenside ex-
pansion. For example, Smuk-Zugaj,
Ljubljana 1992 went 5 ~f4 c6 6 cxdS
cxdS 7 e3 a6 (7 ...0-0 leads to the dia-
gram position) 8 .*.d3 tLlc6 9 a3 0-0 10
0-0 bS 11 :cl ~b7 12 tLles :c8 13
"c2 tLlaS 14 fJ tLlc4, reaching Black's
standard queenside formation. White
tried rushing forward on the kingside
with IS g4 h6 16 gS hxgS 17.*.xgS
%S 18 .*.xe7 'ilxe7 19 .i.xc4 dxc4 20
"g2 'ilf6!? 21 tLld7 'ilh6 22 tLlxfB
"xe3+ 23 'ilf2 "g5+ 24 ~hl :xfB
2S :cel tLlf4, but Black had excellent
compensation for the exchange.
It is not being claimed that the
above game is necessarily important;
it just happens to be the only game on
the database with this direct transposi-
tion. AJull theoretical survey of this
line is beyond the scope of this book,
but it is important to recognize that
Black's chances of counterplay are
considerably reduced if he plays
... tLlbd7 instead of ...tLlc6. This pro-
vides White with yet .another reason
before exchanging on dS.
C)
7...exdS (D)
Again it must be emphasized that
most of the examples below were
reached with a different timing of the
pawn exchange.
8~d3
8 ~e2 tLlbd7 9 0-0 a6 10 illeS tLlxeS
11 ~xeS 1/2- 1/2 Umanskaya-Emeste,
Dresden 1993 (actually reached via 7
.*.e2 and 8 0-0) does not advance the-
orymuch.
8...tLlbd7 9 h3
 Systems with ... c6
9 .c2 :e8 10 0-0I? (10 h3 trans-
poses to the main line) 1O... lLlfS 11
:abl and now:
1) ll...aSI2a3lLlh513i.g3lbxg3
14 hxg3 i.d6 IS b4 .e7 16 bS! ±
Browne-Hulak, Wijk aan Zee 1983,
with the idea that if 16...i.xa3, then
White replies 17 lLles i.d6 (17 ...cxb5?
18 lLlxbS; 17...•d6 18 bxc6 bxc6 19
lLlxc6!) 18 bxc6 i.xeS 19 lLlxdS ±
Browne.
2) 11...lLlhs 12 i.eS f6 13 i.g3
i.e614 b4lLlxg3 IS hxg3 i.n 16 bS;!;
Taimanov-Klovans, USSR 1966.
3) ll...lLlg6 12 i.g3 as 13 a3lLlh5
14 b4 lLlxg3 IS hxg3 axb4 16 axb4
i.f6 17 bS ;!; Hemdl-Thomsen, Manila
OL 1992.
The minority attack has more bite
when Black 'wins' bishop for knight
than when there is a straight exchange
of bishops with ...i.d6.
9•••:e810'il'c2
White is now almost obliged to play
aggressively with queenside castling,
as h3 is not a constructive move in
conjunction with~ngside castling.
Black is solid after 10 0-0 lLlfS, for
example:
1) 11:c1 a6 (reached via S...c6 6
e31Obd7 7 h3 0-0 8 :cl a6) 12.c2
219
lLlg6 13 i.h2 i.d6 Ih-Ih Szekely-
A.Petrosian, Erevan 1984. A standard
equalizing plan.
2) IllDeS lLl6d7 12 :bllLlxeS 13
i.xeS lLlg6 14 i.g3 i.d6 = Tunik-
A.Petrosian, Sverdlovsk 1984. The
same basic idea.
10•••lOrs 11 0-0-0
This is probably the most accurate.
1) 11 g4 and now:
la) 11...i.e6 gives White good
chances of an edge after either 12
0-0-0 (see main line) or 12lLlgS i.d6
(12 ...cS!? 13 i.eS h6 14 M {14
lLlxe6!?} 14... lLl6d7 IS 0-0-0 :c8 16
~bl a6 with a finely balanced posi-
tion, Timman-Hubner, Wijk aan Zee
1992) 13lLle2 .as+ 14 ~fl 'il'c7 IS
i.xd6 .xd6 16lLlf4 i.d7 17 a3 :e7
18 b4;!; M.Gurevich-Andersson, Reg-
gio Emilia 1991.
Ib) However, 11...i.d6! 12 i.xd6
.xd6 improves, e.g. 13 gS lLlhS 14
0-0-0 g6! IS lLles lLle6 16 h4lLleg7 =
Bareev-Andersson, Biel 1991, or 13
0-0-0 i.e6 14 ~bl :ac8 IS :cl .b8
16 gSlLl6d7 17 .d2 :c7 18 h4lLlb6
19 .c2 lLlc4 20 lLld2lLld6 =M.Gure-
vich-Andersson, Reggio Emilia 1988/9.
2) After 11 O-O?!, 11...lLlg6 fol-
lowed by ...i.d6 equalizes easily. In-
stead 11...lDe6?! 12 i.eS g6 13 a3
lLlg7 14 b4 i.fS IS :fcl :c8 16 i.xfS
lLlxfS 17 .d3 ;!; was Kozlovskaya-
Skripova, St Petersburg 1996.
3) 11 lLles and now, rather than
11...lLlhS?! 12 i.h2 g6 130-0 lLlg7 ;!;
Lesecq-Caron. Torey 1991, 11...lLlg6
should be safe enough.
11•••i.e6
1l...i.d6 12 .tgS. possibly with e4
to follow. makes it difficult for Black
to untangle his kingside.
220 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
12~bl
12 g4!? ~4 (12 ...l:c8!?) 13 1.xe4
dxe4 14 liJd2 b5 15 ~bl ± Psalchis-
Yusupov, USSR Ch 1981.
12•••:c8
Black gets carved up if he plays
anything remotely slow:
1) 12 ... a6? 13 g4.aS 14liJg5 c5
IS dxc5 1.xc5 16 1.e5 prises open the
kingside, Ornstein-Vilar, Osterskars
1995.
2) 12... aS 13liJg5 b5 14 i.e5 h6 IS
liJxe6 liJxe6 16 g4 a4 17 i.f5 and
White's pawn-storm is much better
backed by pieces than Black's, Korch-
noi-Eslon, Bie11984.
13liJg5!
1) 13 g4 bS 14liJg5 .•b6 15 1.eS
h6 (15 ... g6 16 f4 ± Miles) 16 liJxe6
liJxe6 17 i.f5 liJd7 18 i.xe6 fxe6 19
.g6liJxe5 20 dxeS ;!; Miles-O.Jakob-
sen, Esbjerg 1984. White may be able
to do even better by delaying the
pawn-push and getting pieces into
play more quickly.
2) There is also the quiet positional
approach: 13 l:c1!? c5 14 dxc5 1.xcs
IS .a4 a6 16 l:hdl ;!; Tal-Vooremaa.
Tallinn 1979.
13...b5
Timman gives instead 13 ...i.d7,
continuing 14 i.e5 h6 15 liJf3 cS ;!;,
but 14 g4! keeps more of a grip on the
position; if 14... c5??, IS liJxd5liJxd5
16 i.xh7+.
14 i.e5 h6 15 liJxe6 liJxe6 16 g4
liJd717 h4!
White's kingside attack rolls on
nicely. Tmunan-Karpov, Bugojno 1978
continued 17... b4 18 ~2 1.xb4 19 f4
c5 20 1.a6 i.e7 21 i.xc8 .xc8 22
liJg3 f6 23 l:xh6! llJef8 24 :th3 c4 25
liJfS fxe5 26 fxeS .c6 27 :dhlliJg6
28llJd6 (28liJxg7, Tmunan, is a cleaner
kill) 28 ... llJdf8 29liJxe8 "xe8 30 l:h5
"c6 31 "fS as 32 e6 'ilxe6 33 'ilxd5
a4 34 l:cl, and White mopped up
comfortably enough in the endgame.
It is noteworthy that Black has been
avoiding this variation in grandmaster
play in recent years. For example. in
the 4 ... liJbd7 move-order, attention
has switched to lines involving an
early ...liJb6 or ...liJh5.
7.57.id3
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 liJc3 liJf6 4liJf3 i.e7
5 1.f4 0-0 6 e3 c6 7 i.d3 (D)
B
Simple and unpretentious develop-
ment, though it does raise the question
of whether Black can gain a tempo
with 7 ... dxc4. The main alternative,
7 ... liJbd7, will generally lead straight
to the Exchange Variation, which as
we have seen is promising for White,
but there are also good alternatives.
Our lines are:
A: 7•••dxc4 221
B: 7...liJbd7 222
Before considering these variations,
we may briefly note the possibility
 Systems with ... c6
7...:e8!? 8 h3 (8 cxd5!?) 8...dxc4 9
i.xc400 1Oi.g3?! (100-0) 1O...i.d6
11 i.xd6 'ii'xd6 12 'ii'b3 ~d7-= F.Nau-
mann-M.Esser, Aachen 1988.
A)
7•••dxc4 8 i.xc4 ~bd7 (D)
8... ~d5 9 i.g3 ~7 10 0-0 ~xc3
11 bxc3 b6 and now, rather than 12
'ii'c2?! i.b7 13 i.d3 h6 00 Milla-Sprotte,
Moscow OL 1994, 12 e4! leaves White
with control of the centre.
9h3
1) 9 e4 is no refutation of Black's
choice of move-order: 9... b5 10 i.d3
b4 11 ~a4 i.b7 with a comfortable
Semi-Slav type position for Black,
who will shortly play ...c5, for exam-
ple 12 'ii'c2 h6 13 :cl :c8 with an un-
clear position.
2) 9 :cl (via 7 :c1) 9...~d5 10
i.g3 ~xc3 11 bxc3 b6 120-0 i.b7 13
~5?! (13 e4 ~) 13 ...~xe5 14 i.xe5
i.d6 with equality, Plotnikov-Zuev,
OreI1996._.
3) 90-0 and now:",
3a) 9... ~h5?! 10 i.e5 ~xe5 11
dxe5 and now 11...'ii'xdl 12 :txdl g6
13 g4 ~g7 14 ~ b5 15 i.e2 c5 16
:acl c417 ~4 gave White complete
221
central control in Ye Rongguang-Han-
doko, Beijing 1992. The exchange of
queens is extremely time-consuming,
but Black's position is also bad after
l1...g6 12 'ii'e2 b5 13 i.b3 as 14 a4 b4
15 ~4, A.Hammond-Sage, England
1996.
The developing moves in lines '2'
and '3' both seem quite promising for
White, perhaps more so than the main
text. Black may do best to copy the
Meran formation with 9... b5 followed
by ... a6. In such position it is not nec-
essarily an unmixed blessing for
White to have the bishop outside the
pawn chain. A recent example:
3b) 9... b5 10 i.d3 i.b7 11 :cl a6
12 ~e4 ~xe4 13 i.xe4 :c8 14 ~5
~xe5 15 i.xe5 "d7 followed by ... f6
is equal, P.Novak-Scblecht, Bundes-
liga 1996n.
9•••~dS
1) Black neglected the ... c5 break
in Rubinstein-Sartori, Barmen 1905,
and was soon suffering: 9.....b6?! 10
i.b3 :d8 11 0-0 ~f8 12 'ii'e2 ~g6 13
i.h2 i.d6 14 ~5 ±.
2) Black adopted the Meran for-
mation in A.Moran-Tseleng, Parana
1993: 9... a6 10 0-0 b5 11 i.d3 c5
(l1. ..i.b7) 12 a4 b4 13 ~, but was
getting dangerously behind in devel-
opment. Play continued 13 ... aS?! 14
dxc5 ~xc5 15 ~xc5 i.xc5 16 :cl
i.e7 17 'ii'c2 ±.
3) 9...~b6!? is a perfectly accept-
able alternative; the other knight
swings to d5. 10 i.d3 ~bd5 11 i.e5
~xc312bxc3c5(l2 ...'ii'aSI3"c2h6
14 e4 c5 150-0 i.d7 = R.Siegmund-
F.Holzke, Nettetall991) 130-0 b6 14
~g5 h6 15 i.xf6 i.xf6 16 ~7 :eS =
Skembris-Kofidis, Greek Ch 1994.
222 The "Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
4) 9 ... bS!? 10 .te2 .*.b7 11 a3 a6
=
12 b4 as E.Meduna-Jirovsky, Czech
Ch 1997.
10.*.g3
I) 10 .*.h2 WaS (1O ...bS?! 11 .te2
WaS?! 120-0 lOxc3 13 bxc3 .tb7 14
"'c2 ± Barkhagen-Rylander, Swedish
Ch 1997, is an inappropriate mixture
of plans) and now:
la) 11 :cl?! lO7b612 .tb3 (Black
should be able to get away with
snatching the a-pawn after 12 .td3
lOxc3 13 bxc3 Wxa2 ee) 12....tb4 13
Wc2lOxc3 14 bxc3 .*.a3 IS :dllOds
16 :d3? (16 .*.xdS =) 16... eS! 17 e4
lOxc3 + Steinitz-Chigorin, St Peters-
burg 1896.
Ib) 11 Wc2lO7b6 12.tb3lOxc3
13 bxc3 lOds 14 .txdS 112_1/2 Van
Parreren-Palatkova, Prague 1992.
The bishop is a little more actively
placed on g3 than on h2, provided it is
out of reach of Black's minor pieces,
and Wc2 seems here a more flexible
way of protecting c3 than :cl.
2) Ibragimov gives 10 lOxdS exdS
11 .td3, continuing 11...:e8 12 0-0
lOfS 13 :bl ;t, but Black surely should
grasp the chance to play 11.. ..*.b4+,
taking advantage of White's loss of
tempo with the bishop.
"'c2
10......85 11 bS
1) By analogy with Van Parreren-
Palatkova (' Ib' in the previous note),
Black could also consider 11 ...107b6.
If then 12.*.d3, Ibragimov gives 12...g6
13 Wb3 cS 14 WbS ;t, but 12 ...h6 13
"'b3 lOxc3 14 bxc3 Wa3!? should be
satisfactory for Black.
2) 11...b6 12 0-0 lOxc3 13 Wxc3
=
Wxc3 14 bxc3 .*.b7 Ju.Bolbochan-
Ja.Bolbochan, Mar del Plata 19S1, but
13 bxc3 is more challenging.
3) 11...cS 12 .txdS exdS 130-(
Ibragimov.
12 .*.d3lO7f6?!
Ibragimov notes 12 ... lOb4?!
.txh7+ ~h8 14 "'bl g6 (14 ... fS
.tg6 :f6 16 .*.e8 ±) IS .*.xg6 fxg6
"'xg6 with a strong attack.
The simple 12 ...h6 equalizes.
13'irb3.ta6
13 ... lOxc3 14 bxc3 lOds IS J:I
lOxc3? 16 :xc3 .tb4 17 ~d2
Ibragimov.
14 0-0 b4 15 lOe2! ;t Ibragim(
Vaganian, Berlin 1991.
B)
7 ...lObd7 (D)
w
This would be a good moment j
White to enter the Exchange Variati
with 8 cxdS. We consider the alten
tives here.
80-0
1) 8 lOeS!? is examined under t
move-order 7 lOes lObd7 8 .*.d3,
Section 7.8, Line Al below.
2) 8 h3 is too quiet for White
hope for much; he has already 'sum
dered' the battle of the tempo witt:
.*.d3, so waiting pawn moves shot
generally be avoided.
 Systems with ... c6
2a) S... dxc4 transposes into the
7 ... dxc4line (Line A above).
2b) S... a6 (this and '2c' are less
convincing) 9 cxdS!? (9 0-0 dxc4 10
.i.xc4 bS II .i.d3 cS 12 lLleS .i.b7 =
Bemei-J.Toth, Hungary 1992) 9...exdS
10 0-0 :leS II :lbl ;t Dottling-Schulz-
ke, Lowenstein 1997.
2c) S...:leS 9 0-0 lLlfS 10 cSt? (10
:lcl dxc4 11 .i.xc4 lLldS 12 .i.g3
lLlxc3 13 :lxc3 .i.d6 14 .i.xd6 Wxd6
IS e4 ;t Lempert-Shur, Naberezhnye
Chelny 1993) 1O...1L16d7 11 b4 i.f6?!
( 11.. .lLlg6 fIrst cuts White' s options)
12 e4 (12 i.eS i.xeS 13 lLlxeS ;t
Zatulovskaya-Kozlovskaya, Moscow
1979) 12...eS (otherwise Black suffo-
cates) 13 dxeS lLlxeS 14 .i.xeS lIxeS
IS :lcl (even stronger than taking the
exchange) and Black is in deep trou-
ble, Malaniuk-U.Lau, Dortmund 1993.
8•••1L1bS
Naturally, it is to avoid this that
White sometimes plays S h3. S...dxc4
is still possible, but other lines tend to
leave Black's pieces in contortions:
1) S... b6 91L1eS (9 cxd5!?) 9 ...1L1xeS
10 dxeS (10 .i.xeS ;t) 1O...1L1d7 11
cxdS exdS 121i'hS g6 13 'iff31L1cS 14
i.c2 fS IS :lfdl ;t Kotov-Kasparian,
Parnu 1947.
2) S...h6?! (slow) 9 e4 (White should
probably prepare e4 more gradually)
9 ...dxe4 10 lLlxe41L1xe4 II .i.xe4 lLlf6
12 i.c2 lLlhS? (Black must play for
... cS) 13 .i.eS ± Strikovic-Maas, Haar-
lem 1995.
3) S...:eS can easily transpose into
other headings, after, fOr example, 9
cxdS, 9 Wc2 or 9 h3 (this is '2c' in the
previous note). Also 9 We2!? lLlfS 10
lLleS1Ll6d7 II :ladllLlxeS 12 dxeS ±
Bum-Sterling, Paris 1900; or 9 :lc I
223
lLlfSlOlL1eslLl6d7111L1e2?! (11 e4±)
11...f6 00 Mikuli~ic-Puljek, Croatian
Cht (Tucepi) 1996.
9.i.e5
1) 91L1eslLlxf4 10 exf4 fS 11 cS gS
(11 ...1L1xeS!?) 121L1xd7 i.xd7 13 fxgS
i.xgS 14 f4 .i.f6 IS i.e2 b6 is equal,
Danielian-I.Saric. Leningrad USSR-
Yugoslavia jr 1991.
2) 9 'ifc2 is a more thematic move.
9 ...1L1xf4 10 exf4 dxc4 II .i.xc41L1b6
(ll...cS 12 :adl cxd4 13 lLlxd4 ;t
Dorfman) 12 i.d3 g6 13 a3 lLldS 14
g3 i.d7 IS lLle4 ;t Dorfman-Ivkov,
French Cht 1993.
3) Dorfman notes that 9 cS is less
effective after 9 ...1L1xf4 10 exf4 b6 II
b4 bxcS 12 bxcS WaS followed by
....i.a6.
9••. 1L1xe5
I) 9 ... f6? falls into the thematic
trap 10 lLlgS!, although in one of the
junior games on the database this was
missed.
2) 9 ... fS?! 10 'ifc2lLlhf6?! II cxdS
lLlxeS 12 dxeS lLlxdS 13 .i.c4 ± i.d7
14 :ladl bS IS i.b3 Wb6 16 e4 fxe4
17 Wxe4 :lf4?? Is1L1xdS 1-0 Bogol-
jubow-Rosselli, Baden-Baden 1925.
lOdxe5 g6
1O...dxc4?! II .i.xc4 "xdl 12
:lfxdl g6 131L1e4 ± Vaganian.
ll1i'c2 f6!?
1l...i.d7 12 :lfdl :lcS, and now in-
stead of 13 :lac1?! bS! 14 cxbS cxbS
IS a3 as, Beliavsky-Vaganian, Reggio
Emilia 1991, White should, according
to Beliavsky, play 13 a3 bS 14 cxbS
cxbS IS b4 as 16 'ifb3 ±.
The text-move looks weakening at
fIrst, but there is no effective way to
get at the black king.
12:ladl
224 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 ~f4!
12 e4!? is a try for an edge, for ex-
ample 12... fxe5 13 exdS exd5 14 cxdS,
and if 14... cxd5?!, 15 /t)xd5; or
12...~f4 13 exf6.*.xf6 14 eS .*.g7 15
:lfeI. 12... dxc4!? 13 .*.xc4 f5 00.
12•••fxeS 13lbxeS .td614 f4 .txeS
15 (xeS .*.d7 16 .*.xg6 bxg617 "xg6+-
~g718:lf6
White has compensation for the
piece but is not necessarily better,
Stefansson-Danielian, Buenos Aires
1993.
7.67 flc1
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ~ ~f6 4 ~f3 .te7
5 .tf4 0-0 6 e3 c6 7 :tel (D)
The standard development of the
rook in the .tg5 system makes less of
an impression here. White does not
yet know whether the rook is best
placed at cl, dl or even bI. Still, in an
opening in which waiting moves such
as a3 and h3 are rife, this quiet devel-
oping move can hardly be bad.
7...~bd7
7 ... a6 8 cxd5 (8 cS!?) 8...exd5 9
.td3 ~bd7 10 h3 :le8 11 0-0 ~f8 12
~e5 ~ Hribar-Banic, Ljubljana 1997.
8h3
Yet again, 8 cxd5 is to be consid-
ered. Also:
1) 8 .*.d3 dxc4 9 .*.xc4 ~dS 10
.tg3 (10 O-O!?) 10...WaS 11 0-0 ~xc3
12 :lxc3 (12 bxc3 b6 {12 ... bS!?} 13
We2 .*.b7 14 ~d2 :lfd8 15 a4 ~
Ivkov-Pfleger, Palma de Mallorca
1966) 12 ... bS 13 .tb3 .tb714 'irbl b4
15 :lc4 ~f6 00 Znamenacek-Chmiel,
Karvina 1989.
2) 8 'iVc2 :le8 9 a3 ~f8 10 .tg3
~g6 11 cxd5 exd5 12 .td3 .*.d6 13
0-0.txg3 14 hxg3 'ire7 15 ~2 .*.d7
16 e4 dxe4 17 ~xe4 :lad8 18 :lfel
~xe4 19 .txe4 ~ Nemet-Rukavina,
Portoroz 1971. In this type of varia-
tion, White's h-pawn is better placed
on g3 (after hxg3), from where it cov-
ers f4, than on h3.
8..•~!?
Trying to take advantage of White's
half-heartedness in covering e4. The
usual stodge has also been tried:
1) 8... a6 9 a3 dxc4 10 .txc4 c5 11
0-0 b5 12 .i.a2 .*.b7 13 dS exdS 14
~xd5 /t)xdS IS .*.xd5 .txdS 16 WxdS
~f6 17 'irb7 :le8 18 :lfdl "c8 =
Malaniuk-Emeste, Katowice 1993.
2) 8...:le8 9 .*.h2 ~f8 10 .td3
~g6 11 Wc2 dxc4 12 .txc4 ~5 13
0-0 .tgS? ! (difficult to understand) 14
~xg5 Wxg5 15 ~e4 Wh4 16 .tg3 ±
H.Abramson-A. Villegas, Villa Balles-
ter 1996.
9lbxe4
Striking before the wall is fully
built.
9 .td3 f5 10 'irb3 ~h8 11 .*.e2 g5
12 .*.e5+ ~xe513 ~xe5 'iraS 14 Wc2
.td6 15 0-0 ~xc3 16 'irxc3 Wxc3 17
:lxc3 f4 18 .tg4 ~g7 19 :ldl ~f6 =
Gavrikov-Vaganian, USSR Ch (Mos-
cow) 1988.
 Systems with ... c6
9 •••dxe4 10 ~ .as?!
Decentralizing. 1O... f5 is natural,
with maybe even ... .1g5 to follow. The
position is not yet clear.
11 83 rs 12 .1e2 cS 13 dxeS eS 14
.1h2 l:ldS IS 0-0 .xeS 16 b4 .c7 17
cS Adianto-Irwanto, Genting High-
lands Z 1995. White's pressure on the
queenside counts for more than the
blockage of the bishop on h2.
7.77 h3
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 ~c3lDf6 4 M .1e7
S .1r4 0-0 6 e3 c6 7 h3 (D)
B 12 .1xe5 ~7 13 .1f4 l:le8 14 0-0-0
The reader should not be misled by
the relative brevity of this section. 7 h3
is, in the opinion of the author, the
most accurate of the moves at White's
disposal, planning to meet 7 ... lLlbd7
with 8 'ifc2. The point is, however,
that most games starting with 7 h3
quickly transpose into lines -giVen ear-
lier. Here we consider only the odds
and ends.
7...~bd7
The alternatives seem slightly un-
thematic.
1) 7 ... dxc4?! surrenders the battle
of the tempo too easily. 8 .1xc4 ~5 9
225
.1h2 ~d7? (now Black is a whole
tempo down on 7 ...~bd7 8 .1d3 dxc4,
etc.; 9 ....1d6 10 .1xd6 'ifxd6 11 0-0
~7 12 e4 ~c3 13 bxc3 is better, but
not really satisfactory) 10 0-0 f5 11
l:lc1 ~7f6 12 ~5 and White's advan-
tage is already close to decisive, Seira-
wan-Miolo, Indonesia 1983.
2) 7 ... b6?! is OK against 7 'ifc2,
but not against 7 h3. White plays it as a
...b6 system in which Black has played
an irrelevant ... c6. The plan is cxd5,
.1d3, lLle5, 'iff3, etc. For example, 8
.1d3 (8 ~e5 is more accurate, while
8 cxd5 ~xd5! 9 ~xd5 .xd5, with
....1a6 to follow, is less rewarding)
8 ....1b7?! (8 ....1a6!?; 8 ...dxc4!?) 9
cxd5 exd5 10 ~5lLlbd7 11 .f3lLlxe5
lLlfS 15 h4 .1d6 16 ~2 c5 17 dxc5
bxc5 18 .1c4 ± Lechtynsky-Pfleger,
Bundesliga 199112.
S83
Another tempo move. 8 .1d3, 8:C 1
and 8 .c2 lead to lines already con-
sidered, likewise 8 .1e2 dxc4 9 .1xc4.
8 cxd5 ~xd5 (8 ...exd5 has already
been examined) 9 lLlxd5 exd5 10 a3
h6?! (10...~f6) 11 .1d3 ~f6 12 0-0
.1d613 ~5 'ifc714 'iff3;t Sopanyi-
A.Good, Bratislava U-14 Wch 1993.
S•••b6
For 8 ... a6 9 c5, compare 6 ... a6,
Chapter 8.1.
9 cxdS lLlxd5 10 ~dS exd5 11
.1d3 eS 12 dxeS
12 O-O!? leads back to the 6 ... b6
variation, with White having the extra
tempo a3, but also having played h3.
On the whole, the difference perhaps
modestly favours White.
After the text, the hanging pawns
are defensible.
226 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./4!

12••• bxc5 130-0 'ii'b6 14 b4!? A recent attempt to enliven the p0-
14 "c2 =A.Petrosian. sition.
14•••cxb4 15 axb4 .txb4 16 clOci2 7•••lDbd7 8 .tdllDxeS
tbcs 17 .tel .ta6 18 lba6!? 'ii'xa6 S...dxc4 9lDxc4lDb6 10 lDes cS 11
19 "bl ~ 20 .txh7+ ~h8 dxcS .txcS 12 0-0 lDbdS 13 lDxdS
Lputian-A.Petrosian, Dortmund exdS (13 ...lDxdS 14 .txh7+ ~xh7 IS
1992. Now 21 .tc2, Petrosian, keeps .c2+) 14 l:[cl .td6 IS .tbl with ex-
the position unclear. cellent play against the isolani, Gheor-
ghiu-Rainberg, Moscow OL 1994.
7.8 Odds and ends 9.txeS dxc4
9 ... b6 ~ Tregubov.
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 W ~6 4lDn .te7 10 .txc4 b6 11 0-0 .tb7 12 'iWe2
S.tf4c66e3 .td6
In this rounding-off section we con- 12...cS?! 13 l:[fdl cxd4 14 .txd4 ±;
sider two types of idea: 12...lOd5 13 e4;t Tregubov.
A: 6 •••0-0: Odds and ends for White 13hdllDdS
on move 7 226 13...•e7?! 14 f4 ± Tregubov.
B: Black delays castling 227 14lDe4 .te71S "g4 ~616 "g3;t
Tregubov-Pigusov, St Petersburg 1993.
A) Odds and ends for White on Definitely the most promising of
move 7 the miscellaneous tries.
These are:
AI: 7lDeS!? 226 A2)
A2: 7 a3 226 7 a3 b6 8 .td3 .tb7 (S ....ta6!?) 9
A3: 7 c5 226 0-0 cS (Black has unnecessarily lost a
A4: 7 .te2 227 tempo) 10 .e2 (10 dxcS!?) 10...cxd4
AS: 7 l:[bl 227 11 lDxd4lDbd7 12 cxdS eS 13 lDfS
exf4 14 d6 .txd6 IslDxd6 f3 16 gxf3
A1) lDeS 17 lDxb7 .xd3 18 .xd3 lDxd3
7lDeS!? (D) 19 b4 as 20 bxaS l:[tb8 21 a6 lba6 22
:tdl ± Forintos-Dely, Hungarian Cht
199213.

B A3)
7 c5 and now 7 ...lDbd7 S .td3 h6 9
g4 eS 10 dxeSlDe4 11 .txe4 dxe4 12
lDxe4lDxcS gave Black compensation
for the pawn in A.Juarez-G.Mendez,
Buenos Aires 1993. Black has simpler
ways of handling the position, nota-
bly 7 ... b6 8 b4 as 9 a3 lDhS!? .... In
general, White should wait for ...a6 or
... lDbd7 before playing cS.
 Systems with ... c6
A4)
7 .te2 may of course be answered
by 7...dxc4 8 .txc4, or 7... ~bd7 8 0-0
dxc4, both transposing into the 7 .td3
variation. However, if7 ...~e4, then 8
0-0 ~d7 9 ~xe4 dxe4 10 ~d2 f5 11
h3 (11 f3 g5 12 .tg3 f4 13 .tf2 is also
strong) 11...b6 12 f3 exf3 13 .txf3 ±
R.Antoniowski-G.Kuba, Szombathely
1993.
AS)
7 :lbl ~bd7 8 b4?! (not an inspired
idea) 8...dxc4 9 .txc4 ~b6; N.Moyse-
E.Crea, Bozen 1992, is one of the few
ways White has of getting a poor posi-
tion from this opening.
B) Black delays castling
5•.•c66e3 (D)
.... ........,
6•••~h5
The most important independent
try.
There have been a few games where
Black plays 6...~bd7 without castling,
but these usually involve slow and
passive plans of development. For ex-
ample:
1) 7 h3 is best met by 7...0-0. Oth-
ers:
227
la) 7 ... ~?! 8 ~xe4 dxe4 9 ~2
.tb4 10 a3 .txd2+ 11 "xd2 0-0 12
"c2 f5 13.td6 ± Tarrasch-Von Scheve,
Leipzig 1894.
Ib) 7...~f8 8 c5 ~g6 9 .th2 "as
10 a3 ~4 11 .td3 ~xc3 (11...f5 ±)
12 "d2 ~h4 13 ~xh4 .txh4 14 b4 ±
Tarrasch-Walbrodt, Vienna 1898.
lc) 7 .....aS 8 ~2 0-0 9 .td3 c5
10 ~b3?! (10 O-O~) 10..... b6 11 0-0
cxd4 12 exd4 dxc4 ; Sarosi-Pasztor,
Hungarian Cht 199112. White must
be prepared to recapture on c4 with a
knight.
2) 7 .td3 and then:
2a) 7 ...dxc4 8 .txc4 ~b6 9 .td3
~bd5 10 .tg3 "as 11 "b3 is quite
reasonable for Black, but 11...~b4?
12 .tbl ~fd5 13 0-0 ~xc3 14 "xc3
"b6 15 e4 ± Schlechter-F.Lee, Lon-
don 1899, is a poor follow-up.
2b) 7...~f8 8 ~e5?! (8 cxd5!?
~xd5 9 .tg3 ~) 8...~g6 9 ~xg6 hxg6
= Gunkel-Lilienbeck, Dortmund 1987.
3) 7 :lcl ~5 8 .td3 ~xf4 9 exf4
dxc4 10 .txc4 ~b6 11 .td3 ~5 12
g3 ~xc3 13 bxc3 0-0 14 h4 ~ G.Gold-
berg-Savitsky, Leningrad 1932.
After 6 .....aS 7 ~d2 .tb4 8 "c2
cS, instead of 9 dxcS ~bd7 ~ Sulik-
Planas Garcia, Buenos Aires OL 1939,
9 ~b3 ± leaves White well ahead of
the Nimzo-Indian.
7 .te5~78"c2(D)
8 ~d2 ~xe5 9 "xh5?! (9 dxe5)
9 ...~7 10 .td3 ~f6 with an equal
position, Borsi-Pasztor, Hungarian Cht
199112.
8 h3 ~xe5 9 dxe5 g6 10 Wc2 0-0
(1O.....aS 11 .te2.td7 120-0 b5 =Ye
Rongguang-Li Zunian, Beijing 1995)
11 0-0-0 "as 12 h4 b5 13 cxb5 cxb5
14 .txb5 .tb4 15 ~4 .tb7 16 :ld3
228 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 j"f4!

:'fc8 17 ~bl a6 was unclear in Van 8 •••lOxe5 9 dxe5 g6?!

Wely-Posazhennikov, Vlissingen 1997.
Sharp play, but note that White wasted
a tempo with h2-h3-h4.
Stereotyped.9 ...f5!?
10 0·0·0 .td7 11 h4 (5 12 ext'6
.txt6 13 g4 with a clear advantage for
White, Kallai-A.Schneider, Wiesbaden
1990.

B This was a complicated chapter to

write, with White often having around
seven choices on a particular turn, and
Black having three or four reasonable
replies to each of these. As a result,
theory does not go deep. As in the ... c5
lines, however, White does well to
bear in mind the possibility of queen-
side castling.
8 Miscellaneous Systems
on Moves 5 and 6
8.1 Systems with ... a6
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ~c3 ~6 4 ~f3 i.e7
5 i.f4
Now:
A: 5•••a6 229
B: 5 •••0-06 e3 a6 231
A)
5•••a6 (D)
w 8 e3 0-09 i.d3 c5 10 i.e5 ~6 II 0-0
'"
We start by looking at systems that
do not transpose into 5...0-0 6 e3 a6.
Already from the previous chapter
(Chapter 7), on ... c6, we will be famil-
iar with the idea of Black playing a
string of quiet moves, trying to cover
all his weaknesses and to rearrange his
pieces behind the lines until he is
ready to make some break to free his
position. Plans with ... a6 follow simi-
lar types of idea, but with Black trying
to avoid spending a tempo on ...c6;
sometimes ...dxc4 followed by ... b5 is
a reasonable plan, with Black trying to
get in ...c5 with one move rather than
two.
After 5... a6, quick transpositions to
the 6 ... a6 line usually follow on either
6 c5 0-0 or 6 e3. The exceptions are as
follows:
6e3
6 cxd5 ~xd5 (6... exd5!?) 7 i.g3 (7
i.d2!? - S.lvanov) 7 ...f5?! (an uncon-
vincing way of preventing e4; 7...c5 GO)
~xe5 12 dxe5 ~b4 13 i.e2 "xdl 14
lIfxdl and Black proved to have too
many queenside weaknesses in Burn-
J.Mortimer, Paris 1900.
6 ..•dxc4
6 ... ~5 7 lIcl (7 i.e5!?) 7 ...~f4 8
exf4 0-0 9 i.d3 dxc4 10 i.xc4 b5 11
i.d3 i.b7 120-0 lOd7 13 'it'e2 lIc8 14
lIfdl ~f615 f5 ± Yangel-Stom, Mos-
cow 1997. Yet again, simply taking
White's bishop is no guarantee of
eqUality.
An unconvincing alternative where
Black delays castling is 6...~bd7 7 h3
c6 8 c5 b5 9 i.d3 ~5 10 i.h2 g6 11
g4 ~g7 12 'it'c2 b4 13 ~a4 a5 14
'it'e2 f6 150-0-0 ± Van Wely-Sehner,
Bundesliga 199617 (the sequence of
Black's moves in this game was 5...c6,
6...~bd7 and 7 ... a6).
230 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 51./4!
7.*.xc4
7 a4!? - S.lvanov.
7••• b5 8.*.d3 .*.b7 9 0-0 (D)
Ivanov suggests that 9 "e2 is more
accurate, and if 9 ... lLlbd7 (9 ...c5? 10
dxc5 .*.xcS 11 .*.xbS+) then 10 e4 cS
11 d5!? exd5 12 exd5, when he con-
tinues 12... lLlxd5 13 lLlxd5 .*.xdS 14
0-0-0 with an attack. However, Black
can try 12 ...0-0!, meeting 13 d6?! with
13 ....*.xd6 14 .*.xd6 l:r.e8 15lLle5lLlxe5
(15 ...l:r.e6? 160-0-0) 16 .*.xe5 l:r.xe5
17 .*.xh7+ ~xh7 18 "xe5 "d3 19
l:r.dl "c4 20 "f5+ ~g8 with good at-
tacking chances for Black.
8 (13 ... lLld5? 14 .*.e4 lLl7f6 15 .*.xc7
9 •••lLlbd7!?
Trying to show that delaying cas-
tling is not merely a question of trans-
position of move-order; Black seeks to
play ...c5 painlessly.
9 ... 0-0 tends to favour White: 10
l:r.cllLlbd711 e4c5 (l1...b4?! 121&4
hits c7) 12 e5lLld5 13lLlxd5 .*.xd5 14
.*.bl c4 15 "e2 l:r.c8 16 "e3 and
White's kingside pressure gives him a
slight advantage, Kolesar-P.Kramarik,
Slovakia 1995 (reached via S...dxc4 6
e3 O-O?! 7 .*.xc4 a6, etc.; 6 ... lLlds
would be better in this line); or 10 "e2
c5?! (l0 ...lLlbd7) 11 dxc5 .*.xcS 12
l:r.fdl Wb6 13 a4 b4 14 a5 "a7 15lLla4
± Matamoros-Martinovsky, Ubeda
1996.
10e4!?
10 "e2 c5 = Ivanov.
10...b4
10... c5 11 d5 with an attack for
White - Ivanov.
lllLla4
White is more or less forced to sac-
rifice; 11 e5?! lLlhS 12 lLle2lLlxf4 13
lLlxf4 c5 and Black is slightly better-
Ivanov.
ll...lLlxe4
Ivanov suggests that the simplest
route to safety is 11.. ..*.xe4 12 l:r.c1
.*.xf3 (12 ....*.d6 13 .*.xd6 cxd6 14
.i.xe4lLlxe4 IS "el ;t) 13 "xf3 .i.d6
lLlxc7 16 .*.c6+ +-) 14 .*.xd6 cxd6 15
"g3=.
12 'i'd lLld6 13 lbes lLlxe5
According to Ivanov, 13 ... lLlb5 im-
proves, the main lines being 14 l:r.ac 1
.i.d6 15 lLlc5 lLlxd4 16 "a4 .*.xe5 17
lLlxb7 "f6 18 .i.xe5 "xeS 19lLlc5 c6
00 and 14lLlc6 .*.xc6 15 "xc6lLlxd4
16 "xc7 00. There are other messy
possibilities the reader might like to
explore; I haven't found a clear edge
for White.
14 .i.xe5lLlb5 15 l:r.rel! .i.d6
15...lLlxd4 16 .*.xd4 "xd4 17 l:r.adl
(In/ormator has 17 l:r.ed 1; a rare mis-
print?) 17 .....a7 is given by Ivanov as
unclear, but 18 .i.xh7 should favour
White.
16lLlc5
White has good compensation for
the pawn, S.lvanov-Nikolaev, Russia
1992.
So S... a6 is a possible independent
try for Black, but he must bear in mind
 Miscellaneous Systems on Moves 5 and 6 231

that White can reply 6 cS!?, when 7 ... bS is discussed in connection

6 ...0-0 7 e3 reaches a position dis- with B14.
cussed in Line B 1.
B11)
B) 7.•.tooo (D)
5•••0-06 e3 86 (D)

For the time being Black ignores

Various developing moves have White's queenside advances, and sim-
been tried here, and also the exchange ply develops. The b4-square is now
on dS. However, the most popular covered, however, and ...b6 might fol-
choice has been the gain of space with low without fear of b4.
7 cS. The lines are: 8.i.d3!?
Bl: 7 c5!? 231 1) 8 a3 lOhS?! 9 .i.e2 .i.d7 100-0
B2: 7:ct 234 fS 11 h3 lOxf4 12 exf4 gS 13 fxgS
B3: 7.c2 234 .i.xgS 14 ti'd3 .i.f6 IS :ael ti'e7 16
84: 7 adS 237 .i.dl .g7 17 .i.a4 ± Sarosi-Kasper-
sen, Copenhagen 1988. Not model
B1) play by Black; the exchange of the
7 c5!? bishop on f4 achieves less than noth-
The positional justification for this ing in a Stonewall formation, and the
is that ... b6, usually the thematic reply, knight would be better placed on e4.
is of limited effectiveness, in that 2) 8 h3 and now:
Black is not going to be able to recap- 2a) Black replied with 8 ... b6 9
ture with the a-pawn. However, White cxb6 cxb6 10:c 1 .i.b7 11 .i.d3 .i.d6 =
must be careful not to enter an Ex- in Muse-Ruf, Kecskemet 1990. Those
change Slav a tempo down if he cap- who worry that Exchange Slav posi-
tures on b6. Now Black has: tions are always drawn will take com-
B11: 7 •••~ 231 fort from Black's victory in the game
B12: 7•••b6 232 cited.
B13: 7...~?! 233 2b) However, Black can play more
B14: 7•••00 233 aggressively. Cs.Horvath-I.Sokolov,
232 The Queen s Gambit Declined: 5 1.f41
J
Nildic 1991 showed the correct way
for Black to essay the Stonewall:
S... ~4 9 .i.d3 f5 10 lbe2 (10 .!DeS
.i.d7 II.!Dxd7 'it'xd7 12 f3 .!Dg5 Ih-lh
Servat-Soppe, Buenos Aires 1993)
1O....i.f6 11 .i.h2 .i.d7 12 a3 .i.eS 13
b4 'ire7 14 .i.c2 ~hS 15 lbf4 g5 16
lbd3 f4 17 exf4lbxd4 Islbxd4 .i.xd4
19 0-0 .i.b5 and Black's attack proved
decisive.
Waiting moves are sometimes an
unaffordable luxury; it is simpler to
develop, and to cover e4.
8 .••b6 9 cxb6 cxb6 10 0-0
1) 10 lbe5 is an aggressive gesture,
but in the end it leads only to simplifi-
cation: 10... .i.b7 11 0-0 lbb4 12 .i.bl
lbd7 13 .!Dxd7 'it'xd7 14 a3 lbc6 15
.!Da4.i.dS 16 'it'b3 lbaS 17 'it'b4 'irb5
= G.Jacoby-Kordsachia, 2nd Bundes-
liga 19S3/4.
2) 10 %lcl .i.d7?! (10....i.b7) 11 h3
lba5 12 0-0 lbc4 13 'ire2 b5 14 b3
lbd6 15 .!DeS ± Bogoljubow-Spiel-
mann, Triberg 1921.
10•••.i.b7
Black should have no problems
with this position; he has duly reached
the Exchange Slav a tempo ahead,
White having spent an extra move
with the c-pawn before exchanging.
Admittedly the tempo disappears if
Black plays the thematic ...b5, but
Black's formation is still satisfactory.
Practical experience from this posi-
tion:
1) 11 h3lbb4?! (11...b5!?; 11...:CS)
12 .i.bl %lcS 13 .!Dd2lbc6 14 .i.g5 ;!;
Petrosian-Pietzsch, Varna OL 1962,
but White's edge is solely due to
Black's loss of time.
2) 11 a3 h6?! (why? 11. .. %lc8!?;
l1...b5!?) 12 %lcl.i.d6 13 .i.xd6 'it'xd6
14 b4 b5 15lbe2 %lacS 16.!Df4 e5 17
%lxc6 'it'xc6 IS dxe5lDe4 19lDd4 'it'c3
20 'irg4 with an imposing attack,
E.Kovacs-l.Kadlicsko, Hungarian Cht
1993/4.
Black must be careful to avoid be-
ing psyched out by symmetricality.
812)
7 ...b6(D)
Another principled move, with
White achieving nothing after S cxb6
cxb6 (see above). Black's only poten-
tial worry is an immediate h4.
8 b4lbe4
1) Black gains nothing by tempo-
rizing with S... .i.b7?! 9 .i.d3 a5 10 a3
lbe4 11 .!Db5 lba6 12 cxb6 cxb6 13
bxaS bw 140-0 and White is slightly
better, G.TItov-AHashim, Manila OL
1992.
2) S... lbc6!? seems a valid try, for
example 9 %lbl bxc5 10 bxc5lbe4 11
lbxe4 dxe4 12 lbd2 f5 13 h4.i.f6 14
lbc4 'ire7 15 h5 %ldS 16 'ircl e5 17
dxe5lbxe5 ISlbxe5 .i.xe5 19 .i.c4+
~f8 20 h6 g6 21 .i.xe5 .xe5 220-0
~e7 23 .a3 .i.e6 24 .i.xe6 ~xe6 25
%lb7 ~ and play continues to be sharp
even as the endgame approaches,
 Miscellaneous Systems on Moves 5 and 6
A.Rustem-S.Begun, Belarussian Ch
(Minsk) 1994.
9 ~e4 dxe4 10 tiJd2 .i.b7
1O... fS 11 Wb3 l&6 12 .i.c4 Wd7
13 ':dl gS 14 .i.g3 bS IS .i.e2 f4 16
lLixe4 fxg3 17 bxg3 .dS 18 .bl ':17
19 .i.f3 .fS 20 g4 .g6 21 lLixgS
.xbl 22 ':xbl .i.xgS 23 .i.xc6 picks
up a third pawn for the piece and keeps
a promising position, A.Serebrjanik-
Veinger, Rishon Ie Zion 1992.
11 Wc2 f5 12 .i.c4?!
Preparing to exchange the good
bishop for a bad bishop, not generally
advisable. White has several tries for
an advantage: 12 .i.e2!?; 12 a3!? (in-
tending cxb6); 12l&4!?, etc.
12•••.i.dS 13 .i.xdS exd5 14 lLib3
lLic6 15 a3 b5 16 0-0 .i.f6 lb._lIz Ham-
ann-Hvenekilde, Danish Ch (Aalborg)
1965.
813)
7".lLihS?! (D)
The main effect of this is to increase
White's grip on e5.
8 .i.d3 lLixf4 9 exf4 lLIc6
9... f5 10 0-0 lLic6 II ':el .i.f6 12
.i.c2tile7 13 .d2 with a lifeless posi-
tion for Black, Gosti~a- Vebif, Kladovo
233
1990. The next few moves were pain-
ful: 13 ... lLig6 14 g3lLih8 15 h4lLi17 16
lLigS ±.
10a3f5
1O... aS 11 ':cl b6 12 cxb6 cxb6 13
lLia4.i.d7 140-0 g6 15 .i.b5 tile5 16
.i.xd7 lLixd7 17 .b3 ± Lechtynsky-
Kiss, Linz 1993. Black's light squares
on the queenside are weak.
11 h4 .i.f6 12 lLie2 .i.d7 13 ':c1
'fIe7 14 hSlLid8 15lL1e5 .i.b5 16 Wb3
.i.xe5 17 fxe5 WgS 18 g3 lLic6 19 14
lLixd4
Otherwise Black loses a pawn.
20 Wb4 ~e2 21 fxg5 +- Kaspar-
ov-Speelman, Moscow rpd 1995.
814)
7".c6(D)
'Thus far and no farther.' Black
tried a similar philosophy in V.Bukal
jr-Keglevif, Croatian Cht (Tucepi)
1996, but after 7...bS 8 b4 c6 9 a4.i.b7
10 'ii'b3lLie4 11 axbS cxbS 12.i.xb8
.xb8 13 .i.d3 .i.c6 14 0-0 .i.d8 15
.i.xe4 dxe4 16 lLieS .b7 17 lLixc6
.xc6 18 d5 Black's queenside was
leaking seriously.
8.i.d3
8 h3lLibd7 9 .i.d3 ':e8 10 0-0 .i.xc5
11 dxcS e5 12 lLixeS lLixeS 13 .i.c2
lLifd7 14 e4 lLixc5 15 exdS lLig6 16
.i.g3 ± I.Sokolov-Markos, K~ge 1997.
The move order in this game was
S...c6 6 e3lLibd7 7 h3 a68 c5 0-0.
8".lLibd7 9 b4
9 0-0 lLih5 10 ':el lLixf4 11 exf4
.i.f6 12 .c2 g6 13 b4 .i.g7 14 ':abl
.c7 15 g3 f6 16 h4 f5 17lLia4 with a
clear advantage for White, V.Ragozin-
Goglidze, Moscow 1935 .
9...':e8 10 0-0 .i.f8 11 "'a4 bS 12
Wb3 lLih5 13 a4 lLixl4 14 exf4 bxa4
234 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i.f4!
15 llxa4 ± Belamaric - Bazaj-Bockai,
Croatian Cht (Makarska) 1995.
The impression is that 7 ...llk6 is
the only good reply to 7 cS (except
perhaps for 7... b6 8 b4li)c6), but that
it is good enough to equalize. White
must look for something different.
82)
7 l:ct (D)
B 10l:xdl~xcS
7•••dxc4
7 ...c6 transposes to the ... c6 line.
7 ...li)bd7?! 8ll)eS c6 9 ~d3 l:e81O
0-0 ± Schlechter-Showalter, London
1899.
8~xc4cS
S... bS 9 ~d3 ~b7 10 a4!? b4 11
li)bl ~d6 12 ~g3 li)bd7 13 li)bd2
l:eS 14llk4li)f8 15 li)aS ± Van der
Sterren-Hort, Bern 1993. This illus-
trates one of the potential perils of an
early ...bS; if a4 by White forces the
pawn to advance, a lot of weak squares
are created.
9dxcS
Yet another central pawn clearance
and queen exchange.
90-0 is effective after 9...bS 10 ~e2
c4?! 11 li)eS ~b7 12 ~f3 /Ods 13
~xdS!? ~xdS 14 "g4 ~f6 IS l:fd1
~e7 16 e4 ± Blackburne-Burille, New
York 1899, but the more modem plan
of9 ...cxd41Oexd4bS 11 ~d3~b712
l:e1 ~b413 ~gS li)bd7 14 We2 Wb6
= Ghinda-Ciocaltea, Baile Herculane
1982, is satisfactory for Black.
9.....xdl+
The 'gain' of tempo with 9 ...~xcS
10 "xd8 l:xd8 is illusory, since the
rook soon becomes a target. 11 ~e2
ll)c6 12ll)a4 ~a7 13 ~c7 l:e8 (13 ...bS
14 ~b3 ±) 14li)b6 ± Van der Vliet-
Bartels, Netherlands tt 1996.
With yet another transposition to
the Malaniuk-Arlandi game given in
Chapter 4.4, Line All, where White
has llli)eS! li)bd7 12 ~e2;t.
White is certainly squeezing more
out of this than out of the 7 cS varia-
tions.
83)
7"c2(D)
B
White makes sure the queens stay
on the board. Most of the positions
that follow may also be reached via
6 ...li)bd7 7 Wc2 a6, or 6 ...li)bd7 7 "c2
dxc4 8 ~xc4 a6. Black can try:
 Miscellaneous Systems on Moves 5 and 6 235

B31: 7•••llk6 235 Wb2 i.c6 15 dxc5 ~xc5 16 0-0 ~6

B32: 7•••cS 235 =; White's a-pawn is just as weak as
B33: 7•••M 235 Black's d-pawn. Preparing to besiege
B34: 7•••lLlbd7 235 the hanging pawns with 10 0-0 ~bd7
B35: 7•••dxc4 236 11 :acl c5 12 dxc5 is more appropri-
ate.
831)
7•..llk6 834)
An independent possibility, but un- 7••• ~bd7(D)
convincing.
8 a3 i.d7 9 h3 i.e8 10 i.d3 dxc4
11 i.xc4 h6 12 0-0 i.d6
Black's manoeuvring behind the
lines has not been smooth. Fiorito-
Soppe, San Martin 1994 went 13
i.e5?! lLld7 14 i.xd6 GO, but White
should simply have completed devel-
opment with 13 :adl i.xf4 14 exf4 ±
with another Rubinstein Bind.

832)
7•••cS
This is a ...c5 Main Line, with ...a6
having been played unnecessarily
early.
8 dxc5 .as
9 i.d6!?
9 a3
9••.i.xcS 10 0-0-0
This can lead directly back to the
New Main Line. There must surely be
a case too for trying to take advantage
of the omission of ...lbc6, with for ex-
ample 10 lLlci2 ;to
10•••dxc411 i.xc4 ~c6
As played i\l the Yepez-Pau game
cited in Chaptel3.5. 12 ~g5 is the rec-
ommended move.
833)
7 ••• b6 8 i.e2 i.b7 9 cxdS exdS
In Y.Rahman-Elsayed, Tanta 1997,
White now played 10 a3 ~bd7 11
b4?! c5 12 bxc5 bxc5 13 :bl Wc8 14
8 adS
A simple and very natural move,
but there are several alternatives.
1) It is surprising that 8 c5 is not
tried more often. In A.Hoffman-Varela,
VIlla Ballester 1996, Black could find
nothing better than the truly miserable
8 ...~b8?, leaving White two clear
tempi ahead of the 7 c5 line. After 9
i.d3 ~c6 10 a3 h6 11 h3 lLld7 12 b4
Black was soon overrun. Stonewalling
with 8 ... ~5 and ... f5 is much too slow,
given Black's inability to shift a piece
to e4 quickly. This leaves 8...c6, when
9 h3 would transpose into the Shul-
man-Lyrberg game given in Chapter
7.1, Line A3. White can of course sub-
stitute a developing move, possibly 9
i.e2 b6 10 cxb6 Wxb6 11 0-0 ;to
2) 8 O-O-O!? is an untried sugges-
tion of Gelfand's.
236 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i/4!
3) A few years after making this
aggressive suggestion, Gelfand played
the more restrained 8 a3 in Gelfand-
Nogueiras, Biel IZ 1993, play con-
tinuing 8 ... dxc4! 9 .i.xc4 bS 10 .i.a2
cS II :dl (11 dS exdS 12lLlxdS is ac-
ceptably met by either 12 ... lLlxdS
Gelfand, or 12....i.b7 Nogueiras) 11...c4
12 e4 .i.b7 13 .i.bl g6 14 0-0 .b6
with unclear play. White now over-
pressed with 15 dS? exdS 16 eS lLlhS
17 .i.h6 d4!, running into a strong ex-
change sacrifice.
4) 8 :dl would transpose into the
... c6 system after S...c6. Alternatively,
8 ... b6?! 9 cxd5 exd5 10 lLles .i.b7 11
.i.e2 ± Gelfand, or S...h6 9 a3 dxc4 10
.i.xc4 bS 11 .i.a2 c6 12 e4 :eS 13
.i.bllLli8 14lLleS ± S.Ivanov-Talanin,
Kstovo 1994.
8•••exdS 9 .i.d3
Good enough for an edge, but the
uncompromising 9 0-0-0 may also be
considered. 9...cS is probably the best
reply, but 0stenstad-Mirza, Novi Sad
OL 1990 continued 9 ...bS?! 10 lLles
.i.b7 11 .i.d3 :c8 12 lLlxd7lLlxd7 13
.i.xh7+ *hS 14 .i.fS ±.
9•••cS 10 lLles
1) 10 g4 c4 11 .i.fS? (11 .i.e2 ;!;
Hort) 11...g6 12 .i.xd7 .i.xd7 13lLleS
lLlxg4! 14lLlxdS .i.h4 150-0 .i.e6 16
lLlxg4?! (16 e4 00 Hort) 16...•xdS =+=
McCambridge-Hort, Dortmund 1982.
2) 10 dxc5!? lLlxcs 11 0-0.i.e6 12
lLld4 :cS 13 .i.fS bS 14 a3 .b615 b4!
is also good for White, Porper-Lelchuk,
Groningen 1995 (and if IS ... lLlce4, 16
lLlxdS!).
10•••:e8 11 0-0 lOf8 12l:adl .i.d6
13 .i.gS c4 14 .i.e2 .i.xeS 15 dxeS
:XeS 16 f4 .i.f5 17 Wet :e818lLlxdS
± Kishnev-Steinbacher, Bern 1992.
No doubt Black's defensive play in
this game could have been improved,
but this does not change the general
verdict that White, not surprisingly,
has several ways to achieve a slight
edge after 7...lLlbd7.
835)
7 •••dxc4 8 .i.xc4 (D)
B
8...lbbd7
8...bS 9 .i.d3 (9 .i.e2!?) 9 ....i.b7 10
0-0 lLlbd7 11 :fdl, and now Korch-
noi-Short, Monaco rpd 1993 contin-
ued 11...l:cS? 12lLleS 'ire8 13lLle4 ±.
A touch of quickplayitis perhaps?
11 ....i.xf3 12 gxf3 lbhs is much more
challenging, and a good reason for
White to have retreated his bishop to
e2. After 13 .i.xh7+ *hS, 14.i.e4lbxf4
IS .i.xa8? (15 exf4 00) IS ...lbh3+ 16
*g2 .xa8 17 *xh3 'irxf3# would
have been a particularly humiliating
finish. Of course this mating line can
be avoided, but if 14 .i.eS, Black has
good compensation for the pawn after
14... fS 15 .i.g6 .i.d6, e.g. 16 .i.xhS
.gS+ 17 *hl .xhS IS f4lLlf6.
90-0
1) 9 .i.e2!? sets the positional trap
9...bS? 10 a4 b4 I1lLle4lbds 12 :cl
 Miscellaneous Systems on Moves 5 and 6
~xf4 13 exf4 i.b7 14 0-0 ± Mai-
wald-Danielian, Vejen jr Ech 1993.
Black should reply 9 ...c5!? 10 dxc5
~xc5 lU[dl WaS.
2) 9:ctl and now:
2a) 9 ... i.d6 10 i.e5?! (10 0-0 1)
10.. :.e7 11 0-0 b5 12 i.d3 i.b7 ; 13
a3 i.xf3 wins a pawn, R.David-Malich,
2nd Bundesliga 199516.
2b) 9 ... b5 10 i.d3 (10 i.e2!?)
1O...i.b7 11 ~g5 h6 12 ~ge4 ~5 13
i.g3 f5 14 i.e2 ~xg3 15 ~xg3 b4 16
'IIb3 ~h8 GO Sturua-Danielian, Prot-
vino 1993.
9••• b5 10 i.e2 i.b7 11 :fdl We8
12c!M2c5
12...:teS!?
13 dxc5 ~c5 14 b4 lOcd7 15 a3
:c8 16 Wd3 ~b6 17 :ad :d8 18
f t l :d7 19 e4 1 Gavrilov-Moroze-
vich, Russian Ch (Orel) 1992.
This is quite characteristic of the
i.f4 system; White keeps an edge in
piece mobility in a position with a
symmetrical pawn structure.
84)
7 adS (D)
Solid enough, but it makes sense to
insert 7 'IIc2 first.
237
7•••~dS
7 ...exd5 and now:
1) 8 i.d3 ~bd7 90-0 :eS 1O:tel
~f8 11 'IIb3 (11 ~e5 i.d6 12 i.g3
c5 13 i.bI 112- 112 Lechtynsky-Mozny,
Prague 1985) 11...~e6 12 i.e5 c6 13
h3 i.d6 14 ~4 and White has a slight
advantage, Lugovoi-Margolin, Kstovo
1994.
2) 8 h3 i.f5 9 i.d3 i.xd3 10 'IIxd3
i.d6 11 i.xd6 'IIxd6 12 0-0 ~bd7
112-117. Naumkin-Dydyshko, St Peters-
burg 1992, was presumably a 'Russian
draw'.
8~dSWxdS
8 ...exd5 9 a3 c5 10 dxc5 i.xc5
transposes to the ...c5 Exchange Varia-
tion (6...c5 7 dxc5 i.xc5 S cxd5 ~xdS
9 ~xd5 exdS 10 a3), but with Black
having played the unusuall0 ... a6. 11
i.d3, threatening i.xh7+, should give
White a slight edge, but in Knefevic-
McCambridge, Neskaupsstadur 1984,
White was content with an early hand-
shake after 11 :cl i.b6 12 .i.e2 ~6
130-0 :e8, etc.
9 i.xc7 i.b4+ 10 ~2 i.d7 11 a3
:c8
Black seems to have adequate com-
pensation for the pawn, for example
12 i.xb8 i.xd2+ 13 "xd2 :axb8 14
f3 e5! Agzamov-Sr.Cvetkovic, Bel-
grade 1982, or 12 i.g3 i.xd2+ 13
'IIxd2 i.a4 14 :cl ~d7. Black's
chances are clearly better than in the
similar but unexplored line with 6 ...b6
7 cxd5 ~xd5 8 ~xd5 'IIxd5 9 i.xc7,
in that no weakness has been created
along the long diagonal.
White's best chances for an edge in
the 6 ...a6 line are with the continua-
tion 7"c2.
238 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./41

option of recapturing on c5 with the

8.2 6...lLlbd7: Lines not knight, leaving the bishop on its best
already examined defensive square. In comparison with
5 ... c5 6 dxc5lDa6 7 cxd5 exd5 8 e3.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 M lM64lDfJ ~e7 White has committed his queen to c2 a
5 ~f4 0-0 6 e3lDbd7 (D) little too early. Other moves:
1) 7 ...b6? leads to disaster on c7: 8
cxd5 exd5 9 lDb5 ~b4+ (9 ...c5 10
~c7 "e8 IIlDd6 wins the exchange)
w 10 ~dl ~b7 (1O...c5 II ~c7 again
picks up the exchange) II a3 ~e7 12
~xc7 Alvarez-Bello, San Sebastian
1994.
2) 7 ...dxc4 8 ~xc4 and now:
2a) 8 ...lDb69~b3lDbd510lDxd5
lDxd5 11 0-0 (offering the Rubinstein
Bind is unnecessary here, as the
straightforward II -*.g3, with e4 in
mind, keeps White in control in the
Generally Black will play an early centre) 11...lDxf4 12 exf4 b6 13 :adl
... c6 or ... a6 here, leading to lines con- ~b7 14 lDe5 -*.d6 15 g3 g6 16 :fel
sidered elsewhere. This section con- l:cS 17 h4 c5 IslDxf7 ~xf7 19 -*.xe6+
siders the independent alternatives ~g7 20 "c3 "f6 was Zaichik-Az-
after the following moves: maiparashvili, Tbilisi 1979. ECO ends
A:71i'c2 238 the game sequence here with an enig-
B: 7 cS 240 matic 'with compensation for the ma-
C: 7 adS 241 terial' symbol, without making it clear
D: 7 h3 242 who is supposed to be down in mate-
E: 7 ~d3 243 rial after 21 ~xc8 or the possibly
F: 7 a3 244 stronger 21 dxc5.
G: 7:c1 244 2b) S... c5 9 dxc5 -*.xc5 is uncon-
vincing, if only because it leaves
A) White a tempo ahead of 6 ... c5 7 dxc5
71i'c2 ~xc5 S -*.e2 dxc4. See Chapter 5.2,
This is the most common and trans- Line A52. White's most dangerous
positional of all the possibilities, and plan would probably be 10 :dl, and if
is well suited to give an edge against 10...We7, 11 a3 (threateningb4) 11...a5
either 7 ... c6 (Chapter 7.1) or 7 ... a6 12 -*.a2, etc. Instead, after 100-0 "e7
(Chapter 8.1). II e4 e5 12 -*.g5lDb6 Black is back in
7••.cS!? the game, Kramnik-Andersson, Monte
This is an interesting defensive try Carlo blindfold 1997.
for Black. In comparison with the Returning to the position after
6 ... c5 variations, Black has the added 7...c5 (D):
 Miscellaneous Systems on Moves 5 and 6
Scb:eS
Or 8 cxdS:
I) 8...exdS 9.i.e2 a6 10 dxcS ~cS
II 0-0.i.g4 12 ~4 ~ 13 .i.e5 .i.xe2
14 "xe2 1017 IS .i.g3?! (1S ~xe6
fxe6 16 .i.g3 ;1;) IS ... ~xd4 16 exd4
~f6 17 'Wf3 .i.b4 = Parker-H.Hunt,
British Ch 1993.
2) 8 ... cxd4!? and now 9 exd4
~xd5 10 ~xdS exdS II .i.e2 ~f6 12
=
0-0 .i.g4 13 'iVb3 .b6 was Kaida-
nov-Campora, Tilburg 1993. At flI'St
glance 9 d6100ks strong, but 9 ...dxc3
10 dxe7 .xe7 11 bxc3 (11 .xc3lO1s
=) 11...eS 12 .i.gS ~S gives Black a
very solid, perhaps even advanta-
geous, position.
8•••lDxeS 9 .i.e2
White can probably do better than
this.
I) 9 a3 .i.d7 10 .i.e2 dxc4 II .i.xc4
:c8 12 0-0 ~a4? (an over-elaborate
continuation; 12... a6 keeps a perfectly
.i.e8 IS :fdl .as
playable game) 13 ~xa4 bS 14 ~S
16 b4 'l'xa4 17
.xa4 bxa4 18 .i.a6 with a distinct ad-
vantage for White, S.lvanov-Grabar-
czyk, Lubniewice 1995.
2) At the risk of being accused,
jocularly or otherwise, of advocating
queenside castling as the universal
239
panacea, I draw attention to the possi-
bility of 9 O-O-O!? After 9 ...•aS:
2a) 10 1012 .i.d7 II g4! ~xg4 12
cxdS bS (12...~xf2?? 13 ~4) 13
:gl!? with the sort of messy and
double-edged position we saw in
Chapter 3. With a mixture of relief and
regret, at this stage of the book, I leave
it to the reader to analyse.
2b) Indeed, as I make the final cor-
rections to this book, I note that 10
~gS!? has appeared in practice:
2bl) 1O... g6?! II h4 bS 12 cxbS
~hS 13 .i.e2 ~xf4 14 exf4 .i.b7 IS
c,tbl .i.f6 16 hS .i.xc3 17 hxg6 hxg6
18 bxc3 ~e4 (18 ...~a4 19 :h3 :fc8
20 :dhl ~xc3+ 21 c,tal {21 'iVxc3??
.xc3 and h8 is covered by the queen}
21...c,tfS 22 ~xr7 c,txr7 23 :h7+ c,tf6
{23 ...c,tfS 24 :xb7 +-} 24.xg6+!
c,txg6 2S .i.d3+ ~e4 26 :lh6+ c,tfS
27 :r7+ c,tg4 28 .i.e2# would have
been a far more memorable finish) 19
~xe4 dxe4 20 'W'b2 eS 21 c4 :re8 22
fxeS 1-0 Notkin-Shur, Moscow Ch
1997.
2b2) 1O...h6 seems critical; then
perhaps II h4 hxgS 12 hxgS ~fe4 13
f3. Now 13 ...f6 may be met by 14 fxe4
fxgS IS .i.eS dxe4 16 c,tbl! and the
broken kingside pawns are more im-
portant than Black's temporary extra
pawn, e.g. 16...00 17 .i.g3 or 16...:t5
17 .i.d4 eS 18 lOIs .d8 19 .i.xc5
.i.xcs 20 g4 followed by 21 'iVxe4.
13 ....i.xgS! gives unclear play though.
9•••cb:c4 10 .i.xc4 86 11 84 b6
11....i.d7 120-0"aS 13 :fdl :fd8
14.i.fl .i.e8 with equality, Mirall~s­
Spassky, French Ch 1991.
1Z 0-0 .i.b7 13 'iVe2 'iVe8 14 :fdl
'iVc6 with equality, Stohl-Gavrilov,
Pardubice 1995.
240 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 j"f4!
B)
7 c5 (D)
With the disadvantage for White,
when compared with 6... a6 7 cS, that
Black has not played the weakening
...a6, but with the advantage that Black
no longer has ...ltX6. This is one of the
few variations where relatively little,
apart from a few analytical correc-
tions, needs to be added to ECO.
7..•c6
1) 7 ...b6 8 b4 (but not 8 c6?! lt1b8 9
lt1eSlt1e4 10 lt1xe4 dxe4 11 .i.c4.i.b4+
12 <i>f1 .i.d6 13 dS 'ile7 =+= Portisch-
Forintos, Hungarian Ch 1965) 8... as 9
a3 bxc5 10 bxc5 ~ 11 .i.d3 ;!; ECO.
2) 7...~!? and then:
2a) 8 'ilc2 g5 9 j,g3 f5 10 h3·
lt1xg3 11 fxg3 and now:
2al) 11...lt1f6 12 .i.d3 lt1e4 13 g4
lt1g314:h2(14:gl!?;!;ECO) 14...c6
ISlt1e2'i1aS+ 16~f2~ 17~gl;!;
Forintos-Csom, Hungary 1969.
2a2) ll...b6!, not mentioned by
ECO, is promising. If 12 b4, Black has
the choice between the enterprising
piece sacrifice 12...a5 13 c6 axb4 14
cxd7 .i.xd7 15 lt1dl :a3 co, and the
simple and safe 12...bxcS 13 bxc5 c6,
with ideas of ...e5 at some stage.
2b) 8 lt1xe4 dxe4 9 lt1d2 is a better
option for White.
3) 7 ...lt1hS 8 .i.d3 lt1xf4 (8 ... g6 9
0-0 c6 10 b4 b6 11 .i.h6 l:le8 12 e4
'ilc7 13 :el ± Portisch-Donner, Halle
1963; 8... c6 leads back to the main
line) 9 exf4 b610b4j,b7 11 0-0c612
'ilc2 g6 13 g3;!; Llanos-Cordero, Bue-
nos Aires 1993.
8.i.d3~
1) 8 ...l:le8 and then not 9 h3?
.i.xc5! 10 dxc5 e5 ; Steinitz-Napier,
New York 1897, but 9 j,g3 j,fS 10
O-O;!;ECO.
2) 8...b6 9 b4 bxcS 10 bxcS 'ilaS 11
'ild2 ;!; .i.a6? 121t1xd5! won a pawn in
Antoshin-Uusi, Moscow 1967.
9 ()..O
This by now should be a familiar
idea to readers of this book. Whether
or not it is historically 100% correct to
talk of a 'Rubinstein Bind' (and Janow-
sky at least partially anticipated the
concept against Pillsbury at Hastings
1895), Steinitz was apparently unfa-
miliar with the idea Steinitz-Chigorin,
Nuremberg 1896 continued 9 j,e5?!
f6?! 10 .i.g3?! f5?! 111t1g5 lt1df6 12
.i.eS ;!;. This sequence passes without
comment in ECO, but there is much
that is open to question. 10 lt1g5!, an
obvious continuation of the attack, is
not even given as a possibility, and yet
it poses Black some difficult ques-
tions. The attack is extremely strong
after 1O... fxe5 11 'ilxh5! (11 .i.xh7+?
~h8 12 'ilh5 j,xgS) 11...j,xgS (or
11...lt1f6 12 .i.xh7+ ~h8 12 'ilh4) 12
'ilxh7+ ~f7 13 j,g6+ ~f6 14 .i.h5
.i.h6 IS g4! with the idea of g5+.
White's attack does not win outright,
as I had first assumed, as Nunn points
out the idea of 15 ...~e7 16 g5 :h8 16
 Miscellaneous Systems on Moves 5 and 6 241

Wg6 WfB. White is about to regain his 9 ... tLlxf4 10 exf4 b6 11 b4 bxc5 12
material though, and ought to have ex- bxcs Wa5 13 Wc2 g6 14 :fel .i.f6 15
cellent prospects of keeping a substan- tLles ;!; Kne!evic-D.Jano§evic, Vdac
tial positional advantage. For example, 1977.
one line suggested by Nunn, 17 :gl!? 10b4!
exd4 18 exd4 ~d8 19 gxh6 :xh6 20 10 h3 ~6 11 ~s tLlxes 12.i.xes
Wgs+ ~f6, claimed as only a slight ~7 13 .i.h2 es 14 dxes tLlxcs 15 .i.c2
advantage for White, actually looks ~4 = Chistiakov-Neishtadt, USSR
extremely difficult for Black to hold 1956.
after 21 .i.e2. It is the type of position 10...8611 84
that French Defence players have 11 h3!?;!; Gulko.
nightmares about; bad bishop, weak 11••• h612 b5
dark squares, backward development, 12 ~es ;!; Gulko.
and open kingside lines for White. 12...axb5
1O...We8! (Burgess) is the one real- 12... gs? 13 bxc6 bxc6 14 ~es ±
istic attempt to hold the balance, or Gulko.
prove that White has over-pressed. 13 axb5 :0114 1Wxal gS 15 bxc6
After 11 .i.xh7+ ~h8 12 Wc2 fs ~xcS
(12 ... fxes? 13 .i.g6 Wd8 14 ~xe6; Is ... bxc6 16 .i.d6 .i.xd6 17 cxd6
12... fxgs 13 .i.g6 Wd8 14 .i.xh5 ±), tLldf6 18 Wa3 ~e8 19 ~5 Wxd6 20
the critical move is 13 ~xe6!, based 'ii'cs! ± Gulko.
on the tactical theme that if 13 ... tLlxe5 16 c7 1We8 17 .i.b5 .i.d7 18 .i.e5 ±
14 tLlxf8 .i.xfB 15 dxe5 ~xh7 16 g4! Gulko-Lautier, Dos Hermanas 1994.
the black knight is trapped. After Maybe this is White's most promis-
13 ...~xh714tLlxfB+tLlxfBI5~2the ing try against 6 ... tLlbd7.
position is unbalanced, with White
having rook and two pawns for two C)
minor pieces. White has the straight- 7 adS
forward plan available of castling Keeping to strategically well-
queenside and rolling his kingside trodden paths.
pawns; it is not so clear where Black 7...lOxdS (D)
gets his play.
So 10 ~gs is not quite as massive a
missed opportunity as I first thought,
but it is still promising, and ought to
be noted. Of the other queried move~,
ECO notes that 9 ...fs (instead ot;
9 ... f6) would be equal, while a move)
later 1O...~xg3 makes more sense. An'
interesting historical and analytical di-
gression, but really 9 O-O! is the logi-
cal and thematic move.
9...f5
242 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 JJ.f4!
For once, the recapture with the
knight might be slightly questionable,
as the other knight has committed it-
self to d7, depriving Black of the the-
matic plan of ... c5 followed by ...ttk6.
Despite this, we shall take the knight
recapture as our main line, rather than
7 ...exd5 since in that case Black al-
most invariably plays ...c6 or ... a6 at
the earliest opportune moment, trans-
posing into lines already considered in
Chapter 7 or S.I.
SlBxd5
S Jld3 c5 9 Jlg3 cxd4 10 exd4
lD7f6?! (1O....a5 =) 11 0-0 lDh5?! 12
Jle5lDdf4 13 Jlc2lDg6 14 'ifd3 with
a clear advantage for White, Jessen-
Stokstad, Copenhagen 1991.
S•.•exdS 9 Jld3
The cautious 9 a3 has been tried:
1) 9...c6 10 Jld3 :eS 11 .c2lDfB
12 b4 a6 13 0-0 Jld6 14 Jlxd6 .xd6
15 :fc1 :e6 16 .c5 .dS 17 Jlf5
:h6 IS JlxcS :xcS 19 a4 ;I;; Tisdall-
0stenstad, Norwegian Ch (Namsos)
1995.
2) 9 ...c5 (via 7 a3 c5 S cxd5lDxd5
9lDxd5 exd5) 10 Jld3 cxd4 11lDxd4
ttk5 120-0 Jlf6 13lDb5 Jle614 Jld6
lDxd3 15 .xd3 :eS 16 Jlg3 :fB 17
:tac1 .b6 IS ttk7 :tacS 19 b4 and
White is slightly better, Ehlvest-Kro-
gius, St Petersburg 1994.
3) 9 ... Jld6!? 10 Jlxd6 cxd6leaves
Black considerably better off than in
the Meduna-Prandstetter game below.
With this particular structure, a3 comes
across as a weakening move.
9•••cS
Others:
1) The most solid move is perhaps
9 ... c6, which we have considered un-
der ... c6 systems.
2) 9...lDf6 10 .c2 c6 is a similar
transposition.
3) 9... Jld6 10 Jlxd6 cxd6 11 0-0
lDf6 12.b3 .e7 13lDd2 Jle6 14 f3
lDh515:acl f516:c3l:acSI7:fcl
;I;; E.Meduna-Prandstetter, Trnava 19S1.
4) 9 ... Jlb4+ 10 lDd2 c5 11 0-0 (11
Jld6 :eS 12 dxc5 ~xc5 {but not
12...lDxc5? 13 ~xc5 ~xc5 14 Jlxh7+}
13 ~xh7+? ~xh7 14 .c2+ ~g8 15
~xc5 .c7) 11...c4 12 ~c2 .a5 13
e4?! (13 lDf3 ;1;;) 13 ... ~xd2 14.xd2
"xd2 15 Jlxd2 dxe4 16 .txe4lDf6
17 .tf3 :d8 18 .tc3 lDd5 = Torma-
Reiter, Hungarian Cht 199213.
100-0
10 dxc5 lDxc5 =Ftai:nik.
10•••c4
1O... b6, Ftai:nik, leads to the 6 ... b6
variation, Chapter 6, Line C. White
then has 11 dxc5!? ;1;;.
11 .tel lDf6 12 lDe5 .te6 13 b3
cxb3
13 ... b5 14 bxc4 bxc4 15 ttk6.d7
16lDxe7+ .xe7 17 l:bl ± Ftacnik.
14 axb3lOd7 15ftl fS 16lM3
16 b4! ± Ftai:nik.
16•••85 17 l:c1 ;t Ftai:nik-Prand-
stetter, Czechoslovak Ch 1980.
D)
7h3 (D)
Hoping that Black will do the gen-
tlemanly thing and play 7 ...c6.
7•..cS
1) 7 ...lDe4!? 8 cxd5lDxc3 9 bxc3
exd5 10 .b3 c6 11 ~d3 lDf6 120-0
~d6 13 .txd6 .xd6 14 c4 :bS 15
cxd5 lDxd5 16 :acl .h6 17 :fel
.te6 112_112 Z.Ilic-Lein, Saint John
1988. White may have improvements,
but it is unlikely that there will be any-
thing leading to more than a tiny edge.
 Miscellaneous Systems on Moves 5 and 6
With 7 h3, White has discouraged the
move ... lDhS, but done nothing to pre-
vent ...lDe4.
2) 7 ... b6 S cxdS exdS will tend to
leave Black defending hanging pawns.
9 .te2 .tb7 lO 0-0 lDe4 11 :cl cS 12
dxcS lDxc3 13 l:txc3 bxcS 14 "ii'a4
lDb61S .bS .d716 .xd7lDxd7 17
l:tdllDb6 18 .teS;t Ibragimov-Kozh-
evin, Podolsk 1993.
3) 7 ...dxc4 S .txc4 and now:
3a) S....td6 9 .txd6 cxd6 100-0;t
K.Len-Denisov, Podolsk 1993. Black
has, in the event of ... dS, the wrong
bishop and a misplaced knight. With-
out ...dS, Black is passive.
3b) S...cS!? 9 dxcS (9 O-O!? cxd4
lO exd4lDb6 11 .td3lDbdS 12 .teS -
Psakhis) 9 ....txcS 10 0-0 (10 a3!?
would discourage Black's next move)
10...•e7 11 e4 eS 12 .tgS lDb6 (or
12... h6!? 13 lDdS "ii'dS 14 lDxf6+
lDxf6 IS "ii'xdS :xdS 16 .txf6 gxf6 17
:acl .tb6 IS .tdS :b8 Psakhis) 13
CC)
.tb3 :d8 14 "ii'e2 h6 IS .txf6 .xf6
with equality, Psakhis-Saidy, Waikiki
1997.
8 cxd5 lDxdS 9lDxd5 exd5 10 .te2
lO dxcSlDxcs 11 .te2 1/Z-1f2 Henley-
Andersson, Indonesia 1983.
10•••cxd4 11 exd4 'iV85+ 12 .td2
243
=
'iVb6 13 'iVb3lDf6 Agrest-Gavrilov,
St Petersburg 1993.
7 h3 does not seem particularly
dangerous; the same goes for the vari-
ous odds and ends described below.
E)
7.td3
7 .te2 dxc4 8 .txc4 is equivalent.
7•••dxc4
There is also 7 ...cS 8 cxdS exdS 9
0-0 a6 lO lDeS lDb6 11 :c 1 .te6 12
.tbl :c8 13 .tgS Ill-liz Ivkov-Spassky,
French Cht 1993.
8 .txc4 (D)
8•••86
8 ...cS 90-0 a6 10 a4 transposes.
984
90-0 bS 10 .td3 (lO .tb3?! .tb7
11 'iVe2 cS 12 .tc2?!"ii'b6 was slightly
better for Black in P.Johner-Janowsky,
Karlovy Vary 1907) 1O....tb7 11 :cl
cS 12 .e2 .b6 13 :fdl :acS 14lDeS
):fdS = Verbaere-Lepelletier, Aix-
les-Bains 1991.
9.••cS 100-0 (D)
lO dxcS lDxcS 11 "ii'xdS :xdS 12
=
~e2 .td7 13lDeS .teS M.Roiz-Grl-
goriants, Sao Laurenco jr 1995.
244 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 J.j4!

=
10 a4 cxd4 ECO) 8 ...~xc5 9 .i.e2 (9
cxd5 ~xd5! 10 ~xd5 exd5 00) 9...dxc4
(9 ... a6 10 cxd5 exd5 11 0-0 b5?! 12
~d4 ;t and now 12 ... .i.d6? loses a
pawn to 13 ~c6 ti'd7 14 .i.xd6 ti'xd6
15 ~xd5, D.Chevalier-Jojic, Paris
1992) 10 .i.xc4 a6 11 ~5 ti'xdl+ 12
=
IIxdl b5 13 .i.e2 .i.b7 Larsen-Por-
tisch, Palma de Mallorca 1967.

8.3 Miscellaneous 6th

10•••~b6?! moves for Black
This is slightly casual. Black should
play 10... cxd4 first, as White cannot 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ~c3 ~r6 4 ~f3 .i.e7
recapture with the knight. Then 11 5 .i.f4 0-0 6 e3 (D)
exd4 is equal.
11 .i.b3 cxd4 12 ~xd4! .i.b4 13
"f3 .i.xc3 14 bxc3 ~bd5 15 .i.e5
~xc316I1ac1 B
With a massive initiative in return
for the pawn, Relange-Bricard, French
Ch 1997.

F)
7 a3 may quite legitimately be met
by 7 ...dxc4 8 .i.xc4 a6, going into Line
E a waiting move down; White's extra
tempo would of course disappear com-
pletely after 9 a4. H.Loebler-C.Singer, It is doubtful whether any of the
Austria 1995 continued 9 ti'c2 (9 0-0 lines below will catch on, but Black's
b5 10 .i.a2 00) 9...c5 10 dxc5 .i.xc5 11 battle honours include a draw against
b4?! .i.e7 12 0-0 b5 13 .i.d3 .i.b7 14 an admittedly very youthful Kasparov,
e4 IIc8 :;:. If 7 ...c5, 8 cxd5 exd5 and a win against Dreev. The lines are:
(8 ... ~xd5 9 ~xd5 exd5 10 .i.d3;t; see A: 6...h6 244
Ehlvest-Krogius in Line C above) 9 B: 6 •••1Ie8 245
.i.e2 a6 10 dxc5 ~xc5 11 0-0 .i.e6 12 c: 6•••~c6 245
.i.e5 ;t Benko-A.Medina, Palma de D: 6 ••• ~h5 245
Mallorca 1968. E: 6•••dxc4 246

G) A)
7 1Ic1 c5 (7 ...c6!? is perhaps the 6 ••• h6 is probably most simply an-
safest) 8 dxc5 (8 .i.d3 dxc4 9 .i.xc4 a6 swered by 7 "c2, and waiting to see
 Miscellaneous Systems on Moves 5 and 6
what Black does next. Instead, Kaspa-
rov-Klovans, Minsk 1978 continued 7
cxdS lrurdS 8/t)xdS exdS 9 .i.d3 cS 10
liJes cxd4 11 exd4 .i.b4+ 12..tn ti'f6
13 g3 /t)c6 14 lrurc6 ti'xc6 IS ..tg2
.i.e6 Ih-1h. In the system that White
chose, Black's ... h6 was actually use-
ful, side-stepping any threats to the
h7-pawn.
B)
6 •••:le8 gained Black about half a
tempo on the main lines after 7 h3?! cS
8 dxcS .i.xcs 9 ti'c2 /t)c6 10 a3 in
J .Annas-de Annas, Sagua la Grande
1989. Again, White should choose 7
"c2!?, and see what Black plays.
C)
6 •••/t)c6 is directed against 7 ti'c2,
when 7 .../t)b4 is known to be satisfac-
tory for Black (see discussion of 6
ti'c2/t)c67 e3 in Section 8.4 below).
Other moves:
I) 7 h3 (quiet play allows Black to
equalize) 7 ...dxc4 8 .i.xc4 .i.d6 9 .i.xd6
cxd6 10 dS /t)eS 11 /t)xeS dxeS 12
dxe6 ti'xdl+ 13 :lxdl .i.xe6 14 .i.xe6
fxe6 = Blagojevic-Z.Vukovic, Yugo-
slav Ch 1990.
2) 7 /t)eS /t)xeS 8 dxeS liJe4! 9
/t)xe4 dxe4 is satisfactory for Black.
3) 7 a3 is probably best, preparing
cover for the queen to come to c2:
3a) 7 ... a6 was followed by 8 :lel
/t)hS 9 .i.g3 g6 10 .i.e2/t)xg3 11 hxg3
.i.f6 120-0 liJe7 13 ti'c2.i.g7 14 :lfdl
c6 IS cS fS =in Ljubinkovic-Z.Vuk-
ovic, Yugoslav Ch 1992. However, it
seems odd for White to prepare ti'c2,
and then not play it for several moves.
8 ti'c2 is more thematic, when White
should be able to play for an edge.
245
3b) If 7 ... a5, then 8 cS!, and if
Black plays ... b6 at some stage, then
his queenside light squares will be-
come weak after White exchanges on
b6.
D)
6•••/t)hS (D)
If this move is effective, White can
give up on .i.f4 immediately! Of
course, it's not so simple, as Black is
falling behind in development.
7.i.e5!
7 .i.g3 g6 (7 ...c6?! should be met by
8 It)eS! ± rather than 8 cxdS exdS 9
.i.d3 g6 ao Saraiva-H.Mira, Erevan worn
OL 1996) 8 ti'c2 b6 9 :ldl .i.b7 10
cxdS exdS 11 .i.e2 /t)d7 12 0-0 :le8 =
S.lvanov-Bezgodov, Russian Ch rpd
(Elista) 1997.
7•••f6
7 .../t)d7 8 cxdS Ih-Ih Yuferov-Vara-
vin, Krasnodar 1991, is another 'Ru-
ssian draw' . It would be interesting to
know how Black was intending to pr0-
ceed, as he is losing a pawn.
8 .i.g3 lrurg3 9 bxg3 f5
The Stonewall formation might just
about be justified if White had already
castled. The prospect of White playing
246 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 i.J4!
g4 (twice if necessary) and attacking
along the h-file is a little bit harder to
bear.
10 tLle5 c6 11 g4lDd7
Creating a dreadful impression, but
Black's position has already gone, for
example 11...g6 12 gxfS exfS 13 cxdS
cxdS 14 tLlxdS winning a pawn.
12 gxf5lM6 13 adS adS 14 fxe6
.txe6 15 .td3 +- Nasybullin-Moma-
gadze, Leningrad Cht 1989.
Perhaps more catastrophic than it
need have been, but this variation is
undeniably difficult for Black.
E)
6 •••dxc4 7 .txc4 (D)
B ning a piece) 13 ...tLlxeS 14 f4 (14
Swprisingly, 6 ...dxc4 is more popu-
lar for Black than the more interesting
S...dxc4, discussed in Section 8.S be-
low. After this loss of tempo, White's
lead in development is obvious.
7 ...a6
If 7 ...cS, White's simplest is 8 dxcS,
with the idea of entering the 6 ... cS 7
dxcS .txcS 8 .te2 dxc4 variation a
tempo ahead. 8 0-0 cxd4 9 exd4 is also
eossible, for example 9 ... tLlc6 10 a3
llldS 11 .txdS exdS 12 lLleS lLlxeS 13
.txeS .te6 14 'ii'f3 leads to a slight
advantage for White, Savchenko-
Cepon, Bled 1996, or 9 ... lLlbd7? 10
lLlbS tLlb6 11 .tc7 "e8 12 .txb6 axb6
13 tLlc7 +- Dubinka-Skripova, St Pe-
tersburg 1996.
SlLleS!
The most vigorous move, although
there are reasonable alternatives.
1) 8 .td3! tLlbd7 (8 ...bS?! 9 a4
bxa4 10 0-0 a3 11 bxa3 tLlbd7 12 e4 ±
Psakhis-Pelikian, New York 1997 -
too much time-wasting by Black) 9 e4
cS 10 eS tLlhs 11 .i.e3 cxd4 12 tLlxd4
g6 13 .te2?! (this looks like a miscal-
culation, whereas 13 f4100ks like a Si-
cilian that has gone badly wrong for
Black; then Nenashev gives 13 ....tcS
14 .te2 "h4+ as + in Informator 55,
without offering any suggestion as to
how to meet IS g3lLlxg3 16.i.n win-
.txhS gxhS IS 'ii'xhslLld3+) 14...tLlc6
0-0-0.tf6 18 :d3 lbb3+ 19 ~c2
20 "g4+ ~h8 21 axb3 with unclear
"as
IS .txhS gxhS 16 'ii'xhS tLlxd4 17
play, Dreev-Nenashev, Manila OL
1992.
2) 8 a4 cS 9 0-0 cxd4 10 tLlxd4
.td7 11 e4 tLlc6 12 eS tLlxd4 13 'ii'xd4
lLIhS 14 .i.e3 .tc6 IS .xd8 :axd8 16
.te2 (16 g4? tLlf4 17 .i.xf4 :d4 +)
16 ... g6 and the game is heading for a
draw, Aleksandrov-Danielian, Voskre-
sensk 1993.
3) 8 .e2 lbbd7?! (S ...bS) 9 a4 cS
10 dxcS lbxcs 11 0-0 .td7 12 lbes
.e8 13 e4 ± Llanos-A.Hoffman, Bue-
nos Aires 1993.
S•••b5?!
S... cS?! 9 .f3 cxd4 10 O-O-O!
tLlbd7 (lO.....c?? 11 tLlg6 .xc4 12
lbxe7+ ~hS 13 :xd4 .cS 14 .i.d6 is
winning for White) 11 exd4 leaves
 Miscellaneous Systems on Moves 5 and 6 247

White several moves ahead in devel- A)

opment. 6cS?!
8...cUs 9 .tg3 ;t is probably Black's This has been played by a reigning
best. World Champion, but is best de-
9 1Wf3 :87 10 .td3 .tb7 11 1Wh3 scribed as an interesting move played
ll:)bd7 12 :dl g6 130-0 1WaS 14.tgS a move too early; it should wait until
:e8 IS 1Wh4 and White is clearly bet- Black has played ...ll:)bd7 or ...a6.
ter, Kharitonov-Danielian, Voskresensk 6",b6
1993. 6 ... lOe4?! 7 'iVc2 f5 8 e3 a69 .*.d3
lOc6 10 a3 .*.d7 (10 ... g5 first is more
accurate) 11 h3.*.e8 12 g4;t Plaskett-
8.4 Miscellaneous 6th A.Gal, Natanya 1987.
moves for White 7b4aS
Black must break up White's pawns
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3 ll:)c3 ll:)f6 4 00 .te7 as quickly as possible.
S .*.f4 0-0 (D) 8 allOe4 9 :c1
9 ll:)xe4? dxe4 10 lOe5 f6 11 lOc4
axb4 12 axb4 :xal 13111xallOc6 +
Em.Lasker-Schallop, Nuremberg 1896;
w another dodgy position that the great
Emanuel managed to win.
9"..*.86
9...axb4!? 10 axb41O:6 11 b51Da7!
-King.
10 1Wc2 ll:)xc3 11 "xc3 axb4 12
axb4lOc6 13 e3 .txf114 ~ bS IS
:al Plaskett-King, British Ch (Ply-
mouth) 1989. King now suggests
15 ... f6, when Black is starting to take
We can quickly dispose of 6 IOb5? the initiative. The game continued
.*.b4+ 7 lD<i2 1Da6 8 lOc3, played in a =
15 ...1IId7 16 ~e2?! (16ll:)e5 King)
junior game. We may also briefly note 16...f6 :j:.
that the time-wasting 6 h3?! has been
played, with Dos Santos-Yilmaz, Du- B)
bai wom OL 1986, continuing 6 ...c5 7 6 adS
e3 b6 8 cxd5 ll:)xd5, etc., while Black Another Plaskett try, which maybe
may try 6 ...dxc4 to good effect - com- deserves a second glance.
pare LineC. 6",lbxdS 7 lbxdS exdS (D)
The 'main lines' are: 8"c2
A: 6cS?! 247 8 e3 leads back towards standard
B: 6 adS 247 lines.
C: 6:c1 248 There is, however, the unexplored
D: 61Wc2!? 249 possibility of 8 g3!?, which is suitable
248 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1../41
w
if White wants to try an ultra-technical
sort of game. With the bishop fian-
chettoed, Black's d-pawn is going to
come under a lot of pressure if he ever
plays ...c5, while if Black avoids ...c5,
White can put pressure on the b- and
c-pawns, and aim for a minority attack
on the queenside. Black can try ma-
noeuvring the bishop to e4, but it
doesn't really affect White's intention
of pressurizing the queenside.
This would seem to be the only try
for White in this section that offers
any realistic prospects for an opening
advantage.
8.••~a6!
This, however, equalizes instantly;
Black aims for the simple but effective
...~b4 and ....tf5 attack, while White
cannot get his king away in time.
ge3
9 a3 c5, Chiburdanidze, gives Black
excellent play.
9...~b4 10 "'c3 .trs 11 ~dl Ilc8
12 a3 ~c6 Plaskett-Chiburdanidze,
Banja Luka 1985.
ECO ungenerously gives this as
clearly better for Black, but 13 .td3
keeps White well in the game; it would
be difficult to claim any advantage,
however.
C)
61lct (D)
This has occasionally been used as
a move-order trick, with the intention
of steering the game towards a Pawn
Exchange Variation. As Black's reply
shows, this particular move-order is
inaccurate, but 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ~c3
.te7 4 .tf4!? ~f6 5 e3 0-06 Ilcl (e3
being substituted for ~f3) is perfectly
playable, and indeed succeeded in lur-
ing Kasparov into a Pawn Exchange
Variation (after 6 ... c5 7 dxc5 .txc5 8
cxd5 exd5) in Korchnoi-Kasparov,
Brussels 1986. Regrettably there is no
space in this volume for detailed dis-
cussion of the implications of the vari-
ous move-orders after 3 ....te7; it is
clear, however, that Ilc 1 is not a wasted
move if Black avoids the ... c5 varia-
tions.
6...dxc4!
This immediately gives Black a sat-
isfactory game.
6 ...c6 and 6 ...c5 have also been
tried, transposing to more familiar
lines.
7e4
The position now reached is the
same as after 5 ... dxc4!? 6 e4 (Section
 Miscellaneous Systems on Moves 5 and 6
S.S below), but with :lc1 inserted for
White, and ...0-0 inserted for Black.
The difference is for the most part in
Black's favour (see the note to Black's
9th for the one exception).
Instead 7 e3 lOdS is equal.
7 ••• bS!?
As in the s ...dxc4line.
7 ...cs S .txc4 cxd4 9 lOxd4 lObd7
10 lOdbs lOb6 11 .td3 lOe8 12 es a6
=
13 lOd6 Miralles-Kharitonov, Royan
1988.
SlOxbS
Otherwise White is just a pawn
down.
S....tb4+ 9 M! lOxe4
Without:lc1 and ... 0-0, Black would
have 9 ....txc3+ 10 bxc3lOxe4, and if
11 .txc4, then 11...lOxc3.
10 .txc4 gS!?
Black must keep the initiative,
since if he retreats, his weaknesses on
the queenside will tell against him.
The position reached is perhaps not
critical enough for the theory of 5 .tf4
as a whole to justify detailed analysis,
but the possibilities of 11 .te3 fs, 11
.tg3 fs, and 11 .td2 .txc3 12 bxc3
Wf6 all give Black chances of dynamic
play.
D)
6'iVc2!? (D)
An interesting move to dabble with.
There is the possibility of returning to
the main lines, but White hopes to
benefit from having delayed e3, either
through the possibility of e4, or ~
keeping a retreat for the bishop. ' dxc5 Wc7 11 0-0 'iVxf4 12 .td3 h6 13
6...lOc6!
This, however, is recognized as the
antidote. Others:
1) 6 ...c5 7 dxcs and now:
249
B
la) 7 ....txcs 8 a3 lOc6 9 0-0-0
WaS allows White to return to the New
Main Line with 10 e3, which is to be
regarded as a satisfactory outcome for
him. White has tried a couple of em-
bellishments, with only limited suc-
cess: 10 .td2 Wc7 11 cxds lOe7 12
.tg5 (12 e4!?) 12 ... lOexds 13 lOxd5
lOxd5 14 e4lOb61S c,tbl.td7 16:lel
:lfcS with unclear play, Bareev-Van
derSterren, Biel IZ 1993; or IOWbl?!
d4! 11 lOa4 (11 lOb5 a6! 12 lObxd4
lOxd4 13lOxd4 .txd414 :lxd4 eS 15
.td2 Wcs =1= Kotronias) 11.. ..te7 12
.td2 Wc7 13 e4 e5 +Conquest-Kotro-
nias, Reykjavik 1992.
Ib) 7 .....aS!? S lOd2?! (S 0-0-0,
aiming to transpose to Line 'la', is
more accurate) S...dxc4 9 e4 "xcS 10
.te3 "c7 11 .te2 (11 .txc4lOg4:;:)
11.. ..td7 12 0-0 lOa6 :;: Pein-Anka,
Budapest 1989.
2) 6 ...dxc4 7 e3?! (7 e4!) 7...lOds 8
.txc4lOxf4 9 exf4 c5 (the Rubinstein
Bind is not so effective for White
when Black has not played ... c6) 10
:laellOc6 14 a3 .td7 15 b4 :lfdS =
Savchenko-Polovodin, St Petersburg
1993.
7e3
250 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./4!

7 :d 1 dxc4 S e4 ltlaS is an unclear Black normally castles here, while

and untested gambit. 5 ... c5, 5... c6 and 5... a6 have already
7 •••ltlb4 been considered under other head-
7...a6Sh3 (SlIdl!?) S... ltlb49"cl ings. 5 ... dxc4!? is a significant but
c5 10 a3lOc6 11 dxc5 J..xc5 12 J..g5? very much under-researched alterna-
(12 cxd5 ;1;) 12...d4 13 ltle4 J..e7 :;: tive. We consider first the minor possi-
Crouch-S.Dumitrache, Cappelle la bilities:
Grande 1993. A: S•••ltlbd7? 250
S.b3 B: S•••ltle4?! 250
S "cl dxc4 (S ...c5 9 a3 lOc6 10 C: S•••ltlbS 251
dxc5 J..xc5 11 cxd5 ;1;) 9 J..xc4 c5 =. D: S...dxc4!? 251
S•••b69 a3
9 lIcl c5 =; 9 lIdl J..b7 10 a3 dxc4 A)
11 J..xc4 ltlbd5 12 J..e5 ltlxc3 13 S•••ltlbd7? 6ltlbS!
=
"xc3 J..d6 Bareev. An outright refutation.
9•••dxc4 10 J..xc4ltlbdS 11 J..g3?! 6 •••J..b4+
11 J..e5 =Bareev. 6... e5 7 dxe5 c6 S exf6 Toloza-
11•••J..b7 12 0-0 ltlxc3 13 bxc3 cS R.David, Parnaiba 1995, is equivalent
14 a4ltle4 and Black has a slight ad- to resignation.
vantage, Bareev-Vaganian, BledIRo- 7ltld2J..aS
g~ka Slatina 1991. 7... ltle4 S ltlxc7+ 'fIxc7 9 J..xc7
One feels that there is scope for fur- J..xd2+ 10 'fIxd2ltlxd2 11 ~d2 dxc4
ther investigation, but that ultimately 6 12 e3 b5 13 a4 will soon leave White a
"c2 is less threatening than 6 e3. pawn up.
8.a4!
8 b4 a6°o.
8.5 Miscellaneous 5th 8•••J..xd2+
moves for Black 8 ...c6 is Black's last chance, al-
though 9ltld6+ ~ 10 b4 J..c7 11 c5
1 d4 dS 2 c4 e6 3ltlc3ltlr6 4ltlr3 J..e7 is dreadful.
S J..r4 (D) 9 <i>xd2 eS 10 dxeS ltle4+ 11 <i>el
ltlecS 12 1Fb4 a6 13 e6 nbS 14
exd7+ ltlxd7 15 adS
White has a sound extra pawn, Van
B Wely-J.Armas, Matanzas Capablanca
mem 1994.

B)
S•••ltle4?!
This is more likely to be fruitful in
the J..g5 variations, where it offers an
exchange of bishops. Here it is a bit
lazy with tempi, and straightforward
 Miscellaneous Systems on Moves 5 and 6
development gives White a slight but
very comfortable advantage.
6 1It'c2lbxc3 7 bxc3 0-0 8 e3 tM7
9 cxdS exdS 10 .td3lbf6 11 0-0 and
White is slightly better, Robatsch-
Baumgartner, Austrian League 1988/9.
C)
S•••lbhS 6 .td2
6 .te5 f6?! (6 ... ~6!? 00) 7 .tg3
~xg3 8 hxg3 f5 9 ~5 0-0 10 e3 ±
Umanskaya-Dergachova, Svetlogorsk
1997.
6...lMi (D)
This challenges White to find some
useful way of avoiding the repetition
of moves with 7 .tf4. The usual ap-
proach has been 7 e3, for example:
1) 7 ...0-0 and then:
la) 8 lIeI ~ 9 .td3 ~xd2 (9 ... fS
10 cxd5 exd5? 11 ~xd5) 10 1Wxd2
dxc4 11 .txc4 with an imposing lead
in development, Gheorghiu-Mohring,
Romania 1966.
1b) 8 .td3 dxc4 9 .txc4 c5 10 0-0
b6 11 "'e2 .tb7 12 lIadl a6 L3dx~5
.txc5 14 e4 b5 15 .tb3 1Wc7 16 e5
~8 17 ~4 with a distinct advantage
for White, Sarosi-Hartung, Dortmund
1988.
251
2) Black may consider the imme-
diate 7 ...~!? followed by ...f5, ...c6,
... 0-0, etc., and it is not clear that
White's plan of development has
yielded him very much.
My own preference would be for 7
1Wc2!?, keeping a watch on e4, and
with the possible intention of playing
e4.
D)
S•••dxc4!? (D)
An important but unexplored try.
Practical experience, at least as far as
the database is concerned, is limited to
the following two examples.
Cohn-Showalter, London 1899 saw
Black getting a good game by uncon-
vincing means: 6 e4 O-O?! 7 .txc4 a6 8
0-0 (8 a4!?) 8 ...b5 9 .td3 .tb7 10 1Wc2?
(10 "'e2!?) 10... ~c6 11 a3 ~xd4 12
lbxd4 1Wxd4 13 .txc7 lIac8 ;.
The more recent game, de Fir-
mian-Gulko, Manila IZ 1990, 6 e3
lbd5 7 .txc4 lbxf4 8 exf4 0-0 9 0-0
~7 10 ~e5 '12-'12 raises the interest-
ing question of how deeply Gulko had
analysed the system.
I was hoping to add a third example
when I was paired as Black against
252 The Queen' s Gambit Declined: 5 J.f4!
Mikhail Gurevich in the 1997 Euro-
pean Club Cup, but he varied with
j.g5; the game was later drawn.
Therefore what follows is mainly
original analysis. We investigate:
01: 6e3 252
02: 6 e4!? 252
03: 6 "a4+!? 254
01)
6e3~!
An important resource, and the rea-
son why Black delays castling. 6...0-0
7 j.xc4 is, as we have seen in Chapter
8.3, Line E, good for White.
7 j.xc4
The pawn can be a little trouble-
some to regain after 7 j.g3 t'hb6.
7•••lhxf48 exf4lhc6!
The most accurate. Black avoids
compromising his queenside pawn
structure, and aims to create pressure
against the d-pawn with pieces; ... j.f6
may soon follow. After 8 ...c5 9 d5
exd5 10 IOxd5 White is comfortably
ahead in development, while if 8...0-0
90-0 iOd7, as in the de Firmian-Gulko
game, White is probably better after
1OWe2.
Unknown to me at the time of writ-
ing the main draft of this book, there is
also the game Youngworth-Rai(!evic,
Lone Pine 19S0, which went S...O-O 9
j.d3 t'hd7 10 "e2 t'hf6 11 O-O-O!?
t'hd5 12t'hxd5 exd5 13t'he5 j.d6 14
h4 "f6 15"f3 j.f5 16 g3 c6 17 ~bl
l:tfeS 18 h5 l:te7 19 g4 j.xd3+ 20
l:txd3 l:tae8. White is probably still
better, but later lost. The idea of cas-
tling queenside and rushing the king-
side pawns forward is tempting, but it
can be difficult to find targets for the
pawns if Black defends steadily. The
advantage of playing the Rubinstein
Bind in traditional fashion, with king-
side castling, is that White is free to
probe for weaknesses on the queen-
side as well, without having to worry
about the safety of his king, and this
increases Black's defensive problems.
9j.bS j.d7=
02)
6e4(D)
B
Presumably this is the reason why
5 ... dxc4 has been ignored. At first
glance it would appear that White re-
gains the pawn with ease, and keeps an
enormous space advantage. However,
it turns out that Black has tactical re-
sources, based on the exposure of
White's king.
6 •••bS! 7iOxbS j.b4+!
A loss of tempo maybe, but still an
awkward check to meet. IT now S1Oc3,
then S... j.xc3+ 9 bxc3 t'hxe4 and
Black stands well. White therefore has
only two real choices:
021: 8lOd2 252
022: 8 j.d2 253
021)
8lOd2 O-O! (D)
 Miscellaneous Systems on Moves 5 and 6
9"'c:2
1) The attempt at refutation with 9
liJxc7? is itself refuted by 9 ... e5! (the
bishop is overworked as Black targets
both the white knights; not, however,
9 ...liJxe4? 10 liJxaS .xd4 11 i.e3
i.xd2+ 12 .xd2 +-) 10 i.xe5 (after
10 liJxaS exf4 Black can, at the very
worst, round up the as-knight, restor-
ing material parity while retaining the
initiative; 10 dxe5?? drops a piece to
1O...•xc7) 1O... liJxe4 llliJxaS i.xd2+
12 ~e2, and now there must be several
ways to win, but 12...liJc6 seems sim-
plest. If one wants a pretty finish, 13 f3
'ifxd4 14 i.xd4liJxd4# is a new set-
ting of Legall's mate.
2) 9liJc3!? i.b7 10 i.xc4liJxe4 11
liJdxe4 i.xe4 12 0-0 i.xc3 13 bxc3
liJd7 =.
9•••a6
9 ... i.b7 10 0-0-0 i.xd2+ II "'xd2
liJxe4 12 'ii'e3 liJa6 13 liJc3 liJd6 14
i.xd6 cxd6 IS i.xc4 is untested and
probably favourable to White, who is
better developed and has central con-
trol. Black can, however, argue-that
the b- and c-files count for something,
so not everything is clear-cut. This is
just one line in a complicated position,
with alternatives for both sides. The
253
text is clearer, and satisfactory for
Black.
10 liJc3
10 liJxc7?! l:a7 11 tDbS axb5 12
i.xbS and Black has several strong con-
tinuations, e.g. 12...l:d713 i.eS tDg4.
10•••liJc6
1O...•xd4?! lli.e3 returns the ini-
tiative to White. The text maintains
the flow of play.
11 i.xc4liJxd4 12 Wd3 cS
With complicated play in which
Black should be no worse, though
practical tests are awaited.
D22)
8 i.d2 i.xd2+
I had hoped to make the more ambi-
tious S... c6 work, but after 9 i.xb4
cxb5 10 a4 liJc6 11 i.cS 'ii'a5+, the
surprising 12 liJd2! (Burgess) is ex-
tremely difficult to meet. If then
12...liJb4 (12 ...liJxe4 13 axbS!) 13lla3!
(Nunn) 13 ... liJxe4 14 axbS, Black's
position is falling apart.
So back to my original idea...
9tDxd2
9 'ii'xd2liJxe4 followed by ...liJd6 is
fine for Black.
9•••a6 10 liJc3 "'xd4 11 tDxc4
II i.xc4 0-0 is less testing; the at-
tack on the bishop leaves the knight
temporarily stuck on d2.
11......xdl + 12 lbdlliJc6
We have reached the critical posi-
tion, which needs further testing.
Black's queenside pawns are uncom-
fortably split, but White is potentially
weak on the central dark squares, and
he still has to decide how to secure his
e-pawn and make his bishop effective.
My opinion of the position has var-
ied from "White has a slight but
254 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 1./41
workable edge" to "Black is fine". For
the sake of provoking further debate
and testing, I suggest that the position
is at least as satisfactory as Black can
expect in a main-line opening, and that
the most White has a very small edge.
The position, although queenless, is
not necessarily drawish, and Black
will complete his development with
...J.b7, ... rJ;e7 and challenge the d-
file.
So the delicate question arises: if
Black is doing OK after both 6 e3 and
6 e4, doesn't this just kill off the 5 J.f4
system? If this were so, the author
would have mixed feelings; a sense of
pride at having busted a whole open-
ing system, combined with horror at
the thought of what effects this would
have on the sales of this book. All the
reader would have to know is that
5 ... dxc4 is the recommended move,
the rest of the book being consigned to
the remainder bin of the chess book-
stall.
Mercifully though, there is a way in
which White can play for an edge. As
so often, the correct move is the one
that has not been tried.
D3)
6.a4+!? c6
The best. 6 ...1Oc6 7 e4 gives White
control of the centre.
7.xc4.a5
Probably the best, although it is dif-
ficult to be certain in an uncharted
position so early in the opening.
Black's potential freeing manoeuvres
consist of, singly or in combination,
...lOe4/d5, ...c5, and ...b5-b4.
Although we are only on move 7,
we left theory two full moves ago. The
usual arithmetic applies; in the ab-
sence of forcing lines, each player
might have three or four or more rea-
sonable moves, each with the same
number of reasonable replies. It would
be unreasonable to attempt any sort of
definitive assessment of this particu-
lar position, which is critical to the
5...dxc4 system, and hence to the J.f4
system as a whole. It would be better
to wait for this line to be played a few
times first, so at least some main lines
may become established. One line that
might be worth further study is 8 J.d2
9a6 9 9xa6 .!Oxa6 10 e4 O-O!? Black
is certainly not better after 7.....a5,
while any advantage White has is far
from crushing. As is usual in the open-
ing we are in the zone of uncertainty
between ;t and =.
This is a pleasing place at which to
draw the book to a close, with the indi-
cation that however much is already
known about the J.f4 system, there is
still much completely unexplored ter-
ritory to be mapped out. It is hoped
that the author of this book has ful-
filled his duties to the readers: to cite,
examine and assess what is already
known, and to indicate where future
discoveries are likely to be made.
Index of Variations
1 d4 dS Others:
2 c4 e6 6•••lObel7238
3 lDc3 lOr6 6•••lDc6 245
4 lOO i.e7 6••• lDhS 245
4•••lObel7 214 5 adS exdS 6.c2 00 7 6•••dxc4 246
.tr4 215 and now: 7...1Ob6 215; 7...lDh5 6•••a6231: 7c5231; 7 l:[c1234; 7Wc2
216; 7... j.e7 8 e3 0-0 9 i.d3 219 234; 7 cxd5 237
5 i.f4 250 0-0 247 6••• b6 172: 7 Wc2 173; 7 j.e2 174; 7
5•••cS 168 cxdS 175; 7 j.d3 187; 7 l:[cl 190
5••• b6194
5•••a6229 A)
5•••lObS 251 6 ••• c6226
5•••dxc4251 7 .c2213
5•••00 6 e3lObd7 (6 ...1Oh5 227; 6 ...0-0 7l:[c1224
- see 5...0-0 6 e3 c6) and now: 7 h3 7h3225
227; 7 i.d3 227; 7 'ifc2 212 7 cxdS 217: 7... lOxd5 217; 7... cxdS
6 e3 244 (DJ 218; 7... exdS 218
6 cS 247 7 j.d3220: 7...dxc4221; 7...lObd7 222
6 ad5 247 7... lObel7196
6l:[c1248 Now: 8 h3 196; 8 cxd5 208; 8 i.d3
6.c2249 208; 8 j.e2 209; 80-0-0210; 8 a3 211;
8l:[d1205

B)
6 ••• cS144
7 dxcS 165
7 i.d3145
7 j.e2146
7 adS 147
7 ••• i.xcS 113
7•••lDc6165
7•••lOa6165
7•••dxc4165
7••••&5 165
8 .c2163
After 6 e3: 8 j.e2113
A: 6...00 8 cxdS 122: 8... lOxd5 123; 8 ... exd5
B: 6 •••cS 135
256 The Queen's Gambit Declined: 5 .£141

8 a3 159 iLlc6 (8 ...b6 159; 8... lDe4 10•••l:[d821

160; 8... dxc4 160; 8... a6 162; 8....te7 10•••iLle4 21
162) and now: 9 cxdS 102; 9 b4 103; 9 11 lMe··2B
:CI 104; 9.te2 105 11.te223
8 ••• lLlc6 11 l:[d224
8.•.dxc4 163 11 ••• es 29
12 iLlb344
8••••aS 164
9 a3 149 12 .tg3 47 d4 13iLlb3 "b647

9••..td6151
.as
9l:[dl.aS: IO.te2100; lolLld2101
9 ••• (D)
12 .tgS d4 13 iLlb3: I3 .....b6 41;
13.....d830
12 ••• 1Wb6
9••••e7152 13 .tgS
9•••l:[e8153 13 .tg3 d4 - see 12 .tg3 d4 13iLlb3
9•...te7154 'ifb6
9.•..td7155 Now:
13.••.tg444
13.••d4 - see 12 .tg5 d4 13iLlb3 'it'b6

w B2)
10 0·0-051 .te773
10•••dxc4 11 .txc4 76 .te7 - see
10... .te7 followed by ll...dxc4
10•••8685
10...:d887
10.••iLle4 87: 1liLlxe4 88; II iLlb5 89
10....td777: 11 g4 78; 11 ~bI81; 11
cxdS 83; II.tg5 84; IIiLld2 85; II h4
85
After 9 .....a5: 11 h452
Bl: 10l:[dl ulLldl 74
B2: 10 0-0-0 11 ~b175
11 g4 63: 11 ...l:[d8 72; Il ... dxc4 64
Or: 11 ••• dxc4
10 iLld2 94 11...l:[d860
10l:[c193 11•••8661
11.••.td763
Bl) 12 .txc453
10 l:[dl 20 .te7 Now:
10..•l:[e8 15 12.••b653
10•••dxc4 20 12.•.8654
10•••.td721 12..':d858