SOS - Secrets of Opening Surprises

To Jonathan
SECRETS OF
OPENING
SURPRISES
JEROEN BOSCH

2003 New In Chess Alkmaar

© 2003 Jeroen Bosch
Published by New In Chess. Alkrnaar, The Netherlands
www.newinchess.corn

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced.

stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying. recording or
otherwise, without the prior written permission from the
publisher.

Cover design and drawing: Joppe Andriessen

Printing: A-D Druk BV, Zeist, The Netherlands

Production: Joop de Groot
Printed in the Netherlands

ISBN 90-5691-098- I
 Preface
The title of a book should ideally tell the
reader something about its contents. The
title - Secrets of Opening Surprises -
clearly suggests, and indeed promises, a
few things. There can be no doubt that this
book proclaims to be about openings. The
addition of the word 'surprises' may sug-
gest to the reader that he wilt find out so-
mething new, or unexpected. Finally, the
author, in chosing this title, purports to re-
veal certain 'secrets'.
What is an opening surprise? Or indeed
what sort of move in the opening phase of
a chess game do we consider to be surpri-
sing? The general rules of opening play
state quite clearly that you should: (I)
gain influence in the centre. (2) develop
your pieces, and (3) bring your king into
safety. Therefore, you should not: make
to many pawn moves, move more than
once with the same piece, develop your
queen too early, etc, etc. It follows logi-
cally that a surprising move in the ope-
ning will often appear to go against these
general rules of good opening play. A
move that surprises your opponent is of
course not synonymous with a good
move. Thus. 1.f3 is surprising but also
bad.
The question of quality is an important
one. The opening variations that you will
find in this book are not the so-called
main lines. These lines are strong (which
is why (hey have become main lines), but
demand continuous study and will cert-
ainly not surprise your opponent. Are the
'surprise variations' presented in this
book less good than 'main lines'? Let us
not beat about the bush: from a certain
'objective' (Kasparov-like) viewpoint
they will indeed be 'weaker'. However,
the variations presented in this book have
all been played by grandmasters! Hence,
this should give you a certain guarantee
about their quality. Moreover, it is quite
possible that your results are better with a
variation that requires not (00 much stu-
dy, surprises your opponent and is good
fun to play.
Let us consider the next element: What
secrets can this author reveal? In New in
Chess 1998/8 I wrote an article called
'Svidler's Opening Secret' about a Peter
Svidler speciality: l.d4 tLif6 2.c4 g6
3.~c3 d5 4.~g5 ~g7!? Two issues on,
Svidler commented (in a game annotati-
on), with tongue-in-check, upon the logi-
cal inconsistency of that title: . if it really
was a secret [Jeroen Bosch] would not
know about it, right?'. So true, so true.
Apart from the novelties and the original
analyses in this book, there are no
.secrets' in the strictest sense of the word
in this book. The secretive element in this
book lies in presenting to the reader an
opening idea that he may not have known
about, or thought possible, but one that
has been played successfully by one or
more strong players.
This book contains no less than 18 of such
opening ideas. Some of them for White,
some of them for Black. In some cases
they provide you with a weapon against a
complete opening, in other cases an idea
against a panicular variation is given. The
material has been divided into 6 sections of
more or less equal length. The first 4 secti-
ons (16 chapters in all) are thematically or-
ganized. Thus. section I deals with an early
a3 for White in several lines. Section II il-
lustrates that bishops may be developed in
surprising ways. In section III is demon-
strated that early queen moves can be quite
strong. Pawn aggression is the constitutive
element of section IV. The final sections of
this book are organized somewhat diffe-
rently in that each has only one chapter. In
section V the subject is a line for White
against the French. Section VI presents an
original Sicilian for Black. These final two
chapters are much longer. They contain a
detailed theoretical section followed by il-
lustrative games.
Secrets of Opening Surprises is written
for players who like to refresh their
opening arsenal with some lesser-known
and interesting ideas. I hope that the
reader will have as much fun in studying
these SOS lines. as I had in 'discovering'
them and analysing them. I wish the
reader success in testing out these SOS
variations ..
Ieroen Bosch
Nijmegen, August 2003
 Contents

Section I
The left hook a3!? 9
Chapter I The Gunsberg Variation 10
Chapter 2 Your SOS weapon versus the Pire 22
Chapter 3 Outfox your opponent 29

Section II
Surprising bishop moves 39
Chapter 4 Sokolov's surprise 40
Chapter 5 Play the Surprise Indian 48
Chapter 6 TN on move 5 57
Chapter 7 A bishop's wonder move 64

Section III
Early queen moves 71
Chapter 8 Alapin bites the Dutch 73
Chapter 9 Another Tarrasch Variation 81
Chapter 10 Surprising Hodgson 89
Chapter II A surprising queen sortie 94 ~
Chapter 12 A tactical weapon 98
 Section IV
An SOS pawn thrust 105
Chapter 13 Modern, Scandinavian or Alekhine? 106
Chapter 14 Only Mad Dogs and Englishmen? 113
Chapter 15 Trumping the Tromp 121
Chapter 16 The improved Lisitsin Gambit 127

Section V
Outflanking the French 133
Chapter 17 French Wing Gambit 134

Section VI
A surprising Sicilian 171
Chapter 18 The Kupreichik Variation 172

Send us your SOS 206

 Section I: The left hook a3!?
This section caters for l.e4 players who
are looking for weapons against 1 .•. eS,
the Pirc, or the Sicilian Four Knights. In
these first 3 chapters I will demonstrate
that an early a3 will pose your opponent
some new and unexpected problems.
Chapter I deals with, what Ihave called, the
Gunsberg Variation of the Four Knights.
1.e4 e5 2.lf'f3 lLlc6 3.tbc3 tDf6
4.a3
Compared to 4.~bS and 4.d4 the move
4.a3 docs not make a big impression at first
sight. However, it is a clever waiting move
that, if you don't mind the use of hyperbo-
le, places Black in a kind of Zugzwang. He
should decide in which opening the move
'a6' (White's extra tempo) is not useful.
Black is in a real quandary here!
The idea behind the move 5.a3 in Chapter
2 is more straightforward.
1.e4 d6 2.d4 4"':163.ttJc3 g6
4.14 .tg7 5.a3
With his last little pawn move White has
prevented Black from leashing out with
S...cS (a main line after S.~f3). This is the
SOS way to play the Austrian attack.
Plenty of strong grandmasters are playing
this line with considerable success.
In Chapter 3 we will meet the Sicilian
Four Knights with 6.a3.
1.e4 c5 2.tLJf3 .:tJc6 3.d4 cd4
4.~d4 tL:f6 5.~c3 e6 6.a3
Together with Chapter 12, this book pro-
vides the reader with a repertoire against
'he Sveshnikov. Most 6 move alternatives
for White allow 6 ...~b4. Clearly, 6.a3 has
a point there! It is mainly a move order
weapon, though, and ample lines are sug-
gested for the interested reader.
 CHAPTER 1
The Gunsberg Variation
ltJ
8~8
]l~W~
4.a3: an awesome waiting move
Let me start off by expressing my sos-
admiration for a theoretical contribution
made by Isidor Gunsberg. Gunsberg scored
a decent result in a World Championship's
match versus Steinitz, New York 1&90191.
In the Four Knights, Gunsberg was fond of
the awesome move 4.a.1!
Now before you faJl off your chair laug-
hing and skip the rest of this chapter, al-
low me to explai n. The little pawn move is
a waiting move of superior order: While
is playing Black but with a very useful ex-
tra tempo. A brief scheme to convince
you of the possibilities of 4.<.l3:
10
i
~
ltJ
~~~
NIC KEYS01.5
• 4 ...~b4, the 'Spanish Four Knights is
prevented;
• 4 ~c5 is answered by 5.<1\e5!;
• 4 d5, the 'Scotch Four Knights: is met
by 5.~b5 when a3 is useful and the oppo-
nent is lured into unknown territory;
• 4 ... g6, the 'Glek variation', is somew-
hat under a cloud these days anyway, be-
sides White has some extra ideas here too.
• 4 ...a6, provokes White into playing
5.d4! (ed4 and..Qb4 is no longer on);
sa,
• 4 ... d6 and 4 ... are perhaps best,
however Black is forced into passivity af-
ter 5.d4.
Before we stan our investigation proper
let me briefly mention some similar ideas.
Hugh Myers wrote a book on a3-lines in
the open games calling them Mengarini's
opening. The American Ariel Mengarini
liked to play Le4 e5 2.a3. This is a less
forcing move order though. Myers feels
that after 2...f5 White's second move has
little merit. We may think of other set-ups
too. Myers himself advocated l.e4 e5
2.lilc3 tLlf6 3.a3. This is indeed quite a
tricky move order. Its main idea is shown
after 3...d5 4.ed5 ttJd5 5.'it'h5! A reversed
Scotch with the important difference that
the best move lbd5-b4 is obviously not
on. There are some other ideas connected
to the Vienna move order too. For exam-
ple, 3....ic5 4.ltJf3 tLJg4 (the Two
Knights) 5.d4 ed4 6.tDa4 and again a3
proves its usefulness. However, I think
that 4...d6 is an easy equalizer, and besi-
des Black can always play 3...tLlc6 when
White has nothing better than to transpo-
se into Gunsberg's Four Knights. There-
fore we will concentrate on 4.a3 in the
Four Knights. Naming this the Gunsberg
Variation strikes me as most logical, con-
sidering that he was both the first and the
strongest player to regularly adopt 4.a3.
Black falls for it
1. e4 e5
2. tL:c3 tbc6
3. ~f3 ~f6
4. 83 ses
This allows a simple tactic, which is
known with colours reversed too (4jLC4
lDe4).
5. ~e5 tee5
This is better than 5 ...~f2?! 6.~f2 ~5
7.d4 ttJfg4? (7 ... lDg6 8.e5lDg8 9.h4!? d5
lD.ed6 ~d6 J l.ttJbS 1!r'd8 12.1!r'el rj.lf8
13.h5 Cvorovic-Stipic, Pula tt 1992)
8.'~gl ~h4 9.1li'e2 teg6 iO.g3 it'h5
II.h3 tLlf6 12.~h5 ~h5 13.~h2±
Bhend-Avrarn, Lenk 1991.
However, 5...0-0 may well be a berter
idea. For example, 6.iLe2 tt::\d4 7.lOf3
(7.~d3!?) 7...l1e8 S.O-O(8.d3 d5) 8...l1le4
was equal in Tarrasch-Duras, Nuremberg
1906. Likewise. 6.LUc6dc6 7 .~e2 1td4
8.0-0 ttJe4 was also equal in Van de Oude-
weetering-Wemmers, Dutch Team
Championship 2000.
6. d4 i.d6
6...~d4 7.~d4 d6it.
7. .4
7.de5 iLe5 8.~d3 0-0 9.0-0 is almost
equal for Black. Worth investigating
though is 8.lDb5!'! (White is planning f4)
8... a6 (S...d5 9.f4 LUe4 (9 ... ~d6 lO.e5)
1O.fe5 ft'h4 I Lg3 ~g3 l2.hg3 'it'g3
13.~d2 itf4 l4.'~c3 and wins) 9.f4 .if4
10.iLf 4 ab5 I '.e5 with decent compensa-
tion in Hofsteuer-Labahn, cr 1993.
7.... ti:lc6
8. eS iLe7
11
Grandmaster Patrick Wolff played this
position twice with White:
• 9.el6 .i.16 10.d5 "e7 1V;.t>f20,d8
11...~d4 12.'~g3 ~c3 13.be3 -.d6
12.dS!? t!t'd6 13.'iYd6 cd6 14.ti':d5 and
White had an edge in Wolff-COMP
KChess, Harvard 1993 .
• 9.dS 4')dS 10.tlJd5 dS 1'1.ed6 'i'd6
12.1oe7 'i'e7 13.~f2 0-0 14.~d3 ~f5
15.~f5 'i'e5 16..b3 .fS 17.g4 We4
18.ne1 White has no advantage of course.
He won after a hard struggle. 18...f5 19.95
l%fe8 20.-.0 ...wc4 21.b3 "t7 22.:cd 1
lle4 23J:1d3 llaeM 24.h4 .e7 25.na I ttJd8
26Jbdl cc,t7 27.a4 b6 28.c4 tDd6 29.c5
tiJt7 30.11cI "e6 31 J:1cc3 tLJdS 32.cb6
cb6 33 ...t>g3 tUc6 34.~f2 tilb4 35J:l.d4
<UJ5 36.lIcc4 a6 37.a5 baS 3S.:c5 tLJh4
39.'i'c3 I1d4 40.~d4 lbdS 41.'i'cl .adS
42.~5 'iff7 43 ..ac8 lIcS 44.'fIt'c8 ~f8
45.~a6 0,e7 46.~a5+- "iWc847.~d6
r.tJc648.~d5 wh849.b4tLld8 50.~c5 tbe6
51.h5 1-0 Wolff-Lesiege, Montreal 1993.
II The Improved Scotch
1. e4 e5
2. tt';c3 li\'6
3. lljf3 tj';eG
4. a3 d5
Now White can play 5.ed5 tUd5 6.~b5 re-
asoning that Black is quite OK in the
Scotch Four Knights. However, if you
want 10 make use of your ex tra tempo it is
better to play
5. ~b5
when the lines fork:
A) S d4
B) 5 de4
C) 5 0,e4
A) 5.... d4
6. tL.e2
AI) 6 ...tbe4 7.d3 Without a3 (so with
colours reversed) Black would now give
check on b4. 7... tbfS B.tDe5 'itd5
AI I) 9...Q.c6bc6 10Ajf3 c5 11.lbf4
'f¥d8 12.0-0 Welling-Paci, Cappelle la
Grande 200 I.
A 12) Taking with the knight is also in-
teresting: 9.tt\e6 beG 1O.~e4 or I O.~a4
1!i'g2 I U1g1 '@d5 12.li\d4 Qd7 13.~e3
and White is much better, Pacbman.
10... 'i!Yg211.:g1 "h212.~f4 with com-
pensation (Pachman), again the pawn on
a3 is very useful with regard to the check
on b4.
A2) 6....i.d6 7.d3 ~g4?! 7 ...h6?! 8.0-0
(8.ttJed4 is a none-too-convincing recom-
mendation of Steinitz: 8 ...ed4 9.eS 0-0)
I:LO-O 9.Cilg3 11',e7 and now instead of
1O.~h4'!. Gunsberg-Pollock. 1888, Stei-
nitz gives IO.tLle5 ~e5 1l.f4 which in-
deed promises While an advantage.
8.0,g3 0.h5 9.h3 $\g3 10.fg3 ~h5?1
11.0-0 0-0 12.94 ~g6 13.'W'e1±
(13.~c6±) Bosch-Lipinsky, Germany
Bundesliga 2001 (15).
A3) In honour of Gunsberg, one of his

12
crushing wins: 6...~d7 7.d3 .Q.d68.lbg3
tile7 9.il.e4 h6?! 10.0-0 g5 11.e31 de3
II...c5 12.'ffb3 12.d41? lbg6 13.be3 0-0
14.tDfS ~e415.~h6 wg716.de5
16...~e7 16...t/,e5 17JDe5 ~eS 18.tdn!
tIfl 19..tfl wins 17./Uf7!+- ~e318.~e2
J:tf7 19.xf7 <M1 20. 'iWc3g4 21.:d1!1 In
truly romantic style 21 ...gf3 22.e6 ~
23.'iVb3 ~f6 24.~b2 wg5 25.'iVe3 ~f4
26JId5 1-0 Gunsberg-Zukerton, London
1888.
B} 5.... de4
This looks bad.
6. (oe5 'iVd6
7. d4 ed3?
Black must play 7 ...a6 !L~c6 he6 9.~f4
'ffe6 10.0-0 ~d5 1 J.0d5 cdS 12.c4 ~d6
13.... a4 (Vl-Yl Bhend-Flear, San Bernar-
dino 1991) 13...~d7 14.'lWc2, Van de
Oudeweetering- Van Gisbergen, Enschede
1994.
8.0-0 .ie6 No better was 8 ...a6 9..Q.c6bc6
1O.~f4 'it'd4 II.'fiD 0,d5 12.l:tfe 1 ~e6
13.1:te4 '*b6 14.ttJfl~+- Mihevc-
Markovic, Yugoslavia 11)91. 9.~t4 ~c5
10.tL;d3 ~e7 11.~e5 '\tc5 12.Wfl 0-0-0
13.~e6 be6 14.b4 'irb6 15.~e3 'iWa6
16.b5 1-0 Stocklin-Rodel, Zurich 1993.
C) 5.... tDe4!?
With colours reversed (so without a3) this
is one of the main lines.
6. t;~:e5
6.'t!t'e2 ~d6! (6 ...tLlc3 7.lte5 is equal)
7.ttJe4 de4 ~.'i'e4 Ad7 is more than OK
for Black.
S.... 'iVfS
Black has an exciting alternative here:
6 ... 'ffg5 7/1'11:.6 1Wg2 8.l:tfl a6 9.0d5
(9.~a4) 9 ... ab5 JO.tt::.c7 ~d7 II.ltJa8
Wc6 is a theoretical position with colours
reversed, here White has a3 extra. This is
useful but it is not clear to what extent.
Kover-Urnberto, cr 1997.
VDf3 ~e6 8.'iWe2 0.c3 8..:i'g6 9.dc3
~cs 1 O.Ags ~g6 11 ..1d3 f5 11... 'ifh5
12..Q.fS!?
White is clearly better now and won
quite nicely. 12.tbh41? "'g5 13."e6
Ci\e7 14.tbf5 Ilf8 14...1Wg2 15.0-0-0
~g5 16.f4 'ii'f4 17.~bl+- 'it'g5
UL~bS c6 19J1d5 15.f4! "'g2 IS ...ltf4
16.1:tf) 'i'g5 17.h4 1Wg2 18.0-0-0+-
16.0-0-0 l:tf6 17.~eS .id6 18.~d6 cdS
13
19. 'tt'h5 q,;,f8 20.l:lhg1 ttl2 21.tldf1 however. 7.e5 ~g8 8.~c4 d6 and While
'tt'e3 22.~b1 h6 23.1i'g4 llf7 24.llg3 had nOI enough in R.Hendriks-Jonkman.
'tt'd2 2S.tlg2 25.~e2!+- (Welling) Zwolle 2001.
25 ...1i'e3 26.11e2 "'b6 27JUe1 ltJg8 Most often White just plays:
28.~g6 tDf6 29.~e6 1-0 Welling- 5. ~c4 ~g7
Granados, Martinenc 200 J . Some players blunder with 5...tDe4.
6.lDe4 only realising at this stage that
III The Reversed Glek Variation 6 ...dfi? is met by 7 ...Q.d5. Still what to
make of 6....ig7 7.lDc3 e4 8.lOgJ 0-0
1. e4 e5 9.0.ge2 ...wh4Zecevic-Rade, Pula tt I994?
2. lLlf3 tL:.e6 White should win, bur didn't. And how
3. tDc3 .!DrG about 6 ....fS 7.d3?! fe4 8.de4 Utasi-Lu-
4. 83 g6 kacs, Budapest 1990'1
G. d3 d6
6...0-0 7.h4 d6 8.~g5 .lii.e6 9.'od5 iLd5
10.~d5 h6= G.Horvath-Lukacs, Balaton-
bereny J 996.
7. h3 1l.e6
7...0-0 8.~.g5 h6 9.~e3 a6 10.'iVd2Wh7,
Van de Oudeweetering- Van Wessel, Ne-
therlands 11 2000.
8.~e3 h6 9.~e6 fe6 10.d4 ed4 11.~4
~d71Vbc6 ~c613."'d3 tLld714.~d4
~e5 lS.~g3 0-0-0 16.0-0·0 'tid7
17.~e5 .QeS 18.f4 .Q.c3 19JIi'c3 The po-
sition is quite equal. Black won after
There are several playable ideas here for some inaccuracies by While 19_..• e7
White: 20.M h5 21.g3 Wb8 22.e5 d5 23.'fid3
• 5.~b5 'fie7 6.d3 tLld8!? was Guns- :thg8 24.r.t.>b1es 25.c4 ~f7 26.<J;a2 bG
berg-Gunston, Manchester 1890. 27.l:lh2 11d7 28.l:thd2 .!Igd8 29.~a1
• S.d4 ed4 6.C.0d4 -*.g7 7.tDde2 by ana- <3;c7 30.'ffc2 a5 31.cd5 l:td5 32.Ad5
logy to the main lines versus 4.g3, White edS 33.l:te1 'ire6 34.11d1 d4 35.b3 84
may consider 7.0.c6 bee R..tc4. 8.~d3 36.ba4 c4 37.'iI'e4 c3 38.l:ld4 "b3 0-1
and 8.~e2.7 ...d6 8.g3 0-0 9..ig2 Ci- Hamdouchi-Adarns. Cannes rapid 2001.
gan-Mikac, Bled It 1996.
• S.d4 ed4 6.Q)d5!? a kind of Belgrade IV Waiting tactics
gambit with a3 and g6 thrown in. 1. e4 e5
• Speculative and spectacular is 2. tljr3 ces
5.lDe5!? ttJe5 6.d4 tlJc6 and now 7.d5 3. tLlc3 .!/~f6
with considerable compensation. Not, 4. 83 a6

14

Calling White's bluff? This counter-
waiting move is not entirely insipid.
S. d4 ed4
6. ~d4
The Belgrade Gambit 6.tLJd5 with the ad-
ditional a3 a6 is worth investigating.
6. ... d6
There are some alternatives:
• 6...~5 is possible. But the Scotch
main line with ~b4 has been prevented.
• 6 ...tal4 7.'Wd4 d6 Gutschow-Jakobi,
Germany 1989, eases White's task.
• 6...ti)e4(!) had already been recom-
mended by Myers and it may well be
Black's best option here. It is also possi-
ble after 4.d4 ed4 5.tL.d4 tLie4(!) 7.'be4
'it'e7 8.f3 d5 and in the 'ordinary' version
(without a3 a6) White now has 9 ..Q.bS.
So the inclusion of a3 a6 is useful for
Black!
7..te2 fLe7 8.0-0 0-0 9.~h1 :e8 10.f4
Af8 11.tt;c6 11..Q.f3 lbd4 l2 ...-d4 .ig4
11... bc6 12.~f3 White is slightly better,
Bhend-Gattenlohner, Zurich 1997.
V Showing restraint
Black avoids all the traps and simply de-
velops with 4 ...d6 or 4 ...~e7. Yet, such
set-ups, reminiscent of the Steinitz varia-
tion of the Ruy Lopez, may not be to
everyone's taste. Still we must acknow-
ledge that the value of the extra move4.a3
is neglible. Since concrete variations are
less important here we will end this article
with some annotated games.
o Isidor Gunsberg
• Joseph Blackbume
Bradford 1887
1.e4 e5 2.~c3 tijf6 3.li::;f3~c6 4.a3 d6
S.h3
This looks like a beginner's move, but
White is preventing ~g4. 5.~c4'!! ttJe4
6.'Lle4 d5 7.~d3 de4 8.~e4 .id6 was
Nirnzowitsch-Kashdan, Bled 1931. Whi-
te equalises at best.
S Ae7 6.d4 0-0
6 ed4 7.lud4 0-0 8.~e2 :e8 (B...dS)
9.0-0 h6 1O.f4 AfS II ,-'t.f3;; Repko-
va-Starr, Yerevan Olympiad 1996.
7.dS ~b8 8.~e3 ~e8
8...c6 is what Steinitz recommended.
9.g4 ~h8 10 .... d2 c5?1 11.4)e2 b5
1VDg3 a6 13.jLe2 g6 14.jLh6 :g8
14... tt'!g7 is preferable but While is better
anyway.
15.0-0-0 ~f6 16JXdg1 lla7 17.gS ~g7
18 ..Q.g71:1.g71
lB ... tiJg7 was necessary.
19.h4 fS 20.ef5 gf5 21.h5 f41
2l...c4 n.h6 l:lg6 23 .... c3 (23.~ fe4
24.tuh4 may well be stronger) 23 ...<it'g8
24.tLlh4 :g5 25.t2lgf5 is given by Steinitz
as winning, but 25 ...~f5 26.tbf5 1:1f7 is
still not so easy.
22.h6 I:1g8 23.~h5 nf7 24 •.id3 .ifS
25..ifS tus 26.'~d3 nn8 27.g6 llg6
28Jlg6 hg6
15
 This regrouping seems too cumbersome.
Better is 9...~d4 1O.~d4 .ie6.
10.0-0-0 .Q.f611.14 ~b6 12.g4
Crude but quite effective. White just gains
a lot of space. Black now has to seek relief
in exchanges.
12 ....Q.d7 13.g5 ~d4 14.~d4 ~d4
15.~d4~c6

29.tDh4!
As Steinitz put it 'The way Mr. Gunsberg
conducts the attack in the latter part of the
game deserves the highest commenda-
tion:
29...gh5 30.tL:g6 wg8 31.h7! Wh7
32.~e7 Mating. 1-0

o Paul Motwani 16.l:thel

• Luc Winants Overlooking Black's idea. 16.~f3 pre-
Belgium tt 2001 vents further exchanges, when White's po-
1.e4 e5 VLif3 tUc6 3.tt::c3 lLil6 4.a3 d6 sition is preferable.
5.d4ed4 16 ...tba4! 17.ti::d5
• S..• ~e7, see 4 ...~e7 5.d4 d6 Hort-Qu- 17.~a4 l:te4 is the tactical just! fication.
ast below. 17...ti:.b6 18.~d3 18.tL;c3 0a4 18....Q.d5
• S...~g4 6.~.b5 ed4 HWd4 ~e7 19.ed5 'ffd7 20.15 lle1 21.~el lle8
(7...~d7 8:~d3;!; Rufenacht-Lematchko, 22.l:te4 .:1e4 23:~e4 f6 24.96 %-'12
Switzerland u 1994) R.eS deS 9.~d8 l:td8
lO.lC.eS gave White a small edge in o Vlastimil Hort
Smallbone-Ashron. England 2000. • Michael Quast
• 5...~g4 6.dS tLld4 7._Q_e2tDe2 8.~e2 Germany Bundesliga 1995

(;69.h3 i.d7 was played in two games be- 1.e4 e5 Vt:if3 C~f6 3.o!bc3 tbc6 4.a3 iLe7
tween Nanu and Vajda. 5.d4 d6 6 ..Q.e2
6.tUd4 i.e7 7..b2 0-0 8.~e3 Perhaps this is best. Some alternatives:
Preparing to castle queenside. A) 6...Q.hSed4 (6 ...~.07 7.~c6 - 7.'lrd3
e lIe8 - 7 ...fo..c6 8:~'d3 was Tarrasch-Fleisch-
S dS. mann, Hamburg 1910) 7.tLid4 .~.d7 8.0-0
9."d2 -1ld7 0-0 9.11el 01.)04 IO:~'d4 .~b5 11.&...:b5

16
ttld7 12.a4!'1 Wahls-Piket, Novi Sad
Olympiad 1990.
B) 6.d5 ~b8 7.h3 0-0 !L~e3 c6 Nur-
rnamedov-Mats, Moscow It 1979.
C) 6.h3 0-0 7.~e2 ed4 8.ltJd4 d5! is
comfortable for Black, Bhend-Ziatdinov,
Lenk 1991.
6...0-0 7.0-0 i.g4 7 ...ed4 B.dS ~f3
9.~f3 lLId4 10..ie3
White is slightly better.
10•..c5 11.84 a6 12.a5 o1\e813.~g4 g6
14.~h3LDg7 15.tL:.a4 '5
IS ... Wa5 16.c3
16.~b6 J:lb8 17.c3 Ci!b5 18..Q.h6 ,Uf7
19.~g7 ~g7 20.ef5 g1521.... c2 ~g6
2l...e422.f3+-
22.~f5! 1-0
o Mark Hebden
• Jonathan Ady
London 19B6
1.e4 e5 2.a3!?
Hebden goes for Mengarini 's move order.
2...lij'6 3.lLic3 lLic6 4.lLif3 .ie7 5.d4 ed4
6.~4O-0
Black is ready for 7...d5, which is his re-
ply to both 7..Qe2 and 7.~.e3.
7.~c6 bc6 7...ddi l(~dR l:td8;£ a.es
8...~d5!?
Sacrificing a pawn. The alternative is
8...tLieR9.'t!i'd4 (9.~d3) 9...f6 1O.f4 fe.S
) l.fe5 d5 12.¥e3 0.f6!? 13.ef6 ~f6
14."-c5 l:te8 and Black had good com-
pensation for the piece in Y.Gure-
vich-Ivanov, Soviet Union 1978.
9.tL\d5cd510.'ft'd5l:1b8
IO...c6!?
11.~d3 d6 12.0-0 ~b7 13.... d4 deS
14.... e5 .i16 15.'I'g3 l:te8 16.~f4 lte7
17.%%ad1 "'e81B ..te7
and White won.
RECENT GAMES
o Jeroen Bosch
• Paul van der Sterren
Breda 2001
1.e4 eS 2.ti'·,f3ti'!c6 3.tt'~c34\16 4.a3 g6
5...ic4
Rather meek was S.g3 iJ..g7 6.~g2 0-0
7.0-0 d6 8.d3 h6 9.h3 Vz-!jzPalac-Sax,
Medulin 2002.
S....Q.g7S.d3 d6 7.0-0
About equal was 7.~g5 ~e6 8.'IIe2 h6
9.~d2 'fNd7 10.h) a6 11.0-0-0 0-0-0
12.lbd5 ~d5 l3.~d5 tUdS 14.ed5 t.Lid4
15.tUd4ed4, Ganguly-Babu, Nagpur 2002.
7...0-0 B.h3 ~e6 9.~g5
Black is slightly better after 9.~e6 fe6
1O.~e3. No better is 9,tLidS ~d5 (9 ...h6)
IO.ed5 CDc7.
9... h6 10.~h4 't!¥d7
Black has a comfonable position,
11.11el o!ijh5?!
Stronger are Il..J:tae8 or 11...<.t>h7.
12.~d5! tLf4 13.~g3 95 14.c3 '5
15.~f4! gf4
17
Not IS ...ef4 16.efS+-. 44.<;t>h3.
16.~h4 42 ....tdS 43.'~f2 wc6 44.tDSb4 ~d7
16.efS I:[f5. 45.ti:.d5 wcS 4S.tL:5b4 ~d7 47.l:lel!
16...fe4 H.de4 ~d818.~b3! !:rel 48.'it'e1 ~b4 49.cb4!
Here 18.lDf5 is answered by 18...~h8. 49.ab4 <ot>d6 (49 ...tL:b2 50.tiJb2 a3
While, 18.ii'g4 is only useful after 51.tDd3+-) SO.<;t>dI.
18 ~g4?? 19.tiJf6 wh8 20.tDg6 mate! 49 ... ~dS 50.~e2!
18 c6 SO.<;Pd1 lDeS 51.<ot>e2 (51.tiJeS ~e5
Or IS ...aS 19.<1)f5. 52.<itc2'iPd4 53.\9d2 ~c4=) Sl...1Oc4.
19.~b4 as 20.ttJd3 50 ... $d7 51.'~d1t ~d6 52.~c2 ttJe5
With the idea of lUeS. 53.lLle5! <i>e554.~d3 ~d5 55.~c3 ~e5
20 ...llJf7 21 ..te6 't!fe6 22 .... g4 5S.b3 ab3 57.~b3 ~d4 58.a4 ba4
22.li;fS ~h7. 59.<ito>a4<ito>e3SO.b5 'iPf3 st.es ~g2
22 ...Wg423.hg4 62.b7 f3 63.b8. f2 64.~b7 ~g1
White is somewhat better. 65 b6 ~g2 66 .... cS ~gl 67 .... c5 'itig2
23 d5? 24.~f5 llfe8 2S.ne2! de4 68 d5 ~g1 69.'iWd4 $>g2 70.'i'd2
2S b6 26.edS cd5 27Jlael±. ~g17UWe3
2S.tec5 b6 27.!be4 a4? 71.~h6 fl it' 72:~e3 ~g2 73.g5.
Stronger was 27 ..JbdS. 71···~92
28.11dl lladB 29J:Id8
29.1:1ed2 %td2 30.%td2 ~dS 31.tiJe7 ~f8
32.ttJc6 %td2 33.tiJd2 ~d6 34.f3 with a
clear advantage.
29 ..~d8
Here 29 ...li.\d8 is answered by 30.l:td2 or
30.ltJed6.
30.tile7 'iPf8 31.tDc6 l:Id1 32.'~h2 ~8
33.13
But not, 33.g3'! f3 34J:ld2 (34.1:te31:tbl)
34 .. .l:tel.
33 ...'iPd7 34.t;~b4 tt\d6 35.tDf2
3S.1:td2l:ld2 36lud2 b5 72:~e4
35 ... 11bl 36.~fd3 t.Gc4 37.g3 .!1'ieJ1T White wins with 72.iIi'e2!! wgl 73.g5!
38.gf4 ef4 39.tt.Jc2?T hgS (73 ... fI'it' 74.'ii'fl c;t;fl 7S.gh6)
Winning was 39.tLlf4 ~e5 40.tL2d3. 74.it'g4 ~h2 75.VJgf3 ~gl 76.ii'g3 *f1
39 ...tOe4 40.ti:.cb4 77.~b3 g4 7S.rt>c2 ~e2 79.'t!fd3 ~el
40.tiJd4 ~d4 41.cd4 l:tdl (4l...Wd6!) HO:.wd I mate.
4Vbf4l::ld4. 72 ...~g1 73.g5? f1'iW 74.'ifg4 ~2
40 ... b5 41.~d5 ~f8!? 42.<.1;>g2 75.gS
Winning was 42.lbSf4! ~d6 43.<ot>g3l:td I 75.'ii'h4 IiPg2 76.gh6 'iWa6.

18
7S ...1ka6 S...ed4 6.~d4 ~g7 7.tL.de2
White cannot avoid a perpetual. 7.CiJc6bc6 8.Ad3 0-09.0-0 I:tb8 IOJ:thl
76.~ 'irb6 77.q.,e4 'ire6 78.'.t>d3 ~d5 d5 II.ed5 lUg4! 12.~f4 cdS 13.~e2!~
79.~3 'l!fb3 80.q.,f2 'lWe2 81.<it>el l!re3' Ganguly-Haslinger, Torquay 2002.
B2.~2 ""'e2 8:1.~e3 'ii'c3 84.';t.e2 'ii'c2 7...0-0 8.g3 d6 9.,Q,g2 ~8?1 10.h3
85.$e1 "*,c3 86.W12 %-V-! t?Jg8?1 11.g4;1; f5 12.efS 5 13.gS! f4
14.~f4 ~d4 15.~e3 ~fS .• d2 tbe3
o Pawel Blehm H.We3 Cf.::,e7lS.h4! dS 1 0-0-0 [{jfS
• Larry Kaufman 20:tIr'd2 c6 21.hS h6 22.tt:f4 ~h7
Washington 2002
1.e4 eS Vbf3 tLlc6 3.t2.lc3 ~f6 4.a3 g6
S.d4
5.ttJe5!? lLle56.d4 CDc6 7.d5 was a recorn-
rnendation in the original article. Nor-
way's biggest talent Magnus Carlsen
bravely tried it out. His game against
Nyysti (Helsinki 2002) went: 7 ...tbb8
8.e5 tt)g8 9.d6!'! cd6 lO.ed6 .-f6
(10 ....i.g7 1I.tUd5!)

23.tbe4! "'b6 24.tbf6 ~f6

24...$.f6 25.gf6 ~f6 26.'i!fd±.
25.gf6 ~f6 26.~d3 tL;d6 27 .~h3 [ce4
2S.'tWb4+- 'f!Je7 29.'lWe1 'lWd6 30.'ife2
tLia3 31 ..ie8 ne8 32.'ifg4 1:[gS 33.'iff5
""h8 34.nhg1 j,g5 35.f4 nf8 36.""'g6
IlfS 37.11g5 hg5
37 ....Ilg6 38.l:g6 ~f8 39.ba3.
3S.• gS ~e4 39.~e5 'lWe6 40.l:tg1 tfe7
41.'i!Vg8Male. 1-0
analysis diagram

Il.tLJh5 li:a6 12.~c4 ~h6 13.'i'e2 Wffl o Marijan Petrov

14.~e3 ~e3 IS.fe3 '4!r'h4 16.g3 *'h5 • Nikolay Managadze
17.'fi'f2 ft'f5 18.'We2 (lS.1Wf5!? gf5 Nlkea 2002

19.0-0 with compensation) 18...1WhS
19.1Wf2.. rs 20.'i!ie2li\h6!'? 21.l:tf1 'tWh5
22."f2 'fi'e5!'1 23.0-0-0 and White still
had plenty of compensation for the sacri-
ficed piece.
1.e4 e5 Vijf3 ~e6 3.~c3 lDf6 4.a3 d6
An alternative is 4 ....ic5 S.lDe5 tDe5 6.d4
~d6 7.de5 ~e5 8.tt:lb5!? a6 9.f4 ab5N
IO.fe5 ~e4 II.'fi'g4 d5 12.'W'g7 with an
advantage, Molander-Van Hoolandt,

19
Gausdal 2002. Black can improve with
5...0-0 6.lDd3 ~b6 7.~e2 ~e8 S.eS lj'ie5
9.t~leS lieS 1O.d4 ne8= Janev-Pina,
Odivelas 200 1.
5.d4~e7
Or 5....Q.g4 6.d5 (6._Q_b5) 6.. .tDb8
(6 ...~d4) 7.~e2 c6 8.0-0 1l.e7 9.~cl!?
Gombac-Mikac, Pula 2002.
6.~e2 ~g4 7.d5 tDb8 8.0-0 0-0 9.lt)d2
~e2 1O.tbe2! ~fd7 11.c4 96 12.b4 a5
13.~b2 b6 lHWc2 ~g5 15lilb3 'fie7
16.~c3
White is better. The position is reminis-
cent of a King's Indian where White is a
lot faster on the queenside.
16...ab417.ab4 ~a118.~al f5
19.ef51 9f5 20.~a7 tDf6 21,Ctjg3 14
22.llJt51!i'd7 23.h4! ~e8 24.~a8!+-
Or 24.hgS Itt'S 25Jbl3+-.
24...n15 25.~b8 .at8 26.hg5 f3 27.llJd2
192 28.'i!I'd3 llf4 29.tDe4 ..t;>f730.ltJdS!
cd6 31. ~h7 tt;g7 32..!'lg8 1-0
o Rune Djurhuus
• Andreas Moen
Gausdaf 2002
1.e4 e5 VZ!f3 t2:f6 3.tL:c3 liJcS 4.a3 d5
5.iLb5llJe4
20
Weak is 5 ... de4?! 6.tDe5 'iiVd6 7.d4 ed3
8.0-0 d2N 9.~d2 .Q.e6 10.'tWO! ~d5
1Utfe 1 fiLe7 12.l:rad I 0-0 13.Qf4+-
Radulski-Matsuura, Bled 2002. After
5...d4 6.liJe2 .i.d7 7.d3 Qd6 8.0-0 (8.log3
was Gunsberg-Zukenort, London 18138)
8...h6 9.~e I (alternatives are 9.c3 and
9.tDg3) 9 ...4\e7 10..id7 'ilkd7 1 J.f4 ef4
1VuO 4.1c6 13.~f4 tDe5 with a good po-
sition, Blehm-Socko, Warsaw 2002.
S.ltJe5
The alternative is 6.'i'e2 tbc3 (or
6...'W"d6!?)7.~e5, and now:
A) 7 ...9.e7 8.iYc3 0-0 9.~c6 bc6
I0.~c6 ~J5 I I .d3 _~f6 12.0-0 ~g4 13.c4
~f3 14.gf3 dc4 IS.dc4ltb8 16.~f4! Ab2
17Jbdl -.we7 18.~d7 and White is better,
Kristjansson-Azarov, Goa 2002:
B) 7 ...'W"e7! B.de3 ~d7= Yousry-
Gross, Cairo 2002.
6•..~f6
6..:'lWg5leads10 exciting play.
7,tljf3 ~e6 8"~e2 ~Lc39.dc3 ~d6N
9....Qc5
10.~g5 ~g611.~.d3 ~h5
12.,S,f5
12.h3 <1)e5was Karttunen-Scpp, Finland
2002.
12... tLieS! 13.~e6 fe6
Or 13...lL!f3 14.gf3 0-0 1S.~d5l:tae8 with
compensation.
14.tl)e5
14.~b5 c6 15.'ir'b7 tDtJ 16.gtJ 0-0
17.~f6!?
14 lIte2
14 'it'g5 15.4\,f3 'it'e7
1S.We2 .te5 16.:lae1= r;pd7 17.'itrd3
.td6 18.c4 l:thf8 19.1:te2 11f5 20.~d2
:8f8 21.f3 nh5?122.h3 11f7 23.cdS edS
24.f4!d4
24 ....2.f4 2S.l:tf2 (hut not 25JHI g5 with
the idea 26.g3? 1:(113)25 ...l1hf5 (2S ...g5
26.g3) 26.Uhfl +-.
2S.11e4 c5 26.94
Now White has a distinct edge.
26 ..JldS 27.b4 cb4 28.ab4 wc6 29.l:If1
lld7 30.';t>c4d3 31.c3 a5 32.Wb3 ab4
33.c41? 11a5 34.lIe6 :83 35.Wb2 lla4
36.f5 ~cS 37.lIc1 lien 38 ...te3 1-0
Resigns, e.g. 38 ...~c6 39.c5 Ue640.cd6
~d6 41.fe6+-.
 CHAPTER 2
Your SOS weapon versus the Pirc
Austrian Attack with 5.a3:
White's most aggressive option versus
the Pin: is undoubtedly the Austrian
Attack. After l.e4 d6 2.d4 tijf6 3.01.';c3g6
4.f4 .ig7 S.ld] Black has two main sys-
tems at his disposal: 5...0-0 and 5...c5.
Both systems differ distinctly in charac-
ter, and as White one must be well-prepa-
red to enter the theoretical ramifications
of these lines. [f the tactical nature of the
Austrian Attack attracts you but the work-
load that accompanies this choice does
not, then the following variation might be
your thing.
1. e4 d6
22
NIC KEVPU 11.1
2. d4 Cd6
3. tUc3 g6
4. f4 ug7
5. 83!1
What on earth could be the idea behind
this insipid looking move? Isn 't one sup-
posed to develop one's pieces in the ope-
ning?
Let me try to explain the point of S.a3!?
After the normal S.tUf3 Black can play
the active 5...c5 because of the tactical
justification 6.dc5 'iWa5!and now 7.~d3
.c5 leads to a Dragon-like position that
is OK for Black. However. after 5.a3 c5?
6.dc5. 6...... a5 is met by 7.b4~ (7 ..... d8
8.e5, with advantage). So 5.a3 prevents
Black's most active system! The move a3
also takes away the b4 square from
Black's pieces. The relevance of this can
be shown by comparing another move
that prevents 5...c5. viz. 5.i.d3 (protec-
ling e4). Here Black has 5... ttJc6! 6.d5
(6.lbf3 ~g4) 6...lbb4, with good play.
Finally, 5.a3 is a subtle waiting move.
After 5...0-0 6.tilf3 White will await
Black's answer before deciding upon his
set-up (1Le3 and ~d2, .te2 and 0-0, ~d3
and 0-0, a quick e5 etc.). In practice. the
position after 6.lC.f3 is often reached via
the move order 5.~11 0-0 6.a3. This stri-
kes me as less logical, as il gives Black the
extra option of S... c5.
After such a move as 5.a3 Black has, of
course. many different set-ups at his dis-
posal. We will investigate them in turn by
means of four illustrative games.
D MJaden Palae
• Miljenko Medic
Pula 2002
1.e4 d6 2.d4 <'C.f63.iDc3 g6 4.f4 ~g7
5.a3!? 0-0 S.tL2f3
6...c6
A passive move after which aggressive
play will gain White a substantial edge.
Here are some alternatives that are not
very popular in practice:
A) 6...b6 7.~d3 a6?! 8.0-0 c5 9.e5
lOe8 10.ke4 J:[a7 II.de5 was quite good
for White in Van den Brink-Kohler,
Leeuwarden 1993.
B) 6...ttJbd7 7.eS lbe8 8.~e3 b6
(8 ...ltJb6 9.'t1M2 c6 1O.h4 h5 I Lid3 was
Murey-Pfleger, Royan 1988. Black even-
tually won, bur at this stage White's posi-
tion looks more attractive) 9.h4 c5 1O.h5
0,c7 II.hg6 hg6 12.'.d2 ~b7 13.'tWf2
was erude but rather effective in Da-
vid-Kastanieda, Istanbul Olympiad 2000.
C) 6...1.:5!? is interesting. Black tries to
show that a3 has not prevented c5 at all.
7.dc5 ~a5 8.b4 'i'd8. Now 9.cd6 is ans-
wered by 9...tbe4. while 9.~e3 lbfd7 is
given as unclear by Nunn and McNab in
The Ultimate Pirc. The game Motwa-
ni-McNab, Aberdeen 200 I, therefore
continued 9.:bJ lLlfd7 10.'it'd2 dc5 It .e5
cb4 12.ab4 lLlb6 13.~d3 lLlc6, when
things were still rather unclear.
7..i.e3
Also good is 7.~e2lObd7 8.c5llJd5 9.llJe4
b5 10.a4 b4 11.h4 a5 12.hS, with an edge
in David-Nouro, Stockholm 1998.
7...~bd7 8.e5 l1.Je89.h4
Against a passive black set-up this ag-
gressive thrust works well.
9... hS
Stopping the h-pawn short in its tracks but
also weakening his kingside.
10.~d3 <'C.c7
I0...~b6 looks essential. Now Palac cras-
hes through.
23
11.g4! hg4 12.h5 gh5 15.c4, and White had a slight edge in Pa-
12...g0 13.~f3, and the attack is too po- lac-Sinanovic, Pula 200 I.
werful. 7 li:ld7
13.trh5 ne8 7 de5 ~.fe5 tl.\d5 9.tL:.e4c6 lO.c4 ~dc7
13 .. .f5 14.t.i\g5. 11.it.e2 gave White a huge edge in Mu-
14.~h7 Wf8 15.tDg5 4::.b6 16.'i'fd3 roy-Bernard, Cappelle la Grande 1993.
~bd5 8..Q.e3es
Trying to undermine While's 'Austrian'
~ .t~~~ centre.
9..ta6
~~~ ~~.t~ Black now plays some necessary interme-
~~ diate moves.
9 cd4
~~ lZJ~ 9 ba6 JO.dc5, planning IO ... de5 J I.c6.
~ ~~ 1o.iLd4 deS
~ ttJ'iY~ 1O...ba6 ) l.ed6.
11.fe5 ba612.~e2. ~b7 13.0-0-0
~~
l:t
17..!bf7! 'fid7
17...~t7 IR.'f¥g6 'it'f8 and now )9.~d5
wins: 19...tC.d5 (19 ...cd5 20J:lgS llje6
21.UfS srs 22.\\!¥g8mate) 20.J:tgS.
18.tDg5 4\e3 19."e3 93 20.'it'g3 deS
21.fe5 'i'd4 22..ae4 ~g8 23.l:th8
Winning the queen.
23...<;t>h824.'*h4 ~g8 2S.li.h7 1-0

o Igor Glek Opposite castling often leads to dou-

• Spartaco Sarno
Saint Vincenl 2002
1.e4 d6 2.d4 tt:lf6 3.tt:'lc3 96 4.f4 ,Q,g7
5.~f3 0-0 6.a3 ~a6 7.e5
Or 7..Q.e3c5 8..b6!'! (~.dc5 tbc5 9.e5
tj'.g4 1O. .tg I b6 Il.h3 0.h6 12.i.c4 .lib?,
and Black is definitely not worse. For-
ster-Neubauer, Montecatini 1997) 8...cd4
9..Q.d4 ba6 1O.tt'd3 ~b7 I) .0-0-0 1&'c8
)2.h3 ~c6 !3.C'ild5 ~d5 14.ed5 tt'b7
ble-edged play. Here Black has the bishop
pair, but less space. White's position
looks a lot easier to play. The march of the
h-pawn once again suggests itself.
13.._tbb614.h4
14.e6 .i.f3 15.'iYf3 ..Q.d4 16.1&'e4 fe6 or
16 f5 is unclear.
14 ttc8 15.h5 ~g4 16.h6!
Locking the bishop in its cage. 16.hg6
fg6, and Black is OK.

24
16 ...~h8 17.~b6! ab6 18.ltld5t %1fd8
19.1Llb6J:lab8 20.:d8 l:d8 21.~b1 "tWe6
22.tDc4 f6 23.r!:d1 rIc8
23 ..Jtdl 24.tvdl ~c4 25.~d8 ~t7
26.e6! (not 26.~hg "fIfi 27.~a2 "(;4,
with a perpetual) 26 ...~e6 (26 ...We6
27."g8+-) 27.~h!5 winning.
24.'ii'd3 ~f3 25.gf3 fe5
25..".·c4 26.'it'c4 lk4 27.l:1d8 <.Pt7
28.l:lh8.
26.lLid2 ~f6 27.4',e4 'i'e6? 28:.-b3 ~8
29.rId5 'tIfe8 30.lL;'6! et6 31. 'i'b7 1-0
o Rini Kuijf
• Marlin Roobol
Netherlands n 1999/2000
1.e4 d6 2.d4 lUfS 3.tDc3 96 4.f4 .tg7
5.a3 0-0 6.4:)f3 .!De6
Though it is not exactly clear what
White's best move is after 6 ...tDc6, it must
be said that playing Cuc6 is usually more
effective when White's bishop is already
on d3. Moreover, after a3 Black no longer
has the b4 square for his knight.
7.~e2
This exploits the fact that Black's best li-
nes versus 6.Jte2 will always include
c7-c5. Let us examine the alternatives:
A) 7.d5 tUbS lL~.d3 c6 9.dc6 ttJc6
10.0-0 -'a5 11.~d2 ~g4 was equal in
Kuijf-Cuijpers. Hilversum 1989.
B) 7.~e3?! e5 S.feS de5 9.de5 ~g4
IO.~c5 lDce5 was Sepp-Fridman, Riga
1995. After II. ... d8 J:td8 12.h3 tL;f3
13.gf3 ~e5 Black was fine.
C) 7.e5 de5 (7 ...lC,e8) 8.fe5 It:)h5
9..Q.e3 .Q.g4 IO."d2 f6 II.~c4 ~h8
12.e6, and White had a dangerous attack.
Milov-Ludgate, Port Erin 1994.
7 ~g4
7 e5 8.deS deS 9."e'd8 l:td8 IO.fe5 lCg4
1J.~g5 l:!e8 J2.l22d5 is better for White.
8 ..Q.e3 ~f3 9.~f3 e5 10.fe5 deS 11.d5
lLid4
This was Black's idea, but Kuijf's next
move emphasizes his positional edge.
12.0-0!
Certainly not 12.~d4? ed4 13.'ir' d4lDe4!.
12 c613.~h1 ltle8
13 cd5 looks better.
14.~e2 cd5 15.~d5 Ilc8 16.c3 ~e2
1H!ie2 ~\c7 18Jlad1 ~d519.J:td5 "c7
20.l:c5!
Converting his positional plus into a ma-
terial one,
25
20 ..."b8 21J~cB -.weB
2l...J:[c822."'f2!
22 ..i.a7
Now White is winning.
22 ...Wc6 23.~g1 J:[d8 24.h3 ~h6
25.~e3! ~e3
Or 25 ... 'iVe4 26 .• 'f2 .if4 27.~f4 ef4
28."f4 "f4 29.l:It4(planning J:[b4) and
wins.
26:twe3
White is a sound pawn up and eventually
managed to convert his advantage.
26..:"c4 27.1:lf2 J:[d1 28.Wh2 Ild7
29."e2 "84 30JU3 ffd1 31:.c4 "'d6
32.'twb5 wg7 33JH1 h6 34.'tWe2 f6
3SJlf2 "'b6 36JU3 hS 37.~g3 ~7
3B."c4 o;t>g7 39. 'iWc8 ffc7 40.-.weB ssr
41.lld3 "e7 42.'i'e7 l:Ie7 43!~g3 Q;;f7
44.l:ld6l:lc7 4S.:b6 g5 46.wf3 h4 47.a4
";'g6 48.85 :rcS 49.a6 ba6 50.1%a6 ltc7
5Uld6 :a7 52.J:[d2 :a1 53.c,t.e3 g4
54.hg4 ";'95 55.1:lc2 ~g4 56.e4 :el
S7.Wf2 J:[e4 58.c5 %1f4 59.~e3 Ilb4
60.c6 ;ab8 61.c7 :lc8 62.b4 fS S3.bS
<Ji>g364.b6 f4 65.~e4 1-0
o Alberto David
• Roman Siobodjan
Berlin 1997
1.e4 d6 2.d4 tDf6 3.-2.c3 g6 4.f4 i.g7
5.lLlf3 0-0 6.a3 ~94 7.~e3
The alternative is 7.h3 ~f3 8.tH3 tL~,c6
(probably stronger is 8 ...t2lfd7 9.e5 cS
IO... b7 cd4 II.lL:.b5 'i'b6 l2.'W'b6 ab6
13.ed6 ed6 14..itd2, and a draw was ag-
reed in Moreno-Narciso, Parnplona 200 I.
14...~cS gives Black sufficient counter-
play) 9.i.e3 e5 10.de5 de5 II.f5 tiid4
l2.Vf2 (White is much better here, as
was borne out in practice) l2 ... gf5
26
(12 ... ltJh5 13.0-0-0c614.<;t>bl flie715.g4
tDf4 16.Af4 ef4 17.J:[d4+- Illescas-
Gurevich, Madrid rapid 1988) 13.ef5 ae8
14.0-0-0tLid515.tiid5 'tIfd5 16.'~bll:lad8
l7.f6..tf8 18.~d3 e4 19.~e2, winning a
piece: Milov-Wesr, Moscow Olympiad
1994.
7 0fd7
7 d5 8.eS tZle4 9.~d3 tLlc3 lO.bc3it.
David-Luetke, Groningen 1995.
8.~e2 e5
This was Black's idea. but 8... c5 is proba-
bly stronger.
9.1e5 de5 10.dS tLib6 11.0-0
White has a pleasant edge.
11...c6 12.a4! cdS 13.a5 ~f3
Also insufficient are 13...d4 14.ab6 de3
IS.flid8 ~d8 16.%1a7 and 13...de4
l4.~d8 ~d8 J5.ab6 ef3 16.gf3.
14JU3
Not !4 ..~.J3 tiic4.
14...de4 1S.cDe4 -8d5 16.~g5 flid7
David has a brilliant sacrifice up his slee-
ve that quite clearly illustrates the risk
Black is taking in this 50S Austrian
Attack.
17JU7!! ..wf7
Or 17...'it'f7 18.~c4 'Ot>g819.1Dc5 'CIVf5 lbbd7 12.il.e3
20.1Wd5 Wh8 21.1Ifl +-. Also bad is
17... l:I:f7 18.~c4ltJf4 (18 ...ltJc7 19.tlJd6
lCoe6 transposes) 19.tL.d6 tiJe6 20.ltJf7
00 21... 0. winning.
18.~c4 ~ha 19....d5 f¥c7
19.... d5 2o.Ad5 tbc6 21.a6.
20.~d6 tLlc6
20 ...h6 is neatly answered by 2l..Q.d8!
'tIYd7 22.J:t.fl an 23.<;9fl winning.
21.li)f7 l:[f7 22_~f7 '(Wd6 23.c3 Wc5
24.<t;h1tDa5 2S.:tt6! 1-0

White has a clear edge because of his two

RECENT GAMES bishops and his space advantage on the
kingside.
o Glenn Flear 12...tOh5?! 13.0-0-0 ~e7 14.h4 tDI4
• Vitaly Tseshkovsky 15.il.c4 b5 16•..Q.a2g_abB 17.g3 ~h5
Hastings 2002/03 18.g4
1.d4 d6 2.e4 t2.16 3.tLlc3 g6 4.14 ~g7 Winning a tempo for his attack. As Chris
5.a3 Ward has pointed out this is stronger than
Regular New In Chess contributor Glenn 18.fg6 hg6 19.~g4 a double attack. since
Flear became a 5.a3 fan after reading the after 19... tL.df6 20.'lWg6 b4 21.ab4 li'b4
original SOS article in New 111 Chess Black has good counterplay.
Magazine. 18...tDf4 19.95 b4 20.ab4
5...0-0 6.t~}f3c6 7.Qd3 20.f6 <1\f6 21 ,gf6 'i'f6 is not a good idea
Both 7.~e3 and 7.iLe2 give White an ad- because of the threat of discovered check
vantage as well (see game I on d3.
Palac-Medic). Too hasty though is 7.e5 20...~b4 21..Q.b3 tDcs 22.~c5 1Vc5
lDfd7 8.i.e3 c5! 9.Ab5 cd4 1O.~d4 deS 23.f6
l l.fef 00<.:0[2.~c6 heo13.co fen 14..Q.g7 Naturally White is winning now.
~g7 15,'(ifd4 e5! Bosch-G.Jan~sen, 23 i.h8 24.h5 IUd8
Dieren 2002. 24 l2jh5 25.nh5 ghS 26.~h5+-.
7...~g4 8.h3 25.hg6 hg6 26.l':lh4
Also good is 8.0-0 eS 9.de5 de5 10.fS 26.~f7 ~n 27.l':lh7 ~g8 28.l':ldhl lbh5
~bd7 [1.h3 .Q.f3 12.'fYf3 It":c5 13.~e3 29.l:I:7h5 gh5 30.1!Yh5(Chris Ward), is a
tLld3 14.lIadl! Sedina-Qendro, Milan stylish end,
2002. 26....:1d1 27.'fYd1 tDh5 28.l:lh3 ~f8
8....ilf3 9.~f3 e5 10.de5 deS 11.15 29 ...t>b1

27
29.~h5 gh5 30.1!fh5+-. 13... ~b714.£Le3 CLJd715.~f3?!
29 ...""2 30.<;pa2 .f4 31.... g1 a5 This is too optimistic.
32Jld3 a4 33 ..ic4 a3 34.ba3 ~h4 15 .....tb2 16J~bl ~f3! 17.11f3 ~b8
35 .... cS 18 ...tf1.-c7
This threatens 'iWf8 and mate, Black may While has no compensation for the pawn.
safely resign but probably had no time His next makes matters worse.
left.; 19.f5?! ~e5 20.g3 llbl 21 .... b1 llb8
35 ..•li:lf6 ~16 37.'itc6
36.gfG "'f2 22.'iWdl Cd6 23.1g6 hg6 24.Wh1 llb2
38.n3 C;Pg739.tDdS .i.dB 40.1!fc3 lle8 2S.l:!.f2l:!.f226..tf2
41.tDb4 llh8 1-0

o Glenn Flear
• Jonathan Mestel
England n 2002103
1.d4 d6 2.e4 /Uf6 3.LL·le3 g6 4.f4 ~g7
5.a3 0-0 6.~f3 b6 7.~d3
Or7.eS deS 8.de5 'it'dl 9.ttJdl toje4 1O..ac4
~b7 Il.tiJt'2 e6 12.i.e3 ttJd7 13.tbe4 i.e4
14.0-0-0 ~O IS.g0 %lad8with approxi-
mate equality. Moreno Camero-Seul, Ber-
muda 2003.
7...SLb78.0-0 26 ....Q.d4127.~d4 'tWd6 2B.'i!!t'a4 'iid4
This is perhaps 100 slow, 8.eS!? looks like White's king cannot be protected against
an improvement. the combined power of queen, knight and
8...c5! 9.e5 CudS1O.ti.ld5~d5 11.dcS c-pawn.
I l.c4.if3! (11 ...~b7 12.d5 e6 is playable 29.'tWa7 'iWe430.Wg1 ~e3 31.wh1 ~g7
too) 12.""H3 ti:;d7 undermines White's 32 ..-b7 'iWc133.$gl treS 34.wh1 1I'c1
centre successfully. 35.Wg1 e5 36.a4 'tWal 37.'iWa8 e4
11...deS 1V2.le5 bc5 38 ..Q.e2 "a1 39.:.t>g2 '1Wb240.~1 1I'a1
Black. has equalized. 41.Wg2 '\!ie1 0..1
13.c4?! White resigned as 42.~fl 1!t'd243.Wgl
Stronger are 13.'i'e2 and 13.~e3. (43!.t;h3 g5) 43.,,<1~g4wins.
 CHAPTER 3

Outfox your opponent

NIC KEYSI34.7

Play 6.a3 in the Sicilian

This chapter presents a move order wea-
pon for the first player against the Four
Knight's Sicilian. While there are inde-
pendent lines, there an: also a 101 of trans-
positions possible to other Sicilian
variations. The Scheveningcn. the Sozin,
the Taimanov and even the Sveshnikov
and Boieslavsky systems are used for
comparison below. So one of the main
ideas of 6.a3 is to lure your opponent into
unknown territory. Unknown to him. that
is! Naturally, if you want to use this move
order weapon well. you should make sure
that the line you (or your opponent) are
aiming for is part of your repertoire.
1. e4 es
2. CLJ3 ttJc6
3. d4 cd4
4. t"iJd4 t_Df6
5. tbc3 e6
In practice Black mainly uses the Four
Knights move order, for two reasons: either
because he wants to play the Sveshnikov.
but wants to prevent some variations that he
finds unpleasant after the immediate S...e5
(mainly 6.C2db5d6 7.ti::d5).or because he
wants to play the line 6.lLldb5i.b4, where
Black's play is quite straightforward and it

29
is not so easy to prove a white advantage.
Still, most players will of course go for
6.1L1db5 anyway, unless they prefer the line
6'cilc6 bc6 7.e5. Other 6th move alterna-
tives are strongly met by 6 ...~b4 (6.~e2
~b4, 6.g3 ~b4 or 6...d5, 6 ..te3 ~b4). This
immediately explains part of the usefulness
of our next move.
6. a3!?
Now (hat 6...~b4 has been prevented,
Black has to change tack. Note that
6...~c5 is no good after 7.0.c6 bc6 8.e5
tj':dS 9.toe4, attacking the bishop. We will
investigate the following lines:
A) 6 e5
B) 6 a6
C) 6 'i'c7
D) 6 d5
E) 6 d6
F) 6 $.e7
Lines A, Band D lead to independent
play. The other three lines will often
transpose to other Sicilians.
Variation A
6. ... e5
30
A witty answer! Black opts for the Svesh-
nikov anyway with the extra move a3.
The point of his belated e5 becomes clear
after: 7.tt\db5 d6 8.~g5? a6 9.~f6 gf6,
when the extra tempo is to White's detri-
ment. The usual square of retreat is not
available 10 the knight. Instead of 8.~g5?
White should play 8.tlJd5! ttJd5 9.ed5,
and here the ex tra move (a3!) might come
in handy.
7. tLJb3
Exploiting the fact that Black's strongest
reply (~b4 again) in the corresponding
Sveshnikov line is not on. With the same
reasoning White may also play 7.tiJf3.
This would be my personal preference.
7. ... d6
8. g3
Instead, !LQ.e2 ~e6 9..Q.e3 ~e7 10.0-0
0-0 11.f4 ef4 12.l:t.f4 d5 was equal in Te
Llalernand-Ptacnikova, Bled 01 2002.
8...~e6 9.kg2 ke7 1O.~d5 0-0 11.0-0';
The game Pablo Marin-Suez Moya, Aya-
monte 2002, continued 11...l:tc8 12.h3
kd5 13.edS ~L.a514.~a5 ~a5 15.~e3
e4 16.'='el ~d5 17.~d5 ~d5 18..bn
f5 19.13 tL!f6 20.fe4 fe4 21..~e4 lfJe4
22.ne4 ~d8 23.:::lf1:tc2 24J:l.b4 ~f6
25.:lf2 tl.f2 26.~f2 I1f7 27.~ :lc7
28.84 W 29.85 ~e6 30.:lbS :lel
31.~el Irbl 32J~b7 ~c3! 33.a6 ~el
34.a7 llal? 34 ...1i.h4 35.~g2 Ilb2
36.~f3 Ira2 35.a8-. llaB 36.~1 ~f6
37.'ito'd2 :tal 38Jld7 t:[gl 38 ...1:Ia639.b4
39.lld6 ~e5 40.::1d3 !'lg2 41.We3 J:1h2
42.h4 ~e4 43JXd7 \t>f544J1g7 1-0.
Variation B
6 .. ,. a6
Usually u6 should be more useful than a3
in a Sicilian. but in this concrete position
this is not the case.
7. li'.c6
7.~e2 has been played more often but is
less strong. After 7...JJ..e78.0-0 play may
transpose to a Scheveningen but Black has
some extra options involving an early dS.
Less good is 7...d5 R.cd5 "Dd5 9.ttJc6 bc6
lO.ttJe4 Englisch-Schottlander, Leipzig,
1st DSB Congress 1879(!).
7. ... be6
8. e5 tedS
9. tee4 'fie7
10. f4 '*b6
This position has to be compared to the
'normal line': 6.l;Jc6 be6 7.e5 tLid5 8.lL!e4
'fIIe7 9.f4 'filM. Via our 6.33 move order
we have the same position with the extra
pawn moves a3 and a6. As it turns out,
this difference gives White a large edge.
In the normal line White has the follo-
wing options:
• 1O.c4; and here Black often uses both
the b4 square (.ib4) and the a6 square
(.i.a6). So including 6.a3 a6 should fa-
vour White.
• 10.·iH3 ~e7 Il.a3(!) was the game
Sherzer-San Segundo, New York Open
1988. This clearly illustrates the useful-
ness of 6.a3 .
• 10..id3 ~a6(!) Il.a3(!) was Tsesh-
kovsky-Sveshnikov, Soviet Champions-
hip. Tbilisi 1979. Further comments are
superfluous.
11. "'f3
A good move, but as explained above, the
alternatives II.e4 and 11..id3(!) are also
strong.
11. f5
12. ef6 tUf6
13. tiJf6 gf6
14. jLd2
Also good is 14.~d3. In the subsequent
complications Schekachev loses his way
and the game: 14...dS 1S..i.c3 ssa
16.0-0-0 ~d7 17.Wh5 ~d8 18:ffh6 nf8
19.~h4? a5 20.'fie1? we7 21.g3 eS
22.~g2 d41 Black is better 23.~a8 de3
24.'I'e3 :a8 25.'i'd3 ~d6 26.'i'h7 a.b8
27.a.d6 27.b3 c4 27..:i'b2 28.~ ~d6
29.:d1 .ie6 0-1 Schekachev-Bellamine,
Metz 2001.
Variatlon C
6.... 'i'e7
This move has little independent value. In
practice play most often transposes to
some other line of the Sicilian.
7. .i.e3
7.~e2 a6 8.0-0 is actually a Tairnanov,
when the standard continuations are
8...~e7 and 8...l!).d4. Instead of 8.0-0
Ennenkov once went for a Scheveningen
set-up with 8.f4 d6 9.i.e3 ~d7 10.0-0
ttJd4 II..i.d4 ~c6 12...-d3 .ie7 13.nael
0-0 14.~hl and got a winning advantage
after 14...nac8 15.,*g3 g6 16.f5 e5
17..i.e3 rt>h8 IK 1l'h4 ..- d8 19..i.g5 I1g8
31
20.~g4 1:Ie721.fg6 :g6 22 ..ifS Errnen- Avoiding the Scheveningen that would be
kov-Skernbris, Kavala Balkaniad 1990. on the cards after 9.0-0 or 9.f4.
7. ... 86 9.... h6
8. ~e2 10. h4
The Taimanov is again the normal way to This is more like a Keres Attack. Black's
reach this position: l.e4 c5 2.lDf3 ti)c6 next fails to solve his problems.
3.d4 cd4 4.tUd4 e6 5.l'Llc3VIIc7 6.~e2 a6 10.... tDd4
7.0-0 lLlf6 8.a3 or 6.~e3 a6 7 ..te2 tbf6 11. 'iWd4 eS
8.a3 are the common move orders. 12. 'iWd31?
Another possibility is 8.f4 d6 9."f3. This Correctly sacrificing a pawn for a power-
position is also usually reached via a Tai- ful knight on d5. 12.'ti'd1 ~e6 is OK for
manov move order: 6.~e3 a6 7.a3 ~f6 Black.
8.f4. Tal won some nice games as White 12. ... ~g4
in this line. One crushing example via our l2 ...~g4? l3.tUd5 with .ib6 to follow.
SOS move order is Moroz- Yagupov, 13. ~g4 o!Lig4
Czestochowa 1992: 9...i.e7 1O.i.d3 0-0 14. lOd5 ~c6
11.0-0 ttld4 12..id4 e5 13..tf2 ~g4 15. '3!?
l4.~g3 ef4 IS.'fJ'f4 .ie6 J6.llJd5 ~d5 Stronger than 15.Ab6 ne8 16.0-0-0 ere,
17.ed5 tbd5 18.~f5! ti'lf6 19.nael nae8 and Black's position is preferable.
20.~h3 g6 2J..~d4 t:{:;dT? 22.Ag6! 1-0. 15. ... tt:.e3
8.... d6 16. 'ta'e3 ~cB
Other possibilities at this stage: Not 16...~c2? 17.lkl+-.
• 8...b5 9.lL.c6 dc6 lO.f4, as in Beli- 17. es 'ili'c5
kov-Gasanov, Czestochowa 1992 . 18. 'i!i'd2
• 8...~e7 9.0-0 0-0 1O.f4 d6 II.'i!VeI
lDd4 12.~d4 bS 13.~g3 ~b7 is one of the
absolute main lines of the Scheveningen.
.1. E
9. g4!? ~~

g .t. II
..t • ..t !: 'iVtD~
~iV ~~~
~
~ ~~~~
~ ~ ~
~ "iV
Cjj~ ~
It ~ %:t
~ ttJ ~
~~ ~~ ~ White has excellent compensation for
the pawn. 18 hS 19 .... g5!1 ..-a5
1:t 'iY~ ~ 20.f4!? "84 20 ~c4 21.0-0-0! ae4

32
22.'*'f5+- 21.'iWf5!lWd7? Now White is
winning. It must be admitted, though,
that it is not easy either to defend
Black's position after 21...~d8 22.l"i:'1c7,
or 21...l:tc4 22.0-0. 22.'tifd7 <oPd7
23.~b6 ~c7 24.tL:c8 ef4 25.0-0 ~c8
26.%lf4+- f6 27.~f2 fLe7 2B.llgl g5
zs.ms <;pd7 30Jlhl ~e6 31.a4 fid8
32.Wf!2 fLe7 33.a5 .td8 34.b4 %.th7
35.Wd3 g4 36.l:th2 b6 37.eb6 fib6
38J:lg2 1:Ih8 3UrdS l:th7 40.<be2 ~d8
41.1:Ig3 ~c7 42.%lgd3 llha 43.<bf2 <oPf7
44.Wg2 <&>g645.%l3d4 lla8 46.11c4 lla7
47.l:lc6 a5 48.ba5 ~a5 49.=dd6 <oPg7
50 ..DdS 1-0 Short-Lalic, Gibraltar 2003.
Variation D
6.... dS
Black reasons that the 'wasted' 6.a3 (not a
developing move) justifies action in the
centre.
7. .tb5
Too meek is 7.ed5 ed5 (7 ...tUdS 8.tDd5
'tifdS 9.tbb5!? 'ftdl IO.';ii'd1 Pctrov-Fak-
hiridou, Kavala 2001, is a possibility for
endgame lovers) 8..Q.e2 ~e7 9,0-0 0-0,
and White has no advantage.
7.... Si..d7
8. edS edS
Bad is 8..,ttid4? 9.i..d7 ~d7 1O.'t!Vd4~e7
II.~e3 ed5 12.0-0-0 0-0 J3.tDdS±
Mohr-Lenic, Dobma 2002.
However, 8...tt';d5 is perhaps monger:
9.lOdS ed5 10.0-0 ~e7 11.i.e3
(11.<i.:b3?! a6 12.~c6 bc6 13.~e3 0-0
14.~cS l:te8 15.~e7 'f!ke7 16.~d4 ~gS!.
and Black is already slightly better,
Shabalov-Khrnelnitsky, US Champions-
hip, Parsippany 1996) ll...gf6 12.c4 dc4
13.lL.c6 bc6 14.~c4 0-0 15.'ii'c2 ~c8~
16.~adl srs 17.'ifc I ~e4 18.f3~ ~-Ih
Golubev-Krasenkow, German Bundes-
Iiga 2002/03.
9. 0-0
9 .... Ji.e7
10. h3
Preparing White's next. Bad was
lO.lLJb3?! ~g4! 11.f3 .te6 12,~e3 0-0
13..Q.c6 bc6 14ka4?! tZJd7 15, q-;ac5
'ifb6! 16.~d4 ctJc5 17AJcS srs, and
Black was better in Suetin-Manor, Berlin
1995. An alternative, though, is IO.llel
0-0 II.i..g5 Pierrot-Rosito, Mar del Plata
2001.
10. 0-0
11. tDf3 ~e6
12. fLd3
White is not much better here, but Short
outplays his lower-rated opponent in the
game. 12 ..:.'d7 12...d4 13.IXel llfe8
14 ..if4 a6 15.~eS ~e5 16.~e5;t g6?
17:ttf3 ~h5 18.l:lad1 'i'c6 19.1Ue2 b5
20.~d4 'tIib6 21.c3± :lad8 22.lle2 l:ld7
23.nde1 fLf8 24.g4 tbg7 2S:W'f6 llb7
26.~c2 ....c5 27.<ot>g2tte7 28:W'e7l:lbe7
29.~b3 .lld7 30.f4! .id6? 31,jLg7! ~g7
32.f5 J-O Short-Ellison, Port Erin 1998.
33
Variation E A quiet Iine from the Sozin has arisen. It is
6. ... d6 a favourite of the Russian grandmaster
A sensible move. Black just continues in Semen Dvoiris.
ScheveningenlRauzer style. Naturally, 9. ... ~d7
7.~g5 is not a good idea now (a3 looks to- Black has other moves at this stage, of
tally stupid). However, depending upon course .
your repertoire there are two main choices: • 9...tZld4 IO.'tWd4 .td7 (lO ...b6
the Sozin or the Scheveningen. Tn neither 11.'ft'd3!? planning i.f4 and :adl is a
case does an early a3 lead to highly critical recommendation of Beliavsky and
lines. On the other hand. in both the Sozin Mikhalchishin) II.f4 '6'b6 12.'MVb6ab6
and the Scheveningen the move makes 13.i.d2. and White was slightly better in
sense. And remember, this SOS is all about Dvoiris-Beshukov, Cappelle la Grande
wrong-footing your opponent! There are 1999.
actually many transpositions into norma! • 9 ... a6 IO.'it>hl (to.i.e3) 10...tbd4
theoretical lines. We are not delving deeply II...-d4 b5 12.f4 ~b7 13.f5 e5 14.Wd3
into the theory of either line. although we h6 15..td2 as!'! 16.ttbS!? .ta6 17."c6
will see into what directions play might de- ~f1 18.:f1 'iWb8 19.i.c I Ilc8 20."a4.
velop. By the way, the games quoted here and White had enough compensation in
all derived from our SOS move order. Dvoiris-Cifuentes, Hoogeveen 2000. Yet
the game continuation 20 ...l:I.c3 21.bc3
Variation E1 '6'c7 22 ...Q.d2was not a good idea.
7. ~c4 ke7 1O. ~e3 tLid4
8. ()..O 0-0 Here IO...tt!.e5 Il.ife2 tDeg4 12.~d2
In Beshukov-Srienz, Antalya 2002, Whi- '$'b6 13.tUh3 :afc8 )4J~tad1?! lLle5
te got an edge after 8 ... ~c7 9 ..ia2 0-0 15.ke3 fIIe7 16.tLld2 b5!~ is a
IO.~hl ~d7 I J.f4 UadS 12.tL"f3 ~c8 well-known game Medina-Polugaevsky,
13.'i!*'el b6 14.e5 ttJe8 IHIJ'g3 d5 16.f5. Las Palmas 1974 (note: not via the 6.a3
9. ~a2 move order). Instead of 14Jhdl Beli-
avsky and Mikha1chishin give 14.h3 tt)eS
15.~e3 "a6l as 1;.
11 . .Q.d4 ~c6
12.• d3
This looks stronger than 12.f3 b5!= (Po-
lugaevsky),
12. ... 'itd7
12... b5!?
13. l:[ad1 b6
14. 1I'g3 .b7
15. e5
The game Lutikov-Bikov, Soviet Cham-

34
pionship, Kharkov 1967, went 15 ...deS
16.~e5 %lad8 17.~c4 l:td1 18.l:dl l:d8
19 ..id3 White is slightly better because
of his chances on the kingside 19... g6
20.lle1 tt)e4?! 21.tt)e4 ~e4 22..ic3
22.~e4 'W'e4 23.'W'c3 'W'f5= 22 ....Q.dS
22 ....id3 23.'iWe5± 23.h4 "'c6 24.hS
"e8 25.hg6 hg6 26.'iWh3f6 27.:e3 Even
stronger than 27 .... h6 27...e5 28 ..ig6!
....g6 29.1:g3 ~g3 30.-.g3 <:J;f7 31.... d3
<li>e632 .... h3 'i5'f7 33.~h7 <:J;e6 34..ib4
1-0.
Variation E2
7. f4
This will eventually transpose into a kind
of Scheveningen - if Black has no objec-
(ions. The same can be said for the moves
7 ..ie2 and 7.~e3:
A) 7.1Le2
AI) 7 ...eS S.lDO h69.0-0~e6LOJ:tel
$J.e7 1Lh3 0-0 n.an. and we have
transposed into a Boleslavsky with the
(useful) extra tempo aJ. Zelcic-Mrva,
Montecatini 1997.
A2) 7...~e7 8.0-0 0-0 9.~e3 with a
Scheveningen-like position in which Whi-
te has committed himself to an early a3. So
play is about equal:
• 9... 'i!fc7 lO.f4 a6 (1O...tDd4 11..~.d4
eS) ll.~hl .ad7 12.~f3 ttJd4 13.~d4
.ic6 Andrade-RJanssen. Tallinn 1997.
• 9...ttJd4 \O..id4 b6 1l.f4 ~b7
12._d3 nc8 13.'fig3, as in Psakhis-
Christiansen, Philadelphia 1989.
• 9...a6 I0.f4 Vlkc7 II .Vlke I Ci)d4 12.~d4
b5 13.ffg3 i.b7 14Jlael is a perfect
transposition to one of the absolute main
lines of the Scheveningen. This occurred
in Belikov-Annakov, Zhavoronki 1995.
A3) 7...j;_e7 8.0-00-0 9!iphl. This is
an unfortunate experiment by Kotsur.
A31) 9...a6 \O.f4 'ifc7 I L~e3 neg
12.... el ltb8!? IHlfg3 d5 14.e5 tDe4
15.~e4 de4 16.c3 lDd4 17.~d4 b5, and
Black was tine in Kotsur-Kharlov, Ekate-
rinburg 1997.
A32) After9 ...e5!? the king is not use-
ful on hi in these positions. 10.lbf3 h6
ll.b3 ~e6 12.~b2 ne8= Kotsur-Filli-
pov, Perm 1997.
B) 7.~e3 ~e7 8.~e2 (here 8.[4 trans-
poses to our main game. please don't con-
tinue: 8...0-0 9.~d)?! e5! IO.tDfS? ars
II.ef5 d5 12.fe5 d4! 13.ef6 $,f6+ Moroz-
Horvath, Bolzano 1998) 8...0-0, which
transposes to the previous line (A:
7.~e2).
7. ... ssa
The recent game Sax-Sakelsek, Nova
Gorica 2002, went 7 a6 8.~e3 e5!?
9.~de2!'? (9"1'1f3) 9 ~e7 \o.f5 b5
I J.liJg3 .i.b7 IVuh5 0-0 I3.lUi5!? 0h5
(l3 ... 0e4'! l4.'ifg4) 14.'i"h5 ~d4, with
unclear play.
8. iLe3
Here 8..Q.e20-0 9.0-0 is also possible, of
course, while 8.tl:lf3 0-0 9.~d3 transpo-
ses to the game Ermenkov-Inkiov, Bulga-
ria 1980 (see 6...ge7).
8.... e51?
To give the game an independent charac-
ter. After 8...0-0 9.~e2 a6 10.0-0 9JIc7
1J.'1WeI tDd4 12.~d4 e5 Black had equali-
led in Lutikov-Matulovic, Sukhumi tt
\966.
9. tL;f3 ~g4
Preferable is 9 ...ef4 1O..if40-0.
10. iLcl 0-0
Now 1O...ef4 1l.ii.f4 0-0 12:~Wd2is per-
35
haps a bit better for White. After 10... 'it'b6 of a bite. The following moves have also
11.'ite2 Black's pieces will shortly be for- been tried in practice:
ced to retreat. • 7.tuc6?! bc6 S.e5 [DdS 9.0.e4 'fic7
11. 151 g6 1O.f4f5 is not so impressive from our mo-
12. fg6 hg6 dem viewpoint. Lasker-Lipschutz, New
13. ttJd5 tj_)f6 York 1901.
14. tOe7 'fIIe7 • 7.Ac4 d5 8.ed5 ttJdS 9.tLlc6 bc6
15 . .ig5 I0 ..td2 ~c5 I I.~ c2 l:lb8 12.b3 0-0
White is just better now; Nunn tries to 13...td3 h6 14.0-0 'i'b6 V2-l!2 Speel-
complicate matters. Please remember that man-Lutz, Munich 1992.
this was a rapid game. 15 ...d516.ed5 e4 • 7 ..te3 0-0 R.f4 d6 9.~e2 e5 10.tUb3
17.l()d4 'ft"eS l8.AfS 'itf6 19.dc6 e3 ef4 11...Q.f4 ~e6 12.0-0 dS= Ljuboje-
20.lZl13 "-b2 21.Ad3+- .c3 22.<.te2 vic-Laurier, Linares 1995.
"W'c623J~b1 i.g4 24J:tb4! ..if3 25.9f3 • 7.~e2 d5 (7 ...0-0 8.0-0 d6 will be that
J:tad8 26.J:tc4 ~d6 27."it'al IUe8 28.l:th4 same Scheveningen again) R.ed5 liJd5
J:te5 29.f4 ~f6 30. ft'e5 ~h4 3Ui"e3 r.W8 9.lDc6 bc6, and now both lO.lbe4
32.wd1 J:te8 33."W'd4 ..t>g8 34.Wc1 :!:te6 (Zagrebelny-Siriam, Calcutta 1996) and
3S.J:t11 a6 36.Ac4 :!:tf6 37.wb2 wg7 10.tDa2 (Kotsur-Kozirev, Omsk 1996) are
38.1112 b5 39.~d3 ~g4 40. 'f#'e5 'iYh4 sl ightly better for White. He wi II go for c4
41.'i!t'd4 'fI'g4 42JU1 '@'h4 43.'iYf2 'ft"g4 and iLf3 to claim t because of his pawn
44.15 b4 45.a4 as 46.'@'f4 ~h3 47.\!r'e5 structure.
'i'h548.lIg1 1-0 Ljubojevic-Nunn, Mo- 7. '.' 0-0
naco rapid 1995. No better is 7 ...d5 R.e5 thd7 9.~e3 0-0
[O.~e2 ti\d4 I1.lLd4 f6 12.ef6 lbf6
Variation F 13.0-0 ~d7 14.'*Vd2 l:lc8 15.~e3, and
6.... fi.e7 White had a nice advantage in this
7. 14 French-like rniddlegamc, Mitkov-Skrip-
chenko, CappeJle [a Grande 1994.
Correct. however, is 7 ...d6, when White,
if he does not want to play (he Scheve-
ningen, can try 8.CiJO 0-0 (8 ...a6 9.~d3
'fic7 10.0-01'>5 II.'i'el ~.b7 12.ifg3 g6
was unclear in Malevinsky-Popov, Vilni-
us 1978) 9 .~d3 c5 10.0-0 ef4 [J...tf4
~g4 (11....ae6) 12.Whl lL:d4 13.~e3
~f3 14.gf3 .~.h5 15..Q..d4± Ermenkov-
lnkiov, Bulgaria 1980.
8. e5
Alternatively, R.':t_;f3d5 9.e5li\e4 IO..td3
This move gives the whole system more .!i~c3 Il.bc3 ~b6 12.~e2 f6 looks odd.

36
hut after 13.h4 White got a nice attack in 16.SLe3! ~c7 J 6 ...it'b2? 17J:ta2 traps
M.Petrov-Ncdev. Leon 2001. the queen 17.'@'g3 f;aS 18.'iI'h3 g6
8. tDe8 18.. .ers 19.94 19J:'ad1 ~c8 20.~h6
Here 8 <Dd5!?should be investigated. lU7 21.<1\e4 t;';e4 22.~e4 :d8 23.~d2
9. tiJf3 f6 -.c7 24 ..td3 Lutikov gives his opponent
The move 9...d6 is likewise answered by no chances for further exchanges
IO.~d3. 24 ...l:tdS 25.~g4 rileS 26.tDeS ttf1
10. ~d3 fe5 27JIf1 'iWe5Without the defending rook
11. fe5 d6 on f7 Black cannot protect his bare king
12. ed6 LUd6 28.1!6'f3'llig7 29.~h6! l1f5 Desperation.
13. 0-0 If 29 ...'ilfh6 30.l!ft7 ~h8 31.~e8+-)
White has the better pawn structure and 30.~f5 -.h6 31.~g4 1-0 Lutikov-
attacking chances on the kingside. Khasin, Soviet Championship. Moscow
13 ..... b6 14.~h1 ~d7 15.~e1 IlaeB 1961.
38
 Section II: Surprising bishop moves
We have been taught that 'knights are to 1.e4 c5 Vd3 ~c6 3.d4 cd4
be developed before bishops', we know 4.lbd4 96 S.c4 ~h6
that we should not place a bishop in front
of a central pawn. and clearly we play g6
to develop the bishop to g7. Nothing is
sacred in this section!
In Chapter 4 we see an attractive way to
the Spanish Four Knights.

1.e4 e5 2.Iuf3 ltJc6 3.lDc3 0.f6

4.~b5 .Q.d6

This SOS line provides the second player

with an ideal fighting system. Rather than
play both d6 and sa. Black develops the
bishop so as to protect e5. He has a very
clear development scheme in mind: 0-0,
l:te8. ~f8 and d5. If all goes well you have
won a useful tempo!
Chapter 5 is all about meeting, or rather
avoiding. the Nimzo or Queen's Indian
with White.
1.d4 t[)f6 2.c4 e6 3.~g5
This 'Surprise Indian' tries to lure Black
into a Queen's Gambit or into unknown
territory. Play can become very positio-
nal, but also very wild and unclear. Usual-
ly, it is White who swings the pendulum
though.
In chapter 6 we treat an early surprise in
the Maroczy.
Black's last move was first played by
Tiviakov, one of the world's greatest ex-
perts in this opening. It looks very odd,
but has in fact a very sound positional
foundation: the exchange of the
dark-squared bishops.
The final chapter in this section returns to
the ~d6 idea of Chapter 4.
1.b3 e5 2..Q.b20.c6 3.e3 tLIf6
4.~b5 ~d6
A complete defence against l.b3 with a
distinct SOS flavour is what Chapter 7 of-
fers you. The ideal scheme of develop-
men! is similar to Chapter 4. Many
grandmasters have adopted this line and
you will find several crushing wins
amongst the examples.

39
 CHAPTER 4

Sokolov's surprise

NIC KEY KP 10.1

4 ...~>d6: a clever development scheme

It is not so easy for Black to play for a win win as Black. Seen in that light it should
against the Spanish Four Knights. A not come as no suprise that we find Ivan So-
too ambitious White player might use the kolov behind the black pieces in our main
symmetrical positions arising after game.
4 ....Q.b4 for immediate peace negotations,
True, Rubinstein's 4 ... ti··,d4 often gives o Harmen Jonkman
rise to very sharp play indeed. However, • I van Sokolov
5.lbd4 ed4 6.e5 dc3 7.ef6 '@'f6 8.dc3 Leeuwarden ch-Nt, 2002

works like a cold shower on any fighting 1. e4 eS

intentions that Black might have. 2. ~f3 -Ie6
This SOS chapter presents a perfectly 3. .!L:c3 [d6
playable alternative in the form of 4. ~b5 .1ld6!?
4 ...~d6!'!. It is an ideal weapon for those Why obstruct your own d-pawn with this
1... c5 players who also seek to play for a unnatural looking mow. thereby inhibit-

40
ing the development of your light -squared
bishop? Let us examine the merits of
4...~d6:
It develops a piece and counters White's
threat of bishop takes c6. Moreover,
Black is planning to follow a normal
Spanish development scheme: 0-0, l:te8,
Af8 and d5. The idea is known from the
Archangel Ruy Lopez:
l.e4 e5 2.tt~f3 lUc6 3..ib5 a6 4.~a4 tbf6
5.0-0 b5 6.~b3 ~b7 7.d3 ll.d6!? This is
rather similar to positions mentioned be-
low. Let us follow the game
Bologan-Potapov, Moscow 1998, for a
bit: 8.a3 0-0 9.tbc3 h6 10.h3, and if Black
had now played 10... ~c5 he would have
reached a perfect transposition to our
main game. By the way, concerning this
whole ~d6 idea ... The reader might like
to compare this with chapter 7, which
presents a defence to I.b3.
5. d3
This threatens to pin the knight with ~g5
and therefore tries to show that the bishop
is misplaced on d6.
Let us investigate some alternatives:
A) 5.d4 ed4 6.tiJd4 tbd4 7.'tIi'd4 'ite7.
Black is planning 1t.e5 at some stage and
is definitely OK here.
B) 5.~c6?!, as in Swic-Malaniuk,
Polanica Zdroj 200 I, must be inaccurate.
since after 5...dc6 the bishop is very well
placed on d6 in this type of Spanish ex-
change position.
C) 5.0-00-0
Cl) 6.d3 h6 7.Ci:Je2(this is an interest-
ing plan. White repositions his knight
Ruy Lopez fashion to g3, from where it
will assist in a possible kingside attack.
The bishop on d6 obstructs the d-pawn, so
Black has no time to counter this plan
with d7-d5) 7...l::te8 8.Ci:Jg3 a6 (8...~f8
planning d5 is a serious alternative. How-
ever, after 9.c4! d6 lO.h3 ~d7 I Ute! g6
12.~d2 ~g7 13.gc3 J:le7 14.~a4 White
was slightly better in Gallagher-Boudre,
France 2(01) 9..Q..c6(with the knight al-
ready on g3 this exchange is more prom-
ising) 9...dc6 10.b3 ~e6 (l O...~g4 looks
better) 11.~b2 ttJd7 12.d4 and now in-
stead of 12...ed4 J 3.ttJd4, with a nice
advantage. Gallagher-Cooper. English
team championship 2001, Black should
have played J2 ... ~g4, with a decent
game;
C2) 6Jle I l:te8
C21) 7.h3 ttJd4 8.~c4 c6 9.a3 ~7 is
another useful way of reshuffling the
pieces. It is about equal, Bunzrnann-Hec-
tor, Furth 2000;
e22) 7.d4 ed4 8.ttJd4 ttJd4 9.ifd4 is
well mel by 9...ke5, followed by c6. and
Black is fine. E.g. 10. 'it' d3 c6 J l.~a4 a5
12.a3 b5 13..ab3 ~a6 14.... f3 '6'b8 15.g3
c5, and Black had the initiative in
Barglowski-Malaniuk, Bydgoszcz 200 I.
The actual move order in this last game
41
was 6.d4 ed4 7.ttJd4 l:te8 8.l:tel ~d4
9.'Wd4 ~e5, etc.
5. ... a6
So far Black had mainly tried 5...h6.
Sokolov's inclusion of 5...a6 6.~a4 is
useful. Let us examine some games with
5...h6. since the main ideas are of course
very similar.
A) 6.a3 b6!? (uncommon but not bad)
7 ..i.c6!? dc6 S.h3 c5 9.i.e3 <i)d7 lO..-d2
~b7. and with Ihe centre under firm con-
trol Black has a bright future ahead of
him, Seibold-Heeter, Furth 2000.
B) 6.0-0 0-0 7.tue2 a6 8.~a4 b5
9.~b3 lLla5 lO.tbg3 l:te8 I Lh3 srs is
Koscielski-Rabiega, Bad Wiessee 2000.
Note how Black has once again com-
pleted his general plan of castling. l:te8
and ~f8 in preparation of d7-d5. The fact
that he has played .i.d6 rather than j;_e7
and d7-<l6 means that he will eventually
have saved a tempo.
C) 6.l!Je2 a6 7..ia4 0-0 8.~g3 l:te8
9.c3 ~f8 shows the typical Ruy Lopez
scheme already mentioned above. Black
is ready for d5 and has completely equal-
ized. In Nikolenko-Gorbatov, Moscow
1995, a draw was agreed.
42
D) 6.~e3 0-07 .h3 a6 8.~a4 b5 9.~b3
~b4!? (Black aims to push d5 as quickly
as possible) 1O.0·0.ic3 Il.be3 d5 l2.edS
lbd5, and things are about equal. Frog-
Kholmov. Moscow. Alekhine Memorial
1996.
E) 6.h3 is a tricky waiting move.
Black is well-advised to develop his
queenside first (a6. b5 . .tb7/ttJa5) not
falling into 6 ...0-0'?! 7.g4!. with a danger-
ous attack:
EI) 7 ...a6. and now instead of 8.~c6
dc6 9.tUe2 tLlh7 lO.ttJg3 c5 u.crs 1:[e8
12.~e3.ars 13."'d2. with an unclear po-
sition, Podlesnik-Pavasovic, Ljubljana
2002, White should have simply contin-
ued with 8.~a4, when it is more difficult
for Black to open the centre.
E2) 7.. J~e88.g5 (8.1:[gl is also possi-
ble) 8...hg5 9.i..g5 ttJd4 lO.ltJd5 ~e7
11.~e7 1!t'e7 12.lZJd4 ed4 13.l:tgl c6
14."f3 1!Yb4 15.~dl and now Black
should continue 15...lt';e4! 16.de4 ~b5
17~f6 gf6. Instead 15...~b2?! was
played in Emelin-Kharlov, Moscow
2002, and here 16..-f6 g6 17..icl <it>h7
18.~b2 cbf 19.~b4 is given as winning
for While by Dolmatov and Zviagintsev.
E3) 7...lud4 is essential according to
Dolmatov and Zviagintsev.
Let us go back to Sokolov's 5...a6.
6. ~a4
After the exchange on c6, the bishop is
again well-placed on d6, e.g. 6..ic6 de6
7.h3 h6 8..ie3 'fie7 9.'fie2 i.e6 10.a3 b5
II.a4 0-0. Koscielski-Mikhalchishin,
Dortmund 200 I.
6. ... h6
Preventing ~g5.
7. h3
A useful waiting move that contains a trap 11. tDd4!
(cf. Emelin-Kharlov above). However, Not I 1 ttJdS 12.jLd5, when White is
the immediate 0-0 may be stronger. An- slightly better. Note that 12.ed5 would be
other alternative is to regroup the knight met by 12...lbd4.
with ~c3-e2-g3. 12 . .fjd4
7. ... b5 Or I2.tLle5 ttJb3 13.ttJf6 (l3.cb3 lLld5
8. ~b3 ~b7 14.ed5 ..Q.d5) 13...'ir'f6 14.lOg4 (I4.li!d7?
After 8 0,a5 there could follow 9.0-0 loses to 14...1!Vd6) 14...'~e6 15.cb3, and
lOb3 (9 ~b7) JO.ab3 ~b7 II.d4 with a Black has lovely compensation for the
white plus. pawn.
9. a3 12. .id4
Another useful waiting move that pre- 13. c3 11..87
serves the bishop (after a possible tUa.5) 14. IUf6
and tries to lure Black into castling. Not 14.ti.Je3 d5.
9. ... .ics 14. ,.. 'iVf6
9...0-0? lO.g4! is what White was hoping
for.
10. 0-0
White no longer has any useful waiting
moves.
10. ... 0·0

Black has an equal game. From a theoreti-

I have mentioned above how this position
could also have arisen via the Ruy Lopez
Archangel.
11 . .:Dd5
I 1.~e3 is playable of course, but not
II.llJh4'!! ttJd4.
cal SOS perspective we can be fully satis-
fied. I will give the rest of the game with
light comments.
15.'itrh1 Preparing f4. The alternatives
are: 15..ie3. and 15.ft'g4 l:tad8 16..lte3
~e3 17.fe3 'iVe7=. 15 ...c5!? 16.f4 ef4
17.~f4 Or 17.:f4 1We7 18..Q.d2=.
17...... 96 18.'iVd2 18.~c2 d5; J8..ta2
c4. 18...c4!? Typical of Sokolov's play,
he energetically grabs the initiative.
19.dc4 .Q.e4 20.cb5 ""51 Making use of
a little tactic to take back on b5 with the

43
queen. 20 ...abS 21..~d5 would be nice tactics. 35...dc4! 36.1Lc4 Alterna-
slightly better for White. 21.'>i.)h2'tItb5 tively. 36'%l1c4 lld2 37.~d2 l:ld~ 38."f2
22..i.a2 d5 Now Black has the more ac- rid I 39. 'io>h2iYd6 is immediately win-
tive position. 23.:ad1 !:ladS 24.b4?! ning for Black. while 36.l:ldR l'ld8
This creates a weakness on d. But it is 37.i.c4 'Wg5! 3R..t:1el Ud2 39.l:te2 l:tdl
not yet the losing move, of course. Sim- 40.Wh2 leads to the following position.
ply 24JUei was better. 24...:fe8
25JUe1 This threatens c4. After the im-
mediate 25.c4 dc4 26.~d8 l'ldS 27.l'ld~
~h7 the rooks arc not coordinating.
25...i.b6 26.i.e3 Si...e727.~f4 'W'c6
28.~c7 ...wc729.'.!;g1 -.g3 30.l:le3 With
accurate calculation White could have
forced a draw here: 30 ..tdS! lld5? (cor-
rect is 30 ...SLdS! 31.1le8 lle8 32.'ffdS)
31 J:le4! l:ld2 32.11e8 Ioth7 33J:td2 'it'c3
34.l'la2. 30..."g6 31.~f2 f5 Threaten-
ing f4. 32J~e2 wh7 33.J:led2 nc8
34 ..ac1? 34.~d5 tlc3 35J~.e4 fc4 analysis diagram
36.l1d6 l'le6 is better for Black, but nev-
ertheless it had to be tried. The game Here the natural 40 ...'ffc I fails to
continuation is clearly worse. 34,_.:ed8 4Uk4! nhl 42.Wg3 ~g5 43Jtg4 fg4
44.Sl.d3 ~g8 45.Sil.c4. with perpetual
check. However. 40 ...j_g2! 41.'&'g2 ~f4
42.itg3 .!:rhl just wins. 36 ...~g2! Suffi-
cient for the win. even {hough 36 ...'it'g5~
is even stronger. as it wins a full ex-
change. 37.'iVg2 1:ld2 38.'tItg6 'iPg6
39.i.f7 ~f7 40.:tc8 1:ld3 This rook end-
~ ing is an easy win. 41.:tc7 C;Pg842.a4
~ ~ ~ l:[h3 43.85 Ilb3 44.l:tc4 ~h7 45.~ g5
46.we2 f4 47.',t'd2 f3 48..c.c7 <it.>g6
.i )l ~~ 49.l:1c6 ~h5 50.na6 g4 51.nb6 93
.l:t ~ 52.a6 g2 53.nb5 .,ph4 54.a7 91..-
55.a8..- ..-e3
35.c4? White walks into some rather White resigned.

44
RECENT GAMES
o Paolini Sequera
• Jonny Hector
Bled 012002
1.e4 eS 2.lbf3 tbc6 3.tLJc3 (2.'6 4 ..ibS
~d6 5.0~00-0 S.d3 h6 7.h3 b6!?
Hector is fond of this move. See line A af-
ter 5...h6 6.a3 b6!'? Seibold-Hector, Furth
2000.
8.~e2
In principal this manoeuvre (lbc3-e2-g3)
is a good plan. The square f5 is vulnerable
and a knight there would give White good
attacking chances.
8..._Q.b79.c3 ~e8 10.tDg3 .Q.f8
Here we are again. Everything according
to OUf 'Archangel scheme'.
11 ..I:[e1
Planning d4. however Hector gets the
central thrust in first.
11.•.a6 12.~a4
For, 12.~c4 would be answered by
12...lija5.
12 ...d5
Black has an easy game after the alterna-
tive 12...b5 13.~b3 tDa5 14..'«.c2and now
14...d5 or 14...c5.
13.~e2?!
Here I3.ed5 ~d5 14.c4 is a better try.
13 ...bS 14.~c2 'i'd7 1S.lLlh4 96 16.'iWf3
~h7
16...~g7? 17.~h6.
17.edS ~a5 18.tiJe4 ~dS
Black has a slight advantage.
19:"g3 .ag7 20.l1',f3 t2;b7 21.liJed2
tOd6 22.tLlh2
White lacks space meaning that his pieces
have no good squares.
22 ..:~lic6 23JDhf1 .!fjf524."h2
A perfect illustration of the previous
point. This is no way to treat a lady!
24 ...1:1ad82S..!fje3 ~e3 26.fe3 e4 27.d4
This gives Black a big positional advan-
tage. However, after 27.ttJe4 ~e4 28.de4
Black has - among others - 28 .....tc3
29.1:1e2Qe5.
27 ... ~f8
Ready to harrass the queen.
28.'i!t'g3 .id6 29:~f2 ~e6 30.1:1f1 ltf6
31. ~h4 £e7 32.:1t16
32.~h6? 1'lfl 33.tNI ~g5 loses the
queen.
32 ....Q.f633. ilff2 ~d6
Having exchanged one pair of rooks
45
Black directs another one along the sixth
rank. The undeveloped pieces on the
queenside will be duly missed in the
defence.
34·.0f1 soa 35.fLd2 1:U6 36.'tWe1'tWe6
Attacking a2 and regrouping his pieces.
37.b3 fLd6 38.'fte2 c5 39.~d1 fLe7
4O.~e1 e4
Gaining even more space.
41.b4 .d6 42.fLe1 ~f543.l::tc2
Not 43.~g3·) tlfI.
43 ...~e6
Changing the piece that blocks the d4
pawn.
44.~f2 016 45.~h1 .!i'idS46.1Ife1 hS
Cramping White still further. White's
next is a desperate attempt to break out.
47.g4? hg4 48.hg4 .af6 49.~g1
49.fLh4? lUI 50.'tWfl ~e3-+.
49...g5
Blocking the intrepid g4-pawn.
50JIf2"d7
Winning g4 and the game.
51.~g2 tth6
Here 51...tDc3 would have won faster.
52.fLh2 J:f.h353.<;Pg1 £h2 S4.l:th2 ~94
55.~h3 fLh3 56.tLig3 ~e6 57.fLc2 f5
46
58.fLd1 t4 59.ef4 gf4 60.Wh2 fLf5
60 ...fg3 61.~g3 wf8 62.'ijfh3 'lih3
63.~h3 tZlc3 also wins.
61.o1';h5'ite7 62•• f2 .g5 63.<it>h1fLg4
64.~g4 '*'94 65.• g2 "'g2 66.WQ2 <;Pf7
White resigned.
o Bogdan Podlesnik
• Dusko Pavasovic
Dobrna 2002
1.e4 e5 2.c~"f3 ti",f6 3.tL:e3 ~6 4..ib5
~d6 S.d3 h6 6.h3 a6
6 ...0-0'!! 7.g4 a6 was a previous game be-
tween these two players (Ljubljana
2002). See EI in the comments under
5...a6.
7..tc6 de6 8.tiJe2 e5
In general Black has easy play in such a
position.
9.b3 ~e6 1O.~b2 ~d7 11.94 h5 12.g5
h4 13....d2 ~e7 14.lijc3 ti:;f8 15Jijd5
fLd516.ed5 tL),g617.";te3 0-0-018.0-0-0
f51
Black is better.
19.ttde1? e4!-+ 20.tL:d2 .tf4 21.1te2
ttd5 22.13e3 23.Ci)b1 .ag3 24.We3 ";te3
25..::te3 ~f4 26.~d2 ~e8 27.tte1 .::td7
28.Q,c3 ~g5 29.tLid1 l:!:de730.1:I:g1~e3 24.f3 1:I:dB25.tDg3 tLf8 26A"jhS :l1d2
31.lUe3 ~e3 32.lIg61.1f3 27.h41.18d4
White resigned. Stronger is 27 ...:803!
28.hg51J2d329.'it'e2
o Vidor Vehi Bach
• Miguel Rada Equiza
Pamplona 2002

1.e4 e5 2.l7',f3 li)c6 3.ti'!e3 4',16 4.~b5

~d6 S.d3 a6 6..lie6 de6 7.t!Je2 h6
8.ti~g3i.g4
8... ~e6
9.h3 ~e6 10.d4
Otherwise Black plays c5 with a good po-
sition.
10...ed4 11.e5 i.b4 12.~d2 ~d2
13.Wd2 lUh7 14.tud4 'fYd5! 15...-e3!?
0·0-0 29..J:td2
l5 ...~g2 16.tDe6fe6 17.0-0-00-0 18.f4 29 ...hg5! and Black is better, but Black
gives dangerous compensation. was obviously satisfied with <I draw ver-
16.llJe6 fe6 17.0-0 IiPb8 18.tDh5 g5 sus his higher-rated opponent.
19.b3lL:f8 20.c4 ~d4 2Utad1?! 30....e3 1J2d3 31.'it'e2 1:I:d2 32."e3
21. ~d4 %:td422 J:tad I .l:t2d3
21..:.d1 22J~d1 Jld1 23.wh2 ~d7 Draw.
 CHAPTER 5

Play the Surprise Indian!

NIC KEYVO 18.10

3.~g5: the first blow

1. d4 (d6 meant to tempt the reader into committing

2. c4 e6
3 . .Q.g5
In playing 3 ..l1.g5, White sins against
Lasker's rule that knights ought to be de-
veloped before bishops. Modern chess is,
of course, less rule-bound, and we may
have excellent. and indeed very
'modern'. reasons for delaying either
3.lf':c3 or 3.8f3. The theory of these two
knight moves has developed enormously
since Lasker's days, and keeping up with
the Nimzo-Indian or the Queen's Indian
is a tremendous task. This chapter, then, is
a small sin for the higher sake of avoiding
book-knowledge and dealing the first
blow. That is not to say that 3.;:.g5 is a
new concept. On the contrary, the rule
that everything that's old and well-forgot-
ten is a surprise holds true for many an
SOS chapter and certainly for this one. A
brief history of 3.Qg5 should mention
Euwe and Haberditz, the first theoretici-
ans to investigate what they called 'the
Neo- Indian'. In the 1930s, Seirawan was
responsible for a brief surge in popularity
when he played 3.ii..g5 four times against

4B
top opposition (scoring a respectable 2lh
out of 4). Keene then dubbed it 'the Seira-
wan Attack'. which is disrespective of
chess history but sounds nice. Other nota-
ble 3.~g5 adherents include Kholmov,
Meister. R. Sherbakov and Kortchnoi.
Leaving history aside, we will now turn to
the moves.
3. ... h6
This is clearly the main line. Black either
acquires the bishop pair or, by inserting
3...h6 4..Q.h4, increases his possibilities.
However. let's examine a few alternatives
fi rst:
A) 3 ...d5 is a solid move; after either
4.tLlc3, 4.e3 or4.cdS!? the game will most
likely transpose to a Queen's Gambit of
some sort. Respectable as the Queen's
Gambit clearly is. it is hardly a l.d4
player's worst nightmare.
B) 3...liie7. This move is also most li-
kely to transposes into QGD waters after
4.0..c3 d5 - note that after 4 ...c5 White
should play 5.dc5~ and not 5.d5? tDd5.
C) 3...c5 4.d5 (4.4',0 cd4 5.tiid4 leads
to a line from the Symmetrical English)
4 ...ed5 (Euwe rightly indicated 4 ...'ita5
5."d2 'ii'd2 6.tLld2:;!;) S.cdS h6'!! (this is a
dubious set-up, but the stronger S...'(I!t'b6
6.~f6 (6.'iYd2 now runs into 6 ...tDe4)
6.. :.f6 7 .t1~c3 is also slightly better for
White) 6 ..sih4 '*'b6'!! 7.,*,d2! (more am-
bilious than 7 ..H6 ti'f6 Nicolai-Romani-
shin. Dortmund 1976) 7...tLle4 8.~f4 f5
9.~f5 'iWb4 IO/Dc) CDd6 I UWg6 Ct)f7
12.'tIYe4.and Black's risky strategy has
clearly backfired: White is winning
Kortcbnoi-Kosten, London 1982.
D) 3...~b4 Black's most important al-
ternative to 3...h6. 4JiJc3 now transposes
to the Leningrad Variation of the Nimzo-
Indian. So to give 3..Q.g5 its own arena
White should play 4.tDd2, when we are at
a crossroads:
D I) 4...~e4 is unambitious; Black will
at best be able to draw an inferior ending:
5.~d8 .Q.d2 6.~d2 lDd2 and now
Sosonko's suggestion of 7.~d2 ¢ld8
H.f4! may well be stronger than 7.iLc7
ti:}c4 8.b3 'iJa6 9.i.f4 tLla3 1O.~d2 with
only a small edge, Haberditz-Lengheim,
Vienna 1952.
D2) 4...d5 was recommended by
Euwe. The theory gives 5.e3 cS 6.a3 ~d2
7.'''''d2 cd4 8.ed4 tDc6 9.~f3 0-0 \O.~d3
dc4 11.~c4 ttJe4 Muller-Fischer, Vienna
1952 as equal. This verdict is correct, but
in my opinion White should play 6.dc5!
and have the better chances.
03) 4...h6; now, after 5..Q.h4, we have
transposed to the main line (see below).
However. with (he bishop already on b4,
taking on f6 comes into consideration (as
opposed to 3 h6 4 ..i.f6 - this also illus-
trates why 3 h6 is Black's best choice,
White's options are more restricted). Let
me give one tame and one wild example of
how play could continue after 5..af6 "'f6:
K~.t. E
iiii ii
II lIi'iV i
.t~~ II-~.--
49
6.33 £d2 7.'i'd2 0-0 (7 ...d6 8.e3 e5
9.lC,e2 was seen in the postal game
Euwe-Napolitano, 1953; White won, but
this is due to the difference in playing
strength and Black's next move 9...ed4?~.
which hands White a pleasant edge) 8.e3
d6 9.~d3 e5 1O.~e2 tDc6( IO...lLld7~?has
also been recommended) 11.d5 tiJe7
12.0-0..tf5 13.e4 ..td7. with equal chan-
ces, Seirawan-L.Portisch, London 1982.
Much more exciting was the game Khol-
mov-Furman, Baku 1951: 6.4Jf3 c5 7.a3
~a5?! (7 ....id2 8.'it'd2 cd4 9./Dd4!) 8.b4
cb4 9."a4 tbc6 lO.tOb3 .-d8 Il.d5 ba3
12.~dl ed5 13.cdS ~c3 14.~a3 0-0
15.dc6 dc6, and Black has definite com-
pensation for the piece.
4. Ah4
The exchange on f6 is quite harmless:
4.~f6 't!i'f6 5.lLie3, and now:
A} 5...g6 6.0.f3 ~g7 7.e3 d6 8..Q.e2
0-09.0-0 eS 10Jkl ltJd7 II.'fiVd2 ~e8
12.de5 deS 13Jlfdl e4 14.~d4 'ife5
15.b4 tDf6 16.h3 ~d7= Sideif Zade-Short,
Baku 1983.
B) 5...b6 6.tLlf3 i.b7 7.e3 g6 8.~d3
~g7 9..Q.e4! ..Q.e41O/t:Je4 'ile7 II.'6'a4
0-012.0-0 d6{12.Ji;c6(!)) 13.~adl, and
White is slightly better. Seirawan-Short,
London 1982. This is from Seirawan's
brief spell with 3.~g5. However, 7 ....Q.b4
was simpler, giving Black equality in
what is essentially a position from the
Queen's Indian.
C) 5 ...~b4!? is probably best; play has
transposed to a very innocuous Iine of the
Nirnzo-Indian (l.d4 tDf6 2.c4 e6 3.tDc3
..tb4 4...tg5 h6, and here everyone prefers
5...th4 to 5...tf6 Wf6).
4.... .ib4
50
Black declares his willingness to transpo-
se to the Leningrad Nirnzo-Indian. Note
thaI4 ...g5 5.~g3 ~b4 is inaccurate since,
in addition to 6.tUd2. which is our main
line, White might prefer 6.lLlc3, which is
once again a Nimzo-Indian, but here
Black has committed himself to an early
g5. In line with this. White should meet
4...g5 5.~g3lbe4 with 6.~c3 rather than
with 6.tiJd2, when besides 6.....tb4 Black
also has 6...tiJg3 7.hg3 ~g7, R.Rodri-
guez-Romanishin, Riga Interzonal 1979.
Some other possibilities:
A) 4...c5!'! S.d5 ed5 6.cd5 d6 7.tDc3
~e7 (worse is 7 ...gS I:Utg3 tDh5? when
9.'ih4 is annoying: 9 ...'tWd7IO.tDbStDg3
Il.hg3 Wd8 LRodriguez-Ginzburg. Bue-
nos Aires 1993) 8 ...tg3 0.h5 9.e3 /Dg3
lO.hg3 a6 l1.a4 ~f6= Meister-Obukhov,
Kuibyshev 1990.
B) 4...h6 5.~c3 ..Q.b76.f3!? d5 7.cd5
ed5 R.e3 fLe7 9.fLd3 0-0 IO.tDge2 lLle4!?
) I.fLe7 tDc3 12.fLd8 0.dl 13.:ldJ :IdS
14.~c I c6 15.g4, and White had a pleasant
plus in Meister- VAnas, Podolsk 1990.
5. lUd2
White does not allow any structural
weaknesses (as he would after 5.tLlc3 and
a future ~(3), but the knight is more pas-
sive on d2. Therefore Euwe recommen-
ded 5...d5!? in the 1950s. Bad now is
6.tOf3 dc4! 7.a3 ~a5 8.~f6 *'f6 9.*,a4
tCc6 1O.'tWc4~d2 II.~d2+ Spiridonov-
Schinzel, Polanica Zdroj 1981. White can
claim a slight edge with 6.e3 c5 7.dc5
lD<:6 H.ttJf3 ~c5 9.a3 0-0 1O.'\Wc2~e7
11.~e2 Gofshtein-Kutsyn, Kiev 1986.
The lines diverge here. In variation A we
will examine the forcing 5...g5 6.i.g3
tbe4. Striking in the centre with S...c5 will
be the subject of line B.
Variation A ded on c2 to prevent f6 and the loss of the
5. ... gS
6. ~g3 li:\e4
6 ...b6 7.~f3 t.b7 g.a3 Yi.e7 9.e3 d6
JO.tte2 eS 11.0-0-0 llJbd7 12.Wbl ~c7
13.i.d3 ttJh5 was more or less equal in
Sherbakov-Kholmov, Cheliabinsk 1991.
7.lUf3
The diagram position promises a sharp
struggle. Black has momentarily taken
the initiative, he plays for piece activity.
His pieces lack permanent strongholds.
however. and they might be hanging in
the air. White plays for the better pawn
structure, reasoning that g5 is too weake-
ning. It seems that White holds stronger
arguments to claim an edge. but of course
only concrete analysis. and time. will tell.
Some examples are in order:
A) 7...g48.a3~59.b4~g3 lO.hg3gf3
Il.baS c5 12.lLlb3t2Jc6 13.dS. and While is
better. Olexa-Josef, Brno-Prague 1929(!).
B) 7...f5 8.e3 g4 9.33 lOg3 IO.hg3
~f8!? D.Bischoff-Schneider, Dortmund
1988.
C) 7 h5lUIf'c2~d29.tLld2,andnow:
CI) 9 h4 1O.~e5 i.d2 11.~d2 (a ty-
pical move in this line, the queen is nee-
bishop) 1l...:h6 12.d5 d6 13.~e3 e5
14.e3 'ti'f6 Haberditz-Stockl, Vienna
1952. And here Euwe rightly considers
IS.f3as;!;.
C2) 9...~d2 lO.'itd2 (again this is for-
ced: 1O.*'d2? loses to 10...h4 II.u5 f6)
1O...tLJc6 11.h4 d6 (I J...ttJd4?
12.1fc3+-) 12.~e3 e5. The theory calls
this unclear, but I would prefer White.
Sherbakov-Karprnan, Belgorod 1991.
D) 7.Juc6 8.a3! (this pawn sacrifice
is probably best, 8.e3 leads to a more or
less equal position. e.g, 8...h5 9.... c2
(9.d5 h4 JO.~c7 'fie7 Il.dc6 dc6= Ba-
zan-Recalde, Sao Paulo 1960) 9...llJd2
lO.tDd2 Jld2 II.'Bd2 (cf Scnerbakov-
Karpman (C2 above), with a white pawn
on h4 instead of on e3) II ...h4 12.i.e5
ttJe5 (J2 ...l%h6 13.f4) 13.de5 Z.Szabo-
Torok, Gyor jr 1992. and the correct
move is J3 ...d6 instead of 13...g4?)
8...-"d2 9.lL\d2 tLJg3 10.hg3 tDd4 11.tDe4
e5?! 12.e3 lLle6 13."f3 d6 14.0-0-0 ~f8
15.c5! g4 16.1H5± Nogueiras-Calvo
Minguez, Torremolinos 1984; after the
51
subsequent J6 ... tZld417.'I!t'h5..tf518.ed4
~e4 19.'6'g4 d5 20.f3 jLg6 2 J.de5 White
was winning easily.
Rather than the dubious ll...e5 Black
should play Il ...~c6, when 12.'Wd2 for-
ces the weakening 12... f6. Then 13.0-0-0.
preventing d5. gives compensation for the
pawn according to Estevez. J suspect that
the position is about equal.
Variation B
5. ... cS
6. a3
6.dc5 ~c5 7.e3 b6 l:!.tUgf3 ~b7 9.~d3
fi.e7 10.0-0 was slightly better for White
in Meister-Ikonnikov, Cheliabinsk 1989.
Black should investigate 6 ...tLia6!?
6. ... i.d2
7. 'i!'fd2 g5
Consistent, Black plays for the initiative.
A) 7."ci:Jc6 8..i.f6 (better is 8.dc5 g5
9.i.g3 t'De4 IOJ~'cl see below) 8...·c!ff6
9.dc5 as IO.tiJO a4 II.e3 'fie7 12.'fid6
1:1a5=Sidorov-Brodsky, Kstovo 1994.
B) 7...cd4 8.'I!t'd4~c6, and now either
9."'dl (Euwe) or 9.'i!Vc3 Kortchnoi-
Sosonko, Netherlands tt 1982.
8. i.g3
g~.t'iV. .i
.l.l .l .l
.l~ .l
.l
52
8. ... tDe4
This is best. The alternative is 8...tOc6,
when 9.0-0-0 ttJd4 1O.'Wd3d6 II.e3 lDf5
12.ii.e5 offers some compensation for the
pawn, Gliksman- Y.Sokolov, Kraljevo
1967. Ivkov's recommendation of 9.dcS
tLle4 IO.'tWc1!, however, is much simpler:
While is just better.
9. 'i'e3 CDg3
10. hg3 "'a5
If Black does not hold on to the initiative,
his dark-square weaknesses will take
their toll. This position is quite interesting
and relatively uninvestigated. The follo-
wing moves are possible:
A) Dubious is I 1.b4?! cb4 12.... d2dS
13.cdS ed5 14.tLif) (J4.iWb4 ...wb4IS.ab4
tDc6) 14...l~c6 15.~e5 ba3 16.tbc6 'ft'd2
17.'it>d2bc6, and Black was better in Sei-
rawan-Andersson, Tilburg 1983.
B) Bad is I J.~d2 'f.fd2 12.'~d2 cd4
13.tiJf3 tUc6 14.tUg5 lLa5! 15.~d3 tLlb3
J 6.1:1dIbo, and the ending favours Black.
C) Playable is 1 1.'tWc3 ~c3 12.bc3, of
course, with an equal ending, according
to Sveshnikov.
D) Interesting - and who is willing to
try this out? - is I I.~d I !? Black's wea-
knesses may be more important than the
untypical position of the king on d I. Mo-
reover, the black. king is not entirely safe
either. Meanwhile dc5 is being threate-
ned. while a future lbf3 will stress the pin
along the h-file. Black's initiative is cert-
ainly gone. Food for thought!
RECENT GAMES 8..ic2 (8.cd5 is stronger) 8...de4 9J:lc4
~d2 10.'it'd2 l1'1,bd7 II.tte I c5 12.0-0
o Abdulla AI-Rakib lhe4! with equality, Bozinovic-Zaja,
• Sarunas Sulskis Velika Gorica 2002.
Calcutta 2002 5.~h4 dS
1.d4 .!Df62.c4 e6 3..i.g5 c5 In Efimov- Vallin, Bordeaux 2003, Black
A similar set-up is 3...h6 4.i.h4 c5. after fared well with: 5...b6 6.f3?! (6.~~f3!)
5.d5 d6 6.lDc3 YLc77.lDD 0-0 (planning 6...~h7 7.e4? ~d2! 8.~d2 ~4 9.~d8
ttJd5) 8..ig3 ed5 9.1,;d5lDh5 10.e3 lDd7 li\d2 1O.~c7lt\fl I J .~fl .aa6.
11.~e2 play was about equal in 6.e3
Golod-Anastasian, Ubeda 2001. Bad is 6.tDt1'!! dc4!. After 6.a3 ~e7 7.e3
4.dS edS s.ecs h6 0-0 8.ttJgf3 tt:Jbd7 9. 'i'c2 (9Jk I) Black
The alternative is 5...d6. Play may con- equalized in Tyomkin-Shahade, Paget
tinue: 6.lVc3 $Le7 7.QJt3 0-0 8.e4 ~g4 Parish 20()!, with: 9 ...e5! lO.ed5 LUd5
9.it.e3 (better than 9.~e2 $Lf3 lO.~t1 ll.iLe7 'W'e7 12.iLb5 ed4 13.tlJd4 lO7f6
tLJd5 11.~d5 ~g5 12.'i'b7 tal7) 14.0-0 V:z-'/2.
9...~bd7 lO.~e2 a6 1l.tDd2 (stronger is 6...0-0 7.a3 SLe7 8.tbgf3 b6 9.cd5 tLdS
perhaps Il.a4) II...$Le2 12.~e2 b5 10.SLg3
Husari-Ghacm Maghami, Sanaa 2002. White has a small but definite plus.
6.~h4 1!fb6 Vilc3 10...S;_b7 11..~.e2 f)·.d7 12.0-0 es 13.~c1
Stronger is 7.~d2! as in Kortchnoi- IIc814.lbc4lD7f6
Kosten, London 1982.
7...1tb2 8.~16 gf6 9.:c1 15 10.e3 d6
11.~ {Dd7 12.{Dge2 ~b4 13.0-0 .£g7
14.~d3 0-0 1S.iLd7 fi.d7 16.I:tb1 flaS
17Jlb7 $LcB!18Jlb3
The ending after IlU:tb5 Qao 19.1:r.a5
~d3 is clearly in Black's favour.
1B...$La6 19.0b5
19."c2 ~c3-+.
19..Jlab8 20.I:tfb1 c4! 21.'ii'e4 nfc8
22.~d3I:lc5
White resigned because of 23.a4 ~a4
24.~ed4 iLd4 25.ed4 .I:lcb5-+.
15.dc5! $Lc5 16.b4 .te7 17.1iJfd2 b5?
o Dimitri Tyomkin 18.~a5 S;_a8 19.5;_e5
• Humpy Koneru Protecting e3 and transferring [he bishop
Oakham 2001 to the main diagonal.
1.d4 llJf6 2.c4 e6 3..tg5 Ab4 4.~d2 h6 19... tLJd7 20.SLa1 ~f6? 21.~e8 "08
4...d5 5.e3 0-0 6.8f3 b6 7.~cl ~b7 22.~b5 IId8

53
22 ...tUc3 23.~c3 S;(.c324.'itc2 and White 14.0-0-0 gives White excellent compen-
is better. sation. Nogueiras-Calvo Minguez, Torre-
23.1i'c1! ~b8 molinos 1984.
23 ...1Dc3. 12.~d2 1613.0-0·0
24.~f6 If',7f6 25 ...Q.e2 'ite5 26.ltJac4 So far the players have followed an analy-
lDc3 27.~'3 ~f3 28.0..e5 ltJe2 29.q.,h1 sis of Estevez, who considered that While
.i.g2 30.'~g2 tile1 31.ti)df3 0.d3 3Vbc6 had adequate compensation.
.Ild733.b5 13..:"e7 14.e3 f5 15.0.c3 d6 16.~e2
White is better. ~d717.~h5
33 lDe4 34.l1b1 l1b7 The position of Black's king gives White
34 tL.df2. enough for the pawn.
35.a4 tate5 17 ...¢>d8 18.g4 fg4 19 ..ig4 tDe5
35 ...~f2 36.ttJa7 lla7 37.b6 llb7 38.a5 20 ...Q.e2 Q.c6 21.f4 tDd7 22.~d3 .!De5
lDg4 39.a6. 23.~e2 'iWf624.'Wd4 <t;e7
36.a5lOe3 37.l:te1 0,584 38.b6+- 0.b5 When Black exchanges queens there fol-
38 ...ab6 39.a6l:c7 40.a7. lows: 24 ..:ti'd4 25.ed4
39 ..!bd8 J:lbS 40.<!LJc6l1b7 41.tZlfd4 a6 - 25 ...tud726.d5+-;
4V~b5 ab5 43.tDd8 l::tb844.b7 1·0 - 25 .ig2 26.llh2 ~f3 27J:tfl±;
- 25 tDa626.fg5±.
o Jerry Simon 2S.t'th2 g14
• Dennis de Vreugt Or 25 ...c5!?
Bermuda 2002 26.b4
1.d4 l£;f6 2.c4 e6 3.i.g5 h6 4.~h4 .Q.b4
5.~2g5
5...~6 6.e3 g5 7.5ig3 c2.e4 8.tLlf3 h5
9."c2 ttjd2 IO.tDd2 h4 n.z-s Qd2
12.wd2 (l2.'fi'd2?? f6) 12...tLle5 13.deS
d6 14.ed6 cd6 15.~d3 'fi'f6 with about
equal chances. Sirnon-Karklins, Saint
Paul 2000. Instead of 6.e3 White can try:
6.a3 ..Q.d27.1i'd2 tUe4 8 ...Q.d8tDd2 9.~d2
(9.~c7) 9...Wd8 1O.'~c3.
6.~g3 tDe4 7.tZJf3tbc6
Weaker is 7...d6?! 8.a3 ~d2 9.tild2 lbg3
1O.hg3 b6 Il.e3 Ab7 12."c2 'ite7:!:
n.c5!? Nguyen Chi Minh-Peter, Clermont 26 e5 27.'iWd2 tile6
2003. 27 fe3 28:ft'e3 tbe6 29.b5 merely trans-
8.83 ..Q.d2 9.tUd2 ttJg3 10.hg3 ttJd4 poses.
11.loe4 ttJc6 28.b5 fe3 29.'iWe3 ~g5 30."g5 hg5
Here 1l ...e5'!' 12.e3 ti)e6 l3.'it'f3 db 31.nh8 ':h8 32.bc6 bc6

54
This is a very unclear ending. Black
clearly has compensation for the piece.
33.~e4 tl2d4 34.wd2lbb3?
This is very bad, the knight was
well-placed on d4.
35.Q;>e2LDa5?36.'.t;>d3~e6 37.1:1f1
White is now much better because of the
off-side position of the black knight.
37 ...'l;e7 38.1t1S Ilg8 39.g4 %%g740 ..tg2
And since he cannot prevent tiJe4. Black
resigned.
o Boris Avrukh
• Yannick Pelletier
Bie12000
1.d4 ttJf6 2.c4 e6 3.~g5 h6
3 ...~b4 4.q:;d2 c5 5.tbf3 (stronger are
S.a3 or S.dcS) 5...cd4 6.tbd4 h6 7 ..ih4
4lc6 8.lDc2 i.e7 9.e3 0-0 1O.j(e2 d5 and
Black has equalized comfortably.
Bozinovic-Senff, Bie12001.
4.~h4 ~b4 5.thd2 c5 s.ees ~a6!?
This was my recommendation in the orig-
inal article. Avrukh responds well.
Alternatively, 6...lbc6 7.ttJf3 ~c5 8.e3
0-0 9.~e2 ~e7 10.0-0 a6 II.it'c2 d6
12.lUdl 'i'c7 13Jbcl l:1d8 14.h3 ~d7
15.~g3 'it'b6 16.a3l:lac8 17.b4 a5 t8.c5!
deS 19.1Dc4 it'a7 20.b5 with a clear edge.
Abdulla-Liang Chong. Calcutta 200 I.
7..!lJf3 0c5 8.a3 ~d2 9.tDd2 d5 10.b4
tDcd7 11.cd5 ed5 12JDb3;!; O.() 13.e3
li'Je514 .• d41
14.~e2 t1~g6 J5 ..tg3 (not 15.$.f6 'it'f6
l6.'tWd5? (16.0-0=) 16....ie6-+)
15...liJe4 with counterplay.
14 ..Jle8 15.Ae2 i.g4
White is also better after 15...g5 16..i.g3
ttJc6 17. 'tWb2.
16.f3 .tf5 17.0-0 ldc6
17...lijg6 18..if6 (l8 ..it'2) 18...'fH6
19.1!H6 gf6 20. ~f2 and White is better.
18.~d2
Not 18.~.f6? t;ld4 19.~d8 t;\b3-+.
18 ...1We719.i.f2;!;
19 ...a6 20.%1ac1a5!? 21.b5 a4
Bad is 21. ..'i'a3 2Uk3! toe? 23.e4 de4
24 ..ic5+-.
22.lDC5 o1ia5 23 ..Kdl tDb3! 24.fl.b3
Clearly stronger than 24.tDb3 ab3
25.~b3 l:1a3 with equality, as 26.~d5??
1:Id3loses on the spot.
24 ...ab3 25.CUb3 l:Ia3 26.llJd4 it.d3
27 .l::tfel ~c4 28.e4!? de4 29.1:104 e3
30.1:1e3 l::te3 31.~e3 ~e3 32.1We3 l1e3
33.1:1c7
White still has the intitiative in this end-
ing. but Pelletier defends well.
33 ...%1d334.0.f5 lld7 35.b6 h5 36.h4 96
37.li2e3 c;t;f8 38.tL',c4 lte7 39Jte8 lle8
40.%lc7 l:Ie7 41.c;t;f2 CUdS 42.:1:Ic8 1:1e8
43.Ilc5 li2f4 44.:c7 lIe7 45.g4 16
46.gh5 lLlh5 47.tDd6 ~f4 48.hS!?
48.ti:lb7 tijd5=.
48 ...llJdS!
Bad are 48 ...Ci:JhS4~.tob7, and 48 ...gh5
49Jk8 ~g7 50.lDfS+-.
49.lIc5 <cb6 50.l:1b5 liJd7 51.hg6 1l~e5
55
5ViJf5 J:ld7 53.g7 Wg8= 54.na5 tbc6
55.1:[a8!:Id8 56.%%84
IrdS 57.Ira8 1/:z-1f:z
o Boris Avrukh
• Boris Gulko
Istanbul 01 200D
1.d4 ~f6 2.c4 e6 3.£95 h6 4..th4 .tb4
5.<1:d2c5 6.a3 ~d2 7."'d2 g5
A main alternative is 7 ...cd4:
A) 8.0f3 <1',c.:69.ltJd4 ~e4 10.~d8
tLld21l.tbc6dc.:6 12.~d2Wd813.<;t;1dc5
14.g3 ~d7 15.~g2 <tJc7 16.l:thdl ~t:6
17.~c6 Wc6 18Jtd3!/= Ivanov-Aseev,
St Petersburg 2000.
B) 8.'ilfd4 tUc6 9.~c3 (9.~d I is the
alternative) 9...0-0!
B I) IO.O-O-O?li\e4;
B2) !Olef3 g5 II...Q.g3 t::Ge4;
B3) IO.~f6 'itf6 ) 1.~f6 gf6 12.d b6
13.lbf3 $:a6 with equality, Bosch-
Ligterink, Dutch tt 2002.
8...Q.g3 Ci;e4 9.ffe3 t2g3 10.hg3 ~a5
11.Wd1
This was the novelty I suggested at the
end of the original article.
11...d6 1ViJf3 i.d7 13.d5
13.<1':g5?Aa4 14.b3 cd4 Black better.
13...t/)a6 14.tegS C~c7 15Jtc1!? :[g8
56
16.~e4 O-O-O!?17.tLlf6
Is 17.~d6 wb8 I ~.tZ:lt7 really too danger-
ous?
17...~a4 18.b3 Irg6 19.~h5 _~d7
20.4;f4 %tf621.de6 fe6
22.... c3
This forces the exchange of queens, ren-
dering White a safe pius.
22...ftc3 23.%%c3 bS 24.e3 bc4 2S.bc4
e5 26.4\d3 -'l.e6 27.~h2 tt:le6 28.we1
~c7 29.%%b30:g5 30.~e2 %%df831.14
lP-';e432.fe5 deS 33keS ..Q.8434.l:tb2
!:Ie6 35.lt';d3 ti,g3 36.t2'J4!:ta6 37.~id5
37.~.D.
37..:~c8 3e.~g4 ~d7 39.~d7 'it>d7
40.:tb7 ,.pc841.rtb3 1:[f142.'.t>d2tta1?!
Black draws immediately with 42 .. .l:U2
43.~d3 (43,~d I lUI::) 43 tte6 44,~f4
(not 44.l:!.h5'!'!tf~e4-+) 44 l:td6 45.(/',d5
J:le6 with a repetition,
43.%%h4 %%683 44.1:[a3%la345.J:lh6 li}e4
46.'it>e2 :a2 47.,.pf3 ti'\d2 48.$14 li.Jc4
49.g4 ~d7 50.Cd6 rj;;e7 51.~',d5 Wd7
5VZ::J6 ~e7 53.li:;e4 l:te2 S4.tlJc5 Ire3
5S.l:!.h7 'i?eB 56.~e4 %%e1 57.¢f5 %ta1
5B.g5 l:ta5 59.,t<f6 :::la6 60.<i7g7 ti\e3
61.WhB Cuts 62Jtb7 <,i,1f863.tbf6 li}e7
64kd7
 CHAPTER 6
TN on move 51
This is not a slip of the hand!
1.e4 c5 Vljf3 ~c6 3,d4 cd4 4.l2;d4 g6
S,c4.QhS!?TN
Ir looks as if the bishop has got out of con-
irol and shot past its natural square g7.
However, this is not the case. What if I
told you that the 'TN' in the title stands
for: TIVIAKOV'S NOVELTY. In a game
against Bcshukov, Tiviakov played
5...~h6!? instead ofhis usual Gurgenidze
variation (5 ....!"6f66.t.6c3 d6 7.~e2 tbd4).
Isn't it reassuring. in a time when novel-
ties are sometimes found well beyond
move 20, that a strong grandmaster co-
mes up with something new on move 5!
NIC KEY SI 33.5
The move actually has a sound positional
basis: Black is going to exchange the
dark-squared bishops. Since White has
put pawns on c4 and e4, he can no longer
control the central dark squares after (his
exchange. The ultimate goal for Black is
to play good knight versus bad
(light- squared) bishop.
Before we investigate Tiviakov's idea,
however. we will take a look at a similar
manoeuvre in the Hungarian variation.
1. e4 c5
2. (iif3 d6
3. d4 cd4
57
 4. "d4 .Q.d7
4 .. .l2Jc6 5...Q.b5kd7 6.~c6 is more com-
mon, but the text is perfectly reasonable.
Black intends lbc6, gaining a tempo on
me queen. The only way (0 take advan-
tage of 4...kd7 is hy settling for a
Maroczy set-up.
5. c4 ~\c6
6, 'iWd2
White intends b3 and ~b2 anyway, so it is
logical to withdraw the queen to d2 rather
than to d 1.
6, ,., 96
The most natural move is now 7.lDc3.
However, according to theory this is bad
because of Ciocaltea's 7...~h6!. The
queen is forced back to a lesser square.
There are two possibilities:
- After 8. 'iVdI Black plays 8... .tg7, when
Bishop takes c3 is threatened, and if
White wants to prevent this he has to set-
tle for the passive 9,~d2,
- 8.tt'c2, when the queen is exposed (on
the c-tile because of a future ~c8, and be-
cause of a possible tLib4). An extreme ex-
ample of what might happen: 8....ig7 9.b3
.!fif6 IO.~b2 ~a5 II.aT? tDc4! 12.b4 ~b4
58
13.ab4 'ilfb4 14.lk14Jc5 15..ial (l5 ..ie2
~f5) 15...tUb3 16.'itb2 a5 17..id3 ss:
18.0-0(l8.cb5lC.cl 19.'f:Vcl:te8) t8 ...be4
19..te2 lC.aI 20. 'ti' a I 0-0 21.l:tfd I e6
22.liJd4 d5 and Black was winning in
Packroff-Schoneberg, East German Cham-
pionship. Erfurt 1973.
The strength of 7... ~h6 in this example
lies in the fact thaI White's most hannoni-
ous set-up ('ti'd2, tbc3, b3, .ib2) is dis-
turbed, giving Black good counterplay af-
ter the paradoxical S...~g7.
By adapting his move order White may
try to avoid these problems.
7, b3
The idea is that 7 ....th6 is now answered
by 8.'f:Vc3.Play therefore usually contin-
ues: 7 ...kg7 8.~b2 tN6 9.ti':c30-0. This
is the main line which is not relevant for
our present purposes.
The sideline 8...~b2 (instead of 8...~f6)
is more interesting from our point of
view: 8....ib2 9.~b2lUf6. Black's play is
not devoid of logic: he has already ex-
changed the dark-squared bishops and
has therefore achieved his strategic aim.
Although the theory gives White a slight
edge, it has been played by world-class
players and therefore deserves attention.
A few examples to show how these
Maroczy positions without dark-squared
bishops are played:
A) 1O.tDbd2 0-0 II.j_e2 tL:)h5!?
12.0-0 (Aronin has recommended 12.g3
as slightly better for White) 12...~f4
13.1:Hel e5 14...Q.fl ~g4 happened in
Bannik-Spassky, Soviet Championship,
Moscow 1957. Black intends ~f3, fol-
lowed by tDf4-e6-d4; he is already
slightly better;
 B) 1O.~e2 0-0 Il.ltJc3 tLlh5. The
same manoeuvre as in [he previous exam-
ple. 12.0-0 tlJf4 l3.tlJd5 tDe2 14.1!6e2
~g4 15.• e3 e5. and Black had an easy
game in Sefc-Petrosian, Vienna 1957.
White was duly impressed. as witness the
next few moves 16.tbel? tbd4 17.f3 .i.e6
18.t;)c3? fia5 19.ttJe2 ltJe2 20.~e2 b5!
21.cb5 .ib3 22.l:lf2 .ia4+;
C) 1O.tbc3 0-0 (l0".~g4!?) 11..ie2
i.g4 12.tbd2 (12.l:ld I e5 13.0-0 ~f3
14.~f3 tbd4 15.~e2 is given as slightly
better for White by Boleslavsky. The idea
is that after ~d3 and tUd5 the Black.
knight may be dislodged from his outpost
with f4) 12...~e2 13.tUe2 a6 14.0-0 b5
15.lDe3 b4 16.~d5 tLld7 17.tLJf3 \1.0-\-2 in
Savon-Bronstein, Soviet Championship,
Leningrad 197 I.
The examples illustrate the type of posi-
tion that While should avoid.
Rather passive was 7".~a5 8.~a5 t[)a5
9..ib2 f6 1O.l'i:JC3 l:lc8 II.~e2 1t..g7. as
played in Duckstein- Teufel, Bamberg
1968. White is slightly better, of course,
but Black held on to the draw. I will come
back to this game.
Interestingly. after 7.h3 the game
Galego-Silva, Portuguese Championship
1992. nevertheless continued:
7.... .ah6
The move that White thought to have
avoided with 7.b3.
8. 'W'e3
Nothing is gained by 8.'i'b2 'S'a5 9.~c3
(9.~d2 ~d2 I O.tLlbd2lbf6 or 9.littd I tLJe5
10.ttie5 i.e I II. 'iWcI ~e5) 9...~cl
(9...iLg7 1O.~d2) IO.l:lcllbf6.
8.... 'eiaS!
Black is playing an improved version of
Duckstein- Teufel. see the note above.
9.'ffaS lDa5 10..2.b2 1O.~h6 tDh6
II.tOc3 is equal, compare this to
Tiviakov's Maroczy below. 10...tlJf6
11.tVe3 J UH6 ef6 IVue3 is (he alter-
native. 11...0-0 12.~d3 Afe8 And Black
is fine. the game continued. 13J)"() a6
14.l:tfel nab8 rs ..ctad1 b5 16.e5 deS
17.cbS ab5 l8.neS ~c4!? 19..tc4 bc4
20.l:le7 cb3 21,ab3 This is a mistake.
The stronger 2l.tDe2 is answered by
21....2.f8 22..CI.e3 ha2 23.~f6 l:lb I.
21..•l:lb3 2VLld5 tLld5 23.l:rd7 Ab2
24Jl7d5 :ec2 Suddenly White is in big
trouble. 25.:f1 :f2 26.tLiel26.g3 ~e3
also loses. 26...~e3
White resigned.
What did we learn from this survey of the
Hungarian variation? It also has the move
.2.h6. but it is more forceful (it auacks the
queen). Black usually plays it to disturb
White's piece coordination. However, we
also saw several examples in which the
bishops were traded. when the position
becomes rather similar to the main object
of our study. So let us return to Tiviakov's
59
5 ... ~h6 in the Maroczy. The move was in- tage is that the knight is now stranded at
troduced in the following game from the h6. A drawback is that Black develops
European championship. with tempo. Besides. the knight may
come in useful for preparing f5 (it can
o Sergey Beshukov also be regrouped with lL.g4-e5/f6). Let
• Sergey Tiviakov us briefly examine the alternatives:
Saint Vlncenl 2000 A) 6.f4. This avoids the exchange. but
1. e4 c5 weakens White's position somewhat. Bad
2. ~f3 li)c6 now is 6...e5? 7.cub5. Interesting it;
3. d4 cd4 6...1!i'b6. which is best met by 7.lbb5. The
4. iOd4 g6 natural 6...d6 7.liJc3 tbf6 8.~e2 0-0 is
5. c4 .ih6 also good.
B) 6.lUc3 ~cl (6 ...d6) 7.lkl lUf6
looks OK for Black. A typical Maroczy
position, but one in which the
dark-squared bishops have already been
exchanged.
C) 6.tbc6'!! The idea of this move is
that 6 ...bc6 7.'tWd4 leads to interesting
play: 7 .. .'~WaS(7...f6) 8.~d2 (8.lLk3 e5)
8...gd2 9.~d2 e5 IO.'~d6. and White is
better.
However. aftcr6 ...dc6 7.'fid8 'ittd8 8.Ylh6
112h69.~c3 e5 Black is slightly better in
the endgame.
Tiviakov deserves the highest praise for 6.... li,h6
finding and playing this move. Theory 7. tZjc3 0-0
only investigates 5...tbf6 and 5 ....tg7. Sensible play. 7...~b6 is less good; after
Nevertheless, the idea to exchange bish- 8.ti"\b3 a future l1\d5 or cS will be annoy-
ops is the main theme in the following ing. Equal to the text is 7 ... d6 (Tiviakov).
well-researched line: 5 ... £l.g7 6.j(.e3 t[\f6 8. ~e2 d6
7.0.c3 0-0 8..1e2 d6 9.0-0 _~d7 1O.'i'd2 ILl'S is given as an alternative by
tDd4 II..id4 ..tc6 12.f3 as l3.b3 ~d7. Tiviakov,
Nowadays White prefers to keep his 9. "d211
bishop with 14..Q.e3 or with the subtle I think that this merely helps Black. After
14.~f2.lfWhite wants to keep his bishop 9.0-0 Tiviakov (on his webpage) gives
so badly. then why not offer the exchange 9 .....ie6 and 9 .. .fS without any further
at a point when it cannot be avoided? comments. Let us examine both lines:
6. .th6 A) 9 .....Q.e6 is a noncommittal move.
The move played by Beshukov.Its advan- White can just continue to develop with

60
moves like h3, ~d2 and l:tc I. Or he can pawn groups, white squares are weaker.
try something more purposeful with as might be his king).
1O.~c6~? bc6 IJ.fI'd2 rt/g7 (I l...lbg4 9.... ttJg4
12.~g4 ~g4 13.f4 is better for White) This looks good. The knight is on his way
12.h4!? to better pastures (eS or f6).
B) 9...f5. 10. ~g4
Tiviakov gives 10.0-0 ttJge5=. perhaps
I l.fuc2!? is still a try to avoid further ex-
changes.
10. .tg4
11. h3 .ie6
12. b3 'ttb6
By now Black has full equality, and even a
choice of plans. Tiviakov gives both
12...lCd4 13.'f6'd4 ~aS= and 12...'fh5
(planning a6 and b5) as viable alterna-
tives.
13. tLc2
Avoiding an immediate draw with
This utilizes the position of the knight on 13.l:1dl. when the exchanges on d4 will
h6. There is a danger. however, after lead to full equality.
lO.ef5 (lO.fI'd2) 1O...liJd4 (IO ...4':f5 may 13. a6
wellbebener) I J.fI'd4~f5 12.~d2~d7. 14. 0e3 'eVeS

I.
Bya curious transposition of moves we 15. .l::lc1 ~eS
have arrived at Tal-Kupreichik, Sochi 16. 0-0
I970~I'll give this game in full:
5...~g7 6.£e3 ~h6 7.lbc3 d6 8.~e2 0-0 .i
9.0-0 f5 lO.cf5 08d4'!~ I L.~d4 ~d4
12.fid4 ttJf5 LHIVd2 -'Ld7 14.~f3 ~.c6 ~ ~~ ~
JS.~d5 'it'g7 16JHei e5 17.cS de5 ~ ~~.t
18J:te5 }le8 19J:tael ~d6 20J:te6 ~e6
21.l:te6 ~d7 22.~f4 Ad5 2H!i'eS ~f7
'iN
24.nf6 ~gR 25.ti"',d5 ~a4 (2S ...lIe8 ~ ~
26.ng6 hg6 27.ttJf6 Wg7 28.cud7 ~eS ~Cjj Cjj~
29.~e5) 26.h3 ~d8'! 27.:f5 1-0.
~ ~ ~~
Curious and best avoided. In general
Black should watch out when playing f5.
He improves the activity of his pieces
:s ~~

(knight on f5, open f-file), but structurally 16.... 'tff4(1)

he gets into an inferior position (three The queen is well-positioned here. The

61
players now agreed a draw. Tiviakov After 12...lt:ig4 13.11;(.15White is slightly
gives l6 ...g5 as interesting. better,
It is impossible to evaluate 5...~h6 on the 13.~h1 a6 14.14 f6 15..id3 l:tac8
basis of one game, of course. Neverthe- 16.~d5
less, the move is certainly playable. an out- 16.b3 b5.
right refutation is not on the cards. So why 16..:a'd2 17Jld2 ~d5 18.edS f5
not surprise your next opponent with this The ending is about equal.
TN. and let us see how this line develops! 19.1:tel rJ;f7 20.'~gl ~g8 21.a4 a5
22.b3
Draw.
RECENT GAMES
o Miguel Munoz
Meanwhile Tiviakov's 5 ....i.h6 has re- • Goran Kosanovic
ceived some further tests. Below you will Budapest 2001

find some lightly annotated games. 1.e4 c5 2.lljf3 [Lie63.d4 ed4 4.lDd4 96
5.c4 .ih6 6.iLh6 (Lih6 7.... d2 tlJg4
o Andras Flumbort 8k;c3 0-0 9.h3
• Coran Kosanovic 9.~e2 d6 would transpose to Beshu-
Paks 2001 kov- Tiviakov.
1 .lbf3 c5 2.c4 tbc6 3.d4 cd4 4.tDd4 g6 9 ... lbf6 1O.O-O-O!? ~b6 11.14d6
5.e4 ~h6 6.~h6 tbh6 V2~c30-0 8.~e2 Note how Black will now continue to
d69.0-0 make useful moves before exchanging on
d4.
K ..t'iV ·a. 12.~e2 ~e6 13.g4l:[fe8 14.f5

ii Ii X K •
~i ii ~i i
'iV~i..t~i
~

9 ...tLA4!?
The dangers of 9...f5 were illustrated in Forcing Black to exchange.
the comments to Beshukov-Tiviakov. 14...tL'ld4 15.iWd4 iWd4 16Jld4 ~d7
10.-.d4 ~e6 11..c!.ad1 iWa5 12...wd2 17.g5 -t:.;e818.~g4
~7 J 8.01':05 \tf8 19.Q.g4.

62
18...e619.fe6 LeG 20..ie6
zo.ces wg7.
20 ...fe6 21.b3
Chances are about even.
21 ...ne5 22.h4 a6 23.r;t¥b2!:lae8 24.a4
~Be7 2S.ttf1 nf7 26.lU7 r.;I;f7 27.b4 l:te5
28.0.d1 as 29.bS J:Ie5 30.¢>b3 cJf;e7
31.tDf2 !:le8 32.~g4 b6 sa.es lIeS
34.ed6 ~d6 35.~f6 IlfS 36.~h7 0.b7
37.ltJf6 4.lc5 38.~c2 l:1f2 39.wdl rth2
40.tL:g8 'iPf741.~h6 rJie7 4Vi';g8 W
Draw.
15.11fd1 ~d2 16.lld2 a6 17.g4 h6
1B.c5! 0.b4
IB...de5 19.e5 (followed by f5).
19.83 ~';82 20.lQa2 :h2 21.~f3 e5
21 ...l:tc5 22.l:te5 deS 23.eS and White has
the advantage.
22.l:td6 ef4 23.ttJd5 tLJd5 24.edS lIfd8
2S.Ud8 l:tdB 26.d6+- lId7 27.b4 ~f8
28.l:tel ~e6

o Joseph Gallagher
• Chris Beaumont
England It 2002
1.e4 c5 2.ll:Jf3 ~e6 3.d4 ed4 4.tLjd4 g6
5.c4 ~h6 6.tL:e3 d6 7...Q.e2.:i.e1 8.lIe1 ~
~f6 9.0-0 0-0 10.0.c2
lO.whl ~h6 II.tUc6 bc6 12.b3 gave
Black no problems in Kwiatkowski-
Singer, Laczna 2002.
10..~.e6 11.li',e3 29.~b7! rtb730.rteS!
Black resigned as 30... fc6 31.c6 l:lb6
32.(';7 1:1(;633.d7 will queen.

11...'''a5
11...'fib6 planning ~d4 makes more
sense.
12.~h1 !:rac8 13.14 ""b6 14.'ifd2 'ifd4
 CHAPTER 7

A bishop's wonder move

NIC KEYVO 8.8

4 ...~>d6: the SOS reply to l.b3

This chapter presents a complete defence 3. e3

against the so-called Nimzowitsch- Keeping all options open. this move best
Larsen attack: l.b3. Our system naturally illustrates the flexibility of the
has a distinct SOS character. Thus it in- Nimzowitsch-Larscn attack, After 3.c4
volves the developing move 4...~d6, .!!J6 4.c3 Black may go for (J very decent
placing the piece in front of the d7 -pawn, reversed Sicilian 4".d5. To give an en-
and an early 0aS. avoiding a possible couraging example: 5.<:<.15-1ld5 6.aJ .\td6
exchange (.~.c6). 7,"'(;2 'iWe7 S.d3 f5 9,ti':c3 -1:d4 10.ed4
li~c3 Il.deS .~_e5 12 ..~,e2 l?:e2 l3.tCe2
o Klaus Bischoff .ab2 !4.'i'b2 0-015.0-0 f4 and Black was
• Emil Sutovsky clearly better in Hetzer-Stripunsky, New
Essen 2001 York 2000, However Black may also
1. b3 es adopt the same scheme of development as
2. ~b2 t;':c6 in our main game: 4.".s').d6 5.~c3 0-0 fol-

64
lowed by l:te8, e4 and ~c5 or alterna-
tively l:te8, ~f8 and d5.
3.... tDf6
Of course, 3...d5 4.~b5 £d6 5.f4 is not
necessarily bad for Black but exactly the
kind of thing that White was looking for-
ward to when he chose l.b3.
4 • .Q.b5
4.c4 transposes 10 the 3.c4 line given
above, while 4.tUf3 is well met by 4 ...e4.
Again the miracle move of this SOS is
also playable: 4 ...Qd6 S.d3 0-0 6.tUbd2
~eM 7.a3 was Bischoff-Khenkin, Ger-
many Bundesliga 2000/0 J. Note that
7.tbc4 is answered by 7 ...]Lb4 8.c3 ars.
4. ... ~d6!?
This is what this SOS is all about. Black
protects his e5-pawn. without giving
White any clear targets. The drawback of
this odd development of the bishop is that
it appears to disturb the coordination of
the black forces. However this is only
seemingly the case. Black has, in fact, a
few wonderfully organic set-ups in mind.
Thus, he might play a6 and after ~c6 dc6
his light-squared bishop joins the fray.
Alternatively, he may simply continue
0-0, :!:Ie8and now either Qf8 and d5 or e4
and ~e5. Finally, sometimes ~e7 (~a5)
is played followed by c6, ~c7 and d5. In
all cases Black firmly takes control of the
central squares that were so generously
neglected by his l.b3 opponent. This is
hardly a modern idea, for it was first
played nearly one-and-a-half century ago
by the great German champion Adolf
Anderssen. It is nevertheless still
effective. as our present game proves.
5. CLie2
A logical move that fails to bring any ad-
vantage. Yet. White has not been particu-
larly successful with the alternatives
either.
A) The stem game of 4 ...~d6 contin-
ued meekly with S.d3 bur developed quite
originally after 5...tLie7!? 6.d4!? ed4
7.~d4 ti'lf5 8.~b2 tiM 9.~fJ b6 JO.liif3
lDg6 11.~d3 ~b7 Suhle-Anderssen,
Breslau 11:159.
B} Equally unpromising is S.lLcl 0-0
6.lL:ge2(ije7 7.d4 c6 8.~d3 ed4 9.ltJd4~b4
J 0.a3 W J 1.(ijf5d5 and Black was tine in
Bellon Lopez-Narciso Dublan, Havana 1999.
C) The bayonet attack S.g4?! is dubi-
ous here:
65
5".0-0 6.Q\c3 ~b4 7.g5?! i.c3 8.dc3 tDe4
9.h4 d5 10..-f3 ttJd6 II..~c6 bc6
12.0-0-0 as 13.liJe2 a4 14.li'lg3 ~e6
15.~h5 ab3 l6.ab3 ~a2 11."g3 ~c4!
with a winning attack in Arencibia-
Efirnov, Saint Vincent 2001.
D) Preparing f4 with S.tDh3 is also du-
bious. after 5...a6 6.~e2 ~e7!? (aiming
to attack the h3-knight) ?.f4 d6 8.tt:lf2 ef4
9.ef40-0 I O.Af3 d5 and Black was OK in
Parkin-Bryson, Scottish Championship.
Glasgow 2000.
E) S.a3 looks insipid but is actually
quite cunning. White realizes the strength
of ~d6 versus his ~b5 set-up and simply
switches to a .i.e2 and c4 set-up. Both
sides will lose some tempi moving their
bishops around. Rogers-Sherbakov,
Hastings 1993/94. continued: 5 ...0-0
6...Q.e2~e7 7.c4 e4?! 8.lb.c3 d5?! 9.cd5
ti)e5 1O.4'le4 tLJe4 II.~e5 ~d5 12.tL;f3
and Black did not have enough compen-
sation for the pawn.
Instead of 6...!Ii.e7another solution would
be 6...Ae8 7.c4 ~f8; in the game ~e 7 dis-
turbs the coordination of Black's pieces.
However, 7 e4 is not forced either; after
the normal 7 d5 8.cd5 tDd5 would trans-
pose to l.b3 eS 2.~b2 ~c6 3.c4 ~f6 4.e3
dS 5.cd5 ttJd5 6.a3 f:J..e7(6 ...~d6 would
be preferable in this move order) 7.il.e2
0-0.
F) S.tiJf3 e4 (S...~e7 is playable too)
6.ttJd4 tDd4 7.~d4 c6 lLte2 0-0 9.c4
'*Ie? preparing .te5 was fairly equal in
McMichael-Parker. England Team
Championship 1996. After 5...e4 the
originaI6.lt:Jh4 has also been played. after
6...0-0 7.0-0 ~e5 8.~e5 ~e5 9.f4 ef3
10.tOf3 'IJIe7 II.~c3 d5 Black's position
66
is perhaps already the more attractive.
Mikhalevski-Avrukh. Rarnat Aviv 1998.
G) 5,tt::.a3 Keene's suggestion of al-
most 25 years hence. Now if you are only
looking for equality then 5 ... a6 should
suffice: 6.~c6 (6.~e2 ~e 77 .It:Jc4 e4 8.d4
Belikov-Pilipenko, Smolensk 1992)
6 ...dc6 7.lb.c4 "fIIe7 s.tt~e2 0-0 9.0-0 h5
'0.~d6 cd6 J 1.f4 .ig4!= Lein-
Gruzrnann, Grieskirchen 1998. However.
more in SOS style is to give your oppo-
nent a taste of his own medicine with
5...tQaS!?
The idea is simply that it renders ltx4
harmless. For example: 6.~c4 «4
7.xc4 0-0 8.~e2 c6 9.tL:g3 fi...c7 10.0-0
d5 with easy equality in Gelashvili-Hec-
tor, Istanbul 01 2000. After 6.~f3 a6
7.!iLe2 ~e7 8.tt:bl is a sud retreat. In the
game Hodgson-Speelman. England
Team Championship 1998, the players
called ita day after8 ...0-09.c4 b6 10.tt:lc3
.ab7 II.O-01Ue8 12.d3 .Q.a313.'i'cl.i.b2
Y2-~.
Best is the prophylactic 6.~e2. when af-
ter 6...a6 there is a parting of the ways:
G I) 7.lL;c4'?! proved spectacularly in-
effective after 7...tbc4 8.bc4?! ~e7 9.a4 iLc7 8.tDh5 liJh5 9.~h5 0.g6 lO.f4! W'e7
0-0 10.tDh3 ~cS 1l.f4? ~e3! 12.~e5 11.0-0 e4 12.~e2 0-0 13.f5 lDe5 14.f6
~a7 l3.q~f2d6 14.~b2 ne8 15.d4 ~g4 with a dangerous initiative, Arencibia-
0-1 Sakaev-Sveshnikov, Gausdal 1992. Huerta. Merida 2000.
G2) Better is 7.c4 c5!? (not obliga- 6. ~e6 de6
tory) &.lDf3 li:c6 9.d3 0-0 10.0-0 ~e8
Il.llJc2 ~f8 12.d4 and White was some-
what better in Teske-Berndt, German
Bundesliga 1999.
G3) 7.ttJf3 e4 8.lLld4 g6 9.c4 0-0
IO.llJbI l:re8 11.~c3 .i.e5 12.d3 d5
13.cd5 ed3 14.'ird3 lDd5 15.~dS tt"dS
16.~f3 'i'd6 17.0-0-0 "iVb6 18.itc2 \-'2-\12
Hodgson-Harsov, York 1999. ~ '8
H) Miles has tried S.~e2!? Its main
idea is comparable to line E. His
~~~fj,CiJ~~fj,
opponent. Ekstrom, rose to the occasion :ltb"tW~ ~
and both players produced the following
bizarre tactics: 5...0-0 6.c4 lte8 7.tbc3 7. lLlbc3
gf8 B.d3 d5 9.cd5lLid5 (so far so good. a 7.tDg3 invites 7 h5 when after 8.ttJc3 h4
kind of Sicilian with colours reversed has 9.ttJge4 tL:e4 (9 h3!? Keene) lO.tCe4
arisen) lO.tbf3 i.b4 J UWd2 .Q.g4 12.h3 .if5 Il.tUd6 ~d6 12.d3 0-0-0 13.e4?
~5 13.a3 ~c3 14.~c3 lDd4!'! 15.lLJ<i4 ~e4! Black went on to win in
(l5.ed4 ~f3 16.gf3 ~c3 17.'ffc3 ed4 Solbrand-Bator, Stockholm 1993.
with compensation) 15...tLlc3 16..a:6 7.d4 e4 8.c4 0-0 9.~bc3 lIe8 lO.h3
"iVd.")! 17..Qh5 (17.e4? ~c6 18.~5 (l0.0-0? loses to 1O... ~h2 II.~h2 ttJg4)
lLibS+) 17...'i'g2 IB.l:rn 'ifc6 19.1:I.cl 1O... b5 was Garcia Padron-Romero
-.h6 20.~f7 'it>f7 21 .• c3 c6 22. 'i'c4 and Holmes, Spain tt 1995.
the game is fairly equal (l-S.-Y.!. 56) 7.d3 to prevent e4 is probably best. 7...0-0
Miles-Ekstrom. Ohrid 2001. B.tLld2 'ife7 9.h3 was equal in the game
5.... a6 Arencibia-Estrernera Panos, Malaga
Consistent, although there is nothing 2000.
wrong. with 5...0-0 of course: 6.0-0 lte8 7. e4
7.tDg3 (7.i.c6 bc6 S.d3 Af8 9.~g3 dS 8. liJg3 'iIIe7
Kharlov-Epishin, Elista 2001) 7 ...e4 9. 'tIt'e2 0-0
8.~e2 ~e5 9.~e5 tbe5 1O.d4ed3 II.cd3 10. 0-0·0
d5 12.d4 White has at best a very slight Ambitious and looking for trouble. How-
edge, Morozevich-Sveshnikov, Podolsk ever. everything isn't spick-and-span ei-
1993. ther after castling kingside. After 10.0-0
Not good is 5...tUe7?! 6.~g3 c6 7.~d3! ~g4 11.f3 eO 12.gf3 ~h3 would be OK.

67
However. Black can also play more ag- 16. fe4 a4
gressively with 1O...hS!? after n.css 17. d3 ~e6
~h2 12.~h2 tDg4 13.~g3 (l3.Wgl 18. fi'd2
"h4) I3..... g5 14.tLJe4 'irh5 the lines Suicidal is 18.lba4 b5 19.~lc) b4 20.l1\a4
fork: l:la4 2l.ba4 and now the fastest win is
A) IS.tihl 'tWg6 16.f3 tlJe3 17.<o1tt1. ttJc2 21....aa2 22.~al ttc3 23.~a2 l:ta8
l8.'it'd3lbb4!, but not 18...lDal? 19.0f6 24. r,tIbI Ila4 mating.
gf6 20.~f6 and mares. 18. ... b5
B) 15.f4! 19. 'i'c1 'lWb4
BI) 15..:.h2 16.<o1tf3 ~h5 (16 ...'tt'h7 20. "'b2 ab3
17.l:thl tLlh2 18.<.t)g3 ~e4 19.1:th2; 21. ab3 %183
16...~fS 17.<i:Jg3!)17Jlhl ~g6; 22. lbe2
B2) 15..... g616.tLJg5 (l6.f5 ~f5 17.l:tf5
'it'f5 18.ttg4 'it'g4 19.~g4 f5) 16...f6
17."c4 ~h8 l8.~a3 l:te8 19.1:thl l'uh6
20.'iH7 zrs 2L~g6 ~g6 and things are
still unclear.
10.... ~a3
Exchanging an imponant defender.
11.~a3 'li'a3 12.'it>b1 J:le813.f3
13.'i!Vc4 to answer J3 ...i.e6 with 14.1/Wa4
was a safer option.
13_ ... ef3
14. gf3
Running away with the king is also insuf-
ficient: 22. 'it>cI l:tea8 (but not 22 ... ~b3
23.tbbl) 23 ...-t>d2(23J:thgl :taI24.~d2
l:lla2 25Jtal ~b3) B ...na2 24.nal ~b3
25.nhb I leaves Black with two good op-
tions: 25 ...l:1nl 26.nul nal 27.'f¥aJ ~.a4
or 25 ..:~a5 26.l:ta2 i.a2 27. ~a2 (27 .lla I
b4) 27 ..:'W·a2 2't~a2 :ta2. In both cases
Black is a healthy pawn up.
22. ... %:tea8
Threatening '\ta5.
23. l:lhg1 96
Black now pushes his a-pawn to start a 24. ""c3
devastating attack. If 24.ttJf4 ~b3.
14. ... as 24.... ~d6
15. t;jge4 -i..;e4 25. 4...f4

68
Or 25.e5 ];Ial 26.'ihl Ual 27.'~al ~e5
28.Wbl ~e3.
25. ... h4
26. trb2 "*,c5
White resigned. There is no sensible de-
fence against the threat ttc3 and l:ta I
mate, for example 27.ci~e6'fi'c3.
RECENT GAMES
The following two recent games clearly
demonstrate the strength of 4 ...~d6!?
o Pavel Blalny
• John Bartholomew
las Vegas 2002
1.b3 e5 2..£b2 tLe6 3.e3 tbf6 4..tb5
iLd65.d4
This move was not mentioned in the main
article. Black gets an easy game by play-
ing natural moves. Skytte-Palliser, Wit ley
2001, went 5.a3 0-0 0 ..tc2 tbe7!? (both
6 ... ~e7 and 6 .. Jle8 are mentioned under
E. S.a3. The knight move illustrates an-
other way of regrouping: c6. i.c7 and dS
is Black's plan) 7.tL:.O tbg6 R.d3 co 9.h4'?
l:te8 lO.hS tL:f8 n.ne g6 12.c4 ~c 7 \3.e4
d5 and Black was slightly better. Shulman
was confronted with 5.t::~e2,after 5...0-0
(the alternative for 5 ...a6 which was what
Sutovsky played in the main game.) 6.d3
CiJe7 (Shulman also opts for this re-shuf-
fling of the pieces. It is here particularly
strong as the b5-bishop is in danger of be-
ing trapped. Naturally, 6 ..J:te8 is also
good.) 7.d4 e4 8.t~g3 c6 9.~e2 ~c7
JO.c4 d5 Il.~d2l:tel:! Black was better in
Lawson-Shulman, Toronto 2002.
5...ed4 6.ed4 0-0 7.a3 tre8 8./Oe2 .i18
9_~_jd2d5
Black is a little better here.
10.0-0 £15 11.893 ~94 12.f3 ~_d7
13.~d3 ~d6 14.l:t120.e7 15.lLjd110.g6
16kJ5 Q.fB 17.93 e5 18.tb1e3 nes
19.'tIt'd2 c4 20..£11 ~b6 21.h4 Ci:,e7
22.ti\h4 tL;g6!?
Ready to repeat moves versus the grand-
master? Instead 22 ... g6, planning Qh6, is
possible.
23.cilhg2 ~d6 24.~c3 'fIc7 25..te2 h5!
26.~fl ~h3 27 ..I:!e1 h4 28:i'g5 tLlh7
29..-h5 ~f6 30:~g5 t?h7 3UWd5
Forcing Black to win the game.
31...hg3 32.hg3 iLg3 33.tLig3 ~g3
34.~fl tLf4 35. 'iWb5.£d7
Alternatively, 35 ... l:tel 36.~e I ~g2
69
37 ..i.g2 tL:g2 also wins. Preferable is IO.tDfd4 c5 u.ers ~e5,
36.'ifd7 tLih3 37.~hl {~f2 38.'it>g1 lLJh3 although Black is still OK.
39.whl ned8 40.~b7 00.1241.<.tgl llJg5 10 ...tec6 11.f4
42.~e2 4!gh3 43.';t>fl tL:d3 Black also has an easy game after the al-
White resigned. ternatives: Il.tLlfS ~e5, or I L.d4 ed3ep
12..id3 .ieS.
o Milan Zurek 11...~c5 12.l'bf5
• Zbynek Hracek
Czech Republic It 2002
1.b3 eS 2.~b2 ~c6 3.e3 t1.Jf6 4 ..tb5
~d6 S.~3 tLlaS!? 6.~e2
This prophylactic move is best. After
6.tilc4lilc4 7 .Qc4 0-0 8.~f3 ~c7 9.a4 c6
10.0-0 St.c7 I 1..~.a3 d6 12.h3 e4 I3.ltJd4
c5 14.'Ob5 ~b8 15.d4 36 16.tDc3 d5! and
Black won in Shutalev-Sibaev, Samara
2002.
6 ...a6 7.c4 0-0
7.JiJc6 8.tt. c2 0-0 9.d3 ne8 10/t:f3 ~f8
'
II.e4 d6 l2.h3 Cije7 13.0-0 q~g6 14Jtel
c5 Grabuzova-Prudnikova, Varna 2002. 12 ...d5 13.cdS t,J',b4!14.ti\cd4?
8.liJf3 ne8 9.tLic2 e4 14.lj-M ~f5 15.Ctc2 4jd5 was better
though not too attractive either.
14 ..•'iYd515.a3?
Losing IS.tL:g3 had to be tried.
15...[~d3 16.~d3 ed317.b4
What else? For, 17.'i'O ii"f3 IS.gO .i.d4~
loses 3 piece.
17 ...~d4 18.tDd4l1Vg2 19.1:rfl
Here 19.'tWf3fails to 19..J:Lc3! 20.de3 d2
2J.Wdi gg4.
19 ... i.g4 20'ci:.f3 Ci:.e4
And White resigned as there is no satis-
factory defence to (he threat of21. ·.~h3.

70
 Section III: Early queen moves
Beginners often make the mistake of mo-
ving their queen too early in the game.
However. the queen is not only vulnera-
ble. Because her majesty is so powerful
there can also he very concrete reasons
for developing her.

In Chapter8 you will find Alapin's wayof

meeting the Dutch.

1.d4 f5 2."d3

With this queen sortie. Black aims to pre-

vent the main idea of 2.d. While can on
longer form his ideal centre. Moreover,
chasing the queen away turns out to be a
double-edged affair.

In Chapter lOwe present the reader with a

50S line against the so-called 'Hodgson
variation'.

1.d4 d6 2kf3 .ag4 3."d3

This line works especially well against
players of the Leningrad Dutch. After
2.• d3 Black is more or less forced to
play the Stonewall. This is certainly not to
everyone's taste. However. combined
with an early g4 White may even try to
tear down thai Stonewall!

Chapter 9 demonstrates that Tarrasch was

not as dogmatic :IS is often thought.

1.e4 c5 2.c3 'i'aS

71
With his last move White poses a threat
('iWb5 check) and defends against a possi-
ble ~f3. The line is good enough to pre-
serve a slight opening edge.
Moving your queen out early can make
sense in the Alekhine too.
1.e4 ~f6 2.eS [ild5 3.d4 d6 4.c4
liJb6 5.ed6 ed6 6J~:c3 fLe7
7.iVf3
This is a creative way of meeting the
Alekhine - first played by none other than
Viktor Kortchnoi. White prevents d5,
possibly intends to castle queenside. and
prepares a kingside attack. That should be
quite enough for one move!
A tactical way to meet the Sveshnikov is
the subject of Chapter 12.
1.e4 c5 Vt.i13 tLic6 3.d4 cd4
4.tL:d4 tDf6 5.~c3 eS 6.tLJdbS d6
V;\d5 tLld5 8.ed5 tDb8 9.'itf3
This line clearly demonstrates that it can
make sense to use your strongest piece
early in the game. Quick wins are posxi-
hle using such crude threats as We3 and
14k?, or ~a3 followed by 5t.d2-b4.
Coffeehouse chess of a high order.
 CHAPTER 8
Alapin bites the Dutch
One of Alapin's many thought-provoking ideas
Alapin was a great theoretician (think of
his 2.c3 against the Sicilian). and his
odd-looking 2.'i'd3 is not a bad surprise
to spring on lovers of the Dutch Defence.
What is the point of this queen move,
which thwarts the rules of respectable
opening play?
On a technical level the answer is: 'White
auacks the f-pawn and prepares for the
strategically desirable move e2-e4. Not
only does he hope to gain active play in
the centre, but he may also get chances
against the black king (whose position
has been weakened hy the hold advance
NIC KEY HD 12.1
of the f-pawn).' On a more subjective le-
vel, the answer could be: 'White is for-
cing his opponent to playa type of positi-
on he resents. thus gaining a marked
advantage in the psychological depart-
ment:
Let me explain what I mean by the latter.
After 2:.d3 the 'theory' considers 2...d5
as Black's best option, preventing e2-e4
and moving into (he territory of the
so-called Stonewall. There is nothing
against the Stonewall as such (Borvinnik
used to play it all the time, with great re-
sults), but it isn't everyone's cup of tea!
73
Certainly those players who play the
Dutch in order 10 get the dynamic Lening-
rad will think twice before pushing their
d-pawn 10 the fifth rank. 'The dark squa-
res will be weak forever', 'How will I ever
get my e-pawn to e5', and 'I didn't play
the Dutch to get into this sort of
straightforward, slow and solid position:
will be thoughts that are sure to wreck
their brain during the game.
Enough cheap psychology, let's play
some moves:
A Black allows e4:
2...d6 and others
Most books on the Dutch will settle for the
remark that Black must not allow e4, usu-
ally quoting a few helpful examples. The
following game is especially popular:
2 ...g6?! 3.e4 fe4 4.~e4 tUf6 5.~h4 ~g7
6.~f3 b6 7.ttJc3 c5 8.~h60-0 9.~g7 <tJg7
10.0-0-0, and Black was in trouble in
Fairhurst-Dreyer. Dublin 1957.
Note how well White's plan worked here:
play e4. get the queen to the kingside, de-
velop the knights, put the bishop on g5 or
even better h6, and castle queenside.
Against a co-operative opponent (like Mr.
Dreyer) this will do the trick. One more
example to get the hang of it (this time
against 2 ...c6):
2 ... e6 3.e4 fe4 4.~e4 lljf6 5.'i!t'h4 __e7
6.tbf3 ttJc6 7.tbc3 d6 8.~g5 'it't7 9. 0-0-0
toe7 10.~d2 h6 II.~d3 ~d7 12.J:thel
~h5 (the queen swap doesn't make
things easier for Black) IHWhS tbh5
14.~c4!, once again with a pleasant edge.
Harnann-Ofstad, Halle 1963.
So far I have done nothing more than quo-
74
te from the classics. By the way, 3.g4!? is
not bad either against 2 ... e6 (we are going
to see more of this move later). Needless
to say (but I'll show you anyway), iI'S sil-
ly not 10 play one of these pawn moves at-
tacking f5:
2 ...e6 3.ttJd2'~! d5 4.c4 ~c6!? 5.lbgf3
tOf6 6.g3 tLle4 7 .i.g2 ~e7 8.0-0 ~f6
9.edS ed5 lO.a3 a5 II.b3 0-0 12..ab2 neB
13JUdl 'i'd6 14.nacl .ie6 IS.e3 .Q.t7!
16."iS'b5 nabS 17.nc2 g5!. Fine Stone-
wall play by Black, who won convincing-
lyon the kingside, Skernbris- Yilrnaz, Pu-
carevo zonal 1987.
Having dismissed 2 ...g6 and 2 ...e6, I am
going to temper our happiness a bit. I am
not so sure how well our simple e4-plan
works against 2 ... d6. In any case, things
are not as straightforward as the 'theory'
seems to suggest.
No more beating about the bush, then,
here goes:
1. d4 f5
2. 'fi'd3 d6
3. e4 fe4
4. 1We4 ttJf6
5. 'tWh4 ~f5!
This is the main problem (some sources
just stop after 5.'ii'h4). Black develops a
piece and attacks c2 at the same time.
White loses more time while Black devel-
ops fairly harmoniously, making up for
his slightly inferior structure.
6. c3 eS
In Hassabis-Mayers, Hastings Masters
1995. Black quickly gained an advantage
after 6 ... tt.lbd7 7 ...Q.<.:4e5 8.~e2 i.e7
9.• g5 Slg6 IO.n c6 I U!Vd2 d5 12.Q.d3
e4.
7. "'93
White fared no better with 7.'L:e2 in
Meier-Galdunts, Germany 1996. After
7...~e7 8.~g5 0-09.tLJg3 ~g61O.~c4d5
11..ib3 tDc6 I2.tDd2 e5 Black was
slightly better.
7. tL;bd7
8. li)d2 96
9. ~d3 d5
10 • ..i.f5 ef5
11. ~e2 .i.d6!
White's strategy has clearly failed. Black
has more active play, the game Lev-Sof-
fer, Tel-Aviv 1990, continued:
12.'fid3 We7 13.0-0 0-0-0 14.tDf3 rtde8
15.:el t;';e4 16.Q.f4 95 17.~d6 'fi'd6
18.ltj93 ~f6 19.c4 94! 20.tt::d2 '@'g5
21.tDde4 de4 22JWe3? 22 .• a3
22...14-+ 23.tbe4 fe3 24.tiigS h6
25.:e3 hg5 26.l:ae1 r.t>d827.h3 gh3
28.gh3 lOf6 29.'~g2 tiJh5 30.l:e8 l:e8
3Ule8 ;pe8 32.Wf3 W 33.We4 Wl6
34.dS cS 3S.de6 be6 36.b4 <;t,"le6 37.a4
lLlf6 38.Wd4 tiid7 39.a5 c5 40.bc5 lL:oeS
41.a6lUc6 42.'..Ire4 tUb4 43.14 gf4 44.h4
~6 4S.c6 Cile5 4S.Wt4 <;i;>d6 47.h5 lUeS
48.~e3 tLJg7
White resigned.
So what to do against 2 ...d6? Here comes
the answer!
2. d6
3. 94!?
g~.t'i¥ • .t~A
'" ,, "
This idea is well known in several versi-
ons. Notably, I.d4 f5 2.g4 fg4 3.h3 g30)
and l.d4 f5 2.h3 preparing g4. It is not a
bad idea to combine this wing gambit
with 2.ii'd3. The queen controls the
b l-h7 diagonal, prepares e4 and might
operate along the third rank.
3.... fg4
4. h3 g3
Accepting the pawn sac is dangerous, e.g.
4...gh3?! 5.~h3 tilf6 6.~.g5. 5.llJh3!?,
planning 0.g5 or .'tJf4( -g6) is not bad eit-
her.
5. Ig3
Here 5.• g3 is also possible. The game
Barva-Garbisu de Goni, Rotterdam 1998
5th World Universities Championship,
developed along somewhat curious lines:
5...~f6 6.tLic3 ti.jc6 7.~g5 e6 (7...llJd4~?)
8.0-0-0 ~e7 9.~f3 t£:d5 10.llJd5 ed5
11.l:tgI g6 and now 12.e3 instead of
12.~e7?, and White is better.
5.... (jf6
 6 • .1Lg2 B Black settles for the
Here 6.e4 can also be considered. 'Stonewall': 2 ••.d5
6. ... ttJc6
Stopping e4 with 6 ...d5 also gives White
the more active position after 7 .t?~c.;3 li" ..c6
8.jLg5 e6 9.t[J3.
7. e4 d5?!
According [0 Peicheva, 8.c3 is a good re-
ply to 7...c5.
8. e5 .£:.e4
9. l£)e2 ~f5
10. 0-0 'i'd7
11. 94 .ig6
12. l/~f4

So we did it, we lured Black into the Sto-

newall! Unfortunately, we can't rest on
our laurels just yet. As I said above, the
Stonewall is a respectable line of the
Dutch. Still, White has a number of possi-
bilities to try and break down that wall.
I'll give them in increasing order of
SOS-value, although you may choose for
yourself which approach best suits your
own particular style.

B1 Just play that Stonewall

White is dearly better, although she later (3.g3 etc.)
blundered in lime trouble and lost. This is not a shocking follow-up to
V. Peicbeva-Al. Karpov. Bankia 1989: 2.1!Yd3,of course, and it is not the way to
12...~f7 13.c4 e6 14.cd5 ed5 15.~e3 prove an opening advantage (why play
95! 16.tbh5 Not 16.0d5? ..ad5 17.it.e4 "*'d3 in a Stonewall). However, if you
lbb4. 16...0-0-0 17.tbc3 ~g6 18.tbe4 prefer quiet positional play this could be
de4 19.~e4 tbd4 19...tbc5 20 ..tb7 Wb7 your choice.
21.*b3 ~a8 22.de5 nbS 23.*,c4;!; 3. g3 .!Df6
Peicheva. 20.~_g5± fi.e7 21.~96? A 4. ~g2 e6
blunder: 21.~f6 and White is better. 5. c4 ~d6
21...hg6 2VLif6 ~e6 23.l:tfe1 "'c6 The most active spot for the bishop, hut
24.1111 tfie6 25."*'g6 IIh3 26.Ci:;e4 ~g5 there is nothing wrong with the e7-squa-
White resigned. rc. Ostojic-Malaniuk, Pula 1990. went

76
(via 3.(4): 3.1.:4e6 4.01\f3 o1',f6 5.g3 $;.e7
6.~g2 0-0 7.0-0 tLJe4 8.lLic3 b6 9.tbe5
~b7 1O.~e4 de4 II.'iVc3 ~f6 12.b3 c5
and Black was OK.
6. t;-;fJ 0-0
7. 0-0 c6
8. b3
White wants to swap the dark-squared
bishops. emphasising (he weakness of,
particularly, e5. Another way to do this is
by putting the bishop on f4. See. Stro-
mer- Yrjola, Cappelle la Grande 1992.
which went (via transposition): 8..1Jc3 b6
9.~f4 ~a6 IO.b3 .Q.f4 II.gt4 Q',bd7with
approximate equality. The game now
continued: 12.lbg5?! ~e8 13.~h3 h6
14.cd5 cd5 15.tLif3 tbe4 16.~fcl ~c8
17. lC.e5ltJe5 18. _~e4 tL,g6_ and White was
in trouble.
8. kd7!
9. Ji.a3 ~e8
10. ~.d6 '6'd6
White has succeeded in swapping the
dark-squared bishops, but as so often in
the Stonewall his so-called 'good' bishop
is no better (or even worse) than Black's
'bad' one. The position is about equal.
However. Black went on to win in a
model game: 11.e3 0..bd7 12.l;~3 i.hS
1J.tDd2 tDe4 14.f4 :ac8 15.cS 'ir'e7
16.b4 g5 17 .a4 9f4 18.ef4 tLidf6 19.1:1ac1
b6 20.tiJb3 :b8 21.~a2 .te8 22.l:Ic2 hS
23.h4?! <;ph8 24.1:1f3 1:1g825.<;Ph2 Qd7
26.i.h3 ng6 27.<.t>h11:1bg828.1:1g21:1g3!
29.::I993 1:1g330J~g3 tDf2 31.~g2lZ:ld3
32.~d3 tDe4 0-1 Gavrikov-Psakhis,
Tallinn 1983.
82 Avoid the fianchetto
( 3 •..Q.f4)
Why fianchetto the light-squared bishop,
when you know it will bite on granite. So
we're going to play e3, but first we're
going to put the dark-squared bishop out-
side the pawn chain.
3 • ..Q.f4
White used the gf4 set-up in Soro-
kin-Rozhkovan, Vladivostok 1995, but
chose a different move order. However,
after 3.c4 c6 4.ti.:lc3 ~f6 5.tLlf3 e6 6.tbe5
~d6 7.£f4 0-0 8.e3 lDh5!? 9.~e2 tbf4
IO.ef4 tUd7 Il.cd5! ed5 12.0-0 tOeS
13.fe5.i.b4 14.f4 White was ~till slightly
better.
77
As Bellin correctly points out, Black can possihility when he played 2.it'd3 in a
easily go wrong here with the natural correspondence game more than 50 years
3 ...e6 (as, for instance, Alekhine did later! The game Euwe-Praagman, Dutch
against Kmoch in Bad Semmering 1926). correspondence championship 1982.
3. ... e6? went 3..fi.f4 e6'! 4.1t'g3! tba6 S.e3 c6
Funnily enough, White can now use his 6.~c3 (6.~a6!) 6 ...b6 7.~eS 'tVd7
second move to his advantage by setting 8.0-0-0 Ab7 9.0 0-0-0 10.e4 tbe7
up an unusual battery with J l.liIh3 ti',g6 12.ef5 ef5 13.f4 ~c7
4. "'g3! 14.~d3 tLle5 15.fe5, and in this bad posi-
After the forced tion, Praagman made a typical correspon-
4. tba6 dence blunder. Instead of writing down
5. e3 c6 15... g6 he sent IS ...tiJe6? by mail, blun-
6. ~a6 dering the f5 pawn.
Black has Coming back to the position after 3 ..$(t4.
6. ... "a5 Black should play 3...ttJf6 instead of
Check! Taimanov (1983) therefore calls 3 e6, preventing 4.tt'g3 in view of
the whole line after 4 .... g3 'not dan- 4 tbh5/4 ...~e4. White should then play
gerous' for Black. Bellin (1990). howe- along the lines of Sorokin-Rozhkovan,
ver, plays on for a few more moves: mentioned above. This position is virtual-
7_ lDc3 'fiIa6 ly unexplored. and play could continue:
3. l{',f6
4. tUf3 e6
5. c4 ssa
5...c6 6.e3 tue4 7.tbfd2 b6 8.~4 fe4
9.'ili'c2 ~d6 1O.~g3 0-0 Il.ttlc3 Van der
Werf-Cozianu, Strzybnica 1987.
6.e3 c6 7. 'fYb3!? 0-0 B.tt:ic3 ~bd7
8...'ito>h8
9.0-0-0!'!;!; Van der Werf-Bosch.
Dutch junior championship, Hilversurn
1988.
9. ..Q.d3 tLlhS
10. t"i.eS
And White was slightly better in Van der
8. .id6 Werf-Th.Nielsen. Eeklo 1987.
Or 8.~e5. and White dominates on the dark
squares and is much better. Perhaps 5...c5 is 83 Tear down that wall
slightly stronger, but after 6.h6 "'as
7.tiJc3 't!t'a6 8.~e5 White is still a lot better,
(3.g4!?)
If you don't want to combat the Stonewall
Not only did the great Alekhine allow in the traditional way (3.g3) or an original
this, but his rival Euwe did not use this but still solid way (3.jLf4). then there is

76
nothing left but to do it in a violent way
(3.g4). Top Surprise Points for this one!
3. 94 f94
3 ...e6 4.gf5 ef5 and now, for example.
5.~f4 and White's position is preferable.
4. h3
4. ... g3
Accepting the sacrifice is unattractive,
both after 4...gh3 and after 4. "tL.f6. After
the latter move the game Galego-Dias,
Viseu 2000, continued S.hg4 ~g4 6.f3
(also possible is 6.~h3 ~h3 7.tZlh3 with
compensation, but not 6. 'lWbStbc6 7. iVb7
tlJd4) 6 ...Qe6 (6 ...Ji.h5!?) 7.tL:h3 ~d7
8.lC.g5~f5 9.e4 de4 IO.fe4 ,gg4 Il.'it'b3!
(a funny kind of double attack). White is
better and won after 11...e6 l2 .• b7 i.d6
13..Q.e3 .Q.g3 14.';.Pd2 0-0 IS..Q.d3 h6
16.'fi'a8 hg5 17.CUc) gf3 18.!lh3 t;~h5
19.• a7 e5 20.~c4 ~h7 2Utahl ~g6
22 .• c5 ed4 2J.'ir'g5 1-0.
5. ~g3
Gelling the maximum out of that 2.'iVd3
move. However, the natural 5.fg3 is also
not bad. In Sorensen-Mortensen, Copen-
hagen 1994, White won quickly after:
S.fg3 liJf6 6.tDc3 c6?! 7.e4 de4 8.~4
~e4 9.~e4 ~a5? 1O.~d2 ~d5 11.~g2
~e6 12.'i*'e2 ~c4 13.'i'e3! .idS 14.~d5
..-u5 15.tilf3 Q,d7 16.b3 0-0-0 17.c4 ~d6
18.liig5 e5 19.1bf7 'it'd4 20 .... d4 ed4
21.~h8 lUe5 22.0-0 1-0.
5. •.. (2,16
S..:~d6 hoping for6.~c3 ~g3 7.fg3=. is
no good since White has 6..Q.f4 'ilfh4
7.'it'd! (Nijboer),
6. ~c3 ~f5
7. .i.f4 ~hS
Of course 7.....ic2l:L.~..c7 "cIS 9.1%clis hor-
rible. And, after 7...c6 8.0-0-0 ~bd7
(8...lbh5) 9.~c7! ~c8 1O.tL.f3 is annoying.
8. ..-g5 g6
9. i.eS £g7
Too passive is 9 ...l:tg8 10.0-0-0 liJc6
11.e4!? de4 12.AbS.
10. ~g7 tLJg7
11. 0-0-0 c6
This is better than I L.O-O?! 12.D b5
13.e4de414.fe4b415.ef5bc316.fg6cb2
I 7.'it>bI !L;d7 11S.iii.c4 e6 19.Yjb6 hg6
20.iVg6 ~f6 21.~g2 tDb6 22:~'c6 ~d8
23.~e2 l:td6 24.'ll!fc5 ~f5 25.~d3 ~f7
26.tL:c3 ~d7 27 J:tdfl l:tb8 28.~gS l:Id4
29.~g6 J::rh4 30.~hgl c5 31.'ilfg3 1-0
Abildlund ..Jorgensen, Randers 1996.
79
The game Welling-Bosch, Den Bosch 16. .Q.e2 ~g7!
1999. continued: 16 lUe5 17.deS "'e5 I&.~h5 gh5
12. 'ifh6?!~h5! 19 h5; 16..Plg7 l7.lug4.
Dangerous is 12...0-0 13.tLlf3 tLld7 17. '*g7
14.llJg5 ltjf6 15.f3 1t'c7 16.e4 'ilff4 17."g5 '*f6 18.'ikh6 with a repetition of
17.Qo>hl. moves.
13. ltlf3 ~d6 17...tLlg7 18.tDd7 wd7 19.~g4 l:rafB
14. e3 ,*t6 20.f4 .!be8 21.l1dg1 ~d6 22.b3 ~c7
14 ttJd7?! 15.lilh4!? (I5.~e2 "'f6 23.~f5 gt5 Y2.Y2
(15 0-0-0 16.tbg5) 16.lL>e5Ieads back to Instead of 12.'~h6·~! White should con-
the game) 15...'tIi'f616.lbf5.f517.~e2!. tinue 12.f3 or 12.e3. with interesting
15. ttJe5 Ci::.d7 play.
 CHAPTER 9

Another Tarrasch Variation

~~ ~ ~~~

~' Cjj jL iV \it ~ ~ b[ NIC KEVSI46,1

Preventing 3,d4 after 1.e4 c5 2.c3 'iVa5

For many Sicilian players 2.d is quite an-
noying. While objectively less strong
than 2.t:~f3 and 3.d4. the Alapin is less
combative than the open Sicilian. If you
are looking for unclear positions and a
weapon versus 2.c3 then why not try
Tarrasch's recipe versus the father of the
whole line: 2...'i'a5 !'!. The stem game:
o Simon Alapin
• Siegbert Tarrasch
Vienna 1698
1. e4 cS
2. cJ 'iNa5!1
This move shows that Tarrasch was not as
dogmatic in his own games as chess lore
has it. The queen move contradicts 'he
rules of opening play. 'Don't play your
queen out early in the game.' Please note.
however. that 2.c3 can hardly be called a
developing move either. What's more. it
even lakes away the natural square of the
queen's knight. The point of 2 ..... a5 is
simply to prevent White from building up
his ideal centre with d4.
3. tDf3 ti,c6
4. [ila3
A logical move. White aims to gain a

81
tempo on the intrepid queen. that this game started off as a 2.c3 Sicil-
4. ... e6 ian! Black's set-up corresponds to a mod-
5. ~c4 ern Taimanov. Alapiri's pieces - the cJ
S..ie2 d5 6.ed5 ed5 7.d4 c4 f(~c2 ~d6 knight in particular - are clumsily placed.
9.Qg5 ljjgc7 IO.~c3 0-0=. Bed- So we can safely conclude that Black has
ouin-Movsesian, Bourbon 1997. a small edge already.
5. ... 'fie7 11.tDf3 Trying to re-shuffle his pieces
The queen has ended up on her regular Si- somehow. 11..•gd6 12.!:te1tLle5 13.~e5
cilian spot. Also. the knight on c4 is not so ~e5 14.QJ110-0 15. 't\te2 ~c6 16. ~g5
comfortably placed itself - j{ may be !:tle8 17.'fi'e3 Threatening f4. 17...h6
kicked away by either d5 or b5. lB •.1t.h4 tL:.h5!
6. d4 ed4
7. tbd4
7.cd4 is objectively best. However. after
7...d5 8.ed5 ed5 9.0e3 ~f6 10.Qd3 i..d6
I 1.0-00-0 Black has comfortable equal-
ity, H. Hoffmann- Vokler, Germany 1991.

7.... a6
8. ~.d3
8.~g5 b5 9.ti)d2 il:.b7. and a 100 years on
Black was also slightly better in
Stoker-Truman. cr 1989.
8. b5
9. ~e3 [d6 A knight on the rim ... ! More evidence
10. 0-0 1i.b7 that the Praeceptor Germaniae was not
100 dogmatic not to break his own rules

• .i.

. .~
I I when necessary. Tarrasch is going for
dark-square-domination. 19.:ig3 ~14
.t.'iV~ ~Ai 20..Q.e2 g5! With a bind on the dark
~ squares. 21.~L;d2l\Yd8 2V2Jf3 f6 23.~e5
fe5 24.13 <;t;h8 Tarrasch is preparing a
i kingsidc auack. Alapin appears bliss-
fully unaware of what is hanging over
him. 25.,*e5 fi'f6 26.'1¥'d6 ag8 27.a4
aaf8 Transferring all his forces to the
kingside. 28.~d3 h5! 29.ab5 ab5
30.!:tf1 h4 31..Q.f4White is in a bad way:
3 J . ..tf2 g4, and Black is just winning;
Seeing this position no one would guess 3 I.~e I g4, when 32.fg4 1:tg4 wins as

82
does 32.~h1 tUd3 33.'i!Vd3 gf3 34.9f3 ttJf6 9.0-0 ~c6 1O.l:tb5 ~c7 II.d4 a6
1!t'g6 35JWe2 ~e4. 31...9f4 3VM2? 12J~g5 O-O? 13.e5 tLld5 14.t2:ld5 ed5
There is no time to run, 32J:Lt2 was IS..I.'lg3 d6? 16.~h6. White wins the ex-
called for. 32...1:[g533Jlh1 h3! 34.gh3 change, Marshall-Loman, London (sec-
.I.'lfg8 35.~e1 It is also too late for ond match game) 1902.
35.~f1 ... g6 36. 'itfe I (36.h4 11g1-+) 6.tDf3 e6 7.l:b1 "as 8.~c4 a6 9.a4liJt6
36 ....Q.e4~.35 .. .1:19236 .....e2 .te4! 37.fe4 10...-e2 soa 11.0'() ds
f3 38 ..Q.f1 ltg11 And now that White's temporary activity
White resigned. has gone Black is clearly better,
Castaldo-Romanishin, Saint Vincent
A nice game by Tarrasch and ajust reward 2000.
for playing the anti-dogmatic 2.... a5. Or
should we say that Alapin the eponym • 3.a3!?
was rightfully punished for inventing
2.c3'!
In our modem times 2 .. .'~a5 is also
played from time to time. Its supporters
include such creative grandmasters as
Movsesian, Rornanishin and Kupreichik,
Let us examine 2...iVa5 in the form of a
theoretical overview:

A) Alternatives for 3.tLlf3

B) 3.ltJf3 ltJc6 everything but 4.d4
and 4.~c4
C} 3.llJf3 tLc6 4.d4
D) 3.tijf3 t:Jc6 4.~c4 While refusing to develop pieces this in
fact not such a bad move. Both b4 and d4
arc prepared.
Variation A Bad is 3 ...e5? 4.t1\f3 l.ijc6 5.~c4 ~e7
There are several alternatives for 3.~fJ, 6.-.b3 ~h6 7.d4!, and White is belief.
which we will examine one by one. Pavasovic-Mrva, Mitrnpa Cup 1997.
Playable is 3 ...ci:;c6 4.t'i:;f3 d6 5.d4 l~d4l
.3.b4 6.'i:!d4 cd4 7.b4 'ii'c7'!! (7 ...'tit'e5 should
This pawn sacrifice was first played by be investigated here) 8.cd4lbf6 9 ..ad3 g6
Marshall. 1O.0-0.Q.g7 II.h3 0-0 12.~e3, and While
3... cb4 4.cb4 'W'b45.C2.c3 {i;c6 was slightly better. Pavasovic- Vombek,
For historical reasons, and for Marshall's Krsko 1997.
imaginative rook switch, here is the stem Finally, the game Kharlov-Carnara, Sao
game: 5 ...e66J1b I 'fIa5 7.<1\f3~e7 8.~e2 Paulo 1991. was equal after 3...e6 4.ttJf3

63
lDc6 5.d4 0d4 6.tlJd4 cd4 7.b4 ~c5
R."i!fd4 ~c7 9.ti'ld2 CDe7 IO.CDf3 lL:c6
11.'tWe3.
• 3.tDa3 e6 4.e5!?
Here 4.tL;tJ tDc6 transposes 10
Alapin-Tarrasch, while 4.~c4 ~c7. fol-
lowed by dS, is OK for Black.
4... lbc6 5.tDf3 ~c7 6.d4 cd4 7.cd4 ~a3
8.ba3 Q'ge7
and according to Rozentalis the game is
very unclear. Rozentalis-Kupreichik,
Minsk 1983.
.3.g3
Saving the best for last. Of all the moves
besides 3.1ZJf3this one looks best.
3 ...tlJc6 4.£g2 (LifS 5.lLle2 h5!?
Of course Black has more modest alter-
natives. The text is an ambitious and
double-edged attempt to gain control of
the dark squares.
S.h3 h4 7.g4 tlJe5
Movsesian played this twice:
- 8.d4 cd4 9.f4 d3 JO.fc5 dc2 11.-.114
li.Jh7. with a very unclear position, was
seen in Kacheishvili-Movsesian, Pula
1997. Gallagher has recommended
84
lO.tDd4;l;as an improvement.
- 8.d3 'ita6!? (a creative solution to the
demands of the position. By forcing c4
Black gains more dark-square control)
9.c4 ~d6 1O.tt:::.f4
e6 Il.ti'ld a6. and in
this complex position there are chances
for both sides. Ponomariov-Movsesian,
World Junior Championship, Zagan 1997.
Variation B
3. tL:.f3 ees
We will investigate only this move. Natu-
rally Black has alternatives at this stage,
e.g. 3 e6, played by Romanishin, Note
that 3 d6 is best countered by 4.~c4.
4. a3
We shall take this as the main line. While
prepares 5.<.14cd4 6.b4 (compare 3.a3).
Some quiet alternatives:
- 4.d3 is rather meek: 4 .. JU'6 5.ttJbd2 d5
6.t;jb3 ~b6 7.edSlLld5 8.d4 cd4 9.tlJbd4
~g4 JO.~a4 ~d7 11..~.b5 f6!?, planning
e5. and Black has a good position.
Bogut-Movsesian, Neum 2002.
- 4.~e2 d6 5.0-0 tlJf6 n.d3 e5 7.ttJbd2
~e7 8.a3 tIIc7 9.b4 0-0 IO.b5 tbb8=
Shrentzel-Rabicga, Berlin 1997.
- 4.g3 Less good than 3.g3; including
3.tlJf3 tlJc6 favours Black. 4...tL;f6 HWe2
(It is important that 5.e5?! does not work:
5...lLlg46.d4 cd4 7.b4, ami now White gOI
a nice advantage in the game De la
Riva-Moreno, Torrevieja 1997. after
7 ~d8? S.cd4 d6 9.h3. However.
7 ~115! would have been very strong.)
5 <.156.ed5 tLJdS7 ..ig2 ~g4 S.h3 .i.1i5
9.0-0 e6 JO.d3 ~c7 I I.tDbd2 ~e7
12.tLlc4 0-0 with equality, Rozentalis-
Movsesian, Hastings 1996/97.
 4.... e6 4.... cd4
5. d4 t2d4 5. b4
6. lLid4 cd4 Otherwise Black is just fine.
7. b4
Now 7...'f!Ic7, as played in Svesh-
nikov- Kupreichik, Soviet Union 1984, is
no good. After B.cd4 tL;f6 9.~d3 d5 lO.eS
CiJd7 I Ula2liJb6 12Jlc211Wd813.iVg4 g6
14.~g5 i.e7 15..th6 White had a huge
edge in this French-like position. So Black
must follow Rozentalis' suggestion of
7. ... 'tWeS
8. cd4
8:~d4 should be equal.
8. lWe4
9. ~e3 'i'c6
5. ... 'ilt'c7
Only someone like Kupreichik could
come up with 5 ..:</.lfd8!?6.b5li'ia5 7.~d4
(7.cd4 d5) 7...d6 8.c4 eS 9.v,wdl ~e6
10.tC.g5 tDf6 11.tUe6 fe6 12.~d3 ~e7 13.
0-0 0-0, with approximate equality.
Michalczak-Kupreichik, Munster 1997.
6. bS ~e5
7. CDeS
Better than taking on d4: 7 .cd4 ~f] g.g!]
d5! 9.~.e3 de4 1O.fe4 tLJf6 (1.f3 e5
12.de5 'ite5 J3.'i'd4 "e'h5 14.tild2 ~.e7
15.~e2. and Black was slightly better in
Rozentalis now feels that White has good Rausis-Moor, Neuchatel 1996.
compensation. However, (as he notes) in 7. ... ~e5
the absence of practical tests it is impossi- 8. ~d4
ble LO give a clear verdict. Here 8.cd4 ~e4 9.Ae3 e6 should not
yield White enough.
8.... 'tIre7
Variation C White has a small endgame plus after
3. tbf3 ~c6 8.......d49.cd4.
4. d4 9. 84
In a way this is White's most consistent Or 9.e5 b6; 9.c4 e6. followed by b6.
move. 9...e5 10.~c4 'i'c4 11.~c4 liJ16 12.13

a5
d6 13.~e3 .i.e6 14.l!jd2 d5 5.~b3.
With an equal position. This was the stem S. ~b7
game of 4.d4. Makropoulos-Ljubojevic. 5...tC.f66.0-0 is also better for White.
Athens 1981. 6. d4 01'.f6
7. dc5 e6
8. b4 "tIfc7
Variation D 9. 0-0
3. ~f3 (ile6 And this piece sacrifice gave White a Ire-
4. S:l.e4 mendous position in Van Mil-Baltus,
Dicrcn 1993.

What if Black quietly continues with his

development too'!
• 4. d6
5. 0-0 ll',f6
6. lIe1

This is the main line in Rozentalis and

Harley's book on the Alapin: Play the
2.d Sicilian. White is not bothered by
2...ifa5, he makes no direct attempt to re-
fute it, but simply continues his develop-
ment. Ideally he will castle kings ide, put
his rook on e 1, and play d4. This is a very
sensible strategy'
To understand the dangers we wiII/irst in-
vestigate some natural responses that. in
my opinion, do not even come close to
equalizing.
Thus:
• 4. b5
is best met by
5. ~d5!
This is stronger than the more popular
It turns out that he is a little slow. While
the database statistics are fairly OK for
Black from this position, this is a reflec-
tion of the respective playing strengths
rather than of the objective merits of
Black's position.
- Very often Black now continues with
6...il.g4? and quite often he gets away
with it too! In fact, Black is walking a
tightrope after 7.'i'b3 ~i..\d88.eS! One
point is 8..J;~d7 9__ ~f7! 0.n lO.e6

86
Pridal-Palas, Czech Republic U 18 Berlin 1997. Black is not obliged to go for
Championship 1997. No picknick either the 'French' - S...d6 was also possible.
is 8••~f3 9.ef6 ~c6 lO.fe7 j)_e7 II.d3 as S.... d5!
first played in Pridal-M.Movsesian, This is the point! Black makes use of the
Czech Republic tt 1997. bishop on c4. Very suspect is 5 ...lcg4
- Movsesian has played 6...b5 7 ..idS! 6.~e21!S'c7 7.d4 cd4 8 ..if4.

.!
i

7,_j(_d7. Keitlinghaus-Movsesian, Lazne 6. ~b3

Bohdanec 1996, now went 8.b4 cb4 No advantage results from either capture:
9.cb4 1!S'b6, with approximate equality. 6.ed6 e6 or even simply 6 ... ede; and 6.ef6
However, Rozentalis and Harley rightly dc4:f.
point out that White achieves everything 6.... ti...g4
he ever aimed for when he goes 8.d4 e6 7 . .Q.d5
9.~b3 instead, Good for Black is 7.1!S'e2c4 8.~c2 ~c7.
- Possibly Black's best option is to 7.... thge5
'transpose' to some sort of Ruy Lopez 8. tbe5
with 6 .••eS. However, it is not clear what Favourable for Black is 8.0-0 c4 9 ..~c6
the queen is doing on a5. White should ~6 10.d3 cd3 I 1.'it'd 3 ~f5.
have a comfortable ~ position. Hablizel-Priehoda, Passau 1997.
8. ... ~e5
In my opinion. there's no need for Black 9. '*e2
to despair, though. The antidote is presen- Or 9.d4 cd4 IO.iVd4 c6!, with an equal
ted in the next section. position.
After White's last move Holt-Brustkern.
• 4. ... ~f6 St. Helier 1999. continued: 9 .•.ttJc6
5. e5 IO:i!t'f3 tileS 1UWe4 We7 12.d4 cd4
The natural response, Too quiet is 5.d3 e6 13.0-0 , and now 13... e6 would have been
6.xb3 d5 7.e5 tLd7 Baklan-Bezold, equal. Even simpler, though, is the direct

87
 9. ... ~c7
After lO.d4 there would follow IO...cd4
1l.M4 ~d3 12.1It'd3"f4 13.0-0 a6!.
But not 13...eo? 14.~b7!
So when next confronted with 2.c3: play
the Tarrasch Variation!
Taking his time. White has no good way
of covering c4.
17.t;';d4
17.c~fd2 eLiaS but not 17...li\e5 18..~.g3!
17 ... fLc4 18.... c4 '*¥c4 19.be4 lUeS
20.11ab1 ~b6 21.G'Lc6 be6 22.l:te1

RECENT GAME

The following game was played after pu-

blication of Rozcntalis' book on 2.c3 and
the publication of this SOS article in New
in Chess Maga<.ine. Rozentalis employs a
novelty but achieves little against Miezis'
defence.

o Eduardas Rozentalis
• Normunds Miezis White cannot keep a healthy extra pawn
Gausdal 2003 as Miezis' next move demonstrates.
1.e4 es 2.c3 "'a5 3.t~A3 4':c6 4.~c4 22 ....Q.a5 23.11e3 ~b6
lDf6 S.d3 Here 23 ...1:le3 24.fe3 ~.c3 2S.l:tb7 a5 is
5.e5 d5! also possible. hut the text is even more ac-
5...e6 6~95N d5! 7.ed5 ed5 S.1Lf6 curate.
Or 8..i.b3 ~e6 9.i.f6 gf6 and Black is not 24Jlee1
worse. 24J:ld3 is answered by 24...l:1e4 or
8...004 9.~h4 cd3 10.~d3 ~e6 11.0-0 24 ...1:e2.
c4 12.~e2 ..Q.d6 13Jld1 £c7 14.tL:a3 24 ....QaS
O-O!15 ..!bc4 'CI#'a616.b3 h6 Draw.
 CHAPTER 10

Surprising Hodgson

NIC KEY RE 20.4

Yet another early 'iVd3 system

The system 1...d6 and 2 ... ~.g4 - which liking, then the recipe we present in this
was baptized 'the Hodgson Variation' hy SOS chapter might be of interest to you.
Yrjola and Tella in their 2001 hook on
1...u6 All explosive chess opening reper- o Yury Kruppa
toire for Black - is a good lighting system • Arnaud Jossten
for Black. It is especially popular among Cappelle ta Grande 2000

English grandmasters - the names Miles. 1. d4 d6

Hodgson, and Adams spring to mind. In
reply to 3.e4 Black plays s..cre 4. &3
e6. with rather good chances to equalize.
White's other main move 3.c4 may be an-
swered by 3 ...Af3, fracturing While's
pawn structure (or alternatively by
3 ...ttJd7). If neither 3.c4 or 3.c4 is to your
2. [uf3 .tg4
3. 'tWd3t?
A multi-purpose move. First of all, in the
event of ~f3. White plans to take back with
a piece. leaving his structure intact. More-
over, having established a simple threat
C~h5 check) White keeps the initiativc.

89
In view of the 'threat' 3... ~f3, Lev
Gutman played 3.tbg5 in a recent game.
Although this move receives full marks
for surprise value, its objective merits are
negligible. After 3.0.g5?! h6 4.tbe4 d5!?
5.lL!c5 ~c8!? 6.ti)d3 tbf6 Black had a
good position in Gutrnan-Schlindwein,
Altenkirchen 2001. A similar 'over-reac-
tion' was 3.<iJfd2 d5!? 4.c4 c6 5.tijc3 e6
6.'ii'b3 'ii'b6. and Black had a pleasant
Slav in Belotelov-Dovzik. Paks 2000.
One may well wonder when 3.tbgl will
receive its first outing.
3. ... c6
This slightly passive move is more or less
forced. Black has no decent alternative
available. even though Yrjolli and Tella's
above-mentioned book will tell you oth-
erwise.
A) Thus 3...~c6?! invites 4.dS t;':b8
5.'i'b5 (S.h3 ~d7 6.e4 e5 7.de6 fe6
R.~g5;!; Ciglic-Novacan, Slovenia 1994
is cited in the above-mentioned book)
S...ti)d7 6.t.rh7. and White is just a pawn
up.
B) 3...<i}d7deserves slightly more at-
tention.
90
B I) The indifferent 4.~g5 has been
played a couple of times, one example be-
ing 4 ...c6 5.Lt:lc3 'it'a5 6.h4
Vogler-Bezold. Wiesbaden 1990. Blade
has in fact several ways to get a good posi-
tion.
B2) It is interesting to see how
Gutman's idea works out under these cir-
cumstances: 4.tL!g5!? First of all 4...h6 is
met by the funny move 5. tbh7!?, whi Ie af-
ter 4 ...~gf6 Black must take into account
the double attack 5.~b3, when 5...e6 is
forced. Now the immediate 6.'i!t'b7 gives
Black reasonable compensation after
6...h6 7.tLJf3 zrs. However, it makes
sense for White to interpolate 6.f3!? he-
fore taking on b7. Unfortunately, Black
has the sobering reply 4 ...e6!, e.g. 5.... e4
(5.~h7'? ~f5) 5...~f5.
B3) Best, it seems to me, is the novelty
4.lWe4!. attacking the bishop and the
pawn on b7. Black has little better than
4 ... .'tf3 5.~f3, when White has a small
edge because of his bishop pair.
4. c4
The correct way 10 gain a slight plus.
A) It makes little sense to play 4.e4 -
then why play 3.~d3? After 4...thf6
(4 ....!tJd7 5.~c2 0.gf6 6.~bd2 e5. in
Philidor style. is also fine, Seba-
Altounian, Bratislava 1993) S.li2bd2
(5.tLiC3 e6 6.h3 ~h5 7.~g5 ~e7 8.~e2
~bd7= Bugajski-Czerwonski, Warsaw
1997) 5...e6 6.c3 Ac7 7.g3 0-0 8..~g2 d5
Black had a nice position in Lagrotteria-
Miles, Toscolano 1996.
B) After 4.tL;c3 Black has plenty of
satisfactory moves: 4 ...tLld7. 4 ...tijf6 and
4 ...e6 are all tine and will in all likelihood
transpose to 4.e4. However. Black should
avoid 4...d5?! 5.tLie5 ~h5'!, falling for a
well-known trick 6.'tWh3! (this leaves
Black in deep trouble) 6".tLif6 7.g4 ~g6
8.llJg6 fg6± Hubert-Lutke, Germany
1997/98; 5...j(_c8 is forced;
C) Finally, our tricky knight ma-
noeuvre is again nothing special: 4.ttJg5
e6! (4..,lbf6 5.~b3+-) s.n .th5
(S ... ~f5 6.e4 ~g6 7,~b3 "'b6 8..ie3
lOf6 9.tLld2 d5= Zurek-Jansa, Czech It
1998) 6.tDh3 d5 7.tLif4 ~g6 8YI"b3
(8.~g6) 8...~b6, and Black is certainly
not worse, Gil Capapc-Danailov, Zara-
goza 1992.
4. •.. tL:d7
While gained a typical slight plus in
Benkovic-Sandulcac, Palanka 2001, after
4...li\f6 5.g3 ~f3 (di:l'f3 tLibd7 7.c4 c5
S.dS 24.e7 9.tL:c3.
5. 93
5.... .!i.;gf6
Two other moves have been tried at this
stage:
- 5..._Q_f3(this cases White's task) 6.... £3
e6 7 ..sig2 4\gf6 8.0-0 (8.e4 is perhaps
more accurate) 8... ~e7 (Black could try
8...d5) 9.e4 0-0 lO/'i:c);!; Pataki-Dovzik,
Paks 2000.
- 5...e6 (planning 6 ...d5) 6.e4 'ifb6
7.tDbd2 d5!? R.edS cdS 9.c5 .c7 IO.b4
as 1J.'ita3! and again White had some
advantage in Kruppa-Okhotnik, Rowy
1999.
6 . .Q.g2 e5
7. tL:.bd2 .Q.e7
8. 0-0
Not, of course, S.h3?, provoking an ex-
change at a point when it inconveniences
White most. !.L.~f3 9.ef3?~ (9.tbf3')
e4-+; 9.~f3 d5!,!) 9...'it'b6 1O.llJb3 a5
II.~e3 a4 Nunnikhoven-Willmoth,
Malaga 200 I.
8. 0-0
9. e4
Black has opted for an Old Indian set-up.
However, the position of the bishop on
g4 here does not favour him. He will
either have to exchange this bishop for a
knight - leaving White the bishop pair
and a pleasant plus - or leave it hanging in
the air somehow.
So White should be satisfied with the out-
come of the opening. If this position is to
your liking, then 3.... d3 is something for
you! As this is a book on openings, the
91
rest of (he game is given with light com- 25 ...cd5 26.ed5 'il4'c727.de6 ~e6
mentary. 28.Q}d2]lca? 2U!¥d41 ~d7 30:"a7
9. ... ed4 White is winning now, of course.
Surrendering the centre, but more or less 30 ...:lb8 31.'i'd4 l:ta8 32.l:te3 !:tec8?
solving the problem of his bishop: it is go- 33.ne6 Deciding matters. 33 ...fe6
ing to withdraw. 34Jle6 tL.:.f835Jld6 Ua3 36.fLdS wh7
10. tDd4 tbcs 37.nf6 nda 38.~e4 J:ld5Understand-
11. ~e3 ~b6 able desperation. 39:"d5 'l.>g7 40. 'it'd4
12. h3 ~d7 %ld3 41.%lg6
13. ~bl tLJe8 Black resigned.

RECENT GAME

o Heikki Kallio
• Georg Seul
Bermuda 2003

1.0f3 d6 2.d4 ..Q.g43:~d3 ti'.d7 4.'ti'e4!

The novelty I recommended in the origi-
nal article. Black has to give up the bishop
without structural compensation.
It is better to stake a claim for some 4 ...~f3 5:~f3 c6 6.e4 g6 7._Qc4
queenside space with 13...a5. Then 14.b3 This encourages Black to put his pawns
leads to a position similar (0 those often on the white squares.
reached in the g3 King's Indian. The dif- 7...e6 B.c3 f;;._g79.0-0
ference being (he bishop on e7, of course. The prophylactic 9.~~b3looks good.
14.b4 .:be6 15.tLfS ~g5 This was 9 ... tL.gf6
Black's idea, but exchanging the
dark-squared bishops will bring no re-
~~ ~
lief. 16.~d3 Ud8 17.-1..:.f3~c1 18Jlfc1
~c7 19.Ud1 zea 20J:d2 g6 21 ke3 ~ i.ti
'fIIe7 22.a3 White has a nice space ad- iii~i
vantage and good squares for his pieces.
Black, on the other hand, is left strug-
gling to defend his weaknesses in a box
(hal is 100 small. 22 ... C.d6 23.ne1 Ufe8
24.:tde2 h6 Overlooking Whife's next'!
24 ...'fIc7 was called for. 25kdS! In re-
ply to 25/d5 Black still has 25 ...'$'f8.

92
10.~g5
While keeps a small edge with 1OJ:te I.
10...fla5 11.2.e3 qle4! 12.~e6 fe6
13.1+'e4"f514.~\d2 0-0 1S.Wf5 gf5
15...efS
16..slg5 dS 17.013 e5 18.deS 0eS
19.1De5 .sleS 20Jlad1 llae8 21.11fe1
<M7 22.g3 ~g7 23.~e3 a6 24.f3 Q.e5
25.c;W2 b5 26_.slc5 :g8 27.:e2 :4.c7
28.a4 :te2 29.~e2 :lb8 30.b4 a5 31.ab5
ab432.cb4
32.bc6 b3 gives compensation. not
32 b(;3 33.11d5 and White is better.
32 f:lb5 33.:d4 ~e5 34.:d3 we6
35Jle3 ..t>t6 36.!la3 ~e6 37.:e3 ;,1o>f6
38.';Pd3 f4 39.gf4 ~f4 40.11e8 !lb7
41.h3 Q.g3 42.1::198 ~e5 43.:tc8 !lc7
44.!lg8 we6 4S.11e8 ~f5 46.llf8 <;Pe6
47.14 .slg7 48.15
Draw.
 CHAPTER 11
A surprising queen sortie
7.'iVf3 in the Alekhine
o Emanuel Berg
• Jan Timman
Malmo 2002
1.e4 li.l6 2.e5 0:d5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 ~':b6
5.ed6 ed6
In contrast to .'i... cd6, which is more en-
terprising than S ... ed6 but also riskier.
Black aims for a solid position. He in-
tends to play Ji..e7, 0-0, Ct:.;c6,.tg4 or .tf5,
followed by uS. It is difficult to stir things
up a bit after the solid 5... ed6. Or is it?
This SOS chapter investigates the matter
further from a 'surprising' point of view.
6.-1:c3 :H_e7
94
NIC KEY AL 7.3
The alternative 6 ...t'L.c6 may be met by
7..te3 when, after 7 ...J:i..c7, 8:~tl trans-
poses.
7:*'f31?
This invention of Viktor Kortchnoi's has
more to it than mere surprise value. The
early queen development has several
points. White controls the d5 square (thus
preventing d6-d5). he prevents the deve-
lopment of Black's cR-bishop for the mo-
ment and he prepares queenside castling.
A typical development plan would be:
.Q.e3.. 1i.d3. 0-0-0. ~ge2 or tL:h3. Then
White is ready to roll on the kingside,
where Black will have tucked away his
king. However. please don't follow this
plan, no matter what. Sometimes castling
queenside is too dangerous. At other times
the development of bishop fI should be
postponed, and again al other times you
will need to act in the centre first. Black
now has three natural continuations.
7...cS
This strike in the centre was Tirnrnan's
choice. Let us investigate the alternatives:
A) 7...0-0
A I) 8..Q.d3 c6 (in my opinion,
~l...llX6! looks better as after 9 ...IiLe3there
can follow 9... 0.b4 (cf7 ...CUc68.l.e3 0-0
when White will not play 9.~d3 but
9.0-0-0» 9.lCgc2 dS lO.eS tLi6d7 11.~c2
l:te8 12.g4!? tiJf8 13.h4 b6 14.~e3 bcS
15.0-0-0 with a kingside attack in
Berg-De Firrnian, Malmo 200 I.
A2) 8..ae3. Now 8...c6 (planning d5)
works better:
A21) 9.0-0-0 d5 IO.cS ~6d7 II.£d3
b6 has occurred several times in practice.
Black has good play.
A22) 9.~d3, and castling kingside is to
be preferred, even though White's advanta-
ge after 9...d5 10.c5 ~6d7 II.tLige2 b6 is
minuscule.
B) 7...tL;c68.~e3 0-0 (8...Ji.e6!') is not
bad either, as l}.d5 (9.b3 0-0) 9...lDe5
10.'i.i'e4 is unclear. An alternative is
10.'iWf4. while IO.'iWg3 may be met by
Blatny's 10.... ~f5) 9.0-0-0 this is an im-
portant tabiya position fOT 7.tt'f3:
B I) 9...~e6 10.cS! (now to.b3 must be
too slow, I mention it here since this is im-
portant via transposition, cf 8...~6 9.b3
0-0) 10...lijc4? is a blunder that has occurred
several times in practice (10...tlJd7 11.h3!;
1O...0.c811.h6! -Burgess-shows a good
sense of humour) 11...Q.f4!,and d5 cannot be
avoided (first played in Leyva-Medina,
Cuba 1994).
B2) 9...~g5, when both IO.h4 and
I0.~h3 are slightly better for White.
B3) 9 ... ~f6
B31) IO.h4 i..e6 (10 ...h6 is usually in-
dicated as an improvement) I l.b3 d5
12.c51iJc8 13.ti'lh3 b6 14.i.g5 was better
for White in Chernishov-Kopylov, Vom-
nezh 1993.
B32) 10.~d3 ~d4 II.~d4 liJd4
12.jLh7 ~h7 13.~h5 ~gX 14.1J:d4.f6
15.tbf3== is an analysis by Chernishov
and Raetsky.
B4) 9... fS!'!
This move docs not deserve the 'dubious'
sign that it often receives on the basis of
KOr1chnoi-Miles. Only Miles' next move
is LO blame. IO.g3 (ID.c5 f4 II.cb6 fe)
12.bc7 'iWc713.'iWd5~h8 14.fe3 ~f5. and
Black. has adequate compensation,
Berg-Luther, Malm(2002) 10...f4?) l.gf4
ars 12.c5 tDd7 13.~h3! and White was
better in the stem game Kortchnoi-Miles,
Biel 1992. However, instead of 1O... f4
Black should play 10...~6!. Black was
95
OK after both I l.c5 tik4 12.dS 416eS 13.t1::d4 .if6 14.ci:;db5 'W'e7 15.il.e2 ~e4
13.,*e2 'De3 l4Ji'e3 sn (Tan-Crouch, No improvement is 15 ... ..wb4 J6.0-0'ir'b2
Scarborough 2001) and Il.b3 tt'c8 17 .l:tb I, and now:
12.ttJge2 as 13.a4 Sii.f614.tbf4 ~t7 IS.h4 A) J7 ... 'ir'd2 18.lt:.e4 -.wh6 19.1l)f6
lC.b4 (Berg-Eriksson, Skara 2002). iWf6 20.~f6 gf6 21.t'i:;d6, with c5 and
.Q.f3 coming up.
So much for 7...0-0 and 7...ttJc6. Let us B) 17..:~i'c2 l8 ...ad3 '*d2 19.~e4
continue with our main game. '*h6 20JiJf6 '@f6 21.,*f6 gf6 22.c5, and
8.deS White is again better,
8.d5 is just bad, Black is OK in this Perhaps 15.....Q.e6. mentioned in Britisn
Benoni-like position. Chess Magasine, is: after 16.b3 Black has
a...de5 9.~e3 ~c6 some compensation.
Alternatively, 9 ... 0-0 JOJtdJ lC.8d7 16.ttJd5 'i'e5 17 .lf~'lf6
11.~d3 is pretty uncomfortable for Also good is 17 .b3!?, intending 17 ...tDb6
Black. 18.tbf6 gf6 (IR ...~r6 19.~f6 gf6
10.l:td1~d4 20.tt:ld6) 19.0-0.
An active choice; after 1O... iVc7 J 1.~f4
tlJe5 12.'W'e4 Black is forced to play the
ugly 12...£6. However. 1O... ttJd7 is an al-
17...gf6 18.0-0

I 1.
i_
ternative. For example. J 1.SJ.c2 ( 1 J .Qd3 lj. .I. j.
tL:de5) 11...0-0 J 2.~h3 ~b6.
11.~d4 cd4 12.t,:';ge2 1
ttJ ltV
~
~
~~ ~~~~
l:t I:[c;t;
18...1tb5
Bad is 18.Ji:;b2? 19.~d5 We7 20.Ci;c3.
and White is winning after 20 ... ~e6
(20 ... .::Id8 2 J..::IbI) 2 Ulb5 tbt:4 22.~c4
~c4 23.'i'g4.
12 ...0-0 19Jtd4 'ir'e5
This is superior to 12... tLlc4 13.tbd4 tbd6 Not the only possible queen move:
14.~h5 .Q.d7 15.0-00-0 16.l:Uel as in the A) 19...'ir'f5 20.~g3 ~g6 21..~c4
game Berkvens-Burkart, Germany 2001. 'tWg3 22.fg3~. with advantage.
White has fine play owing to his pressure B) 19...~h2!'! 20Jk4 ~e6 21.l::th4
along the central tiles. (2iJk3 l:tfc~) 21...f5 22,~d3 .-r6, and

96
Black's kingside is still a hard nut to
crack.
20.ne4Qe6
Now 20 ...'*b2 21.~d3 is much more
dangerous than on the previous move.
21Jlh4 llfd8 22.~d3 ~g5
Forced because of 22 ... f5 23.it'h5.
23.~h7 Wg7 24.l:th5 'iig4 25.~e4 'iif3
26 •.~f3
26...l!ab8?
After defending well in a difficult positi-
on Timman makes a curious mistake. Cle-
arly, 26 ...~d2~ was a much betterdefensi-
ve move. Because of his active rook Black
has excellent drawing chances. Now Berg
takes charge.
27.::la5! a6 28.b3 .I:1d2
By no means as strong as two moves ago.
29.h3.Qc8
Planning b5 to lock in the white rook. ho-
wever after
30J:ld5!
things have gone from bad to worse.
30....I:1a2
For, 30 ..J:td5 31.~d5 ~e6 32.~c6 fe6
33J:lc I is a very easy win. White is a
sound (passed) pawn up and his rook is
active.
3Uld8
This pin along the back rank paralyzes
Black completely.
31...11c2 32.l:te1 a5 33.l:tee8 f5 34.~d5
~e6
Desperation, but 34 ... l:tc7 35.lIg8 Wf6
36.h4 also loses hopelessly.
35Jlb8 .Qd5 36 ..I:1e5.I:1c537.<.ti'h2'iiifS
38.f4 llb5 3U1d8 ~c6 40.a.d6
Black resigned.
In conclusion. 7.'Wf3!? is an interesting
way to liven things up a bit in the Alekhine
Exchange Variation after S ... ed6. Black
may settle for 7...0-0 (Timman's 7...c5 is
rather risky) which gives White only a
slight edge. The strongest repl y to 7. iff) is
probably 7 ../1)(;6 8.~e3. and now either
8...~e6, or 8...0-0 9.0-0-0 f5!'! with com-
plicatons.
 CHAPTER 12
A tactical weapon
9"~f3 in the Sveshnikov
The Sveshnikov has been causing l.e4
players some headaches lately. White is
currently unable to prove any advantage in
(he main lines. Therefore even Kasparov
has occasionally deserted his beloved
Najdorf as Black. Talking to Anand at
Wijk aan Zee Grischuk sighed: 'hopefully
something is found quickly against the
Sveshnikov, so we can just play chess
again'. Clearly. the top players hadn't
found the recipe yet by the time Linares
started. The 'Wimbledon of chess' saw an
unusually high number of games where
White preferred 3.t!Jc3 C,':f64 ..~.bS to 3.d4
98
NIC KEY 51 35,6
and the theoretical ramifications leading
up to l8.'lo>hl or 18..i.b3, which is where
home analysis starts these days.
Naturally, this SOS chapter does not pre-
tend to succeed where the lOP players
have (so far') failed to find anything sub-
stantial. However, since theoretical study
guarantees no opening edge at present, it
seems as good a lime as any to try some-
thing else. Something surprising, some-
thing tactical, something a bit fishy. In
short, why not try the diagrammed posi-
tion the next time you're confronted by
the Sveshnikov'
 1. e4 c5 forces the concession I I ....Q.b5 as
2. tDf3 tDc6 II...l:tc8? l2.~b4 is even worse.
3. d4 cd4 So. because the knight is badly placed on
4. lfid4 lLlf6 f5 White keeps a small plus.
5. 0c3 e5 9. ~f3
6. ti::,db5 d6
7. lbdS
The other Sveshnikov move order (5 ...e6
6.ttJdb5 (6) prevents this line of course.
However, in that case we advise you to
have another look at chapter 3.
7. ... CiJd5
8. ed5 tDb8
Here !L.tlJe7 is an important alternative.
We will not delve into this, but it seems
relevant to point out that after 9.c3

The 'normal' (read positional) move is of

Black. is forced to play 9...tbf5 for purely
tactical reasons. Positionally, Black
would never even consider to place the
knight on 1'5 as it obstructs the natural
n-fS: forming (hat typical Sveshnikov
pawn centre.
However the alternatives allow some
crude tactics:
A) 9 a6 lO.'ii'a4± wins material;
B) 9 f5 JO.'fVa4 <>t>n is awkward:
C) 9 tL;g6 IO.~a4 ~d7 II. ... c4
course 9.c4 when the main question is:
who is faster? White on the queensidc or
Black on the kingside.
The main idea of9.'iVf3 is overtly tactical
(some people would perhaps use stronger
language here: anti-positional). White is
playing for the same sort of tricks that
were shown above after lL.tDe7 9.c3. The
queen is ready to switch along the third
rank. Thus. a future"a3 will attack d6,
prepare 'ii'a4. and pin the a-pawn in case
of a6 (keeping the knight on b5). The
other tactical switch can be effective too:
"'c3 threatening tDc7 can be quite an em-
barrassing move to meet.
9. ,.. 86
Questioning the knight is clearly Black's
strongest move. The alternatives give
White at least a slight edge:
- 9 ...~d7 and now after 1O.~a3 Black. is
forced 10 take on b5, leaving While with

99
the slightly better position.
- 9...g6? 1O:it'a3 b6 (l0 ... a6 11..~.g5!)
1Ute3! ~d7 (ll...tLla6 12.1tc6 ~d7
13.~6 q;e7 14.~g5 f6 15.tDe8+-)
12.~g5! iLe7 13.iLe7 rbe7 14.'it'c7
(14.tLlc7 wins outright) 14...'i!¥d7 15.1Vc4
tLla6 16.0-0-0 ~g4? 17.~c6 ~d7
18.'i!¥d6 ~d8 19:~f6 1-0 Molander-
Kunnas. Helsinki 1995.
- 9 ...~e7 1O:iic3 tDa6 11.~e3
with the following options:
A) 1l...0-0 12.tUa7lDc5 (or 12...~d7
13.Qa6 ha6 14.0-0±) 13.tDc8 ttcB
14.0-0-O± Guyot-De Lagontrie, Cannes
1995 ;
B) 11...b6 I HIi'c6 ~d7 13.tLld6 ~ffi
14.1It'c3 (l4.~c4±) 14...~d6 15.~a6
't/ih4 16.0-()-O± Plenkovic-Zovko, Pula
2000;
C) 11...f5 12.0,a7 (I2.l;':1l7 f4 13,~b6
~b6 14,lL,c8 'lWb4 15.Aa6 ~c3 16.bc3
ba6 17.tbe7 'ft¥e7 18J:tbl l:1hc~=)
12...0-0~ Runte-Jelen, Pula tt 1990. with
some compensation for the pawn.
10. 'i!t'a3
This pin is one of the main points of
9.tt'D.
100
10.... Jie7
A main alternative here is 10...b6. After
defending the rook with ~b7, the white
knight will have to retreat. However. it
must be pointed out that the bishop is not
well-placed on b7.
The move 11.'fVa4 is double-edged as af-
ter ll...lbd7 (or 1l....Q.d7 !?) 12,tt:xJ6!?
~d6l3.tt'c6.c714,.a8tbb8(hequeen
is trapped. The game Kutuzovic-
Zelenika, Rijeka 200 I, went 15.c3 0-0
16...te3 f5 17.0 an 18.a4 'ird8 19..ie2
l::td7 20.0-0-0 'ire7. Here, instead of the
game continuation 21.a5 1:[a7 22. 'fka7
~a7 23 ...tb6 'iVe7-+, White should
draw with 21.~b6 .Q.b7 22.'it'a7 .ac8
23.'ira8 .ih7 or play 21..~c4.
Much safer is II.c4. Two examples:
- 11...~b7 12.tiJc3 i.e7 13..ie3 0-0
14,'fVb3tiJd715 ..ie211b816.0-0f517.f3
~c8 (I7 ...Ag5) 18.1!t'c2 f4 19..Q.f2 l::tf6
20.l't;e4 llh6 21.b4~ Armanda-Drei,
Opatija 2001.
- 11...1le7 12..ie2 0-0 13.0-0 f5 14.[4
Si.b7 15.LtJe3~d7 16.~e3 a5 IHWb3 cf4
18..Q.f4~c8 19.1i.b5 tDc5 20.~c2 again
with a slight plus, Wise-McShane, Mill-
field ch-GB 2000.
g~.t'+W~ g
i .tiii
i
~i
How can White increase the pressure? We
will investigate:
A 11.~d2
B I 1.~g5!?
A) 11. .id2
White intends to attack d6 with .ib4
(sometimes after the preparatory ~a5).
11. ... 0-0
12. ~b4
There is a clever idea behind 12.~a5!?
By provoking b6 White ensures that his
queen will not he trapped on aX after a fu-
ture ...ab5. After 12...b6 13..Q.h4
analysis diagram
Black appears to be in big trouble. An ex-
ample is Snarhcirn-Lonngren. Hallsberg
jr 1999: 1) ...ti\d7 14.~d6 ..Q.d6 15.li.':;d6
lL!cS 16.tI;c4 't'd5 17.tLlb6 ~e4 J8.~e2
li)e6 19.0a8 (stronger was 19.0-0±)
J 9...tbd4 20.'i'd3 'i'g2 (better 20 ...~2
with approximate equality) 21.0-0-0 ~f5.
However, Black has an excellent tactical
defence at his disposal. With 13 d7!
he protects d6 as 14.t2::d6?fails to 14 a5
lind 14._~d6,! to 14...ab5. Hence, White is
forced to retreat the knight at an awkward
moment (he hasn't played c4 yet). Thus
after 14.tL.c3 ~b7 15.~b3 ti'c7 16.~e2
~d7 17.a4 tL:.c5 18.'ii'c4 b5 Black was
slightly better in Gullaksen-Chemiaev,
Catalan Bay 2003.
12.... ab5
This exchange sacrifice is quite playable,
but not forced. Also good is J2 ... ~g4!?
when after 13.~d6 ab5 14.i.e7 Black has
14...~d5! (but not 14.. J:ta3 l5.~d8±)
15.'iW1l8 'fi'e4 with perpetual check:
16.<it>d2'itf4 17.<it>eJ(17.Wc3? ~e6-+)
17...'ii'e4 J8.Wd2 'fl'f4 J9.Wel 'iWe4
20.Wd2 Vz-'/2 Guyot-Popchcv, Podgorica
1991.
After the text there follows a logical se-
quence.
13. 'lWa8 !Ua6
14. £d2 'lWb6
15. ~e3
White is a full exchange up, but his queen
is trapped and his game as yet undevel-
oped. Clearly, Black has compensation,
but is it enough? Here are two practical
examples with light annotations. Black
won the stem game (Markovic-Joksic)
but White's play can be improved upon.
101
The second example suggests that both
sides should be satisfied with the draw .
• 15..... c7 16.c3 15 (16 ...~e6 17.~a7
j(d5 18.~b5) 17.fi'a7 f4 18.~d2
(18.~b6 ~d7 19.a4 - 19.~d3! -
19 ba4 20 ..b6 ba6 2I.1!i'd7 ~d7~)
18 ~d7 19.a4 tUc5 20.ab5 ';'g4
21."a2 (2 I.'fka 5 'tfi'd7 22 .• b4) 21...e4
22.fi'c4 ~h4 23.g3 (23.j(e2 n, 23.h3
l:le8) 23...:e8 24.1:1841 e3 25.~e3 lle4
26.:a8 (26.'i'e4 Cile4 27.1:1e4 ~a5
28.~cl "al 29.~d2 ~f3) 26...wf7
27.-.a2 !:te3! 28.fe3 "'e7-+ 29.$..e2
We3 30."c4 ~f6 3V;.t'd1 f332.11e1 fe2
33.:e2 ltJd3 34.fi'c7 wg6 35.<.t>c2'fi'e2
36.~b3 "d2 0-1 Markovic-Joksic, Bela
Crkva 1986.
• 15...'''a5 16.c3 b4 17J~c1! White
rightly forces the draw. After 17.~d2
bc3 18.~c3 'iWd5 Black has excellent
compensation. 17...'iWa2 18.cb4 'i'b2
19.1:lc8 19.~a6 'fYb4 20.~d2 (20.Wf)
ba6 21.1:1c8 'flfbl 22.~cl "cl 23Jkl
aa8 24.Wc2t) 20 .....we4 21.~e2 ~g4
22.f3 ~f3 23.~f8 ~ffi 24.gf3oo.
19...fi'b4 20.~d2 'fkb1 21.~c1 '*I'b4
22.~d2 Ill-V:! Paragua-Poliakov, Goa
Wch-jr 2002.
8) 11. ~g5!?
Now that's a real shocker: Clearly. there
is no need for 'the slow' 11.h4 (to prepare
12.~g5). after 11...0-0 12.~g5 1'6
13.~d2 f5 14.~g5 _~g5 15.hg5 ab5
16:;,I;'a8 tLJa6 Black has excellent com-
pensation, Gagglottini-Ravagnani, Ischia
1997.
11. ... f6
Bad is 1l...~g5 12.0d6 <.i.>d7(l2 Wf8
l3.tt.:-c8 wg8 14.tt~d6 6. 14 ~e7
102
l5.tt_'b7) 13.lt:lf7. The best reply to
1l...~f5!? is 12.~e2.
12. ~d2
So here we have the same position as in
line A. but for the Black pawn on f6. At
first sight (he difference looks advanta-
geous for White, but there are too few
practical examples (only one!) too sup-
port this view.
The game lordachescu-Gcnocchio, Lido
Estensi 2002. went: 12...a51 This is a
clear mistake. 13."c3± ~a6 13...Wd7?
14.l2Ja7+-. 14.'i'a5 b6 15.t1B4 0-0
16.c4 ~f5 17.'ii'd1 "eB 1B.b4 '*"96
19 b3 19:itD 19.....td7 20."g3 'iff7
20 ...,..e4 2t..e) 'tIfe3 22.fe3. 21..ie2
15 22.0-0 f4 23. 'irf3 'ot?h8 24.a4 95
25.,*h5 'itg7 25 ...1!t"h526 ..ih5 g427.D
26.~g4+- ~e8 27.'ii'h3 ~'6 28.a5 ~d8
29.ab6 ';'b6 30.11a3 h5 31.:'a1 'i'h7
32 ..te1 llh6 32 ...hg4 33.1!fh7 ~h7
34.11a6 lla6 35J136 ~b5 36.cb5 ~d4
37.l:lc6+- 33..tfS 'tWb7 34.~e6 94
3S.~g4 ~b5 3S.cbS !be7 37.11a8 tLla8
38.~f3 1-0.
White is slightly better after 12...b6
13.~b4 (J3.c4!·!) 13...0-0 14.~d6 ab5
15.~e7 ft'd5 16.'itd3.
The only real test of Iordachescu's In conclusion, the whole line starting with
11..~g5!? is of course 12...0-0. Black
9.'tIff3 is fulJ of pitfalls - B lack may easily
continues just as in line A, and it is up to
go astray. The tactics are quite attractive
and there is plenty of scope for 'private
White to prove that the inclusion of f7-f6
makes a di fference. So the followi ng Iines
investigations'. On the other hand. on the
ought to be checked (by the serious stu- basis of the material presented here White
dent!): is not entitled to claim an edge. However,
- 13.~aS b6 14.Ab4 ~d7; as there is no such thing as a an easy ope-
-13 ..i.b4~g414.Ad6ab515.~e7"d5; ning advantage at present against the
- 13..i.b4 ab5 14.-'a8 tLla6l5.~d2 'tWb6 Sveshnikov, there is every reason to try
16..te3. this SOS weapon.
 Section IV: An SOS pawn thrust
This section discusses four opening vari-
ations in which the initiative is grabbed
by means of an original pawn move in the
early stages of the game. These SOS-
pawn moves will shock your opponent.
Chapter 13 focusses on an aggressive
pawn thrust for Black.
1.e4 g6 2.d4 .ig7 3.tt:lc3 d5
This is a real shocker! White has no ad-
vantage after 4.Q::d5 c6, so he has to take
up the gauntlet with 4.edS. Play will often
resemble the Larsen variation of the
Alekhine.
The reversed Sokolsky is the subject of
chapter 14.
1.~f3 b5
The idea of 1...b5 is to liven things up a bit
after White's solid start. So here is a com-
plete and provocative repertoire against
l.lbf3.
Chapter 15 provides the second player
with an aggressive line against the
Trornpowsky.
1.d4 (i:.f62..ig5 e6 3.e4 c5
The 'normal' continuation after 3.e4 is
3...h6 when Black acquires the bishop
pair at the expense of central influence
and development. The 'Sicilian" move c5
undermines White's pawn centre. and is
therefore much sharper. This SOS-recipe
leads to exciting play where White may
easily go wrong.
Don't play the Dutch against I.tlJf3 is the
message of chapter 16.
1.tL:f3 f5 2.d3
The Lisitsin gambit (or Lviv gambit as it is
also called) is characterized by the sharp
2.e4. While this move has distinct SOS
qualities (sharp, enterprising, original). it
also has quite a history (Lisitsin-Borvin-
nik, Leningrad 1933!) and is therefore un-
likely to suprise your opponent. The move
2.d3 is a subtle preparatory move and, as
this chapter demonstrates, difficult to meet
for the second player.
105
 CHAPTER 13
Modern, Scandinavian or Alekhine?
3 ...d5: an aggressive central thrust
New ideas that are both surprising and
solid are hard to come by in the opening.
If you don't like to memorise heaps of
theory and still want to get through the
opening stages unscathed, the subject of
Ihis chapter might be just what you've
been looking for. Just study the next
pages and you' II find all you need to
know to avoid major problems in your
next few games as Black. Easy to learn.
easy to play!
1. e4 g6
2. d4 .:.lg7
106
KF10.4
3. lI.c3 d5!?
A remarkable idea. Once you've con-
vinced yourself that Black hasn't just in-
advertently pushed his d-pawn one
square too far it dawns on you that noth-
ing is gained by 4.tt~d5. After 4 ... c6
S.Q\e3 ~d4 6.~.d3 (6.'i'd4 ~d4 7.li::f'3
$t.g7 provides instant equality) 6 ... 'L:f6
(stronger is perhaps 6...e5!? 7.l2Jf3 ~dR
8.0-0 ~e7) 7.0.e2 'iVdR R.O-O 0-0 9.f4
~g4 IO.tL;g4~g4 I1.h3 ~e2 12.'it'e2 the
position was only slightly better for
White in the game Hector-Schulze,
Berlin IY95.
Equally unpromising is 4.eS cS as in
Skripchenko-Lakos, Porec 1998. Com-
pare this to l.e4 g6 2.1.14c6 3.tiJc3 d5 4.e5
where Black has wasted a tempo on
c7-c6.
Similarly, 4.00 de4 5.CLie4is easy for
Black, cr. 1.e4 g6 2.d4 c6 3.tDc3 dS 4.00
iLg7 S.h3 de4 6.t11e4 (h3 is much more
useful than c6).
All this leaves
4. ed5
as the only move to refute Black's con-
cept.
4. ... tL,f6
Compared to the Scandinavian l.e4 dS
2.ed5 tt.Jf6 White has lost all sorts of
c4-options. Seen from this light, Black
calls 3.~c3 an inaccuracy as it does not
prevent d5! (as 3.c4 would of course).
Still he does have to retrieve his pawn of
course.
5. ~c4
Strongest, White uberdecks dS, making it
as difficult as possible for Black to win
the pawn back.
With the same purpose 5.~b5 has also
been played. This is less logical though as
Black plans tt.\h8-d7-b6 anyway! After
5.1Lb5 he is even encouraged to play
S...li\bd7.
The game might continue:
A) 6.0ge2 0-0 7.~d7 'fr'd7 8.ltJf4 b6
9.0-0 ~b7 10Jlellte8 I1Jle5 J:lad8
12.h3 c6 13.dc6 tfc6 14.dS1!l'd6 15.'ii'e I
4';1.1516Jtd5 ..tc3 17.:d6 i.e 1 18.Ad8
Ud8 19.tOd3 Q.a6!= Andersen-Schulz,
Baden Baden 1991.
B) 6.lLlf3 0-07.0-0 tLlb68.~g5 (S.Ue I
lbbdS 9.ltJd5 tLJd5 1O.h3i/= Lederman-
Vydeslaver, Beer-Sheva 1991) 8...tDbd5
9.lLld5 lild5 1O.J:reI ~g4 II.h3 ~f3
12.'i!i'f3c6 14.~c4 and Black has gained a
tempo (.ib5-c4) and almost equalized,
Svatos-vokac, Czech Republic Champi-
onship. Usti nad Labem 1994. Compare
this position to similar ones below.
The position strongly resembles the
middlegames that may arise out of the
Larsen variation of the Alekhine: 4 ...de5
S.ciJe5 g6 (a respectable line).
C) 6.tLlf3 0-0 7.h3 tbb6 8.0-0 ltJbd5
9.ltJd5lild5 1O.c3 'W'd6 II..ic4 (prevent-
ing c5) I I...b6 12.~el .ib7 13.~g5 e6
107
14.~4c515.~g3~e716.iYb3andnow 1994. This is a good example of Black's
not 16 ..J:lac8?? 17 .~d5 1-0 Gofshtein- standard set-up.
Vydeslaver, Beer-Sheva 199 L. but simply White cannot keep his extra pawn with
16...~fd8=. 6.Wf3 because of 6 ...~b6 7.~b3 ~g4
A rather meek alternative is 5.~(] ~d5 8.1Wg3 ..Q.f5 when Klovans-Gurevich,
6.tbd5 'iWdS 7._~e2 (or 7.c4 'fId6 8.~e2 c5 Dnepropetrovsk 1970 (possibly the stem
9.~e3 cd4 1O.J.d4 ~b4=, as in game) continued 9.*,0 -tg4 10.~g3
Mahesh-Chandran-Bjelobrk, World Ju- ~f5 n.ers tUbd5 IVtJd5 tLld5 13.0-0
nior Championship, Cali cut 1998) 7 ...c5 0-0 14.lie1, and White had only a slight
8.~e3 cd4 9..i.d4 0-0 10.0-0 tDc6 11..ig7 edge.
Wdl 12.~fdl ~g7 13.tb.d4 tiJd4 14.nd4 However, While's most ambitious try is
~f5 15.c3 l:lfd8 with equality, 6.~g5!? as suggested in Nunn's Chess
Gyimesi-Banikas, World Junior Champi- Openings, the only book I know to men-
onship, Zagan J YY7. tion 3 ...d5!'? White intends (0 give up his
5. ... <1~bd7 bishop to keep the d5-pawn, thus turning
This is more accurate than 5 ...0-0 in view 3 d5!? into a real sacrifice. After 6 ...lDb6
of 6.lDge2! tbbd7 7.gb3 tLlb6 8/tJf4 and (6 0-0 7.gb3 ttJb6 8.'~f3 gd7?! 9.1lff4
Black has difficulties winning the pawn c6 10.d6 and White kept his extra pawn,
back, Yudasin- Vydeslaver, Beer Sheva Sadler- Turner, British Championship,
1992. Hove 1997) 7 ..lH6 _~.f6 8.~b3 it is useful
for Black to throw in 8 ... a5!? (8 ...0-0 is
worse, as shown in Keitlinghaus-
Siebrecht, Dortmund Open 1998: 9.tilge2
..Q.g4\0.0 ~.h4 Il.ti'lg3 ~f5 12.0-0 ~g3
13.hg3±) when the lines diverge:

6. ~f3
Now 6.~b3 ttlb6 7.tbf3 will just trans-
pose 10 the text.
And 7.h3 a5 S.a3 a4 9.~a2 tbbd5 io.eas
tDd5 II.lbf3 0-0 12.0-0 c6 13.~g5 ~e6
14.Ael b5 15.~d7 CUc7 was equal in A) 9.a3 a4 10.~a2 0-0 Il.lDge2 c6
Andrey Sokolov-Plachetka, Ostrava 12.dc6 bcf 13.0-0 ~a6 14.Ael Martin

108
Gonzalez-Palacios. Alicante 1989, and Variation A
now Black would have kept compensa-
tion for the pawn with 14...~c4!? or 8. a3 84
14...lDc4!? 9. ~a2 lLibd5
B) 9.a4 0-0 JO.0..ge2 c6 Il.dc6 bc6 10. tLibd5 tDd5
12.0-0 ~a6 13.l:tel .!Uc4 l4.l:tbl tDd6 11. 0-0 0-0
15.'iWd2 I:lb8 16.l:tbd J ~c4 with pressure 12. h3 c6
for the pawn.e.g. 17.tiJcl e618.~e4~e4 13. t1e1 b5
19J1e4 'iIl'd5 20.11eel .~b3 21.t2Jb3 %:th4 Black's strategy is based on restraining
Keitlinghaus- vokac, Prague 1992 (Y'2-Y.!. White's queenside and fortifying his
45). stronghold on d5.
6. ... tbb6 14. ~g5
6...0-0 is also possible and usually just White is setting up threats against e7 but it
transposes. isn't quite clear how serious they are. In
7. ~b3 a5!? practice Black has twice chosen to ignore
the loss of the c7-pawn.

It is useful to gain space on the

queens ide. though there is nothing
wrong with the natural 7 ... 0-0. After
8.0-0 ll\bd5 9.tL)d5 t;)d5 1O.c3 ~g4
II.h3 ~f3 12.~f3 c6 13.l%eI e6 White
only had a very slight plus in
Besch-Hennig, Netherlands cupfinal
1998. As I remarked earlier such posi-
tions are reminiscent of the ones that of-
ten arise after the moves l.e4 0.f6 2.e5
ttJd5 3 .d4 d6 4.lL;f3 deS 5.ttJe5 g6 6.~c4
c6 etc.
Van dcr Wiel-Sznapik. Novi Sad Olym-
piad 1990, continued: 14...~e6 15.~d5
~d5 16.~e7 %:tfe817..th4 ~-Y.!; Black's
white-square blockade compensates for
the pawn.
Even more provocative was M.Ankersl-
Vokac, Dortmund 1992: 14...h6! 15.~d5
'ttd5 l6.~e7 ne8 17.~c5 (17.~h4
%:tel+) 17...~f5 IS.c3 ~e419.lDd2? .Q.g2
20:e'g4 ~h3! 21.... h3 'e'g5! and Black
was winning.

109
 Variation 8 with it as well! In the main lines White
gains nothing speciaL At present 6.~gS!,!
8. a4 tt}bdS is the most dangerous try 10 refute
9. ~dS .:!DdS 3...d5!?
10. 0-0 0-0
11. ];Iel
Or II.h3 h6 (l J...c6 12.:l:e 1 and now in- RECENT GAMES
stead of 12...tfc7?! Magem-Palacios, In the following two games the alternati-
Sevilla 1989, the Alekhine manoeuvre ve" for6.ti)f3 (our main line) are tested. In
12...~e6 planning 13 ...tLlc7 is interest- several games of Milovanovic as Black.
ing; J3.tOg5 ~f5) 12.l:tel e6 l3.ttJe5 tLle7 his opponents chose the set-up with 'it'f3.
14.~f4 b6 IHWd2 ~h7 16J~adl ~b7 While it is clear that Black should play
17.c3!/= Shaked- Turner, London 1997. back and forth with the bishop for a bit
11. .i.g4 (~c8-g4-fS-d7 in Berescu-Milovanovic
12. h3 .if3 for instance), it is not clear what the most
13. fif3 e6 accurate treatment is (with or without a5
14 . ...wg4 c6 or even a6). The game De Firmian-Hen-
15. .ig5 li'b6 nig deserves to be studied with care.
16. tladl h6 Black clearly improves upon an older
17. ~e1 game (Sadler-Turner, 1(97). Moreover,
And White has only a very slight edge in De Firmian opted for NCO's recommen-
this characteristic position. dation of 6.jLg5!?, but this got him now-
here. Indeed, his lower-rated opponent
clearly outplayed him in the early middle-
game only to miraculously squander his
winning advantage later on.

o Alin Berescu
• Ninoslav Milovanovic
Kavala 2002

1.e4 g6 2.d4 !J;..g73.tUc3 d5 4.edS lilts

Bashkov-Vokac, Ostrava 1991.
Conclusion
Thus it seems that Black can mix the
Modem Defence. the Scandinavian and
the Alekhine and that he can get away
5.~c4 tDbd76..ib3 '!Jb6 7....wt3 as!?
The immediate 7....ig4 is more common:
now 8."g3 was the stem game
Klovans-Gurevich, 1970.
In Mikac-Milovanovic, Halkidiki 2000,
play continued for only a little while:
8.'ft'd3N a5 (or 8... a6 9.h3 ~c8 Parligras-
Milovanovic, Kavala 2002) 9.a3 a4
lO.~a2 0-0 ~_1/2.

110
8.a4 i.g4
11.~e2
9.'iI6'd3 i.f5 10 ..-b5 ~d7
E 'iV X.
iii iAi
~ ii
fj 1.
fj
jlttJ 1Y
fjfj~ ~~~
~ ~ ttJIt
Black's set-up in this game deserves at-
tention. He makes no effort to regain the
pawn, but just continues positionally. He
11...~c8 has the advantage of the bishop pair. Mo-
Both 11...~g4!? and 11..JH5 could be reover, the White bishop on b3 is obvi-
tested. ously hindered by his own extra-pawn.
12.~g5 0-0 13.'i'f3 ~g4 14.'ifg3 ~f5 11.tt:;ge2 :!:XeS12.0-0-0 ~c8! 13.'i!i'f3
15._if6 fLf6 16.iDge2 h5 lLid6 14.~g3 ~d7
Perhaps 16...'II:i'd6!? is better. Now everything is ready for a pawn
17.h3 'i1¥d7 18.0-0 h4 19.~f3 ~ad8 march on the queenside.
201Ue1 Wg7 2U~aclH g51! 22.Ci;e4 15.tL.ce4 b516.lLjc5 a517.a3 15
~e4 23.'i'e4 ~,d5 24.c3 c6 25.~c1 tbf4 Black has excellent compensation for the
26.lljd3 tlJd3 27.lld3! '{l{;d62B.1:tf3 e6 pawn of course.
29."g4 nh8? 30.~e6!+- l:th6 31.~b3 1B.tL:e2 .l:tb8 19":LJ4 :1e7 20.h4 ~f8
c5 32.dc5 ft'c5 33.:f5 'ire7 34.<.to>h1 21.lL!d7 1:d7 22.g4 fg4 23.~g4 1:e7
'*i'b6 35.f41i'b3 36.1g5 ~h7 37.g16 ~h8 24.hSlle4!
38.nh5 Threatening to take the knight.
Black resigned. 2S.<J;;b1 ii.h6! 26.hg6 fg6 27.Wh3 l::tf4
2S:.h6 -.h6 29.1:h6 a4 30.~a2 l:tf2
o Nick De Firmian Black has the advantage in this ending.
• Dirk Hennig 31.b3 :!:Xbf832.l:th3 ~g7 33.<.tJb2 h5
Germany Bundesliga 2002 34.!lg1 Wh6 35.~hg3 :'8f6 36Jlc3 ~f7
1.e4 g6 2.d4 ~g7 3.l;';c3 dS 4.ed5 l(jt6 37.:cg3 :g7 38.:g5 h4 39.ba4 ba4
5.~c4 'bbd7 6.~gS 0-0 7 .~b3 l2;b6 4O/Jra1 .Df1
8:\1"'3 ~g4 40 ...tlJbS.
Improving upon Sadler-Turner, 1997, 41.l:tf1 ~g5 42.c4 h3 43.cSliJfS 44.~b1
where 8.....td7'!! was played. ttJd4 4S.<;t;>b2h2 46J%h1 :th7 47.d6 cd6
9.'*i'g3 ~f5 10.~f6 et6 48.cd6 tUf3 49 ..i.e4

111

49 tDes
49 \t>f4 50.~f3 (50.d7 ltd7) 50 ...Wf3
51.tl7 ltd7 52.l:th2 g5-+.
SO.<.t>c3·.t>f6
50 ...'~f4.
51.wd4 We6 52.Wc5 l:lh5 53.jLg2 wd7
53 ... lLif7.
54.~b4 llh4 55.~c5 tLd3 56.<;t;>b5~14
56 ... ~d6 57.ltdl lld4.
S7.~c6 <;!id65B.J:ldl We5 59.l:le1 wf6
60.ntl <;!ig561.'.t.>a4 t;\e2 62.<~a5 ~"g3
63J%b1 h1't1i'64.~h1 tLhl 65.ng1 ttlf5
66.~b5 l2,12 67.:11 nf4 68.84 g5
69.a5 tbe4 70.J:lf4 9f4 71.86 13 72.a7
'2 73.aB1IY f1'ii' 74.<;I;>b6 ~f2 75.9:;07
'i¥g3 76.Wb6 1ig1 77.Wc7 ~g7
78.<.t>b8'i'e5 79.~a7 ..-c5 80.'~b8lQf6
81.'i'13 ~e6 82.~b7 'tWb4 83.~a7
tiJd784.tt'c6
Draw.
 CHAPTER 14
Only Mad Dogs and Englishmen?
1 ... b5: an SOS reply to 1.ttJf3
There arc those who play I.tDf3 to trans-
pose into particular l.d4 lines (thus avoi-
ding the Gri.infeld for example). Others
prefer the sequence 1.!iJ3, 2.g3, 3.i.g2.
4.0-0. ).b). 6.~b2 and so on, almost re-
gardless (or oblivious") of the opponent's
moves. Both types of 1.ti..lf3 players can be
annoying to meet. Here is an SOS antidote
to direct the course of play, or to liven
things up a bit.
The move 1... b5 versus the Reti is particu-
larly popular amongst English players.
Perhaps Miles is to blame for beating
Karpov with l...a6 and 2 ...b5 more than
NIC KEY RE 20.2
20 years ago. Apart from Miles. adhe-
rents of this reversed Sokolsky are
HOdgson and Arkell.
This article should provide you with plen-
ty of ideas lO combat 1.~f3 with l...b5.
The material is divided along the different
set-ups that White may opt for. The acid
test, in my opinion. lies in l.tLlf3 b5 2.e4
.1b7 3.~b5.
Getting started
First a fun game to get into the spirit of
things.
113
o Tibor Karolyi o Mark Taimanov
• Julian Hodgson • Peter Svidler
Brussels 1984 SI. Petersburg 1996

1.tDf3 b5 2.d4 ~b7 3...Q.g5h6 4..i.h4 g5 1.~f3 bS 2.e3 as 3.b4 e6 4.a3

5.l:l.g3 tbf6 6.'i!t'd3 ..Q.e4 7.~b5 tbc6
8.c3?! 8.tlibd2 nbS 9.'i'a4 nh2 and
Black has rather nice counterplay al-
ready. 10.lUbd2 ~b8 lUtel e6 12.e3
g413.~e5

Recognizing the strength of Black's

13 ...Ild2! 14.wd2 ~b2 15.l:lc2 After
IS.Wdl .ia3 Black also wins the rook.
15 ... ~c2 16.'ffc2 tl:;e4 17.wd3 ~bS
18.c4? This loses quickly, but the king
march is nu pleasure trip either:
IS.<ot>e4 f5 19.~f4 tt\e5 20.de5
(20.~bS qig6 mate) 20 ... h5 21.~h4
(21.~g5 ifc5) 21.. ..Q.h6 22 ..~g5 ~gS
23.<ot>g5 ~e5 24.f4 gf3 and Black
should win. 18 ... C2,b4 19.<$.>e2 tbg3
20.hg3 'i'e5 0·1
White plays e3
The following game is played in true Bee-
keuian spirit. I refer the interested reader
to Beckett's novel Murphy, chapter II,
the chess game between Murphy and Mr
Endon.
set-up, White is eager to copy his oppo-
nents moves. 4...·U6 5.d4 a5 Breaking
the symmetry. Murphy would have con-
tinued with d5 of course. 6...Q.bSab4
7.0·0 ba3 8•..Q.a3 ..Q.a3 9.:la3 ~a3
1o.CL;a3 fIIe7 11.~a1 0-0 12.lIb1 e5
13.ti}c4 dS 14.tZ.ice5 'l!Vc7 15.dc5 ~c5
16.c4 dc4 Although full symmetry has
not been achieved, full equality is on the
cards <the board that is). 112-112
This was partly tongue-in-cheek of
course. However, 2.e3 does not really
deserve serious treatment. The move is
too modest to cause Black any problems.
Just a brief overview:
1. tt.f3 bS
2. e3
Or 2.d4 ~.b7 3.e3 a6 which transposes. In
Mikhalchishin-K.ArkeH. Cappelle la
Grande 1991. While developed his bishop
outside the pawn chain: 3...i.f4tbf6 4.c3 a6

114
5.a4 b4 6.c4 bc3ep 7.tLlc3 e6 8.~d3 c5
9.e4 cd4 IO.liJd4 8c6 II.lLlc6 ~c6 12.0-0
~e7 13."e2 Y.!-Yl. The position is about
equal but still contains a lot of play.
2. ... a6
3. d4 ~b7
Delaying development of the bishop is
also quite sensible (thus avoiding an early
'ifb3 - compare Miles' recommendation
below). The game Vul-Tischbierek, Ber-
lin 1997. went 3...e6 4.c4 bc4 5.~c4 tLlf6
6.a3 d5 7.~d3 c5 8.dcS ~c5 9.b4 .id6
1O.~b2 tDbd7 Il.ttJbd2 ~b7 and Black's
chances are to be preferred.
4. c4
Nothing is gained by the inclusion of 4.a4
b4. After 5.c4 be3 6.bc3 e6 7.~d3 tDf6
8.tbbd2 c5 9.0-0 cd4 lO.cd4 tbc6 I U:lb I
tbb4 Black was already slightly better in
Ljubisavljevic-Arkell, Uzes 1989.
Equally innocuous was 4.~d3 tbf6 5.0-0
e6 6.b3 c5 7.c4 bc4 R.bc4 Yle7 9.4\c3
~f3!? IO.'iff3 lUc6 11.4.Je2 0-0 12.:dl
:b8 13.~c2 'i'c7 14.~d2 lLla5 15.~a5
'ilta5 16.i.b3 :lfe& 17.1:Iacl cd4 18.ed4
~a3 19.1Ic2 e5 20.de5 l:le5 21.g3 J:l:be8
22.lbf4 h5 \-2-Y:> Furman-Dzindzichashvi-
Ii, Soviet Union 1973.
4. bc4
5. ~c4 e6
6. tbc3 tt:Jf6
7. 0-0 d5
8. ~e2 c5
A kind of Queen's Gambit Accepted but
then with bc4 instead of dc4. With an ex-
tra central pawn Black should have no
problems. Yet Miles indicates 9.1!t'b3
with a slight advantage for White. The
game Andersson-Miles, Tilburg 1984,
went instead: 9.b3'!! cd4 lO.ed4 ttJbd7
I1.a3 .Q.d6 12.M tbe4 13.tDa4 ~6
14..2.b2 0-0 15.tDc5 'ti'b6 16.l1bl a5=i=
17.~a I ab4 ) 8.ab4 ~b5 19.111' c2 llJdf6
20.~bS 'if'b5 2 1.ltJe 5 i.e7 22.l1fc1 tDd6
23.~c3 %:ta724.l1a I JUaB 2S.l1a5 'it'e8
V!-V!.
White plays g3
I do not intend to cover this completely
since play will often transpose to 1.d4
lbf6 2.tDf3 e6 3.g3 bS. This is a very res-
pectable line played by Karpov, Timman
and Andersson to name but a few.
1. tUf3 b5
2. g3 ~b7
3. i.g2
Or 3.d4lUf6 4.~g2 e6 5.0-0 and the abo-
ve-mentioned transposition has taken
place.
3.... es
Also playable are moves like 3...tbf6 and
3...e6. Interesting is 3...e5, after 4.d3 g6
5.0-0 ft..g7 6.lUc3 a6 7.a4 b4 8.~e4 'it'e7
9.~g5 f6 1O.~e3 d6 Black had good play
in Guerra Bastida-Sulskis, Linares 2000.
4. 0-0 e6
In Romanishin- Hodgson, Ischia 1996.
Black fianchettoed both bishops. After
4.Juf6 5.d3 g6 6.e41t..g7 7.eSlDd5 8.d4
cd4 9.lUd4 'WIfb6lO.a4 ctJc7 t l.~b7 "b7
I2.Ci.b5 cDb5 l3.ab5 1Wb5 14.tDc3 1Wb7
15.:a5 White had a pleasant edge.
5. c3
This looks modest but actually contains
more bite than S.b3 lLlf6 6.c4 a6 7.lLIc3
'it'b6 8.e3 sa 9.'i'e2 ltJe4 1O.~b2 0-0
Il.ltJe4 ~e4 12.d3 Vz-Y.! Foisor-Armas,
Rumanian Championship, Predeal 1988.
5. lLlf6
6. 'ti'b3 .tc6
115
 7. d3 d6 looking from move 5 onwards): 3.e5 a6
Black should equalize here eventually. 4.d4 e6 5.c4 bc4 6.Sic4 0.e7 7.~c3 d5
See the following two games by Gutman. 8.ed6 cd6 9.d5 e5 10.'i'b3;i; Hodgson-K.
• Gurman-Grunfeld, Beer Sheva zonal Arkell, British Championship, Plymouth
1985: 8.~g5 Sie7 (8 ...0.bd7 when 1989.
9.lDfd2 ~g2 IO.~g2 .!:tb8 is fine for 3.... Sie4
Black. In the game Black is in for a rough 4. 0-0
time) 9.tLJfd2 ~g2 JO.~g2 a6 II.Qf6 Merely transposing is 4.d4 li::f6 5.0-0.
~f6 12.a4 ted7 13.ab5 ab5 14.ti\a3 b4 4.l.6c3 speeds up development but loses
is.ess lIal 16.lIal bc3 l7.bc3 i.e7 out on central influence: 4...~b7 5.d4 e6
18.0.e4 ~b8 19.1bbd6! ~d6 20.'iWb5 6.0-0 ttJf6 7.~g5 ~e7 ~U:lel 0-0 9.~f6
We7 (20 ... Wf8 21..!:ta8) 2 U1a7 ttJd7 ~f6 10.lDe4 ~e7 II.c3 d6 12.'iVd3 tDd7
22.d4+- cd4 23.'itg5 1-0 13..i.a4 tLif6= Spiridonov-K. Arkell,
• Gutman-Kortchnoi. Hamburg 1997: Cannes 1998.
8.lDfd2 d5 9.e4 ~e7 lO.ed5 ed5 11.~f3 4.... fut6
lLlbd7 12.d4 c4 1HWc2 0-0 and Black had Black has an interesting alternative here
no problems. in the form of 4...c6!? After 5.~a4 '{i'a5
6.ltJc3 Sig6 7.d4 c6 play develops along
White plays e4 totally different lines, Jackelen-Tischbie-
As I stated above this is the rea) test for rek, German Bundesliga 1993/94.
1...b5. Of course, J .e4 is even stronger. 5. d4 e6
1. tbf3 b5 6. c4
2. e4 ~b1 6.~e2 it.e7 7.c4 ~b7 8_{~c3 0-0 9.h3 d6
3. SibS 1O.~e3 ttJbd7 Il.b4 tLie4 12.lbe4 i.e4
This is best. Quiet moves promise little. l3.~d2 ~b 7 14.i.f3;!; Szekely-Psakhis,
Thus, Kamsky-Hodgson, Amsterdam Tallinn 1983.
1996, went 3.d3 a6 4.g3 d6 5.a4 lDd7 6. ssa
6.Qh3 g6 7.0·0 ttJgf6 !tabS ab5 9..!:ta8 7. 0c3 .Q.b7
SLa8 IO.4ia3 'itb8 11..~g5 Sig7 12.'{i'd2
0-0 13.lIe J!? (according LO Karnsky Black
is better after both 13.~d7 <8d7 14.£e7
:i~ 1i'* :i
lieS 15.Si..g5i.b2 and 13.1Ii'b4h6! 14.Sie3 ~.t~i.ti~i
c6) 13...c5?! 14.h4! now White is slightly i~
better because b5 will become weak. Ac-
cording to the American 13...e6 and
13...e5 are both OK for Black.
More to the point is 3.e5. White gains spa-
ce and a tempo, impeding Black's deve-
lopment in the process. Black's must find
an improvement over the following (start

116
This position has occurred several times 16_..~e4! 17.be4 l:Le4 18.~d3 't!fc7
in grandmaster practice. Considering its 19.1:tacl llh4 20.f4 'i!Vf4~ 21.h3 'tWh6
importance for the evaluation of the who- 22:~e3 g5 23 ...t>g2 dS 24.l:tcd1 tLih5
le line we will continue our survey. 2S.!:thl 1i'g7 26.~f3 tLlf4 27.Wf1 l:tc8
28.tCb1 tLlh3 29.~d7 l:1d8 30.~e6 g4
Line A 31 .....g3 l:1h5 32_~b7 ~U5 33Jld2 nf3
8. l:te1 34_'iWc7 ....,6 35J%h2 tH8 36.1:I.g2 h5
McNab-King, British Championship. 37.Aa6 CLJf4 38.11g1 'tWa1 39."b6 J:[aS
Eastbourne 1990. went S.h3 0-0 9 .~e3 d6 40.ng3 na6 4U!Vb8 ~97 42.%113g13
1O.~el ti~bd71I.d5e512.b4g613 ..Jic6 43.nb2 lla2 44:~eS ~g6 0-1
'it'c8 14.e5 deS 15.he5 Qc6 16.ddi lLlc5 Bclov-Giorgadze, Hamburg 1995.
I7.lLid5 ttJd5 18.Wd5 J:[d8 19.'ife5 li\e6
20.tbd4 ~d6 21.'tli'f6 lte8 2Vt::;f5 gf5 Line B
23.~d4lf',d4 24.~g5 wn'l 25.~h6 V:z-l6. 8. ~a4 0-0
8. ... 0-0 9. dS
9. d5 Or B.d5 0-0 9.~a4.
9.~g5 d6 1O.~d3 c6 I L~.a4 tLJbd7
t 2.%ladI was slightly better for White in
Keulinghaus-Libeau, Bad Worishofen
:i'il 'lV g~
1989. However, the immediate 10...tiJbd7 ii.iii.iii
is stronger. White may consider the prop- i~
hylactic 9.~a4.
9. ... c6!
The right idea, Black now has good
counterplay. Enjoy the following win by
Giorgadze: 10.de6 tLie6 11.£t4 !:te8
12.~d6 ~d6 13.~d6 tDaS 14.b3 a6
15.~a4 15 ..Q.a6 ]le6 15...£1'3 16.gf3.

Black's position is fairly solid. but White

has gained considerable space. How
should Black continue his development?
Attractive at first sight is 9 ...~a6 follo-
wed hy tile5. However, this does not meet
the demands of the position since Black
has now no means of pressurizing dS.
See what happened in Wojtkiewicz-Bron-
stein. Reykjavik 1994: 9...ttJa6 10.a3!
lOC5 II..~c2 as 12.~e3 edS 13.cdS g6
14.llel tL;h5 15.0.eS 0,g7 16.i.d4 While

117
was clearly better and won.
Correct is a plan with ~b4 to exchange
the c3-knight that defends d5. when Whi-
te is going to pin the f6-knight. A sharp
and original position where Black cert-
ainly has chances but needs to defend
well. See [he following (WO examples:
• Eingom-Semeniuk, Kiev 19R4:
9 li\86 10.~el 10.a3! prevents ~b4.
1O .Q.b4 11.~g5 ltJc5 12.i.c2 ~c3
13.bc3 d6 14..i.h4 h6 15.tDd4 White
has good attacking chances. 15 ...edS
16.ti}f5 tt:Jcd7 17.cd5 ~e8 18.~d2 .id5
19.~a4! An annoying pin. 19 ... ~e4
19... ~e 1 20Jle I .Q.e6 was the alterna-
tive. 20 ..if6 tUf6 21.i.e8 .tfS 22..ic6
and White won.
• Speelman-Hodgson, London 1985:
9 ...~b4 1O.~gS .ic3 10...h6 II..ih4 g5
12..!Dg5 hg5 13...tg5 was given as un-
dear by Speelman. 11.bc3 h6 12.kh4
lha6 13.1le1 lbc5 14.~c2 ed5!? 14...d6
see above. lS.cd5 ~d5 16.:e5 16..Q.f6
i.f3 17.~h7 ~h7 18.~c2 Ae4 19.~e4
~f6 20.~e6 'i'g6 21.~g6 fg6 is better
for White - Speelman. 16... i.f3! 17.1I)'f3
d6 18.llf5 tLicd7 19.h3 :tb8 19... 'lWe7.
20.h4 tbeS? This is bad. According to
Speelman, 20 ...'ii'c8 21 ..if6 tL:f6 22.~f6
gf6 23J:tel with equality was correct.
21.'i!ff4 liJd5?! 22.~d8 Ci,f4 23.~c7 +-
tLle2 24.<;Pf1 llb2 25.i.d6 tLlc4 26 ..if8
Wf827.11b5 1·0.
Odds and ends
1. lOf3 b5
2. b3
Now an Englishwoman continued sensi-
bly with 2 ... tt:lt6 3.c4 bc4 4.bc4 cS 5.0c3
ta:6 6.e3 g6 7.SiJ...c2Jd..g7 8.0-00-0 9.J::rbI
118
d6 IO.d3 ~d7 11.~b2 J::rb8 12.~1 J::rbl
13.'tIfbl 'tIfa5 ~-Ijl Sakhatova-S.Arkell.
Manila Olympiad 1992. Obviously inspi-
red by the Karolyi-Hodgson game the in-
ventor of 5.'8a4 versus the Gtiinfeld went
berserk in the following entertaining
game:
o Santiago Roa Alonso
• Ashot Nadanian
Lina res 1996
1.tbf3 bS 2.b3 ~b7 3.~b2 e6 4.e3 b4
S.c4 ~f6 6.g3 g5 6 ...SiJ...e7 7.~g2 0-0
would be tine for Black, but is not as
much fun as the text. 7 ..ig2 g4 8.lDh4
~g2 9.tLlg2 J::Ig8 10.0-0 IO.h3 h5 10 ..•h5
11.f3 tLlh7 A single-minded attempt at
taking advantage of White's weakened
control over h3 and f3. 12.lOf4 ~g5
13.1g4 hg4 14.a3 ~c6 1S.ab4 xb4
16.d4 CUe7 17:iWe2 'i'h6 18.~d3 ~d6
19.c5 Winning a piece or allowing an
attack? 19... ~g3 20.hg3 (£)g5 One can-
not deny that Black's play has a certain
consistency about it. 21.lDd2 ~h8
22.<;Pf2 lDf5 23.<J.!e1 23.l:th I tUh3
24 ..l::th3 ....h3 23 ... tC:g3 24. "g4 ..-h2
25.'~d1 25.l:tf2 ~hl 26.tUfi 25 ....!D5e4
2S.t/)e4 ti',fl 27 .• f3 f5 27...'tIfg2
28.'fi'g2 lLie3 29.~d2 tZJg2 28.tt:lf6 <M7
29.lbeS 29.W'fI! "hI 30.1!t'el t6'b7
29 ...We7 30.Q.c3 ~g' 31.tLifd7 31.~e2
llh2 32.<;f,1d3'ii'e3 33.'iVe3 t;~e3 34.We3
l:h3 3S.Wd2 Wf6 31..Jlh2 31...tbh2 is
an elementary win, but I presume that
both combatants were in terrible time
trouble. 32.tt:.c6 <iPd733.tOeS <tJe7 0-1
Following Nadanian's g5 plan is perhaps
not advisable for those who seek the truth
(or for those with weak nerves for that
matter).
1. ~f3 b5
2. a4 b4
Now for further analysis I would suggest
3.e4 kb7 4.~c4!? with interesting play,
which has hardly been tried out in practi-
ce. A meek alternative is 4.d3.
Corkett-K.ArkeU, English Team Champi-
onship 1998, went instead: 3.c4 c5 4.b3
.i.b7 5.i.b2 ti:lf6 6.e3 g6 7.d4 cd4 8.ed4
.i.g7 9.ttJbd2 0-0 IO.JLd3 d5 11.0-0 ~c6
and Black was quite OK.
The eternal Reti fianchetto is also possi-
ble. In Vaulin-Sulskis, Bydgoszcz 1999.
Black overreacted a bit: 3.g3 ~b7 4.~g2
gS!? 5.d3 g4 6.~h4 Q.g2 7.cc,g2 d5 (if at
all then 7...~g7 l:<.h3h5 is essential to
keep the pawn structure intact) 8.h3 gh3
9.l:lh3 itd7 IO.l:lhI tLJc6 II.~d2 e6
l2.lbb3 f5 t3 ..i.g5 ~e5 l4.JLe3 ti;g6
15.'W'd2 as l6.tbf4 tbf4 17.i.f4 White
had a huge positional advantage and won.
1. Ci:!f3 bS
2. c3
Not as innocent as it looks. Against the
Sokolsky 1...c6 is also not such 11 bad
idea.
2. ... e6
So as to answer ].a4 with 3...h4.
• 3.d4 ~b7 4.~g5 was Andersson-Litt-
lewood, Hastings 1980/81, now 4... sa
5.~e7 'fIe7 improves on the game which
went 4...f6'1! 5.i.f4 f5 6.ttJbd2 ttJf6 7.e3
a6 R.~gS i.e7 9.a4 b4 IO.iLf6 ~f6
11.~d3 cilc6 12.0-0 g6 13.l!)b3 0-0
14.tz:.c5 ~c8 15.'i'e2 a5 16.~b5 and
White was better .
• 3.g3 has also been played. After
3...~b7 4.~g2 tUf6 5.0-0 ~e7 6.d3 Black
should play 6...a6. In Kortchnoi-Hodgson,
Brussels 1985, White gained a pleasant
edge after 6...d6 7.a4! a6 8.ab5 ab59.lh8
~a8 1O.~b3!
3.-.wb3a6 4.d4 ~b7 5.ttbd2 tbf6 6.a4
b4 7.a5 ~e7 8.e3 0-0 9.~e2 c5 10.deS
tDc6 11.cb4 :b8
And Black had compensation in Lange-
weg-Ivkov, Amsterdam IBM 1972. al-
though he later went wrong: 12.e4 ~a8
13. '*c3 %1b4 14.0-0 tiJe4 l5.t2).e4 J:te4
16 ..Q.a6 Q.f6 17.twd2 ttJd4 18.lDd4 .Q.d4
19..Q.e2 .c7 20.h3 I:g4? 20 ...11h4
2J.~g5; 20 ....i.cS. 21.~g4 -..g3 22 ..i.f3
119
~f3 23.1!fgS+- 'tWg5 24.i1Lg5 .adS 1S_tt'13 ita8
25.l:lab1 ~c5 26.b4 i.d4 27.b5 l:lb8
28.~e3 ~e3 29.fe3 ~e4 30.l:tfe1 d5
31.a6 ~8 32.s7 1-0.

RECENT GAME

o Folco Castaldo
• Vlad Tomescu
Reggio Emilia 2003

1.~f3 b5 2.e4 ~b7 3..ab5 .ae4 4.0-0

tOf6 5.d4 e6 6.c4 ~e7
6...c6 7.~a4 'it'b6 is an interesting try: 1S...Q.g5
A) 8.c5 .tf3? (8 ...'\i'c7; 8 ...'iWa6) and 16.ltJd5 ed5 l7.ne7 dc4.
now not 9.'~f3, but 9.cb6 ~d I 10.h7 win- 16 h6!
ning 00 the spot. 16 ~c6 IHWh3
B) 8.tlJc3 j(_f3 9.'i'f3 ~d4 obviously A) 17 h6 18._~h6 gh6 19.~h6+-.
Wile has compensation for the pawn. but B) 17 t'ucd7 J8.4\d5 ed5 19.ne7 and
is it enough? 10.~f4 ~d6 II.~d6 ~d6 White is better. e.g.:
12.Afdl ~c7 13.c5 0-0 vokac- - 19 dc4 20Jld7 ~d7 2J..~h7.
Hasangatin, Karvina 200 I. - 19 ~d8 20JId7 1td7 21.SLf5 ~e7
7.4'\c3 .ab7 8.dS 0-0 9•.i1La4tDa6 22..tf6 'ft'f6 2J.'ft'h7 ~f8 24.'iIt'h8 We7
Bad is 9 ...a5?! 10J:l:cl (i:;a6 II.~f4 ed5 25.Ael.
(l1...lLJc5 12.~(;2 d6 13.i.e3 ±) 12.cd5 - 19... g6 20.ltf5 gf5 (20 ... Ad8
~b413 ...Q.c2!i.c3 14.bd Qd5 (14 ...~5 21..~c6+-) 2 L~f5 't!fc4 22 ..if6 liJf6
15.~d3 tLJf6 16.~g5) 15.~g5 Qe6 23.'\i'g5 <;t;>hR
24.~f6 ~g8 25.l:!e3.
16.it'd3 0c5 17.'tid4 d6 18.'ith4 h6 17 ..ah6
19.~h6! with a winning attack in Not correct but otherwise White just loses
Castaldo-Bertazzo, Milan 2003. c6 without compensation.
9...~b4 as in Speelman-Hodgson, Lon- 17...gh6 18.~f4
don 1985, was my recommendation in the 18.~g3 ~h8 19.'\!j'f4 tbg8-+.
main text. 18 ..'(J.?g7 19.ne3 lIh8 20.li'\dS ed5
1Ute1 tileS 21.lIe7 :e8 22.::If7?
10...Qb4. This accelerates the end, but White had
11.i.c2 a51Vbe5?! nothing anyway. 22.'iWg3 ,.pf8 23.%[c7
Bad is 12.~g5? C2,d5, but possible are ~d8-+.
12.~f4 and 12.a3. planning l:tbl and b4. 22 ...~f7 23.~h6 ~g8 24.lIe1 "'f8
12 ...d613.tt:lc6 i.c614.dc6 lIa6 25. "'h3 ~a8 26.~d1 l:lh8 27. -.f5 lIe8
Targettiog the weak pawn. 0-1

120
 CHAPTER 15
Trumping the Tromp
3 ...c5: the SOS alternative
Why counter an off-beat opening with an
off-beat line? This is a question you
might well ask when seeing the subject
of this SOS chapter: the Trompowsky
Opening. However, due to the efforts of
several English players. with Julian
Hodgson as their front man, the 'Tromp'
has grown into a respectable opening.
An opening with its own rules and theo-
retical lines against which it is not so
easy to equalise.
The game we present here will provide
you with a new and strong weapon to
counter the Trompowsky.
NIC KEYQP7.7
o Hikaru Nakamura
• Leonid Yudasin
New York 2001
1.d4 Cd6 2.~g5 e6 3.e4 cS!?
The whole world plays 3... h6 here, but the
text is a good SOS alternative.
4.e5
This is the most principled reply. Let us
look at some alternatives:
A) 4.1.:3'iWb65.tlJd2 'i'b2 6.tL:.c2gave
White some compensation in D.loneS(;u-
Bumoiu, Bucharest 1999.On move 4 Black
can also play 4 ...cd-l!? answering S.eS
with 5.. .'fh5 or 5 ...h6. If White takes
121
back 5.cd4 'i'a5 6.Qd2, Black can play
6...~b4 or 6...tt'b6. Plenty of room for in-
vestigation!
B) 4.tl2f3 cd4 5.e5 is an innocuous
line, more commonly reached via the Tor-
re Attack, i.e. l.d4 tL::f6 2.l2:f3 e6 3._Qg5
c5 4.e4 cd4 5.e5. Teske-Bologan, Frank-
furt 2000, continued 5...h6 6.~c I (6.~h4
g5 is alsoOK for Black) 6 ...tL:.h7!'?7.1!t'd4
tLlc6g.~e4 d5 9.ed6 ..Q.d6with a nice po-
sition.
C) 4.d5 (this is the main alternative to
the text) 4...d6 (this is safest: 4 ...h6 5.~f6
1t'f6 6.tLic3 must be slightly better for
White: 4 ...ed5 5.e5 ~e7 6.'lWe2 h6 7.~f4
0.c4 8.f3 0g5 9.lLc3 d4 10.!t:id5 ~d8
II.e6 was Hodgson-Bclkhodja, France
Team Championship 1999) 5.4'c3 fJ..e7
6.~b5 (6.ti\f3 0-0 threatens 7 ...ti':d5)
6...~d7 7.de6 fe6 8.~.d7 'ltd7 Y/U3 cl;c6
and Black was fine in Marcelin-Lalic,
Ubeda 2001.
4...h6
5..ic1
Back to square one: One of Black's main
ideas is that this retreat is more or less for-
ced. The following gamc extracts show
why this is:
122
A) 5.ef6 hg.5 6.fg7 Qg7 7.dc5 ~b2
8.t'i;d2 '*'Ve79J.tb I 'i'c5 and Black is bet-
ter, Reddmann-Nisipeanu, Hamburg
1998.
B) 5..if6 gf6 6.4\f3 cd4 7.ef6 ..wf6
8.41od2 d5, Rahman-Dunnington, British
Championship, Scarborough 1999.
C) 5.~h4 g5 6..ig3 tDe4 7.c3 004
!UWd4 tL:g3 9.hg3 t2;,c6 IO.tt'e3 b6
IJ..ad3 'WIc7 12.f4 .tb7 13.tL:f3 0-0-0,
Povah-Rowson, England Team Champi-
onship J 997.
In all cases Black's position was prefera-
ble. However, after the withdrawal of the
bishop the knight must retreat too or ex-
pose itself to further attacks.
5...~~d5
Black's idea is reminiscent of an (im-
proved) Alekhine's defence. He has lured
White's centre forwards and is already at-
tacking it too! Yet, there is a playable al-
ternative in: 5...tL:h7!?
E'Ij_iV~j_ E
i •• 'i~
• i
• 8
8
analysis diagram
6.~d3 (6.d5 ed5 7.'it'd5 tL\c6 8.Qc4 'WIe7
9.tL.f3 C":'1'610.'i't7 "*'f711.~f7 wt7
12.ef6 d5 13.fg7 ii.g7, with excellent
compensation for the minor investment in
B.Schmidt-Hellstcn, Germany Bundes-
liga 2000/01) 6...cd4 7.~h7 l:[h7 R.r~f3
~c6 9.0-0 d6 iO.~f4 deS and in this un-
clear position the players called it a day in
Slipak-Fiorilo, Buenos Aires 2000.
Finally,l should like to point out that even
5...tDg8!? is not entirely stupid.
6.c4
g&.t~~.l. i:
ii i ii
i 10.0c3
7.dS
To stop the knight from reaching c6. After
7.a3 04c6 the knight has been effectively
re-routed to attack the squares d4 and e5.
And ?len cd4 8.<i::d4tb8c6 is also good
for Black.
7...d6
Immediately attacking the white pawn
centre.
8.83 li.J4a6 9.ed6 ..id6
Note that Black is developing quickly and
has fine dark square control. His position
is already preferable.
0-0 11..Q.dJ Ci:Jc712.!Dge2

i&~ After l2.de6 ~e6 13_tDf3~c6 Black has

a lead in development.
t3Jt3J 12...ed5 l3.cdS tDd7 14.0-0 ttJf6
15.~c4 b6

6...~b4!?
This is a novelty. The more mundane
6...lL\b6 was an earlier Yudasin effort:
7.dc5 kc5 8.ti'J3 d5 9.edf> ~d6 1O.~d6
(I0.~d2 was the stem game
Hodgson- Ward, British Championship.
Eastbourne 1(91) 10...Ji.d6 I 1.~c3 ~c6
12.~d2 ~d7 13.0-0-0 \[}e7 14.tL;bS Ifl-lfl,
Soffer- Yudasin, Israel Championship.
Tel-Aviv 1994. Instead of 8.t2::fJ White The pawn on d5 is well blockaded and so-
can go 8.'t!fg4, which is perhaps the rca- mewhat weak. In practice Black's positi-
son why Yudasin preferred 6... 4'\04 this on is much easier to play, as he has a
time round. clear-cut plan to besiege and indeed win
Sorokin has played the even more provo- d5.
cative 6...ti;;e7. when 7.dcS ~bc6 8.':::'c3 16..!Lg3..Q.e5
~e5 9.lL:hS tL:f5 IO.~f4 a6 II :~a4 f61ed Threatening one of the pawn's defenders.
to great complications in Sargissian-So- 17.tDh5~b7
rokin, Ubeda 2000. Quietly continuing his plan. 17... ~.c3

123
IS.bc3 ti"ifd5 falls into 19.~h6! gh6
20.~d5 tbd5 21.'CWd5 'i'd5 22.~f6 ~g7
23.ti)d5, although even here, if anyone.
Black is better.
18.~f4 ~f4!
Again better than 18 ...~c3 19.~c7
(19.bc3 tncd5) 19..."fVc7 20.bc3 with a
slight edge for Black.
19.1Of4..-d6
Gaining time.
20 .... '3 ~e6!
Making use of the opportunity. This
knight certainly has a busy life.
21.'~:,e6?
This is cooperative. However, the alterna-
tive 21.ttJh5 tUhS 22.'ifh5 ~d4 is also bet-
ter for Black. Only 21.t2Jfe2 prevents
Black's advantage from growing.
21 ...fe6 22.l:tad1 {~d5
Naturally 22 ... ed5 23.tL.Jd5 is dead equal.
23.~d5
So this was the idea. Rather than defen-
ding a weak pawn White sacrifices it for
some positional compensation.
23 ... llf3 24.lilf6 tU6 25J:td6 rLe8 26.l:1e1
26J:ld7 l:tt7 and White cannot keep the
pressure with 27 .l:tfd I? (27 .l:td6) because
124
of 27 ...R.c& or even stronger 27 ....id5
28.l17d5 ed5 29.~d5 !:te2 30.~n ~n
with a winning rook ending.
26 ...';T;>f7 27.b4 cb4 28.ab4 l:te7 29.13
~c8
Black has an extra pawn, albeit a weak
one. Yudasin's technique is up to the mark
of course.
30.%ic1 .td7 31.1:1a1 l:.tf4!
This is very unpleasant
32.11a7?
The alternative 32.1:1<:I does not give
White a rosy future either: 32.l:tc I b5
33..ta2 l:tb4 34J:tc7 ~e8 35J:te6
(35.Ac6 WfR and Black is better)
35..J:k7 36.l:tc6 ~f8 37Jk7 a5 and
Black wins.
32....Alc8!
32..Jk4 33.1:[dI17 l:td7 34.!:td7 ~f6 is a
good rook ending. but the text wins a pie-
ce.
33.~.e6
33J~e7 We7 34Jk6 ~d7 wins more easi-
ly (35.l:tc7 Wd&).
33.....Q.e6 34Jle7 We7 35.l:tb6
I give [he rest without much comment.
35..J%.c436.h3 :1c2 37Jla6 U,b2 38.:lb6
~c4 39.h4 wf7 40.h5 i..d5 41.l::td6 i..c4
42.1:lb6 :;t,>g843.1:I:b8 ~h7 44.1:I:b6 ~f7
45.nb5 ~e8 46.1:%e5~c6 47.:c5 ~a4
48.l:!c4 ~e8 49.l:th4 ~g8 50.~f1l:td2!
Threatening 51 ...lld5 to which there is no
satisfactory reply.
51.g4 J:[b2 52.l:lh1 ~f7 53J:th3 <J.;>f6
54.14 llb4 55.nf3 .Qd7 56.g5 hg5 57.f95
<o9g558.:g3 ..Q.g4
While resigned.
RECENT GAMES
o Nigel Povah
• Alexander Cherniaev
England t1 2002103
1.d4 tL:;f6 2.~g5 e6 3.e4 c5 4.e5 h6
5.~d2
A novelty but not a good one. Likewise,
after 5.i.f6 gf6 6.t/',f3 cd4 7.~d4 tiO,c6
8:iWh4 !ii.e7 9.'i"h5 fe5 Black's position
was more or less winning in Morel-
Leygue, Creon 2002. As pointed out
above 5.jLc I is the main move.
S ... tiJe4 6.~d3 tDd2 VLd2 cd4 8.f4
tlJc69.~igf3 d5
With two bishops and a pawn up Black's
opening may be called a success.
10.a3 ~c5 11.b4 ~b6 1VLb3 ~d7
13.0-0 a6 14:tVe1 0-0 15.~h1 !1c8
16.g4
White has no compensation and seeks
chances with this dubious move.
16...f6! 17.... 93 fe5 18.1e5 g5! 19.'it'h3
"pg7 20.Ci:;c1
Aiming for tbe2-g3-h5, but this plan is
obviously too slow.
20 ...~c7 21.tl':e2? ti\e5 22.lDe5 ~e5
23.tL.g3 !ii.g3 24 .• g3 "'c7 25.tfh3 tfd6
White resigned as he is simply two pawns
down (26.~h5 e5).
o Simon Buckley
• Francis Rayner
England 112002103
1.d4 tLi162.~gS e6 3.e4 c5 4.d5 d6
s.eea ssa6.~b5 ~d7
7.de6
No better was 7 .~d7 tijbd7 8.de6 fe6
9.tI\f3 0-0 10.~f6 C.i::f6 Il.e5 de5 12.'fi'e2
tDd5 13.'i'e5 tL;c3 14.~c3 _~f6 15....wb3
1*'d5 with a slight plus, Pert-Collinson,
England tt 2002/03.
125
7...fe6 8.e5!? deS 9.'tfe2 tDc6 10.0-0-0 ion. White has decent compensation for
~';d5 11.'ifh5 the pawn in view of his lead in develop-
II.~e7 tDc3. ment.
11...g6 12.~e7 'fIJe7 5...gf6 6:~cl
I2 ...liJc3!? 6.0.d2 ~b2 7.tijgf3 Qg7 R.Qd3 Wb6 and
13.~f3tz:.d4 White did not have enough compensation
13 ... "iWg5!. in Mensch-Belotelov, Budapest 1998.
14.ti~d5 ed5 15.~d7 'it'd7 16.'i!i'f6! Ilf8 6 ~g7
17 e5We6 6 ~h6!? 7.1i'h6!? (7.tbd2 .id2 8.~d2
17 ~f71 18.d 1:raeR. 'iWb2 is better for Black) 7 ...1i'b2 Ittbe2
18.l:Ie1! '.tJ>d719.e3 tval 9.tL·;c3 'il'b2 IO.Qd3 and White has a
dangerous attack for his sacrificed mate-
rial.
7.e3
7. tLJd2was stronger.
7 ...f5! 8.li'la3
This is a dubious pawn sacrifice.
8...1e4 9.LUc4 1fe7 10.'i'g5 0-0 11.d6
'it'c6 12.l:tdl b5! 13ke5 'tfb6 14.'lJg4
wh815 ..!Dh6 Ciic616.~h5 ~e517.f4

19 ...~f7??
This blunders the game. However, after
19...nae8 20.iWg7! (but nOI 20.cd4
'fi'g8!-+ (20 ...'(lff7? 21.~f3+-)) Black
is in LfOUhJe too, for instance: 20 ...1:rc7
21 J~e6 l:lg7 22.rte5 winning a pawn.
20.cd4 !:tae8 21.Ciif3 1-0

o Christopher Dunworth
• Daniel Gormally This was White intention, Gormally's
England It 2001 next puts him out of business.
1.d4 tiif6 2..195 e6 3.e4 c5 4.d5 'iVb6 17 ...c4! 18.'~e2?
This is extremely risky, but if you have 18.fe5 We3.
good nerves why not give it a try. 18 ....!Dd3 19.c2Jh3 'ii6f2! 0-1
s.srs 20.<2;(2 tDf4 2 I.:l;e I tjjh5 22.lbhg4 f5 is
S.tDc3 ~b2 6..ild2 is critical in my opin- curtains.

126
 CHAPTER 16

The improved Lisitsin Gambit

b t2J
b8b bbb~
~t2J~~~~ :u NIC KEY HD 13.6

Trying to repair the omission of l.e4!?

One of the reasons why many players hold true for l.c4 f5 or 1.0';f3 f5. though.
love the Dutch is that you can play it This SOS chapter is a case in point. dem-
against l.d4. l.c4 and l.tbf3. One system onstrating as it does the merits of l.tlif3 1'5
to playas Black against all non-Le-t play- 2.d3!?
ers means reducing your theoretical
workload and improving your practical o Michal Krasenkow
understanding of it Moving your f-pawn • Stefan Kindermann
is an admittedly risky strategy. but it Panormo 2001

might pay offas you tight and win the bat-
tle for the e4-square. However. supporters
of the Dutch should be warned against
over-using 1...f5. In the Dutch proper
(l.d4 f5) Black is well on his way to gain
control of the e4 square. This docs not
1. tbf3 '5
2. d3!?
This modest-looking move is in fact an ef-
fective reaction to Black 's first move.
White prepares e4. arguing that 1...f5 is a
weakening move. To understand the mer-

127
its of 2.d3 we must compare (his move to
the Lisitsin Gambit (1.08[3 f5 2.c4!?).
This gambit is a violent attempt to crush
the Dutch. Dangerous though it may be, it
is more like a double-edged sword: risky
for the victim as well as for its wielder.
Byway of contrast (as well as to provide a
playable SOS alternative) we hereby
present a survey of Lisitsin's gambit:
l.ti)f3 f52.e4!?
2... fc4 J. tbg5.
A) 3...d5 4.d3 'lWd6(4 ...e3, as played
by Malaniuk a couple of times, is also in-
teresting) 5.de4 h6 6.ltJf3 (6.~h5 g6
7.'ii'h4 is also possible) 6...de4 is a
well-known 'refutation' (as it was called
by Kavalek). White has a major alterna-
tive on the fifth move, though: 5.o8c3 (this
prepares a piece sacrifice) 5 ...h6 (5 ...~f6
6.de4 h6!?) 6.ti\b5 ~c6 (worse is
6...~b6,!! 7.~h5 g6 Vuc7 ~d7 -
lL-.c7 9.~g6 ~d7 IO.tbf7 - 9.tL_;a8 be-
cause now the queen is attacked on the b6
square, 9 ..:~a5 1O...td2 'i'd2 11.~d2
ghS l2.~f7, as indicated by Piket) 7.de4
hg5 8.ed5 'l'd7 9.Ag5 a6 1O.~c3 e5
11..Q.d3. and White has good compensa-
128
lion for the piece. A verdict both based on
the stem game Piker-Van Mil. Dutch
Championship. Eindhoven 1992, and 00
subsequent games.
B) 3...e5 4.d3 e3 (4 ...ed3 5.~d3 is
suicidal) 5..ae3 lUc6 has always had a re-
liable reputation. However, in 1990 Mi-
chael Rohde discovered 4.d4!?, which is
a serious challenge: 4 ... ed4 5.lCe4 ttJc6
6.~c4 ttlf6 7.~g5 Qe7 s.ers ~f6
9:~e2 ~e7 1O.~d5, with good compen-
sation, Ronde-Castro, Philadelphia
Open 1990. Therefore, 3...lDc6 is per-
haps stronger.
C) 3...lDc6!'! (Kindermanns recom-
mendation to avoid 3 ...e5 4.d4) 4.d3 (as
4.d4 d5! is OK for Black) 4 ...e3 5.~e3 e5,
and we have transposed to 3 ...e5 4.d3
without allowing Rohde's 4.d4.
D) 3 tbf64.d3 .
01) 4 ed3? 5.~d3 g6 6.lDh7 l:th7
7.~g6 llf7 8.g4!. and White is better, ac-
cording to Milic and Bozic.
02) 4 ...d5 5.de4 h6 6.tDt3 de4 7.e-d8
~d8 8.lUe5 ~e6 9.lDc3 tDbd7 1O.~g6.
and White is slightly better in this end-
game. Lisitsin-Kortchnoi, Soviet Cham-
pionship, Leningrad 1956 (via transposi-
tion).
03) 4... e3 S.~e3 eS 6.d4 ed4 7 .~d4
lbc6 8.~c4 ~b4 (8 ... dS 9.~f6 iWf6
10. iWd5 lileS 1 J.lf':e4 ~f4 12.1t:lbd2, and
White is better (Botvinnik) 9.tDc3 d5
10."e2 'W'e7.and Black was not worse in
Lechtynsky-Knaak, Tallinn 1979.
04) 4...eS S.de4 .icS (S... Ab4 6.c3
~c5 7.~c4 'fke7 8.0-0 ho 9.lt).f3 gS IO.b4
.ib6 II.a4 as 12.~a3!, with an attack,
Malakhatko-Miton, Cracow 1997) 6.~c4
1Ife7
t.sst (7.tLic3 .if2 8.wf2 'fVc5 9.'i;g3
tlfc4 IO.g,fI 0-0 I U:tf6 gf6 12.~hS=
was the famous game Lisitsin-Botvinnik,
Leningrad 1933) 7...'~f8 8.~b3 h6 9k:f3
d6 JO.ll'lC3 g6 I I.'fte2 'Otg7 12.~e3, and
according to Botvinnik White has an
edge.
So far for our outing into the Lisitsin gam-
bit. Let us now continue with 2.d3:
2.... d6
This (rightly) receives an exclam from
Romanishin in the Encyclopaedia. Here
we present the alternatives:
A) 2...dS?! (going for the Stonewall is
dubious with the pawn on d3) 3.c4 e6
4.cdS ed5 S.g3lDf6 6.~g2 ~d6 7.0-00-0
8.lDc3 c6 9.e4 fe4 1O.de4 de4 11.tDg5
~e7 12.lDce4 lDe4 13.~e4, and White
was much better in Blatny-Salai, Novy
Srnokovec 1990.
B) Likewise, a Leningrad set-up with
2...g6 also seems to favour White after
3.e4 d6 4.lLlc3 lLlf65.efS .if5 6.d4.
C) 2... lLlc6 3.e4 e5 4.tl:lc3 tLlf6 5.efS
d5 (S".~h4, as in Andrienko-Maliutin,
Yurmala 1991, looks stronger) 6.d4 ed4
7.ltJd4 tDd4 S.Wd4 srs 9.~gS ~c2?!
(9...iie7 lO.~eS! Moreno-Castro Rojas.
Barcelona 1993) 10.ttcl il.g6 II.~f6
~f6 12.~e3 ~t7 J3.l'L:d5 ~b4 14.tUb4
Ahe8 15.~c4 'if;>f8 16.0-0 U.e3 17.fe3 srs
J 8.g4, and White was well on his way to
win, Taimanov-Zaichik, Leningrad 1989.
0) 2...luf6. White now has three play-
able set-ups:
01) 3.lbbd2 d5 (3 ...luc6(!) looks best
in my opinion) 4.e4 de4 5.de4 tDe4
(S...fe4 6.tUg5 gives nice compensation)
6.~c4!? tDc6 7.0-0 ~d6 8.~d5 e69.:rtel
'iVf6? (Gulko indicated the stronger
9....2.e7! 1O..2.c6 bee Il.lLld4, with a
slight edge). Now Black was slaughtered:
iO.tUc4! ttJc4 11.~gS tDb2 12."d2lDc4
l3.ttf4 't!6'g6 14.ttc4 tiJd8 15.'.-c7 ~d7
16.ttJe5 1-0 Gulko-Shmulevich, St Mar-
tin 1992.
02) 3..i.g5 tLlc64..tf6 ef6 5.d4!?, and
White keeps an opening advantage.
Speelman-Garcia llundain, Pamplona
1996.
03) 3.e4 (this directs the course of
play towards the Lisitsin Gambit) 3...fe4
(3 ...d6 4.e5!;!;; 4.ef5 ~f5 5.d4;!;) 4.de4
lDe4? (4...e5 is essential) S.~d3 tUf6
129
ti.ltig5, and White was much better in
(among others) Lisitsin-Krogius, Lenin-
grad 1949.
3. e4 eS
4. eea
A previous Krasenkow effort saw 4.g3
lL2f6 5.Ag2 g6 6.c3 ~g7 7.0-0 fe4 8.de4
0-0 9.lDg5, Krasenkow-Nikolic, Polanica
Zdroj 1996.
4. ... q~c6
Black must not neglect the centre:
4 ...i.e7?! 5.d4 fe4 6.tbe4 d5 7.CUe5! de4
8.i.c4 tDf6 9.~f7 ~g4 10.0 ef3 11.gf3
(ll.tLld8 t2) 11....Q.b4 l2.c3tt'e7 J3.~f2
tbe4 14.~gl (14.'~g2 ~h3!) 14... 1:[f8
15.fg4, and White was much better in
Bonk-Renner, Germany BundesJiga
1999.
The other knight can also leave its stable:
4 ...lDf6. Romanishin has now analyzed
5.Jte2 1J..e7 6.0-0 0-0 7.1J..gS 0.c6 as
equal. However, S.ef5 .tf5 6.<14e4 7.li)h4
gives White a pleasant edge.
S. efS ~f5
6. d4
6. ... tCb4
This is an ambitious idea, but no improve-
ment over 6 ...llJd4 7.~d4 ed4 8.~d4 c6
130
9..id3 .Q.d3 1O.~d3 tLif6 I 1.0-0 j}_e7, and
Black had no particular problems in
Lerner-Bareev, Soviet Championship,
Kiev 19R6 and Romanishin-Malaniuk,
Tallinn 1987. What improvement did
Krasenkow have in mind here'?
7. .ibS
Developing and defending.
7. c6
8. .ta4 e4
9. tt:g5 d5
Black has formed a nice pawn chain. but
he is unable to hold on to square e4.
10. f3 ef3
Here 1O... CUf6 11.0-0 ( I l.fe4 .ig4
12:.d2 h6 leaves Black some coun-
ter-chances) IL.eB 12.a3 transposes to
the game.
11. O-O!
A slight adaptation of (and pun on) Reti's
famous quote gives us the rule .that we
should only recapture when there is no
other useful move. Castling is the most
flexible move here. The immediate
11.... 0 allows 1l... .. e7 12.~dl fl'd7.
and White's play has lost momentum.
However, instead of 12.Wd I, 12.1t.e3 is
stronger. After I2 ...lUc2 13.~c2 ~c2
J 4.0-0 While's lead in development gives 21. ... d:if8
him the edge. 21 ... rtJg7 obviously fails to 22.'*d7 tbd7
11. ... 016 23.l:le7.
Krasenkow notes that 11 ...~g4 was 22. ~d7 tiJd7
Black's best bet. Although he demon- 23 • ..Q.h6
strates that Black's prospects after
l2.'tWel ~e7 13.h3! are bleak.
12. a3 tt:la6
13. ~13
Only now. While has a huge lead in devel-
opment. giving him a significant edge.
13. ... ~g4
14. ~d3! ~d7
This prevents ~c6.
15. h3!
Gaining control of the e6 square.
15. .ih5
16. U.e1 ~e7 And Black resigned as he must give up
17. tt::e6 ~f7 several pieces to avoid being mated.
The intermediate 17....ig6 is best an-
swered by 18.'~f3 Wf719.tDf4±. 18.tbg7
<M7 19.~e2 is less clear after 19...~d6. RECENT GAMES
White has a nice edge here. of course, and
several good options. but Krasenkow's o Reiner Odendah)
move is by far the strongest and most • Freddie van der Elburg
beautiful solution, Amsterdam 2002

18. lDd5! tC.d5 1.LDf3 f5 2.d3 d6 3.e4 e5 4.tDc3 ~16

Taking with the queen also loses:
18...trd5 19.~b3 .Q.g6 (or 19...~a5
20.~d2 or 20.tDg7 ~g7 21.11e7 wf8
22.l1e5) 20.'iIt"e2, and Black is running
out of moves since 20 ...~d6 is mel by
21.it.f4.
19.• ,5 016
20. ~b3 ~g6
The Black king cannot escape: 20 ...«Pe8
21.li::g7 ~d8 22."a5.
21. tljg7!
Continuing in style. 21.CUc7wf8 22 .....d7
liJd7 2J.liJa8 was the prosaic solution.
The main line is 4...tL!c6 5.ef5 ~f5 6.d4.
Instead of 5.ef5 it is no good idea to play
5.d4 as 5...fe4 6.lUg5 Jie7 7.llJce4 d5
8."f3 lUf6 9.08f6 ~f6 10.de5 tbe5
11.'lWg3.it.f5 was very agreeable for Black
in Czebe-Antal, Budapest 200 I.
5.ef5 ~f5 6.d4 e4 7.42.h4
This position is good for White. The pres-
ent game. and the next, confirm this ver-
dict.
7...~e6 B.dS~f7 9.~,:;f5
Black is cramped and his outpost (e4) is
weak.

131
9...~g6 10.lDd4
Now e6 is vulnerable.
1O... c6 11.~g5 fi...e7?
II...ifb6 looks best under the circum-
stances.
1Vl)e6 "d7
13.~c4!
This is stronger than J3.ttJg7 even though
White keeps an edge after 13...wf7
14.l6e6 {i:;d5 l5.tLid5 cdS 16.Cd4!, but
not 16.~e7 ~c6oo.
13 ...4\d5 14.0.d5 ees 15.~g7! :.t-18
16.Wd5 ~95
16.. /~g7 17.'ilfd4 mates.
17.tbe6 ~e8 18:'-g5 [i:;c6 19.'iVf6
Black resigned as 19.. .l:tgS 20.lDc7 "c7
21.~g8 is too easy.
o Stefan Li5ffier
• Stefan Kindermann
Austria n 2002
1..!LJf3 f5 2.d3 d6 3.e4 e5 4.[i.c3 016
5.ef5 .~f5 6.d4 e4 VL:h4 ~g4 8..Q.e2
~e2 9. We2 dS 1O.~g5 ~b4
This gives White a big edge. However, it
is already too late to look for real im-
provements for Black: 10../£;c6 11..i.f6
132
gf6 (ll...~f6 12.lud5 'fi'h4 l3.1Cc7 ~d7
14.0a8±) 12.~h5±; JO ... ~e7 11.~f5±
or W... cn 11.f3±; IO...h6 I uH6 even
wins for White.
11.'iYb5 C.uc6 12 ..-b7 ~d4 13.0-0-0
aea 14.bc3 nb8 15.~f6! gf6 16.~a7
_h4
tLJb5 17...wc5 'frd6 l8.ndS! 'ii'f4 19.11d2
..
~
'if
~
t3J t3J~ t3Jt3Jt3J
\t> l::t
20.a4! CiJd621 :ilfc6+- wf7
Or 21...~d8 22Jld6 cd6 23.~d6 Wc8
24:~Vc6 ~d8 2S.11dI mating.
22:t!Vc7 o;t;>g6
23.Wd6 l:tb7 24:'ltg3
White is winning in this double rook end-
ing.
24 ...'~g3 25.hg3 nhb8 26.lIdd1 !:rcB
27.nh4 f5 28J:td6 ~g7 29.WcI2 nbc7
30.nd5 ~g6 31.:::1d6 wg7 32.n:d5 'it>g6
33.g4 f4 34.l::1h3 f3 35.g13 rtc3 36.J:1d6
¢g7 37.l:ld7 <;Pg638.rtd6 wg7 39.:ld7
~g6 40.l:lhh7 ef3 41.~d1 ::tc2 42.~dg7
<;Pf6 43.nf7 <;tog644J1hg7 Wh6 45.g5
<t;>hS46.:::113nc1 47.<.t.>e2:lBc2 48.we3
nes 49.wf4 :c4 50.<;t>f5:tc5 51.¢>f6
nc6 52.rM7 11a6 53.g6 l:ta7 S4.~g8
l:ta4 55.:h3 ~g4 56.ng3 W#S S7.~f7
~e6 58.g7 :1a8 59.nf8 :a7 60.:le3
\txi6 61 .nes 1-0
 Section V: Outflanking the French
This section differs from the previous
four in that it concentrates on one ope-
ning. Chapter 17 is substantially bigger
and incorporates an introduction, a theo-
retical section and a games section. l offer
the reader an interesting line to meet the
French.
1.e4 e6 V2':f3 d5 3.e5 c5
4.b4
The basic idea of this wing gambit is that
the black c-pawn is lured away from the
centre. Thus giving White a stable pawn
chain: c3-d4-cS. This pawn chain provi-
des White with a healthy basis to attack
on the kingside, while the open tiles on
the queens ide will give positional pressu-
re too. See the following tubiva position.
1.e4 e6 2,t/',f3 d5 3.e5 es
4.b4 cb4 5.a3 ba3 6.d4 l?\c6
7.c3
It is useful to compare this diagram to the
position from the French Advance. after
l.e4 en 2.d4 d5 3.c5 c5 4.c3 ~6 S.ti:f1.
Clearly Black is able to attack the white
pawn chain in an effective way there. This
forces White to Uberdeckung of his centre
before he can even contemplate any often-
sive ideas. However, 'every advantage has
its disadvantage' as the professor of Dutch
soccer. Johan Cruyff. is wont to remark.
The absence of pressure on the pawn
chain is achieved at the Cost of a pawn!
 CHAPTER 17
French Wing Gambit
b bb
J:tC[j~ifw~
Increase your central control: 4.b4
Around 1984 I was struggling against the
French Defence. The positional intrica-
cies of the Tarrasch or the Winawer were
way beyond my overtly tactical style.
And. besides. there was too much theory
involved anyway. It was then that I hit
upon the following reference in Suetin's
book on the French: l.e4 e6 2.~tJ d5 3.e5
c5 4.b4!? cb4 5.a3 ba3 6.d4 ~c6 7.c3
.Q.d7 ~.~d3 f5 with a complicated game,
which White must play in gambit style
(Shashin-Naglis. Moscow 1970). I was
enchanted. As a junior all I ever wanted
was to play in 'gambit style' (whatever
134
C[j
bb8
M NIC KEY FR 1.1
that means exactly) and the verdict 'un-
clear' sounded enticing too. Moreover,
apparently all you needed to know was
one game reference of only 8 moves!
Nowadays I think I would have doubted
the soundness of the idea precisely be-
cause of the typical lazy commentator's
verdict and the suspicious lack of other
material. Call it optimistic, naive or what
you will, hut I started playing this so
called Wing Gambit and Iwas successful
with it too. After some time other Dutch
junior players started giving up there
queenside against the French too, the
most well-known of these are 1M Martens
and GM Reinderman. Over the years I
spent a lot of time analyzing the positions
after 4.b4 and refining my weapon time
and again. I discovered that' accepted the-
ory' had little of relevance to say on the
subject. The favourable exception being
an article in Skakbladet by the Danish 1M
Mortensen who quoted Larsen in calling
the Wing Gambit 'the most logical way'
to meet the French. With the name of
Mortensen we have also mentioned the
biggest b4-hero. This article, then, aims
to present the reader with a complete and
exciting repertoire against the French. Al-
though it is written from White's point of
view, I have tried to be objective
throughout and also indicated lines that
are problematic.
The next section contains a general de-
scription of White's strategy and some il-
lustrative game excerpts to whet your ap-
petite. This is followed by the principal
part of this article: a theoretical overview
of all the variations. The final section is
made up of relevant games. A final piece
of advice: a good way to start studying the
Wing Gambit is to read the next section
and to play through a few games from the
study material to get a 'good feel' for the
position. Later you can check your own
efforts with the theory.
General Ideas and
typical manoeuvres
So what is the point of 4.b4?
To answer this question let us consider
One of the main line positions: l.e4 e6
2.luf3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 eb4 5.a3 ba3 6.d4
lLlc6 7.c3. White has sacrificed two
pawns, one of which he will retrieve at
some point with either tDa3 or ~a3, but
what has he got in return for his invested
material? Well, first of al\, there is the
central chain c3-d4-e5. Due to the pawn
on e5 White has more space, which
means that he can attack on the kingside.
Moreover he controls the dark central
squares; the first player will often try to
land a knight on d6. In the French Ad-
vance White holds the same central
trump. Yet after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5
4.c3lbc6 5.llJf3 'W"b6it is clear that Black
develops counterplay by pressurizing d4.
In the subsequent play White must con-
tinuously guard his centre. Now compare
this to the Wing Gambit. Since the Black
c-pawn has been lured to a3, Black no
longer has a lever to pressurize d4! In es-
sence this is the sole point of White's
4.b4. Other factors to White's advantage,
after say 7.c3, are his development which
can continue almost unhindered. Black's
development on the kingside is. however,
severely hampered. (Incidentally, this is
why the Wing Gambit is less good against
the Sicilian, after 1.e4 c5 2.tDf3 e6 3.b4
cb4 4.d4 Black has 4 ...tL;f6!). Black sim-
ply lacks space. Both his bishop and his
knight need to be developed via e7 (a
knight on h6 will be chopped off and the
subsequent weakened structure (gh6)
gives White attacking possibilities). Of-
ten the knight is played to e7 and then to
(I) g6 where it will be harassed by h4·hS,
or more often to (2) f5 when it chased
away with g4 or exchanged with ~d3
takes f5 when Black's structure will be
weakened. The consequence of Black's
developing problems is that his king is of-
135
ten stuck in the centre for a long time. All
of this guarantees While good attacking
possibilities and an attractive game. A fi-
nal feature is the possibility to play for
'Volga compensation'. With the sacrifice
of his a and b-pawns he has gained two
open files, which can sometimes be used
to put pressure on the qucenside (often in
combination with a knight on c5). To
illustrate White's strategy here are some
typical examples derived from practical
play.
Exchanging the
dark-squared bishops
Bosch·Claesen
European Junior Championship
Arnhem 1989
Black has managed to develop his
kings ide, having strengthened his knight
on f5 with g6 and h5. Consequently, he
has weakened even more dark squares
and his king is not safe either. With 1..ifS!
ef5 2..1a3! White secures a Stronghold on
d6 for his knight, after 2...0-0 3:.-d2 ~a3
4.1183 Wg7 5.'*I'a2 a6 6.nb1 4:,e77.1ild6
136
,*,c7 White had strong pressure on the
queenside. For a decisive advantage a fi-
nal piece is needed. S.ttJe1! nbS 9.tDd3
~d710.tc.c5 Qc611.l:tab3 and White has
a nearly winning advantage. 11...f4 Des-
peration. 12:~td2 f3 13.gf3 ~b5 14.'.f4
and Black resigned, not even
prematurely.
Bosch-Greben
Amstelveen Candidates 1994
This example resembles the previous one
but contains an extra feature. It is useful to
see several typical ideas united in one ex-
ample. 1.~f5! ef5 2..Q.a3 Q.e6 3.0-0 g6
4.~fS r;pf8The first phase is completed.
Black's structure is broken up, and the
dark-squared bishops exchanged. Now
there follows a long knight manoeuvre.
S.eLla3 a6 6.ti::c2 WQ7 7.lL.el Planning
lbd3-c5/f4. 7•••b5 8.tZ:.d31t'cB 9.tC.f4lbe7
10. "'f3 %tb8 11.l:I.fbl l:I.b6 Again White
has concentrated his rooks on the open
files on the queenside. Now the time has
come to break through. 12.c4! 'ftc4
12...dc4 13.d5. 13:~e3 'ftcs 14.~cl
White lakes control of the open file.
14...~d715.:e5 :c816.~g3 Switching
to the kingside once again, where there
are no defenders. 16...1Ih817.!lac1 l:th6
18.l:1c7 We8 19.tL::ge61-0. White wins
material.
E Above (Bosch-Greben) we already saw
ii
Mortensen-Tisdall
Torshavn 1987
A characteristic middlegame posuion.
White has broken Black's pawn chain
with g4 and gf5. Black has succeeded in
developing all his pieces. White now tries
to exchange bishops. 1..~a3 ~g5 2.l2ld6
'*d6 3.'l!irg5~d8 Black has managed to
get rid of the knight, but he is nevertheless
horribly weak on the dark squares. 4.'ith6
a6 5·.nfbl!± bS 6.~c1! l:ta7 7.!la2 we8
8.tlba1 'itb6 9.'ith4 nf8 10.~a3 b4
11.~b4 tbb4 12.cb4 'it"b4 13J1a6 !laS
14.1%a6~c8 15.11a8 'ttb7 16.~b5 and
Black resigned.
U The lever c4
A standard way of attacking Black's
pawn chain, but one which should not be
used lightheartedly. The exchange of dc4
gives Black a useful square on dS, and in-
creases the power of Black's
light-squared bishop. Hence, when White
plays c3-c4 he must be sure that he is
opening the position to gain a quick ad-
vantage, otherwise the opponent's posi-
tional trumps will cause his downfall.
one good example of how the lever c4
may be used. here is another one.
Bosch-Vedder
Arnhem 1988
Black has succeeded in exchanging his
'bad' (French) bishop for White's
'good' one. However, the price has been
considerable for he is clearly behind in
development. Hence. the time has come
to open up Ihe position. 1.c4! e:,c7 2.cd5
tbd5 This knight is of course ideally
placed. According to Tarrasch one
badly placed piece means that the whole
position is bad. The reverse is not true as
can be seen from this example. One
good piece does not make for a good po-
sition. White has gained square c4 for
his knight from which it is ready to
jump to d6 after the exchange of bishops
137
(this should be familiar by now). 3k;c4 forces the win. 7....Q.e68.~'4 we8 9.~7
'ire7 4.~a3 tLib4 Otherwise the knight li::.a710.l:ta7 ~d711 ...t>d2
reaches d6. Now disaster strikes from an-
other side. 5.~b4 ~b4 6JUb1 fie7 Whi te
is fully developed and retrieved his slight
material investment with 7.tlJb6. White
soon won.

It! The lever g4

If Black wants to do something about his
lack of space and developing problems on
the kingside, then f5 is a good move. It is
in such positions that the lever g4 comes
into operation.
11 ... b6? Black is lost anyway, 1J...~b5
I 2J:te I 'tlt'f6 13.:e6 catches the queen.
12.l:tc7 Black resigned.

IV Gaining space on the klngside

To cramp Black even further, White may
decide to advance his h- or g-pawn. Usu-
ally Black stops g4 or the advance of
White's h-pawn with a timely h5. The
drawback is that Black's king will not
find a safe haven soon.

Halo-Jensen
Copenhagen 1990

This is in fact a position with great theo-

retical value. After I.e4 e6 2.~f3 d5 3.e5
c5 4.b4 cb4 5.a3 baJ 6.d4 lbc6 7.c3 ~d7
8.~d3 f5 the diagram is reached. White
now plays 1.g4! <£;ge7 2.g15 4';'5 3.l'i)g5
We7 A bad move. but nevertheless it was
suggested by Keres. Consult the theoreti-
cal section for alternatives. 4.liJa3 0-0-0
5.lLlb5 Or 5.~f5 ef5 6.0b5 ~b8 (6 ...ltJe5
Mortensen·Farago
7.cc,a7 Wb8 8.~f4) 7.e6 which transposes
Esbjerg 1985
to the game. 5...<.t>b86.~f5 ef5 7.e6! This

138
Black has developed his kingside, but
'forgotten' to play hS. 1.g4! tL.h4 l...lLlh6
can be answered by 2.~h6 or even more
simply by 2.h3. 2.tL.h4 j_h4 3.~d3 llJc6
4.0-0 ~e7 5.f4 and White has a nice ad-
vantage. althnugh Black later won.

Marten s-Krays
Sas van Gent 1996

While to move, should he retreat his

knight and lose time?
ViJf7! ~f7 2.• '3 wg7 3.~g6! ~f6
3...~e8(!) 4.Ad3 with good compensa-
Rahls·Danerud
Travemunde 1989
tion. 4.~g3 1:1g8 5.ef6 "f6 6.h5 'i5>h8
6...lDb3 7.Af4+-. 7.~f4 .tg7 8.~2
tt';c4 9.tt)c4 dc4 10.l:la3 White is better
The knight is badly placed on g6, and and later converted his edge.
While's h-pawn is itching to make a ca-
reer for himself. 1.h4 ttJa5 2.h5 tDt8
3."g5 1:1g84.1'16g61 4 ...lbg6 is stronger
hut White still holds a considerable ad-
vantage. 5.tbbd2 bS 6.~'6! 6J:tfa I lbc4
7 .~c4 bc4 and While is better but not
winning yet. The text is more devious.
6...0c4 7.~c4 bc4 8.'iWg7 Black re-
signed.

V Tactics
In a sharp line as the Wing Gambit tactics
Bucker·Uhlmann
are very important of course. Direct
blows may be necessary to destroy solid Bad Neuenahr 1991
French positions. In the next four exam- Black to move, can he take e5?
ples you can test your own ability. 1... ttJe5 2.ttJe5 j£,b5 3.~f7I ~f7 4 •• h5 96

139
 5.'¥fb5 ftb6 6.Wc4 6.~b6 6 ... ~g7 7.ab4
!:De78.~\a3 l:lhc8 9.'i!i'b3 tbd5 10.b5 a6
1Ulfe1 ab5 I J...'it>g8°o. 1 Vi~b5 l:lal
. 13.~a1 l%c614.~b2 ~f615.~a3
15...~c7? 16."'b4 e5 17.'I'f8 ~6
18.'l!fc8 ~d5 19.~d7 ~c4 20kc3
20.tL:d6. 20..JifaS 21.QfB ~a8 22.t;~4
'efe8 22 ...'~f8 23.r.tbl+-. 23.~£jd6lId6
24.~d6 \\f¥c625.d3 Black resigned.
Pedersen·Laursen
Vejle 1991
White to move, a knight move?
1.'2:a7!lla7 2.0\e6 we8 2...'~'e6 1.~b6
140
wd7 4J~a7 0a7 S.'~b7+-. 3.na7 0a7
4.tl:.f8 and Black resigned because of
4...;t>fR 5.'~a3.
Besch-Bergmann
Berlin 1991
Undoubtedly White is better after 1.'¥Pg7.
but is there something more forceful'>
1.tL:e6! ke6 2.4'.b5 ~b6 3.lL.d6 <j;d7
3.....tdR 4Jla5 4.I:la5 4.~g7 is equally
good. Black resigned after the text since
4...'$'a_') 5.ttg7 ~c6 (5.....t>d8 6.t!Jb7)
6.'i'b7 mates.
I hope your appetite is whetted while we
move on to the theory section.
 Theory
1. e4 e6 ing to be better in the resulting French
2. tLJf3 dS Advance structures that will arise.
2...c5 is a Sicilian of course, and other White's strongest option now is
moves make no sense. 5. e3!
3. e5 05 This forces Black to make another prepa-
Clearly best, other moves are passive. ratory move, because of the tactic
Thus, 3...b6 may be answered by 4.c3 5....b6? 6.~a6lL:.a6 7."a4. Other moves
(preventing ka6). and moves like 3. ..tZ::c 7 arc less convincing:
or 3...Ad7 can be answered by 4.04 (with 5.bc5?! bc5 6.c3 is sometimes played, bUI
a good French Advance) or 4.a3!?, keep- the pawn exchange favours the second
ing the option of 4...c5 5.b4!? player. If While insists on the exchange
4. b4!? he should try to change the pawn structure
with 6.c4 as happened for instance in
Rahls-Bohrn, San Bernardino 1982. I
don't have much faith in this plan.
With 5.a3 White wants to tempt Black
into taking the pawn on b4 after aiL The
second player will of course refrain from
taking it once again, and simply carry on
with his positional plan 5... L6. In
Dovzik-Matlak, Frydek Mistek Open
1996. Black was comfortable after 6.~a6
tDa6 7.~e2 [i;,c7 8.bc5 bc5 9.d4 c4
IO.~g5 0e7 11.0-0 h6':F.
Finally, Wind's recommendation of S.d4
We will now investigate: 4 ...b6 (chapter 1); is sometimes played. In my opinion,
4 d4 (chapter II); 4...c4 (chapter Ill); S...'ttd7 (5 ...~a6 is not bad either) is too
4 cb4 (chapter IV). srrong an answer.
5.... ir'd7
Inconsistent is 5.Ji;,e7 6.d4 c4 7.a4 a6
Chapter I 8.h4 h5 9.~g5± Barua-Naji, Asian Team
Championship. Dubai 1992.
4. ... b6 6. B3!?
A modest reply, yer Black has a sound po- In New In Chess Yearbook 9 Bucker con-
sitional idea in mind. He aims to ex- demned the text with a '?!' sign, but J can-
change the white-squared bishops. hop- not agree with {his harsh verdict. There is

141
an alternative available though in the
form of 6.lba3 (6.b5 and 6.bc5 are less se-
rious). The idea of 6.l'L2a3is that6 ...~a6 is
well answered by 7.b5, and 6 ...cb4 7.~b5
lUc6 8.cb4 seems playable because
8...~b4failsto9.'ih4lbge7 IO.lbd4. Be-
sides White prepares lDc2, followed by
d4 with a slight edge. A fine example is
Reinderman-LBoersma, Dutch Open
Championship. Dieren 1991: 6.0.a3 ~b7
7.tiJc2 0.e7 8...te2 tL\g6 9.d4 ..Q.a61O.h4
~e2 t Uj'e2 h5;!;. However, there is a
problem in the line 6.0.a3 eM 7 ..ib5 ttJc6
for after 8.cb4 Ithink that Black can sim-
ply play 8...a6! with an edge. In
Heiberg-Sorensen, Naesrved 1988,
White therefore tried the forcing 7 ..ib5
lDc6 8.ttJd4 ..o.b7 9.iVa4 0.ge7 but saw
now nothing better than lO.cb4 when af-
ter 1O... a6 I t.~c6 tLlc6 I VtJc6 ..o.c6
13.'i!i'b3 i.a4! Black already had a
considerable advantage.
With 6.a3 While has fortitied b4 and is
now ready to play d4 moving the game
into the waters of the French Advance.
6. ... .ia6
Much more critical is 6 ...d4?! to counter
White's positional plan. However, ac-
cording to an analysis of Mortensen this
move can be refuted. After 7.cd4! eb4
8.d5! "'d5 (Black cannot allow d6 of
course, and R...cdS 9.ab4.ib4 is too small
a material gain for the initiative that
White is going to develop) 9.ab4 .ib4(!)
Otherwise simply 0.c3 with a huge edge.
1O.'i!i'a4 tLlc6 II.~b5 ~d7! (1l... ... e4
l2.c;PfI ~d7 and White has 13.tbc3; now
12.~c6failsto 12...'ffc6whencl is hang-
ing) 12.0-0 0.ge7, the game
Mortensen-Bjerring, Denmark 1986,
142
ended peacefully after 13.~a3 ~a3
14.tbc3 iWc5 15.tUe4 'it'b4 16.0.<16~f8
17.l:ta3 ~a4 and so on. But, as Bjerring
pointed out to his opponent after the game
White could have played the remarkably
cool 13J%dl! when it is difficult to see a
playable move for Black in the face of
t4.ttJc3.
7. .ia6
Bad is 7.d3?! d4! as happened in
Bucker-Borngasser, Heiden 1987. Be-
cause of this game Biickergave6.a3 a '"!'
but it is his 7.d3 which is the culprit.
7. tile6
8. d4
Although the white-squared bishops have
been exchanged, While is still slightly
better because of his space advantage.
Bosch-Krans, Amstelveen 1992, contin-
ued lL.tLle7 9.0-0 tDc7~. Instead of
9...tijc7 Black can try 9...%k8,· when
10.• e2 improves upon IOJle I as played
in Salrnensuu-Sakalauskas, Helsinki
2002. Hendriks-Eveleens, correspon-
dence Dutch Championship 1993, ended
in a quick draw after 8...cd4 9.cd4 0,c7
10.0-0 a5 II.ba5 l:ta5 12...o.d2 tla7
l3.llic3 li~e7 14.-'Lc3 tLJl:6 15.~b3 ~e7 7...~b6 and not by 7...~aJ? 8.tba3 ~aS?
16.'i'b60-0 17.'tIfb3 l:b8 18.'tIfl:2 l:ta3; 9.li\c4.
but Black's optimistic play in this game 7. ~cS ~c5
could have been punished with 8. c3! (bc6
L4.'tIfb3!±. 9. cd4 tDd4
10. 'fi'a4 tDc6

Chapter II

4.... d4

After the text Mortensen feels that White

The idea of this line, and that of the next.
is to prevent White from forming the
powerfuL pawn chain c3-d4-e5. Though
hardly ever played, this line certainly de-
serves attention.
S. bcS .Q.cS
6. ~a3 ~aS
This move. although once played by
Kortchnoi, is not necessarily Black's best.
Mortensen gives 6...b6 7.~c5 bc5 8.lba3
which should certainly guarantee White a
slight edge. However, 6 ...<1':1.17
needs to be
investigated. In Los-Bosman, Dutch
Team Championshi p 1992, Black quickly
gained an endgame plus after 7.c3?! dc3
8.dd 4ih6 9.~cS?! tilcS 1O.~d8 ~d8
I I.LDa3~e7. An alternative on move 7 is
7.~b5 which should be answered by
gains the edge by II.ti"c3 planning tt:.c4.
He. therefore. gives I0...gd7(?) an excla-
mation mark. only to refute it in his subse-
quent analysis! So, 1O...~d7? (l.f¥d4
~cl 12.We2 xb5 13.d3! ~d3 (4.'itd3
'i'b2 15.ltJbd2 'ifal 16.~bS and White
should win.
11. 04.Jc3 tL',h6
Boersma- Konchnoi, Dutch Champion-
ship. Leeuwarden 1977. continued
II...'tWa5 12.'tIfa5l2Ja5 13.tbb5 and only
after a long game and several chances
missed Black won. Instead of 12:ih5
Boersma could have set his illustrious op-
ponent for serious problems with
12:.g4!
12. lLie4 '*b4
13. (LidS r:J;e7
We have been following
Bucker-Schmittdiel, German Champion-
ship. Bad Neuenahr 1991. That game

143
ended in a quick draw after 14.tfb4 tUb4
I5J:lb I tlJd5 16.~c4 (I6.tDc8 l:thc8
17.l:lb7 ~fR~) 16...tUb6 17.~d3. White
cannot prevent the queen swap with
14.'ilfc2 (instead of J4.'ikb4) because of
14...ltXI4!. In my opinion. White keeps a
pleasant endgame edge though with
14.~b5~ and now 14...'it'a4 l5.~a4 or
14...~d7 when there are several attractive
options available. Note that 14... 'ilfb2 is
losing after 15.~c6~ 'ilfa 1 J6.~e2 'ffh 1
(or 16..:il'b2 I7.Q\c4) 17.'~a3.
Chapter III
4. ..• c4
Conceding square d4 without a fight
looks bad. but Black intends to take on d3
after a future d3 or d4. thus forcing White
to cover e5 with his pieces. Moreover he
will lure the b4-pawn to b5 thus gaining
square c5 for his own pieces. Yet. in the
end I feel that Black's strategy should
prove insufficient.
5. c3
The alternative here is 5.a3. In
Los- Vaisser, Groningen Open 1991, there
followed 5...a5 6.b5 ~b6 7.d3 .Qc5?!
8.d4 ~e7 9.a4±. Thought-provoking is
the game Stripunsky-Moskalenko,
Ukraine Championship, Sirnferopol
1990. After 5...b5(!) 6.a4..tb4 7.ab5 'i'b6
8 ...Q_a3 ~a3 9'cila3 lLlh6 White went for
the piece sac lO.~c4!? dc4 Il.tiJc4 'fie?
12.ltid6 We? 13.0-0 xb7 14.c4 tLJd?
15.d4~ (see the study material).
5.... a5
Other moves are Jess good. For instance:
A) 5...f6'!! 6.d4 cd3 7.~d3 fe5 8.lL~e5
144
lbf6 9.~g5 ~d6 lO.f4 0·0 11.0-0 ltX6
12J:l:eI ± Kadas-Sugar, Tapolca 19R6.
B) 5. Jjje7 6.d3 cd3 7.~d3 tLxJ78.0-0
'iVc7 9.11el ttlg6 (9...lbc6 10:.we2 ~e7
11.~f4 a6 12.a4± Day-Ackermann, Ot-
tawa 1966) 1O.'ir'e2 ~e7 II.h4~±
Kadas-Horgosi, Jaszbereny 1977.
6. b5
Variation A
6. ... ~b6
6...~c5 7.d3 cd3 8.~d3 lUd7 9.0-0 0.c7
1O.'it'e2 h6 II.a4;1; Herrnann-Libeau,
Germany Bundesliga 1992.
7. d3!
7.a4 should be answered by 7 ...~c5(!)
8.d4 cd3 9.l:I:a2 and not by 7 ...lC.d7 8.d4
cd3 9.~d3 ~c5,!! 10.0-0 f5 II.tLlbd2 CiJe7
12.t~b3 0-0 13.tbbd4 ~g6 14.'iVe2±
Bucker-Vavra, Prague 1991.
7. cd3
Now 7 ~c5 is bad of course in view of
8.d4 ~e7 9.a4.
8. i.d3 ~d7
In Dovzik-Malar, Hlohovec Open 1996,
White gained a quick victory after
8...~c5 9.0-0 ~;,e7 lO.a4 t:jd7 I LtUbd2!?
(l1.'it'e2) II...0.g6 Now the following The critical position in which it is not
double pawn sacrifice is forced. 12.lDb3 clear how Black should continue. Let me
lbge5 13.tileS 0e5 14.tDc5 'e'c5 15 ..Q.a3 cite a few examples:
16'c3 16.~e2 lLle4 17.i.c4 ..we4 18.J:tc1 A) 8 .. :~c7 Black intends to pressur-
16'f4 19.93 'ffb8 20.:ael~/±. izee5. but this fails due to brilliant play by
9. a4 Ci:Je7 Mortensen. Her majesty should perhaps
10. 0-0 ~g6 keep an eye open for the march of White's
11. tt'e2 ~e7 h-pawn. 9.'~e2 CiJe7 10.0-0 .!tJg6 I Ukl
12. l:la2!?;t ~e7 12.h4! Qh4 13.ttjh4 CiJh4 14..Q.a3
Black has some problems because the with a very dangerous Initiative,
natural 12... 0-0'1 fails to 13.h4 tLlh4'! Mortensen- Hansen. Gausdal Zonal 1987.
14.tDh4 .ih4 15.'it'h5. Dovzlk-Ferenc B} 8 ...tl2;c5 9.xc2 CiJe7 10.0-0 tDf5
Portisch, Nagykanizsa 1994, therefore Il.ttjd4 g6~,! 12.tbd2 i.d7 13.a4 lieS
continued with 12... f6, see the study ma- 14.tU2f3 $..e7 15.l,lel h5 16.g3 Wf8
terial. 17.h4, Dovzik-Feher, Budapest 1992.
and now instead of the incorrect
17 tlJe4'! Black should have played
Variation B 17 ~g7 18.~f4~ (Dovzik).
C) 8...ttJe7 9.0-0 ttJg6 1O.'ife2 ~e5
6. ... !:tld7 II Jtc I 0-0 12.a4 sa is not a bad try for
In my opinion this is stronger than Black, Martens-Romero Holmes, Wijk
6...~b6. The queen is more usefully aan Zee II 1991.
placed on the diagonal b8-h2, and is still D) Finally. what to make of the fol-
useful on d8 as well often preventing h4. lowing? For 8...f6!? 9...wc2!? ltJe5
7. d4 lO.ttJe5 feS Il.xh7 ~d6 12.~g8 Ag8
Or7.d3 13.c4 "Wie7 14.ila3 .ib4 Naer-
7. cd3 Moskalenko, Moscow 1995, I also refer
8. ~d3 to the section study material.
In my opinion the final two examples de-
X ..t'iV~..t~:i serve to be studied carefully. Still, the
only way to refute a gambit is hy accept-
i ~ iii ing it! Therefore we will now move on to
i 4...cb4.
i~
Chapter IV

4.... cb4
Black lakes up the gauntlet. White can
continue 5.d4?~ (A) or 5.a3(!) (B).

145
 Vartation A
5. d4?!
This move is not advisable. The main rea-
son for including it here is that the dia-
grammed position often arises by transpo-
sition from the Sicilian Wing Gambit (l.e4
c5 VOf3 e6 3.b4 cb4 4.d4 d5 5.e5 or even
l.e4 c5 2.b4 cb4 3.d4 e6 4.lLlf3 d5 5.e5).
5.d4 is less forcing than 5.a3, and it weak-
ens the diagonal c l-a5. This means that
after a future '¥fa5, White will have diffi-
culties removing the b4 pawn (ba3 will be
check. and ab4 will never be a threat be-
cause of the pin anyway). Black seems to
have two equally good lines at his dis-
posal. In Variation Al (5 ...02:e7) Black
manages to complete his development,
and in Variation A2 (5 ...Ad7) he is able to
exchange the white-squared bishops
without compromising his position.
Variation A1
5.... Cue7
Apart from 5...~d7 and the text there are
146
several interesting options available:
A) 5...Wa5 6.~b2 b3 7.c3 ba2 8.ltJbd2
i.d7 9.'¥i'b3 lDc6 lO.na2 "fi'c7 and White
didn't have enough compensation in
Rahls-Schulz, Germany Bundesliga
1994.
B) 5... b6 is an immediate attempt to
gel rid of the French bishop. After 6.~h5
~d7 7.~d3 tLlc6 8.0-0 Ct2ge7 9.lbbd2
lOg6 10.g3 It.e7 11.1140-0 l2.tiJb3 a5
Black was better in Rahls-Hodgson, Biel
Open 1992. Stronger is Heirning's sug-
gestion of6.a3 ..aa6 7.&a6lLa6 8.c3~.Af-
ter 8...b3 9.~b3 'iVd7 While possibly has
a slight edge.
C) 5...~c6 6.a3 and now 6 ....£d7 will
transpose to 5.a3. However. 6...f6!? may
well be stronger. After7.ab4 both 7...~b4
8.c3 ~a5 and 7...fe5 8.b5 tL;d4come into
consideration. Also not bad is ~...'¥i'a~
7.~d3 ba3 8...Q.d2.Q..b49.c3 $"e7 lO.lOa3
~a3 11.'i'b3~/=. Cuartas-Hug,
Dortmund 1980.
6. 83 ~\ec6
This is the point. Black develops his
knights to c6 and d7 and his bishop to c7,
thus avoiding a cluttering of pieces on the
kingside. In the game Stein-Bukal, the game Barendregt-Bronstein, Euro-
Dortmund II 1987 6 ... "ifa5 7.~d3 tDbc6 pean Team Championship, Hamburg
8.0-0 ~d7 9.ttJbd2 "ifc7 1O.l%el h6 turned 1965, 6.~d3 was played. After 6 ...tt:Je?
out to be in Black's favour too. (6 ...WaS!,! planning ~b5) 7.a3 ~bc6
7. ab4 jLb4 R.ab4 tUb4 9..£e2 ~f5 10.c3 0.c6, Black
8. c3 fLe7 was better.
9. ~d3 ttJd7 6.... 'ifa5
6..:i!t'c7 7.ab4 ~b4 8.d ~c3 9.lC.c3 'tIt'c3
1O.~d2 'ftc? 11..Q.d3 tLlc6 12.0-0 ttJge7+
Helmig-Moller, Germany Bundesliga
1982.
7. ~d3 fJ..bS

The critical position. 10.0-0 tt:Jb6

11.tt:Jfd2 a6 12.....g4 g6 (Chapu-Radu,
Cappelle la Grande )995) is better for
Black, as was 10.0-0 0-0 I U:1el ~e8
12.fLf4 tL:flH (Wubs-Barsov, Zwolle
1993).
This means that White will have to play
more aggressive on the kingside with
iO.h4!'!.ln Rahls-Putzbach, Travernunde
1987. there followed 1O.. .f6'? I J.tbg5!
fg5 12.'ti"h5 Wtll13.hg511t'el$ 14.g6 h6±
(Bucker). So. Black must improve upon
10.. .f6.
Variation A2
s. ... .id7(!)
6. a3
White can hardly do without this move. In
With simple means Black is claiming a
material and a positional edge. Since
8.ab4 'ilVal 9.ii.b5 tUc6 10.~d2 .b2
1 l.c3 as gives insufficient compensation
for the exchange (Day-Hubner, World Ju-
nior Championship, Jerusalem 1%7),
White must allow the exchange of bish-
ops: 8.0-0 j(d3 9.~d3 tt'a6 1O.'ifb3 tbc6
11.'ir'b2 'ir'b6=l=1+, Vedder-Poulton,
Gausdal 1990.
It is possible that some improvement may
be found upon White's play in one of
these lines. However. since nearly all
variations are favourable for Black find-
ing one improvement is simply not

147
enough. Hence, my conclusion that 5.d4 7.ab4 ~b4 8.c3 ~e7 9.d4 ~f7 IO.~d3,
is unplayable. Black should continue 10...<1)c6(as indi-
$0 let us examine 5.a3. cated by Bucker). and after II.g4 g6
when I doubt whether White has suffi-
cient compensation. Instead of IO...1Dc6
Variation B the game Bucker-Roblmann. Lengerich
1987 continued IO.....ad7?! II.g4 fg4
S. a3 12.tbg5 ~gS B.hg5 with an advantage
The lines now diverge. The main lines are for White.
Variation 84 and Variation 85 but the al- 6. ~b4
ternatives are not without interest. 7. c3 ~e7
8. d4 lLJf5
9. g4!
Also possible is Y..ad3 ttJc6 lO.g4 ttJh4
J l.tLih4..Q.h4 12.0-0 which transposes to,
and was in fact the move order used in
Mortensen-Tisdall, see below.
9. ci;h4
10. ltJh4 ~h4
11. Qd3 t'i;c6
Bad is J J... h5? as after J2.gh5 the move
J3.~g4 will be unpleasant 10 meet. In-
teresting is I l...f6!? which led to un-
Bl) 5...~h6 clear play in the game
B2) 5...'~aS Salrncnsuu-Zilbcrrnan, Panormo 200 I,
B3) 5 d4 after 12.0-0 0-0 13.f4 feS 14.de5 JJ.e7
B4) S ti·,c6 6.ah4 ~b4 7.c3 15.'iVc2 ~c5 16.!it>g2"h4.
B5) 5 ba3 6.d4ti\c6 7.c3 Qdn.~.d3 12. 0-0

Variation 81

S. ... ci;h6
Uncommon but not illogical. Black sim-
ply wants to develop his kingside. It turns
out that he is unable to consolidate his po-
sition in this way. although energetic play
is required to prove this.
6. ab4
Less natural is Bucker's 6.h4. After 6...f5

148
White has a nice game, he is ready to con- Ihave selected this prophylactic move of
tinue with f4-f5. Black, on the other hand, the Dane Kjeldsen as the main line. A nat-
will have to retrieve his bishop at some ural idea is 6...~d7, again aiming to ex-
point and is lacking a clear plan: change the white-squared bishops. White
A) 12...0-0 13.f4 !Ji..e7 14.gS!? g6 should continue quietly with 7.!iLe2.
15.nO wg7 16.h4 :th8 17.h5 h6 18.hg6 when he is better after 7 ...~h5 8.0-0 ~e2
hg5 19.fg5 fg6 20JU6~ Wil- 9. 'ft'e2 12Jc6 (9 ...~e7 10.ab4±
liams-Grechihin, Bled 01 2002 (via trans- Bosch-Rubingh, Dutch Junior Champi-
position). onship, Hilversum 1988) lO.ab4 .b4
B) 12...~e7 13.£4 ~d7 14.t2ld2 fic7 I uh3 fic4 12.d3 tr'g4 13.~f8~ Mar-
15.~a3 ~a3 16.1:la3, see tens-Prakken, Dutch Team Champion-
Mortensen-Farago, Esbjerg 1985; White ship 1993.
is better but Black should now have con- 7. ab4
tinued 16...0-0-0 according to Also playable is 7.~e2 ~d7 8.0-0 a6
Mortensen. 9.~d4 ~c7 10.ab4 .ib4 II.c3 iie7
C) 12...f5(?) 13.gf5 ef5 14.'it'h5 g6 12.~b3 with compensation, Bosch-
15.1i'h6~n 16.tiJa3i..e717.ttJb5.ie6±, Kjeldsen. Tamowsky Gory 198ft
see Mortensen-Tisdall, Torshavn 19R7. 7. ~b4
For the final part of the game see the sec- 8. ~d4 ~c5
tion on general ideas. 9. ~c5 1fe5
D) 12...g6 13.£4 1'5 14.ef6 !Ji..f6 is a 10. d4 'fiIe7
suggestion of Mortensen who feels that 11. i.d3
While may either continue quietly with
15.tL'-d2 or aggressively with 15.g5 YJ..g7
16.h4.

Variation B2

5. ... ~a5
Black prevents ab4 and wants to restrain
his opponent on the queenside. In Varia-
tion A (5.d4) we saw the same idea. There
it was stronger because of the discovered
threat of check. White has compensation for the sacri-
6. ~b2 ficed pawn. Kjeldsen twice reached this
White covers the rook and plans a future position as Black. In the first game he
ab4. A transposition to Variation A occurs played II. ..a6 12.0-0 tUc6 13.lDa3 lc,a5
after 6.d4. while 6...te2 is interesting. (l4.tZlb5 was a threat) 14.... e2
6. ... "'b6!? Christensen-Kjeldsen, Arhus 1988. The

149
second time he went for the h-pawn with Championship 1991, went 9.0-0 tOe7
II...h6 12.0-0 i..d7 13.tba3 lO.d3 0-0 II.tLJbd2 b6 IV2Je4 ..Q.b7+.
Alkarsig-Kjeldsen, Arhus 1989 (see the White should perhaps seek refuge in the
study material). messy 9.ife2 tUe7 lO.c30-0 1Ula4 i..d7
12.cd4 ~b4 13.lDc3
Reinderrnan-Ronneland, Hallsberg jr
Variation 83 1991.
B) 7 ...Q.a3.ia3! 8.lLJa3lLJe7 9 ...Q.d3(as
5.... d4 9.!i:lb5 ~bc6 10.tiJd6 ~f8 is nothing for
White) 9 ... 1Z1g6 10.0-0 lLlc6 1Ute I 0-0
and Black's concept has succeeded: Mar-
tens-Djurhuus, World Junior Champion-
ship. Santiago 1990.
C) 7.~d3ttJc6~.U-OtUge7l)JleltOg6
10.i..a3 Aa3 11.lL.a3 0-0 was equally un-
convincing in Besch-Lilley, York 1995.
7. de3
8. 'it' a4 tUe6
9. de3
Quite an unclear position. Black is a pawn
up. but White's queen is ready to switch to
the kings ide with ~g4 and he may get
Djurhuus' pet line. Black gains space in some pressure on the open files. 1suspect
the centre and prevents the typical ad- that White does not have quite enough.
vance French pawn chain (c3-d4-e5). He but there is certainly room for improvisa-
hopes to isolate the e5-pawn. and win it at tion. See Reinderman- Tondivar,
some point. This is indeed a dangerous Leeuwarden 1995 in the study material.
idea. White has two alternative roads to
travel on.
Variation 832

Variation B31 6. ..Q.b2 lDc6

7. i..bS i.d7
6. ab4 ..Q.b4 8. 'fie2
7. e31? Worthy of investigation is 8.0-0. After
Sacrificing a pawn 10 get the queen into 8 ...tLJe59.t;"e5 .tb5 White has 1O.lbf7 (see
play. The alternatives are bishop moves, Bueker-Uhlmann, Bad Neuenahr 1991 in
but none of them is particularly good: the section on general ideas).
A) 7..sib2 tOc6 8.~b5 ~c5 promises Dovzik-Kecskes, Eger Open 1994 went
little. Los- Vanheste, Semifinal Dutch 8...ba3 instead, and after 9.ltJa3 ~c5

150
10.ltJc4 0.ge7 II.tLld6 ~d6 12.ed6 tDf5 Variation B4
13.~d3 0-0 14.j(_fS efS IS.tLld4 0.d4
16.~d4 ~bS I7 .lie I a draw was agreed 5. ... ~c6
upon. 5 ... £d7 6.ab4.i.b4 7.c3 has no independ-
8. ... a6 ent value. Black cannot do without 0.c6
9. .tc6 anyway.
Bad is 9.~d3 ~c5 lO.ab4 tUb4 II..~d4 6. ab4 ~b4
.td4 12.tDd4 ~b6 13.~e4 tljd3 14."iYd3 6 ... ttJb4 7.c3 ctJc6 8.d4 transposes to Vari-
'it'b2 Gausel-Djurhuus, Norwegian ation B42.
Championship, Bronnoysund 1990. 7. c3
9. .Q.c6
10 . .!(jd4
11. Ug1
.Q.g2
K .t~. ~E
.t..t. i.t.i
~ i
it::.

Now Black must withdraw his bishop. the

An interesting position with roughly
equal chances has arisen. The game
Re-Miana, Semifinal Argentinean Cham-
pionship, Rosario 1992 was drawn after
II...~d5 12.ab4 '*h4 13.c4 ifh2 14.~fl
..wh5 15.~e I 'i'h2 16.,.pfl 'it'h3 17.<;tteI
'ith2. While in Santos-Dias, City Cham-
pionship. Lisbon 1996, White quickly
gained the edge after 1l...ba3 12.lZ:a3
~d5 l3.c4 (13.ttJab5 ab5 14.'it'b5 ~c6
15.ltc6 J:ta\ J6 ...Q.al bc6 17."'c6 'W'd7
18.• a8 'it'd8 is only equal, Djurhuus
1990) 13...• b6 14.cd5 'ifb2 J5.tOac2
.i.c516.de6..id417.ef7<;t;>f7l8."c4+-.
question is where 10? If he wants to de-
velop his g8-knight via e7. then ..iaS or
~f8 should be played.
On a5 the bishop does not obstruct the de-
velopment of the kings ide, and is eying
c 3. The drawback is that he might be lack-
ing a defender on the kings ide .
Putting the bishop on its original square is
hardly consistent
If Black wants to play in this way he
should prefer 5 ... ba3 6.d4 tL.c6 7.<.:3, for in
that case there is still a Black pawn on a3!
To my mind ~e7 is most logical, yet this
leaves the problem of the g8-knight
which will probably have to be developed
now via h6.

151
 Variation B41
7. ... ~a5
B. d4 llJge7
Most logical. Black completes his
kingside development as fast as possible.
Still, other moves are not without interest.
A) 8..... c7!? Black is playing for a
trick, obstructing the natural 9..id3 be-
cause of 9...~d4 1O.~d4 ~c3 11.~d2
'iYe5 12.ltJe2 .ia 1 and White has lost too
much material, although he won quickly
in Padovani-Paetz, Berkeley 1984. Much
better is 9.~a3. though, when White's po-
sition is preferable.
B) 8...f5. This gains space but weak-
ens the dark squares on the kingside
which makes the absence of the bishop
felt. Heiberg-Rudolph, Women
Interzonal Malaysia 1990, went 9.~g5 g6
(9 ...tlJge7(!) 1O:~h5 g6 11.~h6 lD<i4
12.'i"g7
with great complications is worth investi-
gating for Black) lO.lbh3 ~d7 unclear.
Simpler is 9..td3 0,ge7 10.0-0 (lO.g4?
fg4 11.tLlg5 h6!) JO... ~d7 11.tt:.g5 0-0
12.M h6 13.c1\h3~e8 14.0,f4 ~f7 15.h5
and While had plenty of compensation
152
for the pawn in Bosch-Sims, Swansea
1987.
C) 8...f6 9.~d3 ljjge7 (9 ...a6 10.0-0
b5 II.~d2 ~b7 12.~e I f5 l3.g4~.
Hoiberg-Hassan, Moscow Olympiad
1994) IO.ef6 gf6 1J..th6 ~g6 12."c2
'ike7 13.0-0 ~d7 14.~bd2 with excellent
compensation in Bosch-Beulen, Dutch
Junior Championship, Hilversum 1989.
D) 8... ~d7 9...Q.d3 f5 10.h3 was
Levi-Reeves. Australian Championship,
Melbourne 1994. Also possible are
10.0-0 or 1O.h4.
9. ~d3
9. ... h6(!)
I like this move for Black. With the bishop
on as he needs 10 control as many dark
squares as possible on the kingside as I
have already pointed out. There is also an-
other good reason for this move: it pre-
vents the classical bishop sacrifice on h7!
Thus, 9 ...0-0? fails to 10.~h7! 9;h7
II.lLlg5
A) 1l...9;g~ l2 .... h5 ~e8 13:.h7 (or
13.~a3) 13...o;t.;.f814.'ikh8 tOgS 15.(tJh7
r/;;e716.i..g5+-.
B) II...<ot>g612.h4! ~b6 13.~g4 .!Df5
14.h5 ~h6 IS.lbe6 9;h7 and now White
wins with 16.h6! or with 16.1lff5!. After with excellent chances. Black realized
the latter move Black resigned in the cor- this in Bosch-Claesen, European Junior
respondence game Dormann-Pollen, Championship, Arnhem 1989. and there-
1991. 16...~g8 17.h6! wins for White. fore played the prophylactic 1O...h5. Nev-
Bosch-Walsh, Plymouth 1989 went 9 ... a6 ertheless he was worse after II.tlJa3 g6
10.0-0 b5!? (Black wants to destroy the 12.~bS Qe7 )3.~fS cf5 14..ia3. See the
pawn chain) Il.ttJfd2!? b4 I2.tDb3 ~b6 section on general ideas for the rest of the
13.'il'g4 ~g6 (13 ...0-0) 14..tg5 with game.
compensation. Perhaps even stronger was Reinderman-Gokhale, Oakham 1992,
14.~b5!? saw 8...f6 9.i.d3 fe5 I O.ttJe5 ttJe5 II.deS
10. 0-0 as Ci:Je7 12.~g5 with an unclear position.
11. .Q.a3 IO.de5 is probably to be preferred.
Gaining space with II.h4!? comes into 9. Ad3 h6
consideration. Again this move is playable.
11. ~d7 A) 9 ... ttJgc.7 1O.h4 hS 11.0.g5 tLJf5
12. 93 b5 12.~f5 ef5 13.jLa3 should by now be a fa-
13. .ics .Q.b6 miliar idea. See Bosch-Greben,
14. ~b6 ~b6 Amstelveen 1994, in the section on gen-
15. ttJbd2 eral ideas.
With compensation. Westerinen- B) 9...f5 1O.g4 should be compared to
Brinck-Claussen, Esbjerg 1978. See the Variation BS. Now 1O... fg4? II.tbg5 tlih6
study material. IVi\h7 Ci:Je713.~h6 gh6 14.0.f6 is bad,
Vinzenz-Kappelt, DUsseldorf 1990.
1O... tL\ce7 is spectacular (1O ...ttJge7
Variation 842 transposes to Variation B5) 1I.h3?! a6?!
l2.lt~g5 tLih6 13.tbe6!? ~e6 14.~h6 gh6
7. ... ~f8 15.gf5, La Rota-Reyes, New York Open
As I stared above, this set-up is inconsis- 1988.
tent. In Variation 85 Black gets the same
position with a. admittedly soon to be
confiscated. pawn on a3. Still it takes time
to actually capture the pawn. and White
often prefers to postpone either tba3 or
~a3 until Black has laid some of his cards
on the table.
8. d4 ~d7
Dzindzichashvili once played ILlbge7
9.~d3 [1)f5 10.0-0 1e7
(Ansel-Dzindzichasbvili, New York
1989), when White 'forgot' to play II.g4!

153
Dankert-Karpov, Munich 1979, now (1O.~h6) 10..liJn I J.g4 g6 12.gf5 ef5
went 10.0-0 CfJge7 Il.g3 a6 I2.lDh4 g6 ] 3.h4~, Martens-Lempert, Hyeres Open
13.~e3 b5 14.tZJd2 tt2a5. Stronger is 1992.
IO.h4. For example, 1O...a6 II.h5 CUa7 B) R...tDh6 9.i..h6 (9.h4 is preferred
12.liJa3 CUe7 13.CUh4~. Drazic- by Wing Gambit expert Dovzik) 9... gh6
Giocastro, Callolica 1990.

Variation 843

7. ii..e7
8. d4

I. .t~ •.. g
i' .tiii
.. i
10.'tWd2 (IO.'@'cl srs I J.~d3 .Rd7
i~ 12.0-0 is rather similar, Drnitriev-
f3 Shliakhtin, Podolsk 1992; I0.~d3 f5
11.'~'d2 ~g5 Reinderman-Andriessen,
Netherlands 1992. should be answered by
12.'li'b2 planning 13.h4) IO_..~f8
II.~d3 ~d7 12.0-0 with unclear play and
compensation for the pawn, Peelen-
Again we are at a crossroads: Hoeksema. Semifinal Dutch Champion-
8431) 8...f6 ship. Enschede 1990. Answering 8...11\h6
8432) 8.. .'~c7 with 9.~d3 is not a bad idea either. After
8433) 8... ~d7 9...f5 White continues 10.~h6 and after
9...tbf5 with 10.0-0, when 10...0-0 II.g4
should he a familiar reaction by now.
Variation 8431 9. ii..d3 fe5
10. ~e5
8.... f6 In my opinion, 10.de5 is stronger. After
Glek's favourite line. This move is played 1O tbh6 11.~h6 gh6 12.... d2(!) is best
by grandmasters only. Hence, it deserves (I2 ~g5 13.~e2 planning 14.h4). In-
serious consideration. stead the game K.S(;hmidt- Vaiser, Paris
The following moves are not main lines: 1990. continued 12.0-0 0-0 13.~a3 l:tf7
A} 8... f5 9.~d3 tUh6 10.h3!? 14.~el .Rd7 15.tt2bd2 ~h8 16.tt:.fL'*'g8

154
17.lDg3 J:taf8 18.c4l:H3!+. A) 9 .. .fS lO.tUa3 (normally speaking
10. .!Lif6 you would postpone this move, but with
11. ~g5 tL.e5 the queen on c7 is definitely a thought)
12. deS tDe41 IO..JiJh6 11..~h6 gh6 12.• d2 O-o'!
13. iLe7 'iWe7 I3.lbb5 'ti'd8 14.• h6±. Barendregt-
14. ~e4 de4 Bonkenburg, Beverwijk 1966.
15. 'Wd4 0-0 B) 9 ...f6 1O.'\i'e2 (10.0·0 fe5 Il.deS
ttJe5 l2.ttJe5 'fVe5 13.~b5 Wf8 14.f4 and
White should not have enough for two
pawns, although he won in Lahti-
Haapamaki, Kuopio Kalakukko 1987;
1O.~f4!'!) IO...fe5 1l.de5lL::h6 12.~6 gh6
unclear Nyholm-Si.Maus, Lyngby 1988.
10. 0-0

Normally speaking White aims for good

knight versus 'had' light-squared bishop
in the French. But here something clearly
has gone wrong. The knight is crippled (it
lacks useful squares to jump to) whereas
the 'bad' bishop is a giant. Black has the
advantage after both l6.J:ta7 ~a7 17.'ih7
'iWgS. Buturin-Glek, Belgorod Open Black has not completed his kingside de-
1989, and l6.~e4 .Rd7 17.~e3 .Rb5. velopment yet, and should therefore be
Rcindcrman-Glck, Groningcn 1992. worse:
A) 10... Ci.Jh6 is once again answered
by I 1.~h6:
B) IO... tba5 ) I.ti).g5 fS 12.lia3 tbc4
Variation 8432 13.~e7 Ct:,e7 14.~h5 g6 15.'i'h6 tDc6
16..i.c4 dc4 17.~a3 liJa5 UtltJe6!,
8.... Wc7 Bosch- Bergmann, Berl in 1991. See the
A common move-order to reach this posi- section on general ideas.
sa.
tion is 6 ... 'i!¥c7 7.04 ~b4 S.c3 C) 1O... f5 and now several moves
9. ~d3 ~d7 come into consideration II.lt':;g5
Sometimes Black touches the I-pawn: (Hoiberg-Petek, Thessaloniki Olympiad

155
198&), l1.g4?! (Stock-Nissen. Germany
1990), II.h4!?, 11.4\a3!?
Variation 8433
8. ~d7
9. ~d3
Certainly the most popular tabiya posi-
tion after 5...ttJc6. The correct evaluation
of this position is probably roughly equal.
Hence, this is not a bad line for Black. On
the other hand, White need not exactly
fear this set-up either: he gets sufficient
compensation for the pawn, and is proba-
bly more familiar with the resulting posi-
tions than his opponent.
H lack has a choice of four logical moves:
B4331) 9 ...£5 to forego White's play
on the kings ide;
B4332) 9 a6
B4333) 9 l:tc8
84334) 9 tba5
The final three moves all aim to start
counterplay on the queenside.
156
In Ganbold- Villamayor, Istanbul 012000,
Black was severely punsihed for playing
9...1It'c7?!. The game continued: 10.~f4
rs Il.g4 fg4 l2.~g5 ~g5 13.~g5 1!tf7
14.1Wg40,ge7 15.l::tgl lDf5 16.lDa3 0-0
17.0,h5 ~h8 18.~h3 h6 19.iH6!! A lo-
vely finish! Black rightly threw in the to-
wel (we leave the reader to check the lines
for himself).
Variation 84331
9. ... 15
10. h4
It is not quite clear whether this is best.
lO.g4? fg4 I I.lUg 1+ Dannevig-Scholler
Larsen, Copenhagen 1990, is too rash.
The modest 1O.h3 should not be an-
swered by 1O...a6':' II.g4 t6a5 12.gf5 ef5
13.lIgl ± (Lucaroni-Werner, Budapest
1991), but by 10... hS!
However, W.O-Ocould well be best. After
1O...ttJh6, White should play 11.~h6 gh6
12.~d2~ rather than II.J:teI?! O-O?!
(1I ...tuf7 12.~f5 ef5 I3.e6 0-0+)
12.~h6 gh6 I3.~cl Cherkasov-
Kakabadze, Naberezhnie Chelni 198R.
10. ... h5(T)
This looks odd. but it effectively stops
some of White's standard manoeuvres.
The first player should now seek compen-
sation for his pawn deficit by exchanging
the dark-squared bishops, hoping to infil-
trate the weakened squares gS and d6 at
some point. Still, I don't think that Black
is in trouble here. e.g. II.tDg5?! g6
12.l:th3 ~h6 13J~g3 ttJf7 14.~e2,
Prokhorov-Kiseleva, Yalla 1995. Or and now either 12...0-0-0, Van
1Uig5 g6 12.0-0 lDh6 13.~b3 .Yt.c8 Voorthuijsen-De Ruiter, Netherlands
14.lLla3 CiJf7 IS.i.e7 "ike7 16.'iJb5 and 1991, or 12...t?lf5. Peelen-Biebinger,
now it should not be too difficult to im- Groningen 1990.
prove over the suicidal 16...g5?
Htinerberg-Schulle. Braunschweig 1986.
Variation 84333

Variation 84332 9.... :c8

10. h4
9.... a6 Again White has to choose between h4 or
This is a bit slow. although a6 is nearly al- castling kingside. Patrick Chandler was
ways a useful move. once successful with the latter: 10.0-0 a6
10. h4 'iWc7!? 1l.tbel !? CiJa7 12.~g4 (this sortie is the
After 10 ... hS II .lUgS ~gS 12.hgS g6 both point of ~el) 12...g6 D .• g3 ~bS
13Jlli4 'i'c7 14.g4, Bosch-Schult, Dutch 14.i..e3 .td3 lS.~d3 (P.Chandler-T.Mul-
Team Championship 1989 and the imme- ler. Moscow Open 1990, 1-0,27). How-
diate 13.g4 h4 J4.tbd2, Bosch-De Wolf. ever, Black seems to be quite OK at this
Antwerp 1991, are possible. stage.
11. ttJg5 10. ... 'fIc7
Not II.lba3 ~c8 of course, but the text The alternatives are not worse:
looks strong in view of ll...h6 l2.'i-'h5. JO .. .tba5 11.~g5 ~b6 12.~c2 h5
However. since Black can give back the I3.ft'f3 i.gS 14.hgS tLlb3, Nieuwelink-
pawn with reasonable play. Il.h5!'! or Brenninkmeijer. Dutch Championship
11.n-O!? may well be better. semi-final, Eindhoven 1988. See the
11. ~h6(!) study material.
12. tDh7 1O...a6 I U:t.h3?' h6 12.~g3 ~f8
13.'~fJ t;",a5 14,~g I 'it'b6, Spraggeu-
Ross, Canadian Zonal 1989. See the
study material.
11. ~f4?! 'iWb6
12. 0-0 ~b2
13. .aa4 a6
14. tL.g5 h6
15. 'i'h5 tt.;d8
16. ~c1 'iWb3
17. .aa1 ~b5
And Black was slightly better in Cuartas-
U.Geller, Siegen Olympiad 1970.

157
 Variation 84334 And despite the exchange of the
light-squared bishops. White has nice
9. ... tba5 compensation for the pawn in
10. h4 Reinderman-Pliester, Purmerend 1993.
IO."c2?! 'tWb6 I J.~bd2 ~b5, Bucker- Black is unable to extricate his knight and
Breutigarn. Germany Bundesliga 1993, rook on the kingside without making con-
was good (or Black. The alternative for cessions.
the text is of course 10.0-0. After 10...a6
I J.Cilbd2 1:k8 l2.1ub3 tUc4 13Jte I h5
14.tilfd2!? was an original way of getting Variation 85
play for the pawn, Rahls-Breutigam, Ger-
many Bundesliga 1995. No less original 5.... ba3
was Il.ttJel?! h5 12.1:1a2(the start of a
dubious and time-consuming plan)
12...l:lc8 13J:te2 tijh6 14.11e3 g6 15.l:rh3
~c6 16.g4 Wd7 but the resulting position
clearly favours Black, Bucker-Hort, Ger-
man Championship. Bad Neuenahr
1991).
10.... a6
White had a slight edge in
Reinderman-Vogel, Eindhoven 1989, af-
ter IO...tDc4 I 1.~~g5 ttJh6 12.tDh7.
11_ 0-0 .Q.b5
12. 1:[a2 ~d3
13. 1i'd3 t2.\c4 6. d4
14. h5! Some players prefer 6.c3li\c6 7 .d4. There
is little wrong with this move order. On
the other hand, it is not quite clear exactly
what they are avoiding. since 6.d4 ~a5 is
well-answered by 7...Q.d2(hut indeed not
7.c3 a2!).
6.... t;',c6
A) Black should not try to give
6...~d7 independent value (of course
there is nothing wrong with 6...~d7
7.~d3 tLlc6 8.d). After 7..id3 both
7...~h6 8.0-0 ..Q..b59 ..!L~a3:.td3 1O:~d3
tL:a6 II .c4, Bosch- Vedder, Amhem 11:188
(see the section on general ideas) and
7...~c6 &.0-0tLld79.tDa3 tUe7 10.~g5 g6 lO.~d3 0,ge7 11.0-0 tDg6 12.~c1 ..Q.d7
11.~f3 tN5 J2.~f5 gf5 13.tDe6!. 13.h4! happened in Rahls-Danerud,
Jakobsen-Boe, Arhus 1992. are favour- Travemiinde 1989. See the section on
able for White. (In the lauer game, how- general ideas.
ever, While quickly went wrong after B) 7../1~ge7and now &.~d3! is best
13...lDe5 14.'Wf5? instead of the superior (8...tUg6 9.h4!). Bad is 8.~a3 ors s.srs
14.'Wh5±). tOf8 IO.j_d3 f6 II.0,a3 feS 12.ttJe5lDe5
Interesting. however, are: 13.deS ti.Jg6:j:,Bosch-Blees, Dutch Open
B) 6...a2!? 7.:a2 'Wb6 8.~a3 ..ta3 Championship. Dieren 1998. A slightly
9.:a3 ~d7 lO.c3 Ci;,e7, T.Hjorth- better way to take a3 is 8.4·'a3 ~d7 9.~d3
Siepenkouer, Aalborg Open 1991. (Cuartas-Calderon, Skopje Olympiad
C) 6 ...ti~h6 7.d4 ti)f5 8.~d3 ttlc6 9.h4 1972), when Black should improve on
(9.0-0) 9..:*a5 IO.~a3 ~fd4 II.tZ}d4 9... 0,g6.
lDd4 )2.~f8!? Naer-Rapoport, Moscow C) 7 ...1'5 8...Q.dJq)h6 9..lith6 (9.l:lgl'!!
Open 1994. !;.e7 I O.~h6 gh6 II.g4 fg4 12.l:lg4 'illa5
7. c3 13.'ft'b3 "'b6! Djurhuus-Hellsten, Asker
1997) 9...gh6 IO.tba3;!;. Bosch-K.Mi.iller,
Amhem 1988 and Bosch-Peelen,
Arnstelveen 1994.
8. it.d3 fe5
8...g6 9.0-0 reS IO.tDc5 It::.e5II.de5 ~g7
12.~el Ct_\e7 13.h4°o was
Reinderman-Escobedo Tinajero.World
Junior Championship, Buenos Aires
1992; JO.de5!'!.
9. deS

Now Black has two sensible replies. He

can strike in the centre or finish hili
queenside development.
B51) 7 ...f6
B52) 7 ...!iLd7

Variation 851

7.... f6
The alternatives are worse:
A) 7.. .'iVa5 !L~.a3 ~a3 9.l:la3 -.c7 Black was OK in Gausel-Tiller, Norway

159
1987, after 9.ttJeS ttJeS lO.deS CiJe7
II.~a3 4\c6 12.fNh5 Wd7 13.'iWf7~e7
14.• g7,*g8!.
9. ... "fHc7
The point of 7 ...f6 is of course to attack
eS. so the text is consistent. Other moves
have also been tried:
A) 9 ...tDge7 10.~a3?! (10.0-0)
10...g6 II.h4 1;..g7 12.'ti'e2 tDf5
13.Acloo, Martens-Ricci, Hyeres Open
1992.
B) 9 ....ic5 1O."iWc2filc7 11.~f4 ~d7
12.~a3 .i.a3 13.%:1a30.ge7 14..i.h7;l;,
Bosch-R.Shaw, York: J 1,11,15.
e) 9...'iIr'a5 10.0-0 a2 II.ttJa3 tbh6
12.~a2 ~f7 J3:"'e2 i.e7 14.ttJb5 "d8
1S.J:le1~, Dovzik-Burrnakin, Hungary
1994.
10. ife2
White will continue 0-0 and nc I with
Uberdeckung of e5. He is slightly better,
since he has more space. For example.
Bucker-Poldauf, German Championship,
Bad Neuenahr 1991. continued JO ...lc.h6
I 1.0-0 !i::.f7 12.l::le 1 g6 13.tUa3 ~c5
14.tL:b5 with the initiative.
Variation 852
7.... ~d7
8. Ad3 f5
The old (ECO) main line.
8...ll\a5 9.tljg5!? (9.0-0) 9 ... g6 lO.h4 h6
Il.lOt7! r;$;f7 12.'it'f3 wg7 13..ig6. us in
Martens-Krays, Sas van Gent 1996, was
spectacular. See the section on general
ideas.
However, a serious alternative to IL.fS is
160
8...b5!'!. Black wants to destroy the base
of the pawn chain with a quick b4. He is
counting on the tactic 9.~b5?! llJe5!,
when I Ok,e5 ~b5 II .e4?! dc4 (I 1...Qe4
I2.'iIr'a4; 11...~d7~) 12.'CIff3 ttJf6
13 .• b7 ~d7 keeps the extra material.
Also bad is 9.0-0 b4 lO.cb4 as both
10...~b4 II.~c3 ncs, Bosch-Peelen.
Amstelveen 1994. and 10...Qh4
Il.tbg5?! ~e7. Steenberg-Wagenrnakers,
Netherlands 1996. give Black an edge.
9.ttJg5 is probably too sharp: 9...b4
lO.lOh7 ~e7 II.'i'h5 "'b6 12.0-0 a5
13/.0f6 gf6 14.'tWh8 0-0-0 15.11a3 te5!,
Haub-Lazic, Munich Open 1992.
The best reply to 8 ...b5 originates from
the stern game: 9.ttJa3 b4 to.eb4 (here
IO.~b5 is an alternative: 10...a6
11.~d6oo; 10...bc3 1\..~.a3) 1O...~b4
I Uid2 a6 (preventing tiJh5) 12.0-0
(I2.tDc2!?) 12...t'iige7 13.~;c2 a5 14.1!t'e2
~d2 15.'it'd2 h6 with approximate equal-
ity in Rahls-J unge, Germany Bundesliga
1987.
9. 94!
This move significantly changes the
course of the game, and is responsible for
the re-evaluation of the 'old' theory. 12. .:!ba3 h6
White starts an immediate attack on the 13. tiJh3 'ii'c7
assumption that his stable centre legiti- 14. ~b5 ~b5
mizes this. He is not afraid to leave his 15. _Q_b5 ~f7
king in the centre for the time being. 16. i.d2
In Dovzik-Schredder, Balatonbereny
Open 1994. 9.h4 (by transposition) also
worked out well for White after 9...a6
.! ~
lO.lLlg5 lLlh6 I J.ttla3 $...e7 12."h5 g6 ~.i
13.~h6 $...f8 14.tUe6! ~h6 15.tt';d8±; i
9 ...a6 is of course too slow.
The preparatory 9.h3 gave White reason-
i~~
ably chances in Shashin-Naglis, Moscow t::.
1970, after 9...g6 lO.g4 tZlh6 Il.ttJa3 a6 ~ ttJ
12.~g5 'iWc8 13.~f6 IIgS 14.~d2 tUt7
15.0-0. Keres' suggestion of 9...ttJge7 ~ ~ ~
may well be stronger, but more important: l:t iY~ l:t
why waste a tempo on h3 when you can
play g4 in one go? Mortensen-Karlsson, Copenhagen 1985.
9•. ,. IUge7 is still crucial for the evaluation of 9.g4.
Simply bad was 9 ...g6? 1O.gf5 ef5 White has enough compensation for the
Il.tlJa3 ~e6 12.~g5 ~d7 13.ti::b5 ~d8 pawn with his bishop pair and space ad-
14.'il'b3 h6 15Jba7!, Pedersen-Laursen, vantage. Black need not despair, how-
Vejle 199 I, see the section on general ever: he is a pawn up and has a fairly solid
ideas. 9 ...fg4? 10.tbg5 is even worse. (though passive) position.
10. gf5 tL:f5
11. tf\g5
With ideas like 12.~f5 ef5 l3.e6. Conclusion
11. ... .!C.ce7(!) The Wing Gambit against the French is
Fortifying the square f5, and better than fully playable. Even though White may
Keres' I 1..... e7. As we saw above, nOI always count on a;!; position from the
12.toa3 0-0-0 13.~b5 (I3.~f3? opening. he does get enough in return for
Cuartas-Padevsky, Siegen Olympiad the sacrificed pawn. The defender's task
1970, is an unexplainable lapse; but is not so easy. especially from a practical
13.~f5 efS 14.~b5 probably transposes) point of view: nearly always he is con-
13..!~(b8 14..Qf5 efS JS.e6 is winning: fronted with entirely new problems at the
Hald-Jensen, Copenhagen 1990. board.
 Study Material
Game to Chapter I .i.c5 6.~a3 '*fa5 7.~c5 ~cS 8.c3 'ljc6
9.cd4 tt.::.d410.'fi'a4 tt.::.e611.0c3 ~a5
o Dimitri Reinderman 12:~a5? 12.'iVg4!± 12 ...tt:.a5 13.tfjb5
• Jan Boersma $>e7 14.~';c7 :1b8 15.d4 l/)c6 J 5...~d7
Oieren NL,open 1991 I6.d5 ed5 ,7 .tbd5 ~f8 16.~c4 .... uh6
1.e4 e6 2.cL:13 d5 3.e5 es 4.b4 b6 5.c3
'*d7 6.tea3 ~b7 6...cb4! 7.tDc2 (Ge7
8.~e2 ~g6 9.d4 ~a6 1O.h4 ~e2
11."1li'e2 h5! 12.bcS bc5 13.0-0 tLJc6
14.~a3 c4 lS.:.tf8 '<t>f816.Uabl 014
17.'*fd2 tCd3 18.(iicel! lLiel 19.1:[lel
f5? 20.~b2± g6 21,o:Lig5ne8 22.~a3
U,e7

17.g41! 17.0-0-0! l:td~ 18Jlhel±

17...lLg4 18.:tg1 h5 19.h3 tLh6
20.0-0-0 ~I8 21.tCh4! Ci:ce7 22.~b2
tt.::.hf523.Cd5 (ii15 24.d5 edS 25.~d5
/:i.e7 26.e6 llh6 27.u'gel fe6 27...~d5?
28.e7; 27 ...1U6!? 28.~e6 .!De6 29 ..li.d7!
fi.d7 30.nd7 ~g8 31J1g1 g6 32.0\e6
tDe5 33.llg7 wh8 34.1:e7 !1h7 35.llh7
23 .... d6 ~e8 24.Wd7 '.t'd7 25.~b7 <jrd8 ~h7 36.14tbc4 3HPc3 b5 38.11d1 l:tb7
26.lof7 llf7 27.:17 Ci,e7 28.llbl ~e8 39.~b4 a6 40.~c5 l::re7 41.Ci:cg5Wg7
29.11f6 1-0 42.lld8 l::rc7 42 ...~c3 43.Wd6! t;M5
44.Wc5= 43.<;Pd5 ~ 43.~d4= 43 ...o!L:b6!
Games to Chapter II 44.Wd6 J:%c845.J:%c8 ~c8 46.'\t?c7 t:jje7
47.$b6 ~f6 48.~a6 b4 49."'bS ~f5
o Paul Boersma 50.'~b4 c;t>f4 5Vue6 ~g3 52.a4?
• Viktol" Kortchnoi 52.~g5 ~h4 53.tL::e4 Wh3 S4.a4 ~g4
Leeuwarden ch·NL 1977 (54 ...'.t.;g2 55.Wc5 h4 56.ti"g5 h3
1.e4 e6 2.013 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 d4 S.bc5 57.l2h3 ~h3 58.aS=) 5S.Wc5 ~f4

162
56.tt:lf2 g5 57.a5 g4 58.a6 ttJc8 59.';itc6 '*e4 48.\{!fa2~h7 49.'i'b2lUh5 SO.'f¥a1
g3 6O.~h3 ~g4 6l.tbgl= Boersma tL:f4 S1.~f1 ~d3 52.13 '&'f4 53.g3 '&'d2
52...Wh3 53.wc5 <;t>g454.a5 h4 55.a6 S4.'1t;h1 ~g6 0·1
ll';c8 56.wc6 h3 57.Wc7 0.a7 58.wb6
h2 59.~7 h1'i' 60.t(·:c7 '@'c6 0·1
o Erling Mortensen
Games to Chapter III • Jens Christian Hansen
GalJsdai Z1 1967
o Alexander Stripunsky 1.e4 e6 Vt::.f3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 c4 5.c3
• Viktor Moskalenko a5 6.bS tbd7 7.d4 cd3 8 ..id3 '&'c7
SimferopOI ch·UKR 1990 9.... e2 tL,e7 10.0-0 0.g6 1 Ule1 fLe7
1.e4 e6 2.t2.f3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 c4 5.a3 12.h4! fLh4 13.ti\h4 ~':h4 14.~a3t 'fIdB
b5!? 6.a4 ~b4 7.ab5 '@'b6 8.~a3 ~a3 1S:.-h5 tUg6 16.c4! dc4 17.~g6! tg6
9.ttJa3 tDh6 10...Iii.c4!?dc4 lVt~c4 'i!r'c7 18".g4 tDb6 19.tlJc3± g5 20.t!fh5 g6
1Vt:;d6 r$1e7 13.0-0 .sib7 14.c4 Ci:d7 21 ""h6 'ii'd7 22.:ad1 tL,d5
15.d4

23.:ld5 edS 24.e6 1-0

15 ...f6~/oo 16.0.b7 ~b7 17.ef6 (d6

l8.ne1 l:Ihe8 19.tug5 <li>f820.cue6 <,Pg8
21.d5 :::lacS22.~d3 Cjjfl 23.'i'd4 ~b6
24.c5 '&'b5 2S.h3 tL::d8! 26.:1a7 ~e6
27.de6 ..-cS+ 28.li'a4 'O'c4 29 .... a3
:e6 30J~e6 'i'e6 31.:e7 .f5 32.'1'93
'*g6 33.... b3 <&>h834.... b7 J:tg8 3S.'~h2
h6 36.'&'b5 .:IdS 37.11e3 'i'c2 38.'&'b6
ng8 ss.ma '*'96 40.1:[g3 '*'fl 4U!t'd4
J:[c8 42 f4 'It'd7 43J~e3 J:.a8 44."e5
J:[e8 45 4 .ee3 46....e3 "'e8 47.'i'd2
o Martin Martens
• Alfonso Romero Holmes
Wllk aan Zee 1991
1.e4 e6 VI'It3 d5 3.e5 es 4.b4 c4 5.c3
a5 6.bS ttJd7 7.d3 cd3 8.1i.d3 CL:,e79.0-0
EGg6 10:*'e2 ses 11.J:te1 0-0 12.a4
fLa7!? 13.~a3 13.c4! ltjc5 14.~c2
13 ...fLb8 14.fLg6 fg6 15.c4 lUe5
16.~g5 'i'e8 17Jt:;;c2 b6 l8.cdS ed5
19.Cjjcd4 h6 20..acl g5 21.'ita2 ~b7

163
22.h3 ssa 23J:le3 1:1c8 24.~a3 ~b8 2s:iWc5 bc5 26J~f7 l1h5 26 ..Jtg8 27.b6
25.1:Iae1 llf4 26.g300 27.Itg7 c3 28.<2e4

o Yury Dovzik
• Ferenc Portisch
Nagykanizsa 1994

1.e4 e6 2..0.f3 dS 3.e5 es 4.b4!? c4!1

4...cll4!?; 4 b6!? S.c3 as 6.bS 'iWb6
7.d3!? t::. 7 Yt.c58.d4 t::. 9.a4; 7.a4 .iic5
8.'ife2 Ci\e7°o 7...cd3 8.~d3 4~d7 9.84
l:i:Je710.0-0 tL;g6 11:i!Ve2 ~.e7 12.:a21?
12Jle 1 0-0 13.h4 tLlh4 14.tLlh4 ~h4
15.~h7oo 12...1611 J 2...0-0 i3.h4!
t,;'oh4? 14.4'lh4 ~h4 J5.~h5+- 13.ef6
~16 14.~g6 hg6 15.'@'d3 Wf7 16.11e2
'i'd6 17 JUe 1 tL,c5 18 ..-d1!? $.d7 Games to Chapter IV - VariatIon A + B
19.1De5 .ae5 20JXe5 li;>g8 21 ..Q.f4 '@'f8
22.~g5~ Itc8 23.h4 ..iLe824.tt1e3 .i.f7 o Erling Mortensen
2SJU3 'ite8 26.Cud2 Cild7 27.:l.e1 -£.b6 • Ivan Farago
2BJtd3 'itfB 29.'iWg4 lLic4 30.tL;f3 E sbje r9 1985
lL;b2?! 30 ....;i:;d6!? f:::" 31 ...~f5 1.e4 e6 2.lL;f3 d5 3.e5 e5 4.b4 eb4 5.a3
3Uld4!+- 8c4 3l...~c3 32.lije5 tL:h6 6.ab4 ~b4 7.c3 ~e7 B.d4 tLf5
32.~f4 lthS 33.lL;g5 neB 34.~e5 'iWa3 9.94 CiJh4 10.~h4 ~h4 11 ..£d3 ~c6
35.'f:¥f3 rtgS 36.hgS ~a4 37.tIf4 tIe7 12.0-0 sea 13.14 .Q.d7 14.0d2 'iIIc7
38. 'i.Vh3 !::. 39 ..l:th4 1·0 lS ...Q.a3 ..Q.a3 16.1:[a3 h5?! 16...0-0·0(!)
Dovzik Mortensen 17.gh5 0-0-0 18.1112 g6?!
19.hg6 Ig6 20 ..!i\f3 l1d18

o Evgeny Naer
• Viktor Moskalenko
Moscow 1995

1.e4 e6 Vd3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 c4 5.c3

a5 S.b5 tbd7 7.d3 cd3 8 ..id3 16!1
9.... c2!1 tbe5 10.(~e5 fe5 11 ..th7 iLd6
12.~g8 1%g8 13.c4 We7 14.~a3 .tb4
15.~b4 ab4 16.tL:.d2 e4 17.'itb2 llh8
18.g3 e3!? 19.fe3 .CI:83 20.0-0 tIe3
21.tbf3 21..l:lae1'> l:[g3-+ 21 ... dc4
22 .... 12 tId3 23.tbg5 b6 24 ..CI:ae1"c5

164
21.'i¥d2 2 I.'WeI! t::. l:lg2-g4, l:la2-g2 19.9s!± 96 20.'iVg4 ~d7 21.',,'h3 a6
Mortensen 21...wb8 22.c41 dc4 23.~c4 2V~h1 1:Ic823.~d3 ""dB 24.~g6 rJ;;c7
tiJe7 24.1h2 tbc8 25.tDgs J:th4! .... 25.JLd3 l:rcg8 26.l:rf1 h6 27.g6 lDd8
26.~e6 r1hf4 27J:rf4 lI'c1! 28.~g2 2B.l:rh7 1:Ih7 29.gh7 ]:th8 30..ih6 tt]f7
28.1;[£1 'Wg5 29.'Wg2 llfl-+ 28 ..... f4 31.llf1 1-0
29.tz:.f3~b5 30.%l.c3c2;b6 3UiVd2 _e4
32.dS? .te2 0·1
o Martin Martens
• Gerrit Prakken
o Alexander Konstantinov Nederland tI 1993

• Andrey Nikitin 1.84 e6 2.l,ijf3d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 cb4 5.a3

Alushla 2002 _a5 6..tb2 .td7 7.i.e2 .tb5 8.0-0 .te2
1.e4 e6 VL}f3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 cb4 5.a3 9.'I'e2 8c6 10.ab4 ~b4 11..ia3 'iYc4
~h6 6.ab4 .slb4 7.c3 ssa B.d4 ':;\'5 12.d3 -.g4 13.~f8~ .:;t;>fB14.~c3 if)ge7
9.~d3 tUc6 10.94 t2:h4 11,t2Jh4 ~h4 15.1:Ia4! d4 16.l:rb1± l:td8 17.l:rb7 h6
12.0-0 ~d7 12...g6 13.0.a3 (l3.f4) 18.llJd4 'tWe2 19.~ce2 ttJe5 20.l:raa7
13...~e7 14.~h6 ..Q.g5 15..Q.g5 'Wg5 lleB 21.f4 1lJ5g622.tL.c6
16.tL:b5 ..t>f8 17.f4 "e7 18.f5!~±
Salmensuu- Wiley. Reykjavik 2000 13.14
~e7 14.1s!1 14.tUd2 ~c7 15.~a3;t
Mortensen-Farago, Esbjcrg 1985
14..:.-e7 15.4,a3 ~"a5 15... a6 16.4':h5
'Wb8 17.f6 gf6 18.ef6 i.f8 19.~f4 e5
20.de5 ~.e6 (20 ...ab5 2I.e6+- )
21.tL:d6+- Larnpen-Olsen, Gausdal
2000 16.ti:b5 SLb5 11.JLb5 tL;c:618.feS
fe6

22...f6 23.Cl2.e7 Ci:.:e7

24.~d4 1-0

DOle Alkarsig
• Jens Kjeldsen
Arhus 1989

1.e4 e6 2.tiJ13 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 cb4 5.83

..-as 6...Q.b2 ~b6 7.ab4 .ib4 8..id4
)ic5 9...Q.c5'tWc510.d4 'i'c7 11...Q.d3h6
12.0-0 ~d7 13.cl]a3 Ct:::e714.... d2 ~c6

165
15.e3 tbd7 16.~f4 a6 lH!fg4 96
18.'It'h4 ~d8 19.94 b5 20.ttJc2 ~c8
21. 'iWh3 ~b7 22.tL:.h4 tLf8 23.f4 h5
24.1L1f3nh7 25.ttJg5 hg4 26.~g4 nhe
27.lDe3 ~e7 28.15 ef5 29 ..Q.f5 gf5
30,Cl)f5 ~f5 3UWf5 'It'd7 32.Q;f7 %%g8
33.~hl 'iWf5 34.nf5 .ic6 35.tL:d6 ~d8
36J:l8f1 ~c7 37.lH7 ,.pb6 38.llJf5 llJe6
39.0.e7 :gf8 40 ..::I7f61116
0-1
o Dimitri Reinderman
• Babak Tondivar
leeuwarden 1995
1.e4 e6 2.~f3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 eb4 5.a3
d4 6.ab4 ~b4 7.e3 de3 8.... a4 q~c6
9.dc3 ~e7 10 ...\te2 15?! eo-c: 1O...h5 .6.
11...ttJh6 11.0-0 Ad7 12.'iVa2 l2:h6
13.~h6 gh6 14..::Id1 VJie7 15.~d2 0-0-0
16.lth6 .,qc5 17.'iWf4 llhg8 18.h3 ~7
19. ~c4 wb8 20.tbbd2 tbg6
21.tijb3 .ib6 22.'f'c7 !il.c7 23.li',e5 ~c8
24.lldb1 ~e5 25'cL:e5 tile5 26.lL:.a6 ~a8
27.Ci':c7Wb8 28.tija6
166
VariatIon B4
o Heikki Westel'inen
• Bjorn Brinck Claussen
Esbjerg 1978
1.e4 e6 2.'1.::;13
d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 cb4 5.a3
It)c6 6.ab4 -tb4 7.e3 ~85 8.d4 tilge7
9.~d3 h6 10.0-0 a6 11.~a3 ) I.h4 ~?
11 ...i.d7 12.93 b5 13 ..ltc5 .ib6 14 ..ab6
'iWb6 15.tt:;bd292 tba5 16.\We2 0-0
17 ..sLc2 llfc8 18.VJid3 g6 19.h4 ~g7
20.h5 b4 21.cb4 .!L.ac6 22.'iWe3 ~b4
23.~f4 Qjc2 24.'l!Vf6<,1,;>g8 25.iI'e7 ~d8
26.'iWd8 lld8 27.1185 .2.b5 28.llel lldc8
29.hg6 Ig6 30.tLib3 l:rc3 31'cDC5 <M7
32Jia2 llf3 3J.llcc2 We7 34.WQ2 l1ff8
35.l1c1 .Q.c4 36.l1a3 !lab8 37 Jic2 .::Ib1
38.14 g5 39 ..::If2 g4 40.lld2 h5 41.1:[a5
:lfb8 4V;\a6 %.ta8
43.Ctb4 lla5 44.~c6 ~d7 45.~5 llb5
46.tbc4 dc4 47.llc2 llb4 48.Wf2 Wc6
49.l:ta2 ~d5 50.1:[a6 <;i;ld451.lie6 1:1b2
52.$e1 $e3 53.c;ttd1 h4 54.:196 hg3
55.1:194 ..r;f3 56J~g8 92 57.f5 :tb8
58J~g5 l:td8 59.'<pc2 ::td4 60.f6 %lg4
Y2-Y2
o om Salmensuu
• Bogdan Lalie
Groningen 1999
1.e4 e6 Vl~f3d5 3.e5 cS 4.b4 cb4 5.d4
<1lc66.a3 f6 7 .ab4 ~b4 B.c3 £a5 9.~d3
~c7 9...fe5 10.lC.e5 lL:f6 11.0-0 0-0
12..Q.a3 l:le8 13.f4~ Salmensuu-Abdel
Razik, Tanta City 2000 10.0"() fe5
11.tt~e5 ~e5 12.de5 ttJe5 13.'i'h5 taf7
l4.h3 a6 15.0d2 'ti'g5 16.'tIi'e2 (iJe7
17.c4 "'e5 18:tidl ~c7 19.11c1 d4
20.lbe4 0-0 21:t/ih5 ~g6 22.f4 ~d8
23.l:t13~d7 24.:g3 ti)h6 25.tL:g5li:.f4
.!De6 6.ab4 .ab4 7 .ea ~f8 8.d4 ~d7
9.~d3 h6 10.h4 a6 11.hS ~a7 12.0a3
Cjje7 13.tUh4~ i.c61 13...tUb5 14.lDb5
~b5 14:~fe2 b5 15.14 ~d716.lDc2 ~c8
17.~d2 tDI5 18.tUf5 ef5 19.1Lie3 ~e6
20.g4± g6 21.hg6 Ig6 22.gf5 gl5
23.~f5 ~15 24....h5 ~d8 25.ti"of5eee
26.... f7 'l'd7 27:~t'f6 $c7 28.e6 'tIi'h7
29.'itrf2 soa30.tbe7 C[;,e731.c4
'-0
o om Salmensuu
• Marko Manninen
Finland rt 2000

1.e4 e6 Vbf3 d5 3.e5 e5 4.b4 eb4 5.a3

tDc6 6.ab4 ~b4 7.e3 1Le7 S.d4 16
9.~d3 leS 10.deS tLlh6 11.iLh6 gh6
12:~'d2 12.0-0?! 0-0 13.li)bd2 An
J4.l:tel "f8+ Schrnedders-Glek,
Recklinghausen 1999 12...~g5 13:tve2
1tc7 14.0-0 14.h4 jLd8 V2-V2
Ardelean-lonescu, Satu-Mare 2002
14 ...0-0 15.tL:a3 1tg7 16.tDbS ~d7
17.tL:d6iLe8 18.l2g5 hg5 19J1fe1

26.'i'h6! gh6 2Vi'je6 ~g6 27 .....th8

28.~d8 l:lfd~ 29.!JLe728.tUf8!? 28.tLld8
l:[fd8+ 28.....Ite8 29.nl1 ~h4 30.i.d6
~h5 31.~e4 <j;>h8 32 ..fi.f3+- 'ili'a5
32 ...'i'h4 33.l:!g6 hg6 34.il.e5 ~g8
35.~d5+- 33.~d5 sst 34.:f7 34.tDg6
hg6 35.~e5 ~g8 36.l:tg6 34._:.e1
35.11f1'i'e2 36.-':.c5 'l/{{d237.11g4 '-0

o Sinisa Drazic
• Andrea Giocastro 19...11b8 J9 ....Q.g6 20 ..Q.g6'ttg6 21.~b7
Cattofica 1990 Salmensuu-Pedersen, Torshavn 2000
1.e4 e6 2kf3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 cb4 5.a3 20.i.b5 .ig6 2U~te3 ~h6 22.c4 l'i;b4

167
23.cd5 liid5 24.'t!fa7 ttlf4 25.'it'e3 tZid5
26.'ffb3 IU2 27...td7 i.e2 28.'*g3 ~bf8
29.~a8 naB 30.~f2 ~g6 31.~e8 ~e8
32.4~eB"'e8 33.'itc2 'fIIe7 34.~e8 ~g7
35."b8 h6 36.~h1 b6
1-0

o Martin Martens
• Jasper Geurink
Netherlands t1 2002

1.e4 e6 2.~\f3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 eb4 5.a3

~6 6.ab4 ..Itb4 7.c3 JJ.e7 8.d4 f5 21.d5 ed5 22.c4 dc4 23.~a3 tt?;a3
9.~d3 tL:h6 9 ...h5!? Martens 10.h3 24J~d1 '*e7 25.tt:',d5ire6 26 .... h4 Ci',e7
1O.~h6 lo ...t2jf7 11.g4 g6 12.gf5 ef5 27.tUf6'it»tB 1-0
12...gf5 13.1:rg1 13.'fIIb3 {his prevents
xe6 for the moment: 13.h4 Mar- o Kees NieuweJink
tens-Lempert, Hyeres 1992 13...0-0 • Joris Brenninkmeijer
13...lba5 14.~b5 14kbd2 ~h8? 15.M Eindhoven ch·Nl19BB

b6 16.tt:.f1 ~e6 17.lug3 ..-d7 18.... bl
h5 19.1De2~g8 20.~f4 i.f8 21.a.gl
0.e7 22.~a3 ..i.h6 23.~b5 'fIIc8 24.lde2
tDc6 25.~e1 i.el 26"~c1 Ciicd8 27kf4
wh7 28.1:rg3 a6 29.gd3 ]:ta7 30.~d2
IXg731.~g1 tt:::h8 3VZ:.g5 wh6 3~1.~g2
~g8 34.'fff3 ~e6 35.Ciid5 35.~f5
35...f4 36.tL:;f4 36.C,0e6 36 ...:1ge7
3Vt\ge6 ne6 38Jiagl 1-0
1.e4 e6 2.~f3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 cb4 5.a3
tDe6 6.ab4 ~b4 7.e3 iJ..e7 8.d4 ~d7
9.~d3 :e8 10.h4 ..'L:;a511.4;g5 '@'b6
12.~c2 h5 13.~f3 ~g5 14.hg5 tf"ib3
15..*.b3 'tlb3 16.0-0 ~.b5 17.:e1 ~.a6
18.:b3 Ci\e7 19.~c5 ~c2 20....e3 h4
21.!:lcl 'iVf5 22,ti,d2 ii.g6 23.c4 H4
24.'i!lh2 "-g4 25.:g1 ~e2 26.nge1 t;~f4
27.l:tgl l:th5

o Patrick Chandler
• T. Muller
Moscow 1990

1.e4 e6 Vl:jf3 d5 3.e5 es 4.b4 eb4 5.d4

ti:.c6 6.a3 .lid7 7.ab4 ~b4 8.c3 ~e7
9...Itd3 ne8 10.0-0 a6 11.tt\e1 q_',a7
12.~g4 g6 lHWg3 .2.b5 14..te3 .i.d3
15.l:i.ld3 ~;b5~ 16J:tcl h5 1Vd4 fLh4
17...h4!? 18."h3 'ilfe7? 19.rLid5 ~d8
20.tL:b6 aes

168
28.na6 baS 29.~b3 1:1c530.'i!Vb8we7
31 .... d6 wee 32.~bB we7 %-%
o Kevin Spraggett
• Paul Ross
Canada ch 1989
1.e4 e6 Vtjf3 d5 3.e5 05 4.b4 ob4 5.a3
0e6 6.ab4 i.b4 7.e3 :i.e7 B.d4 ~d7
9.~d3 nea 10.h4 a6 11.l:1h3 II. h5
11...h6 12':lg3 Qf8 13.~f1 0a5
14.Wg1 '6'b6 15.~c2 tbe7 16.h5 tL;f5
17.lIh3 ti'04 18.na2 tiJe7 19.~h4 ~d8!
20JU3 ~e8 21.8a3 ne7 22.ng3 !LiaS
23.~d2 tDec6 24.Q.d3 ~e8 25ke2 ltjc4
26.~c4 de4 27.~e3 ,sen %-%
o Peter Rahls
• Martin Breutigam
Germany 8undesliga 1995
1.e4 e6 2.!d3 d5 3.e5 e5 4.b4 cb4
S.d4?! tl2c6 5...~d7 6.a3 ~d7 7.ab4
~b4 8.c3 Qe7 9.~d3 8a5 10.0-0 a6
11.tL:bd2 nes 12.Ciib3 o2e4 13.ne1 h5
14.~fd2!? g6 lS.iLe4 de4 16.tDa5 b5
17.'ttf3 ft'b6 18.tLe4 b4
19.tL:b7! nes 20.0.bd6 iLd6 21.tl:.d6
l:ld6 22.ed6 ~d6 23. "a8+- ~e7
24.:a6 1jJJe7 2S.eb4 '.tf6 26.na7 ~c8
27 J!Yf3 'i;g7 28.~f4 h4 29.b5 h3
30.na8 ~aB 31.-.a8 i.b5 32.~e5 1·0
o Dimitri Reinderman
• Leon Pliester
Purmerend 1993
1.e4 e6 2.luf3 d5 3.eS e5 4.b4 cb4 5.a3
tL;c6 6.ab4 .ib4 7.e3 ~e7 8.d4 ~d7
9.j(d3 ti"aS 1O.M a6 11.0-0 fLb5
12.:a2 li.d3 13.'i'd3 tlc4 14.hS!~ ncB
15.g3 o2h6 16.~h60 gh6 17.~h2 0-0
18.oi::g4~g7 19.04·;d2..-07 20.J:1b1 tL;d2
2UWd2 xg5 22.f4 ii..e7 23.Wh2 ~e6
23 ...~c3 24 .• c3 J:[c3 25Jtb7 :1a3
26.nc2 24J~b3 J;;{c7 25.f5 SLg5 26.f6
Wh8 27.1tVd1 b5 28A..:f2! [:, Ct:.d3-c5
28..J~fe8 29.li,d3 '\tb6 so.z.es
30...a5 31 :i'd3 b4 32.eb4 ab4 33.na4
nes 34.de5 'ikcs 35.nab4 SLf6 36.effi
1tVf237.wh3 fVf6 38 .....f3 "'a1 39Jtb8
~B_n~ 1~
169
o Erling Mortensen o Boris Shashin
• Lars Karlsson • Boris Naglis
Copenhagen 1985 Moscow 1970

1.e4 e6 2.l2:.f3d5 3.eS c5 4.b4 cb4 5.a3 1.e4 e6 2.~.\f3 d5 3.e5 e5 4.b4 cb4 5.a3
ba3 6.d4 tL:c6 7.c3 15 8.~d3 iLd7 9.g4 ba3 6.d4 LUe6 7.e3 f5 8..:id3 .td7 9.h3
ti\ge7 10.gf5 tL:.f511.~gS tLlce712.lL:a3 9.g4! 9...g6 9...tLge7 10.g4 <Llh6
h6 13.Q'h3 'f;c7 14.tL;b5 ~b5 15.~b5 11.tLla3 a6 12.~g5 'itc8 13.~f6 ng8
<M7 16.~d2~ g6 17.:g1 17.0-0 t::,. 14:.wd2 tDf7 15.0·0 b5 16.g15 gf5
~hl, ~gl 17...a6 18.~d3 :g8 19.1;\14 17.'it>h2 ~h6
'i'c6 20:.-f3 b5 21.:%b1 :b8 22.'i'h3
llb7 23.~f1 ,.pe8 24.<;1;>92g5 25.tZ:hS
~d8 26.«t:h1 llg6 27.f4 g4 2B.llg4 llg4
29 .• g4 b4 30.cb4 'ii'b6 31 :itg1 llc7
32.lla1 'Wd4 33.'Wd4 tUd4 34J~a6 tDf3
&
..
~
1-
i~
•.. E
i
1.
35.~e3 l:ic3 3S..i.b6 <>pc837 ..i.e2 <ot>b7 i i~i
38.~c5 tL:h4 39.<;1;>91 .ac240.wf1 lDef5
~
41.~f8 ~d4
ltJ ~~ ttJ ~
~ ~ ~
~ :a:
18J~91! CUe7 19. 'iVb2 tt.:g6 20.h4 .ic6
21.h5 [i.e7 22.tDC2 'i'c7 23.tUb4 .i.b7
24.LDa6! %la6 25.~b5 J:[e6 26.%[a7 %lgl
27.~c6 Ci:e628Jlb7 '-0

o Yury Dovzik
• Jean-Philippe Gentllleau
Cannes 1992

42.na7 c;t;a7 43 ...ilc5 t:c5 44.be5 0hl5 1.e4 e6 2.Ci.;f3 d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4 cb4 5.a3
45.~g3 0,g7 46.~d1 'iPa6 47.~a4 IS!'? 6.ab4 Qb4 7.c3 ssa8.d4 i.d7 9.h4
~a5 48.$i.d7 Ci.;b3 49.f5 49.c6 Wb6 t.i..lh610.~h6 gh6 11:itd2 :slf8 12.~e2
49 ... .!i:.f5 50.~f5 0c5! 50 ... ef5 12.;:.d3 12 ...~g7 13.~83 0-0 14.0-0 .te6
51.e6+- 51 ..b6 tLle6 SVbh6 ~b4 14...a6 15.t.i'.b5 Qh5 16.~b5 q·.d7
53.lt;g4 We4 54.h4 Ci':.g7 55 ...t>f2 d4 15.~b5 .ib5 16...Q.b5 li~d7 17.c4 dc4
56. ""3 Wd5 57. <;t>f4d3 5a.t/",e3 $d4 18 ..ic4 'tie7 19.'ita5 llfe8 20.nfb1 ~b6
5Vijf1 -;Pd5 60.ci:d2 ~d4 61.tLif3 'it>d5 21.dS edS 22.~d5 'tt'hB 23.llb6! ab6
62.we3 tL:fS63.~14 d2 64.Cud2 Yz.Yz 24.Wa8 .ela8 25 ..ela8 gf8 26.~d4 'ife5
27ke6 ~e1 28.wh2 ~e5 29.14 '·0

170
 Section VI: A surprising Sicilian
The Sicilian typically offers the second
player good chances to fight for the initia-
tive and it is the l.e4 player's main con-
cern. There are so many Sicilians - all
fundamentally differing in nature - that it
is hard to be well-prepared against all of
them. The line that Iadvocate in Chapter
18: 'the Kupreichik Variation' makes
matters even worse.
1.e4 c5 2.lDf3 d6 3.d4 cd4
4.tbd4 lLlf6 5.tLic3 ~d7
The move 5.... .Q.d7Ieaves White in a state
of uncertainty concerning Black's future
development plans. Indeed, as Black re-
tains the option of developing with e5, e6
or g6, the Kupreichik Variation is a flexi-
ble Sicilian which is its main attraction. A
full theoretical overview and an elaborate
games section should provide the reader
with an SOS Sicilian for his repertoire.
Is the characteristic 5...~d7 a proper
developing move? Black prepares either
tDc6, or a set-up with eS and i.c6. Still
you may wonder how effective the bishop
is placed on d7? This is more a
philosophical question though. After all,
it is also quite difficult to regard 5...a6 as
the best developing move in the position.
Yet, Najdorf's little pawn move has come
to be recognized as one of the strongest
Sicilians. The Kupreichik actually has
quite a lot in common with the Najdorf.
Other Sicilians that are worth knowing
about when playing the Kupreichik are:
the Rauzer (5 ...!i;c6 6 ..i.g5). the Dragon
(S...go) and the Scheveoingen (5 ...eo).
After S...Qd7 6.~g5 there are several di-
rect transpositions to the Rauzer.
A Dragon-like set-up is possible after
many of White's 6th move alternatives,
but not after 6.~g5 though.
The Scheveningen is typically on the
cards after 6.Qe2 and 6.~c4.
 CHAPTER 18
The Kupreichik Variation
5 ...~d7: a flexible choice
For several years now the Russian grand-
master Viktor Kupreichik has been play-
ing an original Sicilian of his own inven-
tion. After the age-old l.e4 es 2.!i:r3 d6
J.d4 004 4.ti':'d4 ~f6 5.08c3 the whole
world is playing 5 ... <16, 5 ...ti.;c6, 5 ... e6 or
5 ... g6, followed by ut leust 10 more 'hook
moves'. Little improvisation and a lot of
learning is not to everyone's taste,
though, and certainly not to Kupreichik's.
The Belarus grandmaster immediately
leaves the well-trodden Sicilian paths
with 5"h~.d7!?
His success has inspired other grandmas-
172
NIC KEY 51 3,6
tcrs and among his 'apostles' are (in arbi-
trary order): Zviagintsev, Atalik. Kengis,
Kveinis, Efimov, Balashov, Kogan.
Wojtkiewicz and Larsen. NUL a bad side
you might feel- and the statistics arc ex-
cellent too. However, 11 note of warning to
the reader already eager \0 adopt 5...~d7:
the New In Chess Database reveals that
this line is played by grandmasters only.
First of all this means that the statist ics arc
unreliable (Black was quite often simply
the stronger player). But more impor-
tantly. I wondered whether there was an
objective reason why so few club players
went for the Kupreichik. After studying
the games, which are rich in all sorts of Si-
ci~ian ideas. 1came up with the following
explanation: in order to play 5 ...~d7 you
need a basic understanding of the
Najdorf. the Rauzer, the Dragon and the
Scheveningen! Each of these lines could
rake a lifetime of study - never mind all
four of them!
For those not deterred by this warning.
read on'
After 5...~d7 all the 'Najdorf moves' -
6.~g5. 6.~e2. 6.~c4, 6.ge3. 6.f3, 6.f4,
6.g3, 6.h3, and 6JlgJ -come into consid-
eration. Or as Zviagintsev put it more pes-
simistically: 'Practically all White's (6th
move) repJies set Black serious prob-
lems' ! Things are perhaps not all that bad
really, as the following theoretical over-
view may reveal.
A note of warning: there are
transpositional possibilities galore. On
the whole, I will concentrate on those
games that are distinctly 'Kupreichik'.
Still, one of the main ideas of 5...~d7 is
that Black remains flexible and defers his
choice of set-up until White has put his
cards on the table. Thus. Black may prefer
a Scheveningen type of set-up versus one
line. a Dragon scheme against another
variation, and Boleslavsky-iike develop-
ment with eS and ~c6 to meet yet another
White system.
The material in the theoretical section is
divided as follows:
1. e4 c5
2. tt::.f3 d6
3. d4 cd4
4. tDd4 lLlf6
5. ttJc3 ~d7
A) 6.~gS
B) 6.~e2
C) 6.~c4
D) 6..ae3
E) 6.f3
F) 'the rest'
Variation A
6. .i.g5
Insofar as is possible to speak of a 'main
line' in a non-theoretical line like the
Kupreichik, it surely is 6 ..igS. White pre-
vents Dragon-like set-ups and plays in the
spirit of the Richter-Rauzer and the
6.~gS Najdorf. It should not surprise us,
then. that transpositions to these two vari-
ations are possible. Thus. 6 ... lC.c6 is a
genuine Richter-Rauzer, while 6...e6 7.f4
a6 is a Najdorf and 6 ... e6 7."d2 a6 7.f4 a
strange hybrid.
In practice. 6..ig5 is the most common
move. This popularity may partly be ex-
plained by its forcing character.
6.... e6
Bad is 6...~c6 7.~f6 g1'6 8.'it'h5 .cd7
173
9.~c4 ~e5 !O.~b3 0.g6 11.f4 eo 12.f5
"a5 13.0-0-0 0-0-0 14.'ifh3±
Kindermann-Efimov, Portoroz tt 1998.
White's main moves now are: 7.f4,
7.'t!Vd2 and 7.~db5. Before we delve
deeper into the matter here are some mi-
nor alternatives:
• 7.~f3 h6!? 8.~f6 gf6 9.0-0-0 a6
1O.~h5 tzJc6 Il.ttJc6 bc6 12.~c4 ~b6
and Black is ok in this funny Rauzer,
Santo Roman- Efimov, Bastia rapid 1997.
• 7.ft'd3 a6 8.f4 h6 9 ..ah4 ~e7 10.tt1f3
.ac6 11.0-0-0 lDbd7 12.1t'e2 0-0 13.wbl
liJe4! Belotti-Efirnov, Reggio Emilia
1997.
• 7.0 a6 8. 'ftd2 ~e7 9.0-0-0 b5 1O.'it>bI
b4 II.~f6 ~f6 12.tDce2 '*'b6=i=
Tomczak-Szczechowicz, Barlinek 2002.
AI) 7.f4
A2) 7.~d2
A3) 7.ttjdb5
Variation A1
7. f4 ~c6
This is the main line. but possibly 7... lJie 7
is stronger. The game Arakhamia-
Kupreichik, Mariehamn 1997, went:
8.'ifd2 a6 !W-O-O h6 1O.~h4 0-0 and in
answer to II.g4 Black executed the stan-
dard 11...lbe4 with a good game. After
7 1J..e7 8.'iWd2 Black can also opt for
8 h6!? when 9.~f6 .if6 10.tiJdb51J..bS
Il.tiJbS 0-0 12.0-0-0 'tWb6! 13.'4!fd6
(l3.c3 d5 14.ed5 a6 IS.lijd4 ed5~)
13...tt1c6 14.'tta3 l:tfd8 gives more than
sufficient compensation for the pawn.
Solleveld-Bosch, Dutch tt 1998.
174
B. tbdb5
Simply bad is 8.~f6 -.f6 9.lbdb5 be-
cause of 9 ... 0-0-0 JO.'iIi'd2 a6 1 l.0.a3 d5
12.ed5 ed5 13.~e2.ib4 14.'it>d I ~f5 and
While resigned in Suknev-Sidorov, Yalta
1995.
8..... bB s.es de5 10..af6 g'6 11.'it'd2 f5
12.o.0-{l ..-d8 13.fe5 ~e5 14.... d4 with
a dangerous initiative in Van den
Doel-Kupreichik, Groningen 1996.
Variation A2
7. *d2 a6
This seems forced as White is ready for
tbdb5 and 0-0-0 attacking d6. Yet, after
7... sa 8.tLldb5 ~b5 9.~b5 tDc6 10.0-0
0-0 II.:aadl .l::tc812.~e2 a6 White had at
best a tiny edge in Kokarev-Kozlov,
Voronezh 2002.
8. f4
Not in keeping with this Rauzer set-up is
8.~c2. In Timoshenko-Jaracz.
Lubniewice tt 1998. Black equalized with
8".~e7 9.f4 'it'c7 1O.tUf3h6 11.~h4 ~c6
12.~d3 lbbd7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Whl b5
15.a3 e5.
Black also gets satisfactory play after 8.f3
b5 9.0-0-0 j}_e7:
• 10.M b4 II/ubi 'iYb6 12.hS h6
I3.~e3 'iWb7 14."f2 e5 15.~b3 a5
Zude-Kupreichik, Bundesliga 1993.
• IO.Wbl b4 I uH6 i..f6 12.~ce2 a5:j:
Fercec- Kogan, Ljubljana 1998.
• 10.j;.,d3 0-0 11.h4 b4 J2.~ce2 a5
13.g4 ttJa6=i=Gurh-Jaracz, Bad Wiessee
1998.
• 1O.~e3 h5!'! II..id3 b4 12.tbce2 e5
13.tDf5 i..f5 14.ef5 d5 with aeomplicated
game in Hellers-Markovic, Sweden tt
2(0).
The move 8.0-0-0 normally has little in-
dependent significance. Play may trans-
pose to our main line (after 8 h6 9.~f6
"'f6 10.f4), or to 8.f3 (after 8 ~e7 9.f3).
Not attractive is !to-O-O h6 9.~e3
(9.~4? ttJe4!) 9...lDg4 lO.f4 lDe3
I 1.'tte3 fi.e7 12.~b I tUc6 13.e5 d5 14.g4
~c5:j: Mieles Palau-Teplitsky, Bled 2002.
8.... h6
9. ~f6
White must give up the bishop in view of
the standard trick 9..ih4? ltJe4.
9. ... llf6
10. 0-0-0 .!De6
Most natural but IO...fNd8 is possible too.
For example. 1l.g3 (I l.h4 .ie7 12.0f3
tDc6 l3.g4 ~a5 14.g5 0-0-0 Sypnicki-
Heberla, Zakopane 200 I) II...lLic6
12.$Lg2 j}_e7 13.h4 'fie7 14.<~bl l:tc8
l5.l:thel 0-0 with an equal game,
Horvatn-Antoniewski, Aviles 2000.
11. tDf3
No good is l1.e5? because of ll...de5
12.lbdb5 'it'd8 l3.tud6 ~d6 l4 .... d6 'it'e7
15.lDe4 Kotkov-Lein, Soviet Union 1971.
and now 15...ef416.'C!ff40-0 17.'¥kc7l:tfd8
would have given Black the advantage.
More to the point is Il.tDe6 ~c6 in order
not to lose time. White got an advantage
in Tseitlin-Kupreichik, Groningen 1996.
after I2.,*e3 g5?! 13.g3 gf4 14.gf40-O-0
lS ...wb6! ~f4 16.Q;lbl ~e5 17.~d5!'
Black. can improve with 12.. :t!t'd8 as
t 3.lbd5 is not as strong as it looks after ei-
ther l3 ...fi.e7 or l3 ...ed5 14.ed5 i.e7
15.dc6 bc6. Instead of 12.'it'e3 the game
Lau- Kupreichik, Munster 1997. went
12.g3 "d8 13.~g2 .-a5 14.11hel 0-0-0
and Black was fine.
The manoeuvre 'iYf6-d8-a5 is also known
from the Rauzer, And in fact. after our
text move II.tDf3 we have via transposi-
tion reached a position from the Rauzer
that is known to be satisfactory for Black.
11.... 0-0-0
Equally good is II... .. d8. Playing the
queen retreat or castling queenside is
largely a matter of taste. Too ambitious
though is 11...g5?! as White has l2.fg5
hg5 J 3.e5! lbe5 l4lue4 with a substantial
edge as in Moberg-Malmstig, Haninge
1997.
175
 12. h4
After 12.'ot>bI ~e8 13.'fi'e3 'ire7 14.h4 g6
IS.g3 ~b8 Black was comfortable in
Timrnerrnans-Bosch, Hoogeveen 1998.
Shiroy has recommended 12.'tWe3.
12. ... g6
Or 12... ~b8 13.g4 'fIIe7 14.~c4 ~c8
IS.g5 g6 Bologan-Zviagintsev, Azov n
1996.
13. 'tte3 'ite7
With two bishops and a solid position
Black has fine prospects here. See
Psakhis-Kupreichik and Ciernniak-
Kengis in the Study Material.
Variation A3
7. lOdb5
This move 'punishes' Black for omitting
5...a6.
7.... ~c6
So far the move 7 ...£t.b5!'? (originally a
suggestion of Kupreichik's) has only
once been played - in the Groningen
1997 tie-break rapid game Benjamin-
176
Zviagintsev. That game went 8.~bS tDc6
9.'i!H3 h6 1O.i.h4 ~e7 II.e5 'Dd5 12.~c6
bc6 13.~e7 'ile7 14.'fIIg3 and White was
better.
8 . .afS
This fracturing of Black's kingsidc pawns
is the pointof7.tudb5. However, in the re-
cent game Belikov-Kumosov, Alushta
2002. While went for a Sveshnikov pawn
structure arguing that the bishop does not
belong on c6 but on e6, after:
8.~f4!? e5 9.i.gS a6 IO.Af6 gf6 t l.~a3
f5 t 2.~d3 llg8 13.<1jc4White was better,
It is of course impossible to draw any def-
inite conclusions on the basis of one
game. Black should investigate 8...~e4!?
9-'tJe4 ~e4 10...Q.d611:'a6.
Less dangerous is 8.'irf3 a6 9.ti'ld4 ~e7
10.0-0-0 'fIIa5 Ivanovic-Kupreichik,
Cetinje tI 1993.
8. ... 9f6
9. 'tth5
This prepares queenside castling. tricks
on e6 (after the inevitable ~bS-d4), and
blocks the Black h-pawn (h6-h5 is a good
move in this type of structure).
9. ... a6
Not to be recommended is 9 ... tLla6'?!
10.0-0-0 ttJc5 II.~c4 'it'd7 12.Uhel a6
13.tt:Jd4± Kotronias-Efimov, Gausdal
1991.
10. tZld4 ~d7
11. 0-0-0
It is useful to know that Black may strive
to exchange queens as the resulting end-
ings are nearly always in his favour. Thus
11..~c4 is well answered by I t...'irc8!
12.~b3 'it'c5! when 13.'fllc5 dc5 14.tbf3
l::rg8 was slightly better for Black in
Pikulinski-Wisrnont, Lubniewice 1998.
Perunovic- Ivanisevic, Lazarevac 1999,
went instead 13.ttJ£5 lLlc6 14.~h4 (here
14.0-0-0 0-0-0 15.ttJg3 ti'f2 would have
transposed to Ivanovic-Kupreichik,
Becici u 1994) 14...0-0-0! an excellent
pawn sacrifice, see the study material.
The move 11.£4 is met by II...lilc6
12.0-0-0 'ft'b6 13.lbce2 .-as! 14.'i!h5
tDaS 15.log3 ~e7 and Black was already
slightly better in Szelag-Heberla, Brzeg
Dolny2001.
11. •.. <1~c6
White is at crossroads here.
No good is 12..Q.c4~a5! again Black of-
fers the queen exchange, the game Lu-
ther-Kupreichik, Minsk 1994 continued
13.'tWe2'iWgS 14.~bl lbd4 15.l:ld4 ~g2
16.l:lhd I Wh2 and White did not have
enough compensation.
Unclear is 12.ttJc6 bc6 (l2 ...~.c6
13.~c4± Kupreichik) l3.~c4 'iWb6
Spasov-Kuprcichik, Moscow 1994. Fi-
nally, White won quickly in
Stripunsky-Balashov, Minsk 1996. after
12.ttJb3 b5 13.f4 'iWc8 14.f5!. However.
1VDb3 does not look very dangerous,
Black's 12...bS is simply bad.
Variation B
6. .te2
Black is playing all sorts of set-ups
against 6.~e2. and it is a matter of taste
rather than objective strength which one
you pick for your own repertoire. How-
ever, as so often you must beware of
transpositions to other main line Sicil-
ians! Thus, 6 ...g6 could easily become a
Dragon. 6...e6 a Scheveningen, and in
Bohnenblust-Blehm, Parras 1999,
6 ...lLlc6transposed into a regular Rauzer!
Most consistent perhaps is the 'Najdorf
move' 6...e5. followed by ~c6 - this will
be our main line.
6.... e5
Some brief comments concerning the al-
ternatives here:
• 6...Ac6 Efirnov's move 7.0·0 0,hd7
8.~g5 (I.:!.:el e6 s.zn ~e7 10.f4 0-0
11.e5 ttJe8 12.<it>h 1 g6:j: Wagman-
Efimov. 5t Vincenl2000) 8...e6 9_~h5!?
g6 1O.~e2 iie7 II.ltjc6 bc6 12..ih6I:lb8
n.b3 fh5 14.ti'd2ltjgS 15.~g7 ~f6 and
Black was ok in Zontakh-Efimov, Cutro
1998.
177
• 6...lbc6 7.Ag5 (7.Qe3 tDd4~? 8.~d4
~c6 9.j(d3 eS IO.~e3 d5 was Bur-
nett-Csom, Budapest 2000) 7 ...~a5
8.~f6 gf6 9.0-0 tLld4 1O.'ti'd4 I:tc8 and
this is a Rauzer line. Bohnenblust-Blehm,
Parras 1999.
• 6...g6 7.0-0 Jig7 R.Ag5 0-0 (8...tL!c6
9.tLlb3 a6 10.a4 nc8 II.~h I .ie6
(11...0-0 looks better) 12.f4 ti.:ld7 13.f5;!;
Xie Jun-Larsen, Vienna tt 1993) 9.Wd2
tiJc6 10.liJb3 a6 II.a4 I:tc8 12.lIad 1 tle8
13.<bh I Rublevsky-Kupreichik, Aalborg
1993; Black should now rely on 13...tLla5.
Instead of 7.0-0 White can play the sharp
7.g4 after 7 ...h6 8.~e3 e5 9.tUdb5 Ac6
io.eas tUd5 I Led5 ~b5 12.~b5 tLJd7
13.~d2 a6 14.i.e2 i.e7 it is bad to castle:
15.0-0-0 .ig5!+ Velimirovic-Markovic,
Subotica 2000. Better is IS.h4 i.h4 16.g5
hg5 17.~g5 Ag5 18J::th8 tl2f8 with com-
pensation Cuijpers-Kupreichik, Bundes-
liga 1994.
• 6...e6 7.Ae3 1l.e7 8.g4 h6 9.~d2 a6
10.0-0-0 tLic6 11.f3 b5 12.4.lc6 ~c6
13.~d3 11c8 14.c-Ji>bld5 15.e5 d4 16.ef6
~f6 l7.liJe4 YI-V:! was Balogh-
Kosanovic, Budapest 2002. However,
playing the English attack after 6.Ae2
does not look like such a good idea. Regu-
lar Scneveningen positions are, for in-
stance. reached after:
- 7.~e3 tbc6 8.£4 a6 9.0-0 .ae7 10.Wh 1
h5 II.a3 0-0 Laketic- Vuksanovic,
Vmjacka Banja 1999. and
- 7.0-0 ~e7 R.f4 tiJc6 9.tt::Ib30-0 1O.~e3
l:lc8 Benjarnin-Zviagintsev, Groningen
1997. Clearly the Scheveningen falls OUl-
side the scope of this book. Though, r
would not want to keep Zviagintsev's im-
pressive concept from you: I J.~f3 a6
178
12.a4 e5 13.f5liJb4 l4.g4 h5! and Black
had a good position!
Finally, after 6.~e2 e6 I would like to
mention the Keres-like 7.g4~? a position
that you will only reach in the Kuprcichik
move order. After 7 ...h6 8.f4 e5 9.tDfS
.tc6 1O..tf3 g6 11.~g3 ~bd7 l2.f5 g5
Black was tine in Sturua-Zviagintsev,
Pula 1997. The sharp B.gS (instead of
8.f4) is well-answered by 8... hgS 9..tg5
a6 1O:.wd2 b5!, see Velimirovic-
1vanisevic, Belgrade 1999 in the study
material.
7. ti.Jdb5
Most consistent, play now comes to re-
semble the Svcshnikov, other knight
moves are less dangerous.
7.tLJb3.tc6 8..i.g5 tZlbd7 and now:
• 9:~id3 ~e7 10.0-00-0 II.a4 a6 12.a5
nc8 l3JUdl ~e8 14.i.f3 'ilfc7 with an
equal position. Gallagher-Wojtkiewicz,
Bern 1996.
• Sharp but satisfactory for Black is 9.f3
h6 (9...~e7 lO.'ifd2 0-0 11.0-0-0 a6
12.h4b5 13.';t)bl b414.tt.Jd5 .tdS 15.ed5
as Gheng-Manea, Bucharest 200 I)
1O...te3 fie7 11.'~/d2 0-0 12.0-0-0 as
Shahade-Blehm, Paget Parish 2001. game Naiditsch-Bosch, Schaan 1998 .
• 9.~g4!? fie7 1O.fLd7 'ilfd7 11...~.f6 The game Guroff-Roski, Bundesliga
~f6 l2.lDd5 ~d8 Rivera-Glavina, 1992, went lO.tDdS ~d5 Il.ed5 '&'a5
Salamanca u 1998. l2.c3 ..-d5 I3.'itd5 tLld5 14.~f3 CiJc7
More testing deserves 7.tZlO ~c6 8.~g5 lS.~b7:b8 t6.~c6 :b6 unclear.
tZlbd7 9.tZld2!? planning .ae4, Stoiea- 10.... h6
Petre, Romania 2000. 11. ~f6 tZlf6
7. ... ~c6 And the position should be about equal.
Interesting is 7 ...~e6!? 8.tDd5 ~d5 9.ed5
a6 IO.lfJc3 l1'Ibd7 11.0-0 g6 Zaragatski-
Vioreanu, Balatonlelle 2002.
8. ~g5
This is stronger than 8.tbd5 ttJd5 9.ed5
il.b5 I0.~b5 q~d7I 1.0-0~e 7 12JIi'g4 g6
13.~d7 'tWd7 14.'ifd7 ~d7 15..Q.e3
:'hc8~ Spata-Paglilla. Vicente Lopez
2000. Instead of 13.~d7 White should of
course play 13..ih6 after 13...f5 we have
reached an unclear position, Van der
Wiel-Kupreichik, Yerevan 1996.
8. ... a6
9. ~a3 In Gomez Gomez-Andres Gonzalez.
Here 9.Af6 gf6 10.ttJa3 deserves to be Aviles 2000, White got a slight edge after
tested. 12.~d3 ~c7 13.0·0 ~e7 14.ltJe3 g6
9. ... tUbd7 15.tbed5 tLld5 16.tbd5 ~d5 17.'it'd5.
To continue even longer in 'Sveshnikov However, the immediate I2...~e7 looks
fashion' with 9...bS is not a good idea. stronger.
Black equalized in Kirik-Jurkiewicz,
Baku 2002, after io.cas tDbd7 I l.e3
tt.~b612.tDc2 li;bd5 13.ed5 .Q.d7. How-
ever, White gets a pleasant positional Variation C
edge after 1O.~f6! 'iff6 II.~d5 'Wd8
12.0-0 1Le7 13.c4!!., Solozhenkin- 6. ~c4
Kupreichik, St Petersburg t 996. Sozin players witt be tempted to answer
In general it must be said that il is not so 5...~d7 with 6.~c4. After6 ...e6 wedo in-
clear whether the bishop on c6 (which deed get positions familiar to Sozin or
true enough attacks e4) does not belong 6.~c4 Najdorf players. Note that
on e6 as in the Sveshnikov proper. Kupreichik, here and in other lines, often
10. tlJc4 'takes advantage' of 5...~d7 with moves
Here 10.~g4 deserves attention as in the like lCa6-c5 and "'d8-e8. Also possible

179
after 6.~c4 is Ihe attempt to reach the 7.... a6
Dragon. In Velirnirovic-Tosic, Subotica 2000,
6. ... e6 Black went? ...ti:la6!? 8.f4lDe5 9.e5lDfe4
Possible is 6 ...li\c6 7.)iLb3 g6 which is a 10.0.e4 tne4 II. 'it'0 tDc5 12.0-0 g6
theoretical line from the Sozin known as 13..Q.e3with sharp play.
slightly better for White. The immediate 8. 14 tDc6
6...g6 worked well in Fedorov- 9. .ie3 bS
Kupreichik, Minsk 1993 after 7.h3 j_g7
8.0-0 0-0 9..ib3 ttJa6!? IOJle I ttJc5
10."f3
10.a3 i.e7 11.0-00-0 12.f5 e5 13.tUc6
I Ut.g5 h6 12..ih4 nc8 13.tDd5 e6 and i.c6 was equal in Pozdniakov-
after the exchanges 00 f6 play was equal. Kupreichik, St Petersburg 1998.
Instead of 7.h3 it is of course more dan- 10.... 'iWc81?
gerous 10 play 7.0 ~g7 8.~e3 0-09.'it'd2 Covering the squares c6 and e6.
ttJa6?! (9 ...tDc6 is the Dragon) 10.0-0-0 11. 0-0 ~e7
1%c8II.Jl.b3 tUc5 12.<.9bl '(!fe8 13.Jl.h6 12. I:lael 0-0
and White is slightly better Gorelov- And Black was ok in Hendriks-
Kupreichik, Berlin 1992. Kupreichik, Groningen 1995 (see the
7. ~b3 Study Material).

Variation D

6. ~e3

7.0-0 ~e7 8.f4 tUe6 (.J~hl 0-0 1O.~e3

Cz.je4!? II.tbe4 d5 was Areshchenko-
Heberla, Oropesa del Mar 200 I. Instead
of 9.~h I, 9 .~e3 0-0 I0.~b3 would be a
regular Sozin,
Kengis-Kupreichik, Bundesliga 1995, A natural move, especially considering
went 7..ie3 a6 !L~b3 b5 9.0-0 fie7 10.f4 the popularity of 6 ..ae3 against the
b4 II.e5 be3 12.ef6 ~f6 13.be3 tL:.c6and Najdorf. Most critical here is the 'Najdorf
Black was slightly better. sequence' 6... Ci:g4 7.~g5 h6 8.jl_h4 g5

180
9.~g3. Black ought to be fine here, since
5 ~7 is probably more useful than
5 a6.
6. •.. <1\g4
When Black goes for a Rauzer-like set-up
he must realize that he has played the
bishop to d7 rather early in the game. Nor
only does this mean that the bishop can-
not be developed to h7. it may actually
stand in the way of the f6-knight (when a
quick g4-g5 is executed). An example is
Nisipeanu-Kupreichik. Bad Worishofen
1995, which continued: 6...a6 7.0 e6
8.g4 h6 (necessary now) 9 .• d2 tlX6
10.0-0-0 "c7 ll.h4 lbe5 12.... g2 g6
13.g5 and White is better.
After 6...e5 7.tUf3!·! ~c6 8.~c4~ ~e7
9.ti'd3 White had a small advantage in
Ionescu-Kutnik, Bucharest 1999. Of
course, 6...lOc6 is playable but again you
must realize that the bishop may not be
optimally placed on d7 in this English At-
tack (~e3 ..... d2. 0-0-0, [3, g4) type of po- • ll...lbge5
sition.
7. ~g5
Just like in the Najdorf White can play
7.~cl aiming for7 ...lbf6 8.f3.
7. h6
8. ~h4 g5
9. .Q.g3 .Q.g7
After 9 ... tDc6 IO.SiLe2e.C;ge5 II.tZlf5 SiLfS CDe5 12.c3 tl\bc6 13.'1\tS~J5 l4.ef5 0-0
l2.cf5 it'd7 13.tDd5 0-0-0 14.tDe3 Ji..g7
15.c3 White had a slight edge in
Richagov-Kengis, Parnu 11 1996.
10. ~e2
The move 1O..ib5 (which takes 'advan-
tage' of 5...i..d7 rather than 5...a6) gives
Black excellent compensation for the
pawn after 1O...li;c6 Il.tUc6 bc6 12..i(c6
.ic6 13.ft'g4 "a5. The move to.h3
(which is also played in the Najdorf ver-
sion) should be answered hy IO...lilf6
rather than 10...lDe5 11.tDf5!'
Of equal merit to the text is 10.'it'd2.
After IO...tDc6 II.tDb3 there are two op-
tions:
• 1l ...a512.a4l:tc8l3.f3lDge5 t4.lL"\d5
tUb4! Wehmeier-Atalik, Groningen
1997, or
12.h4 gh4 13.~h4 tUg6
14.~g3 Senff-Belotelov, Budapest 1998,
when Black should play 14...h5 instead of
the wcak game continuation 14...tDce5?
15.f4li\g4 16.f5 ~6e5 17.0-0-0±.
10. ... h5
In Sulipa-Kupreichik, Groningen 1997,
play was unclear after 1O...'itc8 II.tild5
15.f6!,?
11. ~g4 hg4
After 11....tg4 12.0 Black has 10S1the
tempo a7-a6 compared to the Najdorf.
With 11...hg4 Black is aiming to demon-
strate that 5...i.d7 has been more useful
!han 5...a6 is in the Najdorf. Another im-
portant difference between these moves is
that the b6 square has not been weakened.
181
 12. e-o
Black has adequate compensation for the
exchange after l2.ttJd5 tDc6 13.~f5 -tfS
14.ef5 -tb2 l5Jtbl ~a5 16.'ilYd2 ~d4
17:.waS ttJa5 18.ttJc7 ~d7 19.tLla8 l:ta8.
Again this whole line exists in the Najdorf
too.
12. lDc6
13. [uf5
We have been following Timman-Bosch,
Amsterdam 2000. Instead of l3 ...~f5
14,ef5 Qc3 [S.bc3 ~e5 when Black still
had too play accurately to keep the bal-
ance, it would have been better to play
13... .1i.c3 14.bc3 'iVaS IS:~'g4 1'6 and
Black is fine.
Variation E
6. f3
With 6.f3 White prevents the knight sortie
to g4 and plans the English Attack with
~e3, 'i!r'd2 and 0-0-0. Interestingly, in a
game W!lhls-Kupreichik (Velden 1996)
the move order was: 6.~e3 lbg4 7 .~c I
~f6 8.f3.
182
6..•. e5
The Dragon is not such a good idea now,
since Black has already committed him-
self to an early i..d7, while White is goi ng
for the 'Yugoslav attack' anyway. Some
alternatives:
• 6...'CWb67.tub3 ~c6 ~UWe2e6 9...ae3
~c7 1O.'~f2 Jte7 Il.g4 h6 12.0-0-0 and
white was slightly better in
Wahls-Kupreichik, Velden 1996 (be-
cause of the above-mentioned move order
it was in fact 8...~b6 and so on).
• 6...e6 7..te3 a6 8.g4 h6 9.~d2 It::c6
10.0-0-0 'i"c7 II.h4 0-0-01? was
Barbitsky-Kupreichik, St Petersburg
2000. While instead of Black's last
Perunovic-Markovic, Valjevo 2000 went
11...4"'a5 12.11gl g6 U.tDh3 kc6 V2-V2.
On the whole White ought to be slightly
better in these positions since Black is
obliged to play a7-a6 anyway. Hence, the
Najdorf with 6.f3 should be more flexible
since Black does not need to play ~d7 at
such an early stage.
• 6...th6 7.~e3 1:tc.:8 8.'Wd2 t£.\d4
9.gd4 e5 10.~e3;!; Xie Jun-Riernersma,
Breda pff 1999
 7. 4Jb3 Interesting is the immediate 12... 1We8
The alternative is 7.tL.dbS i.e6 (7 ... ~c6 J3.i.b5 (13.tLla5) 13... tLlC7! l4.~c6 hc6
8.a4 a6 9.lL;a3 dS is OK for Black. IS.i.b6 ttJe6 16.lUa5 c5 with compensa-
Storna-Antoniewski, Glogow 2001. but tion, Berthelot-Efimov, Monaco tt 2002.
8.a4 is just weak and should be replaced 13. 94 ..weB
by 8.~gS) 8.~g5 a6 9.tba3 (or 9..af6 gf6
1O.lLIa3 bS 11.ltJdS) 9 ...tlJc6 (possible is
9 ...ltJbd7 10.lLlc4 'tii'c7 l1.ttJe3 .ae7)
10.tL\c4 and White was slightly better in
Vajda-Kosanovic, Budapes12002.
7. ... .Q.c6
It is more flexible to play 7 ...~e7 8.~e3
0-0 when Black keeps the option of play-
ing the bishop to e6 instead of to c6. This
worked well in Sax-Ivanisevic. Bosnia
Hercegovina 2001, after 9.~d2 a5 10.a4
~e6~ u.ass lUc6 12.0-0 Cub4 13.... f2
'iYc8 14JUd 1 d5 play was about equal.
Likewise, Mamedov-Izoria, Baku 2002, Kengis twice had this position as Black.
went9.ke2 a5 lO.a4~e6!? 11.~d21lf'c~ Both games went 14.gS tZlh5 15.tbb5 llc8
12.0-0 tDa6 13.f4 ef4 14...if4 ~b4 when with unclear complications (see the study
Black was somewhat better already. material). To be investigated is 14...ib5!?
8. ~e3 since 14...d5 is worse for Black after
Weaker are: lS.ed5 ~b5 16.d6! Socko-Jakubiec,
• 8.tlJd5 ~d5 9.ed5 i.e7 1O.~e3 0-0 Polanica Zdroj 1999.
II. 'tItd2 tiJbd7 12.~e2 'iVc8 13.c4 ~d8!
Turzo-Blehm, Calicut 199B. and
• 8.~gS tiJbd7 9.1M2 ~e7 lO.h4 0-0 Variation F - 'the rest'
II.g4 as 12.a4 ~b6 l3.ti~.b5 d5!
Lawrenz-Kengis, Travernunde 1996. FI) 6.f4
B. Si..e7 F2) 6.g3
9. "'d2 a5 F3) 6.h3
10. 84 0-0 F4) 6.1:IgI
11. 0-0-0 tt.',86
12.'*f2 Variation F1
Stronger than 12.g4 tLlb4 13.g5 tbd7
14.~bl lLlb6 IS.~bS ~bS 16.~b6 'it'b6 6. 14
17.tnb5 with equality, Hajnal-Kosanovic, This threatens a quick e5. so Black is
Eger 2002. more or less forced to play
12.... tDb4 6.... tDc6
 7. ~e2
Also possible is 7.lt:lf1 to play for a typi-
cal attacking scheme: i.d3, 0-0, ife l-h4.
Kupreichik once achieved a good posi-
tion with 7...e6 8.a3 fie7 9.~d3 ifb6!?
preventing White's natural development,
Morawietz- Kupreichik. Bundesliga
1997.
7.... g6
This is logical as a classical set-up (with
i.e2, i.e3 and f4) achieves little against
the Dragon.
8. ~e3 ~g7
9. 'ft"d2 0-0
10. 0-0
We have been following Mikhalchishin-
Solak. Nova Gorica 2002. Having spent a
tempo on .id7 is actually a disadvantage
in this type of Dragon. Still, Black can
equalize now with 1O... lUd4! II.fLd4
fLc6.
Variation F2
6. g3
A modest move that should not cause
Black any worries. I would recommend
the standard 'Kupreichik' method: 6 ...e5
and 7...iJ..c6.
6.... e5
Black often goes for the Dragon with
6... g6 (6 ...tUc6 7.iJ..g2 g6 8.lbde2 '-c8
9.0-0 h5!'! was unclear in Kofidis-Atalik,
lIioupolis 1995), after 7 ..Q.g2~g7 8.0-0
he can solidly continue with 8...lbc6
9.liJde2 (9.liJb3 0-0 10.l'le I a5 Il.a4liJb4
12.tbb5 iJ..g4 13.0 iJ..e6 was Guseinov-
Blehm, Aviles 2000) 9...0-0 lO.h3 J:[c8
Il.b3 lUe5 when White was perhaps
slightly better in Vladimir Georgiev-
Kveinis, Capelle la Grande 1996. How-
ever, more adventurous (and more dan-
gerous) is 8..:ik'c8!? 9.r.te I h5 10.li)d5 h4
as in Stepanov-Blehrn, Oropesa del Mar
1998.
7. lUb3
There are other knight moves to consider:
• 7.tt:ldb5 JLc6 8.~g5 a6 9.~f6 gf6
lO.liJa3 f5 is unclear.
• 7.tt:Jf5 ~f5 8.ef5 d5 9.~g2 ~b4 is
probably about equal.
• 7.liJde2 .ic6 8.i.g2 sa 9.0-0 lDbd7
Jens-Bosch, Dieren 2000. White should
now play 1O.i.g5 h6 II.Qffi 4)f6 with
equality.
7. .Q.c6
8. ~g2 soa
9. 0-0 0-0
10. ~e3
Or IO .... c2 ~bd7 ) l.a4 b6 I2.J:[dI a6
13.i.e3 iJ..b7 14.f41:tc8 15J5 J:[e8 16.g4
h6 with approximate equality.
Jakovenko-Solak, Yerevan 2000.
10.... tL:bd7
And Black was very comfortable
Wikstrom-Besch, Gausdal 2002.

184
 Variation F3 Variation F4

6. h3 6. :g1
While playable against the Najdorf this
move should be less dangerous here.
Black has many good moves: 6...g6.
6... e5. 6 ... h6!? or even 6 ... hS!'!. In one
of the few practical examples Black
played
6. tDc6
7. g4 tLJd4
B• 'ifd4 tLJg4!?

.i.
Your next move is largely a matter of taste.
6. ... eS
Definitely playable is 6...tLic6 7.g4 ~4
"
8.'e.t'd4 e5 and 9 ... ..Q_c6. In Stoma-
Radziewicz -s Glogow 200). Black went
for the Dragon. After 6 ...g6 7.g4 h6
lL~g2 tl:}c6 9.l/:de2 §J.g7 )0.0-0 tileS
II.Whl g5 12.tbg3 h5! I3.gh5 g4 \4.h4
lDhS it turned out that White's king was
perhaps not so safe on the kingside.
7. l/';dbS In the Najdorf this is bad because of
After 7. ttJde2 .Q.c6 Black obstructs the 9.1L1dS,but here the square b6 has not
g4. ~g2.lbg3 set-up that White was aim- been weakened. So Bezgodov tries the
ing for. following (dubious) exchange sacrifice.
7....i.c6 8.~g5 a6 9.C.i:;a3(iibd7 10.tbc4 9J:t94 .tg4 10.e5 St.f3 11.~f4 de5
h61'.~h4 g512.~g3 tDe4 12.'t!i'e5'ti'd613.tUb5 't!i'e514.~e5l:td8
and after the subsequent exchanges play White clearly has some compensation but
is completely equal. Watson-Kupreicbik, Black should not be toO worried.
lyvaskyla 1991. Bezgodov-Kurnosov, Samara 2002.
Study Material with 6.~g5
o Alexander Zubov
• Kamil Miton
Oropesa del Mar jr '999
1.e4 c5 2.lbf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tDd4 ti:;f6
5.~3 ~d7 6...tg5 e6 7.f4 h6N 7...0.c6
M.lC.db5 Wb8 9.e5 deS 10.~f6 gf6
I Ui'd2 £5 12.0-0-0 ~d8 13.fe5 tbe5
14."d4~ Van den Doel-Kupreichik.
Groningen 1996 8.i.h4 8.1H6 8 ...liJc6?!
g.~dbS "'b8 10.e5 deS 11..Q.f6 gf6
1VDe4 12.~d2!? 12...i.e713.l!t'd2 tL:id4
14..fe5!? 14.ti',d4 ed4 15.~d4 ~f4
14...~b5 14 ...fe5? 15.ti'.,d4 ed4 16.'¥i'd4
15.0-0-0 ~e6 16.ef6 ~f8 16...~d8
17.~b5+- 17.84 ti:.d4! 18.~e4 18.'i'd4
'6'f4 18...tDf5 19...tb5 jLb5 20.abS 'fWd8
21."'f4 -..a5 22.Wb1 h5 23.l:!:d3 lld8
24.:thd1 l:%d325J~d3 ~el 26.~82 'ii'a5
Y2-V2
o Uwe Rau
• Viktor Kupreichik
Bad Worishofen 2001
1.e4 e5 2.luf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tbd4 016
186
5.tDc3 It.d7 6...Q.gSe6 7.f4 7"~d3 a6
8.Qc2 h6 9.~h4 fi::.c6 I0.l'Lic6 ~c6
I' .0-0-0 b5 12.'$'e3 WaS 13.lDd5!±
Marinkovic-Solak, Herceg Novi 200 I;
7.f3 a6 8.'i¥d2 1ie7 9.0-0-0 b5 IO.WbJ
b4 II..if6 (Il.tDce2 tiJe4!) 1l ....if6
12.tDce2 ~b6:j: Tomczak-Szczech-
OWic7., Barline 2002 7...tLlc6 B.lZ:.f3
8.o1_)db58...h6 9.~f6 ""6 10.'fi'd2 0-0-0
10...a6 cf 7 .... d2 11.h4 ~e7 12.0-0-096
13.¢'bl
13...... g7 14.'i!Ve3 wb8 15.~5 l:!:c8
16.g3 J:thd8 17Jlh2 tZ,a5! 18.~d7 IId7
19.... d4 'ifg8!? 20....84 t;',e6 21.l:hd2
a6~ 22.lI,e2 IIde7 23.e3 95! 24.hg5
hg5 25.t;,ed4 9f4 26.gf4 'W'g4 27.e5?
4'id4 28.t1:,d4de5 29.1e5 'ilfe4 3O.~a1
'*¥e5 31.a3 -efg5 32.Wb3 e5 33.~f3 .'4
34.W'd5 f6 35.tLoe1!1d8-+ 36.'*92 I1d2
37.lld2 e4 38.t;'-,e2 .tc5 39.¢>a2 e3
40.J:td8 rJ;a7 41.'I'g8 'W'e442.tta8 q.;b6
43.-.b3 '\t:e6 44.tt.\d4 .td4 45."a4 b5
45 ...r;t>d546Jld8 We6 47.rLd4 46.rLa6
~d7 47.t6'b5 <t;e7 48.cd4 !:id7 49.• c5
<;Pf7 50.'iWb6? 'fWd5 51.We1 "'d4
52.,*e6 wg7 53J~85? :b7 0-1
o Lev Psakhis 5.tL:c3 .td7 6..tg5 eS 7.~d2 a6 8.0-0-0
• Viktor Kupreichik h6 9..i.f6 'i!¥f610.f4 tL:c6 11.lL;13 0-0-0
Lenk 1991 12.h4 <;9b8 13.g4 ~e7 14.~e4 ~c8
1.e4 cS 2.liJf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.~d4 0f6 15.g5 g6 16.f5?! hg5 17.hg5 r1h1
5.tt~c3 ~d7 6.~gS e6 7.~d2 a6 8.14 h6 18.::1h1 ef5 19.ef5 ~f5 20.r1h7 tlJe5
9..tf6 .f6 10.0-0-0 tt.;c6 11.~';f3 0-0-0 21.~d5 .ae6 2V;\d4 ~d5 23.lL!d5~d7
12.h4 g6 13Ji"e3 Vltie7 14.Gja4 .te8 24.b3 Ae7 25.~b2 %te8 26.'i!¥14QdB
15.~b6 ~b8 16.l:td3 d5! 17.a3! 17.ed5 27.lt:l13'i!fe6 28.~e5 'i!fe5 29.~e5 deS
tt.Jb4 IUtb3 (18.1i'e5 'llfc7+) 30.l:tf7 .2.g5 31.1'197 l:te6 32.l:tgB ~a7
18 ...'i!Vc7+ 17...de4 18.~e4 ~g7 33.c4 e4 34.c5 :leS 35.c6 be6 36.l:tg1
19.<1lc4'i'e5 20.l:td8 tc.d8 21.tL.ce5 ..'.tc6 <;t>b831.tL.b4 ~f6!
22.• d4! 22.lt"c6 ti"\c6'f 22 ..JIVd4
23.ltJd4 .te4 24J~h3

38.tL:c6 wcB 39.~a7 ~d8 40.Ilg6 ne6

0-1
24 ...g5 24...~e5! 25.fe5 t:~c6~ 25.hg5
hg5 26.:lh8 ~h8 27.g3 We7 28...t'd2 16 o RalfLau
29..!Def3 94 30.tL.h4 15 31.c3 ~d4 • Vikter Kupreichik
32.cd4 tUc6 33.'itie3 0.e7 34.'£92 ~d6 Munster 1997

3S.~d2 ~d5 36.~e3 Ci;16 37.~e1 b5 1.e4 c5 2.(2.f3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tL:d4 lilf6
38.b4 ~e6 39.'.M2 '>t>b640.We1 as 5.Q)c3 ~d7 6.~g5 e6 7."Wd2a6 8.f4 h6
41.~ ab4 42.ab4 ~b1 43.~g2 ~a2 9..116 'i'f6 10.0-0-0 0.c6 11.~6 ~c6
44.d5 ~d5 45.tL:d5 Cild5 46.~d5 ed5 12.g3 ~d8 13.~92 ~a5 14.:1he1 0-0-0
47.<;pe3 Y2-~ lS.a3 g6 16.:le3 g5 17.wb1 g1418.gf4
Itg8 19.~13 h5 20.'i'e2 11421.~h5 ~e8
22.l:led3 .te7 23.~t3 ~b8 24/~)a2 l:lc8
o Viktor Bologan 25.'i!fd2 'ft'c5 26.<;Pb1:1g1 27.l'!g1 "'gl
• Vadim Zviagintsev 28.<;Pa2 "ttcS 29.~g4 ~f6 30.h3 'ft'c4
Azov 1996 31.wb1 ~c3 32.:c3 'i'f1 33.'>t>a2aea
1.e4 c5 2.0f3 d6 3.d4 ed4 4.tLJd4l£;f6 34.'t'c3 .i.c6 34 ...'~Wf4'? 3Hth8+-

187
35.... d2 fie4 36.b3 fics 37.'i'd3 <t;a7 ODaniel Mieles Palau
38.~2 tr'f2 39.e5 d5 40.fS ~f4 41.fe6 • Jan Teplitsky
'tIt'e5 42.~a2 fe6 43.'li'h7 Wb6 44.~h4 81ed 01 2002

~e3 45.... d8 <t;a7 46.~d6 e5 47.b4 1.e4 c5 2.~f3 d6 3.d4 ttlfS 4.tt~3 cd4
~f4 48."'c5 ~a8 49.84 5.~d4 Qd7 6.Qg5 e6 7.~d2 a6 8.0-0-0
..Q.a4
50.fVc8 lhi-% 8.f4 h6 9.~f6 VIIf6 10.0·0-0 ~d8
(I0 ... 0.e6) l1.g3 tLJc6 12.~g2 1J..e7
o Robert Ciemniak 13.h4 VIIe7 14.~bl ne8 15.l:thel 0·0=
• Edwin Kengis Horvath-Antoniewski, Aviles 2000
Suwalkl 1999 8...h6 9..b3 9.~h4'! ti.:e4! 10.'it'i'4 tLJg5
1.e4 e5 2.tl~f3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tDd4 tilf6 11.'l!fe3 .J;_e7 12.f4 ibh7 13..i.e7 'ite7+
s.ees .i.d7 6.~g5 e6 7.~d2 86 8.f4 h6 Tomczak-Heberla, Trzebinia 2002;
9..116 'i'f6 10.£f3 tt.Jc6 11.0-0-0 0-0-0 9 ..Q.f6 ~f6 10.Jlc4 tLJc6 11.0e6 ~e6
12M 12.Whl .Q.c8 13.'l!fe3 VJHe714.h4 12.l:the I ..Q.e7 Zarychta-Szczechowicz,
g6 15.g3 Wb8 16.J:lh2 VIIe7 I7J:thd2 Lubnie wice 2002 9 ...£g4 10.f4 ~e3
.Q.g7=FTimmermans-Bosch, Hoogeveen 11:'lWe3 .Q.e712.wbl 12.0.r3 tDc6 13.M
1998 12...g6 13:~Ve3 'ii'e7 14.g3 ~e8 VIlaS 14.~c4 ~c5+ Van Geffen-Bosch,
1S.nh2 ~b8 16Jlhd2 'lWc717.e57! d5 Dieren 2002 12...tLlc6 13.e5 dS 14.g4
18.tL!e2 <CaS 19.tL:ed4 tUc4 20 ...Q.c4 ..Q.c5=i=15.tLlce2 lirb6 16.~g2 tD85!
'fi'c4.P+ 21.~b1 gb4 22.:l.h2 ~d7 17.~c1 ii..b5 18.b3 $.e2! 19.11'oe2 Q\c4
23.1:Ie1Itc8 24.c3 ge7 2S.1:Ihc2?! "'c7 20Jld3 :l.c8 21.~a1 ~.a3 22:~'gl ~.b2
26.e4 dc4 27.Itc4 ~c4 28.l:lc4 ltc4 23.wbl lDa3!-+ 24.~b2 aea 25.~1
29.tDd2 neTt 30.tt.Je4 ~hc8 31.a3 ses ~gl 26.1:191::1e2 27.~f3 %lh2 28.11c1
32.~d6 ..Q.d433.'S'd4 1:1c134.';1;>a2
n8c7 1:Ic2 29.1:1c3 .!'lc330.ltc3 ~d7 0·1
35.~e3
o
Ferdinand Heifers
• Miroslav Markovic
Sweden 2003

1.e4 e5 Vlj13 d6 3.d4 004 4.ll2d4 tDf6

S.tL::c3~d7 6.~g5 e6 7:~'d2 a6 7 ...Qe7
8.0-0-0 (8.tDdb5 ~b5 9..Q.b5 liX6
10.0-0 0-0 II Jhd I :c8 12.~e2 a6;!;/=
Kokarev-Kozlov, Voronezh 2002) 8... ao
9.f4 ~c7 J().'iWel .ic6 I Utgl lDhd7
12.g4 h6 13..if6 .ifo 14.li)d5 ~.d5
15.ed5 e5 Draoui-Georgiev, Cliehy
2003 8.13b5 9.0-0-0 ~e7 10..i.e3 1O.h4
b4 I I.tUb I ~b6 Zude-Kupreicbik,
35.....Q.c6! 36:~c1 .td5 37.£c4 l:I.c4 Bundesliga 1993; JO.~d3 0-0 11.h4 h4
38."iWb1:'c1 0·1 1ViJce2 a5 13.g4 ttJa6+ Gutn-Jaracz,

188
Bad Wicssee 1998 10...h5!? 11.~d3 b4 7...Q.b5!?N ?! Zviagintsev; 7 ...il.c6
12.lt~ce2e5 13.,N5 13.t;';b3 as 13 .....Q.f5 8.Yl.f6 gf6 9.'iYh5 8.~b5 tDc6 9."'f3 !
14.et5 d5 15.:thel ttlbd7 16 ..Q.g5 0-0 Zviagintsev; 9.0-0 a6 (00 Kupreichik)
17.lL!g3 'lWb8!? 18.~h5 l:tc819.tbt6.it6 iO.~c6 bc6 Il.eS deS 12.'~f3 (;t
20.wbl a5 21.g4 2 L.Q.f6~tDf6 22.~e2 Bosch) 12...'Wc7 13..Q.f6 gf6 14.'Wf6
21 ... e4 22.fe4 J:lg8 9...h6 9...l:tc8?! 1O.0·O-O± t::. It.eS
10 ..ah4 t O.iJ6 'i'f6 I Ui'f6 gf6=
10 .....Q.e711.e5 11.0-0-00-0 (tl...'t!i'c7
12..Q.ft; ~f6 t3,t;-',d5 ed5 t4.ed5 0-0
15.dc6 ~ac8 16.~d3 bc6 (I6 ...'iWb6)
17.'~f5 ~gS 18.f4 g6 19.tf'g4 ~f6)
12.~g3 (I2.~c6 bc6 13.eS l()dS 14.~e7
'it'e7 15.ed6 ~d6=) 12...• c7=
11 ...tDd50 12.~c6 12.JiLe7 Ci'ie7
13.0-0-0 (l3JldJ d5=; 13.~c6
bc6!!'/=; 13.. .l~,c6 t4 .... g3!) 13... d5=;
l2.lbdS edS (12 ...~h4 13.lbb4 0-0
14...tc6~) 13.ke7 fle7 12...bc6 l3.i.e7
22 ....~c3 23. 'iWf2 .~.el 24.:'el 84 25.ed5 'ife7 14.'lWg3 14.ed6 'ii'd6 15.0-0;tt=
b3 26.t6 lZ::e5 27.fg7 oSd3 28.cd3 a3 14...de5 '? Zviugintsev 14...0-0-0 (~ Zvia-
29..Qf6 'llfbS 30.Ad1 ba2 31.~a1 gintsev) 15.'iVg7 (IS.O-O!') IS ...itk3?
~b3 0-1 (IS ..J:tdg8! 16.ed6 Ag7 17.de7 tt~c3
IS.be3 ~g2 J9.:dl neB) 16.ed6±
o Joel Benjamin l5.~g7 'tIff6 l6:~f6 ttJt6 17.040 ±
• Vadim Zviagintsev Zviagintsev
Groningen rapid 1997

1.e4 c5 2.Q,t3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.t:~d4li..lt6

5.ti'-.c3~d7 6.~g5 e6 7.ti,db5

17...ttJdS?! 17...:d8 18.Ci}e4 <1;e7

19Jihe1 t9.c4!?± 19..J~ad8 20.g3 h5
21.:d3 21.<.:4 lL:b4 21 ...f51 22.lbcS e4

189
23.:la3 !:ta8 24.13 ~d6! 2S.le4 we5 o Vasil Spasov
26.ed5 ed5 27J:l:e6 !:taeS l:; 28 ...h4; • Viktor Kupreichik
27 ...J:~hc8? 28.~h6+- 28.:a7 h4 Moscow 011994

29.1:[g7 llhg8 30.1:I.gg6 J:lg6 31.1:I.g6hg3 1.e4 c5 VDt3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tL:.d4 li.Jt6
32.hg3 Ut8! l:; 33 ...f4 33.c3 14 34.gt4 5.lDe3 i.d7 6.~g5 e6 7.tDdbS Qc6
l:r14 35.'lPc2 d4 3G.b4 ~b6 37.e4 ttt3 8.~f6 gf6 9.l\th5 a6 1O.tDd4 ~d7
3B.q.,d2 l:re3 39.bS lle4 40.11e6 l:reG 11.0-0-0 tbc6 1V;'JcG bcG! 12...~c6
41.be6 ~c6 42.<~d3 ~d5 V2-V2 13.~c4± 13.~c4 .-b6oo 14.l:thf1 J:lb8
15 ..ib3 c5 16.'i'e2 ~b5 17.<tJb5 ab5
o Thomas Luther 18.c4 IS.c3 'i'a5°o ~ c4, b4 Kupreichik
• Viktor Kupreichik 18... bc419.'(i'c4 ~g7 20.14 t5!
Minsk 1994

1.e4 es 2.lL'if3d6 3.d4 cd4 4/i;d4 tiJI6 .i

5.t/IC3 ~d7 6.... g5 e6 7 .tL:db5 ~c6
8.~f6 gf6 9.'i'h5 a6 10.tL:d4 .id7
11.0-0-0 -0.c6 12..ic4 .-as =F
Kupreichik 13.'i'e2 'tWg5 14.'.pb1 ~d4
15.l:rd4 'tWg216.llhd1 'tWh2+/-+

21.e15 d5 22:@'a4 we7 23.fe6 J:lhd8

24.ef7 :a8 25.J:lfe1 ~f7 26.'ire4 c4
27.lld5 cb3 28.'i'c4 'it>f8 29.l:td8 fld8
30:~b3 l%e8 31.wb1 'iWg6 32.15 fig2
33.a4 'i'h2 34 ..:;t'a2 :tb8 35JXe2 ~f4
36:*d5 'i'a4 37.~b1 'fi'd4 38.~d4
17.WI3 'tWe5 1S.tt:d5 ed5 19J:l:d5 'i/e7 ~d4-+ 39.wc2 ..Q.b2 40.'it>d3 ~f6
20Jld6 lld8 21.a3 h5!-+ 22JI6d5 h4 41.we4 h6 4VM3 l%b5 43.~g4 l:rb4
23.'(i'h1 h3 24.14 h2 2s ..1u1 'i'e6 44.~h5 Wf7 45.l%e4 0-1
26.:t5d2 "'94 27 ..1g2 .ie7 28.itt3 '*14
29.eS ~94 30..tc6 be6 31.l:ld8 .td8
32. 'itc6 wf8 33.ttd8 ~97 34.ef6 ~h7 o Milos Perunovic
35 ..J:lh8 :-JJh836:fi'e8 wh7 37.'t!t'f7 coPh6 • Ivan Ivanisevic
38."g7 Wh5 39.'Uih7 ~g5 40.f7 ~e6 Lazarsvac '999
41.'I'g7 'it>h442 .... h7 wg3 43 ...-g6 Wf2 1.e4 c5 2.t1-.13 d6 3.d4 004 4.~d4 016
44.We6 h1'(i' 45.wa2 'i'b7 0-1 5kc3 ~.d7 6.~g5 eG 6 ....'~.c6?!7..>tf6

190
gf6 8.'i'h5 tDd7 9.~c4 tDe5 IO.Qb3
'1\g6 I l.f4 ~6 12.[5 f4'a5 13.0-0-0 0-0-0
14.'&'h3± Kinderrnann-Efimov, Porto-
roz tt 1998 7.tL:db5 7.~f6?! gf6
(7..J!Vf6) 8.~e2 tbe6 9.0-0 ~e7 1O.iWd2
a6 I I.<;t>hI "ii'b6:j' Moskovic-Dearing,
Witley 1999 7... ~c6 8.~f6 gf6 9. ~h5
a6 10.lDd4 ~d7 11.~c4 'iWc8 12.~b3
.c5 13.ti.Jf5 13.'i"e5?! deS 14.tbf3
rLg!:!':F Pikulinski- Wisrnont, Lubniewice
199813 ... lbe6
, ~.t, ,
g K
, .. ," 1.
if ttJ "if
~ 24.Si.c4 l:.c4
~ttJ
~~~
:s
14.jfh4 14.0-0·0 0-0-0 15.tZ.ig3 ~f2
Ivanovic- Kupreiehik 14...0-0-0!
14....~e7'?! IS.0.e7 ~e7 16.'lWh3 b5
17.0-0 Ye Jiangchuan-Nyee Nyee Zaw,
Yangon 1999; 14...ef5? 15.~f6 15.~f6
.ag8 16.~g3 16.~17? ~g2 17.tLig3tL;eS
Ilt_f6 ~e7-+ 16..ke5 17."'f4 h5~
18.,*,h4 Ilg4 19.'iWh3 19.~hS'! ~g7 ~
20 ...l1h8 19...~e7 20.tL::f1IIdg821.'ti'e3
.ag2+ 22.... es deS 23.liJe3 tZ,f3 24.~e2
4id4 25.~f1 tl2g7 26.-te2 ~c6 27.c3
i.e4!-+ 28.cd4 .ih1 29.rtc1 .te6 30.d5
~d7 31.¢'e1 b5 32.<;pd2 c4 33.t~f4 ~gS
34.tL.hS :lh7 35.de6 ~e6 36.tL::g3 1:th2
37.tL:.-e4:ld8 38.We2 ~e3 39.~e3 :ld3
0-1
o Marcin Szelag
• Bartlomiej Heberla
Brzeg Dolny ch-POL 2001
1.e4 es V2Jf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lL!d4 tt'f6
5.tL1c3 Qd7 6.Si.g5 e6 7.0\db5 ~c6
8.Si.f6 gf6 9..-h5 a6 1O.~"d4 ~d7 11.14
11.0-0-0 '*Ie7?! (ll...t2Je6 12.~4
liJd4?! (I2 .._'~a5:j: Kupreichik) 13..ad4
b5 14..tb3 'i'b6 15.f;lhd1 ~g!:! 16.f4
~g2 17.fS l'lg5 18.'ifh7 'tWcS 19.fe6 fe6
20.e5! Sprenger-Kosanovic, Pak.s 2001)
12.f4 ~c5 13.f5 tL:c6 14.tL2b3 'fi'e3
15.~hl 'fi'g5 Torna-Jurkiewicz, Brzeg
Dolny 2001 11 ... tbc6 12.0-0-0 1Wb6
13.?Jce2 ..waS 14.'itaS ~aS lSJDg3
~en 16.Si.e2 Si.dB! 17.'c'hf1 We7
18JU3 0c6 19.15 tLeS 20.1:114 .1b6
21.c3 ~ac8 22.'.t,>b1 tz:'c4 23.fe6 fe6
2S.e5!? fe51 26.!J';df5 ef5 27.~c4 a5~
28.tlel i.e6 29.l'lh4 '4
30.llJe4 d5
31.tt:;g5 .if5 32.'1Ira1 ~f6 33.~f3 Si.e3
34.l'lh6 .ig6 3S.tDh4 .ad8 36.lbg6 hg6
37.:th7 b6 38.<t;b1 <io>f539.'~c2 ¢'e4
40.~d1 g5 41.tlg7 f3 42.gf3 ~f3
43.:d3 e4 44.lld1 ~e2 4SJlh1 tlc8
46.h4 gh4 47.Uh4 Si.f2 48.~f4 e3
191
49.l:le7 b5 50..af2 <.t>f251.Wd3= b4 Study Material with 6 ...te2
52.eb4 ab4 53.l:le3 .aa8 54J1e2 Wf3
5S.b3 ~f4 56...t>d4 ..t>f3 57.:c2 .aaS o Zurah Stuma
58J%e5?? nes 59.~e5 ~e4 60.~b4 d4 • Vadim Zviagintsev
0·1 Pula It 1997

1.e4 cS V!;:f3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4 ..!Dd4~f6

o Vladimir Belikov s.ees .ad7 6.~e2 e6 7.g4 7.0-0 Yl.e7
• Igor Kurnosov 8.f4 ti)c6 9.tt::b3 0-0 IO..te3 l:lc8
Alushta 2002 J 1..~f3 a6 12.a4 e5 13.f5 tiJb4 14.g4 hS!
1.e4 c5 2.lL;t3 d6 3.d4 ed4 4.~d4 ~f6 Benjarnin-Zviagintsev, Groningen 1997
5J~e3 .id7 6..ig5 e6 7.ci.:db5 .ie6 (I) 7...h6 8.14 e5 9.tbfS .ic6 10.~f3 g6
8.~f4!? 8.eS'! deS ()_Vj'd8 ~d8 10.0-0-0 11.C-,jg3 CLibd7 12.f5 95 13.a4 a6
~bd7 11..ae3 a6 12.~a7 ..td5+ Van der 1Hfie2 ~e715.~e3 b5
Hoeven-Bosch, Dutch tt 2002 8 e5
9.i.g5 a6 10.~f6 gt6 11.lDa3 f5 11 b5;
I1...lbd7 12.~.d3 l:tg8 13.tDc4 lbci7
13... lrg2 14.lC.e3; 13...fe4 14...te4 ge4
15.ttJe4 d5 16.~d5!± 14.~eJ± :tJf6
15.lbf5 'fi'b6 16.0-0 ~b2 17.'fi'e1 1fi'b4
18..ab1 ~c5 19.'2Je3 0-0-0 20.tL;cd5
q\g4 21.lDb6 'stb8 22.tbed5 t5 23.h3
q:h6 24.l:lb4! Q,f7 25J~c4 ~a3 26.... bl
!;·~5 27.~h1 wa7

16.a5 iLb7 17.~d5 ~d5 18.ed5 ~f6

19.1Wd3 l:te8 20.c3 'irc7 21.tL;h5 q:h5
22.gh5 'i!6'c423.We2 ~dB 24.~c4 .ac4
2S.wd3 ..Qc8 26.~e4 ~d7 27.b3 ac8
28.c4 rtle7 29.h4 f6 30.~d2 ~c7
31.~e3 bc4 32.bc4 llb8 33.~cJ Ilb7
34.e5 llhb8 3S.~d2 I:lb2 36.~c2 ~c8
0-1

28.l:lc6! be6 zs.cea nea 30.'irb6 ~a8 o Dragoljub Velimirovic

31..Q.a6 :g7 32.~c8 32.J:tbI 32 ...ti'.h3 • Ivan Ivanisevic
32...cd5 33.~b I 33....c6 Wa7 34Jtb6 Beograd ch·YUG 1999

WaS 3S.l:tb1 0.f2 36.'tWf2*'a2 37 .• b6 1.e4 c5 2.tDf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lDd4 lilf6
1·0 S.l!Jc3 ~d7 6.~e2 e6 7.g4 7.~e3 (~c6

192
8.f4 a6 9.0-0 fi..e7 10.'it>hl b5 1l.a3 0-0
Scheveningen; Laketic- Vuksanovic,
Vrnjacka 8anja 1999 7... h6 8.g5N 8.f4
c5 9.lOfS ~c6 1O.~f] g6 II.tbg3 tLJbd7
Sturua-Zviagintsev 8... hg5 9.~g5 a6
10.'W'd2 b5! 11.a3 ~';e6 12.0-0-0 ncB
13.f4 1ra5o:t l4.i.b5
14•..lL!d4! lS.Xd7 Ci;d7 16.'i'd4 f6!
17.e5 fg5 l8.ed6 gf4 19."f4 ne3!
20JIhe1 20.bc3 ~a3 21.<>t>bl(21.<i.>d2
~d6) 21...:rh5-+ 20...e5 21.bc3 Qd6
22.ltd3 22J:rd6 ~a3 22 ... ~a3 23.wd2
~.cl! 24.'it>c1 'i'al 25.~d2 'ffcl 26.wel
ef4-+ 0-1
o Dragoljub VeHmirovic
• Miroslav Markovic
Subotica ch·YUG 2000
1.e4 c5 2.Lbf3 d6 3.d4 004 4.tLld4 li\f6
s.cea £l.d7 6..b2 g6 7.g4 7.j(e3 a6
8.'i'd2 ~g7 9.f3 0-0 10.0-0-0 ~c6
II.~c4?! ...wcB!? (I1...1:tc8) 12.h4?
(12.~b3) 12...l1\d4 13.'iYd4 ti',g4-+
Jorgensen-E. Hansen, Copenhagen 1999
7...h6 8.~e3 e5 9.ttJdbS ~c6 10.lDdS
tbd5 11.ed5 ..Q.b512.~b5 ~d7 13.• d2
a6 14.~e2 ~e7 15.0-0-0?tN 15.h40 .ah4
16.g5 hg5 J 7 .~.g5 ~g5 18Jth8 tDf8~
Cuijpers-Kupreichik 15...~gS! 16.'it)bl
~e3 17.fe3 tL:c5'i' 18.h4 ..-b6 19.1:thfl
l:tf8 20.~d3 0-0-0 21.1112_c7 22.e4 wbB
23.... h61::th8 24.1i'gS ffb6 D. 25...tlja4
25.'f¥e3 lIM 26JU7 ng4 27Jlhl ;J;.;a7
28.83 ltd7 2Uthh7 :a.f7 30.:1f7 ~'e4
31.'1!t'b6 ~b6 32.:d7 ltg1 33.Wa2 ..'1",12
34.r:td6 ~c5 35.:f6 ~~d3 36.ed3 !:ldl
37 .1196 J:ld3 38.J:l97 b5 39.~a7 e4
4O.lta6 e3 41.l:te6 ~d5 42.l:te8 ~4
43.wb1 ltd2 44.J:ld8 -.te4 45.l:td2 ed2
46.wc2 We3 47.<J;>d1 ..t>d348.b3 ~c3
49.a4
o Jerzy Owczarzak
• Bartlomiej Heberla
Brzeg Dolny ch·POl 2001
1.e4 c5 Vuf3 d6 3.d4 004 4.lL!d4 tJ:f6
5.lLlc3 .id7 6 ..te2 g6 7 ..te3 7.~g5
.tg7 8.0-0 0-0 9.'iWd2 tLlc6 IO.Aadl
tt:Jd4 11.'i!t'd4 'tVa5 12.'iWe3 ~c6=
Orlova-Zasztowt, Rowy 2000; 7.g4 h6
8 ..1e3 ~c6?! (tLe5 9.tLldb5 ~c6) 9.£3
i..g7 10.~d2 ~e5 11.0-0-0 ncR 12.h4
It_';c4 13.~c4 :(;4 14.h5 g5 15.e5 de5
16.l'.0f5± Balogh- Kosanovic, Budapest
193
2002 7...~g7 8.g4 CLlc6R... h6 9.g5 'ijg4
10.~g4 ~g4 11.iVg4 II.tLlc6 .idl
12.lC.d8 .af3 11 ..Pjd4 12Jlfdl Q)c6
13.0-0 'trdTf 14.f4 h6 15.gh6 l:h6
16Jtd2 nh3+ 17.11f2 0-0-0 18.l:e1
lldh8 19.~d5 <;Pb820.c4 g5! 21.cS?
deS 22.i.c5 e6 2J.Ci:b4 Ci:d4-+
24Jle3? ~f3 2Ulef3 "*'d2 26J~d2 Ut3
27.fg5 ~e5 28.ti\d3 Jli.c7 29.~e1 :14
30.~g2 1:Ig4 0-1
o John van der Wiel
• Viktor Kupreichik
Erevan 01 199ij
1.e4 e5 2kf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.4.\d4 4i~f6
s.ees i.d7 6.i..e2 eS 7.ltJdb5 ~e6
8.ltAS 'DdS 9.edS .i.b5 10.~b5 ~d7
11.0-0 Si..e7 12.'W'g4 g6 13 ..ih6 f500
14.~b4 wf7 15.~e3 f4 16.~d2 I:c8
17.nae1 'Df6 1B.~e2 'ii'd7 19.a4 .adS
20.aS b6 21.a6 95 22.~b5 'tIi'f5 23.~d6
Yle7 24.,,*,e6 ~e6 2S.de6 we6 26JHe1
:hd8 27.Ylc3 ~d5 28..ii.d3 b5 29.wt1
:c6 30.:cdl na6 31.Yle5 ~e5 32.~e5
:.t>e5 33Jle1 wd6 34 ...Q.fSna2 3S.ne6
'iW5 36.l:e7 l:b2 37.:a7 g4 38.we2 b4
39.Wel3 h5 40.h3 g3 41.:a5 It.'d6
42.fg3 fg3 43.:%a6
194
43 ~e7? 43 ...~e5 44.l:ta5 wd6
(44 Wf'4'! 45.~g6 /:).46J:tf5; 44 ...~d5?
45.~e4) 4S.na6= 44.ne6 wf7 45.l:1e1!l
h4 46.~e6 ~g6 47.'Ji1d2 /:). 48.~cl
47 ... lL:;hS 4B.:'1 ':2g7 49.~f7 1·0
o Gennady Kiselev
• Valery Popov
SI Petersburg tI 1999
1.e4 c5 2.<N3 d6 3.d4 ti'.f6 4.li;c3 cd4
5.lt:id4 .td7 6.i.e2 e5 6... a6 7.a4 e5
ILlC.b3 ..Q.c69.~g5 ~bd7 1O."iYd3~e7
11.0-0 0-0= Timmerman-Bosch,
Nederland u 199H 7.£b3 7.tLJdb5 .ac6
8.~g5 a6 9.tba3 ~bd7 IO.~g4!?
Naiditsch-Bosch, Schaan I998 7... ~c6
8.f3 8.kg5 ~bd7 9.~g4!'! :i.e7 1O.~d7
'ifd7 11.~f6 ~f6 l2.lljd5 .id8 Rivera-
Glavina, Salamanca tt 1998 8... ~e7
9.~e3 0-0 10.'iWd2 10.0-0 d5 10 ...a5
11.a4 t2:Ja6 12.tL:d5 ~d5 13.ed5 ~b4
14.c4 b6=r;: 15.0-0 ~eS 16.tL:;cl t;';d7
17.lbd3 tLd3 18.~d3 tI,e5 19.~c2 ~f6
20.:a3 g6 21.b4 ab4 22.'i'b4 %lb8
23:oiIkd2 VJ#c7 24.:bl :ec8 25.:lb5
l1'd7 26.1:Ib4 %laB27.:ab3 .id8 28Jtbl
~a6 29:iWf2 f5 30.14 ef4 3Uln4 ~f6
32.94
32 ...~e5 33.'iWg5 .Q.f6 34.'ir'f4 .Q.e5 burg 1996) IO... 01bd7 Il.c3 ~b6
35 .• g5 ~f6 Y2-1h 12,li\c2 ttJbd5 J3.ed5 i.d7=
Kirik-Jurkiewicz, Baku 2002 10.lt~c4
o Salvador Gomez Gomez h6 10.. JWc7 11 ..if6 .!Df6 12.'t!i'd3 'itc7
• Alberto Andres Gonza)ez 13.0-0 soa 14.tiJe3 g6 15.~ed5 l{jd5
Av'des ir 2000 16.tL;dS fLd5 17.~d5;!; 0-0 18.fLc4
1.e4 es 2.013 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tbd4 tbf6 ~ac8 19 ..Q.b3 Wg7 20.14 20.c3;!;
S.lL!c3 i.d7 6.~e2 e5 7.~db5 7.li'\b3 20 .. :i'c5 Y2' Yz
~c6 H.~g5 ftJbd7 9.f3 h6 (9...~e7
10.'iWd2 0·0 11.0-0-0 a6 12.h4 b5
13.~bl b4 14.tbd5 .idS IS.ed5 a5 Study Material with 6.i.c4
Gheng-Manca, Bucharest 200 I) 1O..ie3
~e7 II.'iWd2 0-0 12.0-0-0 a5 Shahade- o Willy Hendriks
Blehm, Paget Parish 2001; 7.ltJf3 JiLc6 • Viklor Kupreichik
8.~g5 tDbd7 9.0d2 Stoica-Petre, Ro- Groningen 1995

mania 2000 7...~c6 7 ....ie6!? 8.tOd5
~d5 9.ed5 a6 JO.0c3 lUbd7 11.0-0 g6
Zaragatski- Vioreanu, Balatonlelle 2002
1.e4 c5 Vi:Jf3 d6 3.d4 ed4 4_[Dd4 LUf6
5.tUc3 ..td7 6.~c4 e6 7..tb3 as 8.f4
LUe69..b3 b5 10.~13 ~c8!? c6<. e6<
11.0-0 .Q.e7 12Jlae1 0-0 13.a3 1:ib8
14.g4 14.f5 tLie5 15.~h3 CDc4 14 ... b4=t
15.ttice2 15.aM l:tb4 15...ba3 16.ba3
.b7 1Vllg3 d5! 18.e5 Q,e4 19.tDe4
de4 20.'i'g3 ~.a3 21.15 :fe8 22.tbc6
.tc6 23.16 'i'c7 24.1g7 j,b2! 25 ..Q.f4
~d4 26.l:le3 a5 21.'it'h1 a4 28.~c4 ~a8
29.11e2 ~c2 30.~g5 l::tb't 0-1

o Dragoljub Velimlrovie
• Miroslav Tosic
Subolica ch·YUG 2000

1.e4 c5 V.L.f3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.-2.d4 tDf6

8..ig5 8.lijd5 0.d5 9.edS .ib5 1O..ib5 5.tUc3 .Q.d7 6.~c4 e6 6...g6; 6...lCc6
tLid7 '1.0-0 i.e 7 12. 'it' g4 g6 13. Ad7 7..Q.b3 7.q.:db5?! .ac6 8.~f4 e5 9..tg5
(13.~h6 Van der Wiel-Kupreichik, a6 J 0 ..1f6 gf6 II.'tWh5 (l1.0.a3 05)
Yere van 1996) 13... 'iVd7 14.'i'd7 ~d7 II ...dS! =1= Moldovan- Kutnik, Eforie
15.~e3 l%hc8!i=Spara-Paglilla, Vicente 1998: 7.0-0 i.e7 8.~e3 0-0 9.f4 ~c6
Lopez 2000 8... a6 9,~a3 9.~f6 10..Q.b3 (S07.in) 10...tL:.a5 J I.fS?! ~b3
9... liJbd7 9 ... b5 1O.tlJd5 (I0.i.f6 ~f6 12.ab3 e5 l3.tUde2 .tc6 14.l/)g3 dS:;:
II.lt:Jd5 ~d8 12.0-0 ~e7 13.c4;!; Prikhotko-Jakubiec, Polanica Zdroj
Solozhenkin-Kupreichik, St Peters- 1999 7 ...0a611 7...a6 8.f4 tCc6 9.~e3

195
b5 lO.a3 ~e7 11.0-0 0-0 12.f5 e5
\3.tlJc6 ~c6= Pozdniakov-Kupreichik,
St Petersburg 1998 8.14 'Llc5 9.e5 tbfe4
10.tl2e4 tt::e4 1 Hli'13 tL;c5 12.0-0 g6
13.~e3 "'c7 14.1:I:ad1.ite7
15.f5 ef516.~17 wf71VLJ5 ~fS 18.g4
wg7 19.915 llhf8 20.f6 WhB 21.'if¥d5
~16 22.ef6 22.ed6 22 ..JXaeB 23 ..Q.h6
23.~d4 23 ...llf7 24Jlde1 'ffd7 25.b4?
25.£g7 9.>gR 26J~:rc8 'l'lVe8 27.'i!Vd611l:Ve3
2S...~g4 26.ii'g2 26.c;t>h I tj';e4
27.1J!If7'? tj'f2-+ 26 ... ii'd4 27 ..:;t;>h1
qie4~ 28.c3 "'c4 29.1:1:14dS 30.:e3
'i'c6 31.~f3 1:I:f632.:16 ,*f6 33.fif6
<2:f6time'!'? 0-1
Study Material with 6 •.Qe3
o Stefan Wehmeier
• Suat Alalik
Groningen 1997
1.e4 es V2:.f3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.Ci;d4 .:Qf6 14.ef5 .ib2 15Jlbl
S.l/lc3 .Q.d7 6..Qe3 tL:g4 7..QgS h6
8.~h4 g5 9.Qg3 ~g7 10.~d2 ces
11.tiJb3 a5 12.a4 :c8 13.f3 ..';';ge5 12 .!bc6 13.t2.f5 ~fS 13... ~c3 14.bc3
14.tDd5 tLJb4 15.c3 CudS 16.ed5 V/Hc7 "a5 15.'W'g4 f6 14.efS ~c3 15.bc3li';eS
196
17.~f2 0-0 18.~e2 tLic4 19.~c4 "*,c4
20.LDa5 ~a6 2Vt:lb3 i.a4 22.~d4 f6
23.<.Pf2'i!i'b5 24.tDc1 W'c4 2S.l:!e1 n1e8
26.l:!e4 .Qb5 27.b3 'i!i'f1 28.Wg3 15
29.l:!e1 14 29 ....Qd4 30.:'fl (30.cd4
llc2) 30 ...~c3 30.~g4 jl,d4 31.cd4
3UHI? ~c3 32.'i'c2 ~al 33.~g6 ~g7
31 ...~d7 31..Jk2 32.iI'c2 tt'el 3HWg6
3V;phS 'i!i'b533.lloS tr'b6 34.tr'd3 ~o5
35.q;h6
1-0
o .Jan Timman
• Jeroen Bosch
Amsterdam 2000
1.e4 c5 2.ca3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.t2:.d44if6
5.-t:;c3 ~d7 6...Qe3 tZ:.g4 7..Qg5 h6
8..ah4 g5 9.~g3 ~g7 10..i.e2 IO.~b5
ttJc6 II.Ci;c6 ~c6 12.~c6 bc6 13.ir'g4
"a5~ 14.0-0,! hS; 10.h3 ~f6: IO...ti)e5
) l.tZ!f5 10...h5 11 ..i.g4 hg4 I 1....Qg4
12.f3:!: 12.0-0 12.ti;d5 0.c6 l3.tN5 ~f5
.-as
17.~a5 tiJa5 18.ti\e7 (l8.~bS
16.... d2 Ii.d4
~b6;
18 b6) IS ...<.t>d7 19.tL:a8 1138~
15...f6 16J:lbl !'!; 16.'ifg4 ~a5 16.~e5
de5 17.W94 f6 18..l:tfd1 18.~e4 'ifc7
19.1:abl O-O-O! 18... Wc7 19.~a4~!
19...'i!fc6 20.'ifb3 20.1i'b3 20.%td7 'ifc3
21.'il'b3 (2l..tI.adl %tad8) 2l...'l!t'b3
22.ab3 J:hc8 23.c4 b5= 20 ...~g7
21.nd5 l:lhd8! 2l...e4? 22.g3 e3 23.fe3
J:h3 24.c4; 24. 'iPg2 l:tah8 25.l:h I;
2l....tI.ad8 22.<.:4 %th4 23 .l:ad I ±
22.nad1 22.c4 %tad~ 22 ..J:1d5 22 ...b6
23.g3 23:"d5 *'c6 23 ..J:tc8 24.'ife6
%td8 25.J:d3 .tI.d6 26.l:d6 ede 27:ike8
~f7 28.~t7 obt7+- 24 .... c6 24.'ife6
'W'e6 25.fe6 f5 ~ 26 ...<;i;>f624 ...bc6
25.l:ld7 ~f7 26.g3 nb8 27.l:[a7 I:[b2
28.l:[a6 l:!.c2 29.rte6 :a2 30J~c8 30.c4
We8; 30 .. Jk2; 30.l1c4 J:tc2; 30 ...~e1l
30 ...e4! 31.e4 .tI.a1 32.$>g2 1:[82 33.~f1
e3 34.fe3 l:lh2 3S.c5 rtc2 36.c6 36.g4
J:c4 36 ...e5! 37.fe6 37.l:c7 ~e8;
37.Wel e4 38.r.tJdl .lIc4; 37.c7 Wg7
37 ...we6 38.c7 ~fSI 3lL.wd7 39.%tf8
l:lc7 40.1:.f6+- 39.~e1 ~g4 40.~d1
flcS 41.e4 q;g3 42.~e2 g4 43.~e3
l:!.c1 43 ... Wg2 44J~g8 44.<.td3 44.Wd4
Wf2 45.l:!.g8=; 45.e5 fe5; 45.~d5? g3
46.Wd6 g2 47.l:tg8 gl1W 48.t:lgl Wgi
49.<;t>d7 ~f2-+ 44 :.t>g2 44 ...'~f2
45.e5 4S.:.t>d2 rlc4 45 l:Ic6 46.We3 g3
46.We3 ;,1;>g346 ... g3 47.'.t>f4 f5! 48.l:lg8
%te749.%tg3 ~f2 50.%tf3 <;t;Jg2=47.'itld3
%-Y2
Study Material with 6.'3
o Alexey Barbitsky
• Viktor Kupreichik
SI Petersburg 2000
1.e4 es 2A:.)f3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.0.d4 <t1f6
5.llJc3 ..IiLd76.f3 e6 6 ...tUc6 7..i.e3 llcB
8.'iWd2 tiJd4 9.~.d4 e5 IO.~e3 1WaS
1l.g4 h6 12.h4 a6 J3.~.h3 .ae7 14.0-0-0
~e6 15.g51 Xic Jun-Riernersrna, Breda
pff 1999 7 ..Q.e3 a6 8.g4 h6 9. 'li'd2 l!ic6
10.0-0-0 ~c7 11.h4~ 0-0-0 12.'tWf2d5
13.edS .'1,d5 14.~:'d5 ed5 1S..!Dc6 ~c6
16.~d4 "'f4 17.wb1 f6 18.~d3 ~d6
19.~a7 d4 20 ...Ii.f5 Jic7 21.~d4 ~f3
22.~b6 ~b8 23:~'d2 1;..c724 ..~c7 ~c7
2S.ffh2
2S... Wb6 26."g1 <:I;c7 27.1I4'h2 \PbS
28.-'g1 We7 29.Wh2 wb6 30 .• 91 we7
YZ,V2
197
o Szidonia Vajda
• Goran Kosanovic
Budapest 2002
1.e4 c5 2.lL.f3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.ti',d4 lbf6
s.eea ~d7 6.f3 e5 6...ti:lc6!? 7.g4
(7 . .\ie3) 7...tud4 8.... d4 e5 9.ii'd3 ~e7
10.g5 lDh5 I I.tUd5 0-0 12J~gI ~e6
13.~e3 ~d5 14.~d5 ttJf4 15.~f4
"'b6:j: Roebers-Bosch, Dutch cup 200 I
Vtidb5 ~e6 7... ~c6 8.a4 a6 9.t:'::'u3d5
10.edS lj"d5 1I.4;d5 ~d5 12.~d3 ~c5
13.tbc4 0-0 14..ite3 ~e3 15.tbe3 'iWd4+
Storna-Antoniewski, Glogow 200 I
B.~g5 a6 9.lL:.a3 9..i.f6 gf6 1O.tL,a3 h5
II.itJd5 9..kc6 9...lL'bd7 IO.lL.c4 "fie7
II.tDe3 ~e7 10.Q;c4 :c8 11.t!le3 'i'b6
12.~c1 ~e7 13.~f6 ~f6 14.tLJed5 '*d8
15.<1J6 gf6 IS ..:~f6 re.zea -.wb6
17.lL.d1 1:Ig818•...wd2
18 ...tL:b4?! 19.a3 C.:jc6 20.-.wf2 ~c7
21.liJe3 _b6 22.c3! q;,e7 23.l:!:dl h5
24.0-0 tZlg6 25.<;Phl 'il'c5 26.g3 h4
27.94 <l;e7 28.:d2 ~f4 29.:e1 .C!.hB
30 ..if1 1:Ic6 31Jled1 b5 32J:tb1 "b6
33.c4 bc4 34.~c4 ahc8 34 ... ~c4-+
35.b3 'ti'a5 36.nal ~c3 37.rtddl C.:jh3
38 .... d2 'ffd2 39 ..:Id2 CiJg5 \-2-Y2
198
o Nidjat Mamedov
• Zviad (zoria
Bal<ujr2002
1.e4 c5 2.t,i\f3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.lDd4 tDf6
5.lL:.c3 ~d7 6.f3 e5 7.~b3 ~e7 8.~e3
0-0 9.i.e2 9.~d2 a5 lO.a3 (l0.a4 ~e6!
I J.i.b5 tUc6 12.0·0 lDb4 13."iYf2 'iYc8
14Jlfd I d5= Sax-Ivanisevic, Bosnia
Hercegovina 200 I) IO...tila6 IIJ:ld 1
~c6 12.~c4 a4 13.t;·)cl Ci:Jc7 14.tola2~
Sakalsek-Kovacevic, Bled 2002 9...a5
10.a4 .ie6!? 11.lL.d2 'i'c8 12.0-0 ~a6
13.f4 ef4 14 ..t14 tlJb4:r: 15.~hl l:!:d8
16.~d3 094 17.'We2 .!lJe5 l8.~e5?!
18.c1':f3 l8 ...de5 19.1L.c4 'l'c5 20.~e3
:ac8 2VtJcd5 .ig5 22.lDb4 ~e3
23.'I'e3 ~e3 24.~d5 24.tLia2 ~d4
24 ...Jt.d5 25.edS l:tdS+ 26.gael ~g5
27 ..i.e4 .::tdc5 28Jld1 g6 29.11d7 f5
30.~b7 II8c7 31J:tc7 gc7 32.~d5 Wg7
33.c4 .~e3 34.g4 Wi6 35.Wg2 E:c8
36.gf3 f4 37Jth3 h6 38.wf3 ~g5
39.We4 .!:Ib8 40.We5 ~b2 41.c5 ~c5
42.1:Ic3 ~f8 43.1:tc6 ~g7 -+ 44. ~e6
~d4 45.~e4 ~h2 46.wd5 ~J6 47.na6
l:Id2 48.we6 :e2 49.'itd5 ae3 5O.1:1a5
f3 51.:;t>e4 '.\>g4 52.~96 ~g5 53 ..id3 f2
54.~f1 nel 55..*.d3 acl 56.~3 f1 ~
0·1
o Vlastimil Jansa
• Edvins Kengis
Hamburg 1995
1.e4 c5 2.li',f3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.l~d4 lbf6
5.li:ic3 ..td7 6.f3 eS 7 .~b3 .te6 8.~e3
~e7 9.~d2 as 10.a4 tlJa6l1.0-0-0 ~b4
12.'t!n2 0-0 13.g4 'ti'e8 14.95 lVh5
15.tDb5 :cre8 16.~h3 ~b5 17.~c8 ~a4
1B.~g4 'ttb5~ 19.tL;al l2,a2 20.Will
Qic3 2l.~cl .:tld1 22.:dl tL.f4 23.b3
~g5 24.ba4 'l!ta4 2S.llJb3 '*a3 26.~bl
a4 2VDC1 tDh3
28.~h3 .2.e3 29.'i!fe2 _Q.d430J:td4 ed4
31 ..£d3 1:I.a832.0b2 'il'c5 33.~a2 a3
34.tI;d1 Ua6 35.~d7 ~b6 36.sia4 ti.a6
37.~b3 Ua8 38.~c4 'ile4 39..Q.c4~c8
40.~d3 %XeS41.t.i';f2 1:I.a542 ..Q.e4 l:I.h5
43..2.g4 ~f8 44.~f1 1:I.e5 45.~.d3 h5
46.tLJf2 %195 47 ..!Lhl %lg2 48.h4 95
49.hg5 h4 0-1
o Pawel Blehm
• Edwin Kengis
I<oszalin 1998
1.e4 es 2.~·lf3 d6 3.d4 ed4 4.tt\d4 ti:f6
5.0\c3 ~.d7 6.f3 e5 7.l!'.b3 ~e6 8.~e3
~e7 8...dS? 9.ed5 ~d5 lO.tt::d5 'i'd5
Il.iVd5 .Q.d5 12.0-0-0 ~e6 13.Q.b5
tj\d7 14.l:lhel f6 15.f4 e4 16.~c5±
Votava-Amoniewski, Czech tr 1998
9.Wd2 as 10.a4 ~a6 1UWf2 ~b4
12.0-0-0 0-0 13.g4 'fteB 14.g5 ~h5
15.0b5 1:I.c8 16.tL.a7N 16.~.h3 .i.b5
17.~cR ~a4 J 8.~g4 'ifb5~ Jansa-
Kengis, Hamburg 1995 16... .aa4
17.-!:;c8 ,*c8 18J[;a1 l'Ve6 19.b3 l:!.c8
20.e4 ~d7 21.h4 'l!fg6 2VtJc2 ~e2
23.'ttc2 a4 24.wb2 b5 25.ba4 bc4
26.a5 .afB 27.~c3 tC.g3 28.h5!
28 ...tL~h5 29.gc4 ti:g3 29 ...~e6 30 ..Q.e6
lk3 3l...~f5 ltc3 32.sii.g6 hg6 33.a6+-;
29 ...kb5 30.~(7 30.~b3 tDhl 3Ulh1
h6 32.86 d5 33.~d5 'fi86 34 .sst '.th8
35J~h2 .ad6 36.gh6 l:I.b8 37 .hg7 ~7
time?"; 38.l:~g2 ~h8 (38 ~f8??
39.1:g8 ~e7 40,,~g5X: 38 ~t'6?
39.=g6 we7 40.~g5 'ltf8 4JJig8X)
39.l:th2 (39.ltg8'!! ltg8 40.~g8 fte2
41.9Jb 1 .Rb5+) 39 ...'.!;g7 40.~g2= 1-0
o Yannick Berthelot
• Igor Efimov
Monaco" 2002
1.e4 c5 VL~f3d6 3.d4 004 4.0d4 tijf6
5.l1ie3 ~d7 6.f3 e5 7.t<jb3 .te6 8.~e3
ii.e7 9.'i'd2 0-0 10.0-0-0 1O.~e2 as
II.a3 a4 1Vl.JC I d5:f: Docx-
Amoniewski, Belgium 2003 10 ... a5
11.a4 0a6 12.'i'f2 12.g4N lDb4 13.g5
CDd7 14.'i!tbl tLlb6 15.~b5 ~b5 16..ib6
1tb6 17.lUb5 Hajnal-Kosanovic, Eger
2002 12 ..:~We8 12 tUb4 13.g4 'iWe8
13.j(b5 l3.tlJa5 13 tUe7! 14 ..ie6 be6
199
15.~6 .!De6 16.tDaS c5!!! 17.b3 ~d4
18.tDc4 "ifc6 19.~b2 nfb8 20.a5 g6
21.~al h5 2Vbe3 ~g7 23.1!:t'f1lbd7
24.·4';cd5 lDb6 25.<1:b6
~aS 26.na5 'iWb6 27.~a6 ~b4 28Jta3
28. tDc4 /be2!; 28Jld I llb6 (28 ...ltib3?
29.J:t.a4+-) 29.~a7 :'b7 30.'YIVa6 tLlbd7 10.t2dS lO.~g5 h6 II.~f6 lL;f6
(30.liidS? l:ta7 3 J .l:.a7 ~b5 32.l:te7
ife2-+) 30 ..J~b6 31.ifa8 l:b8=
28...lDb5! 29.<iJd5 'i'd4 30.~bl ~a3
31.'11t'a3~g5+ 32.'ifa7 %tf833."a6 h4
34.'ifd3 f5 35.'ifd4 ed4 36.lle1 fe4
37.J%e4 h3! 38.gh3 31Ulg4 ~f5 38.. JU3
39.h4 ~f6 4O..ne6? %111 41.';1ta2 d3! 0·1
Study Material with 'the rest'
o Timofej Stepanov
• Pawel Blehm
Oropesa del Mar jr 1998
1.e4 c5 ViJf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tbd4 tt:;f6
5.~c3 ~d7 6.g3 g6 7.~g2 ~g7 8.0-0
"'c8!? 8...0-0; 8...lLlc6 9J:tel h5
10.tLid5 h4 11.~g5 hg3 12.hg3 <1':g8!
13.c3 tlJa6 14.tUf3?! 16 15.~d2 tLic5
16.;Wc2 ~f7 lV[je3 .ib5 18.c4 aes
19.tL:h4 e5!?oo /::, 0e6-d4 20 ..iib4 ~f8
200
21.~e5 deS 22.l:ladl ~d7 23 ..i.f3 Ci::.e7
24Jld3 Si.e6 25.tL:d5 lbe6 26.£Lg2
tDd4+ 27.f4 ~g4 2Ulf1 ~d6 29.f5 g5
30.-1"g6 :h6 31.~f2 ~h5 32.lDe3 'Mrd7
33.g4 i.g6 34.fg6 ~g6 35.tiJfS l:1hh8
0-1
o Jelmer Jens
• Jeroen Bosch
Dieren2000
1.e4 c5 2.tt:;f3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.eel4 l£Jf6
5./bc3 .id7 6.g3 e5!?N 6...g6: 6 e6;
6...8c6 7.tUde2 7.tbf5 ~fS (7 d5
8.tLld5 ~f5 9.tLlf6 'Wf6 lU.ef5 1Wf5
1 J.Q.b5 <1\c6 12.0-0!) 8.efS d5 9.~g2
~b4 10.0-0 ~c3 Il.bc3 tCc6oo; 7.tDdb5
~c6 8..ag5 a6 9 ..Rf6 gf6 IO.tlJa3 f5
J I .jt.g2oo 7... .ic6 8..ig2 soa 9.0-0
10 ...tCdS! 1O...i.d5 Il.ed5= 11.edS
i.b5 12.a4 ..Q.e2 13.'@'e2 0-0 13...a51S1
(c5» 14JWb5! flic7 15.~h3 g6 16.~d7
~d7 17.~e3 14.aS 15 15J~a3 ~f71 t:,
~f6, ji.gS. b7< 16.~e3?! ~g5~
17.~b5 ..Q.e318.fe3 18.l:te3
18...e4! 19.,,*,b7? 19.94 lbc5 (19 ... fg4
20.:17 <!,;f7 21.'tWb7 ~g8 /::, 22.~e4
tL;cS23.-.b4 tb8 24.*d4 'ilt'h4) 20.gf5
(20.JHS 1:1f5 21.gf5 1t'g5) 20 ...... g5-+
19 ...l:tb8! 20.lt'c6!? 20.1h7 tiJc5-+;
20.'ii'a6 0.c5 21.'lWc2 l:th2+ 20 ...~c5
21.~c3 l:lc7 21...Ab2 22J1c5! deS
23.d6<=t 22.~c5 l:lc6 23.l:lc6 96
23 ..."a5 24.86 24.b3 'ita5 t::. 25.l:ld6
'i'c5 24...h5? g4<; 24 ...l:tb2! 25.g4
... g5 -+ 25.b3 l:tbS 26Jld1! nes
27.dc6 -.c7 28..Q.f11'fi'c6 29..Q.c4<.Pi8
30.l:ld5 *'b6 31.<~f2 'iVb4 32.l:tbS?
32.~e2'! 'it'c3 33J:td2 g5-+; 32.c.:3!
'i'c3 33.l:ld6 'it'c2 34.~e2= 32 ..:ffd2
33.~e2 d5-+ 34.c3 34.l:tb8 We7
35.11b7 'itJd6 36.na7 d4-+ 34 ...95
35.nbS 'l;e7 36J1b7 <j;>d637.l:ta7 f4
38.914 914 39.ef4 d4! 40.:a8 40.cd4
ft'd4 40...d3 41.a7 'tWe2 42.Wg1 -..e3
43.wf1 ~f3 44.~gl e3 45.l:ld8 ~c7
46.a81i''''f2 47.~hl ~flX 0-1
o Per Wikstrom
• Jeroen Bosch
Gausdal 2002
1.~f3 d6 2.e4 c5 3.d4 cd4 4.tDd4 tDf6
5...'i\c3 .Q.d76.g3 e5 7.t;"b3 .Q.c68.~g2
~e7 9.0-0 0-0 10.~e3 lO.-.e2 tj",hd7
Il.a4 b6 12J~dl a6 13...Q.e3~b7 14.f4
l:tc8 IS.f5 l:te8 J6.g4 h6=
Jakovenko-Solak, Yerevan 2()()()
10...tt~d7 11.f4?! %:leSII...ef4 12.~.f4'
tbe5 13.lbd4i 12.f5 b5 12.Jcc5
13..!bc5 deS 14.'i'd8 nad8=; 12...b6
13.lt.)d5 13:1!\Ie2a61 t::. h4, ~b5; ne8,
echo; 13...h4 14.ti.)dS Qd5 IS.cdS as
16.a.3! 14.Q.Jd5 .ad5 15.ed5 'i::b6
16.l:tad1 16.tba5? tLbd5 17.lL:c6 -.c7+
16...lDc4 17.~c1 W'b6 17...a5 18.tea1!;
17...l:tc8 18.w111 18.'t!¥t1 ~d8; 18J:tf2
~d8 18....:lac8+ 19.94? 19,1'Da1 'it' as!
20.a3 (20.b3 ttJa3) 20 ...b4 21.tDb3 fibS
22.ab4 1i'b4 t::. a5-a4; 19.c3 b4 20.cb4
~b4 2 l.Q.JaI -.b7+ 19...h6+ 20.h41
20...tLih7 21.'t!te1 'iVd8!-+ 22.16 22.hS
~g5 22....i.f6 23Jlf6 00f6 24.g5 ~g4
25.Ae4 25.gh6 'iWf6 25 ...h5 26..i.f5 g6
27.£94 27..tc8 1!fc8-+ 27...hg4
28:~e2 '5 29.9f6 1!.Vf6 30.'f¥g4 ~f5
31.""'g2 :f8 32_.i.h6 :f7 32 ...~h5
33.~ffl ~dl 34.~h2 ~f8 33.:91 <t.>h7
34 ..i.g5 "*f3 0-1
o William Watson
• Viktor Kupreichik
Jyvaskyla 1991
1.e4 c5 VL:f3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.0.d4 tilfS
5.tilc3 ~d7 6.h3 e5 7.CDdb5 ses 8.~g5
a6 9.t2Ca3 CDbd710.tL.c4 11611.~h4 95
12..Q.g3~)e4 13..:ne4 ~.e4 14.~ld6 .td6
15.'tWd6 ~c2 16.h4 J6.~e5 tbe5
17."e5 "i'e7 18.i¥e7 We7= 16...'i'e7
17.'i'd2 i.h7 18.hg5 hg5 19.rlc1 tbc5
20:i'e3 CLid721.i..d3 '6 22.:c7 'tWd6
23.~b7 0-0-0 24J1b3 ~c5 25.:lc3 .id3
26.rlh8 .Ilh8 27.'llfc5 'i'cs 28.nc5 ~b7
29.rld5 ..Q.b530.f3 ~c6 31 .l:td1 l:lh1
201
32.~d2 Irdl 33.Wdl ~11 34.a4 ~g2 19 ... i.fS 20."'f5 d3 2l.<bhl .ial 22.J:la1
35.~e2 .Q.h3 36.b4 ~d7 37 ..Q.el wdS l:le8 23.h4? 23 ..Q.d3 llee7 23 ..:ird4
38.b5 ab5 39.ab5 ~b5 40.<;M2 f5 24.:f1 d2 25 ..Q.g3:tel! 0-1
4l.~a5 94 42.194 fg4 43 ..ad2 l-2_~
o Adrian Mikhalchishin
• Dragan Solak
o Dieter Morawietz Nova Gorica 2002

• Viktor Kupreichik 1.e4 cS 2_tDf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tlid4 lLf6

Germany Bundesliga 1997 5.Ciic3 ~d7 6.f4!? lDc6 7..ie2 96 7...e6
1.e4 c5 2kf3 d6 3.d4 cd4 4.tDd4 H6 8..ie3 .ig7 9.~d2 ()"O10.0-0
S.tDc3 i.d7 6.f4 tLic6 7..:Lif3e6 8.a3 ~e7
9.~d3 ""b6!? 9...0-0 10.0-0 10.~e2 eS
11.f5 tL:;d4 1 Vi:;d4 ed4 13.~d5 tL;dS
14.ed5 0-0 15.0-0 ~f6 16.'f¥h5 16.1!fg4
f:, 16...l%ac8 17..Q.f4, I!UiNg3 16 ...~8c8

17.~f4 17.nf3 ~fe8 17 ..J:lc7 18.b4 g6

19JWg4

111.1. 1 1
.1*
'¥JJi 1 Ai
10 ...:tc8 JO.Ji:,d4! 11..~d4 ~c6= 11,h3
~ ~
.t_;a5? 12.l:lad1 ti,c4 13.~c4 IXc4
fj, 1 ~'iV 14.e5!± ~',e9 14..,de5? 15.fe5 Ci;e8
fj, ~ (15...l:td 16.ef6+-) 16.41f3+- l5.~b3
b6 16.=fe1 .tea 17.-.e2 J:.c7 18.Ciid4
~ ~fj, e6 19...';';cb5l:lc5 20.84 'i'd7 21 ,ed6 ';'::16
.hI ~~ 21... ti"\d6 22.tbe6+- 22.c3 1·0
 Author's Note
Most of the material in this book has pre-
viously appeared in New in Chess publi-
cations. Sections I, II, III and IV were
published as so-called SOS articles in
New ill Chess Magazine. The basis of
Sections V and VI may be found in
several Yearbooks.
Still, Iwould like to stress that in the pro-
cess of compilation numerous changes
were made, and that all chapters in this
book have been updated until May 2003.
In the table below the reader may find in-
formation concerning the publication
history of each chapter.
Section I: The left hook a3!?
I. The Gunsberg Variation
New in Chess 2001 issue 8
Minor textual changes. Recent games
have been added.
2. Your SOS weapon versus the Pirc
New in Chess 2002 issue 5
Minor textual changes. Recent games
have been added.
3. Outfox your opponent...
New in Chess 2003 issue 3
Minor textual changes.
Section II: Surprising bishop moves
4. Sokolov's surprise
New in Chess 2002 issue 6
Minor textual changes. Recent games
have been added.
5. Play the Surprise Indian
New in Chess 2000 issue I
Minor textual changes. Recent games
have been added.
6. TN on move 5
New in Chess 2OUO issue 8
Minor textual changes. Recent games
have been added.
7. A bishop's wonder move
New in Chess 200 I issue 5
Minor textual changes. Recent games
have been added.
Section III: Early Queen Moves
8. Alapin bites the Dutch
New in Chess 2000 issue 6
Minor textual changes.
9. Another Tarrasch Variation
New in Chess 2002 issue 8
Minor textual changes. A recent game has
been added.
10. Surprising Hodgson
New in Chess 2002 issue 2
Minor textual changes. A recent game has
been added.
I I. A surprising Queen sortie
New in Chess 2002 issue 7
Minor textual changes.
12. A tactical weapon ...
New in Chess 2003 issue 5
Minor textual changes.
203
Section IV: An 50S pawn thrust
13. Modern, Scandinavian or Alekhine?
New in Chess 1999 issue 4
Minor textual changes. Recent games
have been added.
14. Only Mad Dogs and Englishmen?
New in Chess 200 I issue 2
Minor textual changes. A recent game has
been added.
IS. Trumping the Tromp
New in Chess 2001 issue 6
Minor textual changes. Recent games
have been added.
16. The improved Lisitsin Gambit
New in Chess 2002 issue 3
Minor textual changes. Recent games
have been added.
Section V: Outflanking the French
17. French Wing Gambit
Yearbook 40
Minor textual changes. The theory secti-
on has been updated. Considerable
changes were made compared to the ori-
ginal study material in Yearbook 40.
Section VI: A Surprising SlcUian
18. The Kupreichik
Yearbook 47 and 56
A considerable part of this chapter has
originally appeared in three surveys, as
published in the Yearbook series. Yet, the
original material has been completely
re-worked and considerably enlarged and
updated. This chapter was, then, specifi-
cally written for the present publication.
Send us your SOS
PLAY THE BEST 50S GAME
AND WiN € 250,-

New In Chess invites you to send us your best game in

which you have used an 50S-ideo from this book.

All entries will be judged by Jeroen Bosch. The winner

will receive € 250 and the winning game will appear in a
New In Chess publication.
 I,
• submitted games should start with one of the SOS-ideas from this book
• submitted games should include information about where and when it
was played and at what time rate (classical or rapid only)
• entries have to be submitted to New In Chess before
September 1st 2004
• New In Chess contributors are excluded from participation
• New In Chess obtains the right to use the submitted games for its
publications

1st Prize: Plus:

€ 250 plus winning game 10 prizes of € 25 worth of
will appear in a books/software from the
New In Chess publication New In Chess online shop

Games should be submitted to:

New In Chess, P.O. Box 1093, 1810 KB Alkmaar
The Netherlands or email toeditors@newinchess.com

207
L
ook at your opponent sitting there in blissful ignorance.
Fully at ease. everything under control, not a worry in the
world. Or so he thinks. He's checked his repertoire,
double-checked his main lines. He wanted to come
well-prepared and he did. Or did he? Because what he doesn't
know is thai today is not his day. For tile simple reason that
he's playing you. And you are going to spring a surprise on him.
No main variations today, nothing mainstream, he's going to be
initiated into a world of secrets: Secrets of Opening Surprises'
In this book you will find an extensive selection of the best SOS
columns that Jeroen Bosch wrote for New In Chess Magazine. In
addition you will find two chapters from Bosch's contributions to
the New In Chess Yearbook. All of them have been
reworked and updated.
Tired of main lines? Looking for a weapon to perplex your
opponent? Here's a refreshing source overflowing with baffling
ideas and stunning finds.

Jeroen Bosch is an International Master and a prolific chess

writer for various chess publications. His thoroughly researched
contributions to the New In Chess Yearbooks are highly valued,
but he also continues to perplex (and pleasantly surprise) us with
the seemingly endless stream of unorthodox opening ideas that
he manages to unearth for his SOS column in New In Chess
Magazine.

C 21,95
Le due Torri
www.chess.it
TeI.051.522.433