Table

of Contents
Title page
KEY TO SYMBOLS
INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1. CLASSICAL VARIATION (Be2)

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

CHAPTER 2. 7.Bc4: ANTI-YUGOSLAV VARIATION

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

CHAPTER 3. 7.Bc4: MY SYSTEM

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

CHAPTER 4. MAROCZY BIND: BREYER VARIATION

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
CHAPTER 5. MAROCZY BIND: MAIN LINE

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

CHAPTER 6. 4.Qxd4 VARIATION

Part 1
Part 2

CHAPTER 7. ANTI-SICILIANS: ALAPIN AND MORRA

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
AFTERWORD
 THE HYPER ACCELERATED DRAGON

by
Raja Panjwani

www.thinkerspublishing.com

Managing Editor
Romain Edouard

Proofreading
Daniël Vanheirzeele

Graphic Artist
Philippe Tonnard

Cover design
Iwan Kerkhof

Typesetting
i-Press ‹www.i-press.pl›

Second extended edition 2018 by Thinkers Publishing

The Hyper Accelerated Dragon

Copyright © 2018 Raja Panjwani

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

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

ISBN 978-94-9251-034-1
D/2018/13730/16

All sales or enquiries should be directed to Thinkers Publishing, 9850

Landegem, Belgium.

e-mail: info@thinkerspublishing.com
website: www.thinkerspublishing.com
Key to Symbols used!
! an>a good move
? a weak move
!! an excellent move
?? a blunder
!? an interesting move
?! a dubious move
□ only move
= equality
∞ unclear position
White stands slightly better
Black stands slightly better
± White has a serious advantage
∓ Black has a serious advantage
+- White has a decisive advantage
-+ Black has a decisive advantage
→ with an attack↑with an initiative
⇆ with counterplay
Δ with the idea of
better is
≤ worse is
N novelty
+ check
# mate
© with compensation for thesacrificed material
 INTRODUCTION

It simply isn’t an adventure worth telling if there aren’t any dragons.

J.R.R. Tolkien

My Favorite Sicilian
I was introduced to the Accelerated Dragon when I was ten years old, more than
seventeen years ago. It was arguably my first ‘serious’ defense against 1.e4: prior
to then I would develop my pieces in a manner my father and I called ‘P-Play’
(the ‘P’ deriving from our family name) but which I later discovered is widely
known as the Hippopotamus Defence. He and I were of similar strength at the
time, and we studied the opening together from the then recently published, and
now classic, Accelerated Dragons by IMs Donaldson and Silman.
What drew me to the opening initially was the abundance of cheapos I could set
up for my opponents in the early stages of the game, which even experts and
masters seemed unprepared for. The following was always one of my favorites:

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Qa5
8.Qd2?

8.0-0

8...Nxe4! 9.Nxc6

9.Nxe4 Qxd2+ 10.Bxd2 Nxd4µ

9...Qxc3!! 10.Qxc3

10.bxc3 Nxd2 11.Bxd2 bxc6µ

10...Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 bxc6µ

Beyond simple tricks like this one, I found that the positional themes of the
opening were fairly easy to digest; for example, dark square control, central
breakthrough (especially ...d7-d5), queenside expansion, as well as the typical
favorable and unfavorable endgames which tend to arise. As I have matured as a
player, my perspective on this opening has correspondingly transformed, but my
respect and appreciation for its strength has only been enhanced. This book is an
attempt to convey my current understanding and approach with black.
I have always felt that the Accelerated Dragon does not get its due respect
among the Sicilians. Even its prodigal brother, the un-accelerated Dragon, had its
time in the spotlight when it was used by Kasparov to twice defeat (and twice
draw) Anand in their 1995 PCA World Championship match. Why then, has the
Accelerated Dragon — the theoretically no worse off, and much safer of the two
(I like to think of it as the only Sicilian where Black needn’t worry about getting
mated in 25 moves) — historically been only an occasional guest in top events,
and, unlike every other respectable Sicilian, never occupied the central
battlefield of a World Championship match?1 Part of the discrepancy is a vestige
of the old (pre-1970s) dogma that in the Sicilian, to avoid suffocation, Black
must prevent White from obtaining a ‘clamp’ pawn center (pawns on e4 and c4).
Indeed, the Maroczy Bind (5.c4) has always been the bane of the Accelerated
Dragon’s existence. However, while this attitude towards the Sicilian may have
been justifiable half a century ago, Black has since demonstrated
counterattacking prospects against the e4/c4 clamp in a variety of structures, as
in the Hedgehog, Kalashnikov, Kan, Taimanov, and certainly no less in the
Accelerated Dragon.
I suspect that computers have deterred many potential devotees away from the
Accelerated Dragon. Computer evaluations in the main lines tend to fluctuate
between +0.25 and +0.5, which plausibly leads to the rationale that playing the
Accelerated Dragon instead of the Berlin or Marshall — where evaluations are
closer to +0.15 — is like playing with a small handicap straight out of the
opening. Things, however, are not so simple. Computers evaluate each position
by objective features, without regard for subjective factors which are very often
more important in tournament chess. Machines systematically ignore the value
of, for example, being able to follow one of a small number of thematic plans,
irrespective of what the opponent does, saving on clock time as well as risk of
mishandling the position. This sort of human element is unaccounted for by the
engine, resulting in an inflated estimation of White’s chances. In this regard,
there are similarities between the Accelerated Dragon and the King’s Indian
Defense — another opening notoriously bastardized by the engine. King’s Indian
devotees are used to seeing +0.5 computer evaluations, but they are not
discouraged because they recognize that there is a narrow margin of error for
White, and to err is human. The same can be said for the Accelerated Dragon.
Fortunately, the tide of fashion is turning, and contemporary Accelerated Dragon
experts like (super) Grandmasters Tiviakov, Mamedov, Iturrizaga, and Malakhov
have demonstrated that this opening can be a reliable counter to 1.e4 even
against top opposition. Recently, in fact, World Champion Magnus Carlsen
upheld the Black side of a Maroczy to put a halt to Caruana’s 7-0 run in the 2014
Sinquefield Cup. I predict a bright future for this opening, for many reasons, but
most of all because 1) The resulting positions are difficult for computers to
properly assess- many ‘+=’ evaluations are more accurately ‘=’ but more
importantly ‘easier to play for Black’, a factor which should not be
underestimated especially considering the increasingly short time controls, and
2) There is plenty of unexplored terrain, which cannot be easily navigated by the
positional dictums we are brought up with, because the Accelerated Dragon is a
genuinely nonstandard opening. This means that there is a competitive
advantage to those who work out its unusual nuances, unlike in, say, the Najdorf
or Sveshnikov where it often feels like the strategic ideas are all well known, and
only concrete novelties are yet to be discovered (if it is unclear what I mean by
this, I hope it isn’t by the end of the book!).
The Accelerated Dragon State of Mind
A friend of mine (a strong IM) recently commented to me that if he could be
certain that his opponents wouldn’t play the Maroczy bind, he would always
play the Accelerated Dragon instead of his usual (un-accelerated, but I
sometimes teasingly prefer ‘un-playable’) Dragon, because White can’t play the
critical Yugoslav Attack against the Accelerated Dragon (despite this being
lesson #1 of the Accelerated Dragon, a surprising number of masters have not
gotten the memo). “However”, he continued, “in the Maroczy, Black is just
playing for a draw, you can never win!” A loyal defender of my beloved pet
opening, I insisted he had it all wrong, and that I welcome the Maroczy in must-
win games with Black. “That’s really weird dude, you’re probably the only one”
was his retort, but I think when it comes to the Accelerated Dragon, there’s a
requisite state of mind needed in order to properly handle it — some players
have had a conversion experience after catching a glimpse of its incredible
power, while others haven’t. Plausibly as a result of this, from my experience
there is a peculiar camaraderie among Accelerated Dragon practitioners.
Whereas Najdorf ‘bros’ espouse a Darwinian angst that their novelty on move 25
in the Poisoned Pawn variation will be discovered, used, and rendered useless by
their colleagues, I have found that Accelerated Dragon players enjoy discussing
their ideas with each other. A personal anecdote of mine is fairly typical: in the
final round of the 2013 US Masters tournament I was in a must-win ‘money
game’ with Black against Cuban GM Abreu, and I noticed GM Rauf Mamedov
(a leading expert on the Black side of the Accelerated Dragon) was taking an
interest in the Maroczy Bind on my board. I won the game in a tense struggle,
and afterwards when I was collecting my prize, Rauf kindly congratulated me on
the win and took an interest in the 15...e6 line I played (see chapter 5), which he
said he hadn’t studied before. I told him I was not too happy with the more
popular 15...Qb6, but he asserted that from his analysis Black has no problems
there — “it’s equal” he said. His confident proclamation was just the nudge I
needed to look closer into some of the lines I thought were undesirable for
Black, and on closer inspection I realized (unsurprisingly) he was right!
While this elusive ‘state of mind’ is somewhat ineffable, and better grasped from
experience than anything else (if I am successful then the contents of this book
will convey precisely this), I think it is helpful to think of the Maroczy as a close
cousin of the Hedgehog. I understand the ‘philosophy’ of the Hedgehog in terms
of how Mihai Suba describes it in his excellent Dynamic Chess Strategy. It is
worth quoting him at length.
“White’s position looks ideal. That’s the naked truth about it, but the ‘ideal’ has
by definition one drawback — it cannot be improved. ...In the early 1970s, the
successes of Karpov and Andersson showed that [Hedgehog] positions are not
only playable but offer as many winning chances as any other opening. This was
in glaring conflict with classical strategy. White enjoys more space, better
development [and] his position has no weaknesses. How is it possible that Black
not only resists in these positions but sometimes wins? The only plausible
answer lies in the hidden dynamics of the positions. After the opening, White’s
position has all the qualities of a successful picture, but lacks concrete
possibilities for improvement. Within our terminology, it is rigid (not elastic).
Black’s position, in contrast, ‘looks’ bad but has greater scope for improvement.”
(p. 26)
This description applies equally well to the Maroczy. In fact, you might say that
the Accelerated Dragon (specifically the Black side of the Maroczy) ‘state of
mind’ is, to borrow Suba’s phrase, an appreciation for the “hidden dynamic
factors” in each position which compensate for the static deficiencies (again, the
best way to ‘sense’ these is by studying the opening — the variations in this
book are meant to illustrate these factors). Moreover, as a long time Hedgehog
player myself, I must say that in my opinion, Black has much more freedom in
the Maroczy than in the Hedgehog; for instance, in the Hedgehog, it is usually
unfavorable for Black to exchange queens, whereas in the Maroczy (and the
Accelerated Dragon more broadly), White often takes pains to avoid exchanging
queens so as to not lose the initiative, and that is a liability which contributes to
the “rigidity” (another apt term of Suba’s) of White’s position. Terms like
‘elastic’ and ‘counterattacking potential’ will be interspersed throughout this
book — they are much more informative than reductive evaluations like ‘=’.
An Inclusive Opening
One of the remarkable things about the Accelerated Dragon is its appeal to
players with vastly different styles. Compare Bent Larsen, the epitome of
dynamic, offbeat, risky chess, with Sergei Tiviakov, who claimed in an interview
recently that his style has been shaped most by Petrosian (who was a great
Accelerated Dragon devotee himself), Smyslov, and Karpov — both these
players have championed the Accelerated Dragon as their main weapon against
1.e4 and yet their styles are in many ways polar opposites of each other! How
can this be? I think the answer to this question is subtle and instructive. I think
that when playing the Accelerated Dragon it ‘feels’ like you are playing White,
not Black (albeit in a hypermodern manner). What I mean is, in chess, White
tends to be the one to control the tempo of the game — usually it is White who
chooses whether to enter into an opposite side castling situation, or to exchange
pieces early on and maneuver around in a simplified middlegame, or invoke the
center as the locus of battle, ensuring king safety above all.2 Furthermore, Black
usually needs to play accurately to not end up slightly worse, or at least give the
initiative to White. The situation is, to the well prepared Accelerated Dragon
player, precisely the reverse: in the Maroczy, for example, there are half a dozen
different ways for Black to develop, and players of diverse styles can choose the
one which suits them best (or vary their choice depending on practical
considerations). Black controls the tempo and determines the character of the
struggle, which is why it is so effective in must-win games. Furthermore, unlike
in many 1...e5 openings, or in most other Sicilians like the Kan, Sveshnikov, or
even the Najdorf, White’s choices are rather limited if he does not want to end
up slightly worse out of the opening. In practice, White meets the Accelerated
Dragon with either the Maroczy Bind or the 7.Bc4 variation; this is simply not
so in the Najdorf where every single reasonable move is a viable candidate from
the starting position of the Najdorf (6.h3, 6.Rg1, 6.g3, 6.f3, 6.Be3, 6.f4, 6.Be2,
6.Bc4, 6.Bg5, 6.a4, and that is not even to mention variations therein), and the
margin for White error is far greater (for example 6.Be2 e5 7.Nf3!? is a serious
challenge to the Najdorf but 6.Be2 Bg7 7.Nf3?! is just dubious against the
Accelerated Dragon).
The above may sound a little hyperbolic, and I would like to make it clear from
the outset that I am not claiming that ‘Black is better’ in the Accelerated Dragon;
to do so would be dishonest. My claim is a serious one: the character of the
Accelerated Dragon is that of a White opening. In fact, the Accelerated Dragon
reversed is a White opening, called the English, and is fashioned by most of the
top players in the world, including Carlsen, Kramnik, Aronian, Anand, Giri, and
others: the exact piece arrangement occurs with colors reversed (and a tempo up)
after 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Nc3,
as well as 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nc7 7.0-0
e5 (reversed Maroczy). I have enjoyed playing this ‘reversed Accelerated
Dragon’ with White as well.
In addition to being inclusive in the above sense, that it can suit players of
diverse styles, and also that it can be a coherent complement to a 1.c4 repertoire
with White, there are many interesting ways that the opening ‘fits’ with defenses
against 1.d4/1.c4/1.Nf3, and can often directly transpose from them.
King’s Indian:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6
i) 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 c5 7.0-0 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nc6
ii) 5.f3 0-0 6.Be3 c5 7.Nge2 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nc6
Benoni/Benko Gambit:
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 g6 6.e4
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 c5 4.Nc3 (4.d5 either 4...b5 or 4...e6) 4...cxd4 5.Nxd4
Nc6 6.e4
Symmetrical English:
1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.e4 Nc6
1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.e4 Nc6
Of course, there is no obligation on Accelerated Dragon players to deploy these
defences in order to allow for transpositional possibilities — Tiviakov has been a
lifelong Nimzo-Indian/Queen’s Indian devotee as a counterexample — but I
have found it useful to play these systems in tandem myself.
One more point on the topic of move orders: since the Accelerated Dragon
(especially the Maroczy) can come about from so many different move orders, I
have taken some liberties with the games in this book to convert the initial
moves to the 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 ‘Hyper-Accelerated Dragon’ move order we will
be focusing on. I have done this, following a not uncommon practice, purely for
didactic purposes — I don’t want readers happy with their 1.d4 defenses to be
confused by transpositions from openings they don’t play.
About This Book
This book presents a repertoire for Black after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 — the Hyper-
Accelerated Dragon. I am relatively lax about distinguishing between
‘Accelerated Dragon’ (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6) and ‘Hyper-
Accelerated Dragon’, and I use the two interchangeably unless to emphasize
move order nuances, for example, “the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon avoids the
Rossolimo”. However, this is not merely ‘a’ Hyper-Accelerated Dragon
repertoire, it is my repertoire, and I present the material as such, from a first
person perspective, making brazen use of my own games and offering personal
anecdotes and opinions. This stylistic choice risks my coming across as
presumptuous and at times even boastful, but my hope is rather that the
conversational mode of presentation makes readers feel as though I am their tour
guide through what might otherwise feel like an insurmountable labyrinth of
variations. Further on the point of stylistic choices, I am regrettably not
sufficiently skilled in writing without gender-specific pronouns, so please regard
all generic references to ‘he’ as ‘s/he’ (or alternative) and so on.
I provide as much information as I think is necessary for readers to play this
opening with Black; however, this is absolutely not meant to be an anthology on
the opening. I make no claim to cover every conceivable variation White can
play. Any attempt at such, couched under the heading of a ‘complete repertoire’
would not only be misleading, but in this day and age obsolete. This is not to say
that opening books are altogether obsolete; on the contrary, as inundated with
information as we all are nowadays, it can be enormously helpful to have an
author divulge opening secrets from their years of experience which would not
easily be gathered from a database search.
What is obsolete is the attempt to thoroughly and comprehensively ‘prove
equality’ with Black, and more importantly for our purposes it is antagonistic to
the spirit of the Accelerated Dragon, which is that of an opening refusing to be
evaluated on static grounds alone. As Jonathan Rowson instructs in his Seven
Deadly Chess Sins, “You need to assess not only the position as it stands but the
position as it has changed and how it is likely to continue to change”. (p.75) So,
I am not a big fan of evaluations like ‘=’ or ‘=+’ or ‘+=’ (though I capitulate to
these at times) because ‘=’ makes me think of a draw and ‘+=’ makes me feel
like I ought to be satisfied with a draw as Black, when in reality Black can very
much be optimistic about his position despite such evaluations, and that is why I
prefer evaluations like “counterplay” or “mutual chances”.
If you encounter a variation not covered in this book, for example 1.e4 c5 2.Na3,
my general prescription is this: find a database (no excuses, they are free online),
and search the position with an Accelerated Dragon player (I gave you a list
above) as Black to see how they have chosen to play the position. Ideally you’ll
find a model game that you can recall whenever you face the system; after all,
when it comes to rare systems like 2.Na3 it is foolish to memorize concrete
variations since you’ll never remember them anyway, but the key ideas of a
model game you can. Even in the main lines of the Accelerated Dragon, don’t
try to memorize the moves given in this book as if they are the ultimate truth.
They aren’t. Your learning will be enhanced if you actively seek out novelties of
your own, and try to understand how the various positional ideas for both sides
fit together.
To make this book as valuable to the Petrosian-style (risk-averse) Accelerated
Dragon player as to the Larsen-type (risk-craving), I have recommended two
systems against each of the 7.Bc4 and Maroczy Bind variations. I hope at least
one of these suits you. For those among you who will embark on the risky course
(‘My System’ against 7.Bc4 and the Breyer Variation of the Maroczy), may I
caution you to do so with a realistic attitude towards the cost of risk-taking in
chess. It is in the (mathematical) nature of risk-taking that it increases the
variability of outcomes — both good and bad. The mature risk taker is mindful
of this, cognizant that their risk-taking is compatible with their aims and
justifications. This was the attitude of Bent Larsen. If you would like to play the
Accelerated Dragon ambitiously, with a tolerance for risk, keep in mind the
following description of Larsen, given by Reshevsky: “He is a firm believer in
the value of surprise. Consequently, he often resorts to dubious variations in
various openings. He also likes to complicate positions even though it may
involve considerable risk. He has a great deal of confidence in his game and
fears no one. His unique style has proven extremely effective against relatively
weak opponents but has not been too successful against top-notchers.” Alas, this
is the risk-taker’s predicament, but far from discouraging it, I am thankful for the
risk-takers among you who resist the ‘genetic’ drift of our chess community
towards timidity and results-oriented pragmatism.
I sincerely hope you find this to be an enjoyable and enriching experience.
 CHAPTER 1
CLASSICAL VARIATION (Be2)

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.Nc3 Nc6

Contents
1. 6.Nb3, 6.Nde2
2. 6.Be3 Nf6 7.sidelines & 7.Be2 d5!?
3. 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Be2 0-0 8.sidelines
4. 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0

1
We begin with the variation which epitomizes the Accelerated Dragon
philosophy. In most defenses to 1.e4, White has the option of playing a
‘Classical’ variation by developing the light squared bishop to e2. This is
particularly the case in Sicilians like the Najdorf, Scheviningen and Taimanov,
but also in other defenses like the Pirc/Modern and Alekhine. In all these
systems, the Classical Variation offers White serious chances to obtain an
opening advantage, and the immortal games of past champions like Geller and
Karpov provide textbook illustrations of successful ‘Classical’ 1.e4 play. In
contrast, the Be2 (Classical) variation against the ordinary, un-Accelerated
Dragon is rather harmless for Black, the Yugoslav Attack being its critical test.
As Accelerated Dragon players, we are in an even more favorable situation than
ordinary Dragon players when it comes to the Classical variation, because we
can choose to transpose to harmless variations of the Classical Dragon by opting
for ...d7-d6 at opportune moments, and in some lines we can strike with ...d7-d5
directly, saving a full tempo compared with analogous lines in the Dragon.
Despite the fact that this system offers White no advantage, it is still seen in
about 15% of Accelerated Dragons (the other 85% are nearly evenly distributed
between the Maroczy and Bc4 variations), the bulk of which occur at the club
level.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.Nc3 Nc6

6.Nb3
This move tends to be played later on anyway in the Be2 system, in order to
hinder Black from playing ...d7-d5 (note that the Maroczy and Bc4 variation
both target the d5-square), so some players prefer to play 6.Nb3 directly without
committing the Bishop to e3.
6.Nde2

This is not part of the Be2 system so I just mention it in passing. Some people
who like to fianchetto their light bishop in other Sicilians play this ‘Chameleon’
line; such variations are apt against tamer Sicilians like the Najdorf, not the
unforgiving Accelerated Dragon.
6...Nf6 7.g3
(7.a4 d5!N 8.exd5 (8.Nxd5? Nxe4µ) 8...Nb4 9.Nf4 (9.Ng3 0-0 10.Bc4 Qc7
11.Bb3 Rd8„) 9...Bf5
 10.Bb5+ Kf8 11.Bd3 Nxd3+ 12.cxd3 g5 13.Nfe2 Nxd5 14.Bxg5 Nxc3
15.bxc3 Bxd3 16.0-0 Bc4=)
7...b5! 8.Bg2 Rb8 9.0-0 0-0

10.h3
a) 10.Nd5 d6 11.Bg5 (11.h3 Nd7 12.c3 e6 13.Nb4 Nxb4 14.cxb4 Nb6³
 Polgar,Z (2550)-Georgiev,V (2615) Matinhos 1994) 11...Nd7 12.c3 Re8
13.Nd4 Nxd4 14.cxd4 Nb6 15.Nb4 Bb7 16.Rc1 Qd7 17.b3 a5 18.Nc2 b4= 1–
0 (57) Kuzmin,G (2540)-Macieja,B (2460) St Petersburg 1996;
b) 10.Bf4 d6 11.Qd2 b4 12.Nd5 Ng4 13.Rab1 Nge5 14.b3 e6 15.Ne3 Qa5µ;
10...b4 11.Nd5 Ba6 12.Re1 Nxd5 13.exd5 Na5

14.Bf4
(14.Nd4 Nc4 15.Rb1 e5! 16.dxe6 fxe6³)
14...Rc8 15.d6 e6 16.a3 b3! 17.cxb3 Qb6 18.b4 Nc4³ Perovic-Nikolic, Pula
1991.

6...Nf6 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0

There are ways of playing this in the spirit of the Accelerated Dragon but I think
Black’s best and simplest path is to proceed in Dragon style with ...d7-d6 and
...Bc8-e6, aiming to play ...d6-d5.

8...d6
9.Bg5

This is likely to be White’s idea if they play 6.Nb3 directly.

9.f4?!

9...b5!„;
9.Kh1 Be6 10.f4 Qc8! Preventing f4-f5.
(10...d5?! 11.f5 Bc8 12.exd5 Nb4 13.fxg6 hxg6 14.Bf3 Bf5 15.Nd4±)
11.Be3
(11.f5? gxf5 12.exf5 Bxf5µ One might think White has some compensation
because Black’s king position has been compromised but the far more salient
factor is Black’s superiority in the center.)
11...Rd8= White cannot prevent ...d6-d5, which as a rule (at least) equalizes for
Black.;
9.Re1 Be6 10.Bf1 d5 11.Nc5
(11.exd5 Nxd5 12.Ne4 b6=)
11...dxe4 12.Nxe6 Qxd1 13.Rxd1 fxe6 14.Bc4 Kf7³ Black’s tripled pawns are
not to be scoffed at; they restrict White’s pieces by controlling important central
squares.

9...Be6 10.Kh1

White signals his intention to continue with f2-f4. Since White’s bishop is on g5,
it is no longer realistic for Black to aim for ...d6-d5, so he refocuses attention
toward the queenside.
10.f4?! b5!„

10...Rc8 11.f4 a6
Black can take his time on the queenside because if White continues with f4-f5
then Black will happily take possession of the e5 square with his knight.

12.Qe1

12.f5 Bd7! 13.Qc1 Ne5 14.Qf4 b5„;

12.Bf3 Nd7!? Just one idea of many. 13.Rb1 Bxc3 14.bxc3 Qc7³;
12.a4 Na5 13.Nxa5 Qxa5 14.Bd3 Rfe8 15.Qe2 Qb4 16.a5 Bg4 17.Qd2 Bd7
Black threatens ...d6-d5 thanks to the pin on the c3-knight. 18.Qe2?! Qxb2
19.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.Nd5 Bb5 21.Bxb5 Qxb5 22.Qxb5 axb5 23.Rab1 Rc5µ 0–1
(42) Anand,V (2715)-Topalov, V (2640) Linares 1994.

12...b5
13.f5 Bd7 14.Qh4 Ne5 15.Nd4 Rc5!„

Black intends ...Qd8-a8 with prospects for the thematic ...Rxc3 Sicilian
exchange sacrifice.
15...Nc4?! 16.Nd5 Nxd5 17.exd5ƒ
 2

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6

7.Be2

7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.e5 Ng8! (8...Nd5 I never liked this pawn sacrifice but several
grandmasters have played it. 9.Nxd5 cxd5 10.Qxd5 Rb8∞) 9.f4 Nh6 10.Qd2 0-0
11.0-0-0 d6!=;
7.f4
7...0-0 8.Be2 Black can of course continue with 8...d6 here and transpose to the
ordinary Dragon but I suggest we only do so after White has displaced his knight
from the active d4-square.
(8.e5 White can’t afford such extensions before castling and completing
development. 8...Ne8 9.Qf3 (9.Nxc6?! bxc6 10.h4?! d6 11.h5 Qa5 12.hxg6
hxg6µ; 9.Qd2 d6„) 9...d6 10.0-0-0 (10.Nxc6?! bxc6 11.Qxc6 Bd7³)
10...Bd7„)
8...e5!
9.Ndb5 Black has safe paths to equality here like 9...Ne8, but the following
opportunity, while messy and slightly risky, is far too appealing to pass up.
(9.fxe5 Nxe5 10.0-0 d6 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bh4 g5 13.Bg3 Qb6 14.Kh1 Neg4
15.Qd3 Nh5„; 9.Nxc6 dxc6 10.fxe5 Ng4!„)
9...Nxe4!!N 10.Nxe4 d5 11.Nf2
(11.Ned6 a6 12.Nxc8 Rxc8 13.Na7 Nxa7 14.Bxa7 b6µ)
11...a6 12.Na3 exf4 13.Bc1
Black’s compensation is of a long-term nature. For the sacrificed piece he
currently has two pawns, control over the center, and most of White’s pieces are
awkwardly placed. Black can ‘just play’ the position, even the computer gives its
approval (“0.00”) to several moves (13...Re8, 13...Qh4, 13...Nd4). The
following is just one possible continuation. 13...f3!? 14.Bxf3
(14.gxf3?! Qh4 15.0-0 Bd4 16.c3 Ba7 17.Nc2 Bh3 18.Be3 Bxe3 19.Nxe3
Qg5+ 20.Kh1 Bxf1 21.Nxf1 Rfe8=)
14...Re8+ 15.Kf1 Nd4 16.c3 Nxf3
17.gxf3
(17.Qxf3 d4! 18.Bd2 Be6 19.Re1 Qb6µ)
17...d4! 18.Bf4
(18.cxd4?! Bf5 19.d5 Rc8 20.h4 b5 21.Nb1 b4!µ)
18...dxc3 19.Qxd8 Rxd8 20.bxc3 Bxc3 21.Rd1 Be6 22.Rxd8+ Rxd8 23.Nb1 Bd4
24.a3 Rc8 25.Kg2 Rc2 26.Nd2 Ra2=

7...d5!?
Black is not supposed to be able to play this; the general rule is that, except in
extraordinary circumstances, Black must castle before playing this. Obedience to
that rule is likely why this move has never been played by a 2400+ player (at
least according to the database). Computers are helpful for showing us the
exceptions to our rule of thumb heuristics. Nevertheless, Black is not better off
here than he is in the main line (7...0-0), it is just another path to easy equality.

8.Bb5

8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Nxd5 Qxd5 11.0-0 0-0= We have transposed to
the 7...0-0 8.0-0 d5 line.

8...0-0 9.Bxc6

9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Bxc6 Rb8©

9...bxc6 10.Nxc6 Qc7 11.exd5 e6!

12.0-0

12.Nb5 Qb7 13.Nd6 Qc7 14.Nb5 Qb7=;

12.Qd2 exd5 13.Nd4 Ne4 14.Nxe4 dxe4=

12...exd5 13.Nd4

13.Nb4 Ng4 14.g3 Nxe3 15.fxe3 d4³

13...Ng4 14.g3 Nxe3 15.fxe3 Qb7=

 3

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Be2 0-0

8.Nb3

We previously considered this move coupled with Bc1–g5; here Black proceeds
in essentially the same way.
8.Qd2?! d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxd5
(10.0-0-0 Nxe3 11.Nxc6 Qxd2+ 12.Rxd2 Nf5 13.Nb4 Bh6–+ 0–1 (13)
Salimbagat,R (2269)-Panjwani,R (2393) World Open 2016)
10...Nxd4! 11.Nxe7+
(11.Bxd4 Qxd5 12.Bxg7 Qxg2! 13.Bxf8 Qxh1+ 14.Bf1 Qe4+ 15.Be2 Kxf8µ)
11...Qxe7 12.Bxd4 Bxd4 13.Qxd4 Re8 14.Qe3 Qb4+ 15.Qd2?!
(15.c3 Qa4µ)
15...Rxe2+ 16.Kxe2 Bg4+ 17.f3 Re8+ 18.Kd1 Qxb2 19.Rc1 Qb6–+

8...d6!
As per our recipe, we transpose to the Classical Dragon when White commits to
Nb3.
8...a5 I used to follow Donaldson and Silman in playing this Accelerated
Dragon-style move, but unfortunately I don’t think it equalizes. 9.a4 d5?!
(9...Nb4?! 10.f4 (10.0-0 d5 11.e5 Ne4 12.f3 Nxc3 13.bxc3 Nc6 14.f4 f6
15.exf6 Bxf6 16.Qd2 e6∞) 10...d5 11.e5 Ne4 12.Nb5!²)
10.exd5 Nb4

11.Bf3
(11.d6 Bf5 12.Nd4 (12.dxe7 Qxe7 13.Nd4 Rfd8µ) 12...Qxd6=)
11...b6N
a) 11...Bg4 12.Bxg4 Nxg4 13.Qxg4 (13.Bd4 Bxd4 14.Nxd4 Nf6=) 13...Nxc2+
14.Ke2± (14.Kd2±);
b) 11...Bf5 12.Nd4 Nfxd5 13.Nxf5 Nxc3 14.Qxd8 Rfxd8 15.Nxe7+ Kf8 16.0-
0 Nxc2 17.Bc5 Bd4 18.Nc6+ Bxc5 19.Nxd8 Rxd8 20.Rac1 Ne3 21.Rfe1!±;
12.d6 Bg4 13.Bxg4 Nxg4 14.Qxg4 Nxc2+ 15.Ke2 Nxa1 16.Rxa1 Qxd6 17.Rd1
Qxh2 18.Bf4 f5 19.Qf3 Qh4 20.Nd4 e5 21.Bg3±

9.0-0
9.f4 Be6 10.g4

This is the old ‘Rabinovich Attack’, popularized in the 1930s by Kan, Levenfish,
Bondarevsky, and Alekhine. 10...Rc8

(10...d5?! 11.f5 Bc8 12.exd5 Nb4 13.Qd2 (13.Bf3 gxf5 14.a3 fxg4 15.Bg2 Na6
16.Qd3 e6 17.0-0-0 Nxd5 18.h3 g3 19.Rhg1 Qd6 20.Bxd5 exd5 21.Nxd5 Kh8
22.Bf4+– 1–0 (38) Fischer,R-Reshevsky,S Los Angeles 1961; 13.d6 Qxd6
 14.Bc5 Qf4 15.Rf1 Qxh2 16.Bxb4 Nxg4 17.Bxg4 Qg3+ 18.Rf2 Qg1+ 19.Rf1
Qg3+ 20.Rf2 Qg1+ 1/2–1/2 (20) Alekhine, A-Botvinnik,M Nottingham 1936)
13...Nfxd5 14.Nxd5 Qxd5 15.0-0-0! Qxd2+ 16.Bxd2²)
11.f5
(11.g5 Nd7 12.h4 Nc5! 13.Nxc5 (13.Bxc5 dxc5 14.Qxd8 Rfxd8 15.Nxc5 Nd4
16.Nxe6 Nxe6³) 13...dxc5 14.Qxd8 Rfxd8 15.Bxc5 Nd4 16.Bxd4 Bxd4
17.Bd3 Bxc3+ 18.bxc3 Rxc3³)
11...Bxb3! Thank you to Daniel Vanheirzeele for informing me of this idea.
12.cxb3
(12.axb3 This is a worse version for White than 12.cxb3 since the c2-pawn falls
in the main line. 12...d5! 13.exd5 (13.Nxd5 Nxe4µ) 13...Nb4 14.Bf3 (14.Bc4
a6³) 14...Nfxd5!! 15.Nxd5 (15.Bxd5 Bxc3+ 16.bxc3 Rxc3 17.Bh6 Qb6!!
18.fxg6 hxg6 19.Be4 Rd8 20.Qe2 Qf6 21.Ra5 Qh4+ 22.Qf2 Qxg4–+)
15...Nxc2+ 16.Kf2 Nxa1 17.Qxa1 e6 18.f6 exd5 19.fxg7 Re8µ)
12...d5! 13.exd5 Nb4

14.Bf3
(14.Bc4 Here I prefer the simple 14...Qa5 but 14...b5 leads to interesting
complications. Unlike in the 12.axb3 line, 14...a6 is not playable here because
 White has a2-a3 available to him in this line. 14...Qa5!
a) 14...a6 15.g5 Ne8 16.a3²;
b) 14...b5 15.Nxb5 Nfxd5 (15...Nbxd5 16.Bxa7 Qa5+ 17.Qd2 Qxd2+
18.Kxd2 Nxg4 19.Ke2²) 16.Bxa7 Bxb2 17.0-0∞;
15.0-0 Rcd8=)
14...Nfxd5!! 15.Nxd5
(15.Bxd5 Bxc3+ 16.bxc3 Rxc3 17.Bxf7+ Kxf7µ)
15...Nc2+ 16.Kf2
(16.Kf1 Qxd5! 17.Bxd5 Nxe3+³)
16...Nxa1 17.Qxa1 e6 18.f6 exd5 19.fxg7 Re8³ Practically speaking, White is
just lost here — computer level accuracy is required to only remain slightly
worse.

9...Be6

10.f4

10.Qd2 d5=;
10.Nd4 d5 11.Nxe6
(11.exd5 Bxd5=)
11...fxe6 12.exd5 exd5=

10...Rc8

This position has been defended on the Black side by such champions as
Khalifman and Kramnik. White’s attack is not to be underestimated, but Black’s
resilience and counterattacking chances are fully adequate.
10...Qc8!? 11.h3 Rd8 12.Bf3 Nd7 13.Qd2 Nb6=

11.Qe1

11.f5?! White cannot just ‘go for it’; too many weaknesses are created in the
process. 11...Bd7 12.g4 Ne5! 13.g5?
(13.Nd2 Rxc3! 14.bxc3 Bc6©)
13...Rxc3!–+ Just thirteen moves and White is toast.;
11.g4 Na5 Another thematic idea to keep in mind. 12.f5
12...Bc4!
(12...Bd7?! We were happy to move back to d7 when the knight’s arrival on e5
was imminent but here White’s attack is too fast. 13.Nd2 (13.g5? Rxc3!µ)
13...Nc6 14.Rf2 Ne5 15.g5 Ne8 16.h4‚)
13.g5
(13.Bd3 Nxb3 (13...Nd7 14.Bxa7∞) 14.axb3 Bxd3 15.cxd3 d5! 16.g5? d4µ)
13...Nd7
14.Bd3
(14.Bxa7 Bxc3 (14...Be5!?©) 15.bxc3 Bxe2 16.Qxe2 Rxc3 17.Bd4 Rc8„)
14...Bxc3! Black creates a target for his queenside counterplay. The g7-bishop is
often a liability anyway when White threatens f5-f6, etc. 15.bxc3 Ne5 16.Bd4
(16.Rc1 d5µ)
16...Nac6„;
11.Kh1 a6 12.g4
(12.Qe1 This transposes to 11.Qe1.; 12.Bf3 Nd7!„ Intending ...Nd7-b6-c4.)
12...d5! 13.f5 d4! 14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.Bxd4
(15.Qxd4 Qxd4 16.Bxd4 Bc4³)
15...Bc4©
Black has full compensation, White has to play accurately to not become worse;
11.Bf3

11...Nd7!„ The reader might have noticed this is a common way to meet Be2-
f3. Black can temporarily remove the d7-retreat square from his bishop since
White has relinquished control over c4, and if Black achieves ...Nd7-b6-c4 he
will take over the initiative.
11...a6 12.Kh1

12.Rd1 Ng4„

12...b5 13.Rd1

13...b4!N

13...Nd7 14.f5 Bc4

(14...Bxb3 15.cxb3² 0–1 (50) Negi,P-Kryvoruchko,Y FIDE World Cup 2013)
15.Bxc4 bxc4 16.Nd2
(16.Nd4 Nxd4 17.Bxd4 Bxd4 18.Rxd4 Qb6 19.Rd1 Nf6 20.Rf3 Kg7=)
16...Bxc3
(16...Qa5!? 17.Nd5 (17.Nxc4 Bxc3 18.Qxc3 Qxc3 19.bxc3 Ncb8!³) 17...e6!
18.fxe6 (18.Nf4 Qxa2 19.fxe6 fxe6„) 18...fxe6 19.Nf4 Qxa2∞ (19...Nd8!?))
17.bxc3 Qa5 18.Nf3 Rb8„

14.Na4 Nxe4 15.Bb6 Qe8 16.Bxa6 Nf6 17.Bxc8 Qxc8

Black’s compensation is undeniable.

18.Nd4 Bd7 19.Nf3 Qb7 20.Bg1

20...Nd8! 21.b3 Ne6 22.Nd4 Nd5 23.f5 Nef4 24.Qg3 Nh5 25.Qf3 Qa8©
 4

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Be2 0-0 8.0-0
d5

If Black played 8...d6 instead, we would have a position from the Classical
Dragon where Black would intend to play 9...d5 next. This is the sense in which
we are effectively up a tempo in the Accelerated Dragon.

9.Nxc6

Not the most popular but in my opinion White’s best.

9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxd5
The following choice is just a matter of taste: both lead to very dry, equal
endgames. I tend to prefer 10...Nxd4 because it keeps Black’s pawn structure in
tact.
(10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Nxd5 cxd5 12.Bf3 Bb7 13.c4 d4 14.Bxb7 Rb8 15.Bd2 Rxb7
16.b4 e5=)
10...Nxd4
(10...Qxd5 11.Bf3 Qc4 (11...Qa5 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Qc1 Rb8 14.c3 c5 15.Rd1
White is not better, but our current world champion has taught us with his
games that enduring even mild unpleasantness such as this can be made to be a
Herculean task.) 12.Nxc6 (12.Be2 Qb4³) 12...bxc6 13.c3 Bf5 14.Qb3 (14.Be2
Qe6 15.Qa4 Rfb8 16.Bc4 Qc8 17.Bb3 Be6=) 14...Qa6 15.Bc5 Rab8 16.Qa3
Qxa3 17.Bxa3 Rfc8=)
11.Bxd4
(11.Bc4 e5 12.c3 Be6=)
11...Qxd5 12.Bxg7 Qxd1 13.Raxd1 Kxg7 14.Rd2
(14.Bf3 Be6=)
14...Be6 15.Rfd1 Rfc8 16.a3 Rab8=
9...bxc6 10.e5

This system is underrated, and Black needs to be a little careful here. Computers
initially think every move is absolutely equal, but they are slow at grasping the
positional pressure White can apply if Black does not act fast.

10...Ne4!

Liquidating the position is in my judgment the easiest path to equality for Black.
10...Ne8 This (like 10...Nd7) is thematic but Black needs to play very
energetically to cope with his static weaknesses and the requisite level of
accuracy makes this a risky variation to enter into. 11.f4 f6 12.exf6 Bxf6 13.Qd2
Rb8
(13...Nd6? 14.Nxd5±)
14.b3 Nd6 15.Rad1 Qc7
(15...Bf5 16.Bf3 I prefer White.)
16.Na4 e5 17.fxe5 Ne4 18.Qe1 Bxe5 19.Rxf8+ Kxf8 20.Qh4 Kg8∞;
10...Nd7 11.f4 e6
(11...f6?! 12.Nxd5! fxe5 13.fxe5 Nxe5 14.Nf4²)
12.Na4 a5
(12...f6 13.exf6 Qxf6 14.c3 These positions are just much easier to play for
White, so I recommend avoiding them, even though Black must objectively be
fine.; 12...Qa5 13.c4 Ba6 14.Bd2 Qc7 15.Rc1 Qb7 16.Qe1 Rfc8 17.Rf3 dxc4
18.Qh4 Qb5 19.b3 Qd5 20.Be3 Qa5 21.Bxc4 Bxc4 22.Rxc4 Nb6 23.Nxb6
axb6³ 0–1 (40) Paiva,J-Panno,O (2570) Sao Paulo 1972)
13.Qd2?!
(¹13.c4! f6 14.cxd5 cxd5 15.exf6²)
13...Ba6 14.c4 Qb8 15.cxd5 Bxe2 16.Qxe2 cxd5 17.Rac1 g5!?∞ 0–1 (38)
Mahia,G (2380)-Sorokin,M (2490) Pehuajo 1993.

11.Nxe4 dxe4 12.Qxd8

12.Qd4 Qd5=

12...Rxd8 13.Rfd1 Be6 14.Bd4

14...c5!
14...Rd7 15.a4 Nigel Short demonstrates what can go wrong for Black if he isn’t
careful. 15...f5?! 16.exf6 exf6 17.a5 Kf7 18.f3 exf3 19.Bxf3 Rc7 20.b4!² 1–0
(59) Short,N (2685)-Yrjola,J (2485) Manila 1992.

15.Bc3

15.Bxc5 Rdc8=

15...f5 16.b3

16.exf6 Bxf6 17.Bxf6 exf6=

16...Kf7=

Neither side can make progress; Black should resort to waiting moves (...Bh6-
g7, etc.) until White initiates exchanges.
 CHAPTER 2
7.Bc4: ANTI-YUGOSLAV VARIATION

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Qa5

Contents
1. 8.sidelines & 8.0-0 0-0 9.sidelines
2. 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bb3 d6 10.sidelines
3. 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bb3 d6 10.h3 Bd7 11.sidelines
4. 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bb3 d6 10.h3 Bd7 11.Re1
5. 8.0-0 0-0 9.Bb3 d6 10.h3 Bd7 11.f4

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Qa5
I follow Donaldson and Silman in referring to this system as the ‘Anti-Yugoslav
variation’. In their words, “We call this system the Anti-Yugoslav because
7...Qa5 more or less forces White to castle kingside and thus avoids the dangers
of the Yugoslav Attack in the Dragon.”
This concession from White is not without compromise from Black. In his
repertoire book on the White side of 1.e4, Negi points out the defects in Black’s
position: “...the queen on a5 is badly placed — it just gets in the way of Black’s
typical plans like ...Na5, or ...b5/...a5. Now ...b5 can always be met by a2-a3
without any worries. Black also has the typical plan of ...Nxd4 and ...Bc6
available but if White avoids playing f2-f4, the positions after Nd5 (intending to
meet ...Bxd5 with exd5) seem quite pleasant for him. Moreover, it is not easy for
Black to find a new square for the queen. Going to c7 will only encourage Bg5,
with ideas of Bxf6 and Nd5, so the most common plan is ...Qh5. Although this
may offer a few tactical tricks, it’s hard to believe that the queen can be well
placed there.” I do not disagree with Negi — Black’s queen usually does need to
be relocated from a5, because the c6-Knight wants that square, and very often
Black’s maneuvers in this system are (in his words) “hard to believe”. That being
said, the fact that White players will be incredulous towards Black’s maneuvers
is a positive feature of Black’s strategy (in this specific variation and more
broadly in the Accelerated Dragon), not a reason to avoid this line.
In my experience playing this system over the board for more than sixteen years,
White players have real difficulty managing their position, because Black’s
Queen on a5 means that play neither resembles the Yugoslav Attack nor does it
follow the usual paths in the Bc4/0-0 Dragon. White therefore must be extremely
accurate in order to pose any problems whatsoever for Black, and more often
than not White players are unprepared to do so. Black, in his favor, is usually
confined to deciding between a few typical themes, and that makes his life much
easier.
In the introduction to the book I mentioned that I was initially drawn to this
system for its incredible “cheapo potential”, but to reassure the reader that this is
a serious, safe, and reliable counter to 7.Bc4, I point out that Ivanchuk relied on
this system at the highest stage when he employed it against Grischuk in the
London Candidates, 2013 (see 10.Nd5!? in the next subchapter).

8.0-0

Conventional wisdom dictates that this is basically forced, but in my opinion

8.f3 is not to be underestimated either.
8.Qd2? For White players who have never seen 7...Qa5, this blunder is not a rare
occurrence. 8...Nxe4! 9.Nxc6
(9.Nxe4 Qxd2+ 10.Nxd2 Nxd4µ)
9...Qxc3!!µ
I’ve had the pleasure of playing this over the board many times. Black is up at
least a pawn in all variations.;
8.Nb3? Another frequent sighting when facing unprepared opposition. 8...Qb4!
9.Bd3
(9.Nd2 Apparently, according to Donaldson and Silman, this was an idea of the
late GM Pilnik, who felt that White had enough compensation for a pawn.
Plausible as it may have been at the time, modern computers demonstrate
concretely that White just ends up suffering here — and being down material.
9...Qxb2 10.Nb5 Qe5 11.f4 Qb8 12.e5 Nxe5! 13.fxe5 Qxe5 14.Nf1 Ng4!
15.Qxg4 Qxa1+ 16.Kf2 0-0µ)
9...Nxe4! 10.Bxe4 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qxe4µ;
8.f3!? This move is highly underrated; for example, Donaldson and Silman, as
well as Negi give the move a question mark. 8...Qb4!

Black must not allow White to play Qd2 and 0-0-0, establishing a Yugoslav
setup. The ‘Anti-Yugoslav variation’ wouldn’t be aptly named if it allowed this!
9.Ndb5! White takes advantage of Black’s queen being on b4, and therefore the
c7 square being vulnerable. This move has surprisingly been overlooked by
other commentators.
(9.Bb3? Nxe4 10.Nxc6 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qxc3+ 12.Ke2 dxc6 13.Qd4 Qxd4
14.Bxd4 Nf6 15.Rhe1 Rg8! Keeping the king centralized in anticipation of the
endgame. 16.Kf2 Nd5µ)
9...Qxc4!
(9...0-0 10.Bb3 d6 11.Qd2 Bd7 12.0-0-0 This is ‘just a game’, of course, but
White has succeeded in establishing the Yugoslav setup, so on principle we do
not allow it.)
10.Nc7+ Kd8 11.Nxa8 b6 12.a4 Bb7 13.Nxb6
(13.a5 bxa5 14.e5 Ne8 15.Ra4 Qe6 16.f4 Bxa8–+ 0–1 (31) Tatekhin,V (2154)-
Danin,A (2543) Belgorod 2011)
13...axb6 14.Bxb6+ Kc8 15.a5

A highly unusual position has arisen. If memory serves, it was Bent Larsen who
claimed that in unusual positions the best moves are often unusual themselves.
The following maneuever may appear unusual, but it will be a recurring theme in
this book. 15...Ne8! Black’s knight unblocks the g7 bishop and heads to d6,
targeting the c4 square. 16.Na4 Nd6! 17.Be3 Qb5 18.Qd5 Ba6=
8...0-0

By far the most popular move for White here is 9.Bb3, which will be the subject
of the next few chapters. Here we consider alternatives for White.

9.Nb3

This is a clever line: if Black continues 9...Qa5-d8, White intends to accept the
loss of a tempo with Bc4-e2, because Black has lost two tempi with ...Qd8-a5-
d8. Thus, a position from the Classical Dragon is reached a full tempo up for
White. This was reason enough for Donaldson and Silman to attribute a “?” to
9...Qd8, but in my judgment the Classical Dragon is ‘so equal’ that even a tempo
down, Black has no problems.
9.f3?! Qc5 10.Bb3
If you ask a seasoned Accelerated Dragon player how many times the d4-knight
is currently under attack, they will surely say “three”, never forgetting to include
the g7-bishop, which can be uncovered with tempo. 10...Ng4! 11.fxg4 Bxd4
12.Bxd4 Nxd4 13.Kh1 Qe5 14.Nd5 Nc6=;
9.Nd5 White cannot hope for an advantage by releasing the central tension so
quickly. 9...Nxd5 10.exd5 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 e5! 12.dxe6 dxe6 13.Bxg7 Kxg7=

9...Qd8!
I recommend calling White out on their cleverness. If White plays the 7.Bc4
variation against the Accelerated Dragon (as opposed to 7.Be2) in the hope that
they will be able to favorably transpose into a 7.Be2 line, then they probably
don’t have much experience with Be2 systems, so we should welcome this
transposition. Besides, it is no more correct to say that Black is down a tempo in
this line than it is to say that Black is up a tempo in the Classical line as
compared to this one! Retreating the queen to d8 is the simplest way for Black to
handle the position; he intends to continue in the same fashion as I
recommended in the Be2 chapter. It is worth mentioning that super GM
Malakhov has adopted this move in more than one tournament game.
9...Qh5
I used to enjoy playing this when I was younger. It amazed me that Black’s
queen could get away with such tightrope acrobatics. Unfortunately I can’t
recommend this for anything other than, perhaps, blitz chess. 10.Be2 Qh4 11.f3
Nh5 12.Qd2
(12.Bf2?! One little inaccuracy from White and Black is back in business.
12...Qg5 13.Nd5 e6 14.Be3 Qh4 15.Qd2 Be5 16.f4 Bxb2 17.Rab1 Bg7∞)
12...Be5 13.f4 Bxc3 14.Qxc3 Nf6 15.Nd2 d5 16.Nf3 Qh5 17.e5 Ne4 18.Qd3±;
9...Qc7
10.Bg5² Perhaps it is a little harsh to evaluate this as +=, because the truth is, it
is just an interesting game after, for example, 10...e6!?. In this opening, though,
what matters is the level of counterplay, not objective assessment. With White
threatening Bg5xf6 and Nc3-d5, Black’s counterplay is put on hold in order to
defend further, and so compared to 10...Qd8! which genuinely offers equal
chances, I assess this as slightly preferable for White.
(10.f4 d6 11.Be2 a6 12.Qe1 Bg4 13.Bxg4 Nxg4 14.Nd5 Qd8 (14...Qb8 15.c3
e6 16.Nb6 Nxe3 17.Qxe3 Qa7 18.Rad1 Rad8=) 15.Bb6 Qd7 16.Rd1 Nf6
17.Nxf6+ Bxf6 18.e5² 1–0 (62) Wei Yi (2641)-Bu Xiangzhi (2710) Zhongshan
CHN 2014)

10.Be2

10.Bg5 d6 11.Re1
(11.Bxf6?! Bxf6³ Since Black’s queen is on d8 (and not c7), Black can
recapture with the bishop without fearing Nc3-d5xf6.)
11...Nd7 12.Qd2 Nb6 13.Be2 Be6 14.Bh6 Rc8 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Rad1 Nc4
(16...Ne5 17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.exd5 Qc7 19.c3 Rcd8 20.Nd4± 1/2–1/2 (56) Perez
Candelario,M (2474)-Malakhov,V (2664) Sanxenxo ESP 2004)
17.Bxc4 Bxc4 18.Nd5 b5= Black will continue with a typical minority attack on
the queenside.

10...d6

Since this variation is discussed, tempo up, in the chapter on the Be2 (Classical)
Accelerated Dragon, here we will only consider attempts by White to take
advantage of the extra tempo with aggressive play. If White sticks to slow
maneuvering, the extra tempo will be diluted over time.

11.f4

11.Qd2 a5 12.a4 Be6 13.Rfd1 Rc8 14.f3 Nd7 15.Nd4 Nxd4 16.Bxd4 Bxd4+
17.Qxd4 Qb6 18.Bb5 Qxd4+ 19.Rxd4 Nb6 20.Kf2 Rc5 21.Rd2 Rfc8³ 0–1 (58)
Recuero Guerra,D (2407)-Malakhov,V (2690) Benidorm ESP 2007.

11...Be6 12.g4

The test of whether Black can get away with playing this system down a tempo
is whether such immediate attacks work for White. Fortunately, they don’t, so as
Black we should provoke and welcome White to overreach. 12.Qe1 Rc8 13.Qh4
Nb4 14.Rac1? Rxc3! 15.bxc3 Nxa2µ

12...Rc8 13.g5

13.f5 Bd7 14.Qe1?! A typical method of attack but simply inadequate here.
14...Ne5 15.Qh4?! Rxc3! 16.bxc3 Nxe4µ

13...Ne8 14.f5 Bd7 15.Qe1

White is overextended; the onus is now on Black to hit back and demonstrate the
soundness of Black’s counterplay, even down a tempo.

15...Bxc3! 16.Qxc3

16.bxc3 Ne5³

16...Ne5 17.Qd2 gxf5! 18.exf5 f6!„

Black has counterattacking ideas such as ...Kh8/Rg8, ...Ne8-g7, and ...Bd7-c6.
White’s king is weaker than Black’s, because whereas Black’s king can hide on
h8, White’s corresponding h1 square is vulnerable to ...Bd7-c6 (a consequence
of White’s overextension).
 2

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Qa5 8.0-
0 0-0 9.Bb3 d6

White’s options are limited, as Black threatens ...Nf6-g4.

10.Nd5

Played in Grischuk-Ivanchuk, London Candidates 2013. After that game, I

considered this move to be the critical test of this entire variation. However, I
now consider it to be harmless, and not just because of 10...Qd8!.
10.f3 This move is played often, but it is clearly inferior to 10.h3, because Black
can continue in the same way as he does in the main line, except White will
eventually lose a tempo when he inevitably plays f3-f4. 10...Bd7
(10...Nxd4 This is playable but unnecessary. 11.Bxd4 Be6 12.f4 (12.Nd5 Bxd5
13.exd5 Nd7 14.c3 Bxd4+ 15.Qxd4 Rfe8 16.Rfe1 a6 17.Re2 Qc5 18.Qxc5
Nxc5 19.Rae1 Kf8 20.Bc2 b5=) 12...Qa6!? 13.Re1 Qc6 14.Nd5²)
11.Qd2 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Bc6 13.Rad1 Nd7=
Black has solved his opening problems. It is crucial to understand that if Black
succeeds in exchanging on d4, and exchanging queens with ...Qa5-c5, then
Black is to be preferred (though not enough to seriously plan for more than a
draw), for typical Sicilian reasons: more central pawns, potential queenside
minority attack, etc.;
10.Qd2? Nxd4! (10...Nxe4 11.Nxc6±) 11.Bxd4 (11.Qxd4 Ng4³) 11...Nxe4µ

10...Qd8!N

Black vacates the a5-square for his knight, leaving White with the only piece in
‘no man’s land’ (the 5th rank).
10...Nxd5!? 11.exd5 Ne5 12.h3 Qa6„;
10...Re8 11.Nxf6+ Bxf6 12.c3 Bd7
(12...Ne5?! This was Ivanchuk’s choice, and it turned out okay for him —
though he lost the game, it was due to the clock rather than the position. White,
however, could have posed serious problems with 13.f4! 13.f4! (13.h3 Qa6
14.Nc2 Nd3 15.Qf3 Be6 16.Bd4 Bxd4 17.Nxd4 Bc4= 1–0 (39) Grischuk,A
(2764)-Ivanchuk,V (2757) London ENG 2013) 13...Ng4 14.Bc1!± Black’s
knight is stranded on g4, and White’s b3-bishop will coordinate with his f1–
 rook to target f7 after f4-f5.)
13.f4 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 15.Qxd4 Qc5=

11.Nxf6+

11.f3 Black has his pick of ways to equalise. 11...Bd7

(11...Na5 12.c3 Nxd5 13.exd5 Bd7=; 11...Nxd5 12.Bxd5 e6!? 13.Bxc6 bxc6
14.Nxc6 Qc7 15.Nd4 Rb8 16.Rb1 Ba6 17.Re1 Rfd8© With two bishops and
...d6-d5 imminent, Black’s compensation is undeniable.)
12.c3 Na5= Black’s queenside counterplay, combining a minority attack with
infiltration via ...Na5-c4, is simple and strong.

11...Bxf6

12.c3

12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.c3 c5 14.Bc4 Rb8 15.Rb1 Qa5„ Black prepares to exchange
light squared bishops with either ...c8-e6 or ...Bc8-a6, releasing pressure from
the f7-pawn, so that White’s f4-f5 loses force. The onus will then be on White to
defend against Black’s ensuing b-file pressure.;
12.f4 Na5 13.c3 Nxb3 14.axb3

14...a5! 15.Qf3 Bd7 16.f5 b5„ This is typical of Black’s counterplay in this
variation.

12...Na5! 13.Qd2

13.Bd5 e6 14.Bb3 a6 15.Nc2 b5 16.Bf4 Be5!=

13...Bd7

Black prepares to take on b3, then charge forward on the queenside with ...a7-
a5/b7-b5/a5-a4. It is unclear what White is doing; 14.f4 only creates weaknesses.

14.f4 Nxb3 15.axb3 e5! 16.Ne2 Bc6 17.Ng3 d5!=

 3

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Qa5 8.0-
0 0-0 9.Bb3 d6 10.h3 Bd7

The first major branching point for this variation. Black intends ...Nc6xd4,
followed by ...Bd7-c6 and ...Nf6-d7. Ideally, Black will exchange dark squared
bishops on d4, as well as queens (after ...Qa5-c5). Black seeks out an endgame
for obvious reasons: Black’s trumps include a central pawn majority and the
prospect of a long term queenside minority attack coupled with play along the
half-open c-file. White is banking on obtaining a middlegame initiative as
compensation for these long term disadvantages, so White will try to avoid
exchanges. The two most sensible moves here are 11.Re1, recommended by
Negi, and the main line, 11.f4. These two moves will be covered in the next two
subchapters.
10...Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Be6 12.Nd5²

11.Nf3
11.Qd2? A surprisingly common blunder — the database shows that even
grandmasters have fallen for this. 11...Nxd4

12.Bxd4?!
(12.Qxd4 Most strong players catch their blunder and choose to accept a worse
endgame rather than lose a pawn. 12...Ng4 13.Qd5 Qxd5 14.Nxd5 Nxe3
15.Nxe7+ Kh8 16.fxe3 Rae8 17.Nd5 Bxb2 18.Rab1 Be5 (18...Bg7 19.Nf6
 Bxf6 20.Rxf6= 1–0 (75) Medvegy,Z (2474)-Stolz,M (2391) Balatonlelle 2005;
18...Ba3 19.Nf6 Re7 20.Nxd7 Rxd7 21.Bd5= 1/2–1/2 (29) Simacek,P (2476)-
Malinovsky,K (2367) Olomouc 2009) 19.Nf6 Rd8 20.Bd5 b6 21.Nxd7 Rxd7³)
12...Nxe4! 13.Qe3
(13.Nxe4 Qxd2 14.Nxd2 Bxd4µ)
13...Bxd4 14.Qxe4 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Qg5µ 0–1 (70) Hou Yifan (2584)-Bacrot,E
(2721) Villarrobledo ESP 2009;
11.Qd3 Black proceeds with the usual plan of ...Nc6xd4, ...Bd7-c6, and ...Nf6-
d7. 11...Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Bc6 13.Rae1 Nd7 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.f4 Qc5+ 16.Kh2 a5
17.a4 Rad8

18.Qg3 Nf6
(18...Qb4?! Misplacing the queen; Black wants to be able to meet f4-f5 with
...Qc5-e5. 19.f5 Ne5 (It is not too late for Black to admit his mistake.
19...Qc5!=) 20.f6+² 1/2–1/2 (58) Wei Yi (2557)-Yu Yangyi (2657) Shenzhen
CHN 2013)
19.f5
(19.e5 dxe5 20.fxe5 Nh5 21.Qf2 Qxf2 22.Rxf2 g5! 23.g3 Rd4!„)
19...Qe5=;
11.Qe1?!

A move once played by Carlsen. White sets up a positional trap (see 11...Nxd4),
but Black has an easy path to equality. 11...Nxe4!
a) 11...Nxd4?! The usual plan doesn’t work here. 12.Bxd4 Bc6?! 13.Nd5!
Qxe1? (13...Qd8 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.Bxf6 exf6 16.Rd1²) 14.Nxe7+ Kh8
15.Rfxe1+–;
b) 11...Rfe8 Perfectly playable but unnecessary given the strength of 11...Nxe4.
12.Rd1 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 Bc6 14.f4 (14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Nd5 Qc5 16.Nxf6+
(16.Nc7 Bxb2³) 16...exf6 17.Qd2 Rad8³) 14...Nd7 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.f5
(16.Kh2 Rac8 17.Qh4 h6 18.Nd5 e6 19.Nc3 Nf6 20.Qe1 1/2–1/2 (20)
Nisipeanu,L (2695)-Carlsen,M (2646) Sarajevo BIH 2006) 16...Nf6 17.Qh4
Qe5 18.Bd5 Rf8! (18...e6 19.Bxc6 bxc6 20.fxg6 fxg6 21.Rxd6 Qxd6 22.Qxf6+
Kg8 23.Qf7+ Kh8=) 19.Rf3 e6 20.Bxc6 bxc6=;
12.Nxc6
(12.Nxe4? Qxe1 13.Rfxe1 Nxd4µ)
12...Bxc6 13.Nxe4 Qxe1 14.Raxe1 Bxe4 15.Bc1 Bc6 16.Rxe7 Bf6 17.Re3 d5=
11...b5!

11...Rfc8 (This is the routine way we meet White’s Nd4-f3, with the idea of
...Bd7-e8, ...Nf6-d7-c5. This is Negi’s recommendation for Black, but in this
particular move order I think we can do better with 11...b5!.) 12.Ng5! Be8
13.f4² White’s f1 Rook, b3 Bishop, and g5 Knight all target f7, and Black
doesn’t ideally want to play ...h7-h6 to kick out the g5 knight because then the
g6 pawn is weakened.

12.a3

12.Re1!? Black is no worse in the ensuing complications. In my opinion, such

lines aren’t worth memorizing; Black’s position is fundamentally sound (none of
his pieces are bad) so White’s pawn sacrifice is bound to be inadequate — there
are laws of justice governing our beloved game. 12...b4 13.Nd5 Nxe4 14.Bf4
(14.Bc1 Nc5 15.Bg5 Bxb2 16.Rb1 Bc3 17.Nxc3 bxc3 18.Bxe7 Nxe7 19.Rxe7
Nxb3 20.axb3 Bc6=)
14...Nc5 15.Nxe7+ Nxe7 16.Bxd6
(16.Rxe7 Be6=)
16...Nf5 17.Bxc5 Qxc5 18.Qxd7 Rad8 19.Bxf7+ Kh8 20.Qb7 Bxb2 21.Rad1
Rxd1 22.Rxd1 Nd4=

12...Qa6!N
With the intention of relocating the queen to b7, where it simultaneously keeps
one eye on the center and one eye on the queenside minority attack.

13.Re1

13.Qd2 Qb7 14.Bh6 Ne5 15.Nxe5 dxe5 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Nd5 Bc6 18.Qc3
Nd7 19.Nxe7 Bxe4 20.f3 Rae8=

13...Qb7 14.Bg5 h6 15.Bh4 g5 16.Bg3 Na5=

 4

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Qa5 8.0-
0 0-0 9.Bb3 d6 10.h3 Bd7 11.Re1

As I have mentioned, Black’s main plan in this system begins with exchanging
on d4 and playing ...Bd7-c6. The prophylactic 11.Nf3!? prevents this idea, but it
is better for White to wait a move to ask Black to commit a piece before playing
Nd4-f3, especially since on this move 11...Nxd4 is dubious.

11...Rfc8

It was hard to decide which move to recommend in this line, but I am happy
with this choice for two reasons:
1) Black’s next few moves (except after 12.f4) can be pretty much played on
autopilot (...Bd7-e8, ...Nf6-d7-c5) — one shouldn’t underestimate the value of
such conveniences.
2) In the other lines, play often liquidates into positions where Black is close to
equal but without many winning chances;
11...Rac8 (Even though I am not recommending this, it will be instructive for the
reader to play through these variations to get a feel for why 11...Rfc8 is a better
choice, especially to play for a win.) 12.Nf3
a) 12.Qe2!? Prophylaxis against ...Nc6-e5, because now White will be able to
hit the e5 knight with f2-f4, and the c4-square will be unavailable to it. 12...a6
13.Rad1 Qc7 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.exd5 Ne5 16.Qd2 Rfe8 17.Bh6 Bf6 18.Bg5
Bg7 19.Bh6 Bf6 1/2–1/2 (19) Brkic, A (2573)-Mamedov,R (2653) Sarajevo
BIH 2010;
b) 12.Nd5 Rfe8 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Nc3 Rcd8 15.Qd2 Bc8 16.Rad1 Nd7 17.Bd4
Nc5 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.Qe3 e5!= 0–1 (62) Mehar,C (2246)-Kuzubov,Y (2626)
Gurgon IND 2009;
12...Qh5
a) 12...Qc7?! 13.Bg5! Na5 14.Bxf6 exf6 15.Nd5² 1/2–1/2 (54) Petrosian,T
(2627)-Mamedov,R (2640) Bursa TUR 2010;
b) 12...Rfe8 13.Qd2 b5 14.a3 Qa6 15.Bg5 Qb7 16.Rad1 Na5 17.e5±

We see that one of the problems for Black in this line is the d7-bishop; this is
why I recommend playing 11...Rfc8 and 12...Be8;
13.Qe2
Negi’s recommendation. He omits our next move though. 13...Ng4!N Black
forces simplifications and the resulting position is close to equal.
a) 13...a6 14.Rad1 Ne5 15.Nxe5 Qxe5 16.f4 Qa5 17.Qf2 Rxc3 18.Bd2!± 1–0
(34) Fedorov,A (2602)-Malakhov, V (2670) Warsaw POL 2005;
b) 13...h6 14.Rad1 g5 15.Nd5 b6 16.Ba4! A novelty found by Negi. The
ensuing variation he gives is not inspiring for Black. (16.c3 Nxd5 17.Bxd5 Ne5
18.Nxe5 Qxe2 19.Rxe2 Bxe5 20.h4 Bb5 21.Ree1 Bf6 22.hxg5 hxg5= 1/2–1/2
(50) Wang Hao (2519)-Malakhov,V (2670) Khanty Mansyisk RUS 2005)
16...Rfe8 17.c3 Nxe4 18.Bxb6 Nf6 19.Nxf6+ Bxf6 20.Bd4 Nxd4 21.Rxd4!²;
14.hxg4 Bxg4 15.Qb5
(15.Nd5 g5 16.Bxg5 Bxf3 (16...Ne5 17.Qe3 Nxf3+ 18.gxf3 Bxf3 19.Qxf3!!
Qxf3 20.Re3 Qh5 21.Rg3 Rc5 22.Bxe7 Rxd5 23.Bxd5±) 17.Qxf3 Qxg5=)
15...Bxf3 16.Qxh5 Bxh5 17.f3 g5 18.Bxg5 Bg6 19.Nd5 Bxb2 20.Bxe7 Bxa1
21.Rxa1 Nxe7 22.Nxe7+ Kg7 23.Nxc8 Rxc8 24.Rd1 Rc6 25.Rd5 f6 Black
should be able to hold, but I recommend avoiding all this and playing 11...Rfc8
instead.;
11...Rad8!?
A move not mentioned by Negi, but deserving of our attention if for no other
reason than the fact that Korchnoi played it in 2003. In my judgment this is a
serious alternative to our main line, and perhaps the place to go if our main line
runs into theoretical problems. 12.Nf3! This must be White’s best.
(12.Qd2 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 Bc6 14.Rad1 Rfe8 15.Qe3 Nd7 16.Bxg7 Kxg7
17.Kh1 Qc5= 1/2–1/2 (53) Sadvakasov,D (2523)-Korchnoi, V (2642) Astana
KAZ 2003)
12...Qh5!
This move is a recurring theme in this Nd4-f3 variation. Black intends to
continue with ...h7-h6 and ...g6-g5, with counterplay against White’s king.
13.Rb1!? Prophylactically defending the b2-pawn which will be vulnerable after
Nc3-d5.
(13.Qe2 Ng4!

A stunning resource that we see more than once in this chapter. 14.hxg4 Bxg4
 15.Qb5 (15.Nd5 g5! (15...Ne5? 16.Nf4+–) 16.Bxg5 Ne5 (16...Nd4? 17.Nxd4
Bxe2 18.Bxe7 Bxd4 19.Bf6!!±) 17.Qe3 Nxf3+ 18.gxf3 Bxf3 19.Bh4 Qg4+
20.Bg3 Qh5 21.Bh4=) 15...Bxf3 (15...d5 Unfortunately White gets away after
this. 16.exd5 Bxc3 17.bxc3 Bxf3 18.gxf3 Ne5 19.Kf1!!±) 16.Qxh5 Bxh5 17.f3
g5 18.Bxg5 Rd7= Black is about equal.)
13...h6 14.Nd5 g5
(14...Nxe4? 15.Nf4 Qf5 16.g4 Qa5 17.Nxg6±)
15.Bd4 Qg6 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.c3

17...Kh8!„ Black is ready for ...Rf8-g8 and ...g5-g4. White players won’t know
what hit them!;
11...Nxd4?! 12.Bxd4 Bc6
(12...Qg5 13.Be3²)
13.Nd5! Black is not given time to play ...Nf6-d7; he has to make a concession
either by allowing White to capture on f6, damaging Black’s pawn structure, or
by opening up White’s e-file. 13...Bxd5 14.exd5 Rfe8 15.c4 a6 16.Bc3 Qc7
17.Rc1 Nh5 The following is a recommendation of Negi’s. 18.Ba4!? Rec8
19.Qd2²
12.f4

I am a little surprised that Negi didn’t recommend this in his book. This rare
move is extremely underrated, and has only been played by one 2500+ player —
none other than Negi himself (Negi-Khalifman 2007). The main upshot of this
move from White’s perspective is that it deters Black from his usual,
comfortable course of ...Bd7-e8 and ...Nf6-d7, because White’s f-file pressure
can become overwhelming.
12.Qe2 Qh5!
(12...Be8 is playable as well but 12...Qh5 is better)
13.Nf3
a) 13.Nxc6 Bxc6 14.f3 d5! 15.g4 (15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.exd5 Bxd5 17.c3 Bc6=)
15...Qxh3 16.exd5 Bd7 17.Qg2 Qxg2+ 18.Kxg2 b5!„;
b) 13.Qxh5 As usual Black welcomes the trade of queens. 13...Nxh5 14.Rad1
Na5 15.Nd5 Kf8=;
13...h6!
(13...Ng4? This doesn’t quite work here, because the f7-pawn’s weakness
poses a problem. 14.hxg4 Bxg4 15.Qc4!±)
14.Rad1 g5!
15.Nd5 Nxd5 16.Bxd5 Bxb2 17.Rb1 Bc3 18.Rxb7 Bxh3 19.Nxg5 Qxe2
20.Rxe2 Bg4 21.Nf3 e6 22.Bxc6 Rxc6 23.Bxh6 We have been following
Carlsen-Radjabov, 2010 (1–0). Black’s opening preparation was excellent, but
his play could have been improved here. 23...Rb6! 24.Rc7 Ba5 25.Rc4 e5!=
Black’s two bishops fully compensate for the pawn; if I had to choose I’d take
Black.;
12.Qd2
12...Ne5
(12...Be8 As always Black can follow through with this plan, but with White’s
queen on d2 Black has the added possibility of ...Nc6-e5-c4.)
13.Bh6 Nc4 14.Bxc4 Bxh6 15.Qxh6 Rxc4 16.Nb3
a) 16.Rad1 Qb6 17.e5 dxe5 18.Nf3 e4 19.Ne5 Rd4 20.Rxd4 Qxd4 21.Nxd7
Qxd7 22.Nxe4 Nxe4 23.Rxe4 Qd1+ 24.Kh2 Qd6+ 25.Kg1 Qd1+ 26.Kh2
Qd6+ 1/2–1/2 (26) Akopian,V (2712)-Bacrot,E (2721) Jermuk ARM 2009;
b) 16.Nf3 Qh5 17.Qe3 Qc5=;
16...Qb6 17.Rad1 a5 18.e5 dxe5 19.Rxe5 a4 20.Nd2 Rd4 21.Qe3 Qd6= 1–0 (57)
Akopian,V (2696)-Bacrot, E (2728) Nalchik RUS 2009;
12.Nf3 It is a good sign for our 11...Rfc8 that 12.Nf3, which is supposed to be
White’s main idea after 11.Re1, is not very effective here. 12...Be8!
13.Qd2
a) 13.Nd5 Nd7 (13...e6 Black should be fine here as well. 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6
15.c3 Ne5 16.Nxe5 dxe5=; 13...Nxe4 14.Bf4 Nc5 15.Rxe7 Bxb2 16.Rb1
Bg7∞) 14.c3 e6 15.Nf4 Nc5 16.Qxd6 Nxe4 17.Qd1 Nc5 18.Bc2 Nd7=;
b) 13.Bg5 Nd7 14.Nd5 e6 15.Ne7+ Nxe7 16.Bxe7 Bxb2 17.Rb1 Bg7 18.Bxd6
Ne5 19.Bxe5 Bxe5 20.Bd5 Bc3 21.Bxb7 Bxe1 22.Qxe1 Qxa2 23.Bxc8 Rxc8
24.Ra1 Qxc2 25.Rxa7 Qc1 1/2–1/2 (25) Kurnosov,I (2602)-Bacrot, E (2722)
Moscow RUS 2009;
13...Nd7 14.Rad1
(14.Bh6 Bxc3 15.bxc3 Nce5 16.Nxe5 dxe5 17.Qg5 Nf6„ In addition to
winning the c3-pawn, White’s b3 Bishop will be vulnerable to Black’s ...a5-a4.)
14...Bxc3! 15.bxc3 Nce5 16.Nxe5 dxe5 17.Bg5 Nf6
18.Bh4 Threatening Qd2-h6.
(18.Re3 Rc7!„; 18.c4 Qxd2 19.Rxd2 Kf8 20.f3 Nd7=)
18...Kg7 19.c4 Qxd2 20.Rxd2

20...Kf8! 21.f3
(21.Bg3 Nd7 22.Red1 Nb6 23.Bxe5 Nxc4 24.Bxc4 Rxc4³)
21...Nd7 22.Red1 Nc5³;
12.Qd3 Played by GM Timofeev, but as best I can tell the Queen just becomes a
target to either ...Nf6-d7-c5 or simply ...Nc6-e5 12...Be8
(12...Ne5 13.Qe2 Qa6!=)
13.Rad1 Nd7 14.Nd5 Qd8!= 0–1 (43) Timofeev,A (2657)-Malakhov, V (2690)
Tomsk RUS 2006;
12.Nd5 This is Negi’s recommendation. He only considers 12...Nxd5 and
12...Qd8, but it seems to me that Black’s best is 12...Re8!

I don’t see anything for White here; as a general rule I tend to think that if White
rushes with Nc3-d5 then as long as Black isn’t obligated to take it, he should be
fine (this doesn’t mean that if he is forced to take it then he is necessary not
fine!).
(12...Nxd5 13.exd5 Ne5 14.Bg5 Re8 15.c3² (Negi); 12...Qd8 13.Bg5! Nxd4
14.Bxf6! Nc6 15.Bh4 Bxb2 16.Rb1 Bg7 17.Ba4± (Negi))
13.Nxf6+
a) 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Bd2 Qd8 15.Nc3 c5
 Black has no problems. If White starts to get ambitious then Black come out on
top. 16.e5?! dxe5 17.Rxe5 c4 18.Bxc4? Qc7µ;
b) 13.Bd2 Qc5 14.Nxc6 (14.Nf3 Nxd5 15.exd5 Na5 16.Be3 Qb5=)
14...Nxd5! (14...bxc6?? 15.Nc7+–) 15.exd5 bxc6 16.Be3 Qb5=;
13...Bxf6 14.c3 Qc7! Vacating the a5 square for the knight.
(14...Nxd4!? This is acceptable but unnecessary. 15.Bxd4 (15.cxd4 e6!=)
15...Bxd4 16.Qxd4 (16.cxd4 e6!=) 16...Qc5 17.Qd2 Bc6 18.Rad1 Rad8=)
15.Nb5 (15.f4 Na5=) 15...Qb8 16.a4 a6 17.Nd4 Na5 18.Ba2 Qc7=

12...Nh5!N
In this particular variation Black is well advised to abandon the ...Be8/ ...Nd7
plan, because as we see in the alternatives White is able to build up pressure on
f7 after f4-f5/Re1–f1/ Qd1–f3. Instead, we take immediate advantage of the
weakness White has created: Black threatens to win the f4 pawn, so White’s
options are limited.
12...Nxd4 13.Bxd4 Bc6 14.Nd5
14...Bxd5
(14...Re8 15.c3 Nd7 (15...Nxd5 16.exd5 Bxd4+ 17.Qxd4 Bd7 18.Kh2²) 16.f5!
(16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Qd4+ e5 18.Qf2 Bxd5 19.Bxd5 Qc5 20.Qxc5 dxc5
21.Rad1 (21.Bxb7 Rab8 22.Bc6 Re7=) 21...Re7 22.f5 Nf6=) 16...Bxd4+
17.cxd4 Bxd5 18.Bxd5 Nf6 19.fxg6 hxg6 20.Bb3²)
15.exd5 Re8 16.c3
(16.c4 a6 17.Bc3 Qc5+ 18.Bd4 Qa5 19.Bc3 Qc5+ 1/2–1/2 (19) Negi,P (2529)-
Khalifman,A (2632) Amsterdam NED 2007)
16...b5 17.a3 Nd7 18.Bf2²;
12...Be8 Unfortunately Black can’t stick to the routine and play this move here;
White builds up too much pressure. 13.Qf3 Nd7 14.Rad1 Nc5 15.Qf2 Nxb3
16.axb3 Nb4

This was played by Bacrot in Burg-Bacrot, 2011 where White’s play could have
now been improved upon.
(16...Nxd4 17.Bxd4 Bxd4 18.Rxd4 (18.Qxd4 Qc5=) 18...Bc6 19.b4! Qb6
20.b5! The beginning of a long forcing variation which is unequivocally in
White’s favor. 20...Bxb5 21.Nd5 Qd8 22.Qh4 Rc4 23.Nxe7+ Kf8 24.Rxc4
Bxc4 25.Qf6! Ke8 26.Nd5 Qxf6 27.Nxf6+ Ke7 28.Nxh7 f6 29.e5 dxe5
 30.fxe5 f5 31.Ng5²)
17.f5!± White will simply pile up on the f-file with Re1–f1, and I don’t see a
constructive plan for Black.

13.Nde2

13.f5 Nf6 Having provoked White into weakening the e5-square, Black retreats
to f6, guarding d5 against Nc3-d5, and prepares ...Nc6-e5.
(13...Nxd4 Black is perfectly resilient against White’s attack here as well.
14.Bxd4 Bc6 15.Rf1 Rf8 16.g4 Nf6 17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.exd5 Nd7=; 13...Ne5?!
14.Nd5²)
14.Rf1
(14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.g4 Be8!=)
14...Ne5
A typical Dragon position; Black is salivating at the prospect of an exchange
sacrifice on c3. 15.Qe2
(15.Nd5 Nxd5 16.Bxd5 Bc6 17.Nxc6 bxc6 18.Bb3 Rab8=)
15...Rxc3! 16.Bd2
(16.bxc3 Nxe4³)
16...Rxc2!
(16...Bb5 17.Nxb5 Qb6+ 18.Kh2 Rc5 19.a4 (19.Nd4 Rac8„) 19...Rf8 20.Rae1
a6 21.Nc3 Rcc8 22.g4²)
17.Bxc2
(17.Nxc2 Qb5©)
17...Qb6 18.Bc3
(18.Be3 Qxb2 19.Rab1 Qxa2 20.Rxb7 Bc8 21.Rxe7 Kf8 22.Rc7 Qa5 23.Rxc8+
Rxc8³)
18...Nc6 19.Qf2
(19.Rad1 Ng4 20.Kh1 Nxd4 21.Bxd4 Bxd4 22.hxg4 Rc8 23.b3 g5=)
19...Nxe4! 20.Bxe4 Bxd4 21.Bxd4 Qxd4 22.Qxd4 Nxd4
23.f6
(23.fxg6 hxg6 24.Bxb7 Rb8 25.Bd5 e6 26.Bb3 a5 27.Rad1 Nxb3 28.axb3 d5
29.Ra1 Rxb3 30.Rxa5 Rxb2 31.Ra7 Be8 32.Ra8 Kf8 33.Rc1 Rb7 34.Rcc8
Re7=)
23...e5
(23...Bc6 24.Bxc6 bxc6 25.fxe7±)
24.Bxb7 Rb8 25.Bf3 a5 26.b3 h5 27.Rac1 Be6 28.Rc7 Kh7
29.Bc6
(29.h4 d5=)
29...g5! 30.Bd7
(30.Be4+ Kh6=)
30...Kg6 31.Bxe6 Nxe6 32.Rd7 Rb6=;
13.Nf5 Thanks to my editor, GM Romain Edouard, for assuaging my concerns
about this variation. In his words, “White better give mate, or he is worse!” A
more modest assessment is that Black has at least equal chances in the ensuing
complications. 13...Bxf5 14.exf5 Nf6 15.fxg6 hxg6
16.Qd3
(16.g4 Rd8 17.f5 d5 18.g5 Nh5 19.fxg6 fxg6 20.Bf2 Kh7„)
16...Rd8! This move saves the day. Black indirectly defends the g6 pawn. 17.g4
(17.Qxg6? d5!µ) 17...e6 18.Rad1 (18.f5 gxf5 19.gxf5 Qxf5 20.Qxf5 exf5=)
18...d5 19.Bf2 Ne7= Preventing f4-f5. Things are at a standstill; it is hard to see
how either side makes progress, but Black is certainly no worse.;
13.Nd5 Re8 Black maintains his threat to win the f4 pawn, as its defender on d5
can be hit with ...e7-e6. 14.g4 Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Nxf4 16.Nxf4 e5 17.Nxg6 exd4
18.Nf4 Qg5 19.Qf3 Be5 20.Rf1 Be6=

13...Qd8!

After 13...Qc7 14.Qd2 Na5 15.Rad1 we would like to play ...Bd7-e8 but White
then has Nc3-d5xe7. This is why we play 13...Qd8! 15...Be8? 16.Nd5 Qd8
17.Nxe7+ Qxe7 18.Qxa5±

14.Qd2 Na5 15.Rad1

15.Nd4?! Nc4 16.Bxc4 Rxc4³

15...Be8

15...b5 16.e5²

16.f5 Nxb3 17.cxb3 Bc6 18.Bd4 Nf6 19.Nf4

19...Qf8!

A nice little queen sortie; Black intends to continue with ...Nf6-d7, and then
recapture on g7 with his queen, potentially heading to e5 eventually.

20.Qe3 Nd7 21.Bxg7

21.Ncd5 Bxd4 22.Rxd4

(22.Qxd4 g5 23.Nd3 f6=
 The weak e6-square is inaccessible to White. As we will see, in other lines
Black allows White to plant a knight on e6; it turns out to not do much from
there.)
22...Kh8 23.Qg3 Bxd5 24.Nxd5 Rc2 25.Nb4 Rcc8 26.Qh4
(26.Nd5=)
26...Qg7 27.Red1 g5 28.Qf2 g4! 29.hxg4 Nf6 30.Qh4 Nxg4„;
21.Nfd5 Bxd4 22.Qxd4 f6 23.Nf4 Ne5 24.Ne6 Qh6 25.Nd5 Bxd5 26.Qxd5
Rab8= White has no productive discovered check, and Black’s e5-knight is more
valuable than his counterpart on e6, which is hitting thin air. Computers call this
position 0.00 but I suspect most White players would collapse rather quickly
here in over the board play — the squares Black controls are more valuable than
the squares White controls.

21...Qxg7 22.Nfd5 Bxd5 23.Nxd5 Qe5=

 5

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 Qa5 8.0-
0 0-0 9.Bb3 d6 10.h3 Bd7 11.f4

The most popular move, though I suspect it may become overshadowed by

11.Re1, especially given the popularity of Negi’s book which recommends it.

11...Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Bc6

Black proceeds with his usual plan. Next he’d like to play ...Nf6-d7, and ideally
exchange dark squared bishops and queens.

13.Qd3

13.Qe1?! This 7...Qa5 line is one which induces even grandmasters to blunder
within the first 15 moves. 13...Qb4! 14.Bxf6
(14.Rd1 Nxe4!!µ)
14...Bxf6 15.Nd5 Qc5+ 16.Kh1 Bxd5 17.Bxd5 Qxc2 18.Rc1 Qxb2 19.Rb1
Qd4µ 1/2–1/2 (47) Hector,J (2551)-Efimenko,Z (2680) Emsdetten GER 2008;
13.Qf3?

13...Nxe4! 14.Bxg7 Qc5+ 15.Kh1 Nf6!µ;

13.Qe2? The database shows that a 2478-rated player fell for this. 13...Qb4!
14.Rad1

14...Nxe4!µ;
13.Nd5 Rae8!

Abiding by the general rule that if we can avoid taking on d5 then we should —
here White’s weak e4 pawn more than compensates for the doubling of our f-
pawns in the event that White takes on f6. 14.f5
a) 14.Nxf6+ exf6³;
b) 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Nxf6+ exf6 16.Qxd6 Rxe4 17.Rad1 (17.Qxf6?? Re2
18.Rf2 Rxf2 19.Kxf2 Qd2+–+) 17...Kg7µ;
c) 14.Qd3 Nd7 15.Rad1 Bxd4+ 16.Qxd4 Qc5=;
14...Bxd5 15.exd5 Nd7
(15...b5?! An odd recommendation of Donaldson and Silman. This move seems
altogether wrong-headed. 16.c3²)
16.Kh1 Bxd4 17.Qxd4 Ne5 18.f6 Nd7!³ In the long run, White’s dark squared
weaknesses will tell.

13...Nd7

13...Rad8 This is the recommendation of Donaldson and Silman, but their

problems with 13...Nd7 can be solved.
14.Bxg7 Kxg7

15.Kh1

This used to be considered good for White, because Black would follow up with
15...Nc5 and further queenside play, rather than reverting back to the kingside
and solidifying control over the center with ...e7-e6!
15.Nd5 Qc5+ 16.Kh1 e6 17.Nc3 Nf6 18.Rad1 Rad8
Black is slightly better. 19.f5 Qe5 20.Rde1 b5 21.Nd5 Nh5 22.Re3 a5 23.f6+
Kh8 24.a3 Bb7–+ White’s initiative has run out of steam and Black is ready to
collect the f6 and thereafter the e4 pawn.
(24...Qxb2 25.Ne7 Ba8 26.Qxb5 Nxf6–+ 27.Qg5 Nxe4 28.Qh4 Qe5??
(¹28...g5 29.Qh6 Qg7–+) 29.Rxf7!± Morozevich,A (2760)-Carlsen,M (2864)
Moscow 2013);
15.Qd4+ Kg8 16.Kh1
(16.Rf2 Qc5 17.Qd3 b5 18.Bd5 Bxd5 19.Nxd5 e6 20.Nc3 Nf6„; 16.Rad1
Qc5=)
16...Qc5 17.Qd3 Nf6
Black has ideas of ...Rad8, ...e7-e6, and then either (or both) ...b7-b5/...a7-a5 or
...d7-d5. The dark square weaknesses in White’s position, especially g3, are a
significant liability. 18.Rae1 e6 19.f5 Qe5 20.Nd5 Nh5 21.Ne7+ Kg7 22.Nxc6
bxc6³;
15.Rae1 Qc5+ 16.Kh2 e6!

Typical for this line. Black tempts White’s f4-f5, when either his knight or queen
would discover immortality on e5.
(16...b5?! 17.Bd5²)
17.Rd1 Nf6 18.Rfe1 Rad8³ The position doesn’t look too bad for White, but all
the dynamic potential in the position lies in Black’s hands: he can take his time
expanding on the queenside, and break with ...d6-d5 at the right moment, while
White can only wait in angst.

15...Nf6!N

This idea of countering in the center and kingside, instead of playing on the
queenside (at least for now — that is certainly on the to-do list for later on)
breathes new life into this variation.
15...Nc5 This is currently the most popular move but I believe it too much
neglects Black’s kingside, as the following game illustrates. 16.Qd4+ Kg8
17.Rae1 Nxb3 18.axb3 Qc5 19.Qd2 Rad8 20.Nd5 Bxd5 21.exd5 Rc8 22.c3 Qb5
23.f5!
23...Rc5 24.Qh6 Qd3 25.Rf4 Qg3 26.Ref1 gxf5 27.Rxf5 f6 28.R1f4 Qe1+
29.Kh2 Rf7 30.Rg4+ Kh8 31.Qh5 1–0 (31) Guseinov,G (2573)-Ahmadinia,E
(2195) Iran 2005.

16.Rae1

16.Nd5!?
White seeks to prevent Black from playing ...e7-e6, but it can still be played
after a bit of preparation. 16...Qc5 17.Rae1 Rae8 18.a4

18...e6! 19.Nxf6 Kxf6 Black has nothing to fear. White can’t target d6 without
dropping e4 either. 20.f5 Kg7 21.f6+
(21.fxe6 fxe6 22.Rxf8 Kxf8 23.Qf3+ Kg7 24.Rf1 Qe5 25.Qf7+ Kh8 26.c3
Qxe4 27.Qf6+ Kg8 28.Qf7+ Kh8=)
21...Kh8= Do not fear ghosts: White has no mating attack, and to divert his
pieces to the kingside in the hope of obtaining one would allow Black to
dominate the center more than he already has.

16...e6!

17.e5

17.Qxd6? Rfd8 18.Qe7 Rd7 19.Qa3 Qxa3 20.bxa3 Rad8³ Black will win his
pawn back after ...Rd4 (and if e4-e5 then ...Nf6-h5), and after he does his
superior pawn structure will yield him the advantage.;
17.Qe3 Rad8 18.f5 Qc5
(18...Qe5 Black also comes out on top in the ensuing complications here.
19.Qxa7 Nxe4 20.Nxe4 Bxe4 21.f6+ Kh8 22.Qe3 d5 As long as Black can
meet Qh6 with ...Rg8 (and Rf4 with ...g5) — which Black always can as long
as his king is on h8, there is nothing to worry about. White’s b3-Bishop is
missing in action. 23.Qh6? Rg8 24.Rf4? g5–+)
19.fxe6 fxe6 20.Bxe6 Nxe4! 21.Rxf8 Rxf8 22.Qxc5
(22.Nxe4?! Rf1+! 23.Kh2 Qe5+ 24.g3 Rxe1 25.Qxe1 Qxe6 26.Qc3+ Kg8
 27.Nf2 Qxa2µ)
22...Nxc5 23.Bd5 Rf2³

17...dxe5 18.fxe5 Nd7 19.Qe3

19.Qg3 Rad8„

19...Qc5 20.Qf4 Rad8

White needs to play perfectly to not be worse here; in practice most players will
collapse, either allowing Black queenside counterplay or central control.

Generally speaking, exchanges favor Black (White’s e5 pawn will be weak in

any endgame), and Black should keep a lookout for counterplay with ...f7-f6(f5).
A sample variation may continue as follows

21.Nd1! h6

21...f6!? 22.exf6+ Nxf6„

22.Nf2 f5! 23.exf6+

23.Bxe6?! g5 24.Qh2 f4 25.Bxd7 Rxd7 26.Nd3 Rxd3! 27.cxd3

27...f3µ

23...Rxf6 24.Qg3 Rdf8 25.Rxe6 Bb5 26.Rxf6 Rxf6 27.c4 Bc6„

 CHAPTER 3
7.Bc4: MY SYSTEM

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0
8.Bb3 a6!?

Contents
1. 9.sidelines
2. 9.f3 Qc7 10.sidelines & 10.Qd2 b5
Appendix. 9.f3 Qc7 10.Qd2 Na5

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4
The Anti-Yugoslav Variation (7...Qa5) seemed to me to be in trouble after
Grischuk-Ivanchuk, Candidates 2013 (recall Grischuk’s 10.Nd5!?). In the
summer of 2013 I had not yet discovered the equalizing 10...Qd8! novelty, and I
found myself struggling to meet the 7.Bc4 variation. I searched the database for
some guidance, but to no avail. At the time I was simultaneously a Taimanov
Sicilian player as well, and at some point it occurred to me that nobody plays
Bc4 against the Taimanov, presumably because its scope on c4 is stunted by the
e6 pawn. This led to the idea of meeting the Bc4 variation with an eventual ...e7-
e6, and transporting ideas from the Taimanov such as
...a6-...Qc7-...b5-...Bb7-...Nc6-a5(e5), and even ...Nf6-e8-d6. The process of
developing this system has been some of the most enjoyable chess research I
have engaged in, and I am pleased to say it has resulted in a powerful and truly
novel system. As the ‘prime mover’ of this project, my work is undoubtedly
incomplete. There are reams of unexplored possibilities, and I encourage readers
to attempt their own contributions. The following chapters are by no means the
final — only the first — word on this system.

7...0-0 8.Bb3

Black’s next few moves can almost be played automatically, irrespective of what
White does: ...a6, ...Qc7, ...b5, ...Bb7. Although our main idea is to play ...e7-e6,
the first priority is to complete our development and connect the rooks.
8.f3?! White must not be permitted to reach a Yugoslav Attack setup with Qd2
and 0-0-0. 8...Qb6!

9.Bb3
(9.a3 Qc5 (9...Nxe4?? 10.Nd5 Qa5+ 11.b4+–) 10.Ba2 Ng4 11.fxg4 Bxd4
12.Bxd4 Nxd4=)
9...Nxe4! 10.Nd5 Qa5+ 11.c3 Nc5 12.Nxc6 dxc6 13.Nxe7+ Kh8 14.Nxc8
Raxc8 15.0-0 Rfe8=

8...a6
From my experience playing this system over the last few years, most players,
never having seen this system before, follow a safe course of castling kingside as
White usually does in the 7.Bc4 system. However, in this particular system,
White castling kingside leads to easy equality for Black, which I take to be a
significant practical upshot of this system. We will postpone our discussion of
White’s queenside castling until the next chapter.
8...Qc7 This move has been championed by Grandmasters Aronin, Pogorelov,
and Balogh, also with the intention of expanding on the queenside, but they did
without our core idea of ...e7-e6. It is a matter of taste which move (8...a6 or
8...Qc7) is played first; usually they will transpose. 8...Qc7 avoids 9.Nxc6
followed by 10.e5 since the e5 square is covered, but depending on your taste
you might prefer to welcome the uncritical 9.Nxc6. When I came up with the
idea of this system I was unaware of 8...Qc7, and for some (possibly arbitrary)
reason went with 8...a6.
9.Ndb5 Qa5 10.f3 a6 11.Nd4 Qc7 transposes to our main line in the next
chapter.

9.0-0

Although Black can choose whether to play 8...a6 or 8...Qc7, whichever he

chooses on move 8 it is important to follow it up with the other on move 9
before embarking on 10...b7-b5.
9.h3 Qc7 As per protocol. 10.0-0
(10.Nxc6?! dxc6 11.0-0 b5 12.a3 c5 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.Bxd5?! Rb8µ

Variations like this illustrate what I meant in the intrduction when I claimed
that it often feels like you’re playing White when you play the Accelerated
Dragon. A couple of careless moves by White and Black is not only equal,
Black is already better. It is uncommon for White to be forced to play under
such a slim margin of error as he must in this line.)
10...b5
11.a3
(11.f4 b4 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 e6! (Black is also to be preferred after
13...Bb7 14.Rc1 e6 15.Bxc6 dxc6 16.c3 e5!) 14.Bb3 (14.Nxc6 dxc6 15.Bc4
Bxb2µ) 14...Bb7„ …15.f5? gxf5 16.exf5? Qe5–+)
11...Na5 12.f4 d6 The usual way to meet White’s f2-f4.
(12...Bb7!? 13.e5 Ne4 14.Nd5 (14.Nxe4 Nxb3 15.Nxb3 Bxe4³) 14...Qd8
15.Nf3 (15.Ba2 e6µ) 15...Nxb3 16.Bb6 (16.cxb3 d6µ) 16...Qb8 17.Bc7 Qe8
18.cxb3 Ng3 19.Re1 Nh5∞)
13.Qd3
(13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.exd5 Bb7µ)
13...Bb7 14.Rad1 Rac8³ ‘
White has nothing to do. Black will continue to build pressure, keeping an eye
out for central counterplay with ...e7-e5’;
9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.e5
(10.0-0 d6 11.h3 a5 12.a4?! Ba6 13.Re1 Nd7³ 14.Qd2 Nc5 15.Bxc5?! dxc5
16.Qe3 Bd4 17.Qf3

17...Qb8! 18.Ne2 Be5 19.Rab1 Qb4! 20.Nc3 c4 21.Ba2 Rfd8µ 0–1 (36)Ruiz-
 Panjwani, SPICE Cup 2013).
10...Ne8 11.f4 d6
(11...d5 12.0-0 Nc7 13.Qf3 a5 14.Bb6²)
12.0-0 Qc7

13.Qe2 White’s best attempt.

a) 13.exd6 White cannot hope for an advantage without the possession of any
central pawns 13...exd6 14.Bd4 Nf6 15.Qf3 a5„;
b) 13.Qf3 This forcing variation is worth committing to memory, or at least
remembering that it exists and that the complications favor Black 13...dxe5
14.fxe5 Bxe5 15.Bxf7+ Kg7–+
 Black threatens to win a piece with ...Bxc3 and ...e7-e5, as well as with ...Ne8-
d6. 16.Ne2 (16.Kh1 Bxc3 17.bxc3 e5–+; 16.Rae1 Nd6 17.Bh6+ Kxh6
18.Qe3+ g5 19.Qxe5 Qa7+ 20.Kh1 Rxf7–+) 16...Nd6 17.Bh6+ Kxh6 18.Qe3+
g5 19.Qxe5 Qa7+ 20.Kh1 Nxf7–+;
13...dxe5 14.Bc5! exf4!
(14...Be6 This may be enough for equality but is unnecessary given 14...exf4!
15.Rae1 (15.Bxe6 fxe6 16.fxe5 Rxf1+ 17.Rxf1 Qxe5=) 15...Bxb3 16.axb3 Nd6
17.fxe5 Nb7 18.Bf2 Nd8 19.Na4 Ne6∞)
15.Bxe7
(15.Qxe7 Bd4+ 16.Kh1 Bxc5 17.Qxc5 Be6=)
15...Bg4 16.Qe1 Nf6 17.Bxf8 Rxf8©
As is often the case in Dragon setups, White’s dark squared bishop is worth the
exchange, especially here where Black is up a pawn as well.

9...Qc7

Black will simply continue ...b7-b5, ...Bc8-b7, ...Nc6-a5, and if White plays f2-
f4 Black will prevent e4-e5 with ...d7-d6.
9...b5?! The first file I made on this system recommended this move. I sent the
file to a friend over Facebook (a GM who will remain unnamed) and he found
the following slight edge for White. In a way, the problems with 9...b5 make
Black’s life easier, because he can follow the simple rule: first 8...a6/9...Qc7 (or
the other way around) and only then consider ...b7-b5.
10.Nxc6!
(10.f3 Qc7 11.Qd2 (11.a4 b4 12.Na2 (12.Nd5?! Nxd5 13.Bxd5 (13.exd5 Qe5–
+) 13...Bb7 14.Rc1 e6! 15.Bb3 Be5! 16.f4 (16.h3 Nxd4 17.Bxd4 Bf4 18.Rb1
a5³; 16.g3 f5!µ) 16...Nxd4 17.fxe5 Nxb3 18.cxb3 Qxe5 19.Qxd7 Qxe4 20.Rf3
Qd5 21.Qe7 Rae8 22.Qxb4 Rc8=) 12...Rb8 (12...Nxd4 13.Bxd4 a5?! 14.c3²
Black should avoid positions like this where he lacks counterplay) 13.Qd2
Nxd4 14.Bxd4 Ne8! 15.Bxg7 Nxg7
 Black is to be preferred: the knight will find its way to c5 via e6, and White’s
pieces are sloppy on b3 and a2.) 11...Na5 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 Rb8=)
10...dxc6 11.Qxd8
(11.f3 Qc7 12.a4 (12.Qe1 c5 13.a4 b4 14.Ne2 c4 15.Ba2 a5³) 12...Rd8 13.Qe1
b4 14.Ne2 a5 15.Qf2 (15.Bc4 Nd7³) 15...Nd7=)
11...Rxd8 12.Rfd1 Nd7 13.f4 White has a moderately annoying clamp on
Black’s position. Black should still be fine with precise play but it is better to
avoid this.

10.f4 d6 11.h3
11...Na5 12.Qd3 b5 13.Nd5

13.a3 Bb7 14.Rad1 Rac8³ White has nothing to do. Black will continue to build
pressure, keeping an eye out for central counterplay with ...e7-e5.

13...Nxd5 14.Bxd5 Bb7

Also good for Black is 14...Rb8 15.b4?!

(15.f5 Nc4„)
15...e6! 16.bxa5 exd5 17.exd5 Bb7 18.f5 Be5 19.Qb3 Rbc8³

15.b3 e6! 16.Bxb7 Nxb7 17.b4

17...e5!

17...Rad8?! 18.f5 exf5 19.exf5 Rfe8 20.f6 Bf8 21.Bf4 Qb6 22.a4 Nc5 23.a5
Nxd3 24.axb6 Nxf4 25.Rxf4± Kurnosov,I-Topalov,V Astana KAZ 2012.

18.Ne2

18.fxe5 dxe5³

18...d5! 19.fxe5 Qxe5 20.Bd4

20.exd5 Rae8–+

20...Qxe4µ
 2

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0
8.Bb3 a6 9.f3

White signals his intention to play in Yugoslav Attack fashion with Qd2 and 0-0-
0. This is the most critical continuation, but since White players are not prepared
for this new system, over the board they tend to shy away from the challenge.

9...Qc7

9...b5?! Don’t forget — first 9...Qc7, and only then 10...b5. 10.Nxc6 dxc6
11.e5²

10.Qd2

10.0-0 It makes no sense to combine f3 with kingside castling, as White’s only

constructive plan after 10.0-0 is to go for f4 anyway.
10...Na5
(As usual 10...b5!? is perfectly playable as well.)
11.Qd2
(11.Nd5?! Nxd5 12.exd5 b5 (12...Nxb3 13.axb3 Qe5 14.Re1 Qxd5 15.c4©)
13.Qd2 Bb7³)
11...b5 12.Rad1 e6!

Now White’s b3 Bishop literally has no squares to go to, a triumph of our

concept 13.a3 Bb7„ Superficial developing moves on White’s part have allowed
Black to take over the initiative: ...d7-d5 is now imminent.;
10.g4!? Black must be accurate here.
10...b5!
(10...e6 Black can play this way and transpose to the main line but 10...b5!
takes advantage of White’s premature 10.g4. 11.Qd2 b5 12.0-0-0

12...Na5?! (¹12...Bb7 13.h4 h5 This transposes to our main line.) 13.h4‚

13...h5 We will see similar positions later on, except with Black’s knight on c6.
a) 13...Bb7?! 14.h5 In this system it is almost always unwise for Black to allow
White h4-h5. 14...Rac8 (14...b4 15.Na4 Nxe4 16.fxe4 Bxe4 17.hxg6 Nxb3+
18.axb3 fxg6 19.Qh2±) 15.Kb1±

15...Nxg4 16.fxg4 Nxb3 17.Nxb3+–;

b) 13...d5!? It is worth researching this move further;
14.Bh6±
 It took me a while to realize that Black should keep his knight on c6 to prevent
White from playing this move, on account of ...Nxd4 winning a piece.
Allowing White Be3-h6 in this way is enough of a concession to turn a
dynamically equal position into a difficult one for Black. (14.g5 Ne8„))
11.g5

11...Nh5
(11...Ne8 Playable but not the best. 12.Nd5 Qd6 (12...Qe5 13.c3± Na5??
14.Bf4+– This is why the knight is better on h5) 13.Qd2²)
12.Nd5 Qe5 13.c3 Na5! 14.Ne2 (14.Bc2 Nc4µ) 14...Nxb3 15.axb3 (15.Qxb3
e6 16.Ne7+ Kh8³) 15...Bb7„

10...b5

I give some analysis on 10...Na5 in the next chapter, but that material is an
appendix to this one; I prefer to play in the way I recommend here.

11.0-0-0

11.Nxc6 dxc6= Although objectively equal, Black is to be preferred in practice.

White is planless; the b3 bishop is vulnerable to Black’s ...c5-c4, and the c3
knight no longer has its favorite d5 square.;
11.a4 b4 12.Na2 Rb8! 13.Nxc6
(13.0-0 Nxd4 14.Bxd4

14...Ne8! 15.Bxg7 (15.Nxb4 Bxd4+ 16.Qxd4 e5 17.Qc3 Qb6+–+) 15...Nxg7=

The knight will find its way to c5 via e6; White’s pieces are sloppy on b3 and
a2.)
13...dxc6 14.Nxb4 c5 15.Nd5
(15.Nd3
 15...Nxe4!! (15...c4 16.Bf4±) 16.fxe4 c4 17.Bf4 e5³ The ability to play ...e5 in
response to Bf4 is why Black must sacrifice with 15...Nxe4!!)
15...Nxd5 16.Qxd5 Bxb2 17.Rd1
(17.Rb1?! Ba3 18.0-0! Be6µ)
17...Be6 18.Qxc5 Qxc5 19.Bxc5 Bf6 20.Bxe6 fxe6= …...Rfc8;
11.g4 Bb7 12.g5 Nh5 13.Nd5
13...Qd6 It is admittedly a little difficult to remember to play 13...Qd6 in this
11.g4 variation, whereas in the 10.g4 variation the right move was 12...Qe5. The
reason is that in the 10.g4 variation White was forced to play 13.c3 in response
to 12...Qe5, whereas here, thanks to White’s d2-queen already being developed,
White can defend the d4-knight with 14.0-0-0.
(13...Qe5 14.0-0-0²)
14.0-0-0 Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Bxd4 16.Qxd4 Bxd5 17.e5 Qc7 18.Qxd5 Ng7=;
11.h4 h5 12.0-0-0 Bb7 transposes to the main line.

11...Bb7
Although this position has only been reached 30 times in the datababse, it is the
first critical position of our main line. Both sides have developed their pieces and
connected their rooks, and it remains to be determined which of the opposing
wing attacks will succeed. Black’s sights aren’t limited to the queenside though,
because the central pawn majority offers prospects for counterplay with ...d7-d5
or even ...e7-e5.

12.h4

By far the most common move.

12.Nd5?! Nxd5 13.exd5 Ne5 14.Kb1 Rac8 15.Bh6 Nc4 16.Bxc4 Bxh6 17.Qxh6
Qxc4 18.h4 f6µ;
12.Bh6?? Nxd4 13.Bxg7 Nxb3+ 14.axb3 Kxg7–+;
12.Kb1
This is the concession we induce by prolonging the Knight’s stay on c6. White
now threatens 13.h4 h5 14.Bh6, as after 14...Nxd4 15.Bxg7 Nxb3 is no longer
check, allowing 16.Qh6+–.
12...Na5! Having induced White’s Kb1, Black can now go for lines similar to
those after 10...Na5 where White is effectively down a tempo in the critical
variations because Kb1 turns out to be unnecessary.
(12...e6 13.Nxc6 Bxc6 14.Bf4 Qb7 15.Nd5 a5 16.Ne7+ Kh8 17.a3²;
12...Rac8?! 13.h4 h5 14.Bh6 Nxd4 15.Bxg7 Nxb3??
 No longer check as it was when the White king was on c1. 16.Qh6+–)
13.Bh6
(13.h4 b4!

Since White spent a tempo on Kb1, Black’s queenside counterplay is in time.

14.Na4 (14.Nd5 Bxd5 15.exd5 Rfc8„ 16.h5?! Nxb3 17.Nxb3 Nxd5!µ)
 14...e5! 15.Ne2 d5!„)
13...Nxb3 14.cxb3
(14.Nxb3 Bxh6 15.Qxh6 b4 Black can allow White’s Nc3-d5 when he can
capture with the bishop on b7, leaving the f6 knight to defend against White’s
h4-h5 attack (in particular the h7 square will be defended). 16.Nd5 Bxd5
17.exd5 Rfc8 18.Rd2 Qd6 19.h4 a5 20.h5 a4 21.Nd4 a3 22.hxg6 (22.b3 Ra5
23.hxg6 fxg6–+) 22...fxg6–+)
14...b4 15.Bxg7
(15.Nce2 Bxh6 16.Qxh6 d5!

17.h4 e5 18.Nf5 Fear not! 18...Ne8! 19.Ne3 (19.Qg5 f6 20.Nh6+ Kg7

21.Nf5+ Kh8³) 19...d4 20.Nc4 f6=)
15...bxc3 16.Qh6 Rfc8!
This is one of the few lines worth committing to memory as well. 17.bxc3 Nh5
18.Nf5 gxf5 19.Bd4 e5 20.Qxh5
(20.Bb6 Qxc3 21.Qxh5 Qc2+=)
20...exd4 21.Qg5+
(21.Rxd4 Qxc3 22.Qg5+ Kh8 23.Qf6+ Kg8 24.Qg5+ Kh8=)
21...Kh8 22.Qf6+ Kg8=;
12.g4
A slight inaccuracy. White should start with 12.h4, so as to ensure that Black
plays ...h7-h5; in this line Black can get away without it.
12...Na5!
(12...Rac8 13.g5 Nh5 14.Nd5²; 12...e6!? Black can transpose to the main line
with this move. 13.h4 h5 etc.)
13.Kb1
a) 13.Bh6 Bxh6 14.Qxh6 Rac8„ Black’s queenside attack is too fast for White
(14...b4 15.Nd5 Nxb3+ 16.axb3 Nxd5 17.exd5 Rac8 18.d6!∞);
b) 13.g5 Nh5³ Black has a knight on each rim, but it is White’s position which
is dim.;
c) 13.h4 Rfc8!
 We see that White’s g2-g4 is redundant; Black could have played h2-h4-h5
without it, as it would have been suicide for Black to capture ...Nf6xh5.
(13...h5?! 14.Bh6²) 14.h5 Nxb3+ 15.axb3 b4 16.Na4 e5 17.hxg6 fxg6 18.Ne2
Nxe4! 19.fxe4 Bxe4„;
13...Rac8
(13...Rfc8 14.Bh6 Bxh6 15.Qxh6 b4 16.Nf5 gxf5 17.g5±)
14.Bh6
As a rule, Black’s counterplay (whether on the queenside or in the center) tends
to ‘work’ when White has spent a tempo on Kb1. 14...Nxb3
(14...Bxh6 15.Qxh6 Nxb3 (15...b4 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.exd5 (17.Bxd5 e6 18.Bb3
d5 19.exd5 Nxb3 20.d6 Qc5³) 17...Nxb3 18.d6!! Black may be fine here but to
allow this is unnecessary 18...exd6 19.cxb3± White threatens Nd4-f5,
winning.) 16.axb3 transposes to 14...Nxb3. (16.cxb3? b4 17.Nce2 Nxg4!
18.fxg4 Bxe4+ 19.Ka1 Bxh1 20.Rxh1 Qe5µ))
15.axb3
(15.cxb3 b4 16.Nce2 Nxe4 17.fxe4 Bxh6 18.Qxh6 Bxe4+ 19.Ka1 Bxh1
20.Rxh1 Qe5µ 21.Rd1 (21.h4 Rc5 22.h5 Qg5–+) 21...Rc5–+)
15...Bxh6 16.Qxh6 b4 17.Rhg1!?
 (17.Na4 d5!„)
17...Kh8! 18.Na4
(18.Na2 d5 19.exd5 Nxd5µ)
18...d5 19.e5 Qxe5 20.g5 Nd7µ

12...h5!N

A new move, but more importantly a new concept for this line: containment.
Previously, Black would rush with queenside counterplay, hoping to mate White
before getting mated himself. It turns out that Black can contain White’s
kingside attack and solidify the center with ...e7-e6, and only then proceed with
queenside and/or central counterplay. For his part, White must keep the attack
going with urgency, because Black’s queenside counterplay is just a few moves
away, and it will come with devastating effect (...Rac8, ...Rfd8, ...Na5, etc.).
12...Na5!?
This may turn out to be playable as well, but it is not in the spirit of the concept I
am advocating. To allow White h4-h5 without immediate counterplay is akin to
the ordinary Yugoslav Attack in the Dragon; our aim is to play in ‘Taimanov
style’ with ...h7-h5 and ...e7-e6. 13.h5 b4 14.Na4
(14.Nce2 Rfc8 15.hxg6 Nxb3+ 16.Nxb3 hxg6 17.Nc5 Bc6 18.Bh6 Bh8∞)
14...Nxb3+ 15.Nxb3 Nxh5 16.Nb6
(16.g4 Nf6 (16...Ng3? 17.Qh2) 17.Nb6 Rad8 18.Na5∞)
16...Rad8 17.Na5²

13.g4
The character of the position demands that this be played. Timidity will not
suffice; time is of the essence in the race to determine which of the flank attacks
will succeed. My initial attitude towards this system was that I should delay
...e7-e6 for as long as possible, because I felt I would always have the option
later on, and I thought there could be more useful attacking moves on the
queenside such as 13...Na5 (which also guards the important d5-square).
However, as I delved deeper into this variation, I realized that Black should keep
the knight on c6 for a little longer to deter White’s Be3-h6. The result is a rather
peculiar middlegame ‘standoff’, where White cannot make progress with Be3-h6
until Black moves his knight from c6, but at the same time Black cannot make
progress on the queenside until he does either.
13.Nxc6 This may look unnatural — and it is — but the ‘computer move’ which
it is based on (14.Bd4!) is not to be underestimated. Black’s f6-knight is the
MVP (most valuable piece) of his position, as without it, White’s g2-g4xh5
would be decisive. Fortunately, the f6-knight is difficult to get at, as 13.Bg5??
loses to 13...Nxe4. White’s 13.Nxc6 takes aim at Black’s f6-knight by paving
the way for 14.Bd4. 13...Bxc6
(13...dxc6 Black does not quite equalize here. 14.Bc5 a5 15.a3 (15.a4 Ba6∞)
15...Rfd8 (15...b4 16.Na4 Ba6∞) 16.Qe3 Rxd1+ 17.Rxd1 a4 18.Ba2 Rd8
 19.Rxd8+ Qxd8 20.e5 Nd5 21.Nxd5 cxd5 22.f4²)
14.Bd4

(14.Bh6 a5 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Qd4 b4 17.Na4 d6³ 18.g4?! hxg4 19.h5 Qa7!
20.Qd2 Rh8µ)
14...a5!
(14...e6?! 15.e5 (15.g4 a5 16.gxh5 Nxh5=) 15...Nh7 16.Qe3 a5 17.a4 Rfb8
18.axb5 Bxb5 19.g4 White’s attack is too fast. 19...a4 20.Ba2 hxg4 21.h5 a3
22.b3 Bc6 23.hxg6 fxg6 24.Ne4 Rf8 25.f4‚)
15.e5
(15.Nd5?! Bxd5 16.Bxd5 Rac8µ)
15...Ne8 16.Nd5
(16.Qg5 a4 17.Nd5 Black has an embarrassment of riches, needing to choose
between two beautiful variations 17...axb3!! (17...Bxd5 18.Bxd5 Rc8 19.Rd2 e6
20.Be4 Qc4 21.Kb1 Nd6!!„) 18.Nxc7 bxa2 19.Kd2 Nxc7³)
16...Bxd5 17.Bxd5 Rc8
Fair warning is in order: what follows is a total mess. That being said, look
closely and you will see that it is White who needs to be accurate and find
several (nontrivial) ‘only’-moves in order to survive the complications. As
Black, playing a risky line like this, we should welcome our opponents into what
Tal called the “deep dark forest where 2+2=5 and the path leading out is only
wide enough for one”. 18.f4
(18.g4 e6 19.Be4 Bxe5 20.Bxe5 Qxe5 21.Rhe1 Qc5 22.Qh6 Nf6 23.Bxg6 fxg6
24.Qxg6+ Kh8 25.g5 Nd5 26.Qh6+ Kg8 27.Qg6+ Kh8=)
18...d6 19.Qe2
(19.e6? f5³)
19...dxe5
(19...e6 20.Bf3 Bh6 21.g3 d5 22.g4 Bxf4+ 23.Kb1‚)
20.fxe5 Qb8!!
Making room to relocate the knight from e8-c7-e6. 21.g4
(21.a3 Nc7 22.Ba2 b4„)
21...Nc7 22.Bf3 Ne6 23.gxh5 Rc4 24.Bc3
(24.c3 Rfc8 25.Kb1 b4 26.Bd5 bxc3 27.Bxc4 Rxc4 28.Bxc3 Rxc3 29.hxg6
fxg6³)
24...Rfc8!
 (24...Qc7 25.hxg6 (25.Kb1 Rxc3 26.bxc3 Nc5 27.hxg6 Na4 28.gxf7+ Rxf7
29.Qe3 Nxc3+ 30.Kc1 Nxa2+ 31.Kd2 Bxe5∞) 25...Rxc3 26.gxf7+ Kh8
27.bxc3 Qxc3∞)
White’s only move to not be clearly worse here is... 25.Rd7™ 25...Qb6 26.hxg6
Nf4 27.gxf7+ Kf8 28.Qd1™ 28...b4 29.Kb1™ 29...bxc3 30.b3 Qc5 31.Rd8+
(31.Ka1 Qa3 32.Rd8+ Rxd8 33.Qxd8+ Kxf7 34.Bd5+ e6 35.Qd7+ Kg8
36.Bxe6+ Nxe6 37.Qxe6+ Kh7 38.Qf5+ Kg8 39.Qe6+ Kh7=)
31...Rxd8 32.Qxd8+ Kxf7 33.Rf1™ 33...Rd4 34.Bh5+ Ke6 35.Qg8+ Kd7
36.Bg4+ Kc7 37.Qc8+ Kb6 38.Qb8+ Kc6 39.Bf3+
(39.Qc8+ Kb6=)
39...Kd7 40.Re1 Qa3 41.e6+ Nxe6 42.Qb5+ Kd8 43.Qb8+ Kd7=;
13.Rdg1?! White cannot hope for an advantage with such timidity 13...e6 14.g4
14...Qd6! 15.Nxc6 Qxd2+ 16.Bxd2 dxc6 17.gxh5 Nxh5³ White’s Bb3 is a mere
spectator, soon to be cornered by Black’s c-pawn (...c5-c4).

13...e6!

Like 13...Na5, this move also prevents White’s g4-g5 followed by Nc3-d5, but
by keeping the knight on c6, White’s Be3-h6 is hindered. What follows is
somewhat a game of ‘cat and mouse’ — White’s main resource of Be3-h6 is
unavailable at present, and it is difficult to see how to continue the attack without
that. Black would welcome White’s g4-g5, which locks up the kingside and
directs Black’s knight to d6 via e8. On the other hand, Black’s queenside attack
is stalled by the fact that he can’t play ...Nc6-a5 without allowing Be3-h6. That
being said, whereas White is at a loss for ways to improve his position, Black
can place his rooks on the d-and-c (or b-) files and threaten both central
counterplay and a queenside pawn storm. 13...Na5?!

14.Bh6! This is ultimately the problem with 13...Na5 — White gets to exchange
Black’s ‘Dragon bishop’. White threatens Nd4-f5, so the following (14...e6) is
forced.
a) 14.gxh5 Nxh5 15.Rhg1
Computers take some time to appreciate the power of this idea, but anyone who
has studied the Yugoslav Attack will know that White’s recipe is to, as Fischer
said, “pry open” files to Black’s king, then “sac, sac, mate”. 15...e6!
(15...Nxb3+ 16.axb3 b4 17.Na4 d5 18.Rg5! This is the point. White really does
intend to “sac, sac, mate” 18...dxe4 19.Rxh5! e5 (19...gxh5 20.Rg1+–) 20.Qh2
gxh5 21.Nf5+– White’s attack is overwhelming) 16.Rg5!
The aggressively inclined Black player may be in dismay — White is initiating
dangerous threats like Rg5xh5, and Black’s counterattack seems far off.
However, as Suba teaches in his book Dynamic Chess Strategy, “initiative is a
psychological advantage”, so it is up to us as defenders to grant or deny this
advantage to our opponents. The aggressor is not better simply by virtue of
being on the offensive: White was the first to initiate action but if we defend
well, he may quickly run out of steam and be left with no attack and static
pawn weaknesses. 16...Kh7! (16...Bf6?! 17.Rxh5 gxh5 18.f4±) 17.Rdg1 Bf6
18.Rxh5+ gxh5 19.e5 Nxb3+ 20.axb3 Bxe5 21.Rg5 Rg8

This position is a draw according to my computer. Technically, then, Black is

not worse in this variation, but you can see why I prefer to avoid this mess by
playing 13...e6!. 22.Rxh5+ (22.Nxe6 dxe6 23.Rxh5+ Kg6 24.Rg5+ Kh7=
(24...Kf6 25.Rxe5 Qxe5 26.Bd4
26...Rg1+ 27.Nd1 Bxf3 28.Bxe5+ Ke7!! Study-like 29.Qb4+ Ke8 30.Kd2
Rd8+ 31.Ke3 Bxd1=) ) 22...Kg6 23.Qd3+ Kf6 24.f4 Bd6∞ The Higher Power
calls this “0.00”, but I would not write a book recommending this madness as
the first option.;
b) 14.g5 Black is usually happy to see this; White blocks off his own attack and
lures Black’s knight to e8 where it wants to go anyway 14...Ne8! 15.Nde2
Nd6!
When the concept of transporting this maneuver from the Taimanov occurred to
me, I was pessimistic that it would turn out to be possible in the Accelerated
Dragon. It was a pleasant surprise when I saw that the computers approve of it,
and as it turns out it is a recurring theme in this line. 16.Bf4 b4 17.Na4
(17.Nd5?! Nxb3+ 18.axb3 Bxd5 19.Qxd5 Rfc8 20.Rd2 a5! 21.Bxd6 exd6
22.Qxd6 a4 23.Qxc7 Rxc7 24.Kb1 a3!µ) 17...Rfc8 18.Bxd6 exd6 19.Kb1
 19...d5! 20.exd5 Nxb3 21.cxb3 Bxd5 22.Qxd5 Qc2+ 23.Ka1 Qxe2„;
14...e6
(14...Nxb3+

In the one tournament game in which I had this position over the board, I
played this move. I took over the advantage in that game, but only because my
opponent let me...15.axb3 b4 16.Nce2 hxg4 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Qg5 Nh7
19.Qxe7?! (19.Qxg4 e6 20.Nf4±) 19...Qa5 20.Qxd7? gxf3! 21.Nf4?! Qa1+
22.Kd2 Qxb2 23.Nde6+ Kg8 24.Nxf8 Qc3+ 25.Kc1 Bxe4µ Cao,J-Panjwani,R
Kitchener 2015).
15.Rhe1!
Not an easy move for humans to find because we tend to expect that the battle
will be decided on the kingside. The logic of this move is clear: White threatens
e4-e5, and Black cannot prevent this with 15...d6 for tactical reasons.
Furthermore, White’s pressure on the kingside is still felt, and eventually some
sort of Nd4-f5 or gxh5 will be decisive.
(15.Bxg7 This eases Black’s task a little; there is no need to take on g7, as
Black certainly couldn’t allow White’s queen to infiltrate by taking on h6
15...Kxg7 16.g5 (16.Rhe1 Nxb3+ 17.axb3 d6²) 16...Ne8! (16...Ng8!? 17.Rhe1
b4 (17...Ne7 18.f4 Rad8 19.f5 Kg8 Black’s position is surprisingly resilient)
18.Na4 e5 19.Ne2 Nxb3+ 20.axb3 Rac8 21.Kb1 a5 22.c4 Bc6=) 17.Kb1
 17...Rd8! Preparing the thematic ...Ne8-d6, since now after 18.Nxe6+ dxe6 the
d6-Knight is defended 18.Nde2 Kg8! Threatening ...b5-b4 (18...b4
19.Qd4++–) 19.Nf4 b4 20.Na4 Nxb3 21.cxb3 d5! 22.exd5 a5!„)
15...Nxb3+
(15...b4 16.Na4 hxg4 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.e5 Nd5 19.fxg4±; 15...d6?? 16.Bxe6!
Bxh6 17.Qxh6 fxe6 18.Qxg6+ Qg7 19.Qxg7+ Kxg7 20.Nxe6++–)
16.axb3 d6 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.gxh5 Nxh5 19.Rg1
Black is suffering. White’s attack is not decisive, but lacking counterplay Black
is condemned to passive defense. 19...Kh7
(19...Rae8 20.b4 Black needs to be accurate to not collapse here. 20...Nf6?!
21.h5! Nxh5 22.f4 d5 23.Rdf1 dxe4 24.f5!±; 19...Rh8?? 20.Rxg6++–)
20.Qg5 Threatening Nd4xe6, as well as f4-f5.
(20.Rg5 Rg8 21.b4 Rad8 22.Nde2 f6 23.Rg4 e5!=)
20...Rfe8 21.b4! Rac8
(21...Qe7 22.Nb3±)
22.Kb1 Qe7 23.Nb3± Black is positionally dominated.

14.Kb1

Small ‘refinement’ moves like this are useful prophylaxis for when the position
(inevitably) explodes.
14.a3 This is admittedly a ‘computer move’ — I can’t imagine many humans
will weaken their king position unprovoked. Nevertheless, it is instructive to see
how Black builds up attacking potential. 14...Rfc8!

In such positions it is notoriously difficult to decide which rook to put on a given

file. Pal Benko is rumored to have joked that his method is as follows: think
really hard, decide which rook would be the right choice, then play the other
rook! By placing the f-Rook on c8 instead of d8, Black sidesteps a potential
Be3-g5 pin, and also defends his Qc7 in case, after ...Nc6-e5 for example, White
pins the Knight with Be3-f4 or Qd2-h2.
(14...Na5?! This always runs into Be3-h6 15.Bh6± (15.g5 I can’t resist
including some pretty variations which I encountered in my research. 15...Ne8
16.Ba2

16...Nd6! Computers rarely suggest this as their first choice (including here)
but from my perspective, if I can get away with this maneuver then I’m playing
it 17.Qh2 (17.Nxe6 fxe6 18.Qxd6 Qxd6 19.Rxd6 Bxc3 20.bxc3 Rxf3 21.Bb6
Nc4 22.Bxc4 bxc4 23.Rxd7 Bxe4=) 17...e5! 18.Nb3 Nac4 19.Bf2 a5
Black’s pieces are the picture of harmony; in contrast, look at White’s! 20.Nd5
Bxd5 21.Rxd5 To those who complain that computers have ruined chess, I
sympathize for the most part, but every now and then they win back our hearts
with ingenious sequences like the following 21...Nxb2!! 22.Kxb2 Nc4+
23.Ka1 d6!! White’s pieces are so uncoordinated that Black can take time out
of his day for this calm, solidifying move, covering the c5 square and
threatening ...Nc4xa3. (23...Nxa3 24.Bc5±) 24.c3 b4! 25.a4 Qc6 26.Rb1 Qxa4
27.Be1 Rfb8
 Alas, at least as often as computers uncover hidden beauties for us, they ruin
our fun with flawless defense, insisting that chess played correctly settles down
to a draw. 28.Qe2 Na3 29.Rc1 Nb5 30.Rd3 Bf8= Apparently 0.00 but we
needn’t continue along these lines, as 15.Bh6 must not be permitted earlier
on.))
15.Bf4
a) 15.Nxc6 Bxc6 16.Bf4 Qb7 17.Be5 b4! 18.axb4
18...a5!! 19.Qf4 (19.bxa5?? Rxa5 20.Qf4 Rxe5! 21.Qxe5 Nxe4–+) 19...axb4
20.Bxf6 (20.Nb1 Nxe4!! 21.Bxg7 (21.fxe4 Bxe5 22.Qxe5 Bxe4 23.Rh2
hxg4©) 21...Nc5!! 22.Bc4 Kxg7 23.gxh5 Bxf3 24.Rdf1 Bxh5 25.Qxf7+ Kh8
26.Qf6+ Kh7=) 20...bxc3 21.bxc3 Ra5!³ Black enjoys superior king safety and
White’s light-squared bishop is caught offside, unable to assist on the Kingside;
b) 15.Kb1 Ne5 16.Bg5 hxg4 17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.h5 g5 19.fxg4 Qc5! 20.Rdf1
Qe7„
 Black plans to play ...Rc8-c5 and double up rooks on the c-file, threatening to
sacrifice the exchange on c3 with devastating effect.;
15...Ne5 16.Qh2 d6

Black has a lot going for him: more central pawns, White’s attack has been
halted, and Black’s queenside attack is just getting started. In addition to this, the
tactics on e6 do not work for White.
17.Nxe6
(17.Bxe5 dxe5 18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.Bxe6+ Kh7 20.Bxc8 Rxc8„)
17...fxe6 18.Bxe5 dxe5 19.g5 Qe7 20.gxf6 Bxf6 21.Qh3 Rc6 22.Qg3 Kh7=;
14.g5 Ne8

15.Nde2
a) 15.a3 Na5 16.Kb1 (16.Ba2 Nc4 17.Bxc4 bxc4=) 16...d5! 17.exd5 Nxb3
18.cxb3
 18...Rd8! We have seen this before; it is worth keeping this idea in mind.
19.Rc1 (19.dxe6 Bxf3µ) 19...Qb8=;
b) 15.Nxc6 Bxc6 16.Bc5 d6 17.Bxd6? (17.Bd4 Bxd4 18.Qxd4 Rb8„)
17...Nxd6 18.Qxd6 Qb6!µ with ...a5-a4 to follow;
15...d6 16.Rhf1 Na5 17.Kb1
(17.f4? b4 18.Na4 Nxb3+ 19.axb3 Bxe4µ)
17...Rd8! Since White’s pawn storm has been blockaded, he is condemned to
meandering piece play, whereas Black is effectively up a pawn in the center.
18.Bd4 d5 19.exd5 Nxb3 20.axb3 Bxd5=;
14.Nxc6 Bxc6 15.Bf4 Qb7
16.Bh6 a5 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.g5
(18.gxh5 Nxh5 19.Rhg1 a4 20.Bd5 b4 21.Qd4+ Kh7 22.Bxc6 dxc6 23.Ne2 c5!
„)
18...Ne8 Computers take quite some time to realize that black has no problems
here. 19.Bd5 b4 20.Bxc6 Qxc6 21.Ne2 Rd8=;
14.Rdg1 Qd6! 15.Nxc6 Qxd2+ 16.Bxd2 Bxc6 17.g5 Ne8„

14...Rfd8

14...Rad8 The following is a good illustration of what not to do. 15.a3 d5?!
16.gxh5 Nxh5 17.Nxc6 Bxc6 18.exd5 exd5 19.Bg5 Rd7 20.Ne2 Bb7 21.Nd4±;
14...Rfc8?! This doesn’t work here, as White hasn’t weakened himself with a2-
a3, so Black’s queenside pawn storm is less effective than in was after 14.a3.
15.Nxc6
(15.Bf4 Ne5 16.Qh2 d6 17.Nxe6 fxe6 18.Bxe5 dxe5 19.Bxe6+ Kh7 20.g5
Ne8 21.Bxc8 Rxc8=)
15...Bxc6 16.Bf4 Qb7 17.Be5 a5
(17...b4 18.Qf4 bxc3 19.Bxf6 Qc7 20.Qg5±)
18.Qf4 a4 19.Bxe6 dxe6 20.Bxf6 b4 21.Bxg7 Kxg7 22.Ne2±

15.g5

We are in unexplored territory here, so I can only guess what White’s likely
choice would be in an over-the-board situation. I suspect that the urge to ‘do
something’ would be overwhelming, and White would be the first to cave in.
These days we tend to think the onus is on White to initiate complications. In the
early days of chess, they used to think that the more talented player has a moral
responsibility to initiate aggression!
15.Bh6 White invites simplifications which yield no advantage 15...Bxh6
16.Qxh6 Nxd4 17.Rxd4 Qe5!

18.gxh5
(18.Qd2 hxg4 19.fxg4 b4 20.Rxb4 Nxe4 21.Nxe4 Bxe4 22.Rf1 d5 23.Rb7
Rf8=
 The computer gives ‘zeroes’ (“0.00”) but I would prefer Black in a practical
setting because Black has a better Bishop, more central pawns, and potential for
taking over the initiative with ...a5-a4, whereas attempts by White to ‘do
something’ seem to only make his position worse. 24.g5?! a5 25.a4 Rab8
26.Rb5 Rxb5 27.axb5 Qc7³ With ...Rf8-b8 to follow.)
18...Nxh5 19.Rhd1 Qf4!
(19...Bc6 Black should be able to hold here with accurate play but the position
is a little annoying to defend because Black lacks a constructive plan. This is
why I recommend forcing matters by liquidating with 19...Qf4. 20.Ne2 a5
21.a3 b4 (21...Re8 22.Rg1 Rab8 23.f4 Qg7 24.Qg5 d5 25.e5²) 22.a4 Re8∞)
20.Qxf4
(20.Qg5 Bc6 21.Ne2 Qxg5 22.hxg5 a5 23.a3 Kf8=)
20...Nxf4 21.Rxd7 Rxd7 22.Rxd7 Bc6=
It is not necessary to memorize the precise way Black draws in the ensuing
variations; I include them just for the sake of completeness, but without
comments. It is enough to recognize that White’s h4 pawn is bound to eventually
capitulate to Black’s ...Kg8-g7 and ...Ra8-h8 or ...Nf4-g2, and White’s Bishop
remains frozen, missing in action on b3.
23.Rc7
(23.Rd6 Rc8=; 23.Rd2 Kf8! 24.Ne2 Nxe2 25.Rxe2 Ke7 26.Rg2 Rh8 27.Rg4
e5=)
23...Be8 24.e5
a) 24.Rc5 b4 25.Nd1 (25.Na4 Bxa4 26.Bxa4 Kg7=) 25...Bb5 26.c4 bxc3
27.Nxc3 Bd3+ 28.Kc1 (28.Bc2 Kg7 29.Bxd3 Nxd3 30.Ra5 Rh8 31.Rxa6
Rxh4=) 28...Rd8=;
b) 24.Kc1 Rd8=;
c) 24.a4 Ng2 25.axb5 axb5=;
24...Rd8 25.a4
(25.a3 a5 26.a4 bxa4 27.Nxa4 Ng2=)
25...bxa4
 (25...Ng2?! It is inspiring that despite such an error Black can still hold; such
margin for error is important to account for when choosing a repertoire. 26.a5!
Nxh4 27.f4 Ng2 28.Ra7 Nxf4 29.Ne4 Bc6 30.Nd6 Bd7 31.Rxa6 g5 32.Ne4
Ng6 33.Nxg5 Nxe5=)
26.Bxa4
(26.Bc4 Ng2 27.Bxa6 Nxh4 28.Bb7 Rd7 29.Rxd7 Bxd7 30.Ka2 g5 31.Ne4
Kg7 32.Nxg5 Ng6 33.Ka3 Nxe5 34.Kb4 f5 35.Kc5 Kf6 36.f4 Ng6 37.Nh3
e5=; 26.Nxa4 Ng2 27.Nc5 Nxh4 28.f4 Ng2 29.Nxa6 Nxf4=)
26...Bxa4 27.Nxa4 Rd1+
(27...Ng2 28.Rc4 a5 (28...Rd5 29.Rc8+ Kg7 30.c4 Rxe5 31.c5±) 29.c3 Rd3
(29...Kg7 30.b4 axb4 31.cxb4 Ne3 32.Rc3 Nd5 33.Rb3²) 30.b4 axb4 31.cxb4
Rxf3 32.Kb2 Ne3 33.Re4 Nd5 34.b5 f5 35.exf6 Rf5 36.Ka3 (36.Rxe6 Nc7=)
36...Nxf6 37.Rxe6 Kf7 38.Rb6 Nd7 39.Rb7 Ke6 40.Nc3 Rh5 41.Rc7 Rxh4
42.b6 Nxb6 43.Rc6+ Kf5 44.Rxb6=)
28.Ka2 Rh1 29.Nc5
(29.b4 Rxh4 30.Ra7 Nd5 31.c3 Nxb4+ 32.cxb4 Rxb4 33.Nc5 Rf4 34.Rxa6
Rxf3=)
29...Rxh4 30.Nxa6 Nd5 31.Rc8+ Kg7 32.Nc7 Ne7 33.Ne8+ Kf8 34.Ra8 Rf4
35.Nf6+ Kg7 36.Ra3 Nc6 37.Ng4 g5=;
15.Bf4 e5
16.g5
(16.Nf5 gxf5 17.Bg5 Na5 18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.Bd5 f4 20.g5 Bg7 21.g6 Kf8
22.Bxf7 Rac8µ)
16...Nxe4!
(16...Nxd4 17.Qxd4 d6 18.Qd3 Nxe4 19.Nxe4 exf4 20.Nf6+ Kh8 21.Rhe1∞)
17.Nxe4 exf4„;
15.Rdg1 b4 16.Na4 d5!
17.gxh5
(17.g5 Nxe4! 18.fxe4 dxe4 19.c3 bxc3 20.bxc3 Na5©)
17...Nxh5 18.Nxe6
(18.Rxg6 fxg6 19.Nxe6 Qe5 20.Nxd8 Rxd8 21.Bxd5+ Kh8=; 18.Nc5 Nxd4
19.Bxd4 Bxd4 20.Qxd4 dxe4 21.Qxb4 Bd5 22.Nxe4 Bxe4 23.fxe4 Ng3
24.Rh3 Ne2 25.Rf1 Ng3 26.Rg1=)
18...fxe6 19.Rxg6 Qf7 20.Qg2
(20.Rg5 Ne5„; 20.Rxe6 Na5„)
20...Ne5 21.Rh6 Nf4
22.Bxf4 Qxf4 23.Rxe6 Qxf3 24.Qg1
(24.Rg1 Qxg2 25.Rxg2 Kf8 26.Rf2+ Kg8 27.Rg2 Kf8=)
24...Re8 25.Nc5
(25.Rb6 Ra7 26.h5 Kh8 27.h6 Bf8µ)
25...Bc6=

15...Ne8 16.Qf2 Ne5

Around now White will start to regret caving under the pressure to ‘do
something’ with 15.g5.

17.Nde2

17.Bf4 Nd6!„ White’s kingside attack is distant memory, and the fun is just
getting started for Black.;
17.a3 Nd6 18.Nde2 Ndc4 19.Bd4 d5!
20.Bxc4 Nxc4 21.Bxg7 Kxg7 22.exd5 Bxd5 23.Nxd5 Rxd5 24.Rxd5 exd5
25.Qd4+ Qe5 26.Qxe5+ Nxe5 27.Nd4 Rc8 28.c3 Nc6=;
17.Qg3 Nd6„

17...Nc4 18.Bxc4

18.Bd4 d5 19.Bxc4 Bxd4 20.Rxd4 dxc4 21.Rxd8 Rxd8„

18...Qxc4 19.Bd4

19.Rd2 d5 20.Rhd1 a5! 21.exd5 b4 22.b3 Qa6 23.Na4 Rxd5 24.Rxd5 Bxd5
25.Nb6 Rb8 26.Nxd5 exd5 27.Bd4
(27.Rxd5? Nc7 28.Rd3 Nb5µ)
27...Bxd4 28.Nxd4 Nd6=

19...Bxd4 20.Rxd4

20.Nxd4 Qc5! 21.Rd2 Nd6 22.Nb3 Qxf2 23.Rxf2 Nc4 24.Nc5 Bc6=;
20.Qxd4 Qc7!=

20...Qc5 21.f4 Nd6!„

 Appendix

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0
8.Bb3 a6 9.f3 Qc7 10.Qd2 Na5

This may (with further research) turn out to be playable (and if my mainline runs
into problems this is a serious fallback to research further) but I prefer to
continue developing before committing the knight. In the early stages of
developing this system I tried out all kinds of move orders, and ultimately
realized that Black should keep the knight on c6 so as to deter White’s Be3-h6 as
long as possible (when ...Nc6xd4 would win a piece).

11.0-0-0

11.Bg5 e6!
The core theme of my system. 12.0-0-0
(12.0-0 b5 13.Rfe1 d6 14.a3 Rb8 15.Red1 Nc4 16.Bxc4 bxc4 17.Rab1 Bb7
18.Nde2 d5³)
12...b5 13.a3 Bb7 14.Kb1
(14.Ba2 Nc4 15.Bxc4 Qxc4 16.Nb3 a5 17.Qd3 Qxd3 18.Rxd3 b4³)
14...d5!
15.exd5
(15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.exd5 Nxb3 17.Nxb3 Bxc3 18.bxc3 Bxd5–+)
15...Nxb3 16.Nxb3 Nxd5µ;
11.g4

11...b5!
 (11...e6?! If Black is intent on this 10...Na5 variation then he should prefer
11...b5 instead. 12.h4 (12.0-0-0 b5 13.Bh6 Bxh6 14.Qxh6 b4 15.Nce2 Bb7
16.h4 Nxb3+ 17.axb3 Rfc8∞

18.Rd2 (18.c4 bxc3 19.Nxc3 d5³) 18...Bxe4 19.fxe4 Nxe4 20.h5 (20.Rf1 d5µ)
20...g5∞) 12...h5 13.0-0-0 b5 14.Bh6± Again, Black wishes his knight were on
c6 to deter this move.)
12.g5 Nxb3 13.axb3 b4„
Black is just in time: he will play Nh5 only after White’s knight moves from c3
(and therefore cannot reach d5).;
11.0-0 I include this move, because computers endorse it, but I can’t imagine
humans combining f3 with 0-0. 11...b5 12.a4 b4 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.Bxd5

14...Bb7
(14...Rb8 Black may prefer this. 15.Rac1 e6 16.Ba2 Nc4 17.Bxc4 Qxc4 18.b3
 Qc7 19.c3 bxc3 20.Rxc3 Qa5=)
15.Qxb4
(15.Bxb7 Qxb7µ; ¹15.b3 e6 16.Bxb7 Qxb7³)
15...Bxd5 16.exd5 Rab8 17.Qc3 Rfc8µ Black is calling all the shots. In most
openings, White can get away with a few inaccuracies, especially with innocent
developing moves, but the price of an inaccuracy is quite high for White in this
system.

11...b5

12.h4!

12.g4 Black generally has three ways of meeting this move, all intended to
prevent White from playing g4-g5 and Nc3-d5:
1) ...Bc8-b7
2) ...e7-e6
3) wait for g4-g5 and meet it with ...b5-b4.
Concrete factors determine which of these is the best in each particular situation.
12...Bb7 13.h4
(13.g5?! Nh5 14.Nd5 Bxd5 15.Bxd5 Rab8³

A sample continuation may be... 16.Kb1 Nc4 17.Bxc4 bxc4 18.c3 Rb7 19.Ka1
Rfb8 20.Rb1 a5 21.Ne2 a4 22.a3 Rb3 23.Ka2 (23.Nc1 Bxc3) 23...e6! 24.Ng3
Nxg3 25.hxg3 R8b5 26.Qh2 Qd6 27.Qxh7+ Kf8–+ White is defenseless
against the combined threats of ...Bg7xc3 and infiltration with ...Qd6-d3
(threatening ...Rxb2+).)
13...Rac8!
An isolated instance where Black can allow White to play h4-h5.
(13...h5?! Black would ideally like to prevent White’s h4-h5 but since Black’s
knight is on a5, White now has 14.Bh6!‚ White threatens Nd4-f5, so the
following is forced 14...e6 15.Rhe1! Nxb3+ (15...d6?? 16.Bxe6+–) 16.axb3 d6
17.gxh5 Nxh5 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.Rg1 Kh7 20.Qg5² Black is on the defensive.
Things aren’t so dire, but we can do better (13...Rac8!).)
14.Kb1
(14.h5?! b4 15.Na4
 15...Nxe4!! 16.fxe4 Bxe4 17.hxg6 Nxb3+ 18.axb3 fxg6³ 19.Rh2? e5–+)
14...e5! 15.Nde2 d5! 16.g5 Nxb3 17.axb3 d4 18.gxf6 dxe3 19.Qd6 Bh8
20.Qxc7 Rxc7 21.Rd6 Rfc8 22.h5 Rc6 23.Rd7 R6c7 24.Rd6=;
12.Kb1

12...Bb7
 (12...Nc4?! This should ‘feel’ wrong; Black needs to harness more potential
energy before striking. 13.Bxc4 bxc4 14.g4‚)
13.a3
(13.g4 The position is very rich, and Black has many possibilities. I’ll just show
a couple of them. 13...Rac8 (13...e6 14.h4 (14.Nde2?! d5 15.g5 Nh5 16.exd5
b4 17.Ne4 exd5 18.Bxd5 (18.Nc5? d4! 19.Bxd4 Bxf3 20.Bxg7 Nxg7 21.Nd7
Rad8 22.Rhf1 Nxb3 23.axb3 Rxd7 24.Qxd7 Qxd7 25.Rxd7 Bxe2µ) 18...Rad8
19.Bf4 Qb6 20.Be3 Qb5 21.Bxf7+ Kxf7 22.Nd6+ Rxd6 23.Qxd6 Nc4
24.Qc7+ Kg8 25.Bc5 Na3+ 26.Kc1 Qxe2 27.Bxf8 Qe3+ 28.Rd2 Bxb2+
29.Kxb2 Qxd2 30.Bh6 Qd4+ 31.Kb3 Qd5+ 32.Kb2 Qd4+ 33.Kb3=) 14...d5!
15.e5 (15.g5 Nh5 16.exd5 Nxb3 17.cxb3 b4 18.Ne4 Bxd5„) 15...Nd7 16.f4
Nc4 17.Qe1 (17.Bxc4 dxc4 18.Rhf1 Nc5„) 17...Nc5 18.h5 Nxe3 19.Qxe3
g5!!„

) White has two main options now.

a) 14.g5 Nh5 (14...b4
Things get pretty insane in this line. Fortunately it isn’t necessary for Black to
go into this. 15.Nf5!
(15.Na4 Nxe4! 16.fxe4 Bxe4 17.Rc1 Nxb3 18.axb3 Bxh1 19.Rxh1 f6=)
15...bxc3 16.Nxe7+ Kh8 17.Qf2 Nh5 18.Bb6 (18.Nxc8 Qxc8) 18...Qe5
19.Nxc8 Nxb3 20.axb3 Bxc8=) 15.Nd5 Bxd5 16.exd5 Nc4 17.Bxc4 bxc4
18.c3
 18...e5! This is a thematic push in this line, made possible by Black holding
back the d7 pawn. 19.dxe6 fxe6³;
b) 14.h4 e5! 15.Nde2 Nxb3 16.cxb3 (16.axb3 d5 17.exd5 Nxd5) 16...b4
17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.exd5 e4 19.Rc1 Qb7µ;
13...e6!
(13...Rad8 14.Qf2 Qb8!?„
a) 14...d5 15.Nf5 dxe4 16.Bb6∞;
b) 14...Nc4 15.Bxc4 bxc4 (15...Qxc4 16.Nb3²) 16.Nde2²);
14.g4 d5!

15.e5
(15.g5 Nh5 16.exd5 Nxb3 17.cxb3 Rad8! 18.Qc2 (18.dxe6? Bxf3–+)
18...exd5„)
15...Nd7 16.f4 Nc4 17.Bxc4 dxc4 18.Rhf1 Nc5„;
12.Bg5 Bb7³;
12.Bh6
12...Nxb3+
(12...e5?? 13.Nf5+– Beware of this!; 12...Nc4? Too soon, Black needs to
harness more potential before striking 13.Bxc4 Bxh6 14.Qxh6 bxc4 15.h4+–
White is too fast, Black has no counterplay.)
13.Nxb3
(13.axb3 Bxh6 14.Qxh6 b4 15.Nd5 Nxd5 16.exd5 e5! 17.Nf5 gxf5 18.Qg5+
Kh8 19.Qf6+ Kg8=)
13...Bxh6 14.Qxh6 Bb7„
Black will continue ...Rfc8, ...a5, ...b4, etc.

12...h5

13.Bh6!
This poses Black the most problems when the knight is on a5.
13.g4!? Bb7 14.Bh6‚
(14.g5 Ne8 15.Kb1 Nd6! 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.Bxd5 Rac8³ 18.Qd3 e6 19.Bb3
Ndc4 20.Bc1 d5! 21.exd5 Rfd8 22.Nxe6 fxe6 23.Qxg6 Na3+ 24.Ka1 Nxb3+
25.cxb3 Qc2–+)

13...Nxb3+ 14.axb3

14.Nxb3 Bxh6 15.Qxh6 Bb7 16.a3 Rac8 17.Kb1 a5„

14...Bb7 15.g4 e6 16.b4!±

Such positions are to be avoided: White dominates on all sides of the board,
which will be evident after Nd4-b3-a5(c5).
 CHAPTER 4
MAROCZY BIND: BREYER VARIATION

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4
8.Qxg4 Nxd4 9.Qd1 e5

Contents
1. 6.Nc2 Nf6
2. 6.Nc2 e6
3. 10.Be2
4. 10.Nb5 0-0?!
5. 10.Nb5 d6!N 11.sidelines
6. 10.Nb5 d6!N 11.Qd2
7. 10.Bd3 d6
Appendix. 10.Bd3 0-0
 1

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4

We have here the starting position of the Maroczy Bind, named after Hungarian
master Geza Maroczy (1870–1951). Maroczy was one of the best players in the
world in the early 1900s, and was even set to play a World Championship match
with Emanuel Lasker in 1906, but for various political reasons the match did not
end up taking place. He was an engineer by training, and a financial auditor by
profession. Capablanca, near the end of his life in the early 1940s, said of
Maroczy that “with the exception of Botvinnik and Keres, Maróczy in his time
was superior to all the other young masters of today.” Maroczy popularized
White’s setup in his capacity as a chess journalist, but there are no published
games of his where he played the system with White. In fact, the first recorded
game in the Maroczy Bind is Swiderski-Maroczy, 1904, where Maroczy
defended the Black side of the Accelerated Dragon against the (to be named)
Maroczy Bind. In order to combat the Maroczy Bind, Black must follow a dark-
squares strategy. Notice that in asserting the central c4/e4 ‘clamp’, White has
forever denied the (dark) d4-square protection from a pawn. We will see in the
subchapter 3 that the Breyer Variation is based on seizing this square from
White’s grip. In keeping with the dark-squares strategy, exchanging dark-squared
bishops is in general congenial to Black. In fact, GM Tiviakov once highlighted
the importance of this exchange by playing the highly creative, though slightly
dubious, 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.c4 Bh6!?.

5...Nc6 6.Nc2

This is not the most challenging line for Black, but since it has been played by
Keres, Tal, Korchnoi, and Carlsen, it has earned our serious attention. White
usually waits for Black to play ...Bc8-d7 before retreating this Knight, because
Black’s two most common ways of countering Nc2 are either a) ...Nf6-d7-c5,
often capturing on c3 with the g7 bishop (an option made available by White’s
departure from d4), or b) ...Bc8-e6 (which is not recommended when White’s
knight is on d4) and quickly targeting the c4 pawn with ...Ra8-c8, ...Nc6-e5, etc.
The latter of these plans will be covered when we discuss the ‘Main Line’
Maroczy. Here I will go over two additional systems for the reader who wishes
to take advantage of White’s premature retreat.

6...Nf6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Be2 b6

The double-fianchetto is particularly adept at meeting White’s Nd4-c2. With the
knight on d4, a reliable way to meet Black’s double fianchetto is with Nd4xc6,
which is not possible here.

9.0-0 Bb7

Black intends to continue with the at first glance unbelievable, but in this book
thematic, ...Nf6-e8-d6, followed by ...f7-f5.

10.f3

10.Bf4 This deters Black’s ...Ne8-d6 idea but after ...Nf6-e8 Black may instead
gain a tempo on the f4-bishop after ...Ne8-c7-e6. Also, White’s f4-bishop is
under X-ray attack from Black’s f8 rook after an eventual ...f7-f5. 10...Rc8
11.Ne3 Ne8 12.f3
(12.Ng4?? h5 13.Ne3? e5–+ Herman-Panjwani, New York 2014)
12...Nc7 13.Ned5 Ne6 14.Be3 f5 15.exf5 Rxf5„
Black will continue with ...Ne6-d4, ...e7-e6, and eventually ...d7-d5.;
10.Bg5 Not the most popular, but quite possibly White’s best. 10...Ne8!
(10...Rc8?! Black should not delay ...Nf6-e8, because that allows White to
coordinate in the center and render the plan too slow. 11.f3 h6 12.Be3 Kh7
13.Qe1 Ne8?! 14.Rd1 Nd6?! 15.Qd2! (15.Kh1 f5 16.c5 bxc5 17.Bxc5 fxe4
18.Bxd6 exf3 19.Bxf3 exd6„ 0–1 (35) Sadorra,J (2431)-Jobava,B (2664) Al
Ain UAE 2008) 15...f5 16.exf5 Nxf5 17.Qxd7 Nxe3 18.Nxe3±)
11.Qd2
(11.f3 Bxc3 (11...Nd6 12.Qxd6! exd6 13.Bxd8 Raxd8 14.Rad1² Black
certainly has compensation for the weakened structure, because White is
without his prized dark-squared bishop, but I think Black’s compensation will
be at best enough for a draw, and as a general rule it is worth avoiding positions
where your opponent is playing for two results.) 12.bxc3 Ng7„
 Black will play in accordance with the system of Nimzowitsch: first blockade
White’s doubled c-pawns with ...d7-d6, ...Ng7-e6-c5, then pile up on the weak
c4-pawn with ...Ra8-c8, ...Nc6-a5, ...Bb7-a6.)
11...Nd6 12.f3

12...f5!
(12...f6 It is instructive to see how Black ends up worse after this move. 13.Bf4
 (13.Bh6 Bxh6 14.Qxh6 Ne5 15.b3 g5„) 13...Ne5 14.Ne3 f5 15.exf5 Nxf5
16.Nxf5 Rxf5 17.Be3 Rc8 18.b3 Black cannot allow White to coordinate like
this, because Black has made anti-positional moves and he can only get away
with them if he plays energetically enough to prevent White from ‘achieving
harmony’. Therefore, Black lives and dies by the power of his counterplay:
here, unfortunately, Black has capitulated control over the center, and is
consequently unable to achieve the desired ...d7-d5. 18...Nf7 19.Rad1 Nd6
20.Bd4²)
13.exf5

Both recaptures on f5 are interesting, but my analysis indicates that 13...Nxf5 is

the better of the two. 13...Nxf5
(13...Rxf5?! 14.Bh6! This move, which is all too easy for White to find, makes
life difficult for Black. From a broader perspective this should not surprise us:
by exchanging pieces White dulls Black’s counterplay, which is Black’s only
compensation for his hanging central pawns and multiple weaknesses. (14.Be3
Qf8! 15.Rad1 Rf7 16.c5 Nf5 17.cxb6 e6 18.bxa7 Nxe3 19.Qxe3 Nxa7©)
14...Qf8 15.Bxg7 Qxg7 16.b3 Raf8 17.Rad1 g5 In a practical game Black can
probably get away with playing like this, but I cannot recommend this as
something to aim for from the outset. 18.Bd3 Rf4 19.Ne4 Ne5 20.Nxd6 exd6
 21.Be2! R8f6 22.Ne3²)
14.Rad1 Rc8! 15.b3
(15.Qxd7? Bd4+ 16.Rxd4 Nfxd4 17.Qxb7 Nxc2³)
15...h6! Black guarantees himself the two bishops, if he desires. 16.Bf4 g5

Irrespective of where White moves his bishop, Black will continue with ...e7-e6
and ...d7-d5. It is amazing that Black can get away with this central break seeing
as White currently has four pieces directly targeting at the d5 square and Black
has none! 17.Bg3
(17.Be3 e6 (17...d5!? 18.Nxd5 (18.cxd5?? Bxc3 19.Qxc3 Ncd4–+) 18...e6
19.Ndb4 (19.Nc3 Qf6 20.Nb5 Rcd8 21.Qc1 a6 22.Nba3 Nxe3 23.Qxe3 Nd4
24.Nxd4 Qxd4!=) 19...Nxb4 20.Qxb4 Qc7 21.Bf2 Be5 22.h3 Ng3 23.Bxg3
Bxg3∞) 18.Bd3 (18.Nb5 d5! 19.cxd5 exd5 20.Qxd5+? Qxd5 21.Rxd5 Na5
22.Rd2 Rxc2 23.Rxc2 Nxe3–+) 18...d5! 19.Bxf5 Rxf5 20.cxd5 exd5 White’s
position is slightly more pleasant but Black shouldn’t have much difficulty
holding. 21.Nd4 (21.Nxd5 Qd6©) 21...Nxd4 22.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 23.Qxd4 Qf6
 Black will have enough activity to compensate for his pawn deficiency. It is not
worth memorizing an exact path to equality in the ensuing variations; there are
multiple paths. 24.Qxf6 (24.Nb5 Ba6 25.Qa4 Bxb5 26.Qxb5 d4 27.Qd3 Rd5=)
24...Rxf6 25.Nxd5 Re6 26.Nb4 a5 27.Nd3 Ba6 28.Rfe1 Rxe1+ 29.Nxe1 Re8
30.Nc2 Re2 31.Rd8+ Kf7 32.Nd4 Rxa2 33.Rd6 Ra1+ 34.Kf2 Ra2+ 35.Ke3 h5
36.Rxb6 Bf1=)
17...e6
18.Nb5
(18.Bf2 d5!! 19.cxd5? Bxc3 20.Qxc3 Ncd4µ)
18...d5! Black will be fine after a long forcing series of exchanges. 19.cxd5 exd5
20.Qxd5+ Qxd5 21.Rxd5 Ncd4 22.Rxd4 Rxc2 23.Bc4+ Kh8 24.Rd3 g4! 25.Nd6
Nxd6 26.Bxd6 Re8

27.a4
 (27.Bb4 Preventing ...Re8-e2 on account of Rd3-d8+. 27...gxf3 28.gxf3 Rxa2=)
27...Ree2 The following variation is remarkable: 28.Kh1! Rxg2 29.Bd5 Ba6
30.Re3! Bxf1 31.Re8+

31...Bf8
(31...Kh7 32.Be4#)
32.Rxf8+ Kg7 33.Rg8+ Kf6 34.Rf8+ Kg7 35.Rg8+ Kh7 36.Be5!! gxf3 37.Rh8+
Kg6 38.Be4+ Kh5 39.Bxf3+ Kg5 40.Bxg2 Bxg2+ 41.Kg1=;
10.Rb1 Ne8 11.Qd2 Nd6 12.f3 f5 13.Nb5 fxe4 14.Nxd6 exd6 15.Qxd6 Ne5
16.f4 Nd3 17.Bxd3 exd3 18.Qxd3 Re8© 0–1 (38) Tseshkovsky,V (2555) -
Gufeld,E (2535) Vilnius 1975.

10...Ne8
11.Be3

11.Bd2 Played in order that Black will not capture on c3, but to seek an
advantage White should allow that. 11...Nd6 (…...f5) 12.Rc1 f5 13.exf5 Nxf5
14.Kh1 e6 15.Qe1
15...Kh8
(15...d5!? 16.cxd5 exd5³)
16.Ne3 Nfd4
(16...Ncd4 17.Bd3 Nxe3 18.Bxe3 d5?! 19.cxd5 exd5 20.Rd1 Nf5 21.Bxf5
Rxf5 22.Bd4² 1–0 (46) Hebert,J-Panjwani,R Montreal 2013)
17.b3 d5!³

11...Nd6

A significant branching point for this variation. White’s attempts in the database
are not convincing, but I have found a new move (12.Nd4) which does present
Black with some problems. Fortunately, they are not insurmountable.
11...Bxc3!? 12.bxc3 d6 13.Bh6 Ng7 14.f4 Re8 15.Bg4∞

12.Nd4N

As I mentioned before, White’s knight belongs on d4 in these double-fianchetto

systems, especially in the cases where Black’s play revolves around ...f7-f5.
White intends on eliminating Black’s pesky d6 knight with Nd4-b5.
12.Qd2 f5
13.c5
(13.exf5 Nxf5 14.Bf2 Bh6 15.Qe1 (15.Qd1 e6 16.g4 Nfe7 17.Bg3 d5 18.cxd5
Nxd5 19.Nxd5 exd5„) 15...e6 16.Rd1 Qe7 17.g4 Ng7 18.Bg3 Bf4=)
13...bxc5 14.Bxc5 fxe4 15.fxe4 Rxf1+ 16.Rxf1 Ne5 17.Bxd6 Qb6+ 18.Kh1
Qxd6=;
12.c5 bxc5 13.Bxc5 f5 14.Bxd6 exd6 15.Kh1 Qh4 16.g3 Qh3 17.exf5 Be5
18.Rg1 Ne7!„;
12.Nb5 Bxb2 13.Rb1 Be5 14.f4 Bg7 15.Nxd6 exd6 16.Qxd6 Re8 17.Qd3 Na5
18.Bf3 Rc8³ 0–1 (37) Minasian,A (2478)-Aronian,L (2528) Ohrid 2001.

12...Rc8!
12...f5?! 13.Ndb5 Nxb5 14.cxb5 Na5 15.Bd4²

13.b3

13.Ndb5 Nxb5 14.cxb5 Na5 15.Bd4 Bh6 16.f4 e6 17.Be5 f6 18.Bd6 Rf7= Black
can play around the d6 bishop, and always get rid of it with ...Bb7-a8 and ...Na5-
b7 if necessary.

13...f5! 14.exf5 Nxd4

14...gxf5 15.f4 e6 16.Nxc6 Bxc6 17.Qxd6 Bxc3 18.Rad1²

15.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 16.Qxd4 Nxf5 17.Qd2 e5!

18.Rad1 Nd4

The position is equal, even if White has the ‘better half’ of it. Things will
eventually fizzle out; the following is a sample.

19.Nb5 Nxb5 20.cxb5 d5 21.f4 Qe7 22.fxe5 Rxf1+ 23.Rxf1 Qxe5 24.Bf3 Re8
25.Rd1 Kg7=
Black should stick to waiting tactics — let White try to make progress. At the
right moment Black may ditch the d5-pawn to arrive at a drawn rook endgame.
 2

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Nc2 e6!

This move is almost a novelty, but (to my dismay) not quite: it has been played a
mere four times (and with different intentions to ours) in the recorded history of
our game.

The idea of this move occurred to me while I was analyzing the ...Ne8-d6
maneuver in the 6...Nf6 line, where Black often plays ...f7-f5 and recaptures on
f5 with the knight. I wondered whether Black could reach similar positions and
save some time by taking the route Ng8-e7-f5 rather than Ng8-f6-e8-d6-f5. I
was also aware of similar ideas with colors reversed in the English opening, such
as after 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Nc3 Nb6 6.e3!?
or 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Bg2 Nc7 6.e3!?. Black’s basic
idea is to go for a quick ...f7-f5, and then recapture on f5 with the knight, from
where it controls the important d4 square and also often pressurizes White’s e3
bishop. White can take one of (at least) two strategies: either try to develop
normally and hope that Black’s offbeat play will lead to static positional
weaknesses in the middlegame, or White can aim for a refutation of the system
with an early h2-h4 or Bc1–f4-d6. According to my analysis, Black equalizes in
all variations.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Nc2 e6! 7.Be2

7.Nc3 Nge7 8.Bf4 This is the most obvious way to counter Black’s setup —
planting a bishop on d6. It turns out, however, that Black need not be bothered
by such an intruder.
a) 8.h4

8...f5 (8...0-0 9.h5 d5!? Further research is warranted here.) 9.exf5 (9.h5 fxe4
10.Nxe4 d5 11.Nc3 0-0„) 9...Nxf5 10.h5 0-0 11.hxg6 hxg6 12.Bf4 (12.Qg4
Ne5 13.Qh3? Kf7! 14.Ne4 Rh8 15.Ng5+ Kg8–+; 12.Ne3 Qb6„) 12...Qb6
13.Rb1 Nce7!
Black can ‘premove’ ...d7-d5 here; with White’s king in the center Black
shouldn’t hesitate to sacrifice a pawn to open files. 14.Ne3
a1) 14.Be2 d5! 15.cxd5 exd5 16.Nxd5? Nxd5 17.Qxd5+ Be6µ;
a2) 14.Qd2 d5! 15.g4 Nd6 16.Be3 Qc7 17.Bh6 (17.cxd5 Nc4 18.Bxc4
Qxc4„) 17...Nf7 18.Bxg7 Kxg7=;
14...d5! 15.cxd5 exd5 16.Ncxd5 Nxd5 17.Qxd5+ Be6
 18.Qxe6+ Qxe6 19.Bc4 Qxc4 20.Nxc4 Rae8+ 21.Ne3 Re4 22.Bg5 Bf6
23.Bxf6 Rxf6 24.Rh3 g5=;
b) 8.Bg5 0-0 9.Qd2 Qa5 10.Bh6 (10.Be2 d5!„) 10...Bxh6 11.Qxh6 f5!„;
8...0-0 9.Bd6

9...f5 White has taken time to occupy d6; as such, he is behind in development
so Black should not delay this counter-punch.
 (9...b6?! 10.h4 Bb7 11.h5 f5?! 12.hxg6 hxg6 13.Qf3 fxe4 14.Qh3 Kf7 15.Nxe4
Rh8 16.Ng5+ Kg8 17.Qxh8+ Bxh8 18.Rxh8+ Kxh8 19.Nf7+ Kg7 20.Nxd8
Rxd8 21.0-0-0±) 10.exf5 (10.Bd3 Rf7 11.0-0 b6 12.Qd2 Bb7 13.Rae1 Rc8
14.b3 Ne5 15.Bxe5 Bxe5 16.exf5 Bxc3 17.Qxc3 gxf5=)
10...Rxf5 Although Black would normally prefer to take on f5 with the knight,
the knight will find its way to f5 anyway after ...Rf5-f7. 11.Bd3
(11.Ne3 Rf7 12.h4 Nd4 13.h5 Nef5 14.hxg6 hxg6 15.Nxf5 Nxf5 16.Bf4

16...b5!! A shot out of the blue. Black can afford to sacrifice a pawn in order to
accelerate his development because White’s king is still awkwardly uncastled.
17.Nxb5 (17.cxb5 d5©) 17...Bb7 18.Qd2 (18.Qg4 Bxb2 19.Rd1 Qf6„)
18...Qb6 19.Rh3 Raf8 20.0-0-0 d5!„)
11...Rf7 12.0-0 b6 13.Ne3 Bb7 14.Re1 Rc8 15.Rc1 Nf5 16.Nxf5 gxf5 Routine
development for both sides has led to a dynamically equal position.
Black looks forward to occupying the g-file with his rook, which combines
nicely with pressure from the b7-bishop. 17.Be2
(17.Re3 Qf6 18.Rg3 A little knight sortie solidifies Black’s kingside and calls
into question the placement of White’s g3-rook. 18...Ne5! 19.b3 Ng6!=)
17...Nd4 18.Bh5 Qg5!

19.g3
 (19.Bxf7+ Kxf7 20.Bg3 f4 21.Qd2 Bxg2! 22.Qxf4+ Qxf4 23.Bxf4 Bb7
24.Kf1 Rxc4= Two bishops and two central pawns are more than enough
compensation for Black.)
19...Rxc4 20.b3?
(20.h4 Qd8 21.b3 Rc6 22.Bxf7+ Kxf7 23.Qh5+ Kg8 24.Be5 Bxe5 25.Rxe5 b5!
©)
20...Bf3!! 21.Bxf3 Qxc1!! 22.Qxc1 Nxf3+ 23.Kg2 Rxc3 24.Qd1 Nxe1+
25.Qxe1µ;
7.h4 Nge7 8.h5 d5! 9.h6 Bf6³

7...Nge7 8.Nc3

8...f5!

As is so often the case in this opening, Black’s play is contrary to basic chess
principles; usually one is supposed to castle before such breaks. Then again,
White’s king isn’t castled either.
The only top-level game continued as follows: 8...0-0 9.0-0 f5 10.exf5 gxf5?!
This misses the point; Black should recapture with the knight! (10...Nxf5=)
11.f4 d5! 12.cxd5 exd5 13.Rf3 Be6 14.Bd3 Rc8 15.Rg3 Rf6! 16.Bd2 Rg6 17.Qe1
Bf7 18.Kh1 Qd7 19.Qf2 Re8 20.a3 Nc8! 21.Re1 Rxe1+ 22.Bxe1 Nd6µ 1/2–1/2
(56) Yanofsky,D-Stoltz,G Karlovy Vary 1948.

9.h4

When I thought of this system, I showed it to a 2600+ rated friend, and he

claimed he was confident he could refute this line over the board. This was his
first attempt (of many unsuccessful attempts!).
9.exf5 Nxf5 10.0-0 0-0 11.Bf4 b6 Both of Black’s bishops occupy the longest
diagonals on the board. 12.Qd2 Bb7 13.Rad1 Ncd4 14.Nxd4 Nxd4=;
9.0-0 fxe4 10.Nxe4 d5 11.Nc3 0-0=

9...fxe4 10.h5

10.Nxe4 d5„;
10.c5 b6 11.Nxe4 0-0 12.h5 bxc5 13.hxg6 Nxg6µ

10...d5 11.hxg6 hxg6 12.Rxh8+ Bxh8

White has compensation for the sacrificed pawn but only enough for equality,
and that is with perfect play from here on out.

13.Bg5! Qa5 14.Qd2 Bd7 15.0-0-0 Bxc3 16.Qxc3 Qxc3 17.bxc3 0-0-0 18.Ne3
Rf8=
 3
The Breyer variation of the Maroczy is characterized by Black’s 7...Ng4. Unlike
the Maroczy Bind (5.c4), which was never played by its namesake Geza
Maroczy, the Breyer variation was indeed first played by Gyula Breyer in
Kostic-Breyer, Gothenburg 1920. It has since been entrusted for important
games by World Champions Botvinnik (Smyslov-Botvinnik, Alekhine Memorial
1956) and Kasparov (Ribli-Kasparov, World Cup 1988).

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3

7.f3 Qb6!

8.Nf5 Qxb2 9.Nxg7+ Kf8 10.Nd2

(10.Bh6?? Qxa1–+)
10...Kxg7 11.c5 Rd8 12.Rb1 Qe5 13.Nc4 Qe6³ Black will free his position with
either ...d7-d5 or ...b7-b5.

7...Ng4
8.Qxg4

8.Nxc6?! This is what they played in Breyer’s time. 8...Nxe3 9.Nxd8 Nxd1
10.Kxd1 Kxd8³

8...Nxd4

8...Bxd4? It is reasonable to ask why this move is not played more often, given
that Black usually seeks to exchange dark-squared bishops in the Marozy. True,
in the middlegame — after both sides have developed — the trade of dark
squared bishops is generally desirable for Black, but here Black purchases this
exchange at the cost of precious time. 9.Bxd4 Nxd4 10.0-0-0! Nc6 11.Qg3! 0-0
12.h4± White’s attack is overwhelming.

9.Qd1

9.0-0-0 Nobody plays this. 9...Nc6 10.Nd5 e6!

(10...0-0 11.Qh4‚)
11.Nc3 Qa5„
9...e5

Bent Larsen used to prefer 9...Ne6, but I think 9...e5 offers more chances for
counterplay based on Black’s occupation of the center. Computers generally tend
to prefer White in the Breyer, but from my experience even 2600+ GMs find it
very uncomfortable to ‘play around’ Black’s d4 knight, which (invariably) leads
them to mishandle White’s position. This line has a very Sveshnikov Sicilian
feel to it. Fischer taught us that “you have to give squares to get squares”; Black
has opted to relinquish control over the light squares (especially d5) in order to
stake a claim over the all-important d4 square. This is the first significant
branching point for White: he will either develop routinely with Bd3, 0-0, Qd2,
etc., or he will attempt to immediately take advantage of Black’s weaknesses
with 10.Nb5. We consider these options in the coming chapters, but we begin
with an underrated sideline.

10.Be2

If this move is followed by routine development, then it lacks independent value,

since White’s bishop is better placed on d3. However, there are some
idiosyncrasies to this line if White combines Bf1–e2 with Nc3-b5.
10...0-0

10...d6 The reader can make life easier for themselves by playing 10...d6 in
response to any of White’s major options, but since he can get away with it, it is
at least symbolically more flexible for Black to castle first.

11.Nb5!

A tricky move, not least of all because the response recommended by the
computer at even high depths (11...Qh4) is a blunder due to a brilliant double-
rook sacrifice demonstrated by former Women’s World Champion Nona
Gaprindashvili more than 40 years ago!
11.0-0 d6 12.Qd2
(12.Nb5 Nxb5 13.cxb5 Be6 14.Qd2 (14.Bf3?! Bc4=) 14...f5 15.Bg5 Bf6
16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.Qxd6 Rfd8 18.Qc7 Rd7 19.Qc5 fxe4 20.Bc4 Rd4 21.Bxe6+
Qxe6=)
12...Be6= White can obtain this position with his bishop more appropriately
placed on d3. In fact, my computer recommends that White play 13.Bd3 here.
(12...f5?!
 Black shouldn’t rush ...f7-f5; the following is just a blitz game I played over the
internet which gives an illutration of the sort of counterplay Black can generate.
13.f3 (13.exf5 Nxe2+ 14.Qxe2 gxf5 15.Rfd1 Qe7 16.c5!±) 13...f4 14.Bf2 g5
15.Nb5?! Nxe2+ 16.Qxe2 a6 17.Nc3 g4 18.fxg4 Qg5 19.h3 h5„)

11...Nxb5!

Black is well advised to transpose into the variations after 11.0-0 d6.
11...Qh4? It is a pity this doesn’t work for Black (on account of 12.Nxd4!),
because many of the ensuing variations illustrate the elastic potential for Blacks
position to suddenly ‘come to life’. 12.Nxd4!
a) 12.Qd3 d5!! 13.cxd5 (13.exd5? Bf5µ) 13...Nxe2 14.Kxe2 (14.Qxe2 Qxe4=)
14...f5 15.f3 fxe4 16.Qxe4 Qf6!„;
b) 12.Nd6 Qe7 13.Nxc8 Rfxc8 14.0-0 Qb4 15.b3 a5 16.Rb1 a4 17.Bxd4
(17.Bd3 axb3 18.Bxd4 exd4 19.Rxb3 Qd6= See 17.Bxd4 for transposition.)
17...exd4 18.Bd3 axb3 19.Rxb3 Qd6 20.Qb1 Rcb8 21.f4 Qc7 22.e5 Ra5=;
c) 12.Bf3? d5!!
13.exd5 Nxf3+ 14.Qxf3 Qxc4³;
d) 12.Nc7

12...Qxe4!! (12...Rb8!? 13.Bd3 (13.Qd3? f5 14.exf5 d5!!µ) 13...b6 (13...d6

14.0-0 f5 15.f3²) 14.0-0 Bb7 15.Nd5 (15.f3 f5 16.exf5?! Nxf5 17.Bxf5 gxf5
18.Qxd7 Qxc4 19.Ne6 Rf7 20.Qd6 Re8 21.Nd8 Bf8 22.Qd2 Bb4 23.Qd1 Rg7
24.Nxb7 Rxb7=) 15...f5 16.Bxd4 Bxd5 17.cxd5 fxe4 18.g3 Qf6 19.Bxe4 exd4
 20.Qd3 White’s position is more pleasant, but Black can shift around and ask
White to prove an advantage — most likely things will fizzle out into a draw.)
13.Bxd4 (13.Nxa8 Qxg2 14.Rf1 d5! 15.cxd5 Bf5 16.Bxd4 exd4 17.Nc7 Qh3©
Black is a full rook down but his attack is overwhelming.; 13.Bf3 Nc2+
14.Kd2 Nxe3 15.Bxe4 Nxd1 16.Raxd1 Rb8=) 13...exd4 14.f3 (14.Nxa8 Qxg2
15.Rf1 Qxh2µ After Black eats up the a8 knight with ...Qh2-b8, he will be
materially and positionally winning.) 14...Qe5 15.Nxa8

15...Bh6!! (15...d5 16.0-0 (16.cxd5 Bf5 17.0-0 d3 18.Bxd3 Qd4+ 19.Rf2

Bxd3©) 16...Bf5 17.Kh1! Rxa8 18.f4²) 16.0-0 (16.Kf1 Be3©) 16...Bf4 17.g3
Bxg3 18.hxg3 Qxg3+ 19.Kh1 Qh3+ 20.Kg1=;
12...exd4 13.Bxd4 Qxe4 14.Bxg7 Qxg2
 (14...Kxg7 15.0-0±)
15.Qd4!! Engines have difficulty seeing this brilliant motive several moves in
advance, but humans, especially after Anderssen-Kieseritzky 1851 (better known
as “The Immortal Game”), know to look for such ideas. 15...Qxh1+ 16.Kd2
Qxa1 17.Qf6! 1–0 (17) Gaprindashvili,N-Servaty,R Dortmund 1974.

12.cxb5 d6 13.0-0 Be6=

We have transposed to 11.0-0 d6 12.Nb5, which we have already seen is fine for
Black.
 4

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4
8.Qxg4 Nxd4 9.Qd1 e5 10.Nb5

In the 1960s and 1970s, thanks to some masterpieces by World Champions

Smyslov and Tal, this move was thought to be a near refutation of Black’s setup.
Over the years, preference of top players has vacillated between 10.Nb5 and
10.Bd3, their popularities remaining about equal to this day.

10...0-0?!

This is what everyone plays, but the positions Black tends to get are not
inspiring, and White is scoring quite well (over 60%) after this move in the
database. This is why I recommend instead the powerful novelty 10...d6! in the
next subchapter.

11.Qd2 Qh4!

Definitely Black’s best try, but due to the novelty I recommend for White next
move, Black is left struggling to equalize.
11...Re8 12.Nd6 Re6 13.c5²;
11...d6 12.Nxd4 exd4 13.Bxd4 Qh4 14.Bxg7 Qxe4+ 15.Be2 Kxg7 16.0-0±;
11...d5 12.cxd5 Qh4 13.Nc3 Bg4 14.Bg5±;
11...Nxb5 12.cxb5 d6
(12...Qh4 13.Bd3 Qg4 14.0-0 b6 15.Bc4 Bb7 16.f3+–)
13.Bc4²

12.Nc3!N

It may appear odd to retreat this knight to where it was just a couple of moves
ago. White’s idea is to castle queenside and pawn storm Black’s king —
punishment for castling too early, at least compared to the line I recommend in
the next chapter. Black’s queen is misplaced on h4, and if it retreats to d8 then
White and Black’s lost tempi ‘cancel out’.
12.Bd3 d5!!
13.exd5
(13.cxd5 Nxb5 14.Bxb5 Qxe4 15.0-0 Rd8 16.Rfd1 Bd7=)
13...Bh3!! 14.Bxd4 exd4 15.gxh3
(15.0-0 Bxg2 16.Kxg2 Qg4+ 17.Kh1 Qf3+ 18.Kg1=)
15...a6 16.Nd6
(16.Na3 Bh6 17.Qc2 Qxh3©)
16...Qe7+ 17.Ne4 f5 18.0-0-0 fxe4 19.Rhe1 b5 20.Rxe4 Qc7©

12...d6

12...Qd8 13.h4 h5 14.Ne2 Nc6 15.g4 hxg4 16.h5‚

13.0-0-0 Be6

13...Qd8 14.h4 h5 15.Ne2 Nc6 16.Qxd6 Qa5 17.Nc3 Nd4 18.Qa3 Qxa3
19.bxa3²

14.Bg5 Qh5 15.Kb1 f5 16.f3 Rfe8 17.Be3²

Black’s queen is miserable on h5.
 5

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4
8.Qxg4 Nxd4 9.Qd1 e5 10.Nb5

It is remarkable that in the sixty year history of this position, which has been
defended by such champions as Kasparov and Korchnoi, not a single game is in
the database after 10...d6!. The following is arguably the most powerful novelty
in this book; I believe that the ensuing variations demonstrate the superiority of
10.Bd3 over 10.Nb5.

10...d6!N

I refer to this as a novelty, even though (as we will see) I have played this move
twice (and won both times!) in tournament play — in unpublished games against
WGM Nemcova (2350) and IM Gorovets (2550). Black saves a crucial tempo by
delaying ...0-0 which allows him to generate central counterplay one move
sooner. This does not violate the laws of opening play; after all, White is not
castled either. It is actually quite in line with the advice given by American
legend GM William Lombardy in his recent book: “Not only should one not rush
to castle, but should delay that passive maneuver for as long as good judgment
relates that there are more urgent, if only slightly better, tasks to accomplish”.

11.Nxd4

This is of course the first line to check: presumably 10...d6 was never played
because it was thought to lose a pawn in this way.
11.Be2!?

11...Qa5+!
(11...Nxb5?! This transposes to an inferior version of our main line. 12.cxb5
Be6 13.0-0 0-0 (13...d5 14.exd5 Qxd5 15.Qxd5 Bxd5 16.Rfd1 Be6 17.Bf3+–)
14.Qd2 d5 15.exd5 Qxd5 16.Qxd5 Bxd5 This is a position from our main line
except there Black plays ...e5-e4 instead of ...0-0. 17.Rfd1 Be6 18.Bf3²)
12.Bd2
(12.Qd2
 12...Qxd2+ (12...Nc2+ 13.Kd1 Nxe3+ 14.fxe3 Qxd2+ 15.Kxd2 0-0 16.Rhd1
Bh6! 17.Nxd6 Rd8 18.c5 b6 19.b4 Be6 20.a3 a5„) 13.Kxd2 (13.Bxd2 Nxb5
14.cxb5 Be6 15.0-0 f5 16.Bb4 0-0-0 17.Rfd1 d5=) 13...Nxb5 14.cxb5 Be6
15.Bf3 (15.Rhc1 d5 16.exd5 Bxd5 17.b6 axb6 18.Bb5+ Ke7 19.Rc7+ Ke6
20.Ke2 e4µ This was a game I played online.) 15...0-0 16.Rhc1 a6 17.bxa6
(17.b6? f5! 18.exf5 gxf5 19.Bxb7 Rab8 20.Bxa6 f4µ) 17...Rxa6 18.Rc7 Rb8=
White’s occupation of the 7th rank is short-lived; Black will continue ...Bg7-f6-
d8 with equality.)
12...Qb6
13.Nxd4
(13.0-0 0-0 14.Nxd4 exd4 15.Qb3 Be6 16.Bd3 Qc7 transposes to 13.Nxd4.;
13.Be3 a6 14.Nxd4 exd4 15.Bc1 f5„)
13...exd4 14.Qb3 0-0 15.Bd3 Be6 16.0-0 Qc7 17.Qa3

17...f5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Bxf5 Rxf5= Black will eventually undouble his pawns
with ...d6-d5.

11...exd4 12.Bxd4

12.Bd2 White cannot expect an advantage playing like this; Black has many
ways to equalize. 12...Qh4
(12...0-0!? 13.Bd3 f5 14.0-0 Be6 15.Qe2 Qc7 16.b3 Rae8 17.Rae1 Bd7=)
13.Bd3 Be5

14.g3
(14.h3 0-0 15.Qc1 f6 (…...g5) 16.0-0 (16.g3 Bxg3 17.fxg3 Qxg3+ 18.Ke2
Qg2+–+; 16.c5 Be6„) 16...Bxh3 17.f4 (17.gxh3 Qxh3–+) 17...Qg3 18.Rf2
Bxg2! 19.Rxg2 Qxd3 20.fxe5 dxe5 21.Bh6 Rf7 22.Qc2 Qxc2 23.Rxc2 f5„
 This will most likely be drawn but I’d rather be Black than White.)
14...Qh3 15.Bf1 Qe6 16.Qb3
(16.f4 Bg7 17.Bd3 Qh3=)
16...0-0 17.Bg2 Bd7 18.0-0

18...b5!„;
12.Bf4?! f5! 13.exf5 0-0³

12...Qa5+ 13.Ke2 Be5!

Our compensation becomes of a long-term nature with this move. White cannot
exchange bishops without returning his extra pawn, so he has to look for ways to
disentangle his pieces — starting with his king on e2. I suspect most players will
not play the most critical lines for White here (it can’t be easy to if you have
never seen this position before), so Black may pragmatically opt to just
remember 13...Be5! and figure things out over the board from here.

14.f3

According to my research this is clearly White’s best try for an advantage.

14.Bxe5 Qxe5
(14...dxe5!?©)
15.Qd2 Qxe4+ 16.Qe3 Qe7=;
14.g3 Be6 15.Kf3
(15.b3 0-0 16.Bg2 b5!„)
15...f5 16.exf5 Bxf5 17.Kg2 Be4+ 18.f3 Bc6 19.Be2 0-0©

14...f5!

14...Be6 15.Kf2 0-0 16.Be2 f5 17.b4 Qc7 18.Bxe5 dxe5 19.exf5 Rxf5 20.c5 Rd8
21.Qc2 Rf4 22.Qc3 e4 23.Qe3²;
14...0-0 15.Kf2 Be6 16.Be2 f5 17.exf5 Rxf5 18.Bxe5 Qxe5 19.Qd2 Qc5+
20.Qe3 Bxc4 21.Bxc4+ Qxc4=

15.Qd3!

15.exf5 Bxf5 16.Kf2 0-0-0

(16...0-0!?)
17.Rc1
(17.Be2? Bc2!³)
17...Rhe8 18.Be2 Kb8 19.Rc3 d5„

15...fxe4 16.Qxe4
16...Be6!

16...Bf5?! It’s too bad this doesn’t quite work because of 17.Qe3; the variations
after 17.Qxb7 are quite pretty. 17.Qe3!
(17.Qxb7 Bxd4! 18.Qxa8+ Ke7 19.Qd5 Qb6 20.Rd1 (20.Qb5 Qc7 21.Qd5
Qb6©) 20...Bc5©)
17...0-0-0
(17...0-0 18.Kf2 Rae8 19.Bxe5 Rxe5 20.Qd4²)
18.Qc3!
This Qc3 move would not be available to White were his pawn on b3, as it is in
the (main) variation 16...Be6 b3 17.Bf5.
(18.Kf2 Rhe8 19.Qc3! Qxc3 20.bxc3 (20.Bxc3 Bxc3 21.bxc3 Re5=) 20...Re7
21.Rd1 Kc7 22.Rd2 Rde8 23.g3 h5 24.Be2²)
18...Qxc3 19.bxc3 Kb8 20.Kf2 Rc8 21.h4²

17.Qe3

17.Rd1 Bxc4+ 18.Kf2 Bf7 19.Bxe5 dxe5 20.Qxb7 0-0 21.Qb5 Qxa2 22.Qxe5
Rfe8 23.Qf6 Rab8 24.Rd2 Qa5=;
17.b3 Bf5! Unlike in the 16...Bf5 lines, White will not have Qe3-c3 now.
18.Qe3
(18.Qxb7?? Bxd4 19.Qxa8+ Ke7 20.Qb7+ Kf6–+)
18...0-0-0
19.Kf2 Rhe8 20.Bxe5 Rxe5 21.Qd4 Rde8©;
17.Bc3 Qc5 18.Bxe5 dxe5 19.b3 0-0 20.Qe3 Qa3! 21.Kf2 Rae8

22.Be2
(22.Qxe5? Bf7 23.Qc3 Qc5+ 24.Kg3 Re3 25.Qb2 Rd8 26.Be2 Qg5+ 27.Kf2
Rxe2+–+)
22...e4!

23.Rhe1
(23.Qxe4 Qc5+ 24.Kf1 Bh3 25.Qd3 Qe5 26.Qd5+ (26.Re1 Rd8 27.Qc2 Qe3
28.gxh3 Rd2–+) 26...Qxd5 27.cxd5 Bxg2+ 28.Kxg2 Rxe2+ 29.Kg3 Re3
30.Rhf1 Rd3 31.Rad1 Rfxf3+ 32.Rxf3 Rxd1=)
23...exf3 24.Bxf3 Bxc4 25.Qxe8 Rxe8 26.Rxe8+ Kg7 27.Ree1 Bf7
This position may not look equal; White does after all have a slight material
advantage, but his rooks will be permanently tied down to the defense of the
queenside pawns and therefore never able to get activated. The position is just a
draw. 28.Kg1
(28.Bxb7 Qc5+ 29.Re3 Qc7 30.Bf3 Qxh2=)
28...b5 29.Kh1 Qb2 30.Bc6 b4 31.Rf1 a5 32.Rae1 Bg8 33.Re7+ Kh6 34.Re8
Kg7=;
17.Bxe5 dxe5 18.Kf2 0-0-0 19.Qe3 Rd2+ 20.Be2 Rhd8 21.Rad1 Qb6 22.Qxb6
axb6=

17...Bxc4+ 18.Kf2 Bxf1 19.Rhxf1

19.Bc3 Qb6 20.Qxb6 axb6 21.Bxe5 dxe5 22.Rhxf1 Kf7 23.Rfe1 Ke6 24.a3
Rhc8 25.Re2 Ra5 26.Rae1 Rc4=

19...0-0 20.Bxe5 dxe5

20...Qxe5 21.Qxe5 dxe5 22.Rfe1 Rae8 23.Re2²

21.Rfd1
The simplified nature of the position should not induce a comatose attitude.
From Shereshevsky’s marveous book “Endgame Strategy” we are shown the
plight of the passive defender; Black must be vigilant to avoid ending up on the
wrong end of a masterpiece.

21...Rac8!

In such endgames it is usually easiest to get a draw by defending actively —

Black threatens to invade the 2nd rank, allowing White to invade the 7th.
21...Rad8 22.a3 Rxd1 23.Rxd1 Qa4 24.Rc1 Qh4+ 25.Kg1 Qf4 26.Qc3 Rd8
27.g3²;
21...Rae8 22.Qb3+
(22.Kg1 Rf7 23.a3 Re6 24.Kh1 Qb6 25.Qe2 Rfe7=)
22...Kh8 23.Qxb7
(23.Rd5 Qc7 24.Qe3 e4 25.Qd4+ Qg7 (25...Kg8 26.Rd7 Qe5 27.Qxe5 Rxe5
28.Rxb7²) 26.Qxg7+ Kxg7 27.Rd7+ Rf7 28.Rxf7+ Kxf7 29.f4 Ke6 30.Rd1
Rc8 31.Ke3 h5 (31...Rc2 32.Rd2 Rxd2 33.Kxd2±) 32.Rd2 Kf5 33.h3 Rc1
34.Rd5+ Ke6 35.Re5+ Kf6 36.Rb5 b6 37.Kxe4²)
23...Qc5+ 24.Kf1 e4 25.Rd7 Qh5 26.Qxa7 exf3 27.Qd4+ Re5 28.Re1 fxg2+
29.Kg1 Rf1+ 30.Rxf1 gxf1=Q+ 31.Kxf1 Qxh2 32.Re7 Qh1+ 33.Kf2 Qh2+
34.Kf1=

22.Rd7 Rf7 23.Rad1

23.Qb3 Qb6+ 24.Qxb6 axb6 25.Rxf7 Kxf7 26.Re1 Ke6 27.Re2 Rc4=

23...Rc2+ 24.Kg3

24.R7d2 Rxd2+ 25.Rxd2 e4!=

24...Qb5 25.R1d2 Rxd2 26.Rxd2

26...e4!! 27.Rd8+

27.f4 Qa5 28.a3 Re7=

27...Rf8 28.Rxf8+ Kxf8 29.Qxe4 Qxb2=

 6

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4
8.Qxg4 Nxd4 9.Qd1 e5 10.Nb5 d6!N 11.Qd2

I dub this the main line because it was played in the only two tournament games
of mine in this variation.

11...Nxb5 12.cxb5 Be6!

We continue to delay castling — Lombardy would be proud. The importance of

the saved tempo is already felt: if 12...0-0 then we transpose into the 10...0-0 line
and White is allowed 13.Bc4+=. It amazes me how good Black’s position is
here: it is already ‘zeroes’ according to the computer, and if White makes the
slightest inaccuracy (as both my strong opponents did) then Black is already
better. Once again, this opening forces us to look past our intuitive, visceral
response to each position, which might mislead us into thinking White is better
here due to Black’s backward d-pawn and apparent lack of counterplay.
12...0-0?! 13.Bc4²

13.Be2 d5
14.exd5 Qxd5 15.Qxd5 Bxd5 16.0-0 e4! 17.Rfd1 Be6

White must already, as Carlsen often says, “pull the emergency brake” so as to
not end up worse.

18.Bd4
This was Nemcova’s choice.
18.Rd2 Gorovets went with this one. 18...0-0 19.a4 a6
(19...f5 20.g3 (20.Bf4 Rfd8³) 20...Be5 21.Rc1 Rfd8 22.Rxd8+ Rxd8 23.a5 b6
24.b4²)
20.bxa6 bxa6 21.a5 Rfb8!

This nuance was preparation; I doubt I would have come up with the subtlety of
luring White’s bishop to b6 over the board. 22.Bb6 Rc8! Black threatens ...Bg7-
h6. 23.Rad1 Bf6 Preventing White from trading rooks with Rd8+, and preparing
...Be6-c4.
(23...Bh6? 24.Rd8+ Rxd8 25.Rxd8+ Rxd8 26.Bxd8±)
24.b4?! Bb3! 25.Rb1
(25.Bg4 Rc3 26.Rb1 Bg5„)
25...Bc3 White’s last chance to achieve equality. 26.Rxb3?
(26.Rd7 Bc2 27.Rf1 Bxb4 28.f3 exf3 29.Bxf3 Bf5 30.Rd4 Bc3 31.Bxa8 Bxd4+
32.Bxd4 Rxa8 33.Bf6=)
26...Bxd2 27.g4 Bg5! 28.b5 axb5 29.Bxb5 Bd8 30.Bd7 Rcb8 31.Bc6 Ra6–+ 0–1
(39) Gorovets,A-Panjwani ,R Greensboro 2016.
18...0-0

This was as far as I had prepared (though it was still time consuming for me to
remember my preparation over the board!).

19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.f3?!

20.Rd4 f5 21.Bc4 Bxc4 22.Rxc4=

20...Rfc8! 21.b3 Rc2 22.Re1?!

22.Kf1 Bf5³

22...Rd8!

23.Bd1

23.fxe4 Rdd2 24.Kf1 Bg4 25.Bxg4 Rf2+ 26.Kg1 Rxg2+ 27.Kh1 Rxh2+ 28.Kg1
Rcg2+ 29.Kf1 Rxg4–+

23...Rb2 24.Kf1?!
24.fxe4 Rdd2 25.Bf3 Rxa2µ

24...Rdd2 25.Re2 e3!

26.Rxd2 Rxd2 27.Be2 Kf6! 28.a4 Bxb3 29.Ra3 Rb2 30.g3 Rb1+ 31.Kg2 Ke5!
32.a5 Kd4

0–1 Nemcova-Panjwani, Chicago 2014.

 7

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4
8.Qxg4 Nxd4 9.Qd1 e5 10.Bd3

In my opinion this is White’s best move, but authors like Khalifman recommend
10.Nb5 because they claim that “White should straighten out the situation with
the black knight on d4 at once. Should it be left unmolested now, it will be much
harder to contend with it later.”

10...d6 11.0-0 0-0

White has many possibilities here, but Black’s play is fairly straightforward
regardless. He will either play on the queenside with ...a7-a6 and ...b7-b5 or on
the kingside with ...f7-f5 (and often he combines play on both sides). However,
he should not rush with either of these plans, because that would give White
something to respond to, while at present the onus is on White to reveal how he
plans to improve his position.
12.Qd2

12.Nb5?! Played by Almasi, Korneev, and Izoria. With this move, however,
White no longer has an opening advantage. 12...Nxb5 13.cxb5 d5 14.exd5 Qxd5
15.f3 Be6 16.Qe2 Qd7 17.Rfd1 Qe7=;
12.Kh1?! Not a bad move in and of itself, but it only makes sense in
combination with f2-f4 (when the king is better placed off the g1–a7 diagonal)
which yields White nothing here. 12...Be6 13.Qd2 Qd7
(13...f5?! Too soon. 14.exf5 Nxf5 15.Bxf5 gxf5 16.Bg5 Bf6 17.Bxf6 Qxf6
18.b3 Rad8 19.Rad1 a6 20.f4²)
14.f4 exf4 15.Bxf4
15...Nc6! This is the typical way to meet White’s f2-f4. 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.exd5
Ne5=;
12.f4?! exf4 13.Bxf4 Ne6
(13...Nc6!?=)
14.Be3 Be5 15.Qd2 Nc5 16.Bc2 Be6 17.b3 Qa5 18.Bd4 Rac8„;
12.Ne2 GM Shankland played this against me in 2014. Our game continued...
12...Nc6 13.Qd2 Be6 14.b3 f5!
With White’s knight misplaced on e2 I felt I could play ...f7-f5 earlier than usual.
15.Bg5?!
(15.f3 f4 16.Bf2 g5 17.Nc3 h5 18.Rfd1 Rf7„)
15...Qe8 16.exf5 gxf5 17.Bc2
(17.f3 Qh5 18.Be3 f4 19.Bf2 Rf6 20.Kh1 Kh8 21.Bg1 Rg8„; 17.Nc3 f4
18.Be4 Qh5 19.Qxd6 Rfe8 20.Bd5 Bxd5 21.Qxd5+ Kh8 22.Ne4 Rf8 23.Qd7
Rf7 24.Qh3 Qxh3 25.gxh3 Nd4³)
17...f4!
18.Qxd6
(18.Rae1 Qh5 19.h4 (19.Qxd6 Bf7µ) 19...Qf7 20.Qxd6 Bf5 21.Bxf5 Qxf5³)
18...Bf5 19.Bxf5 Rxf5 20.Qd5+ Kh8 21.Bxf4

I was not accurate here. I should have continued with 21...Rd8!

(21...Ne7 This was my choice, but White is close to equal here thanks to a
 surprise resource that I missed. 22.Qxb7 exf4 23.Rae1 Rb8 24.Qxa7 Ra8
25.Qb7 Rb8 26.Qa7 Instead of repeating here and accepting a draw I made a
terrible hallucination. 26...Re5?? 27.Nxf4 My board vision failed me as I had
missed White’s last move in this variation. 27...Rxe1 28.Rxe1 Nc6 29.Rxe8+
Rxe8 30.Qe3™+–)
22.Qe4 exf4 23.Qxf5 Bxa1 24.Rxa1 Qxe2 25.Qf6+ Kg8 26.Qg5+ Kf7
27.Qxf4+ Ke8µ;
12.a4 Be6 13.a5 f5 White has effectively wasted two tempi with a4-a5 so Black
can play ...f7-f5 earlier than usual. 14.exf5
(14.Bxd4 exd4 15.Nd5 f4 16.Be2 Bxd5 17.cxd5 h5„)
14...Nxf5 15.Bxf5 gxf5„;
12.Rc1

Witness the battle between two former World Chess Champions (though
Smyslov got his title the year after this game was played). Botvinnik masterfully
outplayed Smyslov but let him get away with a draw in the end.
12...Be6 13.b3 a6 14.Bb1 Rb8 15.Kh1 b5
16.cxb5 axb5 17.Qd3 b4 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.exd5 Qa5 20.Qc4 Rb5 21.Bd2 Rfb8
22.Qc8+ Bf8 23.Qd7 R5b7 24.Qg4 f5 25.Qh3 Qxd5µ 1/2–1/2 (46) Smyslov,V-
Botvinnik,M Moscow 1956.

12...Be6

It is worth dissecting this position a little, because it is one where general

understanding of themes is more important than concrete knowledge of moves.
Black’s counterplay will take root in either (or both) ...f7-f5 or ...b7-b5, but
suppose for a moment that Black ‘does nothing’ — what will White do? There
are basically two plans at White’s disposal that Black must constantly be
prepared to meet: White will either aim for Nc3-e2 or go for f2-f4. Black
generally has three ways of meeting Nc3-e2: capture on e2, ignore it and play
...b7-b5, or retreat ...Nd4-c6. Which of these Black plays will depend on the
concrete timing of White’s Nc3-e2; sometimes all three options are viable for
Black. In response to f2-f4, Black will either (and not both this time) play ...f7-
f5, or he will capture on f4 and re-route his knight from d4 to e5 via c6. Of
course, Black should not ‘do nothing’; he should remain flexible so as to be able
to play either ...f7-f5 or ...b7-b5 depending on what White does. Black’s a8 rook
will either be placed on c8 or b8. Black’s Queen usually goes to d7, but as we
will see it can also find a home on e7,c7, or a5. An important disclaimer is in
order before we continue: computers favor White by approximately +0.4 in most
lines. However, when one presses the computer to formulate a plan, it is totally
at a loss: while maintaining its += evaluation, it recommends shifting White’s
pieces back and forth aimlessly. So, my point is, do not be discouraged by the
engine’s prejudice — it has similar biases against the King’s Indian and other
respectable openings as well.

13.Rad1

13.Rac1 a6
14.b3
a) 14.Rfd1 The following is just one way for Black to handle this position; he
can alternatively play 14...Rc8 or 14...Qd7. 14...Rb8 15.f3 (15.b3 Qd7 16.f3 b5
17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.cxd5 Rfc8 19.Qa5 Qb7=) 15...b5 16.cxb5 axb5 17.Nd5 Bxd5
18.exd5 b4 19.Rc4 Qa5 20.Bxd4 exd4 21.a3 Qxd5=;
b) 14.f4 exf4 (14...f5?!
 Even though this is suboptimal here, it is worth seeing the variations which
arise from it to get a feel for the ‘other’ way of meeting White’s f2-f4.
15.fxe5?! (15.Nd5! b5 16.Bxd4 exd4 17.exf5 Bxf5 18.cxb5 axb5 19.a3²)
15...dxe5 16.Nd5 White’s knight is vulnerable on d5, which it would not have
been had White played 15.Nd5 without exchanging on e5. 16...b5 (16...fxe4!?
17.Bxe4 Qh4„) 17.exf5 (17.cxb5 fxe4–+) 17...bxc4 18.fxe6 cxd3 19.Rxf8+
Bxf8 20.Qf2 Nxe6³) 15.Bxf4 Qa5! (15...Nc6!?= This is perfectly playable as
well.) 16.Bxd6 Rfd8 17.b4 Qh5

18.c5 (18.Bf4 a5! (18...Bxc4?? 19.Bxc4 Nf3+ 20.Rxf3 Rxd2 21.Bxd2+–) 19.b5
Bxc4 20.Bxc4 Nf3+ 21.Rxf3 Rxd2 22.Bxd2 Qc5+–+) 18...Rxd6! 19.cxd6 Be5
20.h3 Bxd6©;
14...Rc8!
Black intends to meet White’s Nc3-e2 by taking on e2 and defending the d6
weakness with ...Rc8-c6.
a) 14...f5?! Black should not commit to this so early; it just enables White to
clarify his intentions. 15.exf5 gxf5 (15...Nxf5 16.Bxf5 Bxf5 (16...gxf5 17.Bg5
Qd7 18.Rfd1±) 17.Qd5+ Rf7 18.f3±) 16.Bxd4 exd4 17.Ne2 d5 18.c5±;
b) 14...Rb8!? 15.Ne2 (15.Bxd4 exd4 16.Ne2 b5! 17.cxb5 axb5 18.Qb4 Qb6
19.Rc2 Rfd8 20.Nf4
20...d5! 21.exd5 Bxd5 22.Nxd5 Rxd5= 1/2–1/2 (39) Foisor,S (2258)-
Melekhina,A (2205) St. Louis USA 2016) 15...Nc6! (15...b5?! 16.cxb5
(16.Nxd4 exd4 17.Bh6 Bxh6 18.Qxh6 Qa5 1/2–1/2 (18) Korneev,O (2615)-
Georgiev,V (2519) Elgoibar 1999 19.cxb5 axb5 20.Bb1±) 16...axb5 17.Nxd4
exd4 18.Bh6 Bxh6 19.Qxh6 Qa5 20.Bb1 d5 21.e5±) 16.Rfd1

(16.a4 f5„; 16.f4 exf4 17.Nxf4 Qd7 18.h3 Ne5=) 16...Qe7!? (16...f5!? 17.exf5
 (17.f3 f4 18.Bf2 g5 19.Bb1?! g4! 20.Qxd6? Qe8µ) 17...gxf5 18.f4 (18.f3 Qe8
19.Bb1 Rd8 20.Nc3 Qf7 21.Nd5 Kh8„) 18...Qe8 19.Nc3 Rd8 20.Nd5²)
17.Bb1 (17.Bb6 Bf6 18.Qb2 Bg5 19.Rb1 f5 20.Nc3 Qg7„) 17...Rbd8 18.f3 f5
19.exf5 gxf5 20.Nc3 Qf7 21.Nd5² Anything can happen, but objectively I’d
say White has better chances.;
15.f3
(15.Ne2 Nxe2+ (15...Nc6!? 16.Rfd1 Qe7 17.Bb1 Rfd8 18.Bb6 Rd7 19.Nc3
Qf8 20.Be3 Nd4„) 16.Bxe2 Rc6!

An excellent square for the rook: Black hinders White’s b3-b4 due to the c4
weakness, and defends d6 while preventing a future Be3-b6. 17.Rfd1 f5 18.exf5
gxf5 19.Bg5 Qe8„)
15...Qd7 16.Rfd1
(16.Ne2 b5 17.Nxd4 exd4 18.Bh6 Bxh6 19.Qxh6 bxc4 20.bxc4 Rc5=)
16...Rfd8 17.Ne2
17...Nxe2+! Without knights on the board Black’s d5-square is less of a
weakness. 18.Bxe2 Qe7 19.Bb6 Rd7 20.a4 f5 21.exf5 gxf5„;
13.Nd5

This was GM Sevian’s choice against me in August 2016. Please note that our
game was somehow incorrectly recorded in the database as an entirely different
game altogether — clearly someone confused our scoresheets with another
game’s! Our game continued... 13...Bxd5
(13...f5 14.Bxd4 Bxd5 15.exd5 exd4 16.Rfe1 Re8 17.Re6²)
14.cxd5
(14.exd5 Qd7=)
14...f5 15.Bxd4
(15.f3 f4 16.Bf2 Qd7 17.Rac1 g5„)
15...fxe4! 16.Bxe4 exd4 17.g3

17...Qb6
(17...Qd7 18.Rae1 Rae8 19.Qd3 Re7 20.f4 Bf6 21.Re2 Rfe8 22.Rfe1 Kg7
 I was concerned about not having counterplay were I to go into this variation
but it turns out that passive defence suffices for Black. 23.Kg2 Qg4 24.h3 Qd7
25.h4 Qg4=)
18.Bd3! Rac8
(18...Rae8! 19.Rac1 Qd8! 20.Rfe1 Qd7=)
19.Rac1 Rc5 20.h4 Kh8? I thought I calculated this accurately but I missed
White’s ‘only-move’ on move 26.
a) 20...Qc7! The queen’s assistance is needed on the kingside. 21.h5 (21.Rfe1
Rxc1 22.Rxc1 Qf7=) 21...gxh5 22.Qg5 Qf7=;
b) 20...Rfc8?! 21.h5 Rxc1 22.Rxc1 Rxc1+ 23.Qxc1±;
21.h5 gxh5
(21...Rxd5 22.hxg6 hxg6 23.Kg2!+–)
22.Qg5 Rxc1
(22...Qc7 23.Qxh5 Be5 24.Rxc5 dxc5 25.Bxh7±)
23.Rxc1 Qxb2 24.Rc2
(24.Rf1 Qc3 25.Rd1 Qc7 26.Qxh5 Be5 27.f4 Bf6 28.Re1±)
24...Qb1+ 25.Kg2 Qd1 26.Bf5™ 26...d3 27.Rc7 Rg8 28.Qh6 1–0 Sevian,S-
Panjwani,R Greensboro 2016;
13.f4 exf4 14.Bxf4 Qa5! 15.Bxd6
(15.Rad1 Nc6! 16.Bxd6 Rfd8 17.c5 Bd4+ 18.Kh1 Bxc5 19.Bxc5 Qxc5³)
15...Rfd8

16.b4 Two moves are equally good here: 16...Qb6 is simpler to remember but
16...Qh5 gives White more chances to go astray.
(16.c5 16...Be5!! 17.Bxe5 Qxc5 18.Bxd4 Qxd4+ 19.Rf2 Qxd3=; 16.e5 Nc6µ)
16...Qb6
(16...Qh5 17.Bf4 (17.c5?! Rxd6! 18.cxd6 Be5 19.h3 Bxd6µ White is naked on
the dark squares.) 17...Ne2+! 18.Nxe2 Bxc4 19.Ng3 Rxd3 20.Nxh5 Bd4+
21.Qf2 gxh5 22.Rfd1 Bxf2+ 23.Kxf2 Rad8=)
17.Bc5 Qc7 18.Kh1
(18.Rad1 b6 19.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 20.Kh1 Bxc4 21.Bxc4 Qxc4 22.Nd5 Be5=)
18...b6 19.Bxd4 Rxd4 20.Nd5
20...Qxc4! 21.Rad1 Bxd5 22.Bxc4 Rxd2 23.Bxd5 Rxd1 24.Rxd1 Rc8=

13...a6 14.b3

In addition to being a good solidifying move, White is now ready for Nc3-e2
(14.Ne2 b5!). Black has several ways of playing this position. I have
recommended what I consider to be the simplest as the main line (14...Rc8), but
both alternatives are playable as well.
14...Rc8!

Just as in the variation where White plays 13.Rac1, Black intends to meet Nc3-
e2 by taking on e2 and defending d6 with ...Rc8-c6!
14...Qd7 White’s attempts against this move which are found in the database do
not pose problems for Black, but if White plays the novelty 15.Ne2!? then
Black’s best option is to defend a slightly worse but drawn rook endgame. I
would have felt bad recommending this as the main line, but if one is happy with
a draw and comfortable defending the resulting endgame, then this may be the
best option. 15.Ne2!N Unlike when Black’s queen is on c7, he cannot here
capture on e2 because the d6-pawn will fall (a defender on d8 can be hit by Be3-
b6).
a) 15.Nd5 Bxd5 16.cxd5 Rac8=;
b) 15.f4 exf4 (15...Rae8!? 16.fxe5 dxe5 17.Nd5 b5 18.Nf6+ Bxf6 19.Rxf6 bxc4
20.bxc4∞) 16.Bxf4 Nc6N (16...Be5 17.Bxe5 dxe5 18.Qg5 Qc7 19.Kh1 b5
20.Nd5 Bxd5 21.cxd5² 1–0 (48) Bellia,F (2424)-Royset,P (2215) Rethymnon
2011) 17.Be2 Ne5 18.Nd5 Rae8„;
15...b5!
a) 15...Rfd8?! 16.Nxd4 (16.Bg5 Nxe2+ 17.Bxe2 f6 18.Be3 Qc6 19.f3 f5„)
16...exd4 17.Bh6 Bh8 18.Qg5²;
b) 15...Nc6?! 16.Bb1±;
16.Nxd4
(16.Bxd4 exd4 17.cxb5 axb5 18.Bb1 d5! 19.Nxd4 dxe4 20.Bxe4 Rad8
 21.Nxe6 (21.Nf3 Qxd2 22.Rxd2 Rxd2 23.Nxd2 Rd8 24.Nf3 b4=) 21...Qxd2
22.Rxd2 Rxd2 23.Nxf8 b4 This endgame is easy for Black to draw. 24.Nxh7
Kxh7 25.g3 Rxa2 26.Bd5 f5 27.Bc4 Bd4 28.Kg2 Kg7 29.Kf3 Kf6 30.h3 Kg7
31.g4 fxg4+ 32.hxg4 Ra1 33.Rxa1 Bxa1 34.g5 Bc3 35.Ke4 1/2–1/2 Brattain-
Panjwani, Philadelphia 2014)
16...exd4 17.Bh6 Bxh6 18.Qxh6 bxc4 19.Bxc4 Bxc4 20.bxc4 Qa7 21.Qd2

The aforementioned slightly better, but with some accuracy drawn rook endgame
starts here. Black’s first task is to decide where to place his rooks. I give some
sample variations, but I make no claim to ‘solve’ this endgame. 21...Rfc8!
(21...Rab8 22.Qxd4 Qxd4 23.Rxd4 Rb2 24.Rxd6 Rxa2 25.g3 Rc8 26.Rc1 Rc5
27.Rc3 Ra4 28.Rd8+ Kg7 29.Rd7 Raxc4 30.Rf3+–)
22.Qxd4 Qxd4
(22...Qc5 23.Qxc5 Rxc5 24.Rxd6 Rxc4 25.Re1 Rc2 26.a3 Rc3 27.Ra1 (27.a4
Rc4 28.a5 Ra4 29.Rd5 Rb8=) 27...Rac8 28.f3 R8c6 29.Rxc6 Rxc6=)
23.Rxd4 Rab8 24.g3!
(24.f3 Rb2 25.a3 Ra2 26.Rb1 Rxa3 27.Rb6 Ra4 28.Rbxd6 Raxc4 29.Rxc4 Rxc4
30.Rxa6 h5=)
24...Rc6 25.Rfd1 a5 26.Rxd6 Rxc4 27.e5 Rb2 28.a3 Rc5 29.Rf6 Rb7 30.e6 fxe6
31.Rxe6 Rc3 32.a4 Ra3 33.Ra6 Rxa4 34.Rd5 Kg7 35.Raxa5 Rxa5 36.Rxa5 h5=;
14...Qc7!? This was Dzindzichashvili’s choice against my compatriot GM
Lesiege in 1993. With the queen on c7, Black can respond to Nc3-e2 with either
...Nd4xe2 or ...Nd4-c6, since the d6-pawn can be defended in one move by
either rook. 15.Bxd4
a) 15.Ne2 Both 15...Nc6 and 15...Nxe2+ are playable; it is a just a matter of
taste. 15...Nc6 (15...Nxe2+ 16.Bxe2 Rfd8 17.Qb4 Qe7 18.Bb6 Rd7 19.Rd2
Rc8 20.Rfd1 Rc6 21.Ba5 f5 22.Bf3 f4 23.Rd3 Bf8 24.a4 Qf7 25.Qd2 h5 26.h3
b6 27.Bb4 a5 28.Ba3 Qf6= It is difficult to see how either side will make
progress.) 16.f4 (16.Bb1 Rad8 17.Nc3 f5 18.exf5 gxf5 19.f4 Qf7=) 16...exf4
17.Nxf4 Ne5 18.Be2 Rad8 19.h3 Qc6!

20.Nd5 Bxd5 21.Qxd5 Qc7 22.Bf4 Rfe8 23.Bg5 Rd7 24.Rf2 h5 25.Bf4 Qc5=;
b) 15.f3 Rac8 16.Ne2 (16.Rc1 Qd7 17.Ne2 b5=) 16...Nc6 (16...Nxe2+!?
17.Bxe2 Rfd8 18.a4 Qe7 19.Qb4 f5 20.Rd2 Rc6 21.Rfd1 f4 22.Bb6 Rd7
 White only has four pieces capable of attacking the d6-pawn, and Black has
four potential defenders. If White triples on the d-file and aims for c4-c5 then
Black will be able to obtain counterplay against White’s weak pawn on b3
(with ...Qe7-f7 for example). A sample variation may continue as follows.
23.a5 g5 24.h3 h5 25.c5 dxc5 26.Bxc5 Qxc5+ 27.Qxc5 Rxc5 28.Rxd7 Bxd7
29.Rxd7 Rxa5 30.Rxb7 Bf8=) 17.Bb1 Rfd8 18.a4 Rd7 19.f4 (19.Nc3 Nd4„)
19...exf4 20.Nxf4 Qa5=;
15...exd4 16.Ne2 Bg4 17.f3 Bd7 18.Bb1
(18.a4 b5 19.cxb5 axb5 20.axb5 Rfb8=)
18...b5
19.cxb5 Bxb5 20.Bd3 Qb6 21.Rf2 Rfc8 22.g3 Ra7 23.Kg2 d5 24.exd5 Rd7
25.Rc1 Rxc1 26.Nxc1 Rxd5 27.Bxb5 axb5= 0–1 (62) Lesiege,A (2485)-
Dzindzichashvili,R (2535) New York 1993.

15.f3

15.Ne2 b5!
(15...Nxe2+!? 16.Bxe2 Rc6∞)
16.Bxd4
(16.cxb5 Nxb5„)
16...bxc4!? 17.Bxc4 Bxc4 18.Be3 Be6
19.Qxd6
(19.Nc3 Qd7 20.Na4 (20.Nd5 Qb7=) 20...Rc6 21.Rc1 Qb7 22.Rxc6 Qxc6
23.Qd3 d5 24.exd5 Bxd5 25.Rc1 Qa8 26.Nb6 Be4! 27.Qc4 Qb7=)
19...Qxd6 20.Rxd6 Rc2 21.Nc1 Ra8 22.Rfd1 Bf8 23.R6d2 Rac8 24.Nd3 f6

Black is at little risk here; his two bishops and active rooks provide fully
adequate compensation for the pawn. 25.f3 a5 26.Kf2 h5 27.Rxc2 Rxc2+ 28.Rd2
Rc6 29.f4 exf4 30.Nxf4 Kf7=

15...Qd7 16.Rfe1

16.Ne2 Nxe2+
(16...b5 17.cxb5 Nxb5 18.Qa5 Qb7∞)
17.Bxe2 Rc6 18.a4 f5„

16...Rfd8

16...b5!? 17.cxb5 axb5 18.Bxd4 exd4 19.Nxb5 Rc5 20.Na3 Rc3∞

17.Ne2 Nxe2+

17...b5 18.cxb5 Nxb5 19.Qa5 Ra8∞

18.Bxe2 Rc6 19.Bg5 Rf8 20.a4 f5„

 Appendix

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4
8.Qxg4 Nxd4 9.Qd1 e5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 b6!?

I was pleasantly surprised to come across this very rare idea in a book on pawn
structures by Andy Soltis. Soviet (grand) masters of the 1950s and 1960s like
Simagin, Bagirov, Aronson, and Veresov developed some truly original ideas in
this system. Even if their crafty maneuvers are ultimately ‘too good to be true’, it
is instructive to play over their games to get a feel for this system. Black plans to
continue with ...Bc8-b7, ...Rf8-e8, ...Ra8-c8, followed by ...Bf8-c5/...Nd4-e6, or
...Re8-e6-d6! I envy them for playing chess in the pre-computer era; the analysis
of this variation must have brought them such joy. Computers do spoil the fun a
little, but there is no clear refutation of the idea either.

12.Qd2

12.Nd5?! Bb7 13.f4 exf4 14.Bxf4 d6 15.Qd2 Ne6 16.Bh6 Bxh6 17.Qxh6 Bxd5
18.exd5 Nc5 19.Rf3 f5!³ 0–1 (69) Byvshev,V-Simagin,V Moscow 1952;
12.a4 Bb7 13.Nb5
 (13.a5 bxa5 14.Qa4 Bc6 15.Qxa5 Qxa5 16.Rxa5 Rfb8=)
13...f5!

14.Bb1 f4!
(14...Nxb5 15.axb5 fxe4 16.Qg4± 1/2–1/2 (36) Honfi,K-Zaitsev,A Budapest
1963)
15.Bxd4 exd4 16.Ra3 Qf6 17.f3 a6 18.Nc7 Rac8 19.Nd5 Bxd5 20.cxd5 Rc5
21.Bd3 a5=

12...Bb7

12...Re8!? 13.Rfe1 Bb7 14.Rad1 a6 15.b3 Bc6

This is another typical idea of this line: Black plans to leave the pawn on d7, so
the bishop is well placed on c6 from where it defends (and is defended by) the
d7 pawn and prepares ...b6-b5. 16.f3 Re6!?
(16...Ne6 17.Qf2 Rb8 18.Nd5 b5 19.Bb6 Qc8 20.Ba7 Rb7 21.Be3 Qb8
22.Qh4 Bxd5 23.exd5 Nf4 24.Bxf4 exf4 25.Rxe8+ Qxe8 26.Qxf4²)
17.Bf1 f5 18.Ne2 fxe4 19.fxe4 Nxe2+?!
(19...Rd6!?
 What a triumph of the artistic approach to chess that this was Black’s best try.
20.Nxd4 exd4 21.Bg5 Qf8 22.c5!! Incredibly, Black can equalize against all
other moves! 22...bxc5 23.Bc4+ Re6 (23...Kh8 24.e5±) 24.Bxe6+ dxe6 25.e5²)
20.Bxe2 Qc7 21.Bg4 Rf6 22.Bxd7 Bb7 23.Bg5 Rff8 24.Qd6 Qc5+ 25.Qxc5
bxc5 26.Be7 Rf4 27.Be6+ Kh8 28.Bd5 1–0 (28) Kholmov,R-Aronson,L Riga
1954.

13.Rad1

It is not clear how Black should handle this position. Based on my research,
Black should delay ...Ra8-c8 for some time.
13.Ne2 Ne6 14.Rfd1 f5 15.f3
15...Rf7! Black’s idea is to exchange dark squared bishops with ...Bg7-f8-c5.
Computers tend to make us pessimistic about such maneuvers, but in this
particular position science and aesthetics coincide.
(15...f4 16.Bf2 Qe7 17.c5 Nxc5 18.Bc4+ Kh8 19.b4 Na6 20.a3 Rfd8 21.Nc3
Nc7 22.Qd6 Qxd6 23.Rxd6 Rac8 24.Rd3 Ne6 25.Bxe6 dxe6 26.Rxd8+ Rxd8
27.Nb5 1/2–1/2 (27) Roizman,A-Veresov,G Minsk 1955)
16.Nc3 Bf8! 17.exf5 gxf5 18.a3 Bc5
19.Bxc5 bxc5„;
13.f3 Qe7 14.Rfd1 f5 15.exf5 gxf5 16.Nd5 Qd6!=;
13.b3 f5 14.exf5 Qh4!

15.f3
(15.fxg6?? Nf3+ 16.gxf3 Bxf3–+)
15...gxf5 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.cxd5 e4„

13...Ne6

13...Bc6!?

14.f4
(14.b3 Ne6 15.Bc2 Re8 16.b4 Rc8 17.Bb3 Nd4 18.f3 Bf8 19.Bxd4 exd4
20.Ne2 b5 21.Nxd4 bxc4 22.Bxc4 Ba4 23.Bb3 Bxb3 24.Nxb3 Qb6+=)
14...exf4 15.Bxf4 Ne6 16.Bd6
(16.Bh6 Bxh6 17.Qxh6 Qe7 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.exd5 Ng7=)
16...Re8 17.Kh1 Nc5 18.Qf2 Kh8 19.Qxf7 Qg5 20.Bc2 Nb7 21.Nb5 Nc5=;
13...Rc8?! 14.b3 Bc6
15.f4
(15.Bb1 Ne6 16.a4 Bf6! 17.Nb5 Ra8 18.Nd6 (18.g3 Be7 19.Nd6 Qb8 20.Bc2
Nd4 21.Bxd4 Qxd6 22.Bc3 Qe6 23.a5 bxa5 24.Bxa5 Bc5 25.Bb4 Qe7 26.Bc3
Rfb8 27.Ra1 Rb7=) 18...Bg5 19.g3 Bxe3 20.Qxe3 Qe7 21.f4 f6=)
15...exf4 16.Bxf4 Ne6 17.Bd6 Re8
18.Nb5 This is one reason Black’s rook would have been better placed on a8.
(18.e5 Nc5 19.Qf4 Nb7 20.Nb5 Bxb5 21.Qxf7+ Kh8 22.cxb5 Nxd6 23.exd6
Qh4 24.g3 Qd4+ 25.Qf2 Qxf2+ 26.Kxf2 Re6 27.Bc4 Rf8+ 28.Kg2 Rxf1
29.Bxf1 Bf8=)
18...a6 19.Na7 Ra8 20.Nxc6 dxc6 21.e5²;
13...f5

14.exf5 Qh4 15.Nd5

(15.fxg6?? Nf3+ 16.gxf3 Bxf3–+)
15...Nxf5
(15...gxf5 16.f4±)
16.Bxf5 gxf5 17.f4 e4 18.Bd4²

14.Bb1

14.b3 Bc6 15.f3 Re8

(15...Qe7 16.Bc2 Rfd8 17.Rfe1 Qa3!= Black can ‘premove’ ...Bg7-f8.)
16.Nd5 Bf8 17.b4 Bg7 18.Rc1 Rc8 19.a4 Nd4 20.Rc3 a5 21.b5 Bxd5 22.cxd5
Bf8=
14...Bc6 15.b4 Rc8 16.a3

16...Kh8!

16...Rc7 17.Ba2 Kh8 18.c5 Nd4 19.f4 bxc5 20.bxc5 Rb7 21.fxe5
(21.Nd5²)
21...Ne6 22.Bxe6 fxe6 23.Bg5 Qa5 24.Qd6 Rbb8 25.Be7 Rxf1+ 26.Rxf1 Re8
27.Rf3 Qxa3µ 1/2–1/2 (36) Smyslov,V-Bagirov,V Leningrad 1960.

17.Ba2

17.c5 bxc5 18.bxc5 Qa5„;

17.b5 Ba8 18.Qxd7 Qxd7 19.Rxd7 Rxc4 20.Nd5 Ra4=

17...f5 18.exf5 gxf5 19.f3 Qe8 20.Nd5

20.b5 Ba8 21.Qxd7 e4„

20...f4 21.Bf2
21...e4! 22.fxe4 Qh5 23.Rde1 Be5„
 CHAPTER 5
MAROCZY BIND: MAIN LINE

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Be2
d6 9.0-0

Contents
1. 9...Nxd4
2. 9...Bd7 10.sidelines
3. 9...Bd7 10.Nc2
4. 9...Bd7 10.Qd2 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bc6 12.sidelines
5. 9...Bd7 10.Qd2 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bc6 12.f3 Nd7 13.sidelines
6. 9...Bd7 10.Qd2 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bc6 12.f3 Nd7 13.Be3

1
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Be2
d6

This variation does not have an accepted name, but because it is the top choice
of virtually all the top Accelerated Dragon players nowadays, I will refer to it as
the ‘main line’. Compared with the Breyer Variation, this line is far more
nuanced and, frankly, difficult to play well (for both sides). As with all practical
matters, the choice involves a tradeoff: the Breyer is easy to play for Black, but
if White plays accurately (which very few are able to do in practice) then he can
achieve a slightly more pleasant position (if you find this state of affairs to be
unacceptable, I recommend abandoning the Sicilian altogether in favor of the
Berlin or Marshall). In this line Black’s counterplay is more reactive in nature —
Black can’t just ‘wear a blindfold’ and proceed with a plan on autopilot, but in
return Black can count on dynamic equality and a tense struggle where all three
results are on the table.

9.0-0

There are many ways to play this position for Black, but the main tabiya
involves Black playing (in various move orders) ...Bc8-d7, ...Nc6xd4, ...Bd7-c6,
...a7-a5, ...Nf6-d7-c5. The question of move order is an important one for Black
here: should Black start with 9...Bd7 or first play 9...Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Bd7? In
practice they usually transpose, because most White players are unwilling to
play a different line against each of these, preferring instead to enter the Qd2
main line regardless of Black’s move order. That being said, according to my
research, 9...Bd7 is the significantly better move order (and it is introducted in
the next chapter), in light of 9...Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Bd7 11.Qd3!.

9...Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Bd7

11.Qd3!

This is not a new move, it was first played in Smyslov-Pirc 1956 (1–0); for some
reason it has not caught on. I owe Kevin Spraggett for revealing its strength to
me. White’s basic idea is to prophylactically defend the e4-pawn so that ...Bd7-
c6 can be met with b2-b4! White usually wants to wait for Black’s bishop to be
on c6 before playing b2-b4, because the weak c4-pawn is under less pressure
when Black’s bishop is on c6 as opposed to e6. In general Black wants to
prevent White from playing b2-b4 (at least) until his knight has landed on c5, so
the central theme of this variation is White trying to achieve b2-b4 and Black
trying to either prevent it or render it premature. Unfortunately, nothing seems to
work for Black. I will present the following lines without comment, because I
am recommending we avoid this altogether, but I encourage the reader to try to
find improvements on my analysis, and to at least skim through the ensuing
variations to get a feel for which positions are playable for Black and which are
to be avoided.
11.b4 Be6 12.f3 Nd7 13.Nd5 Bxd4+ 14.Qxd4 Bxd5 15.cxd5 a5 16.a3 axb4
17.axb4 Rxa1 18.Rxa1 Qc7=

11...a6!?

11...Bc6?! 12.b4!²;
11...a5 12.b3!
(12.a3 a4 13.c5 dxc5 14.Bxc5 Bc6 15.Qe3 Qc8 16.f3 (16.Bxe7 Re8 17.Bxf6
Bxf6 18.f3 Qe6©) 16...Qe6 17.Rfd1 Rfd8=)
12...Bc6 13.a3 Nd7
(13...b6 14.b4 Nd7 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Qd4+ Kg8 17.f4²)
14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.b4 axb4
(15...b6²)
16.axb4 Qb6 17.b5

17...Rxa1
(17...Ne5 18.Qd2 Bd7 19.Na4 Qa7 20.c5 dxc5 21.Qd5 Qb8 22.Nxc5±)
18.Rxa1 Ne5 19.Qd2
(19.Qc2 Bd7 20.Nd5 Qd4 21.Rd1 Qc5 22.Nxe7 Re8 23.Nd5 Bxb5=)
19...Bd7 20.Na4!
(20.Nd5 Qc5 21.Qe3 (21.Nxe7 Nxc4 22.Qc3+ Ne5 23.Qxc5 dxc5 24.f4
Bg4=) 21...Rc8 22.Qc3 (22.Nxe7 Nxc4=) 22...e6 23.Ne3 f6 24.Qd2 Be8
25.Rd1 Nf7 26.Bg4 Bd7=)
20...Qc7
(20...Qa7 21.c5 dxc5 22.f4 c4+ 23.b6±)
21.f4
(21.Qd4 g5 22.h4 h6=)
21...Ng4
22.Rd1!
(22.Qd4+ e5 23.Qb6 Qxb6+ 24.Nxb6 Nf6 25.Rd1 Be6 26.Bf3 Rb8! (26...exf4
27.Rxd6 Rb8 28.e5 Ne8 29.Rd4 g5 30.Nd7 Rd8 31.Bxb7 Rxd7 32.Rxd7 Bxd7
33.b6 Kf8 34.Bd5±) 27.Rxd6 Ne8 28.Rd1 exf4 29.e5 (29.c5 g5 30.h3 Nc7
31.Rb1 Ne8∞) 29...f6 30.exf6+ Nxf6 31.h4 h6 32.Rd6 Kf7 33.Nd5 Bxd5
34.Bxd5+ Nxd5 35.cxd5 Rc8 36.Rd7+ Kf6 37.Rxb7 Rd8 38.Rb6+ Kf5 39.d6
g5 40.hxg5 hxg5 41.Rc6 Ke5 42.b6 Rxd6 43.Rxd6 Kxd6 44.Kf2 g4 45.b7 Kc7
46.Ke2 Kxb7 47.Kd3 Kc6 48.Ke4 f3 49.gxf3 gxf3 50.Kxf3 This was not a
game, I just wanted to analyze at least one variation ‘down to kings’ in this
book.)
22...Nf6 23.Qd4 Bc8 24.e5
(24.Nc3 e5=)
24...dxe5 25.fxe5 Nd7 26.e6+ Nf6 27.exf7 e5 28.Qc3
(28.Qc5²)
28...Be6 29.c5 Nd5 30.Qb2 Bxf7 31.Bf3±

12.b4!

12.a4 a5 13.Nd5
 (13.Rfd1 Bc6 14.b3 Nd7 15.Rab1 Nc5 16.Qe3 Bxd4 17.Rxd4 e5 18.Rd2 Qe7=)
13...Nxd5 14.exd5 Bf5 15.Qe3 Bxd4 16.Qxd4 Ra6=;
12.Qe3 Qb8!?
(12...b5 13.cxb5 axb5 14.Bxb5 (14.Nxb5 Ra4!©) 14...Bxb5 15.Nxb5 e5 16.Ba7
d5 17.Bc5 d4 18.Qd3 Re8 19.b4±)
13.Rfd1
(13.a4 a5 14.Rfd1 Bc6 15.Nd5 Re8! (15...Bxd5 16.cxd5 Nd7 17.Bxg7 Kxg7
18.Bb5 Nc5 19.Rac1 f6 20.f4²) 16.Nb6 (16.b3 Nd7 17.Bxg7 Kxg7=) 16...e5
17.Bc3 Nxe4 18.Nxa8 Nxc3! (18...Qxa8?! 19.Be1 Nc5 20.b4 (20.Rxd6 Ne6©)
20...axb4 21.Bxb4 Bf8 22.a5±) 19.bxc3 Qxa8 20.Rxd6 Bf8 21.Rdd1 e4©)
13...Bc6

14.Rac1
(14.a4 a5 15.Nd5 Re8 (15...Bxd5 16.cxd5 Nd7 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Bb5 Nc5
19.Rac1 Qd8 20.f4 f6 21.Rc3 Rc8 22.Rdc1 Rg8! 23.R1c2 b6 24.b3 Qf8! 25.Rc4
Kh8 26.g3 g5=; 15...e5 16.Bb6 Bxd5 17.cxd5 Nd7 18.Rac1 Nxb6 19.Qxb6
Bf6 20.g3 Bd8 21.Qb5 Qa7 22.Qd7 Qb8 23.Rd3 Bb6 24.Rb3 Rd8 25.Qb5 Bd4
26.Qxb7 Qxb7 27.Rxb7 Rdb8 28.Rxb8+ Rxb8=) 16.Nb6 e5 17.Bc3 Nxe4
18.Nxa8 Nxc3 19.Qxc3 Qxa8 20.Rxd6 e4©)
14...b5
(14...e5 15.Bb6 Nd7 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.Rxd5±)
15.Nd5 Bxd5
(15...Re8 16.cxb5 Bxd5 17.exd5 axb5 18.Qb3 b4 19.Rc4± 1–0 (31) Gurevich,I
(2475)-Taylor Chicago 1992)
16.cxd5 Nd7 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Qd4+ Kg8 19.Bg4 Nf6 20.Bh3 Qa7 21.Qd3 a5
22.g3 Rfb8∞;
12.f3

12...Rb8
(12...b5?! 13.cxb5 axb5 14.Nxb5 Ra4 15.Nc3 (15.Na3 Qb8!©; 15.Be3 Bxb5
16.Qxb5 Qa8=) 15...Rb4 16.Rab1 (16.b3 Nxe4 17.Bxg7 Nc5 18.Qe3 Kxg7
19.Nd5 Rb8= Instinctively, White appears to be better because of the connected
passed pawns; however, those pawns are easily blocked and the dark squared
weaknesses in White’s position shouldn’t be discounted.) 16...Qb8 (16...Nxe4
17.Bxg7 Nc5 18.Qe3 Kxg7 19.Nd5 Rb8 20.b4 Na4 21.b5 Nc5 22.Rfd1 Be6
23.Bc4 f6 24.Qd4 Bxd5 25.Bxd5 Qb6∞) 17.b3
 17...Be6 (17...Rxd4 18.Qxd4 Ng4 19.Qd3 (19.Qd2 Qa7+ 20.Kh1 Nf2+
21.Rxf2 Qxf2 22.Nd5 Bb5=) 19...Qa7+ 20.Kh1 Nf2+ 21.Rxf2 Qxf2 22.Nd5
e6 23.Ne3 Bb5 24.Qxb5 Qxe3 25.Qd3 Qf2 26.Rf1 Qa7 27.a4 d5 28.exd5 Rd8
29.Qa6 Qxa6 30.Bxa6 Rxd5 31.Bc4 Rd2 32.a5±) 18.Be3 d5 19.Bc5 dxe4
20.fxe4 Rd8 21.Qe3 Rb7 22.Rbd1 Rbd7 23.Kh1²)
13.a4 b6 14.Rfd1 Bc6 15.b4 a5 16.b5 Bb7=;
12.Rfd1 b5 13.cxb5 axb5 14.Nxb5 Bxb5 15.Qxb5 Nxe4 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Bf3
Rb8 18.Qd3 Nc5=

12...Be6

12...b5 13.cxb5 axb5 14.Nxb5 Bxb5 15.Qxb5 Nxe4 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Qd5 Nf6
18.Qb3±;
12...e5 13.Be3 Be6 14.Rac1 Rc8 15.Na4 b5 16.cxb5 axb5 17.Nc3 Bc4 18.Qd2±

13.Rfc1 Rc8 14.Nd5 Nxd5

15.exd5

15.cxd5 Bxd4 16.Qxd4 Bd7=

15...Bf5 16.Qd2 Bxd4 17.Qxd4 Re8

17...e5 18.dxe6 Bxe6 19.a3²

18.Bf3 a5 19.a3 b6 20.h4 h5 21.Re1²

 2

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Be2
d6 9.0-0 Bd7

The downside of this line is 10.Nc2, whereas the downside of the 9...Nxd4
move order is 11.Qd3! In my judgment we should prefer to allow White 10.Nc2
here. Let’s first have a look at some side moves.

10.Nb3

The logic of this move is similar to 10.Nc2: since White has more space, he
wants to avoid exchanges to keep Black’s position cramped. Furthermore, the
‘soft’ c4-pawn can be defended by Nb3-d2, as it often is by Nc2-a3 in the
10.Nc2 line.
10.Rc1 Nxd4 11.Bxd4
Nowadays I prefer to play 11...Bc6 here, because things are likely to transpose to
the 10.Qd2 line where White’s rook on c1 does nothing to promote the central
positional aim of b2-b4. The reader may prefer 11...Bh6!? which I have played a
few times as well. The choice is just a matter of taste. 11...Bh6!?
(11...Bc6 If Black plays this then the 10.Rc1 line has little independent value.
12.f3 a5 13.b3 Nd7 14.Be3 Nc5 15.Qd2= This is a transposition to the 10.Qd2
line, where White’s a-rook does not tend to go to c1.)
12.f4
(12.Rc2 e5 13.Be3 Bxe3 14.fxe3 Bc6
 15.Qd3 (15.Bd3 a5 16.Rcf2 Nd7 17.Qg4 Nc5 18.Bc2 Bd7 19.Qd1 Be6
20.Nd5 Kg7 21.b3 Bxd5 22.Qxd5 f6 23.a3 Qb6 24.Rb1 Qc6=) 15...a5 16.Rd2
Ne8 17.Bd1 Qb6 18.Rdf2 Rd8 19.Bg4 Nc7 20.h4 Na6 21.h5 Nc5 22.Qc2 Qb4
23.Nd5 Bxd5 24.exd5 e4 25.Be2 (25.Rf6 Nd3 26.b3 a4„) 25...a4∞)
12...Bc6 13.Bxf6
a) 13.e5 dxe5 14.Bxe5 Nd7 15.Bd4 e5!? (15...Re8!? 16.Rc2 e5 17.fxe5
Nxe5„) 16.fxe5 Qg5 17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.cxd5 Qxc1 19.Qxc1 Bxc1 20.Rxc1
Nxe5 21.Rc7 (21.d6 f6µ) 21...f6 22.Rxb7 (22.d6 Rac8 23.Rxb7 Rf7 24.Rxa7
Rxa7 25.Bxa7 Rc2µ) 22...Rf7 23.Rb5³;
b) 13.Qd3 e5 14.Be3 exf4 15.Bxf4 Bxf4 16.Rxf4 Nd7=;
13...exf6
14.Qd4 This was American prodigy Ruifeng Li’s choice against me.
a) 14.Qd2 Re8 15.Bf3 Qb6+ 16.Kh1 Rad8 17.g3 Bg7 18.Rc2 Qc5 19.Nd5 a5=;
b) 14.Kh1 We follow one of my games here. 14...Re8 15.Bd3 Qb6 16.Rc2 a5
17.Rd2 a4 18.Bb1 Bf8 19.b3 axb3 20.axb3 Ra1 21.Nd5 Bxd5 22.Rxd5 Qe3?
(22...Rxe4 23.Bxe4 Rxd1 24.Rdxd1 f5 25.Bd5 Bg7 26.b4 Bf6 27.b5 Kg7=)
23.Rf3 (¹23.c5!) 23...Qa7 24.Qc2 f5 25.Rf1 Rxe4 (25...fxe4 26.f5 e3 27.fxg6
hxg6 28.Rxf7 Rxb1+–+)
 26.g4!! Qe3 27.Rd3 Qe2 (27...Rxf4 28.Rxe3 Rxf1+ 29.Kg2 Rfxb1∞) 28.Qxe2
Rxe2 29.gxf5 Rb2µ Shlionsky-Panjwani, New York 2016 (1/2–1/2);
14...Re8 15.Rcd1 Qa5 16.Bd3 Bg7 17.Qf2 a6 18.a3

18...f5! 19.exf5 Bxc3

(19...gxf5 20.Nd5 Bxd5 21.cxd5 Qxd5 22.Bxa6=)
20.bxc3 gxf5 21.Rde1
a) 21.Qg3+ Kh8 22.Qg5 Rg8 23.Qf6+ Rg7 24.g3 (24.Bxf5?? Bxg2–+)
24...Qxa3=;
b) 21.Qh4 Re6³;
21...Qxa3 22.Bxf5 Qxc3µ Ruifeng Li — Raja Panjwani, Philadelphia 2014 (0–
1);
10.f3 (As with the 11.Qd3 line which we avoided by playing 9...Bd7 instead of
9...Nxd4, White prophylactically defends the e4-pawn in anticipation of ...Bd7-
c6). 10...Nxd4 11.Bxd4 a5 If White plays ordinary developing moves like
12.Qd2 here then we will transpose into material we will discuss later, so we
will just consider attempts by White to obtain immediate play.
(11...Bc6?! 12.b4²)
12.c5
(12.b3 Bc6 13.a3 Nd7 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.Qd4+ Kg8 16.b4 Qb6 17.Qxb6
Nxb6=)
12...dxc5 13.Bxc5 Bc6

14.Qb3
 (14.Qxd8 Rfxd8 15.Bxe7 Rd2=; 14.Rc1 Nd7 15.Be3 a4 16.Qc2 Qa5=)
14...Nd7 15.Be3 Qb8! 16.Rad1 a4 17.Qc4 Rc8 18.Nd5 Bf8!

Black may optically appear to be passive but his compactness is deceptive; all of
Black’s soft spots have been covered and White has no targets. 19.Nb4 e6
20.Nxc6 Rxc6 21.Qb5 Bc5 22.Bxc5 Nxc5=

10...a5!
Black immediately targets White’s b3 knight and threatens to gain further space
on the queenside with ...a5-a4 and ...Qd8-a5.

11.Nd2

11.f3?! a4 12.Nd2?! a3 13.bxa3 Ng4 14.fxg4 Bxc3µ;

11.a3 a4 12.Nd2 Qa5= Ideas for Black include ...Be6/...Nd7-c5 or alternatively
...e7-e5/...Nc6-d4.

11...Bc8!

Black’s bishop is misplaced on d7 in both the 10.Nc2 and 10.Nb3 lines.

Ordinarily Black would prefer to play ...Be6/...Nd7-c5 but there is no time for
that here since White’s f4-f5 comes too fast.
11...Be6 12.f4 Nd7?? 13.f5+–

12.Rc1 Nd7 13.Nb3

13.f3 Bd4!N 14.Bxd4 Nxd4 15.Ndb1 e5 16.Na3 Nc5 17.Nab5 Nce6=

13...a4 14.Nd4 Nxd4 15.Bxd4

15...Bh6!

This is a fairly common idea when White’s rook is on c1. Black wants to play
...e7-e5 next, when White has to accept doubled, isolated e-pawns.

16.Rc2

16.f4 e5 17.Be3 exf4 18.Bxf4 Qb6+ 19.Kh1 Bxf4 20.Rxf4 Qxb2 21.Rc2 Qb6
22.Rd2 Ne5 23.Nd5 Qc5 Black’s dark squares are in theory weak, but without
White’s dark squared bishop on the board Black has nothing to worry about. On
the other hand, Black’s light squared bishop is clearly superior to its counterpart.
24.Nf6+ Kg7 25.Rxd6 Be6=

16...e5 17.Be3 Bxe3 18.fxe3 Nc5 19.Rd2 Ra6 20.Bg4 Be6 21.Qe2 Qe7
It is hard to see how either side will make progress; Black doesn’t particularly
want to play ...f7-f5 because that would undouble White’s e-pawns, but White
has nothing constructive to do either. Black can literally play ...Ra6-a8-a6-a8 and
wait for White to do something.

22.Bxe6

22.Nd5? Bxd5 23.exd5 f5µ

22...fxe6 23.Rxf8+ Kxf8 24.Nb5 Kg7 25.Qf3 Rc6 26.Rf2 Rc8 27.Nxd6

27.g4 Rf8 28.Qxf8+ Qxf8 29.Rxf8 Kxf8 30.Nxd6 Ke7 31.Nb5 Nxe4³

27...Qxd6 28.Qf6+ Kg8 29.Qf7+ Kh8 30.Qf6+ Kg8=

 3

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Be2
d6 9.0-0 Bd7 10.Nc2

This move was a real headache for me to deal with when preparing this book. I
did not have the luxury of recommending the usual 9...Nxd4 because I was in on
the secret of Smyslov’s powerful 11.Qd3! The database games were not much
help either; the consensus seems to be that Black must sit back passively and
demonstrate resiliency in the face of White’s b2-b4 or f4-f4/g2-g4 expansions
(see the alternatives to 10...Rc8 for an illustration). I analyzed all kinds of weird
ideas for Black, like ...a7-a5/...Nc6-b4/...Bd7-c6/...Nf6-d7-c5, but I realized that
White’s position is too solid for Black to get away with unprincipled play. I
concluded that if Black is going to be able to equalize in this line, it will be via
‘healthy’, thematic moves in the spirit of the opening.

10...Rc8!
Until around 2012 this was by far the most popular move, and it still is overall,
but it has been absent from the top games in the last five years, particularly in
favor of 10...Qa5. I find the positions after 10...Qa5 to be overly provocative:
Black does not need to cede as much ground as he tends to in those lines. After
10...Rc8 we will consider White’s three most popular attempts.
10...Qa5 11.Qd2 Rfc8 12.Rac1 Ne5 13.b3 Nc6 14.b4 Qd8 15.f4 Bg4 16.Bd3
Be6 17.h3 a5 18.a3 axb4 19.axb4 Nb8 20.Nd5 Bxd5 21.cxd5 Ra2 22.Qe1 Nbd7
23.Nd4 Ra3 24.Qd2 Rca8 25.Kh2 Ra2 26.Rc2 Rxc2 27.Qxc2 Qb6 28.Qc4 Qd8
29.Rc1± 0–1 (42) Swicarz,M-Cyborowski,L Poland 2015;
10...a6 11.f3 Na7?! 12.Na3 Bc6 13.Qd2 Nd7 14.Rab1 Qb8?! 15.Rfc1 Rc8 16.b4
b6 17.c5 dxc5 18.bxc5 Nb5 19.Naxb5 axb5 20.cxb6 Nxb6 21.Nxb5 Be8
22.Rxc8 Nxc8 23.Qc1!+– 1–0 (47) Vuckovic,B (2558)-Abramovic,B (2455)
Kraljevo SRB 2015.

11.f3

This is by far White’s most popular choice. Against White’s other moves Black
plays ...Nc6-e5, but here since White has committed himself to f2-f3, Black can
play 11...Be6! when White’s best plan is to go for f4-f5, now at the cost of a
tempo.
11.Qd2 Ne5

12.b3 White’s most popular move.

a) 12.Na3 Be6 13.b3 Qa5 14.Nab5 a6 15.Nd4 b5=;
b) 12.c5 Bc6! (12...dxc5 13.f4 Nc6 (13...Neg4 14.e5 Nh5 15.h3 Nxe3
16.Qxe3 Bh6 17.Rad1 Qe8 18.Bxh5 gxh5 19.Qf3²) 14.Rad1 Nb8 15.Qe1
(15.e5 Ng4„) 15...Qe8 16.Qh4 b5 (16...Bc6 17.f5 Nbd7 18.Ne1²) 17.f5 b4
18.Nd5 Nxd5 19.Rxd5 Bxb2 20.e5∞) 13.cxd6 Bxe4 14.Bxa7 Qxd6 15.Qxd6
exd6 16.Ne3 Bd3=;
12...b5! 13.f4
(13.cxb5? Qc7 14.Bd4 Nxe4 15.Nxe4 Qxc2 16.Qe3 f5!µ)
13...Neg4 14.Bd4
(14.Bxa7 bxc4 15.b4 Bc6³ 1/2–1/2 (38) Nijboer,F (2525)-Bosch,J (2425)
Amsterdam 1996)
14...bxc4 15.Bxc4
15...e5! 16.fxe5
(16.Bxa7? Qa5 17.Be3 Nxe3 18.Nxe3 exf4 19.Rxf4 Nxe4–+)
16...dxe5 17.Bxa7 Qc7 18.Bf2 Be6! 19.Nb5 Qb7 20.Nd6 Nxe4!³;
11.Rc1 Ne5

(11...a6!? 12.f4 b5 13.cxb5 axb5 14.Bxb5 Ng4 15.a4 Nxe3 16.Nxe3 Nd4
 17.Bxd7 Qxd7 18.f5 Qa7 19.Kh1 e6 20.Rb1 Rfd8©)
12.b3 This line may be one reason that Black stopped playing 10...Rc8, but I
have found a new move which seems to revive Black’s position.
(12.Na3 Qa5 13.f3 Be6 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.exd5 Bd7

In general Black has three plans in such positions: either play ...f7-f5-f4
securing the e5 square for Black’s knight, or play ...e7-e6 opening up the center
with White’s knight misplaced on a3, and finally ...a7-a6/...b7-b5 as usual. Here
we will see Black implement a different idea from these, which works because
of the concrete features of the position. 16.h3 (16.f4 Ng4 17.Bxg4 Bxg4
18.Qxg4 Bxb2 19.Nb5 Bxc1 20.Rxc1 Rxc4!–+) 16...g5!?
 Not the only move for Black, but certainly his most aesthetically appealing
option. 17.Qe1 (17.Rc2 h6 18.f4 gxf4 19.Rxf4 f5„; 17.Bxg5?! Qb6+ 18.Rf2 h6
19.Bd2 Qxb2 20.Nb1 Qxa2³) 17...Qxe1 18.Rfxe1 f5 19.Bxg5 (19.Bxa7 g4©)
19...Nf7 20.Bxe7 Rfe8 21.Bd1 Bxb2 22.Rb1 Bxa3 23.Rxb7 Ne5 24.Rxe5 Bc5+
25.Kf1 dxe5 26.Bxc5 Rxc5 27.Rxd7 Rxc4 28.Rxa7 Rd4=)
12...Qa5!N
An important novelty. White is forced to make a decision of how to deal with the
hanging c3-knight, and Black will respond accordingly.
a) 12...a6 13.Nd4! Were it not for this move, 12...a6 would be fine for Black.
13...Qa5 (13...Neg4 14.Bd2 Qb6 15.Nc2²) 14.Nd5! Nxd5 (14...Qd8 15.f3
Nxd5 16.exd5 e6 17.dxe6 fxe6∞) 15.exd5 f5 16.a4 Ng4 17.Bxg4 fxg4
18.Re1²;
b) 12...b5?! This is thematic but unfortunately Black’s compensation is
inadequate. 13.Nxb5 Nxe4 (13...Bxb5 14.cxb5 Nxe4 15.f4 Nd7 16.Nd4±)
14.Nxa7 Ra8 15.a4 Nc5 16.Bxc5 dxc5 17.Nb5 Qb6 18.Qd2 Rfd8 19.Qe3 Bf5
20.Nb4 e6 21.Rfd1 Rab8 22.Nd3²;
13.Qd2
a) 13.Nd4 Neg4! (13...a6 14.Nd5! (14.h3 b5 15.f4 Nc6 16.cxb5 Nxd4
17.Bxd4 axb5=; 14.f3 b5 15.cxb5 axb5 16.Ndxb5 Bxb5 17.Nxb5 Rxc1
18.Qxc1 Qxa2=) 14...Rfe8 15.b4 (15.a4 Nxd5 16.exd5 e6 17.dxe6 (17.f4
Nxc4! 18.bxc4 exd5µ) 17...fxe6 18.f4 Nf7 19.Bf3 d5=) 15...Qd8 16.f4!
(16.Nxf6+ exf6! 17.Qd2 Nc6 18.f3 f5„) 16...Neg4 (16...Nc6 17.Nc2±)
17.Nxf6+ Nxf6 18.e5 Ne4 19.e6 fxe6 20.Bg4 Bxd4 21.Bxd4 Nf6 22.Be2 Rf8
23.Qb3²) 14.Bd2 Qc5 (14...Nxh2 15.Ncb5 Qb6 16.Kxh2 a6 17.Be3 axb5
18.Ne6 Qa5 19.Nxf8²) 15.Nf3 (15.Nc2 Compare this to the analogous
position in the 12...a6 line, where Black’s queen is on b6 instead of c5. There,
Black’s next move is unavailable to him. 15...Qe5! 16.g3 Qh5 17.h4 Qc5=)
15...Rfe8 16.h3 Ne5 17.a4 a6 18.Nxe5 Qxe5 19.Bd3 Qh5! 20.Qxh5 Nxh5=
 In general Black should be happy to exchange queens in this line of the
Maroczy. Here, Black will consider relocating his h5 knight to c5, or perhaps
instead he will relocate his g7 bishop to a7 and keep the knight on f6.
Eventually things will fizzle out: White will play Nd5, Black will take it with
either knight or bishop, and rooks will get exchanged on the c-file. As always,
Black’s counterplay is to be found in ...f7-f5 or ...b7-b5.;
b) 13.Bd2 Qb6 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.exd5 f5„;
13...b5!
Now that White’s c3-knight is ‘pinned’, Nc3xb5 is no longer possible as it was
after 12...b5. 14.Nd5
(14.b4 Qc7 15.c5 Rfd8„; 14.Nxb5?! Qxd2 15.Bxd2 Nxe4 16.Be3 a6 17.Nbd4
f5„)
14...Qxd2 15.Bxd2
(15.Nxe7+ Kh8 16.Bxd2 Rce8 17.Nd5 Nxe4=)
15...Nxd5 16.cxd5 f5 17.exf5 gxf5 The position is dynamically equal. Black has
obvious static weaknesses, but he also has more central pawns and active pieces.
I will just give a sample variation for how play could continue.
18.Nd4 a6 19.a4 bxa4 20.bxa4 Bxa4 21.Bxa6 Rxc1 22.Rxc1 Bd7 23.Nc6 Ra8
24.Bb5 Kf8 25.Bg5 Ng6=

11...Be6!

11...a6
12.Rc1!
(12.Qd2 Ne5 13.Na3 (13.b3 b5 14.cxb5 Qa5 15.b4 Qc7 16.Bd4 Nc4!
(16...Bxb5 17.Ne3 Nc4 18.Nxc4 Bxc4 19.Rac1 Qb7=) 17.Qc1 axb5„)
13...Be6 14.Nd5 Bxd5 (14...Nfd7?! 15.Rac1 (15.Bd4 Nc6 16.Bxg7 (16.Be3 f5
17.Nf4 Bf7∞) 16...Kxg7 17.Kh1 a5 18.Nc2 Nc5 19.Nce3 f6²) 15...f5 16.exf5
gxf5?! (16...Bxf5 17.Rfd1²) 17.f4 Nc6 (17...Ng4 18.Bxg4 fxg4 19.f5 Bf7
20.b3 Nf6 21.Nxf6+ exf6 22.Rf4 h5 23.Rd4±) 18.Bf3 Nc5 19.Rfe1 Bf7 20.b4
Ne4 21.Bxe4 fxe4 22.b5 Nb8 23.Bb6± 1–0 (53) Young,G-Panjwani,R Las
Vegas 2013) 15.exd5 (15.cxd5 e6=) 15...e6 16.dxe6 fxe6 17.Rad1 (17.b4 d5=)
17...d5 18.c5 Nfd7 19.Rc1 (19.b4 a5=) 19...d4 20.Bg5 (20.Bxd4 Nxc5³)
20...Nf6=)
12...Ne5?!
(12...Be6 A recommendation of Khalifman. 13.Nd5! (13.Na3 Nd7 14.Qd2
Qa5 15.Rfd1 f5! 16.exf5 Bxf5 17.Qd5+?! Qxd5 18.cxd5 Nb4 19.g4?! Bd3
20.Bxd3 Rxf3µ) 13...Nd7 14.b4 f5 15.exf5 Bxf5 16.b5±)
13.c5!! A brilliant computer-move!
(13.Na3 Be6 14.Nd5 Nfd7 15.f4 Nc6= Black will continue with ...f7-f5;
White’s knight is awkward on a3.)
13...dxc5 14.f4 Neg4
(14...Nc6 15.e5 Ne8 16.Bf3 b6 17.Rf2! Be6 18.Qxd8 Nxd8 19.Na4 Rb8
20.b4±)
15.e5 Nxe3 16.Nxe3 Ne8 17.Rc2! b5 18.Rd2 Rc7 19.a4±;
11...Na5 12.b3 a6
(12...Ng4 13.Bd2! Qb6+ (13...Ne5 14.Rc1 (14.f4 Nexc4!„) 14...f5 15.f4 Nf7
16.exf5 Bxf5 17.Ne3±) 14.Kh1 Nf2+ 15.Rxf2 Qxf2 16.Nd5+–)
13.Qd2 b5 14.cxb5
14...Qc7
(14...Rxc3 15.Qxc3 Nd5 16.Qd2 Nxe3 17.Nxe3±; 14...Ng4 15.Bd4 e5
16.Ba7!±)
15.Bd4 Bxb5
(15...axb5 16.Nb4 Qb8 17.Kh1 Nc6 18.Nxc6 Bxc6 19.a4±)
16.Bxb5 axb5
(16...e5 17.Nb4 exd4 18.Ncd5 Nxd5 19.Nxd5 Qa7 20.Bd3 Nc6 21.f4 Ne7
22.Nxe7+ Qxe7 23.Bxa6 Rc3 24.Bd3±)
17.Rac1 Qb7 18.Nd5 Nxd5
(18...e5 19.Be3 Nxd5 20.exd5 Ra8 21.Nb4±)
19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.exd5±;
11...Ne5 12.b3 a6 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.exd5 f5 15.Qd2 b5 16.cxb5 axb5 17.Nd4²

12.f4

This is the computer’s recommendation — machines don’t have egos about

blatantly losing tempos.
12.Qd2 Nd7 13.Rac1
 (13.Rab1 f5 14.exf5 Bxf5=; 13.Nd5 Bxb2 14.Rab1 Bg7 15.Rxb7 Nc5=)
13...Re8!

Prophylaxis! Black would like to play 13...Qa5 instead, but that allows 14.b4!
which works because of Black’s e7-pawn being weak.
(13...Qa5?! 14.b4! Nxb4 15.Nd5 Nc6 16.Qxa5 Nxa5 17.Nxe7++–)
14.b3
(14.Rfd1 Qa5=; 14.f4 Nc5 15.Nd4 Nxd4 16.Bxd4 Qb6 17.Be3 Qb4=)
14...Qa5 15.Nd4 Nxd4 16.Bxd4 Bxd4+ 17.Qxd4 Qc5 18.Qxc5 Nxc5=

12...Qa5!
Black threatens a discovery attack on the c4-pawn with either ...Nc6-b4(b8),
when White’s usual b2-b3 is impossible because of the hanging c3 knight.
12...a6 This followed by 13...b5 almost works but not quite. The opposite
colored bishop endgame which results is highly unpleasant for Black, even if
objectively drawn. 13.Rc1
(13.Qd2 Na5 14.b3 b5 15.cxb5 axb5 16.Bxb5 Qc7 17.Bd4 Bxb3!µ)
13...b5 14.cxb5 axb5 15.Bxb5 Ng4 16.f5!
(16.Bxc6 Nxe3 17.Nxe3 Qb6 18.Qd2 Rxc6©)
16...Nxe3 17.Nxe3 Qb6 18.fxe6 Qxe3+ 19.Kh1 fxe6 20.Rxf8+ Kxf8 21.Na4
Na7 22.Rxc8+ Nxc8 23.Qf3+ Qxf3 24.gxf3 It won’t surprise me if Black can
find a plan to force a draw in this endgame, but fortunately we don’t need to in
light of 12...Qa5! 24...Bd4
(24...d5!?∞)
25.Bd7 Nb6 26.Nxb6 Bxb6 27.Bxe6 Bd4 28.b4±

13.Rc1!

The most logical choice: White takes his rook off the h8-a1 diagonal on which it
was vulnerable after b2-b4, and by X-ray defends both the c3-knight and c4-
pawn.
13.a3 Nb8!

14.Nd5
(14.b4 Qd8³ White’s c4-pawn falls.)
14...Qd8 15.Bd3
(15.f5 Bd7 16.Bxa7 Nxd5 17.Qxd5 Bc6 18.Qd3 Bxb2 19.Rab1 Be5=)
15...Nbd7 16.Nd4 Bg4=;
13.g4 Nb4!
(13...Nb8!?)
14.Nxb4 Qxb4 15.a3 Qa5 16.Nd5 Nxd5 17.exd5 Bd7=

13...Qa6!

13...Nb4?! 14.Nxb4 Qxb4 15.b3²;

13...Nb8?! 14.Nd5 Qd8 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Nd4² Note that were White’s rook
not on c1 the c4-pawn would be hanging.

14.b3
14.Na3 Nxe4! 15.Nxe4 Bxb2 16.Nb5 Bxc1 17.Qxc1 Qxa2 18.Nbc3 Qa5„

14...Ng4 15.Bxg4 Bxg4

16.Qd2!

16.Qxg4 Bxc3 17.a4 White is searching for harmony, and Black must act fast to
prevent White from finding it. 17...Na5!
(17...Qa5 18.Rcd1 Bg7 19.Qe2²)
18.Rb1
18...Nxb3! 19.Rxb3 Qxc4 20.Rfb1 Qxe4 21.Qe2 Rc4 22.Na3 Rxa4 23.Rxc3
Rxa3 24.Rbc1 Rxc3 25.Rxc3 a5=

16...Bd7 17.f5 Qa5 18.Nd4 Rfe8! 19.Rcd1 a6 20.a4 Ne5

20...Be5 21.Nd5 Qxd2 22.Rxd2 Bxd4 23.Bxd4 Nxd4 24.Rxd4 Bc6 25.Nb6
Rcd8 26.Rfd1
(26.b4 e5 27.fxe6 Rxe6=)
26...a5 27.c5²

21.h3 Bc6²
This is one of the few times in the book where I’ll give White a slight advantage
in a main recommendation. The reader should be suspicious of authors who
claim pure equality in all lines in anything other than the most topical lines of
the Ruy Lopez or perhaps the Najdorf Sicilian. This is the sort of += we have to
live with as Accelerated Dragon players. White played very well to get here; he
had to navigate his way around many landmines. After all that, we can seek
consolation in the fact that objectively speaking, there are only three results in
chess, and ‘+=’ is just short-hand for ‘= after accurate play’. The onus is on
White to improve his position; Black can shift his pieces around until White
makes a concession. For example, if White goes for g4-g5, then Black may
relocate his knight to c5 via d7, and place his bishop on e5, perhaps combined
with ...Qa5-b4.
 4

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Be2
d6 9.0-0 Bd7 10.Qd2 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bc6

Here White’s main alternative to 12.f3 is 12.Bd3.

12.Bd3

A move first played by GM (and now professor of economics at Harvard) Ken

Rogoff against Bent Larsen in 1976. By abstaining from f2-f3, White intends to
meet ...Nf6-d7 with the exchange of dark squared bishops, followed by the rook
lift Ra1(f1)-e1–e3-h3, threatening Qd2-h6.
12.Rfd1 e5 13.Be3 Nxe4 14.Nxe4 Bxe4 15.Qxd6 Qh4=;
12.Qe3 e5 13.Bxa7 Nxe4!N 14.Nxe4 Bxe4 15.Rfd1 Bc6! 16.Bc5 dxc5 17.Rxd8
Rfxd8= I’d rather be Black: ...e5-e4 and ...Bg7-d4 are to follow.

12...a5

By far Black’s most popular choice.

12...a6!? This was Larsen’s choice against Rogoff. It appears to be perfectly
sound and deserves further research. 13.Rfe1
(13.b4 b5 14.cxb5 axb5 15.Qe2 Qd7 16.a4 bxa4 17.b5 Bb7 18.Nxa4 Qg4 19.f3
Qg5=)
13...Rb8 14.a4 a5 15.Nd5 Nd7 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Re3 e5 18.Rh3 h5 19.Nc3
Nc5 20.Bc2 Qe7 21.Rd1 Rbd8= 1/2–1/2 (40) Rogoff,K (2480)-Larsen,B (2625)
Biel 1976.

13.Rae1

White is anticipating Black’s ...Nf6-d7, and preemptively initiating his thematic

rook lift. Black, however, need not comply.
13.b3 Nd7 14.Bxg7 Kxg7
15.Rfe1 Once played by a 14-year old Magnus Carlsen!
(15.Rae1 Nc5 16.Re3 e5! 17.Rh3 h5 18.f4 exf4 19.Qxf4 (19.Rxf4 a4!„)
19...Qe7=)
15...Qb6! Black threatens ...Qb6-d4/...Nd7-c5. If Black manages to exchange
queens he will have the ‘better half’ of an equal endgame.
a) 15...Re8 16.Re3 Qb6 17.Rh3 Kg8 18.Qh6 Nf6 19.Be2 Kh8 20.g4‚;
b) 15...Nc5 16.Bc2 (16.Bf1 e6 17.Re3 Qf6 18.Rae1 e5 19.Nb5 Rfd8 20.Nc7
Ra7 21.a3 b6 22.Nd5 Bxd5 23.exd5 a4 24.b4 Nb3 25.Qd1 Qg5³ 1/2–1/2 (25)
Shabalov, A (2520)-Panjwani,R (2422) Dearborn 2013) 16...b6 17.a3²;
16.Bf1 This was 14-year old (but still nearly 2600–rated) Carlsen’s choice.
a) 16.Bc2 Qc5 17.Nd5 (17.Re3 a4 18.Rh3 Nf6 19.Qh6+ Kg8 20.Rd1 axb3
21.axb3 Ra5=) 17...e6 18.Qc3+ e5 19.Rad1 Rfd8 20.Rd3 Nf8! 21.Qd2 Ne6=;
b) 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.exd5 Qd4 18.Rad1 Ne5 19.Bc2 Qxd2 20.Rxd2 g5! 21.Rd4
Rab8 22.a4 Rh8! 23.f4 gxf4 24.Rxf4 Rbg8 25.Bf5 b6 26.Kf2 Kf8=;
16...a4!
 a) 16...Qc5 17.Rad1 Rfd8 18.Re3 e6 19.Qxd6 (19.Rd3 Nf6=) 19...Qxd6
20.Rxd6 Nc5 21.Rxd8 Rxd8 22.f3²;
b) 16...Ne5 17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.exd5 e6 19.Rad1 exd5 20.Qxd5² 1/2–1/2 (65)
Carlsen,M (2581)-Lie, K (2474) Drammen 2004;
17.Qb2 Ne5 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.exd5 axb3 20.axb3 f6 21.Qc3 g5= In such
positions Queens and Knights tend to cooperate better than Queens and
Bishops.;
13.Rfe1 a4 14.Nd5 Nd7 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Re3 e5 17.Rh3 h5 18.Ne3 Rh8
19.Rg3 Nc5 20.Rd1 h4 21.Rh3 Bxe4µ 0–1 (47) Kramnik-Grischuk, WCh
Candidates KAZ 2011.

13...a4!
Here all the games in the database continue with 14.Nd5 in order to prevent
Black’s ...Qd8-a5.
13...Nd7?! 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.Re3 Qb6 16.Rh3
(16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.exd5 Rfe8 18.Qc3+ Kg8 19.Rfe1²)
16...h5 17.Rxh5 gxh5 18.Qg5+ Kh8 19.Qxh5+ Kg7 20.Qg5+ Kh8 21.e5‚

14.Nd5

14.f4 Qa5 15.e5 Ng4 16.h3 dxe5 17.fxe5 Nxe5–+

14...Nd7

Now that White has ‘wasted’ a move with Nc3-d5, Black is in time to counter
White’s attack after the exchange of dark-squared bishops.
14...e6 15.Nb4!
(15.Bb6 Qd7 16.Nb4 (16.Nxf6+ Bxf6 17.Rd1 d5 18.Bb1 d4 19.Qf4 Bg7 20.e5
Bxg2! 21.Rxd4 Qc6 22.Rd6 Qf3 23.Qxf3 Bxf3 24.Re1 Rfc8„ 1/2–1/2 (85)
Tomazini,Z (2411)-Krumpacnik,D (2290) Ptuj SLO 2015) 16...Qe7 17.Bd4
Qc7 18.f4 Nd7 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.Kh1 (20.f5 Qb6+ 21.Kh1 Qd4=) 20...Qb6
 21.Qc3+ Kg8 22.f5 Ne5 23.f6 Qc5 24.Qd2 Kh8 25.Qh6 Rg8 26.Rf4?? g5–+)
15...Bd7 16.Rd1 Qe7 17.Rfe1 Rfc8 18.Bf1 e5 19.Bb6 Be6

20.b3
(¹20.Nd5 Nxd5 21.cxd5 Bd7 22.Rc1 f5 23.f3 fxe4 24.fxe4 Qh4 25.Qb4 Bh6
26.Rxc8+ Rxc8 27.Bf2 Qe7 28.Qxb7±)
20...axb3 21.axb3 Nd7 22.Be3 Nc5 23.Qxd6 Qxd6 24.Rxd6 Nxb3= 1/2–1/2
(36) Wojtaszek,R (2727)-Mamedov,R (2650) Huai’an 2016.

15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.Re3

16.Qc3+ e5 17.Ne3 Nc5 18.f3 Qa5 19.Qxa5 Rxa5 20.Rd1 Ra6 21.Bb1 Rb6
22.Rf2 Rd8 23.Rdd2 Kf8 24.Rfe2 Ke7 25.Kf1 Ra8 26.Ke1 f6 27.Kd1 Ne6
28.Kc1 Nd4³ 0–1 (64) Moreno Ibanez,M (2210)-Moreno Ruiz,J (2470) La Roda
2015.

16...e5!
Not only does this move take firm grip over the d4-square, Black also uncovers
his Queen’s defense of the important g5-square which in many variations
prevents Qd2-g5.

17.Rh3 h5 18.Ne3

18.f4 Bxd5 19.exd5 Qa5 20.Qxa5 Rxa5 21.f5 Nf6 22.fxg6 e4 23.Be2 fxg6=;
18.g4?! Bxd5 19.exd5 Nf6 20.gxh5 Nxh5 21.Rxh5 gxh5 22.Kh1 Qf6 23.f4 e4!
24.Qg2+ Kh6 25.Qxe4 Rh8µ

18...Nc5

18...Rh8!? 19.Nd1 Nc5 20.Nc3 Ne6 21.Rd1 Qb6 22.Bf1 Rad8 23.Rd3 Nd4=
1/2–1/2 (32) Espinosa Aranda, A (2399)-Vazquez Igarza,R (2597) Madrid 2015.

19.Rxh5?!
19...Nxd3! 20.Nf5+ Kf6! 21.Qxd3 gxf5 22.Rxf5+ Ke7µ

0–1 (28) Jerez Perez, A (2405)-Herraiz Hidalgo, H (2442) Barcelona 2015.

 5

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Be2
d6 9.0-0 Bd7 10.Qd2 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bc6 12.f3

12...Nd7

12...a5 It is hard to say which move order — 12...a5 or 12...Nd7 is more

accurate. In practice neither is because they will quickly transpose. 13.b3 Nd7
14.Be3 Nc5 transposes to 12...Nd7.

13.Bf2!?

This is only played about 6% of the time, 13.Be3 being by far the most popular
(80%), and 13.Bxg7 second most (13%). However, this move has at least two
clear advantages over 13.Be3:
1) As we will see, it is helpful for the bishop to be less vulnerable on f2 than it
is on e3 in the ...Qb6 lines.
2) In the ...e6/...Be5 lines, a common idea for Black is to play ...Qd8-h4, which
 is now impossible.
13.b4 Bxd4+ 14.Qxd4 Qb6 15.Qxb6 Nxb6=;
13.Bxg7 Kxg7 14.Kh1 This was GM Oliver Barbosa’s choice against me in
2016. I managed to win the game, but both our play could have been
significantly improved upon. 14...a5 15.f4 a4 16.Nd5

16...Bxd5
(16...Qa5!? This was my choice against Barbosa. 17.Qe3 (17.b4!? axb3
18.Qb2+ Nf6 19.axb3 Qd8 20.Rxa8 Qxa8=; 17.Qxa5 Rxa5 18.Nxe7 Bxe4µ)
17...Qc5 18.Qc3+ e5?! (18...Nf6! 19.Nxf6 exf6 20.Bf3 b5=) 19.Rad1 Rae8
20.f5 (20.Bg4 Nb6 21.Nxb6 Qxb6 22.Rxd6 Qc5 23.Rfd1 Bxe4=; 20.fxe5!
Nxe5 21.b4 axb3 22.axb3±) 20...Bxd5 21.Rxd5 Qc7 22.Qd2 Nf6 23.Rxd6
 23...Rd8! (23...Nxe4 24.f6+ Kh8 25.Qh6 Rg8 26.Rd3 g5 27.Qxh7+ Kxh7
28.Rh3+ Kg6 29.Bh5+ Kh7 30.Bxf7#) 24.c5 Rxd6 (24...Nxe4 25.f6+ Kh8
26.Qh6 Rg8 27.Rf3 g5 28.Qxh7+ Kxh7 29.Rh3+ Kg6 30.Bh5+ Kf5 31.Rf3#)
25.cxd6 Qc6 26.fxg6 hxg6 27.Bf3 Rd8 28.Rd1 Nxe4 29.Qa5 Qc5!³ Barbosa-
Panjwani, NY Int 2016 0–1)
17.exd5 Qa5 18.Qd4+ Kg8 19.Rf3 Qc5 20.Qd3
20...f5! 21.Re3 Nf6 22.Bf3 Rfe8 23.Rae1 b5! 24.cxb5 Rab8=

13...a5 14.b3 Nc5 15.Rab1 e6

15...Qb6 16.a3 Qd8 This has been played a few times by Tiviakov and Larsen.
Black is sitting back and waiting for White to ‘do something’ like b3-b4 in
which case Black at present has adequate counterplay. That being said, if White
calmly continues developing then eventually he will achieve a favorable b3-b4,
and by ‘wasting’ time with ...Qd8-b6-d8 Black’s counterplay has been stalled.
(16...Nxb3?? 17.Qd1!+– Note that if White’s bishop were on e3, this would not
be possible.) 17.Bd1!?
(17.b4?! axb4 18.axb4 Ra3„)
17...b6 18.Bc2 Qb8 19.Rfc1 Rc8 20.b4²

16.Rfd1

16.Nb5 This is premature; White should first lure Black’s bishop to e5 (with
16.Rfd1) so that he can later gain a tempo with f3-f4. Now Black can do without
...Bg7-e5 because he is in time to connect his rooks. 16...Bxb5 17.cxb5 Qe7
18.b6
(18.Rfd1 Rfd8 19.b6 d5=)
18...Rfc8!
 (18...Rfd8 19.Rfc1! Preventing Black’s freeing ...d6-d5.)
19.Rfd1 d5! A long forcing variation results in equality. 20.exd5 exd5 21.Qxd5
Qxe2 22.Bxc5 Bf8! 23.Bxf8 Rc2 24.f4 Rd8!! 25.Qf3 Qxf3 26.gxf3 Rxd1+
27.Rxd1 Kxf8 28.Rd7 Rxa2 29.Rxb7 Rb2 30.Ra7 Rxb3 31.Rxa5 Rxb6=

16...Be5 17.Nb5
Compare this with the analogous line after 13.Be3. There, 17.Nb5 is just a
blunder because of 17...Qh4!

17...Bxb5 18.cxb5 Qe7!?

18...b6!? This was my choice when I faced this position over the board. Precise
move orders are not so important here; Black will eventually play both ...b6 and
...Qe7, then look for opportunities to break with ...d6-d5. 19.Rbc1 Qe7
20.Rc4?!
(20.Qe3 Rad8 21.f4 Bg7 22.g4 Bh6! 23.g5 Bg7 24.Bg4 f6!³)
20...d5! 21.exd5 exd5 22.Bh4 Qc7 23.Qxd5 Bxh2+ 24.Kh1 Rae8 25.Bf1 Re6
26.Qg5 Re5 27.Qf6?? Rh5 28.Rg4
(28.g4 Be5 29.gxh5 Bxf6 30.Bxf6 Qg3 31.Bg2 Ne6 32.Rg4 Qf2–+)
28...Be5 29.Qc6 Qxc6 30.bxc6 f5 31.Rc4 g5–+ 0–1 (37) Findlay,I-Panjwani,R
Calgary 2016.

19.Qe3 b6 20.f4 Bg7

20...Bf6!? is also possible.

21.Rd2
We have been following Macieja-Zaninotto, 2016. Here I recommend an
improvement which turns out to be a fairly thematic way of handling such
positions.

21...Bh6!

Since White does not possess a knight to plant on d5, Black is able to go for the
...e6-e5 push, which also unleashes pressure on the weak e4-pawn.
21...Rfd8 22.Rbd1
(22.g4!? This would have been a better try for Macieja. 22...e5 23.f5 Bf6
24.Qf3²)
22...Rac8 23.a3 Bh6! 24.Bg4 Rc7 Zaninotto should have maintained some
pressure on the c-file.
(24...Rb8? 25.b4 axb4 26.axb4 Nxe4 27.Qxe4 f5 28.Qf3 (28.Qe1 fxg4 29.Bh4
g5 30.fxg5 Bxg5 31.Bxg5 Qxg5 32.Qxe6+±) 28...fxg4 29.Qxg4± Macieja-
Zaninotto, Najdorf Memorial 2016)
25.Qf3
(25.b4 axb4 26.axb4 Na4³)
25...e5! 26.b4 axb4 27.axb4 Na4 28.Qb3 Nc3 29.Bxb6 Nxd1 30.Rxd1 exf4
31.Bxc7 Qxc7 32.Qd5 Rb8 33.Be2 f3! 34.gxf3 Bf4=

22.Rbd1 Rad8 23.e5

23.Bf3 e5 24.g3 Rfe8„

23...dxe5

23...d5 24.Rc2 Rc8

(24...f6 25.Bh4 g5 26.exf6 Rxf6 27.Bxg5 Bxg5 28.fxg5 Rf5 29.h4²)
25.Rdc1 f6 26.Bh4 Bg7 27.a3²

24.Qxe5 Bg7 25.Qe3 Rxd2 26.Rxd2 Rd8=

 6

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Be2
d6 9.0-0 Bd7 10.Qd2 Nxd4 11.Bxd4 Bc6 12.f3 Nd7 13.Be3 a5

Most people automatically play 14.b3 here, but it isn’t technically necessary to
do so immediately. If White wants to expand on the queenside, though, b2-b3 is
inevitable, as a direct a2-a3 will invariably be met by ...a5-a4!

14.b3

14.Rab1 Nc5
 (14...a4 15.b4 axb3 16.axb3²)
15.Kh1 GM Fedorowicz played this against me and then offered a draw the next
move.
(15.Rfd1 Be5 16.Bg5 (16.Bd4 Ne6=) 16...Ne6 17.Bh6 Re8 18.b3 Nc5 19.Qe3
e6 20.Nb5 Bxb5 21.cxb5 b6 22.f4 Bg7 23.Bxg7 Kxg7 24.Rb2

24...d5! White’s weak dark squares justify the following pawn sacrifice to open
 files and diagonals. 25.exd5 exd5 26.Qd4+ Kg8 27.Qxd5 Qe7 28.Qf3 Rad8©)
15...a4 16.Rfc1 1/2–1/2 Fedorowicz-Panjwani 2015
(16.Bg5 Ne6 17.Be3 Nc5=; 16.Nd5 e6 17.Nb4 Qe7„)
16...Be5 This is likely how I would have played on if I had declined Fed’s draw
offer.
(16...f5!? It’s nice to always have this option in a must-win type situation, but
in general I think Black should hold off on ...f7-f5 until he at least connects his
rooks, or until White does something to disrupt the harmony in his position
(like Nc3-b5).
17.exf5 Rxf5 18.Nd5
(18.b4 axb3 19.axb3 Ra3 20.Bd1 Qf8!

The ‘degenerate’ plan of ...Rf5-h5 and ...Qf8-f6-h4 is actually Black’s best

here. 21.Nb5 Ra8 22.b4 Ne4!∞)
18...Qf8∞ This is probably ‘objectively’ += (whatever that means) but the
position is such a mess that in a practical game both sides have equal chances.)
17.b4 axb3 18.axb3 Ra3 19.Bd1 e6
20.Bg5
(20.b4? Qh4 21.Bg1 Qf6 22.bxc5 Bxc3 23.Qe2 d5!³)
20...f6
(20...Qd7!? 21.b4 Na4 22.Bxa4 (22.Ne2 b5!„) 22...Bxa4 23.b5 Qc7! 24.f4
Bg7 25.f5 Be5 26.Ne2 The computer calls this equal but I find it a little
awkward to function with my bishop stranded on a4 so I prefer 20...f6 instead.)
21.Bh4 g5 22.Bg3 Bxg3 23.hxg3 e5
I like the look of Black’s dark-squared Stonewall formation (shift Black’s
g,f,e,d-pawns to the right one square). 24.b4 Ne6=

14...Nc5

The first stage of Black’s plan is complete. Far and away the most common
(nearly 80% of the time) way to continue for Black is with the spectacular, if
unbelievable ...Qb6, ...Rfc8, ...h5, ...Qd8, ...Kh7, and ...Qh8 with pressure on the
long diagonal. This is the line I mentioned early in the book, which Mamedov
suggested was equal. Playing this plan on autopilot has its appeal, but because of
its extravagance most White players are aware of it nowadays, and will not be
caught off guard. The line I recommend in lieu of this is, in contrast, quite rare
(it is played only about 8% of the time, but it has been growing in popularity)
and in my judgment equally sound, but with far greater surprise value. The idea
is to fight for the center with ...e7-e6 and ...Bg7-e5, ideally followed by ...f7-f5.
Black’s bishop is rather safe on e5, because White can scarcely achieve f3-f4
without losing the e4-pawn. White tends to focus his attention in one (or more)
of three directions: either he will directly target the weakness on d6 that Black
creates after ...e7-e6, or he will try to achieve f3-f4 which indirectly targets d6
by hitting its defender (the bishop to be on e5), or as always White can ‘ignore’
Black’s central gestures and continue with the usual a3/b4 queenside expansion.

15.Rab1

This is by far the most popular move, played nearly 90% of the time. 15.Rfc1
Be5
(15...e6!? Move order is not important here; ...e6/...Be5 are interchangeable.)
16.Rab1 e6 17.Qe1 Qf6 18.Qd2
(18.g3 Bd4 (18...g5!?) 19.Qd2 Bxe3+ 20.Qxe3 e5 21.Nd5 Qd8 22.f4 exf4
23.Qxf4 Bxd5 24.exd5 f5³)
18...Qh4! 19.g3
19...Bxg3
(19...Qe7 GM Maze probably wanted to avoid a draw (with 19...Bxg3) so
chose to play on this way. 20.Nd1 b6 21.Nf2 Rad8 22.Nd3 Bg7 (22...f5
23.exf5 Rxf5 24.Rf1 Bg7=) 23.Rc2 f5 24.exf5 Rxf5 25.Rf1 Rdf8 26.Ne1 h5
27.Bh6 e5 28.Bxg7 Kxg7 29.Qc3 Ne6µ 0–1 (68) Makka,I-Maze,S Aix-les-
Bains FRA 2011)
20.hxg3 Qxg3+ 21.Kh1
(21.Kf1 f5 22.Bxc5 dxc5 23.Qe3 fxe4 24.Nxe4 Bxe4 25.Qxe4 Rf5! 26.Qxe6+
Kh8 27.Qe3 Raf8–+)
21...f5
22.Bxc5!
(22.Qe1 Qh3+ 23.Kg1 fxe4 24.Bxc5 exf3–+)
22...dxc5 23.Rf1™ Black can give a perpetual whenever he wants, it’s just a
matter of how many accurate moves he wants to make White find before he
gives the draw.
(23.Qe1? Qe5µ)
23...g5 24.Qe1™ 24...Qh3+ 25.Kg1 Rf6
(25...g4 26.Rf2 g3 27.Rg2 f4∞)
26.Rf2 Rh6 27.Rg2 Qh1+ 28.Kf2 Qh4+ 29.Kf1 Qh1+ 30.Kf2=;
15.Rac1
The second most popular move. GM Lenderman played this against me in 2013.
My game against him will be our main line in what follows.
15...e6
(15...b6 An interesting recommendation of Khalifman’s which is a perfectly
viable alternative to 15...e6. Black intends the crafty maneuver ...Ra8-a7-d7. I
played this against GM Kovalyov in 2013; I was unsuccessful in that game but
it was not due to the opening. 16.Rfd1
(16.Bd1 Not the last time we will see this idea. 16...Qb8!?
a) 16...e5?! 17.Bc2 Ra7 (17...Ne6 18.Rfd1 Nd4 19.Bxd4 exd4 20.Ne2 Qh4
21.g3 Qh5 22.Nxd4±) 18.Rfd1 Rd7 19.a3 Ne6 20.b4 f5 21.Nd5 Nd4
22.Bg5±;
b) 16...e6 This deserves further research. 17.a3 a4 18.b4 Nb3 19.Bxb3 axb3
20.Qb2 d5∞ (20...Ba4 21.Rfd1 Qc7 22.Bd4 Bh6 23.Nxa4 Bxc1 24.Qxc1
Rxa4?? 25.Bf6™+–);
17.a3
17...a4! (17...b5 18.b4 axb4 19.axb4 Ne6 20.Nxb5 Bxb5 21.cxb5 Ra3 22.Re1
Qxb5 23.Be2 Qb7 24.Kh1 Be5 25.Rc2 Rxe3 26.Qxe3 Qxb4²) 18.b4 (18.bxa4
Bxa4 19.Bxa4 Bxc3 20.Qxc3 Nxa4 21.Qd4 Nc5 22.Bh6 Ne6 23.Qc3 Re8
24.f4 f6 25.f5 Nc5 26.fxg6 hxg6 27.Rxf6 exf6 28.Qxf6 Ra7 29.Qxg6+ Kh8=)
18...Nb3 19.Bxb3 axb3 20.b5 Bb7 21.Qb2

21...d5!! 22.exd5 Qd6 23.Qxb3 Rxa3 24.Qb2 Rxc3 25.Rxc3 Rc8=)

16...Ra7

17.Bf1 (17.Nb5 Rd7 18.Nd4 Bb7 19.Rb1 e5 20.Nb5 f5„; 17.Nd5 Rd7 18.Bg5
f6 19.Be3 e6 20.Nc3 f5 21.exf5 Rxf5 22.f4 Qh4 23.g3 Qh3 24.Bf1 Qh5
25.Be2=) 17...Rd7 The following is my game against Kovalyov. 18.Qc2 e5
(18...e6 19.a3 a4 20.b4 Nb3 21.b5 Bb7 22.Nxa4±) 19.a3 Ne6!

This would have led to a very interesting game. (19...f5?! 20.Nd5 fxe4 21.fxe4
 Qh4 22.g3! Qxe4 23.Qxe4 Nxe4 24.Bg2 Bxd5 25.Rxd5 Nc5 26.Rcd1 Nxb3
27.Rxd6 Rxd6 28.Rxd6± 1–0 (43) Kovalyov-Panjwani Michigan 2013) 20.b4
(20.Nb5 f5 21.exf5 gxf5 22.Bd3 e4 23.fxe4 f4 24.Bf2 f3©) 20...Nd4 21.Bxd4
(21.Qf2 f5∞) 21...exd4 22.Ne2 axb4 23.axb4 Qg5 24.Kh1 f5©)
16.Rfd1
a) 16.Nb5!? Be5 17.Bg5 Qb6

18.Qe3 (18.Kh1 Rfe8 19.Nxd6?? Red8–+) 18...Bxb5! We have come across

the resulting structure in the 13.Bf2 line. 19.cxb5 Rac8 20.f4 (20.Rfd1 Rfe8
21.Qf2 Qc7 22.Be3 b6 23.f4 Bg7 24.Bf3 Qe7= Black is ready to continue with
...d6-d5.) 20...Bg7 21.e5 Rfe8 22.exd6 Qxd6 23.Rfd1 Qf8!
Black’s idea is to open up the center with ...e6-e5 and take advantage of
White’s weak dark squares and loose pieces. 24.Bc4 (24.b6 e5„; 24.Bg4 h5
25.Bh3 f5! 26.g3 e5!„) 24...b6 25.Bh4 (25.Rc2 Kh8! 26.a3 f5 (26...e5=)
27.Bh4 e5 28.Bf2 Ne4=) 25...Kh8! Sidestepping the light diagonal in order to
play ...f7-f5 before ...e6-e5. (25...e5? 26.Rf1!±) 26.Rc2 f5! 27.Rcd2 e5 28.fxe5
(28.Bf2 exf4 29.Qxf4 Be5 30.Qh4 Bf6 31.Qh3 Rb8=) 28...Rxe5 29.Qf4 Re4
30.Qg3 a4 31.Rd8 Re8 32.Rxe8 Qxe8=;
b) 16.Bd4 Be5 17.Rfd1 Qe7 18.f4 Bxf4 19.Qxf4 e5 20.Qg3 exd4 21.Rxd4
Nxe4 22.Nxe4 Bxe4 23.Rxd6?
 (23.Qxd6?? Qg5–+) 23...Bf3!!–+ Gorgeous.;
16...Be5

White must already take precautions against Black’s immediate threat of ...Qd8-
h4.
17.Bg5 This was Lenderman’s choice against me. I played correctly for the next
6 moves, then stumbled — fortunately he didn’t punish my error.
a) 17.Nb5? Qh4 18.g3 (18.h3 Qg3 19.Nxd6 b6 20.Nb5 f5–+) 18...Bxg3
19.hxg3 Qxg3+

Remember the ensuing ideas, they come up in various permutations of this type
of position. 20.Kf1 (20.Kh1 Nxe4! 21.Qe1 Qh3+ 22.Kg1 Ng3 23.Bb6 Nxe2+
24.Qxe2 Bxf3–+) 20...Nxe4! 21.Qd3 (21.fxe4 f5!–+) 21...f5!–+ White can’t
untangle, so Black can take his time with ideas like ...g6-g5-g4.;
b) 17.Bd4 Qe7 18.f4 Bxf4 19.Qxf4 e5 20.Qe3 exd4 21.Qxd4 Nxe4 22.Nxe4
Bxe4 23.Qxd6 Qg5 24.Qg3 Qxg3 25.hxg3 Rfd8=;
c) 17.g3 Qe7 18.Bg5 (18.Nb5 Rfd8 19.Bg5 Bf6 20.Bxf6 Qxf6 21.Nxd6 e5
22.Qe3 Nxb3 23.axb3 Rxd6=) 18...f6 19.Be3 Rad8 (19...b6? 20.f4 Bxc3
21.Qxd6!±) 20.Nb5 f5
21.exf5 exf5!„ I admit it is always hard to decide what to recapture with on f5.
It needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Here, Black’s a5-pawn is
hanging unless Black opens up the e-file to tie down White’s queen to the
defense of the e3-bishop. (21...gxf5 22.Bg5 Bf6 23.Bh6 Rf7 24.Qxa5±);
d) 17.Rc2 Witness how even a top grandmaster can fall victim to Black’s
sudden counterplay. 17...Qe7 18.Nb5?
 18...Qh4! 19.g3 Bxg3 20.hxg3 Qxg3+ 21.Kf1 Nxe4 22.Qd3 f5 23.Nd4 f4
24.Nxc6 fxe3 25.Qxe3 Rf4 26.Nd4 Rh4 27.Qg1 Rh1 0–1 Lupulescu-Iturrizaga,
Baku Olympiad 2016;
17...Qb6 18.Qe3
(18.Kh1 a4 19.Be7 axb3 20.Bxf8 Kxf8 21.axb3 Nxb3 22.Qb2 Qb4 23.Rc2
Bg7 24.Rb1 Ra3–+)
18...a4! 19.Nb5
(19.b4 Qxb4 20.Be7 a3 21.Bxf8 Rxf8©; 19.f4 Bxc3! 20.Rxc3 axb3 21.axb3
Qa7 22.e5 Ne4 23.Qxa7 Rxa7 24.Re3 Nxg5 25.fxg5 d5=)
19...axb3 20.axb3 Ra2 21.Bf1 Rb2! 22.Rb1 Rxb1 23.Rxb1

23...Ra8?!
(¹23...Bxb5 24.cxb5 Ra8 25.f4 Ra1 26.Rxa1 Bxa1 27.b4 Na4³)
24.f4 Ra1 25.Rxa1 Bxa1 26.Nxd6?
(26.b4! Bxb5 (26...Na4 27.Qxb6 Nxb6 28.Nxd6+–) 27.bxc5 dxc5 28.Qb3!±)
26...Qxb3 27.Qxb3 Bd4+ 28.Kh1 Nxb3³ 1/2–1/2 Lenderman-Panjwani,
Arlington 2013;
15.Rfd1
White can only temporarily delay ...e7-e6 with this move, as after 15...Be5
White has no appealing way of preventing it. 15...Be5 16.Bg5?!
(16.Bd4 Ne6=; 16.Rab1 transposes to the main line 15.Rab1.)
16...Qb6 17.Kh1 f6 18.Be3
(18.Bh6 Rfb8! 19.Be3 a4 20.Rab1 axb3 21.axb3 Qb4 22.Nd5 Qxd2 23.Rxd2
Bxd5 24.cxd5 Ra3³)
18...a4 19.Rab1 axb3 20.axb3 Qb4!
Typical for this line. Black sets up a dark-square blockade, to be followed by
...Ra8-a3 if unhindered. 21.Nd5 Qxd2 22.Bxd2
(22.Rxd2 Bxd5 23.cxd5 Ra3 24.Bc4 Rb8=)
22...Bxd5 23.cxd5 Ra3 24.Bc4 b5 25.Bxb5 Rxb3 26.Rxb3 Nxb3 27.Be3 Rb8
28.Be2 Nc5=

15...e6
16.Rfd1

16.Rfc1 Be5 17.Bf1

(17.g3 h5 18.Nb5 h4 19.g4 f5„)
17...f5
(17...Qe7!? 18.Rc2 f5 19.exf5 gxf5 20.Re1 b6 21.Ne2 Qh4 22.Bf4 Rad8
23.Rcc1 Rd7 24.Bg3 Qf6 25.Rcd1 f4 26.Bf2 Qg6 27.Kh1 Rg7 28.Nc3 Qh5„
0–1 Perera, P-Cuenca Jimenez,J Seville ESP 2004)
18.exf5
It is a perpetual dilemma for this line — what to recapture on f5 with? I have yet
to come up with a general algorithm; the concrete features of the position usually
suggest one over the others, but here there are two viable continuations.
18...Rxf5 Black has two bishops and a rook pointed at White’s king, and his
queen is ready to join the action with ...Qd8-h4.
a) 18...gxf5!? 19.Ne2 (19.f4 Bxc3 20.Qxc3 Ne4 21.Qd4 Rf6 22.a3 Rg6„)
19...Qh4 (19...Rf7 20.Nd4 Rg7 21.Nxc6 bxc6 22.g3± 1/2–1/2 (49) Bauer,C-
Schmitt,A Clichy FRA 2004) 20.Nf4 Qh6„;
b) 18...exf5? 19.Nd5±;
19.f4
a) 19.a3?? Qh4 20.g3 Bxg3 21.hxg3 Qxg3+ 22.Bg2 (22.Qg2 Qe5–+) 22...Rxf3
23.Bxc5 dxc5–+ ...Ra8-f8 to follow.;
b) 19.Nb5 Qh4 20.g3 Bxg3 21.hxg3 Qxg3+ 22.Bg2 Bxf3 (22...Rxf3 23.Bxc5
dxc5 24.Rf1 Rf5 25.Rxf5 exf5 26.Qf2 Qg4©) 23.Nxd6 Bxg2 24.Nxf5 exf5
25.Bf4 Qg4 26.Qxg2 Qxf4 27.Qd5+ Kg7 28.Qxc5 Qg3+ 29.Kf1 Qh3+
30.Kf2 Qh2+ 31.Kf1 Qh3+ 32.Kg1=;
19...Bg7
A point made by GM Rowson in his book Chess for Zebras: a pawn on f4
weakens the king in a way which should not be underestimated. It is such a
common move in so many openings that we take it for granted, but it weakens
squares around White’s king and here Black is ready to shine light on those
weaknesses with ...e6-e5. 20.g3
(20.Be2 e5! 21.Rf1 exf4 22.Rxf4 Rxf4 23.Bxf4 Qf6 24.Nd5 Qd4+ 25.Be3
Qxd2 26.Bxd2 Bxd5 27.cxd5 Ne4 28.Be1 Bd4+ 29.Kh1 Rc8³)
20...e5! 21.Bh3
(21.fxe5 Qe8!„)
21...exf4 22.Bxf4
22...Rxf4! 23.gxf4
(23.Qxf4? Qb6–+)
23...Qb6©;
16.Bd1

I first came across this move when Cuban GM Abreu seemed to come up with it
over the board against me after a long think in the game I mentioned in the
introduction of this book. However, he was not the first to play it; that honor
goes to the late Bulgarian GM Georgi Tringov who played it in 1986.16.Bd1 is a
perfectly logical move: the bishop will relocate to c2, from where it
simultaneously bolsters the critical e4, b3, and a4 squares. White already
threatens 17.a3 since the knight cannot hop into b3 after 17...a4 18.b4. In the last
few years, 16.Bd1 has been played more times than it has in all previous years
combined. I think the most common move, 16...Be5, does not equalize for
Black, but 16...Qc7 does. It makes sense too — Black targets the c4-square
which has been abandoned by the relocation of the e2-bishop. I thank IM Dave
Ross for suggesting this move to me. 16...Qc7! This move is a good illustration
of the aforementioned ‘reactive’ nature of Black’s play in this line. White
relocates his bishop to c2, so Black targets the c4-pawn with his queen, and in
some lines with his knight by relocating to e5 via d7.
a) 16...f5?! 17.exf5 gxf5 (17...Rxf5 18.Ne2± 1–0 (43) Tringov, G-Haik,A
Vrnjacka Banja 1986) 18.Bc2 f4 19.Bf2 Qg5 20.Kh1 Be5 21.Rfe1 Qg7 22.Ne2
b6 23.Nd4 Bb7 24.a3 Rf6 25.b4 Nd7 26.Nb5 Kh8 27.Bg1 axb4 28.axb4 Rg8
29.Re2 d5 30.Rbe1 (¹30.cxd5 Bxd5 31.Bb3 Bxb3 32.Rxb3±) 30...dxc4 31.Nd4
Rh6 32.Rxe5?? Nxe5 33.Rxe5 Qxe5 34.Nf5 Rf6?? (34...Bxf3!–+) 35.Nd6
(¹35.Bd4 Rd8 36.Bxe5 Rxd2 37.Bxf6+ Kg8 38.Nd4=) 35...Qd5 36.Qc3 e5
37.Nxb7 Qxb7 38.Qxe5 Qg7 39.g4 fxg3 40.Bd4 g2+ 41.Kg1 Rxf3 0–1 Abreu
Delgado-Panjwani, US Masters 2013;
b) 16...Be5 17.a3! Qc7 (17...f5 18.exf5 Qf6 19.Ne2 exf5 20.g3!²) 18.b4 axb4
19.axb4 Na4 20.Nxa4 Bxa4 21.Be2 Rfd8 22.f4 Bg7 23.b5 d5 24.cxd5 Qc2
25.Rfc1 Qxd2 26.Bxd2 Bd4+ 27.Kf1 exd5 28.e5²;
17.Bc2
(17.a3 Rfd8 18.b4 axb4 19.axb4 Na4 20.Nxa4 (20.Bxa4 Bxa4 21.b5 Qxc4
22.Rfc1 Rdc8 23.Nd5 exd5 24.Rxc4 dxc4„) 20...Bxa4 21.Be2
 21...d5! 22.exd5 exd5 23.cxd5 Qe5=)
17...Rfd8

An important branching point. White’s a2-a3 is imminent; other plans do not

make sense of White’s bishop maneuver. It is just a question of how White
chooses to position himself before playing it. 18.Rfd1
a) 18.Rfc1 Nd7! White’s last move (by X-ray) defended the c4-pawn, so Black
calls the knight for reinforcement. 19.a3 Ne5 20.Nb5 Qe7 21.Bb6 Rd7 22.f4
(22.Qe2 Bh6 23.Rd1 d5 24.Bd4 dxc4 25.bxc4 Bg7³) 22...Bxb5 23.cxb5 Ng4
24.Bd1 Nf6 25.Bf3

25...Bh6! 26.g3 e5„;

b) 18.a3 a4! 19.Nxa4 (19.b4 Nb3 20.Bxb3 axb3 21.Rxb3 Be8!=) 19...Bxa4
20.bxa4 Rdc8=;
c) 18.Bg5 Rdc8 19.Rfd1 Na6! 20.a3
 20...b5!! 21.cxb5 Be8 22.bxa6 Rxa6 23.Bd3 Bxc3 24.Qf2 Raa8=;
18...Be5 19.a3
(19.g3 f5 20.exf5 gxf5 21.Nb5 Qg7„)
19...a4!

A major idea of 17...Qc7 is to be able to meet a2-a3 with this move, softening
the c4-pawn further. 20.b4
a) 20.bxa4 Rdc8 21.Rb4 Na6 22.Nb5 Bxb5 23.Rxb5 Qxc4 24.Bb3 Qc6=;
b) 20.Nxa4 Bxa4 21.bxa4 Rdc8 22.f4 Bf6 23.Qb4 (23.Qxd6 Nxa4 24.Qxc7
Rxc7=) 23...Qc6 24.Bxc5 Qxc5+ 25.Qxc5 Rxc5 26.Bb3 Rc6 27.Rd3 Bd8=;
20...Nb3! It will be evident from this variation why the queen is so valuable on
c7 in this line. 21.Bxb3
(21.Qd3 d5„)
21...axb3 22.Rxb3 Be8! 23.Qe2 Rdc8 24.f4 Bf6 25.Nb5 Qxc4 26.Qxc4 Rxc4
27.Nxd6 Ba4! 28.Nxc4 Bxb3 29.Rc1 Bxc4 30.Rxc4 Rxa3 31.Rc8+ Kg7 32.Bc5
Bc3=;
16.Nb5

We saw the following idea in my game against Lenderman after 15.Rac1.

16...Be5 17.Bg5 Qb6 18.Qe3 White threatens f3-f4 and d6 will fall, so Black
must act quick.
(18.Kh1 Rfe8 19.Rbd1 (19.Nxd6?? Rad8 20.Bxd8 Rxd8–+) 19...d5! 20.Qe3
(20.Be3 Red8=) 20...Bxb5 21.cxb5 Bg7 22.e5 Nd7 23.Qxb6 Nxb6=)
18...Bxb5! 19.cxb5 Rac8
20.Kh1
a) 20.f4 Bg7 21.Rfd1 Rfe8 22.Rbc1 d5 23.e5 Bf8 24.Rc3 (24.Bh4 Nd7=)
24...Nd7 25.Qxb6 Nxb6 26.Rdc1 Be7 27.Bh6 Bf8 28.Rxc8 Rxc8 29.Rxc8
Nxc8 30.Bxf8 Kxf8=;
b) 20.Rfd1 Rfe8 21.Qf2 Qa7 22.Bc4 (22.a3 b6 23.Be3 Qb7 24.Bd4 Bxd4
25.Qxd4 d5!³) 22...b6 23.g3 (23.Rbc1 Qb8= White has no constructive plan,
whereas Black has long term ideas of ...f7-f5 or even ...d6-d5 after ...Rc8-c7-
d7/...Qb8-b7.) 23...f5 24.exf5 d5 25.Be2 gxf5 26.Qe3 Qg7„;
20...Rfe8
21.Qd2 White targets Black’s weak d6-pawn, but does not demonstrate any
constructive plan. Black has time to regroup and prepare for ...d6-d5 or ...f7-f5.
The following is just one illustration of how Black can successfully regroup.
a) 21.f4 Bg7 22.Rbc1 (22.a3 d5 23.e5 Na4!³) 22...d5 23.e5 Nd7 24.Qxb6
Nxb6 25.Bh4 Bh6³;
b) 21.Rfd1 d5„;
21...Qa7! 22.Rfd1 b6 23.Rbc1 Qb8 24.Bc4 Rc7 25.Qe2 Rd7 26.Rd2
26...f5! 27.a3
(27.exf5 gxf5 28.Be3 d5 29.Bxc5 bxc5 30.b6 Rde7 31.Bb5 Rd8 32.Rxc5 Bxh2
33.Rdc2 Bg3=)
27...a4 28.exf5
(28.b4 Nb3 29.Bxb3 axb3µ)
28...gxf5 29.bxa4 d5 30.Ba2 Bxh2 31.a5 Bd6 32.axb6 Rg7„;
16.Bg5?? Bxc3–+

16...Be5
The database reveals that it was Danish IM Jan Sorensen who introduced the
idea of ...e6/...Be5 into tournament practice. In 1990 and 1991 he scored 1.5/2
against then IMs (now GMs) J. Kristiansen and A. Fishbein. It has since been
championed most notably by Azerbaijani GM Gadir Guseinov, and has also been
implemented by Grandmasters Iturrizaga, Bauer, Leon Hoyos, Cebalo, Lie,
Perelshteyn, and many others.

17.Qe1

17.Bf2 The fact that this retreat is played so often indicates to me that the bishop
should go directly to f2 from d4 earlier on. 17...Qe7 18.Rbc1 f5
19.exf5 Rxf5!
(19...gxf5 20.Nb5 (20.Bd4 Bxd4+ 21.Qxd4 Rad8 22.Rd2 e5 23.Qf2 Ne6
24.Re1 Kh8 25.Bf1 Qg7„ 0–1 (39) Jakovljevic,V-Leon Hoyos,M Cento 2011)
20...Rfd8 21.Nd4²)
20.Nb5
(20.Bd4 Bxd4+ 21.Qxd4 Rd8= Black has ideas of ...e6-e5 and ...Nc5-e6-d4.
Black’s weakened d5-square is less of an issue than White’s weakened d4-
square because Black has a light-squared bishop to guard his weak square.)
20...Bxb5 21.cxb5 Raf8! 22.Qxa5
22...Ne4! 23.Qe1
(23.Be3?? Bxh2+ 24.Kxh2 Qh4+ 25.Kg1 Rh5–+)
23...Qg5 Black has enormous pressure. The following is just an illustration of
how things could continue. 24.Kh1 d5 25.g3 Rxf3 26.Bxf3 Rxf3 27.Rc8+ Kg7
28.Bd4 Bxd4 29.Rxd4 Qf6 30.Rc7+ Kh6 31.Rd1 Rf2 32.Qe3+ g5 33.Kg1 Qf5
34.Rxb7 Qh3 35.Qxf2 Nxf2 36.Kxf2 Qxh2+ 37.Kf1 d4! 38.Rd7 e5–+;
17.Bd4
Black has (at least) two adequate responses to this move. I prefer 17...Qe7 but
the alternative is more direct and simplifying. 17...Qe7
(17...Bxd4+ 18.Qxd4 Qb6!? Black twists and turns in order to achieve ...e6-e5
and ...Nc5-e6. 19.a3 e5 20.Qe3 Qd8 21.b4 axb4 22.axb4 Ne6 23.b5 Be8
24.Nd5 Kg7 25.f4 (25.Qb6 Qxb6+ 26.Nxb6 Rd8 27.Ra1 f6 28.Ra7 Nc5
29.Na4 Nxa4 30.Rxa4 Rf7 31.Ra2 (31.c5 Rfd7=) 31...Kf8 32.Rad2 Rfd7=)
25...f6 26.fxe5 fxe5 27.Bg4 Nc5= 0–1 (41) Porat,M-Bejtovic,J Prague 2011).
18.Bf1
(18.f4 Bxf4 19.Qxf4 e5 20.Qg3 exd4 21.Rxd4 Nxe4 22.Nxe4 Bxe4 23.Re1 f5
24.Bf3 Qe5=)
18...Rad8 19.Qe3 Bxd4 20.Rxd4 e5 21.Rd2 f5
(21...Ne6=)
22.exf5 gxf5 23.f4
23...Ne6! 24.fxe5 f4 25.Qe1 dxe5 26.Rxd8 Qc5+ 27.Qf2 Rxd8³ Bok, B-Lie,K
Wijk aan Zee NED 2010;
17.g3 A recommendation of Khalifman’s in his (eternally informative) repertoire
series for White. 17...Qe7 18.Nb5 Rfd8

19.Nd4
(19.Bg5 f6 20.Be3 g5 21.Nd4 Be8„ Black has ideas of ...h7-h5, ...g5-g4,
 ...Be8-g6. White is solid but already on the defensive.)
19...d5! 20.cxd5 exd5 21.Qc1 Ne6 22.Nxc6 bxc6 23.Qxc6 d4 24.Bf2 Rac8

25.Qa6
(25.Qa4 Ng5! 26.f4?? Nxe4 27.fxe5 Nc3–+)
25...Rc2 26.Bf1 Qg5!
(26...Rxa2 27.Ra1 Rxa1 28.Rxa1 d3 29.Rd1 Qb4 30.Rxd3 Rxd3 31.Qxd3 Bd4=
1/2–1/2 (46) Nyback-Sorensen 2008)
27.a4?
(27.Qxa5?? Rxf2–+; ¹27.Bd3 Rxa2 28.Ra1 Rb2 29.Rxa5 Nf4„ Computers
give a way for White to escape with a draw but it would be terrifying to defend
this over the board.)
27...h5 28.h4 Qf6 29.Rd3 g5–+;
17.Bf1? The Accelerated Dragon is full of landmines. Grandmasters Chuchelov,
Erenburg, Zubarev, and Beim have misstepped onto the following. 17...Qh4!
18.h3
(18.g3 Qf6µ The f3-pawn falls.)
18...Qg3 19.Bd3 f5 20.exf5 Nxd3 21.Qxd3 Bxf3–+ Shvayger,Y-Socko,M, Baku
2016;
17.Nb5?
Victims of the following include IM Danny Rensch and GM Peter Heine
Nielsen! 17...Qh4! 18.g3 Bxg3 19.hxg3 Qxg3+ 20.Kf1 Nxe4! 21.fxe4 f5µ;
17.a3

Black’s last move accompanied a threat of ...Qd8-h4, which is enough for

equality, but it is far more effective if White’s knight has been driven away from
c3. 17...Qf6!?
(17...Qh4!? 18.g3 Bxg3 19.hxg3 Qxg3+ 20.Kf1 Qh3+ 21.Ke1 Qh4+ 22.Bf2
Qh1+ 23.Bf1 Qxf3 24.Qe3 Qxe3+ 25.Bxe3 Nxe4 26.Nxe4 Bxe4 27.Bd3
Bc6=)
18.Bd4
(18.Nb5? Qh4! 19.g3 Bxg3 20.hxg3 Qxg3+ 21.Kf1 Nxe4! 22.fxe4 f5–+)
18...Bxd4+
(18...a4 19.Bxe5 dxe5 20.b4 Nb3 21.Qe3 Nd4 22.b5 Bd7∞)
19.Qxd4 Qxd4+ 20.Rxd4 Rfd8 21.b4
 (21.Bd1 e5 22.Rd2 Ne6=)
21...e5! 22.Rd2 axb4 23.axb4 Ne6 24.b5 Be8 25.Nd5 Nd4=

17...Qe7

In the database Black plays his Queen to f6 about equally as often, but I tend to
prefer my Queen on e7 as a general rule unless there is something concretely
favorable about placing it on f6.
17...Qf6 18.Nb5
(18.Rbc1 Rad8 19.Bf1 g5„)
18...Rfd8 19.Nd4 Bf4 20.Bf2²

18.a3

18.Nb5 f5 19.exf5 exf5! 20.Qd2?

(20.Bd4 Ne6=)
20...Ne4!! 21.Qe1
(21.fxe4 Qh4–+)
21...Bxb5 22.fxe4 Bc6 23.exf5 Bxh2+ 24.Kxh2 Qxe3µ

18...f5 19.exf5
It is usually a challenge to decide how to recapture on f5 but here Black has an
embarrassment of riches — not only are all three recaptures playable, Black can
even opt for none of the above with 19...Qf6!?.

19...Rxf5

19...exf5 20.Qd2 Rfe8 21.Nd5 Qf7 22.Bf2 Bxd5 23.Qxd5 Bxh2+ 24.Kxh2
Rxe2 25.Bg3 Qxd5 26.Rxd5 Rd8 27.Bxd6 Ne6©;
19...gxf5 I would recommend this the least of the four options. 20.b4
(20.Bd4 Qg7 21.Qf2 Bxd4 22.Qxd4 Rfd8 23.Qxg7+ Kxg7 24.b4 Na4
25.Nxa4 Bxa4=)
20...axb4 21.axb4 Qg7 22.Nb5 Bxb5
(22...f4 23.Bf2 Na4 24.Nd4 Bd7 25.Bf1 Kh8 26.Kh1 Rg8 27.Rbc1²)
23.bxc5 Ba4 24.Rxd6! Bxd6 25.cxd6∞;
19...Qf6!? 20.Nb5 Qxf5 21.Nxd6
(¹21.h3 Bxb5 22.cxb5 Rac8∞)
21...Bxh2+ 22.Kxh2 Qe5+ 23.Kg1 Qxe3+ 24.Qf2 Qg5=
20.Bd4

20.Nb5 Bxb5 21.cxb5 d5„

20...Bxd4+ 21.Rxd4 e5 22.Rdd1

Black can continue ‘normally’ with 22...Ne6, especially if he wants to keep

tension and play for a win, but the simplest path to equality is to liquidate things
with 22...e4! 22.Nd5 Qg7 23.Rdd1 e4 24.fxe4 Nxe4 25.Bf3 Bxd5 26.Bxe4 Bxe4
27.Qxe4 Re5 28.Qd3 Qe7=

22...e4!

23.fxe4

23.Bd3 Rxf3! 24.gxf3 Qg5+ 25.Qg3 Qe3+ 26.Qf2 Qg5+=

23...Nxe4 24.Bd3 Re5 25.Bxe4 Bxe4 26.Nxe4 Rxe4=

 CHAPTER 6
4.Qxd4 VARIATION

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nf6

Contents
1. 5.sidelines
2. 5.e5

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4

The Hyper Accelerated Dragon move order (2...g6) avoids the Bb5 Sicilian at
the cost of allowing 4.Qxd4 here. In my opinion, the tradeoff is very much worth
it: the Bb5 Sicilian is a real buzzkill for the dynamic and ambitious Black player,
whereas the 4.Qxd4 line is for the most part rich in dynamical possibilities and
offers Black real chances to play for a win.

4...Nf6 5.Nc3

We cover White’s main move, 5.e5, in the next subchapter. This line has some
venom, and in my judgment Black does not equalize in the most popular way of
dealing with it.
5.Bb5 I have faced this move several times in online blitz but never over the
board. It’s basically just a cheapo attempt: if Black plays 5...Bg7 then 6.e5! is
strong for White. However, this unrespectable move actually has, according to
Donaldson and Silman, a highly respectable originator — David Bronstein.
5...a6 (5...Bg7? 6.e5±) 6.e5 This can be a little scary the first time you see it, but
it’s just a bluff by White. It works well against an unprepared opponent in 1–
minute chess though!
a) 6.Ba4 b5 7.Bb3 Nc6 8.Qd3 Bg7 9.Nc3 0-0 10.0-0 d6
 We have here just a normal Dragon structure for Black where White’s pieces
are misplaced. 11.Bg5 h6 12.Be3 (12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.e5 Bf5µ; 12.Bh4 g5
13.Bg3 Nh5³; 12.Bd2 Nd7„) 12...Ng4 13.Bf4 Bb7=;
b) 6.Qa4?! Nxe4! (6...b6 7.e5 Bb7∞ Arribas Lopez-Leon Hoyos, New Orleans
2016) 7.Qxe4 (7.Bxd7+ Bxd7 8.Qxe4 Nc6³) 7...axb5 8.Qe5 f6 9.Qxb5 Qa5+
10.Qxa5 Rxa5³;
6...axb5 7.exf6 Nc6 8.fxe7
(8.Qd3 b4! 9.0-0 e6³; 8.Qh4 exf6 9.0-0 d5 10.Re1+ Be6 11.Nc3 b4 12.Nb5
Bg7 13.Bh6 0-0 14.Bxg7 Kxg7 15.Nbd4 Qd6µ)
8...Qxe7+ 9.Qe3
Donaldson and Silman give preference to White here but it is Black who is
better. 9...Qxe3+ 10.Bxe3 Bg7 11.c3 b4!³

5...Nc6 6.Qa4 d6 7.e5 dxe5 8.Nxe5 Bd7

9.Nxd7
Here 9...Qxd7 is the most popular move by a 6:1 margin but it looks to me that
Black struggles to equalize there. Giving up the two bishops is already a
concession Black has to live with in this line; he should rush to finish his
development with 9...Nxd7 rather than spend several tempos on queen moves as
he must after 9...Qxd7.
9.Nxc6 Donaldson and Silman give this as += however... 9...Qb6!N A nice little
novelty which renders 9.Nxc6 harmless. We wait to see where White puts his
f1–bishop before we decide how to take back on c6.
(9...Bxc6 10.Bb5² Black is slow getting developed and castled.)
10.Qb3
(10.Bb5 bxc6! 11.Bc4 Bg7 12.0-0 0-0 13.Bb3 c5 14.Qc4 Rac8„)
10...Bxc6 11.Qxb6 axb6 12.f3 Bg7 13.Be2 0-0 14.Be3 Nd7

The Nd7/Bc6/b7 are a common trio in the Accelerated Dragon — all three
pieces are mutually defended and they exert control over important central
squares. 15.Kf2 Bxc3! 16.bxc3 Ra3„

9...Nxd7!

9...Qxd7 10.Be3 Bg7 11.Rd1 Qg4

 (11...Qc8 12.Be2 0-0 13.0-0 a6 14.Qf4 Qf5 (¹14...e6 15.Bf3 Rd8 16.g3²)
15.Qxf5 gxf5 16.Na4 e6 17.c4 Rfd8 18.Bb6 Rxd1 19.Rxd1± 1–0 (67) Rausis,I
(2600)-Turner,M (2493) Fagernes NOR 2015)
12.Qb3!
(12.Rd4 Qf5! (12...Qc8 13.Bb5 a6 14.Bxc6+ Qxc6 15.Qxc6+ bxc6 16.Ke2 0-0
17.Rhd1 e6 18.Rc4 Nd5 19.Bd4 Rfc8 20.Bxg7 Kxg7 21.Rc5 Rab8 22.b3² 1–0
(43) Erdos,V (2651)-Gledura,B (2395) Zalakaros HUN 2014) 13.Bd3 Qe5
14.Rb4 Qc7 15.Bb5 0-0 16.Rc4 Rfc8 17.0-0 e6 18.Bf4 Qb6 19.Be3 Qc7= 0–1
(36) Wei Yi (2706)-Bu Xiangzhi (2681) China CHN 2015)
12...0-0 13.h3 Qb4 14.Be2 Qxb3 15.cxb3 Rfd8 16.Bf3 a6 17.Ke2 Rxd1 18.Rxd1
Rd8 19.Rxd8+ Nxd8 20.b4²

10.Bb5

10.Bd2

This new move (with the idea of castling queenside) was tried by GM Popilski in
2016. It has some bite, so Black should be accurate here. 10...Bg7
(10...Nb6!? 11.Qe4 Bg7 12.0-0-0 0-0 13.h4 Qd4=)
11.0-0-0 0-0
 a) 11...Qc8 12.h4 h5 13.Rg1!? (13.Qf4!?‚) 13...Nb6 14.Qe4 0-0 15.g4 hxg4
16.h5‚
b) 11...Nb6!? tr. 10...Nb6;
12.h4!
(12.Bb5 Nb6 13.Qe4 Qc7= Popilski-Perelshteyn, Dallas 2016)
12...Nb6!
(12...h5? 13.g4±)
13.Qe4 Qd4 14.Be3

14...Qb4!
(14...Qxe4 15.Nxe4 Rfd8 16.Rxd8+ Rxd8 17.Bxb6 axb6 18.c3²)
15.Qxb4 Nxb4 16.h5
(16.a3 Bxc3 17.bxc3 N4d5=)
16...Rfd8=

10...Bg7!
A temporary pawn sacrifice.

11.0-0

11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.0-0

(12.Qxc6 Rc8 13.Qf3 Bxc3+! 14.bxc3 Qa5 15.0-0 0-0 16.Re1 Rfe8 17.Bd2
Ne5= White will not be able to hold on to his extra pawn.)
12...0-0 13.Qxc6 Rc8 14.Qa4
14...Bxc3! 15.bxc3 Qc7 16.Be3 Nb6
(16...Nc5 17.Qh4 Ne6=)
17.Qa5 Qxc3 18.Bxb6 axb6 19.Qxb6 Qxc2=

11...0-0 12.Bxc6

12.Rd1 Qc8 13.Nd5

13...Nb6! 14.Nxb6 axb6 15.Qc4 Rd8 16.Rxd8+ Qxd8 17.c3 Na7 18.Be3 Rc8
19.Qb3 Nxb5 20.Qxb5 Rc6= Black’s pawns are doubled but White cannot make
use of his queenside majority without allowing Black to undouble them.

12...Nb6

12...bxc6!? This will transpose to 11.Bxc6.

13.Qh4 bxc6 14.Bh6 e6=

1/2–1/2 (44) Gorovets,A (2551)-Panjwani,R (2393) New York 2016.

 2

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nf6 5.e5

If White is going to seek an advantage in this line, this is his best hope.

5...Nc6

6.Qa4

6.Qc3 Ne4!
(6...Nd5!?)
7.Qe3 d5 8.exd6 Nxd6³;
6.Qh4? Nxe5! 7.Nxe5 Qa5+ 8.Nc3 Qxe5+³;
6.Qe3? Ng4 7.Qe4 d5!
 (7...Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Qa5+ 9.Nc3 Qxe5 10.Qxe5 Nxe5 11.Nb5 Kd8 12.Be3©)
8.exd6 Bf5 9.Qe2 Qxd6 10.h3 Nge5 11.Nxe5 Nxe5µ

6...Nd5 7.Qe4

7.Qb3 Nc7!
(7...Nb6 8.a4 a5?? 9.Be3+–)
8.Nc3
(8.Bc4 Ne6=)
8...d5 9.exd6 Qxd6 10.Bc4 Be6 11.Bxe6 Qxe6+ 12.Be3 Qxb3 13.axb3 Bg7=

7...Nb6!
Black’s knight is less vulnerable on b6 than it is on b4 in the 7...Ndb4 line, and it
is also better placed on b6 than c7 because it deters White’s Bf1–c4. What I like
most about this line for Black is that White has to be extremely accurate to not
immediately be worse — there are a lot of ways to go astray.
7...Ndb4?! This is the most popular move, even though Sutovsky basically
refuted the system ten years ago. 8.Bb5 Qa5 9.Nc3
9...Bg7
(9...d5 10.exd6 Bf5 11.Qe5 Nxc2+ 12.Ke2 0-0-0 13.Qxh8 Nxa1

This used to be thought of as better for Black (for example Donaldson and
Silman say “Black has a distinct advantage”) but the optics are misleading:
White has a clear advantage. 14.Qxh7 Nc2 15.Rd1±)
10.0-0 0-0 11.a3 d5 12.exd6 Bf5
13.axb4! Qxa1 14.Qh4 exd6 15.Nd5 f6 16.Bxc6 bxc6 17.Ne7+ Kh8 18.Nxf5
gxf5 19.Nd4± 1–0 Sutovsky,E (2637)-Guseinov,G (2586) Dresden GER 2007.

8.Nc3

8.Bb5?! a6 9.Bxc6 dxc6 10.0-0 Bg7 11.Qh4 h6 12.Nc3 Bf5³;

8.Bf4?! d5 9.exd6 Bf5 10.Qe2 Nd5! 11.Bg3
(11.Be5 f6 12.Bg3 e5µ)
11...Ndb4 12.Na3 Bg7µ

8...Bg7
9.Bf4

9.Bg5?! d5! 10.exd6 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Qxd6 12.Bb5 f6 13.Bf4 e5³

9...d5!

As we have seen, this is the central motive for Black in this variation. 9...0-0
10.0-0-0 d5 11.exd6 Bf5? (¹11...Bxc3 12.bxc3 Bf5∞) 12.dxe7±

10.exd6 Bf5
White might be well advised to already seek to liquidate the position into an
equal endgame after 11.dxe7. Otherwise, with Black’s pieces so active and
White’s king still in the center, things could become dire pretty fast on the
slightest misstep by White.

11.Qe3

11.dxe7 (This used to be the most popular move but in the last few years it has
been eclipsed by 11.Qe3 and 11.Qe2.) 11...Bxc3+!
(11...Qd7 12.Qe2 (12.Qe3 Nb4 13.Rc1 Nxc2+ 14.Rxc2 Bxc2 15.Bb5 Bxc3+
16.Qxc3 Qxb5 17.Qxh8+ Kxe7=) 12...Nb4 13.Rc1 Qxe7 14.Bd6! Qxe2+
15.Bxe2 Nxc2+ 16.Kf1 Nd4 17.Nxd4 Bxd4 18.g4 Bd7 19.Kg2±)
12.bxc3 Bxe4 13.exd8=Q+ Rxd8
14.Bh6!
(14.Bg5 Rd5 15.Bh6 Rh5 16.Bg7 Rg8 17.Bd4 Bxf3 18.gxf3 Nxd4 19.cxd4
Ke7= White’s extra pawn is fleeting.)
14...Ke7! In order to play ...f7-f6 without blundering a pawn to Bh6-g7. Black
has time to do this because White is so under-developed.
(14...f6 15.Bg7±)
15.Bb5 f6 16.0-0 Kf7
17.Be3
(17.Rfe1 Bxc2 (17...Bxf3!? 18.gxf3 g5 19.f4 Rhg8 20.fxg5 fxg5 21.f4 Rd6
22.Bxg5 h6 23.h4 hxg5 24.fxg5=) 18.a4 Bd3=)
17...Nd5 18.Bc4 Bxf3 19.gxf3 Ne5 20.Bb3 Kg7 21.Bxd5 Rxd5 22.Rfd1 Rhd8
23.Rxd5 Rxd5 24.f4 Nc6=;
11.Qe2 0-0 12.0-0-0
There are a couple of novelties that Black can try here, but I think the best
practical chances come from what has already been played — 12...exd6, because
White has to find several ‘only moves’ in order to survive. 12...exd6 Here,
innocent moves like 13.h4 (played by GM Pavlidis in 2015) or 13.Bxd6 leave
White simply worse.
a) 12...Bxc3!?N 13.bxc3 (13.dxe7 Qxe7 14.Qxe7 Bxb2+ 15.Kxb2 Nxe7
16.Nd4 Bd7 17.Bd6 Rfe8³) 13...e6! 14.Qb5! Nd5 15.Rxd5! exd5 16.Qxd5 Be6
17.Qc5 (17.Qg5 f6 18.Qc5 Qb6 19.Qxb6 axb6³) 17...Qb6 18.Qxb6 axb6
19.Kd2 Ra4 20.Bg3 Bxa2 21.Bb5 (21.Bd3 Rd8³) 21...Ra5 22.c4 Na7 23.Re1
Nxb5 24.cxb5 Rxb5 25.Re7 Be6 26.Nd4 Rd5 27.c3 Bc8³;
b) 12...Re8N 13.dxe7 (13.Qb5 exd6 14.Rxd6 Qc7! 15.Bg3 Qe7„) 13...Qc8
14.Qb5 Bxc3 15.bxc3
 15...Qe6! 16.Re1 Qxa2 17.Qb3 Qa1+ 18.Kd2 Qa5 19.Ng5 Qd5+ 20.Qxd5
Nxd5 21.Bd6 Ncxe7 22.Bxe7 Rxe7 23.Rxe7 Nxe7=;
13.Rxd6
a) 13.h4? Re8?! (¹13...Bxc3! 14.bxc3 Qf6 15.Qe3 Rfe8 16.Rxd6 Rxe3 17.Rxf6
Rxc3µ) 14.Qd2 d5 15.Bd3? d4? (¹15...Nb4! 16.Bxf5 Bxc3 17.bxc3 Nxa2+
18.Kb1 Nc4–+) 16.Nb5 Qd5 17.b3?? (17.Kb1∞) 17...Bxd3 18.Nc7 Qc5
19.Nxe8 Rxe8 20.Qxd3 Nb4 0–1 (20) Pavlidis, A (2522)-Zvjaginsev, V (2660)
Berlin GER 2015;
b) 13.Bxd6? Bxc3! 14.bxc3 (14.Bxf8 Qxf8 15.bxc3 Qa3+–+) 14...Re8 15.Qb5
Be4 16.Bg3 Qf6µ;
13...Qc8
White only has one move here — he needs to prevent ...Nc6-b4 (a5). 14.Qb5™
14...Re8
(14...Bg4 15.Bd3 Bxf3 16.gxf3 Nd4 17.Qb4 Ne6?! 18.Bg3 Re8 19.Rd1 Rd8
20.Ne4± Esserman,M (2295)-Perelshteyn,E (2555) Philadelphia USA 2008).
15.h4
 (¹15.Bd3 Bxc3 16.bxc3 Bxd3 17.Rxd3 Qe6 18.Kb1 Nc4„)
15...Bxc3!
(15...h5?! 16.a4?? (¹16.Bd3²) 16...Bxc3 17.bxc3 Re4–+ 1/2 (30) –1/2 (30)
Saric,I (2666)-Hou Yifan (2673) Wijk aan Zee NED 2015)
16.bxc3 Re4 17.Be3 Qc7 18.Rd2 Qe7 19.Bc5 Qf6 20.Bd4 Nxd4 21.Rxd4 Rxd4
22.Nxd4 Bd7µ

11...0-0 12.0-0-0

12.dxe7 Nxe7 13.Bg5 Ned5!µ

12...exd6 13.Rxd6

13.Bh6 Re8 14.Qd2 Bh8 15.Qxd6 Qxd6 16.Rxd6 Nb4 17.Rd2 Rec8„;
13.Bxd6 Re8 14.Bg3 Nd7 (14...Qf6!?) 15.Qd2 Qa5 16.a3 Rac8 17.Bd3 Be6µ

13...Qc8

14.Bh6
This option was not available to White in the analogous position after 11.Qe2.
14.Qc5 This move is analogous to 14.Qb5 in the 11.Qe2 line: White needs to
prevent ...Nc6-b4(a5).
14...Re8!³ The threat is ...Bg7-f8.
(14...Bxc2 15.Kxc2 Nd4+ 16.Qxd4 Bxd4 17.Rxd4²);
14.Bb5? Nb4 15.Nd4

15...Nxa2+! 16.Kb1
(16.Nxa2 Bxd4–+)
16...Nxc3+ 17.Qxc3 Qxc3 18.bxc3 Be4 19.f3 Bd5µ

14...Re8 15.Qd2

15.Qf4!? Bxc3! 16.bxc3 Re4

17.Qg5
(17.Qd2 Qc7 18.Bg5 Be6 19.Bf6 Nd7µ)
17...Re6 18.Qf4
(18.Rd1?? Nb4!–+)
18...Nd8!„ (18...Re4=)

15...Bh8
I think most (even strong) players would falter and collapse here. Black
threatens ...Nc6-b4(a5) and only one (highly computerized) idea prevents it.

16.Be3!

16.Bb5 a6 17.Bxc6? bxc6 18.b3 Nd5! 19.Nxd5 cxd5 20.Rxd5 Be4 21.Rd6??
Qc5–+;
16.Qf4?! Ne7! 17.Bd3 Bxc3 18.bxc3 Qxc3³;
16.h4?! Nb4µ

16...Qb8!?

16...Na5 This leads to a forced draw but it is unnecessary to allow the ensuing
chaos. 17.Bd4™
(17.Bxb6 axb6 18.Nd4 Nc6! 19.Nxf5 Qxf5 20.Kb1 Qc5µ)
17...Nac4 18.Bxc4 Nxc4 19.Qh6 Nxd6 20.Bxh8 Kxh8 21.Ng5 Kg8 22.Rd1!
(22.Qxh7+ Kf8 23.Rd1!)
22...Qc6
(22...Re2 23.Qxh7+ Kf8 24.Rxd6 Rxc2+ 25.Kd1 Qc4 26.Qh8+ Ke7 27.Qe5+
 Kf8=)
23.Qxh7+ Kf8 24.Qh6+ Kg8 25.g4 Bxg4 26.Rxd6 Re1+ 27.Nd1 Qe8 28.Qh7+
Kf8 29.Qh8+ Ke7 30.Qf6+ Kf8=;
16...Re6!?

I had originally intended to recommend this as the main line; perhaps some
readers will prefer this to my selection. 17.Ng5
(17.Bxb6 Bxc3 18.bxc3 axb6 19.Bc4 Rxd6 20.Qxd6 Na5 21.Bxf7+ Kxf7
22.Ng5+ Kg8 23.Qd5+ Kh8 24.Qe5+ Kg8=; 17.Rxe6 Qxe6 18.Ng5 Bxc3
19.Qxc3 Qxa2³)
17...Rxd6 18.Qxd6 Be5 19.Qc5 Bg7 20.Bc4 Nxc4 21.Qxc4 Qe8=;
16...Nb4?! (This doesn’t work here because of a brilliant resource which was the
point of 16.Be3!) 17.Bd4! Nxc2 18.Bxh8 Kxh8 19.Bb5 Nc4 20.Qh6! Nxd6
21.Ng5 Re1+ 22.Rxe1 Qg8 23.Re7±

17.Bf4

17.Bb5 a6 18.Bxc6? Nc4!³;

17.h4?! Ne5µ
17...Qc8!

By diverting White’s bishop from e3, Black reinstates his threat of ...Nc6-b4.
White is worse if he doesn’t accept the repetition.

18.Be3 Qb8=
 CHAPTER 7
ANTI-SICILIANS: ALAPIN AND MORRA

1.e4 c5

Contents
1. 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3
2. 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.sidelines & 4.d4 g6 5.sidelines
3. 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 g6 5.Nf3 Bg7 & 5...Nc6 6.sidelines
4. 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 g6 5.Nf3 Bg7 6.Be2
5. 2.Nf3 g6 3.c3 d5
6. 2.Nf3 g6 3.c3 Nc6

1
In these final chapters we turn to White’s most popular anti-Sicilian options after
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6: the Alapin, also known as the c3-Sicilian, and the Morra
Gambit, also known as the Esserman Gambit. The Alapin can be played on
move two (1.e4 c5 2.c3) or on move three (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.c3), so for
convenience and consistency I recommend a line for Black which works against
either of these. The Morra Gambit (1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 or 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6
3.d4 cxd4 4.c3), a sister to the Alapin, has recently seen a revival, especially at
the club level, thanks to the publication of IM Esserman’s masterpiece “Mayhem
in the Morra”.

1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3

Here we have the Morra Gambit, a system emblematic of the Romantic Era in
chess — not chronologically, but in spirit: “The masters of that time found a
sound and fruitful plan: disregarding pawns, achieve a rapid development of the
pieces for a swift attack on the enemy king. “ (World Champion Emanuel
Lasker). On Steinitzian grounds one might insist that the principled continuation
for Black is to accept the gambit — “the best way to refute a gambit is to accept
it”. However, there is a hidden premise in this assertion: the gambit must be
refutable! It is not at all clear to me that the Morra Gambit is refutable; on the
contrary, Esserman’s aforementioned book is a convincing defense of its
soundness. Furthermore, as Hyper Accelerated Dragon players we offer White
the option of a ‘delayed’ Morra Gambit 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.c3 after
which our options are far more limited. As best I can tell, Black cannot safely
accept the delayed Morra Gambit, so for the sake of consistency I recommend
declining after 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 as well. The usual way to decline the
gambit is to transpose to the Alapin with ...Ng8-f6, but this is not in keeping
with my recommended Alapin repertoire. Fortunately, the ...d4-d3 line is a
reliable way of transposing into Maroczy-structures which we are familiar with
and happy to play as Black. I cannot overstate how frustrating it is for Morra
Gambit players to be denied their Romantic fantasies and instead be lulled into a
slow, maneuvering Maroczy structure.

3...d3 4.Bxd3 g6 5.c4 Bg7 6.Nf3 d6 7.h3 Nf6

In what follows, Black is free to proceed with traditional Maroczy development;

however, I am instead recommeding a new idea I came up with while preparing
this book based on a rapid ...Nf6-d7 and ...Bg7xc3.

8.0-0

8.Nc3 Nfd7! If Black wants to play my idea, then White must not be permitted
to recapture on c3 with the queen, so Black must play ...Bxc3 before White
achieves Bc1–e3 and Qd1–d2.
(8...0-0 9.Be3 Nfd7 10.Qd2 This is of course playable for Black but not in
keeping with our theme.)
9.Be3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Ne5!

This idea will be studied in greater detail in the main line. 11.Nxe5
(11.Bh6 Nxd3+ 12.Qxd3 Nd7 13.0-0 f6=)
11...dxe5 12.Bh6 Qc7 13.Qe2 Be6 14.0-0 Nd7=

8...0-0 9.Nc3 Nfd7!N

In a similar position, Esserman cautions that White should not allow “the
queen’s knight to be lopped off by the swooping ...Bxc3 wrecking the pristine
Maroczy structure...Black’s dark squared deficiencies are overshadowed by
White’s mangled formation.” Here, however, White does not have much of a
choice: Black is ready to capture on c3 and White’s only ways to prevent it are
rather contrived.
9...Nc6 Black’s most popular move, but in my judgment it is insufficiently
sensitive to the time factor in the position. White does, after all, have more
space, so he will go on to have a more comfortable position (‘achieve harmony’)
if Black is unable to pose any disruptive threats. 10.Be3 Nd7 11.Qd2 Nc5
12.Bh6!² Black should be able to defend, but White is playing for two results.

10.Be3

I think if White wants to attempt an opening advantage then this is his best hope.
Allow the doubled pawns, and hope there is enough dynamic compensation. In
researching this structure I have come to regard White’s attacking potential as
quite formidable, even though computers tend to think that Black is equal ‘no
matter what’. I recommend immediately aiming for simplifications with
11...Ne5! to neutralize White’s initiative.
10.Bg5 Bxc3! 11.bxc3

11...Ne5 Computers take some time to appreciate this idea, but from a human
perspective it is clear that exchanging pieces benefits Black. This is because
White’s compensation for his static pawn weaknesses must be predicated on
dynamic piece play.
(11...Nc5 This is perfectly playable for Black as well, but as a matter of
convenience I have recommended 11...Ne5 here instead since I recommend the
same idea in the main line. 12.Bc2 Be6 13.e5 (13.Qe2 f6 14.Bh6 Re8=)
13...Bxc4 14.exd6 Qxd6 15.Qxd6 exd6 16.Rfd1 d5=)
12.Nxe5
(12.c5 Nxd3 13.Qxd3 dxc5 14.Qxd8 Rxd8 15.Bxe7 Re8 16.Bxc5 Rxe4=)
12...dxe5 13.c5
(13.f4 exf4 14.Rb1 Na6!=)
13...Be6 14.Rb1 Nd7 15.Rxb7 Qc8!=;
10.Nd5 This is a pretty extreme way for White to avoid ...Bg7xc3; with this
concession Black can equalize with ‘normal’ Maroczy moves. 10...Nc5 11.Rb1
e6 12.Ne3
 (12.Nc3 Bxc3 13.bxc3 e5=)
12...a5 13.Ng4 Nc6 14.Bc2 f5³;
10.Qe2 Bxc3 11.bxc3 Ne5

Our go-to idea: the resulting structure is always fine for Black as long as White
can’t immediately stir up some trouble.
(11...Nc5 12.Bc2 e5!? This interesting blockading idea is playable as well.
13.Rd1 Nc6 14.Nd2 Be6 15.Nf1 Na5 16.Ne3 Rc8 17.Nd5 Qh4 18.Rb1 b6=)
12.Nxe5 dxe5=;
10.Qc2 White deters Black’s ...Bg7xc3 but in so doing misplaces his queen.
10...Nc6 Threatening ...Nc6-b4. 11.a3 Nde5 12.Nxe5
12...Nd4! 13.Qd1 dxe5=;
10.Bd2

This is a concession — the bishop would prefer a more active square. Now we
can equalize with ‘normal’ Maroczy development. 10...Nc5 11.Bc2 Nc6 12.a3
There are of course many ways to handle this position, I just give one relatively
straightforward and logical path for Black — targeting the d4-square.
 (12.Rb1 Nb4 13.a3 Nxc2 14.Qxc2 b6 15.b4 Ne6=)
12...b6 13.b4 Ne6 14.Bd3 Bb7 15.Rc1 Ne5! 16.Nxe5 dxe5 17.Be3 Nd4=;
10.Qd2 Ne5!
(10...Nc6 11.b3 Nc5 12.Bb2 f5 13.exf5 Nxd3 14.Qxd3 Bxf5 15.Qe3²)
11.Nxe5 dxe5 12.b3 Nc6 13.Bb2 b6 14.Rad1 Bb7=

10...Bxc3 11.bxc3

11...Ne5!

I recall an interview with Aronian where he said (paraphrasing) that the greatest
joy in chess preparation nowadays comes from finding ideas the computer is
unable to immediately appreciate. That was certainly the case with this move.
The computer’s suggestions all enabled White to develop a dangerous kingside
attack, but I was looking for something requiring less accuracy from Black. The
engine initially thinks that White is += after the exchange on e5, but the human
realizes that either Black is getting into immediate trouble or he’ll successfully
develop his pieces and be fine. If it is the latter, which it fortunately is, then ‘+=’
is not a very meaningful assessment.
11...Nc5?! 12.Bxc5 dxc5 13.e5²;
11...Nc6 This is the computer’s first choice but I think the engine underestimates
White’s attacking potential. 12.Nd4 Nce5 13.Be2 Nb6 14.Bh6 Re8 15.f4 Nexc4
16.f5‚

White’s attack is not devastating, but it’s just not very comfortable to be Black
here. The position is reminiscent of lines in the Scaemish or Rubinstein Nimzo
Indian where Black doubles White’s c-pawns and expends several tempos to win
the c4-pawn at the cost of allowing White an f4-f5 attack.;
11...Na6
This move fits with Nimzowitsch’s philosophy of blockade: “First restrain, next
blockade, lastly destroy”. Unfortunately, the ideal blockade is not always the
most relevant aspect of a position, and I believe Black’s first priority should be
to avoid a kingside onslaught by liquidating with 11...Ne5! 12.Bc2 Nac5
(12...f6 13.Nd4 Nac5 14.Bh6 Re8 15.f4 Kh8 16.h4 Rg8 17.Re1 Nb6 18.e5
dxe5 19.fxe5 Nxc4 20.exf6 exf6 21.h5±)
13.Nd4 Re8
(13...b6 14.Nc6 Qe8 15.Bh6±)
14.f4 b6 15.f5 Ne5
(15...Bb7 16.Qf3 (16.fxg6 fxg6) 16...Ne5 17.Qf4 Kh8 18.fxg6 fxg6 19.Qh4
Kg8 20.Rad1²)
16.Nf3 Qc7 17.Qe1 Nxc4 18.e5∞
A complete mess. We should avoid this, as the overzealous Morra Gambit player
will be rewarded for their impatience in positions like this which require direct,
un-nuanced play.

12.Nd4!

I believe this is White’s best attempt to develop an initiative.

12.Bh6 Re8 13.Nd4 f6! 14.Be2
(14.f4?? Nf7–+)
14...Nbc6 15.Be3 Na5„;
12.Bc2 Be6 The simplest way for Black.
(12...Nxf3+ 13.Qxf3 Nc6 14.c5 dxc5 15.Bxc5 Qa5 16.Bd4∞; 12...Nxc4?
13.Bh6 Re8 14.Bb3 Ne5 15.Ng5 e6 16.f4 Nec6 17.f5+–)
13.Bh6 Nxf3+ 14.Qxf3 Re8 15.e5 Nc6 16.exd6 Qxd6 17.Rfb1 Na5=;
12.Nxe5 dxe5

White had better act quick, otherwise Black will be better if he achieves ...Qd8-
c7, ...Nb8-d7, ...b7-b6, and ...Bc8-a6. 13.Rb1
a) 13.Be2 Qc7 14.Qa4 Na6 15.Qa3 b6
 16.Rab1 (16.Rfb1 Rd8 17.Rb5 Kg7 18.Rab1 Qd6 19.Qc1 Be6 20.a4 Nc5
21.Bxc5 (21.a5 Bd7³) 21...bxc5 22.Qe3 Rdc8=) 16...Qd6 17.Qxd6 (17.c5
Nxc5 18.Rfd1 Qf6 19.Bh6 Bd7! 20.Bxf8 Kxf8 21.f3 Kg7= Black clearly has
full compensation, just look at the dark squares.) 17...exd6 18.Rfd1 Nc5 19.f3
Rd8 20.Rd2 Be6 21.Rbd1 Nb7=;
b) 13.f4 exf4 14.Bxf4 Qb6+ 15.Rf2 Be6 16.Rb1 Qc6 17.Bg5 Qc7 18.Bf4 Qc8
19.Qe2 Nd7³;
13...Qc7 14.f4 Nd7 15.f5 b6 16.Qf3 Threatening Be3-h6.
(16.Bh6 Rd8 17.Qf3 Nf6³ White cannot make progress on the kingside, and
Black is ready to pick up the c4-pawn with ...Bc8-a6.)
16...Kh8!
17.fxg6
(17.Bh6 Rg8 White’s aggressive stance is wholly illusory; Black is already
clearly better. 18.fxg6 Rxg6 19.Qxf7 Ba6 20.Be3 Rag8 21.g4 Nf6µ)
17...fxg6 18.Qxf8+! White can force a draw here. 18...Nxf8 19.Rxf8+ Kg7
20.Rbf1 e6
21.R1f7+! Qxf7 22.Bh6+! Kf6 23.Bg5+ Kg7 24.Bh6+ Kf6=

12...f6!

This move is prophylaxis against 13.Bh6 Re8 14.f4?? when 14...Nf7! wins a
piece. It also bolsters the all-important e5 square.
12...Nxd3 This is the most obvious move — Black would normally be happy to
capture White’s bishop. However, here Black is severely underdeveloped, which
allows White the time to initiate a strong attack. 13.Qxd3 Nd7
(13...Qa5?! 14.Bh6 Rd8 15.f4 Qh5?! Black deserves to be punished for
parading around with his queen in total neglect of his development. 16.Bg5 f6
 17.c5!! fxg5 (17...d5 18.exd5 fxg5 19.Qc4 Bxh3 20.c6±) 18.Qc4+ Kh8
19.cxd6 exd6 (19...Bxh3 20.dxe7 Re8 21.f5!!±) 20.Qf7 Rg8 21.Qf6+ Rg7
22.fxg5+–)
14.Bh6 Re8 15.f4

Whatever the objective evaluation of this position, I would not want to defend it
as Black. 15...b6
 (15...f6 16.Ne6 Qb6+ 17.Rf2 Nc5 18.Nxc5 Qxc5 19.f5 Kf7 20.Raf1²)
16.e5! Ba6
(16...dxe5 17.fxe5 Nxe5 18.Qe4+–)
17.e6 fxe6 18.Nxe6 Qc8 19.f5 Ne5 20.Qg3 Qxc4 21.Rae1 Rac8 22.fxg6 hxg6
23.Nf4±;
12...Nbd7 13.Be2! Nc5 14.f4 Ned7 15.Bf3 Nb6 16.Qe2²

13.Be2

13.Bc2 Kh8 The onus is on White to make something happen here; Black’s
ideas of completing development and blockading on c5 are clear. In a practical
game I would prefer Black, because I think most White players would mishandle
the simultaneous demands of aggression and restraint. 14.Bb3 Na6 (14...g5!?∞)
15.f4 Nf7 16.Bc2 Nc5 17.h4 e5 18.Nb5 b6 19.fxe5 Nxe5 20.Qxd6 Qxd6
21.Nxd6 Be6=;
13.f4 Nxd3 14.Qxd3 Na6 15.f5 Nc5 16.Qc2

16...Qe8! 17.Nb3 Nd7 White is well advised to liquidate the situation before
Black achieves ...b7-b6 and cements White’s c4-weakness.
 (17...b6 18.Bh6 Rf7 19.Nxc5 bxc5 20.Rf4²)
18.c5 dxc5 19.Nxc5 Nxc5 20.Bxc5 b6 21.Bd4 Bb7=;
13.Bh6 Re8 14.f4?? Nf7–+

13...Na6 14.f4 Nf7 15.Bf3

The position is dynamically equal: White has two bishops and a space advantage
as compensation for his weakened pawn structure.

15...Nc5

15...e5?! 16.Nb5 Qe7 17.f5 b6 18.Qd5 Rb8 19.Rad1 Rd8 20.Bg4!

20...Nc5 21.fxg6 hxg6 22.Bxc8 Rbxc8 23.Rf2 Kg7 24.Rdf1²

16.Nb3 Na4 17.c5 dxc5 18.Qxd8 Rxd8 19.Nxc5 Nxc5 20.Bxc5 Rd7

White has gotten rid of his c4-weakness but the isolated c3-pawn still remains a
liability. The position should fizzle out into a draw; the following is an
illustration.
21.e5 Rc7 22.Bd4 fxe5 23.fxe5 Ng5 24.Bd5+ Be6 25.c4 Rd8 26.Be3 Bxd5
27.cxd5 Ne4 28.Rae1 Rcc8 29.Bxa7 Nd2 30.Rf4 Rxd5=
 2

1.e4 c5 2.c3

In keeping with our theme of ...g7-g6, Black has three options:

1) 2...g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.cxd4 d5!? as recommended by Alburt, Dzindzichashvili,
and Perelshteyn in their “Chess Openings for Black, Explained”.
2) 2...Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 g6!? as in Adams-Kramnik, Dortmund
2013 (1/2–1/2).
3) My recommendation 2...d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 g6!? which was also
recommended by Ftacnik in his “Grandmaster Repertoire” book on the Sicilian.

2...d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4

4.Na3 The first time I saw this move was in Nakamura-Yangyi, Gibraltar 2015
(1–0). It worked out for White in that game, but I don’t think Black has any
problems if he responds actively. 4...Nc6
(4...Nf6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bc4 Qd8 7.0-0 a6 8.Nc2 Bg4 9.d4 e6 10.h3 Bxf3
11.Qxf3 Rc8 12.Rd1 cxd4 13.Bb3! Qc7 14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.cxd4 Bd6 16.Bg5
Ke7 17.Re1± 1–0 (39) Nakamura,H-Yu Yangyi Gibraltar 2015)
5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Be2 e5!

It is unusual for Black to be able to assert central dominance so early in the

Alapin. I do not think he should fear ghosts in doing so: Black is effectively
calling White’s provocation in delaying d2-d4 a bluff. 7.d3
a) 7.Qa4?! e4 8.Nb5 Rc8 9.Nfd4 Bxe2 10.Nxe2 Nf6µ;
b) 7.h3 Bh5 8.d3 (8.Qb3 0-0-0„; 8.0-0 e4 9.Ne1 Bxe2 10.Qxe2 0-0-0„) 8...f6
By further delaying his kingside development, Black signals his intention to
castle queenside. 9.0-0 (9.Be3 0-0-0 10.0-0 Nge7 11.c4 Qg8! 12.Bxc5 Ng6!!
13.Bxf8 Qxf8 14.g4 Bxg4!! 15.hxg4 Nf4µ) 9...Nge7 10.Nc4 0-0-0 11.a3
(11.Ne3 Qd7 12.Nxe5 Bxe2 13.Nxd7 Bxd1 14.Nxf8 Be2 15.Ne6 Bxf1
16.Nxd8 Rxd8 17.Kxf1 Rxd3=) 11...Bg6

In this line the Accelerated Dragon player gets to play the reverse of their usual
role — White is playing in hypermodern fashion by relinquishing the center
and seeking counterplay on the flanks. From our experience and preference for
the Black side of the Maroczy, we know not to underestimate the elastic
potential of White’s structure here, but it is clear nevertheless that Black should
be content with the result of the opening. 12.Ne3 (12.Qa4 Bxd3 13.Bxd3 Qxd3
14.Be3 Nd5³) 12...Qg8 (12...Qd7=; 12...Qe6?! 13.Nh4²) 13.Qa4 Bxd3
14.Bxd3 Rxd3 15.b4

Black should trust the soundness of his structure and enter the complications
head on with 15...e4! 15...e4! (15...Kb8 16.b5 Nd8 17.Ne1 Rd6 18.Nc4 Rd5
19.f4 (19.Ne3 Rd6=; 19.Nc2 Qe6 20.N2e3 Rd7=) 19...Qe6 20.fxe5 fxe5
21.Nc2 (21.Nf3 Nf7=) 21...Ng6 22.Be3 Be7 23.Nb4!∞) 16.Ne1 (16.Nd2 Nd5
17.Nxe4 Qe6„) 16...Rxc3 17.b5 (17.Qd1 Qe6 18.Bd2 Rb3 19.Rc1 Kb8
20.Nc4 Nd4µ) 17...Nd4 18.Bd2 (18.Qxa7 Nd5 19.Qa8+ Kc7 20.Qa5+ Nb6
21.N1c2™ 21...Ne2+ 22.Kh1 Rd3³) 18...Nd5!
If Black makes it this far he should be able to figure the rest out over the board.
19.b6 (19.Nxd5 Qxd5 20.Bxc3 Ne2+ 21.Kh1 Nxc3 22.Qxa7 Bd6³; 19.N1c2
Nxc2 20.Nxc2 Rd3³; 19.Bxc3 Nxc3 20.Qxa7 Bd6µ) 19...Nxb6 20.Qe8+ Kc7
21.Bxc3 Ne2+ 22.Kh1 Nxc3 23.Rc1™ 23...Ne2 24.Ra1™ (24.Rd1? Bd6
25.Qxg8 Rxg8–+) 24...Nc3=;
c) 7.0-0
 This is oddly White’s most popular move but it leads quite straightforwardly to
a slight edge for Black. 7...e4 8.Ne1 Bxe2 9.Qxe2 0-0-0 10.f3 exf3 11.Qxf3
Nf6³;
d) 7.Nc2 e4 8.Ne3 Qd7 9.Nxg4 Qxg4 10.Qa4 Nf6 11.Ne5 Qxg2 12.Rf1 Rc8
13.Bb5 Bd6 14.Nxc6

14...0-0! 15.Na5 (15.Nxa7 Ra8„ ...Bb8 follows) 15...a6 16.Be2 b5µ 17...Nd5
will follow, eyeing the f4-square. Black can take his time with the attack:
White’s king isn’t going anywhere.;
7...f6!N
This is our theme in this line: bolster the center and aim to castle queenside.
(7...0-0-0 8.Nc4 f5 9.Ne3 Qd7 10.h3 Bh5 11.Nxf5 Qxf5 12.g4 Bxg4 13.hxg4
Qd7 14.Ng5²)
8.0-0 Nge7 9.h3
(9.Nc4 Be6 10.Re1 (10.a3 Qd7 11.b4 Nd5; 10.Nfd2 Qd7 11.Nb3 Nd5 12.d4
exd4 13.cxd4 b5 14.Ne3 c4 15.Nc5 Bxc5 16.dxc5 0-0„) 10...Qd7 11.a4 (11.a3
Nd5 12.Qc2 0-0-0 13.b4 Kb8 14.Qb2 Qc7 15.b5 Na5 16.a4 g5„) 11...Nd5
12.Bf1 0-0-0 (12...Be7 13.d4 exd4 14.cxd4 0-0³) 13.Qb3 Kb8 14.a5 g5! 15.a6
b6„)
9...Be6 10.d4 cxd4 11.cxd4 e4
12.Nb5 0-0-0 13.Nd2 a6 14.Bc4 Qd7 15.Nxe4 Bxc4! 16.Nbd6+ Qxd6
17.Nxd6+ Rxd6 18.Re1 Rxd4

If we accept Euler’s estimation of the value of the pieces, then the material is
numerically equal (three pieces for a queen). However, in chess (and in many
spheres of life) there is a phenomenon whereby the whole is greater than the sum
of its parts. My father used to refer to this as ‘cooperation points’: for every
combination of pieces, add a point, so two pieces are worth 3+3+1, ie. more than
a rook+pawn (pawns don’t count as pieces) . Similarly, three pieces are worth
3+3+3+1+1+1. This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it’s not a bad first
approximation. I suspect my father thought of this himself (in the context of a
variation in the Pirc where three pieces outshine a Queen and two pawns), but I
also came across the idea in Lasker’s Chess Manual.

4...g6

The first strong player to consistently play this move was Yugoslavian
Grandmaster Ognjen Cvitan, who played it several times throughout the 1990s.
Since then, the move has found a brigade of supporters, most notably Radjabov,
Karjakin, Dreev, and Almasi. It was also played several times by a young
Magnus Carlsen.

5.dxc5

5.Be3 This was the ‘main line’ in the early days of the opening, but it is no
longer considered a critical test for Black. 5...cxd4 6.cxd4
(6.Qxd4 Nf6 7.Na3 (7.Qxd5 Nxd5 8.Bd4 f6=) 7...Nc6 8.Qa4 Bg7 9.Nb5
Qd8!³)
6...Bg7 7.Nc3 Qd8 8.Nf3

8...Nh6!?
(8...Nf6 Black may prefer this mode of development; it is largely a matter of
taste. I think many IMs and GMs prefer ideas with ...Ng8-h6 because they lead
to positions which their lower rated opponents (in Swiss-system tournaments)
may be unfamiliar with.)
9.Bc4
(9.Bb5+ Nd7 10.0-0 0-0 11.Bc4 Nf5=)
9...Nf5 10.Ne5 Nd6 11.Bb3 Nc6 12.Ba4
12...0-0! 13.Bxc6
(13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Bxc6 Rb8 15.b3 Ba6µ)
13...bxc6 14.Nxc6 Qd7 15.Ne5 Qb7©;
5.Be2!? A tricky move first played by Grandmaster Hort in 1992. 5...cxd4!
a) 5...Nc6?! 6.Bf3² (6.dxc5²) ;
b) 5...Qxg2?? 6.Bf3+–;
6.cxd4
(6.Nf3 Nf6 7.cxd4 Bg7 8.Nc3 Qd6=)
6...Bg7 7.Nf3
7...Nh6
(7...Nf6 I tend to prefer my knight on f6, but as I have said, it is usually a
matter of taste. 8.Nc3 Qd6=)
8.Nc3 Qd8 9.Bf4 0-0 10.0-0 Nf5 11.d5 a6 12.a4 Nd7 13.Qb3 b6 14.Rad1 Bb7
15.Rfe1 Rc8= 1/2–1/2 (29) Hort,V (2560)-Spraggett,K (2540) San Bernardino
1992;
5.Na3 cxd4 6.Nb5 Na6 7.Qxd4 Qxd4 8.Nxd4 Nf6 9.Ngf3 Bg7 10.Bb5+ Bd7
11.0-0 Nc7 12.Bc4 Nfd5 13.Re1
13...f6! Black flexes his muscles; the center is his for the taking. 14.a4 a6=

5...Qxd1+ 6.Kxd1

6...Nf6
Black needn’t rush to win back his sacrificed pawn. Sometimes he will even play
...b7-b6, abandoning hopes to regain the pawn in favor of opening up lines for
his pieces. Even with queens off the board, White’s king is not safe in the center.
6...e6N I toyed around with this new idea for a while, but I came to the
conclusion that it is unnecessary since the main move, 6...Nf6, equalizes
comfortably. I have included my analysis of 6...e6 in case the reader is
interested. 7.b4!
a) 7.Be3 Nf6

8.Nf3
a1) 8.Bd4 Be7 9.Nf3 0-0 10.Nbd2 Rd8 11.Kc2 Nd5 12.Bc4 Nc6 13.Rhe1
Nxd4+ 14.cxd4 b6 15.Bxd5 Rxd5 16.b4 Bb7©;
a2) 8.Na3 Nbd7 9.Nb5 (9.Bb5 Ng4 10.c6 bxc6 11.Bxc6 Rb8©) 9...Nd5
10.Nf3 Nxe3+ 11.fxe3 Ke7 12.b4 a5©;
8...Be7 9.Na3 0-0 10.Nb5 Nd5 11.Kc2 Nxe3+ 12.fxe3 a5 13.Nd6 Nd7 14.b4
Nf6 15.Nxc8 Rfxc8 16.Kb3 b6 17.Bc4 (17.cxb6 Ne4 18.b7 Rxc3+ 19.Kb2
Rb8–+) 17...bxc5 18.b5 Ne4„;
b) 7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Bxd7+ Nxd7 9.b4 Ne7 10.Kc2 Bg7 11.Nd2 0-0 12.Ne4 Nd5
13.Bb2 b6 14.c6 (14.cxb6 N7xb6³) 14...Ne5 15.b5 a6 16.a4 Nc4 17.Ne2 Nc7
 18.bxa6 Rfc8µ;
7...Bg7 8.Kc2

8...Ne7
(8...a5 9.Bb2 (9.b5 Nd7 10.Ba3 Ngf6 11.Bd3 Bf8 12.c6 bxc6 13.bxc6 Nc5
14.Bb5 e5=) 9...Nf6 10.Nd2 0-0 11.Ngf3 axb4 12.cxb4 Bd7 13.Bc4 Bc6
14.Rhg1 Rd8 15.Bb3 Bb5 16.Nc4 Nc6 17.a3 Ne4 18.Bxg7 Kxg7 19.Rge1±)
9.Nf3 0-0 10.Bf4
(10.Nbd2 Nd5 11.Bb2 b6 12.Ne4 (12.cxb6 axb6©) 12...bxc5 13.Nxc5 Nd7
14.Ne4 Bb7 15.Nd6 Rab8 16.a3 Bc6 17.b5 Ba8 18.c4™ 18...Bxb2 19.Kxb2
Nf4 20.Kc3 Rb6 21.Rd1 Nc5 22.Kb4 Na6+ 23.Ka5 Nc5 24.Kb4=)
10...Nd5
(10...Nec6 11.b5 e5 12.Bg3 (12.Be3 Ne7=) 12...Bf5+ 13.Kb2 Na5 14.Nbd2
(14.Bxe5 Bxe5 15.Nxe5 Rd8©) 14...Nd7 15.Nb3 Nxb3 16.axb3 e4 (16...Nxc5
17.Bxe5 Bxe5 18.Nxe5 Rfd8 19.Bc4 Rd2+ 20.Ka3±) 17.Nd4 Nxc5 18.Bd6
Rfc8 19.Nxf5 gxf5 20.Bxc5 Rxc5 21.Bc4²)
11.Be5 a5 12.Bxg7 Kxg7 13.Kb3 Nc6
14.Bc4
(14.b5 Nb8!=)
14...axb4 15.Bxd5 Na5+
(15...exd5 16.cxb4 Re8 17.b5 Na5+ 18.Kc3 Bd7 19.Nd4²)
16.Kc2 exd5 17.cxb4 Bf5+ 18.Kc3
(18.Kb2!±)
18...Nc6 19.a4 d4+ 20.Nxd4 Nxd4 21.Kxd4 Rfd8+ 22.Kc4 b5+ 23.cxb6 Rac8+
24.Kb3 Be6+ 25.Kb2 Rd4 26.Ra3 Rxb4+ 27.Ka1 Rxb6=

7.Nf3

7.Bb5+ Bd7 8.Na3

(8.Bxd7+ Nbxd7 9.c6 bxc6 10.Nf3 e5 11.Re1 Ng4 12.Kc2 f6 13.Be3 Nxe3+
14.Rxe3 Bh6 15.Re2 Rd8 16.Nbd2 Bxd2 17.Nxd2 Kf7= 1/2–1/2 (28)
Pedersen,N (2508)-Nevednichy,V (2569) Istanbul 2003)
8...e6!
 (8...Bg7 9.Nf3 0-0 10.Ke2 Rc8 11.Be3 Nd5 12.Rhd1 Nxe3 13.Kxe3 Bxb5
14.Nxb5² 1/2–1/2 (57) Madeira,W (2215)-Leitao,R (2566) Sao Paulo 2004)
9.Bxd7+ Nbxd7 10.Nb5
(10.b4 Ne4³)
10...Ke7! 11.b4 a6 12.Nd6 b6³

7...Bg7 8.Bb5+

8.Be3 Ng4 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ Nxd7 11.Re1 Nxe3+ 12.Rxe3 Nxc5 13.Kc2
e6 14.Nbd2 Ke7 15.Nb3 Rac8= 0–1 (49) Ragger, M (2265)-Kozul,Z (2587)
Maribor 2003.

8...Bd7
9.Bd3

9.Bxd7+ Nbxd7 10.Kc2 Nxc5 11.Be3 Rc8 12.Re1 Nd5 13.Bd4 0-0 14.Bxg7
Kxg7 15.Nbd2 b5 16.g3 Rfd8 17.Rad1 e6 18.Nb3 Na4 19.Rd4 Naxc3 20.Kd2
Nxa2 0–1 (21) Sriram,J (2356)-Kunte,A (2487) Mumbai 2000.

9...Bc6 10.Be3 Ng4 11.Nbd2 Nd7 12.Nb3 0-0-0 13.Kc2 Nde5 14.Nxe5 Nxe5
15.Bf1 Be4+ 16.Kc1 Ng4³

1/2–1/2 (53) Smerdon,D (2470)-Saric,I (2559) Dresden 2008.

 3

1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 g6 5.Nf3

5...Nc6!?

In this book I have tried, where possible, to present novel ideas, even where the
accepted wisdom is perfectly adequate. There is value in exploring new terrain,
both from a scientific perspective of enriching the literature on an opening, but
also from the practical, ‘surprise value’ perspective. 5...Nc6 is an extremely rare
move, about fifty(!) times less common than the main move, 5...Bg7. I am not
sure, nor do I frankly care very much, which of 5...Bg7 or 5...Nc6 is
‘objectively’ the better move. It seems to me though, that the new ideas which
follow lead to rich, unexplored positions where a well-prepared Black player can
pose serious problems for their opponent. Praxis and the test of time will
determine whether these ideas have wings, or whether Black is better off
adhering to the usual 5...Bg7. Before continuing I would like to mention that the
following is joint analysis between myself and Canadian (exiled by marriage to
America) IM Dave Ross.
5...Bg7 The reader may consult GM Ftacnik’s book on the Sicilian for his
treatment of this move. Black may be fine with accurate play, but the amount of
awkward queen moves Black is lured into is not to my taste. 6.Nbd2!

I think this rare move deserves more attention.

(6.Na3 This transposes to subchapter 5, 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.c3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5
5.Na3 Bg7 6.d4.)
6...cxd4
(6...Qe6+?! We will see this is the right move after 5...Nc6 6.Nbd2 but not
here. 7.Be2 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bxd4 This is the reason: instead of trading on d4 with
a knight as in the 5...Nc6 line, Black has to cede the two bishops to White.
9.cxd4 Nf6 10.0-0 0-0 11.Bf3²)
7.Bc4 Qd8
(7...Qh5N
Black does not quite equalize here. 8.0-0! (8.Qb3 Nh6 9.Nxd4 0-0 10.N2f3
Nf5 11.0-0 Nd6 12.Bd3 Nd7=) 8...Nc6 (8...dxc3? 9.Ne4! cxb2? 10.Bxf7+!
Kxf7 11.Qb3+ Kf8 12.Neg5 Nh6 13.Bxb2 Bxb2 14.Qxb2 Rg8 15.Nxh7+ Ke8
16.Nfg5+–) 9.Qb3 (9.cxd4 Nf6 10.d5 Nxd5 11.Qb3 e6 12.Ne4 0-0 13.Ng3
Na5! 14.Qb5 Nc7!= Alas, Black hangs on by the skin of his teeth.) 9...Nh6
10.Nxd4 Nxd4 11.cxd4 0-0
 12.h3! A strong prophylactic move: Black can no longer disentangle with
...Nh6-f5 in light of g2-g4. 12...Bxd4 (12...g5?! 13.g4 Nxg4 14.Be2 (14.hxg4
Bxg4 15.Kg2 Bf5=) 14...Qh4 15.hxg4 Bxg4 16.Nf3±) 13.Re1 Nf5 (13...Bg7
14.Nf3 Nf5 15.Bf4²) 14.Ne4 Nd6 15.Nxd6 exd6 16.Re7 g5 17.Bd2! g4
18.hxg4 Bxf2+ 19.Kf1! (19.Kxf2 Qh4+ 20.Kg1 Qxe7=) 19...Qg6 20.Kxf2
Qf6+ 21.Qf3 Qxe7 22.Rh1±)
8.Nxd4 Nh6
(8...Bxd4 9.cxd4 Qxd4 10.0-0 Nc6 11.Qb3²; 8...Nf6 9.0-0 0-0 10.N2f3²)
9.N2f3 0-0 10.0-0

Black’s position is not pretty; I prefer the fresh positions which arise after
5...Nc6!?.
10...Nf5 11.Re1
(11.Bg5 Qc7 12.Qe2²)
11...Nxd4 12.Nxd4 Qc7 13.Bb3 a6 14.Bg5² 1/2–1/2 (57) Onischuk,A (2664)-
Kudrin,S (2549) Tulsa 2008.

6.Be3
The main move 6.Be2 will be covered in the next subchapter. 6.dxc5 This is
premature; if White wants to take on c5 then he should first play 6.Be3 then take
on c5 after Black commits his bishop to g7. 6...Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 Nf6 8.Be3 Nd5
9.Nbd2 e5!

10.Ne4 Bf5 11.Bd3 0-0-0 12.Ke2 Nxe3 13.fxe3 Be7 14.Nd6+

(14.Bc2 Bg4 15.Nf2 Bxf3+ 16.gxf3 Bxc5=)
14...Bxd6 15.Bxf5+ gxf5 16.cxd6 Rxd6 17.Rad1 Kd7!=;
6.Na3
One of the nice things about this 5...Nc6 system is that it is particularly well-
suited to meet 6.Na3, which is the most popular move against 5...Bg7. Indeed,
when I was practicing this line in online blitz I came across Alapin specialist
GM A. Zhigalko and 6.Na3 was his choice as well. As we see, though, Black’s
5...Nc6 enables him to quickly castle queenside and pose White with immediate
problems. 6...Bg4 7.Nb5
(7.Be2 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nf6 9.Nb5 Rc8 10.Nc3 Qa5 11.d5 Rd8 12.0-0 Bg7³;
7.Bc4 Bxf3 8.gxf3 Qf5„ It is a great practical upshot of this system that
natural moves by White allow Black to equalize with ease. 9.Bd3 Qh5 10.Be4
Nf6 11.Nb5? Nxe4 12.Nc7+ Kd7 13.Nxa8 Nf6µ)
7...0-0-0!
White is suddenly caught off guard — Black isn’t supposed to be able to castle
queenside in this opening! Reap the rewards of 5...Nc6. Black has taken over the
initiative and White needs to be extremely accurate to not lose outright in the
next few moves. 8.Be2™
(8.Be3 a6 9.a4 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Bh6!µ)
8...a6 9.a4
(¹9.Na3 cxd4 10.cxd4 Bxf3 11.Bxf3 Qxd4 12.Qc2 Qd3 13.Qxd3 Rxd3
14.Nc4©)
9...cxd4 10.cxd4 axb5 11.axb5 Bxf3 12.bxc6 Bxe2 13.Ra8+ Kc7 14.Bf4+ e5
15.Bxe5+ Qxe5–+;
6.c4?! Qe4+ 7.Be3 Nb4!
Black gets to have some fun in this line. 8.Na3
(8.Nc3 Nc2+ 9.Kd2 Nxe3 10.fxe3 Qc6 11.Ne5 Qa6=)
8...Bh6! 9.Nd2 Qg4 10.Nb5 Bf5!

If you ever get this position over the board, relish your opportunity — your
opponent is likely a masochist, and you may get to enact one of the beautiful
variations which follow. 11.f3
 (11.Nc7+ Kd8 12.f3 Qh4+ 13.Bf2 Qf6 14.Nxa8 Nc2+ 15.Ke2 Qe6+ 16.Ne4
Bxe4 17.dxc5+ Kc8–+)
11...Qh4+ 12.Bf2
(12.g3 Qf6 13.Bxh6 Nc2+ 14.Kf2 Nxh6 15.Rc1 a6 16.Nc7+ Kd8µ)
12...Qg5

13.Rc1
(13.Nc7+ Kf8 14.h4 (14.Nxa8 Nc2+ 15.Ke2 cxd4–+) 14...Qf4 15.Nd5 Nxd5
16.cxd5 cxd4µ)
13...Qf4 14.g3 Qb8 15.a3 Na2 16.Ra1 a6
17.Rxa2 axb5 18.Qb3
(18.cxb5 Nf6 19.Bg2 0-0 20.0-0 cxd4µ)
18...cxd4 19.Bxd4 bxc4 20.Nxc4
(20.Bxc4 Qd6!=)
20...Nf6 21.Be5 Qd8 22.Qb5+ Bd7 23.Qxb7 0-0©;
6.Nbd2N Since this was a big problem in the 5...Bg7 line I searched for games
after 5...Nc6 6.Nbd2. Turns out it is a novelty, but not one Black needs to worry
about. 6...Qe6+! 7.Be2 cxd4 8.Nxd4
(8.cxd4 Nf6 9.0-0 Bg7 10.Nc4 0-0 11.b3 Nd5 12.Bb2 Rd8=)
8...Nxd4 9.cxd4 Nh6 10.0-0 Bg7 11.Bb5+ Bd7 12.Re1 Qg4!=

6...Bg7
6...Bh6 7.dxc5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Bxe3 9.fxe3²;
6...Nf6 7.c4 Qd6 8.d5 Ne5 9.Be2²

7.dxc5

7.Na3 Black is fine after the mass exchanges on d4. 7...cxd4 8.Nb5 Qd8
9.Nbxd4 Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Bxd4
(10...Nf6!? 11.Bb5+ Bd7 12.Qe2 0-0 13.Rd1 Bxb5 14.Qxb5 Qc8=)
11.Qxd4 Qxd4 12.Nxd4 Nf6
13.0-0-0 Bd7 14.Be2 0-0-0 15.Rhe1 e6 16.Bf3 g5!=

7...Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Nf6

Black is down a pawn, and will likely stay down a pawn for the foreseeable
future, but as compensation he has better control over the center and the
potential to harrass White’s king which has lost its castling rights.
9.Bc4

9.Bd3 Nd5 10.Nbd2

(10.Be4 0-0! 11.Bxd5 Rd8 12.Ke2 Rxd5 13.Na3 b6! 14.Nb5 (14.cxb6 Ba6+
15.Ke1 axb6 16.Rd1 Ra5! 17.Nd4 Ne5„) 14...Rb8 15.Nc7 Rd7 16.cxb6 axb6
17.Nb5 Ba6 18.a4 Na7=)
10...0-0 11.Ke2 Rd8 12.Rhc1 h6© Prophylactically guarding the g5-square.
Black will continue ...e7-e5/...Bc8-Be6/...f7-f5 etc. White can only hope he is
resilient enough to endure this, because he has no aggressive ambitions of his
own.

9...0-0 10.Nbd2 Rd8 11.Ke2 Na5 12.Bd3

12.Rhd1 Nxc4 13.Nxc4 Nd5=

12...Nd5

13.Nb3

13.Nc4 Bf5! 14.Nxa5 Nxc3+ 15.bxc3 Bxd3+ 16.Kd2 Be4+ 17.Bd4 e5=;
13.Rac1 b6! 14.b4
(14.cxb6 axb6 15.a3 Nb7!„)
14...Nb7 15.c6 Nd6 16.Nd4 e5 17.Nb5 Bg4+ 18.f3 Bf5 19.c7 Bxd3+ 20.Kxd3
Rd7 21.Nxd6 Rxd6³

13...Nc6

Black is happy to ‘just play’ this position down a pawn, without feeling any
urgency to regain it. Petrosian once said (paraphrasing) that ‘too often players
sacrifice a pawn and then go on to play as if they blundered it’.

14.Rhd1

14.Rac1 e5 15.Rhd1 h6 16.Nfd2 f5 17.f3 Be6 18.Nc4

18...e4! 19.fxe4 fxe4 20.Bxe4 Nxc3+ 21.bxc3 Bxc4+ 22.Kf2 Rf8+ 23.Kg1
Rae8=;
14.Bc2 a5 15.a4 Be6=

14...Bxc3!? 15.bxc3 Nxc3+

16.Kf1

16.Ke1 Nb4 17.Be2 Nc2+ 18.Kf1 Nxd1 19.Rxd1 Rxd1+ 20.Bxd1 Nxe3+
21.fxe3 Be6 22.Nfd4 Bd5 23.Bf3 Bxf3 24.gxf3 b6= A rook is no worse than two
knights in the endgame.

16...Nxd1 17.Rxd1 Nb4 18.Nbd4 Nxd3 19.Rxd3 Be6 20.Rd2 Bc4+ 21.Ke1
Bd5=
It may not be clear from the looks of this position, but it will be clear that Black
is no worse, perhaps even to be preferred, once he achieves ...f7-f6 and ...e7-e5.
 4

1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 g6 5.Nf3 Nc6!? 6.Be2 Bg7

7.c4

7.dxc5 We do not take on d1 this time because White can retain his castling
rights by recapturing with the bishop. 7...Qxc5
8.Na3
(8.Be3 Qa5 9.0-0 Nf6 10.Na3 0-0 11.Nc4 Qc7 12.Qc1 Nd5 13.Bh6 e5=)
8...Nf6 9.Nb5 0-0 10.Be3 Qf5=;
7.Na3 cxd4 8.Nb5
(8.cxd4 Nf6 9.Nb5 0-0³)
8...Qd8! 9.Nfxd4 Nxd4 10.Nxd4 Nf6 11.Qa4+ Bd7 12.Qb4 Qb6 13.Qxb6 axb6
14.a3 0-0 15.0-0 Nd5 16.Bc4 Bc6 17.Rd1 e6=;
7.Be3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nf6 9.Nc3 Qa5 10.0-0 0-0
This is a well-known position from the Tarrasch Queen’s Gambit Declined
(Rubinstein Variation), with colors reversed. Thus, White is effectively playing
the Tarrasch QGD a tempo up here, but this tempo is only enough to allow him
to equalize, and in fact I still prefer Black. 11.Qb3
(11.a3 Be6 12.b4 Qd8=)
11...Qb4! 12.d5 Qxb3 13.axb3 Nb4 14.Bc4
14...b5! 15.Nxb5
(15.Bc5 bxc4 16.Bxb4 cxb3 17.Bxe7 Re8 18.d6 Be6)
15...Nfxd5 16.Rxa7 Nxe3 17.Rxa8 Nxf1 18.Kxf1 Ba6 19.Rxf8+ Kxf8 20.Nc3
Bxc4+ 21.bxc4 Nd3=

7...Qd8!

The queen turns out to be happier on d8 than d6 because it won’t come under
attack from White’s Nb1–a3-b5 or Nf3-g5-e4.
7...Qd6 8.d5 Nd4
(8...Ne5 9.Ng5! (9.Nxe5 Bxe5 10.Nc3 Nf6 11.Bh6 Bd7 12.h3 0-0-0=) 9...Nh6

10.Ne4 (10.Nc3 Nf5 11.Nge4 Qc7=) 10...Qb6 11.Nbc3 Nf5 12.0-0 0-0 13.b3
Nd4 (13...Qd8 14.Bb2 b6 15.Qd2 Bb7 16.Rae1²) 14.Bb2 Bd7 (14...f5
15.Na4±) 15.f4 f5 16.fxe5 fxe4 17.e6±)
9.Nxd4!
(9.Nc3 Nxf3+ 10.Bxf3 Nh6 11.0-0 Nf5„)
9...cxd4 10.0-0 Nf6 11.Na3!
11...0-0 12.Nb5 Qb6 13.a4 Ne4 14.Bf3
(14.a5 Qf6 15.Bf3 Nd6 16.Nxd6 exd6 17.b4 Bf5 18.c5 d3 19.Ra3 Qd4„)
14...Nd6 15.Nxd6 exd6 16.b3²
(16.Be4²)

8.d5

8.dxc5 Qxd1+ 9.Bxd1 Be6 10.Be2 Nh6 11.Nc3 Nf5 12.0-0 0-0 13.Rd1 Rfd8
14.Bf4 Nfd4 15.Nxd4 Nxd4 16.Bd3 Rac8=

8...Nd4
9.Nc3

9.Nxd4 cxd4 10.0-0

(10.Nd2 e5! (10...e6!? 11.Ne4 exd5 12.cxd5 Ne7 13.Bb5+ Kf8∞) 11.0-0 (11.f4
exf4 12.0-0 Ne7=) 11...Ne7 12.Re1 0-0 The position is rich, and offers mutual
chances. 13.Bf1 b6 14.a4 Nf5 15.a5
 15...b5! 16.b3 Re8 17.Bd3 Rb8 18.Ba3 Nd6=)
10...e5!

It is very unclear which side’s passed pawns are stronger here, but determining
this over the board will certainly lead to an interesting fight.
(10...e6!? 11.Re1 (11.dxe6 Bxe6 12.Qa4+ Qd7 13.Qxd7+ Bxd7=) 11...Ne7
12.Qa4+ Bd7 13.Qa3 0-0 14.Bg5 f6 15.Bd2 exd5 16.Ba5 b6 17.Bb4 Rf7
 18.Bf3 Bf8∞)
11.Re1
(11.dxe6 Bxe6 12.Qa4+ Qd7 13.Qxd7+ Bxd7 14.Re1 0-0-0=; 11.Nd2 Ne7
12.Qa4+ Bd7 13.Qb3 b6 14.f4 exf4 15.Ne4 0-0 16.Bxf4 Nf5=)
11...Ne7 12.Bd3 0-0 13.a4 b6
(13...f5!? 14.f3 f4 15.Nd2 Nf5„)
14.b4 Bf5 15.Bf1 Re8=

9...Nxf3+ 10.Bxf3 Nh6

Once Black plants his knight on d4 he should be well positioned for anything
White throws at him.

11.0-0

11.Bxh6 (The concept for this move is borrowed from a well known line in the
English: 1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.g3 g6 4.Bg2 Bg7 5.Nc3 d6 6.0-0 Nh6 7.d4! cxd4
8.Bxh6! Bxh6 9.Nxd4). 11...Bxh6 12.0-0 0-0 13.Re1 Bd7 14.Qe2
(14.Qb3 Rb8 15.Qa3 b6=)
14...Re8 15.Bg4

15...f5! 16.Bf3 a6 17.a4 Rb8 18.a5 Bg7=

11...Nf5 12.Re1 0-0 13.Bg5

13.Bf4
White may do without provoking ...h7-h6, but Black continues in more or less
the same way. 13...Nd4 14.Be4
(14.Rc1 a6 15.b3 Re8 (15...Bd7?! 16.Bg5 Re8? 17.d6±) 16.Be4 Bd7 17.Qd2 f5
18.Bd3 e5 19.dxe6 Nxe6=)
14...Re8 15.Rc1 Bd7 16.Qd2 f5 17.Bd3 e5 18.dxe6 Nxe6 19.Be5 Bc6=

13...h6 14.Bf4 Nd4

As in the Breyer Variation of the Maroczy, Black’s knight on d4 is a nuisance for

White to play around. The following variations illustrate some possible ways the
game might continue, but in general Black can probably just figure things out
over the board from here. The position is roughly equal.

15.Rc1

15.Be4 g5 16.Be3 e5 17.dxe6 Bxe6„

15...Bd7 16.Be4 Re8 17.Qd2 g5 18.Be3 f5 19.Bd3 e5!

20.dxe6 Bxe6 21.Nd5 Qd7 22.Bxd4

22.b4 b6 23.bxc5 bxc5 24.Qa5 f4 25.Bxd4 Bxd4 26.Nc7 Qd8 27.Qa6 Bxf2+
28.Kxf2 Qd4+ 29.Kf1 Qxd3+ 30.Kg1 Qd4+ 31.Kh1

31...f3!! 32.gxf3 Qf4 33.Qb7 Rab8 34.Nxe6 Rxb7 35.Nxf4 Rxe1+ 36.Rxe1
gxf4=

22...Bxd4

23.b4 b6 24.bxc5 bxc5 25.Rxe6 Qxe6 26.Nc7 Qf6 27.Nxa8 Rxa8=

 5

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.c3

This move order is recommended by GM Sveshnikov in his book ‘The Complete

c3 Sicilian’ as particularly effective against the system I am recommending
against 2.c3. White’s idea is to delay d2-d4, so that after 3...d5 4.exd5 Qxd5
White has the option of 5.Na3, considered better for White by Sveshnikov.
Black has two ways to transpose to the main line of this chapter: either play
3...d5 and allow Sveshnikov’s 5.Na3, or play 3...Nc6 and allow a ‘delayed’
Rossolimo (4.Bb5). According to my analysis, either of these is fine for Black,
but 3...Nc6 is more in keeping with my recommended repertoire for reasons I
will make clear in this subchapter.

3...d5 4.exd5

4.Bb5+ This effectively leads to a forced draw, which may be (for some) another
reason to prefer 3...Nc6. 4...Bd7 5.Bxd7+ Qxd7 6.Ne5 Qe6 7.Qb3!?
7...Qxe5 8.Qxb7 Qxe4+ 9.Kf1
(9.Kd1?? Qa4+ 10.b3 Qc6–+)
9...Qd3+ 10.Ke1
(10.Kg1? e6 11.Qxa8 Bd6µ)
10...Qe4+ 11.Kf1=

4...Qxd5 5.Na3
Sveshnikov is quite optimistic about White’s chances: “White develops quickly
and takes a firm grip on the initiative”. 5.d4 Nc6 This transposes to the main line
of the Alapin (2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 g6 5.Nf3 Nc6).

5...Bg7 6.d4

This transposes to 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5 3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 g6 5.Nf3 Bg7 6.Na3, and I
think it is fine for Black. However, I recommend (in the main line of the Alapin
section) that Black plays 5...Nc6 instead of 5...Bg7, so this variation does not
‘come up’ in the main move order. That being said, I recommend 5...Nc6
because I don’t like Black’s position after 5...Bg7 6.Nbd2! which is not the case
here, so some readers may prefer to allow this line rather than allowing a
delayed Rossolimo with 3...Nc6.
6.Bc4 This is Sveshnikov’s recommendation (following up with: 6...Qe4+
7.Be2). 6...Qe4+ 7.Be2
a) 7.Qe2 Qxe2+ 8.Bxe2 (8.Kxe2 a6!=) 8...Nf6 9.d4 (9.Nb5 Nd5=) 9...cxd4
10.Nxd4 0-0 11.0-0 Rd8 12.Rd1 Bd7 13.Bf3 Nc6=;
b) 7.Kf1 Be6 8.Be2 Nc6 9.Ng5 Qf5 10.Nxe6 Qxe6 11.Qb3 Qd7=;
7...Nf6 8.0-0
We have been following Sveshnikov’s recommendations from his book, but here
he only gives 8...0-0 which Miezis played against him in 2005. The
improvement for Black was first played by Van Kampen in 2011.
a) 8.Nb5 Qc6 9.d4 (9.Ne5 Qb6 10.Nc4 Qd8 11.d4 a6 12.Nba3 b5 13.Bf3 Ra7
14.Bf4 Nfd7=) 9...0-0 10.0-0 a6 11.Ne5 Qb6 12.dxc5 (12.Na3 Be6=)
12...Qxc5 13.Qd4 Nbd7=;
b) 8.d4 cxd4 9.Nb5 (9.Nxd4 Qxg2 10.Bf3 Qh3µ; 9.Qxd4 Qxd4 10.Nxd4 0-0
11.0-0 Rd8 12.Rd1 Bd7 13.Bf3 Nc6=) 9...0-0 10.Nbxd4 (10.Nc7 dxc3
11.Nxa8 Nd5–+; 10.Qxd4 Qxd4 11.Nbxd4 Bd7 12.0-0 Nc6 13.Nb3 Rad8
14.Nc5 Bc8=) 10...Nc6 11.0-0 Bg4=;
8...Nc6!
(8...0-0 9.d4 cxd4 10.Nxd4² Sveshnikov-Miezis 2005)
9.d4
a) 9.Re1 0-0 10.Bc4 (10.Bb5 Qd5 11.Bxc6 Qxc6 12.Rxe7? Be6µ) 10...Qf5
11.Nc2 Qh5 12.h3 (12.Be2 Rd8=) 12...Rd8 13.Qe2 Nd5 14.d4 cxd4 15.Ncxd4
Nxd4 16.cxd4 Bf6!= (16...e6? 17.Bg5²);
b) 9.Nb5 0-0 10.Re1 Rd8 11.d4 Bg4! 12.h3 Bh5!
 13.Be3 (13.g4? Bxg4 14.hxg4 Qxg4+ 15.Kf1 Qh3+ 16.Kg1 cxd4 17.cxd4
Rd5µ) 13...Nd5 14.Qc1 Nxe3 15.Qxe3 Qxe3 16.fxe3 Bxf3 17.Bxf3 cxd4
18.exd4 e5 19.dxe5 Nxe5=;
9...cxd4 10.Nb5
(10.Nxd4 Nxd4 11.cxd4 0-0 12.Bf3 Qf5 13.Re1 Nd5=)
10...0-0 11.Nfxd4 Nxd4 12.Nxd4 e5
13.Nb5 Qc6 14.Qd6 Bd7 15.Rd1 a6 16.Bg5 Rad8 17.Qxc6 Bxc6 18.Nd6 h6
19.Bh4 Rd7 20.Nc4 Nd5 21.Bg3 Re8 22.a4 Nf4³ 1/2–1/2 (40) Michalczak,T
(2325)-Van Kampen,R (2519) Dortmund 2011.

6...cxd4
7.Bc4

7.Nb5 Na6 8.Nbxd4 Nf6 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Qe2 0-0 11.Bxa6 bxa6= 12.Qxa6?? e5
13.Ne2 Bb5 14.Qa5 Qd3 15.Ng3 Nh5–+

7...Qe4+ 8.Be3 Nh6

Not 8...dxe3?? 9.Bxf7+ winning.

9.cxd4

9.Nb5 0-0 10.cxd4 Nc6 11.Nc3

Black has two equally viable options here. 11...Qf5 is riskier, but perhaps more
fun as it involves an unclear piece sacrifice. 11...Qg4!?
(11...Qf5!? 12.h3 (12.0-0 Ng4 13.h3 Nxe3 14.fxe3 e6= Black will be fine after
he relocates his queen to e7 via f6.) 12...Qa5 13.g4 (13.d5 Ne5 14.Nxe5 Bxe5
15.Bxh6 Bxc3+ 16.Kf1 Bg7 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Qd4+ f6 19.Re1 Qb4=)
13...Nxg4! 14.hxg4 Bxg4©)
12.h3 Qh5 13.Qd2
(13.0-0 Nf5=)
13...Ng4 14.Bg5 h6 15.Bh4 Nf6=

9...0-0 10.0-0 Nf5 11.Qb3 e6

I’ve seen some grandmasters in America play this line against lower rated
players in Swiss tournaments presumably to obtain winning chances but in my
view White is playing with little risk: the isolated pawn is inadequately
blockaded, so it can always be pushed if White is content to neutralize the
position.

12.Rae1

12.Nb5 Nc6 13.Nc3

(13.Bd3 Qd5 14.Qa3 Nxe3 15.fxe3 Qd8=)
13...Qg4 14.Be2 Nxe3 15.fxe3 Qh5=

12...Nxe3 13.Rxe3

13.fxe3 Nc6=

13...Qf4 14.d5 exd5 15.Bxd5 Na6 16.Rc1 Qf6=

 6

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.c3 Nc6

I prefer this move order, because I quite like the delayed Rossolimo (4.Bb5) for
Black, especially if it is an Alapin player on the White side.

4.Bb5

This transposes to a harmless variation of the Rossolimo: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6

3.Bb5 g6 4.c3.
4.d4 d5 5.e5
Aside from transposing to the main line of the Alapin subchapter with 5.exd5,
this is White’s only serious attempt at playing for an advantage. However, I
prefer Black in the tense struggle which ensues.
(5.dxc5 This offers White no advantage whatsoever. 5...dxe4 6.Qxd8+ Nxd8
7.Nd4 Bg7 8.Bb5+ Bd7 9.Bxd7+ Kxd7 10.0-0 Nc6 11.Rd1 Nxd4 12.cxd4 f5
13.Nc3 Ke6! 14.d5+ Kf7=; 5.exd5 Qxd5 This transposes to 1.e4 c5 2.c3 d5
3.exd5 Qxd5 4.d4 g6 5.Nf3 Nc6.)
5...cxd4 6.cxd4 Bg4 Black has ideas of ...Qd8-b6, ...Ng8-h6-f5, etc. The
position plays itself. 7.Be2
a) 7.Nbd2 Nh6 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Nxf3 Nf5 10.Qa4 (10.g4 Ng7=) 10...a6 11.Bd3
Qd7 12.Bxf5 Qxf5 13.Qb3 Qd7=;
b) 7.Bb5 Qb6 8.Bxc6+ Qxc6 9.0-0 e6 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 Bg7 12.Nc3 Ne7
13.Bg5 Nf5 14.Ne2 h6 15.Bd2 0-0=;
7...Nh6 8.Nbd2
GM Hoyos now faltered against Topalov with 8...f6?! but he would have had a
slightly preferable position after 8...Nf5.
8...Nf5
(8...f6?! 9.exf6 exf6 10.0-0² Topalov-Leon Hoyos, Mexico 2010)
9.0-0 Qb6 10.Qa4 e6=
Black is ready to set up the ‘V’-structure with ...h7-h5, and it is unclear whether
White has anything other than defensive ambitions.

4...Bg7

5.0-0

5.d4 Qa5! 6.Bxc6 bxc6 7.0-0 Nf6

(7...cxd4 8.cxd4 Nf6 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Bg5 h6 11.Bd2 Qb6 12.b3 d6 13.Rc1²)
8.Re1 0-0
9.e5
(9.Bg5 h6 10.Bh4 cxd4 11.cxd4 g5 12.Bg3 Nh5„)
9...Nd5 10.c4 Nc7 11.dxc5 Qxc5 12.b3 d6 13.Bb2 Bg4=;
5.Bxc6?! This is premature, as Black planned to expend a tempo next move with
...a7-a6 inducing White to take on c6. 5...dxc6=

5...a6!
I very much like this move, which grew up in the 1960s in the arsenals of
grandmasters Mednis, Taimanov, and Pirc. Black demands a decision from
White, and the ‘wasted’ tempo on ...a7-a6 is not really a waste when we consider
that White rarely couples Bb5xc6 with c2-c3 in the Rossolimo.

6.Bxc6

6.Ba4 b5 7.Bc2 d5 8.d4 cxd4 9.cxd4 Bg4=

6...dxc6!

White wishes the c-pawn were on c2; on c3 it obstructs the natural square for the
knight, and also weakens the d3-square. The only way for White to make sense
of his position is to play for d2-d4.
6...bxc6 7.d4 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nf6 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Re1 d6 11.h3 Rb8 12.Qc2 Qb6
13.b3²

7.d3

7.h3 Qd3! 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Re3 Qd8 10.d4 0-0 11.Nbd2 cxd4 12.cxd4
12...Ne8! A thematic idea for this structure: Black has his eye on the to-be d5
hole after an eventual ...f7-f5. From e8, the knight can reach d5 either via e8-d6-
b5-c7-d5 or directly e8-c7-d5. 13.b3 Nc7 14.Nc4 f5 15.Nb6 Rb8 16.exf5
(16.Nxc8 Rxc8=)
16...Bxf5 17.Ba3 Ne6
18.Nc4 Nxd4 19.Bxe7 Qd5 20.Bxf8 Rxf8 21.Nxd4
(21.Ne1 c5³)
21...Bxd4=;
7.d4?! cxd4 8.cxd4 Bg4 9.Nbd2 Qxd4! 10.Qb3 Qd7 11.Ng5 Nh6 12.f3 Qd4+
13.Kh1 Bc8 14.Rd1 Qa7³

7...Bg4!? 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 Nf6

9...e5 10.a4 a5 11.Na3 Ne7 12.Be3 b6 13.Nc4 0-0 14.Qg3 f6 15.Rfd1²

10.Rd1 0-0 11.d4 cxd4 12.cxd4

12...Ne8!

A recurring theme.

13.Be3 Nd6 14.Nd2 e6

All of Black’s pawns are on light squares; as such, he plans to occupy the light
squared to-be hole on d5. For his part, White will seek dark-squared holes like
d6 and c5 for his knight, but Black’s dark squared bishop can protect these
squares, whereas White’s dark-bishop cannot protect White’s corresponding
weaknesses on the light squares.
14...f5!? 15.e5 Nb5 16.Nb3 e6 17.Nc5 f4 18.Bc1 Nxd4 19.Qe4 Qe7∞

15.Rac1 f5 16.e5 Nb5 17.Qf4

17.Nc4? f4!µ

17...Nc7 18.Nc4 Nd5 19.Qf3 Rf7=

 AFTERWORD

Celebrating Raja’s Contributions:

A Year in Review, by GM Romain Edouard

We initiated discussions with Raja about the idea of a book on the Hyper
Accelerated Dragon during the Reykjavik Open in 2014 (we noticed his original
handling of the opening from some of his games), and it took us two full years to
finalize a mutually agreeable contract. We had a great feeling about Raja, who
was writing excellently in our correspondences, well trained by his studies at
Oxford University. Still, he had never written any chess book and wasn’t a GM
yet (though he has completed his GM norms since writing his book) — which
means he was relatively unknown to our European audience. However, after
Raja sent me a sample of his work, I immediately asked our Managing Director,
Daniel Vanheirzeele, to try to find an agreement with him, as I judged the
material outstanding.
I was very happy when a deal was finally signed, and continued being pleased
with the material I was receiving from Raja. Besides the great quality of the
contents, I was also impressed how clean his delivered work was — making my
managing editor’s job way easier, as I did not have to do too many edits before
sending the material to our typesetter! As a company, we are very proud of the
final product: Raja’s book has met and far exceeded our already high hopes, and
reviews have been overwhelmingly positive.
In addition to being a success for Thinkers, and a success for Raja, on a more
personal note I have benefitted from Raja’s book in my own games. I like to be
able to change my openings from time to time, especially from the black side,
but doing so has one big disadvantage: the more openings you play, the less you
tend to remember about them. Raja’s ‘revisited’ Accelerated Dragon suited me
perfectly: not only was it full of new ideas, and I was pretty sure I would
surprise some of my opponents, but it is also much easier to remember than most
openings.
The reason for this chapter is to show off the impact that Raja’s book has had in
just one year since its publication. I have selected eleven games involving
Grandmasters, including four of my own, all played after the publication of
Raja’s book, in variations Raja recommends. Some of Raja’s most powerful
novelties from the book have now been played, for example his 10...d6! In the
Breyer Maroczy (see Andersen-Demuth 2018) and 12...h5! followed by 13...e6!
in the ‘Panjwani System’ of the 7.Bc4 variation (see Petrov-Kapnisis 2017).
Still, some of the most original ideas of the book have not yet been tested in
practice; for example, 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Nc2
e6!?.
In his Introduction Raja predicted a bright future for the Accelerated Dragon,
and that it would take its place among other respectable Sicilians. This seems to
be happening already: who would have thought that Sveshnikov Sicilian players
such as Boris Gelfand would consistently meet the anti-Sveshnikov 1.e4 c5
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 with 3...g6! and enter into a favorable Accelerated Dragon
(since the Maroczy is no longer possible)? Of course, everything has not been
rosy; whenever a serious theoretical work like Raja’s is completed, analysts rush
to find improvements and new challenges.
Several new systems for White have been introduced into practice in many
respects as a response to Raja’s work. For example, one of these is the so-called
‘10.h3 line’ in the Maroczy: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6
6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.Be2 d6 9.0-0 Bd7 10.h3!?. Canadian Grandmaster Kevin
Spraggett (a former coach of Raja’s) published some preliminary analysis on his
blog, and readers are invited to search for improvements for both sides. I have
recently played this line myself with White. When I asked Raja his thoughts on
this system he admitted it is currently a serious challenge (though not to the
Breyer of course) but he also said that this is just ‘business as usual’ in research
(chess or otherwise): for a certain period one variation looks threatening, then
computers continue to improve and new ideas are found to combat it, as well as
different move order nuances.
Raja also pointed to the recent trend in the Maroczy for Black players to play an
early ...Qd8-b6 as in 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.c4 Nc6 6.Be3
Qb6!? with the idea that after 7.Nb3 Qd8 White will either play 8.Nc3 and
allow 8...Bxc3+!? or play 8.Qd2 in which case the 10.h3 line is no longer
playable since the Queen goes to c2 in that line (so far White players have not
tried 8.Qc2!?). He understands that many Black players will be unhappy with a
repetition out of the opening, but Raja has little sympathy for them, and he
thinks that if White is strong enough and deeply prepared enough to play the
10.h3 line successfully (it isn’t a piece of cake to convert the slight edge White
gets in those lines!) then Black should not fear a repetition against such an
opponent (and such an opponent probably doesn’t want a repetition either!).
Take a look at some important games (in chronological order) that were played
throughout the last year thanks to Raja’s book. You will also discover a few
slight improvements I’ve pointed out. Enjoy!
1
K. Drozdowski (2461)
R. Edouard (2622)
Warsaw 2017

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0
8.Bb3 a6 9.f3 Qc7 10.Qd2 b5 11.0-0 Na5 12.Rad1
12...Bb7

I forgot that 12...e6 was Raja’s recommendation here, but my move is fine as
well.
12...e6 13.a3 Bb7„ Raja gave this variation with the remark that “Superficial
developing moves on White’s part have allowed Black to take over the initiative:
...d7–d5 is now imminent”.

13.Qf2 b4 14.Na4 d5!

Black is already on the favorable side of equality.

15.exd5 Nxb3 16.d6 Qxd6

16...exd6 Computers prefer this with a slight edge for Black: 17.Nxb3 Nd5
18.Bd4 Bxd4 19.Rxd4 Rfe8³.

17.Nxb3 Qc7

18.Nac5?!
¹18.c3 bxc3 19.Nxc3 e6!=

18...Bc6

18...Nd5µ

19.Nd3 Nd5 20.Bd4 e5 21.Bc5 Rfb8³

White’s position is very loose.

22.Nd2?! Bb5 23.Ne4 Rc8 24.Rfe1 f5! 25.Bd6 Qxc2 26.Rd2? Qc6

White is losing a piece.

27.Nxe5 Bxe5 28.Bxe5 fxe4–+ 29.fxe4 Ne7 30.Rd6 Rf8 31.Qe3 Qc4 32.h4
Nc6 33.Bf6 Qf7 34.h5 Qa7 35.hxg6 hxg6 36.Qxa7 Rxa7 37.Rc1 Nb8 38.e5
Nd7 39.Be7 Re8 40.Rxg6+ Kf7 41.Bc5 Rc7 42.Rg5 Rxc5 43.e6+ Rxe6
44.Rgxc5 Nxc5 45.Rxc5 Re1+ 46.Kh2 Re2

0–1

2
 D. Vocaturo (2592)
M. Colpe (2412)
Helsingor 2017

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0
8.Bb3 a6 9.0-0 Qc7 10.h3 b5

11.Nxc6?! dxc6 12.Bc5 a5 13.a3 Nh5! 14.Qf3 Nf4

14...a4 15.Ba2 Qe5³

15.Rad1
15...Ne6?!

15...a4 16.Ba2 Be6³

16.Bxe6! Bxe6 17.Qe3

A few moves ago White’s pieces were awkwardly placed but now White has
nice harmony.

17...Rfb8 18.b3! a4 19.Ne2 axb3 20.cxb3 Bb2?! 21.Rd2 Bxa3 22.b4±

22...Bc4 23.Rfd1 Rd8 24.Bb6?

24.Nd4!± e5? 25.Nf5! Rxd2 26.Qxd2 gxf5? 27.Qg5+ Kh8 28.Be7+–

24...Rxd2 25.Rxd2 Qe5 26.Bd4 Qc7 27.Bb6 Qe5 28.Bd4

Black had every reason to avoid repetition and play on himself. After all, Black
is up a pawn.

28...Qc7

28...Qb8! 29.Qc3 f6! 30.Ng3 Bf7 White can probably hold but Black is
certainly to be preferred here.

29.Qc3?!

29.Bb6=

29...c5?

29...f6! 30.Ng3 Bf7³

30.Bxc5± Qb7 31.Ng3 f6 32.Rd1 Ra4? 33.e5!+– Kf7 34.exf6 exf6 35.Re1 Be6
36.Ne4

1–0

3
M. Petrov (2426)
S. Kapnisis (2469)
Athens 2017

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0
8.Bb3 a6 9.f3 Qc7 10.Qd2 b5 11.0-0-0 Bb7 12.h4 h5 13.g4 e6
14.gxh5!?

White is the first to deviate from Raja’s analysis in the book.

14...Nxh5 15.Nde2 Ne5³ 16.Rh3?!

16...Rfc8

16...d5! 17.exd5 exd5µ 18.Nxd5? Bxd5 19.Bxd5 Rfd8! 20.Qb4 Rac8 21.Nc3
Nf6 22.Qb3 (22.Bb3 Rxd1+ 23.Kxd1 Qd7+–+) 22...b4–+

17.Bd4 Qb8?!

Too slow. Very strong was 17...b4 18.Na4 a5! 19.Nb6

19...Ba6!µ 20.Nxa8?! Rxa8 21.Kb1 Bxe2 22.Qxe2 Nf4–+.

18.f4?!

18.Qg5!?²

18...Nc4
19.Bxc4 Rxc4?

19...Bxd4! 20.Nxd4 Rxc4=

20.Bxg7 Kxg7 21.b3 Rc8 22.Qd4+ Kg8 23.f5± Qa7 24.Qd2 Kg7 25.fxg6 b4
26.gxf7 bxc3 27.Qg5+ Kf8 28.Rxd7

1–0

4
W. Spoelman (2586)
R. Edouard (2607)
Belgium 2017

1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.e4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4
8.Qxg4 Nxd4 9.Qd1 e5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 b6!?
As I had tried the more solid 11...d6 earlier, I decided to surprise my opponent
with this fresh alternative suggested by Raja, which I considered very reliable.

12.Ne2 Ne6 13.Qd2 Bb7 14.f3 f5 15.Rad1 Qf6

The tension has been building, things are about to explode.

16.c5?! f4

a) 16...Nxc5 17.Bc4+ Kh8 18.b4 Ne6 19.Qxd7±;

b) 16...bxc5 17.Bc4 d5∞ (17...Rfd8 18.Bg5+–)

17.Bc4?

17.Bf2 bxc5 18.Bc4 Rfd8 19.Nc3°

17...d5!! 18.c6 dxc4 19.cxb7 Rad8µ 20.Qc2?!

20.b8=Q! Rxd2 21.Qxf8+ Bxf8 22.Bxd2µ

20...fxe3 21.Qxc4 Qf7 22.Rxd8 Nxd8

0–1

5
J. Ferreira (2499)
R. Edouard (2607)
Belgium 2018
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.c4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4
8.Qxg4 Nxd4 9.Qd1 e5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 d6 12.a4!? Be6 13.Nb5

13...a6!

13...Qb6?! 14.Qd2 Rfc8 15.Rfc1 a6 16.a5 Qc5 17.b4 Qc6 18.Nxd4 exd4
19.Bh6± Horvath,A (2473)-Seres,L (2461) Heviz 2011.

14.Nxd4 exd4 15.Bd2 Rc8 16.Rc1

16...f5

16...Qd7 17.a5 f5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Bb4 h6 20.Qd2 Kh7 21.Rce1 Rfe8 22.b3
d5!= Arsovic, Z (2446)-Popovic,M (2401) Vrnjacka Banja 2010.

17.exf5 Bxf5 18.Qb3 Qd7 19.Bxf5 Qxf5?!

19...Rxf5 20.c5+ d5
21.Rfe1 d3!=

20.c5+ Rf7 21.cxd6 Rxc1 22.Bxc1 Be5²

½–½

6
O. Kurmann (2467)
A. Demuth (2547)
Bad Ragaz 2018

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0
8.Bb3 a6 9.f3 Qc7 10.Qd2 b5 11.a4 b4
12.Nd5?!

Recall Raja’s analysis after 12.Na2 Rb8! 13.Nxc6

[13.0-0 Nxd4 14.Bxd4 Ne8! 15.Bxg7 (15.Nxb4 Bxd4+ 16.Qxd4 e5 17.Qc3
Qb6+–+) 15...Nxg7= The knight will find its way to c5 via e6; White’s pieces
are sloppy on b3 and a2.]
13...dxc6 14.Nxb4 c5 15.Nd5
[15.Nd3
15...Nxe4!! (15...c4 16.Bf4±) 16.fxe4 c4 17.Bf4 e5³ The ability to play ...e5 in
response to Bf4 is why Black must sacrifice with 15...Nxe4!!]
15...Nxd5 16.Qxd5 Bxb2 17.Rd1 (17.Rb1?! Ba3 18.0-0! Be6µ) 17...Be6
18.Qxc5 Qxc5 19.Bxc5 Bf6 20.Bxe6 fxe6=

12...Nxd5 13.exd5 Na5µ 14.Qxb4 Nxb3 15.Qxb3 Rb8 16.Qa2

16...Qa5+

16...e5! 17.dxe6 dxe6 18.c3 e5 19.Ne2 Be6 20.Qb1 Qc4µ

17.Ke2 Qb4

17...Bb7 18.c4 e6!µ

18.Rhd1
18...Qxb2?!

18...Qd6! 19.h3 e5 20.dxe6 fxe6 21.Kf2 Qh2 22.Rh1 Qc7µ

19.Qxb2 Rxb2³ 20.Kd3 a5 21.Rdb1 Ba6+ 22.Nb5 Rb8 23.Rxb2 Bxb2 24.Rb1
Bxb5+ 25.axb5 Rxb5 26.Bd4 Rxd5 27.Rxb2 e5 28.c3 exd4 29.cxd4

And Black went on to win the endgame.

29...Kf8 30.g4 Ke7 31.Rb8 a4 32.Ra8 Rb5 33.Rxa4 Rb2 34.h4 Rh2 35.Ra6
Rxh4 36.Ke3 h5 37.gxh5 Rxh5 38.Ke4 Rh4+ 39.Ke3 Rh1 40.Ke4 Re1+
41.Kf4 d6 42.Ra7+ Kf6 43.Ra5 Ke6 44.Rb5 f5 45.Kg5 Rg1+ 46.Kf4 Rg2
47.Ra5 Rd2 48.Ke3 Rb2 49.f4 Rb3+ 50.Ke2 Rb6 51.Ke3 Rb7 52.Kd3 Rb4
53.Ke3 Rb6 54.Kd3 Kf6 55.Ra8 Rb3+ 56.Ke2 Rb7 57.Kf3 Rb1 58.Ke2 Ke6
59.Ra5 Rb8 60.Kd3 g5 61.fxg5 Rg8 62.Ke3 Rxg5 63.Ra4 Rg3+ 64.Kf4 Rg4+
65.Ke3 Re4+ 66.Kd3 Re1 67.Ra5 Rh1 68.Ke3 Re1+ 69.Kd3 f4 70.Kd2 Re4
71.Kd3 d5 72.Ra8 Re3+ 73.Kd2 Kf5 74.Rf8+ Ke4 75.Kc2 Ra3 76.Kd2 f3
77.Re8+ Kxd4 78.Rd8 Ra1 79.Rf8 f2 80.Rf4+ Kc5 81.Rxf2 Ra2+

0–1
 7
L. Bruzon Batista (2673)
R. Edouard (2612)
Saint Louis 2018

1.Nf3 c5 2.e4 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.c4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4
8.Qxg4 Nxd4 9.Qd1 e5 10.Bd3 0-0 11.0-0 d6 12.Qd2 Be6 13.b3 a6 14.Rad1

14...Qd7

14...Rc8 Raja gives this as his main line but also offers 14...Qd7 as a safe
alternative.

15.Kh1

This move was not analyzed by Raja, he considered 15.Nd5, 15.f4, and the
novelty 15.Ne2 which he gives an ‘!’.

15...b5!? 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.cxd5 f5

18.Bxd4

18.exf5 Nxf5=

18...fxe4

An important inbetween move.

18...exd4 19.exf5 gxf5 Black ’s kingside (pawns) are broken. 20.Rde1±

19.Bxe5 Bxe5 20.Bxe4 Qg4! 21.Rde1?!

21.Qd3 Rac8 22.g3 Rc3 23.Qb1 Rfc8°

21...Qh4=
22.g3

22.h3 Rf4 Black has full compensation: in such opposite color bishop positions,
the pawn count is less important than the activity of the pieces. 23.Bc2 Raf8
24.Re2 Bd4 25.Kg1 Bc5=

22...Bxg3! 23.fxg3 Rxf1+ 24.Rxf1 Qxe4+ 25.Qg2

25...Qe7 26.Qd2 Qe4+ 27.Qg2 Qe7 28.Qd2 Re8

I decided to play on... it is drawish of course but Black is more comfortable.

29.Kg1 Qe5 30.Rc1 a5 31.Qd3 b4³

32.Rc2 Qe3+?!

I could have instead posed serious problems with 32...Rf8! 33.Rd2 (33.Rf2 Qa1+
34.Kg2 Rxf2+ 35.Kxf2 Qxa2+µ) 33...Rf5! 34.Kg2 h5 35.Qd4 Kg7 36.Qxe5+
Rxe5µ White’s rook is passive; Black will probably end up winning the d5 pawn
and retain practical winning chances.

33.Qxe3 Rxe3 34.Kf2

34.Rc8+ Kg7 35.Ra8=

34...Rd3 35.Ke2 Rxd5 36.Rc7

Since White has managed to cut off Black ’s king, this is a drawn endgame.

36...Re5+ 37.Kf3 h5 38.Rd7 Rd5 39.Ra7 g5 40.g4 hxg4+ 41.Kxg4 Kf8 42.Kf3
Ke8 43.Ke4 Re5+ 44.Kd4 Kd8 45.h3 Kc8 46.Kd3 Kb8 47.Rd7 Rd5+ 48.Kc4
Kc8 49.Ra7 Rc5+ 50.Kd4 Re5

½–½

8
Y. Zherebukh (2633)
R. Edouard (2612)
Saint Louis 2018

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.c4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 d6 8.Be2
0-0 9.0-0 Bd7 10.Nb3 a5 11.Nd2 Bc8 12.Rc1 Nd7 13.Nb3 a4 14.Nd4 Nxd4
15.Bxd4
So far we have been following Raja’s analysis. Here, over the board, I decided to
deviate from what I knew was Raja’s recommendation, 15...Bh6, because it
seemed to me that his analysis led to a suspicious position. It happens that I was
right — White has a crushing resource which Raja missed, but it turns out I
should have played 15...Bh6 anyway and deviated from Raja’s analysis a bit
later.

15...Bxd4

I decided to defend this slightly worse endgame instead of risking the

complications after 15...Bh6. This turned out to be an easier task than it should
have been, with accurate play White can pose serious problems here. However,
as Raja insisted throughout this book, computers make everything look easy, and
in practice even strong grandmasters do not play accurately enough to pose
problems with these slight advantages.
15...Bh6! 16.f4 e5 17.Be3 exf4 18.Bxf4
18...Bxf4! This is the best way for Black to equalize. In general Black is happy
to exchange these dark-squared bishops; as long as White has nothing immediate
then Black’s sounder pawn structure and dark square control will tell.
[18...Qb6+?! This was Raja’s recommendation, which has now been corrected.
19.Kh1 Bxf4 20.Rxf4 Qxb2 21.Rc2 Qb6

22.Nd5! This move, with the idea of 23.c5!! was missed by Raja. (22.Rd2 Ne5
23.Nd5 Qc5 24.Nf6+ Kg7 25.Rxd6 Be6= Panjwani) 22...Qd8 23.c5!! dxc5
(23...Nxc5 24.Nf6+ Kg7 25.Qa1! Ne6 26.Rf3±) 24.Bb5 Ne5 25.Rxc5 Kg7
26.Qa1 Qd6 27.Rc7 Be6 28.Rf6 Kg8 29.h3!!±

Apparently the only move which gives White an advantage, but it is a clear
advantage. Although this is a computer move, Black has been struggling with an
unpleasant position for several moves now.]
19.Rxf4 Ne5!
20.Nd5 (20.Rf1 Be6 21.Nxa4 Qa5 22.b3 Nxc4 23.Bxc4 Bxc4 24.Rxc4 b5
25.Rd4 bxa4 26.bxa4 Rab8=; 20.Nxa4 Bd7 21.Nc3 Qb6+ 22.Kh1 Qxb2 23.Rc2
Qa3³) 20...Be6 21.Nf6+ Kg7 22.Qd4 Qc7=

16.Qxd4 Qb6
17.Qxb6

17.Qd2! Nf6 (17...Nc5 18.Nd5 Qd8 19.Rfd1 Be6 20.Qd4 Bxd5 21.cxd5²)
18.c5!! dxc5 19.e5 Rd8 20.Qh6 (20.Qg5 Ne8 21.Ne4 Be6 22.Nxc5 Ng7
23.Qxe7 Qxb2 24.Nxe6 Nxe6=) 20...Ng4 21.Bxg4 Bxg4 22.Ne4

22...f6 23.exf6 exf6 24.Qh4 Kg7 25.Nxc5 h5 26.h3 Bf5 27.Nxa4 Qd4 28.Rc7+
Kh6 29.Qxd4 Rxd4 30.Nc3²

17...Nxb6 18.f4

18.Nd5 Nxd5 19.cxd5 e6 20.Rc7 exd5 21.exd5 Bf5! 22.Rxb7?! Rfb8 23.Rb5
Bd7! 24.Rxb8+ Rxb8³

18...Be6 19.Nb5 Rfc8 20.b3 axb3 21.axb3

21...Bd7! 22.Nd4 Ra2 23.e5 dxe5 24.fxe5 e6! 25.Bf3 Bc6= 26.Nxc6 bxc6
27.Rfd1 Ra7 28.Rd6 Rac7 29.b4 Kf8 30.c5 Nd5 31.Bxd5

½–½

9
Wei Yi (2734)
S. Shankland (2671)
Liaocheng 2018

1.Nf3 c5 2.e4 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Bc4 0-0
8.Bb3 a6 9.0-0
9...d6

Raja recommends the move order 9...Qc7 to keep the option of keeping the
pawn on d7 and opting instead for a Taimanov structure with ...e7–e6.
9...Qc7 10.f4 d6 11.h3 Na5 12.Qd3 b5³ This line given by Raja is similar to the
game though White had to play f2–f4 to induce ...d7–d6 by Black, whereas
Shankland played it voluntarily.

10.h3

10.Qd2 Ng4 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Bg5 a5 Black should be okay.

10...Na5!

Black is at least equal, but his position is much easier to play so practically
speaking Black is bound to get a slight edge in the coming moves.

11.Qd3 b5 12.Nd5 Bb7 13.c3 Rc8 14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.Bh6 Re8 16.Bd5 Qd7
17.Rad1 Bxd5 18.exd5 Qb7³
Targeting the d5 pawn but also threatening a minority attack with ...b5–b4.

19.Nc2 Nc4 20.Bc1 a5 21.Qg3 Rc5 22.Ne3 Nxe3 23.Bxe3 Rc4µ

23...Rxd5?? 24.Qf3+–

24.Bg5 Bxg5 25.Qxg5 b4 26.cxb4 Qxb4

26...Rxb4 27.b3 a4 28.bxa4 Rxa4 29.Rd2 Ra5µ

27.Qd2
27...Qxd2?!

Unnecessarily direct.
27...Rec8 28.Qxb4 axb4 29.Rd2 Rc2 30.Rfd1 Kg7µ

28.Rxd2 a4 29.Re1 Kf8³

Black only lost this game because he took serious risk in his attempt to win.

30.Re3 Rb8 31.b3?! Rcb4 32.Rdd3 R8b5 33.g3 h5 34.h4 Rc5 35.Rd2 axb3
36.axb3

Although the computer assesses the position as µ, it is not easy to see how Black
makes progress.
Shank land slowly loses his way, I give the rest of the game without notes since
this is not meant to be a discussion on rook endings.

36...Rb7 37.Kg2 Rcb5 38.Rdd3 Ke8 39.Rf3 Rc5 40.Rd2 Rbb5 41.Rfd3 Kd7
42.Rf3 f6 43.Rfd3 Ke8 44.Kh2 Kf7 45.Kg2 f5 46.f4 Kf6 47.Kf2 Rb4 48.Re2
Re4?! 49.Kf3 Rxe2 50.Kxe2= Rc2+ 51.Ke3 e5 52.dxe6 Kxe6 53.Kd4 d5?
54.Rc3!± Rd2+ 55.Ke3? Rg2 56.Kd4 Rd2+ 57.Kc5! d4 58.Rf3 Rd1 59.Kc4
Kd6 60.Rd3 Re1 61.Rxd4+ Kc6 62.Rd3 Re4+ 63.Rd4 Re3 64.Rd3 Re4+
65.Kc3 Kc5 66.Kd2 Kb4 67.Re3 Rd4+ 68.Rd3 Re4 69.Rd6 g5 70.hxg5 h4
71.gxh4 Rxf4 72.h5 Rh4 73.h6 Rh5 74.Rd8

1–0

10
M. Andersen (2589)
A. Demuth (2538)
Berlin 2018

1.c4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.e4 Nc6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4
8.Qxg4 Nxd4 9.Qd1 e5
I can testify that Adrien played this line thanks to Raja. He had bought the book
a couple of days before, and we had a chat before that game!

10.Nb5

10...d6!N

This is the first published game with Raja’s novelty. As he mentions in his book
though, he played it twice in unpublished tournament games (wins) against GM
Gorovets and WGM Nemcova.

11.Nxd4 exd4 12.Bxd4 Qa5+ 13.Ke2 Be5 14.f3 f5

15.exf5

15.Qd3 Raja gives this as his main line.

15...Bxf5 16.Kf2 0-0-0

16...0-0!? Panjwani.

17.Rc1

17.Be2? Bc2!³ Panjwani.

17...Kb8 18.Be2 Rhe8

Until this point both players have been following Raja’s analysis. Here Andersen
deviates.

19.Re1!?

19.Rc3 d5„ Panjwani

19...d5?!

a) 19...h5!? 20.Rc3 (20.h3 g5!„) 20...d5 Now if the variation proceeds as in the
main game then... 21.Bxe5+ Rxe5 22.Qd4 dxc4 23.Qxc4 Be6 24.Qf4 g5=
25.Qg3?? h4–+;
b) 19...Bxh2 Black can safely regain his sacrificed pawn. 20.Rc3 (20.g3 Bc8!
21.Kg2 Bxg3! 22.Kxg3 Qg5+ 23.Kf2 Qh4+ 24.Kg1 Qg3+ 25.Kh1 Re6 26.Bf1
Qh4+ 27.Kg1 Rxe1 28.Bxa7+ Kxa7 29.Qxe1 Qg5+³) 20...Be5 21.g4 Bc8
22.Ra3 Bxd4+ 23.Qxd4 Qc5=

20.Bxe5+ Rxe5 21.Qd4 dxc4 22.Qxc4

22...Rde8?!

a) 22...Be6 23.Qf4 g5 24.Qg3± (if Black had a pawn on h5, as in the variation
19...h5, then there would now be ...h5–h4);
b) ¹22...Ree8!=

23.b4

23.Qd4!²

23...Qb6+ 24.Kf1 Bd7 25.Qf4 g5 26.Qd2

26...Rxe2! 27.Rxe2 Bb5 28.Rce1 h6= 29.a4 Bc4 30.a5 Qb5 31.Kf2 Bxe2

½–½

11
A. Pichot (2564)
R. Panjwani (2456)
Montevideo 2018
For the final game of this chapter I decided to include one of Raja’s from the
recent tournament where he achieved his final Grandmaster norm. Even after
publishing all his analysis for the public, he still trusted his pet system in an
important encounter with GM Pichot!

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.c4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 Ng4
8.Qxg4 Nxd4 9.Qd1 e5 10.Bd3 d6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Qd2 Be6
13.b3

This is the first deviation from Raja’s analysis. White does without the usual
rook moves (13.Rad1, 13.Rac1, etc.).

13...a6 14.Ne2 b5! 15.cxb5 axb5

16.Qb4

16.Nxd4 exd4 17.Bf4 Qb6 18.Qb4 Be5 19.Bxe5 dxe5

20.a4 (20.Qxb5 Qd6°; 20.Bxb5 Bd7 21.a4 Rab8³) 20...Rfc8! Black plays in
Benko-gambit fashion. 21.axb5 (21.Bxb5 Rc3 22.Rab1 Qc7³) 21...Kg7 22.Ra4
Rab8 23.Bc4 Ra8= 24.Rfa1? Rxa4 25.Rxa4 d3!µ

16...d5! 17.Bxd4 exd4 18.Nf4

18.Nxd4 Bxd4 19.Qxd4 dxe4 20.Qxd8 Rfxd8 21.Bxb5 (21.Bxe4 Ra3!=)

21...Rd2 22.Ba4 Rc8=

18...dxe4 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.Bxe4

20...Qa5!=

20...d3∞

21.Qe7 Rfe8 22.Qg5 b4! 23.Qg4 Rac8 24.Bd3 Rc3 25.Bc4 Qf5

25...Kh8! Black can try for an advantage: in such opposite colored bishop
endgames it is often favorable to sacrifice a pawn for activity. 26.Bxe6 d3
27.Rad1 Rd8 28.Bc4 d2³

26.Qxf5
½–½