8...

Re8

The most popular alternative is 8...a6 when White has played several alternatives:
A) 9.a4 a5 10.b3 Re8 11.Ba3 Bf8 12.Rad1 Qb6 13.Rfe1 exd4 14.Nxd4 Nc5 15.Bf1 g6 16.Kh1 Bg7 17.f3 Nh5
18.Nce2 Be5 with counterplay, Levi-Djuric, Adelaide 1990;
B) 9.b4 Re8 10.Bb2 Bf8 11.Rad1 Qc7 12.Rfe1 b5 13.dxe5 Nxe5!, Chekhov-Espig, Halle 1981;
C) 9.Be3 Re8 10.Rad1 Qc7 11.h3 Bf8 12.a3 b5 13.cxb5 cxb5 14.d5 Nb6 15.Nd2 Bd7 16.Rc1 Rec8 17.Qb1 Qb8
18.Rc2 Be7 19.b3 Bd8 with a slight plus for White, but a solid position for Black, Dolmatov-Malaniuk, Kostroma
1985;
D) 9.Rd1! (the strongest option. Now the threat against e5 hinders Black’s ideal plan of ...b7-b5, ...Bb7 and ...Qb8)
9...Qc7 10.Bg5 (alternatives: 10.Rb1 b5 11.b4 Bb7 12.dxe5 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 dxe5 14.Be3 a5!? with counterplay in
Schandorff-Espig, Dresden 2000; 10.b4 Re8!?; and 10.Bd2 b5 11.cxb5 cxb5 12.Rac1 Qb8) 10...h6 11.Bh4 Re8
analysis diagram

12.Rac1 (12.b4 Nf8 (intending ...Ng6 or ...Nh5) 13.Bg3 Nh5 14.dxe5 Nxg3 15.hxg3 dxe5 16.c5 a5 with counterplay,
Eljanov-Malaniuk, Polanica Zdroj 1999; 12.h3 (Yusupov-Vaganian, Montpellier ct 1985) 12...b5 13.cxb5 cxb5
14.Rac1 Qb8 with approximate equality) 12...Nf8! This seems to solve Black’s problems: 13.c5 exd4 14.cxd6 Bxd6
15.Rxd4 Ng4 16.Bg3 Bxg3 17.hxg3 Qe7 18.Rcd1 (Beliavsky-Malaniuk, Kiev ch-URS 1986) and 18...Be6!? seems
reasonable enough.
After this theoretical excursion, on with the game and 8...Re8.

9.Re1 a6

White has played e2-e4, so Black can start his plan with ...b7-b5.

10.h3

Taking the square g4 from Black.

10...b5 11.a3

Such a move always gives comfort to Black, because it is essentially defensive and so Black cannot be doing badly
already. If he later gets in ...b5-b4 then b2 can be backward and weak.

11...Bb7 12.Bf1

12.Bg5 h6 13.Be3 exd4 14.Nxd4 Bf8 15.Nf5 Nc5 16.Ng3 Qc7 17.Rad1 g6 18.b4 Ncd7 19.Qb3 Rac8 20.Rc1 Qd8
21.Bd4 h5 Ubilava-Gulko, Tallinn 1983.

12...exd4 13.Nxd4 Bf8

Preparing ...c6-c5 with pressure against e4.

14.Bg5 Qb8

A subtle move. On c7, the queen would be unhappy in the vis-à-vis along the c-file, whereas now ...Qa7 is also in
the position.
15.Rad1 h6 16.Bh4 Qa7

A good idea now the white bishop has been driven to the edge of the board and cannot retreat to e3.

17.Nf5 Re6 18.b4

It is objectively better to admit that White has not achieved anything and to repeat with 18.Nd4 Ree8, with equal
chances. Rogers, however, had more space and probably thought his pieces were better placed, and he allowed
himself to be lured into trouble.

18...g6 19.Nd4 Ree8

Are the pawns on c6 and d6 weak? White cannot attack them. Black will get some counterplay with ...c6-c5. He
does not stand worse.

20.Nb3 Rac8

Giving the bishop a retreat after 21.Na5 Ba8. Black patiently awaits counterchances.

21.Na5 Ba8 22.Qb3 Re6 23.Bd3 Rce8

Black’s position is perfectly in order.

24.Kf1

A strange move, but White wants to advance the f-pawn.

24...Bg7 25.f3 Nh5

A drawback of Kf1 and f2-f3 is that various dark squares are weakened. The game is turning in Black’s favour.

26.Ne2 Ne5 27.Bb1 bxc4

Black opens the position and frees his pieces.

28.Nxc4 Nxc4 29.Qxc4 d5

The point, bringing the position to life. Otherwise, Black would just have exchanged off a bad white piece.
30.Qc5 Qb8

Black’s chances on the dark squares are obvious. The attacking move ...Qh2 is in the air.

31.Nd4 Bxd4 32.Qxd4 c5!

A strong move to activate the Ba8.

33.bxc5 dxe4 34.fxe4 g5 35.Bf2 Qh2

A sudden raid, which sends the white king running.

36.Bg1 Qh1

Burying his own queen, but threatening 37...Rf6+. White’s position is wrecked. Black can be very pleased with this
nice idea.

37.Re3 Rf6+ 38.Ke2 Qxg2+ 39.Kd3 Rf1

White faces insuperable problems, as a result of over-ambitious play.

40.Ree1 Nf4+ 41.Kc4 Rxe1 42.Rxe1 Bd5+

Another strong move.

43.Kb4 Rb8+

It is striking how the active black pieces all attack the white king.

44.Ka5 Qxh3 45.exd5 Qxa3+ 46.Qa4 Rb5+ 0-1

A typical example of a strong player overestimating his chances against the solid Old Indian.

Game 13
Karl Robatsch 2410
Milan Vukic 2450
Tuzla 1981 (2)

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 Nbd7 5.e4 c6 6.Be2 Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Be3
A centralising move, which can be considered as the introduction to the main line of the opening.

8...a6 9.d5 c5!?

Again opting for the Czech Benoni structure. The fact that an experienced Old Indian player like Vukic has
repeatedly played this way is more or less a proof of its playability. Black however must be willing to manoeuvre on
inner lines with little space.

10.Nd2

White has several alternatives, such as 10.a3 Ne8 (the first step in the development of Black’s plan) 11.b4 b6 12.Qd2
g6 (the second stage towards achieving ...f7-f5) 13.Rab1 Ng7 14.Bh6 Nf6 (yet more preparation. In fact, this is
really a typical Czech Benoni position, in which this manoeuvre is well-known) 15.Ne1 Kh8.
analysis diagram

Still further careful preparation. Black intends ...Ng8 to stabilise the kingside and then to play ...f7-f5, with
counterplay. 16.f4 (White takes action against the indicated black plan) 16...exf4 17.Nd3 Nd7 18.Bxf4 and Black
was able to generate interesting counterplay with 18...g5!? 19.Bg3 f5 Jansa-Martin, Gausdal 1991. Black has good
counterplay and a full share of the game.
Another example is 10.Ne1 Ne8 11.Qd2 (stops ...Bg5 when Black gets rid of his ‘bad bishop’ and thus eases his
position) 11...g6 (11...h6 12.g3 Ndf6 13.f4 (Wells-Martin, Torquay ch-GBR 1998), and now 13...Bh3 14.Rf2 b5 and
Black generates counterplay, e.g. 15.cxb5 axb5 16.Bxb5 Ng4) 12.Nd3 Ng7 and the players agreed to an early draw
in Cvitan-Vukic, Rijeka 2006.
10.Rb1 Ne8 11.b4 and a couple of Vukic’s games continued with 11...b6 (11...cxb4 12.Rxb4 Qa5 13.Qa4 Bd8 may
be playable as well) 12.bxc5 bxc5 with the familiar idea of ...g7-g6 and ...Ng7, opting for ...f7-f5.

10...Ne8 11.a3 Bg5

Exploiting the white knight’s removal from f3 to achieve the favourable exchange of dark-squared bishops.

12.Bxg5 Qxg5 13.b4 b6 14.Nb3 Qd8 15.bxc5 dxc5?!

15...bxc5 seems about equal; and even 15...Nxc5 may be worth a try.

16.a4 Nd6 17.a5?!

Presumably overlooking the reply. 17.Nd2 is a better continuation, planning Rb1.

17...b5!

18.cxb5 c4 19.Nd2 axb5 20.Qb1 Ba6

Black is taking over.

21.Qb4 Qc7 22.Ra3 Nc5 23.Re1 Rfb8 24.Na2 Bc8 25.Qb2 f6 26.Nb4 Na4 27.Qc2 Qc5 28.Rb1 Rxa5

And now Black should be winning.

29.Raa1 Bd7!?

Possible is 29...Rba8 but Black gives up the exchange instead.

30.Nb3 Qxb4 31.Nxa5 Qc3 32.Qd1 Qxa5 33.Rxa4 Qc7 34.Rab4 Ra8 35.Qc2 Qc5 36.h3
36...Kf8?!

This looks like a time trouble decision, judging from the follow-up as well. Very strong instead was 36...f5 37.Bf3
Rf8.

37.Bg4 Be8

37...Bxg4 38.hxg4 Qd4 39.Qe2.

38.Kh2 Ke7

Why not the active 38...Ra3 instead?

39.f4?! Qe3 40.fxe5 Qf4+ 41.Kg1 Qxe5 42.Qf2 Ra1

42...Nxe4 is possible, but perhaps the time scramble was still going on.

43.Qc5 Kf7 44.Bh5+ g6 45.Qc7+ Kf8 46.Bg4

46.Bf3.

46...Rxb1+ 47.Rxb1 Qe7 48.Qb8 c3 49.Rc1?

49.Bd1 – but that is easier for an engine than for a human.

49...Nxe4 0-1

A rather scrappy game overall, but Vukic’s handling of the opening and early middlegame is worth noting.

Game 14
Semen Furman
Boris Spassky
Moscow ch-URS 1961 (4)

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Nbd7 4.e4 e5 5.Nf3 Be7 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.Be3
White’s idea, if undisturbed, is to play d4-d5 and Nd2, after which he is well armed against Black’s thematic
counterplay with ...a7-a6 and ...b7-b5, as his pieces are well positioned to play against that particular formation.

8...Re8

In the same tournament, Spassky experimented with a solid but passive set-up: 8...b6 9.Qc2 Ng4 10.Bd2 Bb7
11.Rad1 Qc7 12.h3 Ngf6 13.Be3 Rfe8 14.Rd2 Bf8 15.Rfd1 Rad8 16.a3 Qb8

and White (one of the strongest players in the Soviet Union at the time) did not seem to know how to handle this.
After 17.dxe5 dxe5 18.b4 Be7 19.c5 bxc5 20.bxc5 Bxc5 21.Rxd7 Nxd7 22.Rxd7 Bxe3 23.Rxd8 Bxf2+ 24.Kxf2
Qxd8, the resulting position was quite unclear and Spassky even managed to win, Bannik-Spassky, Moscow ch-URS
1961.
In the main game, Spassky also plays reactively, not giving White a target on the queenside.

9.d5 Ng4