Odds and ends

Neo-Trompowsky

1.d4 d6

After the move-order 1...Nf6 Black must reckon with the Trompowsky attack proper 2.Bg5, e.g. 2...d6

analysis diagram

3.Bxf6 (neither 3.Nd2 e5 nor 3.c3 Nbd7 4.e3 e5 5.Nd2 Be7 6.Bd3 (Böhm-Miles, Amsterdam 1976), and now
6...Nd5=, is particularly disturbing for Black) 3...exf6 (the unusual experiment 3...gxf6!? 4.e3 c5 may be an
interesting option, when both opponents are on their own) 4.e3 f5 5.c4 (or 5.g3 g6 6.Bg2 Nd7 7.Ne2 when 7...h5!? is
a suggestion) 5...Nd7 6.Nc3 g6 7.g3
analysis diagram

7...h5!?. Hoping to provoke some weaknesses into White’s kingside to future counterplay. This idea offers some
counterplay that may otherwise be missing in this particular line. 8.h4 Nf6 9.Bg2 Bh6 10.Nge2 Ng4 11.Qd3 c6
12.b4 a6 13.Nf4 (13.0-0 g5! is dangerous for White; 13.a4 may be more accurate) 13...0-0 14.a4 Re8 15.Kf1 (15.0-0
g5 once again) 15...Qe7 16.Bf3 Ne5!? 17.Qe2 Nxf3 18.Qxf3 Be6 19.Nxe6 (19.d5 Bd7 does not help White)
19...Qxe6 20.d5 (Skembris-Nikolaidis, Greece tt 1997) 20...Qe5 21.Rc1 Rec8 seems like a reasonable position for
Black. This seems like a playable approach but with 1...d6 Black can side-step if he wishes.

2.Bg5

2...h6 3.Bh4 g5

An ambitious approach.
Black has a choice, for example the flexible 3...c6 4.c3 (4.Nf3 Qb6!? 5.Nbd2 Qxb2 (Zwick-Werner, Lenk 1994),
grabbing a pawn with added flexibility compared to Torre main line gambits) 4...Nd7 5.Nd2 Ngf6 6.Ngf3 e5 7.e3
Be7 with our standard set-up. 8.a4 and now Black can grab space: 8...e4 9.Ng1 g5 10.Bg3 Nf8 11.a5 Ng6 12.h3 d5
13.Qa4 0-0 14.Ne2 Nh5 15.Bh2 f5 Kovacevic-Benoit, Cannes 1993. Black is clearly better. Or 3...Nd7, leaving
some options open as well.

4.Bg3 Bg7 5.c3

5.e3 c5 6.c3 Qb6 is playable as well, Boissonet-Nogueiras Santiago, Buenos Aires 1991.

5...Nf6 6.Nd2 Nh5 7.e4 Nxg3 8.fxg3

8.hxg3 c6 9.Qc2 Nd7 led to a slow manoeuvering game in Czernicki-Slapikas, Polanica Zdroj 1996.

8...c5 9.d5 Nd7 10.Be2 b5!?

Dynamic counterplay.

11.Bxb5 Rb8 12.a4 a6 13.Bxd7+ Bxd7 14.Nc4 Rxb2 15.Nxb2 Bxc3+ 16.Kf1 Bxb2 17.Rb1 Bg7 18.h4 g4 19.Qd3
0-0 20.Qxa6 f5

And Black’s activity gave him the clearly better game in Patuzzo-Klauser, Switzerland tt 1996.
London/Torre Systems

1.d4 d6

1...Nf6 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bf4 transposes.

2.Nf3

2.Bf4 exposes the bishop to ...e7-e5 and that is why 2...g6!?

analysis diagram

can be recommended: 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.e3 Nd7 5.c4 (5.h3 e5 6.Bh2 Qe7 (6...e4 7.Nfd2 f5 comes in consideration) 7.Be2
Ngf6 (7...f5 8.0-0 Nh6 seems like a good alternative, Lenz-Szenetra, Baden-Baden 1990, but is it interesting to see
how a 1...d6 expert handles the position) 8.c4 0-0 9.Nc3 b6 10.0-0 Bb7 11.b4 Ne4 12.Nxe4 Bxe4 Ragnarsson-Hickl,
Reykjavik 1997) 5...e5 6.Bg3 Ne7 7.h3 Nf5 8.Bh2 (Alburt-Kavalek, Estes Park ch-USA 1986) and here Stockfish
suggests the improvement 8...exd4 9.exd4 Qf6!.

2...Nf6

3.Bf4

The Torre approach does not have the reputation of being a theoretical threat to 1...d6: 3.Bg5 Nbd7 4.Nbd2 h6 5.Bh4
g5 6.Bg3 Nh5,
analysis diagram

for example: 7.e3 (7.c3 Bg7 8.e4 e6 has done quite well for Black in practice, Jürgens-Bezold, Passau 1996, which
continued 9.Nc4 Qe7 10.Nfd2 Nxg3 11.hxg3 b6 12.Ne3 Bb7) 7...Bg7 8.c3 e6 9.Bd3 Qe7, following up with ...b7-b6,
...Bb7, or move the knight and play ...Bd7, and keep castling options open for the time being, K.Müller-Wahls,
Dudweiler ch-GER 1996 (by transposition).

3...Nh5!?

This is how Nimzowitsch reacted when he was confronted with Bf4 in the prehistoric times of the Old Indian
Defence. A transposition to a solid King’s Indian line of the London System proper may also be considered: 3...g6
4.h3 c5 5.e3 Bg7 6.c3 0-0 7.Be2 b6 8.Nbd2 Ba6 Bondarevsky-Bronstein, Leningrad ch-URS 1963.

4.Bd2 Nf6

Black can also play 4...g6 or other independent moves.

5.c4 Nbd7 6.Bc3

6.Nc3 e5 7.Bg5 transposes to the Old Indian proper.

6...e6 7.e3 d5 8.c5 Ne4 9.Bd3 f5 10.b4 g6 11.Bb2 Bg7 12.Nc3 0-0 13.Qc2 c6 14.Ne2 Qe7 15.0-0 e5

With decent counterplay in Cohn-Nimzowitsch, Ostend B 1907.

 Odds and Ends – Illustrative games

Game 28
Ioannis Nikolaidis
Anthony Miles 2570
Aegina 1993 (6)

1.d4 d6 2.Bg5 h6 3.Bh4 Nd7

4.e4

White can react in Torre style with 4.e3, for example: 4...Ngf6 5.Nf3 g5 6.Bg3 Nh5 7.Bd3 Bg7 8.Nbd2 e6 9.c3 Qe7
10.Qe2 a6 11.Bc2 b6 12.Qc4 Nxg3 13.hxg3 c5 14.Qd3 Bb7 and Black has a flexible formation and long-term
chances because of his two bishops, Nalbandian-Malaniuk, Yerevan 1996.

4...Ngf6 5.Nd2 e5 6.c3 Be7

7.dxe5?!

Freeing Black’s game.

7...Nxe5 8.Ngf3 Ng6 9.Bg3 0-0

And Black is very much OK.

10.Qc2 Nh5 11.0-0-0 Bg4 12.Re1 Bf6 13.Nd4 Re8 14.f3

14...c5

Creative play by Miles, considering that the normal retreat 14...Bd7 is also a good option.

15.N4b3
After 15.fxg4 Nxg3 16.hxg3 cxd4 Black’s attack is already close to decisive.

15...Nxg3

15...Be6 looks good.

16.hxg3 Be6 17.f4 a5

Speed is of the essence with opposite-side castling.

18.a4

One of the happy ‘coincidences’ is that 18.f5 Bxf5 is not possible.

18...Bd7 19.Bc4 Bxa4

Black is already winning. You could not afford sloppy opening play against Tony Miles, as one of the authors learnt
from experience (Don’t look at me! – SG).

20.Qd3 b5!

Hammering away.

21.Bd5

If 21.Bxb5 Bxb5 22.Qxb5 a4 23.Na1 a3 wins.

21...c4 22.Qf3 Bxb3 23.Qh5 Kf8

Consolidating. With a few strokes Miles now finishes off.

24.g4 Ra7 25.Rhf1 a4 26.g5 a3 27.Nxb3 Nxf4 28.Rxf4 Bxg5 0-1

Game 29
Fabrizio Patuzzo 2255
Markus Klauser 2375
Switzerland tt 1996 (3)

1.d4 d6 2.Bg5 h6

2...Nd7 3.e4 Ngf6 is also a perfectly good, if less adventurous alternative.

3.Bh4 g5!? 4.Bg3 Bg7

5.c3

Black has no worries either after 5.e3 c5 6.c3 Qb6, e.g. 7.Qb3 Qxb3 8.axb3 Nd7 9.Na3 a6 10.Nb5 Rb8 11.Na7 Ngf6
12.Bd3 Nh5 13.Ne2 Nxg3 14.Nxg3 Nf6 15.Nxc8 Rxc8 16.Nf5 Bf8 and Black will kick back the knight with
approximate equality, Boissonet-Nogueiras Santiago, Buenos Aires 1991.

5...Nf6 6.Nd2 Nh5 7.e4 Nxg3 8.fxg3

Hoping for play on the f-file; more compact is 8.hxg3 c6 9.Qc2 Nd7 Czernicki-Slapikas, Polanica Zdroj 1996.

8...c5 9.d5 Nd7 10.Be2

10...b5!

Dynamising the position. It is interesting to note that modern engines consider this the best move as well!
11.Bxb5 Rb8 12.a4 a6 13.Bxd7+ Bxd7 14.Nc4

After 14.Qc2 0-0 Black has good compensation for his pawn, but he now gets the chance to sacrifice further material
for abundant compensation.

14...Rxb2!! 15.Nxb2 Bxc3+ 16.Kf1 Bxb2 17.Rb1 Bg7 18.h4 g4 19.Qd3 0-0 20.Qxa6 f5

In spite of his material disadvantage, Black is clearly better because of the disorganised nature of White’s position
and his weak king. Maybe the subsequent moves can be improved upon for both sides, but it is interesting anyway to
see how Black uses his trumps and gives White problems to solve until the very end of the game.

21.Ne2 fxe4+ 22.Kg1 Qe8 23.Qc4 Qa8 24.Nc3 Bxc3 25.Qxc3 Qxa4

25...Qxd5 26.a5 Bc6.

26.Kh2 Qd4!? 27.Qxd4 cxd4 28.Rb4 e5 29.dxe6 Bxe6 30.Rxd4 d5 31.Ra1 Rf5 32.Kg1 Kg7 33.Rf1 Kf6
34.Rxf5+ Kxf5 35.Kf2 Ke5 36.Ke3 Bd7 37.Rb4 Bc6 38.Rd4 Bb5 39.Rd1

39.Rb4!? Bc4 40.Kd2.

39...Bd3 40.Ra1 d4+ 41.Kd2 Bc4

And now it is really over...

42.Ra5+ Kd6 43.Kc1 e3 44.Ra8 d3 45.Rb8 Kc5 46.h5 Bb5 47.Ra8 Kd4 48.Ra2 Kc3 49.Rc2+ Kb4 50.Rb2+ Ka5
51.Kd1 Ba4+ 52.Ke1 Bc2 53.Ra2+ Kb4 54.Ra1 Kc3 55.Kf1 Kd2 56.Kg1 Ke2 57.Kh2 d2 58.Ra3 Be4 59.Ra2
Ke1 60.Ra3 e2 61.Rf3 gxf3 62.Kg1 f2+ 0-1

Game 30
Igor Bondarevsky
David Bronstein
Leningrad ch-URS 1963 (12)

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bf4 Bg7 4.e3 0-0 5.Nbd2 b6 6.c3 c5 7.h3 d6 8.Be2 Ba6!?

An alternative to the logical development 8...Bb7 that works out quite well in this game.
9.Bxa6

9.0-0 Bxe2 10.Qxe2 cxd4 11.exd4 Nc6 is about equal and Black can think of preparing a plan of playing in minority
attack style on the queenside with ...b5-b4.

9...Nxa6 10.0-0 Qd7 11.Qe2 Nc7 12.dxc5?!

A dubious decision, giving up central control and, as it turns out soon, the b-file. White had several reasonable
moves in this balanced position.

12...bxc5 13.e4 e5 14.Be3 Rab8 15.b3 Qc6 16.Qc4

Potential exposure of the queen, 16.Bg5 Nh5!?.

16...Nd7 17.Nh2?!

17.b4 may still more or less hold.

17...Nb6 18.Qd3 d5
Black has clearly taken over the initiative.

19.f3

19.exd5 Ncxd5 20.Nc4 Rbd8 puts White under tremendous pressure.

19...Rbd8 20.Qc2 f5 21.Rad1 Ne6 22.exd5 Nxd5 23.Nc4 Nef4 24.Rf2 Nxe3 25.Nxe3 Rxd1+ 26.Qxd1 e4

The difference in activity between the black and the white pieces is striking. Things have gone wrong for White.

27.Qc2

27.fxe4 Qxe4 28.Qd2 Bh6 and White is in dire straits.

27...Bh6 28.Nhf1 Nd3 29.Rd2 c4! 30.Nxc4

30.bxc4 Qb6.

30...Qc5+ 31.Kh2

Also losing is 31.Kh1 Bxd2 32.Qxd2 Qf2 (32...Rd8!?) 33.Qxf2 Nxf2+ 34.Kg1 Nd1 35.fxe4 fxe4.

31...Bf4+ 32.g3 Ne1 0-1

Game 31
Erich Cohn
Aron Nimzowitsch
Ostend B 1907 (9)

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bf4 Nh5!?

Nimzowitsch remarks that already in 1907 he went his own way. Let’s follow him! Aside from objective
considerations, this also has the practical advantage that it forces White to start thinking and making decisions very
early, which is something many London System players are not used to – they generally get to ‘close their eyes’ and
play much the same moves in the early stages of the game, regardless of what their opponent plays.

4.Bd2

4.Bg3 gives up the two bishops, e.g. 4...g6 5.c3 Bg7 6.e3 0-0 7.Be2 e5 8.dxe5 Nxg3 9.hxg3 dxe5 10.Qxd8 Rxd8
11.Bc4 h6 12.a4 Nd7 13.Nbd2 a5 14.Ke2 Nc5 with a good position for Black, Bree-Kupreichik, Münster 1995.
There is also 4.Bg5 when the bishop gets kicked around with 4...h6 5.Bh4 g5 6.Bg3 Bg7 7.e3 c5 (or 7...e6) 8.c3
Nxg3 9.hxg3 Qb6 with counterplay, Lopez Martinez-Sanchez Silva, Catalunya tt 1996. This should not be White’s
choice on principle.

4...Nf6

Black has tried several playable ideas here such as 4...Bg4 5.h3 Bxf3 6.exf3 g6 7.Be2 Bg7 8.c3 Nd7 9.f4 Nhf6
10.Qc2 c5 11.dxc5 Nxc5 12.Bb5+ Kf8 13.0-0 Rc8 14.Be2 e6 15.Be3 Nd5 and Black developed excellent
counterplay in Sazonov-Miles, Agios Nikolaos 1995.

5.c4 Nbd7 6.Bc3

6.Nc3 e5 and the extra tempo Bd2 can be ignored according to Nimzowitsch. 7.Bg5 transposes to a regular Old
Indian.

6...e6 7.e3
7...d5

7...b6 and ...Bb7 was Nimzowitsch’s suggestion to improve his own play.

8.c5 Ne4 9.Bd3 f5 10.b4 g6 11.Bb2 Bg7 12.Nc3

12.0-0 followed by Ne5 and f2-f3 was probably better.

12...0-0 13.Qc2 c6 14.Ne2 Qe7 15.0-0 e5 16.dxe5 Nxe5 17.Nxe5 Bxe5 18.Nd4 Bd7 19.f3 Nf6 20.Rae1 Rae8

21.e4?

Nimzowitsch recommends 21.f4 Bc7 22.Nf3 and 23.Bd4 with consolidation. The text move destroys his own game.

21...fxe4 22.fxe4 Qg7!?

22...dxe4 also seems to work.

23.exd5? Ng4 24.Qc4 Bxh2+ 25.Kh1 Rxe1 26.dxc6+

26.Rxe1 Nf2+ 27.Kxh2 Qh6+ 28.Kg3 Qf4#.

26...Be6 27.Qxe6+ Rxe6 28.Rxf8+ Qxf8 29.Nxe6 Qf2 0-1

 Chapter 3
The Old Indian against Flank Openings

Introduction

Openings such as 1.Nf3, 1.g3 or 1.c4 are neither very aggressive nor direct, but are not so easy to combat in practice.
The battle is deferred to a later time: the middlegame, or even the endgame. Planning is more important than tactics
in these circumstances.
The Old Indian set-up can also be played against these flank openings. The basic position arises after 1...e5, 2...d6,
3...Nf6, 4...Nbd7, 5...Be7 and then 6...c6 to control some central squares and finally 7...0-0. This basic position can
be achieved via many move-orders, and can be played against all regular flank openings.
The move-orders will be presented one by one, but first of all it is important to know how Black can continue if
White takes little central action – not an unknown phenomenon in the flank openings. It is possible to expand
Black’s position, although the set-up seems modest at first glance. Black prepares cautiously and thoroughly by
...Re8 and ...Bf8. The rook now supports the pawn on e5. If White does not respond appropriately, Black plays ...d6-
d5, and also possibly ...a7-a5 to prevent White’s queenside play and seize the square c5 for a knight or bishop. This
scheme indicates the potential possibilities of the basic position.
 Strategy and ideas

Expansion potential (I)

In the Introduction, we spoke about the expansion potential of the black position. Here we see an example of
unambitious play by White, where he does not really undertake anything. It is not bad play, but it is planless, and is
the sort of thing one often sees from club players in flank openings. A typical move-order might be as follows:

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 d6 3.c4 e5 4.Bg2 Nbd7 5.0-0 c6 6.Nc3 Be7

Now let us suppose that the white player avoids any early contact between the armies and just develops quietly.

7.d3 0-0 8.b3

The same comment is appropriate here.

8...Re8 9.Bb2 Bf8

Quiet preparation. Now Black is ready to expand with ...d6-d5.

10.Rc1 a6

More preparation for ...d6-d5, although Black can also play the immediate 10...d5 11.cxd5 Nxd5 (not 11...cxd5
12.Nb5) 12.Nxd5 cxd5 with a good centre. As White has not undertaken any activity in the opening, the central
reply is correct. This example, as several interesting games and pointers in the Old Indian chapter of this book, is
taken from Andrew Martin’s wonderful DVD Anti-Flank Openings – The Old Indian antidote, which inspired the
authors in the structuring of our material.
Expansion potential (II)

Ton Bodaan
Gerard Welling
Leiden 1984 (1)

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 d6

For reasons that we will explain in the ‘Move-order’ part, we recommend 3...c6 here.

4.Bg2 Be7 5.d3 0-0 6.b4 c6 7.Qb3

7...d5!?

Of course Black can play a move like 7...a5, but he sees an opportunity to expand now that White’s queen is
overloaded.

8.cxd5 cxd5 9.Nf3?!

9.Nxd5 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 Bxb4+, but now Black gains the advantage.

9...d4 10.Na4 Nc6 11.a3 Be6 12.Qd1 Rc8

And Black was already better.

Expansion potential (III)

Saviely Tartakower
Emanuel Lasker
St Petersburg 1909 (7)

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 Be7 4.Bg2 0-0 5.Nf3 d6 6.0-0 Nbd7 7.d3 c6
It is interesting to note that in the tournament book Lasker writes that Black is already sufficiently developed and
prepares to occupy the centre with ...d6-d5.

8.Ne1 Nb6! 9.e4

The battle gets complicated after 9.a4 a5 10.Nf3 Be6 11.c5 dxc5 12.Nxe5 Bd6 13.Nf3 c4 with counterplay.

9...d5 10.cxd5

10.exd5 cxd5 11.Nf3 d4 12.Ne2 Qc7 and Black is already slightly better.

10...cxd5 11.exd5 Nbxd5 12.Nxd5 Nxd5 13.d4 exd4 14.Qxd4 Be6

And after the disappearance of the central pawns, Black’s development turns out to be superior.

White’s idea d2-d4

If White is to have any chance to exert any pressure against the black position, he cannot dispense with the move d2-
d4. For example, after the common

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.g3 e5 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg2 Nbd7,

if White wishes to achieve anything, he needs to play

6.d4

instead of the reserved 6.d3 0-0 7.0-0 c6, when Black plans to expand, as we have seen.

6...c6

If White continues in a principled way after his initial flank opening by playing d2-d4, we transpose into the Old
Indian vs 1.d4 chapter, which explains this section is slim!
 Move-orders

Reaching the basic position – 1.c4

In most flank openings, Black has quite a degree of flexibility as to how he heads for the Old Indian formation.
However, against 1.c4, we believe he should follow a precise order, for reasons we will explain.
In the English Opening, 1.c4 e5 is the most direct.

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6!

We believe this is the most accurate. Another move-order is 2...d6 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 c6, when White can apply
Botvinnik’s System with 5.e4 Nbd7 6.Nge2 Be7 7.0-0 0-0.

analysis diagram

Now White has the lever f2-f4 at his disposal. Black is usually recommended to meet the Botvinnik by fianchettoing
his KB, whilst systems where he combines ...e7-e5 with ...Nf6 (blocking his f-pawn) are also viewed with suspicion,
lest White establish a kingside pawn avalanche with f4-f5, g3-g4, etc.
In reality, the diagram position may not be so bad for Black (practical examples prove that either ...a7-a6 and ...b7-
b5 or ...a7-a5 and ...Nc5 are playable) but we would rather have the flank opening player on our own territory. The
Botvinnik System is a very popular way of handling the English, especially at club level, and our move-order is
designed to avoid it, thus throwing many white players out of their comfort zone.

3.g3

If instead 3.Nf3, then simply 3...d6 and Black heads back to his usual set-up.

3....c6!
This is our recommended move-order. The diagonal is shortened. Now White must decide how to meet the
threatened 4...d5.

4.Nf3

Now the knight is committed to f3, thus ruling out a Botvinnik System, Black once again heads back into familiar
Old Indian territory.
White has two alternatives:
A) 4.d4 d6, as in the illustrative game Hort-Kavalek. Black heads once again for the Old Indian, and has nothing to
fear from the queen exchange after 5.dxe5, as the above game demonstrates;
B) 4.Bg2 d5! is the point of our move-order. Black seizes the centre. Now the only critical attempt for White is
5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3, putting uncomfortable pressure on d5 (and, indirectly, b7), but now Black reveals his hand:
6...Nc6!.
analysis diagram

This dynamic pawn sacrifice offers extremely good compensation and effectively refutes White’s play.
7.Nxd5 Nd4 8.Nxf6+ and both after 8...gxf6 and 8...Qxf6, White has a hard time keeping his position together, as
Game 31 will show.

4...d6 5.Bg2 Be7

Or 5...Nbd7.

6.0-0 0-0

And the basic position is easily reached.

A similar approach can be used in the popular move-order 1.c4 e5 2.g3. Once again, Black can simply play 2...Nf6
3.Bg2 c6!, when the threat of ...d7-d5 means that White generally plays either 4.Nf3 or 4.d4 (4.Nc3 d5! is the above
gambit line), which should both be met with 4...d6.
Reaching the basic position – 1.Nf3
Most players believe the King’s Indian Attack is easy to play, but it can lead to very complicated middlegames.

1.Nf3 Nf6

Black could also start with 1...d6. In general, he has considerable scope to flex his move-order in such lines.

2.g3 d6

Black prepares ...e7-e5. The best move is now 3.d4, after which Black plays 3...Nbd7 and 4...e5, but many flank
openings players do not want this.

3.Bg2 e5 4.0-0 Be7 5.d3 0-0

Now White faces a dilemma about how to continue. The traditional set-up is

6.Nbd2 c6 7.e4 Nbd7

and Black follows up with ...Re8 and ...Bf8 with expansion possibilities we have already discussed in the context of
the basic position.
Reaching the basic position – 1.g3
The Benko-Larsen opening

1.g3

is similar to the King’s Indian Attack, but with some differences.

1...e5 2.Bg2 Nf6 3.d3

In Benko-Larsen style, White delays or omits Nf3. 3.c4 c6! transposes to our English variation.

3...c6

Again this threat to establish a two-pawn centre with ...d7-d5 is effective.

4.Nf3 d6

Now it is clear that White’s set-up is easy to meet.

Reaching the basic position – 1.b3
After 1.b3 the Old Indian is again excellent:

1.b3 e5

Why not?

2.Bb2 d6 3.e3

White sticks to his original idea. Another frequently played line is 3.g3, when 3...Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.c4 0-0 6.Nf3 c6
7.0-0 Nbd7 8.Nc3 Re8 9.Qc2 Bf8 10.e3 a6, Larsen-Medina, Palma de Mallorca 1968, prepares the typical counter
...b7-b5.
3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4 commits the queen at an early stage and 4...Nc6 5.Qd2 d5! (expansion) is very much OK for
Black.

3...Nf6 4.c4 Nbd7

Or 4...c6.

Once again Black has easily reached the basic position.

 Illustrative games

Game 31
Konstantinos Liodakis 2137
Vasilios Kotronias 2533
Chania 2014 (8)

1.c4 Nf6 2.g3 e5 3.Bg2 c6 4.Nc3 d5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 Nc6!

Sacrificing a pawn for a very strong initiative. White is well advised not to go into this line.

7.Nxd5

7.d3 d4 8.Nd5 (8.Nb1 Bb4+ 9.Bd2 a5 10.a3 Be6 11.Qa4 Be7 and Black is somewhat better, Bukal-Benko, Sarajevo
1970) 8...Nxd5 9.Bxd5 Bb4+ 10.Kf1 Qe7 was slightly better for Black, Petersons-Tal, Riga ch-LAT 1978.

7...Nd4 8.Nxf6+

White suffered a catastrophic loss after 8.Qa4+ Bd7 9.Nxf6+ Qxf6 10.Qd1 Rc8 11.Rb1 Qa6! 12.b3 Bb4! 13.Bb2 Bf5
14.Bxd4 (14.Kf1 Qxa2 15.d3 Nxb3 is a massacre as well) 14...Bxb1 15.Qxb1 and White’s huge lag in development
was exploited with a nice trick:
analysis diagram

15...Qxa2! 16.Qb2 exd4 0-1 Kaposztas-Kallai, Hungary tt 2000/01.

8...gxf6

8...Qxf6 is a viable alternative, for example 9.Qd1 Bf5 10.d3 Rc8 11.Rb1 Qa6!? 12.Nf3 Bb4+ 13.Bd2 Bxd3!
14.exd3 (14.Bxb4 Bxe2 wins) 14...Qxd3 15.Nxd4 (15.Bxb4 Nc2+) 15...Bxd2+ 16.Qxd2 Qxb1+ 17.Ke2 Qxa2
(17...Qg6 holds the initiative firmly in his hands) 18.Qb4 Qc4+ 19.Qxc4 Rxc4 and Black has the better chances in
the resulting endgame, A.Szabo-G.Meszaros, Miskolc 2004.

9.Qd1 Qc7 10.Kf1 Be6

Another illustration of Black’s chances is 10...a5!? 11.Nf3 Nc2 12.Rb1 a4 13.d3 Be6 14.b3 (14.Bd2!?) 14...axb3
15.axb3 h5 16.Nd2 h4 17.gxh4 Rxh4 18.Nc4 Nd4 19.Be3 Rc8 20.Bd2 b5 21.Ne3 Qd7 22.b4 f5 23.h3 Bg7 24.Rc1 f4
25.Rxc8+ Qxc8 26.Ng4 f5 27.Nh2 e4 28.Rg1 Kf8 29.Be1 f3
analysis diagram

30.exf3 exd3 31.Bh1 Qc2 32.Qa1 Qe2+ 33.Kg2 Bd5 34.Qa7 Ne6 35.Qb8+ Kf7 36.Qa7+ Kg8 37.Qd7 d2 38.Bxd2
Qxd2 39.Qc8+ Kh7 40.Rc1 Qg5+ 0-1 Vijayalakshmi-A.Fominikh, Dhaka 2005.

11.b3 Nc2 12.Rb1 Na3

12...Rc8!?.

13.Bxa3

He could have tested Black with 13.Ra1, inviting a repetition.

13...Bxa3 14.b4 0-0 15.Nf3 Rac8 16.Ne1 Rfd8

The white position lacks coordination and Black is clearly better.

17.d3 b5 18.h4 f5 19.Rg1 Qc3 20.e3 e4–+

White is busted.

21.g4 fxg4 22.Bxe4 f5 23.Bf3 Bxb4?!

Overlooking a little something, the cautious 23...Kh8 wins.

24.Bxg4! Kh8

24...fxg4 25.Rxg4+ Bxg4 26.Qxg4+ Kh8 27.Qxb4 is suddenly not so clear.

25.Bh3 Qxe1+ 26.Qxe1 Bxe1 27.Kxe1 Bxa2 28.Ra1 Rc2 29.Bxf5 Rf8 30.Rg5 h6 31.Rh5 Kg7

Black has been going all out for a win even after the little setback, but the position is quite unclear.

32.d4 Rb2 33.Rc1 Bc4 34.Ra1?

34.Bc2 is a better chance, now he is doomed.

34...Re2+ 35.Kd1 Rxf2 36.Rxa7+ Rf7 37.Rxf7+ Bxf7 38.Bg6 Bxg6 39.Rxb5 Be4 40.Re5 Bf3+ 41.Ke1 Rg2 42.d5
Re2+ 43.Kf1 Rd2 0-1

Game 32
Vlastimil Hort 2609
Lubomir Kavalek 2590
Tilburg 1979 (5)

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 c6!

This is our recommended move-order, to side-step White’s Botvinnik formation.

4.d4

This or 4.Nf3 are necessary to prevent 4...d5, but now Black again offers an Old Indian.
4...d6

5.dxe5

Practically the only way to avoid an Old Indian proper, but Black has nothing to fear here either.

5...dxe5 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 7.Nf3

The fact that even for a solid tournament player these positions are not easy to play with the white pieces is shown
by the following example: 7.Bh3 Bxh3 8.Nxh3 h6 9.b3 Nbd7 10.Bb2 Bc5 11.0-0 Kc7 12.Na4 Bd4!? 13.Rfd1 Rhe8
14.Nc3 a5 15.e3 Bxc3 16.Bxc3 a4 and Black is better, Dittmar-Cs.Horvath, Gyula 2000.

7...Nfd7 8.g4

The only aggressive plan in such a position, but, as comparison with page 33 shows, here White is just a tempo
down on the line 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5 4.dxe5, etc. Given that even the latter does not pose Black serious
problems, it is hardly surprising that he is comfortable here.

8...f6 9.Rg1 Nb6 10.b3 Be6 11.e3 a5 12.a4 Na6 13.Bb2 Nc5 ½-½

Black is slightly better but showed respect for Hort’s defensive powers. Clearly, though, Black’s opening move-
order had passed its test with flying colours.

Game 33
Ton Bodaan
Gerard Welling
Leiden 1984 (1)

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 d6

Our recommended move-order is 3...c6, but on this occasion the game transposes.

4.Bg2 Be7 5.d3 0-0

6.b4

6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.0-0 c6 8.Ne1 (8.b3 Re8 9.Bb2 Bf8 10.Rc1 a6 11.Qc2 b5 12.Nd2 Bb7 13.b4 d5 (Black takes full
advantage of his expansion potential) 14.cxd5 cxd5 15.Qb3 Nb6 16.Nd1 Qe7 17.a3 d4 18.Nf3 Bd5 and Black was
firmly in the driver’s seat, Zlotnikov-Day, Lone Pine 1979) 8...Nb6 9.e4 (9.a4 a5 10.Nf3 Be6 11.c5 dxc5 12.Nxe5
Bd6 13.Nf3 c4) 9...d5 (our goal is to expand in the centre, if White does not act there himself) 10.cxd5 (10.exd5
cxd5 11.Nf3 d4 12.Ne2 Qc7 with an edge) 10...cxd5 11.exd5 (11.f4?! over-extends: 11...dxe4 12.fxe5 Bg4)
11...Nfxd5 12.Nxd5 Nxd5 13.d4 exd4 14.Qxd4 Be6 (Tartakower-Lasker, St Petersburg 1909) and Black has the
better development.

6...c6 7.Qb3 d5!

Of course Black can play a move like 7...a5 which is good enough. But why not act in the centre when a tactical
opportunity presents itself?

8.cxd5 cxd5 9.Nf3

9.Nxd5 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 Bxb4+.

9...d4

Black gains central space and is now better.

10.Na4 Nc6 11.a3 Be6 12.Qd1 Rc8 13.0-0

13.b5 loses to 13...Qa5+.

13...Nd7 14.Bd2

14.b5 Na5 is clearly better for Black.

14...b5 15.Nb2
15...a6

Or 15...Nb6.

16.Rc1 Bd5

16...Nb6.

17.e4 Be6 18.Ne1

Hoping to create some counterplay on the kingside with f2-f4.

18...a5

Action to destroy White’s weakened queenside.

19.f4 f6 20.f5 Bf7 21.Qg4

Trying to keep Black busy because on the other side of the board the roof is in danger of coming down.

21...Kh8

Even 21...h5 was good.

22.Nc2 Qb6 23.Qe2 Rc7

24.bxa5

The position was bad anyway, but this plan to manoeuvre a knight to d5 misfires.

24...Nxa5 25.Nb4 Nb3 26.Rxc7 Qxc7 27.a4

Relatively best was 27.Be1 Nb6.

27...bxa4 28.Nxa4 Nxd2 29.Qxd2 Qa5

The weak pawns have gone, that’s true, but the clumsy knights allow a double attack.

0-1

Game 34
Berndt Söderborg
Boris Spassky
Leningrad Wch-tt U26 1960 (1)

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d6 3.g3 e5 4.Bg2 Be7

5.e3

Just a few examples when facing the Botvinnik System, which we normally side-step by our move-order: 5.e4 0-0
(5...c6) 6.Nge2 c6 7.0-0 Nbd7 8.d3

analysis diagram

8...a5 (8...a6 9.h3 b5 10.Qc2 b4 11.Nd1 Nc5 12.Ne3 Re8 13.f4 was seen in Quillan-Dunnington, Oakham 1988; now
maybe 13...Qb6!?) 9.h3 Nc5 10.Be3 Nfd7 11.f4 a4 (asking the question if White has any real potential on the
kingside) 12.Qd2 Qa5 13.d4 exd4 14.Nxd4 Nb6 15.Qe2 a3 and Black’s counterplay was in full swing, Hutchings-
Palacios, Malta Olympiad 1980.

5...0-0 6.Nge2 c6 7.d4 Nbd7 8.0-0 Re8 9.Qc2 Nf8

Now it is difficult to engineer ...a7-a6 and ...b7-b5, Black changes direction.

10.Rd1 Bd7 11.b3 Ng6 12.a4

Maybe 12.Bb2; why allow his queenside pawns to be fixed?

12...a5 13.Ba3 Qc8

Now ...Bh3 is on the menu, and without the bishop the white kingside would look a little deserted.

14.dxe5 dxe5 15.Bxe7 Rxe7 16.Rd2 Bh3 17.Rad1

17.Bh1!?, to keep a defender of the light squares. White gambles on his command of the d-file.

17...Bxg2 18.Kxg2 e4

Fixing the light-square weaknesses and preparing to move his queen towards the kingside. White sees little other
option than to exchange the rooks for that queen.

19.Rd8+ Qxd8 20.Rxd8+ Rxd8

The direct threats are gone, but now Black’s pieces dominate the board.

21.Nf4 Nxf4+ 22.gxf4 h6 23.Ne2

Maybe it was better to stay put, so that for the moment Black cannot double.

23...Rd3 24.Nd4 Rd7 25.Qb2 c5 26.Nf5 Rd2 27.Qc3 Ra2

The invasion has started.

28.Ng3

If 28.Nxh6+ Kh7 29.Nf5 Rdd2 is killing.

28...Rdd2 29.Nh1

A pathetic post, but what can White do?

29...Ng4 30.h3 Nxf2 31.Nxf2 Rxf2+ 32.Kg3 Rf3+ 33.Kg4 g6

And the king is caught in a mating net.

34.Qe5 Rg2+ 35.Kh4 g5+ 0-1

 Chapter 4
The Philidor against 1.e4

Introduction

The set-up shown for Black against 1.e4 is the Philidor Defence. It is a well-thought out and solid line, in which the
lack of early exchanges and the fact that the game tends to come alive somewhat later means that it is also suitable
for playing for a win...
Here we will look at general strategic plans, but because the position is not closed, some tactical points can occur
in the early stages and must also be considered. There will then be a general overview of each line and a
consideration of move-orders. Finally, some illustrative games will follow which demonstrate the main ideas.
 Strategy and ideas

Philidor endgame (I)

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bc4 Be6

If Black is feeling especially cautious, he can play 6...Ke8, e.g. 7.Nf3 Bd6 8.Bg5 Nbd7 9.0-0-0 a6 10.Rhe1 h6
11.Bh4 b5 12.Bb3 Bb7= Rozentalis-Damljanovic, Evry 2008. With the text, Black accepts a doubled e-pawn, which
is fully compensated for by his control of the central squares.

7.Bxe6 fxe6 8.f3 Bd6 9.Be3 Ke7 10.Nh3 a6 11.Nf2 Nc6 12.Nd3 b5

Zifroni-Oratovsky, Israel 2003. The counterplay with ...a7-a6, ...b7-b5 and eventually ...Rhb8 and ...a6-a5, is typical
of the variation.
Philidor endgame (II)

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bc4 Be6 7.Bb3!?

An interesting try, which admits that the doubled black e-pawns after the exchange on e6 are probably not a real
weakness and may even help Black.

7...Bd6 8.Nge2 Nbd7 9.Bxe6 fxe6

Now again we have the familiar structure, where the doubled pawn is not weak but controls many central squares.

10.f3 a6 11.Be3 Ke7 12.0-0

Or 12.0-0-0 b5 and it is a moot point whether the white king position is defensive or attacking.

12...b5

13.a3 Rhb8 14.Rfb1 Rb7 15.Nd1 a5

Gaining space, which should not be scorned. Black is already a tad better, A.Schneider-Welling, Bad Wiessee 2015.
Barendregt’s plan ...b7-b6-b5 (I)

1.e4 e5
1...d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7 would be our recommended move-order.

2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3

As noted, 4.dxe5! is more dangerous here.

4...Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Re1! c6 8.a4 b6!

This plan of the Dutch master Barendregt intends to obtain counterplay by ...a7-a6, ...Bb7 and ...b7-b5.

9.h3

Interesting and perhaps critical is 9.d5 Bb7 (an idea of Kosten’s is 9...c5!? 10.a5 a6 11.axb6 Nxb6, intending ...Ne8-
c7 and ...Nb5 and/or ...f7-f5) 10.dxc6 Bxc6 (White will fight tooth and nail to dominate d5, whilst Black seeks
counterplay) 11.Bg5 a6 12.Bxf6 Nxf6 13.Nd5! Nxd5 14.Bxd5 Rc8 15.c3 Qc7 16.Bxc6 Qxc6 17.Qd3 Qc4 18.Red1
Qxd3 19.Rxd3 f5 with counterplay, Jansa-Mokry, Trnava 1987.

9...a6 10.Bg5

10.d5 c5; 10.Bf1 Bb7 11.g3 b5 with counterplay.

10...Bb7 11.Bb3
11...b5 12.axb5 axb5 13.Rxa8 Bxa8

with good counterplay, Antunes-Cifuentes Parada, Dubai Olympiad 1986.

Barendregt’s plan ...b7-b6-b5 (II)

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.0-0 c6 7.a4 Qc7 8.Qe2 0-0 9.h3

On 9.a5 Black can seek counterplay in the centre against e4 or else stick to the usual plan with ...Rb8.

9...b6 10.Be3 a6 11.Ba2 Bb7

12.dxe5 dxe5

Hans Ree usually prefers to capture with the knight, ...Nxe5, in such positions, so as to discourage White’s Nh4-f5.
13.Nh4 b5 14.Nf5 Nc5

With counterplay, Enklaar-Barendregt, Amsterdam 1973.

Black plays ...exd4 (I)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.a4 c6 8.Ba2 Qc7 9.a5

9...exd4

Now White has lost time with a4-a5. Black takes the opportunity to play ...exd4 and create pressure against e4.

10.Nxd4 Re8 11.Nf5 Bf8 12.Ng3 Nc5 13.Re1 Be6

Ree considers that Black stands comfortably, Ostojic-Ree, Budapest 1977.

Black plays ...exd4 (II)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Re1 c6 8.a4 a5!?

Not allowing a4-a5.

9.h3