Now Black again has a chance to take on d4 and play against the e4-pawn.

9...exd4 10.Nxd4 Nc5 11.Bf4 Qb6 12.Nb3 Be6 13.Bxe6 Nxe6 14.Be3 Qc7 15.Nd4 Nxd4 16.Bxd4 Rad8=

With a solid and comfortable position, Ivkov-Planinc, Amsterdam 1974.

Black plays ...exd4 (III)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Qe2

Now Black begins counterplay, exploiting the fact that the white pieces are somewhat awkwardly placed in the
centre.

7...exd4! 8.Nxd4 Ne5 9.Bb3 c5! 10.Nf5

10.Ndb5 a6 11.Na3 b5 12.Bd5 Ra7 13.Nab1 b4 14.Nd1 Nxd5 15.exd5 favours Black, as does 10.Nf3 Bg4 11.Bf4
Bxf3 12.gxf3 Ng6 13.Bg3 Nh5 14.Nd5 Bg5.
10...Bxf5 11.exf5 Qd7!

With dynamic counterplay, Palciauskas-Staal, corr. 1975.

Black plays ...exd4 (IV)

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

Another example where Black plays against the enemy pieces in the centre.

8...exd4 9.Nxd4 Ne5 10.Bb3 c5! 11.Nf5 Bxf5 12.exf5 Qd7 13.Nd5 Rfe8 14.c3 Bd8 15.Nxf6+ Bxf6 16.Bd5 Qxf5
17.Bxb7 Rad8 18.Be4 Qe6

Black’s position deserves preference, Åhman-Brglez, cr 1978.

Pickett Shuffle ...Qe8 (I)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.a4 a5!? 8.Qe2 c6 9.h3 Qe8!?
Introduced by the English theoretician Len Pickett and played by Najdorf. Black takes advantage of the slow
character of the play to transfer his Be7 to more fruitful squares, such as c7 or b6.

10.b3!

Trying to hamper Black’s plan. Black can proceed with his plan undisturbed after 10.Be3 Bd8 11.Rad1 Qe7 12.Rfe1
(12.dxe5 dxe5 13.Rfe1 Bb6) 12...Bb6 (or 12...Bc7).

analysis diagram

10...exd4 11.Nxd4 Ne5 12.Bd3

12.f4 Nxc4 13.Qxc4 Nxe4 14.Nxe4 d5=.

12...d5?!
12...Bd7; 12...Nfd7.

13.exd5 Bb4 14.Bb2 Bxc3 15.Bxc3 Nxd5 16.Bd2 Nxd3 17.Qxd3 b6

With equality. Analysis by Pickett.

Pickett Shuffle ...Qe8 (II)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.Bb3 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.Re1 Qe8!?

9.Nh4

Aiming for Nf5, to attack the dark squares directly.

9...exd4!

Black reacts in the centre.

10.Qxd4 Ne5 11.f4 Nfg4!

Black has excellent counterplay, Riemersma-Welling, Leiden 1984.

 Tactical motifs

White takes on f7 (I)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7

6.Bxf7+?!

Without the preliminary exchange 6.dxe5 dxe5 this is an unpromising adventure.

6...Kxf7 7.Ng5+ Kg8 8.Ne6 Qe8 9.Nxc7 Qg6 10.Nxa8 Qxg2 11.Rf1

White has won material but Black firmly takes over the initiative.
11...exd4! 12.Qxd4

12.Qe2 runs into the stylish 12...dxc3! 13.Qc4+ d5 14.Qxc8+ Kf7, and Black breaks through decisively.

12...Ne5 13.f4 Nfg4!

And Black’s attack is ready to crash through, Heidenfeld-Wolpert, Johannesburg 1955.

White takes on f7 (II)

1.e4 d6 2.d4 e5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.dxe5

White can also attack f7 directly with 6.Ng5 0-0 7.Bxf7+ Rxf7 8.Ne6 Qe8 9.Nxc7 Qd8 10.Nxa8 whereupon there
follows 10...b5! 11.dxe5 (11.Nxb5 Qa5+ 12.Nc3 Nxe4; 11.f3 Bb7) 11...dxe5 see 7.Ng5. Also good is 11...Nxe5!?.

6...dxe5

Black can also avoid all complications here with the quiet and perfectly playable 6...Nxe5.
7.Ng5 0-0 8.Bxf7+ Rxf7 9.Ne6 Qe8 10.Nxc7 Qd8 11.Nxa8 b5!

12.Nd5

12.Nxb5 Qa5+ 13.Nc3 Nxe4.

12...Bd6! 13.0-0

13.Bg5 Bb7.

13...Bb7

with a perfectly playable position for Black, Arulaid-Heuer, Tartu ch-EST 1970.
White takes on f7 (III)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.Bxf7+?!

7...Kxf7 8.Ng5+ Kg6!

If Black wishes to play for a win, he must take a risk. Playable, but about equal, is 8...Kg8 9.Ne6 Qe8 10.Nxc7 Qg6
11.Nxa8 Qxg2 12.Rf1 (without the preliminary exchange on e5, Black would now have excellent attacking chances
with 11...exd4 and 12...Ne5 – see above) 12...Nc5 13.Qe2 Bh3 14.Be3 Qxf1+ 15.Qxf1 Bxf1 16.Kxf1 Kf7 (16...Ne6
17.Bxa7 Kf7 18.Nb6 Bc5 19.Nca4!) 17.Nc7 Nfxe4 18.Nxe4 Nxe4 19.Nd5 Bc5=.

9.h4

9.Ne6 Qg8 10.Nxc7 Rb8–+.

9...h5 10.f4 exf4 11.Ne2

11.Ne6 Qg8 12.Nxc7 Ne5! 13.Nxa8 Bg4 14.Qd4 Nc6 15.Qa4 Qb8 16.Qb5 f3! and White resigned in an old
correspondence game Rosen-Schoisswohl, 1961.

11...Bd6 12.e5

12.Bxf4 Ne5.

12...Nxe5
13.Nxf4+ Kh6 14.Nf7+ Nxf7 15.Ne6+ Kh7 16.Nxd8 Rxd8–+

Analysis by Voronkov.
 Move-orders

Philidor’s Defence

1.e4 d6

In bygone days, Black reached the Philidor by means of 1...e5 2.Nf3 d6, but then he has some theoretical problems
in maintaining the pawn on e5:
3.d4

A) 3...Nf6 4.dxe5! Nxe4 5.Qd5 Nc5 6.Bg5 Be7 7.exd6 Qxd6 8.Nc3 and White has a considerable development lead.
Practice shows that Black is playing for a draw and has few practical winning chances;
B) 3...Nd7 (Hanham) 4.Bc4 c6 (necessary) 5.0-0 Be7 (the classical way to try to reach the tabiya position, but now
White throws a spanner in the works) 6.dxe5 dxe5 (6...Nxe5? 7.Nxe5 dxe5 8.Qh5 loses material at once) 7.Ng5!
Bxg5 (7...Nh6 8.Ne6! fxe6 9.Bxh6 leaves Black problems) 8.Qh5 (E.Steiner-Brinckmann, Budapest 1929) 8...Qe7
(objectively best, since after 8...g6 9.Qxg5 Qxg5 10.Bxg5 Black’s position is weakened and he faces a powerful pair
of bishops) 9.Bxg5 Ngf6 10.Qe2 and White has a small but lasting advantage, which is not what Black wants from
the main line of his repertoire.

2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3

3...e5

Also possible is 3...Nbd7 but then Black must reckon with the sharp tries 4.f4 or even 4.g4!?. On the other hand,
4.Nf3 e5 leads to the basic Philidor position. See below.

4.dxe5

Here 4.Nf3 Nbd7 again reaches the tabiya.

4...dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8

6.Bc4

Principled; now what?

6...Be6!?

Introduced by the Dutch master Johan Barendregt in the early 1960’s and subsequently played by some top players.
A solid alternative is 6...Ke8.

7.Bxe6 fxe6

We have reached a middlegame without queens, in which Black has a doubled pawn and has lost castling rights.
However, the e-pawns control many central squares and, especially, the Nc3 has few prospects. Practice shows that
the chances are roughly equal.
Main line

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.0-0 0-0

The basic position of the Philidor Defence.

7.Re1

After 7.Qe2, strong and dynamic is 7...exd4! (Black can now play according to his main plan with 7...c6 8.a4 exd4;
8...Qc7 9.a5 is also possible, when Black can either play in the centre with ...exd4 as in the games of Hans Ree, or
stick to the standard plan with ...Rb8 and ...b7-b5; finally, Black also has an experimental set-up with 8...a5 9.h3
Qe8 in order to transfer the bishop to c7 or b6) 8.Nxd4 Ne5
analysis diagram

9.Bb3 c5.
Things usually transpose after 7.a4 c6 (also possible here is 7...a5) 8.a5 Qc7 9.Re1 see 7.Re1.

7...c6 8.a4

8...b6!

Going straight for the Barendregt set-up with ...a7-a6, ...Bb7 and ...b6-b5. Also possible is 8...Qc7!? when after 9.a5
Black can play 9...exd4 and fight for counterplay in the centre.
A recent move-order wrinkle to opt for the Barendregt strategy is 8...Rb8!?.
The experimental set-up 8...a5 9.h3 Qe8!?, in order to re-position the bishop via d8, is also possible.
 Illustrative games

The Philidor endgame

Game 35
Michael Tscharotschkin 2247
Gerard Welling 2371
Schwäbisch Gmünd 2009 (4)

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

6.Nf3

A superficial developing move, after which Black has no problems.

After 6.f4!? Black can side-step preparation with Bologan’s suggestion 6...Nc6!? 7.Nf3 Bd6 8.Bb5 (8.fxe5 Nxe5
9.Nxe5 Bxe5) 8...Nd4 9.fxe5 Nxf3+ 10.gxf3 Bxe5 11.Be3 c6 12.0-0-0+ Kc7 13.Bc4 Be6 14.Bxe6 fxe6 15.Na4 Nd7
and Black holds the balance or choose the simple 6...Bd6 or 6...Bb4.

6...Bd6 7.Bg5

7.Bc4 Be6!? (7...Ke7 8.Bg5 Be6!) 8.Bxe6?! (8.Bb3, intending Ng5) 8...fxe6 9.Be3 Nc6 and Black has reached a
good version of the variation with 6.Bc4 Be6: 10.0-0-0 a6 11.Nd2 b5 (the usual method of seeking counterplay)
12.f3 Ke7 13.Nb3 Nd7 14.h4 Rhb8 15.h5 a5 16.h6 g6 (16...a4! 17.Nd2 g6) 17.Ne2 (17.a4) 17...a4 18.Nd2 Na5!
(intending ...b4-b3; 18...Nb4 19.a3; 18...b4 19.Nc4) 19.Bg5+ (19.Kb1 b4 20.c3 bxc3 21.Nxc3 Rb4 22.Rc1 Rab8
23.Rc2 a3 24.b3 c5) 19...Kf7 20.Rhf1 (20.Kb1 b4) 20...Kg8 (20...b4 21.f4 Kg8) 21.f4 (21.Kb1 b4 22.Rc1) 21...b4
22.f5 exf5 23.exf5 gxf5 24.Ng3 (24.Rxf5 b3) 24...b3! (24...f4 25.Nge4 b3)
analysis diagram

25.cxb3 axb3 (25...f4 26.Nge4 Nc6!) 26.a3 f4 27.Nf5 (Walz-Welling, Schwäbisch Gmünd 2009; 27.Nge4 Nc6!
28.Nc4 Nd4) 27...Rf8! 28.Nxd6 cxd6 29.Ne4 Nc4 30.Nxd6 Ne3 with a winning advantage for Black.

7...Be6 8.0-0-0 Nbd7 9.Bb5 Kc8 10.Bxd7+?!

Now Black gets a very comfortable position. Perhaps better was 10.Bxf6 Nxf6 11.Ng5 a6.

10...Nxd7

Black should now attack the light squares (target: c2). White in turn needs to place the pawns on light squares.

11.Be3 f6 12.Nd2 c6

12...a6 13.Nd5.
13.Nb3 Bb4! 14.Ne2 a5 15.c3 Be7 16.Kb1 Kc7

With hindsight, more accurate is 16...a4! 17.Nbc1 (17.Nd2 Bc5) 17...Nc5 (17...b5; 17...f5 18.f3 fxe4 19.fxe4 Nc5)
18.f3 Kc7.

17.f3 h5!

An excellent decision to play on two fronts; now Black has a clear initiative. 17...a4 18.Nbc1 Nc5 (18...b5) 19.g4 g6
is less precise.

18.h3 h4 19.f4 a4 20.Nd2

20.Nbc1 Nc5.

20...Bf7

20...Bc5.

21.Nf3 Bg6 22.f5 Bh5! 23.Rd2

23.c4 g6.

23...g5!?

Also possible was 23...Nc5 24.Bxc5 Bxc5 25.Rhd1 Rhd8. Black utilises a tactical point to strengthen his control of
the dark squares.

24.Rhd1 Rad8

24...Rhd8.

25.c4 a3 26.b3? Bb4 27.Rd3 Nc5 28.Bxc5 Rxd3

Also good is 28...Bxc5 29.Nc3 Rxd3 30.Rxd3 Rd8 31.Rxd8 Kxd8 32.Na4 Bf2 33.c5 g4 and the bishops dominate.
29.Bb6+ Kxb6 30.Rxd3 Kc7 31.Kc2 Bc5

31...Rd8 32.Rxd8 Kxd8 33.Nc1 b6 34.Nd3 Bd6 35.b4.

32.Nc3

32.Kc3 b5 33.cxb5 cxb5 34.Kd2 b4.

32...Bf2 33.Nh2

33.Nd1 Bg3 34.Ne3.

33...Bg3 34.Ng4

At first sight, it appears that White has a blockade.

34...Bxg4!

The best decision, as the rook ending is probably winning.

35.hxg4 h3!! 36.Ne2

36.gxh3 Rxh3 and the rook escapes.

36...h2 37.Nxg3 h1=Q 38.Nxh1 Rxh1 39.Rd2 Rh4

Winning back the sacrificed pawn, with a vastly more active rook.

40.Re2 Rxg4 41.c5

41.b4 c5! 42.Kb3 Rg3+ 43.Ka4 Kc6; 41.Kc3 c5 42.Kc2 Kb6 43.Kd2 Ka5 44.Kc2 Kb4 45.Kd2 Rg3 46.Kc2 Rc3+
47.Kd2 g4.

41...b6! 42.Kc3

42.cxb6+ Kxb6 43.Kd3 Kb5.

42...bxc5 43.Kc4 Kb6 44.b4 cxb4 45.Kxb4 Rg3 46.Kc4 Ka5

46...g4 47.Rd2 (47.Kb4 c5+ 48.Kc4 Kc6) 47...Re3.

47.Kc5 Rd3 48.Rc2

48.Kxc6 Kb4 49.g4 Rd4 50.Kc7 Kc3.

48...g4 49.Re2 Rd4 50.Re3 Ka4 51.Re2 Rb4

52.Rc2 Rxe4

52...Rb2.

53.Kd6 Rb4 54.Rxc6 Rb2 55.Rc4+ Kb5 56.Rxg4 Rxa2 57.Rg8 Rd2+ 58.Ke6 a2 59.Ra8 e4 0-1

Game 36
Andreas Schneider 2025
Gerard Welling 2334
Bad Wiessee 2015 (3)

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

6...Be6 7.Bb3 Bd6 8.Nge2 Nbd7 9.Bxe6 fxe6

Now we reach the familiar structure, in which the doubled pawn is not weak but controls a lot of squares.

10.f3 a6 11.Be3 Ke7 12.0-0

Or 12.0-0-0 b5 when it is a moot point whether the white king’s position can be considered an attacking or a
defensive one.

12...b5

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

This space gain should not be scorned.

16.Nf2 Bc5!?

An interesting but double-edged decision. Black exchanges off his ‘bad bishop’, but the piece was doing a good job
defensively. The move proves justified, thanks to sloppy counterplay by White.

17.Bxc5+ Nxc5 18.Rd1 Ra6 19.Nc1 Rd6 20.Ncd3 Nfd7 21.Rd2 Nxd3 22.Nxd3 c5

Gaining even more space.

23.Rad1 c4 24.Nf2 Rxd2 25.Rxd2 c3!

Breaking up the white structure, which must be beneficial.

26.bxc3 Rc7 27.c4?!

27.Rd3 Nb6 28.Ng4 Nc4 with advantage; 27.Nd1 Nb6.

27...Rxc4 28.Ng4 Rc3 29.Rd3 Rxd3!

29...Rxc2 30.Rb3 Rc5 31.Kf1 and 31...h5 32.Nf2 is not so simple.

30.cxd3 Kd6

30...b4 also looks strong.

31.Kf2 Kc5 32.Ke3 b4

33.axb4+

33.Nxe5 is too late: 33...bxa3! (or 33...Nxe5 34.d4+ Kc4 35.axb4 a4) wins for Black.

33...Kxb4

The rook’s pawn is the deadliest enemy of the knight.

34.Kd2 Kb3 35.f4

Panic, but also 35.Ne3 a4 36.Nc2 a3 loses.

35...exf4 36.d4 Kc4 37.d5 exd5 38.e5 Nc5 0-1

Game 37
Daniel Hristodorescu 2253
Sergey Kasparov 2458
Den Helder 2002 (3)

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bc4 Be6 7.Bxe6 fxe6
8.f3

The position arising after 8.Nf3 Bd6 9.h3 Ke7 10.Be3 a6 11.a3 Nbd7 12.0-0 b5 13.Nd2 from Zarinfam-S.Kasparov,
Ahvaz 2007, gives rise to an interesting question. Black exchanged the ‘bad bishop’ with 13...Bc5. This was also the
case in the game A.Schneider-Welling but grandmaster Hickl, who is a notable expert in this line, has made the
remark that this bishop is often important to keep Black’s central fortress together and it may be better to refrain
from the exchange. Food for thought.

8...Bd6

9.b3

In Khruschiov-S.Kasparov, Minsk zt 2000, White continued 9.Be3 a6 10.Nge2 Ke7 11.Nc1 Nbd7 12.Nd3, on which
Black reacted with the space-gaining 12...c5!? 13.a4 c4 14.Nf2 and exchanged the bishops with 14...Bc5, which
gave him a reasonable game. In his interesting and detailed book A Cunning Chess Opening for Black S.Kasparov
suggests 14...Rac8!? as an alternative. With the text move White intends to pressurise e5 but Black is well prepared
to counter that idea.
Dzindzichashvili gives as an alternative 9...Nbd7 10.0-0-0 Ke7 11.Nge2 a6 12.Rd2 b5.
9...Ke7 10.Nh3 a6 11.Nf2 Nc6 12.Nd3 b5 Zifroni-Oratovsky, Israel tt 2003, and the counterplay with ...a7-a6, ...b7-
b5 and eventually ...Rhb8 and ...a6-a5, is typical for this variation.

9...a6 10.Bb2 Ke7 11.Nh3 Nc6 12.Nf2 Nh5!? 13.Nd3 Nf4 14.Nxf4 exf4

Now e5 is available for a black minor piece and Black is perfectly fine.

15.0-0-0 Be5 16.Rhe1 Kf6 17.Ne2 Bxb2+ 18.Kxb2

18...e5?!

18...g5 seems more in line with Black’s previous play, for example 19.Rd7 Rac8 with ...Ne5 coming, and 20.h4 h6
does not help White.

19.Rd7 Rac8 20.Nc3 Rhd8 21.Red1

Black’s point was that after 21.Nd5+ Kg6 22.Rxc7? Rxc7 23.Nxc7 Rd2 he takes over.

21...Rxd7 22.Rxd7 Ne7 23.b4

White is better after 23.Nd5+ Nxd5 24.exd5, e.g. 24...h5 25.d6 cxd6 26.Rxd6+ Ke7 27.Rb6 with pressure.

23...Ke6

Now the position is more or less equal.

24.Rd2 b5 25.a4 c6 26.Ne2

26...bxa4

An ugly move but clearly best, the paradox of some positions.

27.Ka3

27.Nc3 c5 is probably more accurate as Black now gains some initiative.

27...c5 28.Kxa4 cxb4 29.Kxb4 Nc6+ 30.Ka3? Na5

This should have been stopped.

31.Kb4 Nc4 32.Rd1 Ne3 33.Rc1 Rxc2 34.Rxc2 Nxc2+ 35.Ka5 Ne1 36.Kxa6 Nxg2

A pawn to the good in the knight and pawn endgame Black should be winning. And he did!

37.Kb6 Ne1 38.Ng1 Nc2 39.Kc5 Nd4 40.Kc4 g5 41.Kd3 h5 42.h3 Kd6 43.Kc4 Nc2 44.Kd3 Na3 45.Ne2 Kc5
46.Nc3 Nb5 47.Ne2 Kb4 48.Kd2 Kc4 49.Ke1 Nd4 50.Ng1 Kd3 51.Kf2 h4 52.Kf1 Ke3 53.Kg2 Ne2 0-1

Game 38
Andrei Sokolovs 2360
Viktor Bologan 2530
Jurmala 1991

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bc4 Ke8

With 6...Be6 7.Bxe6 fxe6 Black plays for square control in the centre, and we have seen that he stands perfectly
well.
The text move is also a valid alternative, however, and avoids compromising the pawn structure. In practice, it is
perhaps slightly more difficult to handle than 6...Be6, as here Black must be aware of potential traps involving Nb5
or Nd5, but providing he plays accurately for a few moves, his position is very sound. We therefore offer this as an
alternative, which Black can perhaps use to surprise opponents who may be ready for 6...Be6.
7.Nge2

After 7.f4 Black has more than one option, but 7...Bd6 8.Nf3 Nbd7 is a solid reply and on 9.g3 he can consider
9...c6, which does not seem a bad choice instead of the theoretical but unclear consequences after 9...Bb4 10.0-0!.
Logical and often played is 7.Nf3, for example 7...Bd6 8.Bg5 Nbd7 9.0-0-0 a6 10.Rhe1 (10.a4 h6 11.Bh4 b6 is OK
for Black) 10...h6 11.Bh4 b5 12.Bb3 Bb7 with an equal game, Rozentalis-Damljanovic, Evry 2008.

7...c6

The actual move-order in the game was 3...c6 4.f3 e5 5.dxe5 dxe5 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8 7.Bc4 Ke8.

8.Bg5

8.a4 a5 9.f3 (9.Be3 Ng4 10.Bd2 Bc5 11.0-0 Nd7 with the idea ...Ke7, ...Bd6 and ...Nc5) 9...h5!? 10.h4 Bc5 11.Bd2
Nbd7 12.Nc1 (Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son-Bologan, Moscow 2007) 12...Bd4 (in the game after 12...Bd6 13.Nd3 the
exchange 13...Nc5 came into consideration) 13.Nd3 Nc5 14.0-0-0 Nxd3+ 15.Bxd3 Nd7, with counterplay for Black,
was suggested by Barsky.

8...Nbd7 9.f3 b5 10.Bd3 Nc5

White’s set-up is not to be recommended as it gives Black ample opportunities for counterplay.

11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Ng3 Nxd3+ 13.cxd3 Rg8 14.Nd1 Be6 15.Ke2 Bc5

With the bishop pair and pressure along the open g-file Black is better.
16.Ne3

Winning a pawn with 16.Rc1 Bb6 17.Rxc6 is a temporary gain as after 17...Kd7 18.Rc1 h5 19.Kf1? h4 20.Nh5
(neither 20.Nf5 Bxf5 21.exf5 Bd4 nor 20.Ne2 Rac8 help White much) 20...Ke7 21.g4 Rgc8 White’s position is close
to lost.

16...Bd4 17.Rhb1

17.Rac1 Kd7 18.b3, although Black is better. Things go rapidly downhill now.

17...Rg5 18.Nc2 Bb6 19.Rc1 Kd7 20.a4 h5 21.a5 Bc5 22.Ne1 Bd4 23.Rc2 h4 24.Nf1 f5 25.exf5 Bxf5 26.Nd2
Rag8 27.Nb3?

A mistake in a bad position.

27...Bxb2! 28.Ra2

28.Rxb2 Rxg2+ wins

28...Bd4 29.Nxd4 exd4 30.Rab2 Kd6 31.Rb4 Kd5 32.Rb1 Rxg2+ 0-1

Game 39
Peter Acs 2601
Dorian Rogozenco 2522
Germany Bundesliga 2010/11 (6)

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.dxe5 dxe5 5.Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bg5 Nbd7

Why not? Besides the theoretical 6...Be6, which after 7.0-0-0+ leads to complications that are perfectly playable,
Black has several reasonable replies to side-step extensive memorisation:
A) 6...c6:

analysis diagram

A1) 7.Nf3 Bd6 (7...Nbd7!? 8.0-0-0 Ke8 9.Bh4 Bc5 looks solid, Vaisser-Moskalenko, Fuerteventura 1992) 8.0-0-0
Ke7 9.Bc4 Bc7 with sufficient square control to hold the balance, Moen-Pelletier, Eilat 2012;
A2) 7.0-0-0+ Ke8 8.f4 Nbd7 9.fxe5 Ng4! (thematic once again) 10.e6 fxe6 11.Nh3 Be7 12.Bxe7 Kxe7 13.Be2 Nge5
14.Rhf1 (Riff-Pelletier, France 2010) and now maybe the cautious 14...Rf8 or the adventurous 14...b5;
A3) 7.f4 exf4 (7...h6 8.Bxf6+ (8.0-0-0+ Kc7 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.f5 Bb4 11.Rd3 b6 12.a3 Bf8 13.Rh3 a5 14.a4 Ba6
15.Nf3 Bxf1 16.Rxf1 Na6 should be about equal, Fletcher-Richmond, Cardiff 1995) 8...gxf6 9.Bc4 Be6 10.0-0-0+
Nd7 11.Bxe6 fxe6 12.fxe5 fxe5 13.Nge2 (13.Nf3 Kc7) 13...Rg8 14.Rhf1 Be7 15.g3 Ke8 16.a4 h5 and Black holds
the balance, Petr-Sebenik, Szeged 2007) 8.e5 h6 9.Bxf4 (Jobava-Lazic, Milan 2011), and engines suggest 9...g5!?
10.Bd2 Ng4 11.Nf3 Nd7 with a reasonable game;
B) 6...Bd6 is another of several dependable replies.
analysis diagram

7.0-0-0 (7.Bc4 Be6; 7.Nd5 Nbd7 8.Bc4 Ke8 Sasu Ducsoara-Litinskaya, Dresden 1997) 7...Nbd7 8.Nf3 (8.f3 a6
Veresagin-Akhmetov, Orel 1996) 8...Ke8 9.Bb5!? and S.Kasparov suggests 9...a6 10.Bxd7+ Nxd7 11.Nd5 f6 12.Be3
b5 13.Rd3 Bb7 14.Rhd1 Rd8. White may be a bit better but Black is solid.

7.0-0-0

7.Bc4 is simply met by 7...Ke8.

7...c6 8.f4 Be7 9.Nf3

9.fxe5 Ng4 is thematic and quite OK.

9...Ng4 10.Rd2 f6 11.fxe5 fxg5 12.e6 Kc7 13.exd7 Bxd7

The complications have turned out in Black’s favour.

14.Bc4 Bf6 15.Nd1 Rae8 16.Re1 Re7 17.Nf2 Nxf2 18.Rxf2 g4 19.Nd2 Be5 20.g3 h5 21.Nf1 h4

Targeting g3.

22.gxh4 Rxh4 23.Ree2 g5

24.Rf7?

A tactical mistake.

24...Rxf7 25.Bxf7 g3! 26.Nxg3

26.hxg3 Rh1 27.Rf2 Bd4 28.Rf3 Bg4.

26...Bf4+ 27.Kd1

27.Kb1 Bxg3.

27...Bg4 0-1

Shirov’s Gambit

Game 40
Anatoli Vaisser 2564
Christian Bauer 2480
Besançon ch-FRA 1999 (1)

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5

The actual move-order in the game was 3...Nbd7 4.g4 h6 5.Nf3 e5.

4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.g4!?

Shirov’s Gambit, which gained some popularity in this millennium.

5...h6

A rather solid approach, side-stepping 5...Nxg4 6.Rg1 Ngf6 7.Bc4 when all the white pieces spring into action.
Theoretically Black may be fine but in a practical game it is another matter to side-step all pitfalls.

6.g5

6.Rg1 c6!.

6...hxg5 7.Nxg5

7.Bxg5 Be7 8.Qd2 c6 9.0-0-0 Qa5 is about equal (or 9...Qc7).

7...exd4

Black can also play 7...c6 and after 8.dxe5 Nxe5 9.f4 the tactical 9...Nh7!, which is a point to remember in this line.

8.Qxd4 c6
9.Bf4

If 9.Bc4?! Ne5 10.Bb3 then Black takes advantage of the weakness of f3 with 10...Nh7!.

9...Ng4 10.Be2

In his notes to the game, grandmaster Bauer gives 10.0-0-0 Qb6 11.Qxb6 (11.Bc4 Nde5 12.f3 Qxd4 13.Rxd4 Nxc4
14.Rxc4 Ne5, intending ...f7-f6; 11.Qd2!?) 11...axb6 12.Rd2 Nde5 13.f3 f6, with an edge for Black.

10...Qb6

Black has the better pawn structure and would welcome a queen exchange.

11.Rd1

11.Qxb6 Nxb6 12.Bxg4 Bxg4 13.Rg1 Bh5 and Black is slightly better.

11...Qxd4 12.Rxd4 Nde5 13.Bg3 f6 14.Nf3 Be6 15.0-0

15.Nd2!? may be preferable. Now Black improves his control.

15...g5! 16.Rfd1 Nxf3+ 17.Bxf3 Ne5 18.Be2 Be7 19.a4 a5 20.b4?

Weakens White’s position. Bauer’s suggestion to regroup with 20.Re1 and Nc3-d1-e3 seems preferable.

20...axb4 21.Rxb4 Bc8! 22.Rbd4 Ra5 23.Nb1 Rc5

And here Bauer claims a large advantage after 23...Kd8!? 24.Nd2 Kc7 25.Nb3 Ra7 26.a5 Be6.
24.c4 Ra5 25.Nc3 Kd8 26.f3 Kc7 27.Be1 Ra8 28.a5 Be6 29.Na4

29.Rb1.

29...c5 30.R4d2 Bxc4 31.Nb6 Bxe2 32.Nxa8+ Rxa8 33.Rxe2 Nxf3+ 34.Kg2 Nxe1+ 35.Rexe1 Rxa5–+ 36.Ra1
Rb5 37.Reb1 Rxb1 38.Rxb1 Kc6 39.Kf3 c4 40.Ke3 b5 41.Rf1 Bd8 42.Kd4 Bb6+ 43.Kc3 Ba5+ 44.Kc2 b4
45.Rxf6 b3+ 46.Kb2 Kc5

47.Ka3

The black pawns are too strong after 47.Rf5+ Kb4 48.Rxg5: 48...c3+ 49.Kb1 Bb6 50.Rg3 Bd4 51.h4 c2+ 52.Kc1
Ka3.

47...Bd2 48.Rf5+ Kd4 49.Rd5+ Kc3 50.Rxd6 Bc1+ 51.Ka4 b2 52.Rb6 Be3 53.Rb5 Bc5 54.e5 Be7 0-1
 Game 41
Oskar Wieczorek 2407
Baadur Jobava 2705
Warsaw Ech rapid 2013 (6)

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.g4 d5!?

A wild and woolly Jobava experiment, that may merit some attention. Another less well charted idea against
Shirov’s Gambit, but somewhat more solidly grounded, is 5...g6, for example: 6.g5 Nh5 7.Be3 Bg7 8.Qd2 0-0 9.0-0-
0 c6 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Nxe5 Bxe5 12.Be2 Qa5 13.Bxh5 gxh5 and Black has more or less sufficient counterplay on
the queenside to compensate for his damaged pawns.

6.exd5

Some alternative lines:

A) 6.dxe5 Nxe4 7.Qxd5 (7.Nxd5 Nb6!; 7.Nxe4 dxe4 8.Ng5 h6 9.Nxe4 Nxe5=) 7...Nxc3 8.bxc3 c6 9.Qd4 Bc5!?
10.Qe4 Qa5 11.Bd2 Be7 with the idea ...Nc5 and Black is doing fine;
B) 6.Nxd5 exd4!? (6...Nxd5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.Bg5 f6 9.Be3) 7.Nxd4 Ne5 8.Nxf6+ Qxf6 9.g5 Qb6 with counterplay and
unclear consequences.

6...e4 7.Ne5

Better seems 7.Nd2 Bb4 8.Bg2 Nb6 (Videnova-Voiska, Bulgaria tt 2014) 9.Ndxe4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 0-0 and the
Komodo engine likes Black’s compensation. A line for daredevils!

7...Bb4!

Now 8...Nxd5 is in the air.

8.Bg5 h6

Looks good, but the engines like 8...0-0 as least as much, e.g. 9.Bg2 h6 10.Bxf6 Qxf6 11.0-0 Bxc3 12.bxc3 Nxe5
13.dxe5 Qxe5 with a good position for Black.
9.Bxf6 Nxf6

Naturally, the human mind has difficulties in considering such an illogical move as 9...gxf6! 10.Nc4 (or 10.Nxd7
Qxd7 when both g4 and d5 are hanging) 10...Nb6 and Black is OK.

10.Bb5+! c6!?

A player with Jobava’s style naturally refrains from 10...Kf8.

11.dxc6 0-0 12.Qd2?!

12.0-0 is the right move, e.g. 12...Qb6 13.Bc4.

12...e3!

Now Black is able to stir up complications.

13.Qxe3?

13.Qd3 exf2+ 14.Kxf2 Nxg4+ 15.Nxg4 Bxg4 16.cxb7 Rb8 is not inviting for White but may still be playable.

13...Bxc3+ 14.Qxc3 Qd5

A fork that White evidently overlooked. He is now doomed and eventually lost:

15.0-0-0 Qxb5 16.Rhg1 Ne4 17.Qe3 f6 18.c4 Qa6 19.Qxe4 fxe5 20.dxe5 Qxc6 21.Qxc6 bxc6 22.f4 Rxf4 23.Rd8+
Rf8 24.Rgd1 Bxg4 0-1

An interesting counter idea, but something rather for ‘special occasions’.

Game 42
Oscar De La Riva Aguado 2495
Victor Bologan 2668
Pamplona 2001/02 (1)

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.g3

A slow approach but one not to be underestimated, as White keeps firm control of the central squares. Occasionally
played is 5.Be2 c6 6.0-0 Be7 and we present some sample lines from Bologan that also illustrate typical stategic
features of Black’s play: 7.a4 (7.Nh4 is countered by central reaction: 7...exd4 8.Qxd4 Nc5 9.b4 Ne6 10.Qd3 a5
11.b5 Nc5 12.Qd4 0-0) 7...0-0 8.Be3 b6 (the approach we also recommend in the mainline variation, preparing ...b7-
b6-b5 step by step by means of ...Bb7, ...a7-a6 and ...b6-b5. In the Netherlands this is known as the Barendregt
method) 9.Nd2 Bb7 10.Nc4 a6

analysis diagram

11.dxe5 (11.f4 exd4 12.Bxd4 b5 13.axb5 axb5 14.Rxa8 Bxa8 15.Ne3 b4 16.e5 dxe5 17.fxe5 Nxe5 18.Bxe5 bxc3 and
Black is to be preferred) 11...dxe5 12.Nd6 (12.a5 b5 13.Nb6 Rb8 14.f3 Bc5 15.Qd3 Bxe3+ 16.Qxe3 Nxb6 17.axb6
Nd7 and the pawn on b6 is a goner) 12...Qc7 13.Nxb7 (13.Nf5 Bb4, pressuring e4) 13...Qxb7 14.Bc4 b5 and Black’s
position unfolds in typical fashion.

5...c6 6.a4 Be7 7.Bg2 0-0 8.0-0

8...Re8

This is a reliable move, but according to Bologan it is preferable to develop the queenside first with 8...b6!? 9.b3
(9.Re1 Bb7) 9...a6 10.Bb2 Bb7 11.Re1 Re8 and then ...Bf8, ...b6-b5 or ...exd4 and...c6-c5.

9.h3

9.Re1 Bf8 10.b3 b6 11.Bb2 Bb7.

9...Bf8 10.Re1 b6 11.Be3 Bb7 12.Nd2 a6 13.g4!?

Provoking some weaknesses on the kingside.

In this kind of position, kingside expansion with g3-g4 always has to be taken into account. Instead 13.f4 b5 is OK
for Black.

13...h6 14.d5

14.dxe5 dxe5 15.Nc4 Qc7 and d6 is well controlled.

14...b5

14...cxd5 15.exd5 Rc8 16.Nde4 Nxe4 17.Nxe4 Be7 and if 18.Ng3 (18.Ra3!?) 18...Bg5.

15.dxc6 Bxc6

16.Nf1?!

This gives Black his chances. Better may be 16.axb5 axb5 17.Qe2 Nc5!? (17...b4 18.Nd5 Bxd5 19.exd5 Qc7 20.Nc4
looks slightly better for White) 18.Nxb5 (instead 18.b4 Na6 19.Reb1 Nc7 stabilizes for Black) 18...Bxb5 19.Qxb5
Rb8 20.Qe2 Rxb2 21.Nc4 Rb7 22.Bxc5 dxc5 with a more or less equal position.

16...bxa4

Bologan considered 16...Nc5 17.Bxc5 dxc5 18.axb5 axb5 19.Qxd8 Rexd8 20.Ne3 c4 better for Black.
17.Qd3 Nh7?!

Bologan suggested 17...Nc5 18.Bxc5 dxc5 19.Qxd8 Rexd8 20.Ne3 (20.Nxa4 Rab8 21.b3 c4 22.bxc4 Rb4 23.Nc3
Rxc4 24.Nd5) 20...Rab8 21.Nc4 with unclear consequences; Maybe Black can also consider 17...Qa5, e.g. 18.Nxa4
(18.Ng3 Rab8 19.Nxa4?! Bxa4 20.b3 Nc5) 18...Bxa4 19.b3 Bb5 20.Rxa5 Bxd3 21.cxd3 d5!.

18.Nxa4 Ng5 19.Nc3 a5 20.Nd2 Ne6 21.Nc4

Now White seems to have a small but stable plus.

21...Nf4

For example 21...Ndc5 22.Qd2 a4 23.Red1 Qb8 24.Nd5. Black provokes Bxf4, which would give him control of the
dark squares.

22.Qd2 Nxg2 23.Kxg2 Nf6 24.f3 a4 25.Nb6

25.Red1 keeps the position firmly under control.

25...Rb8 26.Ncxa4 Bxa4 27.Nxa4 d5

Now Black has a lot of counterplay at his disposal.

28.exd5 Nxd5 29.Rad1?!

Better is 29.Red1 Nxe3+ 30.Qxe3 and it still remains somewhat unclear, for example after 30...Qc8 31.c3 e4!?.
29.c4 Nxe3+ 30.Qxe3 Qc8 31.b3 is still quite stable, (instead 31.c5 e4!? stirs things up).

29...Qc8! 30.Qf2 Nxe3+ 31.Rxe3 f5

31...e4!? is also an interesting option.

32.gxf5

Was this necessary?

32...Qxf5 33.Re4 Re6 34.b3 Rg6+ 35.Kh2 Rf6 36.Kg2 Rc8 37.c4 Rcc6 38.Rd3?

In time trouble White loses control. 38.Nc3 is a better try.

38...Rg6+ 39.Kh2 Be7

The bishop enters the action.

40.h4

Does this keep the bishop out?

40...Bxh4!!

A beautiful follow-up.

41.Qxh4

41.Rxh4 Qxd3.

41...Rg5

The king is defenceless.

42.Qh3

42.Rd8+ Kh7 43.Qh3 Rh5 44.Rh4 Qc2+ 45.Kg1 Rg6+ 46.Kf1 Qc1+ 47.Ke2 Rxh4 48.Qxh4 Rg2+ 49.Kd3 Qc2+
50.Ke3 Qe2#.

42...Rh5 43.Rd8+ Kh7 44.Rh4 Qc2+ 45.Kg1 Rg6+ 46.Kf1 Rxh4 47.Qxh4 Qg2+ 48.Ke1 Qxf3 49.Qh2 Rg2 0-1

Attack on f7

Game 43
Wolfgang Heidenfeld
J. Wolpert
Johannesburg 1955 (1)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.Bxf7+?!

In Game 45 White interpolates the exchange on e5 first, which leads to entirely different variations.

6...Kxf7 7.Ng5+ Kg8 8.Ne6 Qe8 9.Nxc7

9...Qg6!

Opting for a dangerous counterattack.

10.Nxa8 Qxg2 11.Rf1 exd4 12.Qxd4

Two alternatives:
A) 12.Qe2 dxc3! 13.Qc4+ d5 14.Qxc8+ Kf7 15.Qxh8 (15.Qxb7 Qxe4+ 16.Be3 Rb8 17.Qxa7 cxb2–+ Rabinovich-
Iljin Zhenevsky, Moscow 1922) 15...Qxe4+ 16.Kd1 (16.Be3 cxb2–+) 16...Qf3+ 17.Ke1 cxb2 18.Bxb2 Bb4+ 19.c3
Bxc3+ 20.Bxc3 Qxc3+ 21.Ke2 Qc2+ 22.Ke3 (22.Ke1 Ne5) 22...d4+ 23.Kxd4 Qc5+ 24.Kd3 Ne5+ 25.Kd2 Ne4+ and
White is mated;
B) 12.Ne2 Ne5 13.Nxd4 Qxe4+ 14.Be3 Nfg4 15.Qd2 Nxe3 16.fxe3 (16.Qxe3 Qxd4) 16...Bh4+ 17.Kd1 Nc4 is also
hopeless for White.

12...Ne5 13.f4?

13.f3 Bh3! 14.Qf2 Qxf1+ 15.Qxf1 Bxf1 16.Kxf1 Nxf3 and Black is better.

13...Nfg4!
14.Qd5+! Nf7 15.Qc4 Bh4+ 16.Kd1 Be6!?

16...Bd7 is just as strong.

17.Qe2 Nf2+ 18.Rxf2

18.Kd2 Bg4 19.Rxf2 Bxf2 20.Qb5 g6!–+.

18...Bxf2 19.f5 Qg1+ 20.Kd2

20...Ne5! 21.Nd1

21.fxe6 Be1+ (or 21...Bh4) 22.Qxe1 Nf3+ 23.Ke2 Nxe1 24.Be3 Qxh2+ 25.Kxe1 Qh1+ 26.Ke2 Qxa1–+.

21...Be1+ 22.Qxe1 Qd4+ 23.Ke2 Bc4

Mate!

Game 44
Kristian Evertsson 2191
Aleksa Strikovic 2467
Internet (blitz) 2003 (6)

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e5 4.Nf3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.Bxf7+?! Kxf7 7.Ng5+ Kg8 8.Ne6 Qe8 9.Nxc7 Qg6! 10.0-0
Rb8

This alternative route should not work for White, but it is good to be prepared for it.

11.f4

If 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.f4 b6 13.N3d5?! Bc5+ 14.Kh1 Qxe4 is winning.

11...exd4 12.Qxd4 d5

Introduces the Be7 into the game.

13.Be3

Alternatively 13.f5 Qf7 14.Ne6 dxe4 15.Bf4 may set Black a more difficult task to prove an advantage.

13...Bc5 14.Qd3 dxe4 15.Qd2

15.Qc4+ Qf7.

15...Bxe3+ 16.Qxe3 Nb6

With a substantial advantage. Black won after

17.Rad1 Bg4 18.Rd4 h5 19.h3 Bf5 20.Rfd1 Kh7 21.a4 Rbc8 22.N7b5 Nc4 23.Qe2 Bxh3 24.f5 Qg5 25.Nd6 Nxd6
26.Rxd6 Bg4 27.Nxe4 Nxe4 28.Qxe4 Qxf5 29.Qxf5+ Bxf5 30.c3 Rhe8 31.R1d4 Re4 32.Rxe4 Bxe4 33.Rd7 Bc6
34.Re7 Rd8 35.Re2 Bxa4 36.b4 Bc6 37.Kf2 b5 0-1
 Game 45
Willy Rosen
Alexander Schoisswohl
cr 1961

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7

6.dxe5 dxe5

Black can side-step complications with the simple 6...Nxe5, for example 7.Be2 (7.Nxe5 dxe5 8.Qxd8+ Bxd8=)
7...Nxf3+ (7...Ng6!? was Barendregt’s preference) 8.Bxf3 0-0 9.0-0 Re8 10.Re1 h6 11.b3 (Pachman-Dunkelblum,
Dublin Zonal 1957) 11...Nh7 12.Nd5 Bf6 13.Nxf6+ Qxf6 14.Bd2 Ng5 15.Bxg5 hxg5 and Black is slightly better.

7.Bxf7+

Once again 7.Ng5 0-0 8.Bxf7+ is not to be feared if Black knows how to react: 8...Rxf7 9.Ne6 Qe8 10.Nxc7 Qd8
11.Nxa8 b5. See the note to move 10, Variation C, in Game 46.

7...Kxf7 8.Ng5+
8...Kg6!

A fighter’s move, while the retreat will lead to a position where Black is about equal, but has few winning chances,
after 8...Kg8 9.Ne6 Qe8 10.Nxc7 Qg6 11.Nxa8 Qxg2 12.Rf1 Nc5! 13.Qe2 Bh3 14.Be3 Qxf1+ 15.Qxf1 Bxf1
16.Kxf1 Kf7 (16...Ne6 17.Bxa7 Kf7 18.Nb6 Bc5 19.Nca4!) 17.Nc7 Nfxe4 (17...Rc8) 18.Nxe4 Nxe4 19.Nd5 Bc5=.
There seems to be little practical reason to play like this – if Black is happy to draw, he can simply avoid
complications with 6...Nxe5.

9.h4

A) 9.Ne6 Qg8 10.Nxc7 Rb8µ;

B) 9.f4 exf4! 10.Ne6 Qg8 11.Nxf4+ (11.Nd5 Bd6 12.Nexc7 Bxc7 13.Ne7+ Kf7 14.Nxg8 Rxg8 Mione-Scalcione,
Corsica 2007, and with three pieces for the queen, Black is doing fine; 11.Nxc7 Ne5 12.0-0 Bg4µ) 11...Kf7 12.0-0
Qd8 13.Nd3 Seger-Miltner, Gladenbach ch-GER 1997.