Minor Lines

Convince me that the tizith is a/t«fJ/ grey

— The Killers

1.d4 d5 2.c4

The Albin Counter-Gambit page 220

The Von Hennig-Schara Gambit page 223
The 2...;§if5 Variation page 22b
The Symmetricd 2,..c5 page 229
The Triangle Variation page 231
The Semi-Tarrasch page 236
The QGD with 3...3ib4 page 238
220 Playing the Queen’s Gambit

In this final chapter we will briedy ex ine

Blacks various other tries after 1.d4 d5 2.c4.
These openings are very different from each
other, but what they do have in common is
6
that they are too small, too rare or too bad to
have their own chapter.
4
We start with a classic.

The Albin Counter-Gambit

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5
a b c d e f g h
8 A simple and very strong move: White plans
b4 and b2 hitting the d-pawn. The traditional
7
mainline has been 5.g3, but I believe the future
6 belongs to 5.a3.

S... ge7
4 be choice of Morozevich. Black intends
3 ... g6 and capturing on e5. This will be
examined in Game 60. Here we will take a
2
look at the alternatives.
1
â...a5 Stopping White’s expansion. 6. bd2
a b c d e f g h
Threatening b3 with an attack on the d-
The Albin. Black counterattacks in the centre pawn. 6...fig4 7.h3 f3 (on 7... h5 8.1ib3
and answers White’s gambit with a gambit of is strong) 8. xf3 Ac5 9.h4!? Aged 10.h51
his own. Black sacrifices the e-pawn in search White has prevented ... g6 and is much
of central control and rapid development.
better. 10...Clc8 11.Af4 €ib6 12. c2 a4
The opening originates from the romantic era
13.&h4!? e7 ld. &e6 15.dcl a5 16.Ah3
and is hardly correct. It received a boost when
&c6 17.e6! fxe6 18. e5 &d6 19.Sgt White
the inventive Russian Morozevich suddenly
was winning in Kujoth — Stoppel, corr. 1948.
used it, but now the time has come to bury
it again.
5...fb 6.exf6 xf6 7.e3 g4 8. e2 and Black
has nothing for the pawn.
3.dxe5 d4
The positional point: Black’s d-pawn hinders
â... e6 6. bd2 ge7 7.'kb3 xc4 (7...'?\G
Whites normal development, and Black is
ready to follow up with ... c6, ... g4, ...&d7
8.¥fd3z) 8. bxd4 Bd5 9. c2 xd4 10.iñxd4
and then castle long with an active position.
&xd4 1 I.e3 &xe5 12. xc4+ The bishop pair
rules, Ivanisevic — Khenkin, Subotica 2008.
4. f3 c6 5.a3!
5...fig4 6.Obd2 e7 7.h3 fih5 8.¥fa4 0—0—0
9.b4 xe5 (9... b8 10.fib2) 10. xe5 &xe5
 Chapter 8 - Minor Lines 221

11.fib2 b8 12.94 g6 13. g2 f6 14. Here White could also go for a pleasant
Of4 15.0—0+ White simply wants to take on ending with 9.Oxd4 ¥fxd4 10. xd4 xc4
d4 and if Black takes back with the rook then ll.e3 C1d6 12.7ibd2 d7 13.a4 f6 14.fid3
e2-e3 is winning. 1§...h5 16. xd4! IIxdJ 17.e3 fif5 i5. e2fi Set? 16.g4! xd2 17.gxf5 9b3
¥fd6 18. xd4 hxg4 19.&fd1 gxh3 20. c6t 18.fxg6 xa1 19. xala Stojanovic — Tadic,
bxc6 21.&xd6 Axd6 22. c6 &h5 23.c5 Vrsac 2007.
h2J 24.&h1 1—0 PH. Nielsen — Rasmussen, 9. xd4 has also been tried, but is less clear.
Denmark (ch) 2008.
9... xe5 10.e3 e6 11. d4 xc4 12. c2

8
Topalov - Morozevich 7

Monre Carlo 2009

1.d4 d5
ge7
3
g 2
7
6 a b c d e f g h
5 12...Cld6
4 Nigel Davies suggests 12... d§ in his book
Gambiteer 2. It is hard to understand, as
3 13. c3 Yfg5 14.f4 g6 15. d3 5 16.0—0+ is
2 just good for White.

i 13. g5 1d.N
a b c d e f g h ld.0-0 xb5 is unclear.

•s‹ o« ›i...i›hi›
Black goes for the weak e5-pawR. Another try was 14...¥fd5 15. c3 &b3 but
6... g4 7.fib2 VG 8.\Sd3 g6 has been played after Avrukh’s precise 16.&f2 Ilif5
17.@f5 a couple of times. Avrukh suggesu 9.&e4!fixf5 18.e4 0-0-0 19.0—0 (not
19.exf5 c5!) 3 10.ext h6 11.f4 0—0 12.Od2+. 19...8c4 20.Ikd5!+
Black is in dire straits
because 20... xe4 drops the queen to 21.I5b6t
7.k b2 a5 cxb6 22.Mac 1.
First he weakens White’s pawn structure.
be immediate 7... gye5 8. xe5 xe5 9.e3 15.g3 h3
e6 10. xd4 is definitely not better. Better is 15...&h3 when 16. f2 e7
17.€id2 6—0 18. xc7 &fe8 gives Black some
8.b5 €\cxe5 9. xe5 compensation.
222 Playing the Queen’s Gambit

Instead Avrukh suggests: 16.e4 &d8 17.f5

Topalov begins to stumble. 20. f2 &g6
xe4 (17... c4 18. c3 \xd3 19.1fxd3 fie7
21.&fcl was still overwhelming.
20.tid5!) 18.fxe6 xe6 l9.@c4 tfe7 20. e3
xg3 21.hxg3 &xe3 22.&e2fi White’s extra
piece is stronger than the three pawns in the 20... 21.Eg5 xe3! 22.axle xc2
ending. 23. ;lIxc2 b6
Trapping the bishop and making certain that
16. c3 VG 17.0—0 0—0—0 he wins the piece back. Remarkable defence
Missing White’s next, but the alternatives by Morozevich, but there is no reason White
were not worth much anyway. should get into trouble.
17...fid6 18.@f5 @f5 l9.e4 fih3 20.e5
fie7 (20...@fl 21.exd6 Ah3 22.&e4 wins) 24. e5?!
24.&xd7 @ d7 25.a4 b7 26.ke5 c51
21. kid5a.
27.&g2 e8 28. xb6 cxb6 29. e41 and
Or 17... xd4 18.exd4 0-0-0 19.f5 fid7
24. g5 &xdl 25.&xdl Ac4 26. xb6 cxb6
20.ifid5 fid6 21. xc7!+ xc7 22.Nacl
27.fi f5 were two variations where White
winning.
surely would not lose.
18. a7!
24...&xd1J 25.&xd1 ;â;xa3!
The turning point: Black just takes this
8 important pawn to begin with. The trapped
7 bishop will not run away.

6 26. a2 27.Tal c5$ 28. f1 &e8

5 29.Tel?!
29.&xa2 &xe5 30.fid3 b7 31.&e2 was the
4 last chance. Opposite-coloured bishops always
3
give hope of a draw.

2
29...f6 30.d3 &xe1$ 31. xe1 d6 32. c1
1 d5 33. b3 e4
It is dl over.
a b c d e f g h
A wonderful move that simultaneously 34. b6 cxb6 35. e6$ c7 36. e2 e5
preserves the bishop and takes away a vital 37. E1d3 &d6 38. e3 d5
escape route for the black king. 0—1

18... g4 19. e4 Conclusion: 5.a3 seems to be a direct and

This was a rapid game and Topalov misses
the brilliant l9. a4! which threatens mate
in one with b6. The only move is l9 ...&d7
but then comes 20.&adl and it will soon be
curtains.
dangerous weapon against the Albin Counter-
Gambit.
We move straight on to another gambit.

19...&d7 20.&fd1?!
 Chapter 8 Minor Lines 223

The Von H ennig-Schara Gambit 12.0—0 g5

1.d4 d 2.c4 e6 3. c3 c5 4.cxd5 cad4

8
7
8 6
7
JA
4
2

2 a b c d e f g h
1
Black’s offensive can quickly become rather
a b c d e f g h uncomfortable for While. Fortunately he can
The Von Hennig-Schara Gambit uses a strike back and wrench the initiative out of his
similar move order to the Tarrasch, but these opponent’s hands.
two lines have little else in common. In this
case, Black gives up a central pawn for quick 1 3• 4!
development, but it is hard to believe it can fat’s it. One of the big advantages of
be good. being a pawn up is that you can return it at
an appropriate moment. White’s attack on
5.\bxd4 the queenside turns out to be more dangerous
5. a4 Ad7 6.&xd4 exd5 7.7fxd5 c6 just than Black’s on the Ringside.
transposes.
See Name 61 for the continuation:
5...t1c6 6.Odi exd5 7.Wxd5 fid7
Play now takes on a surprisingly forced
character.

8. $lG fiG 9.Odl IPescas — Rodriguez

9.Yfb3 has also been tried, but then the queen Vargas
is in the way — when you see the mainline you
will understand why. Catalonia 1996

9... c5 10.e3 e7 11. e2 0 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. c3 c5 4.ixd5 cxd4

Jonny Hector, the Swedish fighter with the 5• a4J d7 6. ad4 exd5 7.Oxd5 '?1c6
mythological name, has been experimenting
8. Ili 9. d1 c5 10.e3 e7 11. e2
gS 12.0—0 0—0—0 13.b4! xb4
with 11...g5!' 12.0—0 g4 l3. d4 key, but
after ld. xc6 xc6 Site canget away
Black must take the bait. 13...g4 l4.Od4
with taking a second pawn with 15. xgd+. At
@xbd would just transpose, while 13... xbd
looks wrong. A good answer is 14. d4.
least my computer believes so.
224 Playing the Queen’s Gambit

14. b2 White has won a pawn, Ezat — Pisk, Tanta

Developing the bishop to a great diagonal. 2000.
If 14.&b3 then IN... e6 would be a liole 17...axb5 18.@f6 7fxf6 19.&xc5z
annoying. 18. c3â xf2?! 19.&xf2 &xe3 20.Bf1 xf2$
21.&xf2 xf21 22. xf2 g4 23. $1h4 &b8
24. e4+
8 White’s two pieces were much better than
Black’s rook and two pawns, Barrance —
Fitzpatrick, corr. 2002.
6
5 IS. d4 b8
15...Iñxd4 16.¥fxd4 Ac5 17.i d5! Jlxd5
4
18.I7fcl and Black is being crushed: 18...&hg8
19.&xc51 c6 20. xg41 b8 21.&e5$ a8i!
2 22.&xd5 1—0 Comas Fabrego — Martin,
Benasque 1995.
1
a b c d e f g h 15...h5 or 15...l7hg8 are both answered by
16. cb5 when 16... b8 would transpose to
16...g6
the next note.
Black has an important alternative in:
IN...&hg8 when White has tried many moves.
16. cb5

Most promising seems: g

15.&c2 b8 16.&fdl gd 17. d4 xd4
7
18.&xd4 Ac6 19. b5!
Pay attention to this manoeuvre. 6
19... e4?
Black can play better moves, but Site still 5
has the advantage: 19...&c8 20.\ 1f5 xb5 4
21. xb5 Ac3 22. c3 &xc3 23. f41 a8 $
24.&d6+ For instance, 2d... e4 25.&d7
7fc5 26. f1. 2
20.&b4! ¥fxb4 21. e5t d6 22. xd6 &xd6 i
23.&b1 1—0
This was Comas Fabrego — J. Rodriguez,
a b c d e f g h
Catalonia 1996. On 23...&a3 2d. xc6 The critical position. The battle is very
exploits two pins. tense, but White’s progress on the queenside
always seems to be a little ahead of Black’s on
White can even try: the Ringside. And the initiative matters, as
15.Ikb5 a6 16.a3! c5 17.&c1 e4 we know by now. It has been a guiding star
Or 17...g4 18. d2 &g6 l9. xf6 &xf6 throughout the whole book.
20.&xc5 xc5 21. e4 &e7 22. xf6 xf6
23.\fd6! ¥fxd6 24.€lxd6t c7 25. xf7 and 16... e5
 This is hardly the best move, judging from 17. 3 &hg8
the fact that this game is over in four moves! 17...a6 is countered with the spectacular
18.Set! f3J 19. xf3 @xe6 20. e5 d6
Black had nvo serious alternatives: 21.7fb2+.

16...h5 17.&a4 a6 18. xc61 18.Tab1+

The text has always been played. I will take White has strong pressure after the text , but
the opportunity to suggest the new move 18. e6 was again also possible.
18.tab 1!i when play can develop something
like this: 18...&e4 19. d3! &zd3 20. xc6 18... c8'!
xc6 21. xb4 kd5 22. e5t a8 23.7itb2
&h6 24.ihd4s
8
18... xc6 19. xf6 &e4!
19...&xf6 20.¥fxb4 axb5 21. xb5 was just 7
a pawn down for Black in Polugaevsky — 6
Zaitsev, Soviet Union (ch) 1968.
20.f3 xe3$ 21.Chi &xe2 5
21...Ad2!i is an interesting survival attempt.
4
22. xb4 gxf3 23.7ff4} a8 24. c7t a7
25.gxf3i &hg8 26. g5 &d3 3
And Black was winning in Krush — Kapnisis, 2
Oropesa del Mar 1999. However with 25.fid4}
b6 26.&f2 fxg2l 27.&gl the result would have 1
been reversed. The finish could be 27...¥fds a b c d e f g h
28. e6! fxe6 29.&c7t fib7 30.7/1xb6} b8
19.€1xa7! e4
31.&a7t c8 32.Sci .
Or 19... xa7 20. kb5{ &b8 21 7fxb4 7) xb4
22.@x 51 winning.
16...&hg8 17. Sci
The natural 17. a4 just leads to a perpetual
20. dc6$!
after 17...a6 18. xc6 xc6 19. f6 &e4!
1—0
20.ke51 a8 21. c71 a7 22.C\b5} &a8.
In 20... xc6 21. xc61 bxc6 there follows
Also 17.¥fb3 has been tried frequently, but it
22. e51! a8 23.&a4$ &a7 24.&xb4 and
is not so clear acer 17... e4.
White is completely winning.
17...a6 18. xc61 Axc6 19. d4 fid5 20. c4
&g5 21.@xd5
Conclusion: The Von Hennig-Schara Gambit
Also possible was 21.&b3fi.
is surprisingly unclear, bur wirh the precise
21...i5xd5
13.b4! White gives the pawn back and in
Or 21...&gxd5 22.iSb3.
return gets the initiative, which is much more
22.&c2 J7h5 23.1 f5+ fid6 24.g3 b4 25.73tb1
important in such a sharp position.
iSd7 26.e4 f8
Firt — Risk, Czech Republic 1998, and
Next we will consider a couple of rare second
here 27.&fd l &e8 28.&xd81 xd8 29.a3 is
moves by Black. First, we have a provocative
winning a piece after either 29...Ihd3 30.&d1
bishop move.
or 29... c6 30.&xc6.
 The 2...;$;G Variation 7... e4 8.cxd5 exd5 9.fid3 0—0 10.0—0 is
also a little better for Site.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 7.cxd5 xd5 8.Ag3 0—0 9. e2 b4 10.dcl
fid6
10... kce7 11.0—0 fid6 12.€\d2 &c8 13.e4
xg3 1â.hxg3 i2c3 15.bxc3 g6 16.&dlâ
7 Horia — Vostrotin, corr. 2005.
6 11.0—0 g3 12.hxg3 tfd6 13. d2 g6
14. 3 ce7 15.&d1+ c6 16.Act &c7 17.e4
5 'kb6 18. e5
4 White’s extra space gave Black a hard time in
Kramnik — Short, Horgen 1995.
3
2 If 4... f6 then 5.&b3 c6 6.fig5 is simple
1 and strong. 6...€ib4 is answered by 7.dcl and
after 6... a5 7. a41 c6 8.@f6 gxG 9.cxd5
a b c d e f g h exd5 10.e3 b6 11.0—0—0 0—0—0 12. d3+
To complete the repertoire, we must look at Black has no compensation for his weakened
an extravaganza of odd moves. pawn structure.

3. c3 5.Bb3
As I have emphasized earlier in the book, I
like to meet these strange outbursts by Black
in a positional way. Black hopes to provoke
a tactical mess like 3. b3 e5, and even the 7
often played 3.cxd5 @xbl 4.&ad1 c6 5.8xb1
Oxd5 6. f3 is only slightly better for Site,
as Black’s position is solid.
4
3...e6 4. f3 c6 3
The most natural choice.
2
If Black instead chooses to stay in the 1
department of bizarre chess with:
a b c d e f g h
Then White should not have too many It turns out that the early bishop development
problems gaining a positional advantage. has left b7 rather weak.
5.fif4
The immediate $.cxd5 also looks fine. In 5... 6
such QGD Exchange structures the knight On 5...Act White has rhe tactical finesse
is usually misplaced on c6. 6. f4! when 6...dxc4 7. c7 cxb3 8.e4 g6
5...9f6 6.e3 key 9.a3 leads to a pleasant endgame. White will
6... b4 is more active. Then 7.&c l when 7...0— win the pawn back with f3-d2 and prefers
0 8.a3 stops Black’s momentum and not to weaken his pawn structure. 9...Set
(9...a5 10.Tid2 at protects b3 but allows
12...@b5 13.2laal g5? 14. xg5!
11.Exam 5lxa4 12. xb8 VG 13.f3 &xd4
White scores a pawn, because on l4...fxg5
14.n?xb3 &a4 1§. e2â Sutkus — Ruefenacht,
there is 1$. e§ picking up the rook on h8.
corr. 1996.) 10.Iñd2 Ad8 11.Axd8 xd8
1J...e5 15. e6
12. xb3 Ld7 13.dcl e7 14.f3 &c8 15. f2*
I was winning in Schandorff — 5. Petersen,
Kramnik — Hertneck, Germany 1995. As is so
oken the case, Black lack space. Denmark 2008.

5...b6i! is too weakening and can be punished

immediately with 6.cxd5 exd5 7.e4! dxe4 (or
7... xe4 8. xe4 dxe4 9. e5 key 10. c4
Bb4t 11. e2 &xb3 12. b3 and Black
Kramnik - Gelfand
managed to exchange queens, but will
Wijk aan Zee 1998
still fall with devastating elect) 8. e5 e6
(8...Bc7 9.fic4 g6 10.fif4 7fb7 11. Zb5! 1.d4 d5 2.cd Äf$ 3.Öc3 e6 4.Öf3 cÜ 5.Bb3
cxb5 12.fid5 fib4$ 13. f1 e7 IN.Sci t¥b6 6.c5 tf<7
7id7 15. a8 winning material, Nittschalk
— Ganzer, corr. 2000) 9. c4 @xc4 10. xc4
Oe7 11. xc6 c7 12.d5 White already had
8
a winning position in Ribli — Kurajica, Novi 7
Sad 1982.
6
6.c5 c7 5
ThiS 15 the main move and will be covered 4
in Game 62, but we will first check out the
alternative.
6...7fxb3 7.axb3 2
This is good for White.
1
On 7...Csd7 comes 8.b4 a6 9.b5! cxb5
10.Öxb5, so the more common choice is. a b c d e f g h
7...Öa6 7.@f4!
Black tries to hold back the white pawns. Once again we see this tactical motif. Black
8.Ä4 6 cannot take the bishop because it would allow
After 8...Öf6 the safe choice is 9.e3 Öb4 Ylxb7 and the rook on a8 is gone.
10.&d2 , but White could try for more
with 9.&xa6!? bxa6 10.e3 Ö h5 11.Äc7 7... c8 8. h4
followed by a6 with great positional Kramnik goes for the bishop pair, which has
compensation for the exchange. always been one of his trademarks.
9.e3 ihb4 10.ä.a4! €sd3} 11.Éixd3 Öxd3
12.&d2ü There was also a simple solution in 8.e3 Öfb
With a big lead in development. On 9.h3 Ä«7 10.Äe2 kbd7 11.7fd1 0-0 12.b4ï
12...Äg6 White has b3-b4 and b5, so with play similar to the a6-5lav.
Black must misplace the bishop. A game of
mine continued: 8...Ög6
 Black could choose between different Huebner in his ChessBase annotations.
variations of the same unpleasantness:

8... e7 9.'ilx xf5 10.e3 d7 11. d3fi e7

12.&c2 g6 13.0—0 0—0 14.b4 fif6 15.Axf5
exf§ 16.b3 White had the initiative, Schlosser
— Khalifman, Germany 1997.

8...fig4 9.h3 Ôh5 10.g4 Àe7 11.Àe5! f8

12.Àg3+ Khenkin — Gleizerov, Stockholm
2004.

8...@e4 9.f3 @g6 10.Öxg6 hxg6 11.e4+ Gausel

— Rowson, Oxford

1998. 8...TiG 9.Öxf5 exf5

10.e3ü

9. xg6 hxg6 10.e4

The most active. 10.e3 was of course also
playable.

10...Öf6
10...dxe4 11.Öxe4 and there is a big hole on
d6.

11.exd5
Opening the position.
In a previous game Kramnik had played
11.fid3 dxe4 12. xe4 xe4 13. xe4 e7 14.0—0-
0 ifid 7 15.&b1 Jlf6 16.fif3 d5, but Black was
very solid in Kramnik — Short, Dos Hermanas
1997.

11...€lxd5
If 11...exd3 then 12.0—0—0 Àe7 13.tel is
very awkward for Black.

12.Oxd5 cxd5 13.@b5J

Again White chooses the sharpest line.
13. xb8 &xb8 14.fib5t &d8 15.g3 e7 is
not so clear. Black has lost the right to castle,
but he will get counterplay aher 16.0-0 f6
17.&ad1 &c7 18.&fe1 b6!? as pointed out by
13... c6 14.0—0—0 Âe7 15.h4

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
a b c d e f g h
White grabs space all over the board.
Later he can maybe play h4-h5 and open
the position under favourable
circumstances. It is too dangerous to castle,
so Gelfand’s king is forced to remain in the
centre. That is seldom a good sign.

15... f8 16.fbl a6 17.Âa4 Öa5?!

Seeking counterplay, but it just backfires.

Better was 1 7... g8 but Black’s position is

difficult to play.

18.ŸffÑ b6?!
Continuing the wrong plan.

19.cxb6 Ÿfb7 20.&c1?!

This works well in the game, but is actually
a small slip.

The violent 20.h5 g5 21.h6! was very strong:

21...&xb6 22.key f6 and now 23.dcl!
increases the pressure and puts Black in a
hopeless position. He cannot get the knight
back into play because 23... c4 simply
loses to 23.&xc4.

20... xb6 21.&c7

Striking with 21.h was still interesting.
21...&b8?! The Symmetrical 2...c5
21...&d8 was rather unclear and should have
been tried.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5

22. c3 c4 23.&c6 xb21 24.Bxb2 7lxb2$

8
25.'dial
7
8 6
7
6 4
5 3
4 2
3 i
2 a b c d e f g h
1 Black tries to equalize by liquidating the
a b c d e f g h centre. Pawns will inevitably be exchanged, but
the advantage of moving first will be visible:
Black has miscalculated: he is completely Site gets a pleasant positional initiative.
lost, because he cannot parry both White’s
rhrears of &xc4 and &c8I. s.cxd5
The most natural choice.
25...\bg8 26.fitsc4 Efsf2 27.B.c8t '&h7
28.g&8{ 'ibxh8 2P.g3 Da3 30.Bd1 'fi'g8
31•@ jet
3...¥fxd5 will lose time due to the exposed
Mr if 31...&f11 then 32. d1.
queen: 4. cxd4 5. c3! Wa5 6.€lxd4 shows
what I mean. 6... f6 and now the simplest
32.@c7 @ 33.hxg5 &xg5 34.&b1 e7 is probably 7.g3i . For instances 7. ..e5 8.
35. c2 g5 36.a4 f5 37.a5 kfd 38.kb6 £4
b3 Act 9. g2 with ideas such as g5 gaining
39.gxf4 gxf4 40.&d1 1—0
control over the key square d5.

Conclusion: be experimental 2...Aft is well

6.e4
answered by 3 c3 e6 4. f3 c6 5.Bb3 with
This is the sharpest and most promising
good play in all variations.
line.

Next is another unusual second move by Black.

Instead 4. f3 cxd4 5. xd4 ¥fxd5 6. c3 7fxd4
It poses the relevant question, what happens if
7. xd4+ leads to a slightly better endgame,
your opponent does the same as you?
but because of the many exchanges and the
pawn symmetry, the risk of drawing is quite
high.
4... xe4 5.dxc5
 8
7
6 A. Jorgensen — Casares hipol
Correspondence 1995
4
3 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c5 3.cxd5 fIl 4.e4 xe4
5.dxc5 Axc5 6. c3
2
1 8
a b c d e f g h 7
S... xc5
6
Not a great square for the knight.
5
The alternative is 5...&a5 . This looks too risky 4
though: 6. d2 xd2 7.&xd2 lfxc5 8.Cia3
With the threat of &c1. 8...fid7 9.&c1 7fb6 3
10. c4 White has a strong initiative. 2
10...1ff6
11. f3 g5 12. ce5 h6 This was Goossens
1
— Zaitsev, Belgium 2007, and now 13.1fb4 is a b c d e f g h
clearly better for White. 6...e5
Or 10...1fh6 11.f4 Black wants to close the position. This
11.&xh6 gxli6 12. f3 cannot be bad was recommended in a survey in ChessBase
either. Magazine, but my guess is that the author
11... a6 Breutigam did not know this game.
11...e6 12.d6 c6 13. lkf3 f6 was suggested
by Breutigam. A simple response is IN. e2 Trying to keep liquidating pawns in the centre
e5 15.fxe5 l$xd2 16. xd2 fxe5 17.&he1+.
by means of 6...e6 runs into 7.b4! 1ff6 8.&c2
12. e5 &d6 13. xd7 &xd7 14. f3 e6 ca6 9.a3 exd5 (otherwise Black’s position is
15.Axa6 bxa6 16.0-0 &d8 17.& e2 &xd5 just awful) 10. xd5! &e5$ 11. e3 e6 (He
18.&fd1 7fa5 19.&xd8 lfxd8 20.&xa6 1fb6} still cannot take the rook: 11...&xa1 12.&xc8}
21.&xb6 axb6 22.&f1 f6 e7 13. f5} &f6 14.1fd8} 1-0 Zambo
H. Olafsson — Westerinen, Reykjavik 1997,
— Papp Zoltan, Hungary 2002. 14...&xf5
and now White ha5 23.&c7a.
15. d3 and mate in a few moves.) 12.fib2
&c7 13.Ab5 Ikc6 14.Ikf3+
6. c3
The most active move, which we will check
7.b4!
out in Game 63. For those who love a small
Anyway. Of course. Strangely this obvious
but steady positional advantage, it is worth
idea is not mentioned by Breutigam. 7.tif3
considering 6. f3 e6 7. c3 exd5 8.&xd5
d6 is less clear.
with an initiative in the ending.
7... ca6 8.a3 This loses. 12...7fe7 had to be played when
13.jdbc leaves White on top.
8
7 13. cb5 e5 14. b2
Black will not get out of this meS5.

IN...e3
If 14...¥fh5 then 1â. e6! fxe6 16.dxe6 h8
17. e7 &e8 18. f7 could follow.
3
2 Thi5 wins a piece.

is...«›i› in.a« on i7.$«»2 As*

a b c d e f g fi 18. e5
The knight on a6 gives Black some positional i—e
headaches. It is not so ea5y to bring it back into
the game, especially since its colleague on b8 Conclusion: 2...c5 is too naive. White’s lead
also needs to get out. Acnially, in the rest of the in development gives him the edge in all
game neither of them moves! variations.

8..Ads s.4p io.é x »x And now for something completely di erent —

Maybe better is 10... . a well respected opening system.

11. d4 c7›! The Triangle Variation

And here l 1. &e8.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. c3 c6
12.$Sb3z
8
7
6

5 4
4 3
3 2
2
1
a b c d e f g h
a b c d e f g h The Triangle: a younger relative of the Semi-
12... xh2? Slav. The Triangle is a popular move-order
for many BlaCk players who want to sidestep
annoying variations like the Exchange Slav or &xd2$ 13. xd2 e7 14.&he1â White had
the Catalan and still reach the well-trodden a comfortable ending in Karpov — Korchnoi,
paths of the Semi-Slav. There are some Vienna 1986.
original roads as well, as we will soon see.
4... d6 5.e4 dxe4 6. xe4 b4t 7.fid2 d2
8. &xd2+ looks even worse.
Natural development.
5.a4
White could also try the interesting Marshall Preventing ...b5 and expecting to win the
Gambit 4.e4 dxe4 5. xe4 b4J 6.Ad2 &xd4 pawn back with a pleasant space advantage,
7.Axb4 &xe4$ 8. e2 with a fantastic dark- but Black has a way to get in ...b5 after all.
squared bishop as compensation for the pawn.
I think in our repertoire it fits better just to 5...fib4 6.e3 b5 7.fid2
develop. After all, we are not afraid of the
Semi-Slav.
8
If we were Meran supporters we would of 7
course play 4.e3 when 4... f6 5. f3 transposes.
Black, for his part, could vary with 4...f5!?. 6
5
4...dxc4
4
The Noteboom Variation, in which Black
strives for complications. Most players opt for 3
4... f6 with a normal Semi-Slav, but there are 2
other lines.
1
4...f5 is a kind of Stonewall Dutch which a b c d e f g h
basically is outside the scope of this book. A
simple and good way to continue is 5.AND Unpinning the knight and putting severe
with control over e5: 5... f6 6.e3 e7 (on pressure on the black pawns.
6...@d6 White is not forced to take, but can
play 7. d3) 7.fid3 0—0 8.h3!? (also 8.&c2 7...a5
and 8.0—0 are normal) 8... e4 9.g4 This is an The mainline. Black has a deep positional
interesting idea of Dreev, with play all over the manoeuvre planned that leads to highly
board. unbalanced positions. He has tried many other
moves though. Let’s see the most important
Sometimes Black even plays 4... d7 or of them.
4... d6, but the problem with such moves is
that they do nothing to fight for the centre and a) 7...1fb6 8. e5
White can play e4 free of charge. Let’s see: This is dangerous for Black.
8...ifid7 9.axb5 xe5 10.dxe5 cxb5 11. e4
4... d7 5.e4 dxe4 6. xe4 gf6 7. d3 xe4 e7 12. g4 f8 13.1ff4
8.@xe4 f6 9. c2 Ab4J 10.Ad2 ¥fa5 11.a3 This gave White excellent compensation for
(also fine is 11.0-0) 11...ñxd2$ 12.&xd2 the pawn because of Black’s uncastled king in
an old Alekhine game. The master of attack
 Chapter 8 Minor Lines
finished in his usual sparkling style:
13...a5 14. e2 b7 15.0—0 h5 16. g5 xg5
17.& xg5 &h6 18.e4! h4? l9.&xa5! f6 (19...&xa5
20.fib4J) 20.exf6 xf6 21.¥fxb5 1—0
Alekhine — Kashdan, New York 1929.
In this line 8... f6 is no better: 9.axb5 cxb5
10.b3 Cld5 11. xb5! c3 12. xc3 Cixc3
13.&c2 c6 14. xc3 (14. c4+ was strong)
14... xe5 15.dxe5 @b7 16. c4 xg2 17.&g1
@e4 18.&xe4 c3 19. e2 0—0? (19...&d8)
20.&xg7 ! xg7 21.&gl h8 22.fid3 f5
23.exf6 & c7 24.&g7 White was winning in
Bromberger — Cacco, Saint Vincent 2005.
b) 7...&e7 8.axb5 xc3 9. lxc3 cxb5 10.d5!
This shows the bishop’s potential. 10...ifif6
11.d6 1fb7 12.@xf6 (12.b3 e4 is more
complicated) 12...gxfé 13. e2 a6 14.b3 cxb3
15.&xb3+ Beliavsky — Feygin, Germany 2001.
The d6-pawn is phenomenal and Black’s pawns
are seriously weakened.
c) 7...é b7 8.ab5 (8.b3 is also possible)
8... xc3 9. xc3 cxb5 10.d5 Again we see this
motif. 10...Ikf6 11.dxe6 &xdl 12.&xd1 @f3
(12...fxe6 13. d4+) 13.exam 14.gxf3 c6
White’s bishops and active rooks are a strong
force. One example continued: 15.&d6 &ac8
16.&gl &he8 1 7.Ah3 &c7 18.&g5! &b8 19.&c5
&b6 20.Aa5 xa5 21.&xc7t &g6 22.&xb6
axb6 23. e6 b3 24.&b7 c5 25.&xb6 1—0
Straeter — Rausis, Hastings 1996.
d) 7...fif6 8.axb5 Axc3 9.Axc3 cxb5 10.b3 0
—0 11.bxc4 bxc4 12. xc4 1fc7 13.1fb3+ a5 14.0
—0 Ab7 15.&fcl g4? 16.d5!+ Piket —
Kupreichik, Lvov 1988. On 16...exd5 comes
17.fid3 with numerous threats.
8.&b1!?
This relatively little known but very subtle
move poses new problems for Black, as we
shall see in Game 64.
233
The traditional mainline is 8.axb5 xc3 9. xc3
cxb5 10.b3 Ab7 11.bxc4 (11.d5!?) 11. b4
12.fib2 f6 13.fid3 0-0 14.0-0 bd7 and
now White’s most popular move is 15.Tel
planning to expand further in the centre. The
variation is still far from resolved. Despite
hundreds of tries White has not been able to
find anything clear-cut yet. The big centre and
the pair of bishops are important, but so are
Black’s two connected passed pawns!
Ilweñ - Binder
Correspondence 1993
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. c3 c6 4.J\J dxc4 5.a4
b4 6.e3 b5 7.fid2 a5 8.&b1
8
7
6
5
4
2
1
a b c d e f g h
A difficult move to understand at first, but
it is the surprising result of some aggressive
prophylactic thinking. Here is the reasoning
behind it: a key move for Black in the
Noteboom is ... xc3 to save the b5-pawn, but
now White introduces the idea of taking back
with the pawn on c3 and opening the b-file for
the rook, thus renewing the attack on b5.
8. ;â;a6
214 Playing the Queen’s Gambit
Therefore Black defends b5 in advance. There
are other ways to do so.
a) 8...fid7
This looks clumsy, but is without a doubt
Black's most solid option. White can easily
finish his development and get the usual
good long-term compensation for the pawn,
but perhaps no more than that, as Black’s
position is rather solid.
9.Òe5 Òf6 10.¥ff3
Activating the queen.
The more modest 10.Àe2 0—0 11.Af3 &a7
12.0—0 was a good alternative.
10...&a7 11.Àe2 0—0 12.0—0 Ad5 13.e4 Òb6
Or 13...Òxc3 14.bxc3 d6 15.àf4à.
14.&g3
Also interesting is the new move 14.&fd1
which increases the pressure. Black probably
has to answer 14...Àe8. Taking the second
pawn with 14... xc3 15.bxc3 Òxa4 can be
punished tactically with 16.&g3 f6 17.Òxc4!
bxc4 18. h6 &e7 19.&xb8 Cixc3 20.&xf8
lfxf8 21. xc3 gxh6 22. xc4 a4 23.&g3
&h8 24.&b1+ with good play.
14...f6 15.IÉxd7 lfxd7 16.&fd1 4a6 17.axb5
cxb5 18.d5! Àd6
Or if 18...exd5 then 19. g4.
19.&h3 exd5 20.Àg4 &e8 21.Àe6
Even stronger was first 21.Àf5.
21...&h8 22.Àe3 Àc5 23.exd5
White seemed better, although the position
was still fairly unclear, Mayo — Riera, Mataró
2005.
b) 8...&b6 defends with the queen. 9.axb5
(9.b3 cxb3 10.tfxb3 xc3 11. c3 b4 12.d5!?
iñf6 13.@f6 gxf6 14.tfb2 cxd5 15.1fxf6 &f8
was unclear, but seemed okay in Beaumont —A.
Shaw, corr. 1998) 9...cxb5 10.b3 Actually a new
move, but the most obvious one in the position.
10...@c3 11. c3 cxb3 (not 11...b4 12.bxc4)
12.1fxb3 b4 13.d5 iñf6 14.fid4 1fb7 15.Axf6
gxf6 16. c4 With good play for the pawn.
c) 8... c3 9.bxc3 The point. 9...¥fdb
10.e4! &xe4 11. e2 f6 (if 11...&d5 then
12. e5 with the threat of 13. f3) 12.axb5
cxb5 13.&xb5z I5bd7 14. e5 a6 15.&xa5
fib7 16.f3 &h4 17.g3 &h3 18.&xa81 xa8
19.&a4 Ad5 20.&f2 White was winning in
Grachev — Doric, Pardubice 2005.
d) 8...Iúf6 is a mistake: 9.axb5 Àxc3 10.bxc3
cxb5 11.&xb5+ Once again we see the effect
of the little rook move.
e) 8...bxa4 is a radical way to solve the problem
with the b-pawn. Site wins the pawn back
and gets a distinct positional plus. 9. c4
Af6 10.Ikxa4 0—0 11.0—0 bd7 12.&c1fi
fib7 13. e2 &e7 14.@xb4 &xb4 15.Tel @a6
16.Ad3 ¡xd3 17.Axd3 €1b6 18.Yic5 4bd7
19. a4 Ikb6 20.b3+ Babula — Matlak, Czech
Republic 1997.
9.Òe5
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
a b c d e f g h
9... c7
The position was aJready full of poison.
9...Af6 10. xc6 A surprising strike. (10.1ff3
is a good, more traditional, alternative)
10...Ikxc6 11.axb5 xd4 (better was 11...fi b7
12.bxc6 fi c6+) 12.bxa6 b3 13. xc4 xd2
14.&xd2 lfxd2 15. xd2 e4 16. c2 xf2
Delchev — Nikolov, Bulgaria 1991. And now 12...Axd2$ 13. xd2! is no better.
17.&hf1 when White’s strong a-pawn gives
good winning chances. 13. M axe IN. c5
A nice square. White is clearly better.
9...&a7 10. xc6 (again we see this small
combination, and again a good alternative is 14...b3 15. e2 c8 16.0-0 e7 17• fc1
10.7ff3) 10...Ikxc6 11.axb5 ikb7 12.bxc6 c6 Rd6
l3. c4 (13.f3* would secure a positional 17...0—0 should have been tried.
edge) 13...&g5 Black had counterplay in
Moskalenko — Malisauskas, Norilsk 1987. 18.fif4 d7
Now it was too late: 18...0—O 19. xgb xf4
10.Sgt 20. xf4 with horrible pawns.
White wants to provoke some weaknesses.
The immediate 10.&f3 has also been played, If.axb5 cxb5 20. cxd7 kxd7 21.$fh6
but the text move is stronger. The queen enters on the kiñgside.

10...g6 21... c6 22.flat

10...1 loses material: 11.&h51 g6 12. xg6 And the rook on the queenside.
(12...9f6 13. h3 &g8 14. f4z) 13.axb5!
hxg6 (not 13...cxb5 14.&f3 and both rooks are 22...@c7 23.@g7 B f8 24.@s1i7 gza1
hanging) 14.&xh8 cxb5 Black did not have 2S.JZ- 1 6d8 2fi.@g7 @g8 27.@ftf c3
anything for the exchange, Bernal Moro —
Candela Perez, Poiiferrada 1997. A simple way
8
to make progress is 15.h4 followed by h§.
7
11. f3 &a7 12. e'i!

8
4
3
6
2
5
4
a b c d e f g h
3
2 28.&a7!
A nice blow.

a b c d e f g h 28...%b7
And now we see the effect: Black is very weak Or 28...&xa7 29. xc61.
on the dark squares.
29. xc6
12...@
On 29...cxb2 White plays 30. f7$ e8
236
Playing the Queen’s Gambit

31.Ikd6 lfxd6 32.@b5}! f8 33.7fxd6 b1—

7f 34.fif1 and wins. This variation is quite
possible to calculate in a correspondence game,
so Black did not feel like seeing it played out.
It reminds me ofa little anecdote. In the Bareev — Hracek
Dresden Olympiad it was illegal to accept a
draw before move 30. My Danish team-mate Pardubice 1994
Peter Heine Nielsen suggested that then it
should also be forbidden to resign before 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. c3 f6 4.cxd5 'E\xd5
move 30! 5.e4 xc3 6.bxc3 c5 7.a3

Conclwion: The interesting move 8.&b1 is 8

a promising way to combat the Noteboom
Variation.
7
6
The Semi-Tarrasch offers Black a way out
of the normal Queen’s Gambit Exchange
5
Variation. 4
3
The Semi-Tarrasch
2
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. c3 f6 4.cxd5 'E\xd5 1
Black avoids the typical Exchange Variation
pawn structure with 4...exd5 and tries instead
a b c d e f g h
to play the solid Semi-Tarrasch. Nice prophylaxis against ... b4J. White has
the centre and much more space, so of course
5.e4 he is interested in keeping as many pieces on
Of course White takes the centre. the board as possible.

5... xc3 6.bxc3 c5 7... e7

Black seeks simplification. After the natural
7. f3 we have a genuine Semi-Tarrasch, where
Black usually continues 7...cxd4 8.cxd4 Ab4J
9.Ad2 xd2} 10.¥fxd2 0—0 with a slightly
passive but very solid position. However White
does not have to be so cooperative. He can use
the particular move order to his advantage by
preventing the ... b4 idea. One way to do
that is 7.&b1, the other is:
7-ah!
White hopes to use his extra space to build
up some serious pressure on Black’s Ringside.
Which is exactly what happens in the following
game.
7...cxd4 8.cxdd e7 9. f3 will just
transpose.
8. Af3 o—o 9.fid3 cxd4
And so will 9...I?c6 10. b2 cxd4 11.cxd4.
10.cxd4 Ac6
10...b5 just creates a weakness, so White can
shifi to positional mode: 11.0—0 fi b7 12.
a6 13.a4! d7 1d.&e2 bxa4 15.&xa4 IIlf6
16.Ab1+ I. Sokolov — Teske, Calatrava 2007.
11.@b2
Dynamic chess. The bishop is placed on the
long diagonal pointing towards the black king.
All that is needed is the pawn break d4-d5 to
make it come alive.
Black tries to disturb White before his army
is fully developed. White could play safe and
jusr offer the exchange of queens with 12.Bd2,
but Bareev comes up with a very creative
attacking scheme.
12.VG! &d8 13.h4!
15.&d1 fiB
Passive play will not save Black. However
there was no easy Solution: 15...&d7 16.&h3
&b8 And now the powerful pawn sacrifice:
17.d â! exdâ 18.e5 This opens lines and leaves
Black’s king rather vulnerable. 18...h6 19.
g5!
xg5 (or 19...hxg9 20. h5 g6 21.
winning) 20.hxg5 d4 21.4 It is all over. 21...g6
22.&xh6 &e7 23.&g4 f8 24.f5 1—0 Raykin
— Rogemonr, corr. 1999.

8 16.&h3 &ac8 17.&g1 key 18.li5 b6 19.d5!

Again we see this instructive pawn sacrifice.
7
6 19...exd5 20.e5 d4
Black returns the pawn hoping for some
5
simplifications — a hope, it turns out, which
4 has nothing to do with reality.
3
21. xd4 d5 22.&g3 c6
2 This allows the white knight access to the
1 dream-square f9, when the attack will be
irresistible. However, Blacks position was
a b c d e f g h beyond repair anyway.
The rook can enter the fight via h3 and g3,
adding further pressure against Black’s king 23. fi &h8
position. The threats can quickly become Every likely combination wins.
serious. Both white bishops are ready to join
the attack aher pawn moves such as d4-d5 24.€\xh6
and/or e4-e5. Just as strong was 24. xg7 xg7 25.&g4
&g8 26. f5 with a nasty threat of mate on
13...b6 h7.
Preparing ... a6.
24...Be6 25.'E\xfZt! afZ 26.e6 4 27.h6
i4.Oe2 The bishop on b2 is really the hero of the
Preventing it. day.

14...fib7 27 ...€\d4
The most natural. Black could be insistent Or 27...OxIib 28.&h3.
with 14... b8, but then 19. e5 6 16. a6
xa6 17.Bxa6 xa6 18. c6 &d7 19.dcli 28.lixg7l ñxg7 29.Oh5t Oh6 30.Oxh6}
gives White a pleasant positional advantage, 6 31.e7
Lafuente — Lopez Martinez, La Massana 2008. The final blow.
31...&d5 8.Ad3 h6 9.0—0 Aa6 10.cxd5 exd5 11. xa6
Nothing works: 31...&e8 32. d41 or xa6 12.Yfd3 &c8 13.c4 dxc4 l4.¥fxc4+
si...&d6 32. . I. Sokolov — Giorgadze, Debrecen 1992)
8.Ad3 bc6 9.0—0 dxc4 i 0.Axc4 Bc7 A Nimzo-
32. e4 Indian with a strange knight: 11. d3 e5
1—0 12.&c2 h6 13.e4*

Conclusion. Black’s attempt to reach a normal 6.e3

Semi-Tarrasch is countered by the clever 7.a3, Play has now transposed to a real Nimzo
when White benefits from his extra space and position, which can be reached with the move
quickly gets a very promising position. orders 1.d4 ikf6 2.c4 e6 3. c3 b4 4.a3
c31 5.bxc3 d5 6.e3 or 4.e3 d5 §.a3 and so
Our final line is a QGD-Nimzo hybrid. on. In both cases Black has refrained from the
most intriguing lines, and the game position is
The @GD with 3...@b4 rightfully judged as somewhat more pleasant
for White.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3. c3 b4
6...00
8 6...c5 7.cxd5 exd5 8. d3 leads to the same
position as later in the text, as does 6...b6
7.cxd5 exd5 8.fid3.
6
An independent line is 6...c6 with the idea
of taking back on d5 with the c-pawn. The
4 evaluation however is the same: 7. f3 6—0
3 8.fid3 b6 Black prepares ... 6. 9.cxd5 cxd5
2 10.Oe2 And White prevents it. 10...fib7
11.Ab2 c6 (or 11...¥fc8 12.dcl a6 l3.c4
1
dxC4 14.$txC4 âxC4 15•g.XC4T I. SOkOlOV —
Hou Yifan, Zafra 2007) 12.0—0 I3a5 13.Ikd2
a b c d e f g h &c8 14.f3* Kramnik — Morozevich, Nice
Active development and pinning the white 2008.
knight in a mixture of the Queen’s Gambit
Declined and the Nimzo-Indian Defence. 7.cad5
After 4. f3 f6 we would have the popular White clarifies the pawn structure in a
Ragozin Variation. However it is tempting favourable way, just like in the Queen’s Gambit
to try to take advantage of the early bishop Exchange Variation.
move.
7...exd5 8. d3 b6
4.a3 xc3J 5.bxc3 f6 8...c5 9. e2 b6 10.0—0 a6 is another
Black can try to avoid theory with the transposition. If Black instead drops the desired
unusual §... e7, but if Site continues exchange of the light-squared bishops and opts
sensibly the knight can hardly be better placed for 9... c6 he will nevcrtheless face the same
on e7 than on f6. 6.e3 0—0 7. c5 (7...b6 white set-up: 10.0—0 &e8 11.f3 b6 12. g3
 b7 13.&a2 An instructive rook transfer.
13...&c8 IN.&e2 cxd4 15.cxd4 a5 lb.&felfi
&c7 (16... c6 17.i ñf 5 b5 18.e4+) 17. h1 gb!i
18.ed dxed Pera1ta — Ibarra Jerez, Barcelona
2008, and now 19. xe4 xe4 20. e4 6
21. &xe2 22. xe2 xd3 23.&xd3 looks
promising for Site, for instance 23...7fd 5
24.&e8J g7 25.&e3a.
9. e2 6
be culmination of Black’s grand positional
scheme. He exchanges White’s good bishop
and ends up with a knight against the passive
remaining bishop on cl. The knight even has
a potentially great outpost on c4. So what is
wrong? Has Site been outplayed so quicklyi
No! In this case the drst impression does not
lass Actually White’s position is preferable and
the reason lies in the dynamic pawn structure.
White has a concrete plan of playing f3 and
e4 with an initiative. Then the bishop will
wake up and there are serious prospects on the
Ringside, just like we saw in the first chapter of
this book. White’s pawn power is very similar
to rhe situation in the Exchange Variation of
the QGD.
10. xa6 xa6 11. d3
Politely asking the knight what ii intends to
do.
11... c8
Probably best. Regrouping with 1 l... b8 12.0—
0 c6 13.f3 €\a5 tastes time and White can
execute his own expansion in the centre:
14.&a2 &e8 1§. g3* c5 lb.e4! cxd4 17. cxd4
&c8 18.eg d7 19. 4 ¥fc7 20.Of5 &c3 21.&e2
&c6 22.@d2 c4 23. b4 &xe2 24. e21 De
Santis — lotti, Arvier 2002.
12.f5
The most exact. 12.0—0 will usuallytranspose,
but Black gets the extra option 12...Ikb8 13.
a6!i which is a little annoying,
12...c5
Or 12...Be8 13.0—0 c5, which is just a
transposition.
13.O—0 &e8 14. klg3 &b7
be fight for control over ed continues.
15.%62
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
a b c d e f g h
Also popular is transferring the rook with
15.&a2 followed by &e2, but I like the bishop
move more. I think White is slightly better,
which I will back-up with a few examples.
15...c4 This is seldom a good idea — see the
instructive final game. 16.&d2 c7 17.Gael
b5 18.VG! &e6 And now the break 19.e4z
is made possible by the pressure along the f-
Ale, Jurkiewicz — Romantowski, Olkusz 1995.
15... c7 16.Gael &a6 17.t fd2 cxd4 18.cxd4
Ikb5 19.e4! xa3 20.I\f5 With a strong attack.
20...h6 21.Bfi c4 22. c1 b5 23. xg7!
xg7 2d. xh61 g8 25.etc Winning the
piece backwith interest, Hot— Sanchez Martin,
Copenhagen 2002.
1§...Se6 16.Gael &ae8 17.c4 Opening lines
for the bishop. I said it could turn out to be
good. 17...cxd4 18.&zd4i
The time has come to leave. his book started b8-c6-a5-b3, when the a4-pawn would be
with some outstanding games by Borvinnik, so di6icult to defend. However Capabla»ca
what better way to end it Aan by presenting completely misjudges Ae dynamic features in
another masterpiece by the Patriarch, created the position. If White manages to advance in
by his profound feeling for dynamic pawn the centre with f5 and e4 he will get a strong
structures. initiative that can quickly be transformed
into a fierce attack.
In that light, Black should have chosen
14...i1-fb7.
Botvinnik - Capablanca 15• c2 b8 16.Gael c6 17.€\g3 a5
On IN...Set White answers coolly with
Holland 1938
18.€lh1 followed by f3, and then the white
1.d4 Afd 2.c4 e6 3. c3 b4 knight would return.
Many places in the book I have changed
the real move order of a game to explain 18.G €sb3 19.ed! xa4
my repertoire, but I cannot fiddle with this
clasSiC. 8
4.e3 d5 5.1 &xJJ 6.bxc3 c5 7.cxd5 exd5 7
8. d3 OO 9. e2 b6 10.0-0 6 11. 6
xa6 12. b2?!
5
Imprecise. Better was 12. d3.
4
12...Bd 7 13.a4 3
Now on 13 d3 Black would have the
rather annoying queen move l3...&a4 already 2
infiltrating on the queenside. i
13...&fe8?!
a b c d e f g h
Black could have played more actively with
13...cxd4 14.cxd4 &fc8 followed by ...&c4 Black has won the pawn, but White’s advance
and ...&ac8 with a fine position. White could in the centre leads to a direct offensive.
seriously consider 14. xd4, but of course
Black is okay. 20.e5!
Gaining more space.
\4.
Back to normal. 20... kid7 21. f2 g6
Black is on the defensive. From now on
14...c4?! he will have no spare time to breathe or
Capablanca makes a deep strategic mistake. consolidate. Here he is preventing the white
From a srricrly positional view the move is knight from jumping to G and d6.
desirable. Black closes the position and intends
to follow up with the knight manoeuvre a6- 22.f4 fS
Otherwise White plays f5 himself.
Chapter 8 - Minor Lines 241

23.exf6 xf6 28... e8 2f.

2J. e5
A little
&xe1 inaccurate,
Black because now
simplifies by Black had the
trying to chance to put
exchange all
up some
the
resistance with
29...h6.
25.&xe1 &e8 Simpler was
25...&f8 29.&c7t g8
26.1ff4 was 30.&e5, but
not easy to then we would
defend, for not have the
instance 26 ... following
1fd7 27.&e6+ historic finish.
with strong
pressure. 29... e7

26.&e6!
Now the
exchange will 7
come at a high 6
price: the
passed e6-
5
pawn will be 4
very strong.
3
26...&xe6 2
27.fxe6 &g7
1
28.&4
Activating
the queen.
Black is very
vulnerable on
the dark
squares and
White is
already
threatening
29. f5} gxf5
30.&g5 and
&xf6.
si...g«i5 s2.Bg5J initiative.
&fa ss.B«nst
&g8 Not 33... Chapter Conclusion: It is
e8 hardly surprising that
34.& &d8 White does not have
35.1fd7#. many problems gaining
the upper hand against
Black’s various minor
34.e7
lines. The exception is the
There is no perpetual
check. Triangle move order
leading to the Noteboom
Variation, which is
s4...a it so.din B 2t worthy of serious study.
3e.&gs a•ist
37. h4 e4$ 38. ah5 We have been on a long
e2$ 39. h4 journey through very
e4$ different openings, which
40.g4 e1$ 41.&h5 require skills ranging from
1—0 positional and strategic
understanding to hardcore
Conclusion: White calculation. Together, the
should meet 3...fib4 chapters in this book give
with 4.a3 and get a a good picture of how
good Nimzo-Indian. varied and complex the
The dynamic pawn modern game has
structure is known to us become. But it is also a
from the QGD collection of excellent
Exchange Variation: chess, and I hope that
White plays a quick f3 will be the final
and hopes to follow impression. So long.
with e4 gaining the

a b c d e f g h
30.@a3! Bxa3 31.Oh5J!
A spectacular combination. White sacrifices
two pieces to open the way for the e6-pawn.
Chapter 1 - Queen’s Gambit Declined
Game 1: Botvinnik — Keres, Moscow 1952 13
Game 2: Botvinnik — Larsen, Noordwijk 1965 14
Game 3: Botvinnik — Petrosian, World Ch., Moscow (14) 1963 16
Game 4: Kasparov — Andersson, Belfort 1988 21
Game 5: Bernasek — Talla, Czech Republic 2007 23
Game 6: Sasikiran — Cu. Hansen, Malmo 2005 26
Game 7: Gulko — Lputian, Glendale 1994 32
Game 8: Knaak — Geller, Moscow 1982 34
Game 9: Chytilek — Frey, Correspondence 2003 36

Chapter 2 - Queen’s Gambit Accepted

Game 10: Ponomariov — I. Sokolov, Zafra 2007 4l
Game 11: P.H. Nielsen — Karjakin, Hastings 2002 43
Game 12: Greenfeld — Gyimesi, Tel Aviv 2001 46
Game 13: Sauberli — Bilsel, Correspondence 1999 49
Game 14: Grote — Thelen, Correspondence 1998 52
Game 15: Bareev — Estrada Nieto, Canada 2006 54
Game 16: Schandorff— A. Rasmussen, Denmark (ch) 2008 56
Game 17: Sargissian — Hillarp Persson, Copenhagen 2007 60
Game 18: Sakaev — Miklialchishin, Budva 2002 64
Game l9: Bu angzhi — Karjakin, Bilbao 2007 66

Chapter 3 - The Slav

Game 20: Delchev — Sommerbauer, European Team Championship, Leon 2001 73
Game 21: Miklialevski — Rabinovich, Dieren 1999 76
Game 22: Coleman — Tait, Correspondence 1994 77
Game 23: Eljanov — Drozdovskij, Ukraine 2006 81
Game 2d: Navrotescu — Itkis, Romania 1998 86
Game 25: Kramnik — Shirov, Dortmund 1996 88
Game 26: Kramnik — Haba, Germany 1993 90
Game 27: Kramnik — Shirov, Linares 2000 93
Game 28: MaJetin — Amonatov, Russia 2008 95
Game 29: Aronian — I. Sokolov, Wijk aan Zee 2006 99
Game 30: Volokitin — Inarkiev, Russia 2008 102
Game 31: Avrukh — Grigoriants, Russia 2008 105

Chapter 4 - The Semi-Slav

Game 32: Kund — Jimenez, Correspondence 2005 120
Game 33: Castellano — Parkes, Correspondence 2005 122
Game 34: Cheparinov — Pavasovic, Dresden Olympiad 2008 124
Game 35: Raffel — Roth, Correspondence 1958 127
Game 36: A. Kovacevic — Simmelink, Correspondence 2006 129
Game 37: Strangmueller — Sakai, Correspondence 200a 131
 Index of Full Games 243

Game 38: Ferrini — Richardson, Correspondence 2003 137

Game 39: Gfischuk — Gelfand, Odessa 2007 139
Game 40: Ruiz — L. Andersen, Correspondence 2006 140
Game 41: Grischuk — Karjakin, Sochi 2008 142
Game 42: Mehlhorn — Drosson, Correspondence 2003 152
Game 43: Kramnik — Bruzon, Turin 2006 154
Game 44: Bubir — Nemec, Correspondence 2006 i 96
Game 45: Halkias — Mchedlishvili, Yerevan 1999 161

Chapter 5 - The a6-Slav

Game 46: Soln — Crepan, Slovenia 1999 165
Game 47: Topalov — I. Sokolov, Wijk aan Zee 2004 166
Game 48: Eljanov — Kamsky, Russia 2008 169
Game 49: Schandorlf— Buhmann, Geriiiany 2006 171
Game 50: Shirov — Bologan, Germany 1993 175
Game 5 1: Krasenkow — Laznicka, Ostrava 2007 178
Chapter 6 - The Tarrasch
Game 52: Karpov — Kasparov, Moscow (9) 1984 183
Game 53: Wang Hao — luldachev, India 2008 191
Game 54: Yusupov — Spraggett, Quebec 1989
194
Game 55: Bocharov — Bezgodov, Kazan 2006
197
Game 56: Leotard — Romanov, Correspondence 2001
200
Chapter 7 - The Chigorin
Game 57: Schandorlf— Willsch, Germany 2004
207
Game 58: Ivanchuk — Arencibia, Havana 2005
210
Game 59: mbli — Wittmann, Dubai (ol) 1986
212
Chapter 8 - Minor Lines
Game 60: Topalov — Morozevich, Monte Carlo 2005
221
Game 61: Illescas — Rodriguez Vargas, Catalonia 1d$d
223
Game 62: Kramnik — Gelfand, Wijk aan Zee 1998
227
Game 63: A. Jorgensen — Casares Ripol, Correspondence 1995
230
Game 6d: Elwert — Binder, Correspondence 1993
233
Game 65: Bareev — Hracek, Pardubice 1994
236
Game 66: Botvinnik — Capablanca, Holland 1938
240
 ofVaiatioas
This index is self-explanatory with one exception — some of the variations have two page numbers
next to them. This is because the coverage of some variations is split — an introduction to the themes
of the line at the start of a chapter, and in-depth theoretical coverage later.

Chapter 1- Quten\ (iaiafiit Decliaed s...g5 10 ¥fxb7 13JJ

1.d4 d5 2.ct e6 3.€\I
10. e7 11. e5 f6 (3JJ
a) 3... f6 4.cxdS exd5 11...g5 (SS)
4... xd5 5.e4 xc3 6.bxc3 !18) 8...iñf6 (30)
5.Ag5 c6 8...c5 (30)
5... e7 6.e3 0—0 7.;kd3 (18) 8...fid6 QUO)
5...I5bd7 6.e3 c6 7. d3 fid6 8.&c2 (18) 8...1fb6 (Y1)
6.&c2 e7 9•h5 &biI
6... a6 7.e3 b4 8.tfb1 #7J7) 9...iñh6 (II)
7.e3 bd7 10.&b1 AgK 11.G b6 fJ4)
7...Ag4 8.h3 (19) 11...0—0 #Jf/

8...iñh5 (19)
9.€\ge2 &e8 10. f8 11. e6 (21)
11...7ih5 (£f9
fhapter2 — Qu«ai 6«i6itA«egtt4
11...h6 (21)
1.d4 d5 2.câ dxc4 3.e4
11...96 (21)
11...c5 (21)
3...e5
3...b5 4.a4 (41)
b) 3... e7 4.cxd5 md5 5•ñf4 c6
â... f6 6.e3 f5 7 '?\ge2 0—0 8.dcl c6
3...c5 4.d5 e6 (
9. g3 e6 §3F
4...oG 5.oc3 b5 6.AN y«5)
9... g6 10.h4 $3F
5.axc4 t» 6.»c› (4S)
10.fid3 7 ibd7 t’57)
10...&e8 (SS)
3... c6 4. f3 g4 5. c4 (€1)
11.0—0 &e8 12.&b3 b9 fJF)
5.d5 (US
12...Ob6 (37)
5...e6 (II)
12...fib6 (3ZJ
1...:ii•n t«›1
6...fid6 t29)
6...C\f6 (30) 3... f6 4.e5 d5 5. xc4 I?b6 f6fi)
5... c6 6. c3 (
7. g4 e6
6. d3 c6 7. e3 b4 (€Z)
7...fig;6 y5#j
7... e6 §J
8. h4 'kid7
8... 4 9.&b3 b6 §J£
8. 4 f5 9.exf6 exf6 10. c3 (JR
Index of Variations 245

’
4...fib4t 5. (
7
c3 US) 2
5. &xc4 )
€ic6 •!...8b6 (Y2)
5...fib4t 5.a4 @1S
6.'7\bd2 (52)
5... a6 6.e4
6.0—0 fie6 g4 7. xc4
6...'i\G 7.¥fb3 (7S)
Wd7 fl.Ad2
JkJ 5... g4 6. e5
7. $ixe6 J tA5 (78)
(SS) 6
.
.
.
€
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 l
3. b
3...dxc4 4.e3 d
b5 f7J) 7
4. c
3 (
Z
d 8
: )
x f
c 3
4 i
4 ñ
. f
. d
. 7
g
6 (
Z
( 8
Z )
2 7...e6 (p8)
) 8. dxcl e5 9.e4
4 (Z9)
.
. 5...e6 6.e4
.
b4 7.e5
 dS (82) a
8...cxd4 9.exf5 c6 §NJJ )
7... e4 §8JJ
8.Ad2 ‹82) 9
9. e3 (9€) .
5...C\d5 f73) 8.e4 Axed 9.fxe4 €ixel .
5...c5 (
10.Ad2 Bxd4 .
5...a5 (ZS)
11. xe4 xe4J 12.&e2 h
xd2J 13. xd2 6
6. e5
Bd5J 14. c2 a6 15. (
6...€\a6 7.e3 b4 8.
xc4 0-OA (88) 1
c4 e6
15...0—0 (90) 0
9.0—0 e7
l5...b5 9r3) €
(8d)
15...Of5t (93) )
fi...éd6 (8d)
15...'?\b4t éN) 9...g6 (105)
9...@c2 /&??/
15... e7 (95) 9...fifd5
(ION)
a) 6...e6 7.fS fib4
7...c5 8.e4 g6 (85,
b) 6...€\bd7 7.Oxc4 2fc7 8.g3 e5 9.dxe5
9S) 7...ii\d5 (98) 'i\xe5 10.
7...e6 N8 Afd7 11.
7...Iilb6 8. e5 a5 g5
8...e6 (ION) 11... e6
9 11...i7d8 #f?i9
. 11... e7 I//)
f 11...f6 12.0-0
i €\c5 /?J)
g 12... e6
5 (100)
( 12...0—0—
1 (100)
0 12. e3 gxf4
€ 13. 0 14.
) Ac5
9
(103)
.
f 14...fib4
3 (103)
14... b8
( (103)
1 14... g6
0
(103)
€
) 14...fxg3
(104)
9
.
g
3
(
1
0
246 Playing the Queen’s Gambit

06:i;›t<f 4 — liie Selai-SlaY 15.d5 b4 16.ba4

16.&b1 (118)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3. Ê\f3 tifd 4.til e6 5.Ä@ 16...Bb5 (118, i31)
5...fie7 6.e3 0—0 7.fid3 fibd7 8.0—0 h6 16...&a6 (118, 129)
(158) 16...7fd6 (118)
8...dxc4 (158)
8...b6 (1G0) 14...fih6 (11a)
8...&e8 (1G0)
a) 5...Abd7 6.e3 a5 7.cxd5 €\xd5
7...cxd5 (148)
7...exd5 (148)
7... e4 (149)
8. Wd2 Ab4
8... 7b6 (1J9, 1S2)
9.&c1 h6
9...e5 fJJr0J
s...f6 (150)
9...c5 (150)
10. li4 c5
10...0—0 (150)
11. a3 xc3 12.bxc3 b6
12...&xa3 (151)
13.c4
i3.fid3 (151)
13.ed (UI)
13... xd2 (UI)

b) 5...dxc4 6.ed b5 7.e5 h6 8.Ah4

g5
9.exf6 (IU)
9...hxg5
9...ihd5 10.€ix (11J, 120)
10. xg5 &bd7
10... e7 (115, 122)

11. exf6 (IU)

11...fib7
11...&g8 (11a, 124)
11 ...Wa5 (116, 127)
12.kg2 $9b6
12...&c7 (lls)
13.exfd 0—0—8 14.0-0 c5
14... e5 (117)
c) 5...h6 fi.;âA4

6...dxc4 7.e4 g5 8. g3 b5 f. e2
9 h4 t13S)
9.Oe5 (135)
9...kb7
9...b4 §/34)
9...fib4 #/349
9...€ih5 (135)
s ...ibbd7 (1S5, ISV)
10.h4
10 0—0 y/JS)
10...g4
10...b4 (135)
11.€1e5 'kbd7 (137, 139)
11...&g8 (13X, 140)
i 1...h5 (135, 142)
11...b4 (135)
 Index of Yariations 247

Chapter 5—Le a6-Slav Chapter 6—JlieTuruch

1.d4 dS 2.c4 c6 3. €\K 4. c3 a6 3.c5 1.d4 d5 2.ct e6 3. c3 c5 4.cxd5 ead5
5.&f3 &bd7 c6 6.g3 f6
5...fif5 (171) 6...c4 (187)
5...b6 6.cxb6 &xb6 (IN ) 7.Ag2 e7
6...Abd7 (1€S) 7...cxd4 (189)
8.0-0 0—0
§...Sgt I›. e5 h5 (IGS) 8... e6 (190)
6...Se6 (UJ)
6...fif5 (1G7) 9...c4 (190, UI)
7.&b3 &a7 8.e'i (ISY) 9...Ae6 (HO, 1S4)
B.A4 (1G7) 9...h6 (150)
10.'ktxd4 h6 11. e3 &e8
5... 6 (1G9) 11...fig4 (198)
6.;§f4 £ih5 12.&a4
6...g6 §/5§ 12.&b3 (183, 198)
7-&dL 12.Sci (158)
7.e3 (178) 12... a5
7.%d2 (178) 12...Ikxd4 (158)
7.kg5 (178) 12...fid7 13.&fd1 (198)
7... b6 8.e4 xf6 13.Nacl (158)
8...bxc5 (1Z9) 13... a5 (198)
9. Bxf4 e6 10.exd5 exd5 (US) 13...'kb4 (158)
10...cxd5 (179) 13... c5 (199)
13.&ad1 c4 (201)
13...fid7 (201)
248 Playing the Queen’s Gambit

Chapte›7-Jbe Chigorin l?hapter 8- Minor Lines

1. d4 d5 2.c4 €ic6 3. c3 f6 1.d4 d5 2.c4
3...e5 (215) 2...e6 3. c3 c5 4.cd5 cd4 (22d)
3...dxc4 4.Af3 a6 (215) 2... f5 (22€)
4...fig4 (215) 2...e6 3. c3 b4 #J3/J
4...e6 (215) 2...e6 3. c3 f6 4.cxd5 xd5 (dJ‹JJ
4.žiG 2...c5 (229)
4.cd5 šllxd5 5. f3 (216)
4...dxc4
4...fif5 a) 2...e5 3.dae5 d4 4. f3 c6 5.a3 ge7
(21a) 5...a5 (220)
4...fig4 5.cxd5 ščxd5 6.e4 f3 5...f6 (220)
(212) (213) )...Set (220)
7.gxf3 ščxc3 (213) 5... g4 (220)
7...fib6 (213) 6. b4 Agd
8.bxc3 e5 9.&bI (21d) 6... g4 (221)
5. fig5 h6 7. fib2 a5
5...ščds (207) 7... gxe5 §dJ7J
9... g4 (20a) 8. b5 ficxe5 9. xe5
5...a6 6.d5 a7 (210) 9.Bxd4 (221)
6... a5 (210) f... xe5 10.e3 @e6 11. d4 xc4 12. c2
6. exfd 7.e3 fid6 Cid6 (221)
7...fib4 r#7) 12...tfd5 frr/)
7...7\a5 (207)
8. c4 0-0 (208) b) 2...e6 3.UJ c6 4. dxc4

4...tid7 (2S2)
4...fid6 frJr9
5.a4 b4 6.e3 b5 7.fid2 a5
7...7fb6 (232)
7...&e7 f£JJ)
7...fib7 (233)
7...Clf6 #r3J)
8.&bl
8.axb5 #rJ3)
8...n«6
8...fid7 (234)
8...¥fb6 (234)
8...kxc3 (234)
8...iilf6 (234)
8...bxa4 (254j
f. e5 B<7 (2S4)
Games/Chess

Playi the’ Queen’s Gambit

A Grandmaster Guide
By Lars Schandorff
The power of ttie Queen’s Gambit is beyond question, even diough it allows some
serious defences — the Slav and Semi-Slav are favoured by the elite, Kasparov was
playing the Queen’s Gambit Accepted until he retired, and the Queen’s Gambit
Declined has been trusted for a century.

The principled way for White to build a repertoire after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 is to play the
critical main lines. Take as much space as possible — no compromises. That is Lars
Schandor£fs attitude and so his choice is clear:

5. 5 :against the Semi-Slnv

6. &e5 versus the. 5...Jf5 main line Slav
3.e4.against the Queen’s Gambit Accepted
The Bxchange Variation versus the Queen’s Gambit Declined
5:cS against the 4...aG-Slav

The Tartasch, Chigorin, Albin and all minor lines are also met
with the same vigour — this is a complete White repertoire after
I.d4 d5 2.c4.
Lars Schandorff ii a. grandmaster from Denmark who is
renowned on the international circuit for the clepth of his
opening preparation.

€23.99 $27.95
ISBN: 978-1-906552-18-3
52795

QUALITY CHESS