CONTEMPORARY CHESS OPEN INGS General Editor R.G.

Wade

Alekh I ne’s
Defence
R.C. Eales A.H.WIhams

__F S
I.— _______
CONTEMPORARY CHESS OPENINGS

GENERAL EDITOR: R. G. WADE

Alekhine’s Defence

R. G. EALES, A. H. WILLIAMS

B. T. Batsford Ltd
London
First published 1973
Third impression 1976
© R. G. Eales & A. H. Williams, 1973
ISBN 0 7134 0366 7

Printed and bound in Great Britain by

Billing & Sons Ltd., Guildford, London & Worcester
for the publishers
B. T. Batsford Ltd,
4 Fitzhardinge Street, London W1H OAH
Contents

Preface
Abbreviations
Introduction 9
1 Four Pawns Attack 11
2 Modern Variation: 4. . . P—KN3 28
3 Modern Variation: 4. . . B—N5 49
4 Modern Variation: Other 4th Moves 69
5 Exchange Variation 79
6 Two Pawns Attack 89
7 The 3 N—QB3 System 101
8 2 P—K5 N—Q4: Other Systems 114
9 Second Move Variants 122
Index of Complete Games 135
Index of Variations 137
Preface

This book is not a truly cooperative work, but neither is it composed of

several works written independently. In general material has been
divided among the authors, so that style and composition may vary,
but judgements of substance are the product of common deliberations.
Our thanks must first of all go to Bob Wade, who as general editor
of the Batsford ‘Contemporary Chess Openings’ Series, invited us to
write the book. Since then he has hospitably placed the resources of
his library at our disposal. Ray Keene has provided invaluable
analytical assistance with critical lines, and we have also profited from
the advice of Bill and Jana Hartston. Finally we should like to thank
Miss Gillian Farmer for typing the whole of a recalcitrant manuscript
Cambridge 1972 R.G.E.
A.H.W.

Preface to Second Impression

The opportunity has been taken to correct printing errors and

standardise the transcription of Cyrillic names, but otherwise the
original format has been preserved. The only substantive changes
occur on pages 17, 60 and 125.
Cambridge 1973 R.G.E.
A.H.W.

Abbreviations

+ Check
! A clearly strong move
? A clearly weak move
(!) Probably a strong move
(?) Probably a weak move
!? A sharp or unclear move
1 —O Black resigned
Draw agreed
0—1 White resigned
Ch Championship
Corres Correspondence Game
W or B by the side of each diagram indicates which side is to move
Numbers in brackets refer to diagrams
INTRODUCTI ON

Alekhine’s Defence has now been the 1920s as a period dominated by

evolving in serious play for just over the clash between rival groups of
fifty years. The first Alekhine’s Defence Hypermoderns and Classicists. Apart
game with which modern theory is from the fact that the very best
concerned was played by Alekhine players, led by Capablanca, succeeded
against A. Steiner at Budapest in in rapidly absorbing many of the new
1921, though the prehistory of the ideas into their individual styles, the
opening stretches back through two boundaries between the theories of
games between Anderssen and Pearson the opposed schools were never very
at London in 1862 to a mention in clear and they could rarely be implemented
Allgaier’s little known Lehrbuch of in their pristine form. Alekhine’s
1811. It has been played by World Defence was played by, among
Champions since Capablanca and others, Tarrasch and Rubinstein. In
Alekhine and was first played in a most of the games in which it
World Championship Match in 1935. occurred in the 1920s players of the
The list of great players who have White pieces did not seek to refute it
been exponents of the opening and out of hand but instead chose lines
have enriched its theory culminates which are now regarded as too quiet
with Smyslov, Hort, Korchnoi, Larsen to give White any hope of advantage:
and Fischer: including most of the 2 N-QB3, 2 P-Q3, 2 P-K5 N-Q4
outstanding tournament players of 3 B-B4 and so forth. The real nature
the present generation. of this most creative period of chess
[n its origins Alekhine’s Defence history was, not surprisingly, complex.
was a product of the so-called Hypermodern Following its introduction in 1921
school of chess ideas, whose Alekhine’s Defence became quite
history, like much of the history of popular, as the game references even
chess style in general, has yet to be of this and other modern studies
written, though there exists ample demonstrate, but this popularity was
source material in the contemporary on the wane by 1930 and the opening
writings of Reti, Nimzowitsch and has remained out of general favour
others. The subject cannot be pursued until well into the 1960s. There is no
very far here, but the early development simple explanation of this, though
of this opening does illustrate perhaps the growth of a more technical
some shortcomings in the view of attitude to chess, linked to the
10 Introduction

systematic investigation of particular B—N5 are capable of giving Black

openings like the Orthodox and Slav adequate play against the Modern
Defences to the Queen’s Gambit, was Variation, which makes Alekhine’s
partly responsible. After 1945 this Defence at least as up to date as
systematic approach itself generated a the Modern Defence: 1 . . . P—Q3
broadening of chess styles and opening or 1 . . . P—KN3. It had certainly
repertoires, whether or not it was come of age by the Sousse
almost wholly a Russian achievement Interzonal tournament of 1967 in
as A. Kotov and M. Yudovich’s which it was played five times,
Soviet School of Chess seeks to prove, winning every single game. Some
but interest was directed away from credit is due to the efforts of those
Alekhine’s Defence by the new who, like the Russian masters V.
Sicilian systems that were then Mikenas and V. Bagirov, had consistently
emerging as Black’s most challenging played and advocated the
replies to 1 P—K4. When the opening openkig for many years previously,
was considered, and it has never been but the single most important reason
without at least some supporters, it for its revival is that it promises
was regarded as inadequate against tangible rewards in practice. Robert
either the direct Four Pawns Attack Fischer is only the last of a long line
or, especially, the positional Modern of players who have turned to
Variation. Alekhine’s Defence as a valuable and
The revival began only in the aggressive supplement to Black’s more
1960s with the realisation that both highly analysed defensive systems
4 . . . P—KN3 and the older 4 against 1 P—K4.

Bibliographical Note
As usual in chess theory the source material consists chiefly of game scores,
collected from magazines, tournament bulletins and game collections published
all over the world. Notes contributed by players to their games in the
Yugoslav Chess Informators have been found helpful.
Among other works R. Schwarz’s Aljechin und Nimowitsch Verteidigung
(1969) is thorough in the collection of material rather than its interpretation.
Some trouble seems to have arisen from the same position, reached by different
move orders, being treated as entirely different positions. For those who have
Russian V. Bagirov’s Alekhine’s Defence, published in 1971, is very much better
and has dated appreciably only in the Four Pawns Attack. Parts of it are
taken from a number of articles published over the years in the Moscow
Shakhmatny bulletins by Bagirov and V. Mikenas.
Perhaps because of the rapid growth in Alekhine’s Defence theory since the
late 1960s, it is particularly badly treated in general works on the openings.
The only short account of the opening which does justice to the material, though
it does severely compress it, is to be found in I. Boleslavsky’s Caro-Kann bis
Siilianisch.
1 FOUR PAWNS ATTACK

White’s aim in the Four Pawns 6 BPxP are less effective.) 6

Attack, despite its aggressive appearance, NPxP(ar6...QxP 7P-B5Q--K
is the essentially positional one 3+8Q—K2winningapawn) 7PxBP
of maintaining a space advantage, but (stronger than 7 B xP BP xP 8 N—
in most variations games are decided QB3 B—Y2 9 Y-B3 B—N5 10 B—K2
in the complications which arise from Y—B3 11 B-K3 B x N 12 P x B
Black’s attempts to free himself. P—K3 when Black stands quite well,
1 P—K4 N—KB3 Krstev-Planinc, Skopje 1967) 7

2 P—K5 N-Q4 Q x BP 8 N-QB3 P-K4 9 P x P

3 P-Q4 P-Q3 N-B3 10 B x P B—K3 11 N-K4

4 P-QB4 N-N3 B-N5 ch. 12 K-B2 White is two

5 P—B4 (1) pawns up and about to exploit his
advantage with a mating attack,
1 Tringov-Planinc, Varna, 1970.
B
A
5... B—B4

This move can be played either as

an independent system, or in the hope
of transposing into Variation C in
//%/Aii favourable circumstances by a later
...PxP.

6 N—QB3
6 Br—Q3!? is a possible attempt at
outright refutation: after 6 . . . B x B
A: 5... B—B4 7QxBPxP 8BPxPP—QB4 9N-
B. 5...P—Y3 KB3 (not 9 P—Q5? P-K3 10 Y—QB3
C: 5.. .PxP Q—R5-f-) 9..0P-K3(f9...PxP
5 . . . P—N4?, an idea of Planinc’s, 10 0-0 N—B3 IJP—K6PxP 12Y—
has only psychological value. After 1.15 is dangerous, MihaelovSokolov,
6 KP x P (also good are 6N-KB3 and USSR 1969) 10 0—0 White has
6 Q-R5. Only 6 P—Q5 P—K3 7 P— attacking chances, e.g. 10 . . N—B3
KB5 P x BP 8 P—K6 Q—B3 ErmakovKeene, 11 N—B3 N x QP 12 B—N5, PlatonovEfimov,
postal game 1971—72, and USSR 1966.
12 FourPawns

6 N—KB3 provides rather more inducement QN3 N-R4 14 P x P RP x P 15 0-0

for Black to play . .. P x P and White has a clear advantage,
(see Variation C for the resulting Tseshkovsky-Golenishev, Yalta 1966.
positions). b) 9 P x P P x P 10 P-QN3 P—Q4 11
6... P—K3 P-B5 N/3—Q2 12 B—Q3 BxB 13
7 B—K3 QxBP—QN3 14PxPQxP 150-0
White can play 7 P x P here; 7... Q—R3 with at least equality, UitumenFischer,
P x P 8 N—B3 transposes into Palma 1970.
Matanovic - Olafsson, Bled 1961, c) 9 Q-N3!? P x P 10 N x P P—QR4
which continued 8 . .. B—K2 9 B—Q3 11 P-QR3 QN—Q2 12 B-K2 PR5(?)
B—N5 10 0—0 N-B3 11 B-K3 B-B3 13 Q-Ql P—B4 14 NxN
12 B—K2 0—0 13 P—QN3, with some NxN 15NxPPxP 16BxPQ-B2
advantage to White, but 9.. . B x B 17 0-0 P-QN4 18 N-B3 P x P 19 PKN4
10 Q x B P—Q4 11 P—QB5 N/3—Q2, and White is winning, Ljubojevic-Marovic,
as in Uitumen-Fischer below, is Yugoslavia 1971.
probably better.
7... B—K2 B
Trifunovic’s idea 7. . . N—R3 is all 5.. P—N3 (2)
right after 8 N—B3 P—B4, when White
has nothing better than 9 QP x P 2
P x BP for fear of a central collapse w
(Joppen-Trifunovic, Belgrade 1954,
continued 10 P-QR3 Q x Q + 11
R x Q B-K2 12 B-K2 f4) Instead
8 P x P(!) leaves the Black knight
misplaced; Gasic-Mihaljcisin, Sarajevol97O,wenton8...PxP
9R—Bl

(an improvement on 9 N-B3 B—K2 10

B—K2 0—0 11 0—0 R—B1 12 P—QN3?
Y-Q4! Wade-Tnfunovic, Leamington
1951) 9. . . B—K2 10 N—B3 0-0 11
P-QN3 N-Q2 12 B-K2 N-B2 13 0-0 Lack of practical experience makes
P-Q4 14 P—B5 N-Nl 15 P-QN4 it difficult to assess this variation, but
P-QR3 16 P-QR4 and Black has it is probably the most playable of
failed to shake White’s grip on the Black’s less usual replies to the Four
position. Pawns Attack.
8 N—B3 0-0 6 N—QB3
Black’s last opportunity to head for 6 B—K2 is less flexible; QuinonesDarga,
the main line position of the Four Amsterdam 1964, continued
Pawns Attack with 8. . - P x P 9 6... B-N2 7 N—KB3 0—0 8 B-K3
BP xP 0—0 or N-B3 (C24). P x P 9 BP x P B-N5 10 QN—Q2
From here: (compare Hecht - Jansson below)
a)9B—Q3P—Q41OBXBPxB11P-- 10.. . P—QB4 11 P x P N/3—Q2 12
B5 N—B5 12 B—B 1 P—QN3 13 P— 0-0 Q-B2 13 Q-K1 N-QB3 14 Q—
 FourPazmis 13

R4 B x N 15 N x B N/3 x KP 16 (threatening 15...R—B8+) 15 Q-K2

N-N5 P-KR3 17 N-K4 P-B4 18 NB3 NxB 16 QxN Q—B3 17 N—B3
P-KN4 and White was overrun. N—KN5 Q—B5 18 19 QxQ P-K4
6... PxP(!) P—Q6! 20 P—B3 PxQ 21 N—Q5!
Delaying this exchange by 6. with a winning attack.
R-N2 7 B-K3 0-0 (or 7 PxP) 9... B—N5(3)
If 9 . . . P—QB4 White plays 10 8 N—B3 P x P allows 9 QP x P.
Matanovic-Darga, Bordeaux 1964, PxP(JOP—Q5B--N5 JJBxPBxN
continued 9. . . P—QB3 (9.. . J’1—B3 12 Q x B QN—Q2 ü good for Black)
10 P—B5! ü Kupper-Schmid, Clare 10. . . N/3—Q2 11 P—K6 (the likely
Benedkt 1956) 10 Q—N3 B-N5 11 B— outcome of less active play was
K2 B x N 12 B x B Q—Q6 13 N—K4 demonstrated in Quinones-Darga,
QxQ 14PxQN—R3 150-OKR-- p.12) 11...PxP 12Q—Q2andas
Qi 16 K.R—Q1 K—B1 and was in Sämisch-Rellstab, White’s attacking
eventually drawn, but White could chances are liable to outweigh
a space advantage the dissolution of his pawn centre. have maintained
11 R—Q1! by interpolating
7BPxP B-N2
3
8 Br-K3
8 N—B3 gives Black the option of an w
immediate 8 . . . B—N5; ParmaSchiffer,
Berlin 1971, continued 9 P—
B5 N—Q4 10 B-QB4 P—K3 11 0-0
NxN 12 PxN 0-0 13 P-KR3
PA
B x N 14 Q x B N—B3 15 Q—N4
B-KN5 Q-.Q2 17 B-K2 N—R4 16
P-N3 and Black survived.
8... 0-0
8. . . P—QB4 proved good for White

in Sämisch-Rellstab, Swinemunde After 9... B—N5 Hecht-Jansson,

P1931,
x Pafter 9 P xP N/3—Q2
11 N—B3 Q—R410 P—K6
(11 Grossenbrode 1970, continued 10 PKR3
. . . 0—0
transposes BxN 11 QxB N-B3 12
13 B—Q4. to B1
theNxP
note below) 12 R— 0—0—0!? N—R4 13 P—QN3(?) P
9 N—B3 Q B4 14 P x P N-Q2 15 P-K6
9 P—KR4!? is also dangerous; P x P 16 Q—K4 with an unclear
Estrin-Pytel, Polanica-Zdroj 1971, position, but 13 P—B5 N—Q2 14 P—
continued 9 . . . P—KB3(?) (9 KR4 or 13.. . NIN3—B5 14 B—KB4
P—QB4 must be better, even though Estrin threatening Q—Q5 is very hard to
assesses the position after 10 P x P meet.
QxQ+ 11RxQN/3-Q2 12P—K6
as good for White) 10 P—R5 BP x P C
11 P-Q5! P—K3 12 RP x P RP x P 5... PxP

13 B-Q3 P-K5 14 B x P N x BP 6BPxP (4)

14 FourPawns

4 was slightly in White’s favour after

w 9. .. BxB 10 Q xB Q-Q2 11 QN—
Q2 N—N5 12 Q-K4 Q-B3 13 Q x
Q + N x Q 140-0. The B-Q3 possibility
is an important factor in the
move order of both sides: if White
succeeds in exchanging the White
VA P4 P4 squared bishops without his centre
collapsing, his access to the K4 square
is liable to stifle Black’s counterplay.
_ _ g Here, however, Black can react with
8...N—N5! 9N—R3P—K3 lOB—
6... B—B4 K2 P—B4, as in C23, except for
6 . . . P—QB4 has been played White’s misplaced knight.
relatively frequently in this position The move only attains real mdividual
without displaying any redeeming significance when White
features at all, e.g. 7 P—Q5 P—K3 8 answers 6 . . . N—B3 with 7 N—KB3,
N-QB3 P x P (or 8 . . . Q-R5+ virtually forcing Black to accept a
9 P-JV3 Q—Q5 10 Q-K2 P-QR3 speculative pawn sacrifice after 7.
II 11—B 3 Q—N5 12 B-B 4 P x P 13 B—N5 (7. . . B—B4 now fails to 8 P—Q5)
P xP B—K2 14 B—N2, Kostro-Lewi, 8 P—K6!? — other moves lose a tempo
Polanica-droj 1969) 9 P x P and now: on C2 1 —8.. . P x P 9 P—B5 (Levenfish’s
a)9...Q,—R5+ 1OP—N3Q-Q5 suggestion of 9 B—K2 is possibly
11 B-N5 + B-Q2 12 Q-K2 N x P better, but untried) and now:
13 P—K6 PxP 14 QxP+ N—K2 a) 9. . . P—K4(?) 10 P x N P—KS 11
15 N—B3 Q—B3 16 Q—K2 N—B3 17 P-Q5 P x N 12 Q-R4 (or 12 KNP x
N—K4 and White’s attack is winning, F) 12...QxP 13QxBQ-R4+
Ljubojevic-Mozes, Dresden 1969. 14 K-Ql R-Ql+ 15 N—Q2, and
b) 9 . . . P—B5 (a suggestion of R. White survived the attack, SzaboZvetkov,
Schwarz) 10 N—B3 B—KN5 11 Q—Q4 Hilversum 1947.

(11 B—K2 also poses interesting problems) b)9...BxN!?1OQxBNxP11

11.. . BxN 12 PxBB—N5 13 BxP Q—B2 N—R5 (an attempted improvement
0-0 14 R-KN1 Q-B2 15 P-K6 P—B3 on 11...Q—Q4 12 PxN Q—K5+
16B—KR6QxB 17RxP+ K-Ri 13 K-Q1 RPxP 14 N—B3 Q—N5+
18R-N8+!KxR 19Q-Ni+ 15 K-K1 0-0-0 16 B—K3 P-K4
1—0, Ljubojevic-Honfi, Cacak 1970. 17 B-Q3 P-K3 18 Q—N3 and the
6. . . N—B3 is a rather less flexible defence holds, Barca-Gereben, Hungary
Black move order, but if White 1937) 12 B—K3 Q—Q4 13 N—B3
replies with 7 B—KS it is likely to N x N 14 P x N N—B4 with an unclear
reach the initial position of Variation position.
C2by7...B—B4 8N-QB3P—K3. c) 9... N—Q4 10 B—QN5 Q—Q2:
White can try 8 N—KB3 intending to c 1) 11 QN—Q2 (?) P—KN3 12 N—B4
meet 8.. . P—K3 with 9 B—Q3, which (no better is 12 Q—R4 B—N2 13 N—KS
in Euwe-Kostic, The Hague 1921, BxN 14PxBN-K6 15Q—K40--O!
 FourPaimu 15

16QxN/3N-N5or 16BxNQ-Q5) P-QB4 10 P x P NJ3-Q2 11 0-0

12. . . B—N2 13 N--R5 0—0 14 N x P N x BP 12 B—K2, and Black’s
B x N 15 P x B QR-.-N 1 16 Q-R4 eventual loss can hardly be blamed
N/4—N5 17 Q xN R xN 18 Q—R4 on the opening. 7. . . N--B3 is also a
R x B! 19 Q x R B x P, and Black more than adequate reply to 7 N—
won, Czerniak-Penrose, Amsterdam KB3 (see last note).
1954. White has little to gain from
c2) 110-0 P-KN3 12 QN-Q2 B—N2 developing his QB on B4 e.g. 7 N—
(not 12. . . N—K6 13 Q—R4 NxR QB3 P-K3 8 N—B 3 B-K2 9 B—B4
14 N—K5) 13 Q—R4 0—0 14 N—KS and now:
BxN 1SPxBB—B4 16N-B3P- a) 9. . . N—B3 10 P—Q5 (C241 except
QR3 17BxNQxB 18QxQPxQ for the position of the White bishop).
19 B—R6 KR—N 1, Winiwarter-Hort, From here Mista-Pribyl, Havirov
Krems 1967. White has barely 1971, continued 10 . . . P x P 11
adequate compensation, though Hort P x P N-N5 12 N-Q4 N/5 x QP 13
lost through trying to win. NxB NxB 14 NxP+ (14 Q-N4
7 B—K.3 (5) P—KN4!Hort) 14...K—Bl 1SN—B5
Q x Q + 16 R x Q B—N5 with advantage
5
to Black according to Hort.
B
b) 9.. . 0-0 10 B-K2 P-KB3 11 0-0
(now C242 apart from the bishop)
transposes to Geller-Korchnoi, 27th
PA VA PA USSR Ch 1960, which went on
1l...N—B3 12PxPBxP 13P—Q5
VA PA
N—R4 14 N—KS B x N (14... Q—K2
may be better) 15 B x B N/4 x P 16
B x N N x B 17 B x NP N-K6 with
_ g obscure complications.
Also, after 7 N-QB3 P- K3 8 N—B3
This move is more or less interchangeable Black may play 8. . . B—QN5 (as in
with 7 N—QB3. C 1). Now 9 B—K.3 does transpose to
7 N—KB3 is rather different as it C 1, and so does 9 P-QR3 B x N +
prepares 7 . . . P—K.3 8 B—Q3 10 P x B P—B4 11 B—K3, but White
(8 B—K3 is now bad because of 8. . has other possibilities, mostly involving
P—B4 9 PxP QxQ+ 10 KxQ B—N5:

N-R5 or 9 N-B3 PxP 10 NxP a) 9 B—K2 P—B4 10 B—N5 Q—Q2 11

N-B3, Marco-Kostic, The Hague 1921). Q-Q2(?) (11 P—QR3 BxN+ 12
In reply Black need not concede the P x B N—B3 may also be good for Black
exchange of bishops (as occurred in owing to White’s misplaced bishop, but
Lazarevic-Alexandria, Bladel 1971, not as good) 11 . . . N—B3 12 P—QR3
in a position with the additional move B x N 13 P x B N—R4 14 R—Q 1 and
N—QB3 B—K2) but can play 8 already 14 . . . N/4 x P is
B—KNS; Rotare-Lemachko, USSR good, Polgar-Bagirov, Baja 1971.
Women’s Ch 1970, continued 9 B—K3 b) 9 Q—N3 P—B4 (a possible improve-
16 Four Pawns

ment is 9.. . P—QR4 as in LazarevicAlexandria QxQ 19NxQKR-K1 2ONxB

in Cl; after 1OB-N5Q.-B1! R x B 21 N-N4 and White won. This
Black can still answer 11 P—QR3 with game illustrates the likely consequences
11...P—R5 12QxBN—B3 13Q—B5 of an exchange of white
N—Q2 etc.) 10 B-N5 Q—B2 11 0—0--0 squared bishops only too well.
B x N 12 Q x B N.-R3 13 Q-R5
(Estrin’s sicsted improvement 13 P— Cl
QR3 hardly looks like one after 13... 8... B—QJ’i5(7)
P x P) 13 . . . 0-0 14 B-K3 and now A move devised and played during
14. . . Q—B3 threatening Q—K5 is 1971 to meet the need created by the
quite adequate, Estrin-Schmidt, demise of 8 . . . B—K2 for a viable
Polanica-Zdroj 1971. alternative to 8. . . N—B3. It was first
c) 9 B—Q2 is a suggestion of Ciocaltea, analysed in a Chessman Quarterly article
as yet untried. by Williams and Keene in 1971.
7... P—K3
8N-QB3(6) 7 ___ ___
8 N—KB3 is inferior for the reason w
given in the last note.
6
B 4 PA
rtt

7jPj
,ALjg
r%rij 9 N-B3
The first point is that 9 P—QR3?
fails completely to 9 . . . B x N +
Now 10 P x B Q—R5 + 11 B-B2 Q—K5 +
CI: 8...B—QN5 12Q,—K2NxP 13QxQBxQ 14
C2. 8...N—B3 BxNBXPor12B-K2QXNP 13
The attempt to complete Black’s B—B3 Q—N3 14 B x P B—K5. (Analysis
king side development by B—K2 and by Keene.)
0—0 before developing his QN so as to 9 Q,—N3 was played in LazarevicAlexandria,
avert the danger of a P—Q5 break was Bladel 1971, and effectively
refuted in Velimirovic-Hiousek, Kapfenberg met by 9 . . . P—QR4 10 P—
1970, by8...B—K2 9B—Q3! QR3? P—R5 11 Q—Ql (11 Q x B
BxB(9...B—Jv’4 IOB—KB2!isno N—B3 12 Q—B5 N-RI etc.); Now,
help) 10 Q x B N—B3 11 R—Q1 0—0 12 instead of 11 . . . B—K2?, 11 .
N—B3P-B3 13PxPBxP 140—OQ-- BxN+ 12 PxB Q—R5+ is still
Ki 15 P—QN3 R-Q1 16 Q-K4 QN3 winning.
17 Q x P + K-R 1 18 Q-K4 9.. P-B4
 Four Pawns 17

This vigorous counter-attack is the R-Q 1 P x P 15 P x P N—K2 16

idea behind 8. .. B—QN5. Q—N4 B-K5 17 N-N5 N-B4 18 QB3
After the older 9 . . . N—B3 (the N x B 19 Q x N B—N3 20 N-K4
position is more often reached by BxN 21 QxB R-B1 22 R—B1
9 . . . B—QN5 after an earlier N—B3) R—B2 23 R—QB3 , despite White’s
Black’s play against the White centre manifest advantage.
develops rather more slowly, e.g.: b)11...PxP 12NxPNxN
a) 10 B—Q,3(?) B—N5 11 B—K2 B x N 13 BxN:
12 P x B Q—R5 + 13 B-B2 Q—B5 and bl) 13.. . 0-0 14 N—N5! and now
Black stands well (C2 1 with the the attempt to get vigorous play by
additional move B—QN5), LaskerTarrasch, 14 . . . Q—R5 fails after 15 P—QR3
Mahrisch-Ostrau 1923. B-K2 16 P—B5 N—Q4 17 RxB!
b) 10 B—K2 0-0 11 0-0 B x N 12 PxR 18 B—B2 Q—K5 19 B—B3—
P x B N—R4 13 N-Q2 Q-Q2 14 R— Dueball.
B4 (even stronger than the 14 R—B3 of b2) 13 . . . B—B7!? (a suggestion of
Lebedev-Blechzin, USSR 1965, which R. D. Keene) 14 Q—Q2 R—QB1 15
continued 14 . . . Q—R5 15 Q—KBI P—QN3 0—0 (the ending after 15
P—B4?—a prelimina7y B—J’13 is essential QxB+ 16QxQB-QB4 17N—N5
—16 P-Q5 N—Q2 17 R xB!? P xR is untenable) 16 K—Ri B—QB4 17
18 Q x P and White eventually won) N—N5 B x B 18 N x B B—N3 19 B-B3
14...B-N3 15Q—KB1P-QB4 R—B2 with a good game, PritchettWilliams,
(15.. . Q—R5 is met by 16 P—KR4!) Caorle 1972.

when 16 P—KR4! is probably also c) 11 . . . P—QR3 is possible, though

good for White; instead ZuidemaHecht, unproven.
Amsterdam 1971, continued 10... BxN+
16 N—N3 Q—R5 17 P x P(?) N-Q2 10...PxP!? 11PxBPxB 12
18 P—B6 N x N 19 P x N/3 Q x P/B3 N-QN5 0—0! 13 Q x Q R x Q 14 N—
20 B--Q4 Q—B2 in Black’s favour. B7N-B3 l5NxRNxNPisa
10 P-QR3 possible improvement here.
The intention of this move is to 11PxB N—B3 (8)
force Black to capture on B3 before
interpolating P x P. 10 B—K2 N—B3 8

11 0—0 is also worth considering, e.g.: W tVFA tiLt

a) 11 . . . B x N 12 P x B 0—0 gives
White an extra tempo over the main 774
line, through the omission of P—QR3.
He cannot press on with his king side rd1Pj
attack by N—Q2 and R—B4 until
Black plays N—R4, but he can use the
move to mass in the centre. ParmaHecht,
Berlin 1971, continued 13 Q—
rAr%
K1 B—N3 (13. . . JV—R4 14 JV—Q2
P x P 15 P x P R—B 1 16 R-B 1 B—W3
17 R—B4 followed by P—KR4--5) 14 From here Grabczewski-Spiridonov,
18 Four Pawn.s

Polanica-Zdroj 1971, continued 12 Manila 1968, or 13 B—B4 N x NP,

Q-Q2(?) Q—B2 13 P x P N—Q2 14 Georgade-Kopylov, USSR 1948). In
N—Q4 Q xP 15 B-K2 0-0 16 0-0 compensation 9 B—K2 cuts out one of
B—K5 17 QR—Ql QR—Ql 18 N xN Black’s possible replies to 9 N—B3:
PxN 19Q-Q4QxQ 2OPxQ 9 . . . B—-KN5 (C2 1) altogether.
R—N 1 with the better ending for C21. 9...B—KN5
Black. C22: 9... Q—Q2
Instead it seems more logical for C23: 9. . . N—N5
White to play 12 B—K2 N—B3 13 0—0 C24: 9. . . B—K2
and 14 Q—Kl as in Parma-Hecht The lines arising from 9. . . B—
above (note to 10 B—K2). Once again QN5 are considered in Cl.
the issue is liable to depend on how
far Black can get with his central C21
counterplay before the axe descends 9... B—KN5
on his king side. 10 B—K2
Other possibilities:
C2 a) 10 P—B5 N-Q4 ii N x N Q x N
8... N—B3 12 B—K2 0—0—0 13 0—0 and Black is a
9 N—B3 (9) tempo up on Platonov-Kupreitchik
An alternative line here is 9 B—K2, in C22, where the moves P—QN4 and
which often reaches the same main Q—Q2 had been interpolated. Because
lines as 9 N—B3, after 9 . . . B—K2 of this he has time to play 13
10 N—B3 or 9.. . Q—Q2 10 N—B3 or P—B3 (14 P xP B xP) with great
9...N—N5 1OR—B1P—B4 11N—B3. pressure on the White centre.
The main difference from 9 N—B3 is b) 10Q,—Q,2 B—K2 11 0—0—0 is recommended
that after 9. . . B—K2 or 9. . . Q—Q2 by Bagirov on the strength of
or 9.. . N—N5 10 R—Bl P—B4 White 11 . . . 0—0 12 P—KR3 B—R4 13
does not have the option of P—Q5 (tith KN4 B—N3 14 P—KR4, ShianovskySpassky,
latter because of tiw line 11 P—Q5 P x P USSR 1959, but White’s
12 PxP N—B5! 13 BxN Q—R5+ plan was more severely tested in
Durao-Bobotsov, Praia da Rocha
9 1969, which continued 11 .. . Q—Q2
B WI’ A 12P—KR3BxN 13PxBO--O--O 14
P—B4 B—N5 15 Q—QB2 K—Ni 16 P—
R3 B x N 17 Q x B N—K2 18 B—N2
Q—R5 and Black won.
10... BxN
rir%r 11 PxB QR5+
12 B—B2 Q-B5
13 P—B5

13 Q—B1 gives White no advantage,

pEy’g e.g.:13...QxQ+ 14RxQO—O--O
15 R-Ql B-N5 16 P—QR3 B xN+
17 P x B N—R4 18 P—B5 N—Q4 19 14 K—B1 Q x B +, Torre-Rodriguez,
 Four Paums 19

K-Q2 P—B3 20 B-N3 KR-B 1, 10. . . R—Q 1 led to rapid disaster

Prins-Tartakover, Hastings 1945—46. in the game Estrin-Oakley, correspondence
13... N—Q,2 match USSR v. England
13 . . . N—Q4 is also possible. 1962: 11 0—0 B—KN5 12 N—KN5!
14 Q—B1 NxBP 13 B—B2 BxB 14 QxB
14 B—N5 may be a better try. B—K2 (or 14. . . N—N3 15 QR—Q1)
After 14 Q—B1 Black was able to 15 Q-R5 P-KN3 16 Q-R6 N x QP
defend successfully in Platonov - 17 Q-N7 R-KB1 18 N xRP Q—B3
Bobotsov, Beverwijk 1970: 14 19BxNRxB 2ONxR1-0.
Q—B4 15Q-N1QxQ+ 16RxQ 10 . . . B—KN5 is not so bad if
0-0-0 17 0-0 B--K2 18 P-N4 N—B 1 combined with 0-0—0 instead of R—
19 KR-Q1 B-N4 20 P-N5 N—K2 Qi. Platonov-Kupreichik, Soviet Ch
21 P—B6 N—B4 and a draw was soon 1969, continued 11 0—0 0—0—0 12 P—
agreed. B5 N-Q4 13 N x N Q x N 14 PN4!?
(Both Euwe and Petrosian in his
C22 notes give 14 N—N5! as best—after
9.. Q,—Q,2(?) 14...BxB J5QxBNxQP 16
BxIi QXB+ 17 K—Ri Q-Q7 18
10 QxQRxQ I9RxPWhitehossome
w advantage) 14 . . . Q—K5 15 Q—N3
t*’fAtt NxQP 16NxNBxB 17R—B4!
Q x P 18 R-K1 P-KN4 19 R-B2
B-R4 20 R-Q2 B—N2 21 Q-R4
i9AiV4 K—N 1? (Petrosian suggests 21
RxIi! 22RxRQxB+ 23RxQ
B xR as adequate for Black) 22 P-N5
R-Q4 23 P—B6 KR-Q1 24 N xP!
QxB+ 25RxQPxN 26R-QR3
P-QR3 27 R x R R x R 28 NP x P
1-0.
This line has been effectively discarded 110-0 P-B3
from master play as too 12 P—Q,5!
dangerous. This move, with the following
10 Br—K2 energetic continuation, has caused
10 P—Q5 is not particularly effective Black’s whole system to be discredited.
here: it seems that after 10 . . . P xP
11 PxP N—N5 12 N—Q4 Black can Not so good is 12 P x P P x P 13
safely take the pawn with 12 P—Q5 Q—N2! with counterchances
N/3 xP (13 NxB Q xN 14 NxN (the original point of Black’s play).
0—0—0 or 13 JVxN NxN—13 12... NxKP
Q x N is also adequate for survival— 12...Q,—B2orQ-K1 13BxN
14 N x B B—N5 + 15 K-K2 0—O---0, RP x B 14 Q—R4 is no better, and
in both cases with a winning attack). 12...KPxP 13BxNRPxB 14
10 PxQP(14...NxP I5NxNPxN
20 Four Pawns

16 R x B) is, if anything, even worse. QxB 13 P-Q5) 12 KPxP NPxP

13NxN PxN 13 B-R4 (13 N—KS P—KR 4) 13...
14 P—QR4! B—K2 according to Pachman, but
Now Black is denied the time to 13 B—K3 looks as though it might be
play K—N 1 and P x P, and has no hard to meet.
good defence. In Teschner-Maier 11 P—QR3(?), like 12 P—QR3
1962, White pressed home his attack below, loses an important tempo to
after 14 . . . K—Ni (or 14 . . . P—QR4 provoke a liquidation; 11 . . . P x P
15 N-N5 B-QN5 16 P-Q 6 P—B 4 17 and now:
B-N5 and 18 B—Q 2) 15 P-R5 N-B 1 a) 12 N x P N—B3 and the endings
16 Q—N3 P-B3 17 P-R6 P-QN3 18 reached after 13 N x N or N x B are
QR—Q1 BPxP 19 PxP B—Q3 quite tenable for Black (see under
20 P-N4 B-N3 21 P x P Q—K2 22 12 P—QR3 for a discussion of them
Q-Q5 P-KS 23 Q-B6 Q-QB2 24 with the additional moves 11 B—K2
QxQ+BxQ 25R—Q7RXR 26 B—K2). Blackmayalsomeet 13NxB
P x R N-Q 3 27 N-N5 R—Q i 28 with 13 . . . PxN, but 14 Q—B3
N x N B x N 29 B-QN5 P-R3 30 B— P-N3 15 N—NS threatening N-Q6 +
Q4 P-R4 31 B x KNP P-K6 32 RB6 is dangerous.
B-QB4 33 R-K6 1—0 b) 12 B—N5? invites 12 . . . PxN
13 B x Q P x P! (Alekhine’s mggested
C23 improvement on 13. . . R x B which also
9.. N—N5 proved sufficient in ‘nosko-Borovsky v.
10 R-B1 P—B4 (11) Alekhine, Paris 1925).
11... Br-K2
11
11...PxP(?) l2NxPis
B
premature, e.g.:
a) 12 . . . B-N3 13 P—BS! (even
a FAt PA stronger than 13 P—QR3 N—B3 14
NxN PXN—or 14 . . . QxQ+
IS R x Q P x N—IS B-B3 with the
betterending) 13...N—Q2 (13...
B x P allows a lethal check) 14 Q—R4
N—Q6+ 1SBxNBxB 16R—Q1
B—N3 17 P—B6 with a winning advantage
(analysis by Levenfish).
11 Br-K2 b)12...N-B3 13NxBQxQ+
11 P—Q,5!? leads to an obscure 14RxQPxN lSO-OB-K2 (Black
position after 11 . . . P x P 12 P x P is only a tempo away from saving himself,
N/SxP 13B-KNSB-K2 14B-N5+ but he mwt deal with the threat of 16
K—Bi (not 14. . . B—Q2? J5NxN N—MS first) 16 R x P P—N3 17 R—B4
etc.) which Pachman assesses as better N x KP 18 R—K4! Bronstein-Mikenas,
for Black. USSR Ch 1949; the game ended:
11 B—N5!? is answered by 11 18 . . . P—B3 19 P-BS N/3—Q2 20
P—B3 (rather than 11. . . B—K2 12 B x B N—Q5 K—B 1 21 N—B 7 R—Q 1 22 N
 Four Paums 21

And again! With 12. . . P x P(?) K6+K-B2 23NxR+RxN 24

13 W x P B-N3 Black only avoids lines R/K4-Q4 K-K3 25 P-QN4 B-B1
26 B-QN5 P-B4 27 B-KB4 1-0. in which White can play N x B by
compromising the ending which 11 . . . B—N5 is probably too
dangerous, e.g.: arises after 14 P—QR3 (14 N/4—N5
..B—K2 13 N-Q6? 15BxNBxB 16R-B4 won a)12B—N5Q—Q2 (12.
12. .P—B3 rapidly for White in Spassky-Kopylov, BxBQxB 14N-K4or
13 P— Rostov, 1958, but 14 . . 0—0 u better) 13KPxPNPxP 14K-KS!)
PxP 14...N—B3 15NxNPxN 16 Q5BxN 14PxBPxP 15
NxN QxQ+ RxQ: P—B5 16 P-B4 N/S x QP 17
K—B2 a) 17 B—B3 0-0 18 N—K4 N—R5! NxN 18BxPB-BS+ 19
with adequate play, Parma-Mecking, with advantage to White (analysis by
Boleslavsky). Palma 1969.
b) 17 KR-Q1! 0-0 18 P-QN4 N—Q2 b)120-OBxN 13BxBNxBP 14
19 B-B4 P-QB4 2) P—N5 N-Ni 21 B-B2 N x NP (hubristic, but there is
no plausible alternative) 15 Q—N3 B—K3 R-B1 22 R—Q2 and White
N/7-Q6 16 PxP Q-B1 17 N—NS rapidly achieved a won position,
Penrose-Mecking, Palma 1969. and White’s attack prevailed, KadrevBogdanov,
Bulgarian Ch 1963. 13 P—0fi3
120-0 This can be delayed no longer.
Again the developing move is best. 13... PxP
12P—QJi3PxP 13NxPN—B3is 14NxP N—B3
too slow: 15 NxB

Naturally 15 N x N P x N 16Q x Q a) 14 N xB P x N (or 14... Q x Q +

KR x Q holds no hope of any advantage 15 R x Q P x N. The extra move B—K2
over Broastein-Mikenas above makes for ‘White.
Black’s position quite playable) 15 0—0 15... PxN
(15 Q—B2 B—N4! is unclear) iS... 16RxP(12)
16 P—B5 is an interesting attempt N XKP(?) (safer u IS. . . 0—0 transposing
to create sharper play. After 16 to the main line below) 16 Q—N3
N—Q2 17 N—Q5 Black should avoid P-N3 17 P—B5 N/3-Q2 18 N-Q5
with strong play. 17 . . . B-N4? 18 BxB Q xB 19 P—
b)14NxNPxN 15QXQ+RXQ
16 0-0 (16 B—B3 does not compel Black 12
to defend his BP as in the similar line B
reached from 11 . . . P x P. Here, having
played B—K2, Black can reply 16
0-0! 17BxNPxB 18BxPR—B1
andl9...R—B1) i6...B—Q6! PAg’4
(making good use of the extra move.
16 . . . B—N3 would transpose into
Penrose-Mecking below). Black has
little to fear.
12 0-0
22 Four Pawns

K6! P x P 20 N—B7 winning the C241

exchange, Litvinov-Polykarpov, Minsk 10 P—Q5 (13)

1970, and Penrose-Corden, Coventry 13 1970. Instead 17 . . . N/2xKP 18 B

RxP P—KN3 19 NxB+ QxN
PA. I
_tt
followed by. . . N—N5 and. . . QR—
Q1 Black has nothing to fear.
16... P—N3 PA1PA
17 R-B1
17 R-B4 led nowhere in VujacicLigterink,
Stockholm 1969; after
17...B—N4 18QxQQRxQ 19
R—K4 B x B 20 R x B KR—K 1.
17... B—N4
18 B—B5 R—K1 10... PxP

Not 18...BxR 19QxBR-K1 There is considerable confusion

20 N—K4 etc. among commentators and writers of
19QxQ QRxQ notes as to the relative merits of this
20Q,R-Q,1 NxKP move and 10.. . N—N5.
Black has solved most of his 10. . . N—N5 was formerly recommended,
problems. Keres-Sajtar, Prague 1943, but it is not clear that Black
continued 21 N-K4 RxR 22 BxR has adequate resources against 11
B-K2 23 P—QN3 BXB+ 24 N xB R—B1! e.g.:
R—K2 25 B—B2 P—B4, and as so often a) 11,..0—O 12P—QR3N—R3 1
in this system White has emerged B—Q3B-B4(13...BxB I4QxB
with a slight endgame advantage. P—KB3isabetterty) 14BxKBNxB
Here it is very slight. 15 B x B P x B 16 P—QN4 N—K5 17
Less accurate is 20 . . . R—Q7 21 Q—Q4 with great advantage, ParmaMihaljcisin,
RxRBxR 22B-Q6BxN 23 Sarajevo 1970.
P x B N x KP 24 P—B5, and White’s b) 11 .. . P—B3(?) 12 P—QR3 N—R3
bishops proved dangerous, PetrovFine, 13 P—KN4(!) B x NP 14 R—KN1
Kemeri 1937. P—KB4(14...BXJV’ l5QxBor
14.. . B—R4 15 B—K2 with a strong
atlack) 15 P—R3:
C24 bl)15...B—R5+ 16K—Q2B--R4?
9... B—K2 17RxPPxP 18PxPNxP 19
Black intends to seek counterplay Q—R4+ P—B3 20 QxB BxN 21
with 0—0 and P—B3, but if White B-KN5 Q—R4 22 P-N4 1-0,
wishes to provoke a combinative Tringov-Rodriguez, Havana 1971.
clash, he can cut across this plan with b2)15...BxN. 16QXBO—0 17
10 P—Q5. R—B2! Q—Q2 18 R—Q2 QR-K 1 19
P-Q6 P x P 20 Q—R5 R—B 1 21 P—
C241: IOP—Q5
B5! R x P and White wins by 22
C242: 10 B—K2 R/2-N2 R—KB2 23 BxR NxB
 Four Pawns 23

24 B—N5 and 25 Q x R +!, Velimirovic-Gipsiis, P-B3 15 P x P 0-0 16 P x P R-R4

Havana 1971. (compare Strenzwilk-Gauntt below
c) 11 .. . P xP 12 P—QR3 N—R3 (in for the same idea without 11 B x N)
Steinberg-A. Petrosian, USSR Team Ch 17N—B6NxN 18QxQRxQ 19
1971, Black tried 12 . . . P—B4 with B x N R x P + 20 N-K2 B-NS + 21
the idea of 13 P x V P—Q5; th game K-Bl B-Q6 22 B—B3 R/Ql-Kl
23R-B1RxN 24BxRBxB+ 15 .,VxP continued 14 B x P P x B
25 K—B2 B—R3 and Black won. 17 P—R4? Q-Jsf1 16 Q-K2 B-J’13
Q—Q1 18 Q—KB2 and was drawn, but 11... N—N5
17 P—B5 J’f—Q2 18 .N—Q5! is overwhelming) 12 N—Q,4 (14)
13 P x P 0—0. From here
Gergel-Mikenas, USSR 1971, continued 14
in Black’s favour after 14 B—K2 B
N—B4 15 0—0 N-KS! 16 N-Q4 N x N
17 PxN B—N3 18 P--B4 BxP 19
R-QB3 B—QB4 20 N-B5 BxB+
21 R x B P—QR4, but White can try
14 P—QN4 or 14 N—Q,4!?
The older move 11 N—Q,4 is not so
good, e.g. 11... B—N3 (11.. .B—N4?
12 NxB PxV 13 B—Q4! is good
for White.) 12 P—QR3 (12 P x F?
P-QB4 I3PxP+KxP 14Q-B3+
K—J’f1 15 0—0—0 P x V is inadequate) 12... B—Q,2
12 . . . P—QB4! and now: A move that has come into
a) 13 PxN PxN 14 QxP BxP prominence through the absence of
15 P—Q6 (l5PxPor 15B—K2 are also alternatives.
an.sweredbyl5...O—0) 15...0—O12 . . . B-N3 13 B-N5+ K—B1
threatening both P—B3 and N—Q2. 14 0—0 K—Ni gives White a clearly
b)13NxPPxN 14PxNBPxP winning attack, e.g.: 15 N—B5!
15 N—N5 (?) (415 J’f—R4 0—0 16 N x V B x N 16 R x B (or White can settle
PxN 17RxRQxR 18P-Q6offers for th extra pawn with 16 B x N B—
more chances of survival) 15 . . . 0—0 N3 17 B—B2 B-J’14 18 Q—B3 etc.,
16 P—Q6 B—N4 17 B—Q4 B—K6! 18 Tukhtman-Breitman 1954) 16 . . .

B x B Q—R5 + 19 K—Q2 R x B 20 N/S x QP (16. . . N/3 x P 17 Q—N3

R x R N x P + 21 K-K2 B—R4 + P-QB3 18 P-QR3) 17 B x N N x B
22 R—B3 B xR+ 23 K x B R-B1 + 18 Q-N3 B—B4+ 19 K-Rl Q-K2
24 K-K2 Q-N5 + 25 K-K1 Q x P 20 N—R4! Q—K3 (20. . . .Nx.N 21
0—1, Kokkoris-Marovic, Athens 1970. B-B4 R-KB1 22 QR-KBI etc.) 21
11 PxP 23 N x B Q x R 22 R-KB 1 Q-R4
11 B x N RP x B is not a very helpful B—K2 Q—N3 24 B—Q3 Q—R4 25
interpolation; Kupper-Klundt, Kaufbeuren P—N4 1—0, Stanciu-Partos, Rumania
1971, continued 12 PxP 1971.
N-N5 13 N-Q4 B—N3 14 B-N5+ The attempt to revive 12 . . . B—N3
24 Four Pawns

with the sacrifice 13 B—N5 + P—B3 110—o

14 P x P 0-0 also looks inadequate There is nothing in 11 Q—Q,2 P—B3
after 15 P x P R—N 1 16 0—0 (clearer 12 P x P B x P 13 P-KR3 B—N3 14
than 16 P—QR3 N/5—Q4 17 N—B6!? 0—0—0; Kamyshov-Ragosin, Moscow
N x B with complications, StrenzwilkGauntt, 1944, continued 14. . . Q—K2 15 P—
U.S. Open 1971). KN4 Q-N5 16 N—N5 Q xQ+ 17
12 . . . B—B1 is designed as an RxQ QR—Bl 18 P—N3 P-QR3
improvement on this line (13 B—N5 + 19 N—B3 P—K4!
P-B3 14PxPO—O 15PxPBxP 11 P-B3

etc., Ghizdavu-Suta, Rumania 1970) 12PxP

but 13 P-Q6! P x P 14 B—N5 + B—Q2 Alternatives here are innocuous,
15 P—K6 instead gives White a lethal e.g.:
attack. a)12N-KR4PxP 13NxBPxN
13 P-K6 PxP 14 P-Q5 N—Q5! 15 B x N P x B
14PxP B-QB3 16QxPN-Q2.
15 Q—N4 a 1) 17 Q—Q2 B-B4 + 18 K-R 1 Q—
The crucial position for this sharp R5 19 Q—B4 Q x Q 20 R x Q QR—
line. As well as defending his NP Kl with some advantage to Black,
Black must try to prevent White from Letzelter-Hort, Monte Carlo 1968.
castling and creating murderous a2) 17N-R4P-QN4! 18 P xP B-Q3
threats down the queen file, therefore: 19 QR-K1 Q—K2 20 B—Q3 N—K4
15... B-R5+ 21 K-Ri P-B5 22 R-K2 QR-K1
16P-KN3! BxR 23 N-B3 Q-R5 24 N-K4 N-N5 25
Alternatives: P-KR3 P-B6 26 R x P R x R 27
a) 16.. . B—B3 17 0—0—0! looks much N—B6 + K—B2 0—1, Spielmann-Colle
stronger than 17 N x B N—B7 + 18 Dortmund 1928.
K—K2 P x N, Casswell - McLardy, a3) 17 K-Ri B—Q3 18 R-B3 Q—N4
postal game 1962. 17 . . . B x R? 19 QR-KB1 QR-K1 20 Q-Ql NK4
then transposes back to the main line. 21 R—R3 N—N5 22 B x N P x B
b) 16.. . N/3-Q,4 17 B—KR6! and 23 R x R + R x R 24 R-Q3 Q-R4
Black is defenceless. 0—1, Pietzsch-Hort, Harrachov 1966).
17 0-0-0 B—KB3? b) 12P-Q,R3PxP 13P-Q5P-K5!
This is clearly too greedy. WilliamsCafferty, (an improvement on 13 . . . N—Q5 14
Blackpool 1971, now ended B x N P x B 15 .W x F, BrinckmannHussong,
18 N—B5 N/5—Q4 19 N xP+ B xN 1932) 14 PxN PxN 15
20 Q-R5+ K-K2 21 B—B5+ KxP BxPPxP 16BxPNxP 17BxR
22 B—R3+ 1—0. NxB 18 QxQ RxQ 19 RxB
Instead Black can try 17... Q—B3 P x R 20 B—B3 B—B4 and Black
e.g. 18PxBO—0 19B—KN5QxB!? has won a pawn, Kende-Williams,
20 R x Q R x R + with enormous Zutphen 1969.
complications. 12... BxP
13 Q,—Q,2 (15)
C242 This is the basic position of this
10 B-K2 oo variation, from which both sides
 Four Pawns 25

15
B x N 21 Q x B N-Q2 22 B—Q3
B
Q—Q3 23 Q—R7 + 1—0.
b) 13. . . Q—Q2, though rarely seen,
I IF is not as bad as 13 . . Q—K 1; after
14 QR—Q1 QR-Ql MatanovicAllan,
Lugano 1968, continued 15
PS% P-K.R3(?) Q-K1 16 Q-K1 R—Q2
17Q-N3Q-N3 18QxQBXQ
when White was unable to maintain
an advantage. 15 Q—B1, to meet
15 . . . B—N5 with 16 N—K4 and
15. . . Q-Kl with 16 B—B2 and Q-K3
as in Suetin-Rodrigucz above, is
develop their middlegame plans. stronger.
White’s first aim is to exchange the c)13...R—B2 14QR-Q1R—Q2 15
black-squared bishops, strengthening P-B5! N—Q4 16 NxN PxN (not
his grip on K5 with a positionally won 16...RxN 17B-QB4R-Q2 18N—
game. Black must prevent this at all N5) 17 N-KS B x N 18 R x B
costs, while increasing the pressure on B-B3 19 B-N4 R-B2 20 QR-KBI
the White queen pawn and preparing and White has much the better of it,
to meet a combinative breakthrough Lutikov-Bagirov, 27th USSR Ch
with P—Q5, which is frequently 1960.
‘White’s chief tactical resource. 14 QR—Q,1 QR—Q1
P—B5, which saddles White with a 15 Q—B1 (16)
permanently backward queen pawn, 16
can rarely be justified tactically and is usually a sign that White’s plans B
have gone wrong.
13... Q—K2! ra4
The move that best meets with the
requirements outlined above, as can
be seen from the alternatives:
PA
a) 13...Q—K1 14B—N5! (the
similarly motivated but slower 14 QR—Q1
QR-Qi 15 Q-B1 Q-N3 16 K-RI grj4g
K—Ri 17 B—B2(!) R—Q2 18 Q—K3
B—N5 19 B—R4!, Suetin-Rodriguez, 15... P—K.R3!
Havana 1969, also seem.s favourable for A logical move, designed to preserve
White) 14.. . R—Q1 15 B x B R x B the Black squared bishops.
16 Q—K3 and White’s plans are well It is an improvement on the older
advanced; Ljubojevic - Jakovljevski, 15. . . B—N3, e.g. 16 K—Rl and now:
Yugoslavia 1969, continued 16 a) 16.. . R—Q2? 17 P—Q5! (exploiting
N—N5? 17 QR-Q 1 Q-B 1 18 P-QR3 the fact that Black’s king is still on Ni)
N-B3 19 P-QN4 P-KR3 20 N-K4 17. . . NN5D 18 P-QR3 N-R3 19
26 Four Pawns

P-QN4 KR-Q1 20 B-Q4! P-B4 continued 17 P—KR3 (17 P—Q5! is

21 B x B P x B 22 N—KR4! with a still strong) 17 . . . K—R 1 18 P—QN3
winning attack, Bronstein-Rudakovsky, KR-Ql 19 P-B5 (19 P-Q5 now
USSR Ch 1945. merely loses a pawn) 19. . . N—Q4 20
b) 16. . . K—Ri 17 KR—K1 Q—B2 N x N R x N 21 B—QB4 R/4—Q2 22
18 R—B1 Q—K1? (better is 18. , . Q—K2 B—QN5 B—KS with great advantage
repeating moves, but White can improve to Black.
on KR—K1 with B—J’15! as the queen 15 . . . P—K4(?) attempts to solve
pawn cannot be taken) 19 B—N5 N—K2 Black’s problems ‘at a stroke’, but
20 B x B P x B 21 Q—B4 and Black is without success after 16 P—Q5 N—Q5
in difficulties, Domnitz-Westerinen, 17BxNPxB 18NxPQ—B4 19
Netanya 1969. Q—Q2, rather than 16 P x P N x P
Another idea here is the forthright 17NxNRxR l8BxRBxNwith
15 . . . R—Q,2, preparing to double equality, Gipslis-Mikenas, Riga 1971.
rooks on the queen file at once: Finally 15 . . . KR—Ki (designed to
a) 16 R—Q,2( ?)—probably too timid: restrain P—Q5) is likely to transpose
al) 16... KR—Qi 17 KR—Ql B—N5 back into one of the other lines at an
18 N-K4 BxN 19 NxB+ QxN early stage; Stein-Podgacts, Gori
20 B x B N x QP 21 B—N4 P—B4 and 1971, continued 16 R—B2 B—N3 17
White has insufficient compensation P-QN3 P-K4(?) (17. . . P-KR3 is
for the lost pawn, Lutikov-Gipslis, probably best) 18 P—Q5 P—KS 19 N—
USSR Ch 1969. KN5 N-Q5 20 B—N4 with complex
a2) 16. . . P—K4 (playable because after play favouring White.
17 P—Q5 Jf—Q5 the position of White’s 16 K—Ri K—Ri
queen and rook makes a capture on Q4 This precautionary move has become
impossible) 17 P x P N x KP 18 N x N almost automatic since Bronstein-Rudakovsky.
B x N 19 R x R N x R and Black
stands well, Ignatiev-Gipslis, USSR 17 P—KR3 B—R2
1971. A final preparation to answer P—QS
b) 16 P-KR3!? KR-Q1 17 P-KN4 by N—N5 without having to fear
B—N3 18 P—B5 N—Bl (the tactical N—Q4. 17 . . . R—Q2 18 P—Q5
justfi€ation of White’s play, as compared less clear.
with Kokkoris-Marovic below, lies in the 18 KR—K1
threats of P—J’15 with which Black is Or 18 B—Ni; Hecht-Timman,
harassed. Even SO 18 . . . J’f—Q4 is a Wijk aan Zee 1971, continued 18...
better t7y) 19 B—QN5 P—KR3 20 KR-K 1 19 KR-K 1 Q-B2 20 P-B5
B—B2BxP 21NxBRxN 22BxR N-Q4 21 B—N5 N/4—N5 22 P-R3
NxB 23B—Q3QxP 24BxB1—O, P—R3 23PxNPxB 24NxPNx
Matanovic-Klundt, Siegen 1970. NP 25 Q-QB4 N-B3 26 B-R2 R-Q2
c) 16 K—Ri prepares to meet 16 . . 27N—K5BxN 28BxBNxB 29
KR-Q1 with 17 P-Q5! In KokkorisMarovic, RxN B—B4
Athens 1970, Black tried to 18 . . Q—B2
transpose back into the main line 19 P-QN3 KR—K 1

with 16 . . . P—KR3, and the game 20 R-Bi

 FOUT Pawn.s 27

Filipowicz-Jansa, Budapest 1970, of continuing to manoeuvre White

went 20 B—Ni R-K2 21 R-B1 Q -Ki ventured on 22 P—Q5(?); the rest of
22 Q—B4 P—K4 23 P x P N x P 24 the game illustrates Black’s tactical
R x R Q x R 25 R—Q 1 Q—K1 with at chances very well; 22 . . . N—N5 23
least equality. N-Q4 PxP 24 B—R5 N-Q6! 25
20... Q—K2 RxN BxR 26 B—B2 BxN! 27
21 K.R—K1 BxR BxB 28 RxQ RxR 29
In Medina-Smyslov, Hastings 1969— Q-B4 R-K8 + 30 K-R2 B—N8 +
70, Black now declined to repeat 31 K-N3 R x B 32 P x P R-K6 +
moves with 21 . . . R—Q,2, and instead 33 K—N4 N—Q2 0—i.
2 MODERN VARIATION: 4.. . P-KN3

1 P-K4 N-KB3 7 N x P? (Robbing his sixth move of

2 P-KS N-Q4 any point.) 7. . . 0—0 8 0—0 P—QB4
3 P—Q4 P-Q3 with at least equality, PietrusiakHort,
4 N—KB3 P-KN3 Halle b1967.
b) 5 B—K2 B—N 2 6 0-4) 0-0 7 B—N5
17 P-KR3 8 P-QB4 P x B 9 P x N PN5
w 1ON-N5PxP 11BxNPQxP
with advantage to Black, Suer-Jansa,
Athens 1969.

A
5 N—N5
Formerly this move was regarded
as constituting almost a refutation of
Black’s fourth, but recently it has
emerged that Black has at least two
and possibly three adequate counters.
It is the realisation that this move is The point of White’s play is revealed
in fact playable which has been partly after 5. . . P—KR3? 6 N x P K x N
responsible for the resurgence of 7 Q—B3 + with advantage. The fact
interest in Alekhine’s Defence of late. that this has been known since 1930
Black hopes to position his king’s at the latest has not deterred various
bishop more actively than in the players of the Black pieces from
4... B—N5 line, though the theme of blundering into the line at regular
his play remains pressure on the intervals over the yeail. A recent
central dark squares. White has three example is Mihaljcisin-Fox; Bognor
possibilities at this stage: 1967, which continued 7 . . . N—B3
A: 5N-N5 8PxNPxP 9B—QB4+K--N2 10
B: 5B-QB4 N—B3 P—B3 11 B—K3 P—Q4 12 B—
C: 5P-B4 Q3 B—Q3 13 P-KN4! N-Q2 14 PKR4
5 B—K2 has been occasionally N—B 1 15 O-O—0 B—K3 16
played with various unmemorable N—K2! R—Bl 17 QR—Nl R--B2 18
ideas in mind, e.g.: N-N3BxN 19QxBP-QB4 20P-
a) 5 B—K2 B—N2 6 P-KR3 PxP N5! RPxP 21 RPxP R-B2 22
 Modern: 4. . . P-KV3 29

RxRKxR 23QPxPP-B4 24 has lost considerable time with his

Q-K5+ 1-0. king’s knight as compared with
Black, then, has three serious variation B, 5 B—QB4.
moves here: 6... P—KR3
Al: 5. . . P-QB3 7 N—K4
A2: 5. . . PxP No better is 7 KN—B3 B—N2 8 P—
A3: 5... P-KB3 B4 N-B2 9 B-B4 N-K3 10 B-N3
P x P 11 P x P 0-0 12 Q-K3 P-KB4!
and Black stands better, SanguinettiPanno,
Al Mar del Plata 1958. This line
5... P-QB3 illustrates the use Black can make of
Now 6 Q—B3 P—B3 7 P-K6 fails his QB2 square for knight manoeuvres.
to 7... Q—R4 + 8B—Q2 Q—N3 when7... B—N2
White’s position collapses. 8 P-KB4

6 Q—K2!? 8 P x P is met by . . . 0—0! when

Only thus can White attempt to White dare not take the pawn for
make something of his fifth move. fear of being overwhelmed on the
Less critical are the following: central files. The fact that this move
a) 6 P-QB4 N-B2 7 P xP (7 Q-B3 is impossible constitutçs a virtual
P—B3 8 P x BP P x P 9 N-K4 P-KB I refutation of ‘White’s play.
10 KN-B3 B-N2 11 P-Q5 0-0 8... 0-0

12 P-KR4 N-Q2 13 B—B4 N-K4 9 QN—B3 NxN

11 Q—J’13 Q—K1 and Black is clearly on 10 NxN P-QB4
top, Blatny-Kupka, Czechoslovakia 1969, 11 P-Q5
or 7 B-Q 3 B-N2 8 P-B4 P x P 9 If11PxBPPxKP 12PxPN-
QPxPN-K3 1ONxNBxN 11B- QB3 13 B—B4 Q—Q5 14 Q—K3 B—B4,
K3P-B3 12Q-B2N-Q2 130-00-0 Black stands better.
IIPxPPxP 15N-Q2R-Kl 16 11... P—KS!
QR-K1 B-Bl 17 N-B3 B-B2, 12B-K3 PxQP
Bogdanovic-Knezevic, Tugoslav Ch 1965, 13NxP N-B3
with an equal position.) 7 . . . Q x P We are following the game Bogdanovic-Kavalek,
8 N—QB3 B—N2 9 B—K3 0-0 10 Sarajevo 1967,
Q—Q2 B-B4 11 B-K2 P-N4 12 which continued 14 0—0—0 N—Q5 15
0-0 P x P 13 B—KB4 Q-Q1 14 B x P BxNPxB 16RxPPxP 17PxP
N—Q2 15 B—QN3 N—N3 16 N—B3 Q—N4 + 18 K-Ni R-K 1 19 P-KR4
N-K3 17 B-K3 Q-Q3, H WatzkaJansa, QxKP 2OQxQRxQ 21B—B4
Vrnjacka Banja 1967. B—B4 22 P-R4? R-QR1 23 PQN3
b) 6 B—QB4 B-N2 7 Q—K2 0-0 R x B! 24 P x R R-K7 25 RQ3
8 0-0 P-KR3 9 N-KB3 B-N5 10 BxR 26PxBRxP 27R—Kl
B x N. Schwarz considers this position P-KN4 28 R-K8+ K-R2 29 P x P
slightly better for White but it is PxP 30 R-K7 R-KB7 31 RxNP
difficult to concur with his judgement. P-N5 32 N-K3 P-N6 33 R-N5
Black has the bishop pair and pressure 0—1. A game which illustrates the
against White’s centre whereas White main theme of the opening, counter-
30 Modern: 4. . . P—KN3

attack against White’s over-extended since Black certainly stands rather

centre, very well indeed. better.

7... P-QB3
A2 8 P-K6
5... PxP The consistent continuation.

6PxP B—N2(18) Inferior are:

Inferior is 6 . . . N—QB3 7 B—N5 a) 8 Q,—K2 P—KR3 (less accurate is

P-KR3 8 P-QB4 P-QR3 9 B-R4 8. . . 0—0 9 0—0 P—KR3 10 N—KB3
P-N4 1OPxNNxP llNxPNxN B-N5 11 QN-Q2 Q-B2 12 P-KR3
12 B—B2 and Black has too many B x Y 13 N x B P—K3 though even here
weaknesses, Georgadze-Rasuvaev, Black has eqaualised, Vasyukov-Larsen,
USSR 1969. Moscow 1962) 9 N—KB3 B—N5 10
QN-Q2? P-QN4 11 B—N3 N-B5
18 12 Q—Bl Q-R4 13 P-B3 N-Q2 14
w B—B2 N x P and Black has safely
4” 4”
eaten a pawn, Altschuler-Berliner,
World Correspondence Ch 1967. This
game clearly reveals the advantages
of 8 . . . P—KR3 as against . . . 0—0.
Something of an improvement on
A.ltschuler’s play is 10 P—KR3 as in a
postal game between Gieselbiecht and
Samarian which continued 10 P—
KR3 BxN 11 PxB P-K3 12 PKR4
N—Q2 though White still
7 B—QB4 stands worse, having little compensation
The tactical justification of 5 for his shattered pawn structure.
P x P appears in the line 7 P—Q,B4 b) 8 Q-B3 0—0 9 N—B3 P—KR3 10
N-N5! 8QxQ+KxQ 9NxP+ KN-K4 N-Q2 11 B-N3 NxP,
K-K 1 10 N x R N-B7 + 11 K-Q 1 Bogdanovic-Fuderer, 9th Yugoslav
NxR 12 NxP PxN 13 B—Q3 Ch 1953 and White has little tangible
B—B4 14BxBPxB 15P-B4 compensation for the sacrificed pawn.
N-B3 16 N-R3 R-Ql + 17 B—Q2 c) 8 N—QB3 P-KR3 9 N-B3 (The
N—N5 and Black has succeeded in piece sacrifice 9 N x P is unsound. Stern-
rescuing his knight. White can also Berliner, World Correspondence Ch
try an immediate P—K6 here: e.g. 1967, continued9. .. KxN JONxN
7P-K6BxKP 8NxBPxN 9B— P x N 11 B x P + K-K1 12 P-K6
K2 N-QB3 10 P-QB3 Q-Q3 11 —12 Q—Q3 B-B4 13 Q--N5+ N-B3
0—0 0-0-0 12 N-QR3 KR-B1 13 14 QxP QxB! 15 QxR+ K-B2
N—B4 Q-B4 14 Q-N3, f4, 16 Q—N7 R—QNI—12 . . . R—B1 1
J anosevic-Trifunovic, 9th Yugoslav Q—N4 R—B3! and Black’s extra piece
Ch 1953. One feels that a player less quickly proved decisive) and now:
addicted to the quick draw than cl)9...B—N5 1ONxNPxN 11
13 12 BxQ N—B3 Trifunovic would have played on QxPQxQ
 Modern: 4. . . P—KN3 31

B x N + P x B 14 B-B4 QR-N1 and A31: 6P—QB4

according to ‘Archives’ Black has A32: 6PxBP
sufficient compensation for the sacrificed A33: 6B-QB4
pawn.
c2) 9... NxN 10 QxQ+ KxQ A3 1
11 PxN B—N5 12 B—B4 N—Q2 136 P-QB4 N-N3
7 P—K6!?
0—0—0 K—K1 14 KR-Kl BxN 15

PxB P-K3 and White’s temporary Less critical is 7 P x BP P x P 8 N—

initiative does not outweigh his KB3 B-N5 9 B—K2 B-N2 10 0-0
permanent pawn weaknesses. (Analy20 0-0 11 N-B3 N-B3 12 P-B5 PxP
sis by Boleslavsky.) 13PxPQxQ 14RxQN-Q2 15
8... BxKP B—K3 N/2—K4 16 N—Q5 R-B2 with
9NxB PxN an equal game, Krogius-Korchnoi,
10 N—Q,2 N—Q,2 Sochi 1958.

11 0-0 Q—N3 7 ... PxN

Here Penrose-Cafferty, British Ch 8 P-Q5 B—N2

1968, continued 12 Q—N4? N—K4 9 P-QR4 P-QR4

and, since the Black KP is taboo 10 P-R4! PxP

because of. . . N—KB5 winning the 11 RxP (20)

queen, White had to play 13 Q—K2
with a bad game. Better is the
immediate 12 Q—K2 with a balanced B
struggle in prospect. ‘White has the
bishop pair and the better pawn
structure while Black has active play
for his pieces, though his extra pawn
is of little relevance—except in so far
as he can lose it and still maintain p/A, p4, p4
material equality.

A3

5... P—KB3(19)
It is strange that this piece sacrifice
has only been played once, in the
game O’Kelly-Golombek, Amsterdam
1950, for Black has great difficulties
to overcome especially in practical
play. Golombek, in fact, felt compelled
to return the piece in an effort
to free his game with 11 . . . B x KP
PA PA, PA PA 12 P x B N—B3 13 Q—N4 Q-Bl 14 R—
R3 N—Q5 15 R—K3! (White fully
JLWA realises the importance of the pawn at K6..)
15.. .N-B7+ 16K-Ql N xR/K6+
32 Modern: 4. . . P-KV3

17 B x N K—Q 1 (Directed again.st the N2 11 N-Q6 + K-Q2 12 Q x Q +

threat of RxP) 18 B—Q4 BxB 19 K x Q 13 N x B + R x N and White
Q x B R-K1 20 P-B5, and White failed to make anything of the bishop
won. No better seems 11 . . . 0—4J 12 pair in the ensuing endgame, McKayBasman,
R-QR3 R-B3 13 QR—R3 P-R4 Lugano 1968.
14 P-KN4 Q-B1 15 B-K3 N-R3 7PxBP PxP
16 P x P P-N4 17 R—N4 N-B4 18 8 N-K4 P-KB4
N-Q2 B—R3 19 P—KB4! with advantage 9BxN PxB
to White. Clearly more 1OKN-B3 Q-K2+
practical experience is needed in this 11 B—K3 Q—KB2
interesting variation before a final 120-0 P-B5
evaluation can be made. 13 B—B1 N-B3
14 R-K1 + K-Q1
A32 15 N-R3 P-KN4
6PxBP PxP with an obscure situation from which
7 N—KB3 Black eventually emerged victorious,
An intriguing line suggested by Kupreitchik-Lutikov, USSR Ch.
Boleslavsky is 7 B—QB4 Q—K2 + 1969.
8K-Q2!B--R3! 9BxNBxN+ 10
K-B3 K-Ql 11 R-K1 Q-N2 with B an
obscure situation.
5B—Q,B4 (21)
7.. B—N2
8 B—K2 0-0
9 0-0 P-B3 21

10 P-B4 N-N3 B

11 N-B3 B-K3
12 P-Q5 B-B2 FAtfAtYf44
13 N—Q,4 Q,—Q,2
14 B—B4 N-R3
15 B—B3 QJi-B 1
16PxP PxP /AjAiFA
17 P—0343 with some advantage to
White, Penrose-Westerinen, Lugano
1968.
rjg

A33 Though this has on the whole

6 B-QB4 P-B3 proved less popular than 5 P—B4 and
Alternatives are: 5 N—N5, it is probably White’s most
a)6...PXN 7BxN P—K3 8 B-K4 dangerous weapon against Black’s
PxP 9PxPQxQ+ 10 KxQ B— system. Black now has a choice
N2 11QBxPBxP 12 N-B3 and between two moves which inaugurate
White stands better. clearly differentiated plans:
b)6...QPxP 7PxPP-B3 8PxP B1: 5.. .N—N3
P x P 9 Q-K2 + Q-K2 10 N-K4 B- B2: 5.. .P-QB3
 Modern. 4.. . P-KJV3 33

Bi 22
5... N—N3 W 14MW _
6 B-N3 B--N2 W&t
Black does best only to release the
pressure from White’s centre with
P—Q4 when he is compelled to do
so. White has two good continuations
against 6 ... P—Q4:
a) 7 P-QR4 P-QR4 8 N-B3 B-N2
9 0-0 0-0 10 R-K 1 B-N5 11 P-R3
B x N 12 Q x B P-K3 13 Q-N3 PQB4(?)
14 B—N5! Q-Q2 15 PxP which was played later than Keres-Jansa,
N-B 1 16 QR-N 1 Q-B3 17 N x P refrain.s from transposing with 9 P x P)
PxN 18BxPQxBP 19BxPR- 9 . . . N—B3 (a possible improvement may
R3 20 B x R N x B and the rook and be9. ..PXP when 1ONxPcan be met
many pawns triumphed over the two by...BxJf JJPxBQxQ J2RxQ
minor pieces, Haag-Kavalek, USSR B—K3 13 B x B P x B and the potential
1967. weakness of the doubled and isolated KPs
b) 7 QN-Q2 B—N2 8 N-B1 N-B3 is counterbalanced by Black’s active play
9 P—QB3 B—N5(?) 10 N—K3 with an against White’s KP.) 10 Q—K2 P—Q4
obvious plus for White, PfeifferRellstab, (as mentioned earlier, this solution to the
W. Germany 1950. problems of the position tends not to work
7 N—N5 when White has not reduced the flexibility
Recently Keres has tried other of his position by P—KB4.) 11 N—B3
moves in this position with success but B-K3 12 B-KB4 Q-Q2 13 QR-Ql
further practical experience is necessary R—R3 (Keres gives the immediate 13.
to establish the validity of his i-Q1 14Q-i5QxQ 15ixQP-
ideas: QB3 as limiting White to a small advantage.
a) 7 P-QR4 P-QR4 8 P x P BP x P Now he gradually squeezes his
(The point of Keres’ move is that whichever opponent.) 14 Q—Q2 N—Ql 15 B—R6
way Black recaptures he is left with some P-QB3 16 Q-B4 R-Rl 17 KR-K 1
weakness, either at QN4 as in the game P—B3 18 BxB KxB 19 R-K2
or more seriously on the king-side after N-B2? (B-Ni!) 20 QR-K1 QR-Kl
8.. . KP x P 9 B—N5. Possibly Black 21 Q-Q2 N-QR1 22 N-Ql P-N3
ought to play 8. . . Q xP.) 9 0—0 0—0 23 P-B3 N-B2 24 B-B2 P-QB4
10 N-B3 B-N5 11 N-QN5 N-B3 12 25 QPxP PxBP 26 P—QN4!
P-B3N-R2 13NxNRxN 14R- RPxP 27BPxPPxNP 28QxNP
K 1 Keres assesses this position as R-QN1 29 Q-Q4 N-Q1 30 B-Q3
equal and recommends 14 P—Q5 R-Kl 31 R-B2 B-B2 32 N-K3
instead as leading to a slight edge for R-N6? 33 N-N4! R x B 34 P x P +
White. (Keres-Jansa, Budapest 1970). P xP 35 Q xP+ K-B1 36 N/B-KS
b) 7 0-0 0—0 (22) and now: Q-K2 37 Q-R8 ± B-Ni 38 N-B6
bl) 8 P-QR4 P-QR4 9 P-R3 (It is Q—N2 39 N/B—Q7 + 1—0 KeresKupka,
interesting to note that Keres in this game, Kapfenberg 1970.
34 Modern: 4. . . P—KN3

b2) 8 Q-K2 B-N5 9 QN-Q2 N-B3 R—Kl N—R4! with equality. Once
and Black stands well. White should ‘White has released the tension in the
prevent. . . B—N5 as in Keres-Kupka centre, Black is not constrained to
above. meet P—QR4 by. . . P—QR4).
b3) 8 P-B3 B-N5 9 P-KR3 B x N 7... P—Q4
1OQxBPxP 11PxPBxP 12 Inferior are:
Q xP P-QB3 13 R-Q1 Q-B2 14 a)7...O—O 8P—K6
Q x Q B x Q with a considerable plus b) 7 .. . P-K3 8 P-KB4 N—B3 9 PQB3
for White, Damjanovic-Knezevic, B-Q2 10 0-0 N—K2 11 N-Q2
Skopje 1967. Better seems 11 . . N—B4 12 QN-K4 P-KR3 13 NB3
N-B3 when 12 P-K6 PxP 13 B—B3 14 B—B2 when White has
B+P+ K-Ri 14 Q-N3 Q—Q3 a dangerous king-side attack in
leaves a position in which Black’s prospect, Unzicker-Rellstab, Essen
good development ought to compensate 1948.
for the two bishops. 8 P—KB4 (23)
c) 7 Q,-K2 N-B3 8 P-B3 P x P 9 23
NxPNxN 1OPxNB-B4 11B-KB B
4 Q—Q2 12 N—R3 0—0 13 R—Q1
Q—Bl 14 N-N5 P-B4 15 0-0 P—B5
16 B-B2 B xB 17 Q xB Q-QB4 18
N—R3 B x P, Ivkov-Korchnoi, Yugoslavia
v. USSR, 1958.
d) 7 QrJ—Q2 (Very insipid.) 7 . .
0-0 8 P-KR3 P-QR4 9 P—QR4
(9 P—R3 maintains material equality
IIWA
but leaves Black in possession of the
initiative against ‘White’s slow play.)
9...PxP 1OPxPN—R3 110—0 a) 8 P-QR4 P-KB3 9 P x P P x P 10
N—B4 12 Q—K2 Q—K 1 13 N—K4 (13 Q-K2+ Q-K2 11 QxQ+ KxQ
Q—N5QxQ 14PxQB—Q2)13... 12 N-KB3 P—QR4 with equality,
N/3xP 14 BxN NxB and White Hasin-Smyslov, 29th USSR Ch
has little compensation for his pawn, 1961.
Spassky-Fischer, 13th game, World b) 8 B-K3 N-B3 9 N-QB3 P-B3 10
Ch. Match 1972. From this unimpressive P x P P x P 11 N-B3 N-R4 12 N-Q2
start a struggle of epic 0-0 13 Q-B3 N x B 14 RP xN B-B4
proportions ensued. Fischer’s victory 15 0-0-0 Q-Q2 16 P—R3 P—QR4
on the 75th move probably sealed the 17 P-KN4 B-K3 18 Q—N3 P-R5
fate of the match. 19PxPNxP 2ONxNRxNand
(Comparable with these lines is Black went on to win, ZhuravlievShmit,
Damjanovic-Parma, Ljubljana 1969, Team Ch of the Armed
which continued (after 4. . . P—KN3) Forces, USSR 1970.
5 P x P BP x P 6 B-QB4 N-N3 7 BN3 c) 8 0-0 0-0 9 R-Kl N-B3 10 PQB3
B—N2 8 P—QR4 P-Q4 9 0-0 0-0 P-KB3 11 P x P P x P 12 N-K6
10 P—R3 N-B3 11 P-B3 B-B4 12 B x N 13 R x B Q-Q2 14 R-K 1 QRtEl
 Modern. 4. . . P—KN3 35

K1 15 R x R R x R, Parma-. 19 B—B2 K—Bl 20 R-Nl Q-Kl 21

Gheorghiu, Skopje 1968. P-KN4! P-R4 22 P-R3 P x P 23
It emerges from these examples that P x P N-B5 24 K-N2 P-QN4 25
White must maintain his pawn on K5 R-KR1 RxR 26 QxR Q-Bl 27
if he hopes to retain any advantage Q-Kl R-R2 28 B—Q3 R-B2 29 NQR2
from the opening. B—Kl 30 B—R4 B—B3 31 B—B6
After 8 P—KB4 Black can either N—N3 32 Q—N4 Q—Q2 33 R—KR1
attempt to maintain a white square Q—K 1? (This loses instantly but even
blockade on the king-side or attack after the better 33. . . K—Ni 34 P—B 5!
White’s centre with P—KB3. More NP x P 35 Q-Q2 N-N3 36 B x B
practical experience is necessary K x B 37 Q- R6 + K-Ni 38 N-RI!
before it can be ascertained which Black is lost.) 34 R—R7 1—0, Rossolimo-Seidman,
plan is correct, though the latter plan New York 1968.
seems more trustworthy. As so often Black plays. . . P—KB3:
in Alekhine’s Defence it is impossible a)8...O-O 90—OP—KB3 1ON-KB3
to categorise a main line of play since B—N5 11 P-B3 N—B3 and now:
there are insufficient examples from al) 12B-B2Q-Q2 13QN-Q2PxP
master praxis. 14 BP x P N- Ql 15 P-KR3 B-B4 16
Black attempts to maintain a B x B R x B and chances are equal,
white square blockade: Bogdanovic-Parma, Sarajevo 1968.
a) 8 ... P-KR3 9 N-KB3 P-QR4 a2)12P-KR3BxN 13QxBQ-Q2
10 P—QR4 (Probably an unnecessary 14 N—Q2 P—B4 (An interesting decision,
weakening of the queen-side; cf. having exchanged off his white squared
Rossolimo-Seidman, given below) bishop Black goes into a position similar
and now: to those examined above in favourable
al) 10.. . 0-0 11 N—B3 B—N5 12 P— circumstances. The pawn on his KB4
R3 B x N 13 Q x B P—K3 14 N-K2 reduces White’s king-side attacking prospects
P—QB4 Tringov-Drimer, Bucharest and the K3 square is u.seful.) 15 B—
1968, with an unclear position. The B2 N-Ql 16 P-QN4 N-K3 17 NN3
game was eventually drawn. N-B5 18 B-Q3 K-Ri 19 P-QR4
a2)10...B—B4 11QN—Q2N—B3 12 P-N3 20 Q-K2 P-B4 and Black
N-B1 P-K3 13 N-K3 B-K5 14 PB3N-K2 stands no worse, Drimer-Jansa, Luhacovice
150—OBxN 16QxBP- 1969.

R4 17 P-N3 N-B4 18 P-R3 N x N b) 8. . . P-KB3 9 N-KB3 B—N5 10

19 B x N Q-Q2 20 B-QB2 B-B1 21 QN-Q2 P x P (ThLs move unnecessarily
P—N3 - K2, Matulovic-Ciocaltea, reduces Black’s options. He has nothing to
Reggio Emilia 1967, and again Black lose by delaying this move since White is
held his own. The game was drawn in hardly likely to play P x P himself. Now
46 moves. White can organise a king-side attack
b) 8. . . P—Q,R4 9 P—B3! N—R3 10 without having to reckon continually with
0-0 P-R3 11 N-KB3 P-QB4 12 NR4! the possibility of. . . P—KB4, blocking the
P x P 13 P x P N-N5 14 N-QB3 position.) 11 BP x P 0—0 12 P—KR3
P-K3 15 N-B3 B-Q2 16 P-QR3 NB3 BxN 13NxBN—B3 14P—B3Q--Q2
17 B-K3 N-K2 18 B-KB2 P-R5 15 O—O N—Q 1 16 Q—Ki N—K3 17 Q—
36 Modern: 4. . . P—KN3

N3 P-B4 18 P-KR4 P x P 19 P x P 10.. . R—K1 11 P—B4 N—B2 12 N—

K-Ri 20 P-R5 P x P 21 Q--R4 with B3 N-N3 13 P-KR3 B-K3 14 QK2
advantage to White, Ciocaltea-Orev, P-QR4 15 P-R3 N-N4! 16
Kizlovodsk 1968. NxNPxN 17P-Q5B-QB1 18P—
B5 P-R5 19 B-R2 N x P 20 R-Q 1
B2 B—K3 21 N-N5 Q-Q2 22 Q-K4
5.. P—QB3 QR-Q1 23 Q-R4 P-R3 24 N x B
60-0 B—N2 (24) QxN 25BxPBxP 26QR-N1
B—B3 27 B—N5 Q-B4 28 B x B N x B
24 29RxRRxR 3ORxPR-Q8+
w 31 K-R2 K-N2 32 R x P Q-K4 +
33 P-B4 QXQBP 34 B-Nl QN8
+ 0—1, Westerinen-Larsen, Match
Copenhagen 1969.
7... QxP
Now White has a choice between

P4 VA F%,F%. two moves both of which give him

excellent chances of an advantage:
8 R—Kl maintaining the option of
developing the QN at QB3 after
playing P-QB4, and 8 QN-Q2
7PxP! electing to seek play for his pieces
This move is clearly best here. while delaying P—QB4.
Attempts at occupying K5 instead of B21: 8R—K1
merely controlling the square are not B22: 8 QN-Q2
as dangerous: e.g.: An injudicious mixture of the two
a) 7 P-KR3 0-0 8Q-K2 B—B4 9 RK1PxP plans is not particularly effective:
1OPxPN-Q2 11B-KN5 8 P—KR3 (Probably unnecessary—see the
N/4—N3 12 B—N3 N-B4 13 N-B3 game Matulovic—Janosevic given below.)
B—K3 14 QR-Q1 Q-B2 15 N-Q4 P— 8...O—O 9B—N3B--B4 1OR-Kl
QR4 16 Q-K3 QR-Ql 17 NxB Q-Ql 11 QN—Q2 N—R3 12 N—K4
NxN 18BxNPxB 19BxPRxR N/3-B2 13P-B4N—B3 14NxN+
20 R x R Q x B 21 Q x N and now PxN!? 15P—Q5PxP 16PxPR-
21 . . . Q—N5 maintains the balance, K1 17 R x R N x R and the knight
Vogt-McKay, World Junior Ch, goes to Q3 maintaining equality,
Stockholm 1969. Kavalek-Kupka, Czechoslovakia 1968.
b)7R-K1O--O 8B-N3PxP 9NxP
N—Q2 10 N—KB3? (Grossly inconsistent. B21
having recaptured on K5 White 8 R—K1 0-0
should at lea.st maintain the piece there 9 B—KN5

when the position is similar to those 9 B—N3 B—N5 (?) 10 QN—Q2 N—

arising after 4 . . . P x P dealt with in Q2 11 P-KR3 B x N 12 N x B P—K3
Chapter 4. JVow he has a position similar 13 P-N3! P-QN4 14 P—QR4 P-N5
to the main line with several tempi kss.) 15 P-R5 KR-B 1 16 P-R4 P-QB4
 Modern. 4. . . P—KX3 37

17PxPNxP 18B—KB4Q--Q2 19 B22

N—K5 BxN 20 BxN QxB 21 8 QN—Q2
Q x Q P x Q 22 B x B with the better 9 B—N3 B-B4

endgame for White, Matulovic-Janosevic, 10 R—K1 N-Q2

Belgrade 1969. This illustrates 11N-B4 Q-B2
why White need not prevent B—N5 12 B—N5 KR—K 1
in some circumstances. 13 B—KR4!
9.. B-K3 A very strong idea which makes
10 B—N3 N-R3 Black’s position difficult, Other plans
11 P—B4 N-B3 are significantly weaker; see e.g. the
12 N—B3 (25) game Torre-McKay, World Junior
ch, Stockholm 1969, which diverged
25 from the above with 9 P—B3 N—Q2
B 10 R-K1 P-QR4 11 P-QR4 N/2-B3
‘tPA 12 N--K5 B—K3 13 N/2-B3 N-KN5
14B—Q2NxN 15NxNQR—Ql
16Q-B3P--QB4 l7PxPQxPwith
an excellent game for Black.
vivA. 13... Ofi—Q1
14Q-Q2 P-QN4
15B-N3 Q-B1
16 N—R5 N/Q2—B3
17P—B4 PxP
18 N xP(B4) and White clearly
We are following the game SmyslovHort, stands better. The game continued
Moscow v. Prague 1966, which 18 . . . N—K5 19 Q-R5 Q—N2 20
QR-Q 1 QR-B 1 21 N/4—K5 KR-Q 1 continued 12 . . . N—B2 13 Q—Q2
22R-QB1NxB 23NxQBP!witha KR—Q 1 14 B—B4 Q-Q2 15 QR-Q 1
decisive advantage for White, Littlewood-Timinan, N—R4 16 N- K5 Q—K 1 17 B—R6
B x B 18 Q x B N—B3 19 P—KR3 Hastings 1969—1970.
QR—Bl 20 P-QR4 Q—Bl 21 Q—K3
C P-QR4 22 N—K2 N-Q2 23 N—KB3
P—B3? (A blunder in a dffi cult 5 P-B4

The ‘positional’ continuation which position.) 24 N—B4 B--B2 25 Q x P

has proved the most popular line in 1—0. Against Smyslov’s plan Black
may do better to play an early.. . P— recent master praxis. Black’s resources,
QR4. If White meets this with however, seem fully adequate.
P-QR4 Black then has the N5 5... N-N3

square available after a later P— 6PxP

QB4 by White while P-QR3 on Again alternatives are dubious:

White’s part allows. . . P-R5 fixing a) 6 P-Q,R4 P-QR4 7 P x P BP x P
White’s queen-side pawns which 8 P—R3 B—N2 9 B—K2 N-B3 10
may one day be threatened by 0-0 0-0 11 N—B3 B—B4 12 N-QN5
Black’s KB. N—N5 13 B—Q2 B—B7 and Black is
38 Modern:4...P—KN3

well on top, Smejkal-Hort, Harrachov 28 Q—Q3 R x B, Walther-McKay,

1966. Lugano 1968.
b) 6 N-B3 B-N2 7 B-B4 B-N5 b) 7 B—K3 B-N2 8 Q—Q2 B--N5
8 P-KR3 B x N 9 Q x B N—B3 10 9 B-R6 0-0 10 P—KR4 P—K4! 11
0-0-0 0-0 11 P-KR4 Q-B 1 12 QK4 B x B K x B 12 P-R5 Q-K2 13
N—Q2 13 P-R5 QP x P 14 RP x P BP x P and White’s crude
PxKPN/2xP 15BxNNxB 16 attempts to mate have been succsfully
N-Q5 R-Kl 17 Q-R4 K-B1 18 repulsed, Mesing-Gipslis, Belgrade
P x P RP x P 19 P-B4 N-N5 20 BK2 1968.
N—B3 and Black stands well,
Maric-Despotovic, Ch, Yugoslavia, Cl
1968. 7 P-KR3 B-N2
6.. BPxP (26) 8 B—K2 (27)
An important alternative here is
26 8 B—K3 with the intention of delaying
w 141 _ _ B—K2. After 8. . . N—B3 9 N—B3 O—O.
VA I White can play either 10 R—Bl or
10 Q—Q2 both of which threaten
P—Q5 since. . . N—QR4 can now be
met by P—QN3. Pytel-Liebert, Debrecen
1969, continued 10 R—B 1 B—
B4(?) 11 P-Q5 N-K4 12 N x N
B x N 13 B-K2 B-N2 14 0-0 P-K4
15 P x Pe.p. B x P 16 P-QN3 Q-Q2
17 B-B3 KR-Q1 18 B-Q4 B x B 19
QxBP-Q4? 2OPxPBxQP 21
White must now decide between NxB NxN 22 KR-Ql N-N3 23
preventing ... B—KN5 with P—KR3 QxQ RxQ 24 RxR NxR 25
or allowing it. The two plans give BxPR-Nl 26R—B7N---N3 27B-.-B3
rise to distinctive positions. P—QR4 28 R—R7 1—0. Hence the
Cl: 7P-KR3 crucial lines are:
C2: 7B-K2 a) 10 R-B1 P-Q4 11 P—B5 N—B5 12
The following represent attempts BxNPxB 130-0B-B4(?)andnow
which are too naive to trouble Black: White has two good moves:
a) 7 N-B3 B-N5 8 P-KR3 B x N a 1) 14 P-QN3 B-Q6 15 R-K 1 N x P
9 Q x B N-B3 10 B—K3 B-N2 11 16NxNBxN l7PxPandWhite
Q-Ql 0-0 12 P-Q5 N—K4 13 B-Q4 has a clear edge in the endgame after
P-K3 14 P x P P x P 15 B-.-K2 QR5 the forced exchange of pieces, GipslisCiocaltea,
16 0-0 N-B6 + 17 B x N B x B Bucharest 1968.

18 Q-K2 N x P 19 B-N4 N-K4 a2) 14 Q-R4 B—Q6 (No better is

20 BxP+ K-Rl 21 B-Q5 R-B5 14.. .P—Klbecau.seofl5Q xBPPxP
22 N—N5 B-B4 23 QR—Bl R—Kl 16KR-Q1 when White probably winr the
24 K-Rl R-K2 25 P—QN4 R xNP QP but not 15PxPB-Q6 16KR—Q1
26 P-R3 R-KB5 27 B x P N-B5 Q—K1 17 P-QN3 N x P 18 N x N
 Mo&rn.’4...P—KJV3 39

BxN 19PxPQxQ 2ONxQKR- line with 13. . . B—B4 or play Schwarz’s

Q1 21 R-Q2 B-K5 22 N-B3 B x N stiggestion of 13... P—QN3. 13 Q—
23 R x B, , ytel-Gipslis, Lublin R4 is weaker of course as it leaves the
1969.) 15 KR—Ql and White since QP en prLse allowing Black instant
he has not needed to play B-K2 is a equality, at lea.st.) 13.. . Q—R4! 14
tempo up over line C 12 which is R-B 1 R-Q 1 15 0—0 and now with
given below. Better than 13 ... B—B4, 15 . . . B—K3 Black would have
however, is 13 . . . P—QN3 which stood slightly better, according to
seems to give Black at least an equal Polugaevsky.
game. 10... B—B4 (28)
b) 10 Q,-Q,2 P-Q4 11 P-B5 N-B5 Much inferior is 10 . . . P—Q4 11
12BxNPxB 130—Oandnownot P-B5 N-B5 12 P-QN3 N/5-R4 13
l3...N—N5 14B—R6B—B4 15 B—K3 and White is well on top,
B x B K x B 16 N-K2 with some Averbakh—Korchnoi, Four Teams
advantage to White, Alekhine-Yates, Match, Moscow, 1960.
1926, but 13 . . . B—B4 since, notwithstanding
the extra tempo, 28
White’s queen is much worse placed w
on Q2 than it would be on QR4. tkt
13 . . . P—N3 is also probably adequate.

PA Pd4
27
B

‘ttt

Cli: 11 P—QN3
C12. 11 B—K3
C13: 11 B—B4

_ rg cli
11 P-QN3
8... 0—0 White cannot really afford to delay
9 N—B3 N—B3 his development with this move,
100—0 having already wasted a tempo with
Less accurate is 10 B—K3 which P-KR3.
gives Black the possibility of playing 11 P-Q4!
an immediate 10. . . P—Q4. PetkevicZhukhovitsky, 12 P-B5 N-Q2
USSR 1969, continued 13 B—N2
11 P-B5 N-B5 12 BxN PxB 13 Directed against the threat of
P—QN3(?) (Better is 13 0—0 when N x BP but this is a passive square
Black can either transpose into 11w main for the bishop.
40 Modern: 4. . . P—KN3

13... B-K5 N5 B-N2 and White has insufficient

14 N—QR4 P—K4! compensation for the exchange, Janosevic-Hort,
We are following the game MinevBobotsov, Skopje 1967. This line
Varna 1968. Black’s fourteenth constitutes the tactical justification of
is an improvement on agreeing Black’s . . . N—B5.
a draw, which was Hort’s solution to b) 13 Q-N3 N/3—R4 14 Q-N4 P-N3
the problems of the opening against 15 B-N5 P-KR3 16 BxN NxB
Padevsky earlier in the year at 17 B-R4 P-KN4 18 B-N3 P-QR4
Beverwijk. Minev-Bobotsov continued 19Q-N5P xP 2OPxPP-K3 21P-
15 PxP N/2 xKP 16 NxN NxN QR4 R-B1 22 P-B6 Q-K2 23 KR-
17 P-B3 B-B4 18 P-B4(?) N-B3 Kl Q—N5 24 Q—N7 N—Q3 25 QxQ
19 BxB KxB 20 B—B3 Q-B3 21 PxQ 26 N xQP PxN 27 BxN
Q-Q2 (The QP is taboo because of KR-Ql 28 BxP BxNP 29 B—R5
...QR—Q1) 21...QR—Q 1 22QR— R-Q3 30 P-B7 R-R3 31 B—N4
QI P—Q5 23 P—KN4(?) B—K3 24 BxR 32 RxB RxBP 33 N-Q4
N—N2 B—Q4 25 N—Q3 BxB 26 B—Q2 0—1, Mihaljcisin-Bobotsov,
RxB KR-K1 27 R-K1 P-N3 28 Athens 1968.
P-N4 PxP 29 PxP RxR+ 30 13... PxB

QxR R—Q2 31 R—B2 Q—R5 32 14 Q—R4 B—Q6

B3 Q xQ+ 33 NxQ K-B3 34 Andnotl4...NxP 15NxN
N—Q3 K—K3 35 P-B5 + K-Q4 36 B x N 16 KR-Q 1 B-Q6 17 R x B!
PxP BPxP 37 R-B6 N-K4 38 winning. 14... P—K4 in order, after
NxN KxN 39 P-B6 KxR 40 15 P x P, to transpose into C 121
P x R K—K2 0—1. A nice example of below without having to reckon with
the virtues of centralisation. 16 P—Q5 is rendered doubtful by 15
Q x P P x P 16 KR—Q 1 when Black
has difficulty holding the QP.
C12 15 KR—Q1 (29)
11 B—K3 P-Q4
12 P-B5 29
Obviously best— 12 P x P? N x P/ B
Q4 13 N x N Q x N, Garcia-Jansa, _I
Moscow 1968, and Black won.
12... N—B5
The only consistent continuation.
Inferior is 12 . . . N—B1 since in this
line the knight does not have the
KB4 square at its disposal
13BxN

Again alternatives give Black an

excellent game:
a) 13 B-B1 P-QN3 14 P-KN4 B-B1 C121. 15...P—K4
15P-QN3PxP 16PxNBPxP 17 C122: 15. . . P—B4
QNxPP-Q6 18QxPBxR 19B- C123. 15... Q—R4
 Modern: 4. . . P-KN3 41

C121 C122
15.. P—K4 15... P—B4
16 P—Q,5! A bold attempt to solve the prob.lems
The move is much better than 16 of a very sharp position. After
P x P after which Black is probably this move, if ‘White succeeds in
allright;e.g.16PxPNxP 17NxN quelling the activity of Black’s pieces,
B xN 18 QR—B1 and now not he will certainly win by taking advantage
.18 ... Q—B3 19 N—Q5 Q—Ql 20of the gaping holes Black has
N-N4BxP 21NxBPxN 22R-N1 created in his position.
Q-B3 23 RxP P-N3 24 R—Q6 16 P—Q5 (30)
Q—N2 25 P-B6 when White is
winning, Fuchs-Radovici, Berlin 1968, 30

but instead eitheras. giving

by Hort . . Q—KBlack
1 recommended
a BI
slight edge or . . . P—KM as in Vj4J 941
Grabschewski-Jansa, Lugano 1968,
which continued 19 B—R6 R—K 1 20
P—QN3 B x N 21 QR x B Q-B3
22 R/l-QB1 R-K7 (R-K2 may be
better) 23 Q—Q7 R—Q 1 24 Q—B7 and
now 24 ... Q—Q5 25 B—K3 Q—Q2
P%L FILt
maintains the balance. g
After 16 P—Q5 Black has a choice
of three moves all of which fail to And now:

solve his problems: a) 16 ... P—B5 17 BxP! N—Q5!

a) 16 . . . N—Q5 (recommended by (This is much better than 17. . . R xB
Boleslavsky as adequate) 17 N—K 1! 18 R x B when Black is ‘in angustiis’.)
and Black is lost. A game TimmanWilliams, 18NxNBxN 19RxBRxB 20
Zutphen 1969, continued R x B!? (Possibly 20 N—K2 is better—
17...P-QN4 18NxPNxN 19 e.g. 20. . . B xP+ 21 K-Ri R—R5
Q x N R—N 1 20 Q-R6! with a 22 R-KB3 B x P 23 N-B4 R-B1 24
winning position. QR—KB1 or 21.. R-K5 22 R-KB3!
b) 16.. . N—K2 17 P—Q6 N—B4 18 RxJ’f 23QxBP) 20...RxR 21
N-Kl! NxB 19 PxN P-N3 20 R-Q1 RxR 22 QXR and now
NxB PxN 21 RxP PxP 22 instead of 22 . . . Q—R4, MaederEales,
P—Q7 with a manifest advantage, Southport 1969, 22 . . . R—B1
Osnos-Suetin, USSR 1966. is completely adequate for Black—
c)16...P-K5 17PxNPxN e.g. 23 Q—Q4 P—QN3 24 P—Q6
18PxNPR-Nl 19P-B6PxP (P—B6? R x P) 24. . R x P 30 N—K4
20 B x P B-K4 (...Q—R5 21 R x and now. . . P x P draws.
B!) 21 BxR BxB 22 RxB b) 16.. . N--K4 17 N—Q4 P—B5 18
P x R 23 K x P and the passed B x P (The immediate 18 J’[—K6 allows
pawns must eventually exert a decisive Blacktotryi8. . .PxB 19NxQPx
effect. P +20 K—R 1 QJ? x N with an obscure
42 Modern: 4. . . P—KN3

position—e.g. 21 R—KBJ P—KN4!) inaugurates a completely different

18 . . . R x B 19 N—K6 Q—N 1 20 plan from that introduced by 11 B—
NxRN-B6+ 21PxNQxN 22 K3. White hopes to maintain the
RxBQ-N4+ 23K-B1PxR 24 tension in the centre for as long as
R-Q1 BxN 25 PxB QxP 26 possible, thus limiting Black’s chances
Q—N3 Q-B2 27 RxP and it is of counterplay.
difficult for White to exploit his 11... P—KR3!
extra pawn, Zuidema-Timman, Dutch This threatens.. . P-K4 which is
Ch 1969. Timman in fact secured the not playable immediately because of
half point. 12 B—N5 and whether Black moves
his queen or plays. . . P—KB3 a later
C123 P—B5 on White’s part is likely to be
15... Q—R4 very strong. Also weak is 11 . . . P—Q4
Black’s safest continuation. 12 P—B5 N-B5 13 P-QN3 N/5—R4
16QxQ NxQ 14 R—Bl P-N3 15 PxP PxP 16
17 N—K1 Q—Q2 N-N2 17 N-N5 R-B1 18
Best: alternatives promise little, R-B3 Q-Q2 19 KR-B1 P-B3 20
e.g. 17 P—QN3 B—B7 18 R-Q2 P x P B—B7! and Black is lost, KarpovMcKay,
19PxPNxP 2ORxBNxR 21 Stockholm 1969.
R-R2 N-N6 22 R-R3 N x P 23 12 B—K3 (31)
P xN KR—Q1 and Black with rook

and two pawns against two minor 31 IFAIPIJ

pieces is OK. B
17... B—B4
Also possible is 17. . . P—K4!? 18
PxPBxP19NxBPxN2ORxP
N—B5 21 N—Q 1 KR—Q 1 and Black’s •PAPAIPA
pressure proved sufficient to draw,
Pritchett-Williams, London 1970.
18 N—Q,5 N—B3
19 P-KN4 B—Q6
2ONxB PxN
21RxP OJ-Q1
22 N—B3 N—K4 Now that Black has been persuaded
23R-Q1 N-B6+ to weaken himself; White retreats in
24K—B1 NxP order to meet . . . P—K4 with P—Q5.
25 QR—B1 and here a draw was Alternatives are:
agreed, Bouwmeester-Blau, Adelboden a) 12 R-B1 P-K4 13 B—K3 P-K5
1969. 14 N-Q2 R-K 1 15 N-N 3 (15 P-AWl
Q—R5I6PxBPxP!) 15...P-Q4
C13 16 P x P N-N5! 17 Q-Q2 N/S x QP
11 B-B4 18 N-BS NxB 19 PxN Q-N4 20
This move, played by the young K-Rl QR-Ql 21 R-QB2 Q-N6 22
Soviet grandmaster, Anatoly Karpov, Q-Bl N—Q4 23 N x N R x N 24 B-
 Modern:4...P—KN3 43

N5 R-QB1 25 B-R4 P-N3 26 quickly, Stean-Timman, Islington

NxPBxN 27RxR+K-R2 28 1970.
R-QB2 R—KR4 29 K-Ni R x P 30 13... PxP

RxP Q-R7+ 31 K—Bl Q-R8+ 14PxP R—B1

32 K—K2 Q x P + 33 R-B2 Q -N5 + Probably inferior is 14 . . . N--R4

34 K—Q2 R—R8 0—i, KarpovVaganian, 15 P—B5 N/3—B5 16 B-B4 P—KN
Leningrad 1969. 17 B-N3 Q-Q2 18 R-K1! P-N3 19
b) 12 Q—Q2 P—N4! (.. . K—R2 is too PxP PxP 20 N—KS! NxN 21
slow. White threatens P—Q5 now that he P x N and now Black should play
canmeet...Y’f—R4byP—QN3) 13 B— 21 . . . KR Qi when White only has a
K3 P-Q4 14 P-B5 N-B5 15 B x N slight edge. Instead Karpov-Neckar,
PxB 16P-Q5N-N5 17 P—KR4 BQ6 Stockholm 1969, continued 21
18PxP!PxP 19BxPNxQP! Q—K3 22 B-B3 QR-Qi 23 B—Q5
(The bishop on Q6 is needed to protect the Q-B1 24 Q—B3 P-K3 25 B—K4
kingsi&) 20 KR—K 1 P--B3 21 B—R6 N—B5 26 QR-B1 N—Q7 27 Q-R5
NxN 22BxBKxB 23QxNR- Q-R3 28 B x B P x B 29 P—KR4
Ri 24 N—Q4 Adorjan-Eales, P—B5 30 B-R2 Q—Q6 31 P x P Q—B4
Groningen 1970. Black can play 32 N—K2 P—B6 33 N—N3 Q xNP 34
K-B2 and meet N—K6 with QxQ PxQ 35 N—B5 PxP 36
Q—Q4 threatening. . . Q—KR4. K x P R—Q6? 37 N-K7 + K—R2
12... P-.-Q4 38 R—KR1 and suddenly White has a
13 P—QN3 winning attack.
This constitutes Karpov’s idea. 15R-B1 N—R4

White can of course play P—B5 here 16 P-B5 N/3--B5

almost transposing into C12, a possibility 17 B—B4 and now according to
which requires further practical Boleslavsky 17 . . . P—K4! equalises.
tests in order to ascertain whether Karpov-Vaganian, Leningrad 1969,
the move.. . P—KR3 is weakening or continued 17 . . . P—KN4 18 B—N3
advantageous for Black. The only Q—Q2 19 B x N(?) N x B 20 Q-K2
example that has occurred so far is the Q—K3 21 KR—K 1 Q x Q 22 R x Q
following: 13 P—B5 N—B5 14 B x N P-K3 23 N-K4 B x N 24 R x B NR4
P x B 15 Q-R4 B—Q6 16 KR-Q 1 25 B—KS KR—Qi and Black
Q—R4 17 Q x Q N x Q 18 N—K 1 stands well. However, White would
B-B4 19 R—Q2 P—KN4 20 QR-Ql do better to play 19 R—Ki followed
KR-Qi 21 P—Q5 R-Q2 22 N—B2 by N—KS as in the Karpov-Neckar
QR-Qi 23 N-N4 P-K3 24 P—N4 game given above with some advantage.
B-Q6 25 P-Q6 R—QB1 26 N—R4
B—K5 27 B-Q4 N—B3 28 B x B K x B
29 R—Ki P-B4 30 N x N R x N 31
R—K3 K—B2 32 P—B3 B-Q6 33 P—
7 B—K.2 (32)
N4 R—R3 34 N—B3 R—R6 35 N—N5
7.. B—N2
80-0
R-R5 36 P—R3 P—R3 37 N—Q4 0-0
R x RP 38 N x KP R-R8 + 39 K-B2 9 B—K3
P-B5 40 R—K5 K-B3 and Black won Attempts have been made by
44 Modern:4...P—KN3

32 9.. N—B3 (33)

± 33144i’iP)A

rA,A,
42i
White to fianchetto his queen’s 1Lçjjg
bishop but these have met with little
success, e.g. Black ought to delay B—N5 until
9P—QN3N--B3 10 B—N211 B—N5
White has committed his QN to
P—KR3 BxN 12 BxB
13 P—Q4
QB3. Hence 9. . . B—N5 is inferior,
P—B5 N—B 1 14 N—R3 P-K3 15 N—B2 e.g. 9. . . B—N5 10 QN—Q2! N—
P—N3 16 P-QN4 P x P 17 NP x P 11 P-Q5 N—K4 12 N x N B x B 13
Q—R4 18 P—R3 R—N 1 (Exposing the Q x B B x N 14 N—B3 B-B3 15 QR—
disadvantages of White’s set-up. What Bl P—QR4 16 N—Q4 N-Q2 17
folThws illustrates the sort of advantage KR—Q1 and White has a durable
Black is likely to get against indifferent spatial advantage, Vasyukov-Orev,
play on Whitis part.) 19 N—N4 N/i— Kislovodsk 1968.
1(2 20 B-B3 Q—Q1 21 R-R2 P—Now White must decide where to
QR4 22 N x N N x N 23 Q-.R4 develop his QN:
Q—K1 24 Q—Q1 Q—Q2 25 R—Q2 C21: 10 QN—Q2
R—N2 26 Q—R1 KR-Ni 27 B—Qi C22: 1ON—B3
R-N8 28 Q—R2 B-R3 29 R-K2
N—K2 30 B x P Q—N4 31 B-N4 C21
R—B8 32 B—Q2 RxB 33 BxB 10 QJ%1—Q,2 (34)

R x R + 34 K x R Q—Q6 35 Q—B2 34
QxQP 36 B-B1 R-B1 37 B-N2
B
Q x P 38 Q—Q2 R—N1 39 Q—B4
N—B3 40Q—B6 P—Q5 41 Q-B4 P-Q6
42 R—Q2 Q—K4 43 Q x Q N x Q 44
B—B1 R—N8 0—i, Pollak-Jansa, Harrachov
1969.
P4ftPj PAPA
No improvement onthe above is
VAN.
Q—Q,2 P—K 3 11 12 N—R3 P-Q4
KR—Q1 PxP 13 14 NxP NxN
PxN Q—N3 15 16 QR—N1 B-B4
B-Q3 BxB 17 18 QxB KR—Q1
with advantage to Black, KarpovVaganian, This move is only really effective if
USSR 1969. Black now moves his QB. In other
 Modern:4...P—KN3 45

lines the knight is not very well a2)15...P—Q,R4 16 P—QR3 BxB

placed on Q2. Q-B2 N—B5 19 17RxBN—Q6 18
10... P—Q4(!) PxPe.p. PxP R—K4 P—K4 20
Other moves are probably not as 21 P-KN3 P-Q4 22 P x P P x P 23
good: RxNBxR 24PxBRxP 25B—K5
a) 10.. . B—B4 11 P—Q5 N—N5 12 R—QB1 26 Q—Q3 R-KB4 27 B-N3
B-Q4 B-R3 13 B-B3! B-B7 14 Q— N-B5 and the two minor pieces
B 1 B-Q6 15 R—K 1 and now: ought to prove stronger than the
al)15...BxB 16RxBN—Q6 17 rook, though they did not in the
Q—B2 N—B5 18 R—K4 Q—Q2 19 game, Gipslis-Vasyukov, Leningrad
QR-Kl QR-Kl 20 P-KN3 N—R4 1968.
21 R—R4 B—N2 22 B x B N x B b) 10.. . B—N5. This transposes into
(Better is K x B) 23 N—N5 N—B4 24 the note to Black’s bninth and should
R x RP! P-KB3 25 R-R6! K-N2 be avoided.
(or 25.. . P x N 26 R x P + K—Ri— c) 10... P—K4 11 PxP (Better than
26. . . N—N2 27 R/1—K6 R—B3 28 11 P—Q5N—Q5!) 11 . . . PxP 12
N—B3!—27 R/1—K6 R—B2 28 R x NP B-B5 R-K1 13 N-K4 and now:
QR-KB1 29 Q x N!) 26 R x P +! ci) 13...Q,xQ, 14QRxQN—Q5
(35). 15NxNPxN 16B—B3NxP 17
B x P N x P and Black should hold
35 his own in the ensuing complications,
B Kiovan-Ovanesian, Tallinn 1968.
c2) 13...N-.-Q,5 14 R—Bl Q—B2
15 B-R3 B-K3 16 N x N P x N 17
N-Q6 KR-Q1 18 P-B5 N—Q4 19
B-B3 QR-N1 20 Q—R4 P-R3 21
3
KR-Q1 N—K2 22 P—QN3 N-B4 23
0% B-K4 N x N 24 P x N Q-Q2 25 QN4
with advantage to White, KimKivian,
USSR Schoolboys Spartakiad
1971.
d) 10. . . P—K3. A suggestion of Hort
26. . . K x R 27 N—K6 R—KR 1 28 which has never been played in a
P-KN4 K-B2 29 Q xN QR-KN1 master game.
30 N-K4 R-R3 31 P-N3 R/3-N3 11 P-B5 N-Q2
32 Q—R5 R/1—N2 33 N—N3 K—Nl 12 Q—N3 P-K4!
34NxRRxN 35N-B5R-N4 36 Exploiting the fact that the knight
NxP+ K-N2 37 N-B5+ RxN on Q2 exerts little pressure on the
38 Q xR Q-KB2 39 P-N5 N-Q2 centre.
40P-N6QxP+ 41 QxQ+ KXQ 13PxP
42 R-K7 N-B4 43 P-N4 N-Q6 44 Or 13 QxQP PxP f4 NxP
P-B5 P x P 45 P-Q6 N-K4 46 N x N 15 B x N N x P with an equal
R x P 1-0, Jocha-Segal, Rumania game.
1968. 13... N/2xKP
46 Modern: 4.. . P—KN3

14NxN NxN Against this plan White must act fast

15 KR—Q1 N—N5 on the Queen’s wing where he has a
16 B xN BxB viable pawn majority. Hence, alternatives
17 P-B3 B-K3 are inferior:

18 QxP R—N 1 a) 13 Q-Q2 P-K3 14 QR-Q1 N/iK2

19 QxP RxP 15 N-KR4 B x B 16 N x B
20 N—N3 P--N3! (This move is always a possibility
Better is 20 P—B6. Now Black has a and is especially strong where White does
strong attack. The game NicevskyJansa, not have P--QN5 available as a reply.
Athens 1969, continued 20... Since, in this position, 17 P x P allows
Q-R5 21 Q-B7 B-R3 22 B—Q4 the QP to come under great pressure,
B—B5 23QxBRxP+ 24KxR White must try to support QB5.) 17 R—
B-R6 + 25 K-Ni Q x Q 26 R-Q2 B 1 R-B1 18 P—QN4 P x P 19 R x P
R-Kl 27 P—B6 Q x P 28 P-B7 R-K5 (QPxP P—Q5 and NPxP N—R4 are
0—1. no better.) 19 . . . Q—N3 20 P—QR3
N-Ni! 21 B-N5 P-B3 22 B-K3
N-Q2 23 RxR RxR 24 R-B1
C22
Q-R3 25 R x R N x R, KuijpersKavalek,
10 N-B3! B—N5
Beverwijk 1967. White’s
11 P--QN3 P-Q4
A little played but interesting weak QP and white squares give
alternative is 11 . . . P—K4. Schwarz Black a strategically won game.
now gives 12 P—Q5 N—K2 13 R—B 1 b) 13 P—KR3(?) (Since Black usually
finds himself, compelled to take off the
as slightly better for ‘White but 12
B x N 13 B x B N—Q5 needs examination. knight, 13 P—KR3 wastes a tempo.) 13
B x N 14 B x B P-K3 15 Q—Q2
(No better is 15 P—QN4 P—QR3 16
12 P-B5 N-B1
P—N5PxP 17NxNPN/1-K2 18
13 P—N4! (36)
B-N5 Q-R4 19 B x N N x B 20
Q—Q3 N-B3 21 P-QR4 P-N3 22
36 P x P Q x NP with advantage to Black,
B KTA4 ZPA Toran-Korchnoi, Uppsala 1958.) 15.
— 24 __ N/l—K2 (Inferior is 15 . . . P--KR3
16 N—K2 K-R2 17 P—QN4 P-R3
18 P-QR4 N/ 1 -K2 19 P-N5 P x P
PA. 20 P xP N-RI 21 Q—B3 N-B4 22
R-R4! N-B5 23 R x N P x R 24
B x P with more than enough compensation
for the exchange, Espig- Votrouba, Tbbs
1968.) 16 N—N5 N—B4 17 B—N4 P—
QR3 18 B x N P x N 19 B-B2 and
now, according to Fischer, Black
Black, having fixed White’s QP should play 19. . . P—N5 4brith a won
now plans to attack it by P—K3 and game rather than 19. . . R—R6 which
N/i -K2--B4 coupled with B x N. allowed 20 P—N4! with an unclear
 Modern: 4. . . P—KN3 47

position, Browne-Fischer, RovinjVAt N/lxP 23NxNNxN 24B-B7

Zagreb 1970. QxP 25QxQBxQ 26KR-Ql
13... P—QR3 R—R2 27 QR-Bl N-Ri 28 B-Q6
1f13...NxP 14R—N1N--R3 R—Ql 29 R—B6 R/2—Q2 30 B-B4
15 B x N! with advantage. Not as B—N2 31 P—N6 and the game was
good as the text is the immediate agreed a draw on the fifty-first move.
13 . . . P--K3. A game HubnerRocha, 16P—N5 BxN

Lugano 1968, continued 14 P-N5 The immediate 16. . . N—R4 is met

N—R4 15 N--Q2 (Boleslavsky by 17 N—K5! (Boleslavsky).

recommends 15 N—K5 as good also.) 17 B xB (37)
15...BxB16NxBN—K217N--
KN3 R—K1 18 Q-B2 R—QB1 19 37
Q—B3 N—B5 20 Q—Q3 N x B B21
QxN N—B4(?) 22 NxN KPxN VA
23 Q—Q3 and ‘White stands better. I VA WA4
14 R—N1
Again the most consistent continuation.
Westerinen-Hort, Leningrad
1967, went 14 Q—Q2 P—K3 15
KR—Q 1 N/i —K2 16 N—K 1 B x B
17 N x B N-B4 18 N-KB3 P-R3
19 P—QR4 R—K1 20 P-N5 N—R4 21
Q-B3 N-B5 22 N—Q2 N/5 x B 23
P x N P-K4 24 N-KB 1 RP x P 25 C221: 17. . . P xP
RPxP RxR 26 QxR 1?xP 27 C222: 17. . N—R4
NxPNxP 28NxNRxN 29 Q— The difference between these moves
B1 Q-K2 30 K—B2 R—K5 31 N—N3 lies simply in the greater flexibility of
Q-R5 + 32 K—Ni B-K4 33 P—R3 17.. .N—R4.
Q—N6 0—1. An example of all Black’s
ideas in this line working simultaneously. C221
17... PxP
14... P—KS 18PxP N—R4

14... B xN has been played here 19 B—N5 P-R3

but this transposes into lines given 2OBxN QxB

below. We are following the games, Janosevic-Kavalek,
15 P—QR4 N/1—K2 Sarajevo 1967 and
Another idea is 15 . . . P—N3!? 16 Janosevic-Gheorghiu, Skopje 1968. In
P-N5 P x NP 17 RP x P N—R4 and the earlier game Janosevic tried 21
since 18 P—B6 merely hands Black the N—R4 N-B5 22 R-N4 R-R4 23 B—
d6 square for a knight, Black is not 1(2 R—Q 1 24 P—N6 Q—R5 but Black
losing. The game janosevic-Knezevic, stood better. In the later game against
Kraljevo 1967, continued 18 N— Gheorghiu he was no more successful
QR4 N-B5 19 B—B4 B x N 20 B x B with 21 Q—Q3 Q-N4 22 R—N4 N—B5
Q-R5 21 P—N3 Q—B3 22 P x P 23RxN!?PxR 24QxBPQR—Ql
48 Mo&rn: 4. . . P—KN3

25 R-.-Q1 Q—B5 and White failed to 21PxP R—K1

demonstrate sufficient compensation 22 P--N6 (38)
for the exchange. Here the game Klovan-Bagirov,
36th USSR Ch 1969, was agreed
C222 drawn. The position, however, has
17 N—R4 now become very sharp as an analysis
18 B—K2 N-B4 by Boleslavsky demonstrates. Black
19 Q-Q2 must continue with 22 . . . P—K4!,
Inferior is 19 N--R2 P xP 20 P xP since White is threatening N—N5—B7,
N—B5 21 B x N P x B 22 Q-B2 B x P and after 23 N--N5 play 23. . . N x P
23 B x B Q x B 24 P-B6 and White 24 B x N (24 N—B7 N/4-B3 is adequate
managed to draw by eliminating the forBiack) 24...PxB 25N—B7N—B5
pawns on the queen’s wing, ZuidemaJansa, 26 B x N P x B with a position which
Vrnjacka Banja 1967. Boleslavsky assesses as obscure. Black’s
19 P—R3 central passed pawns would seem
20 KR—Q,1 PxP sufficient compensation for the exchange
and for any play White can
38 achieve on the left flank. Good for
B 1% White, however, is 23. . . P x P 24 B—
V4.tP4. B4 N—B5 25 Q-B2 N-R6 26 N xN
R x N 27 B-B7 Q—N4 28 B-N5
R—B6 29 Q-R2 N-R5 30 B-N3
4’. R—B1 31 P—B6.

Variation C22 can be compared

with the very similar lines of play
which arise in the 4. . . B—N5 lines of
p_A. the Modern Variation.
4gpf4grj
3 MODERN VARIATION: 4.. . B—N5

Formerly, when 4 . . . P—KN3 was 5 B—Q,B4(?) P—K3 is not a

held to be inferior because of 5 N—N5, promising idea. Akopyan-Alburt,
this move was regarded as Black’s Kiev 1970, continued 6 P--KR3 B-.-R4
only reliable reply to the Modern 7 Q-K2 N-N3 8 B-N3 N—B3 9 P—
System. More recently, the theory of N4 B-N3 10 N—B3 P x P 11 P x P
4. . . B—N5 (especially the lines arising N—Q5 12 NxN QxN 13 B—K3
from 5 B--K2 P—K3) has gained as Q-Q2 14 R—Ql Q-B3 15 P—B3 B—
much from the revival of Alekhine’s N5 with advantage to Black.
Defence as that of 4. . . P—KN3, and
it has maintained its position of A
relative popularity in practical play. 5P-KR3 BxN
1 P—K4 N—KB3 5 . . . B—R4? is weak because of

2 P-K5 N—Q4 6 P-KN4 B—N3 7 P—B4 N—N3 8 P—

3 P—Q4 P—Q3 K6 P x P 9 B—Q3 with a winning
4 N—KB3 B—N5 (39)attack.
6QxB PxP
39
It is desirable to fix White’s pawn
w
on K5 so as to limit the range of his
bishops. In Hindle-Watzka, Vrnjacka
‘14A VA Banja 1967, Black tried 6. . . P—QB3
A; and obtained a good game after 7 P—
VA. B4 N—B2 8 N—B3(?) PxP 9 PxP
P—KN3 10 B—K3 N—K3 11 Q—K4
PA TA A B—N2 12 B—K2 N-.-Q2 13 0—0—0
Q—R4 14 P—B4 0-0—0 etc., but
p4 g it seems more logical for White to
open the position with 8 P xP (8.
A: 5P-KR3 Q xP 9 B—B4! is hard to meet).
B: 5B-K2P-QB3 7PxP P—K3(40)
C: 5 B-K2 P—K3 Black has to handle his counterplay
D: 5 B—K2 Other Moves. against the White KP with considerable
5 P—B4 N—N3 6 B-K2 P x P etc. is care from this position, as a
analysed as Section A of Chapter 8 planless development is liable to leave
under another move order. him permanently cramped. White
50 Modern:4...B—JV5

40 KS 12 Q-K3 N x B 13 Q x N Q-Q4
w F1.F 14 B—K2 Q-B4 (Mikenas) is satisfactory
fit for Black.

d) 8 Q—KN3 at once is liable to

transpose into other lines after 8
N—Q2 9 P—R3 or B—Q2. However,
PA VA Boleslavsky-Mikenas, USSR 1940,
continued 9 ‘B—K2 P—QB3 10 N—R3
1IW% (White must develop the knight to
protect his KP against Q—B2 and 10
N-Q2 N-NS! is awkward to meet—
compare the similar position where
has two main continuations: P—R3 White has played P—R3) and now:
followed by Q-.-KN3, and (in either dl)1O...N—K2(?) 110—0 (11 Yv’—B4
order) B—QB4 and Q—K4. N—KB4 12 Q—QB3 is much better)
Al: 8P—R3 11 . . . N—KB4 12 Q—B4 B x N 13
A2. 8 B-QB4 (and 8 Q-K4) P x B 0—0 with a good game for Black,
Other moves are of less consequence: Boleslavsky-Mikenas.
a) 8 P-KN3? N—QB3 9 B—QN5 QQ2 d2)lO...Q—R4ch! 11B—Q2B—NS
(or 9... Yv’/4—N5 and 10... P— 12 P—QB3 (12 R—Q1 BxB ch. 13
QR3) 10 Q—K4 (there is nothing in 10 RxB N/4-N3 or 12 N-B4 BxB ch.
P—B4N/4--N5 11 0-0 0—0—0 12N-B3 131’IxBN—K2) 12...BxN 13
Q—Q6!) l0...B—B4 11P—QB3O—O P x B N-K2 14 Q x P R-KN 1 15
12 P—QN4 B-N3 13 0-0 P-B4 14 Q x RP Q x KP with advantage
PxP.ep NxKBP 15 Q-K2 P-K4 (analysis by Mikenas).
with advantage to Black, RubinsteinSpielinann, e) 8 N—B3 N—N5!? (8. . . B—MS 9 Q—
Moscow 1925. N3 N x N is possible) 9 B—N5 ch.
b) 8 B—Q3? N-QB3 9 Q—N3 N/4—N5 (9 Q—K4, threatening 10 P—R3, looks
10 B—K4 Q—Q5 is evidently weak. stronger) 9. . . P—B3 10 B—R4 Q—R4
c) 8 B-Q2, like 8 P-R3, is designed as 11 0—0 N—Q2 with obscure play,
a preparation for Q—KN3, but the Maric-Knezevic, K.raljevo 1967.
bishop on Q2 can be an embarrass-
merit:

cl)8...N—QB3 9B—QN5!Q--Q2 Al
10 N-B3 P-QR3 11 B-R4 P-QN4 8 P—R3 N—Q,2 (41)
12NxNQxN 13QxQPxQ 14 8. .. N-Q,B3(?) 9 B—QN5 Q—Q2
B—N3 is somewhat better for White, 10 P-B4 N/4—K2 11 0-0 is difficult
Halilbeily-Bagirov, Moscow 1959. for Black. Boleslavsky-Havin, USSR
c2) 8. . . N—Q,2! 9 Q—KN3 N—B4! 1944, continued 11 . . . R—Q 1
(Kokkoth-Olafsson, Athens 1969, went (11 . . . Q—QS is possible, but dangerous
9. . . P— QB3 10 N-B 3 N-K2 11 B— after the simple 12 R-Q1 Q xKP 13
Q3? N—QB4 in Black’s favour, but N—B3) 12 N-B3 P-QR3 13 R-Ql
11 N-K4 N-KB4 12 Q-QB3 is Q-Bl 14 RxR ch. QxR 15 BR4
better) 10 N-B3 N x N 11 B x N N— Q-Q5 16 P-QN3 Q xKP 17
 Modern:4...B—1i5 51

B—B4 Q-KB4 18 R-Q1 with a 9 Q—KN3

strong attack for the pawn. 9 P—B4 N-K2 10 Q x P P-QB3 is
8 . . . P—QB3 is slow, but may be good for Black, e.g. 11 P-.-QN4 P—
good here because of the move QR4 12 B—N2 N—QB4! KhachaturovMikenas,
White has spent on P—R3, 9 N—Q2 Moscow 1943.

N-Q2 10 Q—KN3, and now: 9... P—K.R4!?

a)10...Q—B2 11N—B40--O—O 12 Mikenas’ move, the positional

B—Q2 K-Ni 13 P—B4 P—B3 14 justification of which is to induce
0-0-0 PxP 15 NxP NxN 16 10 P—KR4 before continuing with
P x N with some advantage to White, 10. . . N-K2 and N—KB4.
Panov - Rabinovich, USSR 1937. The alternative is to transpose into
12 . . . N—B4 may be an improvement. the note above with 9 . . . P—QB3.
b) 10.. . N—K2: 9...P—KB3? 1OPxPQxP 11
b 1) 11 N—B3 N—KN3 (threatening P—QB4 (better than i 1 Q—N5,
12. . . NxP) 12 B—Q2 N—B4 13 Asztalos-Vukovic, Debrecen 1925)
B—K3? (13 Q—N4 is a better try) leaves Black with too many weaknesses.
13 . . . N—K5 14 Q—R2 Q—R4 ch.
15 P—B3 0—0—0 and White is helpless, 10 B—K2(!)
L. Steiner-Koblentz 1937. More cunning than 10 N—Q2? P—
b2) 11 N—K4 went in White’s favour R5 i 1 Q—N 3 R—R4! 12 N-B3 N x P
in Panov-Mikenas, Moscow 1942: with advantage to Black, PanovMikenas,
after ii . . . N—KB4 12 Q—QB3 Q— Moscow i943.
B2 13 B—KB4 B—K2 i4 0-0-0 0—0
If 10 P-KR4 N-K2
15 P-KN4 N—R5 16 B—N 3 N—QN3? 10... P-R5
17 N—B6+, but 11 . . . N—KN3(!) 11 Q—N3
seems hard to meet, largely because White has prepared to give up his
i 2 N-Q6 + B x N 13 P x B Q-R5 KP to disorganize the Black pieces.
is not promising for White. Nemet-Segal, USSR 1967, continued
b3) 11 N—B4, defending the KP 11...R—QN1 120—ONxP 13P—
without tying up White’s pieces like QB4 N-QN3 14 B—K3 N—B3 15 R—
11 N—B3, is perhaps best (11 Qi Q-B3 16 N-B3 B—K2 17 R—Q2
N-KB4 12 Q—QB3 or 11. . . N-KN3 and Black had nothing better than
12 B—Q2 N—B4 13 0—0—0). 17. . . 0—0 18 P—B5 N—Q4 19 N x N
41 PxN 20 RxP Q-K3 21 B-N4
w with great advantage to White.
There are probably improvements in
Black’s play (1 i . . . N x P at once,
/%4t4% 14 . . . Q—B3) but the White attack
VA A remains dangerous.

A2
8 B—QB4 (42)
PA If first 8 Q—K4 then 8. . . N—QB3
__Pj4g is inadvisable because of 9 B—QN5
52 Modern:4...B—N5

(9 . . . Q—Q2 10 0—0, already Finally after 8 Q—K4 N—Q2 White

threatening 11 R—Q 1). Instead 8. can play 9 B—K2 instead of 9 B—QB4.
N—Q2 9 B—QB4 and now: Pietzsch-Liebert, E. Germany 1961,
a) 9 . . . P-Q,B3 10 0-0 Q—B2 continued 9. . . P—QB3 10 0—0 Q—B2
11 R—Kl 11 P-KB4 P-KN3 12 P-R3 PQR4?
al) 11 . . . N—K2(?) 12 N—Q2 N— 13 P—B4 with advantage to
KN3 13 N—B3 B—B4 14 P-KR4 White, but 11 . . . O—O--0 looks only
0-0? 15 P-R5 N-K2 16 N-N5 PKN3 too adequate.
17 PxP NxNP 18 Q—N4 42
KR—K1 19 Q—R5 N/2-B1 20 B—Q3
B
B-Q5 21 N—B3 B—B4 22 B—KR6
B—K2 23N-N5BxN 24BxB
1—0, Lutikov-Liebert, Bad Saizungen
1960.

a2)11...P—KR3 12P—QR4P--
QR4 13N-B3NxN 14PxNR—
Q1? (14 . . . 0—O--O is now essential)
15 P—B4 P—KN3 16 P-N4/ B—B4+
17 K—Ri N-N3 18 P—B5! 14P x P 19
PxPPxP 2OQxP!N<B 21P-K6
with a winning attack, PopovBuljovcic, 8... N—QB3
Yugoslavia 1966. 8. . . N—Q2 is now out of place,
a3) 11 . . . B—B4 12 N—Q2 Q—N3 13 not because of 9 B x N? N x P etc.
R-B1 0—O---O 14 N—B3 P—KR3 15 but because of 9 Q—K2 gaining time
P—B3 P-B4 16 P xP.ep N/4 xP 17 over the lines given above. KozlovWesterinen,
Q—N6 (17 Q x P KR—K1 and 18. Moscow 1970, continued
N—KS) 17.. . P—K4 18 B—K6 KR— 9. . . P—KN3(?) 10 0—0 N/4—N
Ki 19 BxN+ RxB 20 -B5 N-Q2 B—N2 12 N-K4 P-KR3
P-KS! 21 N-K5 B x P + 22 R x B 13 R—Q 1 with great advantage.
R x N and wins, Tseitlin-Klochko, 9 Q—K4
USSR 1970. White’s play must be 9 Q—K2 is now met by 9
capable of improvement (17 Q—K2 N—Q5 and 10. . . N—N3, while 9 B—
P—K4 18 P—QYv’4!?). QN5 is too slow (9 . . . N/4—N5 is
b)9...N—B4(!) 1OQ—K2N—N3 a good reply).
11 B—N3 P—QR4 (or 11 . . . Q—Q59... N/4—K2(43)
12 0—0 Q-KS) 12 P-R3 N x B 13 9. . . N—N3 10 B—QN5 Q—Q4 11
PxNB—K2 140-00-0 15N-B3N- N-B3QxQ 12NxQO-O-0 13
Q4 16 N-K4 P-QB3 17 B-Q2 BxNPxB 14P-QN3N-Q2 15B—
Q-N3 18 Q-N4 K-Ri and Black N5, Suetin-Mikenas, Tallinn 1965,
has the better game, KupreitchikBagirov, leaves White with some advantage.
USSR 1970. 10 B—K3

Black may also answer 8 Q—K4 10 P—Q,B3 is the alternative method

with 8.. . P—QB3 and transpose into of preventing 10 . . . Q—Q5. Black
a) above. continues with 10. .. N—N3:
 Mo&rn. 4. . . B—N5 53

Ei
fjIrf44 tIt
rAw%tr%: A
t&t
v
FAr744PA p4r%
PAiP4N7A ‘4

P%
p4g
a) 11 B-QN5 Q-Q4 12 Q x Q P x Q B1: 60—0
13 P—KM P—B3 with adequate play. B2: 6N-N5
b) 11 B-KB4 NxB 12 QxN 6 P—KR3? merely gives Black an
P-KN4: additional tempo over variation Bi.
bi) 13 Q—K3 B-N2 14 B-N5 Q—Q4 6 P—B4 N-N3 7 QN-Q2 is best
and Black has the upper hand, met by 7 . . . QN—Q2 rather than
GipslisMikenas, Riga 1963. 7...PxP8NxPBxB9QxB
b2) 13 Q—B6 R--KN1 14 N—Q2 Q x P 10 N/2—B3 with a strong
B-N2 15Q-B3NxP 16QxPR-N1 attack for the pawn.
17 Q-K4 R x P 18 0-0-0 R-N 1
19 N—B3 Q—B3 with the better game, Bi
Bim—Mikenas, USSR 1965. 60-0 BxN
10... N—B4 6 . . . P x P? is inferior. BotvinnikFlohr,
If 10 . . . N—N3 11 N—B3!? is Moscow 1936, continued 7
possible. N x P B x B 8 Q x B N-Q2 9 P-KM
11 0—0 P—K3 10 P-B4 N/4—N3 11 B-K3
11 N—B3 B—N5 only assists Black. B-K2 12 N-B3 0-0 13 R-B3 with
11... Q—R5 advantage. Black was soon compelled
This is suggested by Mikenas as an to play P—KM.
improvement on the line: 11 7BxB PxP
N x B 12 P x N B—B4 13 Q-B4 0-0 8PxP P—K3

14 N-B3 Q—Q7 15 QR-K1 Q x BP 9 Q,—K2 (45)

16 N—K4, which is good for White. 9 P-B4 N-K2 10 Q x Q + K x Q
12 P—B4 is impossible now because of holds little hope of a White advantage,
12 . . . N—N6 13 B—B2 B—B4. Black e.g.:
probably has a satisfactory game. a) 11 B—B4 N-Q2 12 R—K1 K—B2
13 N-B3 N-KN3 14 B—N3 B—N5
B with a good game for Black, Surachov-Kopylov,
5 B-K2 P-QB3 (14) Leningrad 1954.
The idea behind this move is to b) 11 B-K4(!) N-Q2 12 R-Q1 KB2
prepare B x N and P x P. White can 13 B—B4 P—KN3 (13. . . N—KN3
allow this to happen with 6 0-0, is now met by 14 BXNRPxB 15
or frustrate it with 6 N—N5. N—B3 and N-K4) 14 N—Q2 B-N2 15
54 Modern: 4. . . B—N5

N-B3 QR-Q1 16 K-B1 N-N3 17 Nottingham 1936. More recent

P-QN3 RxR+ 18 RxR R-Q1 attempts to improve on it have not
—4, Vukovic-Puc, Yugoslav Ch 1945. been particularly successful:
a) 11B-B4
al) 11 . . . Q—B2 12 R—Kl N—KN3
45
13 B—N3 B—N5 14 N—B3 BxN 15
B
P x B 0—0—0 16 B—K4 (or 16 P—KR4
I
N-B4 17 QR-Q1 Q-R4 18 Q-K3
‘4. N-K2 19 B—N4 P-RI 20 Q-N5
Q—B2 21 B x RP N—B 4 with great
,A ii advantage, Aronin-Furman, Odessa 1952)
16. . . N—B4 17 B—B2 R—Q2 18 Q—
Vx VA PA K3 Q-R4 19 P-B4 KR-Q1 20 P-B5
P x P 21 B x P N—K3 and Black has

/%g the better game, Chekhover-Kopylov,

Leningrad 1954.
a2) 11...P—KR3? 12N—B3P—KN4
9... N—Q2 13 N—K4 N—KM 14 QR—Ql Q—R4
First 9.. . Q—B2 has no individual 15B—Q2B—N5 16BxBQxB 17
significance. B—N4 N—R5 18 B x P!? with an
10 P-B4 unclear position, Janosevic-Knezevic,
More subtle methods fail to restrict Skopje 1967. 18 N—Q6 + instead is
Black’s development: lethal.

a) 10 P--QN3: b) 11 B-Q2 Q—B2 12 B-B3

al) 10.. . Q—B2 11 B—N2 N—B5 12 bl) 12.. . N—KN3 13 R—Kl O—0---
Q—K4 N—KN3 13 R—K 1 0—0—0 14 14 P—QN4 (14 N—Q2 is preve
P-QR4 P-QR4 15 N-R3 B-N5 becazi.se of 14.. ..N/2xP) 14... B—K2
16 N—B4 N-N3 with adequate play. 15 P—QR4 N/2 x P! winning a pawn,
Kuznetzov-Kopylov, Volograd 1964. Byvshev-Kopylov, USSR 1956.
a2) 10.. .B—B4 11 B—N2 Q—B2 12 b2) 12 . . . P—KN4(?) was successful
N-Q2 N-B5 13 Q-K4 N-KN3 14 in Matanovic-Knezevic, Belgrade
KR—K1 0—0—0 15 N—B4 N—N3 16 1965 after 13 B—KR5? B—N2 1
N—K3(?) N—Q4 17 N x N R x N and Kl N-KN3 15 BxN RPxB 16
Black even has the advantage, DelyAister, N—Q2 P—KB4! but White has better
Prague 1955. in 13 N-Q2 B—N2 14 N—K4!.
b) 10 R-K1 Q-B2 11 P-QR3 N-K2 Karasev-Bagirov, Riga 1971, continued
12 P-QN3 N-KN3 13 B-N2 0-0-0 14 . . . N—KN3 (14. . . BxP
14 P—N3 B—K2 Kotkov-Kopylov, J5KR—QlorlI...NxP I5NxP)
Volograd 1964 with a good game 15 N—B6 + B x N 16 P x B P—KR4
(15N—Q2?failsto 15. . . .N/3xP!). 17 KR—Ql in White’s favour.
10... N—K2 11... Q—B2
11 B—N4 12 P—B4 P-KR4
This move was originally played Black can omit this preliminary
in the Botvinnik-Flohr game at move. Gligoric-Vidmar jnr., Yugoslav
 Modern:4...B-N5 55

Ch 1945, went 12.. . O—O--O 13 B—K3 46

N-KM 14 B x N P x B 15 Q-KB2 w
P-QN3 16 N-Q2 N-B4 17 N-B3
N-KS 18 Q-B2 B-K2 19 P-QR3
P—B4 with a good game.
13 B—R3
PA _
Not 13 B x RP? N-KM threatening
14 . . . B—M+ and 14 . . . N—QS
followed by R x B.
13... 0—0—0
13 . . . N—KB4 at once is also
_ P4g
possible. White gains nothing by 14
BxNPxB 15P-K6N-M 16 7P-K6!
P x P + K x P 17 Q-QB2 P-KN3 7B—Q,3is less critical. 7... BxB
18 N—Q2 Q—N3 19 K—Rl B—N2 8 QxB PxP and now:
20 R-QN1 QR—.Kl 21 P-QN4 N- a) 9 Q,—B5? N—B3 (or even 9. . . P—B3
KS with strong threats, GaidukUchishev, 10NxPPxP 11 Q—N6ch. K—Q2)
Moscow 1950. 10 P x P P-KN3 11 Q-B4 P-KR3,
14 B-K3 Lein-Kopylov, Cheliabinsk 1963.
No better is 14 N—B3 N—KB4 15 b) 9 PxP P-KR3
B x N P x B 16 P-QR3 B-B4 + 17 b 1) 10 N-K4 P—K3 11 O—O (11 F—
K—Ri B—Q5 18 N—R4 N—Bl 19 R— QB4 N-N5) 11 . . . N—Q2 12
P-QN4 P-KN3 KB4 N—M with sufficient play. QN1 N—K3 20
Ustinov- Bagirov, b2) 10 N-KB3 P-K3 11 0—O N—Q2 21 P—BS P—B3!,
Vilna 1960. 12 R-Q1 Q-B2 13 P-B4 N-K2 (an
14... N—KB4 improvement on 13 . . . .tv’/4—N3, BookReshevsky,
15BxN PxB Kemeri 1937) 14 B—B4 N—
16 Q,—KB2 Q-R4 KN3 15 B—N3 O--O—O 16 N-B3 B—N5
17 N-Q,2 N—N3 17 Q-K3 B x N! 18 Q x B N-B4,
18P—QR3 R-Q6(!) again with a satisfactory game.
Botvinnik-Flohr, Nottingham 1936. 7 0-0 is possible, though untried.
White is in some trouble. Selivanovsky-Nekrasov, USSR 1963,
continued 7. . . P x P 8 P x P N--Q2?
B2 (better and indeed good is 8. . . P—KR 3
6 N—N5(!) 9 N—KB3 P-K3 10 N—Q4 B-N3)
White’s most dangerous move 9P-K6BxKP 1ONxBPxN 11B—
here. N4 P-K4 12 N-Q2 N/2-B3 13 NB4
B21: 6... B--B1 and White’s attack cannot be
B22. 6...BxB satisfactorily met.
B21 7... PxP
6... B—B4(?) (46) 7...BxKP 8NxBPxN 9B-
N4 is no better. Black can hardly On current showing this move is
avoid the line 9 .‘. . N—B2 10 0—0 N— rendered too dangerous by White’s
reply Q2 11 R-K 1 P-K4 12 B x N + Q x B
56 Modern.• 4.. . B—N5

13 PxP 0—0-0 14 Q—K2 P—K3 1511 Q-Q2

P x P B x P 16 N—Q2 with advantage 12 Q—K2 N-B2
to ‘White. 13 N—N5
8 P-KN4 Black still has problems to solve
8 B—R5 + (?) failed to achieve after 13 . . . B—N2 14 P—QB3 0—0
anything in the postal game WasonZeh, 15 0—0 etc.
1967. White’s attack was beaten
off after 8 . . . P—N3 9 P—KN4 B22
6.. BxB
BxBP! 1OQxBPxB 11NxRP
7QxB PxP
Q-N3 12 NxB RxN 13 B-K3
8PxP P—K3 (47)
N x B 14 P x N Q-R4 + 15 N-B3
Q—KN4 16 0--0--0 K—Q2 17 Q—N3
N—R3! 47

The immediate 8 B-Q,3 was tried w

in Gufeld-Bagirov, Tiflis 1971. After
8 . . . N—R3 9 0—0 N/3—B2 10 P—
QB4 N-B3 11 N-QB3 P-KN3
12 R-K 1 B-N2 13 B x B KP x B
14 Q-N3 P—KR3 15 N-B3 0-0
(or 15. . . R—QN1 16 N—KR4) 16
Q x P Q-Q2 17 Q-N3 K-R2 18
B—Q2 QR—Nl 19 Q—B2 White
retained some advantage, but 11
Q—Q2 threatening P—KR3 may be
better. 9 0-0 N—Q2
8... B—N3 9.. . P—KR3? 10 N—K4 merely
9 B-Q3! gives White an extra tempo. Janosevic-Vidmar,
Split 1949, continued
9 N x KP is here inferior. TurnKeres, 10. . . N—Q2 11 P—QB4 N/4—N3 12
Tallinn 1945, continued 9... R—Q 1 and Black is in trouble.
Q-Q2 10 N—B4 B-B2 11 P—B4 N-N3 9. . . B—K2(?), by depriving the
12P-N3P-K4 13PxPPxP 14N- Q4 knight of its best flight square, has
Q3 Q-B2 15 N—B3 N-R3 16 B-N5 much the same effect. 10 N—K4 and
B—N3 17 Q-Q2 N—B4 with good
now:
counterplay.
a) 1O..0—0 11P—QB4N—N3 12
9... BxB
P—QN3 P-QB4 13 B—N2 N-B3
1OQxB P-KN3
10.. . N—B3 11 N x KP Q—Q2 better
12 14game,
QN—Q2 N—Q5 15 Q—R5 with the
Boleslavsky-Smyslov,
Q—K2 is too dangerous, as is 10 Sverdlovsk 1943.
Q-Q2 11NxRP. b) 10. . . Q,—B2 11 P—QB4 N—N3
11 NxKP
12 P-B5 N-Q4 13 N-Q6 + B x N
11 0-0 is also possible, depending on 14 BP x B Q-Q2 15 N-B3 0-0 16
the assessment of the line 11 .. . Q—Q2 B-K3 N-R3 17 P-QR3 P-KM
12 R-K 1 P—K4 13 P x P Q x P +. 18 P—B4 and Black was unable to free
 Mo&nz:4...B—N5 57

himself, Gunsberger - Alexandrescu Solid and good. White has little to

1957. gain from more ambitious moves,
10 P-QB4 e.g.:
10 P—KB4 is also hard to meet. a) 12 R—Q,1 B—K2 13 N/3—K4? P—
10. . . B—K2 11 N—K4 N—B4 (otherwise B4! 14 Q-R5 P-KN3 15 Q-B3
12 P-B4 and 13 R-Q1. 12 P-B4 P-KR3 16 N—R3 N-Q5 17 Q-Q3
can now be met by 12 . . . N x N 13 N x P and White is routed, KirilovKopylov,
Q x N B-B4 + 14 K-Ri N-K2! Leningrad 1947.
which is good for Black) 12 QN—Q2: b) 12 B—B4 B-K2 13 N/5-K4 P-KN4
a) 12...N—N5? 13NxN!BxN+ 14 B—N3 P—KR4 with complications,
14K—RiO—O(14...NxP 15N— Saigin-Furman, Minsk 1952.
K4 NxR 16 NxB or 15. . . N—Q5 12... Q,—B2
16 Q—B4 is good for White) 15 N—K4 13 R—Kt B—N5
B.—K2 16 P-QR3 N-R3 17 R-Q1 14 B—Q,2
Q-B2 18 B-K3 P-QB4 19 R-Q3 The salient fact about this position,
QR—Q1 20 R—B3 Q—B3 21 B—B2 compared with variation Bi, is that
Q—Q4 22 R--K1 K—Ri 23 R—R3 and White has retained his KN rather
Black was unable to defend his king than his KB, which is greatly to his
side, Milev-Dittmann, Bulgaria-E. advantage. Black has a hard task to
Germany 1958. prevent White consolidating his space
b)12...Q—B2 13NxNBxN+ advantage.
14 K—R 1 0—0—0 15 N—K4 Unzicker-Schmid, B—K2. Nuremberg 1959,
Black hopes to obtain sufficient continued 14 . . . P—QR4(?) 15 P—
counterplay down the queen file QR3BxN 16BxBO-O 17KR-Ql
to minimise White’s space advantage, KR-Q 1 18 P-KN4 N-K2 19 R- Q6
using the time saved over variation (a). with great advantage, and the better
It is unclear whether he has succeeded. 14. . . 0—0 is not that much better.
10... N-K2
11 N.—QB3
11 P-KB4 N-KM 12 N-K4 N-B4 C
now gives Black too much scope to 5 B-K2 P-K3
occupy central squares, while 11 N— 6 0—0 (48)
K4 N--KB4 is no better.

11 P—QN3!? was tried in Westerinen-Bagirov 48

1961, but White’s eccentric B
play failed to justify itself after
11 . . . P—KR3 12 N—KB3 Q—B2 13
B-R3 N—KN3 14 R- Kl B x B 15
N x B 0-0-0 16 P-QN4 P—QR4!
17 P—N5 N-B4 18 Q-K3 N-Q6.
11... N--KB4
4.
11 . . . N—KN3 is not likely to prove
any better.
4
12 N—B3(!) _
58 Modern:4...B—N5

C1. 6... N—QB3 B—R3 B—N7! and White can choose

C2: 6... B—K2 between:

a) 16 NxNP+ BxB 17 NxQ

Cl KRxQ 18Q-N1P-KR3 19N-K5
6... N—QB3 with an unclear position.
This move on the whole only b) 16 N-B5+ K-Kl 17 N-Q6+
retains independent significance if K—K2 18 N—B5 + etc.
White attempts to refute it with c) 16 B—B5!?
an early P—Q5, an endeavour In Unzicker-Hecht, Berlin 1971,
which comes close to success. White Black tried 9. . . PEQ4 but after 10 P—
retains the option of transposing B5 B x N 11 B x B N—Q2 12 P—QN4!
into C2. N xNP 13 R-Nl N-QB3 14 R xP
7 P-B4 N-N3 R-QN1 15 R xR N/2 xR 16 B-B4
7 . . . N/4—K2 is boldly and B-K2 17 Q-R4 0-0 18 R-N 1
effectively answered by 8 P x P Q x P White stood much better. Hecht now
(8...PxP 9P—Q5!) 9N—B3BxN attempted to break out with 18
(9 . . . N—N3? 10 F— Q 5 P x P 11 P—K4 19 P x P B x P 20 B x P but
PxPBxN 12PxB!QN-K4 13 this did not improve his position.
N—N5 Q—Q2 14 P-B4 N-R5 15 9... PxP
PxN Q-R6 16 NxP+ K-Q1 17 1OPxP BxN
J’f—K6+ 1—0 is Aronin-Mikenas, USSR 11PxB
1951. 9 . . . 0—0—0 10 J’f—KJ’15!
Most enterprising: after 11 B x B
BxB IJNxBNxP 12N-QB3! N—K4 White only retains a slight
is also not to be recommended for Black.) spatial plus, e.g.
10 B x B 0—0-0 11 P—Q5 N-K4 a) 12 B—K4 B—K2 13 N—B3 0—0
12 B-B4 N/2—N3 13 B-N3 Q-N5 Q-B2 P-KR3, Hasin-Silberg, Leningrad
14 B-K2 P xP 15 P-QR3 Q-B4 16 1956.

N x P P-QB3 17 P-QN4 Q-Q3 18 b) 12 B—K2 B—K2 13 N—B3 (13 P—

N—K3 and the bishop pair gives QR4 0-0 14R-R3P-B4 15P-B4N-
White a clear edge, Unzicker-Pomar, N3 16 R-R3 B-B3, Tates-Colle,
Bad Pyrmont 1951. Scarborough 1930, leads to a position
8PxP PxP where Black mu.st defend carefully but,
9 P—Q5 zf he is successful, is likely to counterattack
White can also play 9 P-Q34J3 in the centre with some effect.)
transposing into C2 1 in due course. 13. . . 0—0 14 B—K3 I---B4 15 P--B4
More interesting, however, is 9 N---B3. N/4-B5 16 B-Q4 R—B 1 17 P-QN3
If then 9.. . B xN 10 B xBN xBP, N—K6 18 BxN RxN 19 B-Q4
11 P—Q5 gives White a strong attack. R—Bl 20 B—KB3 B—B3 and White
If 9 . . . B—K2, on the other hand, has achieved nothing concrete, Boleslavsky-Bastrikov,
White can try 10 P—Q5 N—R4 (best) USSR 1942.
11 P x P B x P 12 P—QN3 B-B3— 11 N--K4

Schwarz assesses this position as 12 B—N5+ N/4-Q2

slightly better for Black— 13 N— 13Q-Q4 Q-B3
K4!?BxR 14NxP+K—K2 15 14 R-K1 +
 Modern. 4. . . B—Yv’5 59

Weaker is 14 Q x Q P x Q 15 N— Q5 and White has transposed into the

B3 0—0—0 16 P—B4 P-B4! 17 B—Q3 game Penrose-Bobotsov, Palma 1969,
B—N2 18 N—N5 K—N 1, Boleslavsky— which continued 11 . . . P x P 12
Bagirov, Moscow 1956. BxPNxB 13QxNO—O 14N—B3
14... B—K2 (49) B-B3 15 B-Q2 R-Kl 16 QR-Ql
Bagirov suggests 14.. . K—Ql and Q-N3 17 P-QN3 N-N5 18 QKB5
given the state of play after 14 Q-B4 19 Q-N4 P-KR4 20
B—K2 this may well be Black’s best Q—B3 BxN 21 BxB NxP 22
move at this stage. BxP! KxB 23 R-Q5 Q-N5 24
R—N5 + K—Bl 25 Q—B6 Q-B6 26
49 Q x QP + R-K2 27 Q-R6 + 1-0.
w Black therefore does best to play
7. . . B—R4 after which White may
simply continue as in lines given
below, since it is probably marginally
in his favour to have the black bishop
on KR4 and his pawn on KR3 as
p4,4 compared with the lines. This idea
has been tried in a few recent games
Ir1AFI to which we shall refer when the
analogous positions arise.
An attempt to give 7 P—KR3 independent
After 14...B—K2 15QxQPxQ significance was made in
16 N—B3, Black must choose the the game, Hartston - Bouwmeester,
lesser evil from: Adelboden 1969, which went 7
a)16...P—QR3 17 B—K2 N-K4 B-R4 8 R-K 1 0-0 9 N-B3 N x N
18 P-B4 R-N1+ 19 K-Bl N—N5 PxN and now 10 . . . PxP 11
20 B—Q3. N x P B x B 12 Q x B P-QB4 is the
b)16...K—Q,1 17P—B4P—B4 18 simplest way of equalising.
B—Q3 B—B3 19 BxP BxN 20 PxB
NxP 21 B-R3. 50
B
c2 Iittt
6... B—K2
7 P—B4 (50)
Also possible is 7 P—KR3. If then
PA
7..BxN 8 BxBN—QB3 (8...
P x P? 9 P—B4 winning the exchange.)
9 PxP is strong: e.g.
a) 9 . . Q x P 10 P—B4 N—B3 11 B—
K3 and Black has little chance of
counterplay against White’s centre,
Matulovic-Damjanovic, 1966. 7... N—N3

b)9...PxP 1OP—B4N-N3 11P— 8PxP

60 Modern: 4. . . B—N5

White may also preserve the pawn Geller-Vaganian, 39th USSR Oh

on K5 though it is doubtful whether 1971.
this plan leads to an advantage: e.g. b) 8 P—QN3 N—B3 9 B—N2 0—0 10
a) 8 N-B3 0-0 9 B-K3 (or 9 P-QN3 QN-Q2 Q-Q2 11 N-K4 P-Q4
PxP 1ONxPBxB 11 NxB FQB4 12 N-B5 Q-B1 13 P xP N/N3 xP 14
12 B-N2 Q-B2 13 P x P B x P N—Q2 with equality, Cabrera-Perez,
14 JV’—JV’3 .N/3—Q2 with equality, Havana 1966.
Lasker-Flohr, Moscow 1936) and now: 8.. PxP (51)

i) 9 • . P—Q4 10 P—B5 BxN 11 51

B x B N—B5 White has tried three w
moves in this position:
In Spassky-Fischer, 19th game
World Ch Match 1972, where P—
KR3 and. .. B—R4 had been inserted PA TA VA
earlier, there occurred 13 P—QN3 ‘A
N xB 14 P xN I-QN3 (Less critical, PA PA
though safer, is 14 . . . N—B3.) 15 P—
K4 P—QB3 16 P—QN4 NP x P 17
NP x P Q—R4 18 N x P B-N4 19
B-R5BPxN 2OBxP+RxB 21
R x.R Q—Q7 and White’s attack had C21: 9 P-QN3
been successfully met. C22: 9 N—B3
In Matanovic-Vukic, Yugoslav Oh White can also try 9 QN—Q2 in
1972, White played 12 B—B1 but order to answer 9 . . . 0—0 with 10
after 12. . . P—QN3 13 P—QN3 N—R4 P-N4 P-QR4 11 P-N5 QN-Q2
14 N—R4 N—N2! Black stood well. 12 B—N2 R—K1 13 R—B1, Makarichev-A.
Finally, Geller-Hecht, Budapest Petrosian, USSR 1971,
1973, again with P—KR3 and. . . B— which preserves the advantage. Black
R4 interpolated, continued 13 B—B4 should play instead 9.. . N—B3 when
N—B3?! (Much more flexible is the White has little better than 10 P—
immediate 13. . . P—QN3 when Black QN3; see Nicevski-Schmidt, below.
retains the option of. . . N—Q2 in
order to attack QB4.) 14 P—QN3 21
N/5-R4 15 Q-Q2 P-QN3 16 QRB1!PxP 9 P-QN3 N-B3
17PxPBxP? 18NxP! Black may also play 0—0 at this
and Black is lost. stage and transpose later into lines
given below. Sharper is 9.. . B—B3
10 B—N2 N—B3 11 Q—Q2 0-0 12 (safer than i.) 10 ii) 9 . . . PxP
N-R3 P-K4 13 N-B2 P-K5 14 QxB N/1—Q2 12 NxPBxB 11
KN-K1 B x B 15 Q x B P—Q4 with 13N—K4N—B1 14 QR-Q1 P-QB3
at least equality, Blau-Kraidman, 15 PxN Q-B2 16 N—B5 NxKN
Lugano 1968. White can of course 17 P-B4 KR-Q1 Q—N4 N—N3
and Black has nothing to fear, play 10 B—K3, however, when Black
 Mo&rn:4...B—N5 61

has little better than a transposition 0—0 18 N—R4 or 15. . . N x BP 16

into C2 11 or 0212 eventually. PxN QBxN! 17 Q—R4! but in
10 N—B3 both lines White is on top. (Analysis
An interestiiig alternative involves by Schwarz.)
the fianchetto of the QB: e.g. b)13...BxN14BxBNxNP15
a) 10 B—N2 O—O (or 10. . . P—Q4 11 R—N 1 N—B3 16 R x P 0—0 (16. .
P—B5 N-Q2—11 ... N-Ri is also N x BP loses spectacularly to 17 N x P,
possible—i2 QN—Q2 0—0 13 P—QR3 Nedeljkovic - Janosevic, Belgrade
B-B3 14 P—QJV4 P-QR3 15 R-K1 1948.) 17 Q—R4 Q—Bl 18 R—N3 R—
P-QV3 16 R-R2 R-K1 17 P-R3 Ql. In the game, Pogats-Tscherenkov,
B-RI 18 B-Ri PxP 19 QPxP USSR 1959, White now played
B x B 20 R x B P-K4, DamjanovicTimman, 19 N—N5 and Black emerged from
Match 1969.) 11 N—R3 P— his difficulties with the aid of the
Q4 12 P-B5 N-Q2 13 N-B2 P-QN3 cunning 19. . . N—N3. According to
14P—N4PxP 15QPxPBxN Schwarz, White should maintain the
16 BxB R-Nl 17 B-B3 N/2-K4 pressure with either 19 R—QB1 or
18 R—N1 B—B3, , Byrne-Tatai, 19 KR—Nl.
Amsterdam 1969. 11 B—K3 P—Q4 (52)
b) 10 B—N2 0-0 11 QN—Q2 P-Q4
(11 . . . B—B4 12 B—B3 P--QRI 13 52
P-QR3 B-B3 14 Q-B1 P-K4 15 w
PxPPxP 16Q—N2Q-B2 I7KR- FLiitt
KJKR-Q1 18B—QJN--Q2 19B—B2 ‘a;
and White has some pressure, NiceuskiSchmidt,
Po1aniea-droj 1971.) 12 R—
VAt VA VA
Bl! White intends to maintain the
tension in the centre, a better plan
than P—B5. Smyslov-Bagirov, Moscow
1960 continued 12 . . . P x P 13 P x P
WA
R-B1 14 P-KR3 B—KM 15 Q—N3 r4*rg
Q—Q2 16 KR—Q 1 N--R4 17 Q--K3
Q—R5 18 P—Q5! N/4 x P 19 N x N Black can also try 11 . .. B—B3 here
NxN 20 BxN RxB 21 P—Q6 if he is prepared to meet 12 N—K4
R x R 22 Q x R with an excellent withl2...B-K2. 13N-N3isnow
position in return for the sacrificed met by 13. . . P—B4! when White is
pawn. in trouble: so he has little better than
10... 0—0 13 N—B3. It is interesting, however,
It is doubtful whether Black can to note that if White has played
gain anything by delaying this move: P—KR3 at some earlier stage and thus
10... B—B3 11 B—K3 P—Q4 12 P-B5 forced the bishop back to KR4,
N—Q2 13 P-N4! and now: B—B3 is more dubious since the
a)13...NxNP 14R--N1N--B3 15 eventual N—N3 gains what may be a
R x P and now Black’s best is 15... useful tempo. The only example of
N-R4 16 R-N5 P—QR3 17 R-N 1 11 . . . B—B3 from master practice
62 Modern: 4. . . B—N5

continued 12 P-KR3 B x N 13 B x B R-B 1 21 P-QR4 Q—K2 22 R—B2 P—

P—Q4 14 P—B5, Hort-Novak, Prague QR4 23 KR-B 1 N-N5 24 R-B3
1966, and now 14 . . . N—B1 gains P-K4 25 P x P B x P 26 B—R6? KRKl
a tempo on Adorjan-Timman cited 27 R-K3 N-B5 28 P x N Q x N
below, since Black has never needed 29 R/1-K1 P x P 30 Q—Q7 N-Q6 31
to play . . . B—R4. Instead of 12 P— R/1-K2 KR-Q1 32 Q—N5 Q xQ
KR3 Hort recommends 12 Q—Q2 33 PxQ B—B5 34 BxB NxB 35
or 12 R—Nl but neither move is R-R3 R-Q8+ 36 K-R2 NxB 37
calculated to do more than reach K x N R-N8 38 P-N6 R x P 39
positions akin to those examined R x P P-B6 40 R-R 1 P-B7 41
below. R/R-Kl 0-1.
12 P-B5 N-B1! 13 P-N4 P-QR3
The old move here was 12 . . . N— Black may also press on with the
Q2 but the text, with the idea of regrouping of his pieces with 13
bringing the knight to KB4 where it B—B3 with good chances: 14 P—N5
presses strongly on the fixed QP is N-R4 15 N-Q2 (or 15 B-KB4 N-K2
clearly more thematic. Even after 16N-K5BxB 17NxBBxN 18
12 . . . N—Q2, however, it is not easy B x B N-B5 19 B-B4 N-N3, ParmaSteel,
for White to exploit Black’s cramped Lugano 1968.) 15 . . . B x B 16
position. About the only recent N x B N-K2 17 Q-R4 P—QR3! 18
example of the move, Tal-Vasyu.kov, QR-N1 P x P 19 Q x P N-B4 20
USSR 1967, continued 13 P—QN4 Q-Q3 Q--Q2 21 N-QB3 N—B3 22
NxNP 14 R-N1 N-QB3 15 RxP N—B3 R—R6 with advantage, Shamkovich-Aronin,
R-N 1 16 R x R N/2 x R 17 P-KR3 USSR 1953.
B x N 18 B x B Q—R4 and, according 14 R—N1

to Vasyakov, Black has equalised. Or 14 N-KS N x N 15 P x N B-B4

If White has exercised his option of 16 P-B4 B—N3 17 Q—Q2? N—R2 18
playing P—KR3 at some stage Black P-B5QBxP 19NxPQxN 20
does well to take the N now, especially QxQPxQ 21RxBN-B3witha
since after e.g. 13. . . N—B1 14P—QN4 virtually winning position for Black,
B—B3 15 R—N 1, 15 . . . N—K2 loses a Robatch-Hort, Venice 1969.
piece to P—KN4---5. For the sake of 14... B—B3
clarity we give the game AdorjanTimman, 15 P-0Ji4
Amsterdam 1971, in full: Orl5P-N5PxP 16RxPBxN
1 P-K4 N-KB 3 2 P-KS N-Q4 3 PQ4 17 B xB P-QN3! 18 Q-Q2 N/3—R2
P-Q3 4 N-KB3 B-N5 5 B-K2 19 R/5—Nl P xP 20 P xP N-K2 21
P-K3 6 O—O B-K2 7 P-B4 N-N3 N-R4 N/R—B3 22 N—N6 R—R4 23
8 P x P P x P 9 P-KR3 B-R4 (9... KR—Ql N—B4 and again Black stands
B x N is uninviting at this stage also.) well, Romanishin-Bagirov, USSR
10 N—B3 0—0 11 P—QN3 N—B3 12 1968.
B-K3P—Q4 13P-B5BxN 14BxB 15 N/1-K2
N-B1 15 Q—Q2 B-B3 16 P-KN4 16 P-N5 N—R4
P-KN3 17 B-N2? P-N3! 18 N-R4 17 B—KB4 N-B4

PxP 19 NxP N-Q3 20 QR-Bl 18 N—K5

 Modern:4...B—.N5 63

We are following the game MinicHort, (14 B—K2!) 14. . . B—N4! 15 KR—
Zagreb 1969, where Black K1 N-B3 16 QR-Q1 P-QN3 17
gradually gained the upper hand P x P N x P[N3 and White has
after 18 ...BxB 19 NxB PxP several weaknesses to defend.
20 R x P R-R2 21 N-N3 N x N 22 b) 13 B—B1 P-QN3 14 P-QN3 NR4
BxN BxN 23 BxB N-B5. (Compare 15 P-QN4 N-B5 16 B-K2 P x P
Ch. 2, Variation 022.) 17 NP x P Q-R4 18 B—Q2 N x B
19 Q xN N—B3 20 QR-N1 B—B3
C22
and White’s pawns fall, CordenTimman,
9 N—B3 0-0
Hastings 1969-70.
10 B—K3 (53) 13... N-B3
Gaprindashvili-Kushnir, Tiffis 1969, 14 P—QN3 N/5-R4
continued 10 B—B4 P—QR3 (10
N—B 3 seems more to the point.) 11 F— here
better Whitesince
probably stands for
it is difficult slightly
QN3 P—Q4 12 P—B5 B x N 13 B x B Black to disentangle his knights, an
N-B1 14 P-QN4 N-B3 with a occupational hazard in this opening.
familiar type of position where Black Black is, however, not without
is in no trouble.
chances, especially against the weak
53 QP:
B KIAA a) 15 R-N1 B-B3 16 B-K3 P-QN3
17 P x P Q x P 18 N-R4 Q-N5 19
tP—AP—4
P-QR3! Q-Q3 (If 19. . . Q xRP
20 N—B5 leaves Black in great danger
of parting with material.) 20 N—B5,
Geller-Korchnoi, Stockholm 1962.
Schwarz assesses this position as
somewhat better for ‘White. Further
practical tests are necessary in order to
substantiate this verdict.

C221: 10. . . P—Q4 b) 15 B-K3 P-QN3 16 N-R4 R-N1

C222: 10. . . N—B3 17R—B1PxP 18NxPB-B3 19
P—QR3 N-K2 20 B-K2 N-B4 21
C221 P-QN4 N-N2 22 B-KB4 N/2-Q3
10... P—Q4 23 B—K5 B x B 24 P x B N—N2 25 N—
Played out of fear that 11 P—Q5 is N3 Q—N3 26 B—Q3 N—K2 27 Q—N4
an effective retort to 10 . . . N—B3, P—B4 28 Q-Q4 and White is now
this move leads to a somewhat inferior ready to advance his queen-side pawn
version of C2 1, which may majority, Karpov-Bagirov, USSR
nevertheless be playable for Black. 1970. Black’s play seems capable of
11P-B5 BxN improvement.
12BxB N-B5
13 B—B4 C222
Inferior are: 10... N-B3

a) 13 P-QN4 P-QR3 14 Q—N3 11 P—Q,5 (54)

64 Modern. 4. . . B—N5

54 ___ It is interesting that, if the moves

B P—KR3 and B—R4 were interpolated
at an earlier stage, White would gain
U a valuable tempo after Q x N because
he is attacking the bishop on KR4
/4%%% and is thus able to play KR—Q 1
and R—Q2 as in Lein-Smyslov before
Black has any chance of taking the
QNP. Moreover, the possibility of
B—K3 is prevented. As a result,
Black, in Hartston-Corden, Marlow
11 P—QN3 transposes into C2 1. 1971, where these moves have been
Black is now saddled with pawn interpolated, found it necessary to
weaknesses in the centre. How serious avoid 13 . . . N xN and play instead
these are depends on the amount of 13 . . . B x N, but lost quickly after
active play he can generate as 14BxN!BxB 15BxQBxQ 16
compensation. BxBKR—K1 17RxBNxB 18
11... BxN N-B7.

Black may also try 11 . . . P x P 12BxB N-K4

12NxPNxN 13QxNB—B3 13PxP
(13 . . . Q—B2 as in Gipslis-Marovic, After 13 P-QN3 N x B + 14Q x N
Erevan 1971, allows White to consolidate P—K4 15 P—KN4!? N—Q2 (best)
his advantage but Black may do 16 K-Rl P-QN3 17 R-KN1 B-N4
better to play 13 . . . B—K3 with the idea Black is in no danger of losing since
of eliminating his weakness by . . . P— White’s chances reside in the advance
Q4.) 14 KR—Q1 (This seems more of his pawn-majority, which can only
accurate than 14 QR—Q1 B x P 15R—N1 be accomplished by moving his pieces
B-K3 16 Q-QN5 B-B3 17 Q xP away from his weakened king’s wing,
R-B1 18 Q-R6, Drawn, TukmakovOlafsson, Zlotnik-Bagirov, Kiev 1970.
Moscow 1971, but, nonetheless, 13... PxP
perhaps Black can try 14 . . . B x P even 14 B—N4! (55)
after 14 KR—Q1, though he is a tempo 55 ___
down on the above game.) 14 . . . Q—B1
B
15 R—Q2 and now:
a) 15 . . . R—Q1 16 QR—Ql N—K2
17 Q-K4 B-B4 18 Q-B4 N-N3
19 Q—N3 B—K5 20 B—Q4 and BlackVA PA 4 VA
has no compensation for his weaknesses,
Lein-Smyslov, 34th USSR Ch
1967.

b) 15. . . N--K4 16 R-QB1 P-QN3

17 P-QN3 R—Q1 18 QR-Q1 and
again White has a solid plus, Georgadze-Grigorian,
USSR 1971. This is much superior to 14 B x P
 Modern:4...B—N5 6

R-Nl 15B—K4N/3xP 16BxRP b) 5 .. . P—KN3 6 N—N5 B x B 7

R x P with advantage to Black. This Q x B P-KR3 (otherwise Black mwt
is analogous to Capelan-Hecht, Berlin resign himself to 7. . . P—K3) 8 N x Pt
1971, where P—KR3 and B—R4 had KxN 9 Q-B3+ K-K3:
been played earlier. bl) 10 P—B4 N—N3 (or 10. . . P xP
Black can now try: 11 PxN+ QxP 12 Q-N4+ and
a) 14. . . N/4xP 15 BxP+ K-Rl 13 N-B3) 11 P—Q5 + K-Q2 12 QN4
16 B—Q4 N x P, Bikhovsky-Bagirov, + K-K 1 13 Q x P + K-Q2 14
USSR 1967, and now White should Q-B5+ K-K1 15 P-K6 Q-B1 16
play 17 Q—R5 when the threat of P—QN3 and wins, Klovan-Voitkevich,
B—KB5 gives him some advantage. Riga 1962.
b)14...R-B3 15P—QN3NxB 16 b2) 10 Q-N4 + K-B2 11 P-K6 +
Q xN N—Q2 17 QR—Ql R—N3 18 K-N2 12 Q-B3 N—B3 13 QxP
Q—K4 and again White has an edge, P-B3 14 N-B3 K-R2 15 P-Q5 QN3
Matanovic-Bagirov, Beverwijk 1965. 16 Q x R B—N2 17 0-0 arid
Not much better for Black in this line White was able to extricate his queen
is 16 . . . R—N3 17 Q-R3 B—B3 after 17 . . . Q—R3 18 B—K3 P—B4
18 QR—B1 B xN 19 R x B, GufeldRyc, 19 P-QR4 R-QB1 20 N-N5 N-B3
Kislovodsk 1968. 21 N—B7!, Heuer-Voorema, Tallinn
1962.
D c)5...PxP 6NxPBxB 7QxB
P—QB3 (or 7 . . . N—N3 8 0—0) 5 B—K2 N—QB3 (5
80-0 P-K3 9 P-QB4 N-B3 10 B—N5
56 B-K2 11 N-QB3 0—0 12 QR-Q1
W QN-Q2 13 R-Q3 with the better
game, Bastrikov-Hasin, USSR 1957.
d) 5.. . N—N3 6 N—N5 (6 0—0 N—B3
transposes into Dl) 6.. . B x B 7 Q x B
VA P-KR3 8 N-K4!? N—B3(!) 9 P-K6
NxP 10 PxP+ KxP 11 Q-Q3
PA VA P-K4 12 B-K3 P-Q4 13 N-N3
P—B4 14 0—0 B—Q3? (14.. . B—K2
15 P—KB4 P—K5 16Q—Q1 B—B3 gives
Black better chances of repulsing the
White attack) 15 P—KM P—KS 17
No other moves here have attained Q-Ql N—B3 18 N—B3 B-K2 19 QRS
any status greater than that of casual + P-N3 20 Q-R3 N-B5 21 P-BS
experiments: and White won, Tseitlin-Karasev,
a) 5 .. . N—Q2 6 P—KR3 B—R4 7 N—
N5 B-N3 8 P-K6 N/2-B3 9 B-Q3
Q-Bl 10 B x B BP x B 11 0—0 P-B3 Dl: 60—0
12 Q-Q3 Q-B2 13 P-QB4 with D2: 6P-B4
great advantage, Maroczy-Vukovic, White may also play 6 P x P at
1927. once without the preliminary 6 P-B4
66 Modern:4...B—JV5

N—N3. If then 6. . . KP or BP x P Dl
Black has the additional option of 60-0

7 . . . N—B3 after 7 P—B4. KarpovMikenas, Now 6. . . P—K3 leads to variation

USSR 1970, continued Cl, but other moves bring about
6. . . KP x P 7 P-B4 N-B3 8 0-0 independent lines.
B—K2 9 P-KR3 B—R4 10 P—Q5 6... N—N3(57)
B x N 11 B x B N-K4 12 B-K2 0-0

13 N—B3 N/4-Q2 (the position is now 57 I’FAI

very similar to those reached from 7 w
N-N3 8 P—Q5 in D2) 14 B—K3 PQR4
15 Q-B2 N-B4 16 P-QR3
N/3—Q2 17 P—QN4 P x P 18 P x P
R x R 19 R x R N—R3 20 Q—Q2
N x P 21 R-N 1 N-R3 22 R x P
N/3—B4 23 R—R7 Q—N1 24 N—N5
B—Q 1 25 Q—R2 and White’s pressure
was too strong. However after 6 P x P
Black can also try 6 . . . Q x P(!).
Iljin-Genevski-Réti, 1926, continued
7 N—B3 (the critical point is that 7 P—B4 If 6. . . P—KN3? then 7 P—K6 P x P
can be answered b 7 . . . .N—B5! 8 N—N5, Zita-Vidmar, 1948, is now
8 P—B5 Q—B3) 7. . . 0—0—0 8 N x N too strong.
QxN 9B-K3P-K4 10PxP 6 ... P x P 7 N x P (more incisive
B x N 11 P x B Q-R4 + 12 B-Q2 than 7 P-B4 N-N3 8 P—Q5 B x N
Q x KP 13 P-B3 B-B4 in Black’s 9 B xB N-Q5 10 N-B3 P-QB4!)
favour. 7...BxB 8QxBNxN(not8...
Another possibility here is 6 P— NxP? 9Q—B4) 9PxNalsoleaves
K6!?. Mukhin-Kaunas, USSR 1968 Black with more problems than he
continued 6 . . . P x P (obviou.sly can solve. Brinkmann-Schonmann
6 . . . B x P 7 P—B4 loses a piece) 1927, continued 9. . . Q—Q2 10 P—B4
7N-N5 B xB 8Q xBNxP 9Q-Q1 N-N3 11 N—B3 P-K3 12 B-N5
(f 9 Q—K4 P—B4 followed by 10 . . P—KR3 13 B-R4 Q—B3 14 KR—Q1
N-KB3) 9. . . P-KR3 10 N x P P-N4 15 B-N3 P—KR4 16 P—KR4
N x N 11 Q x N Q-B 1 12 Q-R5 + B-K2 17 P x P B x P 18 N—K4 with
K-Q1 13 0-0 P-KN4 14 R-K1 great advantage.
B-N2 15 Q-B7 B-K4 16 N—B3 7 P—QR4(!)
R—B1 17 Q-R7 N-Q5 18 P—B4! Perhaps the sharpest move, though
P x P 19 B x P and White broke alternatives are not weak:
through, but Bagirov suggests 16... (a) 7 N-B3 P-K3 8 B-KN5 B—K2
Q—Q2 as an improvement. 9BxBQxB lOPxPQxPand
6P-KR3(?)BxN 7BxBPxP Black has a comfortable game, Aronin-Mikenas,
8 P x P P-K3 9 0-0 N/4-N5!, Riga 1962.
l3ondarevsky-Mikenas, Moscow 1942, (b)7P-KR3BxN 8BxB.
gives Black at least equality. (bl)8...P—K3(?) 9PxPBxP
 Modern:4...B—N5 f7

(or9. .. Q xP 1OP—B3andJV’—Q2—K4,7PxP
Boleslavsky-Mikenas 1962) 10 B x N + 7 P—K6(?) is not now particularly
P x B 11 N-B3 0-0 12 N-K4 with dangerous. Simagin-Fridstein, Moscow
advantage, Listengarten - Mikenas, 1947,wenton7. . .PxP 8N—B3
semi-final USSR Oh 1962. P-N3 9 N-KN5 B x B 10 N x B
(b2)8...PxP9PxPQxQ 10 Q-Q2 11 P-Q5 PxP 12 PxP
R x Q P-K3 11 P-QN3 (11 B x N+ N—N5 and White’s attack had made
P x B leaves Black with reasonable little progress.
counterplay against the White KP) 11 7 N—B3 P x P 8 P—Q5!? leads to
N x P 12 B x P R-QN1 13 B—QR6 unclear play: 8 ... B x N 9 B x B
N—Q4 14 B—N2 with much the better N-Q5 10 P-B5 N-Q2 11 B-K3
ending, Novopashin-Mikenas, USSR NxP 120-OP-K3 13P-QN4N-Q2
Ch 1962. 11 •.. B—K2 12 B—N2 14BxNPxB 15PxPPxP 16
restricts White to a somewhat smaller Q x P and White has attacking
advantage. chances for his pawn, GligoricPenrose,
(c)7PxPKP0rBPxP(7...QxP8 1960.

P-B3 and N-Q2-K4) 8 P-Q5 leads to 7 P—KR3(?) is effectively met by

positions very similar to those in D2, 7 ... BxN 8 BxB PxP (or 8...
especially if ‘White plays a later P—B4. NxBP 9BxNch.PxB 1OQ-R4
7... PxP N—N3), rather than 7 ... B—R4? 8
7 ... P-QR4 8 P x P and 9 P-Q5 P x P as in the main line, TaimanovKopylov,
is even better for White than 7 P x P USSR 1950.
at once. 7... KPxP(58)
8 P-R5! P-KS
Ivkov suggests 8 ... N—Q2, but 58
gave the variation 9 P—R6! P—QN3 W
10PxPN/2xP 11NxNQxQ 12
BxQ NxN 13 B—B4 in White’s VA II
favour.
9 N—N5 BxB

10 QxB N-Q4
P_A
11 R—Q1
Black’s development has been effectively
thwarted. Bogdanovic-Knezevic, /%g
Kraljevo 1967, continued 11
P—KN3 12 P-R6! P-N3 13 P-QB4 If 7 ... BPxP White also plays
N-B3 14 P—Q5 N-K4 15 N x KP 8 P—Q5, both because Black is
N x N 16 Q x N B-N2 17 N-B3 threatening 8 ... B x N 9 B x B
Q-Q2 18 P-R3 Q-B4 19 Q-K2 N x BP and because it is strong. 8...
Q-R4 2OQxQPxQ 21N-N5and B x N 9 B x B N-K4 10 B-K2, and
White won. now:

(a) 10... P—N3 11 B—K3 B—N2 12

D2 N—Q2 0—0 13 0—0 P—K3 (otherwise
6 P-B4 N—N3 White consolidates his space advantage and
68 Modern:4...B—N5

playsP—B4) 14PxPPxP 15Q—N3 8... BxN

and Black’s position is hard to defend, 9 B x B N—K4
Unzicker-van Scheltinga, 1951. 10 B—K2 B—K.2
(b) 10 ... R—B1 11 P—QN3 PN3 10. . . P—N3 is possible, but scarcely
12 B—N2 (or 12 B—K3 as in (a)) 12 likely to be any improvement.
...B—N2 13Q—Q2RxP!? 14PxR
N/4xP 15BxB!NxQ 16BxR 0-0
N xN 17 R xN P-B3 18 B-N7 and 12 NQ2 RK1
the White pieces eventually defeated 13 QB2
the Black pawns, Klavin-Karasev, It is unclear how Black can free his
Moscow 1961. position. He certainly failed to do so
8 P—Q,5 in Kotz-Steinberg, Kiev 1958, after
Quieter play transposes to the 13 ... B—B1 14 N—K4 P—KR3 15
Exchange Variation with. .. KP xP P-QN3 P-KB4 16 N-B3 P-N3
(Chapter 5 variation B). 17 P—B4 N/4—Q2 18 P—KN4.
4 MODERN VARIATION:
OTHER 4TH MOVES

1 P—K4 N-KB3 gratuitously moves a piece away from

2P-K5 N-Q4 the centre. The limited expericnce
3 P-Q4 P-Q3 that there has been with this line
4 N—KB3 (59) suggests that White must react energetically
if he is to attain much
59
B I4JL4. _ advantage. Hence, the following
moves are relatively innocuous:
a) 5 B—K2 P—N3 (Inferior is 5
N-B3 6 P x P BP x P 7 P-Q 5 N-K4
fAiJê.//A 80-0 P-N3 9 N-B 3 B-N2 JON-Q4
0-0 11 P-QR4 P-QR4 12 P-R3
rA FAA VA
13 R-K1 N-B3 14 N/ 4-N5 B-Q 2 15
B-K3 R-B1 16 B-Q4 and White has
enduring spatial advantage, Mednis-Saidy,
New Tork 1969.) 6 0—0 B—N2 and
now:

Besides 4 ... P—KN3 and 4 al) 7 P x P BP x P 8 P-QR4 0-0!

B—N5, Black has several other possibilities 9 P-R5 N-Q4 10 P-B4 N—KB3 11
at this stage which are by no P—R3 P-Q4 12 N-B3 N—B3 13 Q-.
means unplayable: R4 P x P 14 B x P B-Q2 15 Q-R3
A:4...N—N3 R—B1 and Black stands better, HonfiSchmid,
B. 4...N—QB3 Monte Carlo 1969.
C: 4... PxP a2) 7 P-QN3 N—B3 8 B—N2 PxP
9NxPNxN1OPxNQxQ 11
A KR x Q B—B4 12 P—Q 84 and,
4... N-N3 according to Schwarz, White has a
This move has been played quite minimal advantage.
frequently by the West German a3) 7 B-KB4 N-B3 8 N—B3 0-0
grandmaster, Lothar Schmid. Its 9 P x P BP x P 10 Q-Q2 . B—N5 11
main point seems to be the avoidance B—K3 BxN 12 BxB N-B5 13 QK2
of the B—QB4 lines against 4 . . NxNP 14 QR-N1 NxP 15
P—KN3 while maintaining the possibility BxNBxB 16RxNBxN 17RxP
of fianchettoing the king’s P—K3 19 Q-R6 B-Q5 19 Q-R4 P—
bishop. On the debit side, Black K4 20 R-Q7? Q-R5 21 B—B6
70 4...Misc.

QR-Nl 22 P-QB3 QxBP+ 0-1. B

Kinzel-Schmid, Venice 1953. An undistinguished
4... N—QB3
game. 5 P-QB4
b) 5 P x P leaves White with nothing Innocuous is 5 B—QN5 P—QR3 6
better than transposition into the B x N + P x B 70-0 P-K3 8 QN-Q2
Exchange System, the Modern System B-K2 9 N-B4 P-QR4 10 R-Ki
with 4 . . . P—KN3 or the early P-R5 11 B—Q2 B-Q2 12 Q-Bi 0-0
Exchange System with 4 P x P 13 N-N5 Q—N 1, Shamkovich-Larsen,
(Chapter 8, line E), after5... KP xP Moscow 1962.
or 5 . . . Q x P. Pointless is 5 5... N—N3
BPxP 6 B—N5+ B—Q2 7 B—K2 6 P-K6!
P-KN3 8 0—0 B-N2 9 B—KB4 0-06 P x P KP x P transposes into the
10 Q-Q2 N-B3 11 B—KR6 P-K4 12 Exchange Variation.
BxBKxB 13N-B3B--N5 14PxP 6... PxP(60)
P x P 15 Q-K3 Q-K2 16 QR-Q 1

KR—Ql 17 KR-Kl P-B3 and Black 60 I7 6W /

has an excellent position, GhitescuSchmid, w A
Varna 1962.
c) 5 P-B4 B—N5 transposes to
Fx
Chapter 8, line A.
Critical is 5 N—B3! P—KN3 6 B—
KM B-N2 7Q-Q2 B-N5 8 B-KR6
O—O 9 P-KR4! B x N 10 P-R5!
B—Ri (Forced. 10. . . B x RP 11 R x B
P x R 12 Q—N5 is fatal while other
moves with the QB lose to mate down the
_ _ g
rook’sfile.) 11 PxB QPxP 12 B xR
QxB 13RPxPRPxP 14PxP White now has three ways of
BxP 15 P-B4 B—B3 16 N-K4 NB3 attempting a quick smash.
(16. . . B xP 17 QR—N1 B—N2 Bi: 7B—Q3
18 R—N3 N—B3 is a better charwe.) 17 B2: 7N-N5
NxB+ PxN 18 0—0-0 and Black B3: 7P-KR4
has insufficient compensation for the
exchange of which he has been relieved Bi
I. Zaitsev-Zinser, Moscow 7 B—Q,3 N—N5
1968. It is not easy to find improvements 7 ... P—K4 8 N—N5! transposes
for Black. 5 . . . N—B3 is rendered into B2, while 7 ... P—KN3 leads to
dubious by P—K6! while 5... a grisly denouement: e.g. 8 P—KR4
B-N5 6 P-KR3 B xN (6.. . B-R4 P-K4 9 P-R5 NP x P 10 P-Q5 N—
7 P-KN4 B-N3 8 P-K6!) 7 Q x B N5 11RxPP—B3 12BxPRxB 13
N—B3 8 B—N5 is also good for White. RxRB—134 14NxPN-B7+ 15
At the moment, in fact, Zaitsev’s play K-Bl Q-Bi 16 R-R8 N—Q2 17 QR5+
almost constitutes a refutation of K—Q1 18 QxB 1-0. MolesTate,
4.. .N—N3. Groningen 1967—8.
 4 . . . Misc. 71

8N-N5 NxB+ 0—i, Shishkin-Murashov, Ukrainian

9QxN Q-Q2 Spartakiad 1966.
9 .. . P-B4 10 Q-KB3 Q-B2 11 9.. RxB(!)
Q-B7 + K-Q 1 12 Q-B4 K—K 1 13 1ONxR B-B4
P-Q5 P—K4 14 Q-B7 + K-Q1 15 11 N—R3! (61)
N x P is very good for White, MureiMoldavski,
Moscow 1967. 61
1ONxRP Q—B3 B IPX PA4
11 Q-N6 + K-Q2
And now White could have secured
a pawn by 12 NxB+ RxN 13
Q x P Q-K5 + 14 B-K3 without any p7%,
noticeable ill-effects. Instead Lehmann-Bogoljubov,
1950, continued
12P-QN3RxN! 13QxRQxNP
14 R-B1 P-B3 15 B—K3 K-B2 with
an obscure position.

B2 The game Ciric-Zuidema, Belgrade

7 N-N5 P-K4 1964, now continued 11 . . . Q—Q2
7..P—KN3 8B—Q3andnow: 12NxBQ-B3 130-00-0-0 14B—
a) 8 ... P—K4 9 N x RP R x N 10 K3RxN 15BxNPxB 16QxP
BxP+ R-B2 11 P-Q5 N—Q5 12 P—K4 17 Q—R4 and White had
Q—R5 with great advantage. consolidated. Better seems 11
b)8...B—N2 9NxRPNxQP 10 BxN 12 Q-R5+ K-Q2 13 Q xB
B x P + K—Q2 11 N—N5! and again P—K3 when Black’s well placed
White is well on top. knight and central pawn mass give
c) 8...NxQP 9NxRPN-B4 10 him some compensation for the
N x B followed by 11 P—KR4 and exchange.
White stands much better. (Analysis
by Schwarz.) B3

8B—Q3! 7 P-KR4
This is stronger than 8 P—Q5 For some reason, this move has
N—Q5 9B-K3B--B4! lOB xNPxB proved more popular than 7 N—N5
11 QxPP-K4! or 7 B—Q3 of late.
8... NxQP 7... P—K4
9 BxP A game Kristofel-Larsen, Zurich
Inferior is 9 N xP B—K3 10 N—N5 1961, continued 7 . . . N—Q2 8 N—
Q-Q2 11 B-N6+ K-Q1 12 B—K3 N5 N-B3 9 P-Q5 P x P 10 P x P
BxP 13BxNPxB 14QxPP-K4 N-K4 11 P-B4 N/4—N5 12 B—Q3
15 Q-K3 B-K2 16 N-B7 + B x N P-B3 13 N x P Q-R4 + 14 B-Q2
17 BxB P-Q4 18 Q-Q2 R-R3 QxQP 15NxN+NPxN 16B-
19 P-KR4 Q-R4 20 B x P R-Q 3 21 N6 + K-Q 1 17 Q-K2 P-KM 18
N-B3 N x B 22 N x N Q-K5 + B—B3 R-KN1 19 B—R7 R-N2 20
72 4...Misc.

B x R B x B and White is in trouble. P—B4 14 Q—B3 B-K2 15 R-K3

Larsen, however, in his notes to his Q-B2 16 B—R5! Q x B 17 Q x P
game with Tal quoted below gave QxP 18 QxR+ (18 P-KN3 Q—
7 . . . N—Q2 as dubious because of R8+ 19 K-Q2 NxP+ or 19 K-K2
8 P—R5 presumably with the idea of B—N5+!) 18. .. K—B2 19 R-B3 +
permanently restricting Black’s king- (19N—Q2!) 19...B—B4 2ORxB+
side development. Whether this idea (Q—B3!) K—N3, Nei-Honfi, Zalaegerszeg
is fatal for Black remains to be seen. 1969. The game was eventually
8 P-Q5 N-Q5 drawn.
9NxN PxN From the diagram, White can try
10 QxP 11 Q—Q1!, a suggestion of Larsen, or
Tal-Larsen, Eersel 1969, continued else 11 P x Pep. B x P and now
10 B—Q3 Q--Q2! already with some Florian recommends 12 Q-K4 with
advantage to Black according to advantage to White. This seems far
Larsen. The difficulties of the resultant too glib a judgement on a very
position, however, make any complicated position. After 12
positive assessment of who stands Q—Q2 Black seems to have a very
better not at all easy: 11 B—N5 P— playable game, since 13 Q x NP
KR3 12 B—Q2 Q—N5 13 B—K2 Q— B—K2 followed by ... 0-4) looks very
K5 140-0 B—B4 15 N-R3 Q x RP!? dangerous for White, Honfi-Westerin,
16 N—N5 P—Q6 with obscure complications, Wijk aan Zee 1969, continued,
from which Larsen eventually instead of 12 Q—K4, 12 B—N5 Q—Q2
13 B-K2 K-B2 14 0-0 (14 B-R5+
emerged victorious.
10... P—K4 (62) K—Ni achieves little for White since
Black will play ... P-KN3 and
62 B—N2 driving White back.) 14
w P—KR3 15 B-K3 B-K2 and White
has clearly overreached. Again there
is great scope for original ideas in
these lines.

C
4... PxP
Larsen’s move of which he has this
to say: ‘Theoreticians have called this
move a mistake, because it brings the
White knight to a good square. But
10... Q—Q,2 leads to a very wild it may be playable; the idea should
position after 11 B—K2 (11 R—R3 be to win back the ‘lost’ tempo by
Q—N5 12 B-B4 P-B4 13 P x Pep. P— exchange threats against this White
K4 14 B x P which, according to knight’.
Florian, is unclear, an assessment with 5 NxP (63)
which it is difficult to find fault). 11 Now we have:
P-K4 12 P x Pep. Q x P 13 R-R3 Cl: 5...P—K3
 4...Misc. 73

Q—B4!) 1O...QxN 11PxN

B B—N2 12 B—R3? (Overlooking Black’s
fifteenth but Black stands well in any
PA VA VA VA case.) 12 .. . Q—R5 13 B—N4 P—QR4
14 B—N3 Q-N4 15 P-QR4 P x B!
VA. VA 16PxQRxR+ 17K-K2RxR
18PxPO-O 19Q-B4P-K4 20
P x P B-Q2 21 B—B4 B—B4 22 P-K6
rA PxP 23 QxP R-QB8 24 B-N3
B-B3 25 K-.Q2 R-KN8 26 K-K2
B-N5 + 27 P-B3 R x P + 0-1,
C2. 5...N—Q2 Ivkov-Larsen, Bled 1965.
C3:5...P—KN3 c) 6 N—Q2 N—Q2 7 QN—B3, another
All these moves have been tried by Tal suggestion.
Larsen. d) 6 B—K2 N-Q2 7 N x N B x N
8 0—0 and White maintains a slight
Cl spatial edge, though Black’s position
5... P—K3 after. . . Q—B3 and. . . 0—0—0 is not
Against this solid move White has without counter chances.
a number of possible replies, most of e) 6 Q,—B3 Q-B3 (Now 6.. . Q-K2
which are relatively unexplored: is not so nutz7zg since White has not
a)6B—Q3N—Q2 70—ONxN 8 forced . . . P—KN3 which gives tht
P xN B-Q2 9 Q-K2 Q-R5! 10 PB3 bi.shop a square as in Ivkov-Larsen above.)
0—0-0 and Black even has the 7 Q—N3 P-KR3 8 N—QB3 N—N5(?)
advantage, Michell-Réti, Margate 9 B-N5 + P—B3 10 B-R4 N-Q2
1923. 11 0-0 (11P—QR3N—Q4 12NxP!?
b) 6 Q-R5 P-KN3 7 Q-B3 Q-K2 ü rendered dubious by 12 . . . N x N
and now: 13 PxN—13 QxN N-N3 14 NN8+
bl) 8 P-KR4 is an untried suggestion K—Q1!—13 . . . J’f—N3 14
of Mikhail Tal. B-QN5 B—Q2 15 NxP Q-Q1!)
b2) 8 P—QN3 (Kotov) 8 .. . N—Q2 1l...NxN 12PxNQ—N3 13Q—
9 B-R3 (or 9 N x N B x N 10 B-R3 B3 Q-B4 14 Q-K2 B-K2 15 PQR3
Q—B3) 9...NxN 1OPxNQ—N4! N-Q4 16 N-N5! PxN 17
b3) 8 P—QR3 to be followed by P—B4 Q x P + K-Q 1 18 P-QB4 Q x KP
—an untried suggestion of Schwarz. (18 . . . N—N3 19 Q—R5 followed
b4) 8 N—B3(?) N—Q2! 9B-QB4 (not by 20 P—B5 and 18. . . J’f—B5 19
9 N/3xNPxN 10 QxP? P-KB3) R-Q I + K-B2 20 R-Q7 + B x R
9 . . . N/4 xN (Larsen rejected 9 21 QxB+ K-Ni 22 QxB QxP
N/2xN 1OPxNNxN llQxsV 23 B-K3 N-N3 24 Q x BP Q-B3
Q-N5 12QxQBxQ+ 13P-QB3 25 B-K8! Q-K2 26 Q xN R xB
B—K2 14 B—KR 6.) 10 N x N (If 10 27 B-B5 Q-Q2 28 B-Q6+ K-B1
Q xN then 10.. Q-N5 immediately 29 P—B5 with a winning position—
was intended while 10 P x N is bad Tal—are no improvement0) 19 P x N
B-Q3 20 P-KN3 QxQP 21 Q63 ii PxN because of 10 . . . N x N
74 4...Misc.

K2 K—K2 22 R—Q1 Q—QR4

23 Q—N4 Q-KB4 24 Q-QB4 Q-QB4 8 P-KN3 P-QJ-44!
25 Q-Q3 Q-Q4 26 Q-QB3 B-K4 The only chance; alternatives lose,
27’Q-Kl! Q-B4 28 B—Q2 K-B3 29 e.g. 8.. . N/Q2—B3 9 B—R3 + K-Q3
QR-B1 Q—N3 20 B—K3 Q-R3 10 Q-K5 + K-B3 11 B-N2 P-QN4
31 Q-N4 P-QN4 3. B x NP Q-N2 12 P-QR4 P-N5 13 P-B4 P x Pep.
33 P-B4 B-Ni 34 B-B6 1-0, TalLarsen, 14 PxP B—R3 15 N—Q2 or 8
Bled 1965. N/Q4-B3 9 B-R3 + K-Q3 10 QR5!or8...P-KN3
9B—R3+
K—Q3 10 Q—K2.
5... N—Q2(?) 9 P-QR4 P-B3
This move was first played by 1OPxP P-N3

Larsen against Tal in their 1965 This line was foreseen by Larsen
Candidates Match. Ta! thought for before his game with Tal. After
forty-five minutes over 6 N x P etc. 10. . . P x P, a possible line is 11 PN3
only to play instead 6 B—QB4 P—K3 N/Q2-B3 12 B-R3 + K-Q3
7 Q-N4 P-KR4 8 Q-K2 N x N 9 13 Q-K5+ K-B3 14 BxB QxB
P x N B-Q2 10 0-0 B-B3 11 R-Q 1 15 P-QB4 P x P 16 P x P N-N3
Q-K2! 12 N-B3 NxN 13 PxN 17 Q-N5 + K-B2 18 B-B4 + K-Q 1
P—KN3! and Black had an excellent 19 RxP RxR 20 QxN+ R-B2
position. It appears, however, that 21 N—B3 (Schwarz) and Black is
6 NxP! is sound. suffering.
6 NxP! KxN 11Q-K2+ K-B2
7Q—R5+ K—K3 (64) 12 B—N2
12 P xP N/Q2—B3 followed by
64 B—KN5 is probably not as strong.
12... B—KN2
w __‘ ‘4 ‘
ALL 13 P-QB4
PA PA WA VA And White with three pawns for
the piece and a strong initiative has
the better practical chances.

C22
8 P-QB4 N/ Q4-B3
FA 9 P-Q5+ K-Q3
10 Q—B7! (65)

Wiite can now draw by 8 Q—N4allows

+ 10Black
Q-B5to N-B4 11 B—B4 + P-K4
escape.
Black now has various moves of the
K—B2 (Not 8. . . K—Q3 9 P—QB4)
9 Q—R5 + etc. He has, however, two QN:
very promising ways of continuing C221: 10. .. N—K4
the attack: C222. 10. . . N—N3
C21. 8 P—KN3 C223. 10. . . N—QN1
C22: 8P—QB4 Also grim are 10. . . N—B4 11 P—
 4...Misc. 75

65 66
B B

i A tLL

‘i4FA
VA WA PA
II F’ I

12 P-B5+ K-Q2 QN4 N—R3 13 PxP+ PxP 17 R-N7! B-Q2 18

P-B6+ K-Q3 14 15 B-Q3 Q-K1 19 B—B5! Q x Q 20 NxP BxN PxB
N-B3 and 10 P—B3 11 Qb) K4+NxN 2lRxBmate.
K6+ K-B2 12 B-B4+ K-N3 13 14...P—KN3 15 PxP+ P
Q-K3+. 16 R—N7 B—Q2 17 B-Q3 Q-R4 18
19 KR-Ni R-QBI 20 0-0 QxN
C221 21 Q-K6+ B xQ R/i-N6+ R-B3
10... N—K4 22 RxR mate.
11 B—B4 P-B4! 15RxPP-KN4 16 c) 14...PxP
After 11 ... Q—K1 12 QxQ B—N3 B—R3 17 P-B5+PxP 18R—
N x Q 13 N—B3, White simply K4 NxR 19 NxN+ K-Q2 20
recovers the piece with interest. B xN Q-N3 21 Q-K6+ QxQ 22
12 N—B3 P x Q + K x P 23 B x R etc. (Analysis
Less crushing is 12 N-Q2 P-KN4 by Shamkovich.)
13 B—N3 P-N5 14 0—0—0 B—R3 15
R-K1 R-Bl 16 BxN+K—Q2 17 cm
Q—K6+ K-K1 18 Q—Q6! etc. 10... N—N3
12 P-QR3 11 N—B3

13 P-QJ14 P-QN3 Black crawls out of his difficulties

Other moves avail Black little: after 11 P-B5+ KxP 12 B-K3+
a)13...PxP 14P—B5+KxP 15 K-Q3 13N-B3NfN3xP 14NxN
N-R4 + K-Q3 16 N-N2 P-QN4 NxN 15 QxN+ KxQ 16
17 N—Q3. P-QN3 17 RxQ 0-0-0+ K-B3
b)13...Q—N3 14PxP+QxP 18 B—K2 K—N2 19 B—B3+ P-B3.
15 R-Q 1 B—B4 16 R-Q3! B x R 1 7 11... Q—K1
Q-K6 + K-B2 18 B x N + K- Q1 Bagirov now analyses as follows:
19 B x B and Black’s chances of 11 B—B4+ K-Q2 12 Q-K6+ K-Ql
moving any pieces are slim. 13 Q—K5 Q—Q2 14 0-0-0 N-K1
14 R—QN1 (66) 15 B—Q3! N—Q3 17 P-B5 N-B2
Black may now choose which way 18 Q-K3 P-KN4 19 B—N3 B—N2
he is to be dismembered: 20 B—N5 Q—B4 21 Q-B3 KR-K 1
a) 14. . . P—KN4 15 B—N3 B—R3 16 22 PxN 23RPxP P—Q6! etc.
76 4.0.Misc.

23 1968, went 6 P—QB4 N-KB3 (6..

10... N—QJ41 V-N3!) 7 N—QB3 B—N2 8 B—K2
11 P-B5+! KxP 0—0 9 0—0 N-R3 10 B—K3 N—Q2
Orll...K—K4 12N—Q2!QxP I1NxNBxN 12Q—N3Q-B]I 13
13 N-B4+ K—Q5 14 B—K3 + K-K5 QR—Q1 P—QB3 14 KR-K! R—K1
15 P—B3 + K-Br4 16 P—KN4 mate. 15 B—B3 and White maintained an
12 B-K3 + K-Q3 enduring spatial advantage.
13 N—B3 Q-K1
14 B-B4 + K-B4 C31

15 N—K4+ K-Q5 6Q—B3 B-K3

16 P-B3 and the rest is left to 7B—Q,B4 B—N2
the reader’s imagination. 8 N-83 P-QB3
90-0 0-0 (68)
C3

5... P—KN3(67) 68
w
67 F1t*t
w
F4tV%1’AtrA

_ I%PA
I”ir g Also quite as good is 9.. . N—Q,2
10 R-K1 N/2—B3 11 B—KN5 0-0 12
The most interesting and probably B-N3NxN 13BxB? (After 13PxN
the best of Larsen’s ideas in this B—Q4 Black has little to fear and 13
variation. The positions that arise are QxNN-Q4 14 Q-Q2 N-B2 does not
aimilar to those that occur after 1 P— give White much.) 13 . . . N—N4 14 B—
K4 N-KB3 2 P—K5 N-Q4 3 P-Q4 QB4 N x P 15 Q-B3 N—B4 16 QRQ1
P-Q3 4 N-KB3 P—K.N3 5 B—QB4 Q—B2 17 Q-B3 N—Q3 and White
P—QB3. The fact that the White has insufficient compensation for the
knight is already at K5 here gives pawn, Adorjan-McKay, Stockholm
Black greater chances of relieving his 1969.
somewhat cramped position by exchanges. From the diagram White may try:
On the other hand he has to a) 10 N—K4 B x N(?) (Much better is
defend early on with some care. 10. . . JV—B2) 11 PxBN—Q2 12 Q—
We now have: QN3 Q-B2 13 P-B4 P- B3 14 P x P
C31: 6 Q-B3 N/2 xP 15 N—N5 B—B4 16 B—K3
C32: 6B—QB4 P-K3 17 B-B5 and White stands
better, Tukmakov-Levin, Kiev 1968 Byrne-Johansson, Reykj avik R.
 4...Misc. 77

b) 10 B-N3 N-Q2 11 R-K 1 N/2 x N Instead, Yanofsky-Larsen, Winnipeg

12 PxN Q-B2 13 Q-N3 QR-Q1 1967, continued 10 . . . N x P? 11
14 N x N B x N 15 B—KB4 Q-R4 NxP Q—Q2 12 N—B5 Q-B3 13
16 P-KR4 B x B 17 RP x B Q-B4 NxBPxN 14BxNPxB 15Q-
18 R-K2 P-K3 19 P—R5 KR-K 1 Q4 N-B2 16 B-B4 Q-K3 + 17 BK3
20 QR—K1 R—Q2 21 Q-R4 Q—N5 0—0 18 0—0—0 with a big plus for
22 P-N3 Q-N4 23 K—N2 R-Q8 White.
and Black has a good game, Ostojic Hence, White probably has to play
Johansson, Reykjavik 1968. This less aggressively:
extract demonstrates how Black’s a) 7 Q—B3 transposes into C3 1:
problems are lessened with each above.
exchange. b) 7 0-0 B-N2 8 N-Q2 0-0 9 N-K4
P-QB3 10 R-K1 N—B2 11 B-N3
C32 BxB 12RPxBN-K3 13P-QB3
6 B—QB4 N-Q2 14 N x N Q x N and White
6.. B-K3 (69) has exchanged too many pieces to
hope for an advantage, Stein-Honfi,
69 Budapest 1968.
w c) 7 B—N3 B—N2 and now the following
games throw considerable light
on the way both sides ought to treat
this position.
VA P4 c 1) Gaprindashvili-Kushnir, Tiflis
1969, now continued 8 P—Q,B3 P—
QB3 (This is probably premature—it is
not clear that . . . P—QB4 will be impossible
at this stage. Better is 8. . . 0—0.)
9 0—0 N—Q2 10 N—Q3! 0—0 11
N—Q2 B-B4 (After this move Black
Andnot6...B—N2? 7NxPetc. is permanently cramped. Better is 11
More practical experience is needed N-B2.) 12 N-B3 P-QR4 13 P-QR3
before a definite assessment can be P-R5 14 B—R2 P-QN4 15 R-K1
made about the position in the B x N 16 Q x B P-K3 17 B—N5
diagram. At the moment, however, Q-N1 18 QR-Q1 B—B3 19 B—B1
Black seems to have reasonable R—R2 20 N—N5 B—N2 21 Q—R3
chances. 7 N—Q,B3 B—N2 (not 7... N/2—B3 22 N-B3 Q-Q3 23 N-KS
NxN 8BxB!) 8N-K4BxN!? N-Q2 24 N-Q3 R/2-Ri 25 Q—B3
9 P x B N—B3 10 N—B5 is critical but QR-K1 26 P-KN3 Q-K2 27 QK2
Black should now play 10. . . N—K6! Q-Ql 28 Q-B2 Q-B1 29 N-KS
suggested by Bagirov with the continuation N—K2 30 Q-K2 N-B4 31 Q—B3 N-
11 B x N B x B 12 P—QN3 Ni? 32 B—KB4 N-K2 33 NxBP!
P-N3 13PxBPxN 14BxPNxP R x N 34 B x P N—Q2 35 B-Q6 NKB4
15 B-Q4 P-KB3 16 BxN Q xQ+ 36 B x R + K x B 37 P-KN4
17 R x Q P x B with equal chances. N-B3 38 PxN PxP 39 RxR
78 4...Mist.

N x R 40 B—K5 Q—K3 41 B x B it is usually done in order to double

NxB 42 P-Q5 PxP 1-0. the opponent’s pawns. Here Larsen
c2) Jimenez-Larsen, Palma 1967, does so in order to acquire a set of
continued 8 0-0 0—0 9 Q-K2 P— doubled isolated pawns of his own.
QR4 (If White meets this with P—QRI 15 P x B P-Q5 16 B-R6 KR—Q 1
a later P—QBI is rendered less strong 17 B x B P x B 18 KR—K 1 R—Q4
because of the hole on White’s QNI while 19 B-B4 R-KB1 20 P-KN3 R-KB4
P—QR3 P—R5 leaves White’s queen side 21 QR—Q 1? Q-N6! 22 P-R4
pawns fixed so that he has a potential Q x RP 23 Q-K4 Q-N6 24 P x P
white-square weakrwss, which could well be QxP 25 R-N1 QxP 26 RxP
accentuated by the exchange of the white- R/Q4xP 27 Q-N1 (Or 27 BxR
squared bishops. ThLc factor is, however, QxP+ 28K-RJRxB) 27...
not necessarily important.• cf. Gaprindashvili-Kushnir R x R + 28 Q x R Q-Q4 29 QQB1
above.) 10 N—QB3 N-Q5 30 R-N8+ R-B1 31
P-QB3 11 NxN? PxN 12 PQR4? RxR+ KxR 32 B-R6+ K-Ki
N-B3 13 P—QB3 Q—N3 14 33 Q-B8-I- Q-Qi 34 Q-B4 N-B4
B—R2 B xN! In conjunction with 35 B-B4 K-B2 36 B-KS Q-Q8 +
his next, this manoeuvre is magnificently 37 K-R2 Q-Q7 38 Q-B5 P-R5
undogmatic. Nowadays, 39 B-B3 Q-B7 40 K-Ni Q-Q8+
one sees fianchettoed bishops given 41 K—R2 Q-Q4 42 Q—N4 Q—B6
up for knights quite often, but 43 K-Ni P-R6 0-i.
5 EXCHANGE VARIATION

1 P-K4 N-KB3 R—K 1 with advantage to White—

2 P-K5 N-Q4 Konstantinopolsky - Mikenas, USSR
3 P-Q4 P-Q3 1940.
4 P-QB4 N—N3
5PxP (70) A
5... BPxP
70 With this move Black unbalances
B the pawn structure and commits himself
to an intricate struggle. White
can, if he wishes, transpose back into
the Modern Variation with 4

P—KN3 by playing his KN to KB3.

We will, however, confine our attention
here to lines of independent
significance where ‘White either delays
the development of his KN for
_ g some considerable time or else
commits it fairly quickly to K2.
This is one of White’s better lines 6 N—QB3
against Alekhine’s Defence, principally White can also try 6 B—K3 with the
because White does not strive idea of meeting 6 . . . P—N3 with
for too much. He is prepared to content 7 P—Q5; e.g. 7 ... B—N2 8 B—Q4
himself with a small but enduring B x B 9 Q x B 0—0 10 N-Q B3 P-K4!
spatial advantage against which plan- and now:
less play on Black’s part is usually a) 11 P x Pep N—B3! 12 Q—Q2
fatal. (Most prudent—i 2 P x P + gives Black
Black now has two serious ways of too many open lines: e.g. 12 . . . R xP
recapturing on his Q3 square: 13 Q—Q2 Q—K1 +! 14 K—Q1 and White
A: 5... BPxP is in great dfficu1ties.) 12 . . . B xP
B: 5...KPxP 130—O-ONxP l4BxNBxBand
5 ... Q xP is clearly inferior; e.g. Black has a fine game, WebbCafferty,
6 B-K3 Q-N5 + 7 B-Q2 Q-Q3 8 British Ch, Bristol 1968.
P-B5 Q-K3+ 9 B-K2 N-Q4 10 b) 11 Q-Q2 P-B4 12 N-B3 QN—Q2
KN—B3 P—KN3 11 0—0 B—N2 12 13 0-0-0 Q-B3 14 Q-R6 Q-K2 15
80 4 P—QB4 ‘—M 5 P x P
R—K 1 P—K5 16 N-Q2 N-K4 17 against the further advance of the
P-KR3(?) N/3—Q2 18 Q-K3 Q-R5 KRP:
19 P—KN3 Q-B3 20 K-Ni N-B4 21 a) 7... P—KR4(!) and now:
P—B4 P x Pe.p. 22 N x P P—B5! 23 al) 8 B-K3 B—N2 9 Q—Q2 N-B3
PxPNxN 24QxNQ-R5! 25 10 P—B4? (This move creates a permanent
B-K2 B—B4 + 26 K-Ri QR—K 1 weakness on his KN4 but it is already
27 R-QB1 B-K5 28 NxB RxN 29 doubtful whether White has a satisfactoiy
R-R2 R/ 1 x P 30 Q-B3 Q-K2 31 continuation. Unlike Black, he cannot
B—B 1 R-K6 32 Q—Q2 R/6-KB6 castle king-side in safety while Black is
33 R-K2 Q-B3 34 B—N2 R—B7 35 well placed to take advantage of castling
R/Bi-K1 RxR 36 RxR RxP on the opposite wing.) 10... B—B4 ii
37 Q-K3 Q—K4! 38 K-Ni Q xQ P-Q5 N-N5 12 R-B1 N-R3 13
39 R x Q R—B5 40 B-B3 P-KR4 41 B—Q4 B x B 14 Q x B 0-0 15 B—K2
K—B2 K-B2 42 K-Q2 R-QN5 43 Q—B1 16 N—K4 N-B4 17 N-B2
K-B3 R-KR5 44 P-N4 N-Q2 45 P-K4 18BPxPPxP 19QxPR—
B—K2 N-B3 46 R-B3 K—N2 47 Ki 20 Q-Q4 Q-B2, Fabian-Jansa,
R-Q3 P—KN4 48 P-R3 P—N5 Prague 1956.
49 B-B1 N—K5+ 50 K-B2 N-B7 a2) 8 B-Q3 N-B3 9 B—K3 B—N2
51 R-K3 PxP 52 R-K7+ K—Bi 10 KN—K2 0—0 11 P—R3 (?) P—Q4
0-1, Sutties-Fischer, Palma 1970. 12 P—B5 N-B5 13 Q-B2 NxB 14
6... P—N3 P x N P—K4 and Black stands better,
6 ... P—K3 can be met simply by Poisk-Pribyl, Kradec Kraiove 1971.
7 N-B3 when Black has a disadvantageous b) 7... P—KR3(?) (For no good reason
version of similar lines where this move has been played more than 7..
his QB is not locked behind the pawn P—KRI.) 8 B—K3 (Also good is 8 B—Q3
chain. B-N2 9 B-K3 N-B3 10 KN—K2
7 B—K3 (71) P-K4 11 P-Q 5 N-K2 12 P-R 5 P-N4
13 P--B5 with a clear advantage to White,
71 Tal-Shianovsky, USSR 1965.) 8 . .
B B—N2 9 Q-Q2 N-B3 and now:
b 1) 10 P—Q5 N—K4 11 P—QN3
4 N/3—Q2 12 P-B3 N—B4 13 N—R3
B—B4 14 N-B2 P-QN4 (Necessary
before Black’s pieces are repulsed in confusion.)
15 P x P Q-R4 16 R—Bi 0-0
17 N—R4 Q—Ql and, though Black
managed to draw, it was not through
any merit in his position at this stage,
Ciocaltea-Fischer, Havana 1965.
b2) 10 P-Q[4J3 P-Q4 11 P-B5 N—Q2
12 R-Q1 NxQP(?) 13 BxNP-K4 possibly over- An important but
14 B—K3 P-Q5 15 B—QN5! Q—B2 is 7 P-KR4!? ambitious alternative
16 P-R5 P-KN4 17 KN-K2 P x B In practice, Black has found it
18 Q—Q6 Q x Q 19 R x Q B-B 1 20 necessary to take immediate steps
 4P-QB4.V-N3 5PxP 81

R-Q5PxP+ 21KxPK-K2 22 Berliner in which Black played 10...

KR—Ql and White has emerged from P—K4 suggested that White stood
the complications with a plus, Kurajica-Lehmann, better. Recent games have demonstrated,
Malaga 1970. however, that Black ought to
7.. B—N2 play for ... P—Q4 with reasonable
8 B—Q,3 04 chances. Fischer’s willingness to play
9 KN—K2 the line for Black—-cf. Minic-Fischer

By developing his king-side pieces above—supports this view. As yet a

in this manner White aims to prevent concrete ‘main line’ of play has not
Black from effectively developing hifollows
emerged. Hence, much of what
represents ideas which need
QB.
further testing in practical play:
9... N—B3
a) 10 ... P—K4(?) 11 P—Q5 and
10 0—0 (72) now:

al) 11 ... N—K2 12 P—QN3 N—Q2

72
(The immediate 12 . . . P—B4 runs into
B L<Ak* 13 P—B5!) 13 N-K4! N—KM 14
B-N5P--B3 15B-Q2N-B4 16NxN
PAIr_A PxN 17BxNBxB 18P—B4PxP
19 N x P Q-Q3 20 N-R5 QR-K 1
21 NxB KxN 22 B—B4 Q—Q2 23
Q-Q2 R-B2 24 B—R6+ K-Ni 25
QR—Kl R/2—K2 26 RxR QxR
27 P-KR3 Q-K5 28 Q-KB2 Q-K2
29 P-KN4 B-Q6 30 R-Q1 B-K5
/—4fAgA 31 P-Q6 Q-K4 32 B-B4 Q-B6 33
P-Q7 R-Q1 34 Q-K2 Q-B6 35
10 P—QN3, as in the game MmnicFischer, Q x Q B x Q 36 B—B7 1-0, Fischer-
Palma 1970, permits Black Berliner, US Ch New York 1960-61.
easy equality. The game continued a2) 11 ... N—N5 12 P—QN3 N x B
10 ... P—Q4! 11 P—B5 N—Q2 12 13 Q x N N-Q2 14 Q-Q2 P-B4 15
B—QN5 (directed against 12.. . P—QN3 P—B4! P—N3 (15 ... P—KN4!?) 16
and 12... NxBP followed by 13... QR-Q1 N-B3 17 PxP PxP 18
P—Q5.) 12 .. . P—K4 13 0—0 N x BP! B—N5 B--Q2 19 K—Rl R—B2
14PxPP-Q5 15NxPNxKP N-KN 1 Q-KB 1 21 P-Q6 B-B3
16 P—KR3 N-K3 17 N x N B x N 22 P—QN4 P—KR3 23 B x N B x B
18 P—B4? (Black now seized the initiative 24 P—B5 PxP 25 PxP R—Kl 26
with 18 . . . Q—R4.’ Better would have N—Q5 B—Ql 27 Q—K2 B—Rl 28
been 18 Q x Q KR x Q 19 QR—B1 with Q-N5 K—N2 29 Q-B4 P-B5(?)
equality.) 30P—B6QxP 31NxPQxP 32
The position shown in the diagram N-R5 + K-RI 33 Q x Q B x Q 34
is one about which no clear theoretical RxR PxN 35 R—Q6 and White
verdict has been reached. For a long won quickly, Fischer-Berliner, US
time two games between Fischer and Ch New York, 1962—63.
82 4 P-QB4 N-N3 5 P x P

The only other game with 10 has never been played in practice but
P—K4(?) deviated from a2) with a game Hartston-Alexandria, Sinaia
12 ... P—QR4 but White soon won 1970, went from Diagram 70, 5 . .
this pawn: 13 R—B 1 N-Q2 14 B—Ni BP x P 6 B—K3 P-KN3 7 B-Q3
N-R3 15 P-QR3 P-B4 16 P-B3 B—N2 8 N-K2 N-B3 9 0-0 B—N5
Q-K2 17 B—KB2 N—B3 18 Q-Q2 10 P-KB3 B—B4 ii P-QN3 B x B
B—Q2 19 B-N6 QR-K1 20 QR-K1 12 Q xB 0-0 13 QN—B3 P—Q4 with
N-R4 21 B x RP, Gheorghiu-Jansa, an equal game. This idea, too, deserves
Harrachov 1967. further practical tests.
Hence, Black has sought other
solutions: B
b) 10.. . N—N5 (a suggestion of Schwarz 5... KPxP(73)
which deserves to be tried) 11 P—QN3

(Preparing P—Q5 which was unplayable 73 Ka’LIL

immediately because of 11 . . . N x B 12 w
Q xNB-B4.) ii .. . P—Q4 12 P—B5 L
N-Q2 13 P-QR3 N x B 14 Q x N
N—B3 15 N—N3 with some advantage
to White, though Black’s position is
very solid and he has the bishop
pair, Iljin-Genevski-Jeremin, USSR
1931.
/44j4d VA
c) 10 ... P—K3 ii P—QN3 B—Q2
12 Q-Q2 P-Q4 13 P-B5 N-Bi 14 g
P-QR3 N/i-K2 15 QR-Qi (?)
(P—QN4) 15... P—QN3! and Black Thus Black maintains the symmetry
stands better—e.g. 16 P—QN4 P x P of the pawn structure and a solid
17 NP x P Q-R4-—--Minic-Planinc, position. He must, however, play with
Jugoslavia 1970. the utmost circumspection in order
d) 10 ... B—N5!? The point of this to avoid a completely passive arrangement
move is that after 11 P—B3 Black of his pieces.
can play ii . .. B—B4 and meet 12 6 N—Q,B3 B—K2 (74)
BxB with 12 ... NxBP. Hence

White has to play 12 P—QN3 when 74

after 12 ... B x N 13 Q x B P—Q4 w
Black has little to fear since he has
eliminated his QB which is his main
problem in this variation. White does
best to play 11 P—KR3 B x N 12 ‘4 VA, PA,
N x B when White has more scope to
meet the plan ... P—Q4 . . . P—K3
N—Bi—K2—B4 than in analogous
‘A P#A PA
positions where his KN is on
KB3 and his B on K2. 10... B—KN5 / _ _
 4P-QB4N-Jf3 5PxP 83

An alternative plan which was once 13 B-B1 P-QN3

quite popular consists in the fianchettoing 14 P-QN3 N—R4
of Black’s KB. This idea has 15 N-B4 B—N2
gone completely out of fashion now, Black with a solid position and the
not only because it weakens the black bishop pair stands no worse.
squares on the king-side but also
because White, with the move order B2
in the text, can take instant tactical 7 P-KR3

advantage. Thus 6.. P—N3 7 N— This idea does not apply when the B3 B—N2 (or 7. . . B—N5 8 Q—K2+ variation is reached by devious routes,
Q-K2—8. . . B-K2 9 B-R6—9 N-K4 e.g. 1 P-K4 N-KB3 2 P-KS N-Q4
with advantage). 8 B—N5 P—KB3 9 B— 3 P-Q4 P-Q3 4 N-KB3 B-NS S
K3 with a clear advantage, RagosinSefc, B—K2 N-QB3 6 P-B4 N-N3 7 P xP
Prague 1956. No better is 6 KP xP.
N-B3 7 B—K3 P-KN3 8 Q-K2! 7.. 00
Q-K2 9 P-B5 P x P 10 P x P N-Q2 8 N—B3 (75)
11 N—Q5 winning (Sokolsky).
White has now three plans:
7 B—K3 with the idea of playing 75
B—Q3
Black’s QB and KN—K2
any obviously good thus
square denying B LAL1
—-this idea has not been tried in
recent master practice—7 P—KR3 in IrA: P44
order to develop his KN at KB3 and
his KB at K2 without having to
worry about. . . B—N5, and 7 B—K2----
the main line.
Bi: 7B—K3
B2: 7P—KR3
B3. 7 B—K2

Black’s main problem in this variation

B1 is whether to play an early
7 B—K.3 N—B3 P—Q4 or to maintain the central

7 N—B3 reaches lines considered pawn structure as it is and seek play

in B2 or B3. elsewhere. Practice suggests that the
8 B—Q,3 0-0 second solution is correct. As often in
9 KN—K2 N—N5 an opening so unexplored as Alekhine’s
Also playable is 9. . . B—N5 10 0—0 Defence it is impossible to give
B—B3 11 P-B3 B—R4 12 P-QN3 a series of neat variations. Instead one
and White has a slight edge, ZinnSchmidt, has to choose between ideas to which
W. Germany 1964. different players give expression in
100-0 NxB different ways. Hence:
11QxN P-Q4! B21: Black plays an early.. . P—Q4
12 P-B5 N-B5 B22: Black seeks play in other way.
84 4 P-QB4 N-N3 5 P x P
B21 43 K-B3 B-K4 44 K-K4 K-B3 45
a)8...B—B39B--K2R—K1 100-0 P-N4 P-N4 46 K-Q3 P-B3 47 N-B3
N—B3 transposes to SigurjonssonRogoff, B xN 0—1, Nicevski-Hort, Athens
Haifa 1970, which continued 1969.
11 P—QN 3 B—B4 12 B—K 3 P-Q4 (?) b) ... B-B3 9 B—K2 R-Ki 10
13 P—B5 N—B 1 (Thu knight has little 0-0 N-B3 11 B—B4 B-B4 and now:
future now.) 14 Q—Q2 B—K5 15 bi) 12 R-B1 P-KR3 13 P-QN3
N-R2! P-KR3 16 N-N4 B—R5 17 R-K2 14Q-Q2 Q-Q2 15 KR-Q1
P-N3 B-B3 18 NxB+ QxN 19 QR-Ki 16 B-Bi P-KN4!? 17 B-N3
P-B3 B—N3 20 N x P Q-K3 21 BQB4QxP B-K5 18 NxB RxN 19 B-Q3
22B—B4R-Q1 23BxP R/5—K2 20 B—Ni B—N2 21 R—Ki?
with great advantage to White. RxR 22 RxR RxR 23 QxR
b) 8 ... N—B3 9 B—K2 B-B4 10 P-B4! 24 P—Q5 N-Qi 25 Q-Qi
0-0 P—KR3 11 P—QN3 B-B3 12 Q-B2 26 N-Q4? P-B5 27 B-R2
B-K3 P—Q4(?) 13 P—BS N—Bi N xQP! 28 N-N5 N-B6 29 N x N
14 N—R2! R—K1 15 N—N4 B-N4 B x N 30 P-KR4 B-K4 31 P x P
16BxBQxB 17P-B4Q-Q1 18 P x P 32 Q-N4 Q-K2 33 P-N3 P x P
N-K5P--B3 19NxNPxN 20B—R5 34 P x P B—N2 35 K-N2 Q-K4 36
R-K3 21 Q-Q2 N-K2 22 P—KN4 K-R3 N-B2 37 Q-B8+(?) B-B1
B—R2 23P—B5R-K5 24NxRPxN 38 P—KN4? Q—Rl + 0—i, MatanovicLarsen,
25 QR—K1 1—0, Maric-Buljovcic, Palma 1968. Risky play by
Yugoslavia 1969. Larsen which deserves further investigation.

B22 b2) 12 P-QN3 B-KS 13 N x B R x N

a)8..N-B3 9B—K2B—B4 100—0 14 B—K3 P—Q4 (Thu is now possible
B-N3 11 P—QN3 B-B3 12 B—K3 since Black has sufficient space to manoeuvre
P-QR4 13 R—B1 P—R5 14 NxP the knight from N3 to K3—
NxN 15 PxN R-K1 16 R-K1 impossible with all the minor pkces still
Q—Q2 17 Q—N3 B-KS 18 P—Q5 on the board.) 15 P—B5 N—Q2 16 B—Q
20 N—Q4 19 Q—N4 P-QN3 R-Ki 17 Q-Ni N-Bi 18 P-QN4 N—R4
22 N—N5 21 B—N4 Q—K1 N-K3 19 R-Qi P-KN3 20 B—B2 R—K2
N—N2 (Black’s position though cramped N-N4 21 B x N B x B 22 P-N5
has considerable dynamic potential, as the N—R4 23 B—Q3 B—B3 24 Q-B2
sequel shows.) 23 B—Q4 B—N4 24 P-N3 25 R-K1 P—B3 with a good
B—K3 B—B3 25 B-Q4 B-N4 26 B-K3 game for Black, Ostoj ic-Schmidt,
B-RS 27 B-Q4 P—KM 28 B-Q1 Monte Carlo 1969.
Q—N3 29 R x B (an unfortunate necessity.)
29 ... P x R 30 B-N4 N—M B3
31 BxN QPxB 32 Q-N3 R-KB1 7 B—K2 O-0
33 R—KB1 K-Ri 34 B—K6 R—B6 358 N—B3 N—B3
Q—B2 R-B3 36 Q—K2 R-BS 37 Also possible is 8 •.. B—N5 9
K—Ri Q—B3 38 K-Ni P-K6 39 P—QN3 (Unnecessary at this stage; 9 0—0
PxPRxR+ 4OQxRP-N3 41 would probably transpose into the main
Q x Q + B x Q 42 K-B2 K-N2 line.) 9.. . P—QB4!? 10 B—K3 N-B3
 4P-QB4N-N3 5PxP 85

11R-QB1P-B4 12PxPPxP 13 16 P-QS N-Q 1 17 N-Q4 B—N3 18

N-Q5 NxN 14 PxN N-N5 15 B-Q3 Q-Q2 19 N/3-K2 P-B4 20
P-QR3 P-KB5 16 B x QBP B x B 17 N-KB3 N-Bl 21 B-NS B-R4 22
RxB BxN 18 PxB (18 BxB B x B R x B 23 N-R2 Rossolimo-Smysiov,
Q—K2+) 18 ... N—R3 19 R—B3 Monte Carlo 1969.

Q—B3 20 Q—Q2 with roughly equal White probably stood better throughout.
chances, White’s extra pawn being Larsen in his best game collection
counterbalanced by his shattered remarked that 10 . . P—B4, since it
kingside, Minic-Smyslov, Palma 1970. was played by Smysiov, was possibly
9 B—K3 B—N5 worth looking at sometime. True to
10 P-QN3 B—B3 (76) his word, he played the move in the
fourth game of his match against
Kavalek, Solingen 1970: 1 P—K4
N-QB3 2 N-KB3 N-KB3 3 P-K5
N-Q4 4 P-Q4 P—Q3 S P-B4 N—N3
6 P x P KP x P 7 B-K3 B—K2 8 BK2
0-0 9 0-0 B—N5 10 P—QN3
rPArArfxv’A P—B4 (This position differs from that
shown in the diagram above in that White’s
QN is still on Ni and his king castled.
As a result 11 Q—Q2 as in RossolimoSmyslov
above can be met by 11. . . P—B5
12BxPBxN 13BxBNxQP and
now 14 Q x N is impossible because of
14 . . . B—B3, skewering the rook. Had
This is by no means the only move Smyslov tried 11. . . P—B5 14. . . B—B3
order: e.g. would have been met by 15 Q—Q2 B x N+
a) 1 P-K4 N-KB3 2 P-KS N-Q4 16QxBRxB 17BxNPQ-K2+
3 P-Q4 P-Q3 4 N-KB3 N-QB3 18 Q-K3 R-K1 19 Q x Q R x Q +
5 P-QB4 N-N3 6 P x P KP x P 7 20 K—B1 and Black probably has insufficient
N-QB3 B—K2 8 B-K2 0-0 9 B-K3 compensation for the pawn sacrificed.)
B-N5 10 P-QN3 B-B3. 11 N—B3 P—BS 12 B-Q2 B—B3
b) 1 P-K4 N-KB3 2 P-KS N-Q4 13BxPBxN 14BxBBxP 15
3 P-Q4 P-Q3 4 N-KB3 B-N5 S B—Q2 Q—RS 16 K—Ri QR—K 1 17
B-K2 N-QB3 6 P-B4 N-N3 7 P x P R—B 1 (Better 17 B x N P x B 18
KP x P 8 N-B3 B-K2 9 B-K3 0-0 B—N5! with equality—Larsen.) 17
10 P—QN3 B—B3. BxP 18 N-K4 RxN 19 RxB
In both these lines White could have R/S—Ki 20 B—Ki Q—N4 21 B—Q2
tried P—K6 instead of P x P. (See Q-QB4 22 R-B1 N-K4 23 B—K2
Chapters 4, line B and 6, line D. RxR+ 24QxRR-KB1 25Q-Qi
Instead of 10. . . B—B3 Black can Q-QS 26 R—B3 N/3-Q2 27 R—N3
try 10... P—B4(?) 11 Q—Q2 B—B3 R-B2 28 Q-QB1 N-B4 29 B---K3
12 0-0 Q-K2 13 P-KR3 B-R4 14 Q-KS 30 P-KR3 P-QN3 31 K—R2
KR—K1 K—Ri 15 QR—Qi QR—Ki P-QR4 32 B—R5 P-N3 33 B—
86 4P-QB4N-N3 5PxP

Q-R5 34 B—B3 N x B + 35 P x N 77

Q—K2
Q—K3 3836 Q—Q2
R—K2 R—B4
R—K4 39 R x 37
R R—N2 W ±I
Q x R + 40 P-B4 Q-R4 41 B—N5
Q-B6 42 B-R4 N-K5 43 Q-Q5 +
K—Ri 0—1. It should be noted
that Kavalek could have avoided
10 ... P—B4 where Larsen played it
with 9 N—B3 instead of 9 0—0.
Another possibility for Black on
move 10 is . . . P—Q4. This has not
g
turned out well in the two games
where it has been essayed. ShmitMikenas Now White can choose between
USSR 1968, continued 11 the following moves:
P-B5 N-Bl 12 P-KR3 B-K3 B31: 13P—N4
(B x N!?) 13 B—QN5! N—R4 (13... B32: 13P—KR3
B-B3 14BxNPxB 15B-B4 and
White’s grip on K5 gives him much the B31
better game, Mratulovic_Mnmnic, Kraljevo 13 P—N4(?)
1967.) 14 N—KS with some advantage ‘This move accomplishes very little
to White. here. It is known as a good move in
110-0 P—Q4 a similar position, where Black has
Black fixes White’s QP and prepares played S . .. BP x P and later
to bring the N on N3 to KM P—KN3 and... B—N2. But there the
to increase the pressure on it. He move is the starting signal for the
cannot delay this move as the following advance of the pawn majority which
demonstrates: 11 .. . R—K1 12 may, for instance, lead to the creation
P—KR3 B—R4 (12... B x N makes a of a passed pawn.’ (Larsen). Despite
future . . . P—Q4 impossible, while 12. Larsen’s condemnation this move
B—K3 is answered by 13 N—K4 with has been played in several master
advantage.) 13 Q—Q2 P—Q4 14 P—B5 games.
N—B1 and now: 13... N/1—K2
a) 15 P—QN4 B xN (15... N/1—K2 13 ... P—QR3 is probably unnecessary
immediately, though desirable, loses a piece since Black does not fear
to P—KN4—5. Hence, Black submits to a 14 P—NS which merely drives his
probably fatal loss of time over the main knight towards QBS. It is, however,
line.) 16 BxB N/l—K2 17 P—QN4 by no means bad, as the following
and Black is in great danger of being lines demonstrate:
overwhelmed, Minic-Hartston, Praia a) 14 R-N1 N/l—K2 15 P—QR4
da Rocha 1969. (15 P-KR3 B-K3 16 P-QR4 N-B4
b) 15 QR-Q1 P-R4 16 KR-K 1 17P-Y5PxP 18PxPJ’fxB 19
N/l—R2 with a miserable position for P x N/K3 N—K2 with advantage to
Black, Smyslov-Spassky, USSR 1960. Black—Estrin.) 15. . . N—B4 16 P—R3
12P—B5 N—B1 (77) BxN 17BxBBxP l8NxPwith
 4P-QB4N-JV3 5PxP 87

equal chances, Vasyukov-Knezevic, 30 Q—B3 QR—N1 31 R—B1 R-K5

Kizlovodsk 1968. 33 QxQ RxQ 32 R-B2 QxQP
b) 14 P—KR3 (Thus White succeeds in 34 R-Kl P—R4! 35 K-N2 P-R5
steering play back into positions similar to 36 N—B3 P—R6 37 N-R4 P-N4 38
the main line. 13 . . . N/1—K2 forces R—K7 R—QN5 39 N—N6 R—N7 40
White to justify 13 P—QN4.) 14 R-B3 R xQRP 41 N xN P xN 42
B—K3(!) and now: R—B7 R/5—Q7 43 R-KB3 P—B6
bl) 15P—N5PxP 16 N xP N/l—K2 0—1.
17 B—KB4 R—B1 18 Q-Q2 P-R3
19 P-QR4 P-N4 20 B—R2 N—N3 B32
21 KR-K1 Q-Q2 22 P-R5 B—N2 13P—KR3(!) B—K3(!) (78)
23P-R6PxP 24RxPP-B4and
chances are again roughly equal, 78
Pietrusiak-Knezevic, Lublin 1969. W
b2) 15 R—N1 N/1—K2 16 P—N4 P—R3
17 B—Q3 P-KN4 18 P-QR4 B—N2 4dJLIL VA
19 P-N5 P x P 20 P x P N-R4 21
N-Q2 P-B4 22 P-B4 N-B5 23 N x N
PxN 24 B-K2 R-R6 25 Q-Q2
NPxP 26RxPRxN! 27QxR FA _
N-Q4 28 Q-B 1 N x R 29 B x N
QxP+ 30 B-K3 Q-K5 0-1,
Pedersen-Jansa, Athens 1969. An instructive
example of Black’s chances
Alternatives are clearly very good against planless play on White’s part.
14 P-N5 N—R4 for ‘White:
15 P-KR3 BxN a) 13 ... BxN 14 BxB N/l—K2
16BxB P-B3 and now:
‘The nice thing about the Black al) 15 R—B1 R—K1 16 P-KN4
position is that there are really no P-KN3 17 P-R3 B-N2 18 P-N4
weaknesses for White to attack. Now and Black has a very passive position,
the QP is solidly protected, while its Tatai-Ciocaltea, Reggio Emilia
white counterpart may become a 1967—8.
target. And there is the square QB5 a2) 15 Q-Q3 P-KN3 16 QR-Ql
for the knight. Black already has an and now Black’s only reasonable
edge.’ (Larsen). We are following the attempt to free his game fails, i.e.
game, Gipslis-Larsen, Sousse 1967, 16 ... N—B4 17 B x P N/4 x P (No
which continued: 17 Q—Q3 N—B5 better is 16.. . B x P 17 B x B N/4 x B
18 B—B4(?) N—KN3 19 B—R2 B—N4! 18 Q—B4, winning material.) 18 Q—B4
N—R4 19 Q—R4 and wins. (Analysis 21 B—Ql B—B5 22 20 PxP PxP
by Boleslavsky.) 23 KxB Q—B3 B—B2(?) BxB+
24 P-N3 KR-K 1 25 K—N2 Q—N4! b) 13. . . B—B4(?) 14 Q—Q2 P—KR3
26 K—R2 N—N7! 27 Q—B3 Q—Q7 15 QR-Ql N/l-K2 16 P-KN4!
28 BxN RPxB 29 N—Q1 N—B5 B—R2 (No improvement is 16... B—N3
88 4P-QB4N-N3 5PxP

17 JV—K1 K—Ri 18 P—B4 and Black P-KN4! 16 P-KR4 P-KR3 17

was quickly flattened, Kurajica-E. Pedersen, N-N2 N-N3 18 B—N5 B—N2 19 P x P
Kapfenberg 1970.) 17 P—KR4 P x P 20 P-B3 P-R3 21 B x N P x B
N-N3 18 P—N5 P x P 19 P x P B—K2 22 Q-Q2 P—B4 23 B x P B x P +
20 K-N2 Q-Q2 21 R-KR1 Q-N5 + 24 QxB QxB 25 QR-K1 PxP
22 K-Bi Q-K3 23 R-R2 P-N3 26 P—B4 Q—B4 27 N—K2, j.—,
24 K-N2! Q-N5 + 25 K-Ri Q-K3 Ciric-Knezevic, Titograd 1965.
26R-KN1 PxP 27 PxP QR—Q1 c) 14 Q,—Q,2. This is a suggestion of
28 N—Q4 N x N 29 B x N P—KB3 30 the Soviet grandmaster and opening
Q—Q3! PxP 31 B-N4 Q—QB3 32 theorist, Isaac Boleslavsky. He now
R—K1 N—R5 33 R x B B x Q 34 gives 14 . . . N/1—K2 15 P—KN4!
RxP+ K-Ri 35 RxNP+ R-B3 P-KN3 16 N-K1 B-N2 17 P-KB4
36 R x N + 1—0, Kurajica-Hort, P—B4 18 P—N5 when Black has a
Sombor 1968. solid but very passive position. It
From the diagrammed position seems that Black can avoid the general
‘White has three possibilities: advance of White’s king-side pawns,
a) 14B—QN5N/1--K2 15B—N5BxB which is his main worry in this line
16 NxB N—B4 17 N—B3 P—B3 18 by 14 ... P—KN3. Now 15 P—KN4
R-Ki Q-Q2 19 P-QN4 N/4-K2 does not threaten anything and so
20 B—R4 P-QR3 21 R-QN1 B—B2 Black can continue with 15. . . B—N2,
22 P—N5 PxP 23 BxP N-N3 24 meeting 16 N—K 1 with 16. . . P—KB4!
Q—Q2 KR—K 1 with equal chances, and White is suddenly in danger of
Browne - Marovic, Rovinj-Zagreb suffering a reaction on the king’s
1970. wing. This line has yet to be tested
b) 14 N-K1 N/1—K2 15 P—KN4 in practical play.
6 TWO PAWNS ATTACK

1 P-K4 N-KB3 A
2 P-K5 N-Q4 5 B-B4

3 P-QB4 N-N3 Now Black must choose between

the little played but by no means 4 P—B5 N—Q,4 (79)
bad 5 . . . P—QB3 and the usual
79 move: 5... P—K3:
w A1. 5. .. P—QB3
t’ttLt A2: 5...P—K3

P4 P_A4 Pi
Al

iAi/%, 5... P-QB3

6 N—QB3
FAA PA;
In Gurgenidze-Breitman, USSR
1968, ‘Vhite tried 6 Q—K2!? more or
g less forcing Black to accept a pawn
sacrifice in order to free himself. The
White has two chief methods of game continued 6 . . . Q—R4 7 N—
continuing, introduced by: KB3 P—K3 8 0-0 B x P 9 P—Q4
A: 5B-B4 B-K2 10 B-KN5 Q-Ql 11 B x B
B: 5JV—QB3 Q x B 12 QN-Q2 P-KM 13 P x Pep.
The first aims to compel Black to PxP 14 QR-Bl 0-0 15 BxN
capture on ‘White’s QB3, while also BP x B 16 N—R4 N—B3 and although
offering the advanced BP as a sacrifice White eventually won, it is doubtful
to provoke an early tactical clash; the whether he has enough compensation
second is more flexible, but essentially for the pawn.
White waits for Black to play the 6... P—Q,3
freeing move P—Q3 or Q4 and then This seems stronger than 6
exchanges at least one of his advanced NxN 7 QPxN P-Q4 8 BPxPep
pawns to reach isolated QP or P x P which afforded White some
related positions, though the pawn advantage in the game DubininAronin,
structure also depends on whether USSR 1947, after 9 N—B3 P—
Q4 10 B—Q3 B-KN5 11 P-KR3 BR4 Black, if either, initiates the White or
exchange of the Black knight on Q4. 12 B—KM N—Q2 13 Q—K2
90 4P—B5

14 B—B2 N-K3 15 B—K3 that White has committed his bishop N-B4
16 0—0—0. B—K2 to B4.
BPxP 7 6.. P-Q3
immediate 7 Q—N3 is met by The 7BPxP PxP (81)
7 . . . N—Q2! and after 8 BP x P

NxP 9 NxN PxN 9BxP

P-K3,or8NxNPxN 10 BxP
w 81 K4L1L*t
P—K3 10 BP x P N x P transposing,
Black already has the upper hand.
7... PxP

8Q—N3 PxP
9NxN PxN _ A A
1OBxP Q-B2 PA PA FAA /4
11 N-B3 B—Q3
120-0 0-0
13 P-Q3
Black can now maintain a comfortable
game by 13. . . N—Q2 14 B— A211: 8 Q—K2
K3 N—B3 15 QR—B1 Q—K2, DubininKopylov, A212. 8N—KB3
USSR 1946, or by 13 A213: 8N—Q2
N—B3 Nicevski-Knezevic, Skopje 1967.
A211
A2 8Q-K2 PxP
5... P—K3(80) The hubristic 8.. . Q—R4 + 9 B—
Q2 Q—N3 was played in GurgenidzeOrev,
80 Kizlovodsk 1968, and White
w KiL4 _ duly built up a winning attack after
1ON—KB3QxNP 11BxNPxB
12 0—0! B—K3 13 N—B3 Q—N3 14
QR—Nl. 14. . . Q—B3 15 KR—Bl
PA4 PA etc.

9PxP N-QB3
EVA 10 N—KB3 N—R4(!)
11BxN

11 B—Q3? B—N5 + is good for

pg Black, as Ciocaltea points out, but
11 B—N5 + and 12 0—0 is a possible
A21: 6P—Q4 improvement.
A22: 6Q—N4 11 QxB
A23: 6N—QB3 120-0 Q-B5
13Q-Ql
A21 This is Gurgenidze’s improvement
6 P-Q4 on 13 Q-Q2 N-B3 14 Q-N5 P-KR3
This is not especially effective now 15 Q—N3 N—K2! 16 N—R3 Q—Q6
 4P-B5 91

after which White had to fight for a 422

draw, Gurgenidze-Mikenas, USSR 6 Q—N4 This aggressive move holds
1967. few terrors, if met accurately. 6
13... B—Q,2 P-Q3.
14 B—Q,2 N—B3 6.. . N—QB3 7 P—Q4 P-Q3 gives
15 B—B3 R—Q,1 ‘White the additional possibility of
16 QN-Q2 Q-Q4 8B-KN5while6...N-K2 7N-
17 KR—K 1 B—K2 KB3 N—B4 8 P—Q4 P—Q3 is playable
18 R-K4 0-0 but artificial.
19 R—KN4 P-QN4! 7BPxP

We are following the game, Gurgenidze-Ciocaltea, 7 P—Q4 is no improvement: 7

Tiflis 1970, Black is P x KP 8 P x KP N-Q2 9 N-KB3
able to defend himself—for instance, and now, instead of 9 . . . NxBP?
20 Q—QB 1, threatening N—K4, is 10 B—KN5 with some attacking
answered by 20 . . . P—KR4! chances, 9 . . . P—QB3 followed by
• . . Q—B2 eventually wins a pawn for
A212 nothing.
7.. PxP
8 N—KB3 N—N3
8 P—Q4 N—QB3
8 . . . N—QB3 9 0—0 gives White
9 N—KB3

rather more chances: e.g. 9 . . . N—N3 From this position (reached by

10B—KB4,
B—QN5 B—Q2 Meckarov
11 N-B3 P-QR3 transp-osBurhanlanski,
it on) Mohrlok-Schmid, W. 12 B-10Q3 PxPP 13xPxPP Q-N/Q4—N5!
-B2 14 Germany 1959, c(10
ontinued. 9... .. PQ—B2
xP
Teterena 1963, or 9 . . . B—K2 10 11 Q—K4 or other less active moves do
QN—Q2 N—N3 and now 11 B— not challenge White’s spatial superiority.)
QN5(!) instead of 11 Q—K2, 11 N—R3 (or 11 Q—K4 N—R4 followed
Mechkarov-Orev, Teterena 1963.
by ... Q—Q4) 11 . . . N—Q6+ 12
9 B-Q3 N--B3
1OPxP B x N Q x B 13 B—Q2 B—Q2 14 R—
Otherwise it is difficult to meet the Q1BxN 15PxBQ—N3 16QxQ
threat of 10... PxP 11 P xPN—N5, RP x Q with equality.
forcing exchanges.
A23
10... BxP
6N-QB3 NxN
Black has nothing to fear, StojanovSegal, Alternatives:
Sofia 1967.
a) 6 . . . P—Q3!? This may transpose
into other lines (e.g. the position after
A213 7BPxPPxP 8NxNPxN9BxP
8 N—Q,2(?) led White into difficulties P x P may be reached after 5. . . P—QB3.)
in Gurgenidze-Bagirov, Tiflis but is generally rejected because of
1966, after 8.. . P x P 9 P x P N—N5! the complex piece sacrifice 7 N x N
10 KN-B3 N—Q6 + 11 K—K2 NB5+ PxN 8BxPP-QB3(8...PxKP
12 K-B1 N—B3 13 P—KN3 9 Q—B3) 9 BxKBP+ KxB 10
N—N3 14 Q—K2 Q—B2. BP x P. Yet Black’s combined re
92 4P—B5

sources of blockade and counter- Bi 10 N-B3 P-Q3 11 Q-N3 N-B3

sacrifice may well be adequate against 12 0—0 (Schmid).
the White pawn chain. VasyukovSpassky, c) 6 ... Q—R5? (intending to meet
USSR 1959 continued 10... 7 B x N with.. . B x P) is shown to be
Q—Kl 11 Q—B3 + (11 Q—K2 allows artificial after 7 P—Q4! N x N 8 P x N
11 ... P—B4 and after 12 N—B3 Black B x P 9 N-B3 Q-K5 + 10 B—K3 B—
may choose between blockade by 12 K2 11 0—0 or else 8... Q—K5+
B—K3 or returning the piece by 12 9 B-K2 Q xNP 10 B—B3 Q-N3 11
B x P since after 13 P x B Q x Q + N—K2 and the White attack is
14 K x Q R-K1 + and 15. . . B-N5 he overwhelming.
stands at least equal. NezhmetdinovMikenas, 7 QPxN
USSR 1947, went instead 13 7 NP x N is especially innocuous
N-N5+ K-N3 14 Q-Q3+ KxN after 5 B—B4: with 7 . . . P—Q3 or
15 Q x B with an unclear position.) P—Q4 (7 . . . B x P 8 Q—N4 is
11 . . . K—Ni 12 Q—K3 B—K3 13 N— generally considered to give 14’hite a
K2N-Q2 140—ONxP!? l5QxN winning attack but 8 . . . B—B1 and
B—B5 16 QxQ RxQ 17 P—Q3 9. .. P—Q4 may leave defensive chances)
BxP(Q6) 18R—Q1BxN(18... 8 BP x P P x P 9 P x P B x P Black
R x N 19 P- Q7 B-K2 20 B-K3) can reach a position with an extra
19 P—Q 7 R—Q 1 20 B—N5 B x R 21 tempo over the similar one derived
RxBB—K2 22BxBK-B2 23BxR from the Queen’s Gambit (1 P—Q4
R x B and the game was eventually P-Q4 2 P-QB4 P-K3 3 N-QB3
drawn. However, in a later game, N-KB3 4 N-B3 P-B4 5 BP x P
when White prevented the counter- NxP 6P-K3PxP 7PxPNxN
sacrifice by playing first 14 P— B4, 8 P x N etc.) and with White’s bishop
Black won by building up a blockade misplaced. Sergeant-Tartakower,
of the white pawns after 14 . . . P— Hastings 1945, continued 10 P—Q4
KN3 15 0-0 B—N2 16 P-Q4 N-N3 0-0 11 N—B3 Q-B2 (in GuitiennyLetelier,
17 N-B3 N—Q4 18 N xN B xN 19 Santiago 1951, Black played first
B-Q2 Q-K3 20 P-QR4 P-KR4 21 11 ... N—Q2 12 0—0 P—K4, winning
P-QN4 K-R2, Churshudov-Steinberg, easily after 13 P-Q5? P-B4 14 N-N5
Ukrainian Spartakiad 1966. If N-N3 15 B-N3 Q-K2 16 Q-R5
such play is good, Black has no need P-KR3 17 N-B3 B-Q2 18 P-QR4
of equalising resources like Spassky’s QR-B1 19 P-R5 N-B5 20 N-Q2
14... NxP. B-NI 21 R-K1 P-K;.) 12 Q-Q3
b) 6 . . . B xP(?) gives White too N-Q2 13 0-0 P-QN3 14 B-N3
many attacking chances after 7 P—Q4 B-N2 15 P-KR3 P-K4! and Black
(against the immediate 7 Q—N4 Black already has the upper hand.
has Pachman’s suggestion of 7. . . 0—0 A231: 7...BxP
8 P—Q4 P—B4! while a double capture A232: 7. .. P—QN3
on Q5 gives White nothing after 8 A233. 7... N—B3
P—Q3) 7...B—N5ftf7...NxN Other possibilities:
8 P x N followed by 9 Q—N4 or even 7.. . P—Q,3 (or 7. . P—Q4) frees
8Q-N4) 8BxNPxB 9Q-N4K- Black’s game, but gives White too
 4 P—B5 93

many open lines and tactical oppor.. P-B4 N-K2 18 R-Rl P x P 19

tunities after 8 BP x P (ep) P x P P-N6! PxB 20 RxP NxP 21
9 N—B3 N—B3 10 B—B4! but not R x R + and White won quickly,
10 B—QN5? P-QR3 11 B x N + Oszvath-Garcia, Moscow 1968.
PxB 12PxPBxP 130—OQ--B2 c2) 9 B-KB4 P-Q4 10 0-0-0 B—Q2
14 Q—Q4 B-N2 15 B-N5 P—K4 (Against 10 . . . .N’—Q2 or other moves
and 16 ... 0—0 which is good for White develops a similar attack with
Black, Damjanovic-Bobotsov, Athens P-KR4 and R-R3.) 11 B—Q3 B—K2
1968. 9... Q—B2 10 Q—K2 N—Q2? 12 P-KR4 P-QB4 13 P-R5 B—R5
(again, 10 . . . .N’—B3 is the lesser evil.) 14 R-Q2 P—B5 15 B-Ni N—Q2 16
11 B—B4 P—QR3 12 B x KP! is also R-R3 P-B4 17 PxPep. NxP 18
good for White, Lundquist-Schrnid, Q-K2 K-B2 19 N-B3 N-Q2 20
Moscow 1956. B-N6 + K-Bl 21 Q x KP P x B
7 . . . Q,—R5 may, however, be a 22 P x P 1—0, Ravinsky-Fridstein,
good alternative to the text. In HorvatJansevic Moscow 1947.
1946, Black effectively gained 9QxNP Q—B1
a tempo on A23 1 with this move: 10 Q—B6 B-K2
7. . . Q-R5 8 Q-K2 B x P 9 P-KN3 11 Q—B3 N-B3
Q-K2 10 Q-N4 and now Black 12 B—B4 P-Q4
ought to give up the KNP. Instead 13B—Q3 B—Q2
he played 10 .. . O—O? 11 B—KN5 14 N—K2 0-0—0
P-KB3 12 P x P Q-B2 13 N-B3 150-0 P-B3

N-B3 14 B-Q3 P-Q4 15 Q-KR4 16PxP BxP

P-KN3 16 0-0-0 B-Q2 17 KRKl Black stands better, Prahova -
QR-Kl 18 Q-R6 K-Ri 19 PKR4 Slavova, postal game 1961, but
R-KN1 20 P—R5 PxP 21 White’s play seems capable of improvement,
B xP! and wins. and he can always fall
back on 10 QxQ+ and 11 B—B4
A231 with play against the Black centre.
7... BxP

8Q-N4 Q-K2(!) A232

Attempts to retain the pawn are very 7... P—QN3(!)
dangerous: This promising new idea was first
a) 8... B—B1 9 B—KN5. played in a similar position by Colie
b) 8 . .. P-KN3 9 P—KR4 N—B3 10 as long ago as 1931! (see B2, note to
N-B3 P-KR4 ii Q-N3 P-Q4 12 BQ3 Black’s sixth move.)
N-K2 13 B-KN5 P-R4 14 B-B6 8PxP

R—KN1 15 Q—B4 winning quickly, This liquidation is ‘White’s most

Stoltz-Sundberg, Sweden 1942. sensible plan heie. The problems
c) 8 ... K—B1 and now: likely to arise from 8 Q—N4(?) are
c 1) 9 N—B3 N-B3 10 B-KN5 B-K2 well illustrated by Polgar-Hort, given
11 P-KR4 P-Q4 12 0-0-0 B-Q2 below in A233, as the move 7
13 B—Q3 R-QN1 14 R-R3 P-N4 N—B3 8 B-KB4 was interpolated
15 R—N 3 B x B 16 P x B P-N5 17 before P—QN3.
94 4P-B5

8... RPxP 8 . . . P—Q,N3 was successfully employed

9 N—B3 P—Q,4(!) here in the game Polgar-Hort,
Having drawn aside White’s BP, Orebro 1966 which continued 9 Q,—
Black does best to strike back in the N4 B-N2 10 N—B3 N—K2! 11 BKN5(?)
centre at once. It is of some importance P-KR3 12 Q-R5 P-N3 13
that Black has delayed N— Q-.R4 B—N2 14 B-B6 P-KN4 15 QN4BxB
B3, because otherwise White would 16PxBN-N3 17PxP

have the reply 10 P x Pep P x P 11 RPxP 18 P-KR4 QxP 19 PxP

B-QN5. BxN 20 PxB QxNP 21 R-R5
lOP xPep Q x Q 22 P x Q N-B5 23 R-R2 PQ4
Bagirov queries this move, but after with a winning ending. However
10 B—Q3 B—R3 Black has little to fear 9 P x P RP x P 10 N-B3 is much
either. stronger. 10 . . . P—Q4 cannot be
10... PxP played because of 11 P x Pep P x P
11 0—0 B—K2 12 B—QN5, while 10 . . . B—R3 11
12 N—Q,4 0—0 BxBRxB 12 Q—Q3 and 10... B—
13 P-B4 P-Q4 K2 11 Q—K2 leave Black struggling
14 B—Q3 B—R3 for counterplay.
And now, in Svesnikov-Bagirov, 9 Q,—N4 P—KN4!? (83)
USSR 1967 White brought the game
to a premature end by sacrificing unsoundly: 83
15 BxP+? KxB 16 Q— w
R5+ K-Ni 17 R-B3 B-B4 18 P-B5
B—K7 19B—K3BxR 2OPxB
Q-B3 21 K-Ri BxN 22 BxB
I
QxP 23 1—0.

A233
7... N—B3
8 B-B4

Obviously, 8 N—B3 allows Black to

play 8... B x P in relative safety.
8... BxP(82) 1OBxNP

82 10 Q x NP? is inferior because of

w 10...QxQ11BxQNxP12B—
B6BxP+ 13K—K2NxB 14BxR
B x N 15 KR x B N x P, DominoDelander,
Berlin 1952 or 12. . . N xB
13 B x R N x P and now CiocalteaOrev,
Sofia 1962, continued 14 B—Q4
(Kirev-Orev, Blagojevgrada 1962 took
a similar course after 14 N—R3 B—K2
15 B—Q4 N—B5 16 0—0—0 P—K
17B—K3NxB J8PxNP-Q3 19
 4P—B5 95

KR-B 1 B-K3 20 K-N2 K-Q2 21 15. . . Q xP? 16 0—0—0 P—Q3 17

N—B2 R—N1 22 P—N3 R—N3) 14... KR—Ni!, Gulko-Spicina, Moscow 1963)
B—K2 15 N-B3 P—QB4 16 B—K3 are both evidently good for Black.
N—B5 17 B—R6 P-B3 18 0—0 P-Q411 .. RxQ
19 N-Q2 N-Q3 20 P-N4P-K4 21 12 B—K2 RxP
P—B3 B—K3 and in both cases Black 13BxP

has ample compensation for the Black still has difficulties in freeing
exchange. his position, e.g. 13 . . . R x BP 14
10... R—KN1 N—B3 threatening N—Q2-K4—B6
11BxQ! (Vasyukov) or 13... B x P + 14 K—
Clearly White’s best here. The only Bl RxN+ 15 KxB or 15 RxR
possible alternative is 11 N—R3, as in with eventual invasion and mating
Vasyukov - Korchnoi, Minsk 1953, threats down the KN file. In Lees-
which continued 11 . . . B—K2 Ripley, Coventry 1970, Black held
(Va.syukov gives 11 . . . NxP 12 Q— on for a draw after 13 . . . P—N3 14
R5RxB 13NxRQ-B3 14N—K4 N-R3 B—N2 15 B—B3 R—KN1 16
BxP+ J5NxBNxB 16 0-0 as 0-0-0 R—QB1 17 B—Q6 B x B 18
good for White.) 12 P—B4 (12 BxB P x B N—R4 19 KR-N 1 R x R 20
RxQ 13 BxQ KxB 14 P-B4 RxR K—Bl 21 N-N5 K—N2! 22
R x NP 15 0-0-0 K-K2 followed by P—N4 B x B 23 P x N K-B3 etc. but
P—Q4 is very comfortable for Black.) White’s play seems more capable of
12...NxP! (Betterthanl2...BXB improvement than Black’s.
13 P x B N x P 14 Q—R4 with attacking
chances.) 13 P x N B x B 14 Q—R5. In B
this position Korchnoi played 14... 5 N—QB3 (84)
P-N4!? and the game was drawn
after 15QxPR—Bl 160—0(?) PxB 84
17 R x P B—K6 + 18 K-R 1 R x R B
19 Q—R8 + etc. though White could ‘1
have gained an advantage with 16 B—
Q3 and B—K4 (Vasyukov). However,
Black can improve with 14.. . R—N2
and it seems that the White attack
can be withstood. Boleslavsky gives
as an example the line 15 0—0 P—N3
16 QR—Kl Q—K2 17 B-Q3 B-N2
18 B—K4 0-0—0 19 B x B + K x B ‘Ljg
2ONxBQxN 21QxQRxQ 22
R x P QR-KN 1 23 P-KN3 R/N 1- Bi: 5. . . NxN
N2 with the better ending for Black. B2. 5...P—K3
11N-B3?NxP 12BxQRxQ As after 5 B—B4, 5 . . . P—QB3 is
13 N x N R-K5 + and 11 P-B4? quite playable. 6 B—B4 P—Q3 or
NxP 12Q-R4RxB 13PxRNxB 6 Q-N3 P-Q3 7 BP x P P x P 8 BB4,
4 Q x N Q x P 15 N-K2 P-Q3 (not Nicevski-Knezevic, Skopje 1967,
96 4P—B5

transpose into positions considered 13 Q X B Rr-R4 14 B—B4 0—0 15

under A, while 6 N x N P x N 7 P— QR—Ql R—Q4.
Q4 P—Q3 8 BP x P P x P transposes Similarly if 6. . . N—B3 7 B—KB4
into B2 below. is most flexible, though 7 N—B3 is
also playable because 7 . . . P—K3
Bi 8 B—K3 P- O is now strongly
5... NxN answered by 9 B—QN5. SiaperasSaidy,
6QPxN Zagreb 1969, continued 9.
6 NP x N allows Black to equalise P x BP 10 Q—R4 B—K2 (f 10.
at once with 6 . . . P—Q3 7 BP x P B—Q2 11 0—0—0 threatening 12 R x B.)
KP x P—e.g. 8 N-B3 B-K2 9 B-B4 11 BxN+ PxB 12 R-Ql B—Q2
0—0 lOO—.0N—B3 11PxPBxP 12 13 R-Q2 Q-Bl 14 0-0 0-0 15 KR—
P—Q4 B-KN5, Gruber - Grünfeld, Ql B—K 1 16 Q—Q B4 Q—N2 17
Vienna 1923. 6 . . . P—K3 7 P—Q4 BxPBxB 18QxBQ—N3 19Q—K7
P—Q3 8 BP x P P x P 9 N-B3 (transposing P-QB4 20R-Q8RxR 21RxR
into the note to Black’s eighth QxP 22 P-KR3 Q-N4 23 N-N5
move in B22) and 6. . . P—K3 7 P—Q4 P-KR3 24 N-R7 K x N 25 Q x R
P—QN3 (considered in the note to Q-N8 + 26 K-R2 Q-B4 27 Q x P/
Black’s sixth in B22) are less clear. B5 1—0. Instead Black should play
6... P—Q,3(85) 8 . . . P—Q,N3! transposing into
Maroczy-Colle above, and perhaps
85 improving on Colle’s play with 10...
w P—Q4. White’s seventh and eighth
1Ff 1 moves severely restrict his possibilities
against this system. However, after
6. . . N—B3 7 N—B3, 7.. . P—KN3?
is definitely too slow. Stoltz-Colle,
Bled 1931, continued 8 B—QB4 B—N2
p4/4;rf% 9 B—B4 0—0 10 Q-Q2 P-N3 11 P—
KR4 P-KR4 12 0—0-0 with an
overwhelming position.
After 6 . . . P—Q3 White has the
following possibilities:
After6QPxN,6...P-K3asinA a) 7 B—QB4 allows Black to equalise
is here less good because White. has at once with 7 . . . P—Q4! 8 Q x P
not committed himself to B—QB4 and QxQ 9BxQP-K3 1OB-K4BxP
can gain a tempo by continuing 11 N-B3 P—KR3, Alekhine-Fine,
directly with 7 B—KB4. 7 B—K3(?) Pasadena 1932.
has historical importance because of b) 7 Q-N3!? intending an attack
the game Maroczy-Colle, Bled 1931, down the Q file is very dangerous
which continued 7 . . . P—QN3 after 7 . . . P x KP? 8 B—KN5. The
(7. . . P—Q3 is also adequate.) 8 P xP postal game, Poltajev-Rachno 1948,
RPxP 9 N-B3 N—B3 10 B-Q3 continued 8 . . . Q—Q2 9 R—Q 1
B-R3 11 0-0 B-K2 12 R—K 1 B x B Q—B4 10 B—QB4 N-B3 11 B-Q5
 4P—B5 97

P-KR3 12 Q—N5 Q-N3 13 N-B3 B21: 6NxN 6 B—B4 transposes

P-R3 14 Q—R4 B-Q2 15 B-K3 B22: 6P—Q4 to

with a strong attack. A above.

Better is 7. . . P—K3 as in PedersenStoppel, 6 Q—N4 is no better here than after
Athens 1968, which continued 5 B—B4. Gasiorwoski-Pytel, Poland
8 BP x P P x P 9 B-KB4 QB2 1969, continued 6 . . . P—Q3 7
10 N-B3 N-B3 11 R-Q1 (after BP x P P x P 8 B-N5 + B-Q2 (or
(1 0—0—0 Black should also play 11 8...N-B3 9N-B3B-Q2 1ONxN
PxP and not 11 . . . P—Q4? as in PxN 1JBxNBxB 12 0-0 Q-Q2
Siapera-Mihaljcisin, Athens 1968.) 11 13 Q-Q4 B—K2.) 9 BxB+ QxB
...PxP 12NxPNxN 13Q- 10 N-B3 N-B3 11 NxN PxN 12
N5 + (Surprisingly, 13 B—N5 + K— Q x Q + K x Q with easy equality.
K2 does not seem to lead anywhere.)
13. . . B—Q2 and a draw was agreed. B21
c) 7 B—KN5!? is similarly motivated 6NxN

but designed to prevent . . . P—K3. If White wishes tQ make this

In Huguet-Cordovil, Praia da Rocha capture, which is as dangerous as any
1969, Black tried 7 . . . Q—Q2 8 Q— of the lines at his disposal, he may as
N3 N—B3 9 N-B3 Q—B4, but after well do so at once.
10 KP x P N-K4? 11 P x BP! N x 6... PxN

N + 12 P x N Q x KBP 13 B-N5 + 7 P—Q4 (86)

B-Q2 14 B x B + K x B 15 Q-R4 +
Q-B3 16 0-0-0 + K x P 17 QB4+ 86
K—B1 18 Q xP White’s attack B
was terminal.

d) 7 BP x P may be sufficient for a xifA/%

slight advantage after 7 . . . KP x P
8 N-B3 B-K2 9 B-KB4 P x P 10
N x P or 8.. . N-B3 9 B—KB4 B-N5
10 B—K2 B—K2(?) and now 11 P x P
instead of 11 0—0 0—0 12 Q—B2 ( ?),
Huguet-Bobotsov, Praia da Rocha
1969.

With 6 . . . P—Q,4 Blzck can virtually

force White to enter these lines Now Black has to decide which
by 7 BP x Pe.p. (cu in fact occurred in way to tackle White’s pawn on B5.
Huguet-Bobotsov) unless he is prepared B211: 7.. . P—Q3
to risk 7 B-KN5!? Q-Q2 8 Q-N3 B212. 7...P—QN3
P—K3, but if this is Black’s best the
fact is not a very good recommendationfor5. B211
. .NxN. 7.. P-Q3
8BPxP PxP
B2 9 N—B3 N-B3
5.. P-K3 10 B-K2
98 4P—B5

10 B—Q3 allows 10 . . . B—N5— B5 23 R—KB 1 Q-N4 24 R x R N x R

in Black’s favour. 25 R-K3 R-KB 1 26 P-KR4 Q x RP
10... B-K2 27 R—KB3 Q—N4 28 K—Bl Q-R3
10...PxP 11PxPB—QB4fails 29 Q—B2 R— B4 30 P-R4 N-Q6 31
to equalise as in Siaperas-Czerniak, Q-K3 Q-R8+ 0-1.
Zagreb 1969, which continued 12 0—0 8... PxP
0-0 13 B-KN5 Q-N3 14 Q x P 9PxP P-QB3
15 NxN BxN N-Q5 16 B-Q3! 10 B—Q,3 N-R3

17QR-K1 BxNP R-Kl 18 B—B6! Saferis 10.. Q—R4+ After 11 Q13

20 QxBP Q2 QxQ+ 19 BxP+ KxB 12 KxQ N—R3 Q-Q5
22 P-K6 R—Bl R-QN1 21 Q-R5+ K-Nl Black appears to have Q-Q2
24 Q—R5 satisfactory play. 23 BxB Q—KB2 RxP
R-KN3 25Q-Q8 + K-R2 26 R-K3 11 R-B1
Q x P 27 Q-R4 + R-R3 28 Q-K4 + 12 B—Q,2! (87)
R-N3 29 Q-R4+ R-R3 30 QAnd
K4+ R-N3 31 R-KN3 Q—B2 32 87
Q-R4+ K-Nl 33 Q-Q8+ K-R2 B
34 R-Kl RxR 35 RPxR Q-N3
36 B xP! Q-QB3 37 Q-R8+ K-N3 4V41/%i/%
38 B—B8 1—0.
11 0—0 0-0
12 B-KB4 B—N5 VA PA: rA: P41
13Q-Q2 R—K 1

14 KR—Q1 R-QB 1
15 QR—B1 P-QR3
16 P-KR3 B—B4 PYAg
17 B—Q3(?)
now Black seized the advantage
This is an improvement on
with 17.. . B—KS 18 B xB P xB Hennings-Honfi, Hungary 1970,
19 N—R2 ?xP 20 PxP QxQ which went Q-Q2 QxRP 13 12
21 R x Q P—KN4, Nicevski-Vasyukov, N-B3 R-QN 14 B—Q4 N—B2 15 1
Yugoslavia v. USSR 1969. 16 R—Rl Q—N6 17 0—0 N—K3
18BxBNxB 19B—B2 RxP BxP
B212 and now 19 . . . Q x P is good for
7... P—QN3 Black because of 20 R—Nl Q xR+.
8 B-K3!? From the diagram above, HenningsSmejkal,
Filipowicz-Smejkal, Budapest 1970, Kapfenberg 1970, continued
continued 8 P x P RP x P 9 N-B3 B— 12 . . . Q xRP 13 R—R 1
K2 10 B—Q3 B—R3 11 0—0 0—0 12 QxP 14 BxN BxB 15 RxB
R—K 1 B x B 13 Q x B N-R3 14 BQ2 QxP+ 16N-K2BxP 170-00-0
P-QB3 15 R-K3 N-B2 16 N-Kl 18 N—B4 B—N3 19 R—K1 Q—B4 20
N—K3 17 R—R3 P—N3 18 N-B2 Q-K2 P-R3 21 R-R3 KR-K 1 22
P—B3! 19 P—B4 PxP 20 BPxP QxR+RxQ 23RxR+K-R2 23
B-N4 21 P-R3 B xB 22QxBR— R—KB3 and Black’s pawns may be
 4P—B5 99

worth the piece, but his position is P x P B x P 11 B—Q3 is quite

very hard to play. promising for White, although Black
has gained the tempo, .. B—Q3 over
B22 the similar position reached from the
6 P-Q4 Queen’s Gambit. (Compare A: with
6... P—Q,3 —6 NP x N where White has committed
Black may try to exploit the fact his bishop to QB4 as well as
that White has moved his QP with losing a tempo.)
6 . . . N x N. Damjanovic-Czerniak, This position can also be reached
Athens 1968, continued 7 P xN P— from the Sicilian Defence (e.g. 1 P—
QN3 8 P xP RP xP 9 N-B3 P-Q3 K4 P-QB4 2 N-KB3 N-KB3 3 PKS
10 B-N5+ B-Q2 11 B-Q3 B-B3 N-Q4 4 P-B3 P-K3 5 P-Q4
12 0-0 N-Q2 13 R-K1 PxP 14 PxP 6 PxP P-Q3 7 N-B3 NQB3.)
NxP NxN 15 RxN B-Q3 16 Apart from 9 N x N transposing
R-KR5 P-N3 17 R-R3 R-R4 18 into B2 11: White has various
Q-K2 Q-B3 19 B—K4 B x B 20 continuations:
Q x B 0—0 and was eventually drawn. B221: 9PxP
6. . . N-QB3 7 N-B3 P-Q3 8 B222. 9 B—QN5
BP x P P x P is individually insignificant. B223: 9 Q—N3
In Molnar-Tartakower, Paris
1955, White played instead 7 N x N B221
P x N 8 P-B4? and was duly 9PxP(!) BxP
punished after 8.. . P—Q3 9 BP x P 1OB—Q.3 N—B5!?
P x P 10 N-B3 B-N5 11 B-K3 P x P 10. . . 0—0 leads to a position where,
12 BP x P B—N5 + 13 K-B2 O-O 14 despite Black’s extra move,.. . B—Q3,
B-K2 P-B3 15 P x P Q x P 16 RKB1 (By 11 . . . B—K2 Black can transpose
QR-K1 17 Q-N3 Q-K3 18 into the related Queen’s Gambit or CaroKann
B-QN5BxN 19PxBRxP+ 20 position) White has all the
KxR Q-R6+ 0-1. attacking chances normally associated
7BPxP PxP with isolated queen pawn positions—
8 N—B3 N—Q,B3 (88) though at least Black is not committed
to . .. N x N as in the note
88 ___ above.
w
The text is an attempt to take
advantage of the extra tempo.
11BxN BxB
12 Q,—K2
Less sharp is 10 0—0. Oszvath-Csom,
Hungary 1967, continued 10. . . 0—0
13 R-K1 P-KN3 14 B—B1 B-R3 15
Q—R4 and now instead of 15
Q—N3, 15 .. . B—.Q2 is quite satisfactory
for Black.
8...NxN(?) 9PxNN—B3 10 12... NxP
100 4P—B5

12 ... N—N5 fails to 13 B—N5 + might be able to improve at move

B—Q2 14 P—Q5 and if 14 ... 0—0 nine with . . . B—K2 or possibly
15 BxB QxB 16 PxP N—Q6+? Q—R4!?
17 K-Bl winning.
13NxN QxN
14 P-KN3 B—B2 B223
15 B—N5+ K-K2 9 Q-N3
160-0 This allows Black to clear the
All now depends on the strength of centre with 9 ... N x N 10 P x N
White’s attack. In DamjanovicBuljovcic, P x P and in Padevsky-Taimanov,
Yugoslavia 1966, Black Moscow 1956, White’s tactical chances
won after 16. . . P—QR3 17 QR—B1 were insufficient compensation for
R—Q1 18 N—K4 B—K4 19 QR—Q1 his pawn weaknesses after 11 N x P
Q—N3 but neither side’s play seems (the position arose from a Sicilian move
incapable of improvement. order) N x N 12 P x N B—K2 13 B—R3
0—0 14 R-Q1 Q-B2 15 B—Q6 B x B
B222 16 P x B Q-B3 17 P-QB4 KR-Q 1
9 B-QN5 18 Q-QR3 P-K4 19 B-K2 Q x NP
This move aims to reach a similar 20 B-B3 Q-N3 21 P-B5 P-KS
attacking position (since 9 B—Q3 is 22 B-K2 B-Q2 23 Q-KN3 QR-B1
impossible because of 9 . . . P x P 10 24 R-Q5 P-N3 25 P xP P xP 26
P xP N/Q4—N5). 0-0 R-B7 27 R-KN5 Q-B3 28 RKi
9... NxN B-B3 29 B-N5 P-R3 30 R-K5
1OPxN B-Q2 BxB 31 RxB RxP 32 RxKP
11PxP BxP R-Q8+ 33K-N2R/Q8-Q7 0-1.
120—0 0-0 Black may also play 9... B—K2!?
13 R—K1 Q—B2 intending 10 P x P Q x P or 10 N x N
14 B—Q,3 P-KR3 PxN 11 QxQP B-K3 (12 Q-K4
White has some advantage, Filipowicz-Cibulka, PxP 13PxPB-Q4!orl2Q-N5
Lublin 1969. Black P x P and 13 ... B-N5’ +).
7 THE 3 N-QB3 SYSTEM

1 P-K4 N-KB3 3 . . N—N3 is theoretically playable,

2 P-K5 N-Q4 though rarely seen in practice.
3 N—QB3 (89) Now:

a) After 4 P—Q,4 P—Q3, 5 N—B3 transposing

89 to lines considered in Chapter
B 4lineAseernsbest. If5PxPKP xP,
.wtttt Black soon equalises by playing
P—Q4: e.g. 6 B-Q3 N-B3 7 KN-K2
N-N5 8 0—0 N x B 9 Q x N B-K2
10 B—K3 P—Q4, Kruger-Grunfeld,
Frankfurt 1923.

a; f/A b) Otherwise 4 P-B4 P-Q3 5 N-B3

(intending to arLswer 5 ... N—B3 with
6 B—J,’5) is worth consideration.
c) 4 P—QR4 would be a useful interpolation
if Black were compelled to
This move really introduces two reply with 4 ... P—QR4 but after
systems, for after the anticipated 3.. 4 ... P-Q3 5 P-R5 N/N3-Q2 6
N xN White can playeither4NP xN P x P BP x P and ... N-KB3 completing
intending to set up a massive centre the tour is comfortable for
with P-Q4 and P-KM and then Black, while the sacrifice 6 P—Q4
develop an attack to offset the potential PxP 7PxPNxP 8Q—R51s
weakness of his doubled QB dubious.
pawns, or 4 QP x N, hoping to A
achieve active piece play and avoid 3... NxN
an ending where his crippled queen Al: 4NPxN
side pawns might be a factor. The A2: I QPxN
first plan is mainly responsible for its
popularity, for the second, though Al
adopted by Keres, is rather too simple 4NPxN P-Q3
and straightforward to afford White The most usual, but not necessarily
much hope of an advantage. the best continuation.
A. 3.. NxN Larsen has tried here a restrained
B. 3...P—K3 system involviRg ... P—K3,
102 3N—QB3

P—QN3, and. . . P—Q3 but this leaves which looks dubious after 5 . . N—Q2
White a dangerous degree of central intending . . P—QB4 and . . . Q—R4,
control. since the pawn sacrifices 6 P—K6!? and
After 4.. .P-K3 5P-KB4P-QN3 6 P-Q4 P—QB4 7 P-K6 are not very
6 N-B3 B-N2 7 P-Q4 B—K2 8 B-Q3 promising.) 5 ... P—QB4 6 N—B3
P—Q3 9 O—O N—B3, R. Byrne-Larsen, N—B3 (90) Black has little to fear:
Monte Carlo 1968, continued 10
Q-K1 Q-Q2 11 P x P Q x P 12 90

N-N5 P-KR3
P-B5 O—O--O 15 P 13
x P QN-K4 Q-Q2 14 W Ff1.: 1t1
x KP? 16
Q—B2! (threatening 17 N—B5.) 16
N x P 17 N—N3 and Black cannot
avoid the loss of a piece, but 15
P x P is very much better, if not
actually equalising as Larsen suggests.
In Padevski-Larsen, Lugano 1968,
White chose instead a plan to prevent
WAWA
Black’s queen-side castling: 10 Q,—K2 LYfg
Q—Q2 11 P x P (also possible is 11
P—QR4 0—0—not 11 ... 0—0—0 12 a) 7 P-KR3(?) P-K3 8 B—Q3 P x
B—N5!—12 N-N5.) 11 ... QxP 9 P x P N—N5! 10 0-0 N x B 11
(11 . . . P x P, dubious after 11 Q—K1 QxN B—Q2 12 N-R2 Q-B2 13
is here quite unplayable because ofl2P—B5 P-QB3 R-Bi 14 B—Q2 Q-B5 15
PxP? 13 P—Q5.) 12 N—K5. Q-N3 Q-K7 16 N-B3 B-R5 17
Although Larsen just held on for a QR-Ni P-QN3 and Black is wining,
draw after 12 ... O—O 13 P—QR4 I. Zaitsev-Vasyukov, USSR Ch
N x N 14 BP x N Q-Q4 15 R-B4 1968—9.
P-QB4 16 B—K3 QR-B1 17 QRKB1 b) 7 B—Q3 B-N5 (7 ... P x P and
P xP 18 P xP R-B6 19 B—K4 8 . . . N—.N5 is still to be considered
Q-Q2 20 B xP+ KxB 21 Q-R5+ despite the lost tempo.) 8 P—KR3 B x N
K-Ni (22 R x P R x B 23 Q-N6 R x R 9 Q x B P-K3 10 R-QN1 Q-B2
24 Q x R + leads only to perpetual check), 11 0-0 P-B5 12 B—K2 P-KR4 13
White’s play can probably be improved—e.g. P-QR4 B—K2 14 P-N3 Q-Q2 15
15 R—B3(!) generates Q-K3 0-0-0 16 P-B4 QR-Ni 17
more threats than 15 R—B4. Q—B3 P—B4 18 P—R4 and a draw
(Against Byrne, Larsen played first was soon agreed, Mecking-Bobotsov,
4 . . . P—QN3 but his own suggestion of Palma 1969.
5 Q—B3 N-B3 6 P—K6! gives White a c) 7 B—K2 is quite inoffensive. GuldinKopylov,
winning attack after 6 ... BPxP 7 USSR 1947, continued
B-Q 3 P-N3 8 P-KR 4.) 7 ... P-B5 8 0-0 B—B4 9 N-R4
4. . . P—Q4(!) is much sounder and P-K3 10 N x B P x N 11 R-N 1 with
may well be Black’s safest way to obscure play, but 7. . . P—K3 followed
equality. After 5 P—Q4 (5 B—R3!? is by B—K2 and 0—0 or 7 ... B—N5
a sharp attempt to improve White’s play seems simpler and better.
 3 N—QB3 103

5 P—KB4 (91) 1926, merely exposes ‘White’s bishop

to attack.
91 8... P—Q,B4
B 90—O QPxP
Black’s ninth is designed to reduce
p4 ‘White’s attacking potential. In GrobGrunfeld,
Meran 1926, Black kept
PA, the centre fluid with 9 . . . Q—B2 10
Q—K1 BP x P 11 BP x P N-B3 and
obtained the better game after 12
P—B3(?) N—R4 13 N—N5 P—KR3
II_ 14 N—K4 B—B4 15 Q—N3 K—Ri!
g (15 . . . P—Q4? 16 Jv’-B6+!) 16
B—Q2 P-Q4 17 N-B2 N—B5 18B—K1
All. 5 • . . P—KN3 QR—B1—but 12 B—Q2 threatening
A12: 5 P—K3 Q-R4 and P—B5 is hard to meet.
A13: 5 ...P—QB4 1OQPxP
A14: 5 B—B4 10 BP x P is dubious; White’s centre
A15. 5 .. . P xP quickly collapsed in J. Sigurjons5.
.
N—B3 has no individual signi- son-G. Sigurjonsson, Reykjavik 1968,
.

ficance. after 10 ... N—B3 ii B—QB4(?)

B—N5 12 B-K3 R—Bi 13 P-KR3
All PxP 14 PxP BxN 15 QxB
5... P-KN3 N xKP.
6 N-B3 Alter 10 QP xP:
6 P—Q4 B—N2 7 P—KR4!? gave a) 10 ... N—B3 11 B—K3 Q-B2
White good attacking chances in 12 Q—K1 B—B4 13 B xB? (White can
A. Steiner-Reshevsky, Kemeii 1937, improve with 13 Q—R4 or Q—K2
after 7 ... P x P 8 BP xP P—KB3(?) followed by N—N5 or P—K.N4 as in
9 P-R5 PxKP 10 RPxP RPxP variation b.) P x B 14 N—R4 P—K3
11 R x R + B x R, and now 12 B—Q3, 15 BxP KR-Q1 16 Q-K3 N—R4
but 8 ... Q—Q4 is a basic improve- 17 BxP? RxB! 0—i, Dückstein12
ment. Westerinen, Bamburg 1968.
6... B—N2 b) 10 ... B—B4 11 B—K3 P—N3
7 P-Q4 O—O 14 Q-K2 P—K3 13 QR-Qi Q-B2
7. . . P—KB3 led to some advantage N-N5 N—B3 15 P—N4 B x B 16 P xB
for White in Sokolsky-Mikenas, USSR QR—Ki (or 16... P-B5 17 P-Q4
1944, after 8 B—B4 P-Q4 9 B-Q3 N—K2 18N—K4N-Q4 19 B—B1 and
P-.QB4 10 0-0 P—B5 11 B—K2 N—B3 20 P—B5.) 17 P—Q4 P—B3 18 KP xP
12 N—R4 P-B4 13 P-.N4. 8 B-Q3 is BxP 19PxPBxN 2OPxPP xP
also good. 21 PxB Q—K4 22 KR—Ki P-N4
8 B—Q3 23 Q—KN2 N—K2 24 B—Q4 QxP
8 B—B4 P-QB4 9 0-0 Q-B2 10 25 R—K5 Q—R3 26 R x KP R—B2
Q—K2 N—B3, Canal-Colle, Meran 27 R/Qi—K1 Q—N4 28 B—K3 Q-R5
104 3N—QB3

29 B—B5 Q—N4 30 R/K6—K5 Q—R5 becau.se6...PxP 7BPxPQ-R5+

31 Q-N3 Q-B3 32 Q-K3 Q—R5 8 P-N3 Q-K5 + 9 K-B 2 Q x R 10
33 R—K4 1—0, Duckstein-Johansson, N—B3 traps the Black queen, which cannot
Lugano 1968. be extricated without serious loss) is much
the same as 6 N—KB3. In DücksteinKoeffler,
A12 Austria 1955, Black tried to
5... P—K3(92) take advantage of White’s move order
to force exchanges with 6 ... P—QB4
92 7 N-B3 QPxP 8 BPxP PxP 9
w P x P B—N5 + but White had the upper
hand after 10 B—Q2 Q—R4 11 B—Q3
N—B3 12 0—0 B—Q2 (12 ... B x B
I3YxBNxQP 14Y-B4.) 13R-N1
BxB 14 NxB Q-B6 15 N—B3.
rjrjg (Black quickly collapsed by 15
7jPj,4 NxQP? 16 RxP B-B3 17
RxBP!)
WA
, A13
5... P—QB4(93)

Like 5 ... P—KN3, this move is 93

playable but tends to give White good w
attacking chances. Dückstein-Larsen,
Munich 1958, continued 6 N—B3
B-K2 7P-Q40--O(7...P-QN3or rid PA,
7. . . N—B3 mqy transpose into Larsen’s Apj
later system, considered above.) 8 B—Q3 p—r,A
P-QB4 9KPxPQxP 100—0
N-B3 11 K-Ri P-QN3 12 Q-K2
B-N2 13 R-QN1 QR-Qi and after
the combinative sequence 14 P x P
Q x P 15 N-N5! B x N 16 R-N5
Q x P 17 B-N2 N-Q5 18 Q-R5 This move is more flexible than

P-N3 19 BxQ NxR! 20 QxB those considered above. After 6 N—B3

N x B 21 Q-K5 R-Bi 22 P-KR3 N—B3, White has a serious problem
White had the advantage, though as to how to continue, since:
Black has defensive chances. Interpolating a) 7 P—Q4 may be answered by 7
an early... P x KP, BP x P QP x P 8 BP x P B—N5 (stronger than
does not really help but Black’s later 8...Q-Q4 9B-K2PxP 1OPxP
play may be capable of improvement, B—N5 for which see Duckstein-Kavalek,
perhaps by ... P x QP, ... P x P, considered under A 151) with strong
and ... N—N5—Q4, as in HaagGipslis pressure against White’s centre.
below (A13). b) 7 B—N5 led nowhere in CiocalteaMikenas,
After 5 . . . P—K3, 6 P—Q4 (possible Sofia 1962, after 7
 31v’-QB3 105

P-QR3 8 B x N + P x B 9 0-0 P-N3 A14

10 P-Q4 BP x P 11 BP x P B—N2 12 5... B—B4(94)
PxPQxP 13N-K50-O.
c)1969,
7 B—B4 P—K3, Haag-Gipslis, Tallin 94 W
steers the game into a clearer
system at the cost of misplacing
White’s bishop. The game continued
8 0—0 B—K2 9 P—Q4 Q—B2 (expending
a tempo to provoke White’s next move.)
10 KPxP QxP 11 B—K3(?) (but
,‘AP,A.,4
here surely White goes wrong. He can use
the tempo to redeploy his bishop on Q3 /Aá
whereupon 11 . . . 0—0 transposes into
Duckstein-Larsen above, reached from
5. . . P—K3. Whereas in that game White The intention of this move is to
found a correct plan and Black di4 not, continue after 6 N- -B3 (f 6 P—Q4,
here the situation is reversed!) 11 6...PxP 7BPxPQ—Qlishardto
P x P 12 P x P N-N5 13 N-K5 0-0 meet.) with 6. . . P x P 7 P x P Q—Q4.
14 P-B3 N-Q4 15 B-Q2 B-Q2 16 If now 8 P-Q4 Q-K5 + 9 B-K2
Q-K2 B-KB3 17 QR-N1 P-QN3 P-K3 (10... QxBP 1OQxQBxQ
18 B-Q3 P-N3 19 R-B3 B-KN2 11 P—K6! with good chances for the pawn,
20 Q—B2 N-B3 21 P-B4 Q-B2 22 Taimanov-Airapetov, USSR 1948.) 10
B-B3 KR-Q1 23 Q-N2 B-K1 Q—Q3 Q x Q with a good ending for
24 R-QB1 Q-B1 25 R/B3-B1 Black, but White has better in 8
and in this position, where Black B—K2! Lisitzin-Tolush, USSR 1948
has at least equality, a draw was continued 8 ... N—B3 9 0—0 N x P
agreed. 10 N x N Q x N 11 P—Q4 Q-R4 12
d) Best may be the semi-waiting move R-N 1 P-K3 13 R x P B-Q3 14
7 R—QN1(!) after which 7 B-N5 + K-K2 15 Q-K2 B—N3 16
P—KN3 or 7.. . P—K3 lead to systems B—N5 + P-B3 17 P-Q5 winning.
already considered, but with the In Ciric-Marovic, Amsterdam 1968,
additional move R-QN1 N-B3 which after 5 .. . B—B4 6 N—B3 Black tried
should not materially affect their 6 ... P-K3 7 B—K2 N—Q2 8 0-0
assessment. After 7 R—QN1, 7 P—Q4(?) only to suffer immediate
P x P? 8 N x P! is inferior, as was demolition by 9 N—Q4 B—N3 10
shown in Bilek-Navarovszky, 10th P-B5! P x P 11 P-K6 N-B3 12
Hungarian Ch. 1954, which continued PxP+ KxP 13 NxP BxN 14
8 ... N x N 9 P x N P-QR3 R x B with advantage to White.
10 Q-B3 Q-B2 11 Q-K4 P-KN3
12P-Q4PxP 13PxPB—N2 14 A15
B—Q3 R—QN 1 15 0—0 B—K3 16 B—R3 5... PxP

BxRP? 17B-Q6!Q-Ql 18BxR 6PxP

B x R 19 B-R7 B—R7 20 Q x QNP And now:

B—Q4 21 QxRP etc. A151: 6... Q—Q4
106 3 N-QB3
A152: 6... B—B4 17 QR—KB1 N—R4 18 B—B 1? (Correct
After 6 ... P-QB4, 7 N-B3 N-B3 is 18 R—B3 at once and z,f 18. . . K—Ri
8 P—Q4 B—N5 is uncomfortable for 19 R—Y3 R—KY1 20 B—B8!) 18
White, so the Austrian master Duck- P-QB4 19 R-B3 K-Ri! 20 R-N3
stein, from whose games the theory R-KN1 21 P x P N-B3 22 B-B4
of this system has greatly profited, Q x BP 23 Q-R5 Q x RP 24 P-R3
devised instead an attacking plan delaying Q-B7 25 K-R2 P-R4 26 B-K3
P-Q4. Duckstein-Lambert, Q-K5 27 R x BP R x R 28 Q x R
Krems 1967, continue4 8 B—K2 P—K3 N x P 29 Q—K7 N-N3 30 Q-QB7
9 0—0 B—K2 10 Q—K1 B—Q2 11 P-R5 31 B-Q4 P-K4 32 B-B2
P—Q4 P—KR3 (11 ... 0—0 cannot be R-K B 1 33 R-N4 Q-B3 34 Q x Q
worse than this) 12 Q—N3 B—KB1 13 P x Q 35 B-N3 R-R 1 36 P-R4
N-Q2! Q-B2 14 P-Q5! N x P 15 P-R6 37 P-R5 P-R7 0—1.
N-B4 P-B3 16 B-R5+ K-Ql 17 8 N—B3 N—B3
B-B4 P—KN4 18 N x N P x B 9 B—K2 (95)
19 N-B7+ K-B1 20 Q-N6 B-K1

21 Q x +BP
23 N-Q6 andR-KN1
wins. 22 Q x P + Q-Q2 95 K/AiL/A4
B

A151

6... Q-Q4
7 P-Q4 P-QB4
7...N—B3 8N—B3B—N5(8...
Q-K5+ ?failed to 9 K-B2! B-N5 10
B-Q3 Q-Q4 11 Q--K2 P-K3 12 B-K4
Q—Q2 13 R—QN1 in Mattison-Grunfeld,
Carlsbad 1929) transposes in to BilekLarsen,
Sousse 1967, where Black
interpolated 5 . . . N—B3 6 N—B3And now Black has the choice
before 6 ... P x P 7 P x P Q—Q4 between two plans, neither of which
8 P—Q4. This game continued 9 B—K2 seem fully satisfactory:
P-K3 10 0-0 B-K2 11 N-N5 B x B a)9 ...PxP 1OPxPB—N5 11
12 Q x B 0—0. The rest of the game 0-0 0—O-O 12 P—B3 P-B3 13 Q-R4
is very instructive for the 4 NP x N Q—R4 14 Q—N3 Q—N3 15 Q x Q
variation: though in this particular PxQ 16 PxP KPxP 17 R-N1
line White’s opening has succeeded K-B2 18 B—Q3 B—Q3 19 N—Q2
and his attacking chances should give B-K3 20 N-K4 B—K2 21 B—B4+
him the advantage, it only requires K-B1 22 R x P and White won,
slight inaccuracy in the handling of Dückstein-Kavalek, Sarajevo 1967.
the attack for his queen-side pawn b)9...B—N5100--OPxP11PxP
weaknesses to cost him the game. P-K3 12 R-N 1 Q—Q2 13 N—N5!
Larsen won after 13 Q—R5 B x N 14 BxB 14QxBB-K2 15P-B3BxN
Q x B (14 B x B P—B3) 14.. . Q—K5 16 B x B P-KR3 17 B-B 1 N—K2
15 B—R3 KR-Q1 16 R-B2 R—Q2 18 Q-B3 N-Q4 19 P-B4 N-N3 20
 3N—QB3 107

P-B5 N-Q4 21 P-B6! P x P 22 B-R3 N-K4 N-B3! 14 0-0 Q-Q4 15Q x P

P-KM 23PxPe.p.PxP 24R-N3! 0-0-0 16 R x P QR—N 1 17 Q-R6
K-Q1 25 KR-Ni R-R2 26 Q-N3 P-B5 18 Q-K3 P x P 19 B—N2 and
N-N3 27RxN!PxR 28Q-KN8+ now, instead of 19 ... R—N5 20
Q—K1 29 Q x R 1—0, Tal-Podgaets R-K1 QxRP? 21 N-Q6+ K-Ni
USSR 1970. 22 Q-B3! BxN 23 PxB R/Ri-Ni
24 Q x R 1—0. Black can play 19
A152 B—B4 2OQxBQxNandif2i R-B2
6... B—B4 R-N4 22 QR-KB1 R-Qi with
7Q—B3 advantage (Levenfish).
The lines arising from 7 N—B3
P—K3 etc. are largely unexplored, A2
though Black can lead White into 4QPxN P—Q3 (97)
them by playing 5 ... B—B4 before

P x Kemeri
P (see above). HasenfussLandau,
1937, continued 8w 97 141*ê!L
P-Q4 B-K2 9 B-Q3 B x B 10 P x B LAL
but there are many other possibilities.
7... Q—B1
8 B—Q3 (96)
/4/%/4
An alternative is 8 B—B4 P—K3 9 P4
N—K2 N—Q2! (not 9 ... B—K2? 10
N—Q4 B—Y3 11 P—KR4 etc., BouazizCraske,
Stockholm 1969) 10 P—Q4
B—K2 11 0—0 0—0 12 N—N3 B—N3
13 B—Q3 P—QB4 with good play for
Black. 4. . . P—Q4(!) was played by Capablanca
and is still perfectly adequate.
96 White may be well advised to seek
B immediate equality with 5 P—QB4
,trf B—K3!? (5. . . P-QB3 and 5.. . P—K3
/4/4/4/% are play.able.) 6 P x P ChekhoverMikenas,
USSR 1947, went instead
6N-B3PxP 7QxQ+KxQ 8
N-N5 B—Q4 9 P-K6 with advantage
to White but better is 6 . . . N—B3!
and if 7 N—N5 N x P. Black may also
try for more by 5 ... P—Q5.
After 4.. . P—Q4 other moves cause
Black little trouble:
After 8 B—Q3, Taimanov-Tolush, a) 5 N-B3 P-QM 6 B-KM N-B3
USSR 1948, continued 8 ... B x B 7 Q-Q2 B-N5 8 0-0-0 P-K3 9
9 P x B P-K3 10 Q-N3 P-QB4 11 P-KR3(?) BxN 10 PxB Q-B2
N-B3 Q-Q2 12 N-N5 B-K2 13 11 B-N3 P-B5 12 P-B4 P-KN3
108 3N—QB3

13 K-Ni P-KR4 and White’s pawn White plays a later N—B3. After 6
weaknesses proved fatal, Yates-Capablanca, B—QN5,6...B--Q2 7Q—K2NxP
Moscow 1925. 8 B x N P x B 9 Q x P seems no better
b) 5 B-Q3 P-QB4 6 P-KM N-B3 for Black than the corresponding line
7 N-B3 R-N5 8 P-KR3 B x N 9 after 5 N—B3 when White has exchanged
Q x B P-K3 10 Q-N3 P-KN3 ii his knight rather than his
B-K3 P-B5 12 B-K2 N-K2 with bishop on KS.
advantage to Black, Nikolic-Orev,
Kislovodsk 1968. A21
c) 5 B—KN5 quickly rebounded in 5 B—QB4 N—B3
Zhuravlev - Vasyukov, Riga 1968, Black may also play 5 ... P—K3
which continued 5. . . P-QB3 6 B— 6N-B3PxP 7QxQ+KxQ 8
Q3 N—Q2 7 Q—K2 N—B4 8 0—0-0 Q— N x P K—K 1, Suslov-Kirilov, USS
R4 9 K-Ni P-K3 10 P-KR4 N-R5 1968, transposing into A22: but not
11 B—Bi P-QN4 12 Q-N4 R-QN1 the passive 6 ... N—B3? 7 Q—K2
13 P-R3 P-QB4 14 R-R3 P-N5 B-K2 8 R-M 0-0 9 0-0-0 P-Q4
with a winning attack. 10 P—KR4 with an overwhelming
Black survived 4. . . P—KN3(?) in position for White, Cvetkovic-Marangunic,
Bannik-Korchnoi, USSR 1954, after Yugoslavia 1970.
5 N-B3 B-N2 6 B—KM P-Q3 7 6 N—B3
Q-Q2 N-B3 8 0—0-0 B-N5 but 5 Not 6 R-B4? PxP 7 QxQ+
B—QB4 B-N2 6 Q-B3 0—0 7 B—B4 KxQ.
looks more incisive. 6... PxP
After 4 ... P—Q3, White has the 7QK2
choice between a sharp pawn sacrifice White is committed to this dubious
and a less commital move: pawnsacrificesince7QxQ+ NxQ
A21: 5B-QB4 8 N x P P-KB3 9 N—Q3 P-K4 10
A22: 5N-B3 O—OB—K3 11B—N3B—Q3 12R—K
5PxP?QxP 6QxQBPxQ, P-KN4 13 B—K3 K—B2, Nezhmetdinov-Spassky,
Te Kolste-Réti, Baden-Baden 1925, USSR 1959, is good
concedes a slight advantage to Black for Black who has vigorous play as
at once. well as the better pawn structure.
5 B—KB4 is designed to prevent 7... P—B3(98)

5K x...Q P x P+because
7 0-0-0 but it seemsof
that6wQ x Q + 98 Ij1* _
Black can survive White’s tactical
pressure and retain long term winning
chances because of his king-side pawn
majority, e.g. 7 ... B—Q2 8 B x P
P-KB3 9 B-N3 P-K4 followed by F4 PA
B—Q3 (10 P—KB4 is answered by 10... /%jcj
P.-K5). Weaker is 5. . . N—B3 6 N—B3
(considered below under 5 . . . N—B3
6 B-KB 4) or at once 6 B—QN5 when
 3 N—QB3 109

There is no need to return the pawn chances. 6 B—KB4 is also quite strong,
by 7 ... P—K3(?) as in BasmanSmyslov, largely because against most replies
Lugano 1968, which continued8NxPNxN ‘White can transpose into similar lines
9QxNB-Q2 by B-QN5. 6 ... P x P is now
10 Q—N3 Q—B3 11 B-B4 Q—N3 12 dangerous because of 7 N x P N x N
Q—B3 0—0—0 (12 ... B—B3? 13 8QxQ+KxQ 9BxNP-KB3
B—QN5!) 13 B—QR6 P-QB3 14 B— 10 0-0-0+ B—Q2 11 B-K2! K-Bl
Q3 P-KIM and now, instead of 15 12 R—Q2! etc. In Kamenetski-Braitman,
0—0—0, 15 Q—K3 is almost immediately USSR 1954, Black tried 6
decisive. B—N5 but after 7 B-QN5 P-QR3 8
Green-Williams, Coventry 1970, B—R4 P-K3 (8... P-QN4 9 B-N3
continued from the diagram 8 B—K3 PXP fails to 10 BxP+! KxB 11
P-K3 9 N—R4 P-KN3 10 P-B4 Y-Y5+K-K1 I2QxBPxB 13
B—Q3 11 0-0 Q-K2 12 P x P N x P Q-K6 etc.) 9 P-B4! B-K2 10 P-KR3
13 B—Q4 0-0 14 BxN BxB 15 B x N 11 Q x B Q-Q2 12 R-Q 1
N—B3 B—Q3 16 QR-Kl K—N2 17 R-Ql 13 Q-KN3 P-KN4 14 B—K3
BxPBxB 18QxBQxQ 19RXQ P-N4 15PxNPNxP 16QxN!?
QR—Kl and Black has only returned PxQ 17RxQKxR 18PxP+
the pawn to reach an ending where P—B3 19 B—N3 White’s queen-side
he has good chances of exploiting his pawns gave him the advantage. However,
king side pawn majority. 6 .. . P—KN3 may be playable.
(See analysis in A222.)
A22 6... B—Q,2
5 N—B3 (99) The alternatives seem no better:
a) 6 ... P—Q,R3 was suggested by
99 Keres in the notes to his game against
B Schmid given below, but after 7 B—R4
P-QN4 8 B-N3 P x P, 9 Q-K2 gives
White better chances than the similar
sacrifice after 5 B—QB4 because of
the weakness of Black’s queen side.
7 B x N + is also possible.
P4%r4, b) 6 ... P-K3 7 B—KM B—K 2 8
Q-K2 0-0 9 0-0-0 P-QR3 10 B-Q3
Lft B—Q2 11 P-KR4 with a winning
attack. Makarichev - A. Petrosian,
A221: 5... Y—B3 USSR 1969, continued 11 ... P—B3
A222. 5...P—KN3 12 P x BP P x P 13 R-R3 R-B2 14
A223: 5...PxP R-N3+ K-Rl 15 P-R5 P—K4 16
B—R6 B—KB 1 17 B—Q2 N-K2 18
A221 R—R 1 R-N2 19 R x R B x R 20
5... N—B3 N-R4 P-Q4 21 P-R6 B-KB 1 22
6 B—QN5 Q-B3 P-KM 23 B—KN5 P-KS
This move gives White good attacking 24 .Q—N3 1—0.
110 3N—QB3

7 Q—K2 (100) 101

w

100 tIfJ*I
B
it1L&tttt

P
JL1tVA

four since 5 N—B3 restricts White’s

attacking possibilities.
Black has great difficulty in freeing 6 B-KB4

his game, e.g.: 6 B—QB4 N-B3 7 B—B4 transposes

a)7...NXP 8NxNPxN 9QxP to the main line, though if Black
P-QB3 10 B-QB4 Q-N1 ii Q-K4 wishes to avoid the rigours of 8
P-K3 1 2 B—KN5 P-KR3 13 B-R4 N—N5!? he can try 6 ... B—N2 7
B—Q3 14 0—0—0 Q—B2 15 Q—Q4 B-B4 0-0 (8 N-N5 P-KR3! ?).
B-K4 16 Q-B5 B—B3 17 B x B 6... N—B3

Q-B5 + 18 R-Q2 P x B 19 KR-Q 1 6 ... B—N2 is again possible. In

P-N3 20 Q-KR5 0-0-0 21 B-R6 + Klein-Trifunovic, Birmingham 1951,
K-B2 22 P—KN3 Q-B4 23 Q x BP White played passively 7 P—KR3,
P-K4 24R-Q6R-R2 25RxP+! and after 7 ... N—B3 8 Q—K2 0—C)
K-Ni 26 Q-Q5 Q x P 27 Q-Q6 + 9Q-K3PxP 1ONxPNxN 11
K-Ri 28B—N7+!KxB 29R-B7+ B xN B xB 12 Q xB Q-Q3 Black
1—0, Keres-Schmid, Zurich 1961. had equalised. 7 Q-Q2 N—B3 8
b) 7 ... P-QR3 8 B-QB4 P-K3 0—0—0 B—N5 is Bannik-Korchnoi,
9B-B4PxP 1OBxPB—Q3!? 11 USSR 1954, reached from 4
B x NP R-KN 1 12 B—K5 N x B 13 P—KN3. Black has adequate counter-
N x N B x N 14 Q x B R x P, Shamkovich-Bronstein, play.
USSR 1961, and 7 B-B4 B—N2

now instead of 15 B—Q5? R—N4 16 Black must try and weather the
Q-R8 + K-K2 17 Q x Q + R x Q, storm. The cowardly 7 .. . P—K3(?)
White should play 15 Q-R8 + K-K2 came to grief in Keres-Westerinen,
16 Q—K5 with obscure play favouring Tallin 1971, after 8 P x P P x P 9
White. White may also keep some Q-K2 B—K2 10 0-0-0 P-QR3 11
advantage by the less violent 10 N x P P-KR4 P-QN4 12 B-QN3 P-Q4
B—Q3 11 B—KN3 followed by 0—0—0. 13 KR—Kl B—Q2 14 BxP! Px
15 N-KS N xN 16 Q x N etc.
A222 8 N—N5!?
5.. P—KN3 (101) The critical move. Now 8 ... 0—0
This is better here than on move 9 P-K6 P-KB3 10 N-B7 Q-K1
 3N—QB3 111

11 N—R6 + (Trifunovic) is good for P-B4 21 RxR BxR 22 K-N2

White, but in Payrhuber-Ligterink, B-B3 + 23 K—N3 R-QN1 24 N-Q3
Stockholm 1969, Black was successful N-K2 25 B x B R x B 26 P-B4 in
with 8 ... P xP!? 9 B xP+ K—Bl White’s favour, but 9 .. . P—K4! is
10 Q-B3 PxB 11 R-Q1 QxR+ an obvious improvement.
12 Q xQ P—KR3 after 13 B xPPxN 8...P—K3

14 Q-Q5 P-K3 15 Q xNP P-K4 There is still no clear verdict on

16 0—0 B—K3 17 R—Q1 N—K2 18 this position, though in practice White
B—R5 R—R3 etc. usually generates enough tactical
chances to offset his crippled pawn
majority, e.g.
5... P x P a) 9 B-B4 B-Q3 10 0—0--0 N-Q2
move poses most clearly the 11 KR—K 1 N x N (Schmidt suggests
strategical problems facing both 11 ... K—K2 first) 12 B x N B x B
: Black’s better pawn structure 13 R x B K—K2 14 R—QB5!? P—QB3
White’s active piece play. 15 P—B4 B—Q2 16 P—QN4, P—B3
6QxQ+ KxQ (16...P-QN3 17 R-K5P-QB4 is
7 N xP K—K1 (102) probably best) 17 P—QR4 P—QR3 18
R-K.R5 P-R4 19 B—N3 P-R3 20
102 R-R3 P xP 21 R(R3)-Q3 KR-Ql
w ,41iNP L 22 P x P P-Q B4 23 R-Q6! with
t I I I some advantage to White, PflegerK
Schmidt, Polanica-Zdroj 1971.
b) 9 0-0 B—Q3 10 R-K 1 N-Q2 11
F, N—B3 aims to contain the Black
/f4 pawns. After 11 ... N—N3 12 B—Q3
% P-KB3 13 N-Q4 K-B2 14 N-N5,
Bannik-Bronstein, USSR 1961, or
11 ... P-QR3 12 B—K 3 P-R3 13
g B—Q4 R—KN1 14 QR—Ql, NikitinBagirov,
USSR 1969, it is unclear
8 B—QB4 hoW much progress Black has made.
c) 9 P—B4(?) hampers the development 8 B—K3 is rather less naïve than
8 B—QB4 because it leaves White with of White’s game more than
Black’s. Sarapu-Hort, Sousse 1967, chances of advancing his doubled
went on 9 ... N—Q2 10 N x N QBP to exchange it or make it exert
(10 N—B3 is probably better) 10 some influence on the game. RadulovSmejkal,
B x N 11 B-K3 B-Q3 12 0-0 K-K2 Siegen 1970, continued 8...
P-KB3 9 N-Q3 N—B3(?) 10 P-KB4! 13 QR-Kl KR-K 1 14B-Q3 P-KB4
P-K3 11 0—0—0 P—QN3 12 P—B4 15 P-B4 P-QN3 16 B-Q4 K-B2 17
B—N2 13 P-QBS P-QN4 14 B—K2 R-K2 B-B3 18 P—KR4 QR-Ql
B—K2 15 KR-K 1 K-B2 16 N-B2 19 B-KS P-KR3 20 P-RS R-KN1
B-QR3 17 B-B3 KR-Q1 18 P-QN4 21 R(B 1)—K 1 P—KN4 and Black
19P-QR3PxP 2OPxP P-QR4 won.
112 3N—QB3
B Alternatives are not very danger-
3.. P—K3 (103) otis:

a) 5 N-K4 N-QB3 6 N-KB3 P x P

7 P x P B—K2 and it is hard for White
103
w I to avoid equality after 8 ... N—N3:
e.g. 8 P—QR3 (or 8 P—B3 N—N3 9
Q—B2 Q—Q4, Rristambejei - Pavlenko,
USSR 1966) 8 ... N—N3 9 B—Q3
PA rz:: rx P-KR3 10 B—K3(?) N—Q2 and
V4H%Px White has overreached, NikolicKnezevic,
Kizlovodsk 1968.
b)5PxP(?)NxN 6PxNPxP
(or 6... B x F) 7 B—Q3 Q—B2 8
N-B3 B—K2 9 0-0 0-0 10 B—Q2
N-Q2 11 Q-K2 N-B3 and Black has
3. . . P—K3 was played by Alekhine excellent prospects, Duckstein-Dittmann,
in 1921 when 3 N—QB3 was played Vienna 1957.

for the first time (he also gave the 5... PxP
move a mark of approval in his notes). Black should avoid 5.. . N—QB3(?)
Bi: 4P-Q4 6B—QN5!NxN 7PxNPxP(or
B2: 4NxN even f Black retaiM the two bishops with
Other moves are of little consequence. 7... B—Q2 8 0—0 P—QR3 9 B—Q3,
If 4 N—K4, 4. . . P—KM is White has good attacking chances.) 8
possible as well as 4. . . P—Q3 5 P—Q4 NxPB—Q2 9NxBQxN 100-0
N—QB3 transposing into NikolicKnezevic B—K2 11 Q-N4 0-0 12 B—KR6 B—B3
below. 4 P—KN3, Romanovski-Levenfish, 13 QR-Q 1 KR-Q 1 14 B-KM
USSR 1924, has only P-QR3 15B—Q3P-KN3 16KR-Kl
curiosity value (the game continued with some advantage to White,
4...P-Q3 5PxPBxP 6B—N2 Bivshev-Aronin, USSR 1956.
N x N 7 NP x N 0-0 8 N-K2 P-B4 6NxP
90-0 Q-B2 10 R-Nl N-B3 11 P—Q3 Or 6 P x P B—N5! 7 B-Q2 N x N
P-QN3 etc), while 4 B-B4? N-N3 8 P x N B-R4 9 B—Q3 N-Q2 10 0-0
5 B—N3 misplaces White’s bishop. N-B4 11 Q-K2 N x B 12 P x N
Orev - Knezevic, KizlovocLsk 1968, B—Q2 13 QR-Nl B—B3 14 N-Q4
continued 5.. . P—Q3 6 P—B4 P—QB4 Q-Q2 15 N x B P x N 16 P-Q4
7 P—Q3 P—Q4 with great advantage O—O--O with slightly the better game
to Black. for Black, Apschenek-Berg, Kemeri
1937.
Bi 6... NxN

4 P-Q4 P-Q3 7PxN N—Q,2 (104)

4...NxN 5PxNP-Q3or R. Byrne-Olafsson, Lugano 1970,
5 ... P—QN3 transpose into lines now went 8 N-B3 (8 B-KB4 P-QB4
considered in Al. or 8 ... B—Q3 9 B—N3, VerlinskiRabinovich,
5 N—B3 USSR 1925, creates more
 3N—QB3 113

104 P—Q3 7 B—Q3 (to prevent 6

w B—KB4) with the continuation 7
P x P 8 P x P B-K3 9 N-K2 N-Q2
10 Q—N3 P—KN3 11 0—0 B—N2 12
P-KM N-B4 13 P-B5! but 7
N-Q2 8 Q-N3 P x P 9 P x P N-B4
is stronger
6... P—Q,3
7 P-Q,4 (105)

105
B K4JLAA
problems for Black.) 8 ... P—QB4 9
B—Q 3 Q-B2 10 0-0 P-B5 11 B-X2
B—Q3 12 R-K1 0-0 13 B—B 1 P-QN3
14 P-QR4 B—N2 and Black has at
least equalised. /4
/AA/A
B2
4NxN
4... PxN
5 Q,—B3!
White’s only hope of maintaining Black has great difficulties in completing
an advantage: e.g. his development. DücksteinLahti,
a) 5 P-Q,4 P-Q3 6 N-B3 N-B3 7 Raach 1969, continued 7
B—K2 B—K2 8 B—KM 0—0 9 0—0 P x P 8 P x P B-K B4 9 P-QB3
P-B3 10 PxP BxP with easy N—Q2 10 N—B3 N-B4 11 N-Q4
equality, Sãmisch-Alekhine, Budapest B-N3 12 P-KR4 Q-Q2 13 B—K2
1921. P-KR4 14 B-KN5 N-K5 15 Q-K3
b) 5 P-KB4(?) P-Q3 6 N-B3 B—N5 B—QB4 16 P-QN4 B x N 17 P x B
7B—K2BxN 8BxBPxP 9PxP with advantage to White.
N-B3 10 0-0 B-M+ 11 K-Ri 0-0 Against the immediate 7. . . B—B4,
12P-B3NxP 13P-Q4NxB 14 8 P—QB3 N-Q2 9 N-B3, along the
Q x N B—K2 and White has very same lines as Duckstein’s play, is
little for his pawn, Ciocaltea-Suto, better than 9 P—KB4, which allowed
Bucharest 1956. Black to equalise in Nagy-Vukovic,
5... P--QB3 Hungary 1924, after 9 ... P xP 10
6 Q—KN3 BPxP P-B3 11 N-B3 B—K5 12
Grimfeld suggested first 6 P-Q4 B—K2 and now 12 ... P xP.
8 2 P-K5 N—Q4: OTHER SYSTEMS

106 After 1 P-K4 N-KB3 2 P-K5 N-Q4

these are: B

A: 3 P—Q 4 P—Q 3 4 P- QB4 N—N3 LAL

5 N—KB3
B: 4 B—QB4
C: 4 B-K2
D. 4P-KB4 PA PA:
E: 4PxP
F: 4 B—KN5
G: 3N-KB3
H: 3 B—B4
I: 3P—QB4
transpose into the main lines of the After 3 P—Q4 the move 3 . . . P—
Modern System with 4 ... B—N5. QB4? has always been considered bad
because of 4 P-QB4 N—B2 5 P—Q5, 7 P—B5
Keres-Danielsson, Reval 1935. In The sacrifice 7 N x P!? B x B 8
Q x B Q x P 9 0—0, played by Tseshkovsky-Kuznetsov, USSR 1968,
Alekhine, seems inadequate after White was equally successful with
9 ... N/N1—Q2 10 NxN Q,xN! 4 P x P P-K3 5 B—QB4 Q-R4 +
e.g. 11 N—B3 P—K3 12 B—K3 B—K2 6 P-B3 Q x BP 7 B x N Q x B
8QxQPxQ 9B—B4etc. 13 QR-Q1 Q—B3 14 Q—N4 0-0 15
P—QN3 P—B4, Thomas-Flohr, London
A 1932, or 11 P—QR4 (Alekhine’s
3 P-Q4 P-Q3 recommendation) 11 ... Q—B3 12
4 P—QB4 N-N3 N—R3 P—K3 13 P—R5 N—Q2, though
5 N—KB3 (106) Alekhine assessed this last position as
promising for White. This system is largely transpositional:
10. . . N x N? is less strong. AlekhineReshevsky, 5 ... P—KN3 leads into the
Mo4ern System with 4 ... P—KN3 Kemeri 1937, continued
11 N-B3 P—QB3 12 B—K3 Q—K4 13 and 5 ... N—B3 into the Modern
System with 4 ... N-QB3. QR—Q1 P—K3 14 Q—B3 0-0-0 (f
5... B—N5 14...B—K2 15RxN! or 14...
6B—K2 PxP N-B3 15 N—N5!) 15 B x P Q-QR4
16 B—Q4 Q—KB4 and now Alekhine Here 6 ... P—K3 or6 ... N—B3
 2P-K5N-Q4: Other 115

points out that with 17 Q x Q 107

(instead of 17 Q—N3) White can B
secure a clear advantage.
7... P—KS
7...N—Q4?8NxPand7...
N/N3—Q2? 8 Q—N3 (less clear is
8 JVxP BxB 9QxBNxN 10
P x N N—B3 11 N—B3 P—K3) are both P64 VA: PA PA
good for White.
8PxN
8 N—N5 is also possible: e.g. 8
BxB 9 QxB N-Q4 10 0-0 (not
10 Q—N5+ N—B3 11 Q xP? N/Q4— B6 P-K3 13 B—B4 B—N5 + 14 N-B3
N5) 10 ... N—QB3 11 R—Ql with R—R2 15 0—0 B x N 16 P x B 0—0.
approximate equality (Alekhine). Alekhine-Euwe, 29th match game
8... PxN 1935, now continued 12 ... P—K4!
9BxP BxB 13BXP(orl3PxPB—N5+ 14]’!—
1OQxB RPxP B3BxN+ 15 PxB 0-0 160-0
An alternative is 10 . . . N—B3 N—B4 17 Q—B3 R—R6 etc.) 13...
11 0—0 (11 P—Q5 leads nowhere after N xB 14PxNB-N5+ 15 N-B3
11.. . N—N5 12 Q—QN3 N x QP 12 B xN+ 16PxBO—O 170-0 Q-K2
P x BP Q x P and. . . P-K3) and now. 18 KR—Kl Q—B4 19 R—K3 R—R6
a) 11 . . . P—K3 came to grief in 20 Q—B3 and instead of 20... R—K1
Rumanian Ch Ciocaltea-Sutiman, 21 P—R3! (21 . . . R—K1 22 R—Q1)
RPxP 13P-Q5 1952, after 12 N—B3 20 Q—B5 completes the process of
PxP 14NxPR—R4(orl4...B--K2 equalising.
15 B—B4 R—QBJ 16 QR—Q1 with an
overwhelming position) 15 R—K 1 + B
B—K2 16 NxB NxN 17 B—N5! 3 P--Q4 P—Q3
R x B 18 QR—Q1 Q-B 1 19 Q—K3 4 B—Q,B4 (108)
1-0.

b)11...NxP12QxPRPxPand 108
now Alekhine gave 13 B—K.3, but B
Fine pointed out the retort 13
R—QN1 14 Q—K4 N—N4 15 Q—
QR4 Q—Q2 16 R—Ql N—Q3 safely
retaining the extra pawn. However,
after 13 N—B3 threatening 14 R—Q1 _ PA
and 14 N—N5 White has a dangerous
and probably winning attack.
11QxP N—Q2
12 B—B4 (107)
Black has fewer problems after
12 0—0 P—K3 13 B—B4 or B—Q3 12 Q— This move was favoured by Canal.
116 2 P—K5 N-Q4: Other

White aims to force Black to play his attack rapidly came to nothing after
• P—K3 and then build up behind 6...PxP 7N—KB3P-N3 8P-
his spearhead at K5 before launching KR4 B-N2 9 P—R5 P-K4 10 N-N5
an eventual king side attack, but the P-Q4 11 Q—B3 B-B4 12 P x P N x P.
plan is too rustic to cause Black many 6Q,—B3
problems. 6Q—R5P—K3 7PxPisnoworse:
4... N-N3 if then 7.. . N—B3 8 N—KB3 N-Q5
4 ... P x P 5 P x P P-K3 may 9 0-0, Black has effectively lost a
also be playable. Zlotnik-Sukhanov, tempo over the similar line given
USSR 1968, continued 6 Q,—N4(?) below, and 9.. . N xN+ 10 Q xN
N-QB3 7 N-KB3 B—Q2 8 0-0 Q1(2!? Q—Q5 fails to 11 R—K1. 7. . . P—Q,B4
9 P-QR3 0-0-0 10 P-N4 is effectively met by 8 Q—K2 followed
P-B3 11 B—N2 Q—B2 12 B-R2 PKR3 by P—QB3, N—KB3, 0—0 etc. (rather
13 Q—QB4 Q—R4 14 R—Kl than 8 P—QB3 Q—Q6). Black’s best may
P-KN4 15 P-N5 N-B5! with a be7.. .P-QR4 8 P-QR4 (8P-QB3
dangerous attack, but 6 N—KB3 is now quite unplayable because of 8 . .
followed by O—O and Q—K2, waiting Q-Q6) 8.. . N-R3 9 N-KB3 N-B4
for Black to commit himself, seems (10 N—N5 P-N3 11 Q-B3 Q-K2
stronger, and more in accord with followed by.. . B—N2.)
the spirit of the variation. 6... P—K.3
4... P-K3 5 N-KB3 B—K2 60-0 7PxP P-QR4
0—0 seems needlessly co-operative After the immediate 7 . . . N—B3
(Canal-Grunfeld, Carlsbad 1929, continued 8 Q,—N3 N—Q,5, Blagidze-Mikenas,
7R-K1N-QB3 8N—B3NxN 9P xN USSR 1945, continued 9 N—KB3
P—Q4 10 B-Q3 N-RI 11 N-Q2 PQB4 NxN+ 1OQxNQ—Q5 11Q—N3
12 P xP B xP 13 Q-R5 with N-Q2 12 P-KM Q—K5-t- 13 B-K3
advantage to White) but 4. . . P—QB3 B—B4 14 K—B2 BxB+ 15 QxB
oreven4...PxP 5PxPP-QB3 Q x Q + 16 K x Q N-B4 17 N-B3
may be possible. B—Q2 with a good ending for Black,
5B-N3 PxP but 11 Q,—K2! is very much stronger,
5 ... P—K3(?) is again unnecessary—after e.g. 11 . . . N—Q2 12 P—KB4 N—B4
6 N—KB3 N—B3 7 13 B—B4 followed by N—B3 and
Q-K2h--K2 80-00-0 9P—B3PxP B—K3) and renders redundant the
10 P x P N—Q2 11 B—B2, CanalGiustolisi, attempted improvement 10 P x N!?
Venice 1948, ‘White’s plans tried in Tukmakov-Usakovski, USSR
were well advanced. 1964; White obtained a winning
5. . . P—Q,4 is not bad, although attack after 10 . . N—Q4 11 B—N5
.

White has not yet committed himself Q-Q2 12 N—Q2 P-KR3 13 B-K3
to playing N—KB3. N—K2 14 0—0—0 N—B4 15 Q—N
The best alternative to the main Q-B3 16 N—K4 B—Q2 17 N—N3
line is probably 5. . . N—B3 intending N x B (17 . . . 0—0—0 was quite safe.)
to continue after 6 N—KB3 with 18 P x N Q-B4 19 Q-KB4 P-KN4
6 ... P—Q4; in Tukmakov-Stein, 20 Q—B6 QxKP+ (20 . . . R—R2)
USSR 1962, White tried 6 P—K6 but 21 K—N 1 R—R2 22 R x B! but this
 2 P—K5 N—Q4: Other 117

was Black’s fault rather than that of 32 K-B3 P-Q5 33 P x P P x P 0— 1.

the opening.

Also possible is 7... N-B3 8 Q,-N3 C 3 P--Q4

Q—Q5 9 N—KB3 Q—K5+ 10 B-K3
4 B—K2
P—Q3
PxP
B—Q2 followed by . . . Q—N3 and
5PxP N--QB3
0—0—0, though Black’s position is
6 N—KB3 B—N5
liable to remain cramped.
70-0
8 P—B3(?)
8 P—QR4 may be better than this. White has reached a position
Black can try to take advantage of which is not normally derived from
White’s weakened queen si d e by t h e Moder n Syst e m wi t h . .
N x B 11 P x N Q-Q4 but capturing the white KP because of
. B—N5 8. . . N- B 3 9 Q- N 3 N- Q 5 10 NKB3 ( C hapt e r 3) , wher e Bl a ck avoi d s
White is not without counterplay. the strong reply N x P.
8.. P—R5 From here, after 7 . . . P—K3 8 R—
9 B-B2 B—Q,2! (109) Ki B-K2 9 QN-Q2:
a) Matanovic - Teschner, Hamburg
109 1955, continued 9.. . 0—0 10 N—Bl
w
B—R4(?) 11 P-QR3 Q-Q2 12 N-N3
B—N3 13 B—Q3 QR-Q 1 14 B x B
BP x B! with chances for both sides.

PA PA b) Euwe suggested as an improvement

9. . . N—B5! 10 B—N5 (10 B—B1
N-Q5 JJP—B3N-R6+!) 1O...0—O
11 B x N P x B with some advantage.
Failing this 9 . . . N—N3 at least
equalises without trouble.

After this move White is in some D 3 P-Q4 P-Q3

trouble. Gufeld-Vasyukov, Kizlovodsk
4 P—KB4 (110)
1968, continued 10 Q—N3 B—N4 11

B—N5 Q—Q4 12 N—Q2 (Estrin

12N—QR3BxN 13R—Q1BxP 14
iL’Bgives ‘Jo _ — 7# A

R x Q N x R as better for Blath.)

12 . . . N—B3 13 P—KB4 N—B5 14 %/f4/4
F’/PA
Q—Q3NxNP 1QxQPxQ 16 PA
R—QN 1 P-R6 17 KN-B3 B—B4
18 B—KR4 B—K6 19 P-B5 0-0 20
B—B2 B—KB5 21 B—KN3 BxP 22
NxBNxN 23BxNKR—Kl 24
N—B3 P-KB3 25 K-B2 P x N 26
_ g
QR—Kl B—Q6 27 B—N3 B—B5 28
BxB NxB 29 R-K2 P-B4 30 A hybrid system, which White does
31 N—N5 P—K6 + KR-K 1 P-KS well to convert into the Four Pawns
1 18 2 P—K5 N—Q4: Other

Attack (Chapter 1) by an early P—B4. Stahlberg-Liienthal, Moscow 1935,

4... PxP now went 6. . . B—B4 7 B—Q3 Q—Q2
After 4... B—B4 at once, Mnatsakanian-Mikenas, 8 N-K2 B x B 9 Q x B P—K3 10 0-0
Tallin 1968, continued 0-0-0 11 N-Q2 P—B 3 12 P x P
5 B—Q3 (?) (better 5 P—B4 N x KBP 13 N-B3 P—K4 14 Q—B2
N-N3. 5. . . N-N5? 6 Q -RI + P x P 15 N/K2 x P B—B4 16 R—Q1,
N/N1—B3 7 P—Q5 is good for White.) and after 16 . . . KR—Kl Black has
50..BxB6QxBPxP7Q—N5+ much the better game.
(BP x P transposes to the note below)
7. . . N—QB3 8 QP x P N-N5 9 NQR3 E
P-QR3 10 Q—K2 P-K3 11 BK3 3 P—Q4 P—Q3
N—Q5 12 Q-B4 N—B4 13 B-B2 4PxP Q,xP (112)
Q—Q4 14 Q x Q N x Q 15 N—K2
N/B4-K6 16 B x N N x B 17 K—B2 112
B—B4 18 K—B3 0—0—0 with advantage W
to Black.
4. . . P—KN3 is also possible. 5 P—
B4 N—N3, returning to the Four
Pawns Attack is then preferable to
4 VA A
5 B-Q3 N-N5! 6 B-K4 P-Q4 7 PQR3
P x B 8 P x N P-KB4, Spielmann-Colle,
Bled 1931.
5BPxP N-QB3
If now 5...B—B4 6B—Q3(?)
_ _ g
Black can play6...BxB 7QxB
N—N5 8 Q-K4 QxP, e.g. 9 QxP 4 . . . Q x P is more feasible here
Q-Q4! 10 QxQ NxQ with at than in the Exchange System proper
least equality. (Chapter 5), because after P—QB4
6 P—B3 (111) Black can retreat his knight to KB3
rather than QN3, but it is not therefore
111
the best move.
B
Better may be 4.. . BP x P 5 —P—
QB4 N—N3 (or 5... N—KB3 6 N—
QB3 P—Q4 which transposes into the
Caro-Kann, Panov Attack).
If 4 . . . KP xP (White gains
nothing by leaving out P—QB4, e.g.
r%:rAr%. 5 N-KB3 B—N5 6 B-K2 B-K2 7 0-0
N-KB3 8 R-K1 0-0 9 QN-Q2
_ g QN—Q2 10 N—B1 P—4 with equality,
Yates-Sacconi, Meran 1926.
If 6 N—KB3 then 6 . . . B—N5. 5 N—KB3 B—N5
Once again (as also after 5 . . . B—B4) 6 B—K2
6 P-B4 N-N3 is best. Von Holzhausen-Reti 1928, went
 2 P—K5 N-Q4: Other 119
instead 6 P-B4 N—KB3 7 B—K2Independent lines may also arise
N-B3 8 B—K3 0-0-0 9 P—Q5 with after4PxP;e.g.4. . .BPxP(of course
advantage, but after 6 P—B4 Black 4 . . . KP xP or 4 . . . Q xP are also
can try to equalise in other ways. feosible—some lines that may result are
6.. N—QB3 co7wdered in E above) 5 N—B3 N x N
70-0 pop (5. . . N—)V3 is inappropriate here, but
8 P-B3 N—B5 5. . . N—KB3 6 P—Q4 P—Q4 is the
when, in Yates-Kmoch, Budapest easiest way to exploit White’s lost move)
1926, White’s Q-side attacking chances 6 QP x N N—B3 7 B—K3 P-KN3
gave him the advantage after 9 B x N 8 Q—Q2 B—N2 and in Davie-Eales,
Q x B 10 P—N4 P—K4 11 P—N3 Coventry 1970, White attacked prematurely
Q—R3 12NxPNxN 13BxB+ with 9 B—KR6? and was
K-Ni 14 B—B3 P-KB4 15 R—K1 repulsed after 9. . . B x B 10 Q x B
N x B + 16Q x N P-KN3 17 N-R3 Q—N3! 11 Q—N7 R—B1 12 B—Q3
Q-N2 18 N-B4 P—KR4 19 N-R5 B—N5 13 0-0—0 BxN 14 PxB
P-B3 20 R—K6 P-R5 21 QR-K1 0—0—0 15Q xRPQxP 16Q-R3+
B—Q3 22 N—B4 B—B2 23 P-N5 K—Ni 17 Q—N3 Q—B4 with
RP x P 24 RP x P P x P 25 N-R5! vantage.
etc. 4.. N—N3
5 B—N3 P-Q4
F In conjunction with the next move,
3 P—Q4 P—Q3 probably a clearer way to equality
4 B—KN5 than 5.. . P- KN3, transposing to the
This has some historical interest as Modern System with 4 . . . P—N3
it was played in the first serious 5 B.—QB4.
Alekhine’s Defence game, E. Steiner- 6 P—Q4 B-N5 (113)
Alekhine, Budapest 1921.
4... PxP 113
5PxP N—QB3 W
6 N—KB3
In the Steiner-Alekhine game,
Black won after 6 B—N5 B—B4 7 N—
KB3 N—N5 8 N—R3 Q x Q + 9
RxQNxP+ 1ONxNBxN 11
R—QB 1 B—K5 12 N-Q4 B x P
13 R—KN1 0—0—0! etc.
.6... B—N5
7 B-N5 P—KR3 8 B—Q2 P-K3 9 0-0
N—K2 with a good game for Black—
Lutikov-Kopylov, USSR 1968. Zhelyandinov-Bagirov, USSR 1968,
continued 7 P—KR3 B x N 8 Q x B
G P-K3 90-0 P—QB4 10 P xP NfN3-
3 N-KB3 P—Q3 Q2 11 B—KM N-QB3 12 N—B3
4 B-B4 B x P 13 Q—N3 P-KN3 14 QR—Q 1
120 2 P—K5 N—Q4: Ot/u?r

0-0 15 NxP!? Px11 16 RxP 5 P—Q,3 is also possible: after 5...

N—Q5 17 Q—N4 P—KR4 18 Q—Q1 N—B3 6 N—KB3 P-Q4 7 P x Pe
Q-B1 19 R x N/Q4 B x R 20 Q x B P-K3 8 N-B3 B x P 9 N-K4 B—K2,
N—B4 and, despite the risks Black has White does not have to transpose into
taken, the game was eventually the main line with 10 Q—K2, but
drawn. can instead achieve reasonable prospects
with an early P—B3 and P—Q4.
H 5 N-Q,R3 N-QB3 6 N—B3 P-Q4
3 B—B4 (114) 7 P x Pep P-K3 8 N—QN5 B x P
9 NxB+ QxN 10 P-B3 (HonfiSarkozy,
114 Hungary 1950) 10.. . 0—0
B KmJLP 11 P—Q3 R—Q 1 leads to a position
where Black’s central pressure is
more than adequate compensation for
White’s two bishops.
5... N—B3
_ ‘4 6 N—KB3

VA TA 6 P—QB3(?) P—Q4 is good for

Black, e.g.
a) 7 P xPe.p. Q xP 8 N—QR3 B-B4
9 N-N5, Mieses-Grünfeld, BadenBaden
1925, and now 9 . . . Q—Q2.
This move was played by Anderssen b) 7 P—Q3 B—B4 8 N—B3 P—K3, von
in two games against Pearson at Balla-Grunfeld 1925.
London 1862, and was quite popular 6.. P—Q4
in the 1920’s, but has rarely been 7 P xPe.p. P-K3
seen since then. 8 N—B3(?)
3... N—N3 More realistic is 8 P—B3 B x P
4 B—N3 9 0—0 0—0 10 P—Q4; Seitz-Grünfeld,
4 B—K2 is as inoffensive as it looks; Debrecen 1925, continued 10
E. Steiner-Colle, Budapest 1926, P x P 11 P x P B—K2 12 R—Ql and
continued 4. . . P-Q3 5 P—KB4 N— White does not stand worse.
B3 6 N-KB3 PxP 7 PxP N-Q5 8... BxP
8 0-0 NxN+ 9 BxN Q-Q5+ 9 N-K4 B—K2
10 K-Rl Q x KP 11 P-Q4 Q—Q3 10 P-Q3 N-Q4
12 P—B4 Q—Q2 13 N-B3 P—QB3 and 11 0—0 0-0 (115)
White’s attack proved insufficient illack now has the better game. In
compensation for the lost pawn. Yates-Rubinstein, Dresden 1926,
4... P—QB4 White did not even try to equalise
4. . . P—Q4 is quite playable (e.g. with P—B3 and P—Q4, and lost after
5 P-Q4 B-B4 6 N-K2 P-K3 etc.) 12 B-Q2 P-QN3 13 QR-Ql B-N2
4.. . P—Q3 5 P—Q4 transposes toB 14 KR—K1 Q—Q2 15 B—El QR—Q
or 5 N—KB3 to G above. 16 N—N3 KR—K 1 17 Q—K4 N—B3
5Q-K2 18 Q—KR4 N—Q5 19 N—KS Q-B2
 2P-K5N-Q4: Other 121
115 I
w 3 P-QB4 N-N3
4 P—QN3
‘a, Occasionally played. Gusev-Fedul,
USSR 1967, continued 4 . . . P—Q3
/A/4A/% 5 PxP KPxP(?) (5. . . QxP is
probably necessary) 6 B—N2 QN—Q2
7 Q-K2 + Q-K2 8 Q x Q + K x Q
9 N-Q B3 N-B3 10 B—K2 B—B4 11
N—B3 with the better game for
White.
Black’s best reply is probably 4.
P—KN3; Mestrovic-Janosevic, Sarajevo 20 N—R5 N x N 21 Q x N B—Q3
22 N—N4 N x B 23 RP x N P-B4 1969, continued 5 N—KB3 P—
QB4!? 6 P—QR4 P-QR4 7 P-Q4 24 N—K3 Q-B3 25 Q—R3 P—QN4
with obscure play, but 5. . . B—N2 26 N—B 1 P—K4 27 B—N5 R-Q2 28
and 6 . . . P—Q3 seems clearer and P—KB4 R-KB2 29 Q—N3 R-K3!
quite adequate for Black. 30 Q-B2 R-N3 31 N-Q2 PxP 32
N—B3 P—KR3 winning a piece.
9 SECOND MOVE VARIANTS

The systems for White considered in to enter the Vienna Game

this chapter decline the challenge of (2 . . . P—K4) or the Pirc Defence
Alekhine’s Defence by avoiding 2 P— (2 . . . P—Q3) though in practice the
K5. Black is given the opportunity to independent lines arising from 2
transpose into other opening lines not P—Q4, analysed below, are often
generally considered as theoretically preferred.
critical. 2... P—Q4
The following are the main variations: Apart from 2 .. . P—K4 and 2
P—Q3, Black may also try to reach the
A second move divergence which French Defence with 2 . . . P—K3
can be more readily dismissed is, 3 P—Q4, if he is prepared to enter
after 2 P—KS, the retreat 2 . . line B in Chapter 7 after 3 P—KS
N—Ni (?). Boleslavsky - Petrosian, N—Q4.
Training, Moscow 1966, continued However 2 . . . N—B3? 3 P—Q4
3 P—Q4 P-Q3 4 N-KB3 P-KN3 P-K4 4 PxP NxP/K4 S P-B4
(4. . . B—N5 is no better, e.g. 5 B—K2 N-N3 6 P-KS N-Ni 7 B—B4,
P—QB3 and now 6 N-N5 !—as in the Euwe-Breyer, Vienna 1921, is clearly
similar line with Black’s knight on inferior.
Q4, is more forcing than 6 QN—Q2 After 2 . . . P—Q4 White has:
P—K3 7 0—0 N—Q2 8 P x P, SmejkalAister, Al: 3PxP
Czechoslovakia 1964.) 5 N— A2: 3P-K5
B3 B—N2 6 B-QB4 P-QB3 7 PKR3
P-Q4 8 B—N3 P—N3 9 0-0 Al
P-K3 10 R-K 1, and though Black 3PxP

has avoided an early catastrophe by This position can also arise from
keeping the position closed, his game the Scandinavian Defence (1 P—K4
remains cramped. P-Q4 2 P x P N-KB3 3 N—QB3).
A: 2N-QB3 Black must play with considerable
B. 2P-Q3 care to hold his own in the open
C. 2B-B4 position.
3... NxP(116)
A 4 B-B4

2 N—Q,B3 Currently the most promising move.

After this, White must be prepared There are many alternatives:
 Second Move Variants 123

116 d) 4 KN—K2 was successful in Keres

w Mikenas, Riga 1968, after 4.. . B—N5
tI 5 P-KR3 NxN 6 NPxN B-B4(?)
FAV’x’ArA 7 R-QNI Q-Q4 8 N-N3 B-B1 9 PQB4
Q-QR4 10 B-N2 P-QB3 11
B-B3 Q-B2 12 B-Q3 P-K4 13 O--O
P—B3 14 P—B4, but Black has many
possible improvements: 4. . . N x N
or5. .. B—R4or6.. . B—R4.
e) 4 Q—B3 P—K3 5 B-B4 transposes
to positions considered below.
4... N-N3
a) 4 N x N is feeble. Alburt-Vasyukov, This natural move, most commonly
USSR 1967, went on 4 . . . Q xN. played here, may not be the most
5 P—Q4 (5 Q—B3 is more consistent) accurate, and the other possibilities
5. . . N—B3 6 N—B3 B—N5 7 B—K2 deserve closer attention:
0-0-0 8 P—B3 P—K4 9 0-0 P x P a) 4. . . N x N 5 Q—B3 P—K3 6
10 P x P B—Q3 with at least equality. QxNandnow6...N—B3 7N—B3
b) 4 P—KN3 allows Black to reach safe Q-B3 8 QxQ PxQ 9 P-Q4 RKNI
equality with 4 . . . B—B4 5 B—N2 gave Black a playable game in
P-QB3 6 N-B3 P-KR3 7 0-0 P—K3 Schultz-Prokes, Bardov 1926 6..
8 R—Kl B—K2, Ignatiev-Knezevic, N—Q,2, intending N—B3, B-K2 and
Kizlovodsk 1968, or to transpose into 0—0 is a good alternative (7 Q—KN3
a line which can also be reached from N—N3 8 B—N3 Q—Q3).
the Vienna Game, with 4 . . . P—K4, b) 4. . . P—K3(!) is probably safest:
Benko-Vaganian, Vrnjacka Banja bl) 5 Q,—N4 is met by 5.. . N—KB3
1971, continued 5 B—N2 B—K3 6 N— 6 Q—N3 B—B4 (Bagirov), as 7 Q xNP?
B3N-QB3 70-ONxN 8NPxN failsto7...R—N1 8Q—R6BxP+!
P-K5 9 N-K 1 B-B5 10 P-Q3 P x P b2) 5 Q,—B3 should be countered by
11 P x P B-Q4 12 N-B3 B—K2 13 5 . . . N x N transposing to a) or
R—Nl R-QNI 14 P-B4 B-K3 15 5. . . N—N3 6 B—N3 B—K2, reaching
N—N5! with complications. positions similar to the main line,
c) 4 N—B3 is no more than solid. but with White’s queen misplaced.
Black can play 4... B—N5 5 P—Q4 5 . . . N-N5(?) gave White some
P—K3 which after 6 N x N Q x N 7 advantage in Simagin-Bagirov, Moscow
B—K2 B—K2 8 0—0 0—0 was just as 1968, after 6 B—N3 QN—B3
equal inJ. Szabo-Keres, Tallinn 1969, 7 KN—K2 N—R4 8 B-R4 + B-Q2
as it had been in YatesColle, BadenBaden 9 P-QR3 N-Q4 10 N x N B x B
1925, or the more ambitious 11 N-K3 B-B3 12 Q-R5 P-QN3
4...NxN 5NPxNP—KN3(!) 13 P-QN4.
e.g. 6 P-Q4 B-N2 7 B-K3 P-QB4 b3)5N-B3NxN 6NPxNB-K2
8 Q—Q2 Q—R4 9 B—QB4 N—B3 with 7 0—0 0—0, Rosselli-Grünfeld, BadenBaden
strong play, Mosionzhik - Bagirov, 1925, is quite satisfactory for
Novosibirsk 1962. Black.
124 Second Move Variants

5 B—N3 P—QB4(?) A2

This is clearly hubristic, 5. . . P—K3 3 P—K5

is much better, though White may Black has three possible replies to
keep a small advantage by 6 Q—N4 this usual move:
e.g. Q-B3 8 N—B3 Q-N3 9 Q x Q. A21: 3...N—K5
6 Q-R5! P—K3 A22: 3..P—Q5
Of course 6 . . . P—B5 cannot be A23: 3. . . KN—Q2
played because of 7 B x P.
A21
7 P-Q3 N-B3

Tal suggests 7. .. B—K2 here, but 117 3... N—K5!? (117)

8 N—K4 is still hard to meet. Even

after 7 . . . QN—Q2 8 N—B3 N—B3 W I11 Ftt

9 Q—N5 Black has problems in
development. PA VA
8 B—N5

Even stronger than 8 N—B3, which

forces 8 . . . P—KN3, either at once
or after 8 . . . B—K2 9 N—N5.
8... B—K2
9BxB

Again better than 9 N—B3 0—0 10 Largely because of its obscurity this
0-0 N-Q2 11 N-K4 P-QN3 12 rarely played move has yet to be
KR—K1 N-B3 13 Q-R4NxN with refuted.
equality, Pavlenko - Bagirov, Baku 4 Q,N—K2
1967.
The only serious attempt at refutation;
9... QxB as may be seen from the others:
10 N—K4
a) 4 P—Q,4 N x N 5 P x N leads to
White has a great advantage after positions evaluated in Chapter 7,
both 10. . . N—Q2 and 10. . . N—Q4, line Al (after 1 P-K4 N-KB3 2 P—
e.g. K5N-Q4 3N—QB3NxN 4NPxN
a) 10 . . . N—Q,2 11 N—KB3 (or P-Q4 5 P-Q4).
Bagirov’s suggestion 11 B—RI) 11 b)4Q,-B3NxN 5NPorQPxN
P—QN3 12 0—O---O B-N2 13 KR-K 1 only reaches similar positions with
0—0 14 N/4—N5 with a winning the White queen mispiaced.
attack, YurkovSuteyev, Moscow 1964. c) 4 NxN PxN 5 P-Q4 PxPep.
b) 10.. . N-Q,4 11 N-K2 P-KN3 6 B x P N—B3 is comfortable for
12 Q-R6 B-Q2 13 Q-N7 R-KB1 Black. Ritov-Karpov, USSR 1969,
(13...U-U-O 14QxBP!) 14BxN went on: 7 N—B3 B-N5 8 P—KR3
PxB 15N-B6+K-Q1 16NxQP (White may have feared that the solid
Q-Q3 17 0-0 B-K3 18 N(K2)—B3 8 B—KB4 would turn in Black’s favour
BxN 19NxBN—Q5 2OQR-K1 after8...Q-Q4)BxN 9QxBQ-
and Black is lost, Balashov-Mikenas, Q5 10 0-0 Q x KP 11 B-KB4 Q—B3
Kiga 1970. 12 QR—Ql and Black returned the
 Second Move Variarts 125

pawn for a better ending with 12 . 118

P-KN4 13BxBPQxQ 14PxQ w
B—N2.

4... P—Q,5
The only way for Black to rescue
his knight from encirclement while
asserting a claim for control of the FAA
centre. 4.. . P—KB3? 5 P—Q3 N—N4
6N-B4PxP 7NxPQxN 8BxN,
Van Geet-Bisguier, Utrecht 1961,
was in White’s favour, and so was
4. . . N-B4 5 P-Q4 N-K3 6 P-KM
P-KN3 7 N—KB3 P-QB4 8 P-B3, is obviously bad, and 4 . . . N—KS
Lyublinski-Mikenas, USSR 1950. transposes to A2 1).
5 P-Q3 a) 4. . . N-N5 5 P-KM P—KR4
5 P—Q,B3(!) is perhaps the best 6 N-KB3 P-QB4 7 N-N3 N-QB3
attempt at restoring the position to 8 B—N5 or 6 . . . N—QB3 7 P—B3
rationality. Alter 5. . . N—QB3 (5.. is unclear but probably in White’s
P—QB4? 6 P—Q3 loses a piece, as does favour.
5...PxP? 6Q--R4+) 6NxP! b) 4. . . N-Ni S N—KB3 N--QB3
N x N (6. . . N x KP 7 Q-K2 Q-Q4 and 6.. . B—N5 is assessed as equal by
8 N-N5) 7 Q-R4 + P-QB3 8Q x N Pachman, but White can try S P—
QxQ 9 PxQ White seems to be KM instead.
winning. c)4...P—Q,6 SPxPN—Q4is
5... N—B4 clearly adequate for Black, but White
6 P—QN4? can try to secure an advantage with
An ineffective attempt to undermine 5 P x N P x N 6 B or N x P, reaching
the Black QP. 6 N—KB3 N—B3 a sort of Caro-Kann position.
7 P—QN4 is a better way to implement 4.. PxN
the plan but even then 7 . . . N—K3 5PxNP
8 B—N2 N x NP 9 N/2 x P N x N 10 5PxKPPxP+ 6QxPQxQ+
N xN P—QB4 or 8 P-N5 N-Ni 9 BN2 7 B x Q B x P 8 0—0—0 B-K3, SkoldAsmundson,
P—QB4 seem adequate for Black. Lugano 1968, is, inevitably,
After 6 P—QN4? Filtzer-Bronstein, equal.
Moscow 1969, continued 6. . . N—K3 5 NP x P KP/NP x P leads to
7 N-KB3 P-QB4 8 PxP N-B3 positions rather like those in the
9 B—N2 P—QN3! and Black launched Caro-Kann Defence, after 1 P—K4
a vigorous attack down the QN file. P-QB3 2 P-Q4 P-Q4 3 N-QB3
PxP 4 NxP N-B3 5 NxN+,
A22 except that Black has not played P—
3... P—Q,5(118) QB3 and White’s pawn structure is
4PxN also broken by a recapture. For this
4 QJ’—K2!? is unexplored, e.g. last reason (Black need not fear
(4...KN—Q2 5P-K6PxP 6NxP White’s queen side pawa majority)
126 Second Move Variants

5 . . . KP x P(!) is better than 5 threatening B—N5 is at least adequate

NP x P after which the open QN file for Black.
could prove an embarrassment to the 6... Q,xQ,+
castled black king. After 5.. . KP x P 7BxQ BxP
Corden-Williams, Cambridge 1970, 8 0—0—0 (119)
continued 6 N—B3 B—Q3 7 P—Q4 0—0
8 B-Q3 R-K1 + 9 B-K3 P-B3 10
0-0 B-KN5 11 P-KR3 B-R4 12 ‘19I1jf4.
P—B4 N—Q2 and Black stood well.
5... PxQP+
6QxP
After 6 B x P B x P 7 Q,-R5 White TA VA
has difficulties in completing his
without development exchanging
queens in less favourable circumstances,
e.g.
a) 7...Q—Q,3 8 N—B3 (f8B-Q3 PA
BxP and 9... Q—K4+) 8...Q—
KN3 9QxQRPxQ 100-0-ON- The assessment of this ending is
B3 11N-N5?P-B3! 12N-K4B—B4 critical for the variation, and it seems
14B—QB4R—Q3 15 that with care Black can hold his own: 13 N—B5 0—0-0
16N-Q3N-Q5 17P— a) 8. . . N—B3 9 B—QN5 (an improve- P—KR3 P—N3
KR—Q 1 with mint on 9 B—QB4 0—0 10 N—K2 N—K4 QR4 P-K4 18 B-K3
advantage to Black, Udovcic-Trifunovic, Haag-Bilek, Hungary 1964) 9 . . .

Match Tournament, Belgrade B-Q2 10 N—B3 P—QR3 11 B—R4

1951. 12 KR—K1 P—K3 13 P-R3 B—B4
b) 7...Q—Q,5 9 P-QB3 Q-K5 + O—O--O 14 B—KN3 threatening B—R4
9 B—K3 N—B3 10 N—K2 (10 N—B3 with great advantage, TseshkovskyHlousek,
threatening 11 Q x P +1 is probably Dresden 1969.

better, but Black can play 10 . . . Q—N3 b)8 B-B4 9 N—B3 N—Q2 10 B—
10...B—N5 as in (a) ) 11 Q—KN5 (10 B—QB4 looks better, f then K2
P-K3 11 B-K3 P- QR 3 as in the 10. 12 P—B3 Q—B7 13 Q—N5 R-KN1
13 BxKP!? game 12 N-Q4 B-sV3 N-K4! or J3PxB BxP+ (I3QxB
J5KR-K1 is PxB J4NxPB—K4 RxQ 15BxRQxQNP 14 NxB
dangerous, 10 . . . 0—0 is safer) 10 . . B—Q2 14 R—B1 Q—B4 etc.) 13
0-0-0 11 B-K3 P-QR3 12 B—QB4 BxQ 16 N—N3 B—K3 15 QxQ
17 B—Q3 P—KR3 18 O—O? BxRP P-K3 N—Q4 B—N3 14 P-B4
and Black won, Honfi-Larsen, Copen13 N—N3 15 B—N3 N—Q4 16 BxN
hagen 1965. 17 N—N3 KR—Q 1 and Black RxB
7 Q,—B3 (played on the assumption ison top, Dueball-Jansson, Raach
that the attack is too strong after 7 1969.

BxP 8B-QB4) maybe an improve8

but 7...Q—Q5 ment, B—B3 Q— A23
9B<BQxB 10 KN5 0-0-0 N—B3 3... KN-Q2
 Second Move Variants 127

A231: 4NxP a)6N-B3NxN+ 7QxNandnow

A232: 4 P—B4 7.. . P-KN3! 8 B-N5 B-Q2 9 P-Q4
A233: 4 P—K6 B-N2 10 P-Q5 N-Q5 11 B x B +
4 P—Q4 has little individual significance. Q x B 12 Q—Q1 0-0—0 with advantage
After 4 . . . P—Q,B4 (4 to Black, MiesesRéti, BadenBaden
P—K3 entering the French Defence is 1925, is better than 7 . . . Q—
also possible) White does best to Q3 8 B—N5 B-Q2 9 0-0 P-K3 10
reach A233 with 5 P—K6 or the P-B3 Q-K4, Mieses-Alekhine, BadenBaden
French Defence with 5 P x P P—K3. 1925, when Alekhine gives 11
5 N x P P-K3 6 N-B4 P x P 7 N-B3 Q-K2 B-Q3 12 P-KM in White’s
N x P! is in Black’s favour, and so is favour.
5 B—QN5 P—K3 (rather than 5. b) 6 B—N5 came to nothing in KirovVasyukov,
N-QB3 6N-B3P-QR3? 7BxN Varna 1971, after 6
P x B 8 P-K6! P x P 9 0—0, Bogoljubov P-QR3 7 B-R4 P—QN4 8 B-N3 PK3
A1ekhine, Carlsbad 1923, with 9 N-B3 N x N + 10 Q x N
a favourable version of A233—White B-N2 11 0-0 B-K2 12 P-Q3 RQN1.
continues with N-KN5 and R—Kl). Black already has some advantage.

A231 c) 6 P—QN3(!) is most dangerous.

4NxP (120) Tartakover-Colle, Nice 1930, con-
tinued 6 . . . P—KN4!? (against P—
120
KB4, but perhaps not necesxaiy) 7 B-N2
B
B-N2 8 P-Q4 N-N3 9 B-N5 Q-Q3
10 Q—Q2 B-.Q2 11 O-O--O 0—0—0
FJJPA% 12 N—K2 and the threat of N—QB4
is hard to meet. 6 . . . P—KN3 is
possibly better, e.g. 7 B—N2 B—N2
4. ‘4 8 P-Q4 N-Q2 9 B-N5 0-0 10 N-B3
VA or Q-Q2 P-QR3.
6 P—OJ13( 121)

121
A simplifying move quite common B
in the 1920s before the advent of
Spielmann’s gambit idea 4 P—KG. It
is not as harmless as it looks.
4.. NxP J L
5 N—K3

5 N-QB3 P-QB4 6 N-B3 NxN Fl!

+ 7QxNN-B3 8 B-N5 B-Q2
equalises at most.
5... P-QB4
5. . . Q1—B3 may also be adequate
e.g.: Again, the most logical attempt to
128 Second Move Variants

cramp Black’s development. Alternatives 5. . . QN—B3, 6. . . P—KN3? is too

promise little: slow. Romanovsky-Tolush, Moscow
a)6N-B3NxN+ (6...QN-B3 1945, continued 7 B—N2 B—N2 8 N—
7NxNVxN 8P-QN3N-B3 9B- B4 QN—B3 9 P-B4 N x N 10 B x B
V5 B-Q2 10 B-N2 N—Q5 is not so R-KN1 11 B—B3 N-N3 12 B—N5
good. The White queen on B3 is a target B-Q2 13 N-B3 P-QR3 14 B x N
6. . . KN-B3? 7 B-B4 P-K3 8 P-B3 B x B 15 Q—K2 with advantage to
J’f—Q2 9 P—Q4, Polovdin-Mikenas, White.
USSR 1971, gives White even better 7 B—N2 P-K3

chances.) 7 Q x N N-B3 8 B—N5 7 . . . N—Q5!? intending . . .

B—Q2: KN3 is possible, in line with Black’s
al) 9 Q-N3 N-Q5 10 B-B4 P-K3 11 general aim of contesting the Q5
P-QB3 N-B3 12 0-0 P-KN3 13 P— square, which is reflected in most of
Q4 P x P 14 P x P B—N2 with a good the variations given above.
game, Yates-Réti, Kissingen 1928. 8 P-KB4 N-N3

a2)9P-QN3N—Q5 1OBxB+QxB 9 P—N3

11 Q-R5 R—B 1 12 B-N2 P-KN3 13 In Mukhin-Bagirov, Kharkov 1963,

Q-K5 P-B3 14 Q-N3 B-R3 15 RQB1 Black now tried to free himself with
0-0 16 P-KR4 P-B4 17 PKB4 9. . . B—K2!? (9. . . N—Q5 is still to be
P—K4! with a winning attack, considered) 10 B x P R—KN1 11 B—B3
von Holzhausen-Kmoch, Hissen 1928. N x P! 12 B—N5 N—Q4 with an
b) 6 P—KB4 N/4-B3 (6. . . 74—Q2 unclear position.
transposes back into the main line after a
later . . . N—QB3, but it does give White A232
the additional possibility of 7 JV—B3 P—K3 4 P-B4 P-K3

8P—Q4N--KB3or 7... N-QB3 8P— 5 N-.B3(?) (122)

Q4 P x P. 6. . . N—N3 7 P—KN3
P—K4 is an untried suggestion of 122
Tart akover) and now: B

b 1) 7 B-B4 P—KN3 (or 7. . . P—K3

followed by . . . N—Q2—B3) 8 N—B3 P%Pj,jrj
B—N2 9 0—0 0—0 (much better than
9 . . . N—Q5? 10 P—B3 N—B4
11 P—Q4, Brinkmann-Takacs, RohitschSauerbrunn iiA.
1929) 10 P—B5 N—Q2 with
good chances for Black.
b2) 7 N—B3 Q—B2 (or 7. . . P—KN3)
8 P-KN3 P-K3 9 P-N3 B-K2 10
B—QN2 0—0 11 B—N2 N—Q 2 12 0—0
B—B3, Tartakover-Landau, Rotter- This Nimzovitch move leads to
dam 1930. Black has a comfortable King’s Indian Attack type positions,
game. where the pawn on B4 interferes with
6... Q,N—B3 the activity of the ‘White pieces. There
After 5 . . . P—QB4 rather than is probably nothing better than
 Second Move Variants 129

transposition into the French Defence 123 _ _ tE with 5 P-Q4. B

5... P-QB4
6 P-KN3
6 B—K2 is no better. Kirov-Neikirch,
Sochi 1956, continued 6
7tFxPA.
N-QB3 7 0-0 B—K2 8 Q—K1 0-0
9N-Q1P-B3! 1OPxPNxP(or
10 . . . BxP) 11 P—Q3 Q—B2 12
N-B2 B—Q3 13 N—R3 B—Q2 14 PB3QR-K1
15P-Q4PxP 16PxP
Q—N3 17 Q—Q1 P—K4! and Black
has developed overwhelming pressure. This sacrifice has yet to be proved
6 B—N5? is quite pointless. In analytically unsound arid certainly
Vidmar-Rubinstein, Sernmering 1926 affords good chances in practice.
Black seized the advantage after 6... 4... PxP
P-QR3 7BxN+BxB 80—ON-B3 5 P-Q4
9 P-Q3 P-KN3 10 Q-K1 Q-B2 Black’s options at this stage appear
11 N—Q1 0-0-0. to introduce distinct defensive plans
6... N—QB3 (quickly challenging White’s control
7 B—N2 of his KS square or giving preference
7 B—R3 P—QR3 8 0-0 B-K2 to king side development), but in
9 P-Q3 P-QN4 10 N-K2 P-Q5 11 practice he must combine the two
P-QR3 B-N2 12 Q-K1 Q-N3, and similar positions result.
Fedorov-Kupreitchik, Riga 1968, is A2331: 5.. .P—B4
also in Black’s favour. A2332: 5.. . P—KN3
7... B—K2 The counter-sacrifice 5 . . . P—
80-0 0-0 K4(?) is extremely dangerous, e.g.
9 P-Q3 P-B3! 6PxP(6NxPPxP 7B-Q3isaLco
Given by both players as an improvement hard to meet, but 7 B—KB4 led nowhere
on the 9 . . . N—N3 of in Bronstein-Mikenas, Baku 1944, after
Nimzowitsch - Alekhine, Semmering 7...P-K4 8B-Q3B-Q3 9Q-R5+
1926, which continued 10 N—K2 P— K-B1 10 B-KN5 Q-K1) 6. . . PK3
Q5 (10. . . P—B3 is again better) 11 P— 7 P—B4 (Bagirov gives 7 B—Q3 but
KN4 P-B3 12 P x P P x P 13 N-N3 fails to mention the obvious reply 7
N—Q4 14 Q—K2 B-Q3 15 N—R4 xP 8Q-R5+-B2) 7...B-K2
with attacking chances on which 8 B--Q3 etc.
Nimzowitsch later capitalised. 5 . . . N—KB3 was formerly regarded
After 10 P x P B x P Black’s central as inferior because after 6 N--B3
control (especially the Q5 square) P-B4 7 P x P N-B3 8 B-QN5
gives him the advantage. (A2331, 7 . . . N—B3) Black’s loss of
control over his vital K4 square
A233 quickly becomes apparent. More
4 P—K6!? (123) recently, however, the move has been
130 Second Move Varkmts

used as a finesse to reach 5.. . P—KN3 6... N—QB3

lines without having to face 6 P— 7 N—B3
KR4. As such it is considered in Again 7 B—Q3 does little to restrain
A2332. Black’s central pawn mass after 7
N-B3 8 N-B3 (8 B-KN5 Q-R4)
A233 1 8. . . P-KN3 9 0-0 B-N2 10 Q-K2
5... P—B4 0-0 11 B-KN5 K-Ri 12 P-QR3?
6PxP (124) P-K4!, Havin - Mikenas, Moscow
1944, or even 8.. . P—K4 at once.
124 7... P—KN3 (!) (125)
B
125

VAWitJ. w
flJm ‘P_At
jt/%t

fLit
VArAWi
nrx
6 B-Q3(?) is effectively met by
6...N—KB3 7N-B3(7PxPP-K4)
7...P-B5 8B-K2N-B3 90-0 This move, beginning Black’s king
P-KN3 10 B—B4 B-N2 11 Q-Q2 side development while keeping the
0-0 12 B—R6 N—K5 with advantage BP and K4 square under observation,
(Flohr). is better than the older 7. .. N—B3(?),
6 N—B3 is quite playable as 6... giving up K4 without a struggle.
P x P? 7 KN x P N—KB3 8 B-N5 + Spielmann-Domenech, 1934, continued
K-B2 9 P-B4 or 7... Q-N3 8 B— 8 B-QN5 B-Q2 9 0-0 P-KN3
K3P-QR3(8...QxP 9h73—N5) (9 . . . Q-B2 10 R—K1 P—KR3?,
9 Q-Q2 N-KB3 10 P-B4 P-N3, Spielmann-Landau, match 1933, is
11 0-0-0, Yudovich-Samychovski even worse. The game ended 11 B xN
Moscow 1931, are both good for PxB 12 N-K5 P-N4 13 Q-Q3
White. However after 6. . . N—Q,B3 R-K1i1 14 P-QN4 B-N2 15 Q—N6+
White has nothing better than transposition K-Q1 16 Q-B7 B—K1 17 Q xP/K6
into the main line with R-KB 1 18 P—N5 N-K5 19 R x N!
7 PxP,e.g. PxR 20B-B4BxN 21BxBQ-Q2
a) 7 B—QN5 or 7 B—K3 P—K4! 22 R-Q1 and wins.) 10 R—K1 B-N2
b) 7 B-KB4 P x P 8 KN x P N—B 3 11BxNPxB 12N-Q40-O 13B-
9 B—QN5 B—Q2 10 0—0 Q—N3 11 N5P-KR3 14B-R4P-K4 15RxP
N—B3 P-N3 12 R-Kl B-N2 13 with advantage.
Q-K2 0-0 and Black has consolidated, 7 . . . NxP(?) is also dubious.
Van Steenis-Pachman, 1947. 8 B-QN5 and now:
 Second Move VarianLs 131

a) 8...B—Q2 9B-K3isstrong. B x P + K-Q2 14 0-0 and again

b) 8 . . . Q—Q3 (to prevent P-K1i3 Black’s position is indefensible,
losing at once to Q—Q4) 9 0—0 P—KN3 Shashin-Schmidt, Erevan 1965.
10 Q- Q4 R—KN 1 11 B—KM B— 9 B-Q,N5
Q2 12BxQNxQ 13BxB+NxB After this 8 P-KR4 remains a

14NxNPxB l5NxKPandwins, decoy to draw Black’s knight back to

Florian-Sajtar, 1948. KB3 rather than an attacking move.
8 P—KR4!? Instead 9 P—R5 is playable: 9
The point of Black’s play is that PxP (9... NxP 1ORxN!PxR
White cannot continue to develop 11 N-N5 wins) 10 B—K2 P-K4 11
naturally with B—QN5 and 0—0 N-KN5B—N5 12BxBPxB 13N-
because after 8 B-QN5 B-N2 Black is K6Q-Q2 14NxP!NxN 15QxN
threatening N x P in earnest and QxQ 16N-B7+K--B2 17NxQ
9 0—0 N x P 10 B—K3 probably fails P-K3 18 N-B3 B x P 19 N-K4
to generate enough compensation. B—K2 20 B—K3 and the ending is
A possibly good alternative to the about equal. Neither side can undertake
text, however, is 8 B—K3 B—N2 9 Q— very much.
Q2 Q—R4 (!f 9. . . N-B3or 0—0 White 9... B—N2
1w., gained a tempo on the main line below 9. . . B—Q,2 is also possible. It makes
through the omission of P—KR4) 10 N— 10 P—R5 unplayable because of
QN5. Zinn-Bagirov, Batumi 1966, l0...PxP 11B—K2Q—R4 12N—
continued 10. . . QxQ+ 11 BxQ N5 0—0—0! etc., but instead White
K-Ql 12 N—N5 N/2-K4 13 P—KB4 can play 10 B—K3 B—N2 11 B x N
P-KR3 14 PxN PxN 15 BxP P x B 12 B—Q4, gaining time over
NxP 16 0-0-0 B-Q2 17 B—K2 Izbozchikov-Bagirov below, and obtaining
B-KB3 18 B—KB4 P—R3 19 N-Q4 a firm grip on the position.
P-KN4 20 B-N3 N-B3 21 N-N3 10 B—KB4

with perhaps some advantage to Now 10 B—KS can be met with

White, though the game was drawn. 10. . . N—N5! but 10 P—R5 is more
8... N—B3 dangerous. Perhaps Black can get
8 . . . B—N2(?) 9 P-R5 is too away with 10 . . . N x P (11 R xN
strong, e.g.: P xR 12 N—N5 0-0). Against 10 N—
a) 9...Q,—R4 1OB—Q2QxBP 11 K5 Bagirov gives 10.. . Q—B2 11 B—
PxP PxP 12 RxR+ BxR 13 KM N-R4 (12 NxN NxB!?).
N—KR4 N/2-K4 14 N x NP! N x N There is also 10 . . . 0-0. White
15 B-Q3 N/B3—K4 (or 15. . . cannot carry on with simple development
K4 16 Q—R5+ N-B2 17 B—J(6) by 10 0-00—0 11 R—Kl B—Q2
16 BxN+! NxB 17 Q—R5 K—B2 12 B x N P x B 13 N—Q4 because of
18 N—K4 Q x P 19 Q-R7 + B-N2 the tempo he has spent on P—KR4
20 N—N5+ K—Bl 21 R—Bl with a (13. . . P—K4!)
winning attack, E. Steiner-Norman- 10... 0—0(126)
Hansen, Munich 1936. It seems that Black now has just
b) 9. . . P x P 10 B—K2 Q—R4 11 about enough play to keep White at
N-N5 B x N + 12 P x B N-B3 13 bay. 11BxN,andnow:
132 Second Move Variants

126 ___ but White may also play 6 N—B3 e.g.:

w _ __ a)6...B—N2 7B—K3P-B4 8PxP
N—QB3 reaching Zinn - Bagirov
(A2331 above).
b) 6 . . . N—KB3 (Black can if he
VA. wishes reach this position by 5
N-KB3 6 N-B3 P-KN3, giving
White little opportunity to deviate).
dPA From here Suttles-Mecking, Sousse
1967, continued 7 N—KS!? B.—N2
8 P-KR4 P—B4 9 P-R5 BP x P 10

P-R6 P x N 11 P x B R-N 1 12 QQ4

a) 11...N—K5!? 12B—K5BxB QN-Q2 13 B—QN5 Q—N3 14
13NxNB-N2 14B-N5PxN 15 BxN+BxB 15PxPQxQ 16
QxQ RxQ 16 N-N5 BxP 17 P x Q R x P with advantage to Black.
R-Q 1 R x R + 18 K x R P-K4 7 P—K.R4 at once may be better:
19 B-B4+ K-N2 20 N xKP B-B4 7 . . . P—B4 8 P—R5(!) rather than
with approximate equality, Lublinsky-Mikenas, 8 P xP N—B3 returning to A2331.
17th USSR Ch 1949. 6... B—N2
b) 11...PxB 12B—K5Q—R4 136 . . . N-KB3 7 P-R5 is overwhelming.
P—R5NxP 14BxBNxB 15Q—Q2 Voellmy-Staehelin, Switzerland
P—K4! 16 N x KP Q x BP 17 N-Q3 1938, continued 7 . . . P x P
Q—Q3 18 0—0—0 B—R3 19 Q—R6 (7...NxP 8RxNPxR
N-R4 20 P-KN4 B xN! with a Q x P + wins) 8 B—K2 Q- Q3
good game for Black, IzbozchikovBagirov, 9 B x P + K—Q1 10 N—B3 QN—Q2
Gomel 1968. 11 N—KN5 with a terminal attack.
7 P-R5 N-B1
A2332 This position has often been given
5.. P—KN3(?) as satisfactory for Black on the
6 P—KR4! (127) evidence of the postal game BobkovSokolov,
1960, which went on 8 B—Q3
127 N-B3 9PxPPxP 1ORxRBxR
B 11 B—K3 (11 BxP+? NxB 12
Q—R5 K-B2 13 N-B3 Q—N1) 11
PA, P-K4! 12 P x P P-Q5 13 B-KR6
PxN 14 Q-B3 B—B4 15 BxB
P4PJ4tjP% N x P! with advantage.
However, White has no need to
bring about a liquidation as early as
this and it is hard to believe that such
FJWáI
passive play can possibly be good.
How does Black meet the simple
8 N—B3 or 8 B—KB4 (threatening
B—K5)? This is the most dangerous here,
 Second Move VarianLc 133

B system against the Sicilian, which is

2 P—Q3 (128) not regarded with a great deal of
respect nowadays. Black can set abont
128 the white formation with 4. . . P—Kr
B 5 N—QB3 P—Q4, or settle for a con
riiALAAL fortable game with 4. . . P—Q3 5 N—
QB3 P—KN3 6 B-K2 (6N-B3B--N5)
6. .. B—N2 7 B—K3 N—Q5, Nimzowitsch-Vukovic,
Kecskemèt 1927.
4... P-KN3

PA 4.. . P—Q4 is also adequate. 5 PK5

N—Q2 6 P—KN3 is HalilbeilyBagirov,
given in B2.
g 5B—K2 (?)
Better is 5 P—KN3 returning to a
This move is even more transpositional sort of Closed Sicilian position,
than 2 N—QB3 and the though not a very dangerous one for
lines given below merely reflect some Black, who holds the freeing move
of the possibilities which may arise. P—Q4 in reserve.
Bi: 2...P—B4 5... B—N2
B2: 2...P—Q4 6 QN-Q2 P-Q4
B3:2...P—K4 Thomas - Alekhine, Baden-Baden
Naturally, moves like 2 . . . P—Q3 1925, continued 7 0—0 0—0 8 K—Ri
and 2. . . P—KN3 are playable. P-N3 9PxP?QxP 1OQ-K1B--
N2 11 N—B4 N—Q5 12 N—K3 Q—K3
Bi 13 B—Ql N—Q4 with advantage to
2... P—B4 Black.
3 P-KB4
White cannot return to the Closed
Sicilian with 3 N-QB3 N-B3 4 P— B2
KN3 because Black can achieve 2... P—Q4
immediate equality with 4. . . P—Q4. 3 P-K5

4N-B3P-Q4 5PxPNxP 6B—K2, 3 N—Q2 again leads to a variety of

Maroczy-Bogoljubow, Vienna 1922, King’s Indian Attack situations after
is even more harmless. 3.. .P—B3,3.. . P—K3or3. .
Perhaps White’s best is to go into KN3. If Black plays 3 . . . P—K4 a
a King’s Indian Attack with 3 N— sort of reversed Philidor Defence can
KB3 P-Q4 4 QN—Q2, but Black has arise by 4 KN—B3 N—B3 5 B—K2
preserved most of his options and can (rather than 5 P—KN3). GusevVasyukov,
reply with 4. . . P—K3, 4.. . P—KN3 continued 5 . . . B—QB4
or4. . . B—N5. 6 0-0 0—O 7 P-B3 P-QR4 8 N x P
3... N—B3 N x N 9 P-Q4 B-N3 (9. . . N/4—Q2
4 N-KB3 10 P-KS) 10 P x N N x P with
4 P—B4 is Nimzowitsch’s patent equality.
134 Second Move Variants

3... KN—Q2 5.. NxP

4 P-KB4 6PxP B—KN5

4 P—Q4(?) P—K3 enters the French 7 B—K2 BxN

Defence a tempo behind. 4 N—KB3 8BxB Q-R5+

is still the moderate man’s move. 9 P-KN3

4... P-QB4 Better than 9 K—B 1 0—0—0 1ON-B3

5 N-KB3 P-K3 B-B4 11 N-K4 N-K6 + 12 BxN
6 P-KN3 N-QB3 BxB 13 Q—Kl Q-R3 14 N—N3
7 B-N2 B—K2 N—Q5 with a strong attack, MaroczyC
80-0 Alekhine, New York 1924.
From here Halilbeily - Mikenas, 9... Q-Q5
USSR 1965, continued 8 . . . P— 10 Q—K2 0-0-0
QJ3? 9P-B4!PxP 1OPxPB-N2 11P-B3 QxKP
11 N-B3 0-0 12 P-N3 Q-N1 13 Black has probably equalised.
B—N2 R—Q1 14 Q-K2 P-QR3 15
N—K4 with great advantage to White.
Better 1s8...P—QN4or8...
0-0 (9 P-B4 N-N3), with a satisfactory 2 B—B4 (129)
game.
129
B
B3
2... P—K4
twtttI
3 P-KB4

3 N-KB3 N-B3 4 QN—Q2 P-Q4

&gain returns to lines considered in B2.
3... N—B3
3...B—B4? 4PxPN>PfaiIsto
5 Q—N4!
4 N-KB3
4 P x P N x P/K4 5 N-KB3 is a
safe equalizing line. NimzowitschAlekhine, move that need detain neither A
New York 1927, continued the student nor the practical player
5...NxN+ 6QxNP—Q4 7P-K5 for very long.
Q-K2 8 P-Q4 N-KS 9 B-Q3 QR5 2... NxP(t)
+ 10 P-KN3 Q-N5 11 N-Q2 2 . . . P—Q4, Teodorescu-Kushnir,
QxQ 12NxQ. Moscow 1971, is also quite satisfactory.
4.. P-Q4(!)
Alekhine’s move. 4...P—Q3 may 3BxP+ KxB
also be adequate. 4 Q—R5 + K-Ni
5KPxP 5Q—Q5 + P-K3
5BPxPPxP! 6PxNPxN 7 6QxN P-Q4
QxP N--Q5 8 Q-K4+ B—K3 Black central control gives him
(Alekhine) is good for Black. the advantage.
Index of Complete Games

(Page number appears in heavy type when the indexed player has the
white pieces)

ADORJAN-Eales 43, -Timman 62 GHEORGHIU-Parma 34

ARONIN—Mikenas 58 GIPSLIS--Larsen 87, -Pytel 39
GUFELD—Vasyukov 117
BAGIROV-Klovan 49, —Svesnikov
94
BERLINER-Fischer 81
HEGHT-Parma 17, -Timman 26
BILEK-Larsen 106
HORT-Kurajica 88, -Nicevski 84,
BLAU-Bouwmeester 42
—Padevsky 40, —Pietzsch 24,
—Smyslov 37, —Westerinen 47
BOBOTSOV-Mihaljcisin 40,
—Minev 40, —Penrose 59
BOGDANOVIC-Kavalek 29 IVKO V-Larsen 73
BOUWMEESTER-Blau 42
BRONSTEIN-Mikenas 20
JAKOVLJEVSKI-Ljubojevic 25
BULJOVCIC-Marovic 84
JANSA-Nicevski 46, -Pedersen 87,
—Pollak 44, —Watzka 29
CAFFERTY-Williams 24
CIOCALTEA-Sutiman 115
JIMENEZ-Larsen 78
CIRIC—Knezevic 88 JOCHA—Segal 45
JOHANSSON—Duckstein 104
COLLE-Spielmann 24
JOPPEN-Trifunovic 12
CZERNIAK-Siaperas 98

DUCKSTEIN-Johansson 104, KARPOV—Vaganian 43

—Westerinen 103
EALES—Adorjan 43
ESTRIN-Oakley 19
FILIPOWICZ-Smejkal 98
FISCHER—Berliner 81, —Suttles 80 KOKKORIS—Marovic 23
FOX—Mihaljcisin 28
FRIDSTEIN—Ravinsky 93
GAPRINDASHVI LI-Kushnir 17
KAVAT EK-Bogdanovic 29,
-Larsen 85
KERES—Kupka 33, —Schmid 110
KLOVAN-Bagirov 48
KLUNDT-Matanovic 26
KNEZEVIC-Ciric 88
KUPKA-Keres 33
KUPREICHIK-Platonov 19
KURAJICA-Hort 88
KUSHNIR-Gaprindashvili 77
136 Index
LARSEN—Buck 106, —Gipslis 87, RAVINSKY-Fridstein 93
—Ivkov 73, —Jimenez 78, —Kavalek RODRIGUEZ-Tringov 22
85, —Matanovic 84, —Tal 74, ROSSOLIMO-Seidman 35,
—Westerinen 36
LIEBERT—Pytel 38
LJUBOJEVIC—Jakovljevski 25
McKAY—Walther 38
MAIER—Teschner 20
MAROVIC-Buljovcic 84,
—Kokkoris 23
MATANOVIC—Klundt 26,
-Larsen 84
MEDINA-Smyslov 27
MIHALJCISIN—Bobotsov 40,
—Fox 28
MIKENAS—Bronstein 20, —Aronin 58 STOPPEL-Pedersen 97
MINE V-Bobotsov 40
MOLES-Tate 70
MOLNAR-Tartakower 99
MURASHOV-Shishkin 71
NICEVSKI—Hort 84, —Jansa 87
OAKLEY-Estrin 19
OLAFSSON-Tukmakov 64
PADEVSKI—Hort 40, -Taimanov
100
PARMA—Gheorghiu 34, Hecht 17
PARTOS-Stanciu 23
PEDERSEN-Jansa 87, -Stoppel 97 VASYUKOV—Gufeld 117
PENROSE-Bobotsov 59
PIETZSCH-Hort 24
PLATONOV-Kupreichik 19
PODGAETS-Tal 107
POLLAK-Jansa 44
PUC-Vukovic 54
PYTEL—Gipslis 39, -Liebert 38
—Smyslov 85
SAIDY—Siaperas 96
SCEIMID—Keres 110
SEGAL-Jocha 45
SEIDMAN—Rossolimo 35
Sill SHKIN—Murashov 71
SIAPERAS—Czerniak 98, —Saidy 96
SMEJKAL-Filipowicz 98
SMYSLOV—Hort 37, —Med.ina 27,
Rossolimo 85
SPIELMANN-Colle 24
STANCIU-Partos 23
SUTIMAN—Ciocaltea 115
SUTTLES-Fischer 80
SVESNIKOV—Bagirov 94
TAIMANOV—Tolush 107,
-Padevski 100
TAL—Larsen 74, —Podgaets 107
TARTAKOWER-Molnar 99
TATE-Moles 70
TESCHENER—Maier 20
TIMMAN—Adorjan 62, —Hecht 26
TOLUSH-Taimanov 107
TRIFUNOVIC—Joppen 12
TRINGOV-Rodriguez 22
VAGAN IAN—Karpov 43
VUKOVIG-Puc 54
WALTHER-Mckay 38
WATZKA-Jansa 29
WESTERINEN-Duckstein 103,
—ilort 47, —Larsen 36
WILLIAMS-Cafferty 24
Index of Variations

Attack: 1 P-K4 N-KB3 1 Four Pawns 2 P-KS N—Q4 3 P-Q4 P—Q3

5 P—B4, 11—27 4 P—QB4 N- N3
11—12 A:5...B—B4,
B: 5... P—N3, 12—13
C:5... PxP, 13-16(6 BPxP B-B4 7 B-K3 P-K3 8 N-QB3)
C1:8. B—QN5, 16-18
C2:8. N—B3, 18 (9 N—B3)
21: 9...B—KNS,18--19
C22:9...Q—Q2,19—20
c23: 9.. . N-NS, 20—22
c24: 9.. . B--K2, 22
241: 10 P--QS, 22—24
C242: 10 B-K2, 24—27

2 Modern Variation: 4. . . P-KN3 1 P-K4 N—KB3 2 P-I3 N—Q4

3 P-Q4 P—Q3 4 N-KB3 P-KN3, 28-48
A: 5 N—N5, 28-29
A1:5...P—QB3,29—30
A2:5. . .PxP, 30—31
AS: 5.. . P—KB3, 31
A31: 6 P—QB4, 31—32
A32:6PxBP, 32
A33: 6 B—QB4, 32
B:5B—QB4,32
B1:5...N—N3,33-36
B2:5...P—QB3,36(6 0—0 B—N2 7PxPQxP)
B21: 8 R—K1, 36—37
B22: 8 QN—Q2, 37
C: 5 P—QB4, 37—38 (5 N-N3 6PxPBPxP)
• . .

C1:7P—KR3, 38-39 (7. B-N2 8 B-K2 0-0 9 N-B3 N-B3 100—0 B—B4)
Cli: 11 P—QN3, 39—40
C12:11B—K3,40(11 ...P—Q4 12P—B5N—B5 13BxNPxB 14Q-R4
B—Q6 15 KR-Q1
C121:15...P—K4,41
C122: 15 . . . P—B4, 41—42
C123:15...Q—R4,42
C13: 11 B—B4, 42—43
138 Index

C2: 7 B—K2, 43—44 (7 . . . B—N2 8 0-0 0—0 9 B—K3 N—B3)

C21: 10 QN-Q2, 44—46
C22: 10 N—B3, 46—47 (10 . . . B—N5 11 P-N3 P-Q4 12 P—B5 N-B1
13P—QN4P-QR3 14R-N1 P-K3 15P-QR4N/1-K2 16P-N5BxN
17 BxB)
221: 17.. .PxP, 47-48
C222:17...N—R4,48

3 Modern Variation: 4. . . B—N5 1 P-K4 N-KB3 2 P-K5 N-Q4

3 P—Q4 P-Q3 4 N-KB3 B-N5, 49-68
A: 5 P-KR3, 49-50(5... BxN 6 Q xB PxP 7 PxP P—K3)
Al: 8 P—R3, 50—51
A2: 8 B-QB4, 51-53
B: 5 B—K2 P-QB3, 53
Bi: 6 0-0, 53—55
B2: 6 N-N5, 55
B21:6...B—B4,55--56
B22: 6... BxB, 56-57
C: 5. . . P—K.3, 57 (6 0—0)
Cl:6...N-QB3,58-59
C2:6...B-K2,59-60(7P-B4N-N3 3PxPPxP)
C21: 9 P-QN3, 60—63
C22: 9 N—B3, 63 (9.. . 0-0 10 B—K3)
C221:10...P-Q4,63
C222: 10.. . N—B3, 63-65
D: 5 B—K2 N-QB3, 65-66
Dl: 6 0-0, 66—67
D2: 6 P-B4, 67-68

4 Modern Variation: Other 4th Moves 1 P-K4 N-KB3 2 P-K5 N-Q4

3 P-Q4 P-Q3 4 N-KB3, 69-78
A: 4. . . N—N3, 69—70
B: 4. . . N-QB3, 70 (5 P-QB4 N-N3 5 P-K6 P x P)
Bi: 7 B—Q3, 70—71
B2: 7 N—N5, 71
B3: 7 P—KR4, 71—72
C: 4... PxP, 72—73(5 N xP)
Cl: 5... P—KS, 73—74
2:5...N-Q2,74(6NxPKxN 7Q-R5+K-K3)
C21: 8 P—KN3, 74
C22: 8 P—QB4, 74-75(8. . . N/Q4—B3 9 P-Q5+ K—Q3 10 Q-B7)
C221: 10. . . N—K4, 75
C222:l0...N—N3,75
c223: 10. . . N—QN1, 76
c3:5...P—KN3,76
31: 6 Q—B3, 76—77
c32: 6 B—QB4, 77-78
 Index 139

5 Exchange VarIation 1 P-K4 N-KB3 2 P-K5 N-Q4 3 P-Q4 P-Q3

4 P-QB4 N-N3 5 P xP, 79-88
A: 5... BPxP, 79-82
B: 5. . . KPxP, 82-83(6 N—QB3 B—K2)
Bi: 7 B.—K3, 83
B2: 7 P—KR3, 83—84
B3: 7 B-K2, 84—86 (7. . . O—O 8 N-B3 N-B3 9 B—K3 B—N5 10 P—QN3
B-B3 11 0—0 P—Q4 12 P-B5 N-B1)
B31: 13 P-QN4, 86—87
B32: 13 P—KR3, 87—88

6 Two Pawns Attack 1 P-K4 N-KB3 2 P—KS N- Q4 3 P-QB4 N-N3

4 P-B5 N-Q4, 89-100
A: 5 B—B4, 89
A1:5...P—QB3,89—90
A2:5...P—K3,90
A21:6P-Q4, 90(6... P—Q3 7 BPxP PxP)
4211: 8 Q—K2, 90—91
A212: 8 N—KB3, 91
A213: 8 N—Q2, 91
A22: 6 Q—N4, 91
A23: 6 N-QB3, 91—93 (6. . . N xN 7 QP xN)
A231:7. . .BxP, 93
A232: 7.. . P-QN3, 93—94
A233:7...N—B3,94—95
B: 5 N-QB3, 95-96
Bi: 5... NxN, 96—97
B2:5...P—K3,97
B21:6NxN,97(6...PxN 7P—Q4)
B211: 7. . . P—Q3, 97—98
B212: 7.. . P-QN3, 98—99
B22: 6 P-Q4, 99 (6.. . P—Q3 7 BP xP P x P 8 N-B3 N-QB3)
B221: 9PxP, 99—100
B222: 9 B-QN5, 100
B223: 9 Q—N3, 100

7 The 3 N—QB3 System 1 P-K4 N-KB3 2 P-K5 N-Q4 3 N—QB3

101—113
A: 3... NxN, 101
Al: 4 NP xN, 101—103(4.. . P—Q3 5 P—KB4)
All: 5... P—KN3, 103—101
A12: 5 . . . P—K3, 104
A13: 5.. . P-QB4, 104—105

A14:5...B—B4, 105
A15:5...PxP, 105—106(6PxP)
A151: 6.. . Q—Q4, 106—107
110 Index

A152: 6. . . B.—B4, 107

A2: 4 QP xN, 107—108 (4. . . P—Q3)
A21: 5 B—QB4, 108—109
A22: 5 N—B3, 109
A221: 5. . . N—B3, 109—110
A222: 5. . . P—KN3, 110—111
A223: 5... PxP, 111
• • P—K3, 112 B’.
,

4 P—Q4, 112—113 Bi:

4NxN, 113 B2:

8 2 P-KS N-Q4: Other Systems 1 P-K4 N—KB3 2 P-KS N-Q4, 114-121

A: 3 P—Q4 P-Q3 4 P—QB4 N—N3 5 N-KB3, 114-115
B: 3 P-Q4 P—Q3 4 B-QB4, 115-117
C: 3 P-Q4 P-Q3 4 B—K2, 117
D: 3 P-Q4 P-Q3 4 P-KB4, 117—118
E: 3 P—Q4 P—Q3 4PxP, 118—119
F: 3 P-Q4 P-Q3 4 B—KN5, 119
G: 3 N—KB3, 119—120
H: 3 B—B4, 120—121
I: 3 P—QB4, 121

9 Second Move Var4nts 1 P-K4 N-KB3, 122-131

A:2N—QB3,122(2...P—Q4)
A1:3PxP, 122—121
A2: 3 P—KS, 124
121—125 N-KS, A21: 3. .
At)9. ,I . . .
125-126 P-Q5,
A’)2. 2
•
KN—Q2, 126—127
•

NxP, 127—1 28 A231: 4

P—B4, 128—129 A232: 4
P—K6, 129—130 (4. . . P x P A233: 4 5 P-Q4)
5. .P—B4,130-132 A 2331:
P—KN3, 132 A 2332:5..
B: 2 P—Q3, 133
B1:2...P—B4, 133
B2:2...P—Q4, 133—131
B3:2...P-K4, 134
C: 2 B—B4, 134