Dokumen - Pub Grivas Opening Laboratory Volume 3 Efstratios Grivas 9786155793240

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page
Key to symbols
Foreword
Introduction
Part 1. The Queen’s Indian Defence (E15–19)
Chapter 1. The Modern 4...Ba6 (E15)

Chapter 2. The Classical 4...Bb7 (E16–19)
Chapter 3. Typical Middlegame Strategy
Chapter 4. Endgame Technique
Chapter 5. Tactical Motifs
Part 2. The BogoIndian Defence (E11)
Chapter 1. The 4...c5 Line

Chapter 2. The 4...d5 Line
Chapter 3. The 4...0-0 Line
Chapter 4. The 4...b6 Line
Part 3. The Budapest Gambit (A51–52)
Chapter 1. The Fajarowicz Variation

Chapter 2. The Adler Variation
Bibliography
Curriculum Vitae
Efstratios Grivas
Grivas opening laboratory
Volume 3
Cover designer
Piotr Pielach
Typesetting
i-Press ‹www.i-press.pl›
First edition 2020 by Chess Evolution
Grivas Opening Laboratory. Volume 3

Copyright © 2020 Chess Evolution
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without
prior permission of the publisher.
ISBN 978-615-5793-24-0
All sales or enquiries should be directed to Chess Evolution

2040 Budaors, Templom ter 19, Magyarorszag
e-mail: info@chess-evolution.com
website: www.chess-evolution.com
Printed in Hungary
KEY TO SYMBOLS
= Equality or equal chances

² White has a slight advantage
³ Black has a slight advantage
± White is better
µ Black is better
+– White has a decisive advantage
–+ Black has a decisive advantage
∞ unclear
© with compensation
„ with counterplay
ƒ with initiative
‚ with an attack
… with the idea
™ only move
N novelty
! a good move
!! an excellent move
? a weak move
?? a blunder
!? an interesting move
?! a dubious move
+ check
# mate
FOREWORD
Dear Reader,
The series continuing with this book is aimed at offering a full repertoire for
White based on 1.d4.
The idea of small opening repertoire books is not new, but here the purpose
and the presentation are different.
The choice of variations against each reply from Black will be mine and
will be based on my long experience, having played the game for over 40
years, and also served as a professional coach for approximately 20 of
those!
I hope that each book in the series will come out every two months and one
to three openings will be offered in each of them.
Maybe not all of the choices will appeal to you, but you should understand
that what is important is to learn them in depth, rather than looking for
something astounding — this is simply an illusion.
What I mean by this is that nowadays no opening offers all that much; what
you can expect is something between a tiny bit better and slightly better, if
you have done your homework! Otherwise there is no point in the Black
player following it!
The recommendations are geared towards posing Black unconventional
problems. Your opponents will not be able to churn out lengthy, memorised
variations but will need to solve problems at the board, in positions that are
somewhat different in character from those normally reached in the
openings under discussion.
I have also selected the systems within the repertoire in such a way that
they form a seamless whole and are also reachable by transpositions.
I have tried to describe the suggested systems in detail, giving my
assessments as clearly and responsibly as possible, and have generally
aimed to provide useful guidelines as well as many new ideas and moves.
Many things in chess theory, as in life, are relative and a matter of taste.
Actually, there are no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ openings. There are openings that you
know and understand, and openings that you do not know and do not
understand.
Thus, I believe that my recommended systems will offer a lot of
possibilities, new ideas and practical benefits, aspects that should not be
underestimated in modern chess. Among other things, I have tried to make
them ‘understandable’ to you.
This book series’ main purpose is to train and educate the reader in territory
that is ‘unknown’ to him. We must not forget that this is a theory book
series, where concrete reaction to the opponent’s moves is of primary
importance.
General principles and plans do merit a place in this project but, in my
opinion, move-by-move consideration is most significant.
Of course, it is not necessary to memorise all the variations and moves
mentioned in the books — this would probably be impossible.
But then, you may ask, what is the reason for someone to deal with a theory
book, one that he does not need to ‘memorise’ in full?
The theory of ‘subconscious education’ will help us to answer this question.
By playing through the moves and variations in the books, our
subconscious processes and stores similar motifs, repeated moves and
plans, and also ‘learns’ to avoid traps and unwelcome positions.
Such proper ‘subconscious memorisation’ will, at the critical moment,
enforce the correct choice upon us.
Many of the opening books I have read mainly focus on the general
characteristics of the opening or the variation in question, and much less so
on move-by-move theory.
This can lead to unresolved questions in the reader’s mind, and the danger
that he will mix things up at moments when it is necessary to find one
specific concrete move or sequence.
The recommended repertoire is that of a Grandmaster, without omissions or
hidden secrets. On the contrary, it contains a great number of new and
deeply analysed suggestions, plans, novelties, new ideas, moves, etc!
Let us not forget that the basic characteristics of the openings do not
frequently undergo radical changes. On the other hand, the development of
move-by-move theory is explosive.
Every chess player stands on the shoulders of those who came before him.
Every generation of good chess players learns from and builds upon the
experience and creativity of the previous generations.
The chess player of the year 2020 has encountered more types of positions
than the chess-player of 1980 and knows the proper ways to deal with these
positions.
Therefore, a chess player today would have a great advantage over a chess
player (even one of equal or greater talent) of 40 years ago, simply because
he could play the opening with deeper understanding; this understanding is
offered to him by the multitude of deeply-analysed variations.
On no occasion do I underestimate the necessity and value of learning the
general characteristics and plans of each opening or variation. However, I
do strongly believe that move-by-move theory and its (at least)
subconscious absorption are necessary in order to survive in the labyrinth of
the chess openings.
One question often posed by my students is whether we must
simultaneously prepare two or more different systems against an opening.
My personal opinion is that only professional Grandmasters can afford this
luxury.
All other chess players should focus on one specific system every time, so
as to specialise in it and reap maximum benefit. Only if this choice
eventually proves undesirable should one change his systems.
As Ernest Hemingway once wrote: ‘I guess really good soldiers are really
good at very little else’.
The massive development of theory in all openings has clarified that White
cannot hope for anything more than a slight advantage, but in some cases
even this is unattainable! My recommendations are purely based on a
healthy approach.
I must clarify that I took the liberty of changing the original move-order of
many games. In this way it was possible to provide clearer coverage and
guidance.
Of course, the way you reach a certain position is important, but equally
important is to examine how you want to proceed upon reaching it. True
value comes from knowing what to keep and what to throw away.
Finally, I would to thank my (ex) trainees (among others) GM Antoaneta
Stefanova, GM Ioan Cristian Chirila, GM Emre Can, GM Mustafa Yilmaz
and GM Alex Ipatov, who adopted my repertoire and contributed to the
evolution of the theory.
Efstratios Grivas
Sharjah, April 2020
INTRODUCTION
In the third book of the series we are dealing with how to face the ‘Queen’s
Indian Defence’, a safe and strategic system which was extremely popular
in the 80’s but is still played today even at the highest level.
The proposed system is based on the g3 Catalan structure, a system that has
served me well for approximately 30 years, scoring a good 75% in a high
number of games.
Well, this looks a bit too high, as the general winrate of the variation is
57.5%, when the expected rate is 51.5% to 52%, the natural average
number of White’s ‘superiority’.
My quite high score is purely based on study and understanding of the
system, leading to many equal positions being turned into full points!
Then we will move on to study how to face the ‘BogoIndian Defence’,
another solid and strategic system, still seen today in top-level chess.
My proposed system is based on the move 4.Nbd2, a system that has served
me well for approximately 30 years, scoring a good 72% across a large
number of games.
Well, this looks a bit too high, as the generally expected score of the
variation is only 59.0% (much better than 4.Bd2), against the expected
White rate of 51.5% to 52%.
My quite high score is again purely based on the study and understanding of
this system, converting many equal positions into wins!
Finally, we look at how to face the ‘Budapest Gambit’ (which includes the
‘Fajarowicz Variation’), a mainly tactical system which was never
extremely popular but still it is played today, though mostly at the club
players’ level.
The proposed system is based on the ‘Adler Variation’, a system that once
again has served me well for many decades, scoring 75%, though across a
limited number of games.
Well, this looks rather high also, as the ‘normal’ winrate of the variation
stands at 58.5%, against the average expected White rate of 51.5% to 52%.
My quite high score, to reiterate an important point, is purely based on a
deep study and understanding of the system, equal positions becoming full
points on a regular basis!
In this book you will find not only a concrete and well-structured move-by-
move presentation, but also chapters on the middlegame, endgame and
tactics, those that are typical for this variation, in order to help you to better
understand it.
The only two things you have to do are to buy the book (!) and study it!
Note that the research on the games included is up to the middle of April
2020.
Efstratios Grivas
Sharjah, April 2020
PART 1.
THE QUEEN’S INDIAN DEFENCE (E15–19)
The ‘Queen’s Indian Defence’ (QID) is an opening defined by the moves

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6
This opening is considered to be a very solid defence and 3...b6 increases

Black’s control over the central light squares e4 and d5 by preparing to
fianchetto the queen’s bishop, with the opening deriving its name from this
manoeuvre.
As in the other Indian defences, Black attempts to control the centre with
pieces in hypermodern style, instead of occupying it with pawns in classical
style.
By playing 3.Nf3, White sidesteps the ‘NimzoIndian Defence’ that arises

after 3.Nc3 Bb4.
The ‘Queen’s Indian Defence’ is regarded as the sister opening of the
‘NimzoIndian Defence’, since both openings aim to impede White’s efforts
to gain full control of the centre by playing e4, or d5. Together, they are a
well-respected response to 1.d4.
The system with 4.g3 (ECO E15-E19) has long been White’s most popular
line against the ‘Queen’s Indian Defence’ and has a lot of similarities with
the ‘Catalan’.
It contests the long diagonal by preparing to fianchetto the light-squared

bishop. The standard response for Black through the 1970s was 4...Bb7 (the
classical line), but 4...Ba6 (the modern line) has since become the topical
approach.
Modern line — 4...Ba6: White can defend the pawn on c4 with a piece by
playing 5.Nbd2, 5.Qa4, 5.Qc2, 5.b3 or 5.Qb3 (the proposed continuation),
but these moves all diminish control of d4, making ...c5 (in general) an
effective reply for Black.
Classical line — 4...Bb7: The classical main line of the ‘Queen’s Indian
Defence’ and the most frequently played variation from the 1950s until
4...Ba6 became popular in the 1980s, it usually continues: 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0
0-0 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Qc2 Nxc3 9.Qxc3.
White has a spatial advantage, but Black has no weaknesses and can choose
from a variety of ways to create counterplay, such as 9...c5, 9...f5 or 9...Be4.
These lines are well known for their drawish tendencies and 4...Bb7 is
nowadays often employed by Black as a drawing weapon.
HISTORICAL APPROACH
The first time that the 4.g3 system appeared in the chess world was back in
1920 (at least according to ChessBase MegaBase) although I do believe that
there are earlier games...
But anyway, 1920 suits us best, as in this case we do have the 100 years
anniversary to celebrate!
Two legends battled out a rather modest game, where Black succeeded in
cashing an early point.
Rubinstein Akiba
Bogoljubow Efim
E18 Gothenburg (6) 09.08.1920
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.Nc3 d5 7.Ne5 0-0 8.0-0
c5 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.Bf4 Ne4 11.Nxe4 dxe4 12.Qb3 Qc8 13.Be3 Bxe3
14.fxe3 Nc6 15.Nxc6 Qxc6 16.Rad1 Rac8 17.Rd4 f5 18.Rfd1
18...Ba6 19.c5 Bxe2 20.Rd6 Qxc5 21.Qxe6+ Kh8 22.R1d4 Qc1+ 23.Kf2
Rc2 0–1
STARTING OUT
The system proposed against the ‘Queen’s Indian Defence’ commences
with the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3
And here is where our examination starts; Black can choose between
4...Ba6 (Modern Line — E15) and 4...Bb7 (Classical Line — E16–19).
CHAPTER 1.
THE MODERN 4...BA6 (E15)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3

This is the proposed repertoire line.
A few strong players like Vladimir Kramnik, Alexander Morozevich, Boris
Gelfand, Loek van Wely, Joel Lautier as well as many others have tried to
prove an advantage with the text.
White seems to hold his usual opening tiny/slight advantage without much
risk of losing. On the other hand, the opposing side seems to be happy with
a draw, even if it includes a bit of suffering... Black can now choose
between 5...Be7, 5...Bb7, 5...c5, 5...d5, 5...c6 and 5...Nc6.
1.1 — 5...BE7
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Be7

A rather passive continuation, although as nearly always in the ‘QID’ it is
quite solid. I slightly prefer White as he seems to be in the driver’s seat.
6.Nc3 0-0
As 6...Nc6?! 7.e4 Na5 8.Qa4± is unsatifactory, Black might try 6...Bb7

7.Bg2 Nc6 8.Qd1! (8.0-0!? is interesting: 8...Na5 9.Qa4 Bc6! [9...Ne4?!
10.Nxe4 Bxe4 11.Ne5 Bxg2 12.Kxg2² Sargissian,G-Jobava,B Abu Dhabi
2003] 10.Qc2 Nxc4 11.e4°) 8...Na5 (8...0-0 9.0-0²) 9.b3 d5 10.cxd5 exd5
11.0-0 0-0 12.Bb2 c5 13.dxc5 (13.Ne5!? Nc6 14.e3²) 13...bxc5 14.e3²
Beliavsky,A-Nikolic,P Celje 2003.
7.e4
7...c5
As 7...d5? 8.cxd5 Bxf1 9.Kxf1 exd5 10.e5 Nfd7 11.Nxd5± is unplayable,

Black’s main option should be found in 7...Bb7 8.Bd3! (8.d5 exd5 9.exd5
Re8! [9...c6 10.Bg2 Na6 11.0-0 Nc5 {11...cxd5 12.cxd5 Bb4 {12...Nb4
13.Rd1²} 13.Nh4! Bxc3 14.bxc3 Nc5 15.Qd1²} 12.Qd1 cxd5 13.cxd5²
Lautier,J-Sokolov,A Aix les Bains 2003] 10.Be2 c6 11.0-0 cxd5 12.cxd5
Na6∞) 8...Nc6 (8...d5?! 9.cxd5 exd5 10.e5 Ne4 11.Qc2 f5 12.exf6 Nxf6
13.Ng5 Nc6 14.Bxh7+ Kh8 15.Be3! [15.Ne6? Nxd4 16.Nxd4 Nxh7 17.Ne6
Qd7 18.Nxf8 Rxf8 19.Be3 d4 20.0-0-0 Bxh1–+ Morozevich,A-Svidler,P
Monte Carlo 2007] 15...Nb4 16.Qb1±) 9.0-0 (9.d5 Nb4 10.Be2 exd5
11.exd5 c6∞) 9...d6 10.Be3²
8.d5 exd5
8...d6 9.Bh3 Bc8 10.Bg2 e5 11.0-0² might be a better try, but it is hardly
appealing.
9.exd5
Black has managed to stabilise the situation in the centre, but faces the
difficult task of activating his queen’s bishop.
9...Re8 10.Bd3! Bf8+ 11.Kf1 d6 12.Kg2²
Morozevich,A-Leko,P Morelia/Linares 2007. White’s spatial advantage is a

great plus, while Black hardly has any good plans at his disposal.
1.2 — 5...BB7
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Bb7
A natural response, taking control over the critical squares d5 and e4 and
preparing an eventual ...c5 advance.
6.Bg2
White can also think of 6.Nc3 Nc6 (6...Ne4 7.Bg2 Nxc3 8.Qxc3 d6 9.0-0
Nd7 10.b3 Be7 11.Bb2 0-0 12.Rad1 a5 13.Qc2² Grivas,E-Yakubboev,N
Sharjah 2018) 7.e4 Na5 8.Qc2 Bb4 9.Bd3 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 d6 11.0-0 c5
12.d5 0-0 13.dxe6 (13.e5? dxe5 14.Nxe5 exd5 15.Bg5 h6 16.Bxf6 Qxf6
17.Nd7 Qc6 18.Nxf8 dxc4 19.Be4 Qxe4 20.Qxe4 Bxe4 21.Nd7 f6–+
Narciso Dublan,M-Lenic,L Iraklion 2007) 13...Qe7 (13...fxe6?! 14.Ng5
Qe7 15.e5 dxe5 16.Bxh7+ Kh8 17.Bg6±) 14.Ng5 h6 15.exf7+ Kh8 16.f4!
(16.Nh3 Qxf7 17.Nf4 Ng4 18.Be2 Ne5 19.f3 Rae8° Romanov,E-Urkedal,F
Norway 2016) 16...hxg5 17.fxg5 Rxf7 (17...Nd7? 18.g6+–) 18.gxf6 Rxf6
19.Rxf6 Qxf6 20.Bf4²
6...c5
The natural follow-up. Passive is 6...Be7 7.0-0 0-0 8.Nc3 d6 9.Rd1 Nbd7
10.Qc2² Grivas,E-Nikolic,S Aegina 1995.
7.d5!
Also possible is 7.0-0 — see Sub-Chapter 1.1.
7...exd5
Black can choose some other pawn structure:

a) 7...d6 8.Nc3 e5?! (Black decides on a totally different approach, closing
up the position and a ‘King’s Indian Defence’ type of position arises, rather
than the usual ‘Benoni Defence’-like positions that arise after 8...exd5) 9.0-
0 g6 10.e4 Bg7 11.Ne1! (The correct approach. White will place his knight
on d3 and then he will try to open the position. His spatial advantage will
tell in the end.) 11...0-0 12.Bg5 Nbd7 13.Nd3± Van Wely,L-Dao,T Mallorca
2004.
b) 7...Be7 8.Nc3 exd5 9.cxd5 0-0 10.e4 (10.0-0 d6 11.Nd2 a6 12.a4 Nbd7
13.Nc4 Qc7 14.e4 Rfe8 [14...Rab8?! 15.f4± Berczes,D-Varasdy,I Hungary
2012] 15.Bd2 Rab8 16.Rfe1² Tunik,G-Soltanici,R Minsk 2005) 10...d6
11.0-0 Nbd7 12.Bf4 Nh5 13.Be3 Re8 14.Rad1 Bf8 15.Rfe1² Nikitin,A-
Smirnov,I Alushta 2002.
8.Nh4
8...g6
Probably best, taking care of the e5-square. Another way is 8...Nc6

(8...dxc4? 9.Qe3++–) 9.cxd5 Nd4 10.Qd1 Nxd5 11.e3 (11.0-0! g5 12.Nf3
Ne6 13.Ne5±) 11...g5 12.0-0! Nc6 (12...gxh4 13.exd4±) 13.Bxd5 (13.Nf5!?
Nc7 14.Bd2 [14.e4 Qf6 15.Bd2 Rg8 16.Bc3 Qg6 17.Nd2 0-0-0° ½-½
Chirila,I-Xu,G Orlando 2014] 14...d5 15.Bc3 Rg8 16.Qh5°) 13...gxh4
14.Nc3 Qe7 15.Qh5° Morchat,M-Galkiewicz,D Augustow 1996.
9.cxd5 d6
Possible is 9...Bg7 10.Qe3+ Kf8 (10...Qe7? 11.Qxe7+ Kxe7 12.d6++–)

11.Nc3 d6 12.0-0 (12.f4 Na6 13.Qd2 Nc7 14.0-0 b5 15.e4 b4 16.Nd1 Nd7
17.Qc2 Nb5 18.Nf3 Qc7 19.Be3² Sebenik,M-Schneider Zinner,H Aschach
2005) 12...Na6 13.Qd2 Qd7 14.e4² Meister,P-Priehoda,V Germany 1997.
10.0-0
10.Nc3 is mostly a transposition: 10...Bg7 (10...a6 11.Bg5 Be7 12.a4 0-0

13.0-0 Nbd7 14.Bh6 Re8 15.h3 Bf8 16.Bxf8 Nxf8 17.e4 Nh5 18.Nf3 Nd7
19.Nd2² Kiproski,B-Matic,P Belgrade 2019) 11.Qa4+?! (11.Bf4²) 11...Qd7
12.Qxd7+ Nbxd7 ½-½ Jaeger,F-Hanssen,G Kalotturneringen 2004.
10...Bg7
11.Nc3
11.Qe3+ looks like a valuable choice: 11...Qe7 12.Qxe7+ Kxe7 13.Nc3

Nbd7 (13...a6? 14.e4 Nbd7 15.f4! Rhb8 16.e5! dxe5 17.fxe5 Nxe5 18.Bg5
Ned7 19.Ne4 h6 20.Bxf6+ 1–0 Huzman,A-Pikula,D Biel 2002; 13...Na6
14.e4 Nb4 15.Rd1 [15.e5?! Nfxd5 {15...Ne8?! 16.Bg5+ f6 17.exf6+ Bxf6
18.Rae1+ Kf7 19.Ne4 Bxd5 20.Bxf6 Nxf6 21.Nxd6+ Kf8 22.a3²
Riazantsev,A-Grigoriants,S Moscow 2006} 16.Bg5+ Kd7 17.Bh3+ Kc6
18.Bg2 Kd7=] 15...Nd7 16.Bf1²) 14.e4 Ng4 15.Bg5+ Kf8 (15...Bf6?!

16.Bxf6+ Kxf6 17.h3 Nge5 18.f4± Mekhitarian,K-Veiga,E Maraba 2014)
16.Bf4 Ke7 17.Nb5²
11...0-0
12.Nf3
A flexible move, compared to the 12.Re1 a6 13.a4 Nbd7 14.Bf4 Qc7

15.Rad1 Rfe8 16.h3 Ne5 17.Qc2 Qd7 18.Qb3 Qc7 19.Qc2 Qd7 20.Qb3 ½-
½ of Erdos,V-Hambleton,A Karlsruhe 2017, or 12.e4 Na6 13.a3 Nc7
14.Bf4 Nh5 15.Be3 Bf6 16.Nf3² Purenne,B-Maupin,J Avoine 2011.
12...Na6 13.Nd2
Barlov,D-Dizdarevic,E Banja Vrucica 1991. White has achieved the usual
spatial advantage and has the c4-square for his knight. A typical ‘Benoni
Defence’ set-up, where White should feel quite comfortable.
1.3 — 5...C5
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 c5

This move leads to another ‘Benoni Defence’ (or Hedgehog) pawn structure
position types.
White benefits as in the very similar 5...Bb7.
6.d5
6.Bg2 Bb7 7.d5, transposes to Sub-Chapter 1.2. White can also try 7.0-0!?
cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bxg2 9.Kxg2
a) 9...Be7?! 10.Qf3 d5 (10...Na6 11.Nc3 0-0 12.Rd1±) 11.Nc3 Bb4
12.Rd1± Georgiev,K-Olafsson,H Saint John 1988.
b) 9...a6 10.Qf3 (10.Bf4 d6 11.Rd1 Nbd7 12.Nf3 Qc7 13.Nc3 Be7 14.Qa3²
Bunzmann,D-Vavrak,P Oropesa del Mar 1998) 10...Ra7 11.Nc3²
c) 9...Bc5 10.Rd1 0-0 11.Nc3 a6 12.Bf4² Fillion,S-Gauthier,D Montreal
2003.
d) 9...Qc7 10.Qf3 Nc6 11.Bf4 Qb7 12.Nb5 Rc8 13.N1c3 (13.Nd2!? a6
14.Nd6+ Bxd6 15.Bxd6²) 13...a6 14.Nd6+ Bxd6 15.Bxd6² Sorin,A-
Olszewski,M Buenos Aires 2006:
e) 9...Nc6 10.Nxc6 dxc6 11.Qf3 (11.Bg5 Be7 12.Nc3 0-0 13.Bxf6 Bxf6
14.Rad1 Qc7 15.Ne4 Be7= Reich,T-Graf,F Germany 2009) 11...Qc7
(11...Qc8 12.Nc3 Be7 13.Bf4 0-0 14.Rfd1² Kempinski,R-Socko,B Germany
2003) 12.Nc3 Rd8 13.Bf4 Bd6 14.Bxd6 Rxd6 15.Rad1 Rxd1 16.Rxd1 Ke7
17.Ne4 Nxe4 18.Qxe4² Grivas,E-Fish,G Iraklion 1995.
6...exd5 7.cxd5
7...d6
Black’s alternatives are:

a) 7...c4 8.Qe3+! Qe7 9.Nc3 Qxe3 10.Bxe3 Bb4 11.Bd4!? (11.0-0-0 Bxc3
12.bxc3 Bb7 13.Bd4 Nxd5 14.Bxg7 Rg8 15.Bd4² Renman,N-Schneider,L
Eksjo 1981) 11...Ke7! (11...Nxd5?! 12.Bxg7 Rg8 13.0-0-0! Ne7 [13...Bxc3
14.Bxc3 Nxc3 15.bxc3 Bb7 16.Bh3! b5 17.Bf5±] 14.Be5 Nbc6 15.Ne4 0-0-
0 [15...Nxe5? 16.Nf6++–] 16.Nd6+ Bxd6 17.Bxd6± Epishin,V-Komarov,D
St Petersburg 1997) 12.0-0-0 d6 (12...Re8? 13.d6+! Bxd6 14.Bxf6+ gxf6
15.Nd5+ Kd8 16.Nxf6 Re6 17.Nxh7+–; 12...Bb7? 13.e4 Bxc3 14.Bxc3
Nxe4 15.Re1 f5 [15...Bxd5 16.Nd2 f5 17.f3+–] 16.Ng5 Kf8 17.Nxe4 fxe4
18.Bxc4+–) 13.e4 Nbd7 14.Nh4²
b) 7...g6 8.Bf4 (8.Bg2 Bg7 9.Qe3+ Qe7 10.Qxe7+ [10.Nc3 d6 11.0-0 Nbd7
12.Re1 b5 13.a3 Ng4 14.Qxe7+ Kxe7 15.Bg5+ Bf6 16.Bxf6+ Kxf6
17.Nd2² Gyimesi,Z-Balogh,C Hungary 2006] 10...Kxe7 11.d6+ Ke8
[11...Kxd6?! 12.Ng5±] 12.Ne5 Nc6 13.Nc3 [13.Nxc6 Bb7] 13...Rc8
[13...Bb7 14.Nb5 Rb8 15.Bxc6 Bxc6 16.Nc7+ Kf8 17.Nxc6 dxc6 18.Bg5
h6 19.Bxf6 Bxf6 20.0-0-0²] 14.Nxc6 dxc6 15.Bf4²) 8...d6 9.Bg2 (9.Nc3
Nh5 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Bh6 Bf8 12.Bxf8 Kxf8 13.Bg2 Kg7 14.0-0 Re8
15.Rfe1² Kierzek,M-Neumann, J Dresden 2012; 9.e4!? Bxf1 10.Kxf1²)
9...Bg7 10.Qe3+ Kf8 (10...Qe7 11.Nc3²) 11.Nc3 h6 12.Qc1 Qe7 13.0-0²
Peric,S-Epishin,V Geneva 1997.
c) 7...Be7 8.Bg2 (8.Nc3 0-0 9.e4 Bxf1 10.Kxf1 d6 11.Kg2 Nbd7 12.Bf4
[12.Re1 a6 13.a4 Re8 14.Bf4 Bf8 15.Rad1 Qc7 {15...Nh5 16.Bc1 Rb8
17.Qc2² Yegiazarian,A-Sevillano,E Burbank 2003} 16.Qc4 Qb7 17.e5 dxe5
18.Nxe5 Nxe5 19.Bxe5 Nd7 20.Bf4² Rowson,J-Devereaux, M Swansea
2006] 12...Nh5 13.Be3 g6 14.Rhe1² Banusz,T-Lorincz,I Budapest 2003)
8...0-0 9.Nc3 d6 10.0-0 Nbd7 (10...Re8 11.Re1 Nbd7 12.a4² Tancik,K-
Govedarica,R Senta 2006) 11.a4 Re8 12.h3 Bf8 13.Qc2 g6 14.Re1 Bg7
15.Bf4 Qe7 16.e4² Nielsen,P-Palo,D Denmark 2003.
8.Bg2
8.e4 Bxf1 9.Kxf1 g6 (9...Nxe4? 10.Qa4+; 9...Be7 10.Nc3 0-0 11.Kg2²)

10.Kg2 Bg7 11.Nc3 0-0 12.Bf4 Re8 13.Rhe1² is a transposition to Black’s
7th move comments — line c, above.
8...g6 9.0-0 Bg7

10.Nc3
An interesting alternative is 10.Qe3+!? Qe7 (10...Kf8 11.Nc3 Nbd7 12.Qf4²

Fressinet,L-Anastasian,A Plovdiv 2008) 11.Qxe7+ (11.Nc3 Nbd7 12.Re1²)
11...Kxe7 12.Nc3 Nbd7 13.a4 Ne8 14.Bg5+ Bf6 15.Bf4² Lautier, J-
Ligterink, G Enschede 2006.
10...0-0 11.Bf4
The text looks better than 11.a4?! Re8 12.Re1 Ne4 13.Nxe4 Rxe4 14.Ng5
Rb4 (14...Rxe2? 15.Rxe2 Bxe2 16.Ne6! Qd7 17.Nxg7 Kxg7 18.Bg5 f6
19.Qc3 Qf5 20.Bf4±) 15.Qf3 Qe7 (15...Qf6? 16.Ne6! fxe6 17.dxe6 Nc6
18.Qxc6 Rf8 19.Bf4± Groszpeter,A-Stajcic,N Kecskemet 1993) 16.Ne6
Be5∞
11...Re8
Not much different is 11...Qe7 12.Rfe1 Nbd7 13.a4 Ng4 14.Bg5 Bf6
15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.h3 Nge5 17.Nd2 c4 18.Qc2 Nc5 19.Nce4² Fominyh, A-
Obukhov, A Ekaterinburg 1997, or 11...Ne8 12.Rfe1 Nd7 13.e4 (13.Bg5
Bf6 14.Bh6 Bg7 15.Bxg7 Kxg7 16.a4 Ne5 17.Nxe5 dxe5 18.e4² Stajcic, N-
Debnar, L Topolcianky 1994) 13...Ne5 14.Nxe5 dxe5 15.Be3 Nd6 16.Qa4
Bc8 17.b4²
12.Rfe1
12.Qc2?! b5! 13.Rfe1 b4 14.Na4 Nxd5! 15.Ng5 Nxf4 16.gxf4 Nd7 17.Bxa8
Qxa8°
12...Nh5
Black has also tried 12...Ne4 13.Qc2 (13.Nxe4 Rxe4 14.Qc2 Rc4
[14...Re8?! 15.e4 Qc7 16.e5 dxe5 17.d6 Qc8 18.Bxe5±] 15.Qd2 Qe7 16.e4!
Nd7 [16...Rxe4? 17.Rxe4 Qxe4 18.Re1 Qa4 19.b3 Qd7 20.Ng5±] 17.e5!²)
13...Nxc3 (13...Qe7?! 14.Nxe4 Qxe4 15.Qxe4 Rxe4 [Fominyh,A-Epishin,V
Elista 1997] 16.Ng5! Rd4 17.e4±) 14.bxc3 Qc7 15.Rab1! (15.Ng5 Nd7
16.Ne4 Ne5 17.Qa4 Bb7 18.Rad1 a6 19.Qc2 b5∞ Halkias,S-Salazar,J
Calicut 1998; 15.e4 Nd7∞) 15...Nd7 16.c4²
13.Bg5 Qc8 14.Nb5
The alternative 14.e4 also looks good: 14...h6 15.Bd2 Nd7 16.Qa4²
14...Bxb5 15.Qxb5²
Stefansson,H-Mamedyarov,S Reykjavik 2006. White is strong on the light

squares, has more space, and Nd2-c4 is always a nice plan, so he should
hold his usual tiny advantage.
1.4 — 5...D5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 d5

This is the preference of Vishy Anand, leading to some ‘Catalan’ pawn
structure types, but White must be rather careful due to the various tactical
possibilities.
6.cxd5
And now, as 6...Nxd5?! 7.e4 Bxf1 8.Kxf1 Nf6 9.Nc3 c5 10.d5 exd5 11.e5
Ng8 12.Nxd5 Qd7 13.Ng5 Na6 14.Bf4 0-0-0 15.Rd1 Kb7 16.Qf3 Qc6
17.Nxf7 Rd7 18.e6 Rxf7 19.exf7 Nf6 20.Kg2 1–0 Bogdanovski,V-Hadzi
Manev,L Struga 2012, is out of the question, Black can choose between
6...exd5 and 6...Qxd5.
1.4.1 — 6...EXD5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 d5 6.cxd5 exd5

Black is ready to accept the hanging pawns structure (after ...c5) but White
seems to be ready for it.
7.Nc3
Also good is 7.Bg5 Be7 (7...c6 8.Nc3 Be7 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.e4 dxe4
[10...Bxf1 11.Kxf1 dxe4 12.Nxe4 0-0 13.Kg2² Lalic,B-Letreguilly,O Ascot
2014] 11.Nxe4 0-0 12.0-0-0 Bc8 [12...Be7 13.Kb1 Qd5 14.Qxd5 cxd5
15.Nc3 Bxf1 16.Rhxf1 Rd8 17.Rc1± Buhmann,R-Petrosyan,M Moscow
2017] 13.Ne5 a5 14.Bc4² Bauer,C-Sokolov,A Val d’Isere 2002) 8.Nc3 Bb7
9.Bxf6 (9.Bg2 0-0 10.0-0 h6 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Rfd1 Re8 13.Ne5 c6 14.f4²
Hernando Rodrigo,J-Kurajica,B Las Palmas 2012) 9...Bxf6 10.Bg2 0-0
11.0-0 Re8 12.Rfe1 (12.Rad1 c6 13.e4 Na6 [13...dxe4?! 14.Nxe4 Rxe4
15.Ne5+–] 14.exd5 cxd5 15.Rfe1 [15.Ne5!?] 15...Rxe1+ 16.Rxe1 Nc7
17.Ne5 Qd6 18.Qa4² Christiansen,L-Maninang,R Surakarta 1982) 12...Na6
13.Rad1 Qd6 14.Qa4 (14.e3 g6 15.h4 Bg7 16.Ng5 h6 17.Nh3 c6 18.Nf4²
Laznicka,V-Panchanathan,M Pardubice 2007) 14...Rad8 15.a3 c5 16.e3
Qb8 17.Qc2 Bc6 18.Ne2 g6 19.Nd2 Ba8 20.Nb1 c4 21.Nbc3 b5 22.Nf4
Nc7 23.b3² Grivas,E-Kalesis,N Budapest 1994.
7...Be7
Although there are a lot of transpositions, Black can also opt for 7...c6
8.Ne5 Bd6 9.Bf4 0-0 10.Bg2 Bxe5 11.Bxe5 Nbd7 12.Bf4 Re8 13.Qa4 Bb7
14.0-0 Nf8 15.Rac1² Keymer,V-Nguyen,H Hannover 2016, or 7...Bb7
8.Bg2 Be7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Rd1 Nbd7 11.Ne5 c6 12.Bf4 Nxe5 13.Bxe5 Bd6
14.Bxd6 (14.e4 dxe4 15.Nxe4 Nxe4 16.Bxe4²) 14...Qxd6 15.Rac1 Rfe8
16.e3 Re7 17.a3 h5 18.Qb4 Qd7 19.Ne2² Blagojevic,D-Andrejic,V Cetinje
2012.
8.Bg2 0-0
9.Ne5
Natural is 9.0-0 Re8?! (9...c6 10.Ne5 transposes, while pleasant for White is
9...Nc6 10.Bf4 Bb7 11.Rac1 Na5 12.Qc2² Kazakovskiy,V-Martinez
Alcantara,J Riga 2019) 10.Rd1 Bf8 11.Ne5 c6 12.e4 Bb7 13.Bg5 h6
14.exd5! cxd5 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Ng4 Nd7 17.Bxd5 Bxd5 18.Qxd5 Bg7
19.Qh5 1–0 Tkachiev,V-Lehikoinen,P Biel 2003. An interesting idea is
9.Nh4!? Bc4 10.Qc2 c5 11.dxc5 bxc5 (11...Bxc5! 12.Nf5 Nc6∞) 12.Nf5
Nc6 13.Qd2 Nd4 14.Nxd4 cxd4 15.Qxd4 Rc8 16.0-0 Bc5 17.Qd1 Re8
18.Bg5 h6 19.Bxf6 Qxf6 20.Bxd5 Rcd8 21.Bxc4 Rxd1 22.Raxd1 Qe7
23.Rd3 Qe5 24.Rf3 Re7 25.Rd1 g6 26.Nd5 Rb7 27.Nf6+ Kg7 28.Nd7 1–0
Banikas,H-Kelires,A Paleochora 2017.
9...c6
9...Bb7 is of little help after 10.0-0 c6 11.Rd1 (11.e4!? dxe4 12.Rd1 Nbd7
13.Bf4²) 11...Na6 12.Bf4 (12.Qa4 b5 13.Qc2 Nb4 14.Qb3 a5 15.a4²
Socko,B-Khouri,I Tromsø 2014) 12...Nc7 13.a4 Na6 14.a5 b5 15.Bg5! Rc8
16.Nd3² Vaganian,R-Spassky,B Montpellier 1985.
10.0-0
10...Nfd7
10...Bb7, which transposes above, might be a safer line.
11.f4
White can also opt for:
a) 11.Nf3 Nf6 12.Bf4 Nbd7 13.Rfd1 Nh5 14.Rac1 Nxf4 15.gxf4 Bb7 16.e3
Kh8 17.Ne2 f6 18.Ng3 Re8∞ Dydyshko,V-Zhigalko,S Minsk 2007.
b) 11.Bf4 Nxe5 12.Bxe5 Nd7 13.Bf4² Morovic Fernandez,I-Sulskis,S
Mallorca 2004.
c) 11.Rd1 Nxe5 12.dxe5 Nd7 13.e4! (13.Qa4 Bb7 14.f4 b5 15.Qc2 Qb6+
16.Kh1 a5∞ Chytilek,R-Vavrak,P Slovakia 2009) 13...Nc5 14.Qa3 d4
15.b4! Bd3 (15...Bc4 16.bxc5 Bxc5 17.Qa4 b5 18.Qc2²) 16.bxc5 Bxc5
17.Qb3 dxc3 18.Bf1± Bunzmann,D-Grooten,H Stuttgart 2003.
11...Nf6
11...Nxe5?! 12.fxe5 Bc4 13.Qc2 Qd7 (13...a5 14.b3 Ba6 15.Bf4 Ra7 16.Rf2
f6 17.Raf1± fxe5 18.Bxe5 Nd7 19.Nxd5! cxd5 20.Bxd5+ Kh8 21.Bxg7+
Kxg7 22.Rf7+ Rxf7 23.Rxf7+ Kh6 24.Qxh7+ 1–0 Kalinitschew,S-Liger,J
Bethune 2000) 14.Bf4 f6 15.Rad1² Vladimirov, Y-Gameel, M Guangzhou
2010.
12.g4
12.Rd1 Bb7 13.e4² is also good.
12...Bb7 13.g5 Nfd7 14.h4²

Durarbayli,V-Rahul,S St Louis 2016.
White keeps the upper hand due to his spatial advantage and more
aggressively placed pieces, while the advance e4 is always looming.
1.4.2 — 6...QXD5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 d5 6.cxd5 Qxd5

Black plays it safe, wishing to opt for a timely ...c5, in the hope of fully
equalising...
7.Qc2
The main alternative is 7.Qd1

a) 7...Bb4+ 8.Bd2 (8.Nc3 c5 [8...Qa5 9.Bd2 Nbd7 10.Bg2 Rd8 11.0-0 0-0
12.Re1² Gomez Jurado,L-Spence,D Calvia 2009] 9.Bg2 cxd4 10.Qa4+ Qd7
11.Qxb4 Nc6 12.Qa3 dxc3 13.bxc3 Rd8 14.Bg5 Na5 15.0-0∞ Can,E-
Volokitin,A Jerusalem 2015) 8...Bxd2+ 9.Qxd2 (9.Nbxd2 0-0 10.Bg2 Nbd7
11.0-0 Qb5∞)
9...Ne4! (9...Nbd7 10.Nc3 Qa5 [10...Qf5 11.Bg2 Rd8 12.0-0 0-0 13.Rfd1²
Jacobsen,M-Getz,N Fagernes 2017] 11.Bg2 Rc8 12.0-0 0-0 13.Rfd1 Bb7
14.Qf4 c5 15.dxc5 Qxc5 16.Rac1² Johannessen,L-Harikrishna,P Skopje
2015) 10.Qc2 (10.Qe3 Qa5+ 11.Nc3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Nd7 13.Bg2 0-0∞
Tkachiev,V-Gaspariants,G Biel 2003) 10...Qa5+
11.Nbd2 (11.Nc3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Nd7 13.Bg2 Rc8∞ Wojtaszek,R-Bacrot,E
Beijing 2014) 11...Nxd2 12.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 13.Kxd2²
b) 7...Bb7 8.Bg2 Qd8 9.0-0 Be7 10.Nc3 0-0 11.Bf4 Nbd7 12.Qc2 Nh5
13.Ng5 Bxg5 14.Bxg5 Qc8 15.d5± Gonzalez Somoza,O-Salas Romero,S
Cartagena 2007.
c) 7...Nc6 8.Nc3 Qa5 9.a3
9...0-0-0 (9...Be7 10.Bf4 [10.Bg2 0-0-0 11.Bf4 Nd5 12.Bd2²] 10...Nd5

11.Bd2 Nxc3 12.Bxc3 Qh5 13.Bg2² Can,E-Agdestein,S Tromsø 2014)
10.Bd2 Qh5 11.e3 Bxf1 12.Kxf1 Kb7 13.Kg2²
d) 7...c5 8.Nc3 Qd8 9.Bg2 Bb7 10.0-0 Nbd7 (10...cxd4 11.Qxd4 Qxd4
12.Nxd4 Bxg2 13.Kxg2²) 11.Bf4 Be7 (11...a6 12.dxc5 Bxc5 13.Rc1 Rc8
14.Ne5 Bxg2 15.Kxg2 Qc7 16.Nxd7 Qb7+ 17.f3 Qxd7 18.Qxd7+ Kxd7
19.Rfd1+² Kragelj,I-Zorko,J Gostovanja 2009) 12.dxc5 (12.Qc2!? 0-0
13.Rfd1 Rc8 14.dxc5 Rxc5 15.b4 Rc8 16.Qb2²) 12...Nxc5 (12...Bxc5?!
13.Bd6 Rc8 14.Nb5²) 13.Qxd8+ Rxd8 14.Ne5² Morozevich,A-Anand,V
Morelia/Linares 2007.
7...Nc6
It is too early for 7...c5 8.Nc3

a) 8...Qd8 9.Bg2 Bb7 10.0-0 Nbd7 11.Rd1 Qc8 12.Bg5 Be7 13.Rac1 0-0
14.e4² El Gindy,E-Mabusela,J Livingstone 2018.
b) 8...Qd7?!
9.Ne5! (9.Be3 Nc6 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Rd1 Nb4∞ Jirovsky,M-Laznicka,V
Karlovy Vary 2004) 9...Qc8 (9...Qxd4? 10.Bf4+–) 10.Qa4+ Nbd7 11.Nxd7
Nxd7 12.d5±
c) 8...Qc6 9.dxc5 (9.Be3 cxd4 10.Bxd4 Nbd7 11.Bg2² Beliavsky, A-Palac,
M Celje 2004; 9.Rg1!? Be7 10.Bg5 Qc8 11.0-0-0²) 9...Bxc5 10.Bg2 Bb7∞
Piket,J-Karpov,A Monte Carlo 1995.
Also unsatisfactory is 7...Qd8
8.Bg2 Bb7 9.0-0 Be4 10.Qa4+ Bc6 11.Qd1 Nbd7 12.Bg5 Be7 13.Nc3 0-0
14.Qc2 Bb7 15.Rfd1² Grivas,E-Horvath,G Panormos 2001.
8.Nc3
8...Nb4!
White is generally happy after 8...Bb4 9.Bd2 Qd7 (9...Bxc3 10.Bxc3 Ne4
11.Bg2² Timman,J-Browne,W Wijk aan Zee 1981) 10.Bg2 0-0 11.a3 Be7
12.Rd1 Rac8 13.Bf4² Gelfand,B-Anand,V Monte Carlo 2003.
9.Qd1
The text looks a bit passive, especially if you take into account Black’s
next.
However, practice has proven that not much is achieved by 9.Qa4+ Qc6!
(9...Qd7 10.Qb3 c5 [10...Qc6 11.Bg2 Bc4 12.Qd1 Rc8 13.0-0 Qb7 14.Ne5
Bd5 15.e4 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 Bxe4 17.Qa4+ 1–0 Bernasek,J-Lahner,J
Luhacovice 2003] 11.Bg2 cxd4 12.Ne5 Qc8 13.Qa4+ Nd7 14.Bxa8 dxc3
15.Nxd7 Qxd7 16.Qxd7+ Kxd7 17.Be4 f5 18.bxc3 fxe4 19.cxb4 Bxb4+
20.Bd2 Bxd2+ 21.Kxd2± Svetlov,D-Saifullin,R Moscow 2008) 10.Qxc6+
(10.Qb3? Nd3+ 11.exd3 Qxf3 12.Qa4+ b5µ Korobov,A-Ponomariov,R
Lvov 2014) 10...Nxc6 11.e3 Bxf1 12.Kxf1 0-0-0 13.Ke2 Bd6 14.Rd1 Rhe8
15.Ng5 Rd7 16.f4 Bb4 17.Bd2 Bxc3 18.Bxc3 h6 19.Nf3 Ne4 20.Be1 f6
21.Kd3 Nc5+ 22.Ke2 Ne4 23.Kd3 Nc5+ 24.Ke2 Ne4 ½-½ Bacrot,E-
Almasi,Z Germany 2014.
9...Qf5!
An active and scary move, as the threat of ...Nc2+ looks quite strong — or
at least annoying!
10.Bg2!
A blunder would be 10.Bf4? Nc2+ 11.Kd2 Nxa1µ Ivanchuk,V-Anand,V

Monte Carlo 2003, while 10.e4 Nxe4 11.Bxa6 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Nxa6 13.Qa4+
b5 14.Qxa6 Qxf3 15.0-0 Bd6 16.Qxb5+ c6∞, seems OK for Black.
10...Nc2+
Black is obliged to go for the text, as he stands badly after 10...0-0-0 11.0-
0± Erenberg,A-Gleizer,M Jerusalem 2018.
11.Kf1
11...0-0-0!
Black shouldn’t be greedy: 11...Nxa1? 12.Qa4+ Nd7 13.Qxa6±
12.Nh4 Rxd4 13.Qxd4 Nxd4 14.Nxf5 exf5 15.a3
15.a4 Bc5 16.Bg5 Re8 17.Bxf6 gxf6° Van Wely,L-Adams,M Mallorca

2004.
15...Nb3 16.Rb1 Bc5 17.Bf3²

Tregubov,P-Duda,J Doha 2015. White has won the exchange, but Black has
active play. Still, White should be slightly on top.
1.5 — 5...C6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 c6

A ‘logical’ idea aiming to play ...d5 and recapture with the c-pawn. But
White can also play ‘logically’ and non-mechanically, omitting or delaying
6.Bg2, achieving a nice edge.
6.Bg5!
The automatic 6.Bg2 d5, would fully justify Black’s last move. Since the
h1-a8 diagonal will be blocked after ...d5, the white bishop will have no
targets from g2.
6...d5
Black can also delay the text move, opting instead for:
a) 6...Be7 7.Nc3 d5 (7...0-0 8.e4²; 7...h6 8.Bxf6 Bxf6 9.e4 d6 10.0-0-0
[10.e5 dxe5 11.dxe5 Be7 12.Ne4 0-0∞ Ipatov,A-Zhigalko,S Cappelle-la-
Grande 2011] 10...Qc7 11.Kb1 Bb7 12.d5 Nd7 13.Nd4 Nc5 14.Qc2²
Safarinejad,J-Ibrahimov,R Mashhad 2010) 8.Bxf6 (8.cxd5 cxd5 9.Bxf6
Bxf6
10.e4 Bxf1 11.Kxf1 dxe4 12.Nxe4 0-0 13.Rc1 Nd7 14.Kg2 Rc8 15.Qa4
Rc7 16.Rc6 Qb8 17.Rhc1 Rfc8 18.Nd6 Rxc6 19.Rxc6 Rxc6 20.Qxc6²
Erdos,V-Miedema,D Deizisau 2010) 8...Bxf6 9.e4 dxc4 (9...Bb7 10.cxd5
cxd5 11.Bb5+² Tunik,G-Sorokin,M Sochi 2004) 10.Bxc4 0-0 (10...b5
11.Be2² Bxd4?! 12.0-0-0± Postl,A-Hentunen,A Izmir 2004) 11.0-0 Bxd4
12.Rfd1 c5 13.Bxa6 Nxa6 14.Qa4 Qf6 15.Nxd4 cxd4 16.Qxd4 Rfd8
17.Qxf6 (17.Qa4 Nc5 18.Rxd8+ Qxd8 19.Qb5 Qd3 ½-½ Tregubov,P-
Schlosser,P Haguenau 2013) 17...gxf6 18.f4 Nc5 19.Kf1²
b) 6...h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.Nc3 g5 9.Bg2 Qe7 10.h4 g4 11.Ne5 Bg7 12.0-0 0-0
13.Rfd1² Eljanov,P-Kamsky,G Kallithea 2008.
7.cxd5 cxd5
7...exd5 transposes to Sub-Chapter 1.4.1. Possible is 7...Qxd5 8.Nc3 (8.Bg2

Qxb3 9.axb3 Bb7 10.Ne5 Nd5 11.Nc4 [11.Bd2 Nd7 12.Nc4²] 11...Bb4+
12.Bd2 Be7 13.0-0 Nd7 14.Nc3² Ilincic,Z-Sax,G Kecskemet 2013) 8...Qxb3
9.axb3 Bb7 10.Bg2 Nd5 11.e4 Nb4 12.0-0 Nd7 13.e5 h6 14.Be3 Be7
15.Nd2² Navara,D-Sax,G Sibenik 2012. All these lines look quite pleasant
for the White player...
8.e3
White can also opt for the direct 8.Bxf6 Qxf6 (8...gxf6 9.e3 Bxf1 [9...Qd7
10.Bxa6 Nxa6 11.0-0 Rc8 12.Nc3² Jurcik,M-Druska,J Slovakia 2014]
10.Kxf1 Be7 [10...Nc6 11.Nc3 Na5 12.Qd1 Rc8 13.Rc1 Be7
14.Kg2 0-0 15.Rc2² Bermejo Collado,J-Pogorelov,R Collado Villalba 2005]
11.Kg2 Nc6 12.Rc1 Qd7 13.Nbd2² Kulaots,K-Gustafsson,J Ermioni 2006)
9.Nc3 Qe7 (9...Qd8?! 10.Ne5 Bd6 11.Qa4+ Kf8 12.e4± Kulaots,K-
Alekseev,E Moscow 2004) 10.e3 (10.a3 Qb7 11.Bg2 Nd7 12.0-0 Be7=
Halkias,S-Postny,E Mureck 1998) 10...Bxf1 11.Kxf1²
8...Bxf1 9.Kxf1 Be7 10.Kg2

10...Nc6
Black has also tried:

a) 10...Nbd7?! 11.Rc1 0-0 12.Nc3 a6 (12...Ne4 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.Rc2²)
13.Na4 b5 14.Bxf6 Nxf6 15.Nc5²
b) 10...h6?! 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Rc1 0-0 13.Nc3 Qd7 14.Rc2 Nc6 15.Qa4
Rfc8 16.Rac1± Grivas,E-Tsouktakos,N Athens 2004.
c) 10...0-0 11.Nc3 (11.Rc1 Nbd7 12.Nc3 Ne4 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.Rc2²)
11...Nc6 12.Rhc1 Qd7 13.Qa4² Grivas,E-Ivanchuk,V Iraklion 2004.
11.Rc1 Na5 12.Qb5+ Qd7 13.Qa6!

Grivas,E-Genov,P Iraklion 1993. White’s pieces stand better and more
harmoniously, so he holds the advantage.
1.6 — 5...NC6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Nc6

The most frequently played continuation (threatening 6...Na5), so it should
be considered the main line. After...
6.Nbd2
Black has a choice between:
6...Bb7, 6...d5 and 6...Na5.
1.6.1 — 6...BB7
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Bb7
Somewhat passive. White can achieve positions with a spatial advantage as

in Sub-Chapter 1.2, or even try to be more aggressive. In both cases he
seems to be doing all right.
7.e4 d5
Black’s main alternative is 7...Na5 8.Qc2 and now:

a) 8...Bb4 9.Bd3 c5 (9...0-0 10.0-0 Bxd2 [10...h6 11.a3 Bxd2 12.Bxd2 Nc6
13.d5 Ne7 14.Bc3± Moiseenko,A-Smirnov,A Moscow 2014] 11.Bxd2 d5
12.cxd5 exd5 13.e5 Ne4 14.Bxa5 bxa5 15.Nd2± Tancik,K-Mirkovic,S
Vrnjacka Banja 2006) 10.a3!? (10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.0-0 Rc8 12.Qd1 [12.e5
Ng4 13.Be4 Nc6 14.a3 Qc7 15.b4 Nd4 16.Qb2 Nxf3+ 17.Bxf3 Bxf3
18.Nxf3 Bxf2+ 19.Rxf2 Nxf2 20.Qxf2 Qxc4 21.Bb2∞; 12.Rb1 Nc6 13.a3
Qc7 14.b4 Be7 15.Bb2 d6 16.Rbc1²] 12...Ng4 13.a3² Barlov,D-Benjamin,J
New York 1987) 10...Bxd2+ 11.Bxd2 b5! 12.b3 cxd4 13.Nxd4 bxc4
14.bxc4 Nc6 15.Nxc6 Bxc6 16.c5²
b) 8...d5 9.cxd5 exd5 10.e5 Ne4 11.Bb5+ c6 12.Bd3 f5 (12...Nxd2 13.Bxd2
Be7 14.0-0 Nc4 15.Bc1 h6 16.b3 Na3 17.Bxa3 Bxa3
18.e6! fxe6 19.Ne5 1–0 Moiseenko,A-Berzinsh,R Warsaw 2010) 13.exf6

Qxf6 14.0-0 Nxd2 15.Nxd2 0-0-0 (15...Qxd4? 16.Nf3 Qc5 17.Re1+ Be7
18.b4!+–) 16.Bf5+ Kb8 17.Nf3 h6 18.Ne5² Sargissian,G-Shetty,R Dubai
2005.
c) 8...c5 9.d5!? (9.e5 Ng4 10.h3 Nh6 11.Ne4∞) 9...exd5 10.exd5 Bd6
11.Bd3²
d) 7...Be7 8.d5 exd5 9.cxd5 (9.exd5 Nb4 10.Bg2 0-0 11.0-0 c6 12.a3 Na6∞
Barbot,P-Ibrahim,H Sautron 2015) 9...Nb4 10.a3 Na6 11.Bxa6! (11.Qc2 0-0
12.Be2 Rc8 13.0-0² Stajcic,N-Grabuzova,T Pardubice 1993) 11...Bxa6
12.e5 Ng8 13.Ne4±
e) 7...a5 8.a3 a4 9.Qc2 d6 10.d5 (10.Bd3 e5 11.d5 Nb8 12.0-0 Nbd7 13.b4²
Ilincic,Z-Fernandez,D Kecskemet 2014) 10...Nb8 11.Bh3 e5 12.Nb1 Bc8
13.Bxc8 Qxc8 14.Nc3 Qa6 15.Nb5 Qb7 16.Bg5 Nfd7 17.0-0² Braun,A-
Dgebuadze,A Germany 2010.
f) 7...Bb4 8.d5 (8.Bd3 a5 9.Qc2 Be7 10.a3 d6 11.b3 e5 12.Bb2 [12.d5²]
12...exd4 13.Nxd4 Nxd4 14.Bxd4² Palac,M-Hardicsay,P Obertraun 2011)
8...Bxd2+ 9.Bxd2 Ne7 10.Bd3 d6 11.0-0² Farago,I-Lauer,M Nuremberg
2008.
g) 7...d6 8.Bg2 Be7 9.d5 exd5 10.exd5 Nb8 11.0-0 c5 12.Qc2±
Gruskovnjak,T-Schreiner,P Graz 2010.
8.cxd5 exd5 9.e5 Ne4 10.Bd3
This is a critical position for the evaluation of the variation. Black’s pieces,
barring his e4-knight, look a bit lousy...
10...Bb4
Other ways for Black are:
a) 10...Qd7 11.0-0 Qg4 (11...Be7 12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.Bxe4 Nxd4 14.e6! fxe6
15.Nxd4 Bxe4 16.Nxe6 c6 17.Nxg7+ Kd8 18.Ne6+± Bernasek,J-Markos,J
Czech Republic 2008; 11...Nb4 12.Bb1 c5 13.Re1± Lautier,J-Tukmakov,V
Odessa 2006) 12.Qd1 0-0-0 13.Nb3 Kb8 14.Be3²
b) 10...Nb4 11.Bb1 (11.Bb5+! c6 12.Be2 c5 13.0-0²) 11...c5 12.0-0 Rc8
13.a3 (13.Re1 c4 14.Qe3 Nd3 15.Bxd3 cxd3 16.Qxd3 Be7 17.Nxe4 dxe4
18.Rxe4 Qd5 19.Re3 Bg5 20.Re1 Be7=; 13.dxc5 Bxc5 14.Nxe4 dxe4
15.Rd1 Qe7 16.Ng5 Nd3 17.Bxd3 exd3 18.Qxd3 h6 19.Ne4 0-0°) 13...c4
14.Qe3 Nd3 15.Bxd3 cxd3 16.Qxd3 Be7 17.Ne1 0-0 18.f3 Ng5 19.Nb3²
Stohl,I-Hracek,Z Czech Republic 1998.
c) 10...f5 11.exf6 Qxf6 (11...Nxf6 12.0-0 Be7
13.Ng5! [13.Ne5 Nxe5 {13...0-0 14.Ndf3 Na5 15.Qc2± Germanavicius,S-

Godlauskas,K Lithuania 2007} 14.dxe5 Nd7 15.Qc2 Nxe5 16.Bxh7 Qd6µ
Sharafiev,A-Bocharov,D Kazan 2015] 13...Qd7 14.Ndf3 0-0 15.Re1 Rae8
16.Bd2±) 12.Qxd5!? (12.0-0 0-0-0 13.Nxe4 dxe4 14.Bxe4 Nxd4 15.Bxb7+
Kxb7 16.Nxd4 Rxd4 17.Be3 Rb4 18.Qd5+ Qc6 19.Qd2 Bd6=) 12...Nxd2
13.Bxd2 Rd8 14.Qe4+ Be7 15.d5! Na5 16.Bb5+ Kf8 17.Bg5 Bxd5 18.Qe3
Qe6 19.0-0²
d) 10...Be7 11.0-0 (11.Nxe4 dxe4 12.Bxe4 Nxd4 13.Qa4+ b5 14.Qxd4
Qxd4 15.Nxd4 Bxe4 16.0-0 a6 17.Re1 Bd5 18.Nf5 Bf8∞ Ipatov,A-
Sasikiran,K Cappelle-la-Grande 2011) 11...0-0 12.Re1 f5 13.exf6 Nxf6
14.a3 Kh8 (14...Bd6 15.Qc2 Re8 16.Rxe8+ Qxe8 17.b4 Qh5 18.Bb2²
Morozevich,A-Sasikiran,K Eilat 2012) 15.Qd1 Bc8 16.Qc2 Qd6 17.b4 Ng4
18.Bb2± Matlakov,M-Voss,G Bilbao 2014.
11.0-0
11...0-0
Black can also opt for:

a) 11...Bxd2 12.Bxd2 0-0 (12...Nxd2 13.Nxd2 0-0 [13...Nxd4? 14.Qa4+
Nc6 15.Bb5+–] 14.Nf3² Christensen,K-Jorgensen,D Copenhagen 2010)
13.Be3 (13.Qc2 f6 [13...f5?! 14.Rac1 {14.Bb5 Ne7 15.b4 c6 16.Be2 Ng6
17.a4 Rc8 18.Qb2 Rc7 19.b5 c5 20.dxc5 Nxd2 21.Nxd2 bxc5 22.f4²
Nielsen,P-Sasikiran,K Copenhagen 2003} 14...Nxd2 15.Qxd2± Wang,R-
Yu,S Beijing 2005] 14.Bc3 fxe5 [14...Qd7
15.Nh4! {15.Rad1 fxe5 16.Bxe4 dxe4 17.dxe5 Qg4∞ Tsiganova,M-

Kulaots,K Tallinn 2004} 15...g6 16.f4²] 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Qe7∞)
13...Ne7 (13...Na5 14.Qc2± Bocharov,D-Zakharov,A Taganrog 2016;
13...h6 14.Rac1 a5 15.a3 Ne7 16.Nh4± Kryakvin,D-Tunik,G Taganrog
2014; 13...Kh8 14.Nh4 f5 15.exf6 Nxf6 16.f3 a5 17.a3 Ba6 18.Bxa6 Rxa6
19.Rac1± Zakhartsov,V-Moranda,W Warsaw 2008) 14.Nh4 g5 15.Ng2±
Tugstumur,Y-Issani,N Porto Carras 2015.
b) 11...Nxd2 12.Nxd2 (12.Bxd2 Bxd2 13.Nxd2 0-0 14.Nf3²) 12...0-0
13.Nf3 f5 14.Bf4± Murshed,N-Shetty,R Chennai 2013.
12.Rd1
12.Qc2 f5 13.a3 Be7 14.b4 Qd7 15.Bb2 Nd8 16.Rac1 Ne6∞ Simantsev,M-
Dobrowolski,P Wroclaw 2014.
12...Bxd2
12...Ng5 13.Nxg5 Qxg5 14.Nf3 Qh5 15.Bf4² Lerner,K-Novikov,I Yalta
1982.
13.Bxd2
13...Kh8
Again, Black is at a crossroads:

a) 13...a5 14.Rac1 Rc8 15.a3! (15.Qa4 Ne7 16.b4 axb4 17.Bxb4 c5 18.dxc5
bxc5 19.Qa7 cxb4 20.Qxb7 Nc3 21.Re1 Rb8 22.Qa7 ½-½ Riazantsev,A-
Ivanov,S St Petersburg 2005) 15...Kh8 16.Bb5 Ne7 17.Be2² Dydyshko,V-
Maiorov,N Minsk 2007.
b) 13...h6 14.Rac1 Qe7 15.Qa4 Nxd2 16.Rxd2 Nd8 17.Nh4± Bukavshin,I-
Khegay,D Yerevan 2015.
c) 13...Qd7 14.Rac1 Rac8 (14...a6 15.Bf4 Rac8 16.a3 Ne7 17.Qc2 Ng6
18.Be3² Girya,O-Rakic,M Tromsø 2014) 15.Be3 Na5 16.Qc2 Nc4 17.Bf4
h6 18.b3± Navara,D-Ivanchuk,V Sochi 2008.
14.Rac1
Also good is 14.Bf4 f6 15.exf6 Rxf6 16.Rac1² Lautier,J-Sasikiran,K

Corsica 2005, but not 14.Be3 f6 15.Bb5 Na5 16.Qc2 Nc4!∞ Karpov,A-
Lautier,J Cap d’Agde 2003.
14...f6 15.Bf4
15.Bb5 is a good alternative: 15...Ne7 (15...Qd7 16.exf6 [16.e6?! Qxe6

17.Qa4 Qf5∞ Aleshin,O-Xu,Y Moscow 2005) 16...Rxf6 17.Bxc6 Rxc6
18.Bf4±) 16.Bb4 a6 17.Bd3²
15...fxe5
A proposed novelty over 15...Na5?! 16.Qc2 Rc8 17.b4± Sargissian,G-

Zhang,Z Internet 2004.
16.dxe5 Qc8 17.Bf1²
White holds a pleasant advantage due to his bishop pair and better central
pieces, while Black’s activity is limited.
1.6.2 — 6...D5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 d5
Another Vishy Anand preference. In my opinion, in the resulting ‘QGD-

Tartakower Defence’ pawn structure position types that arise, White keeps a
slight but (nearly) permanent edge.
7.Bg2
It is too ‘early’ for 7.Qa4, which scores poorly: 7...Bb7 8.Bg2 (8.Ne5 Bd6!
9.Bg2 [9.Nxc6 Qd7=] 9...0-0 10.Nxc6 Qd7 11.0-0 Rfe8 12.Qc2 Bxc6
13.Rd1 Rad8 14.b3 e5 15.e4 dxe4 16.d5 Bb7 17.Nxe4 Nxe4 18.Bxe4 g6
19.Bb2 a5 20.Bg2 Bc5 21.Re1 Bd4 22.Rad1 c5 23.dxc6 Bxc6 24.Bxd4 ½-½
Grivas,E-Delchev,A Varna 1994) 8...Qd7 9.cxd5 (9.0-0 Bd6 10.Qc2 Nb4
11.Qd1 c5 12.cxd5 exd5 13.b3 0-0 14.Bb2∞ Piket,J-Leko,P Monte Carlo
2002) 9...exd5 10.0-0 Bd6 11.Nb1
11...Ne4! (11...Ne5 12.Qxd7+ Nexd7 13.Nc3 c6 14.Bf4 Bxf4 15.gxf4 Ke7

16.Rac1 Rhd8 17.Rc2² Gyimesi,Z-Sax,G Szekesfehervar 2006) 12.Ng5
(12.Be3 Ne5!= Gelfand,B-Grischuk,A Moscow 2002) 12...Nxg5 13.Bxg5
Nd8! 14.Qb3 c6= Khalifman,A-Anand,V Prague 2002.
7...Bd6
This is the ‘latest’ word in theory.

Black has tried the following alternatives:
a) 7...Bb7 8.cxd5 (8.0-0 Be7 [8...Bd6 9.cxd5 {9.a3 a5 10.Qc2 a4?! 11.cxd5
exd5 12.e4 dxe4 13.Nxe4 Nxe4 14.Qxe4+ Kf8 15.Bf4± Koneru,H-Zhao,X
Jermuk 2012} 9...exd5 10.Nb1 0-0 11.Nc3 Na5! 12.Qc2 h6 13.Bf4 Bxf4
14.gxf4= Vallejo Pons,F-Anand,V Linares 2003] 9.cxd5! exd5 [9...Qxd5
10.Qa4 {10.Ne5? Nxd4!! 11.Bxd5 Nxe2+ 12.Kh1 Bxd5+–+; 10.Qc2!?
Nxd4? 11.Qa4+ Nc6 12.Nd4+–} 10...b5 11.Qd1²] 10.Ne5! 0-0 11.Nxc6
Bxc6 12.Nf3 Bb7 13.Bf4 Ne4 [13...Re8 14.Rac1 Bd6 15.Bxd6 Qxd6 16.e3
Re7 17.Rc2 h5 18.Rfc1² Vallejo Pons,F-Tkachiev,V Biel 2002] 14.Rac1 c5
[½-½ Sebenik,M-Stohl,I Austria 2005] 15.dxc5 Bxc5 16.Ne5! [16.Rcd1
Qe7 17.Be3 Rfd8 18.Bxc5 Nxc5 19.Qc2 Rac8 20.Qd2 Ne4 21.Qd3 Nc5
22.Qd2 Ne4 23.Qd3 Nc5 24.Qd2 Ne4 25.Qd3 Nc5 ½-½ Xu,M-Liu,G China
2018] 16...Qe7 17.Nd3²)
8...Qxd5!? (8...exd5 9.Ne5 a6 [9...Nxd4?! 10.Qa4+ Nc6 11.Ndc4! {11.Nxc6

Qd7} 11...Bb4+ 12.Kf1 dxc4 13.Bxc6+ Bxc6 14.Qxc6+ Kf8 15.Bg5 Qe8
16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Qxf6± Halkias,S-Mastrovasilis,A Antalya 2004] 10.Nxc6
Bxc6 11.Nf3 Bd6 12.Ne5 Bxe5 13.dxe5 Ne4 14.Qc2 Bb7 15.0-0 0-0
16.Be3 Qe7 17.f3 Nc5 18.Bxc5 bxc5 19.f4²
Vallejo Pons,F-Anand,V Germany 2002) 9.0-0 (9.Qxd5 Nxd5 10.a3 Be7
11.b3 0-0 12.Bb2 Rac8 13.0-0 Nb8 14.Rfc1 c5 15.dxc5 Bxc5 16.b4 ½-½
Huzman,A-Lerner,K Ashdod 2003; 9.e3 Bd6 10.0-0 0-0 11.Qd1 Qb5 12.a4
Qd3 13.b3 Rad8 14.Nc4 Qxd1 15.Rxd1 Ne4 16.Nfd2 Nc3 17.Re1 Bb4
18.Bb2 Nd5= Lysyj,I-Tomashevsky,E Krasnoyarsk 2007) 9...Qxb3 10.Nxb3
0-0-0 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.e3 Bd6 14.Rac1 Ne7 15.Nfd2 f5
16.Bxb7+ Kxb7 17.Nf3 Nd5 18.Rfd1 Nf6 19.a3 Rhg8 20.Kf1 h5 21.Nbd2
Ne4 22.Nc4 Ng5 23.Nxg5 Rxg5 24.h4 Rgg8 25.b4²
Timman,J-Pogorelov,R Reykjavik 2004.

b) 7...Be7 8.Qa4 Bb7 9.cxd5 exd5 10.Ne5 (10.Nc4? dxc4! [10...Qd7
11.Ne3 0-0 12.0-0=] 11.Ne5 Nd5! [11...Bb4+? 12.Kf1 0-0 13.Nxc6 Qd7
{13...Qe8 14.Qxb4 Bxc6 15.Qxc4 Bb5 16.Qc2 Rd8 17.a4² Ivanchuk,V-
Almasi,Z Monte Carlo 2003} 14.Bg5! Rfe8 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Bf3 a6! 17.d5!
{17.Rd1 b5 18.Qxb4 Bxc6 19.d5² Pelletier,Y-Naiditsch,A Zürich 2002}
17...Bxc6 18.dxc6 Qd2 19.a3 Bc5 20.Qxc4 Qxb2 21.Kg2²] 12.Nxc6 [12.e4?
Ndb4 13.d5 Nc2+–+] 12...Qd7 13.Bxd5 Qxd5 14.Nxe7+ Kxe7 15.Qa3+
Kd7 16.f3 Rae8 17.Be3 Re6µ) 10...Qd6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Ndf3²
c) 7...Qd7 8.0-0! (8.Qa4 Bb7 9.0-0 Bd6 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Nb1 Ne4 12.Be3
Ne5!= Gelfand,B-Grischuk,A Moscow 2002) 8...Bd6 (8...Be7 9.Ne5 Nxe5
10.dxe5 dxc4! 11.Nxc4 Nd5 12.Rd1 Qb5 13.Ne3! [13.e4 Qxb3 14.axb3
Nb4 15.Nd6+! cxd6 16.exd6 Be2 17.Rd2 Bb5 18.dxe7 Kxe7 19.e5 Bc6
20.Rd1=] 13...c6 14.Nxd5 cxd5 15.e4 dxe4 16.Bxe4 Rc8 17.Qxb5+ Bxb5
18.Be3²) 9.Qc3!
c1) 9...0-0 10.Ne5! Bxe5 11.dxe5 Ng4 (11...d4? 12.Qa3+–; 11...Ne8 12.b3
Rd8 13.Ba3 Ne7 14.Rad1±) 12.b4! (12.f4?! Rad8 13.b3 dxc4 14.Nxc4
Nd4∞) 12...dxc4 (12...d4? 13.Qa3! Bb7 14.b5 Na5 15.Bxb7 Nxb7
16.Qf3+–) 13.a4! (13.Nf3 f6 14.a4² Ponomariov, R-Anand, V Cap d’Agde
2003) 13...Qd4 (13...b5 14.Nb3!±) 14.Bb2 Rad8 15.Bxc6 Qxd2 16.b5±
c2) 9...Bb7 10.a3 0-0 11.b4 a6 12.Bb2 Rfd8 13.Rac1² Brynell,S-Agrest,E
Gothenburg 2005.
c3) 9...Bb4 10.Qc2 Bxd2! 11.cxd5 Nxd5 12.Qxd2 Rd8 13.Rd1²
8.cxd5 exd5 9.Qa4 Bb7
10.Nc4!
A much better try than 10.0-0 0-0 11.Nb1 (A typical manoeuvre: the knight
has nothing to do on d2, so it’s transferred to c3) 11...Ne4! 12.Bf4 (12.Nc3
Nxc3 13.bxc3 Na5 14.Nd2 Qe8! 15.Qd1 Qc6 16.Bb2 Nc4 17.Nxc4 Qxc4=
Morovic Fernandez,I-San Segundo Carrillo,P Mallorca 2004) 12...Re8
13.Rc1 Bxf4 14.gxf4 Ne7 15.Nc3 Nf5 16.e3 c5 17.dxc5 Nxc5= Gelfand,B-
Leko,P Monaco 2002.
10...Bb4+
The most critical continuation. White gets an easy game after the
alternatives:
a) 10...dxc4 11.Ne5 Bxe5 12.Bxc6+ Bxc6 13.Qxc6+ Kf8 14.dxe5 Qd5
15.Qxd5 Nxd5 16.Bd2! c5 (16...Re8!? 17.f4 f5 18.Rc1 b5 19.b3 Nb6
20.Be3 Kf7 21.Kf2 Rc8 22.Rhd1²) 17.0-0-0! (17.a4 Re8 18.f4 f6 19.e4 Nb4
20.Bxb4 cxb4 21.Rc1 Rc8 22.exf6 gxf6 23.Ke2 Ke7 24.Rhd1 Rc5 25.Rd4
½-½ Bykhovsky,A-Lerner,K Tel Aviv 2002) 17...Nc7 (17...Ke7 18.Bh6
gxh6 19.Rxd5±) 18.Kc2 (18.e4 h6 19.Kc2 Ne6 20.Kc3± Gyimesi,Z-
Cvitan,O Sibenik 2006) 18...Ke7 19.Kc3± Kramnik,V-Leko,P Monte Carlo
2002.
b) 10...0-0 11.Nxd6 cxd6 (11...Qxd6 12.0-0 Rfe8 13.Bf4²) 12.0-0 Re8
13.Re1 a6 14.Bg5 b5 15.Qa3 h6 16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.e3² Aleshin,O-
Pedersen,N Pardubice 2005.
11.Bd2
11...Bxd2+
Playable is 11...dxc4 12.Bxb4 Qd5 (12...a6 13.Bc3 b5 14.Qa3²) 13.0-0 0-0-

0?! (13...a5 14.Bc3 b5 15.Qc2²) 14.Ne5 Ne4 15.Nxc6 Qxc6 16.Qxa7
(16.Qxc6 Bxc6 17.f3 Nf6 18.Bc3 Nd5 19.Bd2 Ne7 20.e4 Rxd4 21.Bc3 Rd3
22.Bxg7± Goldin,A-Ashley,M Seattle 2003) 16...Qe6 17.a4 Rxd4 18.a5±
12.Ncxd2
12.Nfxd2 Qd7 13.Ne3 0-0=
12...0-0 13.0-0
13...Qd6
13...Qe7 14.e3 (14.Rac1 Nd8 15.b4 Ne6 16.Qb3 Ne4 17.e3 c5 18.bxc5
bxc5 19.Qa3 Rfe8 20.dxc5 N6xc5 21.Rc2² Kanep,M-Veingold,A Tallinn
2004) 14...Nd8 15.Rac1 Ne6 (15...c5?! 16.dxc5 bxc5 17.Qa3 Ne6 18.Nb3
Rfc8 19.Nfd4± Vidit,S-Mozharov,M Moscow 2015) 16.b4²
14.e3
Possible is 14.Rac1 a5 15.a3 Nd8 16.e3 Ne6 17.Nb1 c5 18.Nc3²

Riazantsev,A-Brodsky,M Sochi 2004.
14...a5 15.Rfc1
Also playable is 15.Rac1 Ne7 16.Qb3 Nd7 (16...Rfe8!? 17.Qc2 c6 18.Ne5²)

17.Rfd1 c5 18.Qa3 Qe6 (18...Rfc8 19.Bh3 f5 20.dxc5 bxc5 21.e4!±)
19.dxc5 Nxc5 (19...bxc5 20.Nb3±) 20.Nd4 Qf6 21.N2b3 Nxb3 22.Qxb3±
Lysyj, I-Shaposhnikov, E Cheliabinsk 2005.
15...Nb4 16.Ne1 c5 17.dxc5 bxc5 18.a3 Bc6 19.Qd1 Na6 20.e4!²

Gyimesi,Z-Kovacevic,A Vogosca 2007. White enjoys a typically better
endgame as he can enforce pressure on the queenside, but of course Black’s
chances should not be underestimated.
1.6.3 — 6...NA5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Na5
This is supposed to be the ‘main line’. The move in question for us is

White’s next, which gave new life to the 5.Qb3 variation. White enjoys a
small advantage but he has to be quite prepared and ready to go for some
complications.
It must be noted here that Black has at his disposal the ‘weak’ continuation
6...Bb4?! 7.d5 Bxd2+ 8.Bxd2
8...exd5 (8...Na5 9.Qa4 Ne4 10.Bxa5 bxa5 11.dxe6 fxe6 12.Bg2 0-0 13.0-0
Rb8 14.Ne5± Vaganian,R-Nogueiras,J Montpellier 1985; 8...Ne7 9.Bc3 Nf5
10.Nd2 Nd6 11.f3 0-0 12.e4 exd5 13.cxd5 Bxf1 14.Rxf1± Kasparov,G-
Speelman,J La Valetta 1980) 9.cxd5 Ne7 10.Qa4 Bb7 11.e4 0-0 12.Bg2 c6
13.d6 Ng6 14.0-0² Miedema,D-Petrov,M Skopje 2017.
Lately another interesting continuation has been played: 6...h5
7.e4 (7.Bg2 h4 Romanov,E-Kovalenko,I Liepaja 2015, looks rather unclear)

7...h4 8.e5! (8.Qa4? Bb7 9.d5 hxg3! 10.dxc6 Bxc6 11.Qc2 gxf2+µ
Damaso,R-Navara,D Jerusalem 2015) 8...Ng4 9.Bh3 f5!? (9...Nh6 10.d5
Na5 [10...exd5 11.cxd5 Nb4 12.Nc4 Nxd5 13.Bg5 Be7 14.gxh4±] 11.Qc3²
Sunilduth Lyna,N-Kovalenko,I Warsaw 2015) 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.Qd3 hxg3
12.hxg3 Bd6 (12...Qe7 13.Ne5 Rh5 14.Nxc6 dxc6 15.g4!²; 12...Ne7
13.Ng5±) 13.Ng5 Qe7 14.Qg6+ Kf8 15.Bg2 Rxh1+ 16.Bxh1 Rc8 (16...Qe8
17.Nh7+ Nxh7 18.Qxh7 Qf7 19.b3 Bb7 20.Bb2²) 17.b3 (17.Bxc6 dxc6
18.b3 Qe8 19.Nh7+ Nxh7 20.Qxh7²) 17...Nxd4 18.Bb2 c5 19.0-0-0°/². Of
course, more analysis is needed, but White seems to keep the upper hand.
7.Qc3!
This move sparked new life in the 5.Qb3 variation. The old continuation
was 7.Qc2 c5 8.Bg2 Rc8 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.Qa4 Bb7 11.b4 Bc6 12.Qa3 Bxf3
13.Bxf3 Bd4 14.Rb1 Nxc4 15.Nxc4 Rxc4 16.Qxa7 Bc3+ 17.Bd2 Bxd2+
18.Kxd2 Ne4+ 19.Bxe4 Rxe4 20.Rhc1 0-0 21.Ke1 Qg5 22.Qxd7 Rxb4
23.Qd2 Qxd2+ 24.Kxd2 ½-½ Grivas,E-Vaganian,R Rome 1995, or 7.Qa4
Bb7 8.Bg2 c5 9.dxc5 bxc5 10.0-0 Qc7 11.Rd1 Be7 12.Ng5 Bxg2 13.Kxg2
Rb8 14.Qc2 Qb7+ 15.Kg1 Nc6 ½-½ Khalifman,A-Adams,M Kallithea
2002.
Now Black can mainly choose between 7...d5 and 7...c5.
Note that Black should refrain from:

a) 7...Bxc4?! 8.Nxc4 Nd5 9.Qd3 (9.Qc2 Nb4 10.Qa4 Nxc4 11.a3 b5 12.Qb3
Na5 13.Qd1 Nbc6 14.e4± Riazantsev,A-Koneru,H Dubai 2005) 9...Nb4
10.Qd1 Nxc4 11.a3 Nc6 12.e4 Nd6 (12...d5 13.Bxc4 dxc4 14.Qa4 Qd7
15.Qxc4± Istratescu,A-Prince,B Graz 2017) 13.e5 Nf5 14.d5 (14.Bh3 g6
15.0-0 Bg7 16.Re1 Nfe7 17.Bg2° Tunik,G-Anoshkin,A Belorechensk 2009)
14...Nce7 15.Bh3 exd5 16.0-0±
b) 7...Bb7?! 8.b4 Nc6 9.a3 a5 (9...d5 10.Bb2 g6 11.Bg2 Bg7 12.0-0 0-0
13.Rfd1² Andersen,M-Sargissian,G Reykjavik 2016) 10.b5 Ne7 11.Bg2
Ne4 12.Nxe4 Bxe4 13.0-0 Nf5 14.Bb2± Istratescu,A-Iordachescu,V
Bucharest 2018.
1.6.3.1 — 7...D5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Na5 7.Qc3! d5
The classical approach; Black wishes to put pressure on, and clarify, the
centre.
8.c5
A good reply, expanding on the queenside.

Nothing is gained by 8.b3 c5 9.dxc5 bxc5 10.e3 Be7 11.Bb2 Qb6 12.Bg2 0-
0 13.Ne5 Rad8= Martinovic,S-Tosic,M Pirot 2004, or 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Qc2
c5 10.a3 Rc8 11.dxc5 Rxc5 12.Qd1 Rc8 13.e4 Bxf1 14.Kxf1 Nf6=
Riazantsev,A-Mchedlishvili,M Dubai 2005.
8...Be7
Black can alternatively opt for:

a) 8...c6 9.b4 Nc4 (9...Nb7?! 10.Ne5±) 10.Nxc4 dxc4!? (10...Bxc4 11.Ne5
a5 12.Nxc4 [12.Nxc6? Qc8 13.Ne5 axb4 14.Qxb4 bxc5µ] 12...axb4
13.Qxb4 dxc4 [13...bxc5
14.Qb7! {14.dxc5 dxc4 15.Bg2 Nd5 16.Qb7 Qa5+ 17.Bd2 Qa6=} 14...dxc4
15.Bg2 Rc8 16.Bxc6+ Nd7 17.d5±] 14.Qxc4²) 11.Qc2 (11.Bg2 Nd5
12.Qa3² Holm,R-Rajkovic,D Veliko Gradiste 2016) 11...Nd5 12.Bd2 Qf6
13.Rc1 (13.Bg2 bxc5 14.bxc5 Bxc5 15.0-0 Bxd4 [15...Bb6 16.e4 Nc7
17.Bg5 Qg6 18.Bf4±] 16.Bg5 Bxa1 17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.e4±) 13...Be7
14.Bg2± Lautier,J-Markus,R Gothenburg 2005.
b) 8...Rc8 9.b4 (9.Ne5 Nd7 10.Nxd7 Qxd7
11.b4 Nc4 12.e3 Bb7 13.Be2 b5 14.a4 a6 15.axb5 axb5 16.Ra7²

Bocharov,D-Esipenko,A Sochi 2018) 9...Nc4 10.Nxc4 dxc4 (10...Bxc4
11.Ne5±) 11.Bg2 (11.Bg5 Be7 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Bg2 Bb7 14.Qxc4 Bxf3
15.Bxf3 Qxd4 16.Qb5+ Ke7 17.0-0² Goganov,A-Zhigalko,S St Petersburg
2018) 11...c6 12.0-0 (12.Ne5 Nd5 13.Qa3
13...Nxb4! 14.Qxb4 Qxd4 15.Bxc6+ Rxc6 16.Nxc6 Qd5 17.0-0 Qxc6
18.Be3 Be7 19.Qa3 bxc5 20.Rab1 0-0° Thybo,J-Hansen,S Denmark 2019)
12...Nd5 13.Qa3 Bb5 14.e4±
c) 8...Rb8 9.Ne5 (9.e3 Bxf1 10.Kxf1 Nc6 11.cxb6 Rxb6 12.a3 Bd6 13.Kg2
0-0 14.b3 Re8 15.Bb2 e5∞ Gasanov,E-Nguyen,T Marianske Lazne 2017)
9...Nd7 10.Nxd7 Qxd7 11.b4 Nc4 12.e3 bxc5 13.bxc5 (13.dxc5 Nxd2
14.Bxd2 Bxf1 15.Kxf1 Qc6 16.f3 a5 17.a3 Rg8 18.Kf2² Romanov,E-
Zhigalko,S Kishinev 2016) 13...Nxd2 14.Bxd2 Bxf1 15.Kxf1 Be7 16.Kg2
0-0 17.Rhb1²
d) 8...Nc4 9.Nxc4 Bxc4 10.b3 Ba6 11.b4 Be7 12.Bg2 0-0 13.Qc2 Qe8
(13...bxc5 14.bxc5 Rb8 15.Ne5 Qe8 16.0-0² Percivaldi,M-Romanishin,O
Warsaw 2015) 14.a4 bxc5 15.bxc5 Rb8 16.0-0² Percivaldi,M-Nizamov,B
Porec 2015.
In all the above variations, White’s superiority on the queenside is a key
factor and gives him a healthy advantage.
9.b4
A natural follow-up, and a proposed novelty, but White can also think of
9.e3 Bxf1 10.Kxf1
10...Qd7! (10...0-0 11.b4 Nc6 12.cxb6 [12.Kg2? Ne4 13.Qa3 a5µ

Huzman,A-Pavlidis,A Berlin 2015] 12...Qd7 13.b7 Bxb4 14.Qb2 Rab8
15.Ne5²) 11.b4 (11.a4?! Nc6 12.Ne5 Nxe5 13.dxe5 d4∞ Van Wely,L-
Hracek,Z Germany 2005) 11...Qb5+ 12.Kg2 Nc6 13.Rb1², but hardly for
9.Bg2 0-0 10.b4 Nc6 11.cxb6 Bb5 12.b7 Rb8 13.a3 Ne4 14.Qe3 Nd6∞
Wells,P-Carlsson,P Gibraltar 2006.
9...Nc4 10.Nxc4
10.a4?! bxc5 11.dxc5 Nxd2 12.Nxd2 0-0 13.Bb2 c6 14.Bg2 Rb8=

10...dxc4!
Black should avoid 10...Ne4?! 11.Qc2 Bxc4 12.Ne5 Bb5 13.a4±, or

10...Bxc4?! 11.Ne5 b5 12.Bg2 0-0 13.a4±
11.Bg2
11.Qc2 0-0 12.Bg2 Bb7! 13.Qxc4 Bd5°
11...Nd5 12.Qc2 0-0

13.0-0
A tactical way to gain the advantage.

13.Bd2 Bf6 14.e4 (14.0-0?! c3 15.Bxc3 bxc5 16.bxc5 Nxc3 17.Qxc3
Bxe2³) 14...bxc5! (14...c3 15.Bxc3 Nxc3 16.Qxc3 bxc5 17.e5! Be7
[17...cxd4?! 18.Qc6! Be7 19.Qxa6 Bxb4+ 20.Ke2±] 18.dxc5 Qd7 [18...Qd5
19.Nh4 Qd7 20.Bxa8 Rxa8 21.a4±] 19.Nd4 Rad8 20.0-0-0±) 15.bxc5
(15.exd5 cxd4 16.Qa4 Bb7°) 15...c3 16.Bxc3 Nxc3 17.Qxc3 Qe8°
13...c3
13...Nxb4?!
14.Qa4 bxc5 15.dxc5 c3 (15...Bxc5 16.a3+–) 16.Qxb4 Bxe2 17.Re1 Rb8
18.Qxc3 Bxf3 19.Bxf3 Bf6 20.Re5±
14.Re1 f5 15.Rb1
15.Ne5?! Bf6 16.Bxd5 Qxd5 17.Qxc3 Bb7 18.f3 a5°
15...Bf6 16.e4 fxe4 17.Qxe4²

White’s better pawn structure and central control gives him the edge.
SUB-CHAPTER 1.6.3.2 — 7...C5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Na5 7.Qc3! c5
As White cannot go for 8.d5, this looks like a good option for Black here.
8.dxc5
The best way to try for an advantage.
8...bxc5 9.e4!
This is a critical crossroads for Black, who can choose mainly between
9...d6 and 9...Bb7.
SUB-CHAPTER 1.6.3.2.1 — 9...D6
8.dxc5 bxc5 9.e4! d6
This looks natural but in the end White will feel much the happier...
10.a3!
Preparing the thematic b4 advance. Not much is offered by 10.e5 dxe5

11.Bg2 Bb7 12.0-0 e4! (12...Bd6 13.Nxe5 Bxg2 14.Kxg2 Qc7 15.Re1 0-0
[15...Nc6 16.Nxc6 Qxc6+ 17.Qf3² Tyomkyn,M-Skettos,N Basingstoke
2019] 16.b3 Nc6 [½-½ Pedersen,N-Agrest,E Vammala 2005] 17.Nxc6
Qxc6+ 18.Qf3 Qxf3+ 19.Nxf3²) 13.Ng5 Be7 14.Ngxe4 Rb8∞
10...Bb7 11.b4
11...cxb4
Delaying the capture on b4 doesn’t seem to suit Black: 11...Nc6

a) 12.b5
a1) 12...Nd4?! 13.Nxd4 cxd4 14.Qxd4 g6 15.Bg2 Bg7 16.Rb1±
Kazakovskiy,V-Smirnov,V Minsk 2017.
a2) 12...Nb8 13.Bd3 Nbd7 14.0-0 g6 15.Bb2 Bg7 16.a4² Laxman,R-
Neverov,V Kolkata 2013.
a3) 12...Ne5 13.Nxe5 dxe5 14.Bg2 (14.f3 g5 15.Bb2 Nd7 16.Bg2 Bg7
17.Nb3± Genov,P-Grooten,H Hoogeveen 2009; 14.Qxe5 Bd6 15.Qc3 Qc7
16.Bb2 Nxe4 17.Nxe4 Bxe4 18.f3 Bb7 19.Qxg7 0-0-0 20.Qc3 h5°)
14...Bd6 15.0-0 Bc7 16.Qc2 0-0 17.Nb3 Bd6 18.a4± Schroer,J-Kraai,J
Internet 2013.
a4) 12...Ne7 13.Bd3 Ng6 14.0-0 Be7 15.Bb2 0-0 16.Rfe1² Keymer,V-
Sargsyan,S Batumi 2016.
b) 12.Bg2
b1) 12...Qc7 13.b5 Nd8 (13...Ne5 14.0-0 Be7 15.Nxe5 dxe5 16.Bb2 Rd8
17.Rfe1 Rd4 18.Qc2 0-0 19.Nb3±) 14.Qd3 (14.Nh4 e5 15.Nf5 Ne6 16.Qd3
g6 17.Ne3 Bg7 18.0-0 0-0 19.Nb1 Rae8 20.Nc3 Nd4 21.a4 ½-½ Levin,F-
Agrest,E Germany 2002; 14.e5!? dxe5 15.0-0 Nd7 16.Bb2 Bd6 17.Rad1°)
14...e5 15.0-0 Ne6 16.a4 a5 17.Ne1 Nd4 18.Nc2 Be7 19.Bb2 Nd7 20.Ne3
0-0 21.Nd5 Bxd5 22.cxd5±
White stands much better due to control over the c4-square and the b-
passer.
b2) 12...Nd7 13.b5 Ne7 14.0-0 Ng6 15.Bb2± Zhukova,N-Chiburdanidze,M
Krasnoturinsk 2004.
b3) 12...e5 13.bxc5 dxc5 14.Nxe5±
b4) 12...Be7 13.b5 Qa5 (13...Nb8 14.Bb2 Nbd7 15.0-0 [15.Qc2!? a6 16.a4²]
15...0-0 16.Rfd1 Qc7 17.a4 e5 18.a5² Riazantsev,A-Damaso,R Evora 2006)
14.Bb2 (14.Qd3 Ne5 15.Nxe5 dxe5 16.0-0 0-0 17.a4 Rfd8 18.Qc2 Rd7
19.Nb3 Qc7 20.Bd2 Qd6 21.Be3 Qc7 22.Rfd1 Rad8 23.f3 Rxd1+ 24.Rxd1
Rxd1+ 25.Qxd1 Nd7 26.Qd3± Kramnik,V-Almasi,Z Monaco 2002)
14...Qxc3 15.Bxc3 Nb8 16.e5 dxe5 17.0-0± with a much better pawn
structure for White.
12.axb4 Nc6 13.Bg2
Possible is 13.b5 Nb8 14.Bg2 Nbd7 15.0-0 e5 16.Ba3² Beliavsky,A-

Grigoriants,S Linares 2003.
13...Be7
13...e5 is not helpful: 14.0-0 Be7 15.Ba3± Aleshin,O-Sprenger,J Pardubice

2005.
14.b5
Natural and probably a bit stronger than 14.Bb2 0-0 (14...Qb6 15.b5 Ng4
16.c5 Qxb5 17.Qxg7 Nb4 18.Qxh8+ Kd7 19.Qc3 Nd3+ 20.Kf1+–
Gubajdullin,A-Kurumanov,P Moscow 2009) 15.0-0 a6 16.b5 (16.Ne1 Qb6
17.Nd3 Rfc8 18.Rfc1² Stohl,I-Kraemer,M Germany 2007; 16.Nd4 Qb6
17.Nxc6 Bxc6 18.Nb3 Rab8 19.Na5² Moor,O-Rau,H Zug 2003) 16...Ne5!
(16...Nb8?! 17.e5 dxe5 18.Nxe5 Bxg2 19.Kxg2 Qc7 20.Nb3 Bd6 21.Ng4
Be7 22.Qf3± Palac,M-Tollance,N Geneve 2007) 17.Rfd1²
14...Nb8 15.0-0 Nbd7 16.Nd4 Qc7 17.N4b3!
Heading for a5.
17...Nc5
17...0-0 18.Na5 e5 19.Nxb7 Qxb7 20.Nb3±
18.Nxc5 dxc5
18...Qxc5 19.Nb3 Qc7 20.Be3±
19.e5±
Banikas,H-Kalogridakis,G Paleochora 2019. White’s much better pawn
structure is a permanent plus for him.
1.6.3.2.2 — 9...BB7
8.dxc5 bxc5 9.e4! Bb7
A more aggressive and complicated line. Black goes straight for the long
diagonal.
10.e5 Ne4
After 10...Ng4 11.h3 (11.Bd3 f6! [11...Be7 12.h3 Nh6 13.Ne4 Nf5∞
Hesham,A-Mareco,S Dubai 2016] 12.exf6 Qxf6 13.Qxf6 Nxf6∞) 11...Nh6
12.Bg2 f5 13.exf6 gxf6 14.0-0 Nf7 15.Re1± Girya,O-Mkrtchian,L Khanty-
Mansiysk 2010, White should feel happy.
11.Nxe4
Interesting is 11.Qe3!? Nxd2 (11...f5 12.exf6 [12.Nxe4 Bxe4 13.Bd3²]

12...Nxf6 13.Bg2 Be7 14.0-0 0-0∞ Goganov,A-Zhigalko,S Baku 2013)
12.Bxd2 Nc6 13.Bg2 Nd4 14.0-0 Bxf3 15.Bxf3 Rb8 16.Rab1²
Morozevich,A-Aronian,L Monte Carlo 2007.
11...Bxe4 12.Bg2
12...Be7
The main alternative is 12...Nc6 13.0-0 Rb8 (13...Qc7 14.Qe3 Bg6 15.Bd2
Be7 16.Bc3 0-0 17.Rad1² Kazakovskiy,V-Navara,D Riga 2019; 13...Rc8
14.Re1 Bxf3 15.Bxf3 Nd4 16.Bg2 d6 17.exd6 Bxd6 18.b4² Miedema,D-
Heinemann,T Germany 2018; 13...h6 14.Qe3 Bh7 15.Bd2 Be7 16.Bc3²
Keymer,V-Makka,I Gibraltar 2018; 13...Bxf3 14.Qxf3 Rc8 15.Re1² Van
Wely,L-Kamsky,G Antalya 2013) 14.Re1 (14.Ng5 Bxg2 15.Kxg2 Qc7
16.Re1 Be7= Van Wely,L-Gelfand,B Monte Carlo 2005) 14...Bxf3 15.Qxf3
(15.Bxf3 Nd4 16.Bg2 [16.Bd1 Be7 17.Be3 Qc7∞ Shirov,A-Gelfand,B
Bazna 2009] 16...Be7 17.Be3 [17.Rb1 Qb6 18.Be3 0-0 19.Qd3 a5 20.Be4
g6 21.Red1 Rfd8∞ Riazantsev,A-Zhigalko,S Plovdiv 2008] 17...Qc7
18.Rad1 0-0 19.b3 Rfd8 [19...Qxe5 20.Qa5 Qd6 21.Qxa7²] 20.Bxd4 cxd4
21.Qxd4 d6 [21...Bc5 22.Qe4 Qb6 23.Qe2 d6 24.exd6 Bxd6 25.Be4 Bc5
26.Kg2²
Tregubov,P-Zhigalko,S Konya 2011] 22.exd6 Bxd6 23.Qe4 Bb4 24.Rf1
Bc5 25.Qc2 g6 26.Bf3² Bosiocic,M-Sargissian,G Riyadh 2017) 15...Nd4
16.Qd3 (16.Qe4 Be7 17.Rb1 a5 18.Be3 Qc7 19.Bxd4 cxd4 20.Qxd4 Bc5
21.Qd3 0-0 22.b3 Rfd8 23.Rbd1² ½-½ Svidler,P-Eljanov,P Foros 2007)
16...Be7 17.Rb1 (17.b3 Qc7 18.Bb2 d6 19.Bxd4 cxd4 20.Qxd4 dxe5
21.Qe4 Bc5= Galliamova,A-Videnova,I Khanty-Mansiysk 2010) 17...a5
18.Bd2 Qb6 19.Be4² ½-½ Gustafsson,J-Eljanov,P Hamburg 2008. White
wrongly avoided continuing a battle where he would risk almost nothing.
Black can also consider 12...Qc7 13.0-0 Be7 14.Qe3 Bxf3 15.Bxf3 Rb8
16.b3² Kazakovskiy,V-Saveliev,A St Petersburg 2018, or 12...f5 13.exf6
Qxf6 14.Qxa5 Bxf3 15.0-0 Bxg2 16.Kxg2 Bd6 17.Qa6 Be5 18.Be3²
Askerov,M-Tran,T St Petersburg 2018.
In a lot of lines in this variation Black sacrifices his c-pawn, seeking dark-
square control. White should avoid a plain opposite-coloured bishops
ending, instead preserving some pieces on the board.
13.0-0
13...0-0
White players must be prepared for the usual options:

a) 13...Rb8 14.b3 (14.Re1 Bg6 [14...Ba8 15.Bf4 0-0 16.Rad1 Qc7 17.b3
Rfd8 18.Bg5 Nc6 19.Bxe7 Nxe7 20.Ng5 Bxg2 21.Kxg2 Nf5 22.Ne4²
Beliavsky,A-Cvitan,O Celje 2003; 14...f5 15.b3 {15.h4 0-0 16.Rxe4!? fxe4
17.Ng5° Efremov,V-Bellia,F Stockholm 2020} 15...Nc6 16.Bb2 0-0
17.Qd2² Bronstein,O-Hakobyan,A New Delhi 2019; 14...Bxf3 15.Bxf3 Qb6
16.b3 Nc6 17.Qd3 {17.Bxc6 Qxc6 18.Bf4²} 17...Nd4 18.Be4²
Yilmaz,M-Codenotti,M Plovdiv 2012] 15.Be3 [15.Bg5!? Nc6 16.Bxe7
Qxe7 17.h3 0-0 18.Rad1 Rfd8 19.Rd6² Sargissian,G-Ivanov,A Moscow
2004] 15...0-0 16.Rad1 h6 17.Nd2 f5 18.Nb3 Nxb3 19.axb3² Postny,E-
Grünfeld,Y Israel 2003) 14...Nc6 15.Bb2 (15.Re1 Bxf3 16.Qxf3 Nd4
17.Qg4 g6 18.Qe4 0-0 19.Bb2² Riazantsev, A-Pavlovic, M Moscow 2008)
15...0-0 (15...Qc7 16.Qe3 Bxf3 17.Bxf3 Nd4 18.Bxd4 cxd4 19.Qxd4 0-0
20.Rad1 Rfd8 21.Qe4 d6 [21...Qa5 22.Qe2 d6 23.exd6 Bxd6 24.h4 Bc5
25.Kg2²
Vachier-Lagrave,M-Karjakin,S Tashkent 2014] 22.exd6 Bxd6 23.Qc6 Qxc6
24.Bxc6 Bc5 25.h4 [25.Kg2 Kf8 26.Kf3 Ke7 27.Ke2 h5 28.h4² Fressinet,L-
Bacrot,E Agen 2017] 25...Kf8 26.h5 h6 27.Kg2 Ke7 28.f4 Rxd1 ½-½
Lupulescu,C-Erdos,V Sovata 2018) 16.Qe3 Bg6 17.Rfd1² Gelfand,B-
Almasi,Z Budapest 2003.
b) 13...Nc6 14.Re1 (14.b3 0-0 15.Bb2 f6 16.Qe3 Bxf3 17.Bxf3 Qb6
18.Rad1 Rad8 19.Bxc6 Qxc6 20.Rd3² Prohaszka,P-Romanov,E Abu Dhabi
2015) 14...Bg6 15.Bf4 0-0 16.Rad1
16...Rb8 (16...Qc7 17.Bg5 [17.h3!?; 17.Rd2 Rab8 18.Bg5 transposes]
17...Bxg5 [17...Rab8 18.Bxe7 Nxe7 19.Nh4² Mijailovic,Z-Djordjevic,V
Kragujevac 2016] 18.Nxg5 Rab8 19.b3 h6 20.Bxc6 dxc6 21.Ne4! [21.Nh3
Rfd8 22.Nf4 Bf5 23.Nd3 ½-½ Riazantsev,A-Najer,E Sochi 2006] 21...Bxe4
22.Rxe4 Rfd8 23.Ree1²) 17.Rd2 Qc7 18.Bg5!? (18.Red1 Rfd8 19.Qe3
Bh5!=; 18.h3 Rfd8 19.b3 h6 20.Qe3 a5∞ Goganov,A-Zakhartsov,V St
Petersburg 2019) 18...Bxg5 19.Nxg5 Rfd8 20.Rd6 Nd4 (20...Nxe5?
21.Qxe5 f6 22.Nxe6!±) 21.Nf3 Nf5 22.Ra6 (22.Rd2 Bh5 23.Bh3 Bxf3
24.Bxf5 Ba8 25.Bc2² Riazantsev,A-Anisimov,P Tomsk 2006) 22...Qb7
23.Qa5 Qxb2 24.Qxc5 Bh5 25.Qa3² Bologan,V-Adams,M Wijk aan Zee
2004.
14.Re1
White can vary with the interesting 14.Bd2, aiming to control the important
d4-square: 14...Nc6 15.Qe3 Bxf3 (15...Bg6 16.Bc3 Qb6 17.Rfd1 Rad8
[17...Rfd8 18.Rd2 a5 19.Rad1 Qa7 20.Nh4 Bh5 21.Bf3 Bxf3 22.Nxf3²]
18.Rd2² Dautov,R-Ibraev,N Mallorca 2004) 16.Bxf3 Nd4 17.Bc3! (17.Bxa8
Qxa8 18.f3 Nc2 19.Qd3 Nxa1 20.Rxa1 Qc6=) 17...Nxf3+ (17...Nc2?!
18.Qd3 Nxa1 19.Bxa8 Qxa8 20.Qxd7±; 17...Rb8!? 18.Bxd4 cxd4 19.Qxd4²
Bareev,E-Gelfand,B Sochi 2004) 18.Qxf3 f6 19.Rad1 (19.exf6 Bxf6
20.Rad1 Bd4!? 21.Qe4 Bxc3 [21...e5? 22.Bxd4 exd4 23.Qd5++–] 22.bxc3
Rb8=) 19...Rb8 20.Qe3² Lautier,J-Gelfand,B Cannes 2002.
Another try is 14.Qe3 Bxf3 (14...Bg6 15.b3 Nc6 16.Ba3 Qa5 17.Bb2 Qc7
18.Nh4!² Yilmaz,M-Meribanov,V Minsk 2017; 14...Bf5 15.b3 Nc6 16.Rd1
Nb4 17.Ne1 Rc8 18.Bb2 a5 19.Rd2± Greenfeld,A-Mareco,S Stockholm
2016) 15.Bxf3 Rb8 16.b3 f6 17.Bd2² Rychagov,A-Henderson de la
Fuente,L Escaldes 2019.
14...Bb7
Probably best: 14...Bxf3 15.Bxf3 Rc8 16.Bf4 Nc6 17.Bxc6 Rxc6 18.Rad1
f5 19.exf6 Bxf6 20.Be5 Bxe5 21.Qxe5² Harika,D-Javakhishvili,L Dagomys
2008, or 14...f5 15.Be3 Nc6 16.Nd2 (16.Re2 Qc7 17.Rd1 Rad8 18.Bf4
Qb7∞ Can,E-Ertan,C Konya 2012) 16...Bxg2 17.Kxg2 Rb8 18.Rad1²
15.Bf4
15.Be3 Qc7 16.Rad1 Nc6 17.Bf4 Rfd8² ½-½ Tunik,G-Anisimov,P St
Petersburg 2005, or 15.b3 Qc7 16.Bb2 Nc6 17.Rad1 (17.Qe3 a5 18.Bc3 a4
19.Rad1 axb3 20.axb3 Rab8∞ Peric,S-Zivkovic,N Kragujevac 2016) 17...a5
18.Qc2²
15...Qb6 16.Rad1²
Miroshnichenko,E-Zakhartsov,V Sochi 2008. White enjoys a slight

advantage due to his pressure along the d-file and his somewhat better-
placed pieces.
CHAPTER 2.
THE CLASSICAL 4...BB7 (E16–19)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2
This is the other big chapter of the ‘QID’; the classical one we could say! A
solid but rather unambitious line for Black, which has served him quite
well. White preserves his opening rights by getting a nice spatial advantage
with chances to play on both sides of the board.
5...Be7
5...Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 transposes to the ‘BogoIndian Defence’, while Black has

tried some other moves as well. As most of them transpose, the main
alternatives are:
a) 5...g6 (A tricky line, combining the double fianchetto lines with the
‘QID’) 6.0-0 Bg7 7.Nc3
a1) 7...0-0 8.d5 exd5 9.cxd5 Re8 (9...c6 10.e4 Re8 11.Nd4 Na6 12.dxc6
dxc6 13.e5 Nd5 14.f4 c5 15.Nxd5 Bxd5 16.Nc6 Bxc6 17.Bxc6 Qxd1
18.Rxd1± Indjic,A-Gadimbayli,A Moscow 2020) 10.Nd4 c5 11.dxc6
(11.Ndb5 d6 12.Bf4 Bf8 13.a4 a6 14.Na3² Ponomariov,R-Hou,Y Shenzhen
2018) 11...dxc6 12.Bf4 Nh5 13.Be3² Inarkiev,E-Hou,Y Petropavlovsk
Kamchatsky 2016.
a2) 7...Ne4 8.Nxe4 Bxe4 9.Bg5 (9.Ne5 Bxg2 10.Kxg2 c5! 11.Be3 Bxe5
12.dxe5 Qc7∞ Fedoseev,V-Rodshtein,M Tbilisi 2017)
a21) 9...Qc8 10.Qd2 h6 (10...0-0 11.Bh6 Qb7 12.Rfd1 [12.d5!? exd5
13.Bxg7 Kxg7 14.cxd5 Bxd5 15.Rfd1 Be4 16.Rac1° c5 17.b4 Na6 18.b5
Nc7 19.Qb2+ 1–0 Rodshtein,M-Gormally,D Hastings 2015] 12...d5
13.Bxg7 Kxg7 14.Qc3 Kg8 15.Rac1² Khanukov,B-Lehmann,K Templin
2017) 11.Be3 d6 12.Rac1 (12.b4 Nd7 13.Rac1 Nf6 [13...Qb7 14.Ne1 Bxg2
15.Nxg2² Kolev,A-Li,Z Las Vegas 2017] 14.h3 [14.Qb2 0-0 15.Rfd1 Qb7
16.Bd2 b5 17.c5 Bd5= Ozturk,K-Kuljasevic,D Skopje 2014] 14...Qb7
15.Rfd1 Rc8 [15...Kf8 16.g4 Kg8 17.Bf4 Rd8 18.Bg3 Kh7 19.Qf4²
Naumkin,I-Gorbatow,A Moscow 1991] 16.a4 [16.Bf1?! b5! 17.cxb5 Qxb5
18.Bf4 Qb6 19.Qe1 Bxf3 20.exf3 Nd5 21.Bd2 0-0³ Tosic,M-Nikolaidis,I
Ankara 1995] 16...a6 17.b5 [17.Bf1 b5! 18.cxb5 axb5 19.a5 Nd5 20.Ne1 g5
21.Bg2 Bxg2 22.Nxg2 f5 23.h4 Bf6 24.f3 Rg8∞ Ilincic,Z-Tosic,M Budva
1996] 17...g5 18.h4 g4 19.Ne1 Bxg2 20.Nxg2² Ilincic,Z-Mitsis,G Budapest
2016) 12...Nc6 (12...Nd7 13.c5!? [13.b4 transposes to the lines above]
13...d5 14.b4² L’Ami,E-Harikrishna,P Vlissingen 2013) 13.d5 Ne7 14.Bh3
Bf5 15.Bxf5 (15.g4 Be4 16.Nd4 g5 17.f4 exd5 18.cxd5∞ Shabalov,A-
Granda Zuniga,J Praia da Pipa 2014) 15...Nxf5 16.Nd4²
a22) 9...f6 10.Be3
10...0-0 (10...Nc6 11.Rc1 [11.d5 Ne7 12.dxe6 dxe6 13.Qa4+ Bc6 14.Qb3
Qc8 15.Qa3∞ Venkatesh,M-Sjugirov,S Sharjah 2019] 11...0-0 12.Qb3 f5
13.Rfd1 h6 14.d5² Van Wely,L-Rosen,E Vlissingen 2016) 11.Qd2 Nc6
12.Rfd1 (12.d5 Ne7 13.Ne1 Bxg2 14.Nxg2 Nf5∞ Lintchevski,D-Eljanov,P
St Petersburg 2013) 12...d5 (12...Ne7 13.Bh6 Bxh6 14.Qxh6 d5 15.Qe3 Nf5
16.Qc3 c6 17.Bh3² Jakovenko,D-Ipatov,A Saint Quentin 2014) 13.Rac1
Ne7 14.cxd5 exd5 15.Bh6² Portisch,L-Spassky,B Mexico 1980.
b) 5...c5 6.d5! (A good pawn sac, which gives White the initiative) 6...exd5
b1) 7.Nh4 g6! (7...b5 8.0-0 bxc4 9.Nc3 Be7 10.Nf5 0-0 11.Nxe7+! Qxe7
12.Bg5 h6 [12...Na6 13.Nxd5 {13.Bxd5 Rab8 14.Bxb7 Rxb7 15.Nd5 Qe5
16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Rc1²} 13...Bxd5 14.Bxd5 Rab8 15.Bxc4±] 13.Bxf6 Qxf6
14.Nxd5 Bxd5 15.Qxd5 Nc6 16.Qxc4 Qxb2 17.e3² Karpov,A-Gavrikov,V
Moscow 1988) 8.Nc3 Bg7 9.0-0 (9.Bg5 0-0 10.Qd2 Qe8 11.Bxf6 Bxf6
12.Nxd5 Bxd5 13.Bxd5 Nc6∞ Gelfand,B-Gashimov,V Wijk aan Zee 2012)
9...0-0 10.Bg5 (10.cxd5 d6 11.Nf3 Na6 12.e4 Nc7 13.a4 a6∞ Korobov,A-
Socko,B Warsaw 2013) 10...Qe8 11.cxd5 d6 12.Qd2 Nbd7 13.Bh6 Bxh6
14.Qxh6² Eljanov,P-Andreikin,D Saratov 2011.
b2) 7.cxd5 (The latest continuation, which has proved to be rather
unpleasant for Black) 7...Bxd5 (7...Nxd5? 8.Nh4!+–; 7...g6 8.Nc3 Bg7
9.Bf4 0-0 10.0-0 a6 11.Nd2± Radjabov,T-Harikrishna,P Beijing 2014)
8.Nc3 Bc6 (8...Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Nc6 10.Bf4 Be7 11.0-0 0-0 12.e3 Ne8 13.h4 h6
14.h5² Carlsen,M-Socko,B Moscow 2019; 8...Bb7 9.e4! Nxe4 10.Nd5°)
9.e4!
9...d6 (9...Nxe4 10.Nxe4 Bxe4 11.Qe2 Qe7 12.0-0 Nc6 [12...d5?! 13.Re1!
Nd7 {13...Nc6 14.Qb5 Qd7 15.Bh3+–} 14.Qb5 f5 {14...Qf6 15.Ng5 Be7
16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Rxe4+– Brunello,S-Al Taher,T Durban 2014} 15.Bf4+–]
13.Bf4! d5 [13...Bf5 14.Qb5 Qd8 15.Rad1°] 14.Rfe1 0-0-0 15.Qb5!°) 10.0-
0 (10.Qb3 Nbd7 [10...Be7 11.e5! Ne4 {11...dxe5? 12.Nxe5+–} 12.Nxe4
Bxe4 13.exd6 Qxd6 14.0-0°] 11.0-0 Rc8 12.Nb5!°) 10...Be7 (10...g6?
11.Re1! Bg7 12.e5+–)
11.Nh4! 0-0 (11...g6?! 12.Bh6 Bf8 [12...Nbd7? 13.e5! Nxe5 {13...Bxg2
14.exf6 Bxf1 15.fxe7 Qxe7 16.Qxf1+–} 14.f4! Bxg2 15.fxe5 Bxf1 16.exf6
Bxf6 17.Qa4+ b5 {17...Qd7 18.Qe4++–} 18.Qe4+ Kd7 19.Rxf1+–;
12...Nfd7 13.f4 Na6 14.Nd5 Rc8 15.Re1 Nc7 16.Nxe7 Qxe7 17.Nf5 gxf5
18.exf5 Ne6 19.Bxc6 Rxc6 20.Qd5 Nb8 21.Bg5 1–0 Levin,E-Kovalev,E St
Petersburg 2018] 13.Bxf8! Kxf8 14.Qd2 [14.f4 Kg7 15.Qd3°] 14...Kg7
[14...Ne8 15.Rad1 Kg7 16.f4! and White is on top, as in Gelfand,B-
Andreikin,D Baku 2014] 15.Rad1 Re8 16.Rfe1 Ng4 17.Qxd6 Qxd6
18.Rxd6± Kierzek,M-Tunik,G Bled 2018) 12.Nf5
b1) 12...g6 13.Nxe7+ Qxe7 14.Bg5 (14.Bf4 Qb7 15.Qxd6 Nbd7 16.Rad1
Rfe8 17.Bh3 Rad8 18.Bg5 Kg7 19.Bxd7 1–0 Gajewski,G-Nurkiewicz,M
Zgierz 2017) 14...Qe6 15.Qd2! b5 16.Rad1 b4 17.Bxf6 Qxf6 18.Nd5±
b2) 12...Qd7 13.Bf4 Rd8 14.Qc2 (14.Qe2 g6 15.Nxe7+ Qxe7 16.Bg5 Kg7
17.f4 h6 18.Bh4 Qd7 19.e5 Ne8 20.Bxd8 Qxd8 21.Rad1 Qd7 22.f5 Bxg2
23.Qxg2 Qc6 24.fxg6 Qxg2+ 25.Kxg2 fxg6 26.e6 Nc6 27.Rd5 1–0 Filip,L-
Delorme,A Avoine 2015) 14...Na6 15.Rad1± Drogovoz,I-Severina,M
Kolomna 2016.
b3) 12...b5 13.Bf4 Ne8 14.Qd2 Nd7 15.Rfd1 Ne5 16.Bxe5 dxe5 17.Qxd8
Bxd8 18.Rxd8 Rxd8 19.Ne7+ Kh8 20.Nxc6+– Akots,G-Ortel,E Hungary
2014.
b4) 12...Re8 13.Bf4 (13.Bg5 Bf8 14.Re1 Nbd7 15.Nxd6 Re6 16.Nf5 Qe8
17.Nd5 Bxd5 18.exd5 Rxe1+ 19.Qxe1 Qxe1+ 20.Rxe1± Holt,C-
Shankland,S Saint Louis 2013) 13...Bf8 14.Re1 Nbd7
15.Nxd6 (15.Bxd6!±) 15...Bxd6 16.Bxd6 Ne5 17.Bxe5 Rxe5 18.Qxd8+

(18.Qc2 Qc7 19.f4 Ree8 20.e5 Nd7 21.Rad1± Moranda,W-Dragun,K
Wroclaw 2013; 18.f4 Re7 19.e5 Bxg2 20.Kxg2 Qxd1 21.Raxd1 Ne8
22.Kf3± Teplyi,I-Hansen,C Svendborg 2015) 18...Rxd8 19.Rad1 Rxd1
20.Rxd1± Sargissian,G-Socko,B Warsaw 2012.
c) 5...c6 6.0-0 d5 7.Nbd2 transposes to the ‘Slav Defence’, examined in the
1st Volume of this series.
Returning to the initial diagram, after 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3

Black has a good choice between 7...c6, 7...Bb4, 7...c5, 7...Na6, 7...d6,
7...d5 and 7...Ne4.
2.1 — 7...C6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 c6
Black’s idea is to play ...d5 and recapture (after an eventual cxd5) with his
c-pawn, shutting down the g2-bishop.
Obviously White should and can avoid this.
8.e4 d5 9.Ne5!
White scores heavily after the text!

9...dxc4

a) 9...Na6 10.Bf4 (10.Re1 dxc4 11.Nxc4 b5 12.Ne3 b4 13.Na4 c5 14.d5²
Afanasiev,N-Trifonov,P St Petersburg 2019) 10...dxc4 11.Nxc4 b5 12.Ne3
Nd7 (12...Qb6 13.a4 Rfd8 [13...Nb4 14.axb5 cxb5 15.d5 {15.e5! Nfd5
16.Ncxd5 Nxd5 17.Nxd5 Bxd5 18.Bxd5 exd5 19.Be3 a5 20.f4²} 15...Rad8
16.Qe2² Van Wely,L-Kabatianski,A Germany 2012] 14.e5 Rxd4 [14...Nd5
15.Nexd5 cxd5 16.Nxb5± Bacrot,E-Bischoff,K Deizisau 2012] 15.Qf3 Ne8
16.Nxb5²) 13.Ng4 b4 14.Na4 (14.Ne2!? Nb6 15.Qc2²) 14...Nb6 15.Be3
Korchnoi,V-Jussupow,A Rotterdam 1988.
b) 9...dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Bxe4
11...Qc7 (11...f6?! 12.Ng6! Rf7 [12...Re8 13.Nf4 Bf8 14.Re1 f5 15.Bc2±

Ladva,O-Huovinen,J Finland 2016; 12...hxg6? 13.Bxg6+–] 13.Nxe7+ Rxe7
14.b3 Nd7 15.Ba3 Rf7 16.Re1± Nozdrin,A-Jamilov,R Ufa 2007; 11...Qc8
12.Qc2 f5 13.Bg2 Nd7 14.Bf4² Pilarte Castro,R-Escorcia Obando,C
Managua 2018) 12.Bf4 Bd6
13.Qh5 (13.Re1 Nd7 14.c5 Bxe5 15.Bxe5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Rad8 17.Qc2²
Le,T-Ton,N Hanoi 2016) 13...g6 14.Qh3 f5 (14...Nd7?! 15.Bxg6! hxg6
[15...fxg6? 16.Qxe6+ Kg7 17.Qxd7+ Qxd7 18.Nxd7 1–0 Wells,P-Burnett,J
Leeds 2012] 16.Nxg6 fxg6 17.Qxe6+ Rf7 18.Qxg6+ Rg7 19.Qe6+ Rf7
20.Bxd6±) 15.Bf3 Nd7 16.Rad1²
c) 9...Nbd7?! 10.Nxc6! (10.exd5 cxd5 11.cxd5 Nxd5 12.Nxd5 exd5 13.Qa4²
Fridman,D-Hoornstra,H Helmond 2016) 10...Bxc6 11.exd5 Bb7 (11...exd5
12.cxd5 Bb7 13.d6 Bxg2 14.dxe7 Qxe7 15.Kxg2 Rfd8 16.Qf3 h6 17.Be3 b5
18.Nxb5 Qb4 19.a4 a6 20.Nc7 Ra7 21.Nd5 Qb3 22.Ne7+ 1–0 Banusz,T-
Cai,C Escaldes 2016) 12.d6 Bxg2 13.dxe7 Qxe7 14.Kxg2± Shirov,A-
Bajorski,M Germany 2019.
10.Nxc4
10...b5
Black is obliged to start immediate operations on the queenside, as 10...Ba6

looks good for White: 11.b3 b5 (11...Nbd7 12.Bb2 Rc8 13.a4 Bb4 14.Qc2
Qc7 15.Rfd1± Polugaevsky,L-Bleiman,Y Skara 1980) 12.Ne3 b4 13.Ne2
Bb5 (13...Bxe2?! 14.Qxe2 Qxd4 15.Bb2 Qb6 16.Nc4 [16.g4 Rd8 17.g5 Ne8
18.h4° Korchnoi,V-Godena,M Switzerland 1995] 16...Qc7 17.Be5 Qb7
18.Bxf6 Bxf6 19.e5 Be7 20.Rfd1±) 14.Re1 a5 (14...Nbd7 15.a4 bxa3
16.Bxa3 Bxa3 17.Rxa3 Qe7 18.Qa1± Alvarez Ibarra,R-Estremera Panos,S
Zaragoza 1995) 15.a4 bxa3 16.Bxa3 Bxa3 17.Rxa3 Na6 18.Qd2²
Hudecek,J-Marek,J Czechoslovakia 1992.
11.Ne3 b4
Black has also tried 11...Qb6 12.e5 Nd5 13.Qg4 Kh8 14.Rd1 Nxc3 15.bxc3
Nd7 16.f4± Oliva Castaneda,K-Meister,P Sitges 2014, or 11...a6 12.e5 Nd5
13.Qg4! (13.Nexd5 cxd5 14.f4 f5 15.exf6 Bxf6 16.Be3² Shen,C-Shen,V
New York 2019) 13...Kh8 14.Bd2± without success.
12.e5
Also good is 12.Na4 Nbd7 (12...c5?! 13.d5 exd5 14.exd5 Bd6 15.Nc4 Na6
16.b3± Garcia Ilundain,D-Gomez Jurado,L Barcelona 2000) 13.b3 Rc8
(13...c5!? 14.e5 Nd5 15.Qg4 Re8 16.Nxd5 Bxd5 17.Bxd5 exd5 18.f4²)
14.Bb2 Qc7 15.Rc1 Qb8 16.Qe2 Rfd8 17.Rfd1± Praggnanandhaa,R-Tica,S
Internet 2020, or 12.Ne2 Nbd7 13.b3 a5 14.Bb2 a4 15.Rc1² Chylewski,P-
Triantos,K Bratislava 2019.
12...Nd5
Possible is 12...bxc3 13.exf6 c2! (A good proposed novelty over the known
13...Bxf6?! 14.bxc3 Nd7 15.Ba3 Re8 16.Rb1 Nb6 17.Re1± Ivanchuk,V-
Dautov,R Tashkent 1987) 14.Qxc2 Bxf6 15.Rd1 Nd7 16.Ng4²
13.Ncxd5
13.Ne4!? Nd7 14.Re1² is an untested alternative, which is quite natural and

surely deserves attention and further investigation. At first sight it seems
quite pleasant for White, as his initiative in the centre and on the kingside
seems to be dangerous.
13...cxd5 14.f4²
Del Rio de Angelis,S-Tarhon,B Zalakaros 2016. Although Black has

succeeded in his primary intentions, White space advantage and kingside
initiative (f5, g4) are quite unpleasant to face.
2.2 — 7...BB4
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 Bb4
Black wishes to take full control of the e4-square, eliminating White’s c3-
knight. But this is not a healthy approach, as beside losing a tempo (...Be7
and ...Bb4), it hands White the bishop pair without any effort.
8.Qc2
Possible is 8.Qb3 a5 9.Rd1 (9.Bg5 Bxc3 10.Qxc3 h6 11.Bxf6 Qxf6 12.Qc2

Nc6 13.Rad1 d6 14.a3 Rfe8 15.d5² Van der Stricht,G-Dgebuadze,A Gent
2004) 9...Bxc3 10.Qxc3 d6 11.d5 e5 12.Nh4 Bc8 13.b3 Na6 14.a3²
Kuzubov,Y-Nemeth,M Hungary 2017.
8...Bxc3 9.Qxc3 d6 10.b3 Nbd7 11.Bb2

11...Re8
Back has also tried:

a) 11...Qc8 12.Rad1 Be4 13.d5 e5 14.Bh3 Qd8 15.Nh4 h6 16.f3 Bh7 17.e4±
Lalic,B-Beltran Rueda,S Barcelona 2002.
b) 11...Qe7 12.Rad1 Ne4 13.Qc2 f5 14.d5! Rac8 (14...e5 15.Nh4!±) 15.Nd4
exd5 16.cxd5 Bxd5 17.f3 c5 18.Nb5± Anastasian,A-Kurajica,B Moscow
1992.
12.Rad1
Not much different is 12.Rfe1 h6 13.Rad1 Be4 (13...a5 14.Qc2 Be4 15.Qc1
d5 16.Bh3 c6 17.Nd2² Garcia Paolicchi,R-Hj Edin,L Manila 1992) 14.Bh3!
Bh7 15.d5 e5 16.Nh4² Malakhov,V-David,A Brest 2018.
12...Qe7
Or:
a) 12...c5 13.e3 cxd4 14.exd4 e5 15.dxe5 dxe5 16.Rfe1 e4 17.Ng5 a6
18.Nxe4 Bxe4 19.Bxe4 Rxe4 20.Rxe4 Nxe4? 21.Qxg7# 1–0 Klemm,R-
Bilek,S Bremen 2015.
b) 12...Rc8 13.Rfe1 Qe7 14.d5 e5 15.Nh4± Darga,K-Spassky,B Amsterdam
1964.
13.Rfe1²/±
Huber,H-Hock,M Bayern 2013. Black is short of plans, while White can
expand anywhere on the board thanks to his space advantage and his bishop
pair. Not a recommended continuation for Black.
2.3 — 7...C5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 c5
Black invites White to a ‘Benoni Defence’ pawn structure position, but his
poor b7-bishop is not what he would wish for.
8.d5 exd5
8...d6 does not add much to Black’s position: 9.e4 (9.dxe6 fxe6 10.Bh3 Bc8
[10...e5 11.Ng5 Re8 12.Be6+ Kf8 13.Qd3 1–0 Sandalakis,A-Koutoukidis,P
Iraklion 2009] 11.Ng5 Ng4 12.Bxg4 Bxg5 13.f4 Bf6 14.Bf3+– Ippolito,D-
Chen,K Branchburg 2010) 9...e5 (9...Nbd7?! 10.dxe6 fxe6 11.Ng5+–
Izquierdo,D-Crosa Coll,M Uruguay 1997) 10.Ne1 Bc8 (10...Nbd7 11.f4
Ne8 12.Nf3 a6 13.Rf2± Reinderman,D-Heinbuch,D Germany 2011) 11.Nd3
Bg4 12.Qe1 Nfd7 13.f4± Novikov,I-Nishida,H Edmonton 2000.
9.cxd5 d6
10.Nd2
10.e4 is a good alternative: 10...Nbd7 (10...Re8 11.e5 dxe5 12.Nxe5 Bd6

13.Nc4 [13.Nc6 Qd7 14.Qf3 Be5 15.Nxe5 Rxe5 16.Bf4± Kalinitschew,S-
Gervasio,R Cappelle-la-Grande 2001] 13...Bf8 14.Bf4 Na6 15.Qb3 Nh5
16.Be3 Qd7 17.Rad1± Ibrahimov,R-Daneshpour,S Teheran 2005) 11.Re1
Ng4 12.h3 Nge5 13.Nxe5 Nxe5 14.f4 Ng6 15.h4 Bf6 16.h5 Bd4+ 17.Kh2
Ne7 18.Nb5± Girya,O-Stepanyan,E Sochi 2017.
10...Nbd7
Or 10...Na6 11.Nc4 (11.e4 Nc7 12.a4 Re8 [12...Ba6 13.Re1 Nd7 14.f4 Rb8
15.Nf3 f6 16.Nh4 Re8 17.Bh3± Javakhishvili,L-Ushenina,A Doha 2016]
13.Re1 Rb8 14.Nc4 Ba6 15.Ne3² Maly,A-Semenov,D Dnipropetrovsk
2000) 11...Nc7 12.Re1 Ba6 13.Qb3 Re8 14.a4 Bf8 15.h3 Rb8 16.Bd2±
Tatai,S-Bellon Lopez,J Las Palmas 1977.
11.a4 a6 12.Nc4±
Iturrizaga Bonelli,E-Dimakiling,O Jakarta 2013. White has a great position
and will start pressure on the queenside (Qb3) and the centre (Bf4 or e4,
f4). Black stands rather cramped.
2.4 — 7...NA6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 Na6
A flexible developing move and a speciality of S.Tiviakov.
8.Ne5
8.Bf4, is the other main alternative: 8...Ne4 (8...c5 9.d5 d6 10.e4 Nc7
11.Re1 e5 12.Bd2 a6 13.Bf1 Bc8 14.Rb1 Rb8 15.b4 cxb4 16.Rxb4²
Ivanchuk,V-Tiviakov,S Yucatan 2004) 9.Nxe4 (9.Rc1 d6 10.Qa4 Qe8
11.Qxe8 Rfxe8 12.Rfd1 Nxc3 13.Rxc3 Bf6= Cheparinov,I-Rapport,R
Hengshui 2019; 9.Qa4 Nxc3 10.bxc3 Nb8 11.Rad1 d6 12.Qc2 f5 13.c5 Be4
14.Qb3² Shankland,S-Rapport,R Saint Louis 2019; 9.Re1 d5 10.cxd5 exd5
11.Rc1 c5 12.dxc5 Bxc5 13.e3 Nxc3 14.bxc3²
Carlsen,M-Tiviakov,S Iraklion 2007) 9...Bxe4 10.Qa4 (10.Ne5 Bxg2
11.Kxg2 d6 12.Nc6 Qd7 13.Nxe7+ Qxe7 14.Qa4 e5 15.dxe5 Nc5 16.Qa3
dxe5 17.Be3² Ponomariov,R-Abasov,N Linares 2019) 10...Qc8 11.Ne5
(11.Rac1 c6 12.Bh3 Bxf3 13.exf3 Nc7 14.d5 Na6 [14...exd5 15.Bxc7 Qxc7
16.cxd5 Bc5 17.b4 b5 18.Qb3²] 15.Rfd1 Nc5 16.Qc2² Horvath,A-
Chernyshov,K Budapest 2006; 11.Rfd1 c6 12.Rac1 Qb7 13.Qb3² Grivas,E-
Emms,J Cap d’Agde 1983) 11...Bxg2 12.Kxg2 f6 (12...c6 13.Rfd1 Nc7
14.Rac1 f6 15.Nf3 [15.Nd3!? Qb7 16.e4²] 15...Ne8 16.e4 Qb7 17.c5²
Ilincic,Z-Chernyshov,K Budapest 2006) 13.Nf3 c5 14.Rfd1 (14.d5!? e5
15.Bd2 e4 16.Ne1²) 14...Rf7 15.dxc5 Nxc5 16.Qc2 Qb7 17.Be3 Rc8
18.Rac1 Ne4 19.Kg1 Bc5 20.Qb3 h6 21.Bxc5 Rxc5 22.Rd4² Harikrishna,P-
Tiviakov,S Montreal 2007.
8...Bxg2 9.Kxg2
9...c6
Another try is 9...Qb8 10.e4 (10.Bg5 Qb7+ 11.e4 c5 (11...Rad8 12.Ng4 Nd5
13.cxd5 Bxg5 14.f4 Be7 15.f5± Goganov,A-Moiseenko,V Khanty-
Mansiysk 2017; 11...c6 12.Ng4 Nd5 13.cxd5 Bxg5 14.f4 [14.d6 f5!∞
Martinez Martin,D-Aranaz Murillo,A Linares 2015] 14...Be7 15.f5±)
12.Ng4
12...Nxe4! 13.Nxe4 f6 14.Qf3 Kh8 15.Bxf6 gxf6 [15...cxd4 16.Nd2 Qxf3+
17.Nxf3 gxf6 18.Nxd4²] 16.d5² Hoang,T-Cao,S Ho Chi Minh City 2013)
10...Qb7 (10...c5 11.Bf4 Qb7 12.d5±) 11.f3 (11.Qf3 Bb4 12.Bg5 Bxc3
13.bxc3² Timman,J-Cherniaev,A London 2008) 11...d5 12.cxd5 exd5
13.Bg5± Anton Guijarro,D-Santos Ruiz,M Linares 2014.
10.e4 Qc7
It is natural that Black can opt for various continuations, such as:
a) 10...Bb4 11.Qc2 Bxc3 12.bxc3 c5 13.Bg5 (13.d5 d6 14.Nc6 Qc7 15.Bg5
Nd7 16.Rad1² Fridman,D-Lysyj,I Internet 2004) 13...h6 14.Bxf6 gxf6
15.Nd3±
b) 10...b5 11.c5! (11.Qe2 bxc4 12.Qxc4 Qc8 13.Be3 Qb7 14.Rac1 Rfc8
15.Qe2 c5 16.f3² Naumkin,I-Tiviakov,S Arco 1998) 11...Nb8 12.Qe2 d6
13.cxd6 Qxd6 14.Rd1 Qc7 15.Bf4 Qb7 16.Rac1± Al Sayed,M-Santos
Ruiz,M Gibraltar 2015.
c) 10...Qc8 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Ng4! (13.f4 c5 14.d5 d6 15.Nf3
Bxc3 16.bxc3 Nc7 17.Qd3² Lutsko,I-Maiorov,N Minsk 2006) 13...Be7
14.Rc1±
11.Bg5
Also good seems to be 11.Bf4 d6 12.Nd3 Rfd8 13.Qf3² Zaja,I-Tiviakov,S

Warsaw 2005, or 11.Re1 Qb7 12.Nd3! d6 (12...d5 13.e5 Nd7 14.cxd5 cxd5
15.h4 Nb4 16.Bg5 Nxd3 17.Qxd3 Bb4 18.Rec1² Mamedyarov,S-Carlsen,M
Baku 2008) 13.Qf3 Nd7 14.h4 b5 15.cxb5 cxb5 16.Bg5² Pashikian,A-
Moroni,L Gjakova 2016.
11...d6 12.Nf3 h6 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Rc1²
Mochalov,E-Lutsko,I Minsk 1996. White has a strong centre and healthily-

placed pieces, but Black’s position is solid.
2.5 — 7...D6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 d6
Another passive line, which allows White a healthy spatial advantage.
8.d5
The natural follow-up.
8...e5
Black can’t achieve much with the alternatives:

a) 8...a5 9.Nd4 e5 10.Nc6 Qd7 11.Qa4 Na6 12.Bd2 Ne8 13.f4² Karpov,A-
Redoglia,A Turin 1982.
b) 8...exd5 9.cxd5 c5 (9...b5 10.Qb3 a6 11.Nd4 Nbd7 12.a3² Agrest,E-
Eriksson,J Skara 2002) 10.dxc6 Nxc6 (10...Bxc6 11.Bf4 Qd7 12.Qd3 Qb7
13.b4± Edgell,B-Pleasants,A Frome 2009) 11.Bf4 (11.Nd4 Qd7 12.Nxc6
Bxc6 13.Bxc6 Qxc6 14.Qd3² Mikenas,V-Vasiljev,A Leningrad 1947)
11...d5 (11...Qd7 12.Qd2 Rfd8 13.Rfd1 h6 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.Qxd5 Bf6
16.Qb3 Na5 17.Qb4 d5 18.Rac1 Rac8 19.b3² Gerstner,B-Voelker,S Bayern
1998) 12.Ne5 Nxe5 13.Bxe5 Ne4 14.Rc1 Rc8 15.e3² Szymanski,P-Walter,S
Szczyrk 2014.
c) 8...h6 9.Nd4 exd5 10.cxd5 Re8 11.e4² Nyback,T-Uukkivi,R Puhajarve
2019.
9.e4
Natural, but also good is 9.Rb1 a5 (9...Nbd7 10.b4 Ne8 11.e4 g6 12.Bh6
Ng7 13.Re1 Bc8 14.Qd2 Nf6 15.h3± Ikonnikov,V-Heinzel,O Germany
2005) 10.a3 Nbd7 11.Ne1 Re8 12.b4 Bf8 13.e4 g6 14.Nd3 Bg7 15.c5²
Kustar,S-Vukovic,I Zalakaros 2000.
9...Nbd7
White holds a good spatial advantage even after 9...a5 10.Be3 Na6 11.Nd2
Bc8 12.h3 Ne8 13.f4 g6 14.Nf3 f6 15.a3± Vescovi,G-Dias,A Sao Paolo
2011.
10.Ne1 Ne8
Or 10...a5 11.Nd3 (11.b3 Nc5 12.Rb1 Nfd7 13.Be3 Bf6 14.a3 g6 15.b4
axb4 16.axb4 Na6 17.Nc2 Bg7 18.Qd2 f5 19.exf5 gxf5 20.f4± Wu,S-De
Silva,N Bled 2002) 11...Nc5 12.Nxc5 bxc5 13.a4! (A very important move
in these pawn structures, targeting the a5-pawn) 13...Bc8 14.Bd2 Ne8
15.Qe1 Bd7 16.Nb5 c6 17.dxc6 Bxc6 18.Rd1 Ra6 19.f4 Qa8 20.Qe2 Qb7
21.Bc3 f6 22.Rd3 Bd7 23.f5± Miroshnichenko,E-Asman,B Ostend 2005.
11.Nc2
How bad is Black’s position? Well, White scores approximately 90% in this
position! 11.Nd3 g6 (11...Nc5 12.Be3 Nxd3 13.Qxd3 Bg5 14.Nd1 Bxe3
15.Nxe3 Qg5 16.f4 exf4 17.gxf4 Qf6 18.b3 Rd8 19.Rae1± Paunovic,D-
Pena Torres,J Sanxenxo 2012) 12.f4 f6 13.Be3 Nc5 14.Nf2 Bc8 15.b4 Nb7
16.Nd3 Ng7 17.Qb3± Saric,A-Bacetic,M Split 2016.
11...a5
11...f5 12.exf5 Rxf5 13.Bd2 a5 14.Qe2 Nc5 15.b3± Anand,V-Becking,F

Benidorm 2007.
12.f4 Nc5 13.Be3±

Sjugirov,S-Umbetov,K Astana 2017. No-one should underestimate a space
advantage and chances to play on every part of the board — simply put,
Black has to avoid this line.
2.6 — 7...D5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 d5
This is one of the best two moves that Black has at his disposal. He
immediately challenges the white centre and in a lot of cases he goes for the
‘hanging pawns’ strategic theme.
8.cxd5
And here Black has two main set-ups at his disposal, depending on the re-
capture on d5: 8...Nxd5 and 8...exd5.
2.6.1 — 8...NXD5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 d5 8.cxd5
Nxd5
Black plans to simply exchange the central pawns (...c5 and ...cxd4),
achieving an identical pawn structure, and then with the help of some
further piece exchanges to get an easy drawn position. Not a very ambitious
approach, but logical enough.
9.Nxd5
Also possible seems to be 9.Qc2 Nd7 10.Nxd5 Bxd5 (10...exd5 11.Bf4 c5

12.Rfd1 Nf6 13.dxc5 bxc5 14.Ng5 Qb6 15.Rd3 h6 16.Nf3 c4 17.Rdd1 Bc5
18.e3 Rfe8 19.Be5 Ne4 20.Bd4² Cori,J-Campora,D Benasque 2016) 11.e4
Bb7 12.Rd1 Rc8 13.Bf4² Korchnoi,V-Karpov,A Brussels 1987.
9...Bxd5
9...exd5, achieving a version of sub-chapter 2.6.2 without a pair of knights,

is possible (and may be better than the text): 10.Ne5 Nd7
11.Nd3! Bd6 (11...Re8 12.b4 Nf6 13.Bf4 Bd6 14.Bg5 h6 15.Bxf6 Qxf6
16.e3 c6 17.a4 Rad8 18.Qb3 h5 19.Rac1² Ivkov,B-Damjanovic,M Banja
Luka 1974; 11...c5 12.Nf4 [12.dxc5 bxc5 13.Nf4 Nf6 14.b3 Qb6 15.e3
Rfd8 16.Bb2² Pelts,R-Handoko,E Thessaloniki 1984] 12...Nf6 13.b3 Qd7
14.Bb2 Rfd8 15.Rc1² Gutman,L-Heika,M Bad Wörishofen 2001) 12.b4
Qe7 13.Rb1 Rfe8 14.Re1 Nf6 15.Bg5 h6 16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.e3 a6 18.a4 Qf5
19.Qb3 h5 20.Rbc1² Bernard,C-Schall,A Vitrolles 1981.
10.Bf4
10...Nd7
Of course, Black can also opt for:

a) 10...c5 11.dxc5 Bxc5 (11...bxc5 12.Ne5 Bxg2 13.Kxg2 f6 14.Nc4²
Cruz,C-Ripa,D Moquegua Ilo 2017) 12.a3! a5 (12...Nd7 13.b4 Be7 14.Rc1²
Zhao,C-Jin,Y Hangzhou 2019) 13.Qc2 h6 (13...Qe7 14.Ng5 g6 15.Ne4²)
14.e4 Bb7 15.Rfd1 Qe7 16.Ne5² Aguiar,C-Vasques,J Portugal 2003.
b) 10...Nc6 11.Rc1 Rc8 12.Re1! (12.a3 Bf6 13.e3 h6 14.Re1 Be4 15.Nd2
Bxg2 16.Kxg2 Ne7 17.Ne4 Nd5 18.Nxf6+ Nxf6 19.e4 Qd7 20.f3 Rfd8
21.Be3 Ne8 22.Qc2 c6 23.Red1 f5 24.Bf4 Nf6 25.Qe2 ½-½ Petrosian,T-
Simonian,H Yerevan 2012) 12...Na5 13.Bd2².
c) 10...Bd6 11.Qc2 Bxf4 12.gxf4 Na6 13.Rfd1 Qe7 14.Qa4 Nb4 15.a3 Nc6
16.Rac1 Na5 17.Rc3² Seres,L-Vajda,A Eger 1995.
11.Qc2 Rc8
The direct 11...c5 looks pleasant for White: 12.e4 Bb7 13.d5! exd5 14.exd5
Re8 (14...Bf6 15.Rfe1 Rc8 16.Nd2 Bd4 17.Nc4± Sarana,A-Gerasimov,I
Sochi 2015; 14...Bxd5? 15.Rfd1 Be6 16.Ne5+–) 15.d6! (15.Rad1 Bf6 16.d6
Be4 17.Qc4² Ginsburg,G-Schneider,M Zürich 2006) 15...Bf6 16.Ng5 Bxg5
17.Bxb7 Rb8 18.Bxg5 Qxg5 19.Bc6 Red8 20.Rfe1±
However, as it apeears that he can no longer achieve the ...c5 advance under
favourable circumstances, he should look at the alternatives above.
12.e4
Now White can respond to Black’s ...c5 with the d5 advance.
12...Ba8
12...Bb7 13.Rad1 Nf6 14.Rfe1 Bb4 15.Re3 Nh5 16.Bg5 f6 17.Rb3±

Giulian,P-Patola,E Katerini 2014.
13.Rad1
13.Rfd1 Nf6 14.Ne5± Berg,E-Brynell,S Stockholm 2011 looks good as

well, but as White is planning to go for the d5 advance sooner or later (with
or without a black ...c5), it is logical to gather his pieces in the centre.
13...Bd6
Or 13...Nf6 14.Ne5 c6 15.Qe2 b5 16.a3 Qb6 17.b4 a5 18.Qb2± Smejkal,J-

Santos,J Siegen 1970.
14.Bg5 Be7 15.Be3
A proposed novelty in place of 15.h4 h6 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Rfe1² Puertolas

Serena,A-Gaston Cabello,J Aragon 2013. As White has a space advantage,
it is logical to preserve pieces on the board.
15...Nf6 16.Ne5
White has gained a clear plus; he controls the centre, has a good space
advantage and can create play all over the board. As long as Black cannot
achieve a well-timed ...c5 (without White being able to play d5), his
chances are slim...
2.6.2 — 8...EXD5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 d5 8.cxd5
exd5
Black gets ready to fight, either (after ...c5) with an isolated d-pawn, or with
hanging central pawns.
9.Ne5
My preference. The text enlivens White’s pieces, while increasing the g2-
bishop’s scope.
9...Na6
Here Black has a number of alternative set-ups, but they all fail to satisfy, as
White scores heavily:
a) 9...Nbd7?! 10.Qa4!
a1) 10...a6 11.Nxd7 Nxd7 12.Nxd5+– Wang,Y-Isakov,M Tianjin 2019.
a2) 10...Nxe5 11.dxe5 Ne8 (11...Ne4 12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.Bxe4 Bxe4
14.Qxe4+– Lagunow,A-Sauer,M Erfurt 2019) 12.Nxd5 (12.Rd1 c6 13.e4
Nc7 14.exd5 Nxd5 15.Nxd5 cxd5 16.Be3± Miroshnichenko,E-Berlin,T
Minsk 2007; 12.Bxd5 Bxd5 13.Rd1 c6 14.e4 Nc7 15.exd5 cxd5 [1–0
Tkachiev,V-Samuel,C Port Elizabeth 2013] 16.Nxd5 Nxd5 17.Qb3+–)
12...Bxd5 13.Rd1 c6 (13...b5 14.Qc2 c6 15.e4 Rc8 16.exd5 cxd5 17.Qd3
Qc7 18.Bf4+– Stangl,M-Fuchs,G Austria 2000)
14.e4 Nc7 15.exd5 cxd5 16.Be3± Horvath,C-Brestian,E Austria 1995.
a3) 10...c5 11.Nxd7 Qxd7 12.Qxd7 Nxd7 13.Bxd5± Shipov,S-Kuhne,D
Berlin 1996.
a4) 10...Nb8 11.Rd1 (11.Bf4 c6 12.Rad1 b5 13.Qc2± Dvoirys,S-
Musakaev,E Salekhard 2006) 11...h6 (11...a6 12.Bg5 [12.Qc2 Nbd7 13.Bf4
Rc8 14.Qb3 c6 15.Bh3 b5 16.e4± Hammer,J-Gronnestad,A Drammen 2019]
12...Ne4 13.Bf4 Nxc3 14.bxc3 b5 15.Qb3 c6 16.e4± Wang,Y-
Khamrakulov,D Ha Long City 2009) 12.Bf4 Re8 13.Rac1 a6 14.Qb3
14...Nc6?! (14...Rf8 15.a3 a5 16.g4±) 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.Bxd5 Nxe5

17.Bxb7 1–0 Almasi,Z-Bengherabi,K Tromsø 2014.
b) 9...c6?! 10.e4 (10.Bf4 Nbd7 11.Qc2 Re8 12.Rad1 Nf8 13.e4²
Pantsulaia,L-Albay,K Istanbul 2006)
b1) 10...dxe4 11.Nxe4 Nd5 (11...Nxe4 12.Bxe4±)
12.Nc3 Bf6 (12...Nxc3 13.bxc3 Qc7 [13...Bf6 14.Re1±] 14.Re1 Nd7
[14...Bd6 15.Nc4 Nd7 16.Nxd6 Qxd6 17.Bf4 Qa3 18.Qb3+– Saric,A-
Ascic,P Zadar 2019] 15.Nc4! [15.Nxc6 Bxc6 16.d5 Bxd5 17.Bf4 Qc5
18.Qxd5 Rad8 19.Rad1 Nf6 20.Qxc5 Bxc5 21.h3² Rakhmanov,A-
Zatonskih,A Douglas 2019] 15...Nf6 16.Bf4 Qd8 17.Qb3±) 13.Nxd5
(13.Qb3 Nxc3 14.Qxc3 Bxe5 15.dxe5± Raetsky,A-Tania,S Abu Dhabi
2004) 13...cxd5 14.Bf4 Nc6 15.Rc1 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Be7 17.Qa4±
Gheorghiu,F-Mariotti,S Biel 1982.
b2) 10...c5?! 11.exd5 Nxd5?! (11...cxd4 12.Qxd4±)
12.Qf3! (12.Qb3 Nxc3 13.Bxb7 Ne2+ 14.Kg2 Nxd4 15.Qd5± Raetsky,A-
Kienast,J Berlin 1993) 1–0 Manor,I-Cnaan,M Israel 1988.
b3) 10...Nbd7 11.Nxc6 Bxc6 12.exd5 Nxd5 13.Nxd5 Rc8 14.Bf4 Bg5
15.Bd6 Re8 16.Qb3 Nf6 17.Ne7+ Rxe7 18.Bxe7 Qxe7 19.Bxc6 Rxc6
20.Qb5 1–0 Horvath,J-Logar,M Feffernitz 2009.
b4) 10...Na6 11.exd5 Nxd5 12.Qa4! (12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.Bf4 [13.Qa4 Qe8
14.Qb3² Schmidt,P-Meister,P Germany 1995] 13...Bg5 14.Qg4 Bxf4
15.Qxf4 Nb4 16.a3 Nc6 17.Ng4 Na5 18.Ne3 Nb3 19.Rad1 Rc8 20.Rfe1
Re8 21.Nf5 Bc6 22.Rxe8+ Bxe8 23.Bxd5 Na5 24.Re1 Bc6 25.Qe5 Qxd5
26.Qxg7# 1–0 Troff,K-Aravindh,C Maribor 2012) 12...b5 13.Qb3±
c) 9...Ne4?! 10.Nxe4 (10.Qc2 Nxc3 11.Qxc3 f6 [11...c5 12.Rd1 cxd4
13.Qxd4 Nc6 14.Nxc6 Bxc6 15.Bxd5 Qxd5 16.Qxd5 Bxd5 17.Rxd5 Rfd8
18.Rxd8+ Rxd8 19.Be3± Bozic,M-Djordjev,B Mataruska Banja 2007]
12.Nd3 c6 13.e4± Cvitan,O-Zivkovic,V Valjevo 1984) 10...dxe4
11.Qc2! f5 (11...Qxd4? 12.Qxc7+–; 11...Na6 12.Bxe4 Nb4 13.Bxh7+ Kh8
14.Qf5 Qd5 15.e4 Qe6 16.Qh5 1–0 Hernandez Leon,A-Martin Lucilla,A
Santa Cruz de Tenerife 2017) 12.Be3 Bd5 (12...Na6 13.Rac1 Qd5 14.Nc6
Bxc6 15.Qxc6 Qxc6 16.Rxc6± Euwe,M-Capablanca,J Holland 1938;
12...Rf6 13.Rac1 Na6 14.Rfd1 h6 15.a3 Rc8 16.b4± Kachiani Gersinska,K-
Hernandez,A Rio Gallegos 1986) 13.f3! Bg5 (13...exf3 14.Bxf3±) 14.Bxg5
Qxg5 15.fxe4 Qe3+ 16.Kh1 Bxe4 17.Bxe4 Qxe4+ 18.Qxe4 fxe4 19.Rxf8+
Kxf8 20.Rf1+ Kg8 21.Rf4± Skembris,S-De Bortoli,P Montecatini Terme
1999.
d) 9...c5?! 10.dxc5
d1) 10...bxc5 11.Qb3 Bc6 (11...Nbd7 12.Qxb7 Nxe5 13.Nxd5 Nxd5
14.Qxd5 Qxd5 15.Bxd5± Kochyev,A-Bachmann,K Dortmund 1977;
11...Qb6 12.Nxd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 Qxb3 14.Bxb3± Torres Rivas,F-
Bankhead,B Montevideo 2017) 12.Bg5 (12.Nxc6 Nxc6 13.Nxd5±
Ochonski,P-Kukula,P Polanica Zdroj 2004) 12...c4 13.Nxc6 Nxc6 14.Qa4
Ne4 15.Nxe4 dxe4 16.Bxe7 Nxe7 17.Qxc4+– Dlugy,M-Afifi,A Tunis 1985.
d2) 10...Bxc5 11.Bg5 (11.Nd3 Na6 12.Bg5 Be7 13.Qb3 Nc7 14.Nf4 Qe8
[14...Ne4 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Nfxd5 Nxd5 17.Nxd5 Qe5 18.Rfd1±
Birnboim,N-Zlatin,A Jerusalem 2014] 15.Bxf6 Bxf6 16.Ncxd5 Nxd5
17.Bxd5 Bxd5 18.Nxd5 Qxe2 19.Nxf6+ gxf6 20.Rfe1 Qh5 21.Re7±
Karavade,E-Derakhshani,D Sharjah 2014) 11...Be7 (11...Na6 12.Bxf6 gxf6
13.Ng4 Nc7 14.Nxd5 Bxd5 15.Bxd5 Nxd5 16.Qxd5 Bd4 17.Nh6+ Kh8
18.Nxf7+ 1–0 Mudrak, J-Janal, V Stare Mesto 2003)
12.Nd3 (12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.Ng4 Bxc3 14.bxc3± Studen,D-Dixon,D Irvine

2010; 12.Rc1 Na6 13.Nd3 Ne4 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Nf4± Reznicek,J-Krys,J
Pardubice/Chrudim 2001) 12...Ne4 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.Nf4 Nxc3 15.bxc3
Na6 16.Nxd5 Bxd5 17.Bxd5 Rad8 18.c4± Hernandez Leon,A-Evora
Acosta,T Tenerife 2013.
e) 9...Re8?! 10.Qb3
e1) 10...c6 11.e4 Bd6 (11...Rf8 12.exd5 [12.Re1 dxe4 13.Nxe4 Qxd4
14.Nxf6+ Bxf6 15.Nxf7+– Tashkov,R -Petkova,V Teteven 2004] 12...Nxd5
13.Be3 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Qc7 15.f4± Vardan,N-Alan,D Taleigao 2018)
12.Bg5! (12.exd5 Bxe5 13.dxe5 Nxd5 14.Nxd5 cxd5 15.Bf4² Ross,D-
Morin,G Seattle 1986) 12...Bxe5 13.dxe5 Rxe5 14.f4 Rxe4 15.Bxe4 dxe4
16.Rad1 Qe8 17.Nxe4+–
e2) 10...Na6 11.e4 c6 12.exd5 cxd5 13.Nb5 Bf8 (13...Nd7 14.Nd3 Nf6
15.Bf4 Qd7 16.Rfe1± Huerga Leache,M-Jimenez Ruano,A Marbella 2019)
14.Bg5 Nc5 15.Nxf7! Kxf7 16.dxc5 Bxc5 17.Rad1 Re5 18.Bxf6 Qxf6
19.Rxd5 1–0 Haba,P-Bazant,P Czech Republic 2008.
e3) 10...Bf8 11.Bg5 c6 12.e4 Qd6 13.Bxf6 gxf6 14.Ng4± Ajrapetjan,Y-
Jakubowski,M Warsaw 2006.
e4) 10...c5 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.Nd3 Na6 13.Bg5 Qd6 14.Rad1 (14.Bxf6 Qxf6
15.Nxd5±) 14...Ne4 15.Nxe4 dxe4 16.Nxc5 Qxc5 17.Rd7 Qxg5? (17...Qf5
18.Rxb7 Nc5 19.Bh3 Qg6 20.Qd5 Nxb7 21.Bd7 Nc5 22.Bxe8 Rxe8
23.Be3±) 18.Qxf7+ Kh8 19.Rxb7 Rf8 20.Rxa7 Rac8 21.Qe6 1–0 Jatoba de
Oliveira Reis,P-Dos Santos,F Juazeiro do Norte 2011.
f) 9...Qc8?! 10.Bg5 (10.Bf4 Rd8 11.Rc1 c5 12.dxc5 bxc5 13.Qb3±
Inarkiev,E-Moen,A Kallithea 2008)
f1) 10...Rd8 11.Rc1 Na6 12.f4 (12.Qb3±) 12...c5 13.e3 Nc7 14.f5 Nce8
15.g4 a6 16.Bf4 Bd6 17.g5± Krasenkow,M-Dragomarezkij,E Moscow
1991.
f2) 10...c6 11.e4 dxe4 12.Nxe4 Qe6 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Re1± Kavalek,L-
Kestler,H Biel 1977.
f3) 10...Qe6 11.Qb3 Rd8 12.e4 (12.Bxf6 Bxf6 13.e4 dxe4 14.Qxe6 fxe6
15.Nxe4² Ovetchkin,R-Arakelov,I Tula 2003; 12.f4 c6 13.f5 Qc8 14.e4±
Tari,A-Jaroch,K Katowice 2017) 12...dxe4 13.Qxe6 fxe6 14.Nxe4±
Gruenenwald,J-Federau,J Germany 1989.
The above piece of analysis looks scary, as it contains a lot of precise
moves and many variations, but in the end there is nothing much that you
can do. White gets a good advantage and he should be happy with his
opening outcome. If you feel ‘uncomfortable’ trying to remember the
variations, think about how miserable Black’s position is!
10.Bf4 c5
The main alternative is 10...Qc8 (10...Qe8 11.Qb3 c5 12.Nxd5 Bxd5

13.Bxd5 Nxd5 14.Qxd5 Rd8 15.Qb7 Nb4
16.dxc5 (16.Qxa7!? g5 17.Be3 cxd4 18.Bd2 Bc5 19.Bxb4 Qxe5 20.Bxc5
bxc5 21.Rac1±) 16...Bxc5 17.Rad1 Rxd1 18.Rxd1 g5 19.Qf3 gxf4 20.Nd7±
Khismatullin,D-Moiseenko,V Sochi 2017) 10...Qc8 11.Rc1 (11.a3 c6
12.Rc1 Qe6 13.b4 Rac8 14.Qa4² Rodshtein,M-Berczes,D Budva 2009)
11...Rd8 (11...Qe6 12.Nd3 Ne4 [12...c5 13.Be5 g5 14.f4± Fomichenko,E-
Wohl,A Naujac 2009] 13.Qb3 Nxc3 14.Rxc3 Bf6
15.Be5 [15.Be3 c6 16.Nf4 Qd6 17.Rfc1² Suba,M-Pogorelov,R Badalona
1994] 15...Bxe5 16.Nxe5 c5 17.Qa4² Greenfeld,A-Hjartarson,J Groningen
1981) 12.Qa4 (12.Qc2 c5 13.Rfd1 Qe6 14.a3² Georgiev,K-Damljanovic,B
Skopje 2002) 12...Qe6 13.Rfd1 c5 14.Bf3!? (14.Nf3 h6 15.dxc5 bxc5
16.Qb5 Qb6 17.Ne5² Mola,P-Dervishi,E Montecatini Terme 1999; 14.h4
Nh5 15.e3 f6 16.Nf3 h6∞ Bernasek,J-Simek,P Pardubice 2005; 14.Nb5
Ne4? [14...Nh5 15.Bd2²]
15.Bxe4! [15.Be3 Bf6 16.Nd3 Qe8∞ Cervinka,M-Juptner,J Czech Republic
2005] 15...dxe4 16.d5! Rxd5 17.Rxd5 Qxd5 18.Rd1 Qe6 19.Rd7±) 14...Nb4
(14...Ne4? 15.Bxe4 dxe4 16.d5 Qf5 17.Nc6±) 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.Nd3 Bc6
17.Qa5 Nxd3 18.exd3! Re8 19.Re1 Qd7 20.Qc7²
11.dxc5
Maybe White should wait a bit before the capture on c5, by 11.Rc1
a) 11...Ne4 12.Nxe4 dxe4 13.dxc5 Nxc5 14.Qc2 Rc8 15.Rcd1 Qe8 16.Bh3
Ne6 17.Qb3 Nc5 18.Qa3 Na4 19.Qe3² Cheparinov,I-Tiviakov,S Antofagasta
2016.
b) 11...Nc7 12.dxc5 (12.Nf3 Re8 13.Be5 Rc8 14.Bh3 Ra8 15.Bg2=
Gozzoli,Y-Bacrot,E Marseille 2019) 12...bxc5 (12...Bxc5 13.Bg5 Be7
14.Qa4² Tan,L-Narayanan,R Kuala Lumpur 2015)
13.Nc4 (13.Qa4 Bd6 14.Nd3 Ne6 15.Rfd1 Re8 16.e3² Tkachiev,V-Murali
Krishnan,B Kolkata 2009) 13...Rb8 14.Bxc7 Qxc7 15.Nxd5 Bxd5 16.Bxd5
Rbd8 17.e4 Nxe4 18.Re1 Nf6 19.Ne3 Qe5 20.Qa4± Harutyunian,T-
Nigalidze,G Tbilisi 2019.
c) 11...h6 12.Qa4 cxd4 (12...Nc7 13.dxc5 bxc5 14.Nc6 Qe8 15.Nxe7+ Qxe7
16.Bxc7 [16.b4! c4 17.Rfd1±] 16...Qxc7 17.b4 c4 18.Rfd1² Yang,K-
Naumkin,I Novi Sad 2019) 13.Qxd4 Bc5 14.Qa4 Nc7 15.Nd3 Ne6 16.Be5²
Pantsulaia,L-Arutinian,D Tbilisi 2019.
d) 11...Rb8 12.Nb5 Qe8 13.a4 Ra8 14.b3 (14.e3 Ne4 15.h4 f6 16.Nf3 h6
17.Nd2 Rd8 18.dxc5 Bxc5∞ Almasi,Z-Vocaturo,D Reggio Emilia 2010)
14...Qd8 15.Be3 Re8 16.Nd3² Yilmaz,M-Marin,M Baku 2016.
11...Nxc5
Black is forced to play with an isolated pawn, as the other capture

11...bxc5?! offers White a nice advantage: 12.Nc4! Qd7 (12...Bc6 13.a3
Rc8 14.Ne5 Bb7 15.Qb3 Ba8 16.Rad1 c4 17.Qc2 Qa5 18.e4!± Inkiov,V-
Ortega,L Varna 1983; 12...Rc8 13.Ne3 Nc7 14.Bxc7 Rxc7 15.Nexd5 Nxd5
16.Nxd5 Bxd5 17.Qxd5 Qxd5 18.Bxd5 Bf6 19.Rab1± Makarov,M-
Katishonok,I Moscow 1991) 13.Na5 Rad8 14.Nxb7 Qxb7 15.Qb3 (15.Be5
c4 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Nxd5 Qxb2 18.Qa4 Rd6 19.Nxf6+ Qxf6 20.Qxc4±
Tukmakov,V-Kochyev,A Ashkhabad 1978) 15...Qc6 (15...Rd7 16.Qxb7
Rxb7 17.b3 Rd7 18.Rfd1 Rfd8 19.Rac1 h6 20.Bh3 Rb7 21.Na4±
Spiridonov,N-Verat,L Paris 1994) 16.Rfd1 c4 17.Qb5 Qxb5 18.Nxb5 Rd7
(18...Bc5 19.b3 Rfe8 20.e3± Sichinava,Z-Kuznetsov,F St Petersburg 2016)
19.b3 cxb3 (19...Nc5 20.bxc4 dxc4 21.Rxd7 Nfxd7 22.Rc1± Gheorghiu,F-
Nun,J Timisoara 1987) 20.axb3 Nc5 21.Rxa7 Rxa7 22.Nxa7 Nxb3 23.Nc6
Re8 24.Bg5± Lenderman,A-Morrison,W Washington DC 2018.
12.Rc1
White can also try 12.Nb5 Ne6 (12...Nfe4 13.Rc1 Bf6 14.Nd3 Nxd3
15.exd3 Nc5 16.d4 Ne6 17.Be5 Bg5 18.f4 Be7 19.Qg4 f5 20.Qe2² Bany,J-
Stempin,P Polanica Zdroj 1987) 13.Be3 (13.Nd4 Nxd4 14.Qxd4 Bc5
15.Qd1 Re8 16.Nd3 Bf8 17.Be5² Soppe,G-Varela,G Buenos Aires 2000;
13.Rc1 Nxf4 14.gxf4 Bc5 15.Nd3 Qe7 16.b4 Bd6 17.Qb3² Socko,B-
Pigusov,E Moscow 2019) 13...a6 14.Nd4 Nxd4 15.Bxd4 Bc5 16.Rc1 Qe7
17.e3² Wojtkiewicz,A-Eismont,O Katowice 1993.
12...Rc8
Quite similar is 12...Re8 13.Nb5

a) 13...Nh5 14.Be3 Bf6 (14...a6 15.Nd4² Bf8?! 16.Ndc6 Qd6 17.Qxd5 Qc7
18.b4 Nf6 19.Qxf7+ Qxf7 20.Nxf7+– Gurevich,D-Chin Alein,H St Martin
1992) 15.b4! (15.Nd3!?± Ghaem Maghami,E-Pirker,G Oberwart 2007)
15...Bxe5 (15...Ne4 16.Ng4±) 16.bxc5±
b) 13...a6 14.Nd4 Bd6 15.b4 Bxe5 16.Bxe5 Nce4
17.Bc7± Sabuk,P-Ozenir,E Lvov 2018.
c) 13...Ne6 14.Nd3
c1) 14...Ba6 15.a4 (15.Nc7 Nxc7 16.Bxc7 Qd7 17.Be5² Pershin,D-
Stepanyan,E Taganrog 2017) 15...Bxb5 16.axb5 Nd4 17.Be5 Nxb5 18.Nf4
Rc8 19.Qa4 Nd6 20.Rxc8 Nxc8 21.Rd1 Qd7 22.Qb3² Speelman,J-
Giardelli,S Mexico 1980.
c2) 14...Ne4 15.Nc7! (15.Qa4 N4c5 16.Nxc5 bxc5 17.Nc3 Nxf4 18.gxf4
Bf6∞ Gutman,L-Darga,K Luzern 1982) 15...Nxc7 16.Rxc7 Ba6 17.Qc2²
c3) 14...Rc8 15.Rxc8 (15.Qa4?! Bc6 16.Ne5 Bxb5 17.Qxb5 Nxf4 18.gxf4
Bd6³ Sagar,S-Van Osch,M Leiden 2016) 15...Qxc8 16.Nxa7 Qa8 17.Nb5
Qxa2 18.Bd6²
13.Nd3
Not too much different for White are the alternatives:

a) 13.Nb5
13...Ne6 (13...a6 14.Nd4 Bd6 [14...Nce4?! 15.Nec6² San Pedro Lopez,K-
Vila Antunez,J Cala Galdana 1999] 15.Bh3 Rc7 16.Nd3² Vera,R-Valenti,G
Saint Vincent 2001; 13...Nce4 14.Nd3 Qd7 15.Nd4 Bd6 16.Bxd6 Qxd6
17.Qa4² Vidonyak,N-Ankerst,M Germany 1997) 14.Rxc8 Qxc8 15.Be3
Qb8 16.Nf3 Ng4 17.Bd2 Bf6 18.Bc3 Rd8 19.Bxf6 Nxf6 20.Nbd4²
Gheorghiu,F-Cardoso,R Manila 1974.
b) 13.Be3 Bd6 14.Nf3 Nce4 15.Bd4 Bc5 16.Qa4 a6 17.Rfd1 b5 18.Qb3²
Vyzmanavin,A-Morozevich,A New York 1995.
13...Ne6 14.Be5 Qd7 15.Qb3

Romanishin,O-Abatino,M Cutro 1999. White keeps a small advantage due
to Black’s isolated d-pawn, but that’s not much as the presence of many
pieces in the board is generally good for the side with the isolani.
2.7 — 7...NE4
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 Ne4
The most common continuation. Black tries to free his game by exchanging
some pieces, while keeping control over the important e4-square.
8.Qc2
Although 8.Bd2 is the basic white preference here, I still like the text.
8...Nxc3
Black’s main alternatives are:

a) 8...f5 9.Ne5
And now:
a1) 9...d5 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Qb3 Kh8 (11...a5 12.Be3 Kh8 13.Rac1 Bd6
14.Nb5± Bxe5?! 15.dxe5 Na6 16.Bxe4 [16.Nxc7! Nxc7 17.Qxb6+–] 16...f4
[16...dxe4 17.Nxc7! Nxc7 18.Bxb6 Rc8 19.Rfd1+–] 17.Nxc7 Nxc7
18.Bxb6+– Gabriel,C-Skembris,S Portoroz 1993) 12.Bf4 Bf6 13.Rfd1 c6
14.Rac1 (14.f3 Nxc3 15.bxc3 Nd7 16.Nxd7 Qxd7= Djingarova,E-
Kovanova,B Plovdiv 2008) 14...Qe7 (14...Nd7? 15.Nxc6 Bxc6 16.Nxe4+–;
14...g5 15.Be3 f4 16.gxf4 gxf4 17.Bxf4 Nxf2
18.Rf1! Bg5 19.e3+–; 14...Qc7? 15.Nxe4 [15.Ng6++–] 15...fxe4 16.Ng4
Qe7 17.Nxf6 Qxf6 18.Be5 Qe6 19.f3 c5 20.fxe4 cxd4 21.Bxd4 Qf7 22.Rf1
Qe7 23.Rxf8+ Qxf8 24.exd5 1–0 Triapishko,A-Turar,D Iasi 2012) 15.Rc2²
a2) 9...d6?! 10.Nxe4 (10.Nd3 d5 11.Nf4 Qd7 12.Qb3 Nxc3 13.Qxc3 Bf6
14.cxd5 exd5 15.Qb3 c6 16.Be3² Gislason,G-Berg,E Reykjavik 1996)
10...Qc8 (10...Kh8? 11.Nxd6! Bxg2 12.Ndf7+ Kg8 13.Nxd8 Be4 14.Qxe4
fxe4 15.Nxe6 1–0 Stanojevic,B-Pikula,R Sozina 2004; 10...fxe4 11.Bxe4
Bxe4 12.Qxe4 dxe5 13.Qxa8 Qxd4 14.Be3 Qxb2 15.Qxa7 Bd6 16.c5+–
Dogarescu,S-Baciu,O Bucharest 2002) 11.Nxd6 cxd6 12.Bxb7 (12.Nf3 Nc6
13.Bd2 Bf6 14.e3 Ne7 15.Rfc1± Bojda,L-Gasik,R Hlohovec 1998)
12...Qxb7 13.Nf3± Andreev,A-Dimitrov,I Sofia 1960.
a3) 9...Nd6 10.Bxb7 Nxb7 11.e4
a31) 11...Nc6 12.Nxc6 dxc6 13.Be3²
a32) 11...fxe4 12.Qxe4 c6
13.Qg4! (An excellent idea, although White can also opt for the most
‘common’ 13.d5 Bf6 [13...Nd6 14.Qe2 exd5 15.cxd5² Atalik,S-Bindrich,F
Dresden 2007] 14.Bf4 [14.dxc6 Nc5∞] 14...Nc5 15.Qe2 d6 [15...cxd5
16.cxd5 d6 17.Nd3 e5 18.Nxc5 bxc5 19.Bd2²] 16.Nxc6 Nxc6 17.dxc6 Bxc3
18.bxc3 Qc7∞; 13.b3 Nd6 14.Qd3² Przezdziecka,E-Lundberg,R Barlinek
2007) 13...Nd6 (13...Bf6 14.Ne4±) 14.d5!±
a33) 11...d6 12.Nf3 (12.Nd3 Nc6 [12...Na5?! 13.Nf4 Qc8 14.d5±
Grebeniuk,S-Mashevsky,A Kiev 2002] 13.Be3² Brychta,D-Cely,J Moravia
2002) 12...Nc6
13.Qe2 (13.d5 Nb4 14.Qb1 fxe4 15.Nd4² Horvath,M-Rakay,K Slovakia
1999; 13.Re1 a5 14.a3 Bf6 15.Be3² Hirneise,T-Saeed,I Doha 2016) 13...e5
14.dxe5 dxe5 15.exf5 Rxf5 16.Bf4! Bd6 17.Qe4 Qd7 18.Be3²
a34) 11...Nd6 12.exf5 (12.Rd1 Qe8 13.Be3² Lalith,B-Ziatdinov,R
Ahmedabad 2018; 12.f3 Bf6 13.Qd3 Qe7 14.Be3² Blaho,S-Magerciak,R
Slovakia 2015) 12...Nxf5 (12...Rxf5 13.b3 Na6 14.Bb2 c6 15.Rae1± Le,M-
Duong,T Ho Chi Minh City 2015) 13.Qe4 Na6 14.Rd1 (14.Bf4!? Qe8
15.Rad1²) 14...c6 15.d5 Nc5 16.Qe2 exd5 17.cxd5² Ftacnik,L-Petrik,S
Detva 1977.
b) 8...d5 9.cxd5 exd5 (9...Nxc3 10.Qxc3 exd5 11.Bf4 c6 12.Ne5²
Skembris,S-Khatanbaatar,B Moscow 1994) 10.Bf4 Na6
11.Rac1 (11.Rfd1 Qc8 [11...Nxc3 12.Qxc3 c5 13.dxc5 bxc5 14.Qb3²
Gritsak,O-Rydstrom,T Gothenburg 2017] 12.a3 (12.Ne5 Nxc3 13.Qxc3
Qe6 14.Rac1² [14.Bf3 c5 15.Bg4?! f5 16.Bf3 Bf6³ Lahaye,R-Arutinian,D
Amsterdam 2019]) 12...c5 13.Nxe4 dxe4 14.Ng5 Bxg5 15.Bxg5 Qf5
16.Be3² Klinger,J-Lautier,J Dortmund 1989) 11...c5 12.Rfd1 Qc8 13.dxc5
Nxc3 14.Qxc3 bxc5 15.e3 Rd8 16.Qa5 c4 17.Be5 Nc5 18.Bd4 Ne4 19.b3²
Pantsulaia,L-Dervishi,E Riyadh 2017.
9.Qxc3
Here Black mainly goes for 9...f5, or 9...c5. Some alternatives (where Black
avoids ...f5, or an early ...c5) to these two main moves are:
a) 9...d6 10.b3 Nd7 (10...a5 11.Bb2 Nd7 12.Rfd1 Be4 13.Qe3 d5 14.Rac1
c6 15.a4 Rc8 16.Nd2 Bxg2 17.Kxg2 Re8 18.Qf3² Radjabov,T-Anton
Guijarro,D Doha 2016) 11.Bb2 Nf6 12.Rfd1 a5 13.d5! e5 14.Nxe5 dxe5
15.d6 Bxd6 16.Bxb7 Rb8 17.Bc6² Liu,Y-Martirosyan,H Shanghai 2019.
b) 9...Be4 10.b3
b1) 10...c6 11.Bb2 d5 12.Ne5 (12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Ne5 Bxg2 14.Kxg2 f6
15.Nc6 Nxc6 16.Qxc6 Kf7 17.Rfc1 Qb8 18.Qb5 Qb7 19.Rc6 Rac8 20.Rac1
Rfd8 21.a4 Rxc6 22.Qxc6 Qxc6 23.Rxc6 Bd6 24.Bc1 ½-½ Gheorghiu,F-
Browne,W Manila 1976) 12...Bxg2 13.Kxg2 Bd6 (13...Bf6 14.Rfd1!
[14.Ng4 Nd7 15.cxd5 cxd5 16.Nxf6+ Nxf6 17.Rac1 Rc8 18.Qd3 Qd7 ½-½
Panno,O-Najdorf,M Netanya 1975] 14...Bxe5 15.dxe5 Qe7 16.e4 dxe4
17.Qe3 Na6 18.Qxe4 Rac8 19.Rd6±) 14.Rfd1 f6 15.Nd3 Nd7 16.cxd5 cxd5
17.Qc6 Qe7 18.Rac1² Graf,A-Nguyen Anh Dung Jakarta 1997.
b2) 10...Nc6 11.Bb2 (11.Ne5 Bxg2 12.Kxg2 Nxe5 13.dxe5 d6 14.Bf4²)
11...d5
12.Rad1 (12.Rfd1 Rc8 13.Ne5 Nxe5 14.Bxe4 Nxc4 15.Bxh7+ Kxh7 ½-½
Gheorghiu,F-Keene,R Netanya 1977) 12...Qd7 13.Ne5 Nxe5 14.dxe5 Bxg2
15.Kxg2 c6 16.e4²
b3) 10...d5 11.Bb2 Nd7 12.cxd5 exd5 (12...Bxd5 13.Rac1 Rc8 14.Rfd1 c5
15.Ne5 Nf6 16.Qd3 [16.e4!? Nxe4 17.Bxe4 Bxe4 18.dxc5 Bd5 19.Nd7 Bf6
20.Nxf6+ Qxf6 21.Qxf6 gxf6 22.cxb6±; 16.Bxd5 Nxd5 17.Qd3 cxd4
18.Qxd4²] 16...Bxg2 17.Kxg2 Qd5+ 18.Qf3 cxd4 19.Nc6 Bc5 20.Nxd4 a6
21.a3²) 13.Bh3 (13.Rac1 Bd6 14.Rfd1 Re8 15.e3 Qf6 16.Ne1 Bxg2
17.Kxg2 ½-½ Gheorghiu,F-Rashkovsky,N Sochi 1976; 13.Qc6!? Nf6
14.Rac1 Bd6 15.Bh3²) 13...Bxf3 14.Qxf3 Nf6 15.Rac1² Morais,V-Dias,P
Lisbon 1999.
b4) 10...Qc8 11.Bb2
b41) 11...d6 12.Qe3 (12.Ne1 Bxg2 13.Nxg2 Bf6 14.Qd2 Qb7 15.Rad1 Nd7
16.Rfe1 Rfe8 17.e4² Steinberg,M-Fucak,E Sochi 1968) 12...d5 13.Bh3 Qd8
14.cxd5 Bxd5 15.Qd3² Guimard,C-Rossetto,H Buenos Aires 1942.
b42) 11...Bf6 12.Ne5 (12.Ne1 Bxg2 13.Nxg2 c5 [½-½ Gufeld,E-
Taimanov,M Sukhumi 1972] 14.Qd2 Nc6 15.d5 Bxb2 16.Qxb2 exd5
17.cxd5 Nd4∞ Popov,L-Udovcic,M Tel Aviv 1964) 12...Bxg2 13.Kxg2
Qb7+ 14.f3 (14.Qf3 Qxf3+ 15.Nxf3²) 14...d6 15.Ng4 Nd7 16.e4²
b43) 11...Qb7 12.Bh3 (12.Ne1 Bxg2 13.Nxg2 Bf6 14.Rad1 c5 15.e3 Qf3
16.Qc2 Na6 17.dxc5 Bxb2 18.Qxb2 Nxc5² ½-½ Osnos,V-Khasin,A
Leningrad 1956) 12...Bxf3 (12...Bf6 13.Nd2 Bf5 14.Bg2±) 13.exf3 c5
14.Qd2 Bf6 15.Bg2²
b5) 10...d6 11.Bb2 Nd7
12.Ne1 (12.Nd2!? Bxg2 13.Kxg2 e5 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.Rad1² Jakob,S-
Ernst,R Switzerland 1993; 12.Rac1 f5 13.Rfd1 Bf6 14.Ne1 e5 15.dxe5
Bxe5 16.Qd2 Bxb2 ½-½ Grivas,E-Stefansson,H Athens 1993; 12.Bh3 Bf6
13.Rad1² Giri,A-Eljanov,P Wijk aan Zee 2017) 12...Bxg2 13.Nxg2
(13.Kxg2 c6 14.Nf3 d5 15.Rac1 Rc8 16.Rfd1² Malich,B-Barcza,G Decin
1975) 13...c6 14.e4 (14.Rfd1 d5 15.cxd5 cxd5 16.Rac1 Rc8 17.Qxc8 Qxc8
18.Rxc8 Rxc8 19.Rc1 Rxc1+ 20.Bxc1= Tkachiev,V-Jobava,B Benidorm
2007) 14...d5 15.e5²
c) 9...Bf6 10.b3
10...d6 (10...Be4 11.Bb2 d6 12.Rfd1 Nd7 13.Qd2² Schuh,F-Pokojowczyk,J
Tapolca 1986; 10...c5 transposes to 9...c5) 11.Qd3 (11.Bb2 Nd7 12.Qc2 g6
13.Rad1 Bg7 14.e4² Mikhalchishin,A-Rotstein,A Austria 2007) 11...Qc8
12.Ng5 (12.e4!? Nd7 13.Be3²) 12...g6 13.Ne4 Bg7 14.Bg5 f5 15.Nc3 Bxg2
16.Kxg2 Nc6 17.d5 Nb4 18.Qd2² Visier Segovia,F-Pomar Salamanca,A
Palma de Mallorca 1966.
d) 9...d5 10.Bf4 Bd6 (10...Na6 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Rfd1²) 11.Ne5 f6 12.Nd3²
Yakubbaeva,N-Srimathi,R New Delhi 2019.
e) 9...Qc8 10.Rd1 (10.Bf4 d6 11.Rfe1 c5 12.e4 cxd4 13.Nxd4 Nd7 14.Rad1
a6 15.Qd2 Rd8 16.b3 h6 17.Be3 Nc5 18.Qc2² Krishna,C-Fedorchuk,S
Vrachati 2013) 10...Be4
11.Bg5 (11.d5 Bf6 12.Qb3 Na6 13.Be3 Nc5 14.Qa3 a5∞ Chirila,I-
Panchanathan,M Richardson 2012; 11.Bf4 d6 12.Qe3 d5 13.Rac1 c6
14.Bh3 Qb7 15.Nd2 Bg6 16.cxd5 exd5 17.Qc3± Najdorf,M-Kottnauer,C
Amsterdam 1950; 11.b3 d6 12.Bb2 Nd7 13.Qe3² Sulik,F-Najdorf,M Mar
del Plata 1941) 11...f6 12.Bf4 a5 13.Ne1 Bxg2 14.Nxg2 Qb7 15.Qc2 Na6
16.e4² Edouard,R-Harikrishna,P Biel 2012.
f) 9...Na6 10.Rd1 (10.b3 d5 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Bb2 Re8 13.Rfd1 Bf8 14.Qd2
Qd6 15.Rac1 Rad8 16.e3² Mecking,H-Granda Zuniga,J Florianopolis 2017)
10...c5 (10...Bf6 11.Bf4 Qe7 12.a3 d6 13.Qc2 c6 14.e4 e5 15.Be3 Rfd8
16.b4² Ivkov,B-Guimaraes,J Budva 1981) 11.Be3 Rc8 12.Rac1 Nb4
13.Qb3² Lindgren,P-Zysk,R Germany 2017.
g) 9...a5 10.Rd1 (10.Qd3 f5 11.Ne1 Nc6 12.Nc2 Nb4 13.Qb3 Bxg2
14.Kxg2 c5∞ Benidze,D-Lysyj,I Zürich 2010; 10.Qc2 f5 11.d5 Na6 12.Nd4
Nc5 13.Rd1 Bf6 14.dxe6 Bxg2 15.Kxg2 Bxd4 16.Rxd4 Nxe6∞ Mudrak,J-
Konstacky,M Stare Mesto 2008) 10...Na6 11.Bf4 g5 12.Be3
12...d6 (12...Ra7 13.d5± Peptan,C-Luca,I Arad 2019) 13.Qd2 (13.d5 e5
14.Nd2 f5 15.f4 gxf4 16.gxf4 exf4 17.Bxf4 Bf6³ Ravazzolo,G-Spatola,D
Torino 2012) 13...g4 14.Ne1 Bxg2 15.Nxg2²
In all the above lines White preserves a spatial advantage and good chances
to occupy the centre and create a strong queenside initiative. In general
Black stands passive but solid.
2.7.1 — 9...F5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Qc2
Nxc3 9.Qxc3 f5
A logical idea, fully controlling (at least for a short time) the vital e4-
square, while avoiding any central opening.
10.b3 Bf6
10...Qe8, is also possible: 11.Bb2 Bf6 12.Qd2 (12.Rad1 d6 13.Qd2 [13.Ne1

Bxg2 14.Nxg2 Nd7 15.Qf3 a5 16.Nf4 g5 17.Nd3 Bg7 18.e4² Filip,M-
Bobekov,P Prague 1950] 13...Nd7 14.Rfe1 Qh5 15.Nh4 [15.Ne5 Nxe5
16.dxe5 Bxg2 17.Kxg2 dxe5 18.Qd7 Qf7∞ Stark,M-Santasiere,A Baltimore
1948] 15...Be4 16.f3² Testa,A-Zaja,I Imperia 1989) 12...Nc6 (12...a5
13.Rac1 [13.Ne1 Bxg2 14.Nxg2 Nc6 ½-½ Grünfeld,E-Pirc,V Belgrade
1952] 13...Na6 14.c5²) 13.d5 exd5 (13...Nd8 14.Nd4 d6 15.f4 exd5 16.cxd5
Qf7 17.Rac1± Dizdarevic,E-Atalik,S Sarajevo 2004) 14.cxd5 Ne7 15.Ne5
d6 16.Nc4²
11.Bb2 d6
Barring the text, Black has also opted for:

a) 11...Qe7 12.Ne5 (12.Qd2 Nc6 13.Rfe1 Nd8 14.Ne5 Bxg2 15.Kxg2 d6
16.Nf3 g5 17.e4 g4 18.Ng1² Koneru,H-Kosteniuk,A Beijing 2012; 12.Ne1
Bxg2 13.Nxg2 Nc6 14.Qd2 a5 15.a3 Nd8 16.Rfe1 Nf7 17.Qd3 g6 18.e4²
Mamedyarov,S-Sadvakasov,D Astana 2006) 12...Bxg2 13.Kxg2 Bxe5
14.dxe5 Nc6 15.f4² ½-½ Grivas,E-Nikolaidis,I Athens 1998.
b) 11...Nc6 12.Rad1 (12.Ne5 Nxd4 13.Qxd4 Bxg2 14.Kxg2 d6 15.Qe3
Bxe5 16.Bxe5 dxe5 17.Qxe5² Kempinski,R-Parligras,M Germany 2011)
12...Ne7 13.Ne1 Bxg2 14.Nxg2 g5 15.Qc2 Ng6 16.e4² Polugaevsky,L-
Korchnoi,V Evian 1977.
12.Rad1
Alternative options for White are:

a) 12.Qd2 Nd7 13.Ne1 Bxg2 14.Nxg2 Bg5 15.Qc2 Nf6 16.d5 Qd7 17.f4!
(17.dxe6 Qxe6 18.Bc1 Bxc1 19.Raxc1 Nh5 ½-½ Andersson,U-Ehlvest,J
Clermont Ferrand 1989) 17...Bh6 18.Bxf6 Rxf6 19.e4²
b) 12.Rfd1 Qe7 (12...Nd7?! 13.Ng5! [13.Qd2 Qe7 14.Ne1 Bxg2 15.Nxg2
g5 {15...a5 16.a3 Rfd8 17.Qc2² Guo,Q-Salgado Lopez,I Gibraltar 2015}
16.f4 Qg7 17.Rab1 Rae8 18.e3 Rf7∞ Montilla Carrillo,E-Domingo
Nunez,A Barcelona 2019] 13...Bxg5 14.Bxb7± Abasov,N-Izzat,K Baku
2011) 13.Rac1 Nd7 14.Qd2 Rad8 15.Ne1 Bxg2 16.Nxg2 g5 17.f4 g4
18.Re1 Bg7 19.e4² Poor,S-Kumar,N Budapest 2019.
c) 12.Qc2 Nd7 13.Rad1 Rb8 14.Ne1 Bxg2 15.Nxg2 g6 16.f4 c5 17.e4²
Johansson Ohman,L-Qasem,H Bratislava 2019.
12...a5
A flexible move. Black can of course try a variety of alternatives, most of

them transposing:
a) 12...Qe7 13.Ne1 Bxg2 14.Nxg2 Nd7 15.Qf3² Andersson,U-Rozentalis,E
Tilburg 1993.
b) 12...Qc8 13.Qd2 Nd7 14.Ne1 Bxg2 15.Nxg2 Rf7 16.Qc2 g6 17.e4²
Timman,J-Korchnoi,V London 1984.
c) 12...c5 13.Qd2 Nc6 14.dxc5 dxc5 15.Qe3 Qe7 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Rd2
Rad8 18.Rfd1 Rxd2 19.Rxd2 Rd8 20.Rxd8+ Nxd8 21.Ne1 Bxg2 22.Nxg2²
Lin,Y-Gaisinsky,A Aktobe 2019.

13.Ne1 Bxg2 14.Nxg2 Nc6
15.Qd2
Flexible, but also possible is 15.Qf3 Qd7 16.e3 (16.Nf4 Bxd4! 17.Bxd4
Nxd4 18.Rxd4 e5 19.Rd5 exf4 20.Qxf4 Rae8 21.Qf3 Re4 22.Rfd1 g6
23.R1d4 Rfe8 24.e3 ½-½ Polugaevsky,L-Korchnoi,V Buenos Aires 1980)
16...Rae8 17.Nf4²
15...Qd7 16.d5
Logical, as White must create his initiative in the centre. 16.Nf4 Bg5 17.d5
Nd8 18.dxe6 Nxe6 19.Qd5 Rae8 20.e3² Da Cunha,M-Andruet,G Wijk aan
Zee 1984, might also be nice!
16...Nd8 17.Bxf6 Rxf6 18.dxe6 Nxe6

19.Ne3
19.Nf4 leads nowhere: 19...Nxf4 20.Qxf4 Re8 21.e3 (21.Rd2 Qf7 22.Kg2
Rfe6 ½-½ Kaid,A-Jens,J Germany 2003) 21...Re4 22.Qf3 g6 23.Rd5 Rfe6=
Andersson,U-Akesson,R Skelleftea 1999.
19...Re8 20.Nd5 Rg6 21.e3²

Polugaevsky,L-Korchnoi,V Buenos Aires 1980. White controls the centre
and his knight is better placed than its counterpart. He can follow with
activity on the queenside (a3 and b4).
2.7.2 — 9...C5
Nxc3 9.Qxc3 c5
Black challenges White’s centre at once, hoping for exchanges which will
reduce his opponent’s spatial advantage.
10.b3 Bf6
10...cxd4 11.Nxd4 Bxg2 12.Kxg2 Bf6 (12...Nc6 13.Bb2 [13.Nxc6 dxc6

14.Bb2 Bf6 15.Qc2 Bxb2 16.Qxb2 ½-½ Gligoric,S-Keres,P Amsterdam
1971] 13...Nxd4 14.Qxd4 Bf6 15.Qd2 Bxb2 16.Qxb2 Qc7 17.Rfd1
[17.Rad1 Rfd8 18.Rd4 Qc6+ 19.Kg1 d6 20.Rfd1 Rd7 21.e4 Rad8 22.a4²
Abramovic,B-Krstic,P Belgrade 2008] 17...Rfd8 18.Rd4 d6 19.Rad1 Rd7
20.R1d3 Rad8 21.Qd2 Kf8 22.e4² Grivas,E-Ionescu,C Elista 1998) 13.Bb2
transposes below.
11.Bb2
11...cxd4
Alternatives are:
a) 11...Bxf3 12.Qxf3 Nc6 13.e3! Rc8 14.Rfd1 Qe7 15.Rac1 (15.Qe2 Rfd8
16.d5 exd5 17.Bxd5 Bxb2 18.Qxb2± Dzevlan,M-Bzenic,D Banja Vrucica
1991) 15...Rfd8 16.Qe2 h6 17.d5 exd5 18.Bxd5 Nb4 19.a3 Nxd5 20.Rxd5
d6 21.Rcd1± Valgmae,T-Huebner,R Puhajarve 2016.
b) 11...d6 12.Rad1
b1) 12...Qc7 13.Qd2 Rd8 14.dxc5 (14.Rfe1!? Nd7 15.e4²) 14...dxc5 15.Qf4
Na6 (15...Qxf4 16.Rxd8+ Bxd8 17.gxf4 f6 18.Rd1² Bc7? 19.Ng5! Bxg2
20.Nxe6 Na6 21.Rd7 Bh3 22.Rxg7+ Kh8 23.Bxf6 1–0 Comp Junior-
Tsesarsky,I Tel Aviv 1995) 16.Qxc7 Nxc7 17.Ne5 (17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Nd2
[18.g4 Kg7 19.h3 Ne8 20.Nh4 Bxg2 21.Kxg2 Rd6 22.Rxd6 Nxd6 23.Rd1
Rd8 24.Rd3 Kf8= Wiedenkeller,M-Bergstrom,C Stockholm 1985]
18...Bxg2 19.Kxg2 Kf8 20.Ne4 Ke7 21.Nc3 Na6 22.Rxd8 Rxd8 23.Rd1
Rxd1 24.Nxd1 Nb4 25.Nc3 f5 26.f4 Kf6 27.Kf3 Kg6 28.e3 Kh5 29.h3 Kg6
30.e4 h5 31.exf5+ ½-½ Andersson,U-Karpov,A Biel 1990) 17...Bxg2
18.Kxg2² Tereick,B-Borrink,J Willingen 2008.
b2) 12...Qe7
13.Rd2!? (13.Qd2 Nd7 14.dxc5 Bxb2 15.c6! Bxc6 16.Qxb2 Rfd8 (16...Nf6
17.Rd2 Rfc8 18.Rfd1 Ne8 19.Ne1 Bxg2 20.Nxg2 Rab8 21.e4! b5 22.cxb5
Rxb5 23.Ne3!² Andersson,U-Beliavsky,A Tilburg 1984) 17.Rd4 Nf6
18.Rfd1² Ribli,Z-Short,N Skelleftea 1989) 13...Nd7 (13...Bxf3? 14.Bxf3!
Bxd4 15.Qd3 Bxb2 16.Bxa8±; 13...Nc6!? 14.Qe3 Nxd4 15.Nxd4 cxd4
16.Bxd4 Bxd4 17.Rxd4 Bxg2 18.Kxg2²) 14.Qc2 Rac8 15.Qb1 Rfd8
16.Rfd1² Andersson,U-Stefansson,H Havana 2001.
c) 11...Nc6 12.Qd2
c1) 12...d5 13.dxc5 Bxb2 (13...dxc4?! 14.Bxf6! [14.Qxd8 Rfxd8 15.Bxf6
gxf6 16.cxb6 cxb3 17.bxa7 bxa2 18.Rxa2 Rxa7 19.Rxa7 Nxa7 ½-½
Rashkovsky,N-Kuzmin,G Baku 1977] 14...Qxf6 15.bxc4 bxc5 16.Rab1 Ba6
17.Qc2 (17.Qd6 Rac8 18.Qxc5 Ne7 19.Qxa7 Bxc4 20.Nd2!± Ivkov,B-
Andruet,G Cannes 1986) 17...Nb4 18.Qb3 Rab8 19.a3 Nc6 20.Qa4±
Andersson,U-Nikolic,P Thessaloniki 1984) 14.Qxb2 bxc5 15.cxd5 exd5
16.Rfd1 Qd6 17.Rac1² Heyken,E-Dudek,R Germany 1989.
c2) 12...d6 13.Rad1 Qe7 (13...Re8 14.Rfe1 Qe7 15.d5 exd5 16.Bxf6 Qxf6
17.Qxd5 Rad8 18.Qg5 Qxg5 [18...Qc3 19.Rd3 Qa5 20.Rd2² Pierecker,M-
Trassl,F Bayern 2014] 19.Nxg5 Na5 20.Rd2 Bxg2 21.Kxg2² Ivkov,B-
Evans,LM Sao Paulo 1978) 14.d5 (14.e4 e5 [14...cxd4 15.Nxd4 Rfd8
16.Rfe1 Nxd4 17.Bxd4 Bxd4 18.Qxd4² Ftacnik,L-Tiviakov,S Polanica
Zdroj 1995] 15.d5 Nd4 16.Bxd4 [16.Nxd4 cxd4 17.f4²; 16.Ne1 Bc8
17.Bxd4 cxd4 18.Nd3 Bg5 19.f4 Bh6 20.Qe2² Nikolic,P-Kovacevic,A Novi
Sad 2012] 16...cxd4 17.Ne1 g6 18.Nd3 Bc8 19.f4² Ribli,Z-Andersson,U
Germany 2003; 14.dxc5 Bxb2 15.Qxb2 dxc5 16.Ne5 Nxe5 17.Qxe5 Bxg2
18.Kxg2 Rad8= Cvek,R-Blahynka,M Czech Republic 2015) 14...exd5
15.Bxf6 Qxf6 16.Qxd5 (16.cxd5 Nb4 17.a3 Na6 18.e4² Del Prado,J-
Ramirez,J Los Barrios 1995) 16...Rfe8 17.Rd2²
12.Nxd4 Bxg2 13.Kxg2 Nc6
Tricky is the direct 13...d5, where White should continue with 14.Rad1!
(14.Rfd1 Nc6 15.Qc2 Nxd4 16.Bxd4 Rc8 [16...dxc4 17.Qxc4²] 17.Rac1
Bxd4 18.Rxd4 Qc7 19.e4 Qe5 20.Qd3 dxe4 21.Rxe4 Rcd8 22.Rxe5 Rxd3
23.Rc2 Rc8= Andersson,U-Brynell,S Malmo 1994) 14...dxc4 (14...Nc6
15.Qe3 Nxd4 16.Bxd4 Re8 [16...dxc4?! 17.Bc5+–] 17.Bxf6 Qxf6 18.cxd5
exd5 19.Qf3±) 15.Qxc4 Qc8 16.Qxc8 (16.Rc1 Qb7+ 17.f3 Na6 18.e4
Rfd8= Johannsson,I-Helmers,K Gluecksburg 1977) 16...Rxc8
17.Rd2 (17.Ba3 Na6 18.Rfe1 Nc7= Lengyel,F-Jakab,A Hungary 2012;
17.e4 Na6 18.f4 Nb4 19.e5 Be7= Pomar Salamanca,A-Karpov,A Montilla
1976) 17...Na6 18.Rfd1 Nb4 19.Nb5 Bxb2 20.Rxb2 a6 21.Nd6 Rc7
22.Rbd2² Abramovic,B-Maksimovic,M Belgrade 2007.
14.Qd3
Not so good is 14.Qd2 Bxd4! 15.Bxd4 d5!= but also possible is 14.Qe3
a) 14...Qc8 15.Rfd1 (15.Rad1 Rd8 16.Kg1 Bxd4 17.Bxd4 d5 18.cxd5 Rxd5
19.Ba1² ½-½ Seirawan,Y-De Firmian,N Reykjavik 1990) 15...Rd8 16.Qf3
(16.Rac1 Nxd4 17.Bxd4 Qb7+ 18.f3 Be7 19.Qe5 Bf8 20.Bb2² Nikolic,P-
Stefansson,H Reykjavik 1996) 16...Ne5 17.Qe4 Ng6 18.Rac1² Beliavsky,A-
Adams,M Belgrade 1995.
b) 14...Qe7 15.Rad1 (15.Rfd1 Rfd8 16.Rab1 Qc5 17.Nc2 Bxb2 18.Rxb2 a5
19.Nd4 a4 20.Rbd2 axb3 21.axb3 Nb4 22.Qf3² Andersson,U-Almasi,Z
Malmo 1994) 15...Rfd8
16.Rd2 Bxd4 17.Bxd4 d5 (½-½ Azmaiparashvili,Z-Almasi,Z Pamplona
1996) 18.cxd5 Rxd5 19.Bb2 Rxd2 20.Qxd2 Rd8 21.Qc3²
14...Bxd4
Black has also tried here:

a) 14...Qc8 15.Rfd1 Rd8 (15...Nxd4 16.Bxd4 Qc6+ 17.Kg1 Bxd4 18.Qxd4
Rfd8 19.Rd2 Rac8 20.Rad1 h6 21.Qe5 Rc7 22.Rd6 Qc5 23.Qf4 Qg5
24.Qd4 Qc5 25.Qd3± Yilmaz,M-Vaarala,E Golden Sands 2012) 16.Rac1
Nb4 (16...a6 17.Qe4 Ne7 18.Ba3² Ribli,Z-Horvath,J Austria 1999) 17.Qd2
Qc5 18.a3 Nc6 19.b4 Qh5 20.Nf3² Fridman,D-Jussupow,A Linares 1997.
b) 14...Rc8 15.Rad1 Ne7 16.Ba3 a6 17.e4 g6 18.Nf3 Rc7 19.Qd6±
Grabarczyk,M-Kunin,V Griesheim 2003.
15.Bxd4
15...d5
This is an attempt to improve Black’s play. 15...Nxd4 16.Qxd4 Qc7

17.Rfd1² Ivkov,B-Dzindzichashvili,R Tbilisi 1973 gives White a slight but
enduring edge, and should be compared with Grivas,E-Ionescu,C Elista
1998.
16.Bb2! Rc8
Black’s other options, 16...dxc4 17.Qxc4 Qd7 18.Rfd1 Qb7 19.Kg1 Rac8
20.Qg4± Yu,K-Liu,Y Shanghai 2018 and 16...d4 17.e3! dxe3 18.Qxe3², also
lead to pleasant positions for White, as his bishop will eventually prove its
superiority over the black knight due to the fact that there are pawns on
both sides.
17.cxd5! Nb4 18.Qf3 Qxd5 19.Rfd1 Qxf3+ 20.Kxf3²

Grivas,E-Khetsuriani,B Athens 2003. White has gladly accepted the
exchanges offered by Black, ending up in a pleasant endgame.
CHAPTER 3.
TYPICAL MIDDLEGAME STRATEGY
Knowing your good piece of opening theory in depth is a good start. But
alone it is not enough to gain and increase a significant advantage.
The knowledge of certain plans, manoeuvres, repeated motifs, etc, is an
essential piece of opening knowledge, as the journey continues via what we
call middlegame theory.
Yes, middlegame (and endgame) theory does exist. The great difficulty in
approaching it lies in the fact that it does not follow absolute and clear-cut
paths, but rather involves deep research into the ideas and logic by which
specific types of positions are treated.
Moreover, unlike opening theory, the theory of the middlegame (and the
endgame) does not change rapidly based on modern developments, and
instead remains almost intact through the years.
In middlegame theory we are obliged to study various or similar types of
positions with specific strategic and tactical attributes, so as to understand
the underlying ideas and be able to employ them ourselves in similar
situations. Besides, while many chess players have studied these topics and
acquired knowledge, it is the application of this knowledge in practice that
helps differentiate between them.
True, chess is not a simple activity, but it becomes so much more attractive
when we acquire this knowledge...
In view of the above, any chess player who wishes to follow a chess career
or simply become a better player must refrain from the commonplace and
assume a different approach.
He must develop a good understanding of middlegame (and endgame)
theory, so as to be able to proceed in a proper way after his chosen opening
has reached its conclusion.
And we must keep in mind that the most important asset is the pawn
structure; this is what guides us to understand what to do in the middlegame
— and even in the endgame!
Grivas Efstratios
Genov Petar
E15 Iraklion 1993
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 c6 6.Bg5 d5 7.cxd5 cxd5 8.e3
Bxf1 9.Kxf1 Be7 10.Kg2 Nc6 11.Rc1 Na5 12.Qb5+ Qd7 13.Qa6!
White’s pieces stand better and more harmoniously, so he holds the

advantage. He also threatens 14.Ne5!
13...Bd6
Black could also opt for 13...0-0 14.Ne5 Qe8 15.Nc3 h6 16.Bxf6 gxf6
17.Nd3 Nc4 18.b3 Nd6 19.Rc2²
14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Nc3 Qb7

16.Qe2
The exchange of queens would significantly relieve Black (16.Qxb7? Nxb7

17.Nb5 Kd7!), who now faces a multitude of problems. Not only must he
cater for the c-file, but also for his kingside weaknesses.
This is the concept of the ‘Rule of the Two Weaknesses’.
16...0-0 17.Rc2!
What we practically have here is a case of a forepost (the c3-knight) very

close to the white camp. White will double rooks on the c-file and at the
same time develop an initiative on the flank where the exposed black king
resides. At the appropriate moment the forepost will be removed in such a
way that Black will be unable to defend against all of White’s threats. A
simple plan, but the execution is difficult!
17...Rac8 18.Rac1 Kg7

19.Ne1!
A strong move, aiming at the transfer of the knight(s) to the f4-square; from
there, in combination with the approach of the white queen (Qh5) they will
be able to create direct threats against the black king.
19...f5 20.Nd3 Nc4?!

This appears strong, but in reality only serves to complicate Black’s
defensive task, as this knight works as a second forepost for White. Better is
20...Nc6 and ...Ne7, assigning the knight to the defence of the king.
21.Qh5 h6 22.Ne2! Qa6?
With the false impression of imminent material gain, thanks to the double
threat 23...Qxa2 and 23...Nxe3+. The defensive 22...Qd7, was essential.
23.Nef4! Be7
23...Qxa2 is no improvement: 24.Qh4! Rc7 25.Nh5+ Kh7 26.Nf6+ Kg7

27.Nf4 Rfc8 (27...Bxf4 28.gxf4, intending Rg1 and Kh3+) 28.Kh1! Be7
29.g4!+–
24.b3 Nd6 25.Ne5! Bg5
This move loses in spectacular fashion, but in any event there was no
salvation.
Black could not free his position by 25...Rxc2 26.Rxc2 Rc8, in view of
27.Nxf7 Nxf7 (27...Rxc2 28.Qg6+ Kf8 29.Nxe6+ Ke8 30.Ne5+!) 28.Qg6+
Kf8 (28...Kh8 29.Rxc8+ Qxc8 30.Qxf7) 29.Nxe6+ Ke8 30.Rc7, winning
for White.
26.Nxe6+!
White’s great positional superiority creates the basic requirements for

tactical combinations!
26...fxe6 27.Rc7+ Kh8 28.Qg6
Black cannot avoid mate.

Interesting is the fact that White succeeded in creating the mating net using
the penetration via the c-file and his queen from the other side!
1–0
Grivas Efstratios
Kalesis Nikolaos
E15 Komotini 1993
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Bb7 7.e4 Na5
8.Qc2 c5 9.e5
An aggressive continuation.
White could instead play 9.d5!?, with a slightly better and secure position:
9...exd5 10.exd5 Bd6 11.Bd3²
9...Ng4 10.h3 Nh6 11.Ne4
11...Bxe4?
Black had to play 11...Nf5! 12.Bg5 Qb8 (12...Be7 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.dxc5
bxc5 15.g4! Nd4 16.Nxd4 cxd4 17.0-0-0 0-0 18.Kb1∞) 13.dxc5 Bxc5
14.Rd1∞, but not 11...f5? 12.exf6 gxf6 13.Bxh6 Bxh6 14.Nd6+ Ke7
15.Nxb7 Nxb7 16.Bg2±
12.Qxe4 cxd4 13.Bxh6 gxh6 14.0-0-0 Rc8

White seems to be on top, as his pieces are more developed and better
placed, while Black has numerous weaknesses around his king. Still,
accuracy is demanded!
15.Kb1!
A very strong move. The immediate 15.Rxd4?! Bc5! 16.Rd2 b5!, would
give Black plenty of hope.
15...Bg7
White retains his advantage after 15...Nc6! 16.Nxd4 Nxd4 17.Rxd4 Bc5
18.Rd2 Qc7 thanks to the backward d7-pawn and the weakened black king,
but this line had to be preferred anyway. Note that 15...Nxc4 16.Nxd4 Bb4
17.Nb5! Nd2+ 18.Rxd2 Bxd2 19.Nd6+ Kf8 20.Bb5± also looks horrible for
Black!
16.Nxd4! f5 17.Qe3!
There is no point in opening the black bishop by 17.exf6? Qxf6³

17...Qe7
Naturally 17...Nxc4? 18.Bxc4 Rxc4 19.Nxe6! would be disastrous for

Black.
18.Nb5! 0-0 19.Nd6 Rc7
White has an excellent position, having fixed the backward black d-pawn
with both knight and pawn.
Moreover, White’s overall pawn structure is superior and he has a
significant space advantage. As a result of the above, his position is almost
winning. The only thing White must cater for is possible counterplay by
means of 20...f4!? 21.gxf4 Qh4.
20.f4!
Not only stopping the aforementioned counterplay but also preparing Rh2-
d2!, increasing the pressure on the backward d-pawn. The f1-bishop will be
developed later, wherever and whenever it will be necessary.
20...Nb7
Threatening 21...Nxd6! 22.exd6? Qf6!
21.Rh2!
Protecting the b2-square, so Black cannot capture on d6 — see the previous

note.
21...Qd8
Black is hardly in an enviable position, but could at least prolong the game
with 21...Nc5.
22.Nb5! Rc5
23.Qf3! Rxb5
And at the same time Black resigned, in view of 24.Qxb7! Rc5 25.Rxd7+–.
No relief was offered by 23...Na5 24.b4+– or 23...Qb8 24.Rxd7 Rf7
25.Rxf7 Kxf7 26.Qxb7+!+–
1–0
Lautier Joel
Sokolov Andrei
E15 Aix les Bains 2003
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Be7 6.Nc3 0-0 7.e4 Bb7 8.d5
exd5 9.exd5 c6 10.Bg2 Na6 11.0-0 Nc5 12.Qd1 cxd5 13.cxd5 Nce4
14.Nh4 Nxc3 15.bxc3 Bc5 16.Nf5 Re8 17.c4 d6 18.Bb2 Bc8 19.Nd4 Bxd4
20.Qxd4 Ba6
White’s b2-bishop is clearly a better minor piece than the f6-knight, as it

actively controls the long diagonal. One must add to this the spatial plus
and he will understand why White holds the advantage. But of course, the
question on how to proceed remains, as Black doesn’t have (at least yet)
any potential weakness on which to focus...
21.a4!
As the kingside and the centre are more or less stabilised, White starts
operations on the only available side, the queenside. Note that the bishop is
quite vulnerable on a6. 21.Bh3?! is strongly met by 21...Re4.
21...Rc8 22.Rfc1 h6
Black’s counterplay on the c4-pawn is an illusion: 22...Qc7 23.Bh3 (23.Qh4

Nd7 24.Bh3 Rcd8 25.Bf5 h6 26.Ra3²) 23...Re4 24.Qd3 Rce8 (24...Rxc4
25.Rxc4 Bxc4 [25...Qxc4? 26.Qxc4 Rxc4 27.Bxf6 gxf6 28.Bf1+–]
26.Qd1!+– or 24...Bxc4? 25.Bxc8+–) 25.Bd4 R4e7 26.a5±
23.h3
The reason for the text lies in the variation 23.a5?! bxa5 24.c5 dxc5
25.Rxc5 Rxc5 26.Qxc5 Bb7 and the recapture on a5 is impossible, due to
the weakness of the first rank.
23...Re7?!
23...Qc7, preventing a5 followed by c5, was a must. Now White is given
the chance to get a passed d-pawn, which, in conjunction with his bishop-
pair, will prove decisive.
24.a5! bxa5
What else? 24...Bb7 25.axb6 axb6 26.Qf4±
25.c5! dxc5 26.Rxc5 Rxc5 27.Qxc5
Now the passed d-pawn, supported by two strong bishops (especially the
b2-bishop, which has no counterpart), will decide the game.
27...Rb7 28.Bd4 Rb5 29.Qc6!
A centralised queen is more important than any useless a-pawn, of course.

29.Qxa7 Bb7 would allow Black to prolong the fight.
29...Qc8
30.Bxf6!
When a good bishop is exchanged for a poor knight, a win should not be far
away!
30...Qxc6
30...gxf6 31.Qxf6 Rb6 32.d6 is curtains.
31.dxc6 gxf6 32.Bf1! Rb6 33.Bxa6
Black had to resign due to 33...Rxa6 34.Rc1! and the c-pawn promotes.
1–0
Morozevich Alexander
Leko Peter
E15 Linares 2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Be7 6.Nc3 0-0 7.e4 c5 8.d5
exd5 9.exd5 Re8 10.Bd3 Bf8+ 11.Kf1 d6 12.Kg2
White has gained a spatial advantage, while at the same time Black cannot
find an active plan and is forced to stay put.
12...Nbd7 13.h4!?
Aggressive, but maybe the natural 13.h3 Ne5 14.Nxe5 Rxe5 15.Qa4 Bc8
16.Bf4² was good enough for White.
13...g6 14.Qa4 Bb7 15.h5!?
An interesting sacrifice. White could also go for 15.Bg5 h6 16.Bd2²
15...Nxh5
Otherwise White will open the h-file ‘for free’. But anyway, Black could
also go for 15...a6 16.Qc2 b5 17.b3 Bg7 18.hxg6 hxg6 19.Bg5 Qc7 20.Bh6²
16.Rxh5! gxh5 17.Ne4
White has compensation for the sacrificed material, mainly because of the
weak black king and his light-squared bishop.
17...f5!
Black has to be active, as the passive 17...Be7 18.Bf4 Nf8 19.Rh1 Ng6
20.Rxh5 Nxf4+ 21.gxf4 Bc8 22.Ng3±, or 17...Ne5 18.Nxe5 (18.Qxe8?
Qxe8 19.Nf6+ Kh8 20.Nxe8 Nxd3 21.Nf6 Bg7³) 18...Rxe5 19.Bf4² both
look bad for him.
18.Neg5 h6
19.Nh3?!
This looks natural, planning Nf4, but 19.Bxf5!? was quite interesting:
19...hxg5 (19...Ne5 20.Bh7+ Kg7 21.Bb1! [21.Qc2 Qf6 22.Nxe5 hxg5∞]
21...hxg5? 22.Qc2+–) 20.Bxd7 Re7 21.Bf5 Rg7 22.Bd2°. And, of course,
White should avoid 19.Ne6? Rxe6 20.dxe6 Ne5 21.Be2 Qf6–+
19...Ne5 20.Nxe5 dxe5
The other capture was safer: 20...Rxe5 21.Nf4 (21.Bf4?! Re8 22.Bxf5 Qf6
23.Qc2 Bg7µ) 21...h4 (21...Qf6 22.Bd2°) 22.Ng6! hxg3! (22...Qf6
23.Nxh4!°) 23.Nxe5 dxe5 (23...Qh4? 24.fxg3 Bxd5+ 25.Nf3! Bxf3+
26.Kxf3 Qh1+ 27.Ke2+–) 24.Bxf5 Qh4! 25.Qd7! (25.fxg3? Bxd5+–+)
25...Qh2+ 26.Kf3 Qxf2+ 27.Kg4 Qxf5+! 28.Qxf5 Bc8 29.Qxc8 Rxc8
30.Kxg3= It is true that the lines are complicated...
21.Bxf5 Qf6 22.Be4 Re7 23.Qd1 h4 24.Qh5

24...hxg3
Opening the f-file is not advisable. Black had to opt for 24...b5! 25.b3 bxc4
26.bxc4 Rd8 27.Be3 Bc8 28.Rg1°
25.fxg3 Rg7?
But this is a serious mistake. Black had to find 25...Rf7 26.Be3 Bc8 27.g4
Qg7 28.Nf2 (28.Kg3!?) 28...Rxf2+! 29.Kxf2 Bxg4 30.Qh2 h5 31.Rg1°
26.Bd2!?
White could opt for a favourable endgame by 26.Bxh6! Qxh6 27.Qxh6

Rxg3+ 28.Kxg3 Bxh6 29.Nf2± but he felt like continuing the attack!
26...Qf7 27.Qe2 Bc8 28.Nf2?!
28.Rf1! Qe7 29.Nf2± was obviously the more accurate continuation...
28...Bf5! 29.Bxf5 Qxf5 30.Ne4

The impressive e4-knight is ample compensation for the sacrificed material.
30...Rf7 31.Rh1 Qg6!
31...Rd8 32.Bxh6 Bxh6 33.Rxh6 Rdf8 34.Rh5 Qf1+ 35.Qxf1 Rxf1 36.Rg5+
Kh8 37.Rxe5²
32.Rh4 Kh8
32...Bg7?! 33.Bxh6!±
33.Ng5
33...Rf5?
33...Re7 should preserve the balance: 34.Ne6 Rxe6 35.dxe6 Qxe6

36.Bxh6!? Bxh6 37.Rxh6+ Qxh6 38.Qxe5+ Qg7 39.Qh5+ Qh7 (39...Kg8
40.Qd5+ Kh7 41.Qxa8 Qxb2+=) 40.Qe5+=
34.Ne6 h5 35.Bg5!
35...Kg8
35...Rxg5? 36.Nxg5 Qxg5 37.Rxh5++–
36.Rxh5 Re8
Or 36...Bg7 37.g4 Rf7 38.Bh4 (38.Bd8?! Rxd8! 39.Nxd8 Rf4∞) 38...e4!

39.Rg5 Qh6 40.Bg3 Re8 41.b3 (41.Qxe4? Qxg5 42.Nxg5 Rxe4 43.Nxe4
Bxb2³) 41...Rxe6 42.dxe6 Qxe6 43.Be5±
37.g4 Rf7 38.Bh4 Bg7
There is no longer any salvation for Black: 38...Rxe6 39.dxe6 (39.Rg5 Rg7!
40.Rxg6 Rexg6 41.Kg3 [41.Qxe5? Rxg4+ 42.Kh3 Rxh4+! 43.Kxh4 Rh7+
44.Kg4 Rg7+=] 41...Bd6 42.Qe4±) 39...Qxe6 40.Rxe5±
39.Rg5 Qh6?!
39...Qb1! was a more stubborn try: 40.Bg3 Qc1 41.Bxe5 Rxe6 (41...Qxg5?!
42.Nxg5 Rxe5 43.Qd2 Bh6 44.Nxf7 Bxd2 45.Nxe5+–) 42.dxe6 Qxg5
43.exf7+ Kxf7 44.Bxg7 Kxg7 45.Kg3±
40.Qxe5 Kh8
40...Qh7 41.Be1 Qc2+ 42.Kg1 Qh7 43.a3 a5 44.a4 Rfe7 45.Bd2+–
41.Rxg7!
The final blow!
41...Qd2+
41...Rxg7 42.Bf6+–, or 41...Qxg7 42.Qxg7+ Rxg7 43.Bf6+–
42.Kh3 Qd3+
42...Rf3+ 43.Bg3 Qh6+ 44.Kg2+–
43.Bg3 Rxe6 44.dxe6 Rxg7 45.e7 Qh7+ 46.Kg2
1–0
Carlsen Magnus
Tiviakov Sergei
E17 Iraklion 2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 Na6 8.Bf4
Ne4 9.Re1 d5 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Rc1 c5 12.dxc5 Bxc5 13.e3 Nxc3 14.bxc3
Qe7 15.Nd4
White holds a small advantage, even if his queenside pawn structure is not
ideal. This is because Black’s pieces do not have concrete targets, while
White can go for a well-timed c4 advance (among others) if needed.
15...Rad8 16.h4 Rfe8 17.Bf1?!
A bit passive. Good is here 17.h5 h6 18.Qg4 Qf6 19.Red1²
17...Ba3 18.Rc2 Nc5 19.Nb5 Ne6 20.Be5 Bc6
A concrete approach is 20...f6! 21.Bd4 Bc6 22.Nxa3 Qxa3=

21.Nxa3
And here White should have opted for 21.Qg4! Bc5 (21...f6? 22.Bxf6 Qxf6
23.Nxa3±) 22.Nd4 Bxd4 23.cxd4 Bd7 24.Qh5²
21...Qxa3 22.Qg4 Qa4! 23.Qxa4 Bxa4 24.Rd2 Nc5

This is a roughly equal position, although M.Carlsen was successful in
outplaying his strong opponent in the upcoming endgame.
25.Bd4 Rc8 26.Rb2 Rc7 27.Rb4 Bc2 28.c4 Nd3!
A nice tactic, which keeps the position equal. 28...dxc4 29.Rxc4 Be4
30.Rec1² would be loved by White.
29.Bxd3 Bxd3 30.cxd5 Rd7 31.Rc1 Rxd5 32.Ra4 Rd7

The opposite-coloured bishops should be a good asset for Black and it
seems difficult to lose such a position.
White’s d4-bishop is rather active and White needs to put pressure on both
sides of the board, in order to gain something.
33.g4! h6 34.f3 Kh7 35.Kf2 Ree7 36.Ra3 Bb5 37.Rac3 Rd8 38.Kg3 f6
39.f4
39.h5 Kg8 40.Kf4² was also good, but White wishes to perform the g5
break.
39...h5! 40.g5 Kg6?!
40...f5 was essential, although White can still push; after 41.Rb1 Rd5
42.Rb4, he will try the a4-a5 break.
41.Rb1 Rd5 42.Rc8 Be8 43.Rbc1 f5

44.Rb8!
The white rooks have penetrated into Black’s camp and the party begins!
44...Rd6 45.Rcc8 Rde6 46.Be5 Kf7 47.Rd8 Kg6 48.Kf2 Kf7?
A serious mistake. Black had to opt for 48...Bb5 and pray...

49.e4!
A small tactic, increasing White’s advantage.
49...Kg6
49...fxe4 loses to 50.Bd6 e3+ 51.Ke1 Rxd6 (51...Rd7 52.Rxd7+ Bxd7

53.Rf8+ Kg6 54.f5++–) 52.Rxd6 g6 53.Rc8+–
50.Bd6 Rd7 51.Rxd7 Bxd7 52.e5
An important extra plus is added to White’s position; the backward e3-pawn

became a strong passer on e5!
52...Bc6 53.Rc8 Be8 54.Ra8 Bf7 55.Rxa7 Re8 56.a3 Bd5 57.Ke3 b5
58.Kd4 Bg2
White can win with various continuations, but he again chooses the most
precise!
59.e6! Rxe6 60.Be5 Kh7 61.Rxg7+ Kh8 62.Re7+
1–0
Romanishin Oleg
Abatino Maurizio
E18 Cutro 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 d5 6.0-0 Be7 7.cxd5 exd5
8.Nc3 0-0 9.Ne5 Na6 10.Bf4 c5 11.dxc5 Nxc5 12.Rc1 Rc8 13.Nd3 Ne6
14.Be5 Qd7 15.Qb3
White keeps a small advantage due to Black’s isolated d-pawn. But that
doesn’t count for much as the presence of many pieces on the board is good
for the side with the isolani.
15...Rfd8 16.Rfd1 Bc6
16...Ng4 was possible: 17.h3 Nxe5 18.Nxe5 Qd6 19.Nf3 (19.Bxd5 Bxd5
20.Qxd5 Qc7 21.Qe4 Ng5∞) 19...Nc5 20.Qc2 Bf6 21.Nd4²
17.Nb4! Bxb4
More-or-less forced: 17...Ng4 18.Nxc6 (18.Bxd5 Bxd5 19.Rxd5 Qb7

20.Rcd1 Nxe5 21.Rxe5 Rxd1+ 22.Nxd1 Bf6°) 18...Qxc6 19.Bxd5 Qc5
20.Ne4 Qxc1 21.Rxc1 Rxc1+ 22.Kg2 Nxe5 23.Bxe6 Rc7 24.Bd5±
18.Qxb4
18...Ne8?
Extremely passive. Black had to try to preserve his share of the play by
18...d4! 19.Bxf6 gxf6 20.Ne4 Kg7 21.Bf3²
19.Bd4?!
Although ‘logical’, White missed the strong 19.Nxd5 Bxd5 20.Rxc8 Qxc8
21.Bxd5±, or even 19.e4 d4 20.Nd5±
19...Qb7
19...Nd6?!
Natural looking, but White can gain an advantage with 20.e4! (20.b3? Nf5
[20...Nxd4? 21.Rxd4±] 21.Be5 d4∞) 20...a5 21.Qb3 dxe4 22.Bxb6 Rb8
23.Nxe4±
20.b3 Nd6 21.Bh3 Qd7?!
In general, this is an extremely unpleasant position to play with Black

(21...Ne4?! 22.Nxe4 dxe4 23.Bb2±) but 21...Qe7 was a must: 22.Be5 Nf5
23.Qxe7 Nxe7 24.Nb1²
22.Be5 Ne8?!
The text loses material, so Black had to opt for 22...Bb7±

23.e4! Qb7
23...d4 24.Rxd4+–
24.Nxd5 Bxd5 25.Rxc8 Qxc8 26.exd5
Two bishops and an extra pawn; it’s all over...
26...Qc2 27.Bg4 Nc5 28.Qd4 a5 29.Rd2
29.d6 Ne6 30.Qe3 was an easier win.
29...Qb1+ 30.Kg2 Qg6 31.Bf3 f6 32.Bf4 Kh8 33.Qe3 Qf7 34.h4 Qd7
35.Re2 Nc7
36.Qe7?!
Missing in time trouble the thematic 36.Bxc7 Qxc7 37.Qe8+ Rxe8

38.Rxe8#
36...Nb5 37.Qxd7 Nxd7 38.Re7 Nc5 39.h5 Kg8 40.h6 g5 41.Be3
1–0
Lilienthal Andor
Keres Paul
E19 Leningrad 1941
Nxc3 9.Qxc3 Be4 10.Ne1 Bxg2 11.Nxg2 c6 12.d5 cxd5 13.cxd5 Na6
14.Nf4 Qc8 15.Qf3 Qc2 16.e4 e5 17.Nd3 f6 18.Ne1 Qa4 19.b3 Qa5
20.Ng2 Bc5 21.Be3 Rac8 22.Bxc5 Qxc5 23.Ne3 Kh8
White holds the advantage.
The main reason for that is the difference between the minor pieces;
White’s knight is very well placed, acting on both sides of the board, while
its counterpart is miserably placed on the edge. On the other hand, the
occupation of the c-file by Black is important, but this is only temporary as
proven by the game continuation.
24.Qg4!
Creating further problems in Black’s camp.
24...Rf7
As 24...Qe7? 25.Nf5 Qf7 26.Nd6, was losing immediately, Black should

have considered; 24...Rfd8 25.a3 Qe7 26.b4± instead, in order to keep his
rooks connected.
25.Rad1!
With a clear plan: Rd2-c2, challenging Black’s only plus; the occupation of
the c-file.
25...g6 26.Qe2 Nb8
Alternatives like 26...Nb4 27.Rd2!, threatening 28.a3, or 26...Qa5 27.Nc4

Qc5 28.Nxe5 (28.a3±) 28...fxe5 29.Qxa6 d6 30.Rd2±, could hardly please
Black.
27.Rd2 Rff8 28.Rc2 Qa3
Maybe Black should again consider the alternative 28...Qb4 29.Rfc1 Rxc2
30.Qxc2 Na6 31.Qe2! Nc5 32.Rc4 Qa3 33.Qc2±
29.Nc4
Of course, not 29.Rfc1?! Qxc1+! 30.Rxc1 Rxc1+ 31.Kg2 Rc5, when Black
would have chances to survive.
29...Qb4 30.Rfc1 Rfd8

31.h4!
Playing on both wings!

A spatial advantage and the better piece placement allow such a standard
strategy.
31...Qf8 32.Ne3!
White is happy to exchange rooks, as this simplifies the task of invasion.
32...Rxc2 33.Rxc2 Rc8 34.Rxc8 Qxc8 35.Qf3 Kg7
36.Ng4!
Black is practically a piece down because the poorly placed b8-knight

hardly participates in the game.
36...Qf8
Or 36...Qd8 37.h5! d6 38.Qe3 g5 39.h6+ Kf7 40.Qf3 Nd7 41.Qf5 Nf8
42.Kg2 and Black will soon end up in zugzwang: 42...Qe7 43.b4 b5 44.f3
Qd8 45.a3 a6 46.Kh2 Qe7 47.Qc8 Qd7 48.Qb8 Qe7 49.Ne3+–
37.h5! gxh5
Practically forced: 37...Qe7 38.Qe3! Qf7 39.h6+ Kg8 40.Qf3+–
38.Ne3 d6 39.Nf5+ Kg6 40.Qc3!
A typical approach.
The new switch from one side of the board to the other is the quickest route
to victory.
40...Na6
Finally, the black knight re-enters the game; but it’s too late.
41.Qc6 Nc5 42.f3!
Strong, accurate and decisive! 42.Nxd6 h4 43.gxh4 Kh5! allows some

unnecessary counterplay.
42...Nd3 43.Qc7 b5 44.Qxa7
1–0
Polugaevsky Lev
Korchnoi Viktor
E19 Evian 1977
Nxc3 9.Qxc3 f5 10.b3 Bf6 11.Bb2 Nc6 12.Rad1 Ne7
White has more space, but Black can put up a balanced fight. The black
knight is heading for g6, with or without ...g5.
13.Ne1 Bxg2 14.Nxg2 g5
An aggressive option.
14...Qe8 is another way to continue: 15.Qc2 g5 16.e4 fxe4 17.Qxe4 Qg6
18.Rfe1 (18.Qxg6+ Nxg6 19.f4²) 18...Qxe4 19.Rxe4 a5 20.a4 Rf7 21.Re2
Nf5 22.Ne3 ½-½ Glimbrant,T-Bergstrom,C Sweden 2012.
15.Qc2 Ng6 16.e4
16.f4! Bg7 17.e4² looks like the most precise way to gain central control.
White should open the centre in order to get access to the somewhat weak
black king.
16...f4!
Rightly, Black keeps the centre closed, going for kingside activity.
17.e5 Bg7 18.Qe4 Qe7 19.Rd3?!
Playing with the rooks in the centre doesn’t really help White. Instead he
should have opted for 19.gxf4! gxf4 20.Ne1², with the idea Nf3, Kh1 and
Rg1, which should make his position preferable.
19...Rad8 20.Re1 d5! 21.exd6 Qxd6
Black now has nice counterplay against White’s d-pawn, while his
backward e-pawn cannot be attacked, at least for now.
22.Red1 Qe7 23.Ne1 Qf6 24.R1d2
24...Qf5!
Black’s strategy is impressive and would make A.Nimzowitsch really proud

in terms of minorities, majorities and blockading!
25.Qxf5?!
Looks natural, but in fact it is a mistaken approach.
White should preserve the balance with 25.Re2.
25...exf5!
That’s the trick — Black’s kingside majority will prove more dangerous
than White’s.
26.Ng2 g4! 27.Nxf4 Nxf4 28.gxf4 Bh6 29.Re2 Bxf4
Now Black has a healthier pawn structure, but White should hold. Well,
easier said than done, as this demands precise play and eventually excellent
defensive skills, while Black is risking nearly nothing...
30.Re6?!
The text is not particularly helpful. Better tries are 30.Bc3 Rde8 31.Rxe8
Rxe8 32.Bd2 Bxd2 33.Rxd2 Kf7³, or 30.Rd1 Rfe8 31.Rde1 Kf7³
30...Rfe8! 31.Rf6 Re1+ 32.Kg2

32...Rf8!
Active pieces must be exchanged!
33.Rxf8+
33.Rc6 Re2 34.Bc3 Rxa2µ
33...Kxf8 34.d5
This ‘kills’ White’s pawn majority — the a2-b3-c4-d5 chain can no longer
advance.
34...Bd6
34...Re2 35.Ba3+ Ke8 36.d6 c5µ could have been played as well.
35.Bc3
35.Re3 Rxe3 36.fxe3 Kf7 looks bad for White already...

35...Rc1 36.Bd2 Rc2 37.a4 f4
The black kingside pawn majority is rather mobile — White is in trouble.
38.h3 f3+ 39.Kf1 h5 40.hxg4 hxg4
Here the game was adjourned and White sealed...
41.Ke1
But on seeing that he is easily lost after 41...Bc5 (zugzwang!) 42.b4 Bd6, he
resigned. Another finish could have been 41.Rd4 Rb2 42.Be1 Rxb3
43.Rxg4, when Black can pin the white bishop with 43...Rb1 44.Re4 Bb4
45.Re6
And then proceed with his king: 45...Kf7 46.Re3 Kg6 47.Re6+ Kf5 48.Re3,
liquating to a won pawn ending: 48...Rxe1+ 49.Rxe1 Bxe1 50.Kxe1 Ke4–+
0–1
CHAPTER 4.
ENDGAME TECHNIQUE
The chess player who wishes to master an opening, should not only know
how to gain an advantage from it or how to increase it in the middlegame,
but also finally how to convert it in the endgame.
Knowledge of typical endgames with specific pawn structures is hugely
important, as it helps to evaluate correctly our chances in them and to make
middlegame decisions regarding choices and possibilities that are very
difficult to make otherwise.
The endgames that follow are characteristic of the system with g3. It is not
important that some of them arise via another opening or system; the
important thing is to understand and master them — endgame technique is
essential...
Gyimesi Zoltan
Kovacevic Aleksandar
E15 Vogosca 2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 d5 7.Bg2 Bd6
8.cxd5 exd5 9.Qa4 Bb7 10.Nc4 Bb4+ 11.Bd2 Bxd2+ 12.Ncxd2 0-0 13.0-0
Qd6 14.e3 a5 15.Rfc1 Nb4 16.Ne1 c5 17.dxc5 bxc5 18.a3 Bc6 19.Qd1
Na6
Black seems stand fine with his queenside hanging pawns pawn structure,
but this is just an illusion after White’s next.
20.e4! Rfd8
Black has to accept a weak queenside pawn structure, as the alternative

20...dxe4 21.Nxe4 Qe7 (21...Qxd1 22.Nxf6+ gxf6 23.Rxd1 Bxg2
24.Nxg2±) 22.Qd6 Qxd6 23.Nxd6 Bxg2 24.Kxg2² is pleasant for White.
And of course, 20...d4? fails to 21.e5!+–
21.exd5 Bxd5 22.Nc4 Qe6
22...Bxc4? 23.Qxd6 Rxd6 24.Bxa8 is out of the question.
23.Bxd5 Rxd5 24.Qf3 Rb8 25.Ng2

White has achieved a better ending due to Black’s weak queenside pawn
structure. But Black is active in the centre and should be able to defend.
25...Rd4 26.Nf4 Qe4 27.Qxe4 Nxe4 28.Rc2!
Protecting the second rank (b2-pawn, black rook invasion on d2, etc) and
putting real pressure on a5.
28...a4 29.Ne2 Rd3

After 29...Rdd8 White keeps his plus by 30.f3 Ng5 31.Kg2 Nc7 32.Nc3
Ra8 33.Nb6 Ra6 34.Nbxa4±
30.Rac1 f6?!
Black had to ‘escape’ into a drawish rook ending, even at the cost of a
pawn. A sample variation goes: 30...Nc7 31.Nf4 Rd4 32.f3 Ng5 33.Ne5
Re8 34.Rxc5 Rxe5 35.Rxc7 (35.Rxe5 Nxf3+ 36.Kf2 Nxe5 37.Rxc7 g5=)
35...g6 36.R7c3 Rd2! 37.h4 Ne6 38.Nxe6 Rxe6 39.R3c2 Ree2! 40.Rxd2
Rxd2 41.Rc4 Rxb2 42.Rxa4 Ra2=
This is a typical way to play, but demands certain knowledge of basic
endgame positions.
31.Kg2 Nc7 32.Nf4 Rd4 33.h4
As long as the knights are on the board, Black suffers...
33...g5 34.Ne2
Preferable was 34.hxg5 fxg5 35.Nh5! Ne8 36.Re1±
34...Rd3 35.f3 Nd6 36.Nxd6 Rxd6 37.hxg5
After the immediate 37.Rxc5, Black can go for 37...Ne6! (37...Rxb2

38.Rxc7 Rxe2+ 39.Kh3±) 38.Rc8+ Rxc8 39.Rxc8+ Kf7 40.Rc2 Rd3 with
good counterplay and good drawing chances despite the lost material.
37...fxg5 38.Rxc5 Rxb2
38...Ne6 39.Rc6 Rxc6 40.Rxc6 Kf7 41.Rc2±

39.Rxg5+
39...Kf8?
The decisive mistake. Black had to think of 39...Rg6! 40.Re5 (40.Rxg6+

hxg6 41.Rxc7 Rxe2+ 42.Kh3 Re3=) 40...Re6! 41.Rxe6 Nxe6 42.Kf1 Ra2
43.Rc3 h5, where his activity should compensate for his material deficit. Of
course, there will be a lot of suffering involved!
40.Rxc7 Rxe2+ 41.Kh3
The rook ending is plainly lost, as White has an extra pawn and active
rooks.
41...Re7
Not really desirable, but the alternative 41...Rh6+, fails to the simple
continuation 42.Kg4 Ree6 43.Ra7 Ra6 44.Rgg7 Rhg6+ 45.Kh3+–
42.Rxe7 Kxe7 43.Rg7+ Kf6 44.Rxh7 Rd3 45.Kg4 Rxa3 46.Ra7

Game over. The connected pawn duo on the kingside easily prevails over
the lone black queenside pawn, especially taking into account the fact that
the white rook is placed behind the enemy pawn.
46...Ke5 47.f4+ Kd4 48.f5 Ke3 49.Kh5 Kf3 50.g4
1–0
Fressinet Laurent
Anastasian Ashot
E15 Plovdiv 2008
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 c5 6.d5 exd5 7.cxd5 d6 8.Bg2
g6 9.0-0 Bg7 10.Qe3+ Kf8 11.Nc3 Nbd7 12.Qf4 Qc7 13.Qa4 Qb7 14.Bf4
Ne8 15.Ne4 b5 16.Qa3 b4 17.Qe3 Qb6 18.a3 b3 19.Nfg5 Ndf6 20.Bh3
Nxe4 21.Nxe4 h6 22.Qf3 Kg8 23.Bd7 Nf6 24.Nxf6+ Bxf6 25.Bc6 Rd8
26.Bd2 Bg7 27.Bc3 Bxc3 28.Qxc3 Bb5 29.Bxb5 Qxb5 30.e4 Kh7 31.Rfe1
Rhe8
White stands somewhat better as his e-pawn is more flexible than Black’s c-
pawn, and sooner or later it should be pushed to e5, achieving a passed d-
pawn.
32.Re3! a5
The main problem for Black is his passivity, as he can only await
developments...
Not much different is 32...Kg8 33.Rae1 c4 34.h4²
33.Rae1 a4 34.h4! h5
An alternative way is 34...Qd7 35.h5 Re5! trying to achieve counterplay via

the h-file: 36.hxg6+ fxg6 37.Kg2 (37.f4 Rh5 38.Qf6 Rg8∞) 37...Rf8
38.Rh1²
35.e5?!
A bit too early. Preferable was 35.Kg2 Qd7 36.f4²
35...dxe5
35...c4!? was also interesting: 36.e6 (36.Rd1 dxe5 37.Rxe5 Rxe5 38.Qxe5
c3 39.Qxc3 Rxd5=) 36...Qxd5 37.e7 Rd7 38.Qf6 Kg8∞
36.Rxe5 Rxe5 37.Rxe5

37...Qb6?
A bad mistake. Black had to opt for 37...Kg8 38.Qe3 (38.g4 hxg4 39.h5 f6!
40.Re4 Rxd5 41.Qxf6 Rd1+ 42.Kh2 g3+! 43.fxg3 (43.Kxg3 Qd3+ 44.f3
Qd6+=) 43...Rd2+ 44.Kh3 Qd7+ 45.Rg4 Rh2+ 46.Kxh2 Qxg4=) 38...c4
39.Kh2 c3! 40.Qxc3 Rxd5 41.Re7 Rf5=
38.Re7! Rf8
38...Kg8, loses to 39.Qe5 Qb8 40.d6!+–
39.Qe5
Full domination; White will soon prevail due to his strong passer.
39...c4 40.Rc7! Qb5 41.Qd4 Qa5 42.Rxc4 Re8 43.Rxa4 1–0
Grivas Efstratios
Yakubboev Nodirbek
E15 Sharjah 2018
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Bb7 6.Nc3 Ne4 7.Bg2 Nxc3
8.Qxc3 d6 9.0-0 Nd7 10.b3 Be7 11.Bb2 0-0 12.Rad1 a5 13.Qc2 Nf6 14.d5
e5 15.e4 Bc8 16.Ne1 Bg4 17.f3 Bh5 18.a3 Nd7 19.Nd3 Nc5 20.b4 Nxd3
21.Qxd3 Qd7 22.b5 Bf6 23.Rde1 Qe7 24.Bc3 Rae8 25.Bh3 Bg6 26.Rf2
h5 27.Kg2 Bg5 28.Bf5 h4 29.Bd2 Bxd2 30.Rxd2 Qg5 31.Rf2 Qf6 32.Ref1
Re7 33.Kh1 Rfe8 34.Re1 Qg5 35.Kg2 Qf6 36.Kh3 Qg5 37.gxh4 Bxf5+
38.exf5 Qh5 39.Qe4 f6 40.Rg1 Kf8 41.Rfg2 Rf7 42.Rg6 Qh7
White, although he is a pawn-up, has a wrecked kingside pawn structure, so

his mission looks difficult. On the other hand, Black is passive and has
hardly any counterplay barring a well-timed ...e4. White’s primary plan is to
advance his doubled h-pawn to h6.
43.Qg4 Rfe7 44.Re1
White could instead go for the direct 44.h5, as 44...e4, fails to 45.Re1! exf3
(45...e3 46.h6) 46.Re6!+–
44...Rf7 45.Rg1 Rfe7 46.Qe4 Qh5 47.R1g2 Rf7 48.Qg4!

48...Qxg4+
Not really what Black wanted, but the alternative 48...Qh7 fails to 49.h5
Ree7 50.Rg3, with the idea of Kg2, h6 and Rh3 and it looks like the end of
his misery.
49.R2xg4 Ree7 50.h5 Ke8 51.Kg3 Kd7 52.h6!
White has fulfilled his plan and now his extra passed h2-pawn will prove
decisive.
52...gxh6 53.Rxh6 Re8 54.h4 Ke7 55.h5 Ref8

56.Kh4!
The white king will assist the passed pawn.
56...Ke8 57.Rhg6 Rh8 58.h6 Kf8
Or 58...Rfh7 59.Kh5 Kf7 60.Rg7+ Kf8 61.Rxh7 Rxh7 62.Kg6+–
59.Kh5 Rhh7 60.Rg8+ Ke7 61.Rc8 Kd7 62.Rgg8
And Black resigned, as he is also getting mated!
1–0
Bareev Evgeny
Gelfand Boris
E15 Sochi 2004
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Na5 7.Qc3 c5
8.dxc5 bxc5 9.e4 Bb7 10.e5 Ne4 11.Nxe4 Bxe4 12.Bg2 Be7 13.0-0 0-0
14.Bd2 Nc6 15.Qe3 Bxf3 16.Bxf3 Nd4 17.Bc3 Rb8 18.Bxd4 cxd4
19.Qxd4 Qc7
Black has sacrificed a pawn, achieving as compensation full control of the

dark squares. As long as White has no chances to advance his queenside
pawns, Black should be able to draw. In general White should preserve
heavy piece(s) on the board, as a plain opposite-coloured bishop endgame
should be a draw.
20.Rad1
Nothing is improved by 20.Rab1 Rfd8 21.Rfc1 Bc5 22.Qc3 a5 23.a3 Qb6°,

when White doesn’t stand a chance of advancing b4.
20...Rfd8 21.b3 d6 22.exd6 Bxd6 23.Qe4 Bc5

24.Kg2
24.Qc6 allows Black to exchange all heavy pieces: 24...Qxc6 25.Bxc6 Kf8
26.Kg2 Ke7 27.Kf3 Rxd1 28.Rxd1 Rd8 29.Rxd8 Kxd8=. The text move is
typical in these positions, unpinning the f-pawn and protecting the g3-pawn,
then advancing the h-pawn!
24...a5
The fact that White is a pawn-up is not of decisive importance since he

can’t make any progress on the queenside. Note that here the immediate
24...Rxd1? would be wrong: 25.Rxd1 Rd8, due to 26.Qc6! Rc8 (26...Bd6
27.c5 Qxc6 28.Bxc6 Bc7 29.Rxd8+ Bxd8 30.Kf3+–) 27.Qxc7 Rxc7
28.Rd8+ Bf8 29.Be2 g5 30.b4+–
25.h4 Qb6
25...g6 looks natural, but White can play 26.h5, achieving a dangerous
initiative down the h-file (hxg6, Rh1), or in some cases by playing h6,
creating a mating spot on g7.
26.Qc2?!
Natural but passive.

White could have opted for 26.h5 Rxd1 27.Rxd1! (27.Bxd1 Rd8 28.Bc2 g6
29.Qe2²) 27...Bxf2 (27...Rd8 28.Qc6! Rxd1 [28...Bd4 29.a3±] 29.Qe8+ Bf8
30.Bxd1±) 28.h6
Black has a difficult defence ahead: 28...gxh6 (28...Be3 29.hxg7 Bh6

30.Rd7 Bxg7 31.Qf4 Rf8 32.Rb7±; 28...Qe3 29.Qb1!±) 29.Qg4+ Kf8
30.Qh5 Kg8 31.Rd7 Rf8 32.Qxh6±
26...Rxd1 27.Rxd1 Rd8
Once Black manages to trade all the heavy pieces a draw agreement is on
the way!
28.Rd2 h6
28...g6 is generally more precise in these positions.

29.h5 Rd6 30.Be4 Qd8 31.Rxd6 Qxd6 32.f4 f5! 33.Bb7 Qd4
Black has enough activity to preserve the balance.
34.Kh3 Kf7 35.Qe2 Kf6 36.Qf3 Bb4 37.Qc6 Qd6 38.Qe8 Qf8 39.Qb5
Qc5 40.Qe8 Qf8 41.Qa4 Qc5 42.Qd7 Qd6 43.Qb5 Qc5 44.Bg2 Qxb5
45.cxb5 Bc5 46.Bf1
½-½
Grivas Efstratios
Khetsuriani Besarion
E19 Athens 2003
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.0-0 Be7 6.c4 0-0 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Qc2
Nxc3 9.Qxc3 c5 10.b3 Bf6 11.Bb2 cxd4 12.Nxd4 Bxg2 13.Kxg2 Nc6
14.Qd3 Bxd4 15.Bxd4 d5 16.Bb2 Rc8 17.cxd5 Nb4 18.Qf3 Qxd5
19.Rfd1 Qxf3+ 20.Kxf3
White has gladly accepted the exchanges offered by Black, ending up in a
pleasant endgame where he has four basic factors on which to build:
1) Better minor piece (bishop vs knight), taking the pawn structure into
account.
2) Better placed king (centralised), in contrast to the enemy monarch who
will have difficulties in occupying a satisfactory position, either active or
passive.
3) Possibility of a white rook invading Black’s camp.
4) Good prospects of further improving his position, while Black can only
sit and wait.
20...Nd5!?
An interesting idea. Two other moves were unsatisfactory: 20...Rc2?

21.Ba3! a5 22.Bxb4 axb4 23.Rd4, with material gain, and 20...Rfd8
21.Rac1! Nxa2 22.Rxd8+ Rxd8 23.Ra1 Nb4 24.Rxa7±
21.e4 Ne7 22.Ba3
22.Rd7 Nc6 23.Ke3 (23.Rc1?? Ne5+!) 23...Rfd8, is interesting and similar

to the game.
22...Rfe8 23.Rac1!
The exchange of one pair of rooks will enable the white king to breathe
more freely and will further highlight the weak points of Black’s position,
as the remaining black pieces will have to take on greater defensive duties.
Naturally, 23.Rd7?! Nc6! 24.Ke3 Ne5! would only help Black.
23...Rxc1 24.Rxc1 Rc8

25.Rd1!
The exchange of rooks would now be in Black’s favour, as then White

would surrender one of his aforementioned advantages, the possibility of
invading Black’s lines with his rook.
25...Nc6 26.Ke3 Rc7 27.e5!
An apparently illogical move, placing the pawn on a square of the same

colour as the bishop.
However, this move essentially prevents the activation of the black king,
who now cannot approach the centre unless Black decides to accept further
pawn weaknesses. If Black waits passively then White will continue with
f4, g4, Rd6, Ke4 and f5, gaining even more space and developing
substantial pressure on Black’s position.
27...f5 28.exf6 gxf6 29.Rc1 Kf7

30.Rc4!
Now the white rook can swing to either side of the board. Working together
with the strong bishop, it will create multiple problems for Black. The black
king has improved its placement but Black’s pawn-structure has
deteriorated with the emergence of weak pawns.
30...e5?!
Black should have stayed passive, not exposing himself with pointless pawn
moves that, although seemingly strong, actually create new targets.
31.f4!
With the idea of isolating one more black pawn (apart from h7) on e5 or f6.
Black wisely opts for the latter since if he were left with a pawn on e5 then
all pawn endings would be lost, due to the possibility of White creating an
outside passed pawn.
31...exf4+ 32.Kxf4 Ke6 33.Bb2 Rc8 34.Ba3 Rc7 35.Ke4 Rc8 36.Ke3
White has played some waiting moves to gain time and now prepares to
increase the pressure with Rh4-h6 and Bb2. After the black pieces are tied
to the protection of the kingside pawns, the white king will invade the
queenside. A simple plan, but one that is very difficult for Black to oppose.
36...Kd5 37.Bb2 Re8+ 38.Kd3
38...Re6?!
Black’s position was difficult, but with this move he loses material. He
should objectively have preferred the passive 38...Rf8 39.Rh4 Rf7 40.a3
Ne5+ 41.Ke3, with advantage for White. It should be noted that Black
cannot play 38...Ne5+? 39.Bxe5 Rxe5 (39...fxe5 40.Rc7 e4+ 41.Ke3)
40.Rc7 Rh5 41.h4 a5 42.Rb7 Kc6 43.Rf7 Rh6 44.Ke4, when White’s
superiority is more than obvious and Black’s chances of survival minimal.
39.Rh4 a5 40.a3! Ne5+ 41.Bxe5 fxe5 42.Rxh7 Rf6 43.Ke3 Rc6 44.Rd7+!
The game is practically over as White has won material and is able to
protect his position.
44...Ke6 45.Rd3 Kf5 46.h3 Rh6 47.g4+ Ke6 48.Ke4 Rf6 49.Rf3
A model game on the better minor piece theme.
1–0
Grivas Efstratios
Ionescu Constantin
E19 Elista 1998
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Qc2
Nxc3 9.Qxc3 c5 10.b3 cxd4 11.Nxd4 Bxg2 12.Kxg2 Nc6 13.Bb2 Nxd4
14.Qxd4 Bf6 15.Qd2 Bxb2 16.Qxb2
After a long theoretical variation, Black is stuck with a weak backward

pawn on d7. Naturally, as often happens in this type of position, White’s
advantage is not particularly large, but it is static and consequently long-
term, while the danger of defeat is significantly reduced. White’s plans are
simple and include the doubling of the major pieces on the d-file and the
development of an initiative on both flanks.
A nice, related example can be found in the game Gheorghiu, F-Ree, H
Lone Pine 1979: 1.c4 Nf6 2.d4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.a3 c5 5.e3 Bb7 6.Nc3 Ne4
7.Nxe4 Bxe4 8.Bd3 Bxd3 9.Qxd3 cxd4 10.Qxd4 Nc6 11.Qd3 Be7 12.e4
Qc7 13.0-0 0-0 14.b3 Bf6 15.Ra2 Rfd8 16.Rd1 Rac8 17.g3 d6 18.Bf4 Ne5
19.Qe2 Ng6 20.Be3 Qb7 21.Bg5 Bxg5 22.Nxg5 Qc7 23.Nf3 Qc5 24.a4 Ne5
25.Rad2 h6 26.Nxe5 Qxe5 27.Qe3 Rc6 28.f4 Qc5 29.Rd4 Re8 30.Kf2 e5
31.Rd5 exf4 32.gxf4 Qa3 33.Rg1 Qb2+ 34.Rd2 Qf6 35.Rg4 Rc5 36.Qd4
Rce5 37.Kg3 h5 38.fxe5 dxe5 39.Qd7 Re7 40.Qd8+ Kh7 41.Rf2 Qe6
42.Rg5 g6 43.Kg2 h4 44.Qd5 1–0
16...Qc7 17.Rfd1
17.Rad1 Rfd8 18.Rd4 Qc6+ 19.Kg1 d6 20.Rfd1 Rd7 21.e4 Rad8 22.a4²
Abramovic,B-Krstic,P Belgrade 2008, is quite similar.
17...Rfd8 18.Rd4 d6 19.Rad1 Rd7 20.R1d3 Rad8 21.Qd2 Kf8 22.e4 h6

23.f4
Rather premature.
The move 23.h4! intending h5 and g4-g5 would cause Black a serious
headache.
23...Qc6! 24.a4 a6 25.h4 f5?!
Black finds it impossible to remain passive for such a long time. With this
move he also weakens the e6-pawn, but hopes for counterplay based on the
exposed white king.
26.Qe2 fxe4 27.Rxe4 Re8 28.Qf3 Rf7 29.Kh2 Qc5 30.Rde3 Rf6 31.Qe2
Kf7
32.Qd2! a5
Forced, as White was threatening 33.b4! But now Black has given up the
possibility of counterplay with ...b5, the only decent plan he had at his
disposal.
33.Rd3 Rd8 34.Red4 Ke7 35.Qe2 Kf7 36.Qe4! Qc7
37.Kg2?
White has made good use of his position so far and should have now played
37.h5! Next would be the advance of his g-pawn, supported by the white
rooks. It is not necessary to offer specific variations as means of proof, as
these plans would take a lot of time and preparation. The only certain thing
is that Black cannot effectively stop White’s plan and, as a result, is
condemned to defeat.
37...h5!
The only move and a very good one, securing the draw. The question is, of
course, why? The answer is simple! The lack of any satisfactory
breakthrough favours the defending side. Both flanks have been blocked; as
a result, White does not have at his disposal the most useful tool in such
positions, i.e. the creation of a second front. This is an instructive and very
significant strategic motif.
38.Qf3 g6 39.Qe4 Rd7 40.Rd2 Rd8 41.Kh2 Rf5 42.Qd3 Ke7 43.Re2 Kf7
44.Qf3 Re8 45.Qe4 Re7 46.Red2 Rd7 47.Qf3 Rd8 48.Qd3 Ke7 49.Qe4
Kf7 50.Re2 Rf6 51.Rd3 Rc8 52.Red2 Rd8 53.Rd4 Rf5
½-½
Grivas Efstratios
Papadopoulos Ioannis
E19 Kallithea 2006
Nxc3 9.Qxc3 d6 10.b3 Nd7 11.Bb2 f5 12.Qe3 Kh8 13.Qxe6 Be4 14.c5
bxc5 15.dxc5 Nxc5 16.Qc4 Bf6 17.Bd4 Bxd4 18.Nxd4 Bxg2 19.Kxg2 a5
20.Qd5 Qf6 21.Rac1 Qf7 22.Qxf7 Rxf7 23.Rc2 Kg8 24.Nc6 Ra6 25.Nxa5
Rxa5 26.b4 Rb5 27.bxc5 Rxc5 28.Rxc5 dxc5 29.Rc1 Re7 30.Kf3 Re5
31.Rd1 c4 32.Rc1 Ra5 33.Rxc4 Rxa2 34.Rxc7 Ra4 35.Rc5 g6 36.Rc7
Rb4 37.Rd7 Ra4
If Black’s f-pawn was on f7, then the draw would be simple and easy, with
the ...h5 advance on some previous move.
Now, this position if full of poison for him, so he must be very careful.
White must opt for the thematic g4 or e4 advance (depending on Black’s
reactions) under favourable circumstances. But there are also two important
minuses in White’s position: the active black rook and the presence of his
pawn on g3, which disallows the manoeuvre Kg3, with f3 and e4 to follow.
38.e3
White would prefer not to push his e-pawn so early, as he needs

manoeuvring space around his king. But 38.h3 h5! 39.h4 Kf8 40.Ke3 Re4+
41.Kd3 Ra4 42.f3 Ra1 43.Ke3 Ra4 44.Rd4 Ra2, doesn’t help. White’s
problem is the activity of the black rook. If this rook had been placed
passively (let’s say on the a7 square) then White could proceed here with
Kf4 and f3, e4, achieving a won position.
38...Rb4 39.h3 h5!
A somehow forced reaction.

Black must exchange as many pawns as possible. Also, his king must be
liberated from the protection of his ‘weak’ h-pawn.
40.Rd4
White would feel happy if he could emerge with a passed e-pawn, but this
cannot be achieved.
After 40.h4 Rb2! (40...Rb6? 41.Kf4 Ra6 42.f3 Rb6 43.e4 fxe4 44.fxe4+–)
41.Rd1 Kf7 42.Re1 Kf6 43.Re2 Rb4, he cannot make any serious progress.
40...Rb2 41.g4 hxg4+ 42.hxg4 fxg4+
Here comes the first serious question: what happens if Black just stays put?
Well, after 42...Kf7
43.g5 (there is no meaning to 43.Kg3 Re2 44.Rd3 Kf6 45.f3 Kg5 46.gxf5
gxf5 47.Ra3 Rxe3=) 43...Ke6 44.Ra4 Kf7 45.Kg3 Rb7 (45...Rb3 46.Kf4)
46.Kf4 Rc7 47.f3 Rc5! (A forced continuation, avoiding the immediate
penetration of the white king. After 47...Rb7? 48.Ra5 Rb4+ 49.Ke5 Rb3
50.Ra7+ Ke8 51.Kf6 Rxe3 52.Ra8+ Kd7 53.Kxg6 Rxf3 54.Kf7 White
wins) 48.Ra7+ Kg8 49.e4 fxe4 50.fxe4 Kf8 51.Rd7 (51.e5 Rc4+ 52.Kf3
52...Rc1! (52...Rc5? 53.Ke4 Rb5 [53...Rc4+ 54.Kd5 Rg4 55.e6+–] 54.Kd4
Kg8 55.Rc7 Ra5 56.Rc5 Ra7 57.Kd5 Ra1 58.Kd6+–) 53.Ke4 Rg1 54.Kd5
Rxg5 55.Kd6 Rg1 56.Ra8+ Kg7 57.e6 Rd1+ 58.Ke7
58...g5! (58...Rb1 59.Ke8 Kf6= [59...g5? 60.e7+–] 59.Ke8 Kf6 60.e7 Re1
61.Ra6+ Kf5=) 51...Ra5 52.Rd5 Ra7 53.Ke5 Ke7 54.Rb5 Rc7! (54...Kf7
55.Kd6 Ra6+ 56.Kd5 Ra7! [56...Ra1 57.Rb7+ Kf8 58.Rc7 Rg1 59.Ke6+–]
57.e5 Rd7+=) and White cannot make any progress: 55.Kd5 (or 55.Rb6
Rc5+) 55...Rd7+.
43.Rxg4 Kf7 44.Ra4 Kf6 45.Kg3 Rb3 46.Kf4 Rb2 47.Ra6+ Kf7 48.f3
Rb3
49.e4
White would be happy if he could place his king on e5-square with his
pawn on e4 and f4, as then he will get winning chances. But this hope is
only an illusion: 49.Rd6 g5+! 50.Ke4 Rb1 51.Kf5 Rg1! (51...Rf1? 52.Rf6+
Ke7 53.Kxg5+–) 52.e4 Rg3! 53.Rf6+ Ke7 54.Ke5 Rh3 55.Rf5 Rg3=
49...Rc3 50.Ra7+ Ke6 51.Kg4 Re3 52.Ra6+ Kf7 53.Rb6
Nothing can be achieved by 53.Ra4, trying to reach a position with f4 and

Kg5, as again Black’s active rook is on the alert: 53...Re1! 54.Ra3 (54.f4
Rg1+ 55.Kf3 Rf1+ 56.Ke3 Ke7 57.Ra6 Kf7 58.Rc6 Kg7 59.Rc7+ Kf6
60.e5+ Ke6 61.Rg7 Rg1=) 54...Kf6 55.Kf4 g5+ 56.Kg3 Rg1+ 57.Kf2 Rb1
58.Ra6+ Kf7=
53...Re1 54.Kg5 Rg1+ 55.Kf4 Ra1 56.Rd6
56.Rb3 Kf6=
56...Ra3
57.e5
If White is unable to penetrate Black’s camp through the kingside, then he

needs the e5-square for his king. If he cannot do that either, then at some
point he has to try the e5 advance.
57...Ra1 58.Rd7+ Ke6 59.Rd6+ Kf7 60.Rf6+ Kg7 61.Rc6 Kf7 62.Kg3
Ra5 63.Kf4 Ra1 64.Rb6 Ra2 65.Ke3 Ra4 66.f4 Ra3+ 67.Ke4 Ra4+
68.Kf3 Ra1!
This is the right defence for Black, not allowing Kg4-g5-h6. If the white
king was already on g4, then he would win with 69.Rb7+ Ke6 70.Kg5.
69.Rf6+ Kg7 70.Rd6 Kf7 71.Rd7+ Kf8 72.Rc7 Ra2 73.Ke3 Ra4 74.Rd7
Ra3+ 75.Ke4 Ra4+ 76.Rd4 Ra5 77.Rd7 Ra4+ 78.Kf3 Ra1! 79.Rc7 Ra2
80.Kg3 Ra1 81.Rb7 Ra2 82.Rd7 Ra1 83.Kf3 Ra2 84.f5
‘Accepting’ the draw, as White has already tried every possible idea. The
end was easy:
84...gxf5 85.Kf4 Ke8 86.Rb7 Ra6! 87.Kxf5 Rc6 88.e6 Rc1!
Black defended in an excellent way, a model one for this kind of positions.
He kept his rook active and was not afraid of any ‘ghosts’. White was
unlucky that his pawn structure did not help him.
½-½
Grivas Efstratios
Ilandzis Spyridon
E19 Agios Ioannis 2018
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.d4 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 Ne4 8.Qc2
Nxc3 9.Qxc3 Be4 10.Ne5 Bxg2 11.Kxg2 d6 12.Qf3 Nd7 13.Nc6 Qe8
14.h4 a5 15.Bg5 f6 16.Be3 f5 17.Bg5 Nf6 18.h5 h6 19.Bh4 Kh8 20.d5
exd5 21.cxd5 Ng8 22.Bxe7 Nxe7 23.Rac1 Nxc6 24.Rxc6 Ra7
White has achieved a large advantage, due to his much superior pawn
structure. Black’s backward c7-pawn is rather weak, while the f5-pawn can
be a target too. Moreover, Black is lacking any active counterplay; in other
words, White is playing for two results, Black for just one...
25.Rfc1 Rf7 26.R1c4!
White can now think of tripling on the c-file (Qc3), or transferring his rook
to f4, putting pressure on f5. Ra4, with b4 coming, is another idea. White
has many options and Black’s defence becomes difficult.
26...Qe5 27.b3
27...b5?!
Further weakening the pawn structure is inadvisable. The best defence was
27...Re7 28.e3 Qf6, when White still has a lot of (pleasant) work to do. A
sample line goes 29.a3 Qf7 30.e4 fxe4 31.Rxe4 Qxf3+ 32.Kxf3±
28.Rc3
28...Rb7?!
Another weak move. Also bad was 28...a4 29.Re3 Qf6 30.Re8+ Rf8
31.Rxf8+ Qxf8 32.e4+– so obligatory was 28...Kg8 29.a4 bxa4 30.bxa4±
29.Re3! Qf6 30.Ra6
A pawn is lost and the game too, soon afterwards...
30...a4 31.bxa4 bxa4 32.Rxa4 Rb1 33.Re8+ Rf8
33...Kh7 34.Raa8 g5 35.hxg6+ Kxg6 36.Re6+–
34.Rxf8+ Qxf8 35.Rf4

Another pawn falls...
35...Qa8 36.Rxf5 Rb8
36...Qxa2 37.Rf8+ Kh7 38.Qf5++–
37.a3 Qa5
White is of course winning, but accuracy is always welcomed. A direct

attack on the black king will be decisive.
38.g4! Qd2 39.g5 hxg5 40.h6 Rg8
40...gxh6 41.Rf7 Qd4 42.Qf5+–
41.hxg7+
Black resigned: 41...Rxg7 (41...Kxg7 42.Rf7+ Kh6 43.Qh3+ Kg6 44.Qh7#)

42.Rf8+ Rg8 (42...Kh7 43.Qh5#) 43.Qh5+ Kg7 44.Rf7#
1–0
Show in Text Mode
CHAPTER 5.
TACTICAL MOTIFS
Tactics are the salt & pepper of chess. They crown every strategy and
appear in every game, so we cannot live without them!
Typical tactical motifs repeat themselves, and their knowledge and
understanding are an essential asset to season our opening preparation.
Grivas Efstratios
Azarov Sergei
E15 Kemer 2009
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 Bb7 7.e4 d5
8.cxd5 exd5 9.e5 Ne4 10.a3 f5 11.Bb5 a6 12.Bxc6+ Bxc6 13.Nxe4 fxe4
14.Ng5 Qe7 15.Bd2 h6 16.Rc1 Bb7 17.Nh3 g5 18.f4 exf3 19.Qxf3 0-0-0
20.0-0 Kb8 21.Bb4 c5 22.Bc3 Bc8 23.Nf2 Bg7 24.Ng4 h5 25.Nf6 g4
26.Qf2 Be6 27.Bd2 Rc8 28.Bg5 Qa7 29.dxc5 bxc5 30.b4 Bf8 31.Rfd1 d4
32.bxc5 Rxc5 33.Rxc5 Bxc5
Show/Hide Solution
34.Rb1+! Bb6
34...Kc7 35.Rc1 Rc8 36.Ne4 Kb7 37.Qc2 Bf8 38.Nd6+ Bxd6 39.Rb1++–
35.Ne4
35.a4! a5 36.Qb2 Kb7 37.Ne4+–
35...Rc8 36.Nd6 Rg8 37.Bd2 Kc7 38.Qf6 d3+ 39.Kf1 Kd7 40.Rb4 Qa8
41.Rxb6 Qh1+ 42.Kf2 Qxh2+ 43.Ke3 Qxg3+ 44.Kd4 Qg1+ 45.Be3 d2
46.Bxg1 d1=Q+ 47.Kc3 Qe1+ 48.Kc2 Qe2+ 49.Kc3 Qe1+ 50.Kc2 Qe2+
51.Kc3 Qe1+ 52.Kc2 Qe2+
½–½
Gyimesi Zoltan
Sax Gyula
E15 Szekesfehervar 2006
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Nc6 6.Nbd2 d5 7.Qa4 Bb7
8.Bg2 Qd7 9.cxd5 exd5 10.0-0 Bd6 11.Nb1 Ne5 12.Qxd7+ Nexd7 13.Nc3
c6 14.Bf4 Bxf4 15.gxf4 Ke7 16.Rac1 Rhd8 17.Rc2 Ne8 18.Ne5 f6
19.Nxd7 Rxd7 20.Rfc1 Nd6 21.Nd1 Nb5 22.e3 Rg8 23.Nc3 Nd6 24.Ne2
Nb5 25.a4 Nd6 26.Ng3 g6 27.h4 Rb8 28.h5 g5 29.fxg5 fxg5 30.Bf3 Rf8
31.Kg2 Kd8 32.Bg4 Rdf7 33.f3 Re7
Show/Hide Solution
34.Rxc6! Nc4
34...Bxc6 35.Rxc6 Rf6 36.e4±

35.R6xc4 dxc4 36.e4± Rc7 37.d5 a6 38.Nf5 Bc8 39.Nd4 Bxg4 40.fxg4
Re8 41.Kf3 Kd7 42.Nf5?
42.Ke3! Kd6 43.Nf3 (43.Nc6 Rxc6 44.dxc6 b5) 43...h6 (43...Rf8 44.Nxg5)
44.Kd4±
42...Rc5 43.Ng7 Re7 44.Ne6 Rxe6 45.dxe6+
½–½
Fominyh Alexander
Sokolov Andrei
E15 Elista 1996
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Nc6 6.Bd2 Qc8 7.Bg2 Na5
8.Bxa5 bxa5 9.0-0 Be7 10.Nbd2 0-0 11.e4 d5 12.exd5 exd5 13.Rfe1 Bb4
14.c5 c6 15.Qc2 h6 16.Re3 Bb5 17.Nh4 Qg4 18.Ndf3 a4 19.h3 Qd7
20.Ne5 Qc7 21.Nf5 Rad8 22.Bf1 Rfe8 23.Bxb5 cxb5 24.Qe2 a6
Show/Hide Solution
25.Ng4! Nxg4
25...Rxe3 26.Nxf6+ gxf6 27.fxe3+–
26.Rxe8+
1–0
Ipatov Alexander
Zhigalko Sergei
E15 Cappelle-la-Grande 2011
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 c6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Nc3 h6 8.Bxf6
Bxf6 9.e4 d6 10.e5 dxe5 11.dxe5 Be7 12.Ne4 0-0 13.Qc3 Nd7 14.0-0-0
Qc7 15.Bd3 Rfd8 16.Bb1 Nf8 17.Rdg1 b5 18.g4 bxc4 19.g5 hxg5
20.Nfxg5 Rd5
Show/Hide Solution
21.Qf3
21.Nxf7! Kxf7 22.Nd6+ Bxd6 (22...Kg8 23.Rxg7+ Kxg7 24.Rg1+ Kh6

25.Qh3+ Bh4 26.Qxh4#) 23.exd6 Qxd6 24.Rxg7+ Ke8 25.Qf6+–
21...Bxg5+ 22.Rxg5 Ng6 23.Rhg1 Rxe5 24.Nf6+! Kf8 25.Rxg6! fxg6

26.Nd5+ Qf7 27.Qa3+! c5 28.Qxc5+ Kg8 29.Ne7+ Kh8 30.Qxe5 Qxe7
31.Bxg6 Qh4 32.Rg5
1–0
Karpov Anatoly
Gavrikov Viktor
E16 Moscow 1988
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 c5 6.d5 exd5 7.Nh4 b5 8.0-0
bxc4 9.Nc3 Be7 10.Nf5 0-0 11.Nxe7+ Qxe7 12.Bg5 h6 13.Bxf6 Qxf6
14.Nxd5 Bxd5 15.Qxd5 Nc6 16.Qxc4 Qxb2 17.e3 Rab8 18.Qxc5 Rb6
19.Rad1 Nb8 20.Bd5 Qb5 21.Qc7 Qa6 22.Rc1 Qa5 23.Rfd1 Rb5 24.Qd6
Qb6 25.Qe7 Qg6
Show/Hide Solution
26.Be4! Qe6 27.Bh7+! Kxh7 28.Qxf8 Qxa2 29.Qd6 a6 30.Qd3+ f5

31.Rb1 Qe6 32.Rxb5 axb5 33.Qxb5 Nc6 34.Rd5 Kg6 35.Qc5 Qe4
36.Rd6+ Kh7 37.Qd5 Qb1+ 38.Qd1 Qe4 39.Qd3 Qg4 40.Rd5
1–0
Belavenets Sergey Vesevolodovi
Botvinnik Mikhail
E18 Moscow 1934
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Nc3 d5 8.Ne5
Qc8 9.Bf4 dxc4 10.Nxc4 Bxg2 11.Kxg2 Qb7+ 12.Kg1 Rd8 13.Qc2 Nc6
14.e3
Show/Hide Solution
14...Rxd4! 15.exd4 Nxd4 16.Qc1
16.Qa4 Nf3+ 17.Kh1 (17.Kg2? Ne1+ 18.Kh3 Qg2+ 19.Kh4 Nf3#) 17...e5!
18.Be3 a6µ; 16.Qd1 Nf3+ 17.Kh1 Rd8µ
16...Nf3+ 17.Kh1 e5 18.Be3 Ng4

18...Rd8! 19.h3 Rd3µ
19.Qc2 Nd2+ 20.Kg1 Nf3+ 21.Kh1 Nd2+ 22.Kg1 Nxc4 23.Bc1 Qf3
24.Qe2 Qxe2 25.Nxe2 e4 26.b3 Nce5 27.h3 Nf3+ 28.Kg2 Nge5 29.Be3 f5
30.Rfd1 Kf7 31.Bd4 Nd3 32.Bc3 Rd8 33.Kf1 Bd6 34.Nc1 Nc5 35.Ne2
Nd3 36.Nc1 Nxc1 37.Raxc1 g6 38.Bb2 Ke6 39.Ke2 c5 40.Rc2 Rg8
½–½
Ehlvest Jaan
Burnett Ronald
E19 Hendersonville 2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7 5.Bg2 Be7 6.Nc3 0-0 7.0-0 Ne4 8.Qc2
Nxc3 9.Qxc3 Bf6 10.Qc2 d5 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Bf4 Na6 13.Rfd1 Qe7 14.h4
h6 15.Rac1 Rfe8 16.e3 c5 17.b3 Nb4 18.Qd2 a5 19.Be5 Bxe5 20.Nxe5
cxd4 21.exd4 Rac8 22.Bh3 Rxc1 23.Rxc1 Qd6 24.Qf4 Re7
Show/Hide Solution
25.Ng6! Qxg6 (25...Qxf4 26.Nxe7++–) 26.Bf5 Qf6 27.Qb8++–
1–0
Andersson Ulf
Stefansson Hannes
E19 Havana 2001
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 b6 3.g3 Bb7 4.Bg2 e6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Nc3 0-0 7.d4 Ne4 8.Qc2
Nxc3 9.Qxc3 c5 10.b3 Bf6 11.Bb2 d6 12.Rad1 Qe7 13.Rd2 Nd7 14.Qc2
Rac8 15.Qb1 Rfd8 16.Rfd1 a6 17.dxc5 dxc5 18.Bxf6 Nxf6 19.Ne5 Bxg2
20.Kxg2 Rxd2 21.Rxd2 Qc7
Show/Hide Solution
22.Qd3! h6
22...Qxe5? 23.Qd8++–
23.Qd6! Qb7+
23...Qxd6 24.Rxd6 Rb8 25.Rc6±
24.f3 b5 25.Kf2 bxc4 26.Nxc4 Nd5 27.e4 Nc3 28.Qb6 Qxb6 29.Nxb6 Rc6
30.Nc4 Rc8 31.Ke3 Rb8 32.h4 h5 33.Ne5 Rc8 34.Rc2 Nb5 35.Nd3 Rd8
36.Rxc5 Nd4 37.Nb4
1–0
PART 2.
THE BOGOINDIAN DEFENCE (E11)
The ‘BogoIndian Defence’ is an opening defined by the moves 1.d4 Nf6

2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+
The ‘BogoIndian Defence’ is named after Efim Dmitriyevich Bogoljubow

(Russian: Ефим Дмитриевич Боголю´бов — April 14, 1889 to June 18,
1952), who was a Russian-born German Grandmaster. He won numerous
events and played two matches against Alexander Alekhine for the World
Championship.
As in the other Indian defences, Black attempts to control the centre with
pieces in hypermodern style, instead of occupying it with pawns in classical
style.
The ‘BogoIndian Defence’ is considered to be a solid tool in Black’s hands
in his efforts to equalise. Its best follower was the legendary Ulf Andersson.
The great Swedish GM was fully successful with this defence, gaining a lot
of half points and sometimes even the full ones! But of course White ‘must’
keep a slight advantage, mostly based on his spatial plus.
The most common reply to Black’s bishop check on b4 is the 4.Bd2

continuation.
But in this repertoire we will focus on 4.Nbd2, which is the main

alternative, aiming to acquire the black bishop for the white knight, or
forcing Black’s bishop to retreat. This line looks quite interesting and in my
opinion at least equal to the 4.Bd2 line.
The downside is that the knight is developed to a square where it blocks the
c1-bishop, and also d2 is a less active square than c3.
HISTORICAL APPROACH
The first time that the 3...Bb4+ system appeared in the chess world was
back in 1883 (at least according to ChessBase MegaBase) although I do
believe that there are earlier games...
Mackenzie George Henry
Noa Josef
E11 London 26.04.1883
1.Nf3 e6 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 Bb4+ 4.Bd2 Bxd2+ 5.Nbxd2 0-0 6.e3 Nc6 7.Bd3
d5 8.Rc1 Bd7 9.0-0 Qe7 10.Bb1 Rac8 11.a3 e5 12.cxd5 Nxd5 13.Qb3
Nb6 14.dxe5 Nxe5 15.Nxe5 Qxe5 16.Nf3 Qe7 17.Qd3 g6 18.Qc3 Rfe8
19.h3 Bc6 20.Nd4 Bd5 21.Rfe1 c5 22.Ne2 Nd7 23.Ng3 Qg5 24.e4 Bc6
25.Re3 b6
26.Nf5 Re5 27.h4 Qf6 28.Nh6+ Kf8 29.Ng4 Qe6 30.Nxe5 Nxe5 31.Ba2
Qd6 32.Bd5 Re8 33.Bxc6 Qxc6 34.Rd1 Kg8 35.Rd5 Ng4 36.Red3 Qc7
37.g3 Ne5 38.Rd1 Nc6 39.Qc4 Qc8 40.Kg2 Nd4 41.f3 h5 42.b4 Ne6
43.bxc5 Nxc5 44.Rd6 Kg7 45.Qd4+ Kh7 46.Qf6 Rg8 47.Qxf7+ Rg7
48.Qf6 Qa6 49.Qb2 Qb7 50.R1d5 Qe7 51.Qd4 Rf7 52.Re5
1–0
Many years later, we met this system once more:

Ploennigs Fritz
Saemisch Friedrich
E11 Berlin 02.1919
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Bb4+ 4.Bd2 Bxd2+ 5.Nbxd2 0-0 6.e4 d5 7.Qc2
dxe4 8.Nxe4 Nbd7 9.Bd3 c5 10.Nxc5 Nxc5 11.dxc5 Qa5+ 12.Qd2 Qxc5
13.0-0 b6 14.Rfe1 Bb7 15.b4 Qc6 16.Rad1 Rfd8 17.Qg5 Qa4 18.Ne5
Qxb4 19.Re3 h6 20.Qf4 Rac8 21.Rg3 Kf8 22.Rh3 Be4 23.Rxh6 Qa4
24.Re1 Bxd3 25.Rxf6 gxf6 26.Qxf6 Qe8 27.Re3 Bh7 28.h4 Rc5 29.Qh6+
Ke7 30.Qxh7 Rd4 31.Qg7 Rxe5 32.Qxe5 Rxc4
33.Rd3 Qc8 34.Qg5+ Ke8 35.Qg8+ Ke7 36.Qg5+ Ke8 37.Rf3 Qc5
38.Qg8+ Qf8 39.Qg3 Kd7 40.Rxf7+ Qxf7 41.Qd3+ Ke8 42.Qxc4 Kf8
43.Qg4 Qf6 44.Qe2 a5 45.g3 Qf5 46.Qd2 Kg7 47.Qg5+ Qxg5 48.hxg5 b5
49.Kf1 b4 50.Ke1 a4 51.Kd1 Kg6 52.f4 Kf5 53.g4+ Kg6 54.Kc2 e5
55.fxe5 Kf7 56.Kd3 Ke6 57.g6 Ke7 58.Kc4
1–0
But the first time that the system was employed by Efim Bogoljubow
himself was back in 1920, in his match with the great Akiba Rubinstein.
We can’t say that the opening outcome was a ‘success’ for Black, but
nevertheless, he managed to escape.
We also have to note that in these primary games the 4.Bd2 continuation
dominated, leaving space for 4.Nbd2 in later years.
Rubinstein Akiba
Bogoljubow Efim
E16 Stockholm & Gothenburg 01.1920
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Bd2 Bxd2+ 5.Qxd2 b6 6.Nc3 Bb7 7.g3 0-0
8.Bg2 d6 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.Qc2 Re8 11.e4 e5 12.Rad1 exd4 13.Nxd4 Nc5
14.Rfe1 a5 15.f4 Qc8 16.h3 Nfd7 17.Kh2 Nb8 18.Nf5 g6 19.Nh6+ Kg7
20.Ng4 h5 21.Ne3 Nbd7 22.Ned5 Bxd5 23.cxd5 h4 24.g4 g5
25.e5! gxf4 26.e6 Ne5 27.Qf5 fxe6 28.dxe6 Qxe6 29.Qxf4 Rac8 30.Qg5+
Qg6 31.Qxh4 Re6 32.Qg3 c6 33.Rf1 Rf8 34.Rxf8 Kxf8 35.Ne2 Rf6
36.Nf4 Qg5 37.Nh5 Rg6 38.Rf1+ Ke7 39.Qf2 Qh6 40.Qd4 Kd7 41.b4
axb4 42.Qxb4 Kc7 43.Rb1 Ncd7 44.Ng3 Qh8 45.Nf5 d5 46.Re1 Nc5
47.Kg1 Re6 48.Nd4 Re8 49.Rf1 Ned3 50.Qc3 Qe5 51.Rf7+ Re7
52.Rxe7+ Qxe7 53.Nf5 Qe2 54.Qd4 Qxa2 55.g5 Qc4 56.Qf6 Qf4
57.Qe7+ Nd7 58.Ng7 Qd4+ 59.Kh1 Qa1+ 60.Kh2 Qe5+ 61.Qxe5+ N3xe5
62.h4 b5 63.Kg3 b4 64.Bh3 b3 65.h5 Nc5 66.Ne6+ Nxe6 67.Bxe6 Kd6
68.Bf5 Ke7 69.g6 Kf6 70.Kf4 c5 71.g7 Nd3+ 72.Ke3 Kxg7 73.Kxd3 Kh6
½-½
STARTING OUT
The system proposed against the ‘BogoIndian Defence’ commences with

the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2
And here is where our examination starts; Black can choose between the
main lines 4...b6 (Chapter 4), 4...0-0 (Chapter 3), 4...d5 (Chapter 2), and
4...c5 (Chapter 1).
Of course, some other ‘second-hand’ moves do exist and these are:

a) 4...d6 5.a3 Bxd2+ 6.Qxd2 (6.Bxd2 Ne4 7.Be3 Nd7 8.g3 a5 9.Bg2 a4
10.0-0 0-0 11.Qc2 f5 12.Ne1 Nef6 13.c5² Agdestein,S-Karttunen,M Tromsø
2014) 6...Nbd7 (6...a5 7.g4!? Qe7 8.g5 Nfd7 9.b3 e5 10.Bb2 a4 11.dxe5
Nxe5 12.Nxe5 dxe5 13.b4 0-0 14.Bg2 Nc6 15.Qe3² Sargissian,G-Drasko,M
Warsaw 2013)
7.e3 (7.Qc2 0-0 8.e4 e5 9.Be2 Qe7 10.d5 a5 11.b3 Nc5 12.Nd2² Van
Wely,L-Yermolinsky,A Wheeling 2010) 7...e5
8.b4 (8.dxe5 dxe5 9.b4 a5 10.Bb2 axb4 11.axb4 Rxa1+ 12.Bxa1 e4 13.Ne5
0-0 14.Be2 Qe7 15.Nxd7 Bxd7 16.0-0² Fressinet,L-Turov,M Nancy 2011)
8...e4 9.Ng1 d5 10.Bb2 c6 11.c5 h5 12.a4 Nf8 13.b5 Ne6 14.Nh3 Bd7
15.Rb1 0-0 16.Be2 g6 17.Bc3² Anton Guijarro,D-Kazakovskiy,V Tallinn
2016.
b) 4...a5 5.a3
b1) 5...Be7 6.e4 d5 7.e5 (7.Qc2 c5 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+
Qxd7 11.0-0 0-0 12.e5² Ivanchuk,V-Fedorchuk,S Mali Losinj 2017)
7...Nfd7 8.Bd3 (8.cxd5 exd5
9.Nb1 Nb6 [9...Nf8 10.Nc3 c6 11.Be3 Bf5 12.Qb3 Ra7 13.Be2 Ne6 14.0-0²
Gelfand,B-Georgiev,K Ashdod 2015] 10.Nc3 Nc6 11.h3 Bf5 12.Bd3 Bxd3
13.Qxd3 a4 14.0-0 0-0 15.Re1 Qd7 16.Bg5² Wojtaszek,R-Ivanchuk,V Wijk
aan Zee 2015) 8...c5 9.0-0 Nc6 10.Re1² Gelfand,B-Ivanchuk,V Beijing
2014.
b2) 5...Bxd2+ 6.Bxd2 a4 (6...b6 7.Bg5 Bb7 8.e3 a4 9.Bd3² Gelfand,B-
Korchnoi,V Odessa 2007) 7.Bg5 d6 8.e3 Nbd7 9.Bd3 h6 10.Bh4 b6 (10...0-
0 11.0-0²)
11.Be4 d5 (11...Ra5 12.Bc6±) 12.cxd5 g5 13.dxe6 Nxe4 14.exd7+ Qxd7
15.Bg3± Gelfand,B-Jobava,B Plovdiv 2010.
c) 4...Ne4 5.a3 Bxd2+ (5...Nxd2 6.Nxd2 Be7 [6...Bxd2+, transposes above]
7.g3 d5 8.Bg2 c6 9.e4 Nd7 10.0-0 dxc4 11.Nxc4 0-0 12.b4± Muse,M-
Smuk,Z Vinkovci 1993) 6.Nxd2 Nxd2 7.Bxd2 (7.Qxd2 b6 [7...0-0 8.g3 d6
9.Bg2 Nd7 10.0-0 Qe7 11.b4 c6 12.e4 e5 13.Bb2± Rolf,M-Engel,B
Hofheim 2016] 8.b4 0-0 9.Bb2 d5 10.cxd5 exd5 11.e3 c6 12.Rc1²
Khenkin,I-Engel,B Wiesbaden 2017)
c1) 7...0-0 8.e4 d6 9.Bc3 Nc6 (9...Nd7 10.g3 b6 11.Bg2 Bb7 12.0-0 f5
13.d5 e5 14.f4± Gozzoli,Y-Arcusa,M Saint Affrique 2008) 10.Be2 e5
11.d5 Ne7 12.f3 (12.c5?! f5∞ Adianto,U-Jiravorasuk,B Ho Chi Minh City
2003) 12...f5 13.0-0²
c2) 7...b6 8.e4 Bb7 9.Qg4 Qf6 10.Bc3 Qg6 11.Qxg6 hxg6 12.d5±
Arkhipov,V-Kotliar,A Alushta 2011.
c3) 7...d6 8.Bc3 0-0 9.g3 Nd7 10.Bg2 a5 11.a4 (11.0-0 a4 12.e4±) 11...e5
12.c5 Ra6 13.0-0 Qe7 14.cxd6 Rxd6 15.d5± Lautier,J-Colin,V Besancon
2006.
d) 4...Nc6 5.a3 Bxd2+
6.Bxd2 (6.Qxd2 is possible as usual: 6...0-0 [6...d6 7.Qc2 Qe7 8.b4 e5 9.d5
Nb8 10.e4 Nbd7 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0± Kuzubov,Y-Markocic,T Grosseto
Prugna 2016] 7.e3 d6 8.b4 Qe7 9.Bb2 Ne4 10.Qc2 f5 11.Be2²
Mchedlishvili,M-Moradiabadi,E Dubai 2014)
d1) 6...h6 7.Qc2 d6 8.Bc3 Qe7 9.e3 a5 10.Be2 0-0 11.h3 a4 12.g4 e5 13.d5
Nb8 14.0-0-0² Milanovic,D-Dahl,T Veliko Gradiste 2018.
d2) 6...Ne4 7.Bf4 (7.e3 0-0 8.Rc1 d6 9.b4 Ne7 10.Bd3 f5 11.Qc2 Nxd2
12.Qxd2² Podgaets,M-Kornilov,P Odessa 2007) 7...g5 (7...d6 8.h3 0-0 9.e3
g5 10.Bh2 h6 11.Bd3± Woloszyn,P-Markiewicz,J Warsaw 2011) 8.Be3 d5
9.h4 g4 10.Nd2 (10.Ng5? Nd6µ Heino,H-Lauronen,T Finland 2017)
10...Nxd2 11.Bxd2 dxc4 12.e3 e5 13.Bxc4 exd4 14.exd4 Qxd4
15.Qe2+ Qe5 16.Bc3 Qxe2+ 17.Bxe2°
d3) 6...d6 7.Qc2 (7.Bg5 Qe7 8.e3 a5 9.Nd2 e5 10.d5 Nb8 11.b4 Nbd7
12.e4² Korchnoi,V-Bolduc,S Montreal 2004) 7...a5 8.e4 e5 9.d5 Nb8
10.Be2 0-0 11.0-0 Ne8 12.b4± Camacho Collados,J-Represa Perez,M
Linares 2019.
d4) 6...d5 7.Rc1 Ne4 8.Bf4 0-0 9.h3 Ne7 10.e3 b6 11.Bd3 c5 12.cxd5 exd5
13.0-0 Ng6 14.Bh2 Re8 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.Nd2² Dzagnidze,N-
Kagramanov,D Antakya 2010.
e) 4...Qe7 (The text often transposes to one of the four main lines, but here
some independent lines are noted) 5.a3 Bxd2+
e1) 6.Bxd2 d6 (6...Ne4 7.Be3 0-0 8.g3 d6 9.Bg2 Nd7 [9...a5 10.b3 Nd7
11.Qc2 f5 12.0-0 e5 13.Rad1² Malakhatko,V-Rohde,U Vlissingen 2005]
10.0-0 f5 11.b4² Prakash,G-Rashmin,P Jamshedpur 2000) 7.Bg5 e5
8.e3 (8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Qc2 Nc6 10.e3 Bg4 11.Nd2 0-0-0 12.f3 Bh5 13.Ne4
Bg6 14.Bd3 h6 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.0-0-0 f5 17.Nc3 e4 18.fxe4 fxe4 19.Bxe4
Bxe4 20.Qxe4 Qxe4 21.Nxe4 Rde8 22.Nc3 Rxe3 23.Rhf1² Solozhenkin,E-
Karner,H Jyvaskyla 1992) 8...Bg4 9.Be2 Nbd7 10.0-0 h6 11.Bh4 a5 12.c5²
Riemersma,L-Vink,N Enschede 1996.
e2) 6.Qxd2
e21) 6...d6 7.b4 e5 (7...Nbd7 8.Bb2 0-0 9.Qg5!? Re8 10.e3 b6 11.Be2 Bb7
12.0-0 h6 13.Qh4 Nf8 14.Rfd1 Ng6 15.Qh3 Be4 16.Nh4 Nxh4 17.Qxh4²
Drenchev,P-Orev,P Sofia 2010) 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Bb2 Nbd7 10.e3 a5 11.Be2
(11.c5 axb4 12.axb4 Rxa1+ 13.Bxa1 e4 14.Nd4 Ne5 15.Be2 0-0 16.h3 Bd7
17.0-0² Van Wely,L-Jovanovic,Z Dresden 2007) 11...0-0 12.0-0 b6 13.Rfd1²
Maghsoodloo,P-Toufighi,H Teheran 2017.
e22) 6...a5 7.b3 d6 8.Bb2 b6 9.e3 (9.g3 Bb7 10.Bg2 Nbd7 11.0-0 0-0
12.Rfd1 Rfe8 13.b4² Gorbatov,A-Gansvind,V Moscow 2000) 9...Bb7
10.Be2 Nbd7 11.0-0 0-0 12.Qc2 Ne4 13.Rfd1 f5 14.d5 e5 15.Nd2 Nxd2
16.Rxd2² Kardashevskiy,E-Taalaibekov,T Moscow 2018.
e23) 6...0-0 7.e3 d6 8.b4 e5 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Bb2 Nbd7 11.Be2 e4 12.Nd4
Ne5 13.h3 Bd7 14.Qc3 Rfe8 15.0-0² Markus,R-Rasovic,U Niksic 2016.
CHAPTER 1.
THE 4...C5 LINE
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 c5
Black goes directly for the white centre.
5.a3 Bxd2+
And White in turn heads directly for the bishop pair! Much worse here is
the ‘smart’ but insufficient 5...Qa5?! 6.Rb1 Bxd2+ 7.Bxd2 Qc7 8.dxc5 Ne4
9.Be3 Nc6 10.g3 0-0 11.Bg2± Kacheishvili,G-Mai Dongqi Jinan 2005.
6.Bxd2
Also possible is 6.Qxd2

a) 6...b6 7.b4 Bb7 8.Bb2 0-0 9.e3 Qe7 10.Bd3 Na6 11.dxc5 bxc5 12.b5 Nc7
13.0-0 d5 14.Ne5± Epishin,V-Christiansen,L Vienna 1991.
b) 6...Ne4 7.Qc2 f5 8.dxc5 Qf6 (8...Nxc5 9.g3 d6 10.Bg2 0-0 11.0-0 Nc6
12.Rd1 Qc7 13.b4 Ne4 14.Bb2± Anastasian,A-Navabi,S Dubai 2002) 9.Be3
Nc6 10.g3 a5 11.Nd2 Ng5 12.f4 Nf7 13.Bg2± Kozul,Z-Sulc,G Bizovac
2006.
c) 6...cxd4 7.Qxd4! (7.Nxd4 0-0 8.e3 d5 9.cxd5 Qxd5 10.Nb5 Qc6 11.f3 a6
12.Nc3 e5 13.e4 Nbd7 14.Qf2² Kasparov,G-Short,N Saint Louis 2015)
7...Nc6 8.Qd3 (8.Qc3 0-0 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bh4 g5 11.Bg3 Ne4 12.Qc1 d5 13.e3
Bd7∞ Timman,J-Sokolov,I Dordrecht 2002) 8...d5
(8...a5 9.e4 [9.e3 b6 10.Be2 Ba6 11.b3 Rc8 12.0-0 d5∞ Fuhrmann,D-
Sher,M Cappelle la Grande 1997] 9...d5 10.cxd5 exd5 11.exd5 Qxd5
12.Qxd5 Nxd5 13.Bc4²) 9.cxd5 (9.b4 e5 10.cxd5 e4 11.Qe3 Qxd5 12.Bb2
Ng4 13.Qg5 Qxg5 14.Nxg5 e3!∞ Birnboim,N-Friedman,A Rishon Le Zion
1992) 9...Qxd5 10.Qxd5 Nxd5 (10...exd5 11.Bg5 Ne4 12.Bf4²) 11.e4 Nf6
12.Bd3 0-0 (12...e5 13.h3 Be6 14.Be3 0-0-0 15.Ke2²) 13.b4 Rd8 14.Ke2
Ng4 (14...b6 15.Bb2 Rxd3 16.Kxd3 Ba6+ 17.Ke3 Ng4+ 18.Kd2 Nxf2
19.Rhc1±) 15.Bc2 b6 16.b5 Na5 17.h3 Nf6 18.Bf4 a6 19.a4 axb5 20.axb5
Bb7 21.Nd2² Georgiev,K-Aronian,L Germany 2001.
6...cxd4
White gets an easy game in general after the text, but it is hard to propose
an improvement, although Black has tried. Some main alternatives to the
text are the following:
a) 6...d6 7.dxc5 (7.g3 b6 [7...Nc6 8.dxc5 dxc5 9.Bc3 0-0 10.Qc2 Qe7
11.Ne5 Nxe5 12.Bxe5 Ne8 13.Bg2 f6 14.Bc3² Poluliakhov,A-Neverov,A
Kuibishev 1990] 8.Bg2 Bb7 9.dxc5 bxc5 10.0-0 Qc7 11.b4 Nbd7 12.b5 0-0
13.a4 a5 14.Qb3 Ne4 15.Rfd1 h6 16.Be1² Magomedov,M-Vitolinsh,A
Daugavpils 1989) 7...dxc5 8.Bc3 (8.Qc2!? Nbd7 9.0-0-0² Seirawan,Y-
Smyslov,V Tilburg 1994; 8.Bf4 Qxd1+ 9.Rxd1 b6 10.e3 Bb7 11.Be2 Nc6
12.0-0 0-0 13.b4 cxb4 14.axb4 Rfd8 15.b5² Efimov,I-Spiridonov,S Prague
1985) 8...Qxd1+ (8...0-0 9.Qc2²) 9.Rxd1
9...b6 (9...Nbd7 10.e3 [10.g3 transposes] 10...b6 11.Bd3 Bb7 12.0-0²) 10.g3
Bb7 11.Bg2 Nbd7 12.0-0 Ke7 13.Rd3 (13.Ne5 Bxg2 14.Kxg2 Nxe5
15.Bxe5 Rhd8 16.Bxf6+ Kxf6 ½-½ Cramling,P-Smyslov,V Aruba 1992)
13...Be4 14.Rd2 Bc6 15.Rd3 Be4 16.Re3² Sokolov,I-Short,N Parnu 1996.
b) 6...b6 7.Bg5 (7.dxc5!? bxc5 8.g3 Bb7 [8...Nc6 9.Bg2 Rb8 10.b4 cxb4
11.axb4 a6 {11...Nxb4 12.Rxa7 Nc6 13.Ra2 0-0 14.Bf4²} 12.0-0 Qe7
13.Rb1± Sulypa,A-Miezis,N Gonfreville 1999] 9.Bg2 Ne4 10.0-0 Nc6
11.Be3 Qe7 12.Nd2 Nxd2 13.Qxd2 d6 14.b4² Bayer,E-Rother,C
Regensburg 1990)
7...h6 (7...Bb7 8.e3 0-0 [8...Qe7 9.Be2 d6 10.dxc5 bxc5 11.Qd2 Nc6 12.b4²
Ftacnik,L-Podzielny,K.H Hamburg 1993] 9.Be2 d6 10.0-0 h6 11.Bh4 Qe7
12.b4 Nbd7 13.Qb3² Adianto,U-Antonio,R Jakarta 1994; 7...cxd4 8.Nxd4
d5 9.g3 Bb7 10.Bg2 Qd7 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.cxd5 Bxd5 13.Bxd5 Qxd5 14.0-0
0-0 15.Rc1± Mohr,S-Schneider,A Budapest 1988) 8.Bh4 Bb7 (8...d6 9.e3
Bb7 10.Be2 Nbd7 11.0-0 Qc7 12.b4² Walker,D-Giblin,W Dundee 1993)
9.e3 cxd4 10.Qxd4 Nc6 11.Qd1 Rc8 12.Rc1 d6 13.Bd3 g5 14.Bg3 Rg8
15.Bb1 Ke7 16.0-0 h5 17.h4 gxh4 18.Bxh4 Ne5 19.e4² Khalifman,A-
Miezis,N Liepaja 2006.
7.Nxd4
7...d5
Again Black can choose between:

a) 7...Nc6 8.Bc3 (8.Bf4 d5 9.cxd5 Qxd5 10.Nxc6 Qxc6 11.Rc1 Qd5
12.Qxd5 Nxd5 13.Bd6± Cheparinov,I-Lan,Z China 2018) 8...0-0 9.Qc2
(9.Rc1 Ne4 10.e3 Qb6 11.Bd3 Nxc3 12.Rxc3 Nxd4 13.exd4 d6 14.0-0 h6
15.b4 e5 16.c5 dxc5 17.dxc5 Qc7 18.Qe2 Be6 19.Re1 f6 20.Qe4±
Kasparov,G-Timman,J Brussels 1987; 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Qd4 [10.e3 Ne4
11.Bxg7 Nxf2 12.Kxf2 Kxg7 13.Qg4+ Kh8 14.Qd4+ f6 15.c5 a5 16.Rd1
Qe7 17.Rd2² Granda Zuniga,J-Short,N Madrid 2016] 10...d5 11.e3 Re8
12.Qe5 Ba6 13.0-0-0 Qb8 14.f3² Hansen,LB-Yanvarjov,I Budapest 1989)
9...d5 10.e3 Bd7 11.Nf3 Ne4 12.cxd5 exd5 13.Bd3 Nxc3 14.Qxc3 Rc8
15.0-0 Bg4 16.Nd4 Qb6 17.Nf5 (17.h3 Nxd4 18.Qxd4 Qxd4 19.exd4 Bd7=
Timman,J-Ivkov,B Rio de Janeiro 1979) 17...Bxf5 18.Bxf5² Mathe,G-
Gyimesi,Z Kecskemet 1993.
b) 7...Ne4 8.Be3 (8.Nb5 Nc6 9.Nc3 Nxd2 10.Qxd2 0-0 11.e3 b6 12.Rd1 f5
13.Be2² Ehlvest,J-Miezis,N Tallinn 2000)
8...0-0 (8...d5 9.cxd5 exd5 10.g3 h5 11.Bg2 h4 12.Qc2 0-0 13.Bxe4 dxe4
14.Qxe4± Yakovich,Y-Miezis,N Bad Wiessee 1999; 8...b6 9.f3 Nc5
[9...Qh4+? 10.g3 Nxg3 11.Bf2+–; 9...Nf6 10.Nb5 0-0 11.Nd6²] 10.Nb5 0-0
11.Bf4±) 9.g3 b6 (9...d5 10.Bg2 f5 11.cxd5 Qxd5 12.0-0± Langeweg,K-
Hecht,HJ Hengelo 1968) 10.Bg2 Bb7 11.0-0 Nd6 12.Bxb7 Nxb7 13.Qc2²
Cebalo,M-Djuric,S Yugoslavia 1986.
c) 7...d6 8.g3 0-0 9.Bg2 a6 10.Bb4!? Ne8 11.Qd2± Jussupow,A-Smyslov,V
Moscow 1988.
8.cxd5 Qxd5
9.e3
The text looks more natural than 9.Nc2 0-0! (9...Nc6 10.Nb4! Nxb4
11.Bxb4 Bd7 12.f3²; 9...Ne4?! 10.Be3 Qa5+ 11.b4 Qc7 12.Qd3 f5 [12...Nf6
13.Nd4 a6 14.Rc1 Qd7 15.Bf4±] 13.f3 Nf6 14.Bc5 b6 15.Bd6 Qc6 16.b5
Qb7 [16...Qd5 17.Qxd5 Nxd5 18.Nd4 Kf7 19.e4±] 17.Rc1 [17.Rd1 Kf7
18.Ne3 Rd8 19.Nc4±] 17...Kf7 18.Nb4 Rd8 19.e4! Ne8 [19...fxe4 20.fxe4
Qxe4+ 21.Qxe4 Nxe4 22.Bxb8 Rxb8 23.Nc6±] 20.e5 Kg8 21.Qc3 Nxd6
22.exd6 a5 23.bxa6 Qd7 24.Qe5! Qf7 25.Rc7 Nd7 26.Qc3 Qf8 27.Nc6 1–0
Sakaev,K-Naiditsch,A Zlatibor 2007) 10.Nb4 Qd8 11.Rc1 a5 12.Nd3 Nc6
13.f3 e5 14.e4²
9...0-0
Some alternatives are:

a) 9...Bd7 10.Be2 e5 11.Nf3 (11.Bf3 Ne4! [11...e4 12.Be2 Qg5 13.g4 0-0
14.h4 Qg6 15.g5² Gorelov,S-Vitolinsh,A Uzhgorod 1988] 12.Qb3 Qxb3
13.Nxb3 Nxd2 14.Kxd2 Bc6 15.Rac1² ½-½ Michaelsen,N-Hecht,H
Hamburg 1988) 11...e4 12.Nd4 Nc6 13.Bc3²
b) 9...a6 10.Qc2 (10.Bb4 e5 11.Nf3 Nc6 12.Bd6 Qe6 13.Rc1² Mohr,S-
Hoelzl,F Budapest 1988) 10...Bd7 11.Rd1 Nc6 12.Bc3 Nxd4 13.Rxd4 Qg5
14.h4²
10.Bb4!
This seems to be a bit stronger than 10.Nb5 Na6 11.Bc3 Rd8 12.Bxf6
(12.Bc4 Qxd1+ 13.Rxd1 Rxd1+ 14.Kxd1 Ne4 15.Be1 Bd7 16.f3 Rc8
17.Be2 Nd6! 18.Nc3 Nc5 19.e4 Na4=; 12.Be2 Bd7 13.Bxf6 Qxd1+
14.Rxd1 gxf6 15.b4 Bxb5 16.Bxb5 Nc7 17.Be2 a5= Nyback,T-Miezis,N
Jyvaskyla 2007) 12...gxf6 13.Qxd5 Rxd5 14.b4 Rd8 15.Rc1² Iturrizaga
Bonelli,E-Miezis,N Dresden 2008.
10...Rd8
For 10...Re8, see the game Lobron,E-Korchnoi,V Biel 1986.
11.Be7 Rd7 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qg4+ Kf8 14.Be2²

CHAPTER 2.
THE 4...D5 LINE
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 d5
A logical move, transposing to ‘QGD’ pawn structures.
5.Qa4+! Nc6 6.a3
And here Black can choose between 6...Bxd2+ and 6...Be7.
2.1 — 6...BXD2+
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 d5 5.Qa4+ Nc6 6.a3 Bxd2+ 7.Bxd2
Black gives-up the bishop pair but he hopes for active play in the centre.
7...Ne4
The principal continuation.
8.Rd1
This is considered to be the most solid approach, overprotecting the d2-

bishop and setting-up some latent pressure along the d-file. In the long run,
though, the rook may not be so well-placed here, because White is
supposed to attack on the queenside with b4 and so on.
White has also tried recently 8.Bf4 g5!? (8...0-0 9.Rd1 [9.e3 Ne7 10.Bd3
Ng6 11.Qc2 Nxf4 12.exf4 Bd7 13.0-0 Nf6 14.c5² Nyzhnyk,I-De Jong,M
Vlissingen 2012] 9...Ne7 10.e3 Ng6 11.Bg3² Gupta,A-Noritsyn,N Durban
2014) 9.Be3 f6 (9...f5 10.g3 0-0 11.Rd1 Kh8 12.Bg2 f4 13.Bc1²
Ivanchuk,V-Short,N Gibraltar 2011) 10.g3 Nd6 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Bg2 Nf5
13.0-0 Nxe3 14.fxe3 0-0 15.Qb3² So,W-Rohde,M Internet 2019.
8...0-0 9.e3
9...Bd7
Black has tried two main alternatives here:

a) 9...Qf6 10.Bd3 Qg6 (10...Nd6 11.0-0 dxc4 12.Bxc4 Bd7 [12...e5 13.dxe5
Nxe5 14.Nxe5 Qxe5 15.Bc3±] 13.Bd3 e5 14.d5 e4 15.Bxe4 Ne5 16.Qd4
Nxf3+ 17.Bxf3± Lputian,S-Kurajica,B Sarajevo 1985) 11.0-0 Nc5 12.Qxc6
(12.dxc5 Qxd3 13.cxd5 exd5 14.Qf4±) 12...Nxd3 13.Qxc7 Nxb2 14.Ne5!
(14.Bb4 Re8 15.Ne5 Qf6 16.cxd5 Nxd1 17.d6 Nb2∞ Gelfand,B-Timman,J
Linares 1993) 14...Qf6 15.Rc1 Nxc4 16.Nxc4 dxc4 17.Rxc4±
b) 9...Ne7 10.Qc2 b6 11.Bd3 Bb7 12.Bc1 Ng6 13.0-0 Qe7 14.b4 a5 15.c5
axb4 16.axb4 bxc5 17.dxc5 f5 18.Bb2² Sharavdorj,D-Noritsyn,N Istanbul
2012.
10.Qc2
10...Be8
Black’s play is very similar to ‘Stonewall’ pawn structures. He has a slight

lead in development, which he will use in order to build up a kingside
attack, in the spirit of the ‘Dutch Stonewall Defence’. Another option is
10...a5 11.Bd3 f5 12.0-0 Be8 13.Ne1 Bh5 14.f3 Nxd2 15.Qxd2 Qf6 16.g3
Kh8 17.cxd5 exd5 18.Rc1 Be8 19.Ng2², or 10...f5 11.Bc1 a5 12.Be2 a4
13.0-0 Qe7 14.Nd2 Nd6 15.Bf3 Qf7 16.g3 Rfc8 17.Bg2 Ne7 18.cxd5 Nxd5
19.Rfe1² Hammer,J-Miezis,N Norway 2012.
11.b4 a6!
This is a very important and strong move, which slows down White’s
queenside initiative and at the same time increases Black’s influence on the
light squares.
12.Bc1
Barring the text, White has also tried the following, of which b) is quite
interesting and can be followed:
a) 12.Rc1 f5 13.b5 Nxd2 14.Qxd2 axb5 15.cxb5 Ne7 16.Rc3 c6 17.bxc6
Nxc6 18.Be2 Na5 19.Qb2 b5 20.Bxb5 Qb6 21.a4 Nc4 22.Qc1 Bxb5
23.axb5 Qxb5 ½-½ Dreev,A-Safarli,E Wijk aan Zee 2016.
b) 12.Bd3 f5 13.b5 axb5 14.cxb5 Nxd2 15.Rxd2 Na7 (15...Ne7 16.a4 c6
17.0-0 cxb5 18.axb5 Ra5 19.Qb2² Hera,I-Barnaure,V Helensburgh 2013)
16.Qb2 (16.Qc5?! c6 17.b6 Nc8 18.Rb2 Qd6 19.Rb3 Qxc5 20.dxc5 Ra5
21.Rc3 Ne7 22.Nd4 Bf7³ Nguyen,V-Vo,T Bac Giang 2014) 16...c6 17.0-0
Nxb5 18.Bxb5 cxb5 19.Rd3°
c) 12.Be2 f6 (12...Nd6 13.c5 Ne4 14.0-0 Ne7 15.a4 [15.Ne5 Bb5 16.Be1
Qe8= Erdos,V-De Jong,M Vlissingen 2010] 15...f6 16.Bd3²; 12...f5 13.a4
Bh5 [½-½ Rodshtein,M-Kogan,A Andorra 2007] 14.b5 Nxd2 15.Rxd2 axb5
16.axb5²) 13.0-0 Nd6 14.Rc1 Bg6 15.Qa2 dxc4 16.Bxc4 Nxc4 17.Qxc4
Qd5 18.Qxd5 exd5 19.Rc5 Rfd8 20.Rfc1 Rd7= Shchekachev,A-Bauer,C
Metz 2009.
12...f5 13.Be2
13...Bh5
The usual 13...Ne7 can also be played: 14.Ne5 dxc4 15.Bxc4 Nd5 16.Bb3
a5 17.bxa5 Bb5 18.Nc4 (18.a4! Ba6 19.f3²) 18...Qe8 19.0-0 Qc6 20.Bd2
Bxc4 21.Bxc4 Nxd2 22.Rxd2 Rxa5 23.Bxd5 exd5 24.Qxc6 bxc6 25.Rc2
(25.Rc1 Rxa3 26.g3²) 25...Rf6 26.Rc3² Malek,D-Miezis,N Reutlingen
2012.
14.0-0
The alternative 14.Bb2 is too early, allowing 14...f4! 15.exf4 Rxf4∞

Nyback,T-Nisipeanu,L Wijk aan Zee 2010.
14...Ne7
14...g5?!, looks a bit scary: 15.Bb2 g4 16.Ne1 Ne7 17.Nd3 Ng6 18.Nc5
Nxc5 19.dxc5± Khismatullin,D-Slavin,A Sochi 2017, but playable is
14...Rf6 15.Bb2!? (15.g3 Bg4 16.Kg2 ½-½ Lputian,S-Rohde,M Saint John
1988) 15...Rh6 16.g3 Qe8 17.cxd5 exd5 18.Ne5²
15.Bb2 c6 16.Ne5 Bxe2 17.Qxe2²
Sumets,A-Visakh,N Abu Dhabi 2015. White holds a slight advantage due to

his extra space and possibility of playing in the centre, but Black is very
much in the game.
2.2 — 6...BE7
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 d5 5.Qa4+ Nc6 6.a3 Be7
In the spirit of the ‘QGD’. This is a very solid line, where Black’s main idea
is to play on the edges of the board with moves such as ...a5, ...Na5 and
...Nh5! Well, we will see how!
7.e3 a5
Black’s main option is 7...0-0 8.Bd3 Bd7 9.Qc2 a5 10.b3 g6 11.Bb2 Re8
12.Ke2!? (12.0-0 Bf8 13.e4 Ne7 14.Ne5² Kohler,T-Gipslis,A Berlin 1993)
12...Bf8 (12...Bd6!? 13.Rac1 Rc8 14.Rhe1²) 13.Rag1 Bg7 14.h3² Markos,J-
Mrva,M Slovakia 2002. But sooner or later Black will need the text move.
8.Bd3
8.b4 is interesting: 8...0-0 9.c5 (9.b5 Nb8 10.c5 c6 11.Rb1 [11.b6 Nbd7
12.Bb2 e5∞ Rosko,L-Biolek,R Czech Republic 2010] 11...Nfd7 12.Be2 e5
13.0-0²; 9.Bd3 dxc4 10.Bxc4 Nd5 11.b5 Nb6 12.Qc2 Nxc4 13.Nxc4 Na7
14.a4 b6 15.Nce5 Bb7 16.Ba3 f6 17.Nd3 Bxa3 18.Rxa3 Qd6 19.Rb3 Bd5
20.Rb2 c6³ Cheparinov,I-Marin,M Leon 2012) 9...Nb8 (9...e5?! 10.b5 exd4
11.bxc6 dxe3 12.fxe3 Bxc5 13.Nb3±) 10.Bd3 c6 11.Bb2 (11.0-0 b5! 12.Qb3
[12.cxb6 Ba6∞] 12...axb4! 13.Qxb4 Nbd7∞) 11...b6! 12.Ne5 Nfd7!
13.Nxd7 (13.Nxc6 Nxc6 14.Qxc6 Rb8!°) 13...Nxd7 14.0-0 (14.Qxc6 Rb8=)
14...Qc7 15.Qc2 g6 16.e4 Ba6 (Black has carried out a standard plan in
such structures. After exchanging his passive bishop, he has no worries at
all.) 17.e5 Bxd3 18.Qxd3 Qb7 ½-½ Jakovenko,D-Nisipeanu,L Foros 2008.
8...0-0
Another possible move order is 8...Bd7 9.Qc2 a4, not fearing the early
advance in the centre, 10.e4, due to 10...g6, more-or-less transposing to the
game.
9.0-0
Or 9.Qc2 a4 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Bb5?! Bd7 and the a4-pawn is defended

indirectly: 12.Bxa4 Nxd4!. In this line it is important that Black has already
castled.
9...Bd7 10.Qc2 a4
11.Ne5
11.e4, although logical, scores poorly: 11...g6! (11...dxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4
13.Bxe4 f5 14.Bd3 Bf6 [14...Na5 15.Be3 c5 16.Rad1 Qc7 17.Rfe1 Nb3
18.g3 Bd6 19.dxc5 Nxc5 20.Bd4 Rad8 21.Bf1 Ne4 22.Nd2 Ng5 23.Qc3 e5
24.Bxe5 Bxe5 25.Qxe5 Qxe5 26.Rxe5 Bc6 27.Be2 Nh3+ 28.Kf1 f4 29.f3²
Mikhalchishin,A-Jussupow,A Frunze 1979] 15.d5 [15.Be3 e5 16.dxe5 Nxe5
17.Nxe5 Bxe5 18.f4 Bf6 19.Rfe1 g6 20.Rad1 Qe7 21.c5 Bc6=] 15...Nd4
16.Nxd4 Bxd4 17.Be3 Bxe3 18.fxe3 Qg5 19.e4 f4 20.e5 Qxe5 21.Bxh7+
Kh8 22.Be4 exd5 23.cxd5 Rae8∞ Bai Min-Qi Jingxuan China 1987)
12.Re1 Na5! 13.exd5 (13.Ne5 dxe4 14.Nxe4 Nb3 15.Bh6 Nxa1 16.Rxa1
Be8 17.Qc3= Thinius,M-Ikonnikov,V Berlin 1997) 13...exd5 14.c5 Nh5!∞
Gurevich,M-Salov,V Minsk 1987.
11...Na5
The text looks more accurate than:

a) 11...Be8 12.Ndf3 (12.f4 Na5 13.c5² Kumsiashvili,N-Ammar,A Poti
2010) 12...Na5 13.Bd2 dxc4 14.Nxc4 Nxc4 15.Qxc4² Bartel,M-
Romanishin,O Warsaw 2018.
b) 11...g6 12.Ndf3 (12.f4 Na5 13.cxd5 Nxd5 14.Rf3 Be8 15.Nec4 Nxc4
16.Nxc4 c5³ Goldenberg,I-Johansen,D Melbourne 2006; 12.Rd1!? Be8
13.Rb1²) 12...Nxe5 13.dxe5 Ne4 14.cxd5 exd5 15.Bxe4 dxe4 16.Qxe4 Bc6
17.Qc2 Bxf3 18.gxf3 (½-½ Tancik,K-Rogac,S Novi Sad 2018) 18...Qd5
19.f4 f6 20.exf6 Bxf6 21.e4 Qh5 22.f3²
12.Rd1
Bad is 12.Nxd7?! Qxd7 13.c5 b6³ 14.cxb6 cxb6 15.b3?! Rfc8µ, while
nothing is offered by 12.c5 Qe8 (or 12...Be8!?, planning ...g6, ...Nd7 and
...b6) 13.Nxd7 Qxd7 14.b4 axb3 15.Nxb3 Nxb3 (15...b5? 16.Nxa5 Rxa5
17.Bd2± Simantsev,M-Rudolf,M Poronin 2017) 16.Qxb3
16...b6 17.cxb6 cxb6 18.a4 Rfc8 19.Bd2 Ne4= Franco Ocampos,Z-

Giardelli,S Buenos Aires 1988.
12...g6 13.Rb1 Be8

Planning to exchange White’s most active piece with ...Nd7.
14.Qc3
A suggested novelty. 14.b4? is bad after 14...axb3 15.Nxb3 Ba4µ, while not
much is given by 14.h3 Rc8!? 15.c5 Nd7 16.Nef3 b6= Finally, equal is
14.Ndf3 Nb3 (14...Nh5?! 15.Bd2 f6 16.Ng4² Maric,A-Dzagnidze,N
Khalkida 2009) 15.Nd2 Na5.
14...Nd7
14...Nh5 15.Bc2 f6 16.Nd3²
15.Nxd7 Bxd7 16.e4²

White has more space and control of the centre.
CHAPTER 3.
THE 4...0-0 LINE
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 0-0
One of the most-played continuations; Black keeps his cards hidden, at least
for the time being!
5.a3
But White pushes him to turn them face-up! Here Black has to decide
between 5...Bxd2+ and 5...Be7.
3.1 — 5...BXD2+
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 0-0 5.a3 Bxd2+

Black is ‘happy’ to oblige, but on the other hand the white bishop pair can
be a good asset for his opponent...
Here White has a pleasant choice between 6.Qxd2 and 6.Bxd2.
3.1.1 — 6.QXD2
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 0-0 5.a3 Bxd2+ 6.Qxd2
White feels that his bishop can find a better diagonal than c1-h6, namely the
long one.
6...Ne4

a) 6...d6 is more-or-less a transposition: 7.e3 Qe7 8.Be2 (8.b4 b6 9.Be2 Bb7
10.0-0 Nbd7 11.Bb2, transposes to 4...b6) 8...e5 9.0-0 e4 10.Ne1 Bg4 11.f3
exf3 12.gxf3 Bh3 13.Rf2 Nbd7 14.e4 h6 15.Nd3² Ding,L-Wang,C Shenzhen
2015.
b) 6...b6 transposes to 4...b6 and it is the most-played continuation.
Generally, the transposition ‘rate’ is rather high in these systems.
c) 6...d5 7.e3 c6 (7...b6 8.b3 c5 9.dxc5 bxc5 10.Be2 Ba6 11.Qc2 Nbd7 12.0-
0 Rb8 13.Bb2 Qb6 14.Nd2² Tabatabaei,M-Istratescu,A Abu Dhabi 2019)
8.Bd3 Nbd7 9.Qc2 Qe7 10.b3 e5 11.dxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5 13.Bb2²
Svidler,P-Ginderskov,H Copenhagen 2010.
7.Qc2
7.Qd3 is possible as well: 7...d5 8.g3 b6 9.Bg2 Bb7 10.0-0² Grivas,E-Al

Zarooni, HE Sharjah 2019.
7...f5
7...d5 is the other set-up: 8.Bf4 c5 9.cxd5 (9.e3 Qa5+ 10.Nd2 Nc6 11.0-0-0
Nxf2 12.Nb3 Qa4 13.Qxf2 Qxb3µ Brito Garcia,A-Garcia Padron,J Las
Palmas 1994) 9...exd5 10.dxc5 Nc6 11.e3 Qa5+ 12.Nd2 Re8 13.Qc1²
Lajthajm,B-Ivanovic,B Herceg Novi 2001.
8.g3 d6 9.Bg2 Qe7 10.0-0 Nd7 11.b3
11.b4 a5 12.b5 e5 13.e3² Mikhalevski,V-Marsili,R Antalya 2017.
11...Ndf6 12.Ne1 h6 13.Bb2 b6 14.Nd3 Bb7 15.e3²
Nikolov,M-Yordanov,L Montana 2017. White’s bishop pair and spatial

advantage make his position preferable. Generally, this kind of position is
unhealthy for the Black side, due to the lack of decent plans...
3.1.2 — 6.BXD2
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 0-0 5.a3 Bxd2+ 6.Bxd2
White develops naturally, thinking of placing the d2-bishop on f4.
6...Ne4

a) 6...b6 transposes to 4...b6.
b) 6...h6 is too slow and allows White to seize the centre: 7.Qc2 (7.g4!?
Ne4 8.Rg1 is interesting too) 7...d6 (7...d5 8.e3 [8.h3 b6 9.g4 Ne4 10.Bf4
c5 11.e3 Bb7 12.Bd3 Nd7∞ Balkishan,A-Jenil,S Mumbai 2018] 8...Nbd7
9.Bd3 Re8 10.0-0 c6 11.b4² Martin Rodriguez,E-Lozano Cortijo,M Madrid
2009) 8.e4 (8.g4!?) 8...e5 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Bc3 Nc6 11.Nxe5 Nxe5 12.Bxe5
Re8 13.Rd1 Qe7 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Be2 f5 16.Qc1 Qh4 17.0-0 fxe4 18.Qe3
Be6 19.Rd4 f5 20.f3± Sveinsson,J-Zawadski,A Internet 2003.
c) 6...d6 7.Bg5 (7.Qc2, is possible here too — see 4...d6) 7...Qe7 (7...Nbd7
8.e3 e5 9.Be2 Qe7 10.0-0²; 7...h6 8.Bh4 Nbd7 9.e3 Qe7 10.Be2 b6 11.Nd2
Bb7 12.0-0 c5 13.b4 e5 14.bxc5 dxc5 15.d5± Petrosian,A-Makarichev,S
Novi Sad 1983) 8.e3 e5 9.Be2 Re8 (9...a5 10.0-0 a4 11.Rc1²) 10.0-0²
Aseev,K-Taimanov,M St Petersburg 1995.
7.Bf4
7.e3 b6 8.Bd3 Bb7 9.0-0 Nxd2 10.Nxd2 f5 11.Qe2 Nc6 12.Rac1 Qf6 13.c5²
Topalov,V-Kasimdzhanov,R Tripoli 2004. Even here, when White returns
the bishop pair, he stands better.
7...d6
7...b6 transposes to 4...b6.
8.Qc2 f5 9.e3
9.g4? Nxf2! 10.Kxf2 fxg4 11.e3 gxf3 12.h4 e5µ Krasenkow,M-Kveinys,A

Zakopane 2000.
9...Nd7
9...b6 10.Bd3 Bb7 transposes to 4...b6.
10.Bd3 Ndf6 11.h3

11.0-0 Qe7 12.Rae1 b6 13.Ng5 Bb7 14.Nxe4 fxe4 15.Be2 c5 16.dxc5 bxc5
17.Rd1 e5 18.Bg3 g5 19.b4² Plueg,A-Franklin,M Coulsdon 1997.
11...b6 12.g4 Bb7 13.gxf5 exf5 14.d5 g6 15.Rg1 Nh5 16.Bh6 Re8 17.Nd4
Bc8 18.0-0-0²
Miralles,G-Kholmov,R Voskresensk 1990. White stands better, as Black’s

king is quite vulnerable.
3.2 — 5...BE7
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 0-0 5.a3 Be7
Black argues that the loss of a tempo (...Bb4+ and ...Be7) is less important
than the placement of the white knight on d2.
6.e4! d5
6...d6 is possible but rather passive: 7.Be2 a5 (7...c5 8.d5 exd5 9.cxd5 Bg4
10.Qc2 Re8 11.0-0 Nbd7 12.Re1 Bf8 13.b3 [13.Bf1 Rc8 14.b3 g6 15.h3
Bxf3 16.Nxf3 Bg7 17.Bb2 a6 18.a4² Gelfand,B-Yuffa,D Moscow 2020]
13...g6 14.Bb2 Bg7 15.h3 Bxf3 16.Bxf3 b5 17.a4 a6 18.Be2 Rb8 19.axb5
axb5 20.Ra6² Grischuk,A-Yuffa,D Moscow 2019; 7...Nbd7 8.Qc2 e5 9.Nb1
exd4 10.Nxd4 Re8 11.Nc3 Bf8 12.0-0 g6 13.Bg5 c6 14.Rad1² Giri,A-
Iturrizaga Bonelli,E Moscow 2019)
8.b3 (8.Qc2 e5 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Nxe5 Bd6 11.Nef3 Qe7 12.0-0 Nc6 13.b3
Bg4 14.Bb2² Gelfand,B-Yuffa,D Moscow 2020) 8...e5 9.Bb2 (9.0-0 exd4
10.Nxd4 Nc6 11.Nb5 Nd7 12.Bb2 Nc5 13.Qc2² Ragger,M-Tukhaev,A
Minsk 2015) 9...exd4 10.Nxd4 Nfd7 11.0-0 Bf6 12.Qc2 Re8 13.f4 Nc6
14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.Bf3² Akobian,V-Kobo,O Gibraltar 2018.
7.e5
7...Nfd7
Instead of the text, Black has tried two main alternatives here:
a) 7...Ne4 8.Qc2 f5 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Bd3 Nc6 (10...b6 11.0-0 c5 12.dxc5
bxc5 13.b3 Qc7 14.Bb2 h6 15.Be5 Bd6 16.Rfe1² Volkov,S-Iliushkin,E
Taganrog 2015) 11.0-0 a5 12.b3 Qe8 13.Bb2 Qh5 14.Rfe1² Khalifman,A-
Knaak,R Germany 1998.
b) 7...Ne8?! 8.Qc2 (8.Bd3 c5 9.cxd5 exd5 10.dxc5 a5 11.Nb3 a4 12.Nbd4±
Lalith,B-Ahmed,S Chittagong 2018) 8...b6 9.b4 c5 10.bxc5 bxc5 11.dxc5
Ba6 12.Bd3 h6 13.Nb3 Nc6 14.0-0± Aleksandrov,A-Agmanov,Z Pavlodar
2016.
8.Bd3 c5
A logical follow-up, hitting White’s centre.

Passive is 8...Re8 9.Qc2 Nf8 10.0-0 (10.c5 a5 11.h4 f6 12.Rb1 a4 13.b4
axb3 14.Nxb3 Nc6 15.Rh3² Manolache,M-Suarez Pousa,D Santiago de
Compostela 2018) 10...Nbd7 11.b4 dxc4 (11...c6 12.Nb3 dxc4 13.Bxc4 b6
14.Bd3 Bb7 15.Be4± Svetushkin,D-Baltic,F Werther 2016) 12.Nxc4 Nb6
13.Na5 a6 14.Bd2± Murdzia,P-Ptacnikova,L Olomouc 2018.
9.h4
A relatively new and aggressive continuation. White’s threat (Bxh7+ and

Ng5+) must be parried.
9...g6
Probably the best reaction by Black, who has tried (barring the ‘blunder’
9...cxd4? 10.Bxh7+! Kxh7 11.Ng5++–) another two options here:
a) 9...h6 10.Bb1!
a1) 10...Nc6 11.Qc2 f5 12.exf6 Nxf6 13.dxc5 Bxc5 14.0-0 (14.cxd5 Qxd5
15.0-0 Bd7∞) 14...Bd6 15.b4 Ne7?! (15...Ne5 16.Nxe5 Bxe5 17.Ra2²)
16.Bb2 Nf5 17.Qb3 Kh8 18.Bxf5 exf5 19.Rfe1± Ding,L-Thavandiran,S
Athens 2012.
a2) 10...cxd4 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Qc2 f5 13.Nb3 Nc6 14.Bf4 d3 (14...Qb6
15.Ba2 Re8 16.0-0-0 [16.0-0 Nf8 17.Rad1² Rodshtein,M-Andreev,E
Cappelle la Grande 2013] 16...Qa6 17.Kb1 Nb6 18.Nbxd4 Nxd4 19.Nxd4±
Wojtaszek,R-Korobov,A New Delhi 2012) 15.Qxd3 Nc5 16.Nxc5 Bxc5
17.Ba2 Be6 18.b4² Lupulescu,C-Smith,B Albena 2013.
a3) 10...Re8
(The main idea, in order to defend against 11.Qc2. Black prepares a
defensive set-up based on ...Nf8) 11.Qc2 Nf8 12.dxc5 a5 (The point. Black
wants to prevent b4, by following up with either ...Na6 or ...Nbd7.
12...Bxc5 13.cxd5 Qxd5 14.Ne4 Be7
15.Bxh6! (A crushing blow and Black simply doesn’t have a satisfactory

defence. 15.0-0 Rd8 16.Nc3 Qc4 17.Re1 Nc6 18.Re4± Bartel,M-
Womacka,M Gibraltar 2013) 15...gxh6 16.Rh3 Qa5+ (16...Nc6 17.Rg3+
Kh8 18.Qc1+–; 16...Ng6 17.Nc3 Qa5 18.Rg3+–) 17.b4 Bxb4+ 18.axb4
Qxb4+ 19.Kf1 Nbd7 20.Rg3+ Kh8 21.Qc1 Nh7 22.Qxh6 Rg8 23.Qxh7+
Kxh7 24.Nf6+ Kh6 25.Nxg8+ Kh5 26.Rg5# Kacheishvili,G-Shahade,G
Saint Louis 2011) 13.Nf1! when White is clearly on top — see the analysed
game Kapnisis,S-Markidis,K Patras 2013.
b) 9...f5 (This immediate reaction causes big damage to Black’s position)
10.cxd5 exd5 11.Ng5! Qb6 (11...cxd4 12.Ne6 Qe8 13.Nc7 Qd8 14.Nxa8
Nxe5 15.Nf3 Nbc6 16.0-0 f4 17.Nxe5 Nxe5 18.Bxh7+ Kxh7 19.Qh5+ Kg8
20.Qxe5 Bd6 21.Qxd5+ Kh8 22.Qxd4 f3 23.Rd1 1–0 Schreiner,T-Meyer,H
Germany 2014) 12.Qf3± Cheparinov,I-Georgiev,K Sunny Beach 2012.
10.cxd5
a) 10.h5 usually transposes: 10...cxd4 11.cxd5 Nc5?! (11...exd5 is better)

12.d6! (12.Bb1 exd5 13.Nxd4 Nc6 14.N2f3 Ne4 15.Bh6 Re8∞ Nyzhnyk,I-
Miroshnichenko,E Mamaia 2013) 12...Nxd3+ 13.Kf1± Freitag,M-Schneider
Zinner,H Austria 2019.
b) 10.b4 Playing on both wings gives Black enough time to consolidate in
the centre: 10...cxd4 11.Qe2 Nc6 12.cxd5 exd5 13.e6 Nf6 14.Ng5 Bxe6
15.Nxe6 fxe6 16.Qxe6+ Kg7³ Khotenashvili,B-Dzagnidze,N Geneve 2013.
c) Also natural is 10.0-0 Nc6 11.Nb3 dxc4 12.Bxc4 cxd4 13.Re1 a5 14.Bh6
Re8 15.Rc1² Ding,L-Saric,I Batumi 2018.
10...exd5 11.h5
11...cxd4
Black has also opted for 11...Qe8 12.0-0 Nc6 13.Re1 a5 14.Nf1 cxd4
15.Bh6 Nc5 16.Bb5± Livaic,L-Stocko,J Zagreb 2016 and 11...Nc6 12.e6
Nb6 13.exf7+ Rxf7 14.hxg6 hxg6 15.Bxg6 Rg7 16.Qc2± Steenstrup,S-
Holmstrom,J Skorping 2017.
12.Qc2
White has tried a number of moves:

a) 12.Nb3 Nc6 13.Bf4 Re8 (13...g5 14.Bg3 f5 15.exf6 Bxf6 16.0-0 Nb6
17.Qc2 Rf7 18.Rae1² Cori,J-Martinez Alcantara,J Montevideo 2018)
14.hxg6 fxg6 (14...hxg6 15.0-0 Bf8 16.Re1 Qb6 17.Qc2 Bg7 18.e6 Rxe6
19.Rxe6 fxe6 20.Bxg6²) 15.0-0 Nf8 16.Nbxd4 Nxd4 17.Nxd4²
Gordievsky,D-Oparin,G Loo 2013.
b) 12.e6 Nc5 13.exf7+ Rxf7 14.Bb1 Bf6 15.hxg6 hxg6 16.Bxg6 Rg7∞
Pirverdiyev,A-Ameir,M Baku 2016.
c) 12.hxg6 fxg6 (12...hxg6 13.e6 fxe6 14.Bxg6±) 13.Qc2 Qe8∞ Jovicic,R-
Stocko,J Novi Sad 2014.
12...Nc5
12...Qe8, is passive here: 13.0-0 Nc6 14.Re1 Nc5 15.Nb3 Nxd3 16.Qxd3
Bf5 17.Qd1 Qd7 18.Bh6 (18.Nfxd4 gxh5 19.Qxh5 Bg6 20.Qf3 a5 21.Bh6²
Tomashevsky,E-Quesada Perez,Y Tsaghkadzor 2015) 18...Rfc8 19.Nbxd4
Nxd4 20.Nxd4 Rc4 21.b3 Rc7 22.hxg6 hxg6 23.Qd2² Ragger,M-Amin,B
Bilbao 2014.
13.hxg6
Possible as well is 13.Nxd4 Nc6 14.N2f3 Nxd4 (14...Qc7 15.hxg6 [15.Bf4

Bg4 16.Rc1 Rac8 17.hxg6 Nxd3+ 18.Qxd3 fxg6∞ Baron,T-Markidis,K
Porto Rio 2014] 15...Nxd3+ 16.Qxd3 fxg6 17.Nb5²) 15.Nxd4 Qc7 16.Bf4
Nxd3+ 17.Qxd3² Smirnov,P-Landa,K Loo 2013.
13...Nxd3+ 14.Qxd3 fxg6
14...hxg6?! allows White too much: 15.Nb3 Bf5 16.Qd2!±
15.Nxd4
15...Nc6
Black’s alternative is 15...Bf5 16.Qe3! (16.Qb3 Na6 17.0-0 Nc5 18.Qe3

Qb6 19.N2f3 Be4 20.b4 Nd3∞ Schreiner,P-Hamitevici,V Tromsø 2014)
16...Bc5 17.N2f3! Bxd4 18.Nxd4 Nc6 19.Nxf5 Rxf5 20.f4²
15...Rf4!? An untested and quite interesting alternative: 16.Qe3 Qf8
17.Qc3! Nc6 (17...Rxf2 18.Ne4! dxe4 [18...Rxg2 19.Bh6 Qe8 20.e6+–;
18...Bh4 19.g3 dxe4 20.Bh6±) 19.Bh6 Qe8 20.Kxf2±) 18.Nxc6 bxc6
19.Qxc6 Bf5 20.Nf3 Re4+ 21.Be3²
16.N2f3 Bg4
Again 16...Bf5 is the main alternative: 17.Qe3 (17.Qb3 Qd7 18.Bh6 Rf7
19.0-0²) 17...Nxd4 18.Nxd4 Bc5 19.Qh6 Qe7 20.Be3 Rac8 21.Rd1 Rc7
22.0-0² Bluebaum,M-Zelcic,R Bad Gleichenberg 2014.
17.Bh6 Re8 18.0-0²

Koneru,H-Socko,M Chengdu 2015. White stands slightly better due to her
better pawn structure, while the black king is somewhat weak, especially on
the dark squares.
CHAPTER 4.
THE 4...B6 LINE
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 b6
This is the most-played line and there are various transpositions based on
the previous three lines.
With the text Black plans to get full control of the e4-square and develop
his bishop to the good, long diagonal h1-a8. A logical idea and probably the
most ambitious of the four main lines. But in this world everything has
pluses and minuses!
5.a3
Although there are alternatives lines for White, this is the principal one.
5...Bxd2+
5...Be7?! is clearly out of the question: 6.e4 d5 (6...Bb7 7.Bd3 0-0 8.Qc2 g6
9.0-0 d5 10.cxd5 exd5 11.e5 Ne8 12.b4± Grivas,E-Mitsakos,A Athens
2006; 6...0-0 7.e5 Ne8 8.Bd3 Bb7 9.Qc2 h6 10.0-0± Topalov,V-
Korfmacher,L Frankfurt 1997) 7.e5 Ne4 8.Bd3 (8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bd3 Nxd2
10.Bxd2 c5 11.0-0± Moiseenko,A-Ajrapetjan,Y Alushta 2009) 8...Bb7 9.0-
0 Nd7 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Re1± Grivas,E-Papandreou,N Ikaria 1995.
And now we have a main crossroads, as White can choose between 6.Bxd2
and 6.Qxd2.
4.1 — 6.BXD2
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 b6 5.a3 Bxd2+ 6.Bxd2
White is happy to quickly complete his development and place his bishop
on f4 or g5.
6...Bb7
Of course, Black has alternatives:

a) 6...Ne4 7.Bf4 Bb7 8.e3 d6 9.Bd3 Nd7 10.0-0 (10.Qc2 f5 [10...Nef6 11.e4
h6 12.0-0 Nh5 13.Be3± Wu,X-Zhu,L Wenzhou 1981] 11.h3 Qe7 12.Bh2 0-
0 13.0-0 Rf6
14.Nd2 [A typical move to stop Black’s activity on the kingside] 14...Nxd2

15.Qxd2 Rg6 16.f3² Fier,A-Hoolt,S Rome 2016) 10...0-0 (10...f5 11.Rc1
[11.Bxe4 fxe4 {11...Bxe4? 12.Ng5 Qf6 13.Nxe4 fxe4 14.Qa4±
Michaelsen,N-Cordes,H Hamburg 1987} 12.Ng5 Qe7 13.Qh5+ g6 14.Qh6
0-0-0∞] 11...0-0 12.b4² Papadopoulou,V-Makka,E Athens 2006) 11.b4 a5
(11...Qe7 12.c5² Jia,H-Ilincic,Z Kecskemet 2013) 12.Qc2² Lputian,S-
Agzamov,G Sochi 1985.
b) 6...h6 7.Bf4 (Perhaps it is more accurate to start with 7.h3 Bb7 8.Bf4,
eliminating the 7...Nh5 line) 7...Bb7 (7...Nh5 8.Bc1 Bb7 9.e3 d6 10.b4 Nd7
11.Bb2 Nhf6 12.Be2 Qe7 13.0-0 0-0 14.Nd2² Kuzubov,Y-Harika,D Hengelo
2007)
8.h3! (8.e3?! Nh5 9.Bg3 Nxg3 10.hxg3 d6 11.g4!? [11.Qc2 Nd7 12.Bd3 c5
13.Be4 Bxe4 ½-½ Radjabov,T-Anand,V Dortmund 2003] 11...Nd7 12.g5
Qe7 13.Qa4 0-0-0!? [13...Bxf3 14.gxf3 Qxg5 15.Qc6 Rc8 16.f4 Qe7∞
Krasenkow,M-Wirig,A Asnieres sur Seine 2006] 14.gxh6 [14.Qxa7?!
hxg5µ] 14...Kb8=) 8...d6 9.e3 Nbd7 10.Be2 Qe7 (10...0-0 11.0-0 Qe7 12.b4
Ne4 13.Rc1 c5 14.Nd2 e5 15.Bh2 Nxd2 16.Qxd2 Rad8 17.bxc5 dxc5 18.d5
Nf6 19.Qb2 Rfe8 20.a4± Iordachescu,V-Arnold,M Rethymnon 2010;
10...a5 11.Bh2 0-0 12.0-0 a4 13.Bd3 Ra5 14.Nd2 Qa8 15.f3² Dreev,A-
Zajic,M Sibenik 2016) 11.0-0 a5 12.b3 0-0 13.Bh2² Bets,A-Kuzmin,G
Obninsk 2007. White keeps a small plus as his h2-bishop is potentially
strong (combined with the bishop pair and the c5 advance). This game is
analysed in Chapter 5 and it is a good example of White’s possibilities in
this type of position, which occur quite often and have to be studied
intensively.
7.Bg5 d6 8.e3
8...h6
A useful move, although also playable is 8...Nbd7 9.Bd3 (9.Bh4 c5 10.Bd3

0-0 11.0-0 cxd4 12.exd4 d5 13.Re1² Karpov,A-Andersson,U Skelleftea
1989; 9.Qc2 c5 10.Rd1 Qc7 11.Be2 [11.dxc5 bxc5 12.Nd2 0-0 13.f3 Qb6
14.Be2 Bc6 15.0-0 Rab8 16.Rb1 a5∞ Khalifman,A-Balashov,Y Maikop
1998] 11...0-0 12.0-0 Rac8 13.Bh4 Be4 14.Qd2² Epishin,V-Andersson,U
Malmo 1994) 9...0-0 (9...c5 10.0-0 Qe7 11.b4 0-0 12.Nd2 Rac8 13.Qa4²
Timman,J-Andersson,U Reykjavik 1988) 10.Nd2 Qc8 11.0-0 c5 12.Rc1
Qc6 13.f3² Sasikiran,K-Megaranto,S Olongapo City 2010.
9.Bh4 Nbd7
Black can go for an active and completely different set-up by expanding on

the kingside: 9...g5 10.Bg3 Ne4 11.Nd2 Nxg3 (11...Nxd2 12.Qxd2 Nd7
13.h4 [13.0-0-0²] 13...Nf6 14.f3 g4 15.e4 Nh5 16.Bf2² Blees,A-Karason,A
Hafnarfjordur 1996) 12.hxg3 Nd7 13.g4 (13.Qa4 Kf8 14.f4 Kg7 15.Qc2
Qf6 16.0-0-0² Bosiocic,M-Franciskovic,B Zagreb 2011; 13.f3 c5 14.Bd3 f5
15.Qc2 Qf6∞ Izeta Txabarri,F-Garcia Ilundain,D Benasque 1995) 13...c5
14.Nb1! cxd4 (14...Qe7 15.Nc3 0-0-0 16.d5 Nf6 17.a4² Rajlich,V-
Umansky,M Internet 2006) 15.Qxd4 Qf6 16.Nc3 Qxd4 17.exd4 Nf6 18.f3
Ke7 19.b4! Karpov,A-Adams,M Dos Hermanas 1995. The resulting ending
is slightly more pleasant for White due to his space advantage.
10.Bd3
White can also opt for:

a) 10.Qc2 Qe7 (10...g5 11.Bg3 Ne4 12.Nd2 Nxg3 13.hxg3 Qe7 14.0-0-0 0-
0-0 15.f3 ½-½ Jakovenko,D-Motylev,A Poikovsky 2014 [15.Ne4 Kb8
16.Nc3 f5 17.f3 h5 18.Bd3 h4∞ Smirnov,A-Johansen,D Melbourne 2015])
11.Rd1 g5 (11...0-0 12.Be2 Rfe8 13.0-0 a5 14.Nd2² Moiseenko,A-
Kuzubov,Y Khanty-Mansiysk 2005) 12.Bg3 Be4 13.Bd3 Bxd3 14.Qxd3
Nh5 15.d5 e5 16.Nd2 0-0 17.Qe2 Ng7 18.e4 f5 19.f3 Nh5 20.exf5 Rxf5
21.Ne4² Anand,V-Illescas Cordoba,M Leon 1997.
b) 10.Be2 g5 (10...Qe7 11.b4 g5 12.Bg3 Ne4 13.Qc2 Nxg3 14.hxg3 c5
15.Qa4 g4 16.Nh4 h5 17.Rd1² Tal,M-Soffer,R Tel Aviv 1990) 11.Bg3 h5
(11...Ne4 12.0-0 h5 13.h4 g4 [13...gxh4?! 14.Bxh4 f6 15.d5± Werle,J-
Kett,T Liverpool 2008] 14.Nd2 Nxg3 15.fxg3 f5 16.Bd3²) 12.h4 (12.h3 Ne4
13.d5 Qf6 14.Qc2 Nxg3 15.fxg3 0-0-0 16.e4 g4µ Markos,J-Davy,D Tromsø
2014) 12...g4 13.Ng5 Bxg2 14.Rg1 Bb7
15.f3! Qe7 16.fxg4 (16.Rf1 0-0-0 17.fxg4 hxg4 18.Bxg4 Nxg4 19.Rxf7
Qxg5 20.hxg5 Rh1+ 21.Ke2 Rxd1 22.Rxd1 Rg8 23.Bh4 Rh8 24.g6 Rxh4
25.Rf8+ Nxf8 26.g7 Rh2+ 27.Ke1 Rh1+ 28.Ke2 Rh2+ 29.Ke1 Rh1+
30.Ke2 ½-½ Chu,W-Firman,N Albena 2014) 16...hxg4 17.Bxg4 Nxg4
18.Qxg4 Nf6 19.Qe2 Ne4 20.Nxe4 Bxe4 21.0-0-0 0-0-0 22.b4 Kb7 23.Kb2
e5 24.c5 bxc5 25.dxc5 dxc5 26.Qb5+ Ka8 27.Qxc5 Qxc5 28.bxc5 Rxd1
29.Rxd1 ½-½ Agdestein,S-Fyllingen,R Drammen 1994.
c) 10.h3
10...Qe7 (10...g5 11.Bg3 Ne4 12.Bh2 Qe7 13.Nd2 Nxd2 14.Qxd2 0-0-0
15.0-0-0 f5∞ Wang,R-Legaspi,R Kuala Lumpur 2007) 11.Bd3 (11.Be2 g5
12.Bg3 Ne4 13.Bh2 h5 14.Bg1 0-0-0µ Burmakin,V-Vukanovic,S Ljubljana
1996; 11.b4 a5 12.Bd3 0-0 13.0-0 axb4 14.axb4 Rxa1 15.Qxa1 Ra8 16.Qb2
Qe8 17.Nd2 Ra7 18.f3 Qa8 19.Bb1² Wang,Y-Liang,C Beijing 2008) 11...g5
12.Bg3 Ne4 13.Bh2 f5 14.Qc2 Qf6 15.0-0-0 0-0-0 16.Ng1 Qe7 17.f3 Nef6
18.Ne2² Kanep,M-Barrientos Chavarriaga,S Khanty-Mansiysk 2010.
10...Qe7 11.0-0
Possible is 11.b4 a5 (11...g5 12.Bg3 h5 13.h4 g4 14.Ng5 Bxg2 15.Rg1 Bb7

16.Qc2 a5 17.0-0-0 axb4 18.axb4 b5 19.c5 Bd5 20.Qc3 0-0 21.e4° ½-½
Olafsson,H-Garcia Gonzales,G Thessaloniki 1988) 12.0-0 0-0 13.Qc2 axb4
14.axb4 Rxa1 15.Rxa1 Ra8 16.Rxa8+ Bxa8 17.Qa4 Bxf3 18.gxf3 g5
19.Bg3 Nh5 (½-½ Grivas,E-Ksieski,Z Asenovgrad 1985) 20.Qa7 Ndf6
21.Kg2²
11...g5
Activity is generally good and the text helps! 11...0-0 12.Nd2 a5 13.Nb1
Rfe8 14.Nc3 e5 15.Bf5 Nf8 16.Nd5 Bxd5 17.cxd5 Ng6 18.Bg3 e4 19.Qa4
Qd8 20.Qc2 a4 21.Rac1 Ra7 22.f3² ½-½ Wojtaszek,R-Zubarev,A Krakow
2005.
12.Bg3 Ne4 13.Nd2!
Nothing is offered by 13.Bxe4 Bxe4 14.Nd2 Bg6 15.b4 h5 16.f3 h4 17.Bf2

f5∞ Polugaevsky,L-Hort,V Biel 1990.
13...Nxd2
Probably a better move than 13...Nxg3 14.fxg3 0-0-0 15.b4 f5 16.a4² Van
Delft,M-Seps,M Zug 2005, or 13...f5 14.Nxe4 fxe4 15.Be2 0-0 (15...Nf6
16.b4 a5 17.Qa4+ Qd7 18.b5 0-0 19.Rac1² Bednar,M-Pedersen,H Liberec
2011) 16.b4 Nf6 17.Rc1 Rf7 18.c5² Rombaldoni,A-Hjartarson,J Porto
Mannu 2015.
14.Qxd2 h5
15.f3
A proposed novelty in place of 15.h3 f5 16.f3 0-0-0 17.Rac1 g4µ

Khenkin,I-Nikolenko,O Moscow 1987.
15...f5
15...h4 16.Be1 h3 17.g4²
16.Be1 Rg8 17.Qe2²
White will prepare e4 and b4-c5, when his chances seem to be more
pleasant.
4.2 — 6.QXD2
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 b6 5.a3 Bxd2+ 6.Qxd2
This is a more ambitious line than the bishop capture, as in sub-chapter

3.1.1. But on the other hand, it is also riskier!
6...Bb7 7.e3
White’s plan is simple; he will develop his bishops to e2 and b2 and then
create play on the queenside and the centre. On the other hand, Black will
mainly base his plans on kingside play and the e4-square.
7...d6
7...0-0 is merely a transposition after 8.Be2 Ne4 (8...d5 9.b3 Nbd7 10.0-0
Rc8 11.Bb2 Ne4 12.Qc2 f5 13.Nd2 Rf6 14.f3 Nxd2 15.Qxd2 Rh6 16.Rf2
Qe7
17.a4! [A thematic idea in this line] 17...c5 18.a5² Grivas,E-Pandavos,E
Rhodes 1993) 9.Qd3 f5 10.0-0 Nc6!? (10...d6 transposes) 11.Nd2 Qh4
12.f3² Grivas,E-Pavlovic,M Athens 1995.
7...Ne4 is another try: 8.Qd3 d5 9.b3 (9.Be2 0-0 10.b3 Nd7 11.0-0 Qe7
12.Bb2 Rfd8 13.Rac1 c5 14.Rfd1 Rac8 15.h3² Basin,L-Alekseev,V Minsk
1988) 9...c5 10.Be2 0-0 11.0-0 cxd4 12.exd4 Nd7 13.a4² Gelfand,B-
Adams,M Dos Hermanas 1995.
8.Be2 Nbd7 9.b4 0-0 10.Bb2 Ne4

11.Qd3
It is important for White to over-protect his e3-pawn.
11...f5
It looks like it is a bit early for the main alternative 11...c5: 12.0-0 f5
13.dxc5 (13.Nd2 Qg5 14.f3! [Here lies the difference between 11.Qd3! and
11.Qc2 — the e3-pawn is protected] 14...Nef6 15.Rad1 Rae8 16.dxc5 dxc5
17.Nb3 e5 18.Qc3² Henriksen,G-Fyllingen,R Norway 1997) 13...bxc5
14.Nd2 Qe7 15.Rad1 (15.Nb3 Rad8 16.f3² Kempinski,R-Ostrowski,L
Suwalki 1999) 15...Ng5 16.f4 Nf7 17.e4² Grivas,E-Kindermann,S Katerini
1992.
12.0-0
12...Rf6
A fairly aggressive line. Other options for Black are:

a) 12...Qe7 13.Nd2 (13.Rad1 Ndf6 [13...Rf6?! 14.d5 e5 15.Nh4! g6 16.f3
Ng5 17.f4 Nf7 {17...Ne4 18.g4! Rf7 19.gxf5 Qxh4 20.Qxe4 Rxf5
21.Qg2±} 18.e4! fxe4 19.Qxe4 Re8 20.Bd3 Qd8 21.f5± Browne,W-
Zlochevskij,A Philadelphia 1991] 14.Nd2 Rae8 15.f3 Ng5 16.Rde1 h5
17.Bd1² Browne,W-Rohde,M USA 1987)
13...e5 (13...Nxd2 14.Qxd2 Rf6 [14...e5 15.c5!²] 15.f3 Rh6 16.Rf2 Qh4
[16...Rf8 17.a4 e5 18.a5 f4 19.exf4 exf4 20.axb6 axb6 21.Ra7±
Yakovich,Y-Izeta,F Sevilla 1994] 17.g3² Petrosian,A-Reshevsky,S Palma de
Mallorca 1989) 14.f3 (14.d5 Nxd2 15.Qxd2²) 14...Nxd2 15.Qxd2 Rae8
(15...e4 16.d5 Rae8 17.f4± Radziewicz,K-Zakoscielna,K Chotowa 2007)
16.Rfe1² Gelfand,B-Pelletier,Y Cap d’Agde 2002.
These are nice positions for White, as Black’s play has been limited, while
he can still go for the thematic a4-a5, opening the queenside.
b) 12...Qf6 13.Nd2
13...Qg6 (13...Rae8 14.f3 Ng5 15.a4 Qg6 16.Qc2² Gelfand,B-Ionov,S
Klaipeda 1988) 14.f3 Nef6 15.Qc3 (15.Rae1 a5 16.Bd1 axb4 17.axb4²
Georgiev,K-Rogers,I Germany 1998) 15...Rae8 16.Rae1 e5 17.Bd1 exd4
18.Qxd4² Gozzoli,Y-Postny,E Cappelle la Grande 2007.
c) 12...a5 13.d5 e5 14.Nd2 Nxd2 15.Qxd2 Qe7 16.Bc3 axb4 17.axb4 Nf6
18.f3 b5 19.Ra5 bxc4 20.Bxc4² Kishnev,S-Lukov,V Cappelle le Grande
1994.
d) 12...Ng5 13.Nxg5 Qxg5 14.d5 (14.f3 Rf6 15.Rf2²) 14...Rae8 (14...Nf6
15.g3²) 15.f4 Qe7 16.Bh5 Rd8 17.Bf3² Haritakis,T-Tzoumbas,A Athens
1995.
As the position is quite complicated, concrete variations instead of general
plans are required.
13.d5 Rg6
Black must be careful:

a) 13...e5?
A mistake, leaving Black’s position in disarray.
a1) 14.Ne1? Rh6 15.g3 (15.f3? Qh4! 16.fxe4 fxe4 17.Qd2 Qxh2+ 18.Kf2
Rf8+–+) 15...Qg5! 16.Ng2 Qg6!∞ Grivas,E-Gazis,E Kallithea 2002.
a2) 14.Nd2?! Nxd2 (14...Rh6 15.g3 Nxd2 16.Qxd2 Qe7 17.f4±
Schekachikhin,M-Usmanov,V St Petersburg 2016) 15.Qxd2² Zhukova,N-
Macieja,B Internet 2004.
a3) 14.Nh4! g6 15.f3 Ng5
16.f4 Ne4 17.Nf3 Qe7 18.Nd2 Nxd2 19.Qxd2 Rf7 20.e4± Miles,A-
Mascarinas,R Lugano 1986.
b) 13...Rh6 is quite an interesting line, with great complications:
b1) 14.g3 (The latest try — a thematic move which ‘stops’ ...Qh4 and
prepares Nh4 in some lines) 14...c5 (14...e5 15.Nd2²) 15.Nh4 (15.Rad1 Qe8
16.Nd2 exd5 17.cxd5 Ne5 18.Bxe5 Qxe5 19.Nc4 Qf6 20.Bf3 Re8∞)
b11) 15...Rc8? 16.f3 Nxg3 17.hxg3 Qg5 18.Kg2 Rxh4 19.dxe6 Ne5
20.Bxe5? (20.Qxd6+–) 20...dxe5 21.Qd7 f4 22.Rg1 Bxf3+? (22...Qxg3+
23.Kf1 Rh1! 24.Rxh1 fxe3 25.Qf7+ Kh8 26.Rxh7+ Kxh7 27.Qh5+=)
23.Kxf3 e4+ 24.Kf2 Rh2+ 25.Kf1 Ra8 26.gxf4 Qh6 27.e7 1–0 Saric,A-
Tsolakidou,S Skopje 2016.
b12) 15...g5 16.Ng2 Ne5 17.Qc2 g4 18.Bxe5 dxe5 19.Bxg4²
b13) 15...Rxh4?! 16.gxh4 Qxh4 17.f3 Ng3 (17...Qg5+ 18.Kh1 Ng3+
19.hxg3 Qxg3 20.Rfc1±) 18.Rf2 Nxe2+ 19.Rxe2±
b14) 15...Qe7
16.f3 (16.Rad1 Rxh4 17.gxh4 Qxh4 18.f4 [18.Bf3 Ndf6 19.Bxf6 Nxf6
20.Bg2 Re8°; 18.f3 Qg5+ 19.Kh1 Ng3+ 20.hxg3 Qxg3=] 18...exd5 19.cxd5
Ndf6 20.Bxf6 Qxf6 21.Bf3 Re8 22.Bxe4 Rxe4 23.bxc5 bxc5 [23...dxc5
24.Rf3²] 24.Rf3 c4 25.Qc2²) 16...Nxg3 17.hxg3 Qg5 18.Kg2 Rxh4 19.dxe6
Rh6
20.Qxd6! (20.exd7? Rg6–+) 20...Qxe3! 21.Rae1 Nf8 (21...Qxe6 22.Qxe6+
Rxe6 23.Bd3²)
22.Bd1! (22.Qc7 Nxe6 23.Qxb7 Nf4+!=) 22...Qg5 23.Qc7 f4 24.Qf7+ Kh8

25.Qxf4 Qxf4 26.gxf4 Nxe6 27.Be5²
b2) 14.Rad1 c5 (14...e5 15.g3 c6 16.Nh4 Rxh4 17.gxh4 Qxh4 18.f3!
[18.dxc6? Bxc6–+ Saric,A-Sulava,N Sibenik 2007] 18...Ng3 19.dxc6 Bxc6
20.Rf2±) 15.dxe6 (15.g3 Rg6 16.Ne1 cxb4 17.f3 [17.axb4!²] 17...Nxg3!
18.hxg3 Rxg3+° Doettling,F-Sulava,N Montpellier 2008) 15...Nf8 16.bxc5
bxc5∞
b3) 14.dxe6
b31) 14...Nf8?! 15.Nd4! Qh4 16.h3
b311) 16...g6 17.Bf3 Re8 18.c5! dxc5 (18...Nxe6 19.Nxe6 Rxe6 20.Qd4±)
19.bxc5 Nxc5 20.Qc3±
b312) 16...Rg6 17.Nxf5 Rxg2+ (17...Qxh3 18.Ne7+ Kh8 19.Nxg6++–;
17...Nc5 18.Nxh4 Nxd3 19.Nxg6+–) 18.Kxg2 Nxf2+
19.Kg1!+–
b313) 16...Qg5 17.f4! Qg6 18.Nxf5! Qxf5 19.Bg4 Qg6 20.e7± Gershon,A-
Aronian,L Yerevan 2000.
b32) 14...Rxe6! 15.Rad1 (15.Nd4 Rg6!∞; 15.Rfd1 Rh6∞; 15.Qb3 c5!
16.Rfd1 Rg6 17.g3 Qe7 18.Rd3 Rh6∞) 15...Rg6 16.Qb3 Kh8 17.g3 Qe7
18.Rfe1 Rf8∞
14.Rad1
It is quite dangerous to open the black bishop’s diagonal without concrete

gains:
14.dxe6 Nf8! 15.c5 (15.Ne1 Nxe6 16.f3 Qg5! 17.f4 Qh4 18.Qc2 Rh6
19.Nf3 Qh5µ Twardon,M-Nikolenko,O Katowice 1993) 15...Nxe6 16.cxd6
cxd6! 17.Rad1! (17.Rfd1?! N6g5 18.Qb3+ Kh8 19.Ne5 dxe5! 20.Rxd8+
Rxd8 21.Rd1 Nd2³; 17.g3 f4 18.Rac1 Qe7∞) 17...Kh8 18.Qb5!? (18.Ne1?
N6g5 19.Kh1 Nh3! 0–1 Gelfand,B-Illescas Cordoba,M Madrid 1996)
18...N4g5! (18...f4 19.Qh5 Qf8 20.Bd3²) 19.Nxg5 Nxg5 (19...Qxg5 20.g3
f4! [20...Rh6 21.f4±; 20...Qh6 21.Qxf5 Rf8 22.Qh5 Ng5 23.Qxh6 Rxh6
24.h4 Nh3+ 25.Kh2 Nxf2 26.Rc1±] 21.Qxg5 Nxg5 22.Bg4 Nf7 [22...Nf3+
23.Bxf3 Bxf3 24.Rc1±] 23.Bh5 Ng5 24.e4!²) 20.Qxf5 Be4 21.Qg4
21...Bxg2! (21...Nf3+ 22.Bxf3 Rxg4 23.Bxg4²) 22.Qxg2 Nh3+ 23.Kh1
Rxg2 24.Kxg2 Qc8 25.Rxd6 Qf5 26.Rd4 Re8∞
But maybe White can try (as in the above analysis) the thematic 14.g3!? c5
(14...e5 15.Nd2 Qh4 16.Bf3 Ndf6 17.Bg2²) 15.Rfd1 Qe7 16.Bf1²
14...e5
Probably a better try than 14...Qe7 15.Ne1 (15.Nd4 Ne5 16.Qb3 Qh4!∞)
15...a5 16.f3 Ng5 17.Nc2 exd5 18.cxd5 Ba6 19.b5 Nc5 20.Qd2 Bb7
21.Nd4² Kempinski,R-Aronian,L Batumi 1999. But now the b7-bishop is
blocked off...
15.Qc2!
15.Nd2 Qh4 16.Nxe4 fxe4 17.Qc2 Nf6∞
15...Rh6
Black must be careful not to fall into passivity: 15...Qe7 16.Nd2 Qg5?!
(16...Nxd2 17.Rxd2 Rf8 18.f4²) 17.g3 Ndf6 18.f4± Schekachikhin,M-
Lobanov,S St Petersburg 2017.
16.g3
16...a5
Instead of the text, a proposed novelty, Black has also tried:

a) 16...g5?! 17.Nd2 Ndf6 18.f4 (18.f3 Nxd2 19.Rxd2±) 18...Nxd2 19.Qxd2
gxf4 20.exf4 e4 21.Qd4± Kempinski,R-Bartel,M Warsaw 2002.
b) 16...c6?! 17.Nh4! Rxh4 18.gxh4 Qxh4 19.f3 Ng3 20.dxc6! (20.Rf2?
Nxe2+ 21.Rxe2 Qg5+° Livaic,L-Sulava,N Zagreb 2018) 20...Bxc6 21.Rxd6
Nxf1 22.Kxf1+–
c) 16...Kh8?! 17.Nh4! Rxh4 18.gxh4 Qxh4 19.f3 Ng3 20.Rf2 Nxe2+
21.Qxe2 Nf6 22.Rg2± Chatalbashev,B-Turova,I Eforie Nord 2010.
17.Nd2 Nxd2 18.Rxd2²

White has succeeded in annihilating Black’s attack, while preserving the
bishop pair and his initiative on the queenside.
Well, it must be admitted that there are ‘heavy’ and complicated variations
to reach this point, but nothing is offered for free in this life!
CHAPTER 5.
Grivas Efstratios
Loginov Valery
E11 Budapest 1993
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 d5 5.a3 Be7 6.g3 dxc4 7.Nxc4 b6
8.Bg2 Bb7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Bf4 Nbd7 11.Rc1 c5
Black seems to be doing fine and quite close to equalising. But still, things
are not that easy; White is on the move!
12.Re1!
A difficult move, threatening 13.Nd6 Bd5 14.e4. The immediate 12.Nd6?!

Bd5 13.Nb5 Bc6! doesn’t offer much. Black has many problems to solve,
and is in danger of asphyxiating on his back two ranks.
12...Bd5!?
An interesting idea, preventing 13.Nd6? in view of 13...Nh5! Instead after

12...cxd4?! 13.Nxd4 Bxg2 14.Kxg2, White will occupy the outpost on c6,
increasing his advantage.
13.Ne3! Be4
Compulsory, as after 13...cxd4?! 14.Bc7! Qe8 15.Nxd5 Nxd5 16.Nxd4± or

13...Bb7!? 14.dxc5 Nxc5 15.b4 Nce4 16.Rc7± White is clearly on top.
14.dxc5 Nxc5?!
Although apparently unpleasant, the slightly worse position after 14...bxc5

had to be accepted.
15.b4 Ncd7
15...Qxd1 is bad: 16.Rexd1 Ncd7 17.Rc7 and White is much better.

16.Bc7!
White’s superiority is growing, as the black pieces have failed to find

decent posts.
16...Qe8 17.Nc4 Kh8
Visually unappealing, but mandatory!
18.Nd6 Bxd6 19.Bxd6 Rg8
20.Qd4
White’s advantage is unquestionable. He commands more space and has the

bishop pair, but things are not simple as Black has no static weaknesses.
20...h6
White would retain his plus after 20...Rc8 21.Ng5! Bg6 22.Bc6, as well.
21.Red1
Time pressure! 21.Ne5 is enough to retain a clear advantage.
21...Rc8 22.Ne5 Rxc1 23.Rxc1 Bxg2 24.Kxg2 Nxe5 25.Bxe5
White remains on top as his bishop is a better minor piece than the black
knight. The power of the white bishop becomes evident both in the
middlegame, where it assists White’s attacking play, and in the endgame,
where the pawn structure favours the bishop.
25...Qa8+ 26.Kg1 Nd5?!
Time pressure provokes a mistake from Black.

26...Rd8 27.Qf4! and 26...Ne4?! 27.f3 f6 28.Qxe4 are clearly unsatisfactory,
but 26...Nh7! 27.Qc4! Rd8 28.f3 would somewhat diminish Black’s
inferiority.
27.e4!
White grabs his chance, creating insoluble problems for Black.
27...Ne7
27...f6 28.exd5 (28.Bd6 Rd8) 28...fxe5 29.Qxe5 Qxd5 (29...exd5 30.Rc7±)

30.Qxd5 exd5 31.Rc7± leads to a nearly lost endgame for Black.
28.Qe3! Kh7 29.Rc7 Ng6 30.Bc3
The white pieces cooperate harmoniously, all of them occupying better

positions than their black counterparts.
30...Rc8
An attempt to complicate the position, as 30...Rf8 31.h4! offers no hope.
31.Rxf7 e5 32.h4! Kg8 33.Rf5 Rc4 34.h5! Rxe4 35.Qd3 Nh4?!

Naturally, after 35...Ne7 36.Rxe5 Rxe5 37.Bxe5, White wins easily. Black
preferred to commit suicide rather than suffer a slow but certain death in the
endgame.
36.gxh4 Rg4+ 37.Kf1 Qh1+ 38.Ke2 Re4+ 39.Kd2 Re1 40.Kc2 Qc6
41.Kb2 Qe6 42.Qd8+ Kh7 43.Rf8
After 43...Re2+ 44.Kc1 Black has no defence against mate.
1–0
Grivas Efstratios
Klimis Laertis
E11 Athens 2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 d5 5.a3 Be7 6.g3 0-0 7.Bg2 Nbd7
8.0-0 b6 9.cxd5 exd5 10.b4 Re8 11.Bb2
A typical middlegame position, where White holds a tiny advantage.
11...Bd6?!
Generally Black should avoid playing with a backward pawn. He had

nothing to fear after 11...c5 12.bxc5 bxc5 13.dxc5 Nxc5, as his active pieces
would compensate for his isolated d-pawn.
12.Re1 Bb7 13.b5!
A typical strategy: White stops the ...c5 advance ‘forever’, ensuring the
weakness of the c7-pawn (or the d5-pawn after ...c5 and bxc6).
13...a6 14.a4 Qe7 15.Qb3 axb5
After 15...a5?! 16.Ba3! the weakness of the c7-pawn will be fatal

(especially after the exchange of its d6-bishop protector).
16.axb5 Rxa1 17.Rxa1

17...Ne4
The correct strategy to defend a backward pawn is to exchange the rooks, as

these are the pieces which can attack it from distance.
Of course, bad was 17...Qxe2? 18.Re1 Qxe1+ 19.Nxe1 Rxe1+ 20.Nf1± but
Black should seriously consider 17...Ra8 18.Rxa8+ Bxa8 19.Qa4 Qe8 and
White’s advantage is kept to a minimum.
18.e3 Ra8 19.Rxa8+ Bxa8 20.Qa2!
The accurate square for the white queen on the a-file, keeping an eye on f7!
20...Qe8?
And Black bites the decoy, giving his opponent the chance to perform a
small but quite nice and very effective combination! He should opt instead
for 20...Qf8! after which White can claim an advantage: 21.Nxe4 dxe4
22.Ne5! (22.Ng5 Nf6 23.d5 [23.Nxf7? Bd5] 23...Bxd5 24.Qa4 Qa8!
25.Qxa8+ Bxa8 26.Bxf6 gxf6 27.Nxe4 Bxe4 28.Bxe4 h6=) 22...Bxe5
(22...Nf6?! 23.Nc6! [23.Bf1 Bd5 24.Bc4 Bxc4 25.Qxc4 +/=] 23...Qe8
24.d5±) 23.dxe5 Qe8 24.Bf1! Nc5 25.Bc4 Ne6 26.h4 thanks to his bishop
pair.
21.Nxe4! dxe4
22.Ng5! Nf6
The cruel reality for Black is that after 22...Bb7 23.Bf1! he has no way to
defend against the threats Bc4 or Nxf7.
23.Nxf7! Bd5
23...Qxf7 24.Qxa8+
24.Nxd6
That’s the difference between 20...Qe8? and 20...Qf8! — the black queen is
under threat!
24...cxd6 25.Qa4
White has won a pawn and the bishop pair. The rest is easy:
25...Be6 26.Ba3 Qc8
27.Bf1
Also possible was 27.Bxd6 Qc1+ 28.Bf1 Bh3 29.Qc4++–
27...d5 28.Qa6 Nd7?
And Black resigned on the spot...
1–0
Grivas Efstratios
Kindermann Stefan
E14 Katerini 1992
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 0-0 5.e3 c5 6.a3 Bxd2+ 7.Qxd2 b6?!
8.Be2 Bb7 9.0-0 d6 10.b4 Nbd7 11.Bb2 Ne4 12.Qd3 f5 13.dxc5 bxc5
White has the bishop pair and healthier pawn structure in return for Black’s
kingside activity. So, some exchanges should follow to minimise Black’s
counterplay.
14.Nd2! Qe7
After 14...Qg5 15.f3! (Here lies the difference between 12.Qd3 and 12.Qc2
— the e3-pawn is protected), White retains his advantage.
15.Rad1 Ng5
Black had no choice as pawn exchanges in the centre (after 15...d5) would
enhance the power of the white bishops.
16.f4! Nf7 17.e4
White has the upper hand and opening the position is in his favour, as
Black’s weaknesses will be highlighted.
17...Nf6 18.Bf3! fxe4 19.Nxe4 Nxe4 20.Bxe4 Bxe4 21.Qxe4

White is better thanks to his superior pawn structure (backward black
pawns on e6 and d6, isolated pawn on a7) and better minor piece (bishops
vs knight).
21...Rac8
Perhaps Black should proceed with 21...cxb4, although White has the
advantage after 22.axb4 Rac8 23.Rfe1 Rfe8 24.Qd4 Qf8 25.b5.
22.b5!
Also obtaining a 2:1 pawn-majority on the queenside. In effect, the black

central pawns are ‘dead’ as they have been immobilised on uncomfortable
squares and serve only as targets for White.
22...Rfe8 23.Rd3 Nh6 24.Rfd1 Rcd8 25.a4 Nf5 26.a5 Qf7 27.Qf3?!
27.g4!, although a bit ‘scary’, seems to be quite strong: 27...Qg6 (27...Nh6

28.Rxd6 Rxd6 29.Rxd6 Nxg4 30.b6 axb6 31.axb6±) 28.h3 h5 29.Qg2±. But
it is difficult to deal with such moves when time trouble is approaching...
27...Qc7 28.Bc3?!
A mistake, giving Black the chance to rid himself of part of his problems.
White should have played 28.a6! retaining a clear plus.
28...Nd4! 29.Bxd4 cxd4 30.Rxd4 Qxa5 31.h3
Only now did White realise that the continuation he was planning when
playing 28.Bc3?, i.e. 31.Rxd6 Rxd6 32.Rxd6 Qe1+ 33.Qf1 Qe3+ 34.Kh1
(34.Qf2 Qc1+ is a draw) 34...Rf8! would allow Black good counterplay in
exchange for the pawn.
31...Qb6 32.Kh1
32...h6?!
Black should have played 32...a6! exchanging another of his weak pawns
and thus further decreasing White’s superiority. The continuation 33.Qc6!?
Qxc6 34.bxc6 bears no fruit because of 34...Kf7! and not 34...d5? 35.f5!±
White would retain a slight edge due to the backward black d- and e-pawns,
but Black would in return have obtained counterplay against the weak white
pawn on c4.
33.Qd3 Qc5 34.Qg6
The consequence of the careless 32...h6?!
34...Re7 35.Re4 Rde8 36.Rd3?!
36.Kh2! is correct, with advantage.

36...d5!
The right reaction.

Instead, 36...Kh8?! 37.Rde3 d5 38.cxd5 Qxd5 39.Re5 leaves White with an
advantage.
37.cxd5 Qxb5?
With the correct 37...exd5! Black can fully equalise, as 38.Qxe8+ Rxe8
39.Rxe8+ Kf7! is not ideal for White.
38.Rxe6 Rf7 39.Rxe8+ Qxe8 40.d6 Qd7 41.Qe4 Rf8 42.Qd4! Rf6
No help was offered by 42...Rd8 43.Rg3! intending f5-f6. Black is now lost.
43.Qc4+ Kh7
44.Rd4 a5
44...Rxd6? 45.Qd3++–
45.Qc2+ Kg8 46.Qc7 Rf7 47.Qxa5 Kh8 48.Qa8+ Kh7 49.Qe4+ Kg8
50.Qd5
1–0
Grivas Efstratios
Kalesis Nikolaos
E16 Iraklion 2004
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 d5 5.a3 Be7 6.g3 0-0 7.Bg2 b6 8.0-0
Bb7 9.cxd5 Bxd5 10.Qc2 Nbd7 11.e4 Bb7 12.e5 Nd5 13.Ne4 h6
White has more space and his e5-pawn marks the signal of kingside
operations.
Black is rather solid and, with a well-timed ...c5, he shouldn’t face too
many problems.
14.Re1
A natural move to continue the pressure in the centre and on the kingside.
Dangerous is 14.g4 f6!∞ Khodashenas,M-Hosseinipour,M Hamedan 2018,
while 14.b4?! c5 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.b5 a6³ Farago,S-Froehlich,P Budapest
2000, is simply playing in Black’s ‘territory’, the queenside.
14...c5 15.dxc5 Nxc5 16.Nxc5 Bxc5 17.b4 Be7

After a series of more-or-less ‘forced’ and rather logical moves, White goes
for the kingside.
18.Qe4!
The queen is re-allocated to the kingside, helping the attack.
18...Qd7 19.Qg4 Kh8?!
19...Kh7! is the alternative. White can then opt for 20.Nd2 a5 21.bxa5 Rxa5
22.Ne4 Ra4 23.Bb2 Rc8=
20.Qh5 Kg8?
But this is a bad move. Black had to go for 20...Kh7 21.Nd4 Nc3 22.Bxb7
Qxb7 23.Bd2 Nd5, although White seems to be on top after the rook lift
24.Re4!
21.Bxh6!
A typical sacrifice, shattering Black’s defences.
21...gxh6 22.Qxh6 f5?!
Panic under pressure! 22...Rfe8 is a more stubborn defence: 23.Re4 f5

24.exf6 Bxf6 (24...Nxf6? 25.Qg6+ Kf8 26.Ne5+–) 25.Rg4+ Bg7 26.Ne5
Qc7, although after 27.Re1 Qe7 28.Rg5 Rad8 29.h4 Black shouldn’t last
long.
23.Qg6+ Kh8 24.Nd4! Bc8

25.Rad1
Before the final assault, White brings all of his pieces into the game; there
is no salvation anymore...
25...Rd8
25...Qe8 loses to 26.Qh6+ Kg8 27.Nxe6.
26.Nxf5! Bf8 27.Re4 Bg7 28.Rh4+ Kg8 29.Bxd5 exd5

30.Rxd5
Good enough, but even quicker is 30.Nh6+ Kf8 31.Rf4+.
1–0
Kapnisis Spyridon
Markidis Konstantinos
E11 Patras 2013
1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 0-0 5.a3 Be7 6.e4 d5 7.e5 Nfd7
8.Bd3 c5 9.h4 h6 10.Bb1 Re8 11.Qc2 Nf8 12.dxc5 a5
13.Nf1!
This is the right direction for the knight. Now White has threats such as
Ng3-h5, Rh3-g3 and Bxh6, making Black’s position rather difficult.
13...Na6
The alternative 13...Nc6 doesn’t seem to help much:

14.Ng3! b6 (14...Bxc5 15.cxd5 Qxd5 16.Ba2 Nd4 17.Nxd4 Qxd4
18.Be3+–; 14...Qc7 15.Bf4²) 15.Nh5 (15.cxb6 Qxb6 16.cxd5 exd5 17.0-0
Nd4 18.Nxd4 Qxd4°, as Black has compensation thanks to the bad
coordination of White’s pieces on the queenside, the passed d-pawn and
possibilities to play down the open c- and b-files) 15...Bxc5 (15...bxc5?
16.Nxg7!+–) 16.Bxh6! gxh6 17.Qc1+–; 13...f6 14.exf6 Bxf6 15.Ng3²/+/-;
13...Bxc5 14.cxd5 Qxd5 15.Bxh6 gxh6 16.Qa4 Nfd7 17.Qf4 Kg7 18.Rh3
Rh8 19.Be4 Qc4 20.Rc1 Qb5 21.Ng5 Bxf2+ 22.Kxf2 Qxb2+ 23.Rc2 Qd4+
24.Ke2 Nxe5 25.Rd3 1–0 Grover,S-Mareco,S Durban 2014.
14.Bxh6!
An amazing new idea by my former student GM Spyridon Kapnisis, which

casts doubts on 9...h6!
14...Nxc5
After the ‘natural’ 14...gxh6, White seems to be nearly winning: 15.Qd2

Nxc5 (15...Bf6 16.exf6 Qxf6 17.Rh3 Nxc5 18.Rg3+ Kh8 19.Ne3+–)
16.Qxh6 dxc4 17.Ng3 Nd3+ 18.Kf1 Nh7 19.Ng5+–
15.Ng3?
Although the text seems strong, 15.Rh3! looks to be killing: 15...Ne4

16.Ng3 f5 17.Qc1!±/+–
15...gxh6?
Greedy, as ‘greedy’ as the 15...f5? 16.Be3 dxc4 17.Qxc4 b6 18.Nxf5 Ba6

19.Nh6+!+– of Sunilduth Lyna,N-Lokesh,P Chennai 2015, or 15...dxc4?
16.Qxc4 gxh6 17.Qg4+ Kh8 18.Ng5+– The only way for Black to stay in
the game is by 15...a4! 16.Qc1 Qa5+ 17.Ke2 Nb3 18.Qf4 Qc5∞
16.Qc1 dxc4?
It was essential to return the material at once by 16...Bf6! 17.exf6 Qxf6

18.0-0±
17.Qxh6 Nd3+ 18.Kf1 Nh7
18...Nxe5 loses to 19.Nh5! Qd1+ 20.Ne1+–

19.Ng5! Bxg5
19...Nf8 20.Nh5+–
20.hxg5 Qxg5 21.Qxh7+ Kf8 22.Bxd3 cxd3 23.Qxd3
Simple and effective; the black king will not survive.
23...Qxe5
24.Re1! Qxb2
24...Qf4 loses to 25.Rh8+ Ke7 26.Nf5+! Qxf5 (26...Kf6 27.Rh6+ Kg5

28.Qe2!+–) 27.Rxe8+ Kxe8 28.Qxf5+–
25.Qd6+ Kg8 26.Rh4
26.Rh5 Qg7 27.Nf5+–
26...Qb5+ 27.Kg1 Qg5
Nice is 27...Ra6 28.Rg4+ Kh8 29.Qe5+! Qxe5 30.Rxe5 f5 31.Nxf5+–
28.Rh5! Qg6
29.Ne4! f6 30.Re3 Ra6 31.Rg3
Black resigned due to 31...Rxd6 (31...Qxg3 32.Qxg3++–) 32.Rxg6+ Kf7

33.Rxf6+ Ke7 34.Rh7++– A great attack!
1–0
Lobron Eric
Korchnoi Viktor
E11 Biel 1986
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.d4 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 c5 5.a3 Bxd2+ 6.Bxd2 cxd4 7.Nxd4
d5 8.cxd5 Qxd5
White has gained the bishop pair in an ideal pawn structure. But as long as
Black has better development, the battle continues.
9.e3 0-0
Black wasn’t happy after 9...Bd7 10.Rc1 Nc6 11.Nb5 Rc8 12.Bb4! Qxd1+
13.Rxd1 Ne4 14.Bd6 a6 15.Bd3 Nf6 16.Nc3 Na5 17.e4 Nc4 18.Bxc4 Rxc4
19.f3± Van Wely,L-Rozentalis,E France 2010.
10.Bb4
An important resource, damaging Black’s pawn structure and thus

converting White’s bishop pair into another advantage.
10...Rd8
Maybe Black should opt for 10...Re8, but after 11.Nb5 Na6 12.Qxd5 Nxd5
the bishop pair becomes strong: 13.Bd2 (13.Bd6 Bd7 14.e4 Red8 15.Bg3²
Ruban,V-Vitolinsh,A Uzhgorod 1988) 13...Rd8 14.e4 Ndc7 15.Nxc7 Nxc7
16.Bf4 Ne8 17.Be2 Bd7 18.f3± Aranha Filho,A-Dos Santos,L Sao Paulo
2019.
11.Be7! Rd7 12.Bxf6 gxf6 13.Qg4+
13...Kf8
Black decided to preserve the queens, as the endgame after 13...Qg5

14.Qxg5+ fxg5 15.Rc1 Na6 16.Bb5± is not particularly enjoyable.
14.Be2
14.Bb5! looks to be even better: 14...Nc6 15.0-0±
14...Nc6 15.Bf3
Natural, but White could also think of 15.0-0-0 Nxd4 16.Rxd4 Qg5
(16...Qc5+ 17.Kb1 Rxd4 18.exd4 Qg5 19.Qxg5 fxg5 20.h4 gxh4 21.Rxh4
Kg7 22.Bf3²) 17.Qxg5 fxg5 18.h4²
15...Qd6?
Not the best way to continue the battle. Also bad is 15...Qa5+?! 16.b4 Nxb4
17.Nxe6+ (17.0-0±) 17...fxe6 18.Qxb4+ Qxb4+ 19.axb4 Rc7 20.Kd2 Bd7
21.Rhc1±, but Black should opt for 15...Qc4 16.Nxc6 Qxg4 17.Bxg4 bxc6
18.Bf3², or for 15...Ne5 16.Bxd5 Nxg4 17.Bf3 Ne5 18.Be2²
16.Rd1!
The d4-knight needs extra protection! Unsatisfactory is 16.Nxc6? Qd2+

17.Kf1 bxc6∞ or 16.0-0?! Nxd4 17.exd4 Qxd4 18.Qh5 Kg7∞
16...Ne5?!
A practical way to fight on.

Black’s position looks rather difficult after 16...Nxd4 17.Rxd4 Qe5 18.0-0±
when his undeveloped queenside and the shattered pawn structure will tell.
17.Qh4! Nxf3+ 18.gxf3 Qe5
18...e5 loses to 19.Qh6+ Ke8 20.Rg1 Qf8 21.Qxh7+–

19.Rg1!
New forces enter the battle! Just ‘good’ is 19.Qxh7 Qg5 20.Ke2±
19...h5 20.f4 Qa5+ 21.b4! Qxa3
21...Qd8 22.Qxh5+–
22.Qxf6 Qxb4+ 23.Kf1
Even better is 23.Ke2 Qc4+ 24.Kf3+–
23...Qc4+ 24.Kg2 b6 25.Kh3!
Re-opening the g-file!
25...Rd5
25...Bb7 26.Nf5+–
26.Rc1!
The final touch; Black is busted!
26...e5+ 27.f5 Qxc1 28.Rxc1 exd4 29.Rc7 Bxf5+ 30.Kh4 Rd7
31.Rxd7 Bxd7 32.Qh8+ Ke7 33.Qxa8
1–0
Bets Anatolij
Kuzmin Gennadi
E11 Obninsk 2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 b6 5.a3 Bxd2+ 6.Bxd2 h6 7.Bf4
Bb7 8.h3 d6 9.e3 Nbd7 10.Be2 Qe7 11.0-0 a5 12.b3 0-0 13.Bh2 Rfd8
White keeps a small but secure plus as his h2-bishop is potentially strong.
And of course, nobody can underestimate the power of the bishop pair
which might emerge in full force at a given moment. Black’s main problem
is that he cannot create active counterplay without burning his bridges
behind him...
14.Qc2 Nf8
14...e5 is an alternative choice, when White can simply go for 15.Rfe1,

preparing b4 and general queenside activity.
15.Rfd1 Ng6 16.Qb2 Ne4 17.d5
A typical way to proceed, but also good is the simple 17.b4²
17...Nh4?!
17...e5 looks natural, although after 18.Nd2 Nxd2 19.Qxd2² White is ready
for b4 and c5 later.
18.Nxh4 Qxh4 19.Bf3 f5
Black thought that he was fine here, but he had missed a tactic...
20.Bxe4!
As Laszlo Hazai commented elsewhere: The advantage of the bishop pair

consists of the possibility of a favourable exchange of it! Here we have a
clear case of an advantage transformation, following this ‘suggestion’; the
comparison of the remaining bishops will become clear quite soon!
20...fxe4
Unfortunately forced, as 20...Qxe4? loses to the simple 21.Rd4. But now

the black bishop is shut-off!
21.dxe6 Qe7 22.b4! Bc6
Black is in trouble. After 22...Qxe6 23.c5, the h2-bishop becomes a

monster, while the b7-bishop is locked-up.
23.Qc3 Re8?!
Again Black missed a tactic (an often-met thing in this game by the way!)
with his text move. He should opt for 23...Qxe6 24.c5 axb4 25.axb4 Rxa1
26.Qxa1 bxc5 27.bxc5²
24.Bg3?!
Which was missed by White! After 24.b5! Bb7 25.c5! bxc5 26.b6±, Black
is in real trouble.
24...g5?!
There is no need to weaken the position. Black is forced to go for 24...Rec8

25.c5 axb4 26.axb4 Rxa1 27.Qxa1 bxc5 28.bxc5 d5, although after 29.Qc3
Qxe6 30.Ra1 White stands much better — just compare the bishops.
25.Rac1
Not bad, but again 25.b5 Bb7 26.c5! is preferable.
25...Rac8 26.c5! dxc5 27.bxc5 b5 28.Be5?!

28.Qxa5 Ra8 29.Qxc7 Qxc7 30.Bxc7 Rxe6 31.Rd8+ Rxd8 32.Bxd8, also
looks quite strong, but White decided to go for the black king, which is also
a wise decision in practical terms.
28...Kh7?!
White is still on the top after 28...Qxe6 29.Bd4 a4 30.Rd2, but Black had to
go for it.
29.Rd2?!
White should think again of the previous suggestion with 29.Qxa5 Rg8
30.Rc2±
29...Rg8?!
29...Qxe6 still keeps Black in the game — see the previous note.
30.Qxa5
Finally!
30...Rcf8?
But this is the final mistake. 30...Rg6 31.Rcd1 Rxe6 32.Bb2 Rf8 33.Qc3
Rg6± seems to be the only way for Black to stay in the game.
31.Qc3?
A game of many missed tactics. The simple 31.Bd6! cxd6 32.cxd6 Qxe6
33.Rxc6 is curtains.
31...Qxe6?
31...Rc8 32.Qb3 Rg6 33.Qd1± is forced.

32.Bxc7 Rf5 33.Rcd1 Rgf8
34.Rd6 Qe8 35.Bd8 Rxf2 36.Bf6
And finally, Black resigned: 36...Rf5 37.Bg7+–
1–0
Grischuk Alexander
Filippov Anton
E11 Tromsø 2014
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 0-0 5.a3 Be7 6.e4 d5 7.e5 Nfd7
8.Bd3 c5 9.Qc2 h6 10.0-0 Nc6 11.Nb3 cxd4 12.Re1 Qb6
The danger of this line for Black lies in the fact that there are no immediate
crises have to be addressed. White will try to mobilise his forces, hold the
centre and then look at the enemy kingside.
13.Bf4
It seems that it is too early for 13.cxd5 exd5 14.e6 fxe6? 15.Rxe6 Rxf3!
16.gxf3 Nde5–+ Walder,M-Shaw,T San Francisco 2015.
13...a5 14.Rad1 Nc5
Alternatives are 14...a4 15.Nbxd4 Nc5 16.Bh7+ Kh8 17.cxd5 exd5 18.Bf5
Ne6 19.Be3² and 14...Bc5 15.cxd5 exd5 16.Rc1 Be7 17.Red1² Bhakti,K-
Mahalakshmi,M Goa 2015.
15.Nxc5
White shouldn’t be in a hurry to win back his pawn: 15.Nbxd4 Nxd3

16.Rxd3 Nxd4 17.Nxd4 Bd7= Actually, Black’s extra pawn is creating
more problems for himself than for White, as it doesn’t allow him to
exchange pieces and thereby simplify his defence!
15...Qxc5
15...Bxc5 is possible: 16.Rc1 dxc4 17.Qxc4 (17.Bxc4 Rd8 18.Qe4 Ne7

19.Bd3 Ng6 20.Bd2 Bd7 21.Qg4 Kh8=) 17...Be7 18.Qc2 Rd8 19.Nd2 Rd5
20.Nc4 Qd8 21.Bh7+ Kh8 22.Be4 Rc5 23.Qe2²
16.Qe2 Rd8
17.h4!
A clever move in many respects, as White may use the h-pawn advance in
multiple ways. He takes the g5-square under control, while preparing the
undermining move h5.
17...Kf8?
The defender got scared, but his panic reaction is rather bad. Most of the
sensible continuations would offer better chances to survive White’s attack:
17...dxc4 18.Bxc4 Bd7 19.Rc1 Qb6 20.Qe4 Bf8 21.Bd3 g6 22.h5 Ne7
23.Nxd4± or 17...Bd7 18.cxd5 Qxd5 (18...exd5 19.Qd2 Bf8 20.Bb1²)
19.Bc4 Qc5 20.h5 Na7 21.Nxd4 Ba4 22.Nb3 Bxb3 23.Bxb3 Nc6 24.Rc1²
or, finally, 17...Qb6 18.Rc1 a4 19.Bb1 (19.cxd5 exd5 20.Bb1 Qb3 21.Qd2²)
19...dxc4 20.Rxc4 Kf8 21.Qe4 Ke8 22.Re2²
18.Rc1 Qb6
18...dxc4 19.Bxc4 Qb6 20.Qe4 Ke8 21.Rc2± doesn’t really help Black.
19.cxd5 exd5?
Black clearly missed White’s next, otherwise he would have opted for
19...Rxd5 20.Qe4 Ke8 21.Qh7 Bf8 22.Nd2±
20.Ng5!
White senses the enormous disparity in the number of pieces on the

kingside and thus lashes out at the black king with maximum severity.
20...hxg5 21.Qh5 Ke8
21...Bc5 22.Bxg5 Ne7 23.Qh8+ Ng8 24.Bh7+– or 21...gxf4 22.Qh8#

22.e6! Bxe6
22...g6 loses to 23.exf7+ Kxf7 24.Bxg6++–
23.Rxe6
The tragedy for the defender is complete, as White has managed to open up
the centre. This factor further enhances his unstoppable attack.
23...gxf4
Alternatives are hardly helpful for Black: 23...Kd7 24.Rexc6 Qxc6

(24...bxc6 25.Bf5+ Ke8 26.Qh8+ Bf8 27.Re1#) 25.Bf5+ Ke8 26.Qh8+ Bf8
27.Re1++–, or 23...g6 24.Bxg6 (24.Rxg6 gxf4 25.Bf5+–) 24...fxg6 25.Rxg6
gxf4 26.Qf5 Bf8 27.Rg8 Ke7 28.Qh7++–
24.Bf5! g6
Or 24...Rd6 25.Qh8+ Kd7 26.Re5+ Re6 27.Rxd5+ Kc7 28.Qxa8+–

25.Rxg6! Qc7
Black might have resigned with a clear conscience, but he decided to offer
his opponent the chance to deliver mate: 25...fxg6 26.Qxg6+ Kf8 27.Be6+–
or 25...Rd6 26.Qh8+ Bf8 27.Rxd6+–
26.Re1! fxg6
26...Ne5 27.Qh8+ Bf8 28.Rxe5+ Qxe5 (28...Qe7 29.Rxe7+ Kxe7 30.Qe5#)

29.Qxe5+ Be7 30.Rg8#
27.Qh8+ Kf7 28.Be6#
White executed the final attack with great energy and charm.
1–0
CHAPTER 6.
ENDGAME TECHNIQUE
essential...
Grivas Efstratios
Renet Olivier
E16 Yerevan 1996
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 e6 3.c4 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 b6 5.g3 Bb7 6.Bg2 0-0 7.0-0 d5
8.cxd5 exd5 9.Ne5 Bd6 10.Ndc4 Be7 11.Ne3 Qc8 12.Qc2 g6 13.b3 c5
14.Bb2 Na6 15.Rac1 Qe6 16.Nd3 Nb4 17.Nxb4 cxb4
18.Qc7!
White wishes to bring about a favourable ending, as the doubled black b-

pawns offer him a 5:4 majority in the centre and on the kingside. White has
effectively ‘won’ a pawn.
18...Rab8 19.Qe5 Bd6 20.Qxe6 fxe6 21.Rc2 Rbc8 22.Rfc1 Kf7 23.Rxc8
Bxc8!
The exchange of a second pair of rooks, as well as any other exchange,

would favour White, whose ultimate aim is a pawn ending! The c-file is
hardly important, as White cannot make use of it in the near future.
24.Rc2 Ke7 25.f3 Bb7 26.Nd1 Nd7 27.Bh3 a5 28.Bc1 e5?!
Black defends against White’s threats (Bg5, Nf2 and e4) but creates a
further structural weakness (the isolated d5-pawn) in the process. As
compensation he obtains the c5-square. It is hard to suggest anything better
for Black, as he is condemned to defence in a passive position.
29.Bg5+ Ke8 30.Be3 exd4 31.Bxd4
31...Bc5?!
Black should therefore have opted for the immediate 31...Nc5. Piece
exchanges only help White.
32.Bxc5!
Black’s play would be justified after the very weak 32.Bxd7+? Kxd7
33.Bxc5 Rc8! and 34...bxc5 with the advantage!
32...Nxc5 33.Rd2 Ke7 34.Ne3 Rd8 35.Nc2 Bc6 36.Bg2 Ne6 37.f4! Nc5
38.Kf2 Rd6 39.Ke1 Ne6 40.Nd4! Bd7 41.Kd1
During the last few moves White has improved the scope of his king and
bishop. The next step is to exchange one more piece, but White is in no rush
as Black cannot improve his position.
41...Nc5 42.Nc2 Be6 43.Bf3 Bf7 44.Rd4 Na6 45.Rd2 Nc5 46.e3 Be6
47.Nd4 Bd7
48.g4!
White sets the correct plan in motion, namely the advance of the kingside
majority (3:2).
48...Ne6?!
Black hopes to pressurise White’s queenside pawns with his light-squared

bishop, but this plan fails to materialize and therefore Black should have
refrained from exchanging more pieces.
49.g5! Nxd4 50.Rxd4 Be6
Having nailed down Black’s kingside pawns, White plans the h4-h5
advance, which will either lead to an open file for the white rook to invade,
or to a further weakening of Black’s kingside structure.
In both cases White’s advantage will reach decisive proportions.
51.h4!
Setting in motion the natural break; Black is helpless!
51...Rd7 52.h5 gxh5
After 52...Rd6, White can continue either by bringing his king to d4 and his
rook to h2, or by the direct 53.h6! Rd7 54.e4 dxe4 55.Rxd7+ Kxd7
(55...Bxd7 56.Bxe4 Kf7 57.Ke2+–) 56.Bxe4 Bg8 57.Kd2 followed by Kd3-
d4 and f5, winning easily.
53.Bxh5 Bf5 54.Bf3 Ke6 55.Rd2 Rd6 56.Ke1!
The final detail! White will bring his king to g3, from where it will
endeavour to exchange the light-squared bishops. Black is unable to react.
56...Rd7 57.Kf2 Rd6 58.Kg3 Ke7 59.Bg4 Be4
Black desperately tries to avoid exchanges.

60.f5 h6!?
Attempting to set-up a defence on the dark squares after 61.g6 Kf6!
61.Kf4! hxg5+ 62.Kxg5 Rf6 63.Rh2!
White now wins easily as the ‘extra’ pawn on f5 is very powerful.
63...Rf8 64.Rh6 Bb1 65.Rxb6 Bxa2 66.f6+ Rxf6
66...Kf7 67.Be6+ Ke8 68.Rb8#
67.Rxf6 Bxb3 68.Rb6
A clear-cut game, where the ‘virtual’ pawn-up theme was seen in full power
and good technique offered up the solution...
1–0
Grivas Efstratios
Gogolis Alexandros
E15 Athens 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 b6 5.g3 Bb7 6.Bg2 0-0 7.0-0 Bxd2
8.Bxd2 d6 9.Qc2 Be4 10.Qa4 Qe8 11.Qa3 Nbd7 12.Rac1 Qe7 13.Rfd1 c5
14.dxc5 dxc5 15.Qe3 Rfd8 16.Bc3 Bb7 17.Nd2 Bxg2 18.Kxg2 Nf8
19.Qf3 Rac8 20.h4 Rc7 21.Bxf6 gxf6 22.Ne4 f5 23.Nc3 Rcd7 24.e4 Rxd1
25.Rxd1 Rxd1 26.Qxd1 fxe4 27.Nxe4 f5 28.Nc3 Qb7+ 29.f3 Qd7
30.Qxd7 Nxd7
Black’s weak pawn structure (three pawn islands against two/isolated h-

pawn) promises White the advantage. Naturally, White must ‘create’ more
advantages in order to win the game.
31.Nb5! a5
This doesn’t look best, as now Black’s structure is further weakened, but it
is important for Black to ‘win’ time for playing ...h5. Unacceptable are
31...a6? 32.Nc7± and 31...Ne5?! 32.b3 Nc6 33.g4±
32.b3 Kf7
Mistaken is 32...e5? 33.Nd6 f4 34.g4 Kg7 35.Ne4± but maybe Black had to
continue with 32...h5!? 33.Kf2 (33.g4? fxg4 34.fxg4 hxg4 35.Kg3 Nf6)
33...Kf7 34.Ke3 e5 35.Nd6+ Ke6 36.Nc8 Kf7, although White retains good
winning chances, as can be seen in the following long, but instructive,
variation: 37.Kf2 Ke6 38.Kg2 Kf6 39.Kh3 Ke6 40.g4 hxg4+ 41.fxg4 f4
42.h5 e4 43.h6 Kf7 44.Nd6+ Kg6 45.Nxe4 Kxh6 46.g5+ Kh5
47.Nf6+ Nxf6 48.gxf6 Kg6 49.Kg4 Kxf6 50.Kxf4 Ke6 51.Ke4 Kd6 52.Kf5
Kc6 53.Ke5 Kd7 54.Kd5 Kc7 55.Ke6 Kc6 56.a4 Kc7 57.Ke7 Kc6
58.Kd8+–
33.g4!
White intends either to obtain an outside passed pawn or to create new
targets.
33...Kg6?
Black had to keep the position ‘closed’ with 33...f4! 34.Nc3 Ne5 35.Ne4²
34.Kg3 h6 35.Nd6! fxg4
Forced: 35...Kf6 36.gxf5 exf5 37.Kf4 Ne5 38.Ne8+ Ke6 39.Nc7+ Kd6
40.Kxf5! (40.Nd5 b5 41.Ne3 bxc4 42.bxc4 Ke6 43.Nxf5 Nd3+!=)
40...Nxf3 41.Nb5+ Ke7 42.h5+–
36.fxg4 Kf6 37.Kf4!

White has obtained a clear advantage with simple but substantial play, and
now prepares for the final stage of the game.
37...Kg6
The alternative 37...e5+ 38.Kf3! Ke6 39.Nf5 would also lose.
38.h5+!
The outside passed pawn has to be created as far up and across the board as
possible.
38...Kf6 39.Ne4+ Kg7

40.g5 hxg5+ 41.Kxg5
White has achieved his aim. His outside passed pawn is powerful, allowing
his king to attack the enemy pawns unhindered.
41...a4 42.h6+ Kh8
The pawn ending after 42...Kh7 43.Nf6+ Nxf6 44.Kxf6 Kxh6 45.Kxe6 is a
win.
43.bxa4 Ne5 44.Nd6
Or 44.a5 bxa5 45.Nxc5 Nxc4 46.Nxe6+–
44...Kh7
45.Kf6
Black resigned, as 45...Nd3 46.Kxe6 Nb2 47.a5 bxa5 48.Kd5 Na4 (48...Nd3
49.a3 Kxh6 50.Nb7+–) 49.Ne4 Kxh6 50.Kc6 Kg6 51.Kb5+– is hopeless.
1–0
Kramnik Vladimir
Illescas Cordoba Miguel
A17 Dos Hermanas 1997
1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 0-0 5.a3 Bxc3 6.Qxc3 b6 7.g3 Bb7
8.Bg2 c5 9.b4 d6 10.0-0 Nbd7 11.Bb2 Qe7 12.d3 Rfc8 13.b5 a6 14.a4
axb5 15.axb5 Qf8 16.e4 Rxa1 17.Rxa1 Ra8 18.Qc1 Rxa1 19.Qxa1 Qa8
20.Qxa8+ Bxa8 21.Nd2 Ne8
A rather blocked position, where the bishop pair shouldn’t be anything
special...
22.Nb1!
With the idea of Nc3-a4, and then d4, trying to put pressure on the weak b6-
pawn. Actually, White is better here only because his bishop pair is
‘supported’ by his knight. Just imagine this position without a pair of
knights. Because of the blocked, closed centre, the bishop pair advantage
would be practically irrelevant, and a draw would be a predictable result.
The alternative was 22.f4 Nc7 23.Kf2 d5²
22...Bb7
22...Ne5 23.Bxe5!? (23.Bf1²) 23...dxe5 24.Nc3 Nd6 25.Na4 Nc8 26.Bh3

Kf8 (26...g5!?) 27.f4 exf4 28.gxf4± and White is better as the a8-bishop and
the c8-knight are paralysed by the defence of the b6-pawn.
23.f4 f6 24.Nc3 Kf7 25.Na4 Ke7

26.d4!
White expands his centre, focusing on opening up the position.
26...Kd8
If 26...Nc7, then 27.e5!? Bxg2 28.exd6+ Kxd6 29.Kxg2± cxd4?! 30.Ba3+

Nc5 31.Nxb6 e5 32.Na4 N7e6 33.f5+–
27.d5!
A bit ‘illogical’ but White feels that it is important to gain maximum space
in the centre and render Black’s pieces as passive as possible.
27...exd5
27...e5? 28.Bh3+–
28.exd5
28.cxd5!? Nc7 29.Nc3±, was also good for White, with the idea — in case
of 29...f5? — 30.e5 dxe5 31.d6+–
28...Nc7
28...Kc7 29.Bh3 Nf8 30.Kf2+–
29.Bh3 Na8
An unfortunate but forced retreat.
30.Be6 Nf8 31.f5 Bc8 32.Kf2
Also possible was 32.Nc3 Nc7 33.Ne4 Ne8 34.g4 Bd7 35.Bc1 Ke7 36.Bf4
g5 37.Bd2±
White’s pieces dominate; time to improve the king and to attack on the
kingside, creating the second weakness.
32...Bd7 33.g4 Ke7 34.g5?!

34.h4! was more technical. After 34...Nxe6 35.fxe6 Be8 36.h5 h6 (36...g6
37.hxg6 hxg6 38.g5+–) 37.Bc1 Kf8 38.Bf4 Ke7 39.Kg3+–, with the idea
that the knight goes to f5, and White is winning.
34...Nxe6!
Forced and good, especially when compared to 34...Be8? 35.gxf6+ gxf6

36.Nc3 Nd7 (36...Nxe6 37.dxe6+–) 37.Ne4 Ne5 38.Bxe5 dxe5 (38...fxe5
39.f6++–) 39.d6+ Kd8 40.Bd5+–
35.fxe6
Or 35.dxe6!? Bc8 36.Kf3± The bishop pair advantage has transformed into
the powerful passed e6-pawn.
35...Be8 36.gxf6+ gxf6 37.Ke3 Bg6

38.Kd2!
Before anything else, White must protect his queenside pawn structure,
liberating his a4-knight.
38...Be4 39.Bc1 Bg2 40.Kc3 Bf1 41.Bh6 Bg2 42.Bf4 Bf1 43.Nb2 Nc7
44.Nd1 Bg2 45.Ne3 Be4
46.Bh6! Ne8 47.Kd2 Nc7
47...f5? loses to 48.Bg5+ Nf6 (48...Kf8 49.Bd8+–) 49.Nf1 Bf3 50.Ng3 Bg4
51.h3!+–
48.Ke2 Ne8 49.Kf2 Nc7 50.Kg3 Bd3 51.Kg4 Ne8 52.Kf4 Bb1 53.Nf5+
Kd8
53...Bxf5 doesn’t save Black: 54.Kxf5 Nc7 (54...Kd8 55.Bf8+–) 55.Bg7

Ne8 56.Bh8!+–
54.Bf8 Bd3
55.Be7+!
55.Nxd6? is just a draw after 55...Nxd6 56.Bxd6 Bxc4 57.Ke4 Bxb5=
55...Kc7 56.Ne3 Kc8 57.Kg4 Kc7 58.Kh5 Ng7+ 59.Kh6 Ne8 60.h4 Kc8
61.h5 Kc7 62.Ng2! Kc8
62...Bxc4? loses to 63.Kxh7+–
63.Nf4 Bc2
64.Bxf6?
A blunder which gives away the half-point. Good enough is 64.Ng6!+–
64...Nxf6 65.Kg7 Ne8+ 66.Kf7 Nc7!
The only defence.

66...Kd8? is a lost case after 67.e7+ Kd7 68.Ne6 Bd1 69.Nf8+ Kc8 70.h6
(70.Kxe8? Bxh5+–+) 70...Bh5+ 71.Kg8 (71.Ke6 Bg4+=) 71...Nf6+
72.Kg7+–
67.e7
67...h6?!
Not yet losing, but more accurate is 67...Bd1! 68.e8=Q+ Nxe8 69.Kxe8
Bb3 70.Kf7 Bxc4 71.Kg7 Bxb5 72.Kxh7 c4 73.Ne2 Bd7 74.h6 Bf5+
75.Kg7 Bd3 76.Nc3 Kb7=
68.Ne6 Bd1 69.Kg6 Ne8 70.Nf8 Be2 71.Kxh6 Bxc4 72.Kg6

72...Bxd5?
The final mistake. Black could be saved by 72...Bd3+! 73.Kf7 c4 74.Kxe8

c3 75.Kf7 Bxb5 76.h6 c2 77.h7 c1=Q 78.h8=Q Qf4+ 79.Qf6 Be8+!=
73.h6 c4 74.h7 Be4+ 75.Kf7 Bxh7 76.Kxe8 Bg8 77.Nd7! c3 78.Kf8
1–0
Grivas Efstratios
Pountzas Hrisanthos
E11 Corfu 2010
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 d5 5.a3 Be7 6.g3 0-0 7.Bg2 c5
8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.0-0 a5 10.cxd5 Nxd5 11.e4 Nf6 12.e5 Nd5 13.Ne4 Be7
14.Bg5 Nc6 15.Bxe7 Qxe7 16.Rc1 Bd7 17.Qe2 Rfd8 18.Rc2 Be8 19.Rfc1
h6 20.h3 Rac8 21.Nd6 Rb8 22.Nc4 b5 23.Ncd2 Rb6 24.Qe4 a4 25.Bf1
Na5 26.Qd4 b4 27.Rc5 Nc6 28.Qe4 bxa3 29.bxa3 Rdb8 30.h4 h5 31.Bg2
Bd7 32.Qc4 Be8 33.Ne4 g6 34.Qxa4 Nxe5 35.Qd4 Nd7 36.Ra5 Rb1
37.Rxb1 Rxb1+ 38.Kh2 Qd8 39.Ra7 Qb8 40.Ra5 Qc7 41.Ra8 Rb8
42.Rxb8 Qxb8 43.Nfd2 N7b6 44.Nf6+ Nxf6 45.Qxf6 Qd6 46.Ne4 Qc7
47.Qd4 Nd5 48.Nc5 Ne7 49.a4 Bc6 50.Ne4 Nd5
White has an outside passed pawn and he should build on it.
51.Nc3!? Qb7?
51...Qa5! was called for, as the outside passed pawn should be stopped as
far back as possible. After 52.Nxd5 (52.Qe5!? Qb6! 53.Nxd5 Bxd5
54.Bxd5 exd5 55.Kg2 Qb4=) 52...Bxd5 53.Bxd5 exd5 54.Kg2 White is still
in the driver’ seat, as he can activate his king in the centre, but Black’s
chances for the draw are rather high.
52.Nxd5 Bxd5?!
Exchanging pieces doesn’t help Black here; he should have opted for
52...exd5, although he probably can’t avoid defeat after 53.a5.
53.Bxd5 exd5
54.a5
Now the outside passed pawn cannot be stopped.
54...Qd7 55.a6 Qb5 56.a7 Qb7 57.Qa4! Qa8 58.Qd7 Kg7 59.Qc7 d4
60.Qb8
1–0
Cheparinov Ivan
Hess Robert
E11 Moscow 2011
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 c5 5.a3 Bxd2+ 6.Bxd2 cxd4 7.Nxd4
Nc6 8.Bc3 0-0 9.e3 Ne4 10.Rc1 Qh4 11.g3 Qf6 12.Qc2 Nxc3 13.Qxc3
Nxd4 14.Qxd4 Qxd4 15.exd4 b6 16.Bg2 Rb8 17.Kd2 Bb7 18.Bxb7 Rxb7
19.b4 d6 20.Rc3 Rc8 21.Rhc1
This endgame doesn’t look too dangerous for Black, but he failed to hold it
as he underestimated White’s slight plus.
21...Kf8
21...Rbc7 22.c5 dxc5 23.dxc5 bxc5 24.Rxc5, can be quite dangerous for
Black, as a passed pawn can never be taken for granted, but here after
24...Rxc5 25.bxc5 (25.Rxc5 Rxc5 26.bxc5 Kf8=) 25...Kf8 he should hold.
22.c5! bxc5 23.dxc5 Rc6
An interesting case arises after 23...d5 24.Rb3 Ke7 25.f4 f6 26.Ke3 e5

White should emerge better after 27.Rd3 Rd8 (27...Ke6 28.f5+ Kxf5
29.Rxd5±) 28.Rcd1 Rbd7 29.c6 d4+ 30.Ke4 Rc7 31.fxe5 fxe5 32.Kxe5
Rxc6 33.Rxd4±
24.cxd6 Rxd6+ 25.Rd3 Ke7

26.Rc5!
The c5-rook will try to exert pressure on Black’s a-pawn and then White
will try to benefit from his 2:1 queenside pawn majority.
26...Rbd7
26...Rxd3+ 27.Kxd3 Kd6 28.Kc4 Rb6 29.a4 a6 30.b5 axb5+ 31.axb5 Rb7
32.Rc6+ Kd7 33.Kb4 g5 34.Kc5± is unpleasant for Black, but preserving
the d6-rook on board looks like a good alternative: 26...Ra6! 27.Kc2 Rd7
28.Rxd7+ Kxd7 29.Kb3²
27.Rxd6 Rxd6+ 28.Kc3 Kd7 29.a4 a6 30.f4

30...g6?!
The text offers nothing positive to Black. A good way to preserve the
balance is by 30...h6 31.b5 axb5 32.axb5 f6 33.h4, when Black can now sac
a pawn by 33...e5! 34.fxe5 fxe5 35.Rxe5 Rg6 36.Re3 Rg4= Such
mechanisms are quite common in rook endings, where activity counts for a
lot...
31.b5 axb5 32.axb5
Better than 32.Rxb5?! Kc6 33.Rb8 Rd5=
32...Rd1!
The correct strategy in a rook ending; the defending rook should try to place
itself behind the passed pawn and get active. The passive 32...f6?! 33.h4 h6
34.h5! g5 35.fxg5 fxg5 36.Kb4 looks quite pleasant for White.
33.Kb4 Rd2!
Enemy pawns must be attacked! 33...f6? loses to 34.b6 Kd6 (34...e5 35.fxe5
fxe5 36.Rxe5 Kc6 37.Re6+ Kb7 38.Kc5 Rc1+ 39.Kd4+–) 35.Rc3 Rb1+
36.Ka5 e5 37.fxe5+ fxe5 38.Ka6 e4 39.b7 Kd5 40.Ka7 Kd4 41.Rc7 e3
42.Rd7+ Kc4 43.Rxh7 Ra1+ 44.Kb6 e2 45.Re7 e1=Q 46.Rxe1 Rxe1
47.b8=Q Rb1+ 48.Kc7 Rxb8 49.Kxb8+–
34.b6 Kd6?
The decisive error. Natural is 34...Rxh2 35.Kb5 Rb2+ 36.Ka6 Ra2+ 37.Kb7
Ra3=
35.Rc8! Rb2+
35...Rxh2 loses to 36.Kc3!+–
36.Ka5
36...Ra2+
Black is also losing after 36...f6 37.Ka6 e5 (37...Rxh2 38.b7 Ra2+ 39.Kb6
Rb2+ 40.Ka7 Ra2+ 41.Kb8 Rb2 42.Rc7+–) 38.b7 Ra2+ 39.Kb6 Rb2+
40.Ka7 Ra2+ 41.Kb8 Rxh2 42.fxe5+ Kxe5 (42...fxe5 43.Rc7+–) 43.Rc5+
Kd6 44.Rb5+–
37.Kb5 Rb2+ 38.Ka6 Ra2+
Or 38...Rxh2 39.b7 Ra2+ 40.Kb6 Rb2+ 41.Ka7 Ra2+ 42.Kb8 Ra3

43.Rc1+–
39.Kb7 Rxh2
40.Rc6+! Kd7
40...Kd5 loses to 41.Kc7 Rb2 42.b7+–
41.Rc7+ Kd8 42.Rxf7 Rg2 43.Ka7
43.Kc6 Rc2+ 44.Kd6 Rd2+ 45.Kxe6 Kc8 46.Rc7+ Kb8 47.Rxh7+–

43...Ra2+ 44.Kb8 h5 45.Ra7
Black resigned: 45...Rb2 46.b7 Ke7 47.Ka8.
1–0
Mamedyarov Shakhriyar
Dominguez Perez Leinier
E11 London 2012
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 0-0 5.Qc2 c5 6.dxc5 Bxc5 7.a3 b6
8.b4 Be7 9.Bb2 d6 10.g4 Bb7 11.g5 Nh5 12.e3 a5 13.Rd1 axb4 14.axb4
Nd7 15.Rg1 Qc7 16.Bd3 g6 17.Ke2 Rfc8 18.Ra1 Bf8 19.Rxa8 Bxa8
20.Ra1 d5 21.cxd5 Qxc2 22.Bxc2 Bxd5
White still has the bishop pair as an asset, while the black h5-knight seems
to be out of play as well. But Black’s healthy pawn structure can contribute
to his defence.
23.Ba4 Nb8 24.b5! Nd7 25.Bd1 Rc7 26.Nd4 Ng7

Black hurries to get the knight back to the game, but here better is 26...h6!
27.h4 (27.gxh6 Bxh6 28.Nc6 [28.Bb3 Bb7!? 29.Nc6 Bg7!=] 28...Bg7!
29.Ne7+ Kh7 30.Bxg7 Kxg7 31.Nxd5 exd5= as Black’s d5-pawn is not
weaker than White’s on h2) 27...hxg5 28.hxg5 Bg7 29.Ra3²
27.Nc6! Bxc6?!
Black accepts the ‘challenge’, but he should have tried 27...Nc5 28.Be5 Rc8
29.Na7 (29.Nb4 Nf5 30.Ra7²) 29...Ra8 30.Bc2 Ne8 31.e4 Bb7 32.Nc4 Nd7
33.Bg3 e5 34.f3²
28.bxc6 Rxc6
Now, despite the extra pawn, Black’s position is dangerous due to White’s
strong bishop pair.
29.Ra8 Nc5?
29...Nf5! was the right move; but a very difficult one to find. Black holds
on, although White keeps unpleasant pressure: 30.Ba3 (30.Ba4 b5 31.Bxb5
Rb6 32.Bxd7 Rxb2=) 30...Nd6 31.Bxd6 (31.Ba4 b5 32.Bxd6 Rxd6
33.Bxb5²) 31...Rxd6 32.Ne4 Rd5! 33.Ra7 Re5! 34.Bc2 Nb8 35.Ra8
(35.Nf6+ Kg7 36.Ra8 Rc5 37.Be4 Rc8 38.Nd7 Bd6 39.Nxb6 Rc1=)
35...Nd7 36.Rd8 f5! 37.f4! (37.gxf6 Nc5∞) 37...Rb5 38.Nd6 Rb2 39.Kd2
Nc5 40.Ra8 Ne4+ 41.Nxe4 fxe4 42.Kc3 Rb5 43.Bb3²
30.Nc4?
30.Ba3! should be enough, tying up Black’s pieces. Then White’s knight

goes to e4 or c4 with decisive threats.
30...b5! 31.Ne5 Ra6 32.Rb8 Ra2 33.Rxb5 Ne8!
Black has considerably improved his position.
34.Kf3 Nc7
34...Ne4?! 35.Rb8! Nxg5+ 36.Kg2±
35.Rb8 Ra8?
A natural way to stop the white pressure, but Black missed a nice tactical
solution: 35...N5a6! 36.Rb7 Rxb2 37.Rxb2 Bg7 38.Nd3 (38.Kf4? Nd5+
39.Ke4 Nc5+µ) 38...Bxb2 39.Nxb2=
36.Rxa8 Nxa8 37.Ng4
Although the material has been reduced, the white bishop pair remains
strong.
37...Be7?
It was essential for Black not to allow the exchange of his bishop for the
white knight: 37...Nd7! 38.Ba4 (38.Nh6+ Bxh6 39.gxh6 f5, when Black
gets a lot of breathing space) 38...Nab6 39.Bb5 Bg7 40.Nf6+ Nxf6 41.gxf6
Bf8 42.Bd4±
38.Nf6+ Bxf6 39.gxf6

Unbelievably, this endgame is lost for Black! His knights have no
strongholds, and White gradually encircles them.
39...Nc7 40.e4 Nd7 41.Ba4 Nb6 42.Bc6 Nc4 43.Bc3

43...e5?!
Desperation.
White quickly wins this pawn, after which his victory will be certain. If
Black waits, then White will improve his king, going after the black
knights!
44.Ke2 Ne6 45.Kd3 Nb6 46.Bxe5 Nd7 47.Bc3 g5 48.Kc4 Ndf8 49.Kd5
Ng6 50.Kd6 Kf8 51.Bb4 Kg8 52.Bd5 Nef4
Or 52...Ngf8 53.Ke7 Ng6+ 54.Kd7 Ngf8+ 55.Bxf8 Nxf8+ 56.Ke8+–
53.Kd7 Nh5 54.Be7 Ne5+ 55.Ke8
Game over; Black will find himself in zugzwang sooner-or-later...
55...g4 56.Bd8 Nf4 57.Bc7 Nfd3 58.Bxe5
One of the many winning moves...
58...Nxe5 59.Ba2 h5 60.Bd5 h4 61.Ba2 h3 62.Bd5
The zugzwang!
62...Kh8 63.Bxf7 g3 64.fxg3 Ng4 65.Ke7
1–0
Topalov Veselin
Kasimdzhanov Rustam
E14 Tripoli 2004
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 0-0 5.a3 Bxd2+ 6.Bxd2 Ne4 7.e3 b6
8.Bd3 Bb7 9.0-0 Nxd2 10.Nxd2 f5 11.Qe2 Nc6 12.Rac1 Qf6 13.c5 Rae8
14.b4 Kh8 15.f4 g5 16.b5 Na5 17.fxg5 Qxg5 18.Nf3 Qg7 19.cxb6 cxb6
20.Rc7 Rc8 21.Rfc1 Rxc7 22.Rxc7 Rc8 23.Rxc8+ Bxc8 24.e4 Bb7 25.h3
d6 26.Qc2 Qf6 27.Kf2 fxe4 28.Bxe4 Bxe4 29.Qxe4 Kg7
Black is suffering due to his miserable knight on a5, and in general White
has better-placed pieces.
30.Qc2
Keeping the knight at bay!
30...Qf7 31.Ke2 h6
31...e5 is possible: 32.dxe5 dxe5 33.Qd3 Nc4 34.Ng5 Qh5+ 35.g4 Qxg5
36.Qxc4² but Black didn’t like to play with such a weak pawn structure.
32.a4 Qb7 33.g4!
White rightly creates play where his pawn majority lies. He could also do it
by 33.Ke1 Qe7 34.Qc3 Nb7 35.g4²
33...Qf7 34.Qc3 Kh7?!
This doesn’t really help Black; passivity is not recommended! Acceptable is

34...Qb7 35.h4 Qe4+ (35...Qf7 36.Qc8±) 36.Kf2 Qxg4 37.Qc7+ Kg6
38.Qxd6²
35.h4 Kg7 36.h5!
Creating problems on g6 and obviously better than 36.g5 hxg5 37.hxg5 Qb7
38.Kf2²
36...Kg8 37.Qc1
37...e5?!
The defender opts for a desperate trick in a difficult position, as 37...Kh7

38.g5 Qxh5 39.Qc7+ Kg6 40.gxh6 Kxh6 41.Qxd6± wasn’t to his liking...
38.Qxh6
38.dxe5 dxe5 39.Nxe5 Qa2+ 40.Ke3 Qb3+ 41.Kf2+– was good as well.
38...e4
39.Ng5?
Natural but wrong!

White missed a chance to keep the lid on the a5-knight and win with his
strong g- and h-pawns: 39.Nd2! d5 40.Ke1 Qe7 41.Qg6+ Kh8 42.g5+–
39...Qa2+
Now the black queen and knight will hold the draw...
40.Ke3
40.Kf1 Qc4+ 41.Kf2 Qxd4+ 42.Kg3 Qe3+ 43.Kh4 Qf2+=

40...Nc4+ 41.Kxe4
41.Kf4 Qf2+ 42.Kxe4 Qg2+=
41...Qg2+ 42.Kf4
The result isn’t changed by 42.Kd3 Nb2+ 43.Kc3 Nd1+ 44.Kb4 Qd2+
45.Kc4 Qa2+= or 42.Nf3 Qxg4+ 43.Kd5 Qxf3+ 44.Kxc4 d5+ 45.Kb4 Qd3=
42...Qf2+
43.Ke4
43.Nf3? Qe3+–+
43...Qg2+ 44.Kf4 Qf2+ 45.Ke4
And White, disappointed, accepted the draw.
½-½
Chatalbashev Boris
Drasko Milan
E14 Cutro 2001
1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 b6 5.a3 Bxd2+ 6.Qxd2 Bb7 7.e3 0-0
8.Be2 d6 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.b4 a5 11.Bb2 axb4 12.axb4 Qe7 13.Qc2 c5
14.Qb3 Rfb8
Now we can safely say that White is slightly better. Black should be very
careful, since White can always open up the position, when his bishops
might become strong.
15.Rxa8 Rxa8
Handing over the a-file by 15...Bxa8 16.Ra1² doesn’t look very promising.
16.Rd1
16.bxc5 bxc5 17.Qxb7?! Rb8 18.Qc6 Rxb2= offers White nothing.
16...Qf8?!
A bit too passive.

Black should try his chances in the centre by 16...d5!? 17.dxc5 (17.bxc5
dxc4 18.Bxc4 Bxf3 19.gxf3 bxc5 20.Ba3²) 17...bxc5 18.b5 Nb6 19.Ne5
Ne4 20.Qc2²
17.dxc5! bxc5
The alternative 17...dxc5 is not much different: 18.Ne5 (18.bxc5 Bc6!)

18...Nxe5 19.Bxe5 cxb4 20.Bd6 Qc8 21.Qxb4²
18.Bxf6 Nxf6 19.bxc5 Bxf3
Black decides to give up the bishop. He could also opt for 19...Rb8!?
20.Qa3 dxc5 21.Ne5² when White still exerts pressure.
20.Bxf3 Rb8 21.Qa3 dxc5

Now White has gained the better bishop vs knight ending and pressure on
c5, and he also has the initiative. But of course, his plus is small and it is
not certain that it can be turned into something bigger.
22.Qa7! h6 23.g3 Qc8?!
Black has no counterplay and this is what kills him in the end! 23...e5?!
24.Bd5 Rc8 (24...Nxd5 25.Rxd5±) 25.e4±, planning Rb1-b7, wasn’t that
helpful, so he had to opt for 23...Re8 24.Kg2 Qe7 25.Ra1 Qxa7 26.Rxa7²
24.h4! Qf8 25.Rd2
25.Kg2 Rc8 26.g4 is also a good option.
25...e5
Finally, Black tries something, although it looks a bit late and the text is not
fully satisfactory... his position might fall at any time; for example,
25...Rb1+ 26.Kg2 Rb4 27.Qc7 Ne8 28.Qc8+–
26.Bd5!
Of course, not the ugly 26.e4? Rc8 27.Rb2 Qd6 28.Rb7 Qe6 and Black is
holding.
26...Rb1+ 27.Kg2 e4
Otherwise White will play e4, securing the bishop on d5.
28.Qc7 Qe8
Maybe Black should have tried his chances in the heavy piece endgame
after 28...Nxd5 29.Rxd5 Rb8 30.Rxc5±
29.h5
Not bad, but more natural is 29.Qxc5±
29...Nxd5?!
The text loses without a fight.

Black had to try his last chance by 29...Rb3! 30.Qxc5 Qd7, where White
would have to find the strong 31.Qa5!±
30.Rxd5 Qe6 31.Rxc5 Qf6
The rook ending after 31...Qg4 32.Qc8+ Qxc8 33.Rxc8+ Kh7 34.g4+– is
easily lost due to the monster pawn on h5.
32.Qc8+!
The quickest way to win.
32...Kh7 33.Qf5+
33.Qg4! Qe7 34.Qf5++–
33...Qxf5 34.Rxf5 Rc1
34...Kg8 35.Re5+–
35.Rxf7 Rxc4
36.g4!
With the simple threat of Kg3-f4.
36...Rc6 37.Kg3 Re6 38.Kf4 Kg8 39.Rf5 Re8 40.Re5! Rf8+ 41.Kg3
And as a second pawn falls, Black resigned.
1–0
Show in Text Mode
CHAPTER 7.
TACTICAL MOTIFS
appear in nearly every game, so we cannot live without them!
Grivas Efstratios
Papandreou Nikolaos
E11 Ikaria 1995
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 b6 5.a3 Be7 6.e4 d5 7.e5 Ne4 8.Bd3
Bb7 9.0-0 Nd7 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Re1 Ng5 12.Nxg5 Bxg5 13.Qg4 0-0
14.Nf3 Bxc1 15.Raxc1 Re8
Show/Hide Solution
16.Bxh7+! Kxh7 17.Ng5+ Kg8
17...Kg6 18.Ne6++–; 17...Kh6 18.Qh4+ Kg6 19.Qh7+ Kxg5 20.Rc3+–
18.Qh5 Bc8?!
18...Nf8 19.Qxf7+ Kh8 20.Qh5+ Kg8 21.Re3! g6 (21...Bc8 22.Qf7+ Kh8

23.Rxc7 Qxg5 24.Qxe8+–) 22.Qh6 Bc8 (22...Qe7 23.Rh3 Qg7 24.Qxg7+
Kxg7 25.Rxc7++–) 23.Rc6! Be6 (23...Qe7 24.Rf3! Qg7 25.Rxf8++–)
24.Rf3+–
19.Qxf7+ Kh8 20.Qh5+ Kg8 21.Qh7+ Kf8 22.Qh8+ 22...Ke7 23.Qxg7#

1–0
Grivas Efstratios
Hobuss Udo
E11 Dortmund 1991
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 d5 5.a3 Be7 6.Qc2 Nbd7 7.e4 dxe4
8.Nxe4 c5 9.Nxf6+ Bxf6 10.Be3 Qc7 11.0-0-0 cxd4 12.Nxd4 a6 13.g4 Ne5
14.Be2 Bd7 15.g5 Be7 16.Kb1 Nc6 17.h4 Rc8 18.h5 Nxd4 19.Bxd4 e5
20.Be3 Bc6 21.Rhg1 g6 22.Qc3 Be4+ 23.Ka1 0-0 24.hxg6 fxg6 25.Bg4
Bf5 26.Bxf5 Rxf5 27.Qb3 Rf7 28.Rg4 Bc5 29.Rd5 Bxe3 30.Qxe3 Rcf8
31.Rxe5 Rxf2 32.Re7 Qc6
Show/Hide Solution
33.Qe5
33.Rxh7! R8f3 (33...Kxh7 34.Rh4+ Kg8 35.Qe5 Rf1+ 36.Ka2 R1f6 37.gxf6
Rxf6 38.Qh2+–) 34.Qe5 Rxa3+ 35.bxa3 Rf1+ 36.Ka2 Rf2+ 37.Kb3 Qf3+
38.Qc3 Qxc3+ 39.Kxc3 Kxh7 40.Rd4 Rf7 41.Rd6±
33...R2f7 34.Rd4 Rxe7 35.Qxe7 Re8 36.Qb4 Rc8 37.Rd6 Qc7 38.Re6
Qf7 39.Re4 Qf1+ 40.Ka2 Qf7 41.Ka1 Qf1+ 42.Re1 Qf7 43.Rc1 Re8
44.Rd1 Qe7 45.Qb6 Qe2 46.Rd4 Qf1+ 47.Ka2 Qf7 48.Rd5 Rc8 49.Qb3
Re8 50.a4 Qc7 51.Qd3 Qc6 52.b3 Rf8 53.Qd4 Qe6 54.a5 Qe2+ 55.Ka3
Qe7+ 56.c5 Qe1 57.Ka4 Qc1 58.Rd7 Rf4 59.Rd8+ Kf7 60.Rd7+
½-½
Grivas Efstratios
Shavtvaladze Nikoloz
E11 Thessaloniki 2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 d5 5.a3 Be7 6.g3 0-0 7.Bg2 c5
8.dxc5 a5 9.0-0 Nbd7 10.cxd5 exd5 11.Nb3 a4 12.Nbd4 Nxc5 13.Be3 Re8
14.Rc1 Bf8 15.Rc2 Bd7 16.Ne1 Rc8 17.Nd3 Nfe4 18.Nxc5 Bxc5 19.Qd3
Qb6 20.Rfc1 Qa7 21.Nb5 Qb6 22.Bxc5 Nxc5 23.Qxd5 Be6 24.Qd4 Qxb5
25.Rxc5 Rxc5 26.Rxc5 Qxe2 27.Re5 Qa6 28.h4 b5 29.Bf1 Rb8
Show/Hide Solution
30.Rxb5! Rc8?!
30...Qc8 31.Rxb8 Qxb8 32.Qxa4+–; 30...Rxb5 31.Qd8#
31.Rg5!
1–0
Grivas Efstratios
Gazis Efstathios
E14 Kallithea 2002
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 b6 5.a3 Bxd2+ 6.Qxd2 Bb7 7.e3 d6
8.Be2 Nbd7 9.b4 0-0 10.Bb2 Ne4 11.Qd3 f5 12.0-0 Rf6 13.d5 e5 14.Ne1
Rh6 15.g3 Qg5 16.Ng2 Qg6 17.f3 Ng5 18.h4 e4 19.Qc2
Show/Hide Solution
19...Nxf3+ 20.Bxf3 Qxg3! 21.Bd1 Rxh4 22.Rxf5 Rf8! 23.Rxf8+ Nxf8°

24.Qc3 Rh6 25.Qc2 Rh4 26.Qc3 Rh6 27.Qd4 Qh2+ 28.Kf1 Rf6+ 29.Nf4
Ng6 30.Ke1 Ne5 31.Be2 g5 32.Nh5 Rf2 33.Nf6+ Rxf6
0–1
Sakaev Konstantin
Naiditsch Arkadij
E11 Zlatibor 2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 c5 5.a3 Bxd2+ 6.Bxd2 cxd4 7.Nxd4
d5 8.cxd5 Qxd5 9.Nc2 Ne4 10.Be3 Qa5+ 11.b4 Qc7 12.Qd3 f5 13.f3 Nf6
14.Bc5 b6 15.Bd6 Qc6 16.b5 Qb7 17.Rc1 Kf7 18.Nb4 Rd8
Show/Hide Solution
19.e4! Ne8
19...fxe4 20.fxe4 Qxe4+ 21.Qxe4 Nxe4 22.Bxb8 Rxb8 23.Nc6±
20.e5 Kg8 21.Qc3 Nxd6 22.exd6 a5 23.bxa6 Qd7 24.Qe5 Qf7 25.Rc7
Nd7 26.Qc3 Qf8 27.Nc6
1–0
Grivas Efstratios
Papaioannou Ioannis
E01 Athens 1996
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 0-0 5.g3 d5 6.Qc2 c5 7.Bg2 cxd4
8.Nxd4 e5 9.N4b3 Bg4 10.cxd5 Nxd5 11.a3 Be7 12.Nc4 Be6 13.Nxe5 Bf6
14.Nd3 Na6 15.0-0 Rc8 16.Qd1 Qb6 17.Bd2 Rfe8 18.Nbc1 Ne7 19.Rb1
Ng6 20.Be3 Qb5 21.Bxa7 h5 22.a4 Qd7 23.Be3 b5 24.axb5 Qxb5 25.Ra1
Rc4 26.Bd2 h4 27.Ra5 Qb6 28.Ra4 hxg3 29.hxg3 Nc5 30.Nxc5 Qxc5
31.Nd3 Qb5 32.Ra5 Qb6 33.b4 Bg4 34.Ra8 Rxa8 35.Bxa8 Bd4 36.Bg2
Qd6 37.Qb3 Be6 38.Qa3
Show/Hide Solution
38...Qxg3! 39.e3 Qg5?
39...Qd6! 40.exd4 Rxd4 41.Be3 Rxd3∞
40.f4 Qg3 41.Rf3 Qg4 42.Nf2 Qf5 43.exd4 Nh4 44.Rg3 Qc2 45.Be3 Qe2
46.Qa5 Nxg2 47.Kxg2 Rc3 48.Qe5 g6 49.f5 Bxf5 50.Qe8+
1–0
Kummer Helmut
Knoll Hermann
E16 Hartberg 2003
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 b6 5.g3 Bb7 6.Bg2 c5 7.dxc5 Bxc5
8.0-0 0-0 9.a3 Be7 10.b4 d6 11.Bb2 Nbd7 12.Qb3 Qc7 13.Rac1 Rac8
14.Qd3 Rfd8 15.e4 Qb8 16.Rfe1 Bf8 17.Qe2 Qa8 18.Nd4 Re8 19.f3 a6
20.Red1 Qb8 21.N4b3 Bc6 22.Nd4 Ba8 23.Nc2 Bb7 24.Ne1 Qa8 25.Nd3
e5 26.Nf1 b5 27.Ne3 Bc6 28.Bh3 Qa7
Show/Hide Solution
29.c5! dxc5
29...Rc7 30.cxd6 Bxd6 31.Qf2±

30.Nxe5 Nxe5 31.Bxc8 Nxf3+ 32.Qxf3 Bxe4 33.Qf4 Nh5 34.Qg5 Rxc8
35.Qxh5 cxb4 36.Bd4 Qa8 37.Rxc8 Qxc8 38.axb4 Bxb4 39.Qe5
1–0
Lputian Smbat
Agzamov Georgy
E11 Sochi 1985
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 b6 5.a3 Bxd2+ 6.Bxd2 Ne4 7.Bf4
Bb7 8.e3 d6 9.Bd3 Nd7 10.0-0 0-0 11.b4 a5 12.Qc2 Nef6 13.e4 h6 14.Bd2
axb4 15.axb4 c5 16.bxc5 bxc5 17.d5 Qc7 18.Qc3 Rxa1 19.Rxa1 Ra8
20.Re1 Re8 21.h3 Ra8 22.Qc1 Ne5 23.Nxe5 dxe5 24.Bc3 Nd7 25.Re3 Nf6
26.Qb2 Nd7 27.Rg3 f6 28.Qe2 Nf8 29.Qg4 Qf7 30.Bd2 Kh8 31.Be3
Ra1+ 32.Kh2 Ra5 33.Qd1 Qc7 34.Qd2 g5 35.h4 Ra8 36.hxg5 hxg5
37.Rh3+ Nh7 38.Be2 Rd8 39.Bh5 Kg7 40.Qe2 Nf8 41.Qg4 Qe7
Show/Hide Solution
42.d6! Rxd6 42...Qxd6 43.Bxg5+– 43.Bxc5 Qc7 44.Be8! Bxe4 45.Bxd6

Qxd6 46.Qxe4 Qb8 47.Ba4 Qa7 48.Bc2 Kg8 49.Qf3 Qg7 50.Qh5
1–0
PART 3.
THE BUDAPEST GAMBIT (A51–52)
The systems proposed against the ‘Budapest Gambit’ commence with the
moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5
3...Ne4 4.Nd2 and 3...Ng4 4.Nf3.
There have been some good books published in the chess book-market
which try to help club-strength Black players form a ‘fearsome’ weapon by
adopting the ‘Budapest Gambit’.
As a result, Black players seem to be better prepared in the opening phase
of the game and can present more ‘interesting’ and valuable ideas in the
middlegame, concerning this particular opening.
And that comes naturally, as it is White who chooses the first move of the
game but it is Black who choose the opening! So it is not a coincidence that
the above comment finds its place in our subject.
If you are a White 1.d4 player just ask yourself how often you have to face
the ‘Budapest Gambit’ over the board. The probability (coming from my
experience) is less than 0.5% but still there might exist important games
hidden within this low percentage.
So, it is essential to also be well-prepared against the ‘Budapest Gambit’,
but at the same time we cannot afford the luxury of spending too much time
and energy on this preparation.
In my opinion, the ‘Budapest Gambit’ is an acceptable opening which can
in no way be underestimated and I believe that it is better for White in
general not to try to keep the extra pawn by any means, but rather to try to
benefit from certain strategic elements, and from the time that Black will
spend recovering the pawn.
And, as the ‘Budapest Gambit’ is an OK opening, White can expect no
more than his usual ² opening result.
After 3.dxe5, Black can try the ‘Fajarowicz Variation’ with 3...Ne4, which
concentrates on the rapid development of pieces, but the most common
move is 3...Ng4, with three main possibilities for White, from which here
we will opt for the ‘Adler Variation’ by 4.Nf3. White will seek a spatial
advantage in the centre with his pieces, notably the important d5-square.
The ‘Budapest Gambit’ contains several specific strategic themes.
After 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3, the game can evolve either with Black attacking
White’s kingside with rook lift manoeuvres, or with White attacking
Black’s kingside with the push f4, in which case Black reacts in the centre
against the e3-pawn.
In numerous variations the white move c5 allows White to gain space and
to open prospects for his light-squared bishop. For Black, the check ...Bb4+
often allows rapid development.
HISTORICAL APPROACH
The ‘Budapest Gambit’ was named after the Hungarian capital Budapest, in
which the very first game was played with this opening, at least according
to Wikipedia (on which this chapter was mainly based):
Adler Mor
Maroczy Geza
A52 Budapest 03.02.1896
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Qd5 Qe7 7.Nc3 Ngxe5
8.Be2 d6 9.Ne4 Be6 10.Qd1 Bb4+ 11.Bd2 0-0-0 12.Bxb4 Nxb4 13.Qb3
Nxf3+ 14.Bxf3
14...d5! 15.Nd2 dxc4 16.Nxc4 Rd3 17.Qa4 Bxc4 18.Qxa7 Nc2+
0–1
Despite this early debut in 1896, the ‘Budapest Gambit’ received attention
from leading players only after a win by Milan Vidmar over Akiba
Rubinstein in 1918.
Rubinstein Akiba
Vidmar Milan
A52 Berlin 22.04.1918
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Bf4 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 Qe7 7.Qd5
Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Qa3 9.Rc1 f6 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.Qd2 d6 12.Nd4 0-0 13.e3
Nxd4 14.cxd4 Ne4 15.Qc2 Qa5+ 16.Ke2
16...Rxf4! 17.exf4 Bf5 18.Qb2 Re8 19.Kf3 Nd2+ 20.Kg3 Ne4+ 21.Kh4
Re6 22.Be2 Rh6+ 23.Bh5 Rxh5+ 24.Kxh5 Bg6+
0–1
It enjoyed a rise in popularity in the early 1920s, but nowadays is rarely-

played at the top level. It experiences a lower percentage of draws than
other main lines, but also a lower overall performance for Black.
But, we have to accept that there are various strategical and tactical themes
we should be familiar with.
BUDAPEST ROOK
The ‘Budapest Rook’ is a manoeuvre, introduced by Dolfi Drimer in 1968,
with which Black develops the a8-rook aggressively along the sixth rank
using the moves ...a5 and the rook lift ...Ra6-h6. For example, this can
happen in the ‘Adler Variation’:
Antoshin Vladimir
Drimer Dolfi
A52 Havana 04.09.1968
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 Ncxe5
8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Nc3 a5 10.b3 Re8 11.Bb2
11...Ra6 12.Ne4 Bf8 13.f4 Ng4 14.Qd3 Qe7 15.Bxg4 Qxe4 16.Qxe4 Rxe4
17.Bd4 g6 18.Bf3 Re8 19.c5 Bg7 20.Rac1 a4 21.b4 a3 22.Bd5 Bxd4
23.exd4 d6 24.Bc4 Ra8 25.cxd6 cxd6 26.Bd5 Re7 27.Rfe1 Rxe1+
28.Rxe1 Be6 29.Bxe6 fxe6 30.Rc1 b5 31.Kf2 Ra4
½-½
The rook is then used to support a piece attack against White’s castled king.
Black can easily get several pieces around the white king, notably a rook to
h6, a queen to h4 and a knight on g4.
The queen’s arrival on the h4-square is facilitated by the absence of a white
knight on the f3-square (which would otherwise cover the h4-square) and of
a black knight on the f6-square (which would block the way for the black
queen).
If White tries to defend with h3, this may allow the c8-bishop to be
sacrificed on h3 in order to open the h-file.
The c5-bishop may not seem particularly useful in this attack, but by eyeing
e3 it makes it difficult for White to play f4 to chase away the black knight;
furthermore, the attack on e3 is sometimes intensified with major pieces
doubling on the e-file, increasing the pressure.
Besides, the c5-bishop can sometimes be re-allocated to the b8–h2 diagonal
via a7 and b8, to apply still more pressure on h2. It can also stay on the a7-
g1 diagonal to put pressure on f2, if White pushes e4 at some stage.
The ‘Budapest Rook’ was an invigorating innovation of the 1980s, and
gave the gambit new life.
However, inconveniences arise from delaying ...d6 in order to allow the lift:
the light-squared bishop has to wait a long time to develop, and any attack
on the c5-bishop is potentially annoying for Black (since it means closing
the sixth rank with ...d6, or ...b6, abandoning the active a7-g1 diagonal, or
blocking the rook when deployed to a7).
This, in addition to the risk of awkwardness on the king side (a knight on f5
will fork an h6-rook and h4-queen) and the single-mindedness of Black’s
plan (with nothing to fall back on if the direct attack is repelled), has made
some revisit the old lines, where it is instead the king’s rook that is
developed to h6. The queen’s rook can then be retained on the queenside,
and will be well-placed if the a-file opens as a result of Black’s c5-bishop
being exchanged and recaptured with a pawn.
PRESSURE AGAINST THE E3-PAWN/E4-SQUARE
In the ‘Adler Variation’ with 3...Ng4 4.Nf3, after White has moved f4, the
e3-pawn becomes a backward pawn on an open file. Black can then apply
pressure on the e-file in general, against the e3-pawn and the e4-square in
particular.
Typical moves in this plan would include the manoeuvre ...Ne5-d7-f6,

followed by putting the heavy pieces on the e-file with ...Re8 and ...Qe7.
The c5-bishop is already well placed to pressure the e3-pawn. Depending
on circumstances, the c8-bishop may be involved either on b7 or on f5, in
both cases to assert control over the central e4-square.
This plan is viable only if certain conditions are met. The d7-square must be
available for the e5-knight, so that it can later transfer to f6. White should
also not be able to easily advance the e3-pawn to e4, where it would be
adequately defended by the c3-knight and a possible Bf3.
Finally, White should not have the time to launch a quick attack on Black’s
castled position with the pawn thrust f4-f5-f6.
BREAKTHROUGH WITH THE C5 PUSH
In the main lines, the pawn push c5 often brings positional gains to White.
In order to build upon these potential advantages, the most common plan is
to perform a minority attack on the queenside, with the goal of performing
the pawn advance c5 under favourable conditions.
This push can yield several advantages to White: it enhances the prospects
of the light-squared bishop, it creates a half-open file to attack along with
the rooks, and it creates an isolated, backward pawn on d6 after the
exchange c5xd6.
In the ‘Adler Variation’ 3...Ng4 4.Nf3, we can see this mechanism in action:
Schmid Christoph
Leuthold Cyrill
A52 Ascona 2015
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Nc3 Ngxe5 7.Be2 0-0
8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.0-0 a5 10.b3 Ra6 11.Qd5 Qe7 12.Ne4 Ba7 13.Bb2 Re8
White has good reasons to push his c-pawn. The move closes the diagonal
of the a7-bishop. It also makes it harder for Black to develop the c8-bishop
as pawn pushes like ...b6, or ...d6 may be answered, respectively, by cxb6
or cxd6, creating a weak pawn for Black. Also, the prospects of the e2-
bishop would be enhanced.
14.c5! Rg6 15.Rac1
And White won on the 40th move.
1–0
STARTING OUT
The systems proposed against the ‘Budapest Gambit’ commence firstly

with the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5
And now:
Chapter 1: The ‘Fajarowicz Variation’ 3...Ne4 4.Nd2
This is the so-called ‘Fajarowicz Variation’ (A51), an interesting and

complicated continuation which can lead to extreme tactical positions. My
proposal of 4.Nd2 seriously slows down the fever.
Chapter 2: The ‘Adler Variation’ 3...Ng4 4.Nf3
This is the Main Line (A52) and a long-time played Gambit. As I have
mentioned already, it is better for White not to preserve his extra pawn and
instead look for positional benefits.
My conclusion is that White enjoys a slight but nice advantage, but more
important is the fact that Black remains without any aggressive
continuations, instead falling back into passive defence. And this is
something that no ‘Budapest Gambit’ player likes to fall into after choosing
this opening.
CHAPTER 1.
THE FAJAROWICZ VARIATION
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4

4.Nd2
One of the most natural and decent replies.
Now Black can choose between 4...Nc5 and 4...Bb4.
Black has, of course, some other options at his disposal:

a) 4...Ng5?! 5.Ngf3 (5.a3 a5 6.b3 b6 7.e4 Bb7 8.Bd3 Nc6 9.Bb2 Ne6
10.Ngf3 Bc5 11.0-0 g5° Franco Mansilla,M-Rincon Zapatero,A Valladolid
1997) 5...Nc6 6.a3 d6 7.Nxg5 Qxg5 8.exd6 Bxd6 9.Ne4 Qg6 10.Nxd6+
cxd6 11.Bf4± Lazanek,J-Vavra,J Czech Republic 2007.
b) 4...Nxd2?! 5.Bxd2 Nc6 6.Nf3
b1) 6...d5 7.e3 Bg4 8.Bc3 Bxf3 9.Qxf3 Bb4 10.cxd5 Nxe5 11.Qe4 Bxc3+
12.bxc3 Qe7
13.Bb5+ Nd7 14.Bxd7+ Kxd7 15.Qg4+ Kd6 16.Qb4+ Kd7 17.Qb5+ Kc8
18.Rb1 Rb8 19.0-0+– De Andres Gonalons,F-Resa,T Wiesbaden 1999.
b2) 6...Qe7 7.Bc3 g6 8.e6 (8.Qd5 Bg7 9.0-0-0 0-0 10.h4²) 8...f6 9.exd7+
Bxd7 10.Qb3 0-0-0 11.e3 (11.0-0-0 Bh6+ 12.e3 Bf5° De Wolf,C-Van den
Berg,B Vlissingen 2005) 11...Ne5 12.Be2 Bc6 13.Rd1±
b3) 6...d6 7.Bc3 Bg4 (7...dxe5 8.Qxd8+ Nxd8 9.Nxe5± Kukel,I-Borosova,Z
Salgotarjan 1998; 7...Be6 8.exd6 Bxd6 9.e3 0-0 10.Be2 Qe7 11.a3 Rfd8
12.Qc2 a5 13.0-0± Hinrichs,P-Rupp,A Willingen 2017) 8.exd6 Bxf3 9.d7+!
(9.gxf3 Bxd6 10.Rg1 Qh4 11.Rxg7 0-0-0° Skourtis,E-Anagnou,K Athens
1989) 9...Qxd7 10.Qxd7+ Kxd7 11.0-0-0+ Ke8 12.gxf3±
1.1 — 4...NC5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4 4.Nd2 Nc5

Black thinks of preserving pieces on the board; a logical approach when
you have sacced material!
5.a3
In my opinion, this is one of the best tries for White and it is essential it be
played at this precise moment. After 5.Ngf3?! Nc6 6.a3, Black should
continue with 6...Qe7! 7.Qc2 Nxe5 8.Nxe5 Qxe5 9.Nf3= Adler,J-
Reinderman,D Antwerp 1992.
5...a5
The text looks like the best option for Black: 5...Nc6?! 6.b4 Ne6 7.Bb2 a5
(7...d6 8.exd6 Bxd6 9.Ne4±) 8.b5 Ncd4 9.e3± Nf5 10.Bd3 Nh6 11.Ngf3 d6
12.exd6 Bxd6 13.Qc2 Ng4 14.Nd4 Be7 15.Rd1 f5 16.N2f3 1–0 Bach,M-
Johansen,J Esbjerg 2005, or 5...Qe7?! 6.Ndf3 a5 (6...Nc6 7.b4±) 7.Bg5 f6
8.exf6 gxf6 9.Bf4 d6 10.Nd4±
6.Nb3!
6...Ne6
6...Nc6 is the other main option: 7.Nf3 a4 (7...Nxb3?! 8.Qxb3 Bc5 [8...Be7
9.Bf4±] 9.Bf4! [9.Qb5?! b6 10.Bg5 f6 11.exf6 gxf6° Cerny,M-Pletanek,J
Czech Republic 2001] 9...0-0 10.e3±; 7...h6 8.Be3 Nxb3 9.Qxb3 Be7 10.g3
0-0 11.Bg2± Hedin,N-Jacobsen,P Helsingor 2015) 8.Bg5! f6 (8...Be7
9.Nxc5 Bxg5 10.Nxa4±) 9.exf6 gxf6 10.Nxc5 Bxc5 11.Bh4± Cerny,M-
Inneman,M Prague 1995.
7.Nf3 Nc6 8.e3
Also good seems to be the main alternative 8.Bd2!?: 8...g6!? (8...g5 9.Bc3
Bg7 10.e3 h5 11.Qc2± Jaksland,T-Hvenekilde,J Denmark 1988; 8...a4
9.Nc1 d6 10.Bc3 Bd7 [10...dxe5 11.Qxd8+ Kxd8 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Bxe5 f6
14.Bc3 Nc5 15.Nd3±] 11.Nd3 Na5 12.Nd2 Nc6 13.e3 dxe5 14.Nxe5 Nxe5
15.Bxe5 Bc6 16.Nf3± Huebner,R-Pedersen,E Athens 1969) 9.Bc3 Bg7
10.Qd5 a4 (10...0-0 11.Nxa5±) 11.Nbd2 f6 12.exf6 Bxf6 13.Ne4 Bxc3+
14.Nxc3 0-0 15.e3² I think that White should seriously consider this line.
8...g6
8...b6?! 9.Bd3 Bb7 10.0-0 d6 11.Be4 dxe5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Bxb7±

Peek,M-Van den Berg,B Tilburg 2003, is not that advisable, but playable is
8...d6!? 9.exd6 Bxd6
a) 10.Be2? Qf6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Nbd4 Rd8 13.Qc2 Ncxd4 14.exd4 Nxd4
15.Nxd4 Qxd4 16.Be3 Qe5³ Dittmar,P-Klueting,R Weilburg 1996.
b) 10.Nbd4 0-0 (10...Nexd4?! 11.exd4 Bg4 12.Be3 Qf6 13.Be2±
Romanov,O-Karatsioras,N Schwaebisch Gmuend 2002) 11.Bd3 Nc5
12.Bc2 Qe7 13.0-0²
c) 10.Bd2 0-0 11.Be2 a4 12.Nbd4² Orr,M-Santacruz,F Novi Sad 1990.
9.Bd2
9.Nbd4 is quite interesting: 9...Bg7 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Bd2 Ng5 12.Nxg5

(12.Bc3!?) 12...Qxg5 13.f4² Fernandez Urrutia Gallo,C-Marquez,J Spain
1997.
9...Bg7 10.Bc3 0-0

10...a4?! looks good at first sight, but it fails to 11.Nbd4! (11.Nc1? Nc5
12.Qd5 d6 13.exd6 Bxc3+ 14.bxc3 Be6!° Dias,P-Stinis,S Calicut 1998)
11...Nxe5 12.Nxe6 Nxf3+ 13.Ke2!±
11.Bd3
A proposed novelty. Another option is 11.a4?! Qe7 12.Be2 Rd8 13.0-0 b6

14.Qb1 (14.Nbd4 Nxe5 15.Nxe5 [15.Nf5 Nxf3+ 16.Bxf3 gxf5 17.Bxa8
{17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Bxa8 c6³} 17...Bxc3 18.bxc3 c6³] 15...Bxe5 16.Nf5
Qc5=) 14...Bb7 15.Rd1 Nc5 16.Nxc5 bxc5 17.Rd5 Nb4 18.Rd2 Rab8=
Note that not so good is 11.Qd5?! Qe7 12.Nbd4 Nexd4 13.exd4 d6 14.Be2
dxe5 15.dxe5 Rd8 16.Qe4 Bf5 17.Qe3 Re8 18.0-0 Nxe5
19.Nxe5 (19.Nd4 Bd7 20.Nb5=) 19...Bxe5 20.Bxe5 Qxe5 21.Qxe5 Rxe5
22.Bf3 c6= Kaabi,M-Hamdouchi,H Manila 1992.
11...a4 12.Nbd2 Nc5 13.Ne4 Nxe4 14.Bxe4 Re8 15.Bxc6
Not much is offered by 15.0-0 Nxe5 16.Bxe5 Bxe5 17.Nxe5 Rxe5 18.Qd4
d6 19.Rfd1 Qe7 20.Bd5 Ra5=
15...dxc6 16.Qxd8 Rxd8 17.Nd2²

Although Black has the bishop pair, White has the extra pawn and very
good chances to exploit it in the long run.
1.2 — 4...BB4
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4 4.Nd2 Bb4

A direct way, in the Fajarowicz spirit!
5.a3 Bxd2+
Black is ‘obliged’ to go for the text, as after 5...Qh4 6.g3 Bxd2+ (6...Bc5?
7.Nh3 [7.e3 Nxf2 8.Kxf2 Qh6 9.Ndf3+– Quagliana,G-Canelli,D Asti 1997]
7...Nxf2 8.Nxf2 Bxf2+ 9.Kxf2 Qd4+ 10.e3+–) 7.Bxd2 Qh5 8.Nf3 Nc6
9.Be3 (9.Bg2 Nxd2 10.Qxd2 Nxe5 11.Nxe5 Qxe5 12.0-0² Schmidt,N-
Krueger,A Schleswig Holstein 1991) 9...Nxe5 10.Bg2± White should feel
happy with his bishop pair and central control.
6.Bxd2 Nc6
Maybe Black should take immediately on d2 as the text gives White the
extra option of 7.Bf4.
7.Nf3 Nxd2
The main alternative is 7...Qe7?!

a) 8.e3 Nxe5 9.Nxe5 (9.Be2 d6 10.0-0 Bg4 11.Nxe5 Bxe2 12.Qxe2 Qxe5=
Permanyer Ugartemendia,I-Sanchez Coves,J Barcelona 2017) 9...Qxe5
10.Qc2 0-0 11.Bd3 Nxd2 12.Qxd2 d6= Volart Buil,J-Franch Capdevila,R
Barcelona 2018.
b) 8.Qc2 Nxd2 9.Qxd2 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Qxe5 11.e3 d6 12.Be2 Be6 13.0-0 0-
0= Bes Alvarez,A-Segui Pascual,J Barcelona 2016.
c) 8.Be3 a5 9.Qc2 Nc5 10.Rd1 Ne6 11.g3 b6 12.Bg2 Rb8 13.0-0 0-0
14.Rd5± Wiersma,E-Mihasi,L Plovdiv 2010.
d) 8.Bf4! g5 (8...a5 9.e3 b6 10.Be2 Bb7 11.0-0± Palliser,R-Hummel,D Dos
Hermanas 2004; 8...d6 9.Qd5 f5 10.exd6 cxd6 11.Nd4± Nehete,A-Rane,P
Kalyan 2019; 8...b6 9.e3 Bb7 10.Bd3 Nc5 11.0-0 a5 12.Be2 a4 13.Qc2±
Dzagnidze,N-Cramling,P Beijing 2014) 9.Be3! (9.Qd5 gxf4 10.Qxe4 d6
11.Qxf4 dxe5 12.Qg5 e4° Vasquez,J-Yabra,F Siegen 1970 [12...Qxg5
13.Nxg5 Nd4° Tieres,C-Medeiros,J Lisbon 2019]; 9.Bc1 g4 10.Qd5 gxf3
11.Qxe4² Bates,R-Kett,T England 2016)
9...g4 (9...Nxe5 10.Nxe5 Qxe5 11.Bd4 Qf4 12.f3 Nf6 13.Qd3±) 10.Qd5!
gxf3 (10...f5 11.Nd4 Qxe5 12.Nxc6 Qxd5 13.cxd5 dxc6 14.dxc6 bxc6
15.Rc1±) 11.Qxe4± Duemer,K-Kaspereit,H Germany 1991.
8.Qxd2 Qe7
9.Qc3
White must protect his extra pawn for as long as he can.
9...0-0
Black has tried to become more ‘active’ by castling queenside but without
much success: 9...b6 10.e3 (10.b4 Bb7 11.e3 0-0-0 12.Rc1 g5 13.b5 Na5
14.c5± Aleksandrov,A-Vidal del Rio,D Ourense 2009) 10...Bb7 11.Be2
(11.Rd1 0-0-0 12.Rd5± Ivanisevic,I-Tleptsok,R Dubai 2015) 11...0-0-0
(11...0-0 12.0-0 Rfe8 13.Rfd1 Rad8 14.Rd5! Na5 15.b4!± Szabo,L-
Macelle,F Hungary 1946)
a) 12.Rd1 g5 13.Rd5 g4 (13...Rhg8? 14.0-0 Nb8 15.Rc1 g4 16.Nd4 c6

17.Nf5 Qe6 18.Nd6+ Kc7 19.Ra5! a6 20.c5 b5 21.Ra4! 1–0 Polak,T-
Schaffarth,P Bad Wildbad 2000) 14.Nd4 Nxd4 15.exd4 Qe6!∞
b) 12.c5!? Qxc5 (12...Kb8 13.Rc1 transposes) 13.Qxc5 bxc5 14.Rc1 d6
15.exd6 cxd6 16.b4 cxb4 17.Bb5 Kd7 18.Nd4 Rc8 19.axb4±
c) 12.Rc1 g5 (12...Kb8 13.c5, transposes: 13...Rc8 14.0-0± San Segundo
Carrillo,P-Ramo Frontinan,C Zaragoza 1992) 13.c5 g4 (13...Kb8 14.0-0 h5
[14...g4 15.Nd4 Nxe5 16.cxb6 cxb6 17.Nf5± Ivanov,I-Diebert,C USA
1988] 15.Nd4 g4 16.f4 gxf3 17.Bxf3± Spraggett,K-Colino Vila,S Dos
Hermanas 2000) 14.Nd4 Qxe5 15.cxb6 axb6 16.0-0 Nxd4 17.exd4 Qd6
18.Bxg4 Rhg8 19.Bf3 Bxf3 20.Qxf3± Tukmakov,V-Svendsen,T Bern 1993.
10.Rd1
White must try to keep his extra pawn as far as is reasonable and possible,
but also playable is 10.0-0-0 Re8 11.Rd5 b6 12.e3 Bb7 13.Bd3 Rad8
14.Kb1² Piket,J-Kamberovic,S Yugoslavia 1998, or 10.g3 Re8 11.Bg2 Nxe5
12.0-0 d6 13.Nd4² Michalik,P-Mehdi,S Dubai 2013.
10...Re8 11.Rd5!
The thematic idea, which is met in multiple lines!
11...b6 12.e3
12.g3?! Bb7 13.Bg2 d6! (13...Rad8? 14.0-0± Purdon,C-George,I Exmouth

2000) 14.0-0 Nxe5 15.Nxe5 dxe5=
12...Bb7 13.Be2
13...Rad8

a) 13...Na5 14.Rd2 (14.b4 Bxd5 15.cxd5 Nb7 16.Qxc7 d6! 17.exd6 Nxd6
18.Qxe7 Rxe7 19.Nd4 Kf8 [19...Rc7?! 20.Nc6 Kf8 21.f3 f5 22.Kd2 Kf7
23.Rc1 Kf6 24.Bd3² Haba,P-Heinzel,O Internet 2005] 20.0-0 a5 21.b5 Rc8
22.Nc6 Re4!∞ Lieb,H-Hoffmann,E Bad Wildbad 1997) 14...Rad8 15.0-0
Bxf3 16.Bxf3 Qxe5 17.Rc1², Ovchinikova,J-Keprt,P Frydek-Mistek 1997,
transposes to a comment below.
b) 13...Nd8 14.Rd2 (14.Rd1
14...Ne6 [14...Nc6 15.0-0 Rad8 16.Rd5, transposes] 15.0-0 a5 16.Nd4! Nc5
17.f4± Bekker Jensen,S-Olsson,L Copenhagen 2005) 14...Nc6 (14...Ne6
15.0-0 [15.b4?! Rad8 16.0-0 Ng5! 17.Nxg5 Qxg5 18.f3 Rxe5 19.e4 Qe7=
Hustert,K-Schuler,M Bayern 1998; 15.h4 a5 16.b4 axb4 17.axb4 Ra4∞
Tanriverdi,E-Pecnik,L Zadar 2017] 15...a5 16.Rfd1 Rad8 17.b4± Jose
Abril,R-Osuna Vega,E Cordoba 1995) 15.0-0 Rad8 16.Rfd1± Zistl,M-
Roos,K Kaufbeuren 1998.
c) 13...a5 14.0-0
14...Nb8 (14...Rad8 15.Rfd1 Nb8 16.R5d4± Civin,T-Vozka,P Czech
Republic 1995) 15.Rd4 a4 16.Rfd1 Ra5 17.Qc2! (17.e4 Bc6 18.Bd3 Na6
19.Bc2 Nc5² Hoeksema,H-Vanheste,J Netherlands 1987) 17...Bc6 18.R4d2
Na6 19.Nd4 Qxe5 20.Nxc6 dxc6 21.Bf3± Pecorelli Garcia,H-Corbin,P
Bridgetown 2005.
d) 13...Rac8 14.0-0 Nb8 15.Rd2 (15.Rc1?! Bxd5 [15...c5?! 16.Rd2±
Lundin,J-Krgovic,V Obrenovac 2004] 16.cxd5 d6 17.exd6 Qxd6 18.Bb5
Re7∞; 15.Rd4!?) 15...Bxf3 16.Bxf3 Qxe5 17.Rc1²
14.0-0 Nb8
The main alternative is 14...Na5, but now White can successfully sacrifice
the exchange with 15.b4! (15.Rd2 Bxf3 16.Bxf3 Qxe5 17.Rc1²
Ovchinikova,J-Keprt,P Frydek-Mistek 1997) 15...Nc6 (15...Bxd5 16.cxd5
Nb7 17.Ba6 Rb8 18.Rc1 c5 19.dxc6 dxc6 20.Qxc6± Stysiak,S-Carlstedt,J
Koszalin 2006) 16.Rfd1 Nb8 17.R5d4 (17.R5d2 Bxf3 18.gxf3 Qg5+
19.Kh1 Qxe5 20.Qxe5 Rxe5 21.f4± Velvart,P-Pandavos,P Balatonbereny
1992) 17...Bxf3 18.Bxf3 Qxe5 19.Qd3± Portenschlager,P-Mindt,O
Dortmund 1987.
15.Rd2
The ‘typical’ exchange sacrifice arises after the interesting 15.Rc1!? Bxd5
(15...c5?! 16.Rd2 Bxf3 17.Bxf3 Qxe5 18.Qb3 (18.b4 Qxc3 19.Rxc3 Re5
20.Rcd3 Kf8 21.b5 g6 22.a4 Re6 23.a5± Schoen,W-Schaffarth,P Cologne
1989; 18.Qxe5 Rxe5 19.Rcd1 Kf8 20.Kf1 Ke7 21.Ke2± Reis,R-Benayon,E
Manaus 2014) 18...Re6 19.Rcd1± Vogt,A-Schaffarth,P Germany 1990)
16.cxd5
a) 16...c5?! 17.Bb5 (17.d6 Qe6 18.Bc4 Qf5 19.e4 Qh5 20.Bd5± Khodos,G-
Krutikhin,Y Novosibirsk 1962) 17...a6 18.d6 Qe6 19.Bc4 Qf5 20.Bd5
(20.e4 Qh5 21.Bd5 Nc6 22.Bxc6 dxc6 23.b4!±) 20...Nc6 21.e4 Qh5
22.Bxc6 dxc6 23.b4!±
b) 16...c6?! 17.d6 Qe6 18.b4± Fochtler,E-Kaspar,W Schwaebisch Gmuend
1996.
c) 16...d6!
17.Bb5 Rf8 (17...c6?! 18.dxc6 Qc7 19.exd6 Rxd6 20.Nd4± Neamtu,S-
Stanciu,T Bucharest 1963) 18.e4 a6 19.Bd3 Rfe8 (19...dxe5 20.Nxe5 Rd6
[20...f6!? 21.Ng4 intending Ne3-f5] 21.Nc4 Rh6 22.Ne3 Qh4 23.Qxc7+–
Smyslov,V-Steiner,H Groningen 1946) 20.exd6 (20.e6 fxe6 21.dxe6 b5!∞
[21...c5?! 22.Bc4±]) 20...cxd6 21.Nd4 g6 22.g3 Qb7 23.Qb4 a5 24.Qb5 Rc8
25.Nc6² Lau,R-Schuppert,J Germany 1981.
15...Bxf3
Precise. 15...a5?! 16.Rfd1 h6 17.b4 axb4 18.axb4 Bxf3 19.Bxf3±

Averkin,O-Pavlenko,Y Soviet Union 1972.
16.Bxf3 Qxe5 17.Qxe5
Both of White’s alternatives are pleasant:

a) 17.Rc1 Qxc3 18.Rxc3 d6 19.b4 Kf8 (19...Nd7 20.Bc6² Hirneise,T-
Carlstedt,J Saarbruecken 2006) 20.h4 Nd7 21.Bc6 Re7 22.c5 bxc5 23.bxc5²
Garcia Palermo,C-Schaffarth,P Luxembourg 1988.
b) 17.Qc2 d6 (17...c6 18.Rfd1 Qc7 19.Rd4± Gerlach,M-Mittelstaedt,M Bad
Neustadt 1986) 18.Rd5 Qe7 19.Rh5 g6 20.Rd5 a5 21.Rd4 Nd7 22.Bc6²
Qe5? 23.Re4 1–0 Schanz,K-Gillitzer,G Germany 2005.
17...Rxe5
18.Rfd1
Not so different is 18.b4 d6 19.g3 (19.Rc1 Nd7 [19...Ree8 20.g3 Kf8

21.Rcd1 Ke7 22.Bb7 Nd7 23.Bc6 Rh8 24.f4 f5 25.e4 fxe4 26.Bxe4 Nf6
27.Bc6² Andersen,K-Hufelschulte,N Nordrheinwestfalen 2013] 20.Kf1 Kf8
21.Rd5 Nf6 22.Rxe5² Rofrano, J-Luce, E Colonie 2015) 19...Nd7 20.Bd5
Nf6 21.Bc6 Kf8 22.Rfd1 Re7 23.h3 Nd7 24.Bd5 Nf6 25.Kg2 Nxd5 26.cxd5
Rc8 27.Rc1 Ke8 28.Rd4² Biriukov,I-Zobnin,V Tula 2011.
18...d6
18...Kf8 19.Rd5! (19.g3 g6 20.Bg4 f5 21.Bf3 Kf7 22.h4 h5 23.Kg2 d6

24.Rd4 Nd7 25.e4 fxe4 26.Bxe4 Nf6 27.Bf3 Rde8 28.Bc6 R8e7 29.Bf3 ½-
½ Rust,K-Phillips,N Durban 1996) 19...Rde8 20.Kf1²
19.b4
Some other tries are:

a) 19.g3 Nd7 20.b4 Nf6 21.Bc6 Kf8 22.Rd4² Goertz,H-Jobski,W Germany
2001.
b) 19.Rd5 Rde8 20.Kf1 (20.Rxe5 Rxe5 21.Rd5 Nd7 22.Kf1 Kf8=
Jedrzejowski,M-Matyszkiewicz,M Poland 1995) 20...Nd7 21.R5d4²
19...a5
19...Nd7 20.Bc6 Re7² is modest but forced.
20.Rd5
20.c5! is strong: 20...bxc5 (20...axb4 21.cxb6±) 21.bxa5 c4 22.Rd5±
20...Rxd5
20...Nd7 21.Rb5!²
21.cxd5 Na6
21...axb4?! 22.axb4 Na6 23.Rb1 b5 24.Kf1 Kf8 25.Ke2 Ke7 26.Kd3 Rb8
27.Kc3± Beckett,C-Duggan,M Witley 1998, or 21...Nd7!? 22.Rc1 axb4
23.axb4 Ra8 24.g4 Ra7 25.Kg2²
22.Be2! Ra8
23.Bxa6!
23.bxa5 Nc5 24.axb6 cxb6 25.Rb1 Rxa3 26.Rxb6 Kf8 27.g4 Ra2 28.Kf1
Ke7°; 23.Ra1!? Nb8 24.Rc1 Ra7 25.bxa5 bxa5 26.Rb1 Nd7 27.f4²
23...Rxa6 24.b5 Ra7 25.a4 Kf8 26.Rc1 Ke8 27.f4²

Grivas,E-Pandavos,P Internet 2007. White’s advantage is small but
permanent. His e-pawn is in a different class from his opponent’s c-pawn.
CHAPTER 2.
THE ADLER VARIATION
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4
4.Nf3
A positional line, known as the ‘Adler Variation’.
Black now can choose between 4...Nc6 and 4...Bc5.
2.1 — 4...NC6
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Nc6
Many players do not consider the text to be the most accurate move order.
5.Bg5! Be7
The gambit 5...f6?! doesn’t seem to give Black anything: 6.exf6 Nxf6
(6...gxf6? 7.Bf4 Bc5 8.e3 Qe7 9.Be2 d6 10.a3 Nce5 11.Nc3 c6 12.h3 Nxf3+
13.Bxf3 Ne5 14.Bh5++– Boitor,I-Hunyadi,D Deva 1999) 7.e3 Be7 8.Be2 0-
0 9.Nc3± Masuhr,F-Schottenheim,R Germany 2001.
6.Bxe7 Qxe7
The exchange of the dark-squared bishops seems to be in White’s favour as

it restrains Black’s attacking possibilities.
7.Nc3 Ngxe5
8.Nxe5
Also good seems to be 8.Nd5 Qd8 (8...Nxf3+?! 9.gxf3 Qd8 [9...Qe5?

10.f4+– Bodnar,Z-Horvath,A Hungary 2007] 10.Rg1 Rg8 [10...g6 11.Qd2
f5 12.Qh6 Kf7 13.h4± Andrews,S-Thompson,D Jackson 1988; 10...0-0
11.Qd2 d6 12.Qh6 g6 13.0-0-0 Be6 14.Rg3∞ Aczel,G-Kahn,E Hungary
2015] 11.Qd3 g6 12.Qc3± Avrukh,B-Pettinger,J Duisburg 1992, or 8...Qd6?
9.c5+–) 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.Qd4, which transposes to a comment below. If
White wants to enter the Nd5 line it seems ‘better’ to do it at this moment.
8...Nxe5
After the text Black finds it hard to create any counterplay and in general he
has to stay passive, awaiting White’s plans and procedures. However, I
think that 8...Qxe5!? is possible:
a) 9.Qd2 0-0 10.e3 b6 (10...Ne7 11.Be2 c6 12.0-0 d5 [12...a6 13.f4±
Bhawoodien,M-Silvio,F Tiaret 2014] 13.cxd5 Nxd5 14.Nxd5 Qxd5
15.Qxd5 cxd5 16.Rac1±
Can,E-Metin,M Kemer 2014) 11.Be2 Bb7 12.0-0 Rad8 13.Bf3²
Kovacevic,B-Zaja,I Sibenik 2005.
b) 9.e3 0-0 (9...d6 10.Be2 Bf5 11.a3 0-0 12.Qd5 Be6 13.Qxe5 Nxe5 14.b3
c6 15.0-0² ½-½ Wilfert,E-Otto,K Sooden Allendorf 2015) 10.Be2 Ne7 11.0-
0 (11.Qc2?! d5 12.cxd5 Nxd5 13.Nxd5 Qxd5 14.Bf3 Qa5+ 15.Qc3 Qxc3+
16.bxc3 a5= Fruchard,A-Flamand,A Montigny le Bretonneux 2018) 11...c6
12.Qd2²
c) 9.Qd5 d6 10.Qxe5+
10...Nxe5 (10...dxe5 11.Nb5 Kd8 12.0-0-0+ Bd7 13.g3 Kc8 14.Bg2 a6
15.Nc3²) 11.Nb5 (11.e3 Bd7 12.Be2 0-0-0 13.0-0-0 Rhe8 14.h3 Kb8∞
Rodriguez Sanchez,J-Alonso Cristobo,L Collado Villalba 2017) 11...Kd8
12.e3 Bd7 13.Nd4 Re8 14.Be2 g5 15.0-0² Hartmann,W-Schneider,J
Wallertheim 1994.
9.e3
As mentioned above, White can also continue with 9.Nd5 Qd8 (9...Qd6
10.e3 b6 11.Be2 0-0 12.0-0 c6 13.Nc3 Qe6 14.b3 Bb7 15.Qd2² Peralta,F-
Quattordio,J Moreno 1995) 10.Qd4! f6 11.f4 Nc6 (11...Ng6 12.0-0-0 0-0
13.g3 d6 14.Bg2 Re8 15.Rhe1² Zoebisch,H-Petschar,K Austria 1993)
12.Qe4+ Kf7 13.e3 (13.0-0-0 Ne7 14.g3² Kay,L-Gornall,K Southport 1998;
13.g3 d6 14.Bg2 Ne7 15.Qd3 Bf5 16.e4± Aczel,G-Josic,S Bosnjaci 2013)
13...d6 14.Be2² Mamedjarova,Z-Aleskerov,F Baku 1999.
9...0-0
Other options are:

a) 9...c6 10.a3 0-0 11.Be2 d6 12.0-0 Be6 13.b3 f5 14.Qd4 b6 15.Rad1 Rad8
16.h3² Solomin,M-Battalov,B Penza 2006.
b) 9...d6 10.Be2 Be6 11.b3 0-0-0 12.Nd5 Qg5 13.g3 Bxd5 14.cxd5²
Newrick,W-Neumeijer,R Guernsey 2002.
10.Be2
Of course, as always, 10.Nd5, is possible: 10...Qd8 11.Be2 d6 (11...c6

12.Nf4 d6 13.0-0 Bf5 14.Qd4 Qe7 15.Rfd1² Wolff,G-Simon,E Berlin 1995)
12.0-0 c6 13.Nc3 Be6 (13...f5?! 14.Qd4 Qe7 15.Rad1 Rf6 16.f4 [16.Rd2
Rh6 17.Rfd1² Kim,I-Argo,G San Francisco 2016] 16...Nf7 17.e4±
Kelecevic,N-Brandics,J Cannes 1989) 14.b3 Qa5 (but not 14...Qc7? 15.f4
Qb6 16.Rc1! [16.Qd4± Lebensohn,L-Guelman,J Buenos Aires 1998]
16...Qxe3+ 17.Kh1±)
15.Qd4!? (15.Qd2 Rad8 16.f4 Bg4! 17.Bd1 [17.fxe5? Bxe2 18.Rfc1 Bh5
19.exd6 Qe5³] 17...Bxd1 18.Raxd1 Ng4 [18...Nd7 19.Ne4 Qxd2 20.Rxd2±]
19.h3 Nh6 [19...Nf6 20.e4± {20.Nd5 Qxd2 21.Nxf6+ gxf6 22.Rxd2 Rfe8
23.Kf2 Kf8 24.Rfd1 Ke7²}] 20.e4 f5 21.Rfe1² Polugaevsky,L-Nunn,J Biel
1986) 15...Rad8 (15...f5? 16.Qxd6±) 16.f4 f6! 17.Rfd1²
10...d6 11.0-0 c6
12.Qd2!
An accurate move, compared to 12.Qc2 Be6 13.b3 f5 14.f4 Nd7 15.Bf3 Nf6
16.Rae1 d5! (16...Qf7 17.Ne2 d5 18.cxd5 Nxd5 19.Nd4 Rae8 20.Qc5²
Nielsen,P-Christensen,H Esbjerg 2006) 17.cxd5 cxd5=, or 12.f4 Ng6 13.e4
f5∞ Dlabik,J-Pecner,D Slovakia 2002.
12...Be6 13.b3 f5
13...Rad8? 14.f4! Ng4 15.f5 Bxf5 16.Rxf5 Qxe3+ 17.Qxe3 Nxe3 18.Rf3
Rfe8 19.Bd3 d5 20.cxd5 cxd5 21.Re1 1–0 Lozachmeur,Y-David,P
Chateauroux 2005.
14.f4 Nf7
14...Ng6 15.g3 Rfe8 16.Bf3²
15.Bf3 Rad8 16.Qd4²

Grivas,E-Papas,K Athens 1999. White has achieved a slight but secure and
permanent advantage due to his spatial domination and the weak black d-
pawn.
2.2 — 4...BC5
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5

The most-played move; Black develops with tempo and only later will he
recapture the e5-pawn.
5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 Ncxe5
7...Re8 is of course possible, but it will simply transpose after 8.Nc3 Ngxe5
9.Nxe5 Nxe5.
8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Nc3

This is supposed to be the main position of this specific line against the
‘Budapest Gambit’. Black avoids an early ...d6, as he intends to transfer the
a8-rook to the attack (...a5 and ...Ra6-h6).
9...Re8
Other options are:

a) 9...a5 10.Bd2 Ra6 (10...f5?! 11.Qb3 Ra6 12.Na4± Qh4? 13.Nxc5 Rh6
14.h3 Rg6 15.Nd3 Qxh3 16.Nf4 Rxg2+ 17.Nxg2 Ng4 18.Bxg4 fxg4 19.Nf4
Qh4 20.c5+ Kh8 21.Kg2 b6 22.c6 1–0 Grivas,E-Bogdanos,A Athens 1985;
10...Qh4?! 11.f4 Nc6 12.Rf3 d6 13.Nd5± Erban,T-Pribyl,J Czech Republic
2000) 11.Ne4 (11.Na4 Bb4 [11...Ba7?! 12.f4 Ng6 13.c5 Rf6 14.Bc3±
Kourousis,E-Gamback,B Nikea 2006] 12.a3 [12.f4 Rd6! 13.Nc3 Bxc3
14.bxc3 Nc6∞] 12...Bxd2 13.Qxd2²) 11...Bb4 (11...Rh6? 12.Nxc5+–
[12.g3? Nguyen Huynh Minh,H-Aw,W Vung Tau 2004]; 11...Ba7 12.f4!
[12.c5 Rh6∞ Gebejes,A-Kezele,T Budva 2004] 12...Ng6 13.c5 Qe8 14.Qa4
d5 15.Qxe8 Rxe8 16.Bxa6±) 12.f4! (12.Bxb4 axb4 13.c5! [13.Qd2 Qe7
14.c5 Rh6∞ Rehberg,A-Nommensen,J Hamburg 1993] 13...Rh6 14.Qd5²)
12...Nc6 13.c5±
b) 9...d6 10.Na4
b1) 10...a6 11.Nxc5 dxc5 12.b3 Qf6 13.Bb2 Nf3+ 14.Bxf3 Qxb2 15.Qd5±
Boensch,U-Sadiku,B Berlin 1996.
b2) 10...b6 11.Bd2 (11.a3 a5 12.Bd2 Bd7 [12...d5 13.Nxc5 bxc5 14.cxd5
{14.Bc3? Nxc4 15.Bxc4 dxc4 16.Qf3 Ra6∞ Csillag,J-Paal,G Budapest
2010} 14...Qxd5 15.Bc3±] 13.f4 Nc6 14.Bf3 Ra7 [14...Re8 15.Re1 Ra7
16.b3² Arlandi,E-Faure,J Geneve 1988] 15.Kh1 Qe8 16.b3² Groszpeter,A-
Preissmann,E Bourgoin-Jallieu 1982) 11...a5 (11...d5 12.Nxc5 bxc5 13.cxd5
Qxd5 14.Bc3± Koch,M-Wolter,K Germany 1992) 12.Nxc5 (12.Bc3 Re8
13.Nxc5 bxc5 14.f4 Nd7 15.Bf3 Rb8 16.e4 Nb6 17.b3± Weiss Nowack,C-
Nugel,K Germany 1988) 12...bxc5 13.Bc3²
b3) 10...Bb6 11.b3 (11.Nxb6 axb6 12.Qd4 Re8 13.b3 Kh8 14.Bb2 f6 15.h3²
Sidorov,A-Sukhov,M Saratov 2006) 11...Bd7 (11...Qh4 12.Nxb6 axb6
13.Bb2² Karolyi,T-Rogers,I Tallinn 1985) 12.Nxb6 axb6 13.Bb2 Bc6
14.Qd4 f6 15.e4 Re8 16.f3² Grivas,E-Mastoras,I Thessaloniki 1988.
10.Bd2
This is an impressive ‘unknown’ half-move which I first saw in the game
Georgiev,K-Skembris,S Skopje 1984 as I was present at that Balkaniad.
Fortunately, Kiril Georgiev sent me the scoresheet! White wishes to restrict
the ...Ra6-h6 lift (through the attack on the a5-pawn and control of the c1-
h6 diagonal) push back the black pieces and then conquer the centre with
the e4 advance (and even later f4).
10...a5
Black tries to ‘forget’ about activity, but passivity is not welcomed anyway:
10...Ng6 11.a3 a5 12.Qc2 b6 13.Bf3² Flores Linan,J-Devos,H Badalona
2016, or 10...Bf8 11.Qc2 d6 12.Rad1² Georgiev,K-Skembris,S Skopje 1984.
11.Ne4
White has tried some interesting alternatives which are worthy of further
investigation:
a) 11.Nd5
a1) 11...Ra6
a11) 12.Qc2 Qh4!? (12...Rh6 13.Bxa5 Qh4 14.h3 d6∞) 13.Nxc7 Rh6 14.h3
d6 15.Nxe8! (15.e4? Bxh3–+ [15...g5? Nitsche Hahn,R- Spiegelberg,S
Willingen 2006]) 15...Rg6 16.Qxg6 Nxg6 17.Nc7 Qg5∞
a12) 12.f4 Ng6 13.Kh1!²
a13) 12.g3! Ng6 13.b3 c6 14.Nc3 d6 15.Na4 Bh3 16.Re1² Semkov,S-
Gutierrez Martinez,J Sitges 1993.
a2) 11...d6 12.b3 Bd7 13.a3 c6 14.Nc3 Qh4 15.Na4 Ba7∞
Grinev,V-Malienko,A Kiev 2009.
b) 11.a3 Ra6 12.Nd5 Rh6! (12...Rg6? 13.b4 axb4 14.axb4 Bf8 15.f4±
Camarena Gimenez,R-Prior i Romero,M Aragon 1996; 12...a4!? 13.Bb4²)
13.Bxa5 Qh4 14.h3 c6 (14...d6 15.Nf4 Ng6 16.Bg4±) 15.Nf4 d6°
c) 11.Na4 Bf8 (11...Ba7 12.Bxa5 Bxe3 13.Bxc7 Bxf2+ 14.Rxf2 Qxc7
15.Nc3²; 11...Bb4 12.f4 Nc6 13.Bf3 d6 14.a3 Bxd2 15.Qxd2²) 12.e4²
Grivas,E-Anagnostopoulos,D Athens 1995.
11...Bf8 12.Bc3
Black solved all his problems after the careless 12.Qc2?! Nxc4! 13.Bxc4
d5= in Garcia Cervigon,C-Fernandez Lago,D Madrid 2016.
12...Ra6 13.Qd5!
A proposed novelty in place of 13.Ng3 Rh6 14.Nf5 Rg6 15.f4² Ksieski, Z-

Myc, M Zakopane 2000.
13...Qe7
13...d6 14.c5 Ra8 15.cxd6 cxd6 16.Rfd1±
14.c5 Rh6 15.Rfd1²
White has full control of the centre and his pieces are more actively placed.
CHAPTER 3.
Gelfand Boris
Rapport Richard
A52 Wijk aan Zee 2014
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Nc3 0-0 7.Be2 Ngxe5
8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.0-0 a5 10.Kh1 d6 11.f4 Nc6 12.b3 Re8 13.Rf3 Bf5
White’s position is already slightly uncomfortable. His weakness on e3 ties

him down — he cannot play Bb2 as he would like to.
14.Rg3 Re6!?
Improving the rook allows Black multiple possibilities.
15.Bd3 Bxd3 16.Qxd3 Nb4 17.Qd2 Qe7 18.e4 Qh4!
With a nasty threat.

19.Rf3?!
19.Bb2? Qxg3 20.hxg3 Rh6# is out of the question, but playable is 19.f5!?
Qxg3 20.hxg3 Rh6+ 21.Qxh6 gxh6 22.Bxh6 Bd4 23.Bd2 b6!?°
19...Nc2
19...f5!µ was much stronger, also taking advantage of the weak back rank,
but now attacking e4.
20.Rb1 Qe1+ 21.Qxe1 Nxe1 22.Rg3 Rg6 23.Nd5 Rxg3 24.hxg3 c6 25.Be3
Nd3 26.Bxc5 cxd5 27.Bxd6 dxe4
Black’s powerful knight on d3 and his passed pawn on e4 guarantee him a

big advantage.
28.Kg1 f5 29.Kf1 Ra6 30.Bc7 Kf7 31.g4 Rc6 32.Bxa5
32...Ra6!
A nice manoeuvre, trying to activate the rook.
33.Bc3
Letting the rook into the game is suicide. He should opt for 33.b4 Ke6 34.c5
fxg4µ
33...Rxa2 34.gxf5 e3 35.g3 Rc2 36.Be1 Kf6
White is simply too passive...
37.g4 h5 38.Bh4+ Kf7 39.gxh5 Rh2
Missing a much easier win by 39...e2+ 40.Kg1 Rd2 and White loses the
rook.
40.Be1 Kf6 41.Kg1 Re2 42.Bc3+ Kxf5 43.Bxg7 Kxf4 44.Bh6+ Kg3!
45.Bxe3 Rxe3
If White can eliminate the b7-pawn he should hold the draw, but Black
finishes off with good technique.
46.Kf1 Kf4 47.Ra1 Rf3+ 48.Kg1 Rg3+ 49.Kf1 Rf3+ 50.Kg1 Kg4 51.h6
Nf4 52.h7 Rh3 53.Kf2 Kf5 54.b4 Nd3+ 55.Ke2 Ke4 56.Ra8 Rh2+
57.Kd1 Rxh7 58.Kd2 Nxb4
The last black pawn has been stabilised and White has nothing left but to
resign.
59.Kc3 Nc6 60.Re8+ Re7 0–1
Polugaevsky Lev
Nunn John
A52 Biel 1986
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Nc3 0-
0 8.Nd5 Qd8 9.e3 Ngxe5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Be2 d6 12.0-0 c6 13.Nc3 Be6
14.b3 Qa5 15.Qd2 Rad8 16.f4 Bg4 17.Bd1 Bxd1 18.Raxd1 Ng4 19.h3
Nh6 20.e4 f5 21.Rfe1
White holds a small but pleasant advantage, as the black d-pawn is

backward and weak.
21...Rfe8 22.Kh2!
A prophylactic move; one of those ‘nasty’ moves that you do not know how
to react to...
22...fxe4
The alternative 22...Nf7 was also unpromising: 23.exf5 Qxf5 24.g4 Qd7
25.Ne4²
23.Rxe4 Rxe4 24.Nxe4 Qh5?
Preserving the queens on the board cannot be beneficial to Black. He should

opt for the endgame and hope to survive:
24...Qxd2 25.Rxd2 Nf7 26.g4 Kf8 27.Kg3²
25.Ng5
It seems that 25.Nxd6, can be played: 25...Nf7 (25...Ng4+ 26.Kg3 Nh6

27.c5! Qxc5 28.Qe2±) 26.Qe1! Nxd6 27.Qe6+ Qf7 28.Rxd6 Qxe6 29.Rxe6
Rd2 30.Re8+ Kf7 31.Rb8 Rd7 32.g4± But it was a difficult decision,
especially when time trouble is approaching...
25...Nf7 26.Nf3 d5
26...Qf5 27.Re1 Qd7 28.Qe3± and 26...Re8 27.Re1± are not better tries.
27.Qe3! Qf5
27...dxc4?, loses to 28.Rxd8+ Nxd8 29.Qe7+–
28.cxd5 cxd5 29.g4!
The white kingside pawns are rolling!
29...Qc2+
29...Qf6 30.Rxd5± and 29...Qd7 30.Qxa7± were just bad as well.
30.Rd2 Qc7
The knight ending after 30...Qe4 31.Qxe4 dxe4 32.Rxd8+ Nxd8 33.Nd4
seems to be rather unpleasant, as the black e4-pawn will soon fall. But the
text is also bad, losing material on the spot.
31.Rxd5! Rf8 32.Kg3 Nd8 33.Qe5 Qc8 34.Qe7 Qc1 35.Rf5! Nf7 36.Qxb7
White has won a second pawn and the rest is rather easy.
36...g6 37.Rf6 Qb2 38.Qe7
38.Ra6 Qe2 39.Rxa7+–
38...Qxa2 39.Qe6 Qa1

40.h4
40.f5! gxf5 (40...g5 41.Nxg5+–) 41.Rxf5 Kg7 42.Qe7+–
40...Kg7 41.g5 a5 42.f5! gxf5 43.h5 Qc3 44.Rxf5 Qc7+ 45.Kh3 Qc3
46.h6+ Kg8 47.g6 hxg6 48.Qxg6+ Kh8 49.Rxf7 1–0
Georgiev Kiril
Skembris Spyridon
A52 Skopje 1984
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 Re8
8.Bd2 Bf8 9.Nc3 Ngxe5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Qc2 d6 12.Rad1 Bg4 13.f3 Bd7
White’s advantage is small, based on his spatial domination and clear plans
(f4/e4 and b4), while Black is lacking in such ‘luxuries’.
14.e4 a6 15.Be3 Nc6 16.Nd5 Ne7 17.Nc3
White is simply ‘testing’ Black... When you have a space advantage it is

generally advisable not to exchange pieces.
17...Qc8
18.Rfe1
Also good is 18.c5 dxc5 19.Bxc5² allowing White a strong kingside pawn
majority, but there is no real need to hurry! Black is cramped on the last two
ranks and most likely he will remain there.
18...Ng6 19.Nd5 Ne7 20.Nc3
Again, the testing point!
20...Ng6 21.f4! Bg4
Nothing better; Black has to exchange pieces when given the chance.
22.f5! Ne5 23.Nd5 Bxe2 24.Qxe2 b6 25.Bd4 Qb7 26.a4!
As the centre is ‘occupied’, it is now the turn of the queenside.
26...Rab8
After 26...a5, the queenside is off, so White can start attacking on the
kingside by 27.Qh5, followed by Re3, etc. This switch from one side to
another is typical for the side holding the spatial advantage.
27.b4 a5 28.b5
The d5-knight is now secure on his excellent central square and Black is
still struggling to find some counterplay.
28...c6?!
Desperation but who likes the black position after 28...Qc8 29.Qh5 Qd8
(29...Nxc4 30.Nf6+! gxf6 31.Qg4+ Bg7 32.Bxf6+–) 30.Rf1 Rc8 (30...Nxc4
31.Rc1 Ne5 32.Rxc7+–) 31.Rc1±
29.Nxb6 Qc7 30.Qe3! Ng4 31.Qg3 Ne5
32.c5?!
Still good enough to win, but White missed the cute 32.Bxe5! Rxe5
33.Nd7! Qxd7 34.Qxe5+–
32...cxb5 33.axb5 Qd8 34.Bxe5 Rxe5 35.Qxe5! Qxb6
Black can resign as well after 35...dxe5 36.Rxd8 Rxd8 37.Rc1+–
36.cxb6 dxe5 37.b7! Rxb7
Or 37...a4 38.Rd7 a3 39.Rc1 g6 40.f6 h5 41.Rc8 a2 42.Rd1 Rxb7 43.Rxf8+

Kxf8 44.Rd8#
38.Rd8!
The pin is lethal...
38...Rxb5 39.Rc1 g6 40.f6!
1–0
Vyzmanavin Alexey
Kotronias Vasilios
A52 Moscow 1987
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 Ngxe5 7.Nxe5
Nxe5 8.0-0 0-0 9.Nc3 Re8 10.b3 d6 11.Bb2
11...Re6!?
This is another typical rook lift; if the a8-rook cannot do it, then the other
will!
12.g3
Prophylaxis after all, but White missed a good chance here:

12.Ne4! b6 (12...Bb6? 13.c5!) 13.Nxc5 bxc5 14.f4²
12...a5 13.Kh1?!
White is playing ‘strangely’, so he ends-up in a double-edged position.
13...b6! 14.e4 Rg6
14...Rh6 15.f4 Nc6 16.Bf3 Bh3= looks more to the point.
15.f4 Ng4 16.f5 Ne3 17.Qd3

White could also think of 17.fxg6 Nxd1 18.gxf7+ Kf8 19.Raxd1 Bh3
20.Rf4 g5∞
17...Rh6 18.Rf4 Qg5?
This mistake could have cost Black the game.

Natural was 18...Bb7 19.Bf3 g5! 20.fxg6 hxg6∞
19.Rg1! Bb7 20.Bf3 Rh3 21.Na4 Qh6 22.Rh4! Rxh4 23.gxh4 Qf4
24.Rg3?!
Why not 24.Rxg7+ Kf8 25.Rg3+–
24...Re8 25.Nxc5 bxc5 26.Bxg7?
It is now White who is losing, after this supposedly ‘killing’ move! He

should have opted for 26.Bc1! Ng4! 27.Qf1 (27.Bxf4 Nf2+ 28.Kg1 Nxd3
29.Bd2 Ne5 30.Bg2²) 27...Ne3 28.Qe2 Rxe4 29.Kg1!±
26...Ng4! 27.Qf1?
A better way to fight was by 27.Qe2 Bxe4 28.Bh6 Bxf3+ 29.Rxf3 Rxe2µ
27...Bxe4?!
27...Rxe4! 28.Bf6 Kf8–+
28.Bc3 h5 29.Kg1 Qe3+ 30.Kh1 Qxc3 31.Bxe4 Qd4
31...Qd2!–+
32.Bf3 Kh8 33.h3
33.Bxg4 hxg4 34.h3 Qd2 35.Rg1 Re3–+
33...Qc3 34.Rg1
And White resigned, as he has no hopes left after 34...Re3 35.Bg2 Qf6–+
0–1
Grivas Efstratios
Bogdanos Antonios
A52 Athens 1985
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 0-0 7.Nc3 Ncxe5
8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.0-0 a5 10.Bd2
10...f5
Black refrains from 10...Ra6, as after 11.Ne4 Ba7 12.f4 Ng6 13.c5± White
dominates.
11.Qb3
Also good is 11.Na4 Be7 (11...Bb4 12.Bxb4 axb4 13.Qd5+ Nf7 14.Qb5±)
12.Bc3 d6 13.b3²
11...Ra6?!
Black is obsessed with the rook lift, but he should instead try 11...b6 12.Na4
d6 13.Nxc5 bxc5 14.f4²
12.Na4
12...Qh4?
Hara-kiri!
Black had to be satisfied with 12...d6 13.Bc3 Qe7 14.Rad1± but then what’s
the point of his 11th move?
13.Nxc5 Rh6 14.h3 Rg6 15.Nd3! Qxh3
15...Nxd3 16.Qxd3 Qxh3 loses to 17.Qd5+ Kh8 18.Qf3+–
16.Nf4 Rxg2+ 17.Nxg2 Ng4 18.Bxg4 fxg4 19.Nf4 Qh4 20.c5+ Kh8
21.Kg2 b6 22.c6!
Black resigned: 22...dxc6 23.Rh1 Qf6 24.Rxh7+! Kxh7 25.Rh1+²
1–0
CHAPTER 4.
ENDGAME TECHNIQUE
essential...
Grivas Efstratios
Pandavos Panayotis
A51 Internet 2007
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4 4.Nd2 Bb4 5.a3 Bxd2+ 6.Bxd2 Nc6 7.Nf3
Nxd2 8.Qxd2 Qe7 9.Qc3 0-0 10.Rd1 Re8 11.Rd5 b6 12.e3 Bb7 13.Be2
Rad8 14.0-0 Nb8 15.Rd2 Bxf3 16.Bxf3 Qxe5 17.Qxe5 Rxe5 18.Rfd1 d6
19.b4 a5 20.Rd5 Rxd5 21.cxd5 Na6 22.Be2 Ra8 23.Bxa6 Rxa6 24.b5
Ra7 25.a4 Kf8 26.Rc1 Ke8 27.f4
White advantage is small but permanent. His e-pawn is far superior to his
opponent’s c-pawn.
27...Kd7 28.e4 Ra8 29.Kf2 Re8 30.Kf3 f6 31.h4!
The expansion on the kingside should be made carefully, and obviously not
by 31.g4?! g5 32.h4 gxf4 33.Kxf4 Re5 34.g5 fxg5+ 35.hxg5 h6!=
31...h5!
31...h6?! 32.h5 Rg8 33.Kg4 Re8 (33...g6 34.hxg6 Rxg6+ 35.Kf3 h5 36.Rh1
Rh6 37.Kf2 Ke7 38.Rh4 Kf7 39.g4 Kg6 40.f5+ Kg5 41.Kg3 hxg4
42.Rxg4+ Kh5 43.Kh3) 34.Kf5±, or 31...Re7?! 32.Rg1 h6 33.h5 Ke8
34.Re1 Kf7 35.Kg4 g6 36.hxg6+ Kxg6 37.Kf3 h5 38.Rh1 Rg7 39.Rh3 Rh7
40.Rg3+ Kf7 41.Ke3 Rh8 42.Kd4 Rh7 43.Rh3 Kg8 44.e5! fxe5+ 45.fxe5
dxe5+ 46.Kxe5 Kf7 47.d6! cxd6+ 48.Kxd6±, are clearly worst cases...
32.Rg1 Ke7 33.g4 hxg4+ 34.Rxg4 Kf7 35.Rg2 Re7 36.h5 Re8 37.Rc2
Re7 38.Rc4
It is too early for 38.f5 Kg8 39.Rg2 Kh7 40.Rg6 Rf7 41.Kg4 (41.h6 gxh6
42.Kg4 Rg7!=) 41...Re7 42.h6 Rxe4+ 43.Kh5 gxh6 44.Rxf6 Kg7 45.Rxh6
Re5 46.Kg5 Rxd5=
38...Kg8?
After 38...g6! 39.hxg6+ Kxg6 Black should be able to keep the draw in
hand as White can find no way to penetrate with his king: 40.f5+ (40.Rc1 f5
41.exf5+ Kxf5 42.Rh1 Kg6=; 40.Kg4 f5+!=) 40...Kf7 41.Rc1 Ke8 42.Rh1
Rg7 43.Rh8+ Ke7 44.Rc8 Kd7 45.Rf8 Ke7 46.Rh8 Kd7=
39.Kg4 Kf7 40.Kf5
Now Black is in trouble...
40...Rd7 41.Rc2 Re7 42.Rg2! Re8

Note that this was a 5-minute blitz game...
43.h6?
White returns the favour. He could have achieved a tremendous advantage

with 43.Rg1! Rh8 (43...Re7 44.Rg6+–) 44.Rc1! Rxh5+ 45.Kg4+–
43...g5?
Black panicked and, by thinking that he was lost, blunders.

He could still fight with 43...gxh6 44.Rg6 Rxe4! 45.Rxf6+ Kg7 46.Rg6+
Kf7 47.Rxh6 Rc4, although White is still on top after 48.Rh7+ Ke8 49.Kg5
Rxa4 50.Rxc7 Rd4 51.f5 Rxd5 52.Kg6.
44.fxg5
And Black resigned: 44...fxg5 45.Rxg5 Re5+ 46.Kf4+–
1–0
Grivas Efstratios
Kokkinos Leonidas
A52 Thessaloniki 1983
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bf4 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Qe7 7.a3
Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 Ngxe5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.e3 0-0 11.Be2 d6 12.0-0 b6 13.Qc3
c5 14.Rad1 Bb7 15.Rd2 f6 16.Rfd1 Rfd8 17.b4
White is harmoniously developed and controls events in the centre.

However, Black’s position is compact and cannot easily be breached.
Therefore, White turns his attention to the queenside, where a future open
file will allow him to enter Black’s ranks. There is plenty of time to employ
this plan, as Black lacks concrete counterplay.
17...Rac8 18.Qb3 Bc6 19.Bg3 Be8

20.b5!
White would almost never play bxc5? nor would Black opt for ...cxb4?
Thus, the white b-pawn proceeds with its mission, fixing the black
queenside pawns and paving the way for White’s essential plan, i.e. the
advance a4-a5 that will open up the a-file.
20...Bg6 21.a4 Rc7 22.a5 bxa5
A tough decision, as one more backward pawn is created on a7. But Black
could hardly wait passively for a timely opening of the a-file. Black instead
hopes to achieve ...d5 or otherwise find active play.
23.Qa4 Rcd7 24.Qxa5 Bf7 25.Bxe5!
This is the right moment to exchange Black’s best placed piece. Black’s
weaknesses now become fixed, since he can play neither 25...dxe5?
26.Qxd8+! nor 25...fxe5 26.e4!
25...Qxe5 26.Bf3!
By use of tactical means (26...Bxc4? is met by 27.Bc6) White exchanges off
the last black piece that can control the outpost on d5, an outpost in fact
situated in front of the backward d6-pawn.
26...Qe7 27.Bc6 Rc7 28.Bd5 Bxd5 29.Rxd5 Rcd7 30.h3
White’s superiority is evident as he has clear targets (backward pawns on a7

and d6) and all the time in the world, since Black can do nothing but wait.
Even though this superiority may be theoretically inadequate to secure
victory, in practice the opponent cannot put up stern and accurate defence
for 30–40 consecutive moves.
30...Qe4 31.Qc3 f5?!
At first sight the text looks like a good move, controlling central squares.
But in reality it just creates yet another weakness in Black’s pawn structure,
as it gives a target for a future assault with g4. The passive 31...Qe7 should
have been preferred.
32.Qd3! Qxd3 33.R1xd3 g6 34.Ra3 Kf7 35.Ra6 Ke7 36.g4!

By exploiting Black’s inaccuracy (31...f5?!) White will either create a weak
isolated pawn (f5) or one more backward pawn (h7).
36...fxg4 37.hxg4 Rb8!
Black must not wait passively any longer and thus, correctly, seeks chances
on the queenside.
38.Kg2?!
White should have continued 38.Rd3! Rb6 39.Rda3 or 39.Ra4 with a clear
advantage. Now Black rids himself of one of his three backward pawns and,
despite ultimately being unable to avoid defeat, significantly improves his
position.
38...Rb6 39.Ra1 a6! 40.bxa6 Ra7 41.Rh1 Ke6 42.f4 Rbxa6 43.f5+ Kf6
44.Kf3 Kg5!
White was threatening 45.Kf4! g5+ 46.Kf3 with an easy win, thanks to his
protected passed pawn on f5 and the threat of Rh6+.
45.fxg6+ Kxg6 46.Rdh5!
White wins the backward h7-pawn, thereby freeing the path of the g4-
pawn; this pawn will prove lethal.
46...Rf7+ 47.Ke4 Re7+ 48.Kf4 Rf7+ 49.Kg3 Ra3 50.Rh6+ Kg7

51.Rxh7+ Kf8 52.Rxf7+ Kxf7 53.Kf4 Rc3 54.e4! Rxc4 55.Kf5
Despite the fact that material equality remains, the much better placement
of the white pieces and the ‘fast’ g4-pawn give him a decisive advantage.
55...Rd4 56.Rh7+ Kg8 57.Rd7 Rd1 58.g5 c4 59.Rc7 d5 60.Kg6! Kf8

61.exd5 Rc1
61...Rxd5 62.Rxc4 was also easy.
62.d6 Ke8 63.Kh7 c3 64.g6 c2 65.g7 Rh1+ 66.Kg6 Rg1+ 67.Kf6 Rf1+
68.Ke6 Re1+ 69.Kf5 Rf1+ 70.Ke4 Rg1 71.Rxc2 Kd7
Or 71...Rxg7 72.Rc8+! Kf7 73.Rc7+ Kf6 74.Rxg7 Kxg7 75.d7+–
72.Ke5 Kd8 73.Kf6 Rf1+ 74.Kg6 Rg1+ 75.Kf7 Rf1+ 76.Kg8 Rh1 77.Rf2
Ke8 78.d7+ Ke7 79.d8=Q+ Kxd8 80.Kf8
1–0
Grivas Efstratios
Papas Konstantinos
A52 Athens 1999
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Nc3
Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.e3 0-0 10.Be2 d6 11.0-0 c6 12.Qd2 Be6 13.b3 f5
14.f4 Nf7 15.Bf3 Rad8 16.Qd4 Qf6 17.Qxf6 gxf6 18.Rad1 Kg7 19.Rd2
Rd7 20.Rfd1 Rfd8 21.Kf2 Nh6 22.h3 Kf7
White obviously holds a large advantage.
Black’s pawn structure is a mess, containing weak (d6) or isolated and
doubled (f6, f5, h7) pawns. Well, the only problem is that, barring the d6-
pawn, White is not attacking the rest. It seems that Black has defended
‘successfully’ for the moment, but White can further improve his position
by re-shuffling his pieces to better squares.
23.Ne2! Ke7 24.Nd4 d5
What else? If 24...Rg8 White wins with 25.e4! fxe4 26.Bxe4 Rg7 27.Re1+–
25.Nxe6 Kxe6 26.cxd5+ cxd5
Black’s pawn structure is a mess.

27.g4!
And White increases his advantage by fixing it a bit! But in return he gets
sufficient pressure against all Black’s remaining pawn weaknesses.
27...fxg4 28.hxg4 Ng8 29.Rh1 b6 30.Rh5 d4?!
This loses without a fight, as Black cracks under the heavy pressure.
Forced was 30...h6 31.Rd4±
31.exd4 Rxd4 32.Re2+! Kf7
32...Kd6 33.Ke3 Rd1 34.Rxh7+–
33.Rxh7+ Kg6 34.Rxa7 Rxf4 35.Kg3 Rdd4 36.Rb7 Nh6 37.Rbe7! Nf7
37...Nxg4 38.Be4++–
38.Be4+ Kg5 39.Bf5

Now Black is plain lost and he is even forced to give up the exchange.
39...Rxf5
39...Nd6 40.Rg7+ Kh6 41.Rh7+ Kg5 42.Rh5#
40.gxf5 Nd6 41.Kg2 Nxf5 42.R7e4 Rd3 43.Kf2
The rest of the game does not really need much comment.
43...Nd6 44.R4e3 Rd4 45.Ke1 f5

46.Rd2!
Exchanges help the stronger side to minimise the opponent’s counterplay!
46...Rxd2 47.Kxd2 Ne4+ 48.Ke2 Kf4 49.Rh3 b5 50.a4 bxa4 51.bxa4 Kg4
52.Ra3 Nc5 53.a5 Na6 54.Rb3 f4 55.Rb6 f3+ 56.Kf2 Nc5 57.Rb4+ Kh3
58.Kxf3
1–0
Postny Evgeny
Zoler Dan
A52 Legnica 2013
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 0-0 7.Nc3 Ngxe5
8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.0-0 Re8 10.b3 a5 11.Na4 Ba7 12.Kh1 d6 13.Nc3 f5
14.Bb2 Bd7 15.Nd5 Re6 16.Nf4 Re7 17.Qc2 c6 18.Rad1 Bc5 19.Nh5
Qb6 20.f4 Ng6 21.e4 Rf8 22.Bd3 Nh4 23.exf5 Bxf5 24.Nf6+ Rxf6
25.Bxf6 Bxd3 26.Qxd3 Re3 27.Bxh4 Rxd3 28.Rxd3
The engines show here only a slight advantage for White. But White has
very good winning chances. In a ‘normal’ position like this, when the rooks
are coordinated and the structure is intact, two rooks are superior to a
queen.
28...Bd4
28...Qb4 loses to 29.f5 Kf7 30.f6+–
29.f5 Kf7
30.f6!
The killing idea!
30...gxf6
30...g6, loses to 31.Re1 Be5 32.Rxe5! dxe5 33.Rd7+ Ke6 34.Re7+ Kd6
35.Bg3! Qd8 36.Rxe5+–
31.Bxf6 Bxf6 32.Rxd6

White has won another pawn and the rest is a matter of technique.
32...a4 33.Rdxf6+ Ke7 34.R6f3 Kd6 35.Rd3+ Kc5 36.Rf5+ Kb4 37.c5
Qc7
37...Qa5 38.Rd4+ Kb5 39.bxa4+ Ka6 40.h4 Qc3 41.Rdf4+–.
38.Rd4+ Kb5 39.bxa4+ Ka6 40.Rf8 b5 41.Ra8+ Kb7 42.Rad8
The queen is trapped, so Black threw the towel in...
1–0
Show in Text Mode
CHAPTER 5.
TACTICAL MOTIFS
appear in nearly every game, so we cannot live without them!
Postny Evgeny
Zoler Dan
A52 Legnica 2013
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 0-0 7.Nc3 Ngxe5
8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.0-0 Re8 10.b3 a5 11.Na4 Ba7 12.Kh1 d6 13.Nc3 f5
14.Bb2 Bd7 15.Nd5 Re6 16.Nf4 Re7 17.Qc2 c6 18.Rad1 Bc5 19.Nh5
Qb6 20.f4 Ng6 21.e4 Rf8 22.Bd3 Nh4 23.exf5 Bxf5 24.Nf6+ Rxf6
25.Bxf6 Bxd3 26.Qxd3 Re3 27.Bxh4 Rxd3 28.Rxd3 Bd4 29.f5 Kf7
Show/Hide Solution
30.f6! gxf6 31.Bxf6! Bxf6 32.Rxd6 a4 33.Rdxf6+ Ke7 34.R6f3 Kd6

35.Rd3+ Kc5 36.Rf5+ Kb4 37.c5 Qc7 38.Rd4+ Kb5
39.bxa4+ Ka6 40.Rf8 b5 41.Ra8+ Kb7 42.Rad8 1–0
Gamboa Nelson
Blatny Pavel
A52 New York 1996
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Nc3 0-0 7.Bd3 Re8
8.a3 Ngxe5 9.b4 Nxf3+ 10.Qxf3 Ne5 11.Qe2 Nxd3+ 12.Qxd3 Bd6 13.0-0
b6 14.Ra2 a5 15.b5 Bb7 16.Re2
Show/Hide Solution
16...Bxh2+! 17.Kxh2 Qh4+ 18.Kg1 Bxg2! 19.Kxg2 Qg4+ 20.Kh2
20.Kh1 Qf3+ 21.Kg1 Re6–+
20...Re5 21.Qd5 Qh5+ 22.Kg1 Rg5+ 23.Qxg5 Qxg5+ 24.Kh1
24.Kh2? Qe5+–+
24...Qf6! 25.Bb2 Qf3+ 26.Kg1?!
26.Kh2 Re8 27.Rg1 Re6 28.Rg2! Rd6–+
26...Re8 27.Rd2 Qg4+ 28.Kh1 Re6 29.f3 Qh3+
30.Kg1 Rg6+ 31.Kf2 Rg2+ 32.Ke1 Rxd2–+
0–1
Benko Pal
Ault Robin
A52 Boston 1964
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Nc3
Ncxe5 8.Nd5 Qc5 9.e3 Nxf3+ 10.gxf3 Nf6 11.Nxf6+ gxf6 12.Bd3 d6
13.Qb3 Bd7 14.Qxb7 Bc6 15.Qb3 Bxf3 16.Rg1 Ke7 17.Rg3 Qa5+ 18.Kf1
Rab8 19.Qc2 Qh5 20.c5 Qxh2 21.cxd6+ Kxd6 22.Rxf3 Qh1+ 23.Ke2
Qxa1 24.Rxf6+ Ke7 25.Rxf7+ Kxf7
Show/Hide Solution
26.Qxc7+?
26.Qc4+! Kf8 27.Qc5+ Kf7 28.Bc4+ Ke8 29.Qe5++–

26...Kf6 27.Qd6+ Kg7 28.Qe5+ Kh6 29.Qf4+ Kg7 30.Qg5+ Kf7 31.Bc4+
Ke8 32.Qe5+ Kd7 33.Be6+ Kc6 34.Qd5+ Kb6 35.Qd6+ Kb7 36.Bd5+
Kc8 37.Qc6+ Kd8 38.Qf6+ Kd7 39.Qe6+ Kd8 40.Qd6+ Kc8 41.Qc6+
Kd8 42.Qf6+
½-½
Schtscherbin Alexander
Tschilingiri Vladimir
A52 Mainz 1997
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 0-0 7.0-0 Re8 8.a3
a5 9.b3 Ngxe5 10.Bb2 Nxf3+ 11.Bxf3 Ne5 12.Be2 Ra6 13.Nd2 Rh6 14.g3
d6 15.Nf3 Qe7 16.Nxe5 dxe5 17.Bf3 Bh3 18.Re1 c6 19.Qd2 Qf6 20.Bh1
Qg5 21.b4 Ba7 22.c5 Qh5 23.f4 e4 24.Bxe4 Rhe6 25.Qd4 f6 26.Bh1 Bb8
27.e4 Bxf4 28.gxf4 Qg4+ 29.Kf2 Qxf4+ 30.Bf3 Bg4 31.Qe3 Qxh2+
32.Bg2 Rxe4 33.Qxe4 Rxe4 34.Rxe4 Qh4+ 35.Kg1 Qg5 36.Bc1 Qg6
37.Ra2 Bf3 38.Re1 h5 39.Kh2 Bxg2 40.Rxg2 Qb1
Show/Hide Solution
41.Rxg7+! Kf8 41...Kxg7 42.Bh6++– 42.Rxb7 Qc2+ 43.Kh1 Qg6

44.Rbe7 axb4 45.Re8+! Qxe8 46.Rxe8+ Kxe8 47.axb4 Kd7 48.Kg2 Ke6
49.Kh3 Kd5 50.Kh4 Kc4 51.Bd2 Kd3 52.b5 cxb5 53.c6 Kxd2 54.c7 Kc3
55.c8=Q+ Kb3 56.Qe6+ Ka3 57.Qxf6 b4 58.Qa1+ Kb3 59.Qb1+
1–0
Kappler Jean Marie

Mariette Christian
A52 Ales 1984
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 Ngxe5 7.0-0 0-0
8.Nc3 a5 9.b3 Re8 10.Bb2 Nxf3+ 11.Bxf3 Ne5 12.Be2 Ra6 13.Qd5 Ba7
14.Ne4 Rae6 15.Qxa5 Bb6 16.Qc3 Qh4 17.f4 Rg6 18.c5 Ba7 19.fxe5
Qxe4 20.Bf3 Qh4 21.Qa5 Ra6 22.Qxc7 Rh6
Show/Hide Solution
23.e6! dxe6
23...fxe6 24.Rac1 Qd8 25.Qe5+–
24.Bxb7 Qh5
24...Bxb7 25.Qxf7+ Kh8 26.Qxe8#
25.Bxc8 Bxc5 26.Rae1
1–0
Vallejo Pons Francisco
Romero Holmes Alfonso
A52 Ayamonte 2002
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Nc3 Ngxe5 7.Nxe5
Nxe5 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0 Re8 10.b3 a5 11.Na4 Bf8 12.f4 Ng6 13.Qd2 b6
14.Bb2 Bb7 15.Bf3 Qb8 16.Rad1 Nh4 17.Bd5 Nf5 18.Bxf7+ Kxf7
19.Qxd7+ Kg6 20.g4 Nxe3 21.f5+ Kg5 22.f6 Qc8 23.fxg7 Bd6 24.g8=Q+
Rxg8
Show/Hide Solution
25.h4+! Kxh4
25...Kh6 26.Rf6+ Rg6 27.Rxg6+ hxg6 28.Qg7#
26.Qxh7+ Kg3
26...Kxg4 27.Rd4+ Kg5 28.Qh4+ Kg6 29.Rf6+ Kg7 30.Qh6#

27.Qh2+ Kxg4 28.Rd4+ 1–0
Mateos Cordero Francisco

Cabanas Bravo Juan Andres
A52 Madrid 2015
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Nc3 0-0 7.Be2 Re8
8.0-0 Ngxe5 9.Nxe5 Nxe5 10.f4 Nc6 11.Bd3 d6 12.Qh5 g6 13.Qh6 Bxe3+
14.Bxe3 Rxe3 15.Bxg6 fxg6 16.f5 Re7 17.fxg6 hxg6 18.Nd5 Re6
Show/Hide Solution
19.Rf7?
19.Rf3!+–
19...Kxf7 20.Qh7+ Ke8 21.Rf1 Qe7
21...Ne7 22.Rf7 Kd7–+
22.Nxe7 Nxe7 23.c5 d5 24.Rf7 a5 25.Qg7 Raa6 26.Rf8+ Kd7 27.Qh8

Re1+ 28.Kf2 Rae6 29.h3 c6 30.Rd8+ Kc7 31.Kg3 Nf5+ 32.Kh2 Bd7
33.Ra8 Re8 34.Rxe8 Rxe8 35.Qc3 d4 36.Qxa5+ Kb8 37.Qd2 Re3 38.g4
Nh4 39.Qf2 Nf3+ 40.Kg2 Be6 41.a3 Bd5
0–1
Skembris Spyridon
Grivas Efstratios
A52 Khania 1987
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3 Bc5 5.e3 Nc6 6.Be2 Ngxe5 7.Nc3 0-0
8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.0-0 Re8 10.Kh1 a5 11.f4 Ng6 12.e4 Bb4 13.f5 Ne5 14.Nd5
Bf8 15.f6 g6 16.Bg5 d6 17.Qd2 Be6 18.Bh6 Kh8 19.Bxf8 Rxf8 20.Qh6
Rg8 21.Ne7 b6 22.Rac1 Qf8 23.Nxg8 Kxg8 24.Qh4 a4 25.Rc3 Ra5
26.Rfc1 Nd7 27.Ra3 g5 28.Qf2 Re5 29.Rxa4 Nc5 30.Ra3 Nxe4 31.Qf3
Show/Hide Solution
31...Bg4! 32.Qxg4
32.Qb3 Bxe2–+
32...Nf2+ 33.Kg1 Nxg4 34.Bxg4 h5 35.Bxh5 Re6 36.Rf1 Qh6 37.Rh3 Qf8
38.Bg4 Re4 39.Bf5 Rf4 40.Bh7+ Kh8 41.Rxf4 gxf4 42.Be4+ Kg8
43.Bh7+ Kh8 44.Bf5+
½–½
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ChessBase Magazine Surveys; Efstratios Grivas; 2008

ChessBase Magazine Surveys; Efstratios Grivas; 2009
ChessBase Magazine Surveys; Various Contributors; 2009–2020
ChessBase Mega Database; Various Contributors; ChessBase 2020
Informator; Various Contributors; Informator 1966–2020
New In Chess (Magazine & Yearbook); Various Contributors; Interchess
BV 1984–2020
New In Chess Yearbook; Efstratios Grivas; 2008
Wikipedia Various Articles; Wikipedia 2020
CURRICULUM VITAE
Efstratios Grivas (30.03.1966) is a highly experienced chess trainer and

chess author. He has been awarded by the International Chess Federation
(FIDE) the titles of:
– International Chess Grandmaster,
– FIDE Senior Trainer,
– International Chess Arbiter,
– International Chess Organiser.
His main successes over the board are:
– the Silver Medal Olympiad 1998 (3rd Board),
– the Gold Medal European Team Championship 1989 (3rd Board)
– the 4th Position World Junior Championship U.20 1985.
He has also won 5 Balkan Medals (2× Gold, 1× Silver, 2× Bronze) and he
was 3 times Winner of the International ‘Acropolis’ Tournament. He also
has to his credit 28 times first position in Greek Individual & Team
Championships and has won various international tournaments as well.
He has also been awarded six FIDE Medals in the Annual FIDE Awards
(Winner of the FIDE Boleslavsky Medal 2009 & 2015 (best author) —
Winner of the FIDE Euwe Medal 2011 & 2012 & 2017 (best junior trainer)
— Winner of the FIDE Razuvaev Medal 2014 (Trainers’ education) and has
been a professional Lecturer at FIDE Seminars for Training & Certifying
Trainers. During the period 2009-2018 he served as the Secretary of the
FIDE Trainers’ Commission. Since 2012 he has been the Director of the
FIDE Grivas Chess International Academy (Athens) and since 2019 he has
been the Technical Director of the Sharjah International Chess Academy
(Sharjah).
He has published a large number of Books & DVDs in Arabic, English,
French, Greek, Iranian, Italian, Mongolian, Spanish & Turkish. His 105
books/editions can be indexed in the following categories: Beginners (10),
Dvds & E-Books (6), Endgame (5), History (19), Middlegame & Endgame
(14), Opening (6), Plan (8), Strategy (7), Strategy Series (20) and Trainers’
Education (10). And his publishers & languages are: Apollon Ektipotiki
(Greek), Chess Evolution (English), ChessBase (English), ChessCastle
(English), Everyman Chess (English), FIDE (English & French), Gambit
Publications (English), Grivas Chess International Academy (English &
Greek), IChess (English), Kaissa Chess Center (Greek), Kedros Publishers
(Greek), Klitharitmos Publishers (Greek), La Casa del Ajedrez (Spanish),
Mongolian Chess Federation (Mongolian), New In Chess (English), Prisma
(Italian), Russell Enterprises (English), Sabah Chess Academy (English),
Sharjah Cultural & Chess Club (Arabic & English), Skyfos Ekdotiki
(Greek), Soheil Hooshdaran Chess Academy (Iranian), Thinkers Publishing
(English) and Turkiye Santranc Federasyonu (Turkish).

Dokumen - Pub Grivas Opening Laboratory Volume 3 Efstratios Grivas 9786155793240

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dokumen - Pub Grivas Opening Laboratory Volume 3 Efstratios Grivas 9786155793240

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part 1. The Queen’s Indian Defence (E15–19)

Chapter 1. The Modern 4...Ba6 (E15)

Part 2. The BogoIndian Defence (E11)

Chapter 1. The 4...c5 Line

Part 3. The Budapest Gambit (A51–52)

Chapter 1. The Fajarowicz Variation

Grivas opening laboratory

First edition 2020 by Chess Evolution

Grivas Opening Laboratory. Volume 3

All sales or enquiries should be directed to Chess Evolution

= Equality or equal chances

The ‘Queen’s Indian Defence’ (QID) is an opening defined by the moves

This opening is considered to be a very solid defence and 3...b6 increases

By playing 3.Nf3, White sidesteps the ‘NimzoIndian Defence’ that arises

It contests the long diagonal by preparing to fianchetto the light-squared

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Be7

As 6...Nc6?! 7.e4 Na5 8.Qa4± is unsatifactory, Black might try 6...Bb7

As 7...d5? 8.cxd5 Bxf1 9.Kxf1 exd5 10.e5 Nfd7 11.Nxd5± is unplayable,

9...Re8 10.Bd3! Bf8+ 11.Kf1 d6 12.Kg2²

Morozevich,A-Leko,P Morelia/Linares 2007. White’s spatial advantage is a

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Bb7

Also possible is 7.0-0 — see Sub-Chapter 1.1.

Black can choose some other pawn structure:

Probably best, taking care of the e5-square. Another way is 8...Nc6

Possible is 9...Bg7 10.Qe3+ Kf8 (10...Qe7? 11.Qxe7+ Kxe7 12.d6++–)

10.Nc3 is mostly a transposition: 10...Bg7 (10...a6 11.Bg5 Be7 12.a4 0-0

11.Qe3+ looks like a valuable choice: 11...Qe7 12.Qxe7+ Kxe7 13.Nc3

18.Bg2 Kd7=] 15...Nd7 16.Bf1²) 14.e4 Ng4 15.Bg5+ Kf8 (15...Bf6?!

A flexible move, compared to the 12.Re1 a6 13.a4 Nbd7 14.Bf4 Qc7

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 c5

Black’s alternatives are:

8.e4 Bxf1 9.Kxf1 g6 (9...Nxe4? 10.Qa4+; 9...Be7 10.Nc3 0-0 11.Kg2²)

8...g6 9.0-0 Bg7

An interesting alternative is 10.Qe3+!? Qe7 (10...Kf8 11.Nc3 Nbd7 12.Qf4²

Stefansson,H-Mamedyarov,S Reykjavik 2006. White is strong on the light

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 d5

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 d5 6.cxd5 exd5

10...Bb7, which transposes above, might be a safer line.

12.Rd1 Bb7 13.e4² is also good.

12...Bb7 13.g5 Nfd7 14.h4²

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 d5 6.cxd5 Qxd5

The main alternative is 7.Qd1

9...0-0-0 (9...Be7 10.Bf4 [10.Bg2 0-0-0 11.Bf4 Nd5 12.Bd2²] 10...Nd5

It is too early for 7...c5 8.Nc3

A blunder would be 10.Bf4? Nc2+ 11.Kd2 Nxa1µ Ivanchuk,V-Anand,V

Black shouldn’t be greedy: 11...Nxa1? 12.Qa4+ Nd7 13.Qxa6±

12.Nh4 Rxd4 13.Qxd4 Nxd4 14.Nxf5 exf5 15.a3

15.a4 Bc5 16.Bg5 Re8 17.Bxf6 gxf6° Van Wely,L-Adams,M Mallorca

15...Nb3 16.Rb1 Bc5 17.Bf3²

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 c6

7...exd5 transposes to Sub-Chapter 1.4.1. Possible is 7...Qxd5 8.Nc3 (8.Bg2

8...Bxf1 9.Kxf1 Be7 10.Kg2

Black has also tried:

11.Rc1 Na5 12.Qb5+ Qd7 13.Qa6!

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.Qb3 Nc6

Black has a choice between:

6...Bb7, 6...d5 and 6...Na5.

Somewhat passive. White can achieve positions with a spatial advantage as

Black’s main alternative is 7...Na5 8.Qc2 and now:

18.e6! fxe6 19.Ne5 1–0 Moiseenko,A-Berzinsh,R Warsaw 2010) 13.exf6

8.cxd5 exd5 9.e5 Ne4 10.Bd3